Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 October 2021 | 13(12): 19725–19732
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893
(Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7594.13.12.19725-19732
#7594 | Received 01 August 2021 | Final
received 14 September 2021 | Finally accepted 01 October 2021
Get my head around owls: people
perception and knowledge about owls of Andaman Islands
Shanmugavel Sureshmarimuthu
1, Santhanakrishnan Babu
2, Nagaraj Rajeshkumar 3 & Honnavalli
Nagaraj Kumara 4
1–4 Sálim
Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, Anaikatty
(PO), Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641108, India.
1 Manipal Academy of Higher
Education, Tiger Circle Road, Madhav Nagar, Manipal, Karnataka 576104, India.
3 Present address: Office of the
Wildlife Warden, Idukki Wildlife Division, Kerala Forests & Wildlife
Department, Vellappara, Painavu
P.O, Idukki, Kerala 685603, India.
1 mailme.sureshmarimuthu@gmail.com,
2 sanbabs@gmail.com (corresponding author), 3 rajesh.kumar221991@gmail.com,
4 honnavallik@gmail.com
Editor: Priya Davidar, Sigur Nature Trust, Nilgiris,
India. Date of publication: 26
October 2021 (online & print)
Citation: Sureshmarimuthu,
S., S. Babu, N. Rajeshkumar
& H.N. Kumara (2021). Get my head around owls: people
perception and knowledge about owls of Andaman Islands. Journal of Threatened Taxa 13(12): 19725–19732. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7594.13.12.19725-19732
Copyright: © Sureshmarimuthu
et al. 2021. 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: DST-SERB, Govt.
of India - Grant Number: SR/SO/AS-127/2012 dated 27/05/2013.
Competing interests: The authors
declare no competing interests.
Author details: S. Sureshmarimuthu is currently pursuing PhD on owls of Andaman and his
research revolves around the distribution pattern of owls in Andaman
Archipelago. Santhanakrishnan Babu is a
senior scientist at SACON, Tamil Nadu and his research focuses on the
conservation of birds, landscape ecology and remote sensing & GIS. Honnavalli N. Kumara is
a principal scientist in SACON. His research focuses on various aspects of
conservation. N. Rajeshkumar
was a research fellow in the project and now he is associated with the
Kerala Forest Department.
Author contributions: SS, SB & HNK designed the
study; SS & NR collected data; SS analyzed and wrote the article with
inputs from SB and HNK.
Acknowledgements: Authors are thankful to the
DST-SERB, Govt. of India (Grant number: SR/SO/AS-127/2012 dated 27/05/2013) for
the financial support. We thank Andaman Forest Department for the research
permission and unremitting support. We also thank Directors of SACON for their
continuous support. The field assistance of Mr. Kannan is highly appreciated.
Abstract: Understanding people’s
perceptions and knowledge about birds in an endemic bird area is a prerequisite
for bird conservation. This is more so in the case of non-charismatic birds
such as owls. In this context, we conducted a questionnaire survey about owls
in the North Andaman Island between January 2016 and 2018. We interviewed 203
respondents from six market places in North Andaman tehsil, and collected data
on their socio-economic status as well as their knowledge on owls. Although all
the respondents were familiar with owls, only 9% of them identified all species
of owls in the Andaman Islands. Around 98% of respondents were aware of owl
diets, either partly or wholly. We found several superstitious beliefs
revolving around owls. Two species, Otus sunia and Ninox
obscura were associated with negative beliefs while Tyto
deroepstorffi was associated with
positive beliefs. Generalized linear model with the demographical predictors
showed that positive attitudes towards owls is associated with age (older),
education (literacy), revenue villages and temporary houses. We conclude that Tyto deroepstorffi
had the highest positive values among islanders and hence, may be
considered as a focal species to create awareness about owls and to protect
other endemic owls of the Andaman Islands. Awareness programmes
targeting younger, illiterate people, and land encroachers may help in
conservation of cryptic owl species of Andaman.
Keywords: Awareness, bad omen, beliefs,
culture, diet, education, endemic owls, questionnaire survey.
