https://kjs.org.

pk ISSN: 2958-7832

Kashmir Journal of Science (2024), 3(2):38-56

Research Paper

Diversity and Conservation Status of Large Mammals in Ghamot National Park, Azad
Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan
Muhammad Jahangeer1*, Muhammad Siddique Awan1, Muhammad Bashir1, Muhammad
Shakeel Awan2, Mir Muhammad Saleem1, Usman Ali3, Muhammad Arshad4 and Abid
Hussain1
1
Department of Zoology, University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Muzaffarabad, Pakistan
2
Department of Botany, University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Muzaffarabad, Pakistan
3
Department of Zoology, Mirpur University of Science and Technology Mirpur, Pakistan
Sustainable Development Organization, Pakistan
*Corresponding Author’s E-mail: khushikhlaqjahangeer@gmail.com

Abstract
ARTICLE INFO
We evaluated the abundance and diversity of the large mammals
Article history: in Ghamot National Park (GNP), Neelum Valley, Azad Jammu
and Kashmir, Pakistan, and compared these parameters across
Received: 27 May 2024 four different habitat types (forest, riparian, scrub, and wetland)
Revised: 18 October 2024 and seasons during 2020-2021. A total of 66 line transect surveys
(with 53 km total length) were carried out across all study sites.
Accepted: 18 October 2024
In terms of sampling yield, indirect observations had the highest
Available online: 18 October
sitting at (n=131; 76.60%) while the least was from direct
2024 observations (n=40; 23.39%). Fecal droppings were the most
common type of
Keywords: indirect evidence (n=73; 55.72%), followed by footprints (n=29;
Ghamot National Park, 9.94%), and dens/latrines (n=19; 14.50%). Using direct and
Diversity, indirect field evidence, we identified 14 species of mammals
from
Distributions,
6 families. Four species (28.57%) were directly observed,
Large Mammals, Richness including Canis aureus, Vulpes vulpes, Macaca mulatta, and
Semnopithecus ajax, whereas the remaining ten (71.42%) were
observed indirectly. In terms of global (IUCN) conservation
status, two species were Endangered, three were vulnerable and
other three were near threatened. Species richness varied greatly
across the seasons among the four habitat types. Irrespective of
summer- winter seasons diversity indices were recorded highest
in riparian zones (H=3.14) followed by forests (H=2.88), and
agriculture lands (H=2.73). The forest and riparian zones had the
39 in species composition, both between and
highest similarity
among seasons. The findings of this study provide a baseline for
park management to make effective conservation decisions, as
well as for researchers
conducting similar
ecological studies.

38
Jahangeer et al

Introduction

Protected areas are geographic regions designated and managed to safeguard biodiversity,
preserve ecosystems, and protect endangered species from anthropogenic pressures. According
to Bernard et al. (2014) and Locke and Dearden (2005), the primary strategy for biodiversity
conservation and climate change adaptation or mitigation is to create protected places, such as
national parks. Accordingly, the size and number of protected areas is increasing globally
(Bernard et al., 2014). Although protected areas are heavily relied upon as a conservation
approach and despite rising trends, many protected areas run the risk of failing to meet the
precise conservation objectives for which they were initially established (Bernard et al., 2014;
Struhsaker et al., 2005). The main obstacles to achieving the conservation objectives for
protected areas are increased anthropogenic risks, inadequate management systems, and scarce
resources. Failure of protected areas management not only cause the extinction of species but
also the disturbance of ecosystem processes and the loss of ecosystem services and benefits that
human rely on (Bruner et al., 2001; Bernard et al., 2014).
Several studies have highlighted that the anthropogenic disturbances have the greatest
impact on different regions, particularly the Southeast Asia (Barlow et al., 2016; Hughes, 2017;
Tilker et al. (2019). A serious threat to the wildlife population of these regions has been the rise
in demand for wildlife and wildlife related goods in recent past (Peres, 2010; Alroy, 2017; Symes
et al., 2018). Particularly the large mammals need vast home ranges to locate appropriate food,
and because they frequently engage in conflict with humans, which make them more vulnerable
to environmental disturbance (Ripple et al., 2016, 2017).
Owing to their need for extensive home ranges, mammals serve as umbrella species in
terrestrial ecosystems and aid in the preservation of other species. Large (weighing more than 7
kg) and medium-sized mammals (between 2 and 7 kg) play crucial roles in the ecosystem.
Mammals play important roles in grazing, predation, and seed distribution in many ecosystems
worldwide (Geleta & Bekele, 2016). In addition, they offer crucial human advantages, including
food, entertainment, and revenue (MEA, 2005).
Threats to medium- and large-sized animals are widespread (Kasso & Bekele, 2014). The
two greatest risks to mammals are habitat loss by deforestation and harvesting (hunting and
gathering for food, medicine, fuel, and materials) (Ripple et al., 2016; Tabor et al., 2020). The
number of species categorized as Critically Endangered (169–203 species) and Endangered

39
Diversity and Conservation Status of Large Mammals in Ghamot National Park
(315–

38
Diversity and Conservation Status of Large Mammals in Ghamot National Park

506 species) between 1996 and 2020 indicates that threats to the world's mammal biodiversity are
intensifying (IUCN, 2020). A disproportionate number of vulnerable mammals reside in tropical
Asia, and under the status quo, between 9% and 36% of the mammals living in the lowland forests
of tropical Southeast Asia are predicted to become extinct by the year 2100 (Wilcove et al., 2013).
The majority of protected areas in developing countries are not properly managed, and
most nations in this region, which are rich in biodiversity and are rapidly developing, have
insufficient political commitment to bridge the gap in biodiversity protection (Watson et al.,
2014). The future of biological diversity in such protected regions, especially those of
developing tropical and subtropical nations such as Pakistan, is therefore in doubt unless
adequate conservation measures are put in place. Basic knowledge of biodiversity in terms of
species checklists of fauna and flora, as well as the distribution and habitat usage of wildlife
species in these protected areas is crucial for developing effective conservation strategies. These
data help conservation organizations and decision-makers to manage the protected areas
accordingly and precisely through successful conservation measures (Bernard et al., 2014;
Thomas & Middleton, 2003).
Pakistan is not a biogeographically isolated region, because it is mostly surrounded by
artificial borders. Thus, Pakistan has comparatively low rates of endemism for some species.
There are 174 known mammalian species with at least three indigenous species found in Pakistan
(Baig & Al-Subaiee, 2009). The protected areas in Pakistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir State
(AJ&K) include national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, and game reserves. The laws governing
wildlife management are either insufficient or not implemented properly. The regulations
provide provincial wildlife department authorities with the ability to manage protected areas, but
due to unavailability of required resources proper management is scarce in most of the protected
areas (Khan, 2004; Manzoor et al., 2013; GoAJK, 2018).
The state of AJ&K has established 18 protected areas, comprising eight national parks
(with 99,191 ha area) and 12 game reserves (14,164 ha), totaling 113,355 ha covered area, which
comprises about 8.5 percent of the state's area (Marwat, 2011; GoAJK, 2018). However, very
limited scientific data is available about the biodiversity of most of these protected areas. The
current study evaluated the abundance, diversity, and community structure of the large mammals
in Ghamot National Park (GNP), Neelum Valley, AJ&K, Pakistan, and compared these
parameters across four different habitat types (forest, riparian, scrub, and wetland) and seasons.
This study aimed to establish a baseline data for park management to make effective
40
Jahangeer et al
conservation decisions,

41
Diversity and Conservation Status of Large Mammals in Ghamot National Park

as well as for researchers conducting similar ecological studies (Li & Quan, 2017). The study
focused on larger mammals, considering that they are often more threatened with extinction than
small mammals (Liow et al., 2008).

Materials and methods

Study Area

The Ghamot National Park (GNP) is located in the upper Neelum Valley, an area of the inner
Himalayas, 170 km north to Muzaffarabad, the capital of AJ&K State. The study area is located
between 2439 and 4949 meters above the sea level, within longitude 73°57 E and latitude 35°24
N (Figure 1). Khyber Pakhtunkhwa's Kaghan Valley is located on its western side, while Indian-
the Indian occupied Jammu & Kashmir borders it on the eastern side (Jahangeer et al., 2023;
2024). The study area features steep, uneven topography with deep valleys and high peaks,
characterized by hilly terrain (Qamar et al., 2005; GoAJK, 2018).
The Neelum Valley is located in the subtropical and temperate highland climatic zone.
Although the climate changes with elevation, the forest areas can be classified as alpine pastures,
subalpine scrubs, moist temperate woods, or dry temperate forests. Summers are mild and
pleasant, while winters are bitterly cold with a lot of snow. At high altitudes, snow may linger
until June or even later (glaciers). The Pakistan Meteorological Department does not have the
meteorological data record for the Neelum Valley (Qamar et al., 2005; Qamar et al., 2008;
Jahangeer et al., 2023; 2024).

Figure 1: Location map of the study area (Ghamot National Park)

40
Diversity and Conservation Status of Large Mammals in Ghamot National Park

The study area is situated close to the junction of the Hindu Kush, Karakorum, and Himalayan
Mountain systems which result in a rich floral and faunal diversification in this part of the globe.
The study area is home to several rare and globally threatened wildlife species, such as the Snow
leopard (Uncia uncia), Himalayan ibex (Capra ibex), Common leopard (Panthera pardus), Musk
deer (Moschus chrysogaster), Black Bear (Ursus thibetanus), Grey Wolf (Canis lupus), Brown
Bear (Ursus arctos) and Monal pheasant (Lophophorus impejanus). The study area also provide
habitat to hundreds of economically and medically important plant species including Cedrus
deodara, Abies pindrow, Pinus willichiana, Aesculus indica, Picea smithiana, Sassurea lappa,
Viburnum nervosum, and Pyrus pashia. (Qamar et al., 2008; Khan et al., 2010; Baig, 2012; Khan
et al., 2005 (Qamar et al., 2005; Qamar et al., 2008; Khan et al., 2010; Baig, 2012; Khan et al.,
2012; Abbas et al., 2014; Ali et al., 2018; Jahangeer et al., 2023; 2024).

