Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 May 2022 | 14(5): 21055–21067

 

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

https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7549.14.5.21055-21067

#7549 | Received 30 June 2021 | Final received 18 April 2022 | Finally accepted 15 May 2022

 

 

Plant species diversity in a tropical semi-evergreen forest in Mizoram (northeastern India): assessing the effectiveness of community conservation

 

S.T. Lalzarzovi 1   & Lalnuntluanga 2

 

1,2 Department of Environmental Science, Mizoram University, Tanhril, Aizawl, Mizoram 796009, India.

1 mzut197@mzu.edu.in (corresponding author), 2 tluanga_249@rediffmail.com

 

 

 

Editor: Anonymity requested.   Date of publication: 26 May 2022 (online & print)

 

Citation: Lalzarzovi, S.T. & Lalnuntluanga (2022). Plant species diversity in a tropical semi-evergreen forest in Mizoram (northeastern India): assessing the effectiveness of community conservation. Journal of Threatened Taxa 14(5): 21055–21067. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7549.14.5.21055-21067

 

Copyright: © Lalzarzovi & Lalnuntluanga 2022. 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: None.

 

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

 

Author details:  S.T. Lalzarzovi, Assistant Professor in the Department of Environmental Science, Mizoram University. Lalnuntluanga, Professor in the Department of Environmental Science, Mizoram University, currently holding the  position of Controller of Examinations of Mizoram University.

 

Author contributions: STL and L developed the hypotheses and designed the methodology. STL collected the data in the field.. STL and L prepared the manuscript and gave approval for publication.

 

Acknowledgements: H. Lalhmachhuana, Scientist, Mizoram Remote Sensing Application Centre, Directorate of Science and Technology, Government of Mizoram for map preparation.

 

 

 

Abstract: Community conservation of forest as a means of biodiversity conservation has gained broad acceptance in recent years. However, there are not many studies in India on how effective they really are for conservation of plants and how they compare to formal protected areas. This study was carried out in Reiek forest, a community conserved forest protected for more than a century, initially by the village Chiefs and after the abolishment of chieftainship, by the community of the nearby villages. An attempt was made to study the plant species diversity of this forest which falls under the Indo-Myanmar diversity hotspot and it was compared to two ecologically similar formal protected areas within Mizoram. A total of 265 species belonging to 213 genera and 89 families were recorded. Two vulnerable species Eleocarpus rogusus and Saraca asocas were identified. It was found that this community conserved forest contained more plant species than the two protected areas. But endemic and threatened species were found to decline in the community conserved forest.

Keywords: Biodiversity, community conservation, life forms, plant diversity, protected area.

 

 

Introduction

 

Tropical forest contains the most diverse plant communities on earth and are disappearing at an alarming rate due to wide-spread land use changes with detrimental consequences for biodiversity, climate, and other ecosystem services (Givnish 1999; Lambin & Geist 2006).  This ongoing loss of biodiversity has led to many studies which explores how effective the various approaches are for preventing ecosystem degradation and species extinction while providing sustainable use of resources (Shahabuddin & Rao 2010). The most important and commonly used measure for conserving biodiversity and reducing deforestation is the use of formal protected areas (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; Bajracharya et al. 2005) which has proven to be effective by studies such as Naughton-Treves et al. (2005) and Oliveira et al. (2007). However, while previous research has estimated the effectiveness of formal protected areas in reducing deforestation rates to be 65%, more recent studies in Costa Rica suggest only a 10% reduction within the protected areas (Andam et al. 2008).

In the last few decades, community conservation of biodiversity rich area, whether partial or complete as an effective method to prevent species extinction has gained broader acceptance (Kothari 2006). Various studies have shown that within the same region, forests which are conserved and managed by local or indigenous communities can be as effective in reducing deforestation as compared to officially designated protected areas committed to sole protection without community involvement (Porter-Bolland et al. 2012; Bray et al. 2008; Nepstad et al. 2006). Hayes (2006) found that the state of a forest in formally protected areas and community conserved forest were similar and suggested that the forest was in a better state when the rules of management were set and enforced by locals as compared to those without such rules. However, the use of community-based conservation for tropical forests is disputed with many prominent conservationists advocating for authoritarian enforcement of protected areas (Brockington 2007; Wilshusen et al. 2002).

Mizoram, situated in the north eastern part of India is composed of steep, rugged hill ranges and interspersed valleys. It has  rich flora and fauna and the highest percentage of forest cover (84.53%) in the country (FSI 2021). The forests of the state are under a three tier management viz. those owned and controlled by the state, district councils, and village councils. The extent of forest under community control is 20.53% (FSI 2019). Traditionally, forest management in Mizoram was carried out by the ‘Chieftain’, helped by his advisors, who had the absolute decision making authority. Under the Mizo District (Land and Revenue) Act of 1956, the Chief was made the Chairman of the Village Authority without any discretionary authority. Another important traditional institution is ‘Zawlbuk’, a bachelor dormitory run by an important official of village government called ‘Val Upa’ (youth commander). Val upa through Zawlbuk imparted discipline and training in the art of tribal warfare and defence to male youth of the village. Zawlbuk no longer exists, and this traditional institution is now represented by Young Mizo Association (YMA) which may be considered the modern form of Val Upa. With people still depending on resources of forests and common land, village level YMA plays an important role in managing common property resources. YMA with the support of village council take the responsibility for management of community forest. (Tiwari et al. 2013)

Reiek forest in Mizoram is one such community conserved forest which is managed by the Young Mizo Association (YMA) and the village council of the two villages falling within the forest area. Shifting cultivation, being the main mode of agriculture in Mizoram, has destroyed much of the virgin forest and led to formation of secondary communities in the disturbed sites .However, this forest has been protected and conserved by the descendants of Sailo Chiefs since the 1890’s. The Village Chief prohibited the killing of animals and plants in the forest and introduced a modern method of conservation with stringent protection. Shifting cultivation in this area was banned and as a result, while most of the area around this conserved area is degraded, this forest represents a  forest ecosystem relatively less degraded by anthropogenic disturbances. There is an ongoing debate on what measures are the best for the forest and biodiversity conservation with some in favour of strict protection and others advocating for a more community driven form of conservation. The question remains on whether community conservation of forest is as effective as designating them as protected areas. With this in mind, the present study has been undertaken. The plant species diversity of a community conserved tropical semi-evergreen forest in Mizoram was determined and compared with the plant diversity of protected areas in the state and another community conserved forest outside the state.

