Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 June 2020 | 12(9): 16048–16063

 

 

ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print) 

doi: https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.5524.12.9.16048-16063

#5524 | Received 05 November 2019 | Final received 14 June 2020 | Finally accepted 16 June 2020

 

 

Woody species diversity from proposed ecologically sensitive area of northern Western Ghats: implications for biodiversity management

 

M. Tadwalkar 1, A. Joglekar 2, M. Mhaskar 3  & A. Patwardhan 4

 

1,2,4 Annasaheb Kulkarni Department of Biodiversity, M.E.S. Abasaheb Garware College, Karve Road, Pune, Maharashtra 411004, India.

1,2,3,4 Research and Action in Natural Wealth Administration (RANWA), 16 Swastishree Society, Ganeshnagar, Kothrud, Pune, Maharashtra 411052, India.

1 himedhavi@gmail.com, 2 amrutamjoglekar@gmail.com, 3 monali.mhaskar@gmail.com, 4 ankurpatwardhan@gmail.com (corresponding author)

 

 

Editor: Aparna Watve, Biome Conservation Foundation, Pune, India.      Date of publication: 26 June 2020 (online & print)

 

Citation: Tadwalkar, M., A. Joglekar, M. Mhaskar & A. Patwardhan (2020). Woody species diversity from proposed ecologically sensitive area of northern Western Ghats: implications for biodiversity management. Journal of Threatened Taxa 12(9): 16048-16063. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.5524.12.9.16048-16063

 

Copyright: © Tadwalkar et al. 2020. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.  JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and distribution of this article in any medium by providing adequate credit to the author(s) and the source of publication.

 

Funding: Study pertaining to informal protected areas has been supported by ‘Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC, GoI)’, under AICRP SGESA Programme. Rest of the study is self supported.

 

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

 

Author details: Medhavi Tadwalkar is Assistant Professor at Annasaheb Kulkarni Department of Biodiversity, MES Abasaheb Garware College and research associate at RANWA. Her research interests include forest ecology, plant phenology pattern and biodiversity studies. Amruta Joglekar is a research scholar at Annasaheb Kulkarni Department of Biodiversity, MES Abasaheb Garware College and research associate at RANWA. Her research interests include forest ecology, seed biology and socio-ecological studies.  Monali Mhaskar is a research associate at RANWA. Her research interests include forest ecology and understanding human wildlife interaction.  Ankur Patwardhan is Head and Associate Professor at Annasaheb Kulkarni Department of Biodiversity, MES Abasaheb Garware College and Honorary secretary at RANWA. His research interests include plant resources study, bioprospecting and conservation of threatened plant taxa from northern Western Ghats, and documenting traditional knowledge and community conservation practices.

 

Author contribution: MT—concept design, data collection, data analysis; AJ—concept design, data collection, data analysis; MM—data collection; AP—concept design finalization, data collection, data analysis.

 

Acknowledgements: We thank the following: Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Government of India, New Delhi, for financial support; Mr. Subhash Puranik and other forest officials of Amboli forest division for their cooperation and guidance throughout the study; Dr. Aparna Watve for her regular research inputs; Mr. Amit Bansude, Mr. Ganesh Kale, Mr. Vishal Magadum, and all colleagues for help during data collection; local experts, Amboli Biodiversity Management Committee and Malabar Nature Conservation Club for their support and help.

 

 

Abstract: The Western Ghats of India support an array of tropical forests ranging from wet evergreen to scrub formations.  Several endemic and threatened plant species are located in areas other than protected areas (PAs).  There is an urgent need to understand species diversity in areas other than PAs, for effective management of tropical forests.  In this context, reserve forests and informal PAs of Amboli from northern Western Ghats have been investigated. Woody species composition, diversity, and stand structure were assessed by laying quadrats and transects (n=46, area=2.575ha) in closed and open canopy forest patches covering habitat heterogeneity and environmental gradient of the area. A total of 2,224 individuals (of 87 species, 68 genera, and 35 families) was enumerated.  Memecylon umbellatum, Syzygium cumini, and Diospyros nigrescens were found to be the most dominant species as per importance value index.  Melastomataceae was the most dominant family as per family importance value, whereas Euphorbiaceae and Rutaceae were the most speciose.  Fourteen IUCN Red List assessed species and 18 species endemic to the Western Ghats were encountered.  Endemic species accounted for nearly 20% of the total number of individuals sampled.  Demographic profile exhibited reverse ‘J’ pattern.  Average basal area was 27.02m2 per hectare. Woody species diversity of Amboli forests was found comparable with other PAs from northern Western Ghats.  Amboli and the adjoining area have been proposed as ecologically sensitive and in the wake of anthropogenic and developmental pressures they experience, it calls for urgent conservation attention.

 

Keywords: Endemicity, protected area comparison, species composition, stand structure

 

Abbreviations: BMC—Biodiversity Management Committee | DPL—Dry period length | E—Evergreen | ESA—Ecologically sensitive area | FIV—Family importance value | GBH—Girth at breast height | GPS—Global positioning system | IUCN—International Union for Conservation of Nature | IVI—Importance value index | MSL—Mean sea level | NP—National park | NWG—Northern Western Ghats | PA—Protected area | RF—Reserve forest | SWG—Southern Western Ghats | VU—Vulnerable | WG—Western Ghats | WS—Wildlife sanctuary.

 

 

Introduction

 

Woody species form an important component of the forest landscape both because of their diversity and biomass.  They play a vital role in shaping overall structural dynamics of the forest stands and offer various kinds of ‘ecosystem services’.  Of the 36 global hotspots of biodiversity, Western Ghats, extending along the western coast of India, along with Sri Lanka comprise the Western Ghats-Sri Lanka hotspot (Conservation International 2019; Myers et al. 2000).  Western Ghats of India occupy the fifth position in the world in terms of economic potential of their biological resources (Ganeshaiah & Shaanker 2007).  It is globally, an area of high endemism with 1,500 endemic species of which 352 are woody plant species and also houses over 4,000 medicinal plants species.  WGs support an array of tropical forest types ranging from wet evergreen to scrub formations covering an area of about 1,64,284km2 (Kasturirangan et al. 2013).  Although nearly 10 percent of the Western Ghats hotspot is under formal protection, it has been pointed out that PAs in this region have historically been established on an ad-hoc basis with little attention to diversity distribution (Bhagwat et al. 2005).  There is indeed a growing recognition that PAs cannot be conceived and managed as “islands” isolated from other PAs and from the rest of the landscape context (Laurance et al. 2012).  Hence, there is a need to recognize high potential of informal protected areas such as sacred groves for effective conservation management (Bhagwat & Rutte 2006) that can supplement the PA diversity.  The conservation management in the region needs to address the following questions: (1) do existing PAs adequately represent the biodiversity? (2) do excluded forest patches sustain more species than PAs? and (3) how many PAs are required to cover the entire gamut of biodiversity? Considering the high endemism, it is necessary and urgent to evaluate conservation potential andecosystem services of the buffer areas surrounding the PAs or other areas not included in formal PA network.

