[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Next Article in Journal
Assessment of Spatial Dynamics of Forest Cover in Lomami National Park (DR Congo), 2008–2024: Implications for Conservation and Sustainable Ecosystem Management
Previous Article in Journal
Representativeness, Complementarity, and Degree of Local Extirpation Risk for Thamnophis Species Inside and Outside of Protected Areas of Mexico
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Ecologies
Volume 6
Issue 1
10.3390/ecologies6010001
ecologies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Winter Diet Pattern of Snow Leopard and Factors Affecting Livestock Depredation in Nubri Valley of Manaslu Conservation Area, Nepal

by
Sachet Timilsina
1,*,
Bishnu Prasad Pandey
1,
Bijaya Neupane
2,3,
Bishnu Prasad Bhattarai
4,
Thakur Silwal
2,
Ajit Tumbahangphe
5,
Ashok Subedi
5,
Ganesh Pant
6,
Zdenka Krenova
7 and
Bikram Shrestha
7,8,*
1
Institute of Forestry Hetauda Campus, Tribhuvan University, Hetauda 44100, Nepal
2
Institute of Forestry Pokhara Campus, Tribhuvan University, Pokhara 33700, Nepal
3
Department of Forest Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
4
Central Department of Zoology, Institute of Science and Technology, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu 44600, Nepal
5
National Trust for Nature Conservation, Lalitpur 44700, Nepal
6
Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Babar Mahal, Kathmandu 44600, Nepal
7
Department of Biodiversity Research, Global Change Research Institute, Czech Academy of Sciences, 60300 Brno, Czech Republic
8
Conservation Development Foundation Nepal (CODEFUND), Kathmandu 44600, Nepal
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Ecologies 2025, 6(1), 1; https://doi.org/10.3390/ecologies6010001
Submission received: 24 October 2024 / Revised: 17 December 2024 / Accepted: 18 December 2024 / Published: 26 December 2024
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>Map of study area showing camera trap locations of Nubri Valley.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>(<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) Two snow leopard individuals captured by camera trap at different locations in the study area. Photo credit: Bikram Shrestha and Sachet Timilsina.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Diet composition of snow leopards in Nubri Valley of Manaslu Conservation Area.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Cumulative frequency of occurrence of prey species of snow leopard.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Prey selection by snow leopards in Nubri Valley.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Education category status of respondents.</p> ">
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Limited information exists on the diet of snow leopards (SL), factors affecting livestock mortality, and local attitudes toward SL conservation in the Manaslu Conservation Area (MCA), Nepal. Therefore, we aim to investigate the dietary preferences of SL, the factors influencing livestock mortality, and local conservation attitudes. From November 2021 to January 2022, 23 SL scats were collected along 24 transects (total length: 21.6 km) in MCA. Camera traps, set within 4 km × 4 km grids at 28 stations for 661 trap nights, were used to assess prey availability. Jacobs’ index calculated prey preference, while a Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) assessed factors linked to livestock depredation. Additionally, 65 households from two villages were randomly selected in a survey on depredation and conservation attitudes. Scat analysis identified six wild prey species, including pika (Ochotona sp.), Himalayan tahr (Hemitragus jemlahicus), and blue sheep (Pseudois nayaur), as well as three domestic species: ox/cow, yak, and horse. Himalayan tahr had the highest presence in the SL diet (40%). Despite pika having the highest Relative Abundance Index (RAI), SL strongly preferred horses and avoided pika. Larger prey, such as horses, Himalayan tahr, and blue sheep, were highly preferred. Households with more livestock experienced higher depredation rates. Local attitudes toward SL conservation were generally positive, with an average score of 2.59. We recommend an integrated SL conservation plan in MCA, incorporating local participation, income diversification, and employment programs to mitigate conflicts and promote coexistence.

