




































Ecology, Economy, and Society–the INSEE Journal 7(2): 61-94, July 2024 

RESEARCH PAPER 
 

Ecology of Grasslands of Central Nicobar: Commons 
in a Sea of Change 
 

Shashank Bhardwaj *, Shiwani, Mandeep, Gitanjali Yadav, Suresh 

Babu 
 
Abstract: The tropical grasslands of the Central Nicobar Islands have long been 
perceived as anthropogenic formations, which has influenced their conservation 
and management in the region. Despite their ecological and cultural significance, 
these grasslands have received limited scholarly attention, rendering them 
vulnerable to alternative land uses and conversion. This study aims to address these 
knowledge gaps through an extensive vegetation survey, soil analysis, and 
ethnographic research. The outcomes of the vegetation survey and soil analysis 
reveal that these grasslands are the result of serpentine soil formations, managed by 
Nicobari communities by fire. The ethnographic research reveals the cultural 
importance of the grassland commons and its governance through the tuhet system. 
Further, the study shows that the access regimes have undergone a rapid 
transformation during post-tsunami resettlement, endangering local instuitions and 
the sustainability of the grassland commons of the Nicobars. 

Keywords: Tropical Grasslands, Vegetation Analysis, Serpentine Soils, Cultural 
Ecology, Nicobar Islands, Grassland Commons 

 

 

                                                      

* Ph.D. Scholar, School of Human Ecology (SHE), Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University Delhi, 
Lothian Road, Delhi, India 110006 (AUD); shashank.17@stu.aud.ac.in  

 Ph.D. Scholar, SHE, AUD; shiwani.21@stu.aud.ac.in  

 Ph.D. Scholar, National Institute of Plant Genome Research, Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, 
Delhi, India 110067 (NIPGR); mandeepumra@nipgr.ac.in  

 Staff Scientist, NIPGR; gy@nipgr.ac.in  

 Professor, SHE, AUD; suresh@aud.ac.in  

Copyright © Bhardwaj, Shiwani, Mandeep, Yadav and Babu 2024. Released under Creative 
Commons Attribution © NonCommercial 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC 4.0) by the 
author.  

Published by Indian Society for Ecological Economics (INSEE), c/o Institute of Economic 
Growth, University Enclave, North Campus, Delhi 110007.  

ISSN: 2581–6152 (print); 2581–6101 (web).  

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v7i2.1193  

mailto:shashank.17@stu.aud.ac.in
mailto:shiwani.21@stu.aud.ac.in
mailto:mandeepumra@nipgr.ac.in
mailto:gy@nipgr.ac.in
mailto:suresh@aud.ac.in
https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v7i2.1193


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [62] 

1. INTRODUCTION 

The tropical grasslands of Southeast Asia stretch from the Arakan ranges in 
Myanmar to Papua New Guinea and Réunion Island in the Far East 
(Whitmore 1984). These grasslands harbour a vast biological diversity, a 
substantial chunk of which is endemic to different subregions of Southeast 
Asia (Corlett and Primack 2011). Home to diverse flora and fauna, these 
grasslands provide millions of people—mostly indigenous societies—with a 
livelihood (Dove 2004). This study is focused on the grasslands of the 
central Nicobar Islands, which are located in the Andaman and Nicobar 
archipelago and are considered to be part of the Sundaland biodiversity 
hotspot (Myers et al. 2000). These islands are also the critical commons of 
the local Nicobari communities. 

1.1.  Ecology of Tropical Grasslands 

The tropical grasslands of Southeast Asia are unique ecosystems that 
present an ecological paradox. According to Schimper’s classical definition 
of grassland ecosystems, grasslands occur only in low rainfall regions and in 
climatic conditions that are windy, dry, or where frost prevails, which 
prevents woody species from taking over (Schimper 1903). In contrast, 
these tropical grasslands occur in humid and damp conditions, wherein 
annual rainfall reaches above 180 cm with very little or no dry period 
(Kricher 2011; Osborne 2000). According to Beard (1953), tropical 
grasslands are not confined to any single climate, challenging the very idea 
of vegetation classifications based on climatic conditions.  

In Southeast Asia—where regional climax formations are forested—
grasslands are predominantly considered to be maintained by fire (Richards 
1996). However, some studies indicate they persist as edaphic climaxes 
(Pemadasa 1990) or are maintained by frost (Joshi, Ratnam, and Sankaran 
2020). Therefore, the distribution and persistence of tropical grasslands in 
Southeast Asia are loosely understood to be related to climatic conditions, 
human activity, and edaphic features (Pletcher, Staver, and Schwartz 2022), 
which makes it difficult to assign a singular determinant to these 
formations. 

Based on the factors that govern their persistence, tropical grasslands are 
broadly categorized into two types: “derived” and “natural” (Gibson 2009). 
Many tropical grasslands are anthropogenic in origin, as they are created 
and sustained by human activities and are thus classified as derived. Regular 
maintenance and constant human intervention are required to sustain 
derived grasslands and prevent them from reverting to woodlands. 



[63] Bhardwaj, Shiwani, Mandeep, Yadav and Babu 

The other, more stable grasslands found in tropical rainforests are mainly 
edaphic in origin and are classified as natural. The determining factor in the 
formation and sustenance of natural grasslands is the soil—or edaphic 
conditions—which acts as a limiting factor in preventing the development 
of forests (Richards 1996). Although these grasslands are also maintained by 
fire and human activity, they do not decline once anthropogenic activities 
cease. Natural grasslands are typically inhabited by more endemic species 
and are richer in species diversity than derived savannas (Garrity et al. 1996). 
Recent studies demonstrate that regardless of the nature of grasslands, they 
require more conservation attention owing to high endemism and because 
they are seen to be maintained by endogenous disturbance regimes 
(Nerlekar et al. 2022; Nerlekar and Veldman 2020; Sankaran 2009). 

Several studies have been conducted to understand the origins of these 
grasslands and investigate the role of biotic and abiotic factors in the 
persistence of these ecosystems, and, yet, the debate continues (Meadows 
and Linder 1993; Moravek et al. 2013; Rogers 1994). Most of these studies 
describe these grasslands as anthropogenic grasslands, referring to the idea 
of landscapes created by humans for specific use (Goudie 1990). Those 
who do not support this theory instead describe these grasslands as 
Pleistocene glacial vegetation, which was maintained by early humans 
through burning practices (Bowman et al. 2013; Ellis 1985). 

Another theory on the origin of these grasslands emerges from recent 
palaeoecological investigations conducted in the Southeast Asian region, 
which provide insight into the land bridges connecting Southeast Asian 
islands during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). During this period, the 
Sundaland landmass was significantly larger than its present-day 
configuration. These land bridges primarily featured savanna corridors that 
connected these islands. It has been proposed that after the LGM, as sea 
levels rose and these land bridges were submerged, remnants of ancient 
grasslands persisted in isolated pockets on certain islands (Voris 2000; Bird, 
Taylor, and Hunt 2005). 

1.2. Grassland Commons of the Tropics 

While there is extensive literature on grasslands as common property 
resources, most of the existing research is associated with grasslands as 
grazing commons or as a resource for livestock management. While this 
stands for most temperate and arid grasslands, tropical grassland commons 
are entirely different. Tropical grasslands, particularly those in Southeast 
Asia, are rarely utilized for livestock rearing. Thus far, these have mostly 
been referred to in the context of swidden practices and hunting (Dove 
1984, 1983; Sherman 1980).  



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [64] 

Unlike the temperate grasslands, the biocultural adaptations of indigenous 
societies here are not aimed at capturing sparse productivity through 
pastoral practices, as the moist tropics are already high on primary 
productivity (Grace et al. 2001; Nangendo et al. 2002). Tropical grasslands 
from Southeast Asia to the Shola grasslands of Peninsular India are mostly 
managed by fire by indigenous societies by one method or another 
(Richards 1996; Whitmore 1984). These uses constitute grazing, foraging, 
and hunting commons, and they are reserved for local communities that 
have collective rights over these grasslands. These activities are managed 
through social institutions that earmark boundaries and usufruct rights that 
are assigned according to season and resource availability (Cordero et al. 
2018). Most of these societies have been disenfranchised through the 
creation of protected area systems, as slash-and-burn practices are seen as 
unsustainable and destructive for ecosystems by conventional conservation 
biologists (Thung 2016; Vliet et al. 2013). 

The sustainability of commons is governed by several variables, and of 
particular importance is the condition of the social institutions that manage 
them (Ostrom 1990). The social institutions that govern tropical grassland 
commons have hardly been studied. While cultural anthropological 
descriptions of the local uses of the grasslands of Southeast Asia exist 
(Dove 2004), these grasslands have not been adequately researched to 
explore the “agent-based” theories that are pervasive in the commons 
literature or the “structure-based” theories that emphasize the role of supra-
individual groups on the forces that govern these commons. As Fairhead 
and Leach (1996) eminently demonstrate, the anthropogenic nature of these 
grasslands has been consistently misrepresented, disenfranchising the local 
communities and their active role in sustaining them. 

Grasslands in the tropics are managed by controlled fires, which are often 
associated with swidden and hunting and organized by communities as part 
of festivals, usually before the onset of rains (Stott 2009; Wharton 1968). 
Direct benefits include the removal of brushwood, an increase in soil 
nutrients that benefit agriculture, and the harvesting of meat through the 
communal hunt, which forms a critical resource for the entire community 
(Marean 1997). This pattern seems to hold across the humid tropics (Fortier 
2014). The burn season, burn area, and other rituals surrounding the 
process are usually controlled through traditional institutions, sanctions, and 
restrictions (Barnard 2002). The role of swidden practices in establishing 
“fire-climax” grasslands and the decline in forests and biodiversity is well 
studied (Henley 2011). The related decline in biodiversity is often attributed 
to the intensity of fires, fallow cycles, and invasive species.  



