See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/268379643

Blue bull (Boselaphus tragocamelus) in Lumbini–a World Heritage site of Nepal

Article · January 2007

CITATIONS READS
11 1,049

1 author:

Achyut Aryal

107 PUBLICATIONS 1,700 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Chitwan National Park View project

Population Status and Diurnal Behaviour of the Indian Flying Fox Pteropus giganteus (Brünnich, 1782) in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Achyut Aryal on 05 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Vol. 34: No. 2 Apr-Jun 2007
| Blue bull (Boselaphus tragocamelus) in a World Heritage Site of Nepal |

BLUE BULL (Boselaphus tragocamelus) IN LUMBINI - A

WORLD HERITAGE SITE OF NEPAL

by Achyut Aryal

Introduction necessary to identify Blue bull habitats and their

carrying capacity. If the population exceeds the

L umbini is the birth place of Lord Buddha and

listed as a World Heritage Site. The Lumbini
area covers 7.7 km2 and is administered by the
habitat’s carrying capacity, a translocation program
should be initiated to move the animals to other
suitable places in the country. This will also help
Lumbini Development Trust (LDT). Lumbini is to reduce the crop damage caused by Blue bulls
one of the prime tourism destinations of Nepal. that is experienced by local people.
The trust maintains various Buddhist temples and
other historical places at the site. The present study assessed the crop damage and
extent of conflict between local people and Blue
Nilgai or Blue bull (Boselaphus tragocamelus) bulls, determined the carrying capacity of the LDT
is one of the largest Asian antelopes found in the area for Blue bull and the population status of Blue
Lumbini area of Rupandehi district. The LDT area bull in the LDT area. Developing natural sites
provides a significant habitat for Blue bull. where tourists can observe Blue bull and Sarus
crane is a possible option, so there is an urgent
The Government of Nepal protects the country’s need to develop an effective action plan for Blue
endangered flora and fauna through legislation and bull conservation and management in the LDT
there are various animals in the protected lists. area. A participatory approach conservation plan
Blue bull is an important wildlife species, but is is needed for wildlife management (John et al.,
not a protected species. The Government of Nepal 1995); therefore, this study proposes a
has established protected areas for the participatory action plan for effective management
conservation of endangered flora and fauna. of Blue bull which would support sustainable
These flora and fauna are being depleted day by tourism and contribute to the local economy of
day due to over-exploitation, pollution, habitat the study area.
destruction, poaching and human and livestock
pressure in their habitat (HMG/Nepal, 2002). The The findings of this research would be useful not
population of Blue bull has been declining at a only for the LDT area, but also for the proper
higher rate over the last five years in Nepal and management of Blue bull populations in other parts
therefore, conservation of Blue bull is a national of the country to ensure their long-term survival
and global concern (Subedi, 2001).The population in their natural habitat.
of Blue bull is declining from the Terai area due to
hunting and habitat destruction (HMG/Nepal, The objectives of the study were to:
2002; Aryal, 2004), but not enough studies have § estimate the population of Blue bull in the
been carried out to understand the population Lumbini Development Trust (LDT) area;
trends. Only two studies on Blue bull have § analyze the carrying capacity of the LDT area
undertaken in Nepal (Subedi, 2001; Khattri, 1993). for the Blue bull population;
§ assess the crop damage caused by Blue bulls
Rupandehi and Kaplivastu districts are potential and the impact on local livelihoods; and
Blue bull habitats, but no conservation measures § develop a participatory Blue bull conservation
have been taken, hence the higher rate of decline action plan for contributing to the local
in the population of Blue bull (Subedi, 2001). It is
4
 Vol. 34: No. 2 Apr-Jun 2007

