Gone birding in a park before? How about in a cemetery?! It all started out with Song Lin’s idea of surveying abandoned places in Singapore for our group’s urban ecology project, and after streamlining the idea into something more practical for us to complete within the time frame of this module, our group decided to compare avian diversity in 2 parks and 2 cemeteries (well, not exactly abandoned) in Singapore. The 2 parks and cemeteries are Bishan-Ang Mo Kio Park, Tampines Eco Green (TEG), Lim Chu Kang Chinese cemetery and Lim Chu Kang Christian cemetery?

So why exactly did we choose parks and cemeteries? Both parks and cemeteries only occur in an urban landscape, with cemeteries receiving fewer visitors than park. Also, there is a gap in knowledge of avian diversity of both areas, especially on the diversity in both the cemeteries. As such, we identified 3 main objectives: 1) To investigate into the diversity of local
parks and cemeteries 2) Investigate if human disturbance affects diversity and to 3) Promote parks and cemeteries as pockets of diversity within the city.

 

 

Here are some key findings of our study that we hope to share:

1. Christian cemetery has significantly higher abundance
2. Chinese cemetery and Tampines Eco Green has significantly lower proportion of non-native bird abundance
   • For Chinese cemetery, this result is likely because it is connected to the Western Catchment
   • TEG was specifically designed for birds, and a lower proportion of non-native bird abundance could be because the non-native urban bird species are not able to exploit this habitat
   • Also, for TEG, our results show that proximity to buildup area does not affect proportion of non-native birds
3. No significant difference in bird diversity (Shannon-Weiner Index) among the 4 locations
4. No significant difference in richness (No. Of species) among the 4 locations
   • Similar diversity, but different assemblage (identity matters!)

 

With these results in hand, our group went on to create our deliverable, titled: Aviantures!

The aim of Aviantures is for our target audience (University students) to learn about our findings in a fun and interactive way. It is also to introduce the birds found in our parks and cemeteries as well as to learn about extent of human disturbance and impacts of urbanisation on bird diversity. It is a fun, engaging and competitive board game that we hope everyone will enjoy and learn something from this process. Here are some pictures of our game!

 

Our group really enjoyed the process of surveying and making the game, and we hoped that all of you enjoyed our presentation too!

*Food for thought: We wanted to bring up the implications of developing Jurong area as the next industrial hub in our presentation, but did not have enough time. Renee has nicely summarised some of the information in her blog post here which you can read about and think about the possible implications for the avian biodiversity in the cemeteries.*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Otters in urban environments

In this week’s class, we have looked at biodiversity in urban environments. Most examples brought up were about birds and bats, with very little mention about larger mammals (except for the coyote and cougar one). Here in Singapore we have few of these mammals that have established in urban environments. They include the common palm civet, long-tailed macaque as well as the smooth-coated otter. I would like to take this platform to write more about the adorable and highly intelligent smooth-coated otters that have been appearing in the news in recent years.

I started working with the smooth-coated otters about 8 months ago when I started my UROPS investigating the home-range and diurnal activity pattern of smooth-coated otters in urban environments. Following this, I did an internship with Beach House Pictures and helped with camera trapping and filming of the smooth-coated otters for Wildcity 3 (2016, Channel News Asia) and Otter City (2016, National Geographic Wild).

A little history about how populations of smooth-coated otters established over the years.

Smooth-coated otters (will be referred to as otters subsequently) used to be around in the 1960s, but disappeared throughout 70s to 80s due to the reclamation of Singapore’s shores (disrupted habitat and water quality) (Sivasothi & Nor, 1994). However, since 1998, the otters were recorded to have established first in Sungei Buloh, followed by Pulau Ubin/Serangoon Reservoir region. Their return to Singapore is due to both the push and pull factor. Pull factor would be that reclamation in Singapore had largely stopped and that the habitat returned and water quality improved. Push factors would be that our neighbour in the north, Johor, had a reclamation project called Project Iskandar and disrupted habitat and water quality over there (Theng et. al., 2012).

Post 2012, saw an increase in sightings of the otters throughout Singapore, particularly in Tanah Merah/East coast region as well as within Marina Resevoir. The otters also established itself within Bishan-Ang Mo Kio Park in early 2015, which is 12km upstream of Marina Reservoir, connected by the Kallang River. Usually when the public encounter otters in highly urbanised environments like Bishan-AMK Park and Marina Reservoir, they often ask: “Where do the otters come from? Is it release from the zoo one arh?” From the timeline of sightings over 2012-2014, it suggests that the otters swam down the east coast and populations established in these unoccupied habitats (Sivasothi, pers comm).

The success of smooth-coated otters in urban environments

In this segment, I will try to answer why smooth-coated otters are successful in occupying urban environments in Singapore. There are 3 main reasons for this:

• Food
  1. Smooth-coated otters are mainly piscivorous, but are able to accept quite a wide diet as well, and have been recorded in other countries to consume a wide variety of fish, prawns, crabs, amphibians etc. in various studies (Theng & Sivasothi, 2011; Abdul-Patah al., 2014).
  2. There seems to be sufficient food available in Singapore’s urban waterways (reservoirs, Bishan-AMK Park etc.) to support the current smooth-coated otter population.

