ABSTRACT Bengal Slow Loris (Nycticebeus bengalensis) is found in the evergreen and semi-evergreen forest in the greater Sylhet

region. The study was conducted on status, distribution, ecology and threats to the Bengal Slow Loris in the different forests of Sylhet region, between March 2011 and September 2011. The study areas were Lawachara National Park; Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary; Satchari National Park and Adampur Resrve Forest. Among the study areas 20 villages were surveyed and a total 260 randomly selected interviews were for Benal Slow Loris of which 84.62% (n=220) know and 15.38% (n=40) dont know about Bengal Slow Loris. Among 220 the interviewers 56.36% (n=125) saw more than 1 year ago, 22.27% (n=49) saw one year ago, 12.73% saw 6 months ago and the lowest 8.18 % participants saw this about a month ago. The highest 184 (83.64%) participants saw the study species single; 11.82% saw it with their partners; 4.55% saw it with infants. The infant with parents rate was higher 6.08% in Lawachara. 91.82% (n=202) saw it in trees, 6.36% (n= 14) saw it on bamboo grooves. 63.18% (n=139) saw it in the forest, 15.45% (n= 34) saw it in local area, 14.09% (n=31) saw it in tea or orange or betel leaf garden and the lowest 7.27% (n=16) saw it in captured condition. Most of the participants 51.36% (n=113) are seen Slow Loris during resting; 39.54% (n=87) saw during forage, 7.27% (n=16) saw during feed, and only 1.82% (n=4) saw during others activities. Among the participants 85.45% (n=188) do not know about capture; 6.82% (n=15) saw capturing more than one year ago; 3.18% (n=7) saw 6-11 months ago; 2.73% (n=6) described the capture of the animal between 1-5 months ago and 1.82 %( n=4) saw 1 year ago. 85.91% (n=189) do not know about its traditional uses. Among the interviewers 7.27% (n=16) were known about the medicinal use of the Bengal Slow

Loris. 5.91 %( n=13) were known about the meat consumption of Brngal Slow Loris among the tribal people.

Study Area
2.1 Lawachara National Park
2.1.1 Geographical position The forest was previously known as West Bhanugach Reserved Forest. It is located in the civil administrative units of West Bhanugach Hill Fores, Kamalgonj Thana, Moulavibazar District. Under the Forest administrative unit of Lawachara,Chautali and Kalachara, Moulavibazar Forest Range, Sylhet Forest Division. The GPS location of this forest is between 2430-2432 N and 9137-9139E (Feeroz et al. 1994). The Lawachara National Park was eastablished through a Gazette Notification on 07 July 1996.The current area of this forest about 1250 ha and the proposed area includes 281 ha of West Bhanugach Forest. 2.1.2 Physical features The forest topography varies from medium to steep hilly slopes. In the forest there are many water streams, locally known as Chara and numerous hillocks and locally called as Tilas and the height varies from 25 30 meters. There are two Khasia villages named as Khasia Punji or Lawachara punji and Magurchara punji. Lawachara punji is located inside the forest and was established in 1940 and consists of 23 families contain 150 people. Magurchara punji was established in 1950 and consists of 40 families contain 250 people (Chemonics 2002, Hasan 2000). A metal road and rail line passthrough this forest. The soils of Lawachara are brown, sandy loam to clay loam of Pliocene origin (Hussain et.al.1989). The forest is not marked as one type but is semi- evergreen (Craig, 1991), where tall trees are deciduous and the under storey evergreen (Ahsan 2000). The canopy height varies from 10 to 30 m. The top canopy comprises Tectona sp., Ariocarpus chaplasha, Tetrameles sp., Hopea odorata., Toona ciliata, Pygenum sp. etc. The second canopy comprises Quercus spp., Syzygium sp., Gmelina sp., Dillenia sp., Grewia sp., Ficus sp. etc. The underneath includes Bambusa spp., Alsophila sp. Geodorum sp., Eupatorium odoratum etc. and several ferns and epiphytes. (Islam & Feeroz, 1992; Feeroz & Islam, 2000). The forest originally supported an indigenous vegetation cover of mixed tropical evergreen forest (Alam, 1988).

2.1.3 Flora A survey was carried out by Leech and Ali (1997) and recorded 107 species of plants. The top canopy ranges from 20 to 30 meters (Kabir, 1991). The dominant plant species are those which are supporting the animals at the apex of the all producing plant of the forest. These are includes Chapalish (Artocarpus chpalasha), Albizia sp. Raktan (Laphopetalum wightanum), Lohakat (Xylia dolabriformis), Agar (Aquilaria agallocha), Bot (Ficus sp), Jalpai (Elaeocarpus rostus) (Kabir, 1991). The middle canpy ranges from 10-20m height which includes Batna (Quuercus spicata), Jam (Syzygium sp), Jarul (Lagerstrmia sp), Chatim (Alstonia scholaris), Kadam (Anthocephalus chinensis) etc. The lower canopy ranges from 2 to 10 meters in height which includes Kata batna (Castanopsis sp) Sonalu( Cassia fistula) etc. The forest ground is covered by different types of climbers, vines and little bushes such as Mikania cordata, Lantena camera etc. 2.1.4 Fauna Leech and Ali (1997) recorded 4 species of amphibians and 4 species of reptiles. Tecsult Group (FSP 2000b) during their field trip made observation on two additional species of reptiles of the forest. Thompson and Johnson (1999) studied the avifauna in 19 sites in Bangladesh including Lawachara NP and recorded 237 spp. of birds from there. The authors also recorded the sightings of each individual bird species and used the data in calculating their relative abundance. Thompson and Johnson (2003) further made new records of 4 species of birds from the forest. Feroz & Islam (2000) recorded 6 species of non-human primates, viz. one species of Slow Loris (Nycticebeus bengalensis), Rehesus macaque (Macaca mulatta), pig-tailed macaque (M. nemestrina leonina), capped langur (Trachypithecus pileatus), Phyres leaf monkey (T. phayrei), hoolock gibbon (Hoolock hoolock). Khan (1982) sighted 1 species of leopard, while Lockwood (1998) reported 6 non-human primates from the forest. Siddiqui and Faizuddin (1981) reported 7 species of mammals and Thompson and Johnson (1996) reported 8 species of mammals from the forest. Chowdhury (2000) surveyed Odonate insects in Lawachara and recorded 17 species of Odonates, belonging to 14 genera under 4 families.

