Applied ecology in India: scope of science and policy to meet ...

REVIEW

Applied ecology in India: scope of science and policy

to meet contemporary environmental and

socio-ecological challenges

Navinder J. Singh1,3*,# and Sumanta Bagchi2,3,4#

1Department of Wildlife, Fish & Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Ume�a, Sweden,

SE-90183; 2Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX-77843,

USA; 3Nature Conservation Foundation, Mysore, 570002, India; and 4National Institute of Science Education and

Research, Bhubaneswar, 751005, India

Summary

1. India, a mega-diverse country in terms of both biodiversity and people, is battling envi-

ronmental problems on many fronts: chronic dependence on natural resources, dwindling eco-

system services, declining environmental quality, effects of climate change and a biodiversity

crisis.

2. We review the current focal areas and infrastructure for ecological research and education

in India, along with the surrounding legal and policy aspects of related socio-economic issues.

3. Currently, ecological and applied research is predominantly focused on charismatic species

within protected areas. This scope could be broadened beyond organismal biology towards

functional landscapes and ecosystems; the education system also needs to promote ecology as

a career choice for scientists. Expectedly, many environmental challenges are generic in nat-

ure, occur in other regions of the world, are primarily biophysical in origin but extend into

human dimensions; some challenges are socio-political and have implications for biodiversity

conservation.

4. Synthesis and applications. India’s environmental concerns include, but are not restricted

to, the biodiversity crisis. The biodiversity crisis, in turn, includes, but is not restricted to, the

most charismatic species. Greater integration and alignment among the mandates of govern-

ment agencies, scientists, policymakers and educators are needed to meet contemporary envi-

ronmental issues.

Key-words: biodiversity, climate change, ecosystem services, education, humans dimensions,

human–wildlife conflicts, pollution, protected area, tiger

Introduction

In the present era of global change and globalization,

ecology and related disciplines are the foundations for

sustainable management of earth’s resources and life sup-

port systems. As the second most populous country in the

world, India has a large impact on the global environ-

ment, especially under the current scenario of rapid eco-

nomic growth. So, it is timely to appraise the different

environmental challenges facing the country and assess

whether these are unique to India or whether they are

more generic and experienced by other parts of the world.

India has experienced a long history of environmentalism

(Gadgil & Guha 1993) that extends beyond cultural rever-

ence for certain species. The colonial period, particularly

between the 18th and 20th century, witnessed unprece-

dented pressures on natural resources, especially forests

(Gadgil & Guha 1993). These pressures continue in contem-

porary times due to a large human population and drive

the demand for timber, pasture, minerals, crops and numer-

ous services that feed rapid industrial development, which,

in turn, feeds back and drives new pressures on natural

resources (O’Brien et al. 2004). Unsurprisingly, the last few*Correspondence author. E-mail: [email protected]#Equal contributions.

© 2013 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology © 2013 British Ecological Society

Journal of Applied Ecology 2013, 50, 4–14 doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12020

decades have coincided with precipitous declines in envi-

ronmental quality, shortage of a variety of natural

resources and ecosystem services, as well as the loss of bio-

diversity in many ecosystems. For example, declining envi-

ronmental quality has been linked with over half of the

country’s burden of disease (Taylor & Rahman 1996).

Other facets are evident as shortage of water (Briscoe &

Malik 2006; Tiwari, Wahr & Swenson 2009), soil degrada-

tion and erosion (Bhattacharyya et al. 2007), decline in for-

est cover (Puyravaud, Davidar & Laurance 2010) and

biodiversity loss (Varughese et al. 2009).

Public opinion and policy awareness over these issues

have remained strong and are increasingly gaining strength

(Sivaramakrishnan 2011). However, there is a great uncer-

tainty regarding the roles scientists, educators and policy-

makers, among others, must play to arrest, if not reverse,

this unabated environmental decline. Legislative instru-

ments existed even in ancient times (e.g. the edicts of

Emperor Ashoka from second century BC); with more con-

temporary statuettes including the Elephants’ Preservation

Act of 1879, Indian Forest Act of 1927, Wildlife Protection

Act of 1972, Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980, and

Marine Fisheries Regulation Act of 1983, among others

(Sivaramakrishnan 2011). Game reserves were maintained

by several princely states during the colonial period, and

these provided avenues for legal protection to continue in

the form of sanctuaries since 1920s that have now

increased tenfold in number and area (Fig. 1a–c). Legisla-

tion has evolved on wildlife conservation, water and air pol-

lution, biodiversity protection and environmental impact

assessment for development projects. India is also a party

to most multilateral treaties such as the Convention on

International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES), Con-

vention of Biological Diversity, Convention on Migratory

Species and protocols on climate change (Montreal-1987

and Kyoto-1997). Notable social-environmental move-

ments have occasionally resisted developmental initiatives

(Rangarajan 1996), such as Silent Valley in 1973 to save

rain forests from submergence under a proposed hydroelec-

tric project (Oza 1981) and Chipko movement against

deforestation (Shiva & Bandyopadhyay 1986). Other prom-

inent government initiatives include Project Tiger, Project

Elephant and related efforts (Panwar 1982), Joint Forest

Management (Sarin 1995) and more recent debates on tri-

bal welfare (Sekhsaria 2007).

Despite the existing legal instruments (Sivaramakrish-

nan 2011), India faces a plethora of inter-related chal-

lenges such as pollution and its consequences for health,

declining ecosystem services related to soil and water,

deforestation and biodiversity loss, climate change and

human–wildlife conflict. We review the major questions

that currently engage India’s ecologists, and we visit the

degree of alignment between the pressing environmental

challenges and the ongoing research programmes. We also

discuss the infrastructure for training of researchers, and

other human resources, to mitigate current and projected

challenges.

Contemporary ecological challenges

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND HEALTH

Air pollution and water contamination have historically

posed several risks to human health. To avoid waterborne

diseases from surface water, large human populations

switched to the use of groundwater (Fig. 2) but are now

faced with other serious consequences such as arsenic poi-

soning (Guha Majumder et al. 1988; Nath et al. 2008).

This hazard was initially identified in the 1980s in eastern

India but has subsequently spread to adjoining regions

and is receiving considerable attention from scientists as

well as civic authorities (Bagla & Kaisar 1996; Nath et al.

2008). Arsenic contamination is a serious problem in over

20 countries, but Bangladesh and eastern India are among

the worst affected (Smedley & Kinniburgh 2002; Mohan

& Pittman 2007). For instance, 12 of 19 districts in the

state of West Bengal, covering an area of 38,861 km2 and

a population of about 50 million, show >50 lg L�1 of

Arsenic in groundwater (http://www.soesju.org/arsenic/

wb.htm). The northern states of India face a similar prob-

lem with uranium (Singh, Singh & Singh 1995) and mer-

cury in groundwater (Zahir et al. 2005). While most

attention has been focused on rural settings, there is an

increasing awareness about challenges faced by India’s

rapidly urbanizing population. Densely populated urban

centres not only face a wide spectrum of health and envi-

ronmental concerns (Kandilkar & Ramachandran 2000;

Dasgupta 2004) but also create sizeable problems such as

waste management (Purkait & Chakrabarty 2011), similar

to other developing economies such as China (He, Huo &

Zhang 2002) and Brazil (Pereira et al. 1998). Contami-

nants also pose threats to a variety of wildlife (e.g. Singh

& Chowdhury 1999), of which the decline in vultures has

received considerable attention (Shultz et al. 2004), and

draw parallels with many other countries–such as morbid-

ity in marine mammals of North America (Ylitalo et al.

2005) and persistent organic pollutants in arctic predators

(Leat et al. 2011).

DEGRADATION OF SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES

Rapid industrialization in India is not only driven by con-

sumption of its own natural resources but also from a

number of other countries (Bawa et al. 2010). Soils are

paramount for agricultural production to support India’s

large population and produce products for export, as well

as for carbon sequestration to counter rising greenhouse

gas emissions. But impoverished soil in response to inten-

sified agriculture is gradually becoming a concern. Fol-

lowing the green revolution, India’s agricultural policies

may not have been detrimental for soil quality, but

increasing levels of soil carbon derived from inorganic

sources are being detected and this could be an early

warning of chronic geochemical degradation (Bhattachar-

yya et al. 2007). In a global context, other studies have

© 2013 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology © 2013 British Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology, 50, 4–14

Applied ecology in India 5

also suggested that a review of agricultural policies is desir-

able, as soil degradation can compromise food security for

a number of developing countries (Scherr 1999). Official

estimates suggest that about 130 Mha of land in India is

affected by serious soil erosion (Department of Land

Resources, http://www.dolr.nic.in/wasteland2010/waste-

land%20Introduction-%20forword%20.pdf). First approx-

imation of countrywide patterns (Fig. 1d) revealed that

although less than 1% of the country experienced severe

erosion (>80 Mg ha�1 year�1), about 31% of the country’s

area is affected by heavy erosion (10–80 Mg ha�1 year�1)

with the north-western mountains, Western Ghats and the

black cotton soils of Peninsular India being primary con-

cerns (Singh et al. 1992). India has one of the largest popu-

lations of livestock in the world with about 529 million

heads (Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and

Fisheries, http://dahd.nic.in/dahd/WriteReadData/Annual

%20Report%202010-11%20English.pdf). Gradual conver-

sion of natural landscapes for livestock production has also

been detrimental for soil fertility, and this can impact

human livelihoods, particularly in the arid and semi-arid

tracts (Bagchi & Ritchie 2010) – a scenario comparable

with other regions such as central Asia (Tong et al. 2004)

and Africa (Ehui & Pender 2005).

Agricultural intensification may have more serious con-

sequences for water resources as India is subject to

droughts and floods in a monsoonal climate (Briscoe &

Malik 2006). Engineered solutions to counter the spatial

mismatch between droughts and floods, an elaborate

scheme for re-distributing river flow, are currently being

considered. However, this is expected to impact a large

number of aquatic habitats (Lakra et al. 2011), many of

which are already threatened, and some ecosystems are

still recovering from the effects of the tsunami in 2004.

Many important areas for food production are among the

most heavily irrigated in the world, where groundwater

levels have been depleted at a rate of nearly 30 cm a year,

particularly in the northern states (Rodell, Velicogna &

Famiglietti 2009; Tiwari, Wahr & Swenson 2009; Fig. 2).

Although per capita water consumption is relatively low

compared with global patterns, per capita contributions

to water pollution are high, and India is also a virtual

exporter of large amounts of water to other countries

through its trade relations (Hoekstra & Mekonen 2012).

DEFORESTATION, B IODIVERSITY LOSS AND HUMAN –

WILDLIFE CONFLICTS

About 21% of India’s geographical area is forested and it

ranks 10 among the countries with the largest forest cover

(Ministry of Environment and Forests, http://moef.nic.in/

downloads/public-information/Report%20to%20the%20

People.pdf; FAO Global Forest Assessment Report

2010, http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/fra2010/en/). Although

such figures are influenced by choice of definitions (Puyra-

vaud et al. 2010), India’s forest cover has remained stable

at around 64 Mha for nearly 3 decades (Ravindranath &

Sukumar 1998) although forest distribution is highly vari-

able, with most located in the central- and north-eastern

states (Forest Survey of India, http://fsi.org.in/sfr_2011.

htm, Fig. 2). Afforestation and reforestation efforts have

influenced over 251 000 ha year�1 between 1990 and

2010, resulting in a net gain in forest cover (FAO Global

Forest Assessment Report 2010). Secondary forests and

agro-forestry, even outside protected areas (Bhagwat et al.

2008), can have high biodiversity value for a wide range

of species in different parts of India (e.g. Anand, Krish-

naswamy & Das 2008) and also provide important ecosys-

tem services such as pollination (Krishnan et al. 2012).

Despite the increase in secondary forests, India contains

only 1% of the total primary forests globally; about 1

Mha of forests burn annually and about 25.5 Mha are

(a) (b)

(d)(c)Fig. 1. India’s protected areas for biodi-

versity conservation in form of National

Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries. The num-

ber (a) and area (b) of such reserves has

increased over the last nine decades, and

maybe approaching a point of saturation.

Data source–Environmental Information

System (ENVIS) India. Land covered by

protected areas (c) in India relative to dif-

ferent countries (data from Chape et al.

2005). Land affected by different rates of

soil erosion (d) in India (data from Singh

et al. 1992).


6 N. J Singh & S. Bagchi

affected by grazing by domestic livestock. Studies docu-

ment persistent and chronic deforestation and biodiversity

loss in several regions (Fig. 2), particularly in the biodi-

versity hotspots of the Himalayas and the Western Ghats

(e.g. Jha, Dutt & Bawa 2000; Pandit et al. 2007; Lele &

Joshi 2009). Accompanying land-use changes are known

to have had negative consequences for mammals (e.g. Pil-

lay et al. 2011) and birds (e.g. Raman 2001). Local extinc-

tions, even in protected areas, are often linked with

human pressures similar to scenarios in other parts of the

developing world (Brashares 2003); recent studies have

highlighted extinction patterns of large-bodied mammals

(Karanth et al. 2010; Pillay et al. 2011), but other taxa

have not received much attention. Among tropical coun-

tries, India’s forests are second only to Indonesia in con-

taining threatened mammalian species (Dirzo & Raven

2003). Many other taxa are likely to be at high risk, but

quantitative information on their populations is fragmen-

tary; particularly for amphibians and reptiles whose tax-

onomy, systematics and biogeographical patterns are

receiving due attention (e.g. Kamei et al. 2012). Some

forms of degradation have also been linked with manage-

ment interventions that can inadvertently favour invasive

species (e.g. Prasad 2009; Srinivasan et al. 2011), which

have generally not received much attention (Inderjit, Call-

away & Kaushik 2006).

Different types of human–wildlife conflicts, often the

consequences of loss of natural habitats and land-use

change are on the rise. These include, but are not

restricted to, mortality and morbidity of humans due to

bears Melursus ursinus, leopards Panthera pardus and

lions Panthera leo (e.g. Bargali, Akhtar & Chauhan

2005), loss of livestock to snow leopard Uncia uncia,

tiger Panthera tigris and lion (e.g. Saberwal et al. 1994;

Bagchi & Mishra 2006), damage to crops and other

property by elephant Elephas maximus and other herbi-

vores (e.g. Kumar, Mudappa & Raman 2010). These

create general resentment towards conservation efforts

(e.g. Athreya 2006; Bhatnagar et al. 2006), even when

they involve species that are otherwise culturally revered

(Barua, Tamuly & Ahmed 2010). Annually, conflict-

related mortality is estimated at 400 people and 100

elephants, and about 500 000 families are affected by

crop damage (Ministry of Environment and Forests,

50

100

150

Population (Millions)

20

40

60

80

100

Protected Areas (Nos.)

20 000

40 000

60 000

Forest Cover (Km2)

−15 000

−10 000

−5000

0

Forest cover Change (km2)1999−2009

2

4

6

8

Distribution of Forest Officers (%)

20

40

60

80

100

Groundwater Extraction (%)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Fig. 2. Statewise distribution of (a) human

population in Millions (http://www2.wii.

gov.in/publications/researchreports/2011/

tiger/mee_tiger_2011.pdf), (b) number of

protected areas (http://moef.nic.in/soer/list.

html) including national parks and wildlife

sanctuaries, (c) forest cover (http://www.

fsi.org.in/sfr_2011.htm) in 2011, (d) change

in forest cover (http://www.fsi.org.in/sfr_

2011.htm) between 1999 and 2009, (e) dis-

tribution of forest officers (total 3033

officers, http://moef.nic.in/downloads/

public-information/KALA%20committee%

20report%20IFS.pdf), (f) and groundwater

extraction (data from Rodell, Velicogna &

Famiglietti 2009).



http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/ETF_REP

ORT_FINAL.pdf). Other, more chronic forms of conflict

involve local extinctions of many species due to several

forms of resource extraction including ethnobotany (e.g.

Kala 2005), pastoralism (e.g. Bagchi, Mishra & Bhatnagar

2004) and hunting and poaching (e.g. Datta, Anand &

Naniwadekar 2008; Aiyadurai, Singh & Milner-Gulland

2010). Many forms of conflicts prevailing in India also

exist in other parts of the world: carnivore-related conflict

in nearly all continents (e.g. Australia – Greentree et al.

2000; South America – Mazzolli, Graipel & Dunstone

2002; Europe – Merrigi & Lovari 1996; and Africa – Og-

ada et al. 2003), indicating that ameliorative measures

developed elsewhere can be adopted with site-specific

adaptations and vice versa (Madden 2004).

Illegal wildlife trade surely exerts a heavy cost on

India’s biodiversity through products such as mongoose

hair, snake skins, rhino horn, tiger and leopard claws,

bones, skins, whiskers, elephant tusks, deer antlers, shah-

toosh wool, turtle shells, musk pods, bear bile, tortoises

and freshwater turtles, medicinal plants, timber and pet

trade in birds (Sodhi et al. 2004; TRAFFIC 2008). While

all south-east Asian countries are signatories to CITES,

nearly 300 million wild-caught animals, from 300 CITES-

listed species, were estimated to be traded from this region

to major markets in Europe and Japan between 1998 and

2007, and the volume of illegal trade is thought to exceed

these figures (Nijman 2010).

CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate change is a global concern, and India is feeling

its share of problems attributed to changing weather pat-

terns. India is the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases

(GHG) and accounts for about 5.3% of global emissions,

which is about a third of the emissions from China and

USA. Energy, industry, agriculture and automobiles are

prominent sources of GHG. The energy sector, at around

200 GW, is the fifth largest in the world, and over half of

this fuelled by coal. However, India’s reliance on coal for

energy is lower than countries such as China, Australia,

South Africa (WCI 2012), as renewable sources contribute

about 29% of total energy (Ministry of Power, http://

www.powermin.nic.in). Together with emissions through

land-use change, India emits 1.7 billion tons of GHG (Oli-

vier, Janssens-Maenhout & Peters 2012), but, per capita

GHG emissions at 1.5 tons of CO2 equivalent, are consid-

erably lower than the global average of 5–6 tons (Olivier,

Janssens-Maenhout & Peters 2012). Emissions from auto-

mobiles are rising steadily as the number of registered

motor vehicles has increased from 5.4 million to about

72.2 million between 1980 and 1981 and 2003 and 2004,

and these are estimated to collectively emit over 220 Tg of

CO2 (Ramachandra & Shwetmala 2009).

Many of the environmental problems listed previously

may be further exacerbated by climatic changes such as

increased frequencies of droughts and floods (Menon

et al. 2002), which may impact food production, water

supply, human health and energy use, forestry and biodi-

versity (Ravindranath et al. 2006). Changes in monsoonal

patterns and changes in sea level can threaten coastal cit-

ies (Shukla et al. 2003). The large rural, primarily agrar-

ian, population is slowly awakening to the reduction in

water sources, changes in monsoon, loss of snow cover on

mountains, phenological changes in crops and emergence

of new agricultural pests (Chaudhary & Bawa 2011).

Bioclimatic projections also suggest a change from dry-

to-moist forests in northern and western India and from

moist-to-dry forests in the southern region, indicating a

turnaround of forest types within the next seven decades

(Ravindranath et al. 2006). Some global circulation mod-

els project warmer and wetter future conditions in India

due to intensified summer monsoons (Shukla et al. 2003).

However, as increased evapotranspiration could reduce

soil moisture, the impacts on agricultural production

remain uncertain (Kumar & Parikh 2001). Few studies

have attempted analyses of multiple climatic stressors on

agriculture, and these projections indicate that the north-

western semi-arid region is not only the most vulnerable

but also possesses low adaptive capacity in biophysical

and social dimensions of future adaptations (O’Brien

et al. 2004). Simulations for wetter parts of the country,

involving a variety of model algorithms and parameters,

indicate slight-to-moderate increase in crop production

under future climate scenarios, if N inputs are carefully

managed (Aggarwal & Mall 2002).

Several vector-borne diseases such as malaria, dengue,

chikungunya and elephantiasis are prevalent in India, and

climate change is likely to influence their transmission

(Dhiman et al. 2010). Estimates suggest about 1.48 million

cases of malaria occur annually in India, and 1173 deaths

were reported in 2007 (National Vector Borne Disease

Control Programme 2007, http://www.nvbdcp.gov.in/).

Models suggest that, with changes in climate, the northern

Indian states may develop year-round suitability for

malaria as in the southern states. Likewise, dengue, which

is predominant in the southern states, may spread to the

northern parts of the country with changes in temperature

and rainfall (Dhiman et al. 2010). Although developed

countries emit more GHG than developing countries, the

latter are likely to be disproportionately affected by the

consequences of vector-borne diseases, and India is likely

to contribute substantially to the global burden of infec-

tious diseases in future climatic scenarios (Shuman 2010).

Infrastructure and human resource: problemsand prospects

The above-mentioned problems pose a formidable chal-

lenge to India’s ecologists, urban planners, health work-

ers, social scientists, educators, media, administrators

and policymakers, among others. Ecology can have a

major role to play in mitigating all of these challenges,

especially the ones that are of biophysical origin but



extend into human dimensions: for example, biodiversity

crisis, human–wildlife conflicts and climate change. This

calls for coordination between India’s ecologists, govern-

ment agencies, non-governmental organizations and edu-

cators. Other challenges, which probably originate from

human dimensions but have ecological consequences,

also require attention. Multidisciplinary approaches need

to be developed which step up methodological (cleaner

production, waste management, vaccination, awareness,

etc.), technological (health, pollution, climate change)

and law enforcement strategies (for poaching, wildlife

trade, pollution, environmental clearance of developmen-

tal projects), as issues of social justice, food production

and poverty, can also have direct and indirect links

with biodiversity issues (Adams et al. 2004; Adams

2012). Below we emphasize problems and prospects that

are primarily of biophysical origin, but can spill over

into the human dimension and require attention from

ecologists and policymakers. Admittedly, there are social

and judicial concerns that have implications for biodi-

versity; the nature and extent of this gap is highly het-

erogeneous and requires in-depth analyses by experts in

the human dimensions. In addition, as many of the

identified problems may require extensive dedicated

reviews, we have selected biodiversity conservation to

expand upon.

Unlike some other developing countries, majority of

land under natural vegetation cover is under public own-

ership in India. The Ministry of Environment and Forests

(www.envfor.nic.in) currently oversees all official policies

and their implementation related to natural resources such

as the lakes and rivers, biodiversity, forests and wildlife,

animal welfare and the prevention and abatement of

pollution. Biodiversity conservation is implemented

through the Indian Forest Service in the different states.

Forest officers are trained in a variety of disciplines ranging

from forestry to administration; biodiversity conservation

and wildlife management initially comprises about 6.94%

of total time and effort for trainees (Indira Gandhi

National Forest Academy). Each state can subsequently

encourage mid-career officers for further training on biodi-

versity issues (http://www.ignfa.gov.in/LinkClick.aspx?file

ticket=BHIihca%2bymc%3d&tabid=322; http://www.

ignfa.gov.in/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=7HAXOHcumGU%

3d&tabid=322) (Wildlife Institute of India, http://wii.gov.

in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=378

&Itemid=363). Unlike other countries, such as the USA,

there is no administrative or research wing dedicated

primarily towards wildlife and biodiversity concerns.

Recruitment of forest officers has varied with time, with

about 369 during the 1970s, an increase to 1165 during the

1980s, 449 in the 1990s and again 331 in the 2000s (Ministry

of Environment and Forests, http://moef.nic.in/downloads/

public-information/KALA%20committee%20report%20

IFS.pdf). Differences in forest cover among the states could

be a factor in the distribution of forest officers across the

country (Fig. 2).

The Forest Department for each state is also responsi-

ble for management of protected areas, and other admin-

istrative units. Perhaps, as a reflection of this

administrative infrastructure, biodiversity conservation

has remained almost exclusively focused on the protected

areas, with considerable interest shown in demographic

studies on the most charismatic species. While there are

many potential benefits of this approach, such as generat-

ing public awareness and interest among the media for

broader outreach, it can also divert attention away from

other equally important issues. Charismatic species were

intended to be representatives of their respective ecosys-

tems but much emphasis is currently focused on their

symbolic value and cultural significance instead. For

instance, biodiversity conservation is frequently reduced

to a debate over wildlife vs. people (Sekhsaria 2007),

rather than the ecological and societal benefits of protect-

ing natural landscapes. There has been a long debate over

population status of certain species, such as the tiger, as

the official figures were not supported by independent

research conducted by scientists. This debate seems far

from settled as different methodological approaches are

yet to be reconciled and has been re-invigorated after the

recent increase in tiger poaching (Karanth et al. 2011).

Parallel debates have raged over estimates of forest cover,

and rates of deforestation and recovery, where scientists

have questioned the official figures (Puyravaud, Davidar

& Laurance 2010). Other aspects, such as bureaucratic

hurdles for research, have also caused acrimony between

India’s scientists and administrators (Madhusudan et al.

2006). While some administrators and bureaucrats con-

sider research to be incompatible with conservation, oth-

ers consider it to be essential (Bagla 2012), highlighting

the need for a coherent nationwide vision over biodiver-

sity issues.

Globally, about 104 791 protected areas cover over 20

million km2, or about 12.2% of the world’s land surface

(Chape et al. 2005), of which about 668 are in India,

covering 4.9% of the country’s area (Fig. 1d). These

protected areas differ greatly in their effectiveness due to

a variety of socio-political reasons, such as presence of

extremists, conflicts with the local communities and con-

trol of poaching. However, the official preservationist

policies have been remarkably successful in preventing

the extinctions of a large number of species against

heavy odds, and the protected areas serve as refuges for

many populations despite facing a plethora of pressures.

Among the large-bodied animals, the cheetah Acionyx

jubatus and pink-headed duck Rhodonessa caryophyllacea

have become extinct in the last few decades, while sev-

eral other extinction-prone species have survived, albeit

precariously, in the different reserves. This is despite

that life histories of large-bodied wildlife: elephant,

rhino, buffalo, tiger, lion, dolphins and many primates,

among others–being incompatible with many forms of

human presence. These preservationist policies contrast

with other countries that have experimented with conser-



vation through sustainable management approaches

(Dickson, Hutton & Adams 2009), for example, commu-

nity-based trophy hunting programmes in Africa, Asia,

Europe and North America (Shackleton 2001; Heberlein,

Ericsson & Wollscheid 2002; Lindsey, Roulet & Rom-

anach 2007). Official attempts to relocate tribal commu-

nities to reduce pressures on the reserves have had

mixed success due to heterogeneity in the socio-political

landscape (Rangarajan & Shahabuddin 2006). Often, the

management objectives of protected areas are envisioned

and defined within administrative boundaries and reflect

the constraints imposed by manpower, equipment and

other logistics, rather than an overarching scientific

vision. This leads to inevitable mismatch among man-

dates of administrators and researchers (Madhusudan

et al. 2006) and can only be ameliorated through more

effective communication and integration towards regio-

nal targets whose scope transcends administrative

boundaries.

India’s extensive coastline, totalling over 7500 km in

length, houses diverse marine and coastal ecosystems.

But marine protected areas, or reserves dedicated to

aquatic ecosystems, are underrepresented. Currently, 31

marine protected areas account for only 4% of area

under legal protection and cover about 1% of the coun-

try’s continental shelf (Singh 2003). Overfishing and

problems associated with bycatch are of world-wide con-

cern (Jackson et al. 2001; Davies et al. 2009) and have

serious ecological and economic implications for India

(Lobo et al. 2012). Recent studies have documented that

watersheds of terrestrial protected areas benefit adjacent

aquatic ecosystems and fisheries (Abraham & Kelkar

2012), thus highlighting the need for evaluating protected

areas as functional landscapes, in addition to their role

in biodiversity protection.

The above-mentioned constraints may also funnel con-

servation attention towards the most charismatic species,

and biodiversity outside protected areas has received little

attention even though its importance is now well known

under a variety of settings (Cox & Underwood 2011;

Sundar 2011) and to adopt landscape-level approaches for

conservation (Singh & Milner-Gulland 2011). Urban biodi-

versity remains inadequately explored, although it can face

severe conflicts (e.g. commensal primates in cities and vil-

lages, Radhakrishna & Sinha 2011). Recent analyses of pro-

tected areas in tropical forests have implicated changes

occurring outside reserves as a major factor in ecological

degradation (Laurance et al. 2012), and this is broadly rele-

vant to India as well. In reality, the interface between

humans and wildlife and the scope for resultant conflicts

are greater in multiple-use landscapes and necessitate a

search for innovative solutions to generate conservation

incentives (e.g. Mishra et al. 2003). Additionally, the scope

for declaring protected areas and the ability to effectively

manage them perhaps needs more attention as discussed

over the recent disappearance of tiger from some reserves

(Wildlife Institute of India, http://www2.wii.gov.in/publica

tions/researchreports/2011/tiger/mee_tiger_2011.pdf, Fig. 1).

In practice, biodiversity value of protected areas and their

surrounding land-use matrix (e.g. Mishra et al. 2003;

Sundar 2011) and ecosystem services they provision (e.g.

