STUDY ON THE ECOLOGY OF WILD

UNGULATES OF KEOLADEO NATIONAL PARK

BHARATPUR, RAJASTHAN

THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF

Mottot of ^I)ilos(optip
WILDLIFE SCIENCE

BY ,

MD. NAYERUL HAQUE L

CENTRE OF WILDLIFE AND ORNITHOLOGY

ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY
ALIGARH (INDIA)

1990
 T3855

t^'Sti^ ^lA
^^ ^ .r

^^e^
-^^^^i
't^'^tSSS

THESIS SECTIOM

9 NOV 1S31
 ytiESIS SECTION

CENTRE OF WILDLIFE & ORNITHOLOGY

AUGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY
ALIGARH - 202001

Dr. A. H. Musavi
Chairman

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the dissertation "Study

on the ecology of wild ungulates of Keoladeo
National Park, Bharatpur, Rajasthan" submitted
for the award of Ph.D degree in Wildlife Science,
of the Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, is
the original work of Mr. Md. Nayerul Haque.
This work has been done by the candidate under
my supervision.

^i/^'

A.H.Musavi
Chairman
Centre of Wildlife & Ornithology
Aligarh Muslim University,Aligarh
 Phone : 3282

S^ofn'-^^a^ .yVa'i^U'ia/ cyO<^•i^•^u• .J/ooi^/y.

Ecological Research C e n t r e
Bharatpur 321 001, INDIA.

C E R X I F I C:ATE

The work on "Study on the Ecology of Wild ungulates of

Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, Rajasthan" has been
done by Mr.Md.Nayerul Haque in Keoladeo National Park
as a part of the Bharatpur Ecological Project under my
supervision. All the data contained in the
dissertation has been collected by Mr.Md.Nayerul Haque
and has not yet been submitted for any degree
elsewhere.

DR. V. S. VIJAYAN
PROJECT SCIENTIST

Keoladeo National Park Ecology Project

 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I gratefully acknowledge the help I received from my

supervisor Prof A.H. Musavi at every stage of the project. He not
only did the formal supervision but also encouraged and inspired
me throughout.

Sincere thanks are due to my co-supervisor Dr V.S.Vijayan,

Project Scientist, BNHS Ecological Research Centre, Bharatpur for
being extremely helpful in various ways. But for his continued
support and guidance this study would not have been possible and
he also introduced me to the science of studying animals in the
wild .

I express my feeling of gratitude to Mr J.C. Daniel, Dr

R.B.Grubh and Mr S.A. Hussain of the Bombay Natural History
Society for their moral support and encouragement throughout the
study period.

I am grateful to Dr A.R. Rahmani, Project Scientist, Bombay

Natural History Society for going through the manuscript and
giving valuable suggestions.

A special word of thank is to Dr P.A. Azeez, Research

Scientist of BNHS Ecological Research Centre, Bharatpur who
always extended his untiring support in computer work, chemical
analysis and going through the manuscript.
 THESIS SECTION

It will not be justified if I do not place my gratitude to

all my colleagues at BNHS Ecological Research Centre, Bharatpur
particularly Drs (Mrs) Lalitha Vijayan, Vibhu Prakash and Mr
N.K. Ramachandran for their help in the preparation of this
repo rt .

I also thank Drs S.N. Prasad, A.J.T. Johnsingh and W.A.

Rodgers of Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun for their
valuable suggestion in the hour of need.

I would like to thank all the staff members of Keoladeo

National Park particularly Mr Bholu Khan for their untiring help
throughout the study. I would like to thank all the field
assistants, particularly Mr Ramhit who have been extremely
cooperative and helpful during the field work. I am also grateful
to Mr K.N. Mohanan who typed this dissertation.

I am thankful to my younger brother Mr Md, Shakirul Haque

and his friend Mr Imtiyaz Anjum who extended their full support
to me during my stay at Aligarh. Last but not least I thank my
parents who were a constant source of encouragement and
inspiration throughout the study.

11
 CONTENTS Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENT 1
CONTENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES xiv
LIST OF PLATES XX

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Aims 4
1 . 2 Objective 5
1.3 Hypothesis 6

CHAPTER 2 STUDY AREA 7

2.1 History 7
2 . 2 Location 7
2.3 Topography 7
2.4 Boundary 10
2.5 Soil 10
2.6 Climate 10
2.6.1 Monsoon 10
2.6.2 Winter 10
2.6.3 Summer 12
2.7 Hydro]ogy 12
2.8 Vegetation 12
2.8.1 Forest 13
2.8.2 Woodland 13
2.8.3 Scrub woodland 13
2.8.4 Dense to discontinuous thickets 14
2.8.5 Scattered shrub 14
2.8.6 Savannah woodland to scattered
tree savannah 14
2.8.7 Shrub savannah 16
2.8.8 Grass savannah 16
2.8.9 Low grassland 16
2.8.10 Mosaic of several types 17
2.8.11 Wetland 17
2.9 Fauna 18

111
CHAPTER 3 STUDY SPECIES 19
3 . 1 Chital 19
3 .2 Sambar 20
3.3 Blackbuck 21
3.4 Nilgai 22
3.5 Wild boar 23
3.6 Feral cattle 23

CHAPTER 4 POPULATION 25
4.1 Introduction 25
4.2 Methodology 26
4.2.1 Simultaneous count 26
4.2.2 zonal count 28
4.2.3 Intensive count 30
4.2.4 Sex and age c l a s s i f i c a t i o n 30
4.2.5 Exponential rate of increase 31
4.3 Results 31
4.3.1 Population size 31
Chital 33
Sambar 33
Blackbuck 33
Nilgai 35
Feralcattle 35
Wild boar 38
4.3.2 Density and biomass 38
4.3.3 Exponential rate of increase (r) 40
4.3.4 Mortality 42
4.3.5 Predators 42
4.4 Discussion 43
5.5 Summary 51

CHAPTER 5 HABITAT PREFERENCE 53

5.1 Introduction 53
5.2 Methodology 55
5.2.1 Vegetation cover 57
5.2.2 Availability of crown area 57
5.2.3 Statistical analysis 59

IV
 5.3 Result 62
5.3.1 Habitat preference 62
Chital 62
Sambar 65
Blackbuck 68
Nilgai 68
Feral cattle 73
Wild boar 76
5.3.2 Vegetation cover used by
different ungulates 80
5.3.3 Correlation between the rank in
the preference of different
habitat and tree and shrub crown
area 86
5.3.4 Niche breadth 87
5.3.5 Similarity in the habitat
utilization of various ungulates 90
5 .4 Discussion 93
5.5 Summary 102

CHAPTER 6 TIME BUDGET AND ACTIVITY PATTERN 104

6.1 Introduction 104
6.2 Method 105
6.3 Results 107
6.3.1 Chital 10 7
6.3.2 Sambar 115
6.3.3 Blackbuck 121
6.3.4 Nilgai 129
6.3.5 Feral cattle 135
6.4 Discussion 141
6.5 Summary 145

CHAPTER 7 FOOD AND FEEDING HABITS 146

7.1 Introduction 146
7.2 Methodology 148
7.3 Results 154
7.3.1 Direct observation 154
Chital 154
Sambar 154
Blackbuck 157

V
 Nilgai 157
Feral cattle 157
Wild boar 158
7.3.2 Plant material in faeces 158
Chital 158
Sambar 162
Blackbuck 166
Nilgai 169
Feral cattle 173
Wild boar 178
7.3.3 Browse productivity 182
7.3.4 Browse utilization 184
7.3.5 Chemical composition of plants 186
7.3.6 Correlation between the food
abundance and food preference 192
7.3.7 Similarity in the food preference 194
7.4 Discussion 199
7.5 Summary 206

CHAPTER 8 IMPACT OF GRAZING ON VEGETATION 208

8.1 Introduction 208
8.2 Methodology 209
8.3 Results 211
8.3.1 Species richness 211
8.3.2 Species diversity 211
8.3.3 Area covered by palatable species 215
8.3.4 Volume of space occupied by
palatable species 219
8.3.5 Area covered by unpalatable
species 222
8.3.6 Volume occupied by unpalatable
species 226
8.3.7 Percentage grazed 230
8.3.8 Presence of hoof marks and
droppings in different vegetation
types 234
8.3.9 Abundance of major plant species
in different habitat types 243
8.3.10 Grazing pressure on different
species 248

VI
 8.4 Discussion 252
8.5 Summary 256

REFERENCES 258

Appendix I The botanical composition of monthly

composite samples of Chital droppings
(a) 1987-88 and (b) 1988-89, based on
the frequency of occurrence of
epidermal fragments. N is the number of
droppings pooled each month. 282

Appendix II The botanical composition of monthly

composite samples of Sambar droppings
(a) 1987-88 and (b) 1988-89, based on
the frequency of occurrence of
epidermal fragments. N is the number of
droppings pooled each month. 284

Appendix III The botanical composition of monthly

composite samples of Blackbuck
droppings (a) 1987-88 and (b) 1988-89,
based on the frequency of occurrence of
epidermal fragments. N is the number of
droppings pooled each month. 286

Appendix IV The botanical composition of monthly

composite samples of Nilgai droppings
(a) 1987-88 and (b) 1988-89, based on
the frequency of occurrence of
epidermal fragments. N is the number of
droppings pooled each month. 287

Appendix V The botanical composition of monthly

composite samples of Feral cattle
droppings (a) 1987-88 and (b) 1988-89,
based on the frequency of occurrence of
epidermal fragments. N is the number of
droppings pooled each month. 289

Vll
Appendix VI The botanical composition of monthly
composite samples of Wild boar droppings
(a) 1987-88 and (b) 1988-89, based on
the frequency of occurrence of
epidermal fragments. N is the number of
droppings pooled each month. 291

Appendix VII A list of common plants found in the

Keoladeo National Park 293

Appendix VIII A list of mammals occurring in the

Keoladeo National Park 300

Appendix IX A key to the identification of selected

major food plants 301

•Ulli
 LIST OF TABLES Page

Table A.l Population structure of ungulates at

Keoladeo National Park (Simultaneous count) 32

Table 4.2 Population structure of ungulates at

Keoladeo National Park (Zonal c o u n t ) 32

Table 4.3 Population structure of the Sambar and the

Blackbuck during 1 9 8 7 , 1988 & 1989 34

Table 4.4 Exponential rate of increase (r) of population

of u n g u l a t e s at K e o l a d e o National Park 34

Table 4.5 Population of ungulates at Keoladeo

National Park during 1988 in different
zones (Zonal count) 36

Table 4.6 Population of ungulates at Keoladeo

National Park during 1989 in different
zones (Zonal count) 36

Table 4.7 Summary of sex ratio and percentage of

ungulates of Keoladeo National Park 37

Table 4.8 Density and biomass of wild ungulates in

Keoladeo National Park 39

Table 4.9 Mortality of the ungulates during (a) 1987,

(b) 1988 and (c) 1989 41

Table 4.10 Comparative sex and age ratio of some wild

ungulates from studies by Schaller (1967) 44

Table 4.11 Density and biomass of wild ungulates in

various national parks 47

Table 4.12 Biomass of u n g u l a t e s in several parks 49

IX
Table 5.1 Area covered in different habitats 56

Table 5.2 Significance test for habitat preference of

chi ta1 63

Table 5.3 Significance test for habitat preference of

Sambar 66

Table 5,4 Significance test for habitat preference of

Blackbuck 69

Table 5.5 Significance test for habitat preference of

Nilgai 71

Table 5.6 Significance test for habitat preference of

Feral cattle 74

Table 5.7 Significance test for habitat preference of

Wild boar 77

Table 5.8 Two factor analysis of variance test

on various ungulate habitat preference 79

Table 5.9 Crown area (in m ) of tree and shrub on the

transect in different blocks 85

Table 5.10 Average crown area (in m ) of tree and

2
shrub on a plot of 200 m in different
habitat 85

Table 5.11 Correlation between rank of habitat

preference and crown area of tree and
shrub covered for different ungulates 88

Table 5.12 Niche breadth of various species of

ungulates based on habitat use 88

Table 6.1 The average time spent in percentage by

various ungulates for different activities
during different seasons 114

X
Table 6.2 The correlation coefficient (r) between
the temperature and different activities of
various ungulates during different seasons 128

Table 7.1 Major food of ungulates in percentage by

direct observations 155

Table 7.2 Feeding habits of ungulates 156

Table 7.3 Browse productivity and utilization of

major browse species 183

Table 7.4 Proportion (in gms) of each plant consumed

by different ungulates 183

Table 7.5 Protein content of major food species 187

Table 7.6 Significance test of correlation between

different nutritive value and food
preference 188

Table 7.7 Calorific value of major food species 190

Table 7.8 Ether extract of major food species expressed 191

Table 7.9 Correlation (r) between the availability of

grasses and the preference for them by
ungulates 193

Table 7.10 Correlation (r) between the availability

of browse and the preference for them by
ungulates 193

Table 7.11 Summary of food plant preferred by

different ungulates 198

Table 8.1 Species richness of ground cover 212

XI
Table 8.2 Species diversity of ground cover 212

Table 8.3 Mann Whitney U statistic and significance

level (p) calculated for the Hill diversity
among the season for different vegetation
types 213

Table 8.4 Mann Whitney U statistic and significance

level (p) calculated for the area covered
by palatable species among the season for
different vegetation types 217

Table 8.5 Two factor analysis of variance on the area

covered by palatable species 218

Table 8.6 Two factor analysis of variance on the

volume occupied by palatable species 218

Table 8.7 Mann Whitney U statistic and significance

level (p) calculated for the volume of
palatable species among the season for
different vegetation types 221

Table 8.8 Mann Whitney U statistic and significance

level (p) calculated for the area covered
by unpalatable species among the season for
different vegetation types 225

Table 8.9 Two factor analysis of variance on the area

covered by unpalatable species 228

Table 8.10 Two factor analysis of variance on the

volume occupied by unpalatable species 228

Table 8.11 Mann Whitney U statistic and significance

level (p) calculated for the volume of
unpalatable species among the season for
different vegetation types 229

Xll
Table 8.12 Mann Whitney U statistic and significance
level (p) calculated for the percentage
grazed among the season for different
vegetation types 232

Table 8.13 Abundance of major species in volume m for

different vegetation types during monsoon 244

Table 8.14 Abundance of major species in volume m for

different vegetation types during winter 245

Table 8,15 Abundance of major species in volume m for

different vegetation types during summer 246

Table 8.16 Grazing pressure index on different plant

species during monsoon for different
vegetation types 249

Table 8.17 Grazing pressure index on different plant

species during winter for different
vegetation types 250

Table 8.18 Grazing pressure index on different plant

species during summer for different
vegetation types 251

Xlll
 LIST OF FIGURES Page

Figure 2.1 Location of study site, Keoladeo National

Park 8

Figure 2.2 Map of Park with villages around 9

Figure 2.3 Monthly variation in rainfall during July

1986 to June 1989 11

Figure 2.4 Monthly variation in temperature during

July 1986 to June 1989 11

Figure 2.5 Vegetation map of Keoladeo National Park 15

Figure 4.1 Transects followed for simultaneous count

of mammals 27

Figure 4.2 Map showing the four different zones 29

Figure 5.1 Map showing the transects 54

Figure 5.2 Distribution of the main physiognomic

type in the park 58

Figure 5.3 Seasonal distribution of Chital 64

Figure 5.4 Seasonal distribution of Sambar 67

Figure 5.5 Seasonal distribution of Blackbuck 70

Figure 5.6 Seasonal distribution of Nilgai 72

Figure 5.7 Seasonal distribution of Feral cattle 75

Figure 5.8 Seasonal distribution of Wild boar 78

XIV
Figure 5 . 9 Average values of (a) Chital, (b) Feral
Cattle, (c) Nilgai, (d) Sambar, (e) Wild
boar and (f) Blackbuck association with
various types of vegetation cover during
different hours of the day 81

Figure 5.10 Average values of (a) Chital, (b) Feral

Cattle, (c) Nilgai, (d) Sambar, (e) Wild
boar and (f) Blackbuck association with
various types of vegetation cover during 83
different seasons

Figure 5.11 Similarity in the habitat utilization by

ungulates 91

Figure 5.12 Habitat preference of ungulates 94

Figure 6.1 Time budget of Chital 108

Figure 6.2 Activity pattern of Chital 109

Figure 6.3 The feeding pattern of Chital by focal and
scanning methods during different months 111

Figure 6.4 The resting pattern of Chital by focal and

scanning methods during different months 112

Figure 6.5 Time budget of Sambar 116

Figure 6.6 Activity pattern of Sambar 117

Figure 6.7 The feeding pattern of Sambar by focal and

scanning methods during different months 119

Figure 6.8 The resting pattern of Sambar by focal and

scanning methods during different months 120

Figure 6.9 Time budget of Blackbuck 122

Figure 6.10 Activity pattern of Blackbuck 123

XV
Figure 6.11 The feeding pattern of Blackbuck by focal
and scanning methods during different
months 125

Figure 6.12 The resting pattern of Blackbuck by focal

and scanning methods during different
months 126

Figure 6.13 Time budget of Nilgai 130

Figure 6.14 Activity pattern of Nilgai 131

Figure 6.15 The feeding pattern of Nilgai by focal and

scanning methods during different months 133

Figure 6.16 The resting pattern of Nilgai by focal and

scanning methods during different months 134

Figure 6.17 Time budget of Feral cattle 136

Figure 6.18 Activity pattern of Feral cattle 137

Figure 6.19 The feeding pattern of Feral cattle by
focal and scanning methods during
different months 139

Figure 6.20 The resting pattern of Feral cattle by

focal and scanning methods during
different months 140

Figure 7.1 Food preference of Chital 159

Figure 7.2 Niche breadth of Chital based on food

plants 159

Figure 7.3 Diet richness and diversity of Chital 161

Figure 7.4 Food preference of Sambar 163

XVI
Figure 7.5 Niche breadth of Sambar based on food
plants 163

Figure 7.6 Diet richness and diversity of Sambar 165

Figure 7.7 Food preference of Blackbuck 167

Figure 7.8 Niche breadth of Blackbuck based on food

plants 167

Figure 7.9 Diet richness and diversity of Blackbuck 168

Figure 7.10 Food preference of Nilgai 170

Figure 7.11 Niche breadth of Nilgai based on food

plants 170

Figure 7.12 Diet richness and diversity of Nilgai 172

Figure 7.13 Food preference of Feral cattle 174

Figure 7.14 Niche breadth of Feral cattle based on

food plants 174
Figure 7.15 Diet richness and diversity of Feral

cattle 176

Figure 7.16 Food preference of Wild boar 179

Figure 7.17 Niche breadth of Wild boar based on food

plants 179

Figure 7.18 Diet richness and diversity of Wild boar 181

Figure 7.19 Similarity in the food preference of

ungulates during 1987-88 195
Figure 7.20 Similarity in the food preference of
ungulates during 1988-89 196

xvii
Figure 8.1 The mean plant species diversity for
different vegetation types 21/.

Figure 8.2 The mean area covered (in m ) by palatable

species per plot 214

Figure 8.3 Seasonal and spatial variation of the area

covered by palatable species 216

Figure 8 . 4 The mean volume (in m ) of palatable

species per plot 220

Figure 8.5 The mean area covered (in m ) by

unpalatable species per plot 220

Figure 8 . 6 Seasonal and spatial variation of the area

covered by unpalatable species 223

Figure 8.7 The mean volume (in m ) of unpalatable

species per plot 227

Figure 8.8 The mean percentage (in m ) grazed per

plot in different type of vegetation 227

Figure 8.9 Seasonal and spatial variation of grazing

intensity by ungulates. 231

Figure 8.10 Average (a) sightings of hoof marks and

(b) droppings (in gms) of Chital per plot
in different vegetation types 235

Figure 8.11 Average (a) sightings of hoof marks and

(b) droppings (in gms) of Blackbuck per
plot in different vegetation types 237

Figure 8.12 Average (a) sightings of hoof marks and

(b) droppings (in gms) of Nilgai per plot
in different vegetation types 239

XVlll
Figure 8.13 Average (a) sightings of hoof marks and
(b) droppings (in gms) of Feral cattle per
plot in different vegetation types 240

Figure 8.14 Average (a) sightings of hoof marks and

(b) droppings (in gms) of Wild boar per
plot in different vegetation types 242

XXX
 LIST OF PLATES

Plate 1. Wetland during monsoon and winter

Plate 2. Dried up wetland during summer

Plate 3. Chital killed by stray dog

Plate 4. Feral cattle bogged down in the soft

soil of marsh habitat

Plate 5. Sambar browsing and grazing in the wetland

Plate 6. Nilgai browsing in the wetland

Plate 7. The breached boundary wall of the park

Plate 8. The broken waterinlets through the boundary wall

Plate 9. A herd of Feral cattle in low grassland habitat

Plate 10. The marsh area 'Ploughed ' by Wild boar

XX
 • 1. INTRODUCTION

India, in spite of fast depletion of wildlife during the

present century, still has a remarkable variety of large mammals
and the richness in species is exceeded by only a few countries
of the world. The neglect of this invaluable resource during the
period of colonial rule, in the single minded hurry to plunder
the forest resources and unfortunately even after Independence,
due to ignorance and government's preoccupation with post-
Independence problems, has caused serious damage to our wildlife
and its habitats.

Inspite of the realization that wildlife represents the

country's fastest vanishing asset, during the first two decades
of India's Independence no detailed studies of any kind had been
attempted on the large mammals (Schaller 1967). That was the
observation of an eminent wildlife biologist who undertook some
pioneering studies on wildlife in India in 1965. Though the
situation today is not that bad, we still do not know much has to
be learnt for scientific management of wildlife. Some studies
have been done on single species in one or the other region of
the country but very few scientific studies (Berwick 1974 and
Mishra 1982) have so far been done on all the ungulates species
inhabiting one locality. The most fruitful approach from the
stand point of conservation and management is to collect a broad
spectrum of facts on all species of ungulates sharing a habitat
because this provides a better understanding of their
interrelationship.
 In recent time there has been an increasing awareness of the
importance of grazing and grazing animals in the dynamics of
ecological system, and increasing interest in the role played by
large herbivores in shaping and maintaining vegetational
formations. Recent reviews which summarize the potential effects
of heavy grazing upon vegetation are presented by Crawley (1983),
Gessaman and MacMohan (1984) and Putman (1986). In India very
few studies have been done on the impact of grazing on
vegetation except some work by Pandey (1979, 1981). This is
probably the first study on interaction between Feral cattle and
wild ungulates, both of whom enjoy equal status.

The present study has been inspired by such ecological and

management concerns and was focused on the ecology and behaviour
of all species of hoofed animals of Keoladeo National Park.
Most of the available information about these species in India
and also of related species .found in other parts of the world has
been summarised.

In the context of a scientific management of ungulates and

their habitat, it is quite pertinent to refer to competition
theory. Lotka (1925) and Volterra (1926) separately developed
mathematical equations to describe the relationship between two
species competing for the same food resource. On the basis of
Lotka-Vo1 terra models and other evidences, one can conclude that
if a species multiplies faster it may slow down the growth of
population of the other competing species, which may be eased out
of that habitat or may even become extinct. This line of
thinking led to the evolution of Cause's principle, which rules
out the coexistence in the same habitat, of two species with
identical niches. Though Cause is usually credited with this
idea, it was conceived much earlier by the ornithologist Joseph
Grinnell ( 1904, 1917) and few others.

This concept has been recently modified into what is known

as competitive exclusion principle (Hardin 1960) which can be
summarised as follows: "Two competing species with identical
ecological requirements can not occupy the same area". It is,
however, possible that species may compete for some essential
resource without being complete competitors and still co-exist in
the same habitat. Limited niche overlap, therefore, does not
necessarily lead to extinction of one or more species. If the
concerned resource or resources are available in abundance, such
as space and air, which are utilized by all species in every
habitat, there is no likelihood of fierce competition between
species, and no apprehension of extinction of species.

The above mentioned phenomena and facts have to be kept in

view in management planning, to avoid trial and error method
which is sometimes resorted to in the absence of baseline
information and data. It is hoped that those concerned with
conservation and management of wildlife and its habitats in
general and of Keoladeo National Park in particular, will find
this report useful and helpful. Further in-depth studies on
related problems are called for. Similar studies in other
protected areas are necessary.

The Keoladeo National Park was set up originally by Maharaja

of Bharatpur some 250 years ago as a waterfowl refuge to be used
as a hunting ground. The park has been hailed by the
ornithologists as a paradise. Apart from 360 species of birds
there as many other species of animals in the park. It contains
seven species of ungulates, namely Chital {Axis axis), Sambar
(Cervus unicolor), Blackbuck {Antilope cervicapra), Nilgai
(Boselaphus tragocamelus), Feral cattle (Bos indicus), Wild boar
(Sus scrofa) and a few Hog deer (Axis porcinus). Out of these
seven species, three viz; the Blackbuck, Nilgai and Chital are
not found outside the Indian sub-continent and Sambar is not
found outside Asia. However, few Indian ungulates were
introduced in Texas where they are thriving. Abies (1974)
studied Chital (Axis axis), Mungal (1978) worked on Blackbuck
(Antilope cervicapra) while Sheffield et al. (1983) studied
Nilgai (Boselphus tragocamelus). All these studies were done in
Texas.

A project was taken up by the Bombay Natural History Society

to study the ecology of ungulates as a part of the long term
studies on the ecosystem of the park.

1,1 Aims

Bharatpur is one of the World Heritage sites and is well

known for its wetland. Till 1982, buffalo including domestic
cattle were allowed to graze but soon after its declaration as a
National Park, cattle grazing was stopped. As wetland plant
communities are serai and not stable; control of the aquatic
macrophytes and grasses is necessary for maintaining the system
(Thomas 1982). Herbivore mammals and waterfowll play this key
role in nature. Keeping the buffalo and domestic cattle out was,
therefore, thought undesirable on ecological consideration.
Control of grass growth in the wetland in the absence of Buffalo
was considered very difficult, if not altogether impossible.
Mechanical devices like bulldozing were tried with very limited
success and could not be a substitute for Buffalo and domestic
cattle. Reliance on the existing population of Feral cattle for
keeping the growth of macrophytes and grasses in the wetland does
not appear to be a safe bet, and hence it was thought necessary
to try to find the answer of two major problem (a) whether the
present number of feral cattle can control the aquatic
macrophytes and grasses? and (b) can the wild ungulate species
co-exist with feral cattle in the park ?.

1.2 Objectives

This dissertation provides the basic ecological data on the

consumers (ungulates) and thus attains importance in
understanding the system which is necessary for conservation and
management of an existing natural community. Interrelationship
between species has been emphasised in this study and single
species study has been avoided to the extent feasible. Following
broad ecological objectives were set.

(a) To estimate the population of each ungulate species

found in the park.
(b) To describe their patterns of habitat utilization.
(c) To study the time budget and activity pattern of each
species.
(d) To determine the food habits and preference of each
ungulate species .
(e) To evaluate the impact of grazing on vegetation.
 A subsidiary objective was to make a key to the
identification of selected food plants through microhistological
features.

1. 3 Hypothesis

Efforts have been made to ascertain the following hypotheses:

(a) Population of ungulate species are increasing.

(b) All habitat types are equally preferred by all
ungulates.
(c) There are seasonal variation in preference of different
habitat types.
(d) Changes are taking place in the vegetation community as
a result of grazing.
(e) Animals are specialist in regard to their food habits.
(f) Species are competing with each other only for food and
not for other resources.
 2. STUDY AREA

2.1 History

The present area of Keoladeo National Park was a natural

depression which by impounding and controlling water level was
developed into a waterfowl refuge by the Maharajas of Bharatpur,
some 250 years ago (Ali and Vijayan 1986). The main objective of
the rulers was to develop it for game hunting, especially
waterfowl. Another objective of the ruler was to provide an
alternative grazing ground to the domestic cows whose presence on
their crop fields was resented by the farmers. There was also
some religious sentiment involved in the concern of the Maharaja
for providing a grazing ground for the cows.

2.2 Location

Keoladeo National Park, situated between 27''7.6' to 27°12.2'

N and 77°29.5 and 77°33.9' E, is 2 km south-east of Bharatpur
city. It is 38 km south-west of Mathura and 50 km west of Agra.
The park is located about 180 km south of Delhi ((Fig 2.1).

2.3 Topography

The total area of the park is about 29 sq. km. It is more or

less flat with a gentle slope towards the centre forming a
depression, the total area of which is about 8.5 sq. km. This is
the main submersible area of the Park. The average elevation of
the area is about 174 m above sea level.
 FIG 2.1
LCX)ATION OF STUDY SITE,
KEOLADEO NATIONAL PARK

KEOLADEO
NATIONAL WkRK
 I
CO
<
<
Q
Q < <
< o
o < OS

< PS bJ <
3 OS
X
OS a
Qi o < bJ
< < < N
(X E-
CO
o
Z Q < Q
UJ S Z Z Q < o -J
I O D <
< o OS o
< ca cQ u < CO
H
CO o
3:

©®®©®@©©
Hiffl0i0|

Q
2
O

w
CN
M
<;

o
H

EH

a,
o
2.4 Boundary

A masonry wall around the border separates the park from the
surrounding agricultural fields. There are about 14 villages
around the park (Fig 2.2).

2.5 Soil

Thick alluvian dominates the area. Patches of saline soil

are common in the terrestrial areas.

2.6 Climate

The climate is sub-tropical with south-west monsoon as the

dominant factor. There are three major climatic seasons.

2.6.1 Monsoon

The monsoon during the study year continues from July to

October. The mean minimum temperature during monsoon in the
study period varied from 22.59°C in the year 1986 to 24.83°C in
1987, whereas mean maximum temperate varied from 34.81''C in 1986
to 37.62°C in 1988. The maximum rainfall during monsoon was
481 mm in the year 1988 and the' minimum precipitation was
283.7 mm in the year 1986 (Fig 2.3).

2.6.2 Winter

The winter season continued from November to February. The

mean minimum temperature recorded during winter varied from

10
 FIG 2.3
MONTHLY VARIATION IN RAINFALL
DURING JULY 1986 TO JUNE 1989

mm
300

260

200

150

too

60

J S N J M M J S N J M M J S N J M M
1986 1987 1988 1989

FIG 2.4

MONTHLY VARIATION IN TEMPERATURE

DURING JULY 1986 TO JUNE 1989
OEQREE CELCIU8

J S N J M M J S N J M M J S N J M M
1986 1987 1988 1989
-* MINIMUM -^ MAXIMUM
11
5.36°C in the year 1986-87 to 8.68°C in 1987-88. The mean maximum
temperature ranged from 20.05°C in the year 1987-88 to 25.05°C
in 1988-89. The maximum rainfall during winter was 29.8 mm in
1987 and minimum was 10.4 mm in the year 1988.

2.6.3 Summer

The hot and dry season extended from March to June. The mean
minimum temperature during summer varied from 20.83°C in 1987 to
21.86°C in the year 1988, whereas the mean maximum temperature
ranged from 38.51°C in 1988 to 41.63°C in 1987 (Fig 2.4). The
maximum rainfall was 110.6 mm in the year 1987 and minimum
precipitation was 68.00 mm in the year 1986.

2.7 Hydrology

Apart from rain water which is very small in quantity, the

major quantum of water is received from Ajan bund, a temporary
reservoir outside the Park. The Ajan bund receives water from the
two rivers Banganga and Gambir. Water from Ajan bund is released
into the park during monsoon (Plate 1).

2.8 Vegetation

The present vegetation type was classified according to

Yangambi nomenclature (Perennou and Ramesh 1987) based mainly on
physiognomic characters.

The study area comprises of Forest, woodland, scrub

woodland, dense to discontinuous thickets, scattered shrubs.

12
savannah woodland to scattered tree savannah, shrub savannah,
grass savannah, low grassland, mosaic of several types and
wetlands ( Fig 2.5 ). The detailed floral list is given in
Appendix VII. The main vegetation types found in the study area
are represented as such.

2.8.1 Forest

This habitat is dominated by Mitragyna parvifolia which

reaches a length of 15-22 m. Only scattered shrubs, represented
by Kirgenelia reticulata and Capparis sepiaria are found in the
undergrowth.

2.8.2 Woodland

The tree cover is less dense than in the forest. The

habitat consists of only one tree storey which mainly consists of
Mitragyna parvifolia, Acacia nilotica or Zizyphus mauritiana,
Only scattered shrubs such as Kirgenelia reticulata and Capparis
sepiaria are found in the undergrowth.

2.8.3 Scrub woodland

This vegetation types differs from forest and woodland by

the regular presence of thorny shrubs in the undergrowth. In most
areas, there is also a second storey of trees under the upper
canopy, and sometimes even a third. The common species found in
the undergrowth are Prosopis juliflora, Capparis sepiaria,
Kirgenelia reticulata and Salvadora persica. The two storied
scrub woodlands are dominated by non-spiny species such as

13
 Mitragyna parvifolia, Syzyzium cumini. The understory is mainly
composed of spiny species such as Acacia nilotica and Zizyphus
mauritiana. The one storied scrub woodland are dominated by
armed species such as Acacia nilotica and Zizyphus mauritiana.

2.8.4 Dense to discontinuous thickets

The dense thickets are regularly interspersed with trees

6 to 12 m high usually Acacia nilotica or Zizyphus mauritiana,
whereas in the discontinuous thickets, a few trees are
encountered. In the thicket formation, the soil is either devoid
of grass cover or presents a continuous low layer of Cynodon
dactylon and Sporobolus spp.

2.8.5 Scattered shrubs

Scattered shrubs are more widely found, especially in saline

zones, and consist mostly of Salvadora persica, Salvadora
oleoides, Prosopis Juliflora. They are regarded here as shrubs
and not as trees, since their height rarely exceeds 4-5 m.
However, some individuals attain the stature of small trees,
6-8 m in height, with a thick trunk as in the case of Salvadora
spp.

2.8.6 Savannah woodland to scattered tree savannah

The major tree species found in the habitat are Mitragyna

parvifolia, Prosopis cineraria, Acacia nilotica. Acacia
leucophloea, Zizyphys mauritiana.

14
 o o w
-J — * s
C3
n.
•k
•* o
Ill
o *I
if

-S g 2

o o ^
o ••-
> o
o o
to C/3 w o
0

H
l. O
O

15
I 0 "^
R
 Generally the tree height varied from 6 to 10 m in all
species, but it can reach up to 12-14 m in the case of Mitragyna
parvifolia and Acacia nilotica. The major shrub present in this
habitat are Capparis sepiaria and Salvadora persica. The major
grass species found in this habitat are Vetiveria zizanioides,
Desmostachya bipinnata, Cynodon dactylon and Dicanthium
annulatum.

2.8.7 Shrub savannah

The habitat is dominated by shrub less than 5 m tall. The

dominant species are Salvadora persica, Capparis sepiaria,
Balanites roxburghii, Prosopis Juliflora, Dichrostachys cinerea.
The main grass is Desmostachya bipinnata, Sporobolus helvolus and
Iselema laxum.

2.8.8 Grass savannah

This habitat is covered with a continuous 2 m high,

Vetiveria zizanioides layer with Desmostachya bipinnata forming a
lower stratum. The woody vegetation is almost or totally absent,
with trees usually standing more than 50 m apart.

2.8.9 Low grassland

This habitat has a continuous layers of low grasses such as

Cynodon dactylon, Sporobolus spp. Dicanthium annulatum,
Eragrostis spp., which are 5-10 cm in height. A few trees and
shrubs are scattered or sometimes very scattered. Among the
trees Acacia nilotica are dominated whereas, among the shrub,
Salvadora persica and Prosopis Juliflora are dominant.

16
2.8.10 Mosaic of several types

Mosaic of several types consists of mixture of several

habitat such as scrub woodland, dense to discontinuous thickets,
scattered shrubs, savannah woodland to scattered tree savannah
and grass savannah.

2.8.11 Wetlands

The aquatic vegetation consists mainly of emergent, rooted

floating, submerged and free floating types of plants (All and
Vijayan 1983). The major emergent plants important to herbivores
are Paspalum distichum, Cyperus alopecuroides, Cyperus rotundas,
Scirpus tuberosus, Scirpus articulatus, Eleocharis plantoginea
and Ipomoea aquatica. Rooted floating Includes Nyphoides
cristatum and Nymphoides indica. The major submerged plants are
Hydrilla verticil lata, Utricularia inflexa, Potamogeton crispus,
Ceratophyllum demersum and Vallisneria spiralis, Lemna
paucicostata, Azolla pinnata and Wolffia arrhiza are the main
free floating types. Apart from these, numerous raised mounds
are present in the aquatic area and Acacia nilotica is planted to
attract colonial nesting birds.

The poor rainfall and inadequate water supply (1986-87) from

the Ajan bund led to a drought condition inside the Park and
hence, most of the aquatic area during summer became dry and
appeared as an open grassland (Plate 2 ) . In addition to that, a
part of the area was bulldozed by the forest department to remove
the excessive growth of grass and this created an open patch.

17
2.8 Fauna

The vertebrate fauna of Keoladeo National Park is quite

rich. According to Vijayan (1987) 40 species of fish, 5 species
of amphibia, 28 species of reptiles and over 317 species of birds
have' been described. Twenty nine mammalian species have been
recorded (Appendix VIII) and the six species, on which the
present study was conducted, are described in the next chapter
(Study Species) ,

18
 3. STUDY SPECIES

3.1 Chital (Axis axis)

Chital belongs to the genus Axis and is the third largest

deer inhabiting the plains of India. The average weight of an
adult male is 70 kg while the females are about 20 kg lighter.
The average height of a male is 90 cm at shoulder level and that
of a female is 75 cm. Its coat is rufous brown and covered with
white spots. There is a dark dorsal stripe, running down from
the nape to the tip of the tail. The underparts, inside of the
legs, undertail, and inner side of the ear are white. The
antlers are brownish with paler streaks and ivory coloured tips.

The North Eastern part of Gujarat State forms the western

limit to its distribution, from where it extends eastwards
through most northern provinces of India except the Punjab, Assam
forms its eastern limit. They also occupy forested areas of
Peninsular India and Sri Lanka.

Chital is gregarious with little nocturnal activity. They

are seen in herds of usually ten to thirty which may contain two
to three stags. Assemblages numbering upto several hundred have
been occasionally seen. It is worth mentioning that the species
is distributed in disjointed patches along its range because of
large scale habitat destruction and deforestation. It is mostly
confined to the national parks and sanctuaries where hunting is
banned and the habitat is comparatively in a better shape. Some
spill over populations are found around the national parks and
sanctuaries.

19
3.2 Sambar {Cervus uaicolar)

The Sambar is the largest and most widely distributed seen

in India. It belongs to genus Cervus. Adult stags measure
122 to 150 cm at the shoulder and weigh from 225 to 320 Kg.
Female are smaller and weigh about 164 Kg. The winter coat of
the Sambar is grey-brown to dark brown. Adult stags are slightly
darker in colour than hinds. The summer coat is brown to
chestnut brown. The rump, the underside of the tail and the
inner side of the legs are light to rusty brown. Antlers are
stout, rugged and normally three tined.

The Sambar is distributed throughout the oriental region

wherever there is undulating ground of hilly country with
forests. It is found from Sri Lanka and the South and throughout
the Peninsula to the fringe of the Himalayas in the north.

Its habits are nocturnal. Being very alert and shy of man
it is difficult to locate, much less to observe for prolonged
periods (Schaller 1967, Prater 1965). But the case at Keoladeo
National Park is entirely different where Sambars are frequently
seen grazing during day hours in aquatic area especially in the
winter and rainy season. Their sense of sight is moderate. They
have a keen sense of smell and hearing. Both stags and hinds are
often found singly, but small herds from four or five to a dozen
in number are commonly met. The males fight for territory
(Prater 1965). Sambars are forest loving animals (Prater 1965,
Brander 1923).

20
3.3 Blackbuck {Antilope cervicapra)

The Blackbuck till about five decades back, was the

commonest and most conspicuous antelope in India (Brander 1923).
The Blackbuck is the sole representative of the genus antelope of
the subfamily Antelopinae. Males are 74 to 84 cm at shoulder and
weigh about 35 Kg. Females are slightly smaller and weigh about
32 Kg. Adult bucks are blackish brown above turning to almost
black in very old animals and white below. Cxilour of does and
subadult bucks is yellowish-fawn above and white below. The
horns are ringed and spiral three to six time.

Blackbuck is distributed from Pakistan along the foot of the

Himalayas to Bangladesh and throughout Peninsular India. It is
not found in Assam, West Bengal, Kerala and Sri Lanka.

Blackbuck are generally diurnal and found in herds of

10 to 20. Their sense of hearing is moderate, and they have a
fair sense of smell, and keen eye sight. In the contrast to the
harem formation reported by several workers in different areas,
no harem formation has so far been observed inKeoladeo National
Park, the reason are not clearly understood. However, the female
group make a large, daily circuit and territorial males join the
females as they pass through their territories. Blackbuck has
the habit of occasionally springing into the air. It comes to
the same spot to deposit dropping.

21
3.4 Nilgai {Boselaphus tragocamelus)

The Nilgai is a member of the Tribe Boselaphini. A male

stands 130 to 142 cm at shoulder and weighs about 200 Kg.
Females are smaller weighing 109 to 132 Kg. Adult bulls are iron
grey and blue grey. Subadult males and all females are light
brown in colour. Both sexes have dark and white markings on
their heads, ears, underparts, fetlocks and tail. Both sexes
have a short bristly mane.

The distribution of the Nilgai is from the Himalayan

foothills, southward through central India to northern parts of
Karnataka. It is not found in Eastern Bengal, Assam, Malabar
coast or Sri Lanka (Brander 1923, Prater 1965).

Males and females remain segregated except during the

breeding season, when breeding herds are formed. Four to ten are
usually seen together, sometimes as many as thirty or even more.
Adult solitary bulls are territorial. Senses of smell and sight
are good while hearing is moderately developed in Nilgai. It has
a habit of defecating in the same location like other antelopes
(Schaller 1967, Brander 1923, Prater 1965). Schaller (1967)
suggested that they might be territorial markers, but Abies
(1983) feels that defecation has social importance though its
function is unknown.

22
3.5 Wild boar (Sus scrofa)

The Wild boar belongs to the family Suidae. Males are

considerably larger than females and stand 84 to 91.5 cm at the
shoulder. According to Prater (1965) the weight of the male may
exceed 230 Kg which is almost equal to that of the European Boar
(Robert 1977). An adult Is a large bulky animal with head
appearing as directly joined to the trunk, a barrel shaped body
with disproportionately thinner legs. The head has a long muzzle
terminating into a disk like structure especially adapted for
foraging. The colour of the animal is black mixed with grey,
rusty brown and white. The young are brown and have longitudinal
stripes. The tushes curve outwards and project from the mouth.
These are well developed in the males.

The Indian Wild boar is widely distributed in most parts of

the Indian Sub-continent, including the lower reaches of the
Himalayas, Burma and Sri Lanka.

Wild boar is normally a social animal resting and feeding in

small groups. Adult males are usually solitary. They are
largely nocturnal feeders. The sense of smell is acute, the
eyesight and hearing moderate.

3.6 Feral cattle {Bos indie us)

Jerdon (1874) has divided the sub family Bovinae into three
groups one of which Taurine has been subdivided by Blyth into (a)
Zebus (b) Taurus and (c) Gavaeus. The common humped cattle of

23
India, seem closest to the feral cattle, belong to the division
Zebus.

Jerdon states in "Mammals of India" that in many parts of

the country small herds of these animal have run wild. Cows of
this type, disowned by their former owners, several generations
back, have also found their way into Keoladeo National Park.
Being free from domestication their behaviour and appearance has
changed to some extent. These are healthier and are
comparatively shy of human beings. In all other respects they
are like domestic cattle.

24
 4. POPULATION

4.1 Introduction

The population is an ultimate self-reproducing grouping of

conspecific individuals, which occupies a definite area over an
evolutionary long span of time to form an independent genetic
system and an ecological niche of its own ( Yablkov 1986 ) .

The interest of an ecologist in the studyof wild or natural

populations of animals is something comparatively new, for at the
beginning of this century very little attention was paid to the
structure and dynamics of natural populations, and the
difficulties that impeded the study of them seemed
insurmountable.

Elton (1927) in his pioneering work, drew attention to the

importance of studying numbers and the fluctuation in numbers of
animal population and commented on the necessity of knowledge on
a subject which is a prequisite in the applied ecology of
wildlife management.

Since last three decades a number of workers came out with

different methods of estimating population and biomass of
ungulates ( Rodgers et al. 1958; Neff 1968; Dzieciolowski 1976;
Eberhardt 1978; Chua and Tan 1980; Tak and Lamba 1980 ).

Most of the studies on ungulate populations were carried out

by different workers in African habitats ( Lamprey 1964; Coe et
al. 1976; Barnes and Douglas 1982; Rowe-Rowe and Scotcher 1986)

25
and only few studies have been done in South Asian countries
(Eisenberg et al. 1970; Eisenberg and Seidensticker 1976;
Seidensticker 1976 ).

In our country most of the studies have been done on a

single species populations ( Rice 1984; Green 1985; Prasad and
Rao 1984 ). Very few studies have been done on the population of
all the ungulates of a geographical or an ecological unit which
includes the work of Prasad et al. (1978) and Berwick (1974).

Proper management requires a good understanding of all

aspects of the concerned wildlife populations; size, dynamics,
trends and their underlying causes. Population manipulation,
which sometimes becomes necessary can also be safely resorted to
only with full knowledge of the above mentioned and several other
things, enabling the manager to foresee likely developments in
the future, their causes and probable consequences. The present
study was an attempt to provide the requisite knowledge in regard
to the ungulate population (all species) in Keoladeo National
Park.

4.2 Methodology

For maximum possible accuracy in census, following three

methods were applied alternately.

4.2.1 Simultaneous count

Simultaneous census was carried out along 60 transects,

during April-May (1987,1988,1989) when visibility is best. Data
collected on two consequitive evenings were pooled and the

26
 CO

(t3

(0
g
4-1
o
-p
c
o
u
to

o
QJ
C
(C
+J
rH
e
-H
CO
^^
o
o
H 4-1

0)

CO
4J
O
d)
V)
C

EH

e
o
o

27
average was calculated. A total of 60 enumerators divided into 30
groups of two person each took part in the census operation and
each group was assigned two transects (varying in length from 1.5
to 2 Kms) 100-200 meters apart. The transects were carefully
located to encompass all habitat variations and to evenly cover
the entire Park (Fig 4.1).

Following information was collected by each participant*.

(a) Species wise number of individual animals seen.

(b) Sex and approximate age of each observed animals.
(c) Location of the observed animal (direction in relation to the
observer)
(d) Time at which the animal was observed.

Though this method (census along transect) is generally

regarded as basic, it was found sufficiently accurate under the
prevailing conditions. Feral cattle and Chital for example were
seen only in large herds in specific areas and almost all of them
could be counted on the same day, presumably without duplication.
Double counting and inaccuracies were further minimised by cross
checking with concerned fellow-enumerators, of the sighting time
and direction/location and by making consequent alterations in
the figures.

4.2.2 Zonal count

To bring about greater accuracy in census, the Park was

divided into four zones (Fig 4.2) and counting was done in all
the four zones. Counting was done by criss-crossing the entire
area from 6 hours to 10 hours and from 14 hours to 18 hours.

28
 w
o
N
EH

§
W
fa
fa
H
Q
«
*
O
o fa
H M
EH

H
o
w
w
 Each zone was covered eight times; four times in the morning
and four times in the evenings. Only one count could be done in a
day and the zones were covered in rotation. The data of all the
eight counts in each zone was pooled and the average number of
animals was calculated. Due care was taken to avoid double count
as far as possible. Zonal count was conducted only in 1988 and
1989.

4.2.3 Intensive count

Intensive count was found to be feasible for only Sambar and

Blackbuck as the population of these species in the Park is quite
small. The first step was to identify the herds of both these
species and then the number of animals in each herd was counted.
The herds were constantly and regularly watched throughout the
study period.

4.2.4 Sex and age classification

Sex and age classification of all the species of ungulates

was done using the criteria described by Spillet (1966) and
Schaller (1967). Both sex identification and age estimation were
done on the basis of body size, colour,antlers and horns.

These criteria could not be employed in the case of Wild

boar which preferred mainly thick vegetation and, seldom allowed
a clear view of the whole body and hence the age and sex of very
few animals could be recorded.
Whenever the sex and age of the animals (any species) could
not be determined a separate entry was made under the head
"indeterminate".

30
4.2.5 Exponential rate of increase

The population growth was measured by exponential rate of

increase following the formula of Caughley (1977), Begon and
Mortimer (1981).
Nt Noe rt

The constant is the base of natural logarithum

Nt = Initial population
No = Final population
t = time.

4.3 Result

4.3.1 Population size

The results of census of four species viz: Chital, Nilgai

Feral cattle and Wild boar carried out by simultaneous count and
zonal count are given in table 4.1 and 4.2 respectively.

The census data of Sambar and Blackbuck collected through

intensive count is given separately in table 4.3

The average number of animals (calculated from the zonal

count) and their standard deviation was worked out for different
zone, which is given in table 4.5 and 4.6

The sex ratio of all the ungulates species is given

table 4.7.

