Journal of Research in Biology
An assessment of Floristic Diversity of Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary, Hospet, Bellary District, Karnataka, India
Keywords:
Melursus ursinus, Flora, Cassia fistula, Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary, Deccan plateau.
ABSTRACT:
The plant resources of Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary of Bellary district was studied and analyzed to decipher the information on the diversity, which revealed a total of 98 species of plants belonging to 85 genera and 37 families. The data collected was analyzed to determine important value index (IVI), Shannon Weiner’s Index, Indices of species richness (R) and evenness (e). The objective of this work is to help foresters and ecologists by giving an account of floral status of the study area. The biodiversity of this area is threatened by cattle (livestock) grazing, water scarcity, mining and related problems. Hence, it is suggested to adopt strict control measures to protect and maintain the biodiversity in the Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary, which will help to sustain the wild herbivore at sanctuary.
828-839 | JRB | 2013 | Vol 3 | No 2
This article is governed by the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which gives permission for unrestricted use, non-commercial, distribution and reproduction in all medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
www.jresearchbiology.com
Journal of Research in Biology
An International Scientific
Research Journal
Authors:
Harisha MN and
Hosetti BB* .
Institution:
1. Department of Post Graduate studies and research in Wildlife Management, Kuvempu University, Jnana Sahyadri, Shankaraghatta- 577451, Shimoga, Karnataka.
*Department of Post Graduate studies and research in Applied Zoology,
Kuvempu University, Jnana Sahyadri, Shankaraghatta- 577451, Shimoga,
Karnataka.
Corresponding author:
Hosetti BB.
Email:
hosetti57@gmail.com
Web Address:
http://jresearchbiology.com/documents/RA0330.pdf.
Dates:
Received: 02 Feb 2013 Accepted: 09 Feb 2013 Published: 02 Apr 2013
Article Citation:
Harisha MN and Hosetti BB.
An assessment of Floristic Diversity of Daroji Sloth bear Sanctuary, Hospet, Bellary District, Karnataka, India.
Journal of Research in Biology (2013)3(2): 828-839
Journal of Research in Biology
An International Scientific Research Journal
Original Research
INTRODUCTION
The forest types in India ranged from thorny scrubby jungle to moist evergreen forest along with moist grasslands and characteristic shola vegetation. In each of different types of forest, very diverse plants and faunal species are found growing naturally. Identification of species and their diversity is a mammoth task and is virtually impossible to have a complete inventory of Indian biodiversity (Harisha et al., 2008). Due to geographical variation, deccan plateau region of India possess great diversity in agricultural as well as wild floral and faunal diversity (Khan, 2011). The Deccan plateau region of Bellary in particular is highly over exploited by several anthropogenic activities, including different types of mining. The study site is naturally spread with hillocks, boulders, undulated terrain with sloppy lands covered with natural jungle scrub with native herbs, shrubs, climbers and tree species. The main aim of sanctuary is to conserve and maintain the rich flora and fauna with reference to sloth bear, Melursus ursinus and its food web present in Deccan plateau region of Bellary.
Since the Deccan plateau region is rich in biodiversity, highly exploited for the natural resources resulting in threat to diversity and gene pool, nearly 600 tree species found in this region are facing threat of extinction (Khan, 2011). Studies of plant and avifaunal diversity can be used to interpret the well being of forest ecosystem and also as an indicator of disturbance if any in the system. Long term management plan of forest ecosystem should incorporate the diversification of vegetation by using diversity indices. In order to understand the importance of a site it is necessary to examine the significance in terms of the presence and abundance of species (Bruford, 2002). The present study attempts to understand the impact of changes in the forest cover of Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary due to human activities.
STUDY AREA
The unique Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary, Hospet, in Bellary district is the only sanctuary located in North Karnataka, situated between 15o 14' to 15o 17' N latitude and 76o 31' to 76o 40' E longitude. It belongs to Deccan Plateau scrub jungle with granite boulder outcrops. Renowned world heritage centre - Hampi is situated only 15 kilometers away from this sanctuary. The Government of Karnataka, in October 1994, declared 5,587.30 hectares of Bilikallu reserve forest as Daroji Bear Sanctuary. Since it has a suitable habitat for the Indian Sloth Bears due to the rock-strewn hillocks, and characterized by vast stretches of undulating plains with intermittent parallel chains of hills. The sanctuary lies at an elevation of 647 m above mean sea level. The area experienced high temperature with a maximum 43°C during January to May.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Field data were collected in different seasons during January 2009- December 2011 in the study area stretching up to 4 km radius. The area is a long narrow strip of hills with sandy and clay loams with rocky mountain. The vegetation was analyzed by means of 10×10 m quadrates by random sampling to give most representative composition of forestlands. Plant species collected in each quadrates were identified by consulting the Flora of Madras Presidency (Gamble, 1935).
DATA ANALYSIS
The data was analyzed for measuring the Important Value Index (IVI), Shannon-Weiner Index (H), Species richness Index (R), Species Evenness Index (E) and the Index of Dominance (ID). The values of relative density, relative frequency and relative abundance were calculated following the methods of Shukla and Chandel (1980). The Shannon-Wiener Index was calculated according to Michael (1990) as follows.
Shannon Weiner’s Index
(H') = ∑Pi ln Pi
Where, Pi = No. of individuals of one species/total no of individuals in the sample.
The indices of Species Richness (R) and Species Evenness (E) were estimated using the following formulae.