 

Materials and Methods

 

Study area

This research study was conducted in Reiek forest located between longitude 92.6039908 and latitude 23.6994866 in Mamit district of Mizoram, northeast India. This forest corresponds to Champion & Seth’s (1968) Cachar Tropical Semi-evergreen Forest (2B/C2) and covers an area of 10 km2. The highest point of Reiek Mountain is at 1485m asl. The annual temperature in Mamit district ranges between 8–22 0C in winter and 20–28 0C in summer. Average annual rainfall received during the study period from 2008–2012 was 2,585 mm which is mainly brought in by the southwest monsoon. Rainy season starts in early April, with interrupted showers, but incessant rain begins in June and continues until September, often stretching until October. The soil is composed of silt-loam in the upper portion and medium grain sandstone stone plates in the peak region and the rest of the area is mostly sandy-loam to black humus top-soils depending on thickness of the vegetation and nature of landscape.

 

Methods

Vegetation analysis was carried out using the methods outlined by Misra (1968) and Domboise & Ellenberg (1974) during the year 2008–2012. To study the woody species, 50 quadrats of 10 m2 in area were laid randomly and diameter at breast height (dbh) of trees were measured and recorded. Within each quadrat, five smaller quadrats of 1m2 were laid down for herbs and shrubs, one in each corner and one in the centre. All the understory plants viz. herbs (non-woody small plants *1–1.5 m tall), shrubs (*1.5–3 m tall with thick stem and branching at ground level without a distinct trunk) and herbaceous climbers were enumerated. Species diversity was determined by computing the Shannon diversity index (Shannon and Weaver 1949). Species identification was carried out using regional flora publications (Kanjilal et al., 1940; Singh et al.,2002; Lalramnghinglova, 2003; Sawmliana, 2003) and counterchecked with the herbarium of the Botanical Survey of India, Eastern Circle, Shillong. The conservation status of the identified species were assessed using Red Data book of India (Nayar & Sastry 1987–1990) and Red List of Threatened Vascular Plant Species in India (Rao et al. 2003). The results were compared with the plant diversity of two protected areas in Mizoram which are ecologically similar- Phawngpui  which was declared a National park in 1997 with an area of 50 km2 and Tawi Wildlife Sanctuary notified in 1999 with an area of 35.75 km2.

 

 

Results

 

Family

A total of 89 families were recorded out of which 84 were native while 5 were non-native. Out of the native families, 76 were angiosperms, 2 families were gymnosperms and 6 families were pteridophytes while the non-native families were all angiosperms.  Dicotyledons comprised of 69 families ( 65 native and 4 non-native) and monocotyledons comprised of 12 families (11 native and 1 non-native). Five  families with the highest species diversity (dominant families), accounting only 5.43% of total families represented 28.27% of the total species, and 26% of genera.  Family with highest number of species was Orchidaceae (23 native species) followed by Poaceae (19 native and 2 non-native species), Arecaceae (11 native species and 3 non-native species) and Rubiaceae (11 native species and 1 non-native species) In contrast to the dominant families, 42 families (38 native and 4 non-native) were represented by only one species each.

 

Genera

A total of 213 genera were recorded (194 native and19 non-native) out of which  31 genera are multi-species while the rest were represented by only one species. Among the multi species genera, the largest genus was Dendrobium with seven species and among trees, Ficus and Elaeocarpus had five species each. The ratio of genera to species was 1:1.24 for native species which means that almost any one of the species of this site belongs to a different genus.

 

Species

A total of 265 species were recorded out of which 241 were native species and 24 were non-native species  Habitat-wise analysis of flora showed 103 species of trees (97 native species and 6 non-native species), 32 species of shrubs (28 native species and 4 non-native species), 48 species of herbs (45 native species and 3 non-native species), 25 species of climbers/lianas (19 native species and 6 non-native species), 15 species of canes and palms(12 native species and 3 non-native species), 17 species of grasses(15 native species and 2 non-native species) and 25 species of epiphytes (native species)  (Table 1)

Out of the total native plant species identified in the study site, 96% were found to be angiosperms, 3.5% gymnosperms and the rest were pteridophytes. All the non-native species identified were angiosperms. Among the native angiosperms, dicotyledons represented 74.2% while monocots represented 25.8% while for the non-native angiosperms, dicotyledons represented 80% while monocots represented 20%.  The ratio of monocotyledons to dicotyledons was 1:2.89 for native species. 

 

Diversity of life-form

Life forms of plants in Reiek forest were determined based on the classification of Raunkiaer (1934). All species were classified by life forms (Misra 1968; Domboise & Ellenberg 1974). The existence of a variety of life forms reflects the typically tropical characteristics of the flora of Reiek forest. Phanerophytes were the most dominant life form with about 50% of total plant species in the area. Out of the phanerophytes, Megaphanerophytes, i.e., trees exceeding 30 m were absent. Mesophenorophytes  accounted for 32.45% of the total life form (78 native species and 8 non-native species), microphenarophytes accounted for 13.96% (36 native species and 1 non-native species), nanophanerophytes accounted for 6.04%, (15 native species and 1 non-native species), Chamaephytes accounted for 9.81% (24 native species and 2 non-native species), Hemicryptophytes accounted for 4.15% (9 native species and 2 non-native species) , Cryptophytes or geophytes accounted for 7.92 % (19 native species and 2 non-native species), Therophytes  accounted for 5.66% (13 native species and 2 non-native species), Epiphytes accounted for 11.32 % (30 species) and lianas accounted for 8.68% (17 native species and 6 non-native species) of the total life form.

 

Species diversity index

The species diversity index (Shannon diversity H’) for native species was highest among trees (3.9) followed by herb (3.45) and then shrubs (3.05)

 

Conservation status: Rare and threatened species

Out of the 265 species identified, only 15 have been assessed by the IUCN out of which two species have been identified as vulnerable which are Elaeocarpus rogusus and Saraca asoca. One species Amomum dealbatum is placed under Data Deficient.

