Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:40:24.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Strategy for Conserving the Biodiversity of the Uttara Kannada District in South India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

R. J. Ranjit Daniels ,
M. D. Subash Chandran  and
Madhav Gadgil
R. J. Ranjit Daniels
Affiliation:
Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012, India*
M. D. Subash Chandran
Affiliation:
Dr A.V. Baliga College of Arts and Science, Kumta, Karnataka 541 343, India
Madhav Gadgil*
Affiliation:
Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012, India.
*
† to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Taking the various values ascribed to biodiversity as its point of departure rather many years ago, the present study aims at deriving a conservation strategy for Uttara Kannada. This hilly district, with the highest proportion of its area under forests in South India, is divided into five ecological zones: coastal, northern evergreen, southern evergreen, moist deciduous, and dry deciduous. The heavily-populated coastal zone includes mangrove forests and estuarine wetlands. The evergreen forests are particularly rich in the diversity of plant species which they support — including wild relatives of a number of cultivated plants. They also serve a vital function in watershed conservation. The moist deciduous forests are rich in bird species; both moist and dry deciduous forests include a number of freshwater ponds and lakes that support a high diversity of aquatic birds.

Reviewing the overall distribution of biodiversity, we identify specific localities — including estuaries, evergreen forests, and moist deciduous forests — which should be set aside as Nature reserves. These larger reserves must be complemented by a network of traditionally-protected sacred groves and sacred trees that are distributed throughout the district and that protect today, for instance, the finest surviving stand of dipterocarp trees.

We also spell out the necessary policy-changes in overall development strategy that should stem the ongoing decimation of biodiversity. These include (1) revitalizing community-based systems of sustainable management of village forests and protection of sacred groves and trees; (2) reorienting the usage-pattern of reserve forests from production of a limited variety of timber and softwood species for industrial consumers, to production of a larger diversity of non-wood forest produce of commercial value to support the rural economy; (3) utilizing marginal lands under private ownership for generating industrial wood supplies; and (4) provision of incentives for in situ maintenance of land-races of cultivated plants — especially evergreen, fruit-yielding trees — by the local people.

It is proposed that this broad framework be now taken to the local communities, and that an action-plan be developed on the basis of inputs provided — and initiatives taken — by them.

Type
Main Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , Summer 1993 , pp. 131 - 138
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Daniels, R.J.R. (1989). A Conservation Strategy for the Birds of the Uttara Kannada District. PhD thesis, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India: 238 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Daniels, R.J.R., Hegde, M. & Gadgil, M. (1990 a). Birds of the manmade ecosystems: the plantations. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. (Anim. Sci.), 99(1), pp. 79–89, 2 figs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, R.J.R., Joshi, N.V. & Gadgil, M. (1990 b). Changes in the bird fauna of Uttara Kannada in relation to changes in land-use over the past century. Biological Conservation, 52, pp. 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadgil, M. (1989). The Indian Heritage of a Conservation Ethic. Pp. 13–22 in Conservation of India's Heritage (Eds Allchin, B., Allchin, E.R. & Thapar, B.K.). Cosmo Publication, New Delhi, India: 275 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Gadgil, M. (1991). Conserving India's biodiversity: the societal context. Evolutionary Trends in Plants, 5. [Not available for checking.]Google Scholar
Gadgil, M. & Chandran, M.D. Subash (1988). On the history of Uttara Kannada forests. Pp. 47–58 in Changing Tropical Forests (Eds Dargavel, J., Dixon, K. & Semple, N.). Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Canberra, Australia: ix + 446 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Gadgil, M. & Iyer, P. (1989). On the diversification of common property resource-use by the Indian society. Pp. 240–55 in Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community-based Sustainable Development (Ed. Berkes, F.). Belhaven Press, London, England, UK: x + 302 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Gadgil, M. & Meher-Homji, V.M. (1986). Role of protected areas in conservation. Pp. 143–59 in Conservation of Productive Agriculture (Ed. Chopra, V.L. & Khoshoo, T.N.) Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, India: 172 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Gadgil, M., Chandran, M.D. Subash, Hegde, K.M., Hegde, N.S., Naik, P.V. & Bhat, P.K. (1990). Report on Management of Ecosystems to the Development of Karnataka's Coastal Region. The Times Research Foundation, Coastal Karnataka Research Programme, v + 166 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Gadgil, M., Hegde, K.M. & Shetty, K.A.B. (1985–1986). Uttara Kannada: A case-study in hill area development. Pp. 155–72 in Karnataka State of Environment Report 1985–86 (Ed. Saldanha, C.J.). Centre for Taxonomic Studies, Bangalore, India: x + 172 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Kamath, S.U. (1985). Gazetteer of India: Uttara Kannada. Government of Karnataka Publication, Bangalore, India: vi + 1051 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Karanth, K.U. (1985). Ecological status of the Lion-tailed Macaque and its rainforest habitats in Karnataka, India. Primate Conservation, 6, pp. 73–84, 3 figs.Google Scholar
Mani, M.S. (1974). Introduction. Pp. 1–10 in Ecology and Biogeo-graphy in India (Ed. Mani, M.S.). Junk Publishers, The Hague, The Netherlands: xix + 773 pp., illustr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeely, J.A., Miller, K.R., Reid, W.V., Mittermeier, R.A. & Werner, T.B. (1990). Conserving the World's Biological Diversity. IUCN, WRI, CI, WWF-US & the World Bank: 193 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Naess, A. (1986). Intrinsic value: will the defenders of nature please rise? Pp. 505–15 in Conservation Biology (Ed. Soule, Michael E.). Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA: xiii + 584 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Nair, N.C., & Daniel, P. (1986). The floristic diversity of the Western Ghats and its conservation: a review. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. (Animal Sci./Plant Sci.) Supplement, pp. 127–63.Google Scholar
Nair, P.V. & Gadgil, M. (1980). The status and distribution of Elephant populations of Karnataka. J. Bombay Nat. His. Soc., 75(supplement), pp. 1000–16, 11 figs.Google Scholar
Nature Conservancy, The (1983) Natural Heritage Program, Operations Manual, Virginia, USA: 300 pp.Google Scholar
Norton, B.G. (1987). Why Preserve Natural Variety? Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA: xiii + 281 pp.Google Scholar
Rodgers, W.A. & Panwar, H.S. (1988). Planning a Wildlife Protected Area Network in India, vol. 1 — The Report. The Wildlife Research Institute of India, Dehra Dun, India: 341 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Talbot, W.A. (1909). Forest Flora of the Bombay Presidency and Sind, vol. 1, Government Photozincographic Press, Poona, India: vi + 508 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Usher, M.B. (1986). Wildlife conservation evaluation: attributes, criteria and values. Pp. 3–44 in Wildlife Conservation Evaluation (Ed. Usher, Michael B.). Chapman & Hall, London, England, UK: xii +394 pp., illustr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar