Content uploaded by Rishi Ram Paudel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rishi Ram Paudel on Jul 03, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
8=:7*58/28:.;8=:,.*7*0.6.7<8=:7*58/28:.;8=:,.*7*0.6.7<
'85=6. ;;=. :<2,5.
*+2<*<":./.:.7,.+A26*5*A*7=;4..:8;,1=;*+2<*<":./.:.7,.+A26*5*A*7=;4..:8;,1=;
5.=,80*;<.:27$1.A"184;=7-8 *<287*5"*:4 .9*55.=,80*;<.:27$1.A"184;=7-8 *<287*5"*:4 .9*5
#2;12#*6"*=-.5
0:2,=5<=:*5*7-8:.;<:A&72>.:;2<A*4?*79=: .9*5
:2;12:*6?25-52/.06*25,86
6*7!52
0:2,=5<=:*5*7-8:.;<:A&72>.:;2<A*4?*79=: .9*5
*6*7?85206*25,86
":*68-1262:.
0:2,=5<=:*5*7-8:.;<:A&72>.:;2<A*4?*79=: .9*5
901262:.*/=.-=79
8558?<12;*7-*--2<287*5?8:4;*<1<<9;,8:.;,185*:52+:*:2.;?:201<.-=3+6
"*:<8/<1.28-2>.:;2<A86687;*7-<1.)88580A86687;
#.,866.7-.-2<*<287#.,866.7-.-2<*<287
"*=-.5#!521262:."*+2<*<":./.:.7,.+A26*5*A*7=;4..:8;,1=;
5.=,80*;<.:27$1.A"184;=7-8 *<287*5"*:4 .9*5
8=:7*58/28:.;8=:,.*7*0.6.7<
$$ 87527.
#.,.2>.-.+,,.9<.-*:"=+52;1.-=7
%12;:<2,5.2;+:8=01<<8A8=/8:/:..*7-89.7*,,.;;+A!#$,185*:<1*;+..7*,,.9<.-/8:27,5=;28727
8=:7*58/28:.;8=:,.*7*0.6.7<+A*7*=<18:2B.-.-2<8:8/!#$,185*:8:68:.27/8:6*<28795.*;.,87<*,<
52+:*:A,8:.;,185*:?:201<.-=
*+2<*<":./.:.7,.+A26*5*A*7=;4..:8;,1=;5.=,80*;<.:27$1.A*+2<*<":./.:.7,.+A26*5*A*7=;4..:8;,1=;5.=,80*;<.:27$1.A
"184;=7-8 *<287*5"*:4 .9*5"184;=7-8 *<287*5"*:4 .9*5
8>.:"*0.88<78<.8>.:"*0.88<78<.
(.?8=5-524.<8.@9:.;;8=:0:*<2<=-.<8(( .9*5/8:/=7-270<1.9:83.,<(.*99:.,2*<.:$*6=7-:*
$=++*2.5-:.;.*:,18E,.:(( .9*5:89*51*7*5%1.%1.712./87;.:>*<287!E,.:8/
$" "#*70.:4;1*A%1*:=1*=-1*:A*7-#*70.:#*6=*7-1*7-:*=70*6*5/8:<1.;=998:<
*7-0=2-*7,.<1:8=018=<<1.9:83.,<
C89A:201<;8/*55<1.9*9.:;9=+52;1.-278=:7*58/28:.;8=:,.*7*0.6.7<*:.?2<12<;9=+52;1.:
.7<.:/8:28:.;8=:,.#.;.*:,1#;5*6*+*-"*42;<*7%12;9.:62<;*7A87.<8,89A:.-2;<:2+=<.
:.62@<:*7;62<*7-*-*9<<1.?8:4/8:787,866.:,2*59=:98;.;9:8>2-.-<1.8:2027*5?8:4*7-;8=:,.2;
*99:89:2*<.5A,2<.-8=:7*58/28:.;8=:,.*7*0.6.7<-8.;78<0:*7<A8=*7A8<1.::201<;27:.5*<287<8
<12;?.+;2<.8:<1.6*<.:2*587<12;?.+;2<.78<1.:?8:-;*558<1.::201<;*:.:.;.:>.-8:<1.
*>82-*7,.8/-8=+<A8=6=;<78<*-*9<.-2<,1*70.<:*7;/8:69=+52;1:.9=+52;1-2;<:2+=<.:.-2;<:2+=<.
+:8*-,*;<:.+:8*-,*;<8:;18?8:95*A279=+52,<12;?.+;2<.8:<1.6*<.:2*587<12;?.+;2<.27*7A/8:6
8:6.-2*?2<18=<*99:89:2*<.5A*7-,87;92,=8=;5A,2<270<1.8:2027*5?8:4*7-;8=:,.8:8=:7*58/
28:.;8=:,.*7*0.6.7<D;9:28:?:2<<.79.:62;;287
%12;*:<2,5.2;*>*25*+5.278=:7*58/28:.;8=:,.*7*0.6.7<1<<9;,8:.;,185*:52+:*:2.;?:201<.-=3+6>85
2;;
Paudel et al., (2023). Ecological characters concerning habitat preferences.
J Biores Manag., 10(2): 53-60.
53
© 2023 by Journal of Bioresource Management is licensed under CC BY 4.0
HABITAT PREFERENCE BY HIMALAYAN MUSK DEER (MOSCHUS
LEUCOGASTER) IN SHEY PHOKSUNDO NATIONAL PARK, NEPAL
RISHI RAM PAUDEL1, AMAN OLI1, AND PRAMOD GHIMIRE1
1Agricultural and Forestry University, Makwanpur, Nepal
Corresponding author’s email: zinisrhu65@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Himalayan Musk Deer (Moschus leucogaster) is distributed across the mid-mountainous
region from the elevation of 3000 m to 4000 m. Shey Phoskundo National Park lies in
western Nepal and Shey Phoksundo Rural Municipality serves as the prime habitat in this
region. The main objective of this study was to find out the habitat preference of Himalayan
Musk Deer and to evaluate all the suitable habitats. Transects survey were done to evaluate
the preferred attributes of the species. Pellets were rarely found where the crown cover was
more than 75 % but the resting sites were abundantly found there and forest of Pinus
wallichiana and Betula utilis were found to be used mostly. Deforestation of temperate
mixed forests and illegal poaching of musk deer for musk pods should be clamped down for
the conservation of this endangered species.
Keywords: Deforestation, ecological behaviour, ivlev’s electivity index, Himalayan Musk
Deer, Nepal.
INTRODUCTION
The Himalayan Musk Deer
(Moschus leucogaster; Hodgson, 1839) is
one of the five musk deer species found
around the world and in the case of
Nepal, it is one of the six deer species
(Khadka and James, 2016). Himalayan
musk deer (hereafter musk deer) is
commonly called Kasturi Mirga in the
Nepalese language and Lah in the Tibetan
language; by far spoken in the
westernmost mountainous region of
Nepal. Musk Deer is classified as
Endangered in the IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species, is listed in Appendix
I of CITES and is also included as a
protected priority species by the
Department of National Park and Wildlife
Conservation Act 1973 (Aryal and
Subedi, 2011; Green, 1986; Maksimova
et al., 2015; Singh et al., 2019). The
population of the species has declined
drastically due to poaching for musk and
the degradation of available habitats of
the species (Aryal et al., 2010; Khadka
and James, 2016; Shrestha and Moe,
2015). Degradation of habitat is further
accelerated by over-exploitation of
available resources due to the dependence
of local people on forests for their daily
needs as the inhabitants of the Himalayas
mostly depend upon livestock and
agriculture followed by tourism i.e. hotels
and lodges (Aryal et al., 2010). Shrinkage
of the habitat leads to overlapping of the
grazing area for the musk deer and their
livestock (Aryal and Subedi, 2011) . The
study of habitat preference allows
conservationists and researchers to create
suitable habitat conditions for the species
in all the feasible habitats around the
world. At the elevation of 3,000 - 4,000
m above sea line this species is
discontinuously distributed throughout
the Himalayas (Shrestha and Moe, 2015)
falling in Afghanistan, Bhutan, China,
India, Nepal, Pakistan and Myanmar
(Aryal and Status, 2014). In Nepal, the
potential habitat of the species covers
30,177 km2, of which 5815 km2 falls
Paudel et al., (2023). Ecological character of the species concerning habitat preferences.
J Biores Manag., 10(2): 53-60.
54
© 2023 by Journal of Bioresource Management is licensed under CC BY 4.0
inside the protected area (Aryal and
Subedi, 2011). Musk deer is shy and
solitary species and is often seen during
dawn and dusk (Maksimova et al., 2015).
They are herbivorous, mainly feeding on
grass, moss, plant leaves, shoots, lichen
and twigs. Every individual of this
species chooses a fixed place to defecate
and covers the fresh pellets with mud,
litter and even with the old pellets while
some of them share the place for
defecation (Green, 1987; Khadka and
James, 2016; Singh et al., 2019). Their
resting sites were usually seen near Abies
spectabilis, Betula utilis and
Rhododendron species (Aryal and Subedi,
2011). The declining number of musk
deer has necessitated the study of their
habitat and distribution at both national
and local levels. In Nepal, most of the
musk deer related studies are
concentrated in Sagarmatha National Park
(SNP) as it is the prime habitat for the
species (Aryal et al., 2010). Shey
Phoksundo National Park (SPNP) also
hold appreciable population of the species
yet no study musk deer related study is
available for the area. This research gap
focused on the analysis of the habitat
preference and availablity of musk deer in
relation to SPNP’s geography and habitat
type.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Area
Shey Phoksundo National Park
(29°15’-29°45’ NL and 83°08’- 83°31’ E)
spread over 3,555 km2 with elevation
range of 2130 - 6885 m above sea line,
located at one of the most remote
westernmost parts of Nepal (Dolpa
District) though some part of it also falls
under Mugu District. The Dolpa district
consists of 6 rural municipalities (Shey
Phoksundo, Jagadulla, Kaike,
Mudkechula, Chharka Tangsong and
Dolpo Budhha rural municipalities) and 2
municipalities (Thulobheri and Tripura
Sundari Municipalities).
Figure 1: Map of the study area (Shey Phoksundo Rural Municipality) with seven other Municipalities
of Dolpa district.
Paudel et al., (2023). Ecological characters concerning habitat preferences.
J Biores Manag., 10(2): 53-60.
55
© 2023 by Journal of Bioresource Management is licensed under CC BY 4.0
The study was carried out within the
political boundaries of Shey Phoksundo
Rural Municipality from February-July
2021. There is a sharp seasonal difference
in the rainfall and temperature in the
region with the annual precipitation
ranging from 500 mm to 1500 mm in
northern and southern steeps respectively
because of the rain shadow area.
Vegetation within the area is highly
diverse due to climatic and attitudinal
variations. Temperate and sub-alpine
vegetation dominate the Southern steep
hills slopes whereas dense forests of
Pinus wallichiana intermixed with
Cedrus deodar, Tsuga dumosa, Abies
spectabilis and Picea smithiana is
dominant in the lower valley. The
landscape of the upper tree line is
dominated by Betula utilis and Juniperus
recurva.
Pseudois nayaur, Ochotona spp.,
Lepus pistols, Marmota himalayensis,
Moschus spp. etc. are the major
herbivores in the National Park area. The
main predators of this ecosystem are
Canis himalayensis and occasional spatial
variation with Panthera uncia and a
moderate probability of Lynx lynx.
Data Collection
The harsh terrain and erratic
weather condition make it quite
difficult, almost impossible to survey
the whole area. Record the precise
information about the habitat correlates
of the species was discussed with the
local groups, park staff and experts
about the habitat areas of the species.
This study focused on the habitat sites
as suggested by them. The transect walk
method was used for indirect sign
survey ( pellet, resting site, footprint) to
record and collect information
regarding the habitat correlates like
elevation, slope, crown cover, etc.
(Nandy et al., 2020; Yi et al., 2020;
Yang et al., 2003).
i. Field Sampling and Data
Collection
Musk deer’s habitat area of the park
was divided into three blocks; Pugmo,
Rigmo and Bauligaad. The area was
then plotted with a grid of 3*3 km with
the help of the ArcGIS 10.2.1 version.
