Wildlife and human use of buffer-zone areas in a wildlife sanctuary

被引:16
作者
Jotikapukkana, Sukanda [1 ]
Berg, Ake [1 ]
Pattanavibool, Anak [2 ]
机构
[1] Swedish Univ Agr Sci, Swedish Biodivers Ctr, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden
[2] Wildlife Conservat Soc, Thailand Program, Bangkok 10210, Thailand
关键词
CHITWAN-NATIONAL-PARK; VEGETATION STRUCTURE; TROPICAL FOREST; PROTECTED-AREA; CONSERVATION; DISTURBANCE; INDIA; PRODUCTS; HABITAT; MAMMALS;
D O I
10.1071/WR09132
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
Context. Buffer zones are supposed to serve the dual purpose of 'extension buffering', or an extension of core habitat areas, and 'socio buffering' to provide goods and services to humans; however, few studies have evaluated both human use of buffer zones and the occurrence of wildlife. Aims. The aim of the present study was to quantify the effects of human disturbance on wildlife by recording the use of the 4-km-wide buffer zone of Huai Kha Kaeng Wildlife Sanctuary (HKKWS), Thailand, by humans and domestic animals. Methods. Occurrence of signs of large mammals were recorded along 37 transects and relationships among distance to settlements, human activities, occurrence of domestic animals and different wildlife species were analysed. Key results. In total, 210 interviewed respondents from adjacent villages all used the buffer zone, and the transect survey revealed that a large proportion of the plots (71%) were used by humans and/or domestic animals. The frequency of human use decreased linearly with distance from the buffers-zone edge, whereas the use by cattle decreased rapidly at a distance of 2000m from the buffer-zone edge. In general, the HKKWS buffer zone was a suitable habitat for several wildlife species. Sambar deer and banteng occurred in >25% of the plots. The proportion of plots with signs of sambar deer, banteng and elephant was negatively associated with the proportion of plots with signs of domestic animals, whereas the proportion of plots with signs of common muntjac was negatively associated with the proportion of plots with signs of human activities. Conclusions. The results from the present study suggest that the 4-km buffer zone in HKKWS reduces the impact of both humans and domestic animals. Implications. The size of human populations, restrictions for grazing domestic animals and habitat quality are suggested to be factors of importance for establishment of well designed buffer zones.
引用
收藏
页码:466 / 474
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Tracing straying routes of rhinoceros in Pabitora Wildlife Sanctuary, Assam
    Talukdar, Bibhab Kumar
    Barua, Mrigen
    Sarma, Pranjit Kumar
    [J]. CURRENT SCIENCE, 2007, 92 (09): : 1303 - 1305
  • [42] Prioritizing restoration areas to conserve multiple sagebrush-associated wildlife species
    Duchardt, Courtney J.
    Monroe, Adrian P.
    Heinrichs, Julie A.
    O'Donnell, Michael S.
    Edmunds, David R.
    Aldridge, Cameron L.
    [J]. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2021, 260
  • [43] COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT AND CONSERVATION THROUGH ECOTOURISM: A CASE OF BHITARKANIKA WILDLIFE SANCTUARY, ODISHA, INDIA
    Das, Madhumita
    Chatterjee, Bani
    [J]. TOURISM REVIEW INTERNATIONAL, 2020, 24 (04): : 215 - 231
  • [44] Evaluation of the use of psychometric scales in human-wildlife interaction research to determine attitudes and tolerance toward wildlife
    Whitehouse-Tedd, K.
    Abell, J.
    Dunn, A. K.
    [J]. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2021, 35 (02) : 533 - 547
  • [45] Coupled human and natural systems approach to wildlife research and conservation
    Carter, Neil H.
    Vina, Andres
    Hull, Vanessa
    McConnell, William J.
    Axinn, William
    Ghimire, Dirgha
    Liu, Jianguo
    [J]. ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY, 2014, 19 (03):
  • [46] Balancing Wildlife and Human Needs: The Protected Forest Approach in Nepal
    Shrestha, Tej Kumar
    Aryal, Achyut
    Rai, Rajesh Kumar
    Lamsal, Ram Prasad
    Koirala, Saroj
    Jnawali, Dipak
    Kafle, Rajendra
    Bhandari, Bishnu Prasad
    Raubenheimer, David
    [J]. NATURAL AREAS JOURNAL, 2014, 34 (03) : 376 - 380
  • [47] Patterns of human-wildlife conflicts and compensation: Insights from Western Ghats protected areas
    Karanth, Krithi K.
    Gopalaswamy, Arjun M.
    Prasad, Parvathi K.
    Dasgupta, Shreya
    [J]. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2013, 166 : 175 - 185
  • [48] Does hunting or hiking affect wildlife communities in protected areas?
    Kays, Roland
    Parsons, Arielle W.
    Baker, Megan C.
    Kalies, Elizabeth L.
    Forrester, Tavis
    Costello, Robert
    Rota, Christopher T.
    Millspaugh, Joshua J.
    McShea, William J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY, 2017, 54 (01) : 242 - 252
  • [49] Therapeutic use of plants by local communities in and around Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary: implications for protected area management in Bangladesh
    Chowdhury, Mohammad Shaheed Hossain
    Koike, Masao
    [J]. AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS, 2010, 80 (02) : 241 - 257
  • [50] Seasonal Use of Railways by Wildlife
    Popp, Jesse N.
    Hamr, Josef
    [J]. DIVERSITY-BASEL, 2018, 10 (04):