Detailed Final Report

ECOLOGY AND MORPHOLOGY OF WILD GOAT POPULATIONS AND THEIR

IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSERVATION OF ARMENIA’S MOUNTAIN ECOSYSTEMS

P. Weinberg and A. Malkhasyan

Proposed primary objectives of the project were: Wild goat is among the animals most persecuted by poachers in Armenia. Our studies of sex and age structure, reproduction rates and kid survival rates vs. habitat quality and man-caused pressure in different study areas (sites) will enable to check the population health, develop targeted conservation measures and propose methods of sustainable use (e.g., trophy hunting) for each particular site and for Armenia in general. The project output will include scientific articles, popular papers and reports with descriptions of current status and recommendations for wild goat conservation in Armenia. They will be submitted to the national Ministry of Nature Protection to amend the existing wild goat conservation strategy and thus make a long-term contribution to conservation of mountain ecosystems. Unlike previous project, this one was aimed at surveying and comparing wild goat populations in privately owned/leased or totally unprotected areas with those of state-protected NR and NP. It should be noted that it is almost impossible to determine the actual owner or leaseholder, unless persons in question are themselves willing to share information. But even in that case, one can never be sure about reliability of the info.

Introduction Transcaucasian population of the wild (bezoar) goat (Capra aegagrus) occupies the north-westernmost borderlands of the species range which occurs mainly in Iran (Lay, 1967; Ziaie, 1997), Pakistan (Hess et al., 1997) and Turkey (Kence and Tarhan, 1997). Only the totally isolated population of the Greater Caucasus is situated more to the north. Wild goat belongs to Front-Asian mammalian fauna, together with Armenian mouflon (Ovis [orientalis] gmelini), leopard (Panthera pardus), (Capra aegagrus), hyena (Hyena hyena), jackal (Canis aureus) and porcupine (Hystrix leucura) which also inhabit Caucasus Minor and even reach Greater Caucasus (except mouflon). Until mid-20th century, Transcaucasian part of the range was connected with Iranian part by regular and irregular migrations across the Arax River, but enforcement of border-line defence systems terminated these migrations after the WW II, and population of the wild goat in Armenia and Nakhchivan became isolated from the main range (Gasparyan, 1974). Wild goat is the principal large mammal species of Armenia and, as such, is probably the best indicator of the overall status of wildlife in Armenian mountains. Material and methods The field work on this project started in July 2012 and terminated in December 2013. In the course of the project, we conducted 3 surveys. This project was aimed at studying 3 non-governmentally protected areas in Central Armenia being in private lease: Yeghegis Gorge, Ardoikar Cliffs and Noravank Canyon. Besides, we repeatedly surveyed Kakavaberd and Khosrov branches of Khosrov NR, and Nuvadi area of Arevik NP (of the first project), in order to continue monitoring situation there and to obtain data for comparison with newly surveyed areas. Of 3 main survey areas of the first project, only Zangezur Range was completely omitted. There were also singular visits to non-protected Ak-Kilisa Valley and Jermuk Valley in Central Armenia, and to the extremity of Bargushat Range in South-Eastern Armenia. For this account we fused data on all 3 main branches of Khosrov NR, namely Kakavaberd, Khosrov and Khachadzor Valleys. The latter two belong to the same Azat R. riverbasin, while upper reaches of Kakavaberd are very close to those of Khosrov, so animals, males in particular, should have no problem moving between all three valleys separated by rather narrow stretches of plateau. Data on Yeghegis Gorge and Ardoikar Cliffs (with adjoining Soyanots Gully) are also fused, though these areas belong to different owners/leaseholders, because Ardoikar Cliffs are situated just over the ridge from Yeghegis and animals inhabiting these sites belong to one population. Arpa R. valley, which is rather precipitous at places, connects local goat populations of different valleys draining into it, like Eghegis, Noravank, Ger-Ger and Jermuk. Surveys took place in July – August 2012, August 2013 (post-parturition periods) and December 2013 (rutting season), 59 days in the field altogether. Field data were collected while routing the survey areas on foot and scanning them through binoculars. When animals were found, a spotting scope was used for aging and sexing them. Sites of encounters were fixed by GPS; elevation, exposure of the slope, vegetation type, terrain type (cliffs, meadows, scree) and presence of snow were put down. Age and sex classes: kids or juveniles (under the age of 1 year), yearlings of both sexes (between 1 and 2 years old), females, 2-year old males, 3-year old males, 4-5-year old males and fully mature males older than 6 years. Males of different age could be distinguished by size and shape of horns (number of knobs on the frontal keel situated on the borders of annual segments until the 7-8th

segments), and development of light-coloured background coloration.

Fig. 1. Wild goat study areas in Armenia (constant: 1- Khosrov NR, 2 – Yeghegis and Ardoikar, 3 - Noravank, 4 – Nuvadi; sporadic: ovals – Ak-Kilisa, Jermuk and Bargushat). Four types of groups were recognized: mature male groups (consisting of males and including at least one mature male), young male groups, female groups (females, yearlings of both sex, kids and young males, up to 5 years old) and mixed groups (including adult males ≥6 years and females, beside other classes). Results Description of the study areas The mentioned areas are rather different in geology and vegetation. Noravank Canyon (fig. 2) is a middle section of a rather long valley draining into Arpa River, situated in Aiotsdzor Massif composed of limestone, stretching South-East – North-West direction, not far from Nakhichivan border. The Canyon itself is short (appr. 3500 m in a beeline), up to 500 m deep and low (1500 m a.s.l.). There are still smaller canyons and rocky outcrops in vicinity. Vegetation is steppe-like, with junipers on more precipitous and sunny places, occasional aspen and various shrubbery (Spiraea, Rosa etc.). Summers are hot and dry, while winters are snowy and harsh. Medieval church which gave the name to the valley (Noravank – New church) is situated at the mouth of the canyon.

Figure 2. Noravank Canyon in winter (all photos by A. Malkhasyan if not otherwise stated).

Figure 3. Yeghegis Gorge. Yeghegis Gorge cuts in East – West direction through the limestone Vardenis Range. Its bottom lies at 1400 m a.s.l., while the surrounding ridges, mostly flat and plateau-like, rise to almost 3000 m a.s.l. The precipitous, canyon-like lower section harbouring goats runs for appr. 8-10 km. Valley

harbours sparse tree vegetation: junipers (on cliffs and southern slopes), maple, aspen and oak, and standard semi-arid shrubbery. Summers are usually dry (maybe rather fresh on the ridges), winters are harsh and snowy (fig. 3). Ardoikar Cliffs (fig. 4) are situated in the neighbourhood of Yeghegis Valley, on the other side of the range at the elevation of appr. 2600 m a.s.l. There are remnants of forest in the gullies and the Cliffs incorporate a neighbouring small valley with smaller cliff massifs, Soyanots, occurring in the same lease area. In fact, Ardoikar belongs to Yeghegis Valley wild goat range.

Figure 4. Ardoikar Cliffs. Khosrov NR consists of 3 main goat areas: Kakavaberd (fig. 5), Khosrov (fig.6) and Khachadzor. All these valleys are alike, being cut into the same rather low (up to 2300 m a.s.l.) limestone and sandstone offshoot of Gegama Range with flat, plateau-like ridges. They are canyon-like, with oak forest and various shrubbery (Spiraea, Rosa etc.) on very steep and precipitous slopes. Two Kakavaberd canyons are most steep and precipitous, with innumerable caves and grottos (up to 500 m deep), while Khosrov and Khachadzor are less rocky and, hence, less rich in goats, which dwell mainly in the valleys, only occasionally showing up on the edges of the plateau which harbours

Figure 5. Kakavaberd Valley.

Figure 6. Khosrov Valley. livestock during the snow-less period. Summers are hot but winters are usually rather cold and snowy, though significant snow-cover seldom occurs before January.

Ak-Kilisa Valley (fig. 7) is within the same Vardenis Range as Yeghegis Valley, but more to the West. It is much shorter, harbours similar vegetation, and wild goats inhabit its lower and upper sections. We surveyed upper end of the valley and surrounding ridges at appr. 2700 m a.s.l., the same elevation as around Yeghegis Valley.

Figure 7. Ak-Kilisa. Jermuk Valley (a summer resort and famous for its mineral water) is situated eastwards of Yeghegis Gorge. Wild goats inhabit its canyon-like lower section harbouring an abandoned road running along the bottom. This area has typical semi-arid vegetation with dominating junipers, and rowan, maple and willow. Bargushat Range is an offshoot of Zangezur Range, running in West – East direction, composed of crystalline rock and reaching elevations just over 3000 m a.s.l. Its easternmost end around the Katar Mnt. boasts typical altitudinal vegetation zones: broad-leafed forest and subalpine meadows above (fig. 8). At places topography is very broken, with huge vertical cliff walls, favoured by female groups (fig. 9).

Figure 8. Bargushat Range, subalpine male and female habitat.

Figure 9. Bargushat Range, female habitat.

Table 1 Age and sex classes of counted wild goats Age and sex classes

Year, season and site 2009* 2010* 2012 2013 rut post-part. rut post-parturition post-parturition rut

Nuvadi

Kakavaberd

Nuvadi

Kakavaberd

Nuvadi

Yeghegis

Noravank

Ak-K

ilisa

Khosrov

Yeghegis

Noravank

Bargushat

Khosrov

Nuvadi

Yeghegis

Noravank

Khosrov

Nuvadi

Males

≥ 6 yrs 22 2 4 18 1 6 3 3 2 10 3 10 13 4-5 yrs 10 1 1 1 10 1 3 6 1 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 16 3 yrs 22 4 1 10 5 5 5 6 1 7 4 6 3 2 3 4 5 2 yrs 25 8 5 5 9 8 6 5 11 19 6 9 6 3 15 10 12 6 yearlings 28 7 7 3 12 10 10 9 3 20 13 5 3 5 15 15 13 25 unspecif. total ≥ 2 yrs

79 13 9 20 42 15 14 23 13 32 13 19 13 3 30 17 28 40

Females

adult 116 26 36 18 54 42 80 4 4 54 56 18 21 58 63 91 30 94

yearlings 22 5 9 3 13 10 14 1 1 13 9 2 7 5 13 13 11 27

Kids 69 30 41 17 53 35 73 2 5 29 38 11 13 47 28 50 16 64 Total 314 81 102 61 174 112 191 39 26 148 129 55 57 118 149 186 98 250

Note: *Data on relevant sites from the previous RSG project.

Fig. 10. Wild goat habitat on Megri Range. Nuvadi Valley is situated on the south-east end of crystalline Megri Range reaching 2270 m a.s.l. in the given area. Forests are mainly oak on shady slopes and sparse juniper stands on sunny ones (fig. 10), with several magnificent cliff massifs, Darbara (near the ridge) being the largest. Summers are very hot, and winters are usually warm and poor in snow though winds are chilling. Fresh green grass is found throughout the year. Of all the surveyed areas, Nuvadi boasts the mildest climate and overall best foraging conditions. Seasonal distribution and habitat use On the whole, females are the sedentary part of any population, adult males being more mobile and differing ecologically from females with offspring, often even spatially segregated from them outside the rutting season. That is why in some places adult males are very difficult to find in the summers. Wild goats use all altitudinal zones occurring both in forest and open habitat, but the actual distribution depends upon local conditions and population characteristics including density and level of anthropogenic disturbance. Generally speaking, wild goats in surveyed sites do not display any noticeable seasonal altitudinal migrations, being similar in this respect with their conspecifics in the Greater Caucasus, and differing from tur (Capra caucasica, C. cylindricornis). We chose not to calculate new data as they would just repeat those obtained and calculated in the account on the first RSG project. Distribution, population size and density Khosrov NR consists of 3 main branches: Kakavaberd, Khosrov and Khachadzor, with a small Aksu Valley between the latter two. Khosrov and Khachadzor belong to the same riverbasin, but Kakavaberd, though separate, is very close to the upper reaches of Khosrov Valley. In fact, all these valleys are separated by narrow stretches of plateau, and animals, males in particular, easily move between the valleys.

Kakavaberd is the richest in goats, consisting of two confluent canyons. Khosrov is one main valley with smaller offshoots, like Khachadzor, which is less precipitous. Thus, the main wild goat habitat are steep cliff walls, up to some 600 m deep, not showing on the map. Wild goats just ascend the edges of the plateau, males most certainly occasionally cross it in narrower places between the neighbouring canyons during pre-rut and post-rut migrations. Strictly speaking, the plateau itself (except between the two Kakavaberd canyons) can hardly be regarded as wild goat habitat, therefore the actual areas of the 3 sites are small. Thus, even rather small local population displays considerable population density (table 2). Again, as during the first project, we could find next to no adult males anywhere in Khosrov in summer. Only 2 very large and mature males were spotted in Khosrov Valley in a small rocky gully, quite separate from the main female habitat in Akh-Kyand Cliffs. Winter density is slightly but insignificantly lower, though logically it should have been the other way around, exactly because of the males showing up for rut. However, it should be noted that deep snow hampered completing the 2 main routes in Kakavaberd Valley, so that at least one of the main two canyons had not been scanned properly. Noravank Canyon is probably one of the most spectacular and peculiar wild goat sites that we have surveyed. It is a rather short (appr. 3500 m long and up to some 500 m deep) canyon section of a valley which is much less precipitous in lower and, particularly, upper parts. Canyon is surrounded by rolling slopes and ridges. There is another, much smaller, canyon of the Grav R. and Vardablur Mnt. to the East, and a cliff wall called Mozrov Stone to the South, just above Arpa R. valley. The two former are smaller sites harbouring up to some 20 animals each, while Mozrov Stone is a larger cliff wall with considerably more goats, but unfortunately we had no time and opportunity to survey properly those neighboring sites belonging to the same population because of time limits, and the lease-holder categorically declined us access to the area during partridge hunting. Besides these 3 areas, there are several smaller rocky massifs in the neighborhood, like Maili-Khan, harboring males of different age and occasional small female groups. We calculate area of Noravank Canyon, including the surrounding slopes and smaller cliffs, but not Mozrov Stone and Grav Canyon, which we did not survey. Table 2. Maximal sizes and densities of the studied populations (highest numbers chosen of all years) Parameters Surveyed sites

Yeghegis Noravank Khosrov NR*

Nuvadi

Area (approx.), km2 50 15 115 (100 without Khachadzor)

60

Counted animals

summer 148 191 146 118

rut 148 186 98 (without Khachadzor)

250

Density per km2 summer 3.0 12.7 1.3 2.0

rut 3.0 12.4 1.0 4.2 Note: * maximal combined numbers from different years. Approximate area of the whole site hardly exceeds 15 km2, thus being very limited, the smallest one of all surveyed in Armenia. Despite the small size, it harbors one of the largest local wild

goat populations in Armenia with the highest density (tab. 2), unparalleled throughout all of our research and not just in Armenia. And numbers we counted weren’t just summed up of different sightings. Most animals were spotted simultaneously. E.g. we saw 83 animals in one aggregation, and simultaneously 61 goats in 6 groups on the same side of the canyon not far from the aggregation. In Noravank, summer and rut densities don’t differ, which is explainable as only few adults and subadult males showed up for the rut there (table 1). Yeghegis Gorge consists of the gorge itself and a couple of small sites over the ridge. Upper section of the Valley is open and rolling and inappropriate for goats. Precipitous lower section harboring goats is about 8, maybe10 km long with 2 large villages on the valley-bottom. Goats inhabit both slopes, but we observed almost exclusively one slope, the one connected with Ardoikar Cliffs and Soyanots. There are rolling open slopes with next to no cliffs between Yeghegis Gorge and Ardoikar with Soyanots. Goats probably just cross this terrain moving between rocky areas. Because of open terrain, overall area is large, and, despite decent numbers, density is low (tab. 2.). Just the goat habitat counted, area would have been twice smaller and density, correspondingly, twice higher (6.0). As in Noravank, summer and winter densities are the same in Yeghegis because, as in Noravank, only 7 seven more adult males have been spotted there during the rut. Nuvadi Valley (belonging to Arevik NP) is a limited area and – according to certain information – neighbouring valleys are noticeably poorer in wild goats, maybe due to worse protection, larger human population and smoother topography. There is a significant difference between summer and rut densities (table 2), which may be caused by concentration of animals in Nuvadi Valley during the rut due to better protection and temporal immigration of additional males (see below), but mainly probably because of daylight activity during the rut. In summer, goats disperse in the woods, males, at least partly, emigrating over the ridge to neighbouring much more forested Shikahokh NR. On the whole, animals are much more difficult to observe in Nuvadi in summer, except females concentrating around the village. This phenomenon will be discussed in the chapter on age and sex structure. However, despite really large numbers of animals observed in Nuvadi, rut period density is approximately on the same level as in Khosrov and Yeghegis. Thus, only Noravank stands apart in this respect. As we did not perform full-scale surveys in Ak-Kilisa, Jermuk and Katar Mnt., no data on overall numbers and densities are given for these 2 areas. However, considerably more goats have been observed in Jermuk during just one morning than during our previous over-night stay in this area in 2006. Comparing data from 2 state protected territories and 2 being in private lease, it’s clear that densities don’t depend upon ownership, or type of protection. Ardoikar Cliffs are very conspicuous in this respect. Leaseholder began to protect the area (just over 4 km2) some 5 years ago. There were no goats there at all then, according to him. In summer 2010, we surveyed the area for the first time. We found 14 males 2-3-year-old, 14 yearlings of both sex and 2 females 2-year-old. In summer 2012, we found 15 males, 8 females, 13 yearlings and 4 kids. In summer 2013, there were 23 young males, 11 females, 16 yearlings and 7 kids. We also observed 3 young and 2 mature males in the neighbouring Soyanots. Growth is impressive, but will hardly continue for long, as capacity of the site is limited. Mechanism of this process will be discussed later. Because of small capacity and mainly northern exposure, numbers of goats dwelling there during the rut was incomparably smaller than those given above. As for the other sites, it’s difficult to see general trends as the period of observation is short (2-3

years). There doesn’t seem to be a positive trend in Kakavaberd branch of Khosrov NR, and situation in Nuvadi Valley seems overall stable. Sex/age structure and reproductive performance of the population (birth rate, juvenile mortality) In this research we obtained post-parturition data for 2 seasons and rut period data of one year for Noravank and Yeghegis. These can be compared with data for Nuvadi and Khosrov (Kakavaberd) for 3 years. However, before comparing main indices and their dynamics in different sites, we should ascertain which of them would be valid for comparison. From summer indices, it’s clear that sites differ basically in composition of their wild goat population. There are females’ sites and males’ sites; the ones for young males and mature males possibly also being different. Thus, Ak-Kilisa was the only definite mature males’ site in Central Armenia that we came across (tables 1 and 3.). It is situated on the very ridge of the offshoot of Vardenis Range in the subalpine and alpine zones at an elevation of appr. 3000 m a.s.l. (fig.). It is merely some 20 km in a beeline from Yeghegis Gorge but hardly connected with it populationally, being separated by a wide and humans-populated valley with a busy highway leading to Sevan Lake. Ak-Kilisa does harbour females too, but males of all age classes (from yearlings to adults) dominate by far (tables 1 and 3). Ardoikar Cliffs is an example of young males’ area (tables 1 and 2). And exactly yearling males from Ardoikar provide high indices of this class for Yeghegis population on the whole. However, mature males are found in Yeghegis Valley itself and in adjoining smallish precipitous sites like Ardoikar and Soyanots, while Noravank totally lacks mature males in summer and is extremely poor in males in general, except yearlings which are quite nicely represented (tables 1, 2 and 3). These data show that even yearlings, male in particular, are associated with females much less tightly that we thought previously. Consequently, only kid index can characterize local female population adequately and show its reproductive potential and actual birth rate. Other indices ‘work’ properly only during the rut, though yearlings (females in particular) are much easier to determine during post-parturition period, when they are still considerably smaller than 2-year-olds. Yeghegis demonstrates decent reproductive parameters (kid and yearling indices), but sex ratio and mature males’ proportion are lower than in unharvested populations (table 3) (Veinberg, 2001; Weinberg, 2002). Juvenile index dives in 2013, like in all other populations. Noravank displays nice reproductive indices (tables 2 and 3), and the expected drop of juvenile index in 2013, but sex ratio and mature males’ proportion are the lowest ones among all the given populations (table 3). Mature males’ absence in summertime is similar to that in Khosrov and Nuvadi (see below), though maybe more ‘absolute’, as no males ≥6 yrs have been spotted anywhere in vicinity during both summer surveys. However, in Nuvadi and Khosrov mature males do immigrate for the rut in fair numbers, while only 3 mature males were observed in Noravank during the rut 2013, making just 1.6% of the population. Strangely enough, it doesn’t visibly effect reproduction yet.

Table 3 Population structure indices of different wild goat populations in Armenia

Index

Year, season and site 2009 2010 2012 2013 rut post-part. rut post-parturition post-parturition rut

Nuvadi

Kakavaberd

Nuvadi

Kakavaberd

Nuvadi

Yeghegis

Noravank

Ak-K

ilisa

Khosrov

(Khachadzor)

Yeghegis

Noravank

Bargushat

Khosrov

Nuvadi

Yeghegis

Noravank

Khosrov

Nuvadi

Ardoik

ar

Ardoikar

% ad♂ 7.0 2.0 6.6 10.3 0.9 15.4 2.0 5.5 3.5 6.7 1.6 10.2 5.2

♂/♀ 0.68 0.52 0.25 1.11 0.78 0.36 1.88 0.18 5.75 3.25 0.59 2.55 0.23 1.06 0.62 0.05 0.48 0.19 0.93 0.43

Yr♂/ yr♀ 1.27 1.40 0.78 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.17 0.71 9.00 3.00 1.54 1.67 1.44 2.50 0.43 1.00 1.15 1.15 1.18 0.93

Yr/♀ 0.43 0.46 0.44 0.33 0.46 0.48 1.63 0.30 2.50 1.00 0.80 1.45 0.39 0.39 0.48 0.17 0.44 0.31 0.80 0.55

Juv/♀ 0.59 1.15 1.14 0.94 0.98 0.83 0.50 0.91 0.50 1.25 0.54 0.64 0.68 0.61 0.62 0.81 0.44 0.55 0.53 0.68

N♀ 116 26 36 18 54 42 8 80 4 4 54 11 56 18 21 58 63 91 30 94

Notes: Kakavaberd and Khachadzor are parts of Khosrov, and in rut 2013 Khosrov includes Kakavaberd; data in italics are definitely unreliable statistically, because of insufficient amount of material.

Bargushat, though definitely unreliable statistically, goes along with other sites: average juvenile and yearling indices, but certain male dominance characterizing the site as a universal area, inhabited by both females and males (table 3). The place resembles the adjoining Zangezur Range in all respects, both regarding habitat types and characteristics of the goat population. Khosrov demonstrates quite decent parameters in all years and seasons (tables 1 and 3). Juvenile and yearling indices are high, sex ratio and mature males’ proportion are decent and characteristic of protected populations (Veinberg, 2001; Weinberg, 2002). There are just 2 moments attracting attention: unreasonably high yearling index (exceeding that of juveniles) during the rut 2013 and low kid index in summer and consequently during the rut 2013. The first may have occurred because of some temporary concentration of yearlings. Nuvadi demonstrates the same dynamics of reproductive indices as all other sites. Very nice juvenile index with the expected drop in 2013 (tables 1 and 3). Average sex ratio and mature males’ proportion with a kind of negative trend compared to 2009 and, especially, 2010 (table 2), which may be temporary. Nuvadi is very peculiar in female groups dwelling in the vicinity of the village, often foraging in orchards and vegetable gardens just between the houses. Juvenile index of females living on Yubdash Mnt., up in the valley, was slightly higher (juv/♀ = 0.82, yr/♀ = 0.15, N♀ = 33) than those of ‘village’ females (juv/♀ = 0.72, yr/♀ = 0.32, N♀ = 25), though yearling index was higher in the latter. It should be noted that ‘village’ females were accompanied by larger number not only of yearling but also of 2-year old females. During the rut, a smaller number of females also dwell near the village. This phenomenon indicates that wild goats in Nuvadi do not percept people as threat there but, on the contrary, are attracted to them by something. Hard to say what that attraction might be, because Nuvadi Valley does not lack water and fresh grass throughout the year. There are lots of females in Yeghegis Gorge just opposite and above a couple of large villages as well, but animals do not approach villages and certainly do not enter them, so Nuvadi is unique in harbouring ‘synanthropic’ goats. It should be noted that overall decline of juvenile index in Armenia has not been found in wild goat populations in the neighbouring Nakhchivan in the same 2013. It was: juv/♀ = 1.40, yr/♀ = 0.53 (N♀ = 53) on Zangezur Range and juv/♀ = 0.82, yr/♀ = 0.27 in isolated Negramdagh Canyon of Arax R. (N♀ = 33). On Zangezur, both indices were strikingly high. Survey in Nakhchivan has been performed in mid-June (within a different project), while that in Armenia, in August. However, we don’t think that 2 months difference would mean that much. Unfortunately, we had no funds and time to perform survey on Armenian slope of Zangezur, which would have been very interesting in clarifying present differences in population parameters.

Table 4 Average population structure indices in main observation areas

Index

Site and period of the year Yeghegis Noravank Khosrov (Kakavaberd) Nuvadi post-part.

rut* post-part.

rut* post-part. rut post-part.

rut

% ad♂ 17.8 6.7 1.6 1.2 8.8 0.9 7.1 ♂/♀ 0.48 0.48 0.17 0.19 0.76 1.0 0.12 0.65 Yr/♀ 0.55 0.44 0.24 0.31 0.51 0.63 0.31 0.48 Juv/♀ 0.67 0.44 0.82 0.55 0.94 0.69 0.91 0.70 N♀ 96 63 136 91 51 48 94 264

Notes * – data from just 1 season, 2013.

Comparing 2 main non-governmentally protected areas (Yeghegis and Noravank) with 2 mains governmentally protected (Khosrov NR and Nuvadi, Arevik NP, though the latter quite recently organized), it is clear that reproductive parameters are almost similar in both (table 4), at least they do not differ statistically. However, there is a difference in sex ratios and proportions of mature males during the rut. Both are significantly higher in NR and NP (table 4). Low proportion of mature males is almost undeniably caused by selective anthropogenic pressure upon them, namely hunting. It is known that large males are being hunted in Yeghegis and Noravank by owner/leaseholder, but not in Ardoikar, with a different owner. It should be noted that owner/leaseholder of Noravank and Yeghegis stopped indiscriminate poaching on his lands several years ago and overall numbers of goats have risen since, though there are no previous data to check this growth. Up to now, harvesting of mature males has not influenced reproductive rate, but who knows what happens if selective hunting will continue and proportion of mature males will diminish further. Grouping patterns and their dependence upon season and population density In order to get an adequate comparison, we chose types of groups which have been seen most often during post-parturition and the rut, namely female groups and mixed groups correspondingly. Adult male groups and young male groups are definitely not dominant numerically in our main survey areas in summer, while overall average group size index might show a skewed picture because of different proportions of other types of groups, like adult male or young male groups, in various sites. Table 5 Average group sizes in main observation areas

Parameters

Site and period of the year

Yeghegis Noravank Khosrov (Kakavaberd)

Nuvadi

post-part.

rut post-part.

rut post-part.

rut post-part.

rut

Female groups (n)

7.8 (44)

8.2 (10)

5.9 (54)

51.0 (2)

4.2 (31)

8.5 (4)

6.1 (40)

17.6 (32)

Mixed group (n) 4.4

(16) 11.1 (7) 5.0

(21) 6.7 (45)

Note: n – number of groups of the relevant type. Not all sites are represented equally well, especially regarding the rutting period. Most reliable data are on Nuvadi and Yeghegis, and summer data are generally more numerous that those for the rut, but the overall picture is quite clear and a bit weird. There is no direct connection between population density and average group size, particularly in summer. Average female group size was practically the same (considering mathematic deviations as well) in all four areas (table 5), despite the fact that population density is almost 10 times higher in Noravank Canyon than in all other areas, while in Khosrov it’s more than twice lower than in Yeghegis and Nuvadi (table 2). Only data on the rutting period demonstrate certain correlation with density. Interestingly enough, it shows both in sizes of the mixed groups and female groups. The latter (being more numerous during the rut) are almost 2–10 times smaller than mixed groups in all 4 areas (so quite veritable, table 5). Difference in 3-4 animals (in Yeghegis and Khosrov) may depend upon just larger males joining female groups, but difference in 10-40 animals (in Nuvadi and Noravank) probably means that either larger female groups attract mature males more, or females themselves are attracted by mature males and concentrate around them. Anyhow, this question deserves special attention outside this project.

Types of wild goat habitat in Armenia and their significance regarding conservation and re-colonization Wild goat habitat in different sites and countries that we have surveyed can be divided into 2 main types: continuous and patchy. Of course, any habitat is patchy in case of large areas, or continuous within 1 km2 range. But if we talk about dimensions of 10 to 20 kilometres, the idea is clear. In case of wild goats, valleys of Avar and Andi Koisu Rivers in Daghestan are an example of continuous habitat (Weinberg, 2001), as is the southern half of Zangezur Range in Armenia and Nakhchivan (fig. 11). These habitats are more or less suitable for goats and are

Figure 11. Zangezur Range in Armenia. inhabited by goats for tens of kilometres. Yeghegis Valley looks very much like Avar or Andi Koisu with the only difference that its precipitous section harbouring goats is merely some 10 km long at most and is surrounded by rolling ridges not suitable for goats. Khosrov NR also has several canyons about the same length cut in a plateau, while in Nuvadi Valley there are several precipitous places amidst not so steep forested slopes which goats just pass, moving from one rocky site to another. However, if in Nuvadi Valley the main rocky massifs (Yubdash, Darbara and Chapkert) form a network with distances between them of about 1-3 km in an average, then Noravank displays the extreme case: short and deep canyon, which is in fact just a refuge but not a foraging area, without any similar site of comparable size nearby. Thus, there is one (sometimes a couple) main stronghold in a comparatively large area, surrounded by unsuitable terrain with several much smaller patches of potential goat habitat (fig. 12). The main stronghold (Noravank Canyon in Noravank Valley and surroundings; Darband and Davagez Canyons, and Akh-Kyand Cliffs in Khosrov; Yeghegis Valley in offshoot of Vardenis Range) harbours breeding females who are most demanding as to protective features of the habitat (apart from other numerous sources, showed by the previous research, Account on RSG, ref. 01.03.09), while smaller peripheral patches are inhabited by small female bands or even solitary females

Figure 12. Typical spatial organization of local wild goat populations in Armenia. with offspring, or – mostly – small groups of young males. Females do move between the main and secondary sites, but in any case, absolute majority of females with offspring stay in the stronghold, presumably all year round. Such spatial distribution makes the whole local population very dependant upon security of the main breeding nucleus dwelling in the stronghold, because it is this nucleus which determines the survival of the whole population. Animals in smaller peripheral patches are much more vulnerable when subjected to anthropogenic pressure like hunting or livestock pasturing. They get killed or have to abandon their small home-ranges, because of disturbance, and flee to the stronghold. There, even under most unfavourable conditions, some minimal number of breeding females and males may survive. Thus, the nucleus in the stronghold is usually the last remnant of any population with a patchy habitat that survives severe anthropogenic pressure. From this stronghold the revival of the population starts if and when the pressure slackens. The mechanism of such revival through re-colonization was observed in Ardoikar Cliffs. Ardoikar Cliffs and the neighbouring gully of Soyanots belong to the area of Yeghegis population and are situated on the other slope of the ridge in some 4 km distance from Yeghegis Gorge and represent a largish peripheral habitat patch. So, what happened there? According to the owner/leaseholder of this area, it was totally devoid of goats at least since the end of 1980s until 2008, when first animals appeared there. In July 2010, we surveyed the area for the first time and found 14 males 2-3-year-old, 14 yearlings of both sex and 2 females 2-year-old. It meant that young males from Yeghegis Valley, where the nucleus of the population survived, started exploring surroundings as population grew due to protection provided by the new owner/leaseholder. Males are always the most active and ‘adventurous’ element of the population. They usually are accompanied by yearlings, mostly males, but an odd yearling female, or an occasional 2-year old female may join them as well. Such young male group wandered to Ardoikar, say in 2008. Probably animals did not stay there for the winter and returned to Yeghegis instead, but the site suited them. So they migrated there again next summer. Yearling females grew up, started breeding and maybe even spent winter in the newly found home. Other females, most probably young and barren, accompanied the first explorers that repeatedly visited Ardoikar for summers. And most certainly, they spent winter in Ardoikar as well, because that is more probable than their moving from Yeghegis to Ardoikar,

with small kids tagging behind, in the beginning of summer, or even in spring, still being pregnant. Two years later, in summer 2012, there were already 15 2-3-year-old males, 8 females (2 of them 2-year-olds), 13 yearlings and 4 kids. In summer 2013, there were 23 young males, 11 females (2 of them 2-year-olds), 16 yearlings and 7 kids. We also observed 3 young and 2 adult males in the neighbouring Soyanots. At least a part of the females dwelled there during the rut 2013. We saw only 2 small groups, but the weather was unfavourable, and we didn’t stay. In that manner population expanded, re-colonizing their former living-places. This mechanism shows the utmost importance of the stronghold and the nucleus of the population surviving there. Without such nucleus, restoration of the population is very questionable, to say the least. With it, considering high fecundity of the wild goats, it might take just several years of effective protection to happen. Occurrence of a stronghold enables us to concentrate upon its protection, e.g. creating a nature reserve or a zone of strict regime (within a national park) on comparatively small areas, leaving peripheral patches outside it and allowing traditional land-use all around the stronghold, like livestock pasturing, agricultural use etc., and just limiting hunting. This way, the nucleus of breeding females will be preserved. Smaller patches also might be protected, with all the areas between them left out. However, such scheme may not guarantee protection of breeding males. We still do not know how low proportion of mature males or their complete lack may really affect reproduction, but it might turn out a serious problem. And because of that the pattern of distribution of males outside the rut is another important issue in connection with patchy or disrupted habitat type. It is much less important in case of continuous habitat, when male groups are more or less evenly dispersed among female groups (as in Zangezur), or in case of large territories being totally protected which is not really possible in Armenia, or anywhere else in Transcaucasia, for that matter. There are two main patterns: 1) males, mature ones including, remain within the stronghold all year round, 2) they spend all the time outside the rut somewhere else, often not known where exactly. The first, at least partly, is true for Yeghegis and Nuvadi, the second – for Khosrov and especially Noravank. In the first case, protection of the stronghold automatically provides protection for the males as well; in the second case, males remain unprotected somewhere, often even behind the state border, as presumably in Noravank. Thus, a new task emerges determine sites of mature males residence outside the rut. Impact of different man-caused factors on the status of the wild goat in Armenia Wild goat is listed as ‘vulnerable’ in the latest Red Data Book of Armenia (2010). There are 3 main threats to wild mountain ungulates in Armenia: 1) hunting – legal or illegal, 2) competition with livestock, and 3) loss and degradation of habitat due to various human activities, such as road or pipeline construction, mining etc. Wild goat (together with the wild boar Sus scrofa) is the most hunted, or better say poached, ungulate in Armenia, only wild boar fecundity is at least 2-3 times higher. Wild goat hunting is an ancient tradition and will be difficult to limit by regulations. Poaching had increased during the war with Azerbaijan and subsequent down-break of the Soviet Union accompanied by accessibility of firearms, general disorder and very difficult socio-economic situation in Armenia when people just had to survive somehow. All this led to decrease of many local wild goat populations and complete extermination of others. Even existence of strict nature reserves could not protect animals as it happened on Urts Range which used to be a part of Khosrov NR until the beginning of 2000s. As for pipelines and roads, these hardly directly affect wild goats; however, indirect threat is quite important, as in the case of mining activity, because all these objects facilitate accessibility of wild goat habitat for poachers and simply increase disturbance.

Poaching affects primarily males, though poachers kill whatever possible, including females and kids. Numerical dominance of females during the rut indicates at larger pressure upon males, which is usually due to hunting. Situation in Yeghegis Gorge and Nuvadi illustrate the utmost plasticity of wild goats which can easily tolerate human settlements and probably even benefit from such neighborhood. Thus, presence of humans and even limited presence of their settlements within wild goat habitats are not negative factors by itself; habitat destruction, disturbance and direct extermination are. On the whole, the situation reminds multiple swings: it goes up and down independently in different areas due to local conditions, not to some general strategy etc. Effectiveness of wild goat protection in state-governed areas v/s private property or lease Overall, there is evidence that private owners/leaseholders can quickly arrange effective protection on their lands, even more effective maybe than that performed on state-governed areas, such as NRs or NPs. They can not only stop poaching but also block any land-use like livestock pasturing. Owners/leaseholders are wealthy and powerful persons usually respected and often feared by local people. We have been told that in Noravank area, before it was controlled by the present owner, local poachers wandered around with machine-guns and laughed at prospects of poaching being stopped in some years. Nevertheless, it happened, without police activities and loud court trials. What’s more, wardens who guard the land in question, carry no firearms now. Of course, there are problems caused by private ownership, as the exact protection or use depends upon wishes and comprehension of the owner/leaseholder. He may perform hunting himself (as in Yeghegis) or ban it completely (as in Ardoikar), and there is practically no way to control him, or even to monitor the degree of exploitation. Ideas and notions of owners/leaseholders are usually not just those of pure and undiluted concern about wildlife conservation or even sustainable use. They just want to have private hunting grounds for entertainment. However, after several years of such entertainment owners begin to understand that private hunting grounds bring next to no profit, but on the contrary, are quite costly. They begin contacting with the relevant state agencies and NGOs, in order to share responsibility and get some financial support. Owners/leaseholders have staff (often former hunters, who have profound knowledge of the wildlife and the hunting grounds in question) that actually controls the area but there hardly are professional gamekeepers or zoologists in this staff. There are no specialists who can monitor the population, calculate birth rate, kid survival and other parameters, and determine hunting quotas. In case of “immigrant” males they may consider them as not-belonging and therefore not needing protection. As has been showed by this account, there is shortage of mature males in Noravank that seemingly does not affect reproduction yet, but future may be different. However, the main issue is that while state-protected areas have certain stability and guarantees provided by the law, private lands have none, and the protection there may be suspended due to the change of mood of the present owner or with transition to another owner/lease-holder. Existing conservation strategies Wild goat is listed in the Red Data Book of Armenia as ‘vulnerable’ according to IUCN criteria and is totally protected, but this protection in reality means just hunting ban and nothing more. New nature conservation areas are being established in Armenia in the last years: south-eastern part of Megri Range (including Nuvadi Valley) and the surveyed section of Zangezur Range are

now encompassed by nature reserves, national parks or sanctuaries with different regimes. However, actual protection is often conditioned by the attitude of local people – whether they care or not. The other important factor is actual claim for the given area by different land-users, because in reality even nature reserve can hardly stop mining or road and pipe-line construction. Also, all the protected territories are rather small, often consist of cluster areas which cover about 50-100 km2. Considering the size of the country and density of its human population, all nature reserves or sanctuaries are almost invariably close to towns, including the large city of Yerevan, as is the case with the whole of Khosrov NR. There is no serious tradition of preventing any land-use within protected areas and, consequently, wild goat habitat is not being protected. Another thing is that wild goat distribution is disrupted and patchy in Armenia, and most local wild goat populations are small, and vulnerable just because of that. A pair of new and active poachers may endanger a whole local population, while a caring village-head or director of a nature reserve can similarly improve situation in just a few years, due to high reproductive potential of the wild goat. Summing up our results. Main conclusions

1. Wild goats tolerate sensible traditional land-use and human settlements, and sometimes are even attracted to them.

2. Wild goat populations on private lands can recover easily and quickly, due to high reproductive potential, as actual protection there might be superior to that in state-governed NRs and NPs. However, management of private lands lack qualified monitoring and stability.

3. Population parameters (density, sex ratio, birth rate, grouping etc.) on private lands equal those on state-governed protected areas.

4. Mature male hunting on these private lands has not yet led to decline of birth rate. 5. In case of patchy habitat structure in lowland Armenia, breeding nucleus of a given local

population resides in a natural stronghold. This nucleus should be the main concern of protection efforts.

6. Finding residence areas of mature males outside the rut might be one of the main tasks of future research, for completing study of spatial organization of local wild goat populations in Armenia. This will be necessary for working out an effective conservation strategy and management allowing sustainable use.

LITERATURE Gasparyan, K. M. 1974. Ecology of the wild goat // Zool. Anthology of Acad. Sci. Arm. SSR

XVI: 78-104 [in Russian]. Hess R., Bollmann K., Rasool G., Chaudhry A. A., Virk A. T. and Akhmad A. 1997. Pakistan.

In: Shackleton D. M. (ed.) Wild sheep and goats and their relatives. Status survey and conservation action plan for Caprinae. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: 134-138.

Kence A. and Tarhan M. S. 1997. Turkey. In: Shackleton D. M. (ed.) Wild sheep and goats and their relatives. Status survey and conservation action plan for Caprinae. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: 134-138.

Lay D. M. 1967. A study of mammals of Iran. Field Museum Nat. Hist., Chicago. Veinberg, P. J. 2002. Long-term dynamics of numbers, sex and age structure of Daghestan tur

population in North Ossetian Nature Reserve // Bull. Moscow Natur. Soc., Biol Sec. 107 (2): 14-22 [in Russian].

Weinberg P. 2001. On the status and biology of the wild goat in Daghestan (Russia) // Journal of Mountain Ecology 6: 31-40.

Ziaie H. 1997. Iran. In: Shackleton D. M. (ed.) Wild sheep and goats and their relatives. Status survey and conservation action plan for Caprinae. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: 49-55.