qi 'n'rl qi - app.dnp.go.thapp.dnp.go.th/opac/multimedia/ebook/59_102/59_102.pdf · qt i...
TRANSCRIPT
QI QI
'n'rL
(w'N 1 09VINU 2553 Ell 30 1'tIJ1tJt 2556)
'. - I Q.) QJ QJ d
'1fl JYW1J ft fl'l°iJ 'U
(Mammalia: Carnivora)
lu c'win
n1u11vi$?J- iii LAU4h
1
qt
I 2553 30 ntIyJ1 2556 (3 !J)
4 1. Ininwr
ii niicd (Mammatia: Carnivora)
Ranging ecology and interactions between small and large carnivores (Mammalia: Carnivora) in Thung Yai
Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary, western Thailand
4 V 2. ¶U1In1LL J'J
(1) i. ucpm uIi W
49 LLfl1u1J L'? 1 LJl flLW 10150
(2) rniiin ( - 1fyr)
17fl9f1WfliUCW1LEfl fl flfl11flflJY1
LI Ln'1fl
49 Ti- J LU LJU n1wimmufll 10150
I'W' 02-470-7571 I1-1 02-452-3455
(3) MI. LLWIIU
unì4 iuni
4 • 4o 3. 11n1n'flJ
flL1flh 1.Jm i1fl1fl 1flflfl1Y
JULJU 83 8 IL lflJ LUtJLV1tJ1J
flLA1WV 10150
02-470-7571 ti 02-452-3455
4. 3 J
LUI1Y1 1 u1J 2553 Auqmlminll 30 t'uu1uu 2556
5. LflU ULY uiijn
2
.• fl iuti iiruf, nenrtment orNann; Park Wj,fl' P!it (f'flcrv1,,,
1lJJ415
1111J
niUflUL144 ni in nnn iniTh
1) flJVLflh11J1
2) flW fl1VLL1flJ Lff1A15 %'13JNi
3)
2554
flLfl'flW1J 2555 LJL1 12-23 L€U 1Ln1.nU't1J U1
1l LlJLfl 6.92 (95% minimum convex polygon) YH1r 2.42 1S12J.
LLL?1uJJ 2 ci'T 2.15 LLat 1.31 5.85 m5naj. iri'n 1.02 4UT1.flJ 1.99 r.n3J.
hJL2flT fyj1J(V
nL'iJ Ln i in rn,JiJ I lJUW1Lfl
wrui ci'tu (Liu)
iu (1JN ijc'L,j) LJU1'n I L4L U
1LN flj LL1 (ji 12) MIUviumminuku LJ11fl Lfl WJ1
(uii) L JNi13J
U1LJLL'flY1
L-dwo-A i4hNyuli 1J iJ 1Ni 2 iinntu 'tiid nini
thnuJn1 L1w)rn
nLLthJtU JnnY1 In fl1fl1U
(n)
ti n
nnuin 76-100
76-100) iinin
i intunin inn un(iWiat 2600)
p
fli flLCi 95 78 --di
tLU1 Mtl - -
LI tifli fl1flJflJ LLfl1flL1Lj
,- .,
. . - . - - JJ1 1flfl41flJ
Iiii I 1 1 fl1j
(1 6nn3nnn1 53 6j3J) flLL
12 wm4ulU 111J
LL1 10 . ulJ k-ulu"lizp diiuynj
LLfl1fl CJ1'
uidi-itu 1UN ILF LI LL 40 W. ,Y1LL1fl4
ndi IL1U UILflflt1flfl1T) 11 tLIiln1 SLn
ntiih fl1L ULJU1f) I CU flL fl3J
LLn11n'1 n1U n -wrii i Ini- è6
L1fl1 flJIW1
ULLUfl.J itni LLLTh4L CU ULThJflII
u1iu I LQ1n1 1CWVfl
1flflL11LLl4UJ0.
thi flUIL 11L1fl WJ1YCU14'1
LLfl fl'hJiLIfl 79 [95% Cl, 32 - 1911 I'/.fl3J. IL?I 225 [106 - 4771 LtzJii 2
76 [45 - 1281 " /W5.fl1J. LLM 93 [57 - 1501 i13JWW1U
2 J J1UlII1-U
IJ
loolulon3TIIJMUILLUU 15.3 LLat 36.3 c
LIICfl/WT ci113J41J IL iJ101 30.5 LLat 35.4 UII Ifl /IcrT1 J1J '1J''1 1ULLUU Lila J'?JEN
ILL EU1C.J1 '1U flIflflflNitJ ( nU-rJniiU) Nwju 19 1J 40
I11'5 LLNnNrnJ1n ( 1Jfl3Jfl1IU-2CflUU) itn'u 36
Na
CU i'th U'J 1fl1 Ui II flfl'1
iJLIVYnJi Ii1fl€flJ1'JiU ifliflU'?i'üUiN LIJU
Ii iIIWJfl'11IJT1JiU
CU LW1ITh UNn IJ'J 'UIi1fl'1 'LUILII'i.IJi
4
LLfl1fl'1tJflTh ULL 1 2 'tflWi l3JLLfl hJ*Wfj
U ½13J 1fl1fl Ul3J
u nul i 26-50 hJTiLLfl 11 tJ1 75-100
34 LiiTiwn 45 Milloal 'h 2 TI nni 43 LLJ
ar 41 Jfl 1JJ1L 2ThW1J LTi11JLLLJ11J (o 33
24) 2 Ti (i 11 iuv 15)
1ftfl 1Li' LI LL JLYh1'U (üu 30) 1Li?J1b
1u?iTi n*u'b (u 54) JLL iiJ Ln11L fThT
flfl1 flflflUflTh flJ')
fl1 TtJflJtirn (fl J) LI JJYW (iw
.z1) riiu I'ii iniiin
innin iLvicj
J flfl1LI411 ILL flLfl iYI..1
MIU . LL1Jflthfl It3JJ I
1fl LL Jfl12J
1Th1IL 1.6 6rlllO ii tziuv (M.M.) Un 2.7 6hllO LLL1U ijitj €d'i1iTi
2 1 1LLnr?J.nI LIN L W14I1JU 5.7 /10 LLI 1LI1
Ili3J1CU 0.4 cI/10
II1 I TiflYUJ ticu
i-ij iLL LLL flfl1J 50 nflLJItJY,J *'L,,4
nit*i IIN flTL iflflL flLLU
&llM'A'113JMU'ILLUUlA
hIE.Ji'i L1IL
iinndii cu (jL) LI ninTdiJh ( LLLIL3J11)
I .JL'?i'?11i LJ' 2 mummmoianmil 10-11 6h LIt1J2J fliU
unndiu
5
lol V-5-um Wuailfi -51 m-55 1&j
n1nr -.
