Assignment A
What do you understand by the term Ecology? Explain its importance.
Explain the term environment. Explain the relevance of environment in tourism studies.
What is an ecosystem? Describe the energy flow in the ecosystem, mentioning the different trophic levels.
Describe the in situ and ex esitu methods of biodiversity conservation.
Write short note on any three of the following
Food chain and food web
Ecological pyramids
Forest types in India
Genetic diversity
Renewable energy
Write an essay on the endemic and endangered species of flora and fauna in India. Also mention the ways and method to protect or conserve the species.
Explain the term pollution. Describe the different types of pollution, mentioning their cause and remedial methods.
Explain the different types of natural resources available to man. Describe.
Assignment B
Marks 10
Read the case study given below and answer the questions given at the end
Holistic Watershed Management in Sukhomajri
The hamlet of Sukhomajri was once like any other village in the foothills of the Shivalik Mountains: sparsely vegetated, with poor farm land, and a great deal of soil erosion and runoff. As crop yields were uncertain, villagers traditionally kept herds of livestock as a safeguard. Open grazing by the livestock kept the surrounding hills and watersheds bare. The Shivaliks are naturally susceptible to erosion, but their condition deteriorated rapidly after the British took control of the region in the 19th century and began heavy logging in the area. Forests soon gave way to clay-covered banks and boulders in the upper catchments of the rivers (Franda 1981).
The British recognized the danger of erosion and in 1902 passed the Land Preservation Act. which closed some lands to grazing and provided for various soil conservation measures, such as contour bunds, gully plugs and tree planting. But the erosion continued a space because people has no alternative but to graze their animals on these lands. The colonial government made no attempt to involve people in the management of these lands, and invariable intruded into the traditional land use systems. This resulted in the total alienation and opposition to the conservation measures being taken by the foreign government. Unfortunately, the independent Indian state has continued with these policies. In 1976, the National Commission on Agriculture, alarmed by the situation, again recommended soil conservation measures. But the people were determined to let their animals graze and again the conservation efforts failed.
By the 1970s, the man-made Sukhna Lake, surrounded by the Shivalik Mountains, was filling up with silt. Sediment was pouring into the lake from the denuded forest lands around it. the lake was the main water supply for the city if Chandigarh, the joint capital of Haryana and Punjab. City officials became alarmed and considered digging a new lake. They asked for a study from the government’s Central Soil and Water Conservation Research and Training Institute. Researchers at the Institute found that the vast majority of the erosion was from a higher catchment area and was concentrated in pockets of severe erosion, including the little village of Sukhmajri, 15 kilometers upstream from Sukhna lake. The hills there were cut into pieces by tall, bare, vertical walls. The researchers realized that Sukhomajri was their starting point for saving the lake.
Ecological poverty in Sukhomajri
The research team arrived in Sukhomajri to find a settlement of just 59 famileis, mostly poor shepherds with small, drought-stricken plots of land to farm. The village was homogenous in terms of caste. Thirty-seven families owned less than one hectare, and 20 families owned one to two hectares.(A hectare is 2.47 acres). Only two families owned more land (Mishra 1980). All together, individuals owned a little more than half of the land, and nearly half was panchayat land, or community land. Over the years villagers had encroached on the community land to cultivate it.
The village had no source of irrigation. The annual rainfall of 1,137 mm came almost entirely during the four monsoon months. Because their land was sparse and not very productive, the villagers were steadily forced to cultivate inferior wastelands. They had begun to plant even on steep sloped, exposing the land to further erosion. In 1968, several acres of land had plunged 13 to 15 meters into a gorge at one end of the village, and since then the precipice of the gorge had been moving closer to the village, destroying more cultivated fields each year. Meagre crop yields forced the villagers to keep a large number of goats and other animals to supplement incomes. The village faced an acute shortage of fodder and in most years had to import wheat straw form other villages.
The institute team tried to implement soil and conservation measures in the village, but residents resisted. One villager told P.R. Mishra, the institute director, “The people of Chandigarh are very rich. We will continue to send mud and they will continue to remove it. we are poor and have no other way to survive but to graze our animals and get some milk” (Agarwal and Narain 1990)
So villagers continued to take their animals to graze in the watershed. Residents destroyed soil conservation structures, breaking check dams and brushwood dams. They took the piles of logs and twigs used for the brushwood dams home to burn. For a time, the conservation team doggedly continued work, planning trees and building more check dams along with staggered contour trenches and grade stabilizers. But the people continued to undermine the efforts.