[65] Bhardwaj, Shiwani, Mandeep, Yadav and Babu 

The entire discussion on the tropical grasslands of Southeast Asia 
emphasizes their “improvement”. Tragically, the most researched subject 
on the grasslands of South Asia is their elimination (Bagnall-Oakeley et al. 
1996; Dove and Kammen 2015). An array of methods for the removal of 
these grasslands have been deployed for the “improvement” of these areas 
ranging from herbicides and mechanical tillage to replacement plantations. 
The governance of these commons is least studied, and the local 
institutions and property rights associated with them have hardly been 
highlighted. 

1.3.  Tropical Grassland in the Western Ghats and Central Nicobar 

In 1938, Ranganathan wrote an article on a similar kind of issue in the 
tropical grassland mosaic situated in the Nilgiri plateau, India, stating that 
frost acts as a hindrance to the establishment of montane forests—locally 
called sholas—in these grasslands. He argued that the saplings of evergreen 
forests cannot tolerate the frost and perish, creating space for grassland 
species (Ranganathan 1938). These findings have been rejected by Bor 
(1938). Several studies have been conducted to understand the ecosystem 
structure and vegetation dynamics of shola grasslands and forest 
ecosystems (Robin and Nandini 2012). Studies conducted by Ranganathan 
and Bor presented two distinct theories on the origin of the shola 
grasslands. Ranganathan (1938) classifies them as a natural grassland 
ecosystem where the vegetation has reached its climax stage, whereas Bor 
(1938) classifies them as anthropogenic grasslands created by indigenous 
communities (the Toda people).  

Apart from this, several paleo-historical studies have also been conducted 
to identify the origins of these grasslands. Their findings suggest that 
although the grasslands existed before human habitation (Thomas and 
Palmer 2007), the present vegetative structure is influenced by human 
activities (Chandran 1997; Nayak, Vaidyanathan, and Krishnaswamy 2014). 
Recent studies have, however, re-established frost as a key determinant of 
the shola mosaic in Southern India (Joshi, Ratnam, and Sankaran 2020). 

Apart from the shola grasslands, and other climatically determined 
grasslands of the Deccan plateau and north-western India in the Indian 
mainland, tropical grasslands are also found in the Nicobar group of islands 
in the Andaman and Nicobar archipelago. The origins of the grasslands of 
central Nicobar are shrouded in mystery and there are several theories and 
myths surrounding them. The most widely accepted theory, which is 
endorsed by government documents, posits that these grasslands are 
anthropogenic and relatively recent in origin. According to this prevailing 
theory, substantial modifications were made in land use by Danish settlers 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [66] 

during the mid-nineteenth century, when the Danes held sway in the region, 
before British occupation. According to some authors, vast expanses of 
forested land were transformed into pasturelands, serving as cattle ranches 
to meet the demand for meat and dairy products (Saldanha 1989; Singh et al. 
2001). However, other authors provide a contradictory view on the origins 
of these grasslands and consider them to be permanent features maintained 
by constant human interventions (Kurz 1876; Nair 1979), pre-existing the 
Danish period (Haensel 1812). 

The Nicobari community, which is native to the Nicobar Islands, has very 
little documented historical utilization of the grasslands in question. The 
Nicobari people predominantly inhabit coastal regions and their livelihoods 
are primarily dependent on activities such as hunting, gathering, fishing, and 
pig and chicken husbandry as well as the cultivation of coconut plantations 
and horticultural gardens for sustenance. While some of the central Nicobar 
Islands do host small populations of cows and wild water buffalos left by 
Danish people, these animals exist in a feral state (Imperial Gazetteer of 
India 1909). The Nicobari community does not engage in any systematic 
dairy or meat production as people do in mainland India, but, occasionally, 
they hunt these animals. The lack of discernible social and cultural ties 
between the Nicobari people and these grasslands has contributed to the 
classification of these habitats as unproductive in the eyes of the authorities 
and other organizations, rendering them susceptible to land-use changes. 

1.4.  Outline of Research Objectives 

The ecology of the grasslands of central Nicobar, and their cultural ecology 
in particular, have never been studied in detail. This study has the following 
broad objectives: 

(i) To understand the ecology of the grasslands of central Nicobar 
through a systematic investigation of the region’s biogeographic 
affinities, soil chemistry, and traditional management systems. 

(ii) To understand and document the cultural embeddedness of the 
grasslands in Nicobari society and the socio-political processes that 
drive their transformation in present times. 
 

2. STUDY AREA AND METHODOLOGY 

The study was conducted in the Nicobar Islands in the Andaman and 
Nicobar Islands, India. A detailed description of the study area and the 
methodology used in this study are provided in the section below.  

 



[67] Bhardwaj, Shiwani, Mandeep, Yadav and Babu 

2.1. Study Area 

Located in the Indian Ocean, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands form an 
arc stretching approximately 550 km. These islands, characterized as 
oceanic, were uplifted during the tertiary period and have remained 
geographically isolated from the Asiatic mainland (Bandopadhyay and 
Carter 2017). Among these, the Nicobar group, consisting of 22 islands, is 
situated to the south of the Andaman Islands. Twelve of these islands are 
inhabited. The Nicobar group of islands is divided into three administrative 
blocks/tehsils: Car Nicobar, Nancowry, and Great Nicobar (Tehsil Statistics 
2023).  

The Nicobar group of islands hosts significant floral biodiversity, and its 
vegetation can be divided into two broad categories: a) a littoral zone, which 
comprises beach forests and mangrove forests, and b) an inland zone, 
which has three types of habitats: evergreen forests, deciduous forests, and 
grasslands (Hajra, Rao, and Mudgal 1999). The grasslands can only be 
found in five islands of central Nicobar, namely Chowra, Terresa, 
Bompoka, Kamorta, and Trinket—all located in the Nancowry tehsil (Kurz 
1876) (Figure 1).  

Figure 1: Map of the Central Nicobar Islands 

Source: Authors 

All five islands are inhabited by the Nicobari community, with 1,270 people 
living in Chowra, 1,934 people in Teressa, and 3,688 people in Kamorta 
(ORGI 2011). According to official sources, Bompoka and Trinket were 
assumed to be devoid of human population in the aftermath of the 2004 
tsunami, but field visits conducted for this study showed evidence to the 
contrary.  



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [68] 

All these islands fall under the purview of the Andaman and Nicobar 
Islands (Protection of Aboriginal Tribes) Regulation, 1956 (ANPATR), 
which supports the rights of indigenous communities over their land and 
natural resources, and allows outsiders to only visit these islands with a valid 
tribal area permit (The Andaman and Nicobar Gazette 1956).  

Figure 2: Map of Kamorta Island Showing Grasslands and Forested Areas along 
with Other Important Features  

 

Source: Authors 

Kamorta Island holds significant importance as it lies between the Trinket 
and Katchal islands, with Nancowry situated to its south, which makes it 
the safest harbour for anchoring ships in any kind of weather. The total area 
of this island is 188.2 km2, of which 38% area is covered in grasslands 
(Figure 2). The southernmost point of the island has been converted into a 
small township. It hosts the assistant commissioner’s office, a police station, 
a hospital, a school, and a housing colony for government employees and 
holds a small floating population of government employees, migrant 
labourers, and small businessmen. Additionally, Kamorta functions as a 
naval forward operating base for INS Kardip of the Indian Navy, which is 
also based on the southern side of the island. Except for this southern area, 
the rest of the island has sparse Nicobari settlements, and the area under 
tropical forests, mangroves, and grasslands is divided between villages/tuhet 
(the Nicobari family structure has been explained in Section 3.4).The 



[69] Bhardwaj, Shiwani, Mandeep, Yadav and Babu 

natural harbour at Nancowry, created by this group of islands, has 
historically attracted traders and travellers who used Kamorta Island as a 
stock refilling station during their long journeys. In 1756, the Danes 
colonized the island group, establishing their headquarters on Kamorta 
Island, and made an early attempt to create a dairy and a settlement on the 
grasslands. However, their efforts were thwarted by several malaria 
outbreaks. Subsequently, when the British took over from the Danes, they 
initially attempted to establish a penal settlement in the Nicobar Islands—in 
the Kamorta–Nancowry harbour—before relocating it to Port Blair.  

Over time, Kamorta Island has undergone various changes due to regular 
contact with the outside world through travellers, merchants, colonial 
influences, Japanese occupation in the Second World War, and, finally, the 
Indian government. The tsunami of 2004 and the consequent relief efforts 
have had a dramatic impact on the islands; the islands and their people have 
struggled to revive their economy even after two decades.  

2.2. Methodology 

The objectives of this study were addressed through a mixed-methods 
approach, utilising primary survey data and secondary data from reports and 
other such resources. The detailed methodology used in this study is 
described in the following sections. 

2.2.1. Vegetation Analysis and Soil Chemistry 

A systematic, plot-based sampling method was employed to assess 
vegetation characteristics in Kamorta Island. Two areas were selected for 
the sampling based on a primary survey: the grasslands near Pilpilow village, 
which are managed by fire annually, and the grasslands near Kakana, where 
fire management practices were discontinued after 2004. The sampling 
design involved the use of wireframe plots, each measuring 1 m × 1 m. 
These wireframe plots were further subdivided into a grid of 16 equally 
spaced points. A total of 800 plots (400 each across burnt and unburnt 
areas) were systematically laid out within the study area, ensuring a 
consistent distance of 10 m between adjacent plots (Krebs 1999; Mueller-
Dombois and Ellenberg 1974; Sutherland 2006).  

Soil samples were collected from three strata of the grasslands—hill, slope, 
and valley from Pilpilow (burnt) and Kakana (unburnt). Samples were 
collected by maintaining a 50-m distance between each sample and using a 
soil corer to maintain uniformity between the samples. Although 
physicochemical properties and nutrients were analysed for all soil samples, 
the objective of this specific study was to test the soils for their ‘serpentine’ 
nature as a possible cause for the maintenance of grasslands. The soils were 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [70] 

subjected to high-precision, inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry 
(ICP-MS), specifically focusing on calcium/magnesium and heavy metals. A 
total of twelve elements were analysed; however, in this paper, we present 
data for five elements—magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), iron (Fe), copper 
(Cu), and cobalt (Co)—which were integral to the study. Details of soil 
sample preparation and workflow for ICP-MS have been provided as 
supplementary information (Appendix 1). 

2.2.2.  Data Analysis 

The field-based vegetation and soil data were subjected to statistical analysis 
using R Studio (Version 4.3.1)—with Biodiversity R and vegan packages—
following standard ecological methods to estimate species diversity. 
Diversity indices—including Simpson’s diversity index, Shannon’s diversity 
index, and Pielou’s evenness index—were used to analyse the species 
diversity of the plot-based data (Krebs 1999; Magurran 2009; Ricklefs 
2000). 

2.2.3.  Ethnographic Survey 

The social and cultural relevance of grasslands for the Nicobari community 
was studied primarily through ethnographic interviews supplemented with 
participant and non-participant observations (Atkinson et al. 2007; O’Reilly 
2012). Field work for this study was conducted in three villages of the 
Kamorta Island—Pilpilow, Kakana, and Daring—for about 180 days across 
five years (2018–2023). The sample island and villages were selected 
following a preliminary survey in 2018, keeping in mind three key 
considerations: the presence of extensive grasslands, the existence of 
historical records, and cultural indicators of grassland management. 

Key informants were identified for the survey after informal interviews and 
spending time with the community in all three villages. The first phase 
consisted of familiarization with the overall landscape and village activities 
through participant and non-participant observation, followed by resource 
mapping exercises. Subsequently, in-depth interviews were conducted in a 
mix of Hindi and Nicobari with the help of a local translator, who was 
bilingual and familiar with local Nicobari dialects (to adjust for local 
variations in the language since different islands use different dialects of the 
language). The field notes and interviews were recorded through 
conventional journals and, in some cases, the interviews were recorded with 
the permission of the resource persons (Atkinson et al. 2012).  

Resource maps were made with the help of handheld GPS and key 
informants. These maps helped understand the location of resources and 
the division of habitats between families. All the data recorded through in-



[71] Bhardwaj, Shiwani, Mandeep, Yadav and Babu 

depth interviews were transcribed and processed through inductive coding. 
This research method was preferred because the interviews were taken 
without any prior notions about grasslands. Through the coding process, 
the data relevant to this study was extracted and the remaining data was 
coded and marked for future work (for details on the method see Saldaña 
2016). Although the interpretation of ethnographic data for this study is 
presented through an emic approach, other perspectives on the implications 
of traditional resource management have been highlighted in the discussion 
section (Bergman and Lindgren 2018). 

 

3. RESULTS 

This section summarizes our observations based on the results of a primary 
survey conducted in the Nicobar Islands. We explore the vegetation ecology 
and cultural ecology of the grasslands, including specific details on 
vegetation composition, aspects of soil chemistry, biogeographic affinities, 
and the centrality of grasslands to the resource management systems of 
Nicobari communities. 

3.1.  Vegetation Ecology of the Grasslands of Kamorta Island 

The grasslands of Kamorta encompass 38% of the island’s land area; the 
remaining portion is characterized by tropical forests and mangroves. These 
grasslands extend over significant hilly and undulating terrains situated 
within the island’s central region, occasionally interspersed with patches of 
tropical forests. Kamorta Island’s grasslands prominently feature members 
of the Poaceae and Cyperaceae families. In total, the grasslands host a 
diverse ecosystem comprising 56 distinct species, consisting of both 
herbaceous and woody species.  

The grasslands of Kamorta Island were historically maintained by regular 
fire management practices. However, after the 2004 tsunami, these practices 
were discontinued in certain areas and are still practised annually in others. 
In this study, we compare burnt and unburnt habitats to understand how a 
change in land management practices affects vegetation composition and 
the influence of edaphic factors in maintaining grasslands. 

As shown in Table 1, we divided the Kamorta Island grasslands into two 
categories: one managed by fire annually and the other, which has been 
unburnt for the last 18 years. Both areas have somewhat similar species 
richness, with 42 species in the fire-managed region and 37 species in the 
unburnt region; there was a similar number of grass species comprising the 
Poaceae and Cyperaceae families in both.  



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [72] 

Table 1: Vegetation Composition Comparison Between Two Types of Grasslands: 
One Was Maintained Through Fire and the Other Discontinued the Fire 
Management Regime After the 2004 Tsunami 

  Fire-managed Unburnt for 18 years 

Total species richness 42 37 

Number of grass species 22 20 

Grass cover (%) 85.19 73.85 

Herbaceous and woody plant cover (%) 10.98 21.71 

Species diversity (Simpson) 0.71 0.77 

Species diversity (Shannon) 1.84 1.98 

Evenness 0.48 0.54 

Source: Authors 

However, in the case of grassland cover, there were some dissimilarities 
between the habitats—the regularly burnt habitats seemed to support more 
grass cover (both Poaceae and Cyperaceae) compared to the unburnt 
grassland. A greater presence of other herbaceous and woody plant species 
was observed in the unburnt grasslands. However, the comparisons of grass 
cover and woody vegetation were not statistically significant (Kruskal Wallis 
test; grass cover N = 400; p = 0.928, and herbaceous and woody cover N = 
400; p = 0.58). The difference in cover can be attributed to one species of 
fern (Dicranopteris pedate), which covers almost 10% of the land in unburnt 
habitats as compared to regularly burnt areas, where it covers only 1% of 
the area.  

Figure 3: Grasslands with Bordering Forests on Kamorta Island. The Nicobari 
Refer to This Area as Ryakhhipot and It Is Managed by Fire Annually  

 

Source: Authors 

The diversity indices of both areas show similar results, with high diversity 
recorded in both habitats. Similarly, both areas reported similar levels of 



[73] Bhardwaj, Shiwani, Mandeep, Yadav and Babu 

evenness, indicating that most of the species are evenly distributed, except 
for a few grass species such as Imperata cylendrica and Scleria sumantresis, which 
dominate the landscape in both habitats. 

3.2. Chemistry of Serpentine Soils 

The average concentration of select chemical components and heavy metals 
in 37 soil samples collected from different strata within the grasslands of 
Kamorta Island are presented in Table 2. The samples had distinctively low 
levels of calcium and high levels of magnesium. As a result, all the soils 
sampled had extremely low Ca/Mg ratios, which is characteristic of 
ultramafic serpentine formations. Moreover, the samples showed high 
concentrations of heavy metals—Fe, Cu, and Co—in all three strata. All 
these characteristics point towards the serpentine nature of the soil, which 
is very low in essential elements and high in concentrations of heavy metals. 
which can restrict plant growth. 

Table 2: Average Concentration of the Chemical Components of the Soils of the 
Kamorta Grasslands Divided into Three Strata, Showing Attributes Characteristic 
of Serpentine Soils  

Locality No. of 
samples 

Mg 
µg/g 

Ca 
µg/g 

Ca: Mg 
ratio 

Fe 
µg/g 

Cu 
µg/g 

Co 
µg/g 

Grass
-land 
Hill  

11 8,429.4±
731.99 

275.9+
34.17 

0.033±
0.01 

68,004±1
4268.81 

76.3±
6.96 

85.6±
35.63 

Grass
-land 
Slope 

13 8,328.8±
643.7 

332+ 
41.63 

0.039±
0.01 

43,130.7
±2423.58 

65.9±
4.94 

37.9±
11.42 

Grass
-land 
Valley 

13 8,083.4±
1,196.55 

566.3+
34.49 

0.070±
0.01 

38,689.9
±4182.35 

44.8±
2.53 

37.1±
6.95 

Source: Authors 

3.3. Species Composition and Biogeography 

The flora in the central Nicobar grasslands comprises 110 species, 
dominated by the Poaceae and Cyperaceae families. We distributed these 
110 species across three biogeographical zones to understand the 
biogeographical affinities of the flora (for instance, as seen in Figure 3): 
Sundaland (consisting of the Southeast Asian regions of Sumatra, Java, Bali, 
the Malayan peninsula, and Indonesia), the Indian Mainland, and the 
Andaman Islands. Of the 110 species recorded in the grasslands of 
Nicobar, 89 species were found to be in common with the Indian Mainland, 
77 with the Andaman Islands, and 106 with Sundaland. The grassland flora 
of Nicobar demonstrates a significant affinity to the Sundaic region, 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [74] 

although 68 species of the 110 recorded were found to be common to all 
three regional floras (Kew 2023). These results indicate that the grasslands 
of central Nicobar are part of a larger, continuous formation of tropical 
grasslands across South and Southeast Asia. 

Figure 4: Biogeographical Affinities of the Central Nicobar Grasslands 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Authors 

3.4. Cultural Ecology of the Grasslands of Central Nicobar 

Contrary to what has been reported thus far, this study demonstrates the 
centrality of the grasslands for the Nicobari community. In the Nicobari 
language, grasslands are referred to as “kuisen”, a composite term derived 
from the combination of “kui”, signifying “place”, and “sen”, denoting 
“grass”. Within the Nicobari language, there exists distinct terminology for 
identifying various grass species as well as other nomenclature for defining 
activities related to grasslands. The traditional Nicobari village 
administration is organized in the following manner:  

(i) Every village is headed by a chief who is referred to as the 
“captain”. 

(ii) Within the village, clusters of households form an aggregation 
called the tuhet, headed by a tuhet chief or the mah-chyonyi.  

(iii) Within tuhets, family clusters are organized as nyi, which forms the 
basic household unit of the village. 



[75] Bhardwaj, Shiwani, Mandeep, Yadav and Babu 

 The captains and “second captains” are elected much like the panchayat 
system in mainland India. Captains coordinate village-level activities with 
the formal administration—the tehsildar and the assistant commissioner of 
the sub-division. However, tuhet chiefs are the operational heads and are 
selected among the elders and active members of the community. Tuhet 
chiefs have final authority on management decisions regards horticulture, 
forests, grasslands, and coastal resources, which they oversee through their 
traditional knowledge and skills as well as the collective wisdom of the 
tuhet. Tuhets are dynamic units and may be small or large and may have 
several households. Previous tuhets can lead to the creation of new tuhets 
because households may decide to start their own settlement. 

The grasslands are managed as common property resources, with the tuhet 
chief settling territorial rights and dividing the area between tuhets. For 
example, in the Pilpilow, Kakana, and Daring villages, the tuhet acts as the 
primary social institution that regulates hunting, fishing, and other 
harvesting processes, which are managed according to the Nicobari 
calendar. The Nicobari calendar has two prominent seasons: alfool—the fair 
weather season when venturing into the sea is preferred, with a consequent 
harvest of resources from the sea (coastal and marine)—and alsumaho—
which marks the beginning of the southwest monsoon wherein the sea 
becomes rough and coastal harvesting declines. During alfool, tuhet chiefs 
enforce restrictions on hunting in the grasslands as well as gathering specific 
resources from the land. With the onset of alsumaho, these restrictions are 
lifted, and people can start harvesting the land-based resources that had 
been restricted; this is usually initiated by burning grasslands (locally 
referred to as ussah/issoh). 

Access to various resources is regulated, and there are taboos and 
restrictions on the use of grasslands. There are specific rituals that must be 
performed before the initiation of burning practices and the annual hunt. 
Violations are reported to the tuhet chiefs and often attract verbal 
reprimands and minor fines. In other words, a well-developed institutional 
structure exists for overall governance and natural resource use across the 
three villages surveyed for the study. In one of the interviews with a tuhet 
chief, it was revealed that post-tsunami resettlement has become a major 
hindrance in the management of the grasslands by fire (ussah/issoh). The 
village of Daring, in particular, has not been able to burn its grasslands for 
18 years owing to the permanent shelters and other infrastructure that have 
come up on the grasslands.  

Further, another captain of the Pilpilow village recounted the hardship the 
residents encountered because the permanent shelters had been built far 
from the original location of their homes, owing to perceived risks of future 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [76] 

tsunamis. Yet another respondent from this village recounted how 
permanent shelters were designed differently from their traditional huts, 
which are constructed on props; this allows residents to keep poultry and 
pigs near the house. He explained that this was the main reason for the 
households to return to the coast and rebuild their traditional houses. 

Figure 5: A Traditional House (nyi hupul) on the Island of Chowra; the Roof of 
the House Is Made of Grass Material Collected from the Community-owned 
Grasslands  

 

Source: Authors 

3.4.1. Nyi hupul and the Importance of Grasslands 

In Nicobari society and culture, the nyi hupul (Figure 4) assumes a pivotal 
role. Essentially, the term refers to a traditional circular dwelling 
constructed exclusively from locally sourced materials, abstaining from any 
foreign components. This ancestral edifice serves as a focal point for 



[77] Bhardwaj, Shiwani, Mandeep, Yadav and Babu 

organizing significant festival ceremonies, hosts travellers arriving from 
various islands, and serves as a communal meeting centre. According to a 
former captain of Kakana village, the construction of nyi hupul entails the 
utilization of diverse tree species found within the island’s forests, 
mangroves, and grasslands. In cases where a specific tree species is not 
readily available on their island, the inhabitants embark on inter-island 
journeys to request a loan of the requisite timber. The traditional roofing of 
the nyi hupul predominantly comprised either the leaves of the nypa palm 
(Nypa fruticans) or a combination of indigenous grass species. As elucidated 
upon by the chief of Chowra island, the process of roof construction may 
necessitate the collection of grasses over three consecutive years, which are 
then meticulously secured to form the roof of newly erected nyi hupuls or 
for repair purposes. This grass-harvesting activity is exclusively undertaken 
by the women of the island; men refrain from participation. The captain of 
Pilpilow expounded that the grass roof, when compared to the nypa palm 
alternative, boasts greater durability, requiring fewer repairs over time. 

3.4.2. Wild Pig Hunting and Grasslands 

The Nicobar Islands harbour a species of wild pig (Sus scrofa andamanica) 
that lives in coastal, mangrove, forest, as well as grassland ecosystems. In 
central Nicobar, the females of the species use the burrows and grooves in 
tall grass found in the grasslands for breeding and rearing young ones. The 
high density of wild pigs in the grasslands provides Nicobaris with hunting 
opportunities, which they avail of by using an array of traps. In one of the 
traditional festivals celebrated annually—kafas—communal hunts are 
organized by tuhets and are an important activity, as the number of animals 
hunted on that day is seen as an estimate of productivity in the coming year. 
According to Abelson (name changed), a resident of Pilpilow village, people 
regularly visit the grasslands and search for the burrows made by female 
wild pigs to gather the young piglets and domesticate them. He clarified 
that when they go to capture the piglets, they do not take their hunting dogs 
with them, since they can injure or kill the young ones before they reach the 
burrows. 

3.4.3. Management of the Grasslands by Fire 

On the island of Kamorta, Nicobaris celebrate traditional annual festivals 
called kafas and hinyan (Tonol Sayeuh). Both festivals are performed when 
the season changes and the southwest monsoon approaches the Andaman 
and Nicobar Islands in June. Both the festivals focus on the theme of the 
changing season but are performed by different tuhet groups. The second 
captain of Pilpilow explained the backdrop of the festival. Nicobari people 
mostly depend on marine resources for their daily food consumption and a 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [78] 

small dugout canoe made by traditional craftsmen is used for fishing 
activities. This canoe is reliable and can travel in open waters in fair 
weather. In bad weather, especially during the monsoon season, when 
heavy winds prevail in the region, taking out the canoes in open waters is 
not possible. Therefore, in the monsoon season, which stretches from June 
to October, access to marine resources is limited. To avoid resource crunch 
during the monsoons, traditionally, restrictions are enforced on inland 
resources in the fair season—particular areas of the forests and grasslands 
are earmarked, and hunting wild pigs is restricted in particular areas. In this 
period, people were not allowed to consume, hunt, and collect certain 
species from particular areas, and it is believed that doing so would create 
some deformity in the body of the consumer. Kafas and hinyan are 
celebrated when the restrictions on particular food items are lifted; 
Nicobaris can consume any type of food in this season.  

The festivities go on for a whole day, but the most important part of the 
festival is when a group of people go hunting and gathering. As a part of 
this process, a group of hunters visits the grasslands and performs 
ussah/issoh. Consequently, two things happen. First, the wild pigs hiding in 
the grasslands venture out and become easy targets for hunters. Second, 
since the smoke is visible throughout the island, it signals to the nearby 
islands that the festival is complete and the restrictions may be lifted. The 
Nicobari community believes that discontinuing ussah/issoh will lead to a 
decline in the productivity of the grasslands vis-à-vis the hunt and the 
resources of the freshwater streams that emerge from the grassland. 

3.5.  Post-tsunami Resettlement 

The earthquakes and tsunami that occurred in the region on December 26, 
2004, had a profound impact on many islands in the Indian Ocean, 
particularly on the Nicobar Islands. The earthquake that triggered the 
tsunami, measuring Mw 9.3 on the Richter scale, resulted in waves reaching 
up to 1,000 m inland, causing devastating destruction to coastal zones. The 
government data reported a staggering loss of over 3,500 lives as well as the 
destruction of coastal villages and plantations (Ramanamurthy et al. 2005; 
Sankaran 2005). The Nicobari villages, in particular, were severely affected, 
with many being completely washed off. Their crucial coconut plantations 
were also obliterated by the calamity.  

This catastrophe left the affected communities heavily reliant on 
government agencies and organizations for relief and support. In response 
to the disaster, the Government of India formulated an extensive tsunami 
rehabilitation package for the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Murty et al. 
2006). A crucial element of this package was the construction of permanent 



[79] Bhardwaj, Shiwani, Mandeep, Yadav and Babu 

shelters for the coastal villages that had been devastated by the tsunami. A 
total of 9,714 houses were built across the Andaman and Nicobar Islands in 
the following years by the Central Public Work Department (CPWD) and 
the Andaman Public Works Department (APWD) (Press Trust of India 
2006; Rawal, Desai, and Jadeja 2006).  

The process of selecting suitable sites for constructing new houses for 
Nicobari communities involved seeking recommendations from the 
Department of Science and Technology (DST), Ministry of Science and 
Technology. Based on the DST’s report, an elevation-based setback line for 
establishing new settlements was adopted. Consequently, all the new 
settlements were built on elevated land, maintaining 1.5 km from the high 
tide line to ensure safety against potential future tsunamis (Rawal, Desai, 
and Jadeja 2006). In the case of the central Nicobar Islands, that high tide 
line fell within grassland ecosystems in most of the cases. Consequently, 
permanent shelters—with other infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, 
and community centres—were built on the grasslands. 

 

4. DISCUSSION 

The observations from the previous section are analysed in light of the 
published literature to identify the nature of the grasslands of Central 
Nicobar, their embeddedness in the traditional resource management 
systems of the Nicobari, and the ramifications of the socio-economic 
transformation of the region after the tsunami of 2004.  

4.1. Biogeographic Affinities and Vegetation Ecology 

The vegetation composition of the Nicobar archipelago—where all the 
islands come under similar climatic conditions—typically supports tropical 
forests as climax formations, and the presence of grasslands in some of the 
islands has been a source of mystery for a long time (Hochstetter 1866). 
The demarcation between the forested areas and the grasslands displays a 
distinct and sharp boundary, which remains impervious to determination 
through climatic factors (Beard 1953) as mentioned earlier. 

The grasslands of central Nicobar show floristic affinity to neighbouring 
regions, particularly Sundaland, with which it shares a significant proportion 
of species. The grassland vegetation is dominated by Imperata cylindrica and 
Scleria sumtrensis, which occur commonly across the South and Southeast 
Asian regions. Furthermore, the biogeographical affinity of the Kamorta 
grasslands in particular is high with Borneo (65%) and Sulawesi (60%)—
both islands support serpentine outcrops similar to our study area (Galey et 
al. 2017). This is in line with botanical research observations on Nicobar 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [80] 

Islands, which indicate that the overall flora of the islands has a stronger 
affinity to Sumatra than Andamans or mainland India (Hajra, Rao, and 
Mudgal 1999). Consequently, these grasslands may indeed constitute 
remnants of an otherwise continuous distribution of such grassland habitats 
that occurred across Southeast Asia, formerly connected by land bridges 
during the LGM, which dates back to 20,000 years ago (Bird, Taylor, and 
Hunt 2005)(Bird et al. 2005). Some of these grasslands may have emerged 
during previous periods of arid climatic conditions and have persisted over 
time due to recurrent fire occurrences (Bird et al. 2005; Eden 1974; Voris 
2000). 

The soil analysis conducted in this study demonstrates that the grasslands of 
Kamorta are serpentine formations, which are characterised by extremely 
low Ca/Mg ratios and high concentrations of heavy metals, such as Fe, Cu, 
and Co, which are known to limit primary productivity (Brady, Kruckeberg, 
and Bradshaw Jr 2005; Galey et al. 2017; Mizuno et al. 2009; Whittaker 
1954). In other words, as a primary condition, edaphic factors limit the 
development of forests in these grasslands, and these formations are indeed 
an edaphic climax (Jose et al. 1994).  

The vegetation analysis conducted in this study demonstrates that annually 
burnt grasslands show higher, but comparable, grass cover and diversity 
parameters when compared to unburnt grasslands, which have been left 
fallow for over 18 years. This indicates that serpentine formations indeed 
prevent the development of forests even if grasslands are not managed by 
fire, further corroborating the hypothesis that the grasslands of Kamorta 
are edaphically determined and are not of recent anthropogenic origin.  

In the case of the Southeast Asian grasslands, maintenance of these 
ecosystems by fire is common and has been practised widely by indigenous 
communities for thousands of years (Stott 2009; Wharton 1968). This 
disturbance regime controls the encroachment of woody species in the 
grassland system. However, in this process, species adapted to fire benefit 
over others and dominate the landscape in the process. For instance, 
Imperata cylindrica is a fire-tolerant aggressive species that dominates most of 
the tropical grasslands of the Southeast Asian region (Garrity et al. 1996). 
The grasslands dominated by Imperata cylindrica are often seen as 
unproductive wastelands in the eyes of authorities and government 
agencies. Thus, they mark these grasslands as available for development 
projects. This perspective overlooks the profound significance of the 
grasslands for local communities, as these ecosystems not only sustain 
livelihoods but also play integral roles in the social and cultural fabric of the 
society (Dove 1997). 



[81] Bhardwaj, Shiwani, Mandeep, Yadav and Babu 

4.2.  Embedded Cultural History 

This study demonstrates that the ecology and management of grasslands are 
deeply embedded in Nicobari culture. We see that the grasslands are a 
critical component of the coastal, horticultural, forest, and grassland 
resource base that Nicobari society depends on. We see that grassland 
management activities—including burning—are managed by the tuhet and 
administered as a CPR (common property resources). The tuhet, as a social 
institution, regulates resource use, mitigates conflicts, and manages the 
Nicobari calendar of activities such as kafas. The festivities associated with 
the seasonal calendar, observed synchronously by tuhets, involve resource-
sharing across villages and managing land and sea-based resources 
equitably. The entire grasslands of Kamorta were divided between the 
villages of Pilpilow and Daring and have historically been managed using 
traditional practices that are a part of the Nicobari calendar, beginning with 
the onset of alsumaho. This period is marked by synchronized burning of 
the grasslands and hunting, which were—and still are—practised in 
Pilpilow.  

The cultural embeddedness of the grasslands and the traditional knowledge 
systems associated with their use and management make it amply clear that 
these grasslands are neither recent in origin nor decoupled from the 
“coastal culture” of Nicobari society. Research on tropical grasslands shows 
that these grasslands are maintained by human actions even though their 
origins may vary, except in the case of Kamorta.  

Nonetheless, the ecological classification of the landscape as natural or 
anthropogenic seems futile and renders grasslands political and contested. It 
is noteworthy that past research on the region has failed to sufficiently 
highlight the role of these grasslands and their biocultural significance for 
Nicobari society, and, as a result, there is a conscious decoupling of 
Nicobari society in defining them as a coastal/horticulture stereotype. For 
instance, the importance of kafas and the way Nicobari society incorporates 
grassland management into their otherwise coastal/horticulture lifeworld 
has not previously been recorded in the literature. This omission, although 
regional, has been far from benign as we demonstrate in the next section. 

The discourse on tropical grasslands in the last century has mostly focused 
on their lack of productivity and attempts to repurpose them for 
commercial plantations. Dove and Kammen (2015) lament the appalling 
lack of empirical research on the ecology of tropical grasslands, which has 
led to all forms of mythmaking and misappropriation all across South Asia. 
Further, they assert that “the needful grassland research has not been done 
or has been done in error or has been done correctly but without impact, is 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [82] 

sociologically meaningful” (Dove and Kammen 2015, 64). This becomes 
particularly relevant for grasslands and the indigenous communities that 
depend on them all across the region, and for Nicobars as we observe in 
this study. 

The anthropogenic nature of tropical grasslands has been the point of focus 
from which all ideas of betterment emerge. The grasslands of Southeast 
Asia have been victims of a “forest bias” that prevailed from the mid-
nineteenth to the mid-twentieth century—originally through colonial 
forestry—but persisting even in present-day imaginations of grassland 
management. Deleuze and Guattari (1987) point out that “arboreally 
oriented” western imaginations are in stark contrast to “rhizome-oriented” 
eastern thinking. From the standpoint of developmental agencies, both 
governmental and non-governmental, tropical grasslands offer an attractive 
avenue for resource allocation and investment in development initiatives. 
This trend has persisted since the colonial era and continues to be a 
prominent feature of contemporary governance. Many government policies 
and strategic plans, past and present, have framed tropical “anthropogenic” 
grasslands as problematic and have sought to supplant them with alternative 
land use practices (Anderson 1969; Buttel 2010; Coomes, Grimard, and 
Burt 2000; Greller 1995; Nyerges 1989; Stott 1991). 

4.3.  Resource Politics and Transformation of the Kuisen 

As outlined in the results (Section 3.4), the grasslands of Kamorta are 
managed as CPR through an intricate system of rights involving the tuhets 
of Pilpilow and Daring. However, these arrangements have not been 
documented previously and, as a result, there is a knowledge gap amongst 
the research community as well as planners. Traditional management 
activities in these locations occur far from the visitors to Kamorta, as 
Pilpilow and Daring are among the farthest from the administrative 
headquarters. In short, the connection between Nicobari communities and 
the grasslands remained invisible not just to government officials but also 
to the research community. Consequently, the popular notion that these 
grasslands are anthropogenic and of recent origin prevailed and was 
perpetuated, and the fact of these being actively managed CPRs remained 
obscure. 

Although ANPATR (1956) provides blanket protection to tribal 
communities and prevents their lands from being diverted to developmental 
purposes, the apparent non-use of these grasslands projected them as 
wastelands or unproductive lands that require active management and 
agricultural efforts. It is interesting to note that while the Forest Protection 
Act provides an umbrella of protection against unbridled development, it 



[83] Bhardwaj, Shiwani, Mandeep, Yadav and Babu 

strictly applies to “forests” and not grasslands. As such, the act is only 
applied with mild intent since these are notified as tribal areas. While 
conservation biologists have regularly conducted research on wildlife and 
biodiversity in the region, significant attention has not been given to the 
grasslands. Hence, no one attempted to dispel the myths about these 
anthropogenic grasslands. In short, the functional and cultural dimensions 
of grasslands were simultaneously invisible to state agencies as well as to the 
research community. 

Under these circumstances, the earthquakes and tsunami of 2004 unleashed 
mayhem in Nicobars. Survivors were moved to higher ground, in this case, 
into the grasslands, where temporary shelters were erected to secure their 
lives. As a national emergency was declared, the relief operation took 
precedence and the focus shifted entirely to rehabilitating the displaced 
people. Permanent shelters were built on the grasslands, along with roads 
and supporting infrastructure that did exist in the pre-tsunami era.  

These resettlements have not only disconnected the Nicobaris from the 
coastline, increasing their hardship, but they have also disrupted the 
grassland commons and territorial arrangements. The settlers were now 
expected to engage in developing productive plantations in the grasslands, 
which they knew to be not productive and hence never attempted to raise 
plantations historically. The settlements (six villages with 360 houses and 
amenities) came up on the tuhet grasslands of Daring and Pilpilow and 
transformed the management of the kuisen forever. Daring tuhets had to 
stop the annual ussah completely and several Pilpilow tuhets had to restrict 
ussah to protect the new infrastructure that had come up on their 
grasslands. In short, over 18 years, the land tenure arrangements of the 
CPR have been transformed completely, with possible long-term 
consequences for the Nicobari villages of Kamorta. Similar changes have 
occurred in the neighbouring islands of Teressa, Chowra, and Trinket in the 
central Nicobar Islands that harbour grasslands. 

The sustainability of grassland commons in the Nicobar Islands will be at 
risk if institutional arrangements and resource management regimes are not 
revived. As observed in this study, the Pilpilow grasslands that have not 
been burnt are now mostly dominated by hardy grasses and forbs, including 
Dichranopteris, an aggressive fern which has now taken up about 10% of the 
unburnt area. The access regimes of the tuhets of Pilpilow and Daring have 
been altered drastically, disenfranchising communities from critical 
grassland resources. The experiences of the other communities inhabiting 
tropical grasslands in Southeast Asia have mostly been one of dispossession 
due to agroforestry projects and other improvement efforts, most of which, 
notably, have failed (Keijiro, Suyanto, and Tomich 1997) 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [84] 

Simultaneously, these efforts fail to recognize these grasslands as products 
of human society sustained through conscious will and not merely 
depauperate ecosystems (Dove 2019). As has also been shown in the case 
of the forest grassland mosaic of Southern India, colonial policies of 
“foresting the grassland” indicate misrepresentation and poor 
understanding of grassy biomes and have resulted in large-scale 
transformation of these ecosystems (Joshi, Sankaran, and Ratnam 2018). It 
would be useful to understand the complex relationship of the Nicobaris 
with kuisen in terms of the space–society dialectic where each shapes and 
transforms the other (Soja 1980). With the arrival of built infrastructure and 
settlements in the grasslands, the “bundle of powers” (Ribot and Peluso 
2003) now moves to the administration, indicating a permanent shift in the 
management of Nicobar’s grasslands. 

 

5. CONCLUSION 

This study examined the ecology of the grasslands of the central Nicobar 
Islands, in general, and Kamorta Island, in particular, to understand the 
species composition and origins and their cultural significance for the 
Nicobari community. Through a detailed analysis of species composition 
and biogeographical affinities, we conclude that these are part of an 
extensive formation of tropical grasslands that are in continuity with similar 
formations in the rest of Southeast Asia. In line with contemporary thinking 
that classifies grasslands as biomes, we concur that physiognomic 
classifications are limiting in their ability to describe such formations; 
compositional analysis is much more insightful in inferring history and 
biogeography (Veldman 2016).  

Through a detailed high-resolution analysis of soils, we conclude that the 
Kamorta grasslands are located on a serpentine outcrop, which has resulted 
in edaphic conditions with very low Ca/Mg ratios and high concentrations 
of heavy metals that limit plant productivity. We conclude that the 
grasslands of Kamorta are edaphically limited and, hence, “natural” in 
origin (sensu Gibson 2009). Further, based on a comparison of grasslands 
under different management regimes (burnt annually versus unburnt for 18 
years), in terms of their species diversity and composition, we conclude that 
even after forgoing fires for such a long time, the overall composition of 
these unburnt grasslands is comparable to burnt ones.  

Ethnographic research on the Nicobari community reveals the centrality of 
grasslands in their resource management matrix, which demonstrates that 
these grasslands are indeed CPRs managed by the traditional tuhet system 
that regulates its access and use. Our results demonstrate the embeddedness 



[85] Bhardwaj, Shiwani, Mandeep, Yadav and Babu 

of the grasslands in the Nicobari culture, suggesting a long history of co-
evolution. We find that post-tsunami settlements in grasslands have 
changed the access and tenure arrangements of central Nicobar, with 
perhaps long-lasting impacts on the ecology and overall management of 
grassland commons.  

The long-standing colonial forest bias that renders tropical grassy biomes 
“unproductive” and in need of improvement has been debunked in the last 
two decades through grassland research. Based on current thinking and 
observations made in this study, we recommend that there is a need to 
move beyond natural/anthropogenic classifications and prioritize the 
conservation and sustainable use of Nicobar’s grasslands regardless of their 
origins. Empowering the tuhet system and reviving traditional management 
practices could perhaps offset some of the recent tenurial rearrangements. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 

We thank the Deputy Commissioner of South Andaman and the Assistant 
Commissioner of the Nancowry sub-division (Andaman and Nicobar Islands) for 
granting us a tribal area permit. We thank the Department of Environment and 
Forest, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, for permitting us to survey Kamorta Island. 
We thank the Tribal Council of Kamorta for facilitating access to their community, 
and we also extend our thanks to the captains, the tuhet chiefs, and the people of 
Pilpilow, Kakana, and Daring villages for their participation in the study as well as 
their hospitality.  

Ethics Statement: I hereby confirm that this study complies with 
requirements of ethical approvals from the institutional ethics committee 
for the conduct of this research.  

Data Availability statement: The data used to support this research is 
available in a repository and the hyperlinks and persistent identifiers (e.g. 
DOI or accession number) are stated in the paper. 

Conflict of Interest Statement: No potential conflict of interest was 
reported by the author. 

REFERENCES 

Anderson, Edgar. 1969. Plants, Man and Life. Berkeley: University of California 
Press. 

Atkinson, Paul, Amanda Coffey, Sara Delamont, John Lofland, and Lyn Lofland. 
2007. Handbook of Ethnography. London: SAGE Publications. 

Bagnall-Oakeley, H, Czech Conroy, A Faiz, A Gunawan, Anne Gouyon, Eric 
Penot, S Liangsutthissagon, HD Nguyen, and Anwar Chairil. 1996. “Imperata 
Management Strategies Used in Smallholder Rubber-based Farming Systems.” 
Agroforestry Systems 36 (1–3): 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00142868  

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00142868


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [86] 

Bandopadhyay, PC, and A Carter. 2017. “Introduction to the Geography and 
Geomorphology of the Andaman-Nicobar Islands.” Geological Society, Memoirs 47: 9–
18. https://doi.org/10.1144/M47.2  

Barnard, Alan. 2002. “The Foraging Mode of Thought.” Senri Ethnological Studies 60: 
5–24. 

Beard, JS. 1953. “The Savanna Vegetation of Northern Tropical America.” 
Ecological Monographs 23 (2): 149–215. https://doi.org/10.2307/1948518  

Bergman, Åsa, and Monica Lindgren. 2018. “Navigating between an Emic and an 
Etic Approach in Ethnographic Research. Crucial Aspects and Strategies When 
Communicating Critical Results to Participants.” Ethnography and Education 13 (4): 
477–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2017.1387066  

Bird, Michael, David Taylor, and Chris Hunt. 2005. “Palaeoenvironments of 
Insular Southeast Asia during the Last Glacial Period: A Savanna Corridor in 
Sundaland?” Quaternary Science Reviews 24 (20–21): 2228–2242. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2005.04.004  

Bor, NL. 1938. “The Vegetation of the Nilgiris.” Indian Forester 64 (10): 601–609. 

Bowman, David MJS, SW Wood, D Neyland, Gregor J Sanders, and LD Prior. 
2013. “Contracting Tasmanian Montane Grasslands within a Forest Matrix Is 
Consistent with Cessation of Aboriginal Fire Management.” Austral Ecology 38 (6): 
627–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/aec.12008  

Brady, Kristy U, Arthur R Kruckeberg, and HD Bradshaw Jr. 2005. “Evolutionary 
Ecology of Plant Adaptation to Serpentine Soils.” Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, 
and Systematics 36 (1): 243–266. 
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.021103.105730.  

Buttel, Frederick H. 2010. “Environmentalization: Origins, Processes, and 
Implications for Rural Social Change1.” Rural Sociology 57 (1): 1–27. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.1992.tb00454.x.  

Chandran, MD Subash. 1997. “On the Ecological History of the Western Ghats.” 
Current Science 73 (2): 146–155. 

Coomes, Oliver T, Franque Grimard, and Graeme J Burt. 2000. “Tropical Forests 
and Shifting Cultivation: Secondary Forest Fallow Dynamics among Traditional 
Farmers of the Peruvian Amazon.” Ecological Economics 32 (1): 109–124. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00066-X.  

Cordero, Rodrigo León, M Suma, Siddhartha Krishnan, Chris T Bauch, and 
Madhur Anand. 2018. “Elements of Indigenous Socio-Ecological Knowledge Show 
Resilience despite Ecosystem Changes in the Forest-Grassland Mosaics of the 
Nilgiri Hills, India.” Palgrave Communications 4 (1): 1–9. 
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.021103.105730  

Corlett, Richard, and Richard Primack. 2011. Tropical Rain Forests : An Ecological and 
Biogeographical Comparison. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444392296  

Deleuze, Giles, and Felix Guattari. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and 
Schizophrenia. London: University of Minnesota Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1144/M47.2
https://doi.org/10.2307/1948518
https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2017.1387066
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2005.04.004
https://doi.org/10.1111/aec.12008
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.021103.105730
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.1992.tb00454.x
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00066-X
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.021103.105730
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444392296


[87] Bhardwaj, Shiwani, Mandeep, Yadav and Babu 

Dove, Michael R. 1983. “Theories of Swidden Agriculture, and the Political 
Economy of Ignorance.” Agroforestry Systems 1: 85–99. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00596351  

_________. 1984. “Man, Land and Game in Sumbawa: Some Observations on 
Agrarian Ecology and Development Policy in Eastern Indonesia.” Singapore Journal 
of Tropical Geography 5 (2): 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9493.1984.tb00150.x  

_________. 1997. “The Epistemology of Southeast Asia’s Anthropogenic 

Grasslands : Issues of Myth, Science and Development.” Southeast Asian Studies 35 
(2): 223–239. 

_________. 2004. “Anthropogenic Grasslands in Southeast Asia: Sociology of 
Knowledge and Implications for Agroforestry.” Agroforestry Systems 61: 423–435. 
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AGFO.0000029013.29092.36  

_________. 2019. “Climate Change and the Politics and Science of Traditional 
Grassland Management.” In Grasslands and Climate Change edited by DJ Gibson and 
JA Newman, 276–292. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Dove, Michael, and Daniel Kammen. 2015. “Nature, Society, and Science in 
Anthropogenic Grasslands: Studying Declensionist Discourses.” In Science, Society 
and the Environment: Applying Anthropology and Physics to Sustainability, 43–67. London: 
Routledge. 

Eden, MJ. 1974. “Palaeoclimatic Influences and the Development of Savanna in 
Southern Venezuela.” Journal of Biogeography 1 (2): 95–109. 
https://doi.org/10.2307/3037957  

Ellis, RC. 1985. “The Relationships among Eucalypt Forest, Grassland and 

Rainforest in a Highland Area in North‐ eastern Tasmania.” Austral Ecology 10 (3): 
297–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.1985.tb00891.x  

Fairhead, James, and Melissa Leach. 1996. Misreading the African Landscape. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164023  

Fortier, Jana. 2014. “Regional Hunter-Gatherer Traditions in South-East Asia.” In 
The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology and Anthropology of Hunter-Gatherers, edited by 
Vicki Cummings, Peter Jordan, and Marek Zvelebil. Oxford: Oxford University 
Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199551224.013.046  

Galey, ML, A. van der Ent, MCM Iqbal, and N Rajakaruna. 2017. “Ultramafic 
Geoecology of South and Southeast Asia.” Botanical Studies 58 (1): 18. 
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40529-017-0167-9. 

Garrity, DP, M Soekardi, Meine van Noordwijk, R de la Cruz, PS Pathak, HPM 
Gunasena, N Van, G Huijun, and NM Majid. 1996. “The Imperata Grasslands of 
Tropical Asia: Area, Distribution, and Typology.” Agroforestry Systems 36 (1–3): 3–29. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00142865  

The Andaman and Nicobar Gazette. 1956. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands 
(Protection of Aboriginal Tribes) Regulation, 1956. 

Gibson, David J. 2009. Grasses and Grassland Ecology. Oxford: Oxford University 

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00596351
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9493.1984.tb00150.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9493.1984.tb00150.x
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AGFO.0000029013.29092.36
https://doi.org/10.2307/3037957
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.1985.tb00891.x
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164023
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199551224.013.046
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00142865


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [88] 

Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198529187.001.0001  

Goudie, Andrew. 1990. The Human Impact on the Natural Environment : Past, Present 
and Future. 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

Grace, John, Yadvinder Malhi, Niro Higuchi, and Patrick Meir. 2001. “Productivity 
of Tropical Rain Forest.” In Terrestrial Global Productivity, edited by Jacques Roy, 
Bernard Saugier, and Harold A Mooney, 401–426. Cambridge, MA: Academic 
Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012505290-0/50018-1  

Greller, Andrew M. 1995. “Review of LaSelva: Ecology and Natural History of a 
Neotropical Rainforest.” Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 122 (1): 69. 
https://doi.org/10.2307/2996404.  

Haensel, Johann Gottfried. 1812. Letters on the Nicobar Islands: Their Natural Production 
and the Manners, Customs, and Superstition. London: W. M. M’Dowell. 

Hajra, P, PSN Rao, and V Mudgal. 1999. Flora of Andaman-Nicobar Islands. Vol. 1. 
Calcutta: Botanical Survey of India. 

Henley, David. 2011. “Swidden Farming as an Agent of Environmental Change: 
Ecological Myth and Historical Reality in Indonesia.” Environment and History 17 (4): 
525–554. https://doi.org/10.3197/096734011X13150366551535  

Hochstetter, Ferdinand von. 1866. “Contributions to the Geology and Physical 
Geography of the Nicobar Islands.” Translated by F Stoliczka. In Geological 2: 83–
112. 

Imperial Gazetteer of India. 1909. Provincial Series: Andaman and Nicobar Islands. 
Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing. 

Jose, Shibu, A Sreepathy, B Mohan Kumar, and VK Venugopal. 1994. “Structural, 
Floristic and Edaphic Attributes of the Grassland-Shola Forests of Eravikulam in 
Peninsular India.” Forest Ecology and Management 65 (2–3): 279–291. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(94)90176-7.  

Joshi, Atul Arvind, Jayashree Ratnam, and Mahesh Sankaran. 2020. “Frost 
Maintains Forests and Grasslands as Alternate States in a Montane Tropical 
Forest–Grassland Mosaic; but Alien Tree Invasion and Warming Can Disrupt This 
Balance.” Journal of Ecology 108 (1): 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-
2745.13239.  

Joshi, Atul Arvind, Mahesh Sankaran, and Jayashree Ratnam. 2018. “‘Foresting’ the 
Grassland: Historical Management Legacies in Forest-Grassland Mosaics in 
Southern India, and Lessons for the Conservation of Tropical Grassy Biomes.” 
Biological Conservation 224: 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.05.029.  

Kew. 2023. “Plants of the World Online.” Royal Botanical Garden. Accessed 
January 10, 2024. https://powo.science.kew.org.  

Krebs, Charles J. 1999. Ecological Methodology. San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings. 

Kricher, John C. 2011. Tropical Ecology. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 

Kurz, S. 1876. “A Sketch of the Vegetation of the Nicobar Islands.” Journal of 
Asiatic Society of Bengal 45 (3): 105–164. 

Magurran, Anne E. 2013. Measuring Biological Diversity. New Jersey: John Wiley & 

https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198529187.001.0001
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012505290-0/50018-1
https://doi.org/10.2307/2996404
https://doi.org/10.3197/096734011X13150366551535
https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(94)90176-7
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13239
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13239
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.05.029
https://powo.science.kew.org/


[89] Bhardwaj, Shiwani, Mandeep, Yadav and Babu 

Sons. 

Marean, Curtis W. 1997. “Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies in Tropical 
Grasslands: Model Building and Testing in the East African Middle and Later 
Stone Age.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16 (3): 189–225. 
https://doi.org/10.1006/jaar.1997.0309.  

Meadows, ME, and HP Linder. 1993. “Special Paper: A Palaeoecological 
Perspective on the Origin of Afromontane Grasslands.” Journal of Biogeography 20 
(4): 345. https://doi.org/10.2307/2845584.   

Mizuno, Takafumi, Kenji Horie, Shiro Nosaka, Hitoshi Obata, and Naoharu 
Mizuno. 2009. “Serpentine Plants in Hokkaido and Their Chemical 
Characteristics.” Northeastern Naturalist 16 (5): 65–80. 
https://doi.org/10.1656/045.016.0506  

Moravek, Silvie, Jon Luly, John Grindrod, and Russell Fairfax. 2013. “The Origin 
of Grassy Balds in the Bunya Mountains, Southeastern Queensland, Australia.” The 
Holocene 23 (2): 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959683612460792.  

Mueller-Dombois, Dieter, and Heinz Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and Methods of Vegetation 
Ecology. New Jersey: Wiley. 

Murty, CVR, Sudhir Jain, Alpa Sheth, Arvind Jaiswal, and Suresh Dash. 2006. 
“Response and Recovery in India after the December 2004 Great Sumatra 
Earthquake and Indian Ocean Tsunami.” Earthquake Spectra 22 (3): 731–758. 
https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2206137.   

Myers, Norman, Russell A. Mittermeler, Cristina G Mittermeler, Gustavo AB da 
Fonseca, and Jennifer Kent. 2000. “Biodiversity Hotspots for Conservation 
Priorities.” Nature 403 (6772): 853–858. https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501  

Nair, NG. 1979. “A Study on the Grasslands of Car Nicobar Island.” Indian Journal 
of Forestry 2: 254–260. 

Nangendo, Grace, Alfred Stein, Martien Gelens, Alfred de Gier, and Robert 
Albricht. 2002. “Quantifying Differences in Biodiversity between a Tropical Forest 
Area and a Grassland Area Subject to Traditional Burning.” Forest Ecology and 
Management 164 (1–3): 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00603-X.  

Nayak, Rajat Ramakant, Srinivas Vaidyanathan, and Jagdish Krishnaswamy. 2014. 
“Fire and Grazing Modify Grass Community Response to Environmental 
Determinants in Savannas: Implications for Sustainable Use.” Agriculture, Ecosystems 
and Environment 185: 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.01.002.  

Nerlekar, Ashish N, Alok R Chorghe, Jagdish V Dalavi, Raja Kullayiswamy 
Kusom, Subbiah Karuppusamy, Vignesh Kamath, Ritesh Pokar, Ganesan 
Rengaian, Milind M Sardesai, and Sharad S Kambale. 2022. “Exponential Rise in 
the Discovery of Endemic Plants Underscores the Need to Conserve the Indian 
Savannas.” Biotropica 54 (2): 405–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.13062.  

Nerlekar, Ashish N, and Joseph W Veldman. 2020. “High Plant Diversity and Slow 
Assembly of Old-Growth Grasslands.” PNAS 117 (31): 18550–18556. 
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1922266117. 

Nicobar, District Administration. 2023. “Tehsil Statistics” Last modified 

https://doi.org/10.1006/jaar.1997.0309
https://doi.org/10.2307/2845584
https://doi.org/10.1656/045.016.0506
https://doi.org/10.1177/0959683612460792
https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2206137
https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00603-X
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.01.002
https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.13062
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1922266117


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [90] 

10/09/2023 https://nicobars.andaman.nic.in/tehsil-statistics/  

Nyerges, A Endre. 1989. “Coppice Swidden Fallows in Tropical Deciduous Forest: 
Biological, Technological, and Sociocultural Determinants of Secondary Forest 
Successions.” Human Ecology 17 (4): 379–400. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00889497  

O’Reilly, Karen. 2012. Ethnographic Methods. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. 

Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India (ORGI). 2011. 
Primary Census Abstract Data Tables for Andaman and Nicobar Islands. New Delhi: 
Ministry of Home Affairs. 

Osborne, Patrick L. 2000. Tropical Ecosystems and Ecological Concepts. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press. 

Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University 
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763  

Otsuka, Keijiro, S Suyanto, and Thomas P Tomich. 1997. “Does Land Tenure 
Insecurity Discourage Tree Planting? Evolution of Customary Land Tenure and 
Agroforestry Management in Sumatra.” EPTD Discussion Paper (31). Washington 
D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. 

Pemadasa, MA. 1990. “Tropical Grasslands of Sri Lanka and India.” Journal of 
Biogeography 17 (4): 395–400. https://doi.org/10.2307/2845368.  

Pletcher, Elise, Carla Staver, and Naomi B Schwartz. 2022. “The Environmental 
Drivers of Tree Cover and Forest–Savanna Mosaics in Southeast Asia.” Ecography 
2022 (8): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.06280.  

Press Trust of India. 2006. “Shelters for Tsunami-Hit in Andaman.” Hindustan 
Times, December 26, 2006. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/shelters-for-
tsunami-hit-in-andaman/story-oRAG9PyBHNYuGyPg9nININ.html.  

Ramanamurthy, MV, S Sundaramoorthy, Y Pari, V Ranga Rao, P Mishra, M Bhat, 
Tune Usha, R Venkatesan, and BR Subramanian. 2005. “Inundation of Sea Water 
in Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Parts of Tamil Nadu Coast during 2004 
Sumatra Tsunami.” Current Science 88 (11): 1736–1740. 

Ranganathan, C. 1938. “Studies in the Ecology of the Shola Grassland Vegetation 
of the Nilgiri Plateau.” Indian Forester 64 (9): 523–541. 

Rawal, Vivek, Rajendra Desai, and Dharmesh Jadeja. 2006. Assessing Post-Tsunami 
Housing Reconstruction In Andaman and Nicobar Islands: A People’s Perspective. Bangalore: 
Books for Change. 

Ribot, Jesse C, and Nancy Lee Peluso. 2003. “A Theory of Access.” Rural Sociology 
68 (2): 153–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.2003.tb00133.x.  

Richards, PW. 1996. The Tropical Rain Forest: An Ecological Study. 2nd ed. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press. 

Ricklefs, Robert E, and Gary Leon Miller. 2000. Ecology. 4th ed. New York: W.H. 
Freeman & Co. 

Robin, VV, and R Nandini. 2012. “Shola Habitats on Sky Islands: Status of 
Research on Montane Forests and Grasslands in Southern India.” Current Science 

https://nicobars.andaman.nic.in/tehsil-statistics/
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00889497
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763
https://doi.org/10.2307/2845368
https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.06280
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/shelters-for-tsunami-hit-in-andaman/story-oRAG9PyBHNYuGyPg9nININ.html
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/shelters-for-tsunami-hit-in-andaman/story-oRAG9PyBHNYuGyPg9nININ.html
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.2003.tb00133.x


[91] Bhardwaj, Shiwani, Mandeep, Yadav and Babu 

103 (12): 1427–1437. 

Rogers, GM. 1994. “North Island Seral Tussock Grasslands. 1. Origins and Land-
Use History.” New Zealand Journal of Botany 32 (3): 271–286. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/0028825X.1994.10410471.  

Saldaña, Johnny. 2016. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. London: SAGE 
Publications. 

Saldanha, J. Cecil. 1989. Andaman, Nicobar and Lakshadweep: An Environmental Impact 
Assessment. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Pub. Co. 

Sankaran, Mahesh. 2009. “Diversity Patterns in Savanna Grassland Communities: 
Implications for Conservation Strategies in a Biodiversity Hotspot.” Biodiversity and 
Conservation 18 (4): 1099–1115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9519-9  

Sankaran, Ravi. 2005. “Impact of the Earthquake and the Tsunami on the Nicobar 
Islands.” In The Ground Beneath the Waves: Post-tsunami Impact Assessment of Wildlife and 
their Habitats in India (Vol. 2: The Islands), edited by Rahul Kaul and Vivek Menon, 
10–77. New Delhi: Wildlife Trust of India. 

Schimper, Andreas Franz Wilhelm. 1903. Plant-Geography upon a Physiological Basis, 
translated by William Rogers Fisher and edited by Percy Groom and Isaac Bayley 
Balfour. Oxford: Clarendon Press. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.24775  

Sherman, George. 1980. “What “Green Desert”? The Ecology of Batak Grassland 
Farming.” Indonesia 29 (29): 112–148. https://doi.org/10.2307/3351007  

Singh, Simron Jit, Clemens M. Grünbühel, Heinz Schandl, and Niels Schulz. 2001. 
“Social Metabolism and Labour in a Local Context: Changing Environmental 
Relations on Trinket Island.” Population and Environment 23 (1): 71–104. 
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017564309651  

Soja, Edward W. 1980. “The Socio-Spatial Dialectic.” Annals of the Association of 
American Geographers 70 (2): 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8306.1980.tb01308.x.  

Stott, Philip. 1991. “Recent Trends in the Ecology and Management of the World’s 
Savanna Formations.” Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment 15 (1): 18–
28. https://doi.org/10.1177/030913339101500102.  

______. 2009. “The Forest as Phoenix : Towards a Biogeography of Fire in 
Mainland South East Asia.” The Geographical Journal 154 (3): 337–350. 
https://doi.org/10.2307/634607  

Sutherland, William J. 2006. Ecological Census Techniques: A Handbook. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790508  

Thomas, SM, and MW Palmer. 2007. “The Montane Grasslands of the Western 
Ghats, India: Community Ecology and Conservation.” Community Ecology 8 (1): 67–
73. https://doi.org/10.1556/ComEc.8.2007.1.9  

Thung, Paul. 2016. “A Case Study on the Persistence of Shifting Cultivation in the 
Context of Post-2015 Anti-Haze Regulations in West-Kalimantan.” Human Ecology 
46: 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-018-9969-y  

Veldman, Joseph W. 2016. “Clarifying the Confusion: Old-Growth Savannahs and 

https://doi.org/10.1080/0028825X.1994.10410471
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9519-9
https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.24775
https://doi.org/10.2307/3351007
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017564309651
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1980.tb01308.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1980.tb01308.x
https://doi.org/10.1177/030913339101500102
https://doi.org/10.2307/634607
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790508
https://doi.org/10.1556/ComEc.8.2007.1.9
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-018-9969-y


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [92] 

Tropical Ecosystem Degradation.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: 
Biological Sciences 371 (1703). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0306.  

Vliet, N Van, O Mertz, T Birch-Thomsen, and B Schmook. 2013. “Is There a 
Continuing Rationale for Swidden Cultivation in the 21st Century?” Human Ecology 
41 (1): 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-013-9562-3  

Voris, Harold K. 2000. “Maps of Pleistocene Sea Levels in Southeast Asia: 
Shorelines, River Systems and Time Durations.” Journal of Biogeography 27 (5): 1153–
1167. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2699.2000.00489.x.  

Wharton, Charles H. 1968. “Man, Fire and Wild Cattle in Southeast Asia.” In Fire 
Ecology Conference Proceedings 8: 107–167. 

Whitmore, TC. 1984. Tropical Rain Forest of the Far East. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon 
Press. 

Whittaker, RH. 1954. “The Ecology of Serpentine Soils.” Ecology 35 (2): 258–288. 
https://doi.org/10.2307/1931126.  

 

https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0306
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-013-9562-3
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2699.2000.00489.x
https://doi.org/10.2307/1931126


[93] Bhardwaj, Shiwani, Mandeep, Yadav and Babu 

APPENDIX 1:  

Soil analysis through ICP-MS 

Method developments and services in ICP-MS (Agilent 7800)  

Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) is a type of mass 
spectrometry that is used for elemental analysis and detecting trace metals and non-
metal ions in a sample. A summary of the instrument’s profile and the workflow is 
provided here: 
https://www.agilent.com/Library/slidepresentation/Public/ASTS_2015_AtomicT
our_7800_ICPMS.pdf  

For this study, the workflow has been adapted to quantify macro and 
microelements in the plant/microbial samples.  

Sample preparation with microwave-assisted digestion  

Approximately 100–200 mg lyophilized/oven-dry homogenized plant tissue or soil 
sample was weighed and transferred to the digestion tube. 8 mL of ready-to-use 
70% nitric acid was added. In the case of liquid samples, such as bacterial culture 
media/plant exudates, 5 mL of nitric acid was added to 5 mL of the sample. 
Vessels were then locked properly, arranged in the vessel rack, and placed in the 
microwave digestion system for the proper digestion of the samples. The 
parameters were optimized according to the sample type, as well as the number of 
samples.  

Table A1: Method Optimized for Sample Digestion with 70% Nitric Acid in the 
Microwave Digestion System. 

Vial Xpress 

Power 1600 

Ramp Time 25:00 Min 

Hold Time 40:00 Min 

Temperature 180°C 

TempGuard 210°C 

Source: Authors 

Upon completion of the digestion process, vessels were allowed 
120 minutes. Digested samples were then transferred to 50 mL of falcon tubes. 
Volume make-up was done up to 50 mL with fresh MiliQ water. Further, 1:10 
dilution was done using 2% nitric acid in MiliQ water. This diluted sample was then 
filtered using a 0.25μ filter to remove any undigested/contaminating particles.  

For relatively hard tissues, 2 mL of hydrochloric acid was used along with 8 mL of 
nitric acid for the proper digestion of the sample.  

Elements that can be measured in the sample with this digestion method: Ag, Al, 
As, Ba, Be, Ca, Cd, Cd, Co, Cr, Cs, Cu, Fe, Ga, K, Li, Mg, Mn, Na, Ni, Pb, Rb, Se, 
Sr, Tl, U, V, P.  

 

https://www.agilent.com/Library/slidepresentation/Public/ASTS_2015_AtomicTour_7800_ICPMS.pdf
https://www.agilent.com/Library/slidepresentation/Public/ASTS_2015_AtomicTour_7800_ICPMS.pdf


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [94] 

3.2 ICP-MS analysis method development  

The instrument utilizes extremely hot inductively coupled argon plasma for 
atomizing/ionizing any sample for trace element analysis. Operating conditions for 
plasma and ICP-MS were optimized as follows:  

 RF flow: 1,550 W  

 Nebulizer gas flow: 1.08L/min  

 Nebulizer pump: 0.10 rps  

 Omega lens: 8.4 V  

 Helium gas flow: 4.0ml/min 

 Count replicates: 3  

 Energy discrimination: 30 V  

 Extract 2: 190 V  

 Xpress: 1,600; at 25:00 min, at 40:00 min, at 180 °C, at 210 °C 

APPENDIX 2 

Table A2: List of Permanent Shelters Made on Kamorta Island by the Andaman 
Public Work Department (APWD) in the Rehabilitation Process After the 2004 
Tsunami 

Village No of permanent houses 

Chotainak 36 

Badainak 26 

Vikas Nagar 53 

Kakana 80 

Pilpilow 101 

Daring 64 

Banderkari 23 

Changua 32 

Munak 45 

Al uk Heak 7 

Total 467 

Source: Authors 

 


