Download Axis axis, Chital

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™
ISSN 2307-8235 (online)
IUCN 2008: T41783A22158006
Axis axis, Chital
Assessment by: Duckworth, J.W., Kumar, N.S., Anwarul Islam, M., Sagar Baral, H.
& Timmins, R.
View on www.iucnredlist.org
Citation: Duckworth, J.W., Kumar, N.S., Anwarul Islam, M., Sagar Baral, H. & Timmins, R. 2015. Axis
axis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T41783A22158006.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41783A22158006.en
Copyright: © 2015 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written
permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.
Reproduction of this publication for resale, reposting or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written
permission from the copyright holder. For further details see Terms of Use.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species Programme, the IUCN
Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership. The IUCN Red List Partners are: BirdLife
International; Botanic Gardens Conservation International; Conservation International; Microsoft; NatureServe; Royal
Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; Wildscreen; and Zoological Society of London.
If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown in this document, please provide us with
feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™
Taxonomy
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Animalia
Chordata
Mammalia
Cetartiodactyla
Cervidae
Taxon Name: Axis axis (Erxleben, 1777)
Synonym(s):
• Cervus axis Erxleben, 1777
Common Name(s):
• English:
• French:
Chital, Axis Deer, Indian Spotted Deer, Spotted Deer
Cerf axis
Assessment Information
Red List Category & Criteria:
Least Concern ver 3.1
Year Published:
2015
Date Assessed:
November 14, 2014
Justification:
Chital is listed as Least Concern because it occurs over a very wide range within which there are many
large subpopulations. Although it is still declining in some sites (particularly outside protected areas), at
the species level any such declines are at nowhere near the rate required to qualify for listing even as
Near Threatened. Historical declines may have been higher, but these occurred outside of the three
generation window (<30 years) used for purposes of applying Red List Criteria. Listing as Least Concern
recognizes that there are two significant conservation issues with this species. Firstly, current densities
are mostly well below what the habitat could support (and have been for decades), and secondly, the
long-term persistence of nearly all subpopulations is dependent upon well secured protected areas:
anything which caused the breakdown of current effective protection would allow a rapid rise in hunting
levels and perhaps of domestic stock-grazing. These are the factors with which current Chital numbers
are in an uneasy and fragile relationship. If such changes were to occur across a significant part of the
range, reassessment of Red List status would be required: without effective protection, Chital’s
population trend would emulate that of Eld's Deer Rucervus eldii, another herding deer of rather open
forests, but with a geographic range covering areas without long-standing effective protected areas.
Regular monitoring of the status of Chital subpopulations would be prudent for this species.
Previously Published Red List Assessments
2008 – Least Concern (LC) – http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T41783A10540042.en
1996 – Lower Risk/least concern (LR/lc)
Geographic Range
Range Description:
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis axis – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41783A22158006.en
1
The Chital occurs over 8–30°N in India (including Sikkim), Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka
(Grubb 2005, Raman 2013). The western distribution boundary is formed by eastern Rajasthan (e.g.
Sariska, Ranthambore and Keoladeo Ghana) and Gujarat (e.g. Sasan Gir). The northern boundary runs
along the bhabar-terai belt of the foothills of the Himalaya from Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal through
Nepal, northern West Bengal and Sikkim to western Assam and the forested valleys of Bhutan below
1,100 m asl. The eastern boundary runs through western Assam (Golapara and Kamrup district as far
east as the Dhunsiri River in Darrang district) to the Sunderbans of West Bengal (India) and Bangladesh.
Sri Lanka is the southern limit (Gee 1964, Schaller 1967, Raman 2013). Chital occur throughout the rest
of peninsular India sporadically in the forested areas (Sankar and Acharya 2004), but in Bangladesh, it
now occurs only in the Sundarbans, having vanished from the central, northeast and southeast regions
(Md Anwarul Islam in litt. 2008).
Chital has been introduced to the Andaman Islands (India, during 1925–1930; Banerji 1955), Argentina,
Armenia, Australia, Brazil, Croatia (islands of Brijuni; Mitchell-Jones et al. 1999), Moldova, Pakistan,
Papua New Guinea, Ukraine, Uruguay and the USA (California, Florida, Hawaiian Islands and Texas;
Grubb 2005, Raman 2013). These introduced subpopulations have not been mapped. Not all
introductions have succeeded: for example, some were introduced to west-central Slovenia (from the
Brijuni islands) in the late 1940s or in 1950, but this introduction failed and is now therefore frequently
reported as having been of Fallow Deer Dama dama. One male, shot on 12 October 1950 and now in
the Natural History Museum of Slovenia, proves the identification (Krystufek 1999). Managed herds
occur in parks throughout the native and introduced range and in many other areas.
Country Occurrence:
Native: Bangladesh; Bhutan; India (Andaman Is. - Introduced); Nepal; Sri Lanka
Introduced: Argentina; Armenia (Armenia); Australia; Brazil; Croatia; Moldova; Pakistan; Papua New
Guinea; Ukraine; United States (California, Florida, Hawaiian Is., Texas); Uruguay
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis axis – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41783A22158006.en
2
Distribution Map
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis axis – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41783A22158006.en
3
Population
Chital declined drastically throughout its range up until the first two-thirds of the 20th century (see
under Major Threats). Karanth et al. (2010) documented an estimated average extinction rate of 45%
over the last 50 years in the Indian sub-continent. It is however "locally" abundant in well protected
parts of its range in mixes deciduous habitats. In India it occurs in 123 protected areas and forest tracts
(National Wildlife Database, Wildlife Institute of India in Sankar and Acharya 2004). There are some
large subpopulations in Nepal (e.g. Moe and Wegge 1994) where the population is probably currently
stable and is anticipated to remain so in the immediate future (Hem Sagar Baral in litt. 2008). Thousands
survive in the Sundarbans mangrove forest, Bangladesh, and there are a few introducedsub populations
on coastal islands in the south (Md Anwarul Islam in litt. 2008).