• Urban habitats suitable for day-to-day use by smooth-coated otters
  • Smooth-coated otters are semi-aquatic and require access to land to survive as well (Kruuk, 1995). In the day, they use dry areas for grooming (rolling on grass/sand/soil to realign their fur so that it can better trap air when they are underwater) and sprainting (the act of defecation. A gelatinous substance is also released and is used to mark its territory).
    • As such, riparian zones are hugely important for otter’s survival. They need to be able to get up to land, and this is only possible if the riparian zones are gentle sloping as opposed to vertical concrete walls of a canal. They were able to adapt to urban environments such as Serangoon Reservoir and Gardens by the Bay because the walls of the reservoirs are sloping. They were able to use Bishan-AMK Park because the river was naturalised and there is gentle sloping riparian vegetation, allowing the otters to traverse between land and water easily.
      

      Smooth-coated otters in Marina Reservoir are able to access the adjacent land area by climbing up the sloping seawall. Photo credits: Max Khoo

      

      Smooth-coated otters in Bishan-AMK Park are able to access the adjacent land area as the riparian area is gently sloping. Photo credits: Max Khoo

  • Apart from the 2 above uses, suitable resting/sleeping area is also important for them.
    • In the wild, the holt (the term for their resting site) of smooth-coated otters varies. They can dig a hole in a sand bank and use as their holt, create a hole from tall grass e.t.c. Even though the waterways where some of the otters in Singapore are urbanised, there are some areas with natural holts that the otters use that is just beside an urban waterway. For example, the otters are likely resting on Coney Island (natural) and using the urbanised Serangoon Reservoir.
    • Some otters are also able to exploit urban sites as holts (Bishan-AMK otters established their holt in a canal), which suggests that they are adaptable to urban environments.

 

 

• Able to survive
  • Little natural predators in Singapore
    • Smooth-coated otters have few nautral predators, and hence can survive and establish in Singapore. This is especially so in urban areas, where the only ‘natural’ predator would be stray dogs (they’re not really natural, hence the inverted commas). There have been records of interactions of otters and stray dogs in Marina Reservoir area.
  • Humans generally well-behaved
    • Fortunately, apart from that 1 fishing-hook incident, Singaporeans generally have not tried to harm the otters. The NParks staff at Bishan-AMK Park and OtterWatch did a wonderful job in their education and outreach campaign and the public is generally well-behaved when they see an otter. Hence, some otters, especially the Bishan-AMK family, is habituated to humans and urban environments.

 

Smooth-coated otters: Urban adapters

So these are the reasons why smooth-coated otters have been successful in Singapore’s urban environments. With these reasons, the smooth-coated otters can be considered as urban adapters. And just last week, 5 more otter pups were born! I am very happy that Singaporeans are able to enjoy wildlife within our city, and do hope that we try to conserve them as long as possible.

Link: https://www.facebook.com/snail.fast/videos/581998451954011/

Other stuff:

For updates on otter stuff in Singapore, do like and follow OtterWatch Facebook page!

 

Also, do check out www.wildcity.tv to watch Wildcity 1 and 2 if you have not. This 2-part series documentary did a really good job documenting wildlife (both episodes featured otters) in Singapore and Wildcity 2 focuses on urban wildlife!

Lastly, Wildcity 3 will be out pretty soon on Channel News Asia (End March), and will feature more otters along with other awesome animals! Do keep a lookout!

References:

Abdul-Patah, P., N. Nur-Syuhada, S. Md-Nor & H. Sasaki, 2014. Habitat and food resources of otters (Mustelidae) in Peninsular Malaysia. The 2014 UKM FST Postgraduate Colloquium, 1614: 693-699.

Kruuk, H., 1995. Wild otters – predation and population. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 290 pp.

Sivasothi, N. & B. H. M. Nor, 1994. A review of otters (Carnivora: Mustelidae: Lutrinae) in Malaysia and Singapore. Hydrobiologia, 285: 151-170.

Theng, M. & N. Sivasothi, 2011. Status, distribution and diet of the smooth-coated otter Lutrogale perspicillata (Geoffroy, 1826) in Singapore. Unpublished UROPS, National University of Singapore.

Theng, M., N. Sivasothi & H. H. Tan, 2012. Autecology of the Smooth-coated Otter Lutrogale perspicillata (Geoffroy, 1826) alond the Johor Straits, Singapore. Unpublished honours thesis, National University of Singapore.

 

“Would you rather live near a stadium that is brightly lit all night or a loud highway?”

This was one of the questions that was asked in the discussion section after the urban noise pollution section. We discussed some of the other questions from the discussion last week, but sadly this was not one of them. Hence I thought that I would make use of this blog space to share some of my thoughts and views!

A little context:
My current home is where I’ve been living in all my life. I live on the 17th floor, and this is what the view is like from my balcony:

 

From the picture it seems pretty obvious that my house overlooks a loud highway. This highway is the Pan-Island Expressway (PIE) that spans from the east all the way to the west of Singapore. In fact, it is also the oldest (built 1966) and longest (42.8km) long.

As I have been living in this home all my life, and sleep with the windows opened (We very rarely use air-conditioning, hence windows are kept open), I have already gotten used to this level of noise pollution. I am able to fall asleep normally as well as concentrate when doing my work with the noise without the help of any sound-cancelling equipment or blasting music.

In fact, I have gotten so used to the noise that I am not able to study in a quiet library because I just cannot concentrate! I also have trouble falling asleep when it is too quiet, like in a hotel room in a foreign country. My parents installed the sound-proof windows about 15 years ago, and when we do close the windows at night with the air-conditioning turned on, I have trouble falling asleep too.

To kind of give you a sense of what it sounds like, I recorded a short 15 second clip:

So here you will hear what it sounds like with my room door closed and soundproof windows closed at first, before I proceed to open the windows. This is 11.22pm at night! As far as I my memories go, there was not once that there wasn’t any cars on the road. It is busy everyday, and even in the late hours there will be cars. It never crossed my mind to ask my parents whether did they consider the noise when they bought this house, but I definitely know that one reason they chose this place is because it is just 5 minutes away from my grandparent’s place!

I was playing with an app, Soundmeter Pro, on my android phone yesterday and decided that I shall do a little test!
I decided to measure the sound from my bedroom with the soundproof windows open and closed.

 

The soundproof windows managed to reduce the sound from 67dB (Normal traffic noise levels) to 49dB (Moderate rainfall noise level) and now I know 67dB is my comfort zone! I wonder if I really have gotten used to it or if my body have been affected/will be affected  in other physiological ways that I am not able to tell.

So now back to the question of “Would you rather live near a stadium that is brightly lit all night or a loud highway?”, I think the most practical answer by most people would be the brightly lit stadium because it would be easier and cheaper to get curtains to block the light as opposed to soundproof windows. But as for me, I would choose the loud highway any day (not taking into the considerations of how much dusts as well as air pollutants that I have been breathing in all my life).

 

 

Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Island_Expressway

From the past 3 weeks in class, we have been exposed to what is urbanisation and explored the myriad of negative impacts of urbanisation on our environment such as the urban heat island effect, light, water and air pollution and many more. However, after having a thought about what we have covered so far, I started to question:

Is urbanisation as bad on the environment as it seems to be?

I went to look into some literature to find if there are arguments with regards to any positive impacts of urbanisation on our environment. Here are some of my findings:

1) In the book The God Species by Mark Lynas (2011), Lynas put forth that through urbanisation, there can be more sustainable land use when people are living in a denser area. This means that overall, less of natural areas need to be converted into urban areas, thereby protecting the environment. As for the case of rural populations moving into denser cities, it also presents an opportunity to restore these rural landscapes into natural areas (Lynas, 2011).

However, we all have learnt that this is not the case for many cities around the world. The first example of living in denser areas is immediately countered by the example of urban sprawl. Urban areas are growing at a faster rate than population growth rate and more land is being used. In spite of this, I still find that it is invalid to immediately dismiss the benefits of urbanisation in terms of efficient land use and still have to agree with Lynas. I believe that urban sprawl is a problem of poor urban planning and if governments are able to plan effectively, they will be able to restrict the amount of land use. Then, cities will be able to be able to use land more efficiently (although this may be difficult).

2) Living in a denser area also allows some industries to reap economies of scale (Dodman, 2009; Lynas, 2011). One example would be that it is cheaper and use fewer resources when providing electricity and infrastructure in bulk.

3) Dodman (2009) also presented the fact that urbanisation allows for more efficient resource use. For example, the close proximity of homes to workplaces in a city can facilitate the use of greener transport options such as cycling, walking, taking public transport instead of driving to work. However, this is will only work for areas nearer to the core central business district as cycling and walking from further areas may not be feasible, and that public transport system in a city may not expand all the way to the edges of the city where some people are living.

4) Urbanisation creates cities, which are centres for innovation and education because talent pools are concentrated (Grimm et. al., 2008). This provides the potential to find solutions to human’s future problems (and maybe even solutions to environmental problems).

5) Initially, I had the idea that urbanisation is negative because cities have high ecological footprint. However, I realised that urbanisation is just ‘the process by which a rural area becomes an urban one’ (Gaston, 2011). It is not the process of urbanisation that is bad but the result of the unsustainable use of resources by people living within the cities that results in the high carbon footprint of cities.

Overall, we cannot argue that urbanisation does not have any benefits. Although the negative impacts of urbanisation on our environment are currently looking to outweigh the positive ones, I believe that with proper urban planning, it is definitely possible to reduce the impacts of urbanisation on our environment.

 

References:

Dodman, D. (2009). Blaming cities for climate change? An analysis of urban greenhouse gas emissions inventories. Environment and Urbanization, 21(1), 185-201.

Gaston, K, Ed (2010) Urban Ecology. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK

Grimm, N. B., Faeth, S. H., Golubiewski, N. E., Redman, C. L., Wu, J., Bai, X., & Briggs, J. M. (2008). Global change and the ecology of cities. Science, 319(5864), 756-760.

Lynas, M. (2011) The God Species: How Humans Really Can Save the Planet. London: Fourth Estate. 280p.