Biological Forum-An International Journal, Spl. Iss. 4(1) (2012)

��

�

�

January-June, 2012 Spl. Iss. Vol. 4 No. 1 ISSN No. (Online): 2249-3239

��

�

�

EDITOR IN CHIEF ��

��

��

MANAGING EDITOR ��

�� !��"��# �$ ��

ASSOCIATE EDITOR �� %�&��'(�)��"��* ��

�� +,��&��)��-�� .��'��

�� /01&��2��+��

�� %�&��0��2.��3��02��

�

��+��'��

�� 2�$ �4��5�6)��7$ ��

ADVISORY BOARD

��!�� +5��8��.��

�� &��+��,�.��5��

� ��'��

��" ��7��5 �+��

��# ��$�" ��'5��9��5��

��%&��' �� 7�7��3��'��

EDITORIAL BOARD

��" ��

1�:��5 �+��

��' ��

00-��&0��2��+��

�� " ��

&&1��

�� " ��

��)�;��5��'��

��' ��

�� /.3��+��5��

��' ��( ��

�'5��9��5��

�� !��( �

#�0-��5�,��5 �+�

��

5'8�#�3��'��

��) ��*��%�

79&�� +� ��6��

��# ��

� ��3��5��

��' ��%��

��5�6)��)�+��

��!��

��&.��

��

�+5��-3.��

��' % ��

&&�0��"��3��5��

��

�+0��1�� ,� ��

��

5�6)��+��5��

��" ��

'80&�� '��

�� %�

� 3� ,��

��$��

��6�4��5�6)��"��3��

��# �# ��$��

7��3��5�6)��5��

��!��

#)�2+-� +�&)-)��+��5��

��' ��

&�0&�+1��' .��,�.��+��

��+��

1�:��5 �+��

��)��

�9��&.��

��

��)�;��5��'��

��

#&��

��

�"5+�1��2�� 3��2< "��

��

�&8/��'0��

��

&+0&��3��#�$ ��

��(��

'�5�� '��

�� !��(%��

7"9"��$ �.�

��

��5�6)��)�< �

� ��)��)��'��

, �� -�./01/23-�# �" ��% ��%��-��%� �( -� � ��4�)�� -�# �" �� 5..6�667�89��:��

�+5� ��;�� <��<1=6//> �� %%�?%��@�)�%&%�� > (� ��?%� @��A�)��;�" " " ��? ��

��

�

�

EDITORIAL

“India, a land which gave birth to civilization in ancient times and where much of the earlier

tradition and wisdom guides actions even in modern times the philosophy of Vasudhaiva

Kutumbakam which means that the whole Universe is one family, dominates global efforts to

protect the global commons”

We are profoundly privileged to bring before you the efforts of a few genius minds in the form of

Biological Forum-An International Journal. Its aims to encourage to make aware the human being

towards scientific attitude for the betterment of ecosystem and social life. This special issue is

contributions of researchers selected papers presented and their abstracts published in “National

Seminar on Biodiversity and Intangible Natural Heritage” held at Zoological Survey of India, Desert

Regional Centre, Jodhpur, Rajasthan on 28th September, 2011 organized by Zoological Survey of

India (MoEF), Kolkata in collaboration with National Museum of Natural History (MoEF), New

Delhi. Cheers to all those involved directly on front or indirectly behind the curtain in this noble attempt of

serving ecosystem.

Science belongs to the whole World, and before it, vanish all the barriers of nationality. With the

resonance of science in all the activities of our lives, we are trying to marvel this age of specialization.

Standing on this verge of eternity we are trying to possess more and more of power and self. For it, we

require a quality of mind, which should be special and should have an extreme advantage in leading to

make discoveries. What matters is the power of never letting exceptions go unnoticed.

The foundation blocks of research are to do the right thing, at the right time, in the right way; to

anticipate requirements; to develop resources and then to recognize no impediments and thence to master

circumstances. One has to act from reason rather than rule and to be satisfied with nothing short of

perfection. True researcher resides in the capacity or evaluation of uncertain, hazardous and conflicting

information. Curiosity, Confidence, Courage and Constancy are the hallmarks. Research is a long road to

be traded by the brave ones. One has to brave all odds, long pangs of suffering and frustration to bring the

work in hand to fruition. To attain the pinnacle of success one ought to nurture research with hard work

and toil.

We congratulate and wish luck to the researchers for their contributions and aspire that these

works will leave a glowing trail for the generations to come. These works will act as lighthouses to the

future generations and rare milestones in the fields of Science and Technology. It may also provide the

courage to tread the long and weary path of research, as success and hard work has a taste beyond

everything.

-The Editors

��

�

�

Table of Contents Climate change and Indian Agriculture: Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation

strategies………………………………………………………………………………………...................

A.S. Faroda and Surendra Poonia

1-12

Species diversity of Coccinellids (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in selected provenances of Sandal

(Santalum album Linn.) and their role in pest control…………………………..........................................

R. Sundararaj and Gaurav Sharma

13-16

Distribution and diversity of Noctuid Fauna of Veerangana Durgavati Wildlife Sanctuary, Damoh

district, Madhya Pradesh…………………………………………………………………………………..

S. Sambath and Kailash Chandra

17-21

Role of Aquatic Insects as Biomonitors, Hussain Sagar Lake, Hyderabad………………………..………

J. Deepa

22-24

On some aspects of Territoriality and Reproduction of Pseudagrion microcephalum (Rambur) (Insecta:

Odonata: Zygoptera: Coenagrionoidea)………………………………………………………..………….

B. Suri Babu and Gaurav Sharma

25-31

Studies on the apoidean visitors of Tegetes patula L., an important floral resource for bees in Thar

Desert, India………………………………………………….…………………………………………....

Rajiv K. Gupta, Narendra Kumar, Meena Rao, S. K. Charan and A. Rajpurohit

32-39

Survival strategies of Desert Fox (Vulpes vulpes pusilla) in the Thar Desert of Rajasthan……………….

Hemu Chaudhary and G. R. Jakher

40-44

Diversity and community structure of Butterflies in Ritchie’s Archipelago, Andaman and Nicobar

islands...........................................................................................................................................................

C. Sivaperuman

45-53

Diversity of Moths in Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve (GNBR), Andaman and Nicobar

islands……………………………………………………………………………………………………...

C. Sivaperuman and Suresh Kumar Shah

54-60

Diversity of Moths in Neil Island, Andaman and Nicobar Islands…………………………………..…...


61-64

Species diversity and abundance of Odonata in Ritchie’s Archipelago, Andaman and Nicobar

Islands……………………………………………………………………………………………………...


65-69

The Great Indian Bustard: Rare sightings with its general account……………………………………….

Akhlaq Husain and Gaurav Sharma

70-73

Biological Forum_ An International Journal, Spl. Iss.��B��=��>?@A��(?A�?��9��# �8%��:;�==B25C=C2�

��

�

�

Odonates of Arabian and Indian Deserts and their conservation status…………………………………...

Akhlaq Husain and Gaurav Sharma

74-91

Serranid Fishes (Perciformes) in Arabian Sea with their conservation status……………………………..

Akhlaq Husain

92-113

Distributional pattern of genus Uromastyx Merrem, 1820 (Reptilia: Squamata: Agamidae:

Uromastycinae) in India, Arabia and Africa……………………………………………………..............

Akhlaq Husain

114-122

Diversity of Phthirapteran Ectoparasites on Domestic Fowl, Gallus gallus domesticus in Garhwal

Region…………………………………………………………………………….......................................

Rakesh Kumar, M. C. Trivedi and Adesh Kumar

123-131

Parthenium hysterophorus: a serious threat to plant biodiversity…………………………………………

Disha Jaggi, Jai Knox and Manoj S. Paul

132-138

Effect of Heavy metal pollution on humans……………………………………………………………….

Mayank Varun , Rohan D’Souza and M.S. Paul

139-144

Apoidean diversity on Verbesina encelioides (Cav.) Benth. & Hook. F. Ex Gray (Asteraeae), a short

term resource for the conservation of Bees in Rajasthan………………………………………………….

Rajiv K. Gupta, Meena Rao, Narendra Kumar, Jagdish Saini and S. K. Rao

145-152

Use of geomorphometric techniques to reduce the bad impacts of climate changes for biodiversity

conservation of the Thar Desert…………………………………………………………………………...

J. Gharu, O.P. Choudhary and Seema Trivedi

153-159

Hair Snares: Simple technique for monitoring field population………………………………..................

J. Gharu and Seema Trivedi

160-164

Molluscan diversity of temporary and permanent Wetlands in and around Patna, Bihar…………………

Gopal Sharma, Hasko Nesemann and Mohita Sardana

165-170

Diversity of Freshwater Fishes of Mizoram, India with a note on Conservation Strategies………………

Laishram Kosygin

171-179

Floristic diversity of Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, Gujarat, India……………………………...

S. L. Meena

180-212

A Review of Depleting Plant Resources, their Present Status and Conservation in Rajasthan, India….…

R.P. Pandey, S.L. Meena, P.M. Padhye and M.K. Singhadiya

213-230

��

�

�

Climate Change and Indian Agriculture: Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation

Strategies

A.S. Faroda1 and Surendra Poonia2

1Former Chairman, ASRB, ICAR, New Delhi, India

2 Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur–342 003, Rajasthan e-mail: [email protected]

(Received 15 October, 2011, Accepted 4 January, 2012)

ABSTRACT: Agriculture is the mainstay of the Indian economy where about 65-70 percent of the population is dependent on it for their livelihood. Therefore, the climate change has direct effect on India. There is a strong evidence to suggest that change in climate has been occurring during the past 100 years. The mean global temperatures increased by 0.6OC during last 100 years and warmest summers were observed in the last decade of the 20th century and first decade of 21st century. This is mainly attributed to the increased concentration levels of GHGs, viz. Co2, CH4, N2O and CFCs. If the emissions of GHGs are continued at the current rate, the average global surface temperature would rise form 0.6 to 2.5OC in the next fifty years and between 1.4 to 5.8OC by the end of the 21st century. A slight warming trend of 0.4OC over the last 100 years has been noticed over the Indian sub-continent and the changes were found to be more significant during winter. The spatial variability of air temperatures over the country indicated warming in peninsular region while north-west India has exhibited cooling trend. On the rainfall variability over the country, the data did not show any significant trend. However, increase in frequency and intensity of extreme weather events such as droughts, floods or unseasonal rainfall are noticed. Sub-divisional rainfall trends during the recent decades indicated decreasing rainfall trends in north-east-region while increasing trends are noticed in north-west and north India. Projected scenarios for the Indian sub-continent indicated a warming to the extent of 3.5 to 5.5OC by 2080s and more warming is expected in winter than in summer season. Similarly, a marginal increase in rainfall of 7 to 10 percent is predicted over the sub-continent by 2080.

The climate change can influence crop yields. Higher temperatures are likely to alter the fertility status of soils significantly. Additional application of fertilizers may be needed to counteract the adverse processes. Conditions will be more favourable for the proliferation of weeds, insect -pests and diseases in the warmer climates and crop damages are likely to increase. The expected rise in sea level may range from 10 to 50 cm by 2050 and may pose a serious threat to agriculture in low lying coastal areas. Cultivars with a better use of N can reduce surplus N-fertilizer inputs thus protecting the environment by reducing N2O emissions and thus mitigating climate change. Biological nitrification inhibition or suppressing nitrification by such genes, which are available in some tropical grasses, may pave the way for genetically engineered development of cultivars. Integrated farming systems, intercropping, INM and IPM practices as well as integrated watershed management practices are required to be adopted to manage the adverse effects of climate change in India. Key words: Climate change, Indian Agriculture, Strategies.

INTRODUCTION India's population touched 1.2 billion in 2009. It is predicted that India's population will be around 1.4 billion by 2025 and may exceed that of China in the 2040s. Therefore, one of the challenges of the 21st century is to ensure food and livelihood security for the increasing population in India. If agricultural production is adversely affected by climate change, then the livelihoods of even greater number of people is

at risk and their vulnerability to food security is further intensified. Livelihood systems that are based on agriculture may face risk of increased crop failures, frequent incidences of insect-pests and diseases, and loss of livestock due to climate change.

Climate change may be one of the reasons because nearly 60 percent of the area sown is dependent on rainfall which is highly

��

Biological Forum_ An International Journal, Spl. Iss. 4(1): 1-12 (2012) ISSN (online): 2249-3239

��

�

�

unreliable, both in time and space with strong risks of dry spells at critical growth stages even during good rainfall years. Climate change refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. Climate change would bring new environmental conditions resulting from modifications in space and time, and in the frequency and intensity of weather and climate processes. The climate change has the potential to change significantly the productivity of the agriculture. Some high productive areas may become less productive or vice-versa. The present evidences suggest that tropical and sub-tropical regions may be more likely to suffer by droughts and losses in crop productivity. Animal husbandry is an essential component of agriculture in India. Livestock management is highly sensitive to climate. Therefore, the future challenges will be more complex and demanding. SCENARIO OF CLIMATE CHANGE Global Scenario Weather observations indicated that the global average surface temperature has increased by 0.6OC since the 19th century. The rate of warming is faster during the last 100 years. It is attributed mainly to the increase in CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its report has confirmed that the global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (Co2), methane(CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), green house gasses (GHGs) have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years. The CO2, CH4 and N2O concentrations in atmosphere were 280 ppm, 700 ppb, and 270ppb in 1750 AD. In 2005, these values have become 378 ppm, 1750ppb and 316ppb, respectively (Ramakrishna et al., 2006).

These increases in GHGs have resulted in warming of the climate system by 0.74OC between 1906 and 2005. Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature since 1850. The rate of warming has been much higher in recent

decades. This has, inturn, resulted in increased average temperature of global ocean, sea level rise, decline in glaciers and snow cover. There is also a global trend for increased frequency of droughts, floods. Cold days and nights and frost have become less frequent, while hot days and nights, and heat waves have become more frequent. Increasing concentrations of green house gases (GHGS) are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. It is predicted that the average global surface temperature may rise 0.6 to 2.5OC in the next 50 years, and 1.4 to 5.8OC in the next century by doubling the concentration of CO2 (IPCC, 2001).

The global warming has also impact on precipitation patterns, and the frequency and intensity of droughts and floods. The evapotranspiration rates will increase. Other impacts of global warming include mean sea level rise due to melting of glaciers and polar ice sheets. The global mean sea level rise is predicted to be 09 to 88 cm over the next century. If no climate policy interventions are made, the effects of climate change on agriculture are presented in Table 1. Indian Scenario Observed surface air temperature over the Indian sub-continent showed a slight warming trend of 0.4OC per 100 years. The changes are observed to be more during winter but low and even negative during monsoon season. The spatial variability of air temperatures indicated warming trends in peninsular region while many parts of north-west India exhibit cooling trends. Analysis of the all-India mean surface air temperatures during 1901-2000 from network of 31 well-distributed weather stations reveal that the mean annual temperature rose by 0.03OC per decade (Rupa Kumar et al., 2002).

Monsoon rainfall displays predominant inter annual variability being considerably below and above normal over large areas of the Indian sub-continent in several years, leading to widespread droughts and flood situations. The scenario is highly variable, the all India mean annual and seasonal rainfall did not show any significant trend. The summer monsoon rainfall during 1901-2000 has shown significant decreasing trends in the sub-divisions of north-east India (Rupa Kumar et al., 2002). Significant

?� Faroda and Poonia�

��

�

�

increasing rainfall trends in Konkan, Goa, Costal Karnataka along the west coast and in Haryana, Chandigarh, Delhi and Punjab were noticed in north India (Fig. 1). Similarly, the winter monsoon rainfall has shown significant increasing trend in the sub-divisions of

Marathwada, Telangana, north interior Karnataka and Gujarat (Rupa Kumar et al., 2002). This shift in spatial trend pattern can have significant implications on the crops, varieties and cropping patterns across these regions needing appropriate adjustments (Fig. 2).

Table 1. Effect of climate change on agriculture with no climate policy interventions. CO2 Concentration 2025

(405-460 ppm) 2050

(445-640 ppm) 2100

(540-970 ppm) Global mean temperature change from 1990

0.4-1.1°C 0.8-2.6°C

1.4-5.8°C

Global mean sea level rise from 1990

3-14 cm

5-32 cm 9-88 cm

Agricultural Effects Average crop yields

Cereal crop yields increase in many mid- and high-latitude regions. Cereal crop yields decrease in most tropical and sub-tropical regions

A mixed effect on cereal yields in mid- latitude regions. More pronounced cereal yield decreases in tropical and sub-tropical regions

General reduction in cereal yields in most mid-latitude regions for warming of more than a few °C

Extreme low and high temperatures

Reduced frost damage to some crops. Increased heat stress damage to some crops Increased heat stress in livestock

Effects of changes in extreme temperatures amplified

Effects of changes in extreme temperatures amplified

Incomes and prices Income of poor farmers in developing countries decrease

Food prices increase relative to projections that exclude climate change

(Source: IPCC, 2001)

Fig.1. Trends in sub-divisional summer monsoon

rainfall in India during 1901-2000. Fig. 2. Trends in sub-divisional winter monsoon

rainfall in India during 1901-2000.

@�Faroda and Poonia�

��

�

�

Projected Future Scenarios for India The climate change scenarios for the

Indian sub-continent suggests an annual mean area averaged surface warming to range between 3.5 and 5.5OC by 2080s (Lal et al., 2001). These projections showed more warming in winter season over summer monsoon (Table 2). The spatial distribution of surface warming suggests a mean annual rise in surface temperatures in north India by 3OC or more by 2050. The study also suggests that during winter the surface mean air temperature could rise by 3OC in northern and

central parts while it would rise by 2OC in southern parts by 2050. In the case of rainfall, a marginal increase of 7 to 10 percent in annual rainfall is projected over the subcontinent by the year 2080. However, the study suggests a fall in rainfall by 5 to 25 percent in winter while it would be 10 to 15% increase in summer monsoon rainfall over the country (Table 2). It was also reported that the date of onset of summer monsoon over India could become more variable in future.

Table 2. Climate change projections for India.

Year Season Temperature change (0C) Rainfall change (%) Lowest Highest Lowest Highest

2020s Annual 1.00 1.41 2.16 5.97 Rabi 1.08 1.54 -1.95 4.36 Kharif 0.87 1.17 1.81 5.10 2050s Annual 2.23 2.87 5.36 9.34 Rabi 2.54 3.18 -9.22 3.82 Kharif 1.81 2.37 7.18 10.52 2080s Annual 3.53 5.55 7.48 9.90 Rabi 4.14 6.31 -24.83 -4.50 Kharif 2.91 4.62 10.10 15.18

(Source: Lal et al., 2001) The CO2 level will increase to 605-755

ppm by 2070s from 371 ppm in 2000. The IPCC has projected that future tropical cyclones will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation. Himaliyan glaciers and snow cover are projected to contract. It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent. Increases in the amount of precipitation are very likely in high latitudes,

while decreases are likely in most subtropical land regions. Analysis done by the India Meteorology Department, and the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, Pune, generally show the same trends for temperature, heat waves, glaciers, droughts and floods, and sea level rise as by the IPCC although the magnitude of the change varies. Selective reports on projected climate change during next century over India are given in Table 3 (Mall et al., 2007).

Table 3. Selective reports on projected climate change during next century over India.

Region Temperature Rainfall Reference All India

Increase in winter temperature by 1–4°C with increased CO2 concentration

• Precipitation increase of approximately 20%. • Increase in heavy rainfall days during the summer

monsoon period, and an increased inter annual variability

Bhaskaran et al., 1995

All India Average temperature change is predicted to be in the range of 2.33–4.78°C with a doubling in CO2 concentration

• Increase in the frequency of heavy rainfall events

Lonergan, 1998

All India • Annual mean surface temperature rise is projected to range between 3.50C and 5.50C by the end of century

• More warming in winter season.

• Increase of about 7 to 10% in annual mean precipitation.

• Decline of 5-25% in winter precipitation. • Increase in monsoon precipitation is 10-15%

Lal et al. 2001

B� Faroda and Poonia�

��

�

�

• Monsoon season, over northwest India, an increase of 30% or more in rainfall by 2050s.

• Higher than normal rainfall in western semi-arid regions of India.

• Decrease between 10-20% in winter precipitation over central India by 2050s.

All India • Over the region south of 25°N (south of cities such as Udaipur, Khajuraho and Varanasi) the maximum temperature will increase by 2–4°C during 2050s. In the northern region, the increase in maximum temperature exceed 4°C.

• A general increase in minimum temperature up to 40C all over the country.

• Decrease in number of rainy days over a major part of the country. This decrease is more in western and central part (by more than 15 days) while near the foothills of Himalayas (Uttaranchal state) and in northeast India the number of rainy days increase by 5–10 days.

• Overall increase in the rainy days intensity by 1–4 mm/day except for small areas in the northwest India where the rainfall intensities decrease by 1 mm/day.

Rupa Kumar et al. 2003

All India • Increase in extremes in maximum and minimum temperature.

• Night temperatures are increasing faster than the day temperatures.

Increase over large area, especially substantial over west coast and west central India

Rupa Kumar et al. 2006

(Source: Mall et al., 2007) Causes of Climate Change The problem of climate change is caused by humanity's greed and short sightedness. Increasing human activities is the main cause of climate change. Increasing evidences over the past few decades indicate that significant changes in climate are taking place world wide as a result of enhanced human activities. The major cause to climate change has been ascribed to the increased levels of green house gases (GHGs) like carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (NO2) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) due to the uncontrolled activities such as burning of fossil fuels, increased use of refrigerants, and enhanced agricultural practices. These activities accelerated the processes of climate change and increased the mean global temperature by 0.6OC during the past 100 years. It has also induced increased climatic variability in many parts of the world. Since climate is closely related to human activities and economic development, including agricultural practices, there is a regions concern about its stability. With the advent of the industrial revolution, there has been a tremendous growth in the fossil fuel utilization leading to increased CO2 emissions over the globe. In addition to this, the emission of CFCs and other GHGs like chlorine and bromine

compounds used in refrigeration and other industrial uses not only have an impact on the radiative forcing, but also led to the depletion of the ozone layers. Land use change, due to urbanization, deforestation and agricultural practices, affect the physical, chemical and biological properties of the earth's surface. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is now about 31 per cent higher than 200 years ago. If it continues to increase at the same rate it could nearly double by 2035 and may contribute significantly towards global warming. Burning of fossil fuels, burning of vegetation, coal, cowdung, crop residues, etc. are the main causes of the increased levels of this gas. Industrial emissions and the anaerobic conditions in agricultural fields due to water logging, increased use of inorganic fertilizers, and addition of organic material under submerged conditions of soil are the major sources of NO2. NO2 levels in the atmosphere are estimated to have increased by 18 per cent in the last 200 years mainly due to more intensive agricultural practices. CFCs are emitted mainly from refrigeration units. Impacts of Climate Change on Indian Agriculture India is a large agricultural country, in which crores of people rely on agriculture for

C�Faroda and Poonia�

��

�

�

survival, and the population is still growing. The agricultural production directly relates to the social stability and sustainable development, and agriculture is one of the most sensitive fields to climate change due to India's huge agricultural population, large agricultural areas, complex geographical types and significant climate differences. Changes in climate can be expected to have significant impacts on crop yields through changes in temperature and water availability. Climate change can affect crop yields, both positively and negatively, as well as the types of crops that can be grown in certain areas, by impacting agricultural inputs such as water for irrigation, amounts of solar radiation that affect plant growth, as well as infestation of weeds, insect pests and diseases. It is certain that the future climate change will impact agricultural production, which is mainly negative, and will directly threaten India's food security. Climatic changes will affect agriculture through direct and indirect effects on crops, soils, livestock and pests. Increase in atmospheric CO2 has a fertilization effect on crops with C3 photosynthetic pathway and thus promotes their growth and productivity. Increase in temperature

can reduce crop duration, increase crop respiration rates, alter photosynthetic partitioning to economic products, effect the survival and distribution of insect-pest and diseases, hasten nutrient mineralization in soils, decrease fertilizer use efficiencies, and increase evapotranspiration. Indirectly there may be considerable effects on land use, availability of irrigation, frequency and intensity of inter and intra-seasonal droughts and floods, and availability of energy.

Scientists at IARI, New Delhi, used various crop growth models to evaluate climate change impacts on wheat, rice, sorghum and maize. Variables used in the models included changes in temperature, CO2 levels, rainfall, and solar radiation. The predicted changes to agriculture vary greatly by region and crop. In the case of wheat, increase in temperature by about 2OC reduced potential grain yield in most places (Fig. 3). Reductions in yields, as a result of climate change, predicted to be more for rain fed crops than irrigated crops. In the case of rice, an increase of 2-40C is predicted to result in a reduction in yields. Although additional CO2 can benefit crops, this effect was nullified by increase in temperature.

Fig. 3. Potential Impact of climate change on wheat production in India (Source: Aggarwal et al., 2002)

�� Faroda and Poonia�

��

�

�

The study conducted at the Madras School of Economics, Chennai, revealed that spatial effects do make a significant difference to the impact of climate change on Indian agriculture. For example, in the study, if increase in temperature of 2OC and 7 per cent increase in rainfall is kept uniformly across India, then the estimated loss in farm revenue is 9 per cent but when spatial effects are taken in to account, the impact of climate change on revenue is found to be only 3 percent. The study at the Madras School of Economics, Chennai, also showed that if CO2

concentration levels double in the latter half of the 21st century then India's gross domestic product (GDP) would decline by 1.4 to 3 per cent points, under various climate change scenarios. Studies have shown that in northern India rice yields during last three decades are showing a declining trend and this is possibly related to increasing temperatures. Similar trends have also been noticed in other rice growing countries. Studies done at IARI, New Delhi, indicate the possibility of loss of 4-5 million tonnes in wheat production with every rise of 1OC temperature throughout the growing period (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4. Response of simulated grain yield of irrigated wheat to changes in temperature and CO2 in north India. (Source: Aggarwal et al., 2002). Fertilizer use efficiency in India is generally very low (30-50%). Climate change will alter the requirement of fertilizers, and climate warming will lead to a larger emission of available nitrogen. Fertilizer effect is very sensitive to the change of temperature. Studies have shown that between 15 to 28OC temperature, the available nitrogen emission will increase by about 4% with 10C temperature rise, and the emission period will be shortened to 3.6 days, the application amount of N will be increased by about 8% and 16% along with 20C and 40C temperature increases, respectively. Therefore, to maintain the existing fertilizer use efficiency the fertilizer

requirement will increase, which not only requires farmers to invest more on fertilizers, but also poses a harmful effect impact on the soil and environment because of the volatilization, decomposition, and contamination of ground water. Climate warming could increase the potential evapotranspiration in crop growing season, exacerbate the evaporation of soil, and reduce the effectiveness of soil moisture. Therefore, more irrigation will be required. Due to the limited supply of water resources and more agricultural water requirement as a result of climate warming, it is bound to lead to the over-

��Faroda and Poonia�

��

�

�

use of the surface and underground water resources, which may disturb the normal water cycle, and result in an uneven distribution of water resources, thus affecting agriculture, livestock husbandry, fisheries and other sectors. Small changes in temperature and rainfall could have significant effect on quality of fruits, vegetables, tea, coffee, aromatic and medicinal plants with resultant implications on their prices and trade. Crop-pest interactions will change significantly with climate change leading to impact on insect-pest and diseases distribution and losses. Crop-weed competition will be affected depending on their photosynthetic path way. C3 crop growth would be favoured over C4 weeds. Diseases and insect-pests populations are strongly dependent on temperature and humidity. Climate change is likely to aggravate the heat stress in livestock, adversely affecting their productive and reproductive performance. The demand for water, shelter and energy requirement of livestock will be increased. There have been only limited studies on the impacts of climate change in India. For sustainable agriculture, as well as for national food security and stability, it is necessary to identify the impacts of climate change on India's agricultural production, food supply capacity and food security, and to take actions to avoid or reduce the risk of climate change. Management of Climate Change in India

Climate change, involving alterations in temperature, precipitation and sea level as well as increased impacts of GHGs, is bound to impact agricultural production and productivity. India will suffer severely from potential changes in temperature and precipitation. There have been apprehensions about a possible increase in the warming of the El-Nino current, thought to be a major contributory factor to droughts in India. These climate change related issues call for greater understanding of crop-climate relationships and developing crop-weather models to devise efficient agricultural production strategies. Role of Agronomy and Agronomists in the Management of Climate Change

In India, to meet the increasing demands for food, fodder, fiber, fuel and other products in future, the productivity will have to be increased because the area under cultivation can hardly be increased. To overcome the problem of climate change agronomic management practices will play a significant role. The agronomists will have to keep in the fore front of their research agenda, how to improve the deteriorated system and have to evolve cropping/farming systems, and their agronomic management practices, which would harmonies high production with ecological safety. The agronomist is the key scientist in the team of research in formulating the crop production technology practices. The agronomist has to decide which and how much of each of the recommendations made by plant breeders, soil scientists, entomologists, plant pathologists, etc. will make a technically viable, socially acceptable, economically profitable and environmentally sound package of practice for a particular crop in a cropping/ farming system. He must caution against practices which have an element of damage to the system. The range of research covered by agronomy is now very wide. Starting from basic studies of the dynamics of various processes of the soil-plant-water-atmosphere system to developing yield increasing crop production technologies and fitting them into farming systems through collaborative field research involving scientists from other disciplines is required. In the management of climate change, mitigation and adaptation techniques are important activities to be carried out. Mitigation and adaptation are related to the temporal and spatial scales on which they are effective. The benefits of mitigation activities carried out today will be evidenced in several decades because of the long residence time to GHGs in the atmosphere. However, the effects of adaptation measures will be apparent immediately or in the near future. Besides, mitigation has global in addition to local benefits, where as adaptation typically takes on a local or regional scale. The purpose of mitigation and adaptation measures is to attempt a gradual reversal of the effects caused by climate change and sustain

!� Faroda and Poonia�

��

�

�

development under the inescapable effects of climate change. Mitigation of the Impacts of Climate Change There are several mitigation practices that can be effectively put to use to over come the effects of climate change with desirable results. Mitigation options include carbon sequestration in agriculture and forestry. Mitigation of climate change is a global responsibility. Agriculture, forestry, fisheries/aquaculture provide a significant potential for GHGs mitigation. The IPCC estimates that the global technical mitigation potential for agriculture will be between 5500 to 6000 mt CO2 equivalent per year by 2030, 89% of which are assumed to be from carbon sequestration in soils. Rice is an important food crop in India. The maximum emission of CH4 is in rice growing cropping systems. The CH4 emission from rice fields can be minimized by proper management practices. Studies conducted in the rice-wheat system in the Indo-Genetic plain zone in north India have shown that, zero tillage has effectively reduced the demand for water in rice-wheat cropping system. Zero tillage has a direct mitigation effect as it converts the GHGs like CO2 in to O2 in the atmosphere and carbon enriches soil organic matter. Keeping the rice fields moist rather than flooded or continuously saturated, thereby minimizing anaerobic conditions, and improving root growth and diversity of aerobic soil organisms, helps in mitigation of climate change. Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) has the potential to mitigate effects of climate change. The INM involves, in general, a combination of inorganic, organic and bio-fertilizers in such a proportion which may keep the soil capable of producing at an accelerated rate with out being damaged physically, chemically and biologically. The benefits of INM are increase in N use efficiency and increased yields. One of the key emerging technologies to reduce GHGs emissions from rice fields is the use of zymogenic bacteria, acetic acid and hydrogen producers; methanogens, CH4 oxidizers, and nitrifiers and denitrifiers in rice, which will help in maintaining the soil redox

potential in a range where both NO2 and CH4 emissions are low. The application of urease inhibitor, hydroquinone (Hq), and nitrification inhibitor, Dicyandiamide (DCD) together with urea also is an effective technology for reducing No2 and CH4 emissions from rice fields. Use of neem-coated urea is another simple and cost-effective technology. Improved management of livestock population and its diet could also assist in mitigation of GHGs. Adaptation Measures to Manage Climate Change In recent years deep concern has been voiced about conservation of nature and the disturbed relationship between agriculture and climate change. The causes are many such as deforestation, urbanization, industrialization, soil erosion, etc. Modernization of agriculture has also added its bit to the situation. Another major component of the soil-plant-atmosphere system in crop production is water. If this is not properly managed, it is not only wasted but also causes tremendous damage to the soil. Increasing use of fertilizes, insecticides, fungicides; herbicides and other agro-chemicals have created the problems of pollution of land, water and atmosphere. There use will further increase to achieve the very high production targets for agricultural products. Therefore, we have to explore sustainable agronomic practices to manage the impacts of climate change. Improved agronomic practices like adjustment of planting dates to minimize the effect of high temperature increase induced spikelet sterility can be used to reduce yield instability, by avoiding flowering to coincide with hotter period. Adaptation measures to reduce the negative effects of increased climatic variability may include changing the cropping calendar to take advantage of the wet period and to avoid extreme weather events during the crop growing season. Crop varieties that are resistant to lodging may be used to save the crop from strong winds during the sensitive stage of crop growth. Promotion of integrated farming systems will also be a viable and effective alternative in combating climate change. Multiple enterprise agriculture, where the crop, livestock, poultry,

�Faroda and Poonia�

��

�

�

fish farming and trees, etc. in a single unit of land, will minimise the risk. Improved crop management through crop rotations and inter cropping will be an important component in strategic adaptation to climate change in India. Intercropping is an efficient strategy because grain-legume intercrops have many potential benefits such as stable yields, better use of resources, weeds, insect-pests and diseases reductions, etc. as compared to sole cropping systems. Agro-forestry systems buffer farmers against climate variability, and reduce atmospheric loads of GHGs. In-Situ moisture conservation, rain water harvesting and recycling, efficient use of irrigation water and use of poor quality water are key strategies of adaptation to climate change in India. Integrated watershed management approach is most appropriate technology for rainwater harvesting, storage and reuse of harvested water to minimise the loss of crop production during drought and flood years. Bed-planting of crops has been proved to be successful technology. The main advantages are, increased water use efficiency; reduced water logging; better access for inter row cultivation, weed control and banding of fertilizers; better stand establishment , less crop lodging; and reduced seed rates. Conservation tillage, crop residue management and integrated nutrient management are important technologies to manage climate change in India. A huge amount of human and animal drops together with plant residues available in India have not been / is not being properly utilized. The concept of INM, therefore, needs to evolve a strategy of utilizing inorganic fertilizers in a balanced proportion in addition to use of organic manures, like FYM, compost, green manures, crop residues and bio-fertilizers wherever possible. Increased attention has to be paid to the integrated pest management (IPM) practices to make the crop production ecologically sustainable as farming is intensified. Animal husbandry is an essential component of agriculture in India. Livestock management is highly sensitive to climate change. Adaptation measures should be tailored to the agro-ecological conditions. There in a need

to develop heat tolerant species/breeds of livestock to adapt to climate change. Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change through Plant Breeding Genetic resources could well prove to be the most important cost effective basic raw material which will allow agriculture to adapt to climate change. Breeding research to develop crops for the 21st century should take in to account the fact that production environments will be more variable and more stressful and yearly climate variation will be greater. Thus, to cope with the impacts of climate change, priority target breeding traits will address crop responses to temperature, water (drought and flooding) and nutrient stresses, and elevated CO2 and other GHGs. Breeding new cultivars with enhanced adaptation to high temperatures, CO2 and other GHGs as well as cultivars that yield well with lower water and nutrient inputs are required. Genetic resources and breeding methods combining conventional and molecular tools, including transgenic approach, are needed to develop such cultivars. In India, considerable progress has been made in the genetic dissection of flowering time, inflorescence architecture, temperature, and drought tolerance in certain model plant systems and by comparative genomics in crop plants. CRIDA, Hyderabad, has come out with a transformed sorghum cultivar SPV 462 with the mt ID gene encoding for mannitol-1-phosphate dehydrogenase from E. coli with an aim to enhance tolerance to water deficit and NaCl stresses. Germination potential of these transgenic seeds was several times higher when challenged with salt and water stresses. They have remarkably robust root system in terms of root biomass and length. Genetic enhancement of heat tolerant genotypes, especially in pulses, by identifying and validating markers for high temperature tolerance with high yield potential is one of the key technological advances that can prove to be a significant strategy for adapting climate change. An additional strategy is to take advantage of faster growth under higher temperature. The new varieties should have characteristics of early flowering (photo-and-

�A� Faroda and Poonia�

��

�

�

thermo insensitivity), early maturity and higher productivity. Policy issues to Manage Climate Change In addition to use of technological strategies to combat climate change related impacts on crop production, there has to be sound policy frame work and strong political will on the part of the government to effectively battle climate change. A sound policy framework should address the issues of redesigning social sector with focus on vulnerable areas/populations, introduction of new credit instruments with deferred repayment, liabilities during extreme weather events, and weather insurance as major vehicle to transfer risk. Role of community institutions and private sector in relation to agriculture should be a matter of policy concern. Policy initiatives in relation to access to banking, micro-credit, insurance services before, during and after a disaster event, access to communication and information services is imperative in the envisaged climate change scenario. In India, as else where in the world, climate change is now high on the political and public agenda. Particular attention is being paid to the impact of climate change on agriculture since there could be serious implications for food security. Most scientists and policy makers now acknowledge that climate change will have far reaching impacts on human society unless significant steps are takes to deal with it. The key policy issues are Establishment of "Green Research Fund" for strengthening research on adaptation, mitigation and impact assessment; facilitate greater adoption of scientific and economic pricing polices for water, land, energy and other natural resources; financial incentives and package for improved land management; food and livelihood security; establishment of seed banks in highly variable and unpredictable environments, etc. Future Researchable issues to Manage Climate Change 1. Breeding for improved crop varieties

/hybrids to mitigate the impacts of high temperature, droughts, floods, insect-pests and disease infestation, etc. There is need to intensify research efforts on marker aided

selection and transgenic development for biotic and abiotic stress management.

2. Evolving efficient and sustainable water and Soil management practices for different regions.

3. Identification of crops and varieties /hybrids with high water use efficiency, adapted to temperature extremes and high concentration of CO2.

4. Development of efficient farming systems having tree-crop-livestock, fisheries, poultry, mushroom, etc. components which can withstand climate change situations, and can be economically viable and socially acceptable.

5. Identifying cost effective methods for reducing green house gas emission from rice fields and livestock farms.

6. Evolving effective and efficient conservation agriculture practices especially in water harvesting, nutrient, insect-pest and disease management.

7. Precision in climate change prediction with higher resolution on spatial and temporal scales.

8. Preparation of a database on climate change impacts on agriculture.

9. Development of models for weeds, insect-pests and diseases dynamics.

10. Agricultural bio-diversity and crop germplasm exploration for favourable traits is an important area that needs to be tapped. Seeds, plants and plant parts exhibiting tolerance to temperature, water and other atmospheric stresses caused by climate change needs to be collected and conserved to aid crop breeding research.

REFERENCES Aggarwal, P.K., Nagarajan, S., Shibu, M.E. and

Ramakrishana, Y.S. (2002). Impact of Climate Change Scenarios on Indian Agriculture, South Asia Expert Workshp on Adoption to Climate Change for Agricultural Productivity, 1-3 May, 2002, New Delhi.

Aggarwal, P.K. (2007). Climate Change: Implications for Indian Agriculture, Jalvigyan Sameeksha Vol. 22, 2007.

Annals of Arid Zone. 2008. Special Issue on Climate change. 47(3&4).

��Faroda and Poonia�

��

�

�

Anon. (2009). A Reference Annual, Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India.

Bhaskaran, B., Mitchell, J.F.B., Lavery, J.R. and Lal, M. (1995). Climatic response of the Indian sub-continent to doubled CO2 concentrations. Int. J. Climatol. 15: 873-892.

FAO. (2009). Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, FAO Statistical Data Base.

Hingane, L.S., Rupa Kumar, K. and Ramana Murthy, Bh. V. (1985). Seasonal and annual surface air temperature for long term trends. J. Climatol. 5: 521-528.

IPCC. (1996). Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific Technical Analyses, Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

IPCC. (2001). Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Third Assessment Report of IPCC.

IPCC. (2007). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptations and Vulnerability, Fourth Assessment report of IPCC.

Kashyapi, A., Hage, Archana, P. and Kulkarni, Deepa, A. ISPRS Archives 8/W3 Workshop proceedings: Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture.

Keysheet-6- Agriculture- Climate Change Impacts on Agriculture in India, IARI.

Lal, M., Nozawa, T., Emori, S., Harasawa, H., Takahashi, K., Kimoto, M., Abe-Ouchi, A., Nakjima, T., Takemura, T.and Numaguti, A. (2001). Future Climate Change: Implications for Indian summer monsoon and its variability. Current Science. 81: 1196-1207.

Lonergan, S. (1998). Climate Warming in India, World Bank Technical Paper No. 402., Washington DC.

Mall, R.K., Bhatla, R. and Pandey, S.N. (2007). Water Resources in India and Impact of

Climate Change, Jalvigyan Sameeksha, Vol. 22.

National Conference on Climate change and Indian Agriculture, 12-13 October, 2007, ICAR, New Delhi

Ramakrishna, Y.S., Rao, G.G.S.N., Rao, G.S. and Kumar, V. (2006). Climate Change, In: Environment and Agriculture, Eds. K.L Chadha and M.S. Swaminathan, Malhotra Publishing House, New Delhi.

Rupa Kumar, K., Krishana Kumar, K. and Pant, G.B. 1994. Diurnal asymmetry of surface temperature trends over India, Geophys. Res. Let. 21: 677-680.

Rupa Kumar, K., Krishna Kumar, K., Pant, G.B. and Srinivasan, G. (2002). Climate Change-The Indian Scenario, In: Background Paper Prepared by FICCI, International Conference on Science and Technology Capacity Building For Climate Change, October 20-22, New Delhi.

Rupa Kumar, K., Krishan Kumar, K., Prasanna, V., Kamala, K., Deshpande, N.R., Patwardhan, S.K. and Pant, G.B. (2003). Future Climate Scenario, In: Climate Change and Indian Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation, Universities Press (India) Pvt. Ltd. Hyderabad. pp.69-127.

Rupa Kumar, K., Sahai, A.K., Krishna Kumar, K., Patwardhan, S.K., Mishra, P.K., Revadkar, J.V., Kamala, K. and Pant, G.B. (2006). High-resolution Climate Change Scenarios for India for the 21st Century. Current Science. 90(3): 334-345.

SANDEE. (2009). South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics, Policy Brief, Number 39-09, December, 2009.

Venkateswarlu, B. and Shanker, A.K. (2009). Climate Change and Agriculture: Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 54(2): 226-230.

�?� Faroda and Poonia�

��

�

�

Species diversity of Coccinellids (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in selected

provenances of Sandal (Santalum album Linn.) and their role in pest control

R. Sundararaj1 and Gaurav Sharma2

1Wood Biodegradation Division, Institute of Wood Science & Technology, 18th Cross Malleswaram,

Bangalore-560 003, India 2Zoological Survey of India, Desert Regional Centre, Jhalamand, Pali Road, Jodhpur-342 005, India.

e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]


ABSTRACT: Entomophagous coccinellids are perhaps the most familiar of all the predaceous beetle groups. This charismatic group includes many beneficial species that are voracious predators of pestiferous aphids, whiteflies, psyllids, scale insects etc. The role of coccinellids in biological control of sandal insect pests is less studied. In the present study, surveys were conducted to identify the species spectrum of coccinellids in six sandal provenances of south India. It revealed the presence of 25 species of coccinellids in the sandal provenances. In the light of these findings, the importance of exploiting these coccinellids for developing ecologically and environmentally sound insect pest management strategies in sandal plantations is discussed. Key words: Coccinellids, Santalum album, biological control.

INTRODUCTION

Entomophagous coccinellids are major consumers of prey, perhaps the most familiar non-specialists is the lady beetle family, Coccinellidae. It is widely known that this charismatic group includes many beneficial species that are voracious predators of pestiferous aphids and scale insects. They feed on a wide variety of prey species (Hodek, 1996), e.g. mites (Biddinger et al., 2009), aphids (Obrycki et al., 2009), Coleoptera and Lepidoptera (Evans, 2009), and non-preyfood (Lundgren, 2009; Sutherland and Parrella, 2009). Coccids are essential food for a large proportion (36%) of coccinellid species globally, especially in the tropics and subtropics. Coccidophagy is likely the ancestral condition for the family Coccinellidae (Giorgi et al., 2009), and coccidophagous coccinellids belong to several tribes (and genera), including Sukunahikonini, Sticholotini, Scymnini (Cryptolaemus, Diomus, Nephus, Sidis), Hyperaspini (Hyperaspis), Telsimiini, Chilocorini (Chilocorus, Exochomus), Coccidulini (Rhyzobius), Azyini, Exoplectrini, Noviini (Novius, Rodolia), and Coccinellini (Neda). Species from Serangiini, Scymnini (Clitostethus), and Scymnillini prefer whiteflies as prey (Hodek, 1996). An exact evidence of trophic ecology of coccinellids can

only been gained by a systematic, preferably experimental study. The finding that some food may be eaten by ladybirds in spite of its low suitability or even toxicity (Hodek, 1956) led to the principal distinction between essential food promoting successful preimaginal development and reproduction, while alternative foods only enable survival (Hodek, 1962, 1996). Hodek and Honeˇk (2009) reviewed their role in biological control progaramme against scale insects, mealybugs, whiteflies and psyllids. Weber and Lundgren (2009) stressed that assessments of intraguild predation, and the breadth of prey and non-prey foods of the coccinellids is essential to the understanding of this group and for their application as biological control agents. Obrycki et al. (2009) demonstrated its application in biological control in agroecosystems. In this paper, the coccinellids found active in different provenances of sandal are listed and their role in biological control is discussed. MATERIAL AND METHODS

Surveys were conducted in sandal provenances of South India during 2004 to 2007 to record the insect communities. The six sandal provenances selected for the


��

�

�

studies were Banagalore, Thangali and Mandagadde in Karnataka, Chitteri and Javadis in Tamil Nadu and Marayoor in Kerala. For the studies sample plots were selected homogenously through out the study areas in all the provenances of sandal. In the selected plots the insects were collected using Insect net, Berlese funnel, Winkler bags, Pit-fall traps and Sticky traps. From the field collected insects the coccinellids were sorted out, preserved by following standard

procedures and got identified with the help of taxonomic experts. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The study indicated the presence of 25 species of coccinellids in all the selected provenances of sandal. Based on number of identified species, Thangali and Javadis provenances recorded maximum number of coccinellids (22 species each). Chitteri provenance recorded 21 species. Bangalore and Marayoor provenances recorded 19 species each and Mandagadde recorded 18 species (Table 1).

Table 1. Coccinellids recorded from six Sandal Provenances of South India

Sl. No Coccinellid Sandal provenances of south India Bangalore Thangali Mandagadde Chitteri Javadis Marayoor

1. Anegleis cardoni (Ws.) + + + + + + 2. Axinoscymnus puttarudriahi

Kapur & Munshi, + + + + + +

3. Brumoides suturalis (Fabricius) + + + - - + 4. Cheilomenes sexmaculata

(Fabricius) + + + + + +

5. Chilocorus nigrita (Fabricius) + + + + + + 6. Coccinella septumpunctata

Linnaeus + + + + + +

7. Cryptolaemus montruizeri Mlsant

+ + + + + +

8. Curinus coeruleus (Mulsant) + + + + + + 9. Harmonia octomaculata

(Fabricius) + + - - + +

10. Illeis cincta (Fabricius) + + - + - + 11. Jauravia albidula Motschulsky - - - + + + 12. Jauravia dorsalis (Weise) + + + + + - 13. Jauravia pallidula Motschulsky + + + + + + 14. Nephus regularis Sic. + + - - + + 15. Pharoscymnus flexibilis

(Mulsant) - + - + + +

16. Phrynocaria perrotteti (Mulsant),

+ + + + + -

17. Pseudaspidimerus flaviceps (Walker)

- - - + + -

18. Pseudaspidimerus trinotatus (Thunberg)

+ + + + + +

19. Pullus coccidivora Ayyar + + + - + + 20. Pullus gratiosus Wse. + + + + - - 21. Rodolia amabilis Kapur + + + + + + 22. Rodolia breviuscula Weise - + + + + + 23. Rodolia fumida Mulsant - - - + + - 24. Scymnus latemaculatus

Motschulsky + + + + + -

25. Scymnus nubilus Mulsant - + + + + + Total 19 22 18 21 22 19

�B� Sundararaj and Sharma�

��

�

�

These coccinellids along with other entomophagous predators and parasitoids mighty be playing an active role in keeping the populations of pestiferous insects under control. The non-out break of insect pests on sandal in its natural habitats mainly corroborates the existence of variety of natural enemies in undisturbed areas like natural forests (Sundararaj et al., 2006 and 2007). In the emerging scenario of growing sandal in areas outside forests where it is affected by many pests of agricultural and horticultural importance enough focus to be given to exploit these coccinellids in insect pest management of sandal.

Research on these coccinellids has advanced mankind’s concept of biological pest management which is emerging as an important component of integrated pest management (IPM) programs. Indeed, the first successful classical biological control effort involved the introduction of the vedalia beetle, Rodolia cardinalis (Mulsant), to control cottony cushion scale, Icerya purchasi Maskell, on citrus plants in California during the late 1880s (Caltagirone

and Doutt, 1989). The same coccinellid beetle, Rodolia cardinalis (Origin: Australia), which has an excellent record of accomplishment for the suppression of cottony cushion scale, Icerya. purchasi was introduced to India in the Nilgiris in 1930 and it successfully controlled I. purchasi. In 1941, the pest assumed serious proportions and spread to upper Palni hills (Tamil Nadu), but was brought under control by releasing R. cardinalis. As I. purchasi threatened citrus in Maharashtra, Karnataka and Kerala, R. cardinalis was obtained from the Nilgiris and New Zealand, multiplied and released in infested localities resulting in satisfactory control (Singh, 2004). Besides, climate change is expected to bring extension in the host range of many pests and diseases and change in population structure and growth rate among insect species (Ananthakrishnan, 2007). In this context, considering the ever-increasing importance of conservation of sandal with a commitment of environmental safety, research on the line of utilization of naturally occurring coccinellids would benefit sandal pest management.

REFERENCES Ananthakrishnan, T.N. (2007). Insects and

Climate. Entomology Academy of India Base Paper No. 1. p.27.

Biddinger, D.J., Weber, D.C. and Hull, L.A. (2009). Coccinellidae as predators of mites: Stethorini in biological control. Biological Control. 51: 268–283.

Blackman, R.L. (1965). Studies on specificity in Coccinellidae. Annals of Applied Biology. 56: 336–338.

Caltagirone, L.E. and Doutt, R.L. (1989). The history of the Vedalia Beetle importation into California and its impact on the development of biological control. Annual Review of Entomology. 34: 1–16.

Evans, E.W. (2009). Lady beetles as predators of insects other than Hemiptera. Biological Control. 51: 255–267.

Giorgi, J.A., Vandenberg, N.J., McHugh, J.V., Forrester, J.A.,S´lipin´ ski, S.A., Miller, K.B., Shapiro, L.R. and Whiting, M.F. (2009). The evolution of food preferences in Coccinellidae. Biological Control. 51: 215–231.

Hodek, I. (1956). The influence of Aphis

sambuci L. as prey of the ladybird beetle Coccinella septempunctata L.. Vestnik Ceskoslovenske Spolecnosti Zoologicke (in Czech, English abstract). 20: 62–74.

Hodek, I. (1962). Essential and alternative food in insects. Verhandlungen des 11. Internationalen Kongress Entomologie, Wien, 1960. 2: 696–697.

Hodek, I. (1996). Food relationships. In: Hodek, I., Honeˇk, A. (Eds.), Ecology of Coccinellidae. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht. pp.143–238.

Hodek, I and Honeˇk, A. (2009). Scale insects, mealybugs, whiteflies and psyllids (Hemiptera, Sternorrhyncha) as prey of ladybirds. Biological Control. 51: 232–243.

Lundgren, J.G. (2009). Nutritional aspects of non-prey foods in the life histories of predaceous Coccinellidae. Biological Control. 51: 294–305.

Obrycki, J.J., Harwood, J.D., Kring, T.J. and O’Neil, R.J. (2009). Aphidophagy by Coccinellidae: Application of biological

�C�Sundararaj and Sharma�

��

�

�

control in agroecosystems. Biological Control. 51: 244–254.

Singh, S.P. (2004). Some success stories in classical biological control of agricultural pests in India. APAARI publication, 2004/2. 73pp.

Sundararaj, R., Sharma, G. and Karibasavaraja, L.R. (2006). A checklist of insects associated with sandal (Santalum album Linn.)- a checklist. Annals of Forestry. 14(1): 121-168.

Sundararaj, R., Sharma, G. and Karibasavaraja, L.R. (2007). A checklist of parasitic and

predatory groups of insects in sandal (Santalum album Linn.) ecosystem. Annals of Forestry. 15(1): 137-144.

Sutherland, A.M. and Parrella, M.P. (2009). Mycophagy in Coccinellidae: review and synthesis. Biological Control. 51: 284–293.

Weber, D.C. and Lundgren, J.G. (2009). Assessing the tropic ecology of the Coccinellidae: Their role as predators and as prey. Biological Control. 51: 199-214.

�� Sundararaj and Sharma�

��

�

�

Distribution and diversity of Noctuid Fauna of Veerangana Durgavati Wildlife Sanctuary, Damoh district, Madhya Pradesh

S. Sambath and Kailash Chandra*

Zoological Survey of India, Central Zone Regional Centre, Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur-482 002, Madhya

Pradesh, India. *Zoological Survey of India, 535, “M” Block, New Alipore, Kolkata-700 053, West Bengal, India

e-mail: [email protected]

(Received 6 November, 2011, Accepted 2 January, 2012)

ABSTRACT: The Noctuidae is one of the largest families of the insect order Lepidoptera, which includes more than 1300 species of moths from India. The family includes mostly economically important moths, the larvae of which feed voraciously on a wide range of plants (polyphagous) in different agro-ecosystem and forests and cause considerable economic loss. Due to intense anthropogenic activities in and around the agriculture and the forest habitats, the distribution and diversity of noctuid fauna is changing in these habitats. During the present study, attempts has been made during the year 2009-2011 to document the noctuids of one of the conservation area of Madhya Pradesh i.e. Veerangana Durgavati Wildlife Sanctuary (VDWS), District Damoh. The preliminary studies show that a good number of moth species would be documented. Presently, 21 species of noctuid moths belonging to 19 genera under 7 subfamilies are reported. The study of these insects will help in the conservation and management of this habitat. Key words: Lepidoptera, Noctuidae, Diversity, Veerangana Durgawati Wildlife Sanctuary.

INTRODUCTION

The family Noctuidae, occasionally known as owlet moths, is the largest and most speciose radiation of insect order Lepidoptera, Most of the adult moths has drab forewings, and some have brightly coloured hind wings. There are usually few differences between the sexes. The overwhelming majority of noctuids fly at night and is almost invariably attracted to light. Many are also attracted to sugar and nectar-rich flowers. The larvae of many noctuid genera well known as army-worms, cutworms, bollworms and stem borers, are very economically important and cause severe damage to various crops in agriculture, horticulture and plantations and natural forests each year.

At present, their control, still mainly through the use of chemicals pesticides, is also expensive. Thus, it is a vital pre-requisite to draw attentions on the various biological studies of these species which helps immensely to the efficient use of the resources available to combat the pest species and also to minimize environmental contamination in different

ecosystems for the conservation and management of noctuid fauna of these regions. Study area: Veerangana Durgavati Wildlife Sanctuary is situated on the state highway No.36 midway between Jabalpur and Damoh within 23D30’ and 23D35’ N latitudes and 79D40’ and 79D 50’ E longitudes of Madhya Pradesh (Fig. 1). The sanctuary stretches over an area of 24 km² with its hilly topography, represent a mosaic of all kinds of habitat and consists of well reserved forests as tropical mixed dry deciduous forests of medium quality and density. The common plant species of the sanctuary are saja (Terminalia atata), tendu (Diospyros melanoxylon), mahua (Madhuca latifolia), teak (Tectona grandis), palas (Butea monosperma), khair (Acacia catechu), etc. The sanctuary is also attributed with number of water resources which support diverse flora and fauna. The major wildlife attractions of the sanctuary are tiger, leopard, nilgai, jungle cat, striped hyena, wolf, jackal, chital, black buck, chinkara, langur, monkeys and mongoose, etc.


��

�

�

MATERIALS AND METHODS Collection of Noctuid fauna (moths) was made by using light trap at night (dusk to dawn). The light trap consists of white cloth sheet (10’ X 6’) hung between two vertical poles in such a way that it touches the surface and extends forwards over the ground a little away from the direct source of light. The source of light should be placed at such a point that the whole sheet from edge to edge is brightly illuminated.

A 160 watt mercury vapour bulb was used as a light source over night. The light trap was installed at different localities and operated from dusk to dawn. Moths start appearing on the trap just after sunset and most of the moths were collected between 18.00 to 22.00 hours after that the abundance of moths gets slowly declined.

The number of moths collected from different localities were studied, identified and classified with the available literature (Hampson, 1892, 1894-96 and Bell & Scott,1937) and their current nomenclature is based on LEPINDEX, an online database version of NHM, UK (Beccaloni et al., 2003).

RESULT AND DISCUSSION During this study, more than 100

specimens of noctuid moths were collected and recorded 21 species belongs to 18 genera under 7 subfamilies, viz., Aganainae, Calpinae, Catocalinae, Hadeninae, Heliothinae, Noctuinae and Plusiinae (Table 1). Among the subfamilies the Catocalinae (52.00%) outnumbers the other subfamilies viz., Calpinae (24%), Aganainae, Hadeninae, Heliothinae, and Plusiinae were represented each by 4 to 5% (Fig. 2). Most of the Catocalinae are large (7 to 10 cm, 3 to 4 inches) compared to other noctuids, and have brightly colored hind wings. They are closely related to the subfamilies Ophiderinae and Calpinae. The larvae of the Catocalinae have a spiny skin and a transverse arrangement of L1 and L2 setae on the prothorax. Most of the members of this subfamily are flower and seed feeders. The members of the subfamily Calpinae are closely related to the subfamily Catocalinae and both subfamilies contain large species with wingspans of more than 5 centimeters.

Fig. 1. Study area of Veerangana Durgawati Wildlife Sanctuary, M.P.

�!� Sambath and Chandra�

��

�

�

Table 1. Host plants of Noctuid fauna (Family: Noctuidae) of Veerangana Durgavati Wildlife Sanctuary, Damoh District, Madhya Pradesh.

Sl. No. Name of the species Subfamily Host Plants 1. Acanthodelta janata (Linnaeus) Catocalinae Acacia sp., Ficus sp., Tamarindus indica 2. Anomis flava (Fabricius) Catocalinae Gossypium hirsutum, Hibiscus

rosasinensis, 3. Anomis fulvida Guenee Catocalinae - 4. Anua coronata Fabricius Catocalinae Citrus sp., Terminalia bellerica 5. Anua triphaenoides (Walker) Catocalinae - 6. Artena dotata Fabricius Catocalinae Quisqualis indica, Terminalia bellerica, T.

tomentosa 7. Asota caricae (Fabricius) Aganainae Shorea robusta, Ficus bengalensis, F.

religiosa 8. Chalciope mygdon (Cramer) Catocalinae Phyllathus sp. 9. Chrysodeixis eriosoma Doubleday Plusiinae Ficus sp. 10. Dysgonia algira (Linnaeus) Catocalinae Ricinus cummunis, Citrus sp., Ficus sp. 11. Fodina stola (Guenee) Calpinae Anogeissus latifolia, cassia fistula 12. Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) Heliothinae Acacia catechu, Abizia procera 13. Hypocala deflorata Fabricius Calpinae Diospyros montana 14. Ophiusa tirrhaca (Cramer) Catocalinae Shorea robusta, Terminalia bellerica, T.

tomentosa 15. Othreis fullonia (Clerck) Calpinae Anacardium occidentale, Mangifera indica 16. Pandesma anysa (Guenee) Calpinae Acacia sp., Dalbergia sissoo,

Pithecellobium dulce, Prosopis sp.,

17. Pericyma cruegeri Butler Catocalinae Acacia catechu, Delonix regia, 18. Psimada quadripennis Walker Calpinae Ficus bengalensis 19. Spirama retorta Clerck Catocalinae Albizia lebbek, A. procera, A.amara 20. Spodoptera litura (Fabricius) Hadeninae Annona squamosa Mangifera indica 21. Xestia semiherbida Walker Noctuinae Members of the plant family Rosaceae,

Malvaceae

Fig. 2. Diversity of Noctuid fauna (%) from Veerangana Durgawati Wildlife Sanctuary, Damoh, Madhya Pradesh.

� �Sambath and Chandra�

��

�

�

The subfamily Aganainae consists of ten taxa widely distributed throughout Oriental and Australasia regions. The larvae of this groups mainly feed on the plants belong to the family Moraceae, Apocynaceae and Asclepiadaceae (Kitching & Rawlins 1998; Holloway 1988; Common 1990), and thus the bright colours of most adults are probably aposematic. The larvae are sometimes aposematic, being patterned variously in black and white, especially in species that oviposit egg masses, which develop into groups of gregarious larvae. Other species oviposit singly and their larvae are usually cryptic. The adult moths of the subfamily Hadeninae are medium in size; have stout body covered with long hairs. Their legs are without spines and the larvae of many species feed on grass, and they have four pair of prolegs, most have thick lined along the body. They hide during the day and feed at night and the full grown larvae pupate in soil. The adults and larvae of the subfamily Heliothinae are medium sized, usually with stout body clothed with long hairs and the larvae feed on flower bud, fruits and foliage, and pupate in a cell in soil. The larvae of the many species of the subfamily Noctuinae feed on roots or stems of various grasses. Some are generalist feeders which make them potential pests. The majority of the Plusiinae members are herbaceous feeders, and species such as Chrysodeixis eriosoma Doubleday and Thysanoplusia orichalcea Fabricius, are recognized pests and are characteristically widespread geographically, highly dispersive (recorded as migrants) and usually captured in open habitats. The subfamily shows fairly distribution throughout the world.

Moth fauna of Madhya Pradesh including Chhattisgarh were studied by various researchers like Cotes and Swinhoe (1886-1889), Hampson (1892, 1894, 1895, 1896), Singh and Rawat (1980) Vaishampayan and Veda (1980), Vaishampayan and Verma (1987), Singh (1987) and Bell and Scott (1937). Chandra et al. (2004, 2006a; 2006b) recorded on moths of few protected areas and Jabalpur district in Madhya Pradesh. Further, Chandra and Nema (2007) were added and consolidated more than 313 species, 221 genera under 25 moths families are known from Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. The present findings of 21 species under the

family Noctuidae is reported for the first time from this wildlife sanctuary. The results from this study can be used for making decisions on conservation of natural resource management especially for insect biodiversity. Hence, both extensive and intensive surveys with long term ecological monitoring programmes will prove to help in identifying the status of the species. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors are grateful to Dr. K. Venkataraman, Director, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata for providing necessary facilities and encouragements. Sincere thanks are also due to the Divisional Forest Officer and Forest Range Officer, Veerangana Durgawati Wildlife Sanctuary, District Damoh, Madhya Pradesh for their permission and kind cooperation during the faunistic surveys. REFERENCES Bell, T.R.D. and Scott, F.B. (1937). Fauna of

British India including Ceylon & Burma, Moths-5. 1-533.

Chandra, K., Nema, D.K. and Bhandari, R. (2004). New records of moths from Jabalpur district, Madhya Pradesh. National Journal of Life Sciences. 1: 373-384.

Chandra, K., Nema, D.K. and Singh, S.P. (2006). On a collection of moths from Achanakmar Wildlife Sanctuary, Chhattisgarh. National Journal of Life Sciences. 3: 183-189.

Chandra, K. and Nema, D.K. (2006). Moths of Kanger Valley National Park (Bastar Chhattisgarh). Records of Zool. Surv. India. 106: 13-23.

Chandra, K. and Nema, D.K. (2007). Insecta: Lepidoptera: Heterocera. Zool. Surv. India, Fauna of Madhya Pradesh (including Chhattisgarh), State Fauna Series. 15 (Part-1): 347-418.

Cotes, E.C. and Swinhoe, C. (1886-1889). A catalogue of Moths of India. 1-801.

Hampson, G.F. (1892). Fauna of British India including Ceylon & Burma, Moths-1. 1-527.

Hampson, G.F. (1894). Fauna of British India including Ceylon & Burma, Moths-2. 1-528.

?A� Sambath and Chandra�

��

�

�

Hampson, G. F. (1895). Fauna of British India including Ceylon & Burma, Moths-3. 1-517.

Hampson, G. F. (1896). Fauna of British India including Ceylon & Burma, Moths-4. 1-595.

Singh, O. P. (1987). New record of Amyna octo Guenee as pest of soyabean in M. P. India. Indian Journal of Plant Protection. 15(1): 95-96.

Singh O.P. and Rawat R.R. (1980). Natural enemies of cabbage Web-worm, Crocidolomia binotalis Zell. at Jabalpur (M. P.). Indian Journal of Entomology. 42: 324-326.

Vaishampayan, S.M. and Veda, O.P. (1980). Population dyanamics of gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) and its outbreak situation gram, Cicer arietinum L. at Jabalpur. Indian Journal of Entomology. 42(3): 453-459.

Vaishampayan, S. M. and Verma, R. (1987). Seasonal change in the reproductive potential of female moths of Heliothis armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidea) collected on light trap at Jabalpur. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 57(3): 200-205.

?��Sambath and Chandra�

��

�

�

Role of Aquatic Insects as Biomonitors, Hussain Sagar Lake, Hyderabad

J. Deepa

Zoological Survey of India, Freshwater Biology Regional Centre, Hyderabad- 500 048, India

email: [email protected]


ABSTRACT: Biological monitoring using insects has many advantages. Many taxa differ with regard to their sensitivity to environmental change and habitat requirements so we can choose the taxon according to the needed resolution. As particulate material including sediment increases, certain species of mayflies (Caenidae) with protected abdominal gills, and caddisflies like the filter-feeding Hydropsychidae increase in relative abundance. When dissolved oxygen is reduced, haemoglobin-possessing Chironomids increase in number. Stonefly nymphs decline as temperature increases. The present study is based on Insect collections made from various surveys to the Hussain Sagar lake, Hyderabad, during April, 2008-March, 2010. The less number of aquatic insects families belonging to three orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera was noted which constitute the EPT Index of a lake. Since these orders of insects are highly sensitive to pollution, they are used as water quality indicators. Their presence and relatively average number suggests the Hussain sagar lake to be a eutrophic one, and the results are confirmed by chemical analysis of water. Aquatic entomofauna of Hussain sagar lake play a vital role in assessing the health of a lake and are proved to be efficient biodiversity indicators. Key words: Aquatic Insects, Biomonitor, Husain Sagar Lake.

INTRODUCTION

Insects are the most diverse group of organisms in freshwater. Estimates on the global number of aquatic insect species derived from the fauna of North America, Australia and Europe is about 45,000 species, of this about 5,000 species are estimated to inhabit inland wetlands of India. Although insects are predominantly terrestrial animals, a substantial number, perhaps between 2 and 3% of described species, are aquatic or semiaquatic. Some or all representatives of 13 of the orders of insects have one or more life stages living in or closely associated with aquatic habitats. Because many species are aquatic only during their immature stages, the study of aquatic insects involves both terrestrial and aquatic or semiaquatic life forms. Aquatic insects of inland wetlands comprise some well-known groups like mayflies (Ephemeroptera), dragonflies (Odonata) and caddiesflies (Trichoptera).

Using indicators to estimate biodiversity is faster and less expensive than conducting comprehensive biodiversity surveys. Aquatic biomonitoring is the science of inferring the ecological condition of rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands by examining the organisms that live

there. The present study is based on Insect collections made from various surveys to the Hussain Sagar lake, Hyderabad, during April, 2008-March, 2010 as a part of the project entitled “Taxonomic and ecological studies of Aquatic insects of lakes in and around Hyderabad” (FBRC/ZSI/Hyderabad). The Hussain Sagar Lake in Hyderabad is an enchanting lake and is the largest man-made Lake in Asia. Hussain Sagar bridges twin cities Hyderabad and Secunderabad. It is a placid lake of 24 kilometres built by Hazrat Husain Shah Wali on a tributary of the Musi during the time of that great builder Ibrahim Quli Qutb Shah in 1562 to meet the water and irrigation needs of the city. The Hussainsagar catchment area is about 275 sq km covering Kukatpally, Dulappally, Bowenpally, Yusufguda and Khairatabad watersheds.

Aquatic insects are the most widely used organisms in freshwater biomonitoring. In addition to taking direct samples of water and testing for various metals, organic matters, dissolved oxygen etc, aquatic insects also aid as site monitors of water quality. Few species belonging to family Ephemeroptera (nymphs)


��

�

�

beetles of Family Elmidae (adults), Trichoptera (larvae), Plecoptera (nymphs), Psephenidae (water pennies) are highly sensitive to pollution and serve as bioindicators of water quality. These organisms require high dissolved oxygen levels. Generally when present in less numbers, these insects suggest it as a eutrohic lake .Some insects of order Megaloptera (larvae), Odonates viz. dragonflies and damselflies (nymphs), family Gyrinidae (whirligig beetles larvae) tends to tolerate some degradation of water quality. EPT index, an index of water quality based on the abundance of three pollution-sensitive orders of macroinvertebrates relative to the abundance of a hardy species of macroinvertebrate. It is calculated as the sum of the number of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera divided by the total number of midges (Diptera: Chironomid). The EPT Index is calculated and results discussed. METHODOLOGY

During the course of local surveys, three seasonal surveys in a year were made, and aquatic insects were collected from water bodies of the park. Collections were made with the help of hand operated nets of varying sizes by randomly netting different areas of wetland. Insects collected for study were preserved in 70% alcohol. The collections were identified with the aid of standard literature on the groups. Proportion of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera in total number of individuals collected gives a fairly descent picture of water quality These groups prefer clear, unpolluted lakes and are sensitive to pollution. This study is significant due to its maiden effort to study the entomofaunal diversity of lakes of Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh and their role in biomonitoring of lakes. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Biological monitoring using insects has many advantages. Many taxa differ with regard to their sensitivity to environmental change and habitat requirements so we can choose the taxon according to the needed resolution. We can focus on functional groups such as primary consumers or top predators to monitor ecosystem function. As particulate material including sediment increases, certain species of mayflies (Caenidae)

with protected abdominal gills, and caddisflies like the filter-feeding Hydropsychidae increase in relative abundance. When dissolved oxygen is reduced, haemoglobin-possessing Chironomids increase in number. Stonefly nymphs decline as temperature increases. The less number of aquatic insects families belonging to three orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera was noted which constitute the EPT Index of a lake. Since these orders of insects are highly sensitive to pollution, they are used as water quality indicators. Their presence and relatively average number suggests the Hussain sagar lake to be a eutrophic one, and the results are confirmed by chemical analysis of water. Aquatic entomofauna of Hussain Sagar Lake play a vital role in assessing the health of a lake and are proved to be efficient biodiversity indicators. Ephemeroptera: Mayflies, larvae of mayflies live in a wide variety of flowing and standing waters. Most of them eat plant material, either by scraping algae or collecting small pieces of detritus from the bottom. Larvae breathe dissolved oxygen by means of gills on the abdomen. They have incomplete metamorphosis. Most mayflies are sensitive to pollution. Plecoptera: Stone flies, are the most sensitive order of aquatic insects. Consequently, stoneflies are often restricted to habitats where there is little human development, clear water, and high dissolved oxygen content. Plecoptera are a source of food for many game fish. Population levels of Plecoptera are also used as biological indicators of water quality. Stoneflies are very sensitive to water quality, especially dissolved oxygen levels, thus deteriorating populations of stoneflies may mean that poor water quality threatens the health of the aquatic ecosystem. Trichoptera: Caddisflies larvae live in a wide variety of flowing and standing waters. They also have a wide range of feeding habits, including scraping algae, collecting fine particles of detritus from the bottom or from the water, shredding dead leaves, and preying on other invertebrates. They breathe dissolved oxygen by means of gills and their overall body surface. Caddisflies have complete metamorphosis and

?@�Deepa�

��

�

�

remain in the water for the pupa stage. Most kinds are sensitive to pollution, but a few kinds are somewhat tolerant of moderate levels of pollution.

EPT index: This is the easiest index to calculate and is total number of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera families, divided by the total number of families in all samples and multiply by 100. The EPT Index is a reliable tool to evaluate watershed condition useful forestablishing reference conditions, setting protection and restoration goals, identifying disturbances, choosing control measures and monitoring lake condition. Traditional physico-chemical analysis of water quality provides a snap shot of water quality at the time of sample collection. In contrast, biomonitoring adds a

temporal component to the sample and provides a history of the perturbation if any. However, physicochemical measurements and biomonitoring are not mutually exclusive and an ideal water quality monitoring programme should involve both approaches. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author is thankful to the Dr. K.Venkatraman, Director, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata and Dr. S.Z. Siddiqi, Officer-in-Charge, ZSI, Hyderabad, for providing facilities to carry out this work. REFERENCES Bal, A. and Basu, R.C. 1994. Insecta: Hemiptera:

Mesoveliidae, Hydrometridae, Velidae and Gerridae. In: State fauna Series, Fauna of West Bengal, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata. 5(5): 535-558.

Deepa J. and Rao, C.A.N. 2007. Aquatic Hemiptera of Pocharam Lake, Andhra Pradesh. Zoos’ Print Journal. 22(12): 2937-2939.

Deepa, J. and. Rao, C.A.N. 2010. Aquatic Entomofauna of Pocharam lake, Andhra Pradesh (Hemiptera & Coleoptera, Wetland ecosystem series, Rec. Zool. surv. India, Kolkata. 13: 37-49

Deepa, J. and Rao, C.A.N. 2011. On Collections of aquatic and semiaquatic bugs and beetles of KBR National Park, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. Bugs R All. 17: 13-15.

Mukhopadhyay, P. and Ghosh, S.K. 2003. Insecta: Coleoptera. Fauna of Sikkim. State Fauna series, Zoological Survey of India. Kolkata. 9(3): 19-33.

Subramanian, K.A. and Sivaramakrishnan, K.G. 2007. Aquatic Insects of India-A field Guide, http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/energy/lake2009/workshop/Indian_aqua_Insects.pdf

Thirumalai, G. 1999. Aquatic and semi-aquatic Heteroptera of India. Indian Association of Aquatic Biologist (IAAB) Publication. 7: 1-74.

Vazirani, T.G. 1973. Contribution to the study of aquatic beetles (Coleoptera) XII. On a collection of Dytiscidae from Gujarat. Rec. zool. Surv. India, Calcutta. 67: 287-30

?B� Deepa�

��

�

�

On some aspects of Territoriality and Reproduction of Pseudagrion microcephalum (Rambur) (Insecta: Odonata: Zygoptera: Coenagrionoidea)

B. Suri Babu1 and Gaurav Sharma2

1Regional Forensic Science Laboratory Building, Bodhghat Colony, Jagdalpur-494001. District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh, India.

2Zoological Survey of India, Desert Regional Centre, Jhalamand, Jodhpur-342005, Rajasthan, India. e-mail: [email protected]; 2drguarav.zsi.india.gmail.com


ABSTRACT: The territoriality and reproductive behaviour of Pseudagrion microcephalum (Rambur) has been studied in detail in a temporary monsoon pond, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, State Chhattisgarh, India. The territoriality is strongly demonstrated by males towards both conspecific and heterospecific males. Precopulatory courtship display is present and brief, lasted for 8 to 13 seconds (X= 9.5; N=30). Intramale sperm translocation has occurred after the seizure of the female only and lasted for 10 to 20 seconds (X= 14.25; N=10). The copulatory wheel was formed during the perched condition and stage I lasted for 15 to 35 minutes (X: 25.15; N=20) and stage II lasted for 05 to 08 minutes (X= 6.5; N=20). The surface and below water oviposition is performed by both in tandem and female alone in underwater guarded by male on the above water surface. Behavioural comparisons of various stages have been drawn with other members of the genus Pseudagrion Selys. Key words: Pseudagrion microcephalum, Reproductive Behaviour, Territoriality, Copulatory Wheel, Oviposition.

INTRODUCTION

Pseudagrion species belong to the family Coenagrionidae a successful family of damselflies with over 1000 known species found world wide (Orr, 2003). Members of the genus Pseudagrion are placed in the subfamily Pseudagrioninae or sprites (Silsby, 2001). The genus Pseudagrion is particularly well developed in Africa with more than 40 species exhibiting much disparity in habitat requirements, appearance and behaviour (Silsby, 2001). This genus is also diverse and wide spread in Asia with 28 species, where as in India 11 species are found. Emilyamma et al. (2007) reported that P. microcephalum found through out the plains of India, Burma, Sri Lanka and Australia commonly found near lakes, drains and ponds filled with lily plants. This species migrate in large numbers along with P. decorum towards the west coast during months of September and October. These species breeds in both temporary and permanent stagnant marshy waters and lakes. P. mirocephalum is small blue dragonfly with broad blue medial thoracic stripe. The male with eyes with brown cap above, dark azure blue below fading to sky blue beneath the thorax with azure

blue with a broad black medial strip with a black narrow stripe on each side. The abdomen with azure blue, second segment with a goblet shaped black mark on the upper side, segment 3-7 with broad black markings above, and 9th segment unmarked. A broad saddle shaped black mark is present on the upper side of 10th segment. In the females the eyes are pale blue beneath, olive green above, thorax with bluish green, golden orange above and azure blue on sides. The abdomen is similar to male with segment 2 have a thick dumbbell shaped above. The segment 8 and 9 have broad black stripe above and two tongue like spots and the 10th segment is unmarked. Previous studies on Pseudagrion reproduction consist of brief notes on Pseudagrion rubriceps Selys (Kumar, 1980; Prasad, 1990) and on Pseudagrion australasiae Selys (Prasad, 1985), detailed observations on P. decoram (Rambur) (Srivastava et al. (1994) and on Pseudagrion rubriceps Selys (Mitra, 1996). In view of the poor literature on the reproductive behaviour on Pseudagrion species, an investigation on reproductive behaviour of


��

�

�

Pseudagrion microcephalum (Rambur) was under taken. BIOTOPE AND ASSOCIATED FAUNA

The biotope comprised a small temporary monsoon pond in Jagdalpur town in Bastar district of Chhattisgarh state, India at 19o05' N and 82o01'E at about 566m above mean sea level. The rain fed pond is surrounded by reserve forest in all sides. The pond starts filling by the onset of south west monsoon and become full towards the end and dried up in the month of February. During the month of August, September and October abundant adult odonata fauna of different species appear in the pond. The common vegetation like Lantana camera, Ipoema carnea and Colocasia esculenta are growing on the bank of the pond. The common rooted submerged plants like Hydrilla verticillata, Vellisneria spriralis. The floating aquatic plants like Trapa bispinosa, Nymphaea rubra, Nymphaea cristatum, Hygroryza aristata and Rumex nepalensis are growing in the pond. Along with P.microcephalum the other odonata species were observed to be reproductively active at the pond during the study period are Ceriagrion coromandelianum (Fabricius), Pseudagrion decorum (Rambur), Ischnura senegalensis (Rambur), Agriocnemis pygmaea (Rambur), Anax guttatus, Brathythemis contaminata (Fabricius) and Crocothemis s. sevilia (Drury). MATERIALS AND METHODS The observations on the reproductive behaviour of P.microcephalum were made from September and October 2009. The adult damselflies were caught with the help of butterfly net carrying 2 meters long handle. The captured males and females were marked as dots laterally on the thorax and abdomen with black, white, yellow and red ASIAN enamel paint and released back to the field. A number of 210 adult males and 65 females were marked and on the basis of different color dots, they were given different numbers. A careful watch was maintained on the damselflies visiting the biotope from morning till evening often using a field binocular. All activities of P. microcephalum were observed and noted daily in a note book. At times the damselfly pair in

tandem and in copula was captured for verification of markings. The duration of various events given here in were recorded with the help of stop watch. The symbol indicated mean value and N is the number of observations. OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS (a). Territoriality: P. microcephalum males arrived at the biotope between 9.30 to 10.30 am and the females reached the rendezvous later around the noon between 11.00 to 12.00 hours. The males selected an aquatic aquatic plant in the pond and established a base perch on them at a level about 20-30 cm above the water surface. The male kept watch in area within radius of 0.75 to 1.50 meters. If any conspecific male intruded into its territory, the resident male raised up its entire abdomen and remained in this posture until the intruder left the area. At times the resident male would abandon its perch and drive away the intruding male beyond the territory. The resident male returned back to the same perch which it was occupying. If an intruder belonging to a heterospecific male like Ischnura senegalensis which is frequently present in the area, approached the base perch, the resident male showed similar aggressive behaviour. When a conspecific male enter the territory and approach the perch, the resident male performs repeated confrontation and vacillation display often moving in a circular path until the withdrawl of intruder. During this display the resident male travel upto 3 to 5 m. The resident males performed short patrolling flights from base perch to the vegetation of the bank upto 3 to 6 m distance and returned back to the base perch with in 30 to 40 seconds. During this flight aggressive behaviour of males were not observed. The teneral males of P. microcephalum were noticed as non territorial, they cruised in the territory of matured males without maintaining territories and at times they perch near the territory. The teneral males often observed sharing their perches with conspecific male. In case of large sized intruder, like Anax guttatus the resident male abandoned its perch and hovered over a distance of 30-50 cms, till the dragonflies had moved out of the area. If the dragonflies remained in the area for a longer time about 30 to 45 minutes, it was noticed that the

?�� Suri Babu and Sharma�

��

�

�

resident male damselfly moved to another perch nearby where it stayed passively till the intruder vacated the area. The feeding flights of mature males observed only after 16:00 hour. When a male separated from the ovipositing female, the male moved towards the vegetation of the bank of the pond for searching small insects for feeding. Territorial attachment of mature males observed as follows: Out of 10 males marked on 18th Sept., 09, 2 males found on the same territory for successive 3 days on 19th, 20th, and 21st Sep., 09. Out of 6th males marked on 25th Sep., 09, 3 males returned to their original base perches and establish territories on the day, 1 male of this group returned on the base perch on 28th Sep., 09. 15 males marked on 3rd Oct., 09 and observed for 1 week and found changing their territories every day within a circular area of 6 m radius. (b). Precopulatory courtship: As soon as a female arrived in its territory, the resident male at once left the base perch and followed it. No specific courtship behaviour was displayed by the male except that it flew along the side of the female for some distance. The female when receptive, responded by staying in the territory, otherwise it escaped flying swiftly away. In response the male by its anal appendages seized the female by the prothorax and formed tandem link during flight. If any other conspecific male approached the female of the tandem, the tandem female curved its abdomen as a negative signal. The tandem pair flew for some time over a period ranging between 8 to 13 seconds (X= 9.5 N=30). (c). Intramale sperm translocation: The pair in tandem settled down on some vegetation, usually similar to the base perch, growing near the water edge. Only the male provided support on the plant where as the female body hanged vertically down. The male then arched its abdomen in such a way that the male gonopore situated on the ninth abdominal venter pressed against the opening of the vesicular spermalis on the third abdominal venter of the secondary copulatory apparatus. The intramale sperm translocation process lasted for 10 to 20 seconds (X=14.25, N=10). The female did not provide any support to the male during sperm translocation.

(d). Copulatory wheel formation: After intra male sperm translocation took place, the male relaxed its abdomen and in this process the female slightly pushed backward. The abdomen of the female then curved ventrally forward so that its gonopore which is situated between the eighth and ninth sternites was brought in juxtaposition with the male copulatory apparatus. A copulatory wheel was thus formed either when the tandem was perched. The copulatory wheel position was maintained during which rhythmic movements of abdomen were noticed. This stage I lasted for 15 to 35 minutes (X=25.15; N=20) were vigorous in the beginning but decreased gradually. Apparently the sperm transfer between the male and the female took place at that time. This stage II lasted for 05 to 08 minutes (X=6.5; N=20). The copulatory male showed as aggressive behaviour also when some conspecific male approached the wheel without breaking the wheel, by vigorously vibrated its wings until the intruder withdrew. (e). Post copulatory exploratory flight: After insemination, the copulatory wheel was disrupted but the tandem link maintained. The pair took rest for about 30 to 50 seconds at the copulatory base site. The damselflies then performed short post copulatory flight in tandem for 10.00 to 15.00 minutes (X=11.05; N=20). During this period the female explored suitable sites for oviposition by touching vegetation with its ovipositor. (f). Oviposition: On finding a suitable site for oviposition the female alighted and perched on the water plant, while the male remained vertically upward in air still grasping the female thorax by its anal appendages. The female then arched and extended its abdomen to insert ovipositor into plant tissue for laying eggs. The female alone flapped its wings when it changed sites. Apparently the female guided and controlled the oviposition process while the male only escorted in tandem. Only on two occasions the wings beats were observed in the male when it directed the site for oviposition. The female oviposited at a site for 2-3 minutes before moving off to other sites. The other site could be some other spot on the same tissue, or some other tissue of the same plant, or an altogether different plant. The total period of oviposition

?��Suri Babu and Sharma�

��

�

�

including interruption lasted for 18 to 45 minutes (X: 30.25; N=25). (g). Under water Oviposition: During the process of oviposition, the female in tandem, started moving backwards and descending gradually in water until the body got submerged up to its thorax. The male was also pulled down until its anal appendages touched the water. The male soon released the tandem grip of the female prothorax and flew away to the nearest perch staying on it with folded wings and kept vigil over the submerged ovipositing female. The female moved up to a depth of 30 cm under water for oviposition. The under water oviposition was carried out for a long period of 15 to 35 minutes ( : 21.50; N=22). After some time the female floated to the surface where it was caught by the anal appendages of the guarding male and carried far away in tandem. The female carved holes in the plant tissue for depositing the eggs and after depositing them, the holes were plugged with a gelatinous material. The female P. microcephalum prefers leaves and stems of aquatic plants like Hygroryza aristata and Rumex nepalensis for oviposition even though many other aquatic plants growing in the pond. DISCUSSION The phenomenon of territoriality exhibited by males, has been reported for many Odonates (Corbet, 1962) but its absence has been recorded amongst members of the families Platycnemididae (Buchholtz, 1950; Heymer, 1973), most Lestidae and many Coenagrionidae (Bick et al., 1976; Fincke, 1982; and Srivastava and Suri Babu, 1985a) though a Coenagrid, P. microcephalum exhibits territoriality very strongly. For most Zygopterans the territorial area has been found to be restricted within a radius of 0.5m according to Furtado (1972) and Dreyer (1978). However the territory of the presently studied species ranged wider i.e. from 0.75 to 1.50m. Corbet (1980), stated that aggressive behaviour of the mature males at the rendezvous was directed predominantly towards the conspecific males; but P. microcephalum displays aggressive behaviour not only towards the conspecific males, but also towards the heterospecific intruders and in equally strong terms while P. decorum harms the intruder

physically (Srivastava et.al.1994) where as P. microcephalum keeps away from any such combat. Its “abdomen raising display” is comparable with the “threat posture” and “obelisic posture” of Corbet (1962); and its “aggressive behaviour” with the “flight towards intruder” and “wing warning signals” of Bick & Bick (1965).

