STATUS OF FOREST IN AND AROUND PROPOSED EXTENSION

AREA OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE, BARA

Submitted By

Shrijana Sitikhu

T.U. Regd.No. : 5-2-408-41-2007

T.U. Examination Roll No.: 18203

Batch: 2068/2069

A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree

of Master of Science in Environmental Science

(Specialization Paper: Biodiversity conservation and Wildlife Management - Env. 625)

Submitted To

Department of Environmental Science,

Khwopa College (Affiliated to Tribhuvan University),

Dekocha-5, Bhaktapur,

Nepal

2015

i

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the thesis entitled “STATUS OF FOREST IN AND AROUND

PROPOSED EXTENSION AREA OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE, BARA OF

NEPAL” submitted for the award of the degree of Master in Environmental Science, to

Khwopa College, Dekocha-5, Bhaktapur, is a record of original research work done by

me under supervision of Mr. Gopal Prakash Bhattarai (Ecologist, DNPWC) and it has

not been formed the basis for the award of any other degree. I also declare that the

thesis represents my own work, observation and analysis and in the respect the

investigation appears to advance knowledge in this subject.

Shrijana Sitikhu

Master’s degree in Environmental Science

Khwopa College, Dekocha, Bhaktapur, Nepal

T.U. Regd. No. : 5-2-408-41-2007

T.U. Examination Roll No. : 18203

Batch: 2068/2069

Date of Submission: …………………..

ii

RECOMMENDATION

This is to certify that Ms. Shrijana Sitikhu has completed this thesis entitled “STATUS

OF FOREST IN AND AROUND PROPOSED EXTENSION AREA OF PARSA

WILDLIFE RESERVE, BARA” as partial fulfillment of the requirement for the

completion of Master’s Degree in Environmental Science under my supervision and

guidance. This is her original work and has been carried out under my supervision. To

the best of my knowledge, this thesis work has not been submitted for any degree in

any institutions.

I hereby recommend this field report for acceptance and approval.

………………………………….

(Supervisor)

Mr. Gopal Prakash Bhattarai

Ecologist

Department of National Park and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC)

iii

“An Undertaking of Bhaktapur Municipality”

KHWOPA COLLEGE

(Affiliated to Tribhuvan University)

Dekocha-5, Bhaktapur, Nepal

Estd. 2001

Date: ……………………………

LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE

This dissertation presented by Ms. Shrijana Sitikhu, entitled “STATUS OF FOREST

IN AND AROUND PROPOSED EXTENSION AREA OF PARSA WILDLIFE

RESERVE, BARA OF NEPAL” has been accepted as partial fulfillment of the

requirement for the final year of the Master’s degree in Environmental Science.

Evaluation Committee

……………………………….

Dr. Sidhhi Bir Karmacharya

Head of Research Department

Khwopa College,

Dekocha-5, Bhaktapur, Nepal

……………………………….

Mr. Rabindra Jyakhwo

Incharge

Department of M.Sc. Env. Science

Khwopa College,

Dekocha-5, Bhaktapur, Nepal

……………………………….

Internal Examiner

……………………………….

External Examiner

iv

ABSTRACT

Government of Nepal had committed to double its Tiger (Panthera tigris tigris)

population from its population 121 individual adult Tigers in 2009 to 250 individual by

2022. To achieve this goal, government of Nepal is doing its best by managing tiger

habitats and its prey predator’s relationship, increasing and extending the protected

areas. Proposed extension of PWR is also one of this program.

This research was carried out to know about tree diversity, anthropogenic pressure and

mammal distribution pattern in the area, where quadrate of 25*25 m in each interval of

1 km walking distance was laid. The sign base survey was done using trail transects to

know about the distribution pattern of wild animal and existing status of anthropogenic

pressure in the study area. The vegetation survey was done in 40 quadrates which

include about 2.5 ha and sign survey was done in 102 km of walking distance.

In the study area tree density was found about 115 plants/ha (Avg.: 7.2 plants/plot, :

3.86, Var.: 14.93, Mo: 10 and Max.: 16 Plants). Similarly, Seedling was found on the

rate of 21,222 plants/ha, Sapping 3,350 plants/ha and Pole 860 plants/ha.

Comparatively, Simara, Maulapur & Thapa Tol (i.e. Grid G) consists of more trees

number i.e. 153 plants/ha and least was found in Khayarghor Tol, Nijgadh area (Grid

D) i.e. 58 plants/ha. Highest density of the trees was found of Sal, Saaj, and Sindure

with plants per hector 142.8, 87.2 and 26 respectively. Similarly in case of “Pole”

highest density was found Sindure species with 212.5 plants/ hectare and second

highest density was found of Sal tree with 70 plants/ha. Highest number of seedling

was found of Sal species and Sindure species was found as highest number of sapling

species.

In entire survey, signs of nine species of mammals were recorded. The occupancy of

Carnivore species such as Tiger, Common Leopard and Wild Cat was 5.88%, 5.88%

and 17.65% of the area. Similarly, occupancy of prey species such as Wild Boar was

47%, Spotted Deer: 35.29%, Barking Deer: 23.53%, Langur: 11.76%, Hog Deer:

5.88% and Monkey: 5.88%.

The signs of prey species was found at the rate of 1.3 sign/km. Encounter rate of prey

species sign was comparatively high at Simara, Maulapur & Thapa Tol area (i.e. Grid

G), where signs was found at the rate 2.48 signs/km. Least was found at Grid H

(Paritol, GhadenTole, Old Nijghadh area). Among the recorded signs, 29% was of Wild

v

boar which is highest percentage and followed by Spotted deer: 22%, Barking deer:

15%, Jungle cat: 11%, Langur: 7%, Common leopard: 4%, Tiger: 4%, Monkey: 4% and

Hog deer: 4%.

Trail transect method was used to study anthropogenic activity. Trail transect was

divided into km as replicate number and each replicate number was sub-divided into

100 m segments. The twelve disturbance activities were recorded. Human Presence,

Tree cuts, livestock, fodder collection, logging, firewood collection, sand extraction,

litter collection, hunting spot, vehicles, wild animal kill, encroachment. Out of them,

sign of tree cuts recorded highest percentage (37.19%) and domestic animal grazing

(33.23%) and logging (14.04%) recorded in second and third highest activities. The

other activities reported in less than 2%. Human mobility was found in more than 80%

of forest area and similarly there was also “Tree Cutting” activity. Livestock grazing

was found in about 50% of the area.

For sustainable conservation and management of proposed extension area of PWR,

ongoing illegal activities in the area should be reduced first then habitat management

should be done with close partnership with local people for sustainable conservation of

the Tiger in the area. The networking and collaboration with local people is very

essential for the sustainable management of forest and protection of wildlife.

Keywords: Tree diversity, anthropogenic pressure, Trail transect, sustainable

management

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to WWF Nepal-Nepal/Hariyo Ban Program,

Baluwatar, Kathmandu Nepal without which this study wouldn’t have been possible.

I am grateful to my supervisor Mr. Gopal Prakash Bhattarai (Ecologist, DNPWC) for

his continuous support, inspiration and guidance. Khwopa College for their excellent

support, without their remarkable guidance, suggestions and comments, the study

wouldn’t have been so fulfilling. I am also thankful to Mr. Kamal Raj Gosai, the then

M.Sc. Incharge, Department of Environmental Science, Khwopa College for his

support in facilitating the co-ordination to conduct this study. Likewise I would like to

thank Mr. Uttam Byanju, lab assistant for providing necessary materials for field visit.

I would also like to thank Mr. Birendra Gautam, Program officer, NTNC-PWR for his

support during field work and dissemination of fact and stories. Similarly, thanks to Mr.

Kapil Pokhrael, Senior Wildlife Technician, National Trust for Nature Conservation for

his great contribution during field survey and providing relevant information. I am

grateful to Mr. Mithilesh Mahato, Ranger, PWR for giving me opportunity to visit and

support his thesis of Pratapur grassland. I would like to thank Mr. Dipendra Adhikari,

Field Biologist, Zoological Society of London (ZSL-Nepal) for sharing his field

experience and guiding during entire field work.

Mr. Sudarshan Chaudhary and Arjoo Khadka deserve huge thanks for their supportive

hands in field data collection and cooperation during entire field work. I would also like

to thank, Mr. Nabin Bhattarai for his support and company while writing this report. I

also duly acknowledge the independent researchers, organizations, NGOs and forest

and wildlife conservation centers whose reports and publications have been referred.

Finally, I thank my family members, colleagues and other for their helping hands and

being instrumental in shaping this study.

A

Table of Contents

DECLARATION .................................................................................................................... i

LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE ............................................................................................. iii

ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................................. vi

ABBREVATIONS AND ACRONYMS .............................................................................. vii

CHAPTER I .......................................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1

Background .................................................................................................................... 1

Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 3

Goal and objectives of the study .................................................................................... 5

Research Questions .......................................................................................................... 5

Rationale of the study .................................................................................................... 6

Limitations of the Study ................................................................................................ 6

CHAPTER II ......................................................................................................................... 7

REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................................................... 7

National .......................................................................................................................... 7

International .................................................................................................................. 9

CHAPTER III ..................................................................................................................... 11

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 13

Study Area ................................................................................................................... 13

Rationale of Selection of Study Area ........................................................................... 11

Field Methods .............................................................................................................. 15

CHAPTER IV ...................................................................................................................... 20

RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 20

Comparison between animal signs and anthropogenic activities ............................... 26

CHAPTER V ....................................................................................................................... 28

DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 28

Tree diversity in the study area. .................................................................................. 28

To know about mammal distribution pattern............................................................. 28

Anthropogenic pressure in the forest .......................................................................... 29

CHAPTER VI ...................................................................................................................... 31

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 31

Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 31

B

Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 32

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 33

ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................. 1

C

List of Table

Table 1: Vegetation surveyed major grids and plot information .............................................. 16

Table 2: Grid information with walking distance and surveyed area ....................................... 16

Table 3: Density of Plants on the basis of studied block. ........................................................ 20

Table 4: Seedling, Sapling, Pole and Tree density in study area ............................................. 20

Table 5: Shannon Wiener Diversity Function Calculation ...................................................... 21

Table 6: Sign encounter and direct sighting of wildlife in Bara district. .................................. 22

Table 7: Occupancy status of wild animals ............................................................................ 22

Table 8: Sign encounter of prey species ................................................................................. 23

Table 9: Anthropogenic pressure vs. animal signs .................................................................. 24

Table 10: Anthropogenic activities recorded in Bara forest .................................................... 26

D

List of Figure

Figure 1: Research Design ..................................................................................................... 12

Figure 2: Percentage of signs of wild animals in Bara forest................................................... 23

Figure 3: Pie-Chart Showing anthropogenic activities & its coverage percentages. ................. 25

Figure 4: Graphical view of relation between wildlife and anthropogenic activities ................ 26

