that are geographically separated by more than one expected home-range diameter for the

analysis.

 A frequently occurring problem associated with using camera traps for converting

estimated animal abundances to densities is determining the effectively sampled area. The

problem is typically addressed by adding a buffer around the trapping grid; the width of the

buffer is addressed by a number of methods (see Wilson & Anderson, 1985). When radio-

telemetry information is not available, the mean maximum distance method (MMDM) (Karanth

& Nichols, 1998; Wilson & Anderson, 1985) is widely used to add a buffer around the trapping

grid instead of assuming geographic closure within the trapping grid to reduce bias. However,

Soisalo & Cavalcanti (2006), in their work on jaguars (Panthera onca), point out the limitations

of using MMDM, and suggest that density estimates based on MMDM are likely to be biased

and inflated. With the lack of information on individual bears being trapped in the study, the

MMDM method cannot be used in this study. The analysis in this study relies on the assumption

of different home range sizes of sloth bears in the absence of real data. Hence, I assume these

different assumed home range sizes as the effectively sampled areas for each scenario, without

actually defining a buffer around the camera trap grid in each site.

Selection of home range sizes for analysis

 Sloth bears have not been radio-collared in either Nagarahole or Bandipur National Parks.

So information on home range sizes has to be inferred from other studies in the country. In

Chitwan, male sloth bears occupied larger home ranges than females (Joshi, Garshelis & Smith,

1995), which was primarily due to larger wet season ranges. Mean home ranges were 9.4 and

14.4 km2 for females and males, respectively. Yoganand (unpublished data) observed that sloth

bears in Panna had much larger annual home ranges (ranging from 25 100 km2 95% kernel

estimate) and varying sizes of seasonal ranges.