An Evaluation of Crop Protection Methods in Kerala

2004·3.1 MB·

by  A Veeramani

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 101 (2), May-Aug 2004 255-260
AN EVALUATION OF CROP PROTECTION METHODS IN KERALA1
A. Veeramani2 P.S. Easa3'4andE.A. Jayson3'5
,
'Accepted January 2003
:Periyar Tiger Reserve, Thekkady 685 536, Idukki, Kerala, India Email: [email protected]
3Division of Wildlife Biology, Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi 680 653, Thrissur, Kerala, India
4Email: [email protected]
sEmail: [email protected]
Increasing incidence ofcrop depredation by wild animals have led to the use ofseveral methods to protect crops in
wildlifeareas. An evaluation oftheeffectivenessofvariousprotection methodsused in 20differentForest Rangesof
KeralabetweenJune 1994and December 1994 isattempted,andtheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofeachdiscussed.
Areas with crop depredation were visited to collect information on the methods employed for crop protection, their
functioningandeffectiveness. Guardingwithordinaryfencing,stonewallfencing, linecrackers,chemicals,trenchesand
electricfencingwerethemajorcontrolmeasuresinpractice, fencing,though itrequiredhigh initial investments.
wasthe mosteffectiveagainstmostofthe animals.
Keywords:Cropprotection,electricfencing,wildanimals
INTRODUCTION amountofRs. 1,06,24,689wereclaimedascompensationin
the State for crop damage, ofthese Rs. 8,66,977 have been
As the incidence ofcrop depredationbywild animals paidascompensationandformonly8.16%ofthetotalclaims
increases, so do methods to protect crops in wildlife areas. (Veeramani 1998). Easa et al. (1998), Jayson (1998) and
These methods could be effective for a long or short term, Veeramani(1998)havediscussedthecropprotectionmethods
dependingontheanimalaswellasthemethodused. Several employedin Kerala. The present investigation evaluatesthe
control measures are used under different conditions and effectiveness of various protection methods employed in
most researchers agree that the use ofelectric fencing and differentpartsofKerala.
trenchesarethemosteffective(Sukumar 1985, 1986; Schultz
1986, 1988; Santiapillai and Jackson 1990; Banerjee 1994; STUDYAREA
Chandrasekaran 1994;Shetty 1994;Bist 1996).Morris(1958)
has mentioned the use ofbamboo gun rocket for scaring Kerala State, which lies in the southern part of the
awaywildanimals.ThornybranchesofAcaciawereusedas Western Ghats, is unique in environmental characteristics
brushwood fences in Haryana and Madhya Pradesh duetoitsgeographical location(between8° 18'and 12°48'N
(ChauhanandSawarkar 1989;ChauhanandSingh 1990).Use and between 74° 52' and 77° 22' E) and topography. It is
oftrained dogs to chase crop-raiding deer was reported by bounded on the eastern side by the Western Ghats ranges
Benngeretal. (1994). SwihartandConover(1990)reported andtothewestbytheArabianSea.Thestatecanbeclassified
the use ofbig game repellent RO°PEL and soap to reduce into three topographical regions, namely the coastal area,
cropdamagebydeer.RecentreportsfromZimbabwemention midlandsandthehighlands. Theforestareas liemostlyinthe
the use of a capsicum-based aerosol as elephant repellent highlands. Thestatehasaforestcoverof9,400sq.km(Anon.
(Osborn 1998). However, its effect is shortterm andcanbe 1997). About24%oftheforestarea lies withintheprotected
used only for short to intermediate ranges. The traditional areanetworkcomprising 12 wildlifesanctuariesand2 national
methods for deterring crop-raiding elephants, such as fire, parks. The forest areashavebeen subjected to alterations of
brush fences and sound making devices have generally various degrees for agriculture, developmental programmes
failed,exceptwhentheanimalsareclose(BellandMcShane- and settlements. Most of the forest areas have human
Caluzi 1984). Jayawardene(1994, 1995, 1997)reportedthe habitations in the fringes and in some cases scattered
effectiveness of electric fences against crop-raiding settlementswithin.Themajorityofthesettlementscultivatea
elephants in Sri Lanka. Thouless and Sakwa (1995a, b) varietyofcrops,whicharepronetodamagebywildanimals.
