Research Article
Drivers of Change in Myanmar’s
Wild Elephant Distribution
Melissa Songer1, Myint Aung2, Teri D. Allendorf3, Justin M. Calabrese1,
and Peter Leimgruber1
Abstract
Myanmar is considered as a stronghold for wild elephants, though past estimates varied widely from 3,000 to 10,000. Results
of a 2004 expert workshop showed estimates between 1,430 and 2,065. Building on surveys from 1990 to 1992, we
conducted new expert interviews in townships throughout the range, with questions focusing on numbers of elephants
living in townships and threats to and from elephants. We used general linear models to analyze characteristics of townships
with and without elephants and to understand factors influencing changes in elephant presence. Our results show a major
decrease in the geographic distribution of wild elephants in Myanmar between 1992 and 2006 with deforestation being the
major driver. While forest cover is important for elephant presence, continuity with other elephant populations had a
stonger influence on elephant persistence between surveys. Fragmentation of elephant populations is also a major driver
of decline. Increases in forest cover increased elephant presence, while increases in edge and human population had the
reverse effect. Deforestation and fragmentation lead to increased human–elephant conflict in some areas, sometimes con-
cluding with the capture of elephants for timber operations and further draining wild populations. A national elephant action
plan that includes monitoring of elephant status and threats is urgently needed and critical for Myanmar’s wild elephants,
particularly as more than 50 years of political isolation are rapidly ending and pressure on the country’s natural resources is
increasing exponentially.
Keywords
Asian elephants, geographic distribution, Myanmar, habitat loss, deforestation, edge effects
Introduction
Asian elephants are a flagship for endangered species,
inspiring intensive conservation effort and attention
(Blake & Hedges, 2004; Fernando & Pastorini, 2011;
Hedges, Fisher, & Rose, 2009). Yet, the species has
long been declining throughout Asia because of loss
and degradation of important habitats and the resulting
severe human–elephant conflict (Blake & Hedges, 2004;
Fernando & Pastorini, 2011; Leimgruber et al., 2003;
Sukumar & Santiapillai, 1996). Detailed field data on
elephant presence and distribution can be hard to come
by, partly due to the difficulty in systematically surveying
elephant populations (Blake & Hedges, 2004; Hedges,
Johnson, Ahlering, Tyson, & Eggert, 2013). Few such
surveys have been carried out at a country level within
the species’ range (but see Hedges et al., 2013; Hedges
et al., 2005).
Myanmar has been considered a stronghold for wild ele-
phant populations andwas long believed to have the second
largest population after India (e.g., Santiapillai & Jackson,
1990; Sukumar & Santiapillai, 1996). Historically, the
country’s vast forests may have supported as many as
10,000 wild elephants. However, estimates have varied
widely (Leimgruber et al., 2011) and range from 5,000 to
6,000 after WorldWar II (Olivier, 1978; Williams, 1950) up
to 10,000 in the late 1950s (Olivier, 1978), 6,500 in the 1970s
(Olivier, 1978), and 4,000 to 5,000 in the early 1990s (Aung,
1997). Aung (1997) provided the most detailed information
1Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park,
Front Royal, VA, USA
2Friends of Wildlife, Yangon, Myanmar
3University of Wisconsin–Madison, WI, USA
Corresponding Author:
Melissa Songer, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National
Zoological Park, 1500 Remount Road, Front Royal, VA 22630, USA.
Email: songerm@si.edu
Received 20 June 2016; Revised 1 August 2016; Accepted 6 September 2016
Tropical Conservation Science
October-December 2016: 1–10
! The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1940082916673749
trc.sagepub.com
Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0
License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further
permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
on the geographic range of Asian elephants in Myanmar
based on a questionnaire survey of experts and reports
from private elephant owners. Santiapillai and Jackson
(1990) covered all these figures with a wide-ranging popu-
lation estimate of 3,000 to 10,000 individuals, and ameeting
of Asian Elephant Specialist Group of International Union
for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in 2004 listed an esti-
mate of 4,000 to 5,300 (Sukumar, 2006).
