Wildlife Habitat Evaluation in Mountainous Landscapes

Author(s):  
Subrata Nandy ◽  
S. P. S. Kushwaha ◽  
Ritika Srinet
EDIS ◽  
1969 ◽  
Vol 2003 (16) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Webb Miller ◽  
Mark E. Hostetler

The Wildlife Habitat Evaluation Program (WHEP) is a 4-H youth natural resource program dedicated to teaching wildlife and fisheries habitat management to junior and senior level youth (ages 8-19). WHEP fosters relationships between youth, professional wildlife and fisheries biologists, parents, teachers, volunteers, farmers, and ranchers. WHEP is a nationally recognized program and won the 1996 Wildlife Society Conservation Education Award. As with all 4-H programs, WHEP teaches essential life skills such as oral and written communication, critical thinking, teamwork, and decision-making. This document is Factsheet WEC 175, one of a series of the Department of Widlife Ecology and Conservation, Florida Cooperative Extension Service,Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), University of Florida. First published in October 2003. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/uw185


2001 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 639-654 ◽  
Author(s):  
DIANE L. SZAFONI ◽  
LOUIS R. IVERSON ◽  
SHARON E. BAUM ◽  
ELIZABETH A. COOK

1991 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahesh C. Porwal ◽  
Parth S. Roy

Remote sensing is being widely used in the fields of resource management, planning, and wildlife habitat evaluation. Canopy cover-type mapping has been done in most of the bioclimatic zones of India and widely abroad, using aerial photointerpretation techniques. In the present study an attempt has been made to develop a methodology for mapping understorey vegetation in part of Kanha National Park, using 1:10,000-scale black-and-white aerial photographs.The Park, one of the best for Tiger (Felis tigris) visibility and observation of other large carnivores and herbivores, has been mapped, with subdivision into 11 vegetation cover-classes and four density-classes, using aerial photographs, and each class has been visited in the field for understorey information concerning different physiographic units. Each category of canopy-cover was sampled in the field, and tree base-cover per hectare has been estimated.Vertical profiles have also been drawn in the main vegetation classes in order to understand the occurrence of understorey vegetation. It was found that a physiographic analysis coupled with canopy-cover type and density, with appropriate sampling in the individual vegetation strata, have together proved indicative of understorey vegetationtype. When the relationship between understorey vegetation and canopy-cover type is established, one can directly depict understorey limits spatially in conjunction with the main vegetation cover. Such an approach of mapping understorey vegetation using aerial photographs could be of immense value for wildlife habitat evaluation and park management.


2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 397-406
Author(s):  
A. B. Ismailov ◽  
G. P. Urbanavichus

The lichens and lichenicolous fungi of high mountainous landscapes of Samurskiy Ridge were studied in altitudinal range 2400–3770 m a. s. l. for the first time and 112 species are recorded. Among them 33 species, 10 genera (Arthrorhaphis, Baeomyces, Calvitimela, Epilichen, Lambiella, Psorinia, Rufoplaca, Sagedia, Sporastatia, Tremolecia) and 4 families (Anamylopsoraceae, Arthrorhaphidaceae, Baeomycetaceae, Hymeneliaceae) are new for Dagestan, six species (Buellia uberior, Carbonea atronivea, Lecanora atrosulphurea, Lecidea fuliginosa, L. swartzioidea, Rhizoplaca subdiscrepans) are reported for the first time for the Greater Caucasus and two species (Acarospora subpruinata and Rhizocarpon postumum) — for the North Caucasus. Most of the new findings were collected from 3500–3770 m a. s. l.


2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Hunold

City-scale urban greening is expanding wildlife habitat in previously less hospitable urban areas. Does this transformation also prompt a reckoning with the longstanding idea that cities are places intended to satisfy primarily human needs? I pose this question in the context of one of North America's most ambitious green infrastructure programmes to manage urban runoff: Philadelphia's Green City, Clean Waters. Given that the city's green infrastructure plans have little to say about wildlife, I investigate how wild animals fit into urban greening professionals' conceptions of the urban. I argue that practitioners relate to urban wildlife via three distinctive frames: 1) animal control, 2) public health and 3) biodiversity, and explore the implications of each for peaceful human-wildlife coexistence in 'greened' cities.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document