|
|
Velte, F. (1982). Snow leopards at the Seneca Zoological Park, Rochester. In L. Blomqvist (Ed.), International Pedigree Book of Snow Leopards, Vol. 3 (Vol. 3, pp. 55–58). Helsinki: Helsinki Zoo.
|
|
|
|
Wikramanayake, E. D. (1995). Recommendations for Conservation Management of Jigme Dorji National Park.
|
|
|
|
Zhirnov, L., & Ilyinsky, V. (1986). The Great Gobi National Park – a refuge for rare animals of the Central Asian deserts. Moscow: Centre for International Projects, GKNT.
Abstract: Discusses snow leopard distribution in Great Gobi National Park
|
|
|
|
Khanal, G., Mishra, C., Suryawanshi, K. R. (2020). Relative influence of wild prey and livestock abundance on
carnivore-caused livestock predation. Ecology and Evolution, , 1–11.
Abstract: Conservation conflict over livestock depredation is one of the
key drivers of large mammalian carnivore declines worldwide. Mitigating
this conflict requires strategies informed by reliable knowledge of
factors influencing livestock depredation. Wild prey and livestock
abundance are critical factors influencing the extent of livestock
depredation. We compared whether the extent of livestock predation by
snow leopards Panthera uncia differed in relation to densities of wild
prey, livestock, and snow leopards at two sites in Shey Phoksundo
National Park, Nepal. We used camera trap-based spatially explicit
capture–recapture models to estimate snow leopard density;
double-observer surveys to estimate the density of their main prey
species, the blue sheep Pseudois nayaur; and interview-based household
surveys to estimate livestock population and number of livestock killed
by snow leopards. The proportion of livestock lost per household was
seven times higher in Upper Dolpa, the site which had higher snow
leopard density (2.51 snow leopards per 100 km2) and higher livestock
density (17.21 livestock per km2) compared to Lower Dolpa (1.21 snow
leopards per 100 km2; 4.5 livestock per km2). The wild prey density was
similar across the two sites (1.81 and 1.57 animals per km2 in Upper and
Lower Dolpa, respectively). Our results suggest that livestock
depredation level may largely be determined by the abundances of the
snow leopards and livestock and predation levels on livestock can vary
even at similar levels of wild prey density. In large parts of the snow
leopard range, livestock production is indispensable to local
livelihoods and livestock population is expected to increase to meet the
demand of cashmere. Hence, we recommend that any efforts to increase
livestock populations or conservation initiatives aimed at recovering or
increasing snow leopard population be accompanied by better herding
practices (e.g., predator-proof corrals) to protect livestock from snow
leopard.
|
|
|
|
Din, J. U., Nawaz, M. A., Norma-Rashid, Y., Ahmad, F., Hussain, K., Ali, H., Adli, D., S., H. (2020). Ecosystem Services in a Snow Leopard Landscape: A Comparative Analysis of Two High-elevation National Parks in the Karakoram-Pamir. Bio One, , 11–19.
Abstract: The high-elevation mountain ecosystems in the Karakoram and Pamir mountain ranges encompass enchanting landscapes, harbor unique biodiversity, and are home to many indigenous pastoral societies that rely onecosystem services for their survival. However, our understanding of the value of ecosystem services to a household economy is limited. This information is essential in devising sustainable development strategies and thus merits consideration. In this preliminary study, we attempted to assess and compare the value of selected ecosystem Khunjerab and Qurumbar National Parks (KNP and QNP) in the services of the KNP and QNP) in the Karakoram–Pamir in northern Pakistan using market-based and value transfer methods. Our results indicated that the economic benefits derived from the 2 high-elevation protected areas were US$ 4.6 million (QNP) and US$ 3.8 million (KNP) per year, translating into US$ 5955 and US$ 8912 per household per year, respectively. The monetary benefits from provisioning services constituted about 93% in QNP and 48% in KNP, which vividly highlights the prominence of the economic benefits generated from the protected areas for the welfare of disadvantaged communities. Together with the regulatory and cultural services valued
in this study, the perceived economic impact per household per year was 10–15 times higher than the mean household income per year. Considering the limited livelihood means and escalating poverty experienced by buffer zone communities, these values are substantial. We anticipate that communities’ dependency on resources will contribute to increased
degradation of ecosystems. We propose reducing communities’ dependency on natural resources by promoting sustainable alternative livelihood options and recognizing ecosystem services in cost–benefit analyses when formulating future policies.
|
|
