Integrating geospatial tools and species for conservation planning in a data-poor region of the Far Eastern Himalayas

Kabir Uddin; Nakul Chettri; Yongping Yang; Mahendra Singh Lodhi; Naing Zaw Htun; Eklabya Sharma

doi:10.1080/24749508.2019.1610840

Integrating geospatial tools and species for conservation planning in a data-poor region of the Far Eastern Himalayas

Uddin, Kabir; Chettri, Nakul; Yang, Yongping; Lodhi, Mahendra Singh; Htun, Naing Zaw; Sharma, Eklabya 2020-07-02 00:00:00 GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 2020, VOL. 4, NO. 3, 187–202 INWASCON https://doi.org/10.1080/24749508.2019.1610840 RESEARCH ARTICLE Integrating geospatial tools and species for conservation planning in a data- poor region of the Far Eastern Himalayas a a b c d Kabir Uddin , Nakul Chettri , Yongping Yang , Mahendra Singh Lodhi , Naing Zaw Htun and Eklabya Sharma a b Transboundary Landscape, International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu, Nepal; Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, Yunnan, P R China; North-East Regional Centre, G B Pant National Institute of Himalayan Environment and Sustainable Development, Itanagar, India; Nature and Wildlife Conservation Division, Forest Department, Ministry of Environmental Conservation and Forestry, Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Received 26 June 2018 The Hindu Kush Himalayan region (HKH) is an important biodiversity repository with more Accepted 20 April 2019 than 488 protected areas covering 39% of the region’s geographical coverage. However, a majority of them are small and isolated and are not large enough to address conservation KEYWORDS challenges. About 20% of the protected areas are transboundary in nature. Conservation GIS and remote sensing; landscape planning based on habitat suitability is an essential step for landscape manage- habitat suitability; models; ment, but there are limited data available from the Landscape Initiative for Far Eastern threatened species; Himalayas (HI-LIFE). To rationalize the need for regional cooperation, this study used remote transboundary landscape; regional cooperation sensing (RS) data and a geographic information system (GIS) to estimate the habitat suit- ability for four globally signiﬁcant speciesconsidering available but limited secondary infor- mation. The results showed variation in habitat suitability at an individual species level, but the combined map showed about 43% of the total area as a suitable habitat. Substantial amounts of suitable habitat also recorded from outside the existing protected areas. The results also highlighted the fact that 75.40% of the existing forest within the landscape is intact, the majority of which is outside the existing protected areas. Thus, there is a strong rationale and opportunity to strengthen regional cooperation to safeguard irreplaceable and unique biodiversity resources of this wilderness landscape. 1. Introduction world (e.g., Blandford, 1872; Hooker, 1849). In recent decades, the HKH has witnessed signiﬁcant concep- The HKH, stretched over four million km sacross the tual development in regional approaches to biodiver- Himalayas and adjoining ranges, is endowed with a rich sity conservation. It evolved from “people variety of gene pools, species and ecosystems of global exclusionary” and “species focused” to “people- importance (Mittermeier et al., 2005; Pei, 1995). The centred community-based” and “ecosystem/landscape region has been in the spotlight as a part of “Crisis approach,“ as reﬂected by conservation policies and Ecoregions”, “Endemic Bird Areas”, “Mega Diversity practices within the region (Chettri & Sharma, 2016; Countries” and “Global 200 Ecoregions” (Brooks et al., Molden et al., 2017; Sharma et al., 2010). The classical 2006) and also hosts parts of four of the 36 Global approach to biodiversity conservation, which started Biodiversity Hotspots – Himalaya, Indo-Burma, with an emphasis on the conservation of ﬂagship Mountains of South-West China, and Mountains of species (e.g., Wikramanayake et al., 1998; Yonzon, Central Asia (Mittermeier, Turner, Larsen, Brooks, & 1989), evolved to the understanding that “conserva- Gascon, 2011;Noss et al., 2015) – and a number of the tion and management of biodiversity are impossible Global 200 Ecoregions of the world (Dinerstein et al., without people’s participation“ (Phuntsho, Chettri, & 2017; Wikramanayake et al., 2002). Also, the region Oli, 2012). Since the 1980s, decentralization, and provides ecosystem services that sustain the lives and devolution of authority for biodiversity conservation livelihoods of over 240 million people in the HKH and were evident in governments” eﬀorts across the HKH support over 1.7 billion people living downstream in the through landscape-level initiatives (see Chettri & 10 river basins which emanate from these mountainous Sharma, 2016; Phuntsho et al., 2012; Sharma et al., regions (Molden et al., 2017;Schild, 2008). 2010; Zomer & Oli, 2011). The region has a signiﬁcant conservation history Since the establishment of the Pidaung Wildlife th beginning from the 19 century (see Sharma, Chettri, Sanctuary in Myanmar in 1918, the ﬁrst protected & Oli, 2010) along with notable explorations by bota- area in the region, the countries sharing the HKH nists, zoologists and nature explorers from across the CONTACT Nakul Chettri nakul.chettri@icimod.org www.icimod.org International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, G P O Box 3226, Kathmandu, Nepal © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group on behalf of the International Water, Air & Soil Conservation Society(INWASCON). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 188 K. UDDIN ET AL. have set aside 39% of the terrestrial area by establish- 2007). The initiatives focus on conservation and ing 488 protected area networks till 2007 (Chettri, development planning considering biological and Shakya, Thapa, & Sharma, 2008). However, environmental issues (species, drivers of change and a majority (68%) of them are less than land classes) and processes (e.g., migration, adapta- 500 km s and are scattered, isolated, and do not tion, and speciation) through a participatory cover the entirety of biodiversity-rich areas with approach and long-term monitoring mechanisms as high conservation signiﬁcance (Chettri et al., 2008; being advocated elsewhere (Kremen & Merenlender, Sarkar, Mayﬁeld, Cameron, Fuller, & Garson, 2007; 2018). It was realized that these processes could be Shrestha, Shrestha, Chaudhary, & Chaudary, 2010). best accommodated by designing large-scale conser- Also, only about 25% of the Global Biodiversity vation landscapes that capture the environmental Hotspots in the HKH are within the existing pro- gradients and facilitate biota movement and dispersal tected area network, leaving a very signiﬁcant area at spatial and temporal scales (Beger et al., 2010; unprotected (Chettri et al., 2008). Moreover, habitat Leonard. Baldwin, & Hanks, 2017; Rouget, Cowling, degradation as a result of land use and cover change Lombard, Knight, & Kerley, 2006). (Bharti, Adhikari, & Rawat, 2012; Sharma, The Landscape Initiative for Far Eastern Areendran, Raj, Sharma, & Joshi, 2016; Brandt, Himalayas (HI-LIFE) is one of the six proposed land- Allendorf, Radeloﬀ, & Brooks, 2017) and challenges scapes (Figure 1). Located between the Brahmaputra from prevailing climate change (Kraaijenbrink, (Yarlung Tsangpo in China) and Salween (Nujiang in Bierkens, Lutz, & Immerzeel, 2017; Shrestha, Wake, China, and Thanlwin in Myanmar) river systems, Mayewski, & Dibb, 1999) are bringing additional along the easternmost extensions of the Himalayas pressure on the existing protected areas system and and the westernmost extent of the Hengduan biodiversity of the region (Chettri & Sharma, 2016; Mountains, the landscape spans with an area of Chettri et al., 2010; Xu et al., 2009). 71,452 km2 across China (22%), India (12%), and Interestingly, about 20% of the protected areas Myanmar (66%) (ICIMOD, 2018). The landscape found in the region are transboundary in nature, has global signiﬁcance due to its converging location with contiguous habitats across boundaries. They of the three Global Biodiversity Hotspots – namely also have greater conservation signiﬁcance due to Himalaya, Indo-Burma and Mountain of Southwest their location in areas with higher biodiversity China (Brunner, Talbott, & Elkin, 1998; Mittermier (Chettri et al., 2008). Though there has been signiﬁ- et al., 2011; Wikramanayeke et al., 2002). cant progress in the number and coverage of pro- Interestingly, out of seven protected areas found in tected areas, conservation plans developed for the area, four are transboundary in nature with nat- protected areas usually encompass only one country ural connectivity with adjacent protected areas across because of logistical, institutional and political chal- the political boundaries (Areendran et al., 2017;Li lenges (Chettri et al., 2010; Molden et al., 2017; et al., 2017; Lodhi, Samal, Chaudhry, Palni, & Sharma et al., 2010). Thus, there was an urgent Dhyani, 2014). Moreover, in some areas, the areas need to strengthen transboundary conservation plan- outside protected areas are equally or more signiﬁ- ning strategies as many protected areas are intercon- cant in terms of biodiversity (Naniwadekar et al., nected across boundaries through processes that 2015). form, utilize and maintain interfaces or connectivity The complex with congruence of three of the 36 essential for the survival of some species (Forrest Global Biodiversity Hotspot (Mittermeier et al., et al., 2012; Palomo, 2017; Pauchard et al., 2009; 2011;Nossetal., 2015), it is an important area Tang et al., 2018; Wikramanayake et al., 2011). for plant diversity (Zhang, Slik, & Ma, 2017) and Based on the regional biodiversity signiﬁcance and the wilderness areas have been used by many the need for regional cooperation, the International species as connectivity corridors (Ren et al., Centre for Integrated Mountain Development 2017). However, this natural connectivity across (ICIMOD) has identiﬁed six transboundary land- the boundaries and the resulting contiguous habi- scapes (Kailash, Kangchenjunga, Far Eastern tats across the landscape were never considered in Himalaya, Hindu Kush Karakoram Pamir, Everest, the past conservation practices. Thus, the HI-LIFE and Cherrapunjee-Chittagong) across the HKH has a high potential, as a transboundary landscape, region for the development of integrated conserva- considering the existing protected areas and their tion and development initiatives (Chettri, Sharma, & contiguous habitats. The concept, challenges, and Thapa, 2009). The objective of these landscape initia- opportunities have been discussed with conserva- tives is to improve conservation and community tion communities, who agreed in principle to development beyond the political boundaries through explore the further development of the HI-LIFE “Ecosystem Approach” as advocated by the as a transboundary landscape and to enhance Convention of Biological Diversity (Secretariat of regional cooperation (ICIMOD, 2018). To support the CBD, 2004; Sharma, Chettri, Gurung, & Shakya, the conservation paradigm, we came up with the GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 189 following three objectives for this study and the 2.2. Research methodology outputs from these objectives can be used to To meet the objective mentioned above, we followed ensure the integration of regional-scale processes the schematic analytical steps shown in Figure 2.As into conservation assessment, management, and per the objectives, three broad methodologies were implementation of the ecosystem approach. used as follows: (1) To understand the state of land use and land 2.2.1. Land cover mapping cover types within the delineated landscape to Landsat data (see Table 1) were used for land cover understand the extent of potential habitats for mapping as it has the potential to signiﬁcantly improve species that are of global signiﬁcance. the characterization of the Earth’sland surface (2) To identify potential habitat contiguity of (Macauley, 2009). Landsat Enhanced Thematic some selected species common across the Mapper Plus (ETM+) images were accessed from transboundary landscape and understand the USGS Global Visualization Viewer (GLOVIS, 2012) extent of the available habitat necessary for whereas a Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) their conservation. Digital Elevation Model was accessed from Consultative (3) To address the knowledge gap on the state of Group on International Agricultural Research existing habitat conditions in relation to forest (CGIAR)-Consortium for Spatial Information (CSI) fragmentation. GeoPortal (see SRTM, 2012). A hierarchical classiﬁca- tion scheme with 10 classes was adopted using the Land Cover Classiﬁcation System (LCCS) following Di 2. Materials and methods Gregorio (2005)(Table 2). The acquired Landsat images 2.1. Study area were atmospheric corrected and re-projected into Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM), Zone 47. After The HI-LIFE is the eastern-most landscape among processing the images, eCognition Developer software the six identiﬁed landscapes (Figure 1). The geo- used for object-based image analysis (OBIA). This graphic extent of the landscape comprises 71,452 method of land use and land cover mapping has been km2 located between coordinates 95.51 and 99.31 tested elsewhere and could be referred to for further E longitude and 25.01 and 28.99 N latitude. In detail (Chettri, Uddin, Chaudhary, & Sharma, 2013; terms of biodiversity, the proposed HI-LIFE is one Uddin et al. 2015). of the most intact and enriched transboundary bio- diversity complexes within the HKH and has been recognized as a Centre of Plant Biodiversity and 2.2.2. Species habitat suitability modeling Eastern Asiatic Regional Centre for Endemism We used secondary information of four species (Takhtajan, 1969; Wikramanayake et al., 2002). (Himalayan black bear, Leaf deer, Red panda, A study of the world’s frontier forests by the World Takin) that were reported from more than one pro- Resources Institute shows that the complex contains tected areas of the landscape (see Rabinowitz, the last remaining tracts of intact natural forest eco- Garshelis & Steinmetz, 2008; Harris, 2008; systems in mainland Southeast Asia that are relatively Rabinowitz et al., 1998; Rabinowitz, Myint, Khaing, undisturbed and large enough to maintain biodiver- & Rabinowitz, 1999; Song, Smith, & MacKinnon, sity (Brunner et al., 1998). The protected areas in the 2008; Stotz, Harris, Moskovits, Yi, & Adlemann, Hi-LIFE provide habitat for many reported species of 2003; Timmins, Duckworth, & Zaw, 2008a; global importance such as the Himalayan black bear Timmins, Long, Duckworth, Ying-Xiang, & Zaw, (Ursus thibetanus), Leaf deer (Muntiacus putaoensis); 2008b; Wang, Choudhury, Yonzon, Wozencraft, & Red panda (Ailurus fulgens); Takin (Budorcas taxi- Zaw, 2008; Yang, 2009;).These species are ecologically color); Black muntjac (Muntiacus crinifrons); and signiﬁcant within the landscape and are representa- Stump-tailed macaque (Macaca arctoides) among tive of the majority of the key habitat types and others (ICIMOD, 2018). These globally important altitudes (Table 3). Habitat suitability modeling was species inhabit wider areas across national boundaries conducted for each of these four species considering and are reported from more than one protected area a host of factors, such as presence/absence, habits, in the landscape (Datta, Pansa, Madhusudan, & habitat, and potential range reported for each Mishra, 2003; Naniwadekar, Shukla, Isvaran, & (IUCN, 2018). During mapping, an emphasis was Datta, 2015; Rabinowitz, Amato, & Saw Tun, 1998; given to major habitat factors such as vegetation Ren et al., 2017). Thus, their potential habitat extends type, altitude, and topographic structure, and the far beyond the existing protected area network and distance from settlements and roads following Beier national boundaries. et al., (2009). 190 K. UDDIN ET AL. Figure 1. Location map of HI-LIFE. In delineating suitable habitat areas, all thematic layers suitability analysis was performed in ArcGIS using and topographic layers – including digital elevation CorridorDesignertoidentifycontiguoushabitat with model (DEM), slope and topographic position data, set- a user-friendly, three-step process following Beier et al. tlement and road data – were analysed (Table 3)asthey (2009). were found to have a direct correlation to the suitability During the habitat suitability analysis, a numerical of wildlife habitat (Nandy Kushwaha, & Gaur, 2012; weighting factor was assigned to each thematic layer Singh, Velmurugan, & Dakhate, 2009). After the habitat according to the relative importance of habitat suit- factors had been chosen, suitability scores assigned to ability. To determine the weight overlay factor pro- each of the factors (e.g., land cover types, topographic cedure, an expert knowledge was used to generate the position classes) paying particular attention to the suit- commensurable scores, where the appropriate score ability threshold required to support breeding habitat for maps are weighted according to the habitat function each of the species. All thematic layers and GIS factors prepared for the decision following Bashari and were then converted to raster ﬁles and reclassiﬁed as per Hemami (2013); Store and Jokimäki (2003). the scores obtained from individual species. Habitat Developing such kind of ranked by experts from the GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 191 a percentage weight so that the sum of the weights is 100%. To combine multiple habitat factors into one aggregate habitat suitability model for species in the landscape, we ﬁrst assigned weights to each factor reﬂecting their relative importance as indicated in Table 3. For example, the weighted value for elevation was 10%, the topographic position was 5%, the land cover was 75%, distance to the road was 5%, and distance to the settlement was 5%. Thus, these weighted suitability values were then incorporated in the raster ﬁle for each focal species. We considered the following interpretation of habitat suitability scores: 80 to 100% = best habitat, highest survival and reproductive success; 60 to 80% = associated with successful breeding; 30 to 60% = associated with consistent use and breeding; 20 to 30% = asso- ciated with occasional use for non-breeding activities; and values less than 20% = avoided; 0 = absolute non- habitat. Based on the above criteria, habitat suitability (and unsuitability) maps for each of the four species were prepared independently to identify their poten- tial extended habitat areas. After this, the individual four suitability maps were combined to a single suit- Figure 2. Diagrammatic representation of forest fragmenta- ability map to see the extended habitats within the tion classes. landscape and to show their potential distribution. 