At least two transects (1 km long and 10
m wide) in each grid having potential
musk deer distribution placed at some
200 m gap between consecutive
transects were surveyed. A signed
survey was initiated with the slow walk
of two people abreast on each transect
(Shrestha and Meng, 2014). Habitat
correlates were recorded within 10m
radii for each sign encountered and
termed those radii as “use plot”. Also,
random sampling was done 50-100 m
away from each sign encountered as
mentioned above within 10 m of radii
and termed that radii as “available
plot”. If there was any presence of signs
on the available plots then it was termed
a “use plot”.
ii. Data Analysis
Habitat correlates such as
vegetation, slope, elevation and crown
cover were considered for the analysis
of the habitat preference of musk deer
using Ivlev's electivity index (IV) which
is expressed as IV = (U%− A%) / (U%
+ A%), where “A” indicates
“availability plots” and “U” infers “use
plots” (Agresti, 2007). The value of the
index ranges from -1.0 to +1.0 where
positive values refer to the preference of
that particular habitat correlate whereas
negative values imply the avoidance of
that particular correlate and 0 indicates
random use. And R Studio (version
4.1.0) was used to prepare the graph of
different IV values of different
correlates.
Paudel et al., (2023). Ecological character of the species concerning habitat preferences.
J Biores Manag., 10(2): 53-60.
56
© 2023 by Journal of Bioresource Management is licensed under CC BY 4.0
The habitat suitability map was
prepared based on the preference of the
habitat selection of the species i.e.
slope, altitude and land cover using
ArcGIS version 10.8. The Digital
Model Elevation (DEM) of Shey
Phoksundo Rural Municipality was
clipped out from the DEM of the Dolpa
district. The map of elevation, slope,
and land use was made with the help of
this DEM file and all of the rater files
were reclassified using reclassify tool.
The weighted overlay tool was applied
for the suitable preference of the habitat
correlates.
RESULTS
A total of 40 transects were
surveyed and presence/absence data
(signs of musk deer such as footprint,
pellet, shelter, etc.) and habitat
correlates (i.e. elevation, forest type,
slope, etc.) of the species were recorded
in each sub-block of phoksundo block
as shown in Table 1. The transect length
ranged between 600 m and 1410 m
(average length = 820 m). The total
survey effort was 32.82 km. These
transects ranged between 3099 m and
3909 m elevation (average elevation=
3556 m). A total of 166 use plots and 45
available plots were recorded in the
study area. The musk deer sign
encounter rate was high in Rigmo-
Rikhe sub-block (7.66/km) and the
lowest in Pugmo-Punikha (4.4/km)
(Table 1).
Habitat Preference
i. Altitude Preference
Musk sign encounter rate was
higher at the middle elevations (3500-
3800 m asl.; IV = 0.75) decreasing in
both decreasing (3200-3500 m asl, IV =
0.60; 2900-3200 m asl; IV= 0.08) and
increasing (>3800 m asl; IV = 0.37)
elevations. (Figure 2).
ii. Slope Preference
From 0 to >75º, the slope was
divided into four categories with an
interval of 25º. The species exhibited a
higher sign encounter rate at 25- 50 º
slope (IV = 0.74), which was followed by
the slope range of 50 to 75 (IV=0.48) and
0-25 slope (IV= 0.32). Slope greater than
75º did not show any signs of musk deer
(Figure 3).
iii. Crown Cover Preference
Musk Deer generally preferred 25-
50% of the crown cover (IV=0.78).
Comparatively, musk deer was found to
prefer the less crown cover i.e. 0-25%
(IV= 0.22) than dense forest i.e. >75%
(IV= 0.18) (Figure 4).
Table 1: Survey efforts within sub-blocks of Phoksundo block with their respective number of signs and
transects
SN
Block
Sub-
block
Total
transects
Total
Signs
Sign
Encounter
rate/km
Use
plots
Available
plots
1
Phoksundo
Rigmo-
Rikhe
18
138
7.66
86
23
2
Phoksundo
Pugmo-
Punikha
20
88
4.4
70
18
3
Phoksundo
Bauligad
2
10
5
10
4
Paudel et al., (2023). Ecological character of the species concerning habitat preferences.
