OCCURRENCE PATTERNS AND POPULATION DENSITY OF BARKING DEER (MUNTIACUS VAGINALIS) IN THE SOUTHERN SLOPES OF HIMALAYA FOOTHILLS, PUNJAB, PAKISTAN

Abstract

Barking deer is a small-sized cervid mammal and in Pakistan its population are limited to outer Himalayan foothill forests of Punjab Pakistan. They are usually associated with low but dense thorn scrub of Acacia modesta, Olea ferruginea and Zizyphus nummularia. Occupancy modelling was used to assess how environmental factors influence occurrence probabilities. The population parameters of barking deer were examined in Murree, Kotli-Sattian and Kahuta National Parks through direct visual observations and indirect signs of animal from 2015-2017. To estimate population density, distance sampling of the line transect data was employed. Mean population density was 0.27 individuals / km². The range of encounter rates in each study site was 0.04 to 0.43 per km of transect. Population density in summer was higher (0.43/km²) than in winter (0.36/km²), possibly due to the addition of new-borns in May. The barking deer is basically a solitary animal. This species is endangered in Pakistan and its population are declining. Conservation efforts with focus on protection of disturbance-free habitat for barking deer are recommended in the study area.

Full text

Habiba et al., The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 30(4):2020
853
OCCURRENCE PATTERNS AND POPULATION DENSITY OF BARKING DEER
(MUNTIACUS VAGINALIS) IN THE SOUTHERN SLOPES OF HIMALAYA FOOTHILLS,
PUNJAB, PAKISTAN
U. Habiba1,2,3, M. Anwar1, R. Khatoon1, B. M. Khan3and K. A. Nasir4
1Department of wildlife Management, PMAS, Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi, Pakistan
2Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana 32 Campus Drive Missoula, MT 59812
3Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, University of Haripur, Haripur
4Department of Botany, University of Swat, Swat
Corresponding author: Ume Habiba, ume.habiba8@gmail.com,
ABSTRACT
Barking deer is a small-sized cervid mammal and in Pakistan its population are limited to outer Himalayan foothill
forests of Punjab Pakistan. They are usually associated with low but dense thorn scrub of Acacia modesta, Olea
ferruginea and Zizyphus nummularia. Occupancy modelling was used to assess how environmental factors influence
occurrence probabilities. The population parameters of barking deer were examined in Murree, Kotli-Sattian and Kahuta
National Parks through direct visual observations and indirect signs of animal from 2015-2017. To estimate population
density, distance sampling of the line transect data was employed. M ean population density was 0.27 individuals / km².
The range of encounter rates in each study site was 0.04 to 0.43 per km of transect. Population density in summer was
higher (0.43/km²) than in winter (0.36/km²), possibly due to the addition of new-borns in May. The barking deer is
basically a solitary animal. This species is endangered in Pakistan and its population are declining. Conservation efforts
with focus on protection of disturbance -free habitat for barking deer are recommended in the study area.
Key words: Barking deer, Murree, Kotli Sattian Kahuta National Park, Occupancy modelling, Occurrence patterns,
Population density.
https://doi.org/10.36899/JAPS.2020.4.0100
Published online April 25, 2020
INTRODUCTION
Barking deer or northern red muntjac
(Muntiacus vaginalis) is a nocturnal species and is
difficult to study in field. It hides itself in dense scrub
habitat and visits clear open areas for feeding or drinking
water (Anonymous 2007a, 2007b). This might be the
reason the species remained least studied in wild habitat
(Kurt, 1981).
Barking deer is confined to Himalayan foothills
zones where there are remnants of tropical dry deciduous
forests and Margalla Hills. This species is associated with
dense vegetation, particularly Acacia modesta and Olea
ferruginea with an understory of Zizyphus mauritiana
and Carissa opaca. In Pakistan, the species neither
ascends above 1200m height nor associated with tropical
pine forest zones (Roberts, 1997).
Barking deer is usually solitary except during
the rutting season and when juveniles accompany their
mothers. According to Dinerstein (1979), individual
movements during an entire year can be limited to an area
of less than one km2. The average home range is
estimated to be 4 - 5 km2, but may vary depending on the
availability of food and the complexity of the
environment (Chaplin, 1977).
