This post shares a paper present on our elephant monitoring programme at Baghmara (South Garo Hills, Meghalaya) at the Tropical Ecology Congress 2007. This paper is a part of the "Special Issue ~ Tropical Ecology Congress; Current Trends in Tropical Biodiversity Research and Conservation" (Volume 50, No 1; 163 - 171,2009). I take pleasure in thanking all involved and sharing the same. Have not been able to get the images of the figures and they unfortunately stand missing in the post.
Anirban Datta-Roy1, Nimesh Ved1 & A. Christy Williams2
1 Samrakshan Charitable Trust 2 WWF.
Abstract:
We evaluate the efficacy of community based elephant monitoring programme in South Garo Hills, Meghalaya (India). Major objectives of the programme are to understand the ranging and habitat utilization patterns of free ranging Asian elephants in a human interspersed habitat with frequent human – elephant conflicts. We collected information on elephant presence in the landscape through participatory wildlife monitoring techniques by modifying an existing model for African elephants from six ‘akings’ or clan villages which are worst affected by human-elephant conflict (HEC). A total of 201 visits were recorded in six ‘akings’ during June 2005 to July 2006, of which solitary elephants accounted for 100 visits. The visits were found to peak during the two main harvesting periods in the Garo hills indicating a definite seasonality pattern in the visits. Information from individual ‘akings’ also indicate that some ‘akings’ were particularly prone to visits by solitary animals indicating the complexity in the dynamics of elephant ranging patterns within the landscape. We note that participatory elephant monitoring can be a useful tool to collect basic data on elephant presence in tropical ecosystems where traditional line transect method is restricted by considerations of terrain, access and resources. Other advantages, limitations and conservation implications are discussed.
Resumen:
Evaluamos la eficacia del programa comunitario de monitoreo de elefantes en las colinas de Garo del Sur, Meghalaya (India). Los objetivos principales del programa son entender los patrones de movimiento y uso del hábitat de elefantes asiáticos que se mueven libremente en un hábitat ocupado por los humanos donde los conflictos humano – elefante son frecuentes. Recolectamos información sobre la presencia de elefantes en el paisaje usando técnicas participativas de monitoreo de la vida silvestre, por medio de la modificación de un modelo existente para elefantes africanos, para seis ‘akings’ o aldeas de clan que fueron las más fuertemente afectadas por el conflicto humano-elefante (CHE). Se registró un total de 201 visitas en seis ‘akings’ entre junio de 2005 y julio de 2006, de las cuales 100 visitas correspondieron a elefantes solitarios. Las visitas en las colinas Garo tuvieron sus picos durante los dos periodos de cosecha principales, lo que indica un patrón estacional de visitas bien definido. La información para ‘akings’ individuales también indica que algunos de ellos eran particularmente susceptibles a las visitas de animales solitarios, lo que refleja la complejidad en la dinámica de los patrones de movimiento en el paisaje. El monitoreo participativo de elefantes puede ser una herramienta útil par obtener datos básicos de la presencia de elefantes en ecosistemas tropicales, donde el método tradicional de transectos está limitado por consideraciones de terreno, acceso y recursos. Se discuten otras ventajas, limitaciones e implicaciones para la conservación.
Resumo:
Avaliou-se a eficácia do programa de base comunitária de monitorização do elefante nas colinas do sul de Garo, Meghalaya (Índia). Os principais objectivos do programa é compreender a extensão e os padrões de utilização dos elefantes asiáticos em pasto livre num habitat humano intercalado com conflitos frequentes homem-elefante. Colectou-se informação da presença de elefantes na paisagem através de técnicas participativas de monitorização modificando um modelo existente para os elefantes africanos de seis “akings” ou aldeias clânicas que são as mais afectadas por conflitos homem-elefante (HEC). Registou-se um total de 201 visitas em seis “akings” durante Junho 2005 e Julho de 2006 nas quais as visitas de elefantes solitários somaram 100 visitas. As visitas tiveram o seu pico durante os dois períodos de principais colheitas nas colinas do Garo, indicando um padrão de sazonalidade claro nas visitas. Informação de “akings” individuais também indica que certas aldeias foram particularmente sujeitas a visitas de elefantes solitários indicando a complexidade na dinâmica dos padrões de pastagem no interior naquela paisagem. Notamos que a monitorização participativa pode ser um instrumento útil para recolher informação básica sobre a presença do elefante nos ecossistemas tropicais onde o método tradicional dos transeptos é restrito por considerações de terreno, acesso e recursos. Outras vantagens, limitações e implicações para a conservação são discutidas.
Key words:
Akings, elephant monitoring, Garo hills, human-elephant conflicts, landscape.
Introduction:
Conservation efforts in the developing countries have started to move away from an exclusionary approach in which forest dwelling communities are kept away from ‘protected areas’ towards community based conservation (Saberwal et al. 2001; Western & Wright 1994). Community based conservation envisages a larger, willing and more active role for forest dwelling people in managing their forests, conserving the biological diversity in their lands and contributing to the overall scientific knowledge of that area. This approach has led to increased cooperation between scientists and local communities in various parts of the world. Unfortunately many of these efforts have failed to utilise the capacity of communities as potential partners in information gathering as well as managing it. Gathering data on ecological aspects have remained the exclusive domain of scientists. Logistics and lack of resources often dictate the extent to which ecological studies can collect detailed information in the field. It is here that participatory monitoring of ecological data by trained and motivated locals can not only contribute invaluable information to scientists, managers and planners, but also be used as a regular monitoring exercise which can be repeated at regular intervals (Berkes 2004; Gadgil et al. 2000). Such collaborations between ecologists and local communities have been implemented in tropical ecosystems elsewhere and have shown signs of success (Basset et al. 2004).
Human Elephant Conflict (HEC)
There are four different situations when wild animals can come into conflict with humans: (i) direct threat to human life, (ii) destruction of property by wild animals, (iii) direct competition for forage between domestic livestock and wild herbivores, and (iv) damage of agricultural crops
by wild animals. The human – wildlife conflict comes in the way of conservation programmes as it affects the support of local communities (Lahm 1996; Thouless 1994; Williams et al. 2001). Megaherbivores such as elephants require large quantities of food and space to support their population, which inevitably brings them into conflict with expanding human population. Loss and fragmentation of elephant habitat leads to elephants moving out of the forests and subsequent frequent interactions with humans, which further exacerbates conflict. Traditional movement routes of elephants may be blocked within a short period of time due to deforestation
and conversion of forestland to other land uses such as agriculture and infrastructure. Increased
proximity to agricultural fields also leads to crop raiding which is the primary reason for HEC in
most parts of the elephant’s habitat in Africa & Asia (Barnes et al. 1995; de Silva 1998; Santiapillai & Widodo 1993; Sukumar & Gadgil 1988; Thouless 1994; Williams et al. 2001). Other causes of HEC are destruction of food stores, human deaths, livestock deaths and competition for water. Its immediate negative effects on people and animals are followed by progressively worse confrontations, which can lead to casualties on both sides and negatively affect levels of wildlife tolerance in local communities.
HEC in the Garo Hills:
The elephant population in Meghalaya is concentrated in the Garo Hills, which form one of the most important remaining habitats for wild Asian elephants in north-east India. The earliest reliable records for elephant numbers in the entire Garo Hills is 1850 of which 910 were found in the South Garo Hills (State Forest Deptt 1993). This number decreased to ca. 1700 in 2005 (Tiwari et al. 2005). Though HEC has been recorded in this area as early as 1981 (Gogoi 1981), the problem was analysed and addressed much later by Desai & Krishnamurthy (1992) and Williams & Johnsingh (1996). The latter attempted to find relative densities of elephants in four important areas in Meghalaya and identified major movement routes and corridors in the landscape. A detailed documentation of HEC for the entire state of Meghalaya was carried out by Gurung & Lahiri- Choudhury (2000). They identified shortening jhum cycles as the most important factor in the increasing levels of HEC. Increased protection and law enforcement, alternative cropping patterns, eco-development, conservation awareness and anti-depredation measures were suggested to minimize the HEC. These measures, however, appear to have been either ineffective or improperly implemented. Meanwhile, HEC has increased with elephant mortalities rising because of retaliatory killings by locals. Tolerance for wildlife in general, has also decreased because of the extreme stress on both sides. Large scale conversion of elephant habitat to monocultures, logging and mining are serious threats to habitat integrity in the landscape.