CEPF (2007) report showed that NWG have presence of more fragmented forests patches than the southern Western Ghats (SWG) and are under the pressures of selective logging, excessive grazing, fire, and road construction.  Though sporadic records of quantitative inventorization of forest stands from PAs of NWG area available (Kanade et al. 2008; Joglekar et al. 2015), lack of focused studies on diversity that exists outside PAs in fragmented forests is a major challenge in understanding changes in forest community under anthropogenic impacts.  Understanding the spatial distribution of these forests, their conservation significance and knowledge of vegetation types thus, becomes essential for outlining effective management strategies.

The forests of Amboli area act as a transition zone between NWG and SWG.  CEPF (2007) report identified Amboli region as an irreplaceable site for certain globally threatened species that lack formal protection.  Four new faunal species were described from Amboli region in a span of less than five years (Satose et al. 2018).  The forests of Amboli experience high developmental pressures owing to growing tourism enterprises, necessitating conservation planning, for which exploration of the region’s diversity is necessary.  In this paper, we have characterized the woody species diversity, composition and stand structure of Amboli forests from relatively less explored area of NWG.

 

 

Material and MethodS

 

Study area

NWGs in Maharashtra range from 15.5°–20.5°N & 73°–74°E.  Popularly known as Sahyadri, the forests in this region are highly seasonal (annual rainfall range: 50–7000 mm, dry period length (DPL): 8–9 months, temperature: 10–40 0C).  Amboli (MSL=700m) is located in Sawantwadi Taluka of Sindhudurg District of Maharashtra (Figure 1) in NWG.  Although the area lies outside the formal PA network, it includes private forests, reserved forests and community owned forests spread across 659.88ha (Bharmal et al. 2011).  Fragmented forests of Amboli form a mosaic of different vegetation and habitat types.  Primary vegetation type is evergreen (closed canopy: >60% and height 15–20m), with stunted vegetation around lateritic outcrops (open canopy: 20–40%, height 5–8m) (Image 1).  These together harbor endemic and threatened plant species and unique ephemeral flush vegetation that characterize lateritic plateaus.  The area is proposed as ecologically sensitive (Maharashtra Government Resolution) and also forms a part of geographically and ecologically important Sahyadri-Konkan Ecological corridor (CEPF 2007).

It is the type locality of species like a Caecilian Gegeneophis danieli (Giri et al. 2003), Amboli Tiger Toad Xanthophryne tigerina (Biju et al. 2009), leaping frog Indirana chiravasi (Padhye et al. 2014) and water snake Rhabdops aquaticus (Giri et al. 2017).  Biologists who studied the diversity of avifauna and Lepidoptera (Bharmal et al. 2011; Satose et al. 2018) concluded that the area is rich in biological diversity.  Though the area has been explored in details for faunal diversity, comprehensive taxonomic floristic studies are rare (Kulkarni 1988; Almeida 1990). There is dearth of quantitative ecological studies.

Amboli is a famous destination for tourists and naturalists alike due to picturesque landscapes, waterfalls and faunal sightings.  But owing to the unplanned and unregulated tourism, the area witnesses encroachment into the forested landscapes, logging, and poorly planned construction.

 

Sampling design

Standard methods of woody vegetation analysis were followed (Ganesh et al. 1996; Sutherland 2006).  Species composition and diversity were assessed by laying quadrats (n=40, size 20 x 20 m) and transects (n=6) in closed and open canopy forest patches covering habitat heterogeneity. It was ensured that the sampling plots cover significant environmental gradient of the area.  Transect length varied from 500 x 5 m or 250 x 5 m or 200 X 5m depending on the patch size.  Each quadrat and transect was marked by GPS.  The total area sampled was 2.575ha and intensity of sampling amounts to 0.39% of sampling, which is more than a standard requirement of 0.01% for such enumerations (Shivraj et al. 2000).

 

Vegetation composition, stand structure and diversity assessment

All woody species were enumerated for individual height and girth (≥15cm at 1.3m height above ground) measurements.  Species level identification was done using regional flora (Almeida 1990; Singh et al. 2001).  Endemicity and IUCN Red List status of the species were assignedby referring to standard literature (Pascal 1988; BIOTIK 2008; Singh et al. 2015; https://www.iucnredlist.org/).  Data collected from quadrat and transect sampling were used to understand woody species composition and diversity.  For stand structure and basal area estimates data from quadrats was used.  Importance value index (IVI) and family importance value (FIV) were calculated as per Ganesh et al. (1996).  For the diversity estimates, data from quadrats and transects was pooled.  Diversity was estimated using Shannon’s index (H’) as per Magurran (2004).  Compositional similarity between sampled plots was assessed by Bray Curtis similarity index calculated using PAST (version 3).  Correlation analysis was performed using the R software (version 3.5.1).

 

 

Results

 

(A) Woody species composition and diversity

A total of 2,224 individuals were sampled during the study representing 87 species spanning across 68 genera and 35 families.  Genus Diospyros was found to be the most diverse genus with four species followed by Ixora and Ficus (represented by three species each).  Fifty-six genera (82%) were represented by only one species in the sampled area.  Figure 2 represents 10 most abundant genera in the sampled area with corresponding abundance.

Out of 87 species that were encountered during the study, Memecylon umbellatum was found to be the most abundant species in the area (N=501, 22.53%) followed by Mallotus phillipensis, Syzygium cumini, Diospyros candolleana, Symplocos racemosa, and Diospyros nigrescens.  These six species together contributed to 56.11% of the total abundance.  A long tail of singleton species was seen where, singleton species and doubleton species contributed to 24.1% (n=21) and 12.6% (n=11), respectively, to the stand structure.  Persea macrantha, Homalium ceylanicum, and Mitragyna praviflora were among a few species represented by only one individual and Euonymus indicus, Lagerstroemia microcarpa, and Litsea deccanensis were represented by two individuals.  Table 1 depicts various phyto-sociological attributes from the sampled plotsin the study area.  The abundance in the sampled plots varied greatly from one individual (OLR2, OMD2) to 384 individuals (CCR3); whereas number of species ranged from 1 (OLR2, OMD2) to 32 (CCR3).  Maximum number of woody endemic species (9) was reported from Malai Pathar (CMP4), whereas Mahadevgad road (CMD1) showed highest number of endemic individuals (59).  Presence of WG endemic species, Diospyros candolleana was a notable feature in this area.  Shannon index varied from 0 to 2.86 within sampled plots, ‘0’ being recorded for two open forest plots which were represented by single individual.  In order to get insights into the contribution of singleton and doubleton species in overall woody species diversity of the area, Shannon index value was plotted against the proportion of singleton and doubleton species in the sampled plots, depicted in Figure 3 (r=0.798, p<0.001).  The results showed highly significant relation indicating contribution of rare speciesin the overall diversity of the study area.

