The primeval grasslands played major role in sustaining large mammals than other ecosystems almost anywhere in the world where they occur. The Great Plains of North America was once teeming with vast herds of bison, deer, elk and pronghorns. The gray wolf, cougar, bears, gray fox and badger were common predators. Today the large mammals have become extremely rare or extinct in most of their former ranges because of hunting and habitat destruction. The savanna grasslands of Serengeti Plains of Kenya and Tanzania are home to the highest density of hoofed grazing animals in the world. Over 1.5 million wild beasts, which include antelopes, gazelles, black rhinoceros, zebras, impalas and giraffes graze on the savanna. The herbivores in turn support lions and a variety of predators and scavengers, such as leopards, hyenas, cheetahs and wild dogs. Rapidly growing human populations, herds of domestic cattle competing with wild animals for grazing and agriculturists clamoring for farmlands are major threats to wildlife here. Threat from hunters is a major problem for African wildlife (Cunningham and Saigo,1990).

There are several accounts of the rich and varied wildlife that Uttara Kannada had in the past, as described by many visitors and officers to Uttara Kannada, even before one thought of sanctuaries and national parks. Francis Buchanan, as early as 1801, mentioned about the tiger infested forests of Kanara.  The Kanara Gazetteer (Campbell, 1883) has a rich account of Uttara Kannada’s wildlife. As early as 1676 an English traveler Fryer and in 1690 Ovington commented upon the abundance of wild animals in the forests close to Karwar. The British residents of Karwar went to the woods regularly for hunting and could bring home for meat spotted deer, sambar, wild hogs and gaurs “without any further expense than that of powder and shot”.

The hunting spree continued more intensified, both by native shikaris and the British sportsmen, during the 19^th century. That was the period when the British consolidated their hold on Uttara Kannada. Wildlife was plentiful in the district until the mid-19^th century. Tigers, panthers and bears had proliferated. Incidents of human and cattle kills had increased so much so that was taken as the reason for launching a massive programme for eliminating most of these animals of prey and other dangerous animals by the British. Rewards were paid to the shikaris for every animal killed.

Colonel Peyton, Conservator of Forests had made graphic account on the hunting of tigers, panthers and bears in Uttara Kannada. For a period of 22 years from 1855, 510 tigers were officially reported to be killed in the district. Between 1878 and 1882, yet another 130 tigers were hunted down. During the same five year period 214 panthers were hunted. Between 1844 and 1861, 51 bears were hunted down. Hunting for sport became a very common feature under the British rule until the animals became scarce. Among the prolifically hunted animals for meat purpose were sambar, gaur, antelopes, spotted deer, barking deer, mouse deer etc. So much so there was a precipitous decline in the population of many wild mammals by the close of the 19th century. Colonel Peyton wrote on the hunting of spotted deer (chital): “Chittal was at one time numerous over the whole of Kanara…. Ten of fifteen years ago the spotted deer was abundant throughout the valleys of the Kalinadi, Bedtihalla, Gangavali, and Tadri, as well along the east of the district….. At Dandeli in 1867 from a herd of not less than 150 to 200, three splendid stags were picked out and shot in a few moments. Now, about same place, the sportsman has had a lucky morning if he sees a small herd or two.”