R = (S-1)/log N
E = (H')/ log S
Where,
S = Total no. of species,
N =Total no. of individuals of all the species,
(H')= Shannon Weiner’s index.
RESULTS
Floristic Structure: Species richness and Density
The census of individuals in the study area resulted in 98 identified plant species which include 85 genera and 37 families. Based on their density in the quadrate, species were grouped into following five categories:
Predominant species (species with ≥ 50 individuals) Four species, Grewia hirsute (64 individuals) and Grewia sp. (60 individuals), Ocimum americanum (52) and Evolvulus alsinoides (50 individuals) belonged to this category representing 4% of the plot’s species and 26% of the plot’s density (242 individuals) (Table 1).
Dominant species (species with 25 to 49 individuals) Seven species, Acacia catechu (49 individuals), Borreria stricta (42 individuals), Aerva lanata (37 individuals), Vernonia cinerea (32 individuals), Borreria hispida (28 individuals), Acacia nilotica and Cyanotis tuberose (27 individuals each) together accounting for 7% of the plot’s species and 25% of the stand density (226 individuals) represented this group.
Fairly Common species (species with 5 to 24 individuals)
Thirty species, Morinda tinctoria (22), Oldenlandia corymbosa, Phyllanthus amarus (20 each), Indigofera tinctoria, Tephrosia purpurea (19 each), Desmodium trifoliate, Hyptis suaveolens (17 each), Parthenium hysterophorus (16), Leucas aspera, Guazuma obscura (15 each), Cocculus hirsutus (14), Ziziphus maurtiana (13), Dalbergia lanceolaria, Leucas stricta (12 each), Achyranthes aspera, Euphorbia tirucalli, Canthium parviflorum (11 each), Commelina sinensis, Grewia tiliifolia (10 each), Carissa carandas, Acacia leucophloea (9 each), Wrightia tinctoria (8), Stephania japonica (7), Albizia odoratissima, Hemidesmus indicus, Capparis zeylanica (6 each), Cassia tora, Acacia sinuate, Ziziphus oenoplia, and Boerhavia diffusa
(5 each), accounting for 30% of total species richness and 39% of stand density represented this group and collectively they had 355 stems.
Common species (species with 1 to 4 individuals) Thirty-one species, Ageratum conyzoides, Tridax procumbens, Albizzia amara, Bauhinia racemosa,
Sida cordifolia (4 each), Abutilon indicum, Leptadenia reticulata, Tribulus terrestris (3each), Barleria sp., Aristolochia indica, Calotropis gigantea, Daemia extensa, Kirganelia reticulata, Mimosa pudica, Melia dubia, Ipomoea obscura, Sida cordata (2 each), Cassia auriculata, Cassia fistula, Crotalaria pallida, Hibiscus lobatus, Centella asiatica, Syzygium cumini, Sapindus trifoliatus, Withania somnifera, Amaranthes viridis, Tylophora indica, Opuntia stricta, Gymnosporia montana, Cuscuta reflexa and Trichosanthes sp. (1 each), accounting for 32% of total species richness and 7% of stand density represented this group and collectively they had 61 stems.
Rare species (species with ≤1)
Twenty-seven species making up 27% of the total plot’s species and 3% of stand density formed this group. Anogeissus latifolia, Merremia tridentate, Diospyros paniculata, Abrus precatorius, Parkinsonia digitata, Grewia damine, Ficus arnottiana, Ficus benghalensis, Ficus racemosa, Ficus tomentosa individuals.
Based on Species Importance Value, Grewia hirsute figured on the top of top ten SIV hierarchy (21.13), followed by the Evolvulus alsinoides (20. 93), Acacia catechu (19.43), Grewia sp. (19.29), Vernonia cinerea (17.51), Borreria stricta (15.86), Tephrosia purpurea (14.65), Aerva lantana (12.52), Acacia nilotica (11.39) and Desmodium trifoliate (10.26).
Family Composition
Of the 37 families recorded (three unidentified), Fabaceae is the dominant based on the species richness with 17 species, followed by the Malvaceae, Rubiaceae with nine species each, Apocynaceae with five, Amaranthaceae, Asclepiadaceae, Asteraceae, Convolvulaceae, Lamiaceae and Moraceae with four species each, following by Capparidaceae with three species, Acanthaceae, Cesalpinaceae, Commelinaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Menispermaceae, Rhamnaceae and Sapindaceae with two species each, Alangiaceae, Aristolochiaceae, Asparagaceae, Cactaceae, Celastraceae, Combretaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Ebenaceae, Mackinlayaceae, Myrtaceae, Nyctaginaceae, Olacaceae, Phyllanthaceae, Rhamnaceae, Solanaceae, Ulmaceae, Zygophyllaceae and Meliaceae with one species each were recorded.
Based on density, the top order of families were Fabaceae (178 individuals), Malvaceae (160 individuals), Rubiaceae (126 individuals), Lamiaceae (96 individuals), Asteraceae (56 individuals), Convolvulaceae (53 individuals), Amaranthaceae (49 individuals), Commelinaceae (37 individuals), UK (26 individuals), Apocynaceae (25 individuals), Menispermaceae (21 individuals), Phyllanthaceae (20 individuals), Rhamnaceae (18 individuals), Euphorbiaceae (13 individuals), Capparidaceae (8 individuals), Asclepiadaceae (7 individuals), Nyctaginaceae (5 individuals) and Moraceae (4 individuals), Two families were represented by three species such as Acanthaceae and Zygophyllaceae, four families were represented by two species such as Meliaceae, Aristolochiaceae, Sapindaceae and Ulmaceae, thirteen families were represented by only one species, such as Asparagaceae, Cactaceae, Celastraceae, Combretaceae, Alangiaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Ebenaceae, Leguminosae, Mackinlayaceae, Myrtaceae, Olacaceae, Solanaceae and Rhamnaceae were recorded.