1. Introduction

Large carnivores, despite being few in number due to their high energy needs, significantly shape the community structure by affecting food availability and interactions within the ecosystem [1,2]. Most of the carnivores in the mountain region are responsible for the consumption of both wild and domestic prey; however, their domestic consumption could affect the livelihood of local communities [3]. The livelihood of the people in high mountain regions of Nepal primarily depends on animal husbandry, particularly Chauri (Yak), goats, and sheep. High-altitude herding is one of the predominant occupations practiced in these regions [4].
The snow leopard (SL) holds a prominent status as a conservation icon in the mountainous regions of Asia [5], serving as an indicator of an ecologically sound and undisturbed ecosystem due to its role as a top-order predator [6]. It is a unique flag species of the mountain ecosystem. The species has been listed as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species [7] and Appendix-I category of CITES [8]. Similarly, the Government of Nepal safeguards it as a protected species under Schedule-I species in the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1973 (Fifth Amm. 2017) [9]. The global population of SLs ranges from 2710 to 3386 mature individuals [7], with 301 to 400 in Nepal [9]. In Nepal, SL population is distributed in both protected areas (Kanchenjunga, Gaurishankar, Manaslu, Annapurna, conservation areas; Makalu Barun, Sagarmatha, Langtang, Shey Phoksundo, Api Nampa national parks; Dhorpatan hunting reserve) and non-protected areas (Dolpo, Humla, Mugu and Myagdi) [9,10].
One SL needs 1.5 kg of meat every day ([5], as cited in [11]). It normally feeds mostly on wild ungulates, especially caprine, with the addition of birds and smaller mammals like marmots and pikas [12]. Typically, the specific prey species hunted by these predators at specific locations are wild sheep and goats such as blue sheep (Pseudois nayaur), Siberian ibex (Capra sibirica), markhor (Capra falconeri), and Tibetan argali (Ovis ammon); however, their diet may also encompass pikas, hares, and various game birds like chukar partridge (Alectoris chukar) and snowcock (Tetraogallus sp.) [7,13]. In Nepal, Chetri et al. [14] observed wild prey such as blue sheep, Himalayan tahr, Tibetan argali, Himalayan marmot, wooly hare, Royle’s pika, different species of rodents, and birds. SLs commonly prey on livestock throughout the regions they inhabit [15,16]. SL males are a greater threat to livestock than SL females [14,17].
Some factors that contribute to depredation/mortality of livestock caused by SLs include inadequate guarding and husbandry practices, the utilization of poorly constructed enclosures for nighttime, grazing in high-risk areas (particularly in winter), and entrusting the protection of livestock to children rather than adults [18]. However, Chetri et al. [19] highlighted the previously investigated factors affecting livestock depredation, such as habitat, density of predators, density of livestock, and herding practices. In contrast to these factors, some other factors, like grazing days in the pasture, number of small-bodied livestock [20], distance to livestock sheds, distance to path, aspect, and distance to the motor road [17], are responsible for livestock depredation by SLs. However, social factors such as family size and education status also need to be studied to determine how these factors are responsible for livestock depredation by SL. Households with larger family sizes are likely to experience lower livestock depredation if adult members are actively involved in guarding, but higher depredation if responsibilities are shifted to children or less experienced individuals. Households with higher education levels are less likely to experience livestock depredation due to better awareness and implementation of modern guarding and mitigation practices. These factors could guide development programs and activities aimed at reducing human–SL conflict.
The attitudes of rural villagers toward SLs are influenced by human–SL conflict dynamics [3]; when livestock losses occur, especially, local negative perceptions of SL increase. Understanding community attitudes is crucial for effective conservation, as they shape the success of conservation efforts [21]. This understanding is especially crucial in regions where animal husbandry is the primary income source [22]. Investigating rural communities’ perspectives on wildlife conservation typically facilitates collaboration between conservationists and locals. By clarifying these attitudes, researchers contribute to the successful implementation of more inclusive and community-based conservation strategies, ultimately enhancing the sustainability of conservation initiatives [23,24]. Consequently, this research significantly contributes to both academic understanding and the practical implementation of conservation efforts in SL habitats.
Researchers such as Oli et al. [25], Wegge et al. [26], Devkota et al. [27], Shrestha et al. [16], Shrestha et al. [28], Sharma et al. [29], Thapa et al. [30], and Koju et al. [31] have conducted scat sampling to determine the dietary status of SL across various Himalayan regions of Nepal. Similarly, Oli et al. [32], Wegge et al. [26], Hanson [33], and Shahi et al. [34] studied the depredation of livestock by SLs in Nepal’s Himalayas. However, scat sampling studies covering the MCA are scarce, with only one known study by Chetri et al. [14]. Therefore, this assessment and analysis of SL diets in specific habitats provide valuable insights into their current dietary behaviors, aiding in the formulation of conservation plans for SLs and their prey species. Likewise, Tiwari et al. [35] and Karki and Panthi [17] studied factors affecting livestock depredation by SL, and specifically, Chetri et al. [19] studied the same in the Central Himalayan region of Nepal, covering MCA. While Chetri et al. [22] studied the determinants of local residents’ attitudes towards SL in the central Himalayas, including MCA, Hanson et al. [36], Kusi et al. [37], and Shahi et al. [34] studied these determinants in other Himalayan regions of Nepal. Tiwari et al. [35] highlighted that it is vital to thoroughly analyze the livestock losses specific to each site (such as a village) to develop practical solutions that can be implemented in the field. Despite the amount of research already carried out, there are still gaps in our knowledge of how household social characteristics such as family size and education influence the livestock depredation by SLs.
To improve our knowledge and support appropriate conservation of SL in MCA, this study was conducted to answer the following questions: (1) “What is the SL’s diet consumption status in MCA of Nepal?”, (2) “What are the factors highly contributing to livestock depredation by SLs?”, and (3) “What do the rural inhabitants think about SL conservation?”. Three hypotheses were tested: (H1) The SL prefers wild prey the most in its habitat. This hypothesis is based on existing studies that emphasize SLs’ natural tendency to target wild prey when prey availability is sufficient [19,38]. The study area, the MCA) has documented populations of wild prey species such as blue sheep, which form a significant part of the SL’s diet in other Himalayan regions. Furthermore, previous findings [17,20] suggest that livestock predation often increases when wild prey populations are low or when livestock grazing overlaps with SL habitats during vulnerable periods, such as winter. By testing this hypothesis, we aim to determine if similar patterns hold true for MCA, contributing to a deeper understanding of SL feeding ecology. (H2) The effects of family size and education significantly affect the livestock depredation by SLs. (H3) The attitude of local people is positive towards SL conservation in the study area.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Our research was conducted in the Nubri Valley, situated in Manaslu Conservation Area (MCA;1663 sq.km.) in the Chumnubri Rural Municipality (CNRM) of Gorkha district, Gandaki Province of Nepal (Figure 1). The geographical region of MCA extends from 84°30′ to 85°12′ longitude and 28°21′ to 28°45′ latitude, encompassing altitudes ranging from 1400 m (Jagat) to 8163 m (Mt. Manaslu) [39]. The temperature ranges from a minimum of 13 °C to a maximum of 34 °C, while rainfall varies significantly, from 530 mm during October and November to 1680 mm between June and September. The period from December to May is typically dry [40,41]. The MCA records about 2000 plant species of flora and various faunas, including 33 mammal species, 110 bird species, 11 butterfly species, and 3 reptile species in 11 different forest habitats under vegetation categories, e.g., Eastern Himalayan humid vegetation and Western Himalayan drier vegetation [41,42]. The major tree species of MCA are rhododendron, Rhododendron arboreum; oak, Quercus sp.; laurel, Laurus nobilis; pine, Pinus wallichiana; spruce, Picea smithiana; and hemlock, Tsuga dumosa [41]. Major predators include SLs, Panthera uncia; lynx, Felis lynx; red fox, Vulpes vulpes; golden jackal, Canis aureus; and brown bear, Ursus arctos, along with their prey, such as musk deer, Moschus chrysogaster; blue sheep, Pseudois nayaur; Himalayan tahr, Hemitragus jemlahicus; Himalayan serow, Capricornis sumatraensis; wooly hare, Lepus oiostolus; and Himalayan marmot, Marmota himalayana [43]. At lower elevations, cows, Bos indicus; sheep, Ovis aries; and goats, Capra hircus, are common. In contrast, at higher elevations, rearing of cows, yaks (Bos gruniens), and yak/cow hybrids are common, with some overlap in herd distribution [44].
The MCA consists of two valleys, namely Chum (eastern side) and Nubri (western side). Nubri Valley was purposively selected for the study. Farming and animal husbandry are major occupations in the valley, along with the tourism business and the trade of non-timber forest products, e.g., Yarsagumba (Cordyceps sinensis), Panchkula (Dactylorhiza hetaira), and Pakhanved (Bergenia ciliata).

2.2. Scat Collection

From 15 November 2021 to 27 January 2022, the line transects were established in Nubri Valley for scat collection using the SL Information Management System SLIMS [6]. Using topographic maps at a scale of 1:50,000, transects were set up along various land formations such as ridges, narrow valleys, trails, and cliffs where SLs were expected to roam and leave evidence of their presence [16,45,46,47]. A total of 24 transects (minimum 0.71 km to maximum 1.34 km; 0.9 km on average) covered a total distance of 21.6 km. For the authenticity of the scat samples collected, we collected them close to sign indications of SLs, such as scrapes and pugmarks, and evaluated the scat’s appearance, such as its odor, color, and size [25,27,48]. The odor and firmness of the scat reveal its age [25], along with its shiny appearance to differentiate the scat type. We used three key characteristics—consistency or shape, presence or absence of moisture, and color, along with the intensity of odor—to distinguish between fresh and old scats. We divided the scats into two types: fresh (well-shaped, high or some moisture, dark in color, and strongly odored) and very old (no moisture, discolored (faded or bright white), most of the outer casing missing, no odor, and disintegrated). We collected only fresh scat samples to ensure unbiased collection, all of which belonged to SLs. The very old scats were inconsistent in size and disintegrated, and could potentially be confused for wolves’ scat. Therefore, we omitted the very old scats from our analysis. We included SL scats for diet analysis, identifying those associated with pugmarks and scrapes nearby, and carefully checked for SL presence near camera traps. The scat of red foxes, Vulpes vulpes, or golden jackals, Canis aureus, is typically much smaller in size compared to that of SLs, while wolves’ (Canis lupus) scats are larger in diameter and length compared to SL scats [49]. The scat diameter sizes were as follows: (SL: 1.5–3 cm; red fox: 1–2.5 cm; gray wolf: 2.5 cm). The scat lengths were as follows: (SL: 4–26 cm; red fox: 3–26 cm; gray wolf: 10–31 cm) [49]. Once we detected wolf pugmarks in the transects, we carefully checked their scats and avoided including them in the SL diet analysis. Each scat sample was kept in a Ziplock bag with proper labeling (date, transect number, and sample number), whereas the other related information, such as GPS coordinates of the scat sample collection location, elevation, aspect, scat type (fresh and shiny with smell or old and without smell) and habitat characteristics of the scat collection sites were recorded. The scats collected from this research were taken to the laboratory for standard micro-histological analysis.