Data collection

The study area was divided into various zones. The topography, vegetation, aspect, elevation,
and slope of the area were taken into consideration for this purpose. Five zones were identified
within the study area: riparian zone (RZ, 2400-3600m), high alpine pasture zone (APZ, 3400-
4400m), scrubland zone (SLZ, 2800-3200m), forest zone (FZ, height varying from 2400-
3300m), and agricultural cropland zone (ACZ, 2300-2700m). Twenty distinct localities were
identified by further subdividing these five zones. The vegetation characteristics in different
localities in each zone was similar, however, there were differences in terms of aspect, slope, and
elevation. Five localities (FZL1-FZL5; forest zone "FZ," locality "L," number "1-5") made up
the forest zone. Similarly, three localities (SLZL1-SLL3; scrubland "SL," zone "Z," locality "L,"
and "number” 1- 3") were identified within the scrubland zone. There were four localities in the
alpine pasture zone (APZL1-APZL4; alpine pasture "AP"). The riparian area was divided into
five localities (RZL1- RZL5; riparian zone "RZ"). Lastly, the agricultural zone was divided into
three localities (ACZ1- ACZ3; agricultural crop zone "ACZ") (Table 1, Figure 2). The zonation
of the study area was performed using Arc Globe 10.4.1 a paid GIS software available to the
Geology Department of the University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Planning and
Development Department AJ&K. Previous studies and contour maps present in the AJ&K Forest
Department were also used (Figure 3).

42
Jahangeer et al

A B

C D

Figure 2: Large mammals survey riparian and forest zones (A, C), direct observation cannon binocular
(B) and line transect searching a den (D)

For the large mammal survey, six locations that were typical of each habitat category were
chosen. Using the fixed-width line transect survey approach, large mammals were sampled,
including direct and indirect observations following Sutherland (2006). Throughout, 66 line
transects totaling 41.5 km of significant habitat categories were created. Depending on the extent
of the habitat, different numbers and lengths of line transects were laid: 8 in wetland habitats, 12
in scrublands, 17 in alpine pastures, and 29 in riparian and forest habitats (Girma et al., 2012).

Figure 3: Land cover map of study area used as stratification of different zones
43
Diversity and Conservation Status of Large Mammals in Ghamot National Park

The average length of line transect survey was 500 meters, and fixed-sighting distances of 200
meters on both sides of transects were utilized in scrublands, wetlands, and alpine environments
(Krebs, 2006). However, the riparian forest's viewing distance was limited to 100 m due to the
thicker foliage, which made it difficult to accurately observe and identify creatures beyond 100
m from the transect lines (Alves et al., 2014; Gonfa et al., 2015). Large carnivore spatial
distributions were assessed by landscape-scale sign surveys, which can also clarify the variables
influencing their local presence and ecological processes (Karanth et al. 2004). Fecal droppings,
feed tracks, footprints, dens, territorial markings, spines, calls, and other indirect evidence were
also noted in addition to direct observations (Sutherland, 2006).
The large mammal sample survey was carried out during August 2020 to June 2021.
Given that animals are believed to be more active during morning hours, surveys were conducted
between 05:00 am and 12:00 pm, and in the late afternoon (16:00-18:30). Data collected from
repeated visits of all transects in two seasons were used for analysis (Mengesha & Bekele, 2008;
Girma et al., 2012). While moving smoothly along each transect, direct (added cannon binocular,
750 mm, and 840 mm) and indirect data collection were performed. Time, date, habitat, special
traits (behavior, coloration, body size), number of individuals, location, and elevation were
recorded using GPS (eTrax 10 Garmin).

Conservation Status
The local conservation status (LCS) of recorded large mammalian species was
determined based on abundance (based on total individuals count= specimens collected, number
of direct observations, collected indirect evidence) in the study area. The formula used to
calculate the LCS was "LCS=∑ns /∑NS x100," where "∑" sum, "ns" individual of same species
in all localities, and "NS" number of individuals of all species in all localities. The definition of
abundance was percentage abundance, or "AP." Following Jahangeer et al. (2023), LCS was
divided into four classes: abundant (A), common (C), becoming rarer (BR), and rare (R).
Data analysis
Direct and indirect evidences were used to identify large mammalian species following
Z.B Mirza (1998). Following Abie et al. (2021), the Shannon-Weiner Species Diversity Index
was calculated using formula: H ′ = -∑Pi ∗ ln (Pi). Where Pi is the proportion of ith species.
This index

44
Jahangeer et al

Table 1: Zonation, localities elevations, coordinates; transect number and length, total covered area, and number of direct and indirect
evidences in the study area.
Zones Locality Code Elevation Coordinates #Transect and Total area #Sample
length (m) covered (km)
N E 500 1000 #Direct #Indirect evidences

Fecal Foot Dens/latrine

print

Key: Summer “S”, winter “W”

45
Results
Across all the localities with 66 line-transect surveys (53km), indirect observation was
represented by maximum evidences (n=131; 76.60%) and least was represented by direct
observation (n=40; 23.39%). Among indirect evidence, fecal dropping was most numerous
(n=73; 55.72%) as compared with footprint (n=39; 29.80%) and dens/latrine (n=19; 14.50%).
Among all the zones, the highest indirect evidences were (n=37) recorded in SLZ (elevation
ranges between 2600-3600m). The second highest (n=28) number of evidences were recorded
in the forest zone (elevation ranges between 2700-3450m) following AZ (n=28), RZ (n=21),
and least in APZ (n=16) (elevation 4000-4400m; habitat type high alpine pastures) (Figure 4).
25 22
20
Number of indirect

