Divya Mudappa - Session 02

(00:00) Application Processes, reasons for Studying Brown Palm Civet, choosing Bharathiar University for PhD Divya Mudappa had an interview at Stella Maris College, Chennai while enrolling for a Bachelor's in Zoology. For her Master’s at Pondicherry University, she wrote an entrance exam after which she was shortlisted and was called for an interview. After her Master’s, she wanted to study small carnivores for a project on the effects of fragmentation on animals. During her initial surveys in Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve (KMTR), she realised that the Brown Palm Civet was more common than the others. Most scats of small carnivores she collected also turned out to be the Brown Palm Civet’s scat, in which she found seeds of rainforest fruits. The abundance and ease of finding the civet compared to other small carnivores was her reason for choosing the species for her study. She registered at Bharathiar University for her PhD, as Ajith Kumar her supervisor, was the Principal Scientist at Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History (SACON) which was recognized by Bharathiar University.

(9:08) Motivations for research questions in PhD, experience at KMTR and conservation interests Mudappa says that her camera-trapping work during her project provided insights into the questions she could explore in her PhD, like the home ranges and activity pattern of the Brown Palm Civet, studying phenology, and the variation of the relative abundances of small carnivores in contiguous and fragmented forests. Mudappa considers the three-and-a-half years spent at KMTR for her PhD as the best part of her life. She describes how she and Sridhar (T. R. S. Raman) had built an attachment towards the forest and wanted to stop any form of disturbance to it. This was when she started to develop an interest in conservation. Mudappa describes experimenting with the seed germination of rainforest trees. They planted the saplings in abandoned cardamom estates in KMTR and studied their regeneration. They found many degraded fragments in the Anamalais during their surveys and felt that they could plant the saplings here. That was when the idea of conserving rainforests through active intervention and restoration came to their minds. [Archivist’s note: Interviewee refers to T. R. S. Raman by their nickname, Sridhar, throughout the interview]

(18:42) Germination experiments and the decision to work on Restoration Mudappa explains that in a plant-animal interaction course, one learns that if seeds pass through the gut of an animal, they germinate better and faster. The basis of the experiment was to find out if it was true with the Brown Palm Civet or if it would result in the seeds getting damaged. When she revisited the cardamom estates of KMTR in 2008 where the seedlings were planted, she found that the cardamom plant numbers had come down significantly. They decided to try restoration with the experimental idea of planting the seedlings in sites with varying levels of degradation and checking the response of the seedling's survival. She talks about how Sridhar's work on birds, her work on small mammals and Kartikeyan Vasudevan and Ishwar N. M.'s work on herpetofauna, revealed that fragments with good conditions had good diversity in the Anamalais. Thus, the idea was to restore degraded fragments to be structurally better which would support many species. Mudappa recalls an incident where a manager of a company approached them with the plan to plant Teak and Rosewood in a remnant forest patch to conserve it. They jumped in to intervene as they did not have the time to carry out experiments or plan a perfect ecological restoration intervention. They used the small nursery they had set up to restore the patch. It was at that point that the project shifted from being an academic one to an on-ground intervention project. Soon, they decided to focus on restoration for at least ten years.

(26:00) Decision of long-term restoration work and settling down in the Anamalais Mudappa says that it was not a tough decision to do restoration long-term. They were prepared to wait for a decade in order to see changes in the restored plots. What she was not prepared for were the interactions she had to have with people in convincing them to let them restore, the type of species they could plant, and dealing with situations where the owner of the plot changes. Mudappa feels that conservation isn’t as easy as research because the players are very different compared to those in research. For Mudappa, the motivation for conservation comes from looking at how fragile ecosystems are and how vulnerable they are to human activities, including research. She was not comfortable with sacrificing animals for science and she found it very unsettling. She believes that every little piece of forest that could be protected would become valuable, even more so now with climate change. Settling down in the Anamalais was not a difficult choice in terms of a profession as she was not very academically inclined. As her interests were in applied ecological research, restoration seemed to be a natural progression. As much as she wishes to go back to KMTR, it is logistically a tough place and she suggests that she may not have felt as satisfied working there as she feels working on restoration in the Anamalais.

(37:35) Being part of NCF, initial objectives, ideas and goals of the Restoration project Nature Conservation Foundation (NCF) was established while she was at the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) when the need for conservation action started to take shape. There, she interacted with M. D. Madhusudhan, Rohan Arthur, Charudutt Mishra and Sridhar where discussions on ecological and conservation issues took place, which led to the birth of NCF. She was thus informally a part of NCF since its inception. Mudappa and Sridhar were always interested in long-term monitoring and tracking of changes. She explains that the plots they decided to restore were in a very degraded state. When they began, they had a wish map to connect the fragments which has not been possible yet. She talks about how restoration has led to improvements within the plots and in people’s perception of wildlife. She says it probably has not increased the population of endangered species but it has helped certain plants recover which would not have been possible without intervention. The goal of the project was to mitigate the degradation with restoration and recovery for it to hold what it did during the initial surveys of 2000. They have been successful in doing this and they see fragments being colonised by Nilgiri Langurs and Giant Squirrels. Mudappa explains that fragment connectivity is not very important for large mammals like Leopards and Bears. The obstacle in realising the wish map was that nobody wished to give any land under production. To create the shortest continuity, they would have to deal with the companies that are understandably reluctant to let go of their production areas.

(50:51) Demonstrating successful rainforest restoration Mudappa states that their work has demonstrated that rainforest restoration is possible. Although the exact process cannot be replicated elsewhere, their learnings can be adapted contextually. She believes that having patience and time to learn before implementing is important. Restoring phase-wise is more helpful than a one-time large-scale operation as it needs manual labour and constant monitoring. Mudappa explains that companies and forest departments are very target driven, focussing on the number of trees planted or the area covered. Mudappa and Sridhar sell their saplings at Rs.25/- to commercial ventures as growing and nurturing them is laborious work. She says that if companies and forest departments are left to restore, it is likely that they would choose to buy saplings of any species at a cheaper rate. This would be disastrous for whatever forest is left. Mudappa hopes that restoration in the hands of local citizens who care would use the right approaches.

(1:00:43) Communicating with companies Mudappa and Sridhar have been able to use their research backgrounds in convincing companies to restore some of their fragments. She recalls working with various companies that have policies that make it easier to restore their fragments. The toolkit they use to communicate, highlights the importance of rainforests and the uniqueness of the Anamalais. They are then taken on a walk, after which the person may support the cause. Mudappa says that some companies willingly support them, whereas others make it clear in not wanting to do any restoration despite owning a few degraded fragments. Mudappa explains that the companies know better the benefits that they would get with restoration. She talks about their attempt at bringing in wildlife-friendly certification of the products grown in plots with restoration fragments by collaborating with Rainforest Alliance. However, due to some unacceptable business practices and complications, they had to withdraw from doing this.

(1:09:18) Working on tea estates Mudappa says that most tea estates grow Silver Oak, which is fast-growing and there are no rainforest trees that can compete with it. She says that people worry about the fungal infections that the native trees may bring. In addition, Silver Oaks can be lopped, felled and sold in times of a money crunch which is not possible with native species owing to strict regulations. She says that some tea estate owners are willing to have native trees but many confusing situations arise, like not wanting to buy saplings from them because of the cost. Mudappa talks about providing suggestions to them including not cutting the native trees already present and simply letting them grow, but it is not seen as a budget-able action.

(1:15:37) Sources of knowledge and benchmark sites The knowledge acquired through their research helped them initiate the project. Now, they learn through casual observations, trial and error and interactions with field assistants who come from the Kadar Community. Mudappa states that the Kadars have a vast knowledge of plants, the ability to tell species apart and also recognise sites where they grow best. She mentions that the planters (people who study silviculture) have not contributed much for the growth of rainforest species as they do not know much about it. The planters and the forest department are horrified with the way plants are grown in this restoration project. Mudappa describes using benchmark sites from protected areas as a standard with which restored sites are compared. These benchmark sites come from elevations different from that of the degraded sites which need to be restored. It is complemented by historical records and by knowing the likely composition of the species in the site based on old large-standing trees. It is not possible to grow them in the desired composition in the nursery due to differences in seed availability and germination. Mudappa says that the species composition stabilises and resembles that of the benchmark over time despite not planting them in the same composition. The benchmark consists of 700-750 trees of 60-80 species per hectare. They now plant 1000 saplings of 50-60 species per hectare after accounting for loss. While preparing the plot, they leave out pioneers in case of very open conditions and also leave out native trees that are naturally regenerating. She says that it is easier to resemble the benchmark in terms of tree density than composition.

(1:29:52) Species survival rates Mudappa says that their recent collaboration with Anand M. Osuri is helping them have a clearer understanding through documentation of their learnings. In their early years, they studied survival at the species level and the conditions they grew in. They learnt about the native trees that grow well under open and disturbed conditions which they plant first. After they form a canopy, they plant other typical old-growth shade-loving rainforest trees. The decisions on the species that need to be planted depend on its survival, site and soil conditions, the type, and the presence or absence of the associated species on the site. However, she says that it may not be important to be very precise as most of their fragments have recovered well in a decade, and what matters is the return of its ecological functions. She explains that they do not try to replicate an undisturbed forest which is impossible. They plant trees as they are important structurally and in terms of complexity in a rainforest. The benchmark has several other components like lichens, ferns, orchids, herbaceous plants and shrubs, none of which they grow in the sites. The intention is to nudge a degraded site to allow it to get its functions back, and start the process of recovery for it to try and become a forest.

(1:38:00) Documentation of restoration work and influence of academic studies Certain aspects in the initial years were well documented, however, they did not carry out extensive studies of the degraded sites before planting. Mudappa talks about using adjacent sites as surrogates for what the restored site would have looked like pre-restoration, as those adjacent sites were not actively planted or protected. A lot of learning is passed on through conversations because not everyone who works is into science and research and the project is more action-oriented.

Steve Goosem and Nigel I. J. Tucker’s rainforest restoration in Queensland helped Mudappa and Sridhar find motivation for their work. They did not come across many other useful studies after that and due to high subscription rates, they did not have access to many scientific journals. They were informed of other restoration work through conferences and friends. The studies would provide some ideas but it was not possible to implement them as the context and site conditions would be different. They wanted their fragments to be used by large mammals and other animals, which otherwise would be closer to people’s homes. She talks about how the studies they referred to had fenced off their sites which was possible as they did not have large animals. The Anamalais had many animals including Gaur, Sambar and Barking Deer that visited the fragments due to which they could not be fenced. Mudappa explains that studies are not comparable even in India owing to different faunal groups and varying land ownership. She says that there is always a dialogue with the owners of the fragments and they have to compromise and not plant certain species, although it may make sense to do so ecologically.

(1:46:51) A bit about the Maximum-diversity method The approach used by Mudappa and team for restoration is the Maximum-diversity method which allows them to grow a lot of species. In the framework species method, species like the Ficus are used to attract frugivores, or non-native species like Acacia are used, that act as perches. They did not want to grow non-native species because they were not ready to control their spread and did not know how it could affect the soil.