applied ecology in india: scope of science and policy to meet
TRANSCRIPT
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).
© 2013 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology © 2013 British Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology, 50, 4–14
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).
© 2013 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology © 2013 British Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology, 50, 4–14
Applied ecology in India 7
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
© 2013 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology © 2013 British Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology, 50, 4–14
8 N. J Singh & S. Bagchi
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-
© 2013 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology © 2013 British Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology, 50, 4–14
Applied ecology in India 9
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,
© 2013 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology © 2013 British Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology, 50, 4–14
10 N. J Singh & S. Bagchi
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.
© 2013 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology © 2013 British Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology, 50, 4–14
Applied ecology in India 11
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,
© 2013 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology © 2013 British Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology, 50, 4–14
12 N. J Singh & S. Bagchi
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.
© 2013 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology © 2013 British Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology, 50, 4–14
Applied ecology in India 13
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
© 2013 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology © 2013 British Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology, 50, 4–14
14 N. J Singh & S. Bagchi