ratufa indica, dalma wildlife sanctuary, jharkhand

9

STUDIES ON THE NESTING HABITS OF INDIAN GIANT SQUIRRELRATUFA INDICA CENTRALIS RYLEY 1913 IN DALMA WILDLIFESANCTUARY, JHARKHAND, INDIASatya Prakash1,3, Anil Kumar Mishra2 and Mohammad Raziuddin3

1Neo Human Foundation, College More, Hazaribag 825 301, Jharkhand, India2Hazaribag Wildlife Division, Hazaribag 825 301, Jharkhand, India3University Department of Zoology, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag 825 301, Jharkhand, IndiaEmail: [email protected]/[email protected]

Received 14 February 2011, Revised 17 April 2011,,Accepted 23 May 2011

ABSTRACTWe studied the nesting habits of Indian giant squirrel, Ratufa indica centralis in dry deciduous forest of theDalma Wildlife Sanctuary of Jharkhand (central India) during the months of February, March, April andDecember 2010. Nesting habits were assessed through observations on a total of 1452 dreys on 1244 plants in2832 ha area (nest density = 0.51 drey per ha).R. i. centralis constructs large (up to 75×60 cm) multilayered globular leaf dreys usually in the sub-canopy areaof the nesting trees belonging to 59 species with a higher preference for Terminalia tomentosa and Anogeissuslatifolia belonging to the family, Combrataceae. 41.05 percent nests were observed on plants belonging to thisfamily. The squirrels showed a very high preference for nesting on deciduous trees in comparison to semi-deciduous and evergreen trees.Dreys are usually constructed on trees which have a height ranging from 30 feet to 70 ft. Maximum number(558) of dreys has been observed on trees belonging to 60-69 ft height class. The differences between averagetree height and average nesting height were 5.61 feet.

Key words: Ratufa indica centralis, Dalma Wildlife Sanctuary, Drey, Nesting.

20119-18Columban J. Life Sci. Vol.12 No. 1 & 2

ISSN-0972-0847

INTRODUCTIONThe Indian giant squirrel, Ratufa indica (Rodentia:Sciuridae: Sciurinae) found in the upper hilly regionsof Dalma Wildlife Sanctuary (DWS), locally knownas “Lepa” or “Larmusa”, is a top canopy dwellingspecies. It is an exclusively forest dwelling, strictlyarboreal species which only rarely comes to theground (Ramachandran, 1988; Borges, 1989; Datta,1993) and inhabits the deciduous, mixed deciduousand moist evergreen forests of peninsular India southof Ganges (Prater, 1980). It is listed in Schedule IIof Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972, LeastConcern in IUCN Red List and listed in Appendix IIof CITES, 2005.In the past, a number of studies have been made onthe ecobiology of giant squirrels of India but majorityof such studies relate to south Indian races (Hutton,1949; Borges, 1986, 1993; Ramachadran 1988, 1991;John Singh and Joshua, 1991; Joshua, 1996;Umapathy and Kumar 2000; Jathanna et.al. 2008;

Srinivas et.al. 2008; Somanathan et al., 2008).Similar work on giant squirrels found in Central Indiaare few (Dutta ,1993,1998,1999 ; Mehta,1994; Duttaand Goyal,1996; Rout and Swain, 2006; Kanoje2008). Nesting habits of R. indica have been studiedearlier by a number of workers (Lindsay, 1927;Webb-Piploe, 1946; Hutton, 1949; Krishnan, 1972;Thorington and Cifelli, 1989; Ramachandran, 1992;Borges, 2007; Kanoje, 2008).Although giant squirrelis common in Dalma Wildlife Sanctuary, a survey ofliterature reveals that there is no published workavailable on their nesting in the sanctuary. This paperreports the first record of nesting habits of the giantsquirrel, Ratufa indica centrelis found in DWS.STUDYSITEDalma Wildlife Sanctuary, notified as a sanctuary in1976, lies between latitude 22º46'30"N and 22.57'Nand longitude 86º3'15"E and 86º26' 30"E in thecatchment area of Subarnarekha river and adjoining

