The large blocks of contiguous forest in and around KSNP have been designated as a ‘Level 1 Tiger Conservation Landscape’, because they are considered to provide one of the best chances for the long-term survival of tigers (Dinerstein et al., 2007). Nevertheless, tigers living in the www.selleckchem.com/pharmacological_MAPK.html KS region are threatened,
principally by loss of habitat, and then by poaching of tiger and prey. Deforestation (i.e. complete forest conversion to farmland) has fragmented KSNP into two parts and deforestation rates from 1995 to 2001 were 34.6 km2/year (0.28%/year) inside KSNP and 213.1 km2/year (0.96%/year) across the KS region (Linkie et al., 2008b). Camera-trap field data for tiger and their presumed prey were collected from four study areas from 2004 to 2007: (1) Renah Kayu Embun – 26 camera traps set from 3 September to 30 November 2004 in 112 km2 ranging from 947 to 1941 m a.s.l. located in Jambi province; (2) Sipurak – 28 camera traps set from 3 January to 29 March 2005 in 88 km2 ranging from 694 to 1254 m a.s.l. located in Jambi province; (3) Bungo
– 32 camera traps set from 16 April to 23 November 2006 in 237 km2 ranging from 363 to 1745 m a.s.l. located in Jambi province; (4) Ipuh – 40 camera traps set from 24 August 2006 to 2 May 2007 in 569 km2 ranging SB203580 ic50 from 194 to 1064 m a.s.l. located in Bengkulu province. These four study areas were selected 5-FU because of their presumed importance for tiger, for which the KSNP management authority had requested detailed information. A combination of TrailMaster and Photoscout passive infrared camera traps, activated by a heat-motion sensor, was used. Cameras were set along ridge trails and medium-large bodied animal trails, as identified through the presence of tiger sign. Cameras were checked every 2 weeks and their films replaced. To investigate the temporal tiger–prey activity patterns, photographs that were recorded within 30 min of a previous photograph of the same species and at the same camera placement were not used, because they were not
considered to be independent. The remaining data were regarded as a random sample from the underlying distribution that describes the probability of a photograph being taken within any particular interval of the day. The probability density function of this distribution was then referred as the activity pattern, which presupposes that the animal is equally likely to be photographed at all times when it is active (Ridout & Linkie, 2009). A two-step procedure for quantifying the extent of overlap between two activity patterns, based on a sample from each species, was performed. For the first step, each activity pattern was estimated separately, either non-parametrically, using kernel density estimation or by fitting a distribution from the flexible class of non-negative trigonometric sum distributions (Fernández-Durán, 2004).