Home > Application > Natural Hazard Management > Landslide & Soil Erosion




The rift in the lute: Rhino habitat in the Kaziranga National Park, India


Gain was observed in grasslands category, as an area covering 38.31 km2 was converted to grasslands from 1988 to 2004. The increase of grasslands was manifested in corresponding decreases in other categories. It was observed that during this period, 28.89 km2 of woodlands, 11.68 km2 of scrublands, 4.28km2 of water and 1.57 km2 of sand were lost or converted to other categories.

YearsGrasslandsWaterScrublandsWoodlands Sands
1988-1994-13.46 17.87 -27.14 21.88 -1.37
1994-1999-26.02 -14.24 65.75 -24.41 -0.25
1999-200124.95 -12.16 -29.79 13.90 0.18
2001-200258.46 -0.17 -34.16 -25.85 -0.07
2002-2004-5.62 -5.62 13.66 -14.41 -0.06
1988-1999-39.48 3.64 38.61 -2.53 -1.61
1988-2001-14.53 -8.53 8.82 11.38 -1.43
1988-200243.93 -8.70 -25.34 -14.48 -1.50
1988-200438.31 -4.28 -11.68 -28.89 -1.57
Table 3: Landuse changes in KNP (1988-2004)


The following graph (Figure 4) shows the trend in total land area change from 1988 to 2004. The total land area estimated in 1988 was 397.44 km2, a decrease from 395.23 km2 in 1994. There was about 0.83 km2 area added in 1999, but there was a gradual decrease in land area onwards. A loss of 2.92 km2 was observed between 1999 and 2001, while 1.80 km2 was observed between 2001 and 2002. In 2004 the area estimated as 389.33 km2, indicating that there was a loss of about 2.01 km2. The park lost a total of 8.11 km2 (0.41%) from 1988 to 2004. The main reason of the land area changes is the erosion of the River Brahmaputra. Although the loss is not so alarming, when considered in the context of a growing rhino population and a high density of the other animals it does indeed make this loss significant.


Figure 4: Changes in Total land area of KNP


In terms of habitat suitability, the conditions in the KNP remained more or less the same. While significant gains were made in the most suitable category, a loss in the area of the next suitable category was recorded (Table 4)

Class name Area in km2
 198819941999200120022004
Most Suitable103.1594.8481.3296.07131.22 130.72
Suitable144.33142.19164.80156.39120.88 118.41
Moderately Suitable57.9050.1851.8650.0149.7548.22
Unsuitable55.8854.1258.4863.1662.2360.24
Water35.5653.4439.0826.9126.7431.20
Total396.81394.76395.54392.54390.82388.80
Table 4: Changes in Suitability in the KNP


Beyond the KNP boundary there are suitable areas in the southern and south-western areas. Although these areas are less suitable, considering their relatively higher elevation they can be used by animals during the monsoon seasons when floods inundate low lying areas of the KNP. Further they could also serve as a corridor to reach the more suitable areas. As the national highway passes along the southern boundary of the park, certain areas are identified as potential sites for the creation of over-bridges for animal crossings (Figure 5). The western and south-western parts of the area along the park boundary have been identified as the suitable areas for the expansion of the park.

Conclusion
GIS and RS methodologies are useful in habitat suitability studies and have been fruitfully employed to delineate landuse-landcover change in the KNP. While landuse changes are not substantial enough to be alarming, seen in the context of growing wildlife density, including rhinos, there is cause for concern and preventive steps will need to be taken sooner or later. In fact, the IUCN placed the KNP’s rhino carrying capacity at 1500, however the current population has exceeded this number, and thus finding suitable areas to accommodate the growing rhino population is more than an academic exercise.

Erdas Imagine’s Expert Classifier is a useful tool to assess the suitability in areas and habitats such as the KNP and the methodology adopted in this study can well be replicated elsewhere and for other wildlife species.


Figure 5: Suitability Analysis outside the Park showing the potential areas for expansion and corridor and animal crossings (over bridges) creation


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
Dr. Norman Kerle of the ITC, The Netherlands provided substantive guidance during the writing of the main report in August 2005. His contribution is hereby gratefully acknowledged.

References
  • Choudhury, A. 2005. Threats to the Greater one-horned rhino and its habitat, Pabitora Wildlife Sanctuary, Assam, India. Pachyderm 38 pp 82-88
  • Civco, Daniel L. Hurd, James D. Wilson, Emily H. Song, Mingjun and Zhang, Zhenkui, 2002, A Comparison of Land Use and Land Cover Changes Detection Methods, ASPRS- ACSM Annual Conference and FIG XXII Congress
  • Hazarika, R. 2003. Asian Elephant Habitat Analysis and Suitability Modeling using Remote Sensing and GIS in Kameng-Sonitpur Elephant Reserve, India. Academic Output, CSSTEAP, India
  • Jacquin, A. Cheret, V. Denux, J. Gay, M. Mitchley, J. and Xofis, P. 2005. Habitat Suitability Modelling of Capercaillie(Tetrao urogallus) using earth observation data. Journal for Nature Conservation, Volume 13, 2005, pp161-169 (www.sciencedirect.com)
  • Jordan, L.E. 2005. Expert Systems help extract information from New Geospatial Data, www.eomonline.com/Common/Archives/2000jan/00jan_jordan.html, viewed on July 6, 2005
  • Kushwaha, S.P.S. Khan, A. Habib, B. Quadri, A. and Singh, A. 2004. Evaluation of sambar And muntjak habitats using geostatistical modeling, Current Science Vol.86, No.10, pp1390-1400
  • Kushwaha, S.P.S. 2002. Geoinformatics for wildlife habitat characterization, Map India, 2002 Mongkolswat, C. and Thirangoon, P. 1998. Application of Satellite Imagery and GIS to Wildlife Habitat Suitability Mapping, AARS-ACRS1998, (www.gisdevelopment.net)
  • Polce, Chiara. 2004. Application of Geographic Information Systems to assess the environmental suitability for reintroduction of Griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus) in Retezat National Park, Romania, IFA Report, ITC, The Netherlands
  • Ramirez, J.A. 2005. Habitat Suitability Mapping using Expert Knowledge and Simulation. M.Sc. Thesis, ITC, The Netherlands.
  • Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan of Asian Rhinos, 1997, IUCN/SSC Rhino Specialist Group, published by, IUCN, Gland, Switzerlands.
  • Schadt, S. Knauer, F. Kaczensky, P. Revilla, E. Wiegand, T. and Trepl, L. 2002. Rule-based assessment of suitable habitat and patch connectivity for the Eurasian Lynx, Ecological Application, Vol.12, No.5, pp 1469-1483 (www.esajournals.org)
  • Nico J, van Strien, 1985, The Sumatran Rhinoceros in the Gunung Leuser National Park, Sumatra, Indonesia, PhD thesis, Agricultural University, Wageningen
  • Talukdar, B.K. 2000. The current state of rhino in Assam and threats in the 21st century, Pachyderm 29 pp 39-47
  • Venugopal, J. 2001. Analysing rhino habiata suitability and its changes in chitwan district, Nepal using remote sensing and GIS, IFA Report, ITC, The Netherlands
  • Vigne, L. and Martin, E.B. 1994. The Greater one-horned rhino of Assam is threatened by poachers. Pachyderm 18 pp 28-42
  • Vigne, L. and Martin, E.B. 1998. Dedicated field staff continues to combat rhino poaching in Assam. Pachyderm 26 pp 25-39
  • Vasu, N.R. 2002. Periodic reporting exercise on the application of the world heritage convention (http://whc.unesco.org/archive/periodicreporting)
  • Weiers, S. Bock, M. Wissen, M. and Rossner, G. 2004. Mapping and indicator approaches for the assessment of habitats at different scales using remote sensing and GIS methods. Landscape and Urban Planning 67 (2004) pp 43-65
  • Laurie, William Andrew, 1978, The Ecology and Behaviour of the Greater One-horned Rhinoceros, Phd thesis, University of Cambridge
  • Liu, X. Bronsveld, M.C. Skidmore, A.K., Wang, T. Dang, G. and Yong, Y. Mapping Habitat Suitability for Giant Pandas in Foping Nature reserve, China
  • WWF Species Status Report, Asian Rhino, 2002, http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/asianrhinosummary.pdf
    http://www.wcmc.org.uk/igcmc/s_sheets/worldh/kaziranga.html Viewed on 08.07.05
    http://www.rhinos-irf.org/rhinoinformation/indianrhino Viewed on July 6, 2005
Page 3 of 3
| Previous |