Population density estimates in barking deer
have been highly variable as in Nepal their density was
reported 6.7 – 7.0/ km2(Seidensticker, 1976; Dinerstein,
1980), while in Sri Lanka it was 0.5 - 7.0/ km2(Barrette,
1977). A survey conducted by Hameed et al. (2009) in
Margalla Hills National Park (MHNP) during March-
April 2005 suggested density of barking deer as 1.21 ±
0.14 / km2.
Barking deer abundance varies across regions.
Chaplin (1977) reported the presence of more than 200
barking deer distributed over a few hundred hectares of
woodland. About 20–30 individuals were estimated by
Roberts (1977) from Margalla Hills National Park in
northern Pakistan. Hameed et al. (2009) reported that
there were 86 individuals distributed on the southern
slopes of MHNP. A total population of 45 animals were
estimated in Pir-Lasorha National Park (PLNP)
(Zulfiquar et al., 2011). The population of barking deer
has declined by more than 10% in the last 10 years and is
expected to decrease > 10% in the next 10 years (Sheikh
and Molur, 2005).
Murree, Kotli-Sattian and Kahuta is newly
established national park and there is scanty of baseline
data regarding diversity, vegetation, habitat and
population density of various wild species. Barking d eer
is endangered in Pakistan and its management and
The Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences, 30(4): 2020, Page: 853-859
ISSN: 1018-7081

Habiba et al., The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 30(4):2020
854
conservation require baseline data. Present study was
therefore, planned to provide baseline data for
management of barking deer in study area.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Area: This study was conducted in Murree, Kotli
Sattian and Kahuta national park located in Rawalpindi
district of Pakistan with three subdivisions (“Tehsils”):
Murree, Kotli Sattian and Kahuta, comprising a total area
of 57581 ha. This district is situated on the southern
slopes of the north-western extremities of the Himalayas,
including valleys separated by large mountainous tracts.
This National Park was declared in 2009 under the
Punjab Wildlife Act (Protection, Preservation,
Conservation and Management) (amendment), 2007.
Barking deer inhabit tropical dry deciduous
forests at an elevation of 600 - 1000 m (Roberts, 1997).
The geology is mostly sedimentary and soil erosion is
high, especially in heavily grazed or deforested areas
(Ashraf, 1967). Climate of the area can be described as
sub-humid, sub-tropical and continental in the south
changing to humid, sub-tropical and continental in the
north. Mean winter temperatures range from 1.6 - 21° C.
During the summer, temperature may rise to 40.2° C
(Jilani, 1990). Average annual rainfall is 1,249 mm and
rains are more frequent during monsoon season. The
driest month is November with an average rainfall of 16
mm (GoP, 2006).
Other mammal species in study area include
leopard (Panthera pardus), jungle cat (Felis chaus),
rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta), masked palm civet
(Paguma larvata), yellow-throated marten (Martes
flavigula), small Kashmir flying squirrel (Eoglaucomys
fimbriatus), wild boar (Sus scrofa), Eurasian otter (Lutra
lutra), red fox (Vulpes vulpes griffithi), and golden jackal
(Canis aureus). Many of these species are threatened by
over-exploitation, destruction and fragmentation of
habitat, and other pressures (EPD Punjab, 2010).
Study Design: Extensive field surveys were conducted in
different parts of Murree, Kotli Sattian and Kahuta
National Park from August 2015 to November 2017.
Furthermore, faecal pellets, footprints, and voice calls
were also observed to maximize the chances to locate the
animal. Twenty-four sites were randomly selected
depending upon the extent of area used by the barking
deer and were considered as sampling units for this study.
Line transect method was used to survey barking
deer in each site. Transects were along regularly utilized
walking paths by local people. As much as possible,
transect lines passed through all types of microhabitats.
Transects were randomly positioned and orientated in
each of the 24 study sites (Table 1). A hand-held GPS
unit (Garmin Summit, Kansas, USA) was used to locate
the starting points of transects. Three small transects of
different length were run in each study site. The length
and width of each transect was selected on the basis of
the conditions of the study site and the density of the
forest.
Transect lines were walked early in the day
(beginning about thirty minutes before dawn and in the
evening (about 30 minutes before sunset). When direct or
indirect sign was detected, the perpendicular distance
(metres) from the transect line to the centre of the sign
was recorded (Fig 1). The observed individuals were
classified as infants, juveniles, sub-adults or adults (over
45 cm in height) follwing Pokharel and Chalise, 2010.
