Journal of
Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 February 2018 | 10(2):
11262–11270
Rapid assessment
of sacred groves: a biodiversity assessment tool for ground level practitioners
Shivam Trivedi 1,
Erach Bharucha 2
& Rahul Mungikar
3
1,2 Bharati Vidyapeeth
Institute of Environment Education and Research, Bharati
Vidyapeeth University, Dhankawadi,
Pune, Maharashtra 411043, India
3 Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill
House, Dr. Salim Ali Chowk, Opposite Lion Gate, Shaheed
Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra
400001, India
1 trivedi.shivam07@gmail.com, 2 erach.bharucha@bvieer.edu.in
(corresponding author),
doi: http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3412.10.2.11262-11270
Editor: Shonil Bhagwat,
Open University and University of Oxford, UK. Date
of publication: 26 February 2018 (online & print)
Manuscript details: Ms # 3412 |
Received 15 March 2017 | Final received 18 December 2017 | Finally accepted 25
January 2018
Citation: Trivedi, S., E. Bharucha
& R. Mungikar (2018). Rapid assessment of sacred groves: a biodiversity
assessment tool for ground level practitioners. Journal of Threatened
Taxa 10(2): xxxxx–xxxxx; http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3412.10.2.11262-11270
Copyright: © Trivedi et al. 2018. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License. JoTT allows
unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction and distribution
by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.
Funding: The study leading to this paper was funded by the Maharashtra State Biodiversity Board.
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing
interests.
Author
Details: Mr. Shivam Trivedi is a research scholar at the Bharati Vidyapeeth Institute of
Environment Education and Research pursuing his PhD research under the guidance
of Dr. Erach Bharucha. He
has been actively working in the field of biodiversity, nature and landscape
conservation for past one decade. He is also a member of the International
Education for Sustainable Development Expert Net Committee. Dr.
Erach Bharucha is a
surgeon by profession and a biodiversity and landscape conservation expert by
passion. He has been active in the fields of wildlife and nature conservation
over the past five decades. He has studied the Indian national parks, wildlife
sanctuaries and tribal cultures of India extensively. He was also the first
Chairman of the Maharashtra State Biodiversity Board. Dr.
Rahul Mungikar is presently associated with
the Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai as Assistant Director (Policy Cell).
He worked for the Maharashtra State Biodiversity Board for five years. His
expertise is in implementation of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, plant
taxonomy and ecology and biodiversity monitoring. He has done extensive work in
the sacred groves of Maharashtra.
Author
Contribution: ST
- Identification of hotspecks (sacred groves) from
secondary database, designing and finalising of the
rapid assessment technique (methodology), field surveys and data collection,
data analysis, data interpretation and revision of paper. EB - Concept of the
entire research work, designing and finalising of the
rapid assessment technique (methodology), data analysis, data interpretation
and revision of paper. RM - Designing and finalising
of rapid assessment technique (methodology), data analysis, data interpretation
and revision of paper.
Acknowledgments: The
authors are thankful to the Maharashtra State Biodiversity Board for providing
the opportunity and support for this study on biodiversity hotspecks
of Western Ghats in Maharashtra.
Abstract: Sacred groves in the Western Ghats are
culturally preserved patches of forests that are rich in diversity owing to
protection by several generations of local people, providing excellent examples
of community based conservation.
Sacred groves harbour local populations, preserve genetic resources and
serve as reference sites and corridors between protected areas. They are considered to be cornerstones
of biodiversity conservation, but are insufficient in scale and number to
significantly address many aspects of the management of landscapes and
biodiversity. We studied 13 sacred
groves in Pune District that are at present outside the protected areas of the
northern Western Ghats, where we employed a simple and rapid biodiversity
assessment technique that can be replicated by frontline foresters, local
residents and Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs). Integrating these sacred sites into the
conservation network through local support can improve the efficiency for the
existing protected area network in this ecologically fragile region.
Keywords: Hotspecks, prioritisation, rapid assessment
technique, sacred groves, Western Ghats.
INTRODUCTION
Sacred groves are forest patches that are managed by
local people according to traditions (Bhagwat et al.
2005) extending back several generations (Ormsby
& Bhagwat 2010). Groves in the northern Western Ghats are
typically small patches of forest dedicated to local, often animistic, deities
(Vipat & Bharucha 2014). They exist with a matrix of varied forms
of land use, and are of high biological value (Boraiah
et al. 2003; Khumbongmayum et al. 2005). Sacred groves are found in various types
of forests ranging from evergreen and semi-evergreen to deciduous (Gadgil & Vartak 1976), and
since they typically represent old growth forest communities (Upadhaya et al. 2003) they can serve as reservoirs of
genetic diversity for surrounding forests, making them key to efforts to
restore degraded areas (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
2010). Human disturbance is minimal
within sacred groves since they are traditionally not used for collecting
resources or grazing cattle (Parthasarathy et al.
2008), but there are impacts from land use around the groves and from local
factors such as tourism, roads, mines, dams and neo-urbanization (Pandey 1999; Bhagwat & Rutte 2006).
