No abstract

(1) conclude that mangroves reduced the death toll from storm surge in the Orissa Super Cyclone. However, it is unclear from their analyses whether or not this effect occurs independently over and above that of other variables known to affect inundation by long-period waves, such as distance from the coast and topography (2). Further, Das and Vincent (1) are wrong to equate storm surges with windgenerated storm waves. Storm surges have a period of hours to days (3) and consequently behave more like the tide or a tsunami. An effect of vegetation has never been questioned (2). The drag of vegetation must reduce wave velocity to some degree. More important questions, however, are how much protection vegetation can provide and how this compares with other mitigating factors (2). The results suggest that mangroves offered little protection (1). The correlation coefficient (r ϭ Ϫ0.13) between mangrove width and village deaths suggests that mangroves explain less than 2% of the variation in deaths. Clearly, other factors were also important. The study site covers only the northern extreme of the area affected by the cyclone and only 254 of Ͼ10,000 deaths occurred here. When the total area is considered, there is clear aggregation of deaths, which were much higher closer to where the storm crossed the coast (Fig. 1). Presumably, village proximity to the storm center or other variables such as distance from the coast and height above sea level were more important than mangroves in determining deaths per village. Indeed, these last two variables are significant whenever included in the models. Why then the emphasis on mangroves when no formal methods of model selection were used (4)?Even accepting the results, do they indicate that mangroves can provide an effective shield against storm surges, as suggested by the Food and Agriculture Organization? Surgerelated deaths were recorded in villages Ͼ2 km inland (1), suggesting the vegetation barrier will need to be very wide in similar low-lying areas. Indeed, in areas where high ground occurs close to the coast, the effect of vegetation is unlikely to be detectable (2). Finally, is revegetation an economical option for disaster mitigation? The authors estimate an opportunity cost of $300,000 (US) for every hectare of mangrove not cleared for farming. In contrast, the cost of an early warning system is minimal, because the existing weather forecasting capacity was sufficient to issue a warning that saved Ϸ5 lives per village (1). We conclude that although mangroves may have reduced deaths in this event (1), the effect is likely to be small, particularly when compared to other variables. Furthermore, the cost of revegetation is high and the effectiveness of a mangrove barrier is low when compared to an early warning system. The value in conserving coastal forests is preventing occupation of the most dangerous areas, which are close to the coast in low-lying areas (5).

The relative impacts of hunting and habitat on waterbird community were studied in agricultural wetlands of southern India. We surveyed wetlands to document waterbird community, and interviewed hunters to document hunting intensity, targeted species, and the motivations for hunting. Our results show that hunting leads to drastic declines in waterbird diversity and numbers, and skew the community towards smaller species. Hunting intensity, water spread, and vegetation cover were the three most important determinants of waterbird abundance and community structure. Species richness, density of piscivorous species, and medium-sized species (31-65 cm) were most affected by hunting. Out of 53 species recorded, 47 were hunted, with a preference for larger birds. Although illegal, hunting has increased in recent years and is driven by market demand. This challenges the widely held belief that waterbird hunting in India is a low intensity, subsistence activity, and undermines the importance of agricultural wetlands in waterbird conservation.

[1] Watershed development (WSD) is an important and expensive rural development initiative in India. Proponents of the approach contend that treating watersheds will increase agricultural and overall biomass productivity, which in turn will reduce rural poverty. We used satellite-measured normalized differenced vegetation index as a proxy for land productivity to test this crucial contention. We compared microwatersheds that had received funding and completed watershed restoration with adjacent untreated microwatersheds in the same region. As the criteria used can influence results, we analyzed microwatersheds grouped by catchment, state, ecological region, and biogeographical zones for analysis. We also analyzed pre treatment and posttreatment changes for the same watersheds in those schemes. Our findings show that WSD has not resulted in a significant increase in productivity in treated microwatersheds at any grouping, when compared to adjacent untreated microwatershed or the same microwatershed prior to treatment. We conclude that the well-intentioned people-centric WSD efforts may be inhibited by failing to adequately address the basic geomorphology and hydraulic condition of the catchment areas at all scales.

We analyse the suitability of Government of India's 2003 and 2008 common guidelines for prioritising micro-watersheds for restoration. These guidelines attempt to balance the need for improved hydraulic function with poverty alleviation and agricultural productivity. To do so, they provide a set of sub-criteria for prioritising micro-watersheds for treatment. We ranked the microwatersheds in the Kalivelli basin in South India based on these sub-criteria. We then compared the 2003 with the 2008 guidelines using GIS and spatial statistics. Visual inspection of the resulting digital maps and spatial autocorrelation analysis showed that individual sub-criteria within a guideline were highly positively auto correlated. Spatial crosscorrelations using Mantels test between sub-criteria in the same guidelines produced negative results however. Very different watersheds would have been selected for treatment using the 2003 vs. the 2008 guidelines. While this could have been evidence that the 2008 guidelines were an improvement over the 2003 guidelines, comparing the planning outcomes did not support this conclusion. We conclude that criteria used to select micro-watersheds for hydrologic treatment should be re-formulated emphasizing efffcient resource use and improved hydraulic function prior to social and economic concerns. Finally, we argue that a combined GIS and spatial analysis approach is amenable to quickly evaluating watershed selection criteria as well as assessing post implementation outcomes.