J Biores Manag., 10(2): 53-60.
57
© 2023 by Journal of Bioresource Management is licensed under CC BY 4.0
0.32
0.74
0.48
-0.24
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0-25 25-50 50-75 >75
Ivelv's Electivity Index
Slope ( º )
Figure 2: Preference of habitat by the species with respect to altitude
Figure 3: Preference of habitat by the species with respect to slope
0.08
0.60
0.75
0.37
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
2900-3200 3200-3500 3500-3800 >3800
Ivelv's Electrivity Index
Altitude (m)
Figure 4: Preference of habitat by the species with respect to crown cover
Paudel et al., (2023). Ecological characters concerning habitat preferences.
J Biores Manag., 10(2): 53-60.
57
© 2023 by Journal of Bioresource Management is licensed under CC BY 4.0
iv. Forest Type Preference
Seven different forest types were
recorded from the study area within the
habitat of Himalayan Musk Deer. The
forest dominated by Pinus wallichana
was found to be mostly preferred by the
species (IV=0.54) which was followed
by the dominant forest of Betula utilis
(IV = 0.53). The species were found to
use forest type of Cupressus spp.
randomly (Table 2).
Table 2: IV value of forest type concerning the preference of habitat by the species
Forest type
Ivlev's electivity
index (IV)
Pinus wallichiana dominant
0.54
Pinus wallichiana and Tsuga dumosa mixed
0.48
Tsuga dumosa dominant
0.18
Betula utilis dominant
0.53
Betula utilis and Picea smithiana mixed
0.33
Picea smithiana dominant
0.30
Cupressus spp.
0.00
Potential Habitat
Following the landcover map of
Shey Phoksundo Rural Municipality
(Figure 5) and based on the preference
of the habitat correlates by the species,
a suitability map was prepared (Figure
6) which shows the potential habitat of
musk deer within the SPNP region. The
suitability was divided into two
categories: highly suitable (the only
potential habitat) and unsuitable habitat.
Figure 5: Land cover map of Shey Phoksundo Rural
Municipality
Figure 6: Map of potential habitat of musk deer in
Shey Phoksundo Rural Municipality
Paudel et al., (2023). Ecological characters concerning habitat preferences.
J Biores Manag., 10(2): 53-60.
58
© 2023 by Journal of Bioresource Management is licensed under CC BY 4.0
DISCUSSION
The signs of the species were not
found at an altitude greater than 3900m.
Despite similar habitats in Indian
Himalayas, mainly in Uttrakhand, the
signs of species were found at an altitude
of 4200 m (Khadka et al., 2017) because
of the availability of the forest type
preferred by the species at that altitude.
On the contrary, Aryal and Subedi (2011)
found that the musk deer avoid a habitat
greater than 4000 m in Manaslu
Conservation Area. This research showed
that the species tend to prefer the altitude
range from 3500 to 3800 m mostly and
the preference of habitat by the species
increases gradually from 3200m to
3800m which somehow supported the
findings of Aryal et al. (2010) in
Sagarmatha National Park. This may be
due to the presence of suitable forest
types and preferred plant mostly recorded
from the forest of Pinus wallichiana as it
is a highly dominant forest in the study
area followed by Betula utilis; but Aryal
and Subedi (2011) found that the species
avoid Pinus wallichiana forest in
Manaslu Conservation Area. Despite the
same habitat type, the study done in
Uttarakhand, India by Ilyas (2013) found
the signs of the species abundantly in the
forest of Quercus spp. even at an altitude
of 4500 m. This variability indicated that
Musk Deer tends to adapt to every forest
type as long as the habitat supported its
survival irrespective of altitude and
dominant plant species.
The findings of this study
regarding the preference for slope by the
species in this region haven’t coincided
with any other research within the
national territory. This may be due to the
difference in geography and available
habitat in the study area. The current
study showed that the slope of 25º to 50º
is mostly preferred by the species but
avoids the habitat with a slope greater
than 75º. The pellets were also recorded
from the plain site i.e. lower forest trail
and even from the dense forest area near
the village where the slope is less than
25º. This may be due to the only water
source available in that area i.e. Rikhe
River which is at 500 m distance from the
village. But Wandi et al. (2019) found the
highest encounter rate of the pellets at
more than 75º slope in the Fir forest of
Sakteng Wildlife Sanctuary of Bhutan.