Introduction
Involving local communities in
conservation programmes is crucial, especially in
areas where people share resources with wildlife. Without understanding the
local community’s perceptions and knowledge about wildlife, conservation
efforts may not produce expected results (Kellert & Westervelt 1984; Kaiser
1999). Among birds, owls have a special place in local culture—either
positively or negatively—as they are associated with many cultural and
spiritual narratives that lead to positive or negative encounters with owls
that result in worship or retaliation (such as through the destruction of
nests, hunting and poisoning of adults). Even though owls do have human-like
forward facing eyes, they are often portrayed negatively in many societies and
cultures across the world, possibly due to their nocturnal activity patterns,
loud vocalisations and silent flights. However, communities across the world often
have different perspectives on different owl species. It is, therefore,
important to understand local knowledge about owls and peoples’ perceptions
about the birds.
Throughout India, owls are
considered as birds of ill omen, messengers of bad luck or servants of death (Santhanakrishnan et al. 2012). In some parts of India,
pale-coloured owls are considered the vehicle of
goddess Laxmi and hence, people welcome owls into their homes in the belief
that these birds will bring wealth and prosperity (Srivastava 1987). The same
believers tend to kill owls within their homes to force goddess Laxmi to remain.
On full moon nights and night of the festival Diwali, believers would sacrifice
owls under the assumption that it will improve the family’s wealth (Padhy 2016).
India has 36 species of owls
belonging to two families namely, Tytonidae (five
species) and Strigidae (31 species) (Praveen et al.
2021). Owls are persecuted and also traded. Commonly traded species are the
Common Barn Owl Tyto alba, Indian Eagle
Owl Bubo bengalensis, Jungle Owlet Glaucidium radiatum,
Indian Scops Owl Otus
bakkamoena, Brown Fish Owl Ketupa
zeylonensis, and Mottled Wood Owl Strix ocellate (Ahmed 2010).
The Andaman Islands have been recognised as an endemic bird area (EBA) for a high
concentration of endemic birds (nearly 32%) (Birdlife International 2021;
Praveen et al. 2021), most of which require immediate conservation attention.
Five species of owls—the Andaman Barn Owl Tyto
deroepstorffi, Andaman Scops
Owl Otus balli,
Andaman Hawk Owl Ninox affinis,
Hume’s Hawk Owl Ninox obscura, and
Oriental Scops owl Otus
sunia—are known from the Andaman archipelago
(Image 1–5). The first four are endemic to the Islands. Despite this high
diversity and endemicity of owl species, information on people’s perceptions of
these magnificent nocturnal birds is anecdotal.
Except for a few indigenous
tribal communities (i.e., Andamanese, Onge, Jarawa, and Sentinelese) and a few
settlers from Burma, most of the human population in the Andaman Islands
migrated from mainland India particularly from Jharkhand, West Bengal, Tamil
Nadu, Kerala, and Andhra Pradesh (Vidyarthi 1971).
The Andaman Islands are culturally and biologically rich. So, the interaction
of residents here with forests and local wildlife is often unavoidable and
complex. Considering the diverse cultural beliefs among people in the area and
the high degree of endemism in owls, understanding the knowledge and
perceptions of local communities is a prerequisite for the future conservation
of owl species in the Andaman Islands. In this context, this study was
developed to document the knowledge and perceptions of North Andaman islanders
on owls.
Methods
Study area
The study was conducted in the
North Andaman Island, which comes under Diglipur
tehsil of North and Middle Andaman district, Andaman & Nicobar Islands,
India. The North Andaman Island lies between 13.7080N, 92.6070E
& 13.6570N, 93.1730E over 1,400.85km2. The
North and Middle Andaman district comprises of 63 wildlife sanctuaries and one
national park (Prasad et al. 2010). Diglipur tehsil
consists of 72 villages. According to Census 2011, a total of 10,714 persons
are residing in these villages. We conducted questionnaire surveys in and
around six market places (Aerial Bay, Pachimsagar,
Ram Nagar, Kalighat, Kishori
Nagar, and Radha Nagar; Figure 1). We selected these market places because
people gather here from both revenue and encroached settlements and all five
species of owls were reported in these villages during our earlier survey (Babu et al. 2019). Irrespective of the settlement type,
rain-fed agriculture and fisheries were the primary occupations of these
islanders (Anon 2011).
Data collection and analysis
We conducted open-ended
questionnaire surveys with same set of questions but without any specific order
because our objective was to create baseline information on what people know
about owls and to record the beliefs surrounding these birds. On selecting a
participant for the survey, we described the nature of our work and inquired
about his/her willingness to participate in the interview. Then, we considered
them as our respondents and asked their socio-economic background (gender, age,
occupation, village type, house type, and literacy level) followed by questions
related to owls. We asked questions such as respondents’ familiarity with owls
(yes or no), knowledge of owl species in the area (one to five), identification
technique used (e.g., morphology, calls, behaviour),
diet of owls (prey items – descriptive) and their beliefs about owls (positive
and negative beliefs; descriptive). We showed them pictures of owls and
mimicked or played the calls of owls to confirm species identity. Since most of
the respondents knew Hindi, all questions were asked in this language.
Occupations of respondents were classified into three categories: regular
workers (people with employment opportunities for the entire year), irregular
workers (people who work for half the year), and unemployed (people without a
job). Housewives were considered unemployed for this study. The literacy level
of respondents was grouped into two categories: literate (if the person could
either read or write) and illiterate (if the person could neither read nor
write). Settlements were categorised into two namely
revenue land and forest encroachment land. Finally, the houses of respondents
were categorised as permanent (concrete house),
semi-permanent (walls are concrete and roof as thatched), temporary house
(thatched and mud construction) and rented house. To identify the demographic
factors that influence the perception of people, we ran generalized linear
model with logit link for three species of owls (O. sunia,
N. obscura, and T. deroepstorffi) using
R programme (RStudio Team,
2015).
Results
Socio-demographic
details of respondents
Altogether,
we interviewed 203 respondents, 57% of whom were men and 43% women, across six
survey sites: Kalighat (26 people), Kishorinagar (42 people), Pachimsagar
(27 people), Radhanagar (30 people), Aerial Bay (37
people), and Ramnagar (41 people). The average age of
female and male respondents were 36 years (ranging 21–57) and 46 years (ranging
between 21–65) respectively. Out of 203 people, 54% and 46% were considered
literate and illiterate, respectively. Nearly 22% of the respondents were
regular workers, 45% were irregular workers, and 33% were unemployed. Twenty-two per cent of respondents had
permanent houses while 50% had semi-permanent houses. Around 20% and 8% of the
respondents lived in temporary and rented houses respectively. Nearly 61% of
people lived in revenue villages and 39% lived on encroached forest land.
Knowledge
about owl richness & identification
All
respondents said that they have encountered the owls and have known about these
birds. The respondents also confirmed the presence of owls around their houses.
Amongst respondents, about 74% of them know owls as ‘ullu’
(Hindi: owls) and 17% of knew them as ‘pecha’
(Bengali: owls). Interestingly, only 9% of the people could distinguish between
‘ullu’ (vernacular name for owls) and ‘pecha’ (refers to the barn owl). However, their knowledge
on owl richness was meagre. Only 9% of people could differentiate between the
five species of owls and their calls. Nearly 44% (90 people) said that they
have seen or heard four different species, 34% (70 people) of people recognized
three species, 11% (22 people) knew only two species and only two respondents
said they can recognize only one species in Andaman. People often got confused
between two species of Hawk Owls (Ninox genus)
and scops-owls (Otus
genus) and this lead to wrong identification of owls. Interestingly, 7% of
people identified Andaman Scops owl calls as “jungli murgi”
(Watercock Gallicrex cinerea)
and one respondent identified Oriental Scops Owl
calls as that of a frog. A large proportion of people could identify the
Andaman Barn Owl (Figure 2).
Respondents
correctly differentiated owl species using three common characters—owl size, colour, and vocalization—and sometimes, a combination of
these characters. T. deroepstorffi and O.sunia were largely identified based on their size
difference. To differentiate N. obscura from other species, respondents
used all three characters (Figure 3).
Knowledge of
locals about owl’s prey
Figure 4
illustrates the major food items of owls, as listed by respondents of the
survey. A large proportion of respondents (44% people) reported that rats are
the preliminary food source followed by frogs (26%), insects (15%), and snakes
& lizards (8%). Interestingly, 11 people reported that bats are the major
prey of owls in the Andaman Islands. Three people said fruits are food for
owls. None of the respondents mentioned birds as owl prey.
Perception about owls
Nearly 80, 77, and 55 per cent
people reported negative beliefs about O. sunia,
N.obscura and N. affinis,
respectively. Seventy-one per cent of respondents mentioned that T. deroepstorffi would bring good luck (positive beliefs)
and nearly 59% of people were neutral about O. balli
(Table 1). Illiterate and young persons had more negative attitudes about O.sunia,
whereas those resides in temporary houses in revenue villages were more
positive about N.obscura, and T. deroepstorffi (Table 2).
Discussion
Residents of North Andaman are
familiar with owls but most of them could not identify all species in the area.
This may be due to the nocturnal habits and skulking nature of owls. Owls
common in and around human habitation were correctly identified by most
respondents using size and calls of these owls, in particular the Andaman Barn
Owl (Figure 2). Most of them are aware of the ecological role played by owls,
i.e., control of rodents and insects in agriculture fields (Figure 4). A
majority of respondents worship the Andaman Barn Owl, in the belief that it
brings wealth to the family. However, owls in other genus (Otus
and Ninox) are being killed or chased away by
locals under the superstition that they bring illness/bad luck.
In general, people show more interest
towards a bird species that has high aesthetic values (colourful
plumage), large body size and unique behaviours
(including calls) and hence, they give more attention to those species and show
keener interest to classify them using specific local names (Berlin 1992;
Johannes 1993). Although all respondents knew of the presence of owls on their
lands by referring to them using the common name ‘ullu’,
they were not able to correctly distinguish all the five species. It is well
known that the local community may use a single name to refer a group of
animals if they are not attractive to them (Fleck et al. 2002). However, a
majority of people could identify at least three genera present on the Andaman
Islands (Figure 2) by their sizes. Since there are more than one species in two
genera (Otus and Ninox),
islanders found it difficult to distinguish species of similar size. This is
because most respondents are from mainland India and Burma. Hence, they could
better identify widespread species such as the Barn Owl, Oriental Scops Owl, and Brown Hawk Owl (whose call resembles that of
the Hume’s Hawk Owl) than endemic species such as the Andaman Scops Owl and Andaman Hawk Owl.
In the Andamans, there was a programme to introduce Barn Owls from the mainland to the
Island to control rodents in oil palm plantations (Sundaramoorthy
2010). However, protests by locals against this has created an awareness among
residents regarding the ecological role that owls play. This could be the
reason for a higher percentage of respondents reporting rats as a major
component of owl diets. Even though many respondents considered bats as one of
the prey items of owls, none considered birds to be prey. This result indicates
that residents of Andaman Islands do not see owls as raptors.
Birds are better appreciated than
reptiles and amphibians (Czech & Krausman 2001)
but our results indicate that this statement cannot used as a thumb rule for
owls. The perceptions of people regarding the importance and conservation of
owls in the Andaman Islands are likely to depend on their cultural beliefs.
People rank species based on the cultural knowledge about the species (Moral
& Camacaro 2011). This could be the reason for
the higher appreciation of the Andaman Barn Owl by locals when compared to
other species in the vicinity, because Andaman Barn Owls are culturally
believed to be the vehicle of goddess Laxmi, as per Hindu mythology (Srivastava
1987). Studies suggest that unpopular and wild species receive negative
attitudes from people (Bjerke et al. 2003; Røskaft et
al. 2003; Lindemann-Matthies 2005; Ceriaco 2012; Almeida 2014; Alves et al. 2014). Our study
on population assessment of owls in Andaman (Babu et
al. 2019) revealed that O. sunia and N.
obscura are highly abundant and found in wide array of habitats whereas N.
affinis and O. balli
were uncommon and found in specific habitats. Even though the people had higher
exposure to two generalist and abundant species, they were more negative
towards them. This is clear that whether the species is either popular or wild,
folklore and superstitious belief play a major role in their acceptance.
Andaman Barn Owls are celebrated in the ‘Laxmi Puja’ festival while other
species are considered as bad omen, and have lower conservation values. By
contrast, a study in mainland India (Santhanakrishnan
et al. 2012) found that 69% of respondents have negative beliefs about Barn
Owls Tyto alba. Higher neutral values
for O. balli and N. affinis
are due to their fewer interactions with humans since both species are found to
be habitat specialists and forest dwellers (Babu et
al. 2019).
Though differential responses
were received from the people of North Andaman Island about different species
of owls, three predictors were found to contribute more to their perception.
Literate and older people living in temporary houses showed positive response
towards these species. It is not surprising that literacy level influenced the
perception positively (Heinen 1993; Fiallo &
Jacobson 1995; Infield 1988). The people who have the ability to read and write
are exposed to the species profiles from media and other sources so they could
understand better than those that are illiterate. Older people due their higher
level of experience, knowledge and exposure to owls tend to have less belief in
the folklore about species (Ceríaco 2012). Highly
appreciated T. deroepstorffi have positive
perception from the residents of revenue villages.
We summarize that Tyto deroepstorffi
have the highest positive values among islanders and hence, it may be used
as a surrogate species to create awareness about less-appreciated owls. The
inherited traditional and cultural knowledge on Barn Owl would help ecologists
and conservation biologists to convince locals about the similarity among the
species and to reduce the negative attitudes towards other owl species.
Further, both positive and negative attitudes vary with education, age, and
residency. So, it is evident that lack of knowledge is the primary factor for
the negative attitudes and therefore regular awareness program targeting this
group may change their attitude towards owls.
Table 1. Summary of respondent’s
beliefs about different species of owls in the Andaman Islands.
Beliefs of respondents |
Number of responses (%) |
||||
O. balli (N= 49) |
O. sunia (N= 157) |
N. affinis (N= 64) |
N. obscura (N= 170) |
T. deroepstorffi (N= 181) |
|
Positive beliefs |
|
|
|
|
|
Brings luck |
1 (2%) |
0 (0%) |
3 (5%) |
1 (1%) |
128 (71%) |
Beneficial |
8 (16%) |
2 (1%) |
6 (9%) |
12 (7%) |
7 (4%) |
Negative beliefs |
|
|
|
|
|
Loud vocalisations |
0 (0%) |
83 (53%) |
6 (9%) |
27 (16%) |
2 (1%) |
Brings bad luck |
9 (18%) |
36 (23%) |
21 (33%) |
32 (19%) |
3 (2%) |
Weird and threatening |
2 (5%) |
6 (4%) |
8 (13%) |
71 (42%) |
26 (14%) |
Neutral beliefs |
|
|
|
|
|
Does not disturb me |
12 (24%) |
20 (13%) |
2 (3%) |
11 (6%) |
6 (3%) |
Not aware of folklore |
17 (35%) |
10 (6%) |
18 (28%) |
16 (9%) |
9 (5%) |
Table 2. Demographic factors
influencing the perception of people about owls in Andaman Islands.
Genus |
Predictors |
Estimate |
SE |
z-Value |
p |
Otus sunia (N= 175) |
Intercept |
-24.360 |
13.33000 |
-0.018 |
0.98 |
Literate |
1.7360 |
0.50450 |
3.442 |
0.00 |
|
Age |
0.1257 |
0.06074 |
2.069 |
0.03 |
|
Ninox obscura (N=
153) |
Intercept |
0.8148 |
1.60346 |
0.508 |
0.61 |
Temporary houses |
1.5730 |
0.7569 |
2.078 |
0.03 |
|
Tyto deroepstorffi (N= 181) |
Intercept |
1.4623 |
2.18893 |
0.668 |
0.50 |
Revenue village |
1.9042 |
0.498304 |
3.821 |
0.00 |
For
figures & images - - click here
References
Ahmed, A. (2010). Imperilled custodians
of the night: a study of the illegal trade, trapping, and utilization of Owls
in India. TRAFFIC India/WWF-India.
Almeida, A., C. Vasconcelos & O. Strecht–Ribeiro
(2014). Attitudes towards animals: A study of Portuguese children. Anthrozoös 27: 173–190. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303714X13903827487403
Alves, R.R., V.N. Silva, D.M. Trovão, J.V.
Oliveira, J.S. Mourão, T.L. Dias, Â.G. Alves, R.F. Lucena, R.R. Barboza, P.F. Montenegro, W.L. Vieira &
M.S. Souto (2014). Students’
attitudes toward and knowledge about snakes in the semiarid region of
Northeastern Brazil. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 10(1):
1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-10-30
Anonymous (2011). District
Statistical Hand Book. Directorate of Economics and
Statistics, Andaman and Nicobar Administration, Port Blair.
Babu, S., S. Sureshmarimuthu & H.N. Kumara
(2019). Ecological determinants of species richness and abundance of endemic
and threatened owls in the Andaman Islands, India. Ardeola
66(1): 89–100. https://doi.org/10.13157/arla.66.1.2019.sc3
Berlin, B. (1992). Ethnobiological Classification: Principles
of Categorization of Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, 354pp.
BirdLife
International (2021). Endemic Bird Areas factsheet: Andaman Islands.
Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 27.vii.2021.
Bjerke, T., T. Ostdahl & J. Kleiven (2003). Attitudes
and activities related to urban wildlife: Pet owners and nonowners. Anthrozoös 16: 252–262. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279303786992125
Census (2011). Primary Census Abstracts, Registrar General of
India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Available at: http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/PCA/pca_highlights/pe_data.html.
Accessed on 14.vii.2021.
Ceríaco, L.M.P.
(2012). Human attitudes towards herpetofauna: The influence of folklore and
negative values on the conservation of amphibians and reptiles in Portugal. Journal
of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 8: 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-8-8
Czech, B. & P.R. Krausman (2001). The
Endangered Species Act: History, Conservation Biology, and Public Policy.
Johns Hopkins University Press, 212pp.
Moral, F.D. & F.L. Camacaro (2011). Records of
occurrence of the Andean Bear (Tremarctos ornatus Cuvier, 1825) in its northeastern and southern
distribution limits. Revista del Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales Nueya Serie 13(1):
7–19.
Fiallo, E.A. &
S.K. Jacobson (1995). Local communities and protected areas:
attitudes of rural residents towards conservation and Machalilla
National Park, Ecuador. Environmental Conservation 22: 241–249.
Fleck, D.W, R.S. Voss & N.B. Simmons (2002). Underdifferentiated taxa and sublexical
categorization: an example from Matses classification
of bats. Journal of Ethnobiology 22: 61–102.
Heinen, J.T. (1993). Park-people relations in Kosi
Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal: a socio-economic
analysis. Environmental Conservation 15: 25–34.
Infield, M. (1988). Attitudes of a rural community towards
conservation and a local conservation area in Natal, South Africa. Biological
Conservation 45: 21–46.
Johannes, R.E. (1993). Integrating traditional
ecological knowledge and management with environmental impact assessment, pp.
33–39. In: Inglis, J.T. (ed.). Traditional
ecological knowledge: concepts and cases. Ottawa: International Program on
Traditional Ecological Knowledge and International Development Research Centre,
39 pp.
Kaiser, F.G., S. Wolfing & U. Fuhrer (1999).
Environmental attitude and ecological behaviour. Journal
of Environmental Psychology 19(1): 1---–19. https://doi.org/10.1108/17471111311307787
Kellert, S.R. & M.O. Westervelt (1984). Children’s
attitudes, knowledge and behaviors towards animals. Children’s Environments
Quarterly 1: 8–11.
Lindemann-Matthies, P. (2005). “Loveable”
mammals and “lifeless” plants: How children’s interest in common local
organisms can be enhanced through observation of nature. International
Journal of Science Education 27: 655–677. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500038116
Padhy, S. (2016).
Over-religious Activity, A Threat to Biodiversity: A Case Study (2): Save the
Owl (Aves: Strigidae). Journal of Biodiversity
7(2): 104–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/09766901.2016.11884763
Prasad, P.R.C., K.S. Rajan, C.B. S. Dutt & P.S. Roy (2010). A
conceptual framework to analyse the land-use/land-cover
changes and its impact on phytodiversity: a case
study of North Andaman Islands, India. Biodiversity and Conservation
19(11): 3073–3087. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9880-3
Praveen J., R. Jayapal & A. Pittie (2021). Checklist of
the birds of India (v5.0). Website: http://www.indianbirds.in/india/ [Date of
publication: 29 March, 2021].
R Core Team (2021). R: a language and environment for statistical
computing, version 3.6.0. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Accessed July 2021. https://www.R-project.org/
Røskaft, E., T.
Bjerke, B.P. Kaltenborn, J.D.C. Linnell & R.
Andersen (2003). Patterns of self-reported fear towards large carnivores among the
Norwegian public. Evolution and Human Behavior 24: 184–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(03)00011-4
Santhanakrishnan, R., A.M.S.
Ali & U. Anbarasan (2012). Knowledge
about Owls among general public in Madurai District, Tamil Nadu. Newsletter
for Birdwatchers 42(3): 1–35.
Srivastava, A.L. (1987). Ulūka-Vāhinī
Lakṣmī. East and West 37(1/4): 455–459. https://doi.org/10.2307/29756829
Sundaramoorthy, T. (2010). Bird
diversity of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Eco News 16(1): 3–8.
Vidyarthi, L.P.
(1971). Cultural diversities in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands: a preliminary
report. Indian Anthropologist 1(1): 80–92.