Participatory elephant monitoring:
Mitigation of HEC in any landscape calls for accurate and reliable information on elephant numbers, ranging patterns, seasonality of conflict and various other related factors. However, access to such information can be extremely time consuming and expensive to come by, and would involve a large number of trained personnel. Community based participatory wildlife monitoring would provide an excellent alternative, especially to gain a preliminary idea of the scale of HEC in various villages. This would also develop closer relations with people affected by HEC and help avert the suspicion and misgivings that an external monitoring agency may provoke. The exercise would also provide the conservation agencies with a pool of highly motivated field workers who are familiar with the landscape and HEC. Their field skills and local knowledge can be subsequently utilised for further field studies on wild elephants.
Study area:
The study presented here forms a part of longterm effort at preserving habitat integrity and reducing HEC in the South Garo Hills district. Within the Garo Hills, the Baghmara Balpakram Landscape is a high priority conservation area in Meghalaya. The landscape is about 550 sq km having two protected areas viz., Balpakram National Park (220 km2) and Baghmara Reserved Forest (44.4 km2). The southern fringe of landscape forms the international boundary with Bangladesh. To its west and east lie the Simsang river and West Khasi Hills district respectively. Within the landscape there are 33 akings (clan villages) dominated by the local Garo tribe. Each aking also has several gittims or hamlets loosely spaced around a matrix of jhum fields (fields of slash and burn agriculture), horticulture orchards, settled and irrigated agricultural fields, water bodies and community forests. This is possibly the largest tract of habitat in Meghalaya that has the best long-term possibility of conservation of wildlife in general and mega fauna such as Asian elephant in particular. The Garo Hills Elephant Reserve encompassing a large part of this landscape has been identified as one of the six elephant populations that have more than 1000 individuals and hence, having the best chances of long term survival for the elephant population as long as the habitat remains intact (Kemf & Santiapillai 2000). Land use changes here have been relatively benign and no major project for infrastructure development has been envisaged so far that could fracture the habitat.
Methods:
Participatory monitoring of elephant population was started in six select akings, which according to local knowledge were severely affected by HEC. These akings are Panda (PAN), Ampangre (AMP), Rongrengpal (RPL), Halwa Atong (HAT), Gongrot (GRT) and Alokpang (AKP) (Fig. 1). We collected information on elephant presence in the landscape with the intention of gaining vital knowledge on elephant numbers and ranging that would not only help in land-use planning for HEC mitigation but also evaluate a novel method of involving communities to monitor wildlife in habitats that impose severe logistic and practical difficulties in adopting traditional survey techniques. We modified an existing framework for collecting information on elephants by communities in Africa (Hoare 1999) and translated it into Garo language for ease of local use. The following mechanism was adopted to implement the programme:
• In each of the akings, a reliable local volunteer was identified as the informant for that aking. In some cases, there was more than one informant for a single aking.
• Support and cooperation was requested from the headman (Nokma) and villagers were requested to pass on information on elephant presence in their crop fields and areas adjoining habitations and any other area where elephants were sighted. This information consisted of the following parameters: (i) Location or landmark near which elephants were sighted; (ii) Date and approximate time when the animals were sighted; (iii) Did they cause damage to crops, property or life (yes/no); (iv) Approximate number of elephants (herd/solitary).
• This information was passed on to the local informant as and when the elephants were sighted. These details were recorded by the informant in Garo in a logbook. Informants were trained to record the information in the logbook in a systematic manner.
• This information was periodically collected by Samrakshan personnel during their visits to the akings. During such visits, they would also collect locations of the elephant sightings listed in the informants log with the help of a GPS and with the assistance of the informant.
• The data on elephant presence was then entered into a computer and the GPS locations mapped on a GIS domain.
• Data on elephant presence for various akings were collated and analysed to see patterns of seasonality of elephant visits or change in group size on a temporal scale.
• To bring the informants to a common level of understanding and to communicate the findings of the process, quarterly meetings were organised with them and additional raising of awareness levels were done through talks and relevant wildlife films.
