The kiang is an animal of open terrain, mainly found in plains, alpine meadows, desert steppes, broad valleys, and hills, where grasses and sedges, are abundant (Harris and Miller 1995, Schaller 1998, Bhatnagar et al. 2006). They reach their highest densities on the vast alpine meadows and range from 2,700 m to as high as 5,400 m (Schaller 1998). However, they also occur in desert steppe and other arid habitats, such as in the Qaidam Basin. For example, kiang are found in largest numbers in xeric, south-facing basins throughout Yeniugou (“Wild Yak valley” in Chinese) in Qinghai Province (Harris and Miller 1995). Kiang in Pakistan have been sighted along river and stream basins in patches of Myricaria, willow, and Hippophe (Rasool 1992). Major sightings in Ladakh (India) are along the Indus and Hanley Rivers and the species is very common around high altitude lakes (Shah 1996). In Xinjiang Province, in the East Arjin Shan Nature Reserve, kiang have been sighted between 3,345 m and 4,355 m during a winter survey (Shah and Huibin 2000). In south and central Tibet, were located between 4,305 and 5,431 m in September (Shah and van Gruisen 2000). In Gansu Province, sightings range from 3,400 to 4,200 m (Bleisch 1996). They have been sighted at elevations of 3,500 to 4,700 m in Ladakh (Shah 1996), while in north Sikkim (India), the major kiang sightings were in the undulating and rolling plains and meadows at an altitude of 5,100 to 5,400 m (Shah 1994).

As a wild equid, kiang relies on coarse but abundant forage to meet its nutrient requirements (Duncan 1992; Schaller 1998). Stipa spp., a common grass on the Tibetan Plateau, constitutes most of the diet of kiangs, whereas sedges are eaten occasionnaly (Shah 1994, 1997, Harris and Miller 1995; Schaller 1998). Forbs and shrubs are rarely eaten (Harris and Miller 1995, Schaller 1998). There are direct observations of kiang feeding on Carex spp., Kobresia spp., and Stipa spp. in Sikkim (Shah 1994, 1997). In Chang Tang, the summer diet of the kiang was approximately 65% Stipa spp., followed by Kobresia spp., Carex spp., Poa spp., and Elymus spp., and small amounts of a few forbs and shrubs (Schaller 1998). In the same area, the proportion of Stipa in winter diets increased to > 90% (Schaller 1998).

No regular migration pattern has been observed in kiang (Schaller 1998). They do, however, make seasonal movements between different habitat types, often dispersing in small groups into hilly terrain in summer, and concentrating in basins and flat terrains during winter (Schaller 1998). It has been suggested that these movements are linked to the availability of relatively high-quality forage (Schaller 1998). Daily movements between flat plains and meadows and higher elevation terrain have been observed, suggesting a daily pattern of altitudinal movements (A. St-Louis, pers. obs.). In Xinjiang Province, major activity occurs along the Stipa meadows and in winter, mixed herds spent 50% of their time feeding with two feeding peaks per day (Shah and Huibin 2000).

Limited observations indicate that the social organisation of the kiang is similar to that of other wild equids living in arid conditions, such as Grévy’s zebra (E. grevyii), African wild ass (E. africanus), and Asiatic wild ass (E. hemionus). In this type of social organization, there are no permanent groups, and the most stable social unit is mother-foal. Males do not permanently tend groups of mares and young but are territorial, and young males often form bachelor groups (Klingel 1977). Male kiangs often show territorial behaviour, chasing intruders as they come by and occupying the same area for several months (Denzau and Denzau 1999). Males recognizable by natural marks have been observed occupying the same territory over a period of 3 years in eastern Ladakh (A. St-Louis, pers. obs.). Bachelor groups are also common (Schaller 1998, A. St-Louis pers. obs.). Kiangs normally foal in July and August (some in June and September), which is also the period of time in which females appear to come into estrus (Schaller 1998). During this season, males are often solitary and spaced in such a fashion as to appear to be territorial. Group sizes also tend to be smaller during this season. Females of the same reproductive stage are often associated. Large aggregations may form on good pasture during the fall and winter (Schaller 1998). Kiang mares have a gestation period of 355 days. Kiang are usually solitary or are found in small herds. Herds congregate on good pastures in autumn and winter, at times in herds of 300 to 400 (Schäfer 1937; Schaller 1998; Shahand Huibin 2000). More than 500 kiang were seen in one group in December 1999 (Shah and Huibin 2000).