The reported ecological densities of Chital mostly fall within three to 50 animals per km2 in India: Bhadra
Tiger Reserve, 4.51 +/- 1.05 (SE) per km2 (Jathanna et al. 2003); Madhya Pradesh Pench National Park
dry deciduous forest, 51.3 animals per km2 (Karanth and Nichols 2000); Kanha moist deciduous forest,
49.7 animals per km2 (Karanth and Nichols 2000); Nagarahole moist deciduous forest, 50.6 animals per
km2 (Karanth and Sunquist 1992); Bandipur dry deciduous forest, 20.1 animals per km2 (Karanth and
Nichols 2000); Tadoba-Andhari dry deciduous forest, 3.2 animals per km2 (Karanth and Kumar 2005);
Maharashtra Pench dry deciduous forest, 5.8 animals per km2 (Karanth and Kumar 2005); Ranthambore
semi-arid dry deciduous forest, 38.4 animals per km2 (Kumar 2000); BRT mixed deciduous forest, 9.4
animals per km2 (Karanth 2012); Dandeli-Anshi mix of evergreen and deciduous forest, 0.6 animals per
km2 (Karanth 2012); Panna dry deciduous forest, 10.2 animals per km2 (Chundawat and Karanth
unpublished data); Kawal dry deciduous forset two animals per km2 (Siddique 2010), and Gir semi-arid
dry deciduous forest, 50.8 animals per km2 (Khan et al. 1996). Some parts of the well-protected areas in
Nagarahole and Bandipur are known to harbour densities as high as 80–100 Chital per km2 (Kumar
2010). Humar (2010) observed high spatial variation in the abundance of Chital in the 1,500 km2 of
Nagarahole-Bandipur National Parks, which ranged between zero to 100 animals per km2. Kumar (2010)
also found that Chital densities positively responded to higher levels of protection, forage quality, flat
terrain and water availability. The highest population densities, of around 200 Chitals per km2, are
reported for the Bardia National Park, Nepal (Naess and Andersen 1993, Moe and Wegge 1994) and for
the reintroducedsub population in Guindy National Park, southern India (Menon 1982, Raman et al.
1996). These high densities reflect habitat and food availability in the former area (Moe and Wegge
1994), and supplementary feeding and low predation in the latter (Raman et al. 1996). Population
densities in marginal habitats tend to be lower (Raman 2013; K.U. Karanth and N.S. Kumar unpublished
data). Chital is the most abundant ungulate in Nagarahole, and reaches higher densities in moist than in
dry deciduous forests (Karanth and Sunquist 1992). The recorded Bhadra density is low, reflecting
poaching and livestock grazing (Jathanna et al. 2003), and the population density is steadily increasing
following removal of these pressures in 2003 (K.U. Karanth and N.S. Kumar unpublished data). A study at
Nagarahole National Park compared an area which was only moderately hunted with a heavily hunted
site. This found respective densities of 65 and 10 Chitals per km2 (Madhusudan and Karanth 2002).
The Chital is almost completely dependent on active protection. Were this to be removed, the species'
status in the 1970s suggests that rapid declines would occur. Even now, a very large proportion of its
range supports subpopulations at significantly lower densities than the habitat could support.
The only subpopulation in Europe is on the islands of Brijuni (off Istria, Croatia), but B. Krystufek (pers.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis axis – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41783A22158006.en
4
comm. 2008) has traced no information on its current status. Information has not been sought for this
account on introduced subpopulations elsewhere, because they do not contribute to assessing the
species’ Red List status.
Current Population Trend: Unknown
Habitat and Ecology (see Appendix for additional information)
Chital thrive in a variety of habitats, but avoid extremes such as dense moist (evergreen) forests and
open semi-desert or desert. Moist and dry deciduous forest areas, especially adjoining dry thorn scrub
or grasslands, appear to be optimal, and highest densities of Chital are reported from these habitats.
Short grasslands of the terai, swampy meadows and glades adjoining forest areas, coastal dry evergreen
forests, mixed forests or plantations with Teak Tectona grandis and Sal Shorea robusta are also used, and
indeed over much of northern and southern India, its distribution closely matches that of Sal and Teak,
respectively (Raman 2013). Chital is particularly frequent in grassland–forest interface, edge, and other
ecotones (Krishnan 1972). Eisenberg and Seidensticker (1976) opined that dry deciduous habitats with
scrub is the favoured habitat, while Karanth and Sunquist (1992) found mixed forests with teak
plantations, moist deciduous patches and swampy grasslands to support high abundance of Chital.
