an assessment of floristic diversity of daroji sloth bear sanctuary, hospet, bellary district,...

Jou

rn

al of R

esearch

in

Biology

An assessment of Floristic Diversity of Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary,

Hospet, Bellary District, Karnataka, India

Keywords: Melursus ursinus, Flora, Cassia fistula, Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary, Deccan plateau.

ABSTRACT:

The plant resources of Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary of Bellary district was studied and analyzed to decipher the information on the diversity, which revealed a total of 98 species of plants belonging to 85 genera and 37 families. The data collected was analyzed to determine important value index (IVI), Shannon Weiner’s Index, Indices of species richness (R) and evenness (e). The objective of this work is to help foresters and ecologists by giving an account of floral status of the study area. The biodiversity of this area is threatened by cattle (livestock) grazing, water scarcity, mining and related problems. Hence, it is suggested to adopt strict control measures to protect and maintain the biodiversity in the Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary, which will help to sustain the wild herbivore at sanctuary.

828-839 | JRB | 2013 | Vol 3 | No 2

This article is governed by the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which gives permission for unrestricted use, non-commercial, distribution and reproduction in all medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

www.jresearchbiology.com

Journal of Research in Biology

An International Scientific

Research Journal

Authors:

Harisha MN and

Hosetti BB* .

Institution:

1. Department of Post

Graduate studies and

research in Wildlife

Management, Kuvempu

University, Jnana Sahyadri,

Shankaraghatta- 577451,

Shimoga, Karnataka.

*Department of Post

Graduate studies and

research in Applied Zoology,

Kuvempu University, Jnana

Sahyadri, Shankaraghatta-

577451, Shimoga,

Karnataka.

Corresponding author:

Hosetti BB.

Email:

[email protected]

Web Address: http://jresearchbiology.com/

documents/RA0330.pdf.

Dates: Received: 02 Feb 2013 Accepted: 09 Feb 2013 Published: 02 Apr 2013

Article Citation: Harisha MN and Hosetti BB. An assessment of Floristic Diversity of Daroji Sloth bear Sanctuary, Hospet, Bellary District, Karnataka, India. Journal of Research in Biology (2013)3(2): 828-839

Journal of Research in Biology An International Scientific Research Journal

Original Research

INTRODUCTION

The forest types in India ranged from thorny

scrubby jungle to moist evergreen forest along with

moist grasslands and characteristic shola vegetation. In

each of different types of forest, very diverse plants and

faunal species are found growing naturally. Identification

of species and their diversity is a mammoth task and is

virtually impossible to have a complete inventory of

Indian biodiversity (Harisha et al., 2008). Due to

geographical variation, deccan plateau region of India

possess great diversity in agricultural as well as wild

floral and faunal diversity (Khan, 2011). The Deccan

plateau region of Bellary in particular is highly over

exploited by several anthropogenic activities, including

different types of mining. The study site is naturally

spread with hillocks, boulders, undulated terrain with

sloppy lands covered with natural jungle scrub with

native herbs, shrubs, climbers and tree species. The main

aim of sanctuary is to conserve and maintain the

rich flora and fauna with reference to sloth bear,

Melursus ursinus and its food web present in Deccan

plateau region of Bellary.

Since the Deccan plateau region is rich in

biodiversity, highly exploited for the natural resources

resulting in threat to diversity and gene pool, nearly

600 tree species found in this region are facing threat of

extinction (Khan, 2011). Studies of plant and avifaunal

diversity can be used to interpret the well being of forest

ecosystem and also as an indicator of disturbance if any

in the system. Long term management plan of forest

ecosystem should incorporate the diversification of

vegetation by using diversity indices. In order to

understand the importance of a site it is necessary to

examine the significance in terms of the presence and

abundance of species (Bruford, 2002). The present study

attempts to understand the impact of changes in the

forest cover of Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary due to

human activities.

STUDY AREA

The unique Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary, Hospet,

in Bellary district is the only sanctuary located in North

Karnataka, situated between 15o 14' to 15o 17' N latitude

and 76o 31' to 76o 40' E longitude. It belongs to Deccan

Plateau scrub jungle with granite boulder outcrops.

Renowned world heritage centre - Hampi is situated only

15 kilometers away from this sanctuary. The

Government of Karnataka, in October 1994, declared

5,587.30 hectares of Bilikallu reserve forest as Daroji

Bear Sanctuary. Since it has a suitable habitat for the

Indian Sloth Bears due to the rock-strewn hillocks, and

characterized by vast stretches of undulating plains with

intermittent parallel chains of hills. The sanctuary lies at

an elevation of 647 m above mean sea level. The area

experienced high temperature with a maximum 43°C

during January to May.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Field data were collected in different seasons

during January 2009- December 2011 in the study area

stretching up to 4 km radius. The area is a long narrow

strip of hills with sandy and clay loams with rocky

mountain. The vegetation was analyzed by means of

10×10 m quadrates by random sampling to give most

representative composition of forestlands. Plant species

collected in each quadrates were identified by consulting

the Flora of Madras Presidency (Gamble, 1935).

DATA ANALYSIS

The data was analyzed for measuring the

Important Value Index (IVI), Shannon-Weiner Index

(H), Species richness Index (R), Species Evenness Index

(E) and the Index of Dominance (ID). The values of

relative density, relative frequency and relative

abundance were calculated following the methods of

Shukla and Chandel (1980). The Shannon-Wiener Index

was calculated according to Michael (1990) as follows.

Shannon Weiner’s Index

(H') = ∑Pi ln Pi

Harisha and Hosetti,2013

829 Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 828-839


Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 828-839 830

Sl.

No

S

cien

tifi

c N

am

es

Fam

ily

N

T

O

TT

D

F

A

R

D

RF

IV

I

1

Barl

eria

sp.

Aca

nth

acea

e 2

2

12

0.1

7

0.1

7

442.0

0.2

3

2.7

8

3.0

0

2

Lep

idagath

is c

usp

idata

A

canth

acea

e -

- -

- -

- -

- -

3

Ala

ngiu

m s

alv

iifo

lium

(L

. f.

) W

ang

erin

, *

A

lang

iacea

e -

- -

- -

- -

- -

4

Am

ara

nth

us

viri

dis

L.*

A

mar

anth

acea

e 1

1

12

0.0

8

0.0

8

884.0

0.1

1

1.3

9

1.5

0

5

Ach

yranth

es a

spera

L.

*

Am

aranth

acea

e 11

4

12

0.9

2

0.3

3

221.0

1.2

4

5.5

6

6.8

0

6

Aer

va l

anata

(L

.) J

uss

. ex

Sch

ult

. *

Am

aranth

acea

e 37

6

12

3.0

8

0.5

0

147.3

4.1

9

8.3

3

12.5

2

7

Pup

ali

a l

appace

a (

L.)

Juss

. A

mar

anth

acea

e -

- -

- -

- -

- -

8

Ari

stolo

chia

indic

a L

. *

Ari

sto

loch

iacea

e

2

2

12

0.1

7

0.1

7

442.0

0.2

3

2.7

8

3.0

0

9

Calo

tropis

gig

ante

a (

L.)

W. T

. A

ito

n *

A

scle

pia

dac

eae

2

2

12

0.1

7

0.1

7

442.0

0.2

3

2.7

8

3.0

0

10

Cari

ssa c

ara

ndas

L.

*

Apo

cynace

ae

9

3

12

0.7

5

0.2

5

294.7

1.0

2

4.1

7

5.1

8

11

Hem

ides

mu

s in

dic

us

(L.)

W.

T.

Ait

on *

A

po

cynace

ae

6

2

12

0.5

0

0.1

7

442.0

0.6

8

2.7

8

3.4

6

12

Wri

ghti

a t

inct

ori

a (

Ro

xb.)

R.

Br.

*

Apo

cynace

ae

8

3

12

0.6

7

0.2

5

294.7

0.9

0

4.1

7

5.0

7

13

Cry

pto

lepis

buch

ananii

Ro

em

. &

Sch

ult

. *

A

scle

pia

dac

eae

- -

- -

- -

- -

-

14

Per

gula

ria d

aem

ia (

Fo

rsk.)

Chio

v.

*

Asc

lep

iadac

eae

2

2

12

0.1

7

0.1

7

442.0

0.2

3

2.7

8

3.0

0

15

Lep

taden

ia r

etic

ula

ta (

Ret

z.)

Wig

ht

& A

rn.

M

Asc

lep

iadac

eae

3

1

12

0.2

5

0.0

8

884.0

0.3

4

1.3

9

1.7

3

16

Tyl

ophora

indic

a (

Burm

. f.

) M

err.

*

Asc

lep

iadac

eae

1

1

12

0.0

8

0.0

8

884.0

0.1

1

1.3

9

1.5

0

17

Asp

ara

gus

race

mo

sus

Wil

ld.

*

Lil

iace

ae

- -

- -

- -

- -

-

18

Ager

atu

m c

onyz

oid

es L

. *

Ast

erac

eae

4

1

12

0.3

3

0.0

8

884.0

0.4

5

1.3

9

1.8

4

19

Part

hen

ium

hys

tero

phoru

s L

. A

ster

acea

e 16

1

12

1.3

3

0.0

8

884.0

1.8

1

1.3

9

3.2

0

20

Tri

dax

pro

cum

ben

s L

. *

Ast

erac

eae

4

3

12

0.3

3

0.2

5

294.7

0.4

5

4.1

7

4.6

2

21

Cya

nth

illi

um

cin

ereu

m (

L.)

H. R

ob.

*

Ast

erac

eae

32

10

12

2.6

7

0.8

3

88.4

3.6

2

13.8

9

17.5

1

22

Cappari

s div

ari

cata

Lam

. C

appar

acea

e -

- -

- -

- -

- -

23

Cappari

s horr

id

Cap

par

acea

e -

- -

- -

- -

- -

24

Cappari

s ze

ylanic

a L

. *

Cap

par

acea

e 6

3

12

0.5

0

0.2

5

294.7

0.6

8

4.1

7

4.8

5

25

Opu

nti

a s

tric

ta (

Haw

.) H

aw.

Cac

tace

ae

1

1

12

0.0

8

0.0

8

884.0

0.1

1

1.3

9

1.5

0

26

Gym

nosp

ori

a m

onta

na

(R

oth

) B

em

th.

Cela

stra

ceae

1

1

12

0.0

8

0.0

8

884.0

0.1

1

1.3

9

1.5

0

27

Cass

ia t

ora

L.

*

Fabac

eae

5

1

12

0.4

2

0.0

8

884.0

0.5

7

1.3

9

1.9

5

28

Cass

ia a

bsu

s L

. F

abac

eae

- -

- -

- -

- -

-

Tab

le.1

. S

pec

ies

com

posi

tion

an

d I

mp

ort

an

ce V

alu

e in

Daro

ji S

loth

bea

r S

an

ctu

ary

.



29

Anogei

ssus

lati

foli

a (

Ro

xb.

ex D

C.)

Wall

. ex

Gu

ill.

& P

err.

Co

mbre

tace

ae

- -

- -

- -

- -

-

30

Com

mel

ina b

enghale

nsi

s L

. C

om

meli

nac

eae

10

3

12

0.8

3

0.2

5

294.7

1.1

3

4.1

7

5.3

0

31

Cya

noti

s tu

ber

osa

(R

oxb.)

Sch

ult

. &

Sch

ult

z.f.

C

om

meli

nac

eae

27

5

12

2.2

5

0.4

2

176.8

3.0

5

6.9

4

10.0

0

32

Ipom

oea

obsc

ura

(L

.) K

er G

awl.

C

onvo

lvu

lace

ae

2

2

12

0.1

7

0.1

7

442.0

0.2

3

2.7

8

3.0

0

33

Cusc

uta

ref

lexa

Ro

xb.

*

Co

nvo

lvu

lace

ae

1

1

12

0.0

8

0.0

8

884.0

0.1

1

1.3

9

1.5

0

34

Evo

lvulu

s als

inoid

es (

L.)

L.

*

Co

nvo

lvu

lace

ae

50

11

12

4.1

7

0.9

2

80.4

5.6

6

15.2

8

20.9

3

35

Mer

rem

ia t

riden

tata

(L

.) H

alli

er f

.)

Co

nvo

lvu

lace

ae

- -

- -

- -

- -

-

36

Tri

chosa

nth

es s

p.

Cucu

rbit

acea

e 1

1

12

0.0

8

0.0

8

884.0

0.1

1

1.3

9

1.5

0

37

Dio

spyr

os

panic

ula

ta D

alz

. E

benac

eae

-

- -

- -

- -

- -

38

Kir

ga

nel

ia r

etic

ula

ta (

Po

ir.)

Bai

ll.)

*

Phyll

anth

acea

e 2

2

12

0.1

7

0.1

7

442.0

0.2

3

2.7

8

3.0

0

39

Euphorb

ia t

iruca

lli

L.

*

Eupho

rbia

cea

e 11

3

12

0.9

2

0.2

5

294.7

1.2

4

4.1

7

5.4

1

40

Abru

s pre

cato

riu

s L

. *

Fabac

eae

- -

- -

- -

- -

-

41

Aca

cia c

ate

chu

(L

. f.

) W

illd

. *

Fabac

eae

49

10

12

4.0

8

0.8

3

88.4

5.5

4

13.8

9

19.4

3

42

Aca

cia l

euco

phlo

ea (

Ro

xb.)

Wil

ld.

Fabac

eae

9

2

12

0.7

5

0.1

7

442.0

1.0

2

2.7

8

3.8

0

43

Aca

cia n

iloti

ca (

L.)

Deli

le)

Fabac

eae

27

6

12

2.2

5

0.5

0

147.3

3.0

5

8.3

3

11.3

9

44

Aca

cia s

inuata

auct

.)

Fabac

eae

5

2

12

0.4

2

0.1

7

442.0

0.5

7

2.7

8

3.3

4

45

Alb

izia

am

ara

(R

oxb.)

Bo

ivin

, *

Fabac

eae

4

2

12

0.3

3

0.1

7

442.0

0.4

5

2.7

8

3.2

3

46

Alb

izia

odora

tiss

ima

(L

. f.

) B

enth

. F

abac

eae

6

2

12

0.5

0

0.1

7

442.0

0.6

8

2.7

8

3.4

6

47

Bauhin

ia r

ace

mosa

Lam

. F

abac

eae

4

2

12

0.3

3

0.1

7

442.0

0.4

5

2.7

8

3.2

3

48

Cass

ia a

uri

cula

ta L

. *

Fabac

eae

1

1

12

0.0

8

0.0

8

884.0

0.1

1

1.3

9

1.5

0

49

Cass

ia f

istu

la L

. *

Fabac

eae

1

1

12

0.0

8

0.0

8

884.0

0.1

1

1.3

9

1.5

0

50

Cro

tala

ria p

all

ida

Ait

on

Fabac

eae

1

1

12

0.0

8

0.0

8

884.0

0.1

1

1.3

9

1.5

0

51

Dalb

ergia

lance

ola

ria

L.

f.

Fabac

eae

12

3

12

1.0

0

0.2

5

294.7

1.3

6

4.1

7

5.5

2

52

Des

modiu

m t

rifl

oru

m (

L.)

DC

. F

abac

eae

17

6

12

1.4

2

0.5

0

147.3

1.9

2

8.3

3

10.2

6

53

Indig

ofe

ra t

inct

ori

a L

. F

abac

eae

19

5

12

1.5

8

0.4

2

176.8

2.1

5

6.9

4

9.0

9

54

Tep

hro

sia p

urp

ure

a (

L.)

Per

s. *

F

abac

eae

19

9

12

1.5

8

0.7

5

98.2

2.1

5

12.5

0

14.6

5

55

Mim

osa

pudic

a L

. *

Fabac

eae

2

2

12

0.1

7

0.1

7

442.0

0.2

3

2.7

8

3.0

0

56

Park

inso

nia

dig

itata

F

abac

eae

- -

- -

- -

- -

-

57

Pit

hec

ello

biu

m d

ulc

e (R

oxb.)

Ben

th.

Fabac

eae

- -

- -

- -

- -

-

58

Leu

cas

asp

era

(W

illd

.) L

ink

*

Lam

iace

ae

15

4

12

1.2

5

0.3

3

221.0

1.7

0

5.5

6

7.2

5

59

Leu

cas

stri

cta

Benth

. L

am

iace

ae

12

6

12

1.0

0

0.5

0

147.3

1.3

6

8.3

3

9.6

9

60

Hyp

tis

suave

ole

ns

(L.)

Po

it.

Lam

iace

ae

17

3

12

1.4

2

0.2

5

294.7

1.9

2

4.1

7

6.0

9

61

Oci

mum

am

eric

anum

L.

*

Lam

iace

ae

52

2

12

4.3

3

0.1

7

442.0

5.8

8

2.7

8

8.6

6

62

Abuti

lon i

ndic

um

(L

.) S

wee

t M

alv

acea

e 3

2

12

0.2

5

0.1

7

442.0

0.3

4

2.7

8

3.1

2

63

Gre

wia

hir

suta

Vahl,

T

ilia

ceae

64

10

12

5.3

3

0.8

3

88.4

7.2

4

13.8

9

21.1

3

64

Gre

wia

dam

ine

Gae

rtn.

Til

iace

ae

60

9

12

5.0

0

0.7

5

98.2

6.7

9

12.5

0

19.2

9

65

Gre

wia

til

iifo

lia V

ahl.

Til

iace

ae

10

2

12

0.8

3

0.1

7

442.0

1.1

3

2.7

8

3.9

1



66

Hib

iscu

s lo

batu

s (M

urr

ay)

Ku

ntz

e M

alv

acea

e 1

1

12

0.0

8

0.0

8

884.0

0.1

1

1.3

9

1.5

0

67

Sid

a c

ord

ata

(B

urm

. f.

) B

ors

s. W

aalk

. M

alv

acea

e 2

1

12

0.1

7

0.0

8

884.0

0.2

3

1.3

9

1.6

2

68

Sid

a c

ord

ifoli

a L

. *

Malv

acea

e 4

2

12

0.3

3

0.1

7

442.0

0.4

5

2.7

8

3.2

3

69

Guazu

ma u

lmif

oli

a L

am

. M

alv

acea

e 15

6

12

1.2

5

0.5

0

147.3

1.7

0

8.3

3

10.0

3

70

Cen

tell

a a

siati

ca (

L.)

Urb

. *

Ap

iacea

e 1

1

12

0.0

8

0.0

8

884.0

0.1

1

1.3

9

1.5

0

71

Cocc

ulu

s hir

sutu

s (L

.) D

iels

*

Menis

per

mac

eae

14

6

12

1.1

7

0.5

0

147.3

1.5

8

8.3

3

9.9

2

72

Ste

phania

japonic

a (

Thunb.)

Mie

rs *

M

enis

per

mac

eae

7

4

12

0.5

8

0.3

3

221.0

0.7

9

5.5

6

6.3

5

73

Mel

ia d

ubia

*

Meli

ace

ae

2

1

12

0.1

7

0.0

8

884.0

0.2

3

1.3

9

1.6

2

74

Fic

us

arn

ott

iana

(M

iq.)

Miq

. M

ora

ceae

-

- -

- -

- -

- -

75

Fic

us

ben

ghale

nsi

s L

. *

Mo

race

ae

- -

- -

- -

- -

-

76

Fic

us

race

mosa

L.

*

Mo

race

ae

- -

- -

- -

- -

-

77

Fic

us

tom

ento

sa R

oxb.

Mo

race

ae

- -

- -

- -

- -

-

78

Syz

ygiu

m c

um

ini

(L.)

Skee

ls *

M

yrt

acea

e 1

1

12

0.0

8

0.0

8

884.0

0.1

1

1.3

9

1.5

0

79

Boer

havi

a d

iffu

sa L

. *

Nyct

agin

ace

ae

5

3

12

0.4

2

0.2

5

294.7

0.5

7

4.1

7

4.7

3

80

Xim

enia

sp.

Ola

cac

eae

- -

- -

- -

- -

-

81

Phyl

lanth

us

am

aru

s S

chu

mac

h.

*

Phyll

anth

acea

e 20

1

12

1.6

7

0.0

8

884.0

2.2

6

1.3

9

3.6

5

82

Ziz

iphus

juju

ba

Mil

l. *

R

ham

nac

eae

- -

- -

- -

- -

-

83

Borr

eria

his

pid

a (

Lin

n.)

K.

Sch

um

. R

ubia

ceae

28

4

12

2.3

3

0.3

3

221.0

3.1

7

5.5

6

8.7

2

84

Borr

eria

str

icta

(L

. f.

) G

. M

ey.

*

Rubia

ceae

42

8

12

3.5

0

0.6

7

110.5

4.7

5

11.1

1

15.8

6

85

Canth

ium

parv

iflo

rum

Lam

. *

Rubia

ceae

11

3

12

0.9

2

0.2

5

294.7

1.2

4

4.1

7

5.4

1

86

Old

enla

ndia

cory

mbosa

L.

Rubia

ceae

20

2

12

1.6

7

0.1

7

442.0

2.2

6

2.7

8

5.0

4

87

Mori

nda t

inct

ori

a R

oxb.

maddi,

ET

*

Rubia

ceae

22

5

12

1.8

3

0.4

2

176.8

2.4

9

6.9

4

9.4

3

88

Mori

nda t

om

ento

sa B

.Heyne

ex R

oth

R

ubia

ceae

-

- -

- -

- -

- -

89

Pave

tta i

ndic

a L

. R

ubia

ceae

-

- -

- -

- -

- -

90

Randia

uli

gin

osa

(R

etz.

) P

oir

. R

ubia

ceae

-

- -

- -

- -

- -

91

Ixora

bra

chia

ta R

oxb.

ex D

C

Rubia

ceae

92

Ziz

iphus

mauri

tiana

Lam

. *

Rham

nac

eae

13

4

12

1.0

8

0.3

3

221.0

1.4

7

5.5

6

7.0

3

93

Ziz

iphus

oen

opli

a (

L.)

Mil

l.

Rham

nac

eae

5

3

12

0.4

2

0.2

5

294.7

0.5

7

4.1

7

4.7

3

94

Card

iosp

erm

um

hali

caca

bum

L.

*

Sap

indac

eae

-

- -

- -

- -

- -

95

Sapin

dus

trif

oli

atu

s L

. *

Sap

indac

eae

1

1

12

0.0

8

0.0

8

884.0

0.1

1

1.3

9

1.5

0

96

Wit

hania

som

nif

era

(L

.) D

unal

*

So

lanac

eae

1

1

12

0.0

8

0.0

8

884.0

0.1

1

1.3

9

1.5

0

97

Holo

pte

lea i

nte

gri

foli

a (

Ro

xb.)

Pla

nch.

*

Ulm

aceae

-

- -

- -

- -

- -

98

Tri

bulu

s te

rrest

ris

L.

*

Zygo

phyll

ace

ae

3

2

12

0.2

5

0.1

7

442.0

0.3

4

2.7

8

3.1

2

884

*=

Med

icin

al p

lants

, N

-no

of

ind

ivid

uals

, T

O-t

ranse

ct o

ccurr

ed, T

T=

Tota

l tr

anse

ct, D

=D

ensi

ty,

F=

Fre

quen

cy,

A=

Abu

ndance,

RD

=R

ela

tive

densi

ty

RF

=R

ela

tive

freq

uency,

IVI=

Impo

rtan

t valu

e in

dex;

-tv =

outs

ide

the

quad

rate

s .

Where, Pi = No. of individuals of one species/total no of

individuals in the sample.

The indices of Species Richness (R) and Species

Evenness (E) were estimated using the following

formulae.

R = (S-1)/log N

E = (H')/ log S

Where,

S = Total no. of species,

N =Total no. of individuals of all the species,

(H')= Shannon Weiner’s index.

RESULTS

Floristic Structure: Species richness and Density

The census of individuals in the study area

resulted in 98 identified plant species which include 85

genera and 37 families. Based on their density in the

quadrate, species were grouped into following five

categories:

Predominant species (species with ≥ 50 individuals)

Four species, Grewia hirsute (64 individuals) and

Grewia sp. (60 individuals), Ocimum americanum (52)

and Evolvulus alsinoides (50 individuals) belonged to

this category representing 4% of the plot’s species and

26% of the plot’s density (242 individuals) (Table 1).

Dominant species (species with 25 to 49 individuals)

Seven species, Acacia catechu (49 individuals),

Borreria stricta (42 individuals), Aerva lanata

(37 individuals), Vernonia cinerea (32 individuals),

Borreria hispida (28 individuals), Acacia nilotica and

Cyanotis tuberose (27 individuals each) together

accounting for 7% of the plot’s species and 25% of the

stand density (226 individuals) represented this group.

Fairly Common species (species with 5 to 24

individuals)

Thirty species, Morinda tinctoria (22),

Oldenlandia corymbosa, Phyllanthus amarus (20 each),

Indigofera tinctoria, Tephrosia purpurea (19 each),

Desmodium trifoliate, Hyptis suaveolens (17 each),

Parthenium hysterophorus (16), Leucas aspera,

Guazuma obscura (15 each), Cocculus hirsutus (14),

Ziziphus maurtiana (13), Dalbergia lanceolaria,

Leucas stricta (12 each), Achyranthes aspera,

Euphorbia tirucalli, Canthium parviflorum (11 each),

Commelina sinensis, Grewia tiliifolia (10 each),

Carissa carandas, Acacia leucophloea (9 each),

Wrightia tinctoria (8), Stephania japonica (7),

Albizia odoratissima, Hemidesmus indicus,

Capparis zeylanica (6 each), Cassia tora,

Acacia sinuate, Ziziphus oenoplia, and Boerhavia diffusa

(5 each), accounting for 30% of total species richness

and 39% of stand density represented this group and

collectively they had 355 stems.

Common species (species with 1 to 4 individuals)

Thirty-one species, Ageratum conyzoides,

Tridax procumbens, Albizzia amara, Bauhinia racemosa,

Harisha and Hosetti, 2013


An overview of Sanctuary Sanctuary during summer



Table.2. Family composition and Family Importance Value in Daroji Sloth bear Sanctuary.

Sl. No Family No. of species No. of trees Relative Density Relative Diversity FIV

1 Acanthaceae 2 3 0.3 2.0 2.4

2 Alangiaceae 1 1 0.1 1.0 1.1

3 Amaranthaceae 4 49 5.4 4.0 9.4

4 Aristolochiaceae 1 2 0.2 1.0 1.2

5 Apocynaceae 5 25 2.8 5.1 7.8

6 Asclepiadaceae 4 7 0.8 4.0 4.8

7 Asparagaceae 1 1 0.1 1.0 1.1

8 Asteraceae 4 56 6.2 4.0 10.2

9 Capparaceae 3 8 0.9 3.0 3.9

10 Cactaceae 1 1 0.1 1.0 1.1

11 Celastraceae 1 1 0.1 1.0 1.1

12 Cesalpinaceae 2 6 0.7 2.0 2.7

13 Combretaceae 1 1 0.1 1.0 1.1

14 Convolvulaceae 4 53 5.8 4.0 9.9

15 Commelinaceae 2 37 4.1 2.0 6.1

16 Cucurbitaceae 1 1 0.1 1.0 1.1

17 Ebenaceae 1 1 0.1 1.0 1.1

18 Euphorbiaceae 2 13 1.4 2.0 3.5

19 Fabaceae 17 178 19.6 17.2 36.8

20 Lamiaceae 4 96 10.6 4.0 14.6

21 Malvaceae 9 160 17.6 9.1 26.7

22 Mackinlayaceae 1 1 0.1 1.0 1.1

23 Menispermaceae 2 21 2.3 2.0 4.3

24 Meliaceae 1 2 0.2 1.0 1.2

25 Moraceae 4 4 0.4 4.0 4.5

26 Myrtaceae 1 1 0.1 1.0 1.1

27 Leguminosae 1 1 0.1 1.0 1.1

28 Nyctaginaceae 1 5 0.6 1.0 1.6

29 Olacaceae 1 1 0.1 1.0 1.1

30 Phyllanthaceae 1 20 2.2 1.0 3.2

31 Rhamnaceae 1 1 0.1 1.0 1.1

32 Rubiaceae 8 126 13.9 8.1 21.9

33 Rhamnaceae 2 18 2.0 2.0 4.0

34 Sapindaceae 2 2 0.2 2.0 2.2

35 Solanaceae 1 1 0.1 1.0 1.1

36 Ulmaceae 1 2 0.2 1.0 1.2

37 Zygophyllaceae 1 3 0.3 1.0 1.3

99 909 100.0 100.0 200.0

Sida cordifolia (4 each), Abutilon indicum,

Leptadenia reticulata, Tribulus terrestris (3each),

Barleria sp., Aristolochia indica, Calotropis gigantea,

Daemia extensa, Kirganelia reticulata, Mimosa pudica,

Melia dubia, Ipomoea obscura, Sida cordata (2 each),

Cassia auriculata, Cassia fistula, Crotalaria pallida,

Hibiscus lobatus, Centella asiatica, Syzygium cumini,

Sapindus trifoliatus, Withania somnif era,

Amaranthes viridis, Tylophora indica, Opuntia stricta,

Gymnosporia montana, Cuscuta reflexa and

Trichosanthes sp. (1 each), accounting for 32% of total

species richness and 7% of stand density represented this

group and collectively they had 61 stems.

Rare species (species with ≤1)

Twenty-seven species making up 27% of the

total plot’s species and 3% of stand density formed this

group. Anogeissus latifolia, Merremia tridentate,

Diospyros paniculata, Abrus precatorius,

Parkinsonia digitata, Grewia damine, Ficus arnottiana,

Ficus benghalensis, Ficus racemosa, Ficus tomentosa

individuals.

Based on Species Importance Value,

Grewia hirsute figured on the top of top ten SIV

hierarchy (21.13), followed by the Evolvulus alsinoides

(20. 93), Acacia catechu (19.43), Grewia sp. (19.29),

Vernonia cinerea (17.51), Borreria stricta (15.86),

Tephrosia purpurea (14.65), Aerva lantana (12.52),

Acacia nilotica (11.39) and Desmodium trifoliate

(10.26).

Family Composition

Of the 37 families recorded (three unidentified),

Fabaceae is the dominant based on the species richness

with 17 species, followed by the Malvaceae, Rubiaceae

with nine species each, Apocynaceae with five,

Amaranthaceae, Asclepiadaceae, Asteraceae,

Convolvulaceae, Lamiaceae and Moraceae with four

species each, following by Capparidaceae with three

species, Acanthaceae, Cesalpinaceae, Commelinaceae,

Euphorbiaceae, Menispermaceae, Rhamnaceae and

Sapindaceae with two species each, Alangiaceae,

Ar isto lochiaceae, Asparagaceae, Cactaceae,

Celastraceae, Combretaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Ebenaceae,

Mackinlayaceae, Myrtaceae, Nyctaginaceae, Olacaceae,

Phyllanthaceae, Rhamnaceae, Solanaceae, Ulmaceae,

Zygophyllaceae and Meliaceae with one species each

were recorded.

Based on density, the top order of families were

Fabaceae (178 individuals), Malvaceae (160 individuals),

Rubiaceae (126 individuals), Lamiaceae (96 individuals),

Asteraceae (56 individuals), Convolvulaceae (53

individuals), Amaranthaceae (49 individuals),

Commelinaceae (37 individuals), UK (26 individuals),

Apocynaceae (25 individuals), Menispermaceae (21

individuals), Phyllanthaceae (20 individuals),

Rhamnaceae (18 individuals), Euphorbiaceae (13

individuals), Capparidaceae (8 individuals),

Asclepiadaceae (7 individuals), Nyctaginaceae (5

individuals) and Moraceae (4 individuals), Two families

were represented by three species such as Acanthaceae

and Zygophyllaceae, four families were represented by

two species such as Meliaceae, Aristolochiaceae,

Sapindaceae and Ulmaceae, thirteen families were

represented by only one species, such as Asparagaceae,

Cactaceae, Celastraceae, Combretaceae, Alangiaceae,

Cucur b it ace ae , E be nace ae , Legu mino sae ,

Mackinlayaceae, Myrtaceae, Olacaceae, Solanaceae and

Rhamnaceae were recorded.

Harisha and Hosetti ,2013


Sloth bear at Sanctuary

Based on FIV, Fabaceae (36.8) ranked highest

among families followed by Malvaceae (26.7),

Rubiaceae (21.9) and Lamiaceae (14.6) (Table 2).

Diversity Indices

The Shannon-Weiner’s diversity index was found be

3.909 for the entire study area, and the Species Richness

index and Species Evenness index were found to be

26.26, 2.03, respectively.

DISCUSSION

The study on the floristic diversity is one of the

important factor to be analyzed to assess the diversity of

a particular area as well as the diversity of the nation.

The assessment of diversity is also important during this

period where the lot of plants and animals are in threats

due to the fragmentation of habitats and decline in

habitat quality (Kumar et al., 2000). The decline of

quality of habitat and fragmentation are mainly due to

the anthropogenic activities including the conversion of

forest into agriculture land, developmental activities,

mining etc. which affects on the landscapes and species

composition (Jerath et al., 2007).

Assessment of biodiversity will help in

understanding the inter-linkages between biological

resources and human being and which help in taking the

best decisions in conservation of natural resource and

development through sustainable utilization (Jerath et al.,

2007). This could be achieved only when the

quantification of existing resource is known and the

requirements estimated. This is also true in case of wild

animals where the availability of food source is

dependent on the population of those animals in the

forest. The existence of the diversity in particular area

also depicts the wild animals to be found in that

particular forest area. In view of the above, the present

study was investigated to know the floral diversity of the

Daroji Sloth bear sanctuary.

Previous studies conducted in this sanctuary by

Neginhal et al. (2003) and Madhav Gadgil et al. (2011)

64 plant species were enumerated, but in present study

98 plant species have been recorded. The study revealed

that the species composition and diversity of this

sanctuary can be compared with that of many other dry

forests such as Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary

(Krishnamurthy et al., 2010), Savanadurga State Forest,

Karnataka (Murali et al., 2003). Species richness of the

present study (99 species for individuals ≥ 1 cm) is

closer to the species richness of the dry forests in Puerto

Rico (50 species, Murphy and Lugo, 1986), but far less

to the 133 species of Savanadurga State Forests of

Karnataka (Murali et al., 2003).

The Importance Value Index revealed that this

forest is dominated by relatively few species. The seven

species listed in top ten SIV hierarchy (Table 1)

comprise about 33 % of the importance values, which

was 62 % in Bhadra Wildlife sanctuary followed by the

dry forests in Puerto Rico (Murphy and Lugo, 1986) and

St. Lucia (Gonzalez and Zak, 1996) also recorded the

same observation with the seven most common species

dominating the forests by comprising about 55% and

67% of the total importance values, respectively.

The Shannon-Weiner’s diversity index for the

area as a whole was found to be 3.909, the Species

Richness index and Species Evenness index was found to

be 26.26, 2.03, respectively. Rahlan et al. (1982) stated

that higher the value of diversity, greater will be the plant

community. So it can be stated that the vegetation in

Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary is stable accordingly to the

figures obtained after the data analysis (Table 1).

The species rarity of the present study is 27%,

which is very close to tree diversity of Little Andaman

Island with 34% (Rasingam and Parathasarathy, 2009),

also close to the forests of Kuzhanthaikuppam of

Coromandel Coast (31%, Parthasarathy and Karthikeyan,

1997), Malaysia (38%, Poore, 1968) and Barro Colorado

island of Panama (40%, Thorington et al., 1982); but less

than those of tropical dry deciduous forests of Bhadra

Wildlife Sanctuary (54.3%, Krishnamurthy et al., 2010).



In tropical forests, the abundance and species richness

depend mostly on the soil type, moisture and distribution

of rainfall (Durigon and Waechter, 2011). The present

study also revealed that the soil type and rainfall pattern

of the study area promotes the rich floral diversity

indices (Shanon, 3.90). The plants enumerated during the

study also revealed that the diversity present in this area

greatly supports the food habitat of sloth bears and the

vegetation pattern and geographical location also helps

the sloth bears to live comfortably in this forest region.

The plant species like Grewia hirsute, Grewia hirsuta,

Grewia damine, Ziziphus mauritiana, Grewia tiliifolia,

Syzygium cumini, Cassia fistula, Carissa carandas,

Ziziphus oenoplia showed the density of 5.33., 5.00.,

1.08., 0.83., 0.08., 0.08., 0.75 and 0.42 respectively.

Some Ficus sp. also serves as the food for sloth bears.

The Shannon diversity indices of Western Ghats

(at different altitudes) according to Pascal is measured to

be in the range of 3.6-4.3 and the index is measured

about 2.01-3.7 in the wet evergreen forest of Coorg

district (Swamy et al., 2010). In the present study, the

Shannon diversity index is calculated to be 3.90, which

indicated that even though the forest type falls under the

dry deciduous forest, the diversity index can be largely

compared to that of the evergreen forest. The present

study signifies the long term monitoring of the

vegetation as well as the population of sloth bears in

accordance with the availability of food source and good

habitat. This type of studies greatly impact on the

ecological balance between the vegetation pattern and

the animal populations.

The floral diversity of the present study area also

comprises as many as 65 species of medicinal plants

(Table.1). There is an urgent need to protect these

medicinal plants from grazing animals (sheep, goat),

which are being forcibly invaded into the sanctuary by

the surrounding villagers. The vegetation and the wealth

of this sanctuary need to be protected also from the

mining (quarrying) which are being run nearby hillock

regions, or otherwise this may leads to the habitat

fragmentation and destruction.

Based on the present study there is a need to

undertake some special ecological developmental

projects in the area which include water harvesting

through assured tanks so that water would be available to

wildlife during hot summer. Construction of boundary

wall or fence around the protected area will reduce

poaching of wildlife, entry of domestic cattle for grazing

and deforestation in the area.

CONCLUSION

The study on the floral diversity of Daroji Sloth

Bear Sanctuary of Bellary district concludes that the

richness and diversity in the area is mainly due to the

climatological conditions prevailing there. The hard dry

condition and scarce rainfall have favored mainly thorny

and shrubby plants to adopt and grow in such harsh

terrain conditions and trees resulting in stunted growth.

The fruits, seeds and leaves are consumed by a variety of

birds and animals and thus are easily dispersed. The

present study will provide the basic information on the

present status and composition of tree species in a

limited area.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Authors are thankful to Kiran, M.N, ACF,

Ravindranath, I.R, RFO and forest watchers of Daroji

Sloth Bear Sanctuary, Karnataka and all those who have

shared their information on the study area during the

study period. M.N, Harisha is thankful to UGC, New

Delhi for sanctioning fellowship (RGNF), to all

researchers from Panchavati Research Academy for

Nature (PRANA) Trust, Linganamakki, Sagara (TQ),

Shivamogga and also to Kuvempu University for support

and facilities.

REFERENCES

Bruford MW. 2002. Biodiversity-Evolution. Species,



Genes. Cited in; Conserving bird’s biodiversity: General

Principles and their Application. Cambridge University

press U.K. 1-19.

Durigon J and Waechter JL. 2011. Floristic

composition and biogeographic relations of a subtropical

assemblage of climbing plants. Biodiversity

Conservation. 20(5):1027-1044.

Gamble JS. 1935. Flora of the Presidency of Madras.

(Vol1-4) Adlard and Son Limited 21, Hart Street. W.O.

Gonzalez OJ and Zak DR. 1996. Tropical dry forest of

St. Lucia, West Indies. Biotropica. 28: 618-626.

Harisha MN, Ajay GA, Kumar MD. 2008. Floristic

and avifaunal diversity of Jogimatti state forest,

Chitradurga, Karnataka. My forest. 44 (3): 225-235.

Jerath N, Singh G, Singh CK and Alkesh S. 2007.

Biological Diversity: The Very Stuff of Life. Punjab

Biodiversity Board, Punjab state council for science and

technology, Chandigarh and UNESCO, New Delhi.

Khan MA. 2011. Promotion and conservation of native

flora and fauna in newly established agro-biodiversity

park in Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural University,

Hyderabad. International Journal of Farm Sciences. 1

(2): 150-157.

Krishnamurthy YL, Prakasha HM, Nanda A,

Krishnappa M, Dattaraja, HS and Suresh HS. 2010.

Vegetation structure and floristic composition of a

tropical dry deciduous forest in Bhadra Wildlife

Sanctuary, Karnataka, India. Tropical Ecology. 51(2):

235-246.

Kumar A, Walker S and Molar S. 2000. Prioritisation

of Endangered species. Setting Biodiversity conservation

Priorities for India. Singh S, Sastry ARK, Mehta R and

Uppal V. New Delhi, WWF-India. 2:341-425.

Madhav Gadgil, Geetha Gadagkar, Harish R Bhat,

Prema Iyer, Ramachandra TV, Yogesh Gokhale.

2011. Checklist of Flowering Plants of Daroji Bear

Sanctuary, Karnataka. Status of Karnataka Biodiversity.

SAHYADRI E-NEWS: Issue XI. Sahyadri: Western

Ghats Biodiversity Information System ENVIS @CES,

Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. http://

www.ces.iisc.ernet.in/biodiversity/sahyadri_enews/

newsletter/issue11/hotspot/index.htm.

Michael P. 1990. Ecological methods for field and

laboratory investigations. Tata McGraw Hill Publishing

Company Limited, New Delhi.

Murali KS, Kavitha A and Harish RP. 2003. Spatial

Patterns of trees and shrub species diversity in

Savanadurga State Forest, Karnataka. Current Science.84

(6): 808-813.

Murphy PG and Lugo AE. 1986. Structure and

biomass of subtropical dry forest in Puerto Rico.

Biotropica. 18(2): 89-96.

Neginhal SG, Harish R Bhat, Pramod S and Karthik

G. 2003. Biodiversity Hotspot Report for Daroji Bear

Sanctuary. http://www.ces.iisc.ernet.in/biodiversity/

sahyadri_enews/newsletter/issue11/hotspot/hotspots/

Daroji.htm.

Parthasarathy N and Karthikeyan R. 1997a.

Biodiversity and population density of woody species in

a tropical evergreen forest in Courtallum reserve forest,

Western Ghats, India. Tropical Ecology. 38: 297-306.

Parthasarathy N and Karthikeyan R. 1997b. Plant

biodiversity inventory and conservation of two tropical

dry evergreen forest on the Coromandel Coast, Southern

India. Biodiversity and Conservation. 6: 1063-1083.

Poore, MED. 1968. Studies in Malaysian rainforest. The

forest on Triassic sediments in Jengka forest reserve.

Journal of Ecology. 56: 143-196.



Rahlan PK, Saxena AK and Singh JS. 1982. Analysis

of vegetation at and around Nainital Kumaun Himalaya.

Proc. Indian Nat. Sci. Acad. B. 48B:121-137.

Rasingam L and Parathasarathy N. 2009. Tree species

diversity and population structure across major forest

formations and disturbance categories in Little Andaman

Island, India. Tropical Ecology. 50(1): 89-102.

Shukla, RS and Chandel PS. 1980. Plant Ecology. S.

Chand and Company Ltd., New Delhi. 197.

Swamy SL, Dutt CBS, Murthy MSR, Alka Mishra

and Bargali SS. 2010. Floristics and dry matter

dynamics of tropical wet evergreen forests of Western

Ghats, India. Current Science. 99(3,10) : 353-364.

Thorington Jr, Tannenbaum RWB, Tarak A and

Rudran R. 1982. Distribution of trees on Barro

Colorado Island: A five hectare sample. pp. 83-94. In:

E.G. Leigh Jr., A.S. Rand & D.M. Windsor (eds.) The

Ecology of a Tropical Forest-Seasonal Rhythms and

Long-term Changes. Smithsonian Institute Press.

Washington, DC.



Submit your articles online at www.jresearchbiology.com

Advantages

Easy online submission Complete Peer review Affordable Charges Quick processing Extensive indexing You retain your copyright

[email protected]

www.jresearchbiology.com/Submit.php.