PDF Creator - PDF4Free v3.0 http://www.pdf4free.com

http://www.pdfpdf.com/0.htm

10

Purulia district of West Bengal in Singhbum districtof the Chhotanagpur plateau. It lies on the NH33,only 0-5km away from the industrial town ofJamshedpur and Chandil sub-divisional town (Fig.1). It encloses an area of 193.22 sq km, the corezone consisting of 55 sq km and rest 138.22 sq km isthe buffer zone divided into east and west bufferzones with the core lying in the middle (Datye, 1996).The sanctuary, famous for its elephant fauna, is apart of a hill range running south-east to north-westcalled Dalma Hill Range. It has an undulating terrainwith high hillocks, plateau, deep valley and open fieldsbetween hillocks, providing diverse habitats for itsflora and fauna. The average elevation of thesanctuary is 544m, the minimum elevation being154m (Datye, 1996). The sanctuary’s highest peakis at an altitude of 926m called Dalma top. Its florasystem has been identified as Shorea – Clesitanthus- Croton series (Gadgil, Meher-Homji, 1986) due to

which it has been included as one of the locationsfor India’s Bio-diversity Conservation.According to Champions and Seth’s revisedclassification (1968), the forest of sanctuary conformto sub group 5B northern tropical dry deciduousforest and more specifically to sub type 5B/C1 (C)dry peninsular sal and type 5B/C2 Northern dry mixeddeciduous forest. The forest is more or less leaflessduring the dry season.

The average rainfall in this area is around 1400mm.The hot and dry weather prevails during March toJune. The maximum temperature recorded duringsummer in the core area is 47ºC and 56ºC in bufferarea and the lowest drops down to 3ºC in chillingwinter.

Within its limits there are 85 villages in the bufferarea and one in the core area. Besides these, 51villages exist along the periphery of the sanctuary(Government of India, Ministry of Environment andForests Notification, 2011). The sanctuary is dividedinto 6 beats viz. Patmada, Chakulia, Dalma, bhadudih,Mango and Nutandih.

METHODOLOGYAs the dreys of giant squirrels become conspicuouswhen the trees are bare (Prater, 1980), the presentstudy on nesting of R. i. centralis was carried out inDWS in the month of February, March and April2010. An attempt was also made to locate dreys inthe month of December which did not yieldsatisfactory results due to dense canopy.Survey was carried out in four protected forests (P.F.)viz., Asanbani (780.09 ha), Khokharo (766.36 ha),Koyara (704.63 ha) and Bandhdih (582.85 ha) fallingunder Dalma and Chakulia beats (Table 1).Extensive survey for nesting habits of the specieswas conducted using line transect method (Javedand Kaul, 2002). Due to the hilly and undulatedterrain, transects were placed in random and inpiecewise linear fashion. While walking slowly, 50to 100 m area was covered on sides of the trails.The latitude and longitude of the location of thenesting trees present on both sides of trails wererecorded using hand held GPS (Garmin 72) unit.Photographs of the nests and animals were takenusing DSLR Camera (Nikon Coolpix P90 24x andSony Cybershot DSC-H9 15x). Standard binocular(Olympus 8x40) was also used for observations onthe squirrel as well as in identification of leaves oftheir nests. Some abandoned dreys were also studiedfor their size, thickness and leaf composition etc.

Tree height and drey height from the ground wereestimated visually. The vernacular names of the treespecies were recorded with the help of localpersonell, while their scientific names wereascertained from different sources (Dev, 2000;Mukhopadhya, 1994; Bresshers, 1935).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONFour to five subspecies of Ratufa indica have beendescribed (Moore and Tate, 1965; Ellerman, 1961;Rajmani et al., 2008).

NESTING HABITS OF INDIAN GIANT SQUIRREL

Table 1: Details of the Study AreaSl. No. Beat P.F. Area (Ha) Study Area1 Dalma Asanbani 780.09 Pindrabera, Sorsabari,

2 Chakulia

Khokhro 766.36

Nilbadi, Kulmari bunglow,Hatitopa, Chiyak Pathar,Barkabandh, Manjhlabandh,Nichlabandh, Rajdoha,Amdari, Snanghati

Koyara 704.63 Dalma Pahar

Bandhdih 582.85 Bijalighati, Bandhdih Road,Katasani



11

A closer examination of the morphology and colourpattern of live specimens in nature as well aspreserved specimens available in DWS InterpretationCentre revealed that the features of giant squirrelsof DWS resembled those described for Ratufaindica centrelis Ryley, 1913 (Abdelali and Daniel,1952). Hence it is identified here as R. i. centralis(Fig. 2). Recently Sinha (2004) has also listed thissubspecies in Dalma Wildlife Sanctuary. These arecomparatively smaller than R. i. bengalensis, possesblack patches on the shoulder and occasionally onthe rump and black tails with small pale tips.Itsdistribution extends through Madhya Pradesh, Orissa,and Bihar (including Jharkhand) and along the EasternGhats (Abdulali and Daniel, 1952).R. i. centralis is an active, diurnal, shy and waryanimal. It usually lives alone but sighting of pairs/feeding groups (up to five) (Fig. 3) was also made inDWS.

NestR. i. centralis construct large, multilayered globular(Fig. 4) single chambered nests or dreys of leavesand twigs which are used as sleeping quarters aswell as nurseries. The drey size varied and the largestone observed was approximately 75 cm x 60 cm.

COLUMBAN J. LIFE SCI. VOL. 12 (1&2), 2011

Fig. 2 . Ratufa indica centralis.Fig. 3. A pair of R.i. centralis.Fig. 4. Globular drey of R.i. centralisFig. 5 - 6. Fallen drey of R.i. centralis



12


Fig. 7. Drey of R.i. centralis (arrow) in the subcanopy areaof nesting plant.

Fig. 8. Drey of R.i. centralis constructed close to the tree trunk.Fig. 9. Drey (arrow) of R.i. centralis hidden in the vegetation.Fig. 10. Drey of R.i. centralis constructed on tree having no

contiguity with nearby trees.

Fig. 11. Drey of R.i. centralis constructed in the mesh ofclimbers and finer twigs of the nesting plant.

Fig. 12. Showing R.i. centralis (arrow) using the drey.Fig. 13. R.i. centralis feeding on Aegle marmelos.Fig. 14. R.i. centralis resting on the thick branch of a tree.



13

Table 2 :- Showing the number of nests observed on different trees at Dalma Wildlife Sanctuary.

* Host Plant

Sl.No. Nestling tree species No. of Plant No. of Nest1 2 3 4 5

1 Buchanania lanzan Spreng.* 7 72 Lannea grandis (Dennst)Eng. 38 34 2 1 13 Mangifera indica L.* 11 10 14 Spondias pinnata (L.f.)Kurz.* 4 45 Polyalthia cerasoides (Roxb) Bedd. 3 36 Saccopetalum tomentosum Hook.f & Thoms. 5 3 1 17 Holarrhena antidysenterica (L)Wall.ex.DC* 14 148 Radermachera xylocarpa Roxb 12 11 19 Stereospermum suaveolens DC 54 5410 Bombax ceiba L* 10 7 2 111 Boswellia serrata Roxb.ex Colebr. 2 212 Bauhinia retusa Buch.Ham. 32 31 113 Cassia fistula L* 1 114 Anogeissus latifolia (DC) Wall. Ex.Bedd. 109 86 20 2 115 Terminalia arjuna Roxb.* 1 116 T. bellirica (Gaertn) Roxb.* 49 38 9 217 T. chebula Retz.* 40 32 818 T. tomentosa Roxb* 285 229 52 1 319 Dillenia aurea Sm. 1 120 D. indica L. 33 26 5 1 121 D. pentagyna Roxb.* 81 62 18 122 Shorea robusta Gaertn. 63 61 223 Diospyros embryopteris Pers.* 28 26 224 Bridelia squamosa Gehrm.* 15 14 125 Cleistanthus collinus Roxb. 1 126 Croton oblongifolius Roxb.* 25 24 127 Emblica officinalis Gaertn 1 128 Mallotus phillipinensis Lamk.* 33 32 129 Trewia nudiflora L. 5 4 130 Casearia tomentosa Roxb. 5 531 Careya arborea Roxb.* 4 432 Litsea monopetala (Roxb)Pers.* 2 233 Lagestroemia parviflora Roxb 13 9 434 Soymida febrifuga A.Juss. 1 135 Melia azedarach L. 1 136 Albizia lebbeck (L) Benth 3 337 Artocarpus lakoocha Roxb* 14 10 3 138 Ficus cunia Buch. Ham ex.Roxb* 4 1 339 Ficus infectoria Roxb* 4 440 Ficus glomerata Roxb* 3 1 241 Ficus religiosa L* 3 2 142 Syzygium cumini (L) Skeels* 40 33 6 143 Dalbergia lanceolaria L 8 844 Dalbergia sissoo Roxb 3 345 Ougenia dalbergioides Benth 2 246 Pterocarpus marsupium Roxb* 2 247 Adina cordifolia Hook.f.ex.Brandis 18 16 248 Anthocephalus cadamba Roxb* 1 149 Randia uliginosa DC 9 6 350 Ixora arborea Roxb.ex.Sm* 14 13 151 Gardenia latifolia Ait* 1 152 Wendlandia exserta (Roxb)DC 2 253 Aegle marmelos (L) Corr*. 13 11 254 Micromelum pubescens Blume. 6 655 Schleichera oleosa(Lour)Oken.* 19 17 256 Sterculia urens Roxb.* 65 59 657 Sterculia villosa Roxb. 17 1758 Symplocos racemosa Roxb. 1 159 Laportea crenulata (Roxb) Gaud. 3 3

1244 1062 164 11 6 1




14

Table 3: Nesting trees of Indian Giant Squirrel at Dalma Wildlife Sanctuary.

Sl. Family Species name Local Name Type No. of Percentage No. of PercentageNo. trees of tree Nest of Nest

1 Anacardiaceae Buchanania lanzan Spreng.* Piar E 7 0.56% 0 7 0.48%Lannea grandis (Dennst)Eng. Doka D 3 8 3.05% 4 7 3.24%Mangifera indica L.* Aam E 1 1 0.88% 1 2 0.83%Spondias pinnata (L.f.)Kurz.* Amra D 4 0.32% 0 4 0.28%

2 Annonaceae Polyalthia cerasoides (Roxb) Bedd. Pamkuroi D 3 0.24% 0 3 0.21%Saccopetalum tomentosum Hook.f & Thoms. Hookerichampa D 5 0.40% 0 8 0.55%

3 Apocynaceae Holarrhena antidysenterica (L)Wall.ex.DC* Kurchi/Karaiya D 1 4 1.13% 1 4 0.96%4 Bignoniaceae Radermachera xylocarpa Roxb Pondor D 1 2 0.96% 1 3 0.90%

Stereospermum suaveolens DC Samkathal,Panrar D 5 4 4.34% 5 4 3.72%5 Bombacaceae Bombax ceiba L* Semal D 1 0 0.80% 1 4 0.96%6 Burseraceae Boswellia serrata Roxb.ex Colebr. Salai D 0 2 0.16% 0 2 0.14%7 Caesalpinaceae Bauhinia retusa Buch.Ham. Cheka kurul E 3 2 2.57% 3 3 2.27%

Cassia fistula L* Amaltas D 0 1 0.08% 0 1 0.07%8 Combretaceae Anogeissus latifolia (DC) Wall. Ex.Bedd. Dhoi D 109 8.76% 136 9.37%

Terminalia arjuna Roxb.* Arjun D 0 1 0.08% 0 2 0.14%T. bellirica (Gaertn) Roxb.* Bahera D 4 9 3.94% 6 2 4.27%T. chebula Retz.* Haritaki, Harre D 4 0 3.22% 4 8 3.31%T. tomentosa Roxb* Asan D 285 22.91% 348 23.97%

9 Dilleniaceae Dillenia aurea Sm. Roiruin SD 0 1 0.08% 0 1 0.07%D. indica L. Korkotta SD 3 3 2.65% 4 3 2.96%D. pentagyna Roxb.* Agoi D 8 1 6.51% 101 6.96%

1 0 Dipterocarpaceae Shorea robusta Gaertn. Sal D 6 3 5.06% 6 5 4.48%1 1 Ebenaceae Diospyros embryopteris Pers.* Kanakend E 2 8 2.25% 3 0 2.07%1 2 Euphorbiaceae Bridelia squamosa Gehrm.* Kasai E 1 5 1.21% 1 6 1.10%

Cleistanthus collinus Roxb. Kari,Kirla D 0 1 0.08% 0 1 0.07%Croton oblongifolius Roxb.* Putla,Putol D 2 5 2.01% 2 6 1.79%Emblica officinalis Gaertn Amla D 0 1 0.08% 0 1 0.07%Mallotus phillipinensis Lamk.* Garisinduri D 3 3 2.65% 3 4 2.34%Trewia nudiflora L. Bamugamhar D 0 5 0.40% 0 6 0.41%

1 3 Flacoutiaceae Casearia tomentosa Roxb. Chunchu SD 0 5 0.40% 0 5 0.34%1 4 Juglandaceae Careya arborea Roxb.* Astha D 0 4 0.32% 0 4 0.28%1 5 Lauraceae Litsea monopetala (Roxb)Pers.* Behnchi D 0 2 0.16% 0 2 0.14%1 6 Lythraceae Lagestroemia parviflora Roxb Sidha D 1 3 1.05% 1 7 1.17%1 7 Meliaceae Soymida febrifuga A.Juss. Rajni,Rohan D 0 1 0.08% 0 1 0.07%

Melia azedarach L. Garneem D 0 1 0.08% 0 1 0.07%1 8 Mimosaceae Albizia lebbeck (L) Benth Kathsiris D 0 3 0.24% 0 3 0.21%1 9 Moraceae Artocarpus lakoocha Roxb* Dahu D 1 4 1.13% 1 9 1.31%