E

List of Map

Map 1: Map Showing Study Area .......................................................................................... 13

Map 2: Map of surveyed trail transects .................................................................................... 4

Map 3: Map showing carnivore’s sign observed location ........................................................ 5

Map 4: Tiger sign found location ............................................................................................. 6

Map 5: Sing of prey species found locations ............................................................................ 7

Map 6: Tree cutting signs found locations ................................................................................ 8

F

List of Annexes

Annex 1: Permission letter from DNPWC ................................................................................ 1

Annex 2: Permission Letter from PWR .................................................................................... 2

Annex 3: Maps ........................................................................................................................ 4

Annex 4: Vegetation Form ...................................................................................................... 9

Annex 5: Data Form for Occupancy - Animal Surveys ........................................................... 10

Annex 6: Data Form: Human Disturbance ............................................................................. 11

Annex 7: Number of seedling, Sapling, Pol and Tree species in different plots. ...................... 12

Annex 8: No. of plant species ................................................................................................ 13

Annex 9: Number of seedling, Sapling, Pole and Tree species in different plots, .................... 15

Annex 10: Density Calculation .............................................................................................. 16

Annex 11: Shannon Diversity Function for pole and tree species ........................................... 17

Annex 12: Photos relating to field activities ........................................................................... 19

G

List of Photo

Photo 1: Headquarter of Parsa Wildlife Reserve..................................................................... 19

Photo 2: Researcher with staffs of PWR,NTNC and helpers ................................................. 19

Photo 3: Wild Boars feeding on flesh of spotted dear (killed in roadside accident) ................. 19

Photo 4: Pugmark of Leopard ............................................................................................... 19

Photo 5: Crowd of people marching for fodder and firewood collection. ................................ 19

Photo 6: Domestic cattle grazing in forest. ............................................................................. 19

Photo 7: Researcher conducting research ............................................................................. 20

Photo 8: Grassland in Halkhoriya, Bara ................................................................................ 20

Photo 9: Landscape view from Pathlaiya, Bara with Siwalik hills in background.................... 20

Photo 10: Pole cut ................................................................................................................. 20

Photo 11: Local women carrying fodder from forest .............................................................. 20

Photo 12: Pellet of Spotted deer ............................................................................................. 20

vii

ABBREVATIONS AND ACRONYMS

CF Community Forest

CFUG Community Forest Users Group

CHEC Clean Heath & Environment Conservation

CNP Chitwan National Park

DFO: District Forest Office

DNPWC Department of National parks and Wildlife Conservation

DoF: Department of Forest

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

GIS: Geographical Information System

GoN Government of Nepal

GPS: Geographical Positioning System

Ha Hectare

M Meter

MoFSC Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation

NTNC National Trust for Nature Conservation

PWR Parsa Wildlife Reserve

VDCs Village Development Committees

WWF World Wildlife Fund

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background

Parsa Wildlife Reserve (PWR) was gazetted in 1984 (B.S. 2041) by converting the

hunting grounds of the family of ruling classes, with the aim of preserving Asian Wild

Elephant (Elephus maximus), remaining habitat of historical “Char Koshe Jhadi” &

associated flora and fauna (Bhuju et al. 2007, en.wikipedia.org). Buffer Zone was

established in 2062 B.S. The Reserve is also one of the major parts of Presidental

Churia Conservation Program (PCCP) and Terai Arc Landscape Project (TAL). It also

provides an extended habitat to the wildlife of the Chitwan National Park (CNP). The

declaration of the PWR was made under the Clause (d) of Section (2) of National Parks

and Wildlife Conservation Act (NPWCA), 1973. Currently, the Reserve is administered

under the Wildlife Reserve Regulation 1977. The Act defines a Wildlife Reserve,

(equivalent to the category IV of the IUCN’s classification of protected areas), as an

area set aside for the conservation and management of Wildlife and their habitats.

The PWR is located within Latitude of 27o13’48” to 27o27’36” North and Longitude

84o31’48” to 84o48’12” East (Bhuju et al. 2007). The altitude of the Reserve ranges

from 100 to 950 m. The core area of the Reserve is 499 sq. km and of Buffer zone is

298.2 sq. km. Out of the total core area, nearly 85% fall under Parsa District and rest

15% in Makwanpur District. About 65% of Buffer Zone area falls under Parsa district,

25% in Bara district and 15% in Makawanpur District (PWR 2012) & it includes 22

VDCs of these districts (Bhuju et al. 2007). Major portions of the Reserve occupy

Churia (Siwalik) and Bhabar Physiographic regions of Parsa, Makwanpur and Bara

districts. It is connected with Chitwan National Park in the west and extends to the

Birgunj - Hetauda highway in the east, towards north Rapti River and Churia ridge

marks the boundary and towards south is forest fire line which is about 30 km long

(Heinen, 1992).

History of PWR

The Parsa Wildlife Reserve, which is a part of huge char- koshe-jhadi was under dense

forest cover and rich in wildlife. Before 1920, there was a railway track from Raxaul to

Amlekhgunj, which was the only road to transport goods from India to Kathmandu.

2

When Indian railway was expanding and J.B. Collier (1925 –30) was sent to Nepal for

developing a plan to exploit the forest resources of the Terai, a large areas of Sal forest

were cleared to export timber for railway slippers. A 29 km-long railway line was

stretched from Raxaul to Amlekhgunj passing through the PWR and forest roads were

constructed from Bagmati to Thori along with a network of fire lines known as Collier

Line. In 1920s Amlekhgunj was linked with Bhimphedi via a motorable road. A small

air strip was later built in Simara during 1950.

During 60s and 70s, while construction of Nepal's highly ambitious East-West

Highway was undergoing, the Pathalaiya was the center of all activities where

thousands of labors and construction staff worked day-night throughout the year. In this

period, not only big amount of Bara forests were destroyed but also unaccountable

number of wild animals were hunted by the Russian Consultants and their supporting

staff. Establishment of Terai Shikar (Hunting) Reserve was proposed during late 70s by

FAO in Bara covering 350-400 sq km area (Wegge 1976).

Before the establishment of the Reserve in 1984, hunting was still ongoing in Bara and

Parsa area by the people of Hetauda and Birgunj. Besides, the area was also under

heavy grazing and other anthropogenic pressures from increasing settlements around

the Reserve and the forest in lower belts were severely degraded. Therefore, to provide

additional protection to the wildlife of CNP, PWR was created through which frequent

migration of wildlife had occurred to Parsa and Bara forests. Before PWR created in

1984, the area was first established as a Bara Hunting Reserve in 2038 BS. Presence of

wild Asian elephant population was another key feature for which the area was

declared as Reserve. Beside the Reserve staff, one infantry company of Nepal Army

(NA) was protecting the PWR since 1984.

Climate

The PWR lies in the humid sub-tropical climatic zone and exhibits four distinct seasons

and they are summer (April to June), rainy/monsoon; (July to September), winter

(October-December) and spring (January to March). The summer is extremely hot (40o

C) and dry with scarcity of water in the area. The rainy season is dominated by

monsoon clouds and rains causing little drop in the temperature. The winter exists from

October to December. Spring is fascinated by chilly nights and pleasing day

temperatures and clearer skies but drier air and land. In the area, mean maximum

3

temperature reaches to 39.8o C during May and in the January mean minimum

temperature falls to 5.8o C. The annual precipitation is dominated by monsoon rain

with 83% precipitation occurring between June to October. Winter rain fall is moderate

in the area.

Flora

The typical vegetation of the park is tropical and subtropical forest types with Sal forest

constituting about 90% of the vegetation. Chir pine (Pinus roxburghii) grows in the

Churia Hills. Khair (Acacia catechu), Sissoo (Dalbergia sissoo) and Silk cotton trees

(Bombax ceiba) occur along watercourses. Sabai (Eulaliopsis binata) grass grows well

on the southern face of the Churia hills. An estimated 919 species of flora have been

recorded including 298 vascular plants, 234 dicots, 58 monocots, five pteridophytes,

and one gymnosperm (BPP 1995), Bhuju et al. en.wikipedia.org).

Fauna

The PWR is blessed with 33 species of mammals, 500 sppecies of birds, 13 species of

herpeto fauna and eight species of fish (Bhuju et al. 2007). Mammals species symbolic

of PWR are Royal Bengal Tiger (Panthera tigris), Gaur (Bos gaurus), Asian Wild

Elephant (Elephus masimus), Striped Hyena (Hyaena hyaena) and Dhole (Cuon

Alpinus). The Indo-Nepal joint monitoring report of 2014 shows presence of about 7

adult Royal Bangal Tiger and prey density of 18.71-34.28 individual/sq. km in PWR

(Chanchani et al. 2014). The report also shows presence of the Tiger in nearby forest

areas of the Reserve i.e. outside the reserve. The census conducted by government level

of the Nepal shows presence of about 37 Gaur in the reserve (www. wikipedia.org).

Statement of the Problem

To achieve the Nepal’s iconic goal of doubling tiger till 2022 its habitat and its threats

should be managed very effectively. To increase possible tiger habitat existing in the

country, government of Nepal had proposed the extension of PWR. It’s just in bud

stage so till now, not any more information had been generated in present scenario.

Some micro-level study done in study area shows that anthropogenic pressure in the

study area is very high. Some major pressures are sand extraction, shifting cultivation

and domestic cattle grazing (CHEC-Nepal 2012).

4

For the sustainable management of the forest in the future, research should be carried

out from the root level or initial phase. So that effective management plan or strategy

could be made to implement in the future. So this study will help to generate the

information regarding current status of the forest of proposed extension area of PWR.

The outcomes of the research will be useful to execute the activities for sustainable

management of the area.

5

Goal and objectives of the study

General Objective

The general objective of this study was to study about the faunal, tree diversity and

status of anthropogenic activities in forest of in and around proposed extension area of

PWR, Bara district.

Specific Objectives

Specific objectives of this were as following: sequence of i, iii, and ii (ii, i, iii) seems

better

i. To know about tree diversity in the study area. ii. To know about mammal distribution pattern.

iii. To study about anthropogenic pressure in forest.

Research Questions

This research was to find solution of following quires:

a. What type of trees species are abundant in the forest?

b. How currently existing Community Forest User Group (CFUG) is tackling with

threats of biodiversity?

c. In which parameters conservation program should be focused for the sustainable

management of the forest?

d. What type of wild denizens area found in the forest?

e. What kind of anthropogenic activities is dominant in the forest?

f. What is level of anthropogenic activities in the forest?

6

Rationale of the study

Global Tiger ranges country had made goal of doubling wild tiger numbers by 2022.

Government of Nepal had also committed to increase the country’s Tiger population

from an estimated 121 to over 250 adult Tigers by the year 2022. To grab this goal

government of Nepal with partnership with various INGOs (e.g. World Wildlife Fund,

Zoological Society of London), National GO (National Trust for Nature Conservation),

community forest and local organization had made various programs. One of these, is

increasing protected areas (Banke National Park-2010), managing possible Tiger

Habitat. Proposing extension of PWR is also one of this program (GTI 2010).

Research done by Center for Health and Environment Conservation (CHEC)-Nepal in

technical and financial support of Bara district forest office in 2012 shows that

poachers were very active in killing deer species and Wild Boar. Forest was reported

heavily disturbed due to anthropogenic activities.

The intensive study and base line data is required to develop long term vision,

management plan for the nationally prioritized tiger conservation beyond the protected

areas. Considering these facts, this study will help to generate the information regarding

current status of the forest of proposed extension area of PWR. The outcomes of the

research will be useful to implement the activities for sustainable management of the

area. Planning for the extension of PWR is in very initial stage. So its detail

information has been not documented leaving some small scale research.

Limitations of the Study

Limitations of this study were as follows:

The research was done in adjoining some forest areas of PWR i.e. Western part of Bara

districts. So, outcome of the research will not represent scenario of whole Bara district.

Only one time visit/survey was done and survey was carried out for only one month

during mid-winter.

7

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

National

PWR is home to 37 species of mammals, 500 species of birds, 13 species of

reptiles/amphibians, and 8 species of fishes (DNPWC, 2002), and 31 species of

butterflies (Sah et al. 1999). Wild elephants, tiger, leopard, sloth bear, gaur, blue bull

and wild dog, sambar, chital, barking deer, four horned antelope, langur, rhesus, striped

hyena, ratel, palm civet and jungle cat are recorded in the Reserve (Khanal 2009, Karki

2011, CHEC 2012). Rhino do arrives here occasionally from Chitwan National Park

(CNP) and stay has been increasing after creation of new habitat in the relocated village

sites in Rambhori-Bhata. The Giant hornbill, an endangered bird species, is found in the

Southern flank. Peafowl, red jungle fowl, flycatchers and woodpeckers are a few of the

other common birds in the Reserve. Snakes like king cobra, common cobra, krait, rat

snake and python are also found in the Reserve.

PWR, true representation of Churia, is dry with confined water bodies. The recently

relocated villages have water body with some better habitat for the prey including rhino

and tiger (MOFSC, 2008).

The deforestation rate between 1990/91 and 2000/01 were found to be less than the

previous estimates. Natural regeneration growing profusely in the community forests is

thought to be the major factor in increasing the forest cover (MFSC 2005).

Among the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) countries

including China, the highest deforestation rate exists in Nepal (-2.1% in between 1990-

2000 & -1.4% in between 2000-2005) followed by Pakistan (-1.8% in between 1990-

2000 & -2.1% in between 2000-2005) and Sri Lanka (-1.2% in between 1990-2000 & -

1.5% in between 2000-2005) respectively. In Context of Nepal, Forest and shrub cover

in 1978/79 was about 42% which reduced to a level of 37% in 2005 with an annual

deforestation rate of 0.5%. The rate of forest cover change was generally higher in the

plain than in hilly areas of specific district. At the aggregate level the rate of forest

cover change was reported positive (0.06%) in hilly areas compared to a negative

change (-0.27%) in the plains in past ten years i.e. 2000-2010 (WECS 2010).

8

Kandel (2009) evaluated forest cover dynamics during 1989-2005 in the Bara district

by using Landsat Thematic Mapper of 1989, Enhanced Thematic Map of 1999 and

2005 imagery. The study showed that the amount of forest land decreased by 11.56%

during 1989-2005. The result of the spatial metrics reveals that forest area has been

fragmented and deforested with annual rate of 0.72%. Expected change for the year

2021 was projected using Markov Chain Analysis (MCA). The MCA result showed

that forest area include shrub will be decreased by 8.5% during 2005-21.

Nepal experiences a wide range of climates, ranging from subtropical in the lowlands to

the arctic climate in the high mountains. Forest and shrub together cover about 5.83

million ha, which is 39.6% of the total land area of the country. The rate of forest area

decreasing was 1.7% per annum during 1978/79 to 1994, whereas rate of forest and

shrub depleting rate was 0.5% per annum during the same period. However, the studies

from 20 Terai districts revealed that the rate of forest cover changed was at an annual

rate of 0.06% during the period of 1990/91 to 2000/2001. Macro level studies and

visual interpretations revealed that Nepal’s forest coverage and condition is

significantly improving due to the Community Forestry (CF) intervention (MOFSC,

2008).

The poachers are active for killing of deer species and wild boar mainly. Some places

were reported as main entry points of poachers in Bara district such as Amlekhganj,

Hatisar, Jeetpur, Pathlaiya, Nijgadh, Haraiya, Simara, Ratanpuri, Singaul, and

Dumarbana (CHEC-Nepal, 2012).

The tiger’s sign (Pugmark) observed during sign base study done by CHCK-Nepal

(2012 A.D). Out of four grids of 15 km*15 km, the Common leopard recorded in one

grid while Wild cat, Spotted deer, and Wild boar found in 3 grids and Terai Langur&

Barking deer in 2 grids. Hog deer and monkey recorded in only one grid. Khanal

(2009) found 8 sings and 7 tiger pugmark’s track in the forest area of Bara and PWR.

A forest employee preferring not to be named said smugglers in collusion with

employees of forest users’ groups cut down trees freely and later the felled trees are

given to smugglers by the District Forest Office (DFO) in the name of contract. It is

estimated that around 1,700 hectares of forest land has already been encroached upon in

the Bara district (E-Kantipur).

9

Heinen (1992) had reported a small wild elephant herd, estimated at 12 to 15 animals,

apparently resident in Parsa and breeding has been reported. The team had also

described regular reporting of Tiger and occasional recording of Rhino in the reserve.

Four hunting reserves were proposed in the Terai during 1970’s and 1980’s. Among

them, one was in Bara Districts in the Central Development Region of Nepal. The area

was to be divided into six blocks in three different groups of two blocks each for a total

area of 280 sq km. Two of these blocks are located just east of Parsa Wildlife Reserve,

the other four blocks are all located points further east. Wegge (1976`) gave quotas for

spotted deer, barking deer, wild boar, sambar, sloth bear, and game birds and he

suggested that no hunting should be permitted for nilgai, leopard, and peafowl in the

area due to their scarcity (Heinen, 1992).

Bara District Operation Forest Management Plan has components of (i) Production

forests, even-aged management in 24,298.5 ha; and uneven-aged management in 160.6

ha (ii) potential community forests in 3, 1974.3 ha and (iii) protection forests in 3,273.8

ha, totaling to 32,430.3 ha of forests of the Bara district. The Plan also included (i)

immature thinning in 583.5 ha, (ii) seedling felling in 114.9 ha (iii) regeneration feeling

in 1060 ha and (iv) selection felling in 71.7 ha of forests during the period of 5 years

(1994/95-1998/99) (IUCN 1995).

International

A research done by Nuesiri et al. (2006) had found some encroachment occurring into

the Banyang-Mbo Wildlife Sanctuary (BMWS). Besides number of reason for this, lack

of clearly indicated border in BMWs was found as major reason.

Any deviation from ecosystem-based management would be neglecting the forests for

the majority of the users, and eventually threatening the ecological processes of Sal

forests. Thus, ecosystem-based management is the present concern or sustainable

management of Sal forests used and managed by their local communities (Gautam &

Devoe, 2004).

Protected areas are an instrument to counteract to biodiversity loss. The UN’s

Convention on Biological Diversity conference of the parties in Nagoya had set

stringent new targets to be reached at least 17% of terrestrial and inland water and 10%

of coastal and marine areas have to be protected by 2020 (CBD 2010).

10

About 12% of global land surface is protected, approximately 0.5% of the open ocean

and 6% of territorial seas. The outcome of the Convention on Biological Diversity's

10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Nagoya, the existing 1,30,000

terrestrial protected areas are far from enough to preserve the diversity of life on earth,

at a time where the world’s population will soon reach 7 billion people. Combined with

the pollution of vast areas of land and ocean and an insatiable demand for resources, are

putting relentlessly increasing pressure on the natural environment (CBD 2010).

Since the early 1990s, human pressure increased 64% of the terrestrial areas; the largest

increases were in Southeast Asia. Protected areas also exhibited overall increases in

human pressure, the degree of which varied with location and IUCN management

category. Only wilderness areas and natural monuments (management categories Ib and

III) exhibited decreases in pressure. Protected areas not assigned any category exhibited

the greatest increases. High Human Development Index (HDI) values correlated with

greater reductions in pressure across protected areas, while increasing age of the

protected area correlated with increases in pressure. (Geldmann et al.2014).

Parravicini et al. (2013) had suggested adaptive Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM),

in which management is done taking into account human interactions, and informed by

incessant monitoring, in order to effort reversing the current trend towards less

architecturally complex communities. Protected areas are not sufficient to stop

ecosystem alteration by pressures coming from outside. Monitoring, and consequent

management actions, should thereof extend to cover the relevant scales of those

pressures (Parravicini et al. 2013)

11

Rationale of Selection of Study Area

In response to commitment of doubling tiger population by 2022, Government of Nepal

is increasing Tiger’s habitat through establishing new protected areas and extending

existing protected areas (GTI 2010). Only establishing protected areas and extending

protected areas are not sufficient. Protected areas also undergoes with high human

pressure, the degree of which varied with location and IUCN management category

(Geldmann et al. 2014). While in the process of establishing protected areas or

restriction to local people from using forest products most of Sal forests had

experienced detonation of forest products. So for sustainable management of protected

areas monitoring and consequent management actions should extend to cover the

relevant scales of those pressures (Parravicini et al. 2013).

To gain the ambitious goal of the Government of Nepal, possible habitat area of tiger

should be conserve and manage in very effective way. And, to make effective

management plan, clear vision is required which originate from study of previous trend

and currently existing status of wildlife and human pressure in the area. So, this study

was carried out in proposed extension area of PWR to extract information about the

area regarding current status of wildlife and anthropogenic pressure in its gestation

stage.

12

Research process Research process for study was as shown in below flow chart (Fig. 1):

Figure 1: Research Design

13

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Study Area

Study area was in and around forest area of Proposed Core Area Extension (i.e.

122.503 sq. km), Proposed Buffer Zone area (i.e. 169.93 sq km) of PWR nearby

Community and government managed forest which is located in eastern part of

currently existing PWR i.e. western part of Bara District (Map 1). In the map “Red

Box” represents the study area and “Black Box” inside red box represents the major

Grid of 15 Km * 15 Km i.e. C, D G and H.

.

Map 1: Map Showing Study Area *Original Topo Map Source: Survey Department, Government of Nepal (1991).