31
 Table 4.1

Population structure of ungulates at Keoladeo National Park

(Simultaneous count)

Male Female Young Total

Year 87 88 89 87 88 89 87 88 89 87 88 89

Chital 76 88 79 162 169 180 41 26 31 279 283 290

Nilgai 55 86 86 114 98 107 22 18 23 191 202 216
Feral cattle 286 322 79 732 798 737 143 174 160 1200^/1294 1176
Wild boar 27 5 5 16 2 6 12 1 8 65* 8 26*-

* Including 10 unsexed
** Including 7 unsexed
// Including 39 unsexed

Table 4.2 •

Population structure of ungulates at Keoladeo National Park

(Zonal count)

Male Female Young Total

Year 88 89 88 89 88 89 88 89

Chital 77 71 158 170 22 28 257 269

Nilgai 78 82 90 96 15 18 183 196
Feral cattle 214 209 542 545 136 131 892 885
Wild boar 3 21 5 33 2 18 12* 84**

* Including 2 unsexed ** Including 12 unsexed

CHITAL

The census figures for this species arrived at through zonal

and simultaneous count methods did not differ much; 9.1%
difference in the estimates through zonal and simultaneous counts
(1988 figures) and 7.24% difference in estimates through the two
methods (1989 figures). Zonal count was done only during 1988 and
1989 and the data indicates an increase from 257 to 269.
Simultaneous count was done for three consequitive years i.e.
1987, 1988 and 1989 and the data indicates an increase from 279
to 290.

The male to female average ratio comes to 1:2.1 while <i-t^

average ratio of female to young comes to 5.41:1.

SAMBAR

The results of intensive counts indicate that Sambar

population increased slightly from 21- in 1987 to 22 in 1989.
Sambar were mostly seen in two herds of 10 to 11 in each. The
average ratio of male to female was 1:1.34 and female to fawn was
4.72:1.

BLACKBUCK

This species was censused only by intensive count method as

mentioned earlier. The data shows an increasing trend in numbers;
from 18 in 1987 to 20 in 1988 and 23 in 1989. Blackbuck was also
seen in two groups of 9-11 each and the average ratio of male to
female was 1:1.69 and female to young was 4.2:1.

33
 Table 4.3

Population structure of the Sambar and the Blackbuck during

1987,1988 & 1989 (Intensive count)

Male Fema 1 e Young Total

Year 87 88 89 87 88 89 87 88 89 87 88 89

Sambar 8 9 11 10 11 2 21 20 22

Blackbuck 8 10 11 12 3 18 20 23

Table 4,4

Exponential rate of increase (r) of population of ungulates at

Keoladeo National Park

1987-88 1988-89 1987-89 1966-89

Chital 0.014 0.024 0.0193 •0.0014

Sambar -0.048 0.095 0.023 0.0039

Blackbuck 0. 105 0.139 0.1225 •0.039

Nilgai 0.055 0.067 0.0615 0.015

Feral cattle 0.075 -0.095 -0.0101

Wild boar •2.094 1.17 •0.458 •0.046

34
NILGAI

Census of this species was carried out by two methods viz:

Zonal count and simultaneous count. The data indicates an
increasing trend in the estimated number from 191 in 1987 to 216
in 1989 (simultaneous count) and 183 in 1987 to 196 in 1989
(zonal count). The estimates through the two methods also do not
differ much; 9.4% in 1988 and 9.25% in 1989.

The average ratio (calculated from the data of three years)

of male to female for the Nilgai was 1:1.48 whereas, the average
ratio of female to young was 5.09:1.

FERAL CATTLE

The main problem faced in censusing Feral cattle was that it

was difficult to distinguish between Feral and domestic cattle
(sneaking into the park through the broken parts of the boundary
wall). These two types get mixed up and can be differentiated
only on the basis of their behaviour - tolerance of human beings
at closer quarter, which require closer and longer observation.
It was, therefore, possible only during zonal count as only I
took part in this method. Consequently the figures arrived at
through simultaneous count method appear higher because these
include the domestic cattle too. It was estimated that 300-400
domestic cattle were present in the park during the study period.
The zonal count estimates pertain mostly to Feral cattle and
hence are lower than the simultaneous count estimates. If,
however, the estimated average (i.e. 350) number of domestic
cattle is excluded from the estimates of two methods narrows down
to 65 for 1989 and to 52 in 1988.

35
 Table 4.5

Population of ungulates at Keoladeo National Park

during 1988 in different zones (Zonal count)

First Second Third Fourth Total

zone zone zone zone

Chital 173 + 22.32 17 + 7.56 5 + 5.33 62 + 13.4 257

NiIgai 20 + 1.41 65 + 2.54 47 + 2.71 51 + 5.6 183

Feral cattle 126 + 22.25 219 + 13.22 547 + 27.85 892

Wild boar 7+3.2 3+2.77 2 + 1.06 12

Table 4.6

Population of ungulates at Keoladeo National Park

during 1989 in different zones (Zonal count)

First Second Third Fourth Total

zone zone zone zone

Chital 171 + 9.03 20 + 2.41 12 + 6.1 66 + 4.03 269

Nilgai 23 + 1.72 74 + 2.44 47 + 2.61 52 + 3.62 196

Feral cattle 136 + 7.17 226 + 98 523 + 13.66 885

Wild boar 49+6.04 23+10.23 12+2.13 84

36
 Table 4.7

Summary of sex ratio and percentage of ungulates

of Keoladeo National Park

Male:Female Female:Young % Male % Female % Young

1987 1:2.13 3.95:1 27.2 58.06 14.69

Chital 1988 1:1.92 6.5 :1 31.09 59.71 9.18 IV
1989 1:2.27 5.8 :1 27.24 62.06 10.68/^

1987 1:1.57 3.66:1' 33.33 52.38 14.2

Sambar 1988 1:1.25 5:1 40.0 50.0 10.0
1989 1:1.22 5.5:1 40.9 50.0 9.09

1987 1:2 3.3:1 27.77 55.55 16.66

Blackbuck 1988 1:1.57 5.5:1 35.00 55.00 10.00
1989 1:1.5 4:1 34.78 52.77 13.04

1987 1:2.07 5.18:1 28.79 59.68 11.55

Nilgai 1988 1:1.13 5.44:1 42.57 48.51 8.91
1989 1:1.24 4.65:1 39.81 49.53 10.64

1987 1:2.55 5.11:1 23.83 61.0 11.91

Feral cattle 1988 1:2.47 4.58:1 24.88 61.66 13.44
1989 1:2.64 4.6:1 23.72 62.67 13.60

37
 The average ratio of male to female for the Feral cattle was
1:2.53 while the average ratio of female to young was 4.76:1.

WILD BOAR

A peculiar problem was encountered while attempting to

census Wild boar. The animal is extremely shy of human beings and
lives in more or less dense habitat - in the midst of bushes. It
is almost impossible to see all the animals in any area at a
time. However, the two methods viz: zonal and simultaneous count
were applied without much success. A glance at the data given in
table 1.1 and 1.2 clearly indicates very wide difference and
hence these estimates should not be relied upon. But
unfortunately no other reliable method feasible for Wild boar has
so far been evolved anywhere.

Further doubts on the accuracy of the data arose when upto

30 animals were observed by chance at one location alone. It can,
therefore, be assumed that a much higher number of animals live
in the park than the estimated number. Age and sex data could not
be collected for reasons already stated above.

4.3.2 Density and biomass

Considering that there was not much fluctuation in the

ungulate population (all species taken together) during the
study period, the density was calculated from the average number
of three simultaneous counts except in the case of Wild boar for
which only 1987 data was taken into consideration.

38
 Table 4.8

Density and biomass of wild ungulates in Keoladeo National Park

1 Average Wt. in Kg'

Numbers
Species Density Biomass
Adult Young Adult Young Kg/Km^

Chital 251 33 9.79 50 25 461 .20

Sambar 20 2 0.75 180 65 128.62
Blackbuck 20 3 0.79 40 10 28.62
Nilgai 182 21 7.0 225 55 1451 .8
Wild boar 53* 12 2.24 150 15 280.34
Sub total
Wild ungulates 2350.58

Feral cattle 1051 160 41 .75 295 90 11187.75

Total 13538.33

1 - Average number from 3 simultaneous count

2 - From Berwick (1974)
* - Included only 1987 data

39
 The maximum
density was of Feral cattle 41.75/Kni (Table
2
4.8) and the minimum was of Sambar 0.75/Km The total biomass
4 2
was calculated to be 1.3 x 10 kg/Km of which the Feral cattle
4
alone constitute 1.1 x 10 Kg/Km (85%).

4.3.3 Exponential rate of increase (r)

The exponential rate of increase was calculated considering

all the ungulate species together during the study period and was
compared with the previous data collected by SpiHet et al.
(1966). The values are summarized in table 4.4.

The "r' value of Chital during 1987-89 was 0.0193 but it was
-0.0014 during 1966-1989. The same pattern was observed in
Blackbuck; where 'the *" r' value for 1987-89 was 0.122 while in
1966-89 it was (-0.039). The negative pattern shows declining of
trend from 1966 to 1989.

The "r* value for Sambar and Nilgai during 1987-89 was 0.023
and 0.0615 respectively while during 1966-89 it was 0.0039 and
0.015 respectively. Though the ""r' value for both the species
during 1966-89 was low it indicate an increasing trend.

The "r' values of Wild boar during 1987-89 and 1966-89 were
-0.458 and -0.046 respectively showing a negative trend.

The data on Feral cattle for the year 1966 was not available
and hence, "r' value could be calculated on the basis of data for
the study period only.

40
 Table 4.9

Mortality of the ungulates during (a) 1987

(b) 1988 and (c) 1989

(A)

Male Female Young Unsexed Total

Chltal 15 4 21
Sambar 1 - 1
Blackbuck 1 - 1
Nilgai 2 1 3
Feral cattle 3 9 19
Wild boar A 3 8

(B)

Male Female Young Unsexed Total

Chital 14 2 16
Sambar - 1 1
Nilgai 5 2 7
Feral ca ttle 14 30 11 62

(C)

Male Female Young Unsexed Total

Chital 3 1 4
Feral cattle 4 7 15
NiIgai 1 1 2
Wild boar 2 — 2

41
4.3.4 Mortality

Altogether 41 Chital, 2 Sambar, 1 Blackbuck, 12 Nilgai, 10

Wildboar and 96 Feral cattle died during the study period. The
detail of their sex and age structure are presented in table 4,9.

The maximum mortality of Chital was in the years 1987 and

1988 while that of Nilgai and Feral cattle was in 1988.
Mortality of Wild boar was maximum during 1987. Mortality of
Sambar was one each in 1987 and 1988. The only Blackbuck that
died during the study period was in 1987,

There was higher mortality of male Chitals than of females.

Out of 41 cases 32 were males, 7 were females and two could not
be sexed as only the bare carcass was found.

The mortality of Feral cattle during 1988 was 62 which was

the highest during the study period. Mortality was highest during
summer. Thirteen carcasses located were intact and fresh, and
indicated that the animals were emaciated. Around 15 were seen
near the edge of water. These animals had presumably gone to
take water and got bogged down in soft soil and could not free
themselves as they were very weak (Plate 4 ) . Two of the females
that died were pregnant.

4.3.5 Predators

Out of the 41 cases of mortality of chitals 32 were

presumably killed by t)/e stray dogs. Usually the dogs chase the
victim towards aquatic area and as soon as the animal gets into

42
the water the dog pounce on the scrotal sac and immobilize it
before killing (Plate 3 ) .

The other species which were the victim of stray dogs were
Nilgai, Sambar, Wildboar and Feral cattle. Blackbuck was not
seen killed by these dogs.

4.4 Discussion

Population size

The simultaneous count and zonal count methods proved to be

equally suitable techniques for estimating the population of
ungulates in the Keoladeo National Park. The only disadvantages
of simultaneous count method was that it needs a large number of
trained personnel to accomplish the objective in the field, apart
from that this method is not very appropriate for those species
whose population is small.

When both the methods (simultaneous and zonal count) were

compared it was seen that all the ungulate species showed less
figure in zonal count. It may be due to the average number taken
from eight counts while the simultaneous count showed a higher
figure because the average were taken from two counts.

The temporal distribution of all the ungulates in Keoladeo

National Park is governed to a great extent on the uneven
distribution and availability of forage and water on different
zones. The differences in number of animals in different zone
might be due to the differences in the availability of resources

43
 Table 4.10

Comparative sex and age ratio of some wild ungulates

from studies by Schaller (1967)

Male : Female Female : Young

West Kheri 1 : 1.27 3.81

Vanibihar 1 : 1.37 1.88
Chital West Bastar 1 : 1.44 1.88
Kanha 1 : 1.39 1.49
Gir 1 2.5 3.3
Keoladeo National
Park 1 2.1 5.41

Gir 1 . 1.53 2.32

Sambar Kanha 1 3.36 2.96
Kaziranga 1 : 1.85 3.05 .
Keoladeo National
Park 1 : 1.34 4.72 :

Blackbuck Kanha 1 : 2.2 2.7 :1

Keoladeo National
Park 1 : 1.69 4.2 :1

Nilgai Vanibihar 1 : 2.7 0.93 : 1

Gir 1 : 2.5 2.00 : 1
Keoladeo National
Park 1 : 1.48 5.09 : 1

Wild boar Kaziranga 1 : 0.75 1.35 :

Jaldapara 1 : 1 0.5 :

44
in each. During the summer season, Chitals congregate and remain
for long periods in the woodlands habitats, obviously because of
the abundance of shrubs.

Sex ratio and percentage

Most large mammals, particularly the ungulates, are

promiscuous and can increase rapidly with five or even more
females per adult male. A population with more females than
males generally has a higher reproductive potential than does one
that is predominantly male (Spillet 1966 b ) .

Sex ratio is generally an indicator of the reproduction

potential of a species. A high percentage of young as compared to
adults generally indicates a fast growing or thriving population.
In contrast a relatively small percentage of young usually
indicates a sluggish rate of population increase.

There is a higher proportion of male to female in Chital

population of the Keoladeo National Park compared to that in
other parks, except in Gir where it is 1:2.5 (Table 4.10) while
in the case of other species of ungulates it is just the
opposite, where the males are in higher proportion to females in
Keoladeo National Park than in other parks. This can be
explained by the hypothesis given by De and Spillet (1966) that
more or less 1:1 sex ratio may usually be found in an area which
is free from selective shooting or predation. While Berwick
(1974) reports that proportion of lower number of male in Gir
reflects on the preponderance of males in the prey of larger
carnivores at Gir.

45
 Abies (1974) working on Chital in Texas found 1.3 doe to
each buck while Graf and Nicholos (1966) found 0.76:1 ratio in
Hawai i.

The sex ratio of male to female of Blackbuck at Texas was

1:0.9 (Mungall 1978). In India, Daniel (1967) recorded 1 : 1 .''•
ratio at Point Calimere and he attributed this to selective
poaching of males. The sex ratio at birth of North American deer
according to Severinghaus and Cheatum (1956) is tilted in favour
of males; 0.85 female to each male for White-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus). Robinette (1956) calculated a ratio of
0.88 female to each male for Mule deer {Odocoileus hemionous).
The reason for disparity between the sexes has not been explained
by these workers.

The ratio of female to young ( all the ungulates species)

during the study period at Keoladeo National Park shows that the
population is stable. Sheffield et al. (1983) found the ratio
between female to young in Nilgai was 1.23:1 while Abies (1974)
working in Chital found the ratio of 2.3 female to each young.
Compared to the ratio obtained from other parks there are fewer
young per female in Keoladeo National Park and hence the ungulate
population in the Park has been regarded as stable. But this
stability inspite of the absence of the predators is deceptive.
There is likelihood of progressive increase in the proportion of
older individuals who are destined to die out on reaching their
physical life span. If the birth rate continues to be low with
the years to come the population will decline very fast.

46
 Table 4.11

Density and biomass of wild ungulates in various national parks

Species Park Density Biomass Authority

2
per Km Kg/Km^

VJilpattu 12 544 Eisenbergh and

(Sri Lanka) Lockhart (1972)
Chitwan 17.3 951 Seidensticker (1976)
( Nepal )
Chital Kanha 193.7 34259 Pandey et al (1986)
Gir 3.78 172.3 Berwick (1974)
KNP 9.79 461.2 Present study

WiIpattu 1 .0 135 Eisenbergh and

(Sri Lanka) Lockhart (1972)
Sambar Kanha 0.9 131.6 Pandey et al (1986)
Gir 0.24 33.1 Berwick (1974)
KNP 0.75 128.62 Present study

81ackbuck Kanha 0.03 0.69 Pandey et al (1986)

KNP 0.79 28.62 Present study

Nilgai Gir 0.86 166.3 Berwick (1974)

Vanibihar 2.35 530.3 Spillet (1966 a)
KNP 7.0 1451.8 Present study

Wild boar Kaziranga 0.21 31.5 Spillet (1966 b)

Jaldapara 3.75 562.5 Spillet (1966 c)
KNP 2.24 280.34 Present study

47
Density and biomass

The degree of forest cover has a strong influence on the

ungulate biomass attainable for a given area. In general, the
highest ungulate biomass are attained where forest and meadows or
alluvial plain inter-digitate to create a maximum interdispersion
of cover types (Eisenberg and Lockhart 1972).

Biomass data of the ungulates in the Asian habitat were

calculated by Berwick 1974; Schaller 1967; Eisenbergh and
Lockhart 1972; Mckay 1973; Seiedensticker 1976; Pandey et al.
1986 and Eisenbergh and Seidensticker 1976 which is summarized in
Table 4.11.

It is interesting to note that the biomass per sq.km. of the

wild ungulates at Keoladeo National Park surpasses that of other
national park on the Indian subcontinent, (except Kaziranga -2858
2
Kg/Km ) and even most other areas of the world (except Manyara in
2
East Africa - 7785 Kg/Km ). If feral and domestic cattle are also
included in the estimation of biomass per sq.km. Keoladeo
National Park will have a higher biomass per sq.km.than that of
Gir and Kanha National, Parks (Table 4.12).

The density and biomass (per sq.km.) of Chital and Sambar in

Keoladeo National Park was comparatively lower than other parks
except Gir where it exceeds. But the biomass (per sq.km.) of
Nilgai in Keoladeo National Park are higher than in other parks.
This may be due to the availability of extensive habitats
suitable to Nilgai which prefers the ecotone area of wetland .and
savannah or grassland.

48
 Table 4.12

Biomass of ungulates in several parks

Area Biomass/Km" Authority

Gir 383 Berwick (1974)

Wilpattu (Sri Lanka) 766 Eisenbergh and Lockhart (1972)
Gal Ova ( " ) 886 Mckay (1973)
Kanha 1790 Schaller (1967)
Chitwan (Nepal) 1790 Seidensticker (1976)
Jaldapara 984 Spillet (1966 c)
Kaziranga 2858 Spillet (1966 b)
Udjung Kulon 492 Hoogerwerf (1970)
(Jawa Indonesia)
Manyara (East Africa) 7785 Schaller (1972)

Domestic ungulates

Gir 6171 Berwick (1974)

Kanha 4678 Schaller (1967)
Chitwan (Nepal) 28076 Seidensticker (1976)

49
 The biomass per sq km of all ungulates taken together
excluding Feral cattle is higher compared to that in other parks
(Table 4.12). Even the cattle biomass per sq km is also
2
comparatively higher in Keoladeo National Park (11137 Kg/Km )than
2
in Gir and Kanha National Parks where it is 6171 and 4678 Kg/Km
respectively. The high density of livestock at Chitwan reflects
the higher carrying capacity of the alluvial plains at the base
of the Himalayan foot hills (Eisenbergh and Seindensticker 1976).
At Keoladeo National Park the high density of biomass may be due
to the wetland which has the higher productivity in terms of
forage as compared to the terrestrial area.

Mortality

Attempts were made to find out the possible causes of

mortality. Since no parasite or any sign of disease could be
noticed, these two factors did not seem to be regulating the
population of wild ungulates at Keoladeo National Park.

The absence of large carnivores rules out the possibility of

predation. The higher mortality in Chital was due to the
predation by Pariah dog, while that of Feral cattle was due to
the drought of 1988. Jackals which are present in large numbers
in the park were not seen preying up on ungulates. The python
which is common in the park do prey upon Chital fawns but
predation is so rare that it can hardly have an impact on the
ungulate population.

50
Exponential rate of increase

During the study period, the exponential rate of increase

(r) had a positive trend for all the ungulates except Feral
cattle and Wildboar. The reason for the negative "r' value in
Feral cattle is the large number of mortality that it suffered
during 1988, which was the drought year. Scarcity of food was
the main cause of mortality. The case for the Wild boar is
almost similar. Before the present study was started,
information gathered by others at the BNHS Research centre shows
that there were large number of Wild boar in the Park during
1985-86. During the drought year, very few Wild boar bred.
According to Baber and Colberntz (1987) extreme fluctuations in
population levels of Feral pig were observed in response to
availability of oak mast and drought induced changes in habitat
quality. During years when oak mast is scarce and drought
severe, population decline dramatically. As these habitat
features required for survival diminish, reproduction ceases and
animal condition deteriorates until either death occur or
condition improve.

4.5 Summary

1) Census by the simultaneous and zonal count were found

equally suitable for Chital, Nilgai and Feral Cattle while
intensive count method proved to be better for the species
with smaller populations, like Blackbuck and Sambar.

2) There is a higher proportion of male to female in Chital

population of Keoladeo National Park compared to that in

51
 other parks, but tMe trend is reversed in the case of other
species of ungulates.

3) Exponential rate of increase "r' calculated for the study

period (1987-89) shows an increasing trend for all ungulate
species except Feral cattle and Wild boar. When calculated
for the year 1966-89 only Nilgai and Sambar populations
showed an increasing trend. In both the cases the values of
increases and decreases were very low indicating stable
populations of all the ungulate species of Keoladeo National
Park.

4) Maximum density was of Feral cattle while the least was of

2
Sambar. Feral cattle alone constitute 85% of biomass /km
of the total biomass of ungulates.

52
 5. HABITAT PREFERENCE

5,1 Introduction

Quite a few studies have been done particularly in the

western countries on the habitat utilization of ungulates in
various parts of the world which include the work of Martinka
(1968), Seal et al. (1978), Singer (1979), Cairns and Telfer
(1980), Arbruster and Porath (1980), Collins and Urness (1981,
1983), Irwin and Peak (1983), Fedyk et al. (1984), Chapman et al,
(1985), Maublanc (1986).

Only stray information is available on the habitat

preference of Indian ungulates through the work of Martin (1977),
Berwick (1974), Rice (1984), Prasad and Rao (1984), Green (1985),
Balakrishnan and Easa (1986), Nair and Jayson (1988).

Habitat utilization of the following few Indian ungulates

introduced to Texas were also reported. Chital was studied by
Abies (1974), Blackbuck by Mungal (1978) and Nilgai by Sheffield
et al, (1983). The relationship between habitat structure and
its utilization by different herbivores has been studied in
Chitwan National Park (Mishra 1982) and in Africa (Sinclair and
Griffth 1979).

No detailed study has been done on the habitat preference of

ungulates in the Keoladeo National Park except the preliminary
observations reported by Haque (1988).

53
 \^
y>. \>
/^ Q Q
< < <
.'^ < o u o
ce; (^ (^
<c
Q W tJ H
.J< < J O J O
\ < o cQ 1-H ta w
z p J< oi <; H < CO
3 Z Z B i W t
a. D< K j
:^ < z

I iI iI S1

••'•.•.^..•.•..•.•r.vv'.

H N
\
in
'••:).•>

\C^:^

54
5.2 Methodology

Visual observations were made by traversing a set transect,

(Fig 5.1) that was carefully laid through all the different
habitats. Studies were carried out in the following 10 habitats.

Habitat Mnemonic

Woodland WOOD
Scrub-woodland sew
Dense to discontinuous thickets DST
Scattered shrub SSH
Savannah woodland to scattered
tree savannah SWS
Shrub savannah SHS
Grass savannah GRS
Low grassland with scattered
tree and shrub LGR
Wet land WET
Mosaic of several vegetation types MOS

Animals were counted with the aid of a pair of 8 x 30 field

glasses. The transects were traversed in different hours of the
day; five times in a month. Studies were carried out from July
1987 to June 1989.

The visibility on either side of the transect was measured

following the method of Hirst (1969). As a rule it was measured
at every 100 m along the transect. Variation in visibility due to
difference in habitat features in between the 100 m points,
were measured. All these points were plotted on a map.

55
 Table 5.1

Area covered in different habitats

Habitat Total area Area covered Percentage

in sq.km, in sq.km. covered

Woodland (Wood) 0.18 0.03 17

Scrub-woodland (SCW) 1.35 0.27 20
Dense to discontinuous 2.43 0.51 21
Thickets (DST)
Scattered Shrub (SSH) 0.63 0.11 18
Savannah woodland to 6.42 1.4 22
Scattered tree savannah
(SWS)
Shrub savannah (SHS) 0.91 0.15 17
Grass savannah (GRS) 2.97 0.45 15
Low grassland with 3.93 1.06 27
scattered tree and shrub (LGR)
Wetland (WET) 8.5 4.2 49
Mosaic of several 1.08 0.19 18
types (MOS)

56
The visibility was found to vary from 5 to 500 m, depending upon
the habitat features. Only certain part of each habitat was
covered by walking on the transects. The area scanned while
walking along the transects and its ratio to the total area of
the habitat type are given in Table 5.1.

Whenever any ungulate species was spotted details of the

habitat were noted and, thereafter, the animal was watched for as
long as possible. The following information was recorded at each
encounter: date, time, location, the percentage cover of the tree
canopy, shrub layer and herb layer.

Density of each ungulate species in every habitat was

computed for each month, but most of the analyses were done on
seasonal basis.

5.2.1 Vegetation cover

Whenever, any animal was sighted, different vegetation cover

(such as tree, shrub and herb) were recorded at the radius of
10 m to know the preference for different vegetation cover during
different hours of the day and during different seasons.

5.2.2 Availability of crown area

The crown area of tree and shrub were measured by two

different types of plots.

(a) Quadrates of 15 x 15 m were laid along either side of the

transect (described earlier under methodology) at an intervals of

57
 FIG 5.2

DISTRIBUTION OF THE MAIN PHYSIOGNOMIC TYPES IN THE PARK

Forest [ * ^ I S c a t t e r e d shrubs o-i'. Low g r a s s l a n d w i t h

(SSH) s c a t t e r e d ; t r e e and
shrubs (LOR)
Woodland
.9: '.Q. Savannah-woodland
to S c a t t e r e d t r e e * • Wetlands (WET)
Scrub-woodland savannah (SWS)
(SCW)
Mosaic of several
(^ Shrub savannah(SHS) types (MOS)
^ ^ Dense t o d i s c o n t i n u o u s
•^^^ thickets(DDT) •
/ *, • * •. /
Grass savannah(GRS)

58
100 m to estimate the crown areas of trees and shrubs available
to the animals along the whole transect. All the trees and shrubs
in each quadrate were counted and their crown areas were
measured. The crown area in the plots was estimated by the
measuring the length and width of the crown of each tree and
shrub present in the plot.

(b) Grids of 400 m x 400 m (Fig 5.2 ) covering the entire Park
were laid and 150 intersections of the transects were selected
for a detailed study which is given in later chapter. Circular
sample plots were demarcated at these intersections. The crown
area of trees and shrubs were measured in each circular plot of
eight meter radius. The data from all such sample plots located
in each
habitat type was separately pooled, the average areas
covered by tree and shrub crown per 200 m 2 was then calculated.

5.2.3 Statistical analysis

The following statistical analysis were done using mainly

the statistical packages.

Preference

The preference assessment programme, PREFER, described by

Johnson (1980) has been used to determine the preference of J
individual for I components using availability and usage data.
PREFER tests the hypothesis that all components are equally
preferred and compares components using the multiple comparison
procedure of Waller and Duncan (1969).

59
 Prefer consists of the following three parts :

i) The first section list3 the mean difference in ranks for

each component. Components are listed from the most preferred to
least preferred.
ii) The 'F' statistic for testing the hypothesis of equal
preference is given, followed by ' W , the critical value for the
Waller-Duncan using a 'K' ratio of 100. The details derivation
of the formula used are described by Johnson (1980).

iii) The final section lists the following statistics for each
pair of components 'I' and 'K'.

Vik the covariance

dik the difference in mean rank
dik/Sdik The absolute standard difference in mean rank
(Sdik is the standard error of the difference)

If dik < 0, a preference is shown for component 'I' over

component 'K'. If on the other hand d^j^ > 0, a preference is
shown for component 'K' over component 'I'. If di^/'^'^ik ^ ^ the
preference is statistically significant.

For analysis, only those habitat have been taken into

consideration in which the animal was seen. According to Johnson
(1980) it is readily seen that the question of
inclusion/exclusion is germane in this application.

60
Analysis of variance

Two factor analysis of variance test was done for all the
ungulates to find out whether there is any seasonal difference in
preference of habitats.

Kruskal Wallis one way analysis of variance

This test was done to find out whether there is any

significant difference in the utilization of vegetation cover
(tree, shrub, herb) during different hours and different season.
The data for different hours were pooled together into four broad
day light hours such as 0600-0800, 0900-1100, ,1200-1400 and 1500-
1800 hours.

Pearson-correlation coefficient

The similarity in habitat utilization by different species

in different season was calculated using cluster analysis (Pielou
1984) and Pearson correlation coefficient.

Niche Breadth

Niche breadth of each species were calculated applying the

following formula

2
Niche breadth = B = l/€Pi

Bn = B-l/N-1 (Levins 1968)

61
5.3 Result

5.3.1 Habitat preference

CHITAL

All the nine different habitat types have been ranked

according to the intensity of utiliEation by Chital. This ranking
is base on (a) the area of each habitat type and (b) the number
of animals found occupying it. When the two values (a) and (b)
are integrated we get an objective idea of relative utilization
of each habitat type which is expressed in terms of rank. Lower
the figure of mean difference between the ranks of usage and the
rank of availability, higher is the rank and vice versa.
According to this scheme scrub woodland ranks highest in terms of
preference (-2.375) followed by scattered shrub (-1.958). The
wetland habitat ranks the lowest (4.458) (Table 5.2).

All the habitat components appeared not to be used with

equal intensity (F value 71.11 with df 8, 4 ) .

The critical value for Waller Duncan (W » 2.63) was compared

with Absolute standard difference to determine the significance
of difference in preference between the different habitats
(Table 5.2). The highest absolute standard difference was 14.92
in between wetland and scrub woodland and the least was between
low grassland and mosaic of several types.

The habitat utilization by Chital significantly varied from

one to the other type and also seasonally. The utilization of

62
 Table 5.2

Significance test for habitat preference of Chital

AVERAGE DIFFERENCE IN RANKS FOR HABITATS

HABITAT TBAR RANK HABITAT TBAR RANK
sew -2.375000 1 LGR .208333 6
SSH -1.958333 2 MOS .375000 7
WOOD -1.458333 3 GRS 2.166667 8
DST -1.333333 4 WET 4.458333 9
SWS -.083333 5
TEST OF HO: ALL HABITATS ARE EQUALLY PREFERRED
F (8, 4) = 71 . 11736

THE CRITICAL VALUE FOR THE WALLER-DUNCAN PROCEDURE

WITH K = 100. IS W = 2.63
ABSOLUTE
VARIANCE/ DIFFERENCE STANDARD
I K COVARIANCE IN MEAN RANK DIFFERENCE
sew sew 3.36932 .00000 .00000
DST sew SIG 1.22727 1.04167 2.62860
DST DST .96970 .00000 .00000
SWS sew SIG -.94318 2.29167 3.22315
SWS DST -.57576 1 .25000 2.52890
SWS SWS .81061 .00000 .00000
LGR sew -3.71023 2.58333 2.13967
LGR DST -1 .42424 1.54167 1.64648
LGR SWS 1 .06439 .29167 .43542
LGR LGR 6.70265 .00000 .00000
WET sew SIG 1.89205 6.83333 14.92592
WET DST SIG .34849 5.79167 11.21087
WET SWS SIG -.04924 4.54167 8.02964
WET LGR SIG -2.69508 4.25000 3.79844
WET WET 2.92992 .00000 .00000
GRS sew SIG -.47727 4.54167 6.69582
GRS DST SIG -.34848 3.50000 7.16473
GRS SWS SIG .33333 2.25000 6.73091
GRS LGR SIG 1 .28030 1.95833 2.93594
GRS WET SIG -.78788 -2.29167 3.32433
GRS GRS 1 .19697 .00000 .00000
SSH sew -.34659 .41667 .63177
SSH DST .19697 -.62500 1.64466
SSH sws SIG -.35985 -1 .87500 3.96203
SSH LGR SIG -.05492 -2.16667 2.65865
SSH WET SIG -1.15720 -6.41667 8.78534
SSH GRS SIG -.28030 -4.12500 8.36975
SSH SSH 1 .15720 .00000 .00000
MOS sew SIG -2.00568 2.75000 3.05799
MOS DST SIG -.68182 1 .70833 2.74221
MOS SWS .30682 .45833 1 .00000
MOS LGR 1 .16477 .16667 .22310
MOS WET SIG -.96023 -4.08333 5.28102
MOS GRS SIG -.36364 -1.79167 3.01127
MOS SSH SIG .36932 2.33333 4.88090
MOS MOS 2.32386 .00000 .00000
WOOD sew .99432 .91667 1.90960
WOOD DST .28788 -.12500 .32470
WOOD SWS -.58712 -1.37500 2.59491
WOOD LGR -2.32765 -1.66667 1.61738
WOOD WET SIG .47917 -5.91667 11.18801
WOOD GRS SIG -.55303 -3.62500 6.53932
WOOD SSH .47538 .50000 1.37321
WOOD MOS SIG -.15341 -1.83333 3.16943
WOOD WOOD 1.38447 .00000 .00000

TBAR = Mean difference between the ranks of usage

and the rank of availability
63
 FIG 5.3

SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION OF CHITAL

500m

forest [TTJScattonJd •hnibs 2 3 ' * " : ' « * »

r?IBl Woodland rTZ]Shrub savannah gg^Mosalc of F«VC-

'•'—' ral types

[^g Scrub-wDodland [•'.••'••IGrass savannah ^ Hxantatlons In

wQtlands

l^m Savaiinah-voDd- g g l L o w grassland Dense to d i s -

—' land t o S c a t t - '-n't-V'
vdth «a-J>^^o.-n,•
scattered continuous
oixxl troo troo and shrubs thickets
savannah
different habitats shows a higher variation (P < 0.001) than
seasonal variation (P < 0.02) (Table 5.8).

During monsoon Chital were mostly seen in LGR, DST and MOS
habitat, whereas in winter it was seen in LGR and SCW. While
during summer it mainly utilizes shrub dominated areas like SCW
and DST habitat when most of the grasses dries up in other
habitats type (Fig 5.3).

SAMBAR

Sambar utilized only four habitats, but the animals were

seen mostly in the wetland area than in other habitats (Plate 5 ) .
The statistical analysis however shows that MOS was the most
preferred habitat (Table 5.3). This may be due to the fact that
MOS habitat has smaller area and hence a higher density of
animals.

The 'F' value of the habitat utilization is highly

significant (P < 0.001) leading to the inference that all the
habitats are not utilized with equal proportion.

The absolute standard difference was maximum (17.23) between

MOS and SWS while it was minimum (0»357) between WET and SWS
(Table 5.3). All the habitat combinations show significant
difference in utilization except between WET and SWS.

The analysis of variance for Sambar (Table 5.8) shows that

there was significant seasonal (P < 0.05) and habitat (P < 0.005)
variation. Most of the animals moved towards the terrestrial

65
 Table 5.3

Significance test for habitat preference of Sambar

AVERAGE DIFFERENCE IN RANKS FOR HABITATS

HABITAT TBAR RANK

MOS -1.45833 1

DST -.291667 2

SWS .791667 3

WET .958333 4

TEST FOR HO: ALL HABITATS ARE EQUALLY PREFERRED

F ( 3, 9 ) = 1707.028

THE CRITICAL VALUE FOR THE WALLER-DUNCAN PROCEDURE

WITH K=100 IS W=250

ABSOLUTE
VARIANCE/ DIFFERENCE STANDARD
I K COVARIANCE IN MEAN RANK DIFFERENCE

DST DST .79356 .00000 .00000

SWS DST SIG -.24811 1 .08333 3.02616
SWS SWS .24811 .00000 .00000
WET DST SIG -.08144 1.25000 2.80306
WET SWS -.46402 .16667 .35764
WET WET 1.42992 .00000 .00000
MOS DST SIG -.46402 -1 .16667 2.50349
MOS SWS SIG .46402 -2.25000 17.23370
MOS WET SIG -.88447 -2.41667 4.14286
MOS MOS .88447 .00000 .00000

TBAR = Mean difference between ranks of usage and

the rank of availability

66
 FIG 5.4

SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION OF SAMBAR

5 0 0 01

PorGst [ J A I S c a t t e r e d shi-ubs E 3 > t e t l a n d s

rs^ Wood:Aid [ Y S S h r u b savannah S S ^ t o s a i c o£ sevo-

'^'•'^ ^ ^ r a l typ3s

rag Scrub-woodland fv"-V] Grass savannali 3Plantatioiii; in

w3tlands

r-jTrn SavannaJi-vood- g j g L o w grasalmid SDense t o d i s -

^^-^ land t o S c a t t - ^ '^.,n-h a,•^^^^rn
with scattered continuous
ered tree tree and shrubs thickets
area from aquatic area as the latter gets dried up during summer.
MOS and DST types were mainly utilized in the terrestrial areas
(Fig 5.4) .

BLACKBUCK

Blackbuck had been observed to have a clear preference for

LGR habitat, followed by SWS habitat (Table 5.4). It was found in
the wetland only when it dried up during summer and was no more a
wetland. These areas were bulldozed during summer to remove the
grasses and, soon after rain, the whole area was covered with
fresh sprout. Since this area was not filled with water,
Blackbuck utilized it for grazing, and the mound, created by the
sprils of bulldozing, for resting. Its presence in that area
should therefore not be regarded as preference for wetland.

The 'F' value (47.615) shows that all the three habitats
were not utilized with equal intensity and the significance test
between the habitats shows that LGR habitat varied with both SWS
and WET but SWS did not very much with WET.

Although there was not much seasonal variation in the

utilization of each habitat it varied from one to other habitat.
(Table 5.8).During all the three season viz; monsoon, winter and
summer Blackbuck mainly utilizes LGR though it was seen utilizing
SWS and WET (dried up) during summer (Fig 5.5).

NILGAI

Like Chital, Nilgai also utilized nine habitats. The

average difference in ranks was least in Scattered shrub (-1.12)

68
 Table 5.4

Significance test for habitat preference of Blackbuck

AVERAGE DIFFERENCE IN RANKS FOR HABITATS

HABITAT TEAR RANK

LGR -1.666667 1

WET* .791667 2

SWS .875000 3

" Only when wetland dried up

TEST OF HO: ALL HABITATS ARE EQUALLY PREFERRED

F (2. 10) = 47.61538

THE CRITICAL VALUE FOR THE WALLER-DUNCAN PROCEDURE

WITH K = 100. IS W = 2.07

ABSOLUTE
VARIANCE/ DIFFERENCE STANDARD
I K COVARIANCE IN MEAN RANK DIFFERENCE

SWS SWS .09659 .00000 .00000

LGR SWS SIG -.13636 -2.54167 9.88369
LGR LGR .42424 .00000 .00000
WET SWS .03977 -.08333 .56061
WET LGR SIG -.28788 2.45833 7.62264
WET WET .24811 .00000 .00000

TBAR = Mean difference between the ranks of usage and

the rank of availability
69
 FIG 5.5

SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION OF BLACKBUCK

500

Jgg loicst I » a 1 S c a t t e r e d blu-ubs [vUwctlniK' i

fy^?] Woodland IVXlSlurub savannoli [SEBHjfaaic u( LOV

"^— ^ ^ raJ t>pcs
fHTn Ecrul>-woodK-ind p T l G r a s s savannah f^Mnntjt.. i ^
"^^^ ' wetlands
ra-j-i Savaruvih-wood- (yX]I^°" g r a s s l a n d ^ ^ Dense t o d i s -

erod tree tree and shrubs thickctb

 Table 5.5
Significance test for habitat preference of Nilgai

AVERAGE DIFFERENCE IN RANKS FOR HABITATS

HABITAT TBAR RANK HABITAT TBAR RANK
SSH -1.125000 1 LGR .208333 6
SHS -.875000 2 MOS .708333 7
SWS -.833333 3 WET 1 .083333 8
sew -.291667 4 GRS 1 .416667 9
DST -.291667 5
TEST OF HO: ALL HABITATS ARE EQUALLY PREFERRED
F (8, 4) = 5.54299
THE CRITICAL VALUE FOR THE WALLER-DUNCAN PROCEDURE
WITH K = 100. IS W = 2.85
ABSOLUTE
VARIANCE/ DIFFERENCE STANDARD
K COVARIANCE IN MEAN RANK DIFFERENCE
sew sew 1.52083 .00000 .00000
DST sew .17992 .00000 .00000
DST DST .20265 .00000 .00000
SWS sew -.12879 -.54167 1 .35068
SWS DST SIG .05303 -.54167 3.76707
SWS SWS .15152 .00000 .00000
LGR sew -.22917 .50000 1 .00766
LGR DST -.34280 .50000 1 .26876
LGR SWS SIG -.03788 1.04167 3.29041
LGR LGR .97538 .00000 .00000
WET sew SIG .04924 1.37500 3.44219
WET DST SIG -.04167 1 .37500 5 .39870
WET SWS SIG -.19697 1.91667 6.51724
WET LGR -.26894 .87500 2.14027
WET WET .49242 .00000 .00000
GRS sew SIG -.00379 1 .70833 2.93470
GRS DST SIG .33712 1 .70833 4.11688
GRS SWS SIG -.07576 2.25000 4.62428
GRS LGR -.43561 1.20833 1 .99903
GRS WET -.08333 .33333 .64580
GRS GRS 2.53788 .00000 .00000
SSH sew -.47159 -.83333 1.31928
SSH DST -.15341 -.83333 1.71499
SSH sws .20455 -.29167 .70288
SSH LGR SIG .34659 -1 .33333 2.86113
SSH WET SIG -.23864 -2.20833 4.21524
SSH GRS SIG -1 .76136 -2.54167 3.04068
SSH SSH 2.32386 .00000 .00000
SHS sew -.11932 -.58333 1 .43158
SHS DST SIG -.00568 -.58333 3.02251
SHS SWS .02273 -.04167 .24790
SHS LGR SIG -.16477 -1 .08333 3.02616
SHS WET SIG .12500 -1.95833 9.83914
SHS GRS SIG -.32955 -2.29167 4.28647
SHS SSH .15341 .25000 .57735
SHS SHS .23295 .00000 .00000
MOS sew -.79735 1 .00000 1 .66702
MOS DST -.22917 1 .00000 2.53752
MOS sws SIG .00758 1.54167 4.61518
MOS LGR .15720 .50000 1 .26876
MOS WET .16288 -.37500 1 .11012
MOS GRS -.18561 -.70833 1.21008
MOS SSH SIG -.40341 1.83333 3.05085
MOS SHS SIG .08523 1 .58333 4.87631
MOS MOS 1 .20265 .00000 .00000

TBAR = Mean difference between the ranks of usage and

the rank of availability
71
 FIG 5.6

SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION OF NILGAI

500m

nil forest fXTlScjLlored bhrubs [H!I]"ct-la!Tds

ffSfl Woodland |'in,'jShrub savannah 033Moseac o£ sovx.-

'^'—' ral types
nsa Scrvib-woodland f^vTlGrass savannah ^ g P l a n t a t i o n s in

rj-^ Savannah-W3od- gglLow grassland fS<XI Dense to dis-

'-'—' land to Scatt- vath scattered continuous
which appears to be the most preferred habitat whereas, the
maximum was in GRS (1.41) showing it to be the least preferred
habitat (Table 5.5).

The 'F' (5.54) with df (8, 4) indicates that all the

habitats are utilized with equal intensity.

The highest absolute standard difference was 9.83 between

SHS and WET components while the least was 0.57 between SHS and
SSH (Table 5.5).

Although there was not much seasonal variation in the

utilization of each habitat it significantly varied from one to
the other habitat (Table 5.8).

Nilgai were seen in all the habitat types throughout the

year. But during monsoon and winter it mainly utilizes LGR, SCW,
DST and SWS while during summer besides these habitats they were
also seen in WET habitat (Fig 5.6).

FERAL CATTLE

Altogether nine habitats were seen used by the Feral cattle.

The most preferred habitat was SSH followed by LGR and the least
preferred was WET (Table 5.6).

As in the case of Nilgai, 'F' value (3.84) with (8, 4) did

not vary significantly and hence, all the habitats were utilized
with equal intensity.

73
 Table 5.6
Significance test for habitat preference of Feral cattle
AVERAGE DIFFERENCE IN RANKS FOR HABITATS
HABITAT TBAR RANK HABITAT TBAR RANK
SSH -1 .583333 1 MOS .125000 6
LGR -1 .333333 2 SWS .166667 7
SHS -.541667 3 GRS 1.500000 8
DST -.166667 4 WET 1.708333 9
sew . 125000 5

TEST OF HO: ALL HABITATS ARE EQUALLY PREFERRED

F (8, 4) = 3 .84218
THE CRITICAL VALUE FOR THE WALLER-DUNCAN PROCEDURE
WITH K = 100. IS W = 2.85
ABSOLUTE
VARIANCE/ DIFFERENCE STANDARD
I K COVARIANCE IN MEAN RANK DIFFERENCE
sew sew 1 .46023 .00000 .00000
DST sew -.29545 -.29167 .65431
DST DST .33333 .00000
.00000
SWS sew -.02273 .04167
. 11212
SWS DST .03030 .33333
1.77281
SWS sws .15152 .00000
.00000
LGR SCVl SIG .45455 -1.45833
4.36571
LGR DST SIG .12121 -1.16667
4.31117
LGR SWS SIG .06061 -1.50000
5.74456
LGR LGR .78788 .00000.00000
WEt sew -.68750 1 .58333
2. 13767
WET DST -.64394 1 .87500
2.80306
WET sws -.31061 1 .54167
2.51172
WET LGR SIG -1.24242 3.04167
3.97656
WET WET 3.74811 .00000.00000
GRS sew -.40909 1 .37500
2. 14853
GRS DST SIG .04545 1 .66667
3.40279
GRS sws -.27273 1 .33333
2.52982
GRS LGR SIG -.36364 2.83333
4.81709
GRS WET 1 .00000 -.20833 .34466
GRS GRS 2.63636 .00000.00000
SSH sew SIG -.46591 -1 .70833
2.96807
SSH DST SIG .12121 -1.416673.79271
SSH SWS SIG .10606 -1.750004.91267
SSH LGR -.03030 -.25000 .55535
SSH WET SIG -.16288 -3.291674.79409
SSH GRS SIG -1.52273 -3.083333.96268
SSH SSH 1.58333 .00000
.00000
SHS sew .46023 -.66667
1 .55807
SHS DST .21970 -.37500
1 .04303
SHS sws .09848 -.70833
1 .93277
SHS LGR .21212 .79167
1.92916
SHS WET -1.62689 -2.25000
2.64873
SHS GRS -1.27273 -2.04167
2.70445
SHS SSH .67803 1.04167
2.62860
SHS SHS 1.65720 .00000
.00000
MOS sew -.49432 .00000
.00000
MOS DST .06818 .29167
.95824
MOS sws .15909 -.04167.16688
MOS LGR SIG .00000 1 .45833
3.87155
MOS WET -.07386 -1 .58333
2.50071
MOS GRS .15909 -1 .37500
2.64907
MOS SSH SIG -.30682 1 .70833
3.35476
MOS SHS -.42614 .66667
1.24801
MOS MOS .91477 .00000
.00000
TBAR = Mean difference between the ranks of usage and
the rank of availability

74
 FIG 5.7

SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION OF FERAL CATTLE

nOOrn

Forest r ^ l S c a t t e r e d slirjbs f'•"""IWetlands

rOl woodland fty)Sl^rub savannah E133f''osaic of s>.\>.-

'*—' r a l types

[rmi bcrub-wDOcuund L T J G r a s s savarrah [^^Plantations in

wetlands

Ej~^i Savannah-vDOd- g x j L o " g r a s s l a n d

land t o S c a t t - w^^h fwif-t-priv
with Bcattercd
3 Dense t o d i s -
continuous
crod t r e e t r e e and shrubs thickets
savannah
 Among the habitat types compared for significant difference,
the variation was noticed only in SSH and LGR while DST differed
only with GRS (Table 5.6). The maximum absolute standard
difference was noticed between LGR and SWS (5.74), whereas,
minimum was between SWS and SCW (0.11).

There was significant seasonal and habitat variation in the

utilization of the habitat of Feral cattle (Table 5 . 8 ) .

