Review
Monitoring ungulates in Central Asia: current
constraints and future potential
N a v i n d e r J . S i n g h and E . J . M i l n e r - G u l l a n d
Abstract Asia’s rangelands and mountains are strongholds
for several endemic ungulate species. Little is known about
the ecology of these species because of the region’s remoteness and the lack of robust scientific studies. Hunting,
habitat modification, increased livestock grazing, disease
and development are the major threats to the species. There
is an urgent need for better monitoring to identify the size,
distribution and dynamics of the populations of these
species, and the threats to them, for effective conservation.
The feasibility of standard scientific monitoring is greatly
influenced by the remoteness of the region, the pre-existing
scientific ideology, lack of expertise in the latest monitoring
methods and awareness of biases and errors, and low
capacity and logistical and financial constraints. We review
the existing methods used for monitoring ungulates, identify
the practical and institutional challenges to effective monitoring in Central Asia and categorize the methods based on
various criteria so that researchers can plan better monitoring studies suited to particular species. We illustrate these
issues using examples from several contrasting ungulate
species. We recommend that scientific surveys should be
complemented by increases in participatory monitoring,
involving local people. The future of ungulate monitoring in
Central Asia lies in a better recognition of the existing errors
and biases in monitoring programmes and methods, allocation of more monitoring effort in terms of manpower,
finances and logistics, understanding of robust scientific
methods and sampling theory, and changing the scientific
culture, as well as a commitment to ensuring that we monitor
the things that matter.
Keywords Central Asia, confidence intervals, cost, partic-
ipatory monitoring, saiga, sampling effort, stratified random sampling, ungulate
Introduction
T
he effectiveness of conservation interventions cannot
be evaluated without proper monitoring. A number of
NAVINDER J. SINGH (Corresponding author) and E.J. MILNER-GULLAND
Department
of
Life
Sciences,
Imperial
College
London,
Silwood Park Campus, Buckhurst Road, Ascot, Berkshire, SL5 7PY, UK
E-mail n.singh@imperial.ac.uk
Received 12 May 2010. Revision requested 14 June 2010.
Accepted 1 July 2010.
recent studies have highlighted the importance of focusing
on the questions of why, what and how to monitor, as well
as the importance of adapting monitoring to changing
circumstances (Yoccoz et al., 2001; Nichols & Williams,
2006). New techniques are emerging that improve the
robustness and cost-effectiveness of data collection and
analysis (MacKenzie et al., 2002; Thomas et al., 2009).
However, in many areas robust monitoring programmes
using contemporary scientific methods are still not being
employed because of lack of funds, logistics, skilled manpower, commitment and basic issues of bias and coverage
that compromise the interpretation of monitoring results.
To address this it is important to recognize the barriers and
constraints to better monitoring. There is also a need for an
assessment of monitoring methods and their relevance in
specific situations. We use a case study of ungulates in
Central Asia to explore these issues. Much of the monitoring uses biased and outdated techniques that do not have
the reliable power to inform management. Here we consider the constraints under which monitoring in Central
Asia operates and discuss feasible and locally appropriate
approaches to improve monitoring.
The region
Central Asia is home to a number of ungulate species with
contrasting life histories (body sizes, longevities, litter sizes
and generation lengths) and habitat selection strategies
(Schaller, 1977, 1998; Fox et al., 1991). These species include
argali Ovis ammon, ibex Capra sibirica, Mongolian gazelle
Procapra gutturosa, Tibetan gazelle Procapra picticaudata,
kiang Equus kiang, Przewalski’s horse Equus ferus przewalskii, wild yak Bos grunniens, Bactrian camel Camelus
bactrianus, blue sheep Pseudois nayaur, markhor Capra
falconeri, saiga antelope Saiga tatarica and Tibetan antelope or chiru Pantholops hodgsonii. The saiga was historically abundant and reasonably well managed in Soviet times
for trophies and meat (Bekenov et al., 1998). However,
following the collapse of the Soviet Union this management
programme also collapsed, leading to excessive hunting of
saiga, reduction of its numbers by 95% within 2 decades, and
categorization as Critically Endangered on the IUCN Red
List (Milner-Gulland et al., 2001). Although categorized as
Endangered (IUCN, 2010), the status of the chiru varies
regionally. In some areas its populations are apparently
increasing, whereas in others new threats are appearing (Fox
ª 2011 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 45(1), 38–49
http://journals.cambridge.org
Downloaded: 20 May 2011
IP address: 193.10.99.138
doi:10.1017/S0030605310000839
Monitoring ungulates in Central Asia
et al., 2009). The major threats include adoption of mass
killing methods by hunters using guns and the fencing of
pastures by the Chinese government (Fox et al., 2009; IUCN,
2010). Species such as argali, blue sheep and ibex are still
found in large enough numbers to be managed as trophy
hunting species, generating revenue for many Central Asian
states (Reading et al., 1997; Shackleton, 2001; Harris &
Pletscher, 2002). Relatively abundant species such as the
Mongolian gazelle, ibex, kiang and blue sheep are in places
considered competitors with domestic livestock by local
pastoralists, which is a cause of conflict (Bhatnagar et al.,
2006; Shrestha & Wegge, 2008), and are also threatened by
habitat modification and losses (Ito et al., 2005; Olson et al.,
2009).
The region extends from southern Siberia in Russia to the
Greater Himalayas, characterized by cold deserts, semi-arid
grasslands, high mountains and plateaux. These highly
seasonal systems have harsh winters and hot summers, with
peak productivity mainly during a few months in summer
(June–August). The ungulate species occur in a multiplicity
of habitats ranging from steep slopes to vast open flat plains.
Many of these species occur in countries that have either
undergone recent economic and political readjustments and
hence lack proper monitoring programmes or where longterm monitoring programmes exist but have not been
updated to account for changing political or management
circumstances. There is a lack of scientific capacity and
knowledge of the latest monitoring methods (NortonGriffiths & McConville, 2007; O’Neill, 2008; McConville
et al., 2009; Norton-Griffiths, 2009). In many places the issue
is not just lack of knowledge and capacity but a lack of
acknowledgement of the importance of randomization in
survey design and of properly accounting for sampling error.
This leads to the possibility of misrepresentation of species
status and trends, potentially jeopardizing conservation and
management goals (McConville et al., 2009).
Methods for monitoring ungulates
Monitoring methods for ungulates can be broadly classified
into four categories based on the medium used for surveys:
aerial, ground-vehicular, ground-walked and ground-other.
Each of these categories may use transect-based or countbased surveys. The transect surveys may be based on line or
strip transects, whereas count surveys may involve track or
point counts. Most of these methods aim to sample a part of
the population and use the results to make robust inferences
about the entire population. Sometimes, however, total
counts may also be made within sample blocks (NortonGriffiths, 2009). All monitoring methods come with limitations as well as advantages (Table 1), with the best approach
depending on the aims and scale of the survey. These techniques have been discussed in detail elsewhere (Sutherland,
2006) and we do not elaborate on them here.