Access to the Area

The PWR headquarter, is located at Adahvar, which is one of the most accessible

headquarter among all protected areas of Nepal since headquarter is connected with

other parts of the country via air and as well as road. The Reserve is located at an

approximate distance of 180 km from the Capital City of Kathmandu. The Reserve

14

headquarters can be easily reached from Kathmandu in 15 minutes’ flight to the Simara

airport, which is located at a distance of about 6 km south of Adhavar.

The East-West Highway passing just next to the Reserve headquarters, which also

serves as eastern boundary of the Reserve, easily connects PWR with other parts of the

country through national roadway network. The Reserve headquarters at Adhavar is

about 7-8 (~250 km) hours’ drive from Kathmandu., 6-7 hours drive from Pokhara and

5-6 hours’ drive from Lumbini and less than one hour drive from both industrial town

Hetauda and Birgunj.

Glance of Bara District

Geography of Bara District

Bara district is situated in the northern Terai region of Narayani zone, Centeral

Development Region. It is surrounded by Rautahat, Parsa, Makwanpur district in east,

west, north respectively and India in its southern part. Bara district located from

latitude 26o51’ to 27o2’ North to 84o51’ to 85o16’ East. Elevation of the district ranges

from 152 m to 915 m. Area of the district is 1190 sq. km (CBS 2063).

Geographically Bara situated in two regions. They are Siwalik (Chure Pahad) and

Terai.

Siwalik Region: Among the total area of the Bara district, about 13.48% (17460 ha.) is

situated in this region. The elevation ranges from 112 m to 920 m. Only about 8.32% of

such area is agricultural land. In the region of Bara district, 0.55% is grazing land and

5.76% is other land type and remain land mass 85.37% is covered by forest. Some areas

of Amlekhgunj, Ratanpur, Nijgadh and Bhartgunj of western part four VDCs of the

districts lies in this region.

Terai Region: Elevation ranging from 60 m to 200 m of the district lies in this range.

Such area covers about 86.52% of the district. In this region about 61.11% of the land

is agricultural land. About 2.54% is grassland, 2.75% is other land type and remaining

33.59% is covered by forest.

Climate

There are two Climate Zone in Nepal. Below 300 m, there is Lower Tropical Climatic

Zone which covers about 86.6% area of the district and from 300 m to 1,000 m; there is

15

Upper Tropical Climatic Zone. About 13.4% area of the district falls in this zone

(Lillesø et al. 2005).

Land used type in Bara District

About 54% of its total area is agricultural land, 2.28% is grazing land, 40.57% is forest

area and remaining 5.76% falls in other land used category. About 48.49% of its total

area is cultivated land and 5.51% barren land. Among forest area about 3,631 ha.

situated in the PWR.

Major River and Tributaries

In Bara district, Aguwa, Lalabkaiya, Pasaha, Jamuna, Tiyar, Dudhara, Bangari and

Thalhi rivers plays as major rivers and its tributaries are Kaat Khola, Tangrahar,

Sisirya, Bhutia Nala, Koria Nala, Silpait, Bijauriya Khola, Singaha, and Bhedaha Nala.

Likewise, Halkhaoria Daha, Jharkhar Pokhari and Shiva Sarobar are major ponds of the

district.

Field Methods

Sampling Design

Sampling design and survey was conducted on the basis of “Tiger Monitoring Protocol

2007” and Karanth et al. 2006.

Random quadrates of 15 km*15 km as main Grid and 3.75 km *3.75 km of Sub-grid

was laid on the study area map.

Primary Data Collection

Method: To know about tree diversity in the study area

To study about tree diversity quadrate of 25 m * 25 m (Amatya, 2010) in each interval

of 1 km walking distance was laid. In each plots existing tree species, its number was

recorded. Tree survey was done i.e. main quadrate of 25 m 25 m and for pole, sapling

and seedling survey was done in sub-quadrate (nested quadrate plots) of main quadrate

of 10m*10m, 5m*5m and 3m*3m respectively.

Entire survey was done in 40 Plots of 4 major grids (Table 1). Total area of surveyed

plot was 2.5 hectare. Numbers of Plots were determined on the basis of forest cover in

each major grid.

16

Table 1: Vegetation surveyed major grids and plot information Grid Total Plots Plot no. Area Surveyed

G 14 1-14 Halkhoriya, Chakari, Ratanpur

H 11 15-25 Paritol, GhadenTole, Old Nijghadh

C 6 26-31 Simara, Maulapur, Thapatol)

D 9 31-40 Khayarghartol, , Nijgadh

Method: To study about anthropogenic pressure in forest.

To study about anthropogenic activity, trail transect was used. Trail transect was

divided into km as replicate number and each replicate number was sub-divided into

100 m segments. Human presence, tree cut, tree falls, forage collection, domestic

cattle’s signs, vehicle presence etc in each segments was noted. Trail transects for the

study of anthropogenic activities and mammal sign survey was used in the same area

(Tiger Monitoring Protocol 2007). Data was noted in standardized Human disturbance

form (Table 2 & Annex 10).

Table 2: Grid information with walking distance and surveyed area

Grid Total Sub grid covered Walked Km Area Surveyed

C 3 = (c 10, c 15, c 16) 18 Simara, Maulapur, Thapa tol) D 4 = (d 11, d 14, d 15, d 16) 21 Khayarghartol, , Nijgadh

G 6 = ( g 1, g 2, g 7, g 9, g 10, g 11) 35 Halkhoriya, Chakari, Ratanpur

H 4 = (h1, h 2, h 3, h 6) 28 Paritol, GhadenTole, Old Nijghadh

Total 102

Method: To know about mammal distribution pattern.

To study about abundant of mammals and its distribution trail transect as mention

above was used. Wild Mammal’s signs such as direct sighting, Scat, Pellet, dung,

digging, huff prints, pugmarks, footprints etc. seen in each segment were counted

(Karanth et al. 2002).

Beside above activities interaction with staffs of community forest user group, DOFs

staff was carried out to know about existing status of forest. Data was noted in

standardized Occupancy form (Annex 9).

17

Secondary Data Collection

To strengthen the information comes out from field survey; second information was

also collected from various sources. Secondary data was done through collecting

reviewing journal, thesis, books, and internet surfing, published and unpublished

official records.

In this study the profile of potential poachers was prepared based on the cases

registered on DFO, PWR Revised Management Plan 2012 (unpublished) and other

related organization like Parsa Wildlife Reserve, DNPWC and key informant survey in

the district.

Data Analysis

Data analysis was done using dominant scientific analysis tools i.e. software’s such as

SPSS 16.0, PRESENCE 6.4, Arc GIS 9.3 and MS Excel, etc.

Density and Relative Density:

Density is the number of individual per unit area, which gives the numerical strength of

species. In general, density is the total number of individual of a species relative to the

total area examined. Relative density is a proportion of total number of individuals of a

species with the total number of individuals of all species with an area.

Relative Density (RD) (%) = 100speciesallofdensityTotal

speciesaofDensity

Species Richness

Species richness= Total number of flora

Diversity Index

Species diversity index is the fundamental character of plant community. It denotes the

number of species in a particular area (Sai and Mishra, 1986). It is the combined effects

of species richness and species evenness. Different kinds of indices for species

diversity are given by a number of workers. Shannon – Weiner (1949), which is derived

from information theory, is

18

Shannon-Weiner index (H) = (bit/ individual)

Where,

ni = Importance value of each species

N= Total importance value of all species

Species Evenness

Species richness is simply the number of species per unit area (Pielou, 1975).

Evenness (J) stated by Maguran (1988) as another component of diversity is

calculated by using diversity index:

J S

Hlog

Where,

H =Shannon-Weiner Index

ln = log base n

S= total number of species

Heterogeneity = (1-J)

Dominance

Communities, at least major ones have producers, macro- consumers, and micro-

consumers. Within these groups species or species groups which largely control the

energy flow and strongly affect the environment of all other species are known as

ecological dominants. The degree to which dominance is countertrade in one, several,

or many species can be expressed by an appropriate index of dominance that sums each

species’ importance in relation to the community as whole. It is derived as;

Index of dominance (c) = (ni/N) 2

Where,

ni =importance value of each species

N =Total of importance value

19

Materials

To conduct the survey following materials was used

i. Transect compass ii. Measuring Tape 100m

iii. Measuring tape 5m iv. Identification book for plant and animal (Wild Mammals of Nepal, Baral et. al

2005). v. Geographical Positioning System receiver (GPS)

vi. Diameter tape vii. Digital Photography Camera

viii. Questionnaire forms ix. Forms (Annex 8,9 and 10) x. Field Guide Book and

xi. Note book etc.

20

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

Tree Diversity in the Study Area.

The vegetation survey was done in 40 quadrates of 25 m * 25 m which includes about

2.5 ha.

Table 3: Density of Plants on the basis of studied block.

Seedling Sapling Pole Tree

Blo

ck

No.

Pl

ant

Are

a (h

a)

Plan

t per

(h

a).

No.

Pl

ant

Are

a (h

a)

Plan

t per

ha

.

No.

Pl

ant

Are

a (h

a)

Plan

t per

ha

.

No.

Pl

ant

Are

a (h

a)

Plan

t per

ha

.

G 327 0.0126 25952 166 0.0025 66400 176 0.14 1257 134 0.875 153 H 303 0.0099 30606 120 0.0275 4363 123 0.11 1118 85 0.6875 123 C 98 0.0054 18148 27 0.015 1800 30 0.06 500 36 0.375 96 D 36 0.0081 4444 22 0.0225 977 19 0.09 211 33 0.5625 58

Comparatively, Grid “G” (Halkhoriya, Chakari, Ratanpur) consists of more trees

number i.e. 153 plants/ha and least was found in Grid “D” (Khayarghartol, Nijgadh) i.e.

58 plants/ha (Table 3). The highest density was found 142.8 plants/ha which was “Sal”

followed by Saaj: 87.2 plants/ha and Sindure 26 plants/ha.

Similarly in case of “Pole” highest density was found Sindure with 212.5 plants/ha and

second highest density was found of Sal tree with 70 plants/ha (Annex 12). Highest

number of seedling was found of Sal and “Sindure” was found in highest number as

sapling species.

21

Table 4: Seedling, Sapling, Pole and Tree density in study area Parameter Seedling Sapling Pole Tree

No. of Plots 40 40 40 40

Total Area 360 sq. m (0.036 ha)

1000 (0.1 ha)

4000 (0.4 ha)

25000 (2.5 ha)

Total Plant Observe 764 335 348 288

Plants/ha 21111 seedlings/ ha 3340 Saplings/ha 860 pole/ha 345.6

Trees/ha Mean 19.1

seedlings/plot 8.37

saplings/plot 8.7

poles/plot 7.2

trees/plot Standard deviation

) 11.75 6.4 5.68 3.86

Variance (Var.) 138.14 40.91 32.22 14.93 Mode (Mo) 10 1 9 10 Max 46 27 22 16

In the study area tree density was found about 115 plants/ha (Avg.: 7.2 plants/plot, :

3.86, Var.: 14.93, Mo: 10 and Max.: 16 Plants) (Table No. 3). Similarly, Seedling was

found on the rate of 21,222 plants/ha, Saplings 3,350 per hectare and Pol 870 plants/ha.