Currently several sacred groves are under high levels of biotic pressure
and are losing their biological richness.
Threats that play an important role in destroying the biodiversity of
groves include industrial projects, mining, unsustainable forest resource use, excessive tourism and infrastructure development projects (Bharucha 2006).
Biodiversity-rich sacred groves have been termed ÔhotspecksÕ, small areas ranging from five to a few hundred
square meters with high species concentrations that can be located within or
outside of protected area boundaries (Cherian
2000). Hotspecks,
if preserved, can act as potential transit sites for species movement between
protected areas (Mgumia & Oba 2003). Certain taxa easily adapt to living in
relatively small specialized habitats. A majority of these hotspecks
are either privately owned, or belong to the local community, hence declaring
them as protected areas as per the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 is impossible
as local communities have their traditional rights over these landscape
elements. Attempting to provide
legal protection to such areas demotivates local conservation efforts and leads
to conflicts between the Forest Department and local people (Chandrakanth et al. 2004). Thus there is a need to develop a
sustainable management strategy so that is sensitive to the needs of local
people so that hotspecks are conserved without
infringing on the traditional rights of the local communities.
Study Area
The
study area is located in the Western Ghats within Pune District, Maharashtra
(Fig. 1). The Western Ghats of
Maharashtra harbour a variety of endemic flora and
fauna (Ministry of Environment & Forest 2010) and cover an area of 58,400km2
(Zunjarrao et al. 2015). The area contains a national park (Chandoli) and five Wildlife Sanctuaries (Kalsubai, Bhimashankar, Phansad, Koyna and Radhanagri) in Maharashtra, and is contiguous with Purna Wildlife Sanctuary in Gujarat and Mhadei
Wildlife Sanctuary in Goa (Table 1).
Table 1. Protected areas within the
study area
Sno |
Name of
protected area |
Type of
protected area |
Key
features, floral and faunal diversity |
1 |
Purna |
Wildlife
Sanctuary |
The floral
diversity consists of 131 tree species, 38 shrub species, 78 climber species,
250 herb species along with 13 orchid species, two partial parasites, five
fern species and 47 grass species. The faunal
diversity consists of 3,000 insect species, 60 amphibian and reptile species,
over 150 bird species and 30 mammal species. |
2 |
Kalsubai |
Wildlife
Sanctuary |
Kalsubai is the
highest mountain in Maharashtra. The commonly seen floral species are Terminalia chebula,
Memecylon umbellatum,
Olea diocia,
Syzygium cumini,
Actinodaphne angustifolia,
Bridelia retusa,
Ficus glomerata, Terminalia tomentosa, Macaranga pultala,
Cassia fistula, Actinodaphne hookeri,
Diospyros montana, Albizzia procera, Trema orientalis, Memecylon umbellatum and Phyllanthus emblica. |
3 |
Bhimashankar |
Wildlife
Sanctuary |
Named after the lord Bhimashankar,
the area was declared as Wildlife Sanctuary in 1985. The sanctuary harbors
529 faunal species from 12 faunal groups. Faunal species such as Giant
Squirrel, Leopard, Jackal, Striped Hyena, Indian Pangolin, Wild Boar, etc.,
are found in the sanctuary. Bhimashankar is the
only home of Parapsilorhynchus elongatus an endangered fish species. Apart from this
three scorpion species endemic to Western Ghats are found in Bhimashankar Wildlife Sanctuary. An Important Bird Area (IBA). |
4 |
Phansad |
Wildlife
Sanctuary |
Coastal protected area with evergreen
and semi evergreen forest, grasslands and small rocky plateaus. |
5 |
Koyna |
Wildlife
Sanctuary |
Threatened tree species such as Narkya Mappia foetida. Tiger, Gaur, Indian Wild Dog, Sloth
Bear, Sambar, Barking Deer, Mouse Deer, Indian
Giant Squirrel and Common otter are some of the important mammals found here.
