Mammals of the Natural Laboratory of Peat-Swamp Forest, Sebangau, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia

Study Extent

This dataset is a part of the species presence records documented in the Natural Laboratory of Peat Swamp Forest (NLPSF), in the southern lowlands of Central Kalimantan, Indonesia (see Husson et al., 2018). This site has been the focus of intensive research efforts on many aspects of tropical peat-swamp forest ecology and management by the Centre for International Cooperation in Sustainable Management of Tropical Peatlands at the University of Palangka Raya (UPT CIMTROP UPR), the Universities of Nottingham and Leicester, the Borneo Nature Foundation and other institutions since 1993. Species presence records were assembled using a variety of different methods.

Sampling

Camera traps were placed along established trails and, where possible, watering areas, located so as to maximise the success rate of photographic ‘detections’ (Wilting et al. 2006; Gordon & Stewart 2007; Cheyne et al. 2013). The total number camera trap nights since data collection began in 2008 and was more than 90,000 at the time of dataset publication. Two cameras were placed opposite each other, 7 to 10 m apart to create a paired station at each location with the aim of photographing each flank of the animal simultaneously. The passive infrared sensors were set at about 50 cm height. The cameras use an infrared flash. All cameras were placed along established trails at cross-roads and near fallen logs or man-made boardwalks, which may facilitate felid movements during the flooded wet season (further information in Cheyne et al. 2013). Additional mammal species were confirmed through visual encounter surveys along line transects and ad hoc observations. Line transect survey effort was not recorded, but represents a fairly low annual survey effort covering a period from at least 2001 to present. Records may show some bias against quieter and more discrete species. Bats were sampled through harp trapping over 15 trap nights (Struebig et al. 2006); these records are limited to those species flying in the forest understorey.

Quality Control

Cameras were ideally set in a grid system with ±1km between camera stations. Non-random deployment of camera traps may interact with non-random space-use by animals, causing biases in our inferences about relative abundance from detection frequencies alone (Wearn et al. 2013). This limitation was alleviated in the present study by surveying a large number of locations (more than 60), surveying all available habitats types and sub-types and having the camera traps active for a suitable period of time. Species were identified with the aid of appropriate field guides (Payne & Francis 1985) and consultation with external experts where necessary. Nomenclature follows these sources, plus Duckworth & Pine (2003) for mammals in general and Roos et al. (2014) for primates. Previously published accounts of species presence in the area (Page et al. 1997, Struebig et al. 2006, Hamamoto et al. 2007) were cross-checked against the above and various other published sources, our own unpublished records and with external experts, resulting in some additions, removals and alterations to species names provided in these previously published accounts of species presence in the NLPSF.

Method steps

1. Mammals were surveyed through visual encounter surveys along line transects, camera trapping (Cheyne et al. 2010, Cheyne & MacDonald 2011) and ad hoc observations. Camera trap survey effort as for birds; line transect survey effort as for reptiles and amphibians. Records may show some bias against quieter and more discreet species. Bats were sampled by harp trapping over 15 trap nights (Struebig et al. 2006); these records are limited to species flying in the forest understorey.
2. Species were identified with the aid of appropriate field guides (D'Abrera 1985, Payne & Francis 1985, D’Abrera 1986, Kottelat et al. 1993, Bolton 1994, Inger & Stuebing 1997, Liat & Das 1999, Stuebing & Inger 1999, Deeleman-Reinhold 2001, Otsuka 2001, Orr 2003, Das 2004, Atack 2006, Myers 2009, Phillipps & Phillipps 2009, Thomas 2013, Koh & Tzi Ming 2014) and consultation with external experts where necessary. Nomenclature follows Wilson & Reeder (2005) and Duckworth & Pine (2003) for mammals, and Roos et al. (2014) for primates.
3. Previously published accounts of species presence in the area (Page et al. 1997, Shepherd et al. 1997, Page et al. 1999, Struebig et al. 2006, Hamamoto et al. 2007, Mirmanto 2010, Haryono 2012, Houlihan et al. 2012, Dow & Silvius 2014, Schreven et al. 2014, Tremlett 2014, Thornton 2017) were cross-checked against the above and various other published sources along with our own unpublished records, as well as with external experts. This resulted in some additions, removals and alterations to species names provided in previously published accounts of species presence in Sebangau.
4. Records for some groups include morpho-species within genera, for which species-level identifications could not be confirmed. These are included within our dataset to provide a rough indication of the potential number of species in these groups. We consider this preferable to completely omitting these records or only presenting figures for species with identification to species level confirmed beyond doubt, which would under-estimate the true number of species. Furthermore, all of our lists are very likely to be incomplete owing to the various sampling biases outlined above. All IUCN threat status assessments were current at the time of writing, and Indonesian protected status assessments were based on the newly updated government protected species list (MENLHK 2018).

Species presence records described here were collected in the 500 sq. km Natural Laboratory of Peat Swamp Forest, part of the 7,347 km2 Sebangau peat dome in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia (-2.3229083, 113.8938806). Sebangau is a truly ombrogenous peat swamp forest protected by its National Park status granted in 2004.