Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Geographic Distribution Pattern of Threatened Plants of India and Steps Taken for their Conservation


Affiliations
1 Department of Botany, North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong 793 022, India
2 Department of Biotechnology, Government of India, New Delhi 110 003, India
 

In spite of its importance in nation-wide conservation planning, comprehensive information on geographic distribution of threatened plants in India is lacking. Even the threat status of these plants is ambiguous and the country’s effort to conserve them is not widely known. A critical analysis of these aspects is essential for identifying gaps in threatened plant conservation. Keeping these in view, we present a review of the existing knowledge on geographic distribution pattern of threatened plants of India, their threat status, and conservation action undertaken to recover these species. Using the available data, we unravel patterns of distribution of these threatened plants in different states of India. When ranking of the families was done based on the total number of species under different threat categories, Orchidaceae (644), Fabaceae (185), Poaceae (164), Rubiaceae (103), Asteraceae (88), Euphorbiaceae (72), Asclepiadaceae (62) and Acanthaceae (60) constituted more than half of the total threatened plant species of India. A review on conservation efforts so far undertaken in different parts of the country revealed that the biodiversity-rich phytogeographic regions such as the Himalayas, North East India, and Andaman and Nicobar Islands had lesser conservation efforts in comparison to the Western Ghats, Vindhyas and Peninsular regions of India. The skewed distribution of threatened plants in different states did not truly reflect their absolute presence or absence; rather it is the result of incomplete survey because of the difficult geomorphological and associated geo-climatic conditions, tough terrain and remote locations. In addition, the current data on threatened plants suffer from methodological shortcomings such as classification without using the population data that are so crucial in modern day threat classification, and lack of long-term observational data. The review emphasizes the use of modern tools such as ecological niche modelling for population inventory, area of occupancy and extent of occurrence, and trends in population size and regeneration for precise threat classification conforming to globally accepted methods (e.g. IUCN version 3.1). The works undertaken through the support of Department of Biotechnology, GoI for conservation of 156 threatened plant species under different disciplines of conservation biology during the past three decades have also been compiled and reviewed. A successfully tested protocol following an integrated approach for threatened species conservation is recommended for future conservation action.

Keywords

Conservation Strategy, Geographic Distribution Pattern, Threatened Plants.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Franklin, J., Mapping Species Distributions: Spatial Inference and Prediction, Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 1–318.

  • Woodruff, D. S., Biogeography and conservation in Southeast Asia: how 2.7 million years of repeated environmental fluctuations affect today’s patterns and the future of the remaining refugialphase biodiversity. Biodiver. Conserv., 2010, 19(4), 919–941.

  • Pianka, E. R., Latitudinal gradients in species diversity: a review of concepts. Am. Nat., 1966, 100(910), 33–46.

  • McKinney, M. L., Effects of national conservation spending and amount of protected area on species threat rates. Conserv. Biol., 2002, 16(2), 539–543.

  • Singh, P. and Dash, S. S., Plant Discoveries 2013 – New Genera, Species and New Records, Botanical Survey of India, Kolkata, 2014.

  • Forests MoEF, GoI, India’s Fourth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, 2009; www.moef.nic.in/sites/default/files/India_Fourth_National_Report-FINAL_2.pdf

  • Ravindranath, N. H., Joshi, N. V., Sukumar, R. and Saxena, A., Impact of climate change on forests in India. Curr. Sci., 2006, 90(3), 354–361.

  • Chitale, V. S., Behera, M. D. and Roy, P. S., Future of endemic flora of biodiversity hotspots in India. PLoS ONE, 2014, 9(12), e115264.

  • Adhikari, D., Tiwary, R. and Barik, S. K., Modelling hotspots for invasive alien plants in India. PLoS ONE, 2015, 10(7), e0134665.

  • Roy, P. S. et al., Development of decadal (1985–1995–2005) land use and land cover database for India. Remote Sensing, 2015, 7(3), 2401–2430.

  • Reaka-Kudla, M. L., Wilson, D. E. and Wilson, E. O. (eds), Biodiversity II: Understanding and Protecting our Biological Resources, Joseph Henry Press, Washington, DC, 1996; https://doi.org/10.17226/4901.

  • IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland, UK, 2012, 2nd edn, pp. iv + 32.

  • Jain, S. K. and Rao, R. R. (eds), An Assessment of Threatened Plants of India, Botanical Survey of India, Howrah, 1983, pp. 1–334.

  • Nayar, M. P. and Sastry, A. R. K. (eds), Red Data Book of Indian Plants, Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta, 1987–1990, vols 3.

  • Rao, C. K., Geetha, B. L. and Suresh, G., Red List of Threatened Vascular Plant Species in India, Botanical Survey of India, Howrah, 2003, pp. ix–144.

  • Arisdason, W. and Lakshminarasimhan, P., Status of plant diversity in India: an overview, MoEF, GoI, 2016; http://www.bsienvis.nic.in/Database/Status_of_Plant_Diversity_in_India_17566.aspx/ (accessed on 28 February 2016).

  • Hooker, J. D., The Flora of British India, Reeve and Col., London, 1872–1897, vols 1–7.

  • Kanjilal, U. N., Das, A., Kanjilal, P. C. and De, R. N., Flora of Assam, Government of Assam, Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehra Dun, 1939, vol. 3.

  • Kanjilal, U. N., Kanjilal, P. C. and Das, A., Flora of Assam, Government of Assam, Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehra Dun, 1938, vol. 2.

  • Kanjilal, U. N., Kanjilal, P. C., Das, A. and Purkayastha, C., Flora of Assam, Government of Assam, Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehra Dun, 1935, vol. 1.

  • Kanjilal, U. N., Kanjilal, P. C., De, R. N. and Das, A., Flora of Assam, Government of Assam, Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehra Dun, 1940, vol. 4.

  • Bor, N. L., Flora of Assam, Government of Assam, Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehra Dun, 1940, vol. 5.

  • Hajra, P. K., Verma, D. M. and Giri, G. S., Materials for the Flora of Arunachal Pradesh, Botanical Survey of India, 1996, vol. 1.

  • Giri, G. S., Pramanik, A. and Chowdhery, H. J., Materials for the Flora of Arunachal Pradesh, Botanical Survey of India, Kolkata, 2008, vol. 2.

  • Chowdhery, H. J., Giri, G. S. and Pramanik, A., Materials for the Flora of Arunachal Pradesh, Botanical Survey of India, Kolkata, 2009, vol. 3.

  • Molur, S. et al. (eds), Conservation Assessment and Management Plan (CAMP) for Selected Species of Medicinal Plants of Southern India, Zoo Outreach Organisatlon/CBSG, Bangalore, 23–25 February 1995.

  • Molur, S. and Walker, S., Conservation Assessment and Management Plan (CAMP II) for Selected Species of Medicinal Plants of southern India, Zoo Outreach Organisatlon/ CBSG, Coimbatore, 12–14 February 1996.

  • Molur, S. and Walker, S. (eds), Conservation Assessment and Management Plan for Selected Species of Medicinal Plants of Northern, Northeastern and Central India, Lucknow, 21–25 January 1997, Zoo Outreach Organisation, Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Coimbatore, 1998, pp. iv + 64.

  • Ved, D. K. and Tandon, V. (eds), Conservation Assessment and Management Plan Workshop for High Altitude Medicinal Plants of Jammu-Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh, FRLHT, Bangalore, 1998, p. 75.

  • Kumar, C. S. et al. (eds), Conservation Assessment and Management Plan Workshop for Endemic Orchids of the Western Ghats, Wildlife Information Liaison Development Society Zoo and Outreach Organisation, 2001.

  • Molur, S., Priya, A. R. B. and Walker, S., Report of the Conservation Assessment and Management Plan Workshop for Non-timber Forest Products of Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal, 2001.

  • Ved, D. K. et al. (eds), Conservation Assessment and Management Prioritization for the Medicinal Plants of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya and Sikkim, Lotus Enterprises, Bangalore, 2003.

  • Ved, D. K., Kinhal, G. A., Ravikumar, K., Sankar, R. V. and Haridasan, K., Conservation Assessment and Management Prioritisation (CAMP) for wild medicinal plants of North-East India. Med. Plant Conserv., 2005, 11, 40–44.