 

Discussion

 

Despite rampant deforestation for shifting cultivation in the state of Mizoram, the community conserved Reiek forest in Mamit district of Mizoram. It was found to have rich plant diversity comparable to protected areas under strict protection of the Forest Department, Government of Mizoram and to other community conserved sacred groves outside Mizoram. The climatic conditions of the area, its geographic proximity to the species-rich eastern Himalayas, Burma and the Malayan peninsula may be responsible for the formation of this rich biodiversity area but maintenance of this rich ecosystem may be attributed solely to its prolonged protection by the community.

Reiek forest containing 241 native species was found to support more plant species diversity than two formal protected area viz Phawngpui National Park and Tawi Wildlife Sanctuary. Phawngpui National Park was reported to have 208 species belonging to 150 genera and 71 families (Malsawmsanga 2011) while Tawi Wildlife Sanctuary was reported to have 219 species belonging to 167 genera and 73 families (Lallawmkimi 2011). Outside Mizoram, Namdapha National Park, a protected area with tropical wet evergreen vegetation was reported to have 200 species (Nath et al. 2005) and a community conserved sacred groves of Jaintia Hills was reported to have 395 species (Jamir and Pandey 2003).  This is not an unusual finding. For example, Garcia and Pascal (2005) in their comparison of sacred groves to formal protected area in the Western Ghats of Karnataka, India found that the number of woody plant species were higher in the sacred groves than the adjacent Brahmagiri wildlife sanctuary. Similar results were also reported by Shackleton (2000) in their comparison of plant diversity in protected and communal lands in South Africa.

The percentage of angiosperms, gymnospersms and pteridophytes present in Reiek forest were almost similar to those reported in the sacred grove of Jaintia hill (Jamir & Pandey 2003) which have been under traditional community conservation for centuries.  In Tawi Wildlife Sanctuary, 86.7% were angiosperms, 1.2% were gymnosperms, and 12.05% were pteridophytes (Lallawmkimi 2011).

The ratio of genera to species for native species was 1:1.24 while a ratio of 1:1.3 have been reported by Lallawmkimi (2011) for Tawi Wildlife Sanctuary.

 The life form of Reiek forest closely resembles that of Tawi Wildlife Sanctuary where Megaphanerophyte were also absent and  mesophanerophytes with 28.27% was the dominant life form followed by microphanerophyte 20.25%, nanophanerophyte 11.39%, chamaephyte 10.97 %, geophytes 3.38%, therophytes 3.80%, epiphytes 10.97% and climbers 10.97% (Lallawmkimi 2011). The dominance of Phanerophytes is a feature of tropical humid forest life form spectra (Richard, 1996). The life form spectrum of plant community of Reiek forest reveals that Hemicryptophytes and Therophytes were lower than the normal spectrum of Raunkiaers. Hemicryptophytes are characteristics of temperate region and therophytes are characteristics of desert climate (Cain & Castro 1959; Shimwell 1971). Phanerophytes, Cryptophytes, and Epiphytes were higher than normal spectrum while Chamaephytes came the closest to normal spectrum. The abundance of epiphytes is indicative of tropical humid forest as epiphytes are so tightly associated with wet tropics, as definitions of tropical rain forests frequently include the presence of this growth form (Richards 1952, 1996; Webb 1959). Lianas are most abundant in tropical forests where wide array of dimensions, shapes and morphological characters of the trees provides support for them (Clark & Clark 1990). They form an important structural and functional component of tropical rain forests (Hegarty & Caballe 1991). The percentage of lianas was quite high which according to Whitmore (1990) it is another characteristic feature of tropical moist and humid forest.

The species diversity index (Shannon diversity H’) in the study site were comparable to that of Tawi Wildlife Sanctuary and Phawngpui National Park. In Tawi wildlife sanctuary, Lallawmkimi (2011) reported species diversity index of 3.86 for trees, 3.26 for herbs and 3.14 for shrubs and in Phawngpui National Park, Malsawmsanga (2011) reported species diversity index   to 3.68 for trees, 2.96 for herbs and 2.8 for reported for lower elevations (1500–1700 m) (Table 1) There may be several reasons for species richness in community conserved forests.  Bajracharya et al (2005) studied the effectiveness of community based approached for conservation of biodiversity in Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA), Nepal which is an experimental model considered to be a pioneer in promoting the concepts of protected area using an integrated, community based conservation and development approach. They found that the forest basal area and tree species diversity were significantly higher inside ACA than in neighbouring areas outside which they have attributed to increased conservation awareness among the local people leading to a change in their behaviour and use of resource.  Comparison of deforestation rates by various research have also shown no significance difference in community conserved areas and strictly protected areas (Nepstad et al. 2006; Bray et al. 2008) which suggests that community conservation is just as effective as state-controlled protected areas in reducing deforestation rates.

However, comparison of community conserved forest and formal protected areas reveal a change in species composition in areas that are ecologically comparable and endemic and threatened species tend to decline in community conserved forest (Shahabuddin & Rao 2010). This trend has been observed in this study which reveals only two vulnerable species in the community conserved Reiek forest while Lallawmkimi (2011) reported 3 endemic species which are critically endangered from Tawi wildlife sanctuary and Malsawmsanga (2011) reported 7 rare, endemic and endangered species and 3 critically endangered species from Phawngpui National Park.

The whole study area although protected jointly by the village councils of Reiek and Ailawng village and a non-governmental organisation viz Young Mizo Association of the two villages, is still not free from encroachment which is the main threat to the rich biodiversity of the area. Although a formal conservation action is desired from the Government, this study has shown that the community has carried out conservation that is locally effective in terms of species diversity.