20
evidences

15 13 12 11
8 8 9
10 6 7 6
4 5
5
0 0
0
Agriculture Scrub-land zone Riparian zone Forest zone Alpine zone
crop zone
Zones (localities)

Fecal droping Foot print Dens/latrine

Figure 4: Large mammal’s indirect evidences in the study area

Overall, a total of fourteen species belonging to six families were identified by direct and
indirect field evidences. Unfortunately, in the present study directly encountered rate of
species was recorded minimum and only four species (28.57%) were directly observed;
including Canis aureus, Vulpes vulpes, Macaca mulatta, and Semnopithecus ajax, whereas
the remaining ten species (71.42%) were indirectly observed. Direct and indirect observation
was recorded maximum in winter (n=87; 50.88%) as compared with summer season (n=84;
49.12%).
Species richness varied among families. Canidae (n=3; 21.42%) and Felidae (n=3;
21.24%) families were represented by the highest number of species (three each). Ursidae,
Bovidae, Moschidae, and Cercopithecidae were represented by two species (each), and the
Viverridae family was represented by a single species. In terms of global (IUCN)
conservation status, two species were Endangered, three were vulnerable and near threatened
each. Similarly, based on local status, 9 species were Rare or becoming Rare, while others
were abundant or common (Table 2).

46
Jahangeer et al

Table 2. Large mammal abundance, richness, and conservation status in the GNP
during 2020-21
Family Species Common ACZ SLZ RZ FZ AZ AP Status
Name (%
L L )
1, 1, L1, L1, L1,2 L1,2 L L L L L L L IU
2,3 2,3 ,3,4 ,3,4 1, 1, 3, 3, 1, 1, C C
2 2 2 2 4 4 2 2 S N
S W S W S W S W S W S W
Felidae Uncia uncia Snow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1.7 R V
Leopard 5 U
Panthera Common 4 2 1 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 7.6 C V
pardus Leopard 0 U
Prionailurus Leopard cat 2 2 1 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.4 B LC
bengalensis 3 R
Lynx lynx Eurasian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 3.5 R NT
lynx 1
Ursidae Ursus Himalayan 2 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4.6 R V
thibetanus Black Bear 8 U
Ursus arctos Brown 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2.3 R LC
Bear 4
Canidae Canis aureus Asiatic 10 11 2 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 17. A LC
Jackal 54
Canis lupus Indian Wolf 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 3.5 R LC
1
Vulpes Common 0 0 7 9 4 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 15. A LC
vulpes Red Fox 20
Bovidae Capra Himalayan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1.1 R NT
sibirica Ibex 7
Naemorhedu Grey Goral 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 4 5 2 3 11. A NT
s goral 11
Moschidae Moschus Himalayan 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 1 2 5.2 B EN
chrysogaster Musk Deer 6 R
Cercopithe Macaca Rhesus 6 3 2 2 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 11. A LC
cidae mulatta Macaque 11
Semnopithec Kashmir 5 4 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.7 C EN
us ajax Grey 7
Langur
Key: agricultural lands “ACZ”, scrublands “SLZ”, riparian “RZ”, forests “FZ”, alpine “APZ”,
localities “L” number “1-4”, summer “S”, winter “W. local conservation status “LCS”; Abundant
“A”, Common “C”, Becoming rare “BR” rare “R”, not elevated “NE”, least concern “LC”, near
threatened “NT” endangered “EN” vulnerable “VU” critically endangered “CR.

In terms of abundance, individuals varied among families and species. The abundant families
by the number of observations were recorded as Canidae (n=62; 36.25%), whereas the least
was Ursidae (7.01%) which included only 12 individuals. Canis aureus (n=30; 17.54%) and
Vulpes vulpes (n=26; 15.20%) were the most abundant species in terms of the number of
individuals recorded in all localities followed by Macaca mulatta (n=19; 11.11%),
Semnopithecus ajax (n=15; 8.77%), Panthera pardus (n=13; 7.60%) whereas Uncia uncia
(n=3;1.75%) and Capra sibirica (n=2;1.16%) were represented by least number of individual
(Figure 5).

47
 Diversity and Conservation Status of Large Mammals in Ghamot National Park

70 62
Number of individuals 60
50
40 34
27
30 21
20 12
6 9
10 3 2 3 1 2 1 2
0

Families

Species Richness Species Abundance

Figure 5: Large mammal’s family’s composition in the study area during study 2020-21

Across the localities and elevation species richness and abundance varied. Maximum richness
(n=9) and abundance (n=57) were recorded at the lowest elevation (2450-3400m) in ACZ,
whereas minimum richness (n=4) and abundance (n=14) was recorded at the highest
elevation (4200m) in APZ (Figure 6).
100 3450m 4200m
2900-3200m
90
Number of Species/Individuals

80 2700-2900m
2450-2700m
70
60
n=57
50
40
n=37
30
20 n=28
n=19 n=14
10 9 8 8
7
4
0
Agriculture Scrubland Riparian Forest Alpine
Zones (localities)
Specie Richness Species Abuandance Elevation (2500-4400m)

Figure 6: Large mammals’ richness and abundance at different elevations in the study
area

Apart from habitat type, recorded diversity indices were similar during the summer and winter
seasons. Irrespective of summer-winter seasons diversity indices were recorded highest in

48
Jahangeer et al

riparian zones (H=3.14) followed by forests (H=2.88), and agriculture lands (H=2.73).
Higher diversity was recorded in riparian, scrubland, and forest within the habitat type during
the summer as compared with the winter season. Evenness was recorded as almost similar for
summer and winter however evenness greatly varied between localities and habitat type. The
equitability (J) trend was recorded as nearly similar for both seasons and among the localities.
Overall locality 5 showed the highest dominance and lowest value of Shannon, and
equitability in winter as compared with summer and other localities (Table 3).