  • Goraya, G. S., Jishtu, V., Rawat, G. S. and Ved, D. K., Wild medicinal plants of Himachal Pradesh: an assessment of their conservation status and management prioritisation, Himachal Pradesh Forest Department, Shimla, 2013.

  • The IUCN RED List of Threatened Species; www.iucnredlist.org

  • CITES, Checklist of CITES species, 2016; http://checklist.cites.org/#/en/ (accessed on 14 February 2016).

  • ENVIS Centre on Medicinal Plants – FRLHT; http://envis.frlht.org/ (accessed on 6 August 2015).

  • National Biodiversity Authority; http://nbaindia.org/content/18/21/1/notifications.html

  • Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, GoI; www.moef.nic.in

  • The Plant List, version 1.1. 2013; http://www.theplantlist.org/ (accessed on 1 January 2015).

  • eFlora of the Botanical Survey of India; http://efloraindia.nic.in/efloraindia/homePage.action

  • Encyclopedia of Life; http://eol.org

  • WCSP, World Checklist of Selected Plant Families. Facilitated by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, 2014; http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/ (retrieved 2011 onwards).

  • Flowers of India; http://www.flowersofindia.net

  • India Biodiversity Portal; http://indiabiodiversity.org/species/

  • WWF, Hidden Himalayas: Asia’s Wonderlands – New Species Discoveries in the Eastern Himalayas, Volume-II 2009–2014, World Wide Fund for Nature, India, 2015.

  • Neigel, J. E., Species–area relationships and marine conservation. Ecol. Appl., 2003, 13(1), 138–145.


Abstract Views: 341

PDF Views: 77




  • Geographic Distribution Pattern of Threatened Plants of India and Steps Taken for their Conservation

Abstract Views: 341  |  PDF Views: 77

Authors

S. K. Barik
Department of Botany, North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong 793 022, India
O. N. Tiwari
Department of Biotechnology, Government of India, New Delhi 110 003, India
D. Adhikari
Department of Botany, North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong 793 022, India
P. P. Singh
Department of Botany, North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong 793 022, India
R. Tiwary
Department of Botany, North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong 793 022, India
S. Barua
Department of Botany, North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong 793 022, India

Abstract


In spite of its importance in nation-wide conservation planning, comprehensive information on geographic distribution of threatened plants in India is lacking. Even the threat status of these plants is ambiguous and the country’s effort to conserve them is not widely known. A critical analysis of these aspects is essential for identifying gaps in threatened plant conservation. Keeping these in view, we present a review of the existing knowledge on geographic distribution pattern of threatened plants of India, their threat status, and conservation action undertaken to recover these species. Using the available data, we unravel patterns of distribution of these threatened plants in different states of India. When ranking of the families was done based on the total number of species under different threat categories, Orchidaceae (644), Fabaceae (185), Poaceae (164), Rubiaceae (103), Asteraceae (88), Euphorbiaceae (72), Asclepiadaceae (62) and Acanthaceae (60) constituted more than half of the total threatened plant species of India. A review on conservation efforts so far undertaken in different parts of the country revealed that the biodiversity-rich phytogeographic regions such as the Himalayas, North East India, and Andaman and Nicobar Islands had lesser conservation efforts in comparison to the Western Ghats, Vindhyas and Peninsular regions of India. The skewed distribution of threatened plants in different states did not truly reflect their absolute presence or absence; rather it is the result of incomplete survey because of the difficult geomorphological and associated geo-climatic conditions, tough terrain and remote locations. In addition, the current data on threatened plants suffer from methodological shortcomings such as classification without using the population data that are so crucial in modern day threat classification, and lack of long-term observational data. The review emphasizes the use of modern tools such as ecological niche modelling for population inventory, area of occupancy and extent of occurrence, and trends in population size and regeneration for precise threat classification conforming to globally accepted methods (e.g. IUCN version 3.1). The works undertaken through the support of Department of Biotechnology, GoI for conservation of 156 threatened plant species under different disciplines of conservation biology during the past three decades have also been compiled and reviewed. A successfully tested protocol following an integrated approach for threatened species conservation is recommended for future conservation action.

Keywords


Conservation Strategy, Geographic Distribution Pattern, Threatened Plants.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv114%2Fi03%2F470-503