economy and sustainable tourism in the

| Blue bull (Boselaphus tragocamelus) in a World Heritage Site of Nepal |

method was used for the population count (Sale
Lumbini area. et al., 1988) and the carrying capacity was
calculated on the basis of assessments of food,
Study area cover and habitat of Blue bull. The Z test was
used for testing the Null/alternative hypothesis.
The study area covered the LDT area and the The testing was conducted at a 5% level of
surrounding Rupandehi district. Of the 7.7 km2 significance, with a value of 1.96.
LTD area, after excluding infrastructure and road
areas, only 5.14 km2 could be considered potential Carrying capacity
habitat of Blue bull.
The carrying capacity (CC) of the area for Blue
Methods bull was determined from data collected by the
field inventory, based on Alberta (2004). The
The study was carried out through questionnaires ecological sustainable stocking rate (ESSR)
and direct field observations. Crop damage was reflects the maximum number of animals [e.g.
measured on the basis of questionnaires and direct (ha)/animal unit month (AUM)] that can be
field observations in the affected areas. Previous supported by the plant community given the
available data regarding crop damage and inherent biophysical constraints and the ecological
interviews with 142 respondents from the study goal of sustainable health and proper functioning
area were also considered. The transect line count of the plant community.

CC-
Area (ha) available for Blue bull excluding road, infrastructure, river (A)
ESSR (Ecological Sustainable Stocking Rate).
Where,
ESSR= Amount of feeding (kg)/blue bull per month
Biomass (kg)/ha * Safe use factor (25-50%)

Alberta (2004) recommended that utilization levels (A). The weight of the food plant was calculated
are generally considered to range between 25 to by designing a sample plot (1 m x 1 m) for herbs.
50% of total production, depending on the Plots measuring 10 m x 10 m were laid out to
ecological site. These percentages of production determine the tree species density (Stromberg,
use are called safe use factors. It is the 1995). Simple random sampling was used to
percentage of the total biomass production of the determine the biomass of species. Altogether, 42
ecological site that is available for utilization by plots were laid out in the study area. Crown cover
animals. The safe use factor considers the given and ground cover were also observed. Palatable
inherent biophysical constraints and the ecological and unpalatable species were identified with the
goals of sustainable health and proper functioning help of knowledgeable local people and weighed.
of the area. The remaining biomass production
(carry over) is allocated for ecological Results and discussion
maintenance. Recommended safe use values vary
according to the ecological site and management. Population status of Blue bull in LDT area
For the study it was calculated as 50 percent.
A total of 41 Blue bulls were counted in the LDT
According to data from the Central Zoo, on a daily area: 10 males, 15 females and 16 juveniles. The
average an adult Blue bull needs 14 kg of biomass population density of Blue bull in the LDT area is
of palatable species (420 kg per month). 8 individuals/km2 . The sex ratio of male to female
is 2:3.
The biomass (kg)/ha is calculated by the weight
of the food plant multiplied by the available area
55
 Vol. 34: No. 2 Apr-Jun 2007

