SNAKE RESCUES; A CONSERVATION EFFORT IN KANNUR DISTRICT

Snakes can be found near human habitation because of different reasons of which abundance of prey (rodents) is the major fact. This draws conflict between snakes and humans. Even though snakes are protected with Indian Wildlife Act of 1972, they are generally regarded dangerous creatures to man and whenever spotted deserve no mercy. Hence, recues of the snake is an important factor for conserving the species. Trends in the population of snakes are difficult to monitor due to its sporadic distribution and secretive nature of snakes. Lack of knowledge about the population concerns any conservational plans. Thisdata attempt to document the diversity, population and seasonality of the snakes rescued in Kannur by Rapid response team from October 2011 to October 2014 in Kannur district. A total of 1427 snakes comprising 16 species were rescued in Kannur district of which 65% were venomous snakes. Indian Spectacled Cobra (Naja naja; 44.1%) were found to be common venomous snake encountered in the district. Russell’s Viper (Daboia russelii; 14.8%), Common Krait (Bungarus caeruleus; 3.4%), King Cobra (Ophiophagus Hannah;2.5%) and few cases of Malabar Pit-Viper (Trimeresurus malabaricus;0.1%), Common Cat Snake ( Boiga trigonata;0.2%) and Forsten’s Cat snake (Boiga forsteni;0.1%) are the other venomous species.. Indian Rock Python (Python molurus; 30.1%) was the commonly rescued non-venomous snake in Kannur. Other non-venomous snakes were Rat snake (Ptyas mucosa; 1.8%), Common Trinket snake (Coelognathus helena; 1.3%), Wolf snake (Lycodon aulicus; 0.4%), Common Kukri (Oligodon arnensis; 0.1%), Common sand boa (Eryx conicus; 0.3%) and Red sand boa (Eryx johnii; 0.5%). Seasonal variations in the number of rescued snakes were discussed. Knowledge of activity pattern of the snake in the district can be used for successful management and conservational plans. Waste management, rodent control, reducing hideout places etc were suggested to decrease the number of snakes entering into house compound. Promoting awareness about the local snake among the public is as important as rescue activities. The increase in rescue call by 40% in 2013 can be taken as one of the successes of the awareness programs conducted across the district.</jats:p

Habitat utilization by wetland birds of Munderikadavu, a proposed bird sanctuary in northern Kerala, India

Munderikadavu is rich in avifaunal diversity. A total of 82 species of birds from 36 families belonging to 13 orders were recorded in the wetland including wetland dependant species. Lowland vegetation had the highest species richness (46 species) followed by upland (41 species), aerial (38 species), emergent vegetation (22 species) and paddy fields (21 species).  Open water had the lowest species richness. Upland vegetation had the highest species diversity (H′-3.19) followed by aerial (H′-2.52).  There was more species overlap between emergent and low land vegetations (Cm-0.7).  The threats in Munderikadavu wetland were dumping of waste and conversion of cultivation land into shrimp farming area. Thus land use changes need to be regulated in order to conserve the wetland and bird community.  </div

INVASIVE PLANTS - A BOON OR BANE TO THE LEPIDOPTERON FAUNA: CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN SUGGESTIONS

Butterfly diversity was recorded from Nov (2013) - May (2014) in Pookode region. A total number of 128 species recorded from the five families; Nymphalidae (46 species) Lycaenidae (28 species), Hesperiidae (22 species), Pieridae (17 species) and Papilionidae (15 species) respectively. During the survey invasive plant species were also recorded. There were 36 species of invasive plants from 18 families identified from the study area. More butterflies were attracted towards nectar offering invasive plants. Chromolaena odorata, Ipomea cairica, Lantana camara, Merremia vitifolia, Mikania micrantha, Mimosa diplotricha, Pennisetumpolystachyon, Pteridium aquilinum, Quisqualis indica and Sphagneticola trilobata were the major invasive plants found in the Pookode region and their flower attracts butterfly for pollination. Even though nectar offered by the plants are supportive for growth, in long run these species can affect butterfly population bydeclining native host larval plant species for butterfly reproduction. Invasive species compete with the native flora and reduce its population. Management practices like physical, chemical and modern bio control measures could be used for eradicating of invasive plants. Wise use of invasive plants for other economical purpose such as bio-fuel, medicinal purpose, bio-pesticide and handicraft could be suggested. Successful management of invasive species are needed for conserving Lepidoptera fauna and other native biota of the area.</jats:p

“Good” and “Bad” Urban Wildlife

Urban environments offer habitat for many species of animals. Although some of those are ubiquitous and/or undesirable, others are native and in some cases, of conservation value. In many cases, urban wildlife populations are a source of enjoyment for human residents, who sometimes invest considerable amounts in attracting them to yards and public spaces. Their presence there can serve an important educational role that helps protect non-urban habitats and species. Nonetheless, urban wildlife must survive what has been termed a landscape of fear. Although some of the urban wildlife that do well in this environment are benign, other populations - sometimes of a species that, in other locations, is iconic and desirable - can become problematic. Some species can serve as vectors that carry important zoonosis, such as the plague or diseases that affect other wildlife. Others can create noise or olfactory nuisances and degrade structures or usability of public spaces. Some pose hazards at busy airports, whereas still others may present an envenomation or predation risk on unwary humans. Here, we review the role that reptiles, birds, and mammals play in urban environments and discuss how urban wildlife rehabilitation centers help address some related issues. We close by looking ahead and trying to predict how global patterns such as increased urbanization and population growth may affect urban wildlife and its value for conservation