Table 1. Encounter rate of direct and indirect signs o f barking deer in Murree, Kotli-Sattian and Kahuta National
Park during 2015-2017.
S.No.
study sites
Extent of
human use
Length
(km)
Encounter
rate of
animals
(per km)
Encounter
rate of
faecal
pellets
(per km)
Encounter
rate of foot
prints (per
km)
Encounter
rate of call
records
(per km)
Mean
encounter
rate
1
Kathar
High
5
0.4
0.07
0.17
0.0
0.16
2
Baroha
Low
8
0.25
0.12
0.03
0.07
0.12
3
Benghal
Low
4
0.29
0.15
0.26
0.07
0.19
4
Salgran
Moderate
3
0.0
0.22
0.17
0.0
0.10
5
Angoori
Moderate
6
0.0
0.10
0.0
0.05
0.04
6
Numble
Low
6
0.0
0.07
0.08
0.04
0.05
7
Simli
Low
6
0.4
0.09
0.09
0.0
0.15
8
Phaphril
High
4
0.5
0.15
0.22
0.0
0.22
9
Gura
Low
8
0.14
0.04
0.09
0.0
0.07
10
Thoa
Low
7
0.83
0.11
0.24
0.1
0.32
11
Slamber
Moderate
8
0.13
0.10
0.08
0.04
0.09
12
Keral
Low
4
0.24
0.11
0.07
0.17
0.15
13
Dalatar
Low
6
0.14
0.32
0.16
0.10
0.18

Habiba et al., The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 30(4):2020
855
14
Beor
Moderate
5
0.25
0.11
0.08
0.0
0.11
15
Seri
Low
6
0.33
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.13
16
Sang
Low
4
0.67
0.07
0.19
0.0
0.23
17
Khalol
Moderate
4
1.35
0.11
0.17
0.08
0.43
18
Narh
High
4
0.20
0.19
0.08
0.0
0.12
19
Badnian
Low
4
0.0
0.17
0.32
0.0
0.12
20
Makrosh
Moderate
4
0.0
0.38
0.22
0.22
0.21
21
Thun
Low
4
0.4
0.07
0.18
0.11
0.19
22
Santh Sarula
Low
3
0.0
0.07
0.0
0.07
0.04
23
Santh
Anwali
Low
7
0.4
0.08
0.08
0.03
0.15
24
Chakka
High
5
0.0
0.17
0.06
0.11
0.09
Total
6.92
3.14
3.11
1.32
3.62
Data Analysis: Occupancy modelling in R (version
3.3.2) was used to assess how occurrence probabilities
varied with environmental factors (MacKezie et al.,
2002).
The models assume that sites are closed to
births, deaths, immigration, and emigration over the
survey period (MacKenzie et al., 2006). Five hypotheses
were developed to explain the effects of landscape
characteristics on the probability of occurrence (y) and
the probability of detection (p). Hypotheses were
developed based on factors that were potentially related
to the species’ life history. Each hypothesis was
expressed as a model and each model included the
influence of various characteristics (covariates) (Table 2).
The NULL MODEL included no occupancy
covariates and represented the hypothesis that occupancy
probability is not influenced by any of the factors
measured. Sampling effort was included as a covariate
for every model because we assumed that it would have a
meaningful effect on detection rates. Sample effort was
the number of days spent in the field survey during a
given survey period.
Table 2. Estimates for occupancy probability (y), detection probability (p) and covariates .
Parameter
AICc
β estimate
SE
LCI
UCI
Null Model
y intercept
pintercept
445.5185
9.53
-0.426
17.2
0.113
0.553
-3.77
0.58
0.00016
Effect of elevation
y intercept
Elevation
pintercept
447.5204
9.313
0.579
-0.426
15.9
16.8
0.113
0.5859
0.0345
-3.77
0.558
0.972
0.000161
Habitat features
y intercept
Tree Cover
pintercept
Coordinates
448.2267
10.87
-1.33
-0.431
-0.131
38.1
54.5
0.113
0.116
0.2856
-0.0243
-3.81
-1.14
0.775
0.981
0.000139
0.256143
Habitat landscape
y intercept
Tree Cover
pintercept
Elevation
449.4855
11.04
-1.68
-0.4274
0.0193
45.1
72.7
0.113 0.116
0.2446
-0.0231
-3.773
0.167
0.807
0.982
0.000161
0.867344
Habitat characteristics
y intercept
elevation
pintercept
coordinates
449.4859
11.1
1.0
-0.4274
0.0192
40.2
32.9
0.113
0.116
0.2760
0.0305
-3.774
0.166
0.783
0.976
0.000161
0.867958
*Standard errors (SE), lower (LCI) and upper (UCI) 95% confidence intervals.
Five models were fit to the detection-non
detection data using occupancy analysis in package
Unmarked (Version 0.12-2). We used model selection
techniques to classify models (Burnham and Anderson,
2002; MacKenzie et al., 2006) and used goodness-of-fit
testing to assess the probability of obtaining the observed

Habiba et al., The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 30(4):2020
856
data within the simulated distribution of data (Mackenzie
and Bailey, 2004).
To estimate population density, distance
sampling of the line transect data was used through
DISTANCE 7.1 (Laake et al., 1998). The density of
individuals in the study zone is assessed by the following
equation (Buckland et al., 1993).
D = n × f (0)
2 L
Where
D = density per km2
n = Number of detected objects.
f (0) = probability of density.
L = total length of linear transects.
We analysed different models of f (0), namely
uniform cosine and uniform-single-polynomial (Buckland
et al. 1993). Models were selected to have a minimum
Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) value and a small
variance (Marques et al., 2001) (Table 3).
We used t-test to verify that the frequency of
observations during the morning sessions was
comparable to that of the evening sessions. Chi-square
test was used to assess difference in naive and estimated
mean population densities. Correlation was applied to
analyse relationship between the population density and
level of disturbance.
Table 3. Model selection based on estimates of AIC and likelihood for habitats of barking deer in Mu rree, Kotli
Sattian and Kahuta national park.
Model
No.
Model
AIC
parameters
Likelihood
f (0)
SE{f(0)}
%
CV
M 01
CDS half normal-cosine
977.80
5
-524.39207
0.2921
0.3878
13.28
M 02
CDS Hazard rate -simple
polynomial
979.23071
3
-504.65148
0·7303
0·0541
17·41
M 03
CDS uniform-cosine
989.24774
5
-500.31339
0·9431
0·1579
16·75
M 04
CDS half normal- hermite
polynomial
1006.9746
-485.61536
0·6914
0·0283
24·09
M 05
CDS hazard rate-cosine
1013.3030
7
-483.89771
0.7212
0.3029
35.62
M 06
MA
1017.8839
2
-439.4812
0·3694
0·0397
36·23
M 07
MCDS Hazard rate- simple
polynomial
1050.7842
3
-384.6572
0.987
0·1579
42·75
M 08
MCDS Half normal-cosine
1053.0746
4
-487.45963
0·6913
0·0341
48·93
M 09
MCDS Hazard rate- cosine
1148.6723
5
-434.7454
0.543
0·6022
58.34
M 10
DSM
1165.784
5
-438.05787
0.645
0·0217
63.76
RESULTS
A total of 80 surveys were conducted. Barking
deer were detected in 17 out of 24 (71%) study sites.
Mean encounter rate was 3.62 in the overall study area
(Table 1). The mean encounter rate of each study site was
recorded from 0.04 to 0.43 (Table 4).
Encounter rate was higher in summer than in
winter (Table 5). Encounter rates of barking deer were
highest during the rut (i.e. in October followed by
September). We encountered more females than males
(Table 5).
Occurrence Models: Model selection for barking deer
occurrence involved some uncertainty because there were
no higher differences in AIC values among the models.
The top ranking model was the null model, although the
elevation model also received relatively strong support.
In the elevation model, increasing elevation had a
positive influence on barking deer occurrence and a
negative influence on barking deer detection (Table 2).
Overall occupancy of barking dee r in the study area was
100% and detection probability was 40%.
Table 4. Estimates of barking deer abundance (N) and density (D) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and
percentage coefficient of variation (% CV).
Model
N
95% CI for N
D/km2
95% CI for D
%CV
Detection
probability
Encounter
rate
M01
43
23.4 – 78. 6
0.24
0.185 - 0.857
57·62
1.7
99.6
M02
54
43.1 –97.5
0.36
0.193- 0. 576
11·91
1.4
98.3
M03
48
26.4–73.7
0.29
0.127 -0.985
11.69
1.3
85.8
M04
67
52.8 – 107.4
0.43
0.323 1.676
17.09
0.93
67.10
M05
69
56.7- 195.2
0.81
0.127- 0.986
28.72
0.60
78.3

Habiba et al., The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 30(4):2020
857
M06
76
72.3 – 127.8
0.84
0.451- 0.932
13.98
0.88
60.2
M07
105
57.1 - 166.7
1.17
0.812 -10.75
9.15
0.82
68.76
M08
97
47.3- 187. 74
0.76
0.19 - 13.73
22·64
0.59
89.37
M09
103
76.54 -139.3
0.59
0.311 -0.861
1.000
0.474
72.26
M10
116
85.22 - 126.8
0.81
0.132 - 0.950
14·67
0.97
92.45
Table 5. Individual composition of barking deer in Murree, Kotli Sattian and Kahuta national park during
different months of 2015-2017.
Month
Male
Female
Fawn
Fawn/Female
Male/female
September
2
2
1
0.5
1
October
4
5
2
0.4
0.8
November
1
-
-
-
December
-
-
-
-
-
January
2
-
-
-
February
1
1
0
0
1
March
1
3
-
-
0.33
April
1
2
1
0.5
0.5
May
-
-
-
-
-
June
-
-
-
-
-
July
-
-
-
-
-
August
2
3
1
0.33
0.67
Total
13
17
5
0.43
0.72
Fig 1. Distribution map of barking deer in Murree, Kotli Sattian and Kahuta national park.
Source: Snow Leopard Foundation (SLF).
Population Density: Average population density of
barking deer was estimated 0.27 / km2. Chi-square test
revealed that there was no difference between naive (0.40
/ km2) and estimated mean population density (χ²= 20.00,
df=4, P > 0.05). Seasonal variations in population density
of the animal were also recorded and it was higher (0.43 /
km2) during summer than (0.36/km2) winter.
Group Size: Mostly single animal was directly observed
in 40% cases and maximum group size was two which
was observed in 31% cases in the study area. Groups of
two animals were observed more in summer (60%) than
in winter (40%). Group size was also correlated with
habitat disturbance, results of regression showed that
group size is not significantly different from each other.
Groups of two animals were observed in undisturbed

Habiba et al., The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 30(4):2020
858
areas more often than in areas with livestock (r²= 0.77, p
= 0.075).
Sex and Age Structure: The observed sex ratio was
biased towards females (male / female ratio = 0.72, χ² =
12.32, df = 1, p < 0.001; Table 5). The ratio of sub -adults
to females was 0.43. The number of fawns per female
was higher during February and April (0.5), followed by
October (0.4) and August (0.33) (Table 5).
DISCUSSION
The present research study suggested that
encounter rate was higher in the morning than evening.
Pokharel and Chalise (2010) described in their study that
most barking deer were observed at different altitudes,
mainly in the morning around 06:00. Adult and sub-adult
muntjacs were seen isolated while dependent infants were
associated with mothers.
During present survey, average population
density 0.27 / km2of barking deer was calculated in
different parts of Murree, Kotli Sattian and Kahuta
national park. MHNP and Pir Lasora national park
(PLNP), harbours more number of individuals. PLNP and
adjacent areas hold a reasonable population density (3.44
± 1.12/km2) of the deer (Zulfiquar et al., 2011). MHNP
holds a reasonably high density (1.21 ± 0.14/ km 2) of this
deer species (Hameed et al., 2009). Globally, barking
deer has been reported to be present in high densities (0.5
- 7.0/ km2) in Wilpattu national park, Sri Lanka;
(Barrette, 1977) and Nepal (6.7 – 7.0/ km2)
(Seidensticker, 1976; Dinerstein 1980).
DISTANCE Software model analysis showed a
total of 48 deer present in Murree, Kotli Sattian and
Kahuta National Park. Chaplin (1977) reported the
presence of more than 200 muntjac distributed over a few
hundred hectares in the whole region. An estimate of 86
individuals with the range of 76 – 96 has been reported
from MHNP (Hameed et al., 2009). Roberts (1977)
suggested a population of 20-30 individuals in MHNP
based upon information collected from local community.