Corbet (1980) believes that precopulatory courtship is displayed in Zygoptera by males of only those species which exhibit the phenomenon of defending their territories. So far two families Calopterygidae (Kumar & Prasad, 1977) and Coenagrionidae (Corbet, 1962), were known in which precopulatory courtship is displayed by males. The males of P. microcephalum seem to be exception on both the counts. Being a member of Coenagrionidae and strongly showing the territoriality, its males do not display any promiment precopulatory courtship behaviour. Srivastava and Suri Babu (1985) in Chloroneura quadrimaculata, Robertson (1982) in Platycypha caligata and Waage (1973) in Calopteryx maculata observed that males make display flights in front of the female before attempting to take it into tandem and the males display their distinctive colour patterns to the females. In some species of Zygoptera the intramale sperm translocation is accomplished before the formation of tandem link (Buchholtz, 1950; Kumar & Prasad, 1977). In certain other species the translocation occurs immediately after the assumption of tandem link (Bick, 1972). In this respect P. microcephalum comes under the second category, in which the translocation occurs only in the perched condition after the tandem pair has settled down. This present species has a quite long duration of tandem position. This is so, possibly to assess the mutual compatibility and protective adeptness of the accompanying male during the subsequent process of sperm transfer. This duration of copulatory wheel position varies considerably in different Zygoptera, even amongst members of the same family Coenagrionidae (Bick & Bick, 1965; Utzeri et al., 1983). It is the duration in wheel position that the sperm transfer from male to female takes place. Srivastava & Srivastava (1987a, 1989) have thoroughly investigated the internal genital organs of male and female of P.

?!� Suri Babu and Sharma�

��

�

�

rubriceps, and the sperm material of many Zygopterans including the present species (Srivastava & Srivastava 1987a). They have explicitly stated that sperm material translocated and transferred in Zygoptera, is in the form of sperm groups or bundles and certainly not as spermatophers which was believed until then for the order Odonata (Srivastava & Srivastava 1987b). The Zygopterans are generally known to oviposit endophytically. Athough P. decorum (Srivastava et al., 1994) and P. perfuscatum, P. microcephalum (Furtado, 1972) oviposit on vegetation lying underwater but P. microcephalum deposits egg on the vegetation lying above the water surface and also underwater. The typical mate ‘contact guarding’ behaviour in Coenagrionids, the male remained in tandem with the female throughout the ovipositing process is the so called ‘agrion’ or sentined position (Corbet & Brooks, 2008). All through the process of oviposition, its male remains in tandem with the female although not expressing any guarding or protective behaviour. However, the accompanying male certainly demonstrates guarding behaviour in Calopteryx maculate (Waage, 1973) while its female lays eggs as observed in present species P. microcephalum. Meskian (1986) reported that P. Kerstani and P. hageni tropicanum both exhibited territorial behaviour. However tandem pairs of both species oviposited freely within the occupied territorial areas of males of either species as well as elsewhere. P. kersteni appears to occupy and intermediate position when it in range and intensity of territorial behaviour is compared to that of other four species of Pseudagrioan so far studies (Meskian, 1986, 1989). P. salisbaryense is non-territorial and shows little aggressive behaviour where as P. hageni tropicanum are most aggressive of the species studied by Meskian, 1986, 1989. He stated that P. citricola, P. i. inconspicuum and P. kersteni males establish new territories each day and less aggressive than P. hageni tropicanum. Sharma, 2010 reported the size of territory is 1 to 2 m for D. quadrimaculata where as Prasad, 1990 reported 30 to 80 cm and Mitra, 1996 (40 to 70 cm) for P. rubriceps whereas in the present study the territory range is 0.75 to 1.5 m for P. microcephalum.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors are deeply indebted to Dr. K. Venkataraman, Director, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, Dr. Arun Kumar, Dehradun, Shri R.L. Dengre, IPS, Supdt. of Police, District Bastar (C.G.) and Shri P.N. Tiwari, IPS, Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur (C.G) for help and encouragement throughout the course of the study. The authors wish to express their deep felt gratitude to Prof. B. Manihar Sharma, Dept. of Life Sciences, Manipur University, Imphal for identification of aquatic macrophytes. REFERENCES Bick, G.H. and J.C. Bick. (1963). Behaviour and

populations structure of the damselflies Enallagma civile (Hagen), (Odonata: Coenagriidae). S. West. Nat. 8(2): 57-84.

Bick, G.H. and J.C. Bick. (1965). Demography and behaviour of the damselfly Argia apicalis (Say). (Odonata: Coenagriidae). Ecology. 46: 461-472.

Bick, G.H. and L.E. Hornuff. (1966). Reproductive behaviour in the damselflies Enallagma aspersum (Hagen) and Enallagma exsulans (Hagen) (Odonata: Coenagriidae). Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 68: 68-75.

Bick, G.H., Bick, J.C. and L.E. Hornuff. (1976). Behaviour of Chromagrion conditum (Haden) adults (Zygoptera: Coenagrioniidae). Odonatologica. 5(2): 129-141.

Bick, G.H. and J.C. Bick. (1980). A bibliography of reproductive behaviour of Zygoptera of Canada and Conterminous United States. Odonatologica. 9(1): 5-18.

Buchholtz, K.F. (1950). Zur Paarung and Eiablage der Agrioninen (Odonata). Bonn. Zool. Beitr. 1: 262-275.

Chowdhury, S.H. and N. Karim. (1994). Observations on the reproductive behaviour of Copera annulata (Selys). Advances in Oriental Odonatology. pp.69-76.

Corbet, P.S. (1962). A biology of dragonflies, Witherby. London. 247 pp.

Corbet, P.S. (1980). Biology of Odonata. Ann. Rev. Ent. 25: 189-217.

? �Suri Babu and Sharma�

��

�

�

Corbet, P.S. and S.J. Brooks. (2008). Dragonflies. Harper Collins Publishers, London, UK. 454pp.

Dreyer, W. (1978). Etho-okologische Untersuchungen an Lestes viridis (Vander Linden). Odonatologica Utrechat. 7: 309-322.

Emiliyamma, K.G, C. Radhakrishnan and M. Jafer Palot. (2007). Odonata (Insect) of Kerala. Records of the Zooloigical Survey of India, Occ. Paper.

Eriksen, C.H. (1960). The oviposition of Enallagma exsulans (Odonata: Agrionidae). Ann. Ent. Soc. Amev. 63: 439.

Fincke, O.M. (1982). Life time mating success in a natural population of the damselfly, Enallagma hagnei (Walsh) (Odonata: Coenagrioniidea). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 10(4): 293-302.

Furtado, J.I. (1972). The reproductive behaviour of Ischnura senegalensis (Rambur), Pseudagrion microcephalum (Rambur) and Pseudagrion perfuscatum (Odonata: Coenagrioniidae). Malaysian. J. Sc. 1: 57-69.

Heymer, A. (1973). Verhaltensstudien an Prachtlibellen. J. Comp. Ethol. Suppl. 11: 1-100.

Kumar, A. (1980). Studies on the life history of Indian dragonfly Pseudagrion rubriceps Selys (Coenagriidae: Odonata). Rec. Zool. Sury. India. 75(1-4): 371-381.

Kumar, A. and M. Prasad. (1977). Reproductive behaviour in Neurobasis chinensis chinesis (Linn.) (Zygoptera: Calopterygidea). Odonatologica. 6: 163-171.

Meskin, I. (1986). Territorial behaviour in Pseudagrivan hageni tropicanum Pinhey (Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae) Odonatologica. 15: 157-167.

Meskin, I. (1989). Aspects of territorial behaviour in the species of Pseudagrium Selys (Zygopetera: Coenagrionidae) Odonatologica. 18(8): 253-261.

Meskin, I. (1993) Territorial behaviour in Pseudagrivion kersteni (Gerstacker) (Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae) Odonatologica. 22(1): 1-20.

Mitra, A. (1996). Reproductive ethobiology Pseudagrium rubriceps Selys (Zygopetera: Pseudagriinae) at Asan Reservoir (Dehradun, India). Ann. For. 4(2): 139-144.

Mitra, A. (2007). Larval and adult behavioural patterns os some Odonata species from Dehradun Valley. In Odonata: Biology of Dragonflies. Ed. B.K. Tyagi, Scientific Publishers (India). 323-341.

Ngiam, R.W.J. (2009). The biology and distribution of Pseudogrian rubriceps rubriceps Selys, 1876 (Odonata: Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae) in Singapore Nature in Singapore. 2: 209-214.

Orr, A.G. (2003). A guide to the Dragonflies of Borneo: Their identification and Biology. Natural History publications (Borneo) Sdn. Bhd. Malaysia. 195pp.

Orr, A.G. (2005). Dragonflies of peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. Natural History Publications (Borneo) Sdn. Bhd. Malaysia. 125pp.

Prasad. M. (1985). Oviposition behaviour of Pseudagrion australasiae Selys (Zygoptera:Coenagrionidae). Fraseria, No.8:33-34.

Prasad. M. (1990). Reproductive behaviour of Ceriagrion coromandelianum (Fabricus) and Pseudagrion rubriceps Salys (Zygoptera:Coenagrionidae). Ann. Entamol. 8(2):35-38.

Sharma, G. (2010) Studies on the reproductive behaviour of Disparoneura quadrimaculata (Rambur)(Odonata Insecta) at Gyansarovar, Mount Abu, Rajasthan,India Proc. Impact Climate Change on Biodeversity and challanges in Thar Desert. pp.198-202.

Silsby, J. (2001). Dragonflies of the world. Smithsonian Institution Press, USA. 216 pp.

Srivastava, B.K. and B. Suri Babu. (1984). Some observations on oviposition of Ischnura aurora (Brauer) in Indian biotope (Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae). Fraseria. 6: 24.

Srivastava, B.K. and B. Suri Babu. (1985a). Reproductive behaviour of Ceriagrion coromandelianum (Zygoptera:

@A� Suri Babu and Sharma�

��

�

�

Coenagriidae). Proc. first Indian Symp. Odonatol. 209-216.

Srivastava, B.K. and B. Suri Babu. (1985b). On some aspects of reproductive behaviour in Chloroneura quadrimaculata (Rambur) (Zygoptera: Protoneuridae). Odonatologica. 14(3): 219-226.

Srivastava, V.K. and B.K. Srivastava. (1987a). On the Zygopteran sperm material with reference to the spermatophore. Odonatologica. 16(4):393-399.

Srivastava, V.K. and B.K. Srivastava. (1987b). Male internal genital organs of the damselfly Pseudagrion rubriceps Selys (Odonata: Zygoptera). Folia morphologica 35(3): 265-269.

Srivastava, V.K. and B.K. Srivastava. (1989). Female internal genital organs of the damselfly Pseudagrion rubriceps Selys (Zygoptera: Odonata). Folia morphologica. 37(2): 165-171.

Srivastava, V.K., B.K. Srivastava and B. Suri Babu. (1994). The behaviour of

reproduction and oviposition in Pseudagrion decorum (Rambur) (Zygoptera: Pseudagriinae) in Central India: Advances in Oriental.Odonatol. pp.77-84.

Suri Babu, B. (2002). Description of territoriality and reproduction of Agriocnemis pygmae (Rambur, 1842) (Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae) from Bastar, Current trends in Odonatology. Daya Publishing house, Delhi. pp.255-272.

Trapero-quintana, A., A. Carbera omaya, Y. Torrescambas and L. Rodriguez Montelier. (2008). Reproductive behaviour of Enallagma coecum Hagen in Cuba. (Zygoptera: Coenagrioniidae.) Odonatologica. 38(1): 7-13.

Utzeri, C.E., Falchetti and G. Carchini. (1983). The reproductive behaviour in Coenagrion lindeni (Selys) in Central Italy (Zygoptera: Coenagrioniidae). Odonatologica. 12(3): 259-278.

@��Suri Babu and Sharma�

��

�

�

Studies on the Apoidean visitors of Tegetes patula L., an important floral resource for Bees in Thar Desert, India

�

Rajiv K. Gupta, Narendra Kumar, Meena Rao, S. K. Charan and A. Rajpurohit

Department of Zoology, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur e-mail: [email protected]

(Received 9 January, 2012, Accepted 14 March, 2012)

ABSTRACT: This study investigated and explored the bee species (Apoidea) which are regularly associated with Tegetes patula L. (Asteraeae) in Thar Desert. The collection of bees was made during year 2000 to 2010 and identified as per recentmost taxonomic framework. It revealed that flowers of T. patula attracted 72 species of bees (Apoidea) in eight districts constituting Thar Desert namely, Jodhpur, Jaisalmer, Bikaner, Barmer, Churu, Sikar, Jalore and partially Pali. The collected bees so far identified belong to 23 genera incoming four families. These families, genera and number of their recorded species are: Family Colletidae (02 genera): genus Colletes Latreille (03 species) and Hylaeus Fabricius (02 species); Fam. Halictidae (08 genera): Halictus Latreille (05 species), Lasioglossum Curtis (01 sp.), Lipotriches Gerstraecker (03 sp.), Nomia Latreille (04), Pseudapis Kirby (03), Steganomus Ritsema (01), Ceylalictus Strand (04), Nomioides Schenck (03 species); Fam. Megachilidae (06 genera): Megachile Latreille (09 species), Coelioxys Latreille (02), Pseudoheriades Peters (05), Eoanthidium Popov (02), Icteranthidium Michener (02), Trachusa Panzer (01); Fam. Apidae (07 genera): Ceratina Latreille (03 species), Braunsapis Michener (03), Amegilla Friese (06), Thyreus Panzer (03), Tetragonula Moure (01), Apis Linnaeus (03) and genus Xylocopa Latreille (03 species). This commercially produced crop in different pockets amidst desert provides enough of forage for the survival of bee species. Its blooming is followed by Capparis decidua (Forsk.) Edgew. It further attract majority of bees completeing their crop rotation for the year. Precisely, Tegetes patula is very useful for sustaining a rich bee biodiversity during extremeties of climates and this rotation of crops help their conservation in Thar Desert. Key words: Tegetes patula, Apoidea, Hymenoptera, bee biodiversity, Thar Desert, India.

INTRODUCTION Tegetes patula L. (Asteraeae) or ‘The

French Merigold’ is a perennial plant which is grown for its commercial utility in garland making business. It is mainly used as an edging plant on herbaceous borders. Liquid concentrate from the flower and leaves is used medicinally in eastern Asia to stop nasal bleeding. The whole plant is harvested when in flower and distilled for its essential oil to be used in perfume industry. It is blended with sandalwood oil to produce 'Ittar genda’' perfume. About 35 kilograms of oil can be extracted from 1 hectare of the plant (yielding 2,500 kg of flowers and 25,000 kg of herbage). The oil is also known for its antifungal activity, including treatment of candidiasis in humans and for the treatment of several fungal infections in plants. Its root secretions kill nematodes in the soil and it is known to repel harmful insects, such as white fly on tomatoes (Mares et al., 2004; Romagnoli et al., 2005; Duttta et al., 2007).

Tegetes patula plants fully bloom for a

considerable longer period during springs to summers in this acute arid zone of Rajasthan. MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study was conducted to investigate and explore the bee species (Apoidea) composition that is regularly associated with Tegetes patula L. (Asteraeae). The collections of bees were made during years 2000 to 2010 from the deserts of western Rajasthan and were identified as per recentmost taxonomic framework of Apoidea. The investigations revealed that flowers of T. patula attracted almost all bee species foraging in the area during full bloom period. The sample collection sites were largely spread in rural territories of Jodhpur, Jaisalmer, Bikaner, Barmer, Churu, Sikar, Jalore and partially Pali districts in major. However, to apprehend complete bee species composition, this presentation includes the data of bee species collected from neighbouring

Biological Forum_ An International Journal, Spl. Iss.��B��=�@?>@ ��(?A�?��9��# �8%��:;�==B25C=C2�

��

�

�

districts in Punjab and Gujrat states of western India.

The collection sites in referred districts were regularly visited and kept under continuous surveillance. Collections were made every fortnightly from each site during blooming periods of T. patula i.e. February to May end or June. During this collection period ambient temperature of this area ranged between 180C to 480C and RH of surface soil varied between 45 to 85%. Bee samples were collected by sweeping net on flowerings from 7 or 7.30 AM up to 5 or 6 PM on every day of the field visit. However, at times first author made field visits at sunrise and near sunset to make observations for extended periodicities of bees on flowers. Collected bees were instantly killed using Benzene fumes in a

killing bottle. They were brought to the laboratory and properly spread for the identification. Confirmation of identification was based upon microscopy involving vital body parts such as mouth parts and genitalia etc. OBSERVATIONS, RESULT AND DISCUSSION

A total of 762 bees were collected on T. patula from the referred sites. These were identified belong to 72 species grouped under 23 genera incoming 04 families: Colletidae, Halictidae, Megachilidae and Apidae of Superfamily Apoidea (Table 1). This number excludes the number of Apis specimens collected on this crop. So far no bee incoming Family Andrenidae has been recorded on this crop.

Table 1. Apoidean visitors of Tegetes patula in Thar Desert, India. Sr. No. Family Species Activity periodicity Population

density Attracting Resource Nectar / Pollen

A). Colletidae (02 genera) 1. Colletes comberi Cockerell,

1911 RV + ? P

2. Colletes lacunatus Dours, 1872

RV + ? P

3. Colletes minutus Kuhlmann, 2002

RV + ? P

4. Hylaeus gujaraticus (Nurse, 1903)

RV + N

5. Hylaeus repentens (Nurse, 1903)

RV + N

B). Halictidae (08 genera) 6. Halictus constrictus Smith,

1853 8.30 AM – 4 PM + N P

7. Halictus latisignatus Cameron, 1908

8.30 AM – 4 PM + P

8. Halictus lucidipennis Smith, 1853

8.30 AM – 4 PM + P

9. Halictus propinquus Smith, 1853

8.30 AM – 4 PM + N P

10. Halictus vicinus Vachal, 1894 8.30 AM – 4 PM + P 11. Lasioglossum vagans (Smith,

1857) 8.30 AM – 4 PM + P

12. Lipotriches bombayensis (Cameron, 1908)

8.30 AM – 3.30 PM

+ N P

13. Lipotriches fervida (Smith, 1875)

8.30 AM – 3.30 PM

+ N P

14. Lipotriches fulvinerva (Cameron, 1907)

8.30 AM – 3.30 PM

+ N P

15. Nomia aurata Bingham, 1897 8.30 AM – 4 PM ++ N P 16. Nomia elliotii Smith, 1875 8.30 AM – 4 PM +++ N P 17. Nomia westwoodi Gribodo,

1894 8.30 AM – 4 PM + N P

18. Nomia sp. 8.30 AM – 4 PM + N P

@@�Gupta, Kumar, Rao, Charan and Rajpurohit�

��

�

�

19. Pseudapis oxybeloides (Smith, 1875)

8.30 AM – 4 PM + ? P

20. Pseudapis edentata (Morawitz, 1876)

8.30 AM – 4 PM + N P

21. Pseudapis sp. 8.30 AM – 4 PM + N P 22. Steganomus bipunctatus

(Fabricius, 1804) RV + N ?

23. Ceylalictus variegatus (Olivier, 1789)

8.30 AM – 3 PM +++ N P

24. Ceylalictus punjabensis (Cameron, 1907)

8.30 AM – 3 PM +++ N P

25. Ceylalictus cereus (Nurse, 1902)

8.30 AM – 3 PM +++ N P

26. Ceylalictus sp. 8.30 AM – 3 PM +++ N P 27. Nomioides (Nomioides)

minutissimus (Rossi, 1790) 8.30 AM – 2 PM +++ N P

28. Nomioides curvilineatus (Cameron, 1907)

8.30 AM – 2 PM +++ N P

29. Nomioides sp. 8.30 AM – 2 PM ++ N P C). Megachilidae (06 genera)

30. Megachile cephalotes Smith, 1853

8.30 AM – 5 PM

+++ N P

31. Megachile coelioxoides Cresson, 1878

8.30 AM – 4 PM

+ N P

32. Megachile creusa Bingham, 1898

8.30 AM – 4 PM

++ N P

33. Megachile gathela Cameron, 1908

8.30 AM – 5 PM

++ N P

34. Megachile latimanus Say, 1823

8.30 AM – 4 PM

++ N P

35. Megachile phaola Cameron, 1907

9 AM – 2 PM + N P

36. Megachile studiosa Bingham, 1897

8.30 AM – 2 PM

+ N P

37. Megachile suavida Cameron, 1908

8.30 AM – 2 PM

+ N P

38. Megachile vera Nurse, 1901 8.30 AM – 2 PM

+ N P

39. Coelioxys capitata Smith, 1854

RV ++ N

40. Coelioxys coturnix Pérez, 1884

RV + N

41. Pseudoheriades pellucidus (Cockerell, 1920)

8 AM – 4 PM ++ N P

42. Pseudoheriades pentatuberculata (Gupta & Sharma, 1993)

8 AM – 4 PM +++ N P

43. Pseudoheriades rufomandibulata (Gupta & Sharma, 1993)

8 AM – 4 PM +++ N P

44. Pseudoheriades sp.1 8 AM – 4 PM ++ N P 45. Pseudoheriades sp.2 8 AM – 4 PM ++ N P 46. Eoanthidium punjabensis

Gupta & Sharma RV + N P

47. Eoanthidium adentatum Gupta & Simlote, 1993

RV + N P

48. Icteranthidium sinapinum RV + N P

@B� Gupta, Kumar, Rao, Charan and Rajpurohit�

��

�

�

(Cockerell, 1911) 49. Icteranthidium sp. RV + N P 50. Trachusa serratocaudata

Gupta, Sharma & Simlote, 1993

RV + N P

D). Apidae (07 genera) 51. Ceratina binghami Cockerell,

1908 8.30 AM – 3 PM

+++ N P

52. Ceratina hieroglyphica Smith, 1854

8.30 AM – 3 PM

+++ N P

53. Ceratina smaragdula (Fabricius, 1787)

8.30 AM – 3 PM

+++ N P

54. Braunsapis mixta (Smith, 1852)

8 AM – 3 PM +++ N P

55. Braunsapis picitarsis (Cameron, 1902)

8 AM – 3 PM +++ N P

56. Braunsapis puangensis (Cockerell, 1929)

8 AM – 3 PM +++ N P

57. Amegilla confusa (Smith, 1854)

RV + N

58. Amegilla mucorea (Klug, 1845)

RV + N

59. Amegilla niveocincta (Smith, 1854)

RV + N

60. Amegilla zonata (Linnaeus, 1758)

RV + N

61. Amegilla cingulifera (Cockerell)

RV + N

62. Amegilla violacea (Lepeletier)

RV + N

63. Thyreus massuri (Radoszkowski, 1893)

RV + N

64. Thyreus minuta (Radowszkowski)

RV + N

65. Thyreus histrio (Fabricius) RV + N 66. Tetragonula

iridipennis (Smith, 1854) 8 AM – 6 PM +++ N P

67. Apis dorsata Fabricius, 1793 6 AM – 6 PM RV N 68. Apis cerana Fabricius, 1793 6 AM – 6 PM ++ N ? 69. Apis florea Fabricius, 1787 6 AM – 6 PM +++ N P

70. Xylocopa aestuans (Linnaeus,

1758) Sunrise to sunset RV ? ?

71. Xylocopa amethystina (Fabricius, 1793)

Sunrise to sunset + ? ?

72. Xylocopa fenestrata (Fabricius, 1798)


Where RV – Rare visitor; N – Nectar; P – Pollen; ? Not sure of referred flower resource; + comparative population observed and collected.

On a normal sunny day most of the bees

started their foraging activities around 7.30 to 8.00 A.M. i.e. when ample of sunshine spread all over the fields. Their population attained its peak at around 12.00 noon to 1.30 P.M. and most of

the bees started returning to their nests around 3.00 to 4.30 P.M. onwards.

It is a well known fact that a number of flowering plants use insects as pollen vectors, and that they actually depend on the visits of insects for their pollination. Present study is the

@C�Gupta, Kumar, Rao, Charan and Rajpurohit�

��

�

�

first attempt to explore the pollinator bees, on a significant member of Family Asteraeae: Tegetes patula. The number of species recorded on this plant, from all over the arid zone of Rajasthan in India, may be considered as quite high looking at the high density of this shrub spread to all arid area in and the neighbouring states. Gupta (2003) reported that 658 species of bees are on record from India so far which belongs to 65 Genera grouped under 6 families. It was fascinating to record 72 species in this arid zone on a single crop. Evidently the referred plant has plenty of resource to attract good number of bees.

Five species of family Colletidae were collected on T. patula. They seem to be quite rare in their visits but these were noticed collecting pollens from the flowers. Three species belong to genus Colletes Latreille (Table 01) and two were identified as that of genus Hylaeus Fabricius.

A total of 08 genera including 21 species of family Halictidae were collected in a considerable good number on this plant. They belong to genera Halictus Latreille (05 species), Lasioglossum Curtis (01), Lipotriches Gerstraecker (03), Nomia Latreille (04), Pseudapis Kirby (03), Steganomus Ritsema (01) and two genera of exclusively minute bees namely, Ceylalictus Strand (04) and Nomioides Schenck (03 species). Except the species of genus Halictus Latreille most of which were more interested in pollens and rarely observed drinking nectar, rest had enough affection for both material i.e. the nectar and pollen therefore a good number of most of the small species of bees were observed started working on the flowers just after sunrise and continued to work until quite late i.e. 4 PM or sometimes even after that in the evenings. Very small bees of genus Nomioides and Ceylalictus were found on the flowers for almost complete blooming season. The pollination ecology studies on these minute bees should be further investigated. However, an apprehension may be made that the halictine bees render enough of pollination services to this crop.

Family Megachilidae may be given the recognition of second top pollinator on this crop with a total of 06 genera including 21 species. However, species of genus Eoanthidium Popov (02), Icteranthidium Cockerell (02) and

Trachusa Panzer (01 sp.) were rare visitors on T. patula. During its blooming period, bees of these genera were more interested on Leptadenia pyrotechnica (Forsk.) Decne (flowering duration from March to end of May). T. patula was perhaps not the principal crop for these bees and, they were mere occasional visitors. However, on each visit they collected the pollens and nectar. Precisely, they cann’t be considered as good contributors in the act of pollination and seed set for the referred crop.

Bees of genus Coelioxys Latreille (02 sp.) are well known cleptoparasites (Table 01). The females lack any pollen collecting apparatus so they are incapable of collecting pollen grains. Therefore they lay eggs on the pollen deposits made by their host bees of genus Megachile, Anthophora, Amegilla and Habropoda (tribe Anthophorini, fam. Apidae). Precisely 04 out of 06 genera of Megachilidae least share pollination activity on this crop. Genus Megachile Latreille has the highest attraction for the pollens and nectar both of T. patula. Its 09 species were recorded from throughout the arid North West part of India visiting this crop during all the years of investigations. Most of them belong to subgenus Eutricharaea Thomson. Although their females are facilitated with a densely bristled pollen collecting scopa at the ventral surface of their abdomen inspite they were least observed carrying minute pollens of T. patula. Otherwise they are established as quite efficient transporters of pollens (Michener, 1953). Another megachiline genus Pseudoheriades Peters (05 sp.) includes very minute black bees and is more or less confined to Rajasthan and Gujarat. The plant- pollinator relationship between the flowers of T. patula and the referred minute bees seems to be more intimate in comparison to medium or large sized bee species. However in comparison to their intensive and quite prolong visits on other flowers of Asteraceae such as sunflowers by act of tapping their abdomen, collecting pollen grains by roaming on each flower they seem to be more interested in nectar on this crop. It is a common site towards foothill states of Himalayas that smaller megachilids which belong to tribe Osminii, have been noted visiting exposed anthers of the flowers of sunflowers staying on its head for a considerably good time span, continuously tapping their abdomen to

@�� Gupta, Kumar, Rao, Charan and Rajpurohit�

��

�

�

collect pollens and slowly fly off loaded and saturated with pollen grains. Such act was never observed on the inflorescence of T. patula. Precisely, in spite of the maximum number of taxa, Megachilidae cann’t be considered as the top pollinator group for this crop due to limitation of one factor or another need to be investigated in detail. However, this is worth mentioning here that megachiline bees are quite fast visitor and definitely share good amount of pollination due to their large pollen collecting apparatus. Presence of most of the megachilids on this crop was for a limited period span i.e. for about four to five weeks only. It was mainly due to availability of other principal floral resources in the neighbouring fields as mentioned above (Gupta et al., 2011).

Apidae constitute the largest group of bees which has been recorded with 07 genera including 22 species on this crop. Bees of genus Ceratina Latreille (03 sp.), Braunsapis Michener (03 sp.), Tetragonula Moure (01 sp.) and, one species of Apis Linnaeus (A. florea Fabr.) were observed in good numbers on this crop. These genera include minute to small sized bees having their working span quite longer in comparison to the bees of family Halictidae and Megachilidae. They all shared major bulk of nectar as well as pollens. However, their pollen carrying capacity was limited to smaller area of scopa usually present on hind legs or to the bristles on their general body surface. Circumstantially, they were unable to carry that much load of pollens as compared to Megachilidae which bear densely bristled abdominal scope.

Genus Thyreus Panzer (03 sp.) includes cleptoparasitic bees. Just like species of genus Coelioxys in Megachilidae, they lack pollen collecting apparatus therefore they were often seen busy tracking behind Amegilla species to their nests to lay their eggs on the provision deposits collected by the Amegilla females (also Batra, 1977). Both cleptoparasitic genera were present in the field however they visited flowers exclusively for nectar. Other Apidae bees collected on this crop were of genus Amegilla Fabricius (06 sp.) and two larger species of Apis (A. dorsata and A. cerana). Individuals of Amegilla were observed carefully. They defolded and straightened their rostrum, sucked the nectar (during suspended and stable flight) and moved

away. They were never seen collecting pollens on this crop.

Other ‘occasional visitors’ included very large bees of genus Xylocopa Latreille (03 species) as indicated in table 01, authors are not sure whether they ever visited flowers and collected nectar or pollens although they often hovered around the shrubs and fly off all over the area under investigation.

One may conclude from table 01 that which species may be considered quite effective pollinator on Tegetes patula. Parker (1981) and Parker et al., (1987) reported that honey bees have often been credited with pollination services that are actually performed by other bee species. Since the taxonomic revision of family Apidae (Michener, 2000 & 2007), number of genera in this family have been considerably increased. On T. patula out of the total 22 species of Apidae smaller and medium sized native species of genus Apis were observed hanging on flowers on every sunny day as whole time visitors. A. dorsata were of rare appearence. Necessary investigation should be initiated in this direction with regard to efficiencies of pollinators (Lederhouse, et al., 1972; Green & Bohart, 1975; Parker, 1981; Kuhn & Ambrose, 1984; Currie et al., 1990; Arya et al., 1994).

This is an established fact that the principal factors which determine the effectiveness of pollinators can be briefed as: a) They should be found in abundance, b) Their flight periodicities should be the maximum on flowerings and, c) Their visiting rate (the number of flowers visited per minute by a bee) should be considerably enough (also Free, 1970; Ozbek, 1976; Richards, 1993, Gupta et al., 2010, 2011).

This commercially produced crop in different pockets amidst deserts provides enough of forage for the survival of bee species. This becomes more significant since it provides ample of nectar to newly emerged bees after overwintering as pupation. Such availability of food helps in immediate survival of offspring. Its blooming is followed by Capparis decidua (Forsk.) Edgew. It further attract majority of bees completeing their crop rotation for the year (Gupta & Charan, 2010). Precisely, Tegetes patula becomes quite useful resource for sustaining a rich bee biodiversity and rotation of both crops help their survival and conservation in

@��Gupta, Kumar, Rao, Charan and Rajpurohit�

��

�

�

Thar Desert. One may make further apprehension that conservation of Tegetes patula would become a landmark for the protection of 72 species of bees recorded from Thar Desert in India. During periods of scarcity i.e. when other pollen resources were rare or lacking, then bees exclusively depend upon it.

The study suggest that detailed investigations in this direction be initiated by pollination and bee biologists to explore further possibilities towards intensive and more effective pollination of wild and cultivated crops (Rajpurohit & Gupta, 2006). Moreover, attempts should also be initiated for regular sawing and maintenance of Tegetes patula, a useful resource both for men and bees.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Authors wish to thank Drs. S. L. Sharma, S. Simlote, S. Yadav, R. K. Naval, S. K. Naval and S. K. Rao for making collections from all over the referred territories in Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat. Gratitude is extended to the Head, Department of Zoology, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur, for providing necessary laboratory facilities. To the ICAR New Delhi for the financial support to the first author for the study made under their AP Cess Funded project (No. 1-3/90 PP) for the North West India. Thanks are further extended to the authorities of University Grants Commission, New Delhi for funding the work especially in Rajasthan under their project No. 32-497/2006/2007, SR. REFERENCES Arya, D.R., Sihag, R.C. and Yadav, P.R. (1994).

Role of insect pollination in seed yield of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Indian Bee Journal. 56(3-4): 179-182.

Batra, S.W.T. (1977). Bees of India (Apoidea), their behaviour, management and a key to the genera. Oriental Insects. 11(3/4): 289-324.

Currie, R.W., Jay, S.C. and Wright, D. (1990). The effects of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) and leafcutter bees (Megachile rotundata F.) on out crossing between different cultivars of beans (Vicia faba L.) in caged plots. Journal of Apicultural Research. 29(2): 68-74.

Dutta, B.K., Karmakar, S., Naglot, A., Aich, J. C. and Begam, M. (2007). Anticandidial activity of some essential oils of a mega biodiversity hotspot in India. Mycoses. 50(2): 121–124.

Free, J.B. (1970). Insect pollinators of crops. Academic Press, London & New York. 544pp.

Green, T.W. and Bohart, G.E. (1975). The pollination ecology of Astragalus cibarius and Astragalus utahensis (Leguminosae). American Journal of Botany. 62(4): 379-386.

Gupta, R.K. (2003). The diversity of bees (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) in India. Pp. 53-77. In: Gupta, R.K. (Ed.), Advancements in Insect Biodiversity. Agrobios (India). pp. x + 337.

Gupta, R.K. and Charan, S.K. (2010). Studies on the Apoidean Visitors of Capparis decidua (Forsk.) Edgew (Capparaceae), a Resource for the Conservation of Bee Biodiversity in Arid North West India. Pp. 115-124 In: Gupta, R. K. (Ed.), Advancements in Invertebrate Taxonomy and Biodiversity. AgroBios (International). pp. xi+552, pls. viii.

Gupta, R.K., Charna, S.K., Naval, S.K., Saini, J., Rao, S.K., Sharma, S.L. and Rajpurohit, A. (2010). Bee isitors (Apoidea) on Zizyphus rotundifolia Lamk. in western Rajashan, India. Pp. 190-194. In: Impact on the Climate Change on Biodiversity and Challenges in Thar Desert. Proceedings on the National Seminar held at Zoological Survey of India, Desert Research Centre, Jodhpur on 09 July, 2010. Govt. of India Publication.

Gupta, R.K., Charan, S.K. and Tiwari, P. (2011). Forage plants of Tetragonula iridipennis (Smith), a stingless bee (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Apidae, Meliponini), in the desert of Thar in Rajasthan. Journal of Environment and Bio-sciences. 25(2): 171-174.

Gupta, R.K. and Yadav, S. (2001). Apoidean species composition on Crotalaria jucea L., Cajanus cajan (L.), Helianthus annus L. and Brassica compestris L. var. sarson Prain in eastern Rajasthan, India

@!� Gupta, Kumar, Rao, Charan and Rajpurohit�

��

�

�

(Hymenoptera). Opus. zool. flumin. 198: 1-10.

Kuhn, E.D. and Ambrose, J.T. (1984). Pollination of ‘delicious’ apple by megachilid bees of the genus Osmia (Hym., Megachilidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 57(2): 169-180.

Lederhouse, R. C., Caron, D. M. and Morse, R. A. (1972). Distribution and behaviour of honey bees on onion. Environmental Entomology. 1(2): 127-129.

Mares, D., Tosi, B., Poli, F., Andreotti, E., and Romagnoli, C. (2004). Antifungal activity of Tagetes patula extracts on some phytopathogenic fungi: ultrastructural evidence on Pythium ultimum". Microbiol Res. 159(3): 295–304.

Michener, C.D. (1953). The biology of a leafcutter bee (Megachile brevis) and its associates. University of Kansas Science Bulletin. 35(3): 1659-1748.

Michener, C.D. (2000). The bees of the World. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore & London, xiv + 913 pp.

Michener, C.D. (2007). The Bees of the World, Revised Edition, Johns Hopkins

University Press, Baltimore. xiv + 953 pp.

Ozbek, H. (1976). Pollinator bees on alfalfa in the Erzurum region of Turkey. Journal of Apicultural Research. 15(3/4): 145-148.

Parker, F.D. (1981). A candidate red clover pollinator Osmia coerulescens (L.). Journal of Apicultural Research. 20(1): 62-65.

Parker, F. D., Batra, S. W. T. and Tepedino, V. J. (1987). New pollinators for our crops. Agric. Zool. Rev. 2: 279-304.

Rajpurohit, A. and Gupta, R.K. (2006). The impact of insect pollination on seed yield of Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, India. 76(B)II: 178-181.

Richards, K.W. (1993). Non-Apis bees as crop pollinators. Review Suisse Zoologia. 100(4): 807-822.

Romagnoli, C., Bruni, R., Andreotti, E., Rai, M. K., Vicentini, C.B. and Mares, D. (2005). Chemical characterization and antifungal activity of essential oil of capitula from wild Indian Tagetes patula L. Protoplasma. 225(1-2): 57–65.

@ �Gupta, Kumar, Rao, Charan and Rajpurohit�

��

�

�

Survival strategies of Desert Fox (Vulpes vulpes pusilla) in the Thar Desert of

Rajasthan

Hemu Chaudhary and G. R. Jakher*

Dept. of Zoology, Govt. P.G. College, Barmer, Rajasthan *M.G.S. University, Bikaner, Rajasthan



ABSTRACT: Studies on the survival strategies of desert fox (Vulpes v. pusilla) conducted in the Barmer region of Rajasthan during 2010-11. Desert fox (Vulpes v. pusilla) is one among the three sub-species of red fox present in India. Desert foxes manage to survive in such a way in harsh environmental conditions of the Thar/Indian desert, as- their dens were found under xerophytes shrubs and in open scrubs forming amiable microclimate, daily-activities and coat-colour change according to seasons to avoid extreme conditions of the weather, they can lose excess body heat by panting. They are also adapted to omnivorous habits to survive in the arid environment of the desert. Key words: Desert Fox, Thar Desert, Rajasthan.

INTRODUCTION

Three races of Red fox- a northern desert form (Vulpes vulpes griffithi), a mountain form (Vulpes vulpes montana) and a western desert form, the white-footed fox or desert fox (Vulpes vulpes pusilla) are found in India (Prater, 1980). Thar desert is situated between 22°30' N to 32°05' N and 68°05' E to 75°45' E and is characterized with extreme temperatures, aridity, intense solar radiation, strong winds and general dearth of available water. Foxes have notably adapted to the arid environment of the desert (Buxton, 1955), which forms the natural features of the Thar Desert (Rahmani, 1977); these animals use microclimates of burrows having less harsh atmosphere (Cloudsley-Thompson, 1965, 1977, 1979). Foxes are generally of slender build, with a long bushy tail, sharp and long muzzle, relatively longer body, short limbs and large ears; large ears well supplied with blood, help to disperse the heat and keep the animal cool (Colombo and Barnabe, 1982). The colour of the hair changes from habitat to habitat and in the winter season it becomes very rich (Prakash, 1994); colour also play an important role in temperature control. The paler the animal, the more sunlight and heat, it reflects and the cooler the animal, foxes can lose heat by “panting”, i.e. by breathing rapidly with the mouth

open. As moisture evaporates from the lungs, mouth and tongue it cools down the tissue and blood (Linley, 1989). Food varies with habitat and season (Prater, 1980). When there is a serious shortage of food availability, it begin to take insects which are comparatively easily available they also take carcasses of wild and domesticated animals. The fruits of Zizyphus and Cucurbita are also used as food by carnivores i.e. the wolf, jackal, fox and mongoose etc. These carnivores, have been observed taking dung of cattle too (Sharma, 1978). Their food is much varied, from small vertebrates and invertebrates to different plant parts. They feed on field rodents, hare, lizards, a variety of insects, scorpions, large spiders, seeds and fruits of watermelon, ber (Prakash, 1994). They also prefer to feed on Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea), Dhalu (ripen fruits of Capparis decidua), neonates of sheep, goat and wild mammals and umbilical cord of mammals (Jakher et al., 2011). In fact, an important aspect about food of desert consumers is that they use those dietary items which are more abundantly available in the environment (Reichman et al., 1978). Except general information on Desert fox (Vulpes v. pusilla) in the Thar desert of Rajasthan, there is no any report on detailed study yet.

Biological Forum_ An International Journal, Spl. Iss.��B��=�BA>BB��(?A�?��9��# �8%��:;�==B25C=C2�

��

�

�

MATERIAL AND METHODS The present study was carried out in Barmer

region (located at 25° 45' North latitude and 71° 22' East longitude) situated in the western part of Rajasthan, forming a part of the Thar Desert during June, 2010 to August, 2011. Daily, seasonal and behavioral activities of Desert fox (Vulpes vulpes pusilla) were studied in natural conditions by direct observation, with the help of a binocular (7×50 mm) and also by discussion with villagers. In the behavioral study, data were collected on Ad Libitum basis as well as by Scan sampling method (Altmann, 1974; Simpson and Simpson, 1977). The food composition of the Desert fox's diet was studied through analyzing the scats in the laboratory using the standard methods of Korschgen (1980), with some modifications. All the scats were washed and the indigestible components such as fruit seeds, hairs, claws, scales, feathers, bones and insect chitin were separated. The abundance of prey (by direct sighting) in the study areas was also studied. OBSERVATIONS AND RESULT

During this study-period in the area, mostly dens of desert foxes were found under some xerophytes shrubs like Arna (Clerodendrum phiomidis), Bui (Aerva persica), Khimp (Leptodenia pyrotechnica), Sinia (Crotalaria burhia) and also in open scrubs. These xerophytes shrubs characterized by long roots; that penetrate to a longer distance in the soil, keeping the subsoil moist. The dens were found to be 6-9 ft in depth with two chambers inside and of single openings. In summer, Desert foxes were observed (in June, 2010 and May, 2011) to come out from dens nearly 6 pm in search of food and for other activities and return to dens before 9 am, probably for minimizing water loss from their body. It was also seen that in summer before coming out from dens they spend nearly one hour (about 5 pm) by sitting on the opening of the dens, perhaps for adjusting their body to outer environmental conditions. However in winter and monsoon they were seen wandering in the fields in the day time also. During this study period total 30 dens of desert fox were observed in the area out of which 10 dens were selected for intensive studies; it was found that in summer and winter opening of the dens were facing East and North-East to avoid direct entrance of hot air (loo) in the dens in

summer (when wind blow from South-West to East-North) and in winter they can enjoy direct sunrays in the morning by sitting on the openings of the dens. In monsoon, just after first shower of rain, they burrow either new dens or deepen the older ones, opening of which facing West to South-West for preventing rain water entry in the dens. It was observed that desert fox generally burrows a newer den during winter and monsoon season but during summer whenever it needs to change the den (during the time of danger), generally it deepens the older dens. During study period, in the month of Aug., 2011 it was also noted that after continuous rain in the area (continuously for more than 2-3 days) the Desert foxes burrow newer dens in between thick bushes perhaps for preventing deformation of dens in sandy areas. During the study-period, temperature and relative humidity was noted inside and out side the dens and rainfall of the area was also noted in the area.

In Table 1 two things are clearly shown, first the dens which are present under shrubs having roughly rounded openings while in open area they are more or less rectangular in shape. Second temperature differences within the dens were variable 1-2°C and relative humidity by 5% (depth of the dens were noted with thick flexible aluminium wire and temperature and relative humidity were noted by putting thermometers within 1 metre depth in the dens). While out of the dens maximum temperature and relative humidity during summer study period, was noted 44°C and 68% and minimum range was 31°C and 28% respectively; having temperature differences of 13°C and relative humidity differences by 40%. During winter study period, maximum temperature and relative humidity out side the dens was 27°C and 67% and minimum range was 9ºC and 27% respectively; having temperature differences of 18°C and relative humidity differences by 40%. Thus the benefits of such dens were noted in temperature regulation; having higher relative humidity and avoidance from stormy winds. Their coat colour was also seen changing from season to season dark-brown to reddish-brown or somewhat blackish-brown and thick hairy coat in winter for insulating heat around the body and paler to light brown in summer probably for reflection of sun rays to minimize heat absorption. In June, 2010

B��Chaudhary and Jakher�

��

�

�

and May, 2011 “panting” was also seen in desert fox, just after coming from hunting and feeding, it was breathing rapidly with open mouth and

tongue was somewhat extending out from the mouth, probably for regulation of body temperature.

Table 1. Temperature and Relative Humidity in the dens of Desert fox (Vulpes vulpes pusilla) in the Thar desert of Rajasthan.

Den No.

Shrub Sps. under which den was present

Size of den L X B in cm.

Depth of den In inches

Temperature & Relative Humidity in Summer in different intervals 6-8 am 12-2 pm T. / R.H. T. / R.H. °C / % °C / %

Temperature & Relative Humidity in Winter in different intervals 6-8 am 12-2 pm T. / R.H. T. / R.H. °C / % °C / %

1. Phog 22 x 24 86 35.3/47 36.0/45 37.2/46 37.3/45 2. Khimp 30 x 26 79 35.1/47 36.0/45 37.3/46 37.7/45 3. Bui 26 x 21 62 35.5/47 36.1/45 37.3/46 37.4/45 4. Arna 33 x 28 72 36.3/45 37.5/43 36.7/47 37.3/45 5. Arna-Khimp 28 x 22 76 36.3/45 37.6/44 36.8/47 37.4/46 6. - 30 x 24 82 35.3/47 36.0/45 37.2/46 37.3/45 7. - 26 x 21 68 35.4/47 36.1/45 37.5/46 37.7/45 8. - 28 x 21 70 35.5/47 36.1/45 37.3/46 37.4/45 9. - 30 x 26 64 36.4/45 37.8/43 36.3/47 37.2/45 10. - 26 x 20 78 36.3/45 37.6/44 36.8/47 37.4/46

Dietary habits: Several life history traits of an organism are related to its food habits and hence studying diet can help in predicting other patterns such as movement, ranging and its chances of survival. Desert fox is adapted for omnivorous diet; for detailed study of its diet composition along with direct observations, abundance of prey in the study areas and scat analysis was also done. The hunting behavior of fox was seen in Dhok ka Oran in Feb., 2011 near its den (nearly 10-12 metres far from the den), in open area of the Oran. Animal was standing motionless, in jumping position, watching intently the desert gerbil which it had detected, ears in standing position probably for hearing a minute sound, suddenly it took long jump nearly ½ - 1 metre and forcibly pin the gerbil with the help of forelimbs. Then by catching the gerbil in its mouth it ran towards its den, taking food for its cubs (two cubs were seen in that den) but probably due to disturbance by my presence it

buried the gerbil in 5 – 10 cm deep cache, nearly 2 metres far from its den. The hunting behaviour of fox was also seen in Dharasar ka Tala in April, 2011. It was hiding behind shrub Arna (Clerodendrum phiomidis), suddenly it jumped over the shrub (nearly 1 metre high) but fortunately the ground feeding Jungle warbler was alert and flew away before becoming victim of the fox. On the same day at 11 A.M. a sub adult fox was seen following another adult fox, holding a desert hare in its mouth, to snatch it. In April, 2011 in Dharasar ka Tala, in one of the fox's den, belly part of a dead sand snake was found. Prey abundance in the study areas: Prey species such as amphibians, reptiles, ground birds, rodents and logomorphs were observed in the area by direct sighting during line transects. Prey species of desert fox in the area found was as in Table 2.

Table 2. Abundance of prey species of Desert fox in selected sites of Barmer region

Site Time spent

Distance walked

Number of transects

Mammal Er Er/Km

Birds Er Er/Km

Reptiles Er Er/Km

Amphibians Er Er/Km

Dharasar Ka Tala

30 hrs.

40 km. 20 8 0.20 3 0.07 2 0.05 1 0.02

Dhok Ka Oran

30 hrs.

40 km. 20 2 0.05 15 0.38 8 0.20 4 0.10

B?� Chaudhary and Jakher�

��

�

�

In Dharasar ka Tala, one of the study area, mammals were observed comparatively more in numbers while in Dhok ka Oran, the second study area, various types of Reptiles and Birds were available comparatively in plenty while small mammals in lesser numbers, arthropods were also present in plenty but their numbers were not counted. Fruits of Ber (Zizyphus nummularia), Jaal (Salvadora persica), Kachar (Cucumis callosus), Matira (Citrullus lanatus) and Dhalu (ripen fruits of Capparis decidua) were also present during the study period, on which the fox feeds.

Scat analysis: Scats not only provide data on diet but also on some behavioral aspects, habitat use, marking of territories, relative abundance and den site location. For scat analysis total 15 identifiable scats were collected in different seasons in the study areas. In Table 3 it is clearly shown that in Summer Desert rat and Desert gerbil forms main part of its diet while in winter and monsoon seeds and other parts of vegetable material were found very common in the scats. Parts of Egg shells were also found in 6 scat samples in winter and monsoon seasons.

Table 3. Scat analysis of Desert fox in different seasons in selected sites of Barmer region

Study Site Season Hair Bone Feather Egg Shell Insects Vegetable Material

Others

Dharasar Summer 43% 26% 12% 0% 2% 8% 9%

Ka Tala Winter 32% 19% 8% 1% 1% 36% 3% Monsoon 25% 18% 8% 5% 8% 34% 2% Dhok Ka Summer 37% 23% 13% 1% 6% 12% 8%

Oran Winter 28% 18% 14% 2% 4% 36% 2% Monsoon 20% 9% 16% 8% 10% 35% 2%

DISCUSSION

These observations tally with those of Buxton (1955) and Cloudsley-Thompson (1965, 1977, 1979) that desert foxes have adapted their daily and seasonal cycle routines to utilize the comparative amiable temperatures of different seasons for their vital activities. Desert animals use amiable microclimate under burrows and crevices to avoid the intense heat of the desert day (Cloudsley-Thompson, 1965, 1977, 1979). It was further observed during study period i.e. summer and winter; the coat colour of desert foxes was found to change with seasons Prakash (1994) and Linley (1989); they lose excess body heat by breathing rapidly with the mouth open. In the study it was noted that desert foxes change their dens with seasons to avoid adverse conditions of environment. Thus foxes manage to survive in such a way, even in the regions where the temperature may reach over 50ºC Colombo and Barnabe (1983) and Buxton (1955); which form the natural features of the Thar desert (Rahmani, 1977). The observations also show that Desert fox feeds on Arthropods, Reptiles, Birds, Small

mammals, their carcasses and even fruits which are available in the area, resembles with Reichman et al., 1978.

Thus Desert fox (Vulpes v. pusilla), inhabiting the arid environments has evolved morphological, physiological and behavioral strategies. Some of them are avoidance mechanisms to combat harsh conditions rather than ability to tolerate them.. They are adapted to omnivores habits to cope-up with the paucity of food. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Grateful thanks to Prof. D. Mohan, Head, for the necessary facilities and Prof. L. S. Rajpurohit, Department of Zoology, J. N. V. University, Jodhpur for his valuable suggestions and villagers of study areas for sharing their knowledge about the animal. REFERENCES Altmann, J. (1974). Observational study of

behaviour: Sampling methods. Behaviour. 49: 337-349.

B@�Chaudhary and Jakher�

��

�

�

Buxton, P.A. (1955). Animal life in Desert. Edward Arnold Pub., London.

Cloudsley-Thompson, J.L. (1965). Desert life. Pergamon Press, London.

Cloudsley-Thompson, J.L. (1977). The Desert. Orbis Pub., London.

Cloudsley-Thompson, J.L. (1979). Wildlife of the deserts. Hamlyn, London.

Colombo, F. and Barnabe, G. (1983). Animals of the deserts- Animals and their environment. Burke Publishing Company Limited, London.

Jakher, G.R., Chaudhary, H. and Jaipal, B.R. (2011). Food preferences by Desert fox (Vulpes vulpes pusilla) in the Thar desert of Rajasthan. Abstract- National Conference on animal science, 29 Jan, 2011, Dept of Zoology, J.N.V.U., Jodhpur.

Korschgen, L.K. (1980). Procedures for food habits analysis. In: Schemnitz, S.D. (Ed). Wildlife management techniques manual.

The Wildlife Society. Washington, D.C. pp.113-128.

Linley, M. (1989). Desert wildlife. Mallard Press, New York.

Prakash, I. (1994). Mammals of the Thar Desert. Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur, India.

Prater, S.H. (1980). The book of Indian animals. Bombay Nat. History Society, Bombay.

Rahmani, A.R. (1977). Wild life in the Thar. World Wide Fund for Nature- India.

Reichman, O. J., Prakash, I. and Roig, V. (1978). Food selection and consumption. I.B.P. Arid Land Synthesis, UNESCO, Paris. 16: 681-786.

Sharma, I.K. (1978). Wild life of the Indian desert; Its survival and conservation. International Conference on Arid Zone Research and Development, 14-18 Feb, 1978, Jodhpur.

Simpson, M.J.A. and Simpson, A.E. (1977). One- zero and scan methods for sampling behaviour. Anim. Behav. 25: 726-731.

BB� Chaudhary and Jakher�

��

�

�

Diversity and community structure of Butterflies in Ritchie’s Archipelago,

Andaman and Nicobar Islands

C. Sivaperuman

Zoological Survey of India, Andaman and Nicobar Regional Centre, Port Blair- 744 102, India. e-mail: [email protected]

(Received 4 November, 2011, Accepted 6 February, 2012)

ABSTRACT: The wide distribution of butterflies in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands is an important element in the dynamics of this ecosystem. Butterflies are recognized by the scientific community as bio-indicators. The Ritchie’s Archipelago is a cluster of smaller islands which lie some 25-30 km east of Andaman. This study was conducted during 2008-2011. Line transect methods was used to assess the population of butterflies. A total of 72 species belongs to 5 families and 48 genera were recorded during the study. The family Nymphalidae followed by Pieridae and Papilionidae were found to be the dominant. Out of seventy two species, 68 species were recorded from Havelock Island, followed by Neil Island (47), Outram Island (34), Inglis Island (32), and Henry Lawrence Island (32). Of the recorded species of butterflies, the Pecock Pansy (5.71 per cent) was highest in dominance followed by Common Mormon (5.48 per cent) and Stripped Tiger (4.13 per cent). Diversity Index (H') was 3.97 and (�) 0.02 and Species Richness Index R1 was 9.95 and R2 was 2.03. The survey indicated the presence of a rich butterfly fauna, which should be systematically collected for further research and study in order to build a good taxonomic database for Ritchie’s Archipelago. Key words: Butterflies, diversity, Ritchie’s Archipelago.

INTRODUCTION

Butterflies and their larvae play important roles in ecosystem functioning, including nutrient cycling and pollination. This implies that tropical butterflies should be studied not just as potential biological indicators, but as targets of conservation in their own right (Bonebrake et al., 2010; Schulze et al., 2010). Lepidoptera are beneficial as pollinators, silk producers, indicators of environmental quality and are appreciated for their aesthetic value. The holometabolous life history butterflies reveals that Lepidoptera are exposed to a wide range of environmental influences and there are highly sensitive to changes in temperature, humidity and light levels (Kremen, 1992; Sparrow et al., 1994; Hill et al., 1995). Butterfly monitoring programs in the tropics must, by necessity, focus on changes in the relative abundance of species. The assumption behind this approach is that data on temporal fluctuations in locally common species will help assess environmental trends and evaluate the effectiveness of habitat conservation efforts.

The butterflies of the Andaman and

Nicobar Islands are insular with its origins in the fauna of the Indo-Myanmar and Indo-Malayan regions. The butterflies of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are insular with its origins in the fauna of the Indo-Myanmar and Indo-Malayan regions.

The Andaman elements flora and fauna have their closest resemblance to Myanmar and Oriental elements whereas, the Nicobar appear most closely related to Malaya. Studies on butterflies of Andaman and Nicobar Island received attention after the publication of Wood Mason and de Nicebille, 1880, 1881 a & b, 1882. Evans (1932) has worked on butterflies of these Islands. Later, only a few researchers have contributed on the fauna butterflies of Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Talbot, 1939 1947; Ferrar, 1948; Arora and Nandhi, 1980, 1982; Khatri, 1989, 1991, 1992; Chandra and Khatri, 1993; Devy et al., 1998; Sivaperuman et al., 2011). This study is aim to describe diversity and community structure of butterflies in Ritchie’s archipelago, Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

Biological Forum_ An International Journal, Spl. Iss.��B��=�BC>C@��(?A�?��9��# �8%��:;�==B25C=C2�

��

�

�

STUDY AREA Ritchie's Archipelago is a cluster of

smaller islands which lie some 25-30 km east of Great Andaman, the main island group of the Andaman Islands.

The archipelago comprises of some 4 larger islands, 7 smaller islands and several islets, extending in a roughly north-south chain, parallel to the main Great Andaman group (Fig. 1). The detailed salient features of the Ritchie’s

archipelago are present in Table 1.

Fig. 1. Ritchie's Archipelago, Andaman & Nicobar Islands.

METHODS This study was conducted during the

month of November, 2008 to March, 2009 September-October 2009, October, 2010 and April, 2011. Butterfly species were estimated by 600 m line transect, traversed in one hour. Transects were enumerated between 06:00 hours to 11:00 hours. Butterflies were identified based on physical features with the help of field guides and reference books (Evans, 1932; Ferrar, 1948;

Kehimkar, 2008). Unfamiliar species were collected for identification. Species observed outside transects and forest edges were noted separately. Butterflies observed along transects alone were considered for statistical analyses. Species richness and abundance of butterflies: The total number of butterfly species and number of individuals seen in each transect were calculated using the census data and field observations.

B�� Sivaperuman�

��

�

�

Diversity indices: Shannon index, Simpson index and Hill's diversity numbers N1 and N2 were calculated for different islands using the programme SPDIVERS.BAS developed by Ludwig and Reynolds (1988). Dominance Index: The dominance of the each butterfly species was calculated using the dominance index. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Species richness and abundance of butterflies: Species richness and abundance of butterflies varied in the different islands. Highest number of species richness and abundance was recorded from Havelock followed by Neil and Outram (Table 2). Mean number of individuals in different locations were presented in Fig. 2. Highest number of individuals was recorded from the family Nymphalidae in Havelocak and Neil Islands. Diversity indices of butterflies in different islands: Indices based on the proportional abundance of species are the best approach to measure diversity. Most widely used diversity indices such as Shannon Index of diversity, Simpson’s Index of diversity and Hill’s numbers N1 and N2 have been determined. The diversity index (H’) ranged from 2.76-3.96, with highest in Havelock (3.96) (Table 2). Dominance of individual species: Out of 72 species of butterflies observed in the Ritchie’s archipelago, Peacock Pansy (5.71 per cent) was highest in dominance followed by Common Mormon (5.48 per cent) and Stripped Tiger (4.13 per cent) (Table 3). Thirty species were represented in less than 1 per cent.

During the study period total of 1260 individuals belongs to 5 families were recorded. The butterflies in Ritchie’s archipelago represent five families i.e. Hesperidae, Lycaenidae, Nymphalidae, Papilionidae and Pieridae. The distribution of butterfly species showed that the following species were recorded in all islands namely, Peacock Pansy, Great Mormon, Andaman Clubtail, and Common Rose. Differences in butterfly species richness observed at our study sites may result from variety of causes, which may be categorized as local or regional factors. The presence of all Lepidoptera families at each site is represented in a wide range. Butterfly families site selection

could be determine by the availability of some factors such as food available, access to light to regulate their body temperature also open space to flight away from predators or some others to use the breeze to flight to other places. Diversity indices of Butterfly in Andaman and Nicobar Islands are meager, it is interesting to find that the diversity index of Ritchie’s archipelago in this study. Changes in the diversity of butterfly in different islands in the study area are evident from the data, this because of the variation in the micro habitat, floristic structure and other habitat parameter.

Habitat preference of butterflies can be directly related to the availability of food plants (Thomas, 1995). Each habitat has a specific set of micro environment suitable for a species. Most of the species recorded during the present study were not habitat specific. Nymphalidae was the dominant family in the present study. Many members of this family are polyphagous which would help them to live in all habitats and in different elevation gradients. In some of the islands in Ritchie’s archipelago is occupied by thick mangrove swamps and other are sandy beaches. In the latter the littoral or beach forest consists of some flowering bushes and this habitat support more number of species. It also observed that some of Nymphalids and Pierids were regularly visit the seashore and settle on damp patches for a few seconds, white others like Sailers, Lacewings, and Blues confined themselves to the forested area. The Skippers remain within the forest area. From the conservation point of view, we recorded several endangered and endemic species of butterflies from the study area. This confirms the importance of the Ritchie’s archipelago for butterfly conservation in Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

To conserve the butterflies in the study area it is necessary to take immediate measures to investigate the causes of degradation both within the forest as well as adjoining areas must be taken to formulate the suitable action plan to conserve the colourful population. Long-term monitoring studies are needed with special reference to host plants and the factor influencing the distribution, diversity and abundance of butterflies.

B��Sivaperuman�

��

�

�

Fig. 2. Mean number of individuals in each of the observed families in different islands. Where HL – Havelock, JL- John Lawrence, HL – Henry Lawrence, IN – Inglis, SB – South Button, NB – North Button, MB – Middle Button, OM – Outram, NL – Neil Island

B!� Sivaperuman�

��

�

�

Table 1. Salient characteristics of the study sites.

Variables Havelock John Lawrence

Henry Lawrence Inglis South

Button North Button

Middle Button Outram Neil

Coordinates 11o 58.769’ 93° 00.980’

12o 04.276’ 93° 03.063

12o 05.137’ 92° 04.386’

12o 08.586’ 93° 06.651’

12o 13.467’ 93° 01.244’

12o 18.974’ 93° 03.826’

12o 16.473’ 93° 01.334’

12o 13.761’ 93° 06.055’

11o 49.168’ 93° 03.382’

Description of islands

tracts of land, smaller than a continent, surrounded by water at high water









Extent of area (km2) 113.93 41.98 55 1.4 0.1 0.25 0.4 13 18.90 Annual average rainfall (mm) 3180.0 3180.0 3180.0 3180.0 3180.0 3180.0 3180.0 3180.0 3180.0

Average daily maximum air temperature (o C) 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28

Average daily humidity (%) 73.9 73.9 73.9 73.9 73.9 73.9 73.9 73.9 73.9

Major vegetation types

Andaman Tropical Evergreen, Andaman Semi- evergreen, Andaman Moist deciduous, Mangrove, Littoral, Agriculture

Andaman Tropical Evergreen, Andaman Semi- evergreen, Andaman Moist deciduous, Mangrove, Littoral







Andaman Tropical Evergreen, Andaman Semi- evergreen, Andaman Moist deciduous, Mangrove, Littoral, Agriculture

B �Sivaperuman�

��

�

�

Table 2. Difference observed in line transect method in the study sites.

Variables Havelock John Lawrence

Henry Lawrence Inglis South Button North Button Middle

Button Outram Neil

Butterfly individuals observed

437 109 98 94 69 59 75 110 214

No. of species observed 61 30 31 32 20 21 23 35 51

Sampling effort (km walked)

32 12 12 18 10 10 10 15 30

Percentage of individuals indentified to family/species

H - 1.60 / 7.04 Pa - 15.79 / 16.90 Pi - 15.10 /21.13 L - 7.55 / 17. 90 N - 59.95 / 38.03

H - 2.70 / 6.67 Pa- 25.23 / 23.33 Pi - 10.81 / 16.67 L - 2.70 / 6. 67 N - 58.56 / 46.67

H - 0.00 / 0.00 Pa - 21.78 / 24.24 Pi – 7.92 / 18.18 L – 6.93 / 12.12 N - 63.37 / 45.45

H - 3.96 / 8.11 Pa - 16.83 / 21.62 Pi - 13.86 /18.92 L – 10.89 / 16.22 N - 54.46 / 35.14

H - 0.00 / 0.00 Pa – 8.96 / 9.62 Pi - 38.46 / 15.38 L - 14.10 / 13.46 N - 38.46 / 11.54

H - 0.0 / 0.00 Pa - 15.25 / 28.57 Pi - 44.07 / 38.10 L - 6.78 / 14.29 N - 33.90 / 19.05

H - 0.00 / 0.00 Pa- 11.54 / 24.00 Pi - 28.21 /28.13 L- 15.38 / 24. 00 N - 44.87 / 24.03

H – 5.98 / 12.50 Pa - 15.38 / 22.50 Pi - 12.22 /20.00 L - 7.69 / 12.50 N - 48.72 / 32.50

H - 3.27 / 5.77 Pa- 23.36 / 21.15 Pi - 16.82 /21.15 L – 8.88 / 17. 31 N - 47.66 / 34.62

Percentage of species identified

94.44 41.67 45.83 44.44 36.11 29.17 34.72 47.22 65.28

Species richness indices (R1, R2)

11.51, 3.40 6.18, 2.87

6.54, 3.13

6.82, 3.30

4.49, 2.41

4.90, 2.73

5.10 2.66

7.23 3.34

9.36 3.53

Shannon index (H’) 3.96 3.18 3.27 3.31 2.76 2.76 2.91 3.35 3.61

Simpson index (λ)

0.02 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.03

Hills diversity indices (N1, N2)

52.22, 46.74

23.95, 24.24

26.26, 30.01

27.38, 31.55

15.82, 16.88

15.73, 16.11

18.39 19.53

28.53 30.86

37.05 33.45

Evenness indices (E1, E2)

0.93, 0.74

0.93, 0.80

0.95 0.85

0.95, 0.86

0.92, 0.79

0.91, 0.75

0.93 0.80

0.94 0.82

0.92 0.73

CA� Sivaperuman�

��

�

�

Table 3. Abundance and dominance of butterflies in the Richie’s archipelago.

Name of the species Dominance Index

Peacock Pansy 5.71 Common Mormon 5.48 Striped Tiger 4.13 Grey Pansy 3.97 Spotted Black Crow 3.33 Andaman Crow 3.17 Common Emigrant 2.70 Blue Tiger 2.54 Lime Butterfly 2.30 Cruiser 2.30 Yellow Pansy 2.30 Yellow Orange Tip 2.22 Common Sailer 2.22 Yellow Pansy 2.22 Tailed Jay 2.14 Common Albatross 2.06 Long-Brand Bush Brown 2.06 Mottled Emigrant 1.90 Clipper 1.90 Blue Pansy 1.83 Great Jay 1.75 Nigger 1.75 Peacock Pansy 1.67 Common Rose 1.59 Common Sergeant 1.59 Glassy Tiger 1.59 Lesser Gull 1.51 Three Spot Grass Yellow 1.35 Plain Tiger 1.35 Andaman Chestnut Palmfly 1.35 Danaid Eggfly 1.35 Leopard Lacewing 1.27 Hewitson Andaman Viscount 1.27 Great Egg fly 1.27 Tree Yellow 1.19 Great Orange Tip 1.19 Apefly 1.11 Dark Grass Blue 1.11

Andaman Common Rose 1.03 Andaman Wanderer 1.03 Striped Albatross 1.03 Orange Albatross 1.03 Yamfly 0.95 Common Evening Brown 0.95 Andaman Mormon 0.87 Lesser Grass Blue 0.87 Dark Glassy Tiger 0.87 Great Mormon 0.71 Andaman Clubtail 0.71 Plains Cupid 0.71 Plains Cupid 0.71 Andaman Birdwing 0.63 Crimson Rose 0.63 Large Cabbage White 0.48 Silverstreak Blue 0.48 Common Snow Flat 0.40 Common Grass Yellow 0.40 Chocolate Albatross 0.40 Pysche 0.40 Tree Nymph 0.40 Plain Palm Dart 0.32 Indian Sunbean 0.32 Forget-Me-Not 0.32 White Banded Awl 0.24 Dark Blue Royal 0.24 Palmking 0.24 Common Spotted Flat 0.16 Andaman Colon Swift 0.16 Fivebar Swordtail 0.16 Leaf Blue 0.16 Purple Leaf Blue 0.16 Common Awl 0.08

C��Sivaperuman�

��

�

�

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author is grateful to the Ministry of

Environment and Forests, Government of India, for providing facilities to this study. I acknowledge the Director, Zoological Survey of India, the Officer-in-Charge, Andaman and Nicobar Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of India, Port Blair for encouragement and providing necessary facilities and Shri. B.P. Yadav, Divisional Forest Officer, Havelock Forest Division, Andaman and Nicobar Islands for logistic support to carry out this study. REFERENCES Arora, G.S. and D.N. Nandi. (1980). On the

butterfly fauna of Andaman and Nicobar Islands (India) I. Papilionidae. Records of Zoological Survey of India. 77: 141-151.

Arora, G.S. and D.N. Nandi. (1982). On the butterfly fauna of Andaman and Nicobar Islands India II. Pieridae. Ibid. 80: 1-15.

Bonebrake, T.C., L.C. Ponisio, C.L. Boggs and P.R. Ehrlich. (2010). More than just indicators: A review of torpical buttefly ecology and conservation. Biological Conservation. 143: 1831-1841.

Chandra, K., and Khatri. (1993). Butterflies of Great Nicobar Islands. Indian Journal of Forestry. 18(4): 276-273.

Devy, M.S., T. Ganesh and P. Davidar. (1998). Patterns of butterfly distribution in the Andaman Islands: Implications for conservation. Acta Oecologia. 19(6): 527-534.

Evans, W.H. (1932). The Identification of Indian Butterflies. Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay. 454pp.

Ferrar, M.L. (1948). Butterflies of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 47(3): 470-491.

Hill, J.K., Hamer, K.C., Lace, L.A. and Banham, W.M.T. (1995). Effects of selective logging on tropical forest butterflies on Buru, Indonesia. Journal of Applied Ecology. 32: 754-760.

Kehimkar, I. (2008). The book of Indian Butterflies. Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai. 497 pp.

Khatri, T.C. (1989). A revised list of Butterflies

from Bay Islands. J. Andaman Sci. Assoc. 5: 57-61.

Khatri, T.C. (1991). On some Nymphalidae (Rhopalocera: Lepidoptera) from the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Islands on March. 3: 82-94.

Khatri, T.C. (1992). On some Lycaenids (Rhopalcocera: Lepidoptera) from Andaman and Nicbar Islands. Islands on March. 6: 8-16.

Kremen, C. (1992). Assessing the indicator properties of species assemblages for natural area monitoring. Ecological Applications. 2: 203-217.

Ludwig, J.A. and J.F. Reynolds. (1988). Statistical Ecology, A premier on Methods and Computing. A Wiley-Interscince publication. 337pp.

Magurran, A.E. (1988). Ecological Diversity and its Measurement. Croom Helm Ltd. London. 179pp.

Murphy, D.D., K.E. Freas and S.B. Weiss. (1990). An environment- metapopulation approach to population viability analysis for a threatened invertebrate. Conservation Biology. 4: 41-51.

Schulze, C.H., S. Schneeweihs and K. Fielder. (2010). The potential of land-use systems for maintaining tropical forest butterfly diversity. pp.74-96. In: Tropical rainforest and agroforests under global change– ecological and socio-economic valuations. (Eds.) Tscharnatka, T., C. Leuschner, E. Veldkamp, H. Faust, E. Guhardja and A. Bidin, Springers, Berlin.

Sivaperuman, C., S.K. Shah, C. Raghunathan and Ramakrishna. (2011). Structure and species composition of butterflies in Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve, Andaman and Nicobar Islands. 168-179. In: Entomology: Ecology and Biodiversity, (Eds.) B.K. Tyagi and V. Veer. Scientific Publisher, Jodhpur.

Sparrow, H.R., T.D. Sisk, P.R. Ehrlich and D.D. Murphy. (1994). Techniques and guidelines for monitoring neotropical butterflies. Conservation Biology. 8: 800-809.

C?� Sivaperuman�

��

�

�

Talbot, G. (1939). The fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma (Butterflies), Taylor and Francies, London.

Talbot, G. (1947). Fauna of British India. Butterflies II, Today & Tomorrow Printers and Publishers.

Thomas, J.A. (1995). The ecology and conservation of Maculinea arion and other European species of large blue butterfly. pp. 180-210 In: A.S. Pullin (ed.) Ecology and Conservation of Butterflies. Chapman and Hall, London.

Wood-Mason, J. and L. de Niceville. (1980). List of diurnal Lepidoptera from Port Blair.

Andaman Islands. J. Asiat. Soc. Beng. 49(2): 223-243.

Wood-Mason, J. and L. de Niceville. (1981a). List of diurnal Lepidoptera from Port Blair. Andaman Islands. J. Asiat. Soc. Beng. 49(2): 223-243.

Wood-Mason, J. and L. de Niceville. (1981b). Second list of Rhopalocerous Lepidoptera from Port Blair. Andaman Islands. J. Asiat. Soc. Beng. 50(4): 243-262.

Wood-Mason, J. and L. de Niceville. (1982). Second list of Rhopalocerous Lepidoptera from Port Blair. Andaman Islands. J. Asiat. Soc. Beng. 11: 14-20.

C@�Sivaperuman�

��

�

�

Diversity of Moths in Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve (GNBR), Andaman

and Nicobar islands

C. Sivaperuman* and Suresh Kumar Shah

Zoological Survey of India, Andaman and Nicobar Regional Centre, Port Blair- 744 102, India e-mail: *[email protected]

(Received 28 December, 2011, Accepted 11 February, 2012)

ABSTRACT: The study was conducted in Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve (GNBR) during 2008-2011. The aim of this study was to describe the species abundance, diversity and distribution pattern of moths of Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve. The tropical rain forests of Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve represent high level of biological diversity. Moths are among the taxonomic group in these forests with unique species diversity, increased Pre-tsunami conversion of forest land into agricultural land by native tribes and settlers and conversion of forests for alternative land use for resettlement after 2004 tsunami have posed habitat loss in these forests. This change in land use pattern highlights the importance of assessing diversity of moths and their conservation. We sampled 1840 moths from 80 species belongs to 9 families. Sampling was conducted during all seasons using light traps at 5 different sites within the biosphere reserve. Of the recorded species, 10 were new addition to the moth fauna of GNBR. Key words: Moths, Diversity, Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve.

INTRODUCTION

Moths are one of the large taxonomic groups and they are assumed as less attractive of their dull coloration and nocturnal habit, but there are crepuscular, diurnal and some brilliantly colored fascinating species. It is estimated that over ten thousand species of moths are to be found in India belongs to 41 families (Beccaloni, 2003). The Andaman and Nicobar Islands is known for rich biodiversity resources. The archipelago comprises of 572 islands and extending over 800 km in the Bay of Bengal. The topography of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are hilly and undulating, the elevation in Andaman is from 0 to 732 m and Saddle Peak is the highest in North Andaman Island. In the Nicobars the elevation rises from 0 to 568 m, Mt Thuillier being the highest peak on Great Nicobar Island. The habitats represented in the islands include bays, mangroves, moist deciduous forests and evergreen forests. These islands are tropical, that is, warm, moist and equable. The proximity of the sea and the abundant rainfall prevent extremes of heat. The mountainous parts of the southern group of islands get about 300 cm of rain annually whereas the islands of north get less rainfall. Flora and fauna of Andaman bears close biogeographical affinities with Myanmar and

Thailand while Nicobar has affinities with Indo-Mayan regions. Review of literature reveals that only few studies have been conducted on the moth fauna Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Bhummanawar et al., 1991; Chandra and Kumar, 1992; Chandra, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997; Chandra and Rajan, 2004; Sivaperuman et al., 2010; Sivaperuman et al., 2011). STUDY AREA

The Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve (GNBR) is the southernmost Island of Andaman and Nicobar archipelago. It is situated between 6° 45’ and 7° 15’ N latitudes and 93° 38’ and 93° 55’ E longitudes and lies about 482 km south of Port Blair and about 145 km North of Sumatra. The GNBR includes Campbell Bay and Galathea National Park. This island experiences tropical climate with mean annual temperature of 22-32oC, relative humidity of 82 per cent and rainfall of 300-380cm. This reserve is known for its unique biodiversity and houses rich genetic germplasm resources. The Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve represents the tropical evergreen forests of Indo-Malayan region and the major forest area in this Biosphere Reserve is still in its virgin state.

Biological Forum_ An International Journal, Spl. Iss.��B��=�CB>�A��(?A�?��9��# �8%��:;�==B25C=C2�

��

�

�

METHODS The study was conducted during the

months of August 2008, January 2009, July 2009, February 2010, September 2010, February 2011 and July 2011. Moths were collected using a light trap, including 80W Philips energy saver white day light bulb. Collected specimens were put into tightly closed killing jars immediately and transferred into insect envelop, and then brought to the laboratory for preparation and identification. Ethyl acetate was used as a killing agent. The collection date and location

concerning each specimen were recorded in the field note book. Specimens were pinned using different size of insect pins and were mounted on the insect setting boards. The species were identified with the help of standard key of systematic reference (Hampson, 1892, 1894, 1895 and 1896; Barlow, 1982; Holloway, 1985, 1989 and 1993). All the collected specimens were deposited in Zoological Survey of India, Port Blair. The details of light trapping locations were present in Table 1.

Table 1. Details of light trapping location in Great Nicobar Biosphere.

Location name Habitat type

Mean under story density

(%)

Mean canopy cover

(%)

Mean light-trap radius (m)

Amphibian Road Plantation 54.5 88.2 78.0 Joginder Nagar Plantation 57.3 83.8 82.1 East-west Road Evergreen 86.4 93.9 48.0 Indira Point Littoral 63.4 35.5 72.5 Kopen heat Evergreen 90.7 69.7 48.0

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

During the period of the study, a total of 1840 individuals and 80 species belongs to 9 families were recorded (Table 2). Sampling was conducted during all seasons using light traps at 5 different sites within the biosphere reserve. Of the recorded species, 10 were new addition to the moth fauna of GNBR. Highest

number of species were recorded from the family Pyralidae (23), followed by Noctuidae (21), Geometridae (13) and Arctiidae (12). Among the recorded species, the Claterna cydonica (4.73) showed high in dominance, followed by Garudinia simulana (4.62), Glyphodes itysalis (3.42), Hypsa alciphron (3.21), Micronia astheniata (3.04).

Table 2. List of species of moths recorded from Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve with

abundance and dominance index.

Sl. No. Family / Species Name Abundance Dominance Index

Pyralidae 1. Aetholix flavibasalis (Guenee) 26 1.41 2. Agrotera posticalis Wileman ** 12 0.65 3. Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Guenee) 37 2.01 4. Diaphania annulata (Fabricius) 27 1.47 5. Diaphania bivitralis (Guenee) 53 2.88 6. Diaphania glauculalis (Guenee) 30 1.63 7. Diaphania indica (Saunders) 20 1.09 8. Diaphania stolalis (Guenee) 43 2.34 9. Diaphania pfeifferae (Lederer) 21 1.14 10. Diaphania vertumnalis (Guenee) 26 1.41 11. Glyphodes itysalis Walker 63 3.42 12. Glyphodes suralis Lederer 25 1.36 13. Hyalobathra filalis (Guenee) 12 0.65 14. Hymenia recurvalis (Fabricius) 20 1.09 15. Maruca amboinalis Felder 10 0.54 16. Maruca testulalis (Geyer) 53 2.88 17. Procedema inscisale Walker 15 0.82

CC�Sivaperuman and Shah�

��

�

�

18. Psara stultalis (Walker) 11 0.60 19. Pycnarmon meritalis (Walker) 10 0.54 20. Sameodes cancellalis (Zeller) 15 0.82 21. Sylepta derogate (Fabricius) 16 0.87 22. Tryporyza incertulus Walker 13 0.71 23. Vitessa nicobarica Hampson 9 0.49

Geometridae 24. Agathia lycaenaria koll 16 0.87 25. Bolonga schitacearia Walker 18 0.98 26. Camostola pyrrhogona (Walker) 24 1.30 27. Eumelia rosalia Stoll 22 1.20 28. Euschema militaris Linnaeus 35 1.90 29. Hyposidra talaca (Walker) 50 2.72 30. Lomographa inamata Walker 24 1.30 31. Petelia delostigma Prout ** 16 0.87 32. Petelia medardaria H. S. 38 2.07 33. Probithia exclusa Walker 17 0.92 34. Trygodes divisaria Walker 38 2.07 35. Zeheba lucidata Walker 21 1.14 36. Xythos turbata Walker 17 0.92

Uraniidae 37. Micronia astheniata (Guenee) 56 3.04

Sphingidae 38. Hippotion boerhaviae Fabricius 11 0.60 39. Hippotion velox (Fabricius) 6 0.33 40. Psilogramma menephron menephron

(Cramer) 10 0.54

41. Theretra nasus (Drury) 15 0.82 Hypsidae

42. Hypsa alciphron Cramer 59 3.21 43. Hypsa monycha Cramer 17 0.92 Arctiidae 44. Cyana amabilis (Moore) 24 1.30 45. Cyana javanica sumatrensis (Druce) 23 1.25 46. Eilema atrifrons (Hampson) 16 0.87 47. Eugoa vagiguttata (Walker) 15 0.82 48. Garudinia acornuta Holloway ** 27 1.47 49. Garudinia simulana Walker 85 4.62 50. Miltochrista danielli Arora 39 2.12 51. Barsine lineatus Walker ** 14 0.76 52. Olepa racini (Fabricius) * 19 1.03 53. Pelochyta astreus Drury 15 0.82 54. Pericallia galactina Vander Hoev. 25 1.36 55. Utetheisa pulchelloides Hampson 14 0.76

Noctuidae 56. Aegilia sundacribens Holloway 10 0.54 57. Artena rubida Walker 22 1.20 58. Barbotana nivifascia Walker 14 0.76 59. Callopistria emiliusalis Walker 12 0.65 60. Calyptra minuticornis Guenee * 30 1.63 61. Chasmina candida Walker 10 0.54 62. Chrysodeixis arisoma (Doubleday) 21 1.14 63. Claterna cydonia Cramer 87 4.73 64. Ercheia cyllaria Cramer 30 1.63 65. Erebus ephesperis ephesperis Hubner 32 1.74 66. Grammodes mygdon Cramer 24 1.30

C�� Sivaperuman and Shah�

��

�

�

67. Lopherthrum comprimens Walker 17 0.92 68. Othreis fullonica (Clark)* 9 0.49 69. Parallelia joviana (Stoll) 13 0.71 70. Psimada quadripennis Walker 12 0.65 71. Sarobides inconclusa Walker 20 1.09 72. Simplicia rufa occidentalis Holloway

** 2 0.11

73. Sympis rufibasis Guenee 24 1.30 74. Sypna albilinea Walker 13 0.71 75. Xanthodes transversa Guenee 12 0.65 76. Zurobata intractata Walker 9 0.49

Epiplemidae 77. Epiplema instabilata Walker* 2 0.11 78. Epiplema conflictaria Walker 5 0.27 Drepanidae 79. Tridepana albonotata Moore * 2 0.11 80. Tridrepana fulvata Snellen 15 0.82

Where * - New record to Andaman and Nicobar Islands; ** - New report to India

The species richness and abundance was highest in Pyralidae (23,567), followed by

Noctuidae (21, 423), Geometridae (13,336) and Arctiidae (12,316) (Table 3).

Table 3. Species richness and abundance in different family.

Sl. No. Family Species

richness Species

Abundance 1. Pyralidae 23 567

2. Geometridae 13 336

3. Uraniidae 1 56

4. Sphingidae 4 42

5. Hypsidae 2 76

6. Arctiidae 12 316

7. Noctuidae 21 423

8. Epiplemidae 2 7

9. Drepanidae 2 17

The distribution of moth species showed

that the following species were recorded in all locations namely Diaphania bivitralis, Diaphania glauculalis, Diaphania stolalis, Diaphania pfeifferae, Diaphania vertumnalis, Maruca testulalis, Pycnarmon meritalis, Petelia medardaria, Hypsa alciphron, Garudinia

simulana, Claterna cydonia, Parallelia joviana, Sympis rufibasia and Tridrepana fulvata. The species like Ephiplemana instabilata, Vitessa nicobarica, Petalia delostigma, Barbotana nivifascia, Callopistria emiliusalis, Zurobata intractata, Simplicia rufa occidentalis were recorded from only one location (Table 4).

Table 4. Distribution of moths in Great Nicobar Islands.

Sl. No. Species name Amphibian

Road Joginder

Nagar

East- West Road

Indira Point

Kopen- heat

Pyralidae 1. Aetholix flavibasalis (Guenee) � � � 2. Agrotera posticalis Wileman � �

C��Sivaperuman and Shah�

��

�

�

3. Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Guenee) � � � � � 4. Diaphania annulata (Fabricius) � � 5. Diaphania bivitralis (Guenee) � � � � � 6. Diaphania glauculalis (Guenee) � � � � � 7. Diaphania indica (Saunders) � � � 8. Diaphania stolalis (Guenee) � � � � � 9. Diaphania pfeifferae (Lederer) � � � � � 10. Diaphania vertumnalis (Guenee) � � � � � 11. Glyphodes itysalis Walker � � � � � 12. Glyphodes suralis Lederer � � � � � 13. Hyalobathra filalis (Guenee) � � 14. Hymenia recurvalis (Fabricius) � � � 15. Maruca amboinalis Felder � 16. Maruca testulalis (Geyer) � � � � � 17. Procedema inscisale Walker � � 18. Psara stultalis (Walker) � 19. Pycnarmon meritalis (Walker) � � � � � 20. Sameodes cancellalis (Zeller) � � 21. Sylepta derogate (Fabricius) � � � 22. Tryporyza incertulus Walker � � � � 23. Vitessa nicobarica Hampson �

Geometridae 24. Agathia lycaenaria koll � � � 25. Bolonga schitacearia Walker � � � 26. Camostola pyrrhogona (Walker) � � 27. Eumelia rosalia Stoll � � 28. Euschema militaris Linnaeus � � 29. Hyposidra talaca (Walker) � � � � 30. Lomographa inamata Walker � � 31. Petelia delostigma Prout � 32. Petelia medardaria H. S. � � � � � 33. Probithia exclusa Walker � � 34. Trygodes divisaria Walker � � � � � 35. Zeheba lucidata Walker � � � 36. Xythos turbata Walker � � �

Uraniidae 37. Micronia astheniata (Guenee) � � � �

Sphingidae 38. Hippotion boerhaviae Fabricius � � 39. Hippotion velox (Fabricius) � � 40. Psilogramma menephron menephron (Cramer)

� � �

41. Theretra nasus (Drury) � � � Hypsidae

42. Hypsa alciphron Cramer � � � � � 43. Hypsa monycha Cramer � � � �

Arctiidae 44. Cyana amabilis (Moore) � � � 45. Cyana javanica sumatrensis (Druce) � � 46. Eilema atrifrons (Hampson) � � 47. Eugoa vagiguttata (Walker) � � 48. Garudinia acornuta Holloway � � 49. Garudinia simulana Walker � � � � 50. Miltochrista danielli Arora � � 51. Barsine lineatus Walker � � � 52. Olepa racini (Fabricius) � �

C!� Sivaperuman and Shah�

��

�

�

53. Pelochyta astreus Drury � � 54. Pericallia galactina Vander Hoev. � � 55. Utetheisa pulchelloides Hampson � �

Noctuidae 56. Aegilia sundacribens Holloway � � 57. Artena rubida Walker � � 58. Barbotana nivifascia Walker � 59. Callopistria emiliusalis Walker � 60. Calyptra minuticornis Guenee � � � 61. Chasmina candida Walker � � 62. Chrysodeixis erisoma (Doubleday) � � � 63. Claterna cydonia Cramer � � � � 64. Ercheia cyllaria Cramer � � � 65. Erebus ephesperis ephesperis Hubner � � � 66. Grammodes mygdon Cramer � � 67. Lopherthrum comprimens Walker � � 68. Othreis fullonica (Clark) � 69. Parallelia joviana (Stoll) � � � � 70. Psimada quadripennis Walker � � 71. Sarobides inconclusa Walker � � 72. Simplicia rufa occidentalis Holloway � 73. Sympis rufibasis Guenee � � � � 74. Sypna albilinea Walker � � 75. Xanthodes transversa Guenee � � 76. Zurobata intractata Walker �

Epiplemidae 77. Epiplema instabilata Walker � 78. Epiplema conflictaria Walker � �

Drepanidae 79. Tridepana albonotata Moore � � 80. Tridrepana fulvata Snellen � � � �

Diversity indices The Shannon index (H’) showed high values in Pyralidae (2.97) followed by Noctuidae

(2.79). Similarly, the Richness index R1, and R2 also showed high values in Pyralidae (3.47; 0.97) and Noctuidae (3.31; 1.02) (Table 5).