The sanctuary is also home to the Indian
Python, BeddomeÕs Keelback,
Indian Chameleon, Banded Gecko and Dwarf Gecko among reptiles and endemic
amphibians such as the Koyana Toad, Indotyphlus, a caecilian, Wrinkled Frog and Bombay
Frog. |
6 |
Chandoli |
National
Park |
Named after the village Chandoli, the park was notified as Wildlife Sanctuary in
1985 and was upgraded to National Park in 2004. A total of 415 species over 13 faunal
groups have been recorded. The faunal diversity includes the
Endangered Panthera tigris
Tiger, Panthera pardus
Leopard, Bos gaurus
Gaur, Melursus ursinus
Sloth Bear, Ratufa indica
Giant Squirrel, Manis crassicaudata
Pangolin, etc. |
7 |
Radhanagari |
Wildlife
Sanctuary |
Radhanagari Wildlife
Sanctuary was earlier known as Dajipur Wildlife
Sanctuary and was renamed in 1985 and the area of the sanctuary was
increased. A total of 481 species
under 11 faunal groups have been recorded. The sanctuary harbors
a good population of Bison. There
have been sightings of Leopard and Tiger in the sanctuary. Species such as Ceylon Frogmouth,
Yellow-browed Bulbul, Dusky Eagle-owl, Great Pied Hornbill, Black Bulbul,
Speckled Piculet, and Malabar Crested Lark are
commonly seen here. The vegetation includes several
threatened and endemic tree species such as Mappia
Foetida, Turpunia malbarica, Euphorbia longna, Elaeocarpus tectorium and
Harpullia arborea. |
8 |
Mhadei |
Wildlife
Sanctuary |
Located in Sanguem
Taluka of North Goa District, the sanctuary covers
an area of 208km2. The
man attraction of visitors is the presence of tiger. Faunal diversity consists of Tiger,
Black Panther, Indian Gaur, Barking Deer, Sambar,
Rudy Mangoose, Small Indian Civet Cat, Jungle Cat,
Wild Dog, Wild Boar, Flying Squirrel, Bonnet Macaque, Common Langur, Pangolin and Slender Loris are the commonly seen
mammals. A list of
255 avifaunal species have been recorded from the sanctuary. A variety of reptiles and amphibians are
also seen in this sanctuary. |
(Trivedi 2006; Kanade et al. 2008; Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change 2010; Jadhav & Patti 2012a,b)
MATERIALS AND
METHODS
A
survey of relevant literature provided a list of 274 sacred groves of more than
one hectare in area in the Western Ghats of Maharashtra (Deshmukh
et al. 1998). Of these, 114 groves
were identified within Pune District, from which 13 were chosen for ground
surveys intended to develop a model for other sites by training frontline
forest staff, non-governmental organizations and local residents. These 13 sacred groves are
representatives of geographical and forest conditions of sacred groves
throughout the district, where forests range from moist deciduous
semi-evergreen to evergreen. While
the sample size is small, the intention was to provide a proof-of-concept for
further surveys to assess the biodiversity of sacred groves (Fig. 2).
Rapid
Assessment Techniques (RATs) have been designed for various types of
biodiversity conservation assessments in the past (Lu et al. 2012). Existing RATs were reviewed in order to arrive
at a RAT that is appropriate for the assessment of hotspecks
in the Western Ghats.
A set
of parameters such as size and shape of the hotspeck,
forest structure and condition, faunal richness, special ecological features,
land tenure and various types of ecological threats were included. The size and shape is an important
parameter as a hotspeck with a small area and
irregular shape has a higher edge effect compared to a hotspeck
with a relatively larger area and regular shape (Ranta
et al. 1998). A survey based on
forest structure (Whitmore 1990) and status, presence of shrubs, lianas, herbs,
snags and climbers, height of trees, canopy cover and detritus thickness has
been used for evaluation through a fixed scoring system (Givnish
1998). The density of trees and
their girth are included using the Ônearest individualÕ method (Hopkins & Skellam 1954).
In assessing the faunal diversity a mammal survey was done using
reconnaissance technique (Plumptre 2000). Avifaunal survey was done through
species inventory technique (Hill 2005).
Reptile and amphibian survey was done through visual encountered survey
and timed searches (Adams et al. 1998). Butterfly diversity was observed
through encounters during the survey.
Special features such as presence of medicinal plants, water bodies,
streams, unique features ecological/topographical, nesting and roosting sites
of avifauna, areas of exceptional beauty and presence of keystone species were
recorded during site visits. These findings were further corroborated with a
detailed proforma and expert knowledge survey to
obtain information from local people.
The surrounding land use is an important aspect to assess the long-term
sustainable conservation potential of each area (Ricketts 2001). This is linked to evaluating threats to
the site. A key parameter of
biodiversity valuation is its local and surrounding land tenure. This is an important parameter as the
ownership of the site and its surrounding area predicts the potential land use
change that may occur in the near future (Ormsby
2011). Such changes in land use are
frequently due to economic drivers. Speculation by land prospectors for
urbanization is a major driver of accelerated land use change in the Western
Ghats of Maharashtra.
The
other set of parameters include various types of gradually increasing cultural
threats such as clearing of land for agriculture expansion and grazing, forest
fires, felling and lopping of trees and their branches for wood ash cultivation
of crops which are traditional cultural uses of the landscape (Davidar et al. 2007; Anitha et
al. 2009). The more important
dramatic threats arise from rapid sale of land, development of roads and
transportation, powerlines, mining, wind mills,
industries, neo-urbanization and tourism (Padhye et
al. 2006; Subramanian et al. 2011; Mehta & Kulkarni
2012). The threats are identified
through site visits, local information and use of satellite images. These are categorized as reversible or
irreversible threats. Irreversible
threats include mining because mining sites cannot be restored to its former
ecological status for decades as the biodiversity is highly site specific and
does not tolerate change in the habitat.
At the other end of the spectrum threats from certain traditional
cultural land use changes can be reversed through eco-development and by
providing income generation alternatives for local people.
A set
of questions was designed for conducting semi-structured interviews with the
local people. Interviews are an important part of the RAT as it covers all
aspects of the survey and helps fill the missing gaps in information of the
field survey (Ervin 2003b).
All
these parameters were quantified based on a scoring system with a score from 0
to 10 score (2.5 - poor, 5 - fair, 7.5 – good, 10 - very good). This scoring system has been used for
assessing the management effectiveness evaluation (MEE) carried out for the
protected areas and tiger reserves in India (Mathur
et al. 2011). The scores obtained
for each parameter were entered in an excel spreadsheet
and a database was created. The
scores obtained for each parameter for an individual hotspeck
were averaged and the results were then depicted graphically. A prioritization matrix was designed
where in the 13 sacred groves were grouped into four classes i.e., 0–2.5
(low), 2.5–5 (moderate), 5–7.5 (significant) and 7.5–10
(high) based on the final scores of biodiversity and threats generated in the
graph. This prioritization matrix
consisted 16 different categories of prioritization.
This
tool developed for assessing the biodiversity rich ÔhotspecksÕ
is modified from the Rapid Assessment and Prioritisation of Protected Area
Management (RAPPAM) technique (Ervin 2003a; Getzner
et al. 2012). This is a tool
developed for WWFÕs ÔForest for LifeÕ programme that promotes viable networks
of protected areas in the world (Ervin 2003a; Getzner
et al. 2012). It is
simplified to be used by the practitioners such as ground level forest
department staff and the local BMCs under the provisions of the Biological
Diversity Act, 2002 (National Biodiversity Authority India 2002).
RESULTS
The
scores obtained for sacred groves were depicted graphically. Sacred groves were arranged from north
to south and it was observed that the biodiversity and threats are site specific.
Geographical conditions do not have a major influence on the
biodiversity and threat values (Fig. 3).
Both the biodiversity values and threat values showed a negative
relation and are inversely proportional.
An increase or decrease in the threat values has an effect on the
biodiversity values of the sacred groves (Fig. 4). Further the final scores of biodiversity
and threat values for each sacred grove were plotted in the prioritization
matrix. Among the 16 categories of
prioritization in the matrix seven sacred groves were observed in moderate
biodiversity and moderate threat, four sacred groves in significant
biodiversity and moderate threat, one sacred grove in high biodiversity and low
threat and one sacred grove in low biodiversity high threat categories (refer
to figs. 3 & 4, Tables 2 & 3).
Table 2. Prioritisation matrix framework
Biodiversity |
|||||
Threats |
Prioritisation
matrix |
High (7.5–10) |
Significant (5–7.5) |
Moderate (2.5–5) |
Low (0–2.5) |
High (7.5–10) |
HB &
HT |
SB &
HT |
MB &
HT |
LB &
HT |
|
Significant (5–7.5) |
HB &
ST |
SB &
ST |
MB &
ST |
LB &
ST |
|
Moderate (2.5–5) |
HB &
MT |
SB &
MT |
MB &
MT |
LB &
MT |
|
Low (0–2.5) |
HB &
LT |
SB &
LT |
MB &
LT |
LB &
LT |
HB: High biodiversity, SB: Significant
biodiversity, MB: Moderate biodiversity, LB: Low biodiversity, HT: High threat,
ST: Significant threat, MT: Moderate threat and LT: Low threat
Table 3. Prioritisation matrix
indicating the positions of sacred groves in Pune District
Biodiversity |
|||||
Threats |
Prioritisation
matrix |
High (7.5–10) |
Significant
(5–7.5) |
Moderate
(2.5–5) |
Low (0–2.5) |
High
(7.5–10) |
|
|
|
Dasave |
|
Significant
(5–7.5) |
|
|
|
|
|
Moderate
(2.5–5) |
|
Kondethar, Pomgaon, Visakhar, Valane |
Durga, Wadvathar, Devghar,
Dhamanohol, Kondhari, Vandre, Kothmai |
|
|
Low
(0–2.5) |
Bapujibuva |
|
|
|
DISCUSSION
The
ÔRapid Assessment TechniqueÕ developed for this study is modified from ÔRapid
Assessment and Prioritisation of Protected Area ManagementÕ (RAPPM). It is also known as Rapid Ecological
Assessment, or ÔBiorapÕ which is a technique used for
assessing various ecosystems such as terrestrial, marine and fresh water
ecosystems (Margules & Redhead 1995; Sayre et al.
1999). This RAT is usually used for
areas where only a small amount of data, or no information is available
(Patrick et al. 2014). The RAPPM
methodology is widely used as it includes all the elements of international
frameworks such as context, planning, inputs, process, outputs and outcomes
developed by the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA; Goodman 2003; Leverington et al. 2010). The main purpose of the RAPPAM
methodology is to increase and improve the conservation of protected areas both
of individual sites and the protected area system (Nepali 2006).
The
RAPPAM questionnaire is also an important part of the tool as it covers all the
aspects of the international evaluation framework developed by the WCPA (Nchor & Ogogo 2012). The questionnaire is divided into seven
sets of which the first set deals with the basic information about the
Protected Areas including the management objectives and activities. The second set of questions deals with
the various types of threats prevailing in the protected areas. The remaining set of questions deal with
the context, inputs, processes, outputs and results (Veenvliet
& Sovinc 2009).
The
RAPPAM tool is designed for comparing the protected areas with each other at a
broad level that together form the protected area system. It is used for identifying the
management issues for the protected areas by assessing the strength and
weaknesses in managing the biodiversity rich areas. The tool identifies the distribution of
different types of threats, helps in identifying ecologically and socially
important areas and thus being able to decide on the conservation priorities
for individual areas so that economic and human resources can be provided on a
rational basis (Leverington et al. 2008). Over the last two decades the MEE has
covered a large number of protected areas in India by expert teams
which has provided substantial inputs into conservation and management
of protected areas. This has
permitted more rational allocation of funds and manpower and capacity building
for the evaluated protected areas.
This rapid
assessment tool if used across the Western Ghats would provide the data
necessary for creating a chain of small conserved areas using local panchayats and government initiatives through the
Biodiversity Act, 2002 with support from the State Biodiversity Board, which is
mandated to preserve local biological assets (National Biodiversity Authority
India 2002).
CONCLUSIONS
This
study has assessed 13 identified sacred groves in the Western Ghats of Pune
District. The prioritization is
done using the biodiversity and threat status of the sacred groves. The first aspect is the biodiversity status which identifies sites with high levels of
biodiversity values. The second
aspect is the threat status describing the extent of threats ranging from the
highest to the lowest. This
provides indicators for likely changes in landscape level management in
future. Even though the results are
based on ground surveys carried out in only 13 sacred groves, they are intended
as a proof-of-concept on which future biodiversity assessment of sacred groves
could be based.
This
prioritization can be used by the relevant government department to use their
limited resources based on a set of rational parameters and for local
administrative bodies at village level to conserve biorich
sites through the Biodiversity Act, 2002.
It is
relevant here to establish that these hotspecks are
of great conservation importance as they act as potential jump sites, and form
a permeable matrix for several faunal species. Thus together they constitute an
effective corridor system without disrupting local land use patterns.
REFERENCES
Adams, M.J., R.B. Bury & S.A. Swarts (1998). Amphibians of the Fort Lewis Military Reservation, Washington: sampling
techniques and community patterns. Northwestern
Naturalist 79(1): 12–18.
Anitha, K., S. Joseph, E.V. Ramasamy
& S.N. Prasad (2009). Changes in structural attributes of plant communities
along disturbance gradients in a dry deciduous forest of Western Ghats, India. Environmental
monitoring and assessment 155(1–4): 393–405; http://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-008-0442-z
Bhagwat, S.A., C.G.
Kushalappa, P.H. Williams & N.D. Brown (2005). A landscape approach to
biodiversity conservation of sacred groves in the Western Ghats of India. Conservation
Biology 19(6): 1853–1862; http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00248.x
Bhagwat, S.A.,
& C. Rutte (2006). Sacred groves: potential for biodiversity
management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4(10):
519–524; http://doi.org/doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2006)4[519:SGPFBM]2.0.CO;2
Bharucha, E.K. (2006). Protected areas and landscape linkages:
Case studies from the Maharashtra scenario. Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society 103(2/3): 327.
Boraiah, K.T., R. Vasudeva,
S.A. Bhagwat & C.G. Kushalappa
(2003). Do
informally managed sacred groves have higher richness and regeneration of
medicinal plants than state-managed reserve forests? Current
Science 84(6): 804–808.
Chandrakanth, M.G., M.G. Bhat
& M.S. Accavva (2004). Socio-economic changes and sacred groves
in south India: Protecting a community-based resource management institution. Natural
Resources Forum 28(2): 102–111; http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2004.00077.x
Cherian P.T.
(2000). On the
status, origin and evolution of hotspots of biodiversity. ZoosÕ Print
Journal 15(4): 247–251; http://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.ZPJ.15.4.247-51
Davidar, P., M. Arjunan,
P.C. Mammen, J.P. Garrigues,
J.P. Puyravaud & K. Roessingh
(2007). Forest
degradation in the Western Ghats biodiversity hotspot: resource collection,
livelihood concerns and sustainability. Current Science 93(11):
1573.
Deshmukh, S., M.G. Gogate & A.K. Gupta (1998). Sacred groves and biological diversity:
providing new dimensions to conservation issue. Conserving the Sacred for
Biodiversity Management. UNESCO and Oxford-IBH Publishing,
New Delhi, 397–414pp.
Ervin, J. (2003a). Rapid assessment of
protected area management effectiveness in four countries. BioScience 53(9): 833–841; http://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0833:RAOPAM]2.0.CO;2
Ervin, J. (2003b). WWF: Rapid Assessment and Prioritization
of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM). Gland (Switzerland): World Wide Fund for
Nature.
Gadgil, M. &
V.D. Vartak (1976). The sacred groves of Western
Ghats in India. Economic Botany 30(2):
152–160.