| Blue bull (Boselaphus tragocamelus) in a World Heritage Site of Nepal |

Population trend Approximately 43% of the study area had dense
crown cover (75-100%), 27% had moderate
Blue bulls have been recorded in the LDT area crown cover (50-75%), 14% had sparse crown
since the early 1990s. They are believed to have cover (25-50%) and the remaining 16% had very
come from Kakrahawa forest (Indian side), which sparse crown cover.
is approximately 10 km away from the LDT’s
southern boundary. They followed the path of During the study period most of the ground layer
Kakrahawa forest to Sattabazar Forest and to vegetation was dry and covered with litter. Most
Kothi river ridge to the LDT area. The initial of the ground layer was covered with grass species
population was estimated to be around 5-10 (e.g., Imperata cylindrica and Cynodon
individuals. The estimated population had reached dactylon); about 16% of the area had dense
nearly 200 in 1997, but this was based on public ground cover (75-100%), followed by 44% with
opinion. According to the local people, the Blue moderate ground cover, 29% with sparse ground
bull population kept increasing until 1999. The cover and 11% having very sparse ground cover.
increased Blue bull population started to exert From October/November to April/May, ground
tremendous pressure on the adjacent cultivated herbs become dry and hence, this is a food
land, causing crop damage. That situation deficiency period, during which time the LDT
developed a serious conflict with local farmers. authority totally bans livestock grazing in Blue bull
The affected farmers requested the government potential habitat.
to control the Blue bulls. In response to this request,
five animals were translocated to Banke reserve Carrying capacity (CC)
forest in 1998 (Subedi, 2001). Subedi (2001)
counted only 11 Blue bulls in the LDT area, but The carrying capacity for a grazing disposition of
he used only the Bhairawaha-Taulihawa highway a given size represents the maximum number of
as a transect line and hence fewer animals were animals that can be sustained without causing a
counted. According to the local people, during downward trend or without degrading the
1998-2000, there was a drastic increase in deaths resources in their habitat. Suggested ecological
of Blue bulls, which could have been caused by sustainable stocking rate (ESSR) values provided
foot and mouth disease (FMD). Two blood in the plant community guide are determined from
samples were taken during the translocation to a combination of clipping studies.
Banke forest in 1998, which showed signs of foot
and mouth disease (Subedi, 2001). This was not In order to sustain the ecological health and
the only the cause of the drastic decline of the function of the plant community, ESSRs are based
Blue bull population; other factors included on a standardized biomass allocation and forage
poisoning, revenge killing by farmers and less requirements of one Blue bull unit (i.e., 420 kg/
available palatable vegetation. month. (Reference: Central Zoo, Kathmandu,
2005).
Habitat structure
The LDT area was divided into two parts to
The LDT area was covered with plantation forest calculate the carrying capacity of Blue bull, which
dominated by Sissoo (Dalbergia sisso), followed were separated by the Bhairahawa-Taulihawa
by Saguwan (Tictona grandis), Eucalyptus, highway. The northern part of the highway is a
Jamun (Eugenia jambolana), etc. potential site for the management of wildlife
tourism. The carrying capacity of both sites were
Seventy-nine percent of the potential habitat of calculated.
Blue bull is covered by forest and the other 21%
is grassland or open land. During the field survey, Palatable species preferred by Blue bull were
all Blue bulls were seen in the forest and not in identified with the help of local knowledgeable
open land. Generally Blue bulls use open grassland persons (e.g., shepherds, villagers). Eleven
for grazing. species of herbs/grasses were found in the study
area and out of these, 5 species were found to be
6
 Vol. 34: No. 2 Apr-Jun 2007

| Blue bull (Boselaphus tragocamelus) in a World Heritage Site of Nepal |

palatable species for Blue bull. These included There were no branches below 7 feet, so the tree
Imperata cylindrica and Cynodon dactylon. biomass was neglected in the calculation of
biomass; dry leaves of trees were calculated as
unpalatable species.

The carrying capacity of the LDT area north of the highway was as follows:
§ Area (ha) available for Nilgai excluding road, infrastructure, river (A): 220 ha
§ Amount of feeding (kg)/blue bull per month: 420 kg dry weight
§ Total Biomass (kg)/ha: 682.936 kg (dry weight)
§ Palatable species spps dry weight: 204kg/ha
§ Safe use factor: 50%
§ ESSR: 4.11

CC- 220 - 55.2 (=53) individual

4.11

The carrying capacity of the LDT area south of the highway was as follows:
§ Area (ha) available for Nilgai excluding road, infrastructure, river (A): 294 ha
§ Amount of feeding (kg)/blue bull per month: 420 kg dry weight
§ Biomass (kg)/ha: 682.936 kg
§ Palatable species spps dry weight: 204kg/ha
§ Safe use factor: 50%
§ ESSR: 4.11

CC- 294 – 71.5 (72) individual

4.11

From the above data, the total carrying capacity destroy large quantities of agricultural crops and
of the LDT area for the Blue bull is 125 for vegetables. The area around the LDT was highly
October-January; the carrying capacity during the affected up to 1 km from the boundary; areas 1-3
dry season will be less. A detailed biomass study km from the LDT suffered medium effects, and
should be conducted to identify the carrying areas more than 3 km from the LDT boundary
capacity in other seasons. Grazing competition were less affected.
from more than 1,000 livestock also reduces the
amount of palatable species available to Blue bulls Highly affected VDCs are Tenuhawa, Ekla,
and has encouraged the introduction of unpalatable Madhuwani and Lumbini Adarsha. A large amount
species in the area, causing the Blue bull to move of crop damage has been recorded from
to private lands in search of food. If livestock Harnamapur, Shivagadiya, Ramawapur, Mahilwar,
grazing pressure is controlled inside the LDT area, Padariya, Parsa and some parts of Yakla VDC.
the movement of Blue bulls to private lands will
be reduced significantly. Generally, Blue bull prefers the mature growth
stage of different crops (e.g., paddy, maize,
Man-Blue bull conflict mustard, chili, cauliflower, cow-pea, black gram,
cabbage, etc), while wheat, potato, radish and
Blue bulls have a direct effect on the local pumpkin are preferred in the early stages of
livelihoods of the farmers in lands surrounding the growth, and lentils are preferred at all stages. Blue
LDT area, as they have always been closely bulls were reported to feed on all the major crops
associated with farmlands. Due to the open grown in the boundary areas. Apart from
boundary of the LDT area, Blue bulls frequently agricultural crops, Blue bulls also caused
visit the farmlands surrounding the LDT area and considerable damage to vegetables. According to
77
 Vol. 34: No. 2 Apr-Jun 2007

| Blue bull (Boselaphus tragocamelus) in a World Heritage Site of Nepal |

the local people, male Blue bulls visited kitchen Threats
gardens more frequently than females. The local
people claimed that about 5% of the total rice Some of the threats that Blue bulls face include
production is damaged by Blue bulls in areas 1 the following:
km from the LDT boundary, and 2% was § Grazing pressure: Every day more than 1,000
damaged in areas 1-3 km from the boundary. livestock graze inside the park, and constitute
the main threat by consuming the food plants
Impact on the local economy of Blue bull and inducing the introduction of
unpalatable species.
Various factors such as seasonal cropping § Disease transmission: Due to the livestock
patterns, the absence of strong fencing and the pressure in Blue bull habitat, there is a high
types of crops grown in the field were the main probability of transfer of livestock diseases to
factors governing the extent of crop damage. The Blue bull and vice versa.
types of crops damaged by Blue bulls varies with § Firewood collection and grass cutting
the season. Generally, damage incurred during the
winter months was found to be higher than during Recommendations
the summer. The distance from the LTD boundary
to the field also affects the amount of crop § Barbed wire fencing should be erected around
damage. There is an inverse relation between the LDT area.
distance and crop damage, i.e., as the distance § Livestock grazing and grass cutting inside the
decreases, crop damage increases and vice versa. LDT areas should be restricted.
Crop types also play a significant role in crop § A public awareness program should be initiated
damage. Mainly paddy, wheat, mustard, potato, to disseminate conservation education to the
peas and lentils were found damaged in the area. local villagers about the importance of wildlife
In interviews with 142 farmers surrounding the resources, and especially about the newly
LDT area, rice/paddy was reportedly one of the endangered status of Blue bull.
most highly damaged crops, with approximately § A detailed biomass study should be conducted
5% of total production damaged by Blue bull. This to identify the carrying capacity of Blue bull
amounts to 1,000 quintal, which is equivalent to habitat in the dry season.
NRs 900,000 (NRs 1= US$74). Wheat crops also § Incentives should be provided to local affected
suffered damages by Blue bulls equivalent to farmers in the form of monetary
NRs1,103,595. So it seems that there is a compensation for crop damage, skill
significant amount of crop damage done by Blue development training, income generation
bulls, which has an impact on the local livelihood training, etc.
in the areas surrounding the LDT. § Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) such as
Sarpagantha and Mentha should be cultivated
Efforts made to minimize crop damage in high crop damage areas (1 km from the
Trust boundary) as alternative crops which
Efforts have been made by both villagers and the are unpalatable to Blue bulls.
LTD authorities to minimize crop damage from § The LDT should be actively involved in
Blue bull. The Trust erected a brick wall fence biodiversity conservation activities, such as
along the parsa to the main gate, and most of the the restoration of wetlands, regular patrolling,
LTD boundary was fenced with barbed wire. conservation awareness activities, etc.
Unfortunately, there is no fence anymore because § Participatory Conservation Action Plan
the barbed wire was stolen. Local people regularly activities must be implemented for better
guard their crops in the field night and day. To management of Blue bull and other wildlife
deter the Blue bulls, some local farmers used live and to raise the local livelihoods.
hedge fences or barbed wire fences around their
kitchen gardens, put up scarecrows or used fires Acknowledgments
to frighten the animals. The author extends his thanks and sincere
gratitude to Shree Prasad Dhoubhadel
8
 Vol. 34: No. 2 Apr-Jun 2007