More recently emerging evidence has cast doubt on
Myanmar’s status as an elephant stronghold. During a
national workshop in 2004, experts from Myanmar’s
Forest Department (FD), other government and state
agencies, and nongovernment organizations agreed that
the number was probably much lower, ranging only
between 1,430 and 2,065 (Leimgruber et al., 2011). As
reasons for the declines, experts cited habitat loss,
increased human–elephant conflict, mining, and live cap-
ture of elephants for use in the logging industry.
Leimgruber et al. (2008) demonstrated that past and cur-
rent levels of live elephant captures may have significantly
contributed to elephant declines in Myanmar. However,
detailed information about the changing geographic dis-
tribution of Asian elephants, the drivers of these changes,
and the current status of Myanmar’s wild elephants is still
lacking, despite its obvious value for conservation plan-
ning. This was also recognized at the last IUCN Asian
Elephant Conservation workshop in Cambodia in 2008,
where Myanmar was identified as the range state in most
dire need of research to improve population estimates
and knowledge of their distributions (Hedges, Fisher, &
Rose, 2009).
Here, we present an analysis of the drivers of change in
Myanmar’s wild elephant distribution and an updated
elephant distribution map for the country. In 2006, we
conducted township-based expert interviews to update
Aung’s (1997) study conducted from 1990 to 1992. This
allowed us to identify changes in the geographic distribu-
tion. By linking the township data with environmental
covariates on forest cover, forest edge, and human dens-
ity, we develop competing statistical models to assess the
differential importance of these factors for elephant
declines. Our analysis and study provide critical informa-
tion for developing countrywide elephant conservation
management in Myanmar, particularly as more than
50 years of political isolation are rapidly ending and
giving way to exponential increases in access and
demand for the country’s vast natural resources, includ-
ing elephants.
Methods
Study Area
Intersecting three biogeographic regions, Myanmar is
known for high endemism and its importance as a
global biodiversity hotspot and as stronghold for threa-
tened megafauna such as Asian elephants and tigers. It is
the most forested country in the region, maintaining
approximately two thirds of its forest cover
(Leimgruber et al., 2005) and representing diverse ecosys-
tems ranging from mangrove forests in the Ayeyarwady
delta to alpine forests in the Himalayas. Over 60 million
people live in Myanmar, and most reside in the central
dry zone, an area that is now primarily agriculture sur-
rounded by foothills transitioning into rugged hills and
into steep terrain of the Himalayas in the north.
Elephant Surveys
Staff of Myanmar’s FD collected elephant presence or
absence information in townships, which represent
third-level administrative boundaries, a subdivision of
Myanmar’s Districts, dividing the 14 states and divisions
of the country. Interviewers collected elephant presence
or absence information based on experts’ visual observa-
tion of elephants or elephant sign (dung or foot prints).
Staff used expert informants and targeted townships
potentially supporting elephants to find out about ele-
phant distribution during two time periods (1990/1992
and 2005/2006). Expert informants included local FD
staff and protected areas rangers, local hunters, private
elephant owners, and veterinarians and mahouts working
for the Myanmar Timber Enterprise (MTE)—the govern-
ment-owned logging industry that manages thousands of
captive elephants. These informants were selected
because they regularly walk through elephant habitat
and have experience in visually observing elephants and
detecting elephant signs. Both private elephant owners
and MTE staff have detailed knowledge about wild ele-
phants because they are involved in capturing them for
use as working elephants in timber operations and spend
a great deal of time working in and around the forests in
their areas.
Interviews were jointly designed with our Myanmar
colleagues who then trained FD staff in interview meth-
ods, including techniques for avoiding bias and careful
data recording. Interviewers then communicated directly
with informants and no foreign project members were
present at the interviews, reducing the possibility of bias.
Informants were asked whether elephants were present
in their township during the last year and how, when, and
where they were detected (Appendix). FD staff conduct-
ing the surveys were not enforcement or paramilitary
staff, but trained and involved in research projects prior
to the elephant surveys. Interviewers had no vested inter-
ests in the outcome of the survey. Interviewers did not
have any authority over the interviewees there were no
repercussions or incentives to be gained by interviewees
through their responses, and each informant was separ-
ately interviewed. There was never a discrepancy between
2 Tropical Conservation Science
informants about whether elephants were present in a
township or not.