Getzner, M., B. Pfleger & M. Jungmeier
(2012). Evaluating
Management Effectiveness of National Parks as a Contribution to Good Governance
and Social Learning. INTECH Open Access Publisher.
http://doi.org/10.5770/50092
Givnish, T.J. (1998). Altitudinal gradients
in tropical forest composition, structure, and diversity in the Sierra de Manantl‡n. Journal of Ecology 86(6):
999–1020; http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.1998.00325.x
Goodman, P.S. (2003). Assessing management effectiveness and
setting priorities in protected areas in KwaZulu-Natal. BioScience 53(9): 843–850; http://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0843:AMEASP]2.0.CO;2
Hill, D. (2005). Handbook of Biodiversity Methods:
Survey, Evaluation and Monitoring. Cambridge University
Press, 588pp.
Hopkins, B. & J.G. Skellam
(1954). A new method for determining the type of distribution of plant
individuals. Annals of Botany 18(2): 213–227; http://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a083391
Jadhav, S. &
S. Patti (2012a). Protected
Areas of Maharashtra. Special Publication Series on the occasion of CBD CoP-11,
2012- India. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata.
Jadhav, S. &
S. Patti (2012b). Fauna of Protected Areas of Goa. Special Publication Series on the
occasion of CBD CoP-11, 2012- India. Zoological Survey of
India, Kolkata.
Kanade, R., M. Tadwalkar,
C. Kushalappa & A. Patwardhan
(2008). Vegetation composition and woody species diversity at Chandoli National Park, northern Western Ghats, India. Current Science 95(5): 637–646.
Khumbongmayum, A.D., M.L.
Khan & R.S. Tripathi (2005). Sacred groves of Manipur, northeast
India: biodiversity value, status and strategies for their conservation. Biodiversity
& Conservation 14(7): 1541–1582; http://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-0530-5
Leverington, F., K.L.
Costa, H. Pavese, A. Lisle & M. Hockings (2010). A global analysis of
protected area management effectiveness. Environmental Management 46(5):
685–698; http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9564-5
Leverington, F., M.
Hockings & K.L. Costa (2008). Management Effectiveness
Evaluation in Protected Areas: A Global Study. World
Commission on Protected Areas.
Lu, D.J., C.W. Kao & C.L. Chao (2012). Evaluating the management effectiveness
of five protected areas in Taiwan using WWFÕs RAPPAM. Environmental
Management 50(2): 272–282; http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9875-9
Margules, C.R. &
T.D. Redhead (1995). BioRap: Rapid Assessment of
Biodiversity Priority Areas. Guidelines for Using the BioRap Methodology and Tools.
Canberra, CSIRO.
Mathur, V.B., R. Gopal,
S.P. Yadav & P.R. Sinha
(2011). Management
effectiveness evaluation (MEE) of tiger reserves in India: Process and
outcomes. National Tiger Conservation Authority,
Government of India, 97pp.
Mehta, P. & J. Kulkarni
(2012).
Identifying important areas for bird conservation in the Western Ghats region
of Maharashtra, India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society
109(1&2): 123–134.
Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change (2010). Current ecological status and identification of
potential ecologically sensitive areas in the northern Western Ghats.
Web site. [online 8 March 2013] URL: http://www.moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/Annexure5-7th.pdf
Mgumia, F.H. &
G. Oba (2003). Potential role of sacred groves in biodiversity
conservation in Tanzania. Environmental Conservation 30(03):
259–265; http://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892903000250
National Biodiversity Authority India
(2002). The Biological Diversity Act, 2002. Web site. [online
07 August 2015] URL: http://nbaindia.org/uploaded/Biodiversityindia/Legal/31.%20Biological%20Diversity%20%20Act,%202002.pdf
Nchor, A.A. &
A.U. Ogogo (2012). Rapid Assessment of
Protected area Pressures and Threats in Nigeria National Parks. Global
Journal of Agricultural Sciences 11(2): 63; http://doi.org/10.4314/gjass.v11.2.1
Nepali, S.C. (2006). Management Effectiveness Assessment of
Protected Areas using WWFÕs RAPPAM methodology. WWF
Nepal Program.
Ormsby, A.A. (2011). The impacts of global
and national policy on the management and conservation of sacred groves of
India. Human Ecology 39(6): 783–793; http://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-011-9441-8
Ormsby, A.A. &
S.A. Bhagwat (2010). Sacred forests of India: a strong
tradition of community-based natural resource management. Environmental
Conservation 37(03): 320–326; http://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000561
Padhye, A.D., N. Dahanukar, M. Paingankar, M. Deshpande & D. Deshpande
(2006). Season and landscape wise distribution of butterflies in Tamhini, Northern, Western Ghats, India. ZoosÕ Print Journal 21(3): 2175–2181.
Pandey, D.N. (1999). Sacred Forestry: The Case of Rajasthan,
India. History of Indian Science and Technology.
Parthasarathy, N., M.A.
Selwyn, & M. Udayakumar (2008). Tropical dry evergreen forests of
peninsular India: ecology and conservation significance. Tropical
conservation Science 1(2): 89–110; http://doi.org/10.1177/194008290800100203
Patrick, B., R. McCllelan,
T. Martin, M. Tocher, K. Borkin,
J. McKoy & D. Smith (2014). Guidelines for Undertaking Rapid
Biodiversity Assessments in Terrestrial and Marine Environments in the Pacific. Pacific Regional
Environment Programme (SPREP), Apia, Samoa, 54pp.