Kumar (2010) found that well-watered and well-protected moist deciduous forest patches in gently
undulating terrain supported high Chital densities. Short grasslands are important because they provide
little cover for predators such as Tiger Panthera tigris (Moe and Wegge 1994). The introduced
subpopulation in Andaman Islands inhabits evergreen forests (Sankar and Acharya 2004) but native
subpopulations are absent from the rainforest areas of the mainland. They tend to be only visitors to
dense forests, to those adjoining more open habitats. Riverine forests within the Bardia National Park in
lowland Nepal are highly used by the deer for shade and cover during the dry season. The forest also
provides good foraging with regard to fallen fruit and leaves that are high in nutrients needed by the
deer. Four factors were identified by Schaller (1967) as delineating Chital’s distribution: (1) the need for
water; (2) the need for shade; (3) an avoidance of high, rugged terrain; and (4) a preference for grass as
forage. Although several observers have noted that Chital occurs mostly in flat areas and avoids hills and
slopes (Schaller 1967, Khan 1996), this may not hold in areas where preferred habitats or forage is also
available on slopes (Raman 2013, Kumar 2010). It occurs in both hilly and flatter terrain, mainly the
latter, in the Terai Arc Landscape of India (Johnsingh et al. 2004). In the Siwalik hills, Bhat and Rawat
(1995) found that Chital preferred slopes of 11–30°, while slopes exceeding 30° were used less. Also, use
of south, southeast, and east aspects was higher than of north, northeast, northwest, and west aspects,
reflecting the warmer environment of the former aspects. There was no difference in average Chital
density in the hills and plains (Bhat and Rawat 1995). A study of coffee estates around Bhadra Wildlife
Sanctuary, India, recorded Chital widely, including in coffee areas up to 14 km of the sanctuary’s
boundary (Bali et al. 2007).
Habitat use varies seasonally, reflecting food availability. Chital uses more wooded habitat during the
cool-dry season and early summer (November to May), where fallen fruit, leaf litter, and browse are
available. In open grassland and tropical dry thorn forest, Chital density increases with the onset of
monsoon rains and flush of plant growth (Mishra 1982, Moe and Wegge 1994, Khan 1996, Raman et al.
1996). In areas of their distribution with a mosaic of forest and grassland habitats, seasonal patterns in
habitat use may be complex. In the Himalayan terai, Chital use of habitats with high grass availability
increased substantially in the weeks following cutting and burning of grasses in January–February,
attributed to fresh flush of grass growth after the burns and with the onset pre-monsoon and monsoon
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis axis – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41783A22158006.en
5
rains nearly two months later (Mishra 1982; Moe and Wegge 1994, 1997). Similar behaviour has been
reported from the grasslands of Bandipur Tiger Reserve (Johnsingh 1983).
Chital easily habituates to human presence, and herds often congregate in open areas near habitation
or forest camps to spend the night, possibly due to greater safety from predators and poachers that shy
away from these areas (Raman 2013).
Chital eats a wide variety of plants: about 160–190 have been recorded from across the species' range.
It is predominantly a grazer but consumes more fallen leaves, flowers and fruits in winter/dry season
(Sankar 1994, Sankar and Acharya 2004, Raman 2013). In addition to plant soft matter, crabs (in the
Sunderbans; Stanford 1951), mushrooms (in Nepal; Moe and Wegge 1994) and rarely, bark (Raman et al.
1996) are eaten. Close to human habitation, rubbish and even human faeces are occasionally taken
(Raman et al. 1996). Antler and bone chewing is also common. In Wilpattu, Sri Lanka, all age and sex
classes are osteophagous, but such feeding was more common in velvet-antlered males, doubtless
reflecting mineral needs during antler growth and mineralisation (Barrette 1985). Chital usually drinks
water once a day, more frequently in summer. This restricts them to forest tracts with assured presence
of water, even if only widely scattered.
In lowland Nepal, an individual’s total range incorporates a core area of about 32 hectares surrounded
by foraging and cover areas of about 140 ha for females and 195 ha for males (Moe and Wegge 1994).
Variation in range size occurs with site, season, sex and age of the animal. The basic social unit is a
matriarchal family group, normally consisting of an adult female, her offspring from the previous year,
and a fawn (Ables 1974). The usual herd is composed of two or more such family units and is often
accompanied by individual deer of mixed sex and age-classes. Chital exhibits a fission-fusion system, or
fluid group formation and dissolution (Schaller 1967, Mishra 1982, Barette 1991). Group composition
changes frequently during feeding periods, during the rut when males frequently join groups of females
(Schaller 1967), and while fleeing from predators (Dinerstein 1980). These social groupings of Chital do
not remain permanent (Schaller 1967, Eisenberg and Lockhart 1972). Groups may number up to 150 or
more individuals (De and Spillit 1966, Schaller 1967, Eisenberg and Lockhart 1972, Krishnan 1972, Fuchs
1977, Karanth and Sunquist 1992), sometimes even more: N.S. Kumar (pers. comm. 2008) counted 211
in one group during rainy season in Nagarahole and 203 in one group at Pench-Maharashtra near a
water reservoir in summer. Measured sex ratios have all been biased towards females (Sankar and
Acharya 2004 and references therein). Pariwakam (2006) observed nearly 10,500 Chital in Bandipur and
estimated the proportion of Chital in different age and sex classes as stags 27%, does 57% and fawns
16%. In neighbouring Nagarahole, age-sex categories of Chital were adult stags 26%, adult does 36%,
yearling males 8%, yearling females 9% and young 21% (Karanth and Sunquist 1992). Breeding can occur
at any time of year but there is some peaking at any given locality (Sankar and Acharya 2004 and
references therein). Heavy mortality of fawns in early weeks has been observed by several workers and
fawn survival appears to be a key determinant of Chital population growth (Schaller 1967). Schaller
(1967) estimated an annual fawn mortality of 48% in Kanha, Sharathchandra, and Gadgil (1975)
estimated a constant monthly mortality of 26% over first nine months in Bandipur, Raman (1996)
estimated a mean monthly mortality of 9.7% in Guindy. Pariwakam (2006) for the first time used a
rigorous photographic capture-recapture approach to estimate the fawn mortality rate, and found it to
be 66% over a six week study period in Bandipur. Further information on sociality and breeding is
synthesised by Sankar and Acharya (2004) and by Raman (2013). Over a 10-year time period, Karanth
and Kumar (unpublished data) have observed annual fluctuations in the Chital subpopulations in
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis axis – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41783A22158006.en
6
Nagarahole and Bandipur ranging between population densities of 10 to 40 animals per km2.