Based on FIV, Fabaceae (36.8) ranked highest among families followed by Malvaceae (26.7), Rubiaceae (21.9) and Lamiaceae (14.6) (Table 2).
Diversity Indices
The Shannon-Weiner’s diversity index was found be 3.909 for the entire study area, and the Species Richness index and Species Evenness index were found to be 26.26, 2.03, respectively.
DISCUSSION
The study on the floristic diversity is one of the important factor to be analyzed to assess the diversity of a particular area as well as the diversity of the nation. The assessment of diversity is also important during this period where the lot of plants and animals are in threats due to the fragmentation of habitats and decline in habitat quality (Kumar et al., 2000). The decline of quality of habitat and fragmentation are mainly due to the anthropogenic activities including the conversion of forest into agriculture land, developmental activities, mining etc. which affects on the landscapes and species composition (Jerath et al., 2007).
Assessment of biodiversity will help in understanding the inter-linkages between biological resources and human being and which help in taking the best decisions in conservation of natural resource and development through sustainable utilization (Jerath et al., 2007). This could be achieved only when the quantification of existing resource is known and the requirements estimated. This is also true in case of wild animals where the availability of food source is dependent on the population of those animals in the forest. The existence of the diversity in particular area also depicts the wild animals to be found in that particular forest area. In view of the above, the present study was investigated to know the floral diversity of the Daroji Sloth bear sanctuary.
Previous studies conducted in this sanctuary by Neginhal et al. (2003) and Madhav Gadgil et al. (2011) 64 plant species were enumerated, but in present study 98 plant species have been recorded. The study revealed that the species composition and diversity of this sanctuary can be compared with that of many other dry forests such as Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary (Krishnamurthy et al., 2010), Savanadurga State Forest, Karnataka (Murali et al., 2003). Species richness of the present study (99 species for individuals ≥ 1 cm) is closer to the species richness of the dry forests in Puerto Rico (50 species, Murphy and Lugo, 1986), but far less to the 133 species of Savanadurga State Forests of Karnataka (Murali et al., 2003).
The Importance Value Index revealed that this forest is dominated by relatively few species. The seven species listed in top ten SIV hierarchy (Table 1) comprise about 33 % of the importance values, which was 62 % in Bhadra Wildlife sanctuary followed by the dry forests in Puerto Rico (Murphy and Lugo, 1986) and St. Lucia (Gonzalez and Zak, 1996) also recorded the same observation with the seven most common species dominating the forests by comprising about 55% and 67% of the total importance values, respectively.
The Shannon-Weiner’s diversity index for the area as a whole was found to be 3.909, the Species Richness index and Species Evenness index was found to be 26.26, 2.03, respectively. Rahlan et al. (1982) stated that higher the value of diversity, greater will be the plant community. So it can be stated that the vegetation in Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary is stable accordingly to the figures obtained after the data analysis (Table 1).
The species rarity of the present study is 27%, which is very close to tree diversity of Little Andaman Island with 34% (Rasingam and Parathasarathy, 2009), also close to the forests of Kuzhanthaikuppam of Coromandel Coast (31%, Parthasarathy and Karthikeyan, 1997), Malaysia (38%, Poore, 1968) and Barro Colorado island of Panama (40%, Thorington et al., 1982); but less than those of tropical dry deciduous forests of Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary (54.3%, Krishnamurthy et al., 2010).
In tropical forests, the abundance and species richness depend mostly on the soil type, moisture and distribution of rainfall (Durigon and Waechter, 2011). The present study also revealed that the soil type and rainfall pattern of the study area promotes the rich floral diversity indices (Shanon, 3.90). The plants enumerated during the study also revealed that the diversity present in this area greatly supports the food habitat of sloth bears and the vegetation pattern and geographical location also helps the sloth bears to live comfortably in this forest region. The plant species like Grewia hirsute, Grewia hirsuta, Grewia damine, Ziziphus mauritiana, Grewia tiliifolia, Syzygium cumini, Cassia fistula, Carissa carandas, Ziziphus oenoplia showed the density of 5.33., 5.00., 1.08., 0.83., 0.08., 0.08., 0.75 and 0.42 respectively. Some Ficus sp. also serves as the food for sloth bears.
The Shannon diversity indices of Western Ghats (at different altitudes) according to Pascal is measured to be in the range of 3.6-4.3 and the index is measured about 2.01-3.7 in the wet evergreen forest of Coorg district (Swamy et al., 2010). In the present study, the Shannon diversity index is calculated to be 3.90, which indicated that even though the forest type falls under the dry deciduous forest, the diversity index can be largely compared to that of the evergreen forest. The present study signifies the long term monitoring of the vegetation as well as the population of sloth bears in accordance with the availability of food source and good habitat. This type of studies greatly impact on the ecological balance between the vegetation pattern and the animal populations.
The floral diversity of the present study area also comprises as many as 65 species of medicinal plants (Table.1). There is an urgent need to protect these medicinal plants from grazing animals (sheep, goat), which are being forcibly invaded into the sanctuary by the surrounding villagers. The vegetation and the wealth of this sanctuary need to be protected also from the mining (quarrying) which are being run nearby hillock regions, or otherwise this may leads to the habitat fragmentation and destruction.