Table 5. Diversity indices of moths in different families.

Family Richness Indices Diversity indices Hills Numbers Evenness

indices R1 R2 λλλλ H' N1 N2 E1 E2

Pyralidae 3.47 0.97 0.06 2.97 19.43 17.24 0.95 0.84

Geometridae 2.06 0.71 0.09 2.49 12.06 11.56 0.97 0.93

Sphingidae 0.80 0.62 0.25 1.34 3.81 4.01 0.97 0.95

Hypsidae 0.23 0.23 0.64 0.53 1.70 1.56 0.77 0.85

Arctiidae 1.91 0.68 0.12 2.29 9.92 8.09 0.92 0.83

Noctuidae 3.31 1.02 0.08 2.79 16.35 12.72 0.92 0.78

Epiplemidae 0.51 0.76 0.46 0.60 1.82 2.18 0.86 0.91

Drepanidae 0.33 0.45 0.58 0.56 1.75 1.73 0.81 0.88

This is first study to quantitatively evaluate

the species richness, diversity and community structure of moth assemblages in the Great

Nicobar Biosphere Reserve by light trapping and causal recording. There is a significant different between different locations in the study area. Of

C �Sivaperuman and Shah�

��

�

�

the commonest and regularly recorded species are Cnaphalocrocis medinalis, Diaphania bivitralis, Diaphania stolalis, Glyphodes itysalis, Maruca testulalis, Camostola pyrrhogona, Hyposidra talaca, Petelia medardaria, Trygodes divisaria, Cyana amabilis, Miltochrista lineatus, Claterna cydonia, Erebus ephesperis ephesperis, Micronia astheniata and Hypsa alciphron.

The top most fifteen abundance species belongs to Pyralidae (5 species), Geometridae (4 species), 2 species Arctidae and Noctudiae each, and one species Hypsidae and Uraniiade respectively. The survey work carried out so far still covers only a limited area of the Biosphere Reserve and many other locations remain to be recorded. It is anticipated that further recording will result in more species being found at this study area. Further, light trapping will enable continued monitoring of the abundance of each species of conservation concern and further recording in different areas of the study area will help to identify the most important areas for moths. The detailed ecological studies are required to conserve the little know fauna of this Island. REFERENCES Barlow, H.S. (1982). An introduction to the

moths of South East Asia p. 136, pl .47. Malayan Nature Society, Kuala Lumpur.

Bhumannavar, B.S., Mohanraj, P., Rangnath, H.R., Jacob, T.K. and Bandyopadhyay, K. (1991). Insects of agricultural importance in Andaman and Nicobar Islands. CARI Research Bulletin. 6: 1- 49.

Chandra, K. (1993). New records of Moths of Bay Islands. Journal of Andaman Science Association. 9(1&2): 44-49.

Chandra, K. (1994). Further new records of moths from Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Journal of Andaman Science Association. 10(1&2): 17-24.

Chandra, K. (1996). Moths of Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve, India. Malayan Nature Journal 50: 109-116.

Chandra, K. (1997). New additions to the moth fauna of Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

Journal of Andaman Science Association. 13(1&2): 44-47.

Chandra, K. and Kumar, S. (1992). Moths (Heterocera: Lepidoptera) of Andaman & Nicobar Islands. Journal of Andaman Science Association. 8(2): 138-145.

Chandra, K. and Rajan, P.T. (2004). Faunal diversity of Mount Harriet National Park (South Andaman). Conservation Area Series, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata. 17: 1-142.

Hampson, G.F. (1892). The fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma: Moths. Taylor and Francis Ltd., London. 1: 1-527.

Hampson, G.F. (1894-96). The fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma: Moths, Vols. 2-4. Taylor and Francis Ltd., London.

Holloway, J.D. (1985). The Moths of Borneo: Family Noctuidae, subfamilies Euteliinae, Stictopterinae, Plusiinae, Pantherinae. Malayan Nature Journal. 38: 157-317.

Holloway, J.D. (1989). The Moths of Borneo: Family Noctuidae, subfamilies Noctuinae, Heliothinae, Hadeninae, Acronictinae, Amphipyrinae, Agaristinae. Malayan Nature Journal. 42: 57-228.

Holloway, J.D. (1993). The Moths of Borneo: Family Geometridae, subfamily Ennominae. Malayan Nature Journal. 43: 1-309.

Sivaperuman, C., Shah, S.K., Raghunathan, C. and Ramakrishna. (2010). Some new records of moth from Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Biological Forum- An International Journal. 2(2): 68-69.

Sivaperuman, C., Shah, S.K., Raghunathan, C. and Venkataraman, K. (2011). First report of Saroba maculicosta Walker and Barsine lineatus Walker from Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India. Association for Tropical Lepidoptera Research, December, 2011: 2.

�A� Sivaperuman and Shah�

��

�

�

Diversity of Moths in Neil Island, Andaman and Nicobar Islands


Zoological Survey of India, Andaman and Nicobar Regional Centre, Port Blair- 744 102, India e-mail: *[email protected]

(Received 24 December, 2011, Accepted 4 February, 2012)

ABSTRACT: The study was conducted in Neil Island during 2009-2011 and the aim of this study was to describe the species abundance, diversity and distribution pattern of moth fauna of this island. The information on the faunal diversity and its distribution of the moth fauna are very meager. Neil Island is one of the undocumented islands in South Andaman. It occupies an area of 18.9 km2. The most of the area of this island has been converted into crop lands. Despite moth diversity of this island is has not been explored and documented. In this paper, an attempt has been made to assess the species distribution and diversity of moth fauna of this island. During the period of study, a total of 270 individuals, belongs to 46 species and 8 families were collected using light traps at dusk from 1730-2300 hours. The family Pyralidae was dominated with 15 species followed by Noctuidae (10 species) and Geometridae (8 species). Key words: Moths, diversity, Neil Island.

INTRODUCTION

Moths are often regarded as less engaging but with their diversity of shapes, sizes and colors they are as fascinating as butterflies. Though moths are much common than butterflies, people always refer to butterflies when speaking about Lepidoptera. In fact 95 percent of all Lepidoptera are moths. There are about 1,50,000 to 2,50,000 species of moth, with thousands of species yet to be described. Most species of moth are nocturnal, but there are crepuscular and diurnal species. It is estimated that approximately 10,000 species of moths are to be found in India belongs to 41 families. Moths and butterflies have been widely used in ecological and conservation research worldwide (Kitching et al., 2000; Summerville and Crist, 2002). Literature reveals that, 529 species belong 30 families were reported from Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The major contribution on the Indian moth fauna, in general, belongs to Cotes and Swinhoe (1888), Hampson (1892, 1894, 1895 and 1896), Bell and Scott (1937), Rothchild (1903) and Srivastava (2000). The studies on moth fauna of Andaman and Nicobar islands have been undertaken by Chandra (1993, 1994, 1996 and 1997), Chandra and Kumar (1992), Chandra and Rajan (1995 and 2004), Bhumnavar et al. (1991), Mandal and Bhattacharya (1980).

The Andaman and Nicobar Islands is known for rich biodiversity resources. The archipelago comprises of 572 islands and extending over 800 km. The topography of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are hilly and undulating, the elevation in Andamans is from 0 to 732 m and Saddle Peak is the highest in North Andaman Island. In the Nicobars the elevation rises from 0 to 568 m, Mt Thuillier being the highest peak on Great Nicobar Island. The habitats represented in the islands include bays, mangroves, moist deciduous forests and evergreen forests. These islands are tropical, that is, warm, moist and equable. The proximity of the sea and the abundant rainfall prevent extremes of heat. The mountainous parts of the southern group of islands get about 300 cm of rain annually whereas the islands of north get lesser rainfall. Flora and fauna in Andaman bears close biogeographical affinities with Myanmar and Thailand while Nicobar has affinities with Indo-Mayan regions.

Neil Island is one of the islands in the Andaman Islands of India and it occupies an area of 18.9 km2. It is located 40 kilometres north-east of Port Blair, the capital of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. It is the southernmost island of Ritchie's Archipelago, save for uninhabited Sir Hugh Rose Island, which is another 3.8 km to the

Biological Forum_ An International Journal, Spl. Iss.��B��=��>�B��(?A�?��9��# �8%��:;�==B25C=C2�

��

�

�

southeast of Neil Island. Administratively, the island is in the Neil Kendra Panchayat, Port Blair sub-district of the South Andaman district, of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India. Agriculture is the primary occupation of the villagers, and the island supplies vegetables to the rest of Andaman. METHODS

Moths were collected using a light trap, including 80W Philips energy saver white day light bulb during September 2009 to April 2011. Collected specimens were put into tightly closed killing jars immediately and transferred into insect envelop, and then brought to the laboratory for preparation and identification. Ethyl acetate was used as a killing agent. The collection date and location concerning each specimen were recorded in the field note book. Specimens were pinned using different size of insect pins and were mounted on spreading boards. The species were identified with the

help of standard key of systematic reference (Hampson, 1892, 1894, 1895 and 1896; Barlow, 1982; Holloway, 1985, 1989 and 1993). All the collected specimens were deposited in Zoological Survey of India, Port Blair. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

During the study period, a total of 270 individuals and 46 species belongs to eight families were recorded (Table 1). The following species were showed high in abundance namely Glyphodes itysalis, Hypena sagitta, Asota caricae, Barsine lineatus, Cnaphocrocis medinalis, Erebus ephisperis, Euproctis subnotata, Maruca testulalis and Omiodes indicates. The species like Maruca amboinalis, Vitessa suradeva, Zinckenia fascialis, Anisodes absconditaria, Borbocha sp., Cleora injectaria, Petelia delostigma, Petelia medardaria and Hypsa andamana showed less in abundance during this study.

Table 1. List of moths recorded in Neil Island with species abundance and dominance index.

Sl. No. Family Species name Abundance Dominance Index

1. Pyralidae Cnaphocrocis medinalis (Guenee) 11 4.07 2. Diaphania indica Saunders 3 1.11 3. Glyphodes bivitralis (Guenee) 6 2.22 4. Glyphodes caesalis Walker 4 1.48 5. Glyphodes itysalis Walker 20 7.41 6. Glyphodes vertumnalis Guenee 3 1.11 7. Maruca amboinalis Felder 1 0.37 8. Maruca testulalis Geyer 10 3.70 9. Omiodes indicates Fabricius 10 3.70 10. Palpita rhodocosta Inoue 4 1.48 11. Pycnarmon meritalis (Walker) 6 2.22 12. Telanga sexpunctalis Moore 6 2.22 13. Tyspanodes linealis Moore 2 0.74 14. Vitessa suradeva Moore 1 0.37 15. Zinckenia fascialis Cramer 1 0.37 16. Noctuidae Callopistria thalpophiloides (Walker) 4 1.48 17. Claterna cydonia Cramer 8 2.96 18. Ercheia cyllaria Cramer 8 2.96 19. Erebus ephisperis Hubner 11 4.07 20. Grammodes geometrica Fabricius 9 3.33 21. Hypena sagitta Fabricius 15 5.56 22. Parallelia arcuata Moore 9 3.33 23. Parallelia joviana (Stoll) 7 2.59 24. Plusia peponis Fabricius 5 1.85 25. Trigonodes hyppasia (Cramer) 6 2.22 26. Geometridae Anisodes absconditaria Walker 1 0.37 27. Borbocha sp. 1 0.37 28. Cleora alienaria Walker 6 2.22

�?� Sivaperuman and Shah�

��

�

�

29. Cleora injectaria Walker 1 0.37 30. Heterostegane warreni Prout 9 3.33 31. Petelia delostigma Prout 1 0.37 32. Petelia medardaria Herrich-Schaffer 1 0.37 33. Trygodes divisaria Walker 7 2.59 34. Sphingidae Angonyx testacea Walker 3 1.11 35. Hippotion boerhaviae Fabricius 7 2.59 36. Marumba dyrus dyrus (Walker) 3 1.11 37. Psilogramma menephron menephron Cramer 3 1.11 38. Thretra silhetensis Boisduval 4 1.48 39. Lymantriidae Euproctis scintillans Walker 5 1.85 40. Euproctis subnotata Walker 11 4.07 41. Arctidae Barsine lineatus Walker 12 4.44 42. Pelochyta astreus Drury 5 1.85 43. Utethesia pulchelloides Hampson 4 1.48 44. Hypsiade Asota caricae Fabricius 13 4.81 45. Hypsa andamana Moore 1 0.37 46. Saturniidae Attacus atlas (Linnaeus) 2 0.74

The highest number of species richness

and abundance of moths were recorded from the family Pyralidae (15; 88), followed by Noctuidae (10; 82), Geometridae (8; 270) (Table 2).

Table 2. Family wise species richness and abundance of moths.

Sl. No. Family Species

richness Species

Abundance 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Pyralidae Noctuidae Geometridae Sphingidae Lymantriidae Saturniidae Hypsiade Arctidae

15 10 08 05 02 01 02 03

88 82 27 20 26 2

23 21

Among the collected species of moths,

fifteen species were considered as pests for agriculture crops, namely Glyphodes indica, Zinkenia fascialis, Trygodes divisaria, Utethesia pulchelloides, Asota caricae, Grammodes geometrica, Plusia peponis, Euproctis scintillans, Cnaphocrocis medinalis, Glypodes caesalis, Maruca testulalis, Omiodes indicates, Tyspanodes licalis, and Parallelia joviana. Most of the species obtained were collected during post monsoon season. This was because post monsoon season is the most suitable season for the mating and regeneration activities of Lepidopteran adults. The number of species obtained through the light trapping shows that, this island is one of the diverse habitat in Andaman group of Islands. This survey was an attempt to assess the moth fauna in Neil Island. It is expected to be more number of species

could be explored in this area. A further work is necessary to study the diversity and distribution of moth fauna in this island. REFERENCES Barlow, H.S. (1982). An introduction to the

moths of South East Asia p. 136, pl. 47. Malayan Nature Society, Kuala Lumpur.

Bell, T.R.D. and F.B. Scott. (1937). The fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma: Moths, vol. 5: 537 pp., Taylor and Francis Ltd., London.

Bhumannavar, B.S., P. Mohanraj, H.R. Rangnath, T.K. Jacob and K. Bandyopadhyay. (1991). Insects of agricultural importance in Andaman and Nicobar Islands. CARI Research Bulletin. 6: 1- 49.

�@�Sivaperuman and Shah�

��

�

�

Chandra, K. (1993). New records of Moths of Bay Islands. Journal of Andaman Science Association. 9(1&2): 44-49.

Chandra, K. (1994). Further new records of moths from Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Journal of Andaman Science Association. 10(1&2): 17-24.

Chandra, K. (1996). Moths of Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve, India. Malayan Nature Journal 50: 109-116.

Chandra, K. (1997). New additions to the moth fauna of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Journal of Andaman Science Association. 13(1&2): 44-47.

Chandra, K. and S. Kumar. (1992). Moths (Heterocera: Lepidoptera) of Andaman & Nicobar Islands. Journal of Andaman Science Association. 8(2): 138-145.

Chandra, K. and P.T. Rajan. (1995). Moths of Mount Harriet National Park, Andaman. Journal of Andaman Science Association. 11(1&2): 71-75.

Chandra, K. and P.T. Rajan. (2004). Faunal diversity of Mount Harriet National Park (South Andaman). Conservation Area Series, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata. 17: 1-142.

Cotes, E.C. and C. Swinhoe. (1887-89). A Catalogue of the moths of India, Part I-VI. Indian Museum. 812pp.

Hampson, G.F. (1892). The fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma: Moths. Taylor and Francis Ltd., London. 1: 1-527

Hampson, G.F. (1894-96). The fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma: Moths, Vols. 2-4. Taylor and Francis Ltd., London.

Holloway, J.D. (1985). The Moths of Borneo: Family Noctuidae, subfamilies Euteliinae, Stictopterinae, Plusiinae, Pantherinae. Malayan Nature Journal. 38: 157-317.

Holloway, J.D. (1989). The Moths of Borneo: Family Noctuidae, subfamilies Noctuinae, Heliothinae, Hadeninae, Acronictinae, Amphipyrinae, Agaristinae. Malayan Nature Journal. 42: 57-228.

Holloway, J.D. (1993). The Moths of Borneo: Family Geometridae, subfamily Ennominae. Malayan Nature Journal. 43: 1-309.

Kitching R.L., A.G. Orr, L. Thaib, H. Mitchell, M.S. Hopkins, A.W. Graham. (2000). Moth assemblages as indicators of environment quality of Australian rain forest. Journal of Applied Ecology. 37: 284-297.

Mandal, D.K. and D.P. Bhattacharya. (1980). On the Praustinae (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) from the Andaman, Nicobar and Great Nicobar Islands, Indian Ocean. Records of Zoological Survey of India. 77: 293-342

Rotchschild, W., R. Hartert and K. Jordan. (1903). Novitates Zoologicae. 10: 1-583.

Srivastava, A. (2002). Taxonomy of moths of India. IBD publishers. 334pp.

Summerville, K.S. and T.O. Crist. (2002). Effects of timber harvest on forest Lepidoptera: Community, guild and species responses. Ecological Applications. 12: 820-835.

�B� Sivaperuman and Shah�

��

�

�

Species diversity and abundance of Odonata in Ritchie’s Archipelago,

Andaman and Nicobar islands


Zoological Survey of India, Andaman and Nicobar Regional Centre, Port Blair- 744 102, India. e-mail: *[email protected]

(Received 2 January, 2012, Accepted 18 March, 2012)

ABSTRACT: The Ritchie’s Archipelago is a cluster of smaller islands which lie some 25-30 km east of Andaman. This study was conducted during 2008-2011. Different islands in the Ritchie’s archipelago were surveyed to assess the species diversity and distribution of Odonates. Total of thirty one species belong to 8 families were recorded during the study period. Highest number of species was observed from the family Libellulidae. The diversity index was varied in different islands. The distribution patterns and diversity of dragonflies are discussed in this paper. An extensive Odonatological survey needs to be carried out to explore the rich diversity of these graceful insects and come up with a representative checklist of Odonates for Ritchie’s Archipelago. Key words: Andaman, Dragonfly, Damselfly, Diversity, Ritchie’s archipelago.

INTRODUCTION

The Order Odonata is divided into three suborders, the damselflies (Zygoptera), the dragonflies (Anisoptera) and the primitive dragonflies (Anisozygoptera). The Dragonflies and damselflies occur in all types of freshwater habitats. Generally habitats with a good water quality, aquatic and bank side vegetation and a natural morphology have more species. The odonates are acutely sensitive to anthropogenic disturbance because of their relatively low vagility, amphibious life history, and high trophic position. Indeed, odonates have been called as flagship group of wetland indicator species (Oertli et al., 2002).

The Odonata is one of the primitive and ancient insect orders. It is very diverse and is the second largest aquatic insect order. Odonates are of little economic importance in the world. Their main attraction for humans is aesthetic as they are beautifully coloured. The presence of odonates may be useful as an indicator of ecosystem quality. The greatest numbers of species are found at sites that offer a wide variety of microhabitats. They are beneficial to humans because as voracious aquatic predators they assist in the control of insect pests. More than 5,000 species exist worldwide, with approximately 470 of them occurring in the India belongs to 139 genera and 19 families

(Subramanian, 2009), of which, 50 species under 32 genera and 11 families have been recorded in Andaman and Nicobar Islands by various workers (Fraser 1933, 1934 and 1936; Chhotani et al., 1983; Lahiri and Mitra 1993; Rajan, 2006). Recently, Mitra (2002) reported 32 species from Nicobar Group of Islands. The present study was made to describe the odonates of Ritchie’s archipelago, Andaman and Nicobar Islands. STUDY AREA

The Ritchie's Archipelago is a cluster of smaller islands which lie some 25-30 km east of Great Andaman, the main island group of the Andaman Islands. The archipelago comprises some 4 larger islands, 7 smaller islands and several islets, extending in a roughly north-south chain, parallel to the main Great Andaman group. METHODS

The study was conducted from 2008 through 2011 in nine different islands at Ritchie’s archipelago. All specimens were captured during the day with a sweep net. The samples were immediately stored in envelopes. Photographs were taken of almost all specimens in order to facilitate further identification. Odonates were identified based on standard

Biological Forum_ An International Journal, Spl. Iss.��B��=��C>� ��(?A�?��9��# �8%��:;�==B25C=C2�

��

�

�

systematic keys (Fraser, 1933, 1934, 1936; Subramanian 2009; Mitra 2006). Species richness and abundance of odonates: Total number of odonates and number of individuals seen in each location were calculated using the census data and field observations. Diversity indices: Diversity indices were calculated using the programme SPDIVERS.BAS developed by Ludwig and Reynolds (1988). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Species richness and abundance: Species richness and abundance was highest in Havelock Island followed by John Lawrence and Neil Islands (Fig. 1) Distribution of odonates: Species of odonates recorded in different location during the period of study is given in Table 1.

Species diversity indices: Species diversity index (H') was highest in Havelock (3.08) and lowest at Middle Button (0.69) (Table 1). A total of 31 species of odonates under four families and 25 genera were recorded during the period of study. Out of these Crocothemis servilia servilia, Lathrecista asiatica asiatica, Orthetrum Sabina Sabina and Tremea limbata similiata were most common and abundance species in all islands of Richie’s archipelago. The family Calopterygidae, Lestidae, Protoneuridae, Platycnemididae and Platystictidae were represents only one species each namely Vestalis gracilis, Lestes praemorsa praemorsa, Prodasineura verticalis andamanensia, Copera marginipes and Drepanosticta annandalei respectively.

Fig. 1. Species richness and abundance of Odonates in different islands. The occurrence of at least 31 species of

odonates on the Ritchie’s archipelago suggests an excellent species richness, which likely reflects the wide variety of aquatic and terrestrial habitat on the forest. Many lakes and ponds,

often found to be with abundant shoreline vegetation, provide the classic lentic habitat for odonates. Many small water bodies, streams and small rivers also provide habitat diversity, ranging from sediment and large woody debris in

�� Sivaperuman and Shah�

��

�

�

flowing water to vegetation-choked reaches, pools, and bank areas. The high habitat complexity at multiple spatial scales provides a

wide variety of odonate habitat, which in turn results in high species richness of odonate in Ritchie’s archipelago.

Table 1. Distribution of the Odonates in different islands.

Sl. No. Species name Islands of Ritchie's Archipelago Havelock John

Lawrence Henry

Lawrence Inglis South

Button North Button

Middle Button

Outram Neil

1. Vestalis gracilis gracilis (Rambur)

√ √ √ √ √

2. Lestes praemorsa praemorsa Selys

√ √ √ √

3. Prodasineura verticalis andamanensis (Fraser)

√ √

4. Copera marginipes (Rambur)

√ √ √ √

5. Drepanosticta annandalei Fraser

√ √

6. Aciagrion pallidum Selys

√ √

7. Agriocnemis femina oeyzae Lieftinck

√ √ √ √ √

8. Agriocnemis rubescens Selys

√ √ √

9. Pseudagrion andamanicum Fraser

√ √ √ √ √

10. Anax guttatus (Burmeister)

√ √ √ √

11. Gynacantha hyalina Selys

√ √

12. Brachydiplax chalybea chalybea Brauer

√ √

13. Crocothemis servilia servilia (Drury)

√ √ √ √ √

14. Diplocodes trivialis (Rambur)

√ √ √ √ √

15. Diplacodes nebulosa (Fabricius)

√ √ √

16. Lathrecista asiatica asiatica (Fabricius)

√

��Sivaperuman and Shah�

��

�

�

17. Neurothemis fluctuans (Fabricius)

√ √ √ √

18. Neurothemis intermedia intermedis (Rambur)

√ √

19. Orthetrum chrysis (Selys)

√

20. Orthetrum pruinosum neglectum (Rambur)

√ √

21. Orthetrum sabina sabina (Drury)

√ √ √ √ √ √

22. Pantala flavescens (Fabricius)

√ √

23. Tremea limbata simililata (Rambur)

√ √ √

24. Trithemis aurora (Brumeister)

√ √

25. Trithemis festiva (Rambur)

√ √ √

26. Acisoma panorpoides panorpoides Rambur

√ √ √

27. Potamarcha congener (Rambur)

√ √ √

28. Cratilla lineata (Brauer)

√ √

29. Rhyothemis variegata variegata (Linnaeus)

√ √ √ √ √

30. Tholymis tillarga (Fabricius)

√ √ √

31. Zyxomma petiolatum Rambur

√ √ √ √

The Richie’s archipelago supports a

more diverse odonates community in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The species

richness and abundance is concentrated in the Ritchies archipelago, which consequently should be the focus of future odonatological studies in Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

�!� Sivaperuman and Shah�

��

�

�

Table 2. Diversity indices of odonates in different islands.

Islands Richness indices Diversity indices Hills numbers Evenness indices R1 R2 λλλλ H' N1 N2 E1 E2

Havelock 5.58 2.77 0.04 3.08 21.69 23.75 0.94 0.83 John Lawrence 3.58 2.12 0.06 2.59 13.32 15.82 0.96 0.89 Henry Lawrence 2.81 1.86 0.09 2.26 9.61 11.55 0.94 0.87 Inglis 1.21 0.96 0.25 1.41 4.11 4.00 0.88 0.82 South Button 0.87 0.95 0.24 1.09 2.97 4.13 0.99 0.99 North Button 1.34 1.12 0.19 1.49 4.43 5.25 0.92 0.89 Middle Button 0.46 0.67 0.40 0.69 1.99 2.50 0.99 0.99 Outram 1.04 0.94 0.26 1.26 3.52 3.85 0.91 0.88 Neil 3.09 2.03 0.08 2.34 10.40 12.49 0.94 0.87

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We are grateful to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, for the support to this study. REFERENCES Chhotani, C., A.R. Lahiri and T.R. Mitra. (1983).

Contributions to the odonate fauna (Insecta) of Andaman and Nicobar Islands with descriptions of two new species. Rec. Zool. Surv. India. 80: 467-494.

Fraser, F.C. (1933). Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Odonata Vol. I, Taylor & Francis Ltd. London. 423pp.

Fraser, F.C. (1934). Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Odonata Vol. II, Taylor & Francis Ltd. London. 398pp.

Fraser, F.C. (1936). Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Odonata Vol. III, Taylor & Francis Ltd. London. 461pp.

Lahiri, A.R. and B. Mitra. (1993). New records

of dragonflies (Insecta) Odonata from Bay Islands. J. Andaman Sci. Assoc. 9: 96-99.

Ludwig, J. A. and J.F. Reynolds. (1988). Statistical Ecology, A Premier on Methods and Computing. A Wiley-Interscince publication. 337pp.

Mitra, T.R. (2002). Note on zoogeography of Odonata (Insecta) of Nicobar Islands, Indian Ocean. Rec. Zool. Surv India. 100(3-4): 183-188.

Mitra, T.R. (2006). Handbook on Common Indian Dragonflies (Insecta: Odonata): pp. iii+136, Zoological Survey of India.

Oertli, B., D.A. Joye, E. Castella, R. Juge, D. Cambin and J. B. Lachavanne. (2002). Does size matter? The relationship between pond area and biodiversity. Biological Conservation 104: 59-70.

Rajan, P.T., K. Chandra and J.R.B. Alfred. (2006). Andaman evam Nicobar Dweep Ki Prani Vividhata (in Hindi). Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata. 173pp.

Subramanian, K.A. (2009). A Checklist of Odonata of India. Zoological Survey of India.

� �Sivaperuman and Shah�

��

�

�

The Great Indian Bustard: Rare sightings with its general account

Akhlaq Husain1 and Gaurav Sharma2

141, Hari Vihar, Vijay Park, Dehra Dun – 248 001, Uttarakhand (formerly associated with Zoological

Survey of India). 2Zoological Survey of India, Desert Regional Centre, Jodhpur – 342 005, Rajasthan.


(Received 18 November, 2011, Accepted 8 February, 2012)

ABSTRACT: On September, 2010, Ardeotis nigriceps (Vigors, 1831), the Great Indian Bustard, a large ground bird (about a metre high), has been sighted after a gap of about twenty years from Solapur district of Maharashtra as per the reports. Earlier, in Delhi it was seen over a century ago. In India, besides Maharashtra, it is known from other Indian States (Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh) though rare to sight. It is also found in adjoining regions of Pakistan. Being endangered, it is categorized as ‘Critically Endangered’ under IUCN Red List and listed in ‘Schedule I’ of IWPA. However, its population is depleting to a great extent, may due to poaching and needs special concern. In the present communication, besides rare sighting, its local names, general features, food and breeding habits have also been provided. Key words: Great Indian Bustard sightings.

INTRODUCTION

There are all together four species of genus Ardeotis Le Maout, 1853 in the world. The Great Indian Bustard, Ardeotis nigriceps (Vigors, 1831), the famous Indian Bustard is the only species found in India where as the rest of three species viz. Ardeotis arabs (Linnaeus, 1758), A. australis (Gray, 1829) and A. kori (Burchell, 1822), are distributed in Africa, Saudi Arabia & Yemen, Australia & New Guinea and Africa respectively. Recently, the species was sighted in Maharashtra state after a gap of about 25 years which is significant from its distributional and existence point of view. It is also known from other Indian states (Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh) though rare to sight and also occurs in adjoining regions of Pakistan. Earlier, its has been studied in details by various workers (Hume, 1890; Hume & Marshall, 1879; Baker, 1921, 1929; Vijayarajji, 1926; Ganguli, 1975; Gupta, 1975; Ali & Ripley, 1980; Wood, 1983; Kalpviraksh, 1991a,b; Rahmani, 1991, 1987; Rahmani & Manakadan, 1989, 1990; Rahmani & Soni, 1997; Sati & Tak, 1997; Falzone, 1992; Hallager, 1994; Morales et al., 2001; Joshua et al., 2005; Rasmussen & Anderton, 2005; Khan et al., 2008). In the present communication, besides

its distribution, a brief account on its systematics, various English and local names, features, behavior, conservation status and threats have been provided for general awareness as being ‘Critically Endangered’ and a rare bird. RARE SIGHTINGS

On September 8, 2010, Ardeotis nigriceps (Vigors, 1831), the Great Indian Bustard, has been sighted after a gap of twenty years, foraging in a private farm at Mangalwedha Taluka, about 70 km from the Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary at Nannaj, District Solapur (Maharashtra) by Mr. Pankaj Chindarkar, a bird watcher (Times of India, New Delhi, September 30, 2010: 12). Earlier, Rahmani & Manakadan (1989) reported the return of the species in Maharashtra. In Delhi it was seen over a century ago (Kalpavriksh, 1991 a, b vide Tak & Sati, 1997). SYSTEMATIC AND GENERAL ACCOUNT Order: Gruiformes Family: Otididae (Bustards) Genus: Ardeotis Le Maout, 1853 The genus Ardeotis Le Maout, 1853 contains the following species:

Biological Forum_ An International Journal, Spl. Iss.��B��=��A>�@��(?A�?��9��# �8%��:;�==B25C=C2�

��

�

�

1. Ardeotis arabs (Linnaeus, 1758), the Arabian Bustard: It is found in Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Ivory Coast, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kenya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. IUCN Red List Category: Least Concern.

2. A. australis (Gray, 1829), the Australian Bustard, Bush Turkey: Occur country across northern Australia and New Guinea. IUCN Red List Category: Near Threatened.

3. A. kori (Burchell, 1822), the Kori Bustard: Native to Africa. IUCN Red List Category: Least Concern.

4. A. nigriceps (Vigors, 1831), the Great Indian Bustard, Indian Bustard: India and Pakistan. IUCN Red List Category: Critically Endangered.

Ardeotis nigriceps (Vigors, 1831) Great Indian Bustard Synonyms: Otis nigriceps Vigors, 1830-31, Proc. Zool. Soc. London: 35 (Himalayas, North-western India); Baker, 1929, Fauna of British India, Birds, 6: 64. Otis edwardaii Gray, J. E., 1831. Ill Ind. Zool. i, pl. 59 (1831-32) (no locality). Eupodotis edwardii, Blyth, Cat. p. 258. Eupodotis edwardsii, Jerdon. B. I. iii, p. 607 Eupodotis edwardsi Gray,G. R., 1844,List of the specimens of birds in the collection of the British Museum: 58. Eupodotis leuconiensis Gray, J. E. & Gray, G. R., 1846, Catalogue of the specimens and drawings of mammals, birds, reptiles,and fishes of Nepal and Tibet,p.130. (nec. Otis leuconiensis Vieillot, 1820). Choriotis edwardsi Bonaparte, 1856. Comptes Rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des Sciences, Paris, 43: 416. Choriotis nigriceps, Baker, E.C.Stuart, 1930, The Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma, Birds, 8(2nd edn): 488. Ardeotis nigriceps, Gruson, 1976, Checklist of the Birds of the World: 29. Ardeotis (kori) nigriceps, Sibley & Monroe, 1990, Distribution and Taxonomy of Birds of the World: 216.

Popular English Names: Great Indian Bustard, Indian Bustard. Vernacular Names: Andhra Pradesh: Battameka-pakshi. Delhi: Hookna, Hukna. Gujarat: Ghorad, Ghorar; Kuchh: Gudad. Haryana: Gurayin, Hukna, Tugdar. Karnataka: Arlkujina-hakki,Yerreladdu. Madhya Pradesh: Bherar, Hank, Ocán, Ocán, Serailu, Sonchirya. Maharashtra: Hoom, Maldhok. Punjab: Gurayin, Tugdar. Rajasthan: Godawan, Goonjni, Gujaran, Gunjam, Vahar, Vahar Goonjni Tamil Nadu: Kanal-mayil. Uttar Pradesh: Gaganbher, Gunhunbher, Hookna, Hukna, Sohan, Dhorm-chiriya Pakistan (Sindh): Gurahna, Garumba. Description: A large, stout and heaviest among the flying birds with horizontal body, long-necked and long bare legs. Colouration: Body brownish with a black patch spotted in white, head greyish. Upper plumage rufous, finely penciled with black; crown black and crested contrasting with the pale head and neck; neck feathers somewhat lengthened and hackled in front with a black band on lower breast, belly white. In flight, white patches near wing tips are pointers of its identification. Sometimes, abnormally leucistic or near albino birds have been reported (Vijayarajji, 1926). Size: Stands about a metre in height, males about 1.22 m in length, weighing 8.0-14.5 kg, females smaller 92 cm and 3.5-6.75 kg (Wood, 1983). The weight is usually around 9.5 kg but extremely large males have been claimed up to 18.15 kg (Baker, 1929). Sexual Dimorphism: Male: Body deep sandy-buff, with a black breast band during breeding season, head and neck white, crown on head black and crested which is puffed up by display. They are also having a well-developed gular pouch which is inflated when calling during display and helps produce the deep resonant calls (Hume & Marshal, 1879; Ali & Ripley, 1980). Female: Duller with thinner and greyish neck, breast band rudimentary, broken or even lacking (Rasmussen & Anderson, 2005). General Distribution: India: As regards its natural distribution, it was once widespread, mostly in arid and semi-arid grasslands, open country with thorny scrub, dry

��Husain and Sharma�

��

�

�

western plains of India and Pakistan ( Baker, 1929) but now restricted to small pockets (Rahmani & Manakadan, 1990) due to fast dwindling of its habitats in Andhra Pradesh (Rollapadu), Delhi (Ganguli, 1975), Gujarat (Bhatiya, Naliya, Lala Parjau Sanctuary, Western Kutch), Haryana (Sultanpur Bird Sanctuary, Gurgaon), Karnataka (Rannibennur), Kerala (Kerala Bustard Sanctuary), Madhya Pradesh (Ghatigaon and Karera Wildlife Sanctuaries), Maharashtra (Great Indian Bastard Sanctuary, Solapur and Ahmednagar districts), Punjab, Rajasthan (Desert National Park, Jaisalmer; Sonkhaliya and Sarson), Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh. Elsewhere: Pakistan (Sind). Habitat: They inhabit arid and semi-arid grasslands, open dry country with thorn scrub, tall grass interspersed with cultivation and avoid irrigated areas (Rasmussen & Anderson, 2005). The dry semi-desert regions where it was found in parts of Rajasthan has been altered by irrigation canals that have transformed the region into an intensively farmed area (Khan et al., 2008). Habit: Usually found solitary or in twos or threes, more rarely in flocks numbering over four and up to a dozen or more. Very shy and wary and on approach of danger run at a great speed and hide under bush cover. They squat and rest at times under the shade of trees. They are often seen in association with blackbuck and chinkara in order to profit from their vigilance. Call: Usually quiet but call is a bark or bellow and is said to be made when the bird is alarmed, otherwise males periodically make a deep resonant moaning booming call that can be heard from long distance. Food and Feeding: Being omnivorous feeds on grass seeds, groundnut, millet, sesame, jowar, and tur crops, legume pods, berries (Zizyphus, Eruca), insects (mainly orthopterans, also beetles particularly Mylabris pustulata), rodents and reptiles especially the lizards and frogs. As per the findings (Gupta, 1975) they feed even on Uromastyx hardwickii, the Spiny-tailed Lizard in Rajasthan. They also drink water, if it is available and will sometimes sit down to drink or suck water followed by raising up their heads at an angle (Hallager, 1994).

Breeding Behavior: Breed during March–September, laying single egg in a scrape on ground. The major areas where they are known to breed are in central and western India and eastern Pakistan. Males are said to be solitary during the breeding season but form small flocks in winter. They are polygamous (Rahmani, 1991). Territorial fights between males may involve strutting next to each other, leaping against each other with legs against each other and landing down to lock the opponents head under their neck (Joshua et al., 2005). They may however distribute themselves close together (Baker, 1921) and like other bustards they are believed to use a mating system that has been termed as an "exploded or dispersed lek" (Morales et al., 2001). During courtship display, the male inflates the gular sac which opens under the tongue, inflating it so that a large wobbly bag appears to hang down from the neck and also inflates and displays the fluffy white feathers (Rasmussen & Anderson, 2005). The tail is held cocked up over the body. The male also raises the tail and folds it on its back. The male periodically produces a resonant deep, booming call that may be heard for nearly 500 m. The female lays a single egg in an unlined scrape on the ground (Hume, 1890; Baker, 1929) which may be at risk of destruction from other animals particularly ungulates and crows and for that the females may use a distraction display that involves flying zigzag with dangling legs (Ali & Ripley, 1980) as the only parent being involved in incubation and care of the young and when threatened, she covers the young chicks under her wings (Falzone, 1992). General Status: Migrant– Resident; rare (for Delhi, Tak & Sati, 1997). They are known to make local nomadic movements in response to various factors. Rajasthan and Sind are the strongholds for this species with over 50% of the entire global population. Conservation Status: IUCN 3.1 Red List Category: Critically Endangered; Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972: Schedule I. Threats: Hunting and habitat loss. In some places such as Rajasthan, increased irrigation by the Indira Gandhi Canal has led to increased agriculture and the altered habitat has led to the disappearance of the species from these regions (Rahmani & Soni, 1997). Earlier, in view of

�?� Husain and Sharma�

��

�

�

depletion of the species, Rahmani (1987) showed concern for its protection. Abbreviation used: IUCN: International Union for Conservation of Nature/International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (formerly the International for the Protection of Nature, IUPN). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to the Director, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata for encouragement and the respective Officer-in-Charge, NRC, ZSI, Dehra Dun and DRC, ZSI, Jodhpur for library facility. REFERENCES Ali, S. and Ripley, S.D. (1980). Handbook of the

birds of India and Pakistan (2 ed.). Oxford University Press. pp.188–191.

Baker, E.C.S. (1921). Game birds of India, Burma and Ceylon. Bombay Natural History Society, 2: 164–185.

Baker, E.C.S. (1929). The Fauna of British India, Including Ceylon and Burma including Ceylon and Burma. Birds. 6(2): 64–66.

Falzone, C.K. (1992). First Observations of Chick Carrying Behavior by the Buff-Crested Bustard. The Wilson Bulletin. 104(1): 190–192.

Ganguli, U. (1975). A guide to thr birds of the Delhi area. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, ix + 301 pp, xx plts.

Gupta, P. D., 1975. Stomach contents of the Great Indian Bustard Choriotis nigriceps (Vigors). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 71(2): 303–304.

Hallager, SL., 1994. Drinking methods in two species of bustards. Wilson Bull. 106(4): 763–764.

Hume, A. O. (1890). The nests and eggs of the birds of India. R H Porter. 3: 375–378.

Hume, A. O. and Marshall, C. H. T. 1879. Game birds of India, Burmah and Ceylon. 1: 7–11.

Joshua, J., Gokula, V. and Sunderraj, S. F. W. (2005). Territorial fighting behaviour of

Great Indian Bustard Ardeotis nigriceps. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 102(1): 114.

Kalpavriksh. (1991a). The Delhi Ridge Forest-Decline and Conservation. Pub. By Kalpviraksh, C 17/A, Munirka, New Delhi.

Kalpavirksh. (1991b). What’s that bird? A guide to bird watching with special reference to Delhi: 1-93. Pub. By Kalpviraksh, C 17/A, Munirka, New Delhi.

Khan, A.A., Khaliq, I., Choudhry, M.J.I., Farooq, A. and Hussain, N. (2008). "Status, threats and conservation of the Great Indian Bustard Ardeotis nigriceps (Vigors) in Pakistan". Current Science. 95(8): 1079–1082.

Morales, M.B., Jiguet, F. and Arroyo, B. (2001). Exploded leks: What bustards can teach us . Ardeola. 48(1): 85–98.

Rahmani, A.R. (1987). Protection for the Great Indian Bustard. Oryx. 21: 174-179.

Rahmani, A.R. (1991). Flocking behaviour of a resident population of the great Indian bustard Ardeotis nigriceps (Vigors). Revue d'Ecologie (Terre et la Vie). 46(1): 53–64.

Rahmani, A. R. and Manakadan, R. (1989). Return of the Great Indian Bustard in Maharashtra. J. Ecol. Soc. 2: 19-29.

Rahmani, A. R. and Manakadan, R. (1990). "The past and present distribution of the Great Indian Bustard Ardeotis nigriceps Vigors". J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 87: 175–194.

Rahmani, A.R. and Soni, R.G. (1997). Avifaunal changes in the Indian Thar Desert. Journal of Arid Environments. 36: 687–703.

Rasmussen, P.C. and Anderton, J.C. (2005). Birds of South Asia: The Ripley Guide. Smithsonian Institution & Lynx Edicions. 2: 148.

Tak, P.C. and Sati, J.P. (1997). Aves. In: Fauna of Delhi, State Fauna Series 6: 737. Zoological Survey of India.

Vijayarajji. (1926). An albino bustard (Eupoditis edwarsi). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 31(2): 526.

Wood, G. (1983). The Guinness Book of Animal Facts and Feats.

�@�Husain and Sharma�

��

�

�

Odonates of Arabian and Indian Deserts and their conservation status

Akhlaq Husain1 and Gaurav Sharma2

141, Hari Vihar, Vijay Park, Dehra Dun – 248 001, Uttarakhand (formerly associated with Zoological

Survey of India). 2Zoological Survey of India, Desert Regional Centre, Jodhpur – 342 005, Rajasthan.


(Received 18 November, 2011, Accepted 11 March, 2012)

ABSTRACT: The odonates, being amphibiotic, depend on fresh water bodies for completing their life cycle and hence the areas where water bodies are in scarce, their diversity is also much less as in desert ecosystems. However, the odonate fauna of these areas, especially the Arabian Peninsula and Great Indian Desert, has attracted the attention of various workers during the past. Recently, the first author (A. H.) happen to visit some Gulf areas and there, in spite of scarcity of fresh water bodies, came across dragonflies and damselflies which made him interested in comparing with Indian fauna from same type of ecosystem i.e.Thar Desert (the Great Indian Desert) and on exploring the recorded fauna i.e. 54 species from Arabia, found only 14 species common with those in Thar Desert and around and 6 species to other Indian states which is significant from zoogeographical point of views as it reveals that the Arabian fauna consists mainly of wide-ranging African species and to a much lesser extent to wide-ranging Oriental species. In the present communication systematic account, distributional pattern, conservation status of all the species and threats to the endangered ones have been provided. Key words: Odonates of Arabian and Indian Deserts.

INTRODUCTION

The odonates, being amphibiotic, depend on fresh water bodies for completing their life cycle and hence the areas where water bodies are in scarce, their diversity is also much less as in desert ecosystems. However, the odonate fauna and other aspects of these areas (Thar Desert/ Great Indian Desert and Arabian Peninsular and adjoining countries) have attracted the attention of various workers during the past as under: India: Agarwal, 1957; Bose & Mitra, 1976; Thakur, 1985; Tyagi, 1991; Prasad, 1996, 2004; Sharma, 2010; Sharma & Dhadeech, 2010; Sharma & Sewak, 2010. Arabia (Arabian Penisula): Longfield, 1932; Aguilar & Prechac, 1986; Askew, 1988; Walterston & Pittaway (1989), Walker & Pittaway, 1987; Askew, 1988; Schneider, 1988, 2004; Schneider & Dumont, 1994, 1995, 1997; Dumont, 1991; Graham, 1996; Giles, 1998; Jodicke et al., 2004; Hellyer & Aspinall, 2005; Kalkman, 2006; Feulner, 1999, 2001; Feulner et al., 2007; Dijkstra & Dingemanse, 2000; Dijkstra & Lewington, 2006; Michiel & Vinvent, 2008; Robert, 2008; Grunwell, 2010.

In the present communication, odonate species recorded earlier from the following

countries, falling in Arabian Peninsula and adjacent countries have been dealt: Arabia: Oman, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Adjacent Countries: Jordan, Iraq and Isreal (+Palestine). Recently (2010-11), the first author (A. H.) visited some Gulf areas and there, in spite of scarcity of fresh water bodies, came to know of the occurrence of dragonflies and damselflies which made him interested in comparing the known fauna of the area with that of Indian fauna from the same type of ecosystem i.e. Thar Desert and around. Out of a total of 55 species (as per the earlier records) dealt, 21.82 % species are found common to both the areas i.e. Arabian and Indian Deserts while 12.73 % species common to other Indian States. UAE and Oman are found to be the richest in species diversity i.e. 52.73 % and 41.82 % respectively while Bahrain the least 3.64 % which could be due to lack of information. This shows that he Arabian fauna consists mainly of wide-range African species and to a much lesser extent to wide-range Oriental species.

A report on the occurrence of Sympetrum meridionale (Selys, 1841), a southern European

Biological Forum_ An International Journal, Spl. Iss.��B��=��B> ��(?A�?��9��# �8%��:;�==B25C=C2�

��

�

�

species, from Dubai (Kappes & Kappes, 2001) remains unconfirmed (Feulner et al., 2007). SYSTEMATIC ACCOUNT, DISTRIBUTION AND CONSERVATION STATUS OF SPECIES Order: Odonata Suborder: Anisoptera Family: Aeshnidae Genus: Aeshna Fabricius, 1775 1. Aeshna yemenensis Waterston, 1985 Popular English Names: Hawker Dragonfly, Mosaic Darner. Distribution: Arabia: Yemen (Endemic). Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Vulnerable. Threat: Habitat loss. Remarks: Occur in mountain streams above 2000 m. Genus: Anax Leach, 1815 2. Anax imperator Leach, 1815 Syns: Aeschna formosa Vander Linden, 1823 Aeschna azurea Charpentier, 1825 Aeschna dorsalis Burmeister, 1839 Anax mauricianus Rambur, 1842 Aeschna lunata Kolenati, 1856. Popular English Names: Blue Emperor, Emperor, Emperor Dragonfly. Description: 73-80 mm in length. Male: Iridescent blue, marked with a diagnostic black dorsal stripe and an apple-green thorax; 73-80 mm long. Female: Green thorax and abdomen. Distribution: India: Uttarakhand (Mussoorie); West Bengal (Kolkata). Arabia: UAE (Hajar Mnts.). Elsewhere: North Africa, Asia, Southern Europe. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. 3. Anax parthenope Selys, 1839 Syns: Aeschna parthenope Selys, 1839 Anax parisinus Rambur, 1842 Anax julius Brauer, 1865 Anax bacchus Hagen, 1867 Anax major Götz, 1923 Anax geyri Buchholz, 1955 Anax jordansi Buchholz, 1955. Popular English Names: Lesser Emperor.

Description: Eyes green, a blue saddle at S2 and S3, a yellow rin at base of S2, abdomen and thorax brown. Noticeable blue collar on greenish body; holds abdomen almost straight; 66-75 mm long. Male: Green eyes and waisted abdomen. Distribution: India: Rajasthan (Thar Desert) (Sharma, 2010) Arabia: Arabian Peninsula: Qatar, UAE (Abu Dhabi, Das Island nr. Abu Dhabi), Kuwait. Elsewhere: Southern Europe including most Mediterranean Islands, north Africa and across Asia to Japan and China, Canary islands and Madeira archipelago, first seen in Great Britain in 1996. Cornwall, Nepal. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. Genus: Hemianax Selys, 1883 4. Hemianax ephippiger (Brumeister, 1839) Syns: Aeschna ephippigera Burmeister, 1839 Anax ephippiger (Burmeister, 1839). Aeshna mediterranea Selys, 1839 Anax senegalensis Rambur, 1842 Anax marginope Baijal & Agarwal, 1955. Popular English Name: Vagrant Emperor. Description: Eyes brown, blue saddle extending over top half of abdomen; 61-66 mm in length. Distribution: India: Madhya Pradesh (Jabalpur), Rajasthan (Thar Desert). Arabia: Qatar, UAE (Abu Dhabi). Elsewhere: Algeria, Angola, Botswana, Cameroon, Chad, Iceland, Ivory Coast, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Príncipe, Senegal, Seychelles, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and possibly Burundi. Recorded in Malta in 1957. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. Family: Gomphidae Genus: Gomphus Leach, 1815 5. Gomphus davidi Selys, 1887 Popular English Name: Levant Club-tail. Distribution: India: Assam, West Bengal (Darjeeling) (as Davidius davidii Selys, 1887).

Husain and Sharma� �C�

��

�

�

Arabia: Iraq (Dohok, N Iraq), Israel, Palestine, Jordan. Elsewhere: Lebanon, Syria, Turkey. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. 6. Gomphus kinzelbachi Schneider, 1984 Distribution: Arabia: Iraq, Israel. Elsewhere: Iran, S E Turkey (possibly). Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Data Deficient Genus: Onychogomphus Selys, 1854 (SF: Onycogomphinae) 7. Onychogomphus macrodon Selys, 1887 Popular English Name: Levant Pincer-tail. Distrinbution: Arabia: Israel, Jordan. Elsewhere: Lebanon, Syria, Turkey. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Vulnerable. Threat: Habitat loss. Genus: Lindenia de Hann, 1826 8. Lindenia tetraphylla (Vander Linden, 1825) Syn: Lindenia inkitii Bartenev, 1929. Popular English Name: Arabian Lobe-tail, Blade-tail. Description: Distinctive side projections at the end of a greenish slender body; about 72 mm long. Distribution: Arabia: Oman (Wadi Abyadh), UAE, Kuwait. Elsewhere: Asia: Caucasus, European Russia, Kazakhstan, Russian Federation, Turkey, Greece, Montenegro, Spain, Italy, Syria. Africa. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Vulnerable (Europe and European Union). Genus: Paragomphus Cowley, 1906 9. Paragomphus genei (Selys, 1841) Syns: Gomphus genei Selys, 1841 Onychogomphus hagenii Selys, 1871 Gomphus excelsus Costa, 1884 Onychogomphus atratus Selys, 1885 Mesogomphus bitarsatus Förster, 1906. Popular English Name: Green Hook-tail. Description: Head blush, thorax green, body yellow and black with hooked appendage; 37-41 mm long. Distribution: Arabia: UAE. Elsewhere: Algeria, Botswana, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Ivory Coast,

Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mediterranean, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and possibly Burundi. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. Remarks: Larvae sand-dwelling. 10. Paragomphus sinaiticus (Morton, 1929) Syn: Mesogomphus sinaiticus Morton, 1929. Popular English Name: Sinai Hook-tail. Description: Grayish-brown and black all over with orange hooked appendage. Distribution: Arabia: Jordan, Israel, Oman, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Yemen. Elsewhere: Africa, known from Egypt and Sinai to Sudan, Niger. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Vulnerable. Threat: Habitat loss. Family: Libellulidae (Skimmers) Genus: Brachythemis Brauer, 1868 (SF: Sympetrinae) 11. Brachythemis fuscopalliata (Selys, 1887) Syn: Trithemis fuscopalliata Selys, 1887 Popular English Name: Dark-winged Ground-ling. Distribution: Arabia: Kuwait, Iraq, Israel, Jordan. Elsewhere: Iran, Syria, Turkey Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Vulnerable. Threat: Habitat loss. Genus: Crocothemis Brauer, 1868 (SF: Sympetrinae) 12. Crocothemis erythraea (Brulle, 1832) Syns: Libellula rubra de Villers, 1789 (nec Müller, 1764) Libellula ferruginea Vander Linden, 1825 (nec Fabricius, 1775) Libellula erythraea Brullé, 1832 Libellula coccinea Charpentier, 1840 Libellula inquinata Rambur, 1842 Crocothemis chaldaeora Morton, 1920. Popular English Names: Broad Scarlet, Carmine Darter, Common Scarlet-darter, Scarlet Dragonfly. Scarlet Darter. Description:

�� Husain and Sharma�

��

�

�

Male: Fat-bodied, bright red all through (including eyes, legs), with widened abdomen, flattened and tapering to its end and small amber patches at the bases of the hind-wings. Female: Much more drab (yellow-brown) with small yellow base on hind-wing and two conspicuous pale stripes along top of thorax. Distribution: India: Eastern India (Assam); West Bengal (Kolkata). Arabia: Iraq (as C. chaldaeorum Morton), Qatar (Al-Khor), UAE, Kuwait. Elsewhere: Southern Europe, Britain and North Africa. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern (Data Deficient as for C. chaldaeorum). 13. Crocothemis sanguinolenta (Brumeister, 1839) Syns: Libellula sanguinolenta Burmeister, 1839 Libellula ferrugaria Rambur, 1842. Crocothemis pygmaea Förster, 1906 Crocothemis arabica Schneider, 1982 Popular English Names: Bloody Scarlet, Little Scarlet, Slim Scarlet-darter, Small Scarlet. Description: Medium-sized dragonfly with dazzling scarlet colouration and a long, slender body, eyes large and positioned close together on top of head, two pairs of membranous wings with visible veins running through them and characteristic dark spots near tip of wing (pterostigma). Holds wings flat and at 90 degrees to body Distribution: Arabia: Middle-east: Jordan, Israel, Oman (northern), UAE (Abu Dhabi). Elsewhere: Angola, Botswana, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Ivory Coast, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, São Tomé and Príncipe, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and possibly Burundi. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. Remarks: Small patch of yellow at the base of the wings, and this feature is variable in size between populations, with some scientists (Dijkstra & Dingemanse, 2000) recognising two subspecies viz. Crocothemis sanguinelenta

arabica and Crocothemis sanguinolenta sanguinolenta. 14. Crocothemis servilia servilia (Drury, 1773) Syns: Libellula servilia Drury, 1773 Libellula ferruginea Fabricius, 1793 Libellula soror Rambur, 1842 Crocothemis reticulata Kirby, 1886. Popular English Name: Oriental Scarlet. Description: Head with labrum frons and rest of face bright blood-red, eyes blood-red above purple on sides; base of all wings marked with rich amber-yellow to as far as cubital nervure in fore-wing and to first ante-nodal nervure nearly to arc and rightly up to and including tornal angle in hind-wing; abdomen blood-red, segments 8-9 with mid-dorsal carina blackish and appendages blood-red. Sub-adult male: Whitish lines on thorax, whitish surround to face and dusky tips on wings. Distribution: India: Chhatisgarh, Delhi, Goa, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh (Jabalpur), Maharashtra, Rajasthan (Thar Desert), Uttar Pradesh (Varansi), Western Himalaya. Arabia: Qatar (Al-khor) Elsewhere: Afghanistan, Armenia, Asia, Australia, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Iran, Korea, Kyrgzystan, Japan, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Tropical Asia, Turkey, south-wards to Sundaic Archipelago, Uzbakistan, Vietnam. USA (introduced). Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. Genus: Diplacodes Kirby, 1889 (SF: Sympetrinae) 15. Diplacodes lefebevrii (Rambur, 1842) Syns: Libellula lefebvrei Rambur, 1842. Ins. Nevrop.: 112. Libellula concinna Rambur, 1842 Libellula flavistyla Rambur, 1842 Libellula parvula Rambur, 1842 Libellula tetra Rambur, 1842 Libellula morio Schneider, 1845 Diplacodes unimacula Förster, 1906 Diplacodes limbata Fraser, 1949. Popular English Names: Black Percher, Purple Darter.

Husain and Sharma� ��

��

�

�

Description: Small-sized, greenish-yellow, marked with black, wings palely enfumed with brown towards apices, anal appendage black. Male: Very dark, older almost entirely black, though most have pale spots along abdomen. Female: Much shorter-bodied and somewhat browner. Distribution: India: Chandigarh, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan (Thar Desert), Uttarakhand. Arabia: Qatar (Al-Khor and at Dandy farm near Saudi Border), UAE. Elsewhere: Africa, Mesopotamia. Algeria; Angola; Botswana; Burkina Faso; Burundi; Cameroon; Chad; Côte d'Ivoire; Cyprus; Djibouti; Egypt, Equatorial Guinea; Ethiopia; Gambia; Ghana; Greece; Guinea; Guinea-Bissau; Iran, Iraq; Israel; Jordan; Kenya; Lebanon; Liberia; Libya; Madagascar; Malawi; Mali; Mauritius; Morocco; Mozambique; Namibia; Nepal; Niger; Nigeria; Portugal; Réunion; Sao Tomé and Principe; Senegal; Seychelles; Sierra Leone; Somalia; South Africa; Spain; Sudan; Syria; Tanzania, Togo; Tunisia; Turkey, Uganda; Yemen. Eritrea (presence uncertain). Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. Genus: Libellula Linnaeus, 1758 (SF: Libellulinae) 16. Libellula pontica Selys, 1887 Popular English Name: Red Chaser. Distribution: Arabia: Iraq, Israel, Jordan. Elsewhere: Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Iran, Syria, Turkey. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Near Threatened. Threat: Habitat loss. Genus: Macrodiplax Brauer, 1868 (SF: Urothemistinae) 17. Macrodiplax cora (Kaup in Brauer, 1867) Syns: Diplax cora Kaup in Brauer, 1867 Libellula lycoris Selys, 1872 Urothemis nigrilabris Selys, 1878 Urothemis vittata Kirby, 1893. Popular English Name: Cora’s Pennant, Wandering Pennant. Distribution: India: Karnataka, Kerala, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal.

Arabia: Oman (both brackish and freshwater near shore), Yemen (Socotra Island). Elsewhere: Australia, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Mascarenes, Mauritius, Micronesia, Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Peninsular Malaysia, Samoa, Seychelles, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Taiwan, Timor-Leste, Viet Nam. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. Genus: Orthetrum Newman, 1833 (SF: Libellulinae) 18. Orthetrum abbotti Calvert, 1892 Syns: Orthetrum phillipsi Kirby, 1896 Orthetrum flavidulum Kirby, 1898 Oxythemis villiersi Fraser, 1949 Orthetrum malgassicum Pinhey, 1970. Popular English Names: Abbott’s Skimmer, Little Skimmer. Distribution: Arabia: Jordan. Elsewhere: Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, the Republic of the Congo, Congo (Democratic Republic of), Ivory Coast, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe and possibly Burundi. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. 19. Orthetrum chrysostigma (Burmeister, 1839) Syns: Libellula chrysostigma Burmeister, 1839 Libellula barbarum Selys, 1849 Orthetrum toddii Pinhey, 1970 Popular English Names: Epaulet Skimmer, Girdled Skimmer. Description: Upper abdomen ‘pinched’ or waisted behind wings to give its English name; 39-43 mm in length. Male: Medium-sized, all blue. Female: Bright green or drab (brownish). Mature females can develop the powdery blue appearance of the males. Distribution: Arabia: UAE (Abu Dhabi) Elsewhere: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Ivory Coast, Egypt,

�!� Husain and Sharma�

��

�

�

Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe and possibly Burundi and Canary Islands. Recently (2010) recorded in Maltese Islands. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. 20. Orthetrum ransonneti (Brauer, 1865) Syn: Libellula ransonneti Brauer, 1865. Type-locality: Red Sea. Popular English Names: Desert Skimmer, Ransonnet's Skimmer. Distribution: Arabia: Middle-east: Jordan, Israel, Oman (near Muscat), UAE (Abu Dhabi). Elsewhere: Afghanistan, N. Africa, Algeria, Chad; Egypt (Sinai), Libya (uncertain), Mesopotamia (as Libellula gracilis Albarda in Selys, 1889), Niger; Sudan, Western Sahara, Turkey. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. 21. Orthetrum sabina sabina (Drury, 1770) Syns: Libellula sabina Drury, 1770. Ill. Exot. Ins., 1: 114. Libellula gibba Fabricius, 1798 Libellula leptura Burmeister, 1839 Libellula ampullacea Schneider, 1845 Lepthemis divisa Selys, 1878 Orthetrum nigrescens Bartenev, 1929 Orthetrum viduatum Lieftinck, 1942. Popular English Names: Green Marsh Hawk, Oasis Skimmer, Slender Skimmer. Description: Slender-bodied chartreuse dragonfly. Easily identified with greenish yellow and black segmented body. Sexes almost alike. Male: Face yellowish green; eyes green mottled with black; thorax greenish yellow with black tiger like stripes; legs black; inner side of anterior femora yellow; wings transparent, inner edge of hind-wing tinted with yellow; wing-spot: black with reddish brown spot; abdomen: segments 1-3 green with broad black rings and distinctly swollen at base. Abdomen and hind-wing: 30-36mm, Female: Abdomen: 32-35mm, Hind wing: 31-35mm. Female: Very similar to male.

Distribution: India: Indian subcontinent up to an altitude of 2000 m. Chhatisgarh, Goa, Kerala (Thiruvanathapuram), Madhya Pradesh (Jabalpur), Rajasthan (Thar Desert), Uttar Pradesh (Varansi). Arabia: Bahrain, Oman (Khawr Taqah, Sahalnout, Salalah, Dhofar), UAE, Qatar (Rayyan), Kuwait. Elsewhere: South-eastern Europe and North Africa to Japan and south to Australia and Micronesia. Afghanistan, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Lao, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Turkey, Viet Nam. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. 22. Orthetrum taeniolatum (Schneider, 1845) Syns: Libellula taeniolata Schneider, 1845 Orthetrum hyalinum Kirby, 1886 Orthetrum brevistylum Kirby, 1896 Orthetrum garhwalicum Singh & Baijal, 1954. Popular English Names: Azure Blue Skimmer, Azure Skimmer, Little Skimmer, Small Skimmer. Description: Abdomen tapers evenly without a ‘waist’; length about 35 mm. Male: Covered in a light-blue pruinescence, combining black, brown and beige with two whitish bands on side of thorax. Another useful feature to identify the species is brown colour of top of the eyes. Distribution: India: Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, Chattisgarh, Delhi, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu-Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Nagaland, Punjab, Rajasthan (Thar Desert), Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, West Bengal. Arabia: Oman, Saudi Arabia, UAE. Elsewhere: Asian species, reaching Eastern Mediterranean shores of some Greek islands in Aegean (e.g. Rhodes and Lesbos). Afghanistan, Bangladesh; Bhutan; Cyprus; Greece; Iran, Iraq; Israel; Jordan; Lebanon; Nepal; Pakistan; Palestinian Territory, Occupied; Syria, Turkey. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. Genus: Pantala Hagen, 1861 (SF: Pantalinae / Trameinae)

� �Husain and Sharma�

��

�

�

23. Pantala flavescens (Fabricius, 1798) Syns: Libellula flavescens Fabricius, 1798. Ent. Syst. Supl., 285. Libellula viridula Palisot de Beauvois, 1805 Libellula analis Burmeister, 1839 Libellula terminalis Burmeister, 1839 Dythemis russata Calvert, 1895 Sympetrum tandicola Singh, 1955. Popular English Names: Globe Skimmer, Wandering Glider. Description: Medium sized with rusty thorax and yellow abdomen; abdomen 29-35 mm (also records of 4.5 cm), hind-wing 38-40mm. Male: Face bright golden yellow or orange; eyes reddish brown above, bluish grey on sides and below; thorax olivaceous or rusty and is coated thickly with fine yellowish hair, on sides, it is pale green or bluish green; legs black; wings transparent and base of hind wing amber yellow; wing-spot bright reddish brown; abdomen bright reddish brown and is tinted with brick red dorsally; segments 8-10 have black spots above. Female: Very similar to the male; eyes olivaceous brown above and wings are evenly smoky; abdomen lacks the dorsal red colouring found in males. Distribution: Yellowish. Male: Quite red with yellow face; 49-52 mm long. India: Chhatisgarh, Madhya Pradesh (Jabalpur), Rajasthan (Thar Desert), Tamil Nadu (south-east). Arabia: Qatar, UAE (+Das Island nr. Abu Dhabi). Elsewhere: Almost throughout tropics. Easter Island (south-eastern Pacific Ocean). India (found at 18,000 ft / 5486.4 m.) to Africa across Arabian Sea. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. Remarks: Can complete its life-cycle in two months, from a newly laid egg to an emerging adult. Genus: Rhyothemis Hagen, 1867 (SF: Rhyothemistinae / Sympetrinae) 24. Rhyothemis semihyalina (Desjardins, 1832) Syns: Libellula semihyalina Desjardins, 1832 Libellula disparta Rambur, 1842 Libellula separata Selys, 1849 Libellula syriaca Selys, 1849

Libellula var. semihyalina syriaca Selys, 1849 (in Lucas, Expl. Alg., 3:116). Libellula hemihyalina Selys, 1850 Rhyothemis ducalis Kirby, 1898. Popular English Name: Phantom Flutterer. Distribution: Arabia: Iraq (as R. semihyalina separata), Israel (+Palestine), Oman, Yemen (Socotra Island). Elsewhere: Africa, Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Gabon, Ghana, Iran (as R. s. separata), Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malagasy region, Malawi, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Pretoria (as type-loc. for R. ducalis Kirby, 1898), Reunion, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and possibly Burundi. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. Remarks: Rhyothemis semihyalina separata (Selys, 1849) is considered as the synonym of the species. Genus: Selysiothemis Ris, 1897 25. Selysiothemis nigra (Vander Linden, 1825) Syns: Libellula nigra Vander Linden, 1825 Rhyothemis nebulosa Oguma, 1922. Popular English Names: Black Pennant, Desert Darter. Description: Big body and head, whitish pale, clear and shiny wings (veins difficult to locate). As flutter its wings in breeze and hence the name ‘Pannant’. Male: Uniformly black, although they do develop a whitish pruinescence on their thorax and abdomen. Females and immature males have a yellowish-brown or sandy-brown thorax and abdomen with extensive black markings. Distribution: India: Jammu-Kashmir, Rajasthan (Thar Desert). Arabia: Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE (including Das Island nr. Abu Dhabi). Elsewhere: Bosnia and Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Croatia; Cyprus; Egypt; Greece; Iraq; Israel; Italy; Jordan; Kuwait; Libya; Malta; Montenegro; Morocco; Portugal; Serbia; Spain; Syria; Tunisia; Turkey; Ukraine. Nepal (uncertain).

!A� Husain and Sharma�

��

�

�

Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. Remarks: The most distinguishing features of the species are size wings (very large and broad for such a small dragonfly) and shape of pterostigma, which resembles an equals (=) sign. Walker & Pittaway (1987) call this species ‘Desert Darter’ and the same was used by Dijkstra & Lewington (2006) for Sympetrum sinaiticum which is not found in Arabia. Genus: Sympetrum Newman, 1833 (SF: Sympetrinae, Darters) 26. Sympetrum arenicolor Jodicke, 1994 Syn: Sympetrum deserti Jodicke, 1994. Popular English Name: Blue-faced Meadow-hawk. Distribution: India: Western India. Arabia: Middle-east: Iraq, Israel. Elsewhere: Central Asia: Azarbaijan (Shirvan National Park), Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, N E Syria, Tajikistan, E & S Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. Remarks: Jodicke et al. (2009) differentiated it from S. sinaiticum. 27. Sympetrum fonscolombii (Selys, 1840) Syns: Libellula fonscolombii Selys, 1840 Libellula erythroneura Schneider, 1845 Sympetrum azorensis Gardner, 1959 Sympetrum rhaeticum Buchecker, 1876 Popular English Name: Red-veined Darter. Description: Legs of both sexes mostly black with some yellow. Body about 37–40–43 mm long (sexes similar in length), abdomen 24-26 mm long, average wing-span 60 mm, hind-wings 27–31 mm long. Male: Abdomen red, wings with red veins, hind-wings bases yellow; ptero-stigma pale with a border of black veins and underside of eye blue / grey. Immature males resemble females but often with more red. Female: Almost similar but abdomen yellow, not red and wings with yellow veins, not red veins as in male. Distribution: India: Tamil Nadu (Nilgiries). Arabia: Middle-east: Bahrain, Iraq, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Oman (northern part, near

Muscat), Qatar (Al-Khor), Saudi Arabia, UAE, Yemen. Elsewhere: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Caucasus, Central African Republic, Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Egypt (Egypt African part & Sinai), European Russia, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France (Corse, France main), Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Gibraltar, Greece (East Aegean Island., Greece main, Kriti), Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, Iran, Italy (Italy main, Sardegna, Sicilia), Japan, Kazakhastan, Kenya, Korea, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein; Luxembourg; Macedonia, Yugoslav (Republic of), Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal (Azores, Madeira, Portugal main), Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senega, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, (Baleares, Canary Island., Spain main), Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tanzania, Togo Tunisia, Turkey (Europe part); Uganda; Ukraine (Krym, Ukraine main), Western Sahara, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Vagratn in Denmark, Guernsey, Ireland, Isle of Man,Jersey and United Kingdom (Grt. Britain). Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. Remarks: It’s a widespread and common species found throughout Africa, southern Europe and eastwards to Middle East, Indian Subcontinent and Indian Ocean Islands and now common in most of Central Europe. It migrates to and has been found northwards as for as Scotland, Swedish Island of Oland and Latvia Its distribution may further extend northwards. Fraser (1936) recorded this species from N.W. Provinces, Kashmir and on the tops of all the Southern hills, being especially common in the Nilgiris, Palnis and Travancore hills. 28. Sympetrum sinaiticum Dumont, 1977 Syn: Sympetrum tarraconense Jodicke, 1994 Popular English Name: Desert Darter. Description: Black markings high on sides of segments 2 & 3 of abdomen, total length 34-37 mm, hind-wing length 24-29 mm,

Husain and Sharma� !��

��

�

�

Male: Abdomen red, wings with red apical tips. Female: Abdomen sandy-yellow. Distribution: Arabia: Middle-east: Saudi Arabia, Jordan. Elsewhere: N Africa, Kyrgyzstan, S & E Spain, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Tunisia (Tozeur Oasis). Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern (Northern Africa) Remarks: It is somewhat similar to Sympetrum fonscolombei, the Red-veined Darter. Genus: Tramea Hagen, 1861 (SF: Trameinae) 29. Tramea basilaris (Palisot de Beauvois, 1805) Syns: Libellula basilaris Palisot de Beauvois, 1805 Trapezostigma basilare Palisot & Beauvois, 1817 Tramea burmeisteri Kirby, 1889. Popular English Names: Key-hole Glider, Red Marsh Trotter, Wheeling Glider. Distribution: India: Andhra Pradesh (Kolleru Lake), Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan (Thar Desert). Arabia: Oman (Muscat), UAE (Wadi Wurayah; Fujairah). Elsewhere: Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo (Republic of), Congo (Democratic Republic of), Ivory Coast, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Japan, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Príncipe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Possibly Burundi. Eritrea; Guinea; Guinea-Bissau; Sudan. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. Remarks: Also recognized as two subspecies, T. basilaris basilaris (Beauvais, 1817) and T. basilaris burmeisteri Kirby, 1889. Genus: Trithemis Brauer, 1868 (SF: Trithemistinae) 30. Trithemis annulata (Palisot de Beauvois, 1805) Syns: Libellula annulata Palisot de Beauvois, 1805; Libellula haematina Rambur, 1842;

Libellula obsoleta Rambur, 1842; Libellula rubrinervis Selys, 1841; Tramea erythraea Brauer, 1867; Trithemis scorteccii Nielsen, 1935; Trithemis violacea Sjöstedt, 1900. Popular English Names: Purple-blushed Darter, Violet Drop-wing, Violet-marked Darter. Description: Body held almost vertically (when perched) and wings held forward and down and hence the common name ‘Drop-wing’ Male: Reddish-purple or purple blush on body with red veins on wings, thorax and abdominal segments 1-7 violet. In fact, this purple/ violet colour is combination of a bright red ground colour overlaid with a fine bluish pruinescence. Face, eyes and S 8-10 are bright red and vertex around occelli shiny and metallic purple. Female: Yellow abdomen and a white-and-yellow thorax, both of which marked with strong black lines, also having a sizeable deep-yellow patch at the base of her hind wing. It is rarely seen in field. Distribution: Arabia: Jordan, Israel, Oman (Salalah), Qatar (Doha, Khararra), UAE. Elsewhere: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Ivory Coast, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Israel, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Niger, Réunion, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and possibly Burundi. Recently (2005) recorded in the Maltese islands. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. Remarks: It has three subspecies, viz. Trithemis annulata annulata (Palisot de Beauvois, 1809) , Trithemis annulata haematina (Rambur, 1842) (Mauritius) and Trithemis annulata scorteccii (Nielsen, 1935). (Sahalnout, Salalah, Dhofar, Oman). 31. Trithemis arteriosa (Burmeister, 1839) Syns: Libellula aurora Burmeister, 1839 Trithemis soror Brauer, 1868 Trithemis adelpha Selys, 1878 Trithemis fraterna Albarda, 1881

!?� Husain and Sharma�

��

�

�

Trithemis congener Kirby, 1890. Popular English Name: Gulley Darter, Red-veined Drop-wing. Description: Body narrow with black marks between segments, orange flecks at the base of the wings and large crimson eyes, lower mouthparts yellow with a central bronze stripe, black splashes run along sides of abdomen, increasing in size up to tip, which is entirely black. Wings held downwards and forwards during rest. Colour varies according to locality. Male: Wings red-veined, slender red abdomen. Female: Yellow and black with four patches on wings, yellowish-russet abdomen. Distribution: Arabia: UAE (upper mountain wadis). Elsewhere: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Ivory Coast, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Malta (recently recorded), Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, possibly Burundi. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. 32. Trithemis festiva (Rambur, 1842) Syns: Libellula festiva Rambur, 1842 Libellula infernalis Brauer, 1865 Trithemis proserpina Selys, 1878. Popular English Names: Black Stream Glider, Indigo Drop-wing. Description: Dark blue, orange streaks on abdomen, without dark wing tips (distinguishing from Indothemis limbata Selys, 1891). Distribution: India: Chhatisgarh, Kerala (Idamalayar, near Edamalayar Dam), Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra (Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Mumbai), Rajasthan (Thar Desert). Arabia: Kuwait, Iraq. Elsewhere: Afghanistan, Cambodia, China, Cyprus, Greece, Hong Kong, Indonesia (Bali, Irian Jaya, Jawa, Kalimantan, Lesser Sunda Is., Sulawesi, Sumatera), Iran, Lao, Malaysia (Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah, Sarawak), Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Russian Federation, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan (Province of China), Thailand, Turkey, Viet Nam

Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. Remarks: It is some times confused with Indothemis limbata Selys, 1891 (a Cambodian and Malaysian sp.) but can be distinguished from it in having dark wing tips. In size and behaviour it is quite similar to more widely distributed Trithemis annulata, the Violet Dropwing but its habitat preference and looks are very different. 33. Trithemis kirbyi kirbyi Selys, 1891 Syns: Trithmis kirbyi Selys, 1891. Ann. Mus. Civ. Genova, 3: 465. Libellula ardens Gerstäcker, 1891 Trithemis comorensis Fraser, 1959 Trithemis dallonia Navas, 1936. Populae English Names: Kirby’s Drop-wing, Orange Darter, Orange-winged Drop-wing. Description: Thorax and abdomen bright vermilion red, a broad basal bright reddish-yellow marking on all wings, pterostigma black with a narrow red stripe at its middle, venation yellow. Male: Bright-red. Female: Yellowish-brown. Distribution: India: Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh (Jabalpur), Maharashtra, Rajasthan (Thar Desert), Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand. Arabia: Oman (Michiel & Kalkman, 2008), Qatar, UAE. Elsewhere: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Ivory Coast, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Western Sahara, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and possibly Burundi. Also present in southern Europe, Middle East, Indian Ocean Islands and South Asia. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. Remarks: In Arabia they are intermediate between those of the type locality of India and the South African subspecies T. kirbyi ardens (Gerstaecker, 1891), the Rock Down-wing. 34. Trithemis pallidinervis (Kirby, 1889) Syns: Sympetrum pallidinervis Kirby, 1889 Trithemis dryas Selys, 1891. Popular English Name: Long-legged Marsh Skimmer.

!@�Husain and Sharma�

��

�

�

Description: Yellowish-brown medium-sized with long legs, thorax with three black stripes on each side and black underside of abdomen. Male and female having similar marking. Male: Metallic purple Female: Yellowish-white. Distribution: India: Andaman & Nicobar Islands. Andhra Pradesh (Himayat Sagar Lake, Hyderabad), Assam, Bihar, Chandigarh, Chattisgarh, Dadra-Nagar-Haveli, Daman, Darjeeling, Delhi, Diu, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu-Kashmir, Jharkand, Karaikal, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Mahé, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Orissa, Puducherry (Yanam dist.), Punjab, Rajasthan (Thar Desert), Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal. Arabia: Oman (northern part, near Muscat), Saudi Arabia, Yemen. Elsewhere: Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Iran, Lao, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Viet Nam. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. Genus: Urothemis Brauer, 1868 (SF: Urothemitinae) 35. Urothemis edwardsii (Selys, 1849) Syns: Libellula edwardsii Selys, 1849 Urothemis iridescens Kirby, 1898 Urothemis rendalli Kirby, 1898 Urothemis edwardsi hulae Dumont, 1975. Popular English Name: Blue Basker. Distribution: Arabia: Middle-east: Israel (possibly extinct), Saudi Arabia. Elsewhere: Algeria, Angola; Benin; Botswana; Burkina Faso; Cameroon; Chad; Congo, The Democratic Republic of the; Côte d'Ivoire; Egypt; Gambia; Ghana; Guinea; Kenya; Liberia; Malawi; Mali; Mauritania; Mozambique; Namibia; Niger; Nigeria; Saudi Arabia; Senegal; Sierra Leone; Somalia; South Africa; Sudan; Tanzania, United Republic of; Tunisia; Uganda; Zambia, Zimbabwe Presence uncertain in Swaziland. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern (2006, 2008). 36. Urothemis thomasi Longfield, 1932

Syn: Urothemis aethiopica Nielsen, 1957 Popular English Name: Skimmer. Distribution: Arabia: Oman (northern, southern), UAE. Elsewhere: Nigeria, possibly Somalia. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Endangered. Threats: Use of water by humans (e.g., drainage, over irrigation, pollution), Drought. Genus: Zygonyx Hagen, 1867 37. Zygonyx torridus (Kirby, 1889) Syns: Pseudomacromia torrida Kirby, 1889 Pseudomacromia atlantica Martin, 1900 Zygonyx hoffmanni Grünberg, 1903 Zygonyx insulana Pinhey, 1981. Popular English Name: Ringed Cascader. Description: Sexes alike, with yellow spots on a dark abdomen and may be with powdery-blue appearance; body about 50 mm long. Distribution: India: ? (see Remarks). Arabia: Iraq, Israel, Oman, UAE (wadies of Hajar mnts.), Yemen Elsewhere: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Comoros, Congo, Congo (Democratic Republic of), Cote d'Ivoire, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Iran, Italy, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Portugal, Reunion, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Burundi, Mali and Mauritina (uncertain). Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least concern. Remarks: Prefer ‘hanging’ rather than perching. Tariq Ch. (2010) reported it from Pakistan (Chakwal, Khushab, Kotla, Mirpur, Rawalpindi and Sehnsa) as Zygonyx torrida isis Fraser, 1924 and also mentioned its record from India. Earlier, Fraser (1931) reported its (Z. t. isis) males from Fraserpet, Coorg; Antagiri Ghat, Agency Tracts and Salt Range, Punjab and the females from Nandapur, Agency Tract, E. India and found it very closely related to the forma typica, Z. torrida torrida (Pseudomacromia torrida, Kirby, 1889), and considered it not more than a geographical race. In view of this the identity at subspecific level needs further study.

!B� Husain and Sharma�

��

�

�

Suborder: Zygoptera Family: Calopterygidae Genus: Calopteryx Leach, 1815 38. Calopteryx hyalina Martin, 1909 Popular English Name: Clear Winged Demoiselle. Disrtribution: Arabia: Israel, Palestine, Jordan. Elsewhere: Lebanon, Syria. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Endangered. Threat: Water extraction for agriculture and human use, losing at least a third of its distribution area due to the drying up of Barada River in Syria. 39. Calopteryx syriaca Rambur, 1842 Popular English Name: Syrian Demoiselle. Distribution: Arabia: Israel, Jordan. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Endangered. Threat: Habitat loss. Family: Coenagrionidae Genus: Agriocnemis Selys, 1877 (SF: Agriocnemidinae) 40. Agriocnemis sania Nielsen, 1958 Distribution: Arabia: Israel. Elsewhere: Egypt, Ethiopia, Keyna, Libya. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. Genus: Azuragrion May, 2002 41. Azuragrion granti (MaLachlan, 1903) Distribution: Atabia: Yemen (Socotra Island). Endemic. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. 42. Azuragrion nigridorsum (Selys, 1876) Popular English Names: Black-tailed Bluet, Sailing Bluet. Description: Male: Bluish with black lines on thorax. Distribution: Arabia: Oman (Khawr Talqah, Khawr Rawri, Dhofar), Yemen (Socotra Island). Elsewhere: Angola, Botswana, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Uncertain in Guinea-Bissau, Mali and Niger.

Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. 43. Azuragrion somalicum amitinum (Waterston, 1989) Syns: Enallagma somalicum Longfield, 1931 Somalicum amitinum (Waterston, 1989) Description: Purple and black. Distribution: Arabia: Oman (Wadi-ash-Shuwaymiyyah). Elsewhere: Ethiopia, Somalia. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern (as Azuragrion somalicum (Longfield, 1931) Remarks: Two subspecies, A. somalicum somalicum (Longfield, 1932) from Ethiopia and Somalia and A. somalicum amitinum (Waterston, 1989) from Oman are recognized. Genus: Ceriagrion Selys, 1876 (SF: Pseudagrioninae) 44. Ceriagrion georgifreyi Schmidt, 1953 Popular English Name: Turkish Red Damsel. Distribution: Arabia: Israel. Elsewhere: Greece, Greek Islands (Thasos, Zakintos and Corfu), Syria, Turkey. Lebanon (possibly). Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Near Threatened. Threat: Habitat loss. 45. Ceriagrion glabrum (Burmeister, 1839) Popular English Name: Common Orange, Common Pond-damsel, Common Citril, Olive Eyes, Olive-eye Damsel. Description: Male: Orange and green. Female: Range from light brown to dark brown depending on their maturity. Distribution: Arabia: Oman (northern), UAE. Elsewhere: Angola, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Congo (Republic of), Congo (Democratic Republic of), Ivory Coast, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Reunion, Sao Tome and Príncipe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

!C�Husain and Sharma�

��

�

�

Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. Remarks: Two subspecies recognized (Ceriagrion glabrum glabrum (Burmeister, 1839), C. glabrum longispinum Pinhey, 1963) Genus: Coenagrion Kirby, 1890 46. Coenagrion syriacum (Morton, 1924) Popular English Name: Syrian Bluet. Distribution: Arabia: Israel. Elsewhere: Lebanon, Syria, Turkey. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Near Threatened. Threat: Habitat loss. Genus: Ischnura Charpentier, 1840 (SF: Ischnurinae) 47. Ischnura elegans ebneri Schmidt, 1938 Popular English Names: Blue-tailed Damselfly, Common Blue-tail. Description: Male and female both have bi-coloured ptero-stigma on front wings; length up to 31mm. Male: Greenish, mature always having a blue spot at tail (Seg. 8), blue ant-humeral stripes on thorax and blue eyes. Female: Brownish, variable atleast in five colour forms. Thoracic markings and tail violet in immature form ‘violacea’ but salmon-pink thorax and blue spot in the form ‘rutescens’. When mature female may be blue (like mail) in form ‘typical’, olive-green thorax and brown spot in the form ‘infuscans’ or pale brown thorax and brown spot in the form ‘infuscans-obsoleta’. Distribution: India: As I. elegans: Himachal Pradesh, Jammu-Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal. Arabia: Middle-east: Israel (Udim Nature Reserve), Palestine, Jordan. Elsewhere: From western Europe (except Iceland), South and Middle Anatolia. Albania, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France (France main), Germany, Greece (East Aegean Island, Greece main, Kriti), Guernsey, Hungary, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Isle of Man, Italy (Italy (mainl), Japan, Jersey, Korea (DPR), Korea (Democratic Republic), Latvia, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia (former Yugoslav Republic), Malaysia, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro,

Nepal, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain (Baleares, Spain main), Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine (Krym, Ukraine main); United Kingdom (Great Britain, Northern Ireland) Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern (as I. elegans (Vander Linden, 1820)). Remarks: A number of subspecies of Ischnura elegans have been described, of which only the widely accepted I. elegans elegans (Vander Linden, 1820), I. elegans ebneri Schmidt, 1938 and I. elegans pontica Schmidt, 1938 are recognized. 48. Ischnura evansi Morton, 1919 Popular English Names: Blue-banded Damsel, Evan’s Blue-tail. Description: Straight, horizontal lower edge to black on 2nd segment. Female: Eyes, thorax and posterior end of abdomen with bluish tinge, middle of abdomen narrow n yellowish, wings with brownish veins. Distribution: Arabia: Oman (Dhofar, Khawr Rawri), Qatar (Saudi border), UAE (Zakher). Elsewhere: Egypt (Siwa Oasis area, African part), Ethiopia, Libya, Sudan, Syria. Djibouti (uncertain). Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern (Regional Assessment). Not Evaluated (likely to be Near Threatened or Least Concern). 49. Ischnura fountaineae Morton, 1905 Popular English Name: Oasis Blue-tail Description: Male: Greenish-blue and black with a distinctive orange flush to under-side of abdomen. Black-edge on upper-side of segment 2, slopping down-wards front. Female: When teneral quite pale orange, becoming much darker with age, sometimes ando-chrome i.e. similar to male but with more robust abdomen and an ovi-positor. Distribution: Arabia: Qatar (Al-Khor, Rayyan), UAE, Kuwait. Elsewhere: Caucasus, Kazakhstan, Russian Federation, Syria, Turkey, Tunisia Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern 50. Ischnura senegalensis (Rambur, 1842)

!�� Husain and Sharma�

��

�

�

Agrion senegalensis Rambur, 1842. Ins. Nevrop: 276. Popular English Names: African Blue-tail, Common Blue-tail, Marsh Blue-tail, Senegal Blue-tail, Senegal Golden Dartlet, Ubiquitous Blue-tail. Description: Male: Head and thorax bright orange, eyes green, abdomen with segments 1-2, 7 and 8-10 bright orange, 3-6 pale blue, while partly 7 and 8-10 orange. Distinctive segment 2 in that black top half creeps right down the side of abdomen as a ‘saddle mark’. Distribution: India: Chhatisgarh, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan (Thar Desert), Uttarakhand. Arabia: Middle-east: Oman (northern), Qatar (Dhofar), UAE. Elsewhere: Africa, Egypt, Southern And Eastern Asia: Indonesia (Bali, Borneo, Java, Lombok, Sumba, Sumbawa, Moluccas), Timor (Lesser Sunda Islands, South-east Asia), Sunda Islands (Malay Archipelago), Japan, Monocco, Philippines. Conservaion Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. Remarks: Egypt specimens are with more greenish tinge on thorax. Genus: Pseudagrion Selys, 1876 (SF: Pseudagrioninae) 51. Pseudagrion arabicum Waterston, 1980 Distribution: Arabia: Saudi Arabia, Yemen (western). Endemic to South-western Arabia. Habitat: Rivers in high coastal mountains of Red Sea. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Vulnerable. Threat: Habitat loss. 52. Pseudagrion decorum (Rambur, 1842) Syn: Agrion decorum Rambur, 1842. Ins. Neurop: 258. Popular English Name: Elegant Sprite. Description: Light blue all through with legs blackish and wings darkish. Distribution: India: Chhatisgarh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra (Nagpur), Rajasthan (Thar Desert). Arabia: Oman (northern part, wadis), UAE (Abu Dhabi).

