Virtual Footprints: Navigating Wildlife Conservation in The Digital Era by Ms. Sanika Kulkarni, KMG@Legasis

Introduction-

The earth is gifted with an enormous diversity of natural ecosystems comprising a vast range of wild flora and fauna species. Nonetheless, global environmental changes such as climate change, deforestation, desertification, and land use impact negatively on plant and animal life. In the present day, the animal world is under severe attack; more than 1210 species of mammals, 1469 of birds, 2100 reptilians, and 2385 species of fish are threatened[1]. Activities such as illegal wildlife trade, spread of invasive species and diseases, and the human impact on the Earth’s climate is changing the nature of wild habitats. Because of this, various conservation strategies, initiatives, and technological solutions have been at the lead during the past couple of decades[2]. Two distinct approaches to the protection of wild species are considered, in situ and ex situ conservation. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defines in situ conservation as “the conservation of ecosystems and natural habitats and the maintenance and recovery of viable populations of species in their natural surroundings,” and ex situ conservation as “the conservation of components of biological diversity outside their natural habitats”[3]. Available technological solutions have eased and facilitated, in practical terms, the demanding task of wildlife conservation and paved a way for securing better wildlife conservation.

Digital Revolution in Wildlife Conservation. -

Digital technologies have enabled the collection of vast amounts of data on various aspects of wildlife biology and ecology. This includes data from GPS collars, satellite tracking, camera traps, acoustic monitoring, and remote sensing. Advanced analytical tools and algorithms allow researchers to process and analyse this data to gain insights into animal behaviour, population dynamics, habitat use, and ecosystem health.

The technology of Global Positioning System (GPS) allows scientists to obtain precise movement patterns of an animal through GPS telemetry where the animal location and its distance to survey sites can be quantified [4]. Such technology has helped to identify, for example, the use of unpredicted habitats, to explore the social dynamics of reintroduced species, and to reveal unfamiliar life history characteristics of threatened species. Animal-borne technology (referred to as animal-borne video and environmental data collection systems—AVEDs) gathers high-resolution datasets that can measure the animals’ physiology, behaviour, demographics, community interactions, and the environment animal inhabits [5]. A vast variety of these sensor types to collect data on wild animals’ internal and external states have been packaged into lightweight units. For example, in birds, lightweight geolocators or satellite transmitters have allowed practical reconstruction of the migratory routes and wintering areas for large and small birds, which can give opportunities to test predictions about migration strategies.

Animal-borne devices are also advantageous for testing hypothesis about drivers of habitat use. For example, a study on southern elephant seal (Mirounga leonina;) in the Southern Ocean, which looked at the geographic distribution of core foraging areas and behaviour and assessed the relative quality of the habitats regionally, demonstrates clear advantages of using satellite tracking systems and their assistance to understand more about the animal’s response to varying environmental conditions and population viability. This information is vital for developing conservation-oriented management actions.[6]

Camera traps are remote devices equipped with a motion or infrared sensor that automatically record images or videos. They have become an important wildlife research tool; the decreasing cost gives researchers additional opportunities to monitor and reach a larger number of wildlife populations. Traditional approaches, such as visual, capture and trapping methods, can be labor-intensive and can require hundreds or thousands of person hours; whereas camera traps can multiply the number of observers and make them more cost efficient. The use of this technology has increased to address questions of species’ distribution, activity patterns, population densities, and among other questions[7]. Camera traps offer a practical approach to answer many questions about wildlife besides the density or estimation of animal populations. Behavioral studies using camera traps, such as the first ever done by Gysel and Davis (1956) where they essentially described a simple system to photograph wildlife, help us understand how different species use their habitat. The authors found that camera traps allowed for a practically accurate approximation of demographic composition and variation within and among social groups. They also highlight that such technology may provide more accurate and precise measures of fine-scale group abundance.[8]

The Risks and Challenges of Geolocation Data in Wildlife Conservation. –

1.????? Ethical Considerations: The use of geolocation data raises ethical concerns regarding the intrusion of animals' privacy and potential disturbance caused by tracking devices. Conservationists must strike a balance between collecting valuable data and ensuring minimal negative impacts on the animals' well-being.

2.????? Data Security and Privacy: Geolocation data is sensitive and requires adequate security measures to protect it from unauthorized access. Conservation organizations must invest in robust data management systems and protocols to ensure that sensitive information about endangered species does not fall into the wrong hands.

3.????? Technical Limitations: While geolocation data provides valuable insights, it is not without limitations. The accuracy of GPS devices may vary depending on environmental factors, leading to potential inaccuracies in data analysis. Additionally, the cost of tracking devices and data processing can present financial constraints for conservation organizations.

4.????? Misinterpretation of Data: Geolocation data analysis requires expertise and careful interpretation. Without proper training and understanding, there is a risk of misinterpreting data, which can lead to incorrect conclusions and misguided conservation strategies. Conservationists must ensure they have the necessary expertise to effectively analyze and interpret geolocation data.[9]

Way Forward-

Battery life of the device- An especially challenging component of digitalized based wildlife conservation is the need for long-lasting battery life. Since the deployed devices will need to be fitted to wild animals, battery replacement is not an easy task. And, of course, running out of power, minimises the chances of retrieving the device. It is, therefore, extremely important for such IoT devices to both incorporate a long-lasting battery and keep its use to a minimum.

Animal monitoring is difficult in remote large-scale wildlife areas- Keeping animal monitoring accurate and consistent in large-scale wildlife areas is difficult. Animals don't always move in predictable patterns, but it has been observed, that animal flocking follows specific rules and patterns, making mapping these patterns much more important. In an outdoor environment with unpredictable terrain, connectivity can be unreliable, and accuracy and consistency in data transfer can be under par. To overcome that, a robust connectivity partner is necessary.[10]

Conclusion. -

Wildlife is under threat from various kinds of human activities, such as habitat destruction, illegal wildlife trade, spread of invasive diseases, and from the human impact on the Earth’s climate, which is changing the nature of wild habitats. Advances in technology give conservationists, scientists, and the public the advantage to better understand the animals, their habitats, and the threats they can face. The use of technological applications in captivity, such as satellite imaging and assisted breeding technologies, is focused to enhance animal welfare and to influence zoo visitors’ awareness of conservation-related behavior. Given the increasing demands on protecting wildlife, it seems a fair time for us to pause and ask what could be the best way to use technological innovations and to stimulate a closer collaboration among conservation practitioners, animal behaviorists, biologists, computer and system scientists, and engineers, to mention but a few.[11]

[1] Renon S. Andrade, Leandro Freitas, Impact of an IUCN national Red List of threatened flora on scientific attention, ENDANGERED SPECIES RESEARCH, Vol. 46: 175–184, ?https://www.int-res.com/articles/esr2021/46/n046p175.pdf

[2] Convention on Biological Diversity, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity Montreal, United Nations Environment Programme, https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf

[3] Ibid

[4] FRANCES E. C. STEWART, 1, JASON T. FISHER, 1,2 A. COLE BURTON, 3 AND JOHN P. VOLP, Species occurrence data reflect the magnitude of animal movements better than the proximity of animal space use, Ecosphere journals, Vol 9 (2), Article e02112, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323202456_Species_occurrence_data_reflect_the_magnitude_of_animal_movements_better_than_the_proximity_of_animal_space_use

[5] Chrisopher C. Wilmers, The golden age of bio-logging: how animal-borne sensors are advancing the frontiers of ecology, esa journals, Vol 96 issue 7, https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Wilmers/Christopher+C.

[6] Mark A. Hindell, Circumpolar habitat use in the southern elephant seal: implications for foraging success and population trajectories, esa journals, Vol 7 issue 5, Article e01213, https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecs2.1213

[7] Xareni P. Pacheco, How Technology Can Transform Wildlife Conservation, CHAPTER METRICS OVERVIEW, https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/64712

[8] Ibid

[9] Ethical considerations in using geolocation data for wildlife conservation, Utilities One, Ethical considerations in using geolocation data for wildlife conservation (utilitiesone.com)

[10] What are the technical challenges in IoT-based wildlife conservation?, Velos, What are the technical challenges in IoT-based wildlife conservation? (velosiot.com)

[11] Supra note at. 7.