2.3. Assessment of Prey Availability

The camera-trap survey was used to obtain the relative abundances of prey species within the study area. Remotely activated camera traps, which included 16 Bushnell HD Trophy Cams and 32 Browning cameras, were strategically positioned along clearly defined ridgelines, valleys, and locations where SLs are prone to leaving spray, marks, or scrapes. We positioned camera traps at a height of 40–50 cm above the ground and placed them 2–3 m from the expected routes of the SLs. This arrangement enabled the capture of various sizes of mammals, including both larger and smaller species, in the recorded footage [16,38]. To correspond with the typical size of home ranges observed in female SLs [47,50], we created grids measuring 4 × 4 km using Arc GIS 10.8. We used the 4 × 4 km grid size to determine the density of SLs. However, in the case of SL’s prey, we used only capture events per 100 trap nights (Relative Abundance Index—RAI), regardless of motive, to estimate prey density. We placed cameras in one or two locations within each grid cell for a total of 28 trap locations. Within each location, we placed two cameras. We checked camera traps at intervals of 10 to 15 days, following their respective placement locations.
We assessed prey availability by recording the number of separate sightings (capture events) obtained by camera traps and calculating the captures of each species per 100 trap nights [51,52,53]. During the analysis, we considered the sighting of a single prey or a herd of prey, such as a gathering of ungulates, in the images as a singular “capture event”. The subsequent analyses were based on the frequency of these capture events per 100 nights that the traps were set, following the approach adopted by Shrestha et al. [16]. We assessed the relative availability of potential prey via RAI. The index has demonstrated its reliability in evaluating the abundance of prey for tigers in Asia [51], leopards in Africa [54], and SLs in Nepal [16]. The RAI was calculated as events per 100 camera trap nights.
R A I   =   C a p t u r e   e v e n t s   f o r   e a c h   s p e c i e s T o t a l   c a m e r a   t r a p   n i g h t s   ×   100

2.4. Analysis of Scat in Laboratory

We conducted scat analyses using 23 fresh samples collected from the transects. This research focused on a three-month winter period and did not divide the study area into zones, as we only had a total of 23 samples. We soaked every scat in water overnight and then washed them carefully over a sieve (with mesh size 1 mm). We extracted any kind of remnants present on the scats, such as bones, teeth, hooves, hair, or feathers, and then air-dried and stored them [16,27]. We took out 40–60 individual hair samples from the mesh and placed them on filter paper to soak the moisture. To avoid biases, we followed a predefined selection of taking only 10 hairs from each sample randomly for the preparation of microscopic slides. We then used the identification key and reference collection by Oli [55] and Shrestha et al. [56] to identify the prey species. It took about one month to complete the laboratory analysis in the Central Department of Zoology, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal.

2.5. Diet Composition and Prey Selection

We followed Lucherini and Crema [57] to calculate the relative frequency of occurrence (RF) and calculated the number of times specific food types appeared in a sample divided by the total number of occurrences of all food items in the sample as a percentage.
The prey selection was carried out by comparing the sample of prey consumed through the diet with the available prey captured through camera traps. Jacobs’ index (D) [58] was employed to examine the prey selectivity, as adopted by Lyngdoh et al. [13]. The formula used for this analysis was:
D = ( r i − p i ) ( r i + p i − 2 r i p i )
where r i represents the proportion of prey species, i , occurrence in scats and p i represents the proportion of prey species, i , that is available within the prey community. The range of D values spans from −1 (indicating maximum avoidance) to +1 (indicating maximum preference).

2.6. Factors Affecting Livestock Depredation by Snow Leopards

We selected the administrative unit called Ward Number 1 of CNRM, consisting of two villages (Samagaun and Samdo) with a total of 196 households [59]. These settlements were identified as zones of high human–SL conflict. Both areas are located in prime SL habitats above 2500 m, where this study recorded 44 capture events of SLs (Figure 2) through camera trapping. Villagers historically practiced rotational herding in the pasturelands, and anecdotal reports of frequent livestock attacks by SLs highlight a high incidence of human–SL conflicts, making this area a priority for the study. In remote areas, it is not feasible to interview all households, especially since half of the population moves to lower altitudes or cities during the winter seasons. Therefore, we randomly selected 65 households, representing one-third of the total population, to collect detailed livestock information. The same sample households were used to assess their attitudes toward the conservation of SLs. The semi-structured questionnaire was prepared and initially discussed with one villager (a local field assistant with under-graduate education). The criteria for selection of a local field assistant were knowing both the Nepali and Nubri languages and having some similar prior field experiences. Then, we collected the households’ socioeconomic data (age, education, religion, profession, household size, income source), livestock depredation data (livestock holding and composition (Yak, horse and domestic cattle), and livestock death count (of one year), with the local field assistant included in our team. We posed the questionnaire to the head of the family, whether male or female (see Supplementary Material).
We followed Tiwari et al.’s [35] study to select variables that affect the dependent variable livestock mortality by SL (LSM). We considered the independent factors, which were (i) the total number of livestock owned by each household (TLS), (ii) the family size of the household (FS), and (iii) the education of the herder (EC). We grouped the education data into the following categories: no education (0), primary education (1–5 class), and lower secondary education (6–8 class).

2.7. Villagers’ Attitudes Towards the Snow Leopard

Based upon the questions of Suryawanshi et al. [60] and Tiwari et al. [35], we revised and prepared six structured questions to identify the attitudes of villagers. The questions were: 1. Do you want SL to continue to live here? 2. Should we conserve SL? 3. Does SL improve the quality of the environment? 4. Should we teach children to protect SL? 5. Where should SL be protected? 6. Would you support authorities to conserve SL?
We employed the Likert scale [35], where villagers selected one category from a five-category scale, and we assigned a score to each response, ranging from −2 to +2 (see Supplementary Material for details). The five possible response categories were defined as follows:
  • Strongly agree/Absolutely yes (+2);
  • Agree/Maybe yes (+1);
  • Neutral/No idea (0);
  • Disagree/Probably not (−1);
  • Strongly disagree/Absolutely not (−2).
The attitude scores were summed across questions, and the scores ranged from −8 (highest negative attitude toward SL) to +8 (highest positive attitude toward SL). Also, we calculated total, mean, and overall attitude scores to determine the overall attitude of villagers toward SLs.

2.8. Statistical Analysis

R Studio (version 4.0.4) [61] was used for statistical tests and modeling. The count data obtained were non-normal according to the Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K–S) test. We used a Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) to evaluate the variables (total livestock holdings per households, education status of respondents, and family size of each household) linked to the mortality of livestock caused by SLs. GLMMs consider random effects and provide a more flexible approach for analyzing non-normal data [62]. Here, we used the factor “village” as a random factor for the capture of variability within two villages (Samagaun and Samdo). As the mean and variance of the count data were nearly equal, the Poisson regression was employed. Before fitting the model, Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was calculated between predictors. To avoid multi-collinearity, the variables with |r| > 0.7 were excluded from the same model. Altogether, we developed a set of 9 candidate models. We used Akaike’s Information Criterion corrected (AICc) to identify the best model due to the small sample size. The highest AICc weight and lowest AICc value determined the best model among candidates and showed that the factors had a greater influence in describing the phenomenon used by Chetri et al. [19], Tiwari et al. [35], and Lham et al. [63] in the study of livestock mortality by SLs. In R, the AICc values were identified using the package named “AICcmodavg” [64].

3. Results

3.1. Dietary Composition of Snow Leopards

A total of 23 scats were analyzed for diet, comprising six wild and three domestic species. About 48% of the scats contained evidence of a single prey species, while 39% contained remnants of two prey species, and 13% contained remnants of three different prey species. About 8.69% of the examined scats contained both hair and plant materials, such as grass and leaves from scrub species. About 56.96% of the total prey consumed were wild prey, 40% were livestock, and 3.04% were not identified. The analysis of scat showed Himalayan tahr as the most consumed prey species among all samples and horse as the most consumed livestock (Figure 3). The most rarely consumed prey species of all was rats.
The scat samples consisted of nine known prey items. The cumulative frequency curve (Figure 4) reached an asymptote after the 18th scat sample, indicating that the 23 scat samples were unbiased for the winter dietary study.

3.2. Findings on Prey Availability

A total of 544 capture events of the nine prey species were taken on 661 camera trap nights. The total RAI of wild prey was about 4.73 times greater than the RAI of domestic prey (Table 1). The RAI of pika Ochotona himalayana was the highest, and the RAI of the shrew, Soriculus nigrescens, was lowest in the case of wild species. Similarly, the RAI of ox/cow, Bos taurus, was the highest, and the RAI of horse, Equus caballus, was the lowest among domestic prey species. Overall, the prey pika had the highest RAI and the horse had the lowest RAI among all prey species.

3.3. Prey Preference

The Jacobs’ index (D), which indicates prey selection by SLs, indicated a strong preference for large-sized prey species such as horses (D = +1.0), while demonstrating a strong avoidance of small-sized prey species like pika (D = −1.0) (Figure 5). The comparatively small-sized weasel spp. (D = 0.0) was neither preferred nor avoided by SLs (randomly selected). The Himalayan tahr (D = +0.7) was the most preferred prey species among the wild prey, while pika was strongly avoided. Similarly, the horse was a strongly preferred prey species among domestic prey, while ox/cow (D = −0.6) was highly avoided.

3.4. Drivers of Livestock Depredation by Snow Leopards

The statistics of predictor (scale) and response variables are presented in the table below (Table 2). The average livestock number of each household was eight (±4.652), and the average number of family members was four (±1.927). Of the 196 interviewed households (from two villages), 65 reported livestock killed by SL, with one household reporting two incidents during the study period.
Most of our respondents (70.77%) had not gone to school, 12.31% had received primary education, and the other 16.92% had received lower-secondary-level education (Figure 6).
There was a significant, positive Pearson’s product–moment correlation between livestock loss caused by SLs and the total livestock holdings of each household (r = 0.348, df = 63, p < 0.01). The least positive correlation was between livestock loss caused by SLs and the family size of households (r = 0.092, df = 63, p > 0.05), but the correlation between two independent variables—total livestock of the household and family size—was weak (r = 0.225, df = 63, p > 0.05). Altogether, we compared a total of nine candidate models to explore the factors affecting livestock depredation due to SLs (Table 3).
Out of three pre-determined predictor variables, a single variable, total livestock holding per household (TLS), significantly affected the livestock mortality by SLs. The outcome of the model showed that the likelihood of livestock mortality by SLs increased with an increase in the total livestock holdings per household (Table 4).

3.5. Villagers’ Attitudes Towards Snow Leopard Conservation

The average value reflecting the overall attitude regarding conserving SLs was found to be 2.59. Herders exhibited a varied range of responses, such as positive, neutral, and negative, with scores from +2 to −1 toward the conservation of SLs. The majority of respondents showed a positive attitude to overall questions (Table 5). Altogether, the negative response was less, but neutral responses were high.
Out of the total respondents, 43.08% of respondents wanted SLs to live in MCA, while 9.23% did not want SLs to live, and the other 47.69% were unsure. Similarly, 9.23% of the respondents strongly agreed and 52.31% just agreed that SLs should be conserved. Another 10.77% of respondents disagreed, and 27.69% were neutral about the conservation of SLs. About 35.38% of respondents agreed that SLs improve the quality of the environment, while 21.54% disagreed with the statement, and the other 43.08% were unsure. About 56.92% of respondents agreed that children should be taught to protect SLs, 6.15% did not agree with the statement, and 36.92% were unsure. Also, about 12.31% suggested that SLs should be protected across their range (both protected areas and village areas), while 55.38% suggested that this should occur only in protected areas where people do not live. Similarly, 7.69% of respondents suggested protecting SLs at zoos, and 24.62% of respondents did not suggest that SLs should be protected anywhere and stayed neutral. Regarding the question about supporting authorities in conserving SLs, 43.08% agreed to offer support either with time or money, 15.38% simply disagreed (saying they were busy with their job), and 41.54% of respondents were not sure about it.

4. Discussion

4.1. Diet Composition and Prey Preference

This study identified the main prey species of SLs in the study area during the winter season based on the analysis of 23 fresh scat samples collected from locations with prominent signs of SL activity. The findings revealed that SLs primarily prey on species adapted to high-altitude environments, which highlights their critical role in maintaining the ecological balance in their habitat. In comparison, Maheshwari and Sharma [65] analyzed nine scat samples of SLs from Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh, India, while Maheshwari et al. [66] studied nine scat samples from the Kargil and Drass regions of Jammu and Kashmir, India. Both studies also focused on identifying prey species consumed by SLs, but with a smaller sample size. These studies similarly documented the reliance of SLs on locally available prey species, underscoring the importance of preserving prey populations for SL conservation.
This study revealed that the Himalayan tahr constituted the highest proportion of prey consumed. In the Central Himalayas (Annapurna and Manaslu Conservation Areas and Bhimthang Valley), Chetri et al. [14] reported a 56.85% proportion of blue sheep in SLs’ diet. This proportion of blue sheep was the highest compared to other prey such as Himalayan tahr, Tibetan argali, Himalayan marmot, wooly hare, and other small wild prey and livestock in the study. One plausible reason for this could be that the availability and abundance of blue sheep in the Annapurna Conservation Area are higher compared to other species [14,16]. During the study periods, blue sheep were recorded at higher altitudes in the northern site near the Tibetan border (Samdo site), while Himalayan tahr and livestock were found together and distributed in both Samdo and Samagaun. This coexistence might attract SLs to hunt Himalayan tahr in these areas. Similarly, the RAI of Himalayan tahr was higher than that of blue sheep. Moreover, Chetri et al. [14] observed almost 73% of wild prey in the Central Himalayas, whereas Wegge et al. [26] recorded 58% of wild prey in Phu Valley, Manang, during the study of SL’s diets. Shrestha et al. [16] showed that SLs consumed 57% wild prey and 43% domestic animals in the Nepalese Himalaya. This study also revealed that the proportion of wild prey consumption is high, similar to other studies. The high proportion of wild species in the diet indicates a good abundance of wild prey within the habitat. However, Shrestha et al. [16] argued that there are various reasons for the low frequency of predation of large domestic cattle and yaks. Adult male yaks roamed freely in the pasturelands year-round. The size of adult yaks and calves’ protection by female yaks while grazing makes it difficult for SLs to hunt. During the day, herds of female yaks (naks) with calves roam freely in the pasturelands, while at night, they are kept in nearby fallow lands next to a Goth (a temporary shed where herders cook and stay overnight) or in poorly fenced corrals. The calves are kept inside either in the corrals or in predator-proof corrals, depending on availability. This prevents hunting as well. Humans try to save their livestock from wild animals, and thus, the wild prey proportion in the diet is comparatively higher than the livestock proportion.
Lu et al. [12] confirmed that wild prey (particularly blue sheep) is preferred across the Sanjiangyuan region in China. The blue sheep remained the dominant prey choice even when the livestock density was about 10 times higher than the blue sheep density. Also, Lyngdoh et al. [13] found blue sheep (D = 0.43 ± 0.17) and Himalayan tahr (D = 0.32 ± 0.29) to be highly preferred by SLs during the regional-level diet study. Both of them are major wild prey species in SLs’ habitats. The result is quite similar to this research, as here, the index values of both prey species were high and positive among all wild prey identified in the diet. However, this study found that the livestock horse was an extremely preferred species (D = 1). SLs typically focus on the consumption of large ungulates rather than others, as they provide more energy for the effort spent in hunting them [26]. Also, SLs can last more days without hunting if they feed upon large prey.