Elsewhere: Bangladesh, China (Yunnan), Iran, Mayanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. 53. Pseudagrion sublacteum mortoni Schmidt, 1936 Popular English Name: Cherry-eye Sprite (P. sublacteum) Distribution: Arabia: Israel, Jordan. Elsewhere: Syria. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Vulnerable. Threat: Habitat destruction. Family: Platycnimididae Genus: Arabicnemis Waterston, 1984 54. Arabicnemis caerulea Waterston, 1984 Popular English Name: Powder-blue Damsel. Description: Vivid blue body, female being slightly paler than male. Distribution: Arabia: Oman, UAE, Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Vulnerable. Family: Protoneuridae Genus: Arabineura Schneider & Dumont, 1995 55. Arabineura khalidi (Schneider, 1988) Popular English Name: Hajar Wadi Damsel. Distribution: Arabia: Oman (Al-Madhah), UAE. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Vulnerable. CONCLUSIONS Distributional Pattern of Species: Total: 55 species belonging to 30 genera, 7 families and 2 suborders under order Odonata have been dealt. 1. Species in Arabia & adjacent area: Out of total 55 species dealt UAE and Oman are the richest in species diversity, in having 29 (52.73%) and 23 (41.82%) species respectively. Israel 21 (38.18%), Qatar 14 (25.45%), Jordan 14 (25.45%), Yemen 11 (20.00%), Iraq 09 (16.36%), Saudi Arabia 08 (14.55%) and Bahrain 02 (3.64 % %) come next in sequence. 2. Species Common with India: 20/55 (36.36 %): Belonging to 13 genera, 3 families and 2 suborders (ref. Table 1 for details). Thar Desert, Rajasthan & around: 14/55 (25.45%): Anax parthenope, Crocothemis servilia servilia, Diplacodes lefebevrii,

!��

Husain and Sharma� !��

��

�

�

Hemianax ephippiger, Ischnura senegalensis, Orthetrum sabina sabina, Orthetrum taeniolatum, Pantala flavescens, Pseudagrion decorum, Selysiothemis nigra, Tramea basilaris, Trithemis festiva, T. kirbyi kirby and T. pallidinervis. Species Common with other States: 6/55 (10.91%): Anax imperator, Crocothemis erythraea, Ischnura elegans ebneri, Macrodiplax cora, Sympetrum arenicolor and S. fonscolombii. Conservation Status of Species: Under IUCN Red Data List:

Endangered= 03 (Urothemis thomasi, Calopteryx haylina and C. syriaca); Near Threatened= 03 (Libellula pontica, Ceriagrion georgifreyi and Coenagrion syriacum); Vulnerable= 09 (Aeshna yemenensis, Onychogomphus macrodon, Lindenia tetraphylla, Paragamphus sinaiticus, Brachythemis fuscopalliata, Pseudagrion arabicum, P. sublectum motoni, Arabicnemis caerulea and Arabineura khalidi); Least Concern= 38 (ref. Table 1) and Data Deficient= 01 (Gomphus kinzelbachi). Threats: Mainly the habitat loss for threatened species categories.

Table 1. Showing Comparative Distributional Pattern of Odonate Species in India and Arabia and adjoining countries with their Conservation Status Sl. No.

Species I N D

O M N

U A E

Q T R

B A H

K U W

Y E M

S A R

I R Q

J O R

I S R

CON STA

1

SO: Anisoptera F: Aeshnidae Aeshna yemenensis

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

-

VU

2 Anax imperator + - + - - - - - - - - LC 3 A. parthenope* + - + + - + - - - - - LC 4 Hemianax ephippiger* + - + + - - - - - - - LC 5

F: Gomphidae Gomphus davidi

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

+

LC

6 G. kinzelbachi - - - - - - - - + - + DD 7 Onychogomphus macrodon - - - - - - - - - + + VU 8 Lindenia tetraphylla - + + - - + - - - - - VU 9 Paragomphus genei - - + - - - - - - - - LC 10 P. sinaiticus - + + - - + + + - + + VU 11

F: Libellulidae Brachythemis fuscopalliata

-

-

-

-

-

+

-

-

+

+

+

VU

12 Crocothemis erythraea + - + + - + - - - - - LC 13 C. sanguinolenta - + + - - - - - - - + LC 14 C. servilia servilia* + - - + - - - - - - - LC 15 Diplacodes lefebevrii* + - + + - - - - - - - LC 16 Libellula pontica - - - - - - - - + + + NT 17 Macrodiplax cora + + - - - - + - - - - LC 18 Orthetrum abbotti - - - - - - - - - + - LC 19 O. chryostigma - - + - - - - - - - - LC 20 O. ransonneti - + + - - - - - - + + LC 21 O. sabina Sabina* + + + + + + - - - - - LC 22 O. taeniolatum* + + + - - - - + - - - LC 23 Pantala flavescens* + - + + - - - - - - - LC 24 Rhyothemis semihyalina - + - - - - + - + - + LC 25 Selysiothemis nigra* + - + + - - - + - - - LC 26 Sympetrum arenicolor + - - - - - - - + - + LC 27 S. fonscolombei + + + + + - + + + + + LC 28 S. sinaiticum - - - - - - - + - + - LC 29 Tramea basilaris* + + + - - - - - - - - LC 30 Trithemis annulata - + + + - - - - - + + LC 31 T. arteriosa - - + - - - - - - - - LC 32 T. festiva* + - - - - + - - + - - LC

!!� Husain and Sharma�

��

�

�

33 T. kirbyi kirbyi* + + + + - - - - - - - LC 34 T. pallidinervis* + + - - - - + + - - - LC 35 Urothemis edwardsii - - - - - - - + - + LC 36 U. thomasi - + + - - - - - - - - EN 37 Zygonyx torridus ? + + - - - + - + - + LC 38

SO: Zygoptera F: Calopterygidae Calopteryx haylina

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

+

EN

39 C. syriaca - - - - - - - - - + + EN 40

F: Coenagrionidae Agrionemis sania

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

LC

41 Azuryagrion granti - - - - - - + - - - - LC 42 A. nigridorsum - + - - - - + - - - - LC 43 A. somalicum amitinum - + - - - - - - - - - LC 44 Ceriagrion georgifreyi - - - - - - - - - + NT 45 C. glabrum - + + - - - - - - - - LC 46 Coenagrion syriacum - - - - - - - - - - + NT 47 Ischnura elegans ebneri + - - - - - - - - + + LC 48 Ischnura evansi - + + + - - - - - - - LC 49 I. fountaineae - - + + - + - - - - - LC 50 I. senegalensis* + + + + - - - - - - - LC 51 Pseudagrion arabicum - - - - - - + + - - - VU 52 Pseudagrion decorum* + + + - - - - - - - - LC 53 P. sublectum mortoni - - - - - - - - - + + VU 54

F: Platycnimididae Arabicnemis caerulea

-

+

+

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

-

VU

55

F: Protoneuridae Arabineura khalidi

-

+

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

VU

Total 20 23 29 14 02 08 11 08 09 14 21 Conservation Status Details: EN= 03, VU= 09, NT= 03, LC=39, DD=01. India: 20 (14 from Thar Desert, 6 from other states).

Abbreviations used: BAH: Bahrain; IND: India; IRQ: Iraq; ISR: Israel; JOR: Jordan; OMN: Oman; KUW: Kuwait; QTR: Qatar; SAR: Saudi Arabia; UAE: United Arab Emirates; YEM: Yemen. F: Family; SO: Suborder. IUCN: International Union for Conservation of Nature / International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (formerly the International for the Protection of Nature, IUPN); Con. Sta: Conservation Status; DD: Data Deficient; EN: Endangered ; LC: Least Concern; NE: Not Evaluated; NT: Near Threatened; VU: Vulnerable; (+): Present; (-): No Record; (?): Not confirmed; (*): Record from Thar Desert, Rajasthan (India). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to the Director, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata for encouragement and the respective Officer-in-

Charge, NRC, ZSI, Dehra Dun and DRC, ZSI, Jodhpur for library facility.

REFERENCES Agarwal, J.P. (1957). Contribution towards the

Odonata funa of Pilani. Proc. 44th Indian Sci. Congr., Kolkata. p.309.

Aguilar, D. and Prechac. (1986). Field Guide to the Dragonflies of Britain, Europe & N. Africa. Collins.

Askew. (1988). The Dragonflies of Europe. Harley Books.

Bose, B. and Mitra, T. R. (1976). The Odonata of

Rajasthan. Rec. zool. Surv. India, Kolkata. 71:1-11.

Dijkstra, K-D.B. and Dingemanse, N. J. (2000). New records of Crocothemis sanguinolenta (Burmeister, 1839) from Israel, with a critical note on the subspecies arabica Schneider, 1982.

! �Husain and Sharma�

��

�

�

International Journal of Odonatology. 3(2): 169-171.

Dijkstra, K-D.B. and Lewington, R. (2006). Field Guide to Dragonflies of Bitain and Europe, British Wildlife Publishing, Dorset. 320pp.

Dumont, H. J. (1991). Fauna of Palaestina. Insecta V. Odonata of The Levant. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Jerusalem. 297pp.

Feulner, G.R. (1999). Two new UAE Damselflies, Tribulus. 9(2): 31.

Feulner, G. R. (2001). The damselfly Pseudagrion decorum breeding in the U.A.E. Tribulus. 11(1): 24.

Feulner, G. R., Reimer, R. W. and Hornby, R. J. (2007). An updated illustrated Checklist of the Damselflies & dragonflies of the UAE. Tribulus. 17: 37-62.

Fraser, F.C. (1936). The Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Today and Tomorrow’s Printers and Publishers, New Delhi. 461pp.

Graham, B.G. (1998). An Illustrated Checklist of the Damselflies & Dragonflies of the UAE. Tribulus. 8(2): 9-10.

Giles, G.B. (1998). An Illustrated Checklist of the Damselflies and Dragonflies of the UAE. Tribulus. 8(2): 9-15.

Grunwell, M.J. (2010). Dragonflies and Damselflies in the State of Qatar. Journal of the QNHG, March, 2010. 3: 2-13.

Hellyer, P. and Aspinall, S. (2005). The Emirates: A Natural History. Trident Press Limited, United Arab Emirates.

Jodicke, R., Boudot, J.P., Jacquemin, G., Samraoui, B. and Schneider, W. (2004). Critical species of Odonata in northern Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. In: Clausnitzer, V. and Jödicke, R. (Eds) Guardians of the watershed. Global status of dragonflies: critical species, threat and conservation. International Journal of Odonatology. 7: 239-253.

Jodicke, R., Kunz, B. and Wijker, A. (2009). A further step in the differentiation between Sympetrum areniocolor and S. sinaiticum-photodocumentation in the field. Agrion. 13(1): 4-7.

Kalkman, V. J. (2006). Key to the dragonflies of Turkey. Brachytron. 10(1): 3-82.

Kappes, E. and Kappes, W. (2001). Vereinigte Arabische Emirate und angrenzende Oman Enklaven. Naturrkundliche Reisennotizen, 11-24.3.2001. Naturkundliche Reiseberichte. 16: 48 pp.

Longfield, C. (1932). New species of the genus Urothemis from southern Arabia and some comments on the species of Odonata inhabiting the Qara Mountains. Proc. Royal Ent. Soc. London, Ser. B, Taxonomy. 1(2): 34-35.

Michiel J.T. van der Weide and Vincent J. K., V. J. (2008). Some new records of dragonflies from Oman. Agrion. 12(2): 52-54.

Pilgrim, E.M. and Von Dohlen, C.D. (2008). Phylogeny of Sympetrinae (Odonata: Libellulidae): further evidence of the tomoplasious nature of wing venation. Syst. Entomlogy. 33: 159-174.

Prasad, M. (1996). Odonata in the Thar Desert. In: Faunal Diversity in the Thar Desrt: Gaps in Research. (eds. Ghosh, A. K., Baqri, Q. H. and Prakash, I.). Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur. pp.145-149.

Prasad, M. (2004). Insecta: Odonata of Desert National Park. In: Fauna of Desert National Park, Rajasthan. Conservation Area Series 19, Zool. Surv. India, Kolkata. pp.51-58.

Robert, W. (Bob) Reimer. (2008). An extraordinary confluence of events in the study of UAE and Oman Odonata, Agrion. 12(2): 55.

Schneider, W. (1988). Odonata of the Wahiba Sands and adjacent areas, Eastern Oman. Journal of Oman Studies, Special Report No 3.

Schneider, W. (2004). Critical Odonata in the Levant. International J. Odontology. 7(2): 399-407.

Schneider, W. and Dumont, H.J. (1994). Arabineura khalidi. Biol. Jaarb. Dodonaea. p.62.

Schneider, W. and Dumont, H.J. (1995). Arabineura n. gen., anew protoneurid genus from Arabia, with the description of the hitherto unknown female of Arabineura khalidi (Schneider, 1988) comb. nov. (Insecta: Odonata: Protoneuridae). Biologisch Jaarboek Dodonaea. 62: 114-120.

Husain and Sharma� A�

��

�

�

Schneider, W. and H.J. Dumont. (1997). The dragonflies and damselflies (Insecta: Odonata) of Oman. An updated and annotated checklist. Fauna of Saudi Arabia. 16: 89-110.

Sharma, G. (2010). New records and addition to Odonata (Insecta: Arthropoda) fauna of Pichhola lake, Udiapur, Rajasthan, India. Proc. Impact of Climate Change on Biodiversity and Challenges in Thar Desert, ZSI, DRC, Jodhpur (Rajasthan). pp.154-156.

Sharma, G and Dhadeech, S. N. (2010). Studies on damselflies and dragonflies (Odonata: Insecta) in and around Thar Desert at Osian, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India. Proc. Impact of Climate Change on Biodiversity and Challenges in Thar Desert, ZSI/DRC, Jodhpur (Rajasthan). pp.195-197.

Sharma, G. and Sewak, R. (2010). Status, diversity and conservation of Damselflies and Dragonflies) Odonata: Insecta) of Rajasthan and their role as biological control agent. Proc.Impact of Climate Change on Biodiversity and Challenges in Thar Desert, ZSI/DRC, Jodhpur (Rajasthan). pp.319-324.

Subramanian, K.A. (2005). Dragonflies and Damselflies of Peninsular India.

Tariq Ch., M. (2010). Systematics of Dragonflies (Anisoptera: Odonata) of Pakistan. Thesis submitted to Dept. of Entomology, Faculty of Crop and Food Sciences, Arid Agriculture Univ., Rawalpindi, Pakistan. 154-55,172.

Thakur, R.K. (1985). Field notes on the Odonata around lake Kailana, Jodhpur (Rajasthan). Bull. zool. Surv. India. 7(1-2): 21-25.

Tiple, A.D., Paunikar, S. and Talmale, S.S. (2012). Dragonflies and Damselflies (Odonata: Insecta) of Tropical Forest research Institute, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, Central India. Journal of Threatened Taxa. 4(4): 2529-2533.

Tyagi, B.K. and Miller, P.L. (1991). A note on Odonata collected in South-western Rajasthan, India. Notul. Odonatol. 3: 134-135.

Walker and Pittaway, A.R. (1987). Insects of Eastern Arabia. Macmillan, London. 175 pp.

Waterston, A. R. and Pittaway, A. R. (1989). The Odonata or Dragonflies of Oman and neighbouring territories. Journal of Oman Studies, 10: 36pp., illus., maps, figs.

Husain and Sharma� ��

��

�

�

Serranid Fishes (Perciformes) in Arabian Sea with their conservation status

Akhlaq Husain

41, Hari Vihar, Vijay Park, Chakrata Road, Dehra Dun–248 001, Uttarakhand (formerly associated with

Zoological Survey of India). e-mail: [email protected]


ABSTRACT: In this paper, the serranid fishes occurring in various countries bordering Arabian Sea and its various Gulfs, have been listed with their systematic account, English and vernacular names, distribution and conservation status. In all, 72 species belonging to 19 genera, 4 subfamilies under family Serranidae, occurring in the area have been dealt with. Key Words: Serranid Fishes of Arabian Sea.

INTRODUCTION

There are about 450 species of serranid fishes species all over the world and a good number which occur in Indian Ocean and Gulf waters which have have attracted the attention of various workers (Boulenger, 1889; Ben-Tuvia & Lourie, 1969; White & Barwani, 1971; Boulos, 1975; Heemstra, 1973; Heemstra & Randall, 1979, 1986, 1993; Patro & Prasad, 1979, 1980; Kumaran & Jones, 1980; Sivasubramaniam, 1981; Sivasubramaniam & Ibrahim, 1982a,b; Kharbhari, 1982; Morgan, 1982; Talwar & Kacker, 1984; Talwar & Jhingran, 1991; Randall, 1985; Randall & Heemstra, 1991; Randall & Anderson, 1993; Rndall & Baldwin, 1997; Kuronuma & Abe, 1986; Mathews & Samuel, 1985, 1987, 1991; Ibrahim, 1989; Ibrahim et al.,1989; Bouhlel, 1988; Edwards et al., 1985; Edwards et al., 1991; Edwards & Shaher, 1991; Edwards & Shepherd, 1992; Manna, 1989; Baranes & Golani, 1993; Fouda & Hermosa, 1993; Rao, 1995; Assadi & Deghani, 1997; Khalaf & Disi, 1997; Al-Sakaff & Essen, 1999; Zajonz et al., 2000; Deval, 2002; Kapoor et al., 2002, Manilo & Bogorodsky, 2003; Govindraju & Jayasnkar, 2004; Moazzam & Osmany, 2004; Chavan et al., 2005; Molly et al., 2006; Thomas et al., 2008) during the past. In the present paper a brief account with conservation status of 72 species belonging to 19 genera, 4 subfamilies under family Serranidae, found along the coasts of Red Sea Persian Gulf, Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and Arabian Sea has been provided.

FAMILY: SERRANIDAE General Characters: Usually robust, compressed and moderately elongate, covered with mostly ctenoid scales (and also a few may be cycloid) , mouth superior, large and protractile having inwardly depressible sharp teeth (which help for seizing the prey and preventing it from escaping), operculum normally with three short spines, dorsal fin with spinous and soft parts, pelvics thoracic and behind origin of spiny dorsal and with single spine, anal with three spines, caudal more or less truncate, single and complete lateral line and remarkable diversity in colouration. LOCATION OF COUNTRIES DEALT Arabian Sea (north-western extension of Western Indian Ocean, bounded on the east by India, on the north by Pakistan and Iran, on the west by the Arabian Peninsula, on the south, west of Kanyakumari, India and western coast of Sri Lanka) has two important branches- Gulf of Oman to northwest, connecting with the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Aden in southwest, connecting with Red Sea through the strait of Bab-el-Mandeb. The largest islands in the Arabian Sea are Socotra (off Horn of Africa) and Masirah and Khuriya Muriya Islands of Oman, (off east / south-east cost of Oman) as well as the Lakshadweep Archipelago (Union territotry of India consisting of Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands) off coast of India.

Biological Forum_ An International Journal, Spl. Iss.��B��=� ?>��@��(?A�?��9��# �8%��:;�==B25C=C2�

��

�

�

Countries with coastline on Gulf of Oman: Oman (Musandam peninsula and northern part), UAE (eastern part) and Iran (south-westerern part). Countries on coastline on Persian Gulf: United Arab Emirates (northern part), Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia (eastern part), Kuwait (eastern part), Iraq southern tip) and Iran (western part). Countries with coastline on Gulf of Aden: Yemen (southern), Somalia (northern part), Djibouti (north-eastern). Countries with coastline on Red Sea: Yemen (western), Djibouti (northern), Eritrea, Sudan, Egypt, Israel (southern tip), Jordan and Saudi Arabia (western part). In north, there are Sinai Peninsula, Gulf of Aqaba, and Gulf of Suez (leading to Suez Canal). Gulf of Aqaba (far northern end of Red Sea): Saudi Arabia (north-western part), Jordan (south-western), Israel (southern tip), Egypt (eastern Sinai Peninsula). Gulf of Suez (far northren extension of Red Sea towards Suez Canal): Egypt (eastern) and western Sinai Peninsula). Countries with coastlines on Arabian Sea: Somalia (south-eastern part), Yemen (south-eastern part), Oman (south-eastern part), Pakistan, India (western part), Sri Lanka and Maldives.

SESTEMATIC ACCOUNT, DISTRIBUTION AND CONSERVATION STATUS Order: Perciformes Suborder: Percoidei Family: Serranidae Subfamily: Anthiinae Genus: Plectranthias Bleeker, 1876 1. Plectranthias vexillarius Randall, 1980 Popular English Names: NA. Vernacular Names: NA. Size: 8.2 cm SL. Range: NA. General Distribution: Gulf of Oman. Country Dealt: Oman. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Not Evaluated; FishBase: Low Vulnerability (14 of 100). Genus: Pseudanthias Bleeker, 1873 2. Pseudanthias cichlops (Bleeker, 1853) Syn: Anthias cichlops Bleeker, 1853 Popular English Names: Nusa-penida Bass-let, Yellow Anthias.

Vernacular Name: Ry-bureki (India). Size: 9.5 cm SL. Range: NA. General Distribution: Western Pacific: southern Japan southward. Reported from the Indian Ocean. Randall & Pyle (2000, Ref. 48242) note that Pseudanthias manadensis has not been convincingly linked to any species recognized today. Country Dealt: India. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern; FishBase: Low Vulnerability (16 of 100). 3. Pseudanthias conspicuus (Heemstra, 1973) Syn: Anthias conspicuus Heemstra, 1973 Popular English Names: Na. Vernacular Names: Na. Size: NA. Range: NA. General Distribution: Arabian Sea. Country Dealt: India. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Not Evaluated; FishBase: Low Vulnerability (18 of 100). 4. Pseudanthias cooperi (Regan, 1902) Syns: Anthias cooperi Regan, 1902 Planctantias preopercularis Fowler, 1935 Popular English Names: Red-bar Anthias, Cooper’s Fairy Bass-let, Red Bass-let, Red-Sea-perch, Red-bar Failry Bass-let, Silver-streak Goldie, Silver-streak Anthias Vernacular Names: NA. Size: 14 cm TL, common length 12 cm TL. Range: 32°N - 24°S. General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: East Africa to Samoa and Line Islands, north to southern Japan, south to Great Barrier Reef. Countries Dealt: India, Maldives, Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Not Evaluated; FishBase: Low Vulnerability (20 of 100). 5. Pseudanthias marcia Randall & Hoover, 1993 Popular English Names: Marcia’s Anthias, Vernacular Names: NA. Size: 16 cm TL. Range: NA. General Distribution: Gulf of Oman and southwestern coast of Oman. Countries Dealt: Oman, Yemen.

@�Husain �

��

�

�

Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Not Evaluated; FishBase: Low Vulnerability (23 of 100). 6. Pseudanthias squamipinnis(Peters, 1855) Syn: Serranus squmipinnis Peters, 1855 Popular English Names: Goldie, Lyre-tail Anthias, Lyre-tail Coral-fish, Lyre-tail Fairy Bass-let, Orange Bass-let, Orange Fairy Bass-let, Orange Sea-perch, Rainbow, Red Coral-perch, Scale-fin Anthias, Scale-fin Bass-let, Scale-fin Fairy Bass-let, Sea Goldie. Vernacular Names: Ry-bureki (India), Barbier-commun, Kashikeyo-mas (Madives). Size: 15 cm TL, 7 cm (female). Range: 32°N - 32°S. General Distribution: Indo-West Pacific: Red Sea and Natal, South Africa to Niue, north to Japan, south to Australia. Recorded from Europa Island (MNHN 1992-0508). Countries Dealt: India, Jordan, Maldives, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Not Evaluated; FishBase: Low Vulnerability (23 of 100). 7. Pseudanthias townsendi (Boulenger, 1897) Syn: Anthias townsendi Boulenger, 1897 Popular English Names: Townsend’s Anthias. Vernacular Names: NA. Size: 9 cm TL. Range: NA. General Distribution: Persian Gulf to southern Oman and southern Iran. Countries Dealt: Oman, Iran. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Not Evaluated; FishBase: Low Vulnerability (13 of 100). Genus: Sacura Jordan & Richardson, 1910 8. Sacura boulengeri (Heemstra, 1973) Syns: Anthias boulengeri Heemstra, 1973 Sacura boulengeri Heemstra & Randall, 1979 Anthias formosus Boulenger, 1889 (Muscat, Oman) Popular English Names: Boulenger’s Anthias. Vernacular Names: NA. Size: 19 cm TL. Range: NA. General Distribution: Arabian Sea. Country Dealt: India (Thomas et al., 2008), Oman (off Muscat), Pakistan (vide Thomas et al., 2008).

Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Not Evaluated; FishBase: Low Vulnerability (24 of 100). Subfamily: Epinephelinae (Groupers) Genus: Aethaloperca Fowler, 1904 9. Aethaloperca rogaa (Forsskal, 1775) Syns: Perca rogaa Forsskal, 1775 Perca lunaria Forsskal, 1775 Popular English Names: Red-mouth Grouper, Flat Grouper, Red-flushed Cod, Red-flushed Rock-cod, Red-mouth Rock-cod, Grouper. Vernacular Names: Hamour-dhal-al-fam-al-ahmar, Hamoor-e-siah (Iran), Hamour (Oman), Hamoor (Saudi Arabia), Sheneenoh (Qatar), Ginimas-faana, Kurohata, Merou-noir (Maldives), Karuthachemmali, Kulagini (India), Caalo (Somalia), Robane (Djbouti). Size: 60 cm TL, length at first maturity 34 cm. Range: 36°N - 36°S, 27°E - 180°E. General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: Red Sea to South Africa and east to the Gilbert Islands. Probably found in all tropical islands of the Indian Ocean. Recorded from Europa Island . Countries Dealt: Bahrain, Djbouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, India, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, UAE, Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Data Deficient; FishBase: Moderate to High Vulnerability (49 of 100). Genus: Anyperodon Gunther, 1859 10. Anyperodon leucogrammicus (Valenciennes, 1828) Syns: Serranus leucogrammicus Valenciennes, 1828 Serranus micronotatus Ruppell, 1838 Serranus uropthalmus Bleeker, 1855 Popular English Names: Slender Grouper, Slender Rock-cod, White-lined Cod, White-lined Grouper, White-lined Rock-cod, White-line Group, White-line Rock-cod, White-line Cod. Vernacular Names: Hamoor (Qatar), Boalha-jehi-faana, Merau-a-linges-blanches (Maldives), Yaaquuri (Somalia). Size: 65 cm TL. Range: 32°N - 24°S, 32°E - 171°W. General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: Red Sea south to Mozambique and east to the Phoenix Islands, north to Japan, south to Australia.

B� Husain �

��

�

�

Probably including all the islands of the tropical Indian Ocean. Countries Dealt: Egypt, Eritrea, India, Maldives, Oman, Qatar (in ver. names), Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern; FishBase: Moderate to High Vulnerability (52 of 100). Genus: Cephalopholis Schneider, 1801 11. Cephalopholis argus Schneider, 1801 Syns: Cephalopholis argus Schneider, 1801 Bodianus jacobevertsen Lacepede, 1802 Serranus myriaster Valenciennes, 1828 Serranus thyrsites Saville-Kent, 1893 Popular English Names: Popular English Names: Peacock Hind, Peacock Cod, Peacock Rock-cod, Peacock Coral-cod, Peacock Grouper, Argus Grouper, Black-Rock-cod, Blue-spotted Grouper, Sea-bass, World-wide Peacock Rock-cod, Vernacular Names: Dhaou, Hamour (Oman), Hamour (Qatar), Mas-faana, Merou-paon, Merou-celeste (Maldives), Balu-fana, Neela-chammam (India), Maka, Mushenzi, Summan (Somalia), Vieillie cuisinier (Djibouti) Size: 60 cm TL, common length 40 cm TL, length at first maturity 22 cm. Range: 24°C - 28°C; 29°N - 34°S, 33°E - 122°W. General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: Red Sea to Durban, South Africa and eastward to French Polynesia and the Pitcairn group, north to the Ryukyu and Ogasawara islands, south to northern Australia and Lord Howe Island. May be confused with Cephalopholis cyanostigma. Countries Dealt: Bangladesh, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, India (including Lakshadweep Is), Israel, Jordan, Maldives, Oman, Qatar (in ver. names), Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern; FishBase: Moderate to High Vulnerability (49 of 100). 12. Cephalopholis aurantia (Valenciennes, 1828) Syns: Serranus aurantia Valenciennes, 1828 Serranus analis Valenciennes, 1828. Serranus rufus Hombron & Jacquinot, 1853 Epinephelus miltostigma Bleeker, 1873. Bodianus indelebilis Fowler, 1904. Cephalopholis obtusauris Evermann & Seale, 1907.

Popular English Names: Orange Rock-cod, Golden Hind, Golden Rock-cod, Orange Cod, Sea-bass, Vernacular Names: Hamour-dhahabi (?), Vieille-doree (Djibouti), Size: 60cm Tl, common length 30 cm TL. Range: 30°N - 59°S, 29°E - 150°W. General Distribution: Pacific: Islands of the western Indian Ocean to Japan and the central Pacific. Except for a single specimen caught off the coast of Natal, South Africa, Heemstra and Randall (1993) know of no confirmed records from other continental localities of East Africa. Cephalopholis aurantia from east Africa reported by Morgans (1982) is a misidentification of Cephalopholis nigripinnis. Countries Dealt: Djibouti, India, Maldives. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Data Deficient; FishBase: Moderate to high Vulnerability (49 of 100). 13. Cephalopholis boenak (Bloch, 1790) Syns: Bodianus boenak Bloch, 1790 Serranus pachycentron Valenciennes, 1828 Serranus stigmapomus Richardson, 1846 Serranus nigrofasciatus Hombron & Jacquinot, 1853 Popular English Names: Blue-lined Coral-cod, Brown-banded Seabass, Brown-barred Grouper, Brown-barred Rockcod, Brown-barred Rock-cod, Brown-barred Grouper, Brown-banded Coral-cod, Brown Coral-cod, Brown-banded Grouper, Brown-banded Rock-cod, Brown-banded Sea-bass, Brown Coral Cod, Boinacki Grouper, Charcoal Grouper, Cherna Chocolate, Chocolate Hind, Dusky-banded Cod, Overcast Grouper, Rock Cod, Sea-bass, Spotted-faced Rock-cod. Vernacular Names: Hamour (Oman), Bontoo, Gobra, Hekaru, Kalava, Kolaji, Kolamin, Varian-chammam, Verri-cullawah (India), Verri-cullawah (Sri Lanka) Size: 33 cm TL; age 11 yrs. Range: 32°N - 32°S, 29°E - 171°E. General Distribution: Indo-West Pacific: Kenya to southern Mozambique eastward to the western Pacific. Reported from the Arafura Sea. Not reported from oceanic islands in the Indian Ocean, except for Aldabra, Comoros, Madagascar, and the Andaman and Lakshadweep islands. Unknown from the Red Sea, Persian Gulf, and from the islands of Micronesia except

C�Husain �

��

�

�

for Palau. Record from Rodriguez could not be verified and is probably erroneous. Countries Dealt: India (including Lakhsadweep Islands), Maldives, Oman (in ver. names), Sri Lanka. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern; FishBase: Low to Moderate Vulnerability (31 of 100). 14. Cephalopholis formosa (Shaw, 1812) Syn: Sciaena formosa Shaw, 1812 Popular English Names: Blue-lined Coral-cod, Blue-lined Grouper, Blue-lined Sea-bass, Blue-lined Hind, Blue-lined Rock-cod, Chocolate Hind, Rock Cod. Vernacular Names: Kangan-kossa, Verri-Kaleva (Sri Lanka), Bontoo, Verri-cullawah (India). Size: 34 cm TL. Range: 36°N - 34°S, 30°E - 143°E. General Distribution: Indo-West Pacific: western India to Philippines, north to southern Japan (Honshu), south to northern Australia. 'Epinephelus formosus' from Madagascar, Réunion and Mauritius are probably based on misidentifications of Cephalopholis polleni. Confused with Cephalopholis boenak. Countries Dealt: India, Sri Lanka. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern; FishBase: Low to Moderate Vulnerability (34 of 100). 15. Cephalopholis hemistiktos (Ruppell, 1830) Syn: Serranus hemistiktos Ruppell, 1830 Popular English Names: Yellow-fin Hind, Yellow Hind, Yellow-fin Head, Half-spotted Grouper, Half-spotted Hind. Vernacular Names: Arus, Dhawa, Hamour, Hummarah, Summan (Oman), Mumen (Jordan), Shanenu (Kuwait), Saman-e-ajori (Iran), Vieille d’Arabie (Djbouti). Size: 35 cm TL, common length 23 cm TL; age 26 yrs. Range: 33°N - 10°N, 32°E - 66°E. General Distribution: Only from the northern end of the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf and coast of Pakistan. Records from elsewhere are apparently based on misidentifications of other species. Misidentified as Cephalopholis miniatus by Kuronuma & Abe (1986, Ref. 5999) from Kuwait. Countries Dealt: Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman,

Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, UAE, Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Near Threatened; FishBase: High Vulnerability (58 of 100). 16. Cephalopholis leopardus (Lacepede, 1801) Syns: Labrus leopardus Lacepede, 1801 Serranus spilurus Valenciennes, 1833 Serranus homfrayi Day, 1871 Epinephelus urodelops Schultz, 1943 Popular English Names: Leopard Hind, Leopard Cod, Leopard Coral-cod, Leopard Grouper, Leopard Rock-cod, Red-spotted Rock-cod, Red-spot Coral-cod Vernacular Names: Leopard-Zackenbarsch, Raiy-faana, Vielle-leopard (Maldives). Size: 24 cm TL. Range: 31°N - 20°S, 40°E - 148°W. General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: East Africa (but not the Red Sea, Persian Gulf or South Africa) to the Society Islands, north to the Ryukyu Islands, south to northern Australia. Including most Islands of the Indian Ocean and that of the west-central Pacific. Record from Rodriguez could not be verified and is probably erroneous. Countries Dealt: India, Maldives, Sri Lanka. Conservation Status: IUCN red List: Least Concern; FishBase: Low to Moderate Vulnerability (28 of 100). 17. Cephalopholis miniata (Forsskal 1775) Syns: Perca miniata Forsskal, 1775 Pomacentrus burdi Lacepede, 1802 Serranus cyanostigmatoides Bleeker, 1849 Serranus perguttatus De Vis, 1884 Cephalopholis maculates Seale & Bean, 1907 Cephalopholis boninius Jordan & Thompson, 1914 Cephalopholis formosanus Tanaka, 1911. Popular English Names: Blue-spot Rock-cod, Blue-spotted Rock-cod, Coral Cod, Coral Grouper, Coral Hind, Coral Rock-cod, Coral Trout, Grouper, Red Coral Perch, Red Grouper, Reef Cod, Round-tailed Trout, Sea-bass, Vemillion Grouper, Vermilion Sea-bass, Vernacular Names: Aroosa, Bartama, Hamrah (UAE), Hamoor (Saudi Arabia), Hammarah, Hamour, Summan (Oman), Sheneenoh (Qatar), Shimi (Jordan), Shnenu (Kuwait), Chencheera-chammam, Sikkifana (India), Guduudow-filfil (Somalia)

�� Husain �

��

�

�

Size: 45 cm TL, Range: 35°N - 34°S, 31°E - 158°W. General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: Red Sea to Durban, South Africa and eastward to the Line Islands; most islands in the Indian and west-central Pacific oceans. Absent from Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. Misidentified as Cephalopholis cyanostigma from Reunion. Countries Dealt: Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, India (including Lakshadweep Is.), Israel, Jordan, Maldives, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern; FishBase: High Vulnerability (61 of 100). 18. Cephalopholis oligosticta Randall & Ben-Tuvia, 1983 Popular English Names: Vemilion Hind. Vernacular Names: NA. Size: 30 cm TL, length at first maturity 17-19 cm. Range: 31°N - 16°N, 33°E - 43°E. General Distribution: Only in the Red Sea, from Eilat in the northern Gulf of Aqaba to the Farasan Islands off the southern end of Saudi Arabia. Countries Dealt: Egypt, Eritrea, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern; FishBase: Low to Moderate Vulnerability (32 of 100). 19. Cephalopholis sexmaculata (Ruppell, 1830) Syns: Serranus sexmaculatus Ruppell, 1830 Cephalopholis coatesi Whitley, 1937 Cephalopholis gibbus Fourmanoir, 1955 Popular English Names: Six-blotch Hind, Cave Grouper, Freckled Cod, Freckled Rock Cod, Saddled Rock Cod, Sea-bass, Six-banded Grouper, Six-blotch Rock-cod, Six-spotted Rock-cod, Six-band Cod, Six-band Rock-cod, Six-spot Grouper, Six-spot Rock-cod Vernacular Names: Abu shimi (Jordan), Hamoor (Saudi Arabia). Size: 50 cm, weight 7 kg. Range: 34°N - 23°S, 31°E - 138°W. General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: Red Sea to South Africa and eastward to French Polynesia. Reported from the Arafura Sea. Reports by Heemstra & Randall (1984, Ref. 3153) from the Gulf of Oman, Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka are

unsubstantiated. Absent from the Persian Gulf and is not yet known from Lakshadweep Islands. Countries Dealt: Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, India, Jordan, Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern; FishBase: Low to Moderate Vulnerability (33 of 100). 20. Cephalopholis sonnerati (Valenciennes, 1828) Syns: Serranus sonnerati Valenciennes, 1828 Serranus zananella Valenciennes, 1828 Epinephelus janthinopterus Bleeker, 1873 Epinephelus unicolor Bleeker, 1875 Cephalopholis purpureus Fourmanoir, 1966. Popular English Names: Tomato Hind, Tomato Cod, Tomato Grouper, Tomato Sea-bass, Tomato Rock-cod, Red Coral Rod, Coral Trout, Grouper, Orange-spotted Cod, Orange-spotted Rock-cod, Red Coral Trout, Red Rock-cod, Vernacular Names: Hamour, Saman Oman); Bontoo, Chem-kalava, Chencheera-chammam, Choppu-chammam, Gobra, Hekaru, Ryfana, Siggapu-cullawah, Sona-kalawa (India), Ran-thambuva, Ranthambuwa, Segepu-kaleva, Siggapu-cullawah (Sri Lanka), Viellie-ananas (Djibouti), Caalo (Somalia). Size: 58 cm. TL, common length 30 cm TL; length at first maturity 28 cm. Range: 34°N - 32°S, 31°E - 158°W General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: east coast of Africa (Djibouti, Socotra to Durban) to the Line Islands, north to southern Japan, south to southern Queensland (Australia). Not found at the Chagos Archipelago despite intensive survey and not reported from the Red Sea and Persian Gulf. Countries Dealt: Djibouti, India, Maldives, Oman, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern; FishBase: Moderate to High Vulnerability (46 of 100). 21. Cephalopholis urodeta (Forster, 1801) Syns: Perca urodeta Forster, 1801 Serranus nigripinnis Valenciennes, 1828 Serranus urodelus Valenciennes, 1828 Epinephelus playfairi Bleeker, 1879 Serranus mars De Vis, 1884 Popular English Names: Dark-fin Hind, Dark-finned Coral-cod, Banded-tail Coral-cod, Black-finage Rock-cod, Black-fin Cod, Brown-fined

��Husain �

��

�

�

Rock-cod, Chevron Rock-cod, Dusky-finHind, Dusky-fin Rock-cod, Flag-tail Rock-cod, Flag-tailed Grouper, Flag-tail Grouper, Flag-tailed Rock-cod, Flag-tail Cod, Sea-bass. Vernacular Names: Kanfaiy-Kalhu-faana, Velle-aile-noire, Zackenbarsch (Maldives) Size: 28 cm TL, length at first maturity 17 cm. Range: 34°N - 30°S, 33°E - 131°W. General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: Kenya to northern South Africa and eastward to French Polynesia and the Pitcairn Islands. Unknown from the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman, Persian Gulf, and the coast of India. Countries Dealt: India, Maldives, Pakistan, Sri Lanka. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern; FishBase: Low Vulnerability (14 of 100). Genus: Cromileptes Swainson, 1839 22. Cromileptes altivelis (Valenciennes, 1828) Syn: Serranus altivelis Valenciennes, 1828 Popular English Names: Hump-back Grouper, Baramundi Cod, Baramundi Rock-cod, Bleeker’s Group, Flat-fish Grouper, Grouper, High-finned Grouper, Hump-back Rock-cod, Hump-back Sea-bass, Hump-backed Cod, Panther Grouper, Panther Fish, Plum-pudding Cod, Polka-dot Grouper, Red Fish, Sea-bass, Vernacular Names: Kalava (India) Size: 70 cm TL, length at first maturity 39 cm. Range: 32°N - 23°S, 88°E - 168°E. General Distribution: Western Pacific: southern Japan to Palau, Guam, New Caledonia and southern Queensland, Australia. Eastern Indian Ocean: Nicobar Islands to Broome, Western Australia. Reports from western Indian Ocean are unsubstantiated, except one from Kenya which seems valid. Records from Hawaii are probably based on released aquarium fishes. Countries Dealt: India, Sri Lanka. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Vulnerable; FishBase: Moderate to High Vulnerability (54 of 100). Genus: Dermatolepis Gill, 1861 23. Dermatolepis striolata (Playfair, 1867) Syns: Serranus striolatus Playfair, 1867 Serranus gibbosus Boulenger, 1888 Dermatolepis aldabremis Smith,1955 Popular English Names: Smooth Grouper, Smooth Rock-cod. Vernacular Names: Caalo (Somalia)

Size: 85 cm TL, weight 10.5 kg. Range: 27°N - 30°S, 32°E - 63°E. General Distribution: Gulf of Oman and south coast of Arabian Peninsula, Aldabra, Comoros, Madagascar, and coast of Africa from Kenya to Durban, South Africa. Countries Dealt: Eritrea, Iran, Oman, Somalia, Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Data Deficient; FishBase: High Vulnerability (58 of 100). Genus: Epinephelus Bloch, 1793 24. Epinephelus areolatus (Forsskal, 1775) Syns: Perca areolata Forsskal, 1775 Bodianus melanurus Geoffry Saint Hilaire, 1817 Serranus angularis Valenciennes, 1828 Serranus celebicus Bleeker, 1851 Epinephelus waandersii Bleeker, 1859 Serranus glaucus Day, 1871 Epinephalus craspedurus Jordan & Richardson, 1919. Popular English Names: Aerolate Grouper, Aerolated Rock Cod, Falt-tail Cod, Green-spotted Rock Cod, Reef Cod, Rock Cod, Sea Bass, Spotted Grouper, Square-tail Grouper, Square-tail Rock Cod Vernacular Names: Gatow (Kuwait), Hamoor, Kushar (Saudi Arabia), Hamour, Suman (Oman), Kutwah (Qatar), Sammam (UAE), Shelwa (Jordan), Lokos (Israel), Hontu, Kalava (India), Sumeyn (Somalia), Merou-areole (Djibouti). Size: 47 cm in TL, common length 35 cm TL., females mature at 19-28 SL and males about 34 cm SL cm; depth range 10-20 m. Range: 35°N – 33°S, 29°E – 180°E. General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: Red Sea and the Persian Gulf to Natal, South Africa and east to Fiji, north to Japan, south to the Arafura Sea and northern Australia. Recently recorded from Tonga. Appears to be absent from Micronesia, Polynesia, and most islands of the western Indian Ocean. Countries Dealt: India, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, UAE, Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List, ver. 3.1: Least Concern; FishBase: Moderate Vulnerability (36 of 100).

!� Husain �

��

�

�

Remarks: Often confused with Epinephelus chlorostigma. 25. Epinephelus bleekeri (Vaillant, 1878) Syns: Serranus bleekeri Vaillant, 1878 Serranus coromandelicus Day, 1878 Epinephelus albimaculatus Seale, 1910. Popular English Names: Bleeker’s Grouper, Bleeker’s Rock-cod, Dusky-tail Grouper, Reef Cod, Sea-bass, Grouper. Vernacular Names: Hamoor, Summam (UAE), Hamour (Oman), Lokos (Israel), Hamoor-e-khal-naranji (Iran). Size: 76 cm TL, length at first maturity 42 cm. Range: 32°N - 17°S, 48°E - 136°E. General Distribution: Indo-West Pacific: Persian Gulf to Taiwan, Indonesia and the northern coast of Australia. Not known from Japan, but may occur here. It has not been found at any islands of Micronesia nor Polynesia. Countries Dealt: Bahrain, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel (from ver. names), Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, UAE. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Near Threatened; FishBase: High Vulnerability (60 of 100). 26. Epinephelus bruneus Bloch, 1793 Syn: Serranus moara Temminck & Schlegel, 1842 Popular English Names: Coral Cod, Long-tooth Grouper, Kelp Grouper, Mud Grouper, Reef Cod, Sea Bass, Yellow Grouper. Vernacular Names: Hamour (Oman), Lokos (Israel). Size: 128 cm TL, common 60 cm TL, length at first maturity 54 cm; weight 33 kg. Range: 38°N - 18°N, 108°E - 142°E. General Distribution: Northwest Pacific: Korea, Japan (north to Hegura-jima Island), China (south to Hong Kong and Hainan Island), and Taiwan. Countries Dealt: Oman (first record, Abdessalam, 1995), Israel. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Vulnerable; FishBase: High to very high Vulnerability (73 of 100). 27. Epinephelus chabaudi (Castelnau, 1861) Syns: Serranus Chabaudi Castelnau, 1861 Epinephelus chabaudi (Castelnau, 1861) Epinephelus modestus Gilchrist & Thompson, 1909 Epinephelus clarkei Smith, 1958.

Popular English Names: Moustache Grouper, Moustache Rock-cod, Modest Rock-cod. Vernacular Names: Merou-mousteche (Djibouti), Lokos (Israel). Size: 137 cm TL, common length 70 cm; weight 55 kg. Range: 15°N - 33°S, 23°E - 77°E. General Distribution: Kenya to Knysna, South Africa and Kerala coast of India; however, there are no records between Kenya and Durban, nor between Kenya and India. Countries Dealt: Djibouti, India, Israel (as per ver. names), Somalia. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Not Evaluated; FishBase: Very High Vulnerability (75 of 100). Remarks: Record from Djibouti is doubtful (Bouhel, 1988). 28. Epinephelus chlorostigma (Valenciennes, 1828) Syns: Serranus chlorostigma Valenciennes, 1828 Serranus areolatus japonicus Temminck & Schlegel, 1842 Serranus reevesii Richardson, 1846 Serranus geoffroyi Klunzinger, 1870 Serranus assabensis Giglioli, 1889. Popular English Names: Blue-spot Coral Cod, Brown-spotted Grouper, Brown-spotted Reef Cod, Brown-spotted Rock Cod, Coral Cod, Coral Trout, Reef Cod, Sea Bass, Vernacular Names: Berttamah (Qatar), Hamoor, Kushar (Saudi Arabia), Hamour (Oman), Subati (UAE), Hamoor-e-manghoot-e-ghavahei (Iran), Hekru, Kalava (India), Sumeyn (Somalia), Merau pintade (Djibouti). Size: 75.0 cm TL, common 50.0 cm TL; length at first maturity 23-31 cm; weight 7 kg max age 29 yrs. Range: 37°N – 34°S, 28°E – 169°W. General Distribution: Red Sea to Natal, South Africa and eastwards to western Pacific, north to southern Japan to New Caledonia. Records from Persian Gulf are apparently misidentifications of E. polylepis. Not verified from Comoros, continental shelf between Oman and Cambodia, Taiwan, Philippines, Indonesia and Australia. Countries Dealt: India, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Israel, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, Maldives, Qatar (from ver. names), Somalia, Sudan, UAE (from ver. names).

�Husain �

��

�

�

Conservation Status: IUCN Red List, Least Concern. FishBase, Moderate Vulnerability (38 of 100). Remarks: Epinephelus chlorostigma is closely related and very similar to E. polylepis and E. gabriellae which seem to replace it in northwestern Indian Ocean. 29. Epinephelus coeruleopunctatus (Bloch, 1790) Syns: Holocentrus coeruleopunctatus Bloch, 1790 Serranus alboguttatus Valenciennes, 1828 Serranus dermochirus Valenciennes, 1830 Serranus hoevenii Bleeker, 1849 Serranus kunhardtii Bleeker, 1851 Serranus flavoguttatus Peters, 1855. Popular English Names: White-spotted Grouper, Ocellated Rock-cod, Grouper, Reef Cod, Rock Cod, Sea-bass, Small-spotted Cod, Small-spotted Rock-cod, Snowy Grouper, White-spotted Reef-cod, White-spotted Rock-cod, Vernacular Names: Hamour, Mishkhali, Summan (Oman), Chammam, Fana (India) Kalhu-fana (Maldives), Lokos (Israel), Yaquuri (Somalia). Size: 76 cm TL, length at first maturity 42 cm. Range: 35°N - 35°S, 26°E - 180°E. General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: East Africa south to East London, South Africa and east to Fiji. Recently recorded from Tonga. It is not known from the Red Sea, but it does occur in the Persian Gulf. Record from northwestern Australia is doubtful. It is closely related to, and is often confused with, three other white-spotted species: Epinephelus ongus, Epinephelus summana, and Epinephelus corallicola. Countries Dealt: Bahrain, India (including Lakshdweep Is.), Iran, Iraq, Israel (from ver. names), Kuwait, Maldives, Oman, Qatar, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Saudi Arabia, UAE. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern; FishBase: High Vulnerability (56 of 100). 30. Epinephelus coioides (Hamilton, 1822) Syns: Bola coioides Hamilton, 1822 Serranus nebulosus Valenciennes, 1828 Serranus suillus Valenciennes, 1828 Homalogrystes guntheri Alleyne & Macleay, 1877. Popular English Names: Brown-spotted Grouper, Brown-spotted Rock Cod, Coral Cod,

Coral Trout, Estuary Cod, Estuary Grouper, Estuary Rock-cod, Greasy Cod, Green Grouper, Orange-spotted Cod, Orange-spotted Grouper, Orange-spotted Rock Cod, Reef Cod, Rock Cod, Sea Bass, Spotted Cod, Spotted River Cod, Vernacular Names: Hamoor (UAE), Hamour (Qatar), Hamoor-mamooli (Iran), Lokos (Israel). Size: 120 cm TL, length at first maturity 25-30 cm; weight 15 kg; age 22 yrs. Range: 37°N – 34°S, 28°E – 180°E. General Distribution: Indo-West Pacific: Red Sea south to at least Durban, South Africa and eastward to Palau and Fiji, north to the Ryukyu Islands, south to the Arafura Sea and Australia. Recently reported from the Mediterranean coast of Israel. Frequently misidentified as Epinephelus tauvina or Epinephelus malabaricus. Countries Dealt: Bahrain, Bangladesh, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, India, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, UAE, Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Near Threatened; FishBase: High Vulnerability (58 of 100). 31. Epinephelus corallicola (Valenciennes, 1828) Syns: Serranus corallicola Valenciennes, 1828 Serranus altivelioides Bleeker, 1849. Popular English Names: Black-dotted Cod, Coral Cod, Coral Grouper, Coral Rock-cod, Coral Trout, Dusky Grouper, Grouper, Reef Cod, Sea-bass. Vernacular Names: Goudaru-fana, Poocha-chammam (Lakshdweep Is, India), Lokos (Israel). Size: 49 cm TL, length at first maturity 29 cm. Range: 27°N - 30°S, 100°E - 155°E. General Distribution: Western Pacific: Thailand, Hong Kong, and Taiwan to Australia (Western Australia, Northern Territory, Queensland and New South Wales) and eastward to the Solomon and Mariana Islands, including Indonesia, Singapore, Philippines, Papua New Guinea, and Palau. Adults often misidentified as Epinephelus macrospilos. Country Dealt: India, Israel (as per ver. names). Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Data Deficient; FishBase: Moderate Vulnerability (41 of 100).

�AA� Husain �

��

�

�

32. Epinephelus diacanthus (Valencinnes, 1828) Syns: Serranus diacanthus Valenciennes, 1828 Epinephelus dayi Bleeker, 1874 Popular English Names: Coral Cod, Coral Trout, Grouper, Sea-bass, Six-barred Reef-cod, Spiny-cheek Grouper Vernaculr Names: Hamoor (UAE), Hamour (Oman), Lokos (Israel), Gobra, Hekaru (India), Hamoor-e-panj-navari (Iran). Size: 55 cm TL. Range: 29°N – 5°N, 56°E – 83°E General Distribution: Continental shelf of the northern Indian Ocean from the Gulf of Aden to Sri Lanka and Madras, India. Not known from the Persian Gulf nor the Red Sea. Records from the western Pacific are based on misidentifications of Epinephelus stictus or Epinephelus fasciatomaculos. Countries Dealt: India, Iran Israel (from ver. names), Oman, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, UAE (from ver. nanes), Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Near Threatened; FiahBase: Low Vulnerability (27 of 100). 33. Epinephelus epistictus (Temminck & Schlegel, 1842) Syns: Serranus epistictus Temminck & Schlegel, 1842 Serranus praeopercularis Boulenger, 1888 Epinephelus stigmogrammacus Cheng & Yang, 1983. Popular English Names: Black-spotted Grouper, Black-dotted, Black-spotted Rock Cod, Rock Cod, Brown Rock Cod, Dotted Grouper, Spotted-back Grouper, Broken-line Grouper, Vernacular Names: Hamour (Oman), Gisser, Nambo (Pakistan), Lokos (Israel), Hamoor-e-khat-shekasteh (Iran), Diru, Merou pale (Djibouti). Size: 80 cm TL, common length 70 cm TL; weight 7 kg. Range: 28°N – 32°S, 30°E – 154°E. General Distribution: Indo-West Pacific: Red Sea, Kenya to South Africa; Oman, west coast of India, Korea, Japan including Ogasawara Islands, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, the Arafura Sea and northern Australia. Sometimes misidentified as

Epinephelus magniscuttis or Epinephelus heniochus. Countries Dealt: Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, India, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Data Deficient,; FishBase: High Vulnerability (57 of 100). 34. Epinephelus fasciatus (Forsskal, 1775) Syns: Perca fasciata Forsskal, 1775 Epinephalus marginalis Bloch, 1793 Holocentrus erythraeus Bloch & Schneider, 1801 Holocentrus forskael Lacepede, 1802 H. marginatus Lacepede, 1802 H. oceanicus Lacepede, 1802 H. rosmarus Lacepede, 1802 Serranus variolosus Valenciennes, 1828 Serranus tsirimenaraTemminck & Schlegel, 1842 Perca maculata Forster, 1844 Serranus cruentus De Vis, 1884 S. geomatricus De Vis, 1884 S. subfasciatus De Vis, 1884 Epinephelus zapyrus Seale, 1906 Epinephelus emoryi Schultz, 1953. Popular English Names: Banded Reef-cod, Black-tipped Cod, Black-tipped Grouper, Black-tip Grouper, Black-tipped Rock-cod, Black-tip Grouper, Foot-baller Cod, Golden Grouper, Grouper, Red-banded Grouper, Red-barred Cod, Red-barred Rock-cod, Reef Cod, Rock Cod, Scarlet Rock-cod, Sea-bass, Striped Grouper, Weathered Rock-cod, Vernacular Names: Daghma (Jordan), Hamoor, Kushar (Saudi Arabia), Hamour (Oman), Wakar (Egypt), Akahata, Baskenmutzenbarsch, Merou-oriflamime, Raiy-galhi-faana (Maldives), Lokos (Israel), Chammam, Ryfana, Teda (India), Wayeer (Somalia), Merou-oriflamime (Djibouti). Size: 40 cm TL, common length 22 cm TL, length at first maturity 16 cm; weight 2 kg. Range: 36°N - 34°S, 28°E - 121°W. General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: Red Sea to South Africa and eastward to the Pitcairn Group, north to Japan and Korea, south to the Arafura Sea, southern Queensland (Australia) and Lord Howe Island. Countries Dealt: Bangladesh, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, India (including Lakshdweep Islands),

�A��Husain �

��

�

�

Israel, Jordan, Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern; FishBase: Moderate to High Vulnerability (47 of 100). 35. Epinephelus flavocaeruleus (Lacepede, 1802) Syns: Bodianus macrocephalus Lacepede, 1802 Holocentrus flavocaeruleus Lacepede, 1802 Holocentrus gymnosus Lacepede, 1802 Holocentrus caerulescens Shaw, 1803 Serranus babonicus Quoy & Gaimard, 1824 Perca flavopupurea Bennett, 1830. Popular English Names: Blue-and-yellow Grouper, Blue and yellow Reef-cod, Yellow-finned Grouper, Yellow-fin Grouper, Yellow-tail Reef-cod. Vernacular Names: Lokos (Israel), Caalo (Somalia), Chammam, Manja-kalava, Mungil-cullawah (India), Munjil-cullawah (Sri Lanka), Merou-faraud (Djibouti), Caalo (Somalia). Size: 90 cm TL, common length 45 cm, length at first maturity 49 cm; weight 15 kg. Range: 19°N - 36°S, 23°E - 98°E. General Distribution: Gulf of Aden south to Port Alfred, South Africa and east to the northwest tip of Sumatra, Indonesia. Also found in the islands of western Indian Ocean, including Cargados Carajos and Rodriguez. Not known from the Red Sea and Persian Gulf. Countries Dealt: Djibouti, India (including Lakshdweep Islands), Israel (from ver. names), Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern; FishBase: High Vulnerability (58 of 100). 36. Epinephalus fuscoguttatus (Forsskal, 1775) Syns: Perca summana fuscoguttatus Forsskal, 1775 Serranus horridus Valenciennes, 1828 Serranus taeniocheirus Valenciennes, 1830 Serranus lutra Valenciennes, 1832. Popular English Names: Brown-marbled Grouper, Black Rock-cod, Black-spotted Grouper, Black-tipped Cod, Blotch Grouper, Blotchy Grouper, Blotchy Rock-cod, Carpet Cod, Flower Cod, Flowery Cod, Flowery Rock-cod, Tiger Grouper. Vernacular Names: Fana, Chammam (Lakshdweep Is., India), Hamour (Oman),

Hamoor, Kushar (Saudi Arabia), Lokos (Israel), Caalo (Somalia) Size: 120 cm TL, common length and range at first maturity 50 TL; weight 11 kg; age 40 yrs. Range: 35°N - 27°S, 39°E - 171°W. General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: Red Sea and East Africa to Samoa and the Phoenix Islands, north to Japan, south to Australia. Unknown from the Persian Gulf, Hawaii, and French Polynesia. Often confused with Epinephelus polyphekadion Bleeker, 1849 (Syn: Epinephelus microdon (Bleeker, 1856)). Countries Dealt: India, Bangladesh, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Israel, Jordan, Maldives, Oman (from ver. names), Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Near Threatened; FishBase: Moderate to High Vulnerability (50 of 100). 37. Epinephelus gabriellae Randall & Heemstra, 1991 Popular English Names: Multi-spotted Grouper, Gabreilla’s Grouper. Vernacular Name: Lokos (Israel). Size: 52 cm TL. Range: 20°N - 11°N, 51°E - 59°E. General Distribution: Somalia to Oman. Countries Dealt: Israel (from ver. names), Oman, Somalia Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Vulnerable; FishBase: Moderate Vulnerability (42 of 100). 38. Epinephelus hexagonatus (Forster, 1801) Syns: Holocentrus hexagonatus Forster, 1801 Serranus parkinsonii Valenciennes, 1828 Serranus stelllans Richardson, 1842. Popular English Names: Star-spotted Grouper, Hexagon Grouper, Hexagon Rock-cod, Honey-comb Reef-cod, Sharp-spotted Grouper, White-specked Rock-cod, White-speckled Grouper, Wire-net Rock-cod, Wire-netting Rock-cod. Vernacular Names: Sikkisikki-fana, Pulli-chammam (India; Lakshdweep Is.), Lokos (Israel). Size: 27.5 TL, length at first maturity 19 cm. Range: 33°N - 31°S, 141°E - 128°E. General Distribution: Indo-West Pacific: none have been taken on the African coast, except for the specimen recorded by Randall and Heemstra 1991 from Kenyan coast north of Kilifi Creek. It is an insular species found in most tropical Indo-

�A?� Husain �

��

�

�

Pacific islands. Absent in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf. Countries Dealt: India, Israel (as per ver. names), Sri Lanka. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern; FishBase: Low Vulnerability (17 of 100). 39. Epinephelus indistinctus Randall & Heemstra, 1991 Popular English Name: Somali Grouper. Vernacular Name: Lokos (Israel). Size: 80 cm TL. Range: 10°N - 6°N, 50°E - 54°E. General Distribution: Somalia (known only from the holotype caught off Somalia). Countries Dealt: Israel (from ver. names), Oman, Somalia,Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Data Deficient; FishBase: High Vulnerability (57 of 100). 40. Epinephelus lanceolatus (Bloch, 1790) Syns: Batracus gigas Gunther, 1869 Oligorus goliath De Vis, 1882 Serranus phaeostigmaeus Fowler, 1907 Steriolepoides thompsoni Fowler, 1923. Popular English Names: Banded Rock-cod, Bridle-bass, Brindle-bass, Brindle Grouper, Coral Cod, Dragon Grouper, Giant Grouper, Groper, Grouper, Mottled-brown Sea-bass, Queensland Grouper, Queensland Groper, Reef-cod, Sea-bass, Vernacular Names: Hamour (Oman), Bontoo, Gobra, Hekaru, Kalava, Kolaji, Kolayi, Kolamin, Krruupu, Pilli-punni, Punni-mim, Varaya-kalawa, Wekhali, Wekhru, Wulta-callawah, (India), Lokos (Israel), Komari-kaleva, Wutla-callawah (Sri Lanka), Merou lenceole (Djibouti) Size: 270 cm TL, common length 190 TL, length at first maturity 129; weight 400 kg. It is the largest of all coral reef dwelling bony fishes. Range: 29°N - 39°S, 24°E - 122°W. General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: Red Sea to Algoa Bay, South Africa and eastward to the Hawaiian and Pitcairn islands, north to southern Japan, south to Australia. Absence in the Persian Gulf is puzzling. Countries Dealt: Djibouti, Eritrea, India, Israel (from ver. names), Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Yemen.

Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Vulnerable; FishBase: Very High Vulerability (85 of 100). 41. Epinephelus latifasciatus (Temminck & Schlegel, 1842) Syns: Serranus grammmicus Day 1868 Priacanthichthys maderaspatensis Day, 1868 Popular English Names: Banded Grouper, Coral Cod, Laterally-banded Grouper, Sea-bass, Sea-perch, Spot-fin Rock Cod, Spotty-fined Roc Cod, Striped Grouper Vernacular Names: Al-Hamour-al-mukhatat, Hamour (Oman), Hamoor, Kushar (Saudi Arabia), Lokos (Israel), Hamoor-e-khaki (Iran), Burtam (Kuwait), Merou-a-bandes (Djibouti). Size: 137 SL, 150 cm TL, common length 70 cm TL, length at first maturity 86 cm; weight 58.6 kg Range: 33°N - 23°S, 35°W - 143°E General Distribution: Indo-West Pacific: Red Sea, Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Pakistan, India, Viet Nam, Hong Kong, China, Korea, southern Japan, Taiwan, and northwest Australia. Unknown from the east coast of Africa, islands of the Indian Ocean, Indonesia, Philippines, or New Guinea. Countries Dealt: Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, India, Iran, Israel (from ver. names), Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, UAE. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Data Deficient; FishBase: Moderate to High Vulnerability (47 of 100). 42. Epinephelus longispinis (Kner, 1864) Syns: Serranus longipinis Kner, 1864 Epinephelus fario (Thunberg, 1793) (ambiguous synonym). Popular English Names: Long-spine Grouper, Long-spine Rock-cod, Spotted Grouper, Streaky-spotRock-cod, Vernacular Names: Hamour (Oman), Fulli-chammam, Gobra, Hekru, Wekhali, Wekhru (India), Lokos (Israel). Size: 55 cm TL; weight 2.7 kg. Range: 17°N - 33°S, 29°E - 137°E. General Distribution: Indo-West Pacific: Kenya to South Africa (32°S) and east to the Watubela Group of the eastern Banda Sea. Not known from the Red Sea nor Persian Gulf.

�A@�Husain �

��

�

�

Countries Dealt: India, Israel (from ver. names), Maldives, Oman (Fouda & Hermosa, 1993), Pakistan, Sri Lanka. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern; FishBase: Moderate Vulnerability (44 of 100). 43. Epinephelus maculatus (Bloch, 1790) Syns: Holocentrus maculates Bloch, 1790 Holocentrus albo-fuscus Lacepede, 1802 Serranus seabae Bleeker, 1854 Plectropoma kulas Thiolliere, 1856 Serranus medurensis Gunther, 1873. Popular English Names: High-fin Grouper, Black-fin Cod, Blotch’s Roc-cod, Brown-spotted Rock-cod, Marbled Rock-cod, Rock Cod, Spotted Grouper, Spotted Rock-cod, Spotty Cod, Trout Cod. Vernacular Names: Bontoo, Gobra, Hekaru, Kalava, Kolamin, Pulli-kalava (India). Size: 60.5 cm TL, length at first maturity 35 cm. Range: 29°N - 34°S, 96°E - 170°W. General Distribution: Pacific Ocean: Cocos-Keeling Islands to Samoa, north to southern Japan, south to southeastern Australia and Lord Howe Island. Country Dealt: India. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern; FishBase: Moderate Vulnerability (37 of 100). 44. Epinephelus malabaricus (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) Syns: Holocentrus malabaricus Bloch & Schneider, 1801 Holocentrus salmoides Lacepede, 1802 Serranus crapao Cuvier 1829 Serranus polypodophilus Bleeker, 1849 Serranus estuaries Macleay, 1883 Epinephelus cylindricus Postel, 1965. Popular English Names: Black-spot Cod, Black-spotted Rock-cod, Brown-spotted Grouper, Estuary Cod, Estuary Rock-cod, Giant Rock-cod, Greasy Grouper, Grouper, Malabar Cod, Malabar Grouper, Malabar Reef-cod, Malabar Rock-cod, Morgan’s Cod, Peckeled Grouper, Vernacular Names: Hamour (Oman), Bontoo, Gobra, Hekaru, Hekru, Kalava, Punni-calawah, Wekhali, Wekhru (India), Lokos (Israel), Hamoor-e-Malabari (Iran), Gal-bola, Gal-kossa, Gas-bola, Kalava, Punni-calawah (Sri Lanka), Merou malabre (Djibouti), Yaquuri (Somalia).

Size: 234 cm TL, common length 100 cm TL, length at maturity 114 cm; weight 150 kg. Range: 30°N - 32°S, 29°E - 173°W. General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: Red Sea and East Africa to Tonga, north to Japan, south to Australia. It is not known from the Persian Gulf, where the closely related Epinephelus coioides is common. Countries Dealt: Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, India, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Near Threatened; FishBase: Very High Vunerability (85 of 100). 45. Epinephelus marginatus (Lowe, 1834) Syns: Serranus marginatus Lowe, 1838 S. fimbriatus Lowe 1838 Epinephelus brachysoma Cope, 1871 Serranus aspersus Jenyns, 1840. Epinephelus gauza (Jordan & Evermann, 1896) Popular English Names: Dusky Groiper, Dusky Perch, Dusky Sea Perch, Sea-bass, Yellow-belly Grouper, Yellow-belly Rock-cod. Vernacular Names: Wakar (Egypt), Lokos (Israel). Size: 150 cm TL; weight 60 kg; age 50 yrs. Range: 54°N - 43°S, 65°W - 58°E. General Distribution: Eastern Atlantic and Western Indian Ocean: throughout the Mediterranean Sea and from the British Isles round to the southern tip of Africa to southern Mozambique and Madagascar. Southwest Atlantic: southeastern Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina. Countries Dealt: Egypt, India (Vizagapatanam), Israel, Oman, Sudan. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Endangered; FishBase: High to Very High Vulnrability (72 of 100). 46. Epinephelus melanostigma Schlutz, 1953 Popular English Names: One-blotch Grouper, Black-spot Grouper, Black-spot Honey-comb Grouper, Coral Cod, Schlutz’s Rock-cod. Vernacular Names: Sikksikki-fana, Fulli-chammam (Lakshdweep Is., India), Lokos (Israel). Size: 35 cm TL, common length 25 cm TL Range: 29°N - 34°S, 28°E - 157°W. General Distribution: Indo-West Pacific: Natal, South Africa to the central Pacific. Not known

�AB� Husain �

��

�

�

from the Red Sea nor Persian Gulf. Countries Dealt: India, Israel (as per ver. names). Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Data Deficient; FishBase: Low to Moderate Vulnerability (34 of 100). 47. Epinephalus merra Bloch, 1793 Popular English Names: Honey-comb Grouper, Bird-wire Rock-cod, Black-spotted Rock-cod, Common Bird-wire Rock-cod, Coral Cod, Dwarf-spotted Grouper, Dwarf-spotted Rock-cod, Dwarf-spotter Grouper, Honey-comb Cod, Honey-comb Grouper, Honey-comb Rock-cod, Reef Cod, Wire-netted Reef-cod, Wire-netting Cod, Wire-netting Rock-cod. Vernacular Names: Bontoo, Pulli-cullawah, Sikkisikki-fana (India), Fulli-chammam (Lakshdweep Is., India), Hamoor, Kushar (Saudi Arabia), Lokos (Israel), Pulli-kossa, Pulli-cullawah (Sri Lanka). Size: 31 cm TL, length at first maturity 19 cm. Range: 35°N - 35°S, 28°E - 129°W. General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: South Africa to French Polynesia. Not known from the Red Sea, Persian Gulf, nor Asian mainland. Countries Dealt: India, Israel (in ver. names), Maldives, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia (in ver. names), Sri Lanka. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern; FishBase: Low Vulnerability (23 of 100). 48. Epinephelus morrhua (Velenciennes, 1833) Syns: Serranus morrhua Valenciennes, 1833 Epinephelus cometae Tanaka, 1927. Popular English Names: Comet Grouper, Comet Cod, Bandedcheek Reef-cod, Blue Grouper, Contour Rock-cod, Coral Cod, Curve-banded Grouper, Grouper, Reef Cod, Rock- Cod, Sea-bass. Vernacular Names: Daghma (Jordan), Hamour (Oman), Merou-cmete (Djibouti), Lokos (Israel), Kallu-kaleva (Sri Lanka), Sumyen (Somalia), Laggan-fana (Lakshdweep Is., India). Size: 90 cm, common length 60 cm; weight 7 kg. Range: 31°N - 33°S, 30°E - 158°W. General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: Red Sea and East Africa to the central Pacific. Epinephelus poecilonotus, Epinephelus radiatus, and Epinephelus tuamotoensis are sometimes referred to as this species.

Countries Dealt: Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, India, Israel, Jordan, Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern; FishBase: Moderate Vulnerability (43 of 100). 49. Epinephelus multinotatus (Peters, 1876) Syns: Serranus multinotatus Peters, 1876 Serranus jayakari Boulenger, 1889; Epinephelus jayakari (Boulenger, 1889), Epinephelus rakini Whitley, 1945 Epinephelus leprosus Smith, 1955. Popular English Names: Brown Rock Cod, Rankin Cod, Rankin’s Cod, Rankin’s Rock Cod, White-blotched Grouper. Vernacular Names: Hamour (Oman), Lokos (Israel), Vieilli-plate-grise (Djibouti). Size: 100 cm TL, common length 75 cm TL, length on first maturity 41-50 cm; Weight 9 kg. Range: 30°N - 32°S, 34°E - 130°E. General Distribution: Persian Gulf to southern Mozambique and eastward to Western Australia. Not known from the Red Sea. Countries Dealt: Bahrain, Djibouti, Iran, Iraq, Israel (from ver. names), Kuwait, Maldives, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, UAE,Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern. FishBase: Moderate Vulnerabilty (39 of 100). 50. Epinephelus poecilonotus (Temminck & Schlegel, 1842) Syn: Serranus poecilonotus Temminck & Echlegel, 1842 Popular English Names: Dot-dash Grouper, Dot-dash Rock-cod, Grouper. Vernacular Names: Lokos (Israel), Sumeyn (Somalia), Size: 65 cm TL; weight 4 kg. Range: 39°N - 35°S, 23°E - 179°W. General Distribution: Indo-West Pacific: east coast of Africa to Japan, Korea, South China Sea, Viet Nam, and Fiji. Unknown from the Red Sea and Persian Gulf. Countries Dealt: India, Israel (from ver. names), Maldives, Oman, Somalia, Sri Lanka. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern; FishBase: Moderate to High Vulnerability (52 of 100). 51. Epinephelus polylepis Randall & Heemstra 1991

�AC�Husain �

��

�

�

Popular English Names: Small-scaled Grouper, Small-scale Grouper. Vernacular Name: Lokos (Israel). Size: 61.0 cm TL, 54.7 cm (female), weight 2.1 kg. Range: 33°N - 8°N, 44°E - 77°E General Distribution: Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman, Persian Gulf, Pakistan, and west coast of India. Since it has only recently been discovered, it may be expected to have a wider distribution. Countries Dealt: Bahrain, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel (from ver. names), Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, UAE, Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Near Threatened; FishBase: Moderate to High Vulnerability (46 of 100). 52. Ephinephelus polyphekadion (Bleeker, 1849) Syns: Serranus polyphekadion Bleeker, 1849 Serranus goldmanni Bleeker, 1855 Serranus microdon Bleeker, 1856. Popular English Names: Blue-tailed Cod, Camouflage Grouper, Camouflage Rock-cod, Flowery Grouper, Grouper, Marble Grouper, Marbled Cod, Marbled Grouper, Rock Cod, Small-toothed Cod, Small-toothed Rock-cod, Small-toother Cod, Small-tooth Grouper, Smooth Flowery Rock-cod, Snout-spot Grouper, Snout-spot Rock-cod, Snout-spots Rock-cod. Vernacular Names: Merou camouflage (Djibouti), Lokos (Israel), Kula-faana, Madarahata, Mearou camouflage (Maldives). Size: 90 cm TL, length at first maturity 58 cm TL. Range: 30°N - 34°S, 27°E - 134°W. General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: Red Sea and east coast of Africa to French Polynesia. In the western Pacific it ranges from southern Japan to southern Queensland and Lord Howe Island. Often confused with Epinephelus fuscoguttatus. Countries Dealt: Djibouti, Egypt, India, Israel, Jordan, Maldives, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Near Threatened; FishBase: High to Very High Vulnerability (66 of 100). 53. Epinephelus quoyanus (Valenciennes, 1830) Syns: Serranus quoyanus Valenciennes, 1830 Serranus gilberti Richardson, 1842 Serranus megachir Richardson, 1846

Epinephelus megachir (Richardson, 1846) Serranus paradilis Bleeker, 1848 Perca melanocelidota Gronow, 1854 Serranus alatus Alleynye & Macleay, 1877 Serranus carinatus Alleynye & Macleay, 1877. Popular English Names: Long-fin Grouper Vernacular Names: Lokos (Israel), Bontoo, Pulli-cullawah (India). Size: 40 cm TL, length at first maturity 18 cm. Range: 35°N - 32°S, 110°E - 156°E. General Distribution: Western Pacific: Japan to Australia. Unknown from the Indian Ocean except for the Andaman Islands record (as Serranus merra). Unreported from islands of Micronesia, Melanesia and central Pacific. Often misidentified as Epinephelus macrospilos or Epinephelus hexagonatus. Countries Dealt: India, Israel (as under ver. names). Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern; FishBase: Moderate Vulnerability (36 of 100). 54. Epinephelus radiatus (Day, 1868) Syns: Serranus radiatus Day, 1868 Epinephelus doederleinii Franz, 1910. Popular English Names: Oblique-banded Grouper, Oblique-banded Rock Cod, Vernacular Names: Hamour (Oman), Daghma (Jordan), Lokos (Israel), Manjel-kaleva, Raja-laveya (Sri Lanka) Size: 70 cm SL. Range: 36°N - 24°S, 36°E - 155°E. General Distribution: Indo-West Pacific: spotty distribution from the Red Sea to Japan and Papua New Guinea. Referred to as Epinephelus morrhua morrhua in Japan. Countries Dealt: Djibouti, Eritrea, India, Israel, Jordan, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern; FishBase: High Vulnerability (61 of 100). 55. Epinephelus retouti Bleeker, 1868 Syns: Epinephelus truncatus Katayama, 1957 Epinephelus retouti mauritianus Baissac, 1962 Epinephelus mauritianus Baissac, 1962. Popular English Names: Red-tipped Grouper, Red-tipped Rock-cod, Red-tip Grouper, Rock Cod. Vernacular Name: Lokos (Israel).

�A�� Husain �

��

�

�

Size: 50 cm TL, common length 30 cm TL; weight 2 kg. Range: 36°N - 27°S, 37°E - 143°W. General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: islands in tropical and subtropical waters from the western Indian Ocean to Jarvis Island (Line Islands, Kiribati) and French Polynesia, including Bassas da India (Mozambique Channel). Country Dealt: Israel (from ver. names), Maldives, Oman. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Data Deficient; FishBase: Moderate Vulnerability (41 of 100). 56. Epinephelus stoliczkae (Day, 1875) Syn: Serranus stoliczkae Day, 1875 Popular English Name: Epaulet Grouper Venacular Names: Hamour (Oman), Hamoor-khor (UAE), Lokos (Israel), Hamoor-e-lakkeh-zeytooni-e-manghoot (Iran). Size: 38 cm TL, common length 35 cm TL. Range: 29°N - 10°N, 32°E - 68°E. General Distribution: Red Sea (including Gulf of Suez) and northwestern Indian Ocean to the coast of Pakistan. Specimens examined include those from the Gulf of Oman. Not reported from the Gulf of Aqaba nor from Persian Gulf. Countries Dealt: Egypt, India, Iran, Israel (from ver. names), Oman, Pakistan (Talwar & Kacker, 19984), Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, UAE (from ver. names), Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Data Deficient; FishBase: Moderate Vulnerability (35 of 100). 57. Epinephelus summana (Forsskal, 1775) Syns: Perca summana Forsskal 1775 Serranus leucostigma Valenciennes, 1828 Popular English Names: Summan Grouper, Suman Grouper. Vernacular Names: Aqshar (Jordan), Hamoor, Kushar (Saudi Arabia), Hamour (Oman), Merou summan (Djibouti), Lokos (Israel). Size: 52 cm TL, common length 40 cm. Range: 31°N - 9°N, 32°E - 46°E. General Distribution: Known only from the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. Countries Dealt: Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, India, Israel, Jordan, Oman (from ver. names), Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Data Deficient; FishBase: Moderate Vulnerability (42 of 100).

58. Epinephelus tukula Morgans, 1959 Syn: Serranus dispara var. a Playfair, 1867 Popular English Names: Potato Grouper, Grouper, Potato Bass, Potato Cod, Potato Rock-cod, Grouper. Vernacular Names: Hamour (Oman); Lokos (Israel), Sumeyn (Somalia). Size: 200 cm TL, length at first maturity 99 cm; weight 110 kg. Range: 35°N - 32°S, 29°E - 150°E. General Distribution: Indo-West Pacific: Red Sea and East Africa to southern Japan and Queensland, Australia. Also from the Paracel Islands in the South China Sea. No records from Madagascar, Mauritius, Maldives, Laccadives, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Philippines. Countries Dealt: Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, India, Israel, Jordan, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern; FishBase: Very High Vulnerability (83 of 100). 59. Epinephelus tauvina (Forsskal, 1775) Syns: Perca tauvina Forsskal, 1775 Holocentrus pantherinus Lacepede, 1802 Serranus goldiei Mackleay, 1882 Epinephelus elongates Schultz, 1953 Epinephelus chewa Morgans, 1966. Popular English Names: Arabian Grouper, Cod, Estuary Rock-cod, Greasy Grouper, Greasy Cod, Greacy Reef-cod, Greasy Rock Cod, Green Grouper, Grouper, Giant Grouper, Malabar Grouper, Orange-spotted Grouper, Reef Cod, Sea-bass, Speckled Rock Cod, Spotted Grouper, Vernacular Names: Hamour, Suman (Oman), Hamoor (Kuwait), Aqshar (Jordan), Kushar tooweena (Saudi Arabia), Lokos (Israel), Bontoo, Chammam, Gaudarufana, Gobra, Hekaru, Hekru, Pani-kalawa, Poochachammam, Punni-calawah, Punni-kalava, Salai, Wekhali, Wekhru (India), Farey (Somalia), Pulli-kossa, Punni-callawah (Sri Lanka), Merou-loutre (Djibouti). Size: 75 cm TL, common length 90 cm, length at first maturity: 61.10 cm. Range: 30°N - 32°S, 29°E - 123°W. Distribution: Indo-Pacific: Red Sea to South Africa and eastward to Ducie in the Pitcairn Group, north to Japan, south to New South Wales and Lord Howe Island. Migration report from the eastern Mediterraneam Sea.

�A��Husain �

��

�

�

Countries Dealt: Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, India, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait (from ver. names), Maldives, Oman (from ver. names), Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan,Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Data Deficient; FishBase: High Vulnerability (58 of 100). Remarks: Differs from Epinepheles corallicola and E. howlandi by its elongate body and closer-set spots. 60. Epinephelus undulosus (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824) Syns: Bodianus undulosus Quoy & Gaimard, 1824 Serranus lineatus Valenciennes, 1828 Serranus emboinensis Bleeker, 1852 Popular English Names: Wavy-lined Grouper, Brown-lined Reef-cod, Brown-lined Rck-cod, Coral Cod, Grouper, Mid-water Grouper, Mid-water Rock-cod, Rock Cod, Sea-bass. Vernacular Names: Hamour (Oman), Lokos (Israel), Bontoo, Gobra, Hekaru, Kolayi, Kolamin, Kurrupu, Pili-punni, Punni-min (India), Sumeyn (Somalia), Lawaya, Thambeleya, Thambuwa (Sri Lanka), Merou-ondule (Djibouti). Size: 75 cm TL, common lemgth 45 cm TL, length at first maturity 41 cm; weight 6.4 kg. Range: 27°N - 13°S, 39°E - 158°E. General Distribution: Indo-West Pacific: Gulf of Oman to Kenya, including Laccadive Islands, India, Sri Lanka, and the Andaman Islands. Not reported in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf. Known also from Indonesia, Sarawak of Malaysia, New Guinea, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and the Philippines. Countries Dealt: Djibouti, India, Israel (from ver. names), Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Data Deficient; FishBase: High Vulnerability (59 of 100). Genus: Hyporthodus Gill, 1861 61. Hyporthodus octofasciatus (Griffin, 1926) Syns: Epinephelus octofasciatus Griffin, 1926 Epinephelus compressus Postel, Fourmanoir & Gueze, 1963 Popular English Names: Eight-bar Grouper, Bar Cod, Convict Cod, Convict Grouper, Convict Rock-cod, Grey-banded Cod, Grouper, Rock Cod.

Vernacular Name: Lokos (Israel). Size: 130 cm TL; weight 80 kg. Range: 44°N - 39°S, 29°E - 136°W. General Distribution: Indo-West Pacific: Somalia and South Africa to Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Except for Japan, China, and Korea, most distribution records for Epinephelus septemfasciatus are probably based on this species. Reported as Epinephelus compressus by Postel et al. Countries Dealt: India, Israel (from ver. names), Somalia, Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Data Deficient; FishBase: High to Very High Vulnerability (75 of 100). Genus: Plectropomus Oken, 1817 62. Plectropomus maculatus (Bloch, 1790) Syn: Bodianus maculates Bloch, 1790 Popular English Names: Spotted Coral-grouper, Bar-cheeked Trout, Bar-cheek Coral-trout, Barred-cheek Coral-trout, Coastal Trout, Coral Cod, Coral Trout, Grouper, Island Coral-trout, Island Trout, Leopard Cod, Leopard Trout, Leopard Fiash, Red Emperor, Spotted Coral-trout, Spotted Coral-grouper. Vernacular Names: Hamour (Oman), Gorang (India). Size: 100 cm SL; weight 25 kg. Range: 21°N - 28°S, 117°E - 159°E. General Distribution: Western Pacific: Thailand, Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, the Arafura Sea, Solomon Islands, and Australia (from Houtman Abrolhos in Western Australia to Gladstone, Queensland). This species was formerly listed as occurring in the western Indian Ocean based on a misidentification of Plectropomus pessuliferus. Countries Dealt: India, Oman (from ver. names), Sri Lanka. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern; FishBase: Moderate to High Vulnerability (51 of 100). 63. Plectropomus areolatus Ruppell, 1830 Syns: Plectropomus areolatum Ruppell, 1830 Plectropomus truncatus Fowler and Bean, 1930. Popular English Names: Polka-dot Cod, Spotted Coral Trout, Square-tail Coral-grouper, Square-tail Coral Trout, Square-tail Coral Trout, Square-tail Grouper, Square-tail Leopard-grouper. Vernacular Name: Nagil (Saudi Arabia)

�A!� Husain �

��

�

�

Size: 73 cm TL, length at first maturity 41 cm. Range: 31°N - 25°S, 32°E - 169°W. General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: Red Sea to the Phoenix Islands and Samoa, north to Ryukyu Islands, south to Australia. Countries Dealt: Djibouti, Egypt, India, Israel, Jordan, Maldives, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN red List: Vulnerable; FishBase: High Vulnerability (56 of 100). 64. Plectropomus punctatus (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824) Syns: Plectropoma punctatum Quoy & Gaimard, 1824 Plectropoma maculatum var. E Playfair & Gunther, 1867 Plectropoma maculatum var. G Playfair, 1867 Plectropomus marmoratus Talbot, 1959. Popular English Names: Marbled Coral-grouper, Marbled Leopard Grouper. Vernacular Name: Hamour (Oman). Size: 96 cm TL, weight 12.2 kg. Range: 3°S - 31°S, 30°E - 75°E. General Distribution: Kenya to South Africa, Comoros, Madagascar, Aldabra, Seychelles, Mauritius, St. Brandon's Shoals, Nazareth Bank, and the Chagos Archipelago. Unknown from the Red Sea, Persian Gulf, and the Asian coast from Arabia to India. Countries Dealt: Oman, Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Data Deficient; FishBase: High Vulnerability (60 of 100). Genus: Variola Swainson, 1839 65. Variola louti (Forsskal, 1775) Syns: Perca louti Forsskal, 1775 Labrus punctulatus Lacepede, 1801 Serranus luti Valenciennes, 1828 Serranus flavimarginatus Ruppell, 1830 Serranus longipinna Swainson, 1839 Variola longipinna Swainson, 1839 Serranus cernipedis Miranda Ribeiro, 1913. Popular English Names: Yellow-edged Lyre-tail, Common Lyre-tail Cod, Lyre-tail Cod, Lyre-tail Coral Trout, Lyre-tail Grouper, Coronation Grouper, Coronation Trout, Fairy Cod, Grouper, Luna-tail, Lunar-tail Cod, Lunar-tailed Cod, Lunar-tailed Coral Trout, Lunar-tailed Rock-cod, Moon-tail Sea-bass, Yellow-edged Lunar-tail,

Yellow-edged Lyre-tail, Yellow-edge Coronation Trout, Vernacular Names: Boosia (Jordan), Louti, Rishal (Saudi Arabia), Chencheera-chammam, Kanduryhou, Kathiavalan, Kathiavalu (India), Kandu-haa (Maldives),Gudduudow-caydheere (Somalia), Croissant-queue-jaune (Djiboiti). Size: 83 cm TL, common length 75 cm TL, length at first maturity 41 cm; weight 12 kg. Range: 30°N - 37°S, 30°E - 23°W. General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: Red Sea to South Africa and the Pitcairn Islands, north to southern Japan, south to New South Wales, Australia. Not found in the Persian Gulf nor in Hawaii. Countries Dealt: Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, India (including Lakshdweep Islands), Jordan, Maldives, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least Concern; FishBase: Moderate to High Vulnerability (49 of 100). Subfamily: Grammistinae Genus: Aporops Schlutz, 1943 66. Aporops bilinearis Schlutz, 1943 Syns: Aporops allfreei Smith, 1953 Alprops japonicus Kamohara, 1957. Popular English Names: Blotched Podge, Pore-less Podge, Two-lined Soap-fish. Vernacular Names: NA. Size: 9.9 cm SL. Range: NA. General Distribution: Indo-Pacific and Western Central Pacific. Country Dealt: India, Maldives, Sri Lanka. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Not Evaluated; FishBase: Low Vulnerabilty (17 of 100). Genus: Diploprion Cuvier, 1828 67. Diloprion bifasciatum Cuvier, 1828 Popular English Names: Barred Soap-fish, Two-banded Grouper, Two-band Sea-perch, Two-banded Sea-perch, Two-banded Perch, Two-banded Soap-fish, Yellow Emperor, Yellow-striped Grouper. Vernacular Name: Anoova-meen (India, Sri Lanka). Size: 25 cm TL, length at first maturity 16 cm. Range: NA.