Chital is a prolific breeder, as documented by several empirical studies of the speed of increase by newly
introduced subpopulations or in those where a factor restraining subpopulations was removed (Raman
2013 and references therein). In Bhadra, following the departure from the park of human settlements
and consequent removal of anthropogenic pressures on Chital and habitats, Chital subpopulations
bounced back by nearly seven times in fewer than four years (K.U. Karanth and N.S. Kumar unpublished
data). Karanth et al. (1999) earlier documented their empirical observations of the recovery of Chital
subpopulations in Nagarahole. This and its diverse diet and habitats allow high density where threats
are controlled. It is even considered to be a pest in the Andamans (Banerji 1955).
The main causes of death are predation, diseases and accidents. Occasionally, stags kill each other when
fighting (Sankar and Acharya 2004 and references therein). Predation is by far the major cause of Chital
mortality. Older Chital stags are more susceptible to it than are younger stags (Johnsingh 1983, Patel
1992, Karanth and Sunquist 1995). This may be due to their being less vigilant during rut, to their
separation from the group after the rut, or to weakening from injuries from conflicts. In Kanha, Chital
remains were found in about 52% of Tiger faeces and 59% of Leopard Panthera pardus faeces analysed
(Schaller 1967). In Bandipur, Chital is the most important prey in terms of the biomass taken by Dhole
(78%), Leopard (55%) and Tiger (19%; Andheria et al. 2007). Even in terms of the relative number of
individuals taken, Chital is the predominant prey among the three large sympatric predators (Tigers
about 33%, Leopards about 39% and Dholes about 73% in Bandipur; Andheria et al. 2007). In adjoining
Nagarahole remains were found in about 31% of Tiger faeces, 44% of Leopard faeces, and 50% of Dhole
faeces (Karanth and Sunquist 1995). In Sariska, around 54% of the faeces of Tiger and 21% of Leopard
faeces contained Chital remains (Sankar 1994). Chital remains were found in about 53% of Tiger faeces
in Pench (Biswas and Sankar 2002) and 61% of Tiger faeces in Ranthambore (Bagchi et al. 2003).
Each Chital spends a major portion of its life in foraging, resting, and wandering within its range, with
the relative extent of these activities determined by season (Schaller 1967). In a day, peak feeding times
are around dawn and dusk. There are usually two major resting periods, before dawn and mid-day
(Sankar and Acharya 2004).
Considerable further detail on ecology, drawn from the relative wealth of studies on the species, with
each item precisely referenced to source, is provided by Raman (2013).
Systems: Terrestrial
Use and Trade
Chital are hunted for food, sport, and a variety of other purposes. It is unclear as to the numbers of
captive animals kept within the native range and even if such animals are used to supply the same
markets as wild caught animals. Introduced subpopulations almost certainly do not supply the same
markets as wild caught animals from the species native range.
Threats (see Appendix for additional information)
There are presently no major global-level threats to Chital, although densities are widely below
ecological carrying capacity, through hunting and competition with domestic livestock. There were
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis axis – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41783A22158006.en
7
substantial declines and local extinctions, driven by hunting for meat, extermination as an agricultural
pest, and habitat conversion, particularly during British rule of India and adjacent countries, and
immediately after independence (Raman 2013). Fewer than 20 years after independence, Schaller
(1967) wrote that "...the species has declined drastically throughout its range in India, and is now only
locally abundant in some sanctuaries and forest tracts. The remaining populations are highly vulnerable
to poaching, habitat destruction, and other forms of decimation". The habitat loss of the past few
centuries means that subpopulations are now rather fragmented. Now, in India, most subpopulations
appear secure within the modern protected area network (Raman 2013), but those outside (now highly
localised) are under rapid decline due to habitat conversion and extensive hunting (N.S. Kumar pers.
comm. 2008). A relaxation of protection can lead to rapid decreases. For example, Chital used to be
numerically the most abundant large herbivore in the Wilpattu National Park (Sri Lanka), but numbers
declined significantly due to poaching which increased during management breakdown during the civil
war, when its meat was even being sold next to the park. Poaching has also risen, for the same reason,
in several other national parks in Sri Lanka (Santiapillai and Wijeyamohan 2003). Where not prevented
by effective conservation measures (active protection through patrolling and law enforcement, backed
up by adequate awareness), people avidly hunt and poach Chital throughout their Indian range
(Madhusudan and Karanth 2000, Madhusudan and Karanth 2002, Sankar and Acharya 2004, Bali et al.