Table 2 gives various species attributes of the study area.  Fourteen IUCN assessed species together accounted for 15% of the total number of individuals encountered.  Diospyros candolleana, listed in the Vulnerable (VU) category, was found to be one of the dominant species in the study area.  Evergreen (E) is the dominant habit represented by 78% of species which are mainly distributed in closed forest patches.  Eighty-six percent of species showed zoochory as a dispersal mode.  An attempt has also been made to assign species status (canopy / middle storey / understorey) as per the vegetation strata observed in the study area.

Cluster analysis (Figure 4) revealed that maximum species similarity of the plots was observed to be ca. 74%.  Quadrats laid in Lingachi rai sacred grove area (a community owned forest), formed a cluster.  This cluster exhibits low similarity with the other quadrats taken in reserve forests, private forests and Sadachi rai (a sacred grove situated in the reserved forests).  It is interesting to note here that these quadrats despite being laid in the closed forests exhibit different patterns.  Open forest patches showed lowest (2% to 20%) species compositional similarity with closed forest patches.

 

(B) Importance Value Index (IVI) and Family Importance Value (FIV)

Data collected through quadrat sampling (S=78, N=1213) was used for the estimation of IVI and FIV.  Memecylon umbellatum was found to be the most dominant species as per IVI (Table 3).  Though represented by only 6% of individuals, Syzygium cumini was found to be second most important species due to its high basal area followed by Diospyros nigrescens, Aglaia lawii, and Dimocarpus longan.  Family Melastomataceae represented by the genus Memecylon in the study area, showed the highest FIV (56.38) due to its abundance as well as the basal area.  Families Myrtaceae, Anacardiaceae, Ebenaceae, and Euphorbiaceae were found to be the other most important families as per FIV (Figure 5).  Euphorbiaceae and Rutaceae were the most speciose families with six species each followed by Lauraceae and Rubiaceae (5 species each).

 

(C) Stand structure

The girth class distribution showed typical reverse ‘J’ shaped curve (Figure 6).  First three GBH classes, i.e., 15–30cm, 30–45cm, and 45–60 cm contributed to 73% of the individuals (no. of species=70) (Figure 7).  Less than 1% individuals were represented in GBH class > 210cm.  They were comprised by species such as Holigarna grahamii, Persea macrantha, Syzygium cumini, Mangifera indica, and Memecylon umbellatum.  Total basal area recorded was 43.23m2.  GBH classes (45–120 cm) contributed to highest basal area (40.99%), however, it should be noted that maximum number of individuals was found among lower GBH classes with subsequent GBH classes showing steady decrease in number of individuals (Figure 7).  Basal area decreased with increasing GBH which was depicted by very low abundance.  Stand basal area of Memecylon umbellatum and Syzygium cumini was around 41% of the total basal area.

 

(D) Endemic species diversity and abundance

Of the total number of species recorded, 18 species were Western Ghats endemics and accounted for nearly 20% of the total number of individuals sampled.  Genus Diospyros (represented by two endemic species – D. candolleana and D. nigrescens) comprised of 51.8% of the endemic individuals.  D. candolleana (VU) was also found to be one of the dominant species in the study area as revealed from IVI.  Drypetes venusta, Knema attenuata, and Meiogyne pannosa were encountered only in the sacred groves.  Sacred groves also showed presence of H. grahamii (>195cm) and Beilschmiedia dalzellii (>180cm).  Such hefty individuals of these species were seldom seen elsewhere highlighting the significance of protection of sacred groves in biodiversity conservation.  Endemic species richness also exhibited highly significant relation with Shannon diversity (r=0.766, p<0.001) (Figure 8).

 

(E) Woody species diversity across various PAs vis-a-vis vegetation at Amboli

Table 4 represents various ecological attributes from study area and compares it with similar such studies conducted elsewhere inside PAs and reserve forests of NWG.

 

 

Discussion

 

Present study provides systematic account of woody species composition of Amboli forests.  In comparison with studies from protected areas from NWG, the sampled area showed high species richness and abundance (Table 4).  Out of 35 families, Euphorbiaceae and Rutaceae were found to be diverse families of Amboli forest followed by Lauraceae and Rubiaceae.  Though highly diverse, Lauraceae and Rubiaceae showed lower FIV values due to its lower density and lower basal area as similar to studies conducted in Kalakad-Mundanthurai forests of SWGs by Ganesh et al. (1996).  As per FIV, Melastomataceae was found to be the most dominant family which is very similar to family dominance in Chandoli NP (Kanade et al. 2008) and Koyna WS (Joglekar et al. 2015).  Puri et al. (1983) and Pascal (1988) assigned Memecylon-Syzygium-Actinodaphne (M-S-A) floristic series to evergreen forests of NWG based on the criteria of dominance–abundance–fidelity. Current study revealed Memecylon-Syzygium–Diospyros type which is found to be different from Memcylon-Syzygium-Olea type found in protected areas of NWG (Table 4).  M. umbellatum, the most dominant species in the study area was represented by >20% of the total number of individuals.  Similar trend was found in studies conducted in Chandoli NP and Koyna WS where M. umbellatum was represented by 27% and 34% individuals, respectively.  The study area harbored 18 species endemic to the WG that accounted for around 20% of the individuals sampled.  It is interesting to note that some endemic species represented in the study area are among the most important species according to IVI.  These include D. nigrescens (IVI 13.43), Holigarna grahamii (IVI 11.02) and D. candolleana (IVI 10.61).  This underlines the importance of the study area in sustaining the population of endemic woody species.  High proportion of endemic species was also reported by Kanade et al. (2008) from undisturbed evergreen forest patches of Chandoli NP.  Similar findings were reported from Koyna WS which showed presence of 23 endemic species represented by 656 individuals (15.27%).  The dominance of typical evergreen forest species such as Holigarna grahamii and Aglaia lawii, both endemic species, suggest an origin from a community differing in composition from the typical M-S-A types (Watve et al. 2003).  Amboli forests showed presence of 14 IUCN assessed species (six species being VU or NT) with 15% of total individuals sampled which is comparable to Koyna WS that recorded 13 IUCN assessed species and 9% of total number of individuals (Joglekar et al. 2015).