�A �Husain �

��

�

�

General Distribution: Indo-West Pacific: Maldives and India to Papua New Guinea, north to southern Japan, south to Lord Howe Island. Country Dealt: India, Maldives, Sri Lanka. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Not Evaluated; FishBase: Low to Moderate Vulnerability (29 of 100). Genus Grammistes Schneider, 1801 68. Grammistes sexlineatus (Thunberg, 1792) Syns: Perca sexlineata Thunberg, 1792 Grammisted orientalis Bloch & Schneider, 1801 Scianea vittata Lacepede, 1802 Popular English Names: Golden-striped Soap-fish, Sex-line Soap-fish, Black and white Striped Soap-fish, Golden-striped Bass, Grouper, Lined Soap-fish, Radio Fish, Six-lined Perch, Six-line Soap-fish, Skunk Fish, Soap Fish, White-lined Rock-cod, Yellow-striped Soap-fish, Vernacular Name: Kotha (India), Size: 30 cm TL. General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: Red Sea to the Marquesan and Mangaréva islands, north to southern Japan, south to New Zealand. Range: 32°N - 23°S. Countries Dealts: India, Maldives, Oman, Somalia, Sri Lanka. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Not Evaluated; FishBase: Low to Moderate Vulnerability (32 of 100). Genus: Pogonoperca Gunther, 1859 69. Pogonoperca punctata (Valenciennes, 1830) Syns: Grammistes puntatus Valenciennes, 1830 Pogonoperca reticulata Bliss 1883 Popular English Names: Soap Fish, Spotted Soap-fish. Vernacular Names: NA. Size: 35 cm TL. Range: 32°N - 23°S. General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: Comoros to Line, Marquesan and Society islands, north to southern Japan, south to New Caledonia. Recently found in southern Natal, South Africa. Countries Dealt: India, Yemen. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Not Evaluated; FishBase: Low to moderate Vulnerability (34 of 100). Genus: Pseudogramma Bleeker, 1875 70. Pseudogramma polyacantha (Bleeker, 1856) Syns: Pseudochromis polyacanthus Bleeker, 1856

Gnathipops samoensis Fowler & Silvester, 1922 Rhegma brederi Hilderbrand, 1940 Pseudorhegma diagramma Schultz, 1966. Popular English Names: Honey-comb Podge, Bold-spot Soap-fish, False Gramma, One-spot Dotty-back, Pale-spotted Podge. Vernacular Names: NA. Size: 8.6 cm SL. Range: 32°N - 32°S. General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: East Africa to the Line, Marquesan, and Ducie islands, north to southern Japan and the Hawaiian Islands, south to Lord Howe Island; throughout Micronesia. Countries Dealt: India, Jordan, Maldives, Sri Lanka. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Not Evaluated; FishBase: Low Vulnerability (15 of 100). Subfamily Serraninae Genus: Chelidoperca Boulenger 1895 71. Chelidoperca investigatoris (Alcock, 1890) Syn: Centropristis investigatoris Alcock, 1890 Popular English Names: AN. Vernacular Names: NA. Size: NA. Range: NA. General Distribution: Off Madras coast, India. Country Dealt: India. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Not Evaluated: FishBase: Low to Moderate Vulnerability (25 of 100). Genus Serranus Cuvier, 1816 72. Serranus cabrilla (Linaeaus, 1758) Syns: Perca cabrilla Linnaeus, 1758 Serranus knysanaesis Gilchrist, 1904. Popular English Names: Comber, Gaper, Garrupa, Learned Rock-fish. Vernacular Names: Korfossa, Korfussa (Egypt), Okonus-matzui (Israel). Size: 40 cm SL, common length 25 cm TL, length at first maturity 17.5 cm. Range: 57°N - 35°S, 32°W - 36°E. General Distribution: Eastern Atlantic: English Channel southward round the Cape of Good Hope to Natal, South Africa, including Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands. Also in the Mediterranean and western Black Sea and possibly in the Red Sea. Countries Dealt: Egypt, Israel, Sudan.

��A� Husain �

��

�

�

Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Not Evaluated; FishBase: Moderate Vulnerability (36 of 100). CONCLUSION

During the present study, the occurrence of 72 species belonging to 19 genera, 4 subfamilies under family Serranidae, as per earlier records, are listed country wise and it was found that the main Arabian Sea (India including Lakshadweep Islands; Maldives; Sri Lanka and Pakistan 61 spp., Oman 43 spp., Somalia, 37 spp. and Yemen with 36 spp.) is more rich in species diversity than in its extensions i.e. the Gulf of Oman, the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea (including Gulf of Aqaba and Gulf of Suez), it is probably due to being more open and wide in area. The rich diversity of Israel (39) may be due to its northern part open to the Mediterranean Sea. Iraq is having the least number (07) of species which could be due to much less of its area exposed to the Persian Gulf.

Further, Aethaloperca rogaa, cephalopholis hemistiktos, Ephenephelus areolatus and E. coioides are the most widely distributed species. Epinephelus is the richest in its species diversity, with 37 species i.e. 51.39%. of total species.

As per the conservation status of species under IUCN Red List Epinephelus marginatus is classified as ‘Endangered’, Cephalopholis hemistiktos, Epinephelus bleekeri, E. coioides, E. deacanthus, E. fuscoguttatus, E. malabaricus, E. polylepis and E. polyphekadion as Near Threatened, Cromileptes altivelis, Ephenephelus bruneus, E. gabriellae, E. lanceolatus, Plectropomus areolatus as ‘Vulnerable’ and 28 species (see text) under ‘Least Concern’ category. Rest of the species are either having ‘Data Deficient’ (15 spp.) for the purpose or ‘Not Evaluated (15 spp.). Abbreviations used: IUCN: International Union for Conservation of Nature / International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (formerly the International for the Protection of Nature, IUPN); NA: Data not available. Kg. Kilogram. SL: standard length. TL: Total length.

Syn. / Syns: Synonym / Synnyms. UAE: United Arab Emirates. ACKNOWLEDGENENTS

The author is grateful to the Director, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata for encouragement and the Officer-in-Charge, Northern Regional Centre, ZSI, Dehra Dun for library facility. REFERENCES Al Sakaff, H. and Esseen, M. (1999). Occurrence

and distribution of fish species off Yemen (Gulf of Aden and Arabian Sea). Naga ICLARM Q. 22(1): 43-47.

Assadi, H. and Dehghani, P.R. (1997). Atlas of the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman fishes. Iranian Fisheries Research and Training Organization, Iran.

Anderson, C. and Hafiz, A. (1989). Common reef fishes of the Maldives. Part 2. Novelty Printers and Publishers, Male, Republic of Maldives. 85pp.

Baranes, A. and Golani, D. (1993). An annotated list of the deep-sea fishes collected in the northern Red Sea, Gulf of Aqaba. Isr. J. Zool. 39: 299-336.

Ben-Tuvia, A. and Lourie, A. (1969). A Red Sea grouper Epinephelus tauvina caught on the Mediterranean coast of Israel. Israel J. Zool. 18: 245-247.

Bouhlel, M. (1988). Poissons de Djibouti. Dubai (United Arab Emirates): Dubai Printing Press.

Boulenger, G.A. (1889). Second account of the fishes obtained by Surgeon-Major A. S. G. Jayakar at Muscat, east coast of Arabia. Proc. Zool. Soc., London (pt 2). 236-246, pls. 25-28.

Boulos, I. (1975). The Development of Fisheries in the Sultanate of Oman. Special Report, FAO, Rome.

Chavan, B.B., Sawant, A.D., Sujitha, S. and Sreeram, M.P. (2005). Rare occurrence of Epinephelus bleekeri (Vaillant, 1877) in the fishery of Mumbai. Marine Fisheries Information Service, Technical and Extension Series. 183: 20.

Deval, M.C. (2002). Common names of marine fishes of Turkey. Unpublished report.

��Husain �

��

�

�

Edwards, R.R.C. and Shaher, S. (1991). The biometrics of marine fishes from the Gulf of Aden. Fishbyte. 9(2): 27-29.

Edwards, A.J. and Shepherd, A.D. (1992). Environmental implications of aquarium-fish collection in the Maldives, with proposals for regulation. Environ. Conserv. 19: 61-72.

Edwards, R.R.C., Bakhade, A. R. and Shaher, S. (1985). Growth, mortality, age composition and fishery yields of fish from the Gulf of Aden. J. Fish Biol. 27: 13-21.

Edwards, R.R.C., Ghaddaf, A. and Shaher, S. (1991). The demersal fish stocks and the biometrics of fish on the P.D.R. Yemen shelf of the Gulf of Aden. UNESCO Project 703/PDY/40.

Fouda, M.M. and Hermosa, G.V.Jr. (1993). A checklist of Oman fishes. Sultan Qaboos University Press, Sultanate of Oman. 42p.

Froese, Rainer, and Daniel Pauly, eds. (2007). "Epinephelus tauvina" in FishBase. 4 2007 version. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greasy_grouper".Govindaraju, G S and Jayasankar, P (2004) Taxonomic Relationship Among Seven Species of Groupers (Genus Epinephelus; Family Serranidae) as Revealed by RAPD Fingerprinting. Marine Biotechnology. 6: 229-237.

Heemstra, P.C. and Randall, J.E. (1979). A revision of the anthiine fish genus Sacura (Perciformes: Serranidae) with descriptions of two new species. J.L.B. Smith Inst. Ichthyol. Spec. Publ. 20: 12p.

Heemstra, P.C. (1973). Anthias conspicuus sp. nova (Perciformes: Serranidae) from the Indian Ocean, with comments on related species. Copeia. 2: 200-210.

Heemstra, P.C. and Randall, J.E. (1986). Serranidae. p. 509-537. In M.M. Smith and P.C. Heemstra (eds.) Smiths' sea fishes. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Heemstra, P.C. and Randall, J.E. (1993). FAO Species Catalogue. Vol. 16. Groupers of the world (family Serranidae, subfamily Epinephelinae). An annotated and illustrated catalogue of the grouper, rockcod, hind, coral grouper and lyretail

species known to date. FAO Fish. Synop. 125(16): 382p.

Ibrahim, M. A. (1989). Studies on bottom trawling and demersal fishes of Qatar waters, Arabian Gul. Qatar Univ. Sci. Bull. 9: 291-308.

Ibrahim, M.A., El-Bary, K.A. and Al-Khayatt, J.A. (1989). By catch of commercial bottom trawl fishery from Qatar waters, Arabian Gulf. Qatar Univ. Sci. Bull. 9: 309-319.

Iranian Fisheries Company and Iranian Fisheries Research Organization. (2000). Persian Gulf and Oman sea fishes. Poster. Iran.

Kapoor, D., Dayal, R. and Ponniah, A.G. (2002). Fish biodiversity of India. National Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources Lucknow, India. 775pp.

Khalaf, M.A. and Disi, A.M. (1997). Fishes of the Gulf of Aqaba. Marine Science Station, Aqaba, Jordan. 252pp.

Kharbhari, J.P. (1982). Marine Fisheries Information Services India. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute. 18-23.

Kumaran, M. and Jones, S. (1980). Fishes of the Laccadive Archipelago. Kerala Mathrubhumi Press.

Kuronuma, K. and Abe, Y. (1986). Fishes of the Arabian Gulf. Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, State of Kuwait. 356p.

Manilo, L.G. and Bogorodsky, S.V. (2003). Taxonomic composition, diversity and distribution of coastal fishes of the Arabian Sea. J. Ichthyol. 43(suppl. 1): S75-S149.

Manna, G.K. (1989). Fish cytogenetics related to taxonomy, evolution and monitoring aquatic genotoxic agents. pp.21-46. In P. Das and A.G. Jingran (eds.) Fish Genetics in India. Proceedings of the Symposium on Conservation and Management of Fish Genetic Resources of India. 11-13 April, 1986.

Mathews, C.P. and Samuel, M. (1985). Stock assessment and management of newaiby, hamoor and hamra in Kuwait. p. 67-115. In C.P. Mathews (ed.) Proceedings of the 1984 Shrimp and Fin Fisheries

��?� Husain �

��

�

�

Management Workshop. Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, Kuwait.

Mathews, C.P. and Samuel, M. (1987). Growth, mortality and assessment for groupers from Kuwait. Kuwait Bull. Mar. Sci. 9: 173-191.

Mathews, C.P. and Samuel, M. (1991). Growth, mortality and length-weight parameters for some Kuwaiti fish and shrimp. Fishbyte. 9(2): 30-33.

Mohammad, M. and Osmany, H.B. (2004). A Note on the occurrence of Sacura boulengeri (Pisces: Serranidae) along Pakistan coast. Rec. Zool. Surv. Pakistan. 15: 49-51.

Molly, V., Kasinathan, C and Seeni, M. (2006). On the first record of the grouper, Epinephelus flavocaeruleus from Gulf of Mannar. Marine Fisheries Information Service, Technical and Extension Series. 190: 24-25.

Morgans, J.F.C. (1982). Serranid fishes of Tanzania and Kenya. Ichthyol. Bull. J.L.B. Smith Inst. Ichthyol. 46: 1-44.

Patro, R. and Prasad, R. (1979). Chromosomes of six marine percoids from the Indian Sea. Indian Biol. 11(1-2): 9-12.

Patro, R. and Prasad, R. (1980). Chromosomes of six marine percoids from the Indian Sea. Ind. Biol. 11: 9-12.

Randall, J.E. (1995). Coastal fishes of Oman. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii. 439pp.

Randall, J.E. and Baldwin, C.C. (1997). Revision of the serranid fishes of the sub-tribe Pseudogrammina, with descriptions of five new species. Indo-Pacific Fishes. 26: 56 p.

Randall, J.E. and Anderson, C. (1993). Annotated checklist of the epipelagic and shore fishes of the Maldives Islands. Ichthyol. Bull. of the J.L.B. Smith Inst. of Ichthyol. 59: 47.

Randall, J.E. and Heemstra, P.C. (1991). Revision of Indo-Pacific groupers (Perciformes: Serranidae: Epinephelinae), with descriptions of five new species. Indo-Pacific Fishes. 20: 332 p.

Randall, J.E. and Hoover, J.P. (1993). Pseudanthias marcia, a new serranid fish

from Oman. Rev. Fr. Aquariol. 20(2): 47-52.

Randall, J.E. and Pyle, R.L. (2001). Four new serranid fishes of the anthiine genus Pseudanthias from the South Pacific. Raffles Bull. Zool. 49(1): 19-34.

Rao, K.V.R. (1995). Pisces. pp. 483-506. In Fauna of Chilka Lake. Wetland Ecosystem Series 1. Zool. Surv. India. 673pp.

Sivasubramaniam, K. (1981). Demersal resources of the Gulf and Gulf of Oman. FAO Publ. RAB/71/278/3.

Sivasubramaniam, K. and Ibrahim, M.A. (1982a). Common Fishes of Qatar. Marine Science Department, Faculty of Science, University of Qatar, Doha, Qatar.

Sivasubramaniam, K and Ibrahim, M. A. (1982b). Demersal fish resources around Qatar. Qatar Univ. Sci. Bull. 2: 305-352.

Talwar, P.K. and Jhingran, A.G. (1991). Inland fishes of India and adjacent countries. Volume 2. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.

Talwar, P.K. and Kacker, R.K. (1984). Commercial sea fishes of India. Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta. 997pp.

Thomas, S, Sreeram, M.P., George, R.M., Naomi, T.S. and N.K. Sanil, N.K. (2008). First record of occurrence of Boulenger’s anthias Sacura boulengeri (Heemstra, 1973), Family: Serranidae, in Indian waters. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. India. 50(1): 69-73.

White, A.W. and Barwani, M.A. (1971). Common Sea Fishes of the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. Trucial States Council.

Zajonz, U., Khalaf, M. and Krupp, F. (2000). Coastal fish assemblages of the Socotra Archipelago. pp.127-170. In Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity of Socotra Archipelago: marine habitat, biodiversity and fisheries surveys and management. Progress Report of Phase III. Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum, Frankfurt.

��@�Husain �

��

�

�

Distributional pattern of genus Uromastyx Merrem, 1820 (Reptilia: Squamata:

Agamidae: Uromastycinae) in India, Arabia and Africa

Akhlaq Husain

41, Hari Vihar, Vijay Park, Dehra Dun–248 001, Uttarakhand (formerly associated with Zoological Survey of India)



ABSTRACT: The genus Uromastyx Merrem, 1820, the Spiny-tailed Lizards, is widely distributed. It has about 18 species, out of which one i.e. Uromastyx hardwickii (Gray, 1827) is found in India (Thar Desert, Kutch and adjoining arid zones, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh) and Pakistan and the rest of the species in North African, Middle-Eastern and across south-central Asian countries. They are mostly large lizards, ranging between 25-91cm. The smallest is Uromastyx macfadyeni (Parker, 1932), the Macfadyen’s Mastigure, a species of Somalia and the largest the U. aegyptia (Forskal, 1775), the Egyptian Mastigure, found in Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Libya, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Syria and UAE. In the present paper the details of U. hardwickii and distribution of all the species has been dealt. They occur at elevations from sea level to well over 914m and tend to establish themselves in hilly, rocky areas with good shelter and accessible vegetation, though may be in arid zones. Key words: Distributional pattern of genus Uromastyx.

INTRODUCTION

The genus Uromastyx Merrem, 1820, the Spiny-tailed Lizards, is widely distributed. The generic name, Uromastyx is derived from the Ancient Greek words ourá (��) meaning ‘tail’ and mastigo (��) meaning ‘whip’ or ‘scourge’, after the thick-spiked tail characteristic of all Uromastyx species. It has about 18 species, out of which one i.e. Uromastyx hardwickii (Gray, 1827) is found in India (Thar Desert, Kutch and adjoining arid zones, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh) and Pakistan and the rest of the species in North African, Middle-Eastern and across south-central Asian countries. They are mostly large lizards with short snout and squatty legs, smooth back ans spiny tail, ranging between 25-91 cm. in length. The smallest is Uromastyx macfadyeni (Parker, 1932), the Macfadyen’s Mastigure, a species of Somalia and the largest the U. aegyptia (Forskal, 1775), the Egyptian Mastigure, found in Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Libya, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Syria and UAE. They occur at elevations from sea level to well over 914 m and tend to establish themselves in hilly, rocky areas with good shelter and accessible vegetation, though may be in arid

zones. They live in arid regions where it is dry, hot and sandy and live for 5-10 years in nature.

All the species of Uromastyx are listed on CITES Appendix II in 1977. As per the available information, Uromastyx hardwickii and Uromastyx alfredschmidt are categorized as ‘Vulnerable’ and ‘Near Threatened’ respectively, under IUCN Red List.

In the present paper the details of U. hardwickii and distribution of all the species has been given. Important references cited on these lizards are: Indian species: Boulenger (1890), Prashad (1913), Smith (1935), Vyas (1990), Husain & Sharma (2010), Murthy (2010) and Venugopal (2010). Other species: Flower (1933), Materns (1962), Wermuth (1967), Sorin & Sorin (2001), Anderson (2005), Papenfuss (2006), Robinson (2006 ), Wilms & Bohme (2000, 2001), Wilms (2007) and Wilms et. Al. (2009) SYSTEMATIC ACCOUNT WITH DISTRIBUTION Order: Squamata Suborder: Iguania Family: Agamidae Subfamily: Uromastycinae

Biological Forum_ An International Journal, Spl. Iss.��B��=��B>�??��(?A�?��9��# �8%��:;�==B25C=C2�

��

�

�

Genus: Uromastyx Merrem, 1820 I. INDIAN SPECIES 1. Uromastyx hardwickii Gray, 1827 Uromastyx hardwicki Gray in Hardwicke & Gray, 1827: Zool. J. London, 3: 219 (214-229) (type-locality: Kanauj dist., Uttar Pradesh, India). Uromastyx griseus Cuvier, 1829: 34 Le Regne Animal Distribué, d'apres son Organisation, pur servir de base à l'Histoire naturelle des Animaux et d'introduction à l'Anatomie Comparé. Nouvelle Edition (2nd edition). Vol. 2. Les Reptiles. Déterville, Paris: 34 (i-xvi, 1-406). Uromastyx reticulatus Cuvier, 1829. Type-specimens: Holotype: BMNH 1946.8.14.44, male, plains of Kanouge, Hindustan, India, pres. General Hardwicke, without date. Popular English Names: Indian Spiny-tailed Lizard, Hardwick’s Spiny-tailed Lizard, Spiny-tailed Lizard. Local Names: Sandho (Gujarat), Sanda (Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthani), Salma (Delhi, Punjab). Characters: Body stout, dorso-ventrally flattened, with wrinkled skin; head oval; snout flattened, upper labials 12-14, denticulated; eyes small; ear-opening a vertical slit, deeply sunk, anterior margin slightly denticulte; tail thick at base having distinctive whorls of spiny scales with large spines on side; head scales unequal, smooth or obtusely keeled, dorsal scales small, subequal, mostly smooth with or without scattered larger scales, ventrals squarish, smooth; gular scales very small, rounded; a series of enlarged scales on each side of jaw parallel with inter-labilas, separated from them by 3-8 rows of smaller scales; limbs short, strong, hind limbs with spinose tubecles; pre-ano-femoral pores present, 12-18 on each side Colouration: Yellowish brown, sandy or olive, may have black spots and vermiculations and a distinctive black spot on front of thigh; tail bluish-grey (in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan) to sand-coloured (in Kutch, Gujarat). Colouration in general may vary, in being darker in colder season. Length and Sexual Dimorphism: Males range from 40 to 49 cm in length while females 34 to

40 cm, have a longer tail than that of females and with pronounced femoral pores. Distribution: India: Thar Desert and surrownding zones: Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Rajasthan (hot deserts of Jaisalmer, Barmer and Churu districts), Gujarat (Kutch), Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh (type- locality: Kanauj district). Elsewhere: Afghanistan (area bordering Pakistan Border), Pakistan. Habitat: Inhabit dry desert tracts of northern half of the plains of India, excavating a sloping zig-zagging or spiralling tunnel of 6 to 8 cm diameter and over 2 m long for their abode, having an entrance ending in a chamber. They are solitary in burrows, but hatchling lizards may stay with the mother for some time. They bask close to the entrance of the burrow and remain very alert and smoothly slide into the burrow at the slight hint of danger. They hibernate through the winter and consume fat accumulated on their back and emerge only in spring. Habits: Prefers firm ground rather than pure sand dunes and elevated patches of land (especially in Kutch where it is invariably found on isolated patches of high ground called Bets) above rain water level, often found living in colonies, sometimes on the outskirts of villages. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Vulnerable; CITES: Appendix II. Threats: Prey: Birds of prey (Falco cherrug, the Saker Falcon, Aquila apax, the Tawny Eagle, Laggar Falcon and other falcons) are a major predator of the lizard in the desert. The Cattle Egrets have also been known to prey on it. Poaching: On the verge of extinction in western Rajasthan due to rampant poaching by nomads, who value this reptile both for its meat and as a medicine. During monsoon, these lizards leave their homes and come out to feed on tender shoots of grass when they fall prey to raptors. Medicinal Use: Killed for their meat and fat which are said to cure impotence, fat stored in tail is purported to have medicinal properties and for this reason, these lizards are often illegally collected and sold in various parts of India for folk medicine. They are kept in captivity by the cruel practice of dislocating the backbone.

��C�Husain �

��

�

�

Food & Feeding: Largely herbivorous as their teeth are adapted for a plant diet which comprises the flowers and fruits (Capparis aphylla, the Kair; beans of khejri (beans of Prosopis spicigera , the Khejri; fruit of Salvadora persica and grasses). In locust-breeding areas they have been known to feed on nymphs and adults of the locust. In summer they tend to forage more in the mornings feeding to a greater extent on insects and in the monsoons they feed principally on herbs and grasses. Breeding: Breed in spring after emerging from hibernation and lay white pigeon-sized eggs. Remarks: Willms, et al. (2009) resurrected genus Saara Gray, 1845 for Uromastyx asmussi, U. hardwickii, and U. loricata. II. ARABIAN AND AFRICAN SPECIES 2. Uromastyx acanthinura Bell, 1825. Uromastyx acanthinurus Bell, 1825. Zoological Journal. London, 1: 457 (457-460) (type-locality: Africa. Restricted to near Biskra, north to el Kantara, Algeria, by Flower, 1933). Type-specimens: Holotype: OUM 7845 (Oxford University Museum of Natural History), N. Africa (brought by Capt. Lyon RN), Bell & Hope Collection. Popular English Names: Bell’s Dabb Lizard, North-African Mastigure, North African Spiny-tailed Lizard. Description: Tail longer and narrower (50.27–74.42 % of SVL); 2–5 whorls forming a continuous scale row; scale counts around mid-body 146–195 (mean. 165.6); ventrals 74–96 (mean. 83.1); subdigital scales 9–15 (mean: 12.7). Differentiated from U. nigriventris by being much less colourful and lacking red, green and citreous colouration. Distribution: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, NW Libya, Mauritania ?, Western Sahara, Chad (Tibesti and Ennedi Mountains), Mali, Niger, N Sudan. Uromastix acanthinurus nigerrimus Hartert, 1913. Novit. Zool., London , 20: 79 (76-84) (type locality: Southern Oued Mya, Algerian Sahara). Southern Algerian Sahara. Moracco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Chad, Mali, Niger, S Sudan.

Remarks: Uromastyx acanthinura flavifasciata is considered as a subspecies of dispar by Wilms & Bohme (2001). Uromastix acanthinura nigriventris Rothschild & Hartert, 1912 has been elevated to full species status. In some literature following treatment has been given: U. acanthinura acanthinura Bell, 1825: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisiia, Mauritania, Libya U. acanthinura. dispar Hyden, 1827: Sudan , Chad (Tibesti and Ennedi Mountains). U. acanthinura. geyri Muller, 1922: South Algeria, Mali and Niger. The subspecies lives only in Mountain area (Air and Hoggar Mnts.). 3. Uromastyx aegyptia (Forskal, 1775) Lacerta aegyptia Forskal, 1775. Forskal, 1775. Descriptiones animalium, avium, amphibiorum, piscium, insectorum, vermium; quae in itinere Orientali observavit Petrus Forskål. Mölleri, Hauniae: 13 (xxxiv + 164 pp) (type-locality: Egypt). Type-specimen: Holotype: ZFMK 52398, adult female, coll. R. Leptien, VI. 1983 (leptieni). Neotype (ZFMK 44216) and lectotype designated by Wilms & Böhme 2000. Lectotype: BMNH 1946.8.14.55 (microlepis). Etymology: Named after its distribution in Egypt. Popular English Names: Egyptian Mastigure, Egyptian Spiny–tailed Lizard. Description: Tail long (60.18–102.83 % of SVL), last 2–8 whorls forming a continuous scale row; scales around mid body 238–322; having pre-ano-femoral pores. Length: One of the largest species of the genus with a total length of up to 76 cm. Distribution: Libya, Egypt (East of the Nile), Israel, N Saudi Arabia, Oman, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan. In Israel there are two of them viz. U. aegyptus and U. ornate which are endangered there and protected by law. leptieni: Oman, United Arab Emirates (vicinity of Muscat in the south through the Batina coastal plain and the eastern foothills of the Hajar al-Gharbi mountains to the Musandam Peninsula in the north). Type locality: Wadi Sijii, United Arab Emirates. microlepis: Deserts and semi-deserts of Arabia (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, United Arab

�� Husain �

��

�

�

Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait), in Jordan, Syria, Iraq and coastal Iran. Subspecies: Uromastyx aegyptia aegyptia (Forsskal, 1775) Uromastyx aegyptia microlepis Arnold, 1980 Uromastyx aegyptia leptieni Wilms & Bohme, 2000 Conservation Status: Least Concern. Remarks: Differential diagnosis (aegyptia): The nomino-typic subspecies is distinguished from U. aegyptia microlepis by having enlarged tubercular scales scattered over the scalation of the flanks and by lower scale counts. It is distinguished from U. aegyptia leptieni by a different juvenile colour pattern and a higher number of ventrals (Wilms & Bohme, 2000). Differential diagnosis (leptieni): Uromastyx aegyptia leptieni is distinguished from aegyptiaand microlepisby a different juvenile colour pattern and a lower number of ventrals (Wilms & Bohme, 2000). Differential diagnosis (microlepis): Uromastyx a. microlepis is distinguished from U. a. aegyptia by lacking enlarged tubercular scales scattered over the scalation of the flanks and by smaller scales. It is distinguished from U. aegyptius leptieni by a different juvenile colour pattern and a higher number of ventrals (Wilms & Bohme, 2000). U. aegyptius aegyptius (Forskal, 1775): Egypt, (East of Nile), parts of Israel. U. aegyptius microlepis Blanford, 1874: Arab Peninsular, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, parts of Israel. 4. Uromastyx alfredschmidt Wilms & Bohme, 2001 Uromastyx alfredschmidti Wilms & Bohme, 2000. Zool. Abh. Staatl. Mus. Tierk. Dresden, 51 (8) (type-locality: Tassili N’Ajjer, Tamrit Plateau (1600 m elevation), approx. 30 km northeast Djanet, Algeria). Type-specimen: Holotype: ZFMK 24643, adult male, leg. Dr. G. Wangorsch, 22.07.1974. Etymology: Named after Alfred Schmidt, German herpeto-culturist and patron. Popular English Names: Schmidt’s Mastigure, Schmidt’s Spiny-tailed Lizard. Description: Tail long and narrow (79.31–87.26 % of SVL); 2–3 whorls of tail forming a continuous scale row; scale counts around mid-

body 138–202; Scales of flanks enlarged triangular and imbricate. Colouration: Adult males complete black. Distribution: W. Libya, S. Algeria. Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Near Threatened. 5. Uromastyx asmussi (Strauch, 1863) Centrotrachelus asmussi Strauch, 1863. Bulletin de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St. Pétersbourg, 6: 477-480 (type-locality: Sar-i-tschah, Iran (vide Wermuth, 1967). Type-specimen: Holotype: ZISP3029 (Zoological Museum, Academy of Sciences, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg), male, Seri-Tschah (Eastern Persia), coll. Keyzerling, 1858–1859. Popular English Name: Iranian Mastigure. Description: 1–2 rows of un-keeled intercalary scales separating each tail whorl dorsally; pre-ano-femoral- pores 8–13. Distribution: S Iran (Kavir desert, Isfahan, Khorasan, Kerman, Baluchistan-Sistan), Afghanistan, Pakistan (Baluchistan). 6. Uromastyx benti (Anderson, 1894) Aporoscelis benti Anderson, 1894. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6) 14: 376 (377) (type-locality: Makulla, Hadramut, SE Arabia; lectotype from Wadi Hadramaut, Yemen). Type-specimen: Lectotype: BMNH 1946.8.11.72, adult male, leg. Dr. J. Anderson, without date (designated by Wilms& Bohme 2000). Popular English Names: Bent's Mastigure, Bent's Spiny-tailed Lizard, Rainbow Benti, Mountain Benti, Yemeni Spiny-tailed Lizard. Description: Tail long; femoral and pre-anal pores lacking; scales large, around midbody (160.05 +/- 8.98) and ventrals large (74 +/- 4.02). Sexual Dimorphism: Male are often predominantly blue, sometimes with orange and red colouring, while females are usually light tan with reddish tails (Sorin and Sorin, 2001). Length: 36 cm in total length. Distribution: Yemen (species’ range is believed to be restricted to the southern coastal region, extending up to and beyond the border with Oman (Anderson, 2005), SW Oman (found in the coastal areas of extreme southwestern Oman between the Yemen border and the town of Mirbat. The species is fairly common in the

��Husain �

��

�

�

Mirbat region, with a density of around 1one per hectare (Papenfuss, 2006) and and questionably Saudi Arabia, although listed as a range State for U. benti, Anderson (2005), Papenfuss (2006) and Robinson ( 2006) note that the species may in fact not extend as far north as Saudi Arabia). Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Not Evaluated. Remarks: It is kept as pet and for that purpose is exported to USA, being the main importer. 7. Uromastyx dispar Heyden, 1827 Uromastyx acanthinura dispar Heyden, 1827. Reptilien. In Rüppell, E. Atlas zu Reise im nördlichen Afrika. l. Zoologie. H. L. Brönner, Frankfurt a. M., pp. 1-24. Popular English Name: Mali Uromaxtyx, Sudan Mastigure. Subspecies: 1. Uromastyx dispar dispar Heyden, 1827. Reptilien. In: Rüppell, E. Atlas zu Reise im nördlichen Afrika. l. Zoologie. H. L. Brönner, Frankfurt a. M., pp. 1-24 (type-locality: Wüste bei Ambucol und Dongala, Nubien = Sudan). Differential diagnosis (dispar): Discrimination between the subspecies of U. dispar is possible only by means of colouration of adult males. Adult U. d. dispar males are distinguished from adult U. d. flavifasciata males by lacking transversal stripes on the animals back and from adult U. d. maliensis males by the less pronounced black colouration of the body. Distribution: Mauritania, Sudan, Chad (Tibesti and Ennedi Mountains). 2. Uromastyx dispar flavifasciata Mertens, 1962. Bemerkungen über Uromastyx acanthinurus als Rassenkreis Senck. biol. 43: 425-432 (type-locality: type locality: approx. 50 km north of Dakar, Senegal (see Bohme,1978): the Spiny-tailed Lizard. Differential diagnosis (flavifasciata): Adult U. d. flavifasciata males can be distinguished from U. d. dispar and U. d. maliensis males by their black body colouration with 5–7 wide, clearly-defined yellow, white or red dorsal cross-bands. Occasionally these cross-bands can be reduced or be even completely absent. Distribution: Western Sahara south of 28° northern latitude, Mauritania, SW Algeria.

3. Uromastyx dispar maliensis Jogger & Lambert, 1996. J. African Zool., 110(1): 21-51 (type-locality: Mali, 40 south-east of Goa). Differential diagnosis (maliensis): Adult Uromastyx dispar maliensis males differ from adult dispar males by the more pronounced black colouration of the body and from adult flavifasciata males by lacking transversal cross-bands on the dorsum. Distribution: NW Mali, SW Algeria. Remarks: U. dispar maliensis Jogger & Lambert also considered at specific level. 8. Uromastyx geyri Muller, 1922. Uromastyx temporalis Valenciennes, 1854.Compte Rendu des Séances de l’Académie des Sciences, Paris 39: 89 (status unclear). Uromastix geyri Muller, 1922. Beobachter, Frankfurt 63: 193 (193-201) (type-locality: entre Aquebly et Djebbel-Hoggar, Sahara). Type-specimen: Lectotype: Gara Djenoum, Ahaggar Mts. Algeria, S. Algeria. Popular English Names: Geyr’s Spiny-tailed Lizard, Sahara Mastigure, Saharan Spiny-tailed Lizard. Etymology: Named after ornithologist H. Geyr von Schweppenburg who brought the first specimens of this species to Europe. Description: Tail longer and narrower (65.45–98.06 % of SVL), 2–5 whorls forming a continuous scale row; lower scale counts around mid-body 142–196; enlarged tubercular scales on flanks. Distribution: S Algeria, Mali and Niger (Air and Hoggar Mountain area). 9. Uromastyx loricata (Blanford, 1874) Centrotrachelus loricatus Blanford, 1874. Proc. Zool. Soc. London: 660 (656-161) (type- locality: “haud procul a Bushire, urebe ad litus sinus Persici”). Type-specimen: Holotype: BMNH 1946.8.11.59, female, Bushir, Iraq, pres. P.L. Sclater, without date. Popular English Names: Iraqi Mastigure, Iraqi Spiny-tailed Lizard, Mesopotamian Mastigure. Description: 1–2 rows of un-keeled intercalary scales separating each tail whorl dorsally; 15-20 pre-ano-femoral pores. Distribution: Iraq, SW Iran (Kurdistan-Kermanshah, Khusestan-Lorestan, Fars)

��!� Husain �

��

�

�

10. Uromastyx macfadyeni (Parker, 1932) Uromastix macfadyeni Parker, 1932. Proc. Zool. Soc. London: 353(335-367) (type-locality: Berbera, British Somaliland (”Berbara” vide Willms et al. 2009). Type-specimen: Holotype: BMNH 1946.8.14.54 (formerly BMNH 1925.4.3.1). Popular English Name: Macfadyen’s Mastigure Description: Tali long with last 8-21 annuli forming a continuous scale row; tail width between the 4th and 5th whorl equivalent to 56–62 % of maximum tail width at 5th whorl; enlarged scales on anterior margin of ear-opening; presence of pre-ano-femoral pores Distribution: NW Somalia (West Galbeed). 11. Uromastyx nigriventris Rothschild & Hartert, 1912 Uromastix acanthinurus nigriventris Rothschild & Hartert, 1912. Novit. Zool., London, 18: 468 (type locality: Tilrhempt between Laghouat and Ghardaia, Algeria). Type-specimen: Holotype: BMNH 1969.2074, male, coll. W. Rothschild and E. Hartert, without date. Uromastix acanthinurus werneri Muller, 1922. Naturwiss. Beobachter, Frankfurt ,63: 201 (193-201) (type locality: “Provinz Oràn” (= Ain Sefra?, vide Mertens, 1962, cited in Wermuth, 1967): W Algeria through Morocco. Popular English Names: Moraccan Spiny-tailed Lizard. Description: Tail long and narrow ((43.48–75.14 % of SVL), last 2-5 whorls of annuli forming a continuous scale row, scale counts around mid-body 139-208, ventrals 66-99, subdigital scales 9-17. Vividly red, green and citreous coloured. Distribution: Morocco (east and south of the Atlas Mountain Chain), W Algeria (Sahara Atlas, NW / NE/ SW of the Great Western Erg). 12. Uromastyx occidentalis Mateo et al., 1999 Uromastyx occidentalis Mateo, Geniez, Lopez-Jurado & Bons, 1999. Rev. Esp. Herp. 12: 97-109 (type-locality: Aagtel Agmumuit, between Yeloua and Mades (Adrar Souttouf, Western Sahara) (21° 52'N, 15° 31'W). Type-specimen: Holotype: DB.ULPGC-5 collected by M. Hasi June 25th 1995. Paratype: E.B.D.29495.

Popular English Name: Giant Spiny-tailed Lizard. Description: Tail long, less than 7 whorls forming a continuous scale row; scales around mid-body 297–301; lacking preanofemoral pores. Distribution: Western Sahara. 13. Uromastyx ocellata Lichtenstein, 1823 Uromastyx ocellatus Lichtenstein, 1823. Königl. Preuss. Akad. Wiss./ T. Trautwein, Berlin. x, 107 (118 pp.) (type-locality: “Nubia” (and Syria). Type-specimen: Syntypes: ZMB 809, Nubia; ZMB 811–13, Nubia; ZMB 810, Syria; all specimens leg. Hemprich & Ehrenberg. After Denzer, et al. (1997), ZMB 811–13 are lost which we cannot confirm at least for ZMB 811. Popular English Name: Eyed Dabb Lizard, Ocellated Spiny-tail. Description: Tail long, last 8–21 annuli forming a continuous scale row each; lacking enlarged scales on the anterior margin of the ear opening; possessing pre-ano-femoral pores. Length: Maximum 30 cm. Distribution: NW Somalia, Djibouti, Eritrea, N Sudan, SE Egypt, Ethiopia (near Somalian border). U. ocillata ocillata Lichtenstein, 1823: Sudan and Egypt U.ocillata ornata Heyden, 1827: Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia. U. ocellata macfadyeni Parker, 1932: Somalia, Djibouiti and perhaps Eritrea. U. ocellata philbye Parker, 1938: Mountains of western Arabia from Jabal as Sinfa to southern Hejaz (Saudi Arabia). 14. Uromastyx ornata Heyden, 1827 Popular English Name: Ornate Mastigure. Subspecies: Uromastyx ornata ornata Heyden,1827. Zoologie. H. L. Brönner, Frankfurt a. M., pp. 1-24. Description: Significantly long tail, 2–5 whorls forming a continuous scale row; having enlarged scales on the anterior margin of the ear opening; possessing pre-ano-femoral pores; distinguished by a different ratio between tail width at the 5th tail whorl and between 4th and 5th whorl (tail width between the 4th and 5th whorl equivalent

�� Husain �

��

�

�

to 63–79 % of maximum tail width at the 5th whorl. Young brightly colored. Sexual Dimorphism: Males tend towards a main body coloration of varing shades of blue (sky blue to deep cobalt blue) and /or green (lime green to deep forest green), with large yellow spotting occurring on the upper back. A few also get pinkish to orange washes over the center of the back. Females are usually much paler versions of the males, with more of the background colors being tans with occasional blue or green highlights but similar bright yellow spotting. Length: A medium size species, with most maturing around 10" to 14", 250 + grams. Distribution: E Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia. In Israel two forms viz. U. aegyptus and U. ornata are there which are endangered and protected by law. Habit: Adults are somewhat sedentary. Breeding: They are not one of the easier ones to pair (females must be paired while young), but mated pairs are less aggressive toward each other compared to say Moroccans or Mali's. Uromastyx ornata philbyi Parker, 1938. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (11) 1: 481-492 (type locality: Mohila “an der östlichen Küste des Rothen Meeres” (= Al Muwaylih, Saudi Arabia vide Arnold, 1986 = Moila, Arabia, vide Schmidt & Marx 1956). Distribution: W Saudi Arabia, NW Yemen; Type locality: between Makkah and Shabwa, southern Hejaz, between Mountains and Rub al Khali, Saudi Arabia. Remarks: Differential diagnosis (ornata, philbyi): Uromastyx o. ornatais distinguished from U. o. philbyi by its narrower tail (ratio tail length divided by maximum tail width at the 5th whorl is 3.61–5.3 in ornata vs. 3.03–3.96 in philbyi). 15. Uromastyx principes (O’Shaughnessy, 1880) Popular English Name: Princely Mastigure. Description: Tail short, spiny. Distribution: Somalia. 16. Uromastyx shobraki Wilms & Schmitz, 2007

Uromastyx yemenensis shobraki Wilms & Schmitz, 2007. Zootaxa, 1394: 1-23 (type locality: Mafraq Mocca (Mafraq al-Mukha), km 13.5, Republic of Yemen). Uromastyx shobraki Wilms et al., 2009. Bonner zoologische Beiträge, 56: 55-99. Type-specimen: Holotype: ZFMK 48681, adult male, leg. B. Schätti, 5.–6.IV.1988. Etymology: Named in honour of Dr. Mohammed Shobrak, Director of the “National Wildlife Research Centre, NWRC” in Taif, Saudi Arabia, for his outstanding achievements regarding the conservation of Arabian Wildlife. Description: Long tail, last 8–21 annuli forming a continuous scale row each; having smaler scales around midbody (188.92 +/- 13.22); smaller ventrals (86.64 +/-4.88); lacking femoral- and pre-anal pores. Differentiated from U. yemenensis in its larger maximum size (393 mm v/s 337 mm in U. yemenensis) and in different colour pattern and in significant genetic differences. Distribution: W Yemen. 17. Uromastyx thomasi (Parker, 1930) Uromastix [sic] thomasi Parker, 1930: 595 (type locality: Bu Ju’ay (1470 feet), desert Rub’al Khali, Hadramaut, Southern Arabia (Oman vide Wilms et al. 2002). Type-specimen: Holotype: BMNH 1946.8.14.43. Popular English Name: Oman Spiny-tailed Lizard, Thomas’ Mastigure. Description: Tail short; preanofemoral pores present. May exhibit temperature-dependent sex determination (Wilms, 2007). Distribution: Coastal Oman. Does not occur in Yemen (vide Wilms et al. 2002). Reports from Bahrain are questionable vide Wilms et al. (2002). Not in Saudi Arabia ((Rub' al Khali desert)) vide Wilms et al. (2009). 18. Uromastyx yemenensis Wilms & Schmitz, 2007 Uromastyx yemenensis Wilms & Schmitz, 2007. Zootaxa, 1394: 1-23 (type locality: Abyan Governate, vicinity of Lodar (Lawdar), Republic of Yemen). Type-specimen: Holotype: ZFMK 47861, adult male, leg. I. Haikal, don. 1985 (yemenensis).

�?A� Husain �

��

�

�

Etymology: Named after its distribution i.e. Yemen. Popular English Name: South African Spiny-tailed Lizard, Yemen Spiny-tailed Lizard. Description: Tail long, without intercalary scales between whorls of dorsal surface, last 8–21 whorls each consists of a simple continuous series of large scales; lacking femoral- and pre-anal pores; having smaller and more scales around midbody (192.53 +/-16.63) and smaller and more ventrals (87.61 +/-5.66). Distribution: SW Arabia, SW Yemen. Remarks: Uromastyx yemenensis shobraki Wilms & Schmitz, 2007 has been elevated to full species status. Abbreviations used: BMNH / BM: British Museum (Natural History) / The Natural History Museum, Department of Zoology, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, United Kingdom (formerly The British Museum [Natural History]) CITES: The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. DB.ULPGC: Department of Biology, University of Gran Canaria, Canary Islands, Spain. IUCN: International Union for Conservation of Nature / International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (formerly the International for the Protection of Nature, IUPN). OUM: Oxford University Museum of Natural History. SLV: Length from tip of snout to vent. ZFMK: Zoologisches Forschunsmuseum Alexander Koenig, Bonn / Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum Alexander Koenig, Bonn, Germany / Alexander Koeing Zoological Research Museum, Bonn. ZISP: Zoological Museum, Academy of Sciences, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg. ZMB: Universität Humboldt, Zoologisches Museum, Invalidenstrasse 43, 10115 Berlin, Germany/ Berlin Zoological Museum. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author is grateful to the Director, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata for encouragement and the Officer-in-Charge, Northern Regional Centre, ZSI, Dehra Dun for library facility.

REFERENCES Anderson, S. (2005). University of the Pacific,

in litt., to IUCN Species Programme Global Reptile Assessment.

Boulenger, G.A. (1890). The Fauna of British India, Including Ceylon and Burma. Reptilia and Batrachia. Taylor & Francis, London, xviii. 541pp.

Flower, S. (1933). Notes on the recent reptiles and amphibians of Egypt, with a list of the species recorded from that kingdom. Proc. Zool. Soc. London. pp.735-851.

Husain, A. and Sharma, G. (2010). A comparative study on Thar Desert and Western Himalayan reptiles with conservation status of threatened species. Proc. Impact of Climate Change on Biodiversity and Challenges in Thar Desert. 129-145 (ZSI Publ.)

Mertens, R. (1962). Bemerkungen über Uromastyx acanthinurus als Rassenkreis Senck. biol. 43: 425-432.

Murthy, T.S.N. (2010). The Reptile Fauna of India. B.R. Publishing, New Delhi. 332 pp.

Parshad, B. (1913). Note on the Spiny tailed Lizard (Uromastyx hardwickii). J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 23: 370.

Papenfuss, T. (2006). in litt., to IUCN Species Programme (University of California).

Robinson, M.D. (2006). in litt., to IUCN Species Programme (Sultan Qaboos University).

Smith, M.A. (1935). The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Reptiles and Amphibia, Vol. II. Sauria. Taylor and Francis, London, 440 pp.

Sorin, E. and Sorin, S. (2001). http://www.kingsnake.com/uromastyx/urocaresheet.html (last updated 2001, viewed December 2005).

Venugopal, P.D. (2010). An updated and annotated list of Indian lizards (Reptilia: Sauria) based on a review of distribution records and checklists of Indian reptiles. Journal of Threatened Taxa. 2(3): 725-738.

Vyas, R. (1990). Notes on capture of the Spiny-tailed lizard (Uromastyx hardwickii) in Gujarat Hamadryad. 15: 28.

�?��Husain �

��

�

�

Wermuth, H. (1967). Liste der rezenten Amphibien und Reptilien. Agamidae. Das Tierreich. 86: 1-127.

Wilms, T. (2007). Dornschwanzagamen der Gattung Uromastyx- Einführung in Taxonomie und Ökologie einer auf Wüsten spezialisierten Echsengruppe. Draco. 8 (31): 4-19.

Wilms, T. and Böhme, W. (2000). A new Uromastyx species from south-eastern Arabia, with comments on the taxonomy of Uromastyx aegyptia (Forskal, 1775) (Squamata: Sauria. Agamidae). Herpetozoa. 13(3/4): 133-148.

Wilms, T. and Böhme, W. (2001). Revision der Uromastyx acanthinura- Artengruppe, mit Beschreibung einer neuen Art aus der Zentralsahara (Reptilia: Sauria:

Agamidae). Zool. Abh. Staatl. Mus. Tierk. Dresden. 51(8).

Wilms, T., Lohr, B. and Hulbert, F. (2002). Erstmalige Nachzucht der Oman-Dornschwanzagame - Uromastyx thomasi Parker, 1930- (Sauria: Agamidae: Leiolepidinae) mit Hinweisen zur intraspezifischen Variabilität und zur Lebensweise. Salamandra. 38(1): 45-62.

Wilms, T., Wolfgang, B., Philipp, W., Lutzmann, Nicolà, L. and Andreas, S. (2009). On the Phylogeny and Taxonomy of the Genus Uromastyx Merrem, 1820 (Reptilia: Squamata: Agamidae: Uromastycinae)– Resurrection of the Genus Saara Gray, 1845. Bonner zoologische Beiträge. 56: 55-99.

�??� Husain �

��

�

�

Diversity of Phthirapteran Ectoparasites on Domestic Fowl, Gallus gallus domesticus in Garhwal Region

Rakesh Kumar*, M. C. Trivedi* and Adesh Kumar**

*Department of Zoology, Govt. P.G. College Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India **Department of Zoology, Govt. P.G. College Ranikhet, Uttarakhand, India

e-mail: **[email protected];*[email protected]


ABSTRACT: Phthirapteran ectoparasites are small contagious drab like wingless insect commonly known as lice. These tiny creatures are extremely host specific. These nuisance insects are parasites virtually of all birds and some mammals. All phthirapteran are permanent ectoparasite and complete their entire life cycle on the body of host. Phthirapteran diversity of Garhwal region has not been investigated so far. A routine survey work was done and specimens were collected through fumigation and ruffling techniques. The collected specimens were preserved in 70% ethyl alcohol. Thereafter, specimens were sorted out species-wise and sex-wise under trinocular stereozoom research microscope. Out of twelve lice species infesting domestic fowl all over India, nine was recorded in present study e.g. Menopon gallinae, Menacanthus cornutus, Menacanthus stramineus, Lipeurus lawrensis tropicalis, Lipeurus heterographus, lipeurus caponis, Goniodes gigas, Goniodes dissimilis and Goniocotes gallinae. Three species out of nine were found amblyceran and rest ischnoceran. The amblyceran are haematophagous species and might decrease the productivity of poultry industry in the region. Key words: Phthiraptera, ectoparasite, Mallophaga, Ischnocera, Amblycera, Diversity.

INTRODUCTION

A dozen of phtirapteran ectoparasites reportedly infest the domestic fowl. They mostly feed by nibbling or chewing the dry skin scale, feathers or scab on the skin. The irritation from their mouthparts together with that of the sharp claws on their feet results in nervous condition of infested birds that prevent sleep cause loss of appetite and diarrhoea and render the weakened fowls an easy prey for various poultry diseases. Furthermore the infested fowl are often found in a mopy and drowsy condition. The parasitized birds with droopy wings and ruffled feathers are refusing to eat and gradually become emaciated. The heavily infested fowl can be seen performing preening, grooming through their beaks and claws. The scratches thus made may act as potential site for the entry of other detrimental pathogens. Young chickens and turkey that are brooded by lousy hens are often killed in great number while the swarming of lice from the hens to them almost as soon as they hatched from the eggs.

Harrison (1915), Fletcher (1926), Ewing (1929), Bedford (1932), Bhattacharjee (1939)

and Ansari (1943, 47, 51 & 55) have performed taxonomic studies on phthirapteran fauna infesting birds and mammals. Some of them also provided a synoptic list for identification of Phthiraptera. Few other workers like Wilson (1934), Hoyle (1938), Clay (1950, 57, 58), Ward (1957), Arora & Chopra (1959), Ryder (1967), Brown (1970), Eichler et al. (1974), Eveleish & Amano (1977) and Lakshminarayana (1977) have provided some important information on phthirapteran infesting birds and mammals. Lakshminarayana (1979) has given a synoptic list of Phthiraptera occurring on different avian and mammalian host. Present paper provides information of phthirapteran fauna occurring on domestic fowls of Garhwal region. MATERIALS AND METHOD

Extensive survey works in different localities of Garhwal region was performed to record the phthirapteran ectoparasitic diversity on Gallus gallus domesticus. Most of the examined birds were Assel, desi (indigenous), Leghorn, Broiler, strains of Kalinga brown and

Biological Forum_ An International Journal, Spl. Iss.��B��=��?@>�@��(?A�?��9��# �8%��:;�==B25C=C2�

��

�

�

starbrow. Bird’s legs were tied with threads and wings held with hands. Birds were kept in large polybags containing a wad of cotton wool soaked in chloroform. The head of bird kept outside to save the life of the bird. After ten minutes the entire lice load were fallen out by fluffing the feathers of birds on large white plastic sheet. Lice were collected in vials containing 70% alcohol. Then lice were sorted out species and sex wise under stereozoom trinocular research microscope. Selected specimens were permanently mounted on slides and identified under trinocular research microscope. RESULTS 1. Menopon gallinae Linn. (1758) This amblyceran species commonly known as small body louse or shaft louse and was recorded practically all over the world on domestic fowl. In addition to the type host (Gallus gallus domesticus) it was occasionally been founded from other phasianids viz. Numida meleagris domestica and Meleagris gallopavo domestica. It is also known to pass readily to other barn yard fowls viz. pigeons, ducks, guinea fowls, turkeys etc. and mammals like cattle, horses and dogs. Whenever, handling the infested bird respective louse soon runs over the observers hand also. This species is most common on the covert feathers of tibial hip region, vent, back and breast of the host.

This pale yellow small menoponid (Table 1) have definite transverse band. They have triangular head more or less rounded interiorly. Temples were small, rounded laterally. Occipital were concave. Antennae were small and not sexually dimorphic (Plate 1, Fig. 1&2). Prothorax was protruded. Pterothorax was short and broad, diverging laterally and convex posteriorly with a series of long hairs. Abdomen was elongate and oval. The two sexes apparently similar but the males were shorter (Plate 1, Fig. 1&2) than to female with rounded posterior end as compared to more or less pointed posterior end of female with a fringe of short hairs. The male genitalia was small, simple, feebly sclerotized and club shaped (Plate 1, Fig. 1).

The birds heavily parasitized with M. gallinae had the skins more oftenly wounded by the hen’s beak mainly under the wings. M. gallinae is haematophagous, to be sure (although the blood does not make a constant dietary component for this species) but to a considerable extent. Louse also devours on feathers and skin products and the covert feathers get destroyed and show unquestionable gaps next to the shaft by the infestation of this species. Heavily infested fowls are frequently seen devoid of feathers on tibial hip region due to the damage by the louse and self-preening by bird.

Table 1. Biometrical analysis of M. gallinae (in mm)

Body Parts Male Female Length Width Length Width

Head 0.31-0.35 0.35-0.48 0.26-0.35 0.41-0.51 Prothorax 0.18-0.23 0.31-0.38 0.18-0.28 0.31-0.45 Pterothorax 0.15-0.18 0.38-0.52 0.12-0.21 0.43-0.57 Abdomen 0.89-1.04 0.64-0.71 0.94-1.20 0.61-0.80 Total length 1.54-1.78 - 1.38-2.00 - Genitalia length 0.08-0.15 - - -

2. Menacanthus cornutus Schommer (1913)

Earlier this species has been reported form American birds. Seguy (1944) has however, doubted its validity. Present studies indicate that it not only infests the poultry birds but ranks second in the order of abundance. This fast moving amblyceran louse apparently looks similar to M. stramineus but is smaller in size (Plate 1, Fig. 3&4). However, its habits show a clear departure from M. stramineus. It is

commonly found on the feathers of breast and vent and also back.

These small, active, brownish pale menoponid have semilunar head with distinct lateral antennary sinus and hair and several setae in front. Prothoracic lateral angles angulate with antero-lateral spine. Pterothorax is larger than head. Abdomen elliptical with marked terminal segment and long hairs. Two sexes are apparently alike but the males are distinctly

�?B� Kumar, Trivedi and Kumar�

��

�

�

smaller than the females (Plate 1, Fig. 3&4). The male genitalia was distinctly smaller and feebly sclerotized. The bases of feathers of head, neck and crown region are found wrapped with egg deposits. This species must be capable of inflicting loss to the health and productivity of

bird owing to its haematophagous nature, which has been reported for first time during present studies. Their role in reservoiring and transmitting infectious agents requires investigation.

Table 2. Biometrical analysis of M. cornutus (in mm)


Head 0.29-0.34 0.41-0.46 0.32-0.37 0.48-0.55 Prothorax 0.15-0.18 0.31-0.34 0.18-0.21 0.32-0.42 Mesothorax 0.15-0.17 0.31-0.38 0.14-0.20 0.40-0.54 Metathorax 0.09-0.11 0.35-0.41 0.09-0.14 0.49-0.58 Abdomen 0.75-0.91 0.41-0.54 0.83-1.96 0.66-0.84 Total length 1.40-1.61 - 1.58-1.88 - Genitalia length 0.23-0.29 - - -

3. Menacanthus stramineus Nitzsch (1818)

It is commonly known as the chicken body louse and is the large species of genus Menacanthus which was recorded only from domestic game birds. It is the true parasite of Turkey (Meleagris gallopava domestica), but now it seems to have established itself on the domestic fowl (Gallus gallus domesticus). Records on Pavo m. muticus Linn., Phasinus colchicus and Numida meleagris domestica are due to contamination (Ansari, 1955).

This dark yellow Menoponid (Plate 1, Fig. 5&6), with marked transverse plates is present abundantly around cloaca, in the feathers of back, vent and under the bird’s wings. When the feathers are parted, all sizes of lice run rapidly to cover. This species has spent its most of the time on the skin of the host. This active menoponid is bigger than the other two amblyceran species. It has relatively small triangular head, antennae short and simple.

Prothorax large, protruded, laterals angles triangular. Sternum has cluster of long hairs. Abdomen was ovate with a group of setae and three long hairs in the posterior angle. Each segment bears two rows of hairs on dorsum. Length of segment was almost equal. The two sexes nearly similar in appearance (Plate 1, Fig. 5&6) but the female have slightly smaller abdomen but broader and rounded posteriorly. Male genitalia enlarged and well sclerotized (Plate 1, Fig. 5&6).

Menacanthus stramineus, one of the most studied amblyceran louse, causes the most visible damage to the skin surface and the epidermis, as well as characteristic gnawing of young feathers on the body region where this species occurs in masses e.g. in the cloacal region an inflammatory state of the skin is usually the result, visible in the form of a pronounced reddening.

Table 3. Biometrical analysis of M. stramineus (in mm)

Body Parts Male Female Length Width Length Width Head 0.40-0.48 0.61-0.69 0.37-0.48 0.55-0.72 Prothorax 0.25-0.31 0.48-0.54 0.20-0.32 0.41-0.57 Mesothorax 0.21-0.28 0.61-0.64 0.20-0.29 0.52-0.68 Metathorax 0.12-0.20 0.64-0.69 0.11-0.15 0.57-0.75 Abdomen 1.74-2.09 0.86-1.06 1.07-2.17 0.75-1.12 Total length 12.77-3.12 - 1.90-3.09 - Genitalia length 0.35-0.43 - - -

�?C�Kumar, Trivedi and Kumar�

��

�

�

4. Lipeurus caponis Linn. (1805) It is commonly called as the wing louse or the variable louse of chicken. It is cosmopolitan and was recorded from the domestic fowl and other gallinaceous birds from all over the world. Kellogg and Paine (1914) recorded it from India on Gennaeus Melanotus, G. swinhoe, Argusianus argus, Phasianus torquata and Pavo nigripennis. Ansari (1947) collected it from Gallus domesticus. It prefers the large wing and tail feathers and is commonly found between the barbules on the underside of shaft. Neck is the next preferred site of occurrence.

L. caponis is also an elongate louse (Plate II, Fig. 1&2). Males have long and

narrow head, Abdomen elongates, tergite with 4-6 long posterior hairs, tergal plates median and divided, sexually dimorphic antennae (Plate II, Fig. 1&2), which are filiform in female and well built and with additional appendage in males. Male genitalia enlarged but the basal plate feebly sclerotized (Plate II, Fig. 1). In female, vulva straight was not very clearly visible with two small longitudinal bands bifurcating posteriorly.

L. caponis destroys mainly the feathers of the tail and wings. The presence of these Mallophaga may be more dangerous for birds living wild, for which the destruction of flight feathers could limit flying or make it impossible.

Table 4. Biometrical analysis of L. caponis (in mm)



5. Lipeurus lawrensis tropicalis Peters (1931)

It is commonly called as the tropical hen louse. Peters (1931) described it from domestic fowls in Bahama Islands, Caicos Islands, Venezuela and Liberia. Ansari (1947) took off the specimen from domestic fowl, black Minorca at Lyallpur. Seneviratna (1963) found it in most varieties of domestic fowls especially the white Leghorns. This louse was normally found along the bases of head and neck feathers and also frequently occurs on wing and tail feathers. It has peculiar habit of positioning itself among the grooves found between the barbs of wing feathers where it appears as black strips.

This species is elongate and very dark in colour and is larger than L. caponis. The bodies marking are very conspicuous (Plate II, Fig.

3&4). The forehead is with a minute angulation. The two sexes are equal sized but the male have narrower posterior abdominal portion and possess elongate genital armature (Plate II, Fig. 3&4). The genitalia have long basal plate tapering to bluntly pointed extremity, posterior end broad articulating with a pair of short, slender and tapering parameters. Preputial sac well formed, membranous and beset with numerous recurred denticles. Furthermore, the antennae are sexually dimorphic being filiform in female but enlarged and with a thickened appendage in male (Plate II, Fig. 3). In females the last abdominal segment is emarginated. Owing to their haematophagous nature they seem to be least injurious as far as health and productivity of the host is concerned.

Table 5. Biometrical analysis of L. lawrensis tropicalis (in mm) Body Parts Male Female

Length Width Length Width Head 0.60-0.77 0.38-0.51 0.60-0.78 0.38-0.54 Prothorax 0.21-0.26 0.26-0.35 0.21-0.26 0.29-0.38 Pterothorax 0.28-0.40 0.37-0.58 0.24-0.38 0.45-0.61 Abdomen 1.53-2.01 0.51-0.68 1.58-2.04 0.66-0.89 Total length 2.63-3.55 2.70-3.35 Genitalia length 0.84-1.08

�?�� Kumar, Trivedi and Kumar�

��

�

�

6. Lipeurus heterographus Nitzsch (1866) L. heterographus is very rare species in

Garhwal region. It is exclusively found in the head and neck region of host bird. The body of L. heterographus was smoky with irregular longitudinal bands on the margins. Head was narrow in front and temporal margin was rounded. Antennae are filiform and sexually

dimorphic (Plate II, Fig. 5&6). Prothorax more or less quadrangular with rounded lateral margins. Pterothorax is small with lateral margins straight and projecting. Abdomen had transverse black blotches. Body segment 1-4 bears a median row of transversely situated setae. Male is smaller than female.

Table 6. Biometrical analysis of L. heterographus (in mm)


Head 0.50-0.59 0.51-0.56 0.60-0.62 0.39-0.52 Prothorax 0.11-0.16 0.17-0.19 0.09-0.12 0.15-0.17 Pterothorax 0.20-0.25 0.28-0.30 0.18-0.20 0.25-0.32 Abdomen 1.01-1.09 0.495-0.55 1.05-1.30 0.65-0.69 Total length 1.82-2.09 - 1.95-2.25 - Genitalia length -

7. Goniodes dissimilis Denny (1842)

It is commonly called the chicken Goniodes or brown chicken louse or golden brown chicken louse. Gallus gallus domesticus is the type host of G. dissimilis but it has occasionally been found on other domestic phasianids. It has been recorded from all parts of the world but is of very rare occurrence. Ansari (1947) collected it from domestic fowl (black Minorca) only. It mainly occupies back feathers but also occurs on breast and abdomen. It is very sluggish in habit it seems to have low reproductive potentials, as it’s number remains low in comparison to other species.

It is robust louse. The body colour of louse was reddish or tawny brown with chestnut markings (Plate III, Fig. 1&2). The head was broader than long (Table 7), hexagonal or subquadrate in out line. Front broadly rounded.

Temples were accurately angulate and projecting. Prothorax narrow, rounded laterally. Pterothorax was narrow projecting posteriorly. Abdomen was globular. Tergal plates were well marked and pigmented. Pleural plates well pigmented, fawn coloured, occupying one half of the lateral half. The males are distinctly smaller than the females and easily distinguishable. Antennae sexually dimorphic, first segment well built in males. Male genitalia were feebly sclerotized and variable (Plate II, Fig. 1). In females segment eight envelopes terminal bilobed segment. Vulva was convex with two-minute protuberances. This lazily moving mallophagan have a minimal effect on weakening the host organism, both in view of their small number and also of their feeding habits (mainly the feathers).

Table 7. Biometrical analysis of Goniodes dissimilis (in mm)


Head 0.55-0.72 0.65-0.81 0.68-0.95 0.70-1.15 Prothorax 0.17-0.20 0.34-0.48 0.17-0.41 0.43-0.54 Pterothorax 0.29-0.48 0.74-1.0 0.34-0.55 0.78-1.28 Abdomen 0.69-0.89 0.81-1.08 0.90-1.52 0.89-1.54 Total length 1.72-2.12 2.0-3.08 Genitalia length 0.31-0.86

8. Goniodes gigas Taschenberg (1869)

It is commonly known as the large chicken louse or blue bug. It has been recorded

from all over the world from the domestic fowl (Gallus gallus domestics Linn.). Bedford (1932) took it from Numida coronata, N. papillus and N.

�?��Kumar, Trivedi and Kumar�

��

�

�

p. transvaalensis. Ansari (1947) collected it from Gallus gallus domesticus Linn. This species is quite common but the number met with on a bird is small.

G. gigas is a strong and stout ischnoceran louse. General body colour is smoky gray with tawny black pleural plates (Plate III, Fig. 3&4). Antennae were sexually dimorphic. The head was more or less as long as broad, nearly quadrate. Fore head rounded temples inwardly oblique with rounded and protruding angle. Antennae are filiform and not modified. Prothorax was rectangular projecting laterally.

Abdomen is broad orbicular. Posterior segment was concaving truncate and globular. Males are distinctly smaller than females (Table 8) with long and well-developed genitalia (Plate III, Fig. 3&4). Basal plate is long and narrow and extending as far as abdominal segment IInd. Females are with well-developed pleural plates and hairy median region (Plate III, Fig. 4). Owing to the minimal number and non-haematophagic feeding habit, they are unlikely to cause any visible damage to the health and behaviour of infested host.

Table 8. Biometrical analysis of Goniodes gigas Taschenberg (in mm)



9. Goniocotes gallinae De Geer (1778) It is also know as lesser rump or fluff louse. It is another common ectoparasite parasite of chickens. It has also been record from guinea fowl (Numida melesgris domesticus Linn.). It is very small (Table 9), globular, smoky gray louse. It commonly inhibits fluffy basal parts of the feathers and is abundant on the downy feathers of the cloacal region.

Head as long as broad, nearly quadrate (Plate III, Fig. 5&6). Marginal carina well found, broader in front and narrow on the sides. Temples strongly angulate with rounded tips. Prothorax was small, narrow and globular. Pleural plates well developed forming a simple, comma shaped marginal sclerotization. Antennae are simple and do not show sexual dimorphism (Plate III, Fig. 5&6). The male are distinctly smaller (nearly half) than females (Table 9).

In males the last segment was very concave so as to accommodate terminal truncate segment. Genital armature was feeble, parameres short. In females, vulva margins with short spine like setae on each side. Whenever occurring in masses, it conspicuously destroys the under down of feathers. It can be concluded that the Mallophaga of this species, which usually occur

on the distal part of feathers, to only a small extent effect a weakening of the host birds. DISCUSSION

Poultry is recently emerging industry in Garhwal region. Poultry birds are reared in rural areas on small scale and it takes part in the economy of India. The domestic fowl (Gallus gallus domesticus) is attacked by large number of ectoparasite viz. lice, ticks, mites, fleas, flies and bugs etc. most of the ectoparasites attack the productivity and vitality of host. The importance of ectoparasites is very much neglected in our country as well as in Garhwal region.

Ansari (1943, 47, 51 & 55) had performed taxonomic studies on phthirpteran infesting birds and mammals of Punjab and also make available synoptic list for the identification of these creatures. He reported eight species of lice which was found on the domestic fowl of Punjab. Present researches showed that eleven species of Phthiraptera (e.g. M. gallinae, M. stramineus, M. cornutus, L.lawrensis tropicalis, L. caponis, L. heterographus, G. gallinae, G. dissimilis, G. gigas and two species of Goniodes which are yet to be identified) infesting poultry bird of Garhwal region. Out of eleven species, three species (M. gallinae, M. stramineus and M.

�?!� Kumar, Trivedi and Kumar�

��

�

�

cornutus) are haematophagous other are feather feeder or partially feeds on other body derivatives.

M. gallinae and M. stramineus act as reservoir strains of certain diseases like fowl typhoid, fowl cholera, toxoplasmosis and eastern equine encephalomyelitis (Derylo, 1969, 70, 72, 75; Derylo & Jarsoz, 1972; Howitt et al., 1948). Hence, phthirapteran are able to reduce the

productivity (e.g. egg, meat and feather) and vitality of host at some extent. During survey work, interactions with poultry men showed that their opinion was that phthirapteran are harmless creature. The knowledge of poultry men is still in inadequate. They require recognizing the lice species. Try to check the transmission and control them by suitable method.

Table 9. Biometrical analysis of Goniocotes gallinae (in mm)



CONCLUSION In the rural areas of the country (in

villages) the chief dietary supplement are eggs from domestic hens reared by villagers. These peoples are completely unaware of harmful affects and transmission of phthirapteran ectoparasites among hosts. Out of nine three haematophagous licee species has recorded from Garhwal region which is the main concern

regarding decline in productivity and

debility of host bird directly (blood feeding) and indirectly (transmitting diseases). The eco-friendly eradication strategies and awareness about phthirapteran ectoparasites among peoples required more efforts in the region.

?AC�

�? �Kumar, Trivedi and Kumar�

��

�

�

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Authors are thankful to U-COST for

providing financial help to Dr. Adesh Kumar in form of project (No. UCS&T/R&D/LS/10/06 /405). REFERENCES Ansari, M.A.R. (1943). Mallophaga found on

domestic fowl, Gallus domesticus Linn., in the Punjab. Indian J. Entomol. 5: 129-142.

Ansari, M.A.R. (1947). Mallophaga (Ischnocera) infesting birds in the Punjab (India). Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 17: 127-203.

Ansari, M.A.R. (1951). Studies on Phthiraptera parasites on mammals from the Punjab. Indian J. Entomol. 13: 117-145.

Ansari, M.A.R. (1955). Synoptic table for the determination of Mallophaga infesting the domestic fowl (Gallus domesticus). Indian J. Entomol. 17(2): 245-270.

Arora, G.L. and Chopra, N.P. (1959). Observation on the Life history of Lipeurus lawrensis tropicalis Peters (Mallophaga-Ischnocera). Fed. Bull. (N.S.) of Punjab Univ. 10(11): 179-187.

Bhattacharjee, J. (1939). A check list of the ectoparasites of domesticated animals in Burma, Ind. J. Vet. Sci., Delhi. 9: 437-42.

Bedford, G.A.H. (1932). A synoptic checklist and host list of the ectoparasites found on South African Mammalia, Aves and Reptilia. Rep. Vet. Res. S. Africa. 18: 223-523.

Brown, N.S. (1970). Distribution of Menacanthus stramineus in relation to chicken surface temperature. J. Parasitol. 56: 1205.

Clay, T. (1950). The Mallophaga as an aid to the classification of birds with special reference to Feathers. Proc. Xth Internal. Ornithol. Cong. 207-215.

Clay, T. (1957). The Mallophaga of bird. In: First Symposium on host specificity among parasites of vertebrates. Inst. Zool. Univ. Neuchatel, Imprimerie Poul Attinger S.A. 120-157.

Clay, T. (1958). The Mallophaga of birds. In: premier sympos. Sur la specificate parasitair de parasites de vertebrates 1957. Union International des sci. biology. Ser. B.no. 2. 120-158.

Derylo, A. (1969). Mallophaga as vector of Pasteurella multocida. Ann Univ. Mariae Curie. 24: 355-366.

Derylo, A. (1970). Mallophaga as reservoir of Pasteurella multocida Acta. Parasitol. Polan. 17: 301-313.

Derylo, A. (1972). Aktualny stan. Badan nad role epizootiologiczna wszolow (Mallophaga). Wiad Parazytol. 18: 531-533.

Derylo, A. (1975). Investigation on economic disadvantage of Mallophaga.VI. An influence of ecological and physiological factors on the Intensity of Mallophaga infestation. Prezegl. Zool. 19(2): 181-187.

Derylo, A. and Jarosz, J. (1972). Mikroflora jelitowa neiktorych wszolow haematofagicznych Wiad. Parazytol. 8: 113-119.

Eichler, Wd., Zlotorzycka, J. and Ludwig, H.W. (1974). Taxonomie and biologie der Mallophagen and louse mittleleuropaischer Haus and Natztiere. Parasitol. Schr. R. Jene. 22: 1608.

Eveleigh, E.S. and Amano, H. (1977). A numerical taxonomic study of Mallophagan genera Cummingsiella (= Quadraceps), Saemundssonia (Ischnocera : Philopteridae), and Austromenopin (Amblycera : Menoponidae) from alcids (Aves : Charadriiformes) of northwest Atlantic with special reference to host parasite relationship. Can. J. Zool. 55: 1788-1801.

Ewing, H.E. (1929). A manual of external parasite–Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, III and Baltimore, 90-152, 189-202.

Fletcher, T.B. (1926). Tentative key to the orders and families of Indian insects. Agric. Res. Inst.Pusa, Bull. No. 162.

Harrison, L. (1915). The respiratory system of Mallophaga. J. Parasitology. 8: 101-127.

�@A� Kumar, Trivedi and Kumar�

��

�

�

Howitt, B.F., Dodge, H.R., Bishop, L.K. and Gorrie, R.H. (1948). Viruses of eastern equine encephalomyelitis isolated from chicken mites (Dermanyssus gallinae) and chicken lice (Eomenacanthus stramineus). Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 68: 622-625.

Hoyle, W.L. (1938). Transmission of poultry parasites by birds with a special reference to English or Rouse sparrow and chicken. Trans. Kanas. Acad. Sci. 41: 379-384.

Kellogg, V.L. and Paine, J.H. (1914). Mallophaga from birds (mostly Corvidade and Phasianidae) of Indian and neighbouring countries. Rec. Indian Mus. 10(4): 217-243.

Lakshminarayana, K.V. (1977). Factors involved in the host specificity in Mallophaga Sens. Lat., (Phthiraptera: Insecta) Infesting Birds. Insect and Host

specificity, 101-109, The Macmillan Company of India.

Lakshminarayana, K.V. (1979). A synoptic list of Mallophaga. Record of Zool. Survey of India. 75: 39-201.

Ryder, W.D. (1967). The dispersal of certain species of Mallophaga which infest the domestic fowl, Gallus gallus domesticus. J. appl. Ecol. 4: 309-323.

Seguy, E. (1951). Order des Mallophages. In: P.P. Grasse, Traite de Zoologie, Masson et cie, Paris.

Seneviratna, P. (1963). Observation of lice (Phthiraptera) on some domestic animals and the domestic fowl in Ceylon. Celoyn Vet. Jour. 11: 53-56.

Ward, R.A. (1957). A study of host distribution and some relationships of biting lice.

Wilson, F.H. (1934). The life cycles and bionomics of Lipeurus heterographus Nitzsch. J. Parasitol. 20: 304-311.

�@��Kumar, Trivedi and Kumar�

��

�

�

Parthenium hysterophorus: a serious threat to plant biodiversity

Disha Jaggi, Jai Knox and Manoj S. Paul

Department of Botany, St. John’s College, Agra, U.P.-282002, India

email: [email protected]


ABSTRACT: Parthenium hysterophorus Linn., an annual herb native to the subtropics of north and South America has achieved major weed status in India in last few years. It has been seen to grow luxuriantly in forests, grasslands, wastelands, around the agricultural fields and sometimes in less competitive field crops, and is rapidly replacing the local flora. A phytosociological analysis of weeds was conducted at three different sites of Agra district in monsoon season, especially their population dynamics in relation to Parthenium hysterophorus. Weeds like Withania somnifera, Cassia occidentalis, Croton bonplandianum, Calotropis procera, Datura somnifera and Tephrosia purpurea etc. were commonly found in close vicinity of Parthenium. In laboratory, effect of shoot and root leachates of P. hysterophorus was assessed on seed germination of some selected plants to evaluate its allelopathic potential in nature. Shoot leachates of Parthenium were found most inhibitory on seed germination of most of the plants species. From field and laboratory studies it can be concluded that P. hysterophorus has strong allelopathic potential to inhibit seed germination of neighbouring plants and is becoming a serious threat to plant biodiversity in varied ecosystems. Key words: Allelopathic potential, Parthenium hysterophorus, plant biodiversity weed, population dynamics, shoot leachates.

INTRODUCTION

Parthenium hysterophorus Linn. (Asteraceae), an alien invasive species, commonly known as Parthenium weed is an annual or short-lived ephemeral herb of neo-tropical origin that now has a pan-tropical distribution. In India and Australia, P. hysterophorus is considered to be a major weed (Mahadevappa, 1997; Navie et al., 1996). The invasive ability of the weed can be attributed to its high reproductive and dissemination ability, its allelopathic effect on other plants, its higher phenotypic plasticity and ability to withstand a wide range of environmental conditions.

Parthenium weed is a weed of National Significance. It was introduced accidentally in India in 1955 through the imported food grains and at present has occupied almost all parts of India (Ramaswami, 1997). The weed grows luxuriously around the agricultural fields and is also found in some less competitive crops like watermelon (Javaid & Anjum, 2005; Javaid et al., 2006a). However, in India and Australia it has also become a major problematic weed both in agricultural and wastelands (Evans, 1997). It

has now become a major wasteland weed and is rapidly replacing the native flora.

The impact of P. hysterophorus on livestock production is significant, both directly and indirectly and affects grazing lands, animal health, milk and meat quality and the marketing of pasture seed and grains. In humans severe allergic reactions caused by this weed including hay fever, asthma or dermatitis and can be caused by the dust, debris or volatile fumes from the plant as well as its pollen (Chippendale, 1994).

The successful spread of Parthenium in so many parts of the world has mainly been attributed to its allelopathic properties, which enables it to compete effectively with crops and pasture species (Singh et al., 2003; Batish et al., 2005a, b). Parthenium is considered a noxious weed because of its allelopathic effects (Kohli et al., 2006). It was also reported to cause severe crop losses. Sorghum grain yield losses between 40 and 97% were reported in Ethiopia if Parthenium is left uncontrolled throughout the season (Tamado et al., 2002).

Biological Forum_ An International Journal, Spl. Iss.��B��=��@?>�@!�(?A�?��9��# �8%��:;�==B25C=C2�

��

�

�

The allelochemicals released from Parthenium affecting many plant species are sesquiterpene lactones and phenolics. Parthenin is the major sesquiterpene lactone whereas these two synergistically acting groups of allelochemicals significantly decrease the seed germination and subsequent growth in many crops (Batish et al., 2005a, b; Singh et al., 2003). Because of its efficient biological activity and adaptability to varying soils and micro environments, Parthenium weed has a tendency to replace the dominant flora in wide range of habitats cutting across state boundaries and agro-climatic regions. Its large and persistent soil seed bank, fast germination rate and ability to undergo dormancy make it well adapted to semi-arid environments and releases chemicals that inhibit the germination and growth of the neighbouring flora

Therefore keeping in view the above the present study has been conducted to evaluate status of Parthenium weed in Agra district in monsoon season (most favourable season for germination of maximum plant species) and its impact on neighbouring flora. Evaluation of allelopathic potential of Parthenium on seed germination and growth of selected plants were also assessed under laboratory conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS i). Phytosociological studies: Three weeds infested sites were selected for phytosociological studies during 2009-2010. At each site, the frequency percentage, density and abundance of Parthenium was estimated, by using 1.0 m x 1.0m (1.0m2) quadrat. Sampling was done randomly in triplicate at 10 spots at each selected site. The data were compiled and were analysed for qualitative and quantitative study using following formulae:

Total number of individual speciesDensity =

Total number of quadrat studied

Total number of individual speciesAbundance =

Total number of quadrat in which speices occur

ii). Preparation of aqueous leachates: Leaves and root tips were collected from selected test plants; 100 g of shoot and root tips were soaked in 500 mL of double distilled water each under aseptic conditions for 9 days and placed in conical flasks in a refrigerator at 8 °C. The aqueous leachates were filtered through three layers of muslin cloth/ cheese cloth to remove debris. The filtrate was then re-filtered through one layer of Whatman No.1 filter paper and used for bioassay. iii). Seed germination: Seeds of selected plant species were collected from study sites, thoroughly washed with tap water to remove dirt and dust and then rinsed with mild detergent solution for 5-7 min. The seeds were surface sterilised with 0.1% HgCl2 for 10 min and again washed with sterilised distilled water 4-7 times. The seeds were divided into 10 replicates of 10 seeds each in perti dishes and were placed on filter paper in petri dishes and moistened with shoot and root leachates of Parthenium hysterophorus whereas control received distilled water. All the seed lots were allowed to germinate for 10-15 days. Radicle & plumule length and biomass (in cm and mgs) of each test plant was recorded after 10 days of germination. Germination percentage was calculated by given formula:

RESULTS

Dominant species and mean of frequency percentage, density and abundance of individual species are given in Fig. 1, 2 and 3. Comparisons were made site wise (site I, II & III) and plant wise.

Four most abundant plant species cohabiting P. hysterophorus at site I was recorded as Abutilon indicum, Cassia occidentalis, Croton bonplandianum and Calotropis procera presented in Fig. 1. Out of five weeds P. hysterophorus exhibits highest frequency, density and abundance i.e. 90%, 6.9 and 7.6. Ecological indices of C. occidentalis and C. bonplandianum were found close to Parthenium followed by A. indicum and C. procera. C. occidentalis and C. bonplandianum occurred at the frequency of 80-90% at this site

�@@�Jaggi, Knox and Paul�

��

�

�

whereas other weeds occurred at the frequency of 60-70%.

Fig. 2 represents the highest frequency, density and abundance values exhibited by P. hysterophorus at site II i.e. 80%, 5.5 and 6.8. Observations made at site II showed marked similarity between C. occidentalis and C. bonplandianum, reported from site I. C. occidentalis and C. bonplandianum were most frequently occurring plant species (exhibits 80% frequency) than any other plants recorded at site II i.e. Datura somnifera, Rumex dentatus, Tephrosia purpurea and Calotropis procera, exhibited 30-60% frequency.

Highest frequency, density and abundance were exhibited by C. occidentalis at site III i.e. 80%, 3.6 & 4.5 presented in figure. 3.70% frequency was observed in C. bonplandianum as compared to P. hysterophorus. T. purpurea is one of the plants, occurred at the same frequency of P. hysterophorus i.e. 60% whereas frequency of occurrence of other weeds was recorded as 40-50% and observed as weak competitors.

Hence P. hysterophorus was recorded as most dominant weed at site I and II whereas at site I, C. occidentalis was dominant. C. occidentalis and C. bonplandianum were recorded as most competitive plant species with P. hysterophorus; therefore their ecological indices were found close to Parthenium weed at two sites and higher at site III. Dominance of P. hysterophorus may be attributed to its allelopathic potential Fig. 4 represent inhibition on seed germination of selected weeds in leaf and root leachates of P. hysterophorus. Maximum inhibition on seed germination was observed in leaf leachates of P. hysterophorus in W. somnifera i.e. 51.76% and minimum was in root leachates i.e. 15.85% in C. occidentalis. Maximum seed germination was observed in root leachates i.e. 79-82% in C. bonplandianum and C. occidentalis, hence least affected. 58.81% of germination was recorded in C. procera in shoot leachates. Leaf leachates showed significant inhibition on seed germination of all the selected weeds as compared to root leachates of Parthenium whereas slight reduction in seed germination was also observed in root leachates as compared to control 97.88.

Radicle & plumule length (R & P.L) and biomass of all the selected weeds were significantly reduced in leaf and root leachates of P. hysterophorus. Maximum reduction in R & P.L was observed in seedlings of W. somnifera and C. procera in leaf leachates i.e. 1.2 &1.4 and 1.8 & 2.1, whereas biomass was reduced to 0.037-0.049 as compared to control 3.2 & 3.8 (R & P.L)and 0.098 (biomass). Least reduction in R & P.L was observed in leaf leachates of P. hysterophorus in C. occidentalis and C. bonplandianum i.e. 2.8 & 2.6 whereas significant reduction in biomass was observed in both plants between 0.054 -0.056. Root leachates showed less inhibition therefore gradual increase in R & P.L and biomass was observed in all the selected weeds. Maximum increase was observed in root leachates of P. hysterophorus in C. occidentalis; hence it was least affected and recorded as best competitor with Parthenium at infested sites. DISCUSSION

In the present investigation, it can be concluded that P. hysterophorus was the most frequently occurring weed in Agra. However, there are some naturally occurring plant species which have the capacity to overcome allelopathic effects of P. hysterophorus and to grow luxuriantly in its presence. C. occidentalis and C. bonplandianum were strong competitors of Parthenium weed. This is in confirmity with observations made by Knox et al., 2006 who reported that C. occidentalis was dominant, cohabiting with P. hysterophorus successfully at different sites.

Ecological indices of C. occidentalis and C. bonplandianum were found close to Parthenium weed and at site III Cassia was dominant. Shabbir and Javaid, (2007) made a survey and reported that P. hysterophorus had an appreciable degree of sociability with C. occidentalis and in 2010, Shabbir and Javaid reported that Parthenium weed is becoming a dominant part of local wasteland flora with the highest values of ecological indices. Similar observations were made in our survey. Parthenium is a prolific seed producer and it may be the one of reasons of its dominancy (Navie et al., 1996).