Results
Information on elephant movement and crop raiding was collected from six akings with the help
of local informants as described above. It was possible to extract the following information: (a) Date of elephant visit; (b) GPS location (latitude, longitude and altitude); (c) Time of visit; (d) Descriptive location (Name of owner of crop field/ orchard (e) Approximate group size (f) Activity of elephants when they were sighted; (g) Additional notes on distinctive features of certain individuals. Data on elephant presence are in the form of ‘visits’ (Fig. 2). This is different from the ‘raid frequency index’ used in various HEC studies (Hoare 1999; Sukumar 1991). ‘Visits’ do not always imply a raid and can be taken as an instance of the presence of solitary animals or herds within or in proximity of areas of human habitation from where they could be observed. Although attempts were made on part of the informants to classify this information as ‘raid’ or ‘non-raid visit’, this data was not uniform for all akings on all occasions and hence had to be discarded during analysis. In all, 201 visits were recorded from June 2005 to July 2006. The average group size was found to be 3.47 (range 2-20). This figure excludes solitary animals from the definition of a ‘group’.
Seasonality of conflict:
Presence of elephants in any habitat is governed by the availability of food and water, and in a HEC scenario, it is often determined by the presence of palatable “high food value” crops which are seasonal in nature of planting and ripening. Seasonality of elephant presence in areas affected by HEC is thus, frequently adopted as an important tool by management agencies (in this case the state Forest Department) to take precautionary measures. It has been used in various studies on HEC in African and Asian elephants (Fernando et al. 2005; Hoare 1999; Naughton et al. 1999; Parker & Osborn 2001). This seasonality of elephant presence is believed to correspond with the different cropping seasons and the elephants preference for the crop according to local knowledge. Figs. 3 and 4 show a seasonal pattern in the preliminary data on elephant presence. Seasonal elephant visit increases with the ripening of the wet paddy in November-December and the other peak observed in August - September correlates with the harvesting period of the jhum rice, maize and millets as well as the first crop of vegetables (Fig. 3). This seasonality pattern has been observed in earlier studies in this areas as well as the adjacent West Garo Hills district (Gurung & Lahiri Chowdhury 2000; Williams & Johnsingh 1996).
Group size and composition:
A total of 100 visits were recorded for solitary animals while the rest 101 were by herds of variable sizes. Herd sizes ranged from 2 to 20 individuals. This may not be indicative of the actual herd size and may simply be an indicator of the number of animals in the herd that were sighted at any point of time. When elephant group data was distributed in different size groups, small/medium group size appeared to be the most prevalent (Fig. 5). Large herds of 15 individuals or more were the least common. Solitary animal visits were more than any other group size category. Individual identification and behaviour Identification of individual elephants based on unique physical characteristics was attempted to enable detection of habitual raiders if present. Data from this exercise were neither uniform nor reliable. Hence could not be used for analysis. Informants were also asked to record behaviour of elephants with regard to raiding activities. This consisted of observing if the animals were actively seeking out areas with the intention of damaging and raiding crops or if the damage was a consequence of their movement across the area. This information was also incomplete and could not be used reliably for analysis.
Discussion:
Using a novel method of participatory monitoring of elephant presence in HEC affected areas, we were able to gather reliable information on seasonality of elephant visits to six target akings. Seasonality of elephant presence and its relation with cropping patterns have been explored before by other authors (de Boer & Baquete 1998; Hoare 1995; Gurung & Lahiri Choudhury 2001) in Africa and Asia. Previous studies on HEC in the Garo hills have also observed the distinct seasonality in elephant conflict incidents and its relation to the cropping seasons (Gurung & Lahiri Choudhury 2000). In the Garo hills, the major crops are wet paddy (grown in the lowland areas and valleys or beside rivers) and jhum paddy, maize and millets (planted on the slopes by shifting cultivators). The seasonality of elephant visits were found to coincide with the period of crop ripening in these two major cropping seasons. Solitary animals and small herds were found to be the most frequent visitors. The prevalence of solitary animals as primary sources of crop raiding and HEC is a pattern that has been identified in other studies on the Asian elephant (Sukumar 1990). However, Fig. 6 shows a comparison between solitary animals and herd visits in the study akings where no uniform pattern of dominance exists in terms of visits to akings by either the solitary animals or herds. Local variations in cropping based on the location of akings on the hill or valley may be responsible. The variation in forest cover, proximity to protected areas and landscape matrix in individual akings may also influence their susceptibility to the more adventurous solitary animals or herds. The two main harvest periods are for jhum rice (July-August) and wet paddy cultivation (November-December). The increase in the group size in August 2005 appears to validate this assumption. Although participatory elephant monitoring by informants from the community was found to be a good method for collecting basic information on elephant presence in villages and crop fields adjoining the habitations as well as approximate group sizes of elephants, it has various limitations. It was unable to provide information on individual elephants or herds through identification of particular individuals or their behaviour during the visit. This was primarily because of the timing of the visits. Majority of elephant visits were at night in areas without regular electric supply which hampered visibility of the animals. Most villagers are afraid of wild elephants and would not venture out to collect detailed information at the risk of their lives. The level of involvement and interest in the exercise would also not be uniform among all the informants and villagers in the different akings and could be a serious hindrance to uniformity and quality of data. Change in attitude can happen only gradually over time. It is not surprising to detect a great degree of scepticism regarding the exercise as many villagers repeatedly complain of the apathy on part of government officials in providing them with adequate compensation for damaged crops. The current project intends to follow the elephant monitoring exercise in additional akings with field surveys to identify individual elephants and herds as well as their ranging patterns with the help of our informants and additional volunteers sourced from the local community. Any form of participatory wildlife monitoring has one important rider that can ensure its success or failure (Hannah 1998). It is crucial that the monitoring exercise contributes to local understanding and empowerment, and not simply to the satisfaction of the scientists and planners. The monitoring and evaluation process needs to ensure that there is adequate feedback into the local information system and the data involved is of mutual importance to researchers and locals (Campilan 1996; Janzen et al. 1993). In this respect, participatory monitoring is ideal for human-animal conflict scenarios where local people have a large stake in devising successful solutions. Traditional knowledge on flora and fauna of the area coupled with excellent field skills allows them to play a major part in biodiversity surveys. These skills can be further utilised in training some individuals to undertake regular monitoring of areas that may be of high ecological significance to scientists and of religious or cultural significance to the locals. The process is, however, not devoid of problems and sensitive issues such as intellectual property rights, data ownership and quality of data need to be addressed with care.
Acknowledgements:
The following Samrakshan team members and aking level informants were part of the team that
undertook this exercise: Samrakshan personnel– Bappi Marak, Bensen Sangma, John Fernando,
Karthik T. Informants – Kredding Marak (Ampangre), Jhulum Marak (Alokpang), Willibersh Sangma (Bulawe), Rakson Sangma, John Marak (Halwa Atong), Adal Sangma (Gongrot), Kendish Shira, Bandi Marak (Panda), Kadith Sangma (Rongrengpal). We also acknowledge the support of the Asian Elephant Conservation Fund of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, that made this work possible.
References
Barnes, R.F.W., S. Azika & B. Asamoah-Boateng. 1995. Timber, cocoa and crop-raiding elephants: a preliminary study from southern Ghana. Pachyderm 19: 33-38.
Basset, Y., V. Novotny, S.E. Miller, G.D. Weiblen, O. Missa & A.J.A. Stewart. 2004. Conservation and biological monitoring of tropical forests: the role of parataxonomists. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 163-174.
Berkes, F. 2004. Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology 18: 621-630.
Campilan, R. 1996. Making participatory monitoring and evaluation PM&E work: thirteen vignettes from the field. pp: 124-134. In: C. Limson-Santos (ed.) Self-Assessment: Participatory Dimensions of Project Monitoring and Evaluation. UPWARD, Los Banos, Laguna.
de Boer, W.F. & D.S. Baquete. 1998. Natural resource use, crop damage and attitudes of rural people in the vicinity of the Maputo Elephant Reserve, Mozambique. Environmental Conservation 25: 208-218.
de Silva, M. 1998. Status and conservation of the elephant (Elephas maximus) and the alleviation of man-elephant conflict in Sri Lanka. Gajah 19: 1-68.
Desai, A.A. & V. Krishamurthy. 1992. Elephants in Meghalaya state, India: status, conservation and conflict with agriculture. pp. 9-13. In: E.G. Silas, N.M. Krishnan & G. Nirmalan (eds.) The Asian Elephant. Kerala Agricultural University. Trichur, India.
Fernando, P., E. Wickramanayake, D. Weerakoon, L.K.A. Jayasinghe, M. Gunawardene, H.K. Janaka. 2005. Perceptions and patterns in human–elephant conflict in old and new settlements in Sri Lanka: insights for mitigation and management. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 2465-2481.
Gadgil, M., P. Seshagiri Rao, U. Ghate, P. Pramod & A. Chhatre. 2000. New meanings for old knowledge: the people’s biodiversity registers program. Ecological Application 10: 1307-1317.
Gogoi, P.C. 1981. Action plan for census of elephant and its management in Meghalaya. pp. 28-31. In: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the Northeast India Task Force. Asian Elephant Specialist Group. IUCN/SSC. Shillong.
Gurung, S. & D.K. Lahiri-Choudhury. 2000. Project: Elephant – Human Conflict in Asia, State Report on Meghalaya – India. (Pt. I). (1992-1999). Asian Elephant Research and Conservation Centre, Bangalore.
Gurung, S. & D.K. Lahiri-Choudhury. 2001. Project: Elephant – Human Conflict in Asia, State Report on Meghalaya – India. (Pt. II). Community Development – Block Reports (1992-1999). Asian Elephant Research and Conservation Centre, Bangalore.
Hannah, L., T. Lovejoy, G. Midgley, W. Bond, M. Bush & J. Lovett. 1998. Participatory planning, scientific priorities, and landscape conservation in Madagascar. Environmental Conservation 25: 30-36.
Hoare, R. 1995. Options for the control of elephants in conflict with people. Pachyderm 19: 54-63.
Hoare, R. 1999. Determinants of human-elephant conflict in a land-use mosaic. Journal of Applied Ecology 36:689-700.
Janzen, D. H., W. Hallwachs, J. Jimenez & R. Gamez. 1993. The role of the parataxonomists, inventorymanagers, and taxonomists in Costa Rica's national biodiversity inventory. pp. 223-254. In: W.V. Reid, S.A. Laird, C.A. Meyer, R. Gamez, A. Stiffenfeld, D.H. Janzen, M.A. Gollin & C. Juma (eds.) Biodiversity Prospecting: Using Generic Resources for Sustainable Development. World Resources Institute, Washington.
Kemf, E. & C. Santiapillai. 2000. Asian Elephants in the World. A WWF Species Status Report. Gland, Switzerland.
Lahm, S.A. 1996. A nationwide status survey of crop raiding by elephants and other species in Gabon. Pachyderm 21: 69-77.
Naughton, L., R. Rose & A. Treves. 1999. The Social Dimensions of HEC in Africa: A Literature Review and Case Studies from Uganda and Cameroon. IUCN African Elephant Specialist Group Report.
Parker, G.E. & F.V. Osborn. 2001. Dual season crop damage by elephants in Eastern Zambezi Valley, Zimbabwe. Pachyderm 30: 49-56.
Saberwal, V.K., M. Rangarajan & A. Kothari. 2001. People, Parks and Wildlife: Towards Coexistence. Orient Longman, New Delhi.
Santiapillai, C. & S.R. Widodo. 1993. Why do elephants raid crops in Sumatra. Gajah 11: 55-58.
State Forest Department. 1993. Report of Elephant Census of Balpakram. State Forest Department. Government of Meghalaya, Shillong.
Sukumar, R. 1990. Ecology of the Asian elephant in southern India. 2: Feeding habits and crop raiding patterns. Journal of Tropical Ecology 6: 33-53.
Sukumar, R. 1991. The Asian Elephant: Ecology and Management. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge. Sukumar, R. & M. Gadgil. 1988. Male-female differences in foraging on crops by Asian elephants. Animal Behaviour 36:1233-1235.
Thouless, C.R. 1994. Conflict between humans and elephants on private lands in Northern Kenya. Oryx 28: 119-1127.
Tiwari, S.K., S.S. Karyong, P. Sarkar, A. Choudhury & A.C. Williams. 2005. Elephant corridors of northeastern India. pp. 154-158. In: V. Menon, S.K. Tiwari, P.S. Easa & R. Sukumar (eds.) Right of Passage: elephant corridors of India. Conservation Reference Series 3. Wildlife Trust of India, New Delhi.
Western, D. & M.A. Wright. (eds.) 1994. Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-Based
Conservation. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Williams, A.C. & A.J.T. Johnsingh. 1996. A Status Survey of Elephants (Elephas maximus), their
Habitats and an Assessment of the Elephant-Human Conflict in Garo Hills, Meghalaya. Wildlife Institute of India. Dehra Dun, India.
Williams, A.C., A.J.T. Johnsingh & P. Krausman. 2001. Elephant-human conflicts in Rajaji National Park, northwestern India. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29: 1097-1104.
Posts