Shannon Wiener Diversity Function

In total 68 tree species were found during study (Annex 10) but categorically only 38

species were as “Tree” and 41 species as “Pole”. Sal was found as major dominant

species with relative density 41.31 number/ha followed by Saaj species 25.23

number/ha and Sindure 7.52 number/ha (Table 5).

Table 5: Shannon Wiener Diversity Function Calculation Shannon Wiener Diversity Function Pole Tree Total Number of species (S) 41 38 Shannon Wiener Index (H') 1.2764 0.9079 Maximum Species Diversity (H Max) 1.612784 1.579784 Evenness Index (J) 0.79142 0.574713 Heterogeneity (1-J) 0.20858 0.425287 Index of dominance ( c ) 0.000008 0.252167

The Shannon Wiener Index (H’) was found 0.9079 for tree and 1.2764 for Pole. It

shows plant diversity of pole was high than trees. Heterogeneity of tree species was

found more than of Pole i.e. 0.425287 and 0.20858 respectively.

22

Status of wild animals in study area

To know about mammal distribution pattern, survey was done in girds of 15km * 15km

area. Each grid contained 16 sub-grids of 3.75 km * 3.75 km. The study area comprises

of forest (462 sq. km), bush (20 sq. km), grass (7 sq. km) and sandy (51 sq. km). The

team surveyed by patch occupancy in which total of 102 km walked on foot.

Table 6: Sign encounter and direct sighting of wildlife in Bara district.

Category Wild Animals Total Sign Relative Abundance (%) Sign Direct Sighting Total

Carnivores Tiger 2 2 1.42

Leopard 2 2 1.42 Jungle Cat 3 3 2.13

Prey Species

Wild Boar 68 68 48.23 Spotted Deer 27 7 34 24.11 Barking Deer 7 7 4.96

Langur 22 22 15.60 Hog Deer 1 1 0.71 Monkey 2 2 1.42

Total 111 30 141 100

During the survey sign of mammal Tiger, Leopard, Jungle Cat, Wild Boar, Spotted

Deer, Barking Deer, Langur, Hog Deer, Rhesus Monkey were observed. On the basis of

observed signs, relative abundance of wild boar was found highest i.e. 48.23% and

followed by Spotted Deer (24.11%) and Langur (15.6%). In case of carnivore species

highest relative density was found of Jungle cat with relative density 2.13%. Relative

density of Tiger and Leopard was found similar i.e. 1.42% of each (Table 6).

Occupancy calculation

Table 7: Occupancy status of wild animals

Category Animal Total Grid Total Sub-grid

Occupancy percentage (In relation with Sub-grid)

Carnivores Jungle cat 3 3 17.65% Tiger 1 1 5.88% C. Leopard 1 1 5.88%

Prey species

Wild Boar 3 8 47.06% Spotted Deer 3 6 35.29% Barking Deer 2 4 23.53% Langur 2 2 11.76% Hog Deer 1 1 5.88% Monkey 1 1 5.88%

* Total 4 grids and 17 sub grid were surveyed.

23

Out of four grids, the Tiger and Common leopard recorded in one grid while Jungle cat,

Spotted deer, and Wild boar found in 3 grids and Langur & Barking deer in 2 grids.

Hog deer and monkey recorded in only one grid. The Wild boar distributed (Table-7)

highest percentage (47%) in this survey followed by Spotted deer 35%), Barking deer

(23%), Wild cat (17.65%), Langur (11.76%), Common Leopard (5.88%), Rhesus

Macaque (5.88%) and Hog deer (4%) (Table 7).

Tiger 4%

Barking deer 15%

Jungle Cat 11%

Hog deer 4%

C.leopard 4% Monkey

4% Spotted deer

22%

Langur 7%

Wild boar 29%

Percentage of signs of wild animals in study area

Figure 2: Percentage of signs of wild animals in Bara forest On the basis of total encountered signs (N=134) of the species, signs of wild boar

covers 29% of the total encountered signs. Second highest number signs was

encountered of Spotted Deer (15%) and followed by Barking Deer (15%) and Jungle

Cat (11%). Detail of encountered signs of wild animals has been shown in Figure 2.

Table 8: Sign encounter of prey species

Grid Surveyed Km. Animal Signs Rate of signs encountered (Sign/Km)

C 18.00 15 0.78

D 21.00 20 0.95

G 35.00 87 2.48

H 28.00 12 0.43

Total 102.00 134 1.30

24

During sign survey in 102 km of trail transect, in total 134 signs were encountered.

Analysis show, sign encounter rate of prey species was 1.30 signs per km. Out of them,

the sign of prey occurred more in grid G (2.48) followed by grid D (0.95), grid C (0.78)

and grid H (0.43). It shows that the distribution of prey was higher in grid H than other

grids (Table 8).

Anthropogenic pressure in study area

During the survey, in total 933 signs relating to twelve type of anthropogenic activities

were recorded of which 519 were indirect sign and 414 were direct sings (Table 9).

Table 9: Anthropogenic pressure vs. animal signs

S. N. Human Impact Total Sign Sign Direct sighting Total

1 Human Presence - 109 109 2 Tree Cuts 341 6 347 3 Livestock 20 290 310 4 Fodder Collection 15 - 15 5 Logging 129 2 131 6 Firewood Collection 6 - 6 7 Sand Extraction 5 4 9 8 Litter Collection 2 - 2 9 Hunting Spot - 1 1 10 Vehicles - 1 1 11 Poaching - 1 1 12 Encroachment 1 - 1 Total 519 414 933

Among the recorded anthropogenic activities, “Human presence” and “Tree felling”

signs were highest which covers 22% by each. After then, higher percentage was of

“Livestock grazing” and “Fodder collection” which covers about 13% by each (Fig. 3).

Few number (<0.5%) of anthropogenic activities such as Hunting spot, Vehicles,

Poaching, Encroachment etc. were also found during the survey.

25

37%

33%

14%

12% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Anthropogenic Pressure in Proposed Extension Area of

PWR

Tree fellingLivestockLoggingHuman presenceFodder collectionSand extractionFirewood collectionLitter collectionHunting spotVehicles

Figure 3: Pie-Chart Showing anthropogenic activities & its coverage percentages.

Spatial scale of disturbance

On the basis of anthropogenic signs found in sub-grids and major grids, human

mobility was present in most of areas in comparative to other anthropogenic activity.

26

Table 10: Anthropogenic activities recorded in study area

S. N. Human Impact Total Sub-grid Total Grid Coverage 1 Human presence 14 4 82.35% 2 Tree cuts 14 4 82.35% 3 Livestock 8 4 47.06% 4 Fodder collection 8 3 47.06% 5 Logging 7 3 41.18% 6 Firewood collection 3 2 17.65% 7 Sand extraction 3 2 17.65% 8 Litter collection 2 2 11.76% 9 Hunting spot 1 1 5.88% 10 Vehicles 1 1 5.88% 11 Poaching 1 1 5.88% 12 Encroachment 1 1 5.88%

*Total Survey Sub-grids=17

Human presence was found in 14 sub-grids. Similar “tree cut” was also found in 14

sub-grids (Table 10). This shows 82.35% of the area is facing disturbance. Along with

human mobility and tree cuts, livestock grazing was found in 47%, Sand Extraction in

17.65%. Even hunting spot was found in some areas e.g. Halkhoria.

Comparison between animal signs and anthropogenic activities

0 0 15

0 1 1 0 18 11 10

0 15

46

11 0

12 0 1 0

15 20

36

8 24 28 27

88

0

85

145

6

173

59

140

11 33 35

0 0

50

100

150

200

250

c 10 c 15 c 16 d 1 d 11 d 14 d 15 d 16 g 1 g 10 g 11 g 2 g 7 g 9 h 1 h 2 h 3 h 6

No.

of s

ign

Sub Grids

Human SignAnimal Sign

Figure 4: Graphical view of relation between wildlife and anthropogenic activities

27

From above graph (Fig. 4), it shows that there is slightly negative relationship in some

sub-grids (e.g. Sub-grids: G 11, G 2, H 1 and H 6) where as in some sub-grids it shows

positive relationship (eg. Sub –grids: C 16, D 16, and G 7).

28

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

Tree diversity in the study area.

During this study, 68 species of plant were recorded. The Shannon Wienar Index was

found 0.9079 for tree and 1.2764 for “Pole” species. It shows diversity of pole was high

than trees. But Heterogenity of tree species was found more than that of Pole. The

calculated Heterogenity of Pole was 0.425287 and of Tree was 0.20858.

Tree density in the study was estimated to be 115 plants/ha. Similarly density of Pole,

Seedling and Sapling was found in about 870 plant/ha, 21,222 plant per ha and 3,350

plants/ha respectively. Highest density of tree was found along “Grid G” with tree

density of 153 plant/ha and least was found in “Grid D” where tree density was only 58

plants/ha.

The forest of the study area was found dominant of Sal, Saaj and Sindure species.

Among the found tree species, highest density was of Sal tree and density was 142.8

plant/ha. Other major dominant species were Saaj with density 87.2 plants/ha and

Sindure with density 26 plants/ha.

To know about mammal distribution pattern

In total 111 signs of 12 species of mammal were recorded during the survey. DNPWC

(2002) had reported existence of 37 species of mammal in PWR. Those recorded

species are Carnivores: Tiger, Common Leopard & Jungle Cat; Prey species: Wild

Boar, Spotted Deer, Terai Langur, Hog Deer & Rhesus Macaque. On the basis of

encountered signs, the highest relative abundance was found of Wild Boar (48.23%),

Spotted Deer (24.11%) and Terai Langur (15.6%) respectively. Least was found of Hog

Deer which was 0.71% of among total encountered signs. A big carnivore such as Tiger

and Common Leopard’s recorded signs covers 1.42% for each.

The encounter rate of prey species sign was about 1.3 signs per km. Highest rate of

signs was encountered in Grid G (2.48 sings/km) and least was found in Grid H (0.43

signs per km). On the basis of encountered rate of signs of prey species, categorically

highest density prey species exist in “Grid G” followed by “Grid “D” and least in “Grid

H” followed by “Grid C”. Highest sign rate was found in “Grid G” and among the

29

surveyed four Grids, and Tiger’s sign was also found only in “Grid G”. This both

evidence indicate habitat of “Grid D” good enough than other remaining grids. Because

existence of tiger in the area indicate good health of forest (Karanth & Stith, 1999).

Occupancy calculation on basis of sub-grids occupied by the species shows, there is

highest occupancy of Wild Boar. Wild Boar had covered about 47% of the area.

