DISTRIBUTION AND DIET COMPOSITION OF TWO SYMPATRIC MONGOOSE SPECIES IN MURREE KAHUTA KOTLI SATTIAN NATIONAL PARK, PAKISTAN.

R. Khatoon^1,*, A. Anwar¹, S. Khalil, and U. Habiba³,

¹PMAS- Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan; ² Department of Forestry, Range and Wildlife Management, Islamia University Bahawalpur; ³Department of Forestry and Wildlife, University of Haripur.

Corresponding Author’s email: rukhsana.pmas@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

Understanding the distribution and diet of carnivore is important to consider ecological role of species. As food is a critical resource for carnivore predators and its partitioning among sympatric species is crucial for their coexistence. The current study aimed at exploring distribution, diet composition, and diet breadth, niche overlap among two sympatric mongoose species occurring in Murree Kahuta Kotli Sattian National Park (MKKNP). 82 fecal samples were collected from 23 sites and recognized to species inside field based on morphology, odor, and extra signs. Presence signs of both species recorded from 23 survey sites. However, field diagnosis of small Indian Mongoose and Indian grey mongoose indicated presence at 12 and 14 sites, respectively. Fourteen dietary items were recovered in diet of small Indian mongoose i.e rodents, plant matter, insects and reptiles. The diet of Indian grey mongoose also comprised of (15) dietary items. Among both sympatric carnivores overall dietary breadth of Indian grey mongoose is narrow (BA = 0.5). as compared to small Indian mongoose (BA = 0.6). Moderate overlap was found between both mongoose species (0.62)

https://doi.org/10.36899/JAPS.2022.5.0553
Published first online April 26, 2022

INTRODUCTION

Two species or populations are considered sympatric if they have overlapping geographic distributions (Rivas, 1964). Animals with sympatric distribution often compete for shared resources. This competition is overcome by segregating resources in the area where sympatric carnivores compete (Chamberlain and Leopold, 2005). For mammalian carnivores this competition may be especially strong for those taxa that are closely related, are similar in size, or have a similar foraging ecology. The competition leads predators to develop various strategies in choosing different prey size, variable time of the day or using different habitats. This change in strategies results in niche segregation, reducing competition and allowing coexistance of sympatric species (Sunsquist et al., 1989). Studying feeding biology of carnivores through direct observation under field conditions is impossible. Thus, analysis of scats is a noninvasive method usually used to study diet of carnivores (Reynolds and Aebischer, 1991; Ciucci et al., 2004).

Mongoose are small carnivores belong to family Herpestidae. The small Indian mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus) is broadly distributed in south Asia including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kuwait, Iraq and India to Indochina (Hassinger, 1968; Harrison, 1968; Long, 2003; Wozencraft, 2005) Hainan Island, Java and southern Iran (Corbet and Hill, 1992). In Pakistan, small Indian mongoose is found in three provinces; Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan. In Punjab, it has been observed from districts Lahore, Kasur, Sialkot, Gujranwala and Jhelum, the Salt Range and meagerly in Bahawalpur division. It has not been recorded from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province (Roberts, 1997).

Indian grey mongoose (Herpestres edwardsi) is widely distributed in Asia including India, Pakistan, Nepal, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran (Ewer, 1973; Nowak, 2005; Francis, 2008; Gilchrist et al., 2009). It has been introduced to Japan and Peninsular Malaysia (Francis, 2008; Gilchrist et al., 2009). In Pakistan, it is common in central and northern parts of Sindh province, particularly inhabiting the desert tracts of Tharparkar. It also occurs in some parts of the Punjab (district Rawalpindi and the Salt Range). In Balochistan, Indian grey mongoose is sparsely found in the southern parts. It also occurs in Peshawar, Kohat, Buner and Bannu districts in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Roberts, 1997; Akhtar et al., 2018). Both, small Indian mongoose and Indian grey mongoose are categorized as “Least Concern” (IUCN, 2015), and included in Appendix-III of CITES.

