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 |
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