Table 3: Comparison of diversity of large mammals in Ghamot National Park

Diversity Indices ACZ SLZ RZ FZ AZ
L1,2 L1,2 L,1,2,3 L,1,2,3 L,1,2,3,4 L,1,2,3,4
S W S W S W S W S W S W
Number of species 7 7 7 6 6 8 6 5 3 1 5 4
Individuals 32 25 15 22 12 16 10 9 9 5 8 8
Shannon index (H) 2.73 2.55 2.62 2.47 2.66 3.14 2.88 2.43 1.69 0.00 2.61 2.18
Evenness (J) 0.97 0.91 0.93 0.96 1.03 1.05 1.12 1.05 1.07 1.07 1.12 1.09
Key: agricultural lands “ACZ”, scrublands “SLZ”, riparian zone “RZ”, forests “FZ”, alpine
pastures “APZ”, localities “L” number “1-4”, summer “S”, winter “W.

Discussion
The current study found 14 large mammals in GNP, including 7 globally threatened species,
4 large predator species (Uncia uncia, Panthera pardus, Ursus arctos, Ursus thibetanus, and
three ungulates Capra sibirica, Naemorhedus goral, and Moschus chrysogaster) (IUCN,
2020). All of these globally threatened species were also protected at the national level.
According to Bruner et al. (2001) and Bernard et al. (2014), the presence of all of these major
endangered predators and ungulate species in the protected region may be attributed to the
efficiency of wildlife conservation efforts.
The current study found that seasonal fluctuations (summer-winter) had minimal
effect on species abundance, richness, and diversity, however, habitat type has a substantial
impact. Except for Uncia uncia, Ursus arctos, and Capra sibirica, all of the described species
are from woodland habitats. The current findings indicated that the study area is vital for the
large mammal conservation; in particular, the presence of Uncia uncia and Ursus arctos in the
study area is particularly noteworthy, due to their low global population, larger home ranges,
scarcity of diet, and disturbance from local communities throughout their range (Diriba et al.,
2020). The variety of large animals in the western Himalayas is significant in comparison to
other parts of the country, but most of these species are either vulnerable or endangered
(Baig &
49
Diversity and Conservation Status of Large Mammals in Ghamot National Park

Ahmed, 2007). In this region, Qamar et al. (2005) have already recorded 10 large mammals,
2 small mammals, and 35 bird species.
The abundance of large mammals reported in the summer (n=84) was not much
different from the number reported in the winter (n=87). Less variation in different seasons
may be attributed to a variety of causes, including a lack of appropriate habitat in the
surrounding region, a lack of connection and routes between nearby areas with comparable
habitat if exist (Illius & O'Connor, 2000; Alvarenga et al., 2018). However, during the
summer, human and cattle encroachment on the study area was significantly higher. Several
studies suggested that such disruptions affect mammals through numerous processes, such as
causing animals to hide or move to other locations, reducing the likelihood of animals being
spotted (Dinakaran & Anbalagan, 2007); Hassani et al., 2008; Stankowich, 2008). In
addition, restoration of woody vegetation and proliferation of ground vegetation throughout
the summer season may have endowed the animals with a thick coat, making their sighting
difficult (Girma et al., 2012).
Riparian woodland and forest habitats had a higher Shannon diversity index in the
current study. These findings are not surprising given that these well-established habitats with
a larger area tends to hold more species than a destructed habitat with a smaller area
(Bantihun & Bekele, 2015; Girma et al., 2012). The current study found a high number of
herbivores in riparian forests and scrublands, which may have attracted a high number of
carnivore species, resulting in a greater variety (Alvarenga et al., 2018).
According to the findings, the highest abundance of mammalian species was observed
in agriculture lands and scrubland. As compared to high alpine pasture environments, these
habitats had the lowest seasonal fluctuation in Shannon diversity and the maximum
homogeneity in species composition. These findings may imply that agriculture areas,
riparian woodland and scrubland habitats are more adaptable to seasonal resources than other
habitats such as high alpine pastures and wetlands. Because of its high flexibility, these
habitats may have retained its habitat quality and quantity throughout the year, resulting in its
species composition.
The most abundant species recorded in five sites were Canis aureus (17.54%) and
Vulpes vulpes (15.20%). The Uncia uncia (1.75%) and Capra sibirica (1.16%) were
restricted to high alpine pastures (two localities) and had the lowest number of
representatives. The relative abundances of these two species were also reflected in the
results of similarity analysis, which revealed that high alpine pasture habitat animals had a
poorer similarity to the other four habitat types. The current study found that, although
50
Jahangeer et al

having the fewest species, high alpine

51
1
Diversity and Conservation Status of Large Mammals in Ghamot National Park

pastures support species that are unique to the habitat type. As a result, it is possible to
conclude that high alpine pastures in the research area have a commensurate role in
enhancing mammal diversity and that despite the limited number of high alpine pasture
habitats; it should not be ignored during conservation planning.
Species richness and abundance vary among localities and elevations. The lowest
elevation (2980m) had the highest richness (85.17%) and abundance (33.33%), whereas the
highest elevation (4210m) had the lowest richness (n=4) and abundance (n=14). According to
McCain (2009) and Rahbek (2005), the substantially higher mammal species richness and
abundance in lower elevations than in higher elevations could be owing to the varied
character of ecosystems in lower elevations, which provides better foraging opportunities and
food diversity. The association of mammal diversity and elevation patterns are temperature,
rainfall, habitat heterogeneousness, species interactions, and evolutionary processes such as
endemism, niche conservatism, isolation and speciation (Hawkins et al., 2012; Machac et al.,
2011). The decline in species abundance and richness with elevation could be due to a
decrease in habitat variability, a lack of enough canopy cover, and a higher danger of
predation in the open region compared to the dense forest, which provides enough space to
hide and move. Elevation, slope, and aspect all affect microclimate conditions thereby
affecting the mammal distribution and abundance. Slope may be another major input for
microclimatic variables impacting vegetation development and dispersal. Slope influences the
amount of solar radiation available to vegetation, soil moisture, and microclimatic factors
which in turn influences the abundance and distribution of mammals (Bennie et al., 2008).
In conclusion, the findings of the study reveal that GNP harbors a variety of large
mammalian species, some of which are globally threatened. Canis aureus (17.54%) and
Vulpes vulpes were the common species, while Uncia uncia (1.75%) and Capra sibirica
(1.16%) were the rarest and restricted to high alpine pastures. However, very slight seasonal
variation was recorded in the abundance and diversity of species in the study area. This study
provides the first ecological data on mammal diversity in GNP, which will be valuable for
park management to make effective conservation interventions, as well as for researchers
conducting related studies. To aid in the development of management plans, it is necessary to
not only strengthen law enforcement to check the human and their livestock encroachment in
the park but also conduct further detailed studies on population structure, spatiotemporal
habitat use, and the impacts of human-induced actions on biodiversity of the park.

50
Diversity and Conservation Status of Large Mammals in Ghamot National Park

References

Abbas, Q., Khan, S. W., Khatoon, S., Hussain, S. A., Hassan, S. N., Hussain, A., ... & Hussain,
I. (2014). Floristic biodiversity and traditional uses of medicinal plants of Haramosh
valley, Central Karakoram National Park of Gilgit district, Gilgit-Baltistan. Pakistan
Journal of Bio-Environmental Sciences, 5, 75-86.
Abie, K., Tilahun, B., Feyisa, A., Kumssa, T., & Amare, A. (2021). Diversity and habitat
association of medium and large mammals in Gibe Sheleko National Park, Southern
Ethiopia. Ecology and Evolution, 11(18), 12251-12258.
Ali, U., Iftikhar, N., Shafi, N., Ahmad, K. B., Awan, M. S., Minhas, R. A., & Khan, L. A.
(2018). Population status and distribution of Himalayan brown bear (Ursus arctos
isabellinus) in Musk Deer National Park, Neelum, Azad Jammu and Kashmir
(Pakistan): Himalayan Brown Bear Population Study. Biological Sciences - PJSIR,
61(3), 158–164. https://doi.org/10.52763/PJSIR.BIOL.SCI.61.3.2018.158.164
Alroy, J. (2017). Effects of habitat disturbance on tropical forest biodiversity. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 114(23), 6056-6061.
Alvarenga, G. C., Ramalho, E. E., Baccaro, F. B., da Rocha, D. G., Ferreira-Ferreira, J., &
Bobrowiec, P. E. D. (2018). Spatial patterns of medium and large-sized mammal
assemblages in várzea and terra firme forests, Central Amazonia, Brazil. PLoS One,
13(5), e0198120. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198120
Alves, B. G., Junior, M. O., & Brites, V. C. (2014). Medium and large-sized mammals of a
fragment of Cerrado in the Triangulo Mineiro region, Southeastern Brazil. Bioscience
Journal of Uberlandia, 30(3), 863–873.
Baig, M. B. (2012). Wildlife of Pakistan. Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences, 1(1), 62.
Baig, M. B., & Ahmed, M. (2007). Biodiversity in Pakistan: Status, challenges, and strategies
for its conservation. International Journal of Biology and Biotechnology, 4(4), 283-
292.
Baig, M. B., & Al-Subaiee, F. S. (2009). Biodiversity in Pakistan. Biodiversity, 10(4), 20-29.
Barlow, J., Lennox, G. D., Ferreira, J., Berenguer, E., Lees, A. C., Nally, R. M., Thomson, J.
R., Ferraz, S. F., Louzada, J., Oliveira, V. H., & Parry, L. (2016). Anthropogenic
disturbance in tropical forests can double biodiversity loss from deforestation. Nature,
535(7610), 144-147.

52
Jahangeer et al

Bennie, J., Huntley, B., Wiltshire, A., Hill, M. O., & Baxter, R. (2008). Slope, aspect and
climate: spatially explicit and implicit models of topographic microclimate in chalk
grassland. Ecological Modelling, 216(1), 47-59.
Bernard, E., Penna, L. A., & Araújo, E. (2014). Downgrading, downsizing, degazettement,
and reclassification of protected areas in Brazil. Conservation Biology, 28(4), 939-
950.
Bruner, A. G., Gullison, R. E., Rice, R. E., & Da Fonseca, G. A. (2001). Effectiveness of
parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science, 291(5501), 125-128.
Dinakaran, S., & Anbalagan, S. (2007). Effects of riparian vegetation on the functional
organization of stream communities in southern Western Ghats. Journal of Aquatic
Biology, 22(1), 25-31.
Diriba, G., Tamene, S., Mengesha, G., & Asefa, A. (2020). Diversity of medium and large
mammals in the Loka Abaya National Park, southern Ethiopia. Ecology and
Evolution, 10(18), 9896-9905.
Geleta, M., & Bekele, A. (2016). Survey of medium and large-sized mammals in Wacha
Protected Forest, Western Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Science, 6(3), 71-79.
Girma, Z., Mamo, Y., & Ersado, M. (2012). Species composition, distribution and relative
abundance of large mammals in and around Wondo Genet Forest Patch, Southern
Ethiopia. Asian Journal of Applied Sciences, 5(8), 538-551.
Gonfa, R., Gadisa, T., & Habtamu, T. (2015). The diversity, abundance, and habitat
associations of medium and large-sized mammals in Dati Wolel National Park,
western Ethiopia. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation, 7, 112–
118.
GoAJK (2018). Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution (Twelfth Amendment) Act.
Law, Justice, Parliamentary Affairs, and Human Rights Department, Muzaffarabad.
Retrieved from AJK Supreme Courtp://ajksupremecourt.gok.pk/wp-
content/uploads/2014/04/2019-02-14-5c647c81b020b1550089345.pdf).
Hassani, N., Asghari, R., Frid, S., & Nurberdief, M. (2008). Impacts of overgrazing in long-
term traditional grazing systems on vegetation around watering points in semi-arid
rangeland, North-Eastern Iran. Pacific Journal of Biological Science, 11, 1733–1737.
Hawkins, B. A., McCain, C. M., Davies, T. J., Buckley, L. B., Anacker, B. L., Cornell, H. V.,
Damschen, E. I., Grytnes, J. A., Harrison, S., Holt, R. D., & Kraft, N. J. (2012).
Different evolutionary histories underlie congruent species richness gradients of birds
and mammals. Journal of Biogeography, 39(5), 825-841.

53
Diversity and Conservation Status of Large Mammals in Ghamot National Park

Hughes, T. P., Kerry, J. T., Álvarez-Noriega, M., Álvarez-Romero, J. G., Anderson, K. D.,
Baird, A. H., Babcock, R. C., Beger, M., Bellwood, D. R., Berkelmans, R., & Bridge,

54
Jahangeer et al

T. C. (2017). Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals. Nature,

543(7645), 373-377.
Illius, A. W., & O'connor, T. G. (2000). Resource heterogeneity and ungulate population
dynamics. Oikos, 89(2), 283-294.
IUCN, (2020). International Union for Conservation of Nature Primate Specialist Group.
Regional action plan for the conservation of western chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes
verus) (2020–2030).
Jahangeer, M., Awan, M. S., Altaf, M., Minhas, R. A., & Ali, U. (2023). Study of bird
diversity in Ghamot National Park Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan. Pakistan
Journal of Zoology, 1-11. https://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjz/202212070512
Jahangeer, M., Awan, M. S., Shakeel, A., Minhas, R. A., Saleem, M. M., Ali, U., & Sudhzoi,
A. (2024). Ethnoveterinary utilization of medicinal plants in Ghamot National Park,
Western Himalayas of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan. Ethnobotany Research
and Applications, 28, 1–17.
https://ethnobotanyjournal.org/index.php/era/article/view/5587
Karanth, K. U., Chundawat, R. S., Nichols, J. D., & Kumar, N. S. (2004). Estimation of tiger
densities in the tropical dry forests of Panna, Central India, using photographic
capture– recapture sampling. Animal Conservation Forum, 7(3), 285-290.
Kasso, M., & Bekele, A. (2014). Threats to mammals on fragmented habitats around Asella
Town, central Ethiopia. International Journal of Biodiversity, 2014, 1-7.
Khan, M. B., Khawaja, B. A., Awan, M. S., Usman, A., Minhas, R. A., & Choudary, S. A.
(2012). Distribution, population status, and habitat utilization of the common otter
(Lutra lutra) in Neelum Valley, Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan Journal of
Zoology, 44(1).
Khan, M. S. (2004). Annotated checklist of amphibians and reptiles of Pakistan. Asiatic
Herpetological Research, 10(1), 191-201.
Khan, M. Z., Zehra, A., Ghalib, S. A., Siddiqui, S., & Hussain, B. (2010). Vertebrate
biodiversity and key mammalian species status of Hingol National Park. Canadian
Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences, 1151.
Krebs, R. E. (2006). The history and use of our earth's chemical elements: A reference guide.
Greenwood Publishing Group.
Li, S.Q., & Quan, R.C. (2017). Taxonomy is the cornerstone of biodiversity conservation—
SEABRI reports on biological surveys in Southeast Asia. Zoological Research, 38(5),
213–214. https://doi.org/10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2017.061

