Ambio

, Volume 46, Issue 6, pp 695–705 | Cite as

Do frogs really eat cardamom? Understanding the myth of crop damage by amphibians in the Western Ghats, India

  • Arun Kanagavel
  • Sethu Parvathy
  • Nithula Nirmal
  • Nithin Divakar
  • Rajeev Raghavan
Report

Abstract

In the Western Ghats of India, amphibians are culled at cardamom plantations since they are perceived to consume cardamom. To better understand the relationship between amphibians and cardamom, a study was undertaken at these plantations, which harbor numerous threatened and range-restricted amphibians. We undertook questionnaire surveys with 298 respondents at 148 plantations across southern India. Time-activity budget and diet analysis surveys were undertaken to determine whether amphibians really consumed cardamom. The conception that amphibians eat cardamom was found to be widespread especially among small-sized plantations, leading to negative perceptions and a lack of interest in amphibian conservation. The plantation community perceives a substantial economic loss due to amphibians, even though this is non-existent as revealed by our field surveys. These perceptions would lead to a continued intolerance of amphibian presence in plantations. A suitable outreach initiative re-affirming facts and spreading awareness on the positive role of amphibians would need to be conducted to negate this age-old myth.

Keywords

Agroforestry Cardamom plantations Diet analysis Frogs Local perception Pesticide use 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Monica Harpalani for her help in undertaking the surveys; Ravi Chellam and KV Gururaja for their support; Sunil Sachi for assisting with contacts in Karnataka; Mahadesh for assisting in the surveys; Gayathri Selvaraj for helping with data analysis; Sandeep Das for helping with species identification; and Benjamin Tapley for his suggestions that vastly improved the manuscript. Critical comments from two anonymous reviewers vastly improved the manuscript. The authors thank K. Ranjeet, Director, School of Fisheries Resource Management and Harvest Technology, Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies for laboratory facilities. The study was financially supported by the Inlaks Ravi Sankaran Fellowship Program–Small Grants Project 2014 and Idea Wild to AK and Ocean Park Conservation Foundation, Hong Kong (OPCFHK; FH03.1516).

Supplementary material

13280_2017_908_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (129 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 129 kb)

References

  1. Abraham, R.K., R.A. Pyron, B.R. Ansil, A. Zachariah, and A. Zachariah. 2013. Two novel genera and one new species of treefrog (Anura: Rhacophoridae) highlight cryptic diversity in the Western Ghats of India. Zootaxa 3640 (2): 177–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altherr, S., A. Goyenechea, and D.J. Schubert. 2011. Canapés to extinction: The international trade in frog’s legs and its ecological impact. Pro Wildlife, Defenders of Wildlife and Animal Welfare Institute (eds.), Munich/Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  3. Altmann, J. 1974. Observational study of behavior: Sampling methods. Behavior 49: 227–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. AmphibiaWeb. 2016. Information on amphibian biology and conservation. AmphibiaWeb, Berkeley, CA. Retrieved February 24, 2016, from http://amphibiaweb.org/.
  5. Balint, N., L. Citrea, A. Memetea, N. Jurj, and N. Condurea. 2008. Feeding ecology of the Pelophylax ridibundus (Anura, Ranidae) in Dobromir, Romania. Biharean Biologist 2: 27–37.Google Scholar
  6. Batt, S. 2009. Human attitudes towards animals in relation to species similarity to humans: A multivariate approach. Bioscience Horizons 2 (2): 180–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biju, S.D., S. Dutta, K. Vasudevan, C. Srinivasulu, and S.P. Vijayakumar. 2004a. Rhacophorus pseudomalabaricus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T59016A11869234. Retrieved February 13, 2016, from http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T59016A11869234.en.
  8. Biju, S.D., S.P. Vijayakumar, and S. Dutta. 2004b. Indirana phrynoderma. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T58314A11763836. Retrieved February 13, 2016, from http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T58314A11763836.en.
  9. Biju, S.D., and F. Bossuyt. 2003. New frog family from India reveals an ancient biogeographical link with the Seychelles. Nature 425 (6959): 711–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Biju, S.D., S. Garg, K.V. Gururaja, Y. Shouche, and S.A. Walujkar. 2014. DNA barcoding reveals unprecedented diversity in Dancing Frogs of India (Micrixalidae, Micrixalus): A taxonomic revision with description of 14 new species. Ceylon Journal of Science (Biological Sciences) 43: 37–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brühl, C.A., T. Schmidt, S. Pieper, and A. Alscher. 2013. Terrestrial pesticide exposure of amphibians: An underestimated cause of global decline? Scientific Reports 3: 1135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Butt, M.S., A. Naz, M.T. Sultan, and M.M.N. Qayyum. 2013. Anti-oncogenic perspectives of spices/herbs: A comprehensive review. EXCLI Journal 12: 1043–1065.Google Scholar
  13. Ceríaco, L.M. 2012. Human attitudes towards herpetofauna: The influence of folklore and negative values on the conservation of amphibians and reptiles in Portugal. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 8: 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daniels, R.R. 2003. Impact of tea cultivation on anurans in the Western Ghats. Current Science 85 (10): 1415–1422.Google Scholar
  15. Dayananda, S.K., and D.D. Wickramsinghe. 2013. Activity budget and perch characteristics of Pseudophilautus popularis (Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005) (Amphibia: Rhacophoridae) during the breeding season. Taprobanica 6 (1): 7–12.Google Scholar
  16. Distefano, E. 2005. Human–wildlife conflict worldwide: Collection of case studies, analysis of management strategies and good practices. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development Initiative (SARDI).Google Scholar
  17. Egea-Serrano, A., R.A. Relyea, M. Tejedo, and M. Torralva. 2012. Understanding of the impact of chemicals on amphibians: A meta-analytic review. Ecology and Evolution 2 (7): 1382–1397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gubbi, S., M.H. Swaminath, H.C. Poornesha, R. Bhat, and R. Raghunath. 2014. An elephantine challenge: Human–elephant conflict distribution in the largest Asian elephant population, southern India. Biodiversity and Conservation 23 (3): 633–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gurushankara, H.P., S.V. Krishnamurthy, and V. Vasudev. 2007. Morphological abnormalities in natural populations of common frogs inhabiting agroecosystems of central Western Ghats. Applied Herpetology 4 (1): 39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harpalani, M., S. Parvathy, A. Kanagavel, L.M. Eluvathingal, and B. Tapley. 2015. Note on range extension, local knowledge and conservation status of the Critically Endangered Anamalai gliding frog Rhacophorus pseudomalabaricus in the Cardamom Hills of Western Ghats, India. The Herpetological Bulletin 133: 1–6.Google Scholar
  21. Hocking, D.J., and K.J. Babbitt. 2014. Amphibian contributions to ecosystem services. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 9 (1): 1–17.Google Scholar
  22. Hoffmann, M., C. Hilton-Taylor, A. Angulo, M. Böhm, T.M. Brooks, S.H.M. Butchart, K.E. Carpenter, et al. 2010. The impact of conservation on the status of the world’s vertebrates. Science 330 (6010): 1503–1509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ikpa, T.F., J.M. Akusu, and B.I. Dagba. 2009. Wildlife raids on agricultural crops: Orders of species and farmers perspectives at Gashaka Gumti National Park Nigeria. Journal of Research in Forestry, Wildlife and Environment 1 (1): 60–67.Google Scholar
  24. Inskip, C., and A. Zimmermann. 2009. Human–felid conflict: A review of patterns and priorities worldwide. Oryx 43 (01): 18–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jasmine, B., D. Ghose, and S.K. Das. 2015. An attitude assessment of human–elephant conflict in a critical wildlife corridor within the Terai Arc Landscape, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 7 (2): 6843–6852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kanagavel, A., and S. Parvathy. 2014. So in India, even frogs like spice in their food. Froglog 22 (2): 110.Google Scholar
  27. Kanagavel, A., R. Raghavan, and D. Veríssimo. 2014. Beyond the “General Public”: Implications of audience characteristics for promoting species conservation in the Western Ghats Hotspot, India. Ambio 43 (2): 138–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kanagavel, A., S. Parvathy, P.O. Nameer, and R. Raghavan. 2016. Conservation implications of wildlife utilization by indigenous communities in the southern Western Ghats of India. Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 9 (3): 271–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Karanth, K.U., and M.D. Madhusudan. 2002. Mitigating human-wildlife conflicts in southern Asia. In Making parks work: Identifying key factors to implementing parks in the tropics, ed. J. Terborgh, C.P. Van Schaik, and L.C. Davenport, 250–264. California: Island Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kerby, J.L., K.L. Richards-Hrdlicka, A. Storfer, and D.K. Skelly. 2010. An examination of amphibian sensitivity to environmental contaminants: Are amphibians poor canaries? Ecology Letters 13 (1): 60–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lescureux, N., J.D. Linnell, S. Mustafa, D. Melovski, A. Stojanov, G. Ivanov, V. Avukatov, M. von Arx, and U. Breitenmoser. 2011. Fear of the unknown: Local knowledge and perceptions of the Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx in western Macedonia. Oryx 45 (04): 600–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Madden, F. 2004. Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: Global perspectives on local efforts to address human–wildlife conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9 (4): 247–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Murugan, M., P.K. Shetty, R. Ravi, and A. Subbiah. 2009. The physiological ecology of cardamom (Elettaria cardamomum M) in cardamom agroforestry system. International Journal of Environmental Research 3 (1): 35–44.Google Scholar
  34. Murugan, M., P.K. Shetty, R. Ravi, A. Subbiah, and M.B. Hiremath. 2011. Environmental impacts of intensive cardamom (small) cultivation in Indian Cardamom Hills: The need for sustainable and efficient practices. Recent research in science and technology 3 (2): 9–15.Google Scholar
  35. Nair, T.K.R., and M.G. Kutty. 2004. Cardamom (Elettaria cardamomum) in Kerala, India. In Forest products, livelihoods and conservation—case studies of non-timber forest product systems, Vol. 1—Asia, ed. K. Kusters and B. Belcher, 133–150. Jakarta: Center for International Forestry Research.Google Scholar
  36. Newing, H. 2010. Conducting research in conservation: Social science methods and practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Owen, T.C. 1883. Notes on cardamom cultivation with an estimate of expenditure and return for 25 acres and notes on the estimate. Colombo: Ceylon Observer Press.Google Scholar
  38. R Core Team. 2016. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved February 3, 2016, from https://www.R-project.org/.
  39. Rahman, L.N., M.D. Kusrini, and N.F. Haneda. 2013. Food preference of the Javan tree frog (Rhacophorus margaritifer) in Mount Gede Pangrango National Park and Cibodas Botanical Garden, West Java. Journal of Indonesian Natural History 1 (1): 37–41.Google Scholar
  40. Robin, V.V., and R. Nandini. 2012. Shola habitats on sky islands: Status of research on montane forests and grasslands in southern India. Current Science 103 (12): 1427–1437.Google Scholar
  41. Santana, A.S., and F.A. Juncá. 2007. Diet of Physalaemus cf. cicada (Leptodactylidae) and Bufo granulosus (Bufonidae) in a semideciduous forest. Brazilian Journal of Biology 67 (1): 125–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Silva, H.R., and D. Britto-Pereira. 2006. How much fruit do fruit-eating frogs eat? An investigation on the diet of Xenohyla truncata (Lissamphibia: Anura: Hylidae). Journal of Zoology 270 (4): 692–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Simons, E.L., and D.M. Meyers. 2001. Folklore and beliefs about the aye aye (Daubentonia madagascariensis). Lemur News 6: 11–16.Google Scholar
  44. Smart, U., V. Deepak, and K. Vasudevan. 2014. Preliminary ethogram and in situ time-activity budget of the enigmatic cane turtle (Vijayachelys silvatica) from the western Ghats, south India. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 9 (1): 116–122.Google Scholar
  45. Sodhi, N.S., D. Bickford, A.C. Diesmos, T.M. Lee, L.P. Koh, B.W. Brook, C.H. Sekercioglu, and C.J.A. Bradshaw. 2008. Measuring the meltdown: Drivers of global amphibian extinction and decline. PLoS ONE 3 (2): e1636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Solé, M., O. Beckmann, B. Pelz, A. Kwet, and W. Engels. 2005. Stomach-flushing for diet analysis in anurans: An improved protocol evaluated in a case study in Araucaria forests, southern Brazil. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment 40 (1): 23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sparling, D.W., J. Bickham, D. Cowman, G.M. Fellers, T. Lacher, C.W. Matson, and L. McConnell. 2015. In situ effects of pesticides on amphibians in the Sierra Nevada. Ecotoxicology 24 (2): 262–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Spices Board India. 2016a. Major Spice/state wise area and production of spices. Retrieved February 3, 2016, from http://indianspices.com/sites/default/files/Major-spice-state-wise-area-production-web-2015.pdf.
  49. Spices Board India. 2016b. Locate spices board office. Retrieved February 3, 2016, from http://www.spicesboard.in/pis/locsearch.php.
  50. Teng, Q., X.F. Hu, F. Luo, C. Cheng, X. Ge, M. Yang, and L. Liu. 2016. Influences of introducing frogs in the paddy fields on soil properties and rice growth. Journal of Soils and Sediments 16 (1): 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Treves, A., and L. Naughton-Treves. 2005. Evaluating lethal control in the management of human–wildlife conflict. In People and wildlife, conflict or coexistence?, ed. R.W. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz, 86–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Woodroffe, R., S. Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz. 2005. The impact of human–wildlife conflict on natural systems. In People and wildlife: Conflict or coexistence? Series: Conservation Biology No. 9, ed. R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz, 1–12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Zachariah, A., K.P. Dinesh, E. Kunhikrishnan, S. Das, D.V. Raju, C. Radhakrishnan, M.J. Palot, and S. Kalesh. 2011. Nine new species of frogs of the genus Raorchestes (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from southern Western Ghats, India. Biosystematica 5 (1): 25–48.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Conservation Research GroupSt. Albert’s CollegeCochinIndia
  2. 2.Department of Fisheries Resource ManagementKerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies (KUFOS)CochinIndia

Personalised recommendations