|
Sherpa, L. N., & Lama, W. B. (1997). Hands around Mt. Everest.
|
Strautman Ye.I.Bekenov A. (1978). Rare and endangered vertebrate animas of Kazakhstan, and their protection.
Abstract: In Kazakhstan, there are 158 mammal species, 485 bird species, 52 reptile and 12 amphibian species, and about 150 fish species, of which 31 mammal species, 43 bird species, eight reptile, one amphibian and four fish species need protection. Snow leopard is referred to endangered species. Six nature reserves and 43 preserves have been established to protect rare and endangered animal and plant species in Kazakhstan.
|
Johansson, O., Rauset, G. R., Samelius, G., McCarthy, T., Andren, H., Tumursukh, L., Mishra, C. (2016). Land sharing is essential for snow leopard conservation. Biological Conservation, (203), 1–7.
Abstract: Conserving large carnivores in an increasingly crowded planet raises difficult challenges. A recurring debate is whether large carnivores can be conserved in human used landscapes (land sharing) or whether they require specially designated areas (land sparing). Here we show that 40% of the 170 protected areas in the global range of the snow leopard (Panthera uncia) are smaller than the home range of a single adult male and only 4– 13% are large enough for a 90% probability of containing 15 or more adult females. We used data from 16 snow leopards equipped with GPS collars in the Tost Mountains of South Gobi, Mongolia, to calculate home range size and overlap using three different estimators: minimum convex polygons (MCP), kernel utility distributions (Kernel), and local convex hulls (LoCoH). Local convex hull home ranges were smaller and included lower proportions of unused habitats compared to home ranges based on minimum convex polygons and Kernels. Intra-sexual home range overlapwas low, especially for adult males, suggesting that snowleopards are territorial. Mean home range size based on the LoCoH estimates was 207 km2 ± 63 SD for adult males and 124 km2 ± 41 SD for adult females. Our estimates were 6–44 times larger than earlier estimates based on VHF technology when comparing similar estimators, i.e. MCP. Our study illustrates that protected areas alone will not be able to conserve predatorswith large home ranges and conservationists and managers should not restrict their efforts to land sparing.
|
Sharkey, W., Milner-Gulland, E. J., Sinovas, P., Keane, A. (2024). A framework for understanding the contributions of local residents to protected area law enforcement. Oryx, , 1–13.
Abstract: Terrestrial and marine protected areas have long been championed as an approach to biodiversity conservation. For protected areas to be effective, equitable and inclusive, the involvement of local residents in their management and governance is considered important. Globally, there are many approaches to involving local residents in protected area law enforcement. However, opportunities for comparing different approaches have been limited by the lack of a clear common framework for analysis. To support a more holistic understanding, we present a framework for analysing the contributions of local residents to protected area law enforcement. Informed by a review of the literature and discussions with conservation practitioners, the framework comprises five key dimensions: (1) the different points in the enforcement system at which local residents are involved, (2) the nature of local participation in decision-making, (3) the type of external support provided to local residents, (4) the different motivating forces for participation, and (5) the extent to which local participation is formalized. We apply the framework to three real-world case studies to demonstrate its use in analysing and comparing the characteristics of different approaches. We suggest this framework could be used to examine variation in local participation within the enforcement system, inform evaluation and frame constructive discussions between relevant stakeholders. With the global coverage of protected areas likely to increase, the framework provides a foundation for better understanding the contributions of local residents to protected area law enforcement.
|
|
Fox, J. L., & Nurbu, C. (1990). Hemis, a national park for snow leopards in India's Trans-Himalaya. Int.Pedigree Book of Snow Leopards, 6, 71–84.
|
(2002). Special protected areas (nature reserves, natural and national parks, zakazniks, natural monuments).
Abstract: The list and brief description of existing protected areas of Uzbekistan are given. The snow leopard recorded in Chatkal and Hissar nature reserves.
|
Abdusalamov I.A. (2001). Required protection measures for rare and endangered vertebrate species in Tajikistan (Vol. N 2 (143)).
Abstract: The network of Tajikistan's protected areas (four nature reserves, 14 national and 18 regional sanctuaries, one national park) is described. The establishment of `Shakhristan state complex nature reserve' and `Sarykamish state complex reserve', and interstate nature complex park on northern slope of the Turkestan ridge is recommended to improve conservation practices for a number of endangered vertebrate animal species in Northern Tajikistan (such as brown bear, snow leopard, wild sheep, and others).
|
Abzalov A.A. (1976). Principles of the nature reserve establishment in Uzbekistan.
Abstract: It provides a brief description of nature reserves network in Uzbekistan: Karakul and Vardanza (in desert); Chatkal, Zaamin, Nurata, and Kyzylsu (in mountains); Aralpaigambar, Kyzylkum, Badaitugai, Zeravshan (riverine forests). Snow leopard is protected in the Chatkal, Zaamin, and Kizilsu nature reserves.
|
|
Anonymous. (1999). Protection Funded for Himalayan Snow Leopards, Bears.
|
|
Aromov, B. (1982). The Materials of the Numbers of Dispersed Animal Species in Kyzylsu Nature Reserve..
|