Similarly, after Wild Boar, higher occupancy was of Spotted Deer and Barking Deer

and their occupancy was 35% and 23% respectively. Occupancy of Tiger and Common

Leopard was only 5.88% by each. According to relative sign abundance and occupancy

of these big carnivores, it can be concluded these big carnivores are not breeder in the

area and these animal moves only occasional as transient. According to Karanth &

Chundawat (2002), the transient floaters move over dozens of kilometers and range

across several breeder territories.

Anthropogenic pressure in the forest

Categorically, 12 types of human disturbances were recorded during this study. These

were Human Presence, Tree Cuts, Livestock, Fodder Collection, Logging, Firewood

Collection, Sand Extraction, Litter Collection, Hunting Spot, Vehicles, and Wild

Animal Killing. On the basis of relative signs, highest disturbance was “Tree felling”

(37%), Livestock Grazing (33%), Logging (Stump cutting) (14%) and Human Presence

(12%) respectively. Disturbances such as Hunting Spot, Encroachment, and Wild

Animal Killing was also recorded in least number (<0.5% of total signs encountered).

Even though these type of signs were recorded in least number, such type of

disturbances impact biodiversity in great magnitude than other. One of the local people

was found killing Golden Monitor Lizard (Varanus flavescens) in forest area of

Nijgadh, which is one the protected reptile species by NPWC Act 2029. “Hunting

Spot” was also found in Halkhoria. IUCN-Nepal (1995) had identified some issues

relating to biodiversity conservation in forest area of Bara district. These were

uncontrolled forest fire, illegal cutting of wood (timber, fuelwood etc.), poaching of

wildlife, clearing of forest land for agriculture and settlement, loss of habitat and

biodiversity. In order to mitigate biodiversity loss in the forest of Bara district, Salo &

Marjokrpi (1996) had recommended to allow cogs and snags (possible 25% of the

stands), maintain corridors, manage open grasslands, promote only site-specific

mechanical operations during regeneration felling activities, discourage rampant

30

poaching and introduce anti-poaching operations to preserve wildlife species, set aside

1 km stretch of forests on both sides of rivers to serve as a contiguous linkage for

migration of birds, and make water holes for wildlife species for the dry season.

In the case of spatial scale of disturbance, highest disturbance was “Human Presence”

& “Tree cuts” which covers about 82.35% of the study area by each. Disturbances such

as “Livestock Grazing” and “Fodder Collection” had occupied second highest area i.e.

47.06% by each. After these, high area was covered by “Logging” i.e. 41.18%. These

shows about 50% of study area is under wildlife habitat destruction. Habitat destruction

was not limited to edge of forest but also in core areas. The major reason to decline the

forest area of Bara is propose of the extension of Parsa Wildlife Reserve area, fast track

road, and airport establishment (PWR, 2012) .MFSC (2005) report shows increase of

forest area in PWR by 200 ha. But in contrast to this, in Bara district amount of forest

land decreased by 11.56% during 1989-2005. The forest area of the district has been

fragmented and deforested with annual rate of 0.72% (Kandel 2009). This process

might be counteracted by managing forest though ecosystem based management.

Because proposed extension area of PWR is Sal dominant forest and sustainable

management of Sal forest can be done through this management (Gautam & Devoe,

2004).

Comparative analysis between magnitude of anthropogenic pressure and animal signs

occurrence shows slightly negative impact. In most of areas there was found high

number of animal’s signs where there was high number of human disturbances and in

some areas, encounter of wild animals signs decreased with increase of human

disturbances. To know more detail about correlation between anthropogenic pressure

and wildlife occurrence, more detail study is recommended. Because, effective

protected area management deals with complex links between environmental and

anthropogenic factors, calling for information gathered from many disciplines (JRC

2011).

31

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusion

From this study, diversity of tree species was estimated to around 68 species with tree

density of 115 plants/ha (Avg.: 7.2 plants per plot 25m*25m, : 3.86, Var.: 14.93, Mo:

10 and Max.: 16 Plants). Density of pole, saplings & seedling were 870 plants/ha, 3,350

per ha, and 21,222 plants/ha. Dominant tree species was found Sal with 142.8 plants/ha

and followed by Saaj: 87.2 plants/ha and Sindure 26 plants/ha. The Shannon Wiener

Index (H’) was found 0.9079 for tree and 1.2764 for Pol. It shows plant diversity of

pole was high than trees. Heterogeneity of tree spaces found more than of Pole i.e.

0.425287 and 0.20858 respectively.

The presence of tiger’s sign (Pugmark) was observed at Chakari area during survey.

This evidences shows that the tiger movement is occasional in Bara forest. The other

carnivores such as Common leopard and Jungle Cat were also reported. Spotted deer,

Barking deer, Hog deer, Wild boar, Monkey and Terai Langur were reported as prey

species of Tiger and Common Leopard. So, in overall nine species of mammal were

recorded in the study area. Highest occupancy was found of Wild boar i.e. 47% & the

second highest percentage of Spotted deer (35.3%) found. Similarly Highest sign

encounter rate was found at Grid G 9 (Halkhoria, Chakari, Ratanpur area) i.e. 2.48

number/km and in other grid sign encounter rate was 0.43-0.95 no./km. In case of entire

study area, wild animal’s sings encounter rate was about 1.3 signs per km. Since Tiger

evidence as well as highest sign encounter rate was found at Grid G, that area

(Halkhoria, Chakari, Ratanpur area) are the functional area of tiger at the present time.

The twelve categories of human disturbances were recorded during the field survey.

Out of them, tree cuts (37.19%) were recorded highest and domestic animal grazing

(33.23%) and Logging (14.04%) were recorded in second and third rank of disturbance

activities simultaneously. In case of occupancy of anthropogenic activity, highest

disturbance were of category “Human Presence” and “Tree cuts’ with coverage of

about 82.35% by each of the study area and second rank was of category “Livestock

Grazing” and “Fodder Collection” with the coverage 47.06%. High habitat destruction

and low prey density was considered as the major cause of absence of the tiger in many

areas of Bara forest.

32

For effective conservation and management of proposed extension area of PWR,

ongoing illegal activities in the area should be reduced. Since, great magnitude of

anthropogenic activities relating to habitat destruction and low density of prey species

was recorded in most part of the study area, it had been supposed that habitat is in

worse condition regarding to habitat required for the Tiger. So, after controlling illegal

activities, habitat management should be done with close partnership with local people

for sustainable conservation of the Tiger in the area.

Recommendations

i. Control of habitat destruction and degradation by patrolling should be done in

effective way.

ii. For easily availability of water to wild animal during dry season, construction

and maintenance of water hole should be done in various parts for habitat

management.

iii. Management and increment of some grassland patches for prey species should

be done specially Halkhoriya.

iv. Awareness program in different communities eg. Community forestry user

groups, Collaborative forest Management user groups, School students, college

students, Participants of LDO meeting at district level should be track

successfully.

v. Networking and collaboration among PWR, DoF, CFUG, CNP, DNPWC and

other local stakeholders.

vi. Speed breakers/time card should be used to control frequent roadside accident

of wildlife.

33

REFERENCES

Amatya, S.M., and Shrestha, K.R. (2010),. Nepal Forestry Handbook: Nepal Foresters

Association, Babar Mahal, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Barnekow Lillesø, J.P., Shrestha, T. B., Dhakal, L. P., Nayaju, R. P., & Shrestha, R.

(2005). The map of potential vegetation of Nepal: a forestry/agro-

ecological/biodiversity classification system. Hørsholm: Center for Skov,

Landskab og Planlægning/Københavns Universitet. (Development and

Environment; No. 2/2005).

BPP. (1995). An assessment of Representation of the Terrestrial Ecosystems in the

Protected Areas System of Nepal. In Biodiversity Profiles Project. Kathmandu

Nepal: HMG/N.

CBD (2010). Decisions Adopted by the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on

Biological Diversity at its Tenth meeting. UNEP/CBD/COP/10/27.

CBS (2013). Statistical Book of Nepal. National Planning Commison sectretariat,

Central Bureau of Statistics, Section Statistic Office, Parsa, Birgunj.

Chanchani P., Lamichhane B. R., Malla S., Maurya K., Bista A., Warrier R., Nair S.,

Almeida M., Ravi R., Sharma R., Dhakal M., Yadav S. P., Thapa M., Jnawali S.

R., Pradhan N. M. B., Subedi N., Thapa G. J., Yadav H., Jhala Y. V., Qureshi

Q., Vattakaven J. and Borah J. 2014. Tigers of the Transboundary Terai Arc

Landscape: Status, distribution and movement in the Terai of India and Nepal.

National Tiger Conservation Authority, Government of India, and Department

of National Park and Wildlife Conservation, Government of Nepal

CHEC-Nepal. (2012 a). An Assessment of Tiger (Pantheratigris) and Its Habitat in Bara

Forest, Nepal. Submited to: District Forest Office, Simara, Bara

CHEC-Nepal. (2012 b). Assessment of Tiger Poaching Activities and Records in Bara

District, Nepal. Submitted to: District Forest Office, Simara, Bara

DNPWC (2002). Parsa Wildlife Reserve: Draft of Management Plan 2006-2007.

Kathmandu: HMG/Nepal, Department of National Parks and Wildlife

Conservation.

DNPWC (2012). Parsa Wildlife Reserve Revised management plan 2012 (Draft).

34

Gautam, K.H. Devoe, N.N. (2004). Ecological and anthropogenic niches of sal (Shorea

robusta Gaertn. f.) forest and prospects for multiple-product forest management:

A Review. Institute of Chartered Foresters. Forestry, Vol. 79, No. 1, 2006.

doi:10.1093/forestry/cpi063. PP 81-101.

Geldmann, J. Joppa, L.N. Burgess, N.D. (2014). Mapping Change in Human Pressure

Globbally on Land and Withing Protected Areas. Conservaiton Biology. Vol.

28-6-1604-1616. DOI: 10.1111/COBI. 12332.

GIT (2010). Natinal Tiger Recorvey Program (NTRP): Tx2 by 2002 Nepal (Draft).

Heinen, J.T. Kattel, B. (1992). Parks, People, and Conservation: A Review of

Management Issues in Nepal's Protected Areas. Population and Environment: A

Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies. Volume 14, Number 1. Human Sciences

Press, Inc.

ICIMOD, MOEST, GoN. (2007). Nepal Biodiversity Resource Book Protected Areas,

Ramsar Sites, and World Heritage Sites. International Centre for Integrated

Mountain Development (ICIMOD) GPO Box 3226 Kathmandu, Nepal Ministry

of Environment, Science and Technology (MOEST), Government of Nepal,

Singha Durbar, Kathmandu, Nepal. ISBN 9789291150335

International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Ministry of Environment,

Science and Technology, Government of Nepal in cooperation with United

Nations Environment Programme, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.

ISBN 9789291150335

IUCN Nepal, (1995) EIA OF Bara Forest Management Plan. Kathmandu. ISBN: 92-

9144-005-1. (Available in: https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/6971,

Download Date: 15th Feb, 2015).

JRC (2011). Biodiversity in danger: which areas should be protected? New Digital

Observatory helps to set priorities. European Commission's Joint Research

Centre, NEWSRELEASE: Brussel, 18 Feb. 2011. (Downloaded from:

https://ec.europa.eu, Download Date: May 3, 2015).

Kandel,. C. (2009). Forest Cover Monitoring in the Bara District (Nepal) with Remote

Sensing and Geographic Information Systems. Dissertation submitted in Partial

Fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in

Geospatial Technologies.

35

Karanth, KU.,& Nichols, JD., (eds.) (2002). Monitoring tigers and their Prey. A manual

for researchers, managers and conservationists in tropical Asia. Centre for

Wildlife Studies, Bangalore, India. ISBN 81-901442-1-9.

Karki, J.B. (2011). Occupancy and Abundance of Tigers and Their Prey in the Terai

Arc Landscape, Nepal.PhD Thesis Submitted to the Forest Research Institute

University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India.

Khanal, P. (2009). Survey Report on Prey Base an Tiger Monitoring inside Terai Arc

Landscape by Patch Occupancy Method. Submitted to WWF-Nepal, Baluwatar,

Kathamdnu, Nepal

MoFSC. (2005). Forest Cover Change Analysis of The Terai Districts (1990/91-

2000/01). Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation,

Department of Forest, Babar Mahal Kathmadu, Nepal.

MOFSC. (2008). The Future of Nepal's Forests - Outlook for 2020. Asia Forestry

Outlook Study 2020: Country Report Nepal. Food and Agriculture Organization

of the United Nations, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok,

Thailand.

MoFSC. (2009). Tiger Monitoring Protocol: Tiger (Panthera Tigris) And Prey Base

Monitoring in The Terai Arc of Nepal. Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forest

and Soil Conservation, Department of National Parks and Wildlife

Conservation, Babar Mahal Kathmadu, Nepal .

MoFSC/DNPWC/GoN., (1999). Tiger Conservation Action Plan for Nepal.

Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Department

of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation. Kathmandu, Nepal.

Nuesiri, E.O. Akumsi, A.C. Purdon, M. Njisuh, F.Z. (2006). Wildlife Conservation in

the Ebensuk-Mambo and Tali-Bara Communal Forest Area. Rufford Maurice

Laing Foundation.

Parravicini, v. Micheli, F. Montefalcone, M. Morri, C., Villa, E. Castellano, M. et al.

(2013). Conserving Biodiveristy in a Human-Dominated World. Degradation of

Marine Sessile Communities within a Protected Area with Conflicting Human

Uses. PLoS ONE 8(10): e75737. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0075767.

36

Salo, J. and Marjokorpi, A. (1996). Bidiversity Management Plan for Bara District,

Nepal. Forest Management and Utilisation Development Project (FMUDP),

Technical Report No. 21. Enso Foreset Department Ltd. HMGN/FINNIDA,

Kathmandu.

Wegge, P. (1976). Terai Shikar Reserves. Rome: FAO/UNDP National Parks and

Wildlife Conservation-Nepal. Document No. 4 (In: Heinen, J.T. Kattel, B.

1992).

World Wide Web

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsa_Wildlife_Reserve. Access Date May 31, 2015.

WWF, (2012). Save the Tigers Now. World Wildlife Fund. www.savetigersnow.org

www.ekantipur.com, E-Kantipur, (View data: 14th March 2013)

www.ekantipur.com, Reported by Pragati Shah (accessed on 12th April 2014).

1

ANNEXES

Annex 1: Permission letter from DNPWC

2

Annex 2: Permission Letter from PWR

3

4

Annex 3: Maps

Map 2: Map of surveyed trail transects

5

Map 3: Map showing carnivore’s sign observed location

6

Map 4: Tiger sign found location

7

Map 5: Sing of prey species found locations

8

Map 6: Tree cutting signs found locations

9

Annex 4: Vegetation Form

Vegetation Survey Form-2014 A. General information of plot

Name of forest (G.F./C.F.):……………………………………..

Main Block Code:.............. Plot

No………….. Date:…………………

Status of Forest:…………………………………………… Type of Forest:……………………………… Top 3 Dominant

Spp.:………………………………….…. B. Detail information of plot

Slope angle: Aspect: Erosion status: Other:

Regeneration Pole Tree

Seedling (Plot 3m*3m) Sapling (5m*5m) Plot size (10m*10m) Plot size: (25m*25m)

Ht: < 1m, > 30 cm Ht: >1m, DBH 9.9 cm, DBH 10-29.9 cm DBH: > 30 cm,

S.N Species Nu

m. Total

Species

Num.

Total

Species

Circum. DBH Ht. Quali

ty

Status

Species

Circum.

DBH

Ht.

Quality

Status (cm) (cm) (m) (cm) (cm

) (m)

10

Annex 5: Data Form for Occupancy - Animal Surveys 3. Data Form for Occupancy - Animal Surveys

Protected Area/District:……............................... Grid cell/Sub Grid:……………….. Spatial Replicate Number:……

Area surveyed:……………

Description of survey route:…………………

Date surveyed:………….

Start UTM mE:………………

End UTM mE:………....……

Start time:……..

End time:…. GPS unit used:……………… GPS files

downloaded:……. Start UTM mN:………………….

End UTM mN:………………

Field staff names:………………………………………………………………… Strata Type:………………..

Obs.#

Seg #

(1-10)

UTM

mE UTM mN

Way point

#

Time

(24 hr)

Species Type of evidence

Age of

evidence

# of unique

detections

in segment

Habitat type Comments Photo

ID

11

Annex 6: Data Form: Human Disturbance

Obs.

Seg # (1-10)

UTM mE

UTM

MN

Way point #

Time

(24 hr)

Impact/ disturbanc

e

Type of evidenc

e

Age of evidenc

e

# of unique

detections in

segment

Habitat type

Photo ID

Comments

4. Data Form : Human Disturbance Protected Area/District:……............................... Grid cell/Sub Grid:……………….. Spatial Replicate Number:……

Area surveyed:…………… Description of survey route:………………… Date surveyed:…………. Start UTM mE:……………… End UTM mE:………....……

Start time:…….. End time:…. GPS unit used:……………… GPS files downloaded:……. Start UTM mN:…………………. End UTM mN:………………

Field staff names:………………………………………………………………… Strata Type:………………..

12

Annex 7: Number of seedling, Sapling, Pol and Tree species in different plots.

Plot

No.

Seed

ling

Sapl

ing

Pol

Tree

Plot

No.

Seed

ling

Sp.

Sapl

ing

Spp.

Pol S

p.

Tree

Sp.

1 10 8 7 10 21 20 10 15 9 2 15 9 11 7 22 23 2 6 10 3 19 8 9 10 23 43 12 10 5 4 24 5 9 7 24 24 12 12 4 5 23 16 6 11 25 11 6 11 3 6 16 7 22 16 26 18 4 11 6 7 21 9 18 10 27 12 11 6 6 8 19 8 14 8 28 26 5 5 11 9 46 25 20 6 29 21 1 2 2 10 31 12 14 14 30 10 1 2 3 11 34 16 10 7 31 11 5 4 8 12 21 2 18 7 32 11 1 5 5 13 25 27 10 10 33 8 6 2 10 14 23 14 8 11 34 10 5 1 8 15 20 14 10 9 35 3 1 4 3 16 35 8 13 15 36 2 5 4 2 17 34 14 16 8 37 0 2 1 1 18 33 12 9 6 38 0 1 1 1 19 25 14 12 11 39 2 1 1 3 20 35 16 9 5 40 0 0 0 0

Total 764 335 348 288

13

Annex 8: Checklist of plants

S.N. Species Seedling Sp. (no. of plant)

Sapling Species (no. of plant)

Pol Species (no. of plant)

Tree Species (no. of plant) S.N. Species

Seedling Sp.

(no. of plant)

Sapling Species (no. of plant)

Pol Species (no. of plant)

Tree Species (no. of plant)

1 Allo 2 0 0 0 35 Karma (Adina cordifolia) 5 4 4 9

2 Amala (Phyllanthus emblica) 22 6 6 7 36 Khaste 0 0 1 0

3 Archali (Antides maleunius) 1 0 0 0 37 Khayar

(Acacia catechu) 3 10 5 1

4 Arthu 1 0 0 2 38 Khirro (Sapium insigne) 2 0 1 1

5 Atter 1 0 0 1 39 Kombu 0 0 1 2

6 Aunle 31 6 4 7 40 Kumbhi (Cochliospermum religeosa) 1 3 5 3

7 Baajhi (Anogessum latifolius) 3 1 1 1 41 Kusum

(Schleichera spp.) 8 4 2 1

8 Badam (Prunus amygdalus) 0 0 0 0 42 Kyamun

(syzygium cerasoides) 2 0 1 0

9 Badkaule 15 19 4 8 43 Lasune 11 7 16 9

10 Bains (Salix spp.) 0 0 1 0 44 Lati Kaath

(Swida oblonga) 2 0 0 0

11 Banjh (Quercus lanuginosa) 0 13 8 8 45 Maidal

(Randia dumetorum) 0 1 0 0

12 Banji 0 0 2 0 46 Neem (Azadirachta indica) 0 0 0 0

13 Barro (Terminalia bellerica) 2 1 0 1 47 Odal

(Sterculi avillosa) 2 0 0 0

14 Bel (Aegle marmelos) 2 0 0 1 48 Padari

(Stereospermum suaveolens) 2 0 2 7

15 Bhurkul (Hymeno dictyonexcelsum) 12 3 4 5 49 Pharsa 1 0 0 0

16 Bikul 0 0 1 0 50 Piyari (Vuchanani alatifolia) 22 15 3 2

17 Bot dhayero (Legerstroemia parviflora) 5 11 27 6 51 Putali Kaath 0 0 1 1

18 Chiple Kaulo (Machilus gamblei) 3 4 4 18 52 Rajbriksha

(Cassia fistula) 0 0 0 0

19 Dabdabe (Lannea spp.) 5 1 18 36 53 Saaj

(Terminalia alata) 38 23 18 218

20 Dudhe Bhalayo (Rhus javanica) 2 0 2 1 54 Sak 1 0 0 0

14

21 Dudhilo (Ficus spp.) 1 0 0 0 55 Sal

(Shorea Robusta) 391 58 28 357

22 Dumre (Ficus glomerata) 2 1 0 1 56 Salme 0 4 0 0

23 Gayo (Bredelia retusa) 7 1 2 0 57 Sandan

Ougeiniadalbergiodes 1 0 0 0

24 Harro (Terminalia chebula) 0 1 2 0 58 Sati Sal 13 3 4 13

25 Jamun (Syzygium cumini) 5 7 7 21 59 SetiKaath

(Symplocos pyrifolia) 0 0 0 0

26 Jalme 12 9 19 12 60 Simal Bombaxmalabericum 3 0 0 0

27 Jhingane (Eurya acuminate) 25 16 22 11 61 Sindure

(Mallotusphilippinensis) 58 69 85 65

28 Jonki 1 0 0 2 62 Siris (Albizzia procera) 3 0 0 1

29 Kalikath (kalo) (Myrsine semiserrata) 0 7 15 5 63 Sissoo

(Dalbergia sissoo) 1 0 0 0

30 Kabro (Ficus spp.) 0 1 0 0 64 Tanki

(Bauhinia purpuria) 5 8 6 0

31 Kadam (Anthocephalus cadamba) 0 1 1 0 65 Tantari

(Dillenia pentagyna) 5 11 7 9

32 Kali Kaath (seto) (Myrsine spp.) 18 0 0 11 66 Tikul

(Mitragyna parviflora) 0 0 2 0

33 Kamini (Murraya exotica) 0 0 0 0 67 Tilke 0 5 2 0

34 Kapre (Ficus spp.) 0 0 0 0 68 Tooni

(Cedrela toona) 2 0 0 0

TOTAL 760 334 344 864

15

Annex 9: Number of seedling, Sapling, Pole and Tree species in different plots

Plot

No.

Seed

ling

Sapl

ing

Pole

Tree

Plot

No.

Seed

ling

Sp.

Sapl

ing

Spp.

Pol S

p.

Tree

Sp.

1 10 8 7 10 21 20 10 15 9 2 15 9 11 7 22 23 2 6 10 3 19 8 9 10 23 43 12 10 5 4 24 5 9 7 24 24 12 12 4 5 23 16 6 11 25 11 6 11 3 6 16 7 22 16 26 18 4 11 6 7 21 9 18 10 27 12 11 6 6 8 19 8 14 8 28 26 5 5 11 9 46 25 20 6 29 21 1 2 2 10 31 12 14 14 30 10 1 2 3 11 34 16 10 7 31 11 5 4 8 12 21 2 18 7 32 11 1 5 5 13 25 27 10 10 33 8 6 2 10 14 23 14 8 11 34 10 5 1 8 15 20 14 10 9 35 3 1 4 3 16 35 8 13 15 36 2 5 4 2 17 34 14 16 8 37 0 2 1 1 18 33 12 9 6 38 0 1 1 1 19 25 14 12 11 39 2 1 1 3 20 35 16 9 5 40 0 0 0 0

Total 764 335 348 288

16

Annex 10: Density Calculation

Density Calculation for Pol species Density Calculation for Tree species

Species Total No. of Plant

Density (plant/ha)

Relative Density

(%)

Total No. of

plant

Density (plant/ha)

Relative Density

(%)

Tanki 6 15 1.74 - - - Banji 2 5 0.58 - - - Gayo 2 5 0.58 - - - Harro 2 5 0.58 - - - Tekauli 2 5 0.58 - - - Tilke 2 5 0.58 - - - Baisa 1 2.5 0.29 - - - Bikul 1 2.5 0.29 - - - Kadam 1 2.5 0.29 - - - Khaste 1 2.5 0.29 - - - Kyamuna 1 2.5

- - -

Sal 28 70 8.14 (#1) 357 142.8 41.31 (#1) Sindure 85 212.5 24.71 (#2) 65 26 7.52 (#3) Dabdabe 18 45 5.23 36 14.4 4.17 Jaamun 7 17.5 2.03 21 8.4 2.43 Saaj 18 45 5.23 218 87.2 25.23 (#2) Chiple 4 10 1.16 18 7.2 2.08 Sati Sal 4 10 1.16 13 5.2 1.5 Jalme 19 47.5 5.52 12 4.8 1.39 Jhingate 22 55 6.4 11 4.4 1.27 Kali Kaath 0 0

11 4.4 1.27

Lasune 16 40 4.65 9 3.6 1.04 Tantari 7 17.5 2.03 9 3.6 1.04 Karma 4 10 1.16 9 3.6 1.04 Banjh 8 20 2.33 8 3.2 0.93 Badkaule 4 10 1.16 8 3.2 0.93 Amala 6 15 1.74 7 2.8 0.81 Aunle 4 10 1.16 7 2.8 0.81 Padari 2 5 0.58 7 2.8 0.81 Botdhayero 27 67.5 7.85 (#3) 6 2.4 0.69 Kaalikath 15 37.5 4.36 5 2 0.58 Bhurkut 4 10 1.16 5 2 0.58 Kumbhi 5 12.5 1.45 3 1.2 0.35 Piyari 3 7.5 0.87 2 0.8 0.23 Kombu 1 2.5 0.29 2 0.8 0.23 Arthu 0 0

2 0.8 0.23

Jonki 0 0

2 0.8 0.23 Atter - - - 1 0.4 0.12 Barro - - - 1 0.4 0.12 Bel - - - 1 0.4 0.12 Dumri - - - 1 0.4 0.12 Siris - - - 1 0.4 0.12 Khayar 5 12.5 1.45 1 0.4 0.12 Dudhe 2 5 0.58 1 0.4 0.12 Kusum 2 5 0.58 1 0.4 0.12 Baajhi 1 2.5 0.29 1 0.4 0.12 Khirro 1 2.5 0.29 1 0.4 0.12 PutaliKaath 1 2.5 0.29 1 0.4 0.12

Total 344 860

864 345.6

17

Annex 11: Shannon Diversity Function for pole and tree species

S.N Species

Pole Tree

Total

No. of individual

Pi= (ni/N) (Pi)2

H'=

-(Pi Log10 Pi)

Total

Number of individual

Pi= (ni/N) (Pi)2

H'

=Pi Log10 Pi

1 Amala 6 0.0174 0.000304 0.0307 7 0.0081 0.000066 0.0169

2 Arthu - - - - 2 0.0023 0.000005 0.0061

3 Atter - - - - 1 0.0012 0.000001 0.0034

4 Aunle 4 0.0116 0.000135 0.0225 7 0.0081 0.000066 0.0169

5 Baajhi 1 0.0029 0.000008 0.0074 1 0.0012 0.000001 0.0034

6 Badkaule 4 0.0116 0.000135 0.0225 8 0.0093 0.000086 0.0188

7 Baisa 1 0.0029 0.000008 0.0074 - - - -

8 Banjh 8 0.0233 0.000541 0.0380 8 0.0093 0.000086 0.0188

9 Banji 2 0.0058 0.000034 0.0130 - - - -

10 Barro - - - - 1 0.0012 0.000001 0.0034

11 Bel - - - - 1 0.0012 0.000001 0.0034

12 Bhurkut 4 0.0116 0.000135 0.0225 5 0.0058 0.000033 0.0129

13 Bikul 1 0.0029 0.000008 0.0074 - - - -

14 Botdhayero 27 0.0785 0.006160 0.0867 6 0.0069 0.000048 0.0150

15 Chiple 4 0.0116 0.000135 0.0225 18 0.0208 0.000434 0.0350

16 Dabdabe 18 0.0523 0.002738 0.0670 36 0.0417 0.001736 0.0575

17 Dudhe 2 0.0058 0.000034 0.0130 1 0.0012 0.000001 0.0034

18 Dumri - - - - 1 0.0012 0.000001 0.0034

19 Gayo 2 0.0058 0.000034 0.0130 - - - -

20 Harro 2 0.0058 0.000034 0.0130 - - - -

21 Jaamun 7 0.0203 0.000414 0.0344 21 0.0243 0.000591 0.0392

22 Jalme 19 0.0552 0.003051 0.0695 12 0.0139 0.000193 0.0258

23 Jhingate 22 0.0640 0.004090 0.0764 11 0.0127 0.000162 0.0241

24 Jonki - - - - 2 0.0023 0.000005 0.0061

25 Kaalikath 15 0.0436 0.001901 0.0593 5 0.0058 0.000033 0.0129

26 Kadam 1 0.0029 0.000008 0.0074 - - - -

27 Kali Kaath - - - - 11 0.0127 0.000162 0.0241

28 Karma 4 0.0116 0.000135 0.0225 9 0.0104 0.000109 0.0206

29 Khaste 1 0.0029 0.000008 0.0074 - - - -

30 Khayar 5 0.0145 0.000211 0.0267 1 0.0012 0.000001 0.0034

31 Khirro 1 0.0029 0.000008 0.0074 1 0.0012 0.000001 0.0034

32 Kombu 1 0.0029 0.000008 0.0074 2 0.0023 0.000005 0.0061

33 Kumbhi 5 0.0145 0.000211 0.0267 3 0.0035 0.000012 0.0085

34 Kusum 2 0.0058 0.000034 0.0130 1 0.0012 0.000001 0.0034

35 Kyamuna 1 0.0029 0.000008 0.0074 - - - -

36 Lasune 16 0.0465 0.002163 0.0620 9 0.0104 0.000109 0.0206

37 Padari 2 0.0058 0.000034 0.0130 7 0.0081 0.000066 0.0169

38 Piyari 3 0.0087 0.000076 0.0180 2 0.0023 0.000005 0.0061

18

39 PutaliKaath 1 0.0029 0.000008 0.0074 1 0.0012 0.000001 0.0034

40 Saaj 17 0.0494 0.002442 0.0645 18 0.0208 0.000434 0.0350

41 Sal 28 0.0814 0.006625 0.0887 166 0.1921 0.036914 0.1376

42 Sati Sal 4 0.0116 0.000135 0.0225 13 0.0150 0.000226 0.0274

43 Sindure 85 0.2471 0.061055 0.1500 65 0.0752 0.005660 0.0845

44 Siris - - - - 1 0.0012 0.000001 0.0034

45 Tanki 6 0.0174 0.000304 0.0307 - - - -

46 Tantari 7 0.0203 0.000414 0.0344 9 0.0104 0.000109 0.0206

47 Tekauli 2 0.0058 0.000034 0.0130 - - - -

48 Tilke 2 0.0058 0.000034 0.0130 - - - -

Total 344 1 0.0938683

07 1.276389289 864 1 0.25216746 0.907922

19

Annex 12: Photos relating to field activities

Photo 1: Headquarter of Parsa Wildlife Reserve

Photo 2: Researcher with staffs of PWR,NTNC and helpers

Photo 3: Wild Boars feeding on flesh of spotted dear (killed in roadside

accident) Photo 4: Pugmark of Leopard

Photo 5: Crowd of people marching for fodder and firewood collection. Photo 6: Domestic cattle grazing in forest.

20

Photo 7: Researcher conducting research

Photo 8: Grassland in Halkhoriya, Bara

Photo 9: Landscape view from Pathlaiya, Bara with Siwalik hills in

background

Photo 10: Pole cut

Photo 11: Local women carrying fodder from forest

Photo 12: Pellet of Spotted deer