Alexandria Petrosh & Nashalie Ayala R

ENVL 2205 Ecological principles lab

On-campus Wildlife cameras
11/28/2018

Introduction
Biodiversity is necessary for urban environments (McKinney 2008). Species diversity is
affected by resources, habitat diversity, keystone species, and disturbance. When environments
are rarely disturbed, populations can continue to grow, and resources become less abundant.
Frequently disturbed areas typically support species that are adapted to disturbances. The
intermediate disturbance hypothesis explains that more species are present in a community
that occasionally experiences disturbances than in a community that rarely experiences
disturbances. Human presence can cause wildlife disturbance by pollution or traffic. Human
presence can provide benefits to prey by providing security, habitats, and food resources by
enhancing agricultural fields. (Muhly et al, 2011). On the other hand, urbanization can cause
negative effects on species by causing habitat loss, and endangerment on species (Kowalski et
al, 2015).

Human disturbance drives the decline of many species, both directly and indirectly.
However, there are cases where species do particularly well around human activity. One way to
explain this coexistence is determine to what degree in which a species tolerates human
disturbance and what species tolerate such disturbances. In cases of carnivore/predator
species, these types of animals may be especially susceptible to the effects of human
disturbances because they occur at low population densities and require large areas (Kowalski
et. all. 2015). Therefore, these species can be driven out of a community and create shifts
within the community ecosystem.

Our objective for this study was to determine if human activities affect the distribution
of wildlife and to explain which species have a higher tolerance. Camera traps offer a variety of
information and can be considerable as a conservation value. They can detect and take pictures
or videos of any movement from humans or wildlife in a specific location. These collected
images can be used to determine the number of individuals in one species, or to determine the
number of different species. There were 12 cameras set up waist high on random trees in our
study area. We chose to focus on the Frog Ponds, the Dump, and the South cameras, for its
wildlife diversity throughout the seasons. To answer our question, these areas have ideal
locations with different human densities and wildlife. The cameras used took three consecutive
pictures when it detected movement; and each picture included the date, temperature, and
time. We reviewed five articles to better understand camera traps and whether human
presence affects species diversity.
Materials and Methods
Data Compilation
Using the seasonal data of all 12 cameras, we can determine that the South area
experienced a decrease in biodiversity after the parking lot construction in summer of 2016.
When urbanization increases, the species richness decreases (McKinney, 2008). The South area
also experienced a decrease in predators, the coyote. It is showed that high-human activities
can displace predators but not prey species; this can create a refuge for prey species. In
summer of 2016 and winter of 2017, there were no humans detected by the camera traps in
the Dump area. However, in this area, when there were no human disturbance, there were
coyotes present. It was found by Muhly et al (2011) that predators avoid high-human areas,
even if prey were present in the area. We took the average proportion of deer and people of
the South camera, as shown in Figure 3, from summer 2016 to fall of 2017. We calculated the
proportion and natural log of each species for each time period.

Data Analysis
The data files, stored on SD cards, collected from each of the three camera site locations
were uploaded and organized into individual folders onto computer files. Photos captured from
each of the camera traps were analyzed and searched through for any species that may have
passed by the scope of the lens. An excel photo log was set up to record a count of the species
that may have appeared in each photo. Since the camera traps were set up to take three
consecutive pictures of one species and slight movement, close attention was paid to the time
lapse of the camera in order not to count a single species occurrence as multiple occurrences of
that one species. The photo log had been updated approximately every season and was
organized as such.
Ending with Fall 2017 photo data, an excel data sheet was created for each of the camera trap
sites. Included in the data files were the species that occurred at that camera location, the
occurrence of that species and the season and year the species were captured on camera. Next
the relative abundance and importance values were calculated for each species that had
occurred at each site. Table 1 displays abundance values for each species across time within the
camera site locations; Dump, Frog Pond, and South Site.
Relative Density of species within community=
(Individual species count / Total species count for community) x 100