Regarding gaur Col. Peyton stated: “The Bison…. is found over the greater part of Kanara, but being so much shot at and from being subject to the disease which prevail among domestic cattle …. it is disappearing from many parts where it abounded  fifteen or sixteen years ago …. They were especially common about sixteen years ago in the Gund forests, and between Gund and Anshi, as well as along the Kaneri river.” The Sambar and barking deer were also quite widespread in the district (Campbell, 1883). What made Uttara Kannada such a special place for the abundance of tigers and panthers as well as so many kinds of herbivores, at a time when there were no sanctuaries or National Parks? That was also a time when the Forest Department, under the British, was acquiring and settling forests. The animals like tigers were in such excess that every year dozens were eliminated. Hunting was wantonly carried out for sport than for subsistence. To find answer to these questions, we need to look into the forest history and learn some lessons crucial for wildlife management. At the time of British take over of Uttara Kannada in 1799 the land was a mosaic of primeval evergreen forests, secondary forests in different stages of succession and extensive grassy blanks, the results of forest clearance for shifting cultivation. Many times the shifting cultivators did not return to the same spot for repeating the slashing and burning resulting in late successional stages of secondary forests. Where the grasslands were fired systematically during summers for fresh growth during rains, by the local farmers, the climax vegetation remained as grasslands or savanna grassland complex, as is found in many parts of the Anshi-Dandeli Tiger Reserve to this day. The period of shifting cultivation was one of landscape heterogeneity ideal for wildlife. The forests on both sides of the district’s rivers were already of a secondary kind, dominated by deciduous trees, during the early British period itself (early 19^th century). This could have been the result of shifting cultivation, as well as due to timber logging for commercial purposes (Chandran, 1998).  Anshi-Dandeli Tiger Reserve area has perhaps the largest concentration of the descendents of shifting cultivators of the past.

HABITAT SUITABILITY FOR LARGE UNGULATES

Prey-Predator: their relation with habitat -

Unlike lions or cheetah which need vast grasslands for their prey capture, tigers rely on surprising a prey and capturing it. Hence tigers prefer to inhabit mosaic kind of landscape elements such as dense forest, grasslands, scrub, ravines, wetlands etc. According to Karanth (2003) tigers have the ability to live in very diverse natural habitats and they can tolerate wide range of temperatures and rainfall regimes. They produce relatively large litters with relatively short inter-birth intervals. They can take prey differing considerably in size and their hunting tactics will vary based on prey size, prey species and habitat. ADTR hosting large number of these landscape elements would have been ideal as tiger habitats, as is obvious from the historical records. The tiger population largely vanished from Uttara Kannada itself mainly due to hunting (both tigers as well as its prey animals), and large scale conversion of forests into monoculture of mainly teak (about 1000 sq km of forests have been converted into teak plantations in the district) and other forms of intensified habitat degradation due to commercial working of forests for timber and industrial raw materials. Weeds like Lantana and Eupatorium proliferated in the canopy openings and inside the teak plantations adversely affecting native species, and therefore understandably, with adverse consequences on the rich wildlife that the region had once. Increase in human and cattle population, the growth of Dandeli as an industrial city, from an obscure village prior to independence and the execution of a chain of hydel projects in the river Kali and associated disturbances such as the setting up of new colonies for project employees at Ambikanagar and Ganeshgudi etc. would have obviously reduced wildlife areas and affected habitat quality. Evacuees from the submersion areas of Supa dam were resettled in the newly created Ramnagar township. Moreover several mining leases were given inside the forest areas damaging forests and grasslands as well as converting the region into a transportation hub. The stoppage of shifting cultivation in the late 19^th century witnessed the erstwhile shifting cultivators like Kunbis, Kumri Marattis etc. taking to permanent cultivation. With settled cultivation these historically nomadic cultivators, who were earlier not associated with pastoralism, took to cattle rearing for manure and milk. Therefore, naturally, the pressure on the grazing resources from the domestic cattle would have increased substantially, with telling consequences on the ungulate preys of the tiger and panther. Shifting cultivation today is a thing of the past. Working of reserved forests for timber and firewood and industrial raw materials  is no more in the reserved forests, from mid 1980’s, and more so in the Protected Areas. There are strict rules regarding forest and wildlife conservation. As such we could expect an increase in the prey population favouring the multiplication of tigers.

In contrast to the earlier approach in tiger conservation, relying on large unbroken habitats new approaches are emerging. Tigers are visulalised to living in large, dynamic landscapes. Tiger conservationists know that it is impossible to isolate and protect tigers from human influences (Seidensticker et al., 1999). Karanth and Smith (1999), looking at the ecological history tiger, propose that prey depletion is a major factor driving the current decline of wild tigers. If depressed prey is a significant negative factor, reducing poaching pressure on tigers alone is not an adequate conservation response. A model proposed based on several studies on prey depletion in recent years postulates strongly that prey depletion has a strong effect on tiger population dynamics.  Prey scarcity will affect nutrition of adults forcing them to move into unstable habitats. Juvenile tigers, nutritionally dependent on their mothers are also affected. Cub survival is reduced and the tiger population size declines rapidly (–ibid-). 