During monsoon and winter Feral cattle were seen mainly in

LGR habitat while during summer they were seen mainly utilizing
SWS, LGR, WET and GRS habitat type (Fig 5 . 7 ) .

WILD BOAR

Wild boar was found using only four types of habitats. The
most preferred was DST followed by SCW and LGR. The least
preferred one was SWS (Table 5.7).

The 'F' value was highly significant (P < 0.001) indicating

that all the habitats were not used with equal intensity.

Statistical analysis shows that utilization of all the

possible habitat combination were significantly different except
LGR and SWS which did not differ (Table 5 . 7 ) .

There was no seasonal variation in the utilization of

habitat (Fig 5.8) but the utilization varied significantly among
the habitats (Table 5.8).

76
 Table 5.7

Significance test for habitat preference of Wild boar

AVERAGE DIFFERENCE IN RANKS FOR HABITATS

HABITAT TBAR RANK

DST -1 .916667 1

SCV -1.208333 2 O - ^ •
'"1I^;N
* ^ ~»<
LGR 1 .083333 3 )
V
SWS 2.041667 4

TEST OF HO: ALL HABITATS ARE EQUALLY PREFERRED

F ( 3, 9) = 580.41880

THE CRITICAL VALUE FOR THE WALLER-DUNCAN PROCEDURE

WITH K = 100. IS W = 2.50

ABSOLUTE
VARIANCE/ DIFFERENCE STANDARD
I K COVARIANCE IN MEAN RANK DIFFERENCE

sew sew .42992 .00000 .00000

DST sew SIG .06439 -.70833 , 4.21423
DST DST .03788 .00000 .00000
SWS sew SIG -.14962 3.25000 9.56171
SWS DST SIG .04167 3.95833 17.53148
SWS SWS .65720 .00000 .00000
LGR sew SIG -.34470 2.29167 5.40502
LGR DST SIG -.14394 3.00000 8,89944
LGR SWS -.54924 -.95833 1 .98622
LGR LGR 1.03788 .00000 .00000

TBAR = Mean difference between the ranks of usage and

the rank of availability
77
 FIG 5.8

SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION OF WILD BOAR

500m

•M Forest (Ta]s<-ittered shrubs EZlwotiands

nrw Doodland rtT]Shrub savaniioti H^SMOMIC ot E> \

'3 ' ' ral typos
mm Scrub-woodland | . | Grass savannah iPlantations in
wetlands
rj—I Savanna)i-MXd- gXJLow grassland [^3Dense to di--
L- 1 l,Tn/1 f n C > , T H - - with scattered CYTnt-iniioim
t-r-aa niyA chnih<5
 Table 5.8

Two factor analysis of variance test on various ungulate

habitat preference

Source Sum of DF Mean-square F-ratio P

squares

Season 498.357 2 249.178 4.257 0.017

Habitat 14321.674 9 1591.297 27.184 0.000
Chital Season* 10622.068 18 590.115 10,081 0.000
Habitat

Season 2.451 2 1.225 3.189 0.053

Habitat 5.785 3 1.928 5.018 0.005
Sambar Season* 19.518 6 3.253 6.465 0.000
Habitat

Season 16.396 2 8.198 6.334 0.006

Habitat 109.662 2 54.831 42.363 0.000
Blackbuck Season* 38.095 4 9.524 7.358 0.000
Habitat

Season 20.660 2 10.330 1.205 0.305

Habitat 758.112 8 94.764 11.050 0.000
Nilgai Season* 351.143 16 21.946 2.559 0.003
Habitat

Season 561.296 2 280.648 5.388 0.006

Habitat 21846.581 8 2730.823 52.425 0.000
Feral Season* 5895.795 16 368.487 7.074 0.000
cattle Habitat

Season 19.187 2 9.593 2.200 0.125

Habitat 413.308 3 137.769 31.599 0.000
Wild boar Season* 15.838 6 2.840 0.605 0.724
Habitat

79
5.3.2 Vegetation cover used by different ungulates

Chital

The seasonal use of the three vegetation layers, namely

tree, shrub and herb varied significantly. The tree were used
the maximum during summer mainly as cover to get protection from
the scorching sun while, the herb layer was utilized as food
mainly during the monsoon season, which is the growth period of
most of the herbs.

Chital widely used most tree and also shrubs as cover m the
afternoon which was significant m both the cases. The

correlation between the schedule and duration use of herb cover

was not found to vary (Fig 5.9).

Sambar

Significant seasonal variation in the use of shrub and herb

layers was observed (Fig 5.10). Sambar were seen most of the year
in the aquatic area which has scanty tree cover and hence no
significant variation in the tree use could be made out.

The tree cover was used mostly during the afternoon while
shrubs and herbs during early hours of the day. There was no
significant variation in the hourly use of various vegetation
layers.

80
 FXG 5.9

. •) c h i t a l , (b) F e r a l C a t t l e , (c) N i l g a i ,
Average values o £ _ y^ soar and (f) Blackbuck a s s o c i a t i o n
(d) Sambar, (e^ " ^ ^ r-.€ v e g e t a t i o n c o v e r d u r i n g d i f f e r e n t
with various f y ' P ^ ' ^
hours of the a a v -

.
'

13

HOURS

A B

TREE 18.46*** 14.48** 18.61*** 4.66 9.81* 10.05**

SHRUB 21 . 3 7 * * * 4.7 19.87*** 0.15 4.31 4.98

HERB 4 . 59 0.66 6.45* 6.96 0.95 0.19

Values of X are based on the Kruskal-Wallis test (*P<,0.05, * * P < 0 . 0 1 ,

***P <i0 . 001)
Blackbuck

The seasonal use of the different layers of vegetation by

Blackbuck varied significantly only in the case of herb layer
(Fig 5.10). The average value in the. case of herb layer rose to
a peak (39.9%) in monsoon and declined in summer (13.91%).

The average value of Blackbuck preference for tree and

shrub cover during different hours of the day was very low
compared to that by other ungulates. This is due to the
Blackbuck particular preference for the open plain grassland
habitat almost devoid of any tree and shrub. The hourly use of
all the three layers did not vary significantly.

Nilgai

The seasonal use by Nilgai of the tree and herb layer of the
vegetation was significantly (P < 0.001) higher than that of the
shrub layer (P < 0.05). As in the case of Chital, the use of tree
and shrub layer by nilgai was maximum during summer and that of
herb layer during monsoon (Fig 5.10).

The use of tree and shrub layer showed significant variation

in different hours, whereas, that of herb layer did not vary
significantly during different hours. The maximum use of tree
and shrub was during afternoon hours while herb was used during
early mornings and evenings.

82
 FIG 5.10
Average values of (a) Chital, (b) Feral Cattle, (c) Nilgai,
(d) Sambar, (e) Wild Boar and (f) Blackbuck association with
various types of vegetation cover during different seasons.

pdiiiinwfniatBriiwnoDirti

a
§30
w
= 10
IA"IIV1|
w wifllmntmMlMjntrwiittii iii nwmwjBi 111 I >IIWWMII nmnlRBMiiMiiB ft ioim><kwiMinUiiiii 'i»fc
>
I iMUiuMfltHi Mil Mmnfimnim,

o
u
w
o ca ,
< 3 30
EH «
2 E
CJ iO
IX
H

auwjHiwwMiK^MWMBww

IU.i»lii.»iJ». .Jb«»b»-«M inilli»iii Jlip»i.a»i JCSK£:!!L

M W S M W S M W S M W S M WS M W S

SEASON

TREE 3 3.24*** 0.06 52.43*** 4.74* 0.26 0.14

SHRUB 3 3.61*** 9.16** 5.66* 10.7** 22.77*** 2.77
HERB 135.01*** 127.61*** 226.87*** 14.71*** 65.00*** 43.68***
2
Values of X are based on the Kruskal-Wallis test (*P<0.05, * * P ^ 0 01.
***P<:0.001) V, . ,

83
Feral cattle

The trend of the use of different layers of vegetation for

the Feral cattle was somewhat different from that of Chital and
Nilgai.

Feral cattle have been found more versatile in their use of

habitat for different purposes. They use trees mainly for shelter
particularly during monsoon but also from sun during summer. the
lowest layer layer of vegetation (i.e. herbs and grasses) is used
mainly as food. Tree and shrub layers are marginally used as food
and that too during the period of scarcity of other foods.

Significant seasonal variation in the use of herb and shrub

layers of vegetation had been observed but not much variation in
the use of tree layer (Fig 5.10). The apparent reason for the
higher use of shrub layer during monsoon season is the abundance
of shrubs on the saline patches arid elevated portions of the
habitat where Feral cattle spend most of the time when some parts
of the terrestrial area get flooded.

Feral cattle used tree cover mostly during afternoon which

was significant (P < 0.002) while the hourly use of shrub and
herb cover was not significant.

Wild boar

Wild boar did not show any variation in the use of tree
cover. The maximum use of shrub layer was during summer,
probably because the animal uses it as shelter against sun and is
reluctant to come out during the day unless disturbed.

84
 Table 5.9

Crown area (in m ) of tree and shrub on the

transect in different blocks

Bl ock Tree Shrub

B 513 878
C A73 708
F 141 168
G 256 204
I 430 1011
J 741 279
K 384 247
L(s) 253 112
M 753 1288
N 206 784
0 1782 1282

Table 5.10

Average crown area (in m ) of tree and shrub on a plot of

2
200 m in different habitat

Habitat Tree Shrub

WOOD 40.75 20.12

sew 66. 78 24. 1
DST 22.5 15.56
SSH 6.3 22.3
SWS 13.48 12.67
GRS 6.62 0.68
LGR 16.68 7.39
SHS 4.5 12.66
MOS 4.66 3 .83
WET 4.5 2.0 3

85
 The use of different layers m different hours of the day
did not vary much as the use of all the layers was uniform
throughout the day (Fig 5.9).

5.3.3 Correlation between the rank in the preference of different

habitat and tree and shrub crown area

Crown area

Crown area measured for tree and shrub along the transect
shows that the total crown area of tree and shrub on either side
of the transect sampled was 5932 sq.m. and 6961.5 sq. m.
respectively. The maximum crown area of tree available was
1782 sq. m. m block '0' while for shrub it was 1288 sq. m. m
block 'M'. The minimum crown area of tree was 141 sq. m. an
block 'F' while of shrub it was 112 sq. m. block L(s). The
detail is given in table 5.9.

Crown area when sampled along the intersection of the grid

of AOO m X 400 m in different habitat shows that the maximum
crown area of tree was in scrub woodland (66.78 sq. m./ plot)
followed by woodland (40.75 sq. m.) while in the case of shrub
the maximum was also in scrub woodland (24.1 sq.m.) followed by
scattered shrub (22.3 sq. m . ) . The crown area of shrub available
was lower than that of tree in all the habitats except in
scattered shrub (SSH) and shrub savannah (SHS) were the shrub
crown area exceeds the tree crown area. The reason is obvious
that in both the habitats the shrubs are dominant than the tree
as indicated by the name of habitats. The details are presented
in the table 5.10.

86
 Ranking of different habitats m the park had been done on
the basis of ungulates' preference for each (described earlier).
Now the ranks of habitat have been correlated with the crown area
(trees and shrubs) using Pearson- correlation coefficient.

No significant correlation can be made out between the crown

area of tree and rank of habitat preference except m the case of
Chital (P < 0.05) (Table 5.11). the plausible explanation of
significance of this correlation is described earlier also is
that Chital prefers to stay under the cover of trees during
extreme weather in summer and winter.

Insignificant correlation has been worked out in respect of

crown area of shrubs for all the species of ungulates except
Chital and Nilgai . This phenomenon can be attributed to the fact
that both these species partly feed on shrubs: Nilgai being a
browser as well as a grazer throughout the year while Chital
turns to partial browsing only diiring summer when grasses are
scarce .

5.3.4 Niche breadth

While there was variation in the breadth of vegetation

community use through season, generally the ungulate species ot
Keoladeo National Park appeared to expand their breadth during
monsoon and winter and contract m summer.

The availability of food resources remain restricted to only

certain parts of the park in summer, ungulates also congregate in
those parts only. The situation changes in monsoon when food
 Table 5.11

Correlation between rank of habitat prefernce and

crown area of tree and shrub covered for different ungulates

r (tree) r (shrub)

Chital 0.667^ 0.983 ***

Sambar 0.400 0.400
Blackbuck 0.500 0.500
Nilgai 0.317 0.800 **
Feral cattle 0.367 0.583
Wild boar 0.800 0.600

Significant at level P = 0.05

Significant at level P = 0.01
Significant at level P = 0.001

Table 5.12

Niche breadth of various species of ungulates based on

habitat use

Monsoon Winter Summe r

Chital 0 .322 0.384 0. 1849

J..
Sambar 0.087 0.0386
Blackbuck 0.035 0.0117 0.01625
Nilgai 0.6365 0.6127 0.37480
Feral cattle 0. 1462 0.089 0.3429
Wild boar 0.2068 0.1316 0.1186

" Seen in only one habitat

resources become avaiilable in abundance almost throughout the
park and ungulates also spread out and are seen occupying wider
areas.

Chital

The niche breadth of Chital varied from 0.1849 in summer to

0.384 in winter (Table 5.12). The narrow breadth in the former
season was due to the preference of some specific habitat (Scrub
woodland and dense to discontinuous thicket) during this season
where the availability of browse species is more. During this
season Chitals are mostly dependent on browsing.

Sambar

The niche breadth of sambar varied from 0.0386 in summer to

0.087 in monsoon. During winter the Sambar were seen only in the
aquatic area. The result shows that they are very specific in
preference of habitat.

Blackbuck

Like Sambar, Blackbuck were are also specific in the habitat

preference. During all the three season the niche breadth was
narrow. It varied from 0.011 in winter to 0.03 in monsoon (Table
5.12). They mostly prefer low grassland area.

Nilgai

The niche breadth of Nilgai varied from 0.374 in summer to

0.636 in monsoon. The narrow breadth in the former season was

89
due to the preference for scrub woodland and dense to
discontinuous thickets where tree and shrub species are
sufficiently available providing both cover as well as food.
But in other seasons animals were seen uniformly distributed in
almost all the habitats.

Feral cattle

The niche breadth of Feral cattle varied from 0.089 in

winter to 0.3429 m the summer. The narrow value during the
winter was due to the preference of only low grassland habitat
though animals were seen in other habit but less m number.
While during summer the value were wider than other season
because during this season Feral cattle were seen m dried up
wetlands area, savannah woodland to scattered tree and shrub
besides low grassland.

Wild boar

The niche breadth of Wild boar varied from 0.11 m summer

to 0.20 m monsoon. The values m all the seasons are narrower
because Wild boar mainly preferred SCW and DST.

5.3.5 Similarity in the habitat utilization of various ungulates

So far, the differences in habitat utilization by different

ungulate species have been described and highlighted. But some
similarities have been observed and these have been described
below.

90
 FIG 5.11

SIHILARITY IN THE HABITAT UTILIZATION OF UNGULATES

Distance letric is 1-Pearson Correlation Coefficient

Single Linkage Method (Nearest Neighbour)

TREE DIAGRAM

0.000 DISTANCES 1.000

SAHBAR
0.979
NILGAI
0.400
HILOBOAR
F.CATTLE
0.081
BLACKBUCK
0.146
CHITAL

MONSOON

LOGO 2.000
SAM8AR
1.105
F.CATTLE
0.014
BLACKBUa
0.396
NILGAI
0.218
CHITAL
0.463
WILD BOAR
yiNTER

0.000 2.000
WILD BOAR - 0.042
CHITAL - 0.257
NILGAI 0.526
F.CATTLE 0.613
BLACKBUCK 1.177
SAM8AR
SUNMER

91
 Similarity in the habitat utilization by ungulates at
Keoladeo National Park was worked for different seasons.

Similarity during monsoon

Similarity in the habitat utilization during monsoon was

seen between Blackbuck and Feral cattle. Chital was also closely
associated with Feral cattle and Blackbuck but the association
with the former was significantly higher (P < 0.01) than with the
latter (P < 0.05). Although Nilgai occupied the same guild with
Wild boar the correlation was not significant. Sambar formed a
totally distinct guild in habitat utilization showing no
similarity with other ungulates (Fig 5.11).

Similarity during winter

Four separate guild were distinguished during winter. Feral

cattle and Blackbuck formed a single guild while Nilgai and
Chital formed a different guiId. Whereas, Wild boar and Sambar
each formed a separate guild (Fig 5.11).

Similarity during summer

The similarity between habitat utilization by Chital and

Wild boar was significantly (P < 0.001) higher (Fig 5.11).
During summer most of the Chital moved towards the scrub woodland
and dense to discontinuous thicket in search of forage. The
availability of shrub, the main browse of Chital was abundant in
this area. This area as mentioned earlier was the favoured
habitat for Wild boar and hence both these species were found
toge ther.

92
 The similarity in habitat utilization by Nilgai with other
ungulates is corroborated in Fig 5.11. As in other seasons,
Sambar formed a distinct guild in the habitat utilization showing
no similarity with other ungulates. Chital and Wild boar too did
not showed any similarity with Feral cattle and Blackbuck.

5.4 Discussion

The vegetation provides food, water, shade and cover. Of

these the first is the most important. These features of
vegetation vary in time and space, and the importance of each
factor varies for different species, and even between individuals
of one species. Jarman and Sinclair (1979) found that physical
attributes of vegetation affect the habitat use of Impala in
Serengeti. Glutton et al, (1982) reported the pronounced annual,
seasonal and individual difference in the use of different plant
communities by Red Deer Cervus elapbus. Similar phenomena were
observed on the ungulates of Keoladeo National Park. The
habitats of Keoladeo National Park were described earlier in
detail by Haque (1988), I have also reported the general habitat
use. In the present study the major habitats were further
subdivided into micro habitats.

Feral cattle, Blackbuck and Chital utilized mainly the low

grassland area during monsoon and thus similarity was distinct
between each other during this season. This is attributed to the
seasonal growth of herbs in the low grassland. Feral cattle and
Blackbuck are grazers throughout the year while Chital is a
grazer except in summer when it also browses. Berwick (1974) also
found that Chital in the dry tropical Gir forest is primarily a

93
 FIG 5.12

HABITAT PREFERENCE OF UNGULATES

t>o%

r«* ti**(*3

::::::::
eo* z
f'
/
o
M% /

V.
NS FC WB

100%

79% •
uu
f-
z
60% -

8M

CH NO FC

«>0«

79%
(£
Ul

90% 2

29%

CH NO

CSS sew • BOT

PTTI CZ] MM BO UM am MT
CH>Chltal NO«Nllaal FC-F»ral cattle
WB-Wlld boar SM>Sambar BB-Blaokbuok

94
browser during the dry season. On the other hand, Schaller (1967)
reported that m the moist semi-evergreen tropical habitat of
Kanha, Chital mostly utilizes meadows, grazing on short grasses.

During winter Chital shared the habitat with Nilgai. This

may be due to the preference of woodland habitat by the males of
both the species (Haque 1988). During summer Chital were mainly
seen in the scrub woodland and dense to discontinuous thickets
(Fig 5.12) because of the abundance of browse species on which
they mainly feed as the grasses had dried in the grasslands. The
tree and shrub cover used by Chital during summer was
comparatively higher than that in other seasons. This may be due
to the structure of the vegetation of these habitats providing
important thermal and hiding cover for the animal. This is also
reported by Loft et al. (1987) for Mule deer. An overstory
canopy assists deer in minimizing energy expenditure for
thermoregulation by creating a microclimate that buffers extreme
weather condition (Leckenby 1977, Peek et al. 1982). Understory
vegetation in Keoladeo National Park provides relief from the
weather for ungulate species that inhabit ares with dense shrub
but is more important in providing hiding cover to escape from
the stray dogs. This is also reported by Taber (1961).

Blackbuck as reported by earlier authors (Daniel 1967,

Schaller 1967, Nair 1977) prefers grassland habitat the most in
Keoladeo National Park. Brander (1923) found Blackbuck on open
grass maidan surrounded by forest in Kanha N.P. Prasad and Rao
(1984) studied the habitat preference of Blackbuck in Andhra
Pradesh and found that it mainly prefers the open plain
grasslands. According to Prater (1965) and Brander (1923),

95
Blackbuck enters open forest which contain wide expanses of grass
while Robert (1977) reported that Blackbuck avoids forest areas
but survive in semi desert region as long as there is sufficient
scattered vegetation. In Keoladeo National Park also, Blackbuck
avoided the forest and if at all they were seen in the forest it
was in the open patches, Blackbuck was seldom seen using tree or
shrub cover at any time of the year.

Some information is available on the habitat preference of

Nilgai through the work of Brander (1923) and Prater (1965). Both
of them have described that Nilgai likes more or less open grassy
hill forests sparsely covered with grass.

There appears significant similarity in habitat utilization

by Nilgai and Wild boar. This similarity has been worked out on
the whole year's basis of Nilgais' presence in the Wild boars'
habitat. The average has risen to a significant level due to
higher concentration of Nilgais' in wild boars' habitat during
late monsoon and winter season when there is significantly higher
availability of food resources there. Fresh growth of shrubs in
that habitat is far more than in other parts of the Park and this
also happens to be the rutting season of Nilgai. The distribution
of Nilgai during rest of the year is more or less same throughout
the Park.

The Nilgai in Keoladeo National Park shows a preference of

habitat more or less similar to the one described by Berwick and
Jorden (1971) and Berwick (1974) in the Gir forest. According to
them Nilgai exist equally well in the most dense and in the most
open habitats. The reason for their preference of savannah

96
woodland to scattered tree and shrub (SWS) during summer seems to
be the non-availability of grasses elsewhere during this period.
During winter a few Nilgai were observed moving out of the Park
through the openings in the boundary wall (Plate 7 and 8), and
graz^f^^ion the Triticum aestivum (wheat) and Cicer arietinum
(chana) crops in the villages around the Park. Brander (1923)
and Robert (1977) also have reported Nilgai raiding agricultural
crops. A few Nilgai were seen in the wetland during winter (Fig
5.12), feeding on the aquatic macrophytes and leaves of Acacia
nilotica (Plate 6) which has not been reported so far.

Apart from some studies by Brander (1923), Prater (1965) and

Robert (1977) little is known about the habitat preference of
Wild boar. According to Prater (1965) Wild boar inhabits forested
habitats and not in open habitats of grassland. But Brander
(1923) found that it exists both inside the forest and in the
plains, while Robert (1977) reported that Wild boar need thick
cover for shelter, particularly during the day time. A few
studies have been done outside India on the habitat preference of
Wild boar, which include the work of Baber and Coblentz (1977),
Wood and Brenneman (1980) and Griggs (1981). Wood and Brenneman
(1980) on the basis of his study on the feral hogs reported that
hogs used swamp habitat intensively in all seasons. Studies on
feral pigs show that they use different plant communities in
response to the presence of a favourite food item. The present
study in Keoladeo National Park indicates that the preferred
habitat of Wild boar is scrub woodland and dense to
discontinuous thicket which were mainly used for resting. They
used to come out from thickets only during night or when
disturbed. Very few Wild boar were seen in the aquatic area

97
during monsoon and winter season probably due to the influx of
tourists during this peak season as the species is secretive
(Singer et al. 1984). Wood and Brenneman (1980) also found that
pigs were disturbed in the marshes during summer and spring but
the reason were not explained by them.

During the present study it was observed that Wild boar,

while feeding at night on the tubers of Scirpus tuberosvs and
Cyperus rotundus uproot the sedges and grass in the marshy area
adjacent to the woodland habitat mainly during early summer
(Plate 10). Such a behaviour has also been reported by Wood and
Brenneman (1980), Griggs (1981), Singer et al. (1984), Maryse
(1986) and Baber and Coblentz (1987). Digging and uprooting of
sedges and grasses by pigs threatens the plant communities
(Bratton 1974). It may also permit invasion of exotic species
(Spatz and Muller Dambois 1975, Jacobi 1976, Griggs 1981).
Singer et al. (1984) in JwTs study on the effects of wild pig
uprooting in a deciduous forest found that there was negative
impacts on two litter dwelling vertebrates, ground vegetation
cover, and concentrations of some nutrients in leaf litter and
soil. In depth studies are called for to understand the
ecological consequences of this behaviour of wild boar and to
assess the role of the species in the concerned ecosystem.

Effects of wild pig disturbance have worldwide implication

for agricultural lands during depredation on crops (Andrezejewski
and Jezierski 1969, Mackin 1970, Robert 1977). Wild boar have
been observed going outside the Keoladeo National Park,
especially in summer, through the openings in the boundary wall
and foraging in the adjacent crop fields. The damage caused to

98
the crop has not been estimated. However, it has been reported
that damage to the crop by Wild boar is a regular phenomenon
throughout its distribution range (Chandran et al. 1977, Prasad
et al. 1978, Green 1981, and Maryse 1986).

Sambar form a separate guild and it did not show any

similarity with other ungulates in its utilization of habitat
throughout the year. Sambar were seen in the aquatic area during
most part of the year. Only during summer when the aquatic area
dried up, the animals move towards the adjacent woodland areas.
They remain there till the onset of monsoon and then moved back
to the aquatic area.

No detailed study has been done on the ecological aspects of

Feral cattle in the country. Gee (1958) reported that the Feral
cattle of Bharatpur were quite similar to that in Britain. Dang
(1959) gave some information on the distribution of feral cattle
in Western Uttar Pradesh.

Gorden (1989) working on the ungulates of Rhum in which

cattle was also one of the species, found that cattle mostly use
the grassland and showed marked seasonal preferences for
different vegetation communities.

Feral cattle at Bharatpur showed similarity with Blackbuck

in habitat utilization. This similarity was found to be higher
during monsoon and winter when the grasses are abundant
throughout the Park. But during summer, when the grasses are
scarce, cattle did not show similarity with any other ungulates..
Dunbar (1974) in his study on the wild ungulates in Ethiopia

99
found that in a community if all the species are increasing then
there is less chance of competition. Chances of competition
arises only when a species declined rapidly and simultaneously
another species is found to be increasing. The number of Feral
cattle at Keoladeo National Park had increased while the numbers
of other wild ungulates are found to be stable. From this we
cannot infer that wild ungulates compete for resource with feral
cattle because in the earlier years (before 1982) the number of
cattle was much higher (around 5000) when the grazing was
allowed inside the Park. But long-term impact on the vegetation
and indirectly on other species is not yet clear and need further
study.

Niche breadth

The measurement of niche metrics from field data is

essential for developing the theory of competition and related
problems (Mac Arthur 1972). In some instances only crude
quantitative information is needed, or a single measure for the
average niche width and overlap in the group of species studied
may be sufficient (Pielou 1972). According to Fretwell (1972) a
species should show narrowing of habitat in season of resource
restriction. Niche quantification and the concept of niche
pattern has been described by various authors (Shugart and Patten
1972, Hanski 1978 and Hurlbert 1978).

The niche breadth of most of the ungulates in Keoladeo

National Park has been observed to be wider during the monsoon
season except of Feral cattle whose niche breadth widens in
summer. The niche breadth of all the ungulate species in Keoladeo

100
National Park was observed to narrow down during the summer. The
wider breadth during the monsoon was directly attributed to the
new growth of vegetation during that season, while narrowing of
niche width in summer appeared due to the scarcity of food
resources. Similar pattern was noticed by Gorden (1989) working
on the ungulates of Rhum. He noticed that the ruminant species
in Rhum appeared to expand the spectrum of vegetation community
use in spring and autumn and contract it in winter and summer.

The conclusions drawn from the present study are more or

less the same. The only exception is the case of Feral cattle in
Keoladeo National Park. In the present study it was observed that
feral cattle, unlike other ungulates, expand their niche breadth
during summer. Apart from several other possible reasons for this
behaviour which have not been investigated by me, some of the
apparent factors are as follows:

1. Feral cattle in Keoladeo National Park are mainly grazers

and feed on grasses growing in dry areas (i.e. out of the
marshes) (Plate 9 ) . They are therefore confined to areas outside
the marshes during monsoon and winter season, where they get
enough food.

2. Larger areas of marshes dry up during summer which is

dominated by Paspalum distichum. The Feral cattle are attracted
to these areas also while simultaneously grazing over other
areas.

3. Other species of ungulates also get attracted to dried up

marshes but they do not forage in other habitats simultaneously.

101
 4. Feral cattle feed on Vetiveria zizanioides and
Desmostachya bipinnata growing in grass savannah habitat during
summer. No other species utilizes this habitat nor feeds on tall
grasses in that habitat.

Gorden (1989) also reported from his study that as the

abundance of live material on the short grassland communities
decline, cattle left the short grassland and moves toward the
tall grassland communities,

5.5 Summary

1) The present study shows that the six species of ungulates of

Keoladeo National Park show differences in the use of
habitat. The Chital and Nilgai mainly prefer low grassland,
scrub woodland, dense to discontinuous thickets and
savannah woodland to scattered tree savannah. The Feral
cattle prefers low grassland and savannah woodland to
scattered tree savannah. On the other hand Sambar,
Blackbuck and Wild boar prefer wet land, grassland and dense
to discontinuous thickets respectively.

2) Insignificant correlation has been seen between the crown

area of tree and habitat preference by all ungulates
species except Chital. No significant correlation could be
made out between the crown area of shrub and habitat
preference by all ungulate species, except Chital and Nilgai.

3) The use of tree and shrub cover by all the ungulates was
maximum during afternoon hours. The use of herbs' layer< was
maximum during early mornings and late evenings.

102
4) The niche breadth of most of the ungulates in Keoladeo
National Park has been observed to widen during the monsoon
season except of Feral cattle whose niche breadth widens in
summer. The niche breadth of all the ungulate species
(except Feral cattle) in Keoladeo National Park was observed
to narrow down during summer.

5) Similarity in the habitat utilization between Feral

cattle and Blackbuck was noticed during monsoon and winter
seasons. Chital was found to be closely associated with
Feral cattle and Blackbuck in both the seasons while Nilgai
was closer to these species only during winter. Wild boar
showed similarity only with Chital during summer. Sambar
forms a totally distinct guild in the habitat
utilization.

103
 6. TIME BUDGET AND ACTIVITY PATTERN

6.1 Introduction

Time spent on various activities of ungulates in general is

under the influence of environmental factors, particularly
temperature and food. Unless there are other ecological reasons,
animals tend to be active when the difference between their body
temperature and atmospheric temperature is minimum. It may
therefpre be expected that ungulates ( and for that matter all
warm-blooded animals) will be m the open during the warmer part
of the day in winter and during the tolerable part of the day
(early m the morning and late in the evening or throughout the
night) during summer, to escape the heat.

However, there may be other over-ridmg factors such as

human disturbance, which may force the animals to modify their
schedule. Distribution and availability of food which usually
varies in different seasons also has a profound influence on the
activity schedule. The animal has to spend much less time m
feeding when food is abundantly and conveniently available while
It has to spend much more time on feeding when food is scarce and
is inconveniently available because it has to spend considerable
time on searching and reaching the food.

Interaction between all these intrinsic and extrinsic

factors determines the animals' activity schedules.

104
 Daily activity pattern of ungulates is influenced by
environmental factors and vary between species, reflecting a
compromise to a number of factors that act simultaneously on the
animals (Leuthold 1977). The effective management of wild animal
population depends on a thorough knowledge of how each species
interacts with its environment. One of the most useful methods
for describing this relationship is to quantify the activity
pattern shown in different areas and season (Norton 1981).

The activity patterns of many of the larger African

ungulates are well-known through the work of Clough and Hassam
(1970), Jarman and Jarman (1973), Mitchell (1977),Leuthold and
Leuthold (1978), Irby (1981) and Sahar and Fairall (1987).
Considerable studies have also been done on the Indian ungulates
(Schaller 1967, Abies 1974, Nair 1976, Mungall 1978, Gadgil 1980,
Sheffield et al. 1983, Prasad 1985, Green 1985 and Chattopadhya
and Bhattacharya 1986).

The activity patterns of all the wild ungulates of Keoladeo

National Park, except Wild boar have been studied. The wild boar
could not be studied because it does not permit regular and
proper observation due to its secretive nature.

6.2 Methodology

The activity patterns were studied between July 1988 and

June 1989. The method suggested by Altman (1974) were used for
quantifying the daily activity of ungulates.

105
 Data was collected by direct observation of free ranging
animals through a pair of 8 x 30 binoculars. Individual activity
was recorded for only daylight hours from dawn to dusk. During
each observation period, the main activities of each individuals
in a herd or group were observed and noted at 10 minutes'
intervals. The time spent by individuals in each activity was
recorded for five minutes each time m between the intervals,
using focal sampling method. The data collected from the scanning
method was used to know the activity pattern of the animal while
that of focal sampling for the time budget. The activity
(feeding and resting) pattern was worked out by comparing the two
sets of data.

Activities were classified as feeding, resting, standing,

and others (running, display, defecation etc,). Most of the
continuous observations lasted for 10-12 hours, although on a few
occasions continuous activity records were obtained only for 5-6
hours. While observing the behaviour an activity wasr considered
only when the time spent in that activity exceeded 30 seconds
before change over to the next activity. The average time spent
by the animals in each hour of daylight was calculated separately
for summer, winter, and monsoon and expressed in terms of
pe rcentage.

The correlation between total time spent in each activity

and atmospheric temperature was determined using a Kendal
correlation co-efficient. The seasonal differences for all the
season combinations for each activity were calculated by Mann-
Whitney 'U' test.

106
6.3 Results

6.3.1 Chital

Time budget

There were distinct peak hours for feeding during monsoon

with a maximum of 56.6% between 6-7 hours and again 52 % between
17-18 hours. During the rest of the daylight hours feeding time
ranged between 12% to 28%.

During winter feeding was infrequent in the early hours.

However, it increased to 39% between 8 and 9 hours and 34%
between 13 and 14 hours and, again a peak was discernible at t^e
17 hours (57%) .

The feeding time during summer was found to reach its peak
only in the early morning from 6 to 7 hours and late evening from
17 to 18 hours (Fig 6.1).

The correlation between feeding and temperature shows a

negative relationship during all the three seasons. But it was
significant only during summer (P < 0.05). Although Mann-Whitney
test showed no significant differences between the feeding
activity in different seasons, average values for feeding were
maximum for monsoon (Table 6.1 ).

Resting activity was observed to touch the peak at different

times of the day in different seasons. In the monsoon the peak
was between 12 and 13 hours while in the winter it was between

107
 FIG 6.1

TIME BUDGET OF CHITAL

MONSOON WINTER SUMMER

w
Pi
40 D
„i«<«ir-'"'"''""'""""''«*i«»ii.^ ,,.„u..l 1""'"""- "•I*",,,,,
EH
30 U f^H-HlW"''^'*' . ^ r "lufrf"'"
..»"H"'r l H * "
w
20 ,,.«.<t»l'"'"''™""""™l**"ma|««i„

'"'»...^,u,n.""""'
^^m,!-"'"
s
10 t w
EH

80
60 h
40
20
: tn inttuuiiiiiniiuiniiRic iHnii
iiiiiminiiinniiRiciHiiiiiKimHi uuninu iimHiiiintiKttutuiit itiitriinjffi inniiri

9 12

HOURS

108
 FIG 6.2
ACTIVITY PATTERN OF CHITAL

100%

70*

00%
8
CO
z
28%
o

100%

70%-
CO
UJ
00%
Z

M%

100%

70%

cr
ui
«o%
5
CO
to%

« 7 • 0 1 0 t 1 1 > 1 9 1 4 « 1 0 1 7 1 «
HOURS
BB PiKDMS ESS icsTMB CHI aiMitmra BB oifitM

109
6 and 7 hours and then between 12 and 13 hours. During summer the
animals were observed spending most of the time lying except
early in the mornings and late in the evenings, with a peak time
from 11 to 15 hours.

Resting showed a positive correlation with the atmospheric

temperature. However, this correlation appears significant only
during summer (P < 0.01). The time spent for resting differed
between monsoon and summer (P < 0.05).

The standing activity was found to be maximum during monsoon

season while other activities classified as "others' was maximum
during monsoon. A negative correlation exists between time spent
for standing and temperature during monsoon and summer, but it
was significant only during the latter season (P < 0.05)
(Table 6.2). The time spent for standing during monsoon differed
with that of winter; maximum time was spent during winter.

Activity pattern

Feeding

Most of the Chital during monsoon (July-October) were found

to be feeding in the day time except a brief spell around noon
when less than 30% individuals were seen to be active. The
feeding activity reached its peaks once in the morning from
6 to 8 hours and again in the evening from 16 to 18 hours
(Fig 6.2).

110
 FIG 6.3
THE FEEWNQ PATTERN OF CHITAL BY FOCAL
AND SCANNING METHODS DURING
DIFFERENT MONTHS
FOCAL SCANNING

50
0

50
0 r""^***'^ssss**'*^MP**=***^^^ MAY ^<(mis^^^^'^^^imm^^^^^^'*^^^^^ !°

50 : 50
^ ^ ^ ^ " ^ ^ ^ A P R
0 - 0

5 0 »*!'»'
0 "
"
""
^^M MAR 60
20

50 50
FEB
'^^^?>,..-*^»^^^^'^^^^'*uai£^ 0
0
^...-.I-.^-^...,..^.,^,,- I ,„
50 JAN 50
0
^lSi^v^^«^.*«««^?'^^ ; |,j;g^^^|!!»w*»''->^^«; **«i3i^''
0

50 50
£^^^3$^ DEC ;,^jl5!^^5555=5br.*-^^
0 0
40
50
,..-*«^^—.^"^^^^^^ NOV 20
0

50 50
OCT iSiiiSi'^^
0 ;*^^5^*'.^-«.*i^^^=^**''^'^^ ),,SI^5!!?;55?:?^«^^^
0

50 50
SEP
30
0
~+~-—• HI I
50 AUG 50
f^^^^0,f/^:;u.d,;;i&2^
0 0
1 1 1 (-
50 JUL 60
0 k ^H^'*^"*^?'''' '. o!^^m^^ 40
20
]
12 15 12 15

HOURS

111
 FIG 6.4
THE RESTING PATTERN OF CHITAL BY FOCAL
AND SCANNING METHODS DURING
DIFFERENT MONTHS
FOCAL SCANNING

50
JUN
0

MAY 50
0

• APR 100
0
•i •xr-i—::=—«•
MAR 50

50
FEB
0

50
JAN
0
- J . —

DEC
0

50
NOV
0

50
• OCT
0
50
SEP
0

100
AUG
0

50
JUL "
itflfSfn'V*
5«^^fe?3J«J3^S,g^j^
0

12 15
HOURS

112
 The more or less similar pattern was seen during winter.
The only difference was that the peak of the activity was from
7 to 9 hours and again from 16 to 17 hours. This late peak in
the morning and early peak m the evening in winter when compared
to that during monsoon has been found to be directly related to
the sunrise and sunset time.

The feeding activity in the summer was seen mostly from

6 to 7 hours and again from 18 to 19 hours. During noon less
than 15% of the individuals were seen feeding during summer.

Resting

During monsoon Chital were seen mostly resting during the

noon hours. After 8 hours the resting period gradually increased
from 25% and it reached its peak (65%) at 12-13 hours and again
It gradually declined towards the evening hours.

During winter at 6 hours most of the Chital were seen resting

under the trees because of severe cold. Only after the
temperature increased they come out for feeding. The resting
period gradually increased from 9 hours and reached to its peak
at around 12 noon and then gradually declined (Fig 6.2).

In the case of summer season only 30% Chital were seen

resting in early hours of the day. The resting activity
gradually increased from 8 hours when more than 50% Chital were
seen resting and it reached its peak at 11-12 hours when around
80% animals were seen resting and then it gradually declined.
Maximum time was observed spent on resting during summer season,
at the cost of other activities.

113
 Table 6.1

The average tame spent in percentage by various ungulates foi

different activities during different seasons

P'eedmg Resting Standing Others

Monsoon 33.04 26.51 38.40 1.85

rhital Winter 25.51 49.12 21.36 4.10
Summer 26.89 45.23 25.53 2.22

Monsoon 31.74 47.59 19.10 1.55

Sambar Winter 24.89 56.98 16.49 1.58
Summer 22.62 66.15 8.58 2.75

Monsoon 29.67 40.58 26.06 3.66

Blackbuck Winter 29.34 45.78 21.95 2.88
Summer 26.22 45.53 24.82 3.35

Monsoon 34.49 30.85 32.45 2.20

Ni Igai Winter 30.48 44.29 22.60 2.62
Summer 25.38 46.36 25.61 2.64

Monsoon 35.4 29.83 32.62 2.4

Feral cattle Winter 25.84 45.75 25.22 3.35
Summei 33.50 40.61 22,72 3.14

114
 Apart from the feeding and resting activity pattern, the
animals were mostly found standing. Other activities, not
separately classified, occupied negligible time.

The pattern obtained by focal and scanning methods, for

feeding and resting activities of Chltal, showed the similar
trend for all the months (Fig 6.3 and 6.4).

6.3.2 Sambar

Time budget

The study on activity pattern and time budget of Sambar was

carried out only for 10 months. Data for May and June was not
collected because with the onset of monsoon the animals move to
terrestrial area where thick growth of bushes does not permit
proper observation. The data for summer were therefore averaged
for only two months.

There were three distinct peaks for feeding during all the
three seasons; between 6 and 8 hours, 12 and 14 hours and
17 and 18 hours. The average percentage was maximum during
monsoon (32%) (Table 6.1).

Correlation between feeding and temperature was not

significant, although it was negative during monsoon and winter
(Table 6.2). There was no significant seasonal variation.

The average resting activity was maximum during summer

(66%). During all the seasons the animals were seen lying on the

115
 FIG 6.6

TIME BUDGET OF SAMBAR

MONSOON WINTER SUMMER

40 D
E^
30 _„,„,»w--«
„..«.IJ '""'•"'~'''"'~'l..k..,„ W
20 \ irt-'-"'"
u,fl"-"'
ft
V **^'
w
:o I EH

80
60
40
20

80 -
W 60
<
B 40
"20
w
ft
80
60
40
20

80
60
40
20

116
 FIG 6.6
ACTIVITY PATTERN OF SAMBAR
100%

70*

eo%
8
CO
z
o
it*

«o%

T9%

cc
IJJ
00%

>»%

100%

T9*
CC

eo%

i$* -

r « « l o i t « « i 4 « « f r
HOURS
m nioma ESS l a n w * CZ3 C M O M M B
117
mounds in the aquatic area. The peak resting activity was
between 9 and 12 hours and again between 15 and 17 hours during
monsoon and summer while there was a slight change in the peak
during winter when it was between 9 and 11 and 13 and 16 hours

(Fig 6.5).

Activity pattern

Feeding

During monsoon around 70% Sambar were seen feeding from

6 to 7 hours and 40% from 13 to 15 hours. The feeding activity
appeared to slow down from 15 hours and start again after
18 hours. It continued till the observation period came to an end.

Feeding activity was observed to start later in the winter

season, around 7 hours and its evening peak to reach about an
hour earlier than in monsoon.

The summer schedule was found to be different from that of

other seasons, partly because the observation period got
prolonged with the day length and partly because of the presence
of grass cutters who are allowed only in summer. Most of the
animals were seen feeding during the early hours of the day and
between 13 and 15 hours (Fig 6.6). Few animals were found feeding
in the evening due to the disturbance grass cutters.

Resting

During monsoon most of the Sambar were seen resting between

8 and 12 hours and between 15 and 17 hours. The resting

118
 FIG 6.7
THE FEEDING PATTERN OF SAMBAR BY FOCAL
AND SCANNING METHODS DURING
DIFFERENT MONTHS
FOCAL SCANNING

irttiniiMiiDiinBtninianMniM iiiMU iii»i>'lii>iiiM<iiiiiuniMUiiiuiiti>UUiiuaifl )rtiimiiiiti>niiiimiii

uituiiiuuufiiujuniaimiuiumiwiitiuttuttwtLiuwiutiiuiuuuiiHiuuutMiuMuiawiiiiuimuuuimiimiu lUUUHHUUIUIItUI

50
APR ,^««!i!Ji77»'J"'F>., 0

50
MAR ^^^^yM^PM^.^^^,.
.MUkkJM'.di.icXiiidiu.iiuriiiiiiii"' 0

.,.ll.„ iBuiUMIIMttimWIllll iiiuHiiiiHiminuim

50
FEB y^'X
'^•'•t.^^rflZHi:-*'"" 0

+, 50

ti£i£i££\ .y^^K^ms^ '. JAN

''«H(iiinHrbiiKiHtiirii<rii
^^^'9T?7yJ9:i>'>r>^^^^^,p^^
0

50
W^J??^-^y,mm^M^'^ DEC
0
,„j,„ ii u I u< u 111 in II • I HHt nnm HttHiim 111

50
l " ''^'"'^4iZ^yyJ^''^^>y,^ NOV
"^Vlktmanmiw' ^initmiRumrfliiBunituwiiituuiiuii 0
1 5-.
5 0 L, J?J??Z?1W .Jt''f7>7>nn. OCT 50

0
iiiunnmiumtuuutuuinuuuiutiJLuuiiuumiuiuuunuHuuimiimtifiiuiniuimuuDutiimtiiuHmnim fiiutmituuitiiiuiuniiiutiiriiiituiu

||»lHll»l'"<'llUj„
50
SEP 0
"'"riiiHii^Xi 111©*'

50
AUG
0

•"Htfj-,,.

''^^^'"'^^^^^'^m^^^'''''^^^ : JUL
50

0
uimiuimmiunuiiimiiniiiMiiHiiiiintiitMtmiHiiii

12 15

HOURS

119
 FIQ 6.8
THE RESTING PATTERN OF SAMBAR BY FOCAL
AND SCANNING METHODS DURING
DIFFERENT MONTHS
FOCAL SCANNING
•••" " 1

iiiuiuiuuiiniiiiiiiniiitmiuiii MmnHiiMiiuiiiin iiuimuuiiiiiniiiiiiminiiii

4Riiiuuuiiuti(itiurMWiirtuiuiiuiiii8iiiuiuuiHiiiiiuuiuituui

100
APR
0

100
MAR
,.««iKl 0
UIIHIIIIIiruiHIIIIIItimilUIMKIUIUtl

100
FEB
miiumiiiiiii' .,...SS^i«fe^....«^^^^^ 0
•IIUW UIM UMUIIUI UUIUIUIltUOU iiiiuiitiiiuiuiiiirmiiiuiiiiiMiiiiiiiiBuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuuiiimuuiuiuiiuiiiiini I i i i i u i t i i i K i i i i n i i i i II

100
JAN laiiiSiPSK*-.—.-*««»Slllliiffll'*'!,.,,
U IlltUll IIIM Nil t i t " " " "
0
™j — ( — 1 - . —
tiP
100 100
0 DEC
0
11 lit 111 I tMi I mi lu 111 ui iiiit u 11H imi tU 111 It III1 111 111 III >i in III lilt imuii utiHi 11M tui I mi 11 III IIM1111

100 100
NOV ,,*5»»S|S»!W.,
0 _„,^si5^!e^ 0

100 I 100
«"' ^|.|S^7AK «'*^* OCT
0 .ultmUd*"*^ •""^•"•^SffiMffl&f-'*" ««JsSsSiSis?ilSiSifefe^^^ rfii^siSiii^i^iillSiiJito, 0
lui itntuui •niituiiiiiniiiiiniiiitiiitifl biiiinnnimiimiiitHrniiniiiitiiiiiiniiiiTnuiiiiiitMimiutitiiiitiminitiiiAuuiiii11luiiiiiiuinu 11

100 I 100
SEP
i,.iiii':ii'ilS»'*Ji'»!|ii»!!i»^ 0
•II";miuiH»uiiiiiiiiitiiiimiiiiiiin»iiiiUiiiutiuiiiiuiiniiiiiuiiiuimiiiiiuiiit
100 100
AUG
0 0
*,

r -*5»SSS?ft»» ^liJaiiii. jfi&am. iJ U L 100

0 „^^,i^mi^^Pii^^.^-^^^^-^-^H^'''^'^'^^''- ] 0
U.n. A iNmitniiiniH immiititauunniiiitiif nmrtimiiittflmti illlllltlllllllllUll

12 15 9 12 15
HOURS

120
activity gradually increased from 8 hours and reached its peak
from 10 to 12 hours when more than 80% Sambar were seen resting.
Then again from 12 hours it declined through 15 hours when less
than 50% Sambar were seen resting. Again after 15 hours it
gradually increased and reached to its peak at 16 hours when more
than 90% Sambar were seen resting (Fig 6.6).

During winter season the pattern of resting activity was more

or less similar like of monsoon. Whereas, the resting activity
during summer was different from other season. Most of the
Sambar during summer were seen resting throughout the days except
in the early hour from 6 to 8 hours and in afternoon from
13 to 14 hours when less than 50% were seen resting. In the
late evening most of them were seen resting.

Apart from the feeding and resting activity pattern, the

animals were mostly found standing. Others activities, not
separately classified occupied negligible time.

The pattern obtained by focal and scanning methods, for

feeding and resting activities of Sambar, showed the similar
trend throughout the years (Fig 6.7 and 6.8).

6.3,3 Blackbuck

Time budget

In all the three seasons there was a distinct peak of

feeding activity between 6 and 7 hours and 17 and 18 hours.
During monsoon the peak was noticed also between 12 and 13 hours.

121
 FIG 6.9

TIME BUDGET OF BLACKBUCK

MONSOON WINTER SUMMER

,jll.„«.».|ii"l""""''"'«nm„.,„„ D
,..1"''"''"
^..un-^""'""

\J ^••rf»'iiiiili'l"""""ti'ttl„„„ w
ft

f
...r--"

itiii>iiii(iiii>iiuuiuiuiiu)uiiiiuiit»ittiiiiituiiiiniiiiiiiniimiiiiiitiititiii»ituiiuiiiciiiiiiniiiiu iKitMiiKiniimuiiiMiiiiriitiiiuniHtMtiuiiHiii

80'
en
60 «
w
40 EH

20 o
„.„
^!J;»^«°SmllalS»tews£:S:Ell___.J^V•mllC^ ,iumC'J«!:!l(;.'l!'»~3l!."li:;i:iwsiuuiiuwiiwui>i»iwumiliM!:.'!L"^^^^^^^^ .....2;:ic.,2aMi(ii.ibu.,..™iiit«iinmM™immue';:":;r:s^^^^
80 o
w fin H
c'; Q
40
S EH
W rl"J \ \ j'" ""'•""l.»„j,..-U| ,^1
20 '^!w-»'^'
,B.r""'\
/ "'^--. '"•-" V.,.,-^" \^ •"••' \ / " % , , . . ' ' '"""'

Pi
w
Oi
80

v^
O
60
,/"' H
40 / 'ii^....
\„
/ w
20 /
ry ^ : iriuiimuuiitiimHHtimHtutiiHiiiiuuiiiuiiimiuiitiiiiiiiuiHitiHHiiiiiiiiininiiirairiiit

80
z
60 M
40 :x.. Q
W
W
20 ' •1.,
" ^ i ^^K"'
""' V H ^ ^''I/^ / "•(•••••Mt^ I
^'^""•"'"Uiiimiuiiiii.fl'*'''
,^\/""'
uiuiuiiittkUiiuiiiuuiijiuiiiiiuiuHiita tBl]UU>IIII)IMJMlllWUW)Il)flMltm]t}lUUUt)IIJ]fJli)l]tl}NllllllUUUUUNIUUllJI*ll IIWll()UUIUJl«IIUUmtlUJU)ltUU»»uJlM]l»tHlllll) lUUI IWIWUlMlU WUWHUlUJIJtlUIIII

12 15 12 12 15
HOURS

122
 FIG 6.10

ACTIVITY PATTERN OF BLACKBUCK

10O»

T9* •

00«
8
z
o
i9% 2

100%

i
I I
TB* -

00%

i
20%
^^
i
0%
7 S 0 1 O 1 1 1 2 1 3 M « « t 7
HOURS

100%

78% -

ao%

20%

• r 9 • i o t i t t i S H i o i o i r w
HOURS
BBi KEDMO GSa iKSTwa O sniuwm BB OTxtm

123
The average percentage of time spent on feeding was equal during
monsoon and winter seasons (Table 6.1). The correlation between
the time spent for feeding and atmospheric temperature was not
significant (Table 6.2).

Resting period was brief (19%) in the early hours during

monsoon, and it increased to 58% between 9 and 11 hours and
between lA and 16 hours it was 49%. During winter the maximum
resting was between 11 and 13 hours (64%) while during summer it
was between 11 and 12 (75%) (Fig 6.9 ). There was no significant
correlation between resting and temperature.

'Standing' reached the peak in the morning and evening

hours in all the seasons. There was no significant correlation
between atmospheric temperature and standing as well as other
activities. No significant seasonal variation was observed in
respect of other activities as well.

Activity pattern

Feeding

'Feeding', during monsoon season reached its peak thrice in

a day; first from 6 to 7 hours with around 50% animals found busy
in grazing. The activity picked up again and reached its peak
around 11-12 hours when 30% to 40% animals were observed feeding.
Finally, feeding touched the third peak from 17 to 18 hours with
more than 65% animals were seen busy in grazing.

124
 FIG 6.11
THE FEEDING PATTERN OF BLACKBUCK BY
FOCAL AND SCANNING METHODS DURING
DIFFERENT MONTHS
FOCAL SCANNING

50
50 -^y4
0 JUN
- ^
50
0
"^^^Sirfge^ff^^-^^^^r ^^AY r-^^j^^m^^^^:^^:^''-'iuc-"^- 50
0

^^j;mi^r.,L;L>-<^'^''] I'
•8 0
—(
50 50

0 0

50
0
H™ "• HI-
50
JAN
0
I
I 1 — 1 _ <. 1 4 i
50
0
Jj^^,_-..-,«,'4gr^^^ DtC
^yf??J;^' '•''•'5'''" - " - " -^*«Hr<<f'- ///.I:J2./U.^^ . '^
50 J*.

50 50
NOV
0
]_^,.,,,,,j2!js^t!>s^^ ;
0
—t 1-
50
V'f<MS>> ^-- 0
" • * • • ' -•-•"--'I 60

'/A'cyyyyyy/y/yyyyyyy'.yA ,•
0
100
^ .^ ^-v, 4\
.,,,^^,^/^y.^^y/yyyy^/y''/',:'''/'''y.'>//.', " / i en

•v_w,-*< '^',:\ 1 30
^
9 12 15

HOURS

125
 FIG 6.12
THE RESTING PATTERN OF BLACKBUCK BY
FOCAL AND SCANNING METHODS DURING
DIFFERENT MONTHS
FOCAL SCANNING

50
r L^^^^mK^m^.^MJ jm H?i5rmiM,«lS%s*...,^ 0

100 .,
iSSfe 1 MAY
0 ,,<iii!^l!Mrmzii^MMtM!?!S'M,....rt^^<
^„..™„
100 100
APR
0 ri!Wt!J.fcJ 0

100
,+ , 1 —
rrt ...rH^ A i "^^ I- 1^ ilOO
0 mO

100 150
0 L,..^^!^^^XM}>^»am 0

100 JAN -ii 00

.,.™.itfiM!i!S^ffifefc,,««Sg«^;j**^ *5»sS?5ft«*'Mflil^^^*'^lPl*^>*. i0

• DEC
i«!i«J!JW<».-ft'e

NOV 50
0 |**»t»«w'»'5<wJiS^^ C
5 5 ,
100 OCT
0 iS.'felSTS*^^

SEP

100
AUG
0
1 J 1
100

0 . ~ « C ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ * ^ _ - * « ^ ^ V . ^"^

12 15
HOURS

!?'•
 During winter the peak was noticed In the early morning;
7-9 hours and again between 16 and 17 hours when more than 50%
Blackbuck were seen feeding. No peak was noticed during the noon
hours in winter season.

In summer more than 50% animals were seen grazing between

6 and 7 hours and then the number gradually decreased and the
second peak was noticed again from 18 to 19 hours when more than
55% Blackbuck were seen feeding.

Resting

The resting activity during monsoon gradually increased

from 8 to 9 hours when more than 40% Blackbuck were seen resting.
It reaches to its peak from 12 to 14 hours when more than 60%
animals were resting and then it gradually declined when less
than 30% Blackbuck were seen resting (Fig 6.10).

During winter the resting activity gradually started from

9 hours when 50 to 60% Blackbuck were seen resting. It reached
its peak from 11 to 14 hours when more than 75% Blackbuck were
seen lying and then it gradually declines.

During summer the resting activity started increasing from

8 hours when 40-50% Blackbuck were seen resting. It reached its
peak from 10 to 14 hours, when more than 75% animal were lying
and then it gradually started declining when only 35-45% animals
were seen involved in resting activity.

127
 Table 6.2

The correlation coefficient (r) between the temperature

and different activities of various ungulates
during different seasons

Feeding Resting Standing Others

Monsoon -0.462 0.454 -0.154 0.104

Chital Winter -0.039 0.282 0.116 0.013
Summer -0.538* 0.667** -0.590* -0.327

Monsoon -0.142 0.196 -0.051 0.068

Sambar Winter -0.327 0.205 -0.179 -0.185
Summer 0.039 -0.053 -0.211 0.086

Monsoon -0.128 0.410 -0.026 0.026

Blackbuck Winter 0.039 0.408 0.247 0.078
Summer 0.039 0.408 0.247 0.078

Monsoon -0.256 0.297 -0.282 0.312

Nilgai Winter 0.039 0.194 0.348 0.207
Summer -0.436 0.426 -0.513 * -0.137

Monsoon -0.385 0.588 -0.051 -0.065

Feral cattle Winter -0.065 0.196 -0.142 -0.107
Summer -0.385 0.410 -0.359 -0.092

* = Significant at level P = 0.05

** = Significant at level P = 0.01

128
 The pattern obtained by both focal and scanning methods, for
feeding and resting activities of Blackbuck, were similar for all
the months (Fig 6.11 and 6.12).

6.3.4 Nilgai

Time budget

In monsoon the peak for the feeding was from 6 to 7 hours

(52%) and again between 16 and 18 hours (61%). A similar
pattern was observed also during summer. But in winter,
considerable less time was spent in the feeding during early
hours. The correlation co-efficient between feeding and
atmospheric temperature was not significant (Table 6.2).

Resting showed a definite peak between 11 and 12 hours

during monsoon (70%) and winter (65%) (Fig 6.13). However
during winter a higher peak was also noticed in the early hours
which may be due to the mist and low temperature. During summer
except in early morning and late evening all the time animals
were seen lying. The peak was noticed between 10-14 hours.
There was no significant correlation between temperature and
resting .

Standing and other activities showed the peak In morning and

evening hours during monsoon and summer while during winter no
peak was noticed in any daylight hours. A negative correlation
exists between time spent for standing and atmospheric
temperature was negatively correlated (P < 0.05).

129
 FIG 6.13

TIME BUDGET OF NILGAI

MONSOON WINTER SUMMER

40
-«*•**"jjjwa)«w|tt«ll~^ "*
30 ""'•limdiwC*''
„,j~*irf" •mMir>t<inii|„M """^H.
^^ptfHHfff'*'
#1-*^

20 pr»t-"'""

10 W
EH

HOURS

130
 FIQ 6.14
ACTIVITY PATTERN OF NILGAI
100%

79* •

00*
z
o
u%

100%

70*

111
SO*

2B*

wo*

78*
CC
UJ
00*

CO
at%

• 7 6 9 1 0 t 1 t t 1 3 1 4 « i e i r i «
HOURS
Ba KEMto OS KSTMQ C3 siMiOMa SS9B omcm

131
Activity pattern

Feeding

During monsoon 50% to 60% Nilgai were seen feeding during

early hours (6-8) with a gradual decline in feeding activity
towards noon. Feeding activity was observed to pick up again and
reach its peak between 16 and 18 hours (60% animals).

During winter also there were two distinct peaks; one in the
morning from 7 to 9 hours when around 40% to 50% animals were
seen feeding and the other peak was noticed from 15 to 17 hours
when more than 55% Nilgai were seen feeding (Fig 6.14).

During summer, Nilgai were seen feeding only in the early

hours of the day and late in the evenings when more than 65%
animals were seen feeding.

Resting

During monsoon the resting activity of Nilgai gradually

increases from 9 hours and reached its peak from 11 to 13 hours
when more than 65% animals were seen resting and from 14 hours
it gradually declines.

During winter between 6 and 7 hours more than 30% Nilgai

were seen resting and then it gradually declines and once again
it gradually increased from 10 hours and reached its peak from
11 to 13 hours when more than 70% animals were seen resting
(Fig 6.14).

132
 FIG 6.16
THE FEEDING PATTERN OF NILGAI BY FOCAL
AND SCANNING METHODS DURING
DIFFERENT MONTHS

FOCAL SCANNING

50 J80

JUN
!
0 ^40
_i m— —-"I--•"--—~~i|i———-—~j — . — 1
50 50
0 0

50 50
0
0
) J (
50 50
0 0
- • - — " - •— - I -
50
+••
-•——i 50
FEB
0 t:^-^..^x"^^N^i^^ : "4li^V ^^M^.^---^ ^<<ii^'^^
0
. ...<» I •-
50
=0 yl^i^^'^^-^H'^^^is*^**^^^
i^ j '^AN ^jll^^^..,.^^^^,^—-"^v^^--
0

50 DEC •jr?'"' 50
0
.•^^>v-r4^^i^" !
i 0
I
•1
50 ' -150
_ y!J^;^'^!i^*H^^,;jj^'-^<ia/'^ NOV

, { ^

too . OCT ,..^' 50

,^;!955!5iW'''««r»«^^^ ^^^^|?^?5%>^.,..,^j^^^.^r^i^j^^^ J ^

yyA<,«''«'.i*'^
50
0
SEP
''W'^^mmM^^''"'" •I 0
50

50 50
0
-•^^^^SJ*^!^^-'^^ AUG •^"""^mM 30
10
50 ,<••?•'*?>«„ ...—•'•'"» 50
JUL
0 ^;*,.^'^«^^--^-*^'
0

12 15 12 15

HOURS

133
 RQ 6.16
THE RESTING PATTERN OF NILGAI BY FOCAL
AND SCANNING METHODS DURING
DIFFERENT MONTHS
FOCAL

MAY

APR 100

1. + 5 ^

••t-

FEB
^:
*^J^f^^;^*i??^. »>f. J0
•4- ••™™——i

JAN
'iC"' 50

DEC
].

NOV

OCT

SEP

AUG

JUL

12 15

HOURS

134
 During summer Nilgai mostly started taking rest from 9 hours
when 40% animals were seem resting. The resting activity of
Nilgai during summer reaches its peak from 11 to 13 hours when
more than 90% animals were seen resting.

The pattern obtained by focal and scanning methods, for

feeding and resting activities of Nilgai, were similar for all
the months (Fig 6.15 and 6.16).

6.3.5 Feral cat tie

Time budget

The data collected during the observation period indicates

that Feral cattle spent maximum time on feeding during monsoon
(Table 6.1). Feeding activities of the Feral cattle showed two
peaks; one between 6 and 9 hours (55%) and the other from
17 to 18 hours (46%) during monsoon. The pattern was almost the
same during winter and summer, although the total time observed
to be spend on feeding varied seasonally (Fig 6.17). There does
not appear any significant correlation between feeding activity
and temperature variations in different seasons.

Resting activity was less during early hours and late

evening in all the seasons. The correlation between resting and
temperature was not significant. No variation was noticed for
resting activity when compared among season.

The average percentage of activity standing was noticed more

during monsoon than other season. During this season owing to

135
 FIG 6.17

TIME BUDGET OF FERAL CATTLE

MONSOON WINTER SUMMER

w
40
,,^„„r-»'""""""l-- « m,u.., EH
aimf"'"—tontMw^,

30
,.,,,,l-"''""""'l™""-'Wi„__„.,.ll'"'

20 IIBI>IIII^'
......H""'""

10

Luhrj J iiiutiHjiuuiuniuaitiiiwiiiiuiuuiiiiniitiiiuiuilii iHitiinimiitii uDiiii 111 tiiH/tiiniiuiiniituttiuiimm i

9 12 15 12 15
HOURS

136
 FIG 6.18
ACTIVITY PATTERN OF FERAL CATTLE

100%

ro*
CC
Hi
00% h-
Z

»e«

100%

79%

00%

29*

• 7 • • l O l l t t l S M W W t Z M
HOURS

137
the presence of water in most of the areas animals did not prefer
to rest or lie in the slushy mud. Both the activities standing
and 'others', did not show any correlation with temperature. The
time spent for standing showed a significant variation (P < 0.05)
between monsoon and summer.

Activity pattern

Feeding

During monsoon more than 60% Feral cattle were seen feeding
from 6 to 8 hours. The next peak of feeding activity was noticed
again from 17 to 18 hours when 50-60% Feral cattle were seen
feeding.

During winter two distinctive peaks of feeding activity of

Feral cattle was noticed; One from 7 to 8 hours when more than
50% animals were seen feeding, and the next from 16 to 18 hours,
when more than 55% animals were seen feeding.

During summer around 75% Feral cattle were seen feeding

during early hours (6-7) and then their number gradually
declined. The second peak was noticed from 17 to 18 hours when
more than 60% animals were seen feeding (Fig 6.18).

Resting

The resting activity of Feral cattle during monsoon started

increasing from 10 hours and reaches its peak at 12-14 hours when
more than 65% animals were seen resting and then from 15 hours
it gradually decreased.

138
 FIQ 6.19
THE FEEDING PATTERN OF FERAL CATTLE BY
FOCAL AND SCANNING METHODS DURING
DIFFERENT MONTHS
FOCAL SCANNING
60
40
20
JUN '<^^^m^
'^:^i^^J^-'i0^Jifi^''''^^^^-^-^ 50
0
60
50
40
MAY 0
20
Kf : ^ ^
80
40
'^«Siip«S^'~^'~'
'm^ 5° 0
^i^&mmt t „•,,,,, J
60
MAR 40
20
" - — 1 - ~ — . . i.---r . .... J-..

JJi:^>z^^m>A FEB

50
JAM
0
m. 1 1
50
DEC
0 ^^?w««f^J;j5!Pr^;^&!»-^;S^^^

50
NOV
0 ^.^i^'ZfZ'ZK!^}^

60 •rr^yy,^^
40 ""^iSite'V- OCT
20
80
40 A. • SEP
^^(m^^'^'^^k.
60
40
20 .^AMj^^m
rrV!^.
AUG

JUL

12 15
HOURS

139
 FIG 6.20
THE RESTING PATTERN OF FERAL CATTLE BY
FOCAL AND SCANNING METHODS DURING
DIFFERENT MONTHS

FOCAL SCANNING
 During winter the resting activity gradually increased from
9 hours and reaches its peak from 11 to 13 hours when more than
70% animals were seen resting.

In summer the resting activity started from 8 hours and

reaches its peak at 10 hours when more than 65% animals were
seen resting. This peak lasted till 15 hours and then it
gradually declines (Fig 6.18).

The pattern obtained by focal and scanning methods, for

feeding and resting activities of Feral cattle, did not show thr^
similar trend for all the months (Fig 6.19 and 6.20). This may
be due to large number of individuals in a group.

6.4 Discussion

During the present study comprehensive data on feeding

rates, food - searching time and quantification of food ingested
could not be collected because sufficient distance had to be
maintained between the animals and the observer not to disturb
their behaviour. One of the major shortcomings of this method
was that no data could be collected for the activities performed
during the night time. Occasional observations during ^Ji-e moon-
li«-h-t / showed that most of the ungulate species were inactive at
night except during summer when some animals were seen grazing.
Hence, in the discussion it is assumed that night time feeding
did not affect the pattern shown by day time observation.

141
 Though there are some interspecific differences in activity
patterns and time budget, some broad generalization may be made.
Ungulates in Keoladeo National Park feed most actively in the
early hours of the day and then towards the evening and are
comparatively inactive during noon and night. This general
schedule continues throughout the year with slight variations in
different seasons. Any deviation from this general pattern has
its peculiar ecological reasons, which have been explained
wherever necessary. Observations on Chital in Keoladeo National
Park lead to more or less the same conclusions as drawn by Graff
and Nichols (1966), Schaller (1967) and Abies (1974).

Behavioural studies on Sambar in different habitats indicate

that this species is highly adaptable. Prater (1965) and Schaller
(1967) found that Sambar in the Indian habitat is nocturnal
while Richardson (1972) found it in Texas habitat to be diurnal,
most active during afternoon and early evening. The present study
in Keoladeo National Park however shows Sambar is diurnal and
remains active from dawn to dusk with slight variations in three
seasons.

It appears that Sambar switches over to nocturnal behaviour

in habitats with human disturbance during day. In Keoladeo
National Park where large number of tourists come in the day time
particularly in winter, Sambar does not seem to be too much
concerned with human disturbances partly because the habitats it
uses in Keoladeo National Park are sufficiently distanced from
the tourists zone and may be also because it has developed
tolerance towards human beings after constant and regular
exposure.

142
 The author of this report estimated that Blackbuck spends
30% time on grazing (whole year's average) while Abies (1974)
estimated it to be 40%. Prasad (1985) arrived at the figure of
30% to 40%. These differences are not significant and may be
attributed to differences in methodology and habitat.

Schaller (1967) and Abies (1974) observed Blackbuck resting

under the shade of trees when temperature rises. In the present
study the animal was only occasionally seen resting under the
trees to escape heat and similar observations have been reported
by Prasad and Rao (1985).

Prasad (1985) found that Blackbuck spends more time on

feeding in summer and he•attributed it to the animals preference
for fresh foliage which is scarce in summer. The present study in
Keoladeo National Park indicates that there is no seasonal
variation in time spent on feeding by Blackbuck. This difference
may be due to the differences in habitats where the two studies
were conducted.

Activity pattern of Nilgai according to the present study is

similar to that reported by Sheffield (1983) and Dmerstein
(1979). The only difference between the findings of the present
study and that of Sheffield et al. (1983) is that I did not
observe any feeding activity after sunset while Sheffield et
ai.(1983) did. This may be because observations during this study
were not continued after sunset.

143
 In general, all the ungulates spent on an average 25-35% day
time for feeding. The larger ungulates spent more time than the
smaller ones. Owen Smith (1982) showed that in ungulates there
is a general decrease in feeding time with decreasing body size.
A similar observation was reported by Fairall (198'7) who found
that Wildebeest spent around 25-30% time in feeding while it was
45% in Hartebeest.

Most of the species at Keoladeo National Park frequently

fed during light rains showing no concern other than to rid the
body off water as reported by Abies (1974) and Richardson
(1972).

The trend in shade seeking behaviour and diurnal activity

pattern can be related to factors causing heat stress and are
more specifically defined as temperature and solar radiation. The
lack of correlation of activities with temperature in the
afternoon in most of the species suggests that incident solar
radiation is more important controlling factor and that once
this has declined the animal come out of shade and recommence
feeding (Mitchel 1977). Hofmeyr(1981) found that use of shade by
Wildebeest was more than the Hartebeest because of thin pelage in
the former species while in the latter it has a thick pelage
which has a lower absorbance value. This can explain the more
frequent use of shade during resting by all ungulates except in
Blackbuck which was seen resting in the open areas during mid day.

144
6.5 Summary

1) Significant variation in the time budget were noticed in

the five species studied.

2) Time spent for feeding by each species is positively

proportional to the body size.

3) Time spent on foraging in all the seasons is influenced by

availability of food.

4) Though according to the present study there are some

interspecific differences in activity pattern, some broad
generalizations ca be made; ungulates m the Keoladeo
National Park most actively feed in the early hours of the
day and then towards the evening and are comparatively
inactive during noon and night. This general schedule
continues throughout the year with slight variations in
different seasons.

5) The pattern obtained by focal and scanning methods, for

feeding and resting activities of all the ungulates except
Feral cattle, showed the similar trend for all the months.

145
 7. FOOD AND FEEDING HABITS

7.1 Introduction

Studies on food and feeding habits of all wildlife species

are of paramount importance for proper management. Animals, well
nourished throughout their lives grow normally and are more
vigorous and healthy than those with poor nutrition during part
or all of their lives. Animals in good health generally have
higher rates of reproduction and are more resistant to many types
of mortality. On the other hand, animals with retarded growth and
in poor health, as a result of malnutrition are prone to various
forms of ailments and epidemics. Nutrition affects birth and
mortality rates and thus plays an important role in dynamics of
managed populations.

Carnivores being opportunistic feeders, generally do not

exhibit marked food preferences. But herbivores which exist on
crude foods with mainly carbohydrates and low proteins and other
nutrients exhibit strong preferences for certain high quality
foods.

Nutritional problems of wild herbivores are usually due to

lack of foods of adequate quality. Animals may be malnourished or
starving in a habitat where, superficially, food appears to be
adequate because vegetation is available. However, a wildlife
biologist familiar with wildlife species and its nutrition must
recognize that preferred foods are absent and that animals

146
are subsisting on unpalatable and poorly digestible foods
(Bailey 1984).

According to Herry et al. (1982), the knowledge of food

habits is essential for efficient range management. This
Information is required for optimal forage allocation to
different types of herbivores, selecting types of grazing animals
compatible with the range resources, selecting plant species for
reseeding deteriorated ranges.

Quite a few studies have been done on the food habit of

ungulates in various parts of the world. Most relevant and
noteworthy of these studies are by Field (1968) who worked on the
food habits of Buffalo, the waterbuck, Kobus defassa and Hippo,
the warthog, Phacochoerus aethiopicus at Uganda. Drawe (1968),
Chamrad et al. (1978) and John et al. (1980) on the food habits
of White tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus in Texas. Rodger
(1976) on the seasonal diet preferences of Impala Aepyceros
melampus in South East Tanzania. Kessler (1981) on the food
habits of Pronghorn Antilocapra americana in Montana; Pellow
(1984) worked on the feeding ecology of Giraffe Giraffa
camelopardalis tippelskirchi-. Thill (1984) studied on the food
habits of cattle and tame White tailed deer Odocoileus
virginianus; Attwell and Bhika (1985) on the feeding ecology of
Impala Aepyceros melampus in lake Kariba. Coppock et al. (1986)
worked on the livestock feeding ecology at Kenya. Jackson and
Glullettl (1988) on the food habits of Pampas deer Ozotoceros
bezoarticiJf) in Argentina.

147
 Few studies have been done on the food habits of Indian
species which include the work of Schaller (1967) who worked on
Chital Axis axis, Sambar Cervvs unicolor, Barasingha Cervus
duvauceli and Gaur Bos gaurus. Berwick (1974) on Chital Axis
axis, Sambar Cervus unicolor and Nilgai Boselaphus tragocamelus.
Green (1985) worked on Himalayan Musk deer Moschus chrysogaster.
Goyal et al, (1986) and Chattopadhya and Bhattacharya (1986) on
Blackbuck Antilope cervicapra.

7.2 Methodology

Several methods have been employed by various workers to

determine the food and feeding habits of free-living herbivores.
(Anthony and Smith 1974, Michael et al. 1983, Gordon 1989). Each
of these methods has its own limitations, advantages and
disadvantages in a given situation. Keeping in view the
feasibility and the objectives of the present study, following
methods have been used.

(a) Direct observations, (with and without field glasses) of

animals feeding freely in the field and recording the relative
consumption of different plant species or their parts, as was
done by Pellow (1984) .

(b) Microscopic examination of materials obtained from the

droppings collected in the field as described by Stewart (1967).
This method being very elaborate and complex, however, needs a
detailed description.

148
 Although this method has got. its advantages and
disadvantages (Dearden 1975, Michael et al. 1983), it is widely
used in analysing the food habits of herbivores (Crooker et al.
1959, Adams et al. 1962, Stewart 1967, Zyzmar and Urness 1969,
Satakopan 1972, Voth and Black 1973, Anthony and Smith 1974,
Scott and Dahl 1980, Gillet al. 1983 and Johnson 1983).

Microhistological method was employed during the present

study because it was found to be the best one feasible under the
circumstances and also because it gives a fairly reliable idea
about qualitative and quantitative aspects of food of each
species. But it suffers from certain disadvantages; the location
of feeding cannot be known. some food items may remain
unidentified and food habits differences between sexes and age
groups cannot be found.

Preparation of reference material

The method followed by Scott and Dahl (1980) was adopted in

this study because of the less complexity in the preparation of
the reference material and the processing of fecal material.

Two chemical solutions were used in making slides:

(1) Hertwigs solution: It is a cleaning agent consisting of

270 gm chloral hydrate crystals, 10 ml of IN Hcl and 60 ml
glycerin. The glycerin and Hcl are mixed and then
chloral hydrate crystals are added. The mixture is warmed
over a spirit lamp until all the crystals of chloral hydrate
y4^ dissolved.

0^

149
(2) Hoyers solution: It is a mounting medium containing 200 gm
chloral hydrate, 50 ml water, 20 ml glycerin and 30 gm
photo-purified gum arabic. First, glycerin is mixed
with water and then chloral hydrate is added and the mixture
is warmed until the crystals dissolve. The gum arabic is
added to the solution which was then placed in a dark place
until the gum was completely dissolved. This could take as
long as a week.

Sample plants commonly used by ungulates were collected and

soaked overnight in 95% ethanol to remove the pigments. The
leaves were then blended in the mixture with hot water and dried.
It was then stored in air tight tubes.

A small amount of blended material was spread over the

slide. Three to four drops of Hertwlgs solution were put on the
material and the slides were held above a spirit burner for quick
evaporation of the soJution. When most (not all) of the solution
evaporated, Hoyers solution was added and mixed with the material
with the help of a needle. The cover slip was placed over it.
Diagnostic characteristics of the reference materials were noted.
A key to the identification of selected food plants is described
in Appendix IX.

Collection and processing of faecal material for analysis

A small amount of dried blended sample was taken and slides

were made following the same procedure, as was used for the
preparation of reference slides. Slides were examined under

150
microscope and analysed using the hit method (Middleton and Valk
1987, Sridharan 1988) and the percentage frequency of food items
for different months was calculated.

Browse productivity and utilization

Production and utilization of browse species were studied

only by very few ( e.g. Shaffer 1963, Stickney 1966, Lyon 1968,
Fitzgerald 1973, Ferguson and Michael 1977, Andrew et al. 1981,
Grigal and Moody 1980). In India apart from the study on the
productivity and utilization of browse species at Gir (Berwick
1974) no other serious work has yet been reported.

For determining the annual growth of unbrowsed twigs,

following method was used.

Ten twigs; five fully grown and five still growing (termed
by Berwick as 'current' and 'new' twigs respectively) were
studied on each of the forty bushes under study. The length of
each current twigs was measured and labeled with a metal tag and
left intact on the bush. The new twigs were clipped (entire
length) then measured and brought to the laboratory. The current
twigs were remeasured on the bushes after a season of use to find
out browse utilization.

The clipped twigs were weighed after being dried in an oven

and the dry weight per unit length was calculated. The total
number of new twigs on a bush was estimated by sampling through
50 cms X 50 cms quadrate; five such sampling were done on each

151
bush and then multiplying the average number by the total area of
the bush. Maximum height of each bush taken into consideration
for these estimates was 2.5 m because this is the maximum height
that can be reached by any animal under study.

Chemical analysis of major food plants

Major grasses and browse plants were clipped during the

monsoon, winter and summer of 1988-89. They were analysed for
protein, ether extract and calorific value.

Protein Protein was estimated by using Phenol-reagent

method (Oser 1979) .

Ether extract: Ether extract was estimated following Allen et al.

(1974) .
Calorific value : Calorific value was estimated by bomb
calorimeter.

Statistical analyses

The following statistical analyses were done using mainly

statistical packages.

(a) Niche breadth: Niche breadth in terms of food plant (plant

eaten by ungulate species) for each month
were calculated by the following formula.

152
 Niche breadth = B - 1/ £ Pi
B - 1
Bn = (Lewins 1968)
N - 1

(b) Food diversity Food diversity was calculated using

Hill diversity index

Nl = e HI
where, H 1 is Shanons' index
(Ludwing and Reynolds 1988)

(c) Mann-Whitney 'U' test The yearly comparison of the food of

each ungulate was done by using
Mann-Whitney 'U' test (Sokal and
Rohlf 1969)

(d) Cluster analysis The food similarity in the food

preference by different ungulates
was calculated by using Sokal and
Michener (1958) method.

(d) Pearson correlation Correlation between the abundance

co-efficient of different food species and the
percentage of plant fragments
present in the droppings was
calculated with the help of Pearson
correlation co-efficient (r) value
(Dawine and Heath 1970).

153
7.3 ResuIts

7.3.1 Direct observation

Direct observation was made for each species along the

transects laid through various habitats of the park. The
transects were traversed four to five times in a month at
different hours of the day. The total number of animals feeding
on a particular plant species were recorded and tabulated
(Table 7.1).

CHITAL

Out of 2193 observations made on chital, 503 times the

animals were found feeding; 67.6% animals were seen grazing and
32.4% were seen browsing (Table 7.2). Among the grass species
Chital preferred mostly Cynodon dactylon and Sporobolus spp.
while Acacia nilotica and Capparis sepiaria were found to be the
most commonly browsed species.

SAMBAR

A total of 126 observations were made on Sambar, 27 times

the animals were found feeding. Grazing constituted 77.7% while
browsing 22.2%. Paspalum distichum was highly preferred by
Sambar. Among the browse species like Chital, Sambar also
preferred Acacia nilotica.

154
 Table 7.1

Major food of ungulates in percentage by direct observations

Chltal Sambar Blackbuck Nilgai F.cattle W.boar

A.nilotica 4.49 13.39 0.00 12.66 0.61 0.00

B.roxburghii 0.32 0.00 0.00 3.45 0.00 0.00
C.decidua 1 .(J5 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.07 0.00
C, sepiaria 5. 52 0.00 0.00 4.80 0.76 0.00
C.dactylon 21 .Ik 7.09 35 .59 7.67 17.18 6.52
Cyperus spp. 6.86 7.09 7.47 1.09 3.95 38.26
D.bipinnata 3 .23 0.00 3.20 13.04 16.50 0.00
D. annulaturn 6.S4 1.57 17.08 7.23 11.42 0.00
Echinocloa spp., 3.78 0.00 2.85 1 .25 3.86 7.39
Eragrostis spp. 2.13 0.00 0.71 0.90 1 .56 0.00
Isolema laxum 0. 16 0.00 4.27 0.3 2 0.10 0.00
P.disticum 5 .28 48.03 14.95 29.67 20.28 1 .30
Paspaldium spp. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 1 .05 0.43
P. Julif lora 2.76 0.00 0.00 3.71 0.05 3.91
Scirpus spp. 0.95 3 . 15 1 .07 0.77 3.44 34.78
S.persica 1 .42 0.00 0.00 2.88 0.85 0.00
Sporobolus spp. 18.99 12.60 11.39 3 .01 9. 18 0.43
I', zizanioides 2.36 0.00 1 .42 3.20 7.74 0.00
Z.mauritiana 3 .70 0 .00 0.00 2.43 0.12 6.96
Misc . 2.13 7 .09 0.00 1 .66 1 .27 0.00

155
 Table 7.2

Feeding fiabi ts of ung u 1 a I;eH

Total No.oi No.of obser- Percentage Percentage

Species observations vation on of animals of animals
feeding grazing browsing

Chital 2193 503 67.6 32.4

Sambar 126 27 77.77 22.22
Blackbuck 270 113 100.00 0
NiIgai 1295 407 51.36 48.64
Feral cattle 6932 1325 96.08 3.92
Wild boar .195 41 100.00 0

Total 10111 2416

156
BLACKBUCK

Out of 270 observations made on Blackbuck, 113 times they

were seen grazing. No animal was seen browsing. The maximum
number of Blackbuck was seen feeding on Cynodon dactylon
followed by Dicanthium annulatumy Paspalum distichum and
Sporobolus sp.

NILGAI

Altogether 1295 observations were made on Nilgai, out of

which 407 were on feeding. Out of this, during the observation
51.36% animals were seen grazing and 48.64% while browsing. The
most preferred food of Nilgai among grass species was Paspalum
distichum followed by Desmostachya bipinnata, Cynodon dactylon
and Dicanthium annula turn. Among browse species Acacia nilotica
was most preferred followed by Capparis sepiaria and Balanites
roxburghii.

FERAL CATTLE

Altogether 6023 observations were made on Feral cattle out

of which 1325 were on feeding. 96.08% was grazing while only
3.92% browsing. The maximum number of Feral cattle fed on
Paspalum distichum and Cynodon dactylon which was followed by
Desmostachya bipinnata and Dicanthium annulatum. A few Feral
cattle browsed on Acacia nilotica and Capparis sepiaria during
the summer of 1987 which was the drought year.

157
WILD BOAR

Out of 195 observations made on Wild boar only 41

animals were seen grazing. They were never seen browsing, The
most preferred food of Wild boar was the tubers of Cyperus spp.
and Scirpus spp. (Table 7.1).

7.3.2 Plant material in faeces

Epidermal l;vag,ment& were classifi«d into woody species

(including shrubs and trees), grasses, herbs, aquatic macrophyte
and agricultural crops. Samples of agricultural crop were
collected from the nearby villages for preparation of reference
slides.

CHITAL

The droppings collected during 1987-88 contained fragments

of 33 plant species while the 1988-89 collection had fragments of
35 plant species. Out of these 11 were browse species, 17 were
grasses, 6 were herbs and one aquatic macrophyte (Appendix I ) . No
significant variation in the food preference of Chital was
observed from 1987-88 to 1988-89.

Woody plants

Epidermal fragments of the leaves of trees and shrubs were

domina/tetT in the faeces (31-33%) during summer between March and
June but their levels were lowest (2%) during monsoon between
July and October. During winter it varied from 13% to 21%

158
 FIG 7.1
FOOD PREFERENCE OF CHITAL
PERCENTAQE
120

MON WIN SUM MON WIN SUM

1987-88 1988-69
WOOOY 8P8 ^ 3 GRASSES CD HERBS AQ. PLANTS
ESL UNIDENTIFIED

FIG 7.2
NICHE BREADTH OF CHITAL
BASED ON FOOD PLANTS
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2 -

Q Q i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1

JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN

1987-88 -+- 1988-89

159
(Fig 7.1). The higher frequency of parts of woody species during
summer suggests that lot of animals depend on browse species when
grasses are scarce. The most preferred species among the browse
seems to be Acacia nilotica and Capparis sepiaria.

Grasses

Grasses were eaten all the year round (Fig 7.1), even in
summer, when grasses are scarce. The proportion of grasses in the
faeces during summer was 59-60% which increased to 85-86% during
monsoon. The preference for grass species all round the year is
due to their abundance. Maximum amounts of Cynodon dactylon and
Sporobolus sp. were found in the droppings during both the
years. The former was slightly more during 1987-88 while the
later was slightly more during 1988-89.

Herbs

Herbs constituted 1-6% of faecal fragments. In both the

years, the highest frequency was in the monsoon. During the
summer of 1987-88 no fragments of herbs could be found in the
faeces. Cyanotis sp. and Commelina sp. were proportionately
higher as compared to other herbs.

Aquatic macrophytes

Epidermal fragments of aquatic macrophyte were rarely

present in the faeces.

160
 FIQ 7.3

DIET RICHNESS AND DIVERSITY OF CHITAL

.u^ ,...••"11

20
*ir"'

15
,i|.ri"«\,„,.r"'''"'
,iH.;::;><
•""""l!!-..^'""
V A
A I X IS
12 rv / \
10

V "^J
/
mt'""

ftft-
^^

1^

..r."^'

CO

H
Pi
..^H"-

,.< 3
6ft
V9 ftl"

rei
Niche breadth

The niche breadth calculated in terms of food varied from

0.33 in September to 0.64 in May during 1987-8& while it was
slightly higher during 1988-89 which varied from 0.4 in July to
0.73 in May (Fig 7.2). In both the years the niche breadth was
wider during summer as Chital also feed on some of the browse
species. Niche breadth did not vary in between two years.

Food diversity

Food diversity of Chital did not vary in between the two

years. During 1987-88 the maximum diversity was noticed in
August (13.1) while least was in October (6.96), whereas during
1988-89 the maximum was in May (19.59) and minimum in March
(6.77) (Fig 7.3).

SAMBAR

Fragments of 29 species of plants were recorded from the

droppings of Sambar during both the years, 1987-88 and 1988-89.
This includes 6 browse species, 13 grass species, one herb and 9
aquatic macrophytes (Appendix II). The food of Sambar did not
vary between the two years.

Woody plants

Woody plants in the faeces were maximum during summer

(26.31%) and minimum in monsoon (12%) during 1987-88 , whereas
the minimum (10%) in winter of 1988-89 (Fig 7.4). During summer

162
 FIG 7.4
FOOD PREFERENCE OF SAMBAR
PERCENTAGE
120

100

WIN MON WIN SUM

1987-88 1988-89
WOOOV 8PS S ^ 0RAS8E8 CD HERBS VM AQ. PLANTS
ESS UNIDENTIFIED

FIG 7.6
NICHE BREADTH OF SAMBAR
BASED ON FOOD PLANTS
0.8

o_o'—' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' •• '
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN

1087-88 -+- 1088-89

163
when the wetland gets dried up the animals move towards the
terrestrial area whero they feed on browse species along with the
etass species. The major woody species eaten were Acaci.i
miotics and Capp.iris sepiaria.

Grasses

In 1987-88 during monsoon and winter the grass species were

dominant (62-67%) while these were very low in summer (49.45%),
whereas during 1988-89 the maximum was in winter (70%) while
during monsoon and summer it did not differ much (54-57%). The
major grass species seem to be preferred by Sambar was Paspalum
distichum followed by Scirpus sp. in 1987-88 and Cyperus sp. in
1988-89.

Aquatic macrophytes

During 1987-88 the proportion of macrophyte was almost

constant in all the seasons, varying from 14-16%. But in 1988-89
It increased progressively from 9% to 25% from summer to monsoon.
The proportion was small during the former year because of the
non-availability of macrophyte after the drought while in the
latter year it was preferred which may be due to the high protein
and caloric value. This is supported by evidence presented in
the next section. Among the aquatic macrophytes the most
preferred ones appear to be Ipomoea sp. and Hydrilla sp.

Herbs

No herb fragments were seen in the faeces of Sambar except

in the winter of 1987 when it was seen in a very low proportion.

164
 FIQ 7.6

DIET RICHNESS AND DIVERSITY OF SAMBAR

ill*-'''
en
,„„.--»'"
f\. CO
W
K
./ O
20 M
11 «
"^
/ \ / ,.*'""" „,,,.'»"I
,.|i "^ ,,,, I''"' •'I,,
,||..ir"" ,„,i»H"' ''V H
10 ^^.H l""'^
.,,111 •' "ill,
C/3
,.,H.r"'"" \
.^"' V,..
,T.r"*""
12 >

10 /Vv' 11
I,!!""
,*•'"'
H
Q

ii I"" ^
8
\
„,,*•

l9 a^'

/ V \ jifi""
14 ,, .;:-:;:><;:
iljiif'
H"» , . . . H " " '
,.uir'
'V
12

*••"•'
\ "f .H'l"'
,M
\o " ,,.. "": 3
•K, ' C, „
3 . 1 - ^ ^

165
Niche breadth

The niche breadth of Sambar based on the diet did not vary
much in between the two years. During 1987-88 the niche breadth
varied from 0.38 in January to 0.68 in April while during 1988-89
it ranged from 0.33 in February to 0.73 in April (Fig 7 . H) . The
niche breadth was higher during monsoon because of the abundance
of food in aquatic areas where very few other ungulates grazed.

Food diversity

The food diversity of Sambar differed significantly (P<0.05)

in between the years. During 1987-88 it ranged from 9.06 in May
to 13.17 in August while during 1988-89 it varied from 7.43 in
September to 13.89 in May (Fig 7.6).

BLACKBUCK

Fragments of 15 plant species (Appendix III) were identified

in the faeces of blackbuck and all of them happened to be of
grass species (Fig 7.7). Out of these grasses Cynodon dactylon
was the most common species in the epidermal fragments in both
the years. The next preferred food was Sporobolus sp. followed
by Dicanthium annulatuw and Paspalum distichum. The same trend
was noticed in both the years.

Niche breadth

The niche breadth of Blackbuck based on the variety of food

item consumed varied significantly (P <. 0.05) in between the two

166
 FIG 1.1
FOOD PREFERENCE OF BLACKBUCK
PERCENTAGE
120

WIN SUM
1988-89
UNIDENTIFIED

FIG 7.8
NICHE BREADTH OF BLACKBUCK
BASED ON FOOD PLANTS
1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2 H

0.0 J I 1.. _t 1 1 L. _.. - 1 I L.

JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN

—- 1987-88 — 1 - 1988-80

167
 FIQ 7.9

DIET RICHNESS AND DIVERSITY 01" BLACKBUCK

...r"""
en
„ 1-"'^
„H'"""
'\ W

V o
,^n-
«
12
f\ /' „ ^'KH '" / \ r EH
H

I' /
,,Jll'
/ »'"^ -i--"'" ' L/ '''
v/
^"•.„.
/ >
'V. / \. M
Q
\ ii' ^ / „, I "
•• , 1^ "'^Z «H..'
i /' Jitfj""'""'" VV

^ A.
3 .%,.^-'^'

,.fi""'''
CO

w
w
14
f / \ ,. \m u

10 <><; H

,"••'"
cn
6 .„>••'" j t,". , " " ' " ' " ! •'11,
.,

'Xr; >
k:
..Hi'l"^'

y
X H
Q
\. 7 \.:»
\x^ ,,,*. •"" ^
\ „ •*""" ^

, ^i-'^" ^ ^

168
years. During 1987-88 it varied from 0.35 in September to 0.73
in June while during 1988-89 it ranged from 0.39 in April to 0,78
in March (Fig 7.8). The breadth during the year 1987-88 was
narrower than 1988-89 was due to the preference of only few
species like Cynodon dactylon and Sporobolus sp. while m the
year 1988-89 besides Cynodon dactylon and Sporobolus sp.,
Dicanthium annulatum and Paspalum dist ichum were present in the
diet of Blackbuck.

Food diversity

The food diversity of Blackbuck did not vary much in between

the two year. It Vc|.ried from 5.06 jn June to 8.66 in August,
1987-88 while it did so from 5.6 in December to 9.47 in April,
1988-89 (Fig 7.9).

NILGAI

Fragments of 40 plant species were identified through the

analysis of droppings of Nilgai. This includes 9 browse,
17 grass, six herbs, two aquatic macrophytes and six agricultural
crops (Appendix I V ) . There was no significant variation in the
preference of food of Nilgai between the two years.

Woody plants

Epidermal fragments of the leaves of trees and shrubs were

comparatively mure during winter and summer of 1987-88 than in
1988-89. In the former year it varied from 31-35% , whereas in
the latter year it varied from 24-25% (Fig 7.10). The most

169
 FIG 7.10
FOOD PREFERENCE OF NILGAI
PERCENTAGE
120

WIN WIN SUM

1087-88 1988-89
1 ^ WOODY 8P8 ESSS GRASSES EZ3 HERBS Mil AQ. PLANTS
MQ AQRi.cnops 1MB UNIDENTIFIED

FIG 7.11
NICHE BREADTH OF NILGAI
BASED ON FOOD PLANTS

g Q I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 ;

JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN

1987-88 1088-89
170
preferred species among the browse seem to be Acacia nilotica and
Capparis sepiaria.

Grasses

The Nilgai fed on grass all through the year. The

proportion of grass in the faeces Increased from 48-60% in summer
to 64-68% in monsoon. Cynodon dactyjon, Sporobo1 us sp. and
Paspalum distichum appear to be the preferred species of the
food of Nilgai.

Herbs

Herbs constituted 2-6% of faecal fragments. In both the

years the highest was noticed in the monsoon. Cyanotis sp. and
Trianthema sp. were proportionately higher than other herbs.

Aquatic macrophyt«8

Aquatic macrophytes did not excef'd more than 3% of epidermal

fragments. Compared to 1987-88, the samples of 1988-89 had a
large proportion of aquatic macrophytes. The most preferred
among them appears to be Ipomoea aquatica,

Agricultural crops

Fragments of agricultural crops were seen in all the seasons

during both the years, although in negligible quantities. During
1987-88 the maximum was noticed in Summer (8%). whereas in
1988-89 it was in monsoon ( 6 % ) . During monsoon Sorghum vulgarf

171
 FIG 7.12

DIET RICHNESS AND DIVEF^SITY OF NILGAI

,.-^

J'tf'"*

, r'""''"
20

15 M' IE
iir,^,,.-*""'
HiJI""

.• / 'v
15
\A/ ,1 ''

\ 1°
,r-'':' \i
.ft^
"""3 ^ ^9^^

-1
„..'"'•'"'• en
w
""" /"I
u
20 .^"

EH
15 .. H

„.T"
„i r"'''" \x:\ , W
,H-*'
/ >
15 H
••Sii"- Q

172
(Jowar) and Pennisetuw typhoides (Bajra) were seen m the food of
Nilgai while during winter only Brassica campest ris (Mustard) and
during summer Cicer arietinum (Ghana) and Pisum sativum (Matar)
were recorded.

Niche breadth

The niche breadth based on food items of Nilgai varied

significantly (P <. 0.05) between two years. During 1987-88 it
varied from 0.34 in November to 0.77 in February while during
1988-89 from 0,53 in November to 0.75 in June (Fig 7.11). In both
the years the niche breadth was wider during summer as the animal
were seen browsing besides grazing. Fragments of a wider variety
of plant {Acacia nilotica, Capparis sepiaria, Capparis decidua,
Prosopis Jtili flora, Acacia pods) were found in the droppings
collected during summer than of those collected in other seasons
which contained only Acacia nilotica and Capparis sepiaria.

Food diversity

The food diversity of nilgai did not vary between the years.
During 1987-88 it varied from 9.88 in June to 18.41 m August
while during 1988-89 it ranged from <)./(} in October to 18.72 in
March (Fig 7.12).

FERAL CATTLE

Fragments of 31 species of plants were identified m the

dungs of Feral cattle during 1987-87 while it was comparatively
low (21 species) during 1988-89 (Appendix V ) . During the former

173
 FIG 7.13
FOOD PREFERENCE OF FERAL CATTLE
PERCENTAGE
120

MON WIN SUM MON WIN SUM

1987-88 1988-89
WOOC3Y 8P8 0RA88ES CZ3 HERBS AQ. PLANTS
EUD UNIDENTIFIED

FIG 7.14
NICHE BREADTH OF FERAL CATTLE
BASED ON FOOD PLANTS
0.8

0.6
-K.,
~-K
•+*-'

0.4

0.2

0.0 -I 1 L. _l I I I J I I l_
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN

1987-88 -+- 1988-89

174
year it comprises five woody, 17 grass, sevfiii herbs, and two
aquatic macrophytes while in the latter year it comprises two
woody, 15 grass, three herbs and one aquatic macrophyte.

Woody plants

Epidermal fragments of the woody plants in the faeces of

Feral cattle were very few so data is too inadequate to show any
seasonal t rend.

Grasses

Epidermal fragments show that grasses were the staple food

of the Feral Cattle. During 1987-88 it ranged from 85-90% while
during 1988-89 it did not differ much among the season. It
varied from 91 to 92% (Fig 7.13). Equally large proportion of
grass fragments were found in the samples of all seasons.

The most preferred food of Feral cattle was Cynodon

dactylon, Sporobolus sp., Paspalum distichum, Desmostachya
bipinnata, Dicanth ium annulatum and Vetiveria zizanioides.

Herbs

Herbs' parts were negligible in the dung of Feral cattle

(1-6%). In both the years the highest number of herb fragment
were seen in the monsoon samples.

175
 FIQ 7.15
DIET RICHNESS AND DIVERSITY OF
FERAL CATTLE

CO

\ CO

i\ u lufJ"
,,rJ"'
10 H
V 0^ .....•*"" X
S .> '
A
,fi|, EH
H
CO

^ / \ M
.^"H.."' >
H

,,,„ ^"
„| >'"• ^\
\.6

,.f'"^'

ur"j . ^ " ' " ' CO

15

H
10
..<<?!"• CO

>
r' ^^ r / " \\. H
Q
10 |.
v 8
.,J^"

,,*•"••*'• t \
\.. ,!•*'"'
"\, 6 ^
"^i '"•• S \..sft

176
Aquatic macrophyles

Proportion of aquatic macrophyte fragments was

insignificant in the dung of feral cattle. Very few animals were
seen feeding m the aquatic area mostly on the grasses when the
area got dried up.

Niche breadth

The niche breadth based on food items of feral cattle

varied significantly (P < O.Ob) between the two years. During
1987-89 the niche breadth varied from 0.41 in November to 0.73 in
March while during 1988-89 it ranged from 0.46 in July to 0.71 in
February (Fig 7.14).

Food diversity

The food diversity of feral cattle was significantly

(P < 0.05) different between the two years. During the year
1987-88 the food diversity ranged from 5.87 in June to 13.76 in
September (Fig 7.15). These values are apparently related to the
availability of food plants. When during summer as amphibious
grass like Cyperus sp. and Scirpus sp. , besides herbs are less
abundant so feral cattle feed exclusively on terrestrial grass
species like Cynodon dactylon, Desmostachya bipinnata and
Sporobolus sp. besides Paspalurn distichum. During 1988-89 the
food diversity ranged from 5.29 in September to 5.38 in April.
The diversity in 1988 was low in September and not in June as was
the case in 1987 because in this particular month one species
{Dicanthium annulatum) was dominant in the dropping of Feral
cattle.

177
 WILD BOAR

During 1987-88 fragments of 23 plant species were identified

in the, droppings of Wild boar of whic-h two were of browse
species, 13 of grasses, three of herbs, three of aquatic
macrophytes and two of agricultural crops. In the samples of
1988-89, altogether 20 species weie recorded of which two were
browse, 12 of grasses, two of aquatic macrophytes and four ot
agricultural crops (Appendix V I ) . The food of wild boar between
the years did not show any variation.

Woody plants

Dropping analysis indicates that Wild boar djid not show much
of a preference to woody plants as of this species was only
5% to 8%. Most of which was composed of pods of Prosopis
Juli flora. In the year 1987-88 no fragments of vjoody plants were
recorded during the monsoon.

Grasses

The proportion of grasses in the droppings of wild boar

varied from 74% to 85% (Fig 7.16). Throughout both the years the
proportion of grass species in the droppings did not vary much.
During 1987-88 the most preferred food of Wild boar appeared to
be Cyperus rotundvs, followed by Scirpus tuberosus and Cyperus
alopecuroides while during 1988-89 it was Cyperus rotundvs
followed by Cyperus alopecuroides and Scirpus tuberosus. During
the latter year Cyperus alopecuroides was abundant and mcjst of
the aquatic area were covered by this species.

178
 FIG 7.16
FOOD PREFERENCE OF WILD BOAR
PERCENTAGE
120

100

80

60

40

20

0''^^^>>^'*'™»«»™™^^
MON WIN SUM MON WIN SUM
1987-88 1d86->8d
H i WOOOY 8P8 SS iSSS GRASSES MB HERBS S3SS AQ. PLANTS
VM AQRI.CROPS KIID UNIDENTIFIED

FIG 7.17
NICHE BREADTH OF WILD BOAR
BASED ON FOOD PLANTS

JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APH MAY JUN

1987-88 1988-69
179
Herbs

Herbs fragments were rarely found in the droppings of Wild

boar. Only in the samples of the monsoon season of 1987-88 did
some epidermal fragments occurred in the faeces of wild boar.

Aquatic macrophytOK

Parts of aqu^itic rnacrophytes weri2 altjo rare In the droppings

of Wild boar, only ]% to 5% was noticed. In 1987-88 the maximum
was in winter, whereaB in 1988-89 it was during monsoon . Parts
of Ipomoea aquatica and Eleocharis sp. were proportionately In
large numbers compared to those of other macrophytes.

Agricultural crops

The proportion of epidermal fragments of agricultural crops

in the dropping of wild boar ranged only from 4% to 8%* The
samples collected during 1987-88 summer contained fragments of
Cicer arie tinum (Ghana) and Triticum aestivum (Wheat), but the
samples collected during monsoon and winter of that year had no
fragments of any agricultural crop. However, the samples
collected during monisoon of 1988-89 contained fragments of
Sorghum vulgare (Jowar) and Cicer arietinum (Ghana).

Niche breadth

The niche breadth of wild boar based on food varied

(P < 0.05) significantly between the two years. During 1987-88
it ranged from 0.36 iti August to 0.67 in February while during

180
 FIG 7.18

DIET RICHNESS AND DIVERSITY OF WILD BOAR

«.(''"''
.„•<••"•'"'"

Ill"'
en

A
CO

U
12 ,1" 111
/ ""'
10
H
8 /''•"^ ..,„„...•« - /
"\
\.
K A
/
V H
Q

\.., \ A/V , .-.p"'-""

„i.ji"'"'
V^
'^.
,»••"

'V „ll«"'''
^

181
1988-89 it; varied from 0.46 in September to 0.67 in April
(Fig 7.17), The difference in the niche breadth between the two
years was due to the lack of food varieties caused by drought.

Food diversity

The food diversity did not differ much between the two
years. In the year 1987-88 it ranged from 5.63 in June to 4.8 in
September, whereas in the year 1988-89 it varied from 8.32 in
September to 9.28 in May (Fig 7.18).

7,3.3 Browse productivity

The maximum mean dry weight per twig was of Salvadora

persica (2.0235 gm) and minimum of Capparis decidua (0,5183 gm).
The weight of former species was more due to the presence of
broader and thicker leaves while in the case of the latter
species no leaves are present on the twig only its stem were
considered as the browse.

The density of each browse species calculated from the study

plot was used to extrapolate the density for the whole sanctuary.
The highest density recorded was of Acacia nilotica (61 /hectare)
(Table 7.3); followed by Prosopis juliflora (54 /hectare)
Capparis decidua had the lowest density (4 /hectare).

The total
browse productivity of six major species was
2
around 29.93 gm/m of which Prosopis juliflora constituted the
2
highest productivity (9.372 gm/m ); followed by Acacia nilotica
2
(8.947 gm/m ). The least production wag ip Capparis decidua

182
 Table 7.3

Browse productivity <ind utilization of major browao species

Mean dry Density SE of Dry Wt Wt con- Browse

Wt per per mean of browse sumed consumed
twig in 2 2 in perce-
hectare
in gm/m gm/m
gnis ntage

Capparis sepiaria 1,6835 38 0.041 4.7;,)4 0.8467 17.8

Capparis decidua 0.5183 4 0.015 0.126 0.0087 6.<)

Balanites roxburghii 1.433 5 0.044 0.394 0.0336 8.52

Prosopis juliflora 1.827 54 0.056 y.372 0.3776 4.02

Salvadora persica 2.0235 26 0.059 6.365 0.2117 3.32

Acacia nilotica 1.93 61 0.071 8.947 1.0536 11.77

Table 7.4

Proportion ( i n gms) of e a c h plant consumed by d i f f e r e n t ungulates

Chital Sambar Nilgai Feral cattle

Capparis sepiaria 0 . 1 Mil 0.0498 0.5197 0.1469

Capparis decidua 0 . 0 0 17 0.00012 0.0068
Balanites roxburghii 0 . 0 0 185 0.0 242 2 0.00 74 9
Prosopis Juliflora 0 , 0 4 117 0.00386 0.29686 0.00749
Salvadora persica 0.0088 0.01378 0.1840
Acacia nilotica 0,102 0.0683 0.7576 0.1246

183
(0.126 gm/m ). The reason for the highest productivity in
Prosopis jvliflora, (though its density and mean dry weight per
twigs were less than those of Acacia nilotica) is the higher mean
number of twigs growing on each bush. Acacia nilotica though
larger in size, the productivity was accounted only below 2.5 m
as the ungulates of the park could not reach above that.

Very few studies have been done on the primary productivity

of browse species. Belovsky et al. (1973) found browse
2
productivity at Isle Royale to be 36 gm dry weight/ni below
2,8 m, Grigal and Moody (1980) in Minnesota found 952 kjg/hectare
of browse productivity in his study. In India, Berwick (1974)
2
found 34 gm dry wt/m of productivity of shrub at Gir forest*

7.3.4 Browse util.Ixatlon

Capparis sepiAria was the most browsed (17.8%) although its

productivity was fourth In the rank. Salvador^ persiqa which is
third in order of productivity rank was least browsbd (3,32%)
(Table 7.3). Although Prosopis juliflora exceeds ajll the species
in productivity, in the preference for utilization it was fifth
(4.02%) in the order of preference.

2
The weight in gm/m consumed of each plant species pertains
to the feeding by all the ungulate species but it does not
indicate how much each species has consumed. The consumption by
each ungulate species was however estimated taking into
consideration also the consumers' body weight and the fragments
of plant species found in its droppings. Only the adult animals

184
were taken into consideration. The forage intako was considered
as 3% of animal body wt (Havstad et al 1983). The formula used
is as follows:

W = Wf X X-i

fe Xi

Where W = Proportion of Wf consumed by animal 1

2
Wf = Total forage consumed /m

Xi = D X Wa X Pw X Pf1.
Where D = Population density of the species

Wg = Averagfi body Mi of the species

Pwi = Proportion of food intake to body wt

Pfi = Proportion of plant species i in the food.

Of all animal species Nilgais' rate of consumption appears

to be highest for browse species. Feral cattle (although/does not
prefer browse species) comes second in the order of consumption
rate probably because its body weight is the highest among all
the ungulates. Chltal although smaller than sambar, consume more
browse than do oth(5r species (Table 7.4),

185
 7.3.5 Chemical composition of plaate

Changes in nutritional values of forage plants effects upon

the condition and productivity of herbivores (Berwick 1974).
Chemical composition of the major plants species was studied to
know whether the nutritive value has any relation to the
preference by difffireifil ungulates.

Protein

Dietary protein may influence the raproduotive status of

tropical animals (Sadleir 1969). Resijlts of protein analysis are
presented in Table 7.5. In all the ten jnajor grass species, the
highest protein level was recorded during winter season. It
ranged from 8.07% in Desmostachya bipinnata to 23% in Cynodoa
dactylon. The lowest protein level was recorded during the
summer. It varied from 9.7% in Spoirobolus sp, to 15.53% in
Scirpus tuberosus, During monsoon it ranged from 12.2% in
Cyperus rotundvs to 20,80% in Dicanthium aunulatum. The seasonal
variation in the protein content was noticed mainly jn Cynodon
dactylon , Desmostachya bipinnata^ Paspalum distichuin and
Sporobolus sp. while the other' species did not show much
variation (Table 7,5).

There was not much seasonal variation in the protein levels

of browse species except in Acacia nilotica and Capparis
sepiaria which had a high level during winter than In other
seasons. In the case of Balanites roxburghii protein level was
recorded maximum (17.22%) during summer. On an average, Capparis
sepiaria had a high level of protein (18.03%) among the browse

186
 Table 7.5

P r o t i e n content of major food s p e c i e s of u n g u l a t e s

Specie's NonsooT) Wipj-pr Summer Average

Acana nilot ica 16.25 16.49 13./»a 15.04
Acacia nilotica (Pod) - ~ 15.05 15.05
Acacia leucaphloea 23.72 - - 23.72
Balanites roxburghii - 14.3 17.22 15.7
Capparis sepiaria 16.01 21.24 16.85 18.03
Clerodendron phlomides 21.91 - - 21.91
DichrosCacbys cinerea 15.29 - - 15.29
Kirgenelia reticulata 14.21 20.95 10.11 15.09
Prosopis juliflora - 10.59 20.83 15.7
Prosopis spicigera 19.14 ~ - 19.14
Salvadora oleoides 13.72 -- - 13.72
Salvadora persica 19.07 16.32 6.05 13.81
Salvadora persica (Fruit) 15.77 •- - 15.77
Zizyphus mauritiana - 19,02 19.02 19.02
Bracharia reptans 7.72 ~ - 7.72
Cynodon dactylon 19.51 23.1 15.05 19.22
Cyperus alopecuroides - 22.15 12.64 11.59
Cypenis alopecuroides (INF) - .in,H 11.08 10.6
Cyperus rotundus 12.2 - ~ 12.2
Desmostachya bipinnata 12.42 8.07 IA.93 11.8
Dicanthiuni annulatum 20.80 15.85 17.34 17,99
Echinocloa colonum 12.52 29.74 12.52 14.92
Echinocloa (INF) 26.49 ~ - 26.49
Erasrostis spp. 25.28 ~ - 25.28
Eriochloa procera 12.4 ~ - 12.4
Iseilema laxum 16.97 ~ -• 16.97
Paspalum distichuni 15.57 |5.89 9.63 13.6
Paspaldiurn s p p . - 21.29 20.1 J 20.7
Pseiidorophis spmescons - 26,35 14.05 20.15
Prosopis julit'lor.) (Vnnt) - - i4.09 14.09
Seturia spp. 19.50 - - ^9.5
Scirpustuberosus 16.85 15.05 15,53 15.81
Sporobolus belvuliis - 20.83 9,75 15.29
Vetiveria zizanioides 13.80 15.85 14.45 14.7
Oryzd sativa 14.80 - - 14.B
Achyranthes aspera 12.09 - ~ 12.09
Calotropis procera 4.33 - - 4.33
Commelina forskalli 21.07 - - 21.07
Dregia s p p . 9.39 - •- 9.39
Ipomoea aquatica - - 10,23 10.2)
Merremia emerginata 19.08 - - 19.08
Trianthema porlulacastrum 21.79 - - 21.79
Eleocharis plantaginea 22.87 -« - 22.87
Hydtilla verticillata 18.54 - - 18,54
Panicum antidotale 22.15 - -- 22.15
Pennisetum typhoides (Bazra) 9.75 - - 9.75
Sorghum vulgare (Jawar) 9.87 ~ - 9.87
Cicer arietinum (Ghana) 19.38 - - 19.38
Pisum sativum (Matar) 16.97 - - 16.97
Brassica campestris (Mustard) 15.89 - - 15.89
Triticum aestivum (Wheat) 25.04 - - 25,04
Desmostachya bipinnataikfter 20.55
Vetiveria ^izaniojdes burnt) 26.00
INF = I n f l o r e s c e n c e Note : Values are \\\ percentage

187
 Table 7.6

Significance test of correlation between different

nutritive value and food preference

PROT CAL EX FOOD PROT CAL EX FOOD

PROT PROT
CAL CAL
EX - + EX
FOOD + _ + FOOD

Chital Nilgai

PROT CAL EX FOOD PROT CAL EX FOOD

PROT PROT
CAL CAL
EX EX
FOOD FOOD

Sambar Feral cattle

PROT CAL EX FOOD PROT OAL EX FOOD

PROT PROT
CAL CAL
EX EX - +
FOOD FOOD

Blackbuck Wild boar

+ = Significant at level P = 0.05.

- = Not significant
PROT = Protein, CAL == Calorific, EX = Ether extract

188
species. Protein showed a positively significant correlation
with the food of Chital and Blackbuck while it did not show such
correlation with the diet of other ungulates (Table 7.6).

Calorific value

Most of the major grass species had a high calorific value

during winter ranging from 3.46% in Desmostachya bipinnata to
6.86% in Paspalum distichum. Most gidss species had the lowest
calorific value was in summer; It varied from 2.18% in
Desmostachya bipinnata to 5.16% in Paspalum distichum. In the
case of Dicanthium annulatum the highest calorific value was
during monsoon and summer (4.3%). Vetiveris ziaanioides also had
higher value durlnft monaoon (5.58%) Clabie 7.7).

Of all the major browse species, the maximum calorific value

was recorded duiriug winter. It rangpd frptn 5,5H% in Balanites
roxburghii to 7.7% in Acacia nilotica ^ wh«reas the lowftst values
were obtained durins summer which varie4 frpm 3t02% in Balanites
roxburghii to 6.41% in Acacia nilotica. The seasonal variation
was noticed only in Capparis sepiaria and Balanites roxburghii,
whereas Acacia nilbtica did not show any seasonal variation.
There seem a negative correlation between the calorific value and
the ether extract values of all the food plants (Table 7.6).

Ether extract

The ether extract value for most of the glass species were
recorded maximum during summer. It ranged from 2.4% in Sporoholus

189
 Table 7.7

Calorific value of major food species of uni;ulates

SpecK'S Monsoon Winter Summor Averagt*
Acacia nilotica 7.28 7.7 6.41 7.13
Acacia nilotica (Pod) - - b.\b 5.16
Acacia leucophloea 5.48 - - 5.48
Balanites roxburghii - 5.58 3.02 4.3
Capparis sepiaria 6.4 6.86 4.74 6,0
Clerodendron phlnmides 3.8 - - 3.8
Dichrostachys cinerea 5.48 - - 5.48
Kirgenelia reticulata 5.4 5.16 3,2 4.58
Prosupis juliflora - 4.3 3.4<i 3.88
Prosopis spicigera 5.48 -• - 5.48
Salvadora oleoides 3.48 - - J.48
Salvadora persica 4.3 4.74 2,6 3,88
Salvadora persica (Fruit) 6.44 - - 6.44
Zizyphus mauritiana - 1.762 3.02 2.39
Bracharia reptans 4.36 - -• 4,36
Cynodon dactylon 6.16 6.44 4.74 5.78
Cyperus alopecuroides - 6.16 3.3 4.73
Cyperus alopecuroides (INF) - 3.46 1.76 2.61
Cyperus rotundus 5.58 - - 5.58
Desmostachya bipinnata 2.61 3.46 2.18 2.77
Dicanthium annulatum 4.3 3.88 4,3 4.16
Echinocloa colonum 7.8 5.58 4.74 6.04
Echinocloa (INF) 4.36 - - 4,36
•Eragrostis spp. 6.64 - - 6,64
Eriochloa procera 7.2 - - 7»3
Iseilema laxum 5.48 - - 5.48
Paspalum distichum 6.16 6.86 5.16 6.06
Paspaldium spp. - 2.6 2,6 2,6
Pseudorophis spinescens - 5.58 5.|6 5.37
Prosopis juli flora (Fruit.) - - 4.3 4*3
Setaria spp. 5.16 - - 5,16
Scirpus tuberosus 5.58 6.16 ^'1^ ^ A)\
Sporobolus helvolus - 5.58 4.74 5,1()
Vetiveria 7.izanioidfS 5.58 3.88 2,6 4,08
Oryza saliva 6,16 - '• 6.16
Achyianthes aspec* 2.6 - - 2.6
Calotropis procer,) 4,3 - - 4,3
Commelina foiskalii 5.48 - - 5.48
Dregia spp, 6,44 - - 6,44
Ipomoo.a aquatica . - - 2.6 2.6
Merrcmia emerginata 5,48 - - 5,48
Trianthema portulacaslrum 4,48 - ~ 4,48
Eleocharis plantaginea 5,48 - - 5.48
Hydrilla verticillata 6.64 - - 6,64
Panjcum antidotale 6.64 - - 6.64
Pennisetum typhoides (Bazra) 3.52 - - 3.52
Sorghum vulgare (Jawar) 2.67 - - 2,67
Cicer arietinum (Ghana) 4.37 - ~ 4'^^
Pisum sativum (Matar) 3.52 - ~ 3.52
Brassica campestris (Mustard) 2.67 - - 2,67
Triticum aestivum (Uheat) 6,07 - - 6.07
Desmostachya bipinnataiAfter 4.31
Vetiveria zizanioides burnt) 4,31
INF = Inflorescence Note : Values are in p(?rcentag«

190
 Table 7.8

Ether eKtiact oi major food species of Ungulates

Spec j PS Monsoon Winter Surnmer Average

Acacia nilotica A.8 3.8 h h,2
Acacia nilotica (Pod) - - ^.0 5.0
Acacia leucophloea 3.4 - - 3.4
Balanites roxburghii - 4 4,2 4.1
Capparis sepiaria 1.8 4.4 5.0 3.73
Clerodendron phlomicies 4.0 - -- 4.0
Dichrostachys cinerea 4.0 - - 4.0
Kirgenelia reticulata 3.0 4.2 4.6 3.93
Prosopis Juliflora - 4 1.8 2,9
Pros op is spicigera 4.2 - - 4,2
Salvadora oleoicles 3.4 ~ - 3,4
Salvadora persica 4 3.8 4,2 4.0
Salvadora persica (Fruit) 3.0 - ~ 3.0
Zizyphus mauritiann ~ 3.6 4.0 3.5
Bracharia reptans 3.8 - -- 3,8
Cynodan dactylon 2,6 3.0 3,() 3,6
Cyperus alopecuroides - 6.0 4.2 5.1
Cyperus alopecuroides (INF) - 4.2 4.0 4.1
Cyperus rotundus 2.0 - - 2.0
Desmostachya bipinnata 5.0 4.0 3.8 4.26
Dicanthium annulatum 2.4 • 3.8 4.4 3..53
Echinacloa colonum 3.2 5.2 1.6 3.33
Echinocloa (INF) 3.6 - - 3.36
Eragrostis spp 4.0 - - 4.0
Eriochloa procera 5.0 - - 5.0
Jseiiema laxum 4.0 - ~ 4.0
I'aspalum distichum 2.0 3.8 3.8 3,2
Paspaldium spp - 4.4 4.0 4.2
Pseudorophis spinescens - 3.0 3.6 3.3
Prosopis juliflora (Fruit) - - 4.0 4.0
Setaria spp. 6.0 - - 6.0
Scirpus tuberosus 3.2 2 3.6 2.93
Sporobolus he 1 vol us - 1.8 2,4 2.1
Vetiveria zizanioides 2.0 2,4 4,6 3.0
Oryza saliva 5.6 - - 5,6
Achyranthes aspera 7.0 - - 7.0
Calotropis procera 5,0 -- - 5.0
Commelina forskalli 3.6 - - 3,6
Dregia spp, 5,0 - - 5.0
Ipomoea aquatica - - 4,2 4,2
Merremia emerginata 2,2 - - 2,2
Trianthema portulacastrum 4,8 - - 4.8
Eleocharis plantaginea 3.2 - - 3.2
Hydrilla verticil lata 3.2 - - 3.2
Panicum antidotale 3.2 - - 3.2
Pennisetum typhoJdei> (Ba','ra) 2.2 - - 2.2
Sorghum vulgare (Jawar) 1.4 - - 1.4
Cicer arietimm (Ghana) 2.8 ~ - 2.S
Pisum sativum (Matar) 3.2 ~ - 3.2
Brassica campestris (Mustard) 4.8 - - 4,8
Triticum aestivum (Wheat) 2.4 - - 2.4
Desmostachya hipinnataiAftet 2.8
Vetiveria zizanioides burnt) 1.8
INF = [nflorescence Note : Values are.In percentage

191
sp. to 3.6 in Cynodon dactylon. The percentage of ether extract
during monsoon was the lowest. It varied from 2% in Vetiveria
zizanioides to 2.6% in Cynodon dactylon. Desmostachya bipinpata
was the only species which showed the maximum (5%) value during
the monsoon (Table 7,8).

Among the browse species the higher ether extract values

were recorded in summer in Capparis sepiaria and PaJanites
roxburghii but Acacia nilotica showed high'Jr V6^]u«j during monsoon
(4.8%). A lower va]ii«! wn.s recorded dur.1|()g winter lor the last two
species, whereas th«.> first species showed the lowest value duting
monsoon.

7.3.6 Correlation be«vM?en food ahun^aiac^ anc? ftjpd p^refftrejice

The correlation between the grass abundance (calculated in

volume) and food preference in terms of frequency of plant
fragments present in the dropping of each ungulate species showed
insignificant correlation. Only Feral cattle showed the
significant relation between the availability of grass species
and food preference. (Table 7.9).

There is a significant correlation between the browse

abundance (calculated in terms of density) and the food
preference of major browsers (Nilgai, Chital and Sambar)
(Table 7.10). This can be corroborated with the high density of
browse species in the Park. It shows that the animal are not
selective as regards .t^^ Jfe-^ browse.

192
 Table 7.9

Correlation (r) between the availability of grasses and the

preference for them by ungulates

Species

Sambar -0.167

Blackbuck 0.013

Chltal 0.052

Nilgai 0.231

feral cattle 0.40 0

Wild boar 0.146

Table 7.10

Correlation (r) between the availibility of browse and the

preference for them by ungulates

Species

Chltal .716

Sambar 0.640

Nj Igai 0.702

193
7.3.7 Similarity in the food preferencn

Similarity in tho seasonal prefer«>nc«J lor food by ungulates

was worked out fni both the years.

Similarity during monsoon

The food of Chital and of Blackbuck was more or less similar

during monsoon of 1987-88 when both these species were seen
feeding on Cynodon dactylon and Sporobolus spp. Feral cattle was
also closer to both Chital and Blackbuck but not to the extent
these two species were with each other (Fig 7.19).

The pattern changed during 1988-89 when Feral cattle and

Blackbuck appeared to be closer to each pther than was Chital
with either of them. Similarity between food of Chital and Feral
cattle was more than between Chital and Blackbuck (Fig 7.20).

In both the years, Nilgai formed/closer guild with

Blackbuck, Feral cattle and Chital. Sambar and Wild boar showed
totally distinct guilds. The former being mostly using the
aquatic plant and Wild boar mainly the sedges such aa Cyperus
spp. and Scirpus spp.

Similarity during winter

The pattern of similarity in the winter food of different

species varied from 1987-88 to 1988-89. During 1987-88 the
maximum similarity was between Blackbuck and Feral cattle when
both these species were seen feeding oji Cynodon dactylon and

194
 FIG 7.19

SIMILARITY IN M FOOD PREFMNCE OF UNGaATES

DURING 1987-88

Distance netric- is 1-Pearson Correlatiwi Coefficient

Average 1 inkage iiethod

TREE DIA6RAH

DISTANCES
0.000 1.000
WT|/:Ar
0.184
F.CATTLE -^
0.055
K.A(;KBUCK -|_
0.027
CHITAL -1
0.513
CjUmAD
0.755
HILO BOAR •
HONSOON

0.000 1.000
NIlfiAI
0.202
CHITAL
0.110
BI.ACKBUCK 1
0.069
F.CATTLE 1"
0.700
8AH8AR
0.787
KILD BOAR

WINTER

0.000 1.000
SAHBAR
(_ 0.383
NILGAI
0.504
CWTAL
0.216
BLACK&JCK
0.373
F.CATTLE
0.823
m\ mi
SIMR
 FIG 7.20

SIHILARITY IN Tft FOOD PREFERENCE OF IHGUATES

DURING 1988-89
Distance netric is 1-Pearson Correlation Coefficient

Avei'tjge linkage lethod

IREE DIAGRAM

DISTANCES
0.000 1.000
CiunAD , .
snnDflK — — —•
—•-" 0.639
mm. —
0.065
F.CAlIli - 1
0,023
BI.ACKBUCK J
0.198
Nil TAT
0.739
WILD BOAR

MONSOON

0.000 1.000
SAMBAR
0.772
WILD BOAR
0.727
CHITAL
0.113
BLACKBUCK
0.322
NILGAI
0.180
F.CATTIE

ilNTER
0.000 1.000
CHIIAI.
0.211
BIACKBUCK
0.386
F.CATILE
0.470
SAHBAR '
0.260
NILGAI '
0.827
WILD BOAR •

SUMMER

196
Sporobolus spp. CFig 7.19), Chital was also closer to this guild
but it (Wsh£vijrig_\h igher similarity with Blackbuck than with
Feral cattle. This may be because of more fragments of Eragrostis
spp. and Sporobolus spp. present in the dropping of Chital and
Blackbuck than Feral cattle.

oofi
Nilgai was the next in order of close associate^d- with the
above three ungulates. On the other hand Sambar and Wild boar
formed a separate guild, as in monsoon.

During winter of 1988-89 Chital showed similarity with

Blackbuck (Fig 7.20). Nilgai and Feral cattle also showed
significant similarity i'n their food preference when both these
species were seen feeding on fresh sprout of Desmostachya
bipinnata and VetJvei'ia zizanioides soon after the outbreak of
fire in October 1988.

Similarity during summer

The similarity in the food preference by different ungulates

during summer was not so distinct as was other seasons. In both
the years the pattern of similarity was similar (Fig 7.19, 7.20).
Chital and Blackbuck showed similarity in their food preference
though it was con^parat i ve ly less than the other seasons.
Although fionie Chital went for browsing, a few were seen grazing
on the same species on which Blackbui:li< h,id grazed. Sambar and
Nilgai,/" mostly dependent upon -fe-h-e b r o w s f during s u m iri e r formed a
separate guild.

197
 Table 7.1}

Summary of food p l a n t p r e f e r r e d by d i f f e r e n t ungulates

Munsoon Winter Summer

Chital Cynodon dactylon Cynodon dactylon Cynodon dactylon

Sporoholiis sjip. Eragrostis spp. Sporobolus spp.
Echinocloa spp. Sporobolus spp. Acacia nilotica
Die ant Ilium annul at urn Acacia nilotica Capparis sepiaria
Zizyphus mauritiana

Sambar Paspalum distichum Paspalum distichum Paspalum distichum

Sporobolus spp, Cyperus s p p . Sporobolus spp.
Echinocloa spp. Scirpus s p p . Acacia nilotica
Ipoinea aquatica Echinocloa 6pp. Capparis sepiaria
Hydrilia spp. Acacia nilotica
Acacia nilotica

Blackbuck Cynodon dactylpn Cynodon dact.yinn Cynodon dactylon

Sporobo.tvis ftpp. Sporobolus spji. Sporobolus spp.
Dicanthium anmil.itum Dicanthium (tniioUilum Dicanthium annulatum
Paspalum distichum

Nilgai Cynodon dactylon Cynodon dactylon Paspalum distichum

Sporobolus spp. Sporobolus spp. Desmostachya bipinnata
Paspalum distichum Paspalum distichum Vetiveria zizanioides
Scirpus spp. Acacia nilotica Acacia nilotica
Acacia nilotica Brassica campestris Capparis sepiaria
B'Slfiiites roxburhii (Mustard) Pisum satiwmiMatar)
Pennlsetum typhoides (Bazra) Triticum aestivumiWheat)

Feral cattle Cynodon dactylon Cynodon dactylon Cynodon dactylon

Sporobolus spp. Sporobolus spp. Sporobolus spp.
Paspalum distichum Dicanthium annulaum Paspalum distichum
Desmostachya bipinnata Desmostachya bipinnata
Vetiveria zizanioides

Wild boar Cypevus spp. Cyperus spp. Cyperus spp.

Scirpus spp. Scirpus spp. Scirpus spp.
Sorghum vuJgarpfJawar) Desmostachya bipinnata Prosopis juliflora
Triticum aestivumiWheat)

IQR
 Feral cattle was closer to the guild of Chital and
Blackbuck. They fed mostly on Desmostachya bipinnata and
Vetiveria zizanioides which is not preferred by other ungulates.
Wild boar formed a separate guild because of their preference for
Cyperus spp., Scirpus spp.

7.4 Discussion

Analysis of dropping of all the ungulate lipecies found in

Keoladeo National Park has indicated that proportion of grasses
in the diet of each is much higher than of other plant species.
This finding is in agreement with those of Karfhage (1974), Vavra
et al. (1978) and Michael et al. (1983). There can be various
reasons for the higher occurrence of grass fragments in the
droppings, which does not necessarily mean that that the diets of
all the species mainly consists of {grasses. T hi ere is a fair
possibility that other plants or their specific parts eaten by
ungulate get readily and completely digested and no recognizable
fragments pass out in droppings (Crocker 1959, Johnson and
Pearson 1981). Other reports, however, suggest that differential
digestibility of plant species is not the reason for the
occurrence in higher proportion of grass fragment in the
droppings (Dearden et al. 1975). To resolve such likely
confusion, digestibility coefficients of various plant species
will have to be calculated, which could not be undertaken because
of limitations i.e. lack of equipment and time.

The food pretiMence of Chital as revealed by droppings'

analysis indicates thai the species is primarily a grazer but it

199
 resorts to browKiiiK t') make up for the shairtage of grasses only
during summer sc;tscjti. Similar conclusion had been drawn by
Berwick (I'JTA), :> ha ratchand ra and Gadgil (1975) and Abies
(1977). The samf Is the case of Sambar. It is primarily a grazer
but browses m summer when it has to move towards the terrestrial
area. In contrast to the other ungulates of the Park, terrestrial
habitats were practically not used by Sambar for grazing, except
in summer. Most of the time Sambar were seen feeding on grasses
such as Paspalum djstichum and Cyperus spp. and wading in the
water to feed on aquatic macrophytes like Ipomoea aquatics,
Hydri1 la sp. which grow below the surface. Few Sambar were also
seen browsing on leaves of Acacia nilotica planted on the
mounds. MartJn (197 7) found Barasingha Cervus dvvauceli hranderi
feeding mainly in the aquatic area.

Blackbuck and Feral cattle almost totally depend on grazing

though in few instances Feral cattle were seen browsing on the
leaves of Salvadora persica and Acacia spp. Wild boar on the
other hand, subsists on the tubers of Cyperus spp. and Scirpus
spp. (Table 7.11) which are dug out and eaten.

Blackbuck and Feral cattle are the only species at Keoladeo

National Park which feed in large quantity on dry Cynodon
dac tyIon and Desmostachya bipinnata during summer. Similar
observation was reported by Ghosh and Goyal (1983) and Goyal et
al. (1986) working on Blackbuck at Jodhpur.

Nilgai is the only species in Keoladeo National Park which

browses throughout the year. Berwick (197^) also reported the
same phenomenon from Gir forest. However, Sheffield et al. (1983)

200
reported moderate (^rowsing\by Nilgai in Texas. An interesting
observation has been made on the feeding habit of Blackbuck and
Nilgai in Keoladtio NatiAonal Park, These two sjiecies were seen
browsing on highly laticiferous leaves of Calat ropis which is
poisonovis to man. Tliese leaves are, however, rich in calcium and
this may be the reason for consumption. Sharatchandra and Gadgil
(1975) also reported that Calotropis was browsed by Chital.
Rahmani (pers. comm.) also reported that Calotropis was browsed
by Chinkara Gaze 1 la bennettii.

On the basis of their feeding habits the unRulates of

Keoladeo National Park can be divided into four groups, as
foilows:

(a) Totally dependent on grazing e.g. Blackbuck and Feral

cattle
(b) Dependent on grazing as long as grasses are available
but switch over to browsing when grasses are scarce e.g.
Chital and Sambar
(c) Mixed feeders, grazing as well as brov;sing e.g. Nilgai
(d) Dependent on underground tubers and roots e.g. Wild boar

Niche breadth

The niche brciuivli ol all the ungu,laten vHiied from seaiion to

season, the narrowest breadth being durlnn tjie monsoon and winter
when food was abundant.
During the (}ry season, when there was
3
scarcity of grasses, (when the mean volume (In M ) of palatable
2 3
species per plot of 200 m was 21.9 m ) most of them subsist on
whatever food is available, such as Cynodon dactylon ,Sparobolus
sp. Paspalum distichum irrespective of their preference.

201
 During monsoon
and winter when vegetation grows in abundance,
3
(when the mean volume (in m ) of palatable species per plot of
2 3 3
200 m was 42, A m and "f* 0 . 6 m respectively) I 'I' a b 1 e 3 ) , 111 e y get

the freedom to eat their most preferred foods and hence the niche

breadth gets r e s t r i c t e d . On a comparative b a s i s , Feral cattle has

the maximum niche breadth.

The species with a broader niche are called a generalists

while those with a narrow niche are called specialists (Mac

Arthur 1958, M a c A r t h u r and Levins 1 9 6 7 , Cody 1 9 7 4 , Pianka 1978).

According to optimal foraging theory when resource availability

is m o r e , niche breadth will be minimum (Emlen I'ibb, M a C A r t h u r arjd

Pianka 1966, M a c A r t h u r 1 9 7 2 , Charnov 1976).

A consumer can not afford to be d i s c r i m i n a t e and choosy when

food resources are s c a r c e , because considerable time and energy

is lost in search of preferred food which is widely scattered. In

such c o n d i t i o n , a liroadei niche m a x i m i x e a return per unit energy

e x p e n d i t u r e . The animal under such ci r ciliiiwtances will tend to be

a g e n e r a l i s t , while; rich food supplies lead to selective foraging

and narrower niche breadth.

The reason of cattle being generalist are explained by

Dudzinski and Arnold (1973), Grant et al. (1985). According to

them cattle have a large v o l u m i n o u s ruminoreticulum to cater to

their comparatively bulky bodies, and hence consume large

quantities of food each day. The other possible reason of cattle

at Bharatpur being generalist can be traced in their ancestry.

They are the deseendent of domesticated animals who were adapted

to live on all sorts of: food including straw supplied by their

o w n e r s . Thus they have wider niche.

202
 Their choice of a vegetation community on which to feed is
related to the abundance and availability of plant material
within it and, it is likely that cattle will not suvlect a
community with a lower threshold value of abundance because their
high intake requirements will not be met by smaller bites in
relation to their metabolic requirements (lllius and Gorden
1987) .

During summer when most of the grasses get dried up the

Feral cattle fed mainly on the Desmost&chya bipinnata and
Vetiveria zizanioj des besides other species of grasses which
constitute the highest biomass . Gorden (1989) also reported
that cattle in winter, selectively fed on communities that had
the highest biomass, when the live blomasa of graminoids In the
mesotrophic grasslands was low.

Nutrient value of plants

It is generally known that the grasses With less than

4% crude protein rantt>.nt are inadequate fov rUWinaifits to maintain
their body weight iMJlford and Minson 196»j, 0r«den et al, 1963).
Milford and Minson (I.9bb) and French (1957) reported that ruminal
activity is deprf'Sficd wlien the diet contains lesp than 7% crude
protein and digestibility decreases if crude protein content in
food is below 3%.

The protein content level of most of the grass species in

Keoladeo National Park is high. This finding may be due to the
fact that different methods have been adapted by the author of
this report and by others to calculate the protein content.

203
Usually protein level is calculated by estimating the Nitrogen
content and then multiplying it by the factor 6.25. But in the
present study the protein was estimated directly (Oser 1979).
The supply of nitrates in Keoladeo National Park by the
excretions of a very large number of birds and also mammals
particularly Feial cattle may be fi cause of higher protein
content of vegetation. Browse species an? richer in protein than
grasses and also have higher calorific vi*ltie. Field (1976)
working on Buffaloes in Uganda found thai crude protein levels of
browse species is 3-4 times that of grass Bpecies, Similar
observation was made in Kenya by Field and Blankenship (1973);
protein level in their study ranged from 11.1% in Acacia sp.
green pods to 38.4% in Capparis sp. Pellqw (1984) in his study
also found that all the browse species have a high protein value.

Food preference of ungulates at Bharatpur does not seem to

be influenced by the protein and calorific value of vegetation
except Chital and Blackbuck which showed a correlation with the
protein content (Table 7.6). Field (1976) also holds that a
direct relationship between the concentration of a factor and
food preference is rarely found. Usually there is an Interplay
between attract ants and repellants with availability as an over
riding factor. With abundant food the animal probably
experiences this interplay in the vegetation from which it has to
choose. According to Pellow (1984) when neither nutritional
quality nor digestibility are limiting factors A S in the case of
diet in wet seasons, palatability may bfcome the dominant
selection criterion, and hence, the animals choose the most
palatable of the nutrit.lonally.rlch foods.

204
Diet similarity

The overall conclusion is that Chital, BJackbuck and Feral

cattle have some dietary overlap among them during ?noJl»oon and
winter seasons. The dietary overlap during moj-isoon and winter
seasons does not seem to have any adverse afffict on any species
as there is hardly any competition of food dxiH.ng this period
abundance. According to Nanjappa (peis. conim.) the standinf,
biomass of the park during monsoon and winter on an average is
2
400 gm/m .

Cattle, because of the structure of their lower jaw cannot

feed on grasses flushed to the ground closer than 12 mm to the
surface (Leigh 1974) buL are able to feed on tall grasses such as
Desmostachya bipinnata and Vetiveria zizanioides on which no
other ungulate feeds. This phenomenon helps in avoiclance of
competition during periods of food scarcity. But many other
factors may be operating in the Park and in order to reveal other
such factors more intensive studies are called for. There is a
possibility of competition for food between dlfferont species
under compelling circumstances during the period of scarcity. If
that happens, :i t will he detrimental to one or more species.
Advance management steps are recommended to regularly monitor the
situation and to prevent the onset of competition and niche
overlap particularly during the scarcity of food resources.

205
7. 5 Suijima r^

1) The food habiUv uhowed that Bl^ckbuck and Fer^l cattle are
primarily gra?(»r while Sambar and Chltal are grazor in
monsoon and vnntei but becomes browser during summer. Nilgai
are mixed feeders, grazing as well browsing. Wild boar on
the other hand, depend on tubers and roots.

2) Chital mainly prefer Cynodon dactylon and Spornbolus sp.

among the grass species while Acacia nilotica and Capparis
sepiaria were preferred among browse species.

3) Paspalum distichoin. Acacia nilotica and Jpomoea a<iuatica

forms the major food of Sambar.

4) Blackbuck preferred Cynodon dactylon, Dicanthium annulatum

and Sporobo Ills spp.

5) Nilgai feed mainly on Cynodon dactylon, Sporoboliis spp.,

Scirpus spp. and Paspalum dist ichunt among the grass species
whereas. Acacia nilotica, Capparis sepiaria and Bnlanites
roxburghii are major browse specien.

6) Feral cattle preferred Cynodon dactylon, Sporobolus spp.,

Paspalum distichum, Desmostachya bipinnata and Vetiveria
zizanioides.

7) Sedges such as Cyperus spp., and Scirpus spp. are the

preferred food of Wild boar.

206
8) There is insignificant correlation between the grass
abundance (calculated in terms of volume) and food
preference of ungulates, except in the cawi* of Feral cattle,
whence it is significant.

9) There appears correlation between the browse abundance and

food preference by browsers (Nilgai, Chital and Sambar).

10) The niche breadth of food of all the ungulates was found to
vary from season to season. The narrowest breadth were seen
during the monsoon and winter seasuSiG w)->«>n food becomes
abundant.

11) The nutritive value of major food species does not seem to
have any relationship with the food preference except in the
case of Ch:li.il and Blackbuck who appears to relish rich
proteinous food,

12) The overall result of the diet similarity Among all the
ungulates reveals that Chital, Blackbuck and Feial cattle
have some di«t overlap during different seasons, least
during the summer.

207
 IMPACT OF GRAZING ON VEGETATION

8.1 Introduction

There is a growing awareness of the need to formulate

grazing strategies which would allow maximum herbage utilization
without deterioration of the land particvilarly jn the tropical
countries having successional grasslands subjected to immense
grazing pressure from large cattle population (Swa riztiian and
Singh 197A).

Studies on various ecological aspects of ungulates in tlie

sub-continent have been done by Schaller (1967), Berwick (137^\),
Mishra (1982), Rice (1984) and Green (1988). But the grazing
impact . of ungulates on the ecosystem has not so far been
quantified. Keoladeo National Park has been supporting, for many
years, a large population of Feral cattle and thus/is/good site
for such studies. The present study on vegetation dynamics and
grazing pressure was, therefore, taken up.

The negative role of Feral cattle in the park ecosystem is

significant. Their feeding behaviour, unlike of that other
species of ungulatPF, , causes damage to vegetation, alters the
vegetation community citmposition <ind (U'pr.HvoB other animal
species of their legitimate share of food resouices. Apart from
these, Feral cattle also trample ground v»i!getdtlon by their wide
hoofs.

208
8.2 MethodoloEv

Grids of AOO m x AOO m covering the entire Park were laid

and 150 intersection of the transects covering all the habitats
were selected for intensive study. Data was collected in
circular sample plots ot S m radius with a centre on each
intersection.

1) Total grass cover

2) Average height and percentage of each plant spftt^iea
3) Plant speci«i!B grazed or ungraded
4) Percentage Kta/iMl in total area

Besides thf;tjf, hoof marks of all Ui»gWlat«! tspecies in each

sampling plot were recorded and the dropping of all the
ungulates were collecti-d and weighed separately. The dropping
were then removed from the sample plots to avoid repeated
recordings.

Sample plots were divided into ten groups on the basis of

vegetation composition as follows;

1) Woodland (WOOD)
2) Scrub woodland (SCW)
3) Dense to diBCont inuous thickets (DST)
4) Scattered shrubs (SSH)
5) Savannah woodland to scattered tree savannah (5JWS)
6) Shrub savannah (SSH)
7) Grass savannah (GRS)

209
 8 ) Low erasa land ( [,GR)
9) Mosaic of several types (MOS)
10) Wetlands ( W F J')

Distribution and lelative intensity of peicentage grazing,

area covered by palatable and unpalatable species in different
plot were classified into three level of categories namely, low
(<25%), medium (25-50%) and large l>50%). Each of these
categories were delineated on a map.

The following six criteria related to range condition aj>e

adopted for the present study.

(a) The diversity index of major herb and grass: The diversity
H1
was calculated using the Hill diversity index N1 •= e
1 "^
where H is Shanon's index (LudwiAg and Reynolds 1988)
(b) The richness of herbs and grass
(c) Area and volume covered by palatable specie's
(d) Area and volume covered by unpalatable species
(e) Percentage grazed: percentage grassed in each habitat type
(f) Grazing pressure on 20 major palatable species. The pressure
was calculated by the following ratio.
n-i X n,

ni = Total number of times species i seen grazed

Tij = Total number of plots
N = Total number of times species i recorded

210
8.3 Results

8.3.1 Species richness

The species richness during monsoon was maximum in wfttland

habitat (6.85) and thi? I. nast in grass savannah 0 . 5 ) while during
winter the maxiiiiDm W H S in low grassland (h^U) and minimum in
scattered shrub (.'J.'y), During summer the maximum was in mosaic
of several types i5.6) wliereas the least was noticed in scattered
shrub (1.6) (Table 8.1).

8.3.2 Species diversity

During monsoon the average diversity was maximum (4.36) in

low grassland habitat type and the least (2.381) was in scattered
shrub (Fig 8.1). During winter the maximum diversity was noticed
in a mosaic of several types (5.3) and the least in grass
savannah (2.57). In summer also the trend was similar to that in
winter (Table 8 . 2 ) .

The Hill diversity index of each habitat type was compared

among the three seasons by using Mann-Whitney test (Table 8.3).
Six of the ten habitat types (listed in earlier page) viz WOOD,
sew, DST, SWS, LGR and SHS showed seasonal variation between
winter and summer. Only Low grassland habitat (L(iR) showed
significant variation (P < 0.04) between monsoon and winter.
Seasonal variation between monsoon and laummei was observed in
three habitat types viz DST, SWS and SSH.