Based on the present study there is a need to undertake some special ecological developmental projects in the area which include water harvesting through assured tanks so that water would be available to wildlife during hot summer. Construction of boundary wall or fence around the protected area will reduce poaching of wildlife, entry of domestic cattle for grazing and deforestation in the area.
CONCLUSION
The study on the floral diversity of Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary of Bellary district concludes that the richness and diversity in the area is mainly due to the climatological conditions prevailing there. The hard dry condition and scarce rainfall have favored mainly thorny and shrubby plants to adopt and grow in such harsh terrain conditions and trees resulting in stunted growth. The fruits, seeds and leaves are consumed by a variety of birds and animals and thus are easily dispersed. The present study will provide the basic information on the present status and composition of tree species in a limited area.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors are thankful to Kiran, M.N, ACF, Ravindranath, I.R, RFO and forest watchers of Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary, Karnataka and all those who have shared their information on the study area during the study period. M.N, Harisha is thankful to UGC, New Delhi for sanctioning fellowship (RGNF), to all researchers from Panchavati Research Academy for Nature (PRANA) Trust, Linganamakki, Sagara (TQ), Shivamogga and also to Kuvempu University for support and facilities.
Bruford MW. 2002. Biodiversity-Evolution. Species,
Genes. Cited in; Conserving bird’s biodiversity: General Principles and their Application. Cambridge University press U.K. 1-19.
Durigon J and Waechter JL. 2011. Floristic composition and biogeographic relations of a subtropical assemblage of climbing plants. Biodiversity Conservation. 20(5):1027-1044.
Gamble JS. 1935. Flora of the Presidency of Madras. (Vol1-4) Adlard and Son Limited 21, Hart Street. W.O.
Gonzalez OJ and Zak DR. 1996. Tropical dry forest of St. Lucia, West Indies. Biotropica. 28: 618-626.
Harisha MN, Ajay GA, Kumar MD. 2008. Floristic and avifaunal diversity of Jogimatti state forest, Chitradurga, Karnataka. My forest. 44 (3): 225-235.
Jerath N, Singh G, Singh CK and Alkesh S. 2007. Biological Diversity: The Very Stuff of Life. Punjab Biodiversity Board, Punjab state council for science and technology, Chandigarh and UNESCO, New Delhi.
Khan MA. 2011. Promotion and conservation of native flora and fauna in newly established agro-biodiversity park in Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad. International Journal of Farm Sciences. 1(2): 150-157.
Krishnamurthy YL, Prakasha HM, Nanda A, Krishnappa M, Dattaraja, HS and Suresh HS. 2010. Vegetation structure and floristic composition of a tropical dry deciduous forest in Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary, Karnataka, India. Tropical Ecology. 51(2): 235-246.
Kumar A, Walker S and Molar S. 2000. Prioritisation of Endangered species. Setting Biodiversity conservation Priorities for India. Singh S, Sastry ARK, Mehta R and Uppal V. New Delhi, WWF-India. 2:341-425.
Madhav Gadgil, Geetha Gadagkar, Harish R Bhat, Prema Iyer, Ramachandra TV, Yogesh Gokhale. 2011. Checklist of Flowering Plants of Daroji Bear Sanctuary, Karnataka. Status of Karnataka Biodiversity. SAHYADRI E-NEWS: Issue XI. Sahyadri: Western Ghats Biodiversity Information System ENVIS @CES, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. http://www.ces.iisc.ernet.in/biodiversity/sahyadri_enews/newsletter/issue11/hotspot/index.htm.
Michael P. 1990. Ecological methods for field and laboratory investigations. Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi.
Murali KS, Kavitha A and Harish RP. 2003. Spatial Patterns of trees and shrub species diversity in Savanadurga State Forest, Karnataka. Current Science.84(6): 808-813.
Murphy PG and Lugo AE. 1986. Structure and biomass of subtropical dry forest in Puerto Rico. Biotropica. 18(2): 89-96.
Neginhal SG, Harish R Bhat, Pramod S and Karthik G. 2003. Biodiversity Hotspot Report for Daroji Bear Sanctuary. http://www.ces.iisc.ernet.in/biodiversity/sahyadri_enews/newsletter/issue11/hotspot/hotspots/Daroji.htm.
Parthasarathy N and Karthikeyan R. 1997a. Biodiversity and population density of woody species in a tropical evergreen forest in Courtallum reserve forest, Western Ghats, India. Tropical Ecology. 38: 297-306.
Parthasarathy N and Karthikeyan R. 1997b. Plant biodiversity inventory and conservation of two tropical dry evergreen forest on the Coromandel Coast, Southern India. Biodiversity and Conservation. 6: 1063-1083.
Poore, MED. 1968. Studies in Malaysian rainforest. The forest on Triassic sediments in Jengka forest reserve. Journal of Ecology. 56: 143-196.
Rahlan PK, Saxena AK and Singh JS. 1982. Analysis of vegetation at and around Nainital Kumaun Himalaya. Proc. Indian Nat. Sci. Acad. B. 48B:121-137.
Rasingam L and Parathasarathy N. 2009. Tree species diversity and population structure across major forest formations and disturbance categories in Little Andaman Island, India. Tropical Ecology. 50(1): 89-102.
Shukla, RS and Chandel PS. 1980. Plant Ecology. S. Chand and Company Ltd., New Delhi. 197.
