Diversity and Status of Mammalian Species in Highly Disturbed Areas of Khao Kheow - Khao Chomphu Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand

Biodiversity is losing due to human disturbances, resulting in a decreased population and extinction in the areas. This study aimed to compare mammal diversity. A total of 1,735 independence photographs were captured over 5,554 trap nights, identifying 16 species in the Khao Kheow - Khao Chomphu Wildlife Sanctuary between 2022 (1Y) and 2023 (2Y). The interior (Int) had higher species richness than the edge (Edg) in all seasons. The species richness of the large area had increased in 2Y. The diversity index was highest in Int_large in the dry season of 1Y (H’ = 1.842, SD = 0.441), and the lowest in Edg_small in the wet season of 2Y. The evenness index was highest in Edg_small in the dry season of 1Y (E = 0.971, SD = 0.506), and the lowest in Edg_small in the wet season of 2Y. The mammalian species in the disturbed area by human activities (Dis_human) and Interior of both large and small areas were higher than the edge of both large and small areas (p 0.05), except that Int_large was significantly different in 1Y of the small area when compared to 2Y, and Edg_samll of both years (p < 0.05). The vulnerable (VU) mainland serow was decreased in Int_large, while Edg_large was stable. In Dis_human, the critically endangered (CR) banteng and Sunda pangolin experienced a decrease. Only the mainland serow was increased in Int and Edg of the small area. The high risk was found in small and Dis_human. The Dis_humans were found near water sources, which are crucial factors for mammal habitat utilization. Small undisturbed areas within Int_large and the conservation zones provide suitable habitat for mammals. Diversity and Status of Mammalian Species in Highly Disturbed Areas of Khao Kheow - Khao Chomphu Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand Rattanawat Chaiyarat 1, Namphung Youngpoy 1, Chaiyanan Navavongsathean 1, Bungun Henghao 1, Pitchapa Sriwongsa 1, Songkrod Poothong 2, Pithak Yingyong 3 1 Wildlife and Plant Research Center, Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, Mahidol University, Salaya, Phutthamonthon, Thailand, 2 Khao Kheow - Khao Chomphu Wildlife Sanctuary, Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, Chonburi, 20110, Thailand, 3 Protected Area Regional Office 2 (Sriracha), Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, Kanchanaburi, 20100, Thailand. Correspondence: Rattanawat Chaiyarat ([email protected])

Biodiversity is losing due to human disturbances, resulting in a decreased population and extinction in the areas. This study aimed to compare mammal diversity. A total of 1,735 independence photographs were captured over 5,554 trap nights, identifying 16 species in the Khao Kheow - Khao Chomphu Wildlife Sanctuary between 2022 (1Y) and 2023 (2Y). The interior (Int) had higher species richness than the edge (Edg) in all seasons. The species richness of the large area had increased in 2Y. The diversity index was highest in Int_large in the dry season of 1Y (H’ = 1.842, SD = 0.441) , and the lowest in Edg_small in the wet season of 2Y. The evenness index was highest in Edg_small in the dry season of 1Y (E = 0.971, SD = 0.506) , and the lowest in Edg_small in the wet season of 2Y. The mammalian species in the disturbed area by human activities (Dis_human) and Interior of both large and small areas were higher than the edge of both large and small areas (p 0.05), except that Int_large was significantly different in 1Y of the small area when compared to 2Y, and Edg_samll of both years (p < 0.05). The vulnerable (VU) mainland serow was decreased in Int_large, while Edg_large was stable. In Dis_human, the critically endangered (CR) banteng and Sunda pangolin experienced a decrease. Only the mainland serow was increased in Int and Edg of the small area. The high risk was found in small and Dis_human. The Dis_humans were found near water sources, which are crucial factors for mammal habitat utilization. Small undisturbed areas within Int_large and the conservation zones provide suitable habitat for mammals.

Biodiversity, mammals, habitat Loss, fragmentation 1 Introduction The primary threats to mammalian species are habitat loss and poaching, particularly for large carnivores which face extinction due to prey depletion. However, debate over the relative importance of each threat, which presents a continuing dilemma in prioritizing conservation actions for large carnivores (Chapron et al. 2008). Many researchers have reported that carnivore density is dependent on the availability of prey biomass (Fuller and Sievert 2001; Hayward et al. 2007; Karanth et al. 2004; Simcharoen et al. 2014; Upadhyaya et al. 2020). The interaction between predators and preys can be further explained by the composition of prey species in the diet of predators to explain the role and impact of predation on prey species (Odden and Wegge 2009). Some researchers suggested that increased prey density helped in increasing the population of large predators such as Amur tigers ( Panthera tigris altaica ; Jiang et al. 2017). Thus, increasing mammalian species diversity may increase the density of predators in the areas (Kapfer et al. 2011). Biodiversity is crucial for survival under the changing environmental conditions of the world (Convention on Biological Diversity 1992). It serves as a fundamental basis for ecosystems that provide ecological services, generating numerous resources and benefits for all life (Dobson et al. 2006). However, currently, the world is losing biodiversity due to increasing population and urban development, leading to the encroachment of forest areas for agriculture (Wilting et al. 2017). This results in habitat loss and fragmentation for wildlife, creating isolated habitats that are distant from the main landmass (Island Biogeography; MacArthur and Wilson 1967), rendering them unsuitable for wildlife habitation. Consequently, many species of wildlife in various areas are rapidly declining, with some eventually becoming extinct in their habitats, such as banteng ( Bos javanicus ; Chaiyarat et al. 2019). Mammals are a group of living organisms that are particularly affected by habitat loss due to their high demand for food, water, shelter, and environmental factors compared to other life forms (Baisero et al. 2020). Although mammals have a diverse diet and can adapt well to their environment, habitat loss and loss of cover can lead to the extinction of some mammalian species (Morcatty et al. 2013). Mammals have a high level of evolutionary development, having relationships with other living organisms and serving as significant prey in ecosystems (Ricklefs 1990). In Thailand, numerous mammal species are facing significant threats due to human activities. According to the assessment of the status of mammal species found in Thailand as of September 2020, there were 345 species assessed. Of these, 4 species were classified as Critically Endangered (CR), 19 species as Endangered (EN), 39 species as Vulnerable (VU), and 64 species as Near Threatened (NT). Additionally, 34 species have been classified as having a near threatened status due to the impact of human activities (Office of Environmental Policy and Planning; ONEP 2020). The Island Biogeography Theory, proposed by MacArthur and Wilson (1967), posits that the number or diversity of species is related to the rates of immigration and extinction. There are two main factors involved: 1) the distance between an island and the mainland: If the distance between an island and the mainland is shorter, there will be more immigration compared to when the distance between an island and the mainland is greater, and 2) the size of the island: If an island is small, the extinction rate will be higher than on a larger island. The Island Biogeography Theory is used to study changes or reductions in the number of species in areas that are fragmented from larger forested areas. Habitat fragmentation is a condition of altering the size or natural habitat areas, resulting in the division of contiguous forest patches into smaller, fragmented patches dispersed non-continuously. This leads to inappropriate changes in landscape characteristics for the habitat and migration of wildlife. Habitat fragmentation arises from various factors, such as natural disasters, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes (Bennett 2003). However, human activities are another major cause of habitat fragmentation in natural wildlife habitats. This phenomenon leads to rapid loss of forested areas, and fragmented forests undergo changes according to human land use demands. The reduction in size of fragmented forests leads to a significant increase in the extinction rate of wildlife. After habitat fragmentation, organisms that cannot move freely between fragmented areas are prone to inbreeding problems, resulting in weakened and less diverse populations, ultimately leading to reduced numbers (Saunders et al. 1991). The Khao Kheow - Khao Chomphu Wildlife Sanctuary (KKKC), Chonburi Province of Thailand, is one of the conservation areas continuously impacted by surrounding communities, mainly through forest product collection, illegal hunting, or encroachment for agricultural purposes (Royal Forest Department 2002). The area’s terrain being surrounded by communities has resulted in an island-like characteristic, contributing to the decline in biodiversity and the status of wildlife within the sanctuary, particularly mammals (Russell and Kueffer 2019). Furthermore, the terrain, which poses limitations and requires significant budget and time for surveys, cannot be comprehensively covered. Therefore, the installation of camera traps for wildlife surveys helps reduce human effort and budget while being an effective monitoring method (Russell and Kueffer 2019). The camera traps were installed over two years between the dry and wet seasons to assess changes in mammalian diversity and status in response to varying levels of human disturbance. The hypothesis is that the different human activities at the core and the edge of the large and small areas can cause different impacts on mammalian communities. This research aimed to provide sustainable management and conservation strategies for mammalian diversity in the area. 2 Meterials and Methods 2.1 Study areas The KKKC is located in Sriracha and Ban Bung District (Latitude 13 ∘ to 14 ∘ N and longitude 101 ∘ to 102 ∘ E, ~ 144.7 km 2 ; Figure 1). The sanctuary is divided into two parts: 1) the higher mountain is Khao Kheow, while the lower mountain is Khao Chomphu. The highest elevation is 798 m average sea level (asl). The predominant cover is deciduous forests. The general climate is tropical, and the dominant soil type is sandy loam. Additionally, the sanctuary provides habitats for various mammalian species, including sambar deer, wild boar ( Sus scrofa ), and small Indian civet ( Viverricula indica ), as well as numerous bird and amphibian species (Royal Forest Department 2002). 2.2 Camera traps and installation Based on the characteristics of KKKC, which is distinctively fragmented and surrounded by human activities. Camera trap locations were determined in the areas most heavily encroached by human activities between two mountains of KKKC (Royal Forest Department 2002). The disturbed areas were divided into 5 locations: 1) Interior of large areas (Int_large), 2) Interior of small areas (Int_small), 3) edge of large areas (Edg_large), 4) edge of small areas (Edg_small), and 5) areas disturbed by human activities (Dist_human). Two camera traps were installed in the wildlife trails in each area. The camera traps were operated both during the day and at night, making them effective for observing elusive animals (O’Connell et al. 2011; Burton et al. 2015; Wearn and Glover-Kapfer 2019). The camera traps specialize in capturing detailed images of small wildlife (O’Connell et al. 2011). These camera traps were also designated to monitor the population of the accidentally introduced Banteng in KKKC (Chaiyarat et al. 2018). 2.3 Data collection Mammalians’ photographs from 10 camera traps were downloaded monthly from March 2022 to February 2024. The mammalian photographs were categorized by species, and the number of events was counted at 30-minute intervals (O’Connell et al. 2011). The rarefaction, species diversity index, species richness index, evenness index, status at both international and national levels, cluster, and ordination were analyzed. 2.4 Statistical Analysis The diversity of mammalian communities between 1Y and 2Y between the dry and wet seasons was analyzed by using ArcMap 10.7.1 (ESRI 2023) and R Studio: CCA package (Peres-Neto et al. 2006). The Shannon-Wiener diversity index (Shannon and Weaver 1948; Omori and Ikeda 1984; Ludwig and Reynolds 1986; Clarke and Warwick 1994) was calculated as: H \(’\) = -∑ p i ln( p i ), where: H \(’\) is Shannon-Wiener diversity index, p i is the proportion of the number of mammalian photographs species i th to the total number of mammalian photographs, and ln is natural logarithm or logarithm of the natural base. The species richness index indicates the number of mammalian species present in the area. In this study, the Margalef index (Clarke and Warwick 1994; Ludwig and Reynolds 1986) was utilized as: R = ( S -1)/ln(N), where R is richness index, S is the total number of mammalian species, and N is the total number of times mammals utilized the area. The evenness index indicates the distribution of species in an area by using Hill (1973) as: E = H ’/(ln[ S ]), where E = Evenness index. The relative abundance index is evaluated based on the rate of photography as an index related to the density of the mammalian population (Mohd and Sharma 2006) as RAI = n i x 100/Number of trap nights, where RAI is the relative abundance index. The relative Frequency index is used to evaluate the distribution of mammalian species in the area (Kawanishi et al. 1999) as RFI = N x 100/ T, where RFI = Relative Frequency index, and T is the total number of camera trap locations. A canonical correlation analysis (CCA) was used to test the relationship between mammalian species and environmental factors included elevation (Elev), number of human activity photographs in the wet season (Hum_W), number of human activity photographs in the dry season (Hum_D), distance to the road (Road), distance to village (Village), distance to stream (Stream), distance to forest area (Forest), distance to water body (Waterbody), number of domestic dog photographs in the wet season (Dog_W), number of domestic dog photographs in the dry season (Dog_D), distance to wildlife sanctuary guard station (Station), Area size (Area), and Landuse types (Landuse)such as by using R program (Posit Team 2023; R Core Team 2023). 