 

 

Table 1. Comparison of plant diversity of Community conserved Reiek forest, Phawngpui National Park and Tawi Wildlife Sanctuary

Criteria

Reiek Forest (Native)

Reiek Forest (Non-native)

Phawngpui National Park

Tawi Wildlife Sanctuary

Number of families

84

5

71

83

Number of genera

194

19

150

167

Number of species

241

24

208

219

Trees

97

6

84

83

Shrubs

28

4

31

31

Herbs

45

3

45

41

Climbers and epiphytes

44

6

33

52

Grasses

15

2

10

17

Canes and palms

12

3

5

10

Species Diversity (Shannon diversity index)

 

 

 

 

Trees

3.9

 

3.68

3.86

Shrubs

3.05

 

2.8

3.14

Herbs

3.45

 

2.96

3.26

 

 

Table 2. List a plant species recorded in community conserved Reiek forest of Mamit district in Mizoram, India.

 

Name of species

Family

Native/ Non-native species

Tree species

1

Acer laevigatum Wall.

Aceraceae

Native

2

Acronychia pendunculata (L.) Miq

 

Rutaceae

Native

3

Aglaia spectabilis (Miq.) S.S.Jain & S.Bennet.

 

Meliaceae

Native

4

Alangium chinense (Lour.) Harms

 

Alangiaceae

Native

5

Alphonsea ventricosa (Roxb.) Hook. f. & Thomson

 

Annonaceae

Native

6

Alseodaphne petiolaris (Meissn.) Hook. f.

 

Lauraceae

Native

7

Amoora chittagonga (Miq.) Hiern

 

Meliaceae

Native

8

Anogeissus acuminata (Roxb. ex DC.) Guillaumin et al.

 

Combretaceae

Native

9

Betula cylindrostachys Wall. ex Diels

 

Betulaceae

Native

10

Bombax insigne Wall

Bombacaceae

Native

11

Bruinsmia polysperma (C.B. Clarke) Steenis

 

Styracaceae

Native

12

Calliandra umbrosa (Wall.) Benth.

 

Mimosaceae

Native

13

Calophyllum polyanthum Wall. ex Choisy

 

Guttiferae

Native

14

Camellia kissi Wallich

 

Theaceae

Native

15

Carallia brachiata (Lour.) Merr.

 

Rhizophoraceae

Native

16

Castanopsis echinocarpa Miq.

 

Fagaceae

Native

17

Castanopsis indica (Roxb. ex Lindl.) A.DC.

 

Fagaceae

Native

18

Castanopsis tribuloides (Sm.) A.DC.

 

Fagaceae

Native

19

Celtis timorensis Span.

 

Ulmaceae

Native

20

Cephalotaxus griffithii Hook. f.

 

Cephalotaxaceae

Native

21

Cinnamomum glanduliferum (Wall.) Meisner

 

Lauraceae

Native

22

Cinnamomum obtusifolium (Roxb.) Nees.

 

Lauraceae

Native

23

Cinnamomum verum J.Presl

 

Lauraceae

Non-native

24

Coffea khasiana (Korth.) Hook.f.

 

Rubiaceae

Native

25

Colona floribunda (Wall. ex Kurz) Craib

 

Tiliaceae

Native

26

Croton hookeri Veitch

 

Euphorbiaceae

Native

27

Cryptocarya amygdalina Nees Bauch.Ham

 

Lauraceae

Native

28

Cycas pectinata Buch.-Ham

 

Cycadaceae

Native

29

Debregeasia longifolia (Burm. f.) Wedd.

 

Urticaceae

Native

30

Diospyros lancifolia Wallich ex Hiern

 

Ebenaceae

Native

31

Drimycarpus racemosus (Roxb.) Hook.f.

 

Anacardiaceae

Native

32

Dysoxylum gobara (Buch.-Ham.) Merr.

 

Meliaceae

Native

33

Elaeocarpus floribundus Blume

 

Tiliaceae

Native

34

Elaeocarpus lanceaefolius Roxb.

 

Tiliaceae

Native

35

Elaeocarpus rugosus Roxb.

 

Tiliaceae

Native

36

Elaeocarpus tectorius (Lour.) Poir.

 

Tiliaceae

Native

37

Embelia tsjeriam-cottam A.DC.

 

Myrsinaceae

Native

38

Engelhardtia roxburghiana Wall.

 

Juglandaceae

Native

39

Engelhardtia spicata Leschen, ex. Blume

 

Juglandaceae

Native

40

Eriobotrya bengalensis (Roxb.) Hook. f.

 

Rosaceae

Native

41

Eurya cerasifolia (D. Don) Kobuski

 

Pentaphylacaceae

Native

42

Eurya loquaiana Dunn

 

Pentaphylacaceae

Non-native

43

Ficus benghalensis L.

 

Moraceae

Native

44

Ficus benjamina L.

 

Moraceae

Native

45

Ficus prostrata (Wall. ex Miq.) Miq.

 

Moraceae

Native

46

Ficus religiosa L.

 

Moraceae

Native

47

Ficus semicordata Buch.-Ham. ex Sm.

 

Moraceae

Non-native

48

Garcinia xanthochymus Hook. f. ex T. Anderson

Guttiferae

Native

49

Glochidion khasicum (Müll.Arg.) Hook. f.

 

Euphorbiaceae

Native

50

Grevillea robusta A. Cunn. ex R. Br.

 

Proteaceae

Non-native

51

Gynocardia odorata R. Br.

 

Flacourtiaceae

Native

52

Helicia erratica Roxb.

 

Proteaceae

Native

53

Heteropanax fragrans (Roxb.) Seem

 

Araliaceae

Native

54

Holigarna longifolia Buch.-Ham. ex Roxb

 

Anacardiaceae

Native

55

Lithocarpus elegans (Blume) Hatus. ex Soepadmo

 

Fagaceae

Native

56

Lithocarpus pachyphyllus (Kurz) Rehder

 

Fagaceae

Native

57

Litsea lancifolia Roxb. ex Nees

 

Lauraceae

Native

58

Litsea monopetala (Roxb.) Pers.

 

Lauraceae

Native

59

Macaranga indica Wight

 

Euphorbiaceae

Native

60

Macropanax undulatus (Wall. ex G.Don) Seem.

 

Araliaceae

Native

61

Magnolia hodgsonii (Hook.f. & Thomson) H.Keng

 

Magnoliaceae

Native

62

Mallotus philippensis (Lam.) Müll.Arg.

 

Euphorbiaceae

Native

63

Mangifera sylvatica Roxb.

 

Anacardiaceae

Native

64

Memecylon celastrinum Kurz

 

Melastomataceae

Native

65

Mesua ferrea Linn.

 

Guttiferae

Native

66

Michelia champaca Linn.

 

Magnoliaceae

Native

67

Musa sylvestris LA Colla

 

Musaceae

Non-native

68

Neolamarckia cadamba (Roxb.) Bosser

 

Rubiaceae

Native

69

Olea dioica Roxb.

 

Oleaceae

Native

70

Olea salicifolia Wall. ex G.Don

 

Oleaceae

Native

71

Ostodes paniculata Blume

 

Euphorbiaceae

Native

72

Persea glaucescens Nees.

 

Lauraceae

Native

73

Persea villosa (Roxb.) Kosterm.

 

Lauraceae

Native

74

Phoebe lanceolata (Nees) Nees

 

Lauraceae

Native

75

Pithecellobium bigeminum (L.) Mart.

 

Mimosaceae

Native

76

Premna racemosa Wall. ex Schauer

 

Lamiaceae

Native

77

Prunus jenkinsii Hook.f. & Thomson

 

Rosaceae

Native

78

Pterospermum semisagittatum Buch.-Ham. ex Roxb.

 

Sterculiaceae

Native

79

Quercus glauca Thunb.in A.Murray

 

Fagaceae

Native

80

Quercus leucotrichophora A.Camus

 

Fagaceae

Native

81

Randia wallichii Hook.f.

 

Rubiaceae

Native

82

Rhus semialata Murray.

 

Anacardiaceae

Native

83

Rhus succedanea (L.) Kuntze

 

Anacardiaceae

Native

84

Sapium baccatum Roxb.

 

Euphorbiaceae

Native

85

Saraca asoca (Roxb.) Willd.

 

Fabaceae

Native

86

Schima wallichii (DC.) Korthals

 

Theaceae

Native

87

Securinega virosa (Roxb. ex Willd.) Baill.

 

Euphorbiaceae

Native

88

Stephegyne diversifolia (Wall. ex G.Don) Brandis

 

Rubiaceae

Non-native

89

Sterculia hamiltonii (Kuntze) Adelb.

 

Sterculiaceae

Native

90

Sterculia villosa Roxb.

 

Malvaceae

Native

91

Stereospermum colais Buch.-Ham. Ex Dillwyn

 

Bignoniaceae

Native

92

Styrax serrulatum (Roxb)

 

Styracaceae

Native

93

Syzygium claviflorum (Roxb.) Wall. ex A.M.Cowan & Cowan

 

Myrtaceae

Native

94

Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels

 

Myrtaceae

Native

95

Syzygium fruticosum DC.

 

Myrtaceae

Native

96

Trema orientalis (L.) Blume

 

Ulmaceae

Native

97

Ulmus lanceifolia Roxb.

 

Ulmaceae

Native

98

Vernonia arborea Buch.-Ham

Asteraceae

Native

99

Vernonia volkameriifolia Bedd

 

Compositae

Native

100

Vitex quinata (Lour.) F. N. Williams

 

Verbenaceae

Native

101

Wendlandia grandis (Hook.f.) Cowan

 

Rubiaceae

Native

102

Wightia speciosissima (D. Don) Merr

 

Scrophulariaceae

Native

103

Ziziphus incurva Roxb.

 

Rhamnaceae

Native

Shrub species

1

Amomum dealbatum Roxb.

 

Zingiberaceae

Native

2

Antidesma diandrum (Roxb.) B.Heyne ex Roth

Euphorbiaceae

Native

3

Blumea lanceolaria (Roxb.) Druce

 

Asteraceae

Native

4

Callicarpa dichotoma (Lour.) K. Koch

Lamiaceae

Non-native

5

Chromolaena odorata (L.) R.M.King & H.Rob.

 

Compositae

Non-native

6

Clerodendrum viscosum Vent.

 

Verbenaceae

Native

7

Disporum cantoniense (Lour.) Merr.

Liliaceae

Native

8

Elaeagnus pyriformis Hook.f

 

Elaeagnaceae

Native

9

Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.

 

Convolvulaceae

Non-native

10

Lasianthus hookeri C. B. Clarke ex J. D. Hooker

Rubiaceae

Native

11

Leea indica (Burm.f.) Merr

 

Vitaceae

Native

12

Lepisanthes senegalensis (Juss. ex Poir.) Leenh.

 

Sapindaceae

Native

13

Maesa indica (Roxb.) A. DC.

 

Primulaceae

Native

14

Mallotus albus (Roxb. ex Jack) Müll.Arg

Euphorbiaceae

Native

15

Melastoma nepalensis Lodd.

 

Melastomataceae

Native

16

Murraya koenigii (L.) Spreng.

 

Rutaceae

Native

17

Mycetia longifolia (Wall.) Kuntze

Rubiaceae

Native

18

Osbeckia chinensis L.

 

Melastomtaceae

Native

19

Osbeckia crinita Benth. ex Naudin

 

Melastomataceae

Native

20

Polygonum chinense L.

 

Polygonaceae

Native

21

Randia fasciculata (Roxb.) DC.

Rubiaceae

Native

22

Rauvolfia densiflora (Wall.) Benth. ex Hook. f.

Apocynaceae

Native

23

Rhamnus nepalensis M. Laws.

 

Rhamnaceae

Native

24

Rubus buergeri Miq

 

Rosaceae

Non-native

25

Strobilanthes cusia (Nees) Kuntze

 

Acanthaceae

Native

26

Strobilanthes discolor (Nees) T. Anderson

 

Acanthaceae

Native

27

Strobilanthes parryorum T. Anders.

 

Acanthaceae

Native

28

Symplocos lancifolia Siebold et Zucc.

Symplocaceae

Native

29

Tabernaemontana divaricata (L.) R. Br. ex Roem. & Schult.

 

Apocynaceae

Native

30

Toddalia asiatica L.

 

Rutaceae

Native

31

Viburnum foetidum Wall

 

Caprifoliaceae

Native

32

Woodfordia fruticosa (L.) Kurz

 

Lythraceae

Native

Herb species

1

Adiantum caudatum Linn

Adiantaceae

 

Native

2

Arisaema album N.E.Br.

Araceae

Native

3

Arisaema speciosum (Wall.) Mart.

 

Araceae

Native

4

Asparagus racemosus Willd.

Asparagaceae

Native

5

Begonia dioica Buch.-Ham. ex D.Don

 

Begoniaceae

Native

6

Blumea alata (D.Don) DC

 

Asteraceae

Native

7

Boenninghausenia albiflora Reichb.

 

Rutaceae

Native

8

Centella asiatica L.

 

Umbelliferae

Native

9

Cheilocostus lacerus (Gagnep.) C.D. Specht

Zingiberaceae

Native

10

Chlorophytum khasianum Hook.f

 

Liliaceae

Native

11

Commelina benghalensis Linn.

 

Commelinaceae

Native

12

Conyza stricta Willd.

 

Asteraceae

Native

13

Costus speciosus (J.König) Sm.

 

Zingiberaceae

Native

14

Curculigo crassifolia (Baker) Hook. f.

 

Hypoxidaceae

Native

15

Curcuma caesia Roxb. 'Ailaidum'

Zingiberaceae

Native

16

Dichrocephala integrifolia (L.f.) Kuntze

 

Asteraceae

Native

17

Diplazium dilatatum Blume

Polypodiaceae

 

Native

18

Diplazium maximum (D.Don) Chatt ‘Cha-kawk’

Polypodiaceae

 

Native

19

Elatostema dissectum Wedd.

Urticaceae

Native

20

Elatostema sesquifolium (Reinw. ex Blume) Hassk.

Urticaceae

Native

21

Gleichenia linearis (Burm.f.) C.B.Clarke 'Arthladawn'

Gleicheniaceae

Native

22

Gnaphalium luteoalbum Linn

Asteraceae

Native

23

Hedychium coccineum Buch.-Ham. ex Sm.

 

Zingiberaceae

Native

24

Hedychium villosum Wall.

 

Zingiberaceae

Native

25

Houttuynia cordata Thunb.

 

Saururaceae

Native

26

Impatiens laevigata Wall. ex Hook. f. & Thomson

Balsaminaceae

Native

27

Kalanchoe integra (Medik.) Kuntze. 'Kangdamdawi'

Crassulaceae

Native

28

Leucas mollissima Wall

 

Lamiaceae

Native

29

Lindernia ruellioides (Colsm.) Pennell 'Thasuih'

Linderniaceae

Native

30

Lycopodium cernuum Linn

Lycopodiaceae

Native

31

Lygodium flexuosum (Linn.) Swartz

Lycopodiaceae

Native

32

Microlepia rhomboidea (Wall.ex Kunze) Prantl, Arb.

Dennstaedtiaceae

Native

33

Mimosa pudica L. 'Hlonuar'

Mimosaceae

Non-native

34

Ophiorrhiza mungos L.

Rubiaceae

Native

35

Ophiorrhiza oppositiflora Hook.f.

 

Rubiaceae

Native

36

Persicaria hydropiper (L.) Opiz

 

Polygonaceae

Native

37

Phaius mishmensis (Lindl. & Paxton) Rchb.f.

Orchidaceae

Native

38

Plantago major Linn

 

Plantaginaceae

Non-native

39

Plectranthus coetsa Buch.-Ham. Ex D. Don

Lamiaceae

Native

40

Polygonatum oppositifolium (Wall.) Royle

 

Liliaceae

Native

41

Polygonum barbatum L. 'Dawngria'

Polygonaceae

Native

42

Pouzolzia bennettiana Wight

Urticaceae

Native

43

Pronephrium lakhimpurense (Rosenst.) Holtt.

Thelypteridaceae

Native

44

Pteridium aquilinum (Linn.) Kuhn.

Polypodiaceae

Non-native

45

Rhaphidophora decursiva (Roxb.) Schott

 

Araceae

Native

46

Scleria terrestris (L.) Fass

 

Cyperaceae

Native

47

Torenia violacea (Azaola ex Blanco) Pennell

 

Linderniaceae

Native

48

Urena lobata Linn

 

Malvaceae

Native

Climbers and lianas

1

Acacia oxyphylla Benth

 

Fabaceae

Native

2

Aganope thyrsiflora (Benth.) Polhill

 

Fabaceae

Native

3

Bauhinia scandens L.

 

Fabaceae

Native

4

Caesalpinia cucullata Roxb.

 

Fabaceae

Native

5

Cissampelos pareira L.

 

Menispermaceae

Native

6

Cissus javana DC

 

Vitaceae

Native

7

Clematis siamensis Drumm. et Craib

 

Ranunculaceae

Native

8

Dioscorea glabra Roxb.

 

Dioscoreaceae

Native

9

Entada rheedei Spreng. Subsp. Rheedei

 

Mimosaceae

Native

10

Ipomoea hederifolia L.

 

Convolvulaceae

Non-native

11

Marsdenia formosana Masam.

 

Apocynaceae

Non-native

12

Mikania micrantha Kunth

 

Asteraceae

Non-native

13

Millettia pachycarpa Benth.

 

Papilionaceae

Native

14

Mucuna gigantea (Willd.) DC.

 

Fabaceae

Native

15

Passiflora edulis Sims

 

Passifloraceae

Non-native

16

Passiflora nepalensis Wallich

 

Passifloraceae

Native

17

Paederia foetida L.

Rubiaceae

Native

18

Piper betle L

 

Piperaceae

Non-native

19

Shuteria vestita var. glabrata (Wight & Arn.) Baker

Fabaceae

Native

20

Smilax glabra Roxb.

 

Liliaceae

Native

21

Smilax lanceifolia Roxb.

 

Liliaceae

Native

22

Tetrastigma dubium (M. A. Lawson) Planch

Vitaceae

Native

23

Tetrastigma leucostaphylum (Dennst.) N.P. Balakr.

 

Vitaceae

Native

24

Trichosanthes quinquangulata A. Gray

 

Cucurbitaceae

Non-native

25

Uncaria sessilifructus Roxb.

 

Rubiaceae

Native

Grasses

1

Bambusa khasiana Munro

 

Poaceae

Native

2

Bambusa tulda Roxb

Poaceae

Native

3

Cephalostachyum latifolium Munro

 

Poaceae

Native

4

Dendrocalamus hamiltonii Nees & Arn. ex Munro

 

Poaceae

Native

5

Dendrocalamus longispathus  (Kurz) Kurz

Poaceae

Native

6

Dendrocalamus sikkimensis Gamble ex Oliv.

 

Poaceae

Native

7

Dinochloa compactiflora Kurz. Mc Clure

 

Poaceae

Native

8

Drepanostachyum intermedium (Munro) Keng f.

 

Poaceae

Native

9

Erianthus longisetosus Anderss. ex Benth

 

Poaceae

Native

10

Eulalia trispicata (Schult.) Henrard

 

Poaceae

Native

11

Imperata cylindrica (L.) Raeusch

 

Poaceae

Non-native

12

Melocanna baccifera (Roxb.) Kurz

 

Poaceae

Native

13

Pseudostachyum polymorphum Munro

 

Poaceae

Native

14

Schizostachyum dulloa (Gamble) Majumdar 'Rawthla'

Poaceae

Native

15

Setaria glauca (L.) P. Beauv

Poaceae

Non-native

16

Themeda villosa (Poir.) A. Camus

 

Poaceae

Native

17

Thysanolaena maxima (Roxb.) Kuntze

Poaceae

Native

Epiphytes

 

1

Aerides odorata Lour.

Orchidaceae

Native

2

Aeschynanthus maculatus Lindl.

 

Gesneriaceae

Native

3

Bulbophyllum elatum (Hook.f.) Sm

Orchidaceae

Native

4

Bulbophyllum khasianum Griff

Orchidaceae

Native

5

Bulbophyllum umbellatum Lindl

Orchidaceae

Native

6

Cleisostoma filiforme (Lindl.) Garay

Orchidaceae

Native

7

Cleisostoma racemiferum (Lindl.) Garay

Orchidaceae

Native

8

Coelogyne prolifera Lindl.

Orchidaceae

Native

9

Dendrobium chrysanthum Lindl.

Orchidaceae

Native

10

Dendrobium chrysotoxum Lindl.

Orchidaceae

Native

11

Dendrobium densiflorum Lindl.

Orchidaceae

Native

12

Dendrobium formosum Lindl

Orchidaceae

Native

13

Dendrobium ochreatum Lindl.

Orchidaceae

Native

14

Dendrobium parishii Reichb.f.

Orchidaceae

Native

15

Dendrobium transparens Wall. ex Lindl

Orchidaceae

Native

16

Drynaria coronans (Wall. ex Mett.) J. Sm. ex T

Polypodiaceae

Native

17

Eria paniculata Lindl

Orchidaceae

Native

18

Eria pannea Lindl.

Orchidaceae

Native

19

Mycaranthes stricta Lindk.

Orchidaceae

Native

20

Oberonia iridifolia (Roxb.) Lindl

Orchidaceae

Native

21

Papilionanthe vandarum (Rchb.f.)Garay

Orchidaceae

Native

22

Pholidota imbricata Hook

Orchidaceae

Native

23

Premna coriacea C.B.Clarke

Verbenaceae

Native

24

Rhynchostylis retusa (Lindl.) Bl.

Orchidaceae

Native

25

Vanda coerulea Griff. ex Lindl.

Orchidaceae

Native

Canes and Palms

1

Arenga pinnata  (Wurmb) Merr.

 

Arecaceae

Native

2

Borassus madagascariensis Bojer ex Jum. & H.Perrier

 

Arecaceae

Non-native

3

Calamus inermis Griff.

 

Arecaceae

Native

4

Calamus khasianus Kurz

 

Arecaceae

Native

5

Calamus erectus Roxb.

 

Arecaceae

Native

6

Calamus flagellum Griff. ex Mart

 

Arecaceae

Native

7

Calamus guruba  Buch.-Ham. ex Mart.

 

Arecaceae

Native

8

Calamus acanthospathus Roxb.

 

Arecaceae

Native

9

Caryota mitis  Lour. ‘Mei-hle’

Arecaceae

Native

10

Caryota urens L.

 

Arecaceae

Non-native

11

Livistona chinensis (Jacq.) R.Br. ex Mart

 

Arecaceae

Non-native

12

Pandanus odorifer (Forssk.) Kuntze

 

Pandanaceae

Native

13

Pinanga gracilis Blume

 

Arecaceae

Native

14

Wallichia nana Griff.

 

Arecaceae

Native

15

Zalacca secunda Griff

 

Arecaceae

Native

 

 

For figure - - click here

 

 

References

 

Andam, K.S., P.J. Ferraro, A. Pfaff, G.A. Sanchez-Azofeifa & J.A. Robalino (2008). Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105(42): 16089–16094. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0800437105

Bajracharya, S., P. Furley & A. Newton (2005). Effectiveness of community involvement in delivering conservation benefits to the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Environmental Conservation 32: 239–247. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892905002298

Bray, D.B., E. Duran, V.H. Romas, J.F. Mas, A. Velazquez, R. McNab, B.D.Barry & J. Radachowsky (2008). Tropical deforestation, community forests, and protected areas in the Maya Forest. Ecology and Society 13(2): 56. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02593-130256

Brockington, D. (2007). Forests, Community Conservation, and Local Government Performance: The Village Forest Reserves of Tanzania. Society & Natural Resources 20(9): 835–848. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920701460366

Cain, S.A. & G.M. Castro (1959). Manual of Vegetation Analysis. Harper and Brothers, New York. 325pp

Clark, D.B. & D.A. Clark (1990). Distribution and effects on tree growth of lianas and woody hemiepiphytes in a Costa Rican tropical wet forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 4: 321–333.

Domboise, D.M. & H. Ellenberg (1974). Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. John Wiley & Sons Inc, Canada, 547pp.

FSI (2019). India State of the Forest Report. Forest Survey of India, Dehradun, 185pp

FSI (2021). India State of the Forest Report. Forest Survey of India, Dehradun, 586pp.

Garcia, C.A. & J.P. Pascal (2005). Sacred forests of Kodagu: ecological value and social role, pp. 199–232. In: Cederlof, G. & K. Sivaramakrishnan (eds.). Ecological Nationalisms: Nature, Livelihoods and Identities in South Asia. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Givnish, T.J. (1999). On the causes of gradients in tropical tree diversity. Journal of Ecology 87: 193–210.

Hayes, T.M. (2006). Parks, People, and Forest Protection: An Institutional Assessment of the effectiveness of Protected Areas. World Development 34: 2064–2075 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.03.002

Hegarty, E.E. & G. Caballe (1991) Distribution and abundance of vines in forest communities. In: Putz F.E. & H.A. Mooney (eds.). The Biology of Vines. Cambridge University Press, New York.

IUCN (2009). Numbers of threatened species by major groups of organisms (1996–2008) http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/2008

Jamir, S.A. & H.N. Pandey (2003). Vascular plant diversity in the sacred groves of Jaintia Hills in northeast India. Biodiversity and Conservation 12: 1497–1510 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023682228549

Kanjilal, U.N.,P.C. Kanjilal, A. Das , C. Purkayastha, R. N. De & N.L. Bor (eds.)(1940). Flora of Assam. Vols. 1–5. Prabasi Press, Calcutta. pp.259, pp.207, pp.415, pp.593, pp.395 & pp.486

Kothari, A. (2006). Community conserved areas: towards ecological and livelihood security. Parks 16: 3–13.

Lallawmkimi (2011). Studies on floristic diversity in Tawi wildlife sanctuary in Aizawl district of Mizoram. PhD Thesis. Department of Environmental Science, Mizoram University, 244 pp. http://hdl.handle.net/10603/120358

Lalramnghinglova (2003). Ethno-Medicinal Plants of Mizoram. Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehra Dun, 332pp.

Lambin E.F., H. Geist & R.R. Rindfuss (2006). Introduction: Local Processes with Global Impacts. In: Lambin E.F. & H. Geist (eds.). Land-Use and Land-Cover Change. Global Change - The IGBP Series. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-32202-7_1

Malsawmsanga, A. (2011). Studies on Plant diversity of Phawngpui national park in Lawngtlai District of Mizoram. PhD Thesis. Department of Environmental Science, Mizoram University, 221 pp. http://hdl.handle.net/10603/234321

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Policy Responses. Island Press, Washington, DC, 621pp.

Misra, R. (1968). Ecology Work Book. Oxford Publishing Company, Calcutta, 242pp.

Naidu, M.T., O.A. Kumar & M. Venkaiah (2015). Vascular plant diversity in the sacred grove of Modapalli in Viskhapatnam District of Andhra Pradesh, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 7(10): 7683–7690. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3550.7683-90

Nath, P.C., A. Arunachalam, M.L. Khan, K. Arunachalam & A.R. Barbhuiya (2005). Vegetation analysis and tree population structure of tropical wet evergreen forests in and around Namdapha National Park, Northeast India. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 2109–2136 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-4361-1

Naughton-Treves, L., M. Holland & K. Brandon (2005). The role of protected areas in conserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30: 219–252. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.164507

Nayar, P.H. & A.R.K. Sastry (eds) (1987–1990). Red Data Book of Indian Plants Vol. 1–3. Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta, India.

Nepstad, D., S. Schwartzman, B. Bamberger, M. Santilli, D. Ray, P. Schlesinger, P. Lefebvre, A. Alencar, E. Prinz, G. Fiske & A. Rolla (2006). Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous lands. Conservation Biology 20(1): 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00351.x

Oliveira, P.J., G.P. Asner, D.E. Knapp, A. Almeyda, R. Galván-Gildemeister, S. Keene, R.F. Raybin & R.C. Smith (2007). Land-use allocation protects the Peruvian Amazon. Science 317(5842): 1233–1236. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1146324

Porter-Bolland, L., E.A. Ellis, M.R. Guariguata, I. Ruiz-Mallén, S. Negrete-Yankelevich & V. Reyes-García (2012). Community managed forests and forest protected areas: An assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. Forest Ecology and Management 268: 6–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.05.034

Rao, K.C., B.L.Geetha, & S. Geetha (2003). Red List of Threatened Vascular Plant Species in India. Botanical Survey of India, Howrah, 43pp.

Raunkiaer, C. (1934). The Life Forms of Plants and Statistical Plant Geography.  Clarendon Press, Oxford, England, 632 pp.

Richards, P.W. (1952).The tropical rain forest. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 450 pp.

Richards, P.W. (1996). The Tropical Rain Forest – An Ecological Study. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 600 pp.

Sawmliana, M. (2003). The Book of Mizoram Plants. Lois bet, Aizawl, Mizoram, 285 pp.

Shackleton, C. (2000). Comparison of plant diversity in protected and communal lands in the Bushbuckridge lowveld savanna, South Africa. Biological Conservation 94: 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00001-X

Shahabuddin, G. & M. Rao (2010). Do community-conserved areas effectively conserve biological diversity? Global insights and the Indian context. Biological Conservation 143: 2926–2936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.040

Shannon, C.E. & W. Weaver (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois, 125 pp.

Shimwell, D.W. (1971). The Description and Classification of Vegetation. Sedgwick and Jackson, London, 322 pp.

Singh, D.K., G.P. Sinha, K.P. Singh (2002). Flora of Mizoram, Volume 1.  Botanical Survey of India, Kolkata, 845 pp.

Tiwari, B.K., H. Tynsong, M.M. Lynrah, E. Lapasam, S. Deb & D. Sharma (2013). Institutional arrangement and typology of community forests of Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland of North-East India. Journal of Forestry Research 24: 179–186.

Webb, L.J. (1959). A physiognomic classification of Australian rainforests. Journal of Ecology 47: 551–570.

Whitmore, T.C .(1990).  An Introduction to Tropical Rain Forests. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 296 pp.

Wilshusen, P.R., S. Brechin, C.L. Fortwangler & P. West (2002). Reinventing a Square Wheel: Critique of a Resurgent “Protection Paradigm” in International Biodiversity Conservation. Society & Natural Resources 15: 17–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/089419202317174002