|Scientific Name:||Muntiacus vaginalis (Boddaert, 1785)|
Cervus melas Ogilby, 1839
Cervus moschatus H. Smith, 1827
Cervus ratwa Hodgson, 1833
Cervus stylocerus Schinz, 1844
Cervus vaginalis Boddaert, 1785
Prox ratva Sundevall, 1846
Stylocerus muntjac Cantor, 1846
Stylocerus muntjacus Kelaart, 1852
|Taxonomic Notes:||Taxonomic Notes: Groves (2003) elected to raise non-Sundaic forms of M. muntjak (s.l.) from subspecific taxa to the species M. vaginalis, leaving the Sundaic forms to constitute M. muntjak (s.s.). In 2008 the IUCN Red List chose to follow this split, with the following caveats. This position, already postulated by previous authors (e.g. Groves and Grubb 1990), rests on little evidence, primarily the assumption that all taxa within M. muntjak in the Sunda region carry a unique karyotype different from all M. vaginalis in northern regions. However, the Sundaic karyotype seems to have been documented in only a few individuals from the Malay Peninsula south of the Isthmus of Kra (Wurster and Aitkin 1972, Groves and Grubb 1990, Groves 2003, Tanomtong et al. 2005), assumed to be M. muntjak (the type locality of the later is Java). Other purported differences (e.g. dorsal darkening and short nasals, Groves 2003, Groves and Grubb 1990), if they can be considered diagnostic characters rather than traits (see below), appear minor rather than ones likely to separate species-level taxa. Although differences in chromosome number between muntjacs appears likely to constitute a good species boundary, preventing extensive interbreeding (see Groves and Grubb 1990), a much wider sampling of karyotype (especially within the presumed range of M. muntjak (s.s.)) is needed to place on solid ground the systematic position which assumes separate and widespread ranges for the two so far identified karyotypes. There appears to have been no significant further investigation of this taxonomic split since 2008, and thus the 2014 reassessment largely for the sake of status quo maintains this taxonomic treatment.
Groves (2003) and other authors (e.g., P.M. Giao et al. 1998) have suggested that northern forms here placed within M. vaginalis may constitute more than one species, and Groves and Grubb (2011) separated the taxon into four species, M. vaginalis s.s. (central range, the most widespread of the four), M. malabaricus (extreme southwest of range), M. aureus (western range with an outlier in the central part of the range) and M. nigripes (eastern parts of the range). The purported differences between these taxa include body size, antler size and general and or midback, nape and crown pelage colour and or more specifically its darkness. The purported descriptions presumably meant to indicate diagnostic differences and the grounds for considering the species valid are often internally inconsistent, for example “shorter antlers” is clearly implied as a characteristic of M. vaginalis, M. malabaricus is stated to have “shorter antlers [than M. vaginalis]”, in M. aureus the “antlers short” and in M. nigripes once again “antlers short”. Specimens used and sample sizes are not given, nor is there in general any discussion of variation, nor reference to alternative explanations for the geographical distribution of traits. With the obvious propensity for muntjacs to undergo chromosome rearrangements, and the clear indications from certain areas of multiple sympatric and or closely parapatric muntjac species, it is clearly quite possible (perhaps even probable) that M. vaginalis as used here may involve multiple phylogenetic species. However the documentation of such species, especially for the sake of taxonomic stability, requires the burden of proof to be placed on those authors attempting taxonomic splits. For the reasons already outlined, small sample sizes (morphological or genetic) from disparate range locations are not adequate proof, for such a widespread, ecologically tolerant species, that effective reproductive isolation has occurred between sister lineages.
In the context of the above it has been pointed out for instance by Groves (2003) that dark-legged Chinese and Indochinese animals (‘M. nigripes’ of Groves and Grubb 2011) differ from paler, more uniform, animals to the south and west (‘M. vaginalis’ of Groves and Grubb 2011, for further details, see also C.P. Groves in litt. 1999 to Duckworth et al. 1999). However, recent data (especially the results of camera-trapping studies) from Indochina suggest that pelage colour and pattern variation is little more than a geographically based polymorphism within a widespread species, and might not warrant even use in designation of subspecific taxa (R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008, based on unpublished data from various camera-trapping projects by WWF/WCS/FFI/SFNC/IUCN). There are certainly no grounds from field studies to suggest that more than one species-level taxon is present in Indochina (R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008).
Because objective morphological grounds to allow confident separation of the two species M. muntjak and M. vaginalis are not yet validated, because published sources and opinion in the region universally treat the two as conspecific, and because surveys have not systematically been examining the chromosomes of muntjacs, for the purposes of this red list assessment, each species' range and status have been assessed taking an assumption that the Isthmus of Kra forms the boundary between the two. This follows the assessment of Groves and Grubb (1990), based on rather few specimens, which segregated animals primarily on the basis of pelage and nasal characters, these authors noted the presence of specimens from two localities just south of the Isthmus of Kra which were somewhat atypical from presumed M. muntjak specimens further south. Many other vertebrates have diagnosable Sunda and northern members, but the range boundary between them can occur anywhere over a relatively wide latitudinal zone (e.g. Hughes et al. 2003), and outlier populations of one or the other taxon can occur within the range of its sister. Most taxa with clearly different Sundaic and mainland taxa are closely associated with ‘evergreen’ or semi-evergreen closed canopy forest, which makes the phylogeography of these species relatively easy to understand, however M. muntjak s. l. is generally unlike these in having a very broad habitat usage which includes deciduous open canopy forest formations, as such the exposed Sunda shelf at the height of the Pleistocene presumably provided a link between M. muntjak s. l. on the mainland in southern Indochina with those on northern Borneo. M. vaginalis as used here may thus occur in the Sundas.
