Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 3(4): 45-56 (2019)
(http://jwb.araku.ac.ir/)
DOI: 10.22120/jwb.2019.113261.1083
Status and Distribution of Malayan Sun Bear (Helarctos
malayanus) in Dampa Tiger Reserve, Mizoram, India
Sushanto Gouda*, Netrapal Singh
Chauhan, Janmejay Sethy
1Amity Institute of Forestry and Wildlife, Amity
University, Noida- 201313, Uttar Pradesh, India
*email: [email protected] Received: 01August 2019 / Revised: 30 August 2019 / Accepted: 1
September 2019 / Published online: 10 September 2019. Ministry of
Sciences, Research and Technology, Arak University, Iran.
Abstract Malayan sun bear is the smallest among all bears
and the only tropical bear species inhabiting the
lowland tropical forest of Southeast Asia. Once
abundant, they are now considered as priority
species due to excessive poaching and hunting
across their home range. Although reported
from several parts of Northeast India, the
paucity of biological information on the species
and its distribution has been a major constrained
for conservation efforts. The study in Dampa
Tiger Reserve, Mizoram, India determines the
ecology, distribution and habitat selection of
Sun bear, using foraging signs and invasive
camera trapping techniques. A total of 43
transects were walked with 310 sampling plot.
Evidence in forms of claw marks was found to
be highest (60.23%) followed by scats
(25.81%), nests (3.56%), cavity (6.23%) and
footprints (4.15%). The mean occurrence of bear
signs was 17.2±0.8. Bamboo forest and Tropical
semi-evergreen forest with elevation between
501-1000 msl were found to be the most
preferred habitat for sun bear. Majority of sun
bear signs (74.1%) were observed in
undisturbed forest regardless of sites (r2=
0.8291, df= 3, p< 0.2713). With a camera
trapping effort of 647 trap-nights, 18
independent images of sun bear were obtained.
The photo-capture and block wise distribution
index was estimated to be 5.26 with a trapping
index of 1.89. Deserted areas within the tiger
reserve serve as excellent sources of frugivory
and fruiting phenology. From the study, it was
determined that the population of sun bear in the
region is relatively low and restricted to a few
patches within the reserve. Habitats of sun bear
are also under serious threats due to agricultural
expansion and ever-increasing dependency of
local communities on forest resources, hence
immediate measures are needed for the
conservation of sun bear in the region.
Keywords: Camera trapping, deserted areas,
foraging signs, non-invasive technique, sun
bear.
Introduction Bears are one of the most fascinating
mammalian species associated with numerous
social and cultural aspects in the South-Asian
countries for centuries. They are symbolically
and physically integrated with the tribal
communities in several traditional aspects
(Servheen et al. 1999). The Malayan sun bear
(Helarctos malayanus) is the smallest among all
bears and the only tropical bear species
inhabiting the lowland tropical forest of
Southeast Asia (Servheen 1999). They are
among the few species that were characterized
as Data Deficient (DD) till 2008 by the IUCN
Red list of Threatened species, but with
improvement in researches on ecology and
conservation, it is now considered as a
‘Vulnerable’ species (Scotson et al. 2017). In
India, they are reported from the north-eastern
states of Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland,
Arunachal Pradesh and Assam (Chauhan and
Singh 2006, Sethy and Chauhan 2011,
Choudhury 2011, Borah et al. 2012). As in most
parts of Southeast Asia, the population of sun
bear in India also faces threats from poaching for
their meat or trade in their body parts (gall
bladder and claws) (Sethy and Chauhan 2012).
Research Article
46 | Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 3(4): 45-56 (2019)
Fragmentation of forest due to shifting
cultivation, oil palm plantation and other
activities have also triggered encroachment of
bears to human settlement areas resulting in
human-bear conflicts that often leads to injuries
to bears or the humans (Chauhan and Singh
2006, Choudhury 2011). The availability of easy
food sources in shifting crop fields along the
protected areas attracts bears and other animals,
causing crop depredation and even retaliation
killing from farmers (Pop et al. 2012, Nazeri et
al. 2012). While evidence on the presence of sun
bear are available form parts of northeast India
(Chauhan and Singh 2006, Choudhury 2011,
Borah et al. 2012), proper demarcation and
information of its distribution, with
photographic evidence for their confirmation is
lacking, that serves as a major constraints for its
conservation and management efforts (Sethy
and Chauhan 2012).