2007) and there are occasional cases in even the best secured protected areas such as Corbett Tiger
Reserve (Johnsingh et al. 2004). Many protected areas are well enough secured that the species has
thrived well and, is now locally abundant (Sankar and Acharya 2004) and in such areas poaching of
Chital is a more serious conservation problem for the large predators (every deer poached reduces
predators’ food base; Karanth et al. 2004) than it is for Chital itself. In many other protected areas
(especially those with a lower public profile) and for areas outside the conservation system,
subpopulations are severely restrained by hunting. For example, densities in Bhadra Tiger Reserve are
very low by comparison with what the habitat should support because of poaching with snares, dogs
and shotguns, and also grazing competition with domestic stock (Jathanna et al. 2003), and the density
was 87% lower in a heavily hunted area of Nagarahole National Park than in a well secured area
(Madhusudan and Karanth 2000, 2002). Even though all hunting is illegal in this protected area,
protection efficacy is uneven across the area. The Chital is one of the two most commonly hunted
mammal species in the national park, partly because various facets of its behaviour and ecology such as
herding behaviour and attachment to open habitat allow its ready detection and killing, and quick entry
and exit by poachers. It is therefore exposed to far higher hunting pressure than are the ungulates which
are solitary and spend much time in dense cover (Madhusudan and Karanth 2002). Poaching is probably
operative to a greater or lesser extent in most subpopulations, but at low enough levels that recent
decades have not seen, with Chital, the frequent local extirpations from areas of prime habitat of earlier
decades.
The most serious threat, in areas where poaching and habitat conversion are well controlled, is the
reduction in carrying capacity through competition with livestock, especially during the pinch season as
observed in Sariska (Sankar 1994); Chital and livestock are known to have dietary overlap (Raman 2013).
The problem has been documented almost throughout Chital’s range but awareness that it is a problem
at all remains so low that it is not even recognised as a key conservation issue in many protected areas
(e.g. Mathai 1999). In Gir Lion Sanctuary and National Park, Chital population density increased 14-fold
from 3.57 animals per km2 in 1970–1971 (Berwick 1974) to 50.8 animals per km2 in 1989 (Khan 1996,
Khan et al. 1996). This was attributed to the rapid and complete removal of pastoral settlements, their
livestock, and a total ban on several thousand migratory livestock. Dung densities of Chital and livestock
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis axis – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41783A22158006.en
8
were also negatively correlated in Gir, indicating avoidance and possible competitive interaction
between the species. With removal of human impact and increase in forage availability, Chital
subpopulations increased, as testified by higher Chital densities in the vicinity of abandoned settlements
(nesses; Sharma and Johnsingh 1995). Similarly, in Bardia National Park (Nepal), protection from
livestock grazing (and logging) in 1975 increased measured Chital subpopulations from 30–34 per km2 in
1977 (Dinerstein 1980) to over 200 per km2 in the early 1990s (Naess and Andersen 1993, Moe and
Wegge 1994). In Bandipur Tiger Reserve, mean densities of Chital were 11 times higher in livestock-free
areas than in adjacent livestock-grazed areas. In shared grazing areas, these Chital densities declined
sharply with increasing livestock densities. In the studied grazed area, halving the livestock density
allowed an increase in Chital density by a factor of five (Madhusudan 2004). Threats to southern India’s
forest ungulates by competition with domestic stock grazing within protected areas are exacerbated
where dung is collected for export to adjacent coffee areas. Fuel wood removal may also be at levels
sufficient to disrupt nutrient cycles of the habitat (Madhusudan 2005). All these pressures interact to
have, overall, a major depression of Chital densities. In Bhadra, following the departure from the park of
human settlements and consequent removal of anthropogenic pressures on Chital and habitats, Chital
subpopulations bounced back by nearly seven times in fewer than four years (Karanth and Kumar
unpublished data). Karanth et al. (1999) earlier documented their empirical observations of the recovery
of Chital subpopulations in Nagarahole.
Chital are susceptible to livestock-borne diseases such as rinderpest (Schaller 1967) and foot-and-mouth
disease (Sankar 1994) but the current population is too widespread for these to rank as potential globallevel threats. Accidents, especially from speeding vehicles, are a cause of Chital mortality but occur
rarely within protected areas and cannot be significant at the global level. Many Indian forest areas are
severely encroached by exotics such as Lantana camara, Parthenium spp. and Chromolaena odorata (=
Eupatorium odoratum), and these are suspected to effect major changes to forest structure (Hiremath
and Sundaram 2005): but their effects on Chital warrants further study. Wild-ranging domestic dogs are
also likely to be a problem (Raman 2013), but no study quantifying their effects has been traced. There
are no predictable threats to the Sundarbans subpopulation of Bangladesh, but as a low-lying area
extreme weather events might cause episodic major population removal, as happened with hurricane
Sidr in November 2007 (Md Anwarul Islam in litt. 2008).
Conservation Actions (see Appendix for additional information)
Chital is protected under Schedule III of the Indian Wildlife Protection Act (1972) (Sankar and Acharya
2004) and under the Wildlife (Preservation) (Amendment) Act, 1974 of Bangladesh (Md Anwarul Islam
in litt. 2008). It occurs in many protected areas. Legal protection as a species and a network of
functioning protected areas are the two cornerstones of its current healthy conservation status.
Subpopulations exceeding 20,000 Chital probably occur in and around a handful of conservation areas
within India: the belt of about 3,000 km2 between Koh river and Haldwani including the Corbett Tiger
Reserve; the Gir Protected Area (about 1,400 km2); Kanha Tiger Reserve (about 2,000 km2); and the
Nilgiris–Western Ghats sector including Nagarahole, Bandipur, and Mudumalai (about 5,000 km2; Raman
2013). Protected areas support more Chitals than do non-protected areas in the Terai Arc Landscape of
India, although there is not currently such a great difference in densities as with the grassland species
(Barasingha Rucervus duvaucelii and Hog Deer Axis porcinus; Johnsingh et al. 2004). Ongoing habitat
conversion trends outside protected areas will continue to increase the relative proportion of the total
Chital population that they hold, and the maintenance of an extensive network of functional protected
areas will remain the foundation of this species’ healthy conservation status. Part of this responsibility is
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis axis – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41783A22158006.en
9
vigilance by staff and partners of illegal poaching, which takes place at varying levels in most of the
species range. Some recent cases have involved high-profile public role models, such as actors, poaching
Chital and these warrant heavy court penalties. There is a strong case for prevention of livestock grazing
in protected areas which hold Chital, partly to reduce risks of disease transmission, but mostly to
prevent artificially low densities of Chital being forced through competition (see Threat Section).
Chital subpopulations have been studied in: Corbett (De and Spillit 1966), Kanha (Schaller 1967),
Bandipur (Johnsingh 1983, Kumar 2010), Nagarahole (Karanth and Sunquist 1992, Kumar 2010), Sariska
(Sankar 1994), Gir (Khan et al. 1995, 1996), Guindy (Raman 1996, Raman et al. 1996), Pench (Biswas and
Sankar 2002), Ranthambore (Bagchi et al. 2003) in India, Chitwan (Seidensticker 1976, Mishra 1982) and
Karnali-Bardia (Dinerstein 1980; Moe and Wegge 1994, 1997) in Nepal, and Wilpattu (Eisenberg and
Lockhart 1972) in Sri Lanka.
Credits
Assessor(s):
Duckworth, J.W., Kumar, N.S., Anwarul Islam, M., Sagar Baral, H. & Timmins, R.
Reviewer(s):
Brook, S.M. & McShea, W.J.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis axis – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41783A22158006.en
10
Bibliography
Ables, E.D. 1974. The Axis Deer in Texas. The Caeser Kleberg Research Programme and The Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station. A & M University System, Texas.
Andheria, A., Karanth, K.U. and Kumar, N.S. 2007. Diet and prey profiles of three sympatric large
carnivores in Bandipur Tiger Reserve in India. Journal of Zoology (London) 273: 169–175.
Bagchi, S., Goyal, S.P. and Sankar, K. 2003. Prey abundance and prey selection by tigers (Panthera tigris)
in a semi-arid, dry deciduous forest in western India. Journal of Zoology (London) 260: 285-290.
Bali, A., Kumar, A. and Krishnaswamy, J. 2007. The mammalian communities in coffee plantations around
a protected area in the Western Ghats, India. Biological Conservation 139: 93-102.
Banerji, J. 1955. Wild animals in the Andaman islands. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society.
55: 256.
Barrette, C. 1985. Antler eating and antler growth in wild Axis deer. Mammalia 41: 1-34.
Barrette, C. 1991. The size of Axis deer fluid groups in Wilpattu National Park, Sri Lanka. Mammalia 55:
207-220.
Berwick, S.H. 1974. The community of wild ruminants in the Gir forest ecosystem. Yale University.
Bhat, S.D. and Rawat, G.S. 1995. Habitat use by Chital Axis axis in Dhaulkhand, Rajaji National Park,
India. Tropical Ecology 36: 177-189.
Biswas, S. and Sankar, K. 2002. Prey abundance and food habit of tigers (Panthera tigris tigris) in Pench
National Park, Madhya Pradesh, India. Journal of Zoology (London) 256: 411-420.
De, R.C. and Spillit, J.J. 1966. A study of the Chital or spotted deer in Corbett National Park, Uttar
Pradesh. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 63: 576-598.
Dinerstein, E. 1980. An ecological survey of the Royal Karnali-Bardia wildlife Reserve, Nepal. Part III:
Ungulate populations. Biological Conservation 16: 5-38.
Eisenberg, J.F. and Lockhart, M. 1972. An ecological reconnaisance of Wilpattu National Park, Ceylon.
Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 101: 1-118.
Eisenberg, J.F. and Seidensticker, J. 1976. Ungulates in Southern Asia: a consideration of biomass
estimates for selected habitats.: 293-308.
Fuchs, E.R. 1977. Behaviour. In: E.B. Ables (ed.), The axis deer in Texas, pp. 24-52. Ceasar Kleberg, Texas.
Gee, E.P. 1964. The Wild Life of India. Collins, London, UK.
Grubb, P. 2005. Artiodactyla. In: D.E. Wilson and D.M. Reeder (eds), Mammal Species of the World. A
Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed), pp. 637-722. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,
USA.
Hiremath, A.J. and Sundaram, B. 2005. The fire-lantana cycle hypothesis in Indian forests. Conservation
and Society 3: 26-42.
IUCN. 2015. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015-4. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org.
(Accessed: 19 November 2015).
Jathanna, D., Karanth, K.U. and Johnsingh, A.J.T. 2003. Estimation of large herbivore densities in the
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis axis – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41783A22158006.en
11
tropical forests of southern India using distance sampling. Journal of Zoology (London) 261: 285.
Johnsingh, A.J.T. 1983. Large mammalian prey-predators in Bandipur. Journal of the Bombay Natural
History Society 80(1): 1-57.
Johnsingh, A.J.T., Qureshi, Q., Goyal, S.P., Rawat, G.S., Ramesh, K., David, A., Rajapandian, K. and Prasad,
S. 2004. Conservation Status of Tiger and Associated Species in the Terai Arc Landscape, India.
Karanth, K.K., Nichols, J.D., Karanth, K.U., Hines, J.E. and Christensen, N.L. 2010. The shrinking ark:
patterns of large mammal extinctions in India. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B 277: 19711979 277:: 1971-1979.
Karanth, K.U. and Kumar, N.S. 2005. Distribution and dynamics of tiger and prey populations in
Maharashtra, India. Final Technical Report. Centre for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore, India.
Karanth, K.U. and Nichols, J.D. 2000. Ecological status and conservation of tigers in India. Centre for
Wildlife Studies, Bangalore, India.
Karanth, K.U. and Sunquist, M.E. 1992. Population structure, density and biomass of large herbivores in
the tropical forests of Nagarahole, India. Journal of Tropical Ecology 8: 21.
Karanth, K.U. and Sunquist, M.E. 1995. Prey selection by tiger, leopard and dhole in tropical forests.
Journal of Animal Ecology 64: 439-450.
Karanth, K.U., Kumar, N.S., Nichols, J.D., Link, W.A. and Hines, J.E. 2004. Tigers and their prey: Predicting
carnivore densities from prey abundance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America 101: 4854-4858.
Karanth, K.U. Meta-population dynamics of tigers in the Malenad-Mysore Landscape of Karnataka.
Annual Report January-December 2011. Centre for Wildlife studies, Bangalore, India.
Karanth, K.U., Sunquist, M.E., Chinnappa, K.M., Seidensticker, J., Christie, S. and Jackson, P. 1999. Longterm monitoring of tigers: lessons from Nagarahole. Riding the tiger: Tiger conservation in humandominated landscapes, pp. 114. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Khan, J.A. 1996. Factors governing habitat occupance of ungulates in Gir Lion sanctuary, Gujarat, India.
International Journal of Ecology and Environmental Science 22: 73-83.
Khan, J.A., Chellam, R. and Johnsingh, A.J.T. 1995. Group size and age-sex composition of three major
ungulate species in Gir Lion Sanctuary, Gujarat, India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 92:
295-302.
Khan, J.A., Chellam, R., Rodgers, W.A. and Johnsingh, A.J.T. 1996. Ungulate densities and biomass in the
tropical dry deciduous forests of Gir, Gujarat, India. Journal of Tropical Ecology 12(1): 149.
Krishnan, M. 1972. An ecological survey of the larger mammals of peninsular India. Journal of the
Bombay Natural History Society 69: 322-349.
Kryštufek, B. 1999. Mammals of Slovenia [In Slovenian with English summary]. Prirodoslovni Muzej
Slovenije, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Kumar, N.S. 2000. Ungulate density and biomass in the tropical semi-arid forest of Ranthambore, India.
Pondicherry University.
Kumar, N.S. 2010. Assessment of distribution and abundance of ungulate prey using spatial models in
Nagarahole and Bandipure Tiger Reserves of India. A Ph. D. dissertation. Manipal Unversity.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis axis – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41783A22158006.en
12
Madhusudan, M.D. 2004. Recovery of wild large herbivores following livestock decline in a tropical
Indian wildlife reserve. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 858–869.
Madhusudan, M.D. 2005. The global village: linkages between international coffee markets and grazing
by livestock in a south Indian wildlife reserve. Conservation Biology 19: 411–420.
Madhusudan, M.D. and Karanth, K.U. 2000. Hunting for an answer: is local hunting compatible with
large mammal conservation in India? In: J.G. Robinson and E.L. Bennett (eds), Hunting for sustainability
in the tropics, pp. 339–355. Columbia University Press, New York, USA.
Madhusudan, M.D. and Karanth, K.U. 2002. Local hunting and the conservation of large mammals in
India. Ambio 31(1): 49-54.
Mathai, M. 1999. Habitat occupancy across anthropogenic disturbances by sympatric ungulate species
in Panna Tiger Reserve. Saurashtra University.
Menon, R.K. 1982. Observations on cheetal in Guindy National Park, Madras. Cheetal 24(1): 37-40.
Mishra, H.R. 1982. The ecology and behaviour of Chital (Axis axis) in the Royal Chitwan National Park,
Nepal. Thesis, University of Edinburg.
Mitchell-Jones, A.J., Amori, G., Bogdanowicz, W., Kryštufek, B., Reijnders, P.J.H., Spitzenberger, F.,
Stubbe, M., Thissen, J.B.M., Vohralik, V. and Zima, J. 1999. The Atlas of European Mammals. Academic
Press, London, UK.
Moe, S. and Wegge, P. 1994. Spacing behavior and habitat use of Axis deer (Axis axis) in lowland Nepal.
Moe, S.R. and Wegge, P. 1997. The effects of cutting and burning on grass quality and axis deer (Axis
axis) use of grassland in lowland Nepal. Journal of Tropical Ecology 13: 279–292.
Naess, K.J. and Andersen, H.J. 1993. Assessing census techniques for wild ungulates in Royal Bardia
National Park, Nepal. Thesis, Agricultural University of Norway.
Pariwakam, M.P. 2006. Estimation of abundance and fawn survival in chital (Axis axis) populations using
photographic capture-recapture sampling. Thesis, The Manipal Academy of Higher Education.
Patel, A.H. 1992. Are Chital stags more vulnerable to dhole predation than does? Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society 89: 153-155.
Raman, T.R.S. 1996. Factors influencing seasonal and monthly changes in the group size of Chital or axis
deer in southern India. Journal of Biosciences 22: 203-218.
Raman, T.R.S. 2013. The Chital (Axis axis Erxleben). University Press.
Raman, T.R.S., Menon, R.K.G. and Sukumar, R. 1996. Ecology and management of Chital and blackbuck in
Guindy National Park, Madras. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 93: 178-192.
Sankar, K. 1994. The ecology of three large sympatric herbivores (Chital, sambar and nilgai) with special
reference for reserve management in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan. University of Rajasthan.
Sankar, K. and Acharya, B. 2004. Chital (Axis axis (Erxleben, 1777)). ENVIS Bulletin (Wildlife Institute of
India, Dehra Dun) 7: 171–180.
Santiapillai, C. and Wijeyamohan, S. 2003. The impact of civil war on wildlife in Sri Lanka. Current Science
84: 1182–1183.
Schaller, G.B. 1967. The Deer and the Tiger. A Study of Wildlife in India. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, USA and London, UK.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis axis – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41783A22158006.en
13
Seidensticker, J. 1976. Ungulate populations in Chitawan valley, Nepal. Biological Conservation 10: 183210.
Sharatchandra, H.C. and Gadgil, M. 1975. A year of Bandipur. Journal of the Bombay Natural History
Society 72: 623-647.
Sharma, D. and Johnsingh, A.J.T. 1995. Management of wild ungulates and lion habitats in Gir lion
sanctuary. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, India.
Siddique, I. 2010. Predicting tiger (Panthera tigris) densities based on prey abundance in disturbed
forests of Kwal. Msc Thesis. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, India.
Stanford, J. K. 1951. Crab-eating Chital. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 50: 398-399.
Citation
Duckworth, J.W., Kumar, N.S., Anwarul Islam, M., Sagar Baral, H. & Timmins, R. 2015. Axis axis. The IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T41783A22158006. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.20154.RLTS.T41783A22158006.en
Disclaimer
To make use of this information, please check the Terms of Use.
External Resources
For Images and External Links to Additional Information, please see the Red List website.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis axis – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41783A22158006.en
14
Appendix
Habitats
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Habitat
Season
Suitability
Major
Importance?
1. Forest -> 1.5. Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Dry
-
Suitable
Yes
2. Savanna -> 2.1. Savanna - Dry
-
Suitable
Yes
2. Savanna -> 2.2. Savanna - Moist
-
Suitable
Yes
4. Grassland -> 4.5. Grassland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry
-
Suitable
Yes
4. Grassland -> 4.6. Grassland - Subtropical/Tropical Seasonally
Wet/Flooded
-
Suitable
Yes
14. Artificial/Terrestrial -> 14.2. Artificial/Terrestrial - Pastureland
-
Marginal
-
14. Artificial/Terrestrial -> 14.3. Artificial/Terrestrial - Plantations
-
Marginal
-
14. Artificial/Terrestrial -> 14.6. Artificial/Terrestrial - Subtropical/Tropical
Heavily Degraded Former Forest
-
Marginal
-
Threats
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Threat
Timing
Scope
Severity
Impact Score
1. Residential & commercial development -> 1.1.
Housing & urban areas
Ongoing
-
-
-
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
-
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
-
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
-
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
Ongoing
-
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual &
perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.2. Small-holder
farming
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.3. Livestock farming
& ranching -> 2.3.2. Small-holder grazing, ranching or
farming
5. Biological resource use -> 5.1. Hunting & trapping
terrestrial animals -> 5.1.1. Intentional use (species is
the target)
5. Biological resource use -> 5.1. Hunting & trapping
terrestrial animals -> 5.1.3. Persecution/control
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis axis – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41783A22158006.en
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
15
6. Human intrusions & disturbance -> 6.2. War, civil
unrest & military exercises
8. Invasive & other problematic species & genes ->
8.1. Invasive non-native/alien species -> 8.1.1.
Unspecified species
Past,
unlikely to
return
-
-
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.2. Species disturbance
Ongoing
-
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects ->
2.3.2. Competition
-
-
-
Conservation Actions in Place
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Conservation Actions in Place
In-Place Land/Water Protection and Management
Conservation sites identified: Yes, over entire range
Occur in at least one PA: Yes
In-Place Species Management
Subject to ex-situ conservation: Yes
Conservation Actions Needed
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Conservation Actions Needed
1. Land/water protection -> 1.1. Site/area protection
1. Land/water protection -> 1.2. Resource & habitat protection
2. Land/water management -> 2.1. Site/area management
3. Species management -> 3.1. Species management -> 3.1.1. Harvest management
3. Species management -> 3.1. Species management -> 3.1.3. Limiting population growth
Research Needed
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Research Needed
1. Research -> 1.2. Population size, distribution & trends
1. Research -> 1.5. Threats
1. Research -> 1.6. Actions
3. Monitoring -> 3.1. Population trends
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis axis – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41783A22158006.en
16
Additional Data Fields
Distribution
Estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) (km²): 3473060
Lower elevation limit (m): 0
Upper elevation limit (m): 1100
Population
Population severely fragmented: No
Habitats and Ecology
Generation Length (years): 10
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis axis – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41783A22158006.en
17
The IUCN Red List Partnership
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species
Programme, the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership.
The IUCN Red List Partners are: BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens Conservation International;
Conservation International; Microsoft; NatureServe; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of
Rome; Texas A&M University; Wildscreen; and Zoological Society of London.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™