CURRENT WILDLIFE SCENARIO IN ADTR

Wildlife census was carried out in 1997 and 2002. The census covers only selected mammals. In due course more detailed and accurate census details may be expected. Latest census details are yet to be obtained.  The data reveals that the tiger population had remained static at 13 during this period. Of these 13 tigers, 11 were reported from Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary and only two from Anshi National Park. As the latest census report is awaited there is cause for concern. Moreover the prey population leaving the (monkeys s.n. 9 & 10)  in the Table has not improved. Most alarming is the decline of gaur (Bos frontalis) from 1817 in 1997 to 1376 in 2002. This could be due to sampling error, habitat destruction or poaching or a combination of these. In Schaller’s (1967) estimate of adult tiger’s food the gaur’s share was only 7% (0.5 animal/year). In the Nagarahole National Park, in the Western Ghats, which is closest to ADTR in vegetational comparison the number of gaurs killed by tigers, based on scat analysis, constituted 11.4% of the total prey animals (Karanth and Sunquist, 1995). It was 4.8% in Kanha National Park (Schaller, 1967). 

The decline of the spotted deer or chital (Axis axis) is still more alarming. Its number in the Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary declined from 1667 in 1997 to 1252 in 2002.  In 2002 the total number was 1429 because of adding the population of Anshi National park. Considering the fact in the conservancies of the Indian subcontinent the spotted deer was one of the predominant prey killed by tigers, 27.8% in Chitwan National Park, Nepal, 50.3%, in Kanha and 22.8% in Nagarahole, (Schaller, 1967, Mcdougal, 1977 and Karanth and Sunquist, 1995), this decline of one of the commonest forest animals has to be considered seriously. The consolation, however, comes from the significant increase in sambar deer. However, for the sheer size of the ADTR the total estimated number of sambar deer at 722, is not satisfactory. Overall the census methods for the animals have to be streamlined to project reasonably good pictures. Although the pig (Sus crofa) is one of the notable preys of the tiger its enumeration has not been carried out, may be due to the understandable difficulties in counting this animal of varied habitats.  The barking deer (Muntiacus muntjac), though an important prey, 6.4% of numbers killed in Chitwan, 34.8% in Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand and 8.4% in Nagarahole (Sunquist et al., 1999), the total estimated for ADTR is only 592.

Table 5.1: Details of wildlife census carried out in 1997 and 2002 
(Source: Karnataka Forest Department, Wildlife Division, Dandeli)

Census Details for the year 1997 and 2002
Sl.No.	Name	1997 Census			2002 Census
		Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary	Anashi National Park (#)	Total Dandeli Wildlife Division	Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary	Anashi National Park	Total Dandeli Wildlife Division
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1	Tiger	11	2	13	Census work is to be done	Census work is to be done
2	Leopard	9	-	9
3	Elephant	45	-	45	45	-	45
4	Gaur	907	910	1817	1376	216	1592
5	Spotted Deer	1667	-	1667	1252	177	1429
6	Barking Deer	423	28	451	470	122	592
7	Sambar Deer	217	87	304	348	374	722
8	Sloth Bear	390	293	683	43	39 (o)	82 (o)
9	Common Langur	7690	6620	14310	27019 *	11118 *	38137
10	Bonnet Macaque	2726	146	2872	2914	1386	4300
11	Malabar Squirrel	2741	1870	4611	7448	2182	9630

Source: Deputy Conservator of Forests, Wildlife, Dandeli Division
(#)File not available in this office (DCF Wildlife)
*This is quite a high number
(0) Possibly an overestimate due to sampling error/insufficient sampling