Conservation priorities and strategies in any
region are based on assessments of population
size and distribution trend (Servheen et al. 1999,
Wong et al. 2004). Camera trapping is
recognized as a key method for monitoring
invasive, nocturnal and cryptic species where
climate and landscape act as large-scale
ecological stressors (Schmeller 2015, Steenweg
et al. 2017, Rich et al. 2019). However, reliable
abundance estimation through capture-recapture
is difficult to achieve at larger spatial scales and
is confined to species that are naturally marked
and have a large population size (Mackenzie et
al. 2002, Palai et al. 2015). As the density of sun
bear is perceived to be relatively low in all their
home ranges, it makes mark-recapture technique
as an intricate process for their estimation
(Garshel et al. 1999). Hence, photo-capture rates
or trapping effort serve as the ideal approach for
the valuation of distribution and abundance of
mammals including bears in a tropical forest of
India (Carbone et al. 2001, Trolle and Kery
2005, Palei et al. 2015). There is also increasing
evidence of the linear relationship between
Relative abundancy Index (RAI) and abundance
estimated through more rigorous methodologies
(Rovero and Marshall 2008). Assessing
population density on the incidence of sign
(scats, tracks, marked trees) has been
successfully used for estimation of the small
population (<20) in any given area (Garshel et
al. 1999, Karanth et al. 2006). It may be possible
to account for all individuals through a
comprehensive record of track measurements
and direct observation with an assist from
invasive tools like camera trapping (Karanth and
Nichols 1998, Rowcliffe and Carbone 2008,
Ngoprasert et al. 2012, Wong et al. 2012).
Considering the caveats above, the study aims to
determine the status and assess the spatial-
temporal distribution of Malayan sun bear
(Helarctos malayanus) from secondary
evidence backed with camera trapping. Such
methods are best suited for the tropical forest of
Mizoram, where the presence had been reported
but evidence for its confirmation is still deficient
(Choudhury 2011).
Materials and Methods Study area
Dampa Tiger Reserve (DTR) was selected for
the study as some of the earlier publications had
cited the presence of sun bear in the region. The
area also holds important geographical
characteristics as it shares the border with
Bangladesh where the occurrence of sun bear
was reported by Islam et al. (2013) and Scotson
(2017) already. The reserve lies within the
biodiversity hotspot and stretches over an area
of 550 km2 within latitude 23° 23' to 23° 42’ N
and 92° 16' to 92° 25' E (Fig. 1). The reserve is
home to a rich floral (Sahoo et al. 2010) and
faunal diversity including Clouded leopard
(Neofelis nebulosa), Golden cat (Catopuma
temminckii) and Great hornbill (Buceros
bicornis) (Gouda et al. 2016, Singh and
Macdonald 2017) and contains a profusion of
habitats characterized by diverse biota. The
natural vegetation in the reserve is tropical
evergreen to semi-evergreen. The forest in the
moist valleys is lofty and evergreen, while the
steeper slopes on the west aspect have more
deciduous elements, often with sympodial
47 | Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 3(4): 45-56 (2019)
bamboos in the understory (Lalrinchhana and
Solanki 2015). The diverse’ vegetation can be
attributed to the villages that were once within
the reserve forest but later relocated to the buffer
region.
Figure 1. Map of the study area showing the international boundary and villages in vicinity
of the reserve
50 | Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 3(4): 45-56 (2019)
Sampling design and data collection
Different sets of approach were adapted for
collection of samples and evidence on the
presence of Malayan sun bear in the region,
which comprises of the questionnaire survey,
transect survey, bear’s sign survey and camera
trapping.
Questionnaire survey
Inputs from locals are considered as an asset for
obtaining valuable information in any region.
Semi-structured questionnaire surveys were
conducted to gather information on the past and
present status, distribution, the extent of human-
bear interactions and threats to bears population,
etc. Male members of the families were
preferred for the survey as they spend more time
in the agriculture crop fields and surrounding
areas compared to the female members. Women
were also helpful in providing additional
information related to crop depredation and
bear-human interaction.
Line transect
Forty-three transects of varying length (3-5 km)
were laid in a stratified manner covering
different habitats of DTR (Fig. 2). Each transect
was traversed and covered at least 2-3 times in
every season (summer, rainy and winter) with
15-20 days interval. During the transect walks,
bear signs (claw marks, footprints, feeding
signs, feces and crop-raiding signs) were
searched. Bear’s nest, broken bee’s nest, digging
sites, scat, tracks, and trails were also
extensively looked for. Claw marks of bears
while climbing on trees were recorded as one
sign. In the situation where claw marks of
different age categories were observed on one
tree, the most recent sign was recorded
following Steinmetz and Garshelis (2008),
Steinmetz (2009) and Islam et al. (2013). Claw
mark measurements were recorded and
photographs were taken for species
identification. GPS coordinates of the tree with
claw marks were also noted. Based on the
sightings of sun bear and their signs, distribution
map was prepared for sun bear in DTR.
Figure 2. Map showing the transect tracts within the
study area
Camera trapping
Based on preliminary survey and sign survey,
areas with evidence of the presence of Malayan
sun bear were identified and selected for
deployment of camera traps. A grid size of 8 km2
was selected to match the scale of other camera-
trapping surveys in South-east Asia (O’Brien et
al. 2003, Kawanishi and Sunquist 2004,
Grassman 2005, Jackson et al. 2006). Of the 40
grids covering the study area, 20 grids were
randomly selected for camera trapping. Sun bear
was photo-captured using 10 passive camera
trap units between May 2015 and March 2016.
All camera traps were operational for 24 hours
per day, time and date for each exposure were
preset, and had a 15-sec delay between
photographs. Camera traps were placed on trees
at ~50 cm from the ground and 1-2 m from the
monitoring area. Sensors were aimed at ground
to monitor a conical area approximately 1 m in
diameter at 10 m distance. Independence of
photo capture was determined following
O’Brien et al. (2003) and Jenks et al. (2011)
suggesting that two photo-capture images can be
considered as independent if photo-captured
51 | Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 3(4): 45-56 (2019)
after a minimum time gap of 30 minutes. The
photo capture was determined using the method
suggested by Rovero and Marshall (2008).
Block wise density
While estimating the density it may be noted that
different animal shares their minimum limit for
their habitat and it solely varies with the species.
Further, the number of captures was far too less
to perform other calculations to assess the
populations with more conviction. However, if
it is considered that bears that were captured by
independent camera traps at least once are
separate individuals, then a crude density of sun
bears in different forest blocks may be
calculated as block wise density (BWD) from
the following equation:
𝐵𝑊𝐷 =Photos captured atleast once by a camera in a block
Area of the block in which the camera was set up
Results A total of 469 respondents from 7 villages were
interviewed during the questionnaire surveys. In
the survey, 70.0% of respondents (n=338)
confirmed the presence of sun bear in the reserve
while 26.8% (n=117) respondents accepted the
possibilities of sun bear and 3.2% denied its
occurrence (Table 1). High percentage of
sighting was reported in the semi-ever green
forests and forest edges due to the richness of the
fruit trees and availability of anthropogenic food
sources in agricultural crop fields in the vicinity
of DTR (Sati and Rinawma 2014). During the
survey, the respondent had sighted single bears
32 times, bears in a pair was sighted three times
and mother with cubs for five times in and
around the reserve.