By far, the research on the distribution
and habitat preference of the musk deer in
Nepal set the fine line about the
avoidance of a slope greater than 50º but
our research (a pioneer) on the SPNP
region shows the use of habitat by the
species up to 75º slope. Globally, the
signs of the species were found even at
more than 75º slope which suggested that
the species could prefer the highly steep
slope depending on the geography and
suitable habitat.
The findings of this study
showed that the species tends to prefer the
crown cover between 25-50 %. Pellets
were rarely found where the crown cover
was more than 75 % but the resting sites
were abundantly found there. They prefer
the shelter on the upper base surface of
the tree where the crown cover is more
than 50 % and sometimes up to 75% or
even more. Resting sites of different sizes
were found below dense crown cover
which could be of the young ones. The
dense crown cover was significantly
correlated with choosing a habitat for
musk deer. Because of the olfaction
communication, these particular
characteristics of musk deer help to
confine the latrine scents for a longer
period than the exposed sites and the
confined scent of the latrine help to
establish communication with other
individuals (Khadka et al., 2017;
Thapamagar et al., 2019).
Each time, musk deer individuals
defecating in the same place favours the
poaching strategy but we didn’t record
any snare on-site during the survey.
Besides poaching, feral dogs in the areas
could be a reason behind declining in the
Paudel et al., (2023). Ecological character of the species concerning habitat preferences.
J Biores Manag., 10(2): 53-60.
59
© 2023 by Journal of Bioresource Management is licensed under CC BY 4.0
number of Himalayan Musk Deer. The
loss of habitat could be another main
cause of the decline in the number which
might be aided by the forest fire and the
extraction of timber from the areas near
the village. The presence of livestock or
their dung wasn’t found to directly affect
the habitat preference and distribution of
musk deer as per the survey because the
study recorded the presence of pellets
from the site where there is the presence
of livestock’s dung but the overlap at the
grazing site by the livestock affect the
habitat.
CONCLUSION
Comparing it with national and
global findings has provided the
ecological character of the species in the
context of habitat preference. The
altitudinal range and steep slope didn’t
affect the distribution and preference of
the habitat for the species. However,
preference was affected by the presence
of vegetation and suitable crown cover
irrespective of the vegetation type. They
are likely to choose different vegetation
for different purposes i.e. ambush, resting
site and grazing but can also adapt to the
availability of choice. Small villages
barely take part in the fragmentation of
the habitat but this could affect the
distribution of the species. Illegal
extraction of timber, encroachment for
cultivation, illegal poaching of musk deer
for musk pods and overlapping of the
grazing area should be clamped down for
the conservation of this endangered
species.
AUTHOR’S CONTRIBUTION
I, Rishi Ram Paudel am the author
of this manuscript. This is the research
project of my undergraduate thesis. The
whole manuscript i.e. maps, graphs and
tables are designed by me. I have done
the field work and related data analysis
using R along with the interpretation of
the result.
Aman oli is the co-author of this
manuscript. He is my research assistant
during the field survey. He helped me
during the process of data entry and its
analysis. He has contributed a lot to the
process of interpretation and presentation
of the result in front of the park staff and
DNPWC.
Pramod Ghimire is the advisor of
this project. Training before the field
survey given by him helped us to collect
the data precisely in the field. He guided
us throughout the project and helps to
manage every obstacle during the field
survey with his good relationship with the
park staff. Above all this, he helped us to
revise the manuscript thoroughly and
went through interpretation of the result
and better execution of this project.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There is no conflict of interest
among the author, co-author and
funding agency regarding this paper.
REFERENCES
Agresti A (2007). An introduction to
categorical data analysis. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Aryal, A., and Subedi, A. (2011).
The conservation and potential
habitat of the Himalayan Musk
Deer, Moschus chrysogaster, in the
protected areas of Nepal. I J
Conserv Sci, 2(2), 127–141
Aryal A, Raubenheimer D, Subedi S,
Kattel B (2010). Spatial Habitat
Overlap and Habitat Preference of
Himalayan Musk Deer (Moschus
chrysogaster) in Sagarmatha (Mt.
Everest) National Park, Nepal. J
Biol Sci, 2(3), 217–225.
Karmacharya DB, Thapa K, Shrestha R,
Dhakal M, Janecka JE (2011). Non
invasive genetic population survey
of snow leopards (Panthera uncia)
in Kangchenjunga conservation
area, Shey Phoksundo National
Park and surrounding buffer zones
Paudel et al., (2023). Ecological character of the species concerning habitat preferences.
J Biores Manag., 10(2): 53-60.
60
© 2023 by Journal of Bioresource Management is licensed under CC BY 4.0
of Nepal. BMC research notes.
2011; 4:516.
Khadka KK, James DA (2016). Habitat
selection by endangered Himalayan
musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster)
and impacts of livestock grazing in
Nepal Himalaya: Implications for
conservation. J Nat Conser, 31(1),
38–42.
Khadka KK, Singh N, Magar KT, James
DA (2017). Dietary composition,
breadth, and overlap between
seasonally sympatric Himalayan
musk deer and livestock:
Conservation implications. J Nat
Conser, 38, 30–36.
Maksimova DA, Seryodkin IV, Zaitsev
VA (2015). Musk Deer (Moschus
moschiferus) Population Density
Based on Pellet Group Count
Method in Sikhote-Alin.
Achievements in the Life Sciences,
9(1), 57–60.
Nandy S, Neethu LM, Kushwaha SPS
(2020). Habitat Suitability Analysis
of Himalayan Musk Deer
(Moschus leucogaster) in Part of
Western Himalaya, India. J Indian
Soci of Remote Sensing, 48(11),
1523–1533.
Orus I (2015) Status, habitat use and
conservation of Alpine musk deer
(Moschus chrysogaster) in
Uttarakhand Himalayas, India, J
Appl Animal Res, 43(10), 83-91.
Shrestha BB, Meng X (2014). Habitat
preference, association and threats
of Himalayan Musk Deer (moschus
leucogaster) in Gaurishankar
conservation area, Nepal Intern J
Conser sci., spring, 5(4), 535–546.
Shrestha BB, Moe SR (2015). Plant
diversity and composition
associated with Himalayan musk
deer latrine sites. Zoology and
Ecology, 25(4), 295–304.
Singh PB, Saud P, Cram D., Mainali, K.,
Thapa A, Chhetri NB, Poudyal LP,
Baral HS, Jiang Z (2019).
Ecological correlates of Himalayan
musk deer Moschus leucogaster.
Ecology and Evolution, 9(1), 4–18.
Subedi A, Aryal A, Koirala RK, Timilsina,
YP, Meng X, McKenzie F (2012).
Habitat ecology of Himalayan
Musk Deer (Moschus chrysogaster)
in Manaslu Conservation Area,
Nepal. Int J Zool Res, 8, 81.
Syed Z, Ilyas O (2016). Habitat preference
and feeding ecology of alpine musk
deer (Moschu chrysogaster) in
Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuary,
Uttarakhand, India. Animal
Production Science, 56, 978–987.
Thapamagar T, Bhandari S, Ghimire K,
Bhusal DR (2019). Threats to
endangered musk deer ( Moschus
chrysogaster ) in the Khaptad
National Park , Nepal. Folia
Oecologica, 46(2), 170–173.
Wangdi T,Tobgay S, Dorjee k, Dorji k,
Wangyel S (2019). The
distribution, status and
conservation of the Himalayan
Musk Deer Moschus chrysogaster
in Sakteng Wildlife Sanctuary
Global Ecology and Conservation,
17 (23).
Yang Q, Meng X, Xia L, Feng Z (2003).
Conservation status and causes of
decline of musk deer (Moschus
spp.) in China. Biol Conser, 109,
333–342.
Yi L, Dalai M, Su R, Lin W, Erdenedalai
M, Luvsantseren B, Chimedtseren
C, Wang Z, Hasi S (2020). Whole-
genome sequencing of wild
Siberian musk deer (Moschus
moschiferus) provides insights into
its genetic features. BMC
Genomics, 21(1).
