The Maval wildlife survey has produced more than a record of species: it has shown how small natural water bodies function as shared infrastructure for forests, wildlife, livestock and nearby communities during the summer. Conducted across eight villages in Pune district’s Vadgaon Maval forest range in April and May 2026, the two-month camera-trapping exercise generated 15,581 photographic records covering 51 species.
The survey, conducted by the Vadgaon Maval Range Forest Office under the Pune Forest Division, recorded 17 mammal species and 34 bird species at natural water sources. Its findings place seasonal water availability at the centre of conservation planning in a landscape where wild animals and people use the same limited resources, though largely at different times of the day.
That distinction is important. The survey found that residents and livestock generally used the water sources during daylight hours, while wild animals accessed them mostly at night. The pattern suggests a degree of temporal separation that can reduce direct encounters, but it also shows how dependent wildlife is on water points that are not exclusively reserved for animals.
The evidence does not establish that this arrangement will remain stable. It does, however, provide a baseline for identifying the water bodies and forest corridors that require protection. In practical terms, the survey shifts attention from wildlife only as a question of species presence to the physical systems that allow those species to survive through the summer.
### What the Maval wildlife survey recorded
The camera traps documented leopards, striped hyenas and the rusty-spotted cat, an elusive small wild cat classified as near threatened. Several species listed under Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act were also recorded, including the Indian leopard, striped hyena, jungle cat, Asian palm civet, small Indian civet and greater false vampire bat.
Chikhalse village emerged as the most biodiverse location in the survey, with 28 species recorded. The source material does not provide a comparison of the size, quality or hydrological condition of the water bodies surveyed, so the number of species at each site should not be read as a complete measure of habitat health. It does, nevertheless, identify Chikhalse as a location requiring attention in future conservation work.
The 15,581 photographic records also demonstrate the value of repeated observation over a two-month period. A single sighting can establish presence, but a larger set of camera-trap records can help authorities understand when animals use a location and which sites repeatedly attract different species. The survey’s most useful contribution is therefore not only the species list, but the beginning of a site-specific evidence base.
The findings are particularly relevant because water sources bring different users into the same landscape. People and livestock depend on them for daily needs, while wild animals use them as access points to water during a season when natural availability is critical. The reported difference in timing indicates that coexistence is taking place through an informal separation of use rather than through complete physical separation.
That form of coexistence has an administrative dimension. Protecting wildlife in Maval cannot be limited to preventing poaching or responding to animal sightings. It also involves deciding which natural water bodies should be protected, how access should be managed, how corridors should be maintained and where human activity creates pressure on habitats.
### Water sources are conservation infrastructure
Urban infrastructure is usually understood as roads, public transport, drainage, electricity and water supply systems serving built-up areas. The Maval findings point to another category of infrastructure: natural assets that perform essential functions for both ecological and human systems. The surveyed water bodies are not engineered public utilities, but they support a form of seasonal service that is central to the functioning of the surrounding landscape.
This matters for Pune’s wider urban region because pressure on peripheral forests is not confined within municipal boundaries. The source describes increasing human pressure on wildlife habitats, but does not quantify its scale or identify individual development projects responsible for it. That limitation should be retained. The survey supports the conclusion that habitat protection is necessary; it does not, by itself, establish the impact of a specific road, construction project, settlement or land-use change.
The reference to wildlife corridors is therefore significant. Corridors allow animals to move between habitat areas, and the forest officials said the survey could help identify areas requiring focused conservation efforts. The supplied material does not map those corridors or state whether any particular corridor has been notified, encroached upon or legally protected. What it does establish is that future planning will need to consider connections between water sources and habitats rather than treating each camera-trap location as an isolated point.
This is where the survey can inform governance. A baseline can guide the placement of future camera traps, help authorities compare conditions over time and support decisions on anti-poaching patrols. It can also help determine whether water bodies with high wildlife use need additional protection during the summer or whether human and livestock access requires better management.
The survey was conducted under the guidance of Conservator of Forests Ashish Thakare, Deputy Conservator of Forests Abhijit Waykos and Assistant Conservator of Forests Mangesh Tate. Range Forest Officer Prakash Shinde said the findings would support long-term conservation planning and the protection of critical wildlife habitats across Maval.
The institutional structure matters because the response to habitat pressure is distributed across forest administration, village-level users, livestock owners, field researchers and conservation groups. The exercise was led by principal investigator Jigar Solanki, with field biologists Rounak Khare and Shraddha Khare, ecologists Sagar Mahajan and Priyanka Jundare, field assistants and the Wildlife Rescuer of Maval team. The presence of this wider field team indicates that the survey was not simply a photographic exercise; it required coordinated observation and interpretation across multiple sites.
### What the evidence confirms—and what it does not
The survey confirms that the eight-village area supports a diverse range of mammals and birds, including legally protected and conservation-sensitive species. It confirms that natural water bodies were used by wildlife during the summer observation period. It also records a pattern in which people and livestock used the same sources during the day, while wild animals largely appeared at night.
It does not establish the total number of animals in the forest range. The 15,581 images are photographic records, not a population count, and the source does not provide the number of individual leopards, hyenas, rusty-spotted cats or other animals captured. Nor does it establish whether species numbers are increasing, declining or stable, because no earlier baseline or comparable follow-up survey is supplied.
The findings also cannot, on their own, determine whether temporal separation prevents conflict in the long term. The survey records different periods of use, but the source does not provide data on wildlife attacks, livestock loss, human injuries or reported encounters around the water bodies. Those indicators would be necessary to assess the safety implications of shared access.
These limits do not reduce the survey’s value. They define its role. The exercise is best understood as a baseline for future conservation planning rather than a final assessment of Maval’s wildlife health. Its next value will depend on whether the data is integrated into patrol planning, water-body protection, corridor management and repeat monitoring.
The immediate administrative question is how the recorded evidence will be converted into action. Forest officials have said it can help identify areas for focused conservation and anti-poaching patrols. The source does not announce a new protection order, funding allocation, infrastructure project or implementation deadline. The next milestone, therefore, is not yet a declared project but the use of this baseline in future planning by the Pune Forest Division and the Vadgaon Maval forest range.
For the wider Pune region, the lesson is clear but specific: protecting wildlife requires protecting the places and timing systems that sustain it. In Maval, the summer water bodies documented by the survey are shared points within a larger ecological and human landscape. The evidence now gives authorities a clearer basis for deciding which sites and corridors need continued monitoring, while leaving the scale of future habitat pressure and the effectiveness of planned interventions to be established through further data.
