Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 December 2020 | 12(17): 17330–17339
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893
(Print)
doi: https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.6465.12.17.17330-17339
#6465 | Received 22 July 2020 | Final
received 03 December 2020 | Finally accepted 18 December 2020
A study on diversity of mammalian
species using camera traps and associated vegetation in Mizoram University
Campus, Aizawl, Mizoram
J.H. Zothanpuii
1, Sushanto Gouda 2, Abinash Parida 3 &
G.S. Solanki 4
1–4 Department of Zoology, Mizoram
University, Aizawl, Mizoram 796009, India.
1 zothanpuii84@gmail.com, 2 sushantogouda@gmail.com,
3 abinash.wild@gmail.com,
4 drghanshyam.solanki@gmail.com
(corresponding author)
Editor: Anwaruddin Choudhury, The Rhino Foundation for Nature in
North East India, Guwahati, India. Date
of publication: 26 December 2020 (online & print)
Citation: Zothanpuii.,
S. Gouda, A. Parida & G.S. Solanki (2020). A study on diversity of mammalian
species using camera traps and associated vegetation in Mizoram University
Campus, Aizawl, Mizoram. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 12(17): 17330–17339. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.6465.12.17.17330-17339
Copyright: © Zothanpuii et al. 20. Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and
distribution of this article in any medium by providing adequate credit to the
author(s) and the source of publication.
Funding: We are thankful
to the Department
of Zoology, Mizoram
University for providing necessary supports for the study. Facilities developed in NMHS project were also utilized. NMHS project sanction letter no. GBPNI/NMHS-2017/MG-221/5561.
Competing interests: The authors
declare no competing interests.
Author details: J.H.
Zothanpui is a MSc student of Department of
Zoology, Mizoram University and the work is a part of her dissertation work.
She is currently preparing for future possible research opportunities. Sushant
Gouda is a PhD scholar and is currently engaged in a NMHS based project
under the Department of Zoology, Mizoram University. He is active in the field
of wildlife biology and conservation education. His major research area is
ecology and distribution of Himalayan bear.
Abinash Parida is a
senior research fellow in the NMHS project in department of zoology. He is a
vigorous field biologist and working on faunal diversity and conservation. His
major research area is primate diversity, ecology, and conservation. G.S. Solanki is Professor in Zoology and
Principal Investigator of Nation Mission on Himalayan Studies (NMHS) project in
the Department of Zoology. This project is funded by G.B. Pant National
Institute Himalayan Environment and Sustainable Development, Almora,Uttarakhand. Major research area is ecology and
conservation of wilderness species with main emphasis on primates.
Author contribution: JHZ and AP have carried out the
research work and collected the data. SG helped in preparation of this the
manuscript. GSS was Principal Investigator and guiding teacher, and provided
work plan and all logistic suppot required.
Acknowledgements: The authors are thankful
acknowledge the support and logistic provided by Department of Zoology and
administration of Mizoram University.
First author also extend thanks to principal investigator of NMHS
project who very kindly allowed me to use camera traps of the project. Thanks are also due to the security in charge
of MZU for the necessary permission and co-operation during the study.
Abstract: Fragmented forests often have
conservation value, serving as a refuge or corridors for small mammalian
species. In the study, the diversity of
mammals was studied within Mizoram University (MZU) campus. Forty-eight plant species from 25 families
were recorded on different sites. Thirty
quadrates were nested at the locations of occurrence of mammalian species for
vegetation type analysis. Schima wallichi was
the most dominant plant species with the highest IVI values of (31.7%),
followed by Aporosa octandra
(22.93%) and Castanopsis tribuloide (21.17%).
Camera trap method was used to collect information about the mammalian
diversity in the campus. The mammalian
species recorded in this study makes 15% of mammalian fauna of the state of
Mizoram. Twelve mammal species and six
bird species were recorded by the camera traps.