Fodder needs: Sunquist et al. (1999) estimated the mean mass (kg) of prey killed by tiger in the Nagarahole National Park ar 65.5 kg. We may assume the case in ADTR to be similar. Sunquist (1981) recorded that a tigress needs 5-6 kg of meat a day for a maintenance diet. This amounts to 1825-2190 kg/year of meat; but as 30% of each carcass is inedible (due bones, hoof, hair etc.), a tigress needs to kill some 2373-2847 kg/year of meat. Using the above example we may attempt to arrive at the annual meat requirements of 13 adult tigers in the ADTR. At a modest maintenance diet of 2610 kg meat/tiger/year the total meat requirement for 13 tigers would be 33930 kg/year. For meeting this requirement the tigers need to kill 518 prey animals of mean weight 65.5 kg. The meat requirement of a tigress feeding two large cubs is estimated to be 50% more. This meat would also come from pigs, and monkeys and other miscellaneous prey to a smaller extent. At the generally accepted energy flow models of 10% of biomass energy reaching successive levels of consumers in the food chain, to produce harvestable 33930 kg/year of harvestable meat for tigers the food needs of the herbivorous prey animals would be 3393000 kg/year (3393 tons of fodder). Considering the fact that there were only 4335 important prey animals (all deer spp. and gaur together) in the ADTR in 2002 the future of the tiger depends on how best we can increase the prey resources. We should also bear in mind that there are panthers, hyena, and some minor carnivores which have a share in the major and minor prey population of ADTR. As most of the ungulate prey mainly depends on grasslands for their fodder the management of these grasslands is of paramount importance.

Competition with domestic cattle: Good number of grasslands and savanna woodlands with grassy ground cover are in the vicinity of villages, where the wild animals will have to compete with them for fodder. At a modest rate of 10 kg of grass/other plant resources as fodder, the 6000 plus cattle would need annually about 22,000 tonnes of fodder. As ADTR has forest as climax vegetation, and large areas already covered with monoculture plantations. Many village grasslands grasslands are in eroded and poor state where again the cattle become competitors for wild herbivores. Unless this situation changes tiger population is not likely to improve significantly. Most of the deer and gaur usually come to grasslands only after dusk hours to escape humans. As villages, at least in the core areas, will be resettled outside the pressure from domestic cattle on these grasslands is bound to decline in the coming few years. The range-wise details cattle number are given in the Table 5.2.

Table 5.2: Range-wise cattle population in the ADTR

Sl No.	Range	Number of Cattle
1	Kulgi	2202
2	Phansoli	260
3	Gund	952
4	Kumbarwada	1342
5	Anshi	1414
	Total	6170

Grazing and productivity: In the largely forested district of Uttara Kannada, it has been traditional practice of the agriculturists to leave the cattle for foraging freely. The cattle often enter into the adjoining forests. They browse upon any edible herb and sapling and enter the grassy blanks even in the interior of forests. Village cattle can be found roaming in many places even inside the ADTR. They come from the villages within as well as from peripheral villages. An experimental study carried out in the grasslands of Uttara Kannada by Lele and Hegde (1997) shows that heavy grazing in the open grasslands lead to 40% drop in production relative to the control which was ungrazed. The above ground herb layer biomass (AGHB) was 3-6 t/ha/yr in ungrazed areas, compared to heavily grazed ones with 1 t/ha/yr. However initial months of grazing in monsoon and avoiding in non rainfall growing months also lead to higher AGHB. This shows that late monsoon grazing is deleterious to AGHB. Bhat et al. (2005) observed that the herb biomass productivity (HBP) in a completely open area adjoining a forest in Uttara Kannada was 4.5 t/ha compared to 0.0524 t/ha within the forest. Here, however, the herb layer does not mean all grasses or other palatable plants. If we consider 4.5 tons/ha/yr as mean productivity of good grasslands, hypothetically, nearly 800 ha of such grasslands have to be conserved as such for exclusive use by ungulate prey animals of tigers only. It also implies that the production should be only of edible grasses. It is not practicable to delimit the grasslands to only 800 ha., as, understandably, there are no chance at all of all the potential prey animals ending up as tiger’s food. If we consider that about 10% of the wild ungulates are captured every year by the tigers, and the rest are not, we would require about 8000 ha of good quality grasslands to feed exclusively the potential prey stock of the ADTR. The actual demand would be much more, as there are currently about 6000 domestic cattle and many other herbivorous wild animals in the ADTR and all the herbs/other plants growing in grasslands/savanna grasslands are not necessarily palatable. 

