ABSTRACT
Widely used to study wildlife, camera trapping involves automated devices that record pictures or videos using infrared sensors that detect motion. Camera trapping has greatly improved scientific investigation as it can gather data on rare, cryptic, or nocturnal species. On the American University of Nigeria campus in Adamawa State, northeastern Nigeria, I used camera trapping to determine the presence and distribution of wildlife species and the habitat use of two nocturnal mammals, white-tailed mongoose (Ichneumia albicauda) and giant-pouched rat (Cricetomys gambianus). I surveyed 29 sampling points for three trap nights, resulting in a total of 87 trap nights. Using occupancy modeling, I evaluated the influence of covariates on presence and habitat use of these two mammals. Results indicated that the presence of nature areas and domestic goats positively influenced the presence and habitat use of white-tailed mongoose. These factors were also important for the giant pouched rat, whose habitat use was positively associated with nature areas, but negatively associated with the presence of goats. These results indicate that white-tailed
vii
mongoose and giant pouched rat prefer less disturbed habitats on campus. The adaptable mongoose, though, appears to also tolerate more disturbed areas and may even be excluded from areas where other mongoose species occur (in this study, banded mongoose). The pouched rat appears to avoid disturbed environments. My findings may be affected by the short survey period and limited number of cameras. I recommend the university enhance natural vegetation and increase awareness about the ecological importance of having such wildlife on campus.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATION…………………………………………………………………….ii
READERS’ APPROVAL………………………………………………………………iii
DEDICATION………………………………………………………………………….iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………..v
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………..vi
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………x
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………….xi
CHAPTER 1………………………………………………………………………….1
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………..1
Presence………………………………………………………………………6
Distribution……………………………………………………………………….8
Occupancy……………………………………………………………………9
Habitat use…………………………………………………………………..10
Abundance/Density…………………………………………………………..11
Key advantages………………………………………………………………12
Non-lethal method…………………………………………………….12
Data documentation………………………………………………….13
Disadvantages………………………………………………………………..13
Device malfunction……………………………………………………14
Cost…………………………………………………………….……14
Other restrictions..……………………………………………….……..15
American University of Nigeria………..………………………..………….…………15
ix
AIMS & OBJECTIVES…………..……………………………….………………….17
CHAPTER 2…………………………………………………………………………18
MATERIALS & METHODS………………………………………………..18
Study site……………………………………………………………………….18
GPS units..…….……………………………………………………………..19
Sampling……………………………………………………………………20
Modeling……………………………………………………………………..22
CHAPTER 3…………………………………………………………………………24
RESULTS……………………………………………………………………24
White-tailed mongoose………………………………………………………26
Giant pouched rat……………………………………………………………27
CHAPTER 4………………………………………………………………………….29
DISCUSSION………………………………………………………….……29
White-tailed mongoose…………………………………………………………………………29
Giant pouched rat…………………………………………………..……….31
Limitation…………………………………………………………………….32
Recommendation……………………………………………………………..33
CHAPTER 5………………………………………………………………………….35
CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………35
APPENDIX I…………………………………………………..…………….36
History of photography in wildlife studies…………………………………..36
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………….………38
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Impact of survey effort (number of camera days) on the number of animals detected in four studies (sourced from Rovero et al., 2010) …………………………7
Table 2. Results of model selection for habitat use and detection probability of white-tailed mongoose using Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC), corrected for sample size and overdispersion (QAICc)……………………………………………27
Table 3. Results of model selection for habitat use and detection probability of Giant-pouched rat proportional to sampling points using Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC) with a small sample size correction (AICc)………………………………..28
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 1. A Camera trap attached to a tree for wildlife detection……………..…………2
Fig. 2. Camera trap installed and checked by Indonesia’s Tiger Research Team in Tesso Nilo National Park, Riau Province, Indonesia. The Indonesia’s researchers are seeking to record tigers in the Sumatran jungle………………………………..……..5
Fig. 3. The location of the American University of Nigeria (AUN) situated in a low dense populated area in Yola, Adamawa state………………………………………18
Fig. 4. Camera traps mounted on plane woods in a marsh-side animal trail………..19
Fig. 5. Four sampling zones in this study were underdeveloped areas within the AUN main campus.…………………………………………………………………..20
Fig. 6. The proportional sampling points of each of the four study zones…………….21
Fig. 7. Location of mammal species detected by camera traps in each of the four zones during this study……………………………………………………………….25
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
There have been challenges for wildlife ecologists and managers to develop reliable methods that can be used to assess and gain a better understanding of wildlife (Caughley, 1977). A wide variety of methods and analytical approaches have been developed. The advent of camera-trap technology has greatly improved ecologists’ and managers’ ability to study and monitor wildlife within natural habitats (O’Connell, Nichols, & Karanth, 2011). A camera trap is an automated device that takes pictures or videos using infrared sensors that detect motion. As a result of technological advancements, camera-trap devices are now more cost effective. They provide a non-invasive way to study wildlife. Camera traps also can take High Definition (HD) photographs (Kucera & Barrett, 2011). In addition, camera trapping has improved wildlife studies mostly in terms of assessing and understanding elusive wildlife (Kucera & Barrett, 2011).