With proper awareness among residents of the campus and a planned
approach for developmental activities, the findings of our study can make an
important extension for the coexistence of mammalian species and long term
survivability within MZU campus.
Keywords: Camera traps, coexistence,
mammalian diversity, Mizoram University, urban biodiversity.
INTRODUCTION
The northeastern
region of India shares two biodiversity hotspots and has rich mammalian and
avian diversity (Choudhury 2006). The
state of Mizoram is part of the Indo-Myanmar Biodiversity Hotspot region and
harbours 126 species of mammals including 37 threatened species (Lalthanzara 2017).
The rapid expansion of shifting cultivation and urbanization in the
region has, however, led to a contemporary changes in landscape, forest
fragmentation, and ecosystem modification (Teegalapalli
et al. 2009; Yadav 2013). Such
anthropogenic activities have created a mosaic of remnant forest patches of
varying size, demarcated by a network of roads, concerts, and settlements areas
(Mazumdar et al. 2011). Recent
researches on biodiversity conservation had put urban areas having rich
biodiversity into the limelight for the long-term persistence of native species
(Ordenana et al. 2010; Lopucki
& Kitowski 2017; Hill et al. 2018).
Urbanization is often considered to have several negative impacts on the
native flora and fauna; nevertheless, it also serves as valuable habitat and
corridor for dispersal of certain animal species (Opdam
et al. 2003; Fernandez & Simonetti 2013).
Urban and semi-urban green forest patches serves as surrogate and refuge
habitat to be utilized for dispersal and migration for birds and many small to
medium size mammals (Gallo et al. 2017).
The role of degraded forest landscapes and patches within the campus of
academic institutions as a potential habitat for small mammals and birds has
also been acknowledged in some studies (Vallejo et al. 2008; Mazumdar et al.
2011; Voon et al. 2014; Nerlekar
et al. 2016).
The camera trap is a useful
technique widely used for collecting information on elusive species (Kelly et
al. 2008; Linkie & Ridout
2011). Information on species diversity
and distribution is considered to be the primary need for conservation activities
(Geldmann et al. 2013; Brncic
et al. 2015). While information on
biodiversity in megacities and large urban areas are easily available, the same
is scarce in small cities and educational campuses (Lopucki
et al. 2013; Lopucki & Kitowski 2017). Mizoram University (MZU) campus at Aizawl,
Mizoram encompasses a large area with lush green landscape having several
patches of natural forest vegetation. Although research on herpetofauna (Vanlalhlimpuia 2012), butterfly (Baruah 2017), spiders (Lalthafamkima 2017), and birds (Sailo
et al. 2019) are available from MZU campus, no study has been undertaken on the
distribution of mammalian species.
Therefore, a study was planned to determine the mammalian diversity
using mainly camera traps and direct observations within the campus.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study area
Mizoram University (MZU) is
located at the western end of the Aizawl town, the state capital of Mizoram at
a distance of about 15km. The campus of
MZU is spread in an area of 978.1988 acres and lies between 23.7394oN
& 92.6651oE. The
elevation ranges between 300–880 m.
University campus encompasses the administrative block, academic blocks,
hostels, and other facilities which are sparsely embedded within regenerating
tropical wet evergreen and semi-evergreen forests (Image 1). The campus also harbors
a protected forested water catchment reserve in the north and a small
biodiversity park. In the vicinity of
the campus, there are settlement areas, where residents undertake agriculture
practice (jhum cultivation), which is the primary source of income and
livelihood. Several small natural and
seasonal streams also flow through the campus. Vegetation profile is
dominated by trees comprised of 384 species of vascular plants from 290 genera
and 107 families (Lalchhuanawma 2008; Rai 2016; Sailo et al. 2019).
A map of the university is presented in Figure 1.
