Subscribe
Tiger occupancy and local extinction from areas in India have close linkages with poverty, armed conflict and land-use changes, a new study has revealed.
The study published in Science, noted that over the past two decades tiger occupancy in India has increased by 30 per cent spanning nearly 138,200 sq km.
It also found that the tigers persistently occupied spaces free from humans, preferred prey-rich protected areas spread across 35,255 sq km, but at the same time colonised habitats that were in proximity of nearly 60 million people.
As per the 2022 census, India has about 3,600 tigers amounting to about 75 per cent of the global population in a highly densely populated country.
The researchers studied recovery of tigers in the country from 2006 to 2018 of the habitat spanning 20 Indian states. The states were marked into ecologically meaningful sized grids of 10 by 10 km that have been fixed for sampling since 2006.
“Of the total colonised area of 41,767 sq km in 12 years, tigers colonised 35 per cent of new areas between 2006 and 2010, 20 per cent between 2010 and 2014, and 45 per cent between 2014 and 2018,” it said adding the overall area of its occupancy expanded by 30 per cent.
The tigers made protected areas their homes with high prey abundance, suitable habitats, low human presence and moderately wealthy areas occupied by humans.
It also found that the tiger occupied territories coincided with distribution of major tiger prey including spotted deer (Axis axis), sambar deer (Rusa unicolor), swamp deer (Rucervus duvaucelii) and gaur (Bos gaurus), which had the largest contribution in explaining tiger occupancy.
In addition the evaluated region is also subset of historically range of megafauna residing in the region.
“Within the tiger’s distribution range, tiger-occupied habitats spatially coincided with the distribution of co-occurring megaherbivores: Asian elephant (Elephas maximus; 59 per cent) and gaur (84 per cent),” it observed.
Presence of other large carnivores also overlapped with the tiger occupancy regions with leopard (Panthera pardus) found present in 62 per cent of the tiger occupied areas while dhole (Cuon alpinus) and sloth bear (Melursus ursinus) also coincided with 68 per cent and 51 per cent respectively.
The authors noted that ecosystems protected for tiger recovery reinforced biotic resistance to biological invasions and contributed to carbon sequestration, benefiting the global climate. This accentuates the umbrella role of tigers in extending co-benefits to biodiversity and biosphere, they said.
On the contrary, local extinctions of the flagship species were recorded in 17,992 sq km of area over a period of 12 years. The local extinctions of the populations were highest between 2006 and 2010 at 64 per cent, followed by 17 per cent from 2010 to 2014.
From 2014 to 2018, the local extinctions were recorded to be 19 per cent. These extinctions were attributed to isolation of protected areas, increased urbanisation, infrastructure development and high incidences of armed conflicts.
The grids analysis revealed that habitats avoided by tigers were mainly spread across the eastern states of Chhattisgarh, Odisha, and Jharkhand.
These areas — Guru Ghasidas, Palamau, Udanti-Sitanadi, Similipal, Satkosia, and Indravati tiger reserves — are among the poorest districts in India. They had the potential to recover tiger populations but are known to have high incidences of bush meat consumption, often with the use of traps and snares that are usually indiscriminate in killing prey and predators, the study found.
Another aspect of tiger extinction was influenced by increased frequency of armed conflicts.
The study found that 47 per cent of the grid cells recording tiger extinctions were districts impacted by Naxal armed conflict.
“Tiger reserves affected by the Naxal conflict were in the states of Chhattisgarh (Indravati, Achanakmar, and Udanti-Sitanadi) and Jharkhand (Palamau). Tiger reserves where armed conflict has been recently controlled, displayed recovery (Nagarjunsagar-Srisailam, Amrabad, and Similipal). Several tiger habitats in the states of Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and eastern parts of Maharashtra have been experiencing armed insurgencies, and it is in these habitats that tiger occupancy was low and extinction probability high,” the study said, adding that tiger recovery is possible with greater political stability.
The study further stated that tigers shared space with people at high densities in some areas such as Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Uttarakhand, and Karnataka, whereas they became extinct or withdrew from areas historically known for extensive bush meat consumption or commercial poaching.
This was despite the human density being relatively low in states of Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Northeastern states of India.
Nearly 45 per cent of tiger occupied areas was shared by 60 million people which coincided with relatively economically prosperous areas. These human populations received significant financial benefits from tiger-related tourism and gained from government-sponsored schemes for compensating the loss caused by conflict.
Meanwhile, the rates of tiger colonisation were lowest in areas of high rural poverty rate.
The authors noted that economic prosperity achieved through alternative and non-consumptive use of ecosystems and biodiversity enabled tigers and its connected eco-systems to recover.
However, excess economic prosperity leading to intensive land-use change had negative implications on tiger occupancy. Hence, tiger recovery is constrained by intensive urbanisation and poverty.
The study stated that investments directed towards inclusive and equitable eco-development projects in these shared landscapes can enable tiger recovery. Protected areas can play a crucial role of protecting biodiversity, alleviate poverty and secure ecosystem services by ensuring shared benefits with local communities.
In conclusion, the authors noted that irrespective of political parties, conservation investments by governments—enabled through dedicated legislation in land sparing, prohibiting forest land diversions, and ensuring benefit-sharing with local communities—have largely enabled tiger recovery.
These legislative instruments not only ensure tiger recovery but also can yield equitable co-benefits, the study said. They warned that downgrading such existing instruments would have far-reaching ramifications on tiger recovery and biodiversity conservation.