@article {163316, title = {Three{\textquoteright}s Company: Human infrastructure and diminishing savannas accentuate meso-carnivore interactions in a shared landscape of western India}, journal = {Biological Conservation}, volume = {313}, year = {2026}, month = { January 2026}, pages = {111618}, type = {Research Article}, abstract = {

Human modifications to natural landscapes negatively impact carnivore communities. Some species may yet benefit from habitat modifications by way of resource subsidisation or reduced competition, while trading-off heightened risks. We examined a meso-carnivore community comprising golden jackal\ Canis aureus, jungle cat\ Felis chaus, Indian fox\ Vulpes bengalensis\ and desert cat\ Felis lybica ornata\ in a semi-arid landscape of Kachchh, India. First, we mapped their potential habitats and gauged the extent of fragmentation as a measure of vulnerability. Using camera-trapping and indirect sign surveys within an occupancy modelling framework, we then examined species{\textquoteright} space use and interactions, incorporating the potential mediating influence of anthropogenic factors. Finally, we assessed temporal and fine-scale spatio-temporal co-occurrence. The most fragmented native habitat, open savanna, was positively associated with the occurrence of three of the four species. We found some evidence for body size-based dominance shaping patterns of species{\textquoteright} spatial overlap. Spatially co-occurring species also showed temporal overlaps; temporally overlapping species further seemed to aggregate at fine spatio-temporal scales. Human disturbance mediated species interactions, wherein species pairs tended to co-occur less frequently in human-modified areas (e.g., metalled roads). Rectifying policy surrounding savanna habitats informed by species space use and interactions and affording them protection may help preserve species, prevent potential competition-driven species loss and homogenisation of the biotic communities in semi-arid landscapes.

}, keywords = {Carnivores, Free-ranging dogs, Habitat use, Human impacts, Interspecific interactions, Shared landscapes, Tropics}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2025.111618}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632072500655X?via\%3Dihub}, author = {Divyajyoti Ganguly and Arjun Srivathsa and Divya Vasudev and Uma Ramakrishnan} } @article {157484, title = {Trace DNA from kill sites identifies individual predators}, journal = {Biological Conservation}, volume = {307}, year = {2025}, month = {July 2025}, pages = {111117}, type = {Research Article}, abstract = {

Predation ecology and evidence-based conflict management strategies require reliable and accurate identification of individual predators. Identifying predators is, however, complex, as they are secretive and individual identification is difficult. Trace DNA that predators leave behind at kill sites might provide an effective strategy to identify them but remains poorly assessed. We use non-invasive genetic samples from kill sites to assess their utility for predator identification. We systematically investigated 198 livestock kills in two of Central India{\textquoteright}s critical source tiger populations: Kanha and Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserves. We collected 342 saliva, 33 scat and 395 shed hair samples as potential sources of predator DNA. Individual tigers were identified using up to 123 SNP markers. All sample types were highly successful (\>95\ \%) in identifying tigers. Individual tigers were identified at 85\ \% of all kill sites using at least one sample. Shed hair samples were most effective for individual identification, followed by saliva and scat. Sample type and sampling season were the primary determinants of the number of SNPs typed per sample and individual identification success. Based on the collection site and type of sample in identification, we classified species and individuals into three categories: true predator (high confidence as predator), circumstantial predator (medium confidence) and predator uncertain (low confidence). Individuals were classified as a true predator at 72 sites, circumstantial predator at 34 sites, and predator uncertain at 49 sites. We suggest that when paired with systematic kill site investigation and sample collection, these methods can be effectively used to understand predation ecology better and facilitate evidence-based conflict management.

}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2025.111117}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320725001545?dgcid=author}, author = {Himanshu Chhattani and Abishek Harihar and Rounak Dean and Ajay Yadav and Kaushal Patel and Divyashree Rana and Awadhesh Pandit and Sanjay Kumar Shukla and Vincent Rahim and Uma Ramakrishnan} }