2.1.5 Villages There are about 14 villages among these two are located within the park and the rest lie on the boundary of park and/or just at the outskirt of the park and all have stake with the forest (CNRS 2000). The settlement history dates back to early 1940s with the people who were employed for logging and plantation in the forest. The largest inside village, Magurchara punji, was established around 1950 and presently consists of 40 households (HHs) and is inhabited by Khasia people. After Magurchara gas field explosion a number of households has been shifted to a nearby place within the forest. The other inside village, Lawachara punji, was established in the 1940s and currently consists of 23 HHs (FSP 2000 and Chemonics, 2002). There is another village, called Dolubari, a long established Tripura (tribal) settlement of 75 HHs at the hill foot flat at the south-west boundary of the park. The villagers largely depend on the resources of the park and also regarded as one of the intensively used sites of the park (FSP 2000a).

The rest of the villages (11 villages) are located along the northeastern boundary, inhabited by migrants from Noakhali, Comilla and neigbouring India and major influx of people occured about 50 years ago and converted the low laying forest areas to paddy cultivation. Homesteads are located outside of the park, but adjacent to plantation areas of the forest and people depend on subsistence use of forest resources and livestock grazing in the forest. The settlers in these outside villages are Bangalee and almost all of them are Muslims, of them approximately 50% families came from Assam, Tripura etc. in 1965, approx. 30% families migrated from Comilla and Noakhali and elsewhere of the country and the rest approx. 20% are local. The number of total HHs is reported to be 4000-4500 (CNRS 2000).

2.2 Rema- Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary

Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary was previously known as Taraphil Reserved Forest. It is located in the civil administrative units of Chunarughat Upazila, Habigonj District. It is under the forest administrative of Rema, Chonbari, Kalenga, Habigonj-2 Range, Sylhet Forest Division. The GPS location of this sanctuary is between 2406 -24 14 N and 91 36 9139 E (BCAS 1997)

2.2.1 History of establishment The Taraphil Reserved Forest was established under a declaration of the forest Act 1927, covering a total area of 6232 ha. Considering its biodiversity values and conservation needs, later the government declared a part of the Reserved Forest (RF) as the Rema- Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary in 1982 and further expanded the sanctuary area through another declaration in 1996. The sanctuary comprises southern eastern parts of Taraphil Reserved Forest incorporating parts of Kalenga, Chonbari and Rema beats (Chemonics 2002).

2.2.2 Area Area under 1st gazette Notification = 1095 ha approx. (2705 acres) Area under 2nd gazette notification = 700 ha approx (1730 acres) Total area = 1995 ha approx (4435 acres 2.2.3 Topography/Physiography

The sanctuary encompasses several hills of different elevations and the low-laying valleys. The highest peak of the hills is about 67 m from the sea level (Rizvi, 1970). There are a series of ridges of the hills running in different directions, and valleys locally kown as Lunga with flowing water during monsoon but dry in winter season. Three main channels viz. Karangi chara, Lokhkhia chara, Rema chara with many tributaries criss-cross the sanctuary and constitute the major drainage system in the area. All the three channels flow towards west and fall in the Khuai River (Uddin, 2002). The hills of Rema-Kalenga are composed of Upper Tertiary rocks in which sandstone largely predominates (Ahmad 1970) along with siltstones and mudstones, locally altered to slates and shales. Limestones are also found in hills on the northeast border of Khasia and Jainta Hills. Soil of the sanctuary varies from clay to sandy loam exceedingly fertile and show low pH. In some cases, soils texture consists of yellowish

red sandy clay mixed with granules of magniferous iron ore (Ahmed 1970). The sanctuary enjoys a most tropical climate characterized by a period of high precipitation from April to September and five months of relatively dry period from November to March. FRR and DU (1996) reported two important and valuable habitats: jheels - low-laying areas of forest with an upper canopy 25-30 m high, and in some areas phumdi, found on the forest floor a mat of soft decomposing organic matter with some grass and herbs overlying water. One artificial lake has been recently created on the edge of the present sanctuary by excavating and damming a natural drainage course (<5 h) (FSP 2000a, FRR and DU 1996).

2.2.4 Climatic data

2.2.5 Fauna Roy and Azam (1995a) recorded 167 wild animal species, of which 119 species of birds, 21 mammals, 20 reptiles and 7 amphibia from the forest. Roy and Azam (1995) also identified two turtle species from Rema-Kalenga WS and took various body measurements of the collected specimens.
Five species of primates exist in this sanctuary: rhesus macaques, pig tailed macques, capped langurs, leaf monkeys and Slow Lorises are available in the forest. Pythons are also found in this sanctuary (Nishorgo, 2004)

2.2.6 Flora
The forest is tropical evergreen and semi-evergreen ((Sarker and Haq 1985, Mountfort and

Poore 1968) and much of it is primary forest (Uddin et al. 2002a). Most of the parts of the foredt was clear felled and then planted in different blocks since 1992 by the Forest Department. And most of the planted species are timber yielding and commercially important (Hassan, 2000). A mixrure of both evergreen and deciduous species was planted by the Forest Department, but the majority of the plant species are grown naturally.

The upper canopy of the forest composes of Chamul (Artocarpus chaplasha), Deoa (Artocarpus
lakoocha), Telia Garjon (Dipterocarpus tubinatus), Tectona grandis, Aphanamixis

sp. Anthocephalus chinensis etc. The middle canopy of this forest is mainly composed of Bahera (Terminalia belirica), Jarul (Lagerstroemia parviflora), Harganja (Dillenia pentagyna), Chikrasia tabularis as well as different types of Ficus sp.The under growth is mainly different types of bamboo species. There are some exposed areas in the periphery of the forest. These are mainly covered with sungrass(Imperata arundnaceae).

