Coexistence and Culture: Understanding Human Diversity and Tolerance in Human-Elephant Interactions

There is a growing recognition of the importance of conservation beyond protected areas, in spaces of human-wildlife coexistence. Negative human-wildlife interactions are a key challenge, but a better understanding of the forms of tolerance and mutual accommodation would be useful for coadaptation toward coexistence. To date, however, studies of human-wildlife often have been limited by a largely quantified positivist epistemology, which elides the diverse cultural and ecological contexts which enable tolerance and coexistence between humans and wildlife to develop and adhere. In Gudalur, a plantation landscape in South India, about 150 elephants share space with a quarter of a million people. Using a quantified survey coupled with ethnographic fieldwork, we aim to better understand human diversity and tolerance of elephants that allows for coexistence. We find a marked difference between communities, with ethnicity being a better predictor of tolerance than the more tangible socio-economic or geographic variables such as income, education, land holding or cropping patterns. Using qualitative data, we identify three socio-cultural variables that are relevant to tolerance–a shared history of living with elephants, mode of subsistence and type of agricultural crops, and most importantly, ontology or the fundamental understanding of “what is an elephant?” Hunter-gatherer conceptualisations of elephants as “other-than-human persons” prove to be the ontological stance best suited to coexistence, as it allows for elephant individuality and interpersonal negotiations of shared space, which is limited in other world-views, including the worshiping of elephants as Ganesha, the elephant headed deity in the Hindu Pantheon. Having identified some important differences among ethnic communities in human-elephant interactions, we consider the implications of the research for improving the management and practice of human-wildlife coexistence not only in the Nilgiri region but within the broader context of conservation and development

Notes from the Other Side of a Forest Fire

Although widely used as a tool in forest management across the world, causing fires is illegal in Indian forests. This article points out that the present understanding of fire as essentially disruptive has its antecedents in a colonial perspective that came from seeing the forest primarily as a source of timber. However, the practices of indigenous communities as well as the insights of ecological studies point to the importance of using fire in controlled ways to manage dry and deciduous forest ecosystems

A Battle Lost? Report on Two Centuries of Invasion and Management of Lantana camara L. in Australia, India and South Africa

Recent discussion on invasive species has invigorated the debate on strategies to manage these species. Lantana camara L., a shrub native to the American tropics, has become one of the worst weeds in recorded history. In Australia, India and South Africa, Lantana has become very widespread occupying millions of hectares of land. Here, we examine historical records to reconstruct invasion and management of Lantana over two centuries and ask: Can we fight the spread of invasive species or do we need to develop strategies for their adaptive management? We carried out extensive research of historical records constituting over 75% of records on invasion and management of this species in the three countries. The records indicate that governments in Australia, India and South Africa have taken aggressive measures to eradicate Lantana over the last two centuries, but these efforts have been largely unsuccessful. We found that despite control measures, the invasion trajectory of Lantana has continued upwards and that post-war land-use change might have been a possible trigger for this spread. A large majority of studies on invasive species address timescales of less than one year; and even fewer address timescales of >10 years. An understanding of species invasions over long time-scales is of paramount importance. While archival records may give only a partial picture of the spread and management of invasive species, in the absence of any other long-term dataset on the ecology of Lantana, our study provides an important insight into its invasion, spread and management over two centuries and across three continents. While the established paradigm is to expend available resources on attempting to eradicate invasive species, our findings suggest that in the future, conservationists will need to develop strategies for their adaptive management rather than fighting a losing battle

Methods used for control, management and eradication of Lantana during the 20^th century.

<p>A variety of methods are reported in historical records: fire, mechanical removal, chemical and biological control and a combination of these four measures. A total of 84 reports on control measures are available from Australia, 31 from South Africa and 24 from India. For parity in comparison across the three countries, frequencies of reports are expressed as percentages.</p

Spatial distribution of Lantana records from Australia, India and South Africa based on historical reports of its spread, management and control.

<p>A total of 42 points records are mapped from (<b>a</b>) Australia, 23 from (<b>b</b>) India and 10 from (<b>c</b>) South Africa. Records from South Africa between 1990–1999 come from one source <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0032407#pone.0032407-Henderson4" target="_blank">[97]</a>. Early records suggest spread of Lantana around towns and cities where it was first introduced. Later records indicate its spread in the wider countryside despite management. Most Indian records come from Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve where a more regional analysis of Lantana invasion was carried out.</p

Invasion trajectories of Lantana in Australia, India and South Africa.

<p>(<b>a</b>) Historical records of Lantana spread, control and management are scored on a scale of 1–7: (1) first introduced; (2) present, but not a problem; (3) considered weed, invasive or noxious plant; (4) management intensified; (5) management reported effective in some areas; (6) continuation of same management strategy; (7) Lantana seen to be spreading in spite of management. (<b>b</b>) Rate of change is calculated as increase per year in the state of invasion, measured on the seven-point scale.</p

Bioclimatic niche model of Lantana camara based on point data stored in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility and generated by automated openModeller algorithm.

<p>The point data are derived by searching the Global Biodiversity Information Facility <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0032407#pone.0032407-Singh1" target="_blank">[90]</a> for <i>Lantana camara</i>, which has the following recognised synonyms: <i>Lantana aculeata</i>, <i>Lantana tiliifolia</i>, <i>Lantana camara</i> var. nivea, <i>Lantana camara</i> var. mista, <i>Lantana camara</i> var. mutabilis, <i>Lantana camara</i> var. hybrida, <i>Lantana camara</i> var. flava, <i>Lantana camara</i> var. aculeata, <i>Lantana camara</i> var. sanguinea. The openModeller niche model uses WorldClim global climate layers (climate grids) with a spatial resolution of one square kilometre <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0032407#pone.0032407-Holling1" target="_blank">[91]</a>.</p