1. fl11 r1J flLflWh
2. fl1 LL U1 LflL w1L1qj fl1LL J IL Y1A1 EJfl
3.
flflTãLLLWN
unthuri (Mammalia: Carnivora) n1 nulJui
' u 28 IdN nn 6 tTh 20 n 5
15 Iani) (Nakhasathien and Stewart-Cox, 1990; Lekagul and McNeely, 1977;
Steinmetz and Mather, 1996; Conforti, 1996) 1L1 n1 i1rnJ1
(wu nn) LLOWUN
Ui%1T Lf1 3Lh.JEY1W LJU &) nLd1L1JV1 J
iwI (Rabinowitz, 1991) , Lfl flL /WJ'Y1LLU. ii
Ln1U 1na LLgILL1L) (Conforti, 1996)
(van de Butt, 2003)
(L'du (Rabinowitz, 1991) &Nalm'niwh'5'mjai
Conforti (1996)
fl 1'?JJ1Lfl zrimmu flLU.flW1
nin milu nn ri (Conforti, 1996) IL LLL14a1J
(Prayong and Srikosamatara, 2006; Rabinowitz, 1991;
Rabinowitz, and Walker, 1991; Simcharoen et at., 1999; Duckwcrth, 1997) '1J1 L1.L'I Ti?i 2
ininwntj (I IL thjin.nu) LflW1 L'1'LJ LL3.J.h ZL ('LJn
JJU'Lfl) (Mukherjee et at., 2004) Lifl fl'ifl1 1 fl'iflJfl'fl J''hiflTi
iirn Ln niqn 1'flJ 1 LU1Ln1L'J1JLJTh
n1JrnA LL 1'flflUflJ'U (Walker and Rabinowitz, 1992; Rabinowitz, 1991;
Grassman et at., 2005; Lynam et at., 2005; Steinmetz et at., 2006; n1com Lekagul and McNeely, 1977;
Duckworth, 1997; Duckworth et at., 2005; Grassman, 2000; Grassman et at., 2005a)
aanmi (Grassman et at., 2005a)
(Grassman et at., 2005b) LLN'Ja (Rabinowitz, 1990; Simcharoen et at., 1999)
(Rabinowitz 1990; Grassman, 1998) (Simcharoen, 1998) LLfl'b
(Grassman et a(., 2005c) IU1 iflflW1L wi (home range) nnh (habitat use) DIFAU
LJlni'n nnni 1SIWhi, u4iwi iu uiniw
1flfl'11.iY1
1fl 1UJ1
L'J'U
i (Grassman, 1999) 1 flL fl'fl (Rabinowitz and Watker, 1991) iJui
vha coyote (Canis (atrans) Lot swift fox (Vulpes
velax) (Thompson and Gese, 2007) Lotu.mlii coyote t'u gray fox (Eurocyon cinereoargenteous) uit bobcat
(Felis rufus) (Fedriani et at., 2000) LJ1.JU 1Lfllt3J
13fl)t1LLtU 1flfr fl U0J31J jn-r .jüiw
wii iri nn -i unni
MUVIViAIM~-1 iiu inu i.jguinigiii wviha$ (Nakhasathien and
Stewart-Cox, 1990; Conforti, 1996; Chutipong et at., 2014)
jnn nin nit in tirn (resource partitioning)
(I iii Lu€n) I'cgh
(viu i lirunaiiu lui niii)
iu (i.'u J fl'ULL Thic) nnnii
1Y1 ln n1.nc fl11'L2i
fl flL1 11J
U1 3J
T1J
tJn
(nu-wi Rabinowitz and Walker 1991) iu
11fl 1J'U1Lfl tu
7
flTJ fli ic i n'NTh' M. 2517
ma'UMM"~%h %41 '1 i Lfl1 1fl L11 (3,622 V5. mi. 2,279,500 1i
2 'l A@ mQ@ULJI LLw1n)
i:Jii:Ji VI4Q 1 1L L
'/111tIfl13iEJJ M.M. 2534 t0tiEni1 UNESCO
Zlfl€flfl1?l
JnWi'-i 3 crn jth.i (qwnJ 61 maimij) qtrn (qfr1rnJ 61 n3imiTug)
(u-i unuu) 1nthuIwLQi 2,337 uJw wi11 la.M. 2529-2539 tiThJ3flcu
iithiai (in'i'i 100 jii.) ad 5 AU nnww 61 ii'titjiuu (van de
Bult, 2003) LQ3J1fl 28 iiia (Thai Meteorological Department, 2005)
flL1 JTh1J
MILLI 200 (uji'L'ic "Ld) 1,800 i1 n'i11 1 UL%1?1
1t4)fl
L 1TUfl Lfl OJN11%tIEI 1L
h4flJ1 L1U (Jli1
i13JY
i1n4a-lu iin it1J (aiui 45-47) nj't'iJdti 2 flu€ iJir.i
LLMIOU h tiu (euzi 28-31) ,hiiii (5-mat 15) iaa (u 4) 114Lhi
(8a 5) (Nakhasathien and Stewart-Cox, 1990; Kutint ira and Bhumpakphan,
1989)
69 ici win 52 ana Li.i 28 ' 'o-Mn EJn' 289 Jl cnn 177 aqa
'Lu 52 '.wi iunu 'Lini 48 cnn 34 gina 'Lu 12 ii LI I LUUfl 'Linii 15 ijN cnn
8 ana 'Lu 5 II tJirn.iici 'Lini 67 'iii cnn 49 OQO 'Lu 20 -AA (Kutintara and Bhumpakphan, 1989) 1I4
(plant
geographical characteristics) Lkul 3 I'JIWEJflu 'L1II6 LTh1 flIL uIJn3J'1 (Indo-Burma) gulvilvui Undo-
China) II6u1flI (Annamatic) iiau inn (Indo-Malaya) (Kutintara and Bhumpakphan, 1989)
(home range)
LL'rfr?J 1J1.fli 43'1J LLL
11fl1fTW1
u-in EVIJU J3J1 fl1flLLLfl tun iniir (Mesh live-trap)
1julm 50 x 50 x 120 '. (n x wn x n) W1
fl Jifl L 1flJ
11nnn ni L flt W1U J'1I.JC1 tr1.flT51
2553 51i5vrimj 2554 r'h ( nLL'L4cii) mu
28 1 ( uiui 2 F1 5-1) (i'i 1) um iu 7
Lflflfl tiLL fl m4IthLI) uchri 1 L1 nthiiiI' fltfl
6 n€uJ1u flJfl1 LUJ1cYY) IL L1UWF S1LI 1WVWIfThfl
I fli 1JflCUL1fl UJuJuTh'v1141flu (home range)
11nnh 1IIJn1ruu,41nu ni Lui'n 2
'Lu 2 '1L'1 t 'i (06.00-08.00
u) LLiiu (18.00-20.00 u) 1 uniuijijicuin 2-3 acn LEJW1
NUJLJ1fl'1 (bi/triangutation) 1n i'Inh LuIthIIfl'J Arc View 3.3 ([SRI Inc., Redlands, CA,
USA) Lu n LJTh1 LLa 'LJfl'l1tfl'U
Maximum Convex Polygon (MCP 95% LI 50%) fixed Kernel (Kernel
95% LLa 50%) ddiaiwinviininiu€di LL u113.nu
LuuLuun1nn'Luu']
--
nw)'n'ijg 2554 unn -w 2555 u1u uuLIa II1flh'u'LlJ
L'Lurn -nnu 3)
65 LIuI 50 (MCP
95% IL Kernel 95% jgi'u) 3 'w 2 vnimajat
63-78 (MCP 95%) II i'€jua 66-83 (Kernel 95%) j'ij
2 m ulniILa - *1Iu u uLIi 1.02 3.78 ovmi
IILn Lin ii iiuinwiu'L'J cuniin.
II L1J1fl (run unwvl) uu'Luuuni inn ilu
@0 12-14 1 13Jr 1L core area (MCP 50%) 2 11 Thni (Grassman et at.,
core area (MCP ut Kernel 50%) nijhj
Y1fThLfl6Y) 1 nIZL3J
i41nJJ (1nn uv)a 12-23 i€n) cirI (n=5)
nnl 5.2-6.2 m7nj. (95% KerneL Uft MCP g1J; Grassman et at., 2005b) v1nJ$t'u
nuirnni.a' uij (n= 1) nrfru (i1-i 3) nnti
i€*r (n=1) inn n nni JiIi Grassman et al. (2005b) itz'i Lhrni
(75-139 wi
LtJiJiJñ'i.J 67 Im iij) i €nahiIiiWfti
ij d bcljJ1n1'n (<10 ii tui) ni
Grassman et at. (2005b) • ..