2.2.7 Villages Settlement history of Taraphil Reserved Forest goes back to 40-100 years. Table (No.1) provides some information on the settlements in and outside of the Reserved Forest (RF). The people (HHs) living inside the forest are registered with the Forest Department 7 (FD) and they are recognized as Forest Villagers. They get some privileges (permission for living on FD land and cultivation of level forest land) from the FD. In return, they provide assistance with plantation management and forest protection (FRR and DU 1996, FSP 2000a, Chemonics ,2002) As per Forest Department records, Tarap Hill Reserved Forest is currently inhabited by approximately 200 or more households of Forest Villagers (HHs), but their actual number would be much more than in accordance with the population increase (FRR and DU 1996 and FSP 2000a). There are both tribal (Tipra tribe, Mongolia tribe) and Bangalee settlements inside and outside of the forest. The Tripra are concentrated in Debrabari village and also in HH clusters bordering northwestern and northern boundary of the sanctuary. However, their location in relation to sanctuary is uncertain.(FSP 2000), probably due to confusion in demarcating the sanctuary FSP (2000a) identified other outside settlements in the immediate vicinity of the sanctuary, who have stake with the RF. However, their stake with the forest is mostly at the subsistence level. They have also encroached some FD lands and exploit resource on subsistence basis.

2.3 Satchori National Park

The forest is located in the civil administrative units of Madhabpur Upozila, Habigonj District. Under the Forest administrative unit of Lawachara,Chautali and Kalachar Satchari and Telmachara, Satchari Forest Range, Sylhet Forest Division. 2.3.1 Physical features
The forest is drained by a number of small sandy bedded streams all of which dry up following the end of the rainy season. The area is very dry and there are a high proportion of deciduous trees. The soil varies from clay loam in the level ground to sandy loam in the hilly ground. The soil consists of yellowish red sandy clay mixed with granules of magnified iron ore.

Satchari Reserved Forest is an evergreen/semi-evergreen mixed forest. The natural forest cover is presently limited only to small areas (300 ha + betel vine areas) and have primarily tall closed canopy. The major trees in the natural part of the forest include chapalish, garjan, jarul etc. (Chemonics 2002, Feeroz 2003). Most parts of the reserve have plantations with both indigenous and exotic trees. In many planted areas naturally grown species are found throughout planted areas and have created mixed forest type (Feeroz 2003). The vegetation (micro-habitat) of the reserve are recognized as natural evergreen forest patches, semievergreen forest patches, planted forest, mixed forest, scrub forest, bamboo jungle, grass lands and cultivated vegetation (Feeroz 2003). The Reserve is drained by a number of small, sandy bedded streams, all of which dry up following the end of the rainy season (Chemonics 2002). Although limited in extent, aquatic habitats and riparian (streamside) vegetation are important elements of overall habitat composition. Both these elements are thought to harbor specialized plants and animals (Chemonics 2002). 2.3.2 Fauna
Very common species wall lizard/tucktoo/gecko (Gekko gecko), lineated barbet (Megalamina lineate), spotted dove ( Streptolia chinensis), golden fronted leaf bird (Chloropsis aurifrons), Asian fairy bluebird ( Irena puella), black headed oricle (Oriolus orolus), flying fox (Pteropus giganteus), rhesus macaque (Macaca mulata), Bengal Slow Loris (Nycticebeus bengalensis), barking deer (Muntiacus muntjack) etc are the common species in the forest.

2.3.3 Flora
Chaplish (Artocarpus chaplasha), dcham, balash, pitraj, amloki, bahera, jam dumur, rata, chhatim, rongi, haritaki, awal, gamar, kanaidinga, kadam, kurchi, udal, cane, kakra and bamboos are common in the forests.

2.3.4 Villages There is one forest village, inhibited by ethnic community, located within the Reserved Forest and about 20 registered households live in the village. In average, there are about 5-6 people/household (Chemonics 2002). As appears from Chemonics report that there are also a number of villages and tea estate settlements around the reserved forests. However, information on their number and extent are unavailable at this stage.

2.4. Adampur Reserve Forest

Adampur is a forest beat of Rajkandi Forest Range under Kamalgonj thana of Moulvi Bazar district. The geographical position of this forest is between latitudes 2415.886 N and longitudes 91 53.592E. The area of this forest is about 5295.55 hectares (Hassan, 2000).

2.4.1 Physical features The forest is adjacent to Dhalai River. The forest is full of water streams locally called as Chara and numerous hillocks are found inside the forest.

2.4.2 Climate Adampur is near to Lawachara so the climatie of this region is also similar to Lawachara. 2.4.3 Flora The forest is mixed evergreen type. Major trees of this forest are garjan dipterocarpus sp. Agar (Aquillaria agallocha) Chapalish (Artocarpus chaplasha), Kadam (Anthocephalus chinensi,), Segun (Tectona grandis), Jarul(Lagerstroemia parviflora), Udal(Hibiscus macrophylus) and different types Ficus sp. There are three bamboo thickets locally called bash mohal into the forest. Adampur reserve fprest has three foest blocks- Lawachara, Daulu Chara and Baghchara block. 2.4.4 Fauna The reserve forest is ricj in faunal diversity; especially the avi fauna. Among the primates Bengal Slow Loris (Nycticebeus bengalensis), Rehesus macaque (Macaca mulatta), pigtailed macaque (M. nemestrina leonina), capped langur (Trachypithecus pileatus), hoolock gibbon (Hoolock hoolock) is found. Orangebellied squirrel, Himalayan squirrel, large india civet are also found in this forest

Methods
3.1 General A total 260 persons were randomly selected to estimate the present status, distribution, ecology and threat to the Bengal Slow Loris. Out of the 20 villages, in Lawachara National Park 10 villages were surveyed. In Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary 5 adjacent villages, in Satchari National Park 2 villages and in Admapur forest beat 3 villages were surveyed. Among the villages 8 were tribal and others were mix with tribal, local and migrant people. Table 3.1: Information on the settlements inside and adjacent to the study areas Sl. Name of the Upozila No. villages Lawachara National Park 1 Lawachara Kamalgonj Punjii Community type Khasia Location Household No. 23 Stake with forest Collect fuel and others materials from the forest Do Do

Inside

2 3

Magurchara Punjii Bagmara

Kamalgonj Kamalgonj

Khasia

Inside

40 200

Tipra and East of bangali park Local East of park

Baligaon

Kamalgonj

1300

Do

Fulbari

6 7 8 9 10

11

Migrant and South-East local of park bangali Dhulubari Kamalgonj Migrant and Adjacent to 72 local NP Mokamtila Kamalgonj Local Adjacent to 10 NP Tripura Kamalgonj Tipra Adjacent to NP Radhanagar Kamalgonj Local South-West of NP Jackchara Kamalgonj Migrant and West of NP local Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary Kalengabari Chunarughat Local adjacent to bangali the Kalssenga Beat Office

Kamalgonj

Do

Do Do Do Do Do

Do

Sl. Name of the Upozila No. villages 12 Mongoliabari Chunarughat

Community type Mongolia

Location

Household No.