Surveys from 1990 to 1992 included 125 of Myanmar’s
284 townships (Aung, 1997). The 159 townships which
were not included in the survey had not shown evidence
of elephant presence in previous decades. FD staff visited
101 of the 125 survey townships to conduct key inform-
ant interviews between October 1990 and April 1991. For
each township, two to four key informants were inter-
viewed. A total of 24 townships located within Kachin,
Kayah, and Karen states were not visited because they
were considered too dangerous for travel during the study
period due to ethnic conflict. Results from these areas on
phone interviews with township FD staff and question-
naires submitted between 1990 and 1992 by private ele-
phant owners requesting permission to capture wild
elephants within a township; therefore, respondents
were not in direct contact with those compiling the data.
Townships were resurveyed between October 2005 and
April 2006, with interviews conducted within 262 of the
country’s 286 townships (two new townships were created
when two existing townships were each split by the gov-
ernment between 1992 and 2005). The new surveys tar-
geted townships within or adjacent to previously mapped
elephant ranges (see map in Leimgruber et al., 2003;
Santiapillai & Jackson, 1990). Within each township, an
average of 5.7 experts were interviewed (range: 3–11).
Model Variables
To assess drivers of declines in elephant range, we calcu-
lated forest cover and human density variables for 1992
and 2006 from the best available sources. Estimates of
human population density are available from Columbia
University’s CIESIN/SEDAC, Gridded Population of
the World (http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/gpw/) in
5-year intervals. We used human density maps for 1990
and 2005 to best represent conditions in 1991/1992 and
2005/2006.
To approximate forest cover and forest edge, we relied
on a previous analysis of forest cover change in Myanmar
between the 1990s and 2000s (Leimgruber et al., 2005).
We extracted estimates of forest cover for the early 1990s
to match 1990s elephant surveys and forest cover from
the early 2000s to approximate conditions in 2006.
Although the time periods do not align precisely, we
found in previous research that this land cover provides
the highest possible resolution and accuracy for
forest delineation currently available for Myanmar
(Eames et al., 2005; Leimgruber et al., 2005). To assess
the amount of edge habitat, we used a high-pass filter on
the forest class maps in ArcMap (ESRI, 2011). The area
of each land cover type per township was calculated in
ArcMap and transformed by the common logarithm. To
assess the degree of isolation from other elephant
populations, we calculated a population continuity
index based on the number of adjacent townships with
elephant presence divided by the total number of
surrounding townships and included this index in our
modeling equations.
Generalized Linear Models
We used repeated measures generalized linear models
(GLMs) on presence or absence of elephants in all town-
ships for both 1992 and 2006 surveys. We hypothesized
that elephant presence would be negatively associated
with human population and edge and positively asso-
ciated with forest cover and the continuity variable.
We also included a quadratic term for forest cover
because elephants tend to prefer disturbed and open
forest habitats over closed forests (Fernando, 2006;
Fernando & Leimgruber, 2011; Fernando et al., 2005;
Ishwaran, 1993). To determine which of these factors
best explained elephant presence, we developed four
competing models a priori using R ecological software
(R Development Core Team, 2010). These models
encompassed (a) a full model including all variables, (b)
forest cover and survey year, (c) human population only
and survey year, and (d) continuity and survey year only.
We used repeated measures GLMs to assess persist-
ence of elephants in all townships by comparing town-
ships with elephant presence in 1992 and 2006 to
townships which had elephant presence in 1992 but not
in 2006. We used the same variables as used in the pres-
ence or absence model, but added a variable representing
population change between 1990 and 2005. These models
encompassed (a) a full model including all variables, (b)
forest cover, (c) population only and population change,
and (d) continuity only. We used Akaike Information
Criterion (AIC) to compare the models, which provides
a measure of the goodness of fit allowing comparison of
model performance within a treatment.
Improving Range Maps
Elephant survey data were compiled at the township
level; however, we know that elephants are not present
throughout these townships. To better approximate ele-
phant distribution, we used detailed forest cover data
from a 2005 study (Leimgruber et al., 2005) to eliminate
areas not suitable for elephants. Our assumption was that
wild elephant populations in Myanmar require forest
habitats for long-term persistence. We created a raster
layer of suitable cover (including forest, deforestation,
and reforestation classes), thus eliminating any areas
where forest had not been detected in 1990 or 2000.