Based on the reconnaissance survey and local
knowledge on the distribution of bears in the
reserve, 43 linear transects were set randomly
encompassing in seven different habitat types
including dry mixed forest, tropical semi-
evergreen forest, tropical wet-evergreen forest,
tropical moist deciduous, wet temperate forest,
dry temperate forest, and bamboo forest (Raman
1998, Raman 2001). Along each transect of 3-5
km length, sampling circular plots of 10 m
radius with 200 m interval were laid for
evidence and determining forest types. Bear
signs were recorded from 236 of the 310 plot
sites. In forms of evidence, claw marks were
highest in number (60.23%) of different age
categories. Other signs recorded from the study
sites include scats (25.81%), nests (3.56%),
cavity (6.23%) and footprints (4.15%) (fig. 3).
Claw marks were found on trees with 12- 86 cm
in diameter at breast height (DBH). The mean
DBH was calculated 39 cm, and the mean height
of trees was 26 m.
Table 1. Respondents view on distribution of
Malayan Sun bear in vicinity areas of DTR. NIP,
CA, PA and DA stand for Number of people
interviewed, confirmed occurrence, probable
occurrence, denied occurrence respectively.
The transect study revealed that the number of
bear signs per unit area varied with the forest
types in the reserve. The mean occurrence of
bear signs was 17.2 ± 0.8. The density of signs
was highest in the bamboo forest (39.51%),
followed by tropical semi-evergreen forest
(17.74%), semi-evergreen forest (12.5%),
tropical wet-evergreen forest (12.5%), mix
forest and temperate forest (12.0 %). Density of
bear signs per hectare was found to be highest in
the bamboo forest (113.5/h) followed by tropical
semi-evergreen forest (112.1/h), tropical wet-
ever green forest (109.6/h), semi-evergreen
forest (98.7/h), mix forest (93.4/h) and
temperate forest, (84.9/h) (Table 2).
Villages NIP CA PA DA Teirei 51 32 19 0
Damparengpui 170 148 19 3
Serhmun 59 45 12 2
Tuipuibari 96 75 18 3
Phuldungsei 21 18 2 1
Saithah 27 17 9 1
Khawhnai 45 3 38 4
Total 469 338 117 14
3 | Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 3(4): 45-56 (2019)
Table 2. Secondary shreds of evidence collected on Sun bear from different habitat in DTR
The occurrence of bears signs also varied along
transects of different altitude gradients.
Elevations were categories as lowland ranged (0
to 500 msl), Mid-elevation (501-1500 msl) and
temperate (1500- above). Percentage of bear
signs was highest at an elevation of 501-1000
msl (53.1%) followed by 0-500 msl (26.0%) and
1001-1500 msl (13.2%).
Figure 3. Number of bear signs recorded during the
transect survey in different forest habitat
The percentage of bear signs was lowest at an
elevation of 1500 and above (7.8%). There was
a distinct relationship between the season,
elevation and density of bear signs per unit area
(r2 = 0.81488). The density of bear signs showed
an increasing trend with the increase in elevation
in Dampa TR. The high density of signs can be
attributed to the presence of a large number of
the fruiting trees like Actocarpus heterophyllus,
Trema orientalis, Syzygium cumini where the
highest numbers of claw marks were also
observed. Similar results were recorded by
Wong et al. (2012) and Islam et al. (2013), in
which bears were found to mostly feed on
papaya (Carica papaya), jackfruit (Actocarpus
heterophyllus), eucalyptes (Eucalyptus grandis,
E. robusta) and banana (Musa paradisa) in the
low lying forest patches. The habitat selection
by the sun bear in the reserve can be backed by
works of Fredriksson et al. (2006), in which
plants from families of Moraceae, Burseraceae,
and Myrtaceae contributed more than 50% of
the diet of sun bear. Preference of the bamboo
forest and degraded habitat types by the bear
species may be due to the higher abundance of
insects such as termites (Isoptera), beetles
(Coleoptera), and beetle larvae (Coleoptera)
causing bears to use these areas more intensively
(Fredriksson et al. 2006, Wong et al. 2002, Joshi
et al. 1997, Wong 2002). The distribution map
of Malayan sun bear in Dampa TR is presented
in figure 4.
Habitat category No. of plots
(n=310)
No. of bear signs (%) in
sample plots (n=248)
No. of plots with
bear signs (n=236)
Density of signs
(signs/ha)
Mix forest 30 8.87 20 93.4
Tropical wet-ever
green forest
50 12.5 39 109.6
Tropical semi-
evergreen forest
50 17.74 41 112.1
Semi-evergreen
forest
40 12.5 27 98.7
Temperate forest 30 8.87 15 84.9
Bamboo forest 110 39.51 94 113.5
4 | Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 3(4): 45-56 (2019)
Figure 4. Distribution map of Malayan Sun bear in Dampa Tiger reserve based on primary and
indirect evidences
Sun bear was found to use both disturbed and
undisturbed habitats to a varying extent. The
majority of bear signs (74.1%) were observed in
undisturbed forest regardless of sites (r2=
0.8291, df= 3, p< 0.2713). In areas with higher
intensities and extents of disturbance, fewer bear
52 | Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 3(4): 45-56 (2019)
signs (25.9%) were observed. Matthews et al.
(2006) and Mattson (1990) in their studies had
highlighted the use of buffer area more often by
adult females and sub adults primarily because
of their ability to virtually consume all human
foods that have been established in former
wildlands and also to avoid a clash with male
bears. Pop et al. (2012) in their study found that
GPS-collared brown bears preferred to remain
longer inside the buffer zone than subadults who
are more present outside the buffer area.
Camera trapping
Random sites in grids with positive signs of bear
activity were selected for the deployment of
camera traps in the study area. However, in grids
with no sign, trap sites were selected according
to the best-assumed capture success, e.g. at
termite colonies or fruiting areas, along trails.
From a combined trapping effort of 647 trap-
nights with a total of 361 independent photos of
25 mammalian species were obtained from the
camera trapping process. Sun bear was recorded
in 47 trap-nights during the systematic survey
period. The photo-capture rate or the least
number of days requires to get an individual
photo of sun bear was found to be least in the
deserted villages of Dampa TR (12- 14 trap
nights) (Table 3 and Fig. 5). The photo-capture
and block wise distribution index shows that Old
Chikha (Deserted village) has the highest index
of 1.89, followed by Chilka road (1.23) with an
overall mean value of 5.26 in all the block of
DTR (Table 3 and Fig. 5). Fruiting phenology
with trees such as Jackfruit (Artocarpus
heterophyllus), Charcol tree (Trema Orientalis),
Chaplash (Artocarpus chama), Hairy Fig (Ficus
hispida), Beal (Aegle marmelos), Banyan (Ficus
benghalensis) that sun bears feeds were
abundant in the deserted villages, thereby
serving as an excellent source of frugivory
within the reserve. These areas also have large
wooden logs that hold termites, beetles, and
other insects. Stingless bees and honey comb are
also abundant in deserted areas that act as
attractant for sun bears.
Table 3. Photo capture rate and block wise
distribution of Sun bear in DTR
Figure 5. Photo-capture of Malayan sun bear in
different forest zones of DTR
Discussion Sun bear giving more preferences to honey and
other sweet fruits over insects and termites were
also reported in several studies (Wong et al.
2002, Kelvin et al. 2006, Datta et al. 2008,
Steinmetz et al. 2013). The photo capture rate
and block wise distribution of sun bear in DRT
was found to vary with the forest habitat types.
Habitat with mixed vegetation has a higher
chance of photo-capturing bear compared to wet
or moist habitat. The variation was noted to be
influenced by the disturbance of humans in the
area along with the availability of feeding trees
or plants for bear species as evidenced by
Area Total
photos
Independent
photos RAI1 RAI2
Old Chikha 17 7 15 1.89
Malpui 5 2 21 0.23
Tuichar 2 2 37 0.05
Chikha
road 11 3 12 1.23
Pathloi 0 0 0 0
IR camp 1 1 31 0.12
Tuilut 4 1 21 0.45
New
chikha 7 2 14 0.78
Total/Mean 47 18 21.54 5.26
53 | Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 3(4): 45-56 (2019)
findings of Nazeri et al. (2012). The block wise
distribution suggests that the density of sun bear
in the reserve is very low and has been confined
to a relatively small area in the reserve (fig. 5).
