Advertisement

Journal of Forestry Research

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 403–408 | Cite as

Distribution pattern and conservation of threatened medicinal and aromatic plants of Central Himalaya, India

  • L. S. Kandari
  • K. S. Rao
  • R. K. Maikhuri
  • G. Kharkwal
  • K. Chauhan
  • C. P. Kala
Original Paper

Abstract

A study was conducted to examine the distribution pattern of four rhizomatous medicinal and aromatic plant species (MAPs) viz., Angelica glauca, Pleurospermum angelicoides, Rheum emodi and Arnebia benthamii in different forest stands in Central Himalaya. Results show that A. glauca and P. angelicoides had a higher (50%) frequency at Chipkoan, Garpak and Phagati forest, R. emodi had a higher (60%) frequency at Rishikund, Suki and Himtoli, and A. benthamii had a higher (70%) frequency at Suki and Khambdhar The densities of A. glauca (0.6 plants·m−2) and P. angelicoides (0.5 plants·m−2) were higher at Chipkoan and Garpak sites than at other micro-sites, while densities of R. emodi (0.8 plants·m−2) and A. benthamii (1.0 plants·m−2) were higher at Suki and Khambdhar sites. A. glauca had highest total basal covers (TBC) (1.2 cm2·m−2) at Chipkoan, P. angelicoides had highest TBC (0.92 cm2·m−2) at Lati kharak site, A. benthamii had the highest TBC (6.48 cm2·m−2) at Khambdhar, and R. emodi had highest TBC (4.53 cm2·m−2) at Rishikund. For the four studied species, A. glauca showed a contagious distribution, P. angelicoides and R. emodi showed the random and A. benthamii showed the regular type of distribution.

Keywords

alpine ecosystem Himalaya medicinal and aromatic plants traditional knowledge Uttarakhand 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bisht NS, Kusumlata. 1993. Niche width and dominance diversity relations of woody species in a moist temperate of Garhwal Himalaya. Journal of Hill Research, 6: 107–113.Google Scholar
  2. Bongers F, Poorter L, Van Rompaey RSAR, Parren MPE. 1999. Distribution of twelve moist forest canopy tree species in Liberia and Cote d’Ivoire: response curves to a climatic gradient. Journal of Vegetation Science, 10: 371–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Braun-Blanquet J. 1932. Plant Sociology: The study of plant communities. (Transl. G.D. Fuller & H.C. Conard). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., p. 439.Google Scholar
  4. Curtis JT, Cottam G. 1956. Plant Ecology Workbook Laboratory Field Reference Manual. Minnesota: Burgess Publishing Co., p.193.Google Scholar
  5. Curtis JT, McIntosh RP. 1950. The interrelations of certain analytic and synthetic phytosociological characters. Ecology, 31: 434–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gaur RD. 1999. Flora of District Garhwal, North West Himalaya (With Ethnobotanical Notes). Transmedia, Srinagar, Garhwal, Uttaranchal, India.Google Scholar
  7. Heydari M, Madhavi A. 2009. Pattern of plant species diversity in related to physiographic factors in Melah Gavan protected area, Iran. Asian Journal of Biological Sciences, 2: 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hajra PK. 1983. Contribution to the botany of Nanda Devi National Park, Howrah, Botanical Survey of India.Google Scholar
  9. Jaccard P. 1912. The distribution of flora in alpine zone. New Phytosociology, 11: 37–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kala CP. 2000. Status and conservation of rare and endangered medicinal plants in the Indian trans-Himalaya. Biological Conservation, 93: 371–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kala CP. 2004. Pastoralism, plant conservation, and conflicts on proliferation of Himalayan Knotweed in high altitude protected areas of the Western Himalaya, India. Biodiversity and Conservation, 13: 985–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kala CP. 2005. Indigenous uses, population density and conservation of threatened medicinal plants in protected areas of the Indian Himalayas. Conservation Biology, 19: 368–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kala CP. 2006. Problems and prospects in the conservation and development of the Himalayan medicinal plant sector. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 9:370–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kala CP. 2010. Medicinal plants of Uttarakhand: Diversity livelihood and conservation. Delhi, India: Biotech Books.Google Scholar
  15. Kershaw KA. 1973. Quantitative and dynamic plant ecology. London: Edward Arnold, p. 308.Google Scholar
  16. Kharkwal G, Poonam M, Rawat YS, Pangtey YS. 2005. Phytodiversity and growth form in relation to altitudinal gradients in the Central Himalayan (Kumaun) region of India. Current Science, 89: 873–878.Google Scholar
  17. Kharkwal G, Rawat YS, Pangtey YS. 2007. Distribution characteristics of the tree species in Central Himalaya, India. International Journal of Botany, 3: 226–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Knight DH. 1975. A phytosociological analysis of species rich tropical forest on Barro-Colorado Island: Panama. Ecological Monograph, 45: 259–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kukshal S, Nautiyal BP, Anthwal A, Sharma A, Bhatt BP. 2009. Phytosociological investigation and life form pattern of grazing lands under Pine canopy in temperate zone, Northwest Himalaya, India. Research Journal of Botany, 4:55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kumar J, Ram J. 2005. Anthropogenic disturbance and plant biodiversity in forests of Uttaranchal, Central Himalaya. Biodiversity and Conservation, 14:309–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levins R. 1968. Evolution in changing environments. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. USA.Google Scholar
  22. MacArthur RH. 1965. Patterns of species diversity. Biological Review, 40: 510–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maikhuri RK, Nautiyal S, Rao KS, Chandrasekhar K, Gavali R, Saxena KG. 2000. Analysis and resolution of protected area-people conflicts in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, India. Environmental Conservation, 27: 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Misra R. 1968. Ecology workbook. Calcutta: Oxford and IBH Publishing, p.244.Google Scholar
  25. Misra S, Maikhuri RK, Kala CP, Rao KS, Saxena KG. 2008. Wild leafy vegetables: A study of their subsistence dietetic support to the inhabitants of Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, India. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 4: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Naithani BD. 1984. Flora of Chamoli, I & II, Botanical Survey of India, Howarh.Google Scholar
  27. Nautiyal BP, Prakash V, Chauhan RS, Harish P, Nautiyal MC. 2001. Assessment of germinability, productivity and cost benefit analysis of Picrorrhiza kurrooa cultivated at lower altitude. Current Science, 81: 579–585.Google Scholar
  28. Niggemann M, Jetzkowitz J, Brunzel S, Wichmann MC, Bialozyt R. 2009. Distribution patterns of plants explained by human movement behaviour. Ecological Modelling, 220: 1339–1346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Odum EP. 1971. Fundamental of Ecology. 3rd ed., WB Saunders, Philadelphia, pp574.Google Scholar
  30. Purohit A, Maikhuri RK, Rao KS, Nautiyal S. 2001. Impact of bark removal on survival of Taxus baccata L. (Himalayan yew) in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, Garhwal Himalaya, India. Current Science, 81: 586–590.Google Scholar
  31. Samant SS. 1993. Diversity and status of plants in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, In; Scientific and ecological expedition on Nanda Devi. Reports, Corps of Engineers (Army), New Delhi, India, pp. 45–53.Google Scholar
  32. Saxena AK, Singh JS. 1980. Analysis of forest grazing lands vegetation in parts of Kumaun Himalaya. Indian Journal of Range Management, 1: 13–32.Google Scholar
  33. Shannon CE, Weaver W. 1963. The Mathematical theory of communication. Champaign, IL, USA: University of Illinois Press, p.367.Google Scholar
  34. Singh JS, Singh SP. 1992. Forest of Himalaya: Structure, Functioning and Impact of Man. Nainital, India: Gyanodaya Prakashan,.Google Scholar
  35. Singh JS, Yadav PS. 1974. Seasonal variation in composition, plant biomass and net primary productivity of tropical grasslands at Kurukshetra, India. Ecological Monograph, 44: 351–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith RL. 1980. Ecology and Field Biology. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, p. 835.Google Scholar
  37. Smith RL. 1990. Student resource manual to accompany ecology and field biology. Fourth edition, New York: Harper and Row Publisher, p. 114.Google Scholar
  38. Song B, Chen J, Desanker PV, Reed DD, Bradshaw GA, Franklin DF. 1997. Modelling canopy structure and heterogeneity across scales: from crown to canopy. Forest Ecology and Management, 96: 217–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Northeast Forestry University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. S. Kandari
    • 1
  • K. S. Rao
    • 2
  • R. K. Maikhuri
    • 3
  • G. Kharkwal
    • 4
  • K. Chauhan
    • 2
  • C. P. Kala
    • 5
  1. 1.Research Centre for Plant Growth & Development, School of Biological & Conservation SciencesUniversity of KwaZulu-NatalPietermaritzburgSouth Africa
  2. 2.Department of BotanyUniversity of DelhiDelhiIndia
  3. 3.G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and DevelopmentUttarakhandIndia
  4. 4.Graduate School of Environmental Earth ScienceHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan
  5. 5.Indian Institute of Forest ManagementNehru Nagar, BhopalIndia

Personalised recommendations