In recent years, camera trapping has become a tool to study wildlife with little or no human disturbance (Rovero, Martin, Rosa, Ahumada, & Spitale, 2014). Camera trapping is used for different purposes, such as monitoring and documenting the occurrence of animal species. In addition, the results obtained from a camera-trap study can also be used for designing statistical models for assessing and investigating the animal population’s characteristics, such as abundance, presence, and distribution in a particular area (Karanth, Nichols, Kumar, & Hines, 2006; Karanth & Nichols, 1998). Camera trapping is often used to collect data on species that are difficult to study or detect. In recent years, camera trapping has provided profound results in understanding population characteristics and ecological relationships of animals,
2
ranging from common animal species (e.g. raccoons) to rare, elusive, and enigmatic animal species (e.g. African golden cats) (O’Connell et al., 2011).
Camera trapping has become so well known that several ‘camera trap’ articles published in the Web of Science database boosted journal citation rates to more than 180 over the past five years (O’Connell et al., 2011). In addition, camera trapping has allowed scientists to more often use non-invasive sampling techniques, which do not disturb wildlife (Long, MacKay, Zielinski, & Ray, 2008). Technological engineering advancements, such as camera-system automation, system networking, device simplicity, and other modern camera system features, have also improved the technological aspect of camera-trapping (O’Connell et al., 2011).
Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. A Camera trap attached to a tree for wildlife detection. A Camera trap attached to a tree for wildlife detection. Credit: WaiCredit: Wai–Ming Ming Wong/Panthera.Wong/Panthera.
3
Conservation organizations have incorporated camera trapping in order to preserve and improve biodiversity around the world (Kucera & Barrett, 2011). As the endangerment and extinction of animal species became a major concern, scientists began asking questions and devising methods appropriate for studying rare animals (Ancrenaz, Hearn, Ross, Sollmann, & Wilting, 2012). As a result, camera trapping became widely held because it enabled undisturbed observation of wildlife (Kucera & Barrett, 2011).
Camera trapping is the most appropriate and ethical method in surveying species that are rare, shy, or have a low population density. Due to this camera technique, there have been an increase in the sum of knowledge of the lives of many wildlife species. For example, in one study, camera trapping was used to survey cryptic and elusive forest carnivores in the United States (Kucera & Barrett, 2011). Camera trapping was also used to survey the frequency at which these elusive carnivores appeared along accessible areas in California (Kucera & Barrett, 1993; Kucera, 1993).
Over time camera trapping has detected presumed-extinct or previously unknown species. For example, cameras detected the striped rabbit (Nesolagus timminsi), previously unknown to science, in the Annamite mountain range of Laos and Vietnam. This detection occurred 1,500 km away from where another striped rabbit occurs: the Sumatran striped rabbit (Nesolagus netscheri), which is critically endangered, (Surridge, Timmins, Hewitt, & Bell, 1999). Using camera traps, Jeganathan et al. (2002) documented the critically endangered and poorly known Jerdon’s courser (Rhinoptilus bitorquatus) in India. In Sumatra, the presence and distribution of the endangered Asian tapir (Tapirus indicus) was confirmed via
4
camera traps even though park rangers claimed the species did not exist in the park (Holden, Yanuar, & Maryr, 2003). Camera traps also led to the first-ever photograph of a wolverine (Gulo gulo) in California since 1922, although the researchers were using cameras to study the distribution of another species, the American marten (Martes americana) (Moriarty et al., 2009). Camera trapping and using banana as bait helped researchers assess the distribution and abundance of the endangered buff-headed capuchin monkey (Cebus xanthosternos) (Kierulff, Santos, Canale, Guidoizzi, & Cassano, 2004).
Furthermore, camera trapping has provided opportunities for conservation organization to have more biodiversity awareness campaigns by promoting photographs of cryptic and elusive species (Kucera & Barrett, 2011). The Wildlife Conservation Society presented the first photograph of the very rare Lowe’s servaline genet (Genetta servalina lowei) in Tanzania (Brink, Topp-Jorgensen, & Marshall, 2002). In Cambodia, Sanderson and Trolle (2005) provided evidence of continued existence of the Siamese crocodile (Crocodylus siamensis) using cameras. Similarly, the World Wildlife Fund presented the critically endangered Sumatran rhinoceros (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis) (Anonymous, 2006).
In addition to being able to detect rare species, camera trapping may be more effective than other techniques under certain conditions. Roberts (2011), for example, compared camera trapping and transect sampling for mammals and found out that transect sampling depends heavily on the competence of the observers for accurate identification of species. On the other hand, camera traps do not need skilled
5
observers. Additionally, camera trapping is a labor-efficient, rigorous, and reliable method in large-scale and long-term monitoring of species and requires less human effort compare to other techniques (Roberts, 2011).
Finally, camera trapping has even been used to monitor wildlife vaccination programs. In Switzerland, cameras provided evidence of rabies vaccine uptake by red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) using bait stations (Hegglin et al., 2004). Cameras helped the researchers evaluate several methods to improve vaccination efficiency while reducing negative impacts from non-targeted species taking the baits (Hegglin et al., 2004).
Investigators are using camera traps for many purposes, some simple and some more complex. Some of these purposes include establishing a species’ presence,
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. Camera trap Camera trap installedinstalled and checked by Indonesia’s Tiger Research and checked by Indonesia’s Tiger Research Team Team in Tesso Nilo National Park, Riau Province, Indonesiain Tesso Nilo National Park, Riau Province, Indonesia. The . The Indonesia’s researchersIndonesia’s researchers are are seeking to record tigers in the Sumatran seeking to record tigers in the Sumatran junglejungle. . Credit:Credit: © WWF© WWF–Indonesia / Des SyafrizalIndonesia / Des Syafrizal
6
determining distribution or occupancy of a species in a region, assessing how a species uses its habitat, or estimating abundance and density.
Presence
Camera trapping can confirm the presence of animal species in an environment with a single photograph. Such information can be used to create awareness on the value or importance of a habitat for a species. For example, using 15 camera traps, investigators logged 11,106 camera-trap days and identified 43 animal species, including mammals, birds, and a reptile, in a forest in Thailand (Kitamura, Thong-Aree, Madsri, & Poonswad, 2010). In addition, the study showed that these animals were less affected by human activity, except for direct poaching (Kitamura et al., 2010). Likewise, Hibry and Jeffery (1987) confirmed the presence of the rare Mediterranean seal (Monachus monachus) in the caves of the Greek Island of Kefallinia using camera traps. Due to the seals’ sensitivity to human disturbance, camera trapping was considered the best method to determine presence of these species (Hibry & Jeffery, 1987). At least, four individual Mediterranean monk seals were photographed in their caves (Hibry & Jeffery 1987).
Confirming presence depends on the survey or trap effort. The greater the survey effort, the greater the likelihood of detecting species (Table 1). Survey or trap effort also can be mathematically calculated. The survey effort is calculated by multiplying the number of camera traps with the sampling days (Rovero et al., 2010).
For example, a 2,000 survey or trap effort might involve using 20 camera traps over 100 days, or 100 cameras over 20 days.
7
Nonetheless, certain elusive or very shy species may still be undetectable even with a 2,000 survey effort. This brings in the question the absence of a species (Rovero et al., 2010). In this case, without any insurance that a species was not detected, it is unlikely to state that a species is absent in an area because cameras only provide the presence of a species at a particular time and space. Therefore, inferences could still be made if a species is known to occur at a location.
Camera trapping can capture photos or videos of large-medium terrestrial species. Such species are often difficult to detect, given low population densities and shy behavior. A camera-trap inventory of species in northern Mexico were able to capture 80% of the large-medium species in the study area (Lorenzana-Pina, Castillo-Gomez, & Lopez-Gonzalez, 2004).
Camera-trapping data on detecting a species in a study area are also affected by the status of that species. For example, a study on endangered African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) showed that presence and distribution were affected by human oppression and
Site
Number of species
(proportion of total of all mammals known to occur in the study area)
Trap effort
(camera days)
Source
Emas National Park, Brazil
16 (57%)
1035
(Silveira et al., 2003)
Atlantic forest, Brazil
17 (81%)
1849
(Srbek-Araujo & Garcia, 2005)
Udzungwa Mountains, Tanzania
44 (80%)
3400
(Rovero & De Luca, 2007)
Los Amigos, Peru
21-24 (75-86%)
1440-2340
(Tobler et al., 2008)
Table 1. Impact of survey effort (number of camera days) on the number of animals detected in four studies (sourced from Rovero et al., 2010).
8
habitat reduction in Waterberg, South Africa (Ramnanan, Swanepoel, & Somers, 2013). Using camera traps, African wild dogs were mainly detected on private farmlands, indicating that private lands are important habitat for the conservation of African wild dogs (Ramnanan et al., 2013).
Distribution
Camera trapping can also be used to estimate the spatial distribution of a species over a large landscape or a small area (Ancrenaz et al., 2012). Camera trapping is used to determine species distribution in conjunction with evaluating features of a study area, such as habitat type, anthropogenic threats, and presence of water, to determine how these features influence or affect, positively or negatively, distribution of a species (Ancrenaz et al., 2012).
For example, in Gabon, west-central Africa, ecological features, roads, and other human-disturbance factors within a littoral mosaic landscape were measured and compared to distribution data of mammals collected via camera traps (Vanthomme, Kolowski, Korte, & Alonso, 2013). Investigators found out that even though positive results were associated with road presence, they suggested anthropogenic factors such as agriculture, hunting, and industrialization, which were also influenced by road presence, affected the community of mammals that were studied. Camera trapping has also been used to map the distribution of bird species in Bawangling Nature Reserve on Hainan Island, in the South China Sea. The study identified species that are endangered, vulnerable, or rare, and some species had not been photographed before (Lok, Shing, Jian-Feng, & Wen-Ba, 2005).
9
Occupancy
Camera traps can also be used to estimate occupancy, which is the area within a particular study site that is occupied by a species. Whereas distribution reveals where a species occurs in an area, occupancy reveals how much of a study site is occupied by the species (MacKenzie et al., 2006). Occupancy modeling accounts for imperfect detection and thus requires repeat observations. By calculating a detection probability for a species, investigators can determine the probability that the species occupies a sample locality even if the species was not observed there (Ancrenaz et al., 2012). Investigators also measure covariates, such as vegetation features, habitat type, key resources, and anthropogenic threats, and relate these to occupancy patterns using statistical models (Rovero et al., 2010). Occupancy modeling can therefore show how covariates influence occupancy data gotten from camera traps (Bender, Weisenberger, & Rosas-Rosas 2014).
Camera traps have, for example, been used to estimate occupancy for many species, including Javelinas (Pecari tajacu) in the southern San Andres Mountains, New Mexico (Bender et al., 2014). Investigators found that occupancy was predicted by the presence of such covariates such as water, oak-mountain mahogany trees, riparian shrub canopies, as well as warmer temperatures (Bender et al., 2014).
Using camera trapping, studies of distribution and occupancy can be used over time to monitor changes in wildlife populations. In the case of occupancy, camera trapping is suggested to be a better monitoring method because the method involves no human interference. One approach in wildlife monitoring using camera traps is “participatory biodiversity monitoring” (Ancrenaz et al., 2012). This approach
10
involves engaging local people who are the primary users of wildlife resources to monitor those resources. It also involves training local communities to be volunteers and help gather a large amount of data on wildlife. Also, this approach provides an opportunity to increase awareness among local people about the status wildlife and environmental issues in natural habitats near them.
Habitat use
Wildlife monitoring may also involve investigating habitat use and changes in habitat use over time. Habitat use is how species use their physical and biological resources in an area. The use of camera traps to study habitat use help investigators understand the behavioral or activity patterns of species (Bridges & Noss, 2011). This is usually done by comparing the abundance of a species with the frequency with which camera traps capture them (Bridges & Noss, 2011). For example, camera traps showed that impalas (Aepyceros melampus) in the Kenyan rangeland preferred the nutrient-rich glades habitat than the acacia bushlands (Augustine, 2004). In another example, in
Northern California, native mammalian predators preferred the vineyard near the core habitat, whereas non-native mammalian predators mostly avoided these core areas (Hilty & Merenlender, 2004). Camera traps may also be used to evaluate how artificial features, such as bridges, culverts, roads, and urban development, affect habitat use of species (Cain, Tuovila, Hewitt, & Tewes, 2003).
Another important aspect of evaluating habitat use of animals is wildlife management. Wildlife management involves balancing the requirements wildlife and people to maintain the well-being of both (Ancrenaz et al., 2012). For example, camera traps helped investigators determine the feeding patterns of red-legged
11
partridges (Alectoris rufa) in relation to climate change (Armenteros et al., 2015). The data showed that the patridges’ had a bimodal circadian feeding pattern that decreased in the middle of the day. The photographs also showed that the birds’ feeding pattern is not affected by vegetation growth or change of artificial feeders (Armenteros et al., 2015). Therefore, this information could be used to improve the survival rates of this species in sites where they are threatened by humans.
Abundance & density
Camera traps can even help investigators determine abundance, which is the number of individuals of a species in a particular area. Most published studies on abundance using camera trapping have been conducted in spatially and temporally closed systems to determine population size of single species (Karanth, 1995). Various quantitative measures are used to estimate abundance using camera trapping. Ideally, all the quantitative measures depend heavily on detection probability of a species and the positioning of camera traps to make viable inferences of abundance (O’Brien, 2011).
Because estimating abundance depends on detection probability, quantitative measures have been developed that include factors such as birth, death, and emigration of animals within a study area (O’Brien, 2011). In the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (Tennessee/North Carolina), USA, Bailey, Simons, and Pollock (2004) developed a model that considered that some plethodon salamander species emigrate temporarily from the study area or hide, or that cameras fail, in order to generate significant inferences of abundance of the species. The authors determined that the most appropriate way to improve estimates of species abundance
12
based on detection probability is to increase the number of camera traps and add survey days to the study design (Bailey et al., 2004).
To determine abundance, the position of cameras is also important. For example, placing camera traps far apart could create a gap in between the camera traps where the species would not be detected even though they are present in the sampling area (O’Brien, 2011). On the other hand, placing camera traps closer to each other would limit the sampling area and thus reduce the likelihood of detecting the species (O’Brien, 2011). This trade-off could be prevented by monitoring and ecological research in order to know the animal movement patterns and habitat use (O’Brien, 2011).
Key advantages
A non-lethal method
In addition to being a useful tool to study and monitor wildlife, especially cryptic and rare species, camera trapping offers other advantages for wildlife researchers. For example, camera traps can be left for unattended for long periods of time in order to generate reliable data on species, (Rovero et al., 2010). In addition, researchers no longer needed to use physical traps, which may harm wildlife; traps could be replaced with bait (e.g. raw meat) stations, to help lure wildlife to area to determine presence. Physically capturing insectivorous bats, for example, was not needed to study their predatory behavior; instead, camera traps took the place of physical traps (Hirakawa, 2005). Because bats are attracted to any moving object of a certain size, the researcher used a pencil eraser as a bait; the bats mistaken it as insect prey and moved toward it and into the field of the camera trap (Hirakawa, 2005). Blood has
13
also been used as bait in camera-trap studies to assess the presence, distribution, and abundance of over 21 species, including grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) and black bears (Ursus americanus) (Mace, Minta, Manley, & Aune, 1994).
Data documentation
Order than providing photographs, camera trap devices provide other significant data on species’ behavioral activities and other activities for both scientific and popular uses (Swann et al., 2011). For example, camera-trap devices provide the date and time of photographs, and cameras can be set to take photos or video at predetermined time (Swann et al., 2011). In addition, cameras can record temperature, video, and audio data. Due to technological improvements, camera-trap devices can even record digital-over-film, which enables more images to be captured than regular digital cameras. The feature also allows continuous footage of animals to view animal behavior over a period of time. Recently, other innovations include connecting camera-trap devices to a researcher’s computer by satellite and get the feedbacks (such as photograph images) while the researcher is in an office or connected to a computer elsewhere (Swann et al., 2011).
Disadvantages
Device malfunction
Like any survey method, camera traps have disadvantages, which can affect both data collection and analyses. One of the disadvantages is device malfunction, which may result from factors such as weather conditions, user experience, and animal interaction with a device. Because camera traps use multiple parts, if one part malfunctions, other parts may also breakdown. This is usually associated with wire-
14
cord failure caused by animals or battery failure (Swann et al., 2011). In another example, moisture can cause sensors to malfunction, metal parts to rust, and SD memory cards to warp (Swann et al., 2011). In addition, ants, termites, and bugs, can sometimes enter the interior of the camera and cause damages (Swann et al., 2011). In tropical environments, camera traps have been damaged due to extreme humidity (Kawanishi, 2002).
Another problem that causes cameras to malfunction is related to battery life, such as loss of data due to having to replace of batteries and SD cards more often than expected (Swann et al., 2010). In addition, most of the non-infrared camera-trap devices require more power to work than cameras that use infrared sensors (Swann et al., 2011). Battery life also depends on the number of photographs taken (Rovero et al., 2010). Although some infrared cameras have been developed to use less battery power, and thus extend the life of the batteries, infrared images at night are only black and white (Rovero et al., 2010).
Cost
One constraint of using camera trapping is the initial and running costs (Ancrenaz et al., 2012). Other than the purchase of the device, which can range from $80 to $600 per unit, components including batteries, and memory cards, add to the overall costs (Ancrenaz et al., 2012). Transportation to remote areas to set up cameras may also add to the costs, but transportation can be an issue for most field studies (Ancrenaz et al., 2012).
15
Other restrictions
Depending where camera traps are deployed, they may capture behavioral or other activity of a species only at that location, including behavior that may be unique to that location (Bridges & Noss, 2011). Thus, this provides limited data on a species. For example, setting a camera trap to record behavior at nest sites may lead only to observations of predation, excluding potentially important foraging behavior at fruit trees or carcasses (Bridges & Noss, 2011).
Another possible restriction of camera traps is that studies of habitat use usually depend on the rate at which the camera traps photograph a species in the study area (Bridges & Noss, 2011). Thus, it may be difficult to distinguish whether a species is occupying the area or is passing through the area more frequently (Bridges & Noss, 2011).
American University of Nigeria
The American University of Nigeria (AUN) is a private university located on about 107 hectares in a woodland savanna region in Adamawa State in northeastern Nigeria. The campus has two nature areas, including nature trail passing through these areas, and other undeveloped areas. A comprehensive survey of woody plants on the AUN campus was conducted in late 2015 and early 2016, showing that plant diversity on the campus represents certain species beneficial to humans (Dariye, 2016). For example, Tamarindus indica can be used for food; Prosopis africana can be used for medicine; and Balanites aegyptiacia has economic value (Dariye, 2016).
16
However, the AUN campus provides a protected environment, meaning that hunting and unregulated harvesting of trees or non-timber forest products are not allowed. As such, the lack of human disturbance and the variety of tree species within the natural and underdeveloped areas of campus may attract wildlife species. For example, banded mongoose (Mungos mungo) were sighted repeatedly on campus in late 2016. Given regional road and building development and extensive agriculture in the surrounding region, the AUN campus, where no hunting occurs, might provide refuge for some species. However, wildlife is not easily sighted due to human activity, and some species may be active only at night.
Given these factors and because no wildlife survey has ever been conducted on the AUN campus, I investigated both the presence and distribution of wildlife using camera traps. My primary aim was to determine the factors that might influence which species use the campus and where they are found on campus. I also plan to share my findings with AUN administrators to promote wildlife-friendly management of facilities and grounds across campus.
17
AIMS & OBJECTIVES
Aim
• To determine the factors that influence the presence and distribution of wildlife on the AUN campus.
Objectives:
• To identify the species of wildlife on campus using camera traps.
• To determine the distribution of wildlife on the campus using camera traps.
• To compare the distribution of wildlife with vegetation features on campus.
• To identify anthropogenic factors on campus that might attract or deter wildlife.
• To evaluate associations between the distribution of wildlife and the presence of anthropogenic factors.
• Based on the findings, to recommend to campus authorities best practices for maintaining wildlife populations on the AUN campus.
DISCLAIMER: All project works, files and documents posted on this website, UniProjectTopics.com are the property/copyright of their respective owners. They are for research reference/guidance purposes only and some of the works may be crowd-sourced. Please don’t submit someone’s work as your own to avoid plagiarism and its consequences. Use it as a reference/citation/guidance purpose only and not copy the work word for word (verbatim). The paper should be used as a guide or framework for your own paper. The contents of this paper should be able to help you in generating new ideas and thoughts for your own study. UniProjectTopics.com is a repository of research works where works are uploaded for research guidance. Our aim of providing this work is to help you eradicate the stress of going from one school library to another in search of research materials. This is a legal service because all tertiary institutions permit their students to read previous works, projects, books, articles, journals or papers while developing their own works. This is where the need for literature review comes in. “What a good artist understands is that nothing comes from nowhere. All creative work builds on what came before. Nothing is completely original.” - Austin Kleon. The paid subscription on UniProjectTopics.com is a means by which the website is maintained to support Open Education. If you see your work posted here by any means, and you want it to be removed/credited, please contact us with the web address link to the work. We will reply to and honour every request. Please notice it may take up to 24 – 48 hours to process your request.