Since the area under consideration is relatively small, we may expect high similarity among the species in the sampled plots, however, clustering with Bray-Curtis similarity plot reveals that there are unique species conferring unique composition to the plots.  Closed forest patches of Lingachi rai form a separate cluster as against other closed reserved forest patches and Sadachi rai.  Species like Artocarpus hirsutus, Blachia denudata, Beilschmiedia dalzellii, and Caryota urens were present in Lingachi rai with low/no occurrence in other closed forest patches.  Average stand basal area of Amboli forests was 27.02m2/ha which was found to be comparable with other studies conducted in protected areas of NWG (Table4).  Present study also showed reverse ‘J’ pattern of the stand structure with highest number of species and individuals in lowest GBH class (15–30 cm) (Kanade et al. 2008; Joglekar et al. 2015) while higher basal area was found to be between 45–120 cm.  Typical evergreen endemic forest species like Aglaia lawii, Beischmedia dalzellii, Holigarna grahamii and ecologically important species like Ficus sp., Dimocarpus longan were present in higher GBH classes (above 180cm) indicating healthy nature of vegetation.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Studies on the vegetation analysis and biodiversity pattern are of utmost importance especially in the forest areas outside the PA network.  Such areas in tropics are actively managed and modified by humans.  Unplanned and uncontrolled tourism especially during monsoon, poorly planned construction and logging are some of the disturbance drivers affecting floral and faunal diversity of Amboli (Image1).  Floristic surveys form the primary step for carrying out ecological restoration of a particular area (Mota et al. 2017) and provide the inputs which feed large scale databases.

In this context, present study forms an important step in establishing the baseline data about woody plant diversity of the region.  Closed forest patches with dominance of endemic and rare species emphasized the importance of conservation of Amboli forests in patchily distributed forests of NWG.  It also revealed that the woody plant diversity in Amboli forest is comparable to other PAs from NWG.  The information thus generated can be used effectively by BMC formed under the provisions of Biological Diversity Act (2002). Conserving this unique landscape rich in flora and fauna involving BMC and other stakeholders such as local community and forest department will reveal new facets of participatory conservation model that can be replicated elsewhere in the adjoining areas.

 

 

Table 1. Diversity parameters in the sampled plots.

 

Area

Plot code

No. of species

No. of families

Stem density per sampling unit

Endemic species*

IUCN assessed species

Shannon index

Choukul Road

CCR1

16

13

68

2 (5)

3 (7)

1.97

OCR1

5

5

8

1 (3)

0

1.39

CCR4#

17

13

76

4 (23)

4 (15)

2.19

CCR5

9

9

60

3 (29)

0

1.54

CCR2

18

14

79

4 (10)

3 (9)

2.39

CCR3##

32

22

384

6 (35)

3 (32)

2.59

Hiranyakeshi

CHR1

9

7

28

3 (5)

2 (3)

1.53

OHR2

4

4

5

1 (1)

0

1.33

CHR3

19

14

50

2 (7)

0

2.14

OHR4

5

5

8

1 (6)

0

1.49

Lingachi Rai

CLR1

11

9

35

2 (8)

4 (12)

2.04

OLR2

1

1

1

0

1 (1)

0

OLR3

11

8

33

7 (16)

5 (15)

2.18

CLR2

16

11

30

5 (7)

5 (13)

2.54

CLR3

13

10

42

4 (9)

6 (20)

2.32

CLR4

13

9

28

5 (11)

4 (14)

2.33

CLR5

5

4

16

1 (1)

2 (7)

1.13

CLR6

12

10

28

3 (10)

4 (9)

2.29

CLR7

13

10

31

5 (11)

4 (14)

2.36

CLR8

9

7

33

2 (5)

4 (16)

1.87

OLR1

4

3

5

0

0

1.33

Mahadevgad Road

CMD1

16

11

67

5 (59)

2 (11)

2.41

OMD1

5

5

16

0

0

1.23

CMD2

11

9

35

2 (10)

2 (2)

1.67

Malai Pathar

CMP1#

19

15

119

4 (29)

2 (21)

2.44

CMP2

12

9

39

3 (6)

2 (6)

2.21

CMP3

15

13

43

6 (8)

2 (2)

2.33

CMP4##

29

19

209

9 (45)

3 (47)

2.86

MPCA

CCR6###

27

17

124

7 (14)

2 (2)

2.71

CMC1

12

11

39

3 (5)

1 (2)

2.01

CMC2

12

10

43

2 (10)

2 (11)

1.98

CMC3

16

13

47

7 (17)

3 (4)

2.33

CMC4

6

5

43

3 (13)

1 (5)

1.21

CMC5#

17

15

99

4 (15)

2 (10)

2.3

Narayangad

OMD2

1

1

1

1 (1)

0

0

OMD3

4

4

9

2 (5)

0

1.22

Sadachi Rai

CSR1

12

10

24

4 (17)

2 (11)

2.31

OSR5

8

8

14

3 (6)

0

1.95

CSR2

15

12

26

3 (9)

3 (10)

2.56

CSR3

18

13

52

5 (21)

2 (15)

2.49

CSR4

12

9

29

6 (27)

3 (9)

2.29

CSR5

14

10

34

6 (9)

2 (13)

2.30

OSR1

7

6

17

3 (15)

0

1.79

OSR2

6

6

11

1 (7)

0

1.59

OSR3

5

5

15

1 (7)

0

1.23

OSR4

7

7

21

2 (10)

0

1.61

*Values in the parentheses depict the number of individuals encountered 

All sampling units are primarily quadrats (20 x 20m, n=40) except # Transects: 250 x 5m (n=3); ##Transects: 500 x 5m (n=2) & ###Transects: 200 x 5m (n=1)

 

 

Table 2. Species encountered in the sampled plots and their attributes.

 

 

Species

Family

Number of Individuals

Dispersal Mode#

E/D Habit$

Forest strata*

Endemicity

IUCN Red List category##

1

Aglaia lawii

Meliaceae

54

Z

E

C

 

LC

2

Aglaia sp.

Meliaceae

17

Z

E

C

 

 

3

Allophylus cobbe

Sapindaceae

2

Z

E

Liana

 

 

4

Alstonia scholaris 

Apocynaceae

1

An

E

C

 

LC

5

Ardisia solanacea

Myrsinaceae

3

Z

E

U

 

 

6

Artocarpus hirsutus

Moraceae

2

Z

E

C

 

LC

7

Atalantia racemosa

Rutaceae

28

Z

E

M

 

 

8

Beilschmiedia dalzellii

Lauraceae

23

Z

E

C

WG

 

9

Blachia denudata

Euphorbiaceae

10

At

E

U

WG

 

10

Bridelia retusa

Euphorbiaceae

3

Z

D

M

 

 

11

Callicarpa tomentosa 

Verbenaceae

3

Z

E

U

 

 

12

Canthium anguistifolium

Rubiaceae

1

Z

E

Liana

 

 

13

Canthium dicoccum

Rubiaceae

1

Z

E

M

 

VU

14

Canthium rheedei

Rubiaceae

1

Z

E

U

 

 

15

Carallia brachiata

Rhizophoraceae

3

Z

E

C

 

 

16

Careya arborea

Lecythidaceae

6

Z

D

M

 

 

17

Carissa congesta

Apocynaceae

1

Z

E

U

 

 

18

Carissa inermis

Apocynaceae

9

Z

E

Liana

 

 

19

Caryota urens

Arecaceae

10

Z

E

C

 

LC

20

Casearia graveolens

Flacourtiaceae

1

Z

E

U

 

 

21

Casearia sp.

