Biometrical Analysis of the Indian One Horned Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros Unicornis) in Laal Suhanra National Park, Pakistan: Biometrical Analysis of the Indian One Horned Rhinoceros

Muhammad Rizwan Khan; Bushra Nisar Khan; Zia Ullah; Fakhra Nazir; Arshia Mukhtar; Mubasher Rauf; Muhmmad Azhar; Abida Mushtaque; Rida Fatima

doi:10.54393/mjz.v5i01.93

Authors

Muhammad Rizwan Khan Safari Zoo, Punjab Wildlife and Parks Department, Lahore, Pakistan
Bushra Nisar Khan Institute of Zoology, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
Zia Ullah Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, University of Veterinary an Animal Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan
Fakhra Nazir Capital University of Science and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan
Arshia Mukhtar Institute of Zoology, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
Mubasher Rauf Department of Pathology, Cholistan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bahawalpur, Pakistan
Muhmmad Azhar Safari Zoo, Lahore, Pakistan
Abida Mushtaque Center of Excellence in Molecular Biology, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
Rida Fatima University of Veterinary an Animal Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54393/mjz.v5i01.93

Keywords:

Biometrical Analysis, One-Horned Rhinoceros, Megaherbivores, Necropsy, Threatened Species

Abstract

The Indian One-Horned Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis), commonly referred to as the Indian Rhinoceros, is an endangered species inhabiting the floodplains and grasslands of the Indian subcontinent. Once abundant, the species now faces a vulnerable status in its homeland, as confirmed by the International Union for The Conservation of Nature IUCN’s assessment. Objective: To record Rhinoceros unicornis' biometric body measurements for the first time. Methods: The following study delves into the significance of body biometry data for the conservation of this remarkable species Indian One Horned Rhinoceros housed at Lal Suhanra National Park, Punjab, Pakistan. In order to give conservationists, the resources they need to develop more effective methods involving habitat management, population monitoring, and captive breeding programs, a thorough analysis of the physical characteristics, growth trends, and sexual dimorphism of 42-year-old Indian Rhinos via the evaluation of the body measurements was conducted. Results: This study presents comprehensive body measurements of the Indian One-Horned Rhinoceros which have never been published before. The length of the rhino itself spanned 143 inches, encapsulating the magnitude of this magnificent creature. These insightful observations are crucial for protecting the threatened species, particularly considering the growing threats caused by habitat loss, poaching, and the effects of climate change. Conclusions: Biometric analysis of large mammals assumes a pivotal role when designing enclosures and estimating the enclosure dimensions.

References

Subedi N, Jnawali SR, Dhakal M, Pradhan NM, Lamichhane BR, Malla S et al. Population status, structure and distribution of the greater one-horned rhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis in Nepal. Oryx. 2013 Jul; 47(3): 352-60. doi: 10.1017/S0030605313000562.

Zschokke S and Baur B. Inbreeding, outbreeding, infant growth, and size dimorphism in captive Indian rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis). Canadian Journal of Zoology. 2002 Nov; 80(11): 2014-23. doi: 10.1139/z02-183.

Mukherjee T, Sharma LK, Saha GK, Thakur M, Chandra K. Past, present and future: combining habitat suitability and future landcover simulation for long-term conservation management of Indian rhino. Scientific Reports. 2020 Jan; 10(1): 606. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-57547-0.

Amin R, Thomas K, Emslie RH, Foose TJ, Strien NV. An overview of the conservation status of and threats to rhinoceros species in the wild. International Zoo Yearbook. 2006 Jul; 40(1): 96-117. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-1090.2006.00096.x.

Dinerstein E. The Return of the Unicorns: The Natural History and Conservation of the Greater One-Horned Rhinoceros. New York Chichester, West Sussex: Columbia University Press; 2003. doi: 10.7312/dine08450.

Heidegger EM, von Houwald F, Steck B, Clauss M. Body condition scoring system for greater one‐horned rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis): Development and application. Zoo Biology. 2016 Sep; 35(5): 432-43. doi: 10.1002/zoo.21307.

Biknevicius AR. Biomechanical scaling of limb bones and differential limb use in caviomorph rodents. Journal of Mammalogy. 1993 Feb; 74(1): 95-107. doi: 10.2307/1381908.

Adhikari BP, Haider W, Gurung O, Poudyal M, Beardmore B, Knowler D et al. Economic incentives and poaching of the one-horned Indian rhinoceros in Nepal stakeholder perspectives in biodiversity conservation: analysis of local, national and global stakes in rhino conservation in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. SSRN Products and Services. 2005.

Albarella U. 'Size matters': how and why biometry is still important in zooarchaeology. In: Dobney K and O’Connor T, (eds.). Bones and the Man: Studies in honour of Don Brothwell. Oxbow Books, Oxford.2002: 51-62.

Ghosh T, Kumar S, Sharma K, Kakati P, Sharma A, Mondol S. Consideration of genetic variation and evolutionary history in future conservation of Indian one-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis). BMC Ecology and Evolution. 2022 Jul; 22(1): 92. doi: 10.1186/s12862-022-02045-2.

McGavin MD and Zachary JF. Pathologic basis of veterinary disease. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2006 Aug.

Rech RR, Giaretta PR, Ploeg R, Edwards EE, Brown CC, Barros CS. Shapes of pathology. Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira. 2021 Jul; 41:e06894. doi: 10.1590/1678-5150-pvb-6894.

Christiansen P. Mass allometry of the appendicular skeleton in terrestrial mammals. Journal of Morphology. 2002 Feb; 251(2): 195-209. doi: 10.1002/jmor.1083.

Campione NE and Evans DC. A universal scaling relationship between body mass and proximal limb bone dimensions in quadrupedal terrestrial tetrapods. BMC Biology. 2012 Dec; 10: 1-22. doi: 10.1186/1741-7007-10-60.

Nietfeld JC. Field necropsy techniques and proper specimen submission for investigation of emerging infectious diseases of food animals. The Veterinary Clinics of North America. Food Animal Practice. 2010 Mar; 26(1): 1-3. doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2009.10.005.

Cubo J and Casinos A. The variation of the cross-sectional shape in the long bones of birds and mammals. InAnnales des Sciences Naturelles-Zoologie et Biologie Animale. 1998 Jan; 19(1): 51-62. doi: 10.1016/S0003-4339(98)80134-2.

Ibrahim AA, Aliyu J, Ashiru RM, Jamilu M, Ibrahim A, Aliyu J et al. Biometric study of the reproductive organs of three breeds of sheep in Nigeria. International Journal of Morphology. 2012 Dec; 30(4): 1597-603. doi: 10.4067/S0717-95022012000400053.

Schmidt M and Fischer MS. Morphological integration in mammalian limb proportions: dissociation between function and development. Evolution. 2009 Mar; 63(3): 749-66. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00583.x.

Kettle BT and Lucas JS. Biometric relationships between organ indices, fecundity, oxygen consumption and body size in Acanthaster planci (L.)(Echinodermata; Asteroidea). Bulletin of Marine Science. 1987 Sep; 41(2): 541-51.

Kouamo J, Saague AM, Zoli AP. Determination of age and weight of bovine fetus (Bos indicus) by biometry. Journal of Livestock Science. 2018 Jan; 9.

Dayan MO, Beşoluk K, Eken E, Aydoğdu S, Turgut N. Three-dimensional modelling of the femur and humerus in adult male guinea pigs (guinea pig) with computed tomography and some biometric measurement values. Folia Morphologica. 2019; 78(3): 588-94. doi: 10.5603/FM.a2019.0002.