13.11.2012 Views

Ecorestoration of Banni Grassland - Global Restoration Network

Ecorestoration of Banni Grassland - Global Restoration Network

Ecorestoration of Banni Grassland - Global Restoration Network

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

6. DISCUSSION<br />

In <strong>Banni</strong>, animal husbandry plays a vital role in the<br />

economy <strong>of</strong> rural inhabitants and currently, the area<br />

supports 26,084 livestock population and provides<br />

livelihood to 10,949 human inhabitants <strong>of</strong> the area.<br />

<strong>Banni</strong> grassland also attracts over 2 lakhs <strong>of</strong><br />

immigrant livestock (sheep, goat, cattle and buffalo)<br />

during normal rainfall years. In addition to these,<br />

increase in the spread <strong>of</strong> Prosopis juliflora and<br />

saline area during the recent decades further<br />

intensified the degradation <strong>of</strong> grassland resources<br />

and thereby affects the life <strong>of</strong> the local people.<br />

To develop <strong>Banni</strong> as a self-sustained system, the<br />

Gujarat Ecology Commission has implemented<br />

restoration efforts in <strong>Banni</strong> area. Though, there are<br />

reports on the failure <strong>of</strong> artificial restoration <strong>of</strong><br />

degraded grasslands (Bronner 1990 and Westoby<br />

et al. 1989), GEC’s activities were fairly successful<br />

and recovery <strong>of</strong> the degraded and saline land could<br />

be clearly visualized from first year results. This<br />

includes higher species diversity, grass cover and<br />

biomass in the two restoration sites than the<br />

unprotected and Prosopis juliflora infested areas.<br />

The net above ground production estimated for<br />

nine USA grasslands by Sims and Singh (1971)<br />

ranged from 107 g/m 2 (1070 kg/ha) (ungrazed short<br />

prairie) to 512 g/m 2 (5120 kg/ha) (grazed tall grass<br />

prairie). The obtained biomass during the month <strong>of</strong><br />

November / December in high saline tract <strong>of</strong><br />

Bhirandiyara was 2 times and Dhordo was about 3<br />

times higher than the minimum biomass recorded<br />

by Sims and Singh (1971). Dense growth <strong>of</strong> grass<br />

cover developed in the restoration sites reduced<br />

the evaporation rate and thereby the surface soil<br />

salinity, which in turn reduced from 13 EC to less<br />

than 4 EC in the Bhirandiyara restoration site. This<br />

highlights the fact that, the productivity <strong>of</strong> any<br />

degraded and saline lands could be improved<br />

through proper management inputs.<br />

Higher availability <strong>of</strong> species and its biomass in<br />

the restoration site than the unprotected and<br />

Prosopis juliflora infested areas needs an explanation.<br />

Taking the protected and unprotected area<br />

into consideration, the barbed wire and trench fenc-<br />

<strong>Ecorestoration</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Banni</strong> <strong>Grassland</strong><br />

ing totally prevented livestock grazing in the former<br />

whereas grazing was prevalent in the latter. Grazing<br />

is complete and or partial removal <strong>of</strong> living or dead<br />

aboveground parts <strong>of</strong> plants (Hodgson 1979). The<br />

general effect <strong>of</strong> grazing is the reduction <strong>of</strong> perennial<br />

grasses, which are removed during the germination<br />

and recruitment stage. Overgrazing causes<br />

retrogression, moderate grazing decelerates the rate<br />

<strong>of</strong> succession whereas light grazing and complete<br />

protection accelerate the successional process<br />

(Penfound 1964).<br />

Apart from the climatic factors, and soil salinity,<br />

the grazing pressure would principally govern<br />

changes in grassland biomass <strong>of</strong> an area. Grazing<br />

influences competitive patterns, so that either<br />

preferentially grazed species lose competitive<br />

power to less grazed ones and subsequently<br />

decrease (Werger 1977, Walker 1987) or remain<br />

dominant in non grazed patches (McNaughton<br />

1979, Stuart-Hill and Tainton 1989). The first change<br />

was noticed in the unprotected areas where heavy<br />

livestock grazing recorded a noticeable reduction<br />

in palatable perennials like Sporobolus sp.,<br />

Dichanthium annulatum, Chloris barbata and<br />

complete absence <strong>of</strong> Cenchrus ciliaris. The latter<br />

was recorded mainly from the restoration sites<br />

where the above mentioned grass species recorded<br />

significant increase in biomass.<br />

Desert savannas are relatively less interactive as a<br />

result <strong>of</strong> low biomass (Khilmi 1962, Roberts 1987)<br />

and their dynamics are mainly event-driven<br />

(Westoby 1980). Changes in constraints, particularly<br />

rainfall, beyond the influence <strong>of</strong> the system<br />

cause stepwise, unpredictable changes in vegetation.<br />

It was believed that, nomadic livestock may<br />

have a comparatively little influence on the vegetation<br />

composition and production (Ellis and Swift<br />

1988) as most animals migrate in pursuit <strong>of</strong> water<br />

and fodder in dry season (Noy-Meir 1980) a condition<br />

common in <strong>Banni</strong> grassland. Natural events<br />

such as temporary droughts may change an area<br />

with perennials into one dominated by ephemeral,<br />

but grazing prevents renewed change from ephem-<br />

49

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!