'Ltuuwmnnii ui n 1ui niijv core area i •
iinnnu (,.jnyi 1 mi. nu. vinill
2 ninin)
fli flefl
L ii a -i Lfl in'i in LWM1J'
flTL tJ
'L1n1Lnu1flL fl,JLrnEJJ1J Lfl L11iLflY1
injhJu ijajiLu (in)
LL51 (1i ukLNLu) &m& 60 iiui (€ti
a 12) (nin 1) Ji1L13J1in ji)iiJ Odll L1%JU UL'?iJ1U
LLa.n-n Fj ntiulun5 nh11.h11Mauiflfl11n1fflJ vmu
Thrni i L1.iu 1vv1Na 2 thni Jt'U IkL6 i1ii ni,rnan'i (Carbone et al.,
1999) n jni 'iiNa iin
iun1i
(iiin) ij'ui wiii (rn 2)
10
fl75 -- fl1 LflTLflU 5 ny1flJ LLfi Jsrn.ni 2 cI') LLLJL
ci,ni 3 hwi 5 'tJni WYUJ 2-3
i 20 L 'UJgflEflfl11
tL LL flWlJ1fl
flLfl1'1LJ L 20 LULJ U1ErLJ UUf)iThJFJ L1JI'L
nThJ*u (n)
flL1 10-40 tij. Lot 240 rdaj. 4uliJ ('ii)
11Lthbi (tangled structure) () i€ni () 'nit
,JnJdI-u (u) unJn EUtJM (LthLhJ 4 c'u 1: 1-25%; 2: 26-50%;
3: 51-75%; LL 4: 76-100%) ( 1IJT'1 L n11.LL1J13J
1L1*h'U Iirrnn1i 2 'ua "ii" ugi ""
LL '1 .LLL1Ji4 LL () 'UW
flJ fI 1UJUfl4ffl 1JflSflfl1'ti
Lfl I JJ 3 J'tLLfl 1) 1fllJ€1 2) ij jwi ig 3) ciTj
Iinni Ctn m emergent tree) n tini di'1tIthirrj Arc View 3.3
11u1L1 LLYflTt4W) " il Lhfl'r4U" LLn1fl 11J1
J1
N1LLfl5(J -- LL flflW13J 2555
5 c' LL11 4 flT
LUL 1.
5 U1flLfl ILiJi
76-100 ad inu n
aJnT1
anin n'Thanin ard-i (iui 76-100) LLi A.
AULAI Lfl' U n-mJ nA alAN Lhnil (u
26-50) LL flflT 'flU 1LLflfl L1J (vN
(Joshi et a(., 1995; Mudappa, 2006) ad nnnwm- i
LtJ,n 2
aannnauLd- 1 a ni uanina iniu
11
fllnL 95 L Ja 78 ' u
11 'tJLJ€t1J • 0
LLflLflYUflJ
(maximum tree height) hn'iw in wiPn
~Ublj -vim flWh Lila IJtli 1LL Lflii(
Ln t1UL Lv ( nnnnni 53
UL?1 1ULfl W5flSflflktiJiflnhi 12 UJJhJ FtJni LDfl
wm~-iwvm-umi5ij
10 i3J.Iruld 1'1' d1$11UfI'Y12J
diL'Kif'ii LAUL1 111 l3JLungnLL 40 . nJW%LLthJ
ni di4 LL flflf11T L'1Lfli fl
(home range) &m iNn Li1i nJ
rn niUflJY1 1iLL1JtL1J
LiflU'?Jii
UiLL1&U ui1cni iaiJi cu
Lfli J UL 1n1 n1 'hininLL cijaiiqjniiinnn-rvi
12
nhj iwr
LflUlU%1l
2
LJN
6 LLfl IIA37 L11i L11J LLL3J'1T
(nui ut1iJ) LLfl111J
hL1
nitJnJi (SEF) Ji j (MDF) Li (DDF) LLNU (MXF) ini'
(uv) (w) ArcView 3.3
LLLLt L1hJ lIfl flcl tJ) 1i3Ji1.S L1nL1Jfr15
iiii '1tni 1nJ $ 'WILf
, ,- ,
LU JL'V11.
linnn,.ii1,j' 2 2 tJL inJ
l,JJ1J-W1 Lfl1WflW.4 nni&t'ti fl1.JW1 LI W13 in
cij'LJi'ii 00 M9ivAPmmik (Iul ni) LI nihn-wi (nTjj/taA
rr)
innditinii ini ,J 5
U. ij'1,J (i LLI/1Mc11i) tiJa.
Wfl4 20 Laim I iu @viqMim-5hMinmAnmFjmvi
L%I1I'1J 0.13 LOAM-115' IU 3J1flJ 7.15 Llat 6.11 LOAM1 I -Ili ijif'tj
LL
.unini'u II n1ni ni in 1.UEWl (% canopy) u
5 L:jm,5 IUn1 u.1IJu 4 'd 1 (<25%), 2 (26-50%), 3 (51-75%), Lot 4 (>75%)
4 inn (% ground) 2 I i1JILtJIit 20 'iii
a 10 ¶flJ. lolu ill ~mvrll MIIJUU-Iill4 5, 10, 15 LIU 20 LJY
(Malcolm & Ray, 2000)
13
S. a
-- flu 1flL 1 Lfl1LflWflflWJ (rodents) Nnwrin5lk
(Sherman live trap; Sherman Traps, Inc,. Tallahassee, Florida) lU 2 (aiiiuU) LUfl111
unduunu 2 1 lULL fl1flhL flfl.ttU 4 ' 'UdJ (naa16) lului
iuunnuuuu 5 LU LLcaL'Ji'u 200 UJ lULL fl'flciuUTh 12 n lwiuin.
fl1U 15 L,J15 nil LL dEJ1'1L1a1 5-6 uj-i'Wi 1L€14
lJfltJUfl JLLai LL 'IZ1i1Un flu fl41J Uflfl LLiL1a1 18.00-07.00 U.