Ideally, the objective of any monitoring programme is to
obtain precise estimates with a low bias for a given level of
total survey effort. Milner-Gulland & Rowcliffe (2007)
described two kinds of biases associated with (1) improper
selection of representative sampling units of the population,
and (2) failure to meet the assumptions of the analysis, both
of which may lead to model errors and hence to misleading
conclusions. One key issue is detectability. To compare
populations over space and time requires a constant detection probability or for changes in detectability to be
corrected. Factors affecting detectability of a species include
terrain, species biology, climate, time of the survey and
observer efficiency (Thompson, 2004). Not correcting for
detectability results in a biased density estimator and,
therefore, faulty inferences about the population in question (Diefenbach et al., 2003; Farnsworth et al., 2005).
Another categorization is scientific and participatory
approaches to monitoring. Participatory, or locally based,
monitoring involves local people in monitoring practices.
Danielsen et al. (2009) defined categories based on the
extent of involvement of people in monitoring. Local
involvement can include data collection, survey design
and analysis of results and management-oriented decision
making. Five types of methods are suggested by Danielsen
et al. (2009) as suitable for participatory monitoring: patrol
records, transects, species lists, simple photography and
village group discussions although, as capacity builds, more
technically demanding methods may also be possible.
Participatory monitoring can be the first step towards
integrated sustainable community management of natural
resources for the mutual benefit of biodiversity and human
welfare (Townsend et al., 2005).
Challenges in monitoring Central Asian ungulate
species
Although there is a range of well-established monitoring
methods available (Tables 1 & 2), they are not consistently
applied to Central Asia’s ungulates. The main challenges for
monitoring include the region’s remoteness, difficult terrain
(altitudes to 5,000 m for argali, ibex, chiru, wild yak, Bactrian
camel and Tibetan gazelle, and rugged and steep slopes . 45°
for blue sheep, ibex and markhor), climate (extreme cold with
the minimum temperature in winter falling to c. -45°C), lack
of sufficient coverage of the areas inhabited (thousands of
square kilometres for chiru, Mongolian gazelle, saiga, argali
and Bactrian camel), financial support, logistics, commitment
and technical capacity.
Wide-ranging species
Migratory species such as the saiga, Mongolian gazelle and
chiru occur over vast open areas, which would appear to
make them good candidates for aerial surveys. However,
ª 2011 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 45(1), 38–49
http://journals.cambridge.org
Downloaded: 20 May 2011
IP address: 193.10.99.138
39
40
N. J. Singh and E. J. Milner-Gulland
TABLE 1 Advantages and disadvantages of the methods available for monitoring ungulate species, with references.
Method
Aerial
surveys
Advantages
Can be used to estimate animal
densities
Disadvantages
Cost intensive: aircraft rental costs, fuel,
observers’ salary & cameras
Large areas can be surveyed
rapidly
Vulnerable to biases & errors
related to weather conditions, vegetation
cover, aircraft flight path, type of aircraft,
observers’ abilities & fatigue
Photographs can be taken for
later analysis
Statistical methods & analyses
are well defined
Groundvehicular
surveys
Cheaper to carry out than
aerial surveys
Can provide rapid results
Can be targeted at areas where
aircraft cannot fly
Good for species inhabiting
flat or gentle open terrain
References
Norton-Griffiths (1978);
Sutherland (2006)
Only feasible in open habitats & during
clear weather
May provide biased estimates if carried
out on roads designated for
vehicle travel
Buckland et al. (2001);
Sutherland (2006)
If driven on unpaved terrain may cause
damage to habitat
May be cost & time intensive in difficult
terrain
May cause disturbance to species if
they are too wary
Groundwalk
surveys
Cheaper to carry out than aerial or
ground-vehicular surveys
Cannot cover large areas
Sutherland (2006)
Requires intense individual effort
Can be targeted at areas where aircraft
cannot fly &/or vehicles cannot reach
Good for species inhabiting any kind
of terrain
Can give good estimates if designed
properly with account of sampling effort
Can provide quick estimates
GroundIndividual recognition: can provide very
other surveys precise estimates if all individuals are
identified
Can answer many questions related to
species biology & conservation
Participatory monitoring: can involve local
people & generate trust
Restricted to small areas
Can be expensive to implement
Danielsen et al.
(2005, 2009); Sutherland
(2006)
Can require intense survey effort &
logistics
Participatory data may not always
be reliable
Cheap to implement
only the saiga has been regularly monitored by aerial survey
(in Kazakhstan). The political circumstances, high altitudes
with extreme weather conditions and lack of funds make
this method infeasible for chiru and few aerial surveys have
been carried out for Mongolian gazelle, also probably
because of lack of funds. The aerial survey methods
currently in use for saigas have been consistently applied
for the past 40 years but have issues of biased detectability.
Norton-Griffiths & McConville (2007) highlighted issues of
survey design and coverage, and technical issues with the
conduct of the survey itself. McConville et al. (2009)
highlighted the problem of unaccounted changes in detection bias as saiga population densities and group sizes
have declined. The recommendations for improvement
contained in Norton-Griffiths & McConville (2007) have
been officially accepted but actual changes are only gradually being implemented.
Saigas are also monitored using ground-vehicular surveys
(both in Kazakhstan and in Russia) and so are chiru and
Mongolian gazelles. However, vehicular surveys are prone to
a number of biases including lack of measurement of
sampling effort, sampling restricted to roadsides and
ª 2011 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 45(1), 38–49
http://journals.cambridge.org
Downloaded: 20 May 2011
IP address: 193.10.99.138
Monitoring ungulates in Central Asia
TABLE 2 Advantages and disadvantages of various methods of sampling, with references.
Method
Line
transects
Advantages
Can be carried out on foot, horseback,
in vehicles or aircraft & can include
observations of individuals, groups,
signs (e.g. dung, tracks) & threats (e.g.
snares, human encampments)
Disadvantages
Subject to many assumptions, which
sometimes are hard to meet in the field:
(1) all animals are seen along the line
with certainty, (2) objects do not move,
(3) measurements are precise
Can be used in small- to large-scale
open & rolling habitats
Requires measurement of distance as
well as angle, which may be hard to
estimate
Allows for objects to be missed around
the lines
References
Burnham et al.
