4.7 Article

The blowgun is mightier than the chainsaw in determining population density of Bornean orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus morio) in the forests of East Kalimantan

Journal

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
Volume 129, Issue 4, Pages 566-578

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.11.025

Keywords

orangutans; Pongo pygmaeus morio; population density; hunting; logging

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Due to its practical relevance to conservation, considerable efforts have been devoted to understanding the effects of logging on orangutan (Pongo spp.) population densities. Despite these efforts, consistent patterns have yet to emerge. We conducted orangutan nest surveys and measured forest quality and disturbance level at 108 independent locations in 22 distinct sites in the forests of the Berau and East Kutai regencies of East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Survey locations varied substantially in orangutan density, forest structure, distance to villages, and logging intensity. We incorporated site-specific nest tree composition into our estimates of nest decay rates to reduce errors associated with inter-site differences in nest tree selection. Orangutan nest densities were uncorrelated with altitude, fig density, or any other ecological measure. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that densities were not significantly affected by logging intensity (at the relatively light levels we report here) or the distance to the nearest village, but were positively correlated with the distance from the nearest village known to hunt orangutans. These results indicate that provided hunting is absent, lightly to moderately degraded forests retain high conservation value for orangutans. Widespread incorporation of degraded areas into management plans for orangutan populations would substantially increase the size of populations that could be protected, and thereby improve their changes for long-term survival. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available