| Blue bull (Boselaphus tragocamelus) in a World Heritage Site of Nepal | Lost with fire |
(Assistant Dean, IOF); Raj Kumar Koirala HMG/Nepal. 2002. Nepal Biodiversity Strategy
(Head of Department, Park Recreation and (NBS). His Majesty’s Government of Nepal,
Wildlife Management, Institute of Forestry supported by GEF and UNDP.
(IOF), Pokhara); Basant Bidari (LDT); and Aryal, A. 2004. Status of Important Wetlands
Top Br. Khattri (UNDP/PCP) who provided of Rupandehi and Kapilvastu district of
guidance, at all stages of this study; and to Nepal. A report submitted to BCN, Nepal.
TRPAP and WWF Nepal for providing funding Aryal, A. 2004. Status and population of Sarus
for this thesis work. Crane (Grus antigone antigone ) in
lowlands of west-central region of Nepal.
References A report submitted to OBC, UK.
Subedi, N 2001. Status and ecology of Nilgai in
Alberta. 2004. Methodology for calculating Nepal with particular emphasis on Royal
carrying capacity and grazing capacity on Bardia National Park. M.Sc. dissertation.
public rangelands. Rangeland Management
Branch, Rangeland Resource Management Author’s Address: c/o Himalayan Musk Deer
Program, Alberta, Sustainable resource Conservation Project/BRTF, P.o.Box-299,
development. Public land and forestry. Pub. Pokhara, Nepal; E-mail: savefauna@
No 1/197. yahoo.com; [email protected]

LOST WITH FIRE

by Manjula Menon

researchers of the UK-based University of

I n India, Western Ghats is one of the richest cen
ters of endemism and a region diverse in fauna
and flora. A number of programs are currently
Leicester, the wild fires that scorched parts of
Indonesian forests in 1977 spewed as much carbon
being implemented for conservation of biodiversity into the atmosphere as the planet’s biosphere
and sustainable utilization in this particular hot spot absorbs in a year. This led to a sharp increase in
region – mainly inventories and in situ and ex situ global warming during 1998. Forest fires,
conservation. The ecosystem is under severe especially in the Western Ghats, have led to large
threat from various natural and anthropogenic scale losses of both wild flora and fauna. The
pressures. One of the greatest pressures is from tropical dry deciduous forests of Western Ghats
forest fires. Forest fires are usually the result of are more susceptible to fire than the moist
three main factors: a heat source, a fuel that burns, deciduous and dry thorn forests. This can be
and oxygen to propagate combustion. Ignition attributed to the longer dry season of the dry
sources may be natural or human-caused. Fuel deciduous forests, and hence, larger amounts of
refers to the different components of the dry matter. Studies in Western Ghats have also
vegetation layer, both live and dead materials. The revealed higher incidences of fire in areas with a
effects of forest fires have in turn created a high density of Sorea roxburgii.
situation that has resulted in severe climatic
conditions leading to a significant loss of Forest fires also have considerable effects on the
biodiversity. In recent years, there has been an faunal species. There have been observations of
increase in forest fires due to land use changes Indian rock pythons bearing fire scars in the forests
and climate warming. of Mudumalai sanctuary. Many insects and birds
(e.g., Yellow-wattled lapwing) build their nests on
There has also been much concern regarding the ground, which in the event of fire could be
forest fires at the global level. According to charred.
99

View publication stats