The fact that inhabitants of different villages
surrounding DTR are solely dependent on the
reserve and indigenous people regularly enter
the forest for hunting furthers puts sun bear and
their habitat in grave danger. Management and
conservation of sun bear in the reserve requires
urgent addressing and immediate steps from the
concern authorities and stakeholders.
Conclusion Dampa Tiger Reserve (DTR) has a rich faunal
diversity and harbors several number of
endangered and threatened species. However,
due to the continuous degradation of forest
resources, expansion of agriculture land, illegal
hunting and increase in human population in
surrounding villages, a sharp and continuous
decline in animal species has been recorded. The
introduction of camera-trap surveys has greatly
increased the amount of information on
secretive and cryptic species in tropical
rainforest habitats. Well-designed monitoring
programs along with regular patrolling from
forest guards and local information can help to
estimate precise information on the abundance
of sun bears and their distribution in the reserve.
Apart from the protection of habitat, awareness
about sustainable agricultural practice,
sustainable usage of forest resources and
evading human-bear conflict will be key for the
safeguard of the species and their habitat.
Acknowledgment The authors would like to thank the Ocean Park
Conservation Foundation for funding the
project. We are also grateful to the forest
department and forest staff of Dampa Tiger
Reserve for the necessary permission and
support throughout the study period.
Reference Borah J., Firoz M., Lalthunapuia C., Kakati K.
2012. Recent camera-trap records of 3 bear
species in Northeast India: Distribution and
conservation status. 21st International
Conference on Bear Research and
Management, New Delhi, India.
Carbone C., Christie S., Conforti K., Coulson
T., Franklin N. et al. (2001). The use of
photographic rates to estimate densities of
tigers and other cryptic mammals. Animal
Conservation 4(1):75–79.
Chauhan N.P.S., Singh J.R.K. 2006. Status and
distribution of Sun bears in Manipur, India.
Ursus 17(2):182–185.
Choudhury A.U. 2011. Records of Sloth bear
and Malayan Sun bear in North east India.
Final report to International Association for
bear Research and Management (IBA),
Guwahati, Assam, India: The Rhino
Foundation for Nature in NE India, p.53.
Datta A., Naniwadekar R., Anand M.O. 2008.
Occurrence and conservation status of small
carnivores in two protected areas in
Arunachal Pradesh, North-east India. Small
Carnivorous Conservation 39:1–10.
Fredriksson G.M., Wich S.A., Trisno. 2006.
Frugivory in Sun bears (Helarctos
malayanus) is linked to El Niño-related
fluctuations in fruiting phenology, East
Kalimantan, Indonesia. Biological Journal
of Linnean Society 89:489–508.
Garshel D.L., Joshi S.A., Smith J.L.D. 1999.
Estimating density and relative abundance of
Sloth Bears. Ursus 11:87-98.
Gouda S., Sethy J., Chauhan N.P.S. 2016. First
photo capture of Asiatic golden cat in
Dampa Tiger Reserve, Mizoram, India.
CATnews 64:26-27.
Grassman Jr. L.I., Tewes M.E., Nova J.,
Kreetiyutanont S.K. 2005. Ecology of three
sympatric felids in a mixed evergreen forest
in North-Central Thailand. Journal of
Mammalogy 86(1):29–38.
Higashide D., Miura S., Miguchi H. 2012. Are
chest marks unique to Asiatic black bear
individuals?. Journal of Zoology.
54 | Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 3(4): 45-56 (2019)
Islam M.A., Uddin M., Aziz M.A., Muzaffar
S.B., Chakma S et al. 2013. Status of bears
in Bangladesh: going, going, gone?.Ursus
24(1):83-90.