Stake with forest collect country food, medicinal plants and other NTFPs Do

Northern boundaries of the sanctuary

13

Chonbari

Chunarughat

Tripura

Northern 60-70 boundaries of the sanctuary Northern boundaries of the sanctuary 26

14

Kalibari

Chunarughat

Tripura

Do

15

Debrabari

Chunarughat

Tripura and Inside the Debormon forest

Do

16

Satchari National Park Tripura Madhabpur

Tripura

Inside the forest

30

Do

17

18

Holholia Madhabpur Bazar Admapur forest beat Kalengee Punjii Adhkhani Purbujalalpur

Local bangali Khasia Inside the forest Adjacent the forest & Adjacent the forest to to 45 Do

19 20

Tribal& migrant Tribal migrant

Do Do

Data collection
3.2.1 Sample unit

Household was defined as including all people living permanently there (Nyahongo et al., 2009). The person who recognize the animal only from them the data was collected.

3.2.2 Sample size Survey sample sizes are not dependent on population size (Bartlett et al., 2001), and without information on the status and distribution it was not possible to calculate a required sample size based on the desired power of the statistical tests to determine differences between groupings of data. I estimated that a sample size of 220 participants would be sufficient to answer our study questions. As Lawachara is the largest forest the sample size was 115, and in Rema- Kalenga and Satchari sample size was 37 as these were smaller area than Lawachara and the lowest samle size was31 in Adampur. 3.2.3 Selection of sample units The data were randomly collected from the inside and adjacent villages to forest. The data were collected by using local transports; foot and combination of any of these. Interviewers were selected from the closest villages considering their local knowledge and observations of the Bengal Slow Loris.

3.2.4 Interview approach Participants data on status and distribution were collected by an interview survey. The survey was conducted in March,April and September. The household representatives were asked to estimate status and distribution. The Georgian calendar of months was used, because it would be more familiar to the interviewees than the Georgian calendar. The interviewer will also ask the household representative following questions: 1. Have you seen this animal? 2. How long ago you have seen this? 3. Where have you seen this animal? 4. Do you know what types of habitat/ forest it lives? 5. When have you seen this?

6. What the animal was doing during your sighting? 7. How many individual you have seen? 8. Are there any interactions of this animal with local people or with others animal? 9. Does anyone capture it? If yes how? 10. How long ago capture it? 11. Do you know why people capture it? 12. What happened after capture? 13. Any believes? One important issue regarding interview surveys is the risk of bias resulting from the interviewee not telling the truth because they fear social or legal repercussions (Jagrata Juba Shangha, 2003). To reduce this risk, the interviewers were selected from the local community so that the interviewees felt more comfortable. The interview approach has planned to spend 10-20 minutes talking aboutSlow Loris conservation issues in general, what the goals of the interview. When the interviewer will feel that the interviewee is comfortable, he will ask the questions relating to prey consumption. Another issue of interview surveys is that the information collected will potentially biased by the recall abilities of the interviewee (Sharon unpubl. data; Nyahongo et al., 2009).

3.3 Data Analysis Response frequencies are presented as percentages, and given in the Results as x%, y/z, where y = the number of participants who gave the response, and z = the total number of participants who were asked the question. This method was used as not all participants answered each question, and new questions were added during the course of the study, based on early findings.

RESULTS 4. Status
4.1.1 Sighting status The following information represents the observations in different study areas. A total 260 interviwes was taken by showing the picture of Bengal Slow Loris and asked about it. Among 260 participants 84.62% (n=220) answer that they saw it and 15.38% (n=40) can not recognize it or never seen it. (Fig.2) Among the study areas in Lawachara 87.12 % (n=115) seen this animal and 12.87 %( n=17) do not see or can not recognize at all (Table1). In Rema- kalenga 82.22% (n=37) see it and 17.88% (n=12.87) do not see it (Table2). In Satchari 84.09% (n=37) see it and 15.91% do not see it (Table3). In Adampur 79.48% see it and 20.51% do not see it (Table 4). Among the villages 93.75 %( n=15) the inhabitant of Lawachara Punjii sees this animal and in Mokamtila the highest percent 36.37% (n=4) people do not see it (Table1). In Rema- Kalenga of Debrabari village 100% participants see it. In Kalibari the hiegest number of participants 27.28% (n=3) do not see it (Table2). In Adampur, Kalengee Punjii inhabitants see it in highest number 91.66% (n=14) and the highest number 33.33 (n=3) do not see it in Adhkhani(Table 4). Table 4.1: Information on sighting status of the Bengal Slow Loris in Lawachara National Park Question No. 1: Have you seen this animal? Answers Name of the areas Yes % No Lawachara Punjii 15 93.75 1 Magurchara Punjii 14 82.35 3 Bagmara 14 87.5 2 Baligaon 14 87.5 2 Fulbari 12 75 4 Dhulubari 13 72.22 5 Mokamtila 7 63.63 4 Tripura 10 90.90 2 Radhanagar 9 69.23 4 Jackchara 7 77.77 2 Total 115 87.12 17

Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% 6.25 17.65 12.5 12.5 25 27.78 36.37 8.10 30.77 22.23 12.87

Table 4.2: Information on sighting status of the Bengal Slow Loris in Rema kalenga Wildlife Snactuary Question No. 1: Have you seen this animal? Answers Name of the areas Yes % No Kalibari 8 72.72 3 Mongoliabari 11 84.61 2 Kalengabari 6 75 2 Chonbari 6 85.71 1 Debrabari 6 100 Total 37 82.22 8

Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5

% 27.28 25.29 25 25.29 17.88

Table 4.3: Information on sighting status of the Bengal Slow Loris Satchari National Park Question No. 1: Have you seen this animal? Sl. No. 1 2 Name of the areas Tripura Holholia Bazar Total Yes 18 19 37 Answers % No 90 2 79.16 5 84.09 7 % 10 20.84 15.91

Table 4.4: Information on sighting status of the Bengal Slow Loris Adampur Reserve Forest Question No. 1: Have you seen this animal? Answers Name of the areas Yes % Kalenji Punjii 14 91.66 Adhkhani 6 66.67 Purbujalalpur 11 73.33 Total 31 79.48

Sl. No.

