DOCSLIB.ORG

Biosphere Reserves in Action: Case Studies of the American Experience

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Biosphere Reserves in Action: Case Studies of the American Experience D. Dean Bibles, Chair National Committee U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program 1995 The United States Man and the Biosphere Program (U.S. MAB) fosters harmonious relationships between humans and the biosphere through domestic and international cooperation in interdisciplinary research, education, biosphere reserves, and information exchange. U.S. MAB utilizes UNESCO designated biosphere reserves as sites for promoting ecosystem management by incorporating a program of ecosystem protection with sustainable human use and development; documenting global change and biological diversity through monitoring, inventorying, and scientific research; and organizing regional cooperative institutions for resolving complex issues of multipurpose land use. U.S. MAB is supported by the Agency for International Development, Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, Department of Commerce-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Energy, Department of the Interior-Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior-National Biological Service, Department of the Interior-National Park Service, Department of State, Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Peace Corps, and Smithsonian Institution. The opinions, conclusions and recommendations expressed in U.S. MAB publications are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the participating agencies and institutions. Inquiries concerning the U.S. MAB Program should be addressed to the U.S. MAB Secretariat U.S. Department of State OES/ETC/MAB SA-44C, Room 107 Washington, D.C. 20522-4401 The case studies presented here were written with contributions from managers and staff of the reserves. Nine of the studies were originally prepared by Partners in Parks in October 1993 and have been updated in 1995. The case study on "Virginia Coast Biosphere Reserve" was prepared by The Nature Conservancy in November 1994; "New Jersey Pinelands Biosphere Reserve" was written by The Pinelands Commission, September 1994; and "Land Between the Lakes Biosphere Reserve" was written by Tim Merriman, October 1994. Antoinette J. Condo of the U.S. MAB Secretariat staff brought the separate 12 case studies together into this one volume. Available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS): U.S. Department of Commerce 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22151 No. NTIS PB95-159877 _____________________________________________________ Department of State Publication 10241 Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Released June 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword Preface Acknowledgments 1. Central California Coast Biosphere Reserve 2. Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve 3. Chihuahuan Desert Biosphere Reserve 4. Colorado Rockies Regional Cooperative 5. Crown of the Continent Biosphere Reserves 6. International Sonoran Desert Alliance 7. Land Between The Lakes Biosphere Reserve 8. Mammoth Cave Area Biosphere Reserve 9. New Jersey Pinelands Biosphere Reserve 10. Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve 11. Virgin Islands Biosphere Reserve 12. Virginia Coast Biosphere Reserve Afterword DEDICATION This volume is dedicated to those around the world interested in biosphere reserves and the study of land management issues. The biosphere reserves of the United States are diverse in origin, purpose, and management. U.S. MAB envisions every biosphere reserve as a catalyst for cooperation among various interests and people. The following 12 case studies give a glimpse of efforts in communication among the local community, scientists, managers, and policymakers toward solving issues of sustainable development, conservation of biological diversity, and scientific investigation. D. Dean Bibles, Chairman FOREWORD For nearly 20 years, biosphere reserves have offered a unique framework for building the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required for conservation and sustainable use of ecosystems. The 12 case studies in this volume chronicle many of the cooperative efforts to implement the biosphere reserve concept in the United States. Considered together, these efforts involve more than 20 types of protected areas, and the participation of all levels of government, and many private organizations, academic institutions, citizens groups, and individuals. Biosphere reserves are multipurpose areas that are nominated by the national committee of the Man and the Biosphere Program (MAB) and designated by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to serve as demonstration areas for cooperation in building harmonious relationships between human activities and