2.2.3. Habitat condition concerning forest fragmentation To understand the state of habitat condition, the forested area was used for fragmentation analysis following Vogt et al. (2007). We considered four Table 1. List of landsat imagery used for land use and land classes, namely, “core forest,““patch forest,““per- cover analysis. forated forest” and “edge forest” (see Figure 3)as SL No Satellite Sensor Path Row Year deﬁnedbyVogtetal. (2007). The Landscape 1 Landsat ETM+ 132 41 2000 Fragmentation Tool (Parent & Hurd, 2012)used 2 Landsat ETM+ 132 42 2002 3 Landsat ETM+ 132 43 2002 in the analysis following the four-step processes 4 Landsat ETM+ 133 40 2001 used by Vogt et al. (2007). Each of thefourclasses 5 Landsat ETM+ 133 41 1999 mentioned were mapped by assigning patch size 6 Landsat ETM+ 133 42 2000 7 Landsat ETM+ 134 40 2001 class following Stokes and Morrison (2003). Forest 8 Landsat ETM+ 134 41 2001 fragmentation areas were generated based on aspeciﬁed edge width (100 m) and the fragmenta- tion classes and tools mentioned above. region is a most suitable relative inﬂuence on the The geospatial methods discussed above were suitability of habitat for the selected animal (Buruso, used extensively because of the speciﬁc limitations 2018). While designing, we assigned each factor Table 2. Description of land cover classes used to classify the study area. LCCCode LCCLevel LCCOwnLabel LCCLabel 21497–129398 A3A20B2XXD1E2-A21E3 Mixed forest Mixed Closed to Open (100–40)% Trees 21499–121340 A3A20B2XXD2E1-A21 Needleleaved Needleleaved Evergreen Closed to Open (100–40)% Trees forest 22579–121340 A3A20B2XXD1E2F2F6F10G3- Broadleaved forest Broadleaved Deciduous Closed to Open (100–40)% Trees, With Shrub A21 Emergents 21449–121340 A4A20-A21 Shrubland Closed to Open (100–40)% Shrubland (Thicket) 21453–121340 A2A20-A21 Grassland Herbaceous Closed to Open (100–40)% Vegetation 11390–12601 A4XXXXC2-C3 Agriculture Graminoid Crop(s) (One Additional Crop) 5001 A1 Built up area Built Up Area(s) 6005 A5 Bare area Bare Soil And/Or Other Unconsolidated Material(s) 8005 A2 Snow Snow 8001 A1 Water bodies Natural Waterbodies 192 K. UDDIN ET AL. Table 3. Criteria for assessment of habitat suitability. Criteria Himalayan black bear Leaf deer Red panda Takin Elevation range (m) 1200–3300 700–2000 2000–3700 2200–4500 IUCN status Vulnerable Data Deﬁcient Endangered Vulnerable Habit Predominantly inhabit Limited information, mostly Carnivora adapted to a herbivorous Predominantly a forest the forests and used forest dwellers. The species diet and diet consist of bamboo dweller, prefer variety of fruits and apparently feeds on a range leaves and both species of stepped slope and plant species as its of plant materials, including bamboo, Arundinaria maling and open areas and diet. fruits. A. aristata purely herbivore Topographic position Flat-Gentle slopes Flat-Gentle slopes Flat-Gentle slopes Flat-Gentle slopes Canyon bottom Canyon bottom Canyon bottom Canyon bottom Ridgetop Ridgetop Ridgetop Ridgetop Steep slope Steep slope Steep slope Steep slope Land cover -Needleleaved forest -Needleleaved forest -Broadleaved forest -Needleleaved forest -Broadleaved forest -Broadleaved forest -Mixed Forest -Broadleaved forest -Mixed Forest -Mixed Forest -Grassland -Mixed Forest -Shrubland Distance from road (m) 100> 100> 250> 100> Distance from 1000> 1000> 500> 1000 > settlement (m) Source: Ali et al. (2017); IUCN (2018); Pradhan, Shah, & Khan, (2001); Wangchuk, Wegge, and Sangay (2016); Yan et al. (2017); Zhang, Hu, Yang, Li, and Wei (2009). Figure 3. Overall methodological framework for the study. of ground-based methods through which the entire making use of existing information and applying targeted area could not be traversed and the collec- cost-eﬀective tools before entering into extensive tion of information for each species is resource systematic research as envisaged by the countries intensive. While ground surveys such as counting during numerous regional consultations (ICIMOD, animals, trapping, collection of droppings, and 2009, 2012, 2018). investigations of feeding sites as well as ground mapping of habitats are useful, considering the 3. Results objectives of this study and the goal of transbound- ary landscape conservation and management initia- The result of the land cover analysis from the pro- tives, geospatial technology can supplement or posed landscape presented in Figure 4. The results circumvent ground survey methods (see Alamgir, (Table 4) showed that the landscape was dominated Mukul, & Turton, 2015;Boitani et al., 2008;Xu by broadleaved forest (80.02%), followed by et al., 2017). In addition, the study focused on Needleleaved Forest (8.01%), mixed forest (0.54%), GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 193 Figure 4. Land cover map of HI-LIFE. Table 4. Table showing land cover classes, their areas and breeding area for the Himalayan black bear found in percentage coverage in the HiLife. the middle and southwestern part of the HI-LIFE Land cover class Area in Km % of the total Mixed forest 8182 9 (Figure 5(a)). Among the selected species the Red Needle leaved forest 6493 7 panda showed the smallest (12.36%) optimal area Broad leaved forest 51,774 57 within the landscape. For the Red panda, an area of Shrub land 9044 10 Grassland 5693 6 8830km in the middle and southwestern areas of the Agriculture 3954 4 HI-LIFE was found as a suboptimal habitat with Built up area 3 0.003 Bare area 3678 4 breeding potential (Figure 5(c)). Recognized optimal Snow/glacier 2273 2 stability for Leaf deer was just 12,779 km and was Water bodies 265 0.3 Total 91,358 100 primarily located in the north-eastern part of the HI- LIFE (Figure 5(b)). The optimal areas for Takin (Figure 5(d)) were 28.86% of the total landscape, and shrubland (0.60%). Agricultural land only respectively (see Table 5). For all of the species con- accounted for 4% of the total area of the HI-LIFE sidered, the suboptimal zone, which is characterized as landscape. It was observed that the majority of having breeding potential, is important as it is asso- forested areas found in the central part of the land- ciated with successful breeding. In the Hi-LIFE, the scape (Figure 4). potential suboptimal breeding zones for Himalayan Individual species habitat maps showed diﬀerences black bear, Leaf dear, Red panda and Takin are in distribution (Figure 5). The habitat map of the 25.92, 43.60, 18.44, and 29.93, respectively (Table 5). Himalayan black bear extended 35,666 km (49.92%) The combined and overlaid model of the four of the total 71,452 km area, which is the largest species showing the potential habitat for all the cov- optimal habitat observed among the four species. ered species presented in Figure 6. The analyzed, Likewise, the suboptimal habitat was 18,517km or combined average habitat suitability of the four spe- 25.92% of the total area (Table 5). The most suitable cies shows 7% of the total area to be optimal for these 194 K. UDDIN ET AL. Figure 5. Sets of maps showing habitat suitability for individual species. species with the best habitat and highest survival of core large forest patches that are larger than possibility (Table 5). About 43% of the area is sub- one km . The analysis also revealed that about optimal habitat with breeding potential, 20% is occa- 7.69% of the total forested area is denuded perforated sionally used but not for breeding, and 28% area is (see Table 6). Notably, the results also showed that absolute non-habitat. To summarize, the results most of the larger forest patches are outside the revealed that 50% of the area is a potential habitat protected areas (Figure 7). for these species. Our analysis on forest conditions within the 4. Discussion extended habitats, including edge and perforated areas, revealed some interesting results (Figure 7). It The analyzed land cover results from the landscape was observed that 75.4% of the total HI-LIFE consists showed a mosaic of land cover types with a high GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 195 Table 5. Table showing habitats suitability results for the four that need larger, contiguous and compatible forested species considered in the analysis for the HI-LIFE. areas to ensure suﬃcient availability of food, places to Black Leaf Red hide and thermal cover as well as limited human Habitat suitability Bear Dear Panda Takin disturbance (Alagador et al., 2012; Gupta, Mondal, Absolute non-habitat 8206 (9) 22,904 41,861 41,868 Sankar, & Qureshi, 2012). It is also an important (25) (46) (46) Strongly avoided 9457 2332 (3) 5529 (6) 5522 (6) factor in determining the potential habitats of many (10) species and can play an important role in predicting Occasionally used; not 9014 15,814 11,652 11,652 breeding (10) (17) (13) (13) suitable habitats (Adhikari et al., 2012; Alamgir et al., Suboptimal but used for 19,819 33,348 24,123 24,123 2015; Zhang et al., 2012). breeding (22) (37) (26) (26) Optimal habitat 44,862 16,960 8193 (9) 8193 (9) Globally signiﬁcant species have been widely used (49) (19) in the design of both conventional and contemporary Total (Km ) 91,358 91,358 91,358 91,358 conservation plans (Graves, Farley, Goldstein, & Servheen, 2007; Vina et al., 2007; Xu et al., 2017) proportion (73%) of forested area. This is inconsis- and they have indicated diﬀerent habitat needs and tent with some recent mappings showing intact forest use patterns as reﬂected in our analysis (Figure 4). across the region (Arrendran et al., 2017; Leimgruber This is obvious as each of the species prefers and uses et al., 2005; Lodhi et al., 2014). Human habitation, as diﬀerent habitats and altitudinal ranges (Nandy et al., indicated by built-up areas and agricultural land, is 2012; Zhang et al., 2012). Notably, the distribution comparatively low. This very strongly justiﬁes that ranges of these species are within the reported review this particular landscape is still in a wilderness state works done by experts (see Garshelis & Steinmetz, (Brunner et al., 1998; Datta et al., 2003). The contig- 2008; Harris, 2008; Song et al., 2008; Timmins et al., uous forested areas across national boundaries reﬂect 2008a; Wang et al., 2008). In many instances, the the fact that the proposed landscape is still a good conservation planning could be done with data deﬁ- habitat for many species, especially large mammals cient species if the objectives are long term and Figure 6. Map showing the combined habitat suitability. 196 K. UDDIN ET AL. Figure 7. Forest fragmentation map of HI-LIFE. Table 6. Matrix showing habitats conditions in relation to habitat suitability for species in the forested areas of the HI-LIFE Fragmentation Absolute non- Strongly Occasionally used; not breeding Suboptimal but OK for type habitat avoided habitat breeding Optimal Total Patch 7 42 214 123 9 395 Edge 130 372 2585 3730 244 7062 Perforated 104 190 1041 2410 202 3947 Core (<1 Km ) 3 6 339 430 33 811 Core (1 −2Km ) 1 1 111 159 14 286 Core (>2 Km ) 1440 718 14,751 33,413 3627 53,950 Total 1685 1330 19,041 40,265 4129 66,450 broader (Bland et al., 2017). What is interesting is most ecologists, what animals need to survive and that the potential habitats of most of the species reproduce (Cushmana & Landguthb, 2012; Wang, stretched far beyond the existing protected areas Yang, Bridgman, & Lin, 2008). This is particularly and across national boundaries (see Figure 5). true for large mammals as they operate at broader Analysis of the combined average habitat suitabil- spatial scales and, consequently, their populations are ity of four species shows that about 60% of the total more likely to be fragmented if conﬁned to isolated area is optimal for all of the species (Table 5). The habitats within small protected areas (Noss, 1983; results also support the home ranges of these species Roever, van Aarde, & Leggett, 2013). The concept (IUCN, 2018). It is important to note that planning also supports the adaptation strategy needed for spe- for multiple species representing diﬀerent ecological cies recovery considering the prevailing threats from zones and habitats brings better results. Therefore, various drivers of change including the climatic holistic conservation requires an evaluation of multi- change (Rao et al., 2013). As the trend in conserva- ple species with a wide range of habitat use patterns, tion biology has widened from a species-centered which is fundamentally a description of what animals approach to the ecosystem and landscape approach, use, where animals are found, and also, in the eyes of it is important to consider multiple conservation GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 197 values when designing protected area networks there is a less human intervention (4% agriculture and (Attorre et al., 2012; Huck et al., 2010). 0.003% built-up area) relative to other transboundary Our habitat condition analysis based on forest landscapes in the region, keeping this pristine wilder- fragmentation revealed that 82% of the existing ness intact will require a strong regional commitment, forested area is in good condition; however, most of meticulous planning, and cooperation among the con- it is outside of the protected area network where servation communities. human intervention happens to be fairly limited. For eﬀective conservation of species that prefer 5. Conclusion forested areas, large patches of intact forest are neces- sary (De & Tiwari, 2008; Theobald, Crooks, & The idea of managing multiple parks, reserves, and Norman, 2011). In order to have a functional con- conservation areas collectively as a part of servation network, it is important to plan and pro- a conservation network is recent, yet a growing mote dispersal and migration of species between the trend in biodiversity conservation and management. existing protected areas, particularly through the For these networks to be ecologically viable, the focus establishment of connectivity corridors (Fuller, must be on wider habitats and on ensuring the func- Munguıa, Mayﬁeld, Sanchez-Cordero, & Sarkar, tional connectivity of the landscape as a whole. It is 2006; Fung et al., 2017; Zipkin, DeWan, & Royle, necessary to concentrate eﬀorts at the regional scale, 2009). The contiguity of the forested area also pro- giving due consideration to the potential connectivity vides the altitudinal connectivity necessary for species that exists between the existing protected areas across to move toward higher altitudes in the event of cli- the boundaries of individual nations as well as along mate change as an adaptation provision (Lenoir & both the east-west and north-south axis. Without Svenning, 2015; Nunez et al., 2013; Worboys & eﬀective biodiversity management planning at the Pulsford, 2011; Zomer et al., 2014). landscape level, it is likely that human development The future of biodiversity conservation depends on and haphazard encroachment could further fragment eﬀorts applied across large landscapes, the scale at key wildlife habitats or key biodiversity areas of evo- which many key ecological and evolutionary processes lutionary signiﬁcance and isolate threatened species take place (Baldwin, Trombuluk, Leonard, Noss, & in the proposed HI-LIFE. Hilty, 2018) with an integrated approach (Leonard Our preliminary assessment of land cover and land et al., 2017). The transboundary landscape approach is use patterns and habitat suitability modeling consid- not a new concept in the HKH region. ICIMOD’s past ering four species (with limited data) and their varied experiences in Mount Everest Ecosystem (Sherpa, ecological and habitats needs and habitat conditions Peniston, Lama, & Richard, 2003), Kangchenjunga indicates that the landscape has a high level of con- Landscape (Chettri, Sharma, Shakya, & Bajracharya. servation potential. There is an opportunity for regio- 2007; Sharma et al., 2007), and the Kailash Sacred nal cooperation among the countries sharing this Landscape (Zomer & Oli, 2011; Zomer, Sharma, Oli, landscape, not just for research and knowledge devel- & Chettri, 2010) have highlighted the need for and opment at the national level, but also for adopting an signiﬁcance of regional cooperation to facilitate trans- integrated approach at the regional level to safeguard boundary landscape and ecosystem management irreplaceable and unique biodiversity resources in the approaches for improved biodiversity conservation in entire landscape. Our assessment, although based on the HKH. Within the HI-LIFE, there are unique geo- limited information for only a few species from the political issues related to insurgencies, border disputes, landscape, points to the fact that geospatial analysis the illegal transboundary trade of wildlife, etc. using species-based information can serve as A strategy to address these issues has also been dis- a powerful tool for landscape conservation and devel- cussed (ICIMOD, 2009). Moreover, learning could opment planning. For the HI-LIFE, such analysis has also be drawn from numerous examples available with proven useful in identifying important areas outside unique approaches and learnings (see Beger et al., 2010; protected areas. It also suggests for ecologically con- Kark et al., 2015; Roga, Ferguson, & Bagoora, 2017; tiguous connectivity between the existing protected Vasilijević & Pezold, 2011; Worboys,Francis,& areas that require regional management considera- Lockwood, 2010). The overall analysis from this pre- tion in the long run. The study also indicates a need liminary assessment revealed that the initiative taken by for more rigorous and systematic eﬀorts in research ICIMOD and partners to promote the landscape and to raise awareness on the conservation signiﬁ- approach in the Hi-LIFE is heading in the right direc- cance of this important landscape and generation of tion. It was revealed that there is a high potential for relevant scientiﬁc evidences to support informed connectivity development among the existing protected decision-making. ICIMOD has initiated the process areas and other forests patches due to the presence of of promoting regional cooperation among China, contiguous habitats for some ﬂagship and globally sig- India, and Myanmar through the landscape approach niﬁcant species present within the landscape. Though in the HI-LIFE. Cooperation is expected to improve, 198 K. UDDIN ET AL. especially given new developments in Myanmar’s Attorre, F., De Sanctisa, M., Farcomeni, A., Guillet, A., Scepia, E., Vitale, M., . . . Fasola, M. (2012). The use of political scenario; however, this could bring both spatial ecological modelling as a tool for improving the opportunity and challenges. assessment of geographic range size of threatened species. Journal for Nature Conservation, 21(1), 48–55. Baldwin, R. F., Trombuluk, S. C., Leonard, P. B., Acknowledgments Noss, R. F., & Hilty, J. A. (2018). The future of landscape conservation. BioScience, 68(2), 60–63. We express our gratitude to Dr. David Molden, Director Bashari, H., & Hemami, M.-R. (2013). A predictive diag- General of ICIMOD, for his inspiration and for providing nostic model for wild sheep (Ovis orientalis) habitat the required facilities. We are also thankful the suitability in Iran. Journal for Nature Conservation, 21 Governments of China, India, and Myanmar for their (5), 319–325. continuous support for this initiative. We express our Beger, M., Grantham, H. S., Pressey, R. L., Wilson, K. A., special thanks to Dr. Ranbeer Singh Rawal, Director of Peterson, E. L., Dorfman, D., . . . Possingham, H. P. the GB Pant National Institute of Himalayan (2010). Conservation planning for connectivity across Environment and Sustainable Development, India and marine, freshwater, and terrestrial realms. Biological Mr. Win Naing Thaw, Ministry of Natural Resources and Conservation, 143, 565–575. Environmental Conservation, Myanmar for their guidance Beier, P., Majka, D. R., & Newell, S. L. (2009). Uncertainty and support. The ﬁnancial support received from the analysis of least-cost modeling for designing wildlife Austrian Development Agency, and GIZ for conducting linkages. Ecological Applications, 19(8), 2067-2077. this analysis is highly appreciated. doi:10.1890/08-1898.1 Bharti, R. R., Adhikari, B. S., & Rawat, G. S. (2012). Assessing vegetation changes in timberline ecotone of Disclosure statement Nanda Devi National Park, Uttarakhand. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and No potential conﬂict of interest was reported by the Geoinformation, 18, 472–479. authors. Bland, L. M., Bielby, J., Kearney, S., Orme, C. D. L., Watson, J. E., & Collen, B. (2017). Toward reassessing data-deﬁcient species were prepared independently spe- Funding cies. Conservation Biology, 31(3), 531–539. Blandford, W. T. (1872). Account of the visit to the eastern This work was supported by the Austrian Development and northern frontiers of independent Sikkim, with Agency and GIZ . notes on zoology of the alpine and sub-alpine region, Part II, Zoology. Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal, 40 (2), 367–420. ORCID Boitani, L., Sinibaldi, I., Corsi, F., De Biase, A., d’Inzillo Carranza, I., Ravagli, M., . . . Trapanese, P. (2008). Kabir Uddin http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2711-5791 Distribution of medium to large-sized African mammals based on habitat suitability models. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17, 605–621. References Brandt, J. S., Allendorf, T., Radeloﬀ, V., & Brooks, J. (2017). Eﬀects of national forest-management regimes on Adhikari, D., Barik, S. K., & Upadhaya, K. (2012). Habitat unprotected forests of the Himalaya. Conservation distribution modelling for reintroduction of Ilex khasi- Biology, 31(6), 1271–1282. ana Purk., a critically endangered tree species of Brooks, T. M., Mittermeier, R. A., Da Fonseca, G. A. B., Northeastern India. Ecological Engineering,40, 37-43. Gerlach, J., Hoﬀmann, M., Lamoreux, J. F., . . . doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2011.12.004 Rodrigues, A. S. L. (2006). Global biodiversity conserva- Alagador, D., Trivino, M., Cerdeira, J. O., Brás, R., tion priorities. Science, 313,58–61. Cabeza, M., & Araújo, M. B. (2012). Linking like with Brunner, J., Talbott, K., & Elkin, C. (1998) World resources like: Optimising connectivity between institute, forest frontiers initiative. Logging Burma‘s fron- environmentally-similar habitats. Landscape Ecology, tier forests: Resources and the regime. Retrieved from 27, 291–301. http://www.wri.org/ﬃ/burma/index.html Alamgir, M., Mukul, S. A., & Turton, S. M. (2015). Buruso, F. H. (2018). Habitat suitability analysis for hippo- Modelling spatial distribution of critically endangered potamus (H. amphibious) using GIS and remote sensing Asian elephant and Hoolock gibbon in Bangladesh forest in Lake Tana and its environs, Ethiopia. Environmental ecosystems under a changing climate. Applied Systems Research, 6(1), 1–15p6. Geography, 60,10–19. Chettri, N., Sharma, E., & Thapa, R. (2009). Long term Ali, A., Zhou, Z., Waseem, M., Khan, M. F., Ali, I., monitoring using transect and landscape approaches Asad, M., & Qashqaei, A. T. (2017). An assessment of within Hindu Kush Himalayas. I, in: E. Sharma (ed.). food habits and altitudinal distribution of the Asiatic Proceedings on International Mountain Biodiversity black bear (Ursus thibetanus) in the Western Conference. 16–18 November 2008. pp 201–208. Himalayas, Pakistan. Journal of Natural History, 51 (ICIMOD, Kathmandu, Nepal). (11–12), 689–701. Chettri, N., Shakya, B., Thapa, R., & Sharma, E. (2008). Areendran, G., Puri, K., Raj, K., Mazumdar, S., Status of protected area system in the Hindu Razali, S. M., Suk-Ueng, K., & Nuruddin, A. A. (2017). Kush-Himalaya: An analysis of PA coverage. Baseline mapping for Namdapha National Park in International Journal Biodiversity Science and Arunachal Pradesh, India using geospatial tools. Management, 4(3), 164–178. Malaysian Journal of Remote Sensing & GIS, 6(2), 1–9. GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 199 Chettri, N., & Sharma, E. (2016). Reconciling the mountain Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Landscape Ecology, 22, biodiversity conservation and human wellbeing: Drivers 765–772. of biodiversity loss and new approaches in the Gupta, S., Mondal, K., Sankar, K., & Qureshi, Q. (2012). Hindu-Kush Himalayas. Proceedings of the Indian Abundance and habitat suitability model for Ratel National Science Academy, 82,53–73. (Mellivora capensis) in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Western Chettri, N., Sharma, E., Shakya, B., & Bajracharya, B. India. Wildlife Biology in Practice, 8(1), 13–22. (2007). Developing forested conservation corridors in Harris, R. B. (2008). Muntiacus crinifrons, in: IUCN 2012. the Kangchenjunga Landscape, Eastern Himalaya. IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2012.2. Mountain Research and Development, 27, 211–214. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 26 June 2018. Chettri, N., Sharma, E., Shakya, B., Thapa, R., Hooker, J. D. (1849). Notes of naturalist. Bajracharya, B., Uddin, K., . . . Choudhury, D. (2010). Himalayan Journal, 1, 123-124. Biodiversity in the Eastern Himalayas: Status, trends and Huck, M., Jędrzejewski, W., Borowik, T., Miłosz-Cielma, vulnerability to climate change: Climate change impact M., Schmidt, K., Jędrzejewska, B., . . . Mysłajek, R. W. and vulnerability in the Eastern Himalayas – Technical (2010). Habitat suitability, corridors and dispersal bar- report 2. Kathmandu, Nepal: ICIMOD. riers for large carnivores in Poland. Acta Theriologica, 55 Chettri, N., Uddin, K., Chaudhary, S., & Sharma, E. (2013). (2), 177–192. Linking spatio-temporal land cover change to biodiver- ICIMOD. (2009). Consultation report on ‘Regional experience sity conservation in Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, sharing consultation on the landscape approach to biodiver- Nepal. Diversity, 5, 335–351. sity conservation and management in the Eastern Cushmana, S. A., & Landguth, E. L. (2012). Multi-taxa Himalayas: Towards developing the Brahmaputra-Salween population connectivity in the Northern rocky Landscape’.24–28 May 2009, Tengchong Country, Yunnan mountains. Ecological Modelling, 231, 101–112. Province, China. Kathmandu, Nepal: Author. Datta, A., Pansa, J., Madhusudan, M. D., & Mishra, C. ICIMOD (2012). Towards developing the Brahmaputra- (2003). Discovery of the leaf deer Muntiacus putaoensis Salween Landscape – Report on the experts regional in Arunachal Pradesh: An addition to the large mam- consultation for transboundary biodiversity manage- mals of India. Current Science, 84(3), 454–458. ment and climate change adaptation. ICIMOD De, A., & Tiwari, A. K. (2008). Estimation of Patchiness: Working Paper 2012/4. (Author, Kathmandu, Nepal). A measure of fragmentation in the Rajaji- Corbett ICIMOD. (2018). Landscape initiative for Far-eastern National Parks and adjoining areas, Uttarakhand, Himalaya regional feasibility assessment, A synthesis of India. International Journal of Ecology and the country feasibility reports from China, India, and Environmental Sciences, 34(4), 345–349. Myanmar. Kathmandu, Nepal: Author. Di Gregorio, A. (2005). Land Cover Classiﬁcation System IUCN (2018). The IUCN red list of threatened species. (LCCS), version 2: Classiﬁcation concepts and user man- Version 2017–3. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on ual. FAO environment and natural resources service ser- 26 June 2018 ies, No. 8. Rome: FAO. Kark, S., Tulloch, A., Gordon, A., Mazor, T., Bunnefeld, N., Dinerstein, E., Olson, D., Joshi, A., Vynne, C., & Levin, N. (2015). Cross-boundary collaboration: Key Burgess, N. D., Wikramanayake, E., . . . Saleem, M. to the conservation puzzle. Current Opinion in (2017). An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half Environmental Sustainability, 12,12–24. the terrestrial realm. BioScience, 67(6), 534–545. Kraaijenbrink, P. D. A., Bierkens, M. F. P., Lutz, A. F., & Forrest, J. L., Wikramanayake, E., Shrestha, R., Immerzeel, W. W. (2017). Impact of a global tempera- Areendran, G., Gyeltshen, K., Maheshwari, A., . . . ture rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius on Asia’s glaciers. Nature, Thapa, K. (2012). Conservation and climate change: 549(7671), 257. Assessing the vulnerability of snow leopard habitat to Kremen, C., & Merenlender, A. M. (2018). Landscapes that tree line shift in the Himalaya. Biological Conservation, work for biodiversity and people. Science, 362(6412), 150, 129–135. eaau6020. Fuller, T., Munguıa, M., Mayﬁeld, M., Sanchez-Cordero, Leimgruber, P., Kelly, D. S., Steininger, M. K., Brunner, J., V.,& Sarkar,S. (2006). Incorporating connectivity Müller, T., & Songer, M. (2005). Forest cover change into conservation planning: A multi-criteria case patterns in Myanmar (Burma) 1990–2000. study from central Mexico. Biological Conservation, Environmental Conservation, 32(4), 356–364. 133,131–142. Lenoir, J., & Svenning, J. C. (2015). Climate-related range Fung, E., Pablo, I., Lenin, C., Sergio, V., Nelson, Z., shifts–A global multidimensional synthesis and new Freddy, A., . . . Zayra, R. (2017). Mapping conservation research directions. Ecography, 38(1), 15–28. priorities and connectivity pathways under climate Leonard, P. B., Baldwin, R. F., & Hanks, R. D. (2017). change for tropical ecosystems. Climatic Change, 141 Landscape-scale conservation design across biotic (1), 77–92. realms: Sequential integration of aquatic and terrestrial Garshelis, D. L., & Steinmetz, R. (IUCN SSC Bear Specialist landscapes. Scientiﬁc Reports, 7(1), 14556. Group) (2008). Ursus thibetanus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Li, W., Clauzel, C., Dai, Y., Wu, G., Giraudoux, P., & Li, L. red list of threatened species. Version 2012.2. www.iucn (2017). Improving landscape connectivity for the redlist.org. Downloaded on 26 June 2018. Yunnan snub-nosed monkey through cropland refores- GLOVIS (2012). United States Geological Survey, Global tation using graph theory. Journal for Nature Visualization Viewer (GLOVIS) Earth Resources Conservation, 38,46–55. Observation and Science Center (EROS). Retrieved Lodhi, M. S., Samal, P. K., Chaudhry, S., Palni, L. M. S., & from: http://glovis.usgs.gov/ Dhyani, P. P. (2014). Land cover mapping for Graves,T.A.,Farley,S., Goldstein,M.I.,&Servheen,C. Namdapha National Park (Arunachal Pradesh), India (2007). Identiﬁcation of functional corridors with using harmonized land cover legends. Journal of the movement characteristics of brown bears on the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 42(2), 461–467. 200 K. UDDIN ET AL. Macauley, M. K. (2009). Earth observations in social Pradhan, S., Saha, G. K., & Khan, J. A. (2001). Ecology of science research for management of natural resources the red panda Ailurus fulgens in the Singhalila National and the environment: Identifying the Landsat Park, Darjeeling, India. Biological Conservation, 98(1), contribution. The Journal of Terrestrial Observation, 1 11–18. (2), 31–51. Rabinowitz, A., Amato, G., & Saw Tun, K. (1998). Mittermeier, R. A., Turner, W. R., Larsen, F. W., Discovery of the black muntjac, Muntiacus crinifrons Brooks, T. M., & Gascon, C. (2011). Global biodiversity (Artiodactyla, Cervidae), in northern Myanmar. 1451 conservation: The critical role of hotspots. In Mammalia, 62(1), 105–108. F. E. Zachos & J. C. Habel (Eds.), Biodiversity hotspots, Rabinowitz, A. R., Myint, T., Khaing, S. T., & biodiversity hotspots (pp. 3–22). Berlin Heidelberg: Rabinowitz, S. (1999). Description of the leaf deer Springer. (Muntiacus putaoensis), a new species of muntjac from Mittermeier, R. A., Gils, P. R., Hoﬀman, M., Pilgrim, J., northern Myanmar. Journal of Zoology (London), 249, Brooks, T., Mittermeier, C. G., . . . Da Fonseca, G. A. B. 427–435. (2005). Hotspots revisited. Earth’s biologically richest and Rao, M., Htun, S., Platt, S. G., Tizard, R., Poole, C., most endangered terrestrial ecoregions. USA: CEMEX. Myint, T., & Watson, J. E. (2013). Biodiversity conserva- Molden, D., Sharma, E., Shrestha, A. B., Chettri, N., tion in a changing climate: A review of threats and Shrestha, N. P., & Kotru, R. (2017). Advancing regional implications for conservation planning in Myanmar. and tTransboundary cCooperation in the cConﬂict- Ambio, 42(7), 789–804. pProne Hindu Kush–Himalaya. Mountain Research and Ren, G. P., Yang, Y., He, X., Li, G., Gao, Y., Huang, Z., . . . Development, 37(4), 502–508. Xiao, W. (2017). Habitat evaluation and conservation Nandy, S., Kushwaha, S. P. S., & Gaur, P. (2012). framework of the newly discovered and critically endan- Identiﬁcation of Swamp Deer (Cervus duvauceli duvau- gered black snub-nosed monkey. Biological celi Cuvier) potential habitat in Jhilmil Jheel conserva- Conservation, 209, 273–279. tion reserve, Uttarakhand, India using multi-criteria Roever, C. L., van Aarde, R. J., & Leggett, K. (2013). analysis. Environmental Management, 49, 902–914. Functional connectivity within conservation networks: Naniwadekar, R., Mishra, C., Isvaran, K., Delineating corridors for African elephants. Biological Madhusudan, M. D., & Datta, A. (2015). Looking Conservation, 157, 128–135. beyond parks: The conservation value of unprotected Roga, N. B., Ferguson, W., & Bagoora, F. (2017). areas for hornbills in Arunachal Pradesh, Eastern Transboundary conservation areas in African moun- Himalaya. Oryx, 49(2), 303–311. tains: Opportunities and challenges for addressing global Naniwadekar, R., Shukla, U., Isvaran, K., & Datta, A. change. Earth Sciences, 6(6), 117. (2015). Reduced hornbill abundance associated with Rouget, M., Cowling, R. M., Lombard, A. T., Knight, A. T., low seed arrival and altered recruitment in a hunted & Kerley, G. H. (2006). Designing large-scale conserva- and logged tropical forest. PLoS One, 10(3), e0120062. tion corridors for pattern and process. Conservation Noss, R. F. (1983). A regional landscape approach to main- Biology, 20(2), 549–561. tain diversity. BioScience, 33, 700–706. Sarkar, S., Mayﬁeld, M., Cameron, S., Fuller, T., & Noss, R. F., Platt, W. J., Sorrie, B. A., Weakley, A. S., Garson, J. (2007). Conservation area networks for the Means, D. B., Costanza, J., & Peet, R. K. (2015). How Indian region: Systematic methods and future prospects. global biodiversity hotspots may go unrecognized: Himalayan Journal of Sciences, 4(6), 27–40. Lessons from the North American Coastal Plain. Schild, A. (2008). The case of the Hindu Kush-Himalayas: Diversity and Distributions, 21(2), 236–244. ICIMOD’s position on climate change and mountain Nunez, T. A., Lawler, J. J., Mcrae, B. H., Pierce, D. J., systems. Mountain Research and Development, 28, Krosby, M. B., Kavanagh, D. M., . . . Tewksbury, J. J. 328–331. (2013). Connectivity planning to address climate Secretariat of the Convention of Biological Diversity change. Conservation Biology, 27(2), 407–416. (CBD). (2004). Programme of work on protected areas Palomo,I.(2017). Climate change impacts on ecosys- (CBD programme of work). Montreal, Canada: temservicesinhighmountainareas:Aliterature Secretariat of the Convention of Biological Diversity. review. Mountain Research and Development, 37(2), Sharma, E., Chettri, N., Gurung, J., & Shakya, B. (2007). 179–187. Landscape approach in biodiversity conservation: Parent, R. J., & Hurd, J. D. (2012) Landscape fragmentation A regional cooperation framework for implementation of tool V2. Laboratory for Earth resources information the convention on biological diversity in Kangchenjunga systems, University of Conneticut. Retrieved form: landscape. Kathmandu, Nepal: ICIMOD. http://clear.uconn.edu/tools/lft/lft2/accessed . Sharma, E., Chettri, N., & Oli, K. P. (2010). Mountain Pauchard, A., Kueﬀer, C., Dietz, H., Daehler, C. C., biodiversity conservation and management: Alexander, J., Edwards, P. J., . . . Jakobs, G. (2009). A paradigm shift in policies and practices in the Hindu Ain‘t no mountain high enough: Plant invasions reach- Kush-Himalayas. Ecological Research, 25, 905–923. ing new elevations. Frontiers in Ecology and the Sharma, M., Areendran, G., Raj, K., Sharma, A., & Environment, 7(9), 479–486. Joshi, P. K. (2016). Multitemporal analysis of forest Pei, S. (1995). Banking on biodiversity: Report on the regio- fragmentation in Hindu Kush Himalaya—A case study nal consultations on biodiversity assessment in the Hindu from Khangchendzonga Biosphere Reserve, Sikkim, Kush - Himalaya. Kathmandu, Nepal: ICIMOD. India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 188 Phuntsho, K., Chettri, N., & Oli, K. P. (2012). (10), 596. Mainstreaming community-based conservation in Sherpa, L. N., Peniston, B., Lama, W., & Richard, C. (2003). a transboundary mountain landscape – Lessons from Hands around everest: Transboundary cooperation for Kangchenjunga. Kathmandu, Nepal: ICIMOD. conservation and sustainable livelihoods. Kathmandu, GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 201 Nepal: International Centre for Integrated Mountain patterns with morphological image processing. DevelopmentI CIMOD. Landscape Ecology, 22(2), 171–177. Shrestha, A. B., Wake, C. P., Mayewski, P. A., & Dibb, J. E. Wang, X., Choudhury, A., Yonzon, P., Wozencraft, C., & (1999). Maximum temperature trend in the Himalaya Zaw, T. (2008). Ailurus fulgens, in: IUCN 2012. iucn red and its vicinity: An analysis based on temperature list of threatened species. Version 2012.2. www.iucnred records from Nepal for the period 1971-`94. Journal of list.org. Downloaded on 26 June 2018. Climate, 12, 2775–2786. Wang, Y. H., Yang, K. C., Bridgman, C. L., & Lin, L. K. Shrestha, U. B., Shrestha, S., Chaudhary, P., & (2008). Habitat suitability modelling to correlate gene Chaudhary, R. P. (2010). How rRepresentative is the ﬂow with landscape connectivity. Landscape Ecology, pProtected aAreas sSystem of Nepal? A gGap aAnalysis 23, 989–1000. bBased on gGeophysical and bBiological fFeatures. Wangchuk, T. R., Wegge, P., & Sangay, T. (2016). Habitat Mountain Research and Development, 30(3), 282–294. and diet of Bhutan takin Budorcas taxicolor whitei dur- Singh, G., Velmurugan, A., & Dakhate, M. P. (2009). ing summer in Jigme Dorji National Park, Bhutan. Geospatial approach for tiger habitat evaluation and Journal of Natural History, 50(11–12), 759–770. distribution in Corbett Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of Wikramanayake, E., Dinerstein, E., Loucks, C. J., the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 37(4), 573–585. Olson, D. M., Morrison, J., Lamoreux, J., . . . Hedao, P. Song, Y. L., Smith, A. T., & MacKinnon, J. (2008). Budorcas (2002). Terrestrial Ecoregions of the Indo-Paciﬁc: taxicolor, in: IUCN 2012. IUCN red list of threatened A conservation assessment. Washington: Island Press. species. Version 2012.2. www.iucnredlist.org. Wikramanayake, E., Dinerstein, E., Seidensticker, J., Downloaded on 26 June 2018. Lumpkin, S., Pandav, B., Shrestha, M., . . . Than, U. (2011). SRTM. (2012). Hole-ﬁlled SRTM for the globe Version 4. A landscape-based conservation strategy to double the wild Retrieved from: http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org/ tiger population. Conservation Letters, 4, 219–227. Stokes, D., & Morrison, P. (2003). GIS-based conservation Wikramanayake, E. P., Dinerstein, E., Robinson, J. G., planning: A powerful tool to be used with caution. Karanth, U., Rabinowitz, A., Olson, D., . . . Bolze, D. Conservation in Practice, 4(1), 38–42. (1998). An ecology-based method for deﬁning priorities Store, R., & Jokimäki, J. (2003). A GIS-based multi-scale for large mammal conservation: The tiger as a case approach to habitat suitability modeling. Ecological study. Conservation Biology, 12, 864–878. Modelling, 169(1), 1–15. Worboys, G. L., Francis, W., & Lockwood, M. (Eds). Stotz, D. F., Harris, E. J., Moskovits, H. K., Yi, S., & (2010). Connectivity conservation management: A global Adlemann, G. W. (eds) (2003) Rapid biological inven- guide. London, UK: Earthscan. tories report no. 4. (Chicago: The Field Museum). Worboys, G. L., & Pulsford, I. (2011). Connectivity con- Takhtajan, A. (1969). Flowering plants - Origin and disper- servation in Australian landscapes. Report prepared for sal. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd. the Australian Government Department of Tang, Y., Winkler, J. A., Viña, A., Liu, J., Zhang, Y., Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Zhang, X., . . . Zhao, Z. (2018). Uncertainty of future Communities on behalf of the State of the projections of species distributions in mountainous Environment 2011 Committee. Canberra: DSEWPaC. regions. PloS one, 13(1), e0189496. Xu, J., Grumbine, E. R., Shrestha, A., Eriksson, M., Theobald, D. M., Crooks, K. R., & Norman, J. B. (2011). Yang, X., Wang, Y., & Wilkes, A. (2009). The melting Assessing eﬀects of land use on landscape connectivity: Himalayas: Cascading eﬀects of climate change on water, Loss and fragmentation of western US forests. Ecological biodiversity, and livelihoods. Conservation Biology, 23 Applications, 21(7), 2445–2458. (3), 520–530. Timmins, R. J., Duckworth, J. W., & Zaw, T. (2008a). Xu, W., Viña, A., Kong, L., Pimm, S. L., Zhang, J., Muntiacus putaoensis, in: IUCN 2012. IUCN red list of Yang, W., . . . Ouyang, Z. (2017). Reassessing the con- threatened species. Version 2012.2. www.iucnredlist.org. servation status of the giant panda using remote sensing. Downloaded on 26 June 2018 Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1(11), 1635. Timmins, R. J., Long, B., Duckworth, J. W., Ying-Xiang, Yan, W. B., Zeng, Z. G., Gong, H. S., He, X. B., Liu, X. Y., W., & Zaw, T. (2008b). Arctonyx collaris, in: IUCN 2012. Si, K. C., & Song, Y. L. (2017). Habitat use and selection IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2012.2. by takin in the Qinling Mountains, China. Wildlife www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 26 June 2018. Research, 43(8), 671–680. Uddin, K., Chaudhary, S., Chettri, N., Kotru, R., Murthy, Yang, Y. (2009). Biodiversity Conservation in M., Chaudhary, R. P., Ning, W., Shrestha, S. M., & Transboundary Landscapes (BCTL). A ﬁnal technical Gautam, S. K. (2015). The changing land cover and report submitted to ICIMOD (unpublished). fragmenting forest on the roof of the world: A case Yonzon, P. B. (1989). Ecology and conservation of the red study in nepal's kailash sacred landscape. Landscape panda in the Nepal-Himalayas. Unpub. Ph.D. thesis, and Urban Planning, 141, 1-10. doi:10.1016/j. University of Maine, Orono. landurbplan.2015.04.003 Zhang, M. G., Slik, J. F., & Ma, K. P. (2017). Priority areas Vasilijević,M.,&Pezold,T.(2011). Crossing borders for nature. for the conservation of perennial plants in China. European examples of transboundary conservation (pp. viii + Biological Conservation, 210,56–63. 72). Gland, Switzerland and Belgrade, Serbia: IUCN Zhang, M. G., Zhou, J. K., Chen, W. Y., Slik, F. J. W., Programme Oﬃce for South-Eastern Europe. Cannon, C. H., & Raes, N. (2012). Using species distri- Vina,A.,Bearer,S.,Chen,X.,He,G.,Linderman,M.,An,L., ... bution modeling to improve conservation and land use Liu, J. (2007). Temporal changes In Giant Panda habitat planning of Yunnan, China. Biological Conservation, connectivity across boundaries of Wolong Nature Reserve, 153, 257–264. China. Ecological Applications, 17(4), 1019–1030. Zhang, Z., Hu, J., Yang, J., Li, M., & Wei, F. (2009). Food Vogt, P., Riitters, K. H., Estreguil, C., Kozak, J., habits and space-use of red pandas Ailurus fulgens in the Wade, T. G., & Wickham, J. D. (2007). Mapping spatial Fengtongzhai nature reserve, China: Food eﬀects and 202 K. UDDIN ET AL. behavioural responses. Acta Theriologica, 54(3), on Scientiﬁc, Technical and Technological Advice of the 225–234. Convention on Biological Diversity, 10–21 May 2010, Zipkin, E. F., DeWan, A., & Royle, A. J. (2009). Impacts of Nairobi, Kenya, Technical Series No. 51. Montreal, forest fragmentation on species richness: A hierarchical SCBD, 142–144. approach to community modeling. Journal of Applied Zomer, R. J., & Oli, K. P. (2011). Kailash sacred land- Ecology, 46(4), 815–822. scape conservation initiative: Feasibility assessment Zomer, R., Sharma, E., Oli, K. P., & Chettri, N. (2010). report.Kathmandu,Nepal:ICIMOD. Linking biodiversity conservation and climate change Zomer, R. J., Trabucco, A., Metzger, M. J., Wang, M., perspectives in bio-culturally rich transboundary areas Oli, K. P., & Xu, J. (2014). Projected climate change in the Kailash Sacred Landscape Region of China, India, impacts on spatial distribution of bioclimatic zones and and Nepal. In Biodiversity and Climate Change: ecoregions within the Kailash Sacred Landscape of Achieving the 2020 targets. Abstracts of Posters China, India, Nepal. Climatic Change, 125(3–4), Presented at the 14th Meeting of the Subsidiary Body 445–460. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Geology Ecology and Landscapes Taylor & Francis http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/taylor-francis/integrating-geospatial-tools-and-species-for-conservation-planning-in-V5s9PdGJXE

Loading next page...

References (90)

D. Aparajita, P. Japang, C. Mishra (2003)
Discovery of the leaf deer Muntiacus putaoensis in Arunachal Pradesh: An addition to the large mammals of India
Current Science, 3
J. Brunner, K. Talbott, C. Elkin (1998)
Logging Burma's Frontier Forests: Resources and the Regime
E. Sharma, N. Chettri, J. Gurung, B. Shakya (2007)
The Landscape Approach in Biodiversity Conservation; A Regional Cooperation Framework for Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity in the Kangchenjunga Landscape
S. Cushman, E. Landguth (2012)
Multi-taxa population connectivity in the Northern Rocky Mountains
Ecological Modelling, 231
R. Mittermeier, P. Gil, M. Hoffman, J. Pilgrim, T. Brooks, C. Mittermeier, John Lamoreux, G. Fonseca (2000)
Hotspots Revisited: Earth's Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions
Dibyendu Adhikari, S. Barik, K. Upadhaya (2012)
Habitat distribution modelling for reintroduction of Ilex khasiana Purk., a critically endangered tree species of northeastern India
Ecological Engineering, 40
Pralad Yomzon (2020)
Ecology and Conservation of the Red Panda in the Nepal Himalayas
M. Macauley (2008)
Earth Observations in Social Science Research for Management of Natural Resources and the Environment: Identifying the Landsat Contribution
, 1
E. Wikramanayake, E. Dinerstein, J. Robinson, U. Karanth, A. Rabinowitz, David Olson, Thomas Mathew, Prashant Hedao, Melissa Conner, Ginette Hemley, D. Bolze (1998)
An Ecology‐Based Method for Defining Priorities for Large Mammal Conservation: The Tiger as Case Study
Conservation Biology, 12
R. Noss (1983)
A Regional Landscape Approach to Maintain Diversity
BioScience, 33
L. Boitani, I. Sinibaldi, F. Corsi, A. Biase, I. Carranza, Maria Ravagli, G. Reggiani, C. Rondinini, P. Trapanese (2008)
Distribution of medium- to large-sized African mammals based on habitat suitability models
Biodiversity and Conservation, 17
Guopeng Ren, Y. Yang, Y. Yang, Xiao-Dong He, Guangsong Li, Ying Gao, Zhipang Huang, Chi Ma, Wei Wang, Wen Xiao (2017)
Habitat evaluation and conservation framework of the newly discovered and critically endangered black snub-nosed monkey
Biological Conservation, 209
E. Dinerstein, David Olson, A. Joshi, C. Vynne, N. Burgess, E. Wikramanayake, N. Hahn, Suzanne Palminteri, Prashant Hedao, R. Noss, M. Hansen, H. Locke, Erle Ellis, Benjamin Jones, C. Barber, Randy Hayes, C. Kormos, V. Martin, Eileen Crist, W. Sechrest, Lori Price, J. Baillie, D. Weeden, Kieran Suckling, C. Davis, N. Sizer, R. Moore, D. Thau, Tanya Birch, P. Potapov, S. Turubanova, A. Tyukavina, Nadia Souza, L. Pintea, J. Brito, O. Llewellyn, A. Miller, A. Patzelt, S. Ghazanfar, J. Timberlake, H. Klöser, Yara Shennan‐Farpón, R. Kindt, J. Lillesø, P. Breugel, L. Graudal, M. Voge, K. Al-Shammari, Muhammad Saleem (2017)
An Ecoregion-Based Approach to Protecting Half the Terrestrial Realm
Bioscience, 67
F. Buruso (2017)
Habitat suitability analysis for hippopotamus (H. amphibious) using GIS and remote sensing in Lake Tana and its environs, Ethiopia
Environmental Systems Research, 6
P. Leimgruber, Daniel Kelly, M. Steininger, J. Brunner, T. Müller, M. Songer (2005)
Forest cover change patterns in Myanmar (Burma) 1990–2000
Environmental Conservation, 32
R. Mittermeier, W. Turner, F. Larsen, T. Brooks, C. Gascon (2011)
Global Biodiversity Conservation: The Critical Role of Hotspots
Weihua Xu, A. Viña, Lingqiao Kong, S. Pimm, Jingjing Zhang, Wu Yang, Yi Xiao, Lu Zhang, Xiaodong Chen, Jianguo Liu, Z. Ouyang (2017)
Reassessing the conservation status of the giant panda using remote sensing
Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1
S. Sarkar, M. Mayfield, S. Cameron, Trevon Fuller, Justin Garson (2008)
Conservation area networks for the Indian region: Systematic methods and future prospects
Himalayan Journal of Sciences, 4
Madhu Rao, Saw Htun, S. Platt, R. Tizard, C. Poole, T. Myint, J. Watson (2013)
Biodiversity Conservation in a Changing Climate: A Review of Threats and Implications for Conservation Planning in Myanmar
AMBIO, 42
Zejun Zhang, Jin-chu Hu, Jiandong Yang, Ming Li, F. Wei (2009)
Food habits and space-use of red pandas Ailurus fulgens in the Fengtongzhai Nature Reserve, China: food effects and behavioural responses
Acta Theriologica, 54
D. Theobald, K. Crooks, J. Norman (2011)
Assessing effects of land use on landscape connectivity: loss and fragmentation of western U.S. forests.
Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 21 7
J. Brandt, T. Allendorf, V. Radeloff, J. Brooks (2017)
Effects of national forest‐management regimes on unprotected forests of the Himalaya
Conservation Biology, 31
Thomas Brooks, Thomas Brooks, Thomas Brooks, R. Mittermeier, G. Fonseca, G. Fonseca, J. Gerlach, M. Hoffmann, John Lamoreux, C. Mittermeier, J. Pilgrim, A. Rodrigues (2006)
Global Biodiversity Conservation Priorities
Science, 313
N. Chettri, E. Sharma, B. Shakya, B. Bajracharya (2007)
Developing Forested Conservation Corridors in the Kangchenjunga Landscape, Eastern Himalaya
, 27
Kabir Uddin, Sunita Chaudhary, N. Chettri, R. Kotru, M. Murthy, R. Chaudhary, W. Ning, S. Shrestha, S. Gautam (2015)
The changing land cover and fragmenting forest on the Roof of the World: A case study in Nepal's Kailash Sacred Landscape
Landscape and Urban Planning, 141
R. Baldwin, Stephen Trombulak, Paul Leonard, R. Noss, J. Hilty, H. Possingham, L. Scarlett, Mark Anderson (2018)
The Future of Landscape Conservation
Bioscience, 68
V. Mahendran, P. JagadeeswaraRao, Bera Ak (2017)
Vulnerability of Different Geomorphic Units to Deserts in Parts of Western Rajasthan - A Study Based on Remote Sensing and GIS
Journal of Remote Sensing & GIS, 6
Paul Leonard, R. Baldwin, R. Hanks (2017)
Landscape-scale conservation design across biotic realms: sequential integration of aquatic and terrestrial landscapes
Scientific Reports, 7
T. Wangchuk, P. Wegge, Tiger Sangay (2016)
Habitat and diet of Bhutan takin Budorcas taxicolor whitei during summer in Jigme Dorji National Park, Bhutan
Journal of Natural History, 50
Shilpi Gupta, K. Mondal, K. Sankar, Q. Qureshi (2012)
Abundance and habitat suitability model for Ratel (Mellivora capensis) in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Western India.
Wildlife Biology in Practice, 8
Rohit Naniwadekar, C. Mishra, K. Isvaran, M. Madhusudan, A. Datta (2014)
Looking beyond parks: the conservation value of unprotected areas for hornbills in Arunachal Pradesh, Eastern Himalaya
Oryx, 49
D. Stokes, Peter Morrison (2003)
GIS-Based Conservation Planning: A Powerful Tool to be Used with Caution…
Conservation in Practice, 4
U. Shrestha, S. Shrestha, P. Chaudhary, R. Chaudhary (2010)
How Representative is the Protected Areas System of Nepal?
, 30
K. Phuntsho, N. Chettri, K. Oli (2012)
Mainstreaming Community-Based Conservation in a Transboundary Mountain Landscape; Lessons from Kangchenjunga
Rohit Naniwadekar, U. Shukla, K. Isvaran, A. Datta (2015)
Reduced Hornbill Abundance Associated with Low Seed Arrival and Altered Recruitment in a Hunted and Logged Tropical Forest
PLoS ONE, 10
M. Beger, H. Grantham, R. Pressey, K. Wilson, E. Peterson, Dan Dorfman, P. Mumby, R. Lourival, Daniel Brumbaugh, H. Possingham (2010)
Conservation planning for connectivity across marine, freshwater, and terrestrial realms
Biological Conservation, 143
H. Bashari, M. Hemami (2013)
A predictive diagnostic model for wild sheep (Ovis orientalis) habitat suitability in Iran
Journal for Nature Conservation, 21
E. Wikramanayake, E. Dinerstein, J. Seidensticker, S. Lumpkin, B. Pandav, M. Shrestha, H. Mishra, J. Ballou, A. Johnsingh, I. Chestin, S. Sunarto, Phuntsho Thinley, K. Thapa, Guangshun Jiang, Sivananthan Elagupillay, Hemanta Kafley, N. Pradhan, Karma Jigme, Seng Teak, Peter Cutter, Md. Aziz, U. Than (2011)
A landscape‐based conservation strategy to double the wild tiger population
Conservation Letters, 4
A. Rabinowitz, G. Amato, U. Khaing (1998)
Discovery of the black muntjac, Muntiacus crinifrons (Artiodactyla, Cervidae), in north Myanmar
Mammalia, 62
N. Chettri, Kabir Uddin, Sunita Chaudhary, E. Sharma (2013)
Linking Spatio-Temporal Land Cover Change to Biodiversity Conservation in the Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal
Diversity, 5
R. Bharti, B. Adhikari, G. Rawat
International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation Assessing Vegetation Changes in Timberline Ecotone of Nanda Devi National Park, Uttarakhand
Wenbo Yan, Zhi-Gao Zeng, Huisheng Gong, Xiangbo He, Xin-Yu Liu, Kaichuang Si, Y. Song (2017)
Habitat use and selection by takin in the Qinling Mountains, China
Wildlife Research, 43
N. Chettri, B. Shakya, R. Thapa, E. Sharma (2008)
Status of a protected area system in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas: An analysis of PA coverage
International Journal of Biodiversity Science & Management, 4
G. Singh, A. Velmurugan, M. Dakhate (2009)
Geospatial approach for tiger habitat evaluation and distribution in Corbett Tiger reserve, India
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 37
Jian-chu Xu, R. Grumbine, A. Shrestha, M. Eriksson, Xuefei Yang, Yun Wang, A. Wilkes (2009)
The Melting Himalayas: Cascading Effects of Climate Change on Water, Biodiversity, and Livelihoods
Conservation Biology, 23
Aníbal Pauchard, C. Kueffer, H. Dietz, C. Daehler, J. Alexander, P. Edwards, J. Arévalo, L. Cavieres, A. Guisan, S. Haider, G. Jakobs, K. McDougall, C. Millar, Bridgett Naylor, C. Parks, L. Rew, Tim Seipel (2009)
Ain't no mountain high enough: plant invasions reaching new elevations
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7
I. Pulsford, C. Wyborn, Barbara Lausche, Maja Vasilijević, G. Worboys, E. Lefroy, D. Lindenmayer (2010)
Connectivity Conservation Management
Yu-Huang Wang, Kuoh-Cheng Yang, Cara Bridgman, Liang-kong Lin (2008)
Habitat suitability modelling to correlate gene flow with landscape connectivity
Landscape Ecology, 23
Emily Fung, P. Imbach, L. Corrales, S. Vílchez, N. Zamora, Freddy Argotty, L. Hannah, Zayra Ramos (2017)
Mapping conservation priorities and connectivity pathways under climate change for tropical ecosystems
Climatic Change, 141
J. Lenoir, J. Svenning (2015)
Climate-related range shifts – a global multidimensional synthesis and new research directions
Ecography, 38
E. Sharma (2016)
Reconciling the Mountain Biodiversity Conservation and Human Wellbeing: Drivers of Biodiversity Loss and New Approaches in the Hindu- Kush Himalayas
, 82
P. Vogt, K. Riitters, C. Estreguil, J. Kozak, T. Wade, J. Wickham (2007)
Mapping Spatial Patterns with Morphological Image Processing
Landscape Ecology, 22
A. Shrestha, C. Wake, P. Mayewski, J. Dibb (1999)
Maximum Temperature Trends in the Himalaya and Its Vicinity: An Analysis Based on Temperature Records from Nepal for the Period 1971-94
Journal of Climate, 12
D. Molden, E. Sharma, A. Shrestha, N. Chettri, N. Pradhan, R. Kotru (2017)
Advancing Regional and Transboundary Cooperation in the Conflict-Prone Hindu Kush–Himalaya
Mountain Research and Development, 37
Nakileza Roga, W. Ferguson, F. Bagoora (2017)
Transboundary Conservation Areas in African Mountains: Opportunities and Challenges for Addressing Global Change
Eearth, 6
S. Nandy, S. Kushwaha, P. Gaur (2012)
Identification of Swamp Deer (Cervus duvauceli duvauceli Cuvier) Potential Habitat in Jhilmil Jheel Conservation Reserve, Uttarakhand, India Using Multi-Criteria Analysis
Environmental Management, 49
Tabitha Graves, S. Farley, M. Goldstein, Christopher Servheen (2007)
Identification of functional corridors with movement characteristics of brown bears on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
Landscape Ecology, 22
Ying Tang, J. Winkler, A. Viña, Jianguo Liu, Yuanbing Zhang, Xiaofeng Zhang, Xiaohong Li, F. Wang, Jindong Zhang, Zhiqiang Zhao (2018)
Uncertainty of future projections of species distributions in mountainous regions
PLoS ONE, 13
P. Kraaijenbrink, M. Bierkens, A. Lutz, W. Immerzeel, W. Immerzeel (2017)
Impact of a global temperature rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius on Asia’s glaciers
Nature, 549
Tristan Nuñez, J. Lawler, B. Mcrae, D. Pierce, M. Krosby, Darren Kavanagh, Peter Singleton, J. Tewksbury (2013)
Connectivity Planning to Address Climate Change
Conservation Biology, 27
S. Pei (1996)
Banking on biodiversity : report on the regional consultation on biodiversity assessment in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas
C. Roever, R. Aarde, K. Leggett (2013)
Functional connectivity within conservation networks: Delineating corridors for African elephants
Biological Conservation, 157
S. Kark, A. Tulloch, A. Gordon, T. Mazor, N. Bunnefeld, N. Levin (2015)
Cross-boundary collaboration: key to the conservation puzzle
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 12
M. Rouget, R. Cowling, A. Lombard, A. Knight, G. Kerley (2006)
Designing Large‐Scale Conservation Corridors for Pattern and Process
Conservation Biology, 20
Ignacio Palomo (2017)
Climate Change Impacts on Ecosystem Services in High Mountain Areas: A Literature Review
Mountain Research and Development, 37
M. Lodhi, P. Samal, Shivaji Chaudhry, L. Palni, P. Dhyani (2014)
Land Cover Mapping for Namdapha National Park (Arunachal Pradesh), India Using Harmonized Land Cover Legends
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 42
R. Zomer, K. Oli (2011)
Feasibility Assessment Report - Kailash Sacred Landscape Conservation Initiative.
A. Viña, Scott Bearer, Xiaodong Chen, Guangming He, M. Linderman, Li An, He-min Zhang, Z. Ouyang, Jianguo Liu (2007)
Temporal changes in giant panda habitat connectivity across boundaries of Wolong Nature Reserve, China.
Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 17 4
Trevon Fuller, M. Munguía, M. Mayfield, V. Sánchez‐Cordero, S. Sarkar (2006)
Incorporating connectivity into conservation planning: A multi-criteria case study from central Mexico
Biological Conservation, 133
M. Huck, W. Jędrzejewski, T. Borowik, Małgorzata Miłosz-Cielma, K. Schmidt, B. Jędrzejewska, S. Nowak, R. Mysłajek (2010)
Habitat suitability, corridors and dispersal barriers for large carnivores in Poland
Acta Theriologica, 55
L. Bland, J. Bielby, S. Kearney, C. Orme, J. Watson, B. Collen (2017)
Toward reassessing data‐deficient species
Conservation Biology, 31
Diogo Alagador, María Triviño, J. Cerdeira, Raul Brás, M. Cabeza, M. Araújo (2012)
Linking like with like: optimising connectivity between environmentally-similar habitats
Landscape Ecology, 27
R. Store, J. Jokimäki (2003)
A GIS-based multi-scale approach to habitat suitability modeling
Ecological Modelling, 169
C. Kremen, A. Merenlender (2018)
Landscapes that work for biodiversity and people
Science, 362
M. Alamgir, S. Mukul, S. Turton (2015)
Modelling spatial distribution of critically endangered Asian elephant and Hoolock gibbon in Bangladesh forest ecosystems under a changing climate
Applied Geography, 60
R. Noss, W. Platt, B. Sorrie, A. Weakley, D. Means, J. Costanza, R. Peet (2015)
How global biodiversity hotspots may go unrecognized: lessons from the North American Coastal Plain
Diversity and Distributions, 21
Wenwen Li, Céline Clauzel, Yunchuan Dai, Gongsheng Wu, P. Giraudoux, Li Li (2017)
Improving landscape connectivity for the Yunnan snub-nosed monkey through cropland reforestation using graph theory
Journal for Nature Conservation, 38
R. Zomer, A. Trabucco, M. Metzger, Mingcheng Wang, K. Oli, Jian-chu Xu (2014)
Projected climate change impacts on spatial distribution of bioclimatic zones and ecoregions within the Kailash Sacred Landscape of China, India, Nepal
Climatic Change, 125
Sunita Pradhan, G. Saha, J. Khan (2001)
Ecology of the red panda Ailurus fulgens in the Singhalila National Park, Darjeeling, India
Biological Conservation, 98
E. Sharma, N. Chettri, K. Oli (2010)
Mountain biodiversity conservation and management: a paradigm shift in policies and practices in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas
Ecological Research, 25
Ming-gang Zhang, Zhekun Zhou, Wen-Yun Chen, J. Slik, C. Cannon, N. Raes (2012)
Using species distribution modeling to improve conservation and land use planning of Yunnan, China
Biological Conservation, 153
M. Sharma, G. Areendran, K. Raj, Ankita Sharma, P. Joshi (2016)
Multitemporal analysis of forest fragmentation in Hindu Kush Himalaya—a case study from Khangchendzonga Biosphere Reserve, Sikkim, India
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 188
A. Rabinowitz, T. Myint, S. Khaing, S. Rabinowitz (1999)
Description of the leaf deer (Muntiacus putaoensis), a new species of muntjac from northern Myanmar
Journal of Zoology, 249
Ming-gang Zhang, J. Slik, K. Ma (2017)
Priority areas for the conservation of perennial plants in China
Biological Conservation, 210
Ashfaq Ali, Zhixiang Zhou, M. Waseem, M. Khan, I. Ali, M. Asad, A. Qashqaei (2017)
An assessment of food habits and altitudinal distribution of the Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus) in the Western Himalayas, Pakistan
Journal of Natural History, 51
A. Schild (2008)
ICIMOD's Position on Climate Change and Mountain Systems
, 28
P. Beier, Daniel Majka, Shawn Newell (2009)
Uncertainty analysis of least-cost modeling for designing wildlife linkages.
Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 19 8
Jessica Forrest, E. Wikramanayake, R. Shrestha, G. Areendran, K. Gyeltshen, A. Maheshwari, Sraboni Mazumdar, R. Naidoo, G. Thapa, K. Thapa (2012)
Conservation and climate change: Assessing the vulnerability of snow leopard habitat to treeline shift in the Himalaya
Biological Conservation, 150
F. Attorre, M. Sanctis, A. Farcomeni, A. Guillet, Edoardo Scepi, M. Vitale, F. Pella, M. Fasola (2013)
The use of spatial ecological modelling as a tool for improving the assessment of geographic range size of threatened species
Journal for Nature Conservation, 21
Elise Zipkin, Amielle DeWan, J. Royle (2009)
Impacts of forest fragmentation on species richness: a hierarchical approach to community modelling
Journal of Applied Ecology, 46

