Demystifying ecosystem services
Food chains in ecosystems exist in the form of food pyramids. Although a food chain might not always be a linear chain of progression and can alternatively be called a food web. However, according to certain defining characteristics, certain levels of production and consumption can be differentiated in a food chain. These are called trophic levels, which can be defined as the feeding levels in a food chain or web in an ecological community.
Trophic Levels

The rest of the food chain or web consists of consumers who consume other organic life-forms for their energy needs. The second trophic level is represented by primary consumers, who are organisms that consume primary producers for their food and energy needs. Herbivores can be classified as secondary producers, representing the second trophic level in an ecosystem.
The third broad category among the trophic levels in a food chain is secondary consumers, which are organisms that consume primary consumers such as carnivores such as snakes that eat primary consumers such as mice.
The fourth and the last trophic level is the last broad category of tertiary consumers, which are organisms that consume secondary consumers for their food and energy needs. An example that proceeds from the previous example is that of hawks, which can eat snakes, which in turn is a carnivore that preys on primary consumers.
The chain of consumption can keep progressing, however, these are the necessary categories of consumption that forms the substrate for an analysis of trophic levels at most ecosystems.
Having separated the various trophic levels, it cannot be said that there is always a clear separation between the various trophic levels in a given ecosystem. Many consumers can feed at multiple trophic levels. A prime example is humans themselves, who can be primary consumers while consuming plants, secondary consumers while consuming mutton and tertiary consumers while consuming salmon.
Also certain primary producers can also act as consumers as well. An example is insectivorous plants that photosynthesize and at the same time consume certain organisms such as insects as food. Thus instead of food chains in linear progression, most ecosystems form food webs in the literal sense consisting of dense networks of consumption and differentiation of roles forming ecological communities.
Going from one trophic level to a higher one in terms of consumption, it is found that just 10 per cent of the energy possessed at one level is available for consumption at the next level of consumption. The remainder of the energy is either utilized by the metabolism of organisms or is released to the environment as heat or waste (D. Wilkin & J. Brainard, 2015).
Thus one can observe a decrease in energy resources available the higher up the chain of consumption one travels in a food chain in a linear manner, resulting in a lower amount of species diversity at the specialized higher levels of food chains in an ecosystem. However, the incredible amount of species diversity at the lower levels of the food chain can add to the confusion over the adequate categorization and in proving a sense of structure to ecosystems.
Ecosystems almost always consist of food webs that are interlinked and differentiated, leading to great biodiversity and the resulting complexity.
Ecological Communities
Although food webs can exist in great biodiversity and complexity, they also represent hierarchies and organization of species in an ecosystem. Ecosystems can overlap and interact, and as such there is no distinct and definite characterization of ecosystems based on the spatial configurations of interactions.
However, ecosystems can be characterized by an in-situ fluid equilibrium existing among ecological communities of organisms of different species. The equilibrium in general is maintained in ecosystems although temporal heterogeneity can lead to the fluctuation of various variables within ecosystems.
Ecosystem processes result from the life-processes of the organisms in their interactions with each other as well as with the abiotic environment. These processes however generate ecosystem services that can provide useful utilities to humans. Studies of ecosystem services can bypass structural and behavioural studies of organisms at the various trophic levels of an ecosystem and go forward towards analyzing the transition of energy and matter through an ecosystem.
However both sets of activities and processes are not mutually exclusive and aspects can overlap in investigations. The interactions in the various trophic levels involve the transfer of energy and matter, but their analysis also utilizes documentary aspects of structure and behaviour in ecosystems.
Understanding ecosystem services
Various functions of ecosystems are provided to the environment as the result of the interaction of organisms in various trophic levels in food webs. Some of them include provision of nutrients, decomposition, nitrogen cycling, contributions to the hydrological cycle, soil functions, maintenance of biological equilibrium, etc. These in turn offer beneficial ecosystem services to humans such as food, medicinal applications, water purification, crop reproduction, and many more.
In fact, it can be safely said that a huge part of resource collection in human economic activity is dependant on ecosystem services in some part or another. As such, it becomes necessary to preserve the equilibrium of ecosystems by preserving the food webs that constitute the organization of various trophic levels in an ecosystem.
This would ensure that the transfer of energy and matter occurs undisturbed in the embedded structures and complex behavioural characteristics of organisms. For this an intimate understanding of ecological communities is necessary.
All ecological services are possible due to ecological communities of organisms interacting in consort to provide certain results that form part of the natural equilibrium that is a self-sustaining framework. These ecological communities are composed of interactions that are made up of ecological niches that constitute certain clearly appreciable roles that certain species perform in its interaction with its ecosystem, and act as the unit for analysis of the interactions that species have in constituting ecological communities.
The interactions in terms of ecological niches can be symbiotic or competitive. However, both can feature in food webs and trophic levels and exhibit an immense variety that contributes to the overall biodiversity.
This biodiversity, due to the food web and its arrangement according to various trophic levels, occurs as functional differentiation in a hierarchical mode of organization. However, the dense network of species interaction makes these hierarchies less visible, and instead what is usually observed are communities of interacting species.
Ecological niche

