Research ArticleCONSERVATION BIOLOGY

Tracking changes and preventing loss in critical tiger habitat

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science Advances  01 Apr 2016:
Vol. 2, no. 4, e1501675
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1501675
  • Fig. 1 Distribution map of 76 Tiger Conservation Landscapes (TCLs).

    Tx2 TCLs (n = 29) are landscapes that have the potential to double the wild tiger population by 2022. One Tx2 TCL in the transboundary region of Russia and China is shown in the inset (top right corner). Each TCL has a unique ID, from 1 to 76 (table S1).

  • Fig. 2 Basanta and Khata corridors in the Terai Arc Landscape (TAL), Nepal.

    (A) Basanta corridor showing forest loss (red) between 2001 and 2014. The orange circle shows forest loss in the northern bottleneck that threatens to sever connectivity. (B) Encroached and cleared forest in the yellow circle (A) is enlarged to show details with the Digital Globe base map. (C and D) A nonforest (black) area within a yellow circle in 2000 (C) in the Khata corridor shows forest gain (blue) between 2001 and 2014 (D). Together, these four images show how spatially explicit information about when and where in the landscape forest loss is occurring enables government officials and community forest managers to take appropriate actions. The corridors are 40 km apart.

  • Fig. 3 Cumulative forest loss (in square kilometers) in 10 Tx2 TCLs experiencing the highest forest loss between 2001 and 2014.

    Tx2 TCLs (n = 29) are landscapes that have the potential to double the wild tiger population by 2022.

  • Fig. 4 FORMA alerts from Global Forest Watch are issued for an area when large-scale tree cover is lost.

    Alerts for the Kerinci Seblat TCL, Sumatra, from 2006–2014 and 2015 (January to August) were plotted over forest cover change showing that alerts from 2006–2014 fall within areas of forest loss.

  • Table 1 Forest loss (±95 % confidence interval) across TCLs and associated protected areas (PAs) between 2001 and 2014 (in square kilometers).

    Tx2 TCLs are Tiger Conservation Landscapes with the potential for doubling wild tigers by 2022.

    All TCLsTx2 TCLsNon-Tx2 TCLs
    TCLs (n = 76)PAs (n = 434)TCLs (n = 29)PAs (n = 316)TCLs (n = 47)PAs (n = 118)
    Forest loss
    (2001–2014)
    79,597 ± 22,629
    (7.7%)
    22,063 ± 6273
    (5.7%)
    58,245 ± 16,559
    (6.9%)
    13,302 ± 3782
    (4.9%)
    21,352 ± 6070
    (10.8%)
    8761 ± 2491
    (7.5%)
    Forest 2000
    (baseline)
    1,040,023386,770842,237269,584197,785117,186
  • Table 2 Forest loss (± 95% confidence interval) in core tiger reserves from 2001 to 2014.
    Core tiger reserveTiger Conservation LandscapeForest loss (km2)
    Kerinci Seblat*5. Kerinci Seblat435 ± 124
    Leuser National Park*14. Gunung Leuser410 ± 117
    Botchinsky2. Russian Far East–China197 ± 56
    Bukit Barisan Selatan4. Bukit Balai Rejang–Selatan149 ± 42
    Endau Rompin (Johor)*15. Endau Rompin86 ± 24
    Belum*16. Taman Negara–Belum66 ± 19
    Nam Et35. Nam Et Phou Louey64 ± 18
    Bukit Barisan13. Sibologa60 ± 17
    Phou Louey35. Nam Et Phou Louey39 ± 11
    Bukit Tigapuluh7. Bukit Tigapuluh Landscape30 ± 8
    Taman Negara National Park*16. Taman Negara–Belum26 ± 7
    Kaeng Krachan19. Tenasserims20 ± 6
    Sikhote-Alinsky2. Russian Far East–China16 ± 5
    Thung Yai Naresuan19. Tenasserims15 ± 4
    Anamalai65. Anamalai-Parambikulam9 ± 2
    Huai Kha Khaeng19. Tenasserims8 ± 2
    Periyar64. Shendurney5 ± 1
    Chitwan National Park40. Chitwan5 ± 1
    Bardia National Park42. Bardia4 ± 1
    Kuiburi19. Tenasserims4 ± 1
    Bhadra66. Western Ghats: Bandipur–Khudrenukh–Bhadra4 ± 1
    Mundanthurai63. Shendurney3 ± 1
    Shendurney66. Shendurney3 ± 1
    Kaziranga38. Kaziranga–Garampani3 ± 1
    Kalakad64. Periyar–Megamala2 ± 1
    Lazovskiy2. Russian Far East–China2 ± 1
    Corbett44. Corbett–Sonanadi2 ± 1
    Nagarahole66. Western Ghats: Bandipur–Khudrenukh–Bhadra2 ± 1
    Kanha50. Kanha–Phen1 ± 1
    Parsa40. Chitwan
    Suklaphanta43. Suklaphanta
    Ussuriysky2. Russian Far East–China
    Katarniaghat42. Bardia
    Sundarbans39. Sundarbans
    Parambikulam65. Anamalai-Parambikulam
    Pench53. Pench
    Rajaji45. Rajaji Minor
    Bukit Balai Rejang*4. Bukit Balai Rejang–Selatan
    Melghat52. Melghat
    Mudumalai66. Western Ghats: Bandipur–Khudrenukh–Bhadra
    Bandipur66. Western Ghats: Bandipur–Khudrenukh–Bhadra
    Andhari54. Andhari-Tadoba
    Phen50. Kanha-Phen
    Bandhavgarh49. Bandhavgarh-Panpatha
    Kishanpur WS44. Corbett-Sonanadi
    Kedrovaya Pad2. Russian Far East–China
    Ranthambhore
    Tadoba54. Andhari-Tadoba
    Dudhwa43. Suklaphanta
    Biligiri Ranga Temple67. Biligiri Range
    Simlipal58. Simlipal
    Total1676 ± 476

    *Overlaps with industrial plantations.

    †Priority TCLs.

    Supplementary Materials

    • Supplementary material for this article is available at http://advances.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2/4/e1501675/DC1

      Fig. S1. Nine forest corridors connecting core tiger reserves across four Tiger Conservation Landscapes (TCLs) in the Terai Arc Landscape, Nepal.

      Fig. S2. Zoomed-in images that show forest loss and gain in nine forest corridors connecting core tiger reserves in the Terai Arc Landscape, Nepal.

      Fig. S3. Forest loss (in square kilometers) and percentage of forest loss between 2001 and 2014 in 15 Tiger Conservation Landscapes with highest forest loss, including nine priority landscapes for doubling wild tiger populations.

      Fig. S4. Forest loss in priority Tiger Conservation Landscapes for doubling wild tiger populations, between 2001 and 2014.

      Table S1. Forest loss in Tiger Conservation Landscapes (n = 76) and associated protected areas (n = 434).

      Table S2. Tiger Conservation Landscapes overlapping with industrial plantations.

      Table S3. Forest loss and gain in the forest corridors of the Terai Arc Landscape between 2001 and 2014.

      Table S4. Error matrices (in terms of sample counts) for forest and forest loss maps [Hansen et al. (13), version 1.2].

      Table S5. Difference between mapped area and sample estimates of forest and forest loss between 2001 and 2014 for Tiger Conservation Landscapes.

    • Supplementary Materials

      This PDF file includes:

      • Fig. S1. Nine forest corridors connecting core tiger reserves across four Tiger Conservation Landscapes (TCLs) in the Terai Arc Landscape, Nepal.
      • Fig. S2. Zoomed-in images that show forest loss and gain in nine forest corridors connecting core tiger reserves in the Terai Arc Landscape, Nepal.
      • Fig. S3. Forest loss (in square kilometers) and percentage of forest loss between 2001 and 2014 in 15 Tiger Conservation Landscapes with highest forest loss, including nine priority landscapes for doubling wild tiger populations.
      • Fig. S4. Forest loss in priority Tiger Conservation Landscapes for doubling wild tiger populations, between 2001 and 2014.
      • Table S1. Forest loss in Tiger Conservation Landscapes (n = 76) and associated protected areas (n = 434).
      • Table S2. Tiger Conservation Landscapes overlapping industrial plantations.
      • Table S3. Forest loss and gain in the forest corridors of the Terai Arc Landscape between 2001 and 2014.
      • Table S4. Error matrices (in terms of sample counts) for forest and forest loss maps Hansen et al. (13), version 1.2.
      • Table S5. Difference between mapped area and sample estimates of forest and forest loss between 2001 and 2014 for Tiger Conservation Landscapes.

      Download PDF

      Files in this Data Supplement:

    Navigate This Article