During the 2008 review, a number of sources indicated that Red Muntjac was being identified by vocalisation, even in areas where congeners were known or likely to occur. There is no available information on vocal characters of other muntjacs, and how to distinguish different muntjacs by voice, or even whether this is possible. Therefore, such identifications were taken as only indicating the genus.
|Red List Category & Criteria:||Least Concern ver 3.1|
|Assessor(s):||Timmins, R.J., Steinmetz, R., Samba Kumar, N., Anwarul Islam, Md. & Sagar Baral, H.|
|Reviewer(s):||Brook, S.M. & McShea, W.J.|
|Contributor(s):||Duckworth, J.W. & Pattanavibool, A.|
Northern Red Muntjac are still widespread and common in much of South and South-east Asia, occur in many protected areas, and are resilient to habitat change and hunting. Populations in Pakistan and Bangladesh appear to be severely reduced, however. It is subject to intense trade-driven hunting in parts of its geographic range (particularly east of the Mekong) which are resulting in densities well below carrying capacity. There are thus regional variations in population trend. In Vietnam, Laos and parts of China declines probably have exceeded 30% in the last three generations (10–15 years) and on current trends can be confidently expected to do so in the next three generations in at least Laos and Vietnam and probably also Cambodia (reflecting major habitat fragmentation which compounds the effects of hunting). Future trends in China may be complex as recovery may be occurring in some areas (e.g. Hong Kong), whilst in others the population may be so small and restricted to remote and or nominally protected areas that the numbers of animals remaining to be hunted become a relatively small proportion of the total. The trend in Myanmar is clearly decreasing although the magnitude remains uncertain, but land clearance and protected area management there appears to be following a trajectory similar to that in Laos and Vietnam, albeit lagging behind by perhaps about a decade. On balance the large range in India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Thailand, probably greater than 50% of the species' geographic range, and enormous total population of these countries in only shallow decline, mean that the global population is unlikely to be declining overall (past present or future) at rates sufficient to warrant listing as even Near Threatened.
|Previously published Red List assessments:|
|Range Description:||This species occurs in Sri Lanka, most of India, northern Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and southern China, including Hainan and southern Tibet, and into southeast Asia (Myanmar, Thailand, Lao PDR, Viet Nam, Cambodia) south to the northern part of the Thai–Malay peninsula (Roberts 1977, Groves and Grubb 1990, Ohtaishi and Gao 1990, Corbet and Hill 1992, Wang Ying-xiang 2002, Groves 2003, Grubb 2005). The precise southern range limit remains unclear on the Thai–Malay peninsula (see Taxonomy). It has been introduced in the Andaman Islands (Corbet and Hill 1992). It is widespread in most range states, except Pakistan (see Population).|
Native:Bangladesh; Bhutan; Cambodia; China; Hong Kong; India; Lao People's Democratic Republic; Myanmar; Nepal; Pakistan; Sri Lanka; Thailand; Viet Nam
|Range Map:||Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.|
|Population:||This adaptable and widespread species remains locally common in most of its range (e.g. Whitehead 1993, Le Xuan Canh et al. 1997, Timmins et al. 1998, Duckworth et al. 1999, Lynam et al. 2001, Lynam 2003, Johnsingh et al. 2004, Polet and Ling 2004, Johnson et al. 2006, Steinmetz et al. 2008), even in Hong Kong, an almost totally deforested landscape which has in the past sustained hunting and habitat disruption heavy enough to force extinction even of squirrels (R. Corlett pers. comm. 2008, Shek et al. 2007). About 20–30 individuals were estimated by Roberts (1977, based on a 1972 estimate) for Margalla National Park in northern Pakistan, this would account for most of the population surviving in that country at the time. In Bangladesh the species is the most widespread wild ungulate, more widely distributed even than wild hogs. However, the population is declining and the species is nowhere very common. It is a rare species with only a small population in the Sundarbans which constitutes half of the remaining forests of Bangladesh, but it is uncommon to rare in the remaining hill forest areas of northeast and southeast of the country (Md Anwarul Islam in litt. 2008, Suprio Chakma pers. comm. 2014), this reflects “rampant...forest destruction” during the British colonial era which was, if anything, even worse after independence (Khan 2003). Hunting is the main current threat, rather than habitat loss as it is a well-adapted species. Even so, muntjacs (assumed to be this species) can still be seen readily in the north-east (P.M. Thompson pers. comm. 2008). In the southeast in the Chittagong Hill Tracts muntjacs were detected in all of 38 surveyed grid cells (each 10,000 ha and >50% forest cover) during a camera-trapping survey in 2010-2011, suggesting occupancy of essentially all remaining suitable habitat patches (Suprio Chakma pers. comm. 2014). The species’ status in China is somewhat clouded by the overlap in range with M. reevesi (as well potentially as other muntjac species), both species have mapped ranges in eastern Yunnan, Guizhou, Guangxi, Guangdong, southern Hunan and southern Jiangxi and possibly western Fujian (Zhang et al. 1997, Corbet and Hill 1992). In some areas camera-trap pictures of these two species may be very difficult to tell apart (R. J. Timmins pers. comm. 2014). For instance there was much uncertainty about the identity of animals in Hong Kong with thoughts that perhaps only M. reevesi occured (Shek 2006), however camera-trapping surveys recently concluded that M. vaginalis [as M. muntjak s.l.] was the only species present (Shek et al. 2007), but further investigation is warranted as although some animals do appear to be diagnosable as M. vaginalis, some other captive animals at the Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden and a photo of a female in Shek (2006) show character combinations that make firm diagnosis as M. vaginalis or M. reevesi impossible, suggesting perhaps introgression (R. J. Timmins pers. comm. 2014), Shek et al. (2007) note significant differences in general pelage of muntjac in Hong Kong. In Hong Kong muntjac populations would appear to be stable and “very common”, having increased from a low point at some point in the past (Shek et al. 2007, Pei et al. 2010). Population status of muntjacs is presumed to be worst in the southern provinces especially Guangxi, Guangdong, but it is currently unclear whether there are differences in status between M. vaginalis and M. reevesi in these provinces. On the basis of recent surveys using multiple methods including camera-trapping (Lau et al. 2010) muntjacs (species uncertain) remain relatively widespread and appear to persist in most reasonably sized areas of suitable habitat in Guangxi, Guangdong and southern Jiangxi where hunting pressure is extremely high and populations of almost all large mammals are severely depressed or extirpated (Lau et al. 2010, B.P.L. Chan and M.W.N. Lau pers. comm. 2014). However at a site based level muntjac in these provinces are notably scarcer than in Hong Kong, based on encounter rates of calls, faeces and camera-trap photographs, this is attributed by rural hunters to recent very heavy hunting with gin-traps precipitated by a fire-arm ban (B.P.L. Chan and M.W.N. Lau pers. comm. 2008). Status appears to be similar in Hainan, where M. vaginalis is currently the only known species, and hunting pressure is high (Lau et al. 2010, M.W.N. Lau pers. comm. 2014), although in some well protected areas the species appears to be abundant with incredibly high densities reported (e.g. 54 animals/km²: Teng et al. 2005, such high densities are clearly unnatural and suggest either methodological error or peculiar ecological circumstances).|
Although Sheng and Ohtaishi (1993) stated that the total Chinese population of M. vaginalis [as M. muntjak s. l.] was about 500,000, the assumptions behind such a number were not explicit and it should be treated with great caution. Ohtaishi and Gao (1990) estimated that a total of 30,000 individuals were harvested each year on Hainan Island alone.
Populations are certainly also declining in Lao PDR, Cambodia and Viet Nam, through heavy trade-driven hunting (see threats). Muntjacs in a number of Thai protected areas are increasing (Steinmetz et al. 2010, Steinmetz et al. in press) so the era of widespread population decline in Thailand might have largely ended, as few are likely to remain outside of protected areas. ‘Red’ muntjacs are common in Kaeng Krachan National Park, Thailand (Ngoprasert et al. 2007), but this is within the main transition zone between Sundaic and northern taxa, so the species there is/are unknown. Populations in Nepal are thought to be relatively stable (Hem Sagar Baral pers. comm. 2008). Muntjac in deciduous forests in western Thailand attain densities of 2.1–3.1 individuals/km² (Srikosamatara, 1993, Steinmetz and Mather, 1996, Sukmasuang, 2001). Densities are 2.2/km² in the deciduous forests of eastern Cambodia (Gray et al. 2012). The following densities have been estimated in India: Bhadra Tiger Reserve, 3.64 +/- 0.63 (SE) per km² (Jathanna et al. 2003), Kanha moist deciduous forest, 0.6 animals per km² (Karanth and Nichols 2000), Nagarahole moist deciduous forest, 6 animals per km² (Karanth and Nichols 2000), Bandipur dry deciduous forest, 0.7 animals per km² (Karanth and Nichols 2000), Tadoba-Andhari dry deciduous forest, 0.9 animals per km² (Karanth and Kumar 2005), Melghat dry deciduous forest, 0.6 animals per km² (Karanth and Kumar 2005), Wilpattu, Sri Lanka, 2.5 animals per km² (Barrette 1977), Karnali-Bardia, Nepal, 1.7 animals per km² (Dinerstein 1987), and Rajaji National Park, 1 animal per km² (A.J.T. Johnsingh pers. comm. to Barrette 2004). Where studied, population densities are always well below those of herding ungulates (previous citations), but this is not so in areas where hunting has perverted ratios, where Northern Red Muntjac may even be the only deer species remaining.
|Current Population Trend:||Decreasing|
|Habitat and Ecology:||The Northern Red Muntjac inhabits a wide variety of forests and scrub, including level plains and rugged mountains, dense and open forests, evergreen and deciduous areas, old-growth and secondary forests, and even grass- and cropland near woody habitats, from sea-level commonly up to about 1,500 m asl and occasionally over, perhaps with some variation regionally (Blanford 1891, Prater 1971, Barrette 1977, 2004, Lekagul and McNeely 1977, Roberts 1977, Timmins et al. 1998, Duckworth et al. 1999, Teng et al. 2004). Within this broad habitat use, densities doubtless vary based on conditions. Steinmetz et al. (2008) found that signs, and presumably animals, were significantly more common in lower- than higher-lying areas of the Tenasserim–Dawna mountains, Thailand, noting that this was the opposite of the patterns that would be predicted if hunting (itself concentrated heavily in the lowlands) was the chief determinant of population densities. Population densities in Thailand are substantially higher in deciduous forest than in evergreen forest (Steinmetz and Mather 1996, Steinmetz et al. 2010). Kushwaha et al. (2004) found that in Kumaon Himalaya (India), M. vaginalis frequently exploits grass- and herb-dominated environments, linked to highly logged locations, and with a preference for lower altitudes (although they did not specify what altitude range was covered, nor discuss the possibility that because logging tends to occur in valley bottoms and lower hills rather than on steep hills and ridges, a preference for lower altitudes could simply be a consequential effect of a preference for logged areas. Teng et al. (2004) found that in Hainan, muntjacs preferred shrub grassland and thorny shrubland, used dry savanna in proportion to its availability, and avoided woods, cultivated grass-plot, and deciduous monsoon forests. Sheng and Ohtaishi (1993) attributed the apparent stability in numbers of the Chinese population to logging activities, which were bringing about an increase of secondary forest and scrub dominated areas. A study of coffee estates around Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary, India, recorded Red Muntjac more widely than any other herbivorous mammal, including in coffee areas far from the sanctuary’s boundary (Bali et al. 2007).|
Its diet is based on fallen fruits, buds, small seeds, twigs, seed pods, tender leaves, and young grass (Barrette 1977, 2004, Lekagul and McNeely 1977, Roberts 1977, Chen et al. 2001, Teng et al. 2004). The species has been cited as a major dispersal agent of fruit-producing plants in southern China (Chen et al. 2001) and Thailand (Lekagul and McNeely 1977) and this is presumably so throughout its range.
In much of its range (although rather less than was popularly supposed until recently) this is the only muntjac species. Where congeners occur, it is widely sympatric, evidently even syntopic, with them, there is no solid evidence for competitive exclusion except perhaps at very high altitudes. Where it overlaps with Fea’s Muntjac M. feae in Thailand, Red clearly predominates in more deciduous habitats and lower altitudes, with Fea’s apparently more common in high altitudes and fully evergreen forest (R. Steinmetz pers. comm. 2008). It probably occurs throughout the range of Large-antlered Muntjac M. vuquangensis (e.g. Timmins et al. 1998). There is extensive overlap with muntjacs of the M. rooseveltorum species-complex (M. rooseveltorum, M. truongsonensis, M. puhoatensis and M. putaoensis), but there may be areas above about 1,500 m asl where the latter greatly outnumber M. vaginalis and some where M. vaginalis is absent (R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008, based on examination of numerous camera-trap photographs from many camera-trap programmes). Camera-trap results from northern Myanmar suggest that Red Muntjac occurs largely below the altitudinal range of M. gongshanensis, but fully through the range of M. putaoensis (R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008 based on WCS unpublished data). Schaller and Rabinowitz (2004), however, reported many M. vaginalis at high altitudes in Arunachal Pradesh, with one direct sighting at 3,000 m asl near Tawang, and there may therefore be significant local variation in the upper altitudinal limit. Two specimens in the Natural History Museum, London from Nepal have recorded altitudes of 11,400 and 8,500 feet (3,450 and 2,590 m asl) (R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008). Camera-trapping in Bhutan has recorded the species relatively commonly between 2000 and 3650 m, over essentially the full elevation range surveyed, where this may be the only muntjac species present (K. Vernes, S. Dorji and R. Rajaratnam based on unpublished data pers. comm. 2014, photos seen by R.J. Timmins 2014).
Northern Red Muntjac appears to be able to breed all year around, although the existence of well-defined breeding seasons has been suggested for some populations, particularly in those inhabiting locations with a more seasonal climate (Barrette 1977, Lekagul and McNeely 1977, Roberts 1977, Chen et al. 2001). In any case, "peaks" of mating activity are present, at least, in some areas (Prater 1971, Barrette 1977, Roberts 1977). Despite only a single fawn being born each occasion, overall lifetime output is high (Barrette 2004). Even where births occur throughout the year, there is still a fairly rigid cycle of antler formation and shedding, synchronised at the population level (Barrette 1977, Mishra 1982, Acharjyo and Patnaik 1984). It tends to be solitary (Eisenberg and Lockhart 1972, Seidensticker 1976, Karanth and Sunquist 1992, Barrette 2004), reports of small groups could be attributed to mating pairs or to female/offspring units, or to temporary incidental proximity of individuals at concentrations of high-value food, e.g. fallen fruit under a tree (Barrette 1977, 2004, Lekagul and McNeely 1977). Individuals seem strongly attached to a certain home range, but there is no convincing evidence of territoriality (Barrette 1977, 2004). Northern Red Muntjac is diurnal in some areas, nocturnal in others (Prater 1971, Barrette 1977, Lekagul and McNeely 1977, Roberts 1977) and is probably best regarded as crepuscular. It is an important prey for Leopard Panthera pardus, Tiger P. tigris, and Dhole Cuon alpinus.
|Use and Trade:||This species is widely traded and hunted in China and Southeast Asian countries. China appears to be a major consumer and producer of Muntiacus vaginalis products. There is an intense commercial activity of this species from bordering Southeast Asian countries into China which involves meat, hides and medicinal products. (Ohtaishi and Gao 1990, Sheng and Ohtaishi 1993, Zhijun et al. 1996, Duckworth et al. 1999, see also other references in General Information section). It is not usually kept as livestock.|
Northern Red Muntjac are hunted widely, both legally and illegally, over most of its range (Sheng and Ohtaishi 1993, Madhusudan and Karanth 2002, Tungittiplakorn and Dearden 2002, Jathanna et al. 2003, Johnson et al. 2003, Santiapillai and Wijeyamohan 2003, Hansel 2004, Kaul et al. 2004, Kumara and Singh 2004, Rao et al. 2005, Steinmetz et al. 2008), and it is probably among the most used and most desired wild meats in South and South-east Asia (e.g. Srikosamatara et al. 1992, Duckworth et al. 1999). Patterns of threat vary across the species' range. Viet Nam, Lao PDR and to a lesser extent Cambodia and northern Thailand are apparently the areas where mammal hunting has been heaviest. In its mainland China range, rates may be even higher, because a recent fire-arm ban is said to have pushed up levels of gin-trapping (B.P.L. Chan pers. comm. 2008). Muntjacs are hunted within a thriving hunting and wildlife trading culture in this area and in adjacent countries such as China and Thailand, involving many land vertebrate species, along with other forest products such as orchids and Aquilaria resin (e.g. Compton and Le Hai Quang 1998, Compton et al. 1999, Noreen and Claridge 2001). Such hunting reaches all areas, although in large rugged mountain forest blocks trade-driven hunting of species valued only for their meat (rather than high-value, low-weight, generally medicinal products that can be carried out efficiently from even the remotest areas) is still limited by economics of accessibility. The regional wild meat trade has little likelihood of abating as long as there are any pigs, muntjacs, and civets to be hunted. The human population of Viet Nam is more than 90 million, that of China more than 1,000 million. Together, they comprise an enormous market for wildlife products. For example, tens of millions of wild turtles are imported, legally and illegally, into China annually (van Dijk et al. 2000). There has been no comparable study of ungulate trade levels. Within the Northern and Central Annamites, every square kilometre of Viet Namese forest and of Lao forest that is within 5 km of the Viet Namese border probably has snares capable of capturing muntjacs set in it every year (Timmins et al. 2007, R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008). Intensity in some areas probably reaches many thousands of snare-nights per square kilometre per year (Timmins et al. 2007). Snaring is less intensive in Lao PDR at least away from the Viet Namese border, but is increasing dramatically (Timmins and Robichaud 2005, W.G. Robichaud pers. comm. to R.J. Timmins 2007, Coudrat et al. 2014, Timmins and Duckworth 2012, R.J. Timmins in press b, R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2014). Hunting intensity had in recent decades been generally lower in southern Viet Nam than in Lao PDR and northern Viet Nam, leaving many wildlife populations less depleted (e.g. Le Xuan Canh et al. 1997, Timmins and Duckworth 2000, Polet and Ling 2004), but the general increase in regional hunting intensity and economic wealth indicate that hunting intensity in this region must also be increasing (Timmins et al. 2008), as of 2014 there are indications that hunting intensity has reached equivalent levels to the north, at least in some areas (Timmins in press a). In northern Thailand when muntjacs become rare, the animals are hunted in group drives, the meat is often sold (Tungittiplakorn and Dearden 2002).
Closed tropical evergreen forests have inherently low ungulate biomass (Robinson and Bennett 2000), and beyond this populations of all wild animals larger than 20 kg in Indochina have been significantly reduced by human exploitation (Timmins and Ou 2001, Timmins et al. 2007, R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008). Field survey encounter rates with Northern Red Muntjacs in Lao PDR, Viet Nam, and Cambodia are remarkably low compared with other areas in its range (Timmins and Ou 2001, Timmins et al. 2007, R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008). In a recent reconnaissance survey of highly fragmented habitat in southern Lao PDR (Pathoumphon district, Champasak province), outside the protected area system, muntjac were the only ungulates (assumed to relate to this species on habitat and distribution) for which signs were commonly found, even wild pigs Sus sp(p). being noticeably more scarce (K. Khounboline and J.W. Duckworth pers. comm. 2008). This pattern is general throughout Lao PDR (K. Khounboline pers. comm. 2008). However, areas of heavy hunting have lost muntjacs or had them reduced to extreme rarity, not only forest isolates such as Houay Nhang (a few square kilometres,, just outside Vientiane, Duckworth et al. 1994) but also, where hunting has been extremely heavy, less fragmented landscapes (such as the western lowlands of Xe Bang-Nouan National Protected Area in south Lao PDR, J.W. Duckworth pers. comm. 2008). In such areas, even though forest within them is in general heavily degraded, habitat is unlikely to be the prime cause of decline, because in some other areas of long-standing forest devastation now dominated by a mix of secondary ruderals, shrubs and grasses, muntjacs are still relatively common, e.g. Phongsali (far northern Lao PDR), where they can even still be heard from the provincial capital town (Duckworth and Robichaud 2005). Similarly, Red Muntjac is common and widespread in Hong Kong, an almost deforested landscape (Chek 2006, R. Corlett pers. comm. 2008), and studies in Hainan indicated selection of openings and other edge habitats rather than forest interiors (Teng et al. 2004), this seems generally true throughout South-east Asia (R.J. Timmins and J.W. Duckworth pers. comm. 2008). There is also evidence from elsewhere in its range that this species is better able than most ungulates to withstand a certain degree of continuous harvesting as well as habitat disturbance (Jathanna et al 2003), although this has rarely been based on quantified status assessment. In Nagarahole National Park, India, Madhusudan and Karanth (2002) found no difference in muntjac abundance between a heavily hunted and a lightly hunted site, compared with enormous differences for most other ungulates. In the context of Indochina, even their heavily-hunted site would, however, rank as lightly hunted (J.W. Duckworth pers. comm. 2008, from based on visit and discussion). Madhusudan and Karanth (2002) cautioned against assuming that these results indicated an intrinsic resilience to hunting by this muntjac: it is not so readily hunted as, for example, Chital Axis axis, because of its solitary nature, affinity for dense cover and therefore risks of getting caught are higher when using appropriate techniques to kill or capture it. However, the ubiquitous disparity in status between M. vaginalis and other ungulates (and indeed almost all other mammals of similar or larger body weight) in Indochina indicates that it is truly much more resilient to hunting. Muntjac populations are capable of recovering quickly from overexploitation if hunting is controlled: an overhunted, low density population freed from hunting pressure in Thailand increased 10-fold in 6 years, a rate of increase that is likely near the biological maximum attainable by the species (Steinmetz et al. 2010). An intensive study of hunting on mammals in two Hmong villages of northern Thailand classified quarry species into tiers representing the sequence of loss through overhunting, muntjacs (most or all were presumably M. vaginalis) fell in the fifth tier, persisting much longer than all other ruminants and with only species like squirrels, civets, and linsangs being placed later in the extinction sequence (Tungittiplakorn and Dearden 2002). Even so, villagers reported that muntjacs were greatly reduced in numbers in the area. The strongest demonstration of its remarkable resilience is that it is now common and widespread in Hong Kong, an almost deforested landscape which has in the past sustained hunting and habitat disruption heavy enough to force extinction even of squirrels. Red Muntjac were reduced to very low populations a few decades ago, but did not become extinct, and has increased rapidly in recent years (Shek 2006, R. Corlett pers. comm. 2008).
While wild meat is the major driver of South-east Asian muntjac trade, parts such as antlers are also heavily traded (e.g. Duckworth et al. 1999, Noreen and Claridge 2001).
Rapid economic development and expanding wealth in the species' range, particularly South-east Asia and China, are increasing the demand for wildlife meat and ‘medicines’ (Timmins et al. 2007). Timmins et al. (2007) highlighted a common misconception, especially in documentation of development projects in the region, that poverty is a principal cause of biodiversity loss, but as they pointed out for Saola Pseudoryx nghetinhensis, the main driver of threats to wild ungulates, at least for the mid-term, is not rural poverty but increasing urban wealth in Indochina and China. Similarly, in Thailand, trade-driven hunting has been the main cause of muntjac and other wildlife population declines, regardless of protected area status (Steinmetz et al. 2006). In Viet Nam “the free market economy has resulted in feverish periods of trade in wild species nationwide, with negative impacts on biodiversity” (Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam 2004). In Cambodia, the same factor has fostered a thriving bushmeat market and hunting of species for international wildlife trade (Timmins and Ou 2001, Maxwell et al. 2006, Timmins 2006). There is a rapid, ongoing, expansion of wealthy social strata in Lao PDR, directly accelerated by illegal trade in rosewood, wild meat, and other forest resources, and by the economics of large infrastructure projects (e.g. Nan Theun 2 hydro-electric power project), creating a significantly greater in-country demand for luxury meats such as venison (W.G. Robichaud pers. comm. 2007). Wild meat is chosen in preference to farmed meat despite a greater price per unit weight (e.g. Hansel 2004). Markets along major roads such as route 13 (e.g. at Ban Namthon) have expanded, not contracted, in the last 15 years and have a huge (albeit unquantified) turnover of wild meat, at this specific market, multiple stalls are selling dried muntjac meat daily (balance of muntjac species unknown). The effects of hunting in Lao PDR, Viet Nam, Cambodia and Thailand have been exacerbated during the last two decades by habitat loss and various socio-economic factors, of which the most biologically significant are discussed in the Red List account for Large-antlered Muntjac M. vuquangensis.
Thus, even though this is one of the most resilient of large mammals in Indochina persisting in fragmented landscapes and often in peripheral forest areas, populations in Indochina (Viet Nam, Lao PDR and Cambodia) are likely to be declining significantly (perhaps at a level to trigger VU i.e. 30% in 10–15 years, for the regional population) (Timmins et al. 2008). Densities especially in Lao PDR and Viet Nam are generally well below carrying capacity, although in extensive areas of Cambodia are likely to be more natural, as they are across the range west of the Mekong (Timmins et al. 2008). Since 2008 rates of decline in Indochina have almost certainly increased and are now quite likely to be in the region of ‘30% in 10–15 years’, especially in Lao and Cambodia where economic growth has seen widespread landscape level changes in infrastructure and land use and concomitant rise in the value of bushmeat and in hunting pressure, although most areas in Vietnam may have already been so depleted prior to 2008 that hunting of residual animals has been relatively difficult since then, thus tempering decline rates, even though hunting intensity has probably increased (R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2014).
|Conservation Actions:||Northern Red Muntjac occurs in many protected areas throughout its range and in most countries is covered by laws regulating hunting at some level. Across large parts of its range, the species would benefit if these national laws involving the protection of the species were more efficiently enforced, particularly those which relate to wildlife trading. Also, greater effort should be devoted to engaging local communities in the protection and recovery of wildlife populations in nearby protected areas. The proactive involvement of communities has resulted in increased population trends of muntjac and other hunted species at various sites in the region.|
Acharjyo, L. N. and Patnaik, S. K. 1984. A note on antler casting of barking deer (Muntiacus muntjak) in captivity. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 81: 690.
Bali, A., Kumar, A. and Krishnaswamy, J. 2007. The mammalian communities in coffee plantations around a protected area in the Western Ghats, India. Biological Conservation 139: 93-102.
Barrette, C. 1977. Some aspects of the behaviour of muntjacs in Wilpattu National Park, Sri Lanka. Mammalia 41: 1-34.
Barrette, C. 2004. Barking Deer or Muntjac (Muntiacus muntjac Zimmermann, 1780). ENVIS Bulletin (Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra Dun) 7: 17–28.
Chek, C. T. 2006. A Field Guide to the Terrestrial Mammals of Hong Kong. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Hong Kong.
Chen, J., Deng, X.-B., Bai, Z.-L., Yang, Q., Chen, G.-Q., Liu, Y. and Liu, Z.-Q. 2001. Fruit Characteristics and Muntiacus muntjak vaginalis (Muntjac) Visits to Individual Plants of Choerospondias axillaris. Biotropica 33: 718–722.
Compton, J. and Le Hai Quang. 1998. Borderline: an assessment of wildlife trade in Vietnam. [Unpublished report]. WWF Indochina Programme., Hanoi, Vietnam.
Compton, J., Khounboline, K. and Le Hai Quang. 1999. Vanishing point: a study of cross-border wildlife trade between Lao PDR and Vietnam. Hanoi: WWF Indochina Programme. Unpublished report.
Corbet, G.B. and Hill, J.E. 1992. Mammals of the Indo-Malayan Region: a Systematic Review. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Coudrat, C.N.Z., Nanthavong, C., Sayavong, S., Johnson, A., Johnston, J.B. and Robichaud, W.G. 2014. Conservation importance of Nakai-Nam Theun National Protected Area, Laos, for small carnivores based on camera trap data. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 62: 31–49.
Duckworth, J.W. and Robichaud, W.G. 2005. Yellow-bellied Weasel Mustela kathiah sightings in Phongsaly province, Laos, with notes on the species' range in South-East Asia, and recent records of other small carnivores in the province. Small Carnivore Conservation 33: 17–20.
Duckworth, J.W., Salter, R.E. and Khounboline, K. 1999. Wildlife in Lao PDR: 1999 Status Report. IUCN, Vientiane, Laos.
Duckworth, J.W., Timmins, R.J., Thewlis, R.C.M., Evans, T.D. and Anderson, G.Q.A. 1994. Field observations of mammals in Laos, 1992-1993. Natural History Bulletin of the Siam Society 42: 177-205.
Eisenberg, J.F. and Lockhart, M. 1972. An ecological reconnaisance of Wilpattu National Park, Ceylon. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 101: 1-118.
Francis, J.M, Boness, D.J. and Ochoa-Acuna, H. 1998. A protracted foraging and attendance cycle in female Juan Fernandez fur seals. Marine Mammal Science 14(3): 552-574.
Giao, P. M., Tuoc, D., Dung, V. V., Wikramanayake, E. D., Amato, G., Arctander, P. and MacKinnon, J. R. 1998. Description of Muntiacus truongsonensis, a new species of muntjac (Artiodactyla: Muntiacidae) from Central Vietnam, and implications for conservation. Animal Conservation 1: 61–68.
Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. 2004. The national action plan to strengthen the control of trade in wild fauna and flora to 2010. Prime Minister’s Office, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Gray, T. N., Phan, C., Pin, C., and Prum, S. 2012. Establishing a monitoring baseline for threatened large ungulates in eastern Cambodia. Wildlife Biology 18(4): 406-413.
Groves, C. 2003. Taxonomy of ungulates of the Indian Subcontinent. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 100(2-3): 341-361.
Groves, C. and Grubb, P. 1990. Muntiacidae. Springer-Verlag, New York, USA.
Groves, C. and Grubb, P. 2011. Ungulate Taxonomy. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USA.
Grubb, P. 2005. Artiodactyla. In: D.E. Wilson & D.M. Reeder (ed.), Mammal Species of the World. A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed), pp. 637-722. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USA.
Hansel, T. 2004. Observations on Subsistence Hunting Along the Phu Yai Mountain Range, Xanakham District, Vientiane Province, Lao PDR. Natural History Bulletin of the Siam Society 52(2): 195-200.
Hughes, J. B., Round, P. D. and Woodruff, D. S. 2003. The Indochinese-Sundaic faunal transition at the Isthmus of Kra: an analysis of resident forest bird species distributions. Journal of Biogeography 30: 569-580.
IUCN. 2016. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-1. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 30 June 2016).
Jathanna, D., Karanth, K.U. and Johnsingh, A.J.T. 2003. Estimation of large herbivore densities in the tropical forests of southern India using distance sampling. Journal of Zoology (London) 261: 285.
Johnsingh, A.J.T., Qureshi, Q., Goyal, S.P., Rawat, G.S., Ramesh, K., David, A., Rajapandian, K. and Prasad, S. 2004. Conservation Status of Tiger and Associated Species in the Terai Arc Landscape, India.
Johnson, A., Singh, S., Dongdala, M. and Vongsa, O. 2003. Wildlife hunting and use in the Nam Ha National Protected Area: implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation. Wildlife Conservation Society, Vientiane, Laos.
Johnson, A., Vongkhamheng, C., Hedemark, M. and Saithongdam, T. 2006. Effects of human-carnivore conflict on tiger (Panthera tigris) and prey populations in Lao PDR. Animal Conservation 9: 421-430.
Karanth, K.U. and Kumar, N.S. 2005. Distribution and dynamics of tiger and prey populations in Maharashtra, India. Final Technical Report. Centre for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore, India.
Karanth, K. U. and Nichols, J. D. 1996. Ecological status and conservation of tigers in India (February 1995 - January 1996). Wildlife Conservation Society, India Program, Mysore - India.
Karanth, K.U. and Sunquist, M.E. 1992. Population structure, density and biomass of large herbivores in the tropical forests of Nagarahole, India. Journal of Tropical Ecology 8: 21.
Kaul, R., Hilaluddin, J. S., Jandrotia, J. S. and Mcgowan, P. J. K. 2004. Hunting large mammals and pheasants in the Indian western Himalaya. Oryx 38(4): 426.
Khan, M. A. R. 2003. Disappearence of the White-winged Duck Cairina scutulata from the Pablakhali Wildlife Sanctuary: a saga of large-scale destruction of mixed evergreen forest in Bangladesh. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 100: 363–374.
Kumara, H. N. and Singh, M. 2004. The influence of differing hunting practices on the relative abundance of mammals in two rainforest areas of the Western Ghats, India. Oryx 38: 321–327.
Kushwaha, S. P. S., Khan, A., Habibi, B., Quadri, A. and Singh, A. 2004. Evaluation of Sambar and Muntjak (sic) habitats using geostatistical modelling. Current Science 86: 1390-1400.
Lau, M.W.N., Fellowes, J.R. and Chan, B.P.L. 2010. Carnivores (Mammalia: Carnivora) in South China: a status review with notes on the commercial trade. Mammal Review 42: 247–292.
Lekagul, B. and McNeely, J.A. 1977. Mammals of Thailand. Association for the Conservation of Wildlife, Bangkok, Thailand.
Le Xuan Canh, Pham Trong Anh, Duckworth, J.W., Vu Ngoc Thanh and Lic Vuthy. 1997. A survey of large mammals in Dak Lak Province, Viet Nam. Unpublished report to IUCN and WWF. Hanoi, Viet Nam.
Lynam, A.J. 2003. A National Tiger Action Plan for the Union of Myanmar. Myanmar Forest Department, Ministry of Forestry, Yangon, Myanmar.
Lynam, A.J., Kreetiyutanont, K. and Mather, R. 2001. Conservation status and distribution of the Indochinese tiger (Panthera tigris corbetti) and other large mammals in a forest complex in northeastern Thailand. Natural History Bulletin of the Siam Society 49: 61-75.
Madhusudan, M.D. and Karanth, K.U. 2002. Local hunting and the conservation of large mammals in India. Ambio 31(1): 49-54.
Maxwell, A., Chea Nareth, Duong Kong, Timmins, R. and Duckworth, J.W. 2007. Hog Deer (Axis porcinus) confirmed in the wild in eastern Cambodia. Natural History Bulletin of the Siam Society 54: 227–237.
Ngoprasert, D., Lynam, A. J. and Gale, G. A. 2007. Human disturbance affects habitat use and behaviour of Asiatic Leopard in Kaeng Krachan National Park, Thailand. Oryx 41: 343-351.
Noreen, H. and Claridge, G. 2001. Wildlife trade in Laos: the end of the game. Netherlands Committee for IUCN, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Ohtaishi, N. and Gao, Y.T. 1990. A review of the distribution of all species of deer (Tragulidae, Moschidae and Cervidae) in China. Mammal Review 20(2-3): 125-144.
Pei, K.J.-C., Lai, Y.-C., Corlett, R.T. and Suen, K.-Y. 2010. The larger mammal fauna of Hong Kong: species survival in an highly degraded landscape. Zoological Studies 49: 253–264.
Polet, G. and Ling, S. 2004. Protecting mammal diversity: opportunities and constraints for pragmatic conservation management in Cat Tien National Park, Vietnam. Oryx 38(2): 186.
Prater, S. 1971. The Book of Indian Animals. Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay, India.
Rao, M., Myint, T., Zaw, T. and Htun, S. 2005. Hunting patterns in tropical forests adjoining the Hkakaborazi National Park, north Myanmar. Oryx 39(3): 292-300.
Roberts, T.J. 1977. The Mammals of Pakistan. Ernest Benn, London, UK.
Robinson, J.G. and Bennett, E.L. 2000. Carrying capacity limits to sustainable hunting in tropical forests. In: J.G. Robinson and E.L. Bennett (eds), Hunting for sustainability in tropical forests, pp. 13-30. Colombia University Press, New York, USA.
Santiapillai, C. and Wijeyamohan, S. 2003. The impact of civil war on wildlife in Sri Lanka. Current Science 84: 1182–1183.
Schaller, G.B. and Rabinowitz, A. 2004. Species of barking deer (genus Muntiacus) in the eastern Himalayan region. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 101: 442-444.
Seidensticker, J. 1976. Ungulate populations in Chitawan valley, Nepal. Biological Conservation 10: 183-210.
Shek, C-T, Chan, C. S. M. and Wan, Y-F. 2007. Camera Trap survey of Hong Kong Terrestrial Mammals in 2002-06 . Hong Kong Biodiversity: Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department Newsletter 15: 1-111.
Sheng, H.I. and Ohtaishi, N. 1993. The status of deer in China. In: N. Ohtaishi and H.I. Sheng (eds), Deer of China: Biology and Management, pp. 8. Elsevier, Oxford, UK.
Srikosamatara, S. 1993. Density and biomass of large herbivores and other mammals in a dry tropical forest, western Thailand. Journal of Tropical Ecology 9: 33-43.
Srikosamatara, S., Siripholdej, B. and Suteethorn, V. 1992. Wildlife trade in Lao P. D. R. and between Lao P. D. R. and Thailand. Natural History Bulletin of the Siam Society 40: 1–47.
Steinmetz, R. and R Mather. 1996. Impact of Karen villages on the fauna of Thung Yai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary: a participatory research project. Natural History Bulletin of the Siam Society 44: 23-40.
Steinmetz, R., Chutipong, W. and Seauturien, N. 2006. Collaborating to conserve large mammals in Southeast Asia. Conservation Biology 20: 1391–1401.
Steinmetz, R., Chutipong, W. and Seuaturien, N. 2010. Population recovery patterns of tropical ungulates after poaching in Thailand. Biological Conservation 143: 42–51.
Steinmetz, R., Chutipong, W., Seuaturien, N. and Cheungsa-ad, E. 2008. Community structure of large mammals in tropical montane and lowland forest in the Tenasserim–Dawna mountains, Thailand. Biotropica 40: 344–353.
Steinmetz, R., Srirattanpon, S., Mor-Tip, J. and Seuaturien, N. 2014. Can community outreach alleviate poaching pressure and recover wildlife in Southeast Asian protected areas? . Journal of Applied Ecology 51: 1469-1478.
Sukmasuang, R. 2001. Ecology of Barking Deer (Muntiacus spp.) in Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanc-tuary. Kasetsart University, Bangkok.
Tanomtong, A., Chaveerach, A., Phanjun, G., Kaensa, W. and Khunsook, S. 2005. New records of chromosomal feature in Indian muntiac (Muntiacus muntjak) and Fea’s Muntjacs (M. feae) of Thailand. Cytologia 70: 71-77.
Teng Li-Wei, Liu Zhen-Sheng, Song Yan-Ling amd Zeng Zhi-Gao. 2004. Forage and bed sites characteristics of Indian muntjac (Muntiacus muntjak) in Hainan Island, China. Ecological Research 19: 675-681.
Teng, L-W., Liu, Z-S., Song, Y-L., Zeng, Z-G., Li, S-Y. and Lin, X-M. 2005. Population size and characteristics of Indian Muntjac (Muntiacus muntjak) at Hainan Datian National Nature Reserve. Acta Theriologica Sinica 25(2): 138-142.
Timmins, R.J. 2006. An assessment of the biodiversity conservation significance of the Mekong Ramsar site, Stung Treng, Cambodia. Mekong Wetlands Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use Programme, Stung Treng, Cambodia.
Timmins, R.J. and Duckworth, J.W. 2000. Priorities for mammal conservation in the ROA: desk study for the Ecoregion-based conservation in the forests of the lower Mekong, biological assessment workshop. WWF Indochina Programme, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Timmins, R.J. and Duckworth, J.W. 2013. A survey of gibbons and other wildlife in the Bokeo section of Nam Kan National Protected Area, Lao PDR. Fauna & Flora International, Cambridge, UK.
Timmins, R.J. and Ou Rattanak. 2001. The importance of Phnom Prich Wildlife Sanctuary and adjacent areas for the conservation of tigers and other key species. WWF Indochina Programme, Hanoi, Vietnam and Phonm Penh, Cambodia.
Timmins, R. J., Duckworth, J. W., Pattanavibool, A., Steinmetz, R., Samba Kumar, N., Anwarul Islam, Md. and Sagar Baral, H. 2008. Muntiacus vaginalis. In: IUCN 2014. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.1. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org.
Timmins, R.J., Evans, T.D., Khounboline, K. and Sisomphone, C. 1998. Status and conservation of the giant muntjac Megamuntiacus vuquangensis and notes on other muntjac species in Laos. Oryx 32: 59-67.
Timmins, R.J. In press a. The potential wildlife conservation significance and priority of remaining forest in northwestern Tuy Duc District, Dak Nong Province, based on a survey of birds and large mammals. Wildlife Conservation Society, Hanoi.
Timmins, R.J. In press b. Report on a survey for Saola, using leeches, in Phou Sithone Endangered Species Conservation Area, Bolikhamxai Province, Lao P.D.R. Saola Working Group and WCS Lao Program.
Timmins, R.J., Robichaud, W.G., Long, B., Hedges, S., Steinmetz, R., Abramov, A., Do Tuoc and Mallon, D. 2007. Pseudoryx nghetinhensis. In: 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 17 April 2008).
Tungittiplakorn, W. and Dearden, P. 2002. Hunting and wildlife use in some Hmong communities in northern Thailand. Natural History Bulletin of the Siam Society 50: 57–73.
Van Dijk, P. P., Stuart, B. L. and Rhodin, A. G. J. (eds). 2000. Asian Turtle Trade: Proceedings of a Workshop on Conservation and Trade of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises in Asia. Chelonian Research Monographs 2, Chelonian Research Foundation, Lunenburg, Massachusetts, USA.
Wang Y.X. 2003. A Complete Checklist of Mammal Species and Subspecies in China, A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, China.
Whitehead, K.G. 1993. The Whitehead Encyclopedia of Deer. Voyageur Press, Inc, Stillwater, MN, USA.
Wurster, D. M. and Aitkin, N. B. 1972. Muntjac chromosomes: a new karyotype for Muntiacus muntjac. Experientia 28: 972-973.
|Citation:||Timmins, R.J., Steinmetz, R., Samba Kumar, N., Anwarul Islam, Md. & Sagar Baral, H. 2016. Muntiacus vaginalis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T136551A22165292.Downloaded on 26 April 2018.|
|Feedback:||If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown on this page, please provide us with feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided|