Are arecanut plantations really suitable for biodiversity conservation?

Ranganathan et al. (1) conclude that arecanut plantations in south India are useful for bird conservation based on a comparison of species richness with intact forest. Consideration of abundance data might provide different insights. The supporting information (SI) shows that typical forest species such as Irena puella, Hypothymis azurea, and Alcippe poioicephala were present in both forests and arecanut plantations but were detected 6, 3, and 8 times, respectively, more often in forests. In my experience in the Western Ghats, I find that most forest bird species, including Great Hornbill, are occasionally found even in bird-unfriendly land uses such as tea plantations, possibly during movement between forest patches; but they are detected much more often in intact forests. Information on population densities and breeding success of species are required before we can decide on the suitability of a particular land use for conservation.

My second point of contention with the paper is the authors' assertion that these plantations are bird-friendly because they are traditionally managed. To know if the type of management matters, a comparison needs to be made with arecanut plantations that are managed differently, something which is lacking in this study.

Finally, I take exception to the authors describing arecanut as “a mild, coffee-like stimulant” (1). There is scientific evidence to suggest that chewing betel nut can lead to oral fibrosis, malignancy, and other diseases (2).

Arecanut plantations might, in fact, be a win–win solution for farmers and biodiversity conservation, but we cannot tell for certain until we gather more evidence.