C. occidentalis has completely replaced Parthenium weed at site III which is in

�@B� Jaggi, Knox and Paul�

��

�

�

conformity to phytosociological survey made in Islamabad and Rawalpindi and done by Shabbir and Bajwa, 2004, which states that C. occidentalis is replacing this weed gradually in patches. Oudhia, 1999; Joshi and Mahadevappa, 1986 and Knox et al., 2011 reported similar findings in their surveys.

P. hysterophorus has inhibitory effect on seed germination and growth of plant species and these effects were attributed to allelopathic nature of this weed reported by many researches. Batish et al., 2005a, b; Singh et al., 2003, stated in their studies that allelochemicals released from Parthenium reduce seed germination and growth of other plant species.

Fig. 1. Vegetation dynamics recorded at site I.

Maximum inhibition on seed

germination and growth was observed in leaf leachates, as leaves are the richest source of allelochemicals. It was also in conformity with Kanchan, 1975, who stated that greatest concentration of chemicals was present in the leaves followed by inflorescence, fruits, roots

and stems. Shabbir and Javaid, 2010 observed similar behaviour of Parthenium weed in Pakistan. Numbers of studies have been carried out on allelopathic nature of P. hysterophorus and these allelopathic effects vary plant to plant and part to part.

Hence P. hysterophorus with strong allelopathic influence can have detrimental effects on growth of neighbouring flora and ultimately reduce vegetation in land ecosystems. Therefore need for using effective bio herbicides to control aggressiveness of this weed is warranted. C.

occidentalis and C. bonplandianum appeared to be strong competitors of Parthenium population and survive in its presence. These could be used as alternative tool or as biological agents to manage this problematic weed in order to save plant biodiversity.

�@C�

Fig. 2 Vegetation dynamics recorded at site II. �

Jaggi, Knox and Paul�

��

�

�

Fig. 3. Vegetation dynamics recorded at site III. Fig. 4. Effect of leaf and root leachates of P. hysterophorus on seed germination of selected weeds.

�@�� Jaggi, Knox and Paul�

��

�

�

Fig. 5. Effect of leaf and root leachates of P. hysterophorus on seeding growth of selected weeds. REFERENCES Batish, D.R., Singh, H.P., Pandher, J.K., Kohli,

R.K. (2005a). Allelopathic Interference of Parthenium hysterophorus residues in soil. Allelo. J. 15: 267-273.

Batish, D.R., Singh, H.P., Pandher, J.K., Kohli, R.K. (2005b). Phytotoxic effects of Parthenium hysterophorus residues on three Brassica sp. Weed Biol. Manage. 5: 105-109.

Chippendale, J.F. and Panetta, F.D. (1994). The cost of Parthenium weeds to the Queensland cattle industry. Plant Protection Quarterly. 9: 73-76.

Evans, H.C. (1997). Parthenium hysterophorus: a review of its weed status and the possibilities for biological control. Biocont. News Inform. 18: 89-98.

Javaid, A. and Anjum, T. (2005). Parthenium hysterophorus L.– a noxious alien weed. Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res. 11(3-4): 171-177.

Javaid, A., S. Shafique and S. Shafique. (2006a). Parthenium weed– an emerging threat to plant biodiversity in Pakistan. Int. J. Biol. Biotech. 3(3): 619-622.

Joshi, S. and Mahadevappa, M. (1986). Cassia

sericea S. to fight Parthenium hysterophorus Linn. Curr. Sci. 55: 261-262.

Kanchan, S.D. (1975). Growth inhibitors from Parthenium hysterophorus Linn. Curr. Sci. 44: 358–359.

Knox, J., Dass, A., Sharma, A. and Paul, M.S. (2006). Vegetation dynamics of some weeds with Parthenium hysterophorus L. Geobios. 33: 325-326.

Knox, Jai., Jaggi, D. and Paul, M.S. (2011). Population dynamics of Parthenium hysterophorus (Asteraceae) and its biological suppression through Cassia occidentalis (Caesalpiniaceae). Turk. J. Bot. 35: 111-119.

Kohli, R.K., Batish, D.R., Singh, H.P., Dogra, K. (2006). Status, invasiveness and environmental threats of three tropical American invasive Weeds (Parthenium hysterophorus L., Ageratum conyzoides L., Lantana camara L.). Biological Invasions. 8: 1501-1510.

�@��Jaggi, Knox and Paul�

��

�

�

Mahadevappa, M. (1997). Ecology, distribution, menace and management of Parthenium. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Parthenium Management, Mahadevappa, M and V.C. Patil. (Eds.) 6-8 October, 1997, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dahrwad, India. pp.1-12.

Navie, S.C., R.E. Mc Fadyen, F.D. Panetta and S.W. Adkins. (1996). The biology of Australian weeds 27, Parthenium hysterophorous L. Plant Protect. Quart. 11: 76-88.

Oudhia, P. (1999). Phytosociological studies of rainy season wasteland weeds with special references to Parthenium hysterophorus L. in Raipur (India) district. Asian J. Microbiol. Biotech. and Environ. Sci. (in press).

Ramaswami, P.P. (1997). Potential uses of Parthenium. In: Proc. First Int. Conf. on Parthenium Management. pp. 77-80.

Shabbir, A. and Bajwa, R. (2004). Cassia occidentalis a native plant to control

noxious Parthenium weed. Abstract, II European Allelopathy Symposium. Pulaway, Poland. p.151.

Shabbir, A. and Javaid. (2007). Parthenium invasion in Pakistan .Pak. J. Bot. 39(7): 2519-2526.

Shabbir, A. and Javaid. (2010). Phytosociology survey and allelopathic effects of Parthenium weed in comparison to other weeds in Pakistan. Indian J. Agric. Res. 44(2): 119-124.

Singh, H.P., Batish, D.R., Pandher, J.K., Kohli, R.K. (2003). Assessment of allelopathic properties of Parthenium hysterophorus residues. Agric. Ecosy. Environ. 95: 537-541

Tamado, T., Ohlander, L., Milberg, P. (2002). Interference by the weed Parthenium hysterophorus L. with grain sorghum: Influence of weed density and duration of competition. Int. J. Pest Management. 48: 183-188.

�@!� Jaggi, Knox and Paul�

��

�

�

Effect of Heavy metal pollution on humans

Mayank Varun*, Rohan D’Souza and M.S. Paul

Department of Botany, St. John’s College, Agra-282 002, India.



ABSTRACT: Some heavy metals have bio-importance as trace elements but the biotoxic effects of many of them in human biochemistry are of great concern. Hence, there is a need for proper understanding of mechanism involved, such as the concentrations and oxidation states, which make them harmful. It is also important to know their sources, leaching processes, chemical conversions and their modes of deposition in polluting the environment, which essentially supports life. Literature sources point to the fact that these metals are released into the environment by both natural and anthropogenic means, especially mining and industrial activities, and automobile exhausts. They leach into the underground waters, moving along water pathways and eventually depositing in the aquifer, or are washed away by run-off into surface waters thereby resulting in water and subsequently soil pollution. Poisoning and toxicity in ecosystem occur frequently through exchange and co-ordination mechanisms. When ingested, they form stable biotoxic compounds, thereby mutilating their structures and hindering bioreactions of their functions. This paper reviews certain heavy metals and their impact and biotoxic effects on man. Key words: heavy metals, pollution.

INTRODUCTION

Since the rapid industrialization that took place at the turn of the 20th century, pollution of air, water, and soil has become a major global problem. The range of different pollutants that can contaminate land is broad and extensive, but the group of contaminants that are of particular interest to this study are heavy metals. In an environmental context, it is often used to describe a group of elements associated with pollution and potential toxicity (Hodson 2004). The term ‘heavy metal’ is usually restricted to those metals that have densities greater than 5 gm/cm3 (Page, 1974). The most common heavy metal contaminants are: Cadmium (Cd), Chromium (Cr), Copper (Cu), Mercury (Hg), Lead (Pb) and Zinc (Zn). These elements are natural components of soils in trace amounts.

Heavy metals are ubiquitous environmental contaminants and their content in soils has accelerated dramatically since 1900, the beginning of the industrial revolution (Nriagu, 1979). Many soils throughout the world have undesirably high concentrations of heavy metals. Soil pollution by metals differs from air or water pollution, because heavy metals persist in soil much longer than in other compartments of the

biosphere (Lasat, 2002). Over recent decades, the annual worldwide release of heavy metals reached 22,000 t (metric ton) for cadmium, 939,000 t for copper, 783,000 t for lead and 1,350,000 t for zinc (Singh et al., 2003).

In most developed countries, current heavy metal pollution cases are localised and are declining due to cleaner industrial practices and conversion to non-heavy metal based products like unleaded fuel. However in developing regions of the world, namely India and China, heavy metal contamination of the environment is still widespread (Krämer, 2005).

OCCURRENCE AND RECOVERY OF HEAVY METALS

Heavy metals occur as natural constituents of the earth crust, and are persistent environmental contaminants since they cannot be degraded or destroyed. To a small extent, they enter the body system through food, air, and water and bio-accumulate over a period of time (Lenntech, 2004; UNEP/GPA, 2004). In rocks, they exist as their ores in different chemical forms, from which they are recovered as minerals. Heavy metal ores include sulphides, such as iron, arsenic, lead, lead-zinc, cobalt,

Biological Forum_ An International Journal, Spl. Iss.��B��=��@ >�BB��(?A�?��9��# �8%��:;�==B25C=C2�

��

�

�

goldsilver and nickel sulphides; oxides such as aluminium, manganese, gold, selenium and antimony. Some exist and can be recovered as both sulphide and oxide ores such as iron, copper and cobalt.

Metals occur in ionic form in their respective ores that exist naturally as sulphides would mostly occur together, likewise for oxides. Therefore, sulphides of lead, cadmium, arsenic and mercury would naturally be found present together with sulphides of iron (pyrite, FeS2) and copper (chalcopyrite, CuFeS2) as minors, which are obtained as by-products of various hydrometallurgical processes or as part of exhaust fumes in pyrometallurgical and other processes that follow after mining to recover them. During mining processes, some metals are left behind as tailings scattered in open and partially covered pits; some are transported through wind and flood, creating various environmental problems (Habashi, 1992). Heavy metals are basically recovered from their ores by mineral processing operations (Peplow, 1999; Lenntech, 2004; USDOL, 2004). EMISSION OF HEAVY METALS IN ENVIRONMENT

Heavy metals can be emitted in to the environment by both natural and anthropogenic causes. The inputs of metals to the environment from anthropogenic activities is complicated to distinguish as there are very large natural inputs from the erosion, wind-blown dust, volcanic activity and forest fires. Naturally occurring pollution originates from excessive weathering of rocks with surface metal deposits and can equal or, in rare instances, exceed man-made pollution levels. Human activity is the main contributor to heavy metal pollution. The main man-made sources of heavy metal pollution are: (i) metal smelters and refineries, (ii) industrial wastes (e.g. electroplating) (iii) military operations, (iv) mining, (v) landfill run-offs, (vi) agricultural chemicals such as pesticides, herbicides and fertilisers, and (vii) automobile emissions (Saxena et al., 1999). Heavy metal concentrations in soil range from less than 1 mg/kg to over 1000 mg/kg (Adriano, 2001).

Cadmium is released as a by- product of zinc (and occasionally lead) refining; lead is emitted during its mining and smelting activities,

from automobile exhausts (by combustion of petroleum fuels treated with tetraethyl lead antiknock) and from old lead paints; mercury is emitted by the degassing of the earth’s crust. Generally, metals are emitted during their mining and processing activities (Lenntech, 2004). Environmental pollution by heavy metals is very prominent in areas of mining and old mine sites and pollution reduces with increasing distance away from mining sites (Peplow, 1999). These metals are leached out and in sloppy areas, are carried by acid water downstream or run-off to the sea. Through mining activities, water bodies are most emphatically polluted (Garbarino et al., 1995; INECAR, 2000). The potential for contamination is increased when mining exposes metal-bearing ores rather than natural exposure of ore bodies through erosion (Garbarino et al., 1995), and when mined ores are dumped on the earth surfaces in manual dressing processes. Through rivers and streams, the metals are transported as either dissolved species in water or as an integral part of suspended sediments, (dissolved species in water have the greatest potential of causing the most deleterious effects). They may then be stored in river bed sediments or seep into the underground water thereby contaminating water from underground sources, particularly wells; and the extent of contamination will depend on the nearness of the well to the mining site. Wells located near mining sites have been reported to contain heavy metals at levels that exceed drinking water criteria (Garbarino et al., 1995; Peplow, 1999). The tolerance limits of some heavy metals are shown in Table 1.

HUMAN EXPOSURE

Soils and sediments are the ultimate sink for many pollutants. Heavy metal pollution of surface and underground water sources results in considerable soil pollution and pollution increases when mined ores are dumped on the ground surface for manual dressing (Garbarino et al., 1995; INECAR, 2000). Metals tend to accumulate in the biologically active regions of the soil, where they can be taken up by crops (Trueby, 2003). Animals that graze on such contaminated plants and drink from polluted waters, as well as marine lives that breed in heavy metal polluted waters also accumulate

�BA� Varun, D’Souza and Paul�

��

�

�

Table 1. Maximum contamination levels for heavy metal concentration in air, water and soil by United State Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

Heavy Metal Maximum concentration in air (mg/m3)

Maximum concentrations in soil

(mg/kg)

Maximum concentrations in drinking water (mg/l)

Cd 0.1-0.2 85 0.005 Pb - 420 0.01 Zn 1, 5* 7500 5.00 As 0.01 - 0.00 Ca 5 Tolerable 50.0 As - - 0.01 Hg - <1 0.002

such metals in their tissues, and milk, if lactating (Habashi, 1992; Garbarino et al., 1995; Horsfall and Spiff, 1999). Humans are in turn exposed to heavy metals by consuming contaminated plants and animals, and this has been known to result in various biochemical disorders. In summary, all living organisms within a given ecosystem are variously contaminated along their cycles of food chain.

Industrial products that are used in homes, and which have been produced with heavy metals are sources of human exposure to such heavy metals. Mercury exposure is through disinfectants (like mercurochrome), antifungal agents, toiletries, creams and organo-metallics (McCluggage, 1991); cadmium exposure is through nickel/cadmium batteries and artist paints; lead exposure is through wine bottle wraps, mirror coatings, batteries, old paints and tiles and linolein amongst others. Infants are more susceptible to the endangering effects of exposure to heavy metals.

Heavy metal exposure occurs

significantly by occupational exposure. Workers of the mining and production of cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, gold and silver have been reported to be thus exposed; also inhabitants around industrial sites of heavy metal mining and processing, are exposed through air by suspended particulate matters (SPM) (Heyer, 1985; USDOL, 2004).

In a survey carried out in the city of Firozabad (glass city of India) by the authors it was found that most prevalent ailments among the workers (and their families in the case of small workshops) were lung, kidney and eye related. The local populace is, thus, exposed to wide range of well established toxins and even carcinogens (Varun et al., 2011, D’souza et al., 2011). These are in fact the most common health issues related to metal toxicity (Vamerali et al., 2010). The distribution of Heavy metal pollution in the industrial soil is presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Heavy Metal content in industrial soils of Firozabad (mg/kg).

Zn Cd Pb Ni Cu As

Firozabad

industrial soil

Range 464.2-

626.35 34.6-51.3

374.33-

484.1

101.1-

186.35

132.4-

243.4

61.06-

106.87

Average 512.71 39.19 403.8 134.67 183.14 76.23

SD 65.53 6.95 45.62 33.53 45.72 18.07

Suggested

thresholds in soila

Industrial 360 22 600 50 91 12

Residential 200 10 140 50 63 12

Each average value is the mean of 20 composite sample values. a- Canadian environmental quality guidelines -2003 proposed by The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

�B��Varun, D’Souza and Paul�

��

�

�

BIOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE OF HEAVY METALS

Some heavy metals (like Fe, Zn, Ca and Mg) have been reported to be of bio-importance

to man and their daily medicinal and dietary allowances had been recommended by WHO. Their tolerance limits in drinking and potable waters have also been reported, and are indicated in Table 3.

Table 3. Guideline in drinking water by the World Health Organization (WHO). Heavy Metal Maximum acceptable concentrations (WHO)

Zinc 5 mg/l Arsenic 0.01 mg/l Magnesium 50 mg/l Calcium 50 mg/l Cadmium 0.003 mg/l Lead 0.01 mg/l Silver 0.0 mg/l Mercury 0.001 mg/l The biotoxic effects of heavy metals

refer to the harmful effects of heavy metals to the body when consumed above the bio-recommended limits. Although individual metals exhibit specific signs of their toxicity, the following have been reported as general signs associated with cadmium, lead, arsenic, mercury, zinc, copper and aluminium poisoning: gastrointestinal (GI) disorders, diarrhoea, stomatitis, tremor, hemoglobinuria causing a rust–red colour to stool, ataxia, paralysis, vomiting and convulsion, depression, and pneumonia when volatile vapours and fumes are inhaled (McCluggage, 1991).

Lead is the most significant toxin of the heavy metals, and the inorganic forms are absorbed through ingestion by food and water, and inhalation (Ferner, 2001). Lead poisoning causes inhibition of the synthesis of haemoglobin; dysfunctions in the kidneys, joints and reproductive systems, cardiovascular system and acute and chronic damage to the central nervous system (CNS) and peripheral nervous system (PNS) (Ogwuebgu and Muhanga, 2005). Other effects include damage to the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) and urinary tract resulting in bloody urine, neurological disorder and can cause severe and permanent brain damage. While inorganic forms of lead, typically affect the CNS, PNS, GIT and other biosystems, organic forms predominantly affect the CNS (McCluggage, 1991; INECAR, 2000; Ferner, 2001; Lenntech, 2004). Lead affects children by leading to the poor development of the grey

matter of the brain, thereby resulting in poor intelligence quotient (IQ) (Udedi, 2003).

Cadmium is classified in the EPA’s Group B1, as a probable human carcinogen and very high concentrations of cadmium is highly toxic to organisms (Evangelou, 1998). Cadmium is toxic at extremely low levels. In humans, long term exposure results in renal dysfunction, characterized by tubular proteinuria. High exposure can lead to obstructive lung disease, cadmium pneumonitis, resulting from inhaled dusts and fumes. It is characterized by chest pain, cough with foamy and bloody sputum, and death of the lining of the lung tissues because of excessive accumulation of watery fluids. Depending on the severity of exposure, the symptoms of effects include nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, dyspnea and muscular weakness. Severe exposure may result in pulmonary odema and death. Pulmonary effects (emphysema, bronchiolitis and alveolitis) and renal effects may occur following subchronic inhalation exposure to cadmium and its compounds (McCluggage, 1991; INECAR, 2000; European Union, 2002; Young, 2005).

Zinc has been reported to cause the same signs of illness as does lead, and can easily be mistakenly diagnosed as lead poisoning (McCluggage, 1991). Zinc is considered to be relatively non-toxic. However, excess amount can cause system dysfunctions that result in impairment of growth and reproduction (INECAR, 2000; Nolan, 2003). The clinical signs of zinc toxicosis have been reported as

�B?� Varun, D’Souza and Paul�

��

�

�

vomiting, diarrhea, bloody urine, liver failure, kidney failure and anemia (Fosmire, 1990).

Mercury is toxic and has no known function in human biochemistry and physiology. Inorganic forms of mercury cause spontaneous abortion, congenital malformation and GI disorders (like corrosive esophagitis and hematochezia). Poisoning by its organic forms, which include monomethyl and dimenthylmecury presents with erethism (an abnormal irritation or sensitivity of an organ or body part to stimulation), gingivitis, stomatitis, neurological disorders, total damage to the brain and CNS and are also associated with congenital malformation (Ferner, 2001; Lennetech, 2004). CONCLUSION

Heavy metals are important to human beings in many respects, especially in the manufacturing of certain important products of human use, such as accumulators (Pb), mercury-arch lamps, thermometers (Hg), utensils (Al) and a wide range of other products (Yaw, 1990; McCluggage, 1991). Nevertheless the biotoxic effects, when unduly exposed to them could be potentially life threatening hence, cannot be neglected. While these metals are in many ways indispensable, good precaution and adequate occupational hygiene should be taken in handling them. Although heavy metal poisoning could be clinically diagnosed and medically treated, is the best option to prevent exposure to heavy metal pollution and the subsequent human poisoning. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Financial support from University Grants Commission [F. no. 35-47/2008(SR)] is duly acknowledged. REFERENCES D’Souza, R., Varun, M., Pratas, J. and Paul, M.S.

(2011). Spatial distribution of heavy metals in soil and flora associated with the glass industry in North Central India: Implications for Phytoremediation. Soil and Sediment contamination (Accepted).

European Union. (2002). Heavy Metals in Wastes, European Commission on Environment(http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/waste/studies/pdf/heavy_metalsreport.pdf).

Evangelou, V.P. (1998). Environmental Soil and Water Chemistry: Principles and Applications. Wiley-Interscience Publications, New York, NY.

Ferner, D.J. (2001). Toxicity, heavy metals. eMed. J. 2(5): 1-4.

Fosmire, G.J. (1990). Zinc Toxicity. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 51(2): 225-227.

Garbarino, J.R., Hayes, H., Roth, D., Antweider, R., Brinton, T.I. and Taylor, H. (1995). Contaminants in the Mississippi River, U. S. Geological Survey Circular 1133, Virginia, U.S.A.

(www.pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1133/) Habashi, F. (1992). Environmental Issues in the

Metallurgical Industry– Progress and Problems, Environmental Issues and Waste Management in Energy and Mineral Production. Balkama, Rotherdam. pp.1143 -1153.

Heyer, N.J. (1985). Neurological Disorder in Three Aluminium Smelter Workers, Arch. Intern. Med. 145(11): 1972-1975.

Hodson, M.E. (2004) Heavy metals-geochemical bogey men? Environmental Pollution. 129: 341–343.

Horsfall, M.N. Jr. and Spiff, A.I. (1999). Speciation of Heavy Metals in Intertidal Sediments of the Okirika River System (Nigeria) Bull. Chem. Soc. Ethiop. 13(1): 1-9.

INECAR, Institute of Environmental Conservation and Research. (2000). Position Paper Against Mining in Rapu-Rapu, Published by INECAR, Ateneo de Naga University, Philippines.

Lasat, M.M., Pence, N.S., Letham, D.L.D. and Kochiain, L.V. (2001). Zinc phytoectraction in Thlaspi caerulescens. International Journal of Phytoremediation. 3(1): 129–144.

Lenntech Water Treatment and Air Purification (2004). Water Treatment, Published by Lenntech, Rotterdamseweg, Netherlands. (www.excelwater.com/thp/filters/Water-Purification.htm).

McCluggage, D. (1991). Heavy Metal Poisoning, NCS Magazine, Published by The Bird Hospital, CO, U.S.A.

(www.cockatiels.org/articles/Diseases /metals.html).

�B@�Varun, D’Souza and Paul�

��

�

�

Nolan, K. (2003). Copper Toxicity Syndrome, J. Orthomol. Psychiatry. 12(4): 270–282.

Nriagu, J.O. 1979. Global inventory of natural and anthropogenic emissions of trace metals to the atmosphere. Nature. 279: 409-411.

Ogwuegbu, M.O.C. and Muhanga, W. (2005). Investigation of Lead Concentration in the Blood of people in the Copperbelt Province of Zambia. J. Environ. 1: 66–75.

Page, A.L. (1974). Fate and effects of trace elements in sewage sludge when applied to agricultural lands. EPA-670/2-74-005. Environmental Protection Technology Series. Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 98pp.

Peplow. D. (1999). Environmental Impacts of Mining in Eastern Washington, Center for Water and Watershed Studies Fact Sheet, University of Washington, Seattle.

Singh, O.V., Labana, S., Pandey, G., Budhiraja. R. and Jain, R.K. (2003). Phytoremediation: an overview of metallicion decontamination from soil. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 61: 405–412.

Trueby, P. (2003). Impact of Heavy Metals On Forest Trees From Mining Areas. In: International Conference On Mining And The Environment III, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada.

(www.x-cd.com/sudbury03/prof156.html). Udedi, S.S. (2003). From Guinea Worm Scourge

to Metal Toxicity in Ebonyi State,

Chemistry in Nigeria as the New Millennium Unfolds. 2(2): 13–14.

United Nations Environmental Protection/Global Program of Action (2004). Why The Marine Environment Needs Protection From Heavy Metals, Heavy Metals 2004, UNEP/GPA Coordination Office (http://www.oceansatlas.org/unatlas/uses/uneptextsph/wastesph/2602gpa.)

USDOL (United States Department of Labor) (2004). Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); Safety and Health Topics: Heavy metals, USDOL Publication, Washington, D.C. (www.osha.gov/SLTC/metalsheavy/index.html).

Vamerali, T., Bandiera, M. and Mosca, G. (2010). Review: Field Crops for phytoremediation of metal-contaminated land. Environ Chem Lett. 8: 1-17.

Varun, M., D’souza, R.J., Pratas, J. and Paul, M.S. (2010). Metal contamination of soils and plants associated with the glass industry in North central India: Prospects of phytoremediation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-011-0530-4. Springer.

Yaw, A.O. (1990). New School Chemistry, Africana-FEP Publishers Ltd Onitsha, Nigeria. pp. 437-472.

Young, R.A. (2005). Toxicity Profiles: Toxicity Summary for Cadmium, Risk Assessment Information System, RAIS, University of Tennessee (www.rais.ornl.gov/tox/profiles/cadmium.shtml).

�BB� Varun, D’Souza and Paul�

��

�

�

Apoidean diversity on Verbesina encelioides (Cav.) Benth. & Hook. F. Ex Gray

(Asteraeae), a short term resource for the conservation of Bees in Rajasthan

Rajiv K. Gupta, Meena Rao, Narendra Kumar, Jagdish Saini and S.K. Rao

Department of Zoology, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur e-mail: [email protected]


ABSTRACT: This study explored and identified the bee species (Apoidea) which are regularly associated with Verbesina encelioides (Cav.) Benth. & Hook. (Asteraeae), commonly referred as Golden Crown beard. It is considerred as a notorious weed due to its level of galegine which has been found toxic to sheep, compromising respiration, causing hemorrhaging in the heart, and ultimately resulting in death. On the other hand its extracts are used in traditional medicines for having analgesic, emetic, febrifuge and insecticidal actions. It is also used for cancer, snake bite, gastrointestinal disturbance, skin ailments and haemorrhoids treatment.

The collections and identification of bees were made during years 2000 to 2010 from all over Rajasthan. It is a perennial weed that interferes with the growth and establishment of crop species in semiarid regions of India. The investigations revealed that flowers of V. encelioides attracted a total of 70 species of bees (Apoidea) in Rajasthan. These have been identified belongs to 22 genera incoming five families. These genera and number of their identified species are: Amegilla Friese (06 species), Andrena Fabricius (03 species), Colletes Latreille (02 species), Apis Linnaeus (03 species), Braunsapis Michener (03 species), Ceratina Latreille (05 species), Ceylalictus Strand (03 species), Halictus Latreille (05 species), Hylaeus Fabricius (03 species), Icteranthidium Michener (02 species), Lasioglossum Curtis (04 species) Megachile Latreille (06 species), Nomia Latreille (04 species), Nomioides Schenck (03 species), Pseudapis Kirby (01 species), Pseudoheriades Peters (05 species), Tetragonula Moure (01 species), Trachusa Panzer (01 species), Xylocopa Latreille (03 species) and, the 03 cleptoparasitic genera: Sphecodes Latreille (01 species), Coelioxys Latreille (04 species) and Thyreus Panzer (02 species). A Verbesina encelioides plant fully blooms for a very short period amidst in between October to January and during the extremity of cold season, bees exclusively depend upon this flower resource. Precisely, this plant is a very useful resource for a rich bee biodiversity during extremeties of winter in Rajasthan and, amidst the storm of expansion of urbanization; attempts should be initiated to protect wild natural habitats of V. encelioides. Key words: Verbesina encelioides, Apoidea, Hymenoptera, bee species composition, bee diversity, Rajasthan.

INTRODUCTION

Golden crownbeard [Verbesina encelioides (Cav.) Benth. & Hook f. ex Gray], also known as yellowtop or cowpen daisy, is known to be a native to America. It is also found in the arid warmer regions of the USA, South America (also Correll and Johnston, 1979), Middle East and northwestern India. Golden crownbeard grows up to 1m tall and is multibranched with grayish-green leaves. It is well distributed in Rajasthan, Punjab and Gujarat in India. V. encelioides is considered as a troublesome weed, not only for innate competitive abilities, but also for toxins in the foliage. The level of galegine in golden crownbeard is toxic to sheep, compromising

respiration, causing hemorrhaging in the heart, and ultimately resulting in death (Keeler et al., 1992).

It is considered as a notorious weed however, used in traditional medicines for having analgesic, emetic, febrifuge and insecticidal actions. It is also used for cancer, snake bite, gastrointestinal disturbance, skin ailments and haemorrhoids treatment (Kingsbury, 1964). Phytochemical studies confirmed the presence of primary metabolites, sesquiterpenes, flavonoids, galegine and triterpenoids (Jain & Purohit, 1985, 1989; Jain et al., 2005, 2008; Joshi et al., 1983) in the plant. Jain et al. (2008) found that it also possessed antimicrobial, antiviral, antitumour, hypoglycaemic and anti-implantation efficacies.

Biological Forum_ An International Journal, Spl. Iss.��B��=��BC>�C?��(?A�?��9��# �8%��:;�==B25C=C2�

��

�

�

V. encelioides plant fully bloom for a quite shorter period after rains in October till December/ January in Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat. MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study was conducted to investigate and explore the bee species (Apoidea) composition that is regularly associated with Verbesina encelioides (Asteraeae). The collections of bees were made during years 2000 to 2010 from whole of the Rajasthan and were identified as per recentmost taxonomic framework of Apoidea. The investigations revealed that flowers of V. encelioides attracted almost all bee species foraging in the area during its full bloom period. Repetitive surveys were conducted during whole of the decade. However, to apprehend complete bee species composition, this presentation also includes the data of bee species collected from neighbouring districts in Punjab and Gujrat states of western India on Verbesina encelioides.

The collection sites were regularly visited and ollections were made each year from throughout the State during the blooming periods of V. encelioides i.e. October to January. During this collection period ambient temperature of this area ranged between 100C to 260C and RH of

surface soil varied between 62 to 88%. Bee samples were collected by sweeping net on flowerings from 8 or 8.30 A.M. up to 5 or 6 P.M. However, at times intensive field visits at sunrise and near sunset were made to make observations for the extended periodicities of bees on flowers. Collected bees were instantly killed using Benzene fumes in a killing bottle. They were brought to the laboratory and properly spread for the identification. Confirmation of identification was based upon microscopy involving vital body parts such as mouth parts and genitalia etc. OBSERVATIONS, DISCUSSION AND RESULT

A total of 934 bees were collected on V. encelioides from all over Rajasthan. These were identified belong to 70 species grouped under 22 genera incoming 05 families: Colletidae, Andrenidae, Halictidae, Megachilidae and Apidae of Superfamily Apoidea (Table 1). This number excludes the number of Apis specimens collected on this crop. On a normal sunny day most of the bees started their foraging activities around 8.00 A.M. i.e. when sunshine spread all over the fields. Their population attained its peak at around 12.00 noon to 1.30 P.M. and most of the bees started returning to their nests around 2.00 to 4.00 P.M. onwards.

Table 1. Apoidean diversity on Verbesina encelioides from Rajasthan. Sr. No Family Species Activity periodicity Population

density Attracting Resource Nectar/ Pollen

A). Colletidae (02 genera)

1. Colletes comberi Cockerell, 1911

RV + ? P

2. Colletes lacunatus Dours, 1872

RV + ? P

3. Hylaeus montanus (Nurse, 1903)

RV + N

4. Hylaeus gujaraticus (Nurse, 1903)

RV + N

5. Hylaeus repentens (Nurse, 1903)

RV + N

B). Andrenidae (01 genus) 6. Andrena balucha Nurse, 1904 8.30 AM – 2.30 PM + N ? 7. Andrena

punjabensis Cameron, 1908 8.30 AM – 2.30 PM ++ N ?

8. Andrena leaena Cameron, 1907

8.30 AM – 4.00 PM ++ N ?

C). Halictidae (07 genera)

�B�� Gupta, Rao, Kumar, Saini and Rao�

��

�

�

9. Halictus propinqua Smith, 1853

8.30 AM – 4 PM ++ N P

10. Halictus latisignatus Cameron, 1908

8.30 AM – 4 PM + N P

11. Halictus lucidipennis Smith, 1853

8.30 AM – 4 PM ++ N P

12. Halictus propinquus Smith, 1853

8.30 AM – 4 PM + N P

13. Halictus vicinus Vachal, 1894 8.30 AM – 4 PM + N P 14. Lasioglossum albescence

(Smith, 1853) 8.30 AM – 4 PM N P

15. Lasioglossum deesanum (Cameron, 1908)

8.30 AM – 4 PM N P

16. Lasioglossum vagans (Smith, 1857)

8.30 AM – 4 PM + N P

17. Lasioglossum clarum (Nurse, 1902)

8.30 AM – 4 PM N P

18. Nomia callichlora Cockerell, 1911

8.30 AM – 2 PM ++ N P

19. Nomia elliotii Smith, 1875 8.30 AM – 2 PM +++ N P 20. Nomia westwoodi Gribodo,

1894 8.30 AM – 2 PM + N P

21. Nomia sp. 8.30 AM – 2 PM + N P 22. Pseudapis oxybeloides

(Smith, 1875) 8.30 AM – 3 PM + N ?

23. Sphecodes abuensis Nurse, 1903

RV + N ?

24. Ceylalictus variegatus (Olivier, 1789)

8.30 AM – 4 PM +++ N P

25. Ceylalictus punjabensis (Cameron, 1907)

8.30 AM – 4 PM +++ N P

26. Ceylalictus sp. 8.30 AM – 4 PM +++ N P 27. Nomioides (Nomioides)

minutissimus (Rossi, 1790) 8.30 AM – 5 PM +++ N P

28. Nomioides curvilineatus (Cameron, 1907)

8.30 AM – 5 PM +++ N P

29. Nomioides sp. 8.30 AM – 5 PM ++ N P D). Megachilidae (05 genera)

30. Megachile cephalotes Smith, 1853

8.30 AM – 5 PM +++ N P

31. Megachile coelioxoides Cresson, 1878

8.30 AM – 4 PM + N P

32. Megachile creusa Bingham, 1898

8.30 AM – 4 PM ++ N P

33. Megachile gathela Cameron, 1908

8.30 AM – 4 PM ++ N P

34. Megachile latimanus Say, 1823

8.30 AM – 4 PM ++ N P

35. Megachile studiosa Bingham, 1897

8.30 AM – 3 PM + N P

36. Coelioxys decipiens Spinola, 1838

RV ++ N

37. Coelioxys capitata Smith, 1854

RV ++ N

38. Coelioxys coturnix Pérez, 1884

RV + N

?@A�

�B��Gupta, Rao, Kumar, Saini and Rao�

��

�

�

39. Coelioxys fuscipennis Smith, 1854

RV + N

40. Pseudoheriades pellucidus (Cockerell, 1920)

8 AM – 4 PM ++ N P

41. Pseudoheriades pentatuberculata (Gupta & Sharma, 1993)

8 AM – 4 PM +++ N P

42. Pseudoheriades rufomandibulata (Gupta & Sharma, 1993)

8 AM – 4 PM +++ N P

43. Pseudoheriades sp.1 8 AM – 4 PM ++ N P 44. Pseudoheriades sp.2 8 AM – 4 PM ++ N P 45. Icteranthidium sinapinum

(Cockerell, 1911) RV + N P

46. Icteranthidium sp. RV + N P 47. Trachusa serratocaudata

Gupta, Sharma & Simlote, 1993

RV + N P

E). Apidae (07 genera) 48. Ceratina binghami Cockerell,

1908 8.30 AM – 3 PM +++ N P

49. Ceratina hieroglyphica Smith, 1854

8.30 AM – 3 PM +++ N P

50. Ceratina smaragdula (Fabricius, 1787)

8.30 AM – 3 PM +++ N P

51. Ceratina simillima Smith, 1854

8.30 AM – 3 PM +++ N P

52. Ceratina propinqua Cameron, 1897

8.30 AM – 3 PM +++ N P

53. Braunsapis mixta (Smith, 1852)

8 AM – 3 PM +++ N P

54. Braunsapis picitarsis (Cameron, 1902)

8 AM – 3 PM +++ N P

55. Braunsapis puangensis (Cockerell, 1929)

8 AM – 3 PM +++ N P

56. Amegilla confusa (Smith, 1854)

RV ++ N

57. Amegilla mucorea (Klug, 1845)

RV + N

73. Amegilla niveocincta (Smith, 1854)

RV + N

74. Amegilla zonata (Linnaeus, 1758)

RV ++ N

75. Amegilla cingulifera (Cockerell, 1910)

RV + N

76. Amegilla violacea (Lepeletier, 1841)

RV + N

77. Thyreus ?himalayensis (Radoszkowski, 1893)

RV + N

78. Thyreus histrio (Fabricius) RV + N 79. Tetragonula

iridipennis (Smith, 1854) 8 AM – 6 PM +++ N P

80. Apis dorsata Fabricius, 1793 6 AM – 6 PM RV N 81. Apis cerana Fabricius, 1793 6 AM – 6 PM ++ N ? 82. Apis florea Fabricius, 1787 6 AM – 6 PM +++ N P

83. Xylocopa aestuans (Linnaeus, Sunrise to sunset RV ? ?

�B!� Gupta, Rao, Kumar, Saini and Rao�

��

�

�

1758) 84. Xylocopa amethystina

(Fabricius, 1793) Sunrise to sunset + ? ?

85. Xylocopa fenestrata (Fabricius, 1798)


Where RV – Rare visitor; N – Nectar; P – Pollen; ? Not sure of referred flower resource; + comparative population observed and collected.

It is a well known fact that a number of

flowering plants use insects as pollen vectors, and that they actually depend on the visits of insects for their pollination. Present study is the first attempt to explore the pollinator bees, on a significant member of Family Asteraeae: V. encelioides. The number of species recorded on this plant, from all over the Rajasthan in India, may be considered as quite high looking at the high density of this shrub spread all over Rajasthan and Gujarat. Gupta (2003) reported that 658 species of bees are on record from India so far which belongs to 65 Genera grouped under 6 families. It was fascinating to record 70 species in this state on a single crop. Evidently the referred plant has plenty of resources to attract good number of bees.

Five species of family Colletidae visited V. encelioides. Two species of genus Colletes Latreille were recorded in quite good number. However, other genus of the same family, Hylaeus Fabricius was rare in appearance. Second Family Andrenidae included 03 species under genus Andrena Latreille. Ashtonishingly these are Cruciferae lovers and their act of pollen collection could not be verified on V. encelioides instead they collected nectar.

A total of 07 genera including 21 species of family Halictidae were collected in a considerable good number on this plant. They belong to genera Halictus Latreille (05 species), Lasioglossum Curtis (04), Nomia Latreille (04), Pseudapis Kirby (01), Sphecodes (01 species) and two genera of exclusively minute bees namely, Ceylalictus Strand (03) and Nomioides Schenck (03 species). Except the species of genus Sphecodes which were more interested in drinking nectar (being cleptoparasites), rest of the species had enough affection for both material i.e. the nectar and pollen therefore a good number of most of the small species of bees were observed started working on the flowers

just after sunrise and continued to work until quite late i.e. 3 to 4 PM or sometimes even after that in the evenings. Very small bees of genus Nomioides and Ceylalictus were found on the flowers for almost complete blooming season including extreme winters. The pollination ecology studies on these minute bees should be further investigated. However, an apprehension may be made that the halictine bees render enough of pollination services to this crop.

Family Megachilidae may be ranked as second top visitor on this crop with a total of 05 genera including 18 species. However, species of genus Trachusa (01) and Icteranthidium Cockerell (02) were rarely seen on V. encelioides. During the blooming periods, bees of these genera were least interested in it. It was perhaps not the principal crop for these bees and, they were mere occasional visitors. However, during little hotter days on each visit, they collected the pollens and nectar. Precisely, they may not be considered as good contributors in the act of pollination and seed set on the referred crop.

Bees of genus Coelioxys Latreille (02 sp.) are well known cleptoparasites (Table 01). The females lack any pollen collecting apparatus so they are incapable of collecting pollen grains. Therefore they lay eggs on the pollen deposits made by their host bees of genus Megachile, Anthophora, Amegilla and Habropoda (tribe Anthophorini, fam. Apidae). Precisely 03 out of 05 genera of Megachilidae least share pollination activity on this crop. Genus Megachile Latreille has the highest attraction for the pollens and nectar both of V. encelioides. Its 06 species were recorded from throughout the Rajasthan on the referred crop. Most of them belong to subgenus Eutricharaea Thomson. Their females are facilitated with a densely bristled pollen collecting scopa at the ventral surface of their abdomen and they were clearly observed carrying pollens of V. encelioides. Otherwise also they are established as quite efficient

�B �Gupta, Rao, Kumar, Saini and Rao�

��

�

�

transporters of pollens (Michener, 1953). Another megachiline genus Pseudoheriades Peters (05 sp.) includes very minute black bees and is more or less confined to Rajasthan and Gujarat.

The plant-pollinator relationship between the flowers of V. encelioides and the minute bees such as those of heriadines, seems to be more intimate in comparison to medium or large sized bee species. However, the intensive and quite prolong visits of genus Heriades Spinola on other flowers (such as Sunflowers) elsewhere (in Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhund) may be of interest to pollination biologists (Gupta, 1993). On V. encelioides also species of Pseudoheriades stay for longer period, collect pollen grains by roaming on each flower of the infloroscence, i.e. they seem to be equally interested in pollens of this crop. Precisely, in spite of the good number of taxa, Megachilidae includes merely two very efficient pollinator genera therefore cann’t be considered as the top pollinator group for this crop. However, this is worth mentioning here that megachiline bees are quite fast visitor and definitely share good amount of pollination due to their large pollen collecting apparatus (Gupta & Yadav, 2001; Gupta, et al., 2011).

Apidae constitute the largest group of bees which has been recorded with 07 genera including 23 species on this crop. Bees of genus Ceratina Latreille (05 sp.), Braunsapis Michener (03 sp.), Tetragonula Moure (01 sp.) and, one species of Apis Linnaeus (A. florea Fabr.) were observed in good number on this crop. These genera include minute to small sized bees having their working span quite longer in comparison to the bees of family Halictidae and Megachilidae. They all shared major bulk of nectar as well as pollens. However, their pollen carrying capacity was limited to smaller area of scopa usually present on hind legs or to the bristles on their general body surface. Circumstantially, they were unable to carry that much load of pollen grains in comparison to megachilids which bear densely bristled scopa beneath their abdomens.

Genus Thyreus Panzer (02 sp.) includes cleptoparasitic bees. Just like species of genus Coelioxys in Megachilidae, they lack pollen collecting apparatus therefore they were often seen busy tracking behind Amegilla species to

their nests to lay their eggs on the provision deposits collected by the Amegilla females (also Batra, 1977; Gupta & Yadav, 2001). Both cleptoparasitic genera were present in the field however they visited flowers exclusively for nectar. Other Apidae species collected on this crop were of genus Amegilla Fabricius (06 sp.) and two larger species of Apis (A. dorsata and A. cerana). Individuals of Amegilla were observed carefully. They defolded and straightened their rostrum, sucked the nectar (during suspended and stable flight) and moved away. They were never seen collecting pollens on this crop.

Other ‘occasional visitors’ included very large bees of genus Xylocopa Latreille (03 species) as indicated in table 01, authors are not sure whether they ever visited flowers and collected nectar or pollens although they often hovered around the group of plants and fly off all over the area under investigation.

Gupta et al. (2010, 2011) have indicated that the principal factors which determine the effectiveness of pollinators may be briefed as: a) They should be found in abundance, b) Their flight periodicities should be the maximum on flowerings and, c) Their visiting rate (the number of flowers visited per minute by a bee) should be considerably enough (also Free, 1970; Ozbek, 1976; Richards, 1993). One may conclude from table 01 that which group of bees may be considered quite effective pollinator on V. encelioides. Parker (1981) and Parker, et al., (1987) reported that honey bees have often been credited with pollination services that are actually performed by other bee species. Since the taxonomic revision of family Apidae (Michener, 2000 & 2007), number of genera in this family have been considerably increased. On V. encelioides out of the total 23 species of Apidae smaller and medium sized native species of genus Ceratina, Braunsapis and Apis were observed hanging on flowers on every sunny day as whole time visitors. A. dorsata were of rare appearence. Necessary investigation should be initiated in this direction with regard to efficiencies of pollinators (Lederhouse, et al., 1972; Green & Bohart, 1975; Parker, 1981; Kuhn & Ambrose, 1984; Currie, et al., 1990; Arya, et al., 1994).

�CA� Gupta, Rao, Kumar, Saini and Rao�

��

�

�

This wild crop in different pockets all over the Rajasthan provides enough of forage for the survival of bee species during extreme winters. This becomes more significant since it shares nectar to newly emerged bees immediately after overwintering as pupation. Such availability of resources helps in immediate survival of offspring (Gupta & Charan, 2010). Precisely, Verbesina encelioides becomes a quite useful resource for sustaining a rich bee biodiversity in Rajasthan. One may make further apprehension that conservation of wild habitats with V. encelioides would become a landmark for the protection of 70 species of bees in northwest India. During periods of scarcity i.e. when other pollen resources were rare or lacking, then bees exclusively depended upon it.

Authors suggest that detailed investigations in this direction be initiated by pollination and bee biologists to explore further possibilities towards intensive and more effective pollination of wild and cultivated crops (Rajpurohit & Gupta, 2006). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Authors wish to thank Drs. S. L. Sharma, S. Simlote, S. Yadav, R. K. Naval, A. Rajpurohit, S. K. Naval and S. K. Charan for making collections from all over the referred territories in Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat. Gratitude is extended to the Head, Department of Zoology, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur, for providing necessary laboratory facilities. To the ICAR New Delhi for the financial support to the first author for the study made under their AP Cess Funded project (No. 1-3/90 PP) for the North West India. Thanks are further extended to the authorities of University Grants Commission, New Delhi for funding the work especially in Rajasthan under their project No. 32-497/2006/2007, SR. REFERENCES Arya, D.R., Sihag, R.C. and Yadav, P.R. (1994).

Role of insect pollination in seed yield of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Indian Bee Journal. 56(3-4): 179-182.

Batra, S.W.T. (1977). Bees of India (Apoidea), their behaviour, management and a key to the genera. Oriental Insects. 11(3/4): 289-324.

Correll, D.S. and Johnston, M.C. (1979). Manual of the vascular plants of Texas. Univ. of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX.

Currie, R.W., Jay, S.C. and Wright, D. (1990). The effects of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) and leafcutter bees (Megachile rotundata F.) on out crossing between different cultivars of beans (Vicia faba L.) in caged plots. Journal of Apicultural Research. 29(2): 68-74.

Free, J.B. (1970). Insect pollinators of crops. Academic Press, London & New York. 544pp.

Green, T.W. and Bohart, G.E. (1975).. The pollination ecology of Astragalus cibarius and Astragalus utahensis (Leguminosae). American Journal of Botany. 62(4): 379-386.

Gupta, R.K. (1993). Taxonomic studies on the Megachilidae (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Megachilidae) of northwestern India. Reprint 1999, Scientific Publishers (India), iv + 1-294 p.

Gupta, R.K. (2003). The diversity of bees (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) in India. Pp. 53-77. In: Gupta, R.K. (Ed.), Advancements in Insect Biodiversity. Agrobios (India). pp. x + 337.

Gupta, R.K. and Charan, S.K. (2010). Studies on the Apoidean Visitors of Capparis decidua (Forsk.) Edgew (Capparaceae), a Resource for the Conservation of Bee Biodiversity in Arid North West India. Pp. 115-124 In: Gupta, R. K. (Ed.), Advancements in Invertebrate Taxonomy and Biodiversity. AgroBios (International). pp. xi+552, pls. viii.

Gupta, R.K., Charna, S.K., Naval, S.K., Saini, J., Rao, S.K., Sharma, S.L. and Rajpurohit, A. (2010). Bee visitors (Apoidea) on Zizyphus rotundifolia Lamk. in western Rajashan, India. pp. 190-194. In: Impact on the Climate Change on Biodiversity and Challenges in Thar Desert. Proceedings on the National Seminar held at Zoological Survey of India, Desert Research Centre, Jodhpur on 09 July, 2010. Govt. of India Publication.

Gupta, R.K., Charan, S.K. and Tiwari, P. (2011). Forage plants of Tetragonula iridipennis

�C��Gupta, Rao, Kumar, Saini and Rao�

��

�

�

(Smith), a stingless bee (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Apidae, Meliponini), in the desert of Thar in Rajasthan. Journal of Environment and Bio-sciences. 25(2): 171-174.

Gupta, R.K. and Yadav, S. (2001). Apoidean species composition on Crotalaria jucea L., Cajanus cajan (L.), Helianthus annus L. and Brassica compestris L. var. sarson Prain in eastern Rajasthan, India (Hymenoptera). Opus. zool. flumin. 198: 1-10.

Keeler, R.F., Baker, D.C. and Panter, K.E. (1992). Concentration of galegme in Verbesina encelioides and Galega officinalis and the toxic and pathologic effects induced by the plants. Journal of the Environmental Pathology and Toxicological Oncology. 11: 75-81.

Kingsbury, J.M. (1964). Poisonous plants of the United States and Canada. Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey, USA.

Kuhn, E.D. and Ambrose, J.T. (1984). Pollination of ‘delicious’ apple by megachilid bees of the genus Osmia (Hym., Megachilidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society. 57(2): 169-180.

Jain, S.C., Jain, R., Singh, R. and Menghani, E. (2005). Studies on Verbesina encelioides: Chemistry and bioactivity, Symposium on Plant Biotechnology: New Frontiers, CIMAP, Lucknow, India, 18-20 November, 2005, 439-445.

Jain, S. C. and Purohit, M. (1985). Establishment of callus culture of three medicinally important plants and investigation of their metabolites: I., Herba Pol. 31: 35-37.

Jain, S.C. and Purohit, M. (1989). Studies on the callus culture of selected Indian medicinal plants II. Quantification of different metabolites. Herba Pol. 35: 35-38.

Jain, S.C., Jain, R., Singh, R. and Menghani, E. (2008). Verbesina encelioides: Perspective and potentials of a noxious weed. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge. 7: 511-513.

Joshi, K.C., Singh, P. and Singhi, C.L. (1983). Chemical constituents of Verbesina encelioides and Holmkioldia sanguinea. Journal of the Indian Chemical Society. 60: 905-906.

Lederhouse, R.C., Caron, D.M. and Morse, R.A. (1972). Distribution and behaviour of honey bees on onion. Environmental Entomology. 1(2): 127-129.

Michener, C.D. (1953). The biology of a leafcutter bee (Megachile brevis) and its associates. University of Kansas Science Bulletin. 35(3): 1659-1748.

Michener, C.D. (2000). The bees of the World. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore & London, xiv + 913 pp.

Michener C.D. (2007). The Bees of the World, Revised Edition, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. xiv + 953 pp.

Ozbek, H. (1976). Pollinator bees on alfalfa in the Erzurum region of Turkey. Journal of Apicultural Research. 15(3/4): 145-148.

Parker, F.D. (1981). A candidate red clover pollinator Osmia coerulescens (L.). Journal of Apicultural Research. 20(1): 62-65.

Parker, F.D., Batra, S.W.T. and Tepedino, V.J. (1987). New pollinators for our crops. Agric. Zool. Rev. 2: 279-304.

Rajpurohit, A. and Gupta, R.K. (2006). The impact of insect pollination on seed yield of Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, India. 76(B), II: 178-181.

Richards, K.W. (1993). Non-Apis bees as crop pollinators. Review Suisse Zoologia. 100(4): 807-822.

�C?� Gupta, Rao, Kumar, Saini and Rao�

��

�

�

Use of geomorphometric techniques to reduce the bad impacts of climate

changes for biodiversity conservation of the Thar Desert

J. Gharu, O.P. Choudhary and Seema Trivedi*

Departments of Zoology, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur (India). Pin: 342001. *e-mail: [email protected]

(Received 12 October, 2011, Accepted 9 February, 2012)

ABSTRACT: Geomorphometric (or morphometric) techniques can help in prevention of soil erosion caused by wind and rain by study of landscape. This would be helpful in preserving soil fertility and hence can provide abundant food to fauna. In the Thar Desert, climate is very hot, rain periods are very short and rainfall is scanty. Hence, area of fertile soil is not very large and major flora and fauna depend on ground water level. Therefore, it is essential to conserve the fertility of soil for the biodiversity of the Thar Desert for which morphometric analysis can be useful. Further, morphometric techniques can help in analysis and interpretation of ground water level that may further help in conservation of biodiversity of the Thar Desert. In this review, we focus on studies and impacts of climate change in eastern part of the Thar Desert, Rajasthan, India. Key words: Thar Desert, Biodiversity, Geomorphometric analysis, Soil erosion, Ground water.

INTRODUCTION

The Thar Desert is characterized by sand dunes, excessive temperature during summer (up to 50º C), and dust storms with velocities of 140-150 Kms/hr. The annual average rainfall is less than 10 inches and maximum rainfall occurs during the monsoons. Thus, water is the major limiting factor for flora and fauna to flourish in this region. The state of Rajasthan (coordinates 26° 34� 21.65 N, 73° 50� 20.47 E) India, is part of the Thar Desert. The diversity of ecological niche in arid and semi-arid region of Rajasthan is defined by the fact that the south-west part of Rajasthan is contiguous with the salt marshes and mud flat of little ‘Rann of Kutch’ in Gujrat and the east is defined by the Aravllis (Khan et al. 2003). In the desert part of this state, the scanty vegetation is xerophytic or characterized by ephemerals during monsoon. However, the flora diversity is rich, as there are 775 plant species from 91 families and 385 genera (Shetty and Singh, 1993) out of which 200 species have medicinal uses (Khan and Frost, 2004). The fauna of this region is also greatly adapted to scarcity of vegetation and extremes of temperature (Singh, 2008). There are 364 species of birds including migratory birds. Among many prominent birds are the Great Indian Bustard (Ardeotis nigriceps) and Indian peacock (Pavo cristatus) and among migratory birds, the

Demoiselle Crane (Anthropoides virgo) etc. There are 50 species of reptiles including 6 species of Testudines, 20 of lizard and 24 of snakes. Among the Testudines, the flap-shelled turtle (Lissemys punctata) are common but black pond turtle (Geoclemys Hamiltonii) are rare. Among the lizards, house lizard (Hemidactylus flaviviridis) is common but keeled rock gecko (Cytodactylus scaber) and chameleons (Chamaeleo zeylanicus) are rare. Among snakes, Python morulus, Naja naja, Naja naja oxiana, Viper russeli are rare (Gaur, 2009). There are 68 species of mammals that include desert cat (Felis sylvetris), desert fox (Vulpes vulpes pusilla), wolf (Canis lupus pallipes), caracal (Felis caracal), wild boar (Sus scrofa), chinkara or Indian Desert Gazelle (Gazella bennettii), blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra) and blue bull (Boselaphus tragocamelus) (Sharma and Mehra, 2009).

However, the environment of the Thar in this region is changing. Factors like deforestation and mining in the Aravllis, unexpected floods, population density increase and irrigation of land by canal projects like Indira Gandhi Canal Project, the fauna of Thar Desert is under threat (Idris et al. 2009).

In order to conserve the biodiversity of the Thar Desert, large scale monitoring and

Biological Forum_ An International Journal, Spl. Iss.��B��=��C@>�C ��(?A�?��9��# �8%��:;�==B25C=C2�

��

�

�

conservation methods can be assisted by geomorphometric (hence forth referred as morphometry or morphometric) analysis which is the science of measuring and depicting parameters of nature. Descriptions of configuration of topography provide the relation between land mass and their geomorphic processes (Pike, 2000). Estimation of soil erosion and prediction of movement of ground water, etc. (Florinsky, 1998; Hodgson, 1998) can be done by means of global positioning system (GPS), ground and airborne laser terrain mapping, ground penetration radar and Digital Elevation Model (DEM). These methods generate descriptive statistics of the shape and surface or location in a landscape that provide numerical framework to represent ground surface relief patterns (Pike, 2000).

This review focuses on some of the morphometric methods to analyze sand dunes and other geographical features to investigate soil erosion, ground water prospecting etc. that may be supportive in identifying areas that may help in conservation of biodiversity in the Thar Desert. The review first briefly describes general methods that are useful in morphometric analysis followed by brief description of impacts of climate changes on soil erosion, ground water level etc. and studies related with these impacts with special reference to part of the Thar Desert in Rajasthan and its biodiversity. METHODS FOR MORPHOMETRIC STUDIES

Defining landscape is essential part of morphometric analysis of soil erosion and ground water prospecting. In conventional approach, aircrafts were used for capture of photographs of terrain using either camera or multi-spectral scanner to prepare the base maps (Bushnell, 1929). The new methods use USLE-based (Universal Soil Loss Erosion) empirical model complemented by DEM by using results of the detailed slope survey by digital topographic maps (Kuznetsova et al. 2010). Some of the software used for DEM analysis are: SAGA (System for Automated geo-scientific analyses), GIS (Geographic Information system), MicroDEM (Micro Digital Elevation Model) and Golden Software Surfer (GSS) etc. (Milevski, 2007). The ANSWERS model (Areal Nonpoint

Source Watershed Environment Response Simulation) is useful for soil erosion modelling, simulation of hydrology of agricultural watersheds during rainfall, measuring variables such as slope, soil (porosity, moisture content, field capacity, infiltration capacity and erodability factor), crop (coverage, interception capacity), surface (roughness and retention) and channel (width and roughness) (Beasley et al. 1980). Another method ‘Automated Landform Classification Methodology’ can be applied to ecological studies, soil resource modelling, landslide hazards and desert geomorphology. This method uses Digital Terrain Models (DTM), ancillary data spatial resolution, geomorphological data, computer modelling and GIS (Geographic Information system) (Dragu� and Blaschke, 2006).

For groundwater study alone, temporal satellite data, aerial photographs, survey of maps at 1:50 000 scale followed by ground surveys of the geo-hydrological conditions is done. For this, DIP (Digital Image Processing) with different satellite data enhancement technique is used to facilitate generation of accurate thematic maps. Ground truth surveys and geological mapping with the help of Brunton compass and GPS are used to define the structural features (Thapa et al. 2008). Data used for such studies are high resolution digital satellite data, precision geo-coded paper print satellite data, aerial photographs and geological maps and then compared with other published literatures and maps (Thapa et al. 2008). IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGES

Biodiversity withstands the worst of climate changes (due to natural factors or anthropogenic activities) either directly or indirectly due to impact on factors like soil erosion and ground water. The Thar Desert is no exception to changes in climate as it has resulted in increase in maximum and minimum temperature, soil erosion due to wind and rain in area where few years ago there would be negligible rainfall, increases in ground water level due to development of irrigation canals etc. Some of these aspects are as follows: SOIL EROSION

Soil is an important element of the ecosystem and plays a crucial role in

�CB� Gharu, Choudhary and Trivedi�

��

�

�

biochemical and geochemical cycling or partitioning of water storage and release. This balance could change due to human activity or natural events. The major characteristic of the desert soil varies from sandy to loamy fine sand and has low water holding capacity that restricts their use for agricultural purposes (Schlesinger et al. 1996). Soil erosion is a complex process of land denudation by which productive surface soil are detached, transported and accumulated at a distant place. In the Thar Desert detachment of soil particle occurs either by hydrological (fluvial) process of sheet rill gully erosion or through the action of wind. Soil erosion by water involves down slope wash which is not concentrated (sheet erosion), concentrated down slope wash (rill and gully erosion) and mixed process in which soil erosion occurs due to rain drop splash and down slope transport is due to surface wash (Luk, 1979). The expansion of farming practice and pasture on remote, steep hill slope increases the potential for accelerated rates of erosion (Millward and Mersey, 1999). This results in loss of precious soil for cultivation and cause siltation of reservoirs and natural stream (Biswas et al. 1999; Jain and Dolezal, 2000).

Black and white aerial photograph have been used for soil erosion studies (Myers et al. 1966; Iyer et al. 1975), detection of sheet wash and rill erosion (Coldwell, 1957). Morphometric analysis has revealed several causes that are both natural and manmade for soil erosion. It has been observed that soil erosion is low on gentle slopes or flats, while on high slopes it is higher, influenced by climate, type of vegetation cover and human activity. In Macedonia, morphometric studies have shown that soil erosion is stronger on south side because it lies in the north latitude that causes greater temperature amplitudes, lower precipitations, poorer vegetation, greater human impact etc. (Milevski, 2007). In India, studies of the terrain features related to wind erosion have been done (Dwivedi et al. 1992). Space borne multispectral data mapping at 1:5 million scales has been used for deriving information on soil subjected to various kinds of degradation (Food and Agriculture Organization, 1978). Pandey et al. (1964) studied the movement of sand dunes in the central Luni basin (Rajasthan) using 1:40 000 scales aerial photographs. Landsat data and its various forms,

principal components Normalize Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), Soil Brightness Index (SBI) and Perpendicular Vegetation Index (PVI) derived from central Luni basin have some information on the sand dunes. These were created by standard data product like false colour composite print generated from green red and near infrared spectral band. Additionally Mitra and Bhoj (1992) have delineated several landform in western Rajasthan associated with the wind erosion using space borne multispectral data. All India Soil and Land Use Survey (AISLUS) map show degradation of land by using remotely sensed data. These data have shown expansion of desertification in many states in India, including Rajasthan (Chouhan, 2005). It has been found that the dune migration rate was 0.9 cm/yr about 2000 years ago; this was reduced to 0.25 cm/yr between 500 and 200 years ago and has been about 1.5–9 cm/yr in the past 200 years. This has been attributed mainly to due to anthropogenic activities that have lead to decreased vegetation cover, thus increasing soil erosion though there have been phases of dune stabilizations as well (reviewed in Singhvi and Porat 2008).

GROUND WATER

The economy and agriculture of Rajasthan is mainly water dependent which is available mainly in form of groundwater. Groundwater potential (hydrogeological characteristic) studies with help of remote sensing and GIS techniques of a particular area are useful for identifying the impact of urbanization on water resources (Epstein et al. 2002). Consequences on watershed health in terms of runoff responses change in land use/cover, reduction in groundwater level, deterioration in groundwater quality and degradation of morphological characteristics have also been studied (Srivastava and Bhattacharya, 2000; Khan and Moharana, 2002; Jat et al. 2009). Sahai and Kalubarme (1985) used black and white, coloured infrared aerial photographs (1: 30 000 and 1:50 000 scales) for delineation of waterlogged areas with water table within 1.5-3.0 m in the Ukai command area in Gujarat. In Rajasthan, geomorphological studies have shown that groundwater in the Thar region accumulates due to direct percolation or through

�CC�Gharu, Choudhary and Trivedi�

��

�

�

surface drainage. The other source of ground water is due to surface runoff through existing or prior drainage channels. In order to assess ground water it is important that drainage channels develop. However, development of these drainage channels depends on morphological features that are due to lithological type, its fabrics and climatic conditions that cause weathering (Chatterji and Singh, 1980). Ground water potential zones in Rajasthan can be divided in two groups; 1) shallow aquifers present in central Luni basin that cover Jalore and Pali district, southern part of Jodhpur and Barmer districts (part of western Rajasthan). These shallow aquifers have developed due to presence and size of drainage patterns, proper aquifers, thickness of alluvial material, presence of weak zones that facilitate water movement, absence or presence of salts that may affect quality of water, presence of sand dunes that may facilitate accumulation of ground water and 2) deep aquifers that may be further divided into a) moderately deep aquifers present in Jhunjhunu, Sikar, Nagaur districts, northern part of Jodhpur and central part of Barmer districts and southern part of Churu district. The other type b) very deep aquifers are found in sandstone formations below thick cover of sand dunes in Jaisalmer district, north of Barmer and Churu districts and Bikaner district. However, these aquifers do not have strong relationship to the surface morphology and drainage features as their source of ground water is either fossil water or recharge source is in a distant location (Chatterji and Singh, 1980). Data collected from these regions can help not only in identification of ground water areas but can also help in artificial recharge if there is a need so that this can be used not only as drinking water but also for agricultural purposes or for reforestation or grassland development. Paradoxically, increase in water table may adversely affect flora and fauna of a region especially in a state like Rajasthan. In recent years, rise in water table in city of Jodhpur has been cause of major concern for the population. If this water table rises in surrounding areas reserved for wildlife, it will affect the natural habitat and lead to threat to biodiversity as seen in case of waterlogged areas due to irrigation projects (discussed in following sections).

IMPACT OF FLOODS IN THAR DESERT Though there is scarcity of rainfall in the

Thar, in August 2006, the Barmer district was hit by floods because it received about 600 mm of rain within 2–3 days of Monsoons. Because of a thick layer of gypsum in Kawas (the worst hit area in the district); the floodwater did not percolated due to thick layers of clay – bentonite and fuller’s earth (Tertiary) and gypsite (Quaternary) at a depth of about 1–1.5 ft. Proper planning of drainage system for excess run-off would have prevented loss of life, property, agricultural products and biodiversity (Rawat et al. 2008). For such planning, morphometric analysis can be useful. IMPACT OF ANTHROPOGENIC ACTIVITIES Impact of Canal Projects in Thar Desert: Introduction of Indira Gandhi canal Project in 1958 in hot arid ecosystem of northern Rajasthan has changed the land use scenario by putting more than 33% area of Hanumangarh district into irrigated farming, planned settlements and integrated canal and transport network development. The excessive irrigation and exploitation of natural resources has created water logging/salinity generation and Aeolian hazards and turned about 11 000 ha irrigated double cropped land into wasteland. Important and native species have vanished and leveling of sand dunes as well as total clearance of shrubs and grasses from agricultural lands enhanced wind erosion/deposition hazard (BalakRam and Chauhan, 2002).

Goossens et al. (1992) studied parabolic dunes and inter dunal depression using landsat data before and after commissioning of the canal. It has been found that since the adoption of canal irrigation in the desert areas, water percolation has ascended to the subsurface (estimated as 0.3-1.5 m per year) in the Gang Canal area and Ghaggar canal area. This has lead to an increase in water table and increase in critical limit for salinity and water logging in sandy areas. In order to make best use of the rising water levels, once again morphometric analysis can be helpful and this water can be channelled into areas with lower water table, which could be useful for the area where it is being diverted (Chatterji and Singh, 1980).

�C�� Gharu, Choudhary and Trivedi�

��

�

�

Impact of Oil Refineries: In recent years, activities related to exploration of rich oil deposits along with the proposed construction of oil refineries in Barmer District have increased. Clearing of the grass lands, levelling of sand dunes and other anthropogenic activities are increasing that will change the topography of this area. This will lead to effect on local flora and fauna and (Sharma and Mehra, 2009), unless measures to mitigate the bad impacts are implemented. Threatened Biodiversity: Sewan, a type of grass (Lasiurus sindicus) among the endemic flora is under threat due to overgrazing and water logging due to irrigation canals as this grass cannot survive in logged soil. The Toad-head Agamas (Phrynocephalus laungwalaensis) is under risk due to loss of sandy soil, as it seeks protection by burying itself in lose sand. Similarly, Indian Sand swimmer or Three-toed Snake Skink (Ophiomorus tridactylus) and other reptiles besides other vertebrates will lose their natural habitat. Paradoxically, there has been invasion of not only flora, specially weeds like water hyacinth but also of rodents like bandicoots that were not present in desert regions of Rajasthan before the development of canals and increase in agriculture activities (Prakash, 2001).

Efforts are now being made to employ morphometric-based techniques in India to prevent the bad impacts of climate changes on biodiversity. In this regard, Indian Remote Sensing Satellite (IRS)-Resourcesat AWiFS data spatial inventory called ‘Desertification/Land Degradation Status Map (DSM)’ has been prepared for the entire country. This inventory has information on various land degradation processes and their severity. If this information were implemented in form of action to prevent or mitigate bad impacts of climate change, it would be helpful in protecting biodiversity of the region (Ajai et al. 2009). CONCLUSION

The ecology and biodiversity of the Thar Desert changed due to deforestation, mining in Aravllis, irrigation canal projects, unexpected floods, population density, national highways and human interventions etc. Integration of spatial technologies like GIS, GPS and IRS can

provide valuable and timely prediction of information about environment based on geomorphometry. This can prove to be the basis for protection and conservation of biodiversity of flora and fauna of the Thar Desert. These technologies are also helpful for maintenance or measurement of the disturbance of abiotic factors of the Thar Deserts like soil fertility and erosion, ground water levels, etc. REFERENCES Ajai, A.S., Dhinwa, P.S., Pathan, S.K., Ganesh,

R.K. (2009). Desertification/land degradation status mapping of India. Current Sci. 97(10): 1478-1483.

BalakRam and Chauhan, J.S. (2002). Impact assessment of IGNP canal on land use in Hanumangarh District, Rajasthan using remotely sensed data. Indian Cartographer. 200-206.

Beasley, D.B., Huggins, L.F. and Monke, E.J. (1980). ANSWERS: A model for watershed planning. Trans of the ASAE. 23(4): 938-944.

Biswas, S., Sudhakar, S. and Desai, V.R. (1999). Prioritization of sub-water sheds based on morphometric analysis of drainage basin: A remote sensing and GIS approach. J. Indian Soc of Remote Sensing. 27(3): 155-166.

Bushnell, T.M. (1929). Aerial photographs of jennings county. Proc Ind Acad Sci. 39: 229-230.

Chatterji, P.C. and Singh, S. (1980). Geomorphological studies for exploration of ground water in Rajasthan Desert. Proc Ind Sci. 46(5): 509-518.

Chouhan, T.S. (2005). Degree, extent and treatment of desertification hazards in India. Sociedade and Natureza, Uberlândia. Special Issue, 901-919.

Coldwell, A.E. (1957). Importance of channel erosion as a source of sediment. Amer Geophy Union Transac. 38: 908-912.

Dragu�, L. and Blaschke, T. (2006). Automated classification of landform elements using object-based image analysis. Geomorphology. 81: 330–344.

Dwivedi, R.S., Ravi Sankar, T., Venkataratnam L and Rao DP. (1992). Detection and delineation of various desert terrain

�C��Gharu, Choudhary and Trivedi�

��

�

�

features using landsat-TM derived image transforms. J Arid Environ. 25: 151-162.

Epstein, J., Payne, K. and Kramer, E. (2002). Techniques for mapping suburban sprawl. Photogramm Eng Rem. S 63(9): 913–918.

Florinsky, I.V. (1998). Combined analysis of digital terrain models and remotely sensed data in landscape investigations. Prog. Phys. Geog. 22: 33-60.

Food and Agriculture Organization. (1978). The Application of Landsat Imagery Soil Degradation Mapping at 1: 50 00000. FAO Summary Report, AGL Bulletin. 1/78.

Gaur, S. (2009). Species richness and dominance of reptiles in the Aravalli foothills of Rajasthan, In: Sivperuman, C, Baqri, QH, Ramaswamy, G (Eds), Faunal Ecology and Conservation of the Great Indian Desert Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Germany. pp.53-64.

Goossens, E.B., deRoover and Goossens, R. (1992). A digital approach to separation of parabolic sand dune area from interdunal using Landsat MSS data. Proc Internatl Symp Evol Deserts, Ahmedabad, India.

Hodgson, M.E. (1998). Comparison of angles from surface slope/aspect algorithms. Cartogr Geogr Inf Syst. 25(3): 173-185.

Idris, M., Singh, P. and Johari, S. (2009). Impact assessment of the indira gandhi canal on the avifauna of the Thar Desert In: Sivperuman, C, Baqri, QH, Ramaswamy, G (Eds), Faunal Ecology and Conservation of the Great Indian Desert Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Germany. pp.119-135.

Iyer, H.S., Singh, A.N. and Kumar, R. (1975). Problem soil inventory of part of Hoshiarpur District through photo-interpretation. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 11: 79-85.

Jain, S.K. and Dolezal, F. (2000). Modeling soil erosion using EPIC supported by GIS, Bohemia, Czech Republic. J. Environ. Hydrol. 8(2): 1-11.

Jat, M.K., Khare, D., Garg, P.K. and Shankar, V. (2009). Remote sensing and GIS-based assessment of urbanisation and degradation of watershed health. Urban Water J. 6(3): 251-263.

Khan, M.A. and Moharana, P.C. (2002). Use of remote sensing and GIS in the delineation

and characterization of ground water prospect zones. J. Indian Soc. of Remote Sensing. 30(3): 131–141.

Khan, T.I. and Frost, S. (2004). Floral Biodiversity: A question of survival in the Indian Thar Desert. The Environmentalist. 21(3): 231-236.

Khan, T.I., Dular, A.K. and Soloman, D.M. (2003). Biodiversity conservation in the Thar Desert; with emphasis on endemic and medicinal plants. The Environmentalist. 23(2): 137-144.

Kuznetsova, Y.S., Belyaev, V.R. and Golosov, V.N. (2010). Sediment dynamics for a changing future. Proc ICCE Symp, Warsaw University of Life Sciences- SGGW, Poland, (14–18 June 2010). 337: 334-344.

Luk, S.H. (1979). Effect of soil properties on erosion by wash and splash. Earth Surf Proc. 4: 241-255.

Milevski, I. (2007). Morphometric elements of terrain morphology in the republic of Macedonia and their influence on soil erosion. Internat Conf- Erosion and torrent control as a factor in sustainable river basin management. 25-28 September 2007, Belgrade-Serbia. 1-8.

Millward, A.A. and Mersey, J.E. (1999). Adapting the RUSLE to model soil erosion potential in a mountainous tropical watershed. Catena. 38: 109-129.

Mitra, D.S. and Bhoj, R. (1992). Dune forms in space images- A case study from Shahgarh and Myajlar areas of western Rajasthan. Proc Internat symp on evolution of Deserts Ahmedabad, India 11-19.

Myers, V.I., Ussery, L.R. and Rippert, W.J. (1966). Photogrammetry for detailed detection of drainage and salinity problems. Trans the ASCE. 6: 332- 334.

Pandey, S., Singh, S. and Ghosh, B. (1964). Orientation, distribution and origin of sand-dunes in the central luni basin. Proc Symp on Problems of Indian Arid Zone Jodhpur(Rajasthan), 23rd November to 2nd December 1964. 84-91.

Pike, R.J. (2000). Geomorphometry: Diversities in quantitative surface analysis. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 24: 1-20.

�C!� Gharu, Choudhary and Trivedi�

��

�

�

Prakash, I. (2001). Biological invasion and loss of endemic biodiversity in the Thar Desert. Nature Watch: Resonance. 6(3): 76-85.

Rawat, M., Jakher, G.R. and Dookia, S. (2008). Natural disaster and ecological dilemma: Flood affected areas of Barmer, Thar Desert, Rajasthan. Current Sci. 94(4): 450-451.

Sahai, B. and Kalubarme, M.H. (1985). Ecological studies in the ukai command area. Int. J. Remote Sensing. 6: 401-409.

Schlesinger, W.H., Raikes, J.A., Hartley, A.E. and Cross, A.F. (1996). On the spatial pattern of soil nutrients in desert ecosystems. Ecology. 77: 364-374.

Sharma, K.K. and Mehra, S.P. (2009). The Thar Desert of Rajasthan (India): Ecology and conservation of desert ecosystem In: Sivperuman, C, Baqri, QH, Ramaswamy, G (Eds), Faunal Ecology and Conservation of the Great Indian Desert Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Germany. pp.1-11.

Shetty, B.V. and Singh, V. (1993). Flora of Rajasthan Vol. I-III Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta.

Singh, G. (2008). Study on biological diversity in Mangala, Saraswati and Rageshwari areas of Rajasthan hydro carbon project Interim Report, Cairns Energy Pty India Ltd.

Singhvi, A.K. and Porat, N. (2008). Impact of luminescence dating on geomorphological and palaeoclimate research in drylands. Boreas. 37: 536–558.

Srivastava, P.K. and Bhattacharya, A.K. (2000). Delineation of ground water potential zones in a hard rock terrain of Bargarh District, Orissa-using IRS data. J. Indian Soc. of Remote Sensing. 28(2&3): 129–140.

Thapa, R., Kumar, R. and Sood, R.K. (2008). Study of morphotectonics and hydrogeology for groundwater prospecting using Remote Sensing and GIS in the north west Himalaya, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, India. The international archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences Vol XXXVII Part B4 Beijing 2008. pp.227-232.

?B �

�C �Gharu, Choudhary and Trivedi�

��

�

�

Hair Snares: Simple technique for monitoring field population

J. Gharu and Seema Trivedi*

Department of Zoology, Jai Narian Vyas University, Jodhpur (Raj.) *Email: [email protected]

(Received 12 October, 2011, Accepted 26 March, 2012)

ABSTRACT: Hair snares method is one of the non-invasive techniques for collecting mammalian hair samples from fields. This technique employs simple devices to collect samples without hunting or hurting the animals. Hair samples are collected for analysis of morphological characters for identification of the species. These hair samples are also used for molecular identification of species, individuals, their sex, and their genetic relatedness, thus called as non-invasive genetic sampling (NGS). Hair morphology coupled with DNA identification is helpful in assessing aspects of animal communities such as occurrence and distribution, relative abundance, habitat fragmentation and human disturbance. Key words: Hair snares, techniques, mammals.

INTRODUCTION

Non-invasive techniques (such as tracking, automated camera photography, feces and collection of hair sample) are alternatives of invasive techniques such as trapping and hunting for collection of animal tissue. One such non-invasive method for mammals is hair snares in which the hair sample is collected without hunting or hurting the animal. Hair snares techniques are used where the monitoring of field population is not so easy especially in tropical ecosystem and tropical rain forest dense area or snow clad areas (Kendall and McKelvey 2008, García-Alaníz et al., 2010). In case of carnivorous animals, an invasive technique means trapping of animals which can be dangerous or time consuming. Hair samples can be used as a tool in gathering information about animal populations, sex ratio, and also individual animals by the genetics analysis of DNA (Haynes et al., 2005). Other non-invasive methods for monitoring animals may not be highly successful if animals like mesocarnivores that are elusive or have relatively low abundance (Zielinski et al. 2006, Belant and Wolford 2007). In this paper, we discuss some of the hair-snare methods adopted for collection of hair samples. HAIR SNARES Non-invasive hair collection methods can be divided into two major types: Baited and Passive (un-baited). The baited methods are most frequently used. Passive method is more effective for sampling certain species where

animal behavior is not influenced by the bait. Moreover, passive methods also have low risk of animals becoming averse to or develop avoidance for hair collection structures. I). Bait Method is mainly divided into following types as given below: 1). Hair corrals are structures that use at least one strand of barbed wire to encircle an attractant and are predominantly used to sample ursids (bears) (Fig. 1). 2). Rub stations are structures saturated with scent lures to induce rubbing, and they typically use one of two types of hair collection devices: a). Barbed rub pads usually consist of a carpet pad with protruding nails (or in some cases, stiff natural fibers) and are used primarily for felids. Hair snares can be constructed on carpet (10 cm x 10 cm) and nails can be put through carpet-pad with help of nail-gun or hammer. The shafts of these nails already have small wire (may be barbed) and are used to snagged the hair (McDaniel et al. 2000) (Fig. 2). b). Adhesive rub stations typically consist of blocks of wood covered with adhesives and are used mainly for canids. The lures can be scent like beaver (Castor canadensis) castoreum and imitation catnip oil (1:32 ratio mix), Hawbacker's Lure (containing decomposed cat gland), Cat Passion, Pacific Call, and BB1 (Weaver et al. 2005). Edibles can also act as lure for example, a pie hung near the rub station so that animal inadvertently rubs or brushes against the snare to

Biological Forum_ An International Journal, Spl. Iss.��B��=��A�>��B��(?A�?��9��# �8%��:;�==B25C=C2�

��

�

�

reach the lure has been used to lure Lynx (McDaniel et al., 2000) (Fig. 3). 3). Tree and post hair snares are wrapped with barbed wire or fitted with alternative hair snagging devices and can be used to collect sample of mammals like wolverines (Gulo gulo) (Kendall and McKelvey 2008) (Fig. 4). 4). Cubbies are boxes that contain attractants and are fitted with snaring devices at the entries or along the inside walls and are used mostly for mustelids but can be effective for other small- to medium-sized species. Wood boxes for this purpose can be 81 cm long and 30 cm high and with×25 cm width openings. This box contains a single wire (15 gauge, 4 prong barbed wire) attached by placing it through 9mm drilled holes that are 20 cm above the floor and 5cm inside the edge of the box. The wire height is adjusted to shoulder height of raccoons or other medium sized animals and therefore there can be 3 barbs evenly spaced across the box (Belant and Wolford 2007) (Fig. 5). 5). Hair Tubes or pipes are large diameter piped (hair tubes) lined with the adhesive tape like those used for collection of Pine Marten hairs. The animal is compelled to enter the tube to some degree because it gets attracted by the food kept as bait in form of fresh meat or apple for arboreal animals. Peanut butter rolled oats and honey can also be used for attracting animals like marsupials (Roache 2008) (Fig. 6). II). Passive (un-baited) divided into two categories: 1). Natural rub objects are objects found in nature (e.g., bear rub trees) that are fitted with hair snagging devices (Fig. 7). 2). Travel route snares are hair snagging structures that target animal travel routes or other areas of concentration such as dens, burrows, beds, and latrines. Travel route snares employ one of three types of hair snagging devices: i). Barbed wire strands strung across travel routes are primarily used to sample ursids, but can also be used for badgers. Deer hair samples have been collected from their feeding sites where hare snares are used in form of barbed wires. The wires are put 70cm to 80 cm to the ground in the targeted animal track route area (Belant et al., 2007) (Fig. 8).

ii). Adhesives (such as double-sided sticky tape) hung across travel routes which can be used to sample animals like hairy-nosed wombats (Lasiorhinus krefftii). Hair snares formed by 25 x 15 cm pieces of carpet with 2 Velcro strips and carpet nails have also been used. For feline hair sample collection such traps sprayed from catnip oil are nailed 32 cm from base of tree and flagging tapes are placed 2 m above each trap (Kendall and McKelvey 2008) (Fig. 9). iii). Modified snares and traps are leg and body snares or traps that have been adapted to allow animals to escape but deposit hair samples in the process. These are used for a variety of species. (Kendall and McKelvey, 2008). DISCUSSION

Monitoring abundance, diversity and density estimation of mammals can be done with help of hair collection surveys and collections by individual identification based on hair morphology and nuclear or mitochondrial DNA analysis. Such analyses are also helpful in studying population genetic structure. DNA analyses of hair sample also help in describing the ecological niche and differences in diet food among the species (Kendall and McKelvey 2008). These applications have further appeal in conservation of biodiversity. For example, hairs snares have been used to detect presence of Lynx, an endangered species in the United States. This method was more helpful because Lynx are secretive and have low density. Monitoring Lynx tracks on snow is useful but is very difficult on the road-less area. Other methods like remote camera or track plate at scent station are costly and time consuming (McDaniel et al., 2000). Similarly, DNA analysis of hair samples obtained from hair snares have made it easier to keep tract of genetic index and thus population size of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus uirginianw). This is because overpopulation of this species raises difficulties for wild life management. Since the white-tailed deer are herbivores overpopulation also affects the vegetation of the area (Belant et al., 2007).

Hair snares technique is better than scat collection of faces in tropical ecosystem system due to high decomposition rate. Hair snares in such areas have been helpful in collection of

��Gharu and Trivedi�

��

�

�

samples from the field area of Selva Lacandona, which is a tropical rainforest of southern Mexico. Hair morphology combined with molecular analyses has been helpful in categorical identification of jaguar (Panthera onca), puma, ocelot, jaguarundi (Puma yagouaroundi) and margay. For morphological identification; cuticle scale pattern are obtained by imprinting technique and analyzed with help of stereoscopic microscope and compared with hair catalogues. For molecular analysis, mtDNA has been used for sequencing cytochrome b region (García-Alaníz et al., 2010).

Lures that induce rubbing behavior on linear transects of hair-snaring stations directed perpendicular to expected line of travel act as baffles that intercept moving animal and provide an effective sampling unit that efficiently detects animal. In such cases, for example, the castoreum and catnip oil are effective to attract the lynx. However, problems arise if hairs from other species are also snared with hairs of species of interest. Such situations would lead to identification and separations of hairs of different species and thus would time consuming and costly. Therefore, it is important that lures only attract the species of interest and not other non-targeted species (McDaniel et al., 2000).

Barbed wire snares are effective method to obtain hair samples. To increase the efficacy of this method many a times baits in form of food scent and mineral are also used (Belant et al., 2007). However, seasonal migration or availability of food during different seasons may affect efficiency of sample collection (García-Alaníz et al., 2010). This is seen in case of white tailed deer population where hair sample collection in winters is better because in the summer deer have the alternate food. Therefore, during summers the density of deer decreases and thus it also decreases the efficacy of barbed wire. Further, hair snares should be checked for hair samples at set time periods. In case of white tailed deer the hair snares are checked after the interval of 7 to 14 days (Belant et al., 2007).

However, there may be failures of adopting methods of collection hair samples. For example, comparisons was done between different methods like scat detection dogs, remote cameras, and hair snares collections for monitoring carnivores like black bears (Ursus

americanus), fishers (Martes pennanti), and bobcats (Lynx rufus) in Vermont. In this case hair snare method failed to detect fishers and bobcats (Long et al., 2007). In this study, the hair snare with scent lure (catnip) was attached to the target tree (40-45cm above ground). The hair snare was made of a 10x10 cm carpet pad with approximately 10 nails 2.5-cm long pushed through the pad with help of nail-gun. These nails were packaged in a coil connected by wires which, when clipped apart, created 4 small (5 mm) barbs. A metal pie pan was suspending with monofilament line from branches approximately 1 meter height from the ground to visually attract the animal. Some of the reasons for the failure of hair-snares particularly in case of felids can be attributed to contamination during setup or removal procedures, loss of sample during transport or due to lack of molecular/morphological characterization of samples (Long et al., 2007). We suggest that these failures could also be due to use of scent lure that was not species specific or it was not breeding time of these animals and possible these scent lures failed. Yet another reason could be the use of visual attracted that may not work in case of felids even if the scent lure may have worked. Therefore possibly, a food lure would have been better in this case.

Such difficulties can be overcome by using both baited (natural food draws) and un-baited hair snare devices like those used in case of black beer population monitoring in Kenai Fjords National Park of Alaska’s Kenai Peninsula. The first hair snare device was a 3.5 m wire cable fastened at about bear head level to tree trunk or shrub near the trail. The cable had loops (with 3 to 4 barbs) formed in such a way that the barbs were facing inward and were closed with a loose rubber fastener. This fastener allowed the loop to constrict and then break apart when pulled tight. The second snare was made of a single piece of barbwire (1–2 meters long with up to 50 barbs) strung across a bear trail 50 cm from the ground. Numerous traps were set that were at least 50 m apart based on the availability of habitat areas, bear trails, and adequate areas for setting traps. These methods were successful because the trapping sessions coincided with the peak of salmon runs and berry productivity (Robinson et al., 2009).

��?� Gharu and Trivedi�

��

�

�

CONCLUSION

Hair snare is useful and cheaper technique for monitoring the animals. The hair samples thus collected are used for morphological study which includes scale pattern analysis. These samples are also used for DNA analysis. Other methods of sample collection for the purpose of monitoring and identifying mammalian biodiversity are not cost effective, are invasive which can be harmful to the animals or to the scientists or both.

REFERENCES Belant, J.L. and Wolford, J.E. (2007).

Comparison of two hair snares for raccoons. Ohio J. Sci. 107(3): 44-47.

Belant, J.L., Seamans, T.W. and Paetkau, D. (2007). Genetic tagging free-ranging white-tailed deer using hair snares. Ohio J. Sci. 107(4): 50-56.

García-Alaníz, N., Naranjo, E.J. and Mallory, F.F. (2010). Hair-snares: A non-invasive method for monitoring felid

��@�Gharu and Trivedi�

��

�

�

populations in the Selva Lacandona, Mexico. Tropical Conservation Science. 3(4): 403-411.

Haynes, L., Hackl, Z. and Culver, M. (2005). Wild cats of the sky islands: A summary of monitoring efforts using noninvasive techniques. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-36.

Kendall, K.C. and McKelvey, K.S. (2008). Hair Collection. Excerpted from "Noninvasive Survey Methods for Carnivores," by Robert A. Long, Paula MacKay, William J. Zielinski, and Justina C. Ray, eds. Island Press, Washington, D. C.

Long, R.A., Donovan, T.M., MacKay, P., Zielinski, W.J. and Buzas, J.S. (2007). Comparing scat detection dogs, cameras, and hair snares for surveying carnivores. J. Wild Manag. 71: 2018–2025.

McDaniel, G.W., McKelvey, K.S., Squires, J.R. and Ruggiero, L.F. (2000). Efficacy of

lures and hair snares to detect lynx. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 28(1): 119-123.

Robinson, S.J., Waits, L.P., and Martin, I.D. (2009). Estimating abundance of American black bears using DNA-based capture–mark–recapture models. Ursus. 20(1):1–11.

Roche, T. (2008). The use of baited hair traps and genetic analysis to determine the presence of pine marten. M Sc. Thesis. Department Of Science, Waterford Institute of technology.

Weaver, J.L., Wood, P., Paetkau, D. and Laack, L. (2005). Use of scented hair snares to detect ocelots. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 33(4):1384–1391.

Zielinski, W.J., Schlexer, F.V., Pilgrim, K.L., and Schwartz, M.K. (2006). The efficacy of wire and glue hair snares in identifying mesocarnivores. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 34: 1152–1161.

��B� Gharu and Trivedi�

��

�

�

Molluscan diversity of temporary and permanent Wetlands in and around

Patna, Bihar

Gopal Sharma, Hasko Nesemann* and Mohita Sardana**

Zoological Survey of India, Gangetic Plains Regional Centre, Patna *Central University of Bihar, BIT Campus, Patna 800 014

**Department of Zoology, Magadh Mahila College, Patna University, Patna-4. e-mail: [email protected]


ABSTRACT: The aquatic Mollusca of seven stagnant water bodies in Patna include twenty one taxa of Gastropoda and Bivalvia. Figures of all snails occurring in the study area are compiled to a pictorial guide, helpful for the rapid field identification. Keywords: Wetland, aquatic mollusca, diversity, distribution, Patna, Bihar.

INTRODUCTION

Mollusca play an important role in the ecosystems of wetlands, in the food web as well as human food. Aquatic Mollusca have been traditionally used as bio-indicators and their diversity and composition allows detailed assessment of the ecological integrity and habitat quality. The present paper is the first comprehensive overview of the entire aquatic snails (Gastropoda) and mussels (Bivalvia) of seven wetlands in the area of Patna. The material was studied during field survey of apple-snail habitats (Pila globosa). The recently collected specimens were identified with the help of Preston (1915) and Subba Rao (1989).

Three stagnant water-bodies in Patna have been the subject of research on large freshwater mussels (Unionidae) in the past decade (Nesemann, Sharma & Sinha, 2003), Kumhrar pond, Secretariat pond and Zoo pond. The aquatic Mollusca of stagnant waters in general have not yet been studied and earlier data on Gastropoda were only partially known for Kumhrar pond and Secretariat pond. Several of the earlier studied water-bodies have been destroyed and completely filled with sand for the reconstruction of important archaeological sites. MATERIAL AND METHODS

Mollusca together with other benthic invertebrates were collected qualitatively using a plastic hand-net of 1 mm mesh size. Larger

Molluscs of the samples were pre-identified in the field. Smaller specimens together with sediment samples were fixed in 4% formaldehyde and later on washed and sorted in the laboratory. The specimens were finally kept in separate vials and preserved in 70% ethyl alcohol. The material is deposited in the Zoological Survey of India, Gangetic Plains Regional Centre, Patna, and in the Laboratory of the Centre for Environmental Science, Central University of Bihar in Patna. Figures are free-hand drawings of the second author (HN) based on self collected specimens. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Altogether twenty one species of Mollusca have been found out of which the class Gastropoda is represented with nine-teen species and the class Bivalvia with two species. Snails are represented with eight Prosobranchia and eleven Pulmonata. Bellamya bengalensis and Indoplanorbis exustus are the most frequent species, followed by Gyraulus convexiusculus, Lymnaea acuminata and Radix ovalis. The highest number of ten to five-teen species was found in the largest water-bodies, e.g. the Nalanda Medical College & Hospital (NMCH) Pond and the Mithapur Agricultural College Pond. These are the habitats of valuable populations of large freshwater mussels, especially the diversified Lamellidens forms. High species number of mollusks well

Biological Forum_ An International Journal, Spl. Iss.��B��=��C>��A��(?A�?��9��# �8%��:;�==B25C=C2�

��

�

�

corresponds with the occurrence of crabs Sartoriana spinigera, prawns Macrobrachium spp. and large blood-sucking leeches Hirudinaria manillensis in the study sites.

It is noteworthy that the wetlands of Patna are habitat of all species of rams-horn snails (Family Planorbidae) found in the area. The fauna differs markedly from the Mollusca composition of the rivers by the presence of Gyraulus euphraticus, Segmentina calatha, Segmentina trochoidea and Hippeutis umbilicalis. Invasive species like the neozoan Haitia mexicana occur in wetland only in a single polluted locality. All other sampling sites are inhabited by native gastropods. The sympatric populations of three different Bithyniidae Digoniostoma cerameopoma, Digoniostoma pulchella and Gabbia orcula were found in dense macrophytes of Potamogeton crispus in NMCH-Pond area.

The largest forms of Bellamya bengalensis and Lamellidens cf. marginalis were found in the two locations of the Nalanda Medical College & Hospital Pond and the Mithapur Agricultural College Pond. These water-bodies are managed for fish-farming and support the filter-feeder communities among the invertebrates. These localities are also inhabited by Sponges (Family Spongillidae) and bryozoans (Family Plumatellidae).

The taxonomy of Unionidae populations is a difficult task since the collected material is representing intermediate forms of the previously distinguished taxa. The species concept is in discussion and different hypothesis are possible

(Graf, 2007). A critical compilation of all valid taxa has been given by Haas (1969) and an updated list of taxa by Graf & Cummings (2007). In the earlier publications the authors tried to distinguish consequently seven species in the Gangetic floodplains around Patna (Nesemann, Sharma & Sinha 2003, Nesemann et al. 2005, Nesemann et al., 2007). The Lamellidens specimens of the Nalanda Medical College & Hospital Pond are very large and thick-shelled elongated forms with characters of both Lamellidens jenkinsianus and Lamellidens narainporensis. The juveniles’ shells have a very short anterior portion and they fit well in the morphological range of narainporensis. Nevertheless it has to be mentioned that all Lamellidens forms are characterized by the same umbo sculpture which makes a distinction of separate species very questionable. In the light of the extremely large conchological plasticity all the different forms in the study area of Patna appear to be ecological modifications and adaptations of a single species. The same view was already formulated and defended by Haas (1969) who accepted only a single species Lamellidens testudinarius for larger parts of South-Asia. Based on recent collections from running and stagnant waters of Patna, the authors of the present study follow the one-species-hypothesis and use the name Lamellidens cf. marginalis for all the different forms of the study area. Beside elongated and prolonged Radiatula caerulea, few short rounded valves of a further species Radiatula occata were found in dry sediments along the banks.

Table 1. Distribution and abundance of Mollusca at the different sampling sites of temporary and permanent wetlands (water bodies) in and around Patna during February and March 2011.

Sampling Sites�

Kothia Wetland pond at embankment of River Punpun

Pahari, Fishpond, (Near Handicapped Hospital)

Pahari, Fishpond, (Near JVG)

Nalanda Medical College & Hospital ( NMCH Pond Patna)

Mithapur, Agricultural College Pond, Patna

Fulwari Sharif wetland pond Recovery-site 1,

Fulwari Sharif wetland pond, ( polluted-site 2),

GPS � N 25o33’47.69” E 85o 15’05.03”

N 25o 34’27.51” E 85o11’21.28”

N25o34’08.81” E 85o 11’1301”

N 25o36’07.98” E 85o12’08.93”

N 25o35’03.95” E

85o07’54.35”

N 25o34’45.08” E 85o04’43.38”

N25o34’45.68” E85o04’3

8.20”

Family �

Genus/ Species �

22. 02. 2011 15. 2. 2011 16. 2.2011 27. 02.2011 &03.03.2011

17. 03.2011 23.2.2011 23.02.2011

Bithinidae Digoniostoma cerameopoma

Shells 2 - 61 - - -

Digoniostoma - - - 8 - - 1

�� Sharma, Nesemann and Sardana�

��

�

�

pulchella Gabbia orcula - - - 3 - - -

Thiaridae Melanoides tyuberculatus

- - - 4 - - -

Thiara scabra - - - - Shells - - Viviparidae Bellamya

bengalensis Shells Shells Shells 25 15 numerous Shells

Idiopoma dissimilis

Shells Shells Shells - - - -

Ampullairidae

Pila globosa Shells Shells Shells Shells 3 1 Shell -

Planorbidae Indoplanorbis exustus

Shells Shells Shells 22 1 1 Shells

Gyraulus convexiusculus

Shells 11 158 5 59 - 2

Gyraulus euphraticus

11 15 17 - 59 Shells

Segmentina trochoidea

- 1 - - - 6 -

Segmentina calatha

- - - 12 - 4 Shells

Hippeutis umbilicalis

- - - 4 - - -

Physidae Haitia mexicana

- - - - - - 24

Lymnaeidae Radix ovalis 3 2 - 14 17 31 18 Radix luteola - 20 1 - - - - Lymnaea acuminata

63 - 1 2 31 3 7

Succineidae Quickia cf. bensoni

2 7 + + +

Unionidae Lamellidens cf. marginalis forms

- - - Living Living - -

Radiatula caerulea

- - - Shells Shells - -

Total number of identified taxa

8 11 8 15 10 9 10

Where Shells= Empty Shells found at the site.

Table 2. Physico-chemical Characteristics of the temporary and permanent wetlands in and around Patna, Bihar. Sl. No.

Sampling Sites

Kothia Wetland pond at embankment of River Punpun

Pahari, Fishpond, (Near Handicapped Hospital)

Pahari, Fishpond, (Near JVG)

Nalanda Medical College & Hospital (NMCH Pond Patna)

Mithapur, Agricultural College Pond, Patna

Fulwari Sharif wetland pond Recovery-site 1

Fulwari Sharif wetland pond, (polluted-site 2)

GPS � N 25o33’47.69 E 85o15’05.03

N 25o34’27.51 E 85o11’21.28

N25o34’08.81 E 85o11’13.01

N25o36’07.98 E85o12’08.93

N25o35’03.95 E85o07’54.35

N25o34’45.08 E85o04’43.38”

N 25o34’45.68 E 85o04’38.20

Date� 22. 02. 2011 15. 2. 2011 16. 2.2011 27. 02. & 03. 03. 2011

17. 03. 2011 12.03.2011 12.03.2011

1. Time 08.00am 09.45am 10.30am 08.45am 9.00am 12.30 12.30 2. Air

Temperature 27.0 oC 27.0 oC 27.0 oC 27.0oC 32.5 oC 29 30.1

3. Water Temperature 24. 0oC 25.5oC 25. 0oC 25. 0oC 26.0 oC 22 25

4. pH 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.0 7.9 8.1 5. Free CO2 x 22.00 x x x x x 6. Phenolph. 22.00 x 6.00 4.4 19.6 9.0 14

��Sharma, Nesemann and Sardana�

��

�

�

Alkalinity 7. Methyl

Orange Alkalinity

228 424 224 495 258 260 400

8. Initial D.O. 4.98 5.27 8.91 10.53 6.48 0 7.5 9. BOD 3.2 0.25 3.71 8.3 4.90 0 7.5

Where All values in mg/l except Temp & pH; X- Absent. Details of Plates and Figures are as given below: Plate 1: Prosobranchia of wetlands in Patna. Family Viviparidae Fig. 1: Bellamya bengalensis (Lamarck, 1822) shell height 30.8 mm. Hajipur, Berai chaur. Fig. 2: Bellamya bengalensis (Lamarck, 1822) shell height 10.5 mm. Ganga River, Patna. Fig. 3: Idiopoma dissimilis (O.F. Müller, 1774) shell height 23.7 mm. Sonaru south of Patna. Fig. 4: Idiopoma dissimilis (O.F. Müller, 1774) shell height 18.5 mm. Pahari south of Patna. Family Ampullariidae Fig. 5: Pila globosa (Swainson, 1822) shell height 45.3 mm. Sonaru south of Patna. Family Bithyniidae Fig. 6: Digoniostoma cerameopoma (Benson, 1830) shell height 7.7 mm. Ganga River at Gandak confluence opposite Patna. Fig. 7: Digoniostoma pulchella (Benson, 1836) shell height 7.9 mm. Ganga River at Varanasi. Fig. 8: Gabbia orcula (Frauenfeld, 1857) shell height 7.3 mm. Kumhrar, Patna.

Family Thiaridae Fig. 9: Thiara scabra (O.F. Müller, 1774) shell height 21.2 mm. Yamuna River at Allahabad. Fig. 10: Melanoides tuberculatus (O.F. Müller, 1774) shell height 28.4 mm. Hugli (Hoogly) River downstream Haora. Plate 2: Planorbidae (I) of wetlands in Patna. Family Planorbidae Fig. 1-3: Indoplanorbis exustus (Deshayes, 1834) shell width 15.6 mm, sinistral (= left) coiled; Fig. 1: physiological “upper” side, Fig. 2: lateral view, Fig. 3: physiological “lower” side, Pahari south of Patna. Fig. 4-6: Gyraulus convexiusculus (Hutton, 1849) shell width 4.5 mm, sinistral (= left) coiled; Fig. 4: physiological “upper” side, Fig. 5: lateral view, Fig. 6: physiological “lower” side, Kumhrar in Patna. Fig. 7-9: Gyraulus euphraticus (Mousson, 1874) shell width 6.3 mm, sinistral (= left) coiled; Fig. 7: physiological “upper” side, Fig. 8: lateral view, Fig. 9: physiological “lower” side, Kumhrar in Patna.

��!� Sharma, Nesemann and Sardana�

��

�

�

Plate 3: Planorbidae (II) of wetlands in Patna. Family Planorbidae Fig. 1-3: Segmentina calatha (Benson, 1836) shell width 6.9 mm, sinistral (= left) coiled; Fig. 1: physiological “upper” side, Fig. 2: lateral view, Fig. 3: physiological “lower” side, Kumhrar in Patna. Fig. 4-6: Segmentina trochoidea (Benson, 1836) shell width 2.8 mm, sinistral (= left) coiled; Fig.

4: physiological “upper” side, Fig. 5: lateral view, Fig. 6: physiological “lower” side, Kumhrar in Patna. Fig. 7-9: Hippeutis umbilicalis (Benson, 1836) shell width 6.3 mm, sinistral (= left) coiled; Fig. 7: physiological “upper” side, Fig. 8: lateral view, Fig. 9: physiological “lower” side, Nepal: Pokhara, Orlan Khola.

Plate 4: Lymnaeidae, Physidae and Succineidae of wetlands in Patna. Family Lymnaeidae Fig. 1-2: Lymnaea acuminata (Lamarck, 1822) shell height 27.4 mm, Kumhrar in Patna. Fig. 3-4: Radix ovalis (Gray, 1822) shell height 15.5 mm, Haora, Botanical Garden wetland pond. Fig. 5-6: Radix luteola (Lamarck, 1822) shell height 18.2 mm, Kumhrar in Patna. Family Physidae Fig. 7-8: Haitia mexicana (Phillipi, 1889) shell height 14.3 mm, Ganga River at Patna. Family Succineidae Fig. 9-10: Quickia bensoni (Phillipi, 1889) shell height 10.7 mm, Zoo-Pond in Patna.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to the Director, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata for encouragements. Authors are also very much thankful to the Prof. Dr. Janak Pandey, Vice-Chancellor, Central University of Bihar and Prof. Dr. R.K. Sinha, University Professor Dean and Head, Centre for Environmental Science, Central University of Bihar for giving opportunity to work. We are also very much thankful to Dr. Dilip K. Kedia, Research Associate, Environmental Biology Laboratory, Patna University for his kind cooperation in analyzing the physicochemical parameters of samples of the selected temporary and permanent water bodies of Patna. Last but not least thanks are also

�� Sharma, Nesemann and Sardana�

��

�

�

due to all staff of ZSI/GPRC/ Patna and Lab. Staff of CUB, BIT campus, Patna for their kind cooperation. REFERENCES Annandale, N. and B. Prashad. (1919). The

Mollusca of the inland waters of Baluchistan and Seistan. Records of the Indian Museum. 18: 17-62, pl. I-VIII.

Graf, D.L. and K.S. Cummings. (2007). Review of the systematics and global diversity of freshwater mussel species (Bivalvia: Unionoida). Journal of Molluscan Studies. 73: 291-314.

Graf, D.L. (2007). Palearctic freshwater mussel (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionoida) diversity and the Comparatory Method as a species concept. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences. 156: 71-88.

Haas, F. (1969). Superfamilia Unionacea. Das Tierreich. Der Gruyter, Berlin. pp.1-613.

Nesemann, H., Sharma, G. and R. K. Sinha. (2003). The Bivalvia species of the Ganga River and adjacent stagnant water bodies in Patna (Bihar, India) with special reference on Unionacea. Acta Conchyliorum, Ludwigsburg Wien. 7: 1-43.

Nesemann, H., Sharma, S., Sharma, G. and R.K. Sinha. (2005). Illustrated Checklist of large Freshwater Bivalves of the Ganga River System (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Solecurtidae, Unionidae, Amblemidae). Nachrichtenblatt der Ersten Vorarlberger Malakologischen Gesellschaft, Rankweil. 13: 1-51.

Nesemann, H., Sharma, S., Sharma, G., Khanal, S.N., Pradhan, B., Shah, D.N. and R.D. Tachamo. (2007). Aquatic Invertebrates of the Ganga River System: Volume 1– Mollusca, Annelida, Crustacea (in part), Published by Hasko Nesemann, Kathmandu, Nepal, ISBN 978-99946-2-674-8. 263pp.

Preston, H.B. (1915). Freshwater Gastropoda + Pelecypoda. The Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. pp. I-XI + 244, Francis & Taylor, London.

Ramakrishna and Dey, A. (2007). Handbook on Indian Freshwater Molluscs 1-399 (Published by the Director, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata).

Subba Rao, N.V. (1989). Freshwater Molluscs of India. Calcutta: Zoological Survey of India. xxiii + 289pp.

��A� Sharma, Nesemann and Sardana�

��

�

�

Diversity of Freshwater Fishes of Mizoram, India with a note on Conservation

Strategies

Laishram Kosygin

Zoological Survey of India, Hilltop, Gopalpur-on-Sea, Ganjam-761 002, Odisha e-mail: [email protected]


ABSTRACT: A systematic, updated checklist of freshwater fishes of Mizoram is provided with notes on distribution, status and conservation strategies of threatened species. A total of 166 species of fishes representing 71 genera, 22 families and 7 orders has been recorded. Highest species diversity was observed in the Cyprinidae (46.4%) followed by Sisoridae (12.6%). The fish fauna includes 2 endangered (EN), 7 vulnerable (VU), 15 near threatened (NT), 104 least concern (LC) and 7 data deficient (DD) as per IUCN status. The Brarak drainage habours highest number of species (63.2%) followed by Kolodyne (44.0%) and Karnaphuli (27.7%). The fauna is a mixture of endemic hill stream, Assamese, Burmese and widely distributed forms. Key words: Fish, checklist, status, distribution, conservation, Mizoram, India.

INTRODUCTION

Mizoram is a hilly state in the southern part of north eastern India bordering Bangladesh in the south-west and Myanmar in the east having the Tropic of Cancer passing through it. The state is interspersed with numerous rivers, streams and brooks which are drained by three main drainages namely Barak-Meghna, Kolodyne (Kaladan) and Karnaphuli (Kar and Sen, 2007). The northern part of the state is drained by the Barak-Meghna and its tributaries namely the Tlawng (Dhaleshwari), the Tuirial (Sonai) and the Tuivai. The Tuivawl, a tributary of the Tuivai, is another important river in the area. On the other hand the southern region of the state is drained by the Kolodyne (Chhimtuipui) with its four main tributaries - the Mat, the Tuichang, the Tiau and the Tuipui. The Karnaphuli (Khawthlangtuipui) and its tributaries- the Tuichawng, the Phaireng, the Kau, the Deh and the Tuilianpui- form the western drainage system. The Karnaphuli enters Bangladesh at Demagiri and finally discharge into the Bay of Bengal. The rivers of the state have rich fish biodiversity and fishing activity in these rivers is considered as an exciting experience. However, much of the potential of the river systems and aquatic bioresources in Mizoram remains largely unexploited.

There are few reports on the fishes of

Mizoram. Sen (1977) reported 9 species of fishes from state and remarked that the state remains one of the least known areas of north east India. Barman (1988) reported the Burmese Kingfish, Semiplotus modestus for the first time from India. Barman (1989) further recorded 17 species which belong to 14 genera, 8 families. Latter, Kar et al. (2000) reported 54 species from 7 rivers of the state. Kar et al. (2002) recorded 30 species from the Tuirial river in Mizoram. While reporting the fishes of North East India, Sen (2003) included 46 species without giving details of collection sites. More comprehensive and systematic accounts of the fishes of Mizoram were provided by Karmakar and Das (2007) which included a total of 89 species of which 24 species were reported for the first time from Mizoram. Kar and Sen (2007) reported 105 species of fishes from the state. However, there is no comprehensive up to date list of fishes of the state and information on their status are scanty. In the present study a updated systematic checklist of fish fauna of the river is prepared based on the present collection and those reported by the earlier workers. The IUCN status of the fishes, distributions and conservation strategies of the threatened species are provided.

Biological Forum_ An International Journal, Spl. Iss.��B��=��>�� (?A�?��9��# �8%��:;�==B25C=C2�

��

�

�

MATERIALS AND METHODS Fishes were collected from the

Dhaleshwari (Tlawng) river of Mizoram and identified following Jayaram (1999), Talwar and Jhingran (1991) and by consulting other relevant literature. Species, which were not collected in the present survey but reported earlier from Mizoram, are also included in this report. The families have been arranged phylogenetically and species under a genus followed alphabetic sequence. The correct Zoological name with author citation, distribution and IUCN status (IUCN, 2010) are shown against each species. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A systematic, updated checklist of freshwater fishes of Mizoram has been prepared base on present collection and those reported by the earlier workers (Table 1). It includes a total of 166 species of fishes representing 71 genera, 22 families and 7 orders. Among these Cypriniformes has highest diversity with 4 families, 33 genera and 99 species followed by Siluriformes (6 families with 20 genera and 46 species), Perciformes (5 families with 9 genera

and 12 species), Synbranchiformes (2 families with 3 genera and 3 species), Clupeiformes and Beloniformes (2 families with 2 genera and 2 species each) and Osteoglossiformes (one family with 2 genera and 2 species). Among the families highest species diversity was observed in the Cyprinidae (46.4%) followed by Sisoridae (12.6%). In the present collection a total of 26 species which belongs to 14 genera and 6 families were collected. Of the three main drainages of the state, the Brarak and its tributaries habour highest number of species (63.2%) followed by Kolodyne (44.0%) and Karnaphuli (27.7%) (Fig. 1). However, distributions of 15 species (9.0%) are not known, as their sites of collections were not available in the literatures. The fish fauna of the state includes 2 endangered (EN), 7 vulnerable (VU), 15 near threatened (NT), 104 least concern (LC) and 7 data deficient (DD) as per the IUCN status (Fig. 2). However, status of 31 species are not available as many of them are newly described as new to science. The fauna is a mixture of endemic hill stream, Assamese, Burmese and widely distributed forms.

Fig. 1. Known distribution of fishes in different drainages of Mizoram.

Out of the 166 species, 27 species which

are reported by the earlier workers may have ambiguous taxonomic status and their identities needed to be verified (Table 1). They are Chitala chitala, Salmophasia sardinella, Salmophasia

sladoni, Barilius bakeri, Barilius dogarsinghi, Devario shanensis, Neolissochilus blythii, Osteobrama cunma, Semiplotus semiplotus, Garra mcclellandi, Garra notata, Nemacheilus corica, Schistura kangjupkhulensis, Schistura

��?� Kosygin�

��

�

�

manipurensis, Schistura sikmaiensis, Schistura tirapensis, Schistura vinciguerrae, Mystus horai, Ailia punctata, Glyptothorax platypogonoides, Glyptothorax telchitta, Pseudolaguvia tuberculata, Pseudambassis baculis, Parambassis tenasserimensis, Awaous stamineus, Psammogobius biocellatus and Channa orientalis. Most of these species has restricted distribution and are not reported from Mizoram by the other workers. Vishwanath (2010) remarked that Devario shanensis is known from Hsipaw, northern Shan States, Myanmar and Salween drainage. Similarly, B. bakeri is endemic to the Western Ghats, where it has been recorded from mid- and higher-elevation streams of major rivers in Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka (Dahanukar, 2011a). Garra mcclellandi is endemic to the southern Western Ghats of India and is found mainly in the Cauvery drainage (Dahanukar, 2011b). Ekaratne (2000) and Pethiyagoda (1991) remarked that Channa orientalis is considered as an endemic species to Sri Lanka and is often confused with Channa gachua (Hamilton). Courtenay Jr. and Williams (2004) noted that C.

orientalis differs from C. gachua in lacking pelvic fins and report of the former species from southern India and elsewhere are erroneous. Dahanukar (2010) considered Puntius shalynius is distributed in Khasi and Jaintia hills in Meghalaya. However, Kamakar and Das (2007) reported the fish from Kolodyne and Karnaphuli drainages in Mizoram. Vishwanath and Kosygin (2000) remarked that Semiplotus semiplotus perhaps distributed only in the Ganga-Brahmaputra drainage. The report of the fish from Kolodyne river in Mizoram is doubtful and it needs further study for confirmation of species identity.

The state habours commercially important food fishes like Tor putitora, Tor tor, Labeo calbasu, L. rohita, L. pangusia, Cirrhinus reba, Cirrhinus mrigala, Chagunius chagunio, Neolissochilus hexagonolepis, Ntopterus notopterus, Semiplotus modestus etc., It suggest high fishery potentials in the state.

Attempts may be made to introduce the in situ fish cultivation using scientific techniques for sustainable development of fish resources of the state.

Table 1. Checklist of fish fauna of Mizoram with their status and distribution.

Taxa Distribution IUCN Status Barak

drainage Kolodyne drainage

Karnaphuli drainage

Phylum CHORDATA Class ACTINOPTERYGII Division TELEOSTEI Order : OSTEOGLOSSIFORMES Family : NOTOPTERIDAE 1. Chitala chitala (Pallas)5* - - - NT 2. Notopterus notopterus (Hamilton)1,3,5,6 + - + LC Order : CLUPEIFORMES Family : CLUPEIDAE 3. Gudusia chapra (Hamilton)1,3,5,6 - - + LC Family : ENGRAULIDAE 4. Setipinna phasa (Hamilton)5 - - + LC Order CYPRINIFORMES Family CYPRINIDAE 5. Securicula gora (Hamilton)1,3,6 + + + LC 6. Salmophasia bacaila (Hamilton)1,3,5,6,7 + - + LC 7. Salmophasia phulo (Hamilton)3,5 + - + LC 8. Salmophasia sardinella (Valenciennes)3,5* - + + LC 9. Salmophasia sladoni (Day)5* - + - LC 10. Aspidoparia jaya (Hamilton)3 - + - LC

��@�Kosygin�

��

�

�

11. Aspidoparia morar (Hamilton)1,3,4 + + - LC 12. Barilius bakeri Day3* + - - LC 13. Barilius barila ( Hamilton)2,3,5 + + - LC 14. Barilius barna (Hamilton)2,3,5 + + + LC 15. Barilius bendelisis (Hamilton)2,3,4,5,6,7 + + - LC 16. Barilius dogarsinghi Hora5* - + - VU 17. Barilius shacra 1,2,3,5 + + - LC 18. Barilius tileo 1,2,3 + - - NE 19. Barilius vagra 1,2,3,4,5,7 + + + LC 20. Barilius sp1. 7 + - - NA 21. Chela cachius (Hamilton)5 - + - LC 22. Laubuca laubuca (Hamilton)1,3 + + + LC 23. Esomus danricus (Hamilton) 3,5 + + + LC 24. Danio dangila (Hamilton)4,5,6 + - - LC 25. Danio rerio (Hamilton)4,5,6 + - - LC 26. Devario devario (Hamilton)3 + - - LC 27. Devario aequipinnatus (McClelland)1,2,3,4,5,6,7 + + - LC 28. Devario naganensis (Chaudhuri)1,2,3,5,7 + + + VU 29. Devario shanensis (Hora)5* - + - DD 30. Rasbora daniconius (Hamilton)5 + + + LC 31. Rasbora rasbora (Hamilton)3,5 + - + LC 32. Amblypharyngodon mola (Hamilton)5,7 + - + LC 33. Cyprinus carpio (Linnaeus)5 - - - VU 34. Tor barakae Arunkumar & Basudha7 + - - DD 35. Tor mosal (Hamilton)1,3,5 + + - NA 36. Tor putitora (Hamilton)5,7 + - - EN 37. Tor tor (Hamilton)1,3,4 + + - NT 38. Neolissochilus blythii (Day)3* - + - NA 39. Neolissochilus hexagonolepis (McClelland)1,2,3,4,5,6 + + - NT 40. Neolissochilus hexastichus (McClelland)3,4 - + - NT 41. Osteobrama cotio ( Hamilton)1,3,5,6 - + + LC 42. Osteobrama cunma (Day) 5* - - + LC 43. Chagunius chagunio (Hamilton)1,4 + - - LC 44. Puntius chola (Hamilton)1,3,5 + - + LC 45. Puntius clavatus (McClelland)1 - - - NT 46. Puntius conchonius (Hamilton)1,2,3,4,5,6 + + + LC 47. Puntius puntio (Hamilton)3 - + - NA 48. Puntius sarana (Hamilton) 1,3 + + - LC 49. Puntius orphoides (Valenciennes) 2 + - - NA 50. Puntius shalynius Yazdani & Talukdar5 - + + VU 51. Puntius sophore (Hamilton)4,5 - - - LC 52. Puntius terio (Hamilton)4 - - - LC 53. Puntius ticto (Hamilton)1,2,3,5 + + - LC 54. Puntius sp.7 + - - NA 55. Poropuntius clavatus (McClelland)3 + - - NT 56. Semiplotus modestus (Day)1,3,5 - + - DD 57. Semiplotus semiplotus (McClelland)1,3,4,5* - + - VU 58. Cirrhinus mrigala (Hamilton)1,3,5 + - - LC 59. Cirrhinus reba (Hamilton)1,4,5,7 + - + LC 60. Cirrhinus sp.7 + - - NA 61. Catla catla (Hamilton)5 - - - NA 62. Labeo bata (Hamilton)3 - + - LC 63. Labeo gonius ( Hamilton)5 - - - LC 64. Labeo calbasu (Hamilton)1,4,5 + - + LC

��B� Kosygin�

��

�

�

65. Labeo pangusia (Hamilton)4 - - - NT 66. Labeo rohita (Hamilton)1,5 + - - LC 67. Labeo sp.7 + - - NA 68. Bangana ariza (Hamilton)3 + - - LC 69. Crossocheilus burmanicus Hora1,3 + + - LC 70. Crossocheilus latius (Hamilton)1,2,3,4,5,6 + + - LC 71. Garra lamta (Hamilton) 3,4,5,6 + + - LC 72. Garra annandalei Hora1,2,3,4,5 + + - LC 73. Garra gotyla (Gray) 1,2,3,4,5 + + - LC 74. Garra kempi Hora3,7 + - - LC 75. Garra lissorhynchus (McClelland) 2,3,5,7 + + - LC 76. Garra manipurensis Vishwanath & Sarojnalini7 + - - VU 77. Garra mcclellandi (Jerdon)4* - - - LC 78. Garra naganensis Hora3,4,5,7 + + - LC 79. Garra nasuta (McClelland) 4,5,7 + + - LC 80. Garra notata2,3* + - - NA 81. Garra sp.7 + - - NA Family PSILORHYNCHIDAE 82. Psilorhynchus balitora (Hamilton)2,3,4 + + - LC 83. Psilorhynchus gracilis Rainboth1,3,4 + - - LC 84. Psilorhynchus sucatio ( Hamilton) 5 + - - LC Family BALITORIDAE 85. Balitora brucei (Gray)1,2,3,5,7 + + - NT 86. Acanthocobitis botia (Hamilton)1,2,3,5 + + - LC 87. Nemacheilus corica (Hamilton) 5* - + - LC 88. Schistura kangjupkhulensis Hora5* - + - EN 89. Schistura manipurensis (Chaudhuri)4* - - - NT 90. Schistura multifasciata (Day)3,4 - + - LC 91. Schistura rupecula (McClelland)1,2,5,6 + + - LC 92. Schistura scaturigina (McClelland)2,3 + - - LC 93. Schistura savona (Hamilton) 5 + - - LC 94. Schistura sikmaiensis (Hora)3* + - - LC 95. Schistura tirapensis (Menon)3* - + - LC 96. Schistura vinciguerrae Hora1,2,3* + - - LC 97. Schistura sp.7 + - - NA Family CODITIDAE 98. Botia dario (Hamilton)3,4,5 + + - LC 99. Botia rostrata Günther3,7 + - - VU 100. Pangio pangia (Hamilton) 2,3 + - - LC 101. Lepidocephalichthys annandalei Chaudhuri 3 + - - LC 102. Lepidocephalichthys berdmorei (Blyth) 5 + - - LC 103. Lepidocephalichthys guntea (Hamilton) 4,5 + - - LC Order SILURIFORMES Family: BAGRIDAE 104. Sperata aor (Hamilton) 1,3,4,5,6 - + + LC 105. Sperata seenghala (Sykes) 2,3 + + + LC 106. Mystus bleekeri ( Day) 5 - - + LC 107. Mystus cavasius (Hamilton)1,3,5,6 - - + LC 108. Mystus horai Jayaram3* - - + NA 109. Mystus vittatus (Bloch)1,3,6 + - + LC 110. Batasio batasio (Hamilton)1,3,4 - + - LC 111. Batasio convexirostrum Darshan, Anganthoibi &Vishwanath6

- + - NA

112. Batasio tengana (Hamilton)3 - - + LC 113. Olyra longicaudata McClelland5 + - - LC Family: SILURIDAE 114. Ompok bimaculatus (Bloch)5 - - - NT

��C�Kosygin�

��

�

�

115. Ompok pabo ( Hamilton) 3,5 - - + NT 116. Wallago attu (Schneider) 5 - - - NT Family: SCHILBEIDAE 117. Clupisoma garua (Hamilton)1,3,4 + - - LC 118. Clupisoma montana Hora5 - - + LC 119. Eutropiichthys murius (Hamilton)3 + - - LC 120. Eutropichthys vacha (Hamilton)1,3,5 + + + LC 121. Ailia coila (Hamilton)1,3,5,6 + - + NT 122. Ailia punctata (Day)5* - - + DD Family: AMBLYCEPIDAE 123. Amblyceps mangois (Hamilton) 3 + - - LC Family: SISORIDAE 124. Conta conta (Hamilton)5 + - - DD 125. Hara hara (Hamilton)3 - - + LC 126. Hara koladynensis Anganthoibi & Vishwanth6 - + - NA 127. Erethistes pusillus Muller & Troshel1,2,3,6 + - + LC 128. Gagata cenia (Hamilton)3,4,5 - - + LC 129. Gagata sexualis Tilak3 - - + LC 130. Nangra nangra (Hamilton)1,3,6 + - + LC 131. Gogangra viridescens (Hamilton)3 + - - LC 132. Glyptothorax ater Anganthoibi & Vishwanath6 - + - NA 133. Glyptothorax cavia (Hamilton)1,3,5 + + - LC 134. Glyptothorax caudimaculatus Anganthoibi & Vishwanath6

- + - NA

135. Glyptothorax chimtuipuiensis Anganthoibi & Vishwanath6

- + - NA

136. Glyptothorax striatus (McClelland)5 - + - NT 137. Glyptothorax conirostris (Steindachner) 3,4 + - - DD 138. Glyptothorax platypogonoides (Bleeker)4* - - - NA 139. Glyptothorax telchitta (Hamilton)1,3,4,7* + + - LC 140. Glyptothorax trilineatus Blyth3 + - - LC 141. Glyptothorax sp1.7 + - - NA 142. Glyptothorax sp2.7 + - - NA 143. Pseudecheneis koladynae Anganthoibi & Vishwanath6 - + - NA 144. Pseudecheneis sulcatus (McClelland)3,5 - + - LC Family: ERETHISTIDAE 145. Pseudolaguvia shawi Hora3 + - - LC 146. Pseudolaguvia spicula Ng & Lalramliana6 + - - NA 147. Pseudolaguvia tuberculata (Prashad & Mukherji)5* + - - DD 148. Pseudolaguvia virgulata Ng & Lalramliana6 + - - NA Family: HETEROPNEUSTIDAE 149. Heteropneustes fossilis (Hamilton)5 - - - LC Order: BELONIFORMES Family BELONIDAE 150. Xenentodon cancila (Hamilton) 1,2,3,4,5,6 + + + LC Family: APLOCHEILIDAE 151. Aplocheilus panchax (Hamilton) 5 + - - LC Order: SYNBRANCHIFORMES Family: SYNBRANCHIDAE 152. Monopterus icthyophoides Britz, Lalremsanga, Lalrotluanga & Lalramliana6

+ - - NA

Family: MASTACEMBELIDAE 153. Macrognathus pancalus Hamilton3 + - - LC 154. Mastacembelus armatus (Lacepède)1,2,3,4,5,7 + + + LC Order PERCIFORMES Family: CHANDIDAE

�� Kosygin�

��

�

�

155. Chanda nama Hamilton1,3,5,6 + + + LC 156. Pseudambassis baculis (Hamilton)4* - - - LC 157. Parambassis ranga (Hamilton)1,3,4,5,6 + + + NA 158. Parambassis tenasserimensis Roberts 3* + + - NA Family: SCIAENIDAE 159. Johnius coitor (Hamilton)1,3,6 - - + LC Family: NANDIDAE 160. Badis badis (Hamilton)1,2,3,4,5 + + + LC Family: GOBIIDAE 161. Awaous stamineus (Valenciennes)5* - + - NA 162. Glossogobius giuris (Hamilton)1,3,4,5,7 + + + NA 163. Psammogobius biocellatus (Valenciennes)3* - + - NT Family: CHANNIDAE 164. Channa punctatus (Bloch) 5 + - - LC 165. Channa stewartii (Playfair) 5 - + - LC 166. Channa orientalis Bloch & Schneider3,4,5* - + - NA

Note: 1Reported by Kar et al. (2000); 2Reported by Kar et.al. (2002); 3Reported by Kar and Sen (2007); 4 Reported by Sen (2003); 5Reported by Karmakar and Das (2007); 6Reported by others; 7Present study; *Identity needs to be verified; + = Present; - = Absent/Unknown; EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; NT = Near Threatened; LC = Least Concern; DD = Data Deficient; NA = Not Assessed. CONSERVATION STRATEGIES

The state of Mizoram is blessed with rich diversity of fish species, which inhabit three different drainages. These aquatic habitats are subject to considerable stresses due to changes in the environment and various human activities. Base on the IUCN status, fishes of the state includes 2 endangered (EN), 7 vulnerable (VU) and 15 near threatened (NT) species which may be considered for conservation. Therefore, necessary steps may be taken up to conserve the habitats and diverse fish genetic resources of the state on one hand and to rational and efficient

utilization of fish stock on the other hand. Some measures for the conservation of the threatened fishes are given below:

Preparation and distribution of identification card: Information and identification materials in local languages and using local names where relevant, especially for threatened species may be distributed to all the stakeholders for conservation. The distribution of clear photo-identification cards to fishing communities would allow them to start managing fish stocks.

Fig. 2. Status of fishes of Mizoram based on IUCN (2010). Where EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; NT = Near Threatened; LC = Least Concern; DD = Data Deficient; NA = Not Assessed.

��Kosygin�

��

�

�

Establishment of fish sanctuaries: Fish sanctuaries for the protection of the threatened species may be established at suitable portions of the rivers in the state. Kar and Sen (2007) pointed out that declaration of aquatic sanctuary of some portion of the Tlwang river near Venglai village could be ideal site.

Investigations on Biological and Ecological Characteristics: Detail knowledge on the ecology and biology of fishes is useful in fishery management and conservation. Therefore, investigation on the ecology and biology of the threatened fishes may be conducted using scientific techniques.

Pollution control: Water quality needs to be improved, especially in the municipal town areas. Measures may be taken up to maintain water quality in rivers where there are discharges of pollutants from agriculture, industrial and urban sources.

Erosion control and Afforestation programmes: The rivers of the state are usually very turbid during the monsoon and early post-monsoon periods due to heavy loading of soil particles from its catchment area. Turbidity affects fish and aquatic life by interfering with the penetration of sunlight thereby altering the ecological processes. High level of suspended silts reduces visibility for aquatic life, making them difficult to find their food even in the euphotic zone. Extensive afforestation programmes may be conducted and the practice of Jhum (shifting) cultivation may be controlled. An integrated approach is required to address such issues as land rights and resource access, livelihood security, and agricultural development (e.g. to reduce dependence on shifting agriculture) (Vishwanath et al. 2010). This would ultimately help to retain vegetal cover and reduce the inflow of silt particles along with the runoff to the rivers.

Habitat and population trends monitoring: Regular monitoring of habitat condition and population trends of fishes may be undertaken. The fish resources should be wisely utilized. The challenge therefore is to conserve fish resources while providing sustained benefits to the local communities dependent upon these resources for sustenance. Maintenance of the ecological processes and functions of water

bodies of the state is essential for successful conservation of fishes.

Implementation of domestic legislations: Destructive fish harvesting techniques should be prevented and laws on catching brooders may be formulated for conservation of the threatened fishes.

Education and community participation: Local communities and fishermen should be encouraged to participate in the conservation of the fishes. Proper awareness programmes on the status and importance of fishes and their habitats may be organized for the local communities. The concept of Social Fencing needs to be established so that local communities themselves protect fish stocks and their habitats. Such initiatives depend on the development of trust between local communities and conservation authorities. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to the Dr. K. Venkataraman, Director, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata for providing research facilities and encouragements. I am also thankful to Dr. Nebedita Sen of North Eastern Regional Centre, Zoological survey of India for providing literatures. REFERENCES Barman, R.P. (1988). First record of the King

fish, Semiplotus modestus Day 1870, (Pisces: Cyprinidae) from India (Mizoram). J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 85(1): 210.

Barman, R.P. (1989). On a small collection of fish from Mizoram, India. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 86(2): 463-466.

Courtenay, W.R. Jr. and Williams, J.D. (2004). Snakeheads (Pisces, Channidae)– A Biological Synopsis and Risk Assessment. U.S. Geological Survey circular: 1251, 143 pp.

Dahanukar, N. (2010). Puntius shalynius. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 30 November 2011.

Dahanukar, N. (2011a). Barilius bakeri. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2.

��!� Kosygin�

��

�

�

<www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 07 December 2011.

Dahanukar, N. (2011b). Garra mcclellandi. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 07 December 2011.

Ekaratne, S.U.K. (2000). A review of the status and trends of exported ornamental fish resources and their habitats in Sri Lanka. Bay of Bengal Programme, Chennai, India. (hhtp://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/fishery/bobp/website/homepage.htm).

IUCN. (2010). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. <http://www.iucnredlist.org/>. Downloaded on 29 October 2010.

Jayaram, K.C. (1999). The fresh water fishes of the Indian region. Narendra Publishing House, Delhi. 551pp.

Kar, D., Laskar, B.M., Mandal, M., Lalsiamliana and Nath, D. (2002). Fish genetic diversity and habitat parameters in Barak drainage Mizoram and Tripura. Indian J. Environ. and Ecoplan. 6(3): 473-480.

Kar, D. and Sen, N. (2007). Systematic list and distribution of fishes in Mizoram, Tripura and Barak drainage of north east India. Zoo’s Print Journal. 22(3): 2599-2607.

Kar, D., Dey, S.C., Mandal, M., Laskar, B. A. and Searnleana, L. (2000). Preliminary survey of the fish genetic resources of the rivers in Barak drainage, Mizoram and Tripura. In Proceedings of Lake 2000: International Symposium on Restoration of Lakes and Wetlands (Ramachandra, T.V., C.R. Murthy and N. Ahalya eds.). Center for ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. (ces.iisc.ernet.in/

energy/water/proceed/section2/paper2.htm). Karmakar, A.K. and Das, A. (2007). Fishes. In:

Fauna of Mizoram, State Fauna Series, 14 (DZSI ed.), Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata. pp.507-535.

Pethiyagoda, R. (1991). Freshwater fishes of Sri Lanka. Wildlife Heritage Trust of Sri Lanka, Colombo 8, 362 pp.

Sen, N. (1977). On a collection of fish from Mizoram. Bull. Meghalaya Sci. Soc. 2: 21-22.

Sen, N. (2003). Fish fauna of north east India with special reference to endemic and threatened species. Rec. zool. Surv. India, 101(3-4): 81-99.

Talwar, P.K. and Jhingran, A.G. (1991). Inland fishes of India and adjacent countries. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2 vol., pp.1158.

Vishwanath, W. (2010). Devario shanensis. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 30 November, 2011.

Vishwanath, W. and Kosygin, L. (2000). Fishes of the cyprinid genus Semiplotus Bleeker 1859, with description of a new species from Manipur, India. J. Bombay Nat. hist. Soc. 97(1) 92-102.

Vishwanath, W., Ng, H.H., Britz, R., Kosygin Singh, L. Chaudhry, S. and Conway, K.V. (2010). The status and distribution of freshwater fishes of the Eastern Himalaya region. pp. 22-41. In The Status and Distribution of Freshwater Biodiversity in the Eastern Himalaya (Compilers Allen, D.J., Molur, S., Daniel, B.A.). IUCN, Cambridge, UK and Gland, Switzerland.

�� Kosygin�

��

�

�

Floristic diversity of Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary,

Gujarat, India

S.L. Meena

Botanical Survey of India, Arid Zone Regional Centre, Jodhpur- 342 008.

(Received 29 December, 2011, Accepted 19 March, 2012)

ABSTRACT: Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary is a unique phytodiversity hotspot of Banaskantha dist. in North Gujarat. It falls under the semiarid climatic zone. Hence, floriostically vegetation of the Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary is characterized in to the dry deciduous forest and scrub forest. Jessore hills are the part of Aravalli hills adjoining to Mt. Abu, and separate the desert ecosystem from dry deciduous forest types. The present paper deals with 481 indigenious and naturalized plant species belonging to 277 genera and 80 families of Vascular plants. Among them, 415 species of Dicotyledons and 66 species of Monocotyledons are encountered. Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary is a paradise for medicinal plants wealth. Ecosystem complexcity of the Sanctuary is being changed now a days because of human interference. Heavy grazing activities, exotic weeds and severe drought are the main factors for the loss of phytodiversity of the Sanctuary. Consequently, Sanctuary is facing a lot of threat, particularly the rare and threatened plant species. So, there is an urgent need of conservation to preserve such types of hotspot of the States. Key words: Floristic diversity, Jessore Sloth Bear WLS, Gujarat.

INTRODUCTION India, owing to its tropical geographical location and diverse topography, has rich and varied floral and faunal diversity. Biodiversity encompasses the variety of the life on the earth at gene, species and ecosystem levels. Protected areas are one of the most widely accepted and practical approaches to biodiversity conservation the World over. Today, almost every country in the World has designated protected areas for a range of conservation objectives, such as maintenance of the integrity and diversity of ecosystem, protection of flora and fauna and cultural heritage. In addition to the conservation objectives, the protected areas also have significant scientific, educational, cultural, recreational and spiritual values apart from the direct and indirect benefits they provided to local as well as national economics. India is the one of the 12 mega diversity/diverse countries and one of the 12 megagene centre of the Worlds. The objectives of in situ conservation of rich biodiversity can be achieved only through establishment of network of protected areas in the form of Wildlife Sanctuaries, National Parks and Biosphere Reserves. In India, at national level, the present scenario of protected area network covers ca

4.74% of its total landmass to address its conservation needs of representative ecosystem and habitats of endangered and endemic species of floral and faunal diversity. Biological diversity of the country in totality accounts for 7% of the World's biological resources. As per the current assessment of the floristic resources of the country at species level in India is estimated to have ca.17,000 species of Angiosperms (Karthikeyan, 2000), 48 of Gymnosperms, 1200 of Pteridophytes, 2850 of Bryophytes, 2021 of Lichens, 14500 of Fungi and 6500 of Algae (Sharma & Singh, 2001). About 35% of the flowering plants and ca 18% of the total flora is endemic to the country. The components of these living resources constitute the basic material upon which our civilization has laid its foundation and the future growth, prosperity of our people is interlinked with the sustainable use of these resources. As such, a network of protected areas has been created in the country through 95 National Praks, 500 Wildlife Sanctuaries, 14 Biosphere Reserves and 27 Tiger Reserves. The Gujarat State occupies 1,95,984 sq. km area that accounts for 5.98% area of the country. It is situated on the west coast of India

Biological Forum_ An International Journal, Spl. Iss.��B��=��!A>?�?��(?A�?��9��# �8%��:;�==B25C=C2�

��

�

�

between 20°1' to 24°7' North latitudes and 68°4' to 70°4' East longitudes. Distinctive geomorphological features, geographical location, convergence of four mountain ranges, the longest sea coast in India with two sheltered gulfs are unique features of Gujarat which harbour rich biodiversity. For conservation of biodiversity, Gujarat Government is very particular as there are 21 Protected areas, 4 National Parks and 17 Wildlife Sanctuaries in all the biogeographical zones, with 14946 sq. km forest cover. Jessore Wildlife Sanctuary is situated in Banaskantha district of Gujarat State (23°0' to 24°44' N Latitude to 71°0' to 73° 0' E Longitude) with a total area of 180.6 sq. km. The hills of Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary in North Gujarat form the counter part of hills of Mount Abu. They are the hills of western end mountain ranges of the Aravalli.The vegetation of the Sanctuary fall into dry mixed deciduous forests. Topographically, the forest tract of the Sanctuary is highly undulating with the height ranging from 302 to 1100 m (MSL). The hills and hillocks are drained by a number of water channels (nallahs). Topographically, Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary can be divided into hilly country, piedment and the plain areas. The hills have got a rugged topography, the piedment zone and the plain areas. The piedment zones runs all along

the periphery of the hilly area and consists of loose to semi consolidated weathered material.At some places sand mounds also seen. The plains down the hills are mostly agricultural fields and Goucher lands. In general, Jessore Wildlife Sanctuary area lies in the Archean formation. The underlying rocks are quartzite, granite and lime stone. Soil is rich in humus and nutrient contents. CLIMATE

Rainfall in the Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary is very erratic and unevenly distributed. Highest intensity of rainfall is observed in the month of July - August. In summer, maximum temperature were recorded 45°C in May and June while same were recorded lowest in the month of December and January i.e. 6°C. Humidity is generally low not exceeding 20.25%, except for the monsoon season when it reaches to 60-80 and approaches 100% at times. METHODOLOGY During the course of study, author made an important attention towards the Jessore Wildlife Sanctuary as it acts as a buffer and separate the desert ecosystem from the dry deciduous type of ecosystem.Intensive and extensive six botanical exploration tours were

Fig. 1. Map showing location of study area.

�!��Meena�

��

�

�

conducted in the Sanctuary area for 3 years in different seasons so as to collect more and more plant species in the flowering and fruiting stages for better understanding of floral composition of the Sanctuary. Study area maps have been procured from the web site of Gujarat forest department (Fig.1). The collected Specimens were preserved as per standard norms in the herbarium of the Botanical Survey of India, Arid Zone Regional Centre, Jodhpur (BSJO). All collected plant Specimens were identified with the help of reputed literature, proper study of the materials and finally matching with authentic herbarium Specimens deposited in BSJO and Central National Herbarium (CAL). Nomenclature of all taxa was brought upto-date in accordance with International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN). Some of the plant species have been included based on available literature (forest management plan) are marked by astricks (*). Authenticity of their occurrence lies with the documenting authority, since author could not collect them inspite ofhis best efforts. Common names of almost all species were also noted. Bentham & Hooker's system of classification (1862-83) has been followed for documentation of plant wealth of the Sanctuary. VEGETATION OF JESSORE WILDLIFE SANCTUARY The flora and floral composition of Gujarat State has been studied in great details by many botanist like Cooke (1901-08), Blattar (1908-09), Thakar (1926), Santapau (1962), Shah (1978) etc. Notable works on North Gujarat region published by Saxton & Sedgwick (1918), Saxton (1922), Raghavan, et al. (1981) and several other departments and university workers. Exhaustive and detailed account on the Biological diversity of Gujarat has been published by Pilo et al. (1996). Recently, the phytodiversity of Gujarat State has been studied in detaild by Pandey & Singh (1999) and a very recently, the floral diversity of Gujarat State has been worked by Singh & Parabia (2003), Meena & Pandey (2004) and Meena (2004a, 2004b, 2005, 2007). The floral diversity of Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary can be broadly classified as Tropical deciduous forests and Tropical thorn

forests. According to the revised classification of forest types (Champion & Seth, 1966), the Sanctuary can be classified into Type 5A/C3– Southern dry mixed deciduous forests of tropical dry deciduous group and Type 6B/C1– Desert thorn forest of the subgroup 6B of tropical thorn forests. 1. Southern Dry Deciduous Forests: The main tree species of this forest are: Acacia catechu, Aegle marmelos, Anogeissus acuminata, Anogeissus cuneata, Butea monosperma, Bombax ceiba, Diospyros melanoxylon, Emblica officinalis, Ficus racemosa, F. benghalensis, Lannea coromandelica, Mitragyna parviflora, Pithacelobium dulce, Terminalia bellirica, Sterculia urens, Miliusa tomentosa, Wrightia tinctoria, Wrightia arborea and Boswellia serrata etc being most dominant trees on the top up the hills. The middle layer of the hills is represented by species like Alangium salvifolium, Balanites roxburghii, Capparis sepiaria, Casearia elliptica, Haldina cordifolia, Mallotus philippensis, Flacourtia indica, Grewia flavescens, Spermadictyon suaveolens, Holarrhena pubescens, Dyrophytum indicum, Helicteres isora, Ziziphus xylopyrus etc.

On the top of some of these forest ranges, Dendrocalamus strictus clumps can be seen associated with Boswellia serrata (near Muni ki kutia) on low and isolated hillocks the common shrubs are Capparis sepiaria, Maytenus emarginata, Mimosa hamata, Senna auriculata, Woodfordia fruticosa etc. The common climbers and twiners associated with these plants are Abrus precatorius, Acacia pinnata, Asparagus racemosus, Celastrus paniculata and Wattakaka volubilis, etc.

The ground flora, which makes its appearance during monsoon, comprises following common species: Acanthospermum hispidum, Achyranthes aspera, Anisomeles indica, Impatiens balsamina var. coccinea, Barleria prattensis, Bidens biternata, Blainvillea acmella, Chamaecrista absus, Senna tora, Tephrosia purpurea, Clitoria biflora, Enicostemma axillare, Sida cordata and Sida ovata etc. The common grass species and sedges intermingled with these herbaceous plants are : Apluda mutica, Dichanthium annulatum, Aristida

�!?� Meena�

��

�

�

funiculata, Cenchrus setigerus, Heteropogon contortus, Cynodon dactylon, Oropetium thomaeum and species of Arthraxon, Eragrostis, Digitaria, Brachiaria, Panicum, Setaria and Themeda etc. among sedges Cyperus rotundus, Cyperus difformis, Cyperus tuberosus, Fimbristylis bisumbellata etc. are common. 2. Desert Thorn Forest: The vegetation of such forests is very sparse and provide sites for grazing. The typical vegetation of such forests is represent by Acacia catechu, Acacia senegal, Acacia leucophloea, Aegle marmelos, Anogeissus acuminata, Holoptelea integrifolia, Prosopis juliflora, Wrightia tinctoria, Mimosa hamata, Ziziphus nummularia, Ziziphus mauritiana, Kirganelia reticulata, Salvadora oleoides, Prosopis cineraria etc. At certain places, these forests are intermixed with some typical dry deciduous species like Aegle marmelos, Butea monosperma, Capparis decidua, Capparis sepiaria, Balanites aegyptiaca, Holorrhena pubescens, Maytenus emarginatus, Diospyros melanoxylon, Ziziphus mauritiana and Cassia auriculata etc. The common climbers and twiners which forms important component of these forests are: Mucuna pruriens, Abrus precatorius, Canavalia ensiformis, Cissampelos pariera, Dioscorea bulbifera, Dioscorea hispida, Cardiospermum halicacabum etc. Common stem parasites encountered here areCuscuta reflexa, Dendrophthoe falcata, Viscum angulatum etc which enrich the vegetation of such habitats. The ground flora is quite luxuriant during monsoon, while in summer and winter it is quite dry and barren. The common ephemeral herbaceous plants of the ground flora during monsoon are: Acanthospermum hispidum, Bidens biternata, Blumea mollis, Cassia, Dipteracanthus patulus var. alba, Martynia annua, Pupulia lappacea, Solanum virginianum, Tephrosia purpurea, Tribulus terrestris, Tridax procumbens, Vernonia cinerea etc, with common species of Amaranthus, Boerhavia, Cleome, Corchorus, Sida etc. The common grasses which make their appearance during monsoon are: Aristida adscensionis, Heteropogon contortus, Chloris dolichostachya, Themeda quadrivalvis, Tetrapogon tenellus and species of Chloris, Eragrostis, Cenchrus, Melanocenchris,

Oropetium etc. Occasionally the ground flora is also represented by the parasitic species like Orobanche aegyptiaca and Striga gesnerioides etc. The sub groups within these forest types are quite conspicuous as per the varying microclimates, hill slopes, altitudes, soil conditions and moisture regimes. For the sake of convenience, the above forest types can be further identified into subgroups. Particular plant species formed: Boswellia forests are observed in the middle of hills while Anogeissus acuminata forests seen towards the southern and eastern slopes of the hills, where as Butea forests seen at foot hills of Balundra village and Ghauta area also. Population of Lannea coromandelica can be observed at the higher altitudes of the Sanctuary, mixed forests often flourish in moisture availability sites like Kedarnath-Muni ki kutia, Ghauta and Jagdhodiya forest area. Bamboo forests we can see only at higher altitudes near Muni ki kutia, while Prosopis forests ARE found at Kapasia, Sonwadi, Manpuria, Vaghodi areas. ENUMERATION PTERIDOPHYTES PTERIDACEAE Actinopteris radiata (Sw.) Link Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S. L. Meena 17837(BSJO). ANGIOSPERMS DICOTYLEDONS ANNONACEAE Miliusa tomentosa (Roxb.) Finet & Gagnep. Common name : Umbh, Umbho. Fl. & Fr.: March - July. Frequent in dry deciduous forest. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18212(BSJO). MENISPERMACEAE Cocculus hirsutus (L.) Theob. Common name : Vevdi, Vevti, Vagval, Vadhi novelo, Achipad. Fl. & Fr. : July - October. Common, on the fringes of forests and wastelands. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17948(BSJO).

�!@�Meena�

��

�

�

PAPAVERACEAE Argemone mexicana L. Common name : Darudi, Karudi. Fl. & Fr.: November - June. Common winter weed in waste places. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20642(BSJO). CAPPARACEAE *Cadaba fruticosa (L.) Druce Common name : Telio, Hemkund, Katkial, Batkani. Fl. : November - March; Fr. : April - August. Common in rocky and sandy habitats. Capparis decidua (Forssk.) Edgew. Common name : Kerdo, Ker, Keria. Fl. & Fr.: Throughout the year. Common, in rocky to gravelly-sandy habitat. Specimens examined: Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17851(BSJO). Capparis sepiaria L. var. vulgaris Hook.f. & Thoms. Common name : Kanthar, Kantharo. Fl. & Fr.: July - September. In wastelands, dry deciduous forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18150, 18156 (BSJO). *Cleome gynandra L. Common name : Ghandhatu, Dholi, Talwani. Fl. & Fr.: July - October. Common weed of rainy season in wastelands and forests. Cleome viscosa L. Common name : Pili Tilwan, Tilwan, Pili Talvani. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Fairly common, weed of rocky to sandy habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17881, 18137(BSJO). *Crateva nurvala Buch.-Ham. Common name : Vayvarno, Varno, Tripan Zad. Fl. & Fr.: February - June. FREQUENTLY FOUND IN FORESTS AND WASTELANDS ALONG WATER COURSES. Maerua oblongifolia (Forssk.) A. Rich. Common name : Hemkand. Fl. & Fr.: August - November.

Common in wastelands and near forests outskirts. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17907(BSJO). VIOLACEAE Hybanthus enneaspermus (L.) F. v. Muell. Fl. & Fr.: August - October. Common in wastelands and hilly tracts among grasses. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18166(BSJO). FLACOURTIACEAE Casearia elliptica Willd. Fl. & Fr.: February-May. Rare, occasionally found on hill slopes of dry deciduous forest. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.K. Patel 4616(SPU). Flacourtia indica (Burm. f.) Merrill Common name : Yenkdi. Fl. & Fr.: January - May. Frequent in dry deciduous forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.K. Patel 4628(SPU). POLYGALACEAE *Polygala arvensis Willd. Common name : Pili Bhonysan, Piri Patsan. Fl. & Fr.: July - October. Common in rocky wastelands and mixed habitats. *Polygala erioptera DC. Common name : Patsan, Bhonysan. Fl. & Fr.: Almost throughout the year. Common in wastelands and crevices of rocks. Polygala irregularis Boiss. Fl. & Fr.: August - December. Common in arid and semi-arid areas. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17914(BSJO). CARYOPHYLLACEAE Polycarpaea corymbosa (L.) Lam. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Common weed among grasses in wastelands and forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18196(BSJO).

�!B�Meena�

��

�

�

PORTULACACEAE Portulaca oleracea L. Common name : Motiluni, Loni, Luni, Lunkha. Fl. & Fr.: August - December. Common weed along road sides and moist places. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17830(BSJO). Portulaca quadrifida L. Common name : Ziniluni, Patluni, Sunluni, Khatbhaji. Fl. & Fr.: September - December. Common in rocky and gravelly habitats. ELATINACEAE *Bergia ammannioides Roxb. ex Roth Common name : Vithi Kharsan. Fl. & Fr. : January - April. Common in moist - marshy localities. MALVACEAE Fioria vitifolia (L.) Mattei Common name : Van Bhindo, Van Kapas. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Common in rocky-gravelly habitats as forest undergrowth. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18210(BSJO). Gossypium arboreum L. Fl. & Fr.: July - November. Cultivated, often escapes in wastelands. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17955(BSJO). *Kydia calycina Roxb. Common name : Moti Hirvani, Warang, Waring, Nihoti Hirvani. Fl. & Fr.: October - January. Rare, in dry deciduous and scrub forests. Malvastrum coromandelianum (L.) Garcke Fl. & Fr.: August - December. Common in wastelands and forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20798(BSJO). Pavonia zeylanica (L.) Cav. Common name : Vado Kanto, Golio. Fl. & Fr.: September - December. Common in wastelands, neglected corners, of fields and gardens. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18006(BSJO). *Sida acuta Burm. f.

Common name : Bala Fl. & Fr.: August - February. Common in dry deciduous forests, wastelands. Sida cordata (Burm. f.) Borssum Common name : Bhoya Bala, Nidhidhatu Val. Fl. & Fr.: July-December. Common, among hedges, bushes and in wastelands and forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17888,18224(BSJO). *Sida cordifolia L. Common name : Bala, Baladana, Kharenti. Fl. & Fr.: August - January. Common in rocky to gravelly and sandy soil. *Sida mysorensis Wight & Arn. Fl. & Fr.: September - January. Rare, in hilly areas and ravines. *Sida spinosa L. Common name : Khatali Bala. Fl. & Fr.: September - October. Common weed in neglected corners of gardens and wastelands. *Thespesia populnea (L.) Soland ex Corr. Common name : Paras Pimplo. Fl. & Fr. : Almost throughout the year. Common near habitations. *Urena lobata L. Common name : Vagadau Bhindo. Fl. & Fr. : August - December. Frequently found in dry deciduous forests. BOMBACACEAE *Adansonia digitata L. Fl.: April-May; Fr.: June- December. Rare, perhaps planted in open forests and near habitations. *Bombax ceiba L. Common name : Savar, Shimlo, Semal , Rato Shemalo. Fl. & Fr. : February - June. Rare, in rocky habitats, also planted along habitation as avenue tree. STERCULIACEAE Helicteres isora L. Common name : Mardasing, Ati, Aiti, Atai. Fl. & Fr.: August - April. Common in dry deciduous forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18211(BSJO).

�!C�Meena�

��

�

�

Melhania futteyporensis Munro ex Mast. var. major (Blatt. & Hallb.) Santapau Common name : Adabau, Khapat, Vagdau Khapat. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Common in rocky-gravelly habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18186(BSJO). *Sterculia urens Roxb. Common name : Kadayo, Kadai, Kadio, Kakdoli, Kandol, Kati-Jo-Jhar. Fl. & Fr. : October - May. Frequently found in dry deciduous and scrub forest. Waltheria indica L. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Common in wastelands and forest outskirts. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17939, 20624(BSJO). TILIACEAE Corchorus aestuans L. Common name : Chunch, Chha-dhari Chunch. Fl. & Fr.: August - December. Common weed in wastelands, fields and forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17909, 18138,18199(BSJO). Corchorus depressus (L.) Vicary Common name : Bhuphali, Bahuphali, Chamkas, Baphuli. Fl. & Fr.: August - December. Common in wastelands and forests outskirts. Specimens examined: Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17973(BSJO). *Corchorus fascicularis Lam. Common name : Bahufali. Fl. & Fr. : August - January. Common in wastelands and forests. *Corchorus olitorius L. Common name : Patt Shak, Rajjan. Fl. & Fr. : August - October Common weed of wastelands and cultivate fields. Grewia flavescens Juss. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Common in dry deciduous forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17901(BSJO). *Grewia hirsuta Vahal

Fl. & Fr.: July - November. Rare, in open forests outskirts. Triumfetta malabarica Koen. ex Rottb. Common name : Goil Zipti. Fl. & Fr.: July - November. In wastelands, open forests and along the roads. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20625(BSJO). *Triumfetta pentandra A. Rich. Fl. & Fr.: July - November. Common in wastelands, open forests and along the roads. Triumfetta pilosa Roth Fl. & Fr.: August - October . Rare in wastelands, dry deciduous forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18153(BSJO). *Triumfetta rhomboidea Jacq. Fl. & Fr. : August - April. Occasional in wastelands, on hill slopes. ZYGOPHYLLACEAE *Fagonia schweinfurthii (Hadidi) Hadidi ex Ghafoor Common name : Dhamasa, Dharamau. Fl. & Fr. : Almost throughout the year. Common in mixed habitats. *Tribulus terrestris L. Common name : Akanti, Gokharu, Bethu Gokhru, Mithu Gokhru. Fl. & Fr . : Almost throughout the year. Common weed of wastelands and forests. BALSAMINACEAE Impatiens balsamina L. var. coccinea Hook. f. Common name : Gulmeer, Patan Bol. Fl. & Fr.: August - October. Common in moist-shady localities of hills. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18128(BSJO). RUTACEAE Aegle marmelos (L.) Corr. Common name : Bili, Bel, Bel-patra, Beeley. Fl.: January - May; Fr.: February - July. Common in dry deciduous to scrub forests, sometimes planted. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18219(BSJO). *Naringi crenulata (Roxb.) Nicolson Common name : Kothi, Kotha.

�!�� Meena�

��

�

�

Fl. & Fr. : April - December. Occasionally found in deciduous forests and hill slopes. SIMAROUBACEAE *Ailanthus excelsa Roxb. Common name : Moto Arduso, Rukhdo. Fl. & Fr . : December - April. Common in wastelands and fringes of forests etc., sometimes planted along roadsides. BALANITACEAE *Balanites aegyptiaca (L.) Del. Common name : Angario, Hingoriyo, Ingoria, Regoria. Fl. & Fr. : December - July. Common in scrub forests, wastelands, along the roadsides etc. BURSERACEAE Boswellia serrata Roxb. ex Colebr. Common name : Salai, Salar, Dhupelio. Fl. & Fr.: December - April. Rare, in high altitude of dry-deciduous forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20628(BSJO). MELIACEAE *Azadirachta indica A. Juss. Common name : Limdo, Neem. Fl. & Fr. : December - May. Common in wastelands, rarely found in the forests usually planted along roads and near habitations. *Melia azedarach L. Common name : Bakan limdo. Fl. & Fr. : Nearly throughout the year. Rarely found in wastelands, usually planted. *Soymida febrifuga (Roxb.) A. Juss. Common name : Royan, Ragat, Rohido, Rohan, Royani. Fl. & Fr. : February - May. Occasionally found in the dry deciduous forests on the hill slopes. CELASTRACEAE Maytenus emarginatus (Willd.) Ding Hou Common name : Kankero, Vicklo, Vigo, Vilantala. Fl. & Fr.: October - February. Common in scrub forest and semiarid areas.

Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18007(BSJO). *Celastrus paniculatus Willd. Common name : Malkagni, Malkankni, Kangni, Jival, Malkankananivel. Fl.: April - June; Fr.: May - November. Common in dry deciduous forests. RHAMNACEAE Ziziphus mauritiana Lam. Common name : Bordi, Bor, Bara Bor, Boadi, Bardo-zad. Fl. & Fr.: September - February. Common in wastelands and scrub forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17940(BSJO). *Ziziphus nummularia (Burm. f.) Wight & Arn. Common name : Chanibor, Pali, Palia, Palera. Fl. & Fr. : August - January. Very common in sandy to gravelly soils in the wastelands and outskirts of forests, often form pure associations. *Ziziphus oenoplia (L.) Mill. Common name : Bordi no-velo, Eramdi. Fl. & Fr. : August - December. Frequently found in open forests and wastelands among bushes and shrubs. *Ziziphus xylopyrus (Retz.) Willd. Common name : Ghat bor, Ghot bor, Ghunt bor, Bor ghut. Fl. & Fr . : April - October. Occasionally found in dry deciduous forests. VITACEAE Ampelocissus latifolia (Roxb.) Planch. Common name : Jungli Draksh, Panibel, Bechuti, Panivela. Fl.: June - September; Fr.: August - December. Frequently found in dry deciduous forests and scrub forests on hedges. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17924,18133(BSJO). Cayratia trifolia (L.) Domin Common name : Khat-Khatumbo. Fl. & Fr.: July - November. Common in rocky-gravelly habitats of forest wastelands,

�!��Meena�

��

�

�

Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18129, 18202(BSJO). Cissus quadrangularis L. Common name : Hardsankal, Chodhari. Fl. & Fr.: September - April. Frequently found in forest outskirts and near wet places. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18069(BSJO). SAPINDACEAE Cardiospermum halicacabum L. Common name : Kak-Mardika, Chirphuti, Bari Chirmi. Fl. & Fr.: July - February. Common in rocky to plain or in waste places on hedges, Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17882, 17946(BSJO). *Sapindus emarginatus Vahl Common name : Aritha. Fl. & Fr. : September - December. Rare, in dry deciduous forests, occasionally planted along roads sides. *Sapindus laurifolius Vahl Common name : Arithi, Artha. Fl. : September - December; Fr . : November - March. Common, planted near habitations. *Schleichera oleosa (Lour.) Oken Common name : Kusum, Kosimb, Kosumdi, Kosim, Kunum. Fl. & Fr. : February - May. Rare, in dry deciduous forests. ANACARDIACEAE Lannea coromandelica (Houtt.) Merrill Common name : Modhad, Golado, Golar, Madhol, Mayno. Fl.: January - June; Fr. : February - July. Common in rocky habitats at hill tops. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17828(BSJO). Mangifera indica L. Common name : Amba, Keri, Ambo, Aam. Fl.: December - May; Fr.: February - July. Common in fields and near habitations. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18400(BSJO).

MORINGACEAE *Moringa oleifera Lam. Common name : Mitho sargavo. Fl. & Fr. : February - June. Occasionally found in wastelands, mostly cultivated near habitations. PAPILIONACEAE (FABACEAE nom. alt.) Abrus precatorius L. Common name : Chanothi, Chanboi, Chirmi, Ratti, Chamoli, Gumchi. Fl. & Fr.: July - December. Common on hedges in wastelands and forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18010, 18215(BSJO). Aeschynomene indica L. Common name : Bhoy Ikad. Fl. & Fr.: August - January. Common in moist-sandy habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20793(BSJO). *Alysicarpus hamosus Edgew. Common name : Samero. Fl. & Fr. : August - October. Common in wastelands and open forests, particularly among grasses. *Alysicarpus longifolius (Rottl. ex Spreng.) Wight & Arn. Common name : Ghodasamervo, Moto samervo, Ubho, Samervo, Ghanulo. Fl. & Fr. : September - March. Common in cultivated fields, among grasses in wastelands. Alysicarpus vaginalis (L.) DC. Common name : Chauli, Dhadasamous, Sauri. Fl. & Fr.: September - November. Common in mixed habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17878(BSJO). *Butea monosperma (Lam.) Taub. Common name : Khakhro, Kesudo, Palas. Fl. & Fr. : March - June. Common from plains to hills. Butea superba Roxb. ex Willd. Common name : Khakhar-velo. Fl. & Fr.: February - December. Rare, in rocky to gravelly habitats. Specimens examined : Kedarnath, S.K. Patel 4617(SPU). Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.

�!!� Meena�

��

�

�

Common name : Tuar. Fl. & Fr.: October - December. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17935, 20608(BSJO). Canavalia ensiformis (L.) DC. Common name : Tarvardhi. Fl. & Fr.: August - October. Frequently found in rocky to gravelly habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17937(BSJO). *Canavalia maritima (Aubl.) Thou. Fl. & Fr. : April - December. Rare, in wastelands and forests. Canavalia virosa (Roxb.) Wight & Arn. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Rare, in wastelands and forests outskirts. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17952(BSJO). *Clitoria biflora Dalz. Common name : Garni. Fl. & Fr . : August - October. Common in the forests, along moist - shaded localities. *Clitoria ternatea L. Common name : Garni, Gokhiran, Koyal, Bibli, Gokaran. Fl. & Fr. : December - March, often during August - September. Common among bushes and hedges. *Crotalaria burhia Buch. - Ham. ex Benth. Common name : Kharsham, Bagdaushan, Kharshan, Vagdaushan. Fl. & Fr. : March - August. Common in arid and semiarid areas. Crotalaria hirsuta Willd. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Common in moist-shaded localities of forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18179(BSJO). *Crotalaria linifolia L. f. Common name : Adabau-San. Fl. & Fr. : August - January. Common in wastelands, particularly amidst grasses. *Crotalaria medicaginea Lam. Common name : Ran Methi. Fl. & Fr.: July - October. Common in wastelands and forests outskirts. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17912(BSJO).

*Crotalaria retusa L. Common name : Shaniya, Gughro. Fl. & Fr. : August - November. Rare, in forest undergrowth and wastelands. *Dalbergia lanceolaria L. f. subsp. paniculata (Roxb.)Thoth. Fl. & Fr.: March - May. Rare, in mixed dry deciduous forests. Dalbergia sissoo Roxb. Common name : Sissoo, Moto Sisam, Talli. Fl. & Fr.: January - October. Common in the forest and open places, seldom planted along roads and habitations. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18071(BSJO). Desmodium gangeticum (L.) DC. Fl. & Fr.: December - January. Rare. in wastelands and open forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20791(BSJO). Desmodium procumbens (Mill.) Hutch. Fl. & Fr.: July - October. Rare in dry deciduous forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20623(BSJO). *Erythrina suberosa Roxb. Common name : Tetarkhakhro, Jagraiyo-khakharo, Jamghariyo. Fl. & Fr . : March - June. Rare, in wastelands and fringes of forests along streams and river banks. Indigofera cordifolia Heyne ex Roth Common name : Bhakho Fl. & Fr.: August - October. Common in sandy-rocky habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18182(BSJO). *Indigofera glandulosa Wendl. Common name : Vekario. Fl. & Fr. : August - November. Occasional weed of cultivated fields. *Indigofera linifolia (L. f.) Retz. Common name : Galinani, Kinkiguli, Nahnigali, Gali nahni, Jinkigali. Fl. & Fr. : July - December. Common in forests and wastelands. *Indigofera linnaei Ali Fl. & Fr.: August - December. Common in wastelands. Indigofera oblongifolia Forssk. Common name : Zil, Ziladi, Zildo.

�! �Meena�

��

�

�

Fl. & Fr.: July - December. Common in dry, rocky habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18297, 20633(BSJO). *Indigofera tenuifolia Rottl. ex Wight & Arn. Fl. & Fr. : August - December. Rare, in wastelands and forests. Indigofera tinctoria L. Common name : Gali, Neel Gudi. Fl. & Fr.: August - January. Frequentlu found in rocky-gravelly habitats,. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17945(BSJO). *Indigofera tirta L.f. Fl. & Fr. : September - February. Occasional, in wastelands and forests. *Mucuna pruriens (L.) DC. Common name : Kavach, Koyli. Fl. : September - November; Fr. : November - April. Common in wastelands and open forests among the clumps of trees and shrubs. *Pongamia pinnata (L.) Pierre Local name : Karanj Fl. & Fr. : March - June. Common in wastelands, often planted in the forests. *Rhynchosia bracteata Benth. ex Baker Common name : Kumalvel. Fl. & Fr. : August - November. Rare, in wastelands and open forests among the clumps of trees and shrubs Rhynchosia capitata (Heyne ex Roth) DC. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Rare, in dry deciduous forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20630(BSJO). Rhynchosia minima (L.) DC. var. minima Common name : Hathdhonani, Nahnikamal-vel. Fl. & Fr.: August - April. Common on hedges in wastelands and forests outskirts. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17927, 18197(BSJO). *Sesbania bispinosa (Jacq.) Wight Common name : Ikad. Fl. & Fr. : August - October. Common in moist localities especially in fields. *Sesbania sesban (L.) Merrill

Common name : Jayanti, Shevari. Fl. & Fr. : Most part of the year. Ocassional near habitations. *Smithia conferta Sm. Fl. & Fr. :September - January. Frequent in low lying areas amidst grasses. *Smithia sensitiva Ait. Fl. & Fr. : September - January. Rare, in wet and shaded localities among low - lying areas. *Tephrosia coccinia Wall. Fl. & Fr. : August - October. Rare, in wastelands. *Tephrosia pumila (Lam.) Pers. Fl. & Fr. : Most part of the year. Rare, in dry rocky and sandy wastelands and open forests. Tephrosia purpurea (L.) Pers. Common name : Sarpankho, Baronio, Sarpankha. Fl. & Fr.: July - November. Common in wastelands and forests, often forming dense community of its own. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18176, 18187(BSJO). Tephrosia strigosa (Dalz.) Santapau & Mahesh. Fl. & Fr.: August - October. Occasional, found in the forests at wet and mixed habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17904(BSJO). Tephrosia subtriflora Hochst. ex Baker Fl. & Fr.: August - October. Common in dry habitat, paritularly in hilly tracts. Specimens examined :Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18173(BSJO). Tephrosia villosa (L.) Pers. Fl. & Fr.: July - November. Common in wastelands and open forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17906,18011,18181(BSJO). Teramnus labialis (L. f.) Spreng. Common name : Mash Parni. Fl. & Fr.: Throughout the year. Common among bushes and shrubs in wastelands and open forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20792(BSJO). Vigna umbellata (Thunb.) Ohwi & Ohashi

� A� Meena�

��

�

�

Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Rare in sandy wastelands among grasses. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18206(BSJO). Zornia gibbosa Span Common name : Samarapani. Fl. & Fr.: August - October. Common in moist-shaded localities. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17913,18184(BSJO). CAESALPINIACEAE *Bauhinia malabarica Roxb. Common name : Khari Chamol. Fl. & Fr.: September - December. Rare, in dry deciduous forests. *Bauhinia purpurea L. Common name : Kachnar, Shwet Kachnar, Champakatha, Champakathi. Fl. & Fr. : September - February. Common in dry deciduous forests and scrub forest. *Bauhinia racemosa Lam. Common name : Ashitro, Kasotra, Asotri, Apto, Rakta, Kachnar. Fl. : May - June; Fr. : August - November. Common in dry deciduous and scrub forests, also planted along the road sides. Cassia fistula L. Common name : Amaltas, Garmalo, Karmalo, Kirmalo. Fl.: March-June; Fr.: Throughout the year. Common in often planted along habitation. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17824(BSJO). Cassia roxburghii DC. Fl. & Fr.: October - January. Commonly planted along roadside. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17954(BSJO). *Chamaecrista absus ( L.) Irwin & Barneby Common name : Chimed, Chon. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Common from plain to hills in forests undergrowth in wet and shady localities. Chamaecrista pumila (Lam.) V. Singh Common name : Chamodiyo, Chimediyo,Bethi Chimed. Fl. & Fr.: August - December. Common in rocky-gravelly habitats.

Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17875, 18180, 18135(BSJO). *Senna auriculata (L.) Roxb. Common name : Aval, Avali, Avar. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Common in plains and forest outskirts and wastelands. Senna occidentalis (L.) Link Common name : Kash Mard, Sundro, Kasundri, Sunderevi. Fl. & Fr.: Throughout the year. Common neglected corners, wastelands etc. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20626(BSJO). *Senna siamea (Lam.) Irwin & Barneby Common name : Kasid. Fl. & Fr. : Almost throughout the year. Common, planted along the road side as an avenue tree. *Senna tora (L.) Roxb. Common name : Puwad, Kuvandio, Pochandio, Dadha jo zad, Puvad. Fl. & Fr. : August - November. Sparsely distributed from plains to the hills. Tamarindus indica L. Common name : Amli, Imli, Sadad, Ambliyo Zad. Fl.: March - July; Fr.: April - November. In dry deciduous forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18008(BSJO). MIMOSACEAE Acacia catechu (L. f.) Willd. Common name : Kair, Khair, Kath, Kattha. Fl. & Fr.: May - September. Common in open forests and on the hill slopes. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17892, 20801(BSJO). Acacia leucophloea (Roxb.) Willd. Common name : Aniyar, Hiver, Safed Kikar, Brunja, Roonjro. Fl. & Fr.: August - February. Common in plains, wastelands and open forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17949(BSJO). *Acacia nilotica (L.) Willd. ex Del. subsp. indica (Benth.) Brenan

� ��Meena�

��

�

�

Common name : Bawal, Kalo Baval, Ram Baval. Fl. & Fr.: August - April. Common in wastelands and scrub forests. Acacia pennata (L.) Willd. Common name : Chikkor, Khervolio boval. Fl.: July - September; Fr.: October - March Common in wastelands and forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20790 (BSJO). Acacia senegal (L.) Willd. Common name : Kumta, Goradio Baval. Fl. & Fr.: August - April. Common rocky habitats, wastelands and scrub forests. Specimesn examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18193, 20802(BSJO). *Acacia tortilis (L.) Willd. Common name : Israeli Bawali. Fl.: July - October; Fr.: November - February. Recently introduced; but quite naturalized in the area. *Albizia lebbeck (L.) Benth. Common name : Kali Siris. Fl.: March - August; Fr.: August - February. Common in forests and also planted as an avenue tree along the roadsides. *Albizia odoratissima (L. f.) Benth. Common name : Safed Siris. Fl. & Fr.: April - December. Occasional in dry deciduous forests. Albizia procera (Roxb.) Benth. Common name : Siris. Fl. & Fr.: April - October. Sparsely distributed in the forests, often planted. Dichrostachys cinerea (L.) Wight & Arn. Common name : Madhad, Goya-khair, Kulais, Virtariu. Fl. & Fr.: July - December. Common, in rocky - sandy habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17893, 17834(BSJO). Mimosa hamata Willd. Common name : Kasi, Kai baval. Fl. & Fr.: August - February. Common in gravelly-rocky habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17947, 18191(BSJO).

*Leucaena latisiliqua (L.) Gillis Common name : Subaval, Pardash Baval, Liso Baval, Lamba Bavali. Fl. & Fr.: September - March. Occasional found along the hedges of cultivated fields and near habitations. Pithecellobium dulce (Roxb.) Benth. Common name : Goras Amli. Fl.: November - April; Fr.: December - June. Frequently found in rocky-gravelly wastelands places. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20636(BSJO). *Prosopis cineraria (L.) Druce Common name : Khijado, Shami. Fl. & Fr.: October - June. Common in plains and scrub forests. *Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) DC. Common name : Gando Bawal. Fl. & Fr.: Almost throughout the year. Native of Mexico and Central America; naturalized in scrub forests. ROSACEAE Potentilla supina L. Fl. & Fr.: December - May. Common in dried up tanks and ponds. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20631(BSJO). COMBRETACEAE Anogeissus acuminata (Roxb. ex DC.) Guill. & Perr. Common name : Dhokdo. Fl. & Fr.: September - March. Frequently found in rocky-gravelly habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17873(BSJO). *Anogeissus latifolia (Roxb. ex DC.) Wall. ex Guill. & Perr. Common name : Dhavdo, Dhamod. Fl. & Fr.: March - July. Common in mixed dry deciduous forests. Anogeissus sericea Brandis var. sericea Common name : Kalo Dho. Fl. & Fr.: July - November. Common in dry deciduous forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20609(BSJO). *Anogeissus sericea Brandis var. nummularia King ex Duthie

� ?� Meena�

��

�

�

Common name : Dhao, Dhankra. Fl. & Fr.: July - November. Rare in mixed dry deciduous forests. Terminalia bellirica (Gaertn.) Roxb. Common name : Baheda, Beda. Fl.: January - May; Fr.: Throughout the year. Ocassional in dry deciduous forests, often planted near habitations. Specimens examined : Kedarnath, S.K. Patel 4623(SPU). Terminalia chebula Retz. Common name : Hirda, Hirdae Fl. & Fr.: March - December. Rare, in dry deciduous forest. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18214(BSJO). *Terminalia cuneata Roth Common name : Arjuna sadad, Panisadad. Fl.: March - May; Fr.: July - November. Common in the forests often occurring along rivers and streams. *Terminalia elliptica Willd. Common name : Sadad. Fl.: February - May; Fr.: June - December. Rare, in dry deciduous forests. MYRTACEAE *Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels Common name : Jambu. Fl.: February - April; Fr.: March - July. Common along water streams and often planted as an avenue tree and for its edible fruits. Syzygium jambos (L.) Alston Fl. & Fr.: January - June. Occasionally found near streams in dry deciduous forests and river-beds. Specimens examined :Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17826(BSJO). LYTHRACEAE *Ammannia baccifera L. Common name : Lal agio, Jal agaio, Agio. Fl. & Fr.: Almost throughout the year. Very common in waterlogged areas near tanks, ponds, river etc. *Ammannia multiflora Roxb. Common name : Zino agio. Fl. & Fr.: Almost throughout the year. Common in waterlogged areas. Lawsonia inermis L. Common name : Mehendi, Henna.

