@article {125196, title = {Prioritizing India{\textquoteright}s landscapes for biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being}, journal = {NATURE SUSTAINABILITY }, year = {2023}, month = {02/2023}, abstract = {

Biodiversity conservation and human well-being are tightly interlinked. Yet, mismatches in the scale at which these two priority issues are planned and implemented have exacerbated biodiversity loss, erosion of ecosystem services and declining human quality of life. India houses the second largest human population on the planet, while \< 5\% of the country{\textquoteright}s land area is effectively protected for conservation. This warrants landscape-level conservation planning through a judicious mix of land-sharing and land-sparing approaches combined with the co-production of ecosystem services. Through a multifaceted assessment, we prioritize spatial extents of land parcels that, in the face of anthropogenic threats, can safeguard conservation landscapes across India{\textquoteright}s biogeographic zones. We found that only a fraction (similar to 15\%) of the priority areas identified here are encompassed under India{\textquoteright}s extant Protected Area network, and furthermore, that several landscapes of high importance were omitted from all previous global-scale assessments. We then examined the spatial congruence of priority areas with administrative units earmarked for economic development by the Indian government and propose management zoning through state-driven and participatory approaches. Our spatially explicit insights can help meet the twin goals of biodiversity conservation and sustainable development in India and other countries across the Global South.

Biodiversity conservation is critical for promoting ecosystem services and human well-being, but current conservation efforts fail to protect most high priority zones. A mix of land-sparing and land-sharing is needed to safeguard critical ecosystems in India and across the Global South.

}, doi = {10.1038/s41893-023-01063-2}, author = {Srivathsa, Arjun and Vasudev, Divya and Nair, Tanaya and Chakrabarti, Stotra and Chanchani, Pranav and DeFries, Ruth and Deomurari, Arpit and Dutta, Sutirtha and Ghose, Dipankar and Goswami, Varun R. and Nayak, Rajat and Neelakantan, Amrita and Thatte, Prachi and Vaidyanathan, Srinivas and Verma, Madhu and Krishnaswamy, Jagdish and Sankaran, Mahesh and Ramakrishnan, Uma} } @article {79865, title = {Navigating paved paradise: Evaluating landscape permeability to movement for large mammals in two conservation priority landscapes in India}, journal = {BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION}, volume = {247}, year = {2020}, month = {7/2020}, abstract = {

Human land use and activity results in the loss of habitat and biodiversity, and alters how animals move through landscapes. Spatially explicit information on where animal movement is affected at large spatial scales is crucial for prioritizing conservation efforts. We evaluated landscape permeability to movement in two conservation priority landscapes in India, the Western Ghats (WG) and Central India (CI). Using an agent-based model we simulated movement and dispersal of five wide-ranging species in WG (elephant, gaur, leopard, sambar and sloth bear) and four in CI (gaur, leopard, sambar and sloth bear). For each species we compared movement in the presence and absence of land-use land-cover, infrastructure and human population to identify areas where movement is impeded and reduced due to high-resistance features; unrestricted due to relatively low-resistance features; and increased and channelled due to surrounding high-resistance areas. In both landscapes, median movement was reduced. Human land-use, human population and high linear infrastructure density contribute the highest to impeded movement for all species. Natural areas constitute only 20-55\% and 50-70\% of unrestricted, increased and channelled movement areas in WG and CI respectively. This suggests that a large percentage of the landscape crucial for maintaining movement is not completely permeable. Such areas are often neglected in conservation planning. Our spatially explicit results help identify and prioritize areas where restoration or mitigation should be planned to improve permeability to movement for large mammals. Our approach can be used for other landscapes where data on large mammal movement is lacking.

}, doi = {10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108613}, author = {Jayadevan, Anisha and Nayak, Rajat and Karanth, Krithi K. and Krishnaswamy, Jagdish and DeFries, Ruth and Karanth, K. Ullas and Vaidyanathan, Srinivas} } @article {72071, title = {The role of geography, environment, and genetic divergence on the distribution of pikas in the Himalaya}, journal = {ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION}, year = {2020}, month = {01/2020}, abstract = {

Pikas (Ochotona Link, 1795) are high-altitude specialist species making them a useful bioindicator species to warming in high-altitude ecosystem. The Himalayan Mountains are an important part of their range, supporting approximately 23\%{\textendash}25\% of total pika species worldwide, yet we lack basic information on the distribution patterns. We combine field-based surveys with genetics-based identification and phylogeny to identify differences in species-environment relationships. Further, we suggest putative evolutionary causes for the observed niche patterns.

}, doi = {10.1002/ece3.6007}, author = {Dahal, Nishma and Kumar, Sunil and Noon, Barry R and Nayak, Rajat and Lama, Rinzin Phunjok and Ramakrishnan, Uma} }