Viability and improvement of constructive wildlife corridors in tropical forests, proposing a new method for evaluating corridors geospatially using MaxEnt
Abstract
Habitat corridor ecology remains a new and developing field in wildlife and forest
management. Little is known about how corridors statistically work or how they should
be established and monitored. Stuart Pimm and his non-profit Saving Nature build constructive
habitat corridors in tropical forests, and he now hopes that the data collected from
these corridors can contribute to the growing knowledge in this field. In this study,
I analyzed camera trap data from Saving Nature’s corridors in Colombia, Ecuador, and
Brazil. Occupancy models were run to determine general corridor efficiency based on
the species detected in the camera traps and species that were expected to appear
based on environmental variables. I also attempted to propose maximum entropy models
as an alternative way to achieve the same goal. Finally, least cost path corridor
models were run to identify the areas animals are most likely to be found in, so that
cameras can be repositioned to collect more data. Overall, all corridors were determined
to be working adequately, but with room for improvement. MaxEntmodels show some potential
as a method to evaluate corridor projects, but model refining and further research
and development are required.
Type
Master's projectDepartment
Nicholas School of the EnvironmentPermalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/26359Citation
Markus, Caitlin (2022). Viability and improvement of constructive wildlife corridors in tropical forests,
proposing a new method for evaluating corridors geospatially using MaxEnt. Master's project, Duke University. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/26359.Collections
More Info
Show full item record
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Rights for Collection: Nicholas School of the Environment
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info