Traditional fodder management in hilly areas and wildlife fodder crisis: Different types of historical grassland management practices create different plant diversity patterns (Gustavsson, 2007). The open grasslands with long history of maintenance either by humans (by mowing, grazing by domestic animals, fire etc) or from wild animals (by grazing) tend to be more species rich with more fodder species. The grasslands in high rainfall hilly regions are exposed to varying levels of grazing such as in benas and soppinabettas. Some are temporarily fenced off and harvested by hand at the end of growing season. These management practices have co-evolved with the local agrarian system, which is a combination of Areca-spice orchards and paddy fields. Productivity depends critically on the continuous input of organic matter and nutrients in the form of livestock dung (along with leafy mater), and on the availability of draught animal power for ploughing. Milk is an important additional benefit. Livestock, almost all cattle and buffalo, are thus an integral part of the agrarian system. This has lead to the serious competition with wild life animals for natural grasslands as cattle population has increased. The grasslands areas are dwindling because of the need for land for housing, agriculture, roads and various other developmental activities

Fodder rich and poor areas in ADTR: Larger grassland areas such as Thayamaddi-Barpoli cross, Kaneri dam site, Terali, Burpali-Anshi, Kumbarwada-Diggi areas etc., are old grasslands having not only highly palatable, high yielding grass species but also good number of other fodder dicot species.

Most of the highly exploited, overgrazed, lands will have species very different from those they had earlier. Virnoli safari route forest grassland though showing high percentage grass individuals have only two low yielding fodder grasses (Oplismenus burmanii and O.compositus) dominating (Table 3).  Same is the case with Goyar forest grassland which had also very low fodder value grass species. It also had low density of dicot herbs.

Areas underneath the forest canopy having low density dicot forage herbs along with sparsely occurring grasses as in the Virnolli-safari route, Goyar etc., cannot sustain any significant number of herbivores.  On the other hand open grasslands interspersed with wetlands are more important in sustaining herbivores. In the ranges with dense forests and/or monoculture plantations such as at Anshi, Phansoli, Gund and Kulgi, the wildlife mostly depend on openings within the forest, on wetlands and on the sparse growth of grasses underneath the forest canopy. Hardly any grasses grow in the teak plantations and inside dense evergreen-semievergreen forests (as in Anshi Range) therefore these ranges do not have as much potential to support wildlife unlike Kumbarwada and Diggie Ranges. The entire forest region especially along the deciduous zone is dotted with teak plantations which are not congenial for grasses. Phansolli, and Kulgi forests are also largely planted with teak.

Management recommendations

• Grassland enrichment is to be thought of for selected grasslands. Very degraded grasslands may be closed to grazing facilitating revival of the grasses.
• The practice of afforestation of grassy blanks has to be discontinued unless there is need for recreation of resource patches (fruit trees and keystone plant resources favouring life of herbivores). These resource patches have to be in block planting or in linear forms facilitating corridors for movements, for animal movements. A combination of both may be also carried out, after planning and deliberations. A list of species that can nurture by their products the fauna of the ADTR is given in Table 5.3.
• Afforestation of grassy blanks to be limited to very unproductive areas only. While selecting tree species for planting the animal community should be borne in mind. Patches have been observed where instead of raising natural vegetation the exotic industrial cum pulpwood species Acacia auriculiformis has been planted (Figure 5.2). For example Acacia was planted up in Thayamaddi-Barpoli Cross and few other places.
• Controlled fire to be used in grasslands in transition such as under dicot weeds and woody vegetation. Such grasslands to be divided into blocks and alternate blocks to be set on fire. Volunteers may be trained and their services used in meticulous use of fire so as to promote grasses
• Since legumes are nitrogen rich and good as fodder, leguminous fodder herbs may be planted in abandoned agricultural fields to promote wildlife. Herbaceous climbers of legumes, that provide forage for wildlife may be promoted experimentally in some of the poor grade mono-culture plantations.
• Natural succession inside monoculture plantations may be directed towards enhancing the food resources of the ADTR for wildlife.
• Herbaceous forage legumes may be considered experimentally for planting along the sides of some of the forest roads.
• Priority to be given for resettlement of villages with large number of cattle. Some of the good pastures of importance to wild herbivores need to be spared from grazing by domestic cattle. In the peripheral villages the concept of village fodder farms, to meet the fodder requirements of domestic cattle, needs to be promoted, so as to prevent those cattle from entering the ADTR.

Table 5.3: Wild woody plants that provide food for wildlife and recommended for selective planting in grasslands

Sl.	Species	Local/common Name	Parts eaten and wild animals feeding on them	Remarks
1	Acacia concinna	Seege	Pods-Deer*, Sambar, Gaur
2	Acacia ferruginea	Banni	Pods-Deer*, Sambar,
3	Artocarpus integrifolia	Halasu, Jack	Fruits-Monkeys, Bear Leaves- fodder	Fallen fruits of A.integrifolia and A.hirsutus are relished by many ungulates
4	Bauhinia sp.	Basavanapada	Pods- Gaur, Sambar, Deer*
5	Bombax ceiba	Buraga, Silk cotton	Flowers-Monkeys, Sambar, Deer*, Wild pig. Nectar for many birds
6	Careya arborea	Kumbia, Kaul	Bark-Sambar, Fruits-Elephant, Monkey, Porcupine, Sambar
7	Cassia fistula	Kakke	Pods-Bear, Monkeys
8	Cordia macleodii	Hadang	Fruits- Deer*, Gaur, birds
9	Cordia myxa	Challe	Friuits-Deer*, Sambar, Bear, birds
10	Dillenia pentagyna	Kanagalu	Fruits-Deer*, Sambar, Gaur, birds
11	Ficus spp.	Atti	Fruit- Birds, including Hornbills, bats etc., and ungulates such as Deer*, Sambar, etc. Leaves- fodder for herbivores	Keystone species with one or the other tree flowering throughout the year and eaten by large number of wild animals, both big and small
12	Grewia tiliaefolia	Dhaman; Dadaslu	Leaves-Sambar, Deer*,Fruits-Monkey, birds
13	Hydnocarpus laurifolia	Suranti; Toratte	Fruit-Porcupine
14	Spondias acuminate	Kaadmate	Fruits: Sambar, Porcupine, Deer*
15	Kydia calycina	Bende	Leaves –Ungulates	Seems to be eaten by ungulates as they are eaten by cattle.
16	Moullava spicata	Hulibarka	Fruits-Deer*, Sambar	Flowering spike is also eaten
17	Mucuna pruriens	Nasagunni kai	Leaves-Deer*
18	Phyllanthus emblica	Nelli; Gooseberry	Fruits-Sambar, Deer*
19	Strychnos nux-vomica	Kasarka	Fruits- pulp eaten by monkeys, Hornbills
20	Syzygium cumini	Nerale	Fruits- wild Pig, Deer*, Bear and several birds
21	Tectona grandis	Saaguvani; Teak	Bark- Elephants.	Elephants debark the tree in long strips and consume it.
22	Terminalia belerica	Tare	Fruits-Deer, Sambar
23	Tetrameles nudiflora	Kadu bende	Bark-Elephants	Favourite tree for bees to make hives
24	Xylia Xylocarpa	Jamba	Seeds-Gaint Squirrel, Monkeys
25	Zizhiphus oenoplia		Fruits-Jackels, Procupine, Deer*, Pangolin, birds
26	Ziziphus rugosa	Kaare	Fruits-Bear, birds

*Deer includes Mouse deer, Barking deer, Spotted deer

Figure 5.1: Larger grasslands of Diggie region

Figure 5.2: Wet grassland drained, ploughed and being planted with Acacia Auriculiformis