Jackson R.M., Roe J.D., Wangchuk R., Hunter
D.O. 2006. Estimating Snow leopard
population abundance using photography
and capture–recapture techniques. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 34:772–781.
Jenks K.E., Chanteap P., Damrongchainarong
K., Cutter P., Redford T et al. (2011). Using
relative abundance indices from camera-
trapping to test wildlife conservation
hypotheses- An example from KhaoYai
National Park, Thailand. Tropical
Conservation Science 4(2):113–131.
Joshi A.R., Garshelis D.L., Smith J.L.D. 1997.
Seasonal and habitat-related diets of Sloth
bears in Nepal. Journal of Mammalogy
78:584-597.
Karanth K.U., Nichols J.D. 1998. Estimation of
Tiger densities in India using photographic
captures and recaptures. Ecology
79(8):2852–2862.
Karanth K.U., Nichols J.D., Kumer N.S., Hines
J.E. 2006. Assessing tiger population
dynamics using photographic capture-
recapture sampling. Ecology 87:2925–2937.
Kawanishi K., Sunquist M.E. 2004.
Conservation status of tigers in a primary
rainforest of Peninsular Malaysia. Biological
Conservation 120:329–344.
Kelvin S., Peh H., Sodhi N.S., Jong J.D.,
Sekercioglu C.H et al. 2006. Conservation
value of degraded habitats for forest birds in
southern peninsular Malaysia. Diversity and
Distribution: 1-10.
Lalrinchhana C., Solanki G.S. 2015. Lizard
(Reptilia: Sauria) diversity of Dampa Tiger
Reserve, Mizoram, India. Science Vision
15(1):19-28.
Mackenzie D.I., Nichols J.D., Lachman G.B.,
Droege S., Royle J.A., Langtimm C.A. 2002.
Estimating site occupancy rates when
detection probabilities are less than one.
Ecology 83: 2248–2255.
Matthews S.M., Beecham J.J., Quigley H.,
Greenleaf S.S., Leithead H.M. 2006.
Activity patterns of American black bears in
Yosemite National Park. Ursus 17(1):30–40.
Mattson D.J 1990. Human impacts on bear
habitat use. International Conference on
Bear Research and Management 8:33-56.
Nazeri M., Jusoff K., Madani N., Mahmud
A.R., Bahman A.R. et al. 2012. Predictive
modeling and mapping of Malayan Sun Bear
(Helarctos malayanus) distribution using
maximum entropy. PLoS ONE 7(10):
e48104.
Ngoprasert D., Reed D.H., Steinmetz R., Gale
G.A. 2012. Density estimation of Asian
bears using photographic capture–recapture
sampling based on chest marks. Ursus
23(2):117–133.
O’Brien T.G., Kinnaird M.F., Wibisono H.T.
2003. Crouching tigers, hidden prey:
Sumatran tiger and prey populations in a
tropical forest landscape. Animal
Conservation 6:131–139.
Palei H.S., Pradhan T., Sahu H.K., Nayak A.K.
2015. Estimating mammalian abundance
using camera traps in the tropical forest of
Similipal Tiger Reserve, Odisha, India.
Proceeding of the Zoological Society.
Pop I.M., Sallay A., Bereczky L., Chiria S.
2012. Land use and behavioural patterns of
brown bears in the South-Eastern Romanian
Carpathian Mountains: A case study of
relocated and rehabilitated individuals.
Procedia Environmental Sciences 14:111-
122.
Raman T.R.S., Rawat G. S., Johnsingh A.J.T.
1998. Recovery of tropical rainforest
avifauna in relation to vegetation succession
following shifting cultivation in Mizoram,
north-east India. Journal of Applied Ecology
35:214–231.
55 | Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 3(4): 45-56 (2019)
Raman T.R.S 2001. Effect of Slash-and-Burn
Shifting Cultivation on Rainforest Birds in
Mizoram, Northeast India. Conservation
Biology 15(3): 685–698.
Rich L.N., Miller D., Muñozb D.J., Robinsonc
H.S., McNuttd J.W., Kelly M.J. 2019.