assessed the effectiveness of electric fences in Northern The agro-based economy of Kerala depends a lot on cash
Kenya and suggested that they be backed by special crops such as coffee, pepper, tea, cardamom and rubber,
protection. cultivated mostly in the highlands. The state has a good
A total of 1310 cases ofcrop damageby wild animals numberofmammalspeciesrepresentingvarioustaxa, suchas
wererecordedthroughoutKeralabetween 1981-1994.Atotal Elephant (Elephas maximus), Gaur (Bos frontalis), Sarnbar
EVALUATION OF CROP PROTECTION METHODS
(Cervus unicolor),Chital(Axisaxis).WildBoar(Susscrofa), ANALYSIS
Porcupine (Hystrix indica), and Bonnet Macaque (Macaca
radiata). The extent of damage is assessed in two ways, the
number ofplots raided (area of 10 sq. m) or the number of
METHODS
cropsdamaged. Theirrespectiveformulaearegivenbelow:
The study was carried out between June 1994 and Numberofplots
December 1994.Atotalofninety-fiveTerritorialandWildlife damaged
Ranges under five Forest Circles were considered for this i) Percentage ofplots raided = xl00
study. Ofthese,fourwereselectedrandomlyfromeachofthe Totalnumber
forestcircles (Table 1). Twosettlements with intensive crop plots
depredation problems, one each in the enclosure and the
periphery, werechosenineachoftheselectedForestRanges. Numberofplants
These settlementswere visitedonce and 1 km long transects damaged
laid, startingfromtheforestboundary. Plotsof10sq. mwere u) Percentage ofcrop plants = xlOO
m
laidatevery 100 alongthetransect. damaged Totalnumber
For each study plot, details of crop species in the ofplants
plot, number of damaged and undamaged crop plants,
phenology, animal causing the damage, nature ofdamage RESULTS
and protection method employed at the time ofvisit, were
recorded. Enquiries were also made with the cultivators in Protectionmethodsandcropdamage
the area to confirm the animal species involved in raiding, Theprotectionmethodsemployed indifferentlocations
andotherdetailssuch as the dateand time ofthe raids. Care sampledinKeralacouldbebroadlyclassifiedmtofivecategories:
was taken to cover the areas within a single season and at 1. GU+OF=GuardingwithOrdinaryFencing:Fencingby
thetimeofcultivation. variousmaterialscombinedwithguarding
Thedamagedareaswerevisited, anddetails like crops 2. SP=SpecialProtection: Crackersareusedtoscareaway
damage, animal species involved, type ofcontrol measures, theanimals
including the cost and efficiency ofthe method used, were 3. STW=StonewallFencing: Wallsbuiltaroundcultivated
m
recorded. Sampleplotsof10sq. werelaidtodeterminethe areas
efficacyofamethod. 4. CHE=Chemicals:Chemicalrepellents
5. EF=ElectricFence:Highvoltageelectricfencingaround
the cultivated area
Table 1: Selected forest Ranges and its Divisions and Circles
The effectiveness of the methods employed varied
SI.No. Range Division Circle accordingto the locations(Table 2). Electric fencing, which
Kannavam Kannur was observed only in the Northern Circle was the most
1
2 Kurichiat Wynaad (WL) Northern Circle effectiveintheregion.TireSouthernCucleemployedavariety
3 Kalpetta South Wynaad ofprotection methods, ofwhich special protection followed
4 Chedleth South Wynaad
bychemical repellantswerethemosteffective.
5 Edavanna NorthNilambur
6 Nelllampathy Nemmara Wild boar raided the most (52.5%) in guarded areas
7 Attapadi Mannarkad Olavacode Circle with ordinary fence, followedby elephant (41%) (Table 3).
8 Agali Mannarkad Cropraidingbyotherspecies individuallyorincombination
9 Chlmmony Chalakudi
10 Vellikulangara Chalakudi CentralCircle was less in guarded plots with ordinary fencing. Special
11 Sholayar Vazhachal protection method employed in the Southern circle was not
12 Kollathirumedu Vazhachal effectiveagainstwildboar. Stonewallfencewasrecordedonly
13 Marayur Munnar
14 Adlmali Munnar HighRangeCircle intheHighRangecircle,wherealltheplotsweredamagedby
15 Idukki Idukki gaur. In areas where chemical repellents were used, the
16 Kaliyar Kothamangalam _ percentageofplotsdamagedbywildboarwashigh(78%). In
17 Agasthyavanam Trivandrum (WL)
18 Palode Trivandrum Southern Circle electric fenced areas, the percentage of plots damaged by
19 Shendumey Thenmala elephant was high (55%) followed by an elephant and wild
20 Neduvathumuzhi Konni boarcombination(31%).
256 1 Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 101 (2), May-Aug 2004
EVALUATION OF CROP PROTECTION METHODS
Table 2: Percentage of raided plots under different protection methods
Protection methods
S. No Circles GU+OF SP STW CHE EF No. ofplots laid
1 Northern 37 (46.25) 29 (36.25) 80
2 Olavacode 49 (62.25) 80
3 Central 28 (35.00) 8 (10.00) 80
4 HighRange 14 (17.5) 16 (20.00) 80
5 Southern 32 (40.00) 10 (12.5) 15 (18.75) 80
Total 160 10 16 23 29 400
Figures in parentheses denote percentages
An attempt was made to analyse the effectiveness of However, the efficiency ofthe methods varies considerably
various protection methods applied at locations on the withtheraiding animals. This necessitates the development
periphery and in the enclosure (Table 4). The percentage of ofnew,innovative,eco-friendly, sociallyacceptableandcost
plots raided by wild animals was higher on the periphery effectivelongtermsolutionswhichareeffectiveagainstmost
(43%) compared to those in the enclosures (37%) in the ofthe crop raiders.
locations guardedwith ordinary fencing.
CropProtectionMethodsused inKerala
DISCUSSION The farmers employ a variety ofprotection methods,
which canbeclassifiedas follows:
The highest numbers of plots damaged were in the 1.Guardingand Ordinary Fencing: In45settlements,
periphery ofthe forest followed by the enclosure. The high crops were guarded at night from machans or platforms on
incidence ofcrop raiding on the periphery, as well as in the topofrocksortrees. Wildanimalswerescaredoffbynoisily
enclosures, indicatesgreaterriskandhighprobabilityofcrop beatingonmetaltins, andbytorchlightandfire.Thismethod
raiding in areas adjacent to wildlife habitat edges (Dudley requires vigilance throughout the night. In most places,
etal. 1992). firewoodor old tyres are used to light fires atnight. Electric
Effectiveness of various control measures has been bulbs are also installed in the field. Dogs are used to detect
oneoftheimportanttopicsofdebateinrecenttimes. Control andchase offwild animals, and to alertthe guards.
measures of long-term and short-term effects have been Coloured cloth and plastic bags are tied to poles and
employedworldwide(Sukumar1986;Schultz 1988;Santiapillai scarecrowsusedinthefieldtoscareoffraidinganimals. When
and Jackson 1990; Thouless and Sakwa 1995a; Bist 1996). the wind blows, the sound of the plastic bags scares the
The efficiencyofthemethods isreportedtovary, depending raiders away. Arecanut or palmyra sheaths are tied to the
onseveral factorsincludingtheraiding animal. trees for the same purpose. Cacti are planted along the
Protection methods prevalent in different locations in boundary of the crop field as deterrents. The field is
Kerala and their effectiveness vary only to a lesser extent. surrounded with fences of thorny branches of bamboo.
Table 3: Percentage of plots raided under different protection methods by different wild animals
Protection methods
S.No Animals GU+OF SP STW CHE EF Total
1 Elephant 66 (41.25) 16 (55.17) 82 (34.45)
2 Gaur 16 (100) 16 (6.72)
3 Sambar 1 (0.63) 1 (4.35) 2 (0.84)
4 Wild Boar 84 (52.50) 10 (100) 18 (78.26) 4 (13.79) 116 (48.74)
5 Elephant+Wild Boar 5 (3.13) 9 (31.03) 14 (5.88)
6 Elephant+ Bonnetmacaque 1 (0.63) 1 (0.42)
7 Sambar+Wild Boar 1 (4.35) 1 (0.42)
8 Chital+Wild Boar 3 (13.04) 3 (1.26)
9 Wild Boar+ Porcupine 3 (1.188) 3 (1.26)
Total 160 (100) 10 (100) 16 (100) 23 (100) 29 (100) 238 (100)
Figures in parentheses denote percentages
1 Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 101 (2), May-Aug 2004 257
EVALUATION OF CROP PROTECTION METHODS
Table 4: Percentage of plots raided by wild animals on the a stone with crackers. When an animal touches the line, the
periphery and in the enclosure under different protection methods
device gets loose and the crackers hit another stone on
Plotsdamaged thegroundbelow the device, andexplode. The soundalerts
S. No. Protection methods Enclosure Periphery the farmeronguardand also deters the animal. The method
n = 200 n = 200 is widely used throughout Kerala and is reported to be
1 Guarding + Ordinary fence 74 (37.00) 86 (43.00) effectiveagainstmostanimals, especiallyelephantandwild
2 Special protection 10 (5.00) - boar.
3 Stone wall 7 (3.50) 9 (4.50) 4. Chemicals: In three settlements, the farmers were
4 Chemicals 10 (5.00) 13 (6.50) usingchemicalsforprotection. Thesmellofpesticides, such
5 Electric fence 10 (5.00) 19 (9.50) as Forite and Furadon repels the animal away from the crop
Total 111 127 field. Itiseffectiveagainstwildboar,butwasfoundeffective
Figures in parentheses denote percentages foronlyaweek inKanngayamKavuofChimmonyWildlife
Sanctuary. Insomeplaces, naphthalene andphenolare used
to repel elephants.
Acacia, and Zizyphus to prevent the smaller mammals and Kerosene or waste oil is poured along the possible
cattle from getting in. Closely tied wooden poles act as a entries ofsmaller animals, such as porcupine, black-naped
barrier to wild boar and deer. Such barriers are located in hareandmousedeer.KanitribesinPepparaWildlifeSanctuary
manyplacesinKerala. Fourorsixrowsofmetallicwiresare tieclothsoakedinkerosenetoapoleandfixtheminthefield.
stretched all along the boundary to keep out deer and wild Toilet orwashing soap is kept in a coconut shell ortied to a
boar. Theseareeffectiveonlytoacertainextentastheanimal stick and installed in the field. In the cold atmosphere, the
may jump over the fence. Fences of 10-12 rows ofbarbed soapgetswetanditsfragrancehelpstokeepsmallermammals
metallic wires are installed all along the boundaries ofthe awayfromthefield. However,whenthismethodwastriedin
field. The wire is fixed crosswise. This kind offence was PerumalaiinMarayur,theanimalskeptawayfromthefieldfor
recorded in most places during the survey. The sound and only a few days, as they got used to the smell. Replacement
lightofcrackersscaretheanimalsaway. Burningtorchesare aftera shortbreak had the same effect.
thrown atthe animal leadingto injury, butthis is notdoneat 5. Trenches: Elephant prooftrenches, 2 m deep, 3 m
most places. wideatthetopand 1 nratthebottomhavebeenduginWynaad
2. Stonewall: Onlytwosettlementshadstonewallsto and found to be effective against elephant, gaur and wild
protect crops. The wall was built with rough-cut pieces of boar. Such trenches cost about Rs. 50,000 / km and require
rockandstone,heldtogetherwithcement,andwas mwide annual maintenance. Trenches are not feasible in areas with
1
at the base, 0.5 m on top, and 2 m high. During the study loosesoilandhighrainfall.
periodabrickwallmeasuring0.5 matthebase,0.25 montop, 6. Electricfence: Electricfencingwasrecordedinonly
and 1.5 m high was built in the Pallanad check post and three settlements. The methodis widelyusedtheworldover
AnakalpettisettlementsofMarayurRange.Therewereseveral and is reported to be effective against most animals,
instances ofgaurjumping over the brick wall in Marayur. depending on the number ofwires used. The electric power
Angleironswithbarbedwirewereoftenfixedontopallalong fencesarenormallyc. 150cmhighwith3 to4 wiresc. 30cm
the stonewall, topreventgaurfromscalingthewall. Astone apart. Theyrequire goodmaintenance, vegetation incontact
wallcostaboutRs. 50,000-75,000/km,whileabrickwallcost with the wires has to be removed. Further, though the fence
Rs.40,000-50,000/km. was reported effective against elephants, tuskers reportedly
In Kuppady ofSulthan Bathery range, a stone wall of use their tusks or poles to break the wires. More often, the
about 3 km was builtby the Forest Department all along the fenceactsasapsychologicalbanderoncethe animalhas felt
tar road to stop elephants from entering the settlements. In ashockfromoneencounter. InKerala,about 120kmofelectric
someplaces,especiallyinPepparaWildlifeSanctuary,farmers fences have been erected around settlements at various
had made rubble walls c. 1 m high and 0.5 m wide without locations in Wynaad. Electric fences have alsobeen erected
cementto keepoutsmallermammals,butitwasnoteffective inNeyyarandPeppara WildlifeSanctuaries.
against elephants. An evaluation ofthe methods used in Kerala is given
3. Tine cracker: Line cracker is a special protection in Table 5. Most methods are not suitable against all the
method recorded from four settlements during the study animals and those effective against a single animal, are not
period. A metallicwireofsmallgauge isextendedallaround necessarily cost effective. The selection ofa method would
thefieldataheightof0.5 m,andoneendofthis lineistiedto dependonthe site, raiding animal and funds available.
258 J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 101 (2), May-Aug 2004
EVALUATION OF CROP PROTECTION METHODS
Table 5: Evaluation ofcrop protection methods in Kerala
Methods Advantages Disadvantages
Watchman (guarding at night from machans, Immediateeffect. Can be used in High wages, animals, mainlyelephantand gaur,
huts on ground or rocks) combination with ordinary fencing becomehabituatedandaredangerousforwatchers
Sound making devices Immediate effect. Can be used in Animals become habituated
combination with ordinary fencing,
inexpensive
Lighting fires in the field using firewood, Immediate effect. Can be used in Animals become habituated
burning tyres or torches, and illumination combination with ordinary fencing,
with electric bulbs inexpensive
Olfactory (burnt chillies, toilet soap, smoke, Immediateeffect. Can be used in Animals become habituated in shortduration
repellents combination with ordinary fencing,
inexpensive
Barriers (thorn fence, ropes, spikes, Easy to construct, very effective Expensive, may cause injury to the animals.
barbed wire, wooden poles) againstsmallmammals Not very effective against larger animals.
Missiles (spears, arrows) Deterrent, not usuallyfatal toanimals Expensive,mayinjuretheanimals,woundedanimals
become aggressive
Petdogs Alert the man on watch Elephant may get aggressive, chase dog,
and mayturnouttobedetrimental toman onwatch
Unpalatable vegetation barriers Easy to grow, less expensive Not effective against all animals
(Cacti, Hibiscus sp., eucalyptus, etc.)
Stone wall Little maintenance required Limited effect, material noteasilyavailable,
very expensive
Trenches Very effective High cost of construction and maintenance.
Elephantcanrefillditch. Notadvisableinhighrainfall
areas with loose sandy soil.
Electric fencing Rapid construction, design can be Periodicmaintenance required, high cost
easily changed, very effective
REFERENCES
Anon. (1997): Two decades of research support to Kerala Forest Chauhan, N.P S. & R. Singh (1990): Crop damage by overabundant
Department.KeralaForestResearch Institute,Peechi,Thrissur, populationsofNilgai and Blackbuckin Haryana(India)andits
Kerala. management. Pp. 218-220. hr. Proceedings of the 14th
Banerjee,R.(1994):Powerfencing-itsuseandviabilityforprotecting Vertebrate PestConference(Eds: Davis, L.R and R E. Marsh)
wildlife damaging crops. Abstract ofpaperpresented in the Published atUniversityofCalifornia, Davis.
Workshopon Wildlifedamageproblemsandcontrol. Wildlife Dudley, J.P., A.Y. Mensah-Ntiamoah & D.G. Kpelle (1992): Forest
InstituteofIndia, Dehra Dun. elephantsinarain forestfragment: Preliminaryfindingsfroma
Bell,R.H V&E. McShane-Caluzi(1984):Theman-animal interface: WildlifeConservation Projectin Southern Ghana.Afr../ Ecol
an assessment ofcrop damage and wildlife control Pp 387- 30: 116-126.
416.In:Conservationandwildlifemanagementin Africa(Eds: Easa, P.S.. S.A. Sabu Jahas & M. Balasubramanian (1998): Man-
R.H.V,BellandE. McShane-Caluzi). USPeaceCoips,Malawi. wildlifeconflictinWayanad,SouthIndia:Astudyofcropraiding
Beringer,J., L.P. Hansen; R.A. Heinen&N.F. Giessman(1994): Use pattern, effectiveness of protection measures and people’s
ofdogs to reduce damage by deer to a white pine plantation. attitude. Abstracts of the paper presented in the symposium
Wildl. Soc Bull. 22(4): 627-632. heldat MacquarieUniversity,Sydney.
Bist,S.S (1996): Man-Elephantconflict:Causesandcontrolmeasures. Jayawardene, J. (1994): Elephant conservation amidst development.
Zoos' Print 11(6): 43-46. Part 7. TigerPaper21(3): 23-30.
Chandrasekaran, K. (1994): Field experience ofLaxtron Energiser. Jayawardene,J (1995): ElephantconservationproblemsinSri Lanka’s
AbstractofpaperpresentedintheWorkshopon Wildlifedamage Mahaweli RiverBasin. Pp. 185-196.In: AweekwithElephants
problemsandcontrol. Wildlife InstituteofIndia, Dehra Dun Proceedingsofthe International SeminaronAsian Elephants
Chauhan.N.P.S.&V.B.Sawarkar(1989): Problemsofover-abundant (Eds: Daniel,J.C.andHemantDatye). BombayNatural History
populationsof‘Nilgai'and‘Blackbuck’ in HaryanaandMadhya Society.Bombay.
Pradesh and theirmanagement. Indian Forester. 115(7): 488- Jayawardene, J. (1997): Elephant conservation amidst development
493. Part 9. Tiger Paper24(2): 14-19.
J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 101 (2), May-Aug 2004 259
EVALUATION OF CROP PROTECTION METHODS
Jayson. E.A. (1998): Studies on Man-Wildlife Conflict in Peppara Sukumar, R. (1985): Ecology of the Asian Elephant (Elephas
Wildlife Sanctuary and adjacentareas. KFRI Research Report maximus) and its interaction with man in South India. Ph.D.
No 140 Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi, Trichur, Thesis, Indian InstituteofScience, Bangalore. 542 pp.
Kerala. Sukumar, R. (1986): Elephant-ManConflictin Karnataka. Pp.46-58.
Morris, R.C. (1958): Note on the use of Bamboo gun rocket for In: Karnataka - State of Environment Report 1984-85 (Ed.:
scaring wild animals out ofcultivation. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Saldanha,C.J.).CentreforTaxonomicStudies.Bangalore.
Soc 55: 344-345. Swihart,K.R& M.R.Conover(1990): Reducingdeerdamagetoyews
Osborn,L.(1998):Ecologyofcrop-raidingelephantsinSengwaWildlife andappletrees: Testingbiggamerepellent, RO°PELand soap
Research Area in Zimbabwe. Abstracts ofthepaperpresented as repellents. WildI. Soc. Bull. 18(2): 156-162.
intheSymposiumheldatMacquaireUniversity,Sydney. Thouless,C.R. & J Sakwa (1995a): Shockingelephants: Fences and
Santiapillai, C. & P. Jackson (1990): The Asian Elephant. An action crop raiders in Lalkipia District, Kenya. Biol. Cons 72: 99-
planforitsconservationIUCN/SSC.AsianElephantSpecialist 107.
Group. IUCN,Switzerland. Thouless, C.R. & J. Sakwa (1995b): Elephant fences in Northern
Schultz,B.(1986):Themanagementofcropdamagebywildanimals. Kenya. Pp 523-528.In: A WeekwithElephants Proceedings
Indian Forester 112(10): 891-899. ofthe International Seminaron Asian Elephants (Eds Daniel,
Schultz, B (1988): Construction and maintenance ofpower fences J.C. and Hemant Datye). Bombay Natural History Society,
for Indian Wildlife, India. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra Bombay.
Dun. 44 pp. Veeramani,A.(1998): Anassessmentofcropdamagebywildanimals
Shetty,HR.(1994):PowerfenceinIndianScenario.Abstractofpaper andtheeffectivenessofcontrolmeasures.Ph.D.thesissubmitted
presentedin the Workshop on Wildlife damageproblems and to Forest Research Institute(Deemed University), Dehra Dun.
control. Wildlife InstituteofIndia, Dehra Dun. 150 pp.
260 J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 101 (2), May-Aug 2004