The Shannon diversity index was also calculated for each site location to determine species
evenness across each of the site communities. The proportion of species i relative to the total
number of species (pi) is calculated, and then multiplied by the natural logarithm of this
proportion (lnpi). The resulting product is summed across species and multiplied by -1.
Shannon's equitability (EH) can be calculated by dividing H by Hmax (here Hmax = lnS). The
Shannon index increases as both the richness and the evenness of the community increase.
Equitability assumes a value between 0 and 1 with 1 being complete evenness:
€ H'= − p ∑ i ln pi

Results
To quantify the species diversity within each of the camera trap site locations, a value
for a single species was calculated to determine species diversity. Absolute abundance for each
species from Table 1 below was used to calculate species diversity with Shannon’s index for
each of the camera trap site locations. From these data we can then quantify relative
abundance for each of the species, which is denoted as pi.

Table 1 Data from three camera site areas; displays absolute abundance and calculated relative abundance, for each species
discovered on camera traps in each of these communities. With the relative abundance data, Shannon's index was calculated to
measure species diversity across each site location.

The Abundance of Different Mammal Species in Three Communities

Dump Frog Pond South

Species Absolute Relative Absolute Relative Absolute Relative
Abundance Abundance Abundance Abundance Abundance Abundance
(pi) (pi) (pi)
Cat 8 0.009 1 0.002 0 0
Coyote 3 0.003 6 0.013 1 0.002
Deer 760 0.819 303 0.633 563 0.940
Fox 107 0.115 4 0.008 0 0.000
Human 18 0.019 5 0.010 30 0.050
Opossum 19 0.020 7 0.015 0 0
Raccoon 2 0.002 3 0.006 0 0
Skunk 0 0 1 0.002 0 0
Squirrel 8 0.009 144 0.301 0 0
Turkey 3 0.003 5 0.010 5 0.008
Total 928 1 479 1 599 1
Abundance

S 9 9 10 10 4 4
Dump Site Area:
Shannon’s Diversity Index for the Dump camera site was 0.701 evenness. Species
richness at this site location was nine. Table 2 displays species occurrences at the camera site
throughout the entire length of the camera trap setup. When looking at camera trap data for
individual seasons during a particular year, the Dump site area displays similar results to that of
when compiling together. During the Fall season there tends to be more human activity for
both 2016 and 2017 and in turn has a lower species diversity then compared to the other
seasons where human disturbance is less. Coyote and fox occurrence were quite frequent
within this community when human activity was lower (Figure 2). Deer occurrences showed a
significant decline when such predator species were present. When no predator species
occurred, deer occurrence increased significantly as it had declined when coyote and fox were
present.
A co-occurrence between deer and human can be seen across time at the Dump. The
occurrence of raccoons, opossums, and squirrels tend to stay relatively the same across seasons
and whether there is predator or human occurrence, therefore showing tolerance to human
and predator disturbance. When comparing between the same season of a different year,
species diversity is very close as compared to two different seasons.
Spring 2016, 0.980 Spring 2017, 1.133. Summer 2016, 0.790 Summer 2017, 0. Fall 2016
0.273, Fall 2017 0.374. Overall the Dump site area had the highest number count of species
compared to the other camera site locations, however not the highest species diversity. The
Dump ranks second in Human occurrence with a total of 18 Human occurrences across time
and ranks second in species diversity.

Table 2 Calculated Shannon's index for species diversity around the Dump is
highlighted in yellow. Species and species occurrences were compiled from the years
2016 and 2017 across three seasons; Summer, Fall, Spring.

Dump Spring 2016- Fall 2017

Species Occurrence/Proportion p ln(p) p*ln(p)
Cat 8 0.008621 -4.75359 -0.04098
Coyote 3 0.003233 -5.73442 -0.01854
Deer 760 0.818966 -0.19971 -0.16356
Fox 107 0.115302 -2.1602 -0.24908
Human 18 0.019397 -3.94266 -0.07647
Opossum 19 0.020474 -3.88859 -0.07962
Raccoon 2 0.002155 -6.13988 -0.01323
Squirrel 8 0.008621 -4.75359 -0.04098
Turkey 3 0.003233 -5.73442 -0.01854
Total 928 1 0 0.70099
 Dump Site Species Occurrence Across Time
240
220 Cat
200
Deer
Species Occurence

180
160 Fox
140
120 Human
100 Opossum
80
60 Coyote
40 Turkey
20
0 Raccoon
1 2 3 4 5 6 Squirrel
Spring 2016-Fall 2017

Figure 1 graph displays species occurrence at the Dump site location from Spring 2016 to
Fall 2017.

Human and Predator Occurence at Dump Site Area

80

60
Occurrence

40

20

0
Spring 2016 Summer 2016 Fall 2016 Spring 2017 Summer 2017 Fall 2017
People 4 0 9 2 0 3
Predators 9 89 1 9 0 2

Time

People Predators

Figure 2 graph shows how human disturbance can affect species occurrence in a particular community. In this
study we looked at predator abundance in the presence of human disturbance and found that significant
predator species occurred when zero human disturbance was present in the data. The graph also shows that
when there was more human occurrence there were less numbers of predator species (coyote and fox), and
when more human disturbance occurred, there was less predator species occurrence.
Frog Pond Site Area:
Shannon’s Diversity Index for the Frog Pond camera site was 0.947. Species richness at
this site was nine. Table 3 displays species occurrences at the camera site throughout the entire
length of the camera trap setup. Species diversity of similar seasons shows similar to be similar.
Spring 2016, 1.151, Spring 2017, 1.601. Summer 2016, 0.659, Summer 2017, 0.327. Fall 2016,
0.849, Fall 2017 0.977. Raccoons, Opossums, and Squirrels show no noticeable difference when
occurrence of human or predator species occur at similar times. Deer occurrences are low in
the presence of coyote species and when no coyotes are documented, deer occurrence
increases significantly. Compared to the Dump Site Area, the Frog Pond did not show similar
response between human and predator occurrences. Both were low but occurred during the
same time frame. Overall, the Frog Pond has the least human occurrence across time, the
lowest total number of species to occur and the highest species diversity out of the three
camera trap site locations.
Table 3 Calculated Shannon's index for species diversity around the Frog Pond is
highlighted in yellow. Species and species occurrences were compiled from the years
2016 and 2017 across three seasons; Summer, Fall, Spring.
Frog Pond Spring 2016-Fall 2017
Species Occurrence/proportion p ln(p) p*ln(p)
Cat 1 0.002092 -6.16961 -0.01291
Coyote 6 0.012552 -4.37785 -0.05495
Deer 303 0.633891 -0.45588 -0.28898
Fox 4 0.008368 -4.78332 -0.04003
Human 5 0.01046 -4.56017 -0.0477
Opossum 7 0.014644 -4.2237 -0.06185
Raccoon 3 0.006276 -5.071 -0.03183
Squirrel 144 0.301255 -1.1998 -0.36145
Turkey 5 0.01046 -4.56017 -0.0477
Total 478 1 0 0.94739

Frog Pond Site Species Occurrence Across Time

110
100 Cat
Species Occurrence

90
80 Deer
70
60 Fox
50 Human
40
30 Opossum
20
10 Coyote
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 Raccoon
Spring 2016-Fall 2017 Squirrel
 Figure 3 graph displays species occurrence at the Frog Pond site between Spring 2016 and Fall
2017.

South Site Area:

Shannon’s Diversity Index for the South camera site was 0.259. Species richness at this
site was two. Table 4 displays species occurrences at the camera site throughout the entire
length of the camera trap setup. Species richness is much lower than the other two camera trap
sites. This camera site community had been disturbed by fragmentation. A large parking lot had
been constructed the Summer of 2016. When looking at data prior to the parking lot
construction, species diversity was fairly high at 0.968 and a species richness of about 4-5. After
construction species diversity sits around 0.106. Deer occurrence seems to be unaffected by
such disturbance. The deer occurrence count is possibly higher if it weren’t for technical battery
failure during the Spring 2017 period. The only species occurrence monitored at this site
location are deer and human. Overall the South Site Area has the highest human occurrence,
the second in total species count throughout the study, and the lowest species diversity.

Table 4 Calculated Shannon's index for species diversity around the South site is
highlighted in yellow. Species and species occurrences were compiled from the
years 2016 and 2017 across three seasons; Summer, Fall, Spring.

South Spring 2016-Fall 2017

Species Occurrence/proportion p ln(p) p*ln(p)
Coyote 1 0.001669 -6.39526 -0.01068
Deer 563 0.9399 -0.06198 -0.05826
Human 30 0.050083 -2.99406 -0.14995
Turkey 5 0.008347 -4.78582 -0.03995
Total 599 1 0 0.258835
 South Species Occurrence Across Time
140
120

Species Occurrence 100

80 Deer

60 Human

40 Coyote
Turkey
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Spring 2016-Fall2017

Figure 4 graph displays South Site species occurrence between Spring 2016 and Fall
2017.

Discussion
Interestingly, data analysis of the three site locations define the Intermediate
disturbance hypothesis. The hypothesis states that more species are present in a community
that occassionaly experiences disturbances than in a community that experiences frequent or
rare disturbance. The Frog Pond was the intermediate in this study, with not an extreme
amount of disturbace and not too little disturbance. When talking about disturbances, we’re
reffereing to the amount of human occurrences recorded at each site, urbanization, and
fragmentation. The extreme would be the South Site Area where fragmentation disturbance
had caused a significant decline in speceis richness. What was also observed from the data
analysis was the deer occurrences across each site location. The more an area was disturbed by
humans and urbanization, the more deer occurrences. Deer species seem to co-occur well with
human disturbance and have a higher tolerance than species like Coyote or Fox who want to
avoid areas with human disturbance. The Frog Pond site area was an area that contradicts the
idea that coyote and fox have a very low tolerance of human disturbance; they seemed to occur
during the same periods as human occurred. This may be because the Frog Pond is an area they
have to cross in order to get to their destination. The Frong Pond is much more wooded and
secluded than the Dump which has man made structures and a higher likelihood of coming into
contact with humans. Greater squirrel occurences were captured at the frog pond, which was
interesting to note because squirrels seem to be exceptionally tolerant of human disturbance.
They seem to want to be around the company of humans for the purpose of food litter. The
Frog Pond most likely supports a better nesting and hibernation habitat for squirrels than the
Dump and most certainly the South Site Area. To better understand species interactions on
campus, a knowledge of habitat preferences and a better understanding of what species
conflict and what species can live harmonously together, would benefit further research on this
type of study. Therefore a better understanding of species/community foodwebs would be
beneficial to research. All in all, species diversity is affected to some degree by human
disturbance. Depending on the type of disturbance that affect can be pretty significant to the
species community. By identifying species behavior patterns to specific disturbances can guide
research toward evidence-based conservation strategies to predict and manage the impacts of
increasing human disturbance on species diversity within a community.
Literature
Bart Kowalski, Fred Watson, Corey Garza, Bruce Delgado. Effects of landscape covariates on the
distribution and detection probabilities of mammalian carnivores. Journal of Mammalogy, Volume 96,
Issue 3, 22 May 2015, Pages 511–521, https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyv056

Caravaggi, A. , Banks, P. B., Burton, A. C., Finlay, C. M., Haswell, P. M., Hayward, M. W., Rowcliffe, M. J.
and Wood, M. D. (2017), A review of camera trapping for conservation behaviour research. Remote Sens
Ecol Conserv, 3: 109-122. doi:10.1002/rse2.48

McKinney, M.L. Effects on urbanization on species richness, a review of plants and animals. (2008) 11:
161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-007-0045-4

Muhly TB, Semeniuk C, Massolo A, Hickman L, Musiani M (2011) Human Activity Helps Prey Win the
Predator-Prey Space Race. PLOS ONE 6(3): e17050.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017050

Samia, D. S. M. et al. Increased tolerance to humans among disturbed wildlife. Nat. Commun. 6:8877
doi: 10.1038/ncomms9877 (2015). Retrieved from: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9877