Plumptre, A.J. (2000). Monitoring mammal populations with line
transect techniques in African forests. Journal of Applied Ecology 37(2):
356–368; http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2000.00499.x
Ranta, P., T.O.M. Blom,
J. Niemela, E. Joensuu
& M. Siitonen (1998). The fragmented Atlantic rain forest of
Brazil: size, shape and distribution of forest fragments. Biodiversity & Conservation 7(3): 385–403.
Ricketts, T.H. (2001). The matrix matters: effective isolation in
fragmented landscapes. The American Naturalist 158(1):
87–99; http://doi.org/10.1086/320863
Sayre, R., E. Roca, G. Sedaghatkish,
B. Young, S. Keel & R. Roca (1999). Nature in Focus: Rapid Ecological
Assessment. The Nature Conservancy and Island Press,
Washington, DC.
Subramanian, K.A., F. Kakkassery,
& M.V. Nair (2011). The status and distribution of dragonflies and
damselflies (Odonata) of the Western Ghats, pp.
63–72. Molur, S., K.G. Smith, B.A. Daniel & W.R.T. Darwall
(comp.). The Status and Distribution of Freshwater Biodversity in the Western Ghats, India. IUCN, Cambridge, UK and Glad, Switzerland and Zoo Outreach
Organization, Coimbatore, India.
Trivedi, P.G. (2006). Ecology and conservation of avifauna
of some forested areas in Gujarat, India (Doctoral dissertation, Saurashtra University).
Upadhaya, K., H.N. Pandey,
P.S. Law & R.S. Tripathi (2003). Tree diversity in sacred groves of the Jaintia hills in Meghalaya, northeast India. Biodiversity & Conservation 12(3): 583–597.
Veenvliet, J.K. &
A. Sovinc (2009). Protected area management effectiveness
in Slovenia Final report of the RAPPAM analysis.
Vipat, A. &
E. Bharucha (2014). Sacred Groves: The Consequence of
Traditional Management. Journal of Anthropology 2014: 1–8; http://doi.org/10.1155/2014/595314
Whitmore, T.C. (1990). An Introduction
to Tropical Rain Forests. Clarendon Press, 296pp.
Zunjarrao, R.S., R.B. Barmukh
& A.S. Kindre (2015). Digital Herbarium of Angiospermic Tree Species from Western Ghat
Regions of Maharashtra. Retrieved from website: http://www.moderncollegepune.com/wp-content/uploads/Digital-Herbarium-Research-Paper.pdf
Appendix 1. Salient features of sacred
groves surveyed
Sr. no |
Sacred
grove (Lat.
& Long.) |
Salient
feature |
1 |
Kothmai (19.3339040N
& 73.8740780E) |
The sacred
grove covers an area of approximately 31.5ha. The grove forest consists of deciduous
and semi-evergreen species. There was sighting of Wild Boar Sus scrofa cristatus during the
survey and during the interview it was found that there have been also
sightings of Leopard Panthera pardus fusca in the grove
and the surrounding forest areas. There were signs of wood logging in the
sacred grove. |
2 |
Durga (19.2199860N
& 73.6487440E) |
The sacred
grove covers an area of approximately 14.4ha. The grove forest consists of deciduous
and semi-evergreen floral species. There were sightings of Gray Langur Semnopithecus
during the survey and from the interviews it was found that there are Wild
Boar and Barking Deer Muntiacus muntjak found in this region with no major predator
species. This is because the
grove forest is fragmented from the surrounding forest area. Grazing and wood collection are the
major threats to this sacred grove. |
3 |
Devghar (18.6517670N
& 73.4161270E) |
The sacred
grove covers an area of approximately 3.45ha. The grove forest consists of
semi-evergreen to evergreen floral species. There were sightings of Indian
Paradise Flycatcher Terpsiphone paradisi and Blue Mormon Papilio
polymnestor which are indicators of good forest habitat. During the interviews, it was found
that there have been sightings of Wild Boar, Barking Deer, Black-naped Hare Lepus nigricollis and Sambar Rusa unicolor in the surrounding forest
areas. Neo-urbanisation is a
major threat in the surrounding of the grove forest and other threats include
grazing and collection of wood. |
4 |
Visakhar (18.6233210N
& 73.4317630E) |
The sacred
grove covers an area of approximately 3.88ha. The grove forest consists of
semi-evergreen to evergreen floral species. During the interviews, it was
found that there have been sightings of Sambar,
Barking Deer and Wild Boar in the area and the major predator specie of this
region is Leopard but the sightings are very rare. Neo-urbanisation, grazing and wood
collection are the major threats. |
5 |
Pomgaon (18.5901710N
& 73.4079270E) |
The sacred
grove covers an area of approximately 4.12ha. The grove forest consists of
semi-evergreen to evergreen floral species. During the survey, there was a
sighting of Common Trinket Coelognathus helena and it was the found from the interviews that
the habitat is conducive for Wild Boar, Sambar,
Barking Deer, Black-naped Hare, and Leopard is a
major predator of this region.
The major threat to this sacred grove is neo-urbanisation, collection
of grass for fodder and wood for fuel. |
6 |
Wadvathar (18.5607830N
& 73.4858690E) |
The sacred
grove covers an area of approximately 1.70 hectares. The grove forest
consists of semi-evergreen to evergreen floral species. During the survey,
there were sightings of Barking Deer and Bamboo Pit Viper Trimeresurus
gramineus. The habitat is conducive of Wild
Boar, Black-naped Hare, Sambar
and Leopard as major predator.
The grove forest is divided by road and there are threats like
grazing, resource collection and neo-urbanisation. |
7 |
Valane (18.5548770N
& 73.5082330E) |
The sacred
grove covers an area of approximately 1.10ha. The grove forest consists of
semi-evergreen to evergreen floral species. A part of the sacred grove has traces
of secondary forest. During the survey, there were sightings of Common
Bronze-back Tree Snake Dendrelaphis tristis, Common Iora Aegithina tiphia,
Blue Mormon Papilio polymnestor
and Malabar Whistling Thrush Myophonus horsfieldii.
The habitat is suitable for faunal diversity such as Leopard, Wild
Boar, Sambar and Barking Deer as found from the
interviews. During the survey, it
was also found that collection of resources such as Karvanda
Carissa carandas fruit and Fishtail Palm Caryota mitis
juice are collected from the grove forest. This grove is privately owned. Grazing and wood and other resource
collection are the common threats existing in the grove forest. |
8 |
Vandre (18.5174490N
& 73.4738600E) |
The sacred
grove covers an area of approximately 5.72ha. The grove forest consists of
semi-evergreen to evergreen floral species. During the survey, there were
sightings of Bonnet Macaque Macaca radiata, Black-winged Kite Elanus
caeruleus and Rat Snake Ptyas
mucosa and during the interviews it was found that the habitat is
suitable for species like Wild boar (Sus scrofa cristatus), Sambar, Black-naped Hare and Barking Deer. Leopard is only predator
found in the region but the sightings are rare. Grazing and collection of wood were
the only threats found in the sacred grove. |
9 |
Bapujibova (18.5219310N
& 73.3951480E) |
The sacred
grove covers an area of approximately 8.82ha. The grove forest consists of
semi-evergreen to evergreen floral species. The grove forest has trees with
girth size ranging from 2–6 m indicating a pristine and old forest
growth. There were sightings of
Barking Deer, Indian Paradise Flycatcher, Green Keelback
Macropisthodon plumbicolor
and Blue Mormon Papilio polymnestor which are
indicator species of a good forest habitat. This sacred grove is in the interiors
of the Western Ghats of Pune District and hence the threats observed were not
major. |
10 |
Dasave (18.4021000N
& 73.5049770E) |
This is
the smallest sacred grove covering an area of approximately 0.009ha. Dasave
sacred grove is completely degraded grove. The deity resides under a dead bamboo
in the catchments of the dam. This sacred grove is in the center
of the neo-urbanised area, i.e., Lavasa. |
11 |
Dhamanohol (18.3875900N
& 73.4409850E) |
The sacred
grove covers an area of approximately 2.12ha. The grove forest consists of
semi-evergreen to evergreen floral species. The uniqueness about this grove is that
the deity of the grove resides in the village unlike other sacred grove where
the deity resides in the grove forest itself. There were droppings of Black-naped Hare sighted during the survey. There were no major threats observed
in the grove other than collection of wood for fuel. |
12 |
Kondethar (18.3984660N
& 73.3967060E) |
The sacred
grove covers an area of approximately 2.27ha. The grove forest consists of
semi-evergreen to evergreen floral species. The grove forest has trees with girth
size ranging from 2–5 m indicating an old forest growth. During the survey, there were
sightings of Malabar Giant Squirrel Ratufa
indica, Asian Palm Civet Paradoxurus hermaphroditus, Malabar
Grey Hornbill Ocyceros griseus, Bonnet Macaque Macaca
radiata, Malabar Whistling Thrush, Blue Mormon
and Bamboo Pit Viper. Tourism and
related impacts are a major threat to the sacred grove. Recently the grove old grove temple
was converted to a concrete temple by the village authorities because of the
tourists visiting the sacred grove. |
13 |
Kondhari (18.1233960N
& 73.6973900E) |
The sacred
grove covers an area of approximately 1ha. The grove forest consists of
semi-evergreen to evergreen floral species majorly dominated by evergreen
floral species. There are two deities
residing in the sacred grove. The forest habitat is conducive for faunal
diversity such as Wild Boar, Black-naped Hare, Sambar and Barking Deer and a variety of forest
birds. During the interviews, it
was documented that Leopard is the prime predator specie of this region
however the sightings are rare.
Wood collection and grazing were the only threats observed in the
sacred grove. |