Red List Category

Red List Criteria

Year Assessed

Assessor/s

Reviewer/s

Justification

History

• 1996
  Lower Risk/least concern

The current global population estimate of kiang is 60,000-70,000 animals, 90% of which are in China (Shah 2002). The Chinese population is approximately 56,500-68,500 animals, of which 15,000 are in Qinghai and Gansu (Schaller 1998), 4,500-5,500 in Xinjiang (Schaller 1998, Shah and Huibin 2000), and 37,000-48,000 in Tibet (Schaller 1998). Outside China, the population is estimated at 1,600-2,145 (Shah 2002). It must be stressed, however, that these figures come from several surveys conducted using different methods, and over a period of >20 years. Also, the kiang is a trans-border species, and their propensity to make large-scale movements makes any attempt to quantify their numbers in any given area difficult (Shah 1996). Recent surveys do not allow new population estimates, but illustrate local trends that should be taken into account. For example, Schaller et al. (2005) documented a population increase in Tibet since their surveys in the early 1990s. At this point new surveys are urgently required throughout the kiang’s distribution range. The information below provides the available data for specific regions prior to 1999 and a last section provides information on kiang surveys since 1999.

Qinghai and Gansu (China)
It is estimated that 15,000 kiang reside in Qinghai (Schaller 1998). The kiang population in Qinghai appears to be fragmented, and there are large areas of the province where the species is rare, particularly where the pastoralists live in greater numbers. Kiang have been almost exterminated in the eastern third of Qinghai Province and are uncommon in and around the periphery of Qaidam Basin. The southwestern part of Qinghai comprises some 100,000 km² where the highest kiang density occurs (Schaller 1998). Kiangs are mostly found in remote areas with low human population densities or, in some cases, in valleys seasonally unoccupied by pastoralists, such as the plains north of Qinghai Hu (also known as Koko Nur Lake - Foggin 2000). Kiang also extend east to Ngoring Hu and in the north across the Qaidam Basin to the Qilian Shan, but only at low densities. This is a vast tract for which no real population estimates have been made. Areas between Kunlun Pass around Wudaoliang and Tuotuohe have been surveyed for wild ungulates and had about 1,500–2,000 kiang: a density of about 0.1 animal/km² (Schaller et al. 1991). In the Yeniugou valley in southwest of the province, Harris et al. (1999) estimated a population of 843 individuals in 1,051 km² in 1991, counted less than 100 in 1992, and in 1997 counted 418 kiang. In Wudaoliang, 213 kiang were seen in 2,100 km² and 1,500–2,000 were estimated in 20,000 km² (Schaller et al. 1991). On the Qinghai-Tibet border, 510 kiang were counted in 2,736 km² (Feng 1991) and 1,000–1,500 kiang were estimated in a 75,000 km² area. Three hundred and twenty kiang were counted between March and July 1997 north of Qingha Hu, Huashixia (Maduo county) and Tuotuoheyan (Foggin 2000).

In Gansu, kiang were the second most commonly observed ungulate in winter when 0.255 kiang/km were encountered in a 679 km vehicle survey (Bleisch, 1996). In Yanchiwan Reserve, 58 kiang were sighted in 1985 (Schaller 1998). Kiang occur in the Aksai area adjacent to the Qinghai Boundary (R. Harris in litt., 1999).

Xinjiang (China)
In Xinjiang, the best known kiang population is in the Arjin Shan Nature Reserve (Altun Mountain Nature Reserve; Achuff and Petocz 1988). Kiang seem to be flourishing, and have replaced chirus (or Tibetan antelope, Phantolops hodgsoni) as the most numerous large mammal in the reserve (J. Gaw in litt., 1997), with a population estimate of 2,000-3,500 (Shah and Huibin, 2000). Along the southern margin of Arjin Shan (Tula Valley), 56 kiang were sighted in a 300 km drive. Numbers fluctuate with season in the Tula Valley as they travel to and from the adjoining Arjin Shan Reserve (Schaller et al. 1991). West of Arjin Shan Reserve, 108 kiang were sighted in a 4,000 km² area (Schaller 1998). A survey of 23,000 km² in the western half of the reserve showed that most kiang were concentrated in about 5,795 km² (Achuff and Petocz 1988). Kiang were more abundant in the eastern half of the reserve, where over 1,000 kiang were sighted by Butler et al. (1986), whilst Feng (1991) had recorded 770 kiang in 1,030 km². These numbers were extrapolated to an estimate of 41,262 kiangs for the whole reserve (Gao and Gu (1989), which is considered much too high by Schaller (1998). The eastern Arjin Shan Nature Reserve survey in the winter of 1998 had an encounter rate of 2.56 kiang/km (333.5 km of vehicle survey; Bleisch 1999). The 1999-2000 survey had an encounter rate of 2.34 kiang/km (1,854 kiang in 792 km of travel, Shah and Huibin 2000). The western Arjin Shan Nature Reserve had a very low kiang density of 0.137/km², especially in the vicinity of gold-mining camps. Kiang numbers were estimated at 1,500 in this area of the reserve (Bleisch 1999b). Taking all the above surveys and estimates into account, Shah and Huibin (2000) derived their total kiang population of the area at 2,000-3,500 animals. Some earlier population estimates for the reserve were clearly much too high (e.g., 30,000; Butler et al. 1986). Elsewhere in Xinjiang, the species was last seen in the Taxkorgan Nature Reserve during the 1950s (Schaller et al. 1987). Kiang still occur in the Aksai Chin region of Xinjiang, but there have been no surveys (Schaller 1998).