2.5 Ethics approval The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Mahidol University—Institute Animal Care and Use Committee (MU—IACUC No. F02‐65‐006, 1 March 2022), following the ARRIVE guideline. The Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (MNRE 0907.4/13065, 30 June 2022) granted permission for the field work. 3 Results 3.1 Number of Mammalian Species A total of 103,145 photographs in 5,554 trap nights were recorded, these included 1,735 independent captures of the total 7,104 mammalian photographs. A total of 16 mammal species were identified (Appendix Tables 1 and 2). 3.2 Rarefraction In both the dry and wet seasons of 2022, the mammalian species was highest in Int_small, followed by Int_large and Dist_human, respectively. Edg_small had the lowest number in both the dry and wet seasons (Figure 2[a and c]). In both seasons of 2023, the highest number of mammalian species were found in Dist_human, followed by Int_small in the dry season, and Int_large in the wet season. The lowest was found in the edge in both seasons (Figure 2[c and d]). 3.3 Richness of mammalian species Overall, the interior of the fragmented areas had higher species richness than the edge of the fragmented areas in all seasons (Table 3 and Figure 3). The highest species richness was found in the disturbed area by human activities (Dis_human) in the wet season of 1Y (r = 1.616, sd = 0.439) . Both the interior and the edge of the large fragmented area showed potential for an increase in species richness in 2Y, whereas both the interior and the edge of the small fragmented areas showed a decrease . In Dist_human, the species richness was reduced in 2Y. 3.4 Diversity of mammalian species The diversity index was higher in the interior of both large and small fragmented areas, and also in Dist_human than the edge of both large and small fragmented areas (Table 3 and Figure 4). The diversity index was highest in Int_large in the dry season of 1Y (H’ = 1.842, SD = 0.441) , and the lowest was found in Edg_small in the wet season of 2Y. 3.5 Evenness of mammalian species The evenness index was higher in the interior of large fragmented areas (Table 3 and Figure 5). The evenness index was highest in Edg_small in the dry season of 1Y (E = 0.971, SD = 0.506) , and the lowest was also found in Edg_small in the wet season of 2Y. In KKKC, the mammalian species were higher in Dis_human and the interior of both large and small area than the edge of both large and small area (p 0.05). The only area where Int_large was significantly different from 2Y was the small area in 1Y, and Edg_samll was significantly different from both years (p < 0.05) . 3.6 Similarity of mammalian species in fragmented areas In the fragmentation area of KKKC could divided into 3 clusters: Cluster 1 included the disturbed by human activities in the dry season of 2023 (DH2YD), Interior of the small area in the dry season (IS1YD) and the wet season (IS1YW) of 2022, Cluster 2 included the edge of the small area in the dry and the wet season of 2022 (ES1YD and ES1YW) and 2023 (ES2YD and ES2YW), interior of the large area in the dry and the wet season of 2022 (IL1YD and IL1YW), and the wet season of 2023 (IL2YW), disturbed by human activities in the dry season of 2022 (DH1YD), Edge of the large area in the wet season of 2023 (EL2YW), and interior of the small area in the wet season of 2023 (IS2YW), and Cluster 3 included disturbed by human activities in the wet season of 2022 and 2023 (DH1YW and DH2YW), interior of the large (IL2YD) and the small (IS2YD) area in the dry season of 2023, (IS2YW), and edge of the large area in the dry and the wet season of 2022 (EL1YD and EL1YW), and the dry season of 2023 (EL2YD), respectively (Figure 7). 3.7 Correlation among mammalian species, fragmented areas, and environmental factor The banteng (BA), golden jackal (GJ), serow (SR), sambar deer (SD), and variable squirrel (VS) had potential to occur near villages (Village), road (Road), and high activities of local communities (LOC) and domestic buffalo (BU). These mammalian species preferred the interior of the large areas (IL) rather than the edge of both large (EL) and small (ES) areas. Meanwhile, SDP = Sunda pangolin, LMD = lesser Oriental chevrotain, SIC = small Indian civet, and LC = mainland leopard cat preferred the interior of small areas (IS) that had water sources (Stream and Waterbody). These mammalian species potentially avoided areas that had a high occurrence of domestic dogs (DO) (Figure 8). 3.8 Changed in Status of Mammalian Species The mammalian species in the interior of the large area was decreased to only vulnerable (VU) mainland serow, while the edge of the large area was not changed. The critically endangered (CR) banteng and Sunda pangolin were decreased in disturbed by human activities. Only VU mainland serow was increased in the interior and edge of the small area (Table 1). 4 Discussion 4.1 Number of Mammalian species From the total 22 mammalian species listed in the management plan for the KKKC in 2003 – 2007 (Royal Forest Department 2002), 16 species were found in this study. It was indicated that the fragmented area still important to mammalian species in the area (Table 2). They were only small-sized mammals that were not expected to be found in the camera trap surveys. Most of them found in the interior were saved for mammalian species from human activities and other environmental changes (Quintero et al. 2023). In Dist_human in 1Y as this area served as a transition zone between large and small areas. This area also was close to water sources, leading to wildlife movement seeking various factors for survival from the anthropogenic disturbance (Etana et al. 2024; Li et al. 2024). The mammalian species will be reduced when anthropogenic disturbances increase ( Gorczynski et al. 2021). As the results showed, the mammalian species in Int_large were higher than in Edg_large), Int_small, and Edg_small, as the anthropogenic disturbance increased, respectively (Wan et al. 2019). In 2Y, Int_small had the highest likelihood of encountering the most species when compared to other habitats. This finding again supported the island biogeography theory that the larger areas can support more mammalian species than the smaller areas (McArthur and Wilson 1967). The larger area of KKKC had highly anthropogenic disturbances than the smaller area. In this case, anthropogenic disturbances were the main influenced factors that reduced the mammalian species in the area ( Munguía et al. 2016; Stevens et al. 2019; Wan et al. 2019; Ghimirey 2024; Li et al. 2024). The mammalian species in 2Y were lower than 1Y as anthropogenic disturbances were increased through time (Stevens et al. 2019). This is attributed to increased human disturbances at the forest edges. This resulted in fragmented and smaller forest areas (Pfeifer et al. 2018). 4.2 Diversity of mammal species The highest diversity index was found in the interior of the large area, followed by the interior of the small area and the disturbed area of the conservation zone. The edge of the large-sized area had the lowest mammalian diversity due to the availability of resources for most mammalian species (Giambelluca et al. 1999) and the presence of minimum human activities particularly forest fires (Kennard et al. 2002). This finding supported the island biogeography theory of MacArthur and Wilson (1967) and human disturbance of Gorczynski et al. (2021). The smaller area and highly disturbed by human activities will have a higher potential of disturbance on mammalian diversity (Etana et al. 2024; Li et al. 2024). Furthermore, in the wet season, the evenness was higher in the interior of the large area and lowest on the edge of the small area. These also supported the importance of the interior of the large areas (Szangolies et al. 2022). The characteristics of the forest patch’s interior (Schmid-Holmes and Drickamer 2001) are important for mammalian to utilize in a mixed land-use mosaic (Smith et al. 2020). Additionally, with the abundant biodiversity observed, there was a decrease from the previous year due to increased human activities, leading to habitat fragmentation, resulting in habitat loss and diminished survivability rates for the wildlife population (Singh et al. 2021). This may be a short-term response, especially by small mammal diversity to varying stand-scale patterns of forest patches (Sultaire et al. 2022). The number of mammalian photographs in Int_small has decreased. This indicated that the small habitat patches had high migration and extinction rates (MacArthur and Wilson 1967). When disturbed by increased human activities at the forest edge, some mammalian species migrated to seek new feeding grounds ( Seabloom et al. 2002 ). The local extinctions and colonization may depend on both population size and patch quality (Franzén and Nilsson 2009). The decrease in both the number of photographs and the number of mammalian species encountered in 1Y is coupled with an increase in variability. Within the large-sized habitat, Both the wet and dry seasons revealed the presence of mammals such as banteng, mainland serow, and sambar in this area. However, their numbers decreased in 2Y. This indicates that roads are a factor affecting the number of mammal species in the interior areas of large-sized habitats, as roadways are crucial factors allowing humans easy access to forested areas (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Mammalian species such as lesser oriental chevrotain, Sunda pangolin, and banteng were found near human activities, especially at the edge of the small-sized habitat. These human activities affect both the edge and interior areas of small-sized habitats, as these areas are adjacent to expanding human settlements, leading to the fragmentation of forest areas and their size reduction. This results in forested areas being surrounded by human settlements, becoming islands and decreasing in size, thereby making it difficult for mammals in these areas to move and leading to their eventual extinction from the area. This evidence demonstrates that human activities, such as agriculture, hunting, and logging, have significant impacts on biodiversity as well as environmental degradation (Wuver and Attuquayefio 2006). The study revealed that every area experienced a decrease in both the number of mammalian photographs and the mammalian species encountered from the first year, coupled with an increase in variability. This evidence indicates that wildlife does not follow seasonal patterns for foraging. The fragmented nature of the areas, characterized as islands disconnected from the mainland and showing a trend of complete separation within themselves, significantly impacts wildlife survival (McArthur and Wilson 1967; Fahrig 2002; Burkey and Reed 2006 ). Populations residing in small, isolated areas without contiguous connections to the mainland are prone to extinction from those areas. This observation underscores that even though various environmental factors respond to the needs of mammalian species, if forest areas are insufficient or habitats are lost, mammalian species cannot sustain or evolve in the future (Hanski 2011). 5 Conclusions The mammalian species had a high risk of becoming small and fragmented due to human disturbances. The small areas within conservation zones disturbed by humans were found near water sources, which are crucial factors for mammal habitat utilization. On the other hand, small undisturbed areas within the interior of the large area and the conservation zones provide suitable habitat for mammal species. Mammals can benefit greatly from these factors. Even within conservation zones, mammal species reduce their utilization of habitat This evidence demonstrates that human activities have a significant impact on mammal species diversity in conservation areas. Areas within conservation zones are more diverse than peripheral areas, indicating the influence of human activities on mammal species diversity in conservation areas. The status of mammalian species in Int_large, the interior region of the large area had a high potential for supporting mammalian species in the area. The loss of mammalian species, especially in areas Dist_human and Int_small, indicates a decline in CR and EN species, likely due to human disturbance and expansion of land use. There should be measures in place to prevent unauthorized access and utilization of forest areas within the conservation zone to prevent fragmentation of the area. Wildlife corridors should be established to facilitate the mammals mobility after fragmentation has occurred in order to lessen the loss of biodiversity. As biodiversity trends toward decline, there should be a reassessment of management strategies to maximize forest preservation. The process may involve redesigning land-use patterns around the conservation zone to allow for sustainable human activities alongside conservation efforts, such as ecotourism. Author Contributions Rattanawat Chaiyarat: conceptualization (lead), data curation (lead), formal analysis (lead), funding acquisition (lead), investigation (lead), methodology (lead), project administration (lead), resources (lead), software (lead), supervision (lead), validation (lead), visualization (lead), writing – original draft (supporting), writing – review and editing (lead). Namphung Youngpoy: formal analysis (equal), funding acquisition (equal), software (equal), visualization (equal). Chaiyanan Navavongsathean: data curation (supporting), investigation (supporting), software (supporting), writing – original draft (supporting). Bungun Henghao: data curation (supporting), formal analysis (supporting), software (supporting), writing – original draft (supporting). Pitchapa Sriwongsa: formal analysis (supporting), investigation (supporting), software (supporting), writing – original draft (supporting). Songkrod Poothong: conceptualization (supporting), resources (supporting). Pithak Yingyong: conceptualization (supporting), validation (supporting). Acknowledgments The authors express gratitude to the Salakphra Wildlife Sanctuary and Khao Nampu Nature and Wildlife Education Center, Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation staff for their participation. This research project has been funded by Mahidol University (Fundamental Fund: fiscal year 2024 by National Science Research and Innovation Fund [NSRF]). Conflicts of interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Data availability The original data are contained within the article and appendix.

Baisero, D., P. Visconti, M. Pacifici, et al. 2020. “Projected global loss of mammal habitat due to land-use and climate change.” One Earth 2: 578–585. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Bennett, A. F. 2003. “Linkages in the Landscape: The Role of Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xiv+254 pp.” Burkey, T. V., and D. H. Reed. 2006. “The effects of habitat fragmentation on extinction risk: Mechanisms and synthesis.” Songklanakarin Journal of Science and Technology 28, no. 1: 9-37. Burton, A. C., E. Neilson, D. Moreira, et al. 2015. “Review: Wildlife camera trapping: a review and recommendations for linking surveys to ecological processes.” Journal of Applied Ecology 52, no. 3: 675-685. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12432. Chaiyarat, R., N. Youngpoy, P. Kongsurakan, et al. 2019. “Habitat preferences of reintroduced banteng ( Bos javanicus ) into the Salakphra Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand .” Wildlife Research 46, no. 7: 573-586. Chaiyarat, R., S. Saengpong, W. Tunwattana, et al. 2018. “Habitat and food utilization by banteng ( Bos javanicus d’Alton, 1823) accidentally introduced into the Khao Khieo-Khao Chomphu Wildlife Sanctuary .” Thailand Mammalia 82, no. 1: 23-34. Chapron, G., D. G. Miquelle, A. Lambert, et al. 2008. “The impact on tigers of poaching versus prey depletion.” Journal of Applied Ecology 45, no. 6: 1667-1674. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01538.x. Clarke, K. R., and R. M. Warwick. 1994. “Changes in Marine Communities: An Approach to Statistical Analyses and Interpretation. Natural Environment Research Council, Plymouth.” United Nations Environment Programme. 1992. “Convention on Biological Diversity: June 1992. United Nations Environment Programme.” Dobson, A., D. Lodge, J. Alder, et al. 2006. “Habitat loss, trophic collapse, and the decline of ecosystem services.” Ecology 87, no. 8: 1915-1924. https://doi.org.10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87. Dorna, N. J., Herring, G., and Gawlik, D. E. 2008. Estimation of crayfish abundance and size-structure in diets of White Ibis chicks. Waterbirds 31, 417-423. ESRI. 2022. ”ESRI ArcGIS Enterpise 10.8.1. ESRI, New York.” Etana, B., A. Atickem, P. J. Fashing, et al. 2024. “Mammalian community responses in relation to anthropogenic disturbances and resource gradients in the shade coffee forest ecosystem of Southwestern Ethiopia.” Global Ecology and Conservation 53: e02991. Fahrig, L. 2002. “Effect of habitat fragmentation on the extinction threshold: A synthesis.” Ecological Applications 12, no. 2: 346-353. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012\%5b0346:EOHFOT\%5d2.0.CO;2. Franzén, M., and S. G. Nilsson. 2009. “Both population size and patch quality affect local extinctions and colonizations.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 277: 79–85. https://doi.org.10.1098/rspb.2009.1584. Fuller, T. K., and P. R. Sievert. 2001. “Carnivore Demography and the Consequences of Changes in Prey Availability. In: Gittleman, J.L., et al. (eds.), Carnivore Conservation, Cambridge University Press.” Ghimirey, Y., R. Acharya, and J. Mintz. 2024. “Factors Affecting Mammalian Occupancy and Species Richness in Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal.” Ecology and Evolution 14, no. 11: e70572. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.70572. Giambelluca, T. W., J. Fox, S. Yarnasarn, et al. 1999. “Dry-season radiation balance of land covers replacing forest in northern Thailand.” Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 95, no. 1: 53-65. Gorczynski, D., C. Hsieh, J. T. Luciano, et al. 2021. “Tropical mammal functional diversity increases with productivity but decreases with anthropogenic disturbance.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 288: 20202098. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.2098 Hanski, I. 2011. “Habitat loss, the dynamics of biodiversity, and a perspective on conservation.” Ambio 40, no. 3: 248-255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0147-3. Hayward, M. W., J. Adendorff, J. O’Brien, et al. 2007. “The reintroduction of large carnivores to the Eastern Cape, South Africa: An assessment.” Oryx 41: 205-214. Hill, M. O. 1997. “An evenness statistics based on the abundance-weighted variance of species proportions.” Oikas 79: 413-416. Jiang, G., G. Wang, M. Holyoak, et al. 2017. “Land sharing and land sparing reveal social and ecological synergy in big cat conservation.” Biological Conservation 211: 142–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.05.018. Kapfer, P. M., H. M. Streby, B. Gurung, et al. 2011. “Fine-scale spatio-temporal variation in tiger Panthera tigris diet: Effect of study duration and extent on estimates of tiger diet in Chitwan National Park, Nepal Wildlife Biology 17: 277-285. https://doi.org/10.2981/10-127. Karanth, K. U., R. S. Chundawat, J. D. Nichols, et al. 2004. “Estimation of tiger densities in the tropical dry forests of Panna, Central India, using photographic capture–recapture sampling.” Animal Conservation 7: 285–290. Kawanishi, K., A. M. Sahak, and M. Sunquist. 1999. “Pleliminary analysis on abundance of large mammals at Sungai Relau, Taman Negara.” Journal of Wildlife and Parks (Malaysia) 17: 62-82. Kennard, D. K., K. Gould, F. E. Putz, et al. 2002. “Effect of disturbance intensity on regeneration mechanisms in a tropical dry forest.” Forest Ecology and Management 162, no. 2–3: 197-208. Li, X., W. V. Bleisch, W. Hu, et al. 2024. “Human disturbance increases spatiotemporal associations among mountain forest terrestrial mammal species.” eLife 12: RP92457. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.92457.3. Ludwig, A. J., and J. F. Reynolds. 1986. “Statistical Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.” MacArthur, R. H., and E. O. Wilson. 1967. “The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University, New Jersy.” MacArthur, R. H., and E. O. Wilson. 1967. “The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton.” Mohd, A. J., and D. S. K. Sharma. 2006. “The diversity and activity patterns of wild felids in a secondary forest in Peninsular Malaysia.” Oryx 40, no. 1: 36-41. Morcatty, T. Q., H. R. el Bizri, H. C. S. Carneiro. 2013. ”Habitat loss and mammalian extinction patterns: are the reserves in the Quadrilátero Ferrífero, southeastern Brazil, effective in conserving mammals?” Ecological Research 28: 935–947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-013-1076-3. ORIGINAL ARTICLE Thaı ´s Queiroz Morcatty •Hani Rocha El Bizri •Hellem Cristina Silva Carneiro • Rodrigo Ludolf Biasizzo •Ca ˆndida Radicchi de Oliveira Alme ´ri •Ericson Sousa da Silva • Fla ´vio Henrique Guimara ˜es Rodrigues •Jose ´Euge ˆnio Co ˆrtes Figueira Munguía, M., I. Trejo, C., González-Salazar, et al. 2016. “Human impact gradient on mammalian biodiversity.” Global Ecology and Conservation 6: 79-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2016.01.004. Peres-Neto, P.R., P. Legendre, S. Dray, et al. 2006. ”Variation partitioning of species data matrices: Estimation and comparison of fractions.” Ecology 87: 2614-2625. Dave O’Connell, DBA 1 , Karl Hickerson, PhD 1 , and Arun Pillutla Dave O’Connell, DBA 1 , Karl Hickerson, PhD 1 , and Arun Pillutla Dave O’Connell, DBA 1 , Karl Hickerson, PhD 1 , and Arun Pillutla O’Connell, A. F., J. D. Nichols, and K. U. Karanth. 2011. “Camera Traps in Animal Ecology: Methods and Analyses. Springer Tokyo.” Odden, M., and P. Wegge. 2009. “Kill rates and food consumption of leopards in Bardia National Park, Nepal.” Acta Therioly 54: 23–30. Pfeifer, M., V. Lefebvre, C. A. Peres, et al. 2017. Creation of forest edges has a global impact on forest vertebrates.” Nature . 551, no. 7679:187–191. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24457. Posit Team. 2023. “RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. http://www.rstudio.com/.” Quintero, S., M. I. Abrahams, C. Beirne, et al. 2023. “Effects of human-induced habitat changes on site-use patterns in large Amazonian Forest mammals.” Biological Conservation 279: 109904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.109904. R Core Team. 2023. “R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [Computer software]. https://www.R-project.org/.” Reinhardt, K., S. Hahn, H.-U. Peter, et al. 2000. “A review of the diets of Southern Hemisphere skuas.” Marine Ornithology 28: 7-19. Ricklefs, R.E. 1990. ”Ecology. W.H. Freeman and Co., New York.” Royal Forest Department. 2002. “Management plan for Khao Khieo-Khao Chompu Wildlife Sanctuary, Chonburi Province (2003–2007). The Royal Forest Department, Bangkok. (in Thai)” Russell, J. C., and Kueffer, C. 2019. ”Island Biodiversity in the Anthropocene.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 44: 31–60. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-101718- 033245. Saunders, D., R. Hobbs, and C. Margules. 1991. “Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: A review.” Conservation Biology 5: 18-32. Schmid-Holmes, S., and L. C. Drickamer. 2001. “Impact of forest patch characteristics on small mammal communities: A multivariate approach.” Biological Conservation 99, no. 3: 293-305. Seabloom, E. W., A. P. Dobson, and D. M. Stoms. 2002. “Extinction rates under nonrandom patterns of habitat loss.” PNAS 99, no. 17: 11229-11234. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.162064899. Shannon, C. E., and W. Weaver. 1948. “The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University Illinois Press, Illinois.” Simcharoen A., T. Savini, G. A. Gale, et al. 2014. “Female tiger Panthera tigris home range size and prey abundance: Important metrics for management.” Oryx 48: 370–377. Vijeta, S., S. Shukla, and A. Singh. 2021. “The principal factors responsible for biodiversity.” loss.” Open Journal of Plant Science 6, no. 1: 011-014. https://dx.doi.org/10.17352/jps.000026. Smith, Y. C. E., D. A. E. Smith, T. Ramesh, et al. 2020. “Landscape-scale drivers of mammalian species richness and functional diversity in forest patches within a mixed land-use mosaic.” Ecological Indicators 113: 106176. Stevens, R. D., R. J. Rowe, and C. Badgley. 2019. “Gradients of mammalian biodiversity through space and time.” Journal of Mammalogy 100, no. 3: 1069–1086. https://doi.10.1093/jmammal/gyz024. Sultaire, S. M., A. J. Kroll, J. Verschuyl et al. 2022. “Short-term responses of small mammal diversity to varying stand-scale patterns of retention tree patches.” PLOS ONE 17, no. 8: e0273630. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273630. Syrbe, R.-U., and J. Chang. 2018. “Options and Challenges for Implementing Green Spaces in Urban Development. In: Grunewald, K., J. Li, G. Xie, et al. (eds.). Towards Green Cities, 1st ed. Springer International Publishing, pp. 105-173.” Trombulak, S. C., and C. A. Frissell, 2000. “Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities.” Conservation Biology 14: 18-30. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99084.x Upadhyaya, S. K., C. J. M. Musters, B. R. Lamichhane, et al. 2020. “An insight into the diet and prey preference of tigers in Bardia National Park, Nepal.” Tropical Conservation Science 11: 1940082918799476. Wan, X., G. Jiang, C. Yan, et al. 2019. “Historical records reveal the distinctive associations of human disturbance and extreme climate change with local extinction of mammals.” PNAS 116, 38: 19001–19008. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1818019116. Wearn OR, Glover-Kapfer P. 2017 Camera- trapping for conservation: a guide to best- practices. WWF Conservation Technology Series 1(1). Woking, UK: WWF-UK, 180 p. Wearn, O., and P. Glover-Kapfer. 2017. “Camera-trapping for conservation: A guide to be best-practices. WWF-UK, Woking. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23409.17767” Wilting, H. C., A. M. Schipper, M. Bakkenes. 2017. ”Quantifying Biodiversity Losses Due to Human Consumption: A Global-Scale Footprint Analysis.” Environmental Science & Technology 51,no. 6: 3298-3306. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b05296. Wuver, A. M., and D. K. Attuquayefio. 2006. ” The impact of human activities on biodiversity conservation in a coastal wetland in Ghana. West African Journal of Applied Ecology 9: 115-129. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/wajae/article/view/45690. Figure Lists FUGURE 1 Location of camera trap in Khao Kheow - Khao Chomphu Wildlife Sanctuary. (a) (b) (c) (d) FIGURE 2 Rarefraction curve of mammalian species and sample sizes in the dry season (a), the wet season 2022 (b), the dry season (c), and the wet season 2023 (d) in Khao Kheow - Khao Chomphu Wildlife Sanctuary, 1 = Interior of the large area, 2 = Edge of the large area, 3 = Disturbed area by human activities, 4 = Interior of the small area, and 5 = Edge of the small area. FIGURE 3 Species richness of mammalians in the dry and wet seasons between 2022 and 2023 in Khao Kheow - Khao Chomphu Wildlife Sanctuary, Habitat1 = Interior of the large area, Habitat2 = Edge of the large area, Habitat3 = Disturbed area by human. FIGURE 4 Diversity index of Shannon-Wiener index of mammalians in the dry and wet seasons between 2022 and 2023 in Khao Kheow - Khao Chomphu Wildlife Sanctuary. Note: Habitat1 = Interior of the large area, Habitat2 = Edge of the large area, Habitat3 = Disturbed area by human activities, Habitat4 = Interior of the small area, and Habitat5 = Edge of the small area. FIGURE 5 Shannon evenness of mammalians in the dry and the wet seasons between 2022 (Year 1) and 2023 (Year2) in Khao Kheow - Khao Chomphu Wildlife Sanctuary, Habitat1 = Interior of the large area, Habitat2 = Edge of the large area, Habitat3 = Disturbed area by human activities, Habitat4 = Interior of the small area, and Habitat5 = Edge of the small area. FIGURE 6 Shannon evenness of mammalians in the dry and wet seasons between 2022 and 2023 in Khao Kheow - Khao Chomphu Wildlife Sanctuary, Habitat1 = Interior of the large area, Habitat2 = Edge of the large area, Habitat3 = Disturbed area by human activities, Habitat4 = Interior of the small area, Habitat5 = Edge of the small area, Year1 = 2022, and Year2 = 2023. FIGURE 7 Similarity of mammalian species by using cluster method in the dry and wet seasons between 2022 and 2023 in Khao Kheow - Khao Chomphu Wildlife Sanctuary, IL1YD = Interior of the large area in the dry season of 2022, IL1YW= Interior of the large area in the wet season of 2022, IL2YD = Interior of the large area in the dry season of 2023, IL2YW = Interior of the large area in the wet season of 2023, EL1YD = Edge of the large area in the dry season of 2022, EL1YW = Edge of the large area in the wet season of 2022, EL2YD = Edge of the large area in the dry season of 2023, EL2YW = Edge of the large area in the wet season of 2023, DH1YD = Disturbed by human activities in the dry season of 2022, DH1YW = Disturbed by human activities in the wet season of 2022, DH2YD = Disturbed by human activities in the dry season of 2023, DH2YW = Disturbed by human activities in the wet season of 2023, IS1YD = Interior of the small area in the dry season of 2022, IS1YW = Interior of the small area in the wet season of 2022, IS2YD = Interior of the small area in the dry season of 2023, IS2YW = Interior of the small area in the wet season of 2023, ES1YD = Edge of the small area in the dry season of 2022, ES1YW= Edge of the small area in the wet season of 2022, ES2YD = Edge of the small area in the dry season of 2023, ES2YW = Edge of the small area in the wet season of 2023. FIGURE 8 Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) among mammalian species, fragmented areas, and environmental factors in the dry and the wet seasons between 2022 and 2023 in Khao Kheow - Khao Chomphu Wildlife Sanctuary, BA = Banteng, CPC = Common palm civet, GJ = Golden jackal, IM = Indomalayan Maxomys, LC = Mainland leopard cat, LMD = Lesser Oriental chevrotain, LTM = Long-tailed macaque, PM = Northern pig-tailed macaque, RM = Northern red muntjac, SA = Sambar, SD = Chital, SDP = Sunda pangolin, SIC = Small Indian civet, SR = Mainland serow, VS = Variable squirrel, WB = Wild boar, BU = Domestic buffalo, DO = Domestic dog, Village = distance to villages, Road = distance to road, LOC number of independent photographs of local communities, Stream = distance to stream, Waterbody = distance to water body, IL = Interior of large areas, IS = Interior of small areas, EL = Edge of large areas, ES = Edge of small areas, and DH = Areas disturbed by human activities, D = The dry season, W = The wet season, 1Y = 2022, and 2Y = 2023. Table Lists APPENDIX TABLE 1 Lists and status of mammalian species in Khao Kheow - Khao Chomphu Wildlife Sanctuary. | 1 | Artiodactyla | Bovidae | Bos javanicus | Banteng | CR | BA | | 2 | Pholidota | Manidae | Manis javanica | Sunda pangolin | CR | SDP | | 3 | Primates | Cercopithecidae | Macaca fascicularis | Long-tailed macaque | EN | LTM | | 4 | Artiodactyla | Bovidae | Capriconis sumatraensis | Mainland serow | VU | SR | | 5 | Artiodactyla | Cervidae | Rusa unicolor | Sambar | VU | SA | | 6 | Primates | Cercopithecidae | Macaca leonina | Northern pig-tailed macaque | VU | PM | | 7 | Artiodactyla | Cervidae | Muntiacus vaginalis | Northern red muntjac | LC | RM | | 8 | Artiodactyla | Suidae | Sus scrofa | Wild boar | LC | WB | | 9 | Artiodactyla | Tragulidae | Tragulus kanchil | Lesser Oriental chevrotain | LC | LMD | | 10 | Artiodactyla | Cervidae | Axis axis | Chital | LC, EX | SD | | 11 | Carnivora | Canidae | Canis aureus | Golden jackal | LC | GJ | | 12 | Carnivora | Felidae | Prionailurus bengalensis | Mainland leopard cat | LC | LC | | 13 | Carnivora | Viverridae | Paradoxurus hermaphroditus | Common palm civet | LC | CPC | | 14 | Carnivora | Viverridae | Viverricula indica | Small Indian civet | LC | SIC | | 15 | Rodentia | Sciuridae | Callosciurus finlaysonii | Variable squirrel | LC | VS | | 16 | Rodentia | Muridae | Maxomys surifer | Indomalayan Maxomys | LC | IM | Abbreviations: CR = Critically endangered, EN = Endangered, VU = Vulnerable, LC = Least Concerned, EX = Exotic species, * = IUCN (2024). APPENDIX TABL 2 Number of photographs of mammalian species found in the Khao Kheow - Khao Chomphu Wildlife Sanctuary area in the wet and dry seasons between 2022 and 2023. | 2022 | Dry | Int_large | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | | 2022 | Dry | Int_small | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | | 2022 | Dry | Edg_large | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | | 2022 | Dry | Edg_small | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | | 2022 | Dry | Dist_human | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | 2022 | Wet | Int_large | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | 2022 | Wet | Int_small | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | | 2022 | Wet | Edg_large | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | | 2022 | Wet | Edg_small | 6 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | | 2022 | Wet | Dist_human | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | | 2023 | Dry | Int_large | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | | 2023 | Dry | Int_small | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | 2023 | Dry | Edg_large | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 3 | | 2023 | Dry | Edg_small | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | | 2023 | Dry | Dist_human | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | | 2023 | Wet | Int_large | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | | 2023 | Wet | Int_small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | | 2023 | Wet | Edg_large | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 4 | | 2023 | Wet | Edg_small | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | 2023 | Wet | Dist_human | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Abbriviations: BA = Banteng, CPC = Common palm civet, GJ = Golden jackal, IM = Indomalayan Maxomys, LC = Mainland leopard cat, LMD = Lesser Oriental chevrotain, LTM = Long-tailed macaque, PM = Northern pig-tailed macaque, RM = Northern red muntjac, SA = Sambar, SD = Chital, SDP = Sunda pangolin, SIC = Small Indian civet, SR = Mainland serow, VS = Variable squirrel, WB = Wild boar, Int_large = Interior of large areas, Int_small = Interior of small areas, Edg_large = Edge of large areas, Edg_small = Edge of small areas, and Dist_human = Areas disturbed by human activities. TABLE 1 Status of threatened mammalian species found in the KK-KCWS in 2022 (1Y) and 2023 (2Y). | 1Y | 2Y | Ch | 1Y | 2Y | Ch | 1Y | 2Y | Ch | 1Y | 2Y | Ch | 1Y | 2Y | Ch | || | CR | Banteng | NF | NF | 0 | F | F | 0 | F | NF | - | F | F | 0 | F | F | 0 | | Sunda pangolin | NF | NF | 0 | NF | NF | 0 | F | NF | - | F | NF | - | NF | NF | 0 | | | EN | Crab-eating macaque | F | F | 0 | F | F | 0 | F | F | 0 | F | F | 0 | F | NF | - | | VU | Mainland serow | F | NF | - | NF | NF | 0 | NF | NF | 0 | NF | F | + | NF | F | + | | Sambar deer | F | F | 0 | F | F | 0 | F | F | 0 | F | F | 0 | F | F | 0 | | | Northern pig-tailed macaque | F | F | 0 | F | F | 0 | F | F | 0 | F | F | 0 | F | F | 0 | Abbriviations: Habitat1 = Interior of the large area, Habitat2 = Edge of the large area, Habitat3 = Disturbed area by human activities, Habitat4 = Interior of the small area, and Habitat5 = Edge of the small area, Ch = Change, NF = Not found, F = Found, 0 = Not change, + = increased, and - = decreased. TABLE 2 Comparison of mammalian species found in the Khao Kheow-Khao Chomphu Wildlife Sanctuary area. | Banteng | + | + | + | | Sunda Pangolin | - | + | + | | Crab-eating Macaque | + | + | + | | Southwest China Serow | + | + | + | | Sambar | - | + | + | | Northern Pigtailed Macaque | - | + | + | | Golden Jackal | - | + | + | | Northern Red Munjac | + | + | + | | Wild Boar | + | + | + | | Lesser Oriental Chevrotain | - | - | + | | Leopard Cat | - | + | - | | Asian Palm Civet | + | + | + | | Small Indian Civet | + | + | + | | Finlayson’s Squirrel** | + | - | + | | Indochinese ground squirrel** | + | - | - | | Grey-bellied Squirrel ** | + | - | - | | Cambodin Striped-squirrel** | + | - | - | | Common treeshrew ** | + | - | - | | Great bandicoot ** | + | - | - | | House Mouse ** | + | - | - | | Bamboo rat ** | + | - | - | | Javan Mongoose | - | - | - | Abbreiviations: * = Management Plan for the Khao Kheow - Khao Chomphu Wildlife Sanctuary, in the year 2003 – 2007, ** = Small-sized mammals are not expected to be found in the camera trap surveys. Table 3. Species richness (r), Diversity (H’), and Evenness (E) indice of mammalian species found in the KK-KCWS in 2022 (1Y) and 2023 (2Y) | r | Mean\(\pm\) SD | H’ | Mean\(\pm\) SD | E | Mean\(\pm\) SD | ||| | Int_large | 2022 | Dry | 1.46 | 1.38\(\pm\)0.555 | 1.842 | 1.45\(\pm\)0.441 | 0.886 | 0.942\(\pm\)0.036 | | 2022 | Wet | 1.221 | 1.35\(\pm\)0.242 | 1.48 | 1.22\(\pm\)0.193 | 0.826 | 0.856\(\pm\)0.101 | | | 2023 | Dry | 1.373 | 1.15\(\pm\)0.439 | 1.725 | 1.11\(\pm\)0.503 | 0.83 | 0.858\(\pm\)0.124 | | | 2023 | Wet | 1.573 | 0.885\(\pm\)0.834 | 1.629 | 0.73\(\pm\)0.742 | 0.909 | 0.539\(\pm\)0.505 | | | Edg_large | 2022 | Dry | 0.908 | 0.75\(\pm\)0.397 | 1.256 | 0.888\(\pm\)0.469 | 0.701 | 0.69\(\pm\)0.171 | | 2022 | Wet | 0.681 | 0.68\(\pm\)0.093 | 0.98 | 0.796\(\pm\)0.132 | 0.707 | 0.803\(\pm\)0.152 | | | 2023 | Dry | 1.111 | 0.514\(\pm\)0.435 | 1.046 | 0.561\(\pm\)0.483 | 0.538 | 0.474\(\pm\)0.381 | | | 2023 | Wet | 0.91 | 0.716\(\pm\)0.561 | 1.092 | 0.615\(\pm\)0.495 | 0.788 | 0.582\(\pm\)0.406 | | | Dist_human | 2022 | Dry | 1.292 | 1.2\(\pm\)0.305 | 1.702 | 1.28\(\pm\)0.399 | 0.874 | 0.91\(\pm\)0.072 | | 2022 | Wet | 1.616 | 1.5\(\pm\)0.439 | 1.633 | 1.3\(\pm\)0.326 | 0.743 | 0.827\(\pm\)0.144 | | | 2023 | Dry | 1.368 | 1.03\(\pm\)0.675 | 1.124 | 0.839\(\pm\)0.602 | 0.512 | 0.555\(\pm\)0.346 | | | 2023 | Wet | 1.327 | 1.72\(\pm\)0.533 | 1.726 | 1.52\(\pm\)0.255 | 0.83 | 0.844\(\pm\)0.087 | | | Int_small | 2022 | Dry | 1.141 | 1.09\(\pm\)0.217 | 1.691 | 1.46\(\pm\)0.256 | 0.813 | 0.865\(\pm\)0.052 | | 2022 | Wet | 1.373 | 1.06\(\pm\)0.556 | 1.615 | 1.21\(\pm\)0.563 | 0.735 | 0.692\(\pm\)0.309 | | | 2023 | Dry | 1.324 | 0.975\(\pm\)0.535 | 1.373 | 0.967\(\pm\)0.526 | 0.66 | 0.63\(\pm\)0.307 | | | 2023 | Wet | 0.874 | 0.525\(\pm\)0.601 | 0.612 | 0.4\(\pm\)0.478 | 0.441 | 0.365\(\pm\)0.431 | | | Edg_small | 2022 | Dry | 0.834 | 0.363\(\pm\)0.403 | 1.067 | 0.384\(\pm\)0.453 | 0.971 | 0.459\(\pm\)0.506 | | 2022 | Wet | 1.265 | 0.968\(\pm\)0.496 | 1.322 | 0.860\(\pm\)0.441 | 0.738 | 0.639\(\pm\)0.288 | | | 2023 | Dry | 1.116 | 0.777\(\pm\)0.597 | 1.365 | 0.737\(\pm\)0.581 | 0.848 | 0.606\(\pm\)0.421 | | | 2023 | Wet | 0 | 0\(\pm\)0 | 0 | 0\(\pm 0\) | 0 | 0\(\pm\)0 | Abbriviations: Int_large = Interior of large areas, Int_small = Interior of small areas, Edg_large = Edge of large areas, Edg_small = Edge of small areas, and Dist_human = Areas disturbed by human activities. Information & Authors Information Version history Copyright This work is licensed under a Non Exclusive No Reuse License.

Authors Metrics & Citations Metrics Article Usage 282views 208downloads Citations Download citation Rattanawat Chaiyarat, Namphung Youngpoy, Chaiyanan Navavongsathean, et al. Diversity and Status of Mammalian Species in Highly Disturbed Areas of Khao Kheow - Khao Chomphu Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand. Authorea. 25 March 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.174289178.80611504/v1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.174289178.80611504/v1 If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download. For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.