the conservation of ecosystems and biological diversity. Each biosphere reserve exemplifies the characteristic ecosystems of one of the world's biogeographical regions. It is a land or coastal/marine area involving human communities as integral components and including resources managed for objectives ranging from complete protection to intensive, yet sustainable development. A biosphere reserve is envisioned as a regional "landscape for learning" in which monitoring, research, education, and training are encouraged to support sustainable conservation of natural and managed ecosystems. It is a framework for regional cooperation involving government decisionmakers, scientists, resource managers, private organizations and local people (i.e., the biosphere reserve "stakeholders"). Finally, each biosphere reserve is part of a global network for sharing information and experience to help address complex problems of conservation and development. Natural resource policies in the U.S. and other countries increasingly encourage cooperation in conserving biological diversity and meeting the needs of human communities for social and economic development. Biosphere reserves help implement these policies by providing international recognition of important regional efforts and a focus for stakeholders to cooperate in developing the knowledge, technologies, and perspectives needed to solve complex resource problems. UNESCO designated the first U.S. biosphere reserves in 1976. These first reserves were properties managed by the National Park Service, the Forest Service, or the Agricultural Research Service. The parks served as strictly protected "core areas" for conservation and as benchmarks for monitoring ecological change against which to compare the effects of human activities in the surrounding region. The experimental research areas facilitated manipulations to improve understanding of these effects and develop ecologically sustainable management practices. Where possible, these separately designated biosphere reserves were paired to encourage cooperative research that could help regional interests formulate management goals. In 1984, UNESCO approved the Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves, based on the recommendations of the First International Congress on Biosphere Reserves held in Minsk, Belarus, in 1983. The plan clarified the concerns, characteristics and objectives of biosphere reserves, and recommended implementing actions for consideration by international organizations and National MAB Committees. Beginning in the early 1980s, U.S. MAB nominated multisite biosphere reserves to strengthen regional cooperation in implementing biosphere reserve concepts. In recent years regional cooperative biosphere reserve programs have been established involving many agencies, private interests, and participating sites. In 1993, the interagency U.S. National Committee for MAB approved convening a national workshop of biosphere reserve managers and stakeholders to develop recommendations for an integrated U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program that would take into account the many differences among U.S. biosphere reserves. The workshop, involving more than 80 participants, was held in Estes Park, Colorado, in December 1993. To help workshop participants evaluate the U.S. experience, the National Park Service amended its cooperative agreement with Partners in Parks to provide for preparation of a series of case studies as examples of efforts to implement biosphere reserve concepts. The case studies focus on U.S. biosphere reserves that are actively developing cooperative biosphere reserve programs. The case study areas represent many terrestrial and coastal/marine biogeographic regions illustrating a variety of resource issues; ecological, social, and economic conditions; and different types and patterns of ecosystem uses, management strategies, and land ownerships. Each case study includes a brief description of the natural and human environment of the biosphere reserve and the significant resource issues of regional concern; a history of the initial designation of the biosphere reserve and subsequent planning and implementation of the biosphere reserve concept; an overview of accomplishments; and an assessment of benefits, constraints, and the lessons learned. The initial nine case studies are based on information from the files of the National Park Service and from interviews of biosphere reserve managers and stakeholders conducted in mid-1993 by Dr. Sarah H. Bishop, President of Partners in Parks. These nine case studies prepared by Dr. Bishop and myself, were distributed to participants in the national workshop of biosphere reserve managers. Following the workshop, U.S. MAB convened a small working group to consider recommendations
Recommended publications
  • Wildlife Management in the National Parks

    Wildlife Management in the National Parks

    wildlife management IN THE NATIONAL PARKS wildlife management IN IHE NATIONAL PARKS 1969 REPRINT FROM ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES FOR NATURAL AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR • NATIONAL PARK SERVICE For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 15 cents WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN THE NATIONAL PARKS ADVISORY BOARD ON WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, APPOINTED BY SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR UDALL A. S. Leopold (Chairman), S. A. Cain, C. M. Cottam, I. N. Gabrielson, T. L. Kimball March 4, 1963 Historical In the Congressional Act of 1916 which created the National Park Service, preservation of native animal' life was clearly specified as one of the pur­ poses of the parks. A frequently quoted passage of the Act states "... which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoy­ ment of future generations." In implementing this Act, the newly formed Park Service developed a philosophy of wildlife protection, which in that era was indeed the most obvious and immediate need in wildlife conservation. Thus the parks were established as refuges, the animal populations were protected from wildfire. For a time predators were controlled to protect the "good" ani­ mals from the "bad" ones, but this endeavor mercifully ceased in the 1930's. On the whole, there was little major change in the Park Service practice of wildlife management during the first 40 years of its existence.
  • Resource Advisor Guide

    Resource Advisor Guide

    A publication of the National Wildfire Coordinating Group Resource Advisor Guide PMS 313 AUGUST 2017 Resource Advisor Guide August 2017 PMS 313 The Resource Advisor Guide establishes NWCG standards for Resource Advisors to enable interagency consistency among Resource Advisors, who provide professional knowledge and expertise toward the protection of natural, cultural, and other resources on wildland fires and all-hazard incidents. The guide provides detailed information on decision-making, authorities, safety, preparedness, and rehabilitation concerns for Resource Advisors as well as considerations for interacting with all levels of incident management. Additionally, the guide standardizes the forms, plans, and systems used by Resource Advisors for all land management agencies. The National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) provides national leadership to enable interoperable wildland fire operations among federal, state, tribal, territorial, and local partners. NWCG operations standards are interagency by design; they are developed with the intent of universal adoption by the member agencies. However, the decision to adopt and utilize them is made independently by the individual member agencies and communicated through their respective directives systems. Table of Contents Section One: Resource Advisor Defined ...................................................................................................................1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................1
  • Wilderness Character Resource Brief

    Wilderness Character Resource Brief

    WILDERNESS CHARACTER National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Resource Brief Wilderness Stewardship Division Background The National Park Service (NPS) is responsible for the stewardship of 61 designated wilderness areas. Per agency policy, the NPS also manages eligible, proposed, recommended, and potential wilderness. In total, over 80 percent of all NPS lands are managed as wilderness, from Alaska to Florida. Preserving Wilderness Character The 1964 Wilderness Act’s Statement of Policy, Section 2(a) states that wilderness areas “shall be administered... so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character.” This affrmative legal mandate to preserve wilderness character, and related NPS policy, applies to all NPS wilderness. Wilderness character is a holistic concept based on the interaction of biophysical environments, personal experiences, and symbolic meanings. This includes intangible qualities like a sense of adventure and challenge or refuge and inspiration. Wilderness character also includes fve tangible qualities associated with the biophysical environment: • Natural - Wilderness ecological systems are Monitoring Wilderness Character substantially free from the effects of modern civilization How do NPS managers preserve wilderness character? Wilderness character monitoring helps address this • Untrammeled - Wilderness is essentially free from question by 1) assessing how management decisions the intentional actions of modern human control and actions may affect individual
  • Ecosystem Services and Natural Resources

    Ecosystem Services and Natural Resources

    ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND NATURAL RESOURCES Porter Hoagland1*, Hauke Kite-Powell1, Di Jin1, and Charlie Colgan2 1Marine Policy Center Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Woods Hole, MA 02543 2Center for the Blue Economy Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey Monterey, CA 93940 *Corresponding author. This working paper is a preliminary draft for discussion by participants at the Mid-Atlantic Blue Ocean Economy 2030 meeting. Comments and suggestions are wel- come. Please do not quote or cite without the permission of the authors. 1. Introduction All natural resources, wherever they are found, comprise physical features of the Earth that have economic value when they are in short supply. The supply status of natural resources can be the result of natural occurrences or affected by human degradation or restoration, new scientific in- sights or technological advances, or regulation. The economic value of natural resources can ex- pand or contract with varying environmental conditions, shifting human uses and preferences, and purposeful investments, depletions, or depreciation. It has now become common to characterize flows of goods and services from natural resources, referred to as “ecosystem” (or sometimes “environmental”) services (ESs). The values of ES flows can arise through direct, indirect, or passive uses of natural resources, in markets or as public goods, and a variety of methodologies have been developed to measure and estimate these values. Often the values of ES flows are underestimated or even ignored, and the resulting im- plicit subsidies may lead to the overuse or degradation of the relevant resources or even the broader environment (Fenichel et al. 2016). Where competing uses of resources are potentially mutually exclusive in specific locations or over time, it is helpful to be able to assess—through explicit tradeoffs—the values of ES flows that may be gained or lost when one or more uses are assigned or gain preferential treatment over others.
  • Natural Resources and Wildlife Management Statistics

    Natural Resources and Wildlife Management Statistics

    Natural Resources and Wildlife Management 2018-19 State Results Statistics data includes students taking exams in the original testing period and includes students retaking exams. The Score Distribution and Standards performance tables show results for original testing period only for accurate evaluation of live testing performance. Statistics Categories Performance Participants 3 Pass Rate 3 Pass Percentage 100.0% Average Score 73.0 Cut Score 65 Score Distribution % Range # Scores in Range 0-15 0 15-25 0 25-35 0 35-45 0 45-55 0 55-65 1 65-75 1 75-85 1 85-95 0 95-100 0 Natural Resources and Wildlife Management 1) CONTENT STANDARD 1.0: EXPLORE NATURAL RESOURCE SCIENCE AND MANAGEMENT 75.93% 1) Performance Standard 1.1 : Investigate the Relationship Between Natural Resources and Society, Including Conflict Management 72.22% 1) 1.1.1 Define natural resource management 77.78% 3) 1.1.3 Describe human dependency and demands on natural resources 88.89% 4) 1.1.4 Explain natural resource conservation 66.67% 5) 1.1.5 Investigate the effects of multiple uses of natural resources (e.g., recreation, mining, agriculture, forestry, public lands grazing, etc.) 66.67% 6) 1.1.6 Analyze societal issues related to natural resource management 50% 2) Performance Standard 1.2 : Explain Interrelationships Between Natural Resources and Humans in Managing Natural Environments 86.67% 1) 1.2.1 Explain the effects and/or trade-off of population growth, greater energy consumption, and increased technology and development on natural resources and the environment 83.33%
  • 2019 National Park Service Report

    2019 National Park Service Report

    TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTACT INFORMATION page one ACKNOWLEDGMENTS page one CONSERVATION LEGACY OVERVIEW page two EXECUTIVE SUMMARY page three STATEMENT OF PURPOSE page three OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM SUCCESS page five DEMOGRAPHICS & ACCOMPLISHMENTS page six PARK LOCATIONS page six PROGRAM & PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS page seven PARTICIPANT AND PARTNER EXPERIENCE page twenty-two CONCLUSION page twenty-three APPENDIX A: PRESS AND MEDIA page twenty-four APPENDIX B: PROJECTS page twenty-four ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS APPENDIX C: FUNDING Conservation Legacy would like to thank the National Park Service page twenty-six staff, Cooperators and Partners who make our shared vision, mission and programming a continued success. We absolutely could not APPENDIX D: OTHER DOI PROGRAMS page twenty-six positively impact these individuals, communities, and treasured places without you! APPENDIX E: INTERN SURVEY RESULTS page twenty-seven NPS STAFF AND UNITS: NPS Washington Office NPS Youth Programs NPS Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program NPS Historic Preservation Training Center CONSERVATION LEGACY Region 1 North Atlantic Appalachian NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Region 2 South Atlantic Gulf FY2019 REPORT Region 3 Great Lakes Report Term: October 2018–September 2019 Region 4 Mississippi Basin Region 5 Missouri Basin CONTACT INFO Region 6 Arkansas Rio Grande Texas Gulf FOR CONSERVATION LEGACY: Region 7 Upper Colorado Basin Amy Sovocool, Chief External Affairs Officer Region 8 Lower Colorado Basin 701 Camino del Rio, Suite 101 Region 9 Colombia Pacific Northwest Durango, Colorado 81301 Region 10 California Great Basin Email: [email protected] Region 11 Alaska Phone: 970-749-1151 Region 12 Pacific Islands www.conservationlegacy.org 1 OVERVIEW FOSTERING CONSERVATION SERVICE IN SUPPORT OF COMMUNITIES & ECOSYSTEMS LOCAL ACTION.
  • International Coordinating Council of the MAB Programme; 29Th; Final

    International Coordinating Council of the MAB Programme; 29Th; Final

    SC-17/CONF.229/15 Paris, 15 June 2017 Original: English UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION International Co-ordinating Council of the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme Twenty-ninth session UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, Room IV (Fontenoy Building) 12 – 15 June 2017 FINAL REPORT The Secretariat of the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information or documentation provided by States to the Secretariat of UNESCO. The publication of any such advice, opinion, statement or other information or documentation on UNESCO’s website and/or on working documents also does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its boundaries. List of contents Item Page I. Opening by the Chair of the ICC 2 II. Opening remarks of the Director-General of UNESCO 2 III. Report of the Chair of the ICC (full report in Annex 2) 3 IV. Adoption of the agenda and timetable 4 V. Report of the Secretary of the MAB Programme 4 VI. Reports on actions undertaken by Member States / regional and thematic MAB Networks in the context of MAB with a focus on the Lima Action Plan 8 VII. Implementation of the Exit Strategy 15 VIII. Periodic Review Reports and Follow-Up Information Received since the last MAB International Coordinating Council (MAB ICC) Meeting 20 A. Recommendations for New Periodic Review Reports 21 B. Follow-Up Information Received since the last MAB MAB ICC Meeting 69 IX.
  • Sustainable Use of Soils and Water: the Role of Environmental Land Use Conflicts

    Sustainable Use of Soils and Water: the Role of Environmental Land Use Conflicts

    sustainability Editorial Sustainable Use of Soils and Water: The Role of Environmental Land Use Conflicts Fernando A. L. Pacheco CQVR – Chemistry Research Centre, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, Quinta de Prados Ap. 1013, Vila Real 5001-801, Portugal; [email protected] Received: 3 February 2020; Accepted: 4 February 2020; Published: 6 February 2020 Abstract: Sustainability is a utopia of societies, that could be achieved by a harmonious balance between socio-economic development and environmental protection, including the sustainable exploitation of natural resources. The present Special Issue addresses a multiplicity of realities that confirm a deviation from this utopia in the real world, as well as the concerns of researchers. These scholars point to measures that could help lead the damaged environment to a better status. The studies were focused on sustainable use of soils and water, as well as on land use or occupation changes that can negatively affect the quality of those resources. Some other studies attempt to assess (un)sustainability in specific regions through holistic approaches, like the land carrying capacity, the green gross domestic product or the eco-security models. Overall, the special issue provides a panoramic view of competing interests for land and the consequences for the environment derived therefrom. Keywords: water resources; soil; land use change; conflicts; environmental degradation; sustainability Competition for land is a worldwide problem affecting developed as well as developing countries, because the economic growth of activity sectors often requires the expansion of occupied land, sometimes to places that overlap different sectors. Besides the social tension and conflicts eventually caused by the competing interests for land, the environmental problems they can trigger and sustain cannot be overlooked.
  • Energy Budget of the Biosphere and Civilization: Rethinking Environmental Security of Global Renewable and Non-Renewable Resources

    Energy Budget of the Biosphere and Civilization: Rethinking Environmental Security of Global Renewable and Non-Renewable Resources

    ecological complexity 5 (2008) 281–288 available at www.sciencedirect.com journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecocom Viewpoint Energy budget of the biosphere and civilization: Rethinking environmental security of global renewable and non-renewable resources Anastassia M. Makarieva a,b,*, Victor G. Gorshkov a,b, Bai-Lian Li b,c a Theoretical Physics Division, Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, 188300 Gatchina, St. Petersburg, Russia b CAU-UCR International Center for Ecology and Sustainability, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA c Ecological Complexity and Modeling Laboratory, Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0124, USA article info abstract Article history: How much and what kind of energy should the civilization consume, if one aims at Received 28 January 2008 preserving global stability of the environment and climate? Here we quantify and compare Received in revised form the major types of energy fluxes in the biosphere and civilization. 30 April 2008 It is shown that the environmental impact of the civilization consists, in terms of energy, Accepted 13 May 2008 of two major components: the power of direct energy consumption (around 15 Â 1012 W, Published on line 3 August 2008 mostly fossil fuel burning) and the primary productivity power of global ecosystems that are disturbed by anthropogenic activities. This second, conventionally unaccounted, power Keywords: component exceeds the first one by at least several times. Solar power It is commonly assumed that the environmental stability can be preserved if one Hydropower manages to switch to ‘‘clean’’, pollution-free energy resources, with no change in, or Wind power even increasing, the total energy consumption rate of the civilization.
  • For-74: a Guide to Urban Habitat Conservation Planning

    For-74: a Guide to Urban Habitat Conservation Planning

    FOR-74 A Guide to Urban Habitat Conservation Planning Thomas G. Barnes, Extension Wildlife Specialist Lowell Adams, National Institute for Urban Wildlife entuckians value their forests and Kother natural resources for aes- Guidelines for Considering Wildlife in the Urban Development thetic, recreational, and economic Process significance, so over the past several Promote habitats that will have the food, cover, water, and living space that decades they have become increasingly all wildlife require by following these guidelines: concerned about the loss of wildlife • Before development, maximize open space and make an effort to protect the habitat and greenspace. Urban and most valuable wildlife habitat by placing buildings on less important portions suburban development is one of the of the site. Choosing cluster development, which is flexible, can help. leading causes of this loss: A recent • Provide water, and design stormwater control impoundments to benefit wildlife. study indicated that every day in • Use native plants that have value for wildlife as well as aesthetic appeal. Kentucky more than 100 acres of rural • Provide bird-feeding stations and nest boxes for cavity-nesting birds like land is being converted to urban house wrens and wood ducks. development. • Educate residents about wildlife conservation, using, for example, informa- Because concern for loss of tion packets or a nature trail through open space. greenspace is not new, we have for • Ensure a commitment to managing urban wildlife habitats. some time created attractive urban greenspace environments with our parks and backyards. These The publication can also be useful to A landscape is a large area com- greenspaces have been created not so the average homeowner in understand- posed of ecosystems (the plants, much for wildlife habitats as for people ing the complex issues involved in animals, other living organisms, and to enjoy, but the potential for wildlife landscape planning and wildlife their physical surroundings).
  • Ecology: Biodiversity and Natural Resources Part 1