In order to assess role of particular carnivores in the ecosystem, it is obligatory to gain knowledge on carnivores’ diet (Klare et al., 2011). This knowledge can provide understanding as to which predators are competing for the prey. Understanding how different species are interacting in the area and knowing which predators are competing for the same prey can help devising future management strategies. Predators can be associated with each other by different ecological processes, depend on different factors i.e competition for resources, eating each other or have other controlling effects within the community (Polis et al., 1989).

In Murree Kahuta Kotli Sattian National Park (MKKNP) no baseline data is available on the distribution and feeding biology of these carnivores. Thus the present study would help to provide knowledge of diet composition, reliance on household and wild prey as food, diet breadth and diet overlap of two species in the area in order to take effective management and conservation measures. 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Area: Murree Kahuta Kotli Sattian National Park (MKKNP: 33° 21’ to 34° 01’ N and 73° 11’ to 73° 38’ E; district Rawalpindi, Pakistan) is situated on the north-western boundaries of the Himalayas, including large mountains and rivers with elevation ranges from 800 meters to greater than 2100 meters)(Khan, 1994). The climate is generally mild, with average June and January temperatures of 32 °C and 10 °C, respectively. Average yearly precipitation is 1249 mm, most of which falls within the summer monsoon season, which peaks in July (GOP, 2006).

The park contains three principal forest types: sub-tropical broad-leaf forest occurs at lower elevations, sub-tropical chir pine forest at 990-1,800 m asl, and a moist temperate coniferous forest with some admixture of oak and deciduous broad-leaved trees at above 1,800 m asl (Khan, 1994; Siddiqui et al., 2010).

Major wildlife species of the park include common leopard (Panthera pardus) Jungle cat (Felis chaus), leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis) ), golden jackal (Canis aureus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), small Indian civet (Viverricula indica), yellow throated marten (Martes flavigula), Indian grey mongoose (Herpestes edwardsi) and small Indian mongoose (H. auropunctatus) (Roberts, 1997; Khatoon et al., 2019).

Distribution of mongoose species: We gathered information from local people and park staff about the distribution and potential sites of mongoose species in the park based on which 23 sites were selected for data collection (Figure1) Scats were collected randomly on during each calendar month for 24 months between 2016 and 2018 (Khatoon et al., 2019). Geographical coordinates and elevation facts were recorded for every site using a Garmin12 - Channel global positioning system (GPS) unit. We used physical caharacters of feces (scats) i.e (shape, length, distance across, structure- segmented/ un-segmented and scat contents- hair, bones, plant counts) identify mongoose species following Jackson and Hunter (1996). Extra standards covered the nature of scat store area and nearness of tracks or symptoms e.g presence of dynamic burrows of mongoose species. Further in the laboratory the size and diameter of the scats were recorded before analysis. (Table 1)

Table 1: Morphological characteristics of scats for small Indian mongoose and Indian grey mongoose

Distribution Mapping: Distribution of species was calculated based on their scats, direct sightings and locating active burrows. Distribution maps primarily based on presence information which was arranged using ArcGIS (ESRI, Redlands, CA, USA) software model 10.0. Fecal samples presence points were mapped based on field-identification localities.

Dietary Composition

Prey Identification: Diet composition of each carnivore was determined by macro and microanalysis of scats, with prey species identified from tooth and bone fragments and by comparing medulla and scales patterns on hair with reference hair slides of wild and domestic prey species occurring in the park (Bagchi and Mishra, 2006; Vanak and Gompper, 2009).

Collection of Reference Material: Hairs of prey species were collected from the Pakistan Museum of Natural History, Islamabad, and were in total tufts from diverse body parts to incorporate a representative sample of hair sorts for the potential prey species. This allowed for the development of a photographic reference key for 24 known species to identify the species preyed by mongoose. All potential mammalian prey species inhabiting the study area were included in the reference key.