55
Diversity and Conservation Status of Large Mammals in Ghamot National Park

Liow, L. H., Fortelius, M., Bingham, E., Lintulaakso, K., Mannila, H., Flynn, L., & Stenseth,
N. C. (2008). Higher origination and extinction rates in larger mammals. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(16), 6097-6102.
Locke, H., & Dearden, P. (2005). Rethinking protected area categories and the new paradigm.
Environmental Conservation, 32(1), 1-10.
Machac, A., Janda, M., Dunn, R. R., & Sanders, N. J. (2011). Elevational gradients in
phylogenetic structure of ant communities reveal the interplay of biotic and abiotic
constraints on diversity. Ecography, 34(3), 364-371.
Manzoor, M., Riaz A., Iqbal Z., Mian, A. (2013). Biodiversity of Pir Lasura National Park,
Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan. Science, Technology and Development, 32 (2):
182-196
Marwat, S. K., Usman, K., Rashid, A. B., & Ghulam, S. A. (2011). Biodiversity of grassy
weeds and their ethnobotanical importance in Dera Ismail Khan District (DI Khan),
KPK, Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 43(4), 1731-1739.
McCain, C. M. (2009). Global analysis of bird elevational diversity. Global Ecology and
Biogeography, 18(2), 163-174.
Mengesha, G., & Bekele, A. (2008). Diversity, distribution and habitat association of large
mammals of Alatish, north Gonder, Ethiopia. Acta Zoologica Sinica, 54(1), 20-29.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Mirza, Z. B. (1998). Illustrated handbook of animal biodiversity of Pakistan. Centre for
Environmental Research and Conservation.
Peres, C. A., Gardner, T. A., Barlow, J., Zuanon, J., Michalski, F., Lees, A. C., Vieira, I. C.,
Moreira, F. M., & Feeley, K. J. (2010). Biodiversity conservation in human-modified
Amazonian Forest landscapes. Biological Conservation, 143(10), 2314-2327.
Qamar, Q. Z., Anwar, M., & Minhas, R. A. (2008). Distribution and population status of
Himalayan musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster) in the Machiara National Park, AJ&K.
Pakistan Journal of Zoology, 40, 159–163.
Qamar, Z. Q., Awan, M. S., Maqsood, A., & Shahid, M. (2005). Status of wild species and
their management in Ghomat Game Reserve, District Muzaffarabad. Journal of
Natural Science, 3(4), 100-108.
Rahbek, C. (2005). The mid-domain effect applied to elevational gradients: Species richness
of small mammals in Costa Rica. Journal of Biogeography, 31(1), 19–31.

56
Jahangeer et al

Ripple, W. J., Abernethy, K., Betts, M. G., Chapron, G., Dirzo, R., Galetti, M., Levi, T.,
Lindsey, P. A., Macdonald, D. W., Machovina, B., & Newsome, T. M. (2016).
Bushmeat hunting and extinction risk to the world's mammals. Royal Society Open
Science, 3(10), 160498.
Ripple, W. J., Chapron, G., López-Bao, J. V., Durant, S. M., Macdonald, D. W., Lindsey, P.
A., Bennett, E. L., Beschta, R. L., Bruskotter, J. T., Campos-Arceiz, A., & Corlett, R.
T. (2017). Conserving the world's megafauna and biodiversity: The fierce urgency of
now. Bioscience, 67(3), 197-200.
Stankowich, T. (2008). Ungulate flight responses to human disturbance: A review and meta-
analysis. Biological Conservation, 141(9), 2159-2173.
Struhsaker, T. T., Struhsaker, P. J., & Siex, K. S. (2005). Conserving Africa’s rain forests:
Problems in protected areas and possible solutions. Biological Conservation, 123(1),
45-54.
Sutherland, W. J. (2006). Ecological census techniques: A handbook. Cambridge University
Press.
Symes, W. S., Edwards, D. P., Miettinen, J., Rheindt, F. E., & Carrasco, L. R. (2018).
Combined impacts of deforestation and wildlife trade on tropical biodiversity are
severely underestimated. Nature Communications, 9(1), 1-9.
Tabor, C., Otto-Bliesner, B., & Liu, Z. (2020). Speleothems of South American and Asian
monsoons influenced by a Green Sahara. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(22),
e2020GL089695.
Thomas, L., & Middleton, J. (2003). Guidelines for management planning of protected areas.
Gland, Switzerland/Cambridge, England.
Tilker, A., Abrams, J. F., Mohamed, A., Nguyen, A., Wong, S. T., Sollmann, R., Niedballa,
J., Bhagwat, T., Gray, T. N., Rawson, B. M., & Guegan, F. (2019). Habitat degradation
and indiscriminate hunting differentially impact faunal communities in the Southeast
Asian tropical biodiversity hotspot. Communications Biology, 2(1), 1-11.
Watson, J. E., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B., & Hockings, M. (2014). The performance and
potential of protected areas. Nature, 515(7525), 67-73.
Wilcove, D. S., Giam, X., Edwards, D. P., Fisher, B., & Koh, L. P. (2013). Navjot's
nightmare revisited: Logging, agriculture, and biodiversity in Southeast Asia. Trends
in Ecology & Evolution, 28(9), 531-540.

57