No 1 3 4 8

% 8.34 33.33 26.67 20.51

100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00%
12.87% 17.88% 15.91% 20.51%

87.12%

82.22%

84.09%

79.48%

yes No

0.00%
Lawachara Rema-Kalenga Stchari National Adampur forest National Park wildlife Park Sancturay

Fig.4.1 Sighting percentage of participants in different study area

15.38%

Yes No

84.62%

Fig.4.2 Sighting status of the Bengal Slow Loris.

4.1.2 Temporal characteristics of Bengal Slow Loris observation

The majority of the respondents have seen the Bengal Slow Loris more than 1 year ago. But there were 3 participants (1.36%) who have seen it 4 days ago in Lawachara forest. Out of the 220 participants 56.36% (n=125) saw more than 1 year ago, 22.27% (n=49) saw one year ago, 12.73% saw 6 months ago and the lowest 8.18 % participants saw this about a month ago.

Table 4.5: Last observation of the species in the study areas Quastion No.2: How long ago you have seen this? Name of the areas Lawachara National Park Rema- Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary Satchari National Park Adampur Forest Beat Total (n=220) 1-5 months (%) 10.43 2.70 8.10 6.45 8.18 Answers 6-11 months 1 year (%) (%) 13.91 17.39 8.10 13.51 12.90 12.73 27.02 24.32 32.25 22.27 More than one year (%) 58.26 62.16 54.05 48.39 56.81

70 60 % of the sighting 50 40 30 20 10 0 1-5 Months 6-11 Months 1 Year ago More than one ago ago year Time interval Fig. 4.3 Last sighting time of the Bengal Slow Loris in different study areas. Lawachara National Park

Rema-Kalenga wildlife Sancturay Stchari National Park

Adampur forest

8.18% 12.73% 56.81%

1-5 months ago 6-11 months 1 year ago

22.27%

More than one year

Fig.4.4 Percentage of last sighting time among total participants

4.1.3 Relationship of observation with Age

Most of the participants saw Bengal Slow Loris only one time in their lifetime (n=111). And 57 participants saw this two times; 22 participants saw three times and 30 participants saw more than three times. Among the participants ages who are younger and age ranges from 15-25, most of them saw One time (14.09%, n=31), two times saw 2.27% (n=5), three times saw 0.45% (n=1) and more than three times were not seen by any of them. Ages between 26 and 35, 14.54% (n=32) saw One time, 6.81% (n=15) saw two times, 1.81% (n=4) saw three times and 0.45% (n=1) saw more than three times. Among 36-45 ages participants 11.36% (n=25) saw one time, 6.82% (n=15) saw two times, 1.36% (n=3) saw three times and 2.73 % (n=6) saw more than three times. Among 46-55 ages participants 4.54% (n=10) saw one time, 5.45% (n=4) saw two times, 4.54% (n=10) saw three times and 2.73% (n=6) saw more than three times. Among 56-65 ages participants 2.27% (n=5) saw one time, 1.82% (n=4) saw two times, .45% (n=1) saw three times and 4.54% (n=10) saw more than three times. Among 66- > ages participants 3.64% (n=8) saw one time, 2.73% (n=6) saw two times, 1.82% (n=4) saw three times and 3.18% (n=7) saw more than three times. Table 4.6 Number of observation of different ages

Age Range 15-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-> Total

One time 31 32 25 10 5 8 111

Two times 5 15 15 12 4 6 57

Three times 1 4 3 10 1 4 22

More than three times 1 6 6 10 7 30

120 100 80 One time 60 40 20 0 15-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 Fig.4.5 Observations with age interval 66-> Two times Three times More than three times

30 22 111 One time Two times Three times More than three times 57

Fig 4.6 Total observations number

4.2.1 Habitat
Among the participant most of them saw the Bengal Slow Loris in forest. Out of the 220 participants 63.18% (n=139) saw it in the forest, 15.45% (n= 34) saw it in local area, 14.09% (n=31) saw it in tea or orange or betel leaf garden and the lowest 7.27% (n=16) saw it in captured condition. The variables vary according to the study areas. In Lawachara 65.21% (n=75) saw it in forest, 16.52% (n=19) saw it in local area, 13.91% (n=16) saw it in tea or orange or betel leaf garden and a minor participants 4.34% (n=5) saw it in captured condition. In Rema- Kalenga 70.27% (n=26) saw it in forest, 18.92% (n=7) saw it in local area, 10.81% (n=4) saw it in captured condition. And 0% saw it in Tea or orange or betel leaf garden. In Satchari 59.45% (n=22) saw it in forest, 16.21% (n=6) saw it in local area, 13.51% (n=5) saw it in tea or orange or betel leaf garden 10.81% (n=4). In Adampur 63.18% (n=16) saw it in forest, 32.26% (n=10) saw it in tea or orange or betel leaf garden, 9.67% (n=3) and 6.45% (n=2) saw it in local area.

Table 4.7: Data represents the habitat of Bengal Slow Loris. Quastion No.4: Where have you seen this animal? Answers Name of the areas Lawachara National Park Local area 16.52 Captured (%) 4.34 Tea/Orange/Betel leaf garden (%) 13.91 Forest (%) 65.21

Rema- Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary Satchari National Park Total (n=220)

18.92 16.21 6.45 15.45

10.81 10.81 9.67 7.27 13.51 32.26 14.09

70.27 59.45 51.61 63.18

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Tea/Orange/Betel leaf garden Forest Lawachara National Park RemaKalenga Wildlife Sanctuary Satchari National Park Adampur Reserve Forest Local area Captured

10
0

Fig.4.7 Habitat of the Bengal Slow Loris in different study areas

Local Area 15.45% 7.27% 63.18% Captured Tea/Orange/Betel leaf garden Forest

14.09%

Fig.4.8 Percentage of the habitats mentioned by the participants

4.2.2 Habitat Types

Among the 220 participants, most of them saw it in trees. Out of the 220 participants 91.82% (n=202) saw it in trees, 6.36% (n= 14) saw it in bamboo and the highest number (13.51%) was in Rema-Kalenga forest and but in Adampur and Satchari 3 participants (1.36 %) saw it on banana tree. Among the study areas in Lawachara 96.52% (n=111) saw in trees, 2.61% (n=3) saw it in Bamboo and .87% (n=1) saw in others habitat. In Rema-Kalenga 86.49% (n=32) saw it in trees and 13.51% (n=5) saw in bamboo. In satchari 83.78% (n=31) saw it in trees and 10.81% (n=4) saw in bamboo and 5.14% (n=2) saw it in banana tree. In Adampur 90.32% (n=28) saw it in trees and 6.45% (n=2) saw in bamboo and 3.23% (n=1) saw it in banana tree.

