Special Interest Group Meeting Reports

This section contains the detailed reports on all the Special Interest Group Meetings held during IWEC24. Please click each topic to read through the meeting notes.

Sultans of Wings:Understanding Raptors of India

Raptors are of global conservation concern and thus country-level assessments of their status are vital for conservation. In India, many organizations and individuals are studying different species of raptors in various parts of the country. Therefore, it was decided to organize a meet of raptor ecologists during the Indian Wildlife Ecology Conference (IWEC) at the National Centre for Biological Sciences, Bangalore. We circulated a countrywide call through IWEC, and 22 individuals registered for participation in the meeting of raptor ecologists. Pleasantly surprised at the large turnout of raptor researchers, we decided to have two sessions on raptors. One session was a Special Interest Group (SIG) meeting with 15 brief informal presentations and another was an Open Session with 7 talks. The Raptor Research and Conservation Foundation (RRCF), Mumbai provided sponsorship to many participants.

Sultans of Wings: Understanding Raptors of India: Special Interest Group (SIG)

Convenors: Dr. Prachi Mehta (Wildlife Research and Conservation Society, Pune), and Dr. T. Ganesh (Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Bangalore)

The Raptor SIG was on 14th June from 1500 to 1630 hrs, with 35 participants. The SIG started with a quick round of self-introduction. Thereafter, 15 participants show-cased their raptor work by presenting the questions, methods, and outcomes of the study as Speed Talks. Of the 15 presentations, six studies were on owls, three on multi-raptor species, two each on fishing eagles, two on vultures and one presentation each on the Amur Falcon and the Black Kite. The owl species studied included Eagle Owl, Mottled wood Owl, Brown Fish Owl, Pallid Scops Owl, Barn Owl, Spotted Owlet, Collared Owlet, Brown Wood Owl and the Mountain Scops Owl. There was good representation of owl research from urban areas. 

One of the studies examined changes in land-use pattern and decline in encounter rates of Eagle Owl, another study compared the diets of Barn and Spotted Owlet in agriculture landscape to understand prey preference by both species. A study assessed the diversity, abundance, and habitat use by seven species of owls in the urban area to understand use of natural and artificial structures by owls, while another study assessed the occupancy of owls in urban landscape and one more study discussed the distribution, occupancy pattern and habitat use by sympatric owl species in matrix of forest and agricultural areas in Garo Hills. 

The multi-raptor assemblage studies have assessed the distribution of Himalayan Griffon, Bearded Vulture, Golden Eagle, Eurasian Kestrel, Imperial Eagle, Tawny Eagle, Saker Falcon, Pallid Harrier, Greater Spotted Eagle in different landscapes in the Himalayas. The multi-raptor study in the Western Himalayas assessed the nesting preferences and identified critical raptor habitats for their conservation. 

Another study in the trans-Himalayas examined the distribution of hunting and scavenging raptors and their nesting in different areas. The vulture studies were on the breeding ecology of Red-headed vulture, White-rumped Vulture, Indian Vulture, Egyptian Vulture, a systematic survey on the type of veterinary drug in use, monitoring of vulture population, creating awareness of vulture safety, forming vulture monitoring units, tracking radio-tagged vultures and advocacy for vulture protection. 

The Amur Falcon project described how the team succeeded in stopping the massacre of Amur Falcons with community engagement through the education of adults and children in nature conservation. 

The Black Kite project examined the impact of rapid urbanization and food provisioning on increased Black Kite population leading to air strikes and discussed mitigation measures for avoiding Black Kite congregations during fly-pasts. 

The Piscivorous raptor study discussed the status and distribution of the Pallas Fish Eagle, Gray-headed Fish Eagle and Osprey outside the Protected Area and the importance of wetlands in supporting the Piscivorous raptors. The White-bellied Sea Eagle study examined the nesting preference of the species and found that the Eagle prefers nesting on tall trees of Mango and Focus which are usually privately owned or in public places hence recommended public awareness and involvement of citizens for nest protection.  

Another urban raptor talk described the observations on habitat use and nesting of Eagle Owl, Peregrine Falcon, Red-necked Falcon and the White-eyed Buzzard within Urban landscape.  