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Copyright: © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group on behalf of the International Water, Air & Soil Conservation Society(INWASCON).
ISSN: 2474-9508
DOI: 10.1080/24749508.2019.1610840
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 2020, VOL. 4, NO. 3, 187–202 INWASCON https://doi.org/10.1080/24749508.2019.1610840 RESEARCH ARTICLE Integrating geospatial tools and species for conservation planning in a data- poor region of the Far Eastern Himalayas a a b c d Kabir Uddin , Nakul Chettri , Yongping Yang , Mahendra Singh Lodhi , Naing Zaw Htun and Eklabya Sharma a b Transboundary Landscape, International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu, Nepal; Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, Yunnan, P R China; North-East Regional Centre, G B Pant National Institute of Himalayan Environment and Sustainable Development, Itanagar, India; Nature and Wildlife Conservation Division, Forest Department, Ministry of Environmental Conservation and Forestry, Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Received 26 June 2018 The Hindu Kush Himalayan region (HKH) is an important biodiversity repository with more Accepted 20 April 2019 than 488 protected areas covering 39% of the region’s geographical coverage. However, a majority of them are small and isolated and are not large enough to address conservation KEYWORDS challenges. About 20% of the protected areas are transboundary in nature. Conservation GIS and remote sensing; landscape planning based on habitat suitability is an essential step for landscape manage- habitat suitability; models; ment, but there are limited data available from the Landscape Initiative for Far Eastern threatened species; Himalayas (HI-LIFE). To rationalize the need for regional cooperation, this study used remote transboundary landscape; regional cooperation sensing (RS) data and a geographic information system (GIS) to estimate the habitat suit- ability for four globally signiﬁcant speciesconsidering available but limited secondary infor- mation. The results showed variation in habitat suitability at an individual species level, but the combined map showed about 43% of the total area as a suitable habitat. Substantial amounts of suitable habitat also recorded from outside the existing protected areas. The results also highlighted the fact that 75.40% of the existing forest within the landscape is intact, the majority of which is outside the existing protected areas. Thus, there is a strong rationale and opportunity to strengthen regional cooperation to safeguard irreplaceable and unique biodiversity resources of this wilderness landscape. 1. Introduction world (e.g., Blandford, 1872; Hooker, 1849). In recent decades, the HKH has witnessed signiﬁcant concep- The HKH, stretched over four million km sacross the tual development in regional approaches to biodiver- Himalayas and adjoining ranges, is endowed with a rich sity conservation. It evolved from “people variety of gene pools, species and ecosystems of global exclusionary” and “species focused” to “people- importance (Mittermeier et al., 2005; Pei, 1995). The centred community-based” and “ecosystem/landscape region has been in the spotlight as a part of “Crisis approach,“ as reﬂected by conservation policies and Ecoregions”, “Endemic Bird Areas”, “Mega Diversity practices within the region (Chettri & Sharma, 2016; Countries” and “Global 200 Ecoregions” (Brooks et al., Molden et al., 2017; Sharma et al., 2010). The classical 2006) and also hosts parts of four of the 36 Global approach to biodiversity conservation, which started Biodiversity Hotspots – Himalaya, Indo-Burma, with an emphasis on the conservation of ﬂagship Mountains of South-West China, and Mountains of species (e.g., Wikramanayake et al., 1998; Yonzon, Central Asia (Mittermeier, Turner, Larsen, Brooks, & 1989), evolved to the understanding that “conserva- Gascon, 2011;Noss et al., 2015) – and a number of the tion and management of biodiversity are impossible Global 200 Ecoregions of the world (Dinerstein et al., without people’s participation“ (Phuntsho, Chettri, & 2017; Wikramanayake et al., 2002). Also, the region Oli, 2012). Since the 1980s, decentralization, and provides ecosystem services that sustain the lives and devolution of authority for biodiversity conservation livelihoods of over 240 million people in the HKH and were evident in governments” eﬀorts across the HKH support over 1.7 billion people living downstream in the through landscape-level initiatives (see Chettri & 10 river basins which emanate from these mountainous Sharma, 2016; Phuntsho et al., 2012; Sharma et al., regions (Molden et al., 2017;Schild, 2008). 2010; Zomer & Oli, 2011). The region has a signiﬁcant conservation history Since the establishment of the Pidaung Wildlife th beginning from the 19 century (see Sharma, Chettri, Sanctuary in Myanmar in 1918, the ﬁrst protected & Oli, 2010) along with notable explorations by bota- area in the region, the countries sharing the HKH nists, zoologists and nature explorers from across the CONTACT Nakul Chettri nakul.chettri@icimod.org www.icimod.org International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, G P O Box 3226, Kathmandu, Nepal © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group on behalf of the International Water, Air & Soil Conservation Society(INWASCON). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 188 K. UDDIN ET AL. have set aside 39% of the terrestrial area by establish- 2007). The initiatives focus on conservation and ing 488 protected area networks till 2007 (Chettri, development planning considering biological and Shakya, Thapa, & Sharma, 2008). However, environmental issues (species, drivers of change and a majority (68%) of them are less than land classes) and processes (e.g., migration, adapta- 500 km s and are scattered, isolated, and do not tion, and speciation) through a participatory cover the entirety of biodiversity-rich areas with approach and long-term monitoring mechanisms as high conservation signiﬁcance (Chettri et al., 2008; being advocated elsewhere (Kremen & Merenlender, Sarkar, Mayﬁeld, Cameron, Fuller, & Garson, 2007; 2018). It was realized that these processes could be Shrestha, Shrestha, Chaudhary, & Chaudary, 2010). best accommodated by designing large-scale conser- Also, only about 25% of the Global Biodiversity vation landscapes that capture the environmental Hotspots in the HKH are within the existing pro- gradients and facilitate biota movement and dispersal tected area network, leaving a very signiﬁcant area at spatial and temporal scales (Beger et al., 2010; unprotected (Chettri et al., 2008). Moreover, habitat Leonard. Baldwin, & Hanks, 2017; Rouget, Cowling, degradation as a result of land use and cover change Lombard, Knight, & Kerley, 2006). (Bharti, Adhikari, & Rawat, 2012; Sharma, The Landscape Initiative for Far Eastern Areendran, Raj, Sharma, & Joshi, 2016; Brandt, Himalayas (HI-LIFE) is one of the six proposed land- Allendorf, Radeloﬀ, & Brooks, 2017) and challenges scapes (Figure 1). Located between the Brahmaputra from prevailing climate change (Kraaijenbrink, (Yarlung Tsangpo in China) and Salween (Nujiang in Bierkens, Lutz, & Immerzeel, 2017; Shrestha, Wake, China, and Thanlwin in Myanmar) river systems, Mayewski, & Dibb, 1999) are bringing additional along the easternmost extensions of the Himalayas pressure on the existing protected areas system and and the westernmost extent of the Hengduan biodiversity of the region (Chettri & Sharma, 2016; Mountains, the landscape spans with an area of Chettri et al., 2010; Xu et al., 2009). 71,452 km2 across China (22%), India (12%), and Interestingly, about 20% of the protected areas Myanmar (66%) (ICIMOD, 2018). The landscape found in the region are transboundary in nature, has global signiﬁcance due to its converging location with contiguous habitats across boundaries. They of the three Global Biodiversity Hotspots – namely also have greater conservation signiﬁcance due to Himalaya, Indo-Burma and Mountain of Southwest their location in areas with higher biodiversity China (Brunner, Talbott, & Elkin, 1998; Mittermier (Chettri et al., 2008). Though there has been signiﬁ- et al., 2011; Wikramanayeke et al., 2002). cant progress in the number and coverage of pro- Interestingly, out of seven protected areas found in tected areas, conservation plans developed for the area, four are transboundary in nature with nat- protected areas usually encompass only one country ural connectivity with adjacent protected areas across because of logistical, institutional and political chal- the political boundaries (Areendran et al., 2017;Li lenges (Chettri et al., 2010; Molden et al., 2017; et al., 2017; Lodhi, Samal, Chaudhry, Palni, & Sharma et al., 2010). Thus, there was an urgent Dhyani, 2014). Moreover, in some areas, the areas need to strengthen transboundary conservation plan- outside protected areas are equally or more signiﬁ- ning strategies as many protected areas are intercon- cant in terms of biodiversity (Naniwadekar et al., nected across boundaries through processes that 2015). form, utilize and maintain interfaces or connectivity The complex with congruence of three of the 36 essential for the survival of some species (Forrest Global Biodiversity Hotspot (Mittermeier et al., et al., 2012; Palomo, 2017; Pauchard et al., 2009; 2011;Nossetal., 2015), it is an important area Tang et al., 2018; Wikramanayake et al., 2011). for plant diversity (Zhang, Slik, & Ma, 2017) and Based on the regional biodiversity signiﬁcance and the wilderness areas have been used by many the need for regional cooperation, the International species as connectivity corridors (Ren et al., Centre for Integrated Mountain Development 2017). However, this natural connectivity across (ICIMOD) has identiﬁed six transboundary land- the boundaries and the resulting contiguous habi- scapes (Kailash, Kangchenjunga, Far Eastern tats across the landscape were never considered in Himalaya, Hindu Kush Karakoram Pamir, Everest, the past conservation practices. Thus, the HI-LIFE and Cherrapunjee-Chittagong) across the HKH has a high potential, as a transboundary landscape, region for the development of integrated conserva- considering the existing protected areas and their tion and development initiatives (Chettri, Sharma, & contiguous habitats. The concept, challenges, and Thapa, 2009). The objective of these landscape initia- opportunities have been discussed with conserva- tives is to improve conservation and community tion communities, who agreed in principle to development beyond the political boundaries through explore the further development of the HI-LIFE “Ecosystem Approach” as advocated by the as a transboundary landscape and to enhance Convention of Biological Diversity (Secretariat of regional cooperation (ICIMOD, 2018). To support the CBD, 2004; Sharma, Chettri, Gurung, & Shakya, the conservation paradigm, we came up with the GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 189 following three objectives for this study and the 2.2. Research methodology outputs from these objectives can be used to To meet the objective mentioned above, we followed ensure the integration of regional-scale processes the schematic analytical steps shown in Figure 2.As into conservation assessment, management, and per the objectives, three broad methodologies were implementation of the ecosystem approach. used as follows: (1) To understand the state of land use and land 2.2.1. Land cover mapping cover types within the delineated landscape to Landsat data (see Table 1) were used for land cover understand the extent of potential habitats for mapping as it has the potential to signiﬁcantly improve species that are of global signiﬁcance. the characterization of the Earth’sland surface (2) To identify potential habitat contiguity of (Macauley, 2009). Landsat Enhanced Thematic some selected species common across the Mapper Plus (ETM+) images were accessed from transboundary landscape and understand the USGS Global Visualization Viewer (GLOVIS, 2012) extent of the available habitat necessary for whereas a Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) their conservation. Digital Elevation Model was accessed from Consultative (3) To address the knowledge gap on the state of Group on International Agricultural Research existing habitat conditions in relation to forest (CGIAR)-Consortium for Spatial Information (CSI) fragmentation. GeoPortal (see SRTM, 2012). A hierarchical classiﬁca- tion scheme with 10 classes was adopted using the Land Cover Classiﬁcation System (LCCS) following Di 2. Materials and methods Gregorio (2005)(Table 2). The acquired Landsat images 2.1. Study area were atmospheric corrected and re-projected into Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM), Zone 47. After The HI-LIFE is the eastern-most landscape among processing the images, eCognition Developer software the six identiﬁed landscapes (Figure 1). The geo- used for object-based image analysis (OBIA). This graphic extent of the landscape comprises 71,452 method of land use and land cover mapping has been km2 located between coordinates 95.51 and 99.31 tested elsewhere and could be referred to for further E longitude and 25.01 and 28.99 N latitude. In detail (Chettri, Uddin, Chaudhary, & Sharma, 2013; terms of biodiversity, the proposed HI-LIFE is one Uddin et al. 2015). of the most intact and enriched transboundary bio- diversity complexes within the HKH and has been recognized as a Centre of Plant Biodiversity and 2.2.2. Species habitat suitability modeling Eastern Asiatic Regional Centre for Endemism We used secondary information of four species (Takhtajan, 1969; Wikramanayake et al., 2002). (Himalayan black bear, Leaf deer, Red panda, A study of the world’s frontier forests by the World Takin) that were reported from more than one pro- Resources Institute shows that the complex contains tected areas of the landscape (see Rabinowitz, the last remaining tracts of intact natural forest eco- Garshelis & Steinmetz, 2008; Harris, 2008; systems in mainland Southeast Asia that are relatively Rabinowitz et al., 1998; Rabinowitz, Myint, Khaing, undisturbed and large enough to maintain biodiver- & Rabinowitz, 1999; Song, Smith, & MacKinnon, sity (Brunner et al., 1998). The protected areas in the 2008; Stotz, Harris, Moskovits, Yi, & Adlemann, Hi-LIFE provide habitat for many reported species of 2003; Timmins, Duckworth, & Zaw, 2008a; global importance such as the Himalayan black bear Timmins, Long, Duckworth, Ying-Xiang, & Zaw, (Ursus thibetanus), Leaf deer (Muntiacus putaoensis); 2008b; Wang, Choudhury, Yonzon, Wozencraft, & Red panda (Ailurus fulgens); Takin (Budorcas taxi- Zaw, 2008; Yang, 2009;).These species are ecologically color); Black muntjac (Muntiacus crinifrons); and signiﬁcant within the landscape and are representa- Stump-tailed macaque (Macaca arctoides) among tive of the majority of the key habitat types and others (ICIMOD, 2018). These globally important altitudes (Table 3). Habitat suitability modeling was species inhabit wider areas across national boundaries conducted for each of these four species considering and are reported from more than one protected area a host of factors, such as presence/absence, habits, in the landscape (Datta, Pansa, Madhusudan, & habitat, and potential range reported for each Mishra, 2003; Naniwadekar, Shukla, Isvaran, & (IUCN, 2018). During mapping, an emphasis was Datta, 2015; Rabinowitz, Amato, & Saw Tun, 1998; given to major habitat factors such as vegetation Ren et al., 2017). Thus, their potential habitat extends type, altitude, and topographic structure, and the far beyond the existing protected area network and distance from settlements and roads following Beier national boundaries. et al., (2009). 