Swamy SL, Dutt CBS, Murthy MSR, Alka Mishra and Bargali SS. 2010. Floristics and dry matter dynamics of tropical wet evergreen forests of Western Ghats, India. Current Science. 99(3,10) : 353-364.
Thorington Jr, Tannenbaum RWB, Tarak A and Rudran R. 1982. Distribution of trees on Barro Colorado Island: A five hectare sample. pp. 83-94. In: E.G. Leigh Jr., A.S. Rand & D.M. Windsor (eds.) The Ecology of a Tropical Forest-Seasonal Rhythms and Long-term Changes. Smithsonian Institute Press. Washington, DC.
Harisha and Hosetti,2013
829 Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 828-839
Harisha and Hosetti,2013
Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 828-839 830
Sl.No |
Scientific Names |
Family |
N |
TO |
TT |
D |
F |
A |
RD |
RF |
IVI |
1 |
Barleria sp. |
Acanthaceae |
2 |
2 |
12 |
0.17 |
0.17 |
442.0 |
0.23 |
2.78 |
3.00 |
2 |
Lepidagathis cuspidata |
Acanthaceae |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
3 |
Alangium salviifolium (L. f.) Wangerin, * |
Alangiaceae |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
4 |
Amaranthus viridis L.* |
Amaranthaceae |
1 |
1 |
12 |
0.08 |
0.08 |
884.0 |
0.11 |
1.39 |
1.50 |
5 |
Achyranthes aspera L. * |
Amaranthaceae |
11 |
4 |
12 |
0.92 |
0.33 |
221.0 |
1.24 |
5.56 |
6.80 |
6 |
Aerva lanata (L.) Juss. ex Schult. * |
Amaranthaceae |
37 |
6 |
12 |
3.08 |
0.50 |
147.3 |
4.19 |
8.33 |
12.52 |
7 |
Pupalia lappacea (L.) Juss. |
Amaranthaceae |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
8 |
Aristolochia indica L. * |
Aristolochiaceae |
2 |
2 |
12 |
0.17 |
0.17 |
442.0 |
0.23 |
2.78 |
3.00 |
9 |
Calotropis gigantea (L.) W. T. Aiton * |
Asclepiadaceae |
2 |
2 |
12 |
0.17 |
0.17 |
442.0 |
0.23 |
2.78 |
3.00 |
10 |
Carissa carandas L. * |
Apocynaceae |
9 |
3 |
12 |
0.75 |
0.25 |
294.7 |
1.02 |
4.17 |
5.18 |
11 |
Hemidesmus indicus (L.) W. T. Aiton * |
Apocynaceae |
6 |
2 |
12 |
0.50 |
0.17 |
442.0 |
0.68 |
2.78 |
3.46 |
12 |
Wrightia tinctoria (Roxb.) R. Br. * |
Apocynaceae |
8 |
3 |
12 |
0.67 |
0.25 |
294.7 |
0.90 |
4.17 |
5.07 |
13 |
Cryptolepis buchananii Roem. & Schult. * |
Asclepiadaceae |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
14 |
Pergularia daemia (Forsk.) Chiov. * |
Asclepiadaceae |
2 |
2 |
12 |
0.17 |
0.17 |
442.0 |
0.23 |
2.78 |
3.00 |
15 |
Leptadenia reticulata (Retz.) Wight & Arn. M |
Asclepiadaceae |
3 |
1 |
12 |
0.25 |
0.08 |
884.0 |
0.34 |
1.39 |
1.73 |
16 |
Tylophora indica (Burm. f.) Merr. * |
Asclepiadaceae |
1 |
1 |
12 |
0.08 |
0.08 |
884.0 |
0.11 |
1.39 |
1.50 |
17 |
Asparagus racemosus Willd. * |
Liliaceae |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
18 |
Ageratum conyzoides L. * |
Asteraceae |
4 |
1 |
12 |
0.33 |
0.08 |
884.0 |
0.45 |
1.39 |
1.84 |
19 |
Parthenium hysterophorus L. |
Asteraceae |
16 |
1 |
12 |
1.33 |
0.08 |
884.0 |
1.81 |
1.39 |
3.20 |
20 |
Tridax procumbens L. * |
Asteraceae |
4 |
3 |
12 |
0.33 |
0.25 |
294.7 |
0.45 |
4.17 |
4.62 |
21 |
Cyanthillium cinereum (L.) H. Rob. * |
Asteraceae |
32 |
10 |
12 |
2.67 |
0.83 |
88.4 |
3.62 |
13.89 |
17.51 |
22 |
Capparis divaricata Lam. |
Capparaceae |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
23 |
Capparis horrid |
Capparaceae |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
24 |
Capparis zeylanica L. * |
Capparaceae |
6 |
3 |
12 |
0.50 |
0.25 |
294.7 |
0.68 |
4.17 |
4.85 |
25 |
Opuntia stricta (Haw.) Haw. |
Cactaceae |
1 |
1 |
12 |
0.08 |
0.08 |
884.0 |
0.11 |
1.39 |
1.50 |
26 |
Gymnosporia montana (Roth) Bemth. |
Celastraceae |
1 |
1 |
12 |
0.08 |
0.08 |
884.0 |
0.11 |
1.39 |
1.50 |
27 |
Cassia tora L. * |
Fabaceae |
5 |
1 |
12 |
0.42 |
0.08 |
884.0 |
0.57 |
1.39 |
1.95 |
28 |
Cassia absus L. |
Fabaceae |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Table.1. Species composition and Importance Value in Daroji Sloth bear Sanctuary.
Harisha and Hosetti,2013
831 Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 828-839
29 |
Anogeissus latifolia (Roxb. ex DC.) Wall. ex Guill. & Perr. |
Combretaceae |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
30 |
Commelina benghalensis L. |
Commelinaceae |
10 |
3 |
12 |
0.83 |
0.25 |
294.7 |
1.13 |
4.17 |
5.30 |
31 |
Cyanotis tuberosa (Roxb.) Schult. & Schultz.f. |
Commelinaceae |
27 |
5 |
12 |
2.25 |
0.42 |
176.8 |
3.05 |
6.94 |
10.00 |
32 |
Ipomoea obscura (L.) Ker Gawl. |
Convolvulaceae |
2 |
2 |
12 |
0.17 |
0.17 |
442.0 |
0.23 |
2.78 |
3.00 |
33 |
Cuscuta reflexa Roxb. * |
Convolvulaceae |
1 |
1 |
12 |
0.08 |
0.08 |
884.0 |
0.11 |
1.39 |
1.50 |
34 |
Evolvulus alsinoides (L.) L. * |
Convolvulaceae |
50 |
11 |
12 |
4.17 |
0.92 |
80.4 |
5.66 |
15.28 |
20.93 |
35 |
Merremia tridentata (L.) Hallier f.) |
Convolvulaceae |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
36 |
Trichosanthes sp. |
Cucurbitaceae |
1 |
1 |
12 |
0.08 |
0.08 |
884.0 |
0.11 |
1.39 |
1.50 |
37 |
Diospyros paniculata Dalz. |
Ebenaceae |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
38 |
Kirganelia reticulata (Poir.) Baill.) * |
Phyllanthaceae |
2 |
2 |
12 |
0.17 |
0.17 |
442.0 |
0.23 |
2.78 |
3.00 |
39 |
Euphorbia tirucalli L. * |
Euphorbiaceae |
11 |
3 |
12 |
0.92 |
0.25 |
294.7 |
1.24 |
4.17 |
5.41 |
40 |
Abrus precatorius L. * |
Fabaceae |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
41 |
Acacia catechu (L. f.) Willd. * |
Fabaceae |
49 |
10 |
12 |
4.08 |
0.83 |
88.4 |
5.54 |
13.89 |
19.43 |
42 |
Acacia leucophloea (Roxb.) Willd. |
Fabaceae |
9 |
2 |
12 |
0.75 |
0.17 |
442.0 |
1.02 |
2.78 |
3.80 |
43 |
Acacia nilotica (L.) Delile) |
Fabaceae |
27 |
6 |
12 |
2.25 |
0.50 |
147.3 |
3.05 |
8.33 |
11.39 |
44 |
Acacia sinuata auct.) |
Fabaceae |
5 |
2 |
12 |
0.42 |
0.17 |
442.0 |
0.57 |
2.78 |
3.34 |
45 |
Albizia amara (Roxb.) Boivin, * |
Fabaceae |
4 |
2 |
12 |
0.33 |
0.17 |
442.0 |
0.45 |
2.78 |
3.23 |
46 |
Albizia odoratissima (L. f.) Benth. |
Fabaceae |
6 |
2 |
12 |
0.50 |
0.17 |
442.0 |
0.68 |
2.78 |
3.46 |
47 |
Bauhinia racemosa Lam. |
Fabaceae |
4 |
2 |
12 |
0.33 |
0.17 |
442.0 |
0.45 |
2.78 |
3.23 |
48 |
Cassia auriculata L. * |
Fabaceae |
1 |
1 |
12 |
0.08 |
0.08 |
884.0 |
0.11 |
1.39 |
1.50 |
49 |
Cassia fistula L. * |
Fabaceae |
1 |
1 |
12 |
0.08 |
0.08 |
884.0 |
0.11 |
1.39 |
1.50 |
50 |
Crotalaria pallida Aiton |
Fabaceae |
1 |
1 |
12 |
0.08 |
0.08 |
884.0 |
0.11 |
1.39 |
1.50 |
51 |
Dalbergia lanceolaria L. f. |
Fabaceae |
12 |
3 |
12 |
1.00 |
0.25 |
294.7 |
1.36 |
4.17 |
5.52 |
52 |
Desmodium triflorum (L.) DC. |
Fabaceae |
17 |
6 |
12 |
1.42 |
0.50 |
147.3 |
1.92 |
8.33 |
10.26 |
53 |
Indigofera tinctoria L. |
Fabaceae |
19 |
5 |
12 |
1.58 |
0.42 |
176.8 |
2.15 |
6.94 |
9.09 |
54 |
Tephrosia purpurea (L.) Pers. * |
Fabaceae |
19 |
9 |
12 |
1.58 |
0.75 |
98.2 |
2.15 |
12.50 |
14.65 |
55 |
Mimosa pudica L. * |
Fabaceae |
2 |
2 |
12 |
0.17 |
0.17 |
442.0 |
0.23 |
2.78 |
3.00 |
56 |
Parkinsonia digitata |
Fabaceae |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
57 |
Pithecellobium dulce (Roxb.) Benth. |
Fabaceae |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
58 |
Leucas aspera (Willd.) Link * |
Lamiaceae |
15 |
4 |
12 |
1.25 |
0.33 |
221.0 |
1.70 |
5.56 |
7.25 |
59 |
Leucas stricta Benth. |
Lamiaceae |
12 |
6 |
12 |
1.00 |
0.50 |
147.3 |
1.36 |
8.33 |
9.69 |
60 |
Hyptis suaveolens (L.) Poit. |
Lamiaceae |
17 |
3 |
12 |
1.42 |
0.25 |
294.7 |
1.92 |
4.17 |
6.09 |
61 |
Ocimum americanum L. * |
Lamiaceae |
52 |
2 |
12 |
4.33 |
0.17 |
442.0 |
5.88 |
2.78 |
8.66 |
62 |
Abutilon indicum (L.) Sweet |
Malvaceae |
3 |
2 |
12 |
0.25 |
0.17 |
442.0 |
0.34 |
2.78 |
3.12 |
63 |
Grewia hirsuta Vahl, |
Tiliaceae |
64 |
10 |
12 |
5.33 |
0.83 |
88.4 |
7.24 |
13.89 |
21.13 |
64 |
Grewia damine Gaertn. |
Tiliaceae |
60 |
9 |
12 |
5.00 |
0.75 |
98.2 |
6.79 |
12.50 |
19.29 |
65 |
Grewia tiliifolia Vahl. |
Tiliaceae |
10 |
2 |
12 |
0.83 |
0.17 |
442.0 |
1.13 |
2.78 |
3.91 |
Harisha and Hosetti,2013
Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 828-839 832
66 |
Hibiscus lobatus (Murray) Kuntze |
Malvaceae |
1 |
1 |
12 |
0.08 |
0.08 |
884.0 |
0.11 |
1.39 |
1.50 |
67 |
Sida cordata (Burm. f.) Borss. Waalk. |
Malvaceae |
2 |
1 |
12 |
0.17 |
0.08 |
884.0 |
0.23 |
1.39 |
1.62 |
68 |
Sida cordifolia L. * |
Malvaceae |
4 |
2 |
12 |
0.33 |
0.17 |
442.0 |
0.45 |
2.78 |
3.23 |
69 |
Guazuma ulmifolia Lam. |
Malvaceae |
15 |
6 |
12 |
1.25 |
0.50 |
147.3 |
1.70 |
8.33 |
10.03 |
70 |
Centella asiatica (L.) Urb. * |
Apiaceae |
1 |
1 |
12 |
0.08 |
0.08 |
884.0 |
0.11 |
1.39 |
1.50 |
71 |
Cocculus hirsutus (L.) Diels* |
Menispermaceae |
14 |
6 |
12 |
1.17 |
0.50 |
147.3 |
1.58 |
8.33 |
9.92 |
72 |
Stephania japonica (Thunb.) Miers * |
Menispermaceae |
7 |
4 |
12 |
0.58 |
0.33 |
221.0 |
0.79 |
5.56 |
6.35 |
73 |
Melia dubia * |
Meliaceae |
2 |
1 |
12 |
0.17 |
0.08 |
884.0 |
0.23 |
1.39 |
1.62 |
74 |
Ficus arnottiana (Miq.) Miq. |
Moraceae |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
75 |
Ficus benghalensis L. * |
Moraceae |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
76 |
Ficus racemosa L. * |
Moraceae |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
77 |
Ficus tomentosa Roxb. |
Moraceae |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
78 |
Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels * |
Myrtaceae |
1 |
1 |
12 |
0.08 |
0.08 |
884.0 |
0.11 |
1.39 |
1.50 |
79 |
Boerhavia diffusa L. * |
Nyctaginaceae |
5 |
3 |
12 |
0.42 |
0.25 |
294.7 |
0.57 |
4.17 |
4.73 |
80 |
Ximenia sp. |
Olacaceae |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
81 |
Phyllanthus amarus Schumach. * |
Phyllanthaceae |
20 |
1 |
12 |
1.67 |
0.08 |
884.0 |
2.26 |
1.39 |
3.65 |
82 |
Ziziphus jujuba Mill. * |
Rhamnaceae |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
83 |
Borreria hispida (Linn.) K. Schum. |
Rubiaceae |
28 |
4 |
12 |
2.33 |
0.33 |
221.0 |
3.17 |
5.56 |
8.72 |
84 |
Borreria stricta (L. f.) G. Mey. * |
Rubiaceae |
42 |
8 |
12 |
3.50 |
0.67 |
110.5 |
4.75 |
11.11 |
15.86 |
85 |
Canthium parviflorum Lam. * |
Rubiaceae |
11 |
3 |
12 |
0.92 |
0.25 |
294.7 |
1.24 |
4.17 |
5.41 |
86 |
Oldenlandia corymbosa L. |
Rubiaceae |
20 |
2 |
12 |
1.67 |
0.17 |
442.0 |
2.26 |
2.78 |
5.04 |
87 |
Morinda tinctoria Roxb. maddi, ET * |
Rubiaceae |
22 |
5 |
12 |
1.83 |
0.42 |
176.8 |
2.49 |
6.94 |
9.43 |
88 |
Morinda tomentosa B.Heyne ex Roth |
Rubiaceae |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
89 |
Pavetta indica L. |
Rubiaceae |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
90 |
Randia uliginosa (Retz.) Poir. |
Rubiaceae |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
91 |
Ixora brachiata Roxb. ex DC |
Rubiaceae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
92 |
Ziziphus mauritiana Lam. * |
Rhamnaceae |
13 |
4 |
12 |
1.08 |
0.33 |
221.0 |
1.47 |
5.56 |
7.03 |
93 |
Ziziphus oenoplia (L.) Mill. |
Rhamnaceae |
5 |
3 |
12 |
0.42 |
0.25 |
294.7 |
0.57 |
4.17 |
4.73 |
94 |
Cardiospermum halicacabum L. * |
Sapindaceae |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
95 |
Sapindus trifoliatus L. * |
Sapindaceae |
1 |
1 |
12 |
0.08 |
0.08 |
884.0 |
0.11 |
1.39 |
1.50 |
96 |
Withania somnifera (L.) Dunal * |
Solanaceae |
1 |
1 |
12 |
0.08 |
0.08 |
884.0 |
0.11 |
1.39 |
1.50 |
97 |
Holoptelea integrifolia (Roxb.) Planch. * |
Ulmaceae |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
98 |
Tribulus terrestris L. * |
Zygophyllaceae |
3 |
2 |
12 |
0.25 |
0.17 |
442.0 |
0.34 |
2.78 |
3.12 |
|
|
|
884 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*=Medicinal plants, N-no of individuals, TO-transect occurred, TT=Total transect, D=Density, F=Frequency, A=Abundance, RD=Relative density
RF=Relative frequency, IVI=Important value index; -tv =outside the quadrates .
Harisha and Hosetti, 2013
833 Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 828-839
An overview of Sanctuary
Sanctuary during summer
Harisha and Hosetti,2013
Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 828-839 834
Table.2. Family composition and Family Importance Value in Daroji Sloth bear Sanctuary.
Sl. No |
Family |
No. of species |
No. of trees |
Relative Density |
Relative Diversity |
FIV |
1 |
Acanthaceae |
2 |
3 |
0.3 |
2.0 |
2.4 |
2 |
Alangiaceae |
1 |
1 |
0.1 |
1.0 |
1.1 |
3 |
Amaranthaceae |
4 |
49 |
5.4 |
4.0 |
9.4 |
4 |
Aristolochiaceae |
1 |
2 |
0.2 |
1.0 |
1.2 |
5 |
Apocynaceae |
5 |
25 |
2.8 |
5.1 |
7.8 |
6 |
Asclepiadaceae |
4 |
7 |
0.8 |
4.0 |
4.8 |
7 |
Asparagaceae |
1 |
1 |
0.1 |
1.0 |
1.1 |
8 |
Asteraceae |
4 |
56 |
6.2 |
4.0 |
10.2 |
9 |
Capparaceae |
3 |
8 |
0.9 |
3.0 |
3.9 |
10 |
Cactaceae |
1 |
1 |
0.1 |
1.0 |
1.1 |
11 |
Celastraceae |
1 |
1 |
0.1 |
1.0 |
1.1 |
12 |
Cesalpinaceae |
2 |
6 |
0.7 |
2.0 |
2.7 |
13 |
Combretaceae |
1 |
1 |
0.1 |
1.0 |
1.1 |
14 |
Convolvulaceae |
4 |
53 |
5.8 |
4.0 |
9.9 |
15 |
Commelinaceae |
2 |
37 |
4.1 |
2.0 |
6.1 |
16 |
Cucurbitaceae |
1 |
1 |
0.1 |
1.0 |
1.1 |
17 |
Ebenaceae |
1 |
1 |
0.1 |
1.0 |
1.1 |
18 |
Euphorbiaceae |
2 |
13 |
1.4 |
2.0 |
3.5 |
19 |
Fabaceae |
17 |
178 |
19.6 |
17.2 |
36.8 |
20 |
Lamiaceae |
4 |
96 |
10.6 |
4.0 |
14.6 |
21 |
Malvaceae |
9 |
160 |
17.6 |
9.1 |
26.7 |
22 |
Mackinlayaceae |
1 |
1 |
0.1 |
1.0 |
1.1 |
23 |
Menispermaceae |
2 |
21 |
2.3 |
2.0 |
4.3 |
24 |
Meliaceae |
1 |
2 |
0.2 |
1.0 |
1.2 |
25 |
Moraceae |
4 |
4 |
0.4 |
4.0 |
4.5 |
26 |
Myrtaceae |
1 |
1 |
0.1 |
1.0 |
1.1 |
27 |
Leguminosae |
1 |
1 |
0.1 |
1.0 |
1.1 |
28 |
Nyctaginaceae |
1 |
5 |
0.6 |
1.0 |
1.6 |
29 |
Olacaceae |
1 |
1 |
0.1 |
1.0 |
1.1 |
30 |
Phyllanthaceae |
1 |
20 |
2.2 |
1.0 |
3.2 |
31 |
Rhamnaceae |
1 |
1 |
0.1 |
1.0 |
1.1 |
32 |
Rubiaceae |
8 |
126 |
13.9 |
8.1 |
21.9 |
33 |
Rhamnaceae |
2 |
18 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
4.0 |
34 |
Sapindaceae |
2 |
2 |
0.2 |
2.0 |
2.2 |
35 |
Solanaceae |
1 |
1 |
0.1 |
1.0 |
1.1 |
36 |
Ulmaceae |
1 |
2 |
0.2 |
1.0 |
1.2 |
37 |
Zygophyllaceae |
1 |
3 |
0.3 |
1.0 |
1.3 |
|
|
99 |
909 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
200.0 |
Harisha and Hosetti ,2013
835 Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 828-839
Sloth bear at Sanctuary
Harisha and Hosetti, 2013
Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 828-839 836
Harisha and Hosetti, 2013
837 Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 828-839
Harisha and Hosetti, 2013
Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 828-839 838
Harisha and Hosetti, 2013
839 Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 828-839
Submit your articles online at www.jresearchbiology.com
Advantages
submit@jresearchbiology.com
www.jresearchbiology.com/Submit.php.