The inclusion of deforested and reforested areas is war-
ranted because elephant populations often thrive in dis-
turbed and early successional forest habitats (Fernando
Songer et al. 3
& Leimgruber, 2011). We resampled the forest cover data
from its 30m pixel (¼900m2) to a 90m resolution
(8,100m2) using a 3 3 majority filter. The resulting
patches were overlaid with the boundaries of townships
in which elephants were still present in 2006. Only areas
that had suitable forest cover and fell within townships
with confirmed elephant presence were included in our
new range map for Myanmar.
Results
Myanmar’s Asian elephant geographic distribution
declined by approximately 15,000 km2 (5%) from 1992
to 2006 and fewer than two thirds of the townships
supporting elephants during the early 1990s still had ele-
phants present 15 years later. Survey results from 1990 to
1992 showed that wild elephants remained in 88 town-
ships, representing 13 of the country’s 14 states and div-
isions (Table 1). By the 2005/2006 survey, 33 of these
townships no longer had elephants while only 3 gained
elephants (Figure 1). Gains may have largely been asso-
ciated with displacement of elephants from other town-
ships. For example, based on our interviews,
agricultural development pushed elephants from
Thabeikkyin to Nawnghikop and Mogok townships,
explaining two of the three township expansions reported
for elephants by 2006. Our updated range map resulting
from combining forest cover with township surveys indi-
cates that elephants occupied roughly 143,000 km2 of
Myanmar in 2006 (Figure 2).
The full model best explained variation in elephant
presence in Myanmar’s townships in 1992 and 2006
(Table 2). Simpler, but perhaps more parsimonious
models, with forest cover, population, and continuity,
had much higher AICs. Percent forest cover and edge
were the most important variables, but the continuity
index and survey year also came out to be significant
(Table 2).
Elephant presence increases with percent forest cover,
reaching a peak in probability of presence at about 60%
cover and then gradually declined (Figure 3). Percent
forest cover decreased between 1991/1992 and 2005/
2006 resulting in much lower elephant presence probabil-
ities overall. Increases in percent edge reduce probabilities
of elephant presence (Figure 3). Percent edge also declines
between 1991/1992 and 2005/2006, but these declines had
much less of an impact on probability of elephant
presence.
For the elephant persistence models, we found the
continuity model best explained persistence between
1991/1992 and 2005/2006, followed closely by the full
model (þ0.54 AIC), with forest and population models
a few points higher, in increasing order (Table 3). Percent
edge and continuity were the most important variables
explaining persistence in the full model. Probability of
elephant persistence increased with increasing continuity
to an index of 0.6 where it reached 1.0 probability of
presence (Figure 4a). Probability of persistence decreased
rapidly with increasing edge (Figure 4b). As in the pres-
ence model, probability of persistence increased with per-
cent forest cover, though not as dramatically as degree of
continuity, which was a more important predictor of per-
sistence (Figure 4c).
Discussion
Our results show a major decrease in the geographic
distribution of wild elephants in Myanmar between
1992 and 2006 and provide evidence that deforestation
is the main driver. Overlapping our survey period, a
countrywide deforestation mapping showed that between
1990 and 2000, approximately 12,000 km2 of forest cover
was lost at an annual net deforestation rate of 0.3%
(Leimgruber et al., 2005). Although the deforestation
rate is close to the global average (0.2%), there were 10
deforestation hotspots with annual deforestation rates
above average, ranging from 0.4% to 2.2%
(Leimgruber et al., 2005). Eight of the townships that
overlapped these hotspots, either did not report elephants
in 1991/1992 or in 2005/2006 (three townships) or were
reported to have lost elephants in the intervening period
(five townships). One of these hotspots overlaps with the
northern edge of the central dry zone and the
Ayeyarwady valley area where we recorded the displace-
ment of the elephants from Thabeikkyin to Nawnghikop
and Mogok townships. Only two of the townships over-
lapping deforestation hotspots reported elephant pres-
ence during both the 1991/1992 and 2005/2006 surveys,
both were in the Tanintharyi Division.
Our results also provide insights into elephant habitat
associations, showing that forest cover and edge are more
important than human population in both elephant pres-
ence and persistence models. Our models show a positive
relationship between percentage forest cover and the
probability of elephant presence and persistence.
Previous studies have shown that elephants seem to
prefer forested areas but benefit from moderate amounts
of open, nonforest areas (Fernando, 2006; Fernando &
Leimgruber, 2011; Sukumar, 1990). Due to their mixed
feeding strategy of switching between grazing and brows-
ing (Dierenfeld, 2006; Sukumar, 2003), elephants often do
Table 1. Results of Township Presence or Absence Surveys.
Year Present Absent Total
Percent
surveyed
1990–1992 88 37 125 44
2005–2006 55 207 262 92
4 Tropical Conservation Science
well in open habitats, early successional forests, and
along forest edges (Fernando & Leimgruber, 2011). Our
presence model supports this conclusion, with probabil-
ities for elephant presence increasing with increasing
forest cover until a threshold of 60%, at which point
presence probability begins to decline (Figure 3).
However, both models show a strong negative relation-
ship between probability of both elephant presence and
persistence and the percentage of edge cover. Although
the probability of elephant presence and persistence is
very high in townships with low forest edge (<10%)
which yield elephant presence probability values of
>0.6 (Figure 3), there is a rapid decrease in probability
of elephant presence and persistence as edge increases.
Due to the unit of our analysis, it is likely that at the
township level, the percentage of edge cover serves as
Figure 1. Elephant presence by township based on interview surveys in 1991/1992 and 2005/2006. Gray areas¼ townships with
elephants present in 1991/1992 & 2005/2006; black areas¼ elephants present in 2005/2006 only; white areas¼ elephants present in
1991/1992 only.
Songer et al. 5
an indicator for fragmentation, and the negative relation-
ship with edge is a result of the negative effects of frag-
mentation rather than elephant avoiding edges.
While forest cover is clearly an important driver of
elephant presence, continuity with other elephant popu-
lations is the best predictor of whether an elephant popu-
lation persisted between 1991/1992 and 2005/2006,
providing further support that fragmentation of elephant
populations is an important factor in the decline in ele-
phant populations in Myanmar. As elephant populations
become smaller and more isolated from other popula-
tions, they are at higher risk from stochastic demographic
events. Being in areas with more edge and higher human
population also puts elephants at greater risk of human–
elephant conflict as they are more likely to come into
contact with humans and croplands. This often leads to
further reduction in elephant population and displace-
ment of elephants.
Our findings are consistent with assumptions about
the impacts of deforestation and human–elephant conflict
on elephant population. However, it is important to note
that overall forest cover is relatively high while deforest-
ation and human–elephant conflict rates are relatively
low in Myanmar in comparison to other Asian elephant
Figure 2. Elephant range map based on the intersection of remaining forest cover and townships with elephants present in 2006.
6 Tropical Conservation Science
range countries. A range-wide analysis for Asian ele-
phants has shown that Myanmar has nearly twice the
amount of potential remaining elephant habitat com-
pared with India and nearly 10 times as much as Sri
Lanka, the countries with the highest Asian elephant
populations (Leimgruber et al., 2003). Both Sri Lanka
and India have higher densities of people, lower propor-
tions of forest, and more edge, yet maintain higher ele-
phant numbers and densities than those found in
Myanmar. This raises a question about why we find a
different pattern in Myanmar than in other Asian coun-
tries with larger elephant populations. In Myanmar, areas
with high numbers of human–elephant conflict incidents
are often targeted for wild elephant capture by the gov-
ernment as a mitigation strategy for reducing conflict
(Leimgruber et al., 2008, 2011). As human–elephant con-
flict also increases with edge, it may partly explain why
we are not seeing such a strong negative relationship
between elephant presence and persistence with percent
edge cover.
In addition to the use of live capture to mitigate
human–elephant conflict, Myanmar is unique in its per-
vasive use of elephants for work, with an estimated 4,000
to 6,000 individuals—far more than any other country.
Table 2. Generalized Linear Model Results for Elephant Presence.
Model variables Estimate Standard error z value AIC  AIC
Full Intercept 2.34 0.40 5.79*** 469.82
Forest 16.61 2.19 7.60***
Forest squared 13.74 2.22 6.20***
Edge 16.90 2.40 7.04***
Continuity 1.05 0.39 2.63**
Population 0.04 102 0.05 102 0.79
Survey year 0.56 0.23 2.378*
Forest Intercept 2.78 0.36 7.70*** 539.41 152.41
Forest 5.80 1.55 3.75***
Forest squared 2.46 1.58 1.56
Survey year 0.60 0.21 2.81**
Population Intercept 0.69 0.14 4.93*** 632.73 162.91
Population 0.09 101 0.00 1.22
Survey year 0.56 0.20 2.80**
Continuity Intercept 1.23 0.18 6.84*** 620.83 151.01
Continuity 1.35 0.34 3.97***
Survey year 0.44 0.20 2.20*
Note. AIC¼Akaike Information Criterion. Significance codes: ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05.
Figure 3. Effects of forest cover and edge on probability of elephant presence in Myanmar based on 1992/1993 and 2005/2006 based on
repeated measures generalize linear modeling using interview survey data.
Songer et al. 7
In the past, approximately 50 to 100 elephants were cap-
tured annually, which had significant impacts on the wild
elephant populations. Models of the capture rates dem-
onstrate that that the wild population cannot be self-sus-
taining at a rate of approximately 100 per year if there are
fewer than 4,000 elephants (Leimgruber et al., 2008). If
estimates of 1,430 to 2,065 from the national workshop
(Leimgruber et al., 2011) are correct, then the model pre-
dicts the extinction of elephants in Myanmar within the
next three decades.
Implications for Conservation
Our results show that the major threats to elephant
conservation in Myanmar are deforestation and the sub-
sequent fragmentation of forests and elephant. This
contributes to increased levels of human–elephant con-
flict and can may lead to captures of elephants from the
wild to reduce population as a measure of mitigation.
Deforestation drivers are also closely tied with the
demand for maintenance of an immense working ele-
phant population, which in turn diminishes wild elephant
populations. Myanmar faces a challenge unique within
the region because the management of working elephant
populations is intricately connected to the fate of the wild
elephants.
In the face of these diverse threats, there is an urgent
need for an updated national elephant action plan that
addresses threats with a multiscale approach. Policies
determining logging and elephant capture quotas are
decided at a national level. However, crises from
human–elephant conflict must be addressed at the
Table 3. Generalized Linear Model Results for Elephant Persistence.
Model variables Estimate Standard error z value AIC  AIC
Continuity Intercept 0.45 0.41 1.09 114.29
Continuity 2.41 0.96 2.51*
Full Intercept 0.75 1.18 0.63 114.83 0.54
Forest 1.15 5.20 0.22
Forest squared 0.46 5.15 0.09
Edge 10.83 5.02 2.16*
Continuity 2.14 1.12 1.90
Population 0.92 1.85 0.50
Deforestation 4.52 4.29 1.05
Forest Intercept 0.81 0.97 0.84 116.98 2.69
Forest 5.18 3.92 1.32
Forest squared 6.92 3.84 1.80
Population Intercept 0.51 0.34 1.51 119.91 5.62
Population 0.02 0.01 1.51
Population change 0.09 0.05 1.63
Note. AIC¼Akaike Information Criterion. Significance codes: ‘*’ 0.05.
Figure 4. Effects of continutity (a), forest edge (b), and forest cover (c) on probability of elephant persistence in Myanmar, based on
generalized linear models of information from interview surveys between 1996 and 2006.
8 Tropical Conservation Science
community level, with support and input from national
government staff responsible for handling human–ele-
phant conflict. A national elephant action plan should
involve the range of impacted stakeholders, including
the responsible government agencies (Nature & Wildlife
Conservation Division, MTE), leaders from communities
affected by human–elephant conflict, national nongo-
vernmental organizations (NGOs) with relevant expertise
or working in areas with human–elephant conflict, and
pertinent international NGOs. Strategies for better forest
management, preventing forest fragmentation, and
decreasing human–elephant conflict should be prioritized
in the development of the action plan.
Our surveys offer a unique opportunity for analysis of
the forces controlling Myanmar’s elephant populations
and provide important baseline data to inform develop-
ment of a national elephant action plan. Historical data
dating back 25 years are especially valuable and a new
survey sometime within the next two to three years will
provide key insights to how the situation is changing.
Expert interview surveys can be a more cost-effective
strategy for assessing distribution and changes of wild
elephant populations, particularly in areas with low
population densities and inaccessible habitats. These
data can be combined with environmental data to test
specific hypotheses regarding the factors driving elephant
declines and increases. By building on our surveys from
2006, a smaller region can be targeted for surveys, which
would ideally be carried out at a finer spatial scale than
the township level.
In addition to an updated elephant distribution survey,
a threat assessment is needed to inform the action plan.
Improved understanding of the intensity and distribution
of major threats would allow for more detailed and tar-
geted recommendations for action. Research on develop-
ing and testing human–elephant conflict mitigation
strategies is especially important because these often
need to be tailored to specific situations of the landscape
and communities involved.
Significant political reforms in Myanmar during recent
years have resulted in a rapid movement away from pre-
vious isolation to widespread international interest. There
has been a dramatic increase in international involvement
in conservation of Myanmar’s vast biodiversity, along with
increased interest in extracting the country’s extensive nat-
ural resources. A more recent countrywide deforestation
analysis (representing change from 2002 to 2014) shows
deforestation has continued at the same rate, slightly
higher (0.3%) than the global average, suggesting that
the situation has declined since our 2005/2006 survey.
However, in recent years, the government has committed
to developing resources responsibly and has made import-
ant changes, for example, a ban on raw timber export and
a decrease in timber extraction quotas, which resulted in
no elephant captures planned since 2014.
A decreased demand for elephant labor will reduce the
drain on wild elephant populations but also potentially
cause another conservation conundrum that was
observed after a logging ban was enacted in Thailand in
1989—the problem of feeding long-lived working ele-
phants that are retired early. Retired elephants could
also provide a conservation solution if they could be suc-
cessfully reintroduced to the wild. Research on the
reintroduction of working elephants to the wild is critical
prior to any release. Returning elephants that are com-
fortable with people and familiar with their foods will
carry risks to both humans and elephants. Although ele-
phant numbers and densities are lower than presumed in
the literature, Myanmar still maintains high forest cover
and supports large numbers of elephants. With an effect-
ive national action plan and commitment to elephant
conservation, the declining trend in wild elephant popu-
lations in Myanmar could be reversed during our lifetime.
Appendix
Questions Asked During Elephant Surveys
1. What is your age?
2. What is your profession?
3. What is your education level?
4. Were there wild elephants living in your township
during the past year? (yes or no)
5. Did you see wild elephants?
6. How many times did you see wild elephants?
7. Approximately what dates did you see wild elephants?
8. How many wild elephants did you see?
9. Did you see signs of wild elephants (feeding, dung)?
10. How often do you see signs of wild elephants?
11. Did you hear wild elephants?
12. How often did you hear wild elephants?
13. Where did you detect wild elephants?
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Christen Wemmer, Khine Khine
Swe, and Ye Htut for their help in planning and carrying out the
surveys, and Maureen Mullen and Stephanie Cunningham for their
help at the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute’s
Conservation GIS Lab.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Partial
funding for this research was provided by the Friends of the
National Zoo.
Songer et al. 9
References
Aung, M. (1997). On the distribution, status and conservation of
wild elephants in Myanmar. Gajah, 18, 47–55.
Blake, S., & Hedges, S. (2004). Sinking the flagship: The case of
forest elephants in Asia and Africa. Conservation Biology, 18,
1191–1202.
Center for International Earth Science Information Network –
CIESIN – Columbia University, United Nations Food and
Agriculture Programme – FAO, and Centro Internacional de
Agricultura Tropical – CIAT. (2005). Gridded Population of
the World, Version 3 (GPWv3): Population Count Grid.
Palisades, NY: NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications
Center (SEDAC). http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/gpw/.
Dierenfeld, E. S. (2006). Nutrition. In: M. E. Fowler, & S.
K. Mikota (Eds). Biology, medicine, and surgery of elephants
(pp. 57–65). Ames, IA: Blackwell Publishing.
Eames, J. D., Hla, H., Leimgruber, P., Kelly, D. S., Aung, S. M.,
Moses, S., & Tin, S. N. (2005). The rediscovery of Gurney’s
Pitta Pitta gurneyi in Myanmar and an estimate of its population
size based on remaining forest cover. Bird Conservation
International, 15, 3–26.
ESRI. (2011). ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Redlands, CA:
Environmental Systems Research Institute.
Fernando, P. (2006). Elephant conservation in Sri Lanka:
Integrating scientific information to guide policy. In: M.
J. Groom, G. K. Meffe, & C. R. Carroll (Eds). Principles of
conservation biology (pp. 649–652). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer
Associates.
Fernando, P., & Leimgruber, P. (2011). Asian elephants and dry
forests. In: W. J. McShea, S. J. Davies, & N. Bhumpakphan
(Eds). The ecology and conservation of seasonally dry forests
in Asia (pp. 151–163). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution
Scholarly Press.
Fernando, P., & Pastorini, J. (2011). Range-wide status of Asian
elephants. Gajah, 35, 15–20.
Fernando, P., Wikramanayake, E., Weerakoon, D., Jayasinghe, L.
K. A., Gunawardene, M., & Janaka, H. K. (2005). Perceptions
and patterns in human-elephant conflict in old and new settle-
ments in Sri Lanka: Insights for mitigation and management.
Biodiversity & Conservation, 14, 2456–2481.
Hedges, S., Fisher, K., & Rose, R. (2009). Range-wide mapping
workshop for Asian Elephants (Elephas maximus) Cambodia,
October 2008: A report to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Assistance Award No: 98210-6-G232. Retrieved from http://
www.fws.gov/international/pdf/report-asian-elephant-range-
wide-mapping-workshop-2008.pdf.
Hedges, S., Johnson, A., Ahlering, M., Tyson, M., & Eggert, L. S.
(2013). Accuracy, precision, and cost-effectiveness of conven-
tional dung density and fecal DNA based survey methods to
estimate Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) population size
and structure. Biological Conservation, 159, 101–108.
Hedges, S., Tyson, M. J., Sitompul, A. F., Kinnaird, M. F.,
Gunaryadi, D., & Aslan, A. (2005). Distribution, status, and
conservation of Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) in lampung
province, Sumatra, Indonesia. Biological Conservation, 124,
35–48.
Ishwaran, N. (1993). Ecology of the Asian elephant in lowland dry
zone habitats of the Mahaweli River Basin, Sri Lanka. Journal
of Tropical Ecology, 9, 169–182.
Leimgruber, P., Gagnon, J. B., Wemmer, C., Kelly, D. S., Songer,
M. A., & Selig, E. R. (2003). Fragmentation of Asia’s remaining
wildlands: Implications for Asian elephant conservation. Animal
Conservation, 6, 347–359.
Leimgruber, P., Kelly, D. S., Steininger, M. K., Brunner, J., Muller,
T., & Songer, M. (2005). Forest cover change patterns in
Myanmar (Burma) 1990–2000. Environmental Conservation,
32, 356–364.
Leimgruber, P., Senior, B., Aung, M., Songer, M., Mueller, T.,
Wemmer, C., & Ballou, J. D. (2008). Modeling population via-
bility of captive elephants in Myanmar (Burma): Implications
for wild elephants. Animal Conservation, 11, 198–205.
Leimgruber, P., Zaw Min, O. O., Aung, M., Kelly, D. S., Wemmer,
C., Senior, B., & Songer, M. (2011). Current status of Asian
elephants in Myanmar. Gajah, 35, 76–86.
Olivier, R. C. D. (1978). On the Ecology of the Asian Elephant
Elephas maximus Linn: With particular reference to Malaya
and Sri Lanka (PhD thesis). University of Cambridge, England.
R Development Core Team (2010) R: A language and environment
for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for
Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-
project.org.
Santiapillai, C., & Jackson, P. (1990). The Asian elephant: An
action plan for its conservation. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN/
SSC Asian Elephant Specialist Group.
Sukumar, R. (1990). The living elephants. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Sukumar, R. (2003). Ecology of the Asian elephant in southern
India. II. Feeding habits and raiding patterns. Journal of
Tropical Ecology, 6, 33–53.
Sukumar, R. (2006). A brief review of the status, distribution, and
biology of wild Asian elephants (Elephas maximus).
International Zoo Yearbook, 40(1): 1–8.
Sukumar, R., & Santiapillai, C. (1996). Elephas maximus: Status
and distribution. In: J. Shoshani, & P. Tassy (Eds). The probos-
cidea: Evolution and palaeoecology of elephants and their rela-
tives (pp. 327–331). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Williams, J. H. (1950). Elephant bill. London, England: Hart-
Davis.
10 Tropical Conservation Science