LYI1IU L 1J ULLifllU
•ti' win&MjI 06.00 U. nUi unur n LU1Y1I
1J€111 ciiun u -wTu 1A1 ULi'Jl1J14 (Monet tag
No. 1) LEM Ufll'lLLUfl*) LLa JJU fJ 1U IJIt&UMUMUILLUU fltL3J) tnu'uu
(capture - mark - recapture) lUfll l iflhlLWIU1lULLJ'lrn. "0" LL "1" ItULJU
imwil-un-ii9i,n'@ (occasion) il package "secr" (Efford, 2013) IuIJ5LLn51j R (R Core Team 2013) tJul
(n=4
lorili ANOVA LLa1nFr W1.LLa I l'flTh11aJLL1J1J Tukey HSD test (with
adjusted p-value = 0.1)
Na -- lflfllUlfl Il'flfl1tfllU 16 U lUJL1a1 2 NIAI U11711U mflfl4UlLLU (nun
3n) LL 1LiI11VI WIMAI 3'J)
LL111
(F3.12=9.414, p=0.002
LIft F312=5.509, p=0.013 u3Ju 'u) 2
J (rn'v an) 1U 2 l 3JFY11JLL1 flIlfU LL1 2 UThr1a
2 LL1UU UJLL'n (nu 48)
UlL1fl1 lUU UW1lflilUYfl.Pi1Ll'lifl LUJ3J1113J
(unnu
lLLUflFl Iuauii.ia) 1UL LnIll(UlU 2
nuia 1U4ULi1I ibfqi4hmAI
Uil' lU UE Lt UTh JLL (u'bn) LLa)uNa3JNlu (uU'tJ) 1Ufil1U
1'UUuflflifl'efllUaULLLaLUUi
J1LaL0 IflJ1 lUlUflmi'VUL fla1JJ
(Venkataraman et al., 2005; Nakagawa et a(., 2006)
14
fl flC4Ufl1,J oo a
1YfUPi LL fl1fl1iWF J
LLfl11 (wi 800 1,000 Lai) V *1 V V 01 4 a 01
'?flhYWI Ufl 1L fl L L LL11W
't UU in iJLfli LJtM 'fl flTfl11. fl1Jn'1U L"JU L4LUinI1U
JLnU (t 1L4i) nin
L %bNU Iii flWifiU1 (Nakagawa et at., 2006; Wells et at., 2007)
m-Auvnnilhija -- I3JL 1 fliLLflh i3JtL1JkU
nin l,mfl 6 nti
Loa L'JU it ini i iwi tLL1t 4'I131 LL94l
fl 1 1Ufl1JflTh 14 JYltZ%1 (U
nj.) Ui.3'l1J LLa 1WYF n1JflJ Ltth
LYfl 3Ji1'LJ LI LaiUL3JJ 1JiIfl I ifliJfl1fli
(Rabinowitz and Walker, 1991; Grassman, 1999; Phetdee, 2000)
inniiUIii ifl'iii i1flt1flfl
IiLncuffl AIC (Akaike Information Criteria; Burnham and Anderson, 2004)
i rnii tii AICc (iijIL
h.'Lunwth igw I 1J10J- i1J (LuTh ni 'UJthin ILani'thinJ COMO
nILLiUa [0,11)
1U)1fl I3JW AICc (MICc) nnn- i 2 in'biiThn AICc
(AICc = 0.0) i i3JiflhirT1ffl
(wi)
-- LI Ii WLLfl nitiniwi Iii 1flWN I LcJII JE ' 2 wiinwi
U 'U.JLWfli'U2J1n (Welch Two Sample t-test: t=-0.579, d.f.=60.78, p=0.5647) (ii 6)
'tvullT]LLn fl iL i1Jin1nnnT1'LtflfV1 2 (t=2.989, d.f.= 114.57, p=0.003) Jil
iJ inin Cu fl UEJa 26-50 'LukLn (35%
nkm n= 102) LIua 75-100 l'ii (32% Taivhnki, n=41) in1n i
34 hJJLLn LLM~@Fiat. 45 lJciac 'L'uii' 2 tJ I1C nua 43 (n=102) ILIU
at 41 (n=41) l ni 1iJII IiJi1J 11 iN II1IIaN1U (aua 33 LL
'aua 24) IU J1NN11JJ1..Sni 2 i1 (5miat 11 LIa iana 15)
nliIi IL fl1J iil 1UL'1ifJ (u 30) 4i
l MDA niJhni (n 54) @FAW101hLL61
15
2 2 J rnyi
6 ii IMJI 52 1flTh 143
20) (ti 19) MvU (aua 15) ('aia 14) IUJ'1 ii1 (fria 10)
tJ It It • .1; 0 V V It 0 0 - - 01
wii (Kruskal-WaUis test; X2 = 142, d.f.= 3, p<0.0001) 1L LL0T 'Z6
ninuuit I' Lth 15.3 LL 30.5
2J11J L11J%4rnLL1.iu 36.3 um. 35.4 ctLLL L T/L icrv 'h iiva -iiJ
nnt a (AAICc <2.0) in 6 'ii (ii 7) 'iuii
43.n't 'J1LN4JJ. iitrJ IL LL3J11'fl 'tLLfl ATIV0112141041 (attitude) n w
(% canopy) (stream)
(predator) 13J1J
(wi > 0.8) 1aJ2iJ1flfl LILa) LL4Lifl1 LWfl(1
(nnnh wi) IL 340th
LLU1U L°fl.I1Wfl iLLth ni (i3J wi =
0.91) 'VU1J
n,0 ju 3 n~3jflhfl fl WiJ1fl LLnhJ1.'1J
t IL J&J IL i.in'tni i
ngT1E LI LL 1ntflJ1%
iuTiciI (h ,hNri'hJ) nn iri (tih j) (rni 5) ftt
nui
1n1 'flrLi nJn11h4n LIaJn?1Lhfl11'n (Chuang & Lee,
1997)
nuii
L flN LI1.fl.J
2 1II aL IL LIt 1iI, cflZ1T1 (rni
5) L LLL UIQL1J LflL 3Jfl Nfl1fl f!i',Jfli?1fl1fl
U'] 2 lflUL lb (Nakashima et at., 2010; Zhou et at.,
2008)
S31flfl LflflUUflrlU ILV nrin-i
~IfflJAT)NU WLiULL37LAUJWT (Rabinowitz & W&.ker, 1991; Phetdee, 2000)
16
a v a a a n1JLUr)
huiXmi n) viju
fl1 LL 3fl1LJ 1flL fl 1n1 1rnifl3J
mfla-itiflimuirinnii (spatial aggregation) 12fl1
L1fl
(Jacomo et at., 2004; Harmsen et at., 2009)
i -ib:I Ll SflnLLth'11 I
95 wj1 X 44
L1''I jJg 95 JJ1JL1 0.5 mag
(iiu um6iuh hu
%'€rnrnJ IL 'cn1LI titiw u'?iLN1i) 1tJcIJi
ni
11LLU NlI 1Ln
(u tii)
iii n1 €Nnn rn.inn'i (spatial scale)
(temporal scale) t tii LnLQ1L,J
17
Idi riiin Ln'u L flflJ 'JJ 1' L'1J fl1L'lflhVL
(Karanth et al., 2004) fl1flUUfl1nLn 13Ji
1LtJ3J1LaLJ (Mohd-Azlan & Sharma, 2006) ni'niij (h
Dajun et aL, 2006; Kauffman et a(., 2007)
in ci'iwh ni'ih in innu
ginm€nn-wi
nnndiun' (Stealth Cam STC-1590; Stealth Cam, LLC, TX, USA) iLthJn1W1'U
8 'L1 LL1s%iU nflfl 55 I at 47 @m 'lthLn LL 19 c Lot 22 o. 4 , , ,'
nULUMON ci izi incni
1Li1J i 2 J (1i$ 9)
i.z(an) 1*1U L1 1'b L?J1J I@FJ
14 fl131 L flL1AflflUYU
'nu11n3ywu 40-45 'm. n'ja€1 24 ''b uni nani
ii'c (inni 1LL 20.6-27.2 nJ. (ni 9)
2-3 1i
LLai12J1CI
I iniinni 1iILiJl LUJ (i1ji
LIM) LI 'tjni iwurnrnu (1
IniiN 2 inni1LLUni1UJ1L1
Li1WItJ 2 cI1 iLLtJflLLiiflhJ 2 10-11 ci'i
iaiTi (ni 8) ad1i3.1
Mllul1twoiflh1i1Wli1A1'
L'lflJ
aiUL')1Jfl IrnNi 1jLL,JJ 11L1iUNtJ'Lfl41 (ni 6)
*ii (Herorctos moloyanus) IL iin (Ursus thibethonus) (Ngoprasert et at.,
2012)
18
- no 11IU14'tfl 9I1 IIUW
r''rtrricnt ot National Part. Wildl,t nd Plant Conservation i't'-a
(capture history) 1 '3jw.'1. IUiJJ "0" LL
'tci "0" LL nilnn niiin iiJrn (occasion) ui "1" un1,
nii u 'L '1JI1 1111 'i'T1')
R (R Core Team 2013) DIFJI package 'secr' (Efford, 2013) Lfl1LUIJ'L
maximum likelihood model 1nndnhL Jfl (spatially explicit capture-
recapture, SECR) (Borchers & Efford, 2008) LL fl11IJE
nnL fla tfl flfl LLU11 fl1JtA
buffer strip width (W)
(effective trapping area, A(W))
-- fl1u LLNi 9-10 LLiaJ a13LJYfl,,j
iui iJ (iinu*/10 ii 'auj) 1Wi'u,ct n iJ11ni (n'ni 9) titj'ti.zIwn Frim
1.6 /10 MITIAMUM5 u, 2.7 /10 r5.nJ.
211Ii'1J 11UNII 2 L EJ-3L1U 5.7 *)/1 0 m.m. 1LL11I1J
LLLN 0.4 6hlio .fl3J. V1J
(95% CI l4) tnnnni i'b
1nfY11'1t1O4'1 4u1UL%T1
LL'lf) (ri 9)
1nn.Z
uw nn u" nLu ocelot
(8-18 nn.) n1n Vfl1 LL.J'L1 WJ'/1
ocelot 'Lnaìui VIUM vdi th (5.85-9.47 */10 Kolowski &
Alonso, 2010) IL 1JLJ (5.9 /10 l.fl3J.; Diltion & Ke(ly, 2007) 113J't1in UUn1nW1A2i
11tTh i2( 2
polygon Jn1L fl fl1-tJ ni tin
(ESA) i'1r4ni
in (Efford, 2004; Obbard et at., 2010)
n Lii 1J flfl'fl'Li1'UJTI UWI1LL11'
LLfla IL1J'IJ LLflui fliJ
iLiiuLL iNfl (jrrw 4n,'u) dii iiU Liii iLVUtJJ
Ar
(iiuh) iin1 11JM1LL'U'U
un flhLd1 'Th'U i4ii1J i1J iLL
50 (iintih)
19
Ufl 11 1J
antnafl
L'?JJ 1'Tflf1W.4 L1U1Jfl
a€urn jnuLn -jrjini.zingrn t uia Mu Suazo-
Ortuño et at., 2011) n LL L1h%1 .( .2 • 0' a
2iflJ . U • • a . .t . a t. • a'
LL11L1L 1 LJIJ'1. fl1fl
ni tEnian1ulnn1w
,?J1rW1fl L U'LULUJ'fl' Ln inn UJi ii1tvvi. 2
't1JLLLLaSi'1UTh LL (Rajaratnam et at.,
2007) 1*i , n
LL LLNi nLnWiY1irn4t lLLfl WVU 'U1JflL%U
tfl LUJ izri OJIMAMATUITI 2 Thinii
WiTh. Y] nnLn'L'1iW.rn n'lti1JLJTh
'th thnnm5uniamim anbcu.,vmniFjmvq nw (zib
ua'iu) LL iiiflLLA LLnflThl1J rn
LLJtJ
LLJ 1L'1OhJ
LLnini1Ln14)'hJ
uiai 2 Th1 flYfl flhiLilJflia'E.i'UJ flifli UlJ€YW1J
1i"I1.J LI iflLfllJi1' I in ninI,LIIainiI'..rJi i'?1
iII1'cLjiflJ ILn'flfliUfli' 'h.i3J ii'fl Lfl1
IIIii1hJf'u (LI nI urnjcnnin iniii.nn
IiJIfl iini1L0d) Ua uwin-in-imu
tniflLi1nU
20
11I 1
UL 4fl 1fl'W3J 2553 - .JTWJ 2554
(i) irnnTh (nn) ntJL
I11 LL11i1J. (uu) 6 -
(u.itj) 2.7 11
(un) 4.7
(Xi) 3.3 -
(n) 5.6 -
MhLflla (') 5.8 -
3.1 -
R9E (i) 11.5
1LJ (i) 8.3 -
OAUAD (r) 2.2 -
iui (iu) 2.1
1LY1J () 3.9 -
() 1.6 -
L11b (un) 4.2 -
iruuJ (n) 2.3
(@ 2.1 -
() 6 MMFJ
L'1l111 gnkmmla (r) 5.1 -
L'flh flW.iL1' (r) 5.1 -
LJU nn) () 1.4 -
J)L (ii) 2 -
(LThi) 3.4
4'1J (U) 14.6
(LThJ) 5.2
J1..JL () 6.2 mmViq
(r ') 5.4 -
1T (11n) 2.2 -
maxlb~ (UJu) birnrn -
icn () > 60 -
21
M-15qlm 2 ifl flcu L1Jfl3J
1lJJ1J41l4 fl LTh'1.ifl V(1' fl111. 2554 5in5nflqflIj 2555
1Lfl L13JiflJ
V1JEJ () 2 . - 30 j. 2554; 153
23 fl.v. - 4 fl.ft 2555
(iu) 2 M. - 30 J. 2554 24
LL3flYfl (i) 2 n.m. - 30 1J. 2554 49
JL1€ (L3J) 23 fl.. - 4 lift 2555 189
VW1D' (ti) 23 flY. - 4 n.e. 2555 74
Nol () 23 n.. - 4 n.i. 2555 142
LJ11U 43JJ () 23 fl.fi. 11 riM. 2554; 67
16 - 29 2555
1flII4I J1 fl11L 1U. 1U 1 I1I3J1
itr -1 n n-i nivrijn
LL.J11T 1A1fl
U1L1 flIlir)11'lJtflh4lJflY1 biti
nh111J
3 1 41 1WILfl nh nind 1ti 2554 flflfl?hJ
2555 nniiinl' Minimum Convex
Polygon (MCP 95% at 50%) u, Fixed Kernel (Kernel 95% ui 50%) ntiJnm ArcView 3.3
I'flr1Ln MCP 95% [MCP 50% Kernel 95% Kernel 50%
IflJ (LtJ) 6.92 0.87 5.24 0.52
'XI'A@'UAUIJ 1.99 0.35 3.78 0.49
LLflIT (iiu) 1.02 0.15 1.45 0.21
0AULA1@1 (uii) 2.15 0.14 1.05 0.16
(ulli) 1.31 0.07 0.51 0.07
LLi3() 5.85 0.59 3.06 0.26
() 2.42 0.38 2.62 0.34
22
-v - v1 4 MU
5 4j 4
(i) 40 42
6J () 41 40
mwio 1 (i) 40 33
2 (ti) 40 40
l41 3 () 40 40
23
5 jnianal (Use) 5 (i 2 c'h I14
3 ) (Random)
ni i'n3J (category) i n3.J (level) un0n
(mean) (standard error; SE)
level n3ath
W1'3 Use LL1 Random Iu fl'WIflJL11J1J Log likelihood ratio (G-test) test of independence
Wilcoxon rank sum test
nwiJthni
Use at Random unhwh P-value fl JnTIIcInJ (alpha level = 0.05)
UTlJE
L1U1v5a (n=3)
P-value
(n=2)
P-vatue Use (SE) Random (SE) Use (SE) Random (SE)
(%) 1-25% 1-25% 0.0076 76-100% 51-75% NS
flfl.JU0 (%) 26-50% 26-50% NS 76-100% 51-75% <0.0001
13i1Thn l3Ji1n NS l3ith1n Jin NS
th1fu iThni 0.0002 LThnj NS
NS al NS
aui€ (3J.) 26.1 (0.38) 30.9 (0.33) <0.0001 24.9 (0.42) 22.8 (0.62) 0.0427 Pul
iiai (.i.) 33.4 (0.66) 41.5 (0.86) <0.0001 33.4 (0.68) 32.9 (0.76) NS
131UaU (j.) 28.0 (0.95) 29.6 (0.91) NS 25.7 (0.89) 25.8 (0.85) NS
L1flI1 1.J81J
61.8 (2.85) 46.8 (1.97) <0.0001 53.3 (2.67) 52.2 (3.84) NS
mu (J.) 12.8 (0.67) 12.1 (0.78) NS 12.2 (0.52) 11.9 (0.68) NS
72f1uvJZY (i'WLni)
J1Ufl'113 ;,10 %j. 16.0 (0.73) 15.5 (0.69) NS 23.8 (0.91) 23.8 (0.84) NS
L1tLflfl'3 ;A0 'lili. 3.8 (0.17) 2.9 (0.18) <0.0001 4.2 (0.43) 3.6 (0.23) NS
LItLlñ88flNi
(g) 2.9 (0.16) 3.1 (0.20) NS 3.2 (0.43) 3.4 (0.23) NS
1JlM1 NS 143J1J
24
OV11-14 6
nnndnli' ivn 2 J wh 2553 C& unnu'u 2555
MUM UZiTR UWn
(.i.) ± SE
1LQgiUJ1U%1
(.) (hi)
55 2,486 325 ±21 5 5.fl. 2553 - 27 . 2554 864 (705 - 1,065)
47 2,328 395 ±69 7 n.i. - 10 M.M. 2554 903 (840 - 1,027)
19 1,312 753 ±110 20 'vui. 2554 - 26 n..
