Assessment of Crop Damage By Blackbuck around Blackbuck Conservation Centre, Palasallu, Aligarh, U.P., India

Assessment of Crop Damage By Blackbuck around Blackbuck Conservation Centre, Palasallu, Aligarh, U.P., India

Authors

  •   Shahzada Iqbal   Department of Wildlife Sciences, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, U.P., 202002
  •   Orus Ilyas   Department of Wildlife Sciences, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, U.P., 202002

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36808/if/2021/v147i10/146632

Keywords:

Blackbuck, Community, Crop Raiding, Conservation, Farmers, Money.

Abstract

A need for living provoked conflict between humans and blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra), in and around Blackbuck conservation centre, Palasallu, Gabhana, Aligarh district which arises due to human encroachment of grassland area for agriculture land. Anthropogenic pressure and change in the land use pattern has restricted the habitat of blackbuck into the small Prosopis juliflora, and Prosopis cineraria, in and around (Antilope cervicapra) Blackbuck conservation centre, Palasallu, Gabhana, Aligarh district UP forest, with not much food within but treat of crops all around, thus being the cause of heavy damage to the crops. Examining patterns of conflict and associated tolerance is important to devise policies to reduce conflict impacts on people and wildlife. The survey was done from 120 households from 13 villages within 3 km of Blackbuck conservation Centre which was divided into conflict (8 villages) and non-conflict zone (5 villages). The damage decreased with an increase in distance from the Conservation centre. Blackbuck raided the seedling stage of Wheat (Triticum aestivum), Arhar (Cajanus cajan), and Mustard (Brassica nigra), the most. Guarding was the most effective way for them almost adopted by 34.8% of farmers in the conflict zone. Due to conflict people in the conflict zone are less into farming (32.3%) now, even though 90% of the people are in favour of Blackbuck conservation centre and are proud of it and only ask for better management and policies from the government to mitigate the conflict.

References

Barua M., Bhagwat S.A. and Jadhav S. (2013). The hidden dimensions of human–wildlife Census, NSSO, Government of India, 2011.

Census (2011). Primary Census Abstract, Resistrar General Of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. Government of India.

Chhangani A.K. and Mohnot S.M. (2004). Crop raid by Hanuman langur Semnopithecus entellus in and around Aravalis, India and its management. Primate Report, 69: 35-47.

Jarmon P.T. (1974). The social organization of Antelope in relation to the ecology. Behaviour, 46: 215-266.

Macarthur R.H. and Pianka E.R. (1966). On optimal use of a patchy environment. American Naturalist, 100: 603-609.

Mungall E.C. (1978). The Indian Blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra): A Texas view. Kleberg Studies in Natural Resources: 184.

Ranjitsingh M.K. (1989). The Indian Blackbuck. Natraj Publisher. Dehradun. India.

Ranjitsinh M.K. (1982). Ecology and Behaviour of the Indian Blackbuck with special reference to thevelavadar National Park, Saurashtra, India. Ph.D.Thesis. Saurashtra University India.

Saether B.E. (1997). Environment stochasticity and population dynamics of large herbivore: a search for mechanism Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 12: 143-149.

Sekhar N. (1998). Crop and livestock depredation caused by wild animals in protected areas: The case of Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India. Environmental Conservation, 25(2): 160-171.

Studsrød J.E. and Wegge P. (1995). Park–people relationships: the case of damage caused by park animals around the Royal Bardia National Park, Nepal. Environmental Conservation, 22(2): 133-142.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Shahzada Iqbal, Department of Wildlife Sciences, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, U.P., 202002

Department of Wildlife Sciences

Published

2021-10-28

How to Cite

Iqbal, S., & Ilyas, O. (2021). Assessment of Crop Damage By Blackbuck around Blackbuck Conservation Centre, Palasallu, Aligarh, U.P., India. Indian Forester, 147(10), 942–947. https://doi.org/10.36808/if/2021/v147i10/146632
Loading...