4.2. Factors Affecting Livestock Depredation by Snow Leopard

Based on the best model obtained from our study, the total livestock holdings of households strongly affected the livestock loss caused by SLs in the study area (AICc score = 76.75, AICc weight = 0.56, p = 0.009). An increase in the number of livestock increases the chance of being attacked by an SL in its habitat range. Chetri et al. [19] found that the combination of factors such as total domestic animals owned, herd composition, wild ungulate density, and domestic animal density affects livestock depredation due to SLs. Similarly, Tiwari et al.’s [35] study showed that the interaction of total livestock owned by households and large-sized livestock mostly affects livestock loss due to SL. Also, Khanal et al. [20] supported the above statement through their study, showing that respondents owning a higher number of livestock were likely to incur more livestock loss. We used social factors such as family size and education category to study their influence on livestock depredation. We assumed that a greater number of family members in the home could defend livestock easily from predators, even if large in number. Similarly, it was assumed that the villagers with high education could change their herding strategies to prevent livestock loss due to SLs.

4.3. Villager’s Attitudes Towards Snow Leopard Conservation

In certain regions of Nepal, specific residents view the eradication of SLs as the sole feasible resolution [32] to avoid predation on livestock. Shrestha et al. [3] reported that 50% of respondents had a negative attitude toward SLs, with 15% even suggesting that SLs need to be killed to minimize SL–human conflict. This statement contradicts our study, as this research found that the mean attitude score was positive in the study area, indicating the villagers’ good perception of SLs. However, the data also revealed that a significant percentage of respondents (38.46%) were neutral or unsure in their responses to key questions, such as SLs’ role in improving the quality of the environment or supporting conservation efforts. This suggests a need for targeted environmental education and awareness programs to better inform the community about the ecological importance of SLs and the benefits of conservation.
Education status could play a crucial role in shaping villagers’ attitudes, as suggested by the high level of neutrality. Most of the respondents were either neutral or did not want to support the authorities in SL conservation, citing household chores and livestock management as reasons for their lack of engagement. These findings align with Tiwari et al. [35] in Narphu Valley, Manang, where similar education levels and livelihoods shaped attitudes toward conservation.
Additionally, local people’s perception of different species can vary. While SLs were viewed more positively compared to wolves, red foxes, and feral dogs, these species also contributed to livestock depredation, as was observed in the study of Suryawanshi et al. [60] in Spiti Valley, India, and Kusi et al. [37] in the Kanchenjunga conservation area, Dolpa and Humla district. For instance, our observations showed feral dogs chasing and attacking a Himalayan tahr near village sheds, which could similarly threaten livestock.
Conservation area authorities should enhance their focus on engaging villagers in active conservation activities and improving communication between villagers and conservation officers. While this study did not explicitly ask survey participants about the frequency of contact with the management committee or the details of education programs, anecdotal evidence and general observations suggest that existing efforts, such as periodic meetings and awareness initiatives, may have positively influenced local attitudes. Incorporating questions about these interactions in future surveys would provide a more robust basis for understanding their impact. Alongside such efforts, environmental education programs could reduce neutral or indifferent attitudes by increasing awareness of SLs’ ecological roles, cultural importance, and the benefits of conservation. Factors such as cultural values, religion (Buddhism), developed tourism, the presence of the management committee of MCA, and previous research and awareness programs likely contributed to the relatively positive perception of SLs in this study area. Expanding these efforts while systematically evaluating their effectiveness through targeted questions could further solidify support for SL conservation.

5. Conclusions

To address the hypothesis presented in the introduction, we can summarize that: (1) The dietary study of SL showed a comparatively higher wild prey proportion in the diet than livestock. Species such as Himalayan tahr, blue sheep, yak, and horse were the most preferred prey, while small-sized prey pikas were the least consumed. The findings emphasize the importance of maintaining and conserving wild prey populations to support SL conservation in the MCA. (2) We found that the total livestock holdings per household represented the major factor responsible for influencing livestock depredation by SLs. The likelihood of livestock mortality by SLs increases with an increase in the total livestock holdings per household. While the study assumed that family size and education would mitigate livestock loss, these factors showed less direct influence than anticipated. However, educated villagers were more likely to adopt improved herding strategies, indirectly reducing depredation risks. This highlights the need for targeted educational programs and improved livestock management practices to reduce human–wildlife conflict. (3) Local people showed an overall positive attitude towards SL, influenced by cultural and religious attitudes, tourism development, and ongoing conservation efforts. However, a significant number of respondents (38.46%) were neutral or unsure about the ecological importance of SL and the benefits of conservation. This underscores the necessity of enhanced environmental education and awareness campaigns to foster stronger community support for conservation initiatives. Active engagement with local communities in conservation planning and execution can further solidify their positive attitudes and reduce indifference.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ecologies6010001/s1. File S1: Questionnaire to Assess Local People’s Knowledge and Attitudes Towards Snow Leopard Conservation in Nubri Valley, Central Himalayas.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.T. and B.S.; methodology, S.T. and B.S.; software, S.T.; validation, B.S.; formal analysis, S.T., B.S., B.P.P. and B.N.; investigation, S.T. and B.S.; resources, B.S.; data curation, S.T. and B.S.; writing—original draft preparation, S.T., B.S., B.P.P. and B.N.; writing—review and editing, S.T., B.S., B.P.P., B.N., B.P.B., T.S., A.T., A.S., G.P. and Z.K.; visualization, S.T. and B.S.; supervision, B.S.; project administration, B.S.; funding acquisition, B.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports of CR within the CzeCOS program, grant number LM2023048.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Scientific Committee of the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Nepal (Approval Code: 515, Approval Date: 10 June 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the conclusion of this article will be made available by the authors upon request.

