Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Ecosystem Services From Ravine Agro-Ecosystem and its Management


Affiliations
1 ICAR-Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Research Centre, Vasad 388 306, India
2 ICAR-Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Karnal 132 001, India
3 ICAR-Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, 218, Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun 148 195, India
 

Ravine agro-ecosystems are characterized by degra­ded gullied lands formed over the years due to several natural and anthropogenic factors, surrounded by the adjacent table lands cultivated for the production of food and fibre for humans and livestock. These potential lands not only support the livelihood of marginal and smallholder farmers, but are host to various plants and grass vegetation providing a cushion to the local environment. A two-way relationship exists between the human settlements and ecosystem services in these agro-ecosystems. While the ravines support plants, grasses and human settlements in these agro-ecosystems, the same biophysical pressures over time degrade the ecosystem leading to ecosystem services loss, if not managed sustainably. The present pilot study conducted in the Mahi ravines, Gujarat, India, has examined these issues from the local socio-ecology perspectives and suggests management options for participatory management.

Keywords

Ecosystem Services, Gullied Land, Livelihood, Participatory Management, Ravines.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R. and Polasky, S., Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 2002, 418, 671–677.

  • Swinton, S. M., Lupi, F., Robertson, G. P. and Hamilton, S. K., Ecosystem services and agriculture: cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecol. Econ., 2007, 64, 245–252.

  • Dale, V. H. and Polasky, S., Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ., 2007, 64, 286–296.

  • Power, A. G., Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., London Ser., 2010, 365, 2959– 2971.

  • Smith, H. F. and Sullivan, C. A., Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes – farmers’ perceptions. Ecol. Econ., 2014, 98, 72–80.

  • Gordon, L. J., Finlayson, C. M. and Falkenmark, M., Managing water in agriculture for food production and other ecosystem services. Agric. Water Manage., 2010, 97, 512–519.

  • Rodriguez, J. P. et al., Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc., 2006, 11(1), 28.

  • Curtis, A. and De Lacy, T., Landcare, stewardship and sustainable agriculture in Australia. Environ. Values, 1998, 7, 59–78.

  • Hanslip, M., Kancans, R. and Maguire, B., Understanding natural resource management from a landholder’s perspective: results of the border rivers–Gwydir survey 2007–08. Australian Government Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra, Australia, 2008.

  • Webb, E. L., Mailiao, R. and Siar, S. V., Using local user perceptions to evaluate outcomes of protected area management in the Sagay Marine Reserve, Philippines. Environ. Conserv., 2004, 31, 138–148.

  • Christie, P., Observed and perceived environmental impacts of marine protected areas in two Southeast Asia sites. Ocean Coast. Manage., 2005, 48, 252–270.

  • McClanahan, T., Davies, J. and Maina, J., Factors influencing resource users and managers’ perceptions towards marine protected area management in Kenya. Environ. Conserv., 2005, 32, 42–49.

  • Xu, J., Chen, L., Lu, Y. and Fu, B., Local people’s perceptions as decision support for protected area management in Wolong Biosphere Reserve, China. J. Environ. Manage., 2006, 78, 362– 372.

  • Dalton, T., Forrester, G. and Pollnac, R., Participation, process quality, and performance of marine protected areas in the wider Caribbean. Environ. Manage., 2012, 49, 1224–1237.

  • Leleu, K., Alban, F., Pelletier, D., Charbonnel, E., Letourneur, Y. and Boudouresque, C. F., Fishers’ perceptions as indicators of the performance of marine protected areas (MPAs). Mar. Policy, 2012, 36, 414–422.

  • Eagles, P. F. J., Romagosa, F., Buteau-Duitschaever, W. C., Havitz, M., Glover, T. D. and McCutcheon, B., Good governance in protected areas: an evaluation of stakeholders’ perceptions in British Columbia and Ontario Provincial Parks. J. Sustain. Tourism, 2013, 21, 60–79.

  • Bennett, N. J. and Dearden, P., Why local people do not support conservation: community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand. Mar. Policy, 2014, 44, 107–116.

  • Turner, R. A., Fitzsimmons, C., Forster, J., Mahon, R., Peterson, A. and Stead, S. M., Measuring good governance for complex ecosystems: perceptions of coral reef-dependent communities in the Caribbean. Global Environ. Change, 2014, 29, 105–117.

  • McClanahan, T. R. and Abunge, C. A., Perceptions of fishing access restrictions and the disparity of benefits among stakeholder communities and nations of south-eastern Africa. Fish Fish., 2015, doi:10.1111/faf.12118.

  • Bennett, J. M., Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management. Conserv. Biol., 2016, 30(3), 582–592.

  • Sharma, H. S., Ravine Erosion in India, Concept, New Delhi, 1980.

  • Pant, R. K. and Chamyal, L. S., Quaternary sedimentation pattern and terrain evolution in the Mahi river basin, Gujarat. Proc. Indian Natl. Sci. Acad., 1990, 6, 501–511.

  • Ahmad, E., Distribution and causes of gully erosion in India. In 21st International Geophysical Union Congress, New Delhi, Selected paper, 1968, vol. I, pp. 1–3.

  • CSWCRTI, Annual Report, ICAR-Central Soil and Water Conservation Research and Training Institute, Dehradun, 2010–11, p. 8.

  • West, P. W., Tree and Forest Management, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009, 2nd edn, p. 191.

  • Usuga, J. C. L., Toro, J. A. R., Alzate, M. V. R., Tapias, A. and de Jesus, L., Estimation of biomass and carbon stocks in plants, soil and forest floor in different tropical forests. For. Ecol. Manage., 2010, 260, 1906–1913.

  • Semwal, R., Tewari, A., Negi, G. C. S., Thadani, R. and Phartiyal, P., Valuation of ecosystem services and forest governance – a scoping study from Uttarakhand. LEAD India, New Delhi, 2007, p. 112.

  • Saxena, R. and Agrawal, R., Natural resource accounting by Tree Growers’ Co-operatives: framework and case study. Vikalpa, 1999, 24(3), 29–40.

  • Rode, J., Wittmer, H., Emerton, L. and Schröter-Schlaack, C., Ecosystem service opportunities: A practice-oriented framework for identifying economic instruments to enhance biodiversity and human livelihoods. J. Nat. Conserv., 2016, 33, 35–47.

  • Pant, M. M., Forest Economics and Valuation, Medhavi Publishers, Dehradun, 1984, p. 612.

  • Poffenberger, M., India’s forest keepers. Wastelands News, 1995, 11, 65–80.

  • Raj, S. P., Assessment of value additions in afforestation works. Indian For., 1998, 124, 679–686.


Abstract Views: 230

PDF Views: 101




  • Ecosystem Services From Ravine Agro-Ecosystem and its Management

Abstract Views: 230  |  PDF Views: 101

Authors

V. C. Pande
ICAR-Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Research Centre, Vasad 388 306, India
P. R. Bhatnagar
ICAR-Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Research Centre, Vasad 388 306, India
D. Dinesh
ICAR-Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Research Centre, Vasad 388 306, India
Raj Kumar
ICAR-Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Karnal 132 001, India
Gopal Kumar
ICAR-Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, 218, Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun 148 195, India

Abstract


Ravine agro-ecosystems are characterized by degra­ded gullied lands formed over the years due to several natural and anthropogenic factors, surrounded by the adjacent table lands cultivated for the production of food and fibre for humans and livestock. These potential lands not only support the livelihood of marginal and smallholder farmers, but are host to various plants and grass vegetation providing a cushion to the local environment. A two-way relationship exists between the human settlements and ecosystem services in these agro-ecosystems. While the ravines support plants, grasses and human settlements in these agro-ecosystems, the same biophysical pressures over time degrade the ecosystem leading to ecosystem services loss, if not managed sustainably. The present pilot study conducted in the Mahi ravines, Gujarat, India, has examined these issues from the local socio-ecology perspectives and suggests management options for participatory management.

Keywords


Ecosystem Services, Gullied Land, Livelihood, Participatory Management, Ravines.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv121%2Fi10%2F1352-1357