Vegetation analysis
A preliminary survey of campus
area was carried out to select the sampling site for vegetation study. Transects were set up in areas where signs
and evidence of animals’ presence were observed. For vegetation sampling 10m x 10m quadrates
were plotted at every 200m interval along transects for tree diversity
analysis. Thirty quadrates were plotted
in different sites and only trees having DBH more than 10cm were considered for
the analysis (Daniels et al. 1996).
Vegetation analysis was done for the relative frequency of occurrence of
the species; relative density, relative abundance and important value index
(IVI) were determined following methods of Lalchhuanawma
(2008) and Ahmed (2012).
Camera trapping
The camera traps are often used
for understanding the secretive behavior or nocturnal
activity, and estimating animal population comprehensively even at relatively
low densities of animals (Ordenana et al. 2010; Gouda
et al. 2020). Camera deployment points
were chosen based on the presence of visible animal trails, footprints, scats,
activity areas such as dens or close to streams (Sasidhran
et al. 2016). Nine camera traps (Cuddeback) were
randomly deployed at 15 sampling points within the study sites for 45 days as
presented in Figure 2. The cameras were
installed on a tree trunk at a suitable height of 30–50 cm above the ground at
optimum angles based on slope conditions for viewing the animal trails without
the camera view being blocked by any objects (Image 1). Camera traps were programmed to take
sequential photographs with five seconds delay registering date and time for
each exposure. On average the camera
traps were operational for five days and were checked every two days for photos
and battery replacement. GPS (Garmin map
78S) was also used to record coordinates, elevation, and slope of camera trap
locations. The relative abundance index
(RAI) value was calculated using the method suggested by Jenks et al.
(2011). Whenever possible we also
recorded directly observed species especially arboreal ones around the camera
trap locations.
RESULTS
Forty-eight plant species which
belongs to 25 families were recorded along the transect lines during the
vegetation study. Vegetation samples
were analyzed for the parameters mentioned in Table
1. The analysis showed that Schima wallichi is
the most dominant plant species having the highest IVI values (31.7%), followed
by Aporosa octandra
(22.93%), Castanopsis tribuloide (21.17%), and Syzgium
praecox (17.86%). Plant species such
as Hibiscus macrophyllus, Bischofia javanica, Cinnamomum cassia, and Acer laevigatum were some of the least available species
(Table 1). The family Euphorbiaceae contributed for the highest IVI, followed by Theaceae and Fagacae while the
family Pandanaceae had the lowest IVI values among
the recorded plant families (Figure 3).
The mammalian diversity on MZU
campus is 19 mammalian species; 12 were captured through camera traps (Table 2)
(Image 2) and seven were recorded by direct observations (Table 3). Six bird species were also photo-captured
during this study (Table 4) (Image 3).
Among the mammalian species, civets are predominant with 30.17% followed
by felids (25%). The presence of Marbled
Cat Pardofelis marmorata (Near
Threatened), Clouded Leopard Neofelios nebulosa (Vulnerable), and Golden Jackal Canis aureus (Least Concern) were important
and majestic mammalian species. Such
valuable observations from the fragmented habitat of an urban landscape are
significant for species conservation.
Other recorded species are categorised as Least Concern. The relative abundance index (RAI) value was
highest (16.67) for Crab-eating Mongoose Herpestes
urva followed by Common Palm Civet Paradoxurus hermaphroditus
(13.3), and Leopard Cat Prionailurus bengalensis (10) (Table 2). Sites with minimal human disturbance and
water bodies within the campus had higher RAI values. Among directly observed mammalian species
squirrels and shrews were the major ones (Table 3). Seven avian species namely Khalij Pheasant (male and female), Blue Whistling Thrush, Forktail, Asian Barred Owlet, Long-tailed Nightjar, and
Large Cuckoo Shrike were also captured by camera traps in different areas of
the campus (Table 4, Image 3).