Sampling design and analytical advances
allow for simultaneous density estimation of
seven sympatric carnivore species from
camera trap data. Biological Conservation
233:12–20.
Rovero F., Marshall A.R. 2008. Camera
trapping photographic rate as an index of
density in forest ungulates. Journal of
Applied Ecology 46:1011–1017.
Rowcliffe J.M., Carbone C. 2008. Surveys
using camera traps: Are we looking to a
brighter future?. Animal Conservation
11:185–186.
Sati V.P., Rinawma P. 2014. Practices of
shifting cultivation and its implications in
Mizoram, North-East India: A review of
existing research. Nature and Environment
19 (2):179-187.
Sahoo U.K., Lalremruata J., Jeeceelee L.,
Lalremruati J.H., Lalliankhuma C.,
Lalramnghinglova H. 2010. Utilization of
non-timber forest products by the tribal
around Dampa Tiger Reserve in Mizoram.
The Bioscan 3:721-729.
Singh P., Macdonald D.W. 2017. Populations
and activity patterns of clouded leopards and
marbled cats in Dampa Tiger Reserve, India.
Journal of Mammalogy 98(5):1453–1462.
Schmeller D.S (2015). Towards a global
terrestrial species monitoring program.
Journal of Natural Conservation 25:51–57.
Scotson L., Fredriksson G., Augeri D., Cheah
C., Ngoprasert D., Wai-Ming W. 2017.
Helarctos malayanus. The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2017:
e.T9760A45033547.
Servheen C., Herrero S., Peyton B. 1999. Bears:
Status survey and conservation action plan.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 309 pp.
Sethy J., Chauhan N.P.S. 2011. Use and trade
of bear body parts: Impact and conservation
in Arunachal Pradesh state, India.
International Journal of Bio-Research and
Stress Management 2(4):409-415.
Sethy J., Chauhan N.P.S. 2012. Human-
Malayan Sun bear conflict in North-East
India. 21st International Conference on Bear
Research and Management, New Delhi,
India.
Steenweg R., Hebblewhite M., Kays R.,
Ahumada J., Fisher J.T., Burton C., Rich
L.N. 2017. Scaling-up camera traps:
Monitoring the planet's biodiversity with
networks of remote sensors. Frontiers in
Ecology and Evolution 15:26–34.
Steinmetz R., Garshelis D.L. 2008.
Distinguishing Asiatic Black Bears and Sun
Bears by claw marks on climbed tree.
Journal of Wild Management 72(3):814-
821.
Steinmetz R.G. 2009. Ecological overlap of
sympatric Sun bears and Asiatic black bear
in tropical forest. Ph. D. Thesis, Thailand,
University of Minnesota.
Steinmetz R.G., Garshelis D.L., Chuptipong
W., Seuaturien N. 2013. Foraging ecology
and coexistence of Asiatic black bears and
Sun bears in a seasonal tropical forest in
Southeast Asia. Journal of Mammalogy
94(1):1-18.
Trolle M., Kery M. 2005. Camera-trap study of
ocelot and other secretive mammals in the
northern Pantanal. Mammalia 69:405–412.
Wong S.T 2002. The ecology of Malayan Sun
bears (Helarctos malayanus) in the lowland
tropical rainforest of Sabah, Malaysian
Borneo, MSc. Thesis, B.S. University of
Montana, Malaysia.
Wong S.T., Servheen C.W., Ambu L. 2002.
Food habits of Malayan Sun bears in
56 | Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 3(4): 45-56 (2019)
lowland tropical forest of Borneo. Ursus 13:
127–136.
Wong S.T., Servheen C.W., Ambu L. 2004.
Home range, movement and activity patterns
and bedding sites of Malayan Sun Bear
(Helarctos malayanus) in the Rain forest of
Borneo. Biological Conservation 119: 169-
181.
Wong W.M., Williams N.L., Linkie M. 2012.
Quantifying changes in Sun bear distribution
and their forest habitat in Sumatra. Animal
Conservation 16(2): 1-8.