Scat Analysis: The carnivore’s diet was identified from scats analysis. Scat analysis is commonly used technique in dietary studies of carnivores (Joslin, 1973; Johnsingh, 1983; Ackerman et al., 1984; Leopold and Krausman, 1986; Reynolds and Aebischer, 1991). Diet composition of each carnivore was determined by macro and microanalysis of scats, with prey species identified from tooth and bone fragments and by comparing medulla and scales patterns on the hair remains with reference slides.

Whole Mount Preparation:A bunch of hairs cleaned in carbon tetrachloride (CCl₄) were placed on microscope slide. Individual hairs were separated from each other to avoid untidy jumble of hairs on the slide. Cuticular scale designs of hairs and medullary structure were utilized to recognize the prey (Joslin, 1973).

Scale Replication:Individual hairs were cleaned in CCl₄. Casts of cuticular scales pattern of hairs were made with clear nail enamel polish (Vanak and Gompper, 2009). Two to three drops of medium were placed on a slide, and then a clean hair was placed vertical to the long axis of the slide, with one end of the hair projecting over the edge of the slide so it could be easily grasped for removal. The hair was removed using forceps, leaving the cast. Cuticular scale patterns of hairs and medullary structure were compared with reference hairs from known species for identification.

Identification of plant matter: A part of carnivore diet also comprises of plant matter (Farrell et al., 2000; Shabbir et al., 2013). Mostly plant matter in the samples was identified from seeds of different fruits found in the scats (Nadeem et al., 2012). While we also performed micro histology for some of the samples. Fecal samples were ground within the laboratory by mortar and pestle. Samples were washed with slight warm water and splashed overnight in a arrangement (1 portion refined water, 1 portion ethyl alcohol, 1 portion glycerin) and pounded once more. Treated the samples by setting in 5 % sodium hydroxide. Further samples were treated with series of alcohol treatments each for 10 minutes i.e (25%, 50%, 75% and 100%). In the next step alcohol was removed and further samples were treated from series of xylene and alcohol mixtures (25%, 50%, 75% and 100% xylene) each for 10 min, except for 100%. Next day material was transferred to clean slide using DPX as mounting medium under a coverslip. Plant species was identified on the basis of shape, size, fibers, trichomes, stomata cells, cell wall, shape pattern and distribution of epidermal cells adjacent to guard cells (Bruno and Apollonio, 1991).

Microphotography: Microphotographs of all reference hairs or plant cells were taken using a Leica DM1000 LED microscope. A photographic reference key of animal prey and plant species were developed for identification.

Quantitative Analysis: Scat samples of each carnivore species were categorized by season (Summer: April to September; Winter: October to March). Each prey type in the diet was expressed as frequency of occurrence (FO), defined as

FO = S/N

where s is the number of occurrences of each prey type and N is the total occurrences of all prey types in all samples (Khatoon et al., 2017; Khan et al., 2017; Khatoon et al., 2019)

For each carnivore species and season we calculated prey species diversity (H'), prey richness (S), the total number of animal prey species consumed by each carnivore in a specific season) and prey evenness (E, calculated as E = H'/lnS) (Khatoon et al., 2019). Prey species diversity was calculated as

H' = -Σ [p_i × ln p_i]

where p_i represents the relative percentage of each prey item i.

Feeding niche breadth and niche overlap was calculated by using standardized indexes for each carnivore species occurring in the study area. We measured dietary niche breadth (BA) using Levins’ (1968) index:

BA =

where n is the number of food items. Dietary niche overlap between the carnivore species was calculated by using Pianka’s index (1973):

O_jk =

where p_ij and p_ik are the FO of prey item i in the diet of species j and k, respectively (Pianka, 1973). Pianka’s index varies between 0 (total separation) and 1 (total overlap). I compared the FO of each food item between species using a chi-square test (Reynolds and Aebischer, 1991).

