In the dead of night, deep in the jungle, footsteps disturb the
silence. A small device strapped to a tree is alerted. The device is
designed to trap Cambodia’s surviving wild animals—not for their skin or
meat, but for their images, collected for research.
In a program supported by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), rangers from
the Ministry of Environment and Forestry Administration in the
country’s remaining forests are collecting stunning images that reveal
species still under threat from poaching, land concessions and illegal
logging. The camera trap is a vital tool for researchers trying to
document threatened populations of large mammals.
Mark Wright, eastern plains landscape manager for WWF in Cambodia,
said that trained teams place the traps in parts of the forests—animal
trails, salt-licks or water holes—in hope that rare species such as the
Indochinese tiger and the giant ibis will wander in front of them.
“Before setting the camera trap, researchers have to understand the
animal’s habitat and ecology to decide where and how high to place the
camera trap. So, for example, does the animal prefer shady paths or open
forest; does it move along the ground or prefer to stay in the trees?”
The information garnered from the traps is used, in combination from
testimony of rangers in the forests, “to track animal population changes
and the health of the forest,” he said.
Many of the traps, which use infrared beams to detect movement and
heat, triggering the camera to take a photograph, are placed at water
holes, known as trapeang, which literally means pond in English.
“The cameras located at trapeang have allowed us to understand which
species use these waterholes during the height of the dry season, when
water can be limited, and thus give information on how to manage the
protected areas for threatened species such as banteng, Eld’s deer and
giant ibis,” he said.
He said the traps were also being used to “record elusive wild water
buffalo in Mondolkiri Protected Forest, the only known site for the
endangered ancestor of domestic buffalo in Indochina.”
Using camera traps in the forests—in isolated areas where loggers and poachers roam—is not trouble free, however.
“Camera traps will also record images of people carrying out illegal activities, if they pass in front of the camera,” Mr. Wright said.
“Camera traps will also record images of people carrying out illegal activities, if they pass in front of the camera,” Mr. Wright said.
“The result is that the cameras are often destroyed or stolen by
these people who fear the photos will be used to incriminate them. This
seriously damages the research effort as well as adding to the costs of
the research because these camera traps are expensive to replace.”
A review of data produced by camera traps in Cambodia between 1999
and 2007, published in the Cambodian Journal of Natural History last
year, recorded images of 28 globally threatened species.
The images include just five shots of tigers—possibly more than one
of the same individual—in Eastern provinces, including the last
confirmed sighting of a tiger in Cambodia, taken in Mondolkiri in
November 2007. Since then, and despite targeted efforts, no tigers have
been documented, according to the study, the lead author of which was
WWF monitoring advisor Thomas Gray.
The Mondolkiri Protected Forest is also one of only two places in
Asia that support three rare wild cattle species—banteng, gaur and wild
water buffalo.
During the eight-year period, camera traps captured 63 images of
leopards in five different sites around the country, and scientists
estimate that there are almost four leopards per 100 square kilometers
in the core of the Mondolkiri Protected Forest.
However, the study concluded, “the leopard is probably now very rare
away from the cores of large, better managed protected areas in
Cambodia.”
Similar negative outlooks are envisioned in the study for many of the
species captured by the traps, as deforestation and agricultural
projects on an industrial scale have broken up habitats into smaller
areas incapable of sustaining populations.
The paper also notes that only four of the nine areas monitored were inside forests officially labeled “protected” by the government.
The paper also notes that only four of the nine areas monitored were inside forests officially labeled “protected” by the government.
“More worrying, only two of these protected areas [Phnom Prich
Wildlife Sanctuary and Mondolkiri Protected Forest] currently receive
relatively effective protection by Cambodian government conservation
agencies…with financial and technical support from international NGOs….
“Consequently the state of forest cover and remaining biodiversity at
[the other] sites is unknown, but is likely to be greatly reduced since
the data…was collected.”
1 comment:
In deed they (wild animals) live inside the depth of the dense
forest we usually calle it jungle. Interestingly enough, now we
know that this word "jungle" had its origine from Sanskrit word
jangala or simply jangal in nowadays Hindustani language.
Is there any Khmer word could have related to the word jungle?
Of course we do have some ! ព្រៃចុងកាល់ !!! ស្រុកចង្កាត់ (មាត់ញក)!?
Seriously I believe that at Angkorian or pre-Angkorian era, there
were thick forest areas at North of nowadays Siem Reab or
Uddar Mean Jey region. We have places with the names of
Samrong and Chongkal (if I remembered them right).
I love wild animals especially ដំរៃ !!! (ហត្ថី សត្វមានដៃឬប្រមោយ).
សត្វដំរី មកពីសត្វដំរៃ ! មែនទេ ?!! Without them it would be almost
impossible to build Prasats.
Post a Comment