(1980)
Animals may flee before being detected
Methods of analyses are well defined
If assumptions are met, can provide
a reasonable estimate
Strip
transects
Can be carried out on foot, horseback,
in vehicles or aircraft & can include
observations of individuals & groups
Does not require measurement of
angles
Methods of analyses are well defined
If assumptions are met, can provide
a reasonable estimate
Track counts
Can provide information about
presence/absence of a species &
abundance
Cost-effective
Point counts
Abundances may be locally
underestimated if detection probability
is reduced in some parts of the strip
Old tracks or overlaid tracks may
confound estimates
Can be used to estimate densities
Prone to biases generated because of
detectability issues, as no information
on the proportion of population being
sampled
Especially useful in difficult terrain
Points should be appropriately chosen
based on visibility
Can be used to confirm presence of
a species & estimate abundance
Restricted to species that have
a characteristic dung
May be easier to count dung than
animals if species are cryptic or occur in
difficult terrain
Rates of dung decay may affect
abundance estimates
Cost-effective
Sulkava & Liukko
(2007)
Restricted to specific habitats & seasons
(e.g. after snowfall)
May not be suitable for covering large
areas
May be able to detect shy species
Eberhardt (1978);
Certain &
Bretagnolle (2008)
Sightings located far away from the
observer are more likely to be missed
Effective for rare & cryptic species
Cost-effective
Dung/pellet
counts
Does not allow for any objects to be
missed
Nichols et al. (2000)
Laing et al. (2003)
Dung is not randomly distributed,
leading to biased abundance estimates
Does not require substantial logistics
Individual
recognition
Effective method that provides a variety
of data on population abundance,
densities, demography & dynamics
Suitable for small areas only
Can be highly suitable for long-term
studies
Requires substantial logistics &
manpower for capture & recapture
Costly to implement & undertake
Data analyses can be particularly
demanding
ª 2011 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 45(1), 38–49
http://journals.cambridge.org
Downloaded: 20 May 2011
IP address: 193.10.99.138
Sutherland (2006)
41
42
N. J. Singh and E. J. Milner-Gulland
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Method
Camera traps
Advantages
Provides a variety of data on population
abundance, densities, demography &
individuals
Useful for rare & cryptic species
Disadvantages
Requires substantial logistics, costly
Strategic placement of cameras required
based on prior knowledge of species
biology
References
Karanth & Nichols
(2008)
Cameras can be stolen or damaged
Participatory
monitoring
Can be used to estimate presence/
absence & relative abundance
May provide biased estimates if not
designed properly
Cost-effective & sustainable
Vulnerable to biased opinions or
concealment of information
Enables coverage of areas outside
protected areas
Involves local people in monitoring
process & generates a sense of
responsibility
Useful for monitoring nomadic or
migratory species & may be helpful for
cryptic species if knowledgeable
informants are used
overestimation of group sizes (O’Neill, 2008). O’Neill (2008)
reported that distance sampling for saigas fails because of
their extreme wariness of humans, leading to a humped
detection function, and their tendency to travel in linear
groups, making estimation of numbers difficult. In contrast,
Fox & Bårdsen (2005) used this methodology for chiru
across the Chang Tang Nature Reserve and noted that flight
reaction problems eased at distances . 200 m from the
transect line. They suggested that population estimates were
possible in limited areas with a strict transect organization
and layout that samples patchy distributions, in line with the
assumptions of line transect methodology (Bårdsen & Fox,
2006). Mongolian gazelles were systematically monitored
using long-distance vehicular surveys during Soviet times
(Sokolov et al., 1982; Lushchekina, 1990). Although these
surveys provided point estimates of abundance and group
size, they lacked information on sampling methodology,
effort, precision and bias. In 1994 an aerial survey reported
a population estimate nearly double that obtained from
ground surveys, highlighting these methodological issues
(Milner-Gulland & Lhagvasuren, 1998; Reading et al., 1998).
Olson et al. (2005) carried out vehicular distance sampling of
Mongolian gazelle over a small area but reported that
sometimes vehicular monitoring methods fail when extremely large numbers of animals are encountered moving
in large herds. A few studies have used satellite tagging to
investigate movement patterns and habitat use of Mongolian
gazelle (Leimgruber et al., 2001; Ito et al., 2005, 2006; Mueller
et al., 2008) but, despite this, a survey for a reliable estimate
of the total population has still not been conducted.
Danielsen et al.
(2005, 2009)
May not be ideal for cryptic species if
using inexperienced observers
May not be sustainable if local
community dynamics change
Requires training of local people in
observing species
Often, the wildlife monitoring and protection agencies
in the region are inadequately equipped to sample vast
areas, resulting in a lack of sufficient coverage of survey
areas and an inability to undertake regular monitoring. In
other cases the conduct of the monitoring programme
depends on factors that are not directly related to optimizing survey design. For example, the timing of aerial surveys
for saiga monitoring in Kazakhstan is determined by the
availability of aircraft, by the weather in particular seasons
and by the fact that in spring just after the snow melt they are
easily visible (because they have their white winter coats
against the dark background). Similarly, most of the surveys
on the Tibetan plateau are conducted in summer because of
the better accessibility and the favourable climate.
Mountain-dwelling species
Difficult terrain in mountainous regions means that logistical constraints are particularly important determinants of
monitoring outcomes. In mountainous areas species such
as argali, ibex and urial Ovis vignei are often rare, with low
and patchy population sizes, undertake altitudinal migrations and are non-randomly distributed in the landscape
(Singh et al., 2010a). These factors severely limit the
number of observations that can be acquired for a given
survey effort. Often some of these species may move long
distances during a day, which makes it difficult to identify
populations unless they are restricted to a limited area.
Hence, there is always a trade-off between the survey effort
that is feasible given the logistical constraints and the
ª 2011 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 45(1), 38–49
http://journals.cambridge.org
Downloaded: 20 May 2011
IP address: 193.10.99.138
Monitoring ungulates in Central Asia
sample sizes required to satisfy assumptions required for
rigorous analyses of monitoring data.
Point counts are generally conducted to survey these
mountain-dwelling species, using techniques such as vantage points along trails. However, the random placement of
vantage points to enable coverage of the entire survey area
is a challenge (Nichols et al., 2000). It is also difficult to
establish a survey strategy that could cover most of the
vantage points in a single day or within a defined period
because of the high-altitude environment (low oxygen levels
prevent intense sampling from walked surveys) and the
deceptive distances in these landscapes. Local weather
conditions may play a defining role when conducting point
counts as detectability of animals is extremely variable at
high altitudes. Animals may shelter from the heat in the
middle of summer days, making them hard to see, and
unexpected snow events and fog may suddenly decrease
detectability in winter. Most mountain ungulate species are
sexually dimorphic, with strong sexual segregation, leading
to biases, particularly during the late spring birth period
when females conceal themselves. This problem may also be
encountered with other survey methods.