Anwar (1997) recorded 112 barking deer individuals in
MHNP based on footprints near water bodies. Barking
deer are thought to be present in areas undisturbed by
humans and livestock. Non-significant, negative
correlation between density and disturbance was recorded
during present study. Similarly, at Hemja VDC, the
middle of the mountain is widely used by barking deer, as
this area has been the least impacted by human activities
(Pokharel and Chalise, 2010).
Barking deer mostly live solitary but in breeding
season group of 1-2 individuals were observed in study
area. All previous studies showed similar results. A study
reported by Lekagul and McNeely (1977) suggested that
most sightings concerned solitary individuals followed by
groups of two, mostly females with a single fawn. The
barking deer is basically a solitary animal (Roberts,
1977). 93-94% (Dinerstein, 1979) and 64.5% (Barrette,
1977) of sightings have been reported as singles.
Eisenberg and Lockhart (1972) estimated that juveniles
not always accompany females on foraging trips, mostly
remained hidden under rocks.
Hameed et al. (2009) analysed herd composition
and suggested that 64.3% of the population was dispersed
as singles (males or females) and 35.7% in groups of two
individuals. In 10% of these groups, females grazed with
a female while in 20% groups, the female was
accompanied by a male and in the rest (70%) the female
was accompanied by a single fawn. There was no record
of more than one fawn with a female or groups of more
than two individuals.
Present survey revealed that females outnumber
males in the population and these findings are in line with
Hameed et al. (2009). Seidensticker (1976) provided data
on adult sexual composition of wild ungulates in Nepal
and revealed that a higher percentage of females than
males were found in all species except the axis deer.
There is considerable variation in the adult sex ratio of
ungulates, as reported in other areas ( Spillett. 1966;
Schaller, 1967).
On average fawn to female ratio of 0.43 was
recorded during present survey. Hameed et al. (2009)
suggested that such low fawn-to-female ratio may
indicate a low population size in the MHNP. The data on
sex structure suggested a male-to-female ratio of 1:1.45,
not significantly different (χ2= 1.6531, p > 0.05) from a
1:1 sex ratio. However, the available data on the
population structure suggested that there were 0.25 fawns
to a female in the total deer population of MHNP. This
species is slow breeder and single birth is frequent while
twins are very rare (Barrette (1977; Lekagul and
McNeely 1977; Roberts (1977). Higher predation on
fawns may also result in a low fawn-to-female ratio, and
there are indications of a recent increase in the local
population of leopards in MHNP (Hameed et al., 2009).
In contrast, Wilpattu National Park, Sri Lanka had a
much higher fawn to female ratio (76 fawn : 100 females)
(Barrette, 1977).
Conclusion: Barking deer is a shy small-sized mammal,
limited to few areas of its distribution in outer Himalayan
foothill forests of the Punjab. The population density of
barking deer in Murree, Kotli Sattian and Kahuta
National Park was recorded 0.27 individuals / km².
Population density in summer was recorded higher as
compared to winter season due to the addition of new-
borns in May. More individuals were observed in less-
disturbed areas.
Acknowledgements: The project was funded by Pakistan
Agricultural Research Council (PARC) Islamabad
Pakistan, under Agricultural Linkages Programme (ALP).
In particular, special thanks are due to A. Gill, and staff

Habiba et al., The J. Anim. Plant Sci. 30(4):2020
859
of the Punjab Wildlife Department for their assistance in
the field work.
REFERENCES
Anonymous (2007a). Barking deer in Asia, Wildlife Parks
in Asia. Available from URL
www.wikipidia.com
Anonymous (2007b). World Wildlife Directory. Available
from URL www.wikipidia.com
Anwar, M. (1997). Distribution, population status and
conservation of barking deer (Muntiacus muntjac)
in Margalla Hills National Park. 485-495.
Ashraf, M.A. (1967). Reconnaissance soil survey,
Rawalpindi area. General technical report. Soil
survey project of Pakistan, Lahore.
Barrette, C. (1977). Some aspects of behavior of muntjacs
in Wilpatto National Park. Mammalia 41: 1-34.
Buckland, S.T., D.A. Anderson, K.P. Burnhamand and J.L.
Laake (1993). Distance Sampling: Estimating
Abundance of Biological Populations. Chapman
and Hall, London, U.K.
Burnham, K.P. and D.R. Anderson (2002). Model
selection and multimodel inference: a practical
information-theoretic approach. Springer-Verlag,
New York counts related to observer differences
and species detection rates. Auk 120:1168–1179.
Chaplin, R.E. (1977). Deer.Blandford mammal series.
Littlehampton Book Services Ltd, 218:
Dinerstein, E. (1979). An ecological survey of Royal
Karnali-Bardia Wildlife Reserve, Nepal: II –
Habitat and animal interactions. Biol. Cons. 16:
5-38.
Dinerstein, E. (1980). An ecological survey of Royal
Karnali-Bardia Wildlife Reserve, Nepal: III-
Ungulate Population. Biol. Cons. 18: 5-38.
Eisenberg, J.F. and M. Lockhart (1972). An ecological
reconnaissance of Wilpattu National Park,
Ceylon. Washington. Smithsonian Institution
Press.
EPD (Environment Protection Department), Punjab
(2010). Murree Biodiversity Park – Baseline
Report on Flora. IUCN Pakistan, Islamabad,
Pakistan. III pp 28.
GoP (2006). Meteorological data of Rawalpindi from 1931
to 2006. Pakistan Meteorological Department,
Regional Meteorological Center, Islamabad.
Hameed, W., F. Abbas and A. Mian (2009). Population
features of barking deer (Muntiacus muntjac) in
Margalla Hills National Park Pakistan. Pak J
Zool. 41: 137-142.
Jilani, G. (1990). Revised working plan for the scrub forest
of Rawalpindi district, 1989-90 to 2019-2020.
Government of the Punjab, Forest Department,
Pakistan.
Kurt, F. (1981). Muntjac deer. In: (D.Grzimek, D.Badrian,
R. Herre and M. Jones, eds.) Grzimek's
Enclopedia of Mam`mals. New York. McGraw-
Hill Publishing Company. pp 137-159.
Laake, J.L., J.F. Derry and S.T. Buckland (1998). Distance
3.5. Research Unit for Wildlife Population
Assessment, University of St Andrews, U.K.
Lekagul, B. and J.A. McNeely (1977). Mammals of
Thailand. Kurusapa Ladprao Press, Bankok,
Thailand.
MacKenzie, D.I. and L.L. Bailey (2004). Assessing the fit
of site-occupancy models. J Agric Biol Environ
Stat. 9: 300–318.
MacKenzie, D.I., J.D. Nichols, G.B. Lachman, S. Droege,
J.A. Royle, C.A Langtimm (2002). Estimating
site occupancy rates when detection probabilities
are less than one. Ecology. 83: 2248.
MacKenzie, D.I., J.D. Nichols, J.A. Royle, K.H. Pollock,
J.E. Hines and L.L. Bailey (2006). Occupancy
estimation and modeling: inferring patterns and
dynamics of species occurence. San Diego, CA:
Elsevier.
Marques, F.F.C., S.T. Buckland, D. Goffin, C.E. Dixon,
D.L. Borchers, B.A. Mayle and A.J. Peace
(2001). Estimating the density of kudu. African
J. of Eco. 43: 362–368.
Pokharel, K. and M.K. Chalise (2010). Status and
Distribution Pattern of Barking Deer
(Muntiacusmuntjak Zimmermann) in Hemja
VDC, Kaski. Nepal J. of Sci. and Tech. 11:223-
228.
Roberts, T.J. (1977). The mammals of Pakistan. Ernest
Benn Limited, London and Tonbridge. 361, in
press.
Roberts, T.J. (1997). The Mammals of Pakistan. Oxford
University Press, Karachi.425, in press.
Schaller, C. (1967). The deer and the tiger. University of
Chicago Press.
Seidensticker, J. (1976). Ungulate population in Chitwan
valley, Nepal. Biol. Cons. 10: 183 – 210.
Sheikh, K.M. and S. Molur (2005). Status and red list of
Pakistan’s Mammals based on Pakistan’s
conservation assessment and management plan
for mammals. IUCN, Pakistan.
Spillett, J.J. and K.M. Tamang (1966). Wildlife
conservation in Nepal. J. of the Bombay Natural
History Society. 63: 557-572.
Zulfiquar, S., R.A. Minhas, M.S. Awan and U. Ali (2011).
Population and conservation status of barking
deer (Muntiacus muntjac) in PirLasorha National
Park and other areas of district Kotli, Azad
Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan. Pak j Zool. 43:
993-997.