The forests of the Rajaji Tiger Reserve in Uttarakhand host a plethora of biodiversity, like the golden jackal, sambar, barking deer, rhesus macaque, nilgai and elephants. Fed by the Ganga river, this moist deciduous forest has a thick canopy of sal and sheesham trees. On the outskirts lie smaller patches of reserve forests. Rural settlements and farmlands of sugarcane, mango and poplar also pepper the landscape. This mosaic is also home to the leopard.
As national leopard numbers rise (from 12,852 in 2018 to 13,874 in 2022) and infrastructure development continues, human and leopard spaces are increasingly overlapping in India. Rajaji Tiger Reserve is no exception. This remarkably adaptable cat falls into conflict situations with humans frequently as it navigates human-occupied areas and feed on a wide range of species, including domesticated livestock.
Livestock depredation is a concern for farming communities as they suffer significant economic losses. About 100 km north of Rajaji Tiger Reserve in the Corbett Tiger Reserve, 8,365 livestock depredation incidents were documented from 2006-2015. Leopards were second only to tigers, causing approximately 263 kills.
In this scenario, it is becoming crucial to map the risk of attack on livestock, as done by one recent study along the southern boundary of the Rajaji Tiger Reserve.
Previous research generally considers all livestock as a singular entity. However, the study authors were curious about the risk of attack by leopards on livestock based on animal size – large (cows) and small (goats and sheep). They found that large cattle were usually attacked by leopards within the denser parts of the forests, while goats and sheep were attacked on the peripheries, in scrublands and near human habitations.
Moreover, the study authors – from Amity Institute of Forestry and Wildlife, and Odisha Biodiversity Board – were concerned about varying “scales” that might influence a leopard’s decision to attack.
“Since scale dependent and size dependent ‘Predation Risk Modelling’ studies are generally lacking, this research will provide valuable insights for developing targeted and effective mitigation strategies to minimise human-leopard conflict,” says the study.
Three scales were identified to understand the varying extents of risk – a leopard’s home range; its daily movement within its home range; and the cache distance, meaning the distance between the site of livestock kill and the location a leopard has chosen to hide its kill. Such scales have not been widely explored in previous studies.
“A substantial amount of cattle is generally allowed to graze freely by livestock owners around the reserve forests and the periphery of RTR [Rajaji Tiger Reserve], and thus attacked by leopards when they venture deeper into the forest,” explains Shashank Yadav, lead author of the study. He is a doctoral scholar at Amity Institute of Forestry and Wildlife. “Sheep and goats however are always accompanied by owners, and thus never venture deep into the forest.”
It was found that for attacks within a leopard’s home range, a high proportion of forest cover and low density of human settlements were ideal for capturing cattle. In the case of smaller livestock, only the proportion of agricultural lands was significant.
Since the livestock did not venture into the forest interiors, they were caught in human-occupied areas.
At the local scale (daily movement within the home range), human population density affected risk of larger livestock kill, while having no impact on smaller livestock kills. At the proximate scale (cache distance), high vegetation led to more risk for larger livestock, while smaller livestock could be captured even in scrublands with rugged terrain. Their relatively smaller body size (compared to tigers) allows them to hide easily in bushes, until they find an opportunity for a kill.
Leopards, unlike other large carnivores, are generalist feeders. “They feed on what is available, which is one of the reasons they can adapt to different habitats including peri-urban and even urban spaces like Shimla, Bengaluru and Mumbai,” says Aritra Kshettry, who has been studying human-carnivore interactions with WWF-India and has a background in understanding co-adaptations between people and wildlife. He adds that this means leopards in different landscapes may not exhibit the same behaviour.
Site-specific mitigation efforts are lacking. Experts like Kshettry and Shweta Shivakumar are calling for further studies like the one in Rajaji Tiger Reserve, in other landscapes as well. Shivakumar is a programme manager working with Nature Conservation Foundation and has led a study on human attacks by leopards in Himachal Pradesh.
“It has been long established that out of the big cats, leopards are the most adapted to human landscapes. However, very little studies look at how people and leopards interact and coexist, and different scales that influence a leopard’s likelihood of attacking people or livestock,” says Shivakumar.
“The study done in RTR gives insight into the incredible adaptability of leopards and covers a vital knowledge gap on differential prey sizes in Uttarakhand,” says Kshettry. “Currently, interventions are more reactive, mostly for human casualties, with limited interventions for livestock loss. Studies like this could help strategise tailored solutions for each landscape.”
Since traditional conservation approaches assume that leopards normally remain in protected areas, compensation must be filed through the forest department. Kshettry adds that in some states like Karnataka and Odisha, one can file for compensation digitally, while other states are slow in processing compensation.
“It’s rare for livestock owners to file for compensation,” says Yadav, referring to the situation in Rajaji Tiger Reserve. “Most people are not aware of it. People here are quite tolerant and accepting of leopards.” He noted that different livestock offer different values to the owners – for example, a milking cow would be costlier than a goat.
The heterogeneity of the landscape is also consistently overlooked by public administration in the mitigation of livestock depredation, according to the study authors. The landscape mosaic consists of dense forests, fragmented patches, flat and rugged terrain, scrublands, farmlands and villages, all of which can influence a leopard’s decision to attack.
Kshettry says that in landscapes where wild prey is available in abundance, leopards may not prefer livestock. “In a human-use landscape if there is wild prey and dogs, they will feed on these with minimal dependence on livestock even when livestock are available just as much, as seen in Maharashtra. In West Bengal on the other hand, livestock may be outnumbering wild prey by seven times, so these comprise about 60% of leopards’ diet,” he explains.
Communities sharing spaces with leopards often come up with their own solutions to coexist, says Shivakumar. Mythology plays a huge role in building reverence for the species, as noted in several instances by a study in 2019 in Himachal Pradesh. Humanising the leopard was also a way of coping with losses.
“Some people I interviewed in Himachal often would explain an attack or loss saying that the leopard may be a mother trying to care for her young,” says Shivakumar. “Others would downplay the incident saying the leopard is being ‘naughty’.”
A unique solution noted by Kshettry in Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh was the use of predator-proof collars for dogs and cattle. For livestock losses closer to homes, especially for snow leopards, the use of predator-proof corrals is also common in recent years. Kshettry suggests a similar approach for livestock depredation by leopards as well.
This article was first published on Mongabay.