190 K. UDDIN ET AL. Figure 1. Location map of HI-LIFE. In delineating suitable habitat areas, all thematic layers suitability analysis was performed in ArcGIS using and topographic layers – including digital elevation CorridorDesignertoidentifycontiguoushabitat with model (DEM), slope and topographic position data, set- a user-friendly, three-step process following Beier et al. tlement and road data – were analysed (Table 3)asthey (2009). were found to have a direct correlation to the suitability During the habitat suitability analysis, a numerical of wildlife habitat (Nandy Kushwaha, & Gaur, 2012; weighting factor was assigned to each thematic layer Singh, Velmurugan, & Dakhate, 2009). After the habitat according to the relative importance of habitat suit- factors had been chosen, suitability scores assigned to ability. To determine the weight overlay factor pro- each of the factors (e.g., land cover types, topographic cedure, an expert knowledge was used to generate the position classes) paying particular attention to the suit- commensurable scores, where the appropriate score ability threshold required to support breeding habitat for maps are weighted according to the habitat function each of the species. All thematic layers and GIS factors prepared for the decision following Bashari and were then converted to raster ﬁles and reclassiﬁed as per Hemami (2013); Store and Jokimäki (2003). the scores obtained from individual species. Habitat Developing such kind of ranked by experts from the GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 191 a percentage weight so that the sum of the weights is 100%. To combine multiple habitat factors into one aggregate habitat suitability model for species in the landscape, we ﬁrst assigned weights to each factor reﬂecting their relative importance as indicated in Table 3. For example, the weighted value for elevation was 10%, the topographic position was 5%, the land cover was 75%, distance to the road was 5%, and distance to the settlement was 5%. Thus, these weighted suitability values were then incorporated in the raster ﬁle for each focal species. We considered the following interpretation of habitat suitability scores: 80 to 100% = best habitat, highest survival and reproductive success; 60 to 80% = associated with successful breeding; 30 to 60% = associated with consistent use and breeding; 20 to 30% = asso- ciated with occasional use for non-breeding activities; and values less than 20% = avoided; 0 = absolute non- habitat. Based on the above criteria, habitat suitability (and unsuitability) maps for each of the four species were prepared independently to identify their poten- tial extended habitat areas. After this, the individual four suitability maps were combined to a single suit- Figure 2. Diagrammatic representation of forest fragmenta- ability map to see the extended habitats within the tion classes. landscape and to show their potential distribution. 2.2.3. Habitat condition concerning forest fragmentation To understand the state of habitat condition, the forested area was used for fragmentation analysis following Vogt et al. (2007). We considered four Table 1. List of landsat imagery used for land use and land classes, namely, “core forest,““patch forest,““per- cover analysis. forated forest” and “edge forest” (see Figure 3)as SL No Satellite Sensor Path Row Year deﬁnedbyVogtetal. (2007). The Landscape 1 Landsat ETM+ 132 41 2000 Fragmentation Tool (Parent & Hurd, 2012)used 2 Landsat ETM+ 132 42 2002 3 Landsat ETM+ 132 43 2002 in the analysis following the four-step processes 4 Landsat ETM+ 133 40 2001 used by Vogt et al. (2007). Each of thefourclasses 5 Landsat ETM+ 133 41 1999 mentioned were mapped by assigning patch size 6 Landsat ETM+ 133 42 2000 7 Landsat ETM+ 134 40 2001 class following Stokes and Morrison (2003). Forest 8 Landsat ETM+ 134 41 2001 fragmentation areas were generated based on aspeciﬁed edge width (100 m) and the fragmenta- tion classes and tools mentioned above. region is a most suitable relative inﬂuence on the The geospatial methods discussed above were suitability of habitat for the selected animal (Buruso, used extensively because of the speciﬁc limitations 2018). While designing, we assigned each factor Table 2. Description of land cover classes used to classify the study area. LCCCode LCCLevel LCCOwnLabel LCCLabel 21497–129398 A3A20B2XXD1E2-A21E3 Mixed forest Mixed Closed to Open (100–40)% Trees 21499–121340 A3A20B2XXD2E1-A21 Needleleaved Needleleaved Evergreen Closed to Open (100–40)% Trees forest 22579–121340 A3A20B2XXD1E2F2F6F10G3- Broadleaved forest Broadleaved Deciduous Closed to Open (100–40)% Trees, With Shrub A21 Emergents 21449–121340 A4A20-A21 Shrubland Closed to Open (100–40)% Shrubland (Thicket) 21453–121340 A2A20-A21 Grassland Herbaceous Closed to Open (100–40)% Vegetation 11390–12601 A4XXXXC2-C3 Agriculture Graminoid Crop(s) (One Additional Crop) 5001 A1 Built up area Built Up Area(s) 6005 A5 Bare area Bare Soil And/Or Other Unconsolidated Material(s) 8005 A2 Snow Snow 8001 A1 Water bodies Natural Waterbodies 192 K. UDDIN ET AL. Table 3. Criteria for assessment of habitat suitability. Criteria Himalayan black bear Leaf deer Red panda Takin Elevation range (m) 1200–3300 700–2000 2000–3700 2200–4500 IUCN status Vulnerable Data Deﬁcient Endangered Vulnerable Habit Predominantly inhabit Limited information, mostly Carnivora adapted to a herbivorous Predominantly a forest the forests and used forest dwellers. The species diet and diet consist of bamboo dweller, prefer variety of fruits and apparently feeds on a range leaves and both species of stepped slope and plant species as its of plant materials, including bamboo, Arundinaria maling and open areas and diet. fruits. A. aristata purely herbivore Topographic position Flat-Gentle slopes Flat-Gentle slopes Flat-Gentle slopes Flat-Gentle slopes Canyon bottom Canyon bottom Canyon bottom Canyon bottom Ridgetop Ridgetop Ridgetop Ridgetop Steep slope Steep slope Steep slope Steep slope Land cover -Needleleaved forest -Needleleaved forest -Broadleaved forest -Needleleaved forest -Broadleaved forest -Broadleaved forest -Mixed Forest -Broadleaved forest -Mixed Forest -Mixed Forest -Grassland -Mixed Forest -Shrubland Distance from road (m) 100> 100> 250> 100> Distance from 1000> 1000> 500> 1000 > settlement (m) Source: Ali et al. (2017); IUCN (2018); Pradhan, Shah, & Khan, (2001); Wangchuk, Wegge, and Sangay (2016); Yan et al. (2017); Zhang, Hu, Yang, Li, and Wei (2009). Figure 3. Overall methodological framework for the study. of ground-based methods through which the entire making use of existing information and applying targeted area could not be traversed and the collec- cost-eﬀective tools before entering into extensive tion of information for each species is resource systematic research as envisaged by the countries intensive. While ground surveys such as counting during numerous regional consultations (ICIMOD, animals, trapping, collection of droppings, and 2009, 2012, 2018). investigations of feeding sites as well as ground mapping of habitats are useful, considering the 3. Results objectives of this study and the goal of transbound- ary landscape conservation and management initia- The result of the land cover analysis from the pro- tives, geospatial technology can supplement or posed landscape presented in Figure 4. The results circumvent ground survey methods (see Alamgir, (Table 4) showed that the landscape was dominated Mukul, & Turton, 2015;Boitani et al., 2008;Xu by broadleaved forest (80.02%), followed by et al., 2017). In addition, the study focused on Needleleaved Forest (8.01%), mixed forest (0.54%), GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 193 Figure 4. Land cover map of HI-LIFE. Table 4. Table showing land cover classes, their areas and breeding area for the Himalayan black bear found in percentage coverage in the HiLife. the middle and southwestern part of the HI-LIFE Land cover class Area in Km % of the total Mixed forest 8182 9 (Figure 5(a)). Among the selected species the Red Needle leaved forest 6493 7 panda showed the smallest (12.36%) optimal area Broad leaved forest 51,774 57 within the landscape. For the Red panda, an area of Shrub land 9044 10 Grassland 5693 6 8830km in the middle and southwestern areas of the Agriculture 3954 4 HI-LIFE was found as a suboptimal habitat with Built up area 3 0.003 Bare area 3678 4 breeding potential (Figure 5(c)). Recognized optimal Snow/glacier 2273 2 stability for Leaf deer was just 12,779 km and was Water bodies 265 0.3 Total 91,358 100 primarily located in the north-eastern part of the HI- LIFE (Figure 5(b)). The optimal areas for Takin (Figure 5(d)) were 28.86% of the total landscape, and shrubland (0.60%). Agricultural land only respectively (see Table 5). For all of the species con- accounted for 4% of the total area of the HI-LIFE sidered, the suboptimal zone, which is characterized as landscape. It was observed that the majority of having breeding potential, is important as it is asso- forested areas found in the central part of the land- ciated with successful breeding. In the Hi-LIFE, the scape (Figure 4). potential suboptimal breeding zones for Himalayan Individual species habitat maps showed diﬀerences black bear, Leaf dear, Red panda and Takin are in distribution (Figure 5). The habitat map of the 25.92, 43.60, 18.44, and 29.93, respectively (Table 5). Himalayan black bear extended 35,666 km (49.92%) The combined and overlaid model of the four of the total 71,452 km area, which is the largest species showing the potential habitat for all the cov- optimal habitat observed among the four species. ered species presented in Figure 6. The analyzed, Likewise, the suboptimal habitat was 18,517km or combined average habitat suitability of the four spe- 25.92% of the total area (Table 5). The most suitable cies shows 7% of the total area to be optimal for these 194 K. UDDIN ET AL. Figure 5. Sets of maps showing habitat suitability for individual species. species with the best habitat and highest survival of core large forest patches that are larger than possibility (Table 5). About 43% of the area is sub- one km . The analysis also revealed that about optimal habitat with breeding potential, 20% is occa- 7.69% of the total forested area is denuded perforated sionally used but not for breeding, and 28% area is (see Table 6). Notably, the results also showed that absolute non-habitat. To summarize, the results most of the larger forest patches are outside the revealed that 50% of the area is a potential habitat protected areas (Figure 7). for these species. Our analysis on forest conditions within the 4. Discussion extended habitats, including edge and perforated areas, revealed some interesting results (Figure 7). It The analyzed land cover results from the landscape was observed that 75.4% of the total HI-LIFE consists showed a mosaic of land cover types with a high GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 195 Table 5. Table showing habitats suitability results for the four that need larger, contiguous and compatible forested species considered in the analysis for the HI-LIFE. areas to ensure suﬃcient availability of food, places to Black Leaf Red hide and thermal cover as well as limited human Habitat suitability Bear Dear Panda Takin disturbance (Alagador et al., 2012; Gupta, Mondal, Absolute non-habitat 8206 (9) 22,904 41,861 41,868 Sankar, & Qureshi, 2012). It is also an important (25) (46) (46) Strongly avoided 9457 2332 (3) 5529 (6) 5522 (6) factor in determining the potential habitats of many (10) species and can play an important role in predicting Occasionally used; not 9014 15,814 11,652 11,652 breeding (10) (17) (13) (13) suitable habitats (Adhikari et al., 2012; Alamgir et al., Suboptimal but used for 19,819 33,348 24,123 24,123 2015; Zhang et al., 2012). breeding (22) (37) (26) (26) Optimal habitat 44,862 16,960 8193 (9) 8193 (9) Globally signiﬁcant species have been widely used (49) (19) in the design of both conventional and contemporary Total (Km ) 91,358 91,358 91,358 91,358 conservation plans (Graves, Farley, Goldstein, & Servheen, 2007; Vina et al., 2007; Xu et al., 2017) proportion (73%) of forested area. This is inconsis- and they have indicated diﬀerent habitat needs and tent with some recent mappings showing intact forest use patterns as reﬂected in our analysis (Figure 4). across the region (Arrendran et al., 2017; Leimgruber This is obvious as each of the species prefers and uses et al., 2005; Lodhi et al., 2014). Human habitation, as diﬀerent habitats and altitudinal ranges (Nandy et al., indicated by built-up areas and agricultural land, is 2012; Zhang et al., 2012). Notably, the distribution comparatively low. This very strongly justiﬁes that ranges of these species are within the reported review this particular landscape is still in a wilderness state works done by experts (see Garshelis & Steinmetz, (Brunner et al., 1998; Datta et al., 2003). The contig- 2008; Harris, 2008; Song et al., 2008; Timmins et al., uous forested areas across national boundaries reﬂect 2008a; Wang et al., 2008). In many instances, the the fact that the proposed landscape is still a good conservation planning could be done with data deﬁ- habitat for many species, especially large mammals cient species if the objectives are long term and Figure 6. Map showing the combined habitat suitability. 196 K. UDDIN ET AL. Figure 7. Forest fragmentation map of HI-LIFE. Table 6. Matrix showing habitats conditions in relation to habitat suitability for species in the forested areas of the HI-LIFE Fragmentation Absolute non- Strongly Occasionally used; not breeding Suboptimal but OK for type habitat avoided habitat breeding Optimal Total Patch 7 42 214 123 9 395 Edge 130 372 2585 3730 244 7062 Perforated 104 190 1041 2410 202 3947 Core (<1 Km ) 3 6 339 430 33 811 Core (1 −2Km ) 1 1 111 159 14 286 Core (>2 Km ) 1440 718 14,751 33,413 3627 53,950 Total 1685 1330 19,041 40,265 4129 66,450 broader (Bland et al., 2017). What is interesting is most ecologists, what animals need to survive and that the potential habitats of most of the species reproduce (Cushmana & Landguthb, 2012; Wang, stretched far beyond the existing protected areas Yang, Bridgman, & Lin, 2008). This is particularly and across national boundaries (see Figure 5). true for large mammals as they operate at broader Analysis of the combined average habitat suitabil- spatial scales and, consequently, their populations are ity of four species shows that about 60% of the total more likely to be fragmented if conﬁned to isolated area is optimal for all of the species (Table 5). The habitats within small protected areas (Noss, 1983; results also support the home ranges of these species Roever, van Aarde, & Leggett, 2013). The concept (IUCN, 2018). It is important to note that planning also supports the adaptation strategy needed for spe- for multiple species representing diﬀerent ecological cies recovery considering the prevailing threats from zones and habitats brings better results. Therefore, various drivers of change including the climatic holistic conservation requires an evaluation of multi- change (Rao et al., 2013). As the trend in conserva- ple species with a wide range of habitat use patterns, tion biology has widened from a species-centered which is fundamentally a description of what animals approach to the ecosystem and landscape approach, use, where animals are found, and also, in the eyes of it is important to consider multiple conservation GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 197 values when designing protected area networks there is a less human intervention (4% agriculture and (Attorre et al., 2012; Huck et al., 2010). 0.003% built-up area) relative to other transboundary Our habitat condition analysis based on forest landscapes in the region, keeping this pristine wilder- fragmentation revealed that 82% of the existing ness intact will require a strong regional commitment, forested area is in good condition; however, most of meticulous planning, and cooperation among the con- it is outside of the protected area network where servation communities. human intervention happens to be fairly limited. For eﬀective conservation of species that prefer 5. Conclusion forested areas, large patches of intact forest are neces- sary (De & Tiwari, 2008; Theobald, Crooks, & The idea of managing multiple parks, reserves, and Norman, 2011). In order to have a functional con- conservation areas collectively as a part of servation network, it is important to plan and pro- a conservation network is recent, yet a growing mote dispersal and migration of species between the trend in biodiversity conservation and management. existing protected areas, particularly through the For these networks to be ecologically viable, the focus establishment of connectivity corridors (Fuller, must be on wider habitats and on ensuring the func- Munguıa, Mayﬁeld, Sanchez-Cordero, & Sarkar, tional connectivity of the landscape as a whole. It is 2006; Fung et al., 2017; Zipkin, DeWan, & Royle, necessary to concentrate eﬀorts at the regional scale, 2009). The contiguity of the forested area also pro- giving due consideration to the potential connectivity vides the altitudinal connectivity necessary for species that exists between the existing protected areas across to move toward higher altitudes in the event of cli- the boundaries of individual nations as well as along mate change as an adaptation provision (Lenoir & both the east-west and north-south axis. Without Svenning, 2015; Nunez et al., 2013; Worboys & eﬀective biodiversity management planning at the Pulsford, 2011; Zomer et al., 2014). landscape level, it is likely that human development The future of biodiversity conservation depends on and haphazard encroachment could further fragment eﬀorts applied across large landscapes, the scale at key wildlife habitats or key biodiversity areas of evo- which many key ecological and evolutionary processes lutionary signiﬁcance and isolate threatened species take place (Baldwin, Trombuluk, Leonard, Noss, & in the proposed HI-LIFE. Hilty, 2018) with an integrated approach (Leonard Our preliminary assessment of land cover and land et al., 2017). The transboundary landscape approach is use patterns and habitat suitability modeling consid- not a new concept in the HKH region. ICIMOD’s past ering four species (with limited data) and their varied experiences in Mount Everest Ecosystem (Sherpa, ecological and habitats needs and habitat conditions Peniston, Lama, & Richard, 2003), Kangchenjunga indicates that the landscape has a high level of con- Landscape (Chettri, Sharma, Shakya, & Bajracharya. servation potential. There is an opportunity for regio- 2007; Sharma et al., 2007), and the Kailash Sacred nal cooperation among the countries sharing this Landscape (Zomer & Oli, 2011; Zomer, Sharma, Oli, landscape, not just for research and knowledge devel- & Chettri, 2010) have highlighted the need for and opment at the national level, but also for adopting an signiﬁcance of regional cooperation to facilitate trans- integrated approach at the regional level to safeguard boundary landscape and ecosystem management irreplaceable and unique biodiversity resources in the approaches for improved biodiversity conservation in entire landscape. Our assessment, although based on the HKH. Within the HI-LIFE, there are unique geo- limited information for only a few species from the political issues related to insurgencies, border disputes, landscape, points to the fact that geospatial analysis the illegal transboundary trade of wildlife, etc. using species-based information can serve as A strategy to address these issues has also been dis- a powerful tool for landscape conservation and devel- cussed (ICIMOD, 2009). Moreover, learning could opment planning. For the HI-LIFE, such analysis has also be drawn from numerous examples available with proven useful in identifying important areas outside unique approaches and learnings (see Beger et al., 2010; protected areas. It also suggests for ecologically con- Kark et al., 2015; Roga, Ferguson, & Bagoora, 2017; tiguous connectivity between the existing protected Vasilijević & Pezold, 2011; Worboys,Francis,& areas that require regional management considera- Lockwood, 2010). The overall analysis from this pre- tion in the long run. The study also indicates a need liminary assessment revealed that the initiative taken by for more rigorous and systematic eﬀorts in research ICIMOD and partners to promote the landscape and to raise awareness on the conservation signiﬁ- approach in the Hi-LIFE is heading in the right direc- cance of this important landscape and generation of tion. It was revealed that there is a high potential for relevant scientiﬁc evidences to support informed connectivity development among the existing protected decision-making. ICIMOD has initiated the process areas and other forests patches due to the presence of of promoting regional cooperation among China, contiguous habitats for some ﬂagship and globally sig- India, and Myanmar through the landscape approach niﬁcant species present within the landscape. Though in the HI-LIFE. Cooperation is expected to improve, 198 K. UDDIN ET AL. especially given new developments in Myanmar’s Attorre, F., De Sanctisa, M., Farcomeni, A., Guillet, A., Scepia, E., Vitale, M., . . . Fasola, M. (2012). The use of political scenario; however, this could bring both spatial ecological modelling as a tool for improving the opportunity and challenges. assessment of geographic range size of threatened species. Journal for Nature Conservation, 21(1), 48–55. Baldwin, R. F., Trombuluk, S. C., Leonard, P. B., Acknowledgments Noss, R. F., & Hilty, J. A. (2018). The future of landscape conservation. BioScience, 68(2), 60–63. We express our gratitude to Dr. David Molden, Director Bashari, H., & Hemami, M.-R. (2013). A predictive diag- General of ICIMOD, for his inspiration and for providing nostic model for wild sheep (Ovis orientalis) habitat the required facilities. We are also thankful the suitability in Iran. Journal for Nature Conservation, 21 Governments of China, India, and Myanmar for their (5), 319–325. continuous support for this initiative. We express our Beger, M., Grantham, H. S., Pressey, R. L., Wilson, K. A., special thanks to Dr. Ranbeer Singh Rawal, Director of Peterson, E. L., Dorfman, D., . . . Possingham, H. P. the GB Pant National Institute of Himalayan (2010). Conservation planning for connectivity across Environment and Sustainable Development, India and marine, freshwater, and terrestrial realms. Biological Mr. Win Naing Thaw, Ministry of Natural Resources and Conservation, 143, 565–575. Environmental Conservation, Myanmar for their guidance Beier, P., Majka, D. R., & Newell, S. L. (2009). Uncertainty and support. The ﬁnancial support received from the analysis of least-cost modeling for designing wildlife Austrian Development Agency, and GIZ for conducting linkages. Ecological Applications, 19(8), 2067-2077. this analysis is highly appreciated. doi:10.1890/08-1898.1 Bharti, R. R., Adhikari, B. S., & Rawat, G. S. (2012). Assessing vegetation changes in timberline ecotone of Disclosure statement Nanda Devi National Park, Uttarakhand. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and No potential conﬂict of interest was reported by the Geoinformation, 18, 472–479. authors. Bland, L. M., Bielby, J., Kearney, S., Orme, C. D. L., Watson, J. E., & Collen, B. (2017). Toward reassessing data-deﬁcient species were prepared independently spe- Funding cies. Conservation Biology, 31(3), 531–539. Blandford, W. T. (1872). Account of the visit to the eastern This work was supported by the Austrian Development and northern frontiers of independent Sikkim, with Agency and GIZ . notes on zoology of the alpine and sub-alpine region, Part II, Zoology. Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal, 40 (2), 367–420. ORCID Boitani, L., Sinibaldi, I., Corsi, F., De Biase, A., d’Inzillo Carranza, I., Ravagli, M., . . . Trapanese, P. (2008). Kabir Uddin http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2711-5791 Distribution of medium to large-sized African mammals based on habitat suitability models. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17, 605–621. References Brandt, J. S., Allendorf, T., Radeloﬀ, V., & Brooks, J. (2017). Eﬀects of national forest-management regimes on Adhikari, D., Barik, S. K., & Upadhaya, K. (2012). Habitat unprotected forests of the Himalaya. Conservation distribution modelling for reintroduction of Ilex khasi- Biology, 31(6), 1271–1282. ana Purk., a critically endangered tree species of Brooks, T. M., Mittermeier, R. A., Da Fonseca, G. A. B., Northeastern India. Ecological Engineering,40, 37-43. Gerlach, J., Hoﬀmann, M., Lamoreux, J. F., . . . doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2011.12.004 Rodrigues, A. S. L. (2006). Global biodiversity conserva- Alagador, D., Trivino, M., Cerdeira, J. O., Brás, R., tion priorities. Science, 313,58–61. Cabeza, M., & Araújo, M. B. (2012). Linking like with Brunner, J., Talbott, K., & Elkin, C. (1998) World resources like: Optimising connectivity between institute, forest frontiers initiative. Logging Burma‘s fron- environmentally-similar habitats. Landscape Ecology, tier forests: Resources and the regime. Retrieved from 27, 291–301. http://www.wri.org/ﬃ/burma/index.html Alamgir, M., Mukul, S. A., & Turton, S. M. (2015). Buruso, F. H. (2018). Habitat suitability analysis for hippo- Modelling spatial distribution of critically endangered potamus (H. amphibious) using GIS and remote sensing Asian elephant and Hoolock gibbon in Bangladesh forest in Lake Tana and its environs, Ethiopia. Environmental ecosystems under a changing climate. Applied Systems Research, 6(1), 1–15p6. Geography, 60,10–19. Chettri, N., Sharma, E., & Thapa, R. (2009). Long term Ali, A., Zhou, Z., Waseem, M., Khan, M. F., Ali, I., monitoring using transect and landscape approaches Asad, M., & Qashqaei, A. T. (2017). An assessment of within Hindu Kush Himalayas. I, in: E. Sharma (ed.). food habits and altitudinal distribution of the Asiatic Proceedings on International Mountain Biodiversity black bear (Ursus thibetanus) in the Western Conference. 16–18 November 2008. pp 201–208. Himalayas, Pakistan. Journal of Natural History, 51 (ICIMOD, Kathmandu, Nepal). (11–12), 689–701. Chettri, N., Shakya, B., Thapa, R., & Sharma, E. (2008). Areendran, G., Puri, K., Raj, K., Mazumdar, S., Status of protected area system in the Hindu Razali, S. M., Suk-Ueng, K., & Nuruddin, A. A. (2017). Kush-Himalaya: An analysis of PA coverage. Baseline mapping for Namdapha National Park in International Journal Biodiversity Science and Arunachal Pradesh, India using geospatial tools. Management, 4(3), 164–178. Malaysian Journal of Remote Sensing & GIS, 6(2), 1–9. GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 199 Chettri, N., & Sharma, E. (2016). Reconciling the mountain Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Landscape Ecology, 22, biodiversity conservation and human wellbeing: Drivers 765–772. of biodiversity loss and new approaches in the Gupta, S., Mondal, K., Sankar, K., & Qureshi, Q. (2012). Hindu-Kush Himalayas. Proceedings of the Indian Abundance and habitat suitability model for Ratel National Science Academy, 82,53–73. (Mellivora capensis) in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Western Chettri, N., Sharma, E., Shakya, B., & Bajracharya, B. India. Wildlife Biology in Practice, 8(1), 13–22. (2007). Developing forested conservation corridors in Harris, R. B. (2008). Muntiacus crinifrons, in: IUCN 2012. the Kangchenjunga Landscape, Eastern Himalaya. IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2012.2. Mountain Research and Development, 27, 211–214. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 26 June 2018. Chettri, N., Sharma, E., Shakya, B., Thapa, R., Hooker, J. D. (1849). Notes of naturalist. Bajracharya, B., Uddin, K., . . . Choudhury, D. (2010). Himalayan Journal, 1, 123-124. Biodiversity in the Eastern Himalayas: Status, trends and Huck, M., Jędrzejewski, W., Borowik, T., Miłosz-Cielma, vulnerability to climate change: Climate change impact M., Schmidt, K., Jędrzejewska, B., . . . Mysłajek, R. W. and vulnerability in the Eastern Himalayas – Technical (2010). Habitat suitability, corridors and dispersal bar- report 2. Kathmandu, Nepal: ICIMOD. riers for large carnivores in Poland. Acta Theriologica, 55 Chettri, N., Uddin, K., Chaudhary, S., & Sharma, E. (2013). (2), 177–192. Linking spatio-temporal land cover change to biodiver- ICIMOD. (2009). Consultation report on ‘Regional experience sity conservation in Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, sharing consultation on the landscape approach to biodiver- Nepal. Diversity, 5, 335–351. sity conservation and management in the Eastern Cushmana, S. A., & Landguth, E. L. (2012). Multi-taxa Himalayas: Towards developing the Brahmaputra-Salween population connectivity in the Northern rocky Landscape’.24–28 May 2009, Tengchong Country, Yunnan mountains. Ecological Modelling, 231, 101–112. Province, China. Kathmandu, Nepal: Author. Datta, A., Pansa, J., Madhusudan, M. D., & Mishra, C. ICIMOD (2012). Towards developing the Brahmaputra- (2003). Discovery of the leaf deer Muntiacus putaoensis Salween Landscape – Report on the experts regional in Arunachal Pradesh: An addition to the large mam- consultation for transboundary biodiversity manage- mals of India. Current Science, 84(3), 454–458. ment and climate change adaptation. ICIMOD De, A., & Tiwari, A. K. (2008). Estimation of Patchiness: Working Paper 2012/4. (Author, Kathmandu, Nepal). A measure of fragmentation in the Rajaji- Corbett ICIMOD. (2018). Landscape initiative for Far-eastern National Parks and adjoining areas, Uttarakhand, Himalaya regional feasibility assessment, A synthesis of India. International Journal of Ecology and the country feasibility reports from China, India, and Environmental Sciences, 34(4), 345–349. Myanmar. Kathmandu, Nepal: Author. Di Gregorio, A. (2005). Land Cover Classiﬁcation System IUCN (2018). The IUCN red list of threatened species. (LCCS), version 2: Classiﬁcation concepts and user man- Version 2017–3. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on ual. FAO environment and natural resources service ser- 26 June 2018 ies, No. 8. Rome: FAO. Kark, S., Tulloch, A., Gordon, A., Mazor, T., Bunnefeld, N., Dinerstein, E., Olson, D., Joshi, A., Vynne, C., & Levin, N. (2015). Cross-boundary collaboration: Key Burgess, N. D., Wikramanayake, E., . . . Saleem, M. to the conservation puzzle. Current Opinion in (2017). An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half Environmental Sustainability, 12,12–24. the terrestrial realm. BioScience, 67(6), 534–545. Kraaijenbrink, P. D. A., Bierkens, M. F. P., Lutz, A. F., & Forrest, J. L., Wikramanayake, E., Shrestha, R., Immerzeel, W. W. (2017). Impact of a global tempera- Areendran, G., Gyeltshen, K., Maheshwari, A., . . . ture rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius on Asia’s glaciers. Nature, Thapa, K. (2012). Conservation and climate change: 549(7671), 257. Assessing the vulnerability of snow leopard habitat to Kremen, C., & Merenlender, A. M. (2018). Landscapes that tree line shift in the Himalaya. Biological Conservation, work for biodiversity and people. Science, 362(6412), 150, 129–135. eaau6020. Fuller, T., Munguıa, M., Mayﬁeld, M., Sanchez-Cordero, Leimgruber, P., Kelly, D. S., Steininger, M. K., Brunner, J., V.,& Sarkar,S. (2006). Incorporating connectivity Müller, T., & Songer, M. (2005). Forest cover change into conservation planning: A multi-criteria case patterns in Myanmar (Burma) 1990–2000. study from central Mexico. Biological Conservation, Environmental Conservation, 32(4), 356–364. 