2555
869 (728 - 1,142)
LJ%1b 22 842 862 ±75 16 M. - 30 0J.8. 2555 912 (835 - 982)
7 (MICc < 2.0) 6 'iiThi
K ahtfl1.A parameter VITMlulmoa, w, 1unmth.i
LU 1 , LL A@ log-likelihood
K AAICc w1 LL
%UJ1l altitude 2 0 0.34 -58.85
% canopy 2 0 0.48 -96.89
fruit 2 0 0.50 -62.0
rodent RAI 2 0.37 0.41 -62.18
fruit 2 0 0.23 -52.07
forest types 4 0.27 0.20 -50.1
rodent RAI 2 1.08 0.13 -52.61
NULL 1 1.95 0.09 -54.07
nTiJ stream 2 0 0.84 -66.58
predator 2 0 0.94 -38.16
altitude u % canopy
20 u.wr n n€N), fruit rodent RAI (n- nn
nncn), forest types (thn'i 4 ii Lrnl), NULL (b thL ),'stream lu
nn nm), predator ( ni —
lYJ - u
25
WrF 8
n'wiJ 2554 iflJ 2554 611
vqwnift 2555
Trnn nu'jiwi
Jn 1lJflhL'.flY flfl1YIfl1J
5 5.m. 2553 - 27 3i.ft 2554 2,486 15 9
7 n.v. - 10 vi.m. 2554 2,312 24 10
Nal 20 'i.u. 2554 - 26 n.vi 2555 1,312 43 10
16 .ft - 30 W.U. 2555 842 37 10
9 (ml/1 0
95 nfl JiIJ spatial explicit capture - recapture Li 2 Jii
rn ('w, effective sampling area, ESA) nnifl ,
cnnn jn-iin'wnu U fl fl1U fl11ThThtJ
(model average)
rnniirnn vomijoimucwni
n& (mi.) ±SE (/10 zi 95% CI
2553/2554 20.6 55 ±27 1.6 (0.5 - 4.9)
2554 L1'l 27.2 37 ±19 2.7 (0.9 - 8.4)
2554/2555 21.4 18 ±6 5.7 (2.3 - 14.1)
2555 mwlli 24.9 280 ±91 0.4 (0.2 - 0.8)
26
117J (LthJ) i1,ja (ffl
iiqJi 12%
n-infl 1 flL 7 T'
27
1YW1 2 (home range size [km2]) a~aj,
logarithm scale) 7 nmn '1un - ii
n'1sic ( wiii) (t'iia iiu i) i'wni
(R2)
8
LM
4J'lJ (uiu) 7 1 y7.S171x-1.8802
R2 =0.6617
*
5
(C 3
•
00 0A 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Iog(l4tnr'i, nn.)
(r)
PTA 3 nm (n) ncju'wn (w) (j)
ninm (nj/irr) 2 vn 2
[n1jl4J1 iTji] L1iriU [niTJ wet anJiJi] 'Ititi
95 TK1-4 SSW1-4
1n nJwm 4u TK5-8 SSW5-8
800
700
29
I cD
Jny 4 n JJLitflJ (n) ni° (ii) 'nw (ni/L
rv) () nn - ia.Ti (Yl, Y2) nnn (%a [TK]
inU [SSW]) mwomm Tukey HSD o
(a, b) (adjusted p-value = 0.1)
(a) ('j)
SSWY1 SSWY2 TK.Y1 TK.Y2
SSW.Y1 SSWY2 TK.Y1 TK.Y2
30
m1w 5 i'Lth (effect size of transformed coefficient) Zuni
hn LIfl 6 64 nl3j Loom' (iii 7) czg
'iI niiJ iwiiJ€
(LTJc), (njJ), aiJ ('nTJi)
LJ) ui NULL ith
tclu 2 wi€ ( -in 0.5) L1L1 alum '1J'fl
(n 0.5)
95
irnh (0.5)
0.9 fruit
rodent RAI 0.8 1
I fruit rodent RAI predator
+
Qj 0.5 4 -------------------------------------------------------------
0 altitude
0.4
'3) 03 22 %canopy
0.2
U4 0.1
0.0 stream
i
011
tn 6 dn 6 flflflflflI9JJ
b1LLfl ni '1
111t ,fl. fl LflWU1 In
JN'1'fl'ltJ (idu nmnji)
32
nJn-
1fl1 111Jfl.flJU1
U1LLLJLLfl (NSTDA - CPMO)
Ji 11U
ii'ni4 utn (un
Ilifi) nu1lj1 (un ILL nn) viilmWn
bI nn
. 3J1IU?JL (jy) irwn 1w iui uio
LL'.VIJ L1IEJ JflT11'tZ n11tn1n1nn,4c94't3J
LL 1 LL
üi ih ki iin i'S ( thn€thN) jju . LD WD
(KMU1T) 015. u'Jc (WWF Thailand) zi,J (WCS) . (KMUTT) 1iLJu
flflfl1J LLLLLU LI fl1] L I3JtThU
UCU 015. @10 5%1 1f51J06 LI (WCS Thailand) LIfl'flW
(Sherman) 'Ln11 1LJVLJUL1 2
Jii LI n3 . i5. L1c 191 (University of Kentucky, Louisville) 1n1JZit1i
1tIJ1LIa1 (,Jn t1un15J)
33
I, a
Anon. 1997. Application of remote sensing and GIS for monitoring forest land use changed in Thung Yai
Wildlife Sanctuaries (in Thai). Page 140. Forest Research Centre, Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University,
Bangkok, Thailand.
Borchers, D. L. and M. G. Efford. 2008. Spatially explicit maximum likelihood methods for capture-recapture studies.
Biometrics 64:377-385.
Burnham, K. P. and D. R. Anderson. 2004. Multimodet inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection.
Sociological Methods & Research 33:261-304.
Carbone, C., G. M. Mace, S. C. Roberts, and D. W. Macdonald. 1999. Energetic constraints on the diet of terrestrial
carnivores. Nature 402:286-288.
Chuang, 5.-A. and L.-L. Lee. 1997. Food habits of three carnivore species (Viverricula indico, Herpestes urvo, and
Melogale moschota) in Fushan Forest, northern Taiwan. Journal of Zoology (Lond.) 243:71-79.
Chutipong, W., A. J. Lynam, R. Steinmetz, T. Savini, and G. A. Gale. 2014. Sampling mammalian carnivores in western
Thailand: Issues of rarity and detectability. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 62:521-535.
Conforti, K. 1996. The status and distribution of small carnivores in Huai Kha Khaeng/Thung Yai Naresuan Wildlife
Sanctuaries, west-central Thailand. Master of Science. University of Minnesota, Minnesota, USA.
Dajun, W., L. Sheng, W. J. McShea, and L. M. Fu. 2006. Use of remote-trip cameras for wildlife surveys and evaluating
the effectiveness of conservation activities at a Nature Reserve in Sichuan Province, China. Environ. Manage.
38:942-951.
Dillon, A. and M. J. Kelly. 2007. Ocelot Leopard us parda(is in Belize: the impact of trap spacing and distance moved
on density estimates. Oryx 41:469-477.
Efford, M. G. 2004. Density estimation in live-trapping studies. Oikos 106:598-610.
Efford, M. G. 2013. secr: Spatially explicit capture-recapture models. R package version 2.7.0. http://CRAN.R-
project.org/package= secr
Fedriani, J. M., T. K. Fuller, R. M. Sauvajot, and E. C. York. 2000. Competition and intraguild predation among three
sympatric carnivores. Oecologia 125:258-270.
Grassman, L. I., Jr. 1999. Ecology and behavior of the Indochinese leopard in Kaeng Krachan National Park, Thailand.
Nat. Hist. Bull. Siam Soc. 47:77-93.
Grassman, L. I., Jr., M. E. Tewes, N. J. Silvy, and K. Kreetiyutanont. 2005a. Spatial organization and diet of the leopard
cat (Prionailurus ben'oiensis) in north-central Thailand. Journal of Zoology 266:45-54.
Grassman, L. I., Jr., M. E. Tewes, and N. J. Silvy. 2005b. Ranging, habitat use and activity patterns of binturong Arctictis
binturong and yetlow-throated marten MartesJlavigu(a in northcentral Thailand. Wildlife Biology 11:49-57.
Grassman, L. I., Jr., M. E. Tewes, N. J. Silvy, and K. Kreetiyutanont. 2005c. Ecology of three sympatric felids in a mixed
evergreen forest in north-central Thailand. Journal of Mammalogy 86:29-38.
I-Iarmsen, B. J., R. J. Foster, S. C. Silver, L. E. T. Ostro, and C. P. Doncaster. 2009. Spatial and temporal interactions of
sympatric jaguars (Panthera onca) and pumas (Puma concolor) in a Neotropical forest. Journal of
Mammatogy 90:612-620.
34
Jacomo. A. T. d. A., L. Silveira, and J. A. F. Diniz-Filho. 2004. Niche seperation between the maned wolf (Chrysocyon
brachyurus), the crab-eating fox (Dusicyon thous) and the hoary fox (Dusicyon vetulus) in central Brazil. J.
Zoot. (Lond.) 262:99-106.
Joshi, A. R., J. L. David Smith, and F. J. Cuthbert. 1995. Influence of food distribution and predation pressure on spacing
behavior in palm civets. Journal of Mammalogy 76:1205-1212.
Karanth, K. U. and M. E. Sunquist. 1995. Prey selection by tiger, leopard and dhole in tropical forests. Journal of Animal
Ecology 64:439-450.
Karanth, K. U., R. S. Chundawat, J. D. Nichols, and N. S. Kumar. 2004. Estimation of tiger densities in the tropical dry
forests of Panna, Central India, using photographic capture-recapture sampling. Animal Conservation 7:285-
290.
Kauffman, M. J., M. Sanjayan, J. Lowenstein, A. Nelson, ft M. Jeo, and K R. Crooks. 2007. Remote camera-trap methods
and analyses reveal impacts of rangeland management on Namibian carnivore communities. Oryx 41:70-78.
Kolowski, J. M., and A. Alonso. 2010. Density and activity patterns of ocelots (Leopordus pordalis) in northern
Peru and the impact of oil exploration activities. Biological Conservation 143:917-925.
Kutintara. U., and N. Bhumpakphan. 1989. Management Plan for Thung Yai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary
(Kanchanaburi and Tak Provinces) (in Thai). Page 263. Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University, Bangkok,
Thailand.
Lekagul, B., and J. A. McNeely 1977. Mammals of Thailand. Association for the Conservation of Wildlife (as
updated 1998), Bangkok, Thailand.
Malcolm, J. ft and J. C. Ray. 2000. Influence of Timber Extraction Routes on Central African Small-Mammal
Communities, Forest Structure, and Tree Diversity. Conservation Biology 14:1623-1638.
Maffei, L., A. J. Noss, E. Cuellar, and D. I. Rumiz. 2005. Ocelot (Fells pardoUs) population densities, activity, and ranging
behaviour in the dry forests of eastern Bolivia: data from camera trapping. Journal of Tropical Ecology 21:349-
353.
Mohd-Azlan, J. and D. S. K. Sharma. 2006. The diversity and activity patterns of wild felids in a secondary forest in
Peninsular Malaysia. Oryx 40:36-41.
Morrison, M. L. 2001. A proposed research emphasis to overcome the limits of wildlife - habitat relationship
studies. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:613-623.
Mudappa, D. 2006. Day-bed choice by the brown palm civet (Paradoxurusjerdoni) in the Western Ghats, India.
Mammalian Biology 71:238-243.
Nakagawa, M., H. Miguchi, and T. Nakashizuka. 2006. The effects of various forest uses on small mammal communities
in Sarawak, Malaysia. Forest Ecology and Management 231:55-62.
Nakashima, V., E. Inoue, M. Inoue-Murayama, and J. R. A. Sukor. 2010. Functional uniqueness of a small carnivore as
seed dispersal agents: a case study of the common palm civets in the Tabin Wildlife Reserve, Sabah,
Malaysia. Oecotogia 164:721-730.
Nakhasathien, S. and B. Stewart-Cox. 1990. Nomination of The Thung Yai-Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary to be a
UNESCO World Heritage Site. Wildlife Conservation Division, Royal Forest Department, Bangkok, Thailand.
35
Ngoprasert, D., D. H. Reed, P. Steinmetz, and G. A. Gale. 2012. Density estimation of Asian bears using photographic
capture-recapture sampling based on chest marks. Ursus 23:117-133.
Obbard, M. E., E. J. Howe, and C. J. Kyle. 2010. Empirical comparison of density estimators for large carnivores. Journal
of Applied Ecology 47:76-84.
Phetdee, A. 2000. Feeding habits of the Tiger (Panthera tigris Linnaeus) in Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary by fecal
analysis. Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand.
R Core Team 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing,
Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/.
Rabinowitz, A. R. 1989. The density and behaviour of large cats in a dry tropical forest mosaic in Huai Kha Khaeng
Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand. Nat. Hist. Bull. Siam Soc. 37:235-251.
Rabinowitz, A. R. 1991. Behaviour and movements of sympatric civet species in Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary,
Thailand. Journal of Zoology 223:281-298.
Rabinowitz, A. R., and S. R. Walker. 1991. The carnivore community in a dry tropical forest mosaic in Huai Kha
Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand. Journal of Tropical Ecology 7:37-47.
Rabinowitz, A. R. 1993. Estimating the Indochinese tiger Panthera tigris corbetti population in Thailand. Biological
Conservation 65:213-217.
Rajaratnam, R., M. Sunquist, L. Rajaratnam, and L. Ambu. 2007. Diet and habitat selection of the leopard cat
(Prionaiturus bengalensis borneoensis) in an agricultural landscape in Sabah, Malaysian Borneo. Journal of
Tropical Ecology 23:209-217.
Rosenzweig, M. L. 1966. Community Structure in Sympatric Carnivora. Journal of Mammalogy 47:602-612.
Schreiber, A., R. Wirth, M. Riffle, and H. Van Rompaey. 1989. Weasels, Civets, Mongooses, and their relatives: An Action
Plan for the Conservation of Mustelids and Viverrids. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Simcharoen, S. 1998. Home range and habitat use of a male Asiatic jackal (Canis oureus) at Khao Nang Rum Wildlife
Research Center, Thailand. Nat. Hist. Bull. Siam Soc. 46:3-15.
Simcharoen, S., P. Boontawee, and A. Phetdee. 1999. Home Range size, habitat utilization and daily activities of Large
Indian civet (Viverra zibetha) (in Thai). Progress report in research activity 1999, Wildlife Research Section,
RFD: 43 - 64.
Simcharoen, 5., A. Pattanavibool, K. U. Karanth, J. D. Nichols, and N. S. Kumar. 2007. How many tigers Ponthero tigris
are there in Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand? An estimate using photographic capture-recapture
sampling. Oryx 41:447-453.
Steinmetz, R. and R. Mather. 1996. Impact of Karen villages on the fauna of Thung Yal Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary: A
participatory research project. Nat. Hist. Bull. Siam Soc. 44:23-40.
Steinmetz, R., D. L. Garshelis, W. Chutipong, and N. Seuaturien. 2011. The Shared Preference Niche of Sympatric Asiatic
Black Bears and Sun Bears in a Tropical Forest Mosaic. PLoS ONE 6:e14509.
Steinmetz, R., D. L. Garshelis, W. Chutipong, and N. Seuaturien. 2013a. Foraging ecology and coexistence of Asiatic
black bears and sun bears in a seasonal tropical forest in Southeast Asia. Journal of Mammalogy 94:1-18.
Steinmetz, R., N. Seuaturien, and W. Chutipong. 2013b. Tigers, leopards, and dholes in a half-empty forest: Assessing
species interactions in a guild of threatened carnivores. Biological Conservation 163:68-78.
SuazoOrtuno, I., J. Alvarado-Diaz, and M. Martinez-Ramos. 2011. Riparian Areas and Conservation of Herpetofauna in a
Tropical Dry Forest in Western Mexico. Biotropica 43:237-245.
The Thai Meteorological Department. 2005. Rainfall and Temperature of Thomg Pha Phum and Urn Phang between
1997 and 2005. The Thai Meteorological Department, Bangkok, Thailand.
Thompson, C. M., and E. M. Gese. 2007. Food webs and intraguild predation: community interactions of a native
mesocarnivore. Ecology 88:334-346.
van de Butt, M. 2003. The vegetation and flora of the Western Forest Complex using rapid ecological assessment and
vegetation types description in the WEFCOM area. Page 60. Western Forest Complex Ecosystem Management
Project, National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department, Bangkok.
Venkataraman, M., K. Shanker, and R. Sukumar. 2005. Small mammal communities of tropical forest habitats in
Mudurnalai Wildlife Sanctuary, southern India. Mammalia 69:349-358.
Wells, K., E. K. V. Kalko, M. B. Lakim, and M. Pfeiffer. 2007. Effects of rain forest logging on species richness and
assemblage composition of small mammals in Southeast Asia. Journal of Biogeography 34:1087-1099.
White, G. C., D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, and D. L. Otis 1982. Capture-recapture and removal methods for sampling
closed populations. LA-8787-NERP. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA.
Zhou, Y.-B., J. Zhang, E. Slade, L. Zhang, F. Palomares, J. Chen, X.-M. Wang, and S. Zhang. 2008. Dietary shifts in
relation to fruit availability among masked palm civets (Poguma Larvata) in central China. Journal of
Mammalogy 89:435-447.
37
1Lflfl flJ1flJ
Nal
Ll1): LW)1')
LV1: UJU
'Mau: INJI
148.330 MHz
lumRijlk 4 JflWi3J 2554
Ll?1: LJ
'LJ: IJ8FJ
1thfl: 148.400 MHz
'ij1i: 10 J1T5'W,J 2554
148.430 MHz
tI1JI: 12 Jfl'wJ 2554
38
: -
-' -
m-nmikimnimu: 148.450 MHz
lUm4lilk 14 mjflIIT'U6 2554
;• I * I
' ..
4 .1
wrim)ija@nn@~mq: 148.290 MHz '
- -
39
(home range) iJ1i MCP 95%
un. 50% Lot Kernel 95% uz 50%
40
(home range) LM MCP 95%
LLat 50% i Kerne 95% Uat 50%
40
V i
in-c (iAirnJi) : 1(FflN
MOP 50%
MOP 95%
MOP 50% :0.872 sq. km.
MOP 95 %: 6.920 sq. km.
Animal location
Kernel 50%
LIII Kernel 95%
Kernel 50 %: 0.516 sq. km.
Kernel 95 %: 5.235 sq. km.
:40,000.
41
Animal location
I I
mcp_95
MOP 50 %: 0.379 sq. km.
MOP 95%: 2.419 sq. km.
Animal location
I I
khr_95
Kernel 50 %: 0.336 sq. km.
Kernel 95 %: 2.621 sq. km.
9) I 9)
Y1n-i051 Offp)j : iifl L'
' = - = /
' . J
it' j tTI . 2i -
' J . / I
- Al m- - )\\
-
wlj
0 .5 1 2)
4L
- 9)
MIATICHIfIv9JOIDMIAMO(Wfffrj) : 1i11N
Animal location
MCP 50%
Lillil MCP 95%
MOP 50 %: 0.590 sq. km.
MOP 95 % :5.851 sq. km.
Animal location
Kernel 50%
Kernel 95%
Kernel 50 %: 0.257 sq. km.
Kernel 95 %; 3.057 sq. km.
46
M l
1t x8?8 1/7 hao P1R Hud, Th/AhoItp 2
(S - / I
i •i ( . - 1J, '( --
-
2 M r(. & 1.40,000
Animal location
Kernel 50%
LI-Il Kernel 95%
Kernel 50 %: 0.072 sq. km.
Kernel 95 %: 0.513 sq. km.
9)
(tflJ: 1iiti): fiftl
\S
2 iA jJf i( ..
t .5
c 5 )
; c / ' r 113 \
- U 1
-
- - - - - - -
Animal location
-1 MCP 50%
LIII MCP 95%
MOP 50 % 0.072 sq. km.
MOP 95 %:1.304 sq. km.
44
__y'.\, tT_icit___ _ 41
if
— Iwo I"
_\-_
WREN toyqo 0!
\
iFRtf '- N t
'\lt N I \/-/ I '', - - WWI a -
Ii/
141
_I0 .5 1 2 . 1.40,000
Animal location
Kernel 50%
Kernel 95%
Kernel 50 %: 0.159 sq. km.
Kernel 95 %: 1.050 sq. km.
11 . o n flnanmcnt otNac'naI Park. Wildhfb and Plans (:nnservaucn
cz 11f4 -U9J (!vmJJ: : cV1P1J
qj
L [
ç
!'// 4
'I
II( - -
Z/ psi fu l u
_.
71 ay MIME L' :7 777,,:7 I ' '
-v. I
i
, Ap Y .
'I • iikhd
'B78
_____ \
-_o
/
. . - st
- noun 1L )t'
Animal location
I_] MCP 5O%
[ ___j
MOP 50%: 0.138 sq. km.
MOP 95 %: 2.145 sq. km.
4,
Animal location
MCP 95%
MOP 50 % 0.145 sq. km.
MOP 95 %: 1.017 sq. km.
41 ezA
11 'cii (awfuju) : CHmol
F-iI / 0\
/IKhaip kHua,Thi/to '_
/
ZT5T 7' (
L / -
- • 1 ( ___._--_------..------4-
V'- ) / k.
; S. _ '- _ _ _S
• -
X \S /
i lt
I • .t7';,/ 2' 5-
I
r L \s
'5 .5 •555_5 'ç)'.
0 .5 1 2 \S '
Kmjt '
1:40,00O
Animal location
Kernel 50%
Kernel 95%
Kernel 50 %: 0.212 sq. km.
Kernel 95 %: 1.451 sq. km.
Animal tocauon
MCP 50%
MCP 95%
MOP 50 % : 0.349 sq. km.
MOP 95 %: 1 .989 sq. km.
2)
1i?i1 1ahn owyn,M) : qj
x878
Animal location
Kernel 50%
Kernel 95%
Kernel 50 %: 0.491 sq. km.
Kernel 95 %: 3,782 sq. km.
4/