RESULTS

Presence signs of two species were recorded from all 23 survey sites. small Indian mongoose and Indian grey mongoose presence was indicated at 12 sites (both species exist together) However, Indian grey mongoose was found at two additional sites i.e Samla and Tret where presence of small Indian mongoose was not confirmed. No sign of both species was recorded from nine selected sites including Angori, Phri Granda, Lower Topa, Badnia, Makrosh, Pathriata, Sant Anwali, Narrar and Brohi (Table 3). The detection variability of both species facilitates assessment of co-occurrence patterns. (Fisher exact statistic for small Indian mongoose and Indian grey mongoose, 0.772), there was no statistical support for non-random spatial segregation or co-occurrence (p > 0.05) indicating that the two species were more likely to co-occur than expected by chance alone. No sign of both species was recorded from nine selected sites including Angori, Phri Granda, Lower Topa, Badnia, Makrosh, Pathriata, Sant Anwali, Narrar and Brohi. Sample sites are shown in (Figure1).

Diet of Small Indian Mongoose: The diet of small Indian mangoose comprised of rodents, insects, reptiles and fruits. I identified 13 food items from 63 dietary items recovered from their scats. Animal matter was eaten more (60.3%) as compared to plant matter (32.4%). Among animal matter consumed, rodents were 27.9% in the diet, re house rat (Ratuus rattus) was the most dominant species (11.8%). Insects remained (17.6%) in the diet followed by reptiles (8.8%). Seeds appeared more frequently in scats compared with fleshy parts of the fruits. The most dominant fruit in the diet were Ficus carica (8.8%) followed by Zizyphus mauritiana (5.9%), Phyllanthus emblica (4.4%), Syzygium cumini (4.4%) and Carissa opaca (2.9%) (Figure 3).

Seasonal variation: We found strong seasonality in mongoose diet with significance difference for the consumption of plant matter in both seasons (ᵡ² = 14.7, P < 0.05, df = 5). Frequency of fruits was higher in summer (35.7%) and lower in winter (11.5%). While no significant difference was found in consumption of animal matter in both seasons with p > 0.005. Rodents were found higher in winter (38.5%) as compared to summer (21.4%), birds were higher in summer (7.1%) as compared to winter (3.8%) followed by insects higher in summer (17.5%) and low in winter (16.1%), Reptiles were also higher in summer (10.0) than winter (6.4%) (Table 1).

Prey species richness, diversity and evenness: Prey richness (S) for small Indian mongoose was found greater in summer (11) than winter (9). The diversity Index (H') showed that diet of small Indian mongoose SIM was found more diverse in summer (2.1) as compared to winter (1.8). Evenness index (E) indicated higher values in summer season (0.9) as compared to winter season (0.8) (Figure 2).

Diet of Indian grey Mongoose: We investigated diet of Indian grey mongoose from 40 collected scats. Among all dietary items, occurrence of animal matter was higher (78.7%) as compared to plant matter (16.67%). In total animal matter consumed, frequency of occurrence of rodents was (51.5%) followed by Insects (15.15%), reptiles (7.58%) and birds (4.5%). Similarly, in total plant matter consumed, stems were only (3.03%) while seeds of different fruits were higher in occurrence (13.64%), the most dominant were Ficus carica (4.5%) followed by Phyllanthus emblica (3.03%) (Figure 3).

Seasonal variation: Diet of Indian grey mongoose also showed strong seasonality in diet consumption like Small Indian mongoose. Among all mammals consumed in both seasons, frequency of rodents was higher in winter (54.9%) as compared to summer (48.6%). Insects consumption was lower in summer (10.8%) as compared to winter (20%) followed by reptiles (10.8) in summer and (3.4) in winter. We identified significant difference in consumption of plant matter (ᵡ² = 11.9, P < 0.05, df = 4). Among all fruits eaten, frequency of different fruits were dependent on fruiting season. The most eaten fruits were Ficus carica (8.1%) (Table 2).

Table 2: Diet composition and seasonal difference in the diet of Small Indian mongoose and Indian grey mongoose.