Acknowledgments

We express our gratitude to the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Nepal and Manaslu Conservation Area Project for the research permission and cooperation. Additionally, we would like to extend our appreciation to the Central Department of Zoology, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Nepal, for providing space to conduct laboratory work. We express our gratitude to Nima Lama, Chumnubri Municipality, Phillim, Gorkha, for his generous support during the research period.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Ripple, W.J.; Estes, J.A.; Beschta, R.L.; Wilmers, C.C.; Ritchie, E.G.; Hebblewhite, M.; Berger, J.; Elmhagen, B.; Letnic, M.; Nelson, M.P.; et al. Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 2014, 343, 1241484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Lamichhane, B.R.; Leirs, H.; Persoon, G.A.; Subedi, N.; Dhakal, M.; Oli, B.N.; Reynaert, S.; Sluydts, V.; Pokheral, C.P.; Poudyal, L.P.; et al. Factors associated with co-occurrence of large carnivores in a human-dominated landscape. Biodivers. Conserv. 2019, 28, 1473–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Shrestha, B.; Khatri, T.B.; Rana, D.B.; Karki, J.B.; Kindlmann, P. Snow Leopard-Human Conflict and Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures. In Snow Leopards in Nepal, Predator-Prey System on the Top of the World; Kindlmann, P., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 177–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bhusal, P.; Banjade, M.R.; Paudel, N.S. Pastoralism in crisis: Mounting challenges in herding system in high altitude region of Nepal. J. For. Livelihood 2018, 16, 56–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Schaller, G.B. Mountain Monarchs. Wild Sheep and Goats of the Himalaya; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  6. Jackson, R.; Hunter, D.O. Snow Leopard Survey and Conservation Handbook; International Snow Leopard Trust: Seattle, WA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  7. McCarthy, T.; Mallon, D.; Jackson, R.; Zahler, P.; McCarthy, K.; Panthera uncia. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: E.T22732A50664030. 2017. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22732/50664030 (accessed on 15 January 2022). [CrossRef]
  8. CITES. Checklist of CITES Species; Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023; Available online: https://checklist.cites.org/#/en (accessed on 3 January 2023).
  9. DNPWC. Snow Leopard Conservation Action Plan for Nepal (2017–2021); Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2017. Available online: https://dnpwc.gov.np/media/publication/Snow_Leopard_Conservation_Action_Plan_for_Nepal_2017-2021.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2022).
  10. Jnawali, S.R.; Baral, H.S.; Lee, S.; Acharya, K.P.; Upadhyay, G.P.; Pandey, M.; Griffiths, J.; Khatiwada, A.P.; Subedi, N.; Amin, R. The Status of Nepal Mammals: The National Red List Series; Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  11. Yasmeen, R.; Aslam, I. Conservation strategies and human conflicts with Snow Leopard in Pakistan: A review. J. Wildl. Biodivers. 2023, 7, 40–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lu, Q.; Xiao, L.; Cheng, C.; Lu, Z.; Zhao, J.; Yao, M. Snow Leopard Dietary Preferences and Livestock Predation Revealed by Fecal DNA Metabarcoding: No Evidence for Apparent Competition Between Wild and Domestic Prey. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 9, 783546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lyngdoh, S.; Shrotriya, S.; Goyal, S.P.; Clements, H.; Hayward, M.W.; Habib, B. Prey preferences of the snow leopard (Panthera uncia): Regional diet specificity holds global significance for conservation. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e88349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Chetri, M.; Odden, M.; Wegge, P. Snow leopard and himalayan Wolf: Food habits and prey selection in the central Himalayas, Nepal. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0170549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Jackson, R.M.; Mishra, C.; McCarthy, T.M.; Ale, S.B. Snow leopards: Conflicts and conservation. In The Biology and Conservation of Wild Felids; MacDonald, D.W., Loveridge, A.J., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2010; pp. 417–430. [Google Scholar]
  16. Shrestha, B.; Aihartza, J.; Kindlmann, P. Diet and prey selection by snow leopards in the Nepalese Himalayas. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0206310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Karki, A.; Panthi, S. Factors affecting livestock depredation by snow leopards (Panthera uncia) in the Himalayan region of Nepal. PeerJ 2021, 9, e11575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Jackson, R.M.; Wangchuk, R. A Community-Based Approach to Mitigating Livestock Depredation by Snow Leopards. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2004, 9, 307–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chetri, M.; Odden, M.; Devineau, O.; Wegge, P. Patterns of livestock depredation by snow leopards and other large carnivores in the Central Himalayas, Nepal. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2019, 17, e00536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Khanal, G.; Poudyal, L.P.; Devkota, B.P.; Ranabhat, R.; Wegge, P. Status and conservation of the snow leopard Panthera uncia in Api Nampa Conservation Area, Nepal. Oryx 2020, 54, 421–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ferreira, M.N.E.; Freire, N.C. Community perceptions of four protected areas in the Northern portion of the Cerrado hotspot, Brazil. Environ. Conserv. 2009, 36, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chetri, M.; Odden, M.; Devineau, O.; McCarthy, T.; Wegge, P. Multiple factors influence local perceptions of snow leopards and Himalayan wolves in the central Himalayas, Nepal. PeerJ 2020, 8, e10108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Conforti, V.A.; de Azevedo, F.C.C. Local perceptions of jaguars (Panthera onca) and pumas (Puma concolor) in the Iguaçu National Park area, south Brazil. Biol. Conserv. 2003, 111, 215–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bagchi, S.; Mishra, C. Living with large carnivores: Predation on livestock by the snow leopard (Uncia uncia). J. Zool. 2006, 268, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Oli, M.K.; Taylor, I.R.; Rogers, D.M. Diet of the snow leopard (Panthera uncia) in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. J. Zool. 1993, 231, 365–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wegge, P.; Shrestha, R.; Flagstad, Ø. Snow leopard Panthera uncia predation on livestock and wild prey in a mountain valley in northern Nepal: Implications for conservation management. Wildl. Biol. 2012, 18, 131–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Devkota, B.P.; Silwal, T.; Kolejka, J. Prey Density and Diet of Snow Leopard (Uncia Uncia) in Shey Phoksundo National Park, Nepal. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 2013, 1, 55–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Shrestha, A.; Thapa, K.; Subba, S.A.; Dhakal, M.; Devkota, B.P.; Thapa, G.J.; Shrestha, S.; Malla, S.; Thapa, K. Cats, canines, and coexistence: Dietary differentiation between the sympatric Snow Leopard and Grey Wolf in the western landscape of Nepal Himalaya. J. Threat. Taxa 2019, 11, 13815–13821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sharma, H.P.; Khadka, S.; Niraula, M. Diet of Snow Leopard Panthera uncia in Kanchanjunga Conservation Area. ZOO-Journal 2021, 6, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Thapa, K.; Schmitt, N.; Pradhan, N.M.; Acharya, H.R.; Rayamajhi, S. No silver bullet? Snow leopard prey selection in Mt. Kangchenjunga, Nepal. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 11, 16413–16425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Koju, N.P.; Gosai, K.R.; Bashyal, B.; Byanju, R.; Shrestha, A.; Buzzard, P.; Beisch, W.B.; Khanal, L. Seasonal Prey Abundance and Food Plasticity of the Vulnerable Snow Leopard (Panthera uncia) in the Lapchi Valley, Nepal Himalayas. Animals 2023, 13, 3182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Oli, M.K.; Taylor, I.R.; Rogers, M.E. Snow leopard Panthera uncia predation of livestock: An assessment of local perceptions in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Biol. Conserv. 1994, 68, 63–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hanson, J.H. Household conflicts with Snow Leopard conservation and impacts from Snow Leopards in the Everest and Annapurna Regions of Nepal. Environ. Manag. 2022, 70, 105–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Shahi, K.; Aryal, S.; Blon, R.K.; Khanal, G. Examining livestock depredation and the determinants of people’s attitudes towards snow leopards in the Himalayas of Nepal. Oryx 2023, 57, 489–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Tiwari, M.P.; Devkota, B.P.; Jackson, R.M.; Chhetri, B.B.K.; Bagale, S. What factors predispose households in trans-himalaya (Central Nepal) to livestock predation by snow leopards? Animals 2020, 10, 2187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Hanson, J.H.; Schutgens, M.; Leader-Williams, N. What factors best explain attitudes to snow leopards in the Nepal Himalayas? PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0223565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kusi, N.; Sillero-Zubiri, C.; Macdonald, D.W.; Johnson, P.J.; Werhahn, G. Perspectives of traditional Himalayan communities on fostering coexistence with Himalayan wolf and snow leopard. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2019, 2, e165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shrestha, B.; Subedi, N.; Kandel, R.C. Jungle Cat Felis chaus Schreber, 1777 (Mammalia: Carnivora: Felidae) at high elevations in Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. J. Threat. Taxa 2020, 12, 15267–15271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bhattarai, S.; Rajbhandary, S. Pteridophyte flora of manaslu conservation area, central Nepal. Am. J. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 680–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pandey, B. Ecological Status and Conservation of Dactylorhiza hatagirea (D. Don) Soó in Manaslu Conservation Area, Central Nepal. Master’s Thesis, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  41. Sapkota, S.; Pandey, B.; Shrestha, K.K. Diversity of Flowering Plants in Nubri Valley, Manaslu Conservation Area, Central Nepal. Am. J. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1484–1498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. DNPWC. Manaslu Conservation Area; Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2022. Available online: https://dnpwc.gov.np/en/conservation-area-detail/63/ (accessed on 24 June 2022).
