The conservation of tigers and other wildlife in oil palm plantations
The conservation of tigers and other wildlife in oil palm plantations The conservation of tigers and other wildlife in oil palm plantations
Table 13 - Tiger ranges as calculated from camera-traps and radio tracking data Individual Sex Area (km 2 ) Slamet Male 12.2 Tiga Jari Female 1.7 Flash Male 14.2 Wendy Female 14.0 Despite ranges extending across the concessions, tigers were photographed more often in habitats within the plantation. Using data from ‘tiger’ (non-random) cameras only (random cameras never took a photograph of a tiger) photo-trapping rates were calculated for each of the three broad habitat types within the plantation and compared with trapping rates in the forest concession. The results show that tigers were actually photographed more often inside the plantation concession than in the forest concession. However, tigers appeared to avoid the oil palm crop - neither camera-traps or radio tracking ever showed a tiger ranging into the oil palm (Table 14 and Figure 24). Table 14 - Trapping rates (photos/100 trap nights) for tigers in different habitats Region Habitat Non random cameras Forest concession Forest 2.26 Forest total 2.26 Plantation Forest 1.08 Palm Scrub 3.54 Plantation total 3.08 Total 2.90 Figure 24 - Camera-trapping rates in different habitats from “tiger” cameras only Wildlife conservation in oil palm plantations 37
Tigers on the plantation 2003-2006 Population decline Although tiger evidence was abundant in 2001-2002, from 2003-2004 signs of tigers decreased dramatically and photographic records of several individuals stopped abruptly in mid – late 2003 (Table 15). The decline in terms of photo-trapping rates, and correlated density estimates, described a rapid decline in the local population and no tiger has been recorded on the plantation concession since late 2004. Table 15 - Composition of tiger photographs taken by camera-traps Tiger Side photographed Sex Age Last seen % total Left Right Wendy 17 9 F Adult 12 August 2003 26.53% Slamet 9 13 M Adult 19 September 2003 22.45% Tiga Jari 8 8 F Adult 11 July 2003 16.33% Flash 6 6 Adult 16 March 2003 12.24% Mambo 6 1 U Young adult 11 August 2004 7.14% Eve 2 4 U Young adult 25 March 2003 6.12% Unidentified 4 0 4.08% Mo 0 2 F Adult April 2006 2.04% Shakira 1 0 F Adult 08 February 2003 1.02% Subuh 0 1 F Young adult 2002 1.02% Wendy cub A1 1 0 U Cub 2002 1.02% Grand Total 54 44 100% Table 16 - Estimated tiger densities from photo-trapping rates 2003-4 Year Tiger photos Trapping effort Photos/trap night Trap nights/photo Density (tigers/100 sq.km) 2003 67 2700 0.0200 40 4.05 2004 1 1814 0.0004 1814 0.06 Overall 104 4979 0.0209 48 3.34 Figure 25 - Decline of photo-trapping rate for tigers 2002-4 38 Wildlife conservation in oil palm plantations
- Page 1 and 2: ZSL Conservation Report No.7 The co
- Page 3 and 4: The conservation of tigers and othe
- Page 5 and 6: importance of marginal or degraded
- Page 7 and 8: tersebut masih ada dalam populasi y
- Page 9 and 10: The value of degraded land 44 Impli
- Page 11 and 12: INTRODUCTION Protected areas and co
- Page 13 and 14: survival (Western, 1989). Consequen
- Page 15 and 16: However, in Indonesia the potential
- Page 17 and 18: Environmental impact of oil palm Oi
- Page 19 and 20: Figure 3 - Land use within the stud
- Page 21 and 22: Non-random camera placement Cameras
- Page 23 and 24: Captured animals were anaesthetised
- Page 25 and 26: Species survival within a human-dom
- Page 27 and 28: Table 3 - Conservation and protecti
- Page 29 and 30: Figure 15 - Distribution maps based
- Page 31 and 32: Species survival within the plantat
- Page 33 and 34: Evidence of persistence in oil palm
- Page 35 and 36: Figure 19 - Distribution of species
- Page 37 and 38: Figure 22 - Ranges for two wild pig
- Page 39: Table 12 - Estimated tiger densitie
- Page 43 and 44: Figure 26 - Summary of individual t
- Page 45 and 46: Figure 27 - Examples of conservatio
- Page 47 and 48: occasionally and usually on the edg
- Page 49 and 50: forest, unprotected or unknown area
- Page 51 and 52: left unplanted, they will be more v
- Page 53 and 54: The final decision is how to manage
- Page 55 and 56: Figure 30 Information Box 1: The RS
- Page 57 and 58: Integrating oil palm management int
- Page 59 and 60: consumers). Engaging communities on
- Page 61 and 62: REFERENCES Arcese, P. and Sinclair,
- Page 63 and 64: RSPO (2006). RSPO Principles and Cr
- Page 65 and 66: APPENDIX II Birds recorded opportun
Table 13 - Tiger ranges as calculated from camera-traps <strong>and</strong> radio track<strong>in</strong>g data<br />
Individual Sex Area (km 2<br />
)<br />
Slamet Male 12.2<br />
Tiga Jari Female 1.7<br />
Flash Male 14.2<br />
Wendy Female 14.0<br />
Despite ranges extend<strong>in</strong>g across the concessions, <strong>tigers</strong> were photographed more<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten <strong>in</strong> habitats with<strong>in</strong> the plantation. Us<strong>in</strong>g data from ‘tiger’ (non-r<strong>and</strong>om) cameras<br />
only (r<strong>and</strong>om cameras never took a photograph <strong>of</strong> a tiger) photo-trapp<strong>in</strong>g rates were<br />
calculated for each <strong>of</strong> the three broad habitat types with<strong>in</strong> the plantation <strong>and</strong><br />
compared with trapp<strong>in</strong>g rates <strong>in</strong> the forest concession. <strong>The</strong> results show that <strong>tigers</strong><br />
were actually photographed more <strong>of</strong>ten <strong>in</strong>side the plantation concession than <strong>in</strong> the<br />
forest concession. However, <strong>tigers</strong> appeared to avoid the <strong>oil</strong> <strong>palm</strong> crop - neither<br />
camera-traps or radio track<strong>in</strong>g ever showed a tiger rang<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to the <strong>oil</strong> <strong>palm</strong> (Table 14<br />
<strong>and</strong> Figure 24).<br />
Table 14 - Trapp<strong>in</strong>g rates (photos/100 trap nights) for <strong>tigers</strong> <strong>in</strong> different habitats<br />
Region Habitat Non r<strong>and</strong>om cameras<br />
Forest concession Forest 2.26<br />
Forest total 2.26<br />
Plantation Forest 1.08<br />
Palm<br />
Scrub 3.54<br />
Plantation total 3.08<br />
Total 2.90<br />
Figure 24 - Camera-trapp<strong>in</strong>g rates <strong>in</strong> different habitats from “tiger” cameras only<br />
Wildlife <strong>conservation</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>oil</strong> <strong>palm</strong> <strong>plantations</strong> 37
Change language