DISCUSSION
This study can make an important
extension in documentation and range of faunal species available within a
university campus. The IVI and other
quantitative values obtained for different plant species in the study coincide
with the findings of Lalramenga (2006) and Lalchhuanawma (2008) that were carried out within the
campus. The rich floral diversity plays
a key role in supporting both the avifauna and mammalian fauna in the
campus. The presence of roadside plants
like Ficus benghalensis,
F. religiosa, Trema
orientalis, Lantana camara,
Musa paradise, and Casia auriculata
in MZU campus can serve as good habitat and feeding grounds for birds and small
mammals as reported by Lalchhuanawma (2008) and Rai
(2016).
The undisturbed forest patches
within MZU campus appears to support a diverse group of mammalian species. The record of 19 mammalian species in the
campus is an evidence of its rich mammalian diversity, which contributes for
15% of the mammalian fauna of the state of Mizoram. Family viverridae
is highly diverse in MZU campus; five species of family viverridae
were also reported earlier in Mizoram (Lalthanzara
2017). Presence of felids (three species) in the campus also forms 37.5%, as
eight fields were previously reported by Lalthanzara
(2017) in Mizoram. Species such as
Clouded Leopard, Marbled Cat, Golden Jackal, and Ferret Badger not only
indicates the potential of the university campus to support the cohabitation
and co-existence with mammals but also highlights the values of urban
diversity.
The relative abundance index
(RAI) indicates that ground dwelling birds such as Khalij
Pheasant (male and females) were dominant (RAI= 13.33) and also are the prey
species for carnivorous mammals. The
mammalian species evident in MZU campus are very rare and may be difficult to
record even in a protected forest. Dense
shrub forests, tall fruiting trees, and low lying natural streams along the
edges of the campus that provides ideal forest cover and feeding opportunities
are contributing to the abundance of these species within the campus. The low resident human population (little
over 2000 individuals) with a good sense of conservation value and long forest
corridors are also key factors for the distribution of such majestic species
within the campus. Anthropogenic
activities like hunting, jhumming or shifting
cultivation in the vicinity of the campus, collection of NTFP’s and the
ever-increasing chain of construction works can have negative impacts on
biodiversity in general and particularly on mammals of MZU campus. Information on mammalian diversity recommends
that a long-term and systematic study on biodiversity profile of the MZU campus
is needed.
Table 1. Vegetation composition
and analysis.
|
Name of species |
Mizo name |
Family |
Relative density (%) |
Relative Frequency (%) |
Relative Dominance (%) |
Important Value Index(IVI) |
1 |
Acer laevigatum |
Thingkhim |
Aceraceae |
0.54 |
0.36 |
0.38 |
1.28 |
2 |
Albizia chinensis |
