Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …


Editor-in-Chief: Denys, Christiane

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.714
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.816

CiteScore 2017: 0.82

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.433
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.603

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 82, Issue 3


New insights into the factors influencing movements and spatial distribution of reintroduced Bengal tigers (Panthera tigris tigris) in the human-dominated buffer zone of Panna Tiger Reserve, India

S.S. Kolipaka
  • Corresponding author
  • Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
  • Institute of Cultural Anthropology and Developmental Sociology (FSW), Leiden University, PO Box 9500, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ W.L.M. Tamis / M. van ‘t Zelfde / G.A. Persoon
  • Institute of Cultural Anthropology and Developmental Sociology (FSW), Leiden University, PO Box 9500, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ H.H. de Iongh
  • Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
  • Department of Evolutionary Ecology, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-07-18 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mammalia-2016-0126


The influence of tiger-specific (sex, age group), environmental (seasons, photoperiod) and anthropogenic (human use regimes) factors on the movements and spatial distribution of tigers using the human-dominated buffer zone of the Panna Tiger Reserve, India was studied. Generalised linear mixed models were used to test the significance of the relationships between the covariates influencing tiger presence. We report that tiger-specific factors – age group (generation) and sex – and environmental factors – seasons and day/night – significantly explain the observed variations in tiger use of the human-dominated buffer zone. For instance, second-generation tigers (sub-adults) spent 40% of their time in the human-use areas, compared to 10% spent by first-generation tigers (adult). When in human-use areas, sub-adult tigers approached areas near villages and spent 30% less time in areas close to water than adult tigers. Our study concludes that, in addition to tiger-specific factors, human factors, including livestock practices and peoples’ activities, influence tiger behaviour and their use of shared spaces. These unchecked human practices may lead to increased negative tiger-human interactions and restricts tigers from exploiting the resources in multiple-use areas.

This article offers supplementary material which is provided at the end of the article.

Keywords: Central India; human-carnivore interactions; multiple-use forests; reintroduced tigers


  • Athreya, V., R. Navya, G.A. Punjabi, J.D.C. Linnell, M. Odden, S. Khetarpal and K.U. Karanth. 2014. Movement and activity pattern of a collared tigress in a human-dominated landscape in central India. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 7: 75–86.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Biolatti, C., P. Modesto, D. Dezzutto, F. Pera, M. Tarantola, M.S. Gennero, C. Maurella and P.L. Acutis. 2016. Behavioural analysis of captive tigers (Panthera tigris): a water pool makes the difference. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 174: 173–180.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Boitani, L. and R.A. Powell. 2012. Carnivore ecology and conservation: a handbook of techniques. Oxford University Press, Oxford. pp. 189.Google Scholar

  • Boitani, L., A. Falcucci, L. Maiorano and C. Rondinini. 2007. Ecological networks as conceptual frameworks or operational tools in conservation. Conserv. Biol. 21: 1414–1422.CrossrefWeb of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Carter, N.H. and J.D. Linnell. 2016. Co-adaptation is key to coexisting with large carnivores. Trends. Ecol. Evolut. 31: 575–578.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Carter, N.H., B.K. Shrestha, J.B. Karki, N.M.B. Pradhan and J. Liu. 2012. Coexistence between wildlife and humans at fine spatial scales. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci USA. 109: 15360–15365.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Chundawat, R.S., K. Sharma, N. Gogate, P.K. Malik and A.T. Vanak. 2016. Size matters: scale mismatch between space use patterns of tigers and protected area size in a Tropical Dry Forest. Biol. Conserv. 197: 146–153.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • De Fries, R., A. Hansen, A.C. Newton and M.C. Hansen. 2005. Increasing isolation of protected areas in tropical forests over the past twenty years. Ecol. Appl. 15: 19–26.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dickman, A., S. Marchini and M. Manfredo. 2013. The human dimension in addressing conflict with large carnivores. Key. Top. Conserv. Biol. 2: 110–126.Google Scholar

  • Goodrich, J.M., D.G. Miquelle, E.N. Smirnov, L.L. Kerley, H.B. Quigley and M.G. Hornocker. 2010. Spatial structure of Amur (Siberian) tigers (Panthera tigris altaica) on Sikhote-Alin Biosphere Zapovednik, Russia. J. Mammal. 91: 737–748.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Gopal, R., Q. Qureshi, M. Bhardwaj, R.K.J. Singh and Y.V. Jhala. 2009. Evaluating the status of the endangered tiger Panthera tigris and its prey in Panna Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh, India. Oryx. 44: 383–389.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Hanski, I. 1998. Metapopulation dynamics. Nature. 396: 41–49.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • IBM Corp. 2014. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23.0. IBM Corp., Armonk, NY.Google Scholar

  • Johnsingh, A.J.T. and M.D. Madhusudan. 2009. Tiger reintroduction in India: conservation tool or costly dream?’ In: (M.W. Heyward and M.J. Somers, eds.) Reintroduction of top-order predators. Wiley-Blackwell Publishers, Hoboken, NJ, Chapter 7, pp. 146–163.Google Scholar

  • Karanth, K.U. and R.A. Gopal. 2005. An ecology-based policy framework for human-tiger coexistence in India. Conserv. Biol. Ser. Cambridge. 9: 373.Google Scholar

  • Karanth, K.U., R.S. Chundawat, J.D. Nichols and N.S. Kumar 2004. Estimation of tiger densities in the tropical dry forests of Panna, Central India, using photographic capture–recapture sampling. Anim. Conserv. 7: 285–290.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kojola, I., V. Hallikainen, K. Mikkola, E. Gurarie, S. Heikkinen, S. Kaartinen, A. Nikula and V. Nivala. 2016. Wolf visitations close to human residences in Finland: the role of age, residence density and time of day. Biol. Conserv. 198: 9–14.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kolipaka, S.S., G.A. Persoon, H.H. De Iongh and D.P. Srivastava. 2015. The influence of people’s practices and beliefs on conservation: a case study on human-carnivore relationships from the multiple-use buffer zone of the Panna Tiger Reserve, India. J. Hum. Ecol. 52: 192–207.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kolipaka, S.S., W.L.M. Tamis, M. van ‘t Zelfde, G.A. Persoon and H.H. de Iongh 2017. Wild versus domestic prey in the diet of reintroduced tigers (Panthera tigris) in the livestock-dominated multiple-use forests of Panna Tiger Reserve, India. PLoS One 12: 0174844.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Miller, J.R.B., Y.V. Jhala and J. Jena. 2016. Livestock losses and hotspots of attack from tigers and leopards in Kanha Tiger Reserve, Central India. Reg. Environ. Change 16: 17–29.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Oriol-Cotterill, A., D.W. Macdonald, M. Valeix, S. Ekwanga and L.G. Frank. 2015. Spatiotemporal patterns of lion space use in a human-dominated landscape. Anim. Behav. 101: 27–39.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Santini, L., S. Saura and C. Rondinini. 2016. Connectivity of the global network of protected areas. Divers. Distrib. 22: 199–211.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sarkar, M.S., K. Ramesh, J.A. Johnson, S. Sen, P. Nigam, S.K. Gupta, R.S. Murthy and G.K. Saha. 2016. Movement and home range characteristics of reintroduced tiger (Panthera tigris) population in Panna Tiger Reserve, central India. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 62: 537.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Srivastava, D.P. 2014. Assessment of determinants of human–wildlife conflicts in the buffer zone of Panna Tiger Reserve with particular reference to villager’s Livestock Herding and Fencing Strategies. Master’s Thesis, submitted to Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Delhi.Google Scholar

  • TOI. 2016. Panna tigress translocated to Satpura National Park. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhopal/Panna-tigress-translocated-to-Satpura-national-park/articleshow/54500993.cms.

  • Walston, J., J.G. Robinson, E.L. Bennett, U. Breitenmoser, G.A.B. Da Fonseca, J. Goodrich, M. Gumal, L. Hunter, A. Johnson, K.U. Karanth, N. Leader-Williams, K. Mackinnon, D. Miquelle, A. Pattanavibool, C. Poole, A. Rabinowitz, J.L. Smith, E.J. Stokes, S.N. Stuart, C. Vongkhamheng and H. Wibisono. 2010. Bringing the tiger back from the brink: the six percent solution. PLoS Biol. 8: e1000485.PubMedWeb of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wikramanayake, E., M. McKnight, E. Dinerstein, A. Joshi, B. Gurung and D. Smith. 2004. Designing a conservation landscape for tigers in human-dominated environments. Conserv. Biol. 18: 839–844.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wikramanayake, E., E. Dinerstein, J. Seidensticker, S. Lumpkin, B. Pandav, M. Shrestha, H. Mishra, J. Ballou, A.J.T. Johnsingh, I. Chestin and S. Sunarto. 2011. A landscape‐based conservation strategy to double the wild tiger population. Conserv. Lett. 4: 219–227.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Woodroffe, R. and J.R. Ginsberg. 1998. Edge effects and the extinction of populations. Science 280: 2126–2128.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-09-01

Accepted: 2017-04-27

Published Online: 2017-07-18

Published in Print: 2018-04-25

Citation Information: Mammalia, Volume 82, Issue 3, Pages 207–217, ISSN (Online) 1864-1547, ISSN (Print) 0025-1461, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mammalia-2016-0126.

Export Citation

©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Supplementary Article Materials

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in