Flacourtiaceae

5

Z

E

U

 

 

22

Catunaregam spinosa

Rubiaceae

28

Z

D

C

 

 

23

Celtis timorensis

Ulmaceae

3

Z

E

C

 

 

24

Cinnamomum verum

Lauraceae

6

Z

E

C

 

 

25

Clausena anisata

Rutaceae

2

Z

E

C

 

 

26

Clausena indica

Rutaceae

9

Z

E

U

 

 

27

Combretum extensum

Combretaceae

1

An

D

Liana

 

 

28

Combretum ovalifolium

Combretaceae

1

An

D

Liana

 

 

29

Connarus wightii

Connaraceae

1

At

E

Liana

 

 

30

Dichapetalum gelonioides

Dichapetalaceae

10

Z

E

U

 

 

31

Dimocarpus longan

Sapindaceae

71

Z

E

C

 

NT

32

Dimorphocalyx lawianus

Euphorbiaceae

18

At

E

U

WG

 

33

Diospyros candolleana

Ebenaceae

115

Z

E

C

WG

VU

34

Diospyros montana

Ebenaceae

16

Z

D

C

 

 

35

Diospyros nigrescens

Ebenaceae

112

Z

E

M

WG

 

36

Diospyros sp.

Ebenaceae

1

Z

E

M

 

 

37

Drypetes venusta

Euphorbiaceae

10

Z

E

M

WG

 

38

Dysoxylum binectariferum

Meliaceae

11

Z

E

C

 

 

39

Euonymus indicus

Celastraceae

2

Z

E

C

WG

 

40

Ficus exasperata

Moraceae

1

Z

D

U

 

LC

41

Ficus racemosa

Moraceae

7

Z

D

C

 

 

42

Ficus sp.

Moraceae

1

Z

E

C 

 

 

43

Flacourtia indica

Flacourtiaceae

2

Z

D

U

 

 

44

Garcinia indica

Clusiaceae

4

Z

D

M

WG

VU

45

Garcinia talbotii

Clusiaceae

20

Z

E

M

WG

 

46

Glochidion ellipticum

Euphorbiaceae

17

At

E

C

WG

 

47

Glycosmis pentaphylla

Rutaceae

5

Z

E

U

 

 

48

Heterophragma quadriloculare

Bignoniaceae

11

An

D

C

 

 

49

Holigarna grahamii

Anacardiaceae

29

Z

D

C

WG

 

50

Homalium ceylanicum

Flacourtiaceae

1

Z

E

C

 

 

51

Hymenodyction obovatum

Rubiaceae

1

Z

D

M

 

 

52

Ixora brachiata

Rubiaceae

37

Z

E

M

WG

 

53

Ixora nigricans

Rubiaceae

4

Z

E

U

 

 

54

Ixora sp.

Rubiaceae

13

Z

E

U

 

 

55

Knema attenuata

Myristicaceae

1

Z

E

C

WG

LC

56

Lagerstroemia microcarpa

Lythraceae

2

An

D

C

WG

 

57

Leeaindica

Leeaceae

29

Z

E

U

 

 

58

Lepisanthes tetraphylla

Sapindaceae

18

At

E

M

 

 

59

Ligustrum perrottetii

Oleaceae

18

Z

D

M

WG

 

60

Litsea deccanensis

Lauraceae

2

Z

E

U

 

 

61

Litsea stocksii

Lauraceae

4

Z

E

M

WG

 

62

Mallotus philippensis

Euphorbiaceae

221

Z

E

C

 

 

63

Mangifera indica

Anacardiaceae

24

Z

E

C

 

DD

64

Meiogyne pannosa

Annonaceae

3

Z

E

U

WG

 

65

Memecylon umbellatum

Melastomataceae

501

Z

E

C

 

 

66

Memecylon wightii

Melastomataceae

1

Z

E

U

 

 

67

Mimusops elengi

Sapotaceae

9

Z

E

C

 

LC

68

Mitragyna parviflora

Rubiaceae

1

At

D

C

 

 

69

Moullava spicata

Caesalpineaceae

2

At

E

Liana

 

 

70

Murraya koenigii

Rutaceae

2

Z

E

U

 

 

71

Murraya paniculata

Rutaceae

1

Z

E

U

 

 

72

Myristica dactyloides

Myristicaceae

31

Z

E

U

 

VU

73

Neolitsea cassia

Lauraceae

1

Z

E

U

 

 

74

Nothapodytes nimmoniana

Icacinaceae

64

Z

D

M

 

 

75

Nothopegia castaneifolia

Anacardiaceae

84

Z

E

M

 

 

76

Olea dioica

Oleaceae

31

Z

E

C

 

 

77

Oxyceros rugulosus

Rubiaceae

1

Z

E

Liana

 

 

78

Persea macrantha

Lauraceae

1

Z

E

C

 

 

79

Salacia chinensis

Celastraceae

2

 Z

E

U

 

 

80

Scutia myrtina

Rhamnaceae

12

Z

E

Liana

 

 

81

Symplocos racemosa

Symplocaceae

114

Z

E

C

 

 

82

Syzygium cumini

Myrtaceae

185

Z

E

C

 

 

83

Syzygium hemisphericum

Myrtaceae

35

Z

E

C

 

 

84

Tabernaemontana alternifolia

Apocynaceae

14

Z

D

U

WG

NT

85

Terminalia chebula

Combretaceae

8

Z

D

C

 

 

86

Xantolisto mentosa

Sapotaceae

46

Z

E

C

 

 

87

Ziziphus rugosa

Rhamnaceae

2

Z

E

U

 

 

# Dispersal mode category: Z—Zoochory | At—Autochory | An—Anemochory |$ E/D habit: E—Evergreen | D—Deciduous | *Forest Strata: C—Canopy species | M—Middle Storey Species | U—Under storey |## IUCN category: DD—Data Deficient | NT—Near Threatened | LC—Least Concern | VU—Vulnerable.

 

 

Table 3. Importance Value Index of the species from the study area.