Transboundary populations
Many ungulate species in the region occur in transboundary populations (argali, chiru and wild yak in India–
China; argali in Mongolia–Russia; argali and kulan Equus
hemionus in China–Mongolia; Marco Polo sheep Ovis
ammon poli in China–Afghanistan–Pakistan; saiga in
Kazakhstan–Uzbekistan) and this can lead to a major
hurdle to systematic monitoring if the political atmosphere
is unstable. In many cases species populations may be
threatened by different factors, and managed differently, on
either side of the border, which makes monitoring by one
party difficult. Often, the political atmosphere in the entire
region is delicate, economic conditions are poor and
monitoring methods for the same species in different
countries do not match, making reliable estimates of
populations and their distribution difficult. For example,
the proportion of the saiga population migrating over the
border from Kazakhstan to Uzbekistan each winter is
unknown because simultaneous counts on each side using
the same methods are not undertaken; this is particularly
problematic because the location of the bulk of the
population with respect to the border on the survey date
varies from year to year depending on the weather. Political
problems also often result in prohibitions on general access
to areas where many of these ungulate species occur. For
example, populations of argali, kiang, chiru, Tibetan gazelle
and markhor often occur in the border areas between India,
China and Pakistan, which are made practically inaccessible because of the presence of the military, preventing any
kind of regular monitoring. Any kind of research in these
areas requires permissions from central government, which
often takes long periods of time and excessive paperwork.
Such situations often lead to uncontrolled poaching because of lack of any anti-poaching patrols.
Political will
A number of development agencies (UN Development
Programme, World Bank, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit, Global Environment Facility, UN
Environment Programme) and non-governmental organizations (Wildlife Conservation Society, WWF, Frankfurt
Zoological Society, BirdLife) are actively involved in wildlife conservation activities in the region alongside local
governments, including ungulate monitoring. These organizations may fund research and monitoring activities and
provide technical expertise for surveys, as well as capacity
building and logistical support. However, many of these
programmes are short-term in their funding and do not
manage to convince government of the need for continued
implementation of rigorous monitoring. Hence, the longterm sustainability of new monitoring programmes is
threatened once donor funding ends. An example is aerial
surveys in Kazakhstan: the donor funding enabled the
problems to be identified and a staged approach to
improving the surveys to be agreed (Norton-Griffiths &
McConville, 2007) but without the political will for the
government to implement these recommendations.
Improving monitoring
Despite the seriousness of these various challenges there are
a variety of ways in which they may be overcome (Table 2).
Provision of better equipment, logistical support, training
in sampling theory and monitoring methods by governments, research institutions and donor agencies can help
overcome the practical difficulties of insufficient funding,
skilled manpower and logistics. However, a change of
culture is also needed. We outline below the key changes
that are required.
Clear objectives
Defining clear objectives is crucial both for justifying
financial support for monitoring and for promoting local
engagement (Yoccoz et al., 2001, 2003). The same applies to
the choice of variables to be monitored and achieving
a simple link between the data obtained from monitoring
and provision of management-relevant information. Clear
objectives assist in assessing the trade-offs required between
robustness of the monitoring programme and its feasibility
given the limited resources available. For example, if a precise estimate of population size is the main aim of a survey
then sampling intensity should focus on strata that may
ª 2011 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 45(1), 38–49
http://journals.cambridge.org
Downloaded: 20 May 2011
IP address: 193.10.99.138
43
44
N. J. Singh and E. J. Milner-Gulland
contribute most towards the estimate. If, however, we want
to know where to locate conservation activities we could
focus on surveying the best habitats, to reduce the survey
effort required, while still obtaining a reasonable population estimate (Singh et al., 2009). A crucial step is to
identify how many units need to be surveyed, using a given
method, to obtain a reliable estimate of abundance or any
other relevant measure of population state.
Achievable modifications to current methods
Slight modifications in the design of current monitoring
methods can yield reasonable results, increase precision
and reduce survey effort. Survey effort is often a key issue in
Central Asia, where tremendous effort is invested in
obtaining reasonable sample sizes. Using approaches such
as stratified random sampling based on habitat suitability
or predictive models holds promise in identifying crucial
areas for monitoring of species that inhabit precipitous
terrain or occur patchily over vast areas. Simple random
sampling may yield too few observations for mountain
species and too variable an estimate for wide-ranging
herding species. However, the critical issue with stratified
random sampling is the basis for defining strata. Strata in
stratified random sampling should be designed so as to
maximize the variation between strata and minimize the
variation within strata, and this is clearly dependent on
season for Central Asian species. Using habitat suitability
models provides an answer to this issue. Singh et al. (2009)
used this approach to define the strata for surveying Tibetan
argali Ovis ammon hodgsoni during summer in India. The
stratified random sampling approach appeared to be efficient
in terms of reducing the initial sampling bias of selecting the
sampling units and resulted in reduced effort in terms of
sampling time in the field. The approach when repeated over
time has good potential for including unsurveyed but
potentially inhabited areas in future surveys and improving
population estimates by increasing detections.
One strength of the approach used by Singh et al. (2009)
is that it is presence based. Often, it is simpler to collect
presence data than proving species absence, and this kind of
data is most frequently available from sources such as
rangers, local people and past records from reports and the
grey literature. Singh et al. (2010b) used 40 years of presenceonly data from the fieldwork reports of the Institute of
Zoology, Kazakhstan, to demonstrate that the location of
saiga calving areas is now more strongly determined by the
avoidance of human disturbance than by environmental
factors. Nevertheless, important points to consider while
undertaking presence-based surveys is to record the sampling
effort and areas visited, regardless of whether the species was
actually seen in those areas (O’Neill, 2008).
A viewshed analysis (which identifies the area that can
be seen from one or more observation points or lines) of the
surveyed vantage points may allow a preview of the parts of
the study area that are visible from a given vantage point or
trail. This may then assist in selection of appropriate
vantage points to enable full coverage of the survey area or
survey blocks while conducting point counts. In addition, it
may also allow prior identification of number of survey units
and sampling strategy required to get a reliable estimate of
the desired population metric. Bhatnagar et al. (2006) used
a viewshed approach to survey the kiang in the Ladakh
region of northern India. Other challenges with point counts
may be dealt with by careful planning of surveys, using
stratification to split the survey effort. If the species is
sexually segregated during summer, then winter may be
a better period to monitor populations, when both the sexes
are together, despite the weather-related challenges.
The availability of free satellite imagery can help
improve monitoring protocols and prior identification of
survey areas depending on the aim of monitoring. Highresolution land use maps from the Geocover project (MDA
Federal, 2004) and digital elevation models are freely
available at fine resolutions (10–90 m; USGS, 2004; ASTER
GDEM, 2009). These images are ready to use and hence
provide the best available tool to prioritize areas for
monitoring, such as specific mountain peaks and surrounding areas, valleys, trails, ridges, areas of human use and
water bodies, before going to the field. In addition, these
digital maps and models can be directly used as layers in the
formulation of predictive models for habitat suitability and
the distribution of species, which can then be translated
into a stratified random survey design (Singh et al., 2009).
Central Asia has an extreme climate and this often limits
monitoring to spring and summer, when the weather is
most favourable. However, other methods could be considered that utilize winter conditions, such as snow tracking, which can provide reasonably good estimates of animal
presence and abundance in a cost-effective manner (D’Eon,
2001; Sulkava & Liukko, 2007). This approach is used in
Uzbekistan for the saiga. A mark-recapture method is
currently being used for argali and ibex in a relatively small
protected area in Mongolia (Reading et al., 2009).
Monitoring more than just abundance
Practicality in the face of limited capacity dictates that
monitoring programmes should also focus on the questions
that need urgent attention rather than on more general
ecological questions. A key requirement is to monitor the
factors affecting population dynamics or causing a population’s decline. These may include poaching, habitat modification, disease, predation, rainfall, productivity and
extreme climatic events. In rapidly declining populations
monitoring may also focus on the age structure, survival or
fecundity of particular age classes. Kuhl et al. (2009), for
example, demonstrated that placental counts in saiga birth
ª 2011 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 45(1), 38–49
http://journals.cambridge.org
Downloaded: 20 May 2011
IP address: 193.10.99.138
Monitoring ungulates in Central Asia
areas provide a reliable estimate of twinning rate, which
itself is a proxy for population age structure and, through
that, potentially, for population growth rate.
For the Mongolian gazelle substantial progress in understanding its ecology has been made by monitoring
programmes that use satellite-tagged individuals in the
absence of reliable abundance estimates. The insights gained
into habitat use and movement patterns now hold the
potential for structuring a more realistic abundance monitoring strategy based on habitat suitability models (Olson
et al., 2009).
Participatory monitoring
Participatory monitoring is gaining popularity as a way of
engaging local people in the management of their resources
while also generating valuable ecological data (Danielsen
et al., 2005, 2009). In Central Asia uptake has been relatively
slow because of the remoteness of the region, its sparse
human population, the tendency for authoritarian centralized governments to control resource management and
hence the lack of a tradition of officially recognized community organizations.
However, the approach has been tested for saiga populations outside protected areas in Kalmykia and Uzbekistan and
shows promising results (Whitebread et al., 2008; Bykova &
Esipov, 2009). Local people are supportive and their observation skills are comparable to those of rangers. The public
engagement aspect is particularly important for wide-ranging
species threatened with heavy poaching, as by necessity a large
proportion of their population occurs outside protected areas
(Leon, 2009). This approach is replicable for other Central
Asian ungulate species. A more general participatory biodiversity monitoring programme is being tested among local
herders in Mongolia (J. Jamsramjav, pers. comm.), which has
the potential to extend monitoring coverage with concomitant conservation benefits.
When several methods are used, such as participatory
monitoring, ranger-based monitoring and one-off scientific
surveys, the challenge is to combine these data sets to make
inferences. This is difficult when the data are collected with
different biases and objectives and at different spatiotemporal resolutions. Methods for calibration of participatory monitoring with other forms of data are increasingly
available (Oba et al., 2008; Rist et al., 2010).
Political will
Despite the seemingly ever-changing political and institutional circumstances in the region, mutually cooperative
initiatives need to be taken by the countries sharing
transboundary populations and efforts need to be made
to prevent poaching and undertake regular monitoring
using agreed methods. Such efforts are currently underway
to some extent in many parts of the region, following the
lead of global biodiversity treaties and international promotion of the peace parks concept. For example, Kazakhstan
and Uzbekistan have recently signed a bilateral agreement
for the conservation of their transboundary saiga population
and scientists from the two countries have started to
undertake joint surveys.
Monitoring ungulates in Central Asia: the future
There are a range of well-tried monitoring techniques
available that can be adapted to meet the challenges of
monitoring the ungulates of Central Asia. The most
appropriate depends on the situation (Table 3). When
animals occur in open and rolling landscapes and there
are sufficient funds available, aerial surveys are the best
method (Fig. 1). Where funds are insufficient, and equipment and trained manpower unavailable, ground surveys
may be the best alternative, as long as they are well
designed. In rugged and mountainous terrain, point counts
from vantage points on trails may provide a reasonable
estimate for argali, ibex and blue sheep if the points are
designed to cover the entire survey area by using prior
identification of the survey area and sampling strategy
(Table 3).
The first step towards improving monitoring is to realize
the importance of the quantification of error in population
estimates, acknowledge the potential sources of bias, and
record the survey or sampling effort undertaken. The
examples of both argali and saiga demonstrate that slight
modifications to existing survey techniques can potentially
increase the power of monitoring programmes to detect
changes. If methods improved monitoring effort could be
substantially reduced. For example, aerial surveys of saiga
populations in Kazakhstan may not be required annually
but could potentially be carried out every 3–5 years, as long
as the estimates generated are robust. Regular evaluation of
existing monitoring methods through power analyses is
a useful way of assessing whether current monitoring is
capable of detecting policy-relevant trends. For example,
the memorandum of understanding on saiga conservation
under the Convention on Migratory Species has a 5-year
goal of stabilization of the saiga population (CMS, 2006).
However, current monitoring methods do not have the
power to detect short-term, relatively small-scale, trends
and so it is as yet not possible to evaluate whether range
states have achieved this goal (McConville et al., 2009).
In Central Asia there is an impetus to establish new
conservation regimes, with new laws, protected areas and
monitoring programmes being rapidly established (e.g. the
Altyn Dala Conservation Initiative; Klebelsberg, 2008). It is
vital that these initiatives are based on sound science before
it is too late to influence policy (Joly et al., 2010). Current
knowledge and monitoring approaches in this region are in
ª 2011 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 45(1), 38–49
http://journals.cambridge.org
Downloaded: 20 May 2011
IP address: 193.10.99.138
45
46
Scale
ª 2011 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 45(1), 38–49
Large
Aerial
Transects
U
Ground-vehicular
Transects
U
Track counts
Ground-walk
Transects
Point counts
Track counts
Dung transects
Ground-other
Individual
recognition
Camera traps
Participatory
U
monitoring
http://journals.cambridge.org
Habitat
Medium
U
Logistics
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Downloaded: 20 May 2011
Mountainous
rugged
Robustness
Patchy &
abundant
Small
Open
rolling
Budget
Abundant &
migratory
U
U
Species biology
Flat
open
U
U
U
U
IP address: 193.10.99.138
Rare
High
Medium
Low
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
High
U
U
U
U
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
N. J. Singh and E. J. Milner-Gulland
TABLE 3 Monitoring strategy matrix for Central Asian ungulate species based on various criteria. The table suggests the kind of strategy that may be relevant for a given monitoring
situation defined by scale, habitat, species biology, budget, robustness and logistics. For example, if the survey area is large, aerial line or strip transects may be appropriate; when habitat is
mountainous and rugged, point counts may be appropriate.
Monitoring ungulates in Central Asia
FIG. 1 A schematic presentation for adopting relevant monitoring methods for the habitats and ungulate species of Central Asia. From
the top: markhor Capra falconeri, ibex Capra sibirica, blue sheep Pseudois nayur, wild yak Bos grunniens, argali Ovis ammon, kiang
Equus kiang, Bactrian camel Camelus bactrianus, chiru Pantholops hodgsoni, Mongolian gazelle Procapra guttorosa, saiga Saiga tatarica
and again kiang. The purpose is not to show an elevational gradient, as many species occur at a range of altitudes.
many cases inadequate to support decision makers. Given
this, and given the threatened status of several of the
ungulate species, and inferred population declines, developing robust monitoring methods is a priority (CMS,
2006). Here, we have identified ways in which existing
monitoring methods can be improved without major
overhaul. These methods are locally accepted, logistically
practical and relatively cheap. In the absence of funding
and technical support for an entirely revamped monitoring
programme that is truly fit for purpose, there is scope for
working to improve what is already available so that the
estimates produced are robust, comparable between areas
and years and relatively unbiased.
Conclusions
The challenges we have identified in this review are
endemic within many of the current monitoring programmes in Central Asia, as is probably also the case
elsewhere where resources and technical capacity are in
limited supply. However, often relatively simple and costeffective remedies are available that can dramatically
improve the precision and accuracy of monitoring. In
many areas, therefore, the technical problems with existing
monitoring systems are relatively easy to resolve. More
difficult, however, is to change the culture of monitoring.
The future of monitoring lies in improving in-country
awareness of the need for appropriate survey design,
minimization of, and accounting for, bias, statistically
rigorous analysis and hypothesis testing. Awareness needs
to be improved both amongst scientists and amongst those
who fund and implement monitoring. Until this happens,
improved funding, external technical support and consultancy reports will not improve the situation.
Acknowledgements
This paper was stimulated by the symposium Combining
participatory and scientific approaches to monitoring Central Asia’s ungulates at the Society for Conservation Biology’s
2008 meeting in Beijing. We thank the participants and
speakers, particularly Joel Berger, Joe Fox, Takehiko Ito and
Jiang Zhigang, who also provided valuable comments on an
earlier version of this article. We also thank Mike NortonGriffiths, Nigel G. Yoccoz, Sumanta Bagchi and Yash Veer
Bhatnagar for their helpful comments. This research was
supported by the Leverhulme Trust and by a Royal Society
Wolfson Research Merit Award to EJM-G.
References
ASTER GDEM (2009) Http://www.gdem.aster.ersdac.or.jp/search.jsp
[accessed 24 October 2010].
B Å R D S E N , B-J. & F O X , J.L. (2006) Evaluation of line transect
sampling for density estimates of chiru Pantholops hodgsoni in the
Aru Basin, Tibet. Wildlife Biology, 12, 89–100.
B E K E N O V , A.B., G R A C H E V , I.A. & M I L N E R - G U L L A N D , E.J. (1998)
The ecology and management of the saiga antelope in Kazakhstan.
Mammal Review, 28, 1–52.
B H A T N A G A R , Y.V., W A N G C H U K , R., P R I N S , H.H.T., V A N W E I R E N ,
S.E. & M I S H R A , C. (2006) Perceived conflicts between pastoralism
ª 2011 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 45(1), 38–49
http://journals.cambridge.org
Downloaded: 20 May 2011
IP address: 193.10.99.138
47
48
N. J. Singh and E. J. Milner-Gulland
and conservation of the kiang Equus kiang in the Ladakh TransHimalaya, India. Environment Management, 38, 934–941.
B U C K L A N D , S.T., A N D E R S O N , D.R., B U R N H A M , K.P., L A A K E , J.L.,
B O R C H E R S , D.L. & T H O M A S , L. (2001) Introduction to Distance
Sampling. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
B U R N H A M , K.P., A N D E R S O N , D.R. & L A A K E , J.L. (1980) Estimation
of density from line transect sampling of biological populations.
Ecological Monographs, 72, 1–202.
B Y K O V A , E. & E S I P O V , A. (2009) Some experience on saiga
participatory monitoring in Uzbekistan. Ecological Monitoring
and Biodiversity Journal, 4, 67–70.
C E R T A I N , G. & B R E T A G N O L L E , V. (2008) Monitoring seabirds
population in marine ecosystem: the use of strip-transect aerial
surveys. Remote Sensing of Environment, 112, 3314–3322.
CMS (CONVENTION ON MIGRATORY SPECIES) (2006) Revised Overview
Report of the First Meeting of the Signatories to the Memorandum
of Understanding Concerning Conservation, Restoration and
Sustainable Use of the Saiga Antelope (Saiga tatarica tatarica).
CMS/SA-1/Report Annex 5. Convention on Migratory Species,
Bonn, Germany.
D A N I E L S E N , F., B U R G E S S , N.D. & B A L M F O R D , A. (2005) Monitoring
matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches.
Biodiversity and Conservation, 14, 2507–2542.
D A N I E L S E N , F., B U R G E S S , N.D., B A L M F O R D , A., D O N A L D , P.F.,
F U N D E R , M., J O N E S , J.P. et al. (2009) Local participation in
natural resource monitoring: a characterization of approaches.
Conservation Biology, 3, 31–42.
D ’ E O N , R.G. (2001) Using snow-track surveys to determine deer
winter distribution and habitat. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 29,
879–887.
D I E F E N B A C H , D.R., B R A U N I N G , D.W. & M A T T I C E , J.A. (2003)
Variability in grassland bird counts related to observer differences
and species detection rates. Auk, 120, 1168–1179.
E B E R H A R D T , L.L. (1978) Transect methods for population studies.
Journal of Wildlife Management, 42, 1–31.
F A R N S W O R T H , G.L., N I C H O L S , J.D., S A U E R , J.R., F A N C Y , S.G.,
P O L L O C K , K.H., S H R I N E R , S.A. & S I M O N S , T.R. (2005) Statistical
approaches to the analysis of point count data: a little extra
information can go a long way. In Bird Conservation Implementation and Integration in the Americas: Proceedings of the Third
International Partners in Flight Conference (eds C.J. Ralph & T.D.
Rich), pp. 736–743. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
General Technical Report PSW-GTR, Albany, USA.
F O X , J.L. & B Å R D S E N , B.-J. (2005) Density of Tibetan antelope,
Tibetan wild ass and Tibetan gazelle in relation to human
presence across the Chang Tang Nature Reserve of Tibet, China.
Acta Zoologica Sinica, 51, 586–597.
F O X , J.L., D H O N D U P , K. & D O R J I , T. (2009) A review of Tibetan
antelope Pantholops hodgsonii conservation and new rangeland
management policies in the western Chang Tang Nature Reserve,
Tibet: is fencing creating an impasse? Oryx, 43, 183–190.
F O X , J.L., N U R B U , C. & C H U N D A W A T , R.S. (1991) The mountain
ungulates of Ladakh, India. Biological Conservation, 58, 167–190.
H A R R I S , R.B. & P L E T S C H E R , D.H. (2002) Incentives toward conservation of argali Ovis ammon: a case study of trophy hunting in
western China. Oryx, 36, 373–381.
I T O , T.Y., M I U R A , N., L H A G V A S U R E N , B., D U L A M T S E R E N , E.,
T A K A T S U K I , S., T S U N E K A W A , A. & J I A N G , Z. (2005) Preliminary
evidence of a barrier effect of a railroad on the migration of
Mongolian gazelles. Conservation Biology, 19, 945–948.
I T O , T.Y., M I U R A , N., L H A G V A S U R E N , B., E N K H B I L E G , D.,
T A K A T S U K I , S., T S U N E K A W A , A. & J I A N G , Z. (2006) Satellite
tracking of Mongolian gazelles (Procapra gutturosa) and habitat
shifts in their seasonal ranges. Journal of Zoology, 269, 291–298.
IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species v. 2010.3. Http://
www.iucnredlist.org [accessed 24 October 2010].
J O L Y , C.A., R O D R I G U E S , R.R., M E T Z G E R , J.P., H A D D A D , C.F.B.,
V E R D A D E , L.M., O L I V E I R A , M.C. & B O L Z A N I , V.S. (2010)
Biodiversity conservation research, training, and policy in São
Paulo. Science, 328, 1358.
K A R A N T H , K.U. & N I C H O L S , J.D. (2008) Estimation of tiger densities
in India using photographic mark captures and recaptures.
Ecology, 79, 2852–2862.
K L E B E L S B E R G , E. (2008) The Altyn Dala Conservation Initiative:
a long term commitment to save the steppe and its saigas, an
endangered couple. Saiga News, 7, 1–2.
K U H L , A., M Y S T E R U D , A., G R A C H E V , I.A., B E K E N O V , A.B.,
U B U S H A E V , B.S., L U S H C H E K I N A , A.A. & M I L N E R - G U L L A N D ,
E.J. (2009) Monitoring population productivity in the saiga
antelope. Animal Conservation, 12, 355–363.
L A I N G , S.E., B U C K L A N D , S.T., B U R N , R.W. & L A M B I E , D. (2003)
Dung and nest surveys: estimating decay rates. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 40, 1102–1111.
L E I M G R U B E R , P., M C S H E A , W.J., B R O O K E S , C.J., B O L O R - E R D E N E ,
L., W E M M E R , C. & L A R S O N , C. (2001) Spatial patterns in relative
primary productivity and gazelle migration in the eastern steppes
of Mongolia. Biological Conservation, 102, 205–212.
L E O N , J. (2009) Mapping saiga antelope habitat use with the aid of
participatory monitoring. MSc thesis, Imperial College London,
London, UK.
L U S H C H E K I N A , A.A. (1990) Ecologo-geograficheskiye osnovoi
okhrani I ratsionalnogo ispolzovaniya dzerena (Procapra gutturosa)
v MNR. [The eco-geographical basis for the conservation and
rational use of the Mongolian gazelle]. Abstract of PhD
dissertation, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow,
Russia.
M A C K E N Z I E , D.I., N I C H O L S , J.D., L A C H M A N , G.B., D R O E G E , S.,
R O Y L E , J.A. & L A N G T I M M , C.A. (2002) Estimating site occupancy
when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology, 83, 2248–
2255.
M C C O N V I L L E , A.J., G R A C H E V , I.A., K E A N E , A., C O U L S O N , T.,
B E K E N O V , A. & M I L N E R - G U L L A N D , E.J. (2009) Reconstructing
the observation process to correct for changing detection probability of a critically endangered species. Endangered Species
Research, 6, 231–237.
MDA FEDERAL (2004) Landsat GeoCover ETM+ 2000 Edition
Mosaics. Http://zulu.ssc.nasa.gov/mrsid/ [accessed 24 October 2010].
M I L N E R - G U L L A N D , E.J., K H O L O D O V A , M.V., B E K E N O V , A., B U K R E E V A , O.M., G R A C H E V , I.A., A M G A L A N , L. & L U S H C H E K I N A ,
A.A. (2001) Dramatic declines in saiga antelope populations. Oryx,
35, 340–345.
M I L N E R - G U L L A N D , E.J. & L H A G V A S U R E N , B. (1998) Population
dynamics of the Mongolian gazelle: an historical analysis. Journal
of Applied Ecology, 35, 240–260.
M I L N E R - G U L L A N D , E.J. & R O W C L I F F E , J.M. (2007) Conservation
and Sustainable Use: A Handbook of Techniques. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
M U E L L E R , T., O L S E N , K.A., F U L L E R , T.K., S C H A L L E R , G.B.,
M U R R A Y , M.G. & L E I M G R U B E R , P. (2008) In search of forage:
predicting dynamic habitats of Mongolian gazelles using satellite
based estimates of vegetation productivity. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 45, 649–658.
N I C H O L S , J.D. & W I L L I A M S , B.K. (2006) Monitoring for conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21, 668–673.
N I C H O L S , J.D., H I N E S , J.E., S A U E R , J.R., F A L L O N , F.W., F A L L O N ,
J.E. & H E G L U N D , P.J. (2000) A double-observer approach for
estimating detection probability and abundance from point
counts. Auk, 117, 393–408.
ª 2011 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 45(1), 38–49
http://journals.cambridge.org
Downloaded: 20 May 2011
IP address: 193.10.99.138
Monitoring ungulates in Central Asia
N O R T O N - G R I F F I T H S , M. (1978) Counting Animals, 2nd edition.
African Wildlife Leadership Foundation, Nairobi, Kenya.
N O R T O N - G R I F F I T H S , M. (2009) Implementation of an Aerial Census
Programme for Saiga Antelope in Mongolia. Report to WWF.
Mongolia Programme Office, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.
N O R T O N - G R I F F I T H S , M. & M C C O N V I L L E , A.J. (2007) Technical
Evaluation of the Aerial Survey Programme for Saiga Antelope (Saiga
tatarica) with Recommendations for Improvements. Final Report.
ZGF-Project No. 1293/02 Saiga Schutz Kasachstan/Evaluation der
Tierzahlungen. Frankfurt Zoological Society, Frankfurt, Germany.
O B A , G., B Y A K A G A B A , P. & A N G A S S A , A. (2008) Participatory
monitoring of biodiversity in East African grazing lands. Land
Degradation & Development, 19, 636–648.
O L S O N , K.A., F U L L E R , T.K., S C H A L L E R , G.B., O D O N K H U U , D. &
M U R R A Y , M. (2005) Population density of Mongolian gazelles as
estimated by driving long-distance transects. Oryx, 39, 164–169.
O L S O N , K.A., M U E L L E R , T., B O L O R T S E T S E G , S., L E I M G R U B E R , P.,
F A G A N , W.F. & F U L L E R , T.K. (2009) A mega herd of more than
200,000 Mongolian gazelle Procapra gutturosa: a consequence of
habitat quality. Oryx, 43, 149–153.
O ’ N E I L L , H. (2008) Designing robust ranger based monitoring
strategies for the saiga antelope Saiga tatarica tatarica. MSc thesis,
Imperial College London, London, UK.
R E A D I N G , R.P., A M G A L A N B A A T A R , S., M I X , H. & L H A G V A S U R E N ,
B. (1997) Argali Ovis ammon surveys in Mongolia’s South Gobi.
Oryx, 31, 285–294.
R E A D I N G , R.P., M I X , H., L H A G V A S U R E N , B. & T S E V E E N M Y A D A G ,
N. (1998) The commercial harvest of wildlife in Dornod Aimag,
Mongolia. Journal of Wildlife Management, 62, 59–71.
R E A D I N G , R.P., K E N N Y , D., A M G A L A N B A A T A R , S., D E N I C O L A ,
A. & W I N G A R D , G. (2009) Argali lamb (Ovis ammon) morphometric measurements and survivorship in Mongolia. Mammalia,
73, 98–104.
R I S T , J., M I L N E R - G U L L A N D , E.J., C O W L I S H A W , G. & R O W C L I F F E ,
M. (2010) Hunter reporting of catch per unit effort as a monitoring tool in a bushmeat-harvesting system. Conservation Biology,
24, 489–499.
S C H A L L E R , G.B. (1977) Mountain Monarchs. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, USA, and London, UK.
S C H A L L E R , G.B. (1998) Wildlife of the Tibetan Steppe. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, USA, and London, UK.
S H A C K L E T O N , D.M. (2001) A Review of Community-Based Trophy
Hunting Programs in Pakistan. Report prepared for Mountain
Areas Conservancy Project, IUCN–Pakistan, and National
Council for the Conservation of Wildlife, Ministry of Environment, Local Government and Rural Development, Pakistan.
S H R E S T H A , R. & W E G G E , P. (2008) Wild and domestic ungulates in
Nepal Trans-Himalaya: competition or resource partitioning?
Environmental Conservation, 35, 1–12.
S I N G H , N.J., G R A C H E V , I.A., B E K E N O V , A.B. & M I L N E R - G U L L A N D ,
E.J. (2010b) Saiga antelope calving site selection is increasingly
determined by human disturbance. Biological Conservation, 143,
1770–1779.
S I N G H , N.J., Y O C C O Z , N.G., B H A T N A G A R , Y.V. & F O X , J.L. (2009)
Using habitat suitability models to sample rare species in highaltitude ecosystems: a case study with Tibetan argali. Biodiversity
and Conservation, 18, 2893–2908.
S I N G H , N.J., Y O C C O Z , N.G., L E C O M T E , N., C O T E , S.D. & F O X , J.L.
(2010a) Scales and selection of habitat and resources: Tibetan
argali (Ovis ammon hodgsoni) in high altitude rangelands.
Canadian Journal of Zoology, 88, 436–447.
S O K O L O V , V.E., D A S H , Y., L U S H C H E K I N A , A. & N E R O N O V , V.M.
(1982) Sovremennoe rasprostranenie i kolichestvennoe razmeschenie dzerena v Mongol’skoi Narodnoi respublike [Modern
geographical range and quantitative distribution of Mongolian
gazelle in the Mongolian People’s Republic]. Zoologicheskie issledovaniya v Mongol’skoi Narodnoi Respublik [Zoological investigations in the Mongolian People’s Republic]. Nauka, Moscow,
Russia.
S U L K A V A , R.T. & L I U K K O , U.M. (2007) Use of snow tracking
methods to estimate the abundance of otter (Lutra lutra) in
Finland with evaluation of one visit census for monitoring
purposes. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 44, 179–188.
S U T H E R L A N D , W.J. (2006) Ecological Census Techniques, 2nd edition.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
T H O M A S , L., B U C K L A N D , S.T., R E X S T A D , E., L A A K E , J.L.,
S T R I N D B E R G , S., H E D L E Y , S.L. et al. (2009) Distance software:
design and analysis of distance sampling surveys for estimating
population size. Journal of Applied Ecology, 47, 5–14.
T H O M P S O N , W.L. (2004) Future directions in estimating abundance
of rare or elusive species. In Sampling Rare or Elusive Species (ed.
W.L. Thompson), pp. 389–399. Island Press, Washington, DC,
USA.
T O W N S E N D , W.R., B O R M A N , A.R., Y I Y O G U A J E , E. & M E N D U A , L.
(2005) Cofan Indians’ monitoring of freshwater turtles in Zabalo,
Ecuador. Biodiversity and Conservation, 14, 2743–2755.
USGS (2004) Global Land Cover Facility. Http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org/
SELECTION/inputCoord.asp [accessed 24 October 2010].
W H I T E B R E A D , E., O B G E N O V A , D. & M I L N E R - G U L L A N D , E.J. (2008)
Evaluating the potential for participatory monitoring in Kalmykia.
Saiga News, 8, 12–13.
Y O C C O Z , N.G., N I C H O L S , J.D. & B O U L I N I E R , T. (2001) Monitoring
of biological diversity in space and time. Trends in Ecology &
Evolution, 16, 446–453.
Y O C C O Z , N.G., N I C H O L S , J.D. & B O U L I N I E R , T. (2003) Monitoring
of biological diversity—a response to Danielsen et al. Oryx, 37, 410.
Biographical sketches
N A V I N D E R J. S I N G H and E. J. M I L N E R - G U L L A N D work on
optimizing monitoring as a conservation tool. Both are interested in
monitoring and conservation of ungulates in Central Asia and
currently study the saiga antelope’s long-distance migrations in
Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Russia. E. J. Milner-Gulland also studies
population dynamics of exploited species and the incentives of the
people who hunt them.
ª 2011 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 45(1), 38–49
http://journals.cambridge.org
Downloaded: 20 May 2011
IP address: 193.10.99.138
49