Ficus cunia Buch. Ham ex.Roxb* Podho D 0 4 0.32% 0 7 0.48%Ficus infectoria Roxb* Pakar D 0 4 0.32% 0 4 0.28%Ficus glomerata Roxb* Dumar,Gular D 0 3 0.24% 0 5 0.34%Ficus religiosa L* Peepal D 0 3 0.24% 0 4 0.28%

2 0 Myrtaceae Syzygium cumini (L) Skeels* Jamun E 4 0 3.22% 4 8 3.31%2 1 Papilionaceae Dalbergia lanceolaria L Chapati D 0 8 0.64% 0 8 0.55%

Dalbergia sissoo Roxb Shisham D 0 3 0.24% 0 3 0.21%Ougenia dalbergioides Benth Panjan D 0 2 0.16% 0 2 0.14%Pterocarpus marsupium Roxb* Bijasal E 0 2 0.16% 0 2 0.14%

2 2 Rubiaceae Adina cordifolia Hook.f.ex.Brandis Karam D 1 8 1.45% 2 0 1.38%Anthocephalus cadamba Roxb* Kadam E 0 1 0.08% 0 1 0.07%Randia uliginosa DC Lepsi,Pindar D 0 9 0.72% 1 2 0.83%Ixora arborea Roxb.ex.Sm* Lohajungi E 1 4 1.13% 1 5 1.03%Gardenia latifolia Ait* Popro D 0 1 0.08% 0 1 0.07%Wendlandia exserta (Roxb)DC Tilai E 0 2 0.16% 0 2 0.14%

2 3 Rutaceae Aegle marmelos (L) Corr*. Bel D 1 3 1.05% 1 5 1.03%Micromelum pubescens Blume. Eksira E 0 6 0.48% 0 6 0.41%

2 4 Sapindaceae Schleichera oleosa(Lour)Oken.* Kusum E 1 9 1.53% 2 1 1.45%2 5 Sterculaceae Sterculia urens Roxb.* But kusum D 6 5 5.23% 7 1 4.89%

Sterculia villosa Roxb. Kapsa nijra D 1 7 1.37% 1 7 1.17%2 6 Symplocaceae Symplocos racemosa Roxb. Lodh E 0 1 0.08% 0 1 0.07%2 7 Urticaceae Laportea crenulata (Roxb) Gaud. Lakaramuta D 0 3 0.24% 0 3 0.21%

TOTAL 1244 1452

* Host Plant . -- D-Deciduous, SD-Semi-deciduous, E-Evergreen




15

One fallen new drey, made up only of Bauhinia vahlii(Local name –Maholum) leaves, had a dimension ofabout 40 cm x 32 cm with 29 cm deep chamber with16 cm inner diameter (Figs. 5 & 6). It had a flexibleopening, 9 cm in diameter.The nests were usually constructed away from thetree trunks (Fig. 7), but about 5 percent dreys werelocated close to the tree trunks or on thick branches(Figs. 8). Dreys were most easily located duringMarch andApril months due to leaf fall.As mentionedearlier, in the month of December due to densecanopy, nests remained largely hidden in thevegetation and were hard to locate (Fig. 9). Nestdensity calculated on the basis of total number ofobserved nests divided by total study area coveredduring the survey was 0.51 nest per ha.

R. i. centralis construct globular dreys usually atthe interlinking of crowns of neighbouring trees. This

allowed easy movement of the squirrels from thedrey to other trees for their foraging and other dailyactivities. These observations are similar to thosedescribed by Ramachadran (1988) and Rout andSwain (1996) for Ratufa indica and Kaibad squirrel(Hall, 1981). A few dreys were also constructed ontrees which had no contiguity with nearby trees (Fig.10). In dense forest areas, about 60 percent treeswere observed to be clad with climbers mainlyBauhinia vahlii, Spatholobus roxburghii, Buteasuperb, Ericybe paniculata and Poranapaniculata. Dreys were also made in the thick mesh

of finer twigs of the tree branches and climbers (Fig.11).

Dreys were constructed by depositing tender leavesof the nesting trees. However, squirrels also usedthe leaves of other plant species viz., Bauhinia vahlii,Butea superba, Spatholobus rouxburghii, Shorearobusta, Terminalia tomentosa in the constructionof the nest. More specific study is required forknowing as to why some trees are used for nestingbut its leaves are not used for nest building. Leaveswere properly interwoven so as to give consistencyand rigidity to the drey. Study of three old and onenewly constructed fallen dreys revealed that theleaves were deposited in 7-10 layers in such a waythat its inner layer becomes soft and cushion like.Local people also informed that the squirrel also usesa layer of cotton fibre of Bombax ceiba (Semal) toform a soft cushion over the bed of the drey.

R. indica has been reported to construct multiplenests (6-8) within its home range of which 2-3 areused simultaneously (Krishnan, 1972; Borges, 2007).They use the same nest for several years (Hutton,1949). During the survey, a total of 1452 dreys and67 squirrels were sighted of which only 9 wereobserved using the dreys (Fig. 12) while the restwere seen either feeding or resting on the thickbranches of the trees (Fig. 13 & 14). Thus thenumber of drey was far in excess of the total sightingsof the squirrels. This confirms the earlier reportsregarding building of several nests by one squirrel.




16

Nesting TreesA total of 1244 nesting trees belonging to 59 speciesof 27 families (Table-1) supported 1452 dreys.Among these 73.35 percent dreys were new and26.65 percent were old. Further, 45.76 percent nestingplant species supported only one drey and the resthad more than one (usually 2 and rarely up to 5)(Table 2). Multiple dreys were most commonlyobserved on Lannea grandis (Anacardiaceae);Anogeissus latifolia, Terminalia bellirica, T.chebula, T. tomentosa (family Combretaceae);Bombax ceiba (family Bombacaceae); Dillenia

pentagyna, D. indica (family Dilleniaceae);Lagestroemia parviflora (family Lythraceae);Artocarpus lakoocha (family Moraceae); Syzygiumcumini (family Myrtaceae) and Sterculia urens(family Sterculaceae).

The most preferred nesting trees were Terminaliatomentosa and Anogeissus latifolia, belonging tothe family Combretaceae which supported 23.97percent and 9.37 percent dreys respectively (Table3, Fig.15). On the whole plants belonging to thisfamily, including Anogeissus latifolia, Terminaliaarjuna, T.bellirica, T. chebula and T. tomentosa,supported a total of 41.05 percent nests. Thus plantsbelonging to Combretaceae family can be regardedas the most favoured nesting trees. The other majorspecies of nesting trees were Stereospermumsuaveolens, Shorea robusta, Dillenia pentagynaand Sterculia urens which supported a total of 20.04percent of the nests. The rest 38.91 percent of nestswere supported by the remaining species of trees.

Table 3 also reveals that 83.26 percent of the nestswere constructed on deciduous trees (43 species),13.02 percent on evergreen (13 species) and rest3.72 percent on semi-deciduous (03 species) trees.In DWS, the squirrels thus nested significantly more(83.26 %) on deciduous trees in comparison to semi-deciduous or evergreen trees.

Tree height and Nest heightTable 4 shows the frequency of trees in various classheights on which dreys have been observed. It

reveals that although dreys of R. i. centralis wereobserved on tree heights ranging from 10-19 to 80-89 ft classes, they only occasionally selected treeheights less than 30 ft and more than 70 ft.Therefore, number of dreys on these plants wassignificantly lower. We observed 0.2, 1.38, 7.58,28.44, 38.43, 19.28, 4.34 and 0.34 percent of dreysin 10-19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79and 80-89 ft height classes of trees respectively(Table 4, Fig.16). From these observations it is clearthat the most preferred tree height classes for nestingof R. i. centralis were from 40 ft to 69ft whichaltogether supported 86.15 percent of the totalobserved dreys. Tree heights less than 40 ft supportedonly 9.16 percent dreys while those above 69 ft hadonly 4.68 percent dreys. Percentage of dreys ondifferent tree height classes thus represents thenesting preference of R. i. centralis at variousheights.

1 4 .5 2 4 .5 34 .5 4 4 .5 5 4.5 64 .5 7 4 .5 8 4.53 20

110

413

5 58

280

6 35

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Treeheight(ft)/No.ofNest

Fig. 16 Show ing tre e he ight prefe re nce f or n esting by Ra tu fa in d icacen tra lis in DW S

N o . o f N est Class Av . Tree h t.(ft)




17

Table- 4: Showing tree height class intervals withnumber of drey, number of tree and number of oldand new nestTree Height No. of No. of Old NewClass Interval Drey Tree Nest Nest10-19 3 1 1 220-29 20 9 9 1130-39 110 21 41 6940-49 413 180 124 28950-59 558 465 142 41660-69 280 438 49 23170-79 63 121 19 4480-89 5 9 2 3Total 1452 1244 387 1065

The average mean height of the 1244 observednesting trees in DWS was approximately 58.149 feet.The dreys were built amid small branches at a meanheight of about 52.544 feet above the ground usuallyin subcanopy of the trees. The difference betweenaverage tree height and average nesting height wasfound to be 5.61 feet. On the basis of this informationit can be concluded that most of the dreys weresituated very close to the canopy which ensuresprotection of the squirrels and their young ones fromtheir large predators viz., jungal cat, civet cat, leopard,snakes etc.ACKNOWLDGEMENTSAuthors are greatly indebted to Sri A. K. Singh,PCCF-cum-Chief Wildlife Warden for hisencouragement and continued support during thestudy. Thanks are also due to Sri S. Tripathi, D.F.Oand Sri. S.E.H. Kazmi, C.F., Wildlife Circle,Department of Forest and Environment, Jharkhandfor providing all logistic supports during the study.Special thanks are due to Sri B.R. Rallan, RCCF,Hazaribag for helpful discussion. Weare also thankfulto Dr. Suresh C. Jain, Department of Botany, St.Columba’s College, Hazaribag and Dr. Amar Singh(member AFNC, Bokaro & Jharkhand State WildlifeBoard), Department of Botany, J.J. Jhumaritilaiyafor their help in the identification of plants. Thanksare also due to Dr. Saroj Kumar, B.V.Sc. & A.H,M.V.Sc (Animal Breeding & Genetics), Sri MurariSingh, IBCN Member, Sri Rajesh Kumar, Sri RanjanKumar (Botanist) and local personells for their helpin manifold ways.

REFERENCESAbdulali, H. & Daniel, J.C. (1952). Races of the Indian giant

squirrel (Ratufa indica). J Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.50:469–474.

Bresshers,T. (1935).The Botany of Ranchi District, CatholicPress, Ranchi.

Borges, R. (1986). Possible play between the Indian GiantSquirrel (Ratufa indica indica) and the CommonLangur (Presbytis entellus). J. Bombay Nat. Hist.Soc. 83, 197.

Borges, R. (1989)*. Resource heterogeneity andforaging ecologyof the Malabar giant squirrel (Ratufa indica) (PhDDissertation). Miami, Florida: University of Miami.

Borges, R.M. (1993). Figs and Malabar Giant Squirrels in twotropical forests in India. Biotropica 25: 183–190.

Borges, R.M. (2007)*. “The Indian giant squirrel (Ratufaindica Erxleben 1777) In A.J.T. Jhonsingh &N.manjrekar (eds.). The Mammals of South Asia.University Press, Hydrabad, India.

Champian, H.G. and S.K. Seth (1968). A Revised Survey ofthe Forest type of India, Govt. of India Press, NewDelhi.

Datta, A. (1993)*. Space-use patterns of the Indian giantsquirrel (Ratufa indica) in relation to foodavailability in Bori Wildlife Sanctuary, MadhyaPradesh, India. M.Sc. thesis submitted to SaurashtraUniversity.

Datta, A. (1998). Anti-predatory response of the Indian giantsquirrel Ratufa indica to predation attempts by theCrested Hawk Eagle Spizaetus cirrhatus limnaetus.J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 95, 332–335.

Datta, A. (1999). Daytime resting in the nest – Anadaptation by the Indian giant squirrel Ratufaindica to avoid predation. J. Bombay Nat. Hist.Soc., 96, 132–134.

Datta, A. & Goyal, S. P. (1996), “Comparison of ForestStructure and Use by the Indian Giant Squirrel(Ratufa indica) in Two Riverine Forests of CentralIndia”. Biotropica 28 (3): 394–399.

Datye, S.H. (1996). Ecology of Elephant of Dalma WildlifeSanctuary, Bihar-Central India. Ecology of AsianElephant, final report, Bombay Natural HistorySociety. (1987-1992) pp. 86-166.

Dev. N.P. (2000). Management Plan of Dalma WildlifeSanctuary.

Ellerman, John R. (1961). Roonwall, M. L. ed. Rodentia:variation. Fauna of India including Pakistan, Burmaand Ceylon. Mammalia. 3 (in 2 parts) (2nd ed.).Delhi: Manager of Publications. pp. 483–884.

Gadgil, M. & Mehar Homji, V.M. (1985). Ecology andManagement of world Savannas. Australian Academyof Science, Canberra, 1958: 107-113.

GOI (1972). The Wildlife (Protection) Act, (1972), Ministryof Forest and Environment and Forests, Govt. ofIndia, New Delhi.




18

Hall, J.G. (1981). A field study of the Kaibab squirrel in theGrand Canyon National Park. Wildlife Monogr.75:1-54.

Hutton, A.F. 1949. Notes on the snakes and mammals of theHigh Wavy Mountains, Madura District, South India.Pt. 2- Mammals. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 48: 681-694.

IUCN. (2010). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (ver.2010.2). Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org.(Accessed: 29 June 2010).

Javed S. and Kaul R. (2002). Field method for bird survey.Indian Bird Conservation Network, BombayNatural History Society.

Jathana, D., N.S. Kumar & K.U. Karanth (2008). MeasuringIndian giant squirrel (Ratufa indica) abundance insouthern India using distance sampling. Specialediting: Arboreal squirrel. Curr. Sci. 95(7): 885–888.

Joshua, J. (1996). Interbreeding between grizzled giantsquirrel Ratufa macroura (Pennant) and Malabargiant squirrel Ratufa indica (Erxleben). J. BombayNat. Hist. Soc. 93: 82–83.

Johnsingh, A.J.T. and J. Joshua. 1991. Ecology of endangeredGrizzled Giant Squirrel Ratufa macroura in TamilNadu. Wildlife institute of India, Dehara Dun.

Kanoje R. S. (2008). Nesting site of Indian Giant Squirrels inSitanadi Wildlife Sanctuary, India, Curr. Sci., 95: (7),10 December

Krishnan, M. (1972). An ecological survey of the largermammals of peninsular india. J. Bombay Nat. Hist.Soc. 32: 591-597.

Lindsay, H.M. 1927. Mammals survey of India, Burma andCeylon. Report No. 43. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.32: 591-597

Mehta, P. (1997). Leopard (Panthera pardus) attempting toprey on Indian giant squirrel (Ratufa indicacentralis). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 94: 555.

Moore, J. C. (1959). “Relationships among the living squirrelsof the Sciurinae.” Bulletin of the American Museum ofNatural History 118: 153–206.

Moore, J.C. & Tate, G.H.H. (1965). “A study of the diurnalsquirrels, Sciurinae, of the Indian and Indo-Chinesesubregion”. Fieldiana. Zool. 48: 1-351

NESTING HABITS OF INDIAN GIANT SQUIRRELMukhopadhyay, M. (1994). Flora of Hazaribagh. Botanical

Survey of India, Calcutta.

Prater, S.H., 1980. The book of Indian Animals. Bombay naturalHistory Society, Mumbai

Rajmani, N., Sanjay, M. & Nameer, P. O. (2008). “Ratufaindica”. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Verson2009.2.

Ramachandran K. K. (1988). Ecology and behaviour of Malabargiant squirrel, Ratufa indica maxima Schreber. KFRIresearch report: 55. Peechi: Kerala Forest ResearchInstitute.

Ramchandran, K. K. (1991). Ecology and behaviour ofMalabar giant squirrel (Ratufa indica maxima)Schreber. K.F.R.I. Research Report, p. 55(summary).

Ramachandran, K. K. (1992)*. Certain aspects of ecology andbehaviour of Malabar Giant Squirrel Ratufa indica(Schreber). PhD Thesis. University of Kerala, 191pp.

Rout, S.D. & D. Swain (2006). The Giant Squirrel (Ratfa indica)in Similipal Tiger Reserve, Orissa, India. Tiger paperVol.33: No,4 Oct-Dec 24-27

Sinha, Y.P. (2004). State Fauna Series 11: Fauna of Bihar(Including Jharkhand), Part 1: 1-13

Srinivas, V., P.D. Venugopal & S. Ram (2008). Site occupancyof the Indian Giant Squirrel Ratufa indica (Erxleben)in Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, Tamil Nadu,India. Special editing: Arboreal squirrel. CurrentScience 95(7): 889–894.

Thorington, R.W. Jr. & R.L. Cifelli (1989). The usualsignificance of the giant squirrels (Ratufa), pp. 212–219. In: Daniel, J.C. & J.S. Serrao (eds.). Conservationin Developing Countries: Problem and Prospects.Proceeding of the Centenary Seminar of the BombayNatural History Society. Oxford University Press.

Umapathy, G. and Kumar, A. (2000). The occurrence ofarboreal mammals in the rainforest fragments in theAnamalai Hills, south India. Biol. Conserv., 92:311–319.

Webb- People, C.G. 1910. Field notes of the mammals of S.Tinnevelly, S. India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 46:629-644.

*Not seen in original


http://www.iucnredlist.org.


ratufa indica, dalma wildlife sanctuary, jharkhand

Documents