Water is the starting point
Then came a turning point. In 1976, institute scientists built a small earthen dam to stem erosion by diverting water into reservoir. The following year, the rains failed and the wheat crop was withering. Villagers asked the scientists if they might use water from the reservoir. With the stored water, they were able to save crops close to the dam site. Villagers and scientists alike saw the potential of the dam. Daulat Ram, an enterprising villager, showed the institute staff another good site for a dam, this time an irrigation dam and not just a soil conservation structure. A second dam was built in early 1978 with support from the Ford Foundation. An underground pipeline was laid to take water to the fields, and undulating terrain was levelled in order to maximize the benefits from irrigation. Farmers willingly shared the cost of levelling with the agency. One farmer sold two goats on the spot to pay for the work. Still, the water did not get to everyone. Only half the village was prospering. The arable lend in the village was divided into two parts by the village road, and the water conveyance system benefited only the land on one side. A few farmers started to irrigate water-intensive crops like paddy and sugarcane, even though the project was supposed to provide only modest, supplemental irrigation. Furthermore, the water was distributed through a government official who had started taking bribes.
The village became divided. Resentful villagers without access to the water kept grazing in the watershed, continuing to undermine efforts to stop erosion. When Madhu Sarin, a social worker employed by the Ford Foundation, asked the women about the benefits of the dam water, one responded bluntly, “What water? We do not get any water. It is given to a few and that also in exchange for a bottle of liquor”.
A severe drought in 1979 killed the unirrigated crop, while the irrigates crops survived. Tensions mounted. At a village meeting, a woman whose family lacked water said she would like to see the dam break and threatened sabotage (Mishra and Sarin 1987).
Equity becomes a prerequisite
There was only one solution: make sure everyone got a share of the water. In early 1980, a meeting of village households was called in Sukhomajri to resolve this issue. After some discussion, the villagers decided that all families would get an equal share of water, regardless of where they were situated or now much land they had. The villagers established a water users’ association to maintain the dams and distribute the water. Each family was represented in the association. Water was sold to each household to nominal charge to meet maintenance costs.
Pipes were laid to distribute the water throughout. Under the rules of the association, a member whose cattle were found grazing in the watershed stood to lose his or her right to water, households with little or no land could make use of their entitlement by sharecropping or by selling their water to others. These arrangements ensured that each family had a vested interest in protecting the watershed.
Cooperation was immediate. The village did not have to build a wall or a trench to protect the vast catchment area. As crop yields improved, people sold their goats and started feeding their buffaloes in stalls. The goat population decreased from 206 in 1977 to only 32 by 1963 (Mittal, Agnihotri and MAdhukar 1983).
The water users’ association, later renamed the Hill Resource Management Society was critical to the extraordinary turnaround in Sukhomajri. At first every head of household in the village was a member of the society. A decade later, in the interest of a voice for women, the membership expended to include all adult residents, and the bylaws were amended to require at least two women on the managing committee (Sarin 1996). The village assembly was given power to recall any number of the manging committee by a majority vote. This crucial clause put power in the hands of the majority and ensured participatory democracy.
The society provided a forum for the villagers to discuss problems, manage the local environment, and ensure discipline among members. The society made sure that no household allowed its animals to graze in the watershed. In return, it ensured a fair distribution of water, wood, and grass.
It is not clear whether the village of Sukhmajri and its enterprising people will survive the repercussions of their own success. All depends on whether they will have the power to determine their own future.
Narrate the main problems of the villagers
Discuss the importance of Watershed management.
Why are the villagers not helping the scientists from CSWCTI.
Suggest some ways and means for helping out the villagers in this situation.
Assignment C
Answer all questions
Tick mark (√) the most appropriate answer
Assignment A
1. What do you understand by the term Ecology? Explain its importance.
2. Explain the term environment. Explain the relevance of environment in tourism studies.
3. What is an ecosystem? Describe the energy flow in the ecosystem, mentioning the different trophic levels.
4. Describe the in situ and ex esitu methods of biodiversity conservation.
5. Write short note on any three of the following
a) Food chain and food web
b) Ecological pyramids
c) Forest types in India
d) Genetic diversity
e) Renewable energy
6. Write an essay on the endemic and endangered species of flora and fauna in India. Also mention the ways and method to protect or conserve the species.
7. Explain the term pollution. Describe the different types of pollution, mentioning their cause and remedial methods.
8. Explain the different types of natural resources available to man. Describe.
Assignment B
Marks 10
Read the case study given below and answer the questions given at the end
Holistic Watershed Management in Sukhomajri
The hamlet of Sukhomajri was once like any other village in the foothills of the Shivalik Mountains: sparsely vegetated, with poor farm land, and a great deal of soil erosion and runoff. As crop yields were uncertain, villagers traditionally kept herds of livestock as a safeguard. Open grazing by the livestock kept the surrounding hills and watersheds bare. The Shivaliks are naturally susceptible to erosion, but their condition deteriorated rapidly after the British took control of the region in the 19th century and began heavy logging in the area. Forests soon gave way to clay-covered banks and boulders in the upper catchments of the rivers (Franda 1981).
The British recognized the danger of erosion and in 1902 passed the Land Preservation Act. which closed some lands to grazing and provided for various soil conservation measures, such as contour bunds, gully plugs and tree planting. But the erosion continued a space because people has no alternative but to graze their animals on these lands. The colonial government made no attempt to involve people in the management of these lands, and invariable intruded into the traditional land use systems. This resulted in the total alienation and opposition to the conservation measures being taken by the foreign government. Unfortunately, the independent Indian state has continued with these policies. In 1976, the National Commission on Agriculture, alarmed by the situation, again recommended soil conservation measures. But the people were determined to let their animals graze and again the conservation efforts failed.
By the 1970s, the man-made Sukhna Lake, surrounded by the Shivalik Mountains, was filling up with silt. Sediment was pouring into the lake from the denuded forest lands around it. the lake was the main water supply for the city if Chandigarh, the joint capital of Haryana and Punjab. City officials became alarmed and considered digging a new lake. They asked for a study from the government’s Central Soil and Water Conservation Research and Training Institute. Researchers at the Institute found that the vast majority of the erosion was from a higher catchment area and was concentrated in pockets of severe erosion, including the little village of Sukhmajri, 15 kilometers upstream from Sukhna lake. The hills there were cut into pieces by tall, bare, vertical walls. The researchers realized that Sukhomajri was their starting point for saving the lake.
Ecological poverty in Sukhomajri
The research team arrived in Sukhomajri to find a settlement of just 59 famileis, mostly poor shepherds with small, drought-stricken plots of land to farm. The village was homogenous in terms of caste. Thirty-seven families owned less than one hectare, and 20 families owned one to two hectares.(A hectare is 2.47 acres). Only two families owned more land (Mishra 1980). All together, individuals owned a little more than half of the land, and nearly half was panchayat land, or community land. Over the years villagers had encroached on the community land to cultivate it.
The village had no source of irrigation. The annual rainfall of 1,137 mm came almost entirely during the four monsoon months. Because their land was sparse and not very productive, the villagers were steadily forced to cultivate inferior wastelands. They had begun to plant even on steep sloped, exposing the land to further erosion. In 1968, several acres of land had plunged 13 to 15 meters into a gorge at one end of the village, and since then the precipice of the gorge had been moving closer to the village, destroying more cultivated fields each year. Meagre crop yields forced the villagers to keep a large number of goats and other animals to supplement incomes. The village faced an acute shortage of fodder and in most years had to import wheat straw form other villages.
The institute team tried to implement soil and conservation measures in the village, but residents resisted. One villager told P.R. Mishra, the institute director, “The people of Chandigarh are very rich. We will continue to send mud and they will continue to remove it. we are poor and have no other way to survive but to graze our animals and get some milk” (Agarwal and Narain 1990)
So villagers continued to take their animals to graze in the watershed. Residents destroyed soil conservation structures, breaking check dams and brushwood dams. They took the piles of logs and twigs used for the brushwood dams home to burn. For a time, the conservation team doggedly continued work, planning trees and building more check dams along with staggered contour trenches and grade stabilizers. But the people continued to undermine the efforts.
Water is the starting point
Then came a turning point. In 1976, institute scientists built a small earthen dam to stem erosion by diverting water into reservoir. The following year, the rains failed and the wheat crop was withering. Villagers asked the scientists if they might use water from the reservoir. With the stored water, they were able to save crops close to the dam site. Villagers and scientists alike saw the potential of the dam. Daulat Ram, an enterprising villager, showed the institute staff another good site for a dam, this time an irrigation dam and not just a soil conservation structure. A second dam was built in early 1978 with support from the Ford Foundation. An underground pipeline was laid to take water to the fields, and undulating terrain was levelled in order to maximize the benefits from irrigation. Farmers willingly shared the cost of levelling with the agency. One farmer sold two goats on the spot to pay for the work. Still, the water did not get to everyone. Only half the village was prospering. The arable lend in the village was divided into two parts by the village road, and the water conveyance system benefited only the land on one side. A few farmers started to irrigate water-intensive crops like paddy and sugarcane, even though the project was supposed to provide only modest, supplemental irrigation. Furthermore, the water was distributed through a government official who had started taking bribes.
The village became divided. Resentful villagers without access to the water kept grazing in the watershed, continuing to undermine efforts to stop erosion. When Madhu Sarin, a social worker employed by the Ford Foundation, asked the women about the benefits of the dam water, one responded bluntly, “What water? We do not get any water. It is given to a few and that also in exchange for a bottle of liquor”.
A severe drought in 1979 killed the unirrigated crop, while the irrigates crops survived. Tensions mounted. At a village meeting, a woman whose family lacked water said she would like to see the dam break and threatened sabotage (Mishra and Sarin 1987).
Equity becomes a prerequisite
There was only one solution: make sure everyone got a share of the water. In early 1980, a meeting of village households was called in Sukhomajri to resolve this issue. After some discussion, the villagers decided that all families would get an equal share of water, regardless of where they were situated or now much land they had. The villagers established a water users’ association to maintain the dams and distribute the water. Each family was represented in the association. Water was sold to each household to nominal charge to meet maintenance costs.
Pipes were laid to distribute the water throughout. Under the rules of the association, a member whose cattle were found grazing in the watershed stood to lose his or her right to water, households with little or no land could make use of their entitlement by sharecropping or by selling their water to others. These arrangements ensured that each family had a vested interest in protecting the watershed.
Cooperation was immediate. The village did not have to build a wall or a trench to protect the vast catchment area. As crop yields improved, people sold their goats and started feeding their buffaloes in stalls. The goat population decreased from 206 in 1977 to only 32 by 1963 (Mittal, Agnihotri and MAdhukar 1983).
The water users’ association, later renamed the Hill Resource Management Society was critical to the extraordinary turnaround in Sukhomajri. At first every head of household in the village was a member of the society. A decade later, in the interest of a voice for women, the membership expended to include all adult residents, and the bylaws were amended to require at least two women on the managing committee (Sarin 1996). The village assembly was given power to recall any number of the manging committee by a majority vote. This crucial clause put power in the hands of the majority and ensured participatory democracy.
The society provided a forum for the villagers to discuss problems, manage the local environment, and ensure discipline among members. The society made sure that no household allowed its animals to graze in the watershed. In return, it ensured a fair distribution of water, wood, and grass.
It is not clear whether the village of Sukhmajri and its enterprising people will survive the repercussions of their own success. All depends on whether they will have the power to determine their own future.
1. Narrate the main problems of the villagers
2. Discuss the importance of Watershed management.
3. Why are the villagers not helping the scientists from CSWCTI.
4. Suggest some ways and means for helping out the villagers in this situation.
?
Assignment C
Answer all questions
Tick mark (?) the most appropriate answer
1. The natural world that surrounds an organism is called the organism’s
a) Energy
b) Environment
c) Lodgings
d) Nutrients
2. The study of how living things interact with their environment is called
a) Ecosystems
b) Abiotic factors
c) Ecology
d) The energy pyramid
3. The source of energy for almpst all lfe on Earth is
a) Earth
b) Moon
c) Plants
d) Sun
4. An example of a biotic factor in a forest ecosystem is
a) Waterfall
b) Cliff
c) A tree
d) A rock
5. An ecosystem is made up of
a) Biotic only
b) Abiotic factors only
c) Biotic and the abiotic factors
d) Biotic and Decaying matter only
6. In a food chain, the bottom level represents
a) Consumers
b) Producers
c) Scavengers
d) Decomposers
7. An example of a consumer in a pond ecosystem is
a) Water lily
b) Algae
c) Aquatic plants
d) Frog
8. Which of these food chains is the correct order
a) Caterpillar, lily, frog, water snake.
b) Lily, caterpillar, frog, water snake
c) Water snake, frog, caterpillar, lily
d) Lily, frog, caterpillar, water snake
9. Ecology is the study of how
a) The physical environment changes over time
b) Biotic factors change over time
c) Matter interacts with energy in our environment
d) Living things interact with each other and their environment
10. An example of a biotic factor in a pond ecosystem is
a) Temperature
b) Water
c) Fish
d) Sunlight
11. An example of a producer is
a) Fungus
b) Caterpillar
c) Bird
d) Green plant
12. Both consumers and producers are a source of food for
a) Scavengers
b) Decomposers
c) Carnivores
d) Herbivores
13. In an energy pyramid, the lowest level has
a) Less energy than the top level
b) Less energy than the second level
c) More energy than the top level
d) The same amount of energy as the second level
14. A scientist who studies the interactions of plants and animal is called
a) Dentist
b) Ecologist
c) Geologist
d) Physicist
15. A food chain shows
a) One possible pathway for energy
b) Many possible pathways for energy
c) The amount of energy available to a producer
d) The amount of energy available to a consumer
16. Decomposers are important to ecosystems because they
a) Are at the higher level of the energy pyramid
b) Change simple compounds into more complex ones
c) Make nutrients available for produces to reuse
d) Convert light energy into sugars through photosynthesis
17. Two abiotic factors that affect an ecosystem are
a) Temperature and animals
b) Plants and animals
c) Water and bacteria
d) Soil and water
18. Two examples of decomposers are
a) Fungi and bacteria
b) Algae and marine mammals
c) Carnivores and herbivores
d) Ferns and mosses
19. A caterpillar eats a leaf, and a bird eats the caterpillar. In this interaction the bird is
a) Producer
b) Herbivore
c) Primary consumer
d) Secondary consumer
20. A crab lives on a beach where it gets food, shelter and space to live. The beach is the crab’s
a) Niche
b) Community
c) Habitat
d) Home
21. All the frogs in a pond make up the pond’s frog
a) Population
b) Niche
c) Habitat
d) Ecosystem
22. Biodiversity is a measure of the
a) Variety of non living things within an ecosystem
b) Amount of resources shared by the human population
c) Variety of species within an ecosystem
d) Amount of renewable resources within an ecosystem
23. Biotic factors in an ecosystem may include
a) Bacteria, soil and water
b) Plants, animals and bacteria
c) Temperature, water and soil
d) Animals, fungi and temperature
24. The amount of light available in an ecosystem affects the types and amount
a) Plants
b) Animals
c) Plants and animals
d) None of the above
25. The carrying capacity of an environment is
a) The maximum habitat that it can support
b) The maximum populations that it can support
c) The maximum species that it can support
d) The maximum genes that it can support
26. Plants use energy to make sugars through
a) Guttation
b) Carbon cycle
c) Photosynthesis
d) Transpiration
27. In a species, the organisms’ offspring must be able
a) Feed
b) Breed
c) Hide
d) Sustain
28. The same niche in a habitat may be occupied by more than
a) One population
b) One genus
c) One organism
d) One species
29. What do several different population living together make
a) A biosphere
b) An organism
c) A community
d) An ecosystem
30. When there is a lot of pollution, rain can be acidic, harming plants and animals. What is this an example of?
a) Competition between a population and a community
b) An abiotic factor affecting an ecosystem
c) A mutually type of symbiosis
d) An individual affecting a community
31. A community is several species of animals interacting, while a population is
a) Members of one species in an area
b) The biotic and abiotic elements of an area
c) A single organism
d) The non living element of a habitat
32. Organisms that can make their own food from sunlight are called
a) Decomposers
b) Consumers
c) Producers
d) Carnivores
33. A diagram with arrows showing energy flow from grass, to a rabbit, to a fox is
a) An energy pyramid
b) A food web
c) A food chain
d) A population chart
34. Limiting factors determine an area’s carrying capacity because
a) The number of animals is limited
b) Ecosystems are small
c) Animals need resources to survive
d) The number of animals is unlimited
35. Two members of the same species fight over who gets a certain food. Members of different species try to take over a certain nesting area. These are both examples of
a) Community
b) Competition
c) Mutualism
d) Commensalism
36. Herbivores, carnivores and omnivores are all
a) Decomposers
b) Producers
c) Predators
d) Consumers
37. In which relationship do living things held each other?
a) Parasitism
b) Mutualism
c) Organism
d) Predator
38. Rocks, temperature and water are what kind of things
a) Biotic
b) Abiotic
c) Population
d) Living
39. After one species disappears, the other species in the ecosystem
a) Benefit
b) Are thrown out of balance
c) Die
d) Are unaffected
40. When is food a limiting factor
a) When a population is large
b) When there’s too much food
c) When a population is small
d) When there’s too much water
Reviews
There are no reviews yet.