    Ecology: Biodiversity and Natural Resources Part 1

    CK-12 FOUNDATION Ecology: Biodiversity and Natural Resources Part 1 Akre CK-12 Foundation is a non-profit organization with a mission to reduce the cost of textbook materials for the K-12 market both in the U.S. and worldwide. Using an open-content, web-based collaborative model termed the “FlexBook,” CK-12 intends to pioneer the generation and distribution of high-quality educational content that will serve both as core text as well as provide an adaptive environment for learning. Copyright © 2010 CK-12 Foundation, www.ck12.org Except as otherwise noted, all CK-12 Content (including CK-12 Curriculum Material) is made available to Users in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution/Non-Commercial/Share Alike 3.0 Un- ported (CC-by-NC-SA) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/), as amended and updated by Creative Commons from time to time (the “CC License”), which is incorporated herein by this reference. Specific details can be found at http://about.ck12.org/terms. Printed: October 11, 2010 Author Barbara Akre Contributor Jean Battinieri i www.ck12.org Contents 1 Ecology: Biodiversity and Natural Resources Part 1 1 1.1 Lesson 18.1: The Biodiversity Crisis ............................... 1 1.2 Lesson 18.2: Natural Resources .................................. 32 2 Ecology: Biodiversity and Natural Resources Part I 49 2.1 Chapter 18: Ecology and Human Actions ............................ 49 2.2 Lesson 18.1: The Biodiversity Crisis ............................... 49 2.3 Lesson 18.2: Natural Resources .................................. 53 www.ck12.org ii Chapter 1 Ecology: Biodiversity and Natural Resources Part 1 1.1 Lesson 18.1: The Biodiversity Crisis Lesson Objectives • Compare humans to other species in terms of resource needs and use, and ecosystem service benefits and effects.
  • Traditional Ecological Knowledge on Characteristics, Conservation and Management of Soil in Tribal Communities of Pachmarhi Biosphere Reserve, India

    Traditional Ecological Knowledge on Characteristics, Conservation and Management of Soil in Tribal Communities of Pachmarhi Biosphere Reserve, India

    Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition Traditional ecological knowledge on characteristics, conservation and management of soil in tribal communities of Pachmarhi Biosphere Reserve, India C. P. Kala Ecosystem & Environment Management Indian Institute of Forest Management, Nehru Nagar, Bhopal - 462 003 Madhya Pradesh, INDIA Corresponding author: [email protected] Abstract The problem of soil degradation has made the farmers to devise some indigenous practices and systems of land use since antiquity in order to maintain and restore the quality of land, which remains operational even today to maintain sustainable crop production. The present study, therefore, deals with the traditional ecological knowledge on soil characteristics and fertility along with the conservation and management of soil by the tribal communities in the Pachmarhi Biosphere Reserve (PBR) of India. Traditionally, the farmers in the study villages of PBR have classified the soil types mainly on the basis of soil texture, soil colour and its water retaining capacity. The study documented a total of 16 soil types, as classified by the villagers such as Bhurbhuria, Chikti, Kadialtori, Kamkaltori, Potini, Chikni, Kasai, Dadra and Barrimitti. Besides crop production, the soil was used for construction of house and pots, whitewashing and painting purposes. For conservation and management of soil, the farmers have adopted various traditional practices, which include crop rotation, burning of residues, planting forestry species, applying farmyard manure, and making land boundary. The study reflects that the traditional soil conservation and management practices in PBR are well knitted and interwoven with the cultures, belief systems and available resources. Keywords: Traditional knowledge, soil classification, soil conservation, tribal communities, Pachmarhi Biosphere Reserve 1.