Raptor Ecology Open Session

Chair: Dr. Chris Bowden

The Raptor Ecology Open Session was on 15th June from 1400 to 1600 hrs, with seven talks- Three on owls, two on multi-species of raptors, one each on harriers and vultures. One of the owl studies was on understanding threats on owls in human-dominated areas and perceptions of urban people towards owls in different parts of the country. Another owl study discussed the mechanism of resource partitioning among eight species of large and small owls and one more owl presentation was on the factors influencing habitat selection by the Forest Owlet. Multi-raptor species studies included home range, and movement patterns of Greater Spotted Eagle, Indian Spotted Eagle, Pallid Harrier, and Western Marsh Harrier. The study on Montagu’s Harrier examined wintering habitat selection and home range of tagged harriers to understand habitat use. The vulture study focused on impact of power lines on four globally threatened vultures and suggested mitigation measures for reducing mortalities among the vultures. A study on use of pesticides on multi-species of raptors examined the impact of pesticides, perception of farmers and type of agricultural practices on raptor assemblage.

Summary of Raptor Sessions at IWEC

The raptor sessions at IWEC helped in getting an overview of the diverse species being studied, a spectrum of questions addressed, types of species in focus and the landscapes where the studies were carried out. It also helped raptor ecologists to put forth their work, methods, outcomes, and network with others on a larger canvas. The raptor researchers discussed major challenges in raptor conservation including monitoring raptor mortalities, understanding the causes behind the mortalities and a need to have long-term monitoring of raptors in the country. There was also a discussion on the need for status surveys for several raptors, using drones, telemetry and other techniques for monitoring raptors, initiating citizen science for raptor monitoring and continued networking with raptor ecologists in India.

14 June 2024

Special Interest group Meeting: Wildlife Disease Ecology- IWEC 24

In this meeting, participants gathered to discuss the intricate distinctions between studying disease ecology and conducting surveillance studies, emphasizing the significance of both approaches in today’s context. The conversation revealed a pressing need for a deeper understanding of epidemiology, particularly in unraveling the drivers behind various diseases.

The discussion highlighted a critical gap in current research, which predominantly focuses on zoonotic diseases and infections in wildlife that pose threats to human health. Surprisingly, it was highlighted that little attention is given to diseases that directly impact wildlife populations themselves. Recognizing this gap, the participants stressed the importance of studying these diseases for the long-term conservation of species, especially those already under threat.

In the Indian context, the few studies that are currently being conducted mainly gather presence or absence data of infections or pathogens. The meeting underscored an urgent need to move beyond mere surveillance-based studies and to delve into comprehensive research on the disease ecology of infections in specific species or regions.

Throughout the discussion, participants also addressed the various challenges and obstacles encountered in collecting or obtaining data on infections, parasites, diseases, and pathogens found in different wildlife species. These challenges include logistical difficulties, limited funding, and bureaucratic processes involved.

Overall, the meeting brought to light the critical need for a more holistic approach to studying diseases in wildlife, focusing on those of immediate concern.

Some of the disease/infection events discussed as examples

Elephant populations throughout India are known to be carriers of anthrax and tuberculosis (TB). However, there is currently no recorded data on these infections. How can one identify and record such disease events, given the hostile/suspicious behaviour of the concerned authorities towards researchers?

The chytrid fungus, a fungal disease affecting amphibians, was previously unknown. Although many people observed its spread, its sudden severity caught everyone off guard, resulting in a last-minute firefighting response. Such situations need to be avoided in future disease events.

Kasnur Forest Disease, which affects macaques in South India and has recently been in the news, was discussed as an example.

  • What should be the beginning point of the investigation?
  • Why isn’t there more concern on its widespread and its severe impact on macaque populations.
  • How is the infection moving within macaque populations and between individuals?
  • How does one measure and analyse a disease event like this?
  • How can researchers and different stakeholders come together and work on this issue?

 

The main question

In the meeting, participants repeatedly asked how to prioritize which disease, infection, parasite, or pathogen needs immediate attention first. There were two main opinions on this matter. The first was to choose the disease or pathogen that is most urgent at the moment. The second opinion was to study milder or less infectious versions of highly infectious pathogens to understand their ecology and transmission, which could inform preventive and firefighting methods. However, it was noted that not all related species of pathogens respond the same way as the more infectious strains. For example, the Ebola virus behaves differently from other members of the same family. Despite this, it was also highlighted that some pathogens are useful for studying ecological patterns.