Prey species richness, diversity and evenness: Prey richness (S) for Indian grey Mongoose was found greater in summer (13) as compared to winter (10). According to diversity Index (H') more diversity was found in summer (2.3) compared to winter (1.9). The Evenness Index (E) showed high values during Summer season (0.9) and low in winter season (0.84) (Figure 3).

Dietary Breadth and Overlap: 42 scats of dmall Indian mongoose were analysed which revealed that this species prey on variety of small mammals, invertebrates, arthropods and reptiles. Combining both seasons, overall dietary breadth of small Indian mongoose was calculated as (BA = 0.6). Plant matter i.e fruits were significant proportion of the diet. Gray mongoose fed on both animal and plant matter. Overall dietary breadth of Indian grey mongoose was narrow (BA = 0.5) as compared to small Indian mongoose Diet overlap found between both mongoose species was (0.62).

DISCUSSION

The large and mid-sized carnivore community of eastern parts of Pakistan remains ineffectively resolved, with generally a few detailed community surveys conducted in various regions. Such surveys are fundamental, as expanding human populace pressures result in landscape changes as well as decrease distribution of predator species (Sheikh and Molur, 2004). We identified the presence and distribution of two mongoose species;, small Indian mongoose (H. auropunctatus) and Indian grey mongoose (H. edwardsii) in MKKNP We recorded presence of small indian mongoose and Indian grey mongoose in 12 and 14 sites, respectively (Table 3) suggests the availability of prey objects to each species in the region whilst there are two sites where Indian grey mongoose is existing however small Indian mongoose do not prefer suggests each species are warding off each other in these sites depends upon the less availability of prey. However co-occurrence pattern in 12 common sites shows that each species has adopted the techniques to decrease the level of competition in order to co-exist in the same environment. Studies conducted elsewhere have suggested the similar mechanisms for coexistence of sympatric carnivores. Several carnivore studies revealed that closely related species have different habitat use, diet and activity pattern (Seidensticker, 1976, Bothman et al., 1984, Sunquist et al., 1989). This resource portioning is significant in ecological segregation compared to spatial and temporal difference in sympatric carnivores (Bothman et al., 1984). Sympatric carnivores living in the same environment partition their food resources for co-existence (Jedrezejewski et al., 1989).

Table 3 Locations and Species Detection Results (presence or absence) for 23 Survey Sites within MKKNP

In present study, diet composition, dietary breadth and niche overlap between two carnivore species was also identified in MKKNP. Various studies have been conducted in the world to study niche overlap of sympatric species for different groups of carnivores (Rabinowitz and Walker, 1991; Dayan and Simberloff, 1996; Jones and Barmuta, 2000; Glen and Dickman, 2006; Vieira and Port, 2006; Vanak and Gompper, 2009).

The diet of H. auropunctatus has been reported broad range from fruits, birds,and reptiles, eggs and rodents (Gorman, 1975 Abrrevitaed spell foe the two species will be convenient??, 1975; Nellis and Small, 1983; Hoagland et al.,1989), carrion (Creekmore et al., 1994) and salvaging edible material from the dung of large vertebrates (Haque, 1990). Diet analysis of H. Auropunctatus and H. edwardsii in MKKNP revealed the presence of small mammals, invertebrates, arthropods, reptiles and fruits. Among all animal matter consumed frequency of occurrence FO of rodents was higher in the diet of both species followed by plant matter, insects and reptiles. FO of rodents in the diet of H. auropunctatus constituted (27.9%) followed by insects (17.6%), reptiles (8.8%) and plant mattar (32.4%). Diet of Indian grey mongoose also comprised of rodents, birds, insects, reptiles and fruits. Rodents constituted (51.5%) followed by insects (15.15%), reptiles (7.5%) and plant mattar (16.68%) in the diet of H. edwardsii. Animal matter was found more in the diet of both species as compared to plant mattar. Other studies conducted elsewhere also reported similar dietary items in the diet of mongoose species (Cavallin and Serafin, 1995; Feldhamer et al., 1999) who reported that various predators i.e Herpestes, feed on a varied prey items including rodents and birds, reptiles insects and crabs. Some vegetable materials are also found in their diets, i.e fruits, and berries.