Source: thwink.org
All hierarchies are ordered according to certain values that serve to provide access to participants whose concomitant roles contribute to their sequential differentiation. In ecosystems the dominant values according to which hierarchies are differentiated is the food web, and trophic levels and ecological niches offer an easy tool with which to form genealogical associations of roles in ecological hierarchies.
Ecological niches thus offer a model according to which adjustments that organisms make to community living can be analyzed. While trophic levels can provide a basis for an triggering mechanism for roles to be hierarchically ordered, the finer aspects of the ecological roles of species are defined by the ecological niches they occupy.
These roles in turn shape ecosystem services and offer principles to better understand the formative processes and the complex web of interactions that constitute the structures, behaviours and relationships that constitute ecological communities.
Recent Posts
- In the Large States category (overall), Chhattisgarh ranks 1st, followed by Odisha and Telangana, whereas, towards the bottom are Maharashtra at 16th, Assam at 17th and Gujarat at 18th. Gujarat is one State that has seen startling performance ranking 5th in the PAI 2021 Index outperforming traditionally good performing States like Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, but ranks last in terms of Delta
- In the Small States category (overall), Nagaland tops, followed by Mizoram and Tripura. Towards the tail end of the overall Delta ranking is Uttarakhand (9th), Arunachal Pradesh (10th) and Meghalaya (11th). Nagaland despite being a poor performer in the PAI 2021 Index has come out to be the top performer in Delta, similarly, Mizoram’s performance in Delta is also reflected in it’s ranking in the PAI 2021 Index
- In terms of Equity, in the Large States category, Chhattisgarh has the best Delta rate on Equity indicators, this is also reflected in the performance of Chhattisgarh in the Equity Pillar where it ranks 4th. Following Chhattisgarh is Odisha ranking 2nd in Delta-Equity ranking, but ranks 17th in the Equity Pillar of PAI 2021. Telangana ranks 3rd in Delta-Equity ranking even though it is not a top performer in this Pillar in the overall PAI 2021 Index. Jharkhand (16th), Uttar Pradesh (17th) and Assam (18th) rank at the bottom with Uttar Pradesh’s performance in line with the PAI 2021 Index
- Odisha and Nagaland have shown the best year-on-year improvement under 12 Key Development indicators.
- In the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Goa and Tamil Nadu and, the bottom three performers are Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Bihar.
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers were Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Mizoram; and, the bottom three performers are Manipur, Assam and Meghalaya.
- Among the 60:40 division States, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh are the top three performers and Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Delhi appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland; and, the bottom three performers are Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh
- Among the 60:40 division States, Goa, West Bengal and Delhi appear as the top three performers and Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Bihar appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Himachal Pradesh and Tripura were the top three performers and Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh were the bottom three performers
- West Bengal, Bihar and Tamil Nadu were the top three States amongst the 60:40 division States; while Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan appeared as the bottom three performers
- In the case of 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Assam and Tripura were the top three performers and Nagaland, Jammu & Kashmir and Uttarakhand featured as the bottom three
- Among the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa and the bottom three performers are Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Goa
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Mizoram, Sikkim and Nagaland and the bottom three performers are Manipur and Assam
In a diverse country like India, where each State is socially, culturally, economically, and politically distinct, measuring Governance becomes increasingly tricky. The Public Affairs Index (PAI 2021) is a scientifically rigorous, data-based framework that measures the quality of governance at the Sub-national level and ranks the States and Union Territories (UTs) of India on a Composite Index (CI).
States are classified into two categories – Large and Small – using population as the criteria.
In PAI 2021, PAC defined three significant pillars that embody Governance – Growth, Equity, and Sustainability. Each of the three Pillars is circumscribed by five governance praxis Themes.
The themes include – Voice and Accountability, Government Effectiveness, Rule of Law, Regulatory Quality and Control of Corruption.
At the bottom of the pyramid, 43 component indicators are mapped to 14 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that are relevant to the States and UTs.
This forms the foundation of the conceptual framework of PAI 2021. The choice of the 43 indicators that go into the calculation of the CI were dictated by the objective of uncovering the complexity and multidimensional character of development governance

The Equity Principle
The Equity Pillar of the PAI 2021 Index analyses the inclusiveness impact at the Sub-national level in the country; inclusiveness in terms of the welfare of a society that depends primarily on establishing that all people feel that they have a say in the governance and are not excluded from the mainstream policy framework.
This requires all individuals and communities, but particularly the most vulnerable, to have an opportunity to improve or maintain their wellbeing. This chapter of PAI 2021 reflects the performance of States and UTs during the pandemic and questions the governance infrastructure in the country, analysing the effectiveness of schemes and the general livelihood of the people in terms of Equity.



Growth and its Discontents
Growth in its multidimensional form encompasses the essence of access to and the availability and optimal utilisation of resources. By resources, PAI 2021 refer to human resources, infrastructure and the budgetary allocations. Capacity building of an economy cannot take place if all the key players of growth do not drive development. The multiplier effects of better health care, improved educational outcomes, increased capital accumulation and lower unemployment levels contribute magnificently in the growth and development of the States.



The Pursuit Of Sustainability
The Sustainability Pillar analyses the access to and usage of resources that has an impact on environment, economy and humankind. The Pillar subsumes two themes and uses seven indicators to measure the effectiveness of government efforts with regards to Sustainability.



The Curious Case Of The Delta
The Delta Analysis presents the results on the State performance on year-on-year improvement. The rankings are measured as the Delta value over the last five to 10 years of data available for 12 Key Development Indicators (KDI). In PAI 2021, 12 indicators across the three Pillars of Equity (five indicators), Growth (five indicators) and Sustainability (two indicators). These KDIs are the outcome indicators crucial to assess Human Development. The Performance in the Delta Analysis is then compared to the Overall PAI 2021 Index.
Key Findings:-
In the Scheme of Things
The Scheme Analysis adds an additional dimension to ranking of the States on their governance. It attempts to complement the Governance Model by trying to understand the developmental activities undertaken by State Governments in the form of schemes. It also tries to understand whether better performance of States in schemes reflect in better governance.
The Centrally Sponsored schemes that were analysed are National Health Mission (NHM), Umbrella Integrated Child Development Services scheme (ICDS), Mahatma Gandh National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SmSA) and MidDay Meal Scheme (MDMS).
National Health Mission (NHM)
INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (ICDS)
MID- DAY MEAL SCHEME (MDMS)
SAMAGRA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN (SMSA)
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (MGNREGS)