 

Species

Frequency

Relative frequency

Density

Relative density

Basal area (m2)

Relative dominance

IVI

1

Memecylon umbellatum

32

7.862

334

27.512

447.083

26.221

61.596

2

Syzygium cumini

22

5.405

75

6.178

264.011

15.484

27.067

3

Diospyros nigrescens

23

5.651

72

5.931

31.495

1.847

13.429

4

Aglaia lawii

16

3.931

54

4.448

85.247

5.000

13.379

5

Dimocarpus longan

14

3.440

45

3.707

81.107

4.757

11.903

6

Holigarna grahamii

12

2.948

26

2.142

101.144

5.932

11.022

7

Diospyros candolleana

18

4.423

48

3.954

38.110

2.235

10.612

8

Mangifera indica

9

2.211

24

1.977

107.012

6.276

10.464

9

Nothopegia castaneifolia

21

5.160

47

3.871

13.787

0.809

9.840

10

Mallotus philippensis

10

2.457

42

3.460

28.339

1.662

7.579

11

Beilschmiedia dalzellii

9

2.211

22

1.812

57.208

3.355

7.379

12

Ixora brachiata

13

3.194

34

2.801

14.830

0.870

6.865

13

Symplocos racemosa

9

2.211

35

2.883

22.388

1.313

6.407

14

Catunaregam spinosa

11

2.703

23

1.895

29.089

1.706

6.303

15

Syzygium hemisphericum

7

1.720

13

1.071

42.462

2.490

5.281

16

Garcinia talbotii

9

2.211

19

1.565

22.757

1.335

5.111

17

Xantolisto mentosa

9

2.211

20

1.647

18.739

1.099

4.958

18

Atalantia racemosa

11

2.703

17

1.400

5.826

0.342

4.445

19

Nothapodytes nimmoniana

6

1.474

28

2.306

11.032

0.647

4.428

20

Caryota urens

7

1.720

10

0.824

20.474

1.201

3.744

21

Ligustrum perrottetii

6

1.474

18

1.483

7.783

0.456

3.413

22

Terminalia chebula

7

1.720

8

0.659

16.206

0.950

3.329

23

Ficus sp.

1

0.246

1

0.082

47.130

2.764

3.092

24

Glochidion ellipticum

7

1.720

10

0.824

7.979

0.468

3.012

25

Heterophragma quadriloculare

7

1.720

11

0.906

6.233

0.366

2.992

26

Dysoxylum binectariferum

6

1.474

8

0.659

14.603

0.856

2.990

27

Olea dioica

6

1.474

9

0.741

7.341

0.431

2.646

28

Drypetes venusta

4

0.983

10

0.824

14.087

0.826

2.633

29

Diospyros montana

4

0.983

8

0.659

14.816

0.869

2.511

30

Mimusops elengi

5

1.229

9

0.741

7.271

0.426

2.396

31

Ficus racemosa

5

1.229

5

0.412

12.846

0.753

2.394

32

Myristica dactyloides

2

0.491

6

0.494

22.084

1.295

2.281

33

Tabernaemontana alternifolia

5

1.229

9

0.741

3.461

0.203

2.173

34

Careya arborea

5

1.229

6

0.494

5.774

0.339

2.061

35

Lepisanthes tetraphylla

5

1.229

6

0.494

2.792

0.164

1.886

36

Scutia myrtina

4

0.983

9

0.741

2.222

0.130

1.854

37

Carissa inermis

4

0.983

8

0.659

1.414

0.083

1.725

38

Dimorphocalyx lawianus

2

0.491

5

0.412

8.572

0.503

1.406

39

Blachia denudata

2

0.491

8

0.659

2.318

0.136

1.286

40

Cinnamomum verum

2

0.491

3

0.247

8.343

0.489

1.228

41

Clausena indica

1

0.246

9

0.741

2.175

0.128

1.115

42

Carallia brachiata

3

0.737

3

0.247

1.481

0.087

1.071

43

Persea macrantha

1

0.246

1

0.082

12.560

0.737

1.065

44

Dichapetalum gelonioides

3

0.737

3

0.247

0.358

0.021

1.005

45

Callicarpa tomentosa 

2

0.491

2

0.165

5.160

0.303

0.959

46

Clausena anisata

2

0.491

2

0.165

2.835

0.166

0.822

47

Meiogyne pannosa

2

0.491

3

0.247

1.005

0.059

0.797

48

Bridelia retusa

2

0.491

2

0.165

1.130

0.066

0.722

49

Euonymus indicus

2

0.491

2

0.165

0.674

0.040

0.696

50

Neolitsea cassia

1

0.246

1

0.082

6.243

0.366

0.694

51

Leea indica

1

0.246

5

0.412

0.574

0.034

0.691

52

Ardisia solanacea

2

0.491

2

0.165

0.184

0.011

0.667

53

Glycosmis pentaphylla

2

0.491

2

0.165

0.181

0.011

0.667

54

Salacia chinensis

2

0.491

2

0.165

0.167

0.010

0.666

55

Artocarpus hirsutus

1

0.246

2

0.165

2.033

0.119

0.530

56

Lagerstroemia microcarpa

1

0.246

1

0.082

3.267

0.192

0.520

57

Celtis timorensis

1

0.246

1

0.082

2.377

0.139

0.467

58

Ziziphus rugosa

1

0.246

2

0.165

0.537

0.031

0.442

59

Moullava spicata

1

0.246

2

0.165

0.411

0.024

0.435

60

Flacourtia indica

1

0.246

2

0.165

0.362

0.021

0.432

61

Allophylus cobbe

1

0.246

2

0.165

0.182

0.011

0.421

62

Murraya koenigii

1

0.246

1

0.082

1.583

0.093

0.421

63

Casearia sp.

1

0.246

2

0.165

0.171

0.010

0.420

64

Alstonia scholaris 

1

0.246

1

0.082

1.016

0.060

0.388

65

Garcinia indica

1

0.246

1

0.082

0.723

0.042

0.371

66

Murraya paniculata

1

0.246

1

0.082

0.430

0.025

0.353

67

Knema attenuata

1

0.246

1

0.082

0.407

0.024

0.352

68

Mitragyna parviflora

1

0.246

1

0.082

0.246

0.014

0.343

69

Combretum extensum

1

0.246

1

0.082

0.152

0.009

0.337

70

Diospyros sp.

1

0.246

1

0.082

0.152

0.009

0.337

71

Memecylon wightii

1

0.246

1

0.082

0.152

0.009

0.337

72

Canthium anguistifolium

1

0.246

1

0.082

0.138

0.008

0.336

73

Connarus wightii

1

0.246

1

0.082

0.126

0.007

0.335

74

Carissa congesta

1

0.246

1

0.082

0.091

0.005

0.333

75

Casearia graveolens

1

0.246

1

0.082

0.091

0.005

0.333

76

Combretum ovalifolium

1

0.246

1

0.082

0.091

0.005

0.333

77

Oxyceros rugulosus

1

0.246

1

0.082

0.085

0.005

0.333

78

Litsea deccanensis

1

0.246

1

0.082

0.080

0.005

0.333

 

 

Table 4. Woody plant species diversity in Amboli vis-à-vis PAs and RF from northern Western Ghats.

Study area

Present study

Amboli forest

Mulshi forest

(Watve et al. 2003)

Chandoli NP

(Kanade et al. 2008)

Koyna WS

(Joglekar et al. 2015)

Radhanagari WS

(Unpublished data)

Fragmented forest of Mulshi Taluka

(Kasodekar et al. 2019)

Location

15.950N & 740E

18.430N & 73.420E

17.120N & 73.850E

17.420N & 73.770E

16.400N  & 73.980E

18.530N & 73.420E

Annual Rainfall (mm)

7000

6500

6200

5000

5000

6500

Altitude (m)

600–700

500–1000

589–1044

740–1005

579–853

700–1000

Dry period length

7 months

8–9 months

8–9 months

8–9 months

8 months

8–9 months

Forest type

Evergreen

Semi evergreen

Evergreen, semi evergreen

Evergreen, semi evergreen, moist deciduous

Evergreen, semi evergreen, moist deciduous

Semi evergreen forest

Area sampled (ha)

2.575  

0.635

5 

6 

6.5 

0.3 

Species encountered

87   

52

107

108       

165 (Includes unidentified species)

49  

Girth class measured

≥15cm

≥10cm

≥15cm

≥15cm

≥15cm

>10cm

Total no. of individuals 

2224

 -

4200

4296

4754

444

Density

 

 1213 individuals/1.6ha

633–1720 individuals/ha

149–657 individuals /0.5ha

84–544 individuals /0.5ha

140–648 individuals /0.5ha

-

No. of endemic species

18

-

13

21

17

4

IUCN assessed species

14

-

-

13

-

-

Basal area

27.02m2/ha

14.5–72.9 m2/ha

10.22–57.16 m2/ha

6.76–58.23 m2/ha

20.33m2/ha

-

Floristic series

Memecylon-Syzygium-Diospyros

Dimocarpus-Aglaia-Ficus nervosa

Memecylon-Syzygium-Olea

Memecylon-Syzygium-Olea

Memecylon-Syzigium-Olea

-

Shannon index

0–2.86

2.1–3.83

2.0–3.2

1.5–3.03

2.52–3.47

2.97–3.26

 

 

For figures & images - - click here

 

 

References

 

Almeida, S.M. (1990). The Flora of Savantwadi, Maharashtra, India. Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur, India. Vol  I, 411pp. & Vol II, 304pp.

Barstow, M. (2019). Mimusops elengi. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T61964765A61964768. Downloaded on 26 June 2019. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-1.RLTS.T61964765A61964768.en

Bhagwat, S.A. & C. Rutte (2006). Sacred groves: potential for biodiversity management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4: 519–524. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2006)4[519:SGPFBM]2.0.CO;2

Bhagwat, S.A., C.G. Kushalappa, P.H. Williams & N.D. Brown (2005). The role of informal protected areas in maintaining biodiversity in the Western Ghats of India. Ecology and Society 10: 8.

Bharmal, D.L., S.R. Aland, A.B. Mamlayya & G.P. Bhawane (2011). Butterflies of Amboli reserved forest Western Ghats Maharashtra. Electronic Journal of Environmental Sciences 4: 109–12.

Biju, S.D., I.V. Bocxlaer, V.B. Giri, S.P. Loader & F. Bossuyt (2009). Two new endemic genera and a new species of toad (Anura: Bufonidae) from the Western Ghats of India. BMC Research Notes 2: 241.

BIOTIK (2008). Biodiversity Informatics and co-operation in Taxonomy for Interactive shared Knowledge base. http://www.biotik.org/. Date of access 8 April 2020

Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI) & IUCN SSC Global Tree Specialist Group (2019). Ficus exasperata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T143276941A143297460.  Downloaded on 26 June 2019.  https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-1.RLTS.T143276941A143297460.en

CEPF (2007). Ecosystem Profile: Western Ghats and Sri Lanka Biodiversity Hotspot- Western Ghats Region. Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, 100pp. https://www.cepf.net/sites/default/files/western-ghats-ecosystem-profile-english.pdf

Conservation International (2019). https://www.conservation.org/priorities/biodiversity-hotspots. Date of access 8 April 2020

Ganesh, T., R. Ganesan, M.S. Devy, P. Davidar & K. Bawa (1996). Assessment of plant biodiversity at a mid-elevation evergreen forest of Kalakad–Mudanthurai Tiger Reserve, Western Ghats, India. Current Science 71(5): 379–392.

Ganeshaiah, K.N. & R.U. Shaanker (2007). Bioresources database: documenting life. Biotech. News Letter 2(2):11–13.

Giri, V.B., M. Wilkinson & D.J. Gower (2003). A new species of Gegeneophis Peters (Amphibia: Gymnophiona: Caeciliidae) from southern Maharashtra, India, with a key to the species of the genus. Zootaxa 351: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.351.1.1

Giri, V.B., V. Deepak, A. Captain, A. Das, S. Das, K.P. Rajkumar, R.L. Rathish, & D.J.Gower (2017). A new species of Rhabdops Boulenger, 1893 (Serpentes: Natricinae) from the northern Western Ghats region of India. Zootaxa 4319 (1): 27–52. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4319.1.2

Joglekar, A., M. Tadwalkar, M. Mhaskar, B. Chavan, K.N. Ganeshaiah & A. Patwardhan (2015). Tree species composition in Koyna Wildlife Sanctuary, northern Western Ghats of India. Current Science 108(9): 1688–1693

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: 637–646.

Kasodekar, A., A. Jadhav, R. Bhagat, R. Pawar, V. Gupta & N. Kadoo (2019). The importance of conserving fragmented forest patches with high diversity of flowering plants in the northern Western Ghats:An example from Maharashtra,India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 11(7): 13833–13849. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3296.11.7.13833-13849

Kasturirangan, K., C.R. Babu, J.M. Mauskar, K. Chopra, J. Kishwan, D. Shankar, S. Narain, P.S. Roy, A. Tyagi & I. Chandrasekharan (2013). Report of the high level working group on Western Ghats. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. Vol I, xxiii+143pp.

Kulkarni. B.G. (1988). Flora of India, Series III – Flora of Sindhudurg District. Botanical Survey of India. Calcutta, India. 605 pp.

Laurance, W.F., D.C. Useche, J. Rendeiro, M. Kalka, C.J.A. Bradshaw, S.P. Sloan, S.G. Laurance, M. Campbell, K. Abernethy, P. Alvarez, V.Arroyo-Rodriguez, P. Ashton, J. Benı´tez-Malvido, A. Blom, K.S. Bobo, C.H. Cannon, M. Cao, R. Carroll, C. Chapman, R. Coates, M. Cords, F. Danielsen, B.D. Dijn, E. Dinerstein, M.A. Donnelly, D. Edwards, F. Edwards, N. Farwig, P. Fashing, P. Forget, M. Foster, G. Gale, D. Harris, R. Harrison, J. Hart, S. Karpanty, W. J. Kress, J. Krishnaswamy, W. Logsdon, J. Lovett, W. Magnusson, F. Maisels, A.R. Marshall, D. McClearn, D. Mudappa, M.R. Nielsen, R. Pearson, N. Pitman, J.van der Ploeg, A. Plumptre, J. Poulsen, M. Quesada, H.Rainey, D. Robinson, C. Roetgers, F. Rovero, F. Scatena, C. Schulze, D. Sheil, T. Struhsaker, J. Terborgh, D. Thomas, R. Timm, J.N. Urbina-Cardona, K. Vasudevan, S. J. Wright, J.C. Arias-G, L. Arroyo, M. Ashton, P. Auzel, D. Babaasa, F. Babweteera, P. Baker, O. Banki, M. Bass, I. Bila-Isia, S. Blake,  W. Brockelman, N. Brokaw, C.A. Bru¨hl, S. Bunyavejchewin, J. Chao, J. Chave, R. Chellam, C.J. Clark, J. Clavijo, R. Congdon, R. Corlett, H. S. Dattaraja,  C. Dave, G. Davies, B.M. Beisiegel, R.N.P. Silva, A.D. Fiore, A. Diesmos, R. Dirzo, D. Doran-Sheehy, M. Eaton, L. Emmons, A. Estrada, C. Ewango, L. Fedigan, F.  Feer, B. Fruth, J.G. Willis, U. Goodale, S. Goodman, J.C. Guix, P. Guthiga, W. Haber, K. Hamer, I. Herbinger, J. Hill, Z. Huang, I.F. Sun, K. Ickes, A. Itoh, N. Ivanauskas, B. Jackes, J. Janovec, D. Janzen, M. Jiangming, C. Jin, T. Jones, H. Justiniano, E. Kalko, A. Kasangaki, T. Killeen, H. King, E. Klop, C. Knott, I. Kone´, E. Kudavidanage, J.L.S. Ribeiro, J. Lattke, R. Laval, R. Lawton, M.  Leal, M. Leighton, M. Lentino, C. Leonel, J. Lindsell, L. Ling-Ling, K. E. Linsenmair, E. Losos, A. Lugo, J. Lwanga, A.L. Mack, M. Martins, W.S. McGraw, R. McNab, L. Montag, J.M. Thompson, J. Nabe-Nielsen, M. Nakagawa, S. Nepal, M.  Norconk, V. Novotny, S. O’Donnell, M. Opiang, P. Ouboter, K. Parker, N. Parthasarathy, K. Pisciotta, D. Prawiradilaga, C. Pringle, S. Rajathurai, U. Reichard, G. Reinartz, K. Renton, G. Reynolds, V. Reynolds, E. Riley, M. Ro¨del, J. Rothman, P. Round, S. Sakai, T. Sanaiotti, T. Savini, G. Schaab, J.  Seidensticker, A. Siaka, M.R. Silman, T.B. Smith, S.S. Almeida, N. Sodhi, C. Stanford, K. Stewart, E. Stokes, K.E. Stoner, R. Sukumar, M. Surbeck, M. Tobler, T. Tscharntke, A. Turkalo, G. Umapathy, M. Weerd, J.V. Rivera, M. Venkataraman, L. Venn, C. Verea, C.V. Castilho, M. Waltert, B. Wang, D. Watts, W. Weber, P. West, D. Whitacre, K. Whitney, D. Wilkie, S. Williams, D.D. Wright, P. Wright, L. Xiankai, P. Yonzon & F. Zamzani (2012). Averting biodiversity collapse in tropical forest protected areas. Nature 489: 290–294. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11318

Magurran, A.E. (2004).Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell Science Ltd., a Blackwell Publishing Company, 256pp.

Maharashtra Government Resolution (2014)   https://www.maharashtra.gov.in/site/Upload/Government%20Resolutions/Marathi/201406041536565919.pdf. Date of access 9 April 2020

Mota, T., F.A. Carvalho, N.M. Ivanauskas & P.V. Eisenlohr (2017). On the relevance of floristic and quantitative studies to the restoration of degraded areas: the case of the Atlantic Forest hotspot. AIMS Environmental Science 4(1): 42–53. https://doi.org/10.3934/environsci.2017.1.42

Myers, N., R. Mittermeler, C. Mittermeler, G. Fonseca & J. Kent (2000).  Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–855. https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501

Padhye, A., N. Modak & N. Dahanukar (2014). Indirana chiravasi, a new species of Leaping Frog (Anura: Ranixalidae) from Western Ghats of India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 6(10): 6293–6312. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o4068.6293-312   

Pascal, J. (1988). Wet evergreen forests of Western Ghats: ecology, structure, floristic composition and succession. Insitut Francais Pondicherry, Travaux. De la Science et Technique,  Pondicherry, 365pp.

Puri, G.S., V.M. Meher-Homji, R.K. Gupta & S. Puri (1983). Forest Ecology: Phytogeography and Forest Conservation, Vol. I. Oxford and IBH, New Delhi, 583pp.

QGIS Development Team (2019). QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. http://qgis.osgeo.org. Date of access 9th April 2020 

Satose, V., V. Choursiya, R. Deulkar & S. Menon (2018). Avian fauna of Amboli Ghat, Sindhudurg District, Maharashtra State, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 10(13): 12805–12816. https://doi.org/10.11609/jot.2886.10.13.12805-12816

Shivraj, B., N. Barve, M. Kiran, R.U.Shaanker & K. Ganeshaiah (2000). Mapping of forests based on biological diversity to identify conservation sites: a case study from Udupi and South Canara districts of Karnataka. Journal of Indian Institute of Science 80: 531–536.

Singh, N., P. Lakshminarasimhan, S. Karthikeyan & P. Prasanna (2001). Flora of Maharashtra State. Botanical Survey of India, Vol I (898+228pp) & II (1079+182pp) .

Singh, P., K. Karthigeyan, P. Lakshminarasimhan & S.S. Dash (2015). Endemic Vascular Plants of India. Botanical Survey of India, Kolkata, xvi+143pp.

Sutherland, W.J. (Ed.) (2006). Ecological Census Techniques: A Handbook, 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 450pp.

The Biological Diversity Act (2002). The Gazette of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India. http://nbaindia.org/uploaded/act/BDACT_ENG.pdf 

Ved, D., D. Saha, K. Haridasan & K. Ravikumar (2015). Diospyros candolleana. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T173539A1389248. Downloaded on 17 June 2019. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T173539A1389248.en

Ved, D., D. Saha, K. Ravikumar & K. Haridasan  (2015). Garcinia indica. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T50126592A50131340. Downloaded on 26 June 2019. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T50126592A50131340.en

Watve, A., R. Gandhe & K. Gandhe (2003). Vegetation structure and composition of semi-evergreen forest fragments in Mulshi area of northern Western Ghats. Annals of Forestry 11(2): 155–165.

World Conservation Monitoring Centre (1998). Knema attenuata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 1998: e.T37122A10035137. Downloaded on 26 June 2019. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.1998.RLTS.T37122A10035137.en