Table 4.8: Types of habitat of Bengal Slow Loris in different study areas Question No.5: Do you know what types of habitat/ forest it lives? Name of the areas Lawachara National Park Rema- Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary Satchari National Park Adampur Forest Beat Total (n=220) Big Trees (%) 96.52 86.49 83.78 90.32 91.82 Tree cave (%) Answers Bamboo (%) 2.61 13.51 10.81 6.45 6.36 5.41 3.23 1.82 Others (%) .87

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Lawachara National Park RemaSatchari Kalenga National Park Wildlife Sanctuary Adampur Reserve Forest Big Trees Tree cave Bamboo Others

Fig.4.9 Types of habitat in different study areas

6.36% 1.82%

Big Trees
Tree cave Bamboo Others

91.82% Fig.4.10 Types of habitat percentages mentioned by the total participants.

4.3 Group composition:

The group composition of the Bengal Slow Loris is easier to determine, in comparison to other primates, by their solitary habits. Bengal Slow Lorises usually live in a very small family group consisting of an adult pair and zero to one offspring and rarely twins. In this study a total 184 (83.64%) participants saw the study species single. 11.82% saw it with their partners. 4.55% saw it with infants and the percentage was higher in Lawachara forest region and less in Adampur forest. In Lawachara among the 115 participants 81.73% saw single individual, 12.17% saw with their pairs and 6.08% saw with offspring. In Rema-Kalenga among the 37 participants 86.48% saw it single, 8.10% wit pairs and 5.42% with offspring. In Satchari among the 37 participants no one saw with offspring, 91.89% saw single and 8.11% wit pairs. In Adampur among the 31 participants 83.64% saw single individual while 11.82% saw with pairs and a minor participant saw with offsprings.

Table 4.9: Observations of group composition Question No. 8: How many individual you have seen? Name of the areas Lawachara National Park Rema- Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary Satchari National Park Adampur Forest Beat Total (n=220) Single (%) 81.73 86.48 91.89 77.42 83.64 Answers Two Adults (%) 12.17 8.10 8.10 19.35 11.82 3.23 4.55 Adults with infant (%) 6.08 5.42

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Lawachara National Park RemaSatchari Adampur Kalenga National Park Reserve Wildlife Forest Sanctuary

Single Two Adults Adults with infant

Fig.4.11 Group composition of Bengal Slow Loris in different study areas

4.55% 11.82%

Single
Two Adults Adults with infant

83.64%

Fig.4.12 Percentage of group composition

4.4 Activity Pattern

The proportion of time spent by the animal in different activities and the time of these activities throughout day is one of the important aspects of species ecology (Clutton &Brock, 1974). The activity budget can be defined as the proportion of time an animal spent in different major activities that are important for its survival and reproduction (Dunbar, 1974). The activity budget is depends on the daylight availability(Altman.1980), sometimes it act as negatively but in case of my study species it acts as positively, because it is a nocturnal animal. Many ecological and social factors can affect time budget. The daylight hours, temperatures, limited space and resource might influence such allocation of time spent in different activities. Thus the activity profiles of a group in some way the sum of the behavioural periods of each of its members (Craig, 1986). To find out the activity pattern, data were collected from the study areas by questioning these questions to the participants.

4.4.1 Activity period:

This is the period between starting and ending of nocturnal activities. As a nocturnal animal Slow Loris generally start activity at sunset and stop well before sunrise. The start of activity varied because of the sunrise and sunset. The time period was divided according to the observations of the participants. Most of them (45.91%) saw in the early morning (06001000), 25.45% saw between1600-2100 hours, 24.55% saw 1100-1500 and a minor part of the participants saw it between 2100-2400 hours.

4.4.2 Activity budget

The amount of time spent in different activities was calculated by summing the number of observations of the participants. Most of the participants (51.36%) are seen Slow Loris during resting. But foraging, feeding and others activities is also seen by the participants. 39.54% saw during forage, 7.27% saw during feed, and only 1.82% saw during others activities.

Table 4.10: Observation time of the species Question No.6: When have you seen this? Name of the areas Lawachara National Park Rema- Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary Satchari National Park Adampur Forest Beat Total (n=220) 0600-1000 h (%) 52.17 Answers 1100-1500 h 1600-2100 h (%) (%) 20 24.35 2100-2400 h (%) 3.48

56.76

24.32

18.92

37.83

21.62

27.03

13.51

19.35 45.91

45.16 24.55

35.48 25.45 4.09

Table 4.11: Activity budget of the Slow Loris Question No.7: What the animal was doing during your sighting? Answers Name of the Feeding Foraging Resting Sleeping areas Lawachara 7.83 43.48 46.1 National Park Rema8.11 27.03 72.97 Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary Satchari 5.40 43.24 48.65 National Park Adampur 6.45 35.48 58.06 Forest Beat Total 7.27 39.54 51.36 (n=220)

Others 2.61

2.70

1.82

60

50
40 30 20 10 0 Lawachara National Park Rema- Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary Satchari Adampur Forest National Park 0600-1000 h 1100-1500 h 1600-2100 h 2100-2400 h

Fig4.13. Activity period of Bengal Slow Loris

4.09% 25.45% 45.91% 0600-1000 h 1100-1500 h 1600-2100 h 2100-2400 h 24.55%

Fig.4. 14 Percentages of activity period

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Lawachara National Park RemaKalenga Wildlife Sanctuary Satchari National Park Adampur Reserve Forest

Feeding Foraging Resting Sleeping Others

Fig.4.15 Activity budget of the Bengal Slow Loris in different study areas

1.82% 7.27%

Feeding

Foraging
Resting 51.36% 39.54% Sleeping Others

Fig.4.16 Percentages of activity budget of Bengal Slow Loris.

Table 4.12: Comparison of different types of activities found during sighting in different study area during different time interval

0600-1000 Name of the areas FE (%) FO (%) RE (%) SE OT (%) (%) 5

1100-1500 FE (%) FO (%) RE (%) SE OT (%) (%)

1600-2100 FE FO (%) (%) RE (%)

2100-2400 SE OT FE FO (%) (%) (%) (%) 25 75 RE SE OT (%) (%) (%)

Lawachara 10 51.67 33.33 National Park Rema14.28 28.57 57.14 Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary Satchari 7.14 42.86 50 National Park Adampur Forest Beat Total (n=220) 33.33 66.67

8.69 26.10 65.21

35.71 64.29

22.22 77.78

28.57 71.43

25

62.5

12.5

40

60

20

80

28.57 71.43

27.27 72.73

5.45

21.36 17.72

1.36

.90

6.36

16.82

.45

8.64

16.82

.90

3.18

4.5 Interactions
Most of the participants do not know about any interactions with human or with others animal. Out of the 220 participants 97.27% (n=214) do not know about interactions with it. But 2.27% (n=5) participants exclaimed that it bite people when they try to catch it. And a single participant (.45%) of Lawachara told that after releasing it was beaten by others monkey and died Among the study areas in Adampur the bite rate was higher 6.45% (n=2) than other areas.

Table 4.13: Interaction between this animal with human and others animal Question 9: Are there any interactions of this animal with local people or with others animal? Answers Name of the areas Bite local people Beaten by others monkey Do not know (%) (%) Lawachara National Park Rema- Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary Satchari National Park Adampur Forest Beat Total (n=220) 1.73 2.70 .86 97.39 97.29 100 6.45 2.27 .45 93.54 97.27

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Lawachara Rema- Kalenga Satchari Adampur National Park Wildlife National Park Reserve Forest Sanctuary Bite local people Beaten by others monkey Do not know

Fig.4.17 Interactions with human and other animals

Bite local Beaten by people, 2.27 monkey, others 0.45

Do not know, 97.27

Fig.4.18 Percentages of interactions

4.6 Status of Poaching

4.6.1 Temporality of Bengal Slow Loris capture Among the 220 participants most of them do not about capturing it. Out of the 220 participants 85.45% (n=188) do not know about capture of the Bengal Slow Loris. Among the participants 6.82% (n=15) saw capturing more than one year ago. 3.18% (n=7) saw 6-11 months ago, 2.73% (n=6) described the capture of the animal between 1-5 months ago. 1.82 %( n=4) saw 1 year ago. Among the study areas the capture rate is higher 7.27% (n=16) in response to other study areas and lowest 1.36 (n=3) in Adampur. The capture between 1-5 months 10.82% (n=4) was higher in Rema-Kalenga and lowest 1.73% (n=2) was in Lawachara. And in Satchari and Adampur no capture was happened. Table 4.14: Temporal characteristics of the Bengal Slow Loris capture Quesrion No.11: How long ago capture it? Name of the areas 1-5 Months (%) 6-11 Months (%) Answers 1 Year (%) More than 1 year (%) Do not know (%) 86.07

Lawachara National Park Rema- Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary Satchari National Park Adampur Forest Beat Total (n=220)

1.73

3.47

3.47

5.21

10.81 5.41 3.22 2.73 3.18 6.45 1.82

8.10 10.81

81.08 83.78 90.32

6.82

85.45

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Lawachara Rema- Kalenga Satchari Adampur National Park Wildlife National Park Reserve Forest Sanctuary Fig.4.19 Status of capture of Bengal Slow Loris in different study areas. 1-5 Months 1-5 Months2 1 Year More than 1 year Do not know

2.73%

3.18% 1.82% 6.82% 1-5 Months ago 6-11 Months ago 1 Year ago More than 1 year Do not know

85.45%

Fig. 4.20 Percentages of status

4.6.2 Techniques of capture

Among the 220 participants most of them do not know about capturing techniques of the Bengal Slow Loris. 87.27% (n=192) do not know capture techniques.7.27% (n=16) participants exclaimed about normally capture during the species came to local areas. And 5% (n=11) mentioned about the trapping techniques. The use of gun to capture is not mention by any participants. Among the study areas the highest (8.10%) trapping techniques was mentioned in RemaKalenga and in Adampur no participant know about it. Normally capture washighest was in Satchari (10.81%) and lowest was in Rema-Kalenga. Only in Lawachara .86 (n=1) Participants mention that he capture it by moving the trees and make it fall on the ground.

Table 4.15: Techniques of capturing of the Bengal Slow Loris Question 10: Does anyone capture it? If yes how? Name of the areas By Trapping (%) By gun (%) Answers Normally (%) Others (%) Do not know (%) 86.96

Lawachara National Park Rema- Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary Satchari National Park Adampur Forest Beat Total (n=220)

5.21

6.95

.86

8.10

2.70

89.19

5.40

10.81

83.78

9.67 5 7.27 .45

90.33 87.27

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Lawachara RemaNational Kalenga Park Wildlife Sanctuary Fig.4.21 Techniques of capture Satchari National Park Adampur Reserve Forest

By Trapping By gun Normally Others Do not know

5%

7.27%

0.45%
By Trapping By gun Normally Others Do not know

87.27%

Fig.4.22 Percentages of techniques used to capture Bengal Slow Loris.

4.6.3 Survivality after capture

Among the 220 participants only 32 participants were mention about the capture and after capture condition. Among the participants 7.73% (n=17) told about the hand over to Forest Department, 4.09% (n=9) told about release in forest. But 1.82% (n=4) told that they handover the animal to a person who is a owner of a private zoo. In Lawachara 2 (.91%) participants mentioned that after releasing the others primates killed them.

Table 4.16: Comparison of condition after capturing in local areas Question No.13: What happened after capture? Answers Name of the areas Hand over to forest department (%) Lawachara National Park Rema- Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary Satchari National Park Adampur Forest Beat Total (n=220) 5.21 13.51 10.81 6.45 7.73 .91

Killed/ died (%)

Release (%)

Others (%)

1.73

3.47 5.40 5.40 3.23 4.09

3.47

1.82

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Lawachara National Park RemaKalenga Wildlife Sanctuary Satchari National Park Adampur Reserve Forest Others Release Hand over to fores department Killed/ died

Fig. 4.23 Status after capture of Bengal Slow Loris in different study areas.

1.82%

Hand over to forest department Killed

4.09%

7.73%

Release Others

0.91% Fig. 4.24 Status percentages of Bengal Slow Loris after capturing.

4.7. 1Traditional use

Among the 220 participants in interview most of the do not know about the traditional use of 43engal Slow Loris. Out of the 220 interviewers 85.91% (n=189) do not know about its traditional uses. Among the interviewers 7.27% (n=16) were known about the medicinal use of the Bengal Slow Loris. 5.91 %( n=13) were known about the meat consumption of it

among the tribal people. The traditional use as medicine (13.51%) and meat (8.10%) was higher in Rema-Klenga. In Satchori no participants were known about the meat consumption or trade. But in Lawachara 2 participants (.91%) exclaimed about the trading of the Bengal Slow Loris. In Rema-Kalenga 1 participants exclaimed that the skull is used to come round from fever. The skull is drown into the water and it is drunk by the patient.

Table 4.17: Comparison between study areas where traditionally used Bengal Slow Loris Question No.12: Do you know why people capture it? Answers Name of the Meat Medicine Trade areas (%) (%) (%) Lawachara 6.95 4.34 1.74 National Park Rema- Kalenga 8.10 13.51 Wildlife Sanctuary Satchari 5.40 National Park Adampur Forest 6.45 12.90 Beat Total (n=220) 5.91 7.27 .91

Do not know (%) 86.96

78.38

94.59

80.64 85.91

100 90 80 70

60
50 40 30 20 10 0 Lawachara Rema- Kalenga Satchari Adampur National Park Wildlife National Park Reserve Forest Sanctuary Fig. 4.25 Traditional uses of Bengal Slow Loris in different study areas. Meat Medicine Trade Do not know

5.91% 7.27% 0.91%

Meat Medicine Trade Do not know 85.91%

Fig. 4.26 Percentage of traditional use.

7.2 Belives
Most of the participants do not about any believes about the Bengal Slow Loris. But in Kalenji Punji of Adampur Reserve Forest believes that it is the sign of Bad Luck. Among them participants of Adampur Reseve Forest 19.35% (n=6) exclaimed about it.

2.72%

Belives Do not belives

97.28%

Fig.4.27 Believes percentage

DISCUSSIONS
5. General The study on status, distribution and ecology faces some difficulties because of illegal poaching and consumption of meat among the tribal people. And people were not comfortable talking about poaching and in case of tradional uses or capture. The study has overcome some of these problems by convincing the participants that they will not be harmed by anyone or any cases. Each interview was taken after 10-15 minutes friendly conversation. When it was understood that that interviewers have gained some trust in me then the survey questions were asked. A total 260 persons were faced but 220 (84.62%) (Fig.2) interviews were taken because they could identify the Bengal Slow Loris. And the highest interviews were taken in Lawachara (n=115) (Table 2) because the area is larger than the others study areas. 5.1 Status 5.1.1 Sighting status The 220 participants saw this at least one time in their life time which indicates the presence of tit in the study areas. Most of the participants of Lawachara (87.12 %) (Fig.1) saw it and in Adampur reserve forest the lowest number of participants (79.48%) (Fig.1) saw it. 5.1.2 Temporal characteristics of Bengal Slow Loris observation The frequently sighting of the Bengal Slow Loris in the study areas was more than 1 year ago (56.81%) (Table 6) and lowest sighting (8.18%) (Table 6) was 1-5 months ago. The presence of this species indicates the health of the ecosystems because they preferred dense forests (Banglapedia, 2008). But the present status of the study areas ecosystem is not good. Because of Illegal logging or timber fill has been reported to be wide spread in Lawachar, RemaKalenga, Satchori and Adampur (FSP 2000a; Chemonics 2002; Feeroz and Islam 2000). Due to continuous habitat the anmal diversity is also decreasing. My study also supports the study of Chemonics, Feeroz and Islam. Among the study areas in Rema Kalenga 62.16% (Table 6) saw this more than 1 year ago and a minor participant (2.70%) (Table 6) saw it within 1-5 months which indicates the ecosystem is not healthy there. And it supports because of the illegal felling or fire in the forest area of Rema Kalenga Wildlife sanctuary.

5.2 Habitat and habitat types The preferred habitats of the Bengal Slow Loris range across tropical and subtropical regions, and include evergreen and semi-evergreen rainforests with forest edges and continuous, dense canopies (Management Authority of Cambodia, 2011). The larger diameter, tall trees with a large crown depth is preferred by them and these areas are typically associated with greater food abundance, and reduce risk of predation (Pliosungnoen et.al., 2010). My study also supports these studys. In my study 63.18% participants told that they saw in dense forest area. It is also found in tea/orange/betel leaf garden 14.09% and local areas 15.45 because these are either inside the forest or adjacent to the forest. Among the participants most of them saw it in big trees which support the Pliosungnoen, Gale; Savini study. They are also found in bamboo groves (Francis, 2008). And this study also supports my study. Because 6.36% participants saw the Bengal Slow Loris in Bamboo groves.

5.3 Group composition The species live in small family groups (Management Authority of Cambodia, 2007). The Bengal Slow Lorises were considered as a single highly polymorphic species (Nekaris & Bearder). During my study I find out that it was mostly seen single. Among the 220 interviewers 184(83.64%) exclaimed they saw a single individual. 11.82% saw it with pairs and 4.55% saw with infants. Among the study areas the highest number of observations with infants was in Lawachara National Park. This is because among the study areas Lawachara is much better than other study areas. The group composition of my study is supported by Management Authority of Cambodia, 2007 and Nekaris & Bearder.

5.4 Activity pattern Among the participants 51.36% saw it during resting, 39.54% saw during forage and 7.27% during feed. According to Swapna who find out that it is spent 44.5% 0n resting. 10.8% foraging and 18.7% spent on feeding. In comparison with her results the resting activity is close to my result. But it differs in case of feeding activity budget and I assume that most of them saw it after 10 AM.

5.5 Poaching status and traditional use In my study I find out that the poaching was more frequent more than year ago. Out of 220 participants 6.82% exclaimed about it. And the hunting or poaching is occurs due to the great demand of medicinal values in outr country as well as among the tribal people. According to Carly, lorises were the most frequently requested wildlife buyers from traditional medicine sellers (84.68%) in Combodia. In my study 7.27% participants said about the medicinal uses. The percentage differs from Carly because in our local market the medicinal use of it is not frequent and because most of the participants (85.91%) do not know about it. The meat consumption was 5.91%. Though the tribal people refuse that but local people and some tribal people who are not consuming its meat ensure the consumption meat of the Bengal Slow Loris.