  43. NTNC. Manaslu Conservation Area Project (MCAP); National Trust for Nature Conservation: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2022; Available online: https://ntnc.org.np/project/manaslu-conservation-area-project-mcap (accessed on 24 June 2022).
  44. Thapa, S.; All, J.; Yadav, R.K.P. Effects of livestock grazing in pastures in the Manaslu Conservation Area, Nepalese Himalaya. Mt. Res. Dev. 2016, 36, 311–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Fox, J.L.; Sinha, S.P.; Chundawat, R.S.; Das, P.K. Status of the snow leopard Panthera uncia in Northwest India. Biol. Conserv. 1991, 55, 283–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mallon, D.P. Status and conservation of large mammals in Ladakh. Biol. Conserv. 1991, 56, 101–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Jackson, R.M. Home Range, Movements and Habitat Use of Snow Leopard (Uncia uncia) in Nepal; University of London: London, UK, 1996; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242563248_Home_Range_Movements_and_Habitat_Use_of_Snow_Leopard_Uncia_Uncia_In_Nepal (accessed on 20 October 2022).
  48. Lovari, S.; Minder, I.; Ferretti, F.; Mucci, N.; Randi, E.; Pellizzi, B. Common and snow leopards share prey, but not habitats: Competition avoidance by large predators? J. Zool. 2013, 291, 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Anwar, M.B.; Jackson, R.; Nadeem, M.S.; Janečka, J.E.; Hussain, S.; Beg, M.A.; Muhammad, G.; Qayyum, M. Food habits of the snow leopard Panthera uncia (Schreber, 1775) in Baltistan, Northern Pakistan. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2011, 57, 1077–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Oli, M.K. Winter homerange of now leopards in Nepal. Mammalia 1997, 61, 355–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. O’Brien, T.G.; Kinnaird, M.F.; Wibisono, H.T. Crouching tigers, hidden prey: Sumatran tiger and prey populations in a tropical forest landscape. Anim. Conserv. 2003, 6, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Henschel, P.; Hunter, L.T.B.; Coad, L.; Abernethy, K.A.; Mühlenberg, M. Leopard prey choice in the Congo Basin rainforest suggests exploitative competition with human bushmeat hunters. J. Zool. 2011, 285, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Monroy-Vilchis, O.; Zarco-González, M.M.; Rodríguez-Soto, C.; Soria-Díaz, L.; Urios, V. Mammals’ camera-trapping in Sierra Nanchititla, Mexico: Relative abundance and activity patterns. Rev. Biol. Trop. 2011, 59, 373–383. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  54. Balme, G.A.; Slotow, R.; Hunter, L.T.B. Edge effects and the impact of non-protected areas in carnivore conservation: Leopards in the Phinda-Mkhuze Complex, South Africa. Anim. Conserv. 2010, 13, 315–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Oli, M.K. A key for the identification of the hair of mammals of a snow leopard (Panthera uncia) habitat in Nepal. J. Zool. 1993, 231, 71–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Shrestha, B.; Vařachová, S.; Kindlmann, P. A Key for Identifying the Prey of Snow Leopard in Nepal Using Features of the Structure of the Hair of Their Prey Present in Their Faeces. In Snow Leopards in Nepal; Kindlmann, P., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 75–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lucherini, M.; Crema, G. Seasonal Variation in the Food Habits of Badgers in an Alpine Valley. Hystrix—Ital. J. Mammology 1995, 7, 165–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Jacobs, J. Quantitative measurement of food selection—A modification of the forage ratio and Ivlev’s electivity index. Oecologia 1974, 14, 413–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. CNRM. Chumnubri Rural Municipality Profile. 2019. Available online: https://chumanuwrimun.gov.np/Chumnubri-Rural-Municipality-Profile (accessed on 24 June 2022).
  60. Suryawanshi, K.R.; Bhatia, S.; Bhatnagar, Y.V.; Redpath, S.; Mishra, C. Multiscale Factors Affecting Human Attitudes toward Snow Leopards and Wolves. Conserv. Biol. 2014, 28, 1657–1666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  62. Bolker, B.M.; Brooks, M.E.; Clark, C.J.; Geange, S.W.; Poulsen, J.R.; Stevens, M.H.H.; White, J.S.S. Generalized linear mixed models: A practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2009, 24, 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lham, D.; Cozzi, G.; Sommer, S.; Wangchuk, S.; Lham, K.; Ozgul, A. Ecological determinants of livestock depredation by the snow leopard Panthera uncia in Bhutan. J. Zool. 2021, 314, 275–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Mazerolle, M.J. AICcmodavg: Model Selection and Multimodel Inference Based on (Q)AIC(C). 2023. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/AICcmodavg/AICcmodavg.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2023).
  65. Maheshwari, A.; Sharma, D. Snow Leopard Conservation in Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh; WWF-India: New Delhi, India, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Maheshwari, A.; Takpa, J.; Sandeep, K.; Shawl, T. An Investigation of Carnivore-Human Conflicts in Kargil and Drass Areas of Jammu and Kashmir, India. 2010. Available online: https://jkwildlife.com/wild/pdf/pub/shawl/investigation%20of%20carnivore-human%20conflicts-kargil%20and%20drass_india.pdf (accessed on 19 February 2022).
Ecologies 06 00001 g001
Figure 1. Map of study area showing camera trap locations of Nubri Valley.
Figure 1. Map of study area showing camera trap locations of Nubri Valley.
Ecologies 06 00001 g001
Ecologies 06 00001 g002
Figure 2. (a,b) Two snow leopard individuals captured by camera trap at different locations in the study area. Photo credit: Bikram Shrestha and Sachet Timilsina.
Figure 2. (a,b) Two snow leopard individuals captured by camera trap at different locations in the study area. Photo credit: Bikram Shrestha and Sachet Timilsina.
Ecologies 06 00001 g002
Ecologies 06 00001 g003
Figure 3. Diet composition of snow leopards in Nubri Valley of Manaslu Conservation Area.
Figure 3. Diet composition of snow leopards in Nubri Valley of Manaslu Conservation Area.
Ecologies 06 00001 g003
Ecologies 06 00001 g004
Figure 4. Cumulative frequency of occurrence of prey species of snow leopard.
Figure 4. Cumulative frequency of occurrence of prey species of snow leopard.
Ecologies 06 00001 g004
Ecologies 06 00001 g005
Figure 5. Prey selection by snow leopards in Nubri Valley.
Figure 5. Prey selection by snow leopards in Nubri Valley.
Ecologies 06 00001 g005
Ecologies 06 00001 g006
Figure 6. Education category status of respondents.
Figure 6. Education category status of respondents.
Ecologies 06 00001 g006
Table 1. RAI values of different prey items evaluated using camera traps (N = total trap nights).
Table 1. RAI values of different prey items evaluated using camera traps (N = total trap nights).
SpeciesCapture Events
(n = 661)		Capture Events per 100 Trap Nights
Wild Prey44967.93
Pika (Ochotona himalayana)31547.66
Himalayan Tahr (Hemitragus jemlahicus)639.53
Weasel spp. (Mustela spp.)497.41
Rat (Rattus nitidus)111.66
Blue Sheep (Pseudois nayaur)60.91
Shrew (Soriculus nigrescens)50.76
Domestic Prey9514.37
Domestic Cattle (Bos taurus)7210.89
Yak (Bos grunniens)223.33
Horse (Equus caballus)10.15
Total54482.30
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of scale variables.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of scale variables.
VariablesMean (X)S.E.MinimumMaximum
LSM0.2460.46902
TLS8.2774.652126
FS4.2311.927110
LSM = livestock mortality by snow leopards, TLS = total livestock holdings per household, FS = family size of each household.
Table 3. Model summary for livestock loss due to snow leopards.
Table 3. Model summary for livestock loss due to snow leopards.
ModelIndependent VariablesEstimateS.E.z-ValuePr (>|z|)
TLS + (1|Village)TLS0.1070.0412.6160.009 **
TLS+FS + (1|Village)TLS0.1090.0462.3590.018 *
FS−0.0120.136−0.0910.927
TLS+EC + (1|Village)TLS0.1120.0432.6060.009 **
EC (NE)−0.4150.680−0.6100.542
EC (P)−0.9351.158−0.8070.420
TLS*FS + (1|Village)TLS0.1140.1250.9170.359
FS−0.0020.264−0.0060.995
TLS: FS−0.0010.019−0.0480.962
FS + (1|Village)FS0.0860.1240.6940.488
TLS+FS+EC + (1|Village)TLS0.1130.0482.3510.019 *
FS−0.0110.137−0.0780.938
EC (NE)−0.4140.680−0.6080.543
EC (P)−0.9341.159−0.8060.420
EC + (1|Village)EC (NE)−0.0440.646−0.0690.945
EC (P)−0.7801.155−0.6760.499
TLS*FS+EC + (1|Village)TLS0.1310.1301.0070.314
FS0.0230.2670.0860.932
EC (NE)−0.4240.684−0.6190.536
EC (P)−0.9521.165−0.8170.414
TLS: FS−0.0030.020−0.1460.884
FS+EC + (1|Village)FS0.0860.1220.7040.482
EC (NE)−0.0890.651−0.1360.892
EC (P)−0.8171.156−0.7070.480
p < 0.001 **, p < 0.01 *; EC (NE) = not educated, EC (P) = primary education.
Table 4. Results from GLMM for livestock loss due to snow leopards.
Table 4. Results from GLMM for livestock loss due to snow leopards.
ModelKLogLikAICcDeltaWeight
TLS + (1|Village)3−36.2878.950.00.58
TLS+FS + (1|Village)4−36.2881.222.260.19
TLS+EC + (1|Village)5−35.982.823.870.08
TLS*FS + (1|Village)5−36.2883.574.610.06
FS + (1|Village)3−38.8984.175.220.04
TLS+FS+EC + (1|Village)6−35.985.256.290.02
EC + (1|Village)4−38.886.267.30.01
TLS*FS+EC + (1|Village)7−35.8987.748.790.01
FS+EC + (1|Village)5−38.5588.139.170.01
Table 5. Scores from the villager’s attitude survey for snow leopard conservation.
Table 5. Scores from the villager’s attitude survey for snow leopard conservation.
SNQuestionsPositiveNeutralNegativeTotal ScoreMean Score
1Should we conserve SL?40187390.60
2Does SL improve the quality of the environment?23281490.14
3Do you want SL to continue to live here?28316220.34
4Should we teach children to protect SL?37244330.51
5Where should SL be protected?44165470.72
6Would you support authorities to conserve SL?282710180.28
Total 1682.59
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Timilsina, S.; Pandey, B.P.; Neupane, B.; Bhattarai, B.P.; Silwal, T.; Tumbahangphe, A.; Subedi, A.; Pant, G.; Krenova, Z.; Shrestha, B. Winter Diet Pattern of Snow Leopard and Factors Affecting Livestock Depredation in Nubri Valley of Manaslu Conservation Area, Nepal. Ecologies 2025, 6, 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/ecologies6010001

AMA Style

Timilsina S, Pandey BP, Neupane B, Bhattarai BP, Silwal T, Tumbahangphe A, Subedi A, Pant G, Krenova Z, Shrestha B. Winter Diet Pattern of Snow Leopard and Factors Affecting Livestock Depredation in Nubri Valley of Manaslu Conservation Area, Nepal. Ecologies. 2025; 6(1):1. https://doi.org/10.3390/ecologies6010001

Chicago/Turabian Style

Timilsina, Sachet, Bishnu Prasad Pandey, Bijaya Neupane, Bishnu Prasad Bhattarai, Thakur Silwal, Ajit Tumbahangphe, Ashok Subedi, Ganesh Pant, Zdenka Krenova, and Bikram Shrestha. 2025. "Winter Diet Pattern of Snow Leopard and Factors Affecting Livestock Depredation in Nubri Valley of Manaslu Conservation Area, Nepal" Ecologies 6, no. 1: 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/ecologies6010001

APA Style

Timilsina, S., Pandey, B. P., Neupane, B., Bhattarai, B. P., Silwal, T., Tumbahangphe, A., Subedi, A., Pant, G., Krenova, Z., & Shrestha, B. (2025). Winter Diet Pattern of Snow Leopard and Factors Affecting Livestock Depredation in Nubri Valley of Manaslu Conservation Area, Nepal. Ecologies, 6(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/ecologies6010001

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop