Download Axis porcinus, Hog Deer

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™
ISSN 2307-8235 (online)
IUCN 2008: T41784A22157664
Axis porcinus, Hog Deer
Assessment by: Timmins, R., Duckworth , J.W., Samba Kumar, N., Anwarul Islam,
M., Sagar Baral, H., Long, B. & Maxwell, A.
View on www.iucnredlist.org
Citation: Timmins, R., Duckworth , J.W., Samba Kumar, N., Anwarul Islam, M., Sagar Baral, H., Long,
B. & Maxwell, A. 2015. Axis porcinus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015:
e.T41784A22157664. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41784A22157664.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 porcinus (Zimmermann, 1780)
Common Name(s):
• English:
• French:
• Spanish:
Hog Deer, Indian Hog Deer, Indochina Hog Deer, Indochinese Hog Deer, Thai Hog Deer
Cerf-cochon, Cerf-cochon d'Indochine, Cerf des Marais
Ciervo Porquerizo de Indochina
Taxonomic Notes:
Current research suggests that Hog Deer should be included within the genus Hyelaphus, together with
calamianensis and kuhlii (Meijaard and Groves 2004, Pitra et al. 2004); it is also sometimes listed under
Cervus porcinus. Two subspecies are generally recognized, the nominate and A. p. annamiticus (type
locality in Viet Nam), although there has been no recent re-evaluation, and the relative historical
distributions of these subspecies and nature of contact between them, if any, remain unclear (Maxwell
et al. 2007). A new taxonomy of ungulates treats A. annamiticus as a species level taxon based on
morphology, thus rendering A. porcinus monotypic (Groves and Grubb 2011). Confirmation of this
arrangement using genetic markers is desirable before it is widely accepted.South Asian and Myanmar
populations appear to be spotted when young, while those in southern Viet Nam and Kratie, Cambodia,
appear to lack spotting when young (Peacock 1933, Clark undated, R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008
based on WWF Cambodia unpublished data and specimens in the AMNH; see also Maxwell et al. 2007).
Assessment Information
Red List Category & Criteria:
Endangered A2bcd ver 3.1
Year Published:
2015
Date Assessed:
December 3, 2014
Justification:
It is still believed that the most appropriate category for Hog Deer is Endangered A2bcd (past reduction
of 50% or greater in three generations, taken here as about 21 years). A detailed assessment of the Red
List status of Hog Deer in 2008 convincingly showed that the species had been undergoing a serious and
overlooked global decline for decades. Those authors provided the following justification which, with
few caveats, is considered to still hold true for the 2014 assessment: it is considered Endangered,
through a combination of population trends across its range (see below). Reflecting the ever-increasing
proportion of the total native population in well secured protected areas such as Kaziranga, despite an
ongoing major reduction in occupancy and number of subpopulations, future declines in the total
number of animals (A3 and A4) are unlikely to be at rates in the next three generations sufficient for
Endangered. However, without concerted action, within the next decade or two Hog Deer is likely to
warrant again listing as Endangered through a different criterion, B2ac (c through episodic flood-caused
mass mortality), reflecting the loss of all subpopulations except a handful in protected areas with
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis porcinus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41784A22157664.en
1
effective cohesive interventions against poaching and the wealth of other, habitat-related, threats facing
Hog Deer. Currently the area of occupancy is far too high for listing as Endangered on this criterion, or
even, probably, as Vulnerable.
During the mid and later decades of the twentieth century, the global population underwent rapid
range-wide reductions, with the almost total loss of Hog Deer from Southeast Asia (when it was
widespread and numerous in much of Cambodia, southern Viet Nam, lowland Thailand and probably
plains Lao PDR) and massive declines in the Terai Arc Landscape subpopulations consequent upon the
conquering of malaria and the influx of people to the area with wholesale habitat conversion and heavy
hunting. Unquestionably at this time Hog Deer global population declines were at rates consistent with
Endangered listing. By the mid 1980s (i.e., the start of the relevant period for a current A2 listing),
subpopulations (at least those large enough to influence the overall global decline rate) had gone from
Thailand and Bangladesh and, almost certainly, from Lao PDR, Viet Nam and China. It is likely that many
Hog Deer remained in Cambodia, where subpopulations two to three decades ago may well have been
in the thousands or even into the low tens of thousands, based on general perceptions of large-mammal
abundance and relative wealth of suitable habitat (R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008), and Myanmar,
where Hog Deer was regarded as a widespread and common species of no conservation concern in the
mid 1980s (various people per J.W. Duckworth pers. comm. 2008). In the interim, the Cambodian
population has collapsed. Although there is a dearth of information on current status in Myanmar, there
is no reason to assume that such a trend is not also in train there, although it may potentially be
somewhat behind Cambodia. In sum, the rate of population decline in the last 21 years in the region
comprising Cambodia, Viet Nam, Lao PDR, Thailand, China and Bangladesh has exceeded 90%, a
continuation of such declines from the 1950s onwards.
Populations in India and Nepal - and perhaps Pakistan and Bhutan (no recent information traced) - have
not declined at anything like such a rate in the last two decades. Declines in India are likely to have been
more like 30–40% over the last 21 years, although this may be an underestimate (N.S. Kumar pers.
comm. 2008); even in high-profile protected areas such as Corbett Tiger Reserve, Jaldapara Wildlife
Sanctuary and Dudhwa Tiger Reserve subpopulations are not secure. Declines have been at least 30%
for Nepal (H.S. Baral pers. comm. 2008).
The trend in the population in Myanmar and its proportionate contribution to the overall global trend
over the last three generations is the chief uncertainty. It was surely numerically large enough to have
some influence on the global assessment of decline rate, given the abundance of prime habitat.
Coupling the continued conversion of habitat to agriculture, the lack of protected areas specifically for
the species (in contrast to those for Eld’s Deer), the uneven success of Eld’s Deer protected areas in
conserving the species even with prioritised support and international collaboration, and the lack of
awareness over the plight of grassland biodiversity in the country, as typified by current locations of
protected areas, it is clear that whatever the surviving population of Hog Deer is in Myanmar, this is
largely due to chance. In no other range state has chance resulted in the survival of large
subpopulations: there has been almost regional extinction in the countries to the east of Myanmar, and
a fast retraction to reasonably well-secured protected areas in the countries to the west. The current
reality for Myanmar probably lies somewhere between these two, and, thus, subpopulations have
probably declined by 40–60% or even more in the last three generations.
Combining these inferred regional decline rates, an overall global decline rate in the last 21 years of 50%
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis porcinus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41784A22157664.en
2
is tenable. The Thai ‘wild-living’ subpopulation is re-introduced into artificially created habitats, and has
not been used to influence the assessment; although it is within the species' native geographic range, it
is possible that it is not the native subspecies. The Sri Lankan and Australian subpopulations, outside the
native range, has not been used to influence the assessment (but seems to be declining anyway).
Hog Deer has not been listed as threatened prior to 2008. This was probably due in large part to a few
large, high-density, South Asian subpopulations that give the appearance of ‘abundance’, but these are
exceptional to its true status, of extinction across most of its former range and within much of its
present range. This is not fully appreciated even at the present time, despite the analysis of Biswas and
Mathur (2000) and subsequent work by Biswas across one of the two main range states (India).
In the six years since 2008, new subpopulations were found in Cambodia, but are probably not too small
to have much influence on global population trends. However effective protection for any Cambodian
subpopulations has failed to materialise, and declines in this short window have probably exceeded 90%
driven by unprecedented economic development in Cambodia. The situation in Myanmar appears
equally bleak, with similar current trends in exploitation of preferred habitats and weak protection
measures, together with a lack of focus on the species (see also the 2014 assessment of Eld's Deer).
The situation in India and Nepal appears to be similar to that in 2008. A recent assessment on Northeast
India, a major stronghold of the species found large local subpopulations still occur in Assam with
sizeable numbers in northers West Bengal and Arunachal Pradesh (Choudhury 2013). There is a small
but secured subpopulation in Manipur and scattered animals in other states of the region. However in
Assam sharp declines have been recorded outside the protected areas such as in Lakhimpur and
Dhemaji districts (Chodhury 2007).
Previously Published Red List Assessments
2012 – Endangered (EN) – http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2012-1.RLTS.T41784A14859422.en
2008 – Endangered (EN)
1996 – Not Evaluated (NE)
Geographic Range
Range Description:
Hog Deer historically occurred from Pakistan, throughout northern and northeastern India, including the
Himalayan foothill zone, east across non-Sundaic Southeast Asia and, marginally, southern China
(southern Yunnan province), but it is now reduced to isolated subpopulations within this range. It is
almost extirpated from east of Myanmar. It is extinct in Thailand (where it has, however, been
reintroduced) and almost certainly in Viet Nam and Lao PDR (Humphrey and Bain 1990, Duckworth et al.
1999, Tordoff et al. 2005, R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008). Very small numbers have been found recently
in Bangladesh and in five areas in Cambodia (Khan 2004, Maxwell et al. 2007, Timmings and Sechrest
2010, Brook et al. 2015). A report on the internet in 2007 from China turned out to refer to a young
Sambar (B.P.L. Chan pers. comm. 2012). Hog Deer still probably occurs in at least several areas of
Myanmar (J.W. Duckworth in litt. 2008, from various sources), and localised subpopulations survive in
northern and northeastern India, Nepal, Bhutan (few recent data) and Pakistan (status uncertain; Biswas
and Mathur 2000, Biswas 2004). Hog Deer has been introduced (not mapped) into Australia (specifically
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis porcinus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41784A22157664.en
3
the coastal regions of south and east Gippsland; Moore and Mayze 1990), the United States (Texas,
Florida and Hawaii; Grubb 2005) and it is presumed introduced into Sri Lanka; however there remains
some discussion as to whether the species is native or introduced into Sri Lanka (Vishvanath et al. 2014)
so the species is retained here as non-native until definitive information is received.
Country Occurrence:
Native: Bangladesh; Bhutan; Cambodia; India; Nepal; Pakistan
Possibly extinct: China; Lao People's Democratic Republic; Myanmar; Viet Nam
Reintroduced: Thailand
Introduced: Australia; Sri Lanka; United States
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis porcinus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41784A22157664.en
4
Distribution Map
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis porcinus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41784A22157664.en
5
Population
em style="font-weight: bold;">Pakistan
Hog Deer is confined to isolated riverine grasslands along the Indus valley and its upper tributaries,
mostly in the Indus River forest reserves of Sind Province, with small subpopulations around the Indus
mouth and to the north of Sukkur (Roberts 1977). The species was listed for the protected areas of
Chashma Lake Wildlife Sanctuary, Head Islam/Chak Kotora Game Reserve (greatly reduced in number),
Lal Suhanra National Park (reintroduced), Taunsa Barrage Wildlife Sanctuary, and possibly Rasool
Barrage Wildlife Sanctuary (WCMC 1992), but no information more recent than Whale (1996) has been
traced.
em style="font-weight: bold;">India
Hog Deer is found mainly in the Terai grasslands along the Himalayan foothills and the flood-plains of
the Rivers Ganges and Brahmaputra, from Punjab in the west to Arunachal Pradesh in the east (Tandon
1989, Johnsingh et al. 2004, Biswas 2004). Johnsingh et al. (2004), who made extensive surveys of the
Terai Arc Landscape of India (for Tiger, Panthera tigris, and various prey species), considered that
Dudhwa Tiger Reserve is excellent habitat for Hog Deer; that there was a reasonable subpopulation in
Pilhibit Forest Division, particularly the Lagga Bagga forest block (now within a Tiger reserve; B. Long
pers. comm. 2008); that Kishanpur Wildife Sanctuary (203 km2), with one of the few remnants of Terai
habitat in India, supported considerable numbers, and that Katarniaghat Wildife Division also held Hog
Deer. Assessments conducted specifically for Hog Deer by Biswas et al. (2002; see also Biswas 2004) for
India surmised that populations remained in 29–34 areas, with significant numbers only in the following:
Arunachal Pradesh: 100–200 in D’ering, and 20–50 in Namdapha; Assam: 20–50 in Dibrusaikhowa, over
1,000 in Kaziranga (but see below), over 1,000 in Manas, 20–50 in Nameiri, 200–500 in Orang, 20–50 in
Kobuchapori, 20–50 in Burachapori, and 20–50 in Sunai Rupa; Bihar: 100–200 in Valmiki; Uttrakand (=
Uttaranchal): 200–500 in Corbett Tiger Reserve (but see below); Uttar Pradesh: 1,000–2,000 in Dudhwa,
20–50 in Katarniaghat, 100–200 in Kishanpur, and 20–50 in North Kheri Forest Division; and West
Bengal: 100–200 in Gorumara and a population at Jaldapara. Their estimate for Pilhibit Forest Division
was zero, contra Johnsingh et al. (2004). Biswas’s study also considered that Hog Deer had been lost
from 35 historically known localities, and suggested it was ‘endangered’, with citations given for
alarming decline even prior to the mid 1970s (Biswas 2004). The figures were not derived from rigorous
sampling and some will surely need revision. Particularly, it is certain that there are over 10,000 Hog
Deer in Kaziranga, with a best estimate of 14,000–16,000, at ecological densities of 38.6 (with SE 3.45)
animals per km2 (Karanth and Nicholls 2000, N.S. Kumar pers. comm. 2008); and in Corbett Tiger
Reserve, only about 100 were reported in 2008 by Bivash Pandav (pers. comm. 2008) and while the
actual number is unclear, densities are now very low, even in prime habitat (K.M. Chinnappa and
Praveen per N.S. Kumar pers. comm. 2008), and a rapid decline is in place (A. Kumar pers. comm. 2008).
Dudhwa Tiger Reserve also faces a suite of conservation problems meaning that population status of
Hog Deer there is unlikely to be as healthy as in Kaziranga: poaching is rampant, and the creeper
Tiliacora acuminata is proliferating across Hog Deer habitat (Kumar et al. 2002, Johnsingh et al. 2004,
N.S. Kumar pers. comm. 2008). At Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary, where Biswas (1999) studied ecology of
Hog Deer in the 1990s, sightings, and presumably populations, have now drastically declined (A.J.T.
Johnsingh pers. comm. 2008). Hog Deer is now primarily restricted to protected areas (A. Choudhury
pers. comm. 2006), but south of Rajaji National Park there are a few isolated groups along the river
(perhaps totalling about 100 animals); these are outside protected areas (B. Pandav pers. comm. 2008).
All such subpopulations outside protected areas are in very rapid decline (N.S. Kumar pers. comm.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis porcinus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41784A22157664.en
6
2008). The presence of this species in Manipur and southern Assam (close to Manipur, Mizoram and
Tripura) is based on records in Biswas et al. (2002); its current status there is unknown. All groups in
these areas were estimated to be very small, and should not be assumed to persist. The more recent
assessment by Choudhury (2013) indicated the following numbers in some key northeastern Indian
reserves: Kaziranga (c. 10,000; marginal decline owing to high floods), Manas (c. 1,500; marginal
increase since near extirpation in the 1989-1992 period), RG Orang (c. 500; all in Assam); Jaldapara
(250+; marginal increase in recent years owing to improved protection, in Arunachal Pradesh); and
Keibul Lamjao (c. 100) (in Manipur).
em style="font-weight: bold;">Bangladesh
Hog Deer has disappeared from the Sundarbans (Salter 1984) and has not been reported from the
Sylhet District, in the northeast, since the 1970s (Khan 2004). After a long period with no records, an
animal was trapped by local people in 2002 (Khan 2004). Further surveys suggested that a few Hog Deer
remained in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of the southeast (Khan 2004, Md Anwarul Islam pers. comm.
2008). Camera trapping and observational surveys during 2010-2011 in Chittagong Hill Tracts did not
detect Hog Deer, however the surveys did not cover the low hills and degraded forest areas in which the
species would most likely be expected to occur (S. Chakma per.comm. 2014). There is a small captive
population derived from native animals (Md Anwarul Islam pers. comm. 2008). Within historic times,
Hog Deer was never widespread in the country and pressure was on it from at least the 1970s (Md
Anwarul Islam pers. comm. 2008).
em style="font-weight: bold;">Nepal
Hog Deer is locally abundant in the Terai, but is now restricted largely, if not entirely, to protected areas
(P. Yonzon pers. comm. 2006, H.S. Baral pers. comm. 2008). Although subpopulations may currently be
relatively stable, declines in the past 20–30 years are likely to have exceeded 30% (H.S. Baral pers.
comm. 2008). Measured densities range from 0.1 per km2 in riverine forest, to 16.5 per km2 in savanna,
and 35 per km2 in grassland flood-plains (Seidensticker 1976, Dhungel and O’Gara 1991). In Bardia
National Park, densities of 77.3 animals per km2 in the floodplain association and 5.8 animals per km2 in
the riverine association (and zero in Sal forest) were measured (Odden et al. 2005). The species occurs
in the following protected areas: Parsa Wildlife Reserve (with a very small subpopulation), Koshi Tappu
Wildlife Reserve, Bardia National Park, Chitwan National Park, and Sukla Phanta Wildlife Reserve (Hem
Sagar Baral pers. comm. 2008). Each of Suklaphanta, Bardia and Chitwan supports hundreds of Hog
Deer. As of 2014, there has been no significant change in the population since 2008 (H.S. Baral pers.
comm. 2014).
em style="font-weight: bold;">Bhutan
The small Bhutan subpopulation is found mostly along the southern foothills and small plains along the
rivers. Animals have been observed in three protected areas along its border with Assam India, these
are Phipsoo, Royal Manas and Khaling. The number of individuals in Royal Manas National Park could be
greater than 150, with the grassland around the Gabhorukunda river as the main stronghold (A.
Choudhury, pers. comm 2014). It has also been recorder from Mochu Wildlife Reserve.
em style="font-weight: bold;">China
Hog Deer historically was recorded in southwest parts of Gengma and Cangyuan counties of Western
Yunnan bordering Myanmar, and has recently been stated to be extinct in the country (Ohtaishi and Gao
1990, Smith and Xie Yan 2008).
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis porcinus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41784A22157664.en
7
em style="font-weight: bold;">Myanmar
Hog Deer has long been known in Myanmar (e.g., Evans 1902) and occurred throughout the country
wherever there were grassy plains (Peacock 1933). For the 2008 assessment detailed information on
Hog Deer's current range or population status in Myanmar has not been traced. It was already in major
decline by the time Peacock (1933) wrote. It was listed only for three protected areas by WCMC (1992):
Pidaung, Kahilu, and Hlawga Wildlife Reserves. Of these, the Hlawga subpopulation of many dozen (in
2007) is a semi-captive, managed herd: the entire area, of several square kilometres, is fenced; however,
it may be ‘native’ in that the founders were reputedly from animals captured locally during the 1980s
(Saw Htoo Tha Po verbally 2007 to J.W. Duckworth pers. comm. 2008)., but these have been added to
over the years (T. Zaw pers. comm. 2014). As of 2014, there were still small numbers at Hlawga, but they
appeared to be decreasing because of new management at the park and possibly hunting (T. Zaw pers.
comm. 2014). The Pidaung Wildlife Sanctuary was set aside in 1918 to protect an unusual mix of
evergreen forest and savanna-like ecosystems (Milton et al. 1964), and Hog Deer used to be very
numerous within it (Peacock 1933); at this time it was the only site in the country where Hog Deer
received a measure of protection. Today, the presence of permanent human settlements, roads and
railway lines, plantations of sugar cane, military camps and permanent cultivation have completely
altered large portions of the sanctuary, and an insignificant area of the original ecosystem remains (Rao
et al. 2002). These land-uses are concentrated in the plains parts of the sanctuary, where Hog Deer used
to live, and have converted so absolutely these areas that it is not obvious to someone driving along the
road when the protected area is entered or exited (J.W. Duckworth pers. comm. 2008, based on visits in
2005-2006). People and dogs are ubiquitous and it seems implausible that any Hog Deer could survive
here (J.W. Duckworth pers. comm. 2008, based on visits in 2005–2006). However park staff believe that
a few animals still persist there (T. Zaw pers. comm. 2014). In 2010 and 2011 Hog Deer was confirmed by
camera-trapping from Hukaung Valley in Kachin state (T. Zaw pers. comm. 2014), following on from
reports from hunters' and conservation staff between 2005-2007 (J.W. Duckworth pers. comm. 2008). At
the turn of the century suitable habitat was very extensive in the Hukaung Valley, but as of 2014 review
of remote imagery suggests that there has been massive loss of riparian grasslands to make way for
agriculture and other anthropogenic land uses (R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2014). Hog deer are still
present in a fairly large area of floodplain grasslands including areas along the Tanai (Upper Chindwin),
Tawan and Mogaung streams. Much of the grasslands where hog deer area known are outside of the
Wildlife Sanctuary but as awareness of the species is increasing, it appears they occur further inside the
Wildlife Sanctuary than previously thought (R. Tizard pers. comm. 2014). An FFI survey team recorded
Hog Deer in the grasslands between the boundary of Indawgyi WS and the forest in 2012 (T. Zaw pers.
comm. 2014). Several government staff indicated in 2005-2007 that the species is still locally common in
lowland Myanmar (J.W. Duckworth pers. comm. 2008). Pidaung was seen as a flagship protected area (it
was one of the country’s first), and its current status does not augur well for the few other protected
areas which contain suitable Hog Deer habitat. Extensive camera-trapping for a Tiger survey found no
evidence of the species (Lynam 2003), but this may simply have reflected the focus of the survey on
closed evergreen forests (habitats unsuitable for Hog Deer), as various other species known to be
common but not using closed evergreen forest were also camera-trapped rarely if at all (T. Zaw et al.
2008).
em style="font-weight: bold;">Thailand
The species was formerly abundant in the Chao Phraya Basin during the early 20th century, but had
become extinct there by the mid-1960s (Humphrey and Bain 1990). There was formerly a huge export
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis porcinus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41784A22157664.en
8
trade, for example 20,000 skins went out of the Gulf of Siam (it is not stated whether this was from
Thailand, Cambodia, or both) in 1930–1931 (Dumas 1944). There was a plea for conservation attention
to the species in Thailand in Lekagul and McNeely (1977), but this seems to have come too late. Animals
reportedly from Thailand and possibly Myanmar have been used to build up numerous managed herds
in captive and semi-wild conditions across the country, although the origins of the managed herds
remain uncertain. Such animals were introduced into Phu Khieo Wildlife Sanctuary and Propagation
Station in northern Thailand in the early 1990s, at a higher elevation than is typical for the natural range
of the species; this herd lives in open grassland around the edge of a reservoir (A. Pattanavibool pers.
comm. 2006, R. Steinmetz pers. comm. 2006). There is also an apparently large introduced
subpopulation on the island of Ko Chang in the Gulf of Siam.
em style="font-weight: bold;">Lao PDR
Hog Deer is probably extinct in Lao PDR and its past status is difficult to assess: there are few, if any,
specimens held in international collections from the country, and there were no records (except of old
trophies) during extensive surveys across the country in the 1990s (Duckworth et al. 1999). However,
Osgood (1932) specifically cautioned that it was much under-represented in zoological collections,
despite it being locally common in Indochina. The extent to which this statement includes Lao PDR is
unknown. All potentially suitable habitat patches are now small in size and are heavily used by local
people, hunting pressure in Lao PDR is high, and it is inconceivable in the great majority of areas that
any Hog Deer could still persist (R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008, 2014).
em style="font-weight: bold;">Viet Nam
Hog Deer is thought to be extinct in Viet Nam, having previously occurred in some large subpopulations
in suitable habitat (e.g. Clark undated) and apparently having been widespread in the south according to
reports in Ratajszczak (1991). This reflects the rapidity with which suitable habitat has been lost and the
heavy hunting pressure on large mammals throughout much of Viet Nam (Tordoff et al. 2005, Timmins
and Duckworth 2000). If the species still occurs in Viet Nam, it is most likely to be along the Kon river in
Kon Cha Rang Nature Reserve, the western Srepok river lowlands of Dak Lak Province, the Sa Tay area of
Kon Tum and Gia Lai Provinces, the Dong Nai river lowlands and Lam Dong Province (R.J. Timmins pers.
comm. 2008). However, there is no recent evidence other than unconfirmed reports, and a trophy which
may be of Hog Deer from the Kon Cha Rang NR area. Other evidence, notably high hunting rates of
ungulates in general, suggest that even very small numbers are unlikely to survive (Dang Huy Huynh
1986, Tordoff et al. 2005, R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2006, 2014).
em style="font-weight: bold;">Cambodia
Hog Deer used to be abundant on the vast marshy plains of Cambodia, such as around Sre Ambel, in the
province of Kratie, around Kompong Som, and around Kampot; in the drier regions of much of the north
it was not common (Dumas 1944). Increased wildlife surveys from 1994 onwards failed to find Hog Deer
anywhere in Cambodia until it was re-found in Kratie in 2006, following concerns it might already be
extinct (Tordoff et al. 2005, Maxwell et al. 2007). A few animals, probably in the low dozens, remain
scattered in small groups in remnant areas of floodplain grasslands and other vegetation in Kratie
Province (Maxwell et al. 2007, Bezuijen et al. 2008.). In 2008 the species was detected in grasslands and
remained widespread (Timmins and Sechrest 2010). Potential habitat in the southwest was much
greater in extent than in the Kratie floodplains suggesting that a much larger subpopulation of deer
remained there at least at the turn of the century (R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2014) and the species was
recorded from three additional sites in 2013 during focused surveys for the species (Brook et al. 2015).
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis porcinus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41784A22157664.en
9
Since 2008 however there has been no effective protection of any of the known subpopulations or of
other areas of habitat with good potential for persistence; and coastal areas have in the intervening six
years seen high rates of conversion especially to plantation agriculture and forestry (R.J. Timmins pers.
comm. 2014). All remaining subpopulations are likely to be small, possibly isolated from each other, and
subject to hunting (Brook et al. 2015).
em style="font-weight: bold;">
em style="font-weight: bold;">Sri Lanka (probably introduced)
Hog Deer is restricted to largely cultivated landscapes within a 35 km2 area, between Ambalangoda and
Indurawa on the southwest coast, and inland as far as Elpitiya (McCarthy and Dissanayake 1992, 1994).
It does not occur in any protected area. Hog Deer is thought to have been introduced to Sri Lanka by the
Dutch or the Portuguese in the 16th century, or possibly by a Sinhalese ruler in the pre-colonial period
or the British later on; suggestions that it is native are doubted because of the absence of records across
central and southern India (Biswas and Mathur 2000). Vishvanath et al. (2014) recommend genetic
studies to further clarify the status of Sri Lanka's Hog Deer subpopulation.
Australia (introduced)
All extant subpopulations of Hog Deer are on the South Coast of Victoria. There are two managed
subpopulations at reserves on Sunday Island and at Blond Bay. Additionally, there are scattered groups
on private land between Wilson's Promontory and Orbost. These subpopulations derive from releases
made in 1865 (Scroggie et al. 2012).
Current Population Trend: Decreasing
Habitat and Ecology (see Appendix for additional information)
Hog Deer is usually reported from habitat consisting of wet or moist tall grasslands, often associated
with medium- to large-sized rivers (Bhowmik et al. 1999, Biswas and Mathur 2000, Biswas 2004), and
appears to reach its highest densities in floodplain grasslands (Seidensticker 1976, Dhungel and O’Gara
1991, Karanth and Nichols 2000, Odden et al. 2005). It avoids closed-canopy forest, but will use coastal
grasslands (e.g., Peacock 1933). Johnsingh et al. (2004) considered Hog Deer to be an obligate grassland
species in the Terai Arc Landscape of India, and studies in India and Nepal have shown a preference for
grasslands dominated by Imperata cylindrica (Biswas 2004 and references therein). Similar alluvial
floodplain grassland seems to be used in Thailand and Indochina (Maxwell et al. 2007, Clark undated,
R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2006). In Bardia National Park, measured densities were much higher in the
floodplain association than in the riverine association, and no Hog Deer was found in adjacent Sal
Shorea robusta forest at all (Odden et al. 2005). In the hilly areas of northeastern India, it occurs in small
grassy areas, light woodland and abandoned juhms with grass (Choudhury 2013, A. Choudhury pers.
comm 2014). The highest elevation where it has been recorder was 1,500 m asl in Nagaland (Choudhury
2013). These seem to be marginal habitats supporting only low-density subpopulations (A.U. Choudhury
pers. comm. 2006): they may historically have been primarily ‘sink’ subpopulations. The remnant
population in Bangladesh is located in grassy, lightly wooded, hill country (Khan 2004). In the
southwestern coastal lowlands of Cambodia, where apparently the species was once common (Dumas
1944), the species appears to use an open habitat mosaic including brackish Eleocharis sedge marshes
and ‘upland’ tall Imperata cylindrica grasslands, and areas of scrubby open secondary woodland
interspersed with ‘dry’ short stature grasslands; cane-grass floodplain grasslands are essentially absent
in this region (Timmins and Sechres 2010, R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2014). The reintroduced semi-wild
subpopulations in Thailand occupy a variety of habitats for which there is no evidence of use by wild
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis porcinus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41784A22157664.en
10
subpopulations in Thailand, Lao PDR, Viet Nam or Cambodia. One of the few detailed historical accounts
of an abundant subpopulation in Southeast Asia was from extensive tall floodplain grasslands in the
Dong Nai catchment, Viet Nam (Clark undated). Hog Deer is a primarily a grazer of young grasses,
particularly Imperata cylindrica and Saccharum spp.; it also takes herbs, flowers, fruits and browse
(young leaves and shoots of shrubs; Bhowmik et al. 1999, Dhungel and O’Gara 1991, Bisawas 2004,
Wegge et al. 2006). It is much more a grazer and less a browser than is the Sambar Rusa unicolor.
Animals occur in scrub and cinnamon gardens in Sri Lanka, where they cause considerable damage to
home crops (McCarthy and Dissanayake 1992).
Where undisturbed, Hog Deer tend to be crepuscular, with significant day-time activity and some at
night, especially in the hot and wet seasons (Dhungel and O’Gara 1991). In some areas it seems to have
become more nocturnal and solitary (e.g., Cambodia; R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008), presumably
through hunting pressure. The main social group is a female and fawn. When more Hog Deer are
together, they do not form a strong "unit", fleeing when flushed in different directions rather than as
one. In Chitwan, aggregations of up to 20 animals have been observed feeding on new shoots following
fire (Dhungel and O’Gara 1991). In Kaziranga, aggregations of 40–80 animals are frequently seen on
grazing grounds created by Great Indian Rhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis and/or short grasslands near
large water bodies (N.S. Kumar pers. comm. 2008, based on observations in 1996). Home ranges vary
widely in size, but average about five to 70 ha, depending on how the range is defined (Dhungel and
O’Gara 1991, Odden et al. 2005). In Chitwan, Hog Deer is essentially sedentary (Dhungel and O’Gara
1991), but in cultivated landscapes (Sri Lanka) movements are reported to be influenced by agricultural
seasons (McCarthy and Dissanayake 1992). Hog Deer moves into higher-lying grasslands in response to
monsoon flooding in India, Myanmar and presumably throughout their range (Peacock 1933, Q. Qureshi
pers. comm. 1995). The rut is during September–October in Nepal and India and (presumably based on
captives) during September–February in China. One to two fawns are born during April–May in Nepal
and during April–October in China. Gestation period is 220–230 days (Dhungel and O’Gara 1991, Sheng
and Ohtaishi 1993). Fawns wean at six months, reaching sexual maturity at eight to 12 months. The
maximum recorded life span is 20 years.
Systems: Terrestrial, Freshwater
Use and Trade
Hog Deer is hunted in various parts of its range. It is hunted for its meat (bushmeat trade), traditional
medicinal products and for trophy antlers. It is also possible that hunting could be stimulated by
demand for captive animals.
Threats (see Appendix for additional information)
Hog Deer is threatened by hunting and by habitat loss and degradation; much prime Hog Deer habitat
had probably been converted well before the 20th century (e.g., Peacock 1933). The balance between
these threats and their current severity varies somewhat between ‘South Asia’ (here comprising India,
Nepal, presumably Bhutan and perhaps Pakistan) and ‘Southeast Asia’ (here comprising China, Viet
Nam, Lao PDR, Cambodia, Thailand and Bangladesh). In 2008 it was considered that there was
insufficient information to judge for Myammar into which group it would fit however as of 2014 it is
now clear that trends in habitats clearance, hunting pressure and conservation management in
Myanmar are very similar to ‘Southeast Asia’ especially Cambodia. Sri Lanka and Australia are
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis porcinus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41784A22157664.en
11
considered outside the native range so not covered in detail here.
In the Mekong countries of Lao PDR, Cambodia, Thailand, Viet Nam and also probably China and
Bangladesh, hunting has been, and remains, the primary direct threat to the species. In addition to local
consumption of meat, the main factor presently driving such hunting is the thriving and probably
increasing national, regional and East Asian markets trade in bushmeat, abetted by markets for
traditional medicinal products derived from deer species and for trophy antlers (Tordoff et al. 2005,
Maxwell et al. 2007). It is also possible that hunting could be stimulated by demand for captive animals,
especially from zoos and menageries in Thailand and Cambodia (R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008),
although as of 2014 this is almost certainly insignificant (R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2014). The species is
apparently easy to hunt compared with other sympatric deer (e.g. Peacock 1933, Dumas 1944), and
fawns are likely to be very vulnerable to dogs which almost always accompany human parties during
excursions, however, brief, outside farm and residential land, even if these are not for hunting (Tordoff
et al. 2005, R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008). Hunting itself has been greatly augmented by habitat loss:
the vast majority of tall floodplain grasslands have been lost in the region due to the suitability of such
habitat for human settlement and agriculture, and only very small patches remain. This huge extent of
habitat loss probably occurred largely after Hog Deer had been hunted down to negligible numbers (R.J.
Timmins pers. comm. 2008). The coastal lowland open habitat mosaic of southwestern Cambodia in
contrast remained extensive and relatively little changed even in 2008, however development pressure
in the area has increased enormously in the intervening years, with considerable developments of
agricultural and agroforestry plantations (Timmins and Sechrest 2010, R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2014).
Given these threats, which are ongoing, Hog Deer is one of the most threatened large mammals in
Indochina (Timmins and Duckworth 2000, Tordoff et al. 2005, R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008). The most
significant challenge to conserving the species there is the uncertainty involved with long term
protected area-based conservation management. As of the end of 2014 there are still no specific
conservation measures for the species in Cambodia; none of the known subpopulations occur
substantially within a protected area and given hunting pressure and trends in habitat loss, these
subpopulations are highly likely to be extirpated in the short to medium term (R.J. Timmins pers. comm.
2014).
Even in South Asia, where many protected areas are effective in conserving populations of large
ungulates, Hog Deer declined precipitously in the 20th century through habitat loss and hunting. It is
still in decline even within some protected areas (e.g. Bhowmik 2002; see below). In India, habitat loss
to cultivation has greatly reduced the area available to Hog Deer, and has continued to do so outside
protected areas even in recent decades (N.S. Kumar pers. comm. 2008). Johnsingh et al. (2004) stated
that high levels of malaria had previously discouraged settlement, agriculture, and thus habitat
conversion in the Terai Arc Landscape, and that the conquering of malaria has made the Indian side of
the Terai Arc Landscape "one of the most densely populated regions of [India, with a] population
growing at a much higher rate than the rest of [India]. Most of the fertile Terai plains have been taken
over by agriculture". Johnsingh et al. (2004) stated that controlling disturbance to Lagga Bagga forest
block in Pilibhit Forest Division (now within a tiger reserve; B. Long pers. comm. 2008) is a huge
challenge: many people rely on it for firewood, thatch grass and fodder, and that intensive protection
and participatory management with these people are required to restore the area. Such a threat profile
is typical of areas supporting Hog Deer. Outside protected areas, some Hog Deer remain in woodland
areas where densities are very low, and although animals do appear to breed in such situations, it is
unclear in the absence of adjacent high-density river plains populations how viable such woodland
populations will be in the long term (A. Choudhury pers. comm. 2006). Protected areas are encroached
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis porcinus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41784A22157664.en
12
for cultivation and even more so for livestock grazing, which is surely increasing pressure on Hog Deer
along with many other species. As a grazing species, Hog Deer numbers are likely to be severely
depressed by competition with domestic livestock (by analogy with other wild ruminants, as detailed by
Madhusudan 2004), although no data were traced on this. Domestic stock are ubiquitous in all areas
outside the protected area network and even occur in many within it, specifically at least: Chitwan;
Orang; Jaldapara; and Gorumara (Johnsingh et al. 2004, R.H. Emslie pers. comm., B.N. Talukdar pers.
comm., S.S. Bist pers. comm.).
Most subpopulations in India are under severe threat from hunting (N.S. Kumar pers. comm. 2008),
although the largest subpopulation of the species, in Kaziranga, has been secured from this threat for
many years. Poaching occurs in protected areas throughout the Indian range, especially in north Bengal,
and can be associated with other human uses of protected areas perceived to be more legitimate, such
as grazing camps (Biswas 2004). Many old skulls of Hog Deer were found across Arunachal Pradesh and
Assam during the survey of Biswas et al. (2002). On average two to three skulls were recorded from
most houses in villages randomly visited during the survey in Arunachal Pradesh. Regularly, shots were
heard and machans (tree-houses made for poaching) were found during the surveys in Nameri National
Park, Sonai-Rupai Wildlife Sanctuary and Namdapha Tiger Reserve. According to questionnaire, 52% of
responses reported high incidence of Hog Deer hunting in neighbouring areas. Hunting was reported as
the primary reason for the sudden decline of the Hog Deer population from north Bengal since 1877.
Biswas et al. (2002) detailed evidence of Hog Deer hunting during the survey and past records from the
district of Cooch Behar (West Bengal) back to the 18th century. Even today, in high-profile areas such a
Corbett Tiger Reserve and Rajaji National Park, there are still instances of deer poaching, and poaching
has seriously depleted abundance of large mammals in most of the Terai Arc Landscape. Some poaching
is driven by a desire to seek adventure, the thrill of shikar and wild meat, some by crushing poverty of
daily wage labourers and others, some to take advantage of the business opportunity of supplying a
lucrative trade. Poaching is done with dogs, snares, spears and guns (Johnsingh et al. 2004). Outside
protected areas in India, enforcement of anti-hunting regulations is patchy and, unless there is effective
specific intervention, all Hog Deer subpopulations in such areas will become extirpated in the near
future from hunting (A. Choudhury pers. comm. 2006, N.S. Kumar pers. comm. 2008). Hog Deer avidly
eats rice and so in the past was “destroyed ruthlessly on such grounds” (Peacock 1933). It seems unlikely
that killing Hog Deer solely for reduction of crop damage is nowadays a reason for population decline,
although it may be a convenient excuse to kill deer. Most serious is that the predilection of Hog Deer to
eat rice is likely to bring them into closer contact with people and therefore to increase easy
opportunities for hunting. In Kratie, Cambodia, Hog Deer occur near, and seasonally forage in, rice fields,
especially in the early rainy season. People set traps for wild pigs Sus species, which are more abundant
than Hog Deer, and the traps sometimes kill Hog Deer. The local people now are reportedly refraining
from using indiscriminate traps in the Hog Deer area, but such cooperation is unlikely to continue
forever, because crop predation by pigs is really a problem (A. Maxwell pers. comm. 2008).
In today’s highly fragmented subpopulations which have limited dispersal possibility, flooding may take
heavy tolls, especially in the Brahmaputra flood plain (Q. Qureshi pers. comm. 1995). In Kaziranga
National Park, where the largest subpopulation of this species is found, flooding is likely to be a major
threat: in 1998 the flood reduced the subpopulation to less than half its pre-flood number (A.
Choudhury pers. comm. 2006). High floods both lead to drowning as animals are washed away also
falling victim to road kill (A. Choudhury pers. comm. 2014). The situation is similar in Nepal where Hog
Deer appears to be especially vulnerable because of the short-grass habitats it usually uses during flood
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis porcinus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41784A22157664.en
13
season, and in protected area like Koshi Tappu, flooding probably causes wide fluctuations in population
numbers (H.S. Baral pers. comm. 2008). Hog Deer subpopulations appear to rebound quickly even from
heavy losses, but the fragmentation and increasing isolation of subpopulations into small areas,
sometimes with no linkage to suitable higher ground, makes periodic losses from flooding a high risk for
future site-level extinctions. Flooding is also a danger because, except in areas of effective anti-poaching
activity, by marooning Hog Deer on little patches of high ground it makes them more easy to hunt
(Peacock 1933).
A further threat also reflects the colossal habitat fragmentation in recent centuries. Prime Hog Deer
habitats are naturally dynamic, and on a living floodplain new areas of grasslands are constantly created
through natural processes to replace those changing through natural succession to woody vegetation;
creation occurs through traumatic change of floodplain stream and land layout during spates (Dinerstein
1979, Lehmkuhl 1994, Peet et al. 1999). This is incompatible with farming and other human land-uses,
which seek a predictable landscape. Hence, within Hog Deer range, there are very few active natural
floodplains in which pre-exploitation processes shape the landscape in this way. Thus, the grasslands
which are the prime habitat of Hog Deer generally require active management. In some protected areas
grasslands are being lost by succession of wooded habitats, for example Chitwan (A. Choudhury pers.
comm. 2006) and Bardia (Odden et al. 2005). By contrast, annual burning in Kaziranga, while
maintaining a grass habitat, has rapidly changed the grassland structure and composition and how this
change affects Hog Deer subpopulations is not known (S. Deb Roy pers. comm. 1996). In Nepal there is
also succession of different grassland types and in particular Imperata cylindrica grasslands, which Hog
Deer appears to favour at certain times of the year (Biswas 2004), are being replaced by larger cane
grasses (H. S. Baral pers. comm. 2008). Locally, conservation management of grasslands to benefit
rhinoceroses, for instance in Jaldapara, might negatively affect Hog Deer (Biswas 2004 and references
within).
The invasive creeper Mikania sp. threatens Hog Deer’s favoured grasslands both within and outside
protected areas, and after flooding and poaching is possibly the next most serious threat to the species
in Nepal (H.S. Baral pers. comm. 2008). In combination with invasion by Chromolaena odorata
(=Eupatorium odoratum), heavy livestock grazing pressure and invasion of some grasslands by Acacia
catechu and Dalbergia sissou, the grassland area in Chitwan has been reduced from 20% to 4.7% of the
national park (R.H. Emslie pers. comm.). Mikania sp. are also carpeting large areas of non-forest habitats
in the Hukaung Valley, Myanmar (J.W. Duckworth pers. comm. 2008). Lantana camara is also displacing
native plants widely, and in Dudhwa Tiger Reserve, the creeper Tiliacora acuminata is proliferating
across Hog Deer habitat (Kumar et al. 2002, Johnsingh et al. 2004, N.S. Kumar pers. comm. 2008). In
Assam an invasive Mimosa sp. threatens the habitat in sites like Kaziranga and Orang National Parks,
whereas in Manas National Park an invasive Lea sp. has become a major threat to the grassland habitat
of the hog deer (B. Talukdar pers. comm. 2008).
Floodplain grasslands are strongly affected in their pace of natural succession by water flows and levels,
and seasonal patterns in them. Hydropower development changes these parameters and thus threatens
habitat, including a project under consideration across the Mekong which would affect the sole known
subpopulation of A. p. annamiticus (that in Cambodia), and another across the Karnali river which would
modify habitats in Bardia, Nepal (Odden et al. 2005). There have been proposals to dam the
Brahmaputra River in Arunachal Pradesh, and should this happen, this could very negatively affect the
habitat quality and Hog Deer carrying capacity of major parks like Kaziranga in future (by preventing or
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis porcinus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41784A22157664.en
14
reducing the pulse of nutrients brought in by regular large floods, as well as changes in water levels and
flows). In Jaldapara Sanctuary, the River Torsa no longer overflows as a result of massive flood-control
structures. As a result the water table in the sanctuary is receding and the natural water-bodies and
wallow-pools are slowly drying up (S.S. Bist pers. comm.).
Disease epidemics spreading from domestic livestock presumably pose a threat, especially given the
close overlap of Hog Deer and domestic livestock in South Asia, the high densities especially of the
latter, and the small and localised nature of Hog Deer subpopulations.
In Sri Lanka the continued survival of the introduced subpopulations depends on controlling hunting and
maintaining traditional agricultural land use practices. The land is too intensively cultivated for the
establishment of protected areas within the range of the species. Threats in the rest of the introduced
range are not reviewed here.
Conservation Actions (see Appendix for additional information)
Hog Deer is fully protected in Bangladesh, India, and probably most or all other range states. One
subspecies is listed on CITES Appendix I as Axis porcinus annamiticus.
Wetlands, especially floodplain grasslands, have traditionally been ignored by the protected area
systems and other conservation initiatives of Lao PDR, Viet Nam and Cambodia (Tordoff et al. 2005, R.J.
Timmins pers. comm. 2006). Most of the area supporting the single known subpopulation in Cambodia
has been proposed for protected area status, but the situation is complicated by the inclusion of
agricultural lands and traditional use areas of local people, and the high human population immediately
nearby (Maxwell et al. 2007, Bezuijen et al. 2008); as of 2014 no protected status has been granted to
this area (R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2014). As soon as the subpopulation was found, a small
conservation programme with external funding from WWF was started to support a small number of
forestry rangers and local guardians to carry out patrolling and community outreach activities, in
addition to basic research. These measures ceased due to a combination of factors including lack of
funding and motivation in part brought on by the failure to establish the site as as protected area in c.
2008 (R.J. Timmins pers. comm 2014), but may be re-established by WWF with the Forestry
Administration (Brook et al. 2015). Probably the bulk of the southwest Cambodian subpopulation lies
outside of protected areas, although there was marginal inclusion within one protected area Botum
Sakor National Park and the proposed Southwest Elephant Corridor, with confirmed occurrence near to
the Dong Peng Multiple Use Area. However, in all of these areas deer are in peripheral areas, while
conservation attention, is focused on extensive forest at their heart (R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2014).
In 2013 a national action plan was developed for the conservation of Hog Deer in Indochina. The plan
recommends securing the Kratie subpopulation and one of the Southwest subpopulations (Andoung
Teuk) thourgh establishing anti-poaching patrols, engaging local communities in the conservation oh
Hog Deer, stabilizing land-use and formalizing protection for the sites. It also recommends the
establishment of a conservation breeding programme for the species from ideally to other known small
and isolated subpopulations in the Southwest (Forestry Administration, 2014). The plan has not yet
been approved by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. To ensure protection and survival
of animals, consideration should be given as to whether it would be useful for part of the areas to be
strategically fenced to help deter poaching, agricultural encroachment and predation by dogs; but this
would need to consider seasonal movements.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis porcinus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41784A22157664.en
15
There are few areas in Viet Nam where suitable habitat is thought to remain, but if reasonable extents
of alluvial grassland survive in the following areas surveys for Hog Deer may be warranted: Cat Tien
National Park, the Kon river in the Kon Cha Rang Nature Reserve area, and the Sa Tay area of Kon Tum
and Gia Lai Provinces; although given the high hunting pressure in Viet Nam it is becoming very unlikely
that any animals could still survive (R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2014). Cat Tien National Park retains
significant areas of alluvial grasslands, and could potentially in the future become a site for
reintroduction, however park management appears to be to some extent ignorant of the importance of
these grasslands with ongoing schemes to re-establish forest and a fire management policy that is
probably leading to woody encroachment of grasslands (R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2014, based on a visit
in December 2013).
It is not certain what conservation measures are in place (if any) for the rediscovered subpopulation in
Bangladesh.
There has been no comprehensive assessment of Hog Deer in Myanmar, but it probably exists mostly in
unprotected plains grassland areas which, as in the Mekong countries, are conventionally seen as of low
conservation value (Peacock 1933, J.W. Duckworth pers. comm. 2006). In 2010 an 11,000 km2 extension
of the Hukaung valley was established. Hog Deer were camera-trapped in three localities in the
grasslands along the Tawang River; one in the core area and the other two on the edge of the core area
and the extension. In the last two years (since 2012) this area has seen the development of human
settlements and agricultural expansion (Than Zaw pers. comm.) resulting in considerable loss of
grassland habitat (R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2014). A clarification of the status of Hog Deer in Myanmar
is urgent: there may yet remain areas supporting animals which have high conservation potential if they
do not disappear before being known to conservation. This lack of conservation profile is the chief
challenge to Hog Deer in Myanmar at the moment, as it was in Peacock’s (1933) day: “the butchery of
these little deer and the failure to provide more than one small sanctuary for their preservation is
certainly one of the weak spots in Myanmar game legislation...the existing legislation is singularly
ineffective in preventing their wholesale destruction. Moreover, there are few forest reserves which are
suitable for the Hog Deer, and the legislation concerned with such forests is little more than a gesture”.
If not met head-on, there are no grounds to assume that Hog Deer national conservation status will not
replicate that shown by all range states to the east (major population collapse), if indeed it has not
already done so.
Most Hog Deer subpopulations remaining in India, Nepal and Bhutan are in protected areas where
animals are at least somewhat, and in some cases well, protected from poaching (Biswas et al. 2002,
Biswas 2004, Johnsingh et al. 2004, Pralad Yonzon pers. comm. 2006, H. S. Baral pers. comm. 2008, A.
Choudhury pers. comm. 2006, N.S. Kumar pers. comm. 2008). Wildlife protection laws in India have also
helped in retaining the specialized habitat of Hog Deer, arresting habitat loss and habitat conversion in
some protected areas. Johnsingh et al. (2004) found a strong correlation with Hog Deer subpopulations
and protected areas in the Terai Arc Landscape of India (similar to that for Barasingha Rucervus
duvaucelii), in contrast to other deer which occur relatively widely outside protected areas. Some
protected areas are not big enough to allow adequate ranging during heavy flood periods, and thus
prevent heavy mortality during such periods, and all suffer from being too small to be allowed
unfettered habitat succession, because new grasslands are not now being created by natural processes
elsewhere (see Habitat and ecology). In India and Nepal, Hog Deer has benefited from conservation
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis porcinus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41784A22157664.en
16
measures taken for Great Indian Rhinoceros and Barasingha in the same wet grassland habitats (Q.
Qureshi pers. comm. 1995, Biswas 2004). However, grassland management for rhinoceros may in some
cases be deleterious to Hog Deer (Biswas 2004).
In South Asia there is an urgent need to update the status review of Biswas and Mathur (2000), even
though some large Hog Deer subpopulations inhabit some of the best-secured protected areas in the
world. Even assuming that these protected areas continue to receive sufficient material and political
support, such a review is necessary because all subpopulations face uncertain futures from a multitude
of factors, some of which originate outside protected areas and beyond the zone of influence of
protected area managers. The review needs to determine roughly the numbers remaining and the
locations of all sizeable or potentially sizeable subpopulations, and especially for each make
assessments of current and likely future conservation status and population trends, bearing in mind
threats from poaching, agricultural encroachment, livestock grazing, natural habitat succession,
perverse habitat management, invasive plant species, the risk of disease epidemics from domestic
livestock, changes to water levels and flows (e.g. from upstream dams), further fragmentation of
subpopulations and habitats, episodic mortality through flooding and abiotic risks such as insurgency
(which can collapse protected area management, although it does not always do so). Confinement of
subpopulations to small habitat patches isolated from other such patches raises the intrinsic threat of
subpopulation loss significantly when considering the wide gamut of threats facing such subpopulations
(Biswas and Singh 2002, Biswas 2004), and in some sites challenges may be so pervasive that long-term
retention of Hog Deer subpopulations may be so difficult as to be an inefficient use of resources. An
integrated South Asia-wide conservation plan may be the best route to direct resources to a
representative set of areas where long-term persistence of large Hog Deer subpopulations can be
assured provided sufficient resources are mobilised and deployed in the appropriate way.
By contrast, in Southeast Asia, any subpopulation found east of central Thailand (i.e. within the historical
range of A. p. annamiticus, the western limit of which is not clear) warrants immediate attention. It is
plausible that the recently found small and fragile subpopulation in Cambodia is the last stock of this
taxon. The isolated small subpopulations in Bangladesh, although presumably of the nominate race,
warrant priority protection in maintaining the ancestral geographic and habitat range of Hog Deer.
Species-specific intervention in Myanmar should probably, given the great challenges in the country
(and, specifically, the uneven success to date with Eld’s Deer Rucervus eldii conservation), be fitted
within larger initiatives such as conservation of the Hukaung Valley, probably the largest floodplain in
tropical Asia retaining largely natural ecological processes of stream geography and habitat dynamics.
In Sri Lanka, where the species is restricted to privately-owned gardens, its survival depends on the
goodwill of the landowners. The conservation value of this introduced subpopulation needs reevaluation, considering approximate size, recent trend, ecological integrity and any genetic uniqueness,
balanced against the likely cost of conservation interventions to secure the subpopulation’s future.
Needs of other introduced subpopulations are not considered here.
There is a large total of animals in zoos of tropical Asia. Although at least one Mekong animal appeared
in a zoo recently (in Cambodia in the mid 1990s, C.M. Poole pers. comm. 1998), so far as is known, all
captive herds are derived from subpopulations from Thailand and Myanmar and further west.
Reintroduction of animals in the range of the nominate, should it be needed, thus has many options.
There is no captive buffer for A. p. annamiticus.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis porcinus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41784A22157664.en
17
Credits
Assessor(s):
Timmins, R., Duckworth , J.W., Samba Kumar, N., Anwarul Islam, M., Sagar Baral,
H., Long, B. & Maxwell, A.
Reviewer(s):
González, S.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis porcinus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41784A22157664.en
18
Bibliography
Bezuijen, M.R., Timmins, R. and Seng, T. (eds). 2008. Biological surveys of the Mekong River between
Kratie and Stung Treng Towns, northeast Cambodia, 2006-2007. WWF Greater Mekong Programme,
Cambodia Fisheries Administration and Cambodia Forestry Administration, Phnom Penh.
Bhowmik, M.K. 2002. The causes of decline of hog deer (Axis porcinus) in protected areas of Himalayan
West Bengal. Zoos' Print Journal 17(8): 858-860.
Bhowmik, M.K., Chakraborty, T. and Raha, A.K. 1999. The habitat and food habits of hog deer (Axis
porcinus) in protected areas of sub-Himalayan West Bengal. Tiger Paper 26(2): 25-27.
Biswas, T. 1999. Habitat utilization by Hog Deer (Axis Porcinus) in relation to other sympatric species at
Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary. Saurashtra University.
Biswas, T. 2004. Hog Deer (Axis porcinus Zimmerman, 1780). ENVIS Bulletin (Wildlife Institute of India,
Dehra Dun) 7: 61–78.
Biswas, T. and Mathur, V. B. 2000. A review of the present conservation scenario of Hog deer (Axis
porcinus) in its native range. Indian Forester 126(10): 1068-1084.
Biswas, T. and Singh, S. 2002. Status and distribution of Hog Deer (Axis porcinus) in the duars - analyzing
a changing landscape. Forestry and Ecology Division, Indian Institute of Remote Sensing.
Biswas, T, Mathur, V.B. and Sawarkar, V.B. 2002. Status of Hog Deer (Axis porcinus) in India. Wildlife
Institute of India, Dehradun, India.
Brook, S.M., Chanta, N. and Phan, C. 2015. Indochinese Hog Deer Axis porcinus annamiticus on the brink
of extinction. Deer Specialist Group 27: 14-31.
Clarke, A. Undated. Philippine Trip report.
Clark, J.C. 1936. My Indo-China hunt [typewritten unbound account of the 1936 Fleischmann-Clark,
American Museum, Indo-China Expedition]. New York, USA.
Dang, H.H., Dao, D.V.T., Cao, V.S., Pham, T.A. and Hoang, M.K. 1994. Checklist of Mammals in Vietnam.
Publishing House, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Dhungel, S.K. and O'Gara, B.W. 1991. Ecology of the hog deer in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal.
Wildlife Monographs 119: 1-40.
Dinerstein, E. 1979. An ecological survey of the Royal Karnali Bardia Wildlife Reserve, Nepal 2. Habitat
and animal interactions. Biological Conservation 16(4): 265-300.
Duckworth, J.W., Salter, R.E. and Khounbline, K. 1999. Wildlife in Lao PDR: 1999 Status Report. IUCN,
Vientiane, Laos.
Dumas, C. 1944. La faune sauvage du Cambodge. Editions Aymonier, Phnom Penh.
Evans, G. H. 1902. Notes on the Hog Deer in Burma. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 14:
310-315.
Groves, C. and Grubb, P. 2011. Ungulate Taxonomy. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USA.
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.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis porcinus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41784A22157664.en
19
Humphrey, S.R. and Bain, J.R. 1990. Endangered mammals of Thailand. Sandhill Crane Press
Incorporated, Gainsville, Florida, USA.
IUCN. 2015. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015-4. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org.
(Accessed: 19 November 2015).
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.U. and Nichols, J.D. 2000. Ecological status and conservation of tigers in India. Centre for
Wildlife Studies, Bangalore, India.
Khan, M.M.H. 2004. A report on the existence of wild Hog Deers in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of
Zoology 32: 111–112.
Kumar, H., Mathur, P.K., Lehmkuhl, J.F., Khati, D.S., Dr., R. and Longwah, W. 2002. Management of forests
for biological diversity and forests productivity: a new perspective, vol. VI: Terai Conservation Area (TCA).
WII-USDA Forest Service Collaborative Project Report, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra Dun, India.
Lehmkuhl, J. F. 1994. A classification of subtropical riverine grassland and forest in Chitwan National
Park, Nepal. Vegetatio 111: 29-43.
Lekagul, B. and McNeely, J.A. 1988. Mammals of Thailand. Association for the Conservation of Wildlife,
Bangkok, Thailand.
Lynam, A.J. 2003. A National Tiger Action Plan for the Union of Myanmar. Myanmar Forest Department,
Ministry of Forestry, Yangon, Myanmar.
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.
Maxwell, A., Chea Nareth, Duong Kong, Timmins, R. and Duckworth, J.W. 2007. Hog Deer (Axis porcinus)
confirmed in the wild in eastern Cambodia. Natural History Bulletin of the Siam Society 54: 227–237.
McCarthy, A.J. and Dissanayake, S. 1992. Status of the hog deer (Axis porcinus) in Sri Lanka. Report to
Department of Wildlife Conservation, Colombo. Department of Wildlife Conservation.
McCarthy, A.J. and Dissanayake, S.B. 1994. Status of the hog deer in Sri Lanka. Oryx 28(1): 62-66.
Meijaard, I. and Groves, C.P. 2004. Morphometrical relationships between South-east Asian deer
(Cervidae, tribe Cervini): evolutionary and biogeographic implications. Journal of Zoology 263: 179-196.
Milton, O., Estes, R.D. and Kimlai, H.Z. 1964. Burma Wildlife Survey Report on the Pidaung Wildlife
Sanctuary. Burmese Forester 14: 54-68.
Moe, S.R. 1995. Distribution and Movement Pattern of Deer in Response to Food Quality and
Manipulation of Grassy Habitat: A Case Study With Emphasis On Axis Deer (Axis axis) in Lowland Nepal.
Ph.D. Thesis, Norges Landbrukshogskole.
Moore, G. and Mayze, R. 1990. The hog deer. Australian Deer Research Foundation, Croydon, Australia.
Odden, M. and Wegge, P. 2006. Predicting spacing behavior and mating systems of solitary cervids: A
study of hog deer and Indian muntjac. Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management.
Odden, M., Wegge, P. and Storaas, T. 2005. Hog deer Axis porcinus need threatened tallgrass floodplains:
a study of habitat selection in lowland Nepal. Animal Conservation 8: 99–104.
Ohtaishi, N. and Gao, Y.T. 1990. A review of the distribution of all species of deer (Tragulidae, Moschidae
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis porcinus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41784A22157664.en
20
and Cervidae) in China. Mammal Review 20(2-3): 125-144.
Osgood, W.H. 1932. Mammals of the Kelley-Roosevelts and Delacour Asiatic expeditions. Field Museum
of Natural History, Zoology Series 18(10): 193-339.
Peacock, E.H. 1933. A Game-Book for Burma and Adjoining Territories. Witherby, London, UK.
Peet, N. B., Watkinson, A. R., Bell, D. J. and Kattel, B. J. 1999. Plant diversity in the threatened subtropical
grasslands of Nepal. Biological Conservation 88: 193-206.
Pitra, C., Fickel, J., Meijaard, E. and Groves, C.P. 2004. Evolution and phylogeny of old world deer.
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 33: 880-895.
Rao, M., Rabinowitz, A.R. and Khaing, S. T. 2002. Status review of the protected-area system in
Myanmar, with recommendations for conservation planning. Conservation Biology 16(2): 360.
Ratajszczak, R. 1991. The distribution and status of deer in Vietnam.
Roberts, T.J. 1977. The Mammals of Pakistan. Ernest Benn, London, UK.
Salter, R.E. 1984. Integrated development of the Sundarbans, Bangladesh: status and utilization of
wildlife. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Scroggie, M.P., Forsyth, D.M. and Brumley, A.R. 2012. Analyses of Victorian Hog Deer (Axis porcinus)
checking station data: demographics, body condition and time of harvest. Arthur Rylah Institute for
Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 230. Department of Sustainability and Environment,
Heidelberg, Victoria.
Seidensticker, J. 1976. Ungulate populations in Chitawan valley, Nepal. Biological Conservation 10: 183210.
Sheng, H.I. and Ohtaishi, N. 1993. The status of deer in China. In: N. Ohtaishi and H.I. Sheng (eds), Deer
of China: Biology and Management, pp. 8. Elsevier, Oxford, UK.
Smith, A.T. and Xie, Y. (eds). 2008. A Guide to the Mammals of China. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, New Jersey.
Tandon, V. 1989. Conservation status of hog deer Cervus porcinus in India and adjacent areas. IUCN/SSC
Deer Specialist Group Newsletter 7.
Than Zaw, Saw Htun, Saw Htoo Tha Po, Myint Maung, Lynam, A.J., Kyaw Thinn Latt and Duckworth, J.W.
2008. Status and distribution of small carnivores in Myanmar. Small Carnivore Conservation 38: 2–28.
Timmins, R.J. and Duckworth, J.W. 2000. Priorities for mammal conservation in the ROA: desk study for
the Ecoregion-based conservation in the forests of the lower Mekong, biological assessment workshop.
WWF Indochina Programme, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Timmins, R.J. and Sechrest, W. 2010. Southwest Cambodia: A rapid biological survey to assess the
conservation significance of the coastal lowlands of southwest Cambodia. Global Wildlife Conservation.
San Francisco, California, USA.
Tordoff, A.W., Timmins, R.J., Maxwell, A., Huy Keavuth, Lic Vuthy and Khou Eang Hourt (eds). 2005.
Biological assessment of the Lower Mekong Dry Forests Ecoregion. pp. 192 pp.. WWF Greater Mekong
Programme, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Vishvanath, N., Nanvakara, R.P. and Herath, H.M.J.C.B. 2014. Current status, distribution and
conservation of the Sri Lankan Hog Deer Hyelaphus porcinus (Zimmerman, 1970) (Certiodactyla:
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis porcinus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41784A22157664.en
21
Cervidae). Journal of Threatened Taxa 6: 6515-6522.
Whale, R. 1996. Surveying hog deer in Pakistan. Deer 10(1): 45.
Whitehead, K.G. 1993. The Whitehead Encyclopedia of Deer. Voyageur Press, Inc, Stillwater, MN, USA.
World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 1992. Status of threatened deer within protected areas: a
contribution to the IUCN/SSC Action Plan. World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK.
Citation
Timmins, R., Duckworth , J.W., Samba Kumar, N., Anwarul Islam, M., Sagar Baral, H., Long, B. & Maxwell,
A. 2015. Axis porcinus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T41784A22157664.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41784A22157664.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 porcinus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41784A22157664.en
22
Appendix
Habitats
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Habitat
Season
Suitability
Major
Importance?
2. Savanna -> 2.2. Savanna - Moist
-
Marginal
-
3. Shrubland -> 3.6. Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical Moist
-
Marginal
-
4. Grassland -> 4.6. Grassland - Subtropical/Tropical Seasonally
Wet/Flooded
-
Suitable
Yes
5. Wetlands (inland) -> 5.4. Wetlands (inland) - Bogs, Marshes, Swamps,
Fens, Peatlands
-
Suitable
Yes
5. Wetlands (inland) -> 5.6. Wetlands (inland) - Seasonal/Intermittent
Freshwater Lakes (over 8ha)
-
Marginal
-
5. Wetlands (inland) -> 5.7. Wetlands (inland) - Permanent Freshwater
Marshes/Pools (under 8ha)
-
Marginal
-
15. Artificial/Aquatic & Marine -> 15.8. Artificial/Aquatic - Seasonally
Flooded Agricultural Land
-
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:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual &
perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.2. Small-holder
farming
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual &
perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.3. Agro-industry
farming
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.3. Livestock farming
& ranching -> 2.3.2. Small-holder grazing, ranching or
farming
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis porcinus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41784A22157664.en
-
-
-
-
-
-
23
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
5. Biological resource use -> 5.2. Gathering terrestrial
plants -> 5.2.4. Motivation Unknown/Unrecorded
7. Natural system modifications -> 7.2. Dams & water
management/use -> 7.2.11. Dams (size unknown)
7. Natural system modifications -> 7.3. Other
ecosystem modifications
8. Invasive & other problematic species & genes ->
8.1. Invasive non-native/alien species -> 8.1.1.
Unspecified species
8. Invasive & other problematic species & genes ->
8.1. Invasive non-native/alien species -> 8.1.2.
Named species (Tiliacora racemosa)
8. Invasive & other problematic species & genes ->
8.1. Invasive non-native/alien species -> 8.1.2.
Named species (Acacia catechu)
8. Invasive & other problematic species & genes ->
8.1. Invasive non-native/alien species -> 8.1.2.
Named species (Lea floridensis)
8. Invasive & other problematic species & genes ->
8.1. Invasive non-native/alien species -> 8.1.2.
Named species
8. Invasive & other problematic species & genes ->
8.1. Invasive non-native/alien species -> 8.1.2.
Named species
8. Invasive & other problematic species & genes ->
8.1. Invasive non-native/alien species -> 8.1.2.
Named species (Chromolaena odorata)
Ongoing
-
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
Ongoing
-
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
Ongoing
-
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Future
-
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
-
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
-
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects ->
2.3.2. Competition
Ongoing
-
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
-
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
-
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
-
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
-
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
-
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis porcinus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41784A22157664.en
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24
8. Invasive & other problematic species & genes ->
8.1. Invasive non-native/alien species -> 8.1.2.
Named species (Lantana camara)
8. Invasive & other problematic species & genes ->
8.1. Invasive non-native/alien species -> 8.1.2.
Named species (Dalbergia sissoo)
11. Climate change & severe weather -> 11.4. Storms
& flooding
Ongoing
-
-
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
-
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
-
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
-
-
-
-
-
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
Harvest management plan: Yes
Subject to ex-situ conservation: Yes
In-Place Education
Included in international legislation: Yes
Subject to any international management/trade controls: 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
2. Land/water management -> 2.3. Habitat & natural process restoration
3. Species management -> 3.1. Species management -> 3.1.1. Harvest management
3. Species management -> 3.1. Species management -> 3.1.2. Trade management
3. Species management -> 3.2. Species recovery
3. Species management -> 3.3. Species re-introduction -> 3.3.1. Reintroduction
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis porcinus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41784A22157664.en
25
Conservation Actions Needed
3. Species management -> 3.4. Ex-situ conservation -> 3.4.2. Genome resource bank
4. Education & awareness -> 4.3. Awareness & communications
5. Law & policy -> 5.1. Legislation -> 5.1.3. Sub-national level
5. Law & policy -> 5.4. Compliance and enforcement -> 5.4.1. International level
5. Law & policy -> 5.4. Compliance and enforcement -> 5.4.2. National level
Research Needed
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Research Needed
1. Research -> 1.1. Taxonomy
1. Research -> 1.2. Population size, distribution & trends
1. Research -> 1.3. Life history & ecology
1. Research -> 1.5. Threats
3. Monitoring -> 3.1. Population trends
Additional Data Fields
Distribution
Estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) (km²): 4322971
Population
Population severely fragmented: Yes
Habitats and Ecology
Generation Length (years): 7
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Axis porcinus – published in 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41784A22157664.en
26
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™