Dr. Sunil Hiremath, IFS — Field Director of Amrabad Tiger Reserve,is the officer who submitted Amrabad’s AITE 2026 field data to the National Tiger Conservation Authority and the Wildlife Institute of India. A scientist-manager who has served across Adilabad, Kamareddy, Nizamabad, Nirmal, and in the Telangana Zoo Parks directorate, he brings both field precision and conservation science perspective to the most important monitoring exercise in India’s tiger conservation history. In this exclusive interview with Rashmi Kumari of Neo Science Hub, Dr. Hiremath spoke on issues including the methodology of AITE 2026, the operational science of Amrabad’s recovery, the reserve’s infrastructure and funding gaps, and the conservation threat that he believes is most underestimated as the population continues to grow.
AITE 2026 is, for the first time at this scale, incorporating habitat quality parameters alongside tiger counts — including invasive species burden and prey density indices. What did Amrabad’s survey reveal that a headcount alone would not have captured? And what, in your assessment, should the methodology be measuring that it currently does not?
The sixth All India Tiger Estimation marks a significant shift in how we think about tiger conservation science. For too long, the headline number — how many tigers — has carried the entire conservation narrative. What AITE 2026 recognises is that tiger numbers without habitat quality data tell only part of the story. As Field Director, one of the most valuable outcomes of this year’s survey has been the systematic assessment of prey abundance, invasive species burden, water availability, and anthropogenic pressure across the landscape — parameters that sit beneath the tiger count but ultimately determine whether that count can be sustained.
In Amrabad, the 2026 survey generated information on prey availability, carnivore presence, and habitat status that provided a far more comprehensive picture of the ecosystem than the population estimate alone. We organised survey teams with trained volunteers, researchers, and ecologists alongside departmental staff to ensure both the breadth of coverage and the consistency of data quality across this large and rugged landscape.
On what the methodology should additionally measure — I would identify three priorities. First, a systematic assessment of grassland quality and extent deserves far greater attention in every AITE cycle. The availability, distribution, and condition of grasslands directly determine herbivore populations, which in turn set the long-term carrying capacity of the landscape for tigers. A comprehensive evaluation of grassland cover, degradation levels, invasive species burden, and restoration potential would provide a more accurate picture of habitat health and ecological resilience than population estimates alone.
Second, prey estimation under AITE can be strengthened. In landscapes like Amrabad, the standard line transect method may not adequately capture low-density or pocket populations of herbivores — direct detectability is often low in dense forest and rugged terrain, and many prey species occur sporadically and remain undetected, leading to potential underestimation of prey abundance. I believe standardised vehicle-based counts along forest roads and tracks would serve as a valuable supplementary tool. Integrating jeep counts with line transects and camera-trap data would produce more realistic estimates of prey populations and habitat carrying capacity.
Third, every AITE cycle should include a systematic assessment of water availability across each reserve. Water is a key factor influencing the distribution of prey and predators, especially during the dry season. Monitoring the number, distribution, and seasonal status of natural and artificial water sources — and comparing these across successive census cycles — would provide valuable insights into habitat quality, climate-related changes, and ecosystem health, helping managers identify water-stressed areas and plan timely interventions.
‘Tiger numbers without habitat quality data tell only part of the story. What AITE 2026 recognises is that prey abundance, invasive species burden, and water availability sit beneath the tiger count but ultimately determine whether that count can be sustained.’
Amrabad’s tiger population has grown fourfold over the past decade — from approximately 10 individuals in 2016 to 42 in the January 2026 survey. Can you walk us through what the habitat management intervention actually involved — the scale of clearance, the restoration approach — and what lessons Amrabad offers for the approximately 40 other reserves carrying significant lantana burden?
The foundation of Amrabad’s recovery is ecological, and it begins with understanding what was suppressing the prey base. Invasive weeds — primarily Lantana camara, along with Eupatorium and Parthenium — had been identified as major constraints on herbivore productivity across the landscape. Dense lantana thickets suppress native grasses, reduce forage availability, restrict wildlife movement, and lower the habitat’s capacity to support prey populations. Without addressing this, no amount of protection improvement would have produced the recovery we have seen.
The response was a large-scale, multi-year weed removal programme implemented with central and state government funding. Approximately 5,036 hectares of infested habitat have been treated across the landscape — 4,105 hectares in Amrabad Division, 884 hectares in Achampet Division, and 46 hectares in Nagarjunasagar Division. Crucially, because lantana regenerates rapidly from rootstock, periodic follow-up treatments are built into the programme as a non-negotiable operational requirement, not an optional addition.
Weed removal was complemented by a grassland restoration programme specifically designed to prevent reinvasion and improve forage availability. This included grassland mapping, soil analysis, native grass seed collection, grassland enrichment, and long-term monitoring. Restoration efforts focused on ecologically critical areas — around waterholes, percolation tanks, check dams, stream corridors, natural grasslands, and wildlife movement corridors — where recovered vegetation has the highest impact on prey density and movement.
Native species restoration formed the third component. The emphasis was on native forage grasses, wild legumes, fruit-bearing species, and the natural regeneration of indigenous shrubs and trees suited to the Nallamala landscape. The target was to improve year-round food availability for chital, sambar, nilgai, four-horned antelope, and wild pig — the prey species that ultimately support the tiger population. The ecological chain is straightforward: restored habitat, recovered prey, enhanced carrying capacity for tigers.
The lesson for NTCA replication is that no single intervention produces this result. The integrated approach matters — lantana removal combined with grassland restoration, native species enrichment, and systematic prey monitoring, sustained across multiple years. For reserves currently carrying significant lantana burden, NTCA should prioritise invasive weed mapping as the first step, followed by multi-year removal programmes with mandatory follow-up cycles, restoration of native grasses and browse species, and systematic monitoring of prey populations to verify the ecological response. The key principle Amrabad demonstrates is this: restoring habitat quality increases prey abundance, which enhances tiger carrying capacity and strengthens long-term conservation outcomes. That chain is replicable wherever the management commitment and funding consistency exist.
‘5,036 hectares of invasive weed treated across the landscape. Lantana regenerates rapidly — periodic follow-up treatments are built into the programme as a non-negotiable operational requirement, not an optional addition.’
The combined allocation for Project Tiger and Project Elephant in 2025–26 stands at ₹290 crore nominally — stretched across a network that has grown from 28 to 58 reserves and, adjusted for inflation, represents substantially less real purchasing power than a decade ago. As Field Director of one of India’s largest reserves, what is the practical gap between what you need and what you receive — and what is currently being done inadequately as a result?
Managing and monitoring a reserve of Amrabad’s size — over 2,600 square kilometres of rugged, remote Nallamala terrain — is genuinely challenging with the staff and infrastructure currently available. I will be specific about where the gaps are most consequential.
The most immediate operational gap is in protection infrastructure. The reserve currently has 23 base camps supporting patrolling, wildlife monitoring, and anti-poaching operations. Fifteen additional camps are needed to achieve adequate field presence across the landscape. These camps require staff accommodation, solar power, communication systems, drinking water supply, watchtowers, and basic monitoring equipment — the minimum infrastructure for round-the-clock field operations in remote terrain.
Water augmentation is a second significant gap. Approximately 70 percent of the reserve currently has year-round water availability for wildlife. The remaining 30 percent — substantial in a 2,600 square kilometre reserve — requires additional waterholes, check dams, percolation tanks, and solar pump sets at strategic locations. Water access directly determines prey distribution and, consequently, tiger movement patterns.
Wireless communication across the reserve requires significant strengthening. A reliable network from the Forest Beat Officer level to the Field Director level — with walkie-talkies for all frontline staff, wireless repeater stations, base stations, control rooms, and solar backup — is essential for effective patrolling, anti-poaching operations, fire management, and staff safety in difficult terrain. This network does not currently exist at the scale the reserve requires.
The gap I consider most scientifically significant is the absence of a dedicated ecologist. Amrabad’s habitat management programme — invasive weed removal, grassland restoration, habitat enrichment, wildlife corridor development, ecological database maintenance — is being implemented without a specialist ecological expert providing scientific guidance and oversight. A dedicated ecologist would ensure that management actions are science-based, that habitat changes are systematically documented, and that the adaptive management that produces results like Amrabad’s recovery is rigorously planned and evaluated rather than operationally improvised.
Finally, fire management capacity needs expansion. Five Quick Response Teams currently serve the entire reserve during the summer fire season. For a landscape of this size and ecological complexity, five additional QRTs are needed to achieve the rapid detection and response capability that protects critical habitats during high-risk periods.
Within the budget allocated, the field teams here are doing exceptional work and the results — a fourfold tiger increase over nine years — demonstrate what is achievable. But that achievement has been reached despite funding constraints, not because of adequate provision. Addressing these five gaps would meaningfully improve the reserve’s capacity to sustain and build on its conservation outcomes.
‘The gap I consider most scientifically significant is the absence of a dedicated ecologist. Amrabad’s habitat management programme is being implemented without a specialist providing scientific guidance — that adaptive management that produces recoveries like this one should be rigorously planned, not operationally improvised.’
Looking ahead — what is the single most underestimated threat to Amrabad’s tigers over the next decade, and what one intervention, currently unfunded or unimplemented, would most significantly improve the reserve’s long-term conservation outcomes?
The threat I consider most significant — and most underestimated in policy discussions — is the potential rise in human-wildlife conflict in the peripheral forest areas surrounding Amrabad as the tiger population continues to grow. This is not a distant or theoretical concern. As the reserve’s core areas approach higher tiger densities, dispersing animals will increasingly move into sub-optimal fringe habitats where prey density is lower and proximity to agricultural landscapes and human settlements is higher.
The ecological mechanism is specific and important to understand. In these peripheral zones, inadequate prey availability can cause herbivores to utilise agricultural fields at the forest edge. This spillover effect attracts large carnivores — tigers and leopards — closer to human settlements and livestock concentrations. The result is a conflict dynamic that is ecologically predictable, spatially mappable, and manageable if addressed proactively — but damaging to both conservation outcomes and community support for the reserve if it is not.
Managing this emerging threat will require systematic monitoring of tiger movement in peripheral areas, prey base augmentation in fringe habitats to reduce the pressure that drives dispersal toward settlements, habitat improvement to raise the ecological quality of sub-optimal zones, and proactive conflict mitigation infrastructure — early warning systems, rapid response capacity, and community engagement — before incidents multiply rather than after. The time to build this system is now, while the population growth that will drive the pressure is still in its early stages and the ecological patterns are still mappable and predictable.
Amrabad Tiger Reserve in Telangana’s Nallamala Hills is the site of one of the most dramatic wildlife recoveries in Indian conservation history. From a population of approximately 10 tigers in 2016, the reserve now holds 42 individuals identified in the January 2026 survey of the sixth All India Tiger Estimation — a fourfold increase attributed substantially to sustained ecological management, including the systematic removal of Lantana camara across more than 5,000 hectares of reserve landscape.