Tibet (China)
The largest populations of kiang in the world are in Tibet, mostly located in the northwest region of Chang Tang. Kiang occur in southern Tibet, but they are separated from the northern populations probably as a result of intensive agricultural practices and human settlements along the Tsangpo River valley (Schaller 1998). Local people reported that kiang were exterminated in most of this region between the 1960s and 1980s (Schaller 1998). Scattered populations survive along the Himalaya west of Bhutan (Schaller 1998). Kiang were sighted north of the Tibet-Sikkim border (Shah 1994). Kiang occur in the Qomolangma Reserve, but estimates are not clear, ranging from <50 up to 300 individuals (Jackson 1991; Schaller 1998). In southwestern Tibet, the kiang population is fragmented along the foothills of the Himalaya (R. Jackson pers. comm., Schaller 1998). A vehicle survey was conducted in September 2000 in south, southwest and central Tibet, covering the area between Nyalam-Lhatse-Saga-Mansarovar-Gar-Gerze-Dong Co-Coqen-Saga-PaikaTso-where 421 kiang were sighted in 2,660 km of travel (Shah and van Gruisen 2000). An encounter rate of 1.4 kiang/km was obtained between Mayumla and Mansarovar (Shah and van Gruisen 2000). Kiang were also sighted in the Gakyi, Gerze, Tsochen, and Raga areas (Shah and van Gruisen 2000). In the eastern part of their Tibet range, kiang occur around Chigo Co in three populations and others persist just south of Yamdrok Co, totaling not more than 200 animals (Schaller 1998). In the Chang Tang region, the eastern area located east of a line from Nam Co to Siling Co is now almost devoid of kiang (Schaller 1998). Kiang, however, are widely distributed and moderately common to the west and north of Siling Co, including the whole Chang Tang Nature Reserve, (Schaller 1998).They were also sighted along the road that crosses Chang Tang north to Coqen and west in Gerze and Shiquanhe (Schaller 1998). In 1990, the Aru Basin had an estimated 250 kiang in 1,800 km² (0.14/km²; Schaller and Gu 1994). Based on Schaller’s work, the number of kiang in the reserve would be between 21,743 and 28,006 in an area of 334,000 km² (or 18,488 to 23,813 in the official area of 284,000 km²). A team of Chinese scientists carried out research in the Karakoram and Kunlun Mountain systems and reported the occurrence of large herds of kiang roaming around the Memar Lake (Rasool 1992). Kiang have been reported from Phala (300 miles north-west of Lhasa) and Motsobunnyi Lake (Goldstein and Beall 1989). A concentration of 806 kiang south of Yibug Caka was sighted in October 1993 (Schaller 1998).

Outside China
Outside China, kiang numbers are small. In India the largest populations are in eastern Ladakh, in the Jammu and Kashmir state. Historically and currently, their range encompasses the area between Rupshu and Changchenmo (Stockley 1936; Fox et al., 1991). Although their range covers an area of 6,000 km² in Ladakh, kiang numbers have been greatly reduced in many areas (Fox et al. 1991). Approximately 1,500 to 1,600 kiang are distributed over an estimated range of 15,000 km² in the Trans-Himalayan region with no protected areas (Chundawat and Rawat 1994). Reports state that kiang are numerous in the Eastern Plateau in Ladakh around Tso Moriri (Mallon 1991). The Jammu and Kashmir Wildlife Department, Leh, conducted a census in 1988 and estimated a total of 1,500 kiang, and in 1994 counted 1,518 kiang in East Ladakh (Ladakh Wildlife Department, Jammu and Kashmir State Forest Department). An encounter rate of 1.17 kiang/km was obtained (497 kiang in 426 km) during the June 1995 survey covering areas around Pangong Tso, Chushul, Hanley, Tso Moriri, Tso Kar, and Demchok; Chumur was not surveyed due to bad weather (Shah 1996). A high encounter rate of 12.64 kiang/km was obtained along the Indus (278 kiang counted, Shah 1996), whilst 574 kiang were counted in a survey in July 2000, at an encounter rate of 0.92 kiang/km (Bhatnagar 2000). Other kiang habitats in Ladakh include the More Plains located south of the Taglang la along the Leh-Manali road (Q. Qureshi pers. comm., 1996), and Norbu Sumdo and Korzok, south-east of Ladakh (Charudutt Mishra pers. comm., 1998). Kiang have been reported by locals from Kharnak (upper Zanskar) in Ladakh (Y.V. Bhatnagar pers. comm., 1999). According to local Lahul and Spiti (Himachal Pradesh) informants, kiang in small numbers have been sighted north of Kibar, along the Jammu and Kashmir/Himachal Pradesh state boundary (Y.V. Bhatnagar and C. Mishra pers. comm.).

Elsewhere in India, the kiang population in Sikkim was recently thought to be extinct (Duncan 1992). However, two surveys conducted in 1994 and 1995 in north Sikkim confirmed their continued existence in a 200 km² area close to the Indo-Tibetan border, at an altitude between 5,100 m and 5,400 m (Shah 1994, 1997). An encounter rate of 0.54 kiang/km was obtained in a 138 km vehicle survey in this area in November 1994 (Shah 1994) A vehicle survey between May and June 1995 recorded an encounter rate of 0.092 kiang/km (26 kiang counted in 283 km, Shah 1997) The largest herd of kiang (n=48; foals were seen, but not counted) was observed across the border, west of Bamchola (Shah 1994). In 1994, the kiang population was estimated at 74–120 individuals (Shah 1994). This area has no protected status as it comes under army jurisdiction (Shah 1994, 1997)

The continued presence of the species in extreme northeastern Pakistan has been confirmed (Wegge 1988). An isolated population of 20 to 25 kiangs is sporadically distributed towards the easternmost boundary of the Khunjerab National Park beyond Shamshal, adjoining the area between the Aghil range and the Kunlun Mountains of Chinese Turkistan (Rasool 1992). This represents the westernmost limit of the kiang range. Kiang are restricted to a belt stretching along the Oprang and Muztagh Rivers, which form the Pakistan-China border. High altitude porters in June 1985 reported kiang sightings in Chikar, Furzin, and Muztagh Kayul Ridge (Rasool 1992). Few censuses have been conducted due to the isolation of the area and the population status remains unknown (Rasool 1992).

In Nepal the status of the species is still very uncertain. There are records from Chhujung in the Mustang district, Kiangchummi, Lapchagawa, and in the watershed areas of Salekhola, Yarchakhola, and Itikhola (Gurung 1999). Other potential sites for kiang in Nepal include the Makalu-Barun National Park and Conservation Area, the Annapurna Conservation area and the Shey-Phoksundo National Park (Shah 2002) Sharma et al. (2004) reports 37 kiang in Chuksung, Upper Mustang. It is not clear whether these data refer to animals that wander across the border with China or to animals permanently living in Nepal.

Recent kiang surveys (after 1999)
Surveys were conducted in the eastern part of the Chang Tang Nature Reserve in an area northwest of Siling Co by Schaller et al. (2005) to assess changes in the wildlife populations since the early 1990s. The density of kiang was more than twice that observed in 1991, with 2,266 kiang counted in an area of 11,870 km², compared to 1,224 kiang seen over an area of 17,500 km² (Schaller et al. 2005). Whether this trend can be generalized to other parts of the kiang distribution range remains unclear, but these observations suggests that there is an increase in kiang numbers within the Chang Tang Nature Reserve (Schaller et al. 2005). Surveys were also conducted between 1999 and 2002 across the Chang Tang Nature Reserve to assess the influence of human presence on ungulate densities (Fox and Bårdsen 2005). These surveys revealed that kiang are well distributed across the reserve but tend to be concentrated in areas with low human presence. Kiang densities in areas with low human presence ranged from 1.06 to 1,53 individuals/km² (encounter rate = 0.13-0.23 kiang/km); whereas densities in areas with medium human presence were estimated at 0.88 individuals/km² (encounter rate = 0.06-0.16 kiang/km; Fox and Bårdsen 2005).

A recent winter survey crossed the northern region of the Chang Tang Nature Reserve and continued across the Kekexili Nature reserve in Qinghai to the Golmud-Lhasa highway (Schaller et al. 2007). Few kiangs were observed along the entire route, with densities less than 0.1 individuals/km². The majority of the kiang censused (48%) were seen near the end of the transect line near the Golmud-Lhasa (Schaller et al. 2007).

In Ladakh, Bhatnagar et al (2006) estimated a mean density of 0.24 individuals/km² in a wide survey of Ladakh, and concentrations up to 0.56 individuals/km² in the Hanle valley. The general figure for Ladakh is thus comparable with the densities estimated in the 1980s (0.25 individuals; Fox et al. 1991).

Stable

The main threats to this species are potential conflicts with human presence and livestock, over-hunting, and possible disease transmission from domestic livestock. Because the status and trends of kiang populations are poorly known, it is difficult to come up with one situation that may apply to the entire kiang population and its range. It appears that there is much regional variation in their population decline or increase (Schaller 1998; Schaller et al. 2005). There is no doubt that kiang populations have been decimated in the past, and that they are now absent or scattered in some part of their former range (Schaller 1998). During the last decade, however, successful wildlife protection measures, such as a strict control of illegal hunting, resulted in a population increase in some areas (Schaller et al. 2005). But the real conservation issue for kiangs is related to conflicts with livestock herding practices. Changes in rangeland use policy are increasing the human presence and movements in key wildlife areas, along with increasing livestock numbers (Schaller et al. 2005; Fox and Tsering 2005). Rangelands in some locations are turned into private ranches owned by several families (G. B. Schaller pers. comm.), likely causing an intensification of pasture use. Rangelands are also often fenced from wildlife, which not only prevent kiang to gain access to key resources, but may also cause injuries and casual deaths (Schaller et al. 2005; Bhatnagar et al. 2006). It also appears that, while there may be a general perception by local communities that kiang overuse pastures on a wide scale, the real conflicts occur at local scale. For example, Bhatnagar et al. (2006) pointed out that in Ladakh, kiang only use 10-11% of the total forage consumed, while the other 89-90% is used by livestock. Still, large concentrations of kiang may undoubtedly have an important impact on grasslands at a local scale, and appropriate management decisions may be necessary. But it should be stressed that in order to address this conflict, solutions must also be implemented at local scale.

More specific threats in particular parts of its range are listed below.

Qinghai (China): The Yeniugou valley is one of the finest and most accessible wildlife areas in Qinghai. This area has a continuing influx of Tibetan and Mongolian nomads who, unlike the nomads in Tibet, lack allocated rangelands (Harris 1993). There are plans to make this valley a hunting reserve (Schaller 1998). In 1994, 2,000 to 3,000 gold diggers from Qinghai Province moved into the Nyima area (Southern boundary of the Reserve). Oil exploration teams were also in the area at the same time. Such extractive works should be monitored to avoid damage to the environment and to control illegal hunting by oil workers and miners (Miller and Schaller 1997). Gold miners from eastern Qinghai Province first began entering the Yeniugou Valley in the late 1980s and were still using it as a transportation corridor to mining sites in 1997 (Harris et al. 1999). Poaching continues in some places (e.g. near Golmud), sometimes with the acceptance of nomads who perceive the kiang as a nuisance to their livestock (G. B. Schaller pers. comm.).

Xinjiang (China): In the Arjin Shan Nature Reserve (AMNR), densities of wildlife in the north and west of Aqik Lake are very low as the area is used extensively by tractors and supply trucks travelling to and from two large gold mines within the nature reserve (Bleisch 1999b). Pastoralists have settled in the eastern part of the reserve and their domestic horses have been observed feeding with kiang in its winter range. Such use of the area needs to be analyzed and monitored, with special attention to the possibility of disease transmission.

Tibet (Xizang) (China): In the Chang Tang Nature Reserve, most of the area inhabited by pastoralists is located in the southern and western part of the reserve, although human presence is increasing even in the most remote areas (Fox et al. 2004). Today there are between 20 and 30,000 people and >1.5 million head of livestock dependent on the rangelands of the reserve (Miller and Schaller 1997; Fox et al. 2004; Fox and Tsering 2005). Changes in traditional pastoral production systems pose a danger in the Chang Tang Reserve. Remote pastoral areas that used to take months to reach on horseback and by caravan are now accessible in a few days by vehicle from Lhasa (Miller and Schaller 1997). The complex system of rotational grazing, which has succeeded in maintaining the rangelands, is being modified. Nomad groups now fence winter pastures and some have built long fences across valleys and hills to keep wildlife out, which will affect the kiang and chiru populations (Miller and Schaller 1997; Shah and Huibin 2000; Shah and van Gruisen 2000; Schaller et al. 2005). The current development priorities that will affect the kiang is “sedentarisation” of pastoralists. This will intensify land use and problems of overgrazing, and will increase competition for forage. Consequently, there are demands from herders to control kiang populations (Miller and Schaller 1997; Foggin 2000; Harris 2008). But since the hunting ban also prevents subsistence hunting - such as in northwest Tibet for example, where it used to be common - an intensification of rangeland use may meet the needs of the local people (Fox and Tsering 2005). In southern Tibet there may be less than 2,500 kiang. If this is a separate subspecies it will be important to carefully monitor their status (Neumann-Denzau and Denzau 2003).

Ladakh (India): Approximately 215,000 domestic livestock (90% represented by sheep and goat and 10% by yaks and horses) compete with an estimated 5,000 wild ungulates (Bhatnagar et al. 2006) in the Changthang region. Hence there is an increased pressure on the pastureland. The Jammu and Kashmir Government has encouraged nomads to keep pashmina goats for production of wool by giving incentives that will sustain their living standards. In this context, kiang are increasingly perceived as serious competitors by pastoralists and the local administration. A decreasing tolerance for kiang may thus lead to a “worsening willingness to preserve it” by local authorities (Bhatnagar et al. 2006:935). Other disturbances also arise from, 1) road networks being established for strategic reasons; 2) the State Tourist Department planning to open up new areas in the upper Indus Valley towards the Tibetan border, allowing pilgrims to visit the holy “Mount Kailash” directly from Ladakh (Pfister 1998), which would occur through the major kiang habitats in Dungti and Fukche areas.

Sikkim (India): The habitat on the Indian side of the Sikkim plateau is the only area that has water when compared to the adjacent Tibetan plateau. The Tibetan pastoralists and livestock inevitably visit the Indian side for watering during the dry period, effectively preventing the kiang from accessing water sources. The livestock could also potentially transmit diseases. Seventeen Dokpa families (nomads) have ‘Nangs’ (temporary settlements) on the Sikkim plateau (200 km²). Approximately 1,000 yaks and 1,500 sheep are dependent for grazing on the plateau areas from October to April each year, which may cause interspecific competition with kiang (Shah 1994).

The kiang is legally protected in several countries. In China it receives first class protection; in India it is on Schedule I of Indian Wildlife, Protection Act of 1972; and in Pakistan it is conserved under the Northern Areas Wildlife Preservation Act 1975. It is on Appendix II of CITES.

Conservation and research recommendations include:

• Research on the molecular genetics of the taxonomic status of the three subspecies of kiang, with urgent emphasis on the status of E. k. polyodon.
• Coordinated surveys on the present distribution, population numbers and trends, using comparative methodologies.
• Comparative ecosystem analysis of habitat and forage requirements of domestic livestock and kiang. Initial efforts should concentrate on known areas of seasonal overlap between kiang, pastoralists and their livestock.
• Studies on population dynamics with emphasis on recruitment and mortality rates
• Long-term studies using individually recognized animals should be implemented (i.e. to understand life-history strategies, movements patterns, resource selection patterns, etc.)
• Carry out studies of ecology or seasonal movement patterns. These two types of data are necessary to develop sound management plans. In addition, information on species’ requirements (e.g., forage, water, range) would be helpful to ensure that other species-specific or ecosystem management plans incorporate aspects important to kiang biology.
• Develop and implement mitigation management plans to reduce conflict between kiangs and domestic livestock.
• Develop a protocol for disease monitoring.
• Implement conservation education and awareness programs. These should be promoted amongst the army in areas where the kiang habitat comes under military jurisdiction, in order to help conserve the kiang and other wildlife. This is especially important in areas where kiang may be moving between protected, non-protected, and/or military areas.
• The transboundary aspects of management of kiang need to be considered. Where possible, data sharing and management collaboration should be fostered between the park rangers and wardens who manage the same animals on either side of a border. In addition, a kiang population and habitat viability analysis would bring all the scientists and managers associated with the species on one platform to develop a conservation action plan.
• A review of the management actions every three years would help to portray the true conservation status of the species as it exists in the field, and the effectiveness of the conservation measures that have been taken.