211
 T a b l e 8.1

Sppcies richnesis of ground cover

Mori80ori Winter Summer

Vege- N
tation Mean Mln. Max. Mean Man. Max. Mean Man. Max

WOOD A 4 2 6 6.5 3 10 3.75 3 4

sew 15 5 3 9 5.8 3 11 3.9 2 7
DST 22 6 3 10 5.7 3 11 3.6 2 6
SSH 6 4 3 7 2.5 1 5 1.6 1 3
SWS 39 5.7 2 12 4.53 2 7 3.51 1 7
GRS 16 3.5 2 9 3.25 2 5 2.68 2 6
LGR 29 6.24 3 )2 6.62 4 11 ^.68 3 8
WET 14 6.85 2 11 6.00 3 11 4.5 2 6
SHS 6 4.8 2 8 .4.5 1 6 3 . 5 2 5
MOS 3 5.6 4 7 6.3 5 7 5.6 4 7

N = Number of samples

Table 8.2

Species diversity of ground cover

Monsoon Winter Summer

Vege- N
tation Mean Mm . Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean Min. Max.

WOOD 4 3.2 6 1.89 '. .45 4 . 79 2.2 8.07 2.4 3 2.0 5 3,0
sew 15 3. 72 1 . '.» 1) . 5 4.46 1 .87 8 , 1 4 3.28 1 .88 5 „ 7
DST 22 4.3 0 1.8/ () . 8 9 4.59 1 .88 /, n 3.33 1 .64 '^ . 7
SSH 6 3 . 28 1 . (> 4 4.71 3 .06 2 .00 '•.99 'J. 5 8 1 .96 3 .0
SWS 39 3.55 ) . 75 7.84 3 .35 1 .49 5.83 3.^9 I .45 5.8
GRS 16 2.89 ] . 75 8.41 2.57 1.76 4.69 2.33 1 .64 4.6
LGR 29 4.36 2.00 6.92 5.27 2.5 9 9.1 3 .83 1 .64 7 .5
WET 14 4.3 3 1 .26 7.12 5 .05 2.68 8.57 3.40 1 .87 4. 7
SHS 6 3.67 1 .64 6.4 4.48 2.92 5.45 2.91 i .64 4.2
MOS 3 3 . 76 3.38 4.4 4 5.3 4.3 5 5.9 5.32 3.92 6.7

N = Number of samples

212
 Table 8.3

Mann Whitney U statistic and significance level (p)

calculated for the Hill diversity among the season
for different vegetation types

Habitat Combination Nl N2 U

M*W 4 4 4„0 0.248

WOOD W*S 4 4 14.0 0.08
M*S 4 4 8.0 1 .00

M*W 14 ]'5 7 4,0 0.176

sew W*,S 15 14 15 6.0 0.0 2
M*S 14 14 124,0 0.2 3

M*W 22 22 :«15.0 0.526

DST W--S 22 21 3 3 2,0 0.014
M*S 22 21 312.0 0.049

M*W 6 6 25.5 0.227

SSH W*S 6 6 23.0 0.40 6
M*S 6 6 31 .0 0.036

M*W 39 39 813.5 0. 5 96
SWS W*S 39 39 10 4 3.0 0.005
M"S 39 39 112 0.0 0.001

M*W 16 16 12 6.5 0.955

GRS W*S 16 16 163.5 0.17
M*S 16 16 162.0 0.19

M*W 29 29 290.5 0.043

LGR W*S 29 29 620.0 0.00 2
M*S 29 29 503.5 0.197

M*W 14 14 127.0 0 . 10I

WET W*S 14 14 81 .0 0.43 3
M*S 14 14 12 9.5 0.148

M*W 6 5 8.0 0.20 1

SHS W*S 6 ' 6 2 7.0 0.028
M*S 6 6 2 4.5 0.29 7

M*W 3 3 1 .0 0.127
MOS W*S 3 3 5.0 0.827
M*S 3 3 1 .0 0.127

M*W = Monsoon x Winter

W*S = Winter x Summer
M*S = Monsoon x Summer

213
 FIG 8.1

THE MEAN PLANT SPECIES DIVERSITY

FOR DIFFERENT VEGETATION TYPES
DIVERSITY

WOOD 8CW D8T 8SH SWS GR8 LQR WET 8H8 M08
VEGETATION TYPES
^M MONSOON 5M WINTER CD SUMMJsR

FIG 8.2
THE MEAN AREA COVERED BY PALAfABLE
SPECIES PER PLOT
SQUARE METRE,
200

150

100

50

WOOD SOW D8T 88H SWS SHS QRS LQR M06 WET
VEGETATION TYPES

MONSOON ^ WINTER CJ SUMMER

214
8.3.3 Area covered by palatable species

Monsoon

The
total area covered by palatable speclen in all the ten
2
habitat types was 1023.88 m . The ^^laxi mum ai«a covered v;ith
2
ground vegetation w.Jt< in grass savaonali ( l76.'J m ) while the
2
least was is scattered shrub (38.17 rn ') (Fig 8.2 ) .

Winter

The total area covered by palatable species in all habitat

2
types taken together,during winter was 1069.88 m During
winter the maximum was in grass savannah (174.69 m ) and least in
2
scattered shrub (28.33 m ) which is considerably less compared

to that in monsoon (Fig 8 . 2 ) .

Summer

During summer the area covered by palatable species in all

2
the habitat taken together was less (983.02 m ) compared to in
other two seasons. The maximum area covered was in wetland
2
(146.43 in ) habitat type and the least in the scrub woodland
(45.33 m^) (Fig 8.2) .

The area covered by palatable species in each habitat type

during the three seasons was compared, namely monsoon, winter and
summer using Mann-Whitney 'U' test. Variation was noticed
between winter and summer, and between monsoon and summer mainly
in scrub woodland, scattered shrub, savannah woodland to

215
 FIG 8.3
SEASONAL AND SPATIAL VARIATION OF THE
AREA COVERED BY PALATABLE SPECIES

MONSOON

WINTER

SUMMER

* I I

500m
VEGETATION MAP

E Z ] Scattered shiMbs LllJWetlands Low

[gd^ Woodland [JT]Shrub savannah Mosaic of sovG- null Mrfium

ral types
Scrub-vjjodl and I •• |Grass savannah ^ g Plantations in Utff!] Hiqh
vJDtlands
rarn Savannafi-vcod- g g L o w grassland
'-'-^ land to Scatt- ^with scattered
Dense to dis-
continuous cn Absent
ered troo tree and shrubs thickets
savanna)!
 Table 8.4

Mann Whitney U statistic and significance level (p) calculated

for the area covered by palatable species among the
season for different vegetation types

Habitat Combination Nl N2 U P

M*W 4 4 14.0 0 02
WOOD W*S 4 4 9.0 0 772
M*S 4 4 4.0 0 243

M*W 14 15 83 0 346
sew W*S 15 15 160 0 048
H*S 14 15 146 0 072

M*W 22 22 212 0 48
DST W*S 22 22 350 0 Oil
M*S 22 22 311 0, 10

M*W 6 6 23.5 0 .37

SSH W*S 6 6 32.0 0.01
M*S 6 6 3 2.5 0.016

M*W 38 6 9 4.5 0.775

sws W*S 38 38 945.5 a. 0 2
M*S 38 38 903.5 0,058

M*W 16 16 130.0 0,935

GRS W*S 16 16 179.5 0.039
M*S 16 16 17 3.0 0.076

M*W 29 29 486 0.304

LGR W*S 29 29 518 0 . I 2 ()
M*S 29 29 593 0.007

M*W 14 7 56 0.57
WET W*S 7 14 26 0.08
M*S 14 14 60 0.08

M*W 6 6 20.0 0 748

SHS W*S 6 6 21 0 56
M*S 6 6 24 0 293

M*W 3 3 4 0 827
MOS W*S 3 3 7 0, 2 7 5
M*S 3 3 9.0 0.0 5

M*W = Monsoon X Winter

W*S ' Winter X Summer
M*S = Monsoon X Summer

217
 Table 8.5

Two factor analysis of variance on the area covered by

palatable species

SOURCE SUM-0F-SQUARE3 DF MEAN-SQUARE F~RATIO P

Season 21bl0.916 2 107bi>.4I,S 5.059 0,007

Habitat. 569615.366 9 63290.596 29.767 0.001

Season* 45367.803 18 2520.434 1.185 0.269
Habitat

Table 8.6

Two factor analysis of variance on the volume occupitjd by

palatable species

SOURCE SUM-OF-SQUARES DF MEAN-SQUARE F-RATIO P

Season 20929.360 2 10464.680 8.041 0.001

Habitat 358596.195 9 39844.022 :)0.617 0,001

Season* 57405.728 18 3189,207 2.451 0.001

Habitat

218
scattered savannah, grass savannah, and wetland. Th« area
covered by palatable species in woodland shows the variation only
between monsoon and winter, whereas dense to discontinuous
showed variation only between winter and summer. On the other
hand, in low grassland and mosaic of several types (here was
variation only betwf,M»n monsoon and summer (Fi« 8.3). The only
habitat which did not show any seasonol variation was shrub
savannah (Table 8 . ^t ) .

Two factor analyBls of variance shows that there was a

significant seasonal (1> < 0.001) and habitat (I' < 0.001)
variation in the area covered by the palatable species

(Table 8.5).

8.3.4 Volume of space occupied by palatable species

Monsoon

Thetotal volume occupied by palatable species in all the

3
habitat types was 4 24.54 m during monsoon It varied from
3 3
in grass savannah
6.5 m in scattered shrub to 124.61 m
(Fig 8.4).

Winter

The total volume occupied by palatable species during winter

(406.79 m ) was less compared to that in monsoun seaann. The
total volume occupied is less during W3ut<'.r oottiparevl to that
during monsoon. It varied from 124.12 m' in grafts savannah to
3
4.38 m in scattered shnib (Fig-8.4).

219
 FIG 8.4
THE MEAN VOLUME OF PALATABLE
SPECIES PER PLOT
CUBIC METRE
140

120 -

100 -

WOOD 8CW D8T 8SH SWS SH8 QR8 LQR MOS WET
VEQETATION TYPES

MONSOON WINTER rZl SUf/IMER

FIG 8.5
THE MEAN AREA COVERED BY UNPALATABLE
SPECIES PER PLOT
SQUARE METRfc'
100

WOOD s e w D8T 88H SWS SH8 QR8 LGR MOS WET

VEQETATION TYPES

MONSOON ^ WINTER L I 3 SUMMER

220
 Table 8.7

Mann Whitney U statistic and significance level (p) calculated

for the volume of palatable species a^mong the
season for different vegetation types

Habitat Combination Nl N2 U
M*W 4 4 3,0 0.149
WOOD W*S 4 4 11 .0 0,386
M*S 4 4 7„0 0.7 7.)

M*W 14 15 1 33 , 0 0.22
sew W"S 14 15 158.0 0.0 5
M*S 14 15 166.0 0.008

M*W 22 22 2 9 2.0 0,241

DST W*S 22 22 349.0 0,012
M*S 22 22 372.0 0.002

M*W 6 6 22.0 0.522

SSH W*S 6 6 28.0 0.109
H*S 6 6 31.0 0.037

M*W 38 38 676.0 0.633

SWS W*S 38 38 110 9.0 0.001
M*S 38 38 1057.0 0.001

M"W 16 16 126.0 0.94

GRS W*S 16 16 205.0 0.004
M*S 16 16 210.0 0.002

M*W 29 29 5 90.0 0.008

LGR W*S 29 29 60 9.5 0.00 3
M*S 29 29 7 40.0 0,001

M*W 14 7 33.0 0.23

WET W*S 7 14 44.0 0,70 9
M*S 14 14 71 .0 0,215

M*W 6 6 24.0 0. 337

SHS W*S 6 6 32.0 0,025
M*S 6 6 33 .0 0,016

M*W 3 3 6,0 0,513

MOS W*S 3 3 9.0 O.OS
M*S 3 3 9,0 0.05

M*W = Monsoon x Winter

W*S = Winter x Summer
M*S = Monsoon x Summer

221
Summer

Thetotal volume occupied by palatablfj species in all the

3
habitat typesj Was 219.51 m . Like in other seasons, the maximum
3 3
(54.18 m ) was in grass savannah and least (1.42 m ) in
scattered shrubs (Fig 8 . 4 ) .

The analysis of variance for the volume occupied by

palatable species shows that there was significant variation from
one habitat type to another and also seasonal variations in
habitats. (Table 8.6).

The volume occupied by palatable sjiecies shows a significant

variation between winter and suirunor and between monsoon and
Kummer for Hoiuh woodland, densti lu discontinuous thickets,
savatinah woodland to scattered savannah, grass savannah, shrub
savannah and mosaic of several habitat types, whereas scattered
shrub differed only between monsoon and summer. The low
grassland habitat showed variation in all the season
combinations while woodland and wetland did not show any seasonal
variation 'Table 8.7).

8.3.5 Area covered by unpalatable species

The most common unpalatable species are Cassia tora and

Achyranthes aspera.

Monsoon

The total area covered by unpalatable species in all the

habitat types together was 349.09 m which is around 25% of the

222
 FIG 8.6
SEASONAL AND SPATIAL VARIATION OF THE
AREA COVERED BY UNPALATABLE SPECIES

MONSOON

WINTER

SUMMER

500m
VEGETATION MAP

Forest [XT]scattered shrubs [l3Wetlands LCT^

(731 Woodland |.i>'jShrub savannah S33Mosaic of seve- ll|lll ^tedlUIn

"'^' rnl typos
Scrub-woodland FTTIGrass savannah fegjPlantations in |||ti/l High
wstlands
|-5-r] Savannah-MxxJ-fjv^ Low grassland ^ ^ Dense to dis- C Z l Absent
'-'—^ land to Scatt- with scattered continuous
ered trco tree and shrubs thickets
savannah
total area covered by vegetation. Thti niaximum area covered by
unpnlatablo species was found in shrub savannah (72.60 sq m) and
the least in wetland (10.30 m^) ( F I R 8,5).

Winter

Of the total area covered by ground vegetation around 23%

was found occupied by unpalatable species during winter. During
this season also the maximum area covered by unpalatable species
2
was in shrub savannah (82.5 m ) and the least in wetland
(8.00 m ^ ) .

Summer

Area covered
by unpalatable species In all the habitats
2
taken together was 142.07 m ; approximately 13% of the total area
covered by ground vegetation. The maximum was noticed in shrub
2 2
savannah (60.00 m ) and the least in scrub woodland (10.00 m ).
During this season the unpalatable species were almost absent in
woodland, scattered shrub, grass savannah, mosaic of several
typos and wetland (Fig 8 . 6 ) .

The area covered by unpalatable species in each habitat type

during the three seasons was compared using Mann-Whitney test.
Variation was noticed between winter and summer, and monsoon and
summer mainly in woodland, scrub-woodland, savannah-woodland to
scattered tree savannah, grass savannah and low grassland.
Wetland and scattered shrub did not show any variation between
winter and summer. Mosaic of several habitat type showed the
difference only between monsoon and summer (P < 0.05) whereas

224
 Table 8.8

Mann Wli.il.ney (J statistic and significance level (p) calculated

for the area covered by unpalatable species among the
aeaBon for different vegetation types

Habit at ('oinbinat ion Nl N2 U P

M*W 4 4 10.5 0.462

WOOD W*S 4 4 16.0 0.013
M*S 4 4 16.0 0.013

M*W 14 14 113.5 0 .475

sew W*S 14 14 193.5 0.001
M*S 14 14 189 .0 0 .001

M*W 22 22 3 30.5 0.037

DST W*S 22 22 411.0 0.001
M*S 22 22 463 .5 0.001

M*W 5 5 21 .0 0.066
S8H W*S 5 5 15.0 0.317
M*S 5 5 25.0 0.005

M*W 38 38 684.0 0.692

sws W*S 38 38 120 7.5 0.001
M*S 38 38 1220.5 0.001

M*W 6 6 17.0 0.87

SHS W*S 6 6 25 .0 0.231
M*S 6 6 26.0 0.171

M*W 15 1 5 117.0 0.801

GRS W*S 15 1 5 135.0 0.073
M*S 15 15 14 2.5 0.035

M*W 29 29 422.5 0 .975

LGR W*S 29 ;'9 635 .0 0.001
M*S 29 2') 639.5 0.001

M*W 3 3 5 .0 0.827
MO!l W*S 3 \ 7 .5 0.121
M*8 3 I 9.0 0.037

M*w 14 14 140.5 0.014

WRT W*S 14 14 105 .0 0.317
M*S 14 14 147.0 0 .003

M*W = Monsoon x Winter

W*S = Win te r X Summe r
M*S = Mon soon X Summe r

225
den He to discontinuous thicket shovjed the variation in all thp
three seasonal combinations. The only habitat which did not show
any seasonal variation shrub savann;>h D a b l e 8.8).

AnalyslB of variance for th<' nicd covered by unpalatable

species shows that there was significant variation from one
to the other habitat type and also from one to other season
(Trtble 8.9) .

fl.3.6 VoluMe occupied by the unpalatable species

Monsoon

Volume occupied by unpalatable species m all the habitat

3
types taken together was 144.39 m which is .around 25% of the
total volume occupied by vegetation. The maximum volume occupied
3
by unpala!ab!e si><'cles was in shrub Bav<innah (JO.23 m ) and the
least in we H a n d (2.08 m"^ ) (Fig 8.7).

Winter

Of the total volume covered by ground vegetation, 33.33% was

occupied by unpalatable species during winter. As in monsoon, the
maximum volume occupied by unpalatable stpecies in winter was in
3 3
shrub savannah (66.85 m ) and the least in the wetland (3.34 m ) .

Summer

The total
volume occupied by unpalatable species during
3
summer was 142.07m which is 22% of the total volume occupied by

226
 FIG 8.7
THE MEAN VOLUME OF UNPALATABLE
SPECIES PER PLOT
CUBIC METRE
80

60

40

20

WOOD SOW DST 88H SWS SHS QRS LQR M08 WET
VEGETATION TYPES
^M MONSOON WINTER E L I SUMMER

FIG 8.8
THE MEAN PERCENTAGE GRAZED PER PLOT
IN DIFFERENT TYPES OF VEGETATION
SQUARE METRE

WOOD SOW DST 88H SWS QRS LQR 8H8 MOS WET
VEGETATION TYPES
M0N800N ^ WINTER CZZi SUMMER

227
 Table 8.9

Two factor analysis of variance on the area covered by

unpalatable species

SOURCE SUM-OP-SQUARES DP MEAN--SQUABK F-RATIO P

,*l e a s 0 n 3423 6.773 1 '21 n . 1 >* f) 17 .36A 0.001

Habitat 56887.301 6 U U , 81 1 9.061 0.001

Season* 23128.535 18 1284.919 1.842 0.019

Habitat

Table 8.10

Two factor analysis of variance on the volume occupied by

unpalatable species

SOURCE SUM-OP-.SQUARES DP MEAN-SQUARE F-RATTO P

Season 75 29.946 3 7 6 4.973 1 1 .363 0.001

Habitat 19006.791 2111.866 6.374 0 .001

Season* 11267.745 18 625 .986 1.889 0.015

Habitat

228
 TaDle 8.11

Mann Whitney U statistic and significance level (p) calculated

for the volume of unpalatable species among the
season for different vegetation types

Habitat Combination Nl. N2 U

M*W 4 4 10 .0 0.564
WOOD W'^S 4 4 16 .0 0.014
M*.S 4 4 16 .0 0.014

M*W 15 15 104 .5 0 . 74
sew W*S 15 15 213 .5 0 .001
M*S 15 15 208 .5 0 ,001

M*W 22 22 283 .0 0 336

DST w*s 22 22 419 .0 0, 001
M*S 22 22 462 .0 0 .001

M*W 6 6 28 . 5 0.073
SSH W*S 6 6 21 .0 0.317
M*S 6 6 33 .0 0 .007

M*W 38 38 604 .0 0.218

8WS W*S 38 38 1206 .0 0.001
M*S 38 38 119 2 .5 0.001

M*W 16 16 136,.0 0 677

GRS W*S 16 16 152,,0 0 074
M*S 16 lb 160,.0 0 036

M*W 29 29 372,,0 0, 45
LOR W*S 29 29 643,,5 0 001
M*S 29 29 626,,0 0, 001

M'^W 6 6 16,,0 0 ,744

3HS W*S 6 6 ,0
25 , 0 ,232
M*S 6 6 ,0
25 . 0, 232

M*W 3 3 5 .0 0, 827
MOS W*S 3 3 7 ,5
. 0 .121
M*S 3 3 9.,0 0.037

M*W 12 105 . 5 0.021

WET W*S 12 I J 78.,0 0.317
12 12 I 14.0 0.003

M*W •=• Monsoon x Winter

W*S « Winter x Summer
M*S " Monsoon x Summer,

229
ground vegetation.
The volume occupied by unpalatable species
3
was maximum in shrub savannah (60 m ) and least In scrub woodland
( 10.00 m"^) (Fig 8.7) .

The analysis oi variance shows that there was significant

seasonal variation (P < 0.001) and also from one to the other
habitat (P < 0.001) variation in the volume occupied by
unpalatable species (Tat)]e 8.10).

The volume occupied by unpalatable species showed a

significant variation between winter and summer and between
monsoon and summer for woodland, scrub woodland, dt'inse to
discontinuous thickets, savannah woodland to scattered tree
savannah, grass savannah and low grassland, whereas scattered
shrub and wetland did not differed only between winter and
summer. On the other hand, volume covered by unpalatable species
for shrub savannah did not show any significant seasonal
variation (Table 8.11).

8.3.7 Percentage grazed

Monsoon

The average percentage of herbs anc| grasses grazed in all

the habitat types during monsoon was 8.1%. It varied from 2.5%
in scattered shrub to 17.06% in low grassland. The percentage
grazed in different .miasons was the same (16%) in mosaic of
several types and m wtjilund (Fig 8.8}.

230
 FIG 8.9
SEASONAL AND SPATIAL VARIATION OF
GRAZING INTENSITY BY UNGULATES

MONSOON

WINTER

SUMMER

500m VEGETATION MAP

1^11 Scattered shrubs E H wetlands

[fpi] ^loodland |.n ».'jShrub savannah ^ S M o s a i c of s e v e - IIIIH Medium

r a l types
^S Scrub-vioodland [••••.•|GraS3 savannah P^ Plantations in \WI] iu*
""^ wetlands

rj;^ £,avanrah-WDod-g^Lov g r a s s l a n d ^ ^ Dense t o d i s - d ] AU., n t

land bo S c a t t - with s c a t t e r e d continuous
ered t r o o t r e e and shrubs tliickets
rnvinirili
 Tablr 8.12

Mann Whitney U fjtatistic and significance level (p) calculated

for the percentage grazed among the season for different
vegetation types

Habitat Combination Nl N2 U
M*W 4 4 13 .0 0.013
WOOD W*S 4 4 11.5 0.278
M*S 4 k 2.0 O.O^fe

M*W 15 15 108.0 0.835

sew W*S 15 15 110.0 0.912
M*S 15 15 107.5 0.824

M*W 22 22 186.0 0.173

DST W*S 22 22 301 .0 0. 155
M*S 22 22 239.0 0 .942

M*W 6 6 28.0 1 .00

SSH w*s 6 6 24.0 0.138
M*S 6 6 27.0 0.056

M*W 39 39 852.0 0.327

SWS W*S 39 39 607.5 0.099
M*S 39 39 758.5 0.983

M*W 16 16 127.5 0.983

GRfJ W*S 16 16 93 .0 0.163
M*S 16 16 91 .5 0.143

M*W 29 29 354.5 0, 283

LGR W*S 29 2 "J 48 2 .5 0.321
M*3 29 29 413.5 0.911

M*W 6 6 b .0 0.022
SHS WAS 6 (\ 17 .0 0.867
M^S 6 6 3 .0 0 .006

M*W 3 3 3 .0 0.487
MOS W*S 3 3 3.5 0.637
M*S 3 3 2 .0 0.197

M*W 14 14 147.5 0.016

WET W*S 14 14 33 .5 0.002
M*S 14 14 70.0 0. 182

M*W = Mortiocn X Winter

W*S - Winter x S11 m 111 e r
M*S = Monsoon x Summer

232
Winter

The avorage percentage grazed rhirlng winter was 11.2%. The

maximum percenta§e grazed was noticed In mosaic of several types
(31.6%) followed by low grassland (21.7%) and least Jn scattered
shrub (3.3:)'!) (f' 1 R 8 , 8 ) .

Slimmer

During summer the average percentage grazed was slightly

higher (11.8%) than that in winter. The maximum percentage
grafted was in mosaic of several types (33.33%) followed by
wetland (23.b/%) and ••hp least in scrub woodland (Fig 8.9). Not
even a single plot was grazed in scattered shrub during this
season.

The percentage grazed in different habitat types was

compared among the seasons using Mann-Whitney test. The
variation between monsoon and winter and between monsoon and
summer was noticed only in woodland and shrub savannah habitat
1. ype», Grazing In scattered shrub habitat type differed only
b»»tween monsoon and summer, whereas, it differed in savannah
woodland to scattered tree savannah between winter and summer.
Variation in grazing in wetland was observed between monsoon and
winter and between winter and summer. On the other hand, scrub
woodland, grass savannah,,low grassland, and mosaic of several
type did not show any seasonal variation (Table 8.12).

233
8.3.8 Presence of hoof marks and droppings in different
vegetation type

With thft aJtn of finding out relative use of each habitat

type in different, seasons, the presence of droppings and hoof
marks were taken as measures. Either of these two evidences
indicate the presence of animals in a habitat.

Since hoof marks are not always clear in certain habitats

such as when the ground surface is hard or is thickly covered
with grass, dropplilgs indicate the habitat use. But droppings are
usually not iji the form of definite groups or heaps and therefore
their weight has been taken as a measure of animal number and
duration of their stay in the concerned habitat.

Similaily in certain h a b i t a t t y p e s , droppings are difficult

to locate and hence hoof marks abundance has been taken as
indication of the animal number or duration of their stay both
indirectly giving an idea of habitat use.

The sighting of hoof marks in various plots was recorded in

each season and an index (n) was developed for each vegetation
type as follows:

n = Xjj / N)

Similarly, an index for droppings w<»f5 developed as follows:

n = W ij / N

234
 FIG 8 . 1 0

Average (a) sightings of hoof mari^s and

(b) droppings (in gms) of Chltal per
plot In different vegetation types

8W8
0.08

M08
0.33

MONSOON

D8T
3.73
8CW
J.74 18.74

S8H(
30 i WET
^ 3.14

f r i l l 11 K
MOS MOS
6 17
[•[•!' i| !!>'• iiiiiiiiiiii'^ ^"
Illlil''" nil'""
8W8 LOR LOR
0.77 8.77
4.24

WINTER

06T 8.84
8CW 24.63

WOOD
0.26 WOOD 14.6

WBT
0.14 88H 96.76
WET 22.64

MOS
0.33 MOS 6
8W8 , - ~ LOR 3.79
0.18 8W8 4.32

SUMMER

235
where,

i = Species
j = Habitat
X = No. of hoof marks sighted
W = Weight of dropping in gms
N = Number of plots

CHITAL

During monsoon and winter maximum number of hoof marks were

sighted in low grassland, mosaic of several type and scattered
shrub while minimum in savannah woodland to scattered tree
savannah. But, during summer the maximum number of hoof marks
were sighted in scrub woodland and dense to discontinuous
thickets and least in. savannah woodland to scattered tree
savannah (Fig 8.10 a ) .

The trend was somewhat different in regard to droppings.

During monsoon the maximum number of dropping were found in low
grassland and least in wetland. During winter and summer maximum
number of dropping were found in scattered shrub. Minimum number
of dropping were located in wetland during winter while during
summer the least number of droppings were located in grassland
(Fig 8.10 b ) .

The high index of hoof marks and droppings in scattered

shrub can be explained as follows. The scattered shrubs are
widely found, especially in saline zone and consists of Salvadora
sp. and Prosopis Jvliflora which are mainly used as resting place

236
 FIG 8.11

Average (a) sightings of hoof marks and

(b) droppings (In gms) of Blackbuck per
plot In different vegetation types

B
SW8
0.23

MONSOON

8H8
27.57

WINTER

8H8
9.38

SUMMER

237
by Chital. The other possible reason for high index of hoof
marks in this habitat may be the lack of ground cover in saline
patch making the hoof very conspicuous.

BLACKBUCK

During monsoon and winter seasons the maximum hoof marks of

Blackbuck were seen in savannah woodland to scattered tree
savannah while during summer the maximum number were seen in low
grassland area. In all the three seasons the minimum number of
hoof marks were found in shrub savannah habitat (Fig 8.11 a ) .

In all the three seasons the maximum droppings were found in

shrub savannah and minimum in low grassland habitat. But in
summer the maximum droppings were found in wetland habitat
(Fig 8.11 b ) .

The frequency of hoof marks and droppings of Blackbuck was

present in various habitat types during summer than during
monsoon and winter which may be because of the shortage of food
in a given habitat and the necessity of covering longer areas in
search of food.

NILGAI

The maximum number of hoof marks of nilgai were sighted

during monsoon and summer in savannah woodland to scattered tree
savannah followed by scrub woodland, whereas, during winter the
maximum was in mosaic of several types followed by dense to
discontinuous thickets (Fig 8.12 a ) .

238
 FIG 8.12

Average (a) sightings of hoof marlcs and

(b) droppings (in gms) of Nilgai per
plot in different vegetation types

8W8 10.27
QR8 e.63 88H 31.17
8dH
0.33
DST 4.79
8CW 4

LQR 68.36
WET 41.1

MONSOON

DST 99.8

8CW 238.75

8W8 317.84
WET 42.21
M 0 8 31.83

LOR 150.08
8H8 148.82 ORG 31.84

WINTER

DST
208.38

8CW
87.88

M08
0.33 WET
385.88

SUMMER

239
 FIG 8.13

Average (a) sightings of hoof marks and

(b) droppings {in gms) of Feral cattle
per plot in different vegetation types

B
SHS sws
369.20 904.87
SSH
438.18
LGR
2097.7B DST
872.78
sew
163.68
WKT
O.Sl
UOS
1006.87 TfBT
MOS
0.33 SS93.fi

MONSOON

SWS 2376.82
DST SHS 902.5
0 18
ORS 489.44 SSH 489.1
sew DST 774
0.28 sew 603.36

WET
0.88 LGR 4812.84
WET 2808.21

MOS 700

WINTER

SSH
0.18 DST SWS 788.34 SSH 638.3
0.18 SHS 1423.26 DST 840

sew sew 1678,72

0.28 GR 1362.84

WET LGR 1768.26

0.36
MOS 183.6
WKT 4766.76
MOS
0.33

SUMMER

240
 Distinct seasonal variation in the presence of Nilgais'
droppings in different habitats was observed. Maximum droppings
were found in low grassland during monsoon, in savannah woodland
to scattered tree savannah in winter season and in wetland
habitat during summer (Fig 8.12 b ) .

Presence of droppings in the case of Nilgai may create a

bias result because of its characteristic habit of defecating
repeatedly in the same location, with the result of forming large
fecal masses .The size of the dropping pile varies from 0.1 sq.m.
to 2 sq.m. and hence the weight.

FERAL CATTLE

During monsoon and winter the maximum hoof marks of feral

cattle was seen in low grassland which is the most preferred
habitat of feral cattle. Few hoof marks were seen in shrub
savannah during winter. During summer, however, almost equal
number of hoof marks of feral cattle were seen in grass savannah,
mosaic of several types and wetland (Fig 8.13 a ) .

The trend of distribution of droppings was more or less

similar to hoof marks. During monsoon and winter the maximum
dropping were collected from low grassland area and least from
scrub woodland. But, during summer the maximum droppings were
collected from wetland habitat (Fig 8.13 b ) .

WILD BOAR

In all the three seasons, namely monsoon, winter and summer

the maximum hoof marks and dropping were found present in dense

241
 FIG 8.14

Average (a) sightings of ix>of marlcs and

(b) droppings (in gms) of Wiid boar per
plot in different vegetation types

DST
0.83 DST
28.09
sew
0.14

MONSOON

WET
10.08
MOS
10.87

WINTER

DST 8.6
sew 6.37

SWS l.SS
LGR 0.77
WET
0.36
WET 10.07

SUMMER

242
to discontinuous thickets (Fig 8.14 a & b ) . This indicates that
Wild boar mainly prefer dense to discontinuous thickets and scrub
woodland.

8.3.9 Abundance of major plant species in different habitat types

Abundance of 20 major palatable species of grasses and herbs

were estimated. All the 20 species were found during winter
season but 19 were found in monsoon and 17 in summer season. The
volume of space occupied by each species was calculated as
f01 lows:

Circular sample plots of 8 m radius (different number in

each habitat type ) were laid. Volume of space occupied by each
2
species in all plots was estimated and average per 200 m was
calculated. This figure was taken as an abundance ratio.

Monsoon

During monsoon Cynodon dactylon , Cyperus spp., Echinocloa

spp., Sporobolus spp., Scirpus spp., and Bracharia spp. was
recorded in most of the habitats. Cynodon dactylon were recorded
3
least (0.42 m ) in scattered shrub while its maximum abundance
3
was in low grassland (2.05 m ) . Echinocloa spp. and Scirpus spp.
were minimum in scattered shrub whereas, Echinocloa spp. was
abundant in low grassland while the Scirpus spp. was abundant in
mosaic of several types. Cyperus spp. and Bracharia spp. was
mostly abundant in scattered shrub and low grassland
respectively. Whereas, abundance of Sporobolus spp. was maximum
in wetland. In the grass savannah habitat, Vetiveria zizanioides

243
 Table 8.13

3
Abundance of major species in volume m for different
vegetation types during monsoon

WOOD sew DST SSH SWS SHS GRS LGR MOS WET

Bracharia reptans 0.7 1.13 1.77 0.15 0.24 2.54 0.73 0.04
Cynodon dactylon 0.89 1.48 1.31 1.13 0.99 0.42 1.95 2.05 1.59
Cyperus spp. 0.66 1.38 1.57 0.7 0.44 0.47 0.47 0.78 0.21
Desmostachya bipinnata 8.62 1.33 5.19 43.71 9.54 51.71 7.14
Dicanthium annulatum 0.14 0.09 0.15 0.44 0.32 2.35
Eragrostis spp. 0.55 0.2 1.00 1.00
Echinochloa spp. 2.32 6.81 7.73 0.65 3.04 7.05 3.00 14.54 11.28 1.25
Eriochloa spp. 0.14 0.07 0.56 0.83
Ipomoea aquatica 0.02 0.19 0.45 0.36
Lagera spp.
Paspalum distichum 0.01 0.33 1.22
PseudoraphJs spp. 3.00
Paspaldium spp. 0.43 0.34 0.1
Panicum antidotale 0.05 0.11
Sporobolus spp. 0.43 1.32 0.54 1.03 0.54 1.08 1.77 2.23
Setaria spp. 0.8 0.52 0.89
Scirpus spp. 2.54 0.21 0.57 4.84 2 . 9 3 . 2 . 5 2 31.6 2.14
Trianthema spp. 0.03 0.05 0.16 0.16 0.12 2.59 3.44 0.26
Vetiveria zizanioides .21 1.00 20.72 63.19 1.28 6.47
Iseilema laxum 0.06

244
 Table 8.14

Abundance of major species In volume m3 for different

vegetation types during winter

WOOD sew DST SSH SWS SHS GRS LGR MOS WET

Bracharia reptans 0.27 0.23 0.04 0.20 0.17 1.55 0.12

Cynodon dactylon 2.92 1.26 2.05 0.61 1.84 0.2 1.85 2.05 3.31 0.19
Cyperus spp. 0.56 1.13 0.41 0.51 0.5 1.4 5.22 1.02
Desmostachya bipinnata 8.05 3 7.85 47.67 10.44 56.7 5.82 1.02
Dicanthium annulatum 0.32 1.01 0.37 1.27 1.24 0.37 4.89 9.02 0.10
Eragrostis spp. 0.32 0.26 0.56
Echinochloa spp. 2.60 1.94 2.00 1.43 0.97 1.02 0.54 2.72 9.85 0.61
Eriochloa spp. 0.16 1.1 0.43 0.45 0.87
Ipomoea aquatica 0.03 0.16
Lagera spp. 0.19 0.47 0.01 0.05 0.11 0.01
Paspalum distichum 0.08 0.14 1.67
Pseudoraphis spp. 1.84
Paspaldium spp. 1,68
Panicum antidotale 0,6
Sporobolus spp. 0,36 1.08 0.44 0.64 1.: 0.16 2.36 1 0.22
Setaria spp. 0.29 0.29
Scitpus spp. 0.46 0.05 0,94 3.33 8.64 2.77
Trianthema spp. 1.23 0.06 0.09
Vetiveria zizanioides 7.45 1.9 26.76 62,2 2.36 0.84
Iseilema laxum 0.05 1.08 0.15

245
 Table 8.15

3
Abundance of major species in volume m for different

vegetation type during summer

WOOD sew DST SSH SWS SHS GRS LGR MOS WET

Bracharia reptans
Cynodon dactylon 1.76 1.23 0.78 0.88 0.05 1.36 2.09 2.07 1.79
Cyperus spp. 0.29 0.06 0.36 0.69 0.43
Desmastachya bipinnata A.99 4.25 5.2 24.33 4.92 30.17 3.87
Dicanthium annulatum 0.14 1.70 1.86 1.76 0.57 2.24 2.2 0.28
Eragrostis spp. 0.4 0.23 0.09 0.18 0.63 0.34 1.1
Echinochloa spp. 0.27 0.06 0.01 0.79 3.53 0.11
Eriochloa spp. 0.3 0.16 0.61
Ipomoea aquatica 0.01 0.21
Lagera spp. 1.32 0.6 0.24 0.13 0.07 5.05
Paspalum distichum 0.13 0.5 3.08
Pseudoraphis spp. 0.03 0.35
Paspaldium spp.
Panicum antidotale
Sporobolus spp. 0.57 0.6 0,11 0.16 0.54 2.01 2.01 6.71
Setaria spp.
Scirpus spp. 0.15 0.05 0.50 0.87 3.52 6.05
Trianthema spp.
Vetiveria zizanioides 2.64 0.14 6.26 21.2 0.93 7.17
Iseilema laxum 0.05 0.01 0.11 0.59 0.43 0.82

!46
and Desmostachya bipinnata was abundantly present. Paspalum
distichum and Dicanthium annvlatum was recorded maximum in
wetland and low grassland respectively (Table 8.13 ).

Winter

During winter Cynodon dactylon, Dicanthium annulatum,

Ecbinocloa spp., Sporobolus spp. and Cyperus spp, were recorded
in most habitats. The maximum abundance ot Cynodon dactylon,
Ecbinocloa spp., Dicanthium annulatum and Cyperus spp. was
recorded in mosaic of several types. Sporobolus spp. was present
abundantly in low grassland habitat. Like monsoon Vetiveria
zizanioides and Desmostachya bipinnata was recorded maximum in
grass savannah habitat while maximum Paspalum distichum was
recorded in wetland (Table 8.14).

Summer

During summer Cynodon dactylon, Dicanthium annulatum,

Eragrostis spp. and Sporobolus spp. was recorded in most of the
habitats. Cynodon dactylon and Dicanthium annulatum was
abundantly seen in low grassland and mosaic of several types.
Eragrostis spp. was recorded maximum in shrub savannah while
*
Sporobolus spp. was found dominant in wetland. Desmostachya
TV .
bipinnata and Vetiveria zizanioides were domina[t,>d in grass
savannah. Maximum Paspalum distichum was also recorded in
wetland ( Table 8.15 ).

247
8.3.10 Grazing pressure on different species

The grazing pressure on 20 major palatable species of grass

and herbs was calculated, of these 16 were grazed in monsoon,
19 in winter and 17 in summer. Index lower than one was regarded
to indicate low grazing pressure, higher index was
proportionately regarded as indicative of greater grazing
pressure.

Monsoon

The maximum grazing pressure during monsoon was noticed on

Paspalum distichum in low grassland area, Sporobolus spp. had
maximum pressure in all the habitats except in mosaic of several
type where it was 1.66. The pressure on Sporobolus spp. was
maximum in scrub woodland habitat where this particular species
is less abundant. Eragrostis spp. too was found under high
grazing pressure in scrub woodland and savannah woodland to
scattered tree savannah habitats (Table 8.16). Cyperus spp. and
Echinocloa spp. were under high pressure in grass savannah.mosaic
of several types and wetland. The high grazing pressure may , be
due to the scarcity of these species. Similarly Cynodon dactylon
basically a terrestrial species is under less pressure in the
terrestrial area where it is more abundant while in the wetland
the pressure on Cynodon dactylon is maximum, Vetiveria
zizanioides and Desmostachya bipinnata which are abundantly
present in savannah woodland to scattered tree savannah are
under low grazing pressure.

248
 Table 8.16

Grazing pressure index on different plant species during

monsoon for different vegetation types

WOOD sew DST SSH SWS SHS GRS LGR MOS WET

Bracharia rep tans 0.96 2.77 1.77

Cynodon dactylon 0.4 1.37 1.51 1.6 2.58 1.72 4.70
Cyperus spp. 0.75 .3.07 0.6 1.36 3.66 0.58 3.3 3.50
Desmostachya bipinnata 0.27 0.08 0.58
Dicanthium annulatum 4.71 1.47
Eragrostis spp. 16.66 14.22
Echinochloa spp. 0.83 0.77 2.57 4.16 1.11 3.3 3.14
Eriochloa spp. 5.55
Ipomoea aquatica
Lagera spp.
Paspalum distichum 33.33 1.31
Pseudoraphis spp. 2.87
Paspaldium spp. 3.57
Panicum antidotale
Sporobolus spp. 16.66 2.29 6.25 4.7 4.16 4.7 1.66 2.38
Setaria spp. 2.5
Scirpus spp. 1.35 .1.06 4.16 2.94
Trianthema spp. « 2.0 0.58
Vetiveria zizanioides 0.16
Iseilema laxum

249
 Table 8.17

Grazing pressure index on different plant species during

winter for different vegetation types

WOOD sew DST SSH SWS SHS GRS LGR MOS WET

Bracharia reptans 3.84 7.69 33.37 3.03 14.28

Cynodon dactylon 0.88 1.41 1.14 1.32 1.27 2.24 1.44 1.51 14.28
Cyperus spp. 3.3 5.07 ^.25 7.S 16.^6 3.22 0.^^ 14.28
Desmostachya bipinnata 1.0 3.84 0.99 0.07 0.37 2 3.3 3.57
Dicantbium annvlatum 16.66 1.72 1.6 3.03 16.6 1.18 1.51
Eragrostis spp. 6.25 50
Echinochloa spp. .0 0.6 1.62 0.6 3.35 3.03 16.6 1.56 1.51 3.14
Eriochloa spp. 2.72 20 5.76
Ipomoea aquatica 3.57
Lagera spp. .25 1.92
Paspalum distichum 33.3 2.67
Pseudoraphis spp. 3.57
Paspaldium spp. 7.14
Panicum antidotale 7,14
Sporobolus spp. 16.6 5.5 6.25 5 2.0 16.66 1.81 3.03 3.57
Setaria spp.
Scirpus spp. 5.5 4.16 2.48 1.51 1.42
Trianthema spp. 33.33
Vetiveria zizanioides .0 2.53 0.06 8.33
Iseilema laxum 1.51 8.33 3.3

250
 Table 8.18

Grazing pressure index on different plant species during

summer for different vegetation types

WOOD sew DST SSH SWS SHS GRS LGR MOS WET

Bracharia reptans
Cynodon dactylon 4 1.23 1.8 2.26 6.25 2.7 1.15 1.0 2.0
Cyperus spp. 11.11 10 0.41 3.03 4.76
Desmostachya bipinnata 4 1.65 2.72 0.67 0.66 0.75 2.37
Dicanthium annulatum 16.66 2.00 1.36 1.13 3.0 1.61 3.03 7.14
Eragrostis spp. 1.81 5.07 16.6 3.03
Echinochloa spp. 3.63 2.95 1.0
Eriochloa spp. 25 10 3.03 3.52
Ipomoea aquatic a 2.28
Lagera spp. 0.6 3.57
Paspalum distichum 25 33.33 1.56
Pseudoraphis spp. 33.33 2.85
Paspaldium spp. 33.33 7.14
Panicum antidotale
Sporobolus spp. 3.03 4.54 3.03 1.72 1.00 1.55
Setaria spp.
Scirpus spp. 25 8.33 2.77 1.51 7.14
Trianthema spp.
Vetiveria zizanioides 0.15 0.27 1.92 1.42
Iseilema laxum 16.66 9.42 2.0 4.7 3.03

251
Winter

Paspalum distichum , Trianthema spp. and Bracharia spp. seem

to be under high grazing pressure during winter in low grassland
areas. Besides these, Cynodon dactylon , Cyperus spp., Ipomoea
spp., Pseudoraphis spp., Paspaldium spp. and Panicum spp. are
also under high grazing pressure in wetland. Dicanthium
annulatum and Sporobolus spp. are under high pressure in scrub
woodland and grass savannah than in other habitats. In both
these habitat these species are less abundant . During winter
unlike monsoon Vetiveria zizanioides and Desmostachya bipinnata
are under high grazing pressure in low grassland areas
(Table 8.17).

Summer

Eragrostis spp., Paspalum distichum, Pseudoraphis spp. and

Paspaldium spp. being scarce in low grassland habitat, are under
high grazing pressure there. Dicanthium annulatum, Sporobolus
spp. and Isolema spp. are under high pressure in scrub woodland
habitat. Maximum grazing pressure in dense to discontinuous
thickets is on Cyperus spp., Eriochloa spp., Sporobolus spp.
and Scirpus spp. As during monsoon Vetiveria zizanioides and
Desmostachya bipinnata are not under much grazing pressure in any
habitat (Table 8.18).

8.4 Discussion

The present study indicates that maximum richness and

diversity of plant species in most habitats is in winter followed

252
by monsoon while in summer the diversity index declines in almost
all habitat types. Habitat wise comparison shows that LGR and
MOS offer maximum diversity (overall average for all the
seasons). Other habitat types having high diversity are WET,
sew and DST. Low diversity habitats are SSH, SWS and GRS. It
becomes easier, therefore, to understand why grazing was maximum
in MOS and LGR during winter and monsoon. The reasons for higher
grazing intensity also in WET during summer is obvious - the
wetlands get almost dried up during summer but still retain
comparatively higher sub-soil moisture and hence grasses
Paspalum distichuWy Sporobolus spp., and Panicum spp. grow there.
Apart from that, plant growth in most other habitats retards in
summer and ungulates are attracted to WET habitat because of
comparatively abundant food resources.

The area covered by palatable species showed the variation

in different seasons for different vegetation type. The only
habitat which did not show any variation was shrub savannah where
the grazing intensity was less due to the abundance of
unpalatable species. Though this habitat is used for shelter, it
is hardly used as a grazing land by ungulates except few
Blackbuck which were seen grazing in the open patches. The
maximum area covered by vegetation during monsoon and summer was
in grass savannah habitat where the two major perennial grasses,
namely Vetiveria zizanioides and Desmostachya bipinnata are
thickly yo^lated/. In summer the wetland exceeds the grass
savannah habitat in the percentage covered when most of the
h
aquatic area drieA up and the whole area is thickly carpeted with
Paspalum distichum, Panicum sp. and Sporobolus spp.

253
 The maximum volume occupied by unpalatable species was
recorded in shrub savannah which is dominated by Cassia tora and
Achyranthes aspera. Many of the present shrub savannah areas
appeared to be covered previously by low grassland (Bholu pers.
comm.) where most of the domestic cattle used to graze before the
cattle grazing was stopped.

Over grazing will increase the exotic species (Milchunas

et al. 1988) and the bush enchrochment (Jeffery 1961). The most
frequent changes associated with cattle grazing have been
reduction in perennial grass cover with a concomitant increase in
the shrub component (Dodd and Brady 1986). The general mechanism
of degradation has been studied by Perennou and Ramesh (1987)
where they describe that the cutting of trees and over grazing
lead the forest into shrub savannah. With this assumption it can
be said that »x once this shrub savannah/&«^v«-rgtr previously Jerf
low grassland/ was utilized by ungulates and when the pressure
increase^ the habitat turned into shrub savannah resulting in
larger number of unpalatable species which directly affect the
density of the animal in that habitat when foraging is taken
into consideration.

By looking at the data given in this chapter, it becomes

dls^uexivlbT^ that the selective grazing in different habitat in
each season follows the fluctuating abundance and scarcity of
food resources in various habitats. Topography, soil and other
ecological factors favour the growth of palatable plant species
in different habitat types in each season and ungulate species
keep moving from one to the other habitat type in accordance with
the seasonal availability of their preferred food.

254
 It is interesting to note that all ungulate species do not
graze in one and the same habitat in any season. This is so
because each species has its own order of preference and
therefore grazes only in those habitats where they found their
preferred food. Chital for instance prefers Cynodon dactylon,
Sporobolus spp., Echinocloa spp. and therefore grazes mostly in
MOS throughout the year. But in summer season, when these grass
species get dried up, Chital do not get enough of their most
ipreferred food and also grazed in SCW and DST habitats.
Similarly Sambar prefers Paspalum distichum, Cyperus spp.,
Echinocloa spp., Ipomoea aquatica and Hydrilla spp. and grazes in
WET throughout the year because all these species are found
there. But in summer mostly Sporobolus spp. and Paspalum
distichum is found in WET while other preferred species disappear
and hence Sambar also grazes in DST where it gets Sporobolus spp.
as well as some other browse species to fulfill its nutritional
requirements.

The same pattern of grazing in different habitats according

to seasonal availability of palatable food is followed by all
ungulate species. The season of acute scarcity of food in
Keoladeo National Park is summer and that is the period when each
ungulate species is found grazing in several habitat types to
fulfill their food needs which cannot be done if they remain
confirmed to only one or two habitat types. But growth of
grasses and other food plants increases with the onset of monsoon
and continues in winter till just before the start of the summer
season and food resources during this period are found widespread
in most habitats. Each ungulate species then gets freedom to
choose the habitat with the widest area of its preferred food and

255
therefore the species get selectively distributed in their
preferred habitats. General scarcity of food in summer compels
most ungulate species to look for food in several habitat types.
As against this, comparative abundance of food during monsoon and
winter allows each species to graze only in the habitats having
the most preferred food plants.

Grazing pressure on plant species is directly related to

their preference by ungulate species. Those plant species which
are preferred by most ungulates are obviously under greater
pressure while those eaten by only one or few ungulate species
are under less pressure.

8.5 Summary

1) The diversity of plants in almost all the habitat was maximum

during winter and monsoon season and lowest during summer
season.

2) The area covered by palatable species varies from season to

season as well from habitat type to another. There was,
however, no seasonal variation in the area covered by
palatable species in the shrub savannah habitat. The
maximum area covered by the palatable species during monsoon
and winter was in grass savannah, where Vetiveria
zizanioides and Desmostachya bipinnata are dominant while in
summer it was in the wetland.

3) The maximum volume occupied by palatable species throughout

the year was recorded in grass savannah habitat.

256
4) The maximum area covered and volume occupied by unpalatable
species was recorded in shrub savannah habitat which is
dominated by Cassia tora and Achyranthes aspera,

5) The grazing intensity was more or less similar in all the

habitat types except in low grassland, mosaic of several
types and wetland where it was found higher.

6) Grazing pressure on different plant species was seen to vary

in different seasons. Grazing pressure was inversely
proportional to the abundance of the concerned species.

7) The trampling of vegetation by cattle was noticed mostly

in low grassland and mosaic of several types.

257
 REFERENCES

Abies, E.D. (1974). The axis deer in Texas - Caesar Kleberg

Research Programme and Texas A & M University, U.S.A.

Adams, J.E. and E.D. McCune (1979). Application of the

generalised Jackknife to Shannon's measure of
information used as an index of diversity. Ecological
diversity in Theory and Practice, pp 117-131. Edited J.
Frederick Grassle. International Co-operative Publishing
House, Fairland, USA.

Adams, L., W.G. Oregan and D.J. Dunaway (1962). Analysis of

forage consumption by fecal examination. J. Wildl
Management Vol 26(1).

Ali, S. and V.S. Vijayan (1983). Keoladeo National Park Ecology

Study first interim report, Bombay Natural History
Society.

Ali, S. and V.S. Vijayan (1986). Keoladeo National Park Ecology

Study Summary Report, Bombay Natural History Society.

Allen, S.E., H.M. Grimshaw, J.A. Parkinson and C. Quarmby (1974).

Chemical analysis of ecological materials. Blackwell
Scientific Publication, Osney Mead, Oxford.

Altman, J. (1974). Observational study of behaviour: Sampling

methods. Behaviour 49(3, 4 ) : 227-265.

Andrew, M.H., I.R. Noble and R.T. Lange (1979). A non

destructive method for estimating the weight of forage
on shrubs. Aust. Range. Journal 1(3): 225-231.

258
Andrew, M.H., I.R. Noble, R.T. Lange and A.W. Johnson (1981).
The measurement of shrub forage weight: Three methods
compared, Aust. Range. Journal 3(1): 74-82.

Andrezejewski, R. and W. Jezierski * (1969). Zasady

przeciwdzialania szkidom wyrzadzoym przez dziki (Ways
of rules counter acting damages caused by wild boar).
Kowiec Pol 1 (340): 4-60.

Anthony, R.G. and N.S. Smith (1974). Comparison of Rumen and

fecal analysis to describe deer diets. J. Wildl.
Management 38(3): 535-540.

Armbruster, M.J. and W.R. Porath (1980). White tailed deer

(.Odocoileus virginianus) . A handbook for terrestrial
habitat evaluation in Central Missouri, U.S.Dept, of
Interior fish and Wildlife Service, Resource
Publication No. 133.

Attwell, C.A.M. and M. Bhika (1985). Feeding ecology of Impala

on starvation Island, lake Kariba, S, Afr. J. Wildl.
Res. 15(2): 41-48.

Baber, D.W. and B.E. Coblentz (1987). Diet, Nutrition, and

conception in feral pigs on Santa Catalina Island. J.
Wildl Management 51(2): 306-317.

Balakrishnan, M. and P.S. Esa (1986). Habitat preference of the

large mammals in the Parambikulam Wildlife Sanctuary,
Kerala. Biological Conservation 37(3): 191-261.

Barnes, R.F. and I. Douglas-Hamilton (1982). The numbers and

distribution patterns of large mammals in the Ruaha
Rungwa area of Southern Tanzania. J. Appl Ecol 19:
411-425.

259
Begon, M and M.Mortimer (1981). Population Ecology. A unified
study of animals and plants. Blackwell scientific
publication, Oxford London.

Belovsky, G.E., P.A. Jordan and D.B. Batkin (1973). Summer

browsing by Moose in relation to preference,
availability and animals density: a new quantitative
approach. Unpub M.S.

Berwick, S.H. (1974). The community of Wild ruminants in the Gir

forest ecosystem. Ph.D, Dissertation. Yale University.

Berwick, S.H. and P.A. Jordan (1971). First report of the Yale-
Bombay Natural History Society. Studies of wild
ungulates at the Gir Forest Gujrat, India. J, Bomb.
Nat. Hist. Society 68(2): 412-423.

Brander, A.D. (1923). Wild animals in Central India. Edward

Arnold and Co., London.

Bratton, S.P. (1974). The effect of the European wild boar {Sus
scrofa) on high-elevation vernal flora in the Great
Smoky Mountain National Park. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club.
101: 198-206.

Breden, R.M., K.W. Harber and B. Marshall (1963). The nutritive

value of grass grown in Uganda when fed to Zebu cattle
I. The relation between the percentage of Crude Protein
and other nutrients. J. Agri. Sci. 61: 101-104.

Cairns, A.L. and E.S. Telfer (1980). Habitat use by 4 sympatric

ungulates in Boreal Mixwood Forest. J. Wildl Management
44(4): 849-857.

Caughley, G. (1975). Analysis of vertebrate population. A Wiley

Interscience Publication. Chichester.

260
Chamrad, A.D., E. B. Dahl, J.G. Kie, and D. L. Drawe (1978). Deer
food habits - Needs, status and role in
resource management. The Welder Wildlife Foundation
Research Programme: The first 22 years, A symposium
Corpus Christi. Texas.

Chandran, S.S, P. V. Nair, H.C. Sharatchandra and M. Gadgil

(1977). An ecological reconnaissance of the proposed
Jawahar National Park, J. Bomb. Nat. Hist. Society
74(3): 401-435.

Chapman, N, G. K. Claydon, N.Claydon and S. Harris (1985)

Distribution and habitat selection by Muntjac and
another species of deer in a coniferous forest. Acta
Theriologica 30(90-92): 287-304.

Charnov, E.L. (1976). Optimal foraging - Attack strategy of

Mantid. American Naturalist 110: 141-151.

Chattopadhya, B. and T. Bhattacharya (1986). Basic diurnal

activity pattern of Blackbuck, Antilope cervicapra Linn
of Ballavpur Wildlife Sanctuary, W.B. and its Seasonal
variation J. Bomb. Nat. Hist. Society Vol 83(3):
553-561.

Chattopadhya, B. and T. Bhattacharya (1986). Food habits of

Blackbuck Antilope cervicapra Linn of Ballavpur wildlife
sanctuary. West Bengal, India. Trop Ecol 27: 93-100.

Chua, T.H. and S.B. Tan (1980). Two ways of improving the
Petersens' method for estimating animal population.
Trop Ecol, Vol 21 (1): 151-163.

Clough, G. and A.G. Hassam (1970). A quantitative study of the

daily activity of the Warthog in the Queen Elizabeth
National Park, Uganda. E. Afr. Wildl. J. 8: 19-24.

261
Glutton Brook, T.H, F.E. Guinness and S.D. Albon (1982). Red deer
behaviour and ecology of two sexes. The University of
Chicago, Edinburgh, University Press.

Cody, M.L. (1974). Competition and structure of bird communities

Monographs in population biology. No.7, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Coe, M.J., D.H.Cumming and J.Phillipson (1976). Biomass and

production of large African herbivores in relation to
Rainfall and Primary Production. Oecologia 22: 341-354.

Collins, W.B. and P.J. Urness (1983). Feeding behaviour and

habitat selection of mule deer and elk on northern Utah
Summer Range. J. Wildl. Management 47(3): 646-663.

Collins, W.B. and P.J. Urness (1981). Habitat preference of mule

deer as rated by Pellet-group distribution. J. Wildl
Management 45(4): 969-972.

Coppock, D.L., J.E. Ellis and D.M. Swift (1986). Livestock

feeding ecology and resource utilization in a nomadic
pastoral ecosystem. J. Appl. Ecology 23: 573-583.

Crawley, M.J. (1983). Herbivory: The Dynamics of Animal-Plant

interactions. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.

Crocker, B.H. (1959). A method of estimating the botanical

composition of the diet of sheep. New Zealand J. Agric.
Research 2: 72-85.

Dang, H.G. (1959). Wild cattle in northern India. J. Bomb. Nat.

Hist. Society 56(1): 127-128.

262
Daniel, J.C. (1967). The Point Calimere Sanctuary, Madras State,
May 1967, J. Bomb. Nat. Hist. Society. 64(3): 512-523.

De, R.C. and J.J. Spillet (1966). A study ofthe Chital or Spotted
deer in Corbett National Park, Uttar Pradesh. J. Bomb.
Nat. Hist. Society. Vol 63(3): 576-598.

Dearden, B.L., R.B. Pegau and R.M. Hansen (1975). Precision of

microhistological estimates of ruminant food habits.
J. Wildl. Management 39(2): 402-407.

Deschamp. J.A., P.J. Urness and D.D.Austin (1979). Summer diets

of mule deer from lodgepole pine habitats. J. Wildl.
Management 43(1): 154-161.

Dinerstein, E. (1979). An ecological survey of the Royal Karnali

Bardia Wildlife Refuge, Nepal. Part II. Habitat/animal
interactions. Biological Conservation.16: 265-300,

Dodd, N.L. and W.W. Brady (1986). Cattle grazing influences on

vegetation of a sympatric Desert Beghaen range in
Arizona. Desert Beghaen Council 1986. Transactions.

Dowine, N.M. and R.W. Heath (1970). Basic statistical methods.

Harper and Raw Publications, New York, Evanston and
London,

Drawe, D.L. (1968). Mid summer diet of deer on the welder

wildlife Refuge. J. Range. Management Vol 21(3):164-166.

Dudzinski, M.L. and G.W. Arnold (1973), Comparison of diets of

sheep and cattle grazing together on sown pastures on
the southern Tablelands of New South Wales by Principal
component analysis, Aust, J, of Agri. Research 24:
899-912,

263
Dunbar, R.J.M.(1978). Competition and niche separation in a high
altitude herbivore community in Ethiopia, E. Afr. Wildl.
Journal Vol 10: 183-199.

Dzieciolowski, R. (1976). Estimating ungulate numbers in a Forest

by track counts. Acta Theriologica Vol 21,15 :217-222.

Eberhardt , L.L.(1978). Transects methods for population studies.

J. Wildl. Management 42(1):1-31.

Eisenberg, J.F., C. Santiapillai and M. Lockhart (1970). The

study of wildlife populations by Indirect methods.
Ceylon J.Science (Bio.Sci) Vol 8 (2): 55-62.

Eisenberg, J.F. and J. Scidensticker (1976). Ungulates in

Southern Asia: A consideration of Biomass estimates for
selected habitats. Biol Conservation 10: 293-308.

Eisenberg, J.F. and M. Lockhart (1972). An ecological

reconnaissance of Wilpattu National Park, Ceylon.
Smithsonion. Centre Zool . 101: 1-118,

Elton, C (1927). Animal Ecology, London.

Emlen, J.M. (1966). The role of time and energy in food

preference. American Naturalist 100: 611-617.

Fedyk, S.Z, Gebczynska, M. Pucek, J. Raezynski and M.S.Sikorski

(1984). Winter penetration by mammals of different
habitats in the Biebrza Valley. Acta Theriologia Vol.
29, 17: 317-336.

Ferguson, R.B. and M.A. Mardsen (1977). Estimating overwinter

Bitterbrush utilization from Twig Diameter-length-
weight relations. J. Range. Management, Vol 30(3):
231-236.

264
Field, C.R. (1968). A comparative study of the food habits of
some wild ungulates in the Queen Elizabeth National
Park, Uganda Preliminary Report. Symp. Zool. Soc.
London No. 21: 135-151.

Field, C.R. (1976). Palatability factors and nutritive values of

the food of buffaloes (Syncerus caffer) in Uganda. E.
Afr. Wildl. J. 14: 181-201.

Field,C.R. and L.H. Blankenship (1973). Nutrition and

reproduction of Grants and Thomsons Gazells, Cobes
Hartbeest and Giraffe in Kenya. J. Reprod. Pert. Supp
19: 297-301.

Fitzgerald, D.V. (1973). Browse production and utilization in

Tarangire National Park. E. Afr. Wildl. Journal Vol 11:
291-305 .

French, M.H. (1957). Nutrition value of tropical grasses and

fodders. Herbage Absts 27: 1-9.

Fretwell, S.D. (1972). Population in a seasonal environment.

Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey, USA.

Gadgil, M. (1980). On the time budget of different life history

stages of Chital Axis axis. J. Bomb. Nat. Hist. Society.
Vol 75 (Suppl): 949-960

Gee, E.P. (1958). Bharatpur wild cattle. J. Bomb. Nat. Hist.

Society. 55(2): 338-339.

Gessaman, J.A and Mac Mohan, J.A (1984). Mammals in ecosystem:

their effects on the composition and production of
vegetation. Proceedings of the third Theriological
Congress, Helsinki 1982.

265
Ghosh, P.K. and S.P. Goyal (1983). The Blackbuck in the
Rajasthan Desert. Wildlife F'rotection in the Desert
Sourveice Desert Wildlife Protection Society.

Gill, R,B., L.H. Carpenter, R.M. Bartmann, D.L. Baber and G.G.
Schoonveld (1983). Fecal analysis to estimate mule deer
diets. J. Wildl. Management 47(4): 902-915.

Goodman, D. (1975). The theory of diversity - stability

relationship in ecology. Quarterly Review of Biology
50: 237-266.

Gorden, I.J. (1989). Vegetation community selection by ungulates

on the role of Rhum III Determinants of vegetation
community Selection. J. Appl. Ecology 26:65-79.

Goyal, S.P., H.C. Bohra and P.K. Ghosh. (1986). Food preferences
of the Indian antelope (Antelope cervicapra) and the
Gazelle (Gazella dorcas) in a desert environment.
Myforest, Vol 22(3): 153-158.

Graff, W. and L. Nichols (1966). The axis deer in Hawaii. J.

Bomb. Nat. Hist. Society. 63(3): 629-734.

Grant, S.A., Suckling, D.E. Smith, H.K. Torwell, L. Forbes,

T.D.A. and Hodgson,J (1985). Comparative studies of diet
selection by sheep and cattle, the hill grasslands. J.
Ecology 73: 987-1004.

Green, J.B. (1985). Aspects of the ecology of the Himalayan Musk

deer. Ph.D dissertation. University of Cambridge.

Grigal, D.F. and N.R. Moody (1980). Estimating of browse by

size classes for snowshow Rare. J. Wildl. Management
44(1): 34-40.

266
Griggs, P.D. (1981). Feral Pigs in Australia and a case study
of the distribution of disturbance in the Girraween
National Park, South-east Queensland. Queensland
Geographical Journal (3rd series) Vol 6: 37-48.

Grinnell, J. (1904). The origin and distribution of the Chestnut-

Backed Chickadee. Auk 21: 375-377.

Grinnell, J. (1917). The niche Relationships of the California

Thrasher, Auk 34: 427-433.

Haque, M.N. (1988). Habitat utilization of wild ungulates of

Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. M.Phil
dissertation, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh.

Hanski, I. (1978). Some comments on the measurements of Niche

metrics. Ecology 59)1):168-1 74 .

Hardin, G. (1960). The competitive exclusion Principle, Science,

131: 1292-1297.

Helle, J. and J. Aspi (1983). Effects of winter grazing by rem

deer on vegetation. Oikos 40; 337-343.

Henry L. H., M. Vavra, and R.D. Pieper (1982). Botanical

composition determination of range Herbivore Diets: A
Review. J. Range. Management 31(3): 309-315.

Hirst, S.M. (1969). Road strip census techniques for wild

ungulates in African woodland. J. Wildl. Management.
33(1): 40-48.

Hofmeyr, M.D. * (1981). Thermal physiology of selected African

ungulates with emphasis on the physical properties of
the pelage. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of
Cape Town.

267
Hoft, E.R, J.G. Kie and R.C. Bertram (1987). Influence of cattle
stocking rate on the structural profile of deer hiding
cover. J. Wildl. Management 51(3): 655-664.

Hoogerwerf, A. *(1970). Udjung Kulon, the land of the lost Javan

rhinoceros Leiden, Netherlands, E.J.Brill.

Hulbert S.H. (1978). The measurement of Niche overlap and some

relatives. Ecology 59 (l):67-77.

Illius, A.W. and I.J. Gordan (1987). The allometry of food

intake in grazing ruminants. J. Animal Ecology 56:
989-999.

Irby, L.R. (1981). Mountain Reedbuck activity patterns in the

Koskop Dam Nature Reserve. S. Afr. J. Wildl. Res. 11:
115-120.

Irwin, L.L. and J.M, Peek (1983). Elk habitat use relative to
forest succession in Idaho, J, Wildl, Management 47(3):
664-672.

Jackson, J.E. and J.D. Giuliette (1988). The food habits of

Pampas deer {Ozotoceros bezoarticus celer) in relation
to its conservation in a Relut Natural Grassland in
Argentina. Biological Conservation 45: 1-10.

Jacobi, J. (1976). The influence of feral pigs on a native

Alpine grasslands in Halacakala National Park in Smith,
C. (ed). Proceedings of the first conference in Natural
Science Harvo. CPSU/US, Botany Dept. Univ. of Hawaii,
Honolulu pp. 107-112.

Jarman, M.V. and P.J. Jarman (1973). Daily activity of Impala.

E. Afr. Wildl. Journal 11: 75-92.

268
Jarman, P.J. and A.R.E. Sinclair (1979). Feeding strategy and
the pattern of resource - partionioning in ungulates.
In Serengeti, dynamics of an Ecosystem. (Eds. A.R.E.
Sinclair and M, Norton-Griffiths) pp 130-164.
University of Chicago Press.

Jeffrey, W.W. (1961). A prairie to forest succession in Wood

Buffalo Park, Alberta. Ecology 42: 442-444.

Jerdon, T. (1874). The mammals of India. London.

John, G. Kie, D. Lynn Drave, and Gretchen Scott (1980). Changes

in the diet and nutrition with increased herd size in
Texas White-tailed deer. J. Range. Management Vol
33(1): 28-34.

Johnson, D.H. (1980). The comparison of usage and availability

measurements for evaluating resource preference.
Ecology 61(1) pp 65-71.

Johnson, M.K. and H.A. Pearson (1981). Esophageal, fecal and

exclosure estimates of Cattle diets on a long leaf pine
bluestem range. Journal Range Management 34: 232-234.

Johnson, M.K., H. Wofford and H.A. Pearson (1983).

Microhistological techniques for food habits analysis.
Res. Pap So-199. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment
Station.

Jungius, H. * (1971). The biology and behaviour of the reedbuck

in the Kruger National Park, Mammalia Depicta, Hamburg
106 pp .

269
Karfhage, R.C. (1974). Summer food habits of elk in the Blue
Mountains of northeastern. Oregon based on fecal
analysis, M.S. thesis, Washington State Univ. Rullman.

Kessler, W.B., W.F. Kasworm and W.L. Bodie (1981). Three methods
compared for analysis of Pronghorn diets. J. Wildl.
Management 45(3): 612-619.

Lamprey, H.F. (1964). Estimation of the large mammal densities,

biomass and energy exchange in the Tarangire Game
Reserve and the Masai Steppe in Tanganyika. E.Afr
Wildlife J. II : 1-45.

Leckenby, D.A. * (1977). Management of Mule deer and their

habitat: applying concept of behaviour, physiology and
microclimate. Proc. Ann. Conf. West. Assoc. State Game
and Fish Comm. 57: 206-217.

Leih, J.H. * (1974). Diet selection and effects of grazing on

the composition and structure of arid and Semi arid
vegetation. In studies of the Australian arid zone. Vol
2, Animal production, ed. A.D. Wilson pp 102-26, CSIRO,
Melbourne, Australia.

Leuthold, B.M. and W. Leuthold * (1978). Daytime activity

patterns of gerenuk and giraffe in Isavo National park,
Kenya. E. Afr. Wildl. Journal 16: 231-243.

Leuthold, W. * (1977). African ungulates: a comparative review

of their ethology and behavioural ecology Springer
Verlag, Berlin.

Levins (1968). Evolution in changing environments. Princeton

Univ. Press, Princeton and New Jersey.

270
Loft, E.R., J.W. Menbe, J.G.Kie and R.C.Bertram (1987). Influence
of cattle stocking rate on the structural profile of
deer hiding cover. J. Wildl. Management 51(3): 655-664.

Lotka, A.J. (1925). Game management. Charles Scribner's Sons, New

York, pp.481.

Lyon, L.J. (1968). Estimating twig production of serviceberry

from Crown Volumes. J. Wildl. Management Vol 32(1):
115-1 19.

MacArthur, R,H. and Pianka, E.R, (1^66). On optimal use of

patchy environment. American Naturalist 100: 603-609,

MacArthur, R.H. (1972). Geographical Ecology-pattern in the

distribution of species. Harpei, Row Publ, New York,
Evanston, San Francisco, London.

MacArthur, R.H. (1958). Population ecology of some warblers of

north-eastern Coniferous forest. Ecology 39: 599-619.

MacArthur, R.H. and R. Levins (1967). The limiting similarity

convergence and divergence of co-existing species.
American Naturalist 101: 377-385.

Mackin, R. (1970). Dynamics of damage caused by wild boar in

different agricultural crops. Acta Theriol 15: 447-458.

Martin, C. (1977). Status and ecology of the Barasingha (Cervus

duvauceli branderi) in Kanha National Park (India). J.
Bomb. Nat. Hist. Society 74(1): 60-132.

Martinka, C.J. (1968). Habitat relationships of White-tailed and

mule deer in Northern Montena. J. Wildl. Manag 32 (3):
558-565 .

!71
Maryse, D. (1986). Seasonal variation in habitat selection and
spatial distribution of wild boar {Sus scrofa) in the
Lamargue southern France. Behav, Processes 13(3)
251-268.

Maublance, M.L. (1986). Use of space by Roe deer iCapreolus

capreolus) in open environment. Gieber Faune Sarage 3
(Sept ) : 297-312.

Mcky, G.M. and J.F.Eisenberg (1974). Movement pattern and habitat

utilization of ungulates in Ceylon. The papers of an
International symposium on The Behaviour of ungulates
and its relation to management. The university of
Calgary, Alberta,Cananda.

McNaughton, S.J. (1977). Diversity and stability of ecological

communities: a comment on the role of empiricism in
ecology. American Naturalist 111: 515-525.

Mckay, G.M. * (1973) Behaviour and ecology of the Asiatic

Elephant in Southeastern. Ceylon, Smithsonion Centre
Zool . 125, 1-113.

Michael, L.M., M. Vavra and W.C. Krueger (1983). A comparison of

four methods used to determine the diets of large
Herbivores. J. Range. Management ,Ui (J ) : 302-306.

Middleton, B.A. and V.D. Valk (1987). The food habitat of

Greylag and Barheaded goose in Keoladeo National Park,
India. Wildfowl 38: 94-102.

Milchunas, D.G, O.E.Sala and W.K.Lauerath (1988). A generalized

model of the effects of grazing by large herbivores on
grassland community structure. Amer, Nat Vol 132(1):
87-106.

272
Milford, R. and D.J. Minson (196b). The feeding value of
tropical pasture. In: tropical postures. (Ed. by Davies,
W. and Skidmore, L) pp. 106-114. Faber & Faber Ltd.
London.

Mishra, H.R. (1980). The ecology and behaviour of Chital {Axis

axis) in the Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal, Ph.D.
dissertation. University of Edinburgh.

Mitchell, A.W, (19 7 7 ) ; Preliminary observation on the daytime

activity pattern of lesser kudu in Tsavo National Park,
Kenya. E. Afr.Wildl. J. Vol 15: 199-206.

Mungall, E.C. (1978). The Indian Blackbuck antelope; A Texas

view college station, Texas Agric. Exp. Station. Texas
A & M University.

Nair, P.V. and E.A.Jayson (1988). Habitat utilization by large

mammals in teak plantation and natural forests. Final
report of project wild 05/83. Kerala Forest Research
Institute, Peechi, Kerala.

Nair, S.S. (1977). A population survey and observation on the

behaviour of Blackbuck in the Point Calimere Sanctuary,
Tamil Nadu. J. Bomb. Nat. Hist. Society 73(2): 304-310.

Neff, D.J. (1968). The pellet group count techniques for big game
trend, census, and distribution. A Review. J.Wildl.
Management 32(3): 597-614.

Norton, P.M. (1981). Activity pattern of Klipspringers in two

areas of the Cape Province. S. Afr.J. Wildl. Res.11(4):
126-134.

273
Novellie, P. and G. Strydom. (1987). Monitoring the response of
vegetation to use by large herbivores: an assessment of
some techniques. S. Afr. J. Wildl. Res. 17(4): 126-134.

Oser, B.L. (1979). Hawks Physiological Chemistry. Tata Mc

Graw Hill Publishing Company Ltd, New Delhi.

Owen-Smith, N. and S.M. Cooper (1987). Assessing food preference

of ungulates by acceptability indices. J. Wildl.
Management 51(2): 372-378.

Pandey, A.N. (1979). Vegetation and bovine population interaction

in the savannah grasslands of Chandraprabha sanctuary,
Varanasi. I. Seasonal behaviour t» I g r az i ng 1 arids . Trop
Ecol 21: 138-150.

Pandey, A.N. (1981). Vegetation and bovine population interaction

in the savannah grasslands of Chaiidraprabha sanctuary,
Varanasi. II. Seasonal behaviour of gra^ing animals and
an assessment of carrying capacity of the Grazinglands.
Trop Ecol 22, No 2: 170-186.

Panday, K.R., A.K. Kandya and P.C. Kotwal (1986). Ecological

studies of the Kanha Wildlife National Park, India (II).
Population Density and Biomass of Five common wild
ungulates, J. Jap. Forestry Society. Vol.68 (9):
354-360.

Peek, J.M, M.D. Scott, L.J.Nelson, D.J.Pierce and L.L.Irwin *

(1982). Role of cover in habitat management for big game
in northwestern United States. Trans. North Am. Wildl.
and Nat. Resour. Conf. 47: 363-373.

Pellew, R.A. (1984). The feeding ecology of a selective browser,

the Giraffe (Giraffa camelopoidalis tippelskirchi), J.
Zool . London 202: 57-81.

274
Perennou, C. and B.R. Ramesh (1987). Explanatory notes on the
vegetation map of Keoladeo National Park. French
Institute of Pondicherry and Bombay Natural History
Society.

Pianka, E.R. (1976). Competition and niche theory. Theoretical

Ecology, Principles and application. Edited by Robert
M.May, Blackwell Scientific Pub 1ications.Oxford London
Edinburgh Melbourne.

Pianka, E.R. (1978). Evolutionary Ecology, Harper and Row

Publishers, New York, Hagerstow, San Francisco, London.

Pielou, E.G. (1984). The Interpretation of Ecological data. A

Wiely- Interscience Publication. John Wiely and sons.
Page 263.

Pimm, S.L. * (1984). The complexity and stability of ecosystem.

Nature 307: 321-326.

Pimm, S.L. * (1982). Food webs. Chapman and Hall, London,

England.

Prasad, N.L.N.S. (1985). Activity time budget in Blackbuck.

Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. (Anim. Sci.) Vol. 94 (1); 57-6").

Prasad, N.L.N.S. and J.V.Ramana Rao (1984). Evaluation of habitat

structure of Blackbuck {Antilope cervicapra) in Andhra
Pradesh with special reference to Mudmal arjd its
relevance to behaviour, Geobios 11: 17-21.

Prasad, S.N, P.V. Nair, H.C. Sharatchandra and M. Gadgil (1978).

On the factors governing the distribution of wild
mammals in Karnataka. J. Bomb. Nat. Hist. Society
75(3).

275
Prater, S.H. (1965). The book of Indaa animals. Bombay Natural
History Society, Bombay.

Putman, R.J (1986). Grazing in Temperate Ecosystem: Large

Herbivores and the Ecology of New Forest. Croom Helm,
Beckenham.

Rice, C.G. (1984). The behaviour and ecology of Nilgiri Tahr

{Hemitragus hylocruis ogilby, 1983), Ph.D. dissertation.
Texas A & M University.

Richardson, W.A. (1972). A natural history survey of the Sambar

deer {Cervus unicolor) on the Pawderhaen Ranch, Calhous
country, Texas, M.Sc dissertation, Texas A & M
University.

Roberts, T.J. (1977). The mammals of Pakistan. Ernest Renn Ltd,

London.

Robinette, W.L. (1956). Productivity - the annual crop of mule

deer. The deer of North America. The Stackpole Co..
Harrisburg, Pa and The Wildlife Management Institute,
Washington, DC.

Rodger, G., O.Julander, and W.L.Robinette (1958) Pellet group

counts for deer,census and range use index. J.Wildl,
Management Vol 22(2): 193-199.

Rodger, W.A. (1976). Seasonal diet preferences of Impala from

south east Tanzania. S. Afr. Wildl. Journal, Vol 14;
331-333.

Rowe-Rowe,D.T. and J.S.B.Scotcher (193b). Ecological carrying

capacity of the natal Drokensberg for wild ungulates.
S. Afr. J. Wildl.Res. 16(1): 12-16.

276
Sadleir, R.M.F.S. (1969). The role of nutrition in the
reproduction of wild mammals. J. Reprod. Fert. Suppl.
6, 39.

Sahar, R.B. and N. Fairall (1987). Comparison of the diurnal

activity patterns of blue wildebeest and red Lartebeest.
S. Afr. J. Wildl. Res. 17(2): 49-S4.

Satakopan, S. (1972). Key to the identification of plant remains

in animal droppings. J.Bomb. Nat. Hist.Society, 69(1):
139-150.

Schaller, G.B, (1967). The deer and the tiger. University of

Chicago Press, U.S.A.

Schaller, G.B. (.1972). The Serengeti lion. University of Chicago

Press, U.S.A..

Scott, G.and B.E. Dahl (1980). Key to selected plant species of

Texas using plant fragment. Decs. Papers. Mus. No 64.
Texas Tech. Univ.

Seal, U.S, M.E.Nelson, L.D. Mech and R.L. Hoskinson (1978).

Metabolic indicators of habitat differences in four
Minnesota deer population. J. Wildl. Management 42(4):
746-754.

Seidensticker, J. (1976). Ungulate population in Chitwan Valley,

Nepal. Biological Conservation lOi 183 •210.

Severinghaus, C. and E.L.Cheatum (1956), Life and times of the

White tailed deer. The deer of North America. The
Stackpole Co., Harrisburg, Fa, and the Wildlife
Management Institute, Washington, DC. 68B p.

277
Shafer, W.L. (1963). The twig-count method for measuring
hardwood deer browse. J. Wildl. Management, Vol 27(3):
A28-A37.

Sharatchandra, H.C. and M. Gadgil (1975). A year of Bandipur.

J. Bomb. Nat. Hist. Society Vol 72 (3): 623-647.

Sheffield, W.J., B.A.Fall and B.A.Brown (1983). The Nilgai

antelope in Texas, Caesar Kleberg Research Programme and
Texas A & M University.

Shugart H.H. and B.C. Patten (1972). System analysis and

Simulation in Ecology. Edited by B.C.Patten Academic
Press, INC.

Sinclair, A.R.E. * (1975). The resource limitation of trophic

levels in tropical grassland ecosystem J, Animal Ecology
44: 497-520.

Sinclair, A.R.E. and M. Norton-Griffiths (1979). Serengati,

Dynamics of an ecosystem University, Chicago Press.

Singer, F.J, W.T. Swank and E.C.Clebsch (1984). Effects of wild

pig rooting in a deciduous forest. J. Wildl .Manage
48(2): 464-472.

Singer, F.T. (1979). Habitat portioning and Wildlife

relationships of Cervids in Glaciar National Park,
Montena. J. Wildl. Management 43(2); 437-444.

Slobodkin, L.B, F.E. Smith and N.G. Houston. (1967). Regulation

in terrestrial ecosystem, and the implied balance of
nature .American Naturalist 101; 109-124.

278
Sokal, R.R. and C D . Michener (1958). A statistical method for
evaluating systematic relationships, university of
Kansas, Science Bulletin, 38: U09-1438.

Sokal, R.R. and P.J. Rohlf (1969). Biometry, Freeman, San

Francisco .

Spillet, J.J. (1966 a ) . A report on wildlife surveys in North

India and Southern Nepal. Notes on the Van Bihar and Ram
Sagar wildlife sanctuaries, Rajasthan. J. Bomb. Nat.
Hist. Society. 63(3): 614-615.

Spillet, J.J. (1966 b ) . A report on wildlife surveys in North

India and Southern Nepal. The Kaziranga wildlife
sanctuary, Assam. J. Bomb. Nat. Hist, Society. 63(3):
494-528.

Spillet, J.J. • (1966 c ) . A report on vildltfe suiveyft in North

India and Southern Nepal. The Jaldapara wildlife
sanctuary, West Bengal. J. Bomb. Nat. Hist. Society.
63(3): 534-556.

Spillet, J.J., J.E. Cohen and R.C.De (1966). A report on

wildlife surveys in North India and Southern Nepal. The
large mammals of the Keoladeo Ghana Sanctuary, Rajasthan
J. Bomb. Nat. Hist. Society. 63(3): 602-667.

Spitz, G. and Muller-Dombois (1975), Succession pattern after

Pig digging in grassland communities on Mauna loa,
Hawaii. Phytocoenalogia 3:346-373.

Sridharan, U. (1989). Comparative Ecology of Resident ducks in

Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, Rajasthan, Ph.D.
thesis, University of Bombay.

279
Stewart, D.R.M. (1967). Analysis of plant epidermis in faeces, a
techniques for studying food preferences of grazing
herbivores. J. Appl. Ecology 4: 82-111.

Stickney, P.F. (1966). Browse utilization based on percentage of

twig numbers browsed. J. Wildl. Management, Vol. 30(1):
204-206.

Swartzman, G.L. and J.S. Singh (1974). A dynamic programming

approach to optimal grazing strategies using a
successiion model for a tropical grassland. J. Appl.
Ecology 11: 537-548.

Taber, R.D. (1961). The Black-tailed deeri a review of ecology

and management. Terre Vie 2: 221-245.

Tak, P.C and B.S.Lamba (1986). A review of census and monitoring

techniques of wild life population and observation on
relative abundance of some mammals in Corbert National
Park. Proceeding Wildlife Workshop.

Thill, R.E. (1984). Deer and cattle diets on Louisiana Pine

Hardwoods sites. J. Wildl. Management 48(3): 788-798.

Thomas, G.J (1982). Management of vegetation at wetlands in

Managing wetlands and their birds Ed, D.A. Scott, IWRB,
Slimbridge, pp. 21-37.

Vavra, M.,R.W. Rice and R.M. Haneen (1978). A comparison of

esophageal fistula and faecal material to determine
steer diets. J. Range ManaB^wfiit 11: 11 •• I 3 .

Vijayan, V.S. (1987). Vertebrate fauna of Keoladeo National Park,

Bharatpur, Keoladeo National Park Ecology Project,
Bombay Natural History Society.

280
Volterra, V. (1926). Fluctuations in the abundance of a species
considered mathematically. Nature 118: 558-560.

Voth, E.H. and H.C.Black (1973). A Histological technique for

determining feeding habits DI wma 11 Ije rbivoree. J.
Wildl. Management 37(2): 223--231.

Waller, R.A. and D.B. Duncan (1969). A Bayes rule for the
symmetric multiple comparasous problem. J.Am Statist
Assoc. 64:1484-1503.

Walther, F.R. * (1973). Round the clock activity of Thomsons

gazelle (Gaze 1 la thomsoni) in the Serengeti National
Park, Z. Tierpsychal 32, 75-105.

Wood, G.W. and R.E. Brenneman (1980). Feral Hog movements and
habitat use in coastal south Carolina. J. Wildl. Manage.
44(2): 420-427.

Yablokov, A.V. (1986). Population Biology. Progress and problems

of studies of natural population. MIR Publishers.Moscow.

Zyznar, E. and P.J. Urness (1969). Qualitative identification

of forage remnant in deer feces, J. Wildl. Management
Vol 3(3): 506-510.

Originals not referred

281
 Appendix I

The botanical coapositioi of loitiiii cottpoiitt laiplei of ChiUl

droppiogi in (a) 1987-11 and (b) 1981-M, bawd on tbe frequency
of occurrence of epiderul fragaenti. I i i tbe B«iber of
droppingi pooled eacb aontbi

(i)

JUL ADG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAR FEB KAB APR m JDN

Acacia nilotica 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.57 0.00 10.20 9.47 4.30 3.45 10.47 10.99
Acacia oilotica (Pod) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.00 2.38 1.16 8.00
Balaoites roiburghii 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.06 0.00 0.00 8.80 0.00 0.00
Cappans sepiana 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.57 0.00 9.1$ 7.37 9.68 8.05 18.60 13.19
Cappans decidua 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.06 3.16 0.08 4.68 8.14 3.30
Dichrostachjs cmerea 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 8.00 0.00 3.49 8.08
(irgeneiii reticulata n.n LU 3.16 O.flff a.da d.tftf 2.Q4 LU 2.15 LU 4.65 J.Jtf
ProsopiB juliflora 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 6.90 1.16 0.00
Salvadora persica 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.06 8.00 1.88 3.45 4.65 0.08
hijphus aauntiaoa 0.00 0.00 4.21 0.00 0.00 9.41 7.14 8.42 5.38 8.80 0.00 8.00
Brachana reptaos 4.55 5.38 0.00 0.00 3.57 3.53 0.00 8.80 0.08 4.68 2.33 8.88
CjDodon dactyhn 34.09 30.11 27.37 22.35 15.48 23.53 19.39 25.26 30.1125.29 9.38 19.78
Cyprus alopecuroides 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.88 8.00 8.80 0.00 1.10
Cjperus rotundus 5.68 0.00 5.26 11.76 3.57 4.71 4.08 5.26 4.38 0.00 8.88 5.49
DesBostachja bipmnata 0.00 3.23 0.00 3.53 0.00 11.76 3.06 2.11 6.45 2.30 9.38 4.40
DicaBthiut aoauiatuB 7.95 9.68 0.00 8.24 8.33 3.53 5.10 5.26 8.68 0.00 3.49 6.59
SchiDochloa coloauu 4.55 8.60 0.00 3.53 0.00 0,04 0.00 4.21 8.80 0.88 8.88 0.00
Sragrostis spp. 0.00 5.38 4.21 4.71 11.90 4.;i 4.11 ) H J.23 1.4^ 0.88 4.40
Briochloa procera 3.41 0.00 7.37 0.00 3.5; 0.00 i,n 0.81 o.ot 0.08 8.08 8.80
Iseiieaa laiua 0.00 1.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.80 0.00 1.15 8.08 8.00
Paspalui disticbut 2.27 3.23 3.16 3.53 4.76 2.35 3.06 5.26 1.88 5.75 12.79 5.49
Scirpus tuberosus 2.27 3.23 4.21 3.53 0.00 4.71 2.04 2.11 5.38 5.75 0.00 2.20
Sporobolus helvolua 19.32 15.05 25.26 32.94 26.19 16.47 12.24 6.32 9.61 P . 2 4 5.81 9.»«
Vetivena znanioides 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.00 4.76 4.71 1.02 8.80 2.15 1.15 8,88 3.30
Cocciaia cordifoha 0.00 1.08 2.11 0.00 2.38 0.00 O.OII 0.80 0.88 0.88 8,88 8,80
CoiieJma forskalii 0.00 2.15 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 8.88 0.88 0.00 0.80
CoiMehoa benghaleDSitr 0.00 3.23 3.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 6,00 8.00 8.80 0,00 8.80
Cpnotis aiiilaris 3.41 0.00 1.05 0.00 3.57 2.35 0.00 2.11 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00
Ipoioea aquatica 0.00 2.15 1.05 0.00 0.00 3.53 0.00 2.11 0.00 0.00 8,08 0.00
Physalis spp. 3.41 1.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.88 0,00 8,00 8.88
TriantheBa spp. 0.00 2.15 3.16 0.00 0.00 0.80 8.88 0.00 8.88 0.88 0.00 8.88
Vicia sativa 2.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paaicui aatidotale 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.11 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00
Onidentified 5.68 3.23 3.16 5.88 3.57 4.71 8.16 5.26 6.45 4.60 4.65 6.59
N 51.00 45.00 52.00 44.00 46.00 52.00 5/.08 54.00 58.80 47.88 58.00 61.00

Hote : Values are in percentage

282
 Appendii I Icootd)

JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN m NAR APR MAY JUN

Acacia niJotica 2.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.74 5.10 5.00 2.56 0.00 6.78 12.05 14.67
icacia Bilotica (Pod) 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 1,69 8.43 5.33
Acacia ieucophloea 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 6,02 1.33
Balanites roiburghn 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 O.tl 0.00 0.00 0.09 9.09 4.82 4.00
Cappans sepiana 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,74 0.00 3.75 2.56 0.00 10.17 12,05 10.67
Cappans decidua 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 3,39 7.23 2.67
tirgenlia reticulata 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,61 0.00
Prosopis jaliflora 2.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 8.16 0,00 0.00 0.00 1.69 6,02 9.00
Prosopis spicigera 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,80 2.04 0.00 0.00 9.00 1.69 1,20 fl.OO
Silvadora persica fl.OO J flO 0.00 j.oe 0.01) 4.B« 3.75 0.00 i.u 0.00 i.n LU
iiijphus aauntiana 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 G.OO O.OO UM 2.56 9.00 0.09 9.00 0.00
Bracharia reptans 0.00 2 91 0.00 5.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.85 3.75 0.00 1.2« 0.00
Cfnodon dactjion 26.7417 48 24.49 26.97 20.87 22.45 27.50 15.38 31.25 25.42 4,82 5.33
Cjperus alopecuroides 0.00 0 00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.08 0,00 0.00
Cyperas rotundus 1.16 6 80 8.16 4.49 13.91 S.iii ; 00 12.82 9.99 9.99 9.09 4.09
DesMostachja bipiDuati
i 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.09 O.OU 13.2; «.?5 i.!5 3.75 ».99 8.4) I.OI
Dicanthiua ajiouJatui 3.49 7 77 8,16 12.36 17.39 0.00 i.n 7.69 9.99 e.47 2,41 O.OtI
EchiDocioa coloBUt 17.44 6 80 4,08 4.49 6,96 0.00 2.50 0.00 15.99 9,09 9.99 1,3J
Eragrostis spp. 3.49 0 00 5,10 4.49 4,35 0.00 3.75 0.00 0.09 9.00 9.09 1.33
Enochloa procera 0.00 2 91 2.04 0.00 3.48 0.00 2.50 0.00 1.25 9.09 0.00 9.00
Iseileaa laxua 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 6.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 0.09 0,09 9.00
Paspalui distichuB 5.81 16 50 5.10 0.00 0.00 3.06 0,00 0.00 7.50 0.09 6.02 0,00
Pseudoraphis spiDescens4.65 0 00 1.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Setana spp, 0.00 0 00 4.08 1.12 0.00 1.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00
Scirpus tuberosus 0.00 7. 77 5.10 6.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.41 7.50 8.47 2.41 4,00
Sporobolus helvolus 23.26 24. 27 15.31 19,10 20,00 13.27 6.25 30.77 21.25 13.56 6.02 16,09
Vetjvena iizanioides 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0,00 0,00 8.16 3.75 3.85 1.25 0.00 0,00 4.90
Coccinia cordilolia 0.00 0. 00 1.02 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00
Coaielma lorskalli 1.16 0. 00 1.02 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 1.69 0.00 0.00
Coaaelina beoghaleDsn0.00 1. 94 1,02 0.00 0.00 2.04 3.75 0.00 0.00 3.39 0,00 0.00
Cjaootis aiiUans 2.33 1. 94 4,08 2.25 0,00 3.06 1.25 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00
IpoBoea aquatica 0.00 0, 00 0,00 2.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Physalis spp. 0,00 0. 00 0.00 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.eo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00
TnantheMa spp. 0.00 0. 00 6.12 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.90 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paaicut antidotale 0.00 0, 00 0,00 0.00 0,00 5,10 0.80 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 17,33
Unidentified 5.81 2. 91 4.08 8.99 2,61 4,08 6.25 7.69 6.25 8.47 6.02 8,00
N 63.00 57, 00 52,00 47.00 51,00 50.00 62.00 61.00 55.90 52.90 57.00 69,90

Note ; Values are in percentage

183
 Appendii II

The botanical coipositioDS of icBtlilr coipoiite laiplcB of Saibar

droppings in (al I987-S8 (b) 1988-89, baied on tli« frequency of
occurrence of epiderul fragients. I ii the nuiber of droppings
pooled each loatb

(A)
jnLK AUG SEP OCT XOV m HAR APN HAY Jim

Acacia jijJotjca 9.09 11.11 7.32 8.05 8.75 9./6 10.11 9.68 5.68 12.90 9.68 5.Sb
Acacia nilotica (Pod) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,22 0.00 0.00 0,00 4,30 0.00 0.00
Balanites roiburgliij 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.27 8.60 0.00 0.00
Capparis sepiana 0.00 5.56 4.88 4,60 6.25 6.10 7.22 3.2J 4.55 10.75 24.73 6.67
Cappans decidua 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 fl.OO o.m) 0.00 fl.Ofl fl.OO 4.10 0.00 D.OO
Prosopis juljfJora 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.1) II U.OI 0.00 0.06 1.23 4.30 0.01)
CjDodoD dactfloD 5.68 7.78 0.00 6.90 5.00 0,00 4,12 4.30 3.41 7.53 5.38 5.56
Cyperua alopecuroides 0.00 2.22 3.66 0.00 6.25 2.44 0.00 0.00 3.41 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cyperus rotandus 0.00 10.00 9.76 0.00 3.75 0.00 12.17 5.38 4.55 1.08 O.Oif J. V;
Desaostachja bipinnata fl.OO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.30 0,00 0.00
Djca/iti)jui annalatua 3.41 3.33 1.22 4.60 0.00 O.Ofl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.38 fl.OO
Schmochloa COIODUB 10.23 11.11 4.88 11.49 10.00 9.76 J.09 7.53 9.09 0.00 0,00 ].Ji
EragroBtis spp. 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.30 3.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OO 2.15 6.45 0.00
Bnochloa procera 5.68 0.00 6.10 4.60 0.00 2.44 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paspalui distichui 20.45 8.89 26.83 13.79 30.00 24.39 24.14 30.11 36,36 12.90 21.51 33.33
Pseudoraphis spjflesce/isfl.Ofl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.23 3.41 0.00 0.00 0.00
Scirpus tuberosus 9.09 3.33 6.10 6.90 6.25 9.76 14.43 7.53 2.27 0.00 0.00 3.33
Sporobohs hejvolus 9.09 8.89 9.76 18.39 3.75 10.98 0.00 3.23 3.41 0.00 0.00 6.67
IpoBoea aquatica 6.82 13.33 0.00 4.60 0.00 4.88 6.19 4.30 6.82 8.60 3.23 0.00
Physalis spp. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CeratophjJJui deiersui 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.Ofl 5.56
Chara spp. 1.14 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.14 0.00 0.00 O.Ofl
Sleochans plantagiaei1 0.00 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.09 5.38 0,00 0.00 O.flfl ;.78
flydriJJa v e r t j c i J l a t a 3.41 4.44 9.76 3.45 5.00 7.32 5.15 5.38 4.55 5.38 6.45 10.00
*ajas fjflor 0.00 0.00 6.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.03 0,00 2.27 0.00 3.23 0.00
SyMphaea spp. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 0.08 0.00 3.23 0.00 2.15 O.OO 0.00
Hytphoiies indicui 0.00 1.11 0.00 0.00 3.75 0.00 O.fit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Panjcu* aotidotaJe 9.09 1.11 0.00 4.60 0.00 0.00 1.03 2.15 0.00 5.38 4.30 o.flfl
PotaiogetoD cnspus 1.14 0.00 O.OO fl.OO 0.00 0.00 2.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.flfl
Unidentified 4.55 4.44 3.66 5.75 5.00 6.10 5.15 5.38 6.82 6.45 5.38 8.89
N 11.00 9.00 12.00 15.00 8.00 9.00 14.00 12.00 13.80 15.00 14.00 12.00

Hote ; Values are in percentage

'.84
 ippetdll II iCODtdr

JDL AUG SEP OCT NOV DBC JAK FEB NAB APR MAY JUN

AC3C13 Dilotica 9.41 8.00 5.95 10.31 12.37 3.85 13.33 5.56 18.68 16.84 13.85 15.38
Acacia nilotica (Pod) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.85 2.20
BalaDites roiburghii 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.85 4.40
Cappans sepiana 5.88 3.00 0.00 4.12 5.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.69 9.47 10.00 19.78
Prosopis ]ujiflora 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.54 0.00
Brachana reptaus 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.00
CjDodon dactylon 5.88 0.00 3.57 0.00 2.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 4.21 3.85 0.00
Cjperus alopecuroides 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 9.28 6.73 7.78 5.56 10.99 15.79 8.00 1.10
Cypens rotuadus 8.24 7 00 4.76 5.15 8.25 7.69 8.89 5.56 3.30 8.42 3.85 1.10
DicaDthiut aDBulatuB 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.54 3,30
Echmochloa colonui 0.00 0 00 8.33 5.15 9.28 11.54 6.67 2.22 8.79 16.84 5.38 0,00
Enochloa procera 0.00 0 00 0.00 3.09 3.09 0.00 0.00 7,78 0.00 0.00 6.15 0,00
PaspaluB distichua 28.24 28 00 35.71 28.87 24.74 32.69 31.11 37.78 28.57 8.42 23.08 13.19
Pseudoraphis spiaescensLU 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Scirpus tuberosus 5.88 8 00 0.00 4.12 0.00 7.69 5.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.49
Sporobolus heivolus 4.71 4 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,56 0.00 0.00 7.37 6.15 9.89
Ipotoea aquatica 12.94 13 00 15.48 13.40 8.25 9.62 5.56 13.33 5.49 4,21 3.08 7,69
Ceratophyllut deaersui 0.00 1 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 i . 9 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 O.Ofl
Chara spp, 0.00 1 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 2.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00
Eleochans plantagmea 0.00 0 00 0.00 S.OO 1.03 0.0» 0.90 2.32 0.00 0.00 O.UO O.UO
Hjdnlla verticillata 8.24 8. 00 5.95 0.00 1.03 0.9* O.Oll l.H 6.59 J.16 1,85 0,4li
Hajaa Minor 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 2.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
HyMphea spp. 0.00 8. 00 8.33 7.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paaicui aatidotale 4.71 0. 00 5.95 13.40 9.28 12.50 0.00 5.56 3.30 0.00 6.15 9.89
Onidentified 5.88 4. 00 5.95 5.15 4.12 4.81 0.89 11.11 4.40 5.26 3.08 6.59
N 15.00 14. 00 13.00 11.00 10.00 12.00 15.00 14.00 U.OO 14.00 15.00 12.00

Note ; Values are I D percentage

285
 App«B(iil II!

The botanical coipositiOD of aootiiiy cotpotiU saiplcs of

Blackback droppisgi in (a) 1987-88 (b) 1988-19, based on the
frequency of occurrence of epidenal fragientt. I n tbe luiber
of droppings pooled eack •oitb

JUL ADG SEP OCT HOV DEC m HAR APK HAY JDN

Brachana reptans 5.68 3.80 6.41 0.00 0.00 O.QC i.H Lit 5.32 MO
CjDodoD dactyloD 27.27 30.38 43.59 27.59 41.56 37.04 JJ.].1 40.00 35.71 24.39 38.30 2'.59
Cjperus rotundus 7.95 7.59 0.00 5.75 6.49 0.00 15.4! 1.24 0.00 ,86 J.19 i.U
DesBostachja i)jpjojiataO,00 1.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.41 0.00 0.00 ,44 0,00 0.00
DicaathiuB annulatui 9.09 7.59 3.85 13.79 0.00 6.17 10.71 8.24 16.67 34.15 4.26 19.54
SchiDochloa coloaui 4,55 12.66 6.41 0.00 7.79 3.70 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bragrostis spp. 9.09 0.00 6.41 4.60 9.09 4.94 3.57 0.00 5.95 7.32 6.36 0.00
frJociiJoa procera 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Iseileaa laiuB 2.27 3.80 6.41 5.75 0.00 3.70 5.95 3.53 ,76 4.88 3.19 0.00
PaspaJui disticliui 4.55 1.80 2.56 3.45 5.19 Q.OQ 2.18 5.88 ,57 1.66 18.09 20.69
Setana spp. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.57 0.00 0.00 0.00
Scirpus tuberosus 0.00 0.00 5.13 3.45 3.90 0.00 0.00 5.88 5.95 6.10 3.19 4.60
Sporoboias he)vol us 18.18 22.78 14.10 25.29 12.99 28.40 2J.43 17.65 15.48 6.10 14.89 22.99
Vetjverja zizanioides 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.60 3.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00
Panjcm aotidotaie 3.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.OO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Unidentified 7.95 6.33 5.13 10.14 6.49 4.94 7.14 S.88 8.31 6.10 1.19 4.60
N 18.00 17.00 16.00 16.00 15.00 16.00 15.00 17.08 17.00 18.00 16.00 15.00

IB)

JUL AUG SEP OCT HOV DEC JAN FEB HAS APR HAI JDR
Brachana reptans 3.53 0.00 3.30 0,00 0.00 0.00 3.49 5.68 0.00 0.00
Cfnodon dactylon 35,29 33.73 26.67 35.16 24.47 31.40 24.39 30.23 18.18 33.33 25.29 28.24
Cyperus rotundus 0,00 7.23 7.69 5.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.36 0.00 0.00 0.00
DesMostachya bipmnata 0,00 0.00 7.69 8.51 0J» O.M )!.() 0.19 4.76 5.75 3 51
Dicanthiut annulatuM 11.76 12.05 18.89 10.99 25.53 19,n )6,51 Ii.»3 5,tf 9,^2 60 6.24
Sciij/iochJoa coionuM 9.41 6.02 3.33 0,00 8.51 4.65 2.44 0.00 17.05 5.95 .10 0,80
Eragrostis spp. 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 1.66 0.00 5.68 5.95 75 3.53
ffjocAJoa procera 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 1.16 6.10 0.00 0. 00 0.00 /5 0.00
IsejJeia laiua 0.00 6.02 3.33 0.00 0.00 5.81 0.00 10.47 5, 5.95 0.00 3.5)
PaspaJui distichui 18,82 18.07 15.56 2,20 5.32 5.81 ').l)0 2.31 12,.50 5.95 8.05 I I . / 6
Setaria spp. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0ft 0.00 .00 2.38 0,00 O.OG
Scirpus tuberosus 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,49 0.00 0.00 0.00 J.49 0..(G 5.95 0.00 J.IH
Sporobolus heholus 9.41 10.84 26.67 17,58 19.15 25.58 9.76 17.44 1 1 ..64 13.10 17.24 15.29
Vetjverja iizanioides 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,49 0.00 0.00 hU 5.81 0.00 1.19 OJO i.i)
Panicui antidotaie 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 8.00 0.00 20,69 10.S9
Bnidentifeid 11.76 6.02 5.56 4.40 3.19 5.81 9,76 1.49 4.55 5.95 4.60 5.88
N 17.00 19,00 20.00 15,00 15.00 17,00 16.00 19.00 21.00 20.00 19.00

Note : Values are in percentage

286
 Appeodii IV

The botanical coipositioo of BODthl; coipoiite laapleg of Nilgai

droppings I D la) 1987-88 (b) 1988-89, based oi the frequencf of
occurrence of epideriai frageients. I it tbe lusber of droppings
pooled each •onth

(A)

JDL KK SEP OCT liOV DKC JAK m HAB APR MAT m

^cacja fljjotjca 8.64 6.59 6,19 5.15 5.38 9.41 19.35 14.02 16.22 18.95 22.47 14.74
Acacia DiJotica (PodI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 3,74 0,(10 5.26 9,00 4,21
Acacia JeucophJoea 0,00 I.IO 0.90 9.110 2.15 2,(5 1.98 0.99 9,00 3.16 9,90 9.00
BaliBites roiburghii 0.00 0.00 4.12 0.00 0.08 8.8t iM t H 9,00 .{.16 0,00 8.88
Cappans sepiaria 3.70 3.30 5.15 2.06 2.15 3.53 i.3» 14.02 7.21 8,42 5.62 8.42
Capparis decjdua 0.00 5.49 0,00 3.09 2.15 J.51 1,23 4.67 2.70 0.00 2.25 J.16
Prosopis juJjfJora 1.23 1.10 0,00 0.00 0.00 2.J5 0.09 4.6? 0.00 3.16 8.99 3.16
Salvador a persica 2.47 0.00 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.90 0.90 8.00 8.88
iizjphus Bauntiana 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.80 3,23 9,35 a.09 0.90 8.09 V.UiJ
Bncharii reptans 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 2.15 9.0(1 9.0(1 (.09 9,90 8.88 9,89 8,90
C/Dodon dactjloD 23.46 13,19 14,43 14.43 30.11 21.18 i.J 1.48 9.91 5.26 5.62 8.42
Cjperus alopecuroides 0.00 2.20 4,12 0.00 0.00 1.18 9,99 0.09 9.09 0.09 2.25 0.98
Cfperus rotundas 0.80 8.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.09 3,21 ),74 1.60 1.05 8.80 (J,l)D
Oestostachya bipiooata 6.17 5.49 3.09 2.06 4.30 5.«8 ).2i 6.54 4.50 15.79 5.62 0.00
Dicaothiui annuJatua 8.64 9.89 6.19 7.22 0.00 5.88 4.30 0.00 0.90 0.00 9.00 7,31
Echmochloa colonut 0.00 5.49 2.06 4.12 4.30 3.53 9.00 0,09 2.79 0.99 0,90 0.90
Eragrostis spp. 3.70 3.30 4.12 7.22 5.38 0.00 3.23 8.09 9.99 2.11 0.80 0.00
EriociiJoa procera 0.00 0.00 2.06 2.06 1.08 1.18 9.09 0.99 2.79 9.90 0.00 0.90
Iseijena Jaiua 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.18 0.90 0.90 0.00 9.90 0.00 0.09
PaapaluB distichui 11.11 2.20 11.34 11.34 8.60 7.0b 5.38 7,48 7.21 5.26 17.98 18.95
Pseudoraphis spiDescens 1.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.08 9.00 9,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80
Setana spp. 2.47 2,20 0.00 1.03 0.00 9.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Scjrpus tuierosus 14.81 2.06 9.90
Sporobolus helvoluB 3.70
6.59
9.89 8.25
3.09 5.38
18.56 17.20 13.82
5.38 4.67
4.67
7,21 3.16
5.26
o.oo 5.26
8.69 9.01 10.11 15.79
Vetiveria zizanioides 0.00 3.30 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.09 !.08 1.87 4,50 0.80 3.37 2.11
Calotropis procera 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 9.09 0.08 2.70 3.16 1.12 9.90
Coueiiaa forshJJi 0.00 3.30 1.03 0.00 9.00 9.00 9.90 9.90 0,00 8.90 0.80 0.09
CoMeJiJia beogiiajeiisjs 0,00 0.00 2.06 0.00 0.00 1.18 2,15 9,00 0,09 0.00 0,00 0.80
Cjaaotis anllariB 0.00 3.30 2.06 0.00 1.08 0.00 3.23 0.08 0.89 8.08 8.00 8.30
Ipoaoea aqaatica 0.00 2.20 1.03 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 t.ot 9J9 0.00 9.90 3.16
Tnantbeia spp, 8.00 4.40 3.09 0.90 9.90 2.35 9.99 4.98 9.88 9.89 9.99 8.8U
I'jcja satjva 0.00 0.00 1.03 0.00 8.00 8.00 9.00 8.80 8.08 0.80 9.00 6.80
Eleocharis plantagmea 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.53 8.90 8.90 0.80 8.00 8.88 8.98
Panicui antidotaJe 2.47 0.00 0.00 3.09 3.23 9.00 1.98 (.00 8.80 2.U 8.99 9.89
Pennisetuf typhoides 0.60 0.00 6.19 5.15 0.00 0.00 t.OO 9.00 8.99 9.09 6.00 8.89
SorghuM vulgare 0.00 0.00 4.12 4.12 0.90 0.99 iM I.H 8.88 (.88 8.00 l.8(
Cicer anetmui 0.80 0.00 0.00 9.80 0.90 0.8( t.K ( . 0 4.50 4.21 9.89 (.89
PJSUI satjvui 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.90 9.90 0.99 t.94 9.09 3.60 8.08 8.89 9.88
TriticuB aestivui 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 6.80 8.89 4.58 5.2b 8.99 0.08
Brassica caipestris 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.99 7.53 6.54 8.00 0.88 0.09 0.98
Onidentified 6.17 5.49 5.15 6.19 4.30 5.88 7.53 6.54 7.21 5.26 5.62 5.26
N 42.00 45,00 51.00 44.00 51.09 59,99 55.99 53.00 57.09 59.09 69,90 68.80

Kote ; Values are in percentage

287
 Appeodii IV IcoBtdi

(B)
JUL AOG sgp OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB IU8 APS NAY JON

hC3C13 DjJotjCa 8.47 7.69 7.55 3.00 4.63 4.8^ 1,25 5.U 5.05 14.31 7 71
Acicia Biiotica (Pod) 6.78 7.69 0.00 0.00 2.78 o.^e «.00 i.H 0.00 i.n 5.15 2.91
Acacia leucophioea 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 e.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.81 3.09 O.H
Balanites roibarghii 2.54 6.59 7.55 8.00 2.78 0.00 2.83 0.00 5.10 0.00 0,00 3.81
Cappans sepiaria 6.78 2.20 2.83 5.00 7.41 2.91 2.83 5.15 5.10 5.05 9,28 11.65
Cappans decidua 1.69 0.00 1.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.89 3.09 3.06 0.00 0,00 0.00
DichostrachYS cmerea 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.03 1.02 0.00 1.03 0.00
Prosopis juJi/Jora 1.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 4.85 10.38 5,15 3.06 4.04 0.00 5,83
Salvadora persica 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.91 2.83 0.00 1.02 0.00 0.00 0,00
iizyphus aauntiana 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 7.55 3.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00
Bracharia reptans 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.85 0.00 0,00 0.00 1.02 0.00 0.00 0,00
Cjnodon dactjlon 9.32 8.79 12.26 23.00 11.11 14.56 6,60 7.22 11.22 10.10 6*19 4,85
Cyperus alopecuroides 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.91 0.00 0.00 5.10 5.05 0.00 7,77
Cjperus rotundus fl.flO 3.30 6.60 0.00 1.85 7.77 0.00 0.00 4.08 0,00 O.DO 0,00
Desaostachya bipmnata 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.00 18.52 11.65 4.72 15.46 10.20 7,07 8.25 1,94
DicanthiuM annuJatua 5.08 10.99 8.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.55 5,15 4.08 4,04 5.15 4.85
EchiBochloa colonaa 7.63 0.00 2.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.06 8.16 7.07 0.00 0.00
Eragrostis spp. 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 7.41 0.00 0.00 3.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Eriochloa procera 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.03 0.00 0.00
PaspaluB distichua 13.56 28.57 16.04 5.00 13.89 17.48 16.98 5.15 8.16 7.07 12.37 15.53
Setana spp. 4.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.94 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00
Scirpus tuberosus 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 2.83 9.28 0.00 4.04 3.09 0.00
SporoboluB belvolus 9.32 16.48 11.32 11.00 11.11 9.71 10.38 9.28 3.06 5.05 17.53 8.74
Vetivena iizanioidee 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 4.63 0.00 6.60 0.00 2.04 0.00 0.00 0.40
Caiotropis procera 0.00 3.30 0.94 1.00 2.78 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.09 1.94
Coutelina forskaUi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.78 0,97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CoBtelioa beogbaleDSis 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.to 0.93 0.9/ 0.00 0.00 0.00 t.OO 0.00 0.00
Cyanotis aiiUans 4.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 O.H (.It 1.00 8.to OJO o.dO
Ipoaoea aquatica 4.24 0,00 5,66 0.00 1.85 0,00 0,00 J.09 0.00 0.00 0,00 2.91
TriantheBa spp. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 2.91
Vicia sativa 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00
Sleocharis pJantagmea 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,80 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paaicut aatidotale 10.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.77 0,00 0.00 0,00 2.U 11.34 ll.b5
PennisetuM typhoides 0.00 0.00 5.66 6.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sorgbua vuigare 0.00 0.00 4.72 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00
Cicer arietinun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 4,08 5.05 0.00 0.00
Pi sua sativua 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.08 5,10 6.06 0,00 y.oo
Tnticua aestivua 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.uo 0.00 0.08 6,12 5.05 0,1)0 0 OU
Brassica caapestns 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,22 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00
Dnidentified 3.39 4.40 5.66 3,00 2.78 3.88 2.83 5,15 4,08 5.05 4.12 4.85
N 62.00 70.00 71.00 67,00 68.00 74.00 77.00 71.00 60,00 65.00 64.00 58.00

Note ; Values are in percentage

288
 ippendii V

The boUnicil coipoiitioD of lOBtkif coipoiitt tfttplci of feral

cattle droppiogi ii la) 19t7-88 (b) l!ll-89, biied OR tht frtqiwKf
of occurrence of epiderial fragieoti. I m lb* nuiber of droppiuyi
pooled each noilh.

(A)
JUL ADG SEP OCT KOV m JAN m m APt HAY JON

Acacia niJotica 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00

3,09 8.00 0,00 0,80 8,00 0.80
Balanites roibarghii 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 2.06 0.00
fl.flfl 8,00 0,00 8.80 0.00
Capparis sepiaria 0.00 fl.flO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.15 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 8.80
Prosopis juJi/Jora 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.n 1.03 0.00 0.08 8.(0 0,08 8.00
SaJvadora persica 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.27 o.ot 2.(6 0.00 0.80 5.68 0,00 0.80
Braciiaria reptaas 0.00 0.00 3.53 3.23 0.00 fl.OO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 4.49 0.00
CynodoB dactjloD 21.95 18.00 28.23 29.03 31,82 25.45 28.87 13.64 16.85 12.36 8.98 21.35
Cjperus alopecuroides 1.22 0.00 0.00 0.80 0,00 0.00 0.00 8.00 8,00 3.21 4.49 0.88
Cfperus rotundus 3.66 0.00 2.35 4.30 5.68 2.12 1,25 3.64 0.88 3.21 3.37 5.62
Desiostachja bipiDoata 6.10 4.00 0,80 0.00 7.95 2.12 12.3? O.OO 22,47 17.22 17.90 0.00
Dicanthiut aonuJatuM 8.54 5.00 7.05 0.00 3.41 4.20 6.19 18,18 5,62 6.4 3.39 13.48
Bchinochloa coinut 7.32 17.00 7.05 7,53 5.68 0.10 0.88 2.73 0.08 6.4 3.39 0.80
Eragroastis spp. 4.88 8.00 5,88 0.00 0.00 12.70 4.12 0.00 0.00 2.15 8.00 0.80
Eriochloa procera 0.00 0.09 0.00 1.08 2.27 2.25 fi.tO 1.80 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.80
Iseileta laiua 0.00 0.00 2.35 0.00 2.27 0.9? 9.80 8.04 0.81 4.88 5.61 l.8«
Paspalut distichuB D.OO 5.00 7.05 7.53 5.6« i..il •i.M ii.n 11.24 U,97 U.85 24.72
Pseudoraphis spinesceits 0.00 0.00 O.OD 0.00 0.00 s.ot 0.01 2.73 8.81 3.21 2.24 t.OO
Setaria spp. 4.88 5.00 0.00 0.00 2.27 0.81 t.to 2.73 8.(8 8.38 8.88 iM
Scjrpus tuberosus 2.44 3.00 0.00 5.38 3.41 3.19 5.15 6.36 5.62 3.21 2.24 5.62
SpofoboJus he]vol us 31.71 15.00 11.76 22.58 18.18 17.02 0.00 7.27 1.99 5.37 5.81 23.t(
Vetiveria zizanioides 0,00 3.00 2.35 3.23 0.00 0.00 10.31 7.27 16.85 7.95 11.25 8.88
CaJotropis procera 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.19 0.00 1,82 2,25 2.27 8.00 0.00
CoiieJioa forskalli 0.00 2.00 3.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.OO 0.00 0.00 8,00 8.00 0.00
Coauelioa beoghaleBsis 0.08 2.00 4.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cfaaotis axillaris 0.00 3.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 8.00 0.08
Ipofoea aquatica 0.00 0.00 3.53 7,53 2.27 3.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 8,00 0.00
Physalis spp. 0.00 0.00 1.18 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0.89 0.00 8.88 0,08 0,00
Triantheta spp. 0.00 3.00 2.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,80 0.00 0,00 8.00 0.00 8,00
Vicia sativa 0.00 2.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0,00
Eleocharis plantagiaea 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.19 0,00 0,08 8.80 0.00 0.00 8.80
PanicuB antidotale O.OD 0,00 0,00 3.23 0,00 4,25 0.00 0,00 0,00 2.15 2,24 0.00
Unidentified 7.32 5.00 7,06 5.38 6,82 10,66 8.25 6,36 10.11 5.68 7,8 5.62
X 80.00 76.00 74,00 65.00 62,00 70.00 74.00 77.08 91.88 78.88 84.08 75.06

Note ; Values are in percentage

289
 Appendii V (contd)

(B)
JUL ADG SEP OCT MOV OBC JAN FEB MAS APfi HA! JUK

Acacia nilotica OJfl 0.00 0.00 0.00 OJO .06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Salvadora persica 0.00 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .09 0.00 0.00 $.00 4.12 0.09
Bracharia reptans 5.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.12 0.00 ,00 0.00 2.29 0.00 ].03 0.00
Cynodon dactylon 26.80 24.44 45 27.3725.77 28.89 22. 24.44 17.60 21.28 7.22 9.09
Cyperus sJopecuroides 0.00 3.3J 96 fl.flO2.06 0,00 0. 0.00 0.00 9.57 0.00 7,2?
Cjperus rotuadas 0.00 11.11 90 2.11 10.31 11.1! 0 ,00 0.00 0.00 6.38 0.00 0,00
DesMostachya bipinnata 0.00 0.00 00 21.0522.68 17,71 U 10.7! «,57 20.62 16 n
DicanthiuB aonuiatuB 5.15 7.78 16.66 10.53 0.00 4,,44 tl i,l) 10.78 9.00 5.15 6.IB
SchiDocbloa COIOBUM 5.15 3.33 0.00 1.05 0.00 0.011 0 ,00 0.00 5.60 6.311 0.00 0.0»
Eragrostis spp. 1.03 0.00 0.00 3.16 0.00 0.00 0 ,00 0.00 5,60 5.32 0.00 0,00
PaspaluB distichua 25.77 0.00 5.88 0.00 9.28 27.78 8 ,25 13.33 9.80 17.02 16.56 21,60
Paeudoraphis spinescens 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0 ,00 0,00 4.90 0.00 0.00 0,90
Setaria spp. 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.00 0.0(1 i ,12 2.22 0.00 O.Oi) 0,00 0,00
Scirpus tuberoBus 6.19 8.89 0.00 4.21 0. 0. K ,15 8.89 5.80 2.13 0,00 iM
SpofoboJus iieJvoJus 15.46 24.44 28.40 12.63 12.37 0.00 17, ,53 8.89 5.80 10.64 6.19 (.30
Vetiveria lizanioides 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.53 7.22 4.44 1, 15 13.33 4.90 5,32 18.56 to,40
CaJotfopis procera 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0,'t 0..0Q 0.00 0,00 0.00
Cyanotis aiillaris 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.90 0,00 0,00
Ipoioea aquatica 3.09 00 0.00 0,00 0.90 0.00 0.00
Triantheia spp. 0.00 5.56 0.00 0.00 1.96 0.00 0.00 0.00
PaoicuB aotidotaie 2.06 3.33 0.00 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.40 10.90
Dnidentified 4.12 6.67 8.82 6.32 5.15 5.56 6,19 8,69 10.75 6.38 5.15 4.50
N 92.00 BO.00 92,00 78.00 92.00 77.00 89.00 92.00 65.00 71.0(1 69.00

Note : Values are in precentage

290
 Appendii VI

The botanical c o i p o s i t i o n of aoDthlj c o i p o t i t o t a i p l e i of Mild

boar droppinga i i (a) 1987-t8 <b) H I I - 1 9 , bai«d on the frequeiic|r
of occurrence of e p i d e r u l fra9eMatii, I t i tkx tuaker »t dro|>piB<|i
pooled each kuitk

(A)

m ADG SEP OCT )I0¥ [!«(' m m J(i(

Proaopis juliflon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.25 0.00 8.51 y.JO 0.08 0,08 8.24 9.6i
iizyphus Bauntiaaa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 6.25 0,80 8,80 0.80 8,00
Brachana reptans 0.00 5.33 5.32 0.00 0.00 OJI) 0.00 0.80 0.08 0,80 8.08 0,08
CjnodoB dactyJon 0.00 8.00 7.45 8.79 2.50 0.00 5J2 0.00 0.08 5.00 8.00 2.41
Cyperus alopecuroides 9.64 6.67 9.57 7.69 8.75 6.67 8.51 7.50 5.00 3.75 0.08 6,8?
Cjperus rotundus 40.96 32.00 20.21 35.16 36.25 26.6/ 28,72 18,75 18.75 30.00 30.50 28.92
Desaostachya bipiBaata 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 5.J2 0.00 5.00 6.25 5.88 2.41
Dicanthiua anDulatun 4.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 3,19 5.80 0.00 0.00 0.88 8.80
EchiBochloa colonui 0.00 2.67 0.00 4.40 0 00 4.00 0.00 0.00 6.25 7.50 8.00 0.00
Bnochioa procera 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 1,33 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00
PaspaluB distichuB 3.61 0.00 8.51 7.69 0 00 0.00 0.00 8.75 7.50 0.88 7.06 7.23
Scnpus tuberosus 22.89 29.33 26.60 27.47 21 25 36.00 22.34 25.00 26.25 23.75 11,76 32.53
Sporobolus helvoluB 0.00 0.00 4.26 0.00 0 00 4.00 3.19 6.25 5.00 8.00 3,53 8.00
Vetivena zizanioides 0.00 0.00 2.13 O.OD 0 00 LH 5.32 0.80 0.00 0.80 5.88 8.80
CotBeiiBa forskalh 0.00 0.00 2.13 0.00 0 00 (i.Oi S.80 0.00 0,80 0.08 0.08 0.80
CoBBeliDa benghaleBsis3.61 2.67 2.13 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.08 0.88 0.00 0,00
IpoBoea aquatica 0.00 0.00 1.06 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0,88 8.88 8.88 0.00
rnantheia spp. 3.61 2.67 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 8.88 8.00 8.00
Eleochans plantagiaea 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 O.Oii 0.08 8.75 10,00 8.60 0.08 0.80
HjBphoides mdicuB 0.00 fl.Ofl 0.00 0.00 6. 25 0.00 0,00 0.00 8.88 0.00 8.80 0,00
PaoicuB aotjdotaie 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 10 00 0.00 0.80 8,08 8.(8 3.75 8.08 8,80
rrjtjcui aeativuB 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.88 12.50 9.41 0.00
Cicer anetinuB 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0. 00 0.80 0,0« 0.00 8.08 0.08 4.71 8.08
Unidentified 10.64 10.67 10.64 8.79 8. 75 10.67 9.57 11.25 16.25 7.58 12.94 18.84
N 30.00 32.00 41,00 42.00 50. 00 45.8« 4 6 J 0 44.08 53.88 55.88 47.00 4f.8«

Note : Values are in percentage

291
 ippeodii VI icoi)UI

(B!
JUL ADG SEP OCT NOV DEC jy FEB m m m in
Prosopis juliflora 14.12 0.00 8.14 0.00 5.68 7.84 7.29 9.88 10.53 12.90 O.DO 0.10
iizfphvs Mauntiana 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.00
CyaodoB dactjion 5.88 4.90 0.00 8.24 0.00 8.82 4.17 0.00 5.26 0.00 4.49 4.71
Cjperas alopecaroides 0.00 3.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.84 0.00 3.70 5.26 6.45 6.74 8.24
Cyperus rotundus 35.29 14.75 37.21 17.65 34.09 30.39 28.13 30.66 13.16 26.88 17.98 29.41
Destostachya bipianata 5.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.64 0.00 13.54 9.88 0.00 5.38 0.00 0.00
Dicanthiaa anauIatuM 0.00 6.56 0.00 4.71 0.00 0.00 4.17 O.OS 0.00 EJO 0.00 0.00
Echiaochloa cohnut 0.00 6.56 0.00 4.71 0.00 6.86 0.00 8.64 0.00 0.00 7.87 0.00
Enochloa procera 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.38 0.00 0.00
Paspalat diatichut 5.88 0.00 0.00 14.12 0.00 0.00 5.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.25 8.24
Scirpus tuberogus 24.71 37.70 32.56 31.76 29.55 21.57 20.83 17.28 30.26 19.35 25,84 28.24
SpofoboJus heJvoius 0.00 0.00 3.49 0.00 2.27 7.84 2.88 4.94 6.58 0.00 6.74 0.00
Vetivena nzaaioides 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.68 0.00 7.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,74 3.53
Ipotoea aquatica 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.06 0.00 e.ov 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.25 0.00
Bleochans plantagiDea 0.00 13.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.17 6.58 0.00 0.00 0.00
Panicui antidotale 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 »Ji 0.00 0.00 3.37 8.24
Sorqhua vuigare 0.00 0.00 4.65 5.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cicer anetiBut 0.00 0.00 6.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tnticat aestjvuB 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 9.21 10.75 7.87 0.00
Pisu> aativat 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.45 0.00 0.00
Unidentified 8.24 13.11 6.98 5.18 9.09 8 I) ?.?f 1 M 11.14 6.4S 7.87 9,41
N 51.00 52.00 55.00 53.00 54.00 48.lt n , i i 5 ) . H ) ) . 9 0 44.00 48.00 H,H

Mote ; Values are in percentage

192
 Appendix VII

A list of common plants found in th«

Keoladeo National Park Bharat.pur

Trees

Acacia nilotica
Acacia leucophloea
Albizzia lebbeck
Azadirachta indica
Balanites roxhurghii
Cassia fistula
Cordia dichotoma
Crataeva nurvala
Dalbergia sissoo
Delonix regia
Dichrostachys cinerea
Diospyros cordifolia
Ehretia aspera
Ficus benghalensis
Ficus glomerata
Ficus religiosa
Mitragyna parvifolia
Phoenix sylvestris
Prosopis Juliflora
Prosopis spicigera
Rand2a dumatorium
Salvadora persica
Salvadora oleoides
Syzygium cumini
Tamarix aphyl1 a

293
26) Tamarindus indica
27) Zizyphus mauritiana

CLIMBERS

1 Ahrus precatorius
2 Asparagus racemosus
3 Cardiospermum halicacabum
4 Cayratia carnosa
5 Cocculus hirsutus
6 Coccinia cordifolia
7 Cryptostegia grandiflora
8 Cuscuta reflexa
9 Dregea volubilis
10 Ipomoea pestigridis
11 Ipomoea nil
12 Leptadaenia reticulata
13 Luffa acutangula
14 Momordica dioica
15 Melothria maderaspatana
16 Oxystelma secamone
17 Pergularia daemia
18 Rhynchosia minima
19 Tinospora cordifolia

SHRDBS

1) Adhatoda vasica
2) Capparis decidua
3) Capparis sepiaria
4) Clerodendrum phlomidis
5) Grewia tenax

294
 6) Ipornoea carnea
7) Kivganelia reticulata
8) Lantana camara
9) Opu n t J a dill eii 11
10) Pun.ica granatum
1.1) Vitex negundo
12) ZizyphuB nummularia

HERBS

1 Ah^}irto/ichut4 f icu I neus

2 AhutiI on indicum
3 Acalypha indica
4 Acyranthes aspera
5 Aeschynomene indica
6 Ageratum conyzoides

7 Alhagi paeudalhagi

8 Alternanthera pungens

9 Alternanthera sessilis

10 Ammannia baccifera

11 Ammannia sengalensis

12 Amaranthus gracilis

13 Amaranthus spinosus

14 Amaranthus tricolor

15 Anagallis arvenais

16 Argeftnon^ rrM?ti',in^

17 Bidens hi tenia ta

18 Blumea obliqua

19 Boerbavia diffusa

20 Caesulia axillaris

21 Cassia occidental lis

22 Cassia tora

2qs
23) Cassia pumila
24) Calotropis procera
25) Chenopodium murale
26) Chenopodium album
27) Clsome viscosa
28) Cochlearia cochlearioides
29) Coldenia procumbens
30) Commelina benghalensis
31) Commelina forskalii
32) Corchorus aestuans
33) Corc/jorus capsularis
34) Corchorus olitorius
35) Corchorus tridens
36) Crotaiaria medicaginea
37) Cyanotis axillaris
38) Datura metal
39) Digera muricata
40) Eclipta prostrata
41) Eichhornia crassipes
42) Euphrobia hirta
43) Euphrobia hypercifolia
44) EvoJvuJus alsinoides
45) Gnaphalium indicum
46) Gnaphalium luteoalbum
47) Gomphrena celosioides
48) Grangea maderaspatana
49) Gynandropsis gynandra
50) Hydrolea zeylanica
51) Hygrophila polysperma
52) Indigofera cordifolia
53) Indigofera tinctoria
54) Indigofera trita

296
55) Jussiaea perennis
56) Laggera aurita
57) Leucaena leucocephala
58) Leucas urticaefolia
59) Lindernia Crustacea
60) Lindernia parvifolia
61) Merremia emerginata
62) Monochoria vaginalis
63) Nicotians plumbaginifolia
64) Nothosaerva brachiata
65) Oldenlandia corymbosa
66) Oldenlandia aspera
67) Peda J i u/n murex
68) Peristrophe bicaliyculata
69) Phyla nodiflora
70) Phylanthus frternus
71) Phyllanthus simplex
72) Pluchea lanceolata
73) PJumbago zeyaianica
74) Poiycarpon prostratu/n
75) Potentilla supina
76) Pulicaria crispa
11) Pupalia lappacea
78) fiueJJia tuherosa
79) Rungia pectinata
80) Rumex dentatus
81) Salsola baryosma
82) Sesbania bispinosa
83) Sida rhombifolia
84) Sonchus arvensis
85) Solanum surattense
86) Suaeda fruticosa

297
87) Teramnus lahialis
88) Tribulus terrestris
89) Trichosanthes cucumerina
90) Trianthema potulacastrum
91) Vernonia cinerea
92) Vicia sativa
93) Vicoa indica
94) Vigna trilobata
95) Withania somnifera

96) Zanthiu/n strumarium

GRASSES

1) Cynodon dactylon

2) Dactyloctenium aegypticum
3) Desmostachya bipinnata
4) Dicanthium annuJatum
5) Echinochloa colonum
6) Eragrostis Spp.
7) Eriochloa procera
8) Fimbristylis Spp.
9) Iseiiema iaxum
10) Oryza Spp.
11) Panicurn antidotale
12) Paspalum djstichum
13) Paspalidium punctatum
14) Pseudoraphis spinescens
15) Sporobolus helvolus
16) l^etiveria zizanioides

29 H
AQUATIC

1 Aponogeton natans
2 Astercantha longifolia
3 Ceratophyllum demersum
4 Cyperus alopecuroides
5 Cyperus rotundus
6 Eleocharis plantaginea
7 Hydrilla verticil lata
8 Ipomoea aquatica
9 Lemna paucicostata
10 Marsi lea Sp.
11 Najas minor
12 Neptunea oleraceae
13 Nymphaea nouchali
14 Nymphaea stellata
15 Nymphoides cristatum
16 Nymphoides indicum
17 Polygonnuw limbatum
18 Polygonnum plebeium
19 Potamogeton crispus
20 Potarnogeton nodosus
21 Sagittaria quayanensis
22 Sagittaria sagittifolia
23 Scirpus articulatus
24 Scirpus littoralis
25 Scirpus tuberosus
26 Spirodela polyrrhiza
27 Typha angustata
28 Wolffia Sp.

299
 Appendix VI1 I

A l i s t ofroaroinalsoccuring in the Keoladeo

National Park, Bharatpur

1) Macaca mulatta Rhesus macaque

2) Panthera pardus Leopard
3) FeJis chaus Jungle cat
4) Felis viverrina Fishing cat
5) Paradoxurus hermaphroditus Common palm civet (Toddy cat)
6) Viverricula indica Small Indian civet
7) Herpestes auropunctatus Small Indian mongoose
8) Herpestes edwardsi Common mongoose
9) Hyaena hyaena Striped hyaena
10) Vulpes bengalensis
11) Canis aureus Jarka1
12) Lutra perspicillata Smooth Indian otter
13) Suncus murinus Musk shrew
14) Pteropus giganteus r ly I ntj fox
15) Scotophilus heathi Common yellow bat
16) Hipposideros fulvus Bi CO l«)ure<J leaf-nosed brit
17) Funambulus pennanti Five Htijped paJm squ-i I't •» 1
18) Hystrix indica Indlan porcupine
19) Tatera indica Indian gerbilJe
20) Bandicota bengalensis Indian mole-rat
21) Vandeleuria oleracea Longtailed tree mouse
22) Lepus nigricollis ruficaudatus Rufoustailed hare
23) Boselaphus tragocamelus NiIgai
24) Bos indicus feral cattle
25) Antilope cervicapra Blackbuck
26) Axis axis Chital
27) Cerv'us unicolor Sambar
28) 5us scrofa Indian wj J d boar

300
 Appendix IX

A KEY TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF SELECTED MAJOU P(X)D PLANTS

Hydrilla verticil lata: Trichomes golden colour, not very long and
the bas-e contains muJtx cells.

Ipomoea aquatica Dentate subsidary cells of stomata with

no special cell arrangement, several ring
like structure m the plant tissue.

Potamogeton crispus Square crystaiK ar»? abundant over th<?

veins, tip of the cell are slightly
larger.

Potamogeton indicus Square crystals are less abundant, ring

like structure present which are
segmented.

Nymphea spp Star shaped transparent trichomes in the

plant tissues.

Nymphoides seed Distinct attachment cells in tissues

which are made up of thin walled cells
tapering downwards.

Utricularia sp, Trichomes are not .abundant and usually

occur on the Jeaf niargiria.

Najas minor Short, one celled base trichomes, chain

like structure pre8<'nt.

301
Chara sp, Antheredeum ro\iiidr archegonium ova J ,
rose petaJ Ilk*" Btnict:urp presse'rit.

Ceratophyllum demersunm: Trichomes are having hooked tips and

their bases are having single cells.
Rectangular crystals cover the veins.

ValIisneria sp. Trichomes are absent, neat rectaogvilar

cells present.

Brassica campestris Pitted wavy textured trichomes are

present, cells arranged in parallel rows.

Pi sum aestivum Paramecium like structure present,

trichomes are not abundant and usually
occur on leaf margin.

Cicer arietinum Ligulate internally segmented trichomes

having swollen bases that are usually
sma11 .

Triticum aestivum Stomata very large and silica bodies

are dumbbell shaped.

Oryza sativa Silica cells resemble butterflies,

small bristles all over the plant.

Sorghum vulgare Stomates are mostly rounded but some

are slightly peaked. Silica bodies are
dumbbell shaped.

302
Pennisetum typhoides Stomata are small and silica bodies are
long bone-shaped.

Panicum antidotale Silica cells in the coastal zone are

bone shaped. Bristles are frequently
present at the cell wall.

Paspalum distichum Silica cells of coastal zone are

peredoininant ly H shaped to nodular.
Cell walls of inter coastl zone are
unevenly dentate, pin like structure
are coinrnon.

Echinocloa colonum Silica ceJl» i tt the coafatal zone .«r«'

square shaped, sometimes found in H
shaped. Small trichomes are attached to
the cell wail.

Sporobolus helvolus Silica cells long in coastal and inter

coastal zones, trichomes are papillate
in shaped and atomates are small and
round.

Eleocharis plantaginea Silica cells are irregular cuboid

shaped, stomata have peaked domes.

Bracharia reptans Fragments have many short trichomes.

Vetiveria zizanioides Stomata are small and have rounded

domes. Fragements have prickels.

303
Defiinoatachya bipinnata Silica cells in the coastal zones are
rectangular shaped, bristles are also
present at the margin, large ligulate
trichomes sometimes present.

Dicanthium annulatum Silica cells are dumbbell shaped, macro

hair are frequently present.

Sc i rpiJ« tuherosua Stomata have peaked domes and look like

triangular. Cells wall in the inter
costal area senuous. Silica cells are
dumbbell shaped.

Cynodon dactyl on Stomata are mostly rounded but some are

slightly peaked, silica cells are small
and round, usually in rows of two or
three, trichomes are usually ligulate.

Eragroatis ap, Stomata are long and elongated and are

arranged in parallel. Silica cells are
usually round and small but sometimes
half moon shaped silica cells are also
present, uniform cell structure.

Eriochloa procera Silica are pin like shaped, stomata

appear oval in shape. Trichomes are
small.

Iseilama laxum Silica bodies are short, small

dumbbells that look like bow ties.
Stomata are triangular in shaped.

304
Cyperus rotundus Silica bodies are dumbbell shaped
with rounded ends. Stomates are
small and round.

EahinochiOA proce fa Ribbon like structure present in

(Inflorescence) parallel rows

Setaria ep. Silica cells in costal zone bone-

shaped. Long cells of intercostal
zone are rectangular and sommetimes
diamond shaped, micro hair present.

Paspaldium punctatum Epidermal cells are having papillate

(Leaves) protrusion. Silica bodies are short,
small dumbbells that look like bow
ties, stomates are long and
elongated.

Paspaldium punctatum Ribbon like structure present in

(Inflorescence) paralel rows containing pits.

Trianthema portuJorastrum Trichoraea are ligulate and with

raucronate tips.

Cyanotis axillariH Trichomes are flexible with a

mucronate tip and 1 - celled base.
Large hexagonal cell present.

Commelina forskalli Two types of trichomes are present;

one is ligulate segmented trichomes,
the other is having hooked tips and
their bases are having single cells.

^nc;
Commelina bengalhensis Only one type of trichomas are
present which is segmented and
ligulate.

Dregia sp, Trichomes are not abundant,druses

are common.

Coccin.ia cordifolia Short ligulate trichomes are present.

Vicia aativa Neat rectangular cell, small

mushroom like structure present in
cluster.

Achyranthes asfyera Inter coastal cells are square and

very small druses are present inside
these cells,large segmented
trichomes having thick swallon bases
which are spiny.

I'hysaJis minima Lot of ring like structure present

Merremia emerginata Rod like trichomes are present.

Calatropis procera Trichomes are branched, sqaure

crystls are found over the veins.

Salvetdora oleoides Two types of trichomes present;

one is branched to form a 'Y' and
other forms 'T' shaped.

Salvadora persica Only one type of trichomes is

present i.e 'T' shaped trichomes.
CJf^i'oiif^ndron phUm idi » Square and rectangular crystal are
abundant, trichomes are small,
ligulate and segmented.

AcacJa nilotica Trichomes are branched, dragon fly

like structure present inside the
cell, small to medium size crystals
are abundant.

Prosopis juliflora Ligulate internally segmented

trichomes having swollen bases with
three sided attachment cells. Small
square crystals are present over the
veins.

Capparis sepiaria Trichomes are ligulate and segmented

having two sided attachment cells.

Prosopis spicigera Large ligulate segmented trichomes

are present with six sided cell
attachment.

Kirgenelia reticulata Trichomes are small and segmented

and some nipple like papillae are
present. Small square crystals are
abundant.

Z i 7.yph u a ma u t i t i a n a Trichomes unicellular flat and

ribbon like which are curly and
present in cluster.

307
Acacia leucophloea Short ligulate trichomes are present
on leaf margin having a mucronate
tips with four sided attachment
eelIs.

B^^lani tes roxburghi Ligulate trichomes are present with

six sided attachment cell. Medium
size druses occur in tissues with
anqular cells.

Djchiostachys cinecea Short ligulate trichomes are present

on leaf margin. Small angular shaped
crystals present on the veins.

Cassia tora Fragments are without trichomes.

Druses are present with small
angular crystals over the vein.

Salvadora persica Thin, sharp like spicules are

(Fruit) present in cluster. Small grannules

are abundant.

Acacia nilotica Long, thin, spicules are arranged

{ Pod ) para I lei.

Cyperus alopecuroides Stomata are round and small, silica

(Leaves) bodies are short and circular in

shape.

Cyperus a 1opecuroides Small oval shaped cell tapering at

iInflorescence) one end and are present abundantly -

308
 HYDRILLA VERTICILLATA IPOMOEA AQUATICA

(^ ^ o! mis

POTAMOGETON CRISPUS POTAMOGETON INDICUS

 NYMPHEA NYMPHOIDES (SEED)

UTRICULARIA Sp- NAJAS MINOR

If ^' * t •/ •'

11^
IT T)
i
^W'
> .<
^
1W J)'

rj^

CHARA S|3. CERATOPHYLLUM DEMERSUM

VALLISENERIA BRASSICA CAMPESTRIS (MUSTARD)

 »>0 o 6V

c=^=3^:iC^

PISUM AESTIVUM (MATAR) CICER ARIETINUM (GHANA)

^^2^^^

' ^ - '<:;^

TRITICUM-AESTIVUM (WHEAT) ORYZA SATIVA

SORGHUM VULGARE (JOWAR) PENNISETUM TYPHOIDES (BAJRA)

PANICUM ANTIDOTALE PASPALUM DISTICHUM

 <=>.C2 C ^ e=3 ^

VETIVERIAZIZANIOIDES DESMOSTACHYA BIPINNATA

C:oc:=7

DICANTHIUM-ANNUUATUM SCIRPUS TUBEROSUS

 0 ' t

ERfOCHLOA PROCERA ISEILAMA LAXUM

 a

3 ^
^^^3 gfe*-,EE=

CYPERUS R0TUNI3US ECHINOCHLOA PROCERA

(INFLORESCENCE)

'^S^^
T^r-gr >=< i=f -^r^T-^r-

d
Ax^
I
0 0
0
^

SETARIA Sp. PASPALDIUM PUNCTATUM ; (LEAVES)

PASPALDIUM PUNCTATUM; (Inflottscence TRIANTHEMA PORTULACASTRUM

CYANOTIS AXILLIARIS COMMELINA FORSKALII

 y^-
-T • ^ =

>

7-^

COMMEUNA BENGHALEN5IS DREGIA Sp.

COCCINIA CORblFOLIA VICIA SATIVA

OAlli-^'^r/
 ^:
"r

SALVADORA OLOEIDES SALVADORA PERSICA

H iill

ll

CLERODENDRON PHLOMIDIS ACACIA NILOTICA

PROSOPIS JULIFLORA CAPPARIS SEPIARIA

t^^ar
^^sE'^o'o^y^^

PROSOPIS SPICIGERA KIRGENELIA RETICULATA

ZIZYPHU5 MAURITIANA ACACIA LEUCOPHLOEA

BELANITES ROXBUftOHII DICHROSTACHIS CINNERIA

 ' C ' 1 6^

o 0 0
» 0

CASSIA TORA SALVADORA PERSICA (FRUIT)

CYPERU ALOPECUROIDES (LEAVES)

CYPERUS ALOPECUROIDES
ACACIA NILOTICA (POD) (INFLORESCENCE)
 PLATE 1

WETLAND DURING MONSOON AND WINTER

PLATE 2

DRIED UP WETLAND DURING SUMMER

 PLATE 3

CHITAL KILLED BY STRAY DOG

PLATE 4

^^^^^^^^^^AitA'suiM^ ^m

^F s 11 * JL^^ S * »^

5^^^
u / % -^^ '^^^^l

- \' f^os.
FERAL CATTLE BOGGEE) DOV-TN IN THE
SOFT SOIL OF MARSH HABITAT
 PLATE 5

•it

SAMBAR BROWSING AND GRAZ.ING IN THE WETLAND

PLATE 6

NILGAI BROWSING IN THE WETLAND

 PLATE 7

THE BREACHED BOUNDARY WALL OF THE PARK

'^:<.'; it*.f-'
fc <1A.\ W ' ^ ^

THE BROKEN WATERINLETS THROUGH THE BOUNDARY WALL

 PLATE 9

A HERD OF FERAL CATTLE IN LOW GRASSLAND HABITAT

PLATE 10

'••'Jvum

THE MARSH AREA 'PLOUGHED' BY WILD BOAR