 Diet of both species overlap with each other which may be due to having similar prey choices. Mongoose differs in their diet in order to maximize seasonal and spatial variation in food availability. An earlier study conducted in Mauritius identified that mongoose diet comprised of more insects in wet season, and reptiles are the dominant prey in dry season (Roy, 2001). This capability to take advantage of seasonal gluts in food availability is a common feature to many small carnivores (Joshi et al., 1995; Lodé, 2000).

Strong seasonality was identified in consumption of both animal and plant matter in mongoose diet i.e frequency of occurrence of rodents, insects and reptiles were higher in summer as compared to winter. However, the consumption of fruits remained higher in winter as compared to summer. This can be either having higher nutrition value and important vitamins in the fruits which made it preferable for these species in winter or it may be depending upon the availability of other food items in winter season. These results are similar to the study of Cavallin and Serafin (1995) who concluded that winter diet of small Indian mongoose in Korcula was diverse, and dominated by vertebrate and plant matter. Prey species richness and diversity indices for both species suggested that prey species richness is higher in summer and mongoose diet was found more diverse in summer, however, the evenness indices showed higher values for winter season. This may depend on the availability of food in different seasons or spatial segregation of food resources between the species having similar diet for their co-existence.

Conclusion: Current study conclude that diet of Small Indian mongoose was broader than Indian grey mongoose, both species have considerable overlap due to presence of similar prey items in the diet of both species which indicates potential of increase competition between small Indian mongoose and Indian grey mongoose in Murree Kahuta Kotli Sattian National Park, so there is dire need of conservation of their habitat and prey species, current study will provide the base line data about the distribution and diet composition of both species which is important step toward their conservation.

Acknowledgement: We are obliged to Higher Education Commission Pakistan for the funding support. We are also thankful to Punjab Wildlife & Parks department for providing assistance in data collection during field survey.

REFERENCES

1. Ackerman, B.B., F.G. Lindzey, and T.P. Hemker (1984). Cougar food habits in southern Utah. J. Wildl Manage. 48: 147-155.
2. Akhtar, N., R. Muhammad, K. Saeed, M.F. Khan, M. Shah, J. Zeb, S. Ahmad, A.J Afridi, and A. Hussain (2018). Distribution of wild mammalian fauna of Mahaban and Malka Valley District Buner. Pak.J.Zool. 50: 775-777.
3. Bagchi, S. and C. Mishra (2006). Living with large carnivores: predation on livestock by the snow leopard (Uncia uncia). J. Zool. 268: 217-224.
4. Bothman, J.P., J.A.J. Nel, and A. MacDonald (1984). Food niche separation between four sympatric Namib Desert carnivores. J. Zool. 202:327-340.
5. Bruno, E. and M. Apollonio (1991). Seasonal variations in the diet of adult male fallow deer in a sub mediterranean Coastal area. Rev of Ecol. 46: 349-362.
6. Cavallini, P. and P. Serafani (1995). Winter diet of the Small indian mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus) on an Adriatic Island. J. Mammal. 76: 569-574.
7. Chamberlain, M.J. and B.D. Leopold (2005). Overlap in space use among bobcats (Lynx rufus), coyotes (Canis latrans) and gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus). Am Midl Nat. 153: 171-179
8. Ciucci, P., E. Tosoni, and L. Boitani (2004). Assessment of the point frame method to quantify Wolf Canis lupus diet by scat analysis. Wildl Biol. 10(2): 149-153.
9. Corbet, G.B. and J.E. Hill (1992). The mammals of the Indo-Malayan region. Natural History Museum Publications, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 496.
10. Creekmore, T.E., S.B. Linhart, J.L. Corn, M.D. Whitney, B.D. Snyder, and V.F. Nettles (1994). Field-evaluation of baits and baiting strategies for delivering oral vaccine to mongooses in Antigua, West-Indies. J. Wildl. Dis. 30: 497-505.
11. Dayan, T. and D. Simberloff (1996). Patterns of size separation in carnivore communities. In: Carnivore behaviour, ecology and evolution. 2: 243-266.
12. Ewer, R.F (1973). The carnivores. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. 500.
13. Francis, C.M (2008). A field guide to the mammals of South-East Asia. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey and Oxford, United Kingdom, pp. 392
14. Feldhamer, G.A., L.C. Drickamer, S.H. Vessey, and J.F. Merrict (1999). Mammology. Adaptation, Diversity and Ecology. WCB McGraw-Hill, Boston. P. 563.
15. Gilchrist, J.S., A.P. Jennings, G. Veron, and P. Cavallini (2009). Family Herpestidae. In: Handbook of the mammals of the world, Vol. 1: Carnivores (eds. D.E. Wilson and R.A. Mittermeier). Lynx Editions, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 656.
16. GOP (2006) Meterological data of Rawalpindi from 1931 to 2006. Pakistan Meterological Department, Regional Meterological Center, Islamabad. http://www.met.gov.pk/cdpc/isla mabad.htm. Islamabad.
17. Glen, A.S. and C.R. Dickman (2005). Complex interactions among mammalian carnivores in Australia, and their implications for wildlife management. Biol. Rev. 80: 387-401.
18. Gorman, M.L (1975). The diet of feral Herpestes auropunctatus in the Fijian Island. J.  Zool.175: 273-278.
19. Harrison, D.L (1968). The mammals of Arabia. Vol. II. Ernest Benn. London. pp. 193-381.
20. Hassinger, J (1968). Introduction to the mammal survey of the 1965 street expedition to Afghanistan.Fieldiana. Zool. 55: 1-18.
21. Hoagland, D.B., G.R. Horst, and C.W. Kilpatrick (1989). Biogeography and population ecology of the mongoose in the West Indies. Biogeography of the West Indies. 6111-6134.
22. Jackson, R. and D.O. Hunter (1996). Snow Leopard Survey and Conservation Handbook. International Snow Leopard Trust, Seattle, Washington and U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center, Colorado, pp. 154.
23. Joslin, P (1973). The Asiatic lion: a study of ecology and behaviour. (Unpublished) Ph.D. Thesis. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, U.K. pp.103.
24. Johnsingh, A.J.T (1983). Large mammalian prey-predator in Bandipur. J. Bombay. Nat. Hist. Soci. 80 (1): 1-53.
25. Jedrezejewski, W., B. Jedrezejewska, and A. Szymura (1989). Food niche overlaps in a winter community of predators in the Bialowieza Primeval Forest, Poland. Acta Theriol. 34: 487-496.
26. Jones, M.E. and L.A. Barmuta (2000). Niche differentiation among sympatric Australian dasyurid carnivores. J. Mammal.81: 434-447
27. Joshi, A.R., J.L.D. Smith, and F.J. Cuthbert (1995). Influence of food distribution and predation pressure on spacing behavior in palm civets. J. Mammal. 76: 1205-1212.
28. Khan, L.A (1994). Working Plan for Coniferous Forest of Murree and Kahuta Tehsils of Rawalpindi District. Lahore: Development and Working Plan Circle 2
29. Khan, K.A., J.A. Khan, and M. Mohan (2017). Winter food habits of the golden jackal (Canis aureus) (Mammalfa: Carnivora: Canidae) in Patna Bird Sanctuary, Uttar Pradesh, Indfa. J. Threat Taxa.  9: 10656-10661.
30. Khatoon, R., T. Mehmood, M. Anwar, U. Habiba, L.S. Eggert, and M.E. Gompper (2019). A field and laboratory-based assessment of the distribution of large and meso-carnivore species in the newly established Murree, Kotli Sattian, and Kahuta National Park, Pakistan. Mammal Res. 64 (2): 411-412.
31. Khatoon, R., I. Hussain, M. Anwar, and M.A. Nawaz (2017). Diet selection of Snow leopard (Panthera uncia) in Chitral, Pakistan. Turk. J. Zool. 41: 914-913.
32. Klare, U., J.F. Kalmer, and D.W. MacDonald (2011). A comparison of different scat-analysis methods for determining carnivore diet. Mammal Rev. 41: 294-312.
33. Long, J.L (2003). Introduced hammals of the world: their History, distribution and abundance. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia, and CABI Publishing, Wallingford, United Kingdom
34. Leopold, B.D. and P.R. Krausman (1986). Diets of 3 predators in Big Bend National Park, Texas. J. Wildl Manage. 50: 290-295.
35. Levins, R (1968). Evolution in changing environments: some theoretical explorations. Princeton, N. J: Princeton University Press.
36. Lodé, T (2000). Functional response and area-restricted search in a predator: seasonal exploitation of anurans by the European polecat, Mustela putorius. Aust Ecol. 25: 223-231.
37. Nowak, R.M (2005). Walker’s carnivores of the world. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, pp. 313.
38. Pianka, E.R (1973). The structure of lizard communities. Annual Review of Ecology and competing with striped hyena in the present study. The Syst. 4:53-74.
39. Polis, G.A., C.A. Myers, and R.D. Holt (1989). The ecology and evolution of intraguild predation: potential competitors that eat each other. Annu Rev Ecol and Syst. 20: 297-330
40. Rabinowitz, A.R. and S.R. Walker (1991). The carnivore community in a dry tropical forest mosaic in Huai Kha Khaeng wildlife sanctuary, Thailand. J. Trop. Ecol. 7: 37-47.
41. Reynolds, J.C. and N.J. Aebischer (1991). Comparison and quantification of carnivore diet by faecal analysis: a critique, with recommendations, based on a study of the red fox Vulpes vulpes. Mammal Rev. 21: 97-122.
42. Rivas, L.R (1964). A reinterpretation of the concepts "sympatric" and "Allopatric" with proposal of the additional terms "Syntopic" and "Allotopic."  Systematic. Zool. 13: 42-43.
43. Roberts, T.J (1997). The mammals of Pakistan, Oxford University Press, Karachi, Pakistan. 525 pp.
44. Roy, S (2001). The ecology and management of the Small Indian mongoose Herpestes Auropunctatus on Mauritius. PhD thesis, Bristol University, Bristol.
45. Seidensticker, J (1976). On the Ecological Separation between Tigers and Leopards. Biotropica.8(4): 225-234
46. Shabbir, S., M. Anwar, I. Hussain, and M.A. Nawaz (2013). Food Habits And Diet Overlap Of Two Sympatric Carnivore Species In Chitral, Pakistan. JAPS. 23(1): 100-107.
47. Sheikh, K.M. and S. Molur (2004). Status and Red List of Pakistan’s Mammals. Based on the Conservation Assessment and Management Plan. IUCN Pakistan, Islamabad.
48. Siddiqui, M.F., M. Ahmed, N. Khan, and I.A. Khan (2010). A quantitative description of moist temperate conifer forests of Himalaya region of Pakistan and Azad Kashmir. Int. J.Biol.Biotech. 7 (3): 175-185.
49. Sunquist, M.E., F Sunquist, and D.E. Daneke (1989). Ecological separation in a Venezuelan Llanos carnivore community. In Advances in Neotropical mammalogy. Redford, K. H. & Eisenberg, J. F. (Eds). Gainesville, FL: Sandhill Crane. Press. pp.197-232.
50. Vanak, A.T., and M.E. Gompper (2009). Dietary niche separation between sympatric free ranging domestic dogs and indian foxes in central India. J.Mammal. 90(5): 1058-1065
51. Vieira, E.M. and D. Port (2006). Niche overlap and resource partitioning between two sympatric fox species in southern Brazil. J.Zool. 272: 57-63
52. Wozencraft, W.C (2005). Order carnivora. In: Mammal species of the world (eds. D.E. Wilson and D.M. Reeder). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London.