Williams-Guill�en, Perfecto & Vandermeer 2008; Bagchi &

Ritchie 2010), need to be better integrated with emerging

paradigms of conserving functional landscapes (Singh &

Milner-Gulland 2011). There are encouraging signs that

agricultural and pastoral landscapes can function as

strongholds for various taxa (e.g. mammals, Bagchi,

Mishra & Bhatnagar 2004; avifauna, Sundar 2011), and

recent innovations in community-based programmes in

multiple-use landscapes (Mishra et al. 2003) can also fos-

ter ecosystem services with resultant benefits for human

livelihoods, but these connections are yet to influence pol-

icy (Bagchi & Ritchie 2010; Bagchi, Bhatnagar & Ritchie

2012).

There is also a need for integration and alignment

among the mandates of the government agencies, state

departments, NGOs and educators. In terms of invest-

ment in manpower, a large fraction of research and moni-

toring activities is done by state departments. In most

cases, these data target locally relevant concerns, and

often do not appear in the peer-reviewed literature and

are not readily available to broader audiences. Similarly,

scientific research has also contained traditional biases in

terms of taxa and geographical location; often focusing

on organismal biology of charismatic species. Greater

attention to topics that are broadly relevant to both the

state departments and for a scientific understanding will

be more effective in bridging the gap between how scien-

tists and administrators perceive their roles in meeting

contemporary challenges. Detecting and understanding

changes in populations and ecosystems requires robust

monitoring, but unlike Europe and North America, there

is only a single established site for long-term ecological

studies in India (Sukumar et al. 1992). Impacts of pollu-

tants and climate change on ecosystem dynamics and

resilience, epidemiology, essential ecosystem services such

as clean water and pollination, have received little atten-

tion from India’s ecologists. There is a need for research

on these topics to formulate future national level policy

and preparedness on environmental issues. Experimental

and field studies on climate change and its impacts on

agriculture, forestry, biodiversity and ecosystem dynamics

are rare in India. On the other hand, India’s innovations

in space research have yielded state-of-art instrumentation

in climate monitoring and remote sensing, which can pro-

vide high quality data on meteorological measurements,

disaster management and land use and natural resource

mapping, that can complement experimental studies

(National Remote Sensing Centre, http://www.nrsc.gov.in/;

Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, http://www.iirs.gov.in/).

Financial commitment to ecological research and an

accompanying educational infrastructure are prerequisites

for future advances. Much has already been written about

the rapid improvements in India’s scientific infrastructure,



and its rising prowess in space research, engineering, and

bio-medical disciplines (e.g. Stone & Bagla 2012). In com-

parison, ecology remains less attractive as a career choice

for India’s scientists. India has three national academies

of science, but ecology features only sporadically in their

official publications. On the bright side, there are a few

regional and international journals dedicated to environ-

mental issues–viz., Journal of the Bombay Natural

History Society, Indian Forester, Tropical Ecology, Inter-

national Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences,

and Conservation and Society, as well as several media

outlets for popularizing environmental topics. But most of

these do not necessarily differentiate between pure and

applied research. Indian students receive basic discourses

in ecology and environmental topics in school, but the

emphasis declines at upper levels. While most universities

offer a few courses, very few offer an undergraduate

degree programme that enables students to specialize in

socio-ecological disciplines. Similarly, while there are a

few options at the postgraduate level, most of these are

targeted at organismal biology. Nevertheless, India pro-

duces a number of doctorates in ecology and related

sociological disciplines, and many become employed by

government agencies and NGOs, where their focus often

gets diverted away from primary research.

Future directions

India has made substantial progress in addressing applied

ecological issues at research (e.g. conservation incentives,

Mishra et al. 2003), policy (e.g. conflict resolution,

Karanth & Gopal 2005) and legislation levels (Sivarama-

krishnan 2011), and more research funding and new infra-

structure has been promised by the government (Stone &

Bagla 2012). It is evident that under-represented topics of

research need attention, especially ecological problems

that spill over into socio-economic and socio-political

realms. The interface between ecological and social sci-

ences is increasingly acknowledged in other countries. For

example, new initiatives in USA (http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=13681&org=NSF&sel_

org=NSF&from=fund) and UK (http://www.nerc.ac.uk/

research/programmes/list.asp) have dedicated research

funding for socio-ecological research. If India is to

address all aspects of the environmental crisis and develop

new technologies, strategies and approaches to deal with

it, a greater emphasis is also needed on basic and applied

ecology. For biodiversity conservation, the research

agenda needs to be broadened from species-centred stud-

ies of organismal biology towards functional landscapes.

The prevalent preservationist approach towards biodiver-

sity conservation has numerous co-benefits that can help

address issues over ecosystem services (Bagchi & Ritchie

2010), and perhaps, even ameliorate environmental qual-

ity. The education system also needs to include ecology as

a mainstream subject and provide more opportunities for

undergraduates to pursue ecology as a career. The hetero-

geneity in socio-political landscapes also needs to be

accounted for; management planning and conservation, in

general, should look beyond protected areas. Such multi-

disciplinarity of environmental conservation as a prescrip-

tive science requires thinking across social and ecological

dimensions (Adams et al. 2004; Jepson, Barua & Bucking-

ham 2011; Adams 2012) and calls for more sustained

engagement with the social sciences and ecology in India

(Shahabuddin & Rangarajan 2007).

New innovations in community-based conservation in

India may influence policy decisions in ways that are per-

haps unmatched elsewhere (Mishra et al. 2010). These

demonstrate that administrators and scientists can, in fact,

align their mandates through effective communication,

and undertake both proactive and reactive approaches

which also encourage long-term monitoring that increases

synergy between ongoing research programmes. It is

apparent that although some problems, their intensity and

extent, are unique to India, many occur globally and

highlight a scope for exchange of applied ecological

information.

Acknowledgements

We received support from the thematic programme for Wildlife and Fores-

ty at Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (NJS), Texas A&M Uni-

versity (SB), and NISER (SB) while preparing the manuscript. Y.V.

Bhatnagar, P. Trivedi, K. Danell and M.D. Madhusudan offered valuable

suggestions. We are grateful to the editors and the anonymous reviewers

for critiques on earlier drafts. Authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Abraham, R.K. & Kelkar, N. (2012) Do terrestrial protected areas con-

serve freshwater fish diversity? Results from the Western Ghats of India.

Oryx, 46, 544–553.Adams, W.M. (2012) Feeding the next billion: hunger and conservation.

Oryx, 46, 157–158.Adams, W.M., Aveling, R., Brockington, D., Dickson, B., Elliott, J., Hut-

ton, J., Roe, D., Vira, B. & Wolmer, W. (2004) Biodiversity conserva-

tion and the eradication of poverty. Science, 306, 1146–1149.Aggarwal, P.K. & Mall, R.K. (2002) Climate change and rice yields in

diverse agro-environments of India. II. Effects of uncertainties in scenar-

ios and crop models on impact assessment. Climatic Change, 52, 331–343.Aiyadurai, A., Singh, N.J. & Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2010) Wildlife hunting

by indigenous tribes: a case study from Arunachal Pradesh, north-east

India. Oryx, 1, 1–9.Anand, M.O., Krishnaswamy, J. & Das, A. (2008) Proximity to forests

drives bird conservation value of coffee plantations: implications for

certification. Ecological Applications, 18, 1754–1763.Athreya, V. (2006) Is relocation a viable management option for unwanted

animals? – the case of the leopard in India. Conservation and Society, 4,

419–423.Bagchi, S., Bhatnagar, Y.V. & Ritchie, M.E. (2012) Comparing the effects

of livestock and native herbivores on plant production and vegetation

composition in the Trans-Himalayas. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and

Practice, 2, 21.

Bagchi, S. & Mishra, C. (2006) Living with large carnivores: predation on

livestock by the snow leopard (Uncia uncia). Journal of Zoology, 268,

217–224.Bagchi, S., Mishra, C. & Bhatnagar, Y.V. (2004) Conflicts between tradi-

tional pastoralism and conservation of Himalayan ibex (Capra sibirica)

in the Trans-Himalayan mountains. Animal Conservation, 7, 121–128.Bagchi, S. & Ritchie, M.E. (2010) Introduced grazers can restrict potential

soil carbon sequestration through impacts on plant community compo-

sition. Ecology Letters, 13, 959–968.



Bagla, P. (2012) Field biologists cry foul over ban. Science, 335, 1429.

Bagla, P. & Kaisar, J. (1996) India’s spreading health crisis draws global

arsenic experts. Science, 274, 174–175.Bargali, H.S., Akhtar, N. & Chauhan, N.P.S. (2005) Characteristics of

sloth bear attacks and human casualties in North Bilaspur Forest Divi-

sion, Chhattisgarh, India. Ursus, 16, 263–267.Barua, M., Tamuly, J. & Ahmed, R.A. (2010) Mutiny or clear sailing?

Examining the role of the Asian elephant as a flagship species. Human

Dimensions of Wildlife, 15, 145–160.Bawa, K.S., Koh, L.P., Lee, T.M., Liu, J., Ramakrishnan, P.S., Yu, D.

W., Zhang, Y.-P. & Raven, P.H. (2010) China, India, and the environ-

ment. Science, 327, 1457–1459.Bhagwat, S.A., Willis, K.J., Birks, H.J.B. & Whittaker, R.J. (2008) Agro-

forestry: a refuge for tropical biodiversity? Trends in Ecology & Evolu-

tion, 23, 261–267.Bhatnagar, Y.V., Wangchuk, R., Prins, H.H.T., van Wieren, S.E. & Mish-

ra, C. (2006) Perceived conflicts between pastoralism and conservation

of the kiang Equus kiang in the Ladakh Trans-Himalaya, India. Envi-

ronmental Management, 38, 934–941.Bhattacharyya, T., Chandran, P., Ray, S.K., Pal, D.K., Venugopalan, M.

V., Mandal, C. & Wani, S.P. (2007) Changes in levels of carbon in soils

over years of two important food production zones of India. Current

Science, 93, 1854–1865.Brashares, J.S. (2003) Correlates of extinction in West Africa. Conservation

Biology, 17, 734–743.Briscoe, J. & Malik, R.P.S. (2006) India’s Water Economy – Bracing for a

Turbulent Future. Oxford University Press, New York.

Chape, S., Harrison, J., Spalding, M. & Lysenko, I. (2005) Measuring the

extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting

global biodiversity targets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Soci-

ety B: Biological Sciences, 360, 443–455.Chaudhary, P. & Bawa, K.S. (2011) Local perceptions of climate change

validated by scientific evidence in the Himalayas. Biology Letters, 7,

767–770.Cox, R.L. & Underwood, E.C. (2011) The importance of conserving biodi-

versity outside of protected areas in Mediterranean ecosystems. PLoS

ONE, 6, e14508.

Dasgupta, P. (2004) Valuing health damages from water pollution in

urban Delhi, India: a health production function approach. Environment

and Development Economics, 9, 83–106.Datta, A., Anand, M.O. & Naniwadekar, R. (2008) Empty forests: large

carnivore and prey abundance in Namdapha National Park, north-east

India. Biological Conservation, 141, 1429–1435.Davies, R.W.D., Cripps, S.J., Nickson, A. & Porter, G. (2009) Defining

and estimation global marine fisheries bycatch. Marine Policy, 33, 661–672.

Dhiman, R.C., Pahwa, S., Dhillon, G.P.S. & Dash, A.P. (2010) Climate

change and threat of vector-borne diseases in India: are we prepared?

Parasitology Research, 106, 763–773.Dickson, B., Hutton, J. & Adams, W.A. (2009) Recreational Hunting, Con-

servation and Rural Livelihoods: Science and Practice. Wiley-Blackwell,

Oxford, UK.

Dirzo, R. & Raven, P.H. (2003) Global state of biodiversity and loss.

Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 28, 137–167.Ehui, S. & Pender, J. (2005) Resource degradation, low agricultural pro-

ductivity, and poverty in sub-Saharan Africa: pathways out of the

spiral. Agricultural Economics, 32, 225–242.Gadgil, M. & Guha, R. (1993) This Fissured Land: An Ecological History

of India. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Greentree, C., Saunders, G., McLeod, L. & Hone, J. (2000) Lamb preda-

tion and fox control in south-eastern Australia. Journal of Applied Ecol-

ogy, 37, 935–943.Guha Majumder, D.N., Chakraborty, A.K., Ghosh, A., Chakraborty, D.

P., Dey, S.B. & Chattopadhyay, N. (1988) Chronic arsenic toxicity from

drinking tube well water in rural West Bengal. Bulletin of the World

Health Organization, 66, 499–506.He, K., Huo, H. & Zhang, Q. (2002) Urban air pollution in China: current

status, characteristics, and progress. Annual Review of Energy and the

Environment, 27, 397–431.Heberlein, T.A., Ericsson, G. & Wollscheid, K.U. (2002) Correlates of

hunting participation in Europe and North America. Zeitschrift fur

Jagdwissenschaft, 48, 320–326.Hoekstra, A.Y. & Mekonen, M.M. (2012) The water footprint of human-

ity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of United States of

America, 109, 3232–3237.

Inderjit, Callaway, R.M. & Kaushik, S. (2006) Time for international poli-

cies on biological invasions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4,

67–68.Jackson, J.B.C., Kirby, M.X., Berger, W.M., Bjorndal, K.A., Botsford, L.

W., Bourque, B.J., Bradbury, R.H., Cooke, R., Erlandson, J., Estes, J.

A., Hughes, T.P., Kidwell, S., Lange, C.B., Lenihan, H.S., Pandolfi, J.

M., Peterson, C.H., Steneck, R.S., Tegner, M.J. & Warner, R.R. (2001)

Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Sci-

ence, 293, 629–638.Jepson, P., Barua, M. & Buckingham, K. (2011) What is a conservation

actor? Conservation and Society, 9, 229–235.Jha, C.S., Dutt, C.B.S. & Bawa, K.S. (2000) Deforestation and land use

changes in Western Ghats, India. Current Science, 79, 231–238.Kala, C.P. (2005) Indigenous uses, population density, and conservation

of threatened medicinal plants in protected areas of the Indian Hima-

laya. Conservation Biology, 19, 368–378.Kamei, R.G., San Mauro, D., Gower, D.J., Van Bocxlaer, I., Sherratt, E.,

Thomas, A., Babu, S., Bossuyt, F., Wilkinson, M. & Biju, S.D. (2012)

Discovery of a new family of amphibians from northeast India with

ancient links to Africa. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological

Sciences, 279, 2396–2401.Kandilkar, M. & Ramachandran, G. (2000) The causes and consequences

of particulate air pollution in urban India: a synthesis of the science.

Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 25, 629–684.Karanth, K.U. & Gopal, R. (2005) An ecology-based policy framework

for human-tiger coexistence in India. People and Wildlife: Conflict or

Coexistence? (eds R. Woodroffe, S.J. Thirgood & A. Rabinowitz), pp.

373–387. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Karanth, K.K., Nichols, J.D., Karanth, K.U., Hines, J.E. & Christensen,

N.L. Jr (2010) The shrinking ark: patterns of large mammal extinctions

in India. Proceedings of the Royal Society Series B Biological Sciences,

277, 1971–1979.Karanth, K.U., Gopalaswamy, A.M., Kumar, N.S., Delampady, M., Nic-

hols, J.D., Seidensticker, J., Noon, B.R. & Pimm, S.L. (2011) Counting

India’s wild tigers reliably. Science, 332, 791.

Krishnan, S., Kushalappa, C.G., Shaanker, R.U. & Ghazoul, J. (2012)

Status of pollinators and their efficiency in coffee fruit set in a frag-

mented landscape mosaic in south India. Basic and Applied Ecology, 13,

277–285.Kumar, M.A., Mudappa, D. & Raman, T.R.S. (2010) Asian elephant Ele-

phas maximus habitat use and ranging in fragmented rainforest and

plantations in the Anamalai Hills, India. Tropical Conservation Science,

3, 143–158.Kumar, K.S.K. & Parikh, J. (2001) Indian agriculture and climate sensitiv-

ity. Global Environmental Change, 11, 147–154.Lakra, W.S., Sarkar, U.K., Dubey, V.K., Sani, R. & Pandey, A. (2011)

River inter linking in India: status, issues, prospects and implications on

aquatic ecosystems and freshwater fish diversity. Reviews in Fish Biology

and Fisheries, 21, 463–479.Laurance, W.F., Useche, D.C., Rendeiro, J., Kalka, M., Bradshaw, C.J.

A., Sloan, S.P., Laurance, S.G., Campbell, M., Abernethy, K. &

Alvarez, P., & and others (2012) Averting biodiversity collapse in tropi-

cal forest protected areas. Nature, 489, 290–294.Leat, E.H.K., Bourgeon, S., Borg�a, K., Strom, H., Hanssen, S.A., Gabriel-

sen, G.W., Petersen, Æ., Olafsdottir, K., Magnusdottir, E., Fisk, A.T.,

Ellis, S., Bustnes, J.O. & Furness, R.W. (2011) Effects of environmental

exposure and diet on levels of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in

eggs of a top predator in the North Atlantic in 1980 and 2008. Environ-

mental Pollution, 159, 1222–1228.Lele, N. & Joshi, P.K. (2009) Analyzing deforestation rates, spatial forest

cover changes and identifying critical areas of forest cover changes in

North-East India during 1972–1999. Environmental Monitoring and

Assessment, 156, 159–170.Lindsey, P.A., Roulet, P.A. & Romanach, S.S. (2007) Economic and con-

servation significance of the trophy hunting industry in sub-Saharan

Africa. Biological Conservation, 134, 455–469.Lobo, A.S., Balmford, A., Arthur, R. & Manica, A. (2012) Commercializ-

ing bycatch can push a fishery beyond economic extinction. Conserva-

tion Letters, 3, 277–285.Madden, F. (2004) Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: glo-

bal perspectives on local efforts to address human-wildlife conflict.

Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9, 247–257.Madhusudan, M.D., Shanker, K., Kumar, A., Mishra, C., Sinha, A.,

Arthur, R., Datta, A., Rangarajan, M., Chellam, R. & Shahabuddin,



G. (2006) Science in the wilderness: the predicament of scientific

research in India’s wildlife reserves. Current Science, 91, 1015–1019.Mazzolli, M., Graipel, M.E. & Dunstone, N. (2002) Mountain lion depre-

dation in southern Brazil. Biological Conservation, 105, 43–51.Menon, S., Hansen, J., Nazarenko, L. & Luo, Y. (2002) Climatic

effects of black carbon aerosols in China and India. Science, 297,

2250–2253.Merrigi, A. & Lovari, S. (1996) A review of wolf predation in southern

Europe: does the wolf prefer wild prey to livestock? Journal of Applied

Ecology, 33, 1561–1571.Mishra, C., Allen, P., McCarthy, T., Madhusudan, M.D., Bayarjargal, A.

& Prins, H.H.T. (2003) The role of incentive programs in conserving the

snow leopard. Conservation Biology, 117, 1512–1520.Mishra, C., Bagchi, S., Namgail, T. & Bhatnagar, Y.V. (2010) Multiple

use of Trans-Himalayan rangelands: Reconciling human livelihoods

with wildlife conservation. Wild Rangelands: Conserving Wildlife While

Maintaining Livestock in Semi-Arid Ecosystems (eds J.T. Du Toit, R.

Kock & J. Deutsch), pp. 291–311. Wiley-Blackwell, London.

Mohan, D. & Pittman, C.U. (2007) Arsenic removal from water/wastewa-

ter using adsorbents: a critical review. Journal of Hazardous Materials,

142, 1–53.Nath, B., Berner, Z., Chatterjee, D., Basu Mallik, S. & Stuben, D. (2008)

Mobility of arsenic in West Bengal aquifers conducting low and high

groundwater arsenic. Part II: Comparative geochemical profile and

leaching study. Applied Geochemistry, 23, 996–1011.Nijman, V. (2010) An overview of international wildlife trade from South-

east Asia. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19, 1101–1114.O’Brien, K., Leichenko, R., Kelkar, U., Venema, H., Aandahl, G., Tomp-

kins, H., Javed, A., Bhadwal, S., Barg, S., Nygaard, L. & West, J.

(2004) Mapping vulnerability to multiple stressors: climate change and

globalization in India. Global Environmental Change, 14, 303–313.Ogada, M.O., Woodroffe, R., Oguge, N.O. & Frank, L.G. (2003) Limiting

depredation by African carnivores: the role of livestock husbandry. Con-

servation Biology, 17, 1521–1530.Olivier, J.G.J., Janssens-Maenhout, G. & Peters, J.A.H.W. (2012) Trends

in Global CO2 Emissions: 2102 Report. Netherlands Environmental

Assessment Agency, European Commission Joint Research Centre, The

Hague.

Oza, G.M. (1981) Save Silent Valley as world heritage site? Environmental

Conservation, 8, 52.

Pandit, M.K., Sodhi, N., Koh, L.P., Bhaskar, A. & Brook, B. (2007)

Unreported yet massive deforestation driving loss of endemic biodiver-

sity in India Himalaya. Biodiversity and Conservation, 16, 153–163.Panwar, H.S. (1982) What to do when you’ve succeeded: project tiger ten

years later. Ambio, 11, 330–337.Pereira, L.A., Loomis, D., Conceicao, G.M., Braga, A.L., Arcas, R.M.,

Kishi, H.S., Singer, J.M., Bohm, G.M. & Saldiva, P.H. (1998) Asso-

ciation between air pollution and intrauterine mortality in S~ao Paulo,

Brazil. Environmental Health Perspectives, 106, 325.

Pillay, R., Johnsingh, A.J.T., Raghunath, R. & Madhusudan, M.D. (2011)

Patterns of spatiotenporal change in large mammal distribution and

abundance in the southern Western Ghats, India. Biological Conserva-

tion, 144, 1567–1576.Prasad, A.E. (2009) Tree community change in a tropical dry forest: the

role of roads and exotic plant invasion. Environmental Conservation, 36,

201–207.Purkait, N.N. & Chakrabarty, D.K. (2011) Pattern of methane emission

from a garbage dump. Current Science, 101, 528–531.Puyravaud, J.-P., Davidar, P. & Laurance, W.F. (2010) Cryptic loss of

India’s native forests. Science, 329, 32.

Radhakrishna, S. & Sinha, A. (2011) Less than wild? Commensal primates

and wildlife conservation. Journal of Biosciences, 36, 749–753.Ramachandra, T.V. & Shwetmala (2009) Emissions from India’s transport

sector: statewise synthesis. Atmospheric Environment, 43, 5510–5517.Raman, T.R.S. (2001) Effect of slash-and-burn shifting cultivation on rain-

forest birds in Mizoram, Northeast India. Conservation Biology, 15,

685–698.Rangarajan, M. (1996) The politics of ecology: the debate on wildlife

and people in India, 1970-95. Economic and Political Weekly, 31,

2391–2406.Rangarajan, M. & Shahabuddin, G. (2006) Displacement and relocation

from protected areas: towards a biological and historical synthesis. Con-

servation and Society, 4, 359–378.Ravindranath, N.H. & Sukumar, R. (1998) Climate change and tropical

forests in India. Climatic Change, 39, 563–581.

Ravindranath, N.H., Joshi, N.V., Sukumar, R. & Saxena, A. (2006) Impact

of climate change on forests in India.Current Science, 90, 354–361.Rodell, M., Velicogna, I. & Famiglietti, J.S. (2009) Satellite-based esti-

mates of groundwater depletion in India. Nature, 460, 999–1002.Saberwal, V.K., Gibbs, J.P., Chellam, R. & Johnsingh, A.J.T. (1994)

Lion-human conflict in the Gir forest, India. Conservation Biology, 8,

501–507.Sarin, M. (1995) Joint forest management in India: achievements and

unaddressed challenges. Unasylva, 46, 30–36.Scherr, S.J. (1999) Soil Degradation: A Threat to Developing-Country Food

Security by 2020?. International Food Policy Research Institute, Wash-

ington DC.

Sekhsaria, P. (2007) Conservation in India and the need to think beyond

‘Tiger vs Tribal’. Biotropica, 39, 575–577.Shackleton, D.M. (2001) A Review of Community-Based Trophy Hunting

Programs in Pakistan. Mountain Areas Conservancy Project, Ministry

of Environment, Local Government and Rural Development, Pakistan.

Shahabuddin, G. & Rangarajan, M. (2007) Making Conservation Work:

Securing Biodiversity in the New Century. Permanent Black, New Delhi.

Shiva, V. & Bandyopadhyay, J. (1986) The evolution, structure, and

impact of the Chipko Movement. Mountain Research and Development,

6, 133–142.Shukla, P.R., Sharma, S.K., Ravindranath, N.H., Garg, A. & Bhattach-

arya, S. (2003) Climate Change and India: Vulnerability Assessment and

Adaptation. Universities Press, Hyderabad.

Shultz, S., Baral, H.S., Charman, S., Cunningham, A.A., Das, D., Ghals-

asi, G.R., Goudar, M.S., Green, R.E., Jones, A. & Nighot, P. (2004)

Diclofenac poisoning is widespread in declining vulture populations

across the Indian subcontinent. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Lon-

don Series B: Biological Sciences, 271, S458–S460.Shuman, E.K. (2010) Global climate change and infectious diseases. The

New England Journal of Medicine, 362, 1061–1063.Singh, H.S. (2003) Marine protected areas in India. Indian Journal of Mar-

ine Sciences, 32, 226–233.Singh, R.K. & Chowdhury, S. (1999) Effect of mine discharge on the pat-

tern of riverine habitat use of elephants Elephas maximus and other

mammals in Singhbum forests, Bihar, India. Journal of Environmental

Management, 57, 177–192.Singh, N.J. & Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2011) Conserving a moving target:

planning protection for a migratory species as its distribution changes.

Journal of Applied Ecology, 48, 35–46.Singh, J., Singh, L. & Singh, S. (1995) High U-contents observed in some

drinking waters of Punjab, India. Journal of Environmental Radioactiv-

ity, 26, 217–222.Singh, G., Babu, R., Narain, P., Bhushan, L.S. & Abrol, I.P. (1992) Soil

erosion rates in India. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 47,

97–99.Sivaramakrishnan, K. (2011) Environment, law, and democracy in India.

The Journal of Asian Studies, 70, 905–928.Smedley, P.L. & Kinniburgh, D.G. (2002) A review of the source, behav-

iour and distribution of arsenic in natural waters. Applied Geochemistry,

17, 517–568.Sodhi, N.S., Koh, L.P., Brook, B.W. & Ng, P.K.L. (2004) Southeast Asian

biodiversity: an impending disaster. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19,

654–660.Srinivasan, M.P., Kalita, R., Gurung, I.K., Bhattacharjee, S.K., Antony,

P.M., Krishnan, S. & Gleeson, S.K. (2011) Seedling germination success

and survival of the invasive shrub Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) in

response to fire and experimental clipping in the montane grasslands of

the Nilgiris, south India. Acta Oecologica, 38, 41–48.Stone, R. & Bagla, P. (2012) News focus: India rising. Science, 335,

904–910.Sukumar, R., Dattaraja, H.S., Suresh, H.S., Radhakrishnan, J., Vasudeva,

R., Nirmala, S. & Joshi, N.V. (1992) Long-term monitoring of vegeta-

tion in a tropical deciduous forest in Mudumalai, Southern India. Cur-

rent Science, 62, 608–616.Sundar, K.S.G. (2011) Agricultural intensification, rainfall patterns, and

large waterbird breeding success in the extensively cultivated landscape

of Uttar Pradesh, India. Biological Conservation, 144, 3055–3063.Taylor, D. & Rahman, Q. (1996) The anguish of India. Environmental

Health Perspectives, 104, 266–271.Tiwari, V.M., Wahr, J. & Swenson, S. (2009) Dwindling groundwater

resources in northern India, from satellite gravity observations. Geo-

physical Research Letters, 36, L18401.



Tong, C., Wu, J., Yong, S., Yang, J. & Yong, W. (2004) A landscape level

assessment of steppe degradation in the Xilin River Basin, Inner Mon-

golia, China. Journal of Arid Environments, 59, 133–149.TRAFFIC (2008) What’s Driving the Wildlife Trade?. The World Bank,

Washington DC.

Varughese, G.C., Lakshmi, K.V., Kumar, A. & Rana, N. (2009) State of

the Environment Report: India 2009. Ministry of Environment and For-

ests, Government of India, New Delhi.

WCI (2012) The Coal Resource: A Comprehensive Overview of Coal. World

Coal Institute, London, UK.

Williams-Guill�en, K., Perfecto, I. & Vandermeer, J.H. (2008) Bats limit

insects in a Neotropical agroforestry system. Science, 320, 70.

Ylitalo, G.M., Stein, J.E., Hom, T., Johnson, L.L., Tilbury, K.L., Hall,

A.J., Rowles, T., Greig, D., Lowenstine, L.J. & Gulland, F. (2005)

The role of organochlorines in cancer-associated mortality in Califor-

nia sea lions (Zalophus californianus). Marine Pollution Bulletin, 50,

30–39.Zahir, F., Rizwi, S.J., Haq, S.K. & Khan, R.H. (2005) Low dose mercury

toxicity and human health. Environmental toxicity and Pharmacology,

20, 351–360.

Received 25 March 2012; accepted 31 October 2012

Handling Editor: E. J. Milner-Gulland



Applied ecology in India: scope of science and policy to meet ...

Documents

Transcript of Applied ecology in India: scope of science and policy to meet ...