Vang |
Mimosaceae |
2.20 |
1.84 |
1.93 |
5.97 |
3 |
Albizia richardiana |
Theichhawl |
Mimosaceae |
2.20 |
1.65 |
3.23 |
7.08 |
4 |
Albizia procera |
Kangtek |
Mimosaceae |
1.37 |
1.10 |
2.48 |
4.95 |
5 |
Anogeissus acuminate |
Zairum |
Combretaceae |
0.29 |
0.73 |
0.69 |
1.71 |
6 |
Aporosa octandra |
Chhawntual |
Euphorbiaceae |
10.09 |
4.61 |
8.23 |
22.93 |
7 |
Artocarpus lakoocha |
Theitat |
Moraceae |
0.83 |
1.10 |
1.01 |
2.94 |
8 |
Balakata baccata |
Thingvawkpui |
Euphorbiaceae |
1.37 |
3.68 |
1.84 |
6.89 |
9 |
Bischofia javanica |
Khuangthli |
Euphorbiacea |
0.12 |
0.01 |
0.15 |
0.28 |
10 |
Bombax insigne |
Pang |
Bimbaceae |
1.78 |
1.47 |
3.29 |
6.54 |
11 |
Callicarpa arborea |
Hnahkiah |
Verbenaceae |
4.4 |
3.13 |
1.95 |
9.48 |
12 |
Castanopsis indica |
Sehawr |
Fagaceae |
3.74 |
1.84 |
1.40 |
6.98 |
13 |
Castanopsis lanceifolia |
Vawmbuh |
Fagaceae |
0.41 |
1.29 |
0.87 |
2.57 |
14 |
Castanopsis tribuloides |
Thingsia |
Fagaceae |
8.43 |
3.13 |
9.61 |
21.1 |
15 |
Cedrellatoona |
Tei |
Meliaceae |
0.29 |
0.36 |
0.30 |
0.95 |
16 |
Cinnamomum cassia |
Thakthing |
Lauraceae |
0.12 |
0.01 |
0.13 |
0.26 |
17 |
Cinnamomum tamala |
Tespata |
Lauraceae |
2.36 |
1.47 |
1.81 |
5.64 |
18 |
Colona floribunda |
Hnahthap |
Tiliaceae |
0.12 |
0.36 |
0.17 |
0.65 |
19 |
Cordiawallichi |
Muk |
Boraginanaceae |
0.83 |
2.02 |
2.05 |
4.9 |
20 |
Derris robusta |
Thingkha |
Fanaceae |
1.12 |
1.29 |
0.92 |
3.33 |
21 |
Derris thrysiflora |
Hulhu |
Papillionaceae |
0.12 |
0.01 |
0.19 |
0.32 |
22 |
Drymicarpus racemosus |
Vawmbal |
Anacardiaceae |
3.44 |
1.65 |
5.24 |
10.3 |
23 |
Duabanga grandiflora |
Zuang |
Sonneratiaceae |
0.12 |
0.01 |
0.28 |
0.41 |
24 |
Embilica officinales |
Sunhlu |
Euphorbiaceae |
0.54 |
0.55 |
0.51 |
1.6 |
25 |
Erythrina variegate |
Fartuah |
Papillionaceae |
0.41 |
0.73 |
1.99 |
3.13 |
26 |
Ficus hirta |
Sazutheipui |
Moraceae |
0.54 |
0.62 |
0.67 |
2.13 |
27 |
Glochidion heyneanum |
Thingpawnchhia |
Euphorbiaceae |
2.78 |
2.02 |
2.15 |
6.95 |
28 |
Gmrlina arborea |
Thlanvawng |
Verbenaceae |
0.71 |
0.55 |
1.22 |
2.48 |
29 |
Haldina cordifolia |
Lungkhup |
Rubiaceae |
2.20 |
1.10 |
1.62 |
4.92 |
30 |
Hibiscus macrophyllus |
Vaiza |
Malvaceae |
0.12 |
0.01 |
0.07 |
0.20 |
31 |
Ilex godajam |
Thinguihahni |
Aquifoliaceae |
0.41 |
0.73 |
0.82 |
1.96 |
32 |
Lithocarpus elegans |
Thingpuithing |
Fagaceae |
0.70 |
0.36 |
0.72 |
1.78 |
33 |
Litseamono petala |
Nauthak |
Lauraceae |
2.07 |
1.84 |
1.60 |
5.51 |
34 |
Macaranga indica |
Hnahkhar |
Euphorbiaceae |
4.86 |
2.94 |
3.74 |
11.54 |
35 |
Macropanax undulatum |
Phuanberh |
Araliaceae |
0.41 |
0.92 |
0.85 |
2.18 |
36 |
Messua ferrea |
Herhse |
Guttiferae |
0.70 |
0.36 |
0.31 |
1.37 |
37 |
Pandanus fasicularis |
Ramlakhuih |
Pandanaceae |
0.41 |
1.47 |
0.33 |
2.21 |
38 |
Protium serratum |
Bil |
Burseraceae |
1.37 |
0.92 |
1.45 |
3.74 |
39 |
Saurauia punduana |
Tiar |
Actinidiaceae |
2.78 |
1.29 |
1.96 |
6.03 |
40 |
Schima khasiana |
Khiangzo |
Theaceae |
0.64 |
0.92 |
0.67 |
2.23 |
41 |
Schima wallichi |
Khiang |
Theaceae |
13.29 |
4.05 |
14.36 |
31.70 |
42 |
Sterculia villosa |
Khaupui |
Sterculaceae |
1.12 |
0.92 |
1.33 |
3.37 |
43 |
Stereospermum tetragonum |
Zinghal |
Bignoniaceae |
0.41 |
1.17 |
0.75 |
2.63 |
44 |
Syzigiumcumini |
Lenhmui |
Myrtaceae |
0.71 |
1.47 |
1.43 |
3.61 |
45 |
Syzigium praecox |
Hmuifang |
Myrtaceae |
6.35 |
2.76 |
8.75 |
17.86 |
46 |
Toona ciliate |
Teipui |
Meliaceae |
0.41 |
0.55 |
0.94 |
1.90 |
47 |
Trema orientalis |
Belphuar |
Cannabaceae |
0.41 |
0.92 |
9.03 |
10.36 |
48 |
Wendlandia budieioides |
Batling |
Rubiaceae |
3.19 |
2.21 |
1.73 |
7.13 |
Table 2. Mammalian diversity
based on photo captured and their status
|
Family |
Common name |
Scientific name |
IUCN status |
RAI |
1 |
Felidae |
Clouded Leopard |
Neofelis nebulosa |
Vulnerable |
3.33 |
2 |
Felidae |
Marbled Cat |
Pardofelis marmorata |
Near threatened |
3.33 |
3 |
Felidae |
Leopard Cat |
Prionailurus bengalensis |
Least concern |
10.00 |
4 |
Suidae |
Wild Pig |
Sus scrofa |
Least concern |
3.33 |
5 |
Viverridae |
Large Indian Civet |
Viverra zibetha |
Least Concern |
13.33 |
6 |
Viverridae |
Small Indian Civet |
Viverricula indica |
Least concern |
10.00 |
7 |
Viverridae |
Common Palm Civet |
Paradoxurus hermaphroditus |
Least concern |
13.33 |
8 |
Herpestidae |
Crab-eating Mongoose |
Herpestes urva |
Least concern |
16.67 |
9 |
Canidae |
Golden Jackal |
Canis aureus |
Least concern |
3.33 |
10 |
Viverridae |
Himalayan Palm Civet |
Paguma larvata |
Least concern |
6.67 |
11 |
Mustelidae |
Ferret Badger |
Melogale sp. |
Least concern |
3.33 |
12 |
Tupaiidae |
Tree Shrew |
Cladobats belangari |
Least concern |
3.33 |
Table 3. Mammalian species observed
directly during study and their status.
|
Family |
Common name |
Scientific name |
IUCN status |
1 |
Mustelidae |
Yellow-throated Martin |
Martes flavigula |
Least Concern |
2 |
Cervidae |
Barking Deer |
Muntiacus muntjak |
Least Concern |
3 |
Sciuridae |
Pallas’s Squirrel |
Callosciurus erythraeus |
Least Concern |
4 |
Sciuridae |
Himalayan Hoary-bellied
Squirrel |
Callosciurus pygerythrus |
Least Concern |
5 |
Tupaiidae |
Northern Tree Shrew |
Tupaia belangeri |
Least Concern |
6 |
Muridae |
Black Rat |
Rattus rattus |
Least Concern |
7 |
Soricidae |
House Shrew |
Suncus murinus |
Least Concern |
Table 4. Avian sapecies photo-captured during the study and their status.
|
Family |
Common name |
Scientific name |
IUCN |
RAI |
1 |
Phasianidae |
Khalij Pheasant |
Lophura leucomelanos |
Least Concern |
13.33 |
2 |
Muscicapidae |
Blue Whistling Thrush |
Myophonus caeruleus |
Least Concern |
3.33 |
3 |
Muscicapidae |
Forktail |
Enicurus leschenaulti |
Least Concern |
3.33 |
4 |
Strigidae |
Asian-barred Owlet |
Glaucidium cuculoides |
Least Concern |
6.67 |
5 |
Campephagidae |
Large Cuckoo Shrike |
Coracina macei |
Least Concern |
3.33 |
6 |
Caprimulgidae |
Long-tailed Nightjar |
Caprimulgus climacurus |
Least Concern |
3.33 |
For
figures & images - - click here
REFERENCES
Ahmed, A.
(2012). Analysis of
forest vegetation in Ranikhet, Kumaon
Himalayas, Uttarakhand, India. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied
Life Sciences 2(4): 16–23.
Baruah, P.
(2017). Diversity of
butterflies in Mizoram University campus, Aizawl. MSc dissertation submitted to
Mizoram University. India.
Brncic, T., B. Amarasekaran,
A. McKenna, R. Mundry & H.S. Kuhl (2015). Large mammal diversity and their
conservation in the human-dominated land-use mosaic of Sierra Leone.
Biodiversity Conservation 24: 2417–2438.
Choudhury, A.
(2006). Notable bird
records from Mizoram in north-east India. Forktail
22: 152–155.
Daniels,
R.J.R., J. Venkatesan & C. Anuradha (1996). Biodiversity indexing in AgricultureLandscapes to species. M.S. 5waminathan Research
Foundation, Chennai. FAO/UNDP.PER CENT 43.
Fernández,
I.C. & J.A. Simonetti (2013). Small mammal assemblages in
fragmented shrublands of urban areas of Central Chile. Urban Ecosystems 16:
377–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-012-0272-1
Gallo, T., M.
Fidino, E.W. Lehrer & S.B. Magle
(2017). Mammal
diversity and meta-community dynamics in urban green spaces: Implications for
urban wildlife conservation. Ecological Applications 27(8): 1–12.
Geldmann, J., M. Barnes, L. Coad, I.D.
Craigie, M. Hockings & N.D. Burgess (2013). Effectiveness of terrestrial
protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines. Biological
Conservation 161: 230–238.
Gouda, S.,
N.S. Chauhan, J. Sethy & H.K. Sahu
(2020). Daily
activity pattern of Malayan Sun bear in Dampa Tiger
Reserve, Mizoram, India. Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 4(2):
56–64.
Hill, M.J.,
J. Biggs, I. Thornhill, R.A. Briers, M. Ledger, D.G. Gledhill, P.J. Wood &
C. Hassall (2018). Community heterogeneity of aquatic macro-invertebrates in urban ponds
at a multi-city scale. Landscape Ecology 33: 389–405.
Jenks, K.E.,
P. Chanteap, K. Damrongchainarong,
P. Cutter, T. Redford, A.J. Lynam, J. Howard & P.
Leimgruber (2011). Using relative abundance indices
from camera-trapping to test wildlife conservation hypotheses - an example from
KhaoYai National Park, Thailand. Tropical
Conservation Science 4: 113–131.
Kelly M.J.,
A.J. Noss, M. Di-Bitetti,
L. Maffei, R.L. Arispe, A. Paviolo,
C. De Angelo & Y.E. Di Blanco (2008). Estimating Puma densities from
camera trapping across three study sites: Bolivia, Argentina, and Belize. Journal
of Mammalogy 89(2): 408–418.
Lalramenga, P.C. (2006). Studies on plant diversity of
undisturbed forest in Mizoram University campus, Tanhril.
M.Sc. dissertation submitted to Mizoram University, India.
Lalthanzara, H. (2017). A systematic list of mammals of
Mizoram, India. Science Vision 17(2): 104–121.
Lalthafamkima, K. (2017). Study on diversity of spiders
inside Mizoram University campus, Aizawl, Mizoram. MSc dissertation submitted
to Mizoram University, India.
Lalchhuanawma (2008). Ecological studies on plant
diversity and productivity of herbaceous species in Mizoram university campus
at Tanhril, Aizawl, Mizoram (N.E. India). PhD Thesis.
Submitted to Mizoram University, India.
Linkie, M. & M.S. Ridout (2011). Assessing tiger-prey interactions in Sumatran
rainforest. Journal of Zoology 284(3): 224–229.
Lopucki, R. & I. Kitowski (2017). How small cities affect the
biodiversity of ground-dwelling mammals and the relevance of this knowledge in
planning urban land expansion in terms of urban wildlife. Urban Ecosystem
20: 933–943.
Lopucki, R., I. Mroz,
Ł.B. Ski & M. Burzych (2013). Effects of urbanization on
small-mammal communities and the population structure of synurbic species: an
example of a medium-sized city. Canadian Journal of Zoology 91: 554–561.
Mazumdar, K.,
R. Soud & A. Gupta (2011). Mammalian diversity of degraded
forest habitats around Assam University Campus, Cachar,
Assam, India, with notes on conservation status. Our Nature 9: 119–127.
Nerlekar, A.N., A.M. Warudkar,
G.G. Gowande, S.S. Salve, A. Raut, S.R. Patankar & S.B. Nalavade
(2016). A review of
the faunal diversity of the Fergusson College campus, Pune, India. Zoo’s
Prints 29(10): 4–25.
Opdam, P., J. Verboom
& R. Pouwels (2003). Landscape cohesion: an index for
the conservation potential of landscapes for biodiversity. Landscape Ecology
18: 113–126.
Ordenana, M.A., K.R. Crooks, E.E. Boydston, R.N. Fisher, L.M. Lyren,
S. Siudyla, C.D. Haas, S. Harris, S.A.
Hathaway, G. M. Turschak, A.K. Miles & D.H.
van Vuren (2010). Effects of urbanization on
carnivore species distribution and richness. Journal of Mammalogy 91(6):
1322–1331. https://doi.org/10.1644/09-MAMM-A-312.1
Rai, P.K.
(2016). Biodiversity
of roadside plants and their response to air pollution in an Indo-Burma hotspot
region: implications for urban ecosystem Restoration. Journal of
Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 9: 47–55.
Sailo, L., G.S. Solanki & C. Lalhruaizela (2019). Avian diversity in Mizoram
University Campus, Aizawl, Mizoram. Science and Technology Journal 7(1):
54–68.
Sasidhran, S., N. Adila,
M.S. Hamdan, L. Samantha, D. Aziz, N. Kamarudin & B. Azhar (2016). Habitat occupancy patterns and
activity rate of native mammals in tropical fragmented peat swamp reserves in
Peninsular Malaysia. Forest Ecology and Management 363:140–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.12.037
Teegalapalli, K., G.V. Gopi & P.K. Samal (2009). Forest recovery following shifting cultivation: an
overview of existing research. Tropical Conservation Science 2(4):
374–387.
Vallejo, B.,
A. Aloya, P. Ong, A. Tamino
& J. Villasper (2008). Spatial patterns of bird
diversity and abundance in an urban tropical landscape: The University of the
Philippines Diliman campus. Science Diliman 20(1): 1–10.
Vanlalhlimpuia (2012). Diversity of herpetofauna in
Mizoram University campus, Aizawl, Mizoram. MSc dissertation submitted to
Mizoram University, India.
Voon, A.M., K.A. Nasradhi,
M.A. Rahman & J.M. Azlan (2014). Bird diversity, density and
foraging activities in a university campus landscape in Sarawak. Borneo
Journal of Resources Science and Technology 4(2): 9–20.
Yadav, P.K. (2013). Slash-and-burn agriculture in
north-east India. Expert Opinion in Environment and Biology 2(1): 1–4. https://doi.org/10.4172/2325-
9655.1000102