Understanding viruses is crucial for comprehending disease ecology, which necessitates the collection of long-term data. This involves tracking how a microbe evolves from a pathogen to an epidemic, and examining virulent and host-parasite interactions. Initially, it is essential to record and identify the mortality and morbidity caused by infections in wildlife, followed by studying host physiology and pathology. Monitoring non-virulent diseases or strains should also be undertaken.

Preventive epidemiology and disease ecology require different approaches for a thorough understanding. Studying disease ecology should have practical applications, and there must be a bridge between the two fields from the very start.

Traversing roadblocks

The challenges and roadblocks in studying disease ecology and wildlife epidemiology must be acknowledged and addressed with creative solutions. It was suggested to avoid focusing on specific species or taxa during the initial phase. Instead, researchers should start by sampling species that might not attract much attention or publicity to answer fundamental questions in disease ecology.

Conducting surveys and monitoring wildlife species in a detailed exploratory manner was recommended to identify existing and potential health issues. With the One Health initiative gaining importance, focus, and funding from government agencies, integrating wildlife epidemiology studies within the One Health framework was proposed. This approach could facilitate long-term funding and data collection, especially with the involvement of the Central Zoo Authority (CZA) in One Health projects.

Participants acknowledged that the Forest Department and CZA might not always be helpful, and researchers often encounter bureaucratic obstacles. Therefore, it was suggested that the group develop ideas and expertise by focusing on wildlife species and areas outside protected areas (PAs). This strategy could minimize interference from the Forest Department.

Given the lack of an existing database, collaboration with rescue centers and those trained to handle roadkills was recommended as a starting point. These entities could test the samples they have access to for various pathogens. Additionally, working with zoos, rescue centers, and roadkill handlers to record all pathogens found in samples was emphasized. The feather library at the National Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS) could also serve as a valuable resource.

Engaging veterinary colleges in the proposal and organizing them to conduct surveys near forest areas was another recommendation. Sharing these ideas on a smaller scale with open and helpful forest department teams, such as the Maharashtra Forest Department, could foster collaboration and support.

The new private forest land donated to NCBS could be used for long-term data collection and monitoring. Establishing multiple long-term sites across the country for continuous monitoring, similar to community ecology studies, was suggested.

Challenges of working on infectious diseases

The collection and survey methods for epidemiology data are not standardized in India. Although veterinarians working in Protected Areas (PAs) and other forest regions have access to wildlife samples, they are neither trained nor instructed to systematically collect and analyze these samples.

To address this issue, it was suggested to establish a nodal agency responsible for collecting and collating data from veterinarians across different regions of the country and identifying regional diseases. However, this idea was vetoed due to concerns about the effectiveness of such agencies in practice, citing bureaucratic hurdles and inefficiencies. It was noted that the active surveillance methods used for livestock are not suitable for wildlife monitoring.

Additionally, the Government of India (GoI) imposes strict regulations on the reporting of infectious diseases, requiring that any findings must first and exclusively be reported to them, prohibiting public dissemination of this information.

As an alternative, it was proposed to use non-infectious variants of pathogens to study the virus’s ecology. This approach would allow researchers to gather valuable data on the ecology and transmission of the virus without contravening governmental restrictions on reporting infectious diseases.

Overall, the discussion highlighted the need for innovative and flexible approaches to overcome the challenges in wildlife disease monitoring and data collection, while complying with regulatory constraints.

Way forward

A collaborative, multi-faceted approach involving various stakeholders and institutions is essential for advancing the study of disease ecology and wildlife epidemiology in India.

A holistic study of disease ecology and its surveillance in India will require contributions from experts across various fields, including:

  • Virologist: Provides knowledge of virus ecology.
  • Ecologist: Brings understanding of animal behavior.
  • Epidemiologist: Studies how infections and pathogens move between individuals and populations.
  • Microbiologist: Examines pathogen ecology and secondary pathogens.
  • Immunologist: Offers insight into the stress response on the immune system.
  • Veterinarian: Provides expertise in animal physiology.

To address the current lack of awareness and urgency surrounding the importance of disease ecology studies, it was suggested a comprehensive framework outlining critical topics and emerging questions be established. This framework should emphasize the need for increased workforce capacity and advocate for capacity-building initiatives such as workshops and training sessions for veterinarians and other relevant professionals.

The broader research community focused on disease ecology should collaboratively prioritize pathogens and infections that have the most significant impact on wildlife. Initially, the group should concentrate on developing protocols and indirect methods for studying disease ecology effectively.

Dr. Renee Borges from the Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science (CES, IISc), who serves as the editor for the Journal of Biosciences, has proposed a special issue dedicated to disease ecology. Such an initiative would help raise awareness and focus attention on the subject.

Advancements in molecular tools now enable the prediction of host species susceptibility to infections, offering valuable insights for future research directions. These innovative ideas should be shared with a broader group of researchers, inviting their feedback and collaboration to refine and implement them effectively.

In summary, by establishing a clear framework, prioritizing critical pathogens, leveraging molecular tools, and fostering collaborative efforts within the research community, we can significantly enhance the capacity to study and manage disease ecology in wildlife. This concerted effort is crucial for advancing understanding, promoting proactive measures, and mitigating the impacts of diseases on wildlife populations.

A New Era of Indian Bat Research & Conservation – SIG Report

by Dr Rohit Chakravarty & Dr Harish Prakash

Bats are excellent model organisms for studies ranging from unique sensory abilities such as echolocation, to understanding human perceptions towards non-charismatic animals. With 135 species, bats form the largest mammalian order in India, yet the proportion of chiropterologists in India has always been less than one researcher per species. For several decades, research on bats in India was limited to taxonomy. Moreover, the Indian bat community has been fairly disconnected. We organised this Special Interest Group to showcase recent studies on Indian bats that go beyond taxonomy and to bring the community together.

The SIG took place on 15th June 2024 at ‘Golgi’ seminar hall. It was attended by 18 participants from 16 institutions. We had three talks at the SIG. Dr Baheerathan Murugavel from the Indian Institute of Science Education & Research (IISER), Mohali presented a part of his PhD work on the vision and light tolerance of three species of fruit-eating bats. There are very few researchers studying the vision of bats in the world. This work was novel and led to stimulating discussions. Nithin Divakar, a PhD student at Kerala Forest Research Institute (KFRI) presented preliminary results on surveys and perception studies he had undertaken on the endangered Salim Ali’s Fruit Bat in Kerala. The third talk was by Sreejith Jayakumar, a recent master’s graduate from Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). Sreejith presented his thesis on the effects of wind energy on bats in Maharashtra. Between Sreejith’s and Nithin’s presentations, the audience was given an overview of the problems faced by common and rare species of bats in India.

Finally, we had time for a short discussion on the use of acoustics in bat research. We also had expertise on ecosystem services and urban ecology in the audience but we ran out of time to have focussed discussions on those topics. Overall, it was a great experience bringing together an expanding but disconnected bat community together and pave the way for future collaborations. Having broken the ice in this edition of IWEC, we look forward to conducting a longer SIG in the next edition of IWEC and engage in focussed discussions on pertinent issues.

Kavitha Unni KK (IISER, Tirupati)

105 scats were collected from Chadva Rakhal in Kachchh, Gujarat, India during January–February 2022 and December 2022– January 2023. Genetic confirmation showed the presence of Afro- Asiatic Wildcat (Felis lybica), Rusty-spotted Cat (Prionailurus rubiginosus) and Jungle Cat (Felis chaus). The diet of the genetically confirmed scat samples was studied using light microscopic examination of the undigested remains. Hair isolated from scats were identified using a high-resolution DIC microscope. A total of eight genera of rodents and seven orders of invertebrates were identified along with birds and reptiles. While the three cat species overlapped in diet, there were significant differences in the species and categories of prey consumed.

Dr Nandini Rajamani (IISER, Tirupati)

Understanding the behaviour of small carnivores is challenging given their cryptic nature, and we often resort to the innovative use of technology to gain insights. In a series of collaborative projects on small cats, we use various methods to understand diet and behaviour. Methods used range from compound microscopy to electron microscopy, and metabarcoding methods to compare diet. This is then layered on species occurrence information from field surveys, both observational and trapping-based. These methods have helped us understand dietary differences across sympatric species as well as for single species across protection/disturbance regimes.

Divyajyoti Ganguly (NCBS, Bangalore)

Detecting wild carnivores is challenging because they are elusive in nature. Over the years several methods have been tried and tested, but more recently, eDNA based approaches have been gaining momentum. We opportunistically collected and sourced soil samples from pugmarks of carnivores (n = 25) from Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary and Ranthambhore National Park. DNA was extracted, amplified and sequenced following modified protocols. 40% of the samples could be assigned genetic species identity; all of these were tigers. Samples of other species that worked produced multiple bands. We discuss lessons learnt from the pilot survey and future improvements in the method so that it works even for smaller carnivores.

Divyashree Rana (NCBS, Bangalore)

Recent approaches allowing genotyping-by-sequencing based on microsatellite markers have demonstrated its potential for assisting field studies. In a novel attempt, we have designed a multiplex nuclear marker panel that allows individual identification of multiple species, parallelly. Optimized for the NGS platform, the panel consists of over 50 tetranucleotide microsatellite primers with cross-amplification across Felidae species. This panel was validated with known samples from seven felid species across genus Panthera, Prionailurus and Felis. Further, the panel was tested on unknown samples of Fishing Cat (Prionailurus viverrinus) to understand population structure. Our approach allows the generation of objective and robust genotype data using genomic tools from poor-quality non-invasive samples. Hence, this tool would enable population genetic studies to understand and conserve lesser studied small cat species.

Dr Ayan Sadhu (Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun)

India is home to one-third of the small cat species found in the world. All these small wild cats possess different characteristics, creating unique challenges in studying their status and distribution. Camera trapping has been used widely across the globe to study different population parameters of rare and endangered species due to its ease of use and ability to obtain a multitude of information in a timely manner. Information obtained from camera traps can be used for abundance estimation (capture-recapture framework as well as camera trap-based distance sampling), occupancy, document behaviour and trophic interactions. Radio telemetry and genetic sampling are other useful techniques for studying ecology and behaviour of wild cats. This talk aims to standardize methods to study small cat populations through constructive discussions and information gathering.

Aditya Banerjee (Human and Environment Alliance League, Kolkata)

Wetland-adapted Fishing Cats are threatened by                  range-wide population declines due to wetlands being globally threatened by conversion to other land uses. We developed a protocol to ascertain the global population of Fishing Cat from available habitat area, identified using wetland data, elevation and bioclimatic variables and MAXENT modelling of range-wide species distribution. We used data on aquaculture, irrigated agriculture, and urbanisation to assess potential wetland habitats persisting currently. Fishing Cat population-density estimates for coastal and floodplain populations from existing literature will be applied to assess the carrying capacity of contiguous and fragmented habitats and estimate global population of the species. This protocol can allow us to assess the implications of habitat loss on the conservation status of habitat- specialist species, helping in species assessments and guiding habitat  conservation  efforts with these species considered as flagships throughout their distribution.

Ritwick Dutta (Environmental Lawyer)

Question: Does the Biological Diversity Act have any relevance to research work for non-commercial reasons by Indian citizens? I was asked to get permits from the state biodiversity board for placing camera traps and collecting scats in non-protected areas?

Answer: No permit is required for Indian citizens under the Act. As per Section 3 of the Act, permission is required from a foreigner, non-resident person and an organisation with foreigners in the Board of Directors or management body. These entities would require permission from the National Biodiversity Authority.

Question: As a contractual employee of an institute, how can you claim to be the Principal Investigator of a project if you have written a research proposal and secured a grant for it? Is there any law/rule with respect to intellectual property rights where I can claim the ownership of the project/data/publications?

Answer: The issue has to be solved internally if possible. A contractual employee who has been instrumental in conceptualising the project and implementing it, should explore options to claim ownership of intellectual property. This domain falls within the framework of the IPR law.

Question: How to take legal steps when someone working for your project as an intern shares the information (which he/she is working on) with a third party without your consent?

Answer: The advice would be that in all such situations if there is a written contract which clearly mentions the rights and obligations of the intern, that would be the best way forward. This is because the person concerned would be ultimately bound by this contract. Under the Indian Contracts Act, an oral agreement is also an agreement but it is always better to keep it in writing.

Question: Does a researcher need a permit to work in a non- protected space if the research method does not require capturing a scheduled species?

Answer: Under The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, wild animals are not the property of the government. They are by nature, free. According to Section 39 of the Act, only when an offense is done against a scheduled species as per Section 2(16), for eg, it is hunted, does it become state property. Permission is required from the Chief Wildlife Warden when research and photography is done in National Parks, Sanctuaries, Community Reserve and Conservation Reserve as per Section 28. No permission to work outside protected areas is required.

Special Interest Group Report

Indian Wildlife Ecology Conference 2024

14–16 June 2024, Bangalore, India

SIG 5: Mixing Formal and Experiential Ecological Knowledge

 

Sayan Banerjee, Tanushree Srivastava, Samir Kumar Sinha and Anindya Sinha

 

The Special Interest Group, SIG 5 at IWEC’24, ‘Mixing Formal and Experiential Ecological Knowledge’ brought together scientifically oriented ecologists and indigenous community members with experiential ecological knowledge from across the country into conversation about how to collaborate better with one another for more effective ecological research and conservation in the future. More specifically, we considered the formal ecological knowledge community members to be researchers/practitioners, based in academic institutions or conservation NGOs while the experiential ecological knowledge community members were local community members from particular locations, where ecological research/conservation action may have taken place in the past or is continuing in the present.

The SIG spanned two days, 15 and 16 June 2024, with two open sessions and a closed, within-group discussion, lasting 90–120 minutes each. Eleven individuals from the formal knowledge community, including the four facilitators, and nine individuals from experiential knowledge communities, participated in this SIG.

In the first open session on 15 June, after a brief round of introduction, which included the audience too, all the participants were divided into three thematic subgroups, namely Coexistence, Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Natural Resource Management.

During the within-group discussions, held on 16 June, the thematic sub-groups deliberated on several aspects of collaborative work between the two communities. These included:

(1) What were the advantages/benefits of collaboration that were obvious for both communities during their work together?

(2) What were the challenges faced by both the communities during their collaboration?

(3) What strategies could be devised to overcome the challenges faced and was it possible for this group to map the trajectories forward towards more effective collaborative ecological research and conservation between the communities?

A significant number of audience members also joined the three thematic subgroups and participated with their observations, viewpoints and feedback.

The three subgroups presented the outcomes of their deliberations to one another and to an audience in the final open session of the SIG, on the evening of 16 June.

Several key points, related to the intellectual and operational aspects of collaborative work between the experiential and formal knowledge communities, emerged from the deliberations of this SIG, as described below. 

  • Effective collaborations bore several advantages to both communities.

(1) It created an atmosphere, wherein there was not only shared learning and knowledge production, but also relationships of trust and reciprocity were built. This not only made the research process and outcomes effective, but also inclusive.

(2) A friendly atmosphere helped the research process to progress satisfactorily and the collaboration created a shared ownership over the data generated and inferences drawn.

(3) Certain collaborations were able to highlight particular locations and the work of certain individuals from the experiential knowledge community as well as of early-career researchers from the formal knowledge community and which effectively catered to progress in their respective careers.

  • There were, however, multiple challenges to such collaborations.

(1) The participants agreed that the benefits of such research were always skewed more, materially or otherwise, towards the academic researchers or conservation practitioners from various organisations and less so towards the local community members.

(2) This often led to tokenistic participation regimes, where even after data sharing and researcher–local community deliberations, the systematic power relations did not break down and the researchers always tended to be at an advantage.

(3) The mismatch of domicile, as well as of ideological language between the two communities, an often hard-line attitude towards one another, preconceived notions about each other’s intentions often tended to work as barriers to effective collaboration.

(4) Distrust towards the research process and the researchers also stemmed from relatively non-flexible research designs and what was perceived as extractive research processes. Most research was geared towards pre-determined research questions, methodologies and possibly, inferences and these did not have space for change, as per the suggestions or recommendations of the local community members.

(5) These issues, coupled with ‘data hunger’—also termed ‘data thievery’ by the experiential knowledge participants—of the researchers and their apparent lack of intention to share data, inferences or project outputs with the local community members made the research processes often extractive and exploitative of the local community members’ knowledge. These collaborations then became an almost exclusively a one-way process, wherein the local community’s stories were only considered mere data points and not lived realities.

(6) These issues were also enlarged when the research results negatively impacted the local community members, even to the extent of bodily harm or destruction of property, and the local communities then naturally became distrustful of the whole process.

  • The SIG participants, in attempts to overcome these challenges, provided several counter-strategies that should be actively considered.

(1) Researchers from academic institutions, as well as from NGOs and government departments should be trained in social science-related disciplines, appropriate methodologies and in skill development to address sensitive topics and conflict resolution, and such education should be institutionalised.

(2) The active sharing of research questions, methodologies, data and project inferences with the local community members should become the norm. A joint forum of the researchers and local community members could be created to deliberate on the research processes.

(3) Care should be taken that hard scientific data can be conveniently translated into local ways of knowledge production.

(4) Collaborative research should be treated less as a pursuit of specific academic questions, and more as social responsibility, wherein emphasis should be laid towards building relations of trust, reciprocity and honesty. Both communities need to be empathetic towards each other’s problems and be transparent about their intentions and expectations.

(5) The research process should be embedded in openness and respect for one another, not only to make it more effective, but also more flexible and pragmatic.

(6) Innovative methods need to be developed to make space for experiential knowledge, with community members directly acknowledged as authors of the research.

(7) Similar to the ethical standards set by academic institutions, collaborative research should aim to create local community-led standards, related to appropriate and considerate terms of engagement, research permissions, financial regimes and importantly, with free, prior-informed consent procedures to guide further research processes.

The participants of this SIG thus generated critical insights into the challenges and opportunities of such, often essential, collaborations. Given the exploratory nature and time constraints of engagement, our deliberations should only be considered an initiation of an important process, requiring more intense work. The quality of insights, thus generated, clearly establish the urgent need to take forward this exercise, but far more broadly, employing standardised methodologies and ensuring a wider reach towards different communities.

Special Interest Group: Impact of Climate Change on Ectotherms and Plants

A meeting of the Special Interest Group took place on 14 June 2024 as part of the Indian Wildlife Ecology Conference (IWEC) held at NCBS. There were 18 participants (list provided). Others have also expressed their interest in being part of this group.

Ectotherms and plants were chosen as focal taxa since they have limited ability to modulate their temperature in the face of global warming. All participants acknowledged that there were no long term and very few current data on the impact of climate change on ectotherms and plants in India. Furthermore, the difference between the measurement of macroclimate and microclimate was emphasised. While macroclimate monitoring stations exist throughout the country, those that measure microclimate at scales relevant to ectotherms and plants barely exist. These deficiencies must be overcome.

Suggestions and future plans:

  1. Workshops on climate change and its impacts on invertebrate and plant physiology, to impart knowledge on microclimate parameters to be measured and standardised techniques to be employed.
  2. Involvement of agencies such as ICAR, ICAR, ZSI and BSI with its wide networks to create a network of microclimate measuring stations that will also include soil temperature measurements at different depths
  3. Create a network of NGOs and citizen-science groups that will also contribute microclimate data
  4. Formulate a cloud-based data storage facility and website to facilitate data entry and to curate and collate results.
  5. Create a network of scientists interested in climate-related physiology so that expertise, techniques, and data analysis methods are constantly updated, evaluated and shared widely.
  6. Examine the macroclimate databases that are available in India and suggest their expansion so that macroclimate and microclimate can be examined in tandem at each local area.

If anyone wishes to be part of this group, please email Renee M. Borges, Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Sciences, Bangalore 5600012  

Email: renee@iisc.ac.in

Write-up on Special Interest Group meeting

Urban ecology – an emerging field in India

Organized by Dr. Jagdish Krishnaswamy (IIHS) and Dr. Kadambari Deshpande (IIHS)

 

Climate change and urbanization are emerging as two of the most prominent drivers of biodiversity and ecosystem change in India. Despite the widening dimensions in the field of Ecology, urban ecology as a sub-discipline is nascent in India. Urban ecological studies, especially in tropical regions of the so-called Global South, have not received the same level of attention as other wildernesses, even though urban ecosystems are diverse and novel in terms of habitats, vegetation, hydrology, micro-climates, and human-wildlife interactions. There is thus an urgent need to formally recognize and nurture the discipline of urban ecology to study and conceptualize ideas to assess the effects of urbanization on biodiversity, species’ adaptation and responses, for coexistence of humans and biodiversity in urban ecosystems. The Baltimore School of Urban Ecology introduced the paradigm of three phases – ecology in the city, ecology of the city, and ecology for the city. This is applicable for the Indian context as well. While there have been some studies on biodiversity and ecology “in” the city, we need to expand our research in terms of the ecology “of” the city, which may be different from its counterpart in wilderness, for example, interactions of exotic species with native biodiversity in an urban ecosystem. Urban ecology by nature hints at the inclusion of elements of social sciences along with natural sciences i.e. an ecology “for” the city, or studying human well-being along with biodiversity conservation in urban ecosystems.

Fully understanding, predicting and mitigating the ecological impacts of climate change and urbanization across India are not possible in isolation, especially given their growing importance in shaping India’s future both for the well-being of human societies as well as their relationship with nature. This Special Interest Group (SIG) meeting, during the Indian Wildlife Ecology Conference at the National Centre for Biological Sciences, highlighted the importance and the urgency to study urban wildlife ecology in India in the above context. The meeting, for the first time, brought together urban wildlife ecologists, students, and practitioners, 30 in total, representing 15 institutions in India. These included wildlife scientists (studying diverse taxa like spiders, bees, butterflies, frogs, birds, bats, squirrels, dogs, etc.), landscape ecologists, architects, social scientists, and a team of philanthropists. The session offered a platform to discuss the current state of research as well as future steps towards advancing the field of urban ecology in India.

The meeting was broadly divided into two parts. The first part included presentations by faculty members working on urban ecological systems, and the second part included open discussions with all the participants. After a brief introduction by Dr. Kadambari Deshpande to the meeting and its objectives, Dr. Jagdish Krishnaswamy introduced the field of Urban Ecology, its genesis, wider scope, and relevance in rapidly urbanizing India, with examples from the Indian Institute of Human Settlements’ Long-Term Urban Ecological Observatory (LTUEO). Following this, Dr. Shomen Mukherjee from Ahmedabad University discussed how his work on community ecology, predation, competition and co-existence was linked to studies in urban ecology. He highlighted his work in disease ecology, particularly on factors determining distribution and abundance of feral dogs and effects of urbanization on mosquitoes, and their links to public health. Dr. Chetan Nag from Jain University described his work on urban wildlife ecology, in and around Bengaluru, spanning diverse taxa and concerns around their conservation due to human disturbance, urban heat islands, habitat loss, and their links to disease transmission.

In the open discussion, participants discussed various aspects of conducting studies in urban ecology. While Ms. Tara Gandhi highlighted the importance of understanding historical aspects of biodiversity in the cities, Ms. Rohini Nilekani emphasized linking culture and human well-being to ecology as well as being aware of western narratives that had mostly dominated urban ecology. Many of the participants – Ankita Sharma, Debangini Roy, Swati Udayraj, Vedika Dutta, and Ryan Sathish – discussed the importance of synanthropic and generalist species in the urban spaces along with challenges for the survival of biodiversity in the urban. These mainly included conversion of available green spaces to grey infrastructure and rapid changes in the cities posing a challenge to adaptations by biodiversity. Participants also discussed the challenges in conducting studies in the urban that were largely related to unawareness and unacceptance among the citizens about the drastic impacts of urbanization, people’s perceptions towards certain animals such as owls, spiders, and bats. Nakul Heble, Peeyush Sekhsaria, and others highlighted the importance of including other stakeholders such as policymakers, citizens from all sectors, architects, urban planners, terrace gardeners, economists, etc. as a way forward to conserve biodiversity in the urban and maintain human well-being.

The meeting concluded with a free ranging discussion on the path(s) ahead, identification of hindrances in bringing different stakeholders together, and thinking of ways for coexistence of humans and biodiversity in urban spaces. These ways could involve novel, innovative measures to use grey infrastructure for biodiversity persistence, finding tangible solutions with economists, inculcating urban ecology in city master plans, connecting daily activities of people with urban ecology conservation goals, inclusion of socio-cultural perspectives, and educating citizens on the aesthetic, socio-ecological, and cultural values of urban ecosystems.

Contact us:

contact@iwecindia.in

Useful Links:

Privacy Policy

FAQs

Plagiarism Policy

Follow us on:

© 2023 Indian Wildlife Ecology Conference (IWEC ’24). All rights reserved.

© 2023, Illustrations by Ravi Jambhekar. All rights reserved.