133,131–142. Lenoir, J., & Svenning, J. C. (2015). Climate-related range Fung, E., Pablo, I., Lenin, C., Sergio, V., Nelson, Z., shifts–A global multidimensional synthesis and new Freddy, A., . . . Zayra, R. (2017). Mapping conservation research directions. Ecography, 38(1), 15–28. priorities and connectivity pathways under climate Leonard, P. B., Baldwin, R. F., & Hanks, R. D. (2017). change for tropical ecosystems. Climatic Change, 141 Landscape-scale conservation design across biotic (1), 77–92. realms: Sequential integration of aquatic and terrestrial Garshelis, D. L., & Steinmetz, R. (IUCN SSC Bear Specialist landscapes. Scientiﬁc Reports, 7(1), 14556. Group) (2008). Ursus thibetanus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Li, W., Clauzel, C., Dai, Y., Wu, G., Giraudoux, P., & Li, L. red list of threatened species. Version 2012.2. www.iucn (2017). Improving landscape connectivity for the redlist.org. Downloaded on 26 June 2018. Yunnan snub-nosed monkey through cropland refores- GLOVIS (2012). United States Geological Survey, Global tation using graph theory. Journal for Nature Visualization Viewer (GLOVIS) Earth Resources Conservation, 38,46–55. Observation and Science Center (EROS). Retrieved Lodhi, M. S., Samal, P. K., Chaudhry, S., Palni, L. M. S., & from: http://glovis.usgs.gov/ Dhyani, P. P. (2014). Land cover mapping for Graves,T.A.,Farley,S., Goldstein,M.I.,&Servheen,C. Namdapha National Park (Arunachal Pradesh), India (2007). Identiﬁcation of functional corridors with using harmonized land cover legends. Journal of the movement characteristics of brown bears on the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 42(2), 461–467. 200 K. UDDIN ET AL. Macauley, M. K. (2009). Earth observations in social Pradhan, S., Saha, G. K., & Khan, J. A. (2001). Ecology of science research for management of natural resources the red panda Ailurus fulgens in the Singhalila National and the environment: Identifying the Landsat Park, Darjeeling, India. Biological Conservation, 98(1), contribution. The Journal of Terrestrial Observation, 1 11–18. (2), 31–51. Rabinowitz, A., Amato, G., & Saw Tun, K. (1998). Mittermeier, R. A., Turner, W. R., Larsen, F. W., Discovery of the black muntjac, Muntiacus crinifrons Brooks, T. M., & Gascon, C. (2011). Global biodiversity (Artiodactyla, Cervidae), in northern Myanmar. 1451 conservation: The critical role of hotspots. In Mammalia, 62(1), 105–108. F. E. Zachos & J. C. Habel (Eds.), Biodiversity hotspots, Rabinowitz, A. R., Myint, T., Khaing, S. T., & biodiversity hotspots (pp. 3–22). Berlin Heidelberg: Rabinowitz, S. (1999). Description of the leaf deer Springer. (Muntiacus putaoensis), a new species of muntjac from Mittermeier, R. A., Gils, P. R., Hoﬀman, M., Pilgrim, J., northern Myanmar. Journal of Zoology (London), 249, Brooks, T., Mittermeier, C. G., . . . Da Fonseca, G. A. B. 427–435. (2005). Hotspots revisited. Earth’s biologically richest and Rao, M., Htun, S., Platt, S. G., Tizard, R., Poole, C., most endangered terrestrial ecoregions. USA: CEMEX. Myint, T., & Watson, J. E. (2013). Biodiversity conserva- Molden, D., Sharma, E., Shrestha, A. B., Chettri, N., tion in a changing climate: A review of threats and Shrestha, N. P., & Kotru, R. (2017). Advancing regional implications for conservation planning in Myanmar. and tTransboundary cCooperation in the cConﬂict- Ambio, 42(7), 789–804. pProne Hindu Kush–Himalaya. Mountain Research and Ren, G. P., Yang, Y., He, X., Li, G., Gao, Y., Huang, Z., . . . Development, 37(4), 502–508. Xiao, W. (2017). Habitat evaluation and conservation Nandy, S., Kushwaha, S. P. S., & Gaur, P. (2012). framework of the newly discovered and critically endan- Identiﬁcation of Swamp Deer (Cervus duvauceli duvau- gered black snub-nosed monkey. Biological celi Cuvier) potential habitat in Jhilmil Jheel conserva- Conservation, 209, 273–279. tion reserve, Uttarakhand, India using multi-criteria Roever, C. L., van Aarde, R. J., & Leggett, K. (2013). analysis. Environmental Management, 49, 902–914. Functional connectivity within conservation networks: Naniwadekar, R., Mishra, C., Isvaran, K., Delineating corridors for African elephants. Biological Madhusudan, M. D., & Datta, A. (2015). Looking Conservation, 157, 128–135. beyond parks: The conservation value of unprotected Roga, N. B., Ferguson, W., & Bagoora, F. (2017). areas for hornbills in Arunachal Pradesh, Eastern Transboundary conservation areas in African moun- Himalaya. Oryx, 49(2), 303–311. tains: Opportunities and challenges for addressing global Naniwadekar, R., Shukla, U., Isvaran, K., & Datta, A. change. Earth Sciences, 6(6), 117. (2015). Reduced hornbill abundance associated with Rouget, M., Cowling, R. M., Lombard, A. T., Knight, A. T., low seed arrival and altered recruitment in a hunted & Kerley, G. H. (2006). Designing large-scale conserva- and logged tropical forest. PLoS One, 10(3), e0120062. tion corridors for pattern and process. Conservation Noss, R. F. (1983). A regional landscape approach to main- Biology, 20(2), 549–561. tain diversity. BioScience, 33, 700–706. Sarkar, S., Mayﬁeld, M., Cameron, S., Fuller, T., & Noss, R. F., Platt, W. J., Sorrie, B. A., Weakley, A. S., Garson, J. (2007). Conservation area networks for the Means, D. B., Costanza, J., & Peet, R. K. (2015). How Indian region: Systematic methods and future prospects. global biodiversity hotspots may go unrecognized: Himalayan Journal of Sciences, 4(6), 27–40. Lessons from the North American Coastal Plain. Schild, A. (2008). The case of the Hindu Kush-Himalayas: Diversity and Distributions, 21(2), 236–244. ICIMOD’s position on climate change and mountain Nunez, T. A., Lawler, J. J., Mcrae, B. H., Pierce, D. J., systems. Mountain Research and Development, 28, Krosby, M. B., Kavanagh, D. M., . . . Tewksbury, J. J. 328–331. (2013). Connectivity planning to address climate Secretariat of the Convention of Biological Diversity change. Conservation Biology, 27(2), 407–416. (CBD). (2004). Programme of work on protected areas Palomo,I.(2017). Climate change impacts on ecosys- (CBD programme of work). Montreal, Canada: temservicesinhighmountainareas:Aliterature Secretariat of the Convention of Biological Diversity. review. Mountain Research and Development, 37(2), Sharma, E., Chettri, N., Gurung, J., & Shakya, B. (2007). 179–187. Landscape approach in biodiversity conservation: Parent, R. J., & Hurd, J. D. (2012) Landscape fragmentation A regional cooperation framework for implementation of tool V2. Laboratory for Earth resources information the convention on biological diversity in Kangchenjunga systems, University of Conneticut. Retrieved form: landscape. Kathmandu, Nepal: ICIMOD. http://clear.uconn.edu/tools/lft/lft2/accessed . Sharma, E., Chettri, N., & Oli, K. P. (2010). Mountain Pauchard, A., Kueﬀer, C., Dietz, H., Daehler, C. C., biodiversity conservation and management: Alexander, J., Edwards, P. J., . . . Jakobs, G. (2009). A paradigm shift in policies and practices in the Hindu Ain‘t no mountain high enough: Plant invasions reach- Kush-Himalayas. Ecological Research, 25, 905–923. ing new elevations. Frontiers in Ecology and the Sharma, M., Areendran, G., Raj, K., Sharma, A., & Environment, 7(9), 479–486. Joshi, P. K. (2016). Multitemporal analysis of forest Pei, S. (1995). Banking on biodiversity: Report on the regio- fragmentation in Hindu Kush Himalaya—A case study nal consultations on biodiversity assessment in the Hindu from Khangchendzonga Biosphere Reserve, Sikkim, Kush - Himalaya. Kathmandu, Nepal: ICIMOD. India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 188 Phuntsho, K., Chettri, N., & Oli, K. P. (2012). (10), 596. Mainstreaming community-based conservation in Sherpa, L. N., Peniston, B., Lama, W., & Richard, C. (2003). a transboundary mountain landscape – Lessons from Hands around everest: Transboundary cooperation for Kangchenjunga. Kathmandu, Nepal: ICIMOD. conservation and sustainable livelihoods. Kathmandu, GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 201 Nepal: International Centre for Integrated Mountain patterns with morphological image processing. DevelopmentI CIMOD. Landscape Ecology, 22(2), 171–177. Shrestha, A. B., Wake, C. P., Mayewski, P. A., & Dibb, J. E. Wang, X., Choudhury, A., Yonzon, P., Wozencraft, C., & (1999). Maximum temperature trend in the Himalaya Zaw, T. (2008). Ailurus fulgens, in: IUCN 2012. iucn red and its vicinity: An analysis based on temperature list of threatened species. Version 2012.2. www.iucnred records from Nepal for the period 1971-`94. Journal of list.org. Downloaded on 26 June 2018. Climate, 12, 2775–2786. Wang, Y. H., Yang, K. C., Bridgman, C. L., & Lin, L. K. Shrestha, U. B., Shrestha, S., Chaudhary, P., & (2008). Habitat suitability modelling to correlate gene Chaudhary, R. P. (2010). How rRepresentative is the ﬂow with landscape connectivity. Landscape Ecology, pProtected aAreas sSystem of Nepal? A gGap aAnalysis 23, 989–1000. bBased on gGeophysical and bBiological fFeatures. Wangchuk, T. R., Wegge, P., & Sangay, T. (2016). Habitat Mountain Research and Development, 30(3), 282–294. and diet of Bhutan takin Budorcas taxicolor whitei dur- Singh, G., Velmurugan, A., & Dakhate, M. P. (2009). ing summer in Jigme Dorji National Park, Bhutan. Geospatial approach for tiger habitat evaluation and Journal of Natural History, 50(11–12), 759–770. distribution in Corbett Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of Wikramanayake, E., Dinerstein, E., Loucks, C. J., the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 37(4), 573–585. Olson, D. M., Morrison, J., Lamoreux, J., . . . Hedao, P. Song, Y. L., Smith, A. T., & MacKinnon, J. (2008). Budorcas (2002). Terrestrial Ecoregions of the Indo-Paciﬁc: taxicolor, in: IUCN 2012. IUCN red list of threatened A conservation assessment. Washington: Island Press. species. Version 2012.2. www.iucnredlist.org. Wikramanayake, E., Dinerstein, E., Seidensticker, J., Downloaded on 26 June 2018. Lumpkin, S., Pandav, B., Shrestha, M., . . . Than, U. (2011). SRTM. (2012). Hole-ﬁlled SRTM for the globe Version 4. A landscape-based conservation strategy to double the wild Retrieved from: http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org/ tiger population. Conservation Letters, 4, 219–227. Stokes, D., & Morrison, P. (2003). GIS-based conservation Wikramanayake, E. P., Dinerstein, E., Robinson, J. G., planning: A powerful tool to be used with caution. Karanth, U., Rabinowitz, A., Olson, D., . . . Bolze, D. Conservation in Practice, 4(1), 38–42. (1998). An ecology-based method for deﬁning priorities Store, R., & Jokimäki, J. (2003). A GIS-based multi-scale for large mammal conservation: The tiger as a case approach to habitat suitability modeling. Ecological study. Conservation Biology, 12, 864–878. Modelling, 169(1), 1–15. Worboys, G. L., Francis, W., & Lockwood, M. (Eds). Stotz, D. F., Harris, E. J., Moskovits, H. K., Yi, S., & (2010). Connectivity conservation management: A global Adlemann, G. W. (eds) (2003) Rapid biological inven- guide. London, UK: Earthscan. tories report no. 4. (Chicago: The Field Museum). Worboys, G. L., & Pulsford, I. (2011). Connectivity con- Takhtajan, A. (1969). Flowering plants - Origin and disper- servation in Australian landscapes. Report prepared for sal. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd. the Australian Government Department of Tang, Y., Winkler, J. A., Viña, A., Liu, J., Zhang, Y., Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Zhang, X., . . . Zhao, Z. (2018). Uncertainty of future Communities on behalf of the State of the projections of species distributions in mountainous Environment 2011 Committee. Canberra: DSEWPaC. regions. PloS one, 13(1), e0189496. Xu, J., Grumbine, E. R., Shrestha, A., Eriksson, M., Theobald, D. M., Crooks, K. R., & Norman, J. B. (2011). Yang, X., Wang, Y., & Wilkes, A. (2009). The melting Assessing eﬀects of land use on landscape connectivity: Himalayas: Cascading eﬀects of climate change on water, Loss and fragmentation of western US forests. Ecological biodiversity, and livelihoods. Conservation Biology, 23 Applications, 21(7), 2445–2458. (3), 520–530. Timmins, R. J., Duckworth, J. W., & Zaw, T. (2008a). Xu, W., Viña, A., Kong, L., Pimm, S. L., Zhang, J., Muntiacus putaoensis, in: IUCN 2012. IUCN red list of Yang, W., . . . Ouyang, Z. (2017). Reassessing the con- threatened species. Version 2012.2. www.iucnredlist.org. servation status of the giant panda using remote sensing. Downloaded on 26 June 2018 Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1(11), 1635. Timmins, R. J., Long, B., Duckworth, J. W., Ying-Xiang, Yan, W. B., Zeng, Z. G., Gong, H. S., He, X. B., Liu, X. Y., W., & Zaw, T. (2008b). Arctonyx collaris, in: IUCN 2012. Si, K. C., & Song, Y. L. (2017). Habitat use and selection IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2012.2. by takin in the Qinling Mountains, China. Wildlife www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 26 June 2018. Research, 43(8), 671–680. Uddin, K., Chaudhary, S., Chettri, N., Kotru, R., Murthy, Yang, Y. (2009). Biodiversity Conservation in M., Chaudhary, R. P., Ning, W., Shrestha, S. M., & Transboundary Landscapes (BCTL). A ﬁnal technical Gautam, S. K. (2015). The changing land cover and report submitted to ICIMOD (unpublished). fragmenting forest on the roof of the world: A case Yonzon, P. B. (1989). Ecology and conservation of the red study in nepal's kailash sacred landscape. Landscape panda in the Nepal-Himalayas. Unpub. Ph.D. thesis, and Urban Planning, 141, 1-10. doi:10.1016/j. University of Maine, Orono. landurbplan.2015.04.003 Zhang, M. G., Slik, J. F., & Ma, K. P. (2017). Priority areas Vasilijević,M.,&Pezold,T.(2011). Crossing borders for nature. for the conservation of perennial plants in China. European examples of transboundary conservation (pp. viii + Biological Conservation, 210,56–63. 72). Gland, Switzerland and Belgrade, Serbia: IUCN Zhang, M. G., Zhou, J. K., Chen, W. Y., Slik, F. J. W., Programme Oﬃce for South-Eastern Europe. Cannon, C. H., & Raes, N. (2012). Using species distri- Vina,A.,Bearer,S.,Chen,X.,He,G.,Linderman,M.,An,L., ... bution modeling to improve conservation and land use Liu, J. (2007). Temporal changes In Giant Panda habitat planning of Yunnan, China. Biological Conservation, connectivity across boundaries of Wolong Nature Reserve, 153, 257–264. China. Ecological Applications, 17(4), 1019–1030. Zhang, Z., Hu, J., Yang, J., Li, M., & Wei, F. (2009). Food Vogt, P., Riitters, K. H., Estreguil, C., Kozak, J., habits and space-use of red pandas Ailurus fulgens in the Wade, T. G., & Wickham, J. D. (2007). Mapping spatial Fengtongzhai nature reserve, China: Food eﬀects and 202 K. UDDIN ET AL. behavioural responses. Acta Theriologica, 54(3), on Scientiﬁc, Technical and Technological Advice of the 225–234. Convention on Biological Diversity, 10–21 May 2010, Zipkin, E. F., DeWan, A., & Royle, A. J. (2009). Impacts of Nairobi, Kenya, Technical Series No. 51. Montreal, forest fragmentation on species richness: A hierarchical SCBD, 142–144. approach to community modeling. Journal of Applied Zomer, R. J., & Oli, K. P. (2011). Kailash sacred land- Ecology, 46(4), 815–822. scape conservation initiative: Feasibility assessment Zomer, R., Sharma, E., Oli, K. P., & Chettri, N. (2010). report.Kathmandu,Nepal:ICIMOD. Linking biodiversity conservation and climate change Zomer, R. J., Trabucco, A., Metzger, M. J., Wang, M., perspectives in bio-culturally rich transboundary areas Oli, K. P., & Xu, J. (2014). Projected climate change in the Kailash Sacred Landscape Region of China, India, impacts on spatial distribution of bioclimatic zones and and Nepal. In Biodiversity and Climate Change: ecoregions within the Kailash Sacred Landscape of Achieving the 2020 targets. Abstracts of Posters China, India, Nepal. Climatic Change, 125(3–4), Presented at the 14th Meeting of the Subsidiary Body 445–460.

Journal

Geology Ecology and Landscapes – Taylor & Francis

Published: Jul 2, 2020

Keywords: GIS and remote sensing; habitat suitability; models; threatened species; transboundary landscape; regional cooperation

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Integrating geospatial tools and species for conservation planning in a data-poor region of the Far Eastern Himalayas

Integrating geospatial tools and species for conservation planning in a data-poor region of the Far Eastern Himalayas

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Integrating geospatial tools and species for conservation planning in a data-poor region of the Far Eastern Himalayas

Integrating geospatial tools and species for conservation planning in a data-poor region of the Far Eastern Himalayas

References (90)

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies