|
|
Kolosov A.M. (1961). Snow leopard, or irbis, – Felis uncia Schreb.
Abstract: It describes appearance, distribution and behavioral patterns of snow leopard in the USSR. The predator inhabits the mountains of Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and the Altai and mainly feeds upon ungulates, and also snow-cocks, marmots, small birds, and rodents. Sometimes attacks sheep. Number of snow leopards is very low.
|
|
|
|
Kolosov A.M. (1968). The mountains of Central Asia.
Abstract: It provides description of main game animals in the USSR, considers a matter of rare species conservation, as well as keeping, breeding and feeding the species and enriching fauna by means of acclimatization. Snow leopard is indicated to inhabit the Tien-Shan Mountains along with species such as ibex, roe deer, moral, lynx, and others, and the mountains of Siberia along with argali, ibex, lynx, sable, glutton, etc.
|
|
|
|
Kolosov A.M. (1979). Genus Snow leopards Uncia.
Abstract: It provides description of appearance, distribution, behavioral patterns, and use of snow leopard in the USSR. The predator inhabits the mountains of Central Asia, east of the Amudarya river, along the ridges of Djungar Ala-Tau and Tarbagatai, South Altai, West and East Sayans. Its main food is ungulates, though it also preys on snow-cocks, marmots, small birds, and rodents. Sometimes attacks sheep. It has no enemy other than wolf; its diseases are not studied. Snow leopard is not dangerous for man. The fur-skin is used for making rugs and fur. Less than 1,000 animals are hunted globally. Before 1960, in the USSR less than 120 skins were annually purchased. Its total population is several thousand animals.
|
|
|
|
Korelov M.N. (1956). The vertebrates of Bostandyk region.
Abstract: Data about faunistic complexes of Bostandyk region is provided. Snow leopard inhabited in high mountains of Chatkal, Pskem and Ugam ridges. The tracks of irbis were recorded in the snowfield near the edge of Pskem ridge (upper Ichnach-say river).
|
|
|
|
Koshkarev E.P. (1989). Snow leopard in Kyrgyzstan. The structure of habitat, ecology, protection.
Abstract: Habitat, status of population, geographical distribution, number, and ecology of snow leopard in Tien Shan are analyzed based on original realistic material collected 1981 through 1988.Information about irbis in the `foreign' part of its habitat is given for comparison. The reasons for snow leopard habitat shrinkage in Central Asia and Kazakhstan for over 100 years are assessed. Status of ungulate populations snow leopard prey on is given. The predator's behavioral pattern and condition in enclosure are given consideration. Protection measures are proposed.
|
|
|
|
Koshkarev E.P. (1990). Geographic prerequisites for snow leopard conservation in the USSR.
Abstract: Three key areas of the snow leopard habitat in the USSR are geographically segregated: Central Asia (Pamir, Tien Shan, Pamiro-Alai), East Kazakhstan (Jungar Alatau, Tarbagatai, Saur), and South Siberia (Altai, the Sayans), which are separated from one another. The fate of snow leopard in East Kazakhstan and South Siberia causes the most anxiety.
|
|
|
|
Koshkarev E.P. (1990). Key areas of snow leopard's habitat as main conservation objects (Vol. Part. 1.).
Abstract: The most vulnerable key areas within the snow leopard habitat are East Kazakhstan (an area of 48,000 square km) with no protected areas network established, and South Siberia (131,000 square km), where snow leopard is protected in three nature reserves. These areas are distant from main part of the habitat, isolated and have more extreme conditions. In Central Asia's key area (213,000 square km) linked to a main Chinese-Afghani part of the habitat, snow leopard was found in 11 nature reserves and two national parks. For reliable protection of this species it would be expedient to strengthen the role of the mountain nature reserves by means of extension and amalgamation of the areas, and other measures.
|
|
|
|
Koshkarev E. (1998). Critical Ranges as Centres of Biodiversity (Vol. N 14).
Abstract: A high percentage of rare species in Central Asia experience limited conditions for distribution. Geographic centers with higher species diversity are generally constrained in terms of territory: they are formed when ranges overlap. But in Central Asia and along its borders with Russia, centers of biodiversity overlap at the very marginal edges of ranges. Central Asian species cross into Russian territory, where desert and steppe are replaced by thick forest. Here the northern borders of their ranges are sharply fragmented and isolated. Typical examples for Central Asia are the ranges of the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), Asian leopard (Panthera pardus caucasica), striped hyena (Hyaena hyaena), Bukhara deer (Census elaphus bactrianus), markhor (Capra falconeri), blue sheep (Pseudois nayauf) and argali (Ovis ammon). In Russia are the Altai subspecies of argali, the Siberian argali (O.a.ammon), the mountain goat (Capra sibirica), Mongolian gazelle (Procapra gutturosa), snow leopard (Uncia uncia), Pallas' cat (Felis manul), dhole (Cuon alpinus), grey marmot (Marmota baibacina), Mongolian marmot (M. sibirica) and tolai hare (Lepus tolai). Where the numbers o f individuals has fallen to extreme lows, the most effective mechanism for species survival may be supporting the integrity of ranges, in order to preserve population exchanges between neighboring groups. The geographic location of reserves and other protected territories is vitally important for the survival of Central Asian species, given the acute fragmentation of their ranges. These reserves should include significant, viable centers of population the key places. Wherever the creation of permanent protected territories is impossible, a new tactic must be found, such as introducing temporary limitations on the use of land for agriculture and hunting. But all protected territories, whether temporary or permanent, should be connected, forming a core and periphery. The marginal range areas must not be forgotten, if total protection of endangered populations is to be accomplished.
|
|
|
|
Koshkarev E. (2000). What has happened to the snow leopard after the break-up of Soviet Union? (Vol. 4 (19)).
Abstract: It describes status of snow leopard in republics of the former Soviet Union, main reasons for poaching and negative and positive experience on species conservation. The total number of snow leopard in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in the 1980's was at least 1200-1400. In Kazakhstan the snow leopard population totaled 180-200, in Uzbekistan around 100, and in Russia 150-200. The number and natural habitat of the species were in universal decline. Losses in Kyrgyzstan from poaching alone were no less than 30 animals per year in 1960-1980's. During this period the population in this area decreased by half, and the natural habitat by one third. With the break-up of the Soviet Union, poaching of the snow leopard and its pray grew by at least a factor of 3-4. It was estimated that 500-600 animals reduced the Kyrgyz snow leopard population in the 1990's. The population that remains today can barely be more than 150-200 individual snow leopards. The population has been physically decimated. Number of snow leopard in existence today in the former Soviet Union does not exceed 700-900 individual animals.
|
|
|
|
Koshkarev E. (2001). About snow leopard (Vol. Vol. 8.).
Abstract: In 1980-s, in Central Asia there were 1,500-1,700 snow leopards: 800-900 in Kyrgyzstan, 500 in Tajikistan, 200 in Kazakhstan, and 100 in Uzbekistan. During the last century the number of snow leopard was constantly decreasing, though a its drastic reduction was observed after the collapse of the Soviet Union because of increased poaching for snow leopard and its objects of prey. The highest level of poaching was observed to occur in Kyrgyzstan. Kyrgyzstan's population of snow leopard reduced to 200 animals. A decrease of snow leopard number in other parts of its habitat with less intense hunting (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, south-west Kyrgyzstan) was mostly because of depletion of food resources (population of ungulates reduced five eight times). The reasons are corruption and unemployment. In order to improve the situation it is required to improve regulatory framework and replicate existing positive experience in economic motivation of nature protection activities.
|
|