Fl. & Fr.: Throughout the year. Common, often planted in gardens. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17951(BSJO). *Woodfordia fruticosa (L.) Kurz Common name : Dhavadi. Fl. & Fr.: January - June. Common in the forests and wastelands. ONAGRACEAE Ludwigia perennis L. Fl. & Fr.: August - October. Common in moist-clayey soil. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18204(BSJO). Ludwigia hyssopifolia (G. Don) Excell Fl. & Fr.: August - November. In moist-marshy and shaded habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18177(BSJO). CUCURBITACEAE *Citrullus colocynthis (L.) Schrad. Fl. & Fr. : Almost throughout the year. Common in sandy to gravelly - rocky habitats. Coccinia grandis (L.) J. O. Voigt Common name : Tindora, Ghilada, Kadvi gholi. Fl. & Fr.: Almost throughout the year. Common on hedges sandy-gravelly habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17839(BSJO). Ctenolepis cerasiformis (Stocks) Hook. f. Fl. & Fr.: August - February. Common in cultivated areas and forest outskirts. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18165(BSJO). Ctenolepis garcinii (Burm. f.) C. B. Clarke Fl. & Fr.: September - November. Common climber on the hedges. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17991(BSJO). Cucumis prophetarum L. Fl. & Fr.: August - December. Common on hedges in forests and wastelands. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18203(BSJO). *Diplocyclos palmatus (L.) C. Jeffrey Fl. & Fr. : November - January. Common near habitations. *Luffa acutangula (L.) Roxb. Fl. & Fr.: August - September.

� @�Meena�

��

�

�

Common along hedeges and in wastelands. *Luffa echinata Roxb. Common name : Kukad vel. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Frequently found on the hedges. Momordica balsamina L. Common name : Vadkarela, Patola, Chochidan. Fl. & Fr.: Throughout the year. Common in the hedges. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17848(BSJO). *Momordica dioica Roxb. ex Willd. Common name : Kankoda, Kantola, Vanzkantoli. Fl. & Fr.: August - September. Common on hedges of the forest outskirts and cultivated fields. Trichosanthes cucumerina L. Common name : Jungli parval. Fl. & Fr. : July - August. Common on hedges in forest and wastelands. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17950, 18218(BSJO). *Trichosanthes tricuspidata Lour. Common name : Ratani, Indradamni, Kalulana Amba. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Common in the wastelands, fringes of forests and at the foot of hills. AIZOACEAE *Zaleya decandra ( L.) Burm.f. Common name : Satoda. Fl. & Fr.: July- December. Common weed of rudral habitats. MOLLUGINACEAE Glinus lotoides L. Common name : Mitho okharad. Fl. & Fr.: Almost throughout the year. Common in muddy-clayey, dried-up tanks, polls etc. Specimens examined : Kedarnath, S.K. Patel 4630(SPU). Mollugo nudicaulis Lam. Fl. & Fr.: July - November. Common weed of wastelands and forests, neglected areas. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17932(BSJO). *Mollugo pentaphylla L.

Common name : Papet. Fl. & Fr.: July - November. Common in wet and shay localities from plains to hills. Mollugo stricta L. Fl. & Fr.: July - November. Common in moist-shaded localities and forests undergrowths. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18151(BSJO). ALANGIACEAE Alangium salvifolium (L. f.) Wangerin Common name : Ankol, Ankoli. Fl. & Fr.: February - June. Common in gravelly-rocky habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17271(BSJO). RUBIACEAE *Catunaregam spinosa (Thunb.) Tirveng. Common name : Mindhal, Mindhool, Madhela. Fl.: July - September; Fr.: September - December. Common in dry deciduous forests. Ceriscoides turgida (Roxb.) Tirveng Common name : Gangdi, Findarko. Fl. & Fr.: March - June. Rare, in dry deciduous forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20635(BSJO). Haldina cordifolia (Roxb.) Ridsd. Common name : Haldu, Haldarvo, Haldavan. Fl. & Fr.: July - March. Common in rocky-gravelly habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17825(BSJO). *Hedyotis corymbosa ( L. ) Lam. Common name : Parpat, Parpati. Fl. & Fr.: September - November. Common in wastelands and cultivated fields. *Hymenodictyon orixense (Roxb.) Mabb. Common name : Lunio, Bhammar Chal, Kadwai Pariani, Madh- Mahuda, Boisal, Rogan Kokadio. Fl.: August - September; Fr.: October - February. Common dry deciduous forests. *Ixora brachiata Roxb. Common name : Garbala, Naveri. Fl. & Fr.: February - June.

� B� Meena�

��

�

�

Frequently found in dry deciduous forests at high altitude. Ixora pavetta Andr. Fl. & Fr.: Almost throughout the year. Occassional in the forest and in sandy habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.K. Patel 4619 (SPU). *Meyna laxiflora Robyns Common name : Phalkhado, Ali, Alu, Aliv, Gondadi. Fl.: December - June; Fr.: June - August. Frequently found in dry deciduous forests. Mitragyna parviflora (Roxb.) Korth. Common name : Kalam, Kadam. Fl. & Fr.: April - February. Rare, in dry deciduous to scrub forests, sometimes planted. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17930, 20620, 20622(BSJO). Spermacoce articularis L.f. Fl. & Fr.: December - February. Common in moist-marshy places. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18287(BSJO). *Spermacoce pusilla Wall. Fl. & Fr.: July - October. Common in wastelands and hilly tracts. Spermadictyon suaveolens Roxb. Fl.: August - December; Fr.: September - March. Common in dry deciduous forests. Specimens examined: Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18209(BSJO). ASTERACEAE (COMPOSITAE) Acanthospermum hispidum DC. Fl. & Fr.: August - February. Common in wastelands and rocky-gravelly habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17911(BSJO). Ageratum conyzoides L. Common name : Ajgandha, Mankadmari, Dholi, Saddi. Fl. & Fr.: Throughout the year, mostly August - December. Common in moist places of wastelands and forest undergrowth. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18228(BSJO).

*Bidens biternata (Lour.) Merr. & Sherff. Common name : Karakokdi, Samara Kokdi. Fl. & Fr.: July - September. Common in the forests and rocks crevices. *Blainvillea acmella (L.) Philipson Fl. & Fr.: August - October. Native of South America; naturalized in wastelands and forests. *Blumea mollis (D. Don) Merr. Common name : Chanchadmari, Bhutaco. Fl. & Fr.: November - February. Common in wastelands, forests and ravines. Cyathocline purpurea (Buch.-Ham. ex D. Don) O. Ktze. Common name : Okharad. Fl. & Fr.: September - March. Common in moist places. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17929(BSJO). *Echinops echinatus Roxb. Common name : Shulio, Utkanto. Fl. & Fr.: October - June. Common in wastelands. Emilia sonchifolia (L.) DC. Common name : Hiran Khuri. Fl. & Fr.: August - February. Common in rocky-sandy habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18226(BSJO). Gnaphalium polycaulon Pers. Fl. & Fr.: November - April. Common in damp-sandy soil and rocky grounds. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17977(BSJO). *Goniocaulon indicum (Klein ex Willd.) C. B. Clarke Fl. & Fr.: August - December. Frequently found in wastelands. Grangea maderaspatana (L.) Poir. Fl. & Fr.: Most part of the year. Common in dried up tanks and low level areas. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17831(BSJO). Launaea procumbens (Roxb.) Ramayya & Rajagopal Common name : Moti Bhonpatri. Fl. & Fr.: March - September. Common in moist-marshy localities. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17975(BSJO). *Lagascea mollis Cav.

� C�Meena�

��

�

�

Fl. & Fr.: August - December. Common in wet - moist wastelands. Pentanema indicum (L.) Ling Fl. & Fr.: August - March. Common in wastelands and forests outskirts. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20637(BSJO). *Pluchea lanceolata (DC.) C. B. Clarke Common name : Khari Rasna, Rasna. Fl. & Fr.: October - July. Common in wastelands. *Pulicaria angustifolia DC. Common name : Sisolia ni Jatni, Vanaspati. Fl. & Fr.: October - February. Common in wastelands, barren fields and on hillocks. *Sclerocarpus africanus Jacq. ex Murray Fl. & Fr.: July - October. Native of South America; naturalized in moist and shaded habitats in the forests. Sphaeranthus indicus L. Common name : Gorakh Mundi, Bhurandi. Fl. & Fr.: October - April. Common in moist places and dried up tanks of wastelands and forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17829(BSJO). *Tricholepis glaberrima DC. Common name : Brahm dandi, Fishiaru. Fl. & Fr.: September - December. Rare, in the forests. *Tridax procumbens L. Common name : Pardesi Bhangaro. Fl. & Fr.: Throughout the year. Common in wastelands and forests in moist habitats. *Vernonia anthelmintica (L.) Willd. Fl. & Fr.: September - February. Common in sand and clay soils. Vernonia cinerea (L.) Less. Common name : Saha devi, Sadedi. Fl. & Fr.: Most part of the year. Common in wet and shady places. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18162(BSJO). Xanthium strumarium L. Common name : Gokhru, Gadariyu. Fl. & Fr.: October - May. Common in moist-wet wastelands and forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17890(BSJO).

PLUMBAGINACEAE Dyerophytum indicum (Gibs. ex Wt.) O. Ktze. Common name : Pavi. Fl. & Fr.: September - January. Common in rocky-gravelly habitats of dry deciduous forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20617(BSJO). Plumbago zeylanica L. Common name : Chitrale, Chitro, Chitrak. Fl. & Fr.: Throughout the year. Common in wastelands in rocky habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17894, 18277 (BSJO). PRIMULACEAE Anagallis arvensis L. var. coerulea (Schrad.) Gren. & Godr. Fl. & Fr.: December - February. Common weed along fields and forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20615(BSJO). SAPOTACEAE Madhuca indica J. F. Gmelin Common name : Mahudo, Mahuvo. Fl. & Fr.: March - June. Frequently found in dry deciduous forests and plains. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20634(BSJO). *Manilkara hexandra (Roxb.) Dubard Common name : Rayana. Fl. & Fr.: October - April. Occasionally found near habitations. EBENACEAE Diospyros melanoxylon Roxb. Common name : Timbru, Timbervo. Fl.: March - May; Fr.: April - August. Common in dry deciduous forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17827, 17899(BSJO). OLEACEAE Nyctanthes arbor - tristis L. Common name : Parijatak, Cheddi, Harisingar. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Common in forests

� �� Meena�

��

�

�

Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18171(BSJO). *Schrebera swietenioides Roxb. Common name : Mokho. Fl. & Fr.: February - May. Ocassional in mixed forests.

SALVADORACEAE *Salvadora oleoides Decne. Common name : Piludi. Fl. & Fr.: February - June. Ocassional in scrub forests. APOCYNACEAE *Carissa congesta Wight Common name : Karamda, Karvanda. Fl. & Fr.: January - June. Common in dry deciduous forests and wastelands. Catharanthus pusillus (Murray) G. Don Fl. & Fr.: August - December. Common in wastelands and forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18198(BSJO). Holarrhena pubescens (Buch.-Ham.) Wall. ex G. Don Common name : Kando, Inderjav. Fl.: May-June; Fr.: June - September. Common in rocky-gravelly tracts. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17921(BSJO). *Wrightia arborea (Dennst.) Mabb. Common name : Dudhio. Fl.: December - July; Fr.: January - September. Frequently found in forests in hilly tracts. Wrightia tinctoria (Roxb.) R. Br. Common name : Dudhi, Kudi, Runchalo, Dudhlo. Fl.: December - June; Fr.: Throughout the year. Rare, in dry deciduous forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.K. Patel 4622(SPU). ASCLEPIADACEAE *Calotropis gigantea (L.) R. Br. Common name : Akado. Fl. & Fr.: Almost throughout the year. Ocassional found in wastelands and near habitation. *Calotropis procera (Aiton ) W.I. Aiton subsp. hamiltonii (Wight) Ali

Common name : Ankdo, Nano Akado. Fl. & Fr.: Throughout the year. Common in wastelands and forest outskirts. *Cosmostigma racemosa (Roxb.) Wight Fl. & Fr.: June - December. Rare, in dry deciduous forests. *Leptadenia pyrotechnica (Forssk.) Decne. Common name : Ransar, Khip, Door. Fl. & Fr.: August - January. Common in wastelands and forest outskirts. *Leptadenia reticulata (Retz.) Wight & Arn. Common name : Nani dodi, Khirdodi, Dodi. Fl. & Fr.: Almost throughout the year. Common in wastelands and open forests. Oxystelma esculenta (L. f.) R. Br. ex Schultes Common name : Jal Dudhi, Dudhli. Fl. & Fr.: May - February. Common in marshy-shaded habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18159, 20794(BSJO). Pergularia daemia (Forssk.) Chiov. Common name : Nagla dedheli, Amer dudheli. Fl. & Fr.: October - April. Common in wastelands and forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17922(BSJO). Telosma cordata (Burm. f.) Merrill Fl. & Fr.: June - October. Common in wastelands and forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18207(BSJO). Wattakaka volubilis (L. f.) Stapf Fl. & Fr.: April - September. Frequently found in rocky-sandy habitats and forests outskirts. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18201(BSJO). LOGANIACEAE *Mitreola petiolata (J. F. Gamel.) Torr. & A. Gray. Fl. & Fr.: September - December. Rare, in moist - wet and shady habitats in dry deciduous forests. GENTIANACEAE *Canscora diffusa (Vahl) R. Br. Fl. & Fr.: October - March. Common in wet and shady localities. Enicostema axillare (Lam.) A. Raynal

� ��Meena�

��

�

�

Common name : Mamejevo, Zinku Kariyatu. Fl. & Fr.: June - December. Frequently found in rocky-gravelly habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17923(BSJO). *Exacum pedunculatum L. Fl. & Fr.: September - March. Common in wet places in the forests. *Hoppea dichotoma Heyne ex Willd. Fl. & Fr.: September - March. Common in wet places in the forests. EHRETIACEAE *Cordia dichotoma Forst. f. Common name : Gundha. Fl. & Fr.: February - June. Common in open wastelands and dry deciduous forests. *Cordia gharaf (Forssk.) Ehrenb. ex Asch. Fl. & Fr.: April - December. Common in the forest and wastelands. Ehretia aspera Willd. var. obtusifolia (Hochst. ex DC.) Parmar Common name : Nani Nandh, Kajiyari. Fl. & Fr.: November - June. Common in the forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17823(BSJO). BORAGINACEAE Coldenia procumbens L. Common name : Okhrad, Basario Okharad. Fl. & Fr.: September - June. Common in dried up tanks. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S. L. Meena 17833(BSJO). Heliotropium strigosum Willd. Fl. & Fr.: August - October. Common weed of sandy soil. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18122(BSJO). Heliotropium subulatum (Hochst. ex DC.) Vatke Common name : Pilohathi sundho. Fl. & Fr.: Almost throughout the year. Common weed in wastelands. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18178(BSJO). *Trichodesma indica (L.) R. Br. var. indica Fl. & Fr.: August - January.

Common weed of open wastelands and forest undergrowth. *Trichodesma zeylanica (Burm. f.) R. Br. Fl. & Fr.: August - February. Occasionally, found in open wastelands. CONVOLVULACEAE *Argyreia sericea Dalz. Common name : Samudrasok Fl. & Fr.: August-December. Rare, climbing on trees and shrubs in wastelands and along the road sides. *Convolvulus prostratus Forssk. Common name : Achi Shankhavali, Birval, Makhn Sankhavali. Fl. & Fr.: August - December. Common throughout the sanctuary. Evolvulus alsinoides (L.) L. Common name : Kali Shankha Vali, Kari Buti, Kanta. Fl. & Fr.: Throughout the year. Common in wastelands, rocky habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17874, 18120(BSJO). *Hewittia malabarica (L.) Suresh Fl. & Fr.: August - December. Fequently found in dry deciduous forests. *Ipomoea carnea Jacq. subsp. fistulosa (Mart. ex Choisy) D. F. Austin Fl. & Fr.: Throughout the year. Common in wastelands along the finges of forests and fields. Ipomoea obscura (L.) Ker - Gawl. Common name : Vad Fudardi. Fl. & Fr.: August - December. Common in wastelands among bushes. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18155(BSJO). *Ipomoea nil (L.) Roth Common name : Kaladana. Fl. & Fr.: August – November. Common in wastelands. *Ipomoea pes - tigridis L. Common name : Photial, Wagpadi. Fl. & Fr.: Augudt - December. Common weed in cultivated fields, grasslands and open forests. Ipomoea sindica Stapf Fl. & Fr.: August - November.

� !� Meena�

��

�

�

Among grasses of gravelly-sandy habitats, common. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17900, 18187,18149(BSJO). Ipomoea sinensis (Desr.) Choisy Common name : Dholi Fudardi. Fl. & Fr.: October - December. On the hedges of wastelands and forests, common. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17942(BSJO). *Ipomoea turbinata Lag. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Common on the edges of fields and in wastelands among bushes. Merremia aegyptica (L.) Urban Common name : Panch Pan Ni Fudardi. Fl. & Fr.: August - January. Common in hedges of sandy-loamy soils. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17925(BSJO). *Merremia gangetica (L.) Cufod. Common name : Undardi, Undar Kani, Undari. Fl. & Fr.: August - February. Common in moist - dry localities. *Merremia hederacea (Burm. f.) Hall.f. Fl. & Fr.: September - December. Rare, on hedges of field and forest fringes. *Operculina turpethum (L.) Silva Manso. Fl. & Fr.: April - November. Rare, in moist waste places. *Rivea hypocrateriformis (Desr.) Choisy Common name : Fang. Fl. & Fr.: August - December. Fairly common among the clumps of trees and shrubs; often found in forests. Rivea ornata Choisy Fl. & Fr.: July - October. Common, in wastelands and forest outskirts, among clumps of trees and shrubs. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18136(BSJO) Xenostegia tridentata (L.) D. F. Austin & Staples Common name : Bhinigario. Fl. & Fr.: September - December. Rare in wastelands and forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18194, 20629(BSJO).

CUSCUTACEAE *Cuscuta reflexa Roxb. Common name : Amarvel, Ananth vel. Fl. & Fr.: September - February. Common parasite on shrubs and trees. SOLANACEAE Cestrum diurnum L. Common name : Din ka Raja, Divasni Jui. Fl. & Fr.: Throughout the year. Common in dry deciduous forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20627(BSJO). *Datura innoxia Mill. Common name : Kalo dhanturo, Dhantura, Kantalo Dhaturo. Fl. & Fr.: Most part of the year. Common in wastelands. Physalis minima L. Common name : Popti, Parpapti. Fl. & Fr.: August - December. Common in wastelands, sandy-loamy soils. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17928(BSJO). *Physalis peruviana L. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Native of tropical America; naturalized in wastelands. *Solanum nigrum L. Common name : Piludi. Fl. & Fr.: Almost throughout the year, particularly September - December. Common weed in moist wastelands. *Solanum virginianum L. Common name : Bhoyringni, Bhoringni. Fl. & Fr.: Most part of the year. Common in wastelands. SCROPHULARIACEAE Kickxia ramosissima (Wall.) Janchen Common name : Bhini Ghilodi, Bhini Vel, Kanoti. Fl. & Fr.: Throughout the year. Common in moist shady places of dry deciduous forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18158(BSJO). *Limnophila indica (L.) Druce Common name : Tarati, Durti. Fl. & Fr.: August - December. Common in aquatic and semi aquatic habitats.

� �Meena�

��

�

�

Lindenbergia indica (L.) Vatke Common name : Patharchati, Zamarval, Pirsadedi. Fl. & Fr.: July - March. Common in moist-shady, rock crevices and forests undergrowth. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20640(BSJO). Lindernia ciliata (Colsm.) Pennell Fl. & Fr.: August - February. Common in shady-moist localities from plain to hills. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18142(BSJO). Lindernia crustacea (L.) F. v. Muell. Fl. & Fr.: July - December. Common in forest undergrowths at moist-shaded localities. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18140(BSJO). Lindernia parviflora (Roxb.) Haines Fl. & Fr.: December - March. Common in forest undergrowth and moist places. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20613 (BSJO). Striga angustifolia (D. Don) C. J. Saldhana Common name : Dholo Agio, Kunvario Agio. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Common at moist places of plains and forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18124, 20796(BSJO). *Striga gesnerioides (Willd.) Vatke ex Engl. Fl. & Fr.: August - October. Common root parasite. Verbascum chinense (L.) Santapau Common name : Kalhar, Kolhala, Kutki. Fl. & Fr.: Most part of the year. Common in wet localities of wastelands. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17879(BSJO). GESNERIACEAE *Didymocarpus pygmaea C. B. Clarke Fl. & Fr.: August - December. Rare, in dry deciduous forests in rock crevices in moist places. BIGNONIACEAE *Fernandoa adenophylla (Wall. ex G. Don) Steenis

Fl. & Fr.: March - June. Frequent, planted along road sides as an avenue tree. *Tecomella undulata (Sm.) Seem. Common name : Rohida. Fl. & Fr.: January - April. Common in forest outskirts and wastelands. PEDALIACEAE *Pedalium murex L. Common name : Ubhu Gokharu. Fl. & Fr.: August - December. Native of Africa, naturalized in wastelands. MARTYNIACEAE Martynia annua L. Common name : Vinchhudo Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Common among wastelands, forests outskirts. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18127(BSJO). ACANTHACEAE *Blepharis linariaefolia Pers. Fl. & Fr.: August - January. Common in sandy to gravelly habitats. *Barleria prattensis Santapau Fl. & Fr.: September - February. Commonly found as a forest undergrowthin moist and shady localities. Barleria prionitis L. subsp. prionitis var. prionitis Common name : Kurvat. Fl.: September - February; Fr.: October - March. Common in wastelands, forests undergrowths in sandy-rocky habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17898(BSJO). Barleria prionitis L. subsp. prionitis var. dicantha Blatt. & Hallb. Common name : Kurvat. Fl. & Fr.: August - December. Rare, in dry deciduous forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18185(BSJO). Dipteracanthus patulus (Jacq.) Nees var. patulus Fl. & Fr.: July - November. Common in gravelly tracts. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17872(BSJO).

?AA� Meena�

��

�

�

Dipteracanthus patulus (Jacq.) Nees var. alba (Saxton) Bhandari Fl. & Fr.: Almost throughout the year. Rare in hilly area and forests on hedges. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20803(BSJO). Dipteracanthus prostratus (Poir.) Nees Common name : Kali Ghavani. Fl. & Fr.: Throughout the year. Common in forests undergrowths. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20803 (BSJO) Elytraria acaulis (L. f.) Lindau Fl. & Fr.: April - November. Common in moist and shady places. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17877 (BSJO). *Eranthemum purpurascens Wight ex Nees Fl. & Fr.: October - March. Commonly found as forest undergrowth on the hills and in wastelands. Eranthemum roseum (Vahl) R. Br. Fl. & Fr.: November - March. Rare, found in dry deciduous forests. Specimens examined : Kadarnath, S.K. Patel 4615 (SPU). *Haplanthodes neilgherryensis (Wight) R. B. Majumdar Fl. & Fr.: October - March. Commonly found as a forest undergrowth on the hills and in wastelands. Haplanthodes verticillata (Roxb.) Majumdar Common name : Kalu Kariyatu. Fl. & Fr.: November - March. Common in wastelands. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20612(BSJO). Hemigraphis latebrosa (Heyne ex Roth) Nees var. latebrosa Fl. & Fr.: October - March. Common in moist-shaded, rocky localities of forests undergrowths. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17896, 20614(BSJO). Indoneesiella echioides (L.) Sreemadh. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Common as forest undergrowth, along the stream and in wastelands.

Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17883, 18160 (BSJO). *Justicia adhatoda L. Common name : Arduso Fl. & Fr.: December - January. Common in wastelands and hilly area. Justicia diffusa Willd. Fl. & Fr.: October - February. Common weed of wastelands and forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17866(BSJO). Justicia procumbens L. Fl. & Fr.: Almost round the year. Common in wastelands. Specimens examined :Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20616(BSJO). *Justicia simplex D. Don Common name : Kalikariatu. Fl. & Fr.: July - March. Common weed of wastelands and forest outskirts. *Lepidagathis cuspidatus (Wall.) Nees Fl. & Fr.: November-April. Occasionally found along the streams in moist situations. *Lepidagathis trinervis Wall. ex Nees Common name : Harancharo, Paniru. Fl. & Fr.: October - April. Common in shady habitats of wastelands and rocky areas. *Neuracanthus sphaerostachyus (Nees) Dalzell Common name : Ghanthera. Fl. & Fr.: August - October. Frequently found in rocky habitats. Peristrophe paniculata (Forssk.) Brummitt Common name : Kali Anghedi, Adhedi. Fl. & Fr.: October - April. Common in wastelands and neglected corners. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17895(BSJO). Rungia pectinata (L.) Nees Common name : Khadselio. Fl. & Fr.: August - March. Common in moist-shaded localities. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17885(BSJO). *Rungia repens (L.) Nees Fl. & Fr.: July - November. Common weed in fallow lands.

?A��Meena�

��

�

�

VERBENACEAE *Gmelina arborea Roxb. Common name : Sevan. Fl.: March - May; Fr.: July - August. Common in rocky habitats along the water channels in wastelands and forests. Phyla nodiflora (L.) E. Greene Common name : Ratvelio, Ratulio, Rato kharar. Fl. & Fr.: Throughout the year. Common in moist-shaded localities or forest undergrowths. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17850(BSJO). *Tectona grandis L.f. Common name : Sag, Sagvan. Fl. & Fr.: August - December. Native of Tropical S. Asia and Malaysia; in dry deciduous forests, planted by forest deptt. in open forest. *Vitex negundo L. Common name : Nagod, Nagud, Nargund. Fl. & Fr.: Almost throughout the year. Common wastelands and forest outskirts along water courses. LAMIACEAE (LABIATAE nom. alt.) Anisomeles indica (L.) O. Ktze. Common name : Goudaliyo, Chodharo. Fl. & Fr.: October - April. Fairly common weed of wastelands and neglected areas. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17934(BSJO). *Leucas aspera (Willd.) Link Common name : Kubi. Fl. & Fr.: Almost throughout the year. Common in wastelands and forests. *Leucas cephalotes (Koen. ex Roth) Spreng. Common name : Khetarau-kubo, Dosino kubo. Fl. & Fr.: August - March. Common weed in wastelands and cultivated fields. *Leucas zeylanica (L.) R. Br. Common name : Kubo. Fl. &Fr.: November - February. Frequently found in wastelands. Ocimum basilicum L. Common name : Damro, Damarvo, Sabjo, Maruo. Fl. & Fr.: Almost throughout the year.

Common in sandy-gravelly soils in open wastelands. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18200(BSJO). Ocimum canum Sims. Common name : Jungli Tulsi, Ran Tulsi, Tukmaria, Jungli maruvo, Nasvo. Fl. & Fr.: Throughout the year. Common weed in wastelands and near habitations. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17891,17926(BSJO). Ocimum tenuiflorum L. Common name : Tulsi. Fl. & Fr.: Almost throughout the year. Common in escape or apparently wild near habitations. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17910(BSJO). Salvia santolinaefolia Boiss. Fl. & Fr.: August - February. Rare in moist sandy loam soils near dams and river-beds. Specimens examined :Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18167(BSJO). NYCTAGINACEAE Boerhavia procumbens Banks ex Roxb. Fl. & Fr.: January - December. Common in wastelands and plains. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18119(BSJO). Boerhavia repens L. Fl. & Fr.: Almost throughout the year. Common in wastelands and forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18190(BSJO). Boerhavia repens L. var. diffusa (L.) Hook.f. Common name : Satodi. Fl. & Fr.: Almost throughout the year. Fairly common in weed wastelands and forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18119(BSJO). *Commicarpus verticillatus (Poir.) Stendl. Common name : Vasedo, Punarnava, Zeri Satodi. Fl. & Fr.: August - March. Common among bushes, hedges, rarely in sandy plains.

?A?� Meena�

��

�

�

AMARANTHACEAE *Achyranthus aspera L. var. aspera Common name : Aghedo, Anghedo, Anghedi. Fl. & Fr.: Almost throughout the year. Common weed in wasteland and forests among herbs and shrubs. Aerva javanica (Burm.f.) Juss. ex Schultes Common name : Bur, Gorakhganjo. Fl. & Fr.: July - January. Common in semiarid areas of the sanctuary. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17920(BSJO). Aerva sanguinolenta (L.) Blume Common name : Bur-val, Vellaro, Burji vel, Gorakhganjo. Fl. & Fr.: October - January. Frequently found in forests undergrowth. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17897(BSJO). *Amaranthus spinosus L. Fl. & Fr.: Almost throughout the year. Common weed of wet places in wastelands and forest outskirts. *Amaranthus viridis L. Fl. & Fr.: March - October. Common weed in wastelands and forest among hedges. *Celosia argentea L. Common name : Lampdi. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Common weed of wastelands, forests and cultivated fields. Digera muricata (L.) Mart. Common name : Kanjro, Lolar. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Common weed in wastelands and forests outskirts. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17863(BSJO). Nothosaerva brachiata (L.) Wight Fl. & Fr.: September - May. Common in wet and shady habitats, cultivated fields etc. preferably in damp depressions. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17976(BSJO). Pupalia lappacea (L.) Juss. var. lappacea Common name : Zipto Safed. Fl. & Fr.: Almost all around the year. Common in gravelly to sandy habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17876(BSJO).

Pupalia lappacea (L.) Juss. var. velutina (Moq.) Hook. f. Fl. & Fr.: August - January. Rare, in forests and sandy habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18163, 18183(BSJO). POLYGONACEAE Polygonum glabrum Willd. Fl. & Fr.: August - October. Common along water bodies. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18164(BSJO). Polygonum plebeium R. Br. var. effusa (Meissn.) Hook. f. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Common in dry deciduous forests at wet localities. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20618(BSJO). Polygonum plebeium R. Br. var. plebeium Fl. & Fr.: After rainy season. Common in dry water bodies. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17835(BSJO). LORANTHACEAE *Dendrophthoe falcata (L. f.) Ettingsch. Common name : Vando. Fl. & Fr.: July - November. Common stem parasite in open forests. Viscum angulatum Burm. f. Fl. & Fr.: February - August. Rare, stem parasite. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18217(BSJO). EUPHORBIACEAE *Acalypha ciliata Forssk. Common name : Dadari, Runchalo dadro, Chardadarjo. Fl. & Fr.: July - December. Common in wastelands and forests in wet situations. *Acalypha indica L. Fl. & Fr.: July - February. Common weed in moist places. *Acalypha malabarica Muell.-Arg. Common name : Dadaro. Fl. & Fr.: July - September.

?A@�Meena�

��

�

�

Common in dry deciduous forests and wastelands. *Baliospermum montanum (Willd.) Muell.-Arg. Fl. & Fr. : September - March. Common in the forest and wastelands in shady habitats. *Bridelia retusa (L.) Spreng. Fl. & Fr.: July - December. Common in dry deciduous forests. *Euphorbia geniculata Orteg. Fl. & Fr.: Almost throughout the year. Native of tropical America; naturalized in the gardens, cultivated fields and forests. Euphorbia heterophylla L. Fl. & Fr.: Almost round the year. Rarely an escape, mostly planted. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17936(BSJO). Euphorbia heyneana Spreng. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Common in marshy places. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18205(BSJO). Euphorbia hirta L. Fl. & Fr.: Almost throughout the year. Common weed in variable habitats like forests, wastelands etc. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18175(BSJO). Euphorbia indica Lam. Fl. & Fr.: Almost throughout the year. Common in forest wastelands and cultivated fields. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20795(BSJO). *Euphorbia neriifolia L. Fl. & Fr.: March - July. Common in rocky habitats. Euphorbia thymifolia L. Common name : Dudhi. Fl. & Fr.: August - December. Common in moist sandy-clayey soils. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.K. Patel 4627 (SPU). *Euphorbia trucalli L. Common name : Kharsani. Fl. & Fr.: August - September. Native of East Africa; common as a hedge plant. *Kirganelia reticulata (Poir.) Baill. Common name : Kamboi, Picharun, Datwan. Fl. & Fr.: August - November.

Common in scrub forest, wastelands near water courses. *Mallotus philippensis (Lam.) Muell. - Arg. Common name : Kanku. Fl. & Fr.: October - February. Common in dry deciduous forest at high altitude. Phyllanthus amarus Schum. & Thom. Fl. & Fr.: Almost throughout the year. As a weed of moist wastelands and forests undergrowths. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17915 (BSJO). Phyllanthus emblica L. Common name : Amla Fl.: March - May; Fr.: June - November. Sparsely distributed in deciduous forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17944(BSJO). Phyllanthus fraternus Webster Common name : Bhoy Amli, Bhonya amali. Fl. & Fr.: August - December. Common in wastelands and forests undergrowth. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18134(BSJO). Ricinus communis L. Common name : Arundo, Divel. Fl. & Fr.: Throughout the year. Common in sandy habitats or as an escape. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17941(BSJO). ULMACEAE Holoptelea integrifolia (Roxb.) Planch. Common name : Kanji, Kanjo, Papadi, Audo-Aodo. Fl. & Fr.: December-May. Frequently found in forest outskirts and near habitations. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17836(BSJO). MORACEAE *Ficus benghalensis L. Common name : Vad. Fl. & Fr.:Almost throughout the year. Common in wastelands and forests. *Ficus religiosa L. Common name : Piplo. Fl. & Fr.: Almost throughout the year. Common in wastelands and forest outskirts. *Ficus racemosa L.

?AB� Meena�

��

�

�

Common name : Gular, Umbar, Umaro. Fl. & Fr.: Almost round the year. Often found in the forests along water courses. CASUARINACEAE Casuarina equisetifolia L. Fl. & Fr.: Throughout the year. Commonly planted along the baks of dam. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17916(BSJO). MONOCOTYLEDONS HYDROCHARITACEAE Vallisneria spiralis L. var. denseserrulata Makino Common name : Jalbel. Fl. & Fr.: February - November. Common in ponds and ditches in association with other aquatic weeds. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20632(BSJO). DIOSCOREACEAE Dioscorea bulbifera L. Common name : Varahi Kand. Fl.: July - October; Fr.: July - March. Frequently found in dry deciduous forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S. L. Meena 18222(BSJO). Dioscorea hispida Dennst. Common name : Bhoi kund Fl. & Fr.: June - January. Rare, in rocky - gravelly habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18213(BSJO). LILIACEAE Asparagus asiaticus L. Fl. & Fr.: June - November. Rare, in dry deciduous forests and wastelands. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18192(BSJO). *Asparagus racemosus Willd. Fl. & Fr.: August-March. Common in the forests. Drimia indica (Roxb.) Jessop Common name : Dangri - Jungli. Fl. & Fr.: February - May. Common in rocky-gravelly habitats of dry deciduous forests.

Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.K. Patel 4644(SPU). *Gloriosa superba L. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Common among the clumps of shrubs in the forests and wastelands. COMMELINACEAE Commelina albescens Hassk. Fl. & Fr.: August - October. Common on hills in moist places. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S L. Meena 18172(BSJO). Commelina forsskalaei Vahl Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Common in marshy places and often in the forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17953(BSJO). Murdannia nudiflora (L.) Brenan Fl. & Fr.: August - October. Common in moist-damp shady dry deciduous forests along grasses. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17933, 18132, 18143, 20788 (BSJO). NAJADACEAE *Najas marina L. Fl. & Fr.: September - December. Rare, in the rivers, lake etc. *Najas minor All. Fl. & Fr.: September - December. Frequent in shallow water, still- watered ponds, rivers etc. *Najas welwitschii Renl Fl. & Fr.: September – December. Rare, found in ponds, lake ditches etc. ERIOCAULACEAE *Eriocaulon dianae Fyson Fl. & Fr.: January - May. Rare, in marshy habitats. TYPHACEAE Typha angustifolia L. Fl. & Fr.: August - June. Common in marshy habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18168(BSJO).

?AC�Meena�

��

�

�

CYPERACEAE Bulbostylis barbata (Rottb.) C. B. Clarke Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Common in wet and marshy localities. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18126(BSJO). Cyperus alulatus Kern. Fl. & Fr.: September - November. Common in marshy habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20799(BSJO). Cyperus difformis L. Fl. & Fr.: August - December. Common in moist-marshy localities. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18169, 20641(BSJO). Cyperus iria L. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Common in marshy habitat. Specimens examined :Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20800(BSJO). Cyperus meeboldi Kuk. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Rare, in wet habitats in wastelands. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18144(BSJO). Cyperus pangorei Rottb. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Common in marshy localities. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17905(BSJO). Cyperus rotundus L. subsp. rotundus Common name : Chido. Fl. & Fr.: Throughout the year. Common.in moist-clayey to sandy habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18161(BSJO). Cyperus rotundus subsp. tuberosus (Rottb.) Kuekenth. Fl. & Fr.: August-November. Common in aquatic and marshy habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S. L. Meena 17918 (BSJO). Fimbristylis bisumbellata (Forssk.) Bubani Fl. & Fr.: August - April. Common in marshy localities. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20621 (BSJO). Fimbristylis dichotoma (L.) Vahl Fl. & Fr.: Almost throughout the year.

Common in marshy-wet localities. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17978(BSJO). Fimbristylis dipsacea (Rottb.) C. B. Clarke Fl. & Fr.: July - December. Rare in moist places. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18074(BSJO). Fimbristylis merrillii Kern. Fl. & Fr.: July - October. Rare, in moist and wet localities. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18170(BSJO). Fimbristylis quinquangularis (Vahl) Kunth Fl. & Fr.: August - April. Common in marshy places. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18152, 20619(BSJO). Fimbristylis squarrosa Vahl Fl. & Fr.: February - May. Rare, in marshy localities. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17849(BSJO). Mariscus squarrosus (L.) C. B. Clarke Fl. & Fr.: August - December. Common in marshy habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18121, 18130(BSJO). Scirpus michelianus L. Fl. & Fr.: October - December. Common in marshy localities. Specimens examined: Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17832(BSJO). POACEAE (GRAMINEAE nom. alt.) Acrachne racemosa (Heyne ex Roem. & Schult.) Ohwi Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Common in sandy loam soils and in rocky habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18225(BSJO). Alloteropsis cimicina (L.) Stapf Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Common in moist-clayey habitats of forest undergrowth. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18189(BSJO). Apluda mutica L.

?A�� Meena�

��

�

�

Common name : Bangara. Fl. & Fr.: August - February. Common among hedges of cultivated fields and bushes in wastelands. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17908, 18145(BSJO). Aristida adscensionis L. var. pumila (Decne.) Coss. & Dur. Fl. & Fr.: August - October. Common in sandy-gravelly soil. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17884(BSJO). Aristida funiculata Trin. & Rupr. Common name : Laso lampdo. Common in open rocky-gravelly wastelands; sometimes abundant and forming pure formations. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18146(BSJO). Arundo donax L. Fl. & Fr.: August - October. Commonly found in marshy habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17972(BSJO). Brachiaria deflexa (Schumach) C. E. Hubb. ex Robyns Fl. & Fr.: August - October. Occasional, found in shady localities and on low hills. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18139, 18148(BSJO). Brachiaria ramosa (L.) Stapf Fl. & Fr.: August - December. In mixed habitats, fairly common. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18171(BSJO). Cenchrus ciliaris L. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Common near water sources. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18174(BSJO). Cenchrus setigerus Vahl Common name : Dhaman. Fl. & Fr.: August - September. Most common grass in mixed habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18220 (BSJO). Chloris dolichostachya Lagas.

Common name : Silaru. Fl. & Fr.: August - March. Common in rocky and sandy habitats, in the forests thickets, wastelands and in plains. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S. L. Meena 20620 (BSJO). Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. Common name : Daro. Fl. & Fr.: January - December. In fallow fields and wastelands, fairly common. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17919(BSJO). Dactyloctenium aristatum Link Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Rare, in moist-rocky habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18141(BSJO). Dendrocalamus strictus (Roxb.) Nees Common name : Bomboo. Fl. & Fr.: At the intervals of many years. Fairly common in dry deciduous forests,. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.K. Patel 4618(SPU). Echinochloa frumentacea Link Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Common in sandy-clayey soil or in cultivated fields. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18150(BSJO). Eragrostis amabilis (L.) Wight & Arn. Fl. & Fr.: August - October. Common in sandy-gravelly to loamy soil. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17917(BSJO). Eragrostis aspera (Jacq.) Nees Fl. & Fr.: August - October. Common in marshy localities. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S. L. Meena 17887, 18147(BSJO). Eragrostis japonica (Thunb.) Trin. Fl. & Fr.: October - February. Common in moist and marshy habitats along water channels. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17931(BSJO). Eragrostis pilosa (L.) P. Beauv. Fl. & Fr.: August - February. Common in moist marshy places as a weed in open wastelands.

?A��Meena�

��

�

�

Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18125(BSJO). Heteropogon contortus (L.) P. Beauv. ex Roem. & Schult. Common name : Dabh. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Common in open wastelands and forests. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18188, 17943(BSJO). Isachne globosa (Thunb.) O. Ktze. Fl. & Fr.: Almost throughout the year. Occasional, found near moist and marshy habitats. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17903(BSJO). *Melanocenchris jacquemontii Jaub. & Spach. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Common in open gravelly and rocky habitats. Oplismenus burmannii (Retz.) P. Beauv. Fl. & Fr.: July - December. Common in moist and shaded localities of the sanctuary. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17880(BSJO). Oplismenus compositus (L.) P. Beauv. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Rare, in moist and shady places. Specimens examined :Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17889(BSJO). *Oropetium thomaeum (L.f.) Trin. Fl. & Fr.:August-October. Monsoon grass commonly found in rocky and gravelly habitats. Panicum maximum Jacq. Fl. & Fr.: March - August. Frequently found in most parts of the top of hills along the stream. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18131, 18208(BSJO) Pennisetum setosum (Sw.) L. C. Rich. Fl. & Fr.: September - December. Common in rocky habitats and in wastelands. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17938(BSJO). Perotis indica (L.) O. Ktze. Fl. & Fr.: August - December. Common in open wet places. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18154(BSJO).

Saccharum spontaneum L. Common name : Kans. Fl. & Fr.: January - December. Common in moist-marshy situations. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20797(BSJO). Setaria intermedia (Roth) Roem. & Schult. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Found in rocky habitats in open wastelands and forests undergrowths. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17943,18223(BSJO). Setaria italica (L.) P. Beauv. Fl. & Fr.: August - December. Frequent in moist rocky-clayey soils. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18221(BSJO). Setaria verticillata (L.) P. Beauv. Common name : Chipatiu. Fl. & Fr.: August - December. Commonly found in sandy-clayey soils, particularly along irrigation channels. Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17902(BSJO). *Tetrapogon tenellus (Koen. ex Roxb.) Chiov. Fl. & Fr.: August - November. Common in wastelands. *Themeda quadrivalvis (L.) O. Ktze. Fl. & Fr.: September- November. Common along streams at foot of hills. ECONOMIC POTENTIALITY OF PHYTODIVERSITY OF JESSORE SLOTH BEAR WILDLIFE SANCTUARY The flora of Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary is very rich from medicinal plants point of view and this hot spot of phytodiversity is known as paradise for economic potentiality. The economic potentiality of phytodiversity determined its importance for existence and values for conservation, particularly to establish priorities. Some of the common plants are classified according to their uses. Medicinal plants The common plants used as medicinal in the Sanctuary by, a number of rural people and tribes residing nearby the Sanctuary among, viz.: Thekere, Chauhan, Koli, Kumbhar,

?A!� Meena�

��

�

�

Mali, Rabari, Harijan, Waghari and Agarwals, and tribes, viz. Majirana, Garasia, Gamar, Damor, Khokharia, Dama, Dhajora, Dharanhi Vansia, Kharadi etc. Traditionally the prople are religiously inclined. Economy of the people is mainly agrarian. Cattle rearing is the other major occupation of the villagers as well as of "Rabaris". The people depend upon forests for medicinal plants, for fuel, fodder, timber, gum and resin, dye, fibre, grazing, collection of honey and wild fruits. Common medicinal plants of Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary are : Acacia nilotica subsp. indica, Acacia senegal, Achyranthes aspera, Aerva javanica, Argemone mexicana, Azadirachta indica, Justicia adhatoda, Balanites roxburghii, Blepharis linearifolia, Boerhaviarepens L. var. diffusa, Cadaba fruticosa, Senna auriculata, Cocculus hirsutus, Corchorus depressus, Cleome viscosa, Crotalaria burhia, Capparis decidua, Calotropis procera, Coldenia procumbens, Convolvulus prostratus, Cyperus rotundus, Dactyloctenium scindicum, Datura innoxia, Echinops echinatus, Enicostemma axillare, Euphorbia caducifolia, Ficus benghalensis, Ficus religiosa, Glinus lotoides, Indigofera cordifolia, Indigofera oblongifolia, Leptadenia pyrotechnica, Maerua oblongifolia, Martynia annua, Momordica dioica, Pedalium murex, Pergularia daemia, Portulaca oleracea, Ricinus communis, Salvadora oleoides, Tribulus terrestris, Tephrosia purpurea, Tecomella undulata, Xanthium indicum, Ziziphus nummularia and Tridax procumbents etc. Timber yielding plants Timber is most important and essential item for upliftment of socio-economic status of rural population. Major timber yielding plants of Sanctuary are : Acacia catechu, A. leucophloea, A. nilotica subsp. indica, A. senegal, Aegle marmelos, Ailanthus excelsa , Albizia lebbeck, A. procera, Anogeissus latifolia, Azadirachta indica, Balanites aegyptica, Bauhinia racemosa, Bombax ceiba, Boswellia serrata, Bridelia retusa, Butea monosperma, Capparis decidua, Cassia fistula, Senna siamea, Cordia dichotoma, C. gharaf, Dalbergia sissoo, Dendrocalamus strictus, Dichrostachys cinerea, Diospyros melanoxylon, Ficus benghalensis, F. religiosa, Haldina cordifolia, Holoptelea integrifolia, Lannea coromandelica, Madhuca

indica, Mangifera indica, Millusa tomentosa, Mitragyna parviflora, Moringa oleifera, Phyllanthus emblica, Pithecellobium dulce, Pongamia pinnata, Prosopis juliflora, Sterculia urens, Tamarindus indica, and Ziziphus mauritiana Gum and resin yielding plants Number of plant species provide gum and resin are : Acacia catechu, A. nilotica subsp. indica, A. senegal, Azadirachta indica, Boswellia serrata, Butea monosperma, Lannea coromandelica, Sterculia urens etc. Dye yielding plants The common dye yielding plants in Jessore Wildlife sanctuary are : Abrus precatorius, Acacia nilotica subsp. indica, Achyranthus aspera, Butea monosperma, Cocculus pendulus, Indigofera tinctoria, Kirganelia reticulata, Nyctanthes arbor-tristis and Striga generioides. Tannin yielding plants The common tannin yielding plants are Acacia leucophloea, A. nilotica subsp. Indica, Albizia lebbeck, Senna auriculata, Woodfordia fruticosa, and Ziziphus mauritiana. Fodder plants The common fodder plants of the Sanctuary are : Acacia leucophloea, A. nilotica subsp. indica, Crotalaria burhia, Dichrostachys cinerea, Echinops echinatus, Indigofera oblongifolia, I. cordifolia, Panicum antidotale, Tribulus terrestris, Ziziphus mauritiana and Z. nummularia. Food plants The common food plants of JWLS are : Acacia leucophloea, A. nilotica subsp. Indica, A. senegal, Achyranthes aspera, Aegle marmelos, Aerva javanica, Alangium salvifolium, Aloe vera, Amaranthus spinosus, A. viridis, Asparagus racemosus, Azadirachta indica, Bauhinia racemosa, Brachiaria ramosa, Butea monosperma, Capparis decidua, Celastrus paniculatus, Celosia argentea, Cenchrus biflorus, Citrullus colocynthis, Cordia dichotoma, C. gharaf, Cucumis callosus, Cyperus rotundus, Dactyloctenium scindicum, Ficus benghalensis, F. racemosa, F. religiosa, Grewia flevescens, Holoptelea integrifolia, Lannea coromandelica, Madhuca indica, Mangifera indica, Momordica balsamina, M. dioica, Moringa oleifera, Mucuna pruriens,

?A �Meena�

��

�

�

Panicum antidotale, Phyllanthus emblica, Physalis minima, Pithecellobium dulce, Prosopis juliflora, Salvadora oleoides, Syzygium cumini, Tamarindus indica, Terminalia bellirica, Ziziphus mauritiana and Z. nummularia. Oil yielding plants Some of the plants yielding non-edible oil which can be used in medicines, varnishes, paints, lubricants, for soap making and in perfumery. The important species are : Argemone mexicana, Azadirachta indica, Citrullus colocynthis, Ricinus cummunis etc. Plants used in cottage industries : Dendrocalamus strictus, Wrightia tinctoria, Ailanthus excelsa, Acacia catechu, Butea monosperma, Saccharum benghalensis etc. are useful to enhance socio-economic status of the rural people. CONSERVATION OF FLORAL DIVERSITY Jessore hill range is unique site for flora as well as faunal diversity. Sloth Bear is the flag ship species of the Sanctuary. It is endowed with a rich diversity of floral species, including many endangered and rare species. It is the south-western most part of the Aravalli series and is important for conservation of depleting Aravalli ecosystem. The area provides varied habitat and vegetation ranging from scrub vegetation to moist deciduous type. Jessore hills plays an important role to check the desertification of the adjoining areas as the hills are adjoining to the desert of Rajasthan. The Sanctuary is recognized as an area of high conservation value due to richness of medicinal plant species. Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary has a unique significance of inhabiting some species like Anogeissus latifolia and Anogeissus sericea var. nummularia, besides Tecomella undulata and Dendrocalamus strictus. The species of Dalbergia, Terminalia, Schrebera swietenoides, Hymenodictyon orixensis, Butea superba and many other species of socio-economic and biodiversity significance that need to be rehabilitated and conserved viz. Dalbergia latifolia, Anogeissus sericea, Manilkara hexandra, Mallotus philippensis, Albizia procera, Haldina cordifolia, Bridelia retusa, Butea monosperma var. alba, Butea superba, Cordia gharaf, Dalbergia paniculata,

Erythrina suberosa, Garunga pinnata, Limonia acidissima, Madhuca indica, Moringa oleifera, Sterculia urens, Tecomella undulata, Wrightia arborea, Dendrocalamus strictus, Helicteres isora, Ziziphus xylopyrus, Abrus precatorius etc. The phytodiversity of the Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary is affected by a number of direct as well as indirect factors, mostly human interferences. Heavy grazing, lopping of trees, firewood collection, cutting of trees for timber, forest fires and tourism etc are the main factors that effect the forest wealth of Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, leading to the degradation of Sanctuary. Beside this, invasion of Prosopis juliflora is till continuing which poses adverse impacts on the habitat suitability for the local floral components. Even it does not allow to grow any plant under the canopy. Besides above, the over exploitation of some of the economically important species, viz. Cassia and Tecomella undulata have also been brought them on the doors of extinction. Maximum afforestation of such economic species is, therefore, necessary to balance the ecosystem. Recent biotechnological methods may also be applied for the multiplication. Further, the germplasm of depleting plant resources may also be preserved in the seed banks, the habitats need to be protected by establishing more Biosphere Reserves, National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries. Presently efforts made in this direction include the establishment of four National Parks and twenty one Sanctuaries. Further, the establishment of botanical gardens may also play a vital role in ex-situ conservation and multiplication of the germplasm, which is widely scattered and where in-situ conservation is not possible. Besides above conservation measures, the research alone cannot help to restore the biodiversity loss unless there is a political will, awareness and involvement of the people in conservation programmes. Government of Gujarat is very particular on this subject in creating awareness among the people and educating them on far reaching implications of ecological degradation. Sloth bear is the flagship species of the Sanctuary from conservation point of view, it is necessary that at any cost conservation of phytodiversity measures should taken as a

?�A� Meena�

��

�

�

number of plants species provide food for the flagship species of the Sanctuary. FLORISTIC ANALYSIS The present work enumerates 481 indigenous and naturalized vascular plant species belonging to 277 genera and 80 families. Leguminosae is the biggest family in Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary comprising 33 genera and 76 species (Fabaceae is represent by 21 genera and 49 species; Caesalpiniaceae by 5 genera and 12 species and Mimosaceae by 7 genera and 15 species) Second, third and forth places are occupied by family Poaceae, Acanthaceae, Asteraceae respectively. Monocotyledons are represented poorly except Poaceae with 34 species and 25 genera and Cyperaceae with 16 species and 5 genera. In monocotyledons the families represented by single genus and single species are: Hydrocharitaceae and Typhaceae. Among, dicotyledons, the class Polypetalae is dominant and represented by 187 species belonging to 108 genera and 38 families. The families represented by single genera and single species are:

Annonaceae, Menispermaceae, Papaveraceae, Violaceae, Caryophyllaceae, Portulacaceae, Elatinaceae, Balsaminaceae, Simaroubaceae, Balanitaceae, Burseraceae, Moringaceae, Rosaceae, Aizoaceae and Alangiaceae. Among class Gamopetalae, families represented by single genera and single species are: Primulaceae, Ebenaceae, Salvadoraceae, Loganiaceae, Cuscutaceae, Gesneriaceae, Pedaliaceae and Martyniaceae,while in class Monochlamydeae, families Ulmaceae and Casurinaceae are represented by single genera and single species .The biggest family of the class polypetalae is Fabaceae .The class gamopetalae finds second place and it is represented by 25 families having 107 genera and 185 species. The class Monochlamydeae is represented by 43 species and 22 genera with 8 families. It is intresting to note that Monochlamydeae is lowest among Dicotyledons.The largest family of this group is Euphorbiaceae having 7 genera and 11 species. Second place IS occupied by Amaranthaceae with 7 genera and 10 species.

Table 1. Statistical synopsis of the indigenous and naturalized flora of Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary in Banaskantha district (Gujarat).

Taxonomic Group Families Genera Species No. % No. % No. %

Angiosperm Dicotyledons 71 88.75 237 85.56 415 86.28 Monocotyledons 9 11.25 40 14.44 66 13.72

Total 80 100.00 277 100.00 481 100.00

The ratio of species belong to Monocotyledons to Dicotyledons is 1 : 6.2 and for genera it is 1 : 5.9 and 1 : 7.8 for families. The ratio of total number of genera and species is 1 : 1. 7.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author is thankful to Dr. D. K. Singh, Director-in-Charge, Dr. M. Sanjappa, Ex-Director, Botanical Survey of India, Kolkata for providing necessary facilities and to Dr. V. Singh, Emeritus Scientist, BSI, AZRC for going through the Mss. and valuable suggestions. The author is equally thankful to Dr. P. M. Padhye, Scientist-E & H.O.O. and to Dr. R. P. Pandey, Scientist-D, BSI, AZRC, Jodhpur for encouragement and providing facilities during the course of present study.

REFERENCES Bentham, G. and J.D. Hooker. (1862-83).

Genera Plantarum.Vol. 1-3. London. Blatter, E. (1908-09). On the Flora of Kutch.

Journ. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 18: 756-776; 19: 157-176.

Bole, P.V and J.M. Pathak. (1988). Flora of Saurashtra, Part- II & III: Flora of India Series 2, Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta.

Champion, H.G. and S.K. Seth. (1968). A revised survey of the forest types of India. Manager of publication, Delhi 6, pp. xxv + 404, pl. 103, Map-7.

Cooke, T. (1901-08). The Flora of Bombay Presidency, Vols. 2. London.

?��Meena�

��

�

�

Karthikeyan, S. (2000). A statistical analysis of flowering plants of India. In Singh, N.P., D.K. Singh, P.K. Hajara and B.D. Sharma (eds.) Flora of India, Introductionary Volume, Part–II, pp. 201-217 BSI, New Delhi.

Meena, S.L. (2004a). Some new Plants to the Flora of Gujarat, India-I . J. Econ.Taxon. Bot. 28(2): 387-88.

Meena, S.L. (2004b). Two new species of Fimbristylis (Cyperaceae) from Gujarat. J. Econ. Taxon. Bot. 28(2): 389-391.

Meena, S.L. and R.P. Panday. (2004). A reassessment of phytodiversity of Gujarat state: Floristic composition and analysis, vegetation, threatened and rare taxa and their conservation strategies. J. Econ. Taxon. Bot. 28(4): 867-894.

Meena, S.L. (2005). Some new plants to the Flora of Gujarat, India-II. J. Econ.Taxon. Bot. 29(2): 375-77.

Meena, S.L. (2007). Some new plants to the Flora of Gujarat, India - III. J. Econ.Taxon. Bot. 31(2): 466-69.

Pandey, R.P. and V. Singh. (1999). Gujarat: In: Mudgal, V. & P.K. Hajra (eds.) Floristic diversity and conservation stratigies in India. 2: 775-806.

Panday, R.P. (2001). Addition to the flora of Gujarat-II. J. Econ. Taxon. Bot. 23(3): 623-625.

Pandey, R.P. (2002). Addition to the flora of Gujarat-III. J. Econ. Taxon. Bot. 26(2): 505-508.

Padey, R.P. and P.M. Padhye. (1997). Addition to the flora of Gujarat - I. J. Econ. Taxon. Bot. 21(1): 103-106.

Parmar, P. J. and A.K. Srivastava. (2003). Some new plants records from Saurashtra (Gujarat State). Ind. Journ. For. 26(4): 431-432.

Parmar, P.J. and V. Singh. (2003). Interesting plant records from Gujarat, India. Ind. Journ. For. 26(4): 418-420.

Pilo, B., B.J. Pathak, B.A. Kumar, V.K. Murukesan, K.R. and S. Kumari. (1996). Biological Diversity of Gujarat (Current knowledge). GERI Campus, Race course road,Vadodara, Gujarat.

Raghavan, R.S., B.M. Wadhwa, M.Y. Ansari and Rolla, S. Rao. (1981). A check list of plants of Gujarat. Rec. Bot. Surv. India. 21(2): 1-127.

Santapau, H. (1962). The Flora of Saurashtra, Part -I. Saurashtra Research Society, Rajkot.

Saxton, W.T. (1922). Additional notes on plants of north Gujarat. Rec. Bot. Surv. India. 9(3): 251-256.

Saxton, W.T. and L.J. Sedgwick. (1918). Plants of north Gujarat. Rec. Bot.Surv. India. 6: 207-323.

Sharma, G.R. and D.K. Singh. (2001). Status of plant diversity in India : an overview. In: Roy, P.S., S. Singh & A.G. Toxopens (eds.) Biodiversity & Environment. 69-105. IIRS, Dehradun.

Shah, G.L. (1978). Flora of Gujarat State, Vol. I & II. Sardar Patel University, Vallabh Vidhyanagar.

Singh, A.P. and Parabia, M. (2003). The floral diversity of Gujarat state : A Review. Ind. For. 129(12): 1461-1469.

Thakar, J.L. (1926). Plants of Kutch and their utility (in Gujarati). Rajkot.

?�?� Meena�

��

�

�

A Review of Depleting Plant Resources, their Present Status and Conservation

in Rajasthan, India

R.P. Pandey, S.L. Meena, P.M. Padhye and M.K. Singhadiya

Botanical Survey of India, Arid Zone Regional Centre, Jodhpur - 342 008 e-mail: [email protected]

(Received 14 December, 2011, Accepted 21 March, 2012)

ABSTRACT: The present paper deals with review of 65 depleting plant taxa, their present status and conservation in Rajasthan. Besides this it also envisage review of previous literature, floral composition, phytogeographical analysis of the flora, 45 wild relatives of 66 cultivated plants, impact of canal irrigation with 106 new introduction in the state, conservation strategies and measures and list of RET taxa in the state their present status and causes of their rarity. Key words: Depleting Plant Resources, Conservation, Rajasthan.

INTRODUCTION A large number of plants and animals have inadequate future, unless immediate steps are taken to arrest the causes leading to biological improvement. Floral and faunal diversities are the two facts components of biodiversity, which covers the variety and variability of species. Concern for conservation and sustainable use of plant diversity has been growing in many countries, including India. The population of both human and animals (livestocks) in Rajasthan being high, coupled with the changing climate adversely affects the delicately balanced ecosystem. This resulted in an over-exploitation of natural plant resources, which possess a threat to plant diversity in Rajasthan. It is very significant to note that as India has already signed the “Conservation on Biodiversity” and now it is mandatory on our part to take all efforts towards conservation and sustainable utilization of biodiversity. In order to regulate the exploration and commercial exploitation of bioresources of our country, to prevent bio-piracy and to safeguard our traditional knowledge in the form of “Intellectual Property Rights” (IPR), the Government of India has already come up with a Biodiversity Acts, 2002 and National Environment Policy, 2005. Thus, to achieve the effective implementation of the above Acts, we must have a comprehensive and up to date list of plants and animals of the region with particular

interest to rare, endangered, threatened and endemic taxa. Until we are not having up to date list of plant/animals of the area, we can not make our efforts successful towards conservation and sustainable utilization of bio-resources, which is the main objective of the “Convention on Biodiversity”. The present paper on the review of depleting plant resources, their present status and conservation in Rajasthan is a step in this direction to cover the Rajasthan flora. At the end paper also enlisted invaded species through “Indra Gandhi Canal Project (IGNP)” in N.W. Rajasthan due to impact of canal irrigation and listed about 106 species as new introduction from the neighboring states viz. Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Kashmir. LOCATION, TOPOGRAPHY, SOIL AND CLIMATE Rajasthan is one of the largest State of India, occupying an area of about 3,42,274 sq. km. i.e. nearly 11 % of total area of the country, located between 2303’-30012’ N latitude and 69030’-78017’ E longitude. Phyto-geographically, it forms the eastern extremity of great arid and semi-arid belt of world; the Great Sahara desert belt passes through the western part of the state. The most striking geological feature is the Aravalli range the oldest folded mountain range in the world, which intersects the state diagonally end to end north - east to south - west into three - fifth North - western desertic

Biological Forum_ An International Journal, Spl. Iss.��B��=��?�@>?@A��(?A�?��9��# �8%��:;�==B25C=C2�

��

�

�

zone and two-fifth eastern semi-arid region. The elevation of Aravalli range gradually decreases in North - east direction, as it is 1772 m at Mt. Abu, 1100 m at Bijapur, 913 m at Harshnath and 792 m at Khetri; elevation further decreases to 335 m at Delhi beyond the boundaries of the state in North - east direction. The Nort- western region, which is called as Rajasthan desert or Marusthali, occupies an area of about 1,96,150 sq. km. and is covered with vast stretches of sand and shifting and stabilized sand dunes of various types, magnitude and orientation viz. parabolic, longitudinal, barkhan, transverse, etc. The Jurassic and Eocene rocks protrude here and there above the sandy and hummocky plains of aeolian origin. The soils are typical desert soils and grey-brown desert soils containing 90-95% sand and 10-55% clay, high percentage of soluble salts and high pH value. Another important topographical feature of the desert is the presence of salt lakes viz. S�mbhar and saline tracts in Degana, Kuchaman, Didwana and Pachpadra which narrate the past geological history of the area and now S�mbhar lake declared as one of India’s “Ramsar sites”. There are no natural fresh water lakes in Rajasthan. The man-made major artificial lakes are Jaisamand, Udaisagar, Pichhola, Rajsamand and Fateh sagar in Udaipur district, Ana sagar, Pushkar, Vishal sagar and Fai sagar in Ajmer, Balsamand, Sardar samand and Kailana in Jodhpur, Jaisamand in Alwar, Nakki at Mt. Abu, Gajner in Bikaner, Aklara sagar and Ummed sagar in Kota district are mainly used for irrigation and drinking water and therefore, frequently cleared by way of weed removal. In Rajasthan the man made wetlands occupy an area of 1,00,217 ha. and natural wetlands about 14,027 ha. only. There are several neglected, rather small tanks, ponds, ditches and low lands spread all over the state which present variable emporia for aquatic and marsh land biodiversity. Further, the area in the North - east, East and South - East of main Aravalli range presents topography of isolated chain of outliers of Aravallis, undulating tectonic plains and alluvial plains or agricultural plains. Vindhayan hills, which constitute a vast sedimentation formation of sand stones, shales and lime stone, also enter in the South - East and spread out westwards. The soils here typically red and yellow,

ferruginous red, mixed red and black, medium black and alluvial which have good water holding capacity and pH is neutral to alkaline. They have smaller content of lime, potash, iron oxide, phosphorus, nitrogen and humus. The climate of desertic zones in the West of Aravalli is characterized by extremes of temperatur - mean-maximum 33.40C and mean-minimum 18.90C, low rainfall 342 mm mean annual, high evapotranspiration i.e. 1868 mm mean annual, low relative humidity i.e. 35 to 60 percent and high wind velocity i.e. 10.7 km./hr. average annual. Such climatic conditions are rather adverse to support any appreciable biodiversity. The climate in the East of Aravalli is semi-arid with mean annual maximum and minimum temperature 300C and 150C respectively, mean annual rainfall 850 mm., relative humidity 50-60 percent and mean annual wind velocity about 7.5 km./hr. Such a climate is suitable for comparatively dense dry deciduous vegetation in Rajasthan. REVIEW OF LITERATURE There is a great awareness in the recent times of the need to conserve natural plant resources all over the world that several thousand species of plants and animals are threatened, many are critically rare and a few already extinct. Studies undertaken during last six decades on floras in several parts of the world have shown that many plant species are in danger of extinction while some have already become extinct recently. According to the reports given by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), it is estimated that about 10% of world’s vascular plant species totally to about 20,000 to 25,000 species are under varying degrees of threat. The flora of India is very rich in plant diversity with an estimated 50,000 species of which about 18,000 are flowering plant. Of these, about 5,000 species are endemic to India, while several hundred species are threatened. The threat to environmental survival is now engaging the attention of many countries. The recent preparation of “Red data Books” list of threatened and endemic taxa and symposia organized by various countries in Europe, Africa, North & South America, etc. on rarity, endemism and threatened plants have recently stimulated

?�B� Pandey, Meena, Padhye and Singhadiya

��

�

�

the Asian countries, including India, to look in to the fate of their depleting plant resources. In the eleventh technical meeting of IUCN, held New Delhi in 1969 (IUCN, 1970), the problems of the taxa on the verge of extinction in India were also discussed and need of the preliminary lists of such taxa were realized to achieve the task of conservation. A brief review of work done in India on the threatened plants and habitats has been published by Jain & Shastry (1981). Following this, concerted efforts on the subject were made in the years 1980-85 through programme. Project on Study, Survey and Conservation of Endangered species of Flora (POSSCEF) supported by the U.S. Fish & Wild-life Service (under PL-480 scheme) in the BSI and valuable baseline data on nearly 1000 threatened and endangered plant species have been gathered. Further, a seminar on “threatened plants of India” was organised by the Botanical Survey of India for the first time in India at Dehra Dun in September, 1981 to evaluate the endemic flora and to assess the status of the threatened taxa in India. Therein, Pandey, et al. (1983) and Sharma (1983) respectively, reported 41 and 106 taxa as rare and threatened from whole of Rajasthan. Singh (1985) dealt with the threatened taxa and their scope of conservation. Recently Singh & Pandey (1997), and Pandey (1983), Pandey & Shetty (1985) dealt with the conservation of plant diversity in Rajasthan. Mondal (1991) has published “Massuria hill- a type locality at Jodhpur in Rajasthan”, where he has emphasized that this area harbours a number of new species and varieties at present. Very recently, Singh & Pandey (1984) have published “Depleting plant resources in the Rajasthan

desert”, where they dealt 43 rare and threatened taxa in the area. The project like “Man and Biosphere” (MAB) is also working in this direction. A regional workshop on the same subject was again organized by BSI in collaboration with National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) at New Delhi in March, 1982. Recently, BSI has also published the Indian plants “Red data Book” - I (Edited by Jain & Shastry, 1984) and three volumes of the Red data book of Indian plants (Edited by Nayar & Sastry, 1987, 88 & 89). Singh & Pandey (1998) published “Floral diversity of Rajasthan” in greater details. The Arid Zone Regional Centre of BSI, Jodhpur published a comprehensive flora of Rajasthan in three volumes (Edited by Shetty & Singh, 1987, 91 & 93). All these above publications have contributed quite a lot in the preparation of a list of rare and threatened taxa of Rajasthan.The floral composition and its diversity have been dealt by Pandey (in Shetty & Singh, 1993) and Singh & Pandey (1998). FLORAL COMPOSITION The flora of Rajasthan comprising 2090 species belonging to 819 genera under 159 families of higher plants. The above analysis also includes 137 infra specific taxa. Besides the above this also dealt 274 cultivated plant species. The above analysis also includes 13 intra - specific taxa. Besides the above this also dealt 274 cultivated plant species. Gymnosperms are represented by a solitary Ephedra ciliata. Among Angiosperms, dicotyledons plants show maximum diversity from specific level (72.98%) to family level (79.22%) (Table 1).

Table 1. Statistical synopsis of the flora.

Taxonomic group Families No. %

Genera No. %

Species No. %

ANGIOSPERMS Dicotyledons

Monocotyledons GYMNOSPERMS

126

79.22

631

77.15

1533

72.98

32 20.13 187 22.72 516 26.97 1 0.65 1 0.13 1 0.05

TOTAL 159 100.00 819 100.00 2090 100.00

?�C�Pandey, Meena, Padhye and Singhadiya

��

�

�

In Rajasthan monocotyledons are very poorly represented, the family Poaceae maintains highest diversity in the area comprising 315 species under 105 genera. The family Leguminosae s.l. of polypetalae of dicotyledons finds second place in the state with 201 species

and 54 genera. Among gamopetalae - Asteraceae maintains highest diversity with 140 species and 65 genera. The family Euphorbiaceae having 65 species and 18 genera having maximum diversity among the monochlamydae of angiosperms (Table 2).

Table 2. Ten dominant families in Rajasthan.

Name of Families No. of Genera No. of Species Poaceae Leguminosae s.l. Asteraceae Cyperaceae Acanthaceae Euphorbiaceae Convolvulaceae Scrophulariaceae Malvaceae Lamiaceae

105

54

65

15

30

18

12

26

11

15

315

201

140

107

86

65

59

54

53

43

With regards to genera again Cyperus (33 species) of monocotyledons maintain highest diversity and dicotyledons stand at second place. However, contrary to families, the gamopetalous genus Ipomoea (28 species) stands on the second place and polypetalous genus Indigofera (27 species) on the third position. The genus Euphorbia (19 species) shows maximum diversity in monochlamydae group. As regards diversity within species e.g. Pavonia arabica, Convolvulus auricomus, Tribulus terrestris, Alysicarpus rugosus, Amaranthus hybridus, Barleria prionitis, Justicia diffusa, Polygonum plebeium, Pupalia lappacea and Veronica anagallis - aquatica are having two or more varieties besides autonyms. As far as gene level diversity is concerned it is more prominent in Cucumis melo, Citrullus lanatus, Tephrosia purpurea, Cenchrus spp. and Ziziphus mauritiana which is phenotypically reflected in size and shape of fruits and seeds, flower colour,

etc. indicating possibilities of natural hybridization.

The phytodiversity ratio of species level between monocots to dicots is 1: 2.7 of genera 1: 3.4 and of families 1:3.9. The ratio of genera to species is 1:2.4, which is rather low in comparision to the corresponding ratio for whole of India (1:7.4). However, it is more or less comparable to the ratio for the flora of Gangetic Plains region (1:2.2) and for the flora of Gujarat State (1:2.4). It also confirms the general rule that, within the same flora region, the smaller the flora, the smaller the species genus ratio i.e. suggests poor phytodiversity.

PHYTOGEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS OF THE FLORA The flora of Rajasthan presents a mixture of four distinct phytogeographical elements as follow (Singh, 1977 & Singh & Pandey, l.c.): Indian element: 32.56%

?�� Pandey, Meena, Padhye and Singhadiya

��

�

�

Perso-Arabian element (Western): 30.55% Indo-Malayan element (Eastern): 12.76% General element: 24.22% The phytogeographical analysis suggests that Indian element dominants over other adventives taxa as it forms 32.56% part of the Rajasthan flora. It mainly consists of the species coming from Kutchchh, Sindh, Saurashtra, Maharashtra and neighboring Gangetic plains. The resemblance in the list of ten dominant families (Table 3) further supports the above view. The Himalayan and N.E. Indian species are poorly represented and most of them grow at Mt. Abu and in subtropical evergreen patches of forest in the east of Aravalli. The second Perso - Arabian element (western-element) constitutes 30.55% part of the flora of Rajasthan. It includes the species migrated from Africa, Mediterranean region, Madagascar, North Africa, Arabia, Persia,

Turkey, Indus plains, Sudan and other Asian countries.The Perso - Arabian elements dominats over other adventives elements including the Indo - Malayan elements throughout the Rajasthan except Mt. Abu. However, the percentage of western element decreases gradually as one proceeds from West to East. The ratio of Eastern to Western element in the West of Aravallis varies from 1:4.4 to 1:6, while east of Aravalli it varies from 1:1.7 to 1:3. Therefore, it Drude’s conclusions that Aravalli range constitutes the line of demarcation between Indo - Malayan and Perso - Arabian element is correct, one should got Indo- Malayan element in dominance in the East of Aravalli. The facts are contrary. Therefore, authors suggest the line of demarcation between these two elements some where in the east of Rajasthan beyond the limits of the State.

Table 3. Comparison of ten dominant families of India, Rajasthan and other neighboring State. S.No. Rajasthan (Shetty &

Singh, 1993) India (Hooker, 1897) Gangetic Plain (Duthie,

1903 - 1929) Gujarat (Shah,

1978) 1. Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Leguminosae s.l. 2. Leguminosae s.l. Orchidaceae Leguminosae s.l. Poaceae 3. Asteraceae Leguminosae s.l. Cyperaceae Cyperaceae 4. Cyperaceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae 5. Acanthaceae Rubiaceae Scrophulariaceae Acanthaceae 6. Euphorbiaceae Acanthaceae Malvaceae Malvaceae 7. Convolvulaceae Euphorbiaceae Acanthaceae Euphorbiaceae 8. Scrophulariaceae Lamiaceae Euphorbiaceae Convolvulaceae 9. Malvaceae Apiaceae Convolvulaceae Scrophulariaceae

10. Lamiaceae Brassicaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae

The reasons for dominance of Western element (30.55%) in the State may:

(1) Large scale destruction of vegetation resulting in exposure of soil where the original natural flora is gradually replaced by pioneer xerophytic elements of Perso - Arabian and African origin in the modified plant climate resembling the climate of Libyan desert and Cyrenaica.

(2) The absence of any remarkable barrier on the western boundary of the State to chek the migration of Western elements towards Indian desert.

(3) Decreasing altitude of Aravalli range and gaps at certain places which make the

Aravalli as an imperfect barrier in the migration of the plant species.

The Eastern element i.e. Indo - Malayan element comprises 12.76% of the flora. It includes the species coming from Malaysian Peninsula, China, Burma, Thailand, Indonesia, Indo - China and other Central, Eastern and South - East Asian countries. There is a gradual decreasing trend in Eastern element from East to West as it is 24-33% in N.E. India, 23-31% in Southern India (Western and Eastern Ghats), 22% in Central India, 18.6 % in Eastern Rajasthan which further decreases to 8.7% in the West of Aravalli in desert areas. The probable reasons for it may

?��Pandey, Meena, Padhye and Singhadiya

��

�

�

be the presence of a land connection and the resemblance of plant climate between N.E. India and Malaysian Peninsula. The absences of any marked barrier in the West of Eastern India fascilitates its migration in further westwards direction. However, increase temperatures and low rainfall towards western parts of the country considerably decrease the percentage of settlement of Eastern element. Aravalli range further checks the westwards movements of Indo - Malayan element and as such the percentage of Eastern element decreases from 18.8% in the east of Aravalli to 8.7% in the West of it. The recent rise of Himalaya and Siwalik have also put some check on the invasion of Central and East Asian elements. In last the general element finds third position in Rajasthan i.e. 24.22%. It includes a large number of cosmopolitan plants and exotics introduced mainly from Europe, Mexico. West Indies, East indies, America, Java, China, Japan,

Phillippines, Panama, Cuba, New Granada, Chile, France, Argentina, Brazil, etc.The highest percentage of this element was recorded in S-E part of Rajasthan (41. 82%) and lowest in northern part (17%). The Australian element is very poorly represented in the state. WILD RELATIVES OF CULTIVATED PLANTS In the biodiversity convention, the wild genetic material having potentiality for the improvement of crops and other cultivated plants is considered as important as endemics and threatened and endangered plants.The study offloristic diversity of Rajasthan revealed that for 45 species of crop and other cultivated plants there are about 66 species of wild relatives which may be utilized for exchange of genetic material for the improvement of crop and other cultivated plants in Rajasthan (Singh & Pandey 1996).

Table 4. Important crop plant and their wild relatives.

Sl. No. Name of plant species Wild relatives

1. Abelmoschus esculentus Abelmoschus ficulneus & Abelmoschus manihot

2. Allium cepa Diapcadi serotinum

3. Amaranthus caudatus Amaranthus hybridus, Amaranthus spinosus, Amaranthus tricolor

& Amaranthus viridis

4. Cajanus cajan Atylosia sericea & Atylosia scabaeoides

5. Capsicum annum Capsicum frutescens

6. Carissa congesta Carissa spinarum

7. Carthamus tinctorius Carthamus oxycantha

8. Citrullus lanatus Citrullus colocynthis

9. Clitoria ternatea Clitoria biflora

10. Corchorus capsularis Corchorus aestuans, Corchorus olitorius & Corchorus

trilocularis

11 Cucumis melo Cucumis prophetarum

12. Cucumis sativus Cucumis callosus & Cucumis setosus

13. Curcuma longa Curcuma amada & Curcuma angustifolia

14. Echinochloa frumentacea Echinochloa crus-galli

15. Elusine coracana Elusine indica

16. Ficus carica Ficus palmata & Ficus pumila

17. Hibiscus cannabinius Hibiscus caesius

?�!� Pandey, Meena, Padhye and Singhadiya

��

�

�

18. Lablab purpureus Canavalia ensiformis & Canavalia virosa

19. Luffa acutangula Luffa acutangula var. amara

20. Luffa cylindrica Luffa echinata

21. Medicago sativa Medicago laciniata

22. Momordica charantia Momordica balsamina, Momordica cochinchinensis &

Momordica

dioica

23. Moringa oleifera Moringa concanensis

24. Morus alba Morus indica

25. Murraya paniculata Murraya koenigi

26. Nicotiana tabacum Nicotiana plumbaginifolia

27. Oryza sativa Oryza rufipogon

28. Panicum sumatrense Panicum psilopodium & Digitaria cruciata

29. Pennisetum americanum Pennisetum purpureum

30. Pisum sativum Lathyrus sativus

31. Portulaca pilosa ssp.

grandiflora

Portulaca pilosa ssp. pilosa

32. Saccharum officinarum Saccharum spontaneum

33. Setaria italica Setaria verticillata.

34. Solanum melongena Solanum incanum & Solanum virginianum

35. Sorghum bicolor Sorghum halepense & Sorghum verticilliflorum.

36. Syzygium cumini Syzygium jambos.

37. Talinum paniculatum Talinum portulacifolium

38. Trachyspermum amimi Carum balbocastanum

39. Trichosanthes anguina Trichosanthes cucumerina & Trichosanthes dioica.

40. Trifolium alexandrinum Trifolium resupinatum

41. Trigonella foenum-graecum Trigonella corniculata

42. Vigna dalzelliana Vigna aconitifolia & Vigna umbellata.

43. Vigna radiata Vigna trilobata

44. Zea mays Coix aquatica & Coix gigantea

45. Ziziphus mauritiana Ziziphus oenoplia, Ziziphus rugosa & Ziziphus xylopyrus.

On the basis of occurrence of maximum number of spontaneous hybrids, it may be concluded that cereals and legumes show maximum cytogenitical relationship with wild plants. The diversity in fruits shape, size, pulp, etc. and seed characters in Cucurbitaceous crops also indicate possibilities of natural hybridization and thus

occupy third place. Moreover, 3.7 % of total flora have agri - horticultural potentiality in Rajasthan. The maximum diversity was noted for vegetable types and cereals and millets. Fruiting trees also occupy reputable place, however, fibre yielding plants, species, fodder and oil-seeds

?� �Pandey, Meena, Padhye and Singhadiya

��

�

�

have rather poor cytogenetic affinities with wild forms. RET TAXA AND THEIR CONSERVATION STRATEGIES The present flora of Rajasthan comprises 2090 indigenous and naturalized vascular plant species belonging to 819 genera spread over 159 families and which also includes a solitary species of Gymnosperms (Table -1). The present paper deals with review of 65 depleting plant taxa in Rajasthan including rare,

endangerd and threatened taxa, their present status as per the latest IUCN categories of “threat” along with their probable factors for threat and rarity and scope for conservation in the State (Table -5). 3.15% of endemic flora is present in the State. Total 36 taxa of Angiosperm are endemic to the state. Among the endemics 20 taxa are of specific level, while 16 are of infra - specific level. Out of these 14 taxa alone are presented in the Rajasthan desert.

Table 5. Rare, Endemic and Threatened (Ret) Taxa of Rajasthan.

Sl. No.

Name of plants/Local name

Family Habit

Status Locality Cause of rarity

1 Abelmoschus tuberculatus Pal et Singh var. deltoidefolius Paul & Nayar

Malvaceae Herb/undershrub

Rare & endemic

Rajasthan, Gujarat & M.P.

Loss of habitats.

2 Abutilon bidentatum Hochst. ex A. Rich. var. major (Blatt. & Hallb.) Bhandari “Imarti”

Malvaceae Undershrub Rare & endemic

W. Rajasthan Loss of habitats.

3 A. fruticosum Guill. & Perr. var. chrysocarpa Blatt. & Hallb.

Malvaceae Undershrub Rare & endemic

W. Rajasthan Loss of habitats.

4

Abutilon pakistanicum Jafri & Ali

Malvaceae Undershrub Indetermin-ate

Rajasthan, Maharashtra & Pakistan (Sindh)

Loss of habitats and climate change.

5

Acrachne racemosa (Heyne ex Roem. & Schult.) Ohwi var. sumanensis Agarwal & Purohit

Poaceae Annual grass Rare & endemic

W. Rajasthan (Nagaur Dt.)

Only known from type locality.

6 Alysicarpus monilifer (L.) DC. var. venosa Blatt. & Hallb.

Fabaceae Perennial herb Rare & endemic

W. Rajasthan Loss of habitats and over grazing.

7 Ammannia desertorum Blatt. & Hallb. “Moto – jal – bhangro”

Lythraceae Papillose herb Vulnerable Rajasthan, Gujarat & Pakistan

Loss of habitats, over grazing and urbanization.

8 Anogeissus sericea Brandis var. nummularia King ex Duthie

Combretaceae Small tree Vulnerable Rajasthan, Punjab & Gujarat

Exploitation for commercial uses like fire – wood and timber wood.

9 Anticharis glandulosa Aschers. var. caerulea Blatt. & Hallb.

Scrophulariaceae

Herb Rare & endemic

W. Rajasthan Loss of habitats and over grazing.

10

Apluda blatteri Sur Poaceae Annual grass Endemic Rajasthan (Mt. Abu)

Loss of habitats and over grazing.

11 Aristida royleana Trin. & Rupr.

Poaceae Annual grass Vulnerable N. W. India & Pakistan


??A� Pandey, Meena, Padhye and Singhadiya

��

�

�

(Baluchistan, Sindh)

12 Barleria prionitis L. subsp. prionitis var. dicantha Blatt. & Hallb.

Acanthaceae Undershrub Rare & endemic

Rajasthan Loss of habitats and over grazing.

13

Bonnaya bracteoides Blatt. & Hallb.

Scrophulariaceae

Herb Rare & endemic probably extinct

Rajasthan (Mt. Abu)


14

Brachiaria chennaveeraina Basappa et Muniyamma


Rajasthan (Mt. Abu)


15

Calligonum polygonoides L. “Phog, Phogdo”

Polygonaceae Shrub Vulnerable N. W. Rajasthan, Iran, Syria & Pakistan

Over exploitation for its fire – wood value and flowering buds used as cold drink.

16

Carallumma edulis (Edgew.) Benth. & Hook. f. “Pimpa”

Asclepiadaceae Herbaceous twiner

Vulnerable W. Rajasthan, Gujarat, Punjab & Pakistan


17 Cenchrus prieurii (Kunth) Maire var. scabra Bhandari “Lamba bhurat”


W. Rajasthan Over grazing and loss of habitats.

18 Cenchrus rajasthanensis Kanodia & Nanda


W. Rajasthan & Gujarat

Over grazing and loss of habitats.

19 Citrullus colocynthis (L.) Schard. “Tumbo, Tumba”

Cucurbitaceae Herbaceous creeper

Vulnerable India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Span, Arabia, Africa & W. Asia.

Over exploitation due to its seeds which yield non – edible oil – used variously.

20 Cleome gynandra L. var. nana (Blatt. & Hallb.) Bhandari

Cleomaceae Herb Rare & endemic


Loss of habitats and urbanization.

21 Commiphora wightii (Arn.) Bhandari “Guggal”

Burseraceae Shrub Vulnerable Rajasthan, Gujarat, Arabia & Pakistan

Over exploitation for its gum – resin used in medicines and other perfume industries.

22 Convolvulus auricomus (A. Rich.) Bhandari var. ferruginosus Bhandari

Convolvulaceae Herbaceous creeper

Rare & endemic

W. Rajasthan Loss of habitats and urbanization.

23 Convolvulus blatterii Bhandari

Convolvulaceae Perennial herb Rare & endemic

W. Rajasthan Loss of habitats and urbanization.

24 Convolvulus scindicus Stocks “Kaland”

Convolvulaceae Herb/undershrub

Vulnerable W. Rajasthan & Pakistan

Loss of habitats and urbanization.

25

Cordia crenata Delile “Gundi”

Ebenaceae Tree Endangered

Rajasthan & Gujarat

Over exploitation for its fire – wood.

26 Cullen plicata (Delile) C.H. Stirton “Kapurio”

Fabaceae Herb/undershrub

Vulnerable W. Rajasthan & Kachchh

Over exploitation for its medicinal value.

27 Dicliptera abuenbsis Blatt.

Acanthaceae Herb/undershrub

Rare & endemic probably extinct

Rajasthan (Mt. Abu)

Known from type collection only.

28 Digitaria pinnata (Hochst.) T. Cooke var.


Rajasthan (Jolore Dt.)

Known from type collection only.

??��Pandey, Meena, Padhye and Singhadiya

��

�

�

shettyana Pandey et Vyas 29

Dipcadi erythraeum Webb. & Benth.

Liliaceae Herb Vulnerable W. Rajasthan, Gujarat, Pakistan, Arabia, Egypt & Canary Island

Over grazing and loss of habitats.

30 Echinops rajasthenansis Pandey et Singh

Asteraceae Herb Rare & endemic

W. Rajasthan Known from type collection only.

31 Ephedra ciliata Fisch. & Mey. ex C. A. Mey. “Lana, Suo – phogro”

Gnetaceae Woody twiner Vulnerable W. Rajasthan, Gujarat, Punjab, Syria, Afghanistan & Pakistan

Over exploitation for its fire – wood and loss of habitats.

32 Euphorbia jodhpurensis Blatt. & Hallb.

Euphorbiaceae Herb/undershrub

Vulnerable N.W. Rajasthan, Gujarat & Pakistan

Loss of habitats due to rapid urbanization.

33 Farsetia macrantha Blatt. & Hallb. “Moto hiran chabo”

Brassicaceae Herb/undershrub

Rare & endemic

W. Rajasthan (Barmer Dt.)

Only known from type locality - loss of habitats due to rapid urbanization.

34

Gisekia pharnaceoides L. var. pseudopaniculata Jeffry

Aizoaceae Herb Insufficient- ly known

W. Rajasthan & Africa

Loss of habitats.

35 Ipomoea cairica (L.) Sweet var. semine- glabra (Blatt. & Hallb.) Bhandari

Convolvulaceae Twiner Rare & endemic

W. Rajasthan (Jaisalmer Dt.)

Only known from type collection.

36

Ischaemum kingii Hook. f. Poaceae Annual grass Rare & endemic

Rajasthan (Mt. Abu)

Known only from type collection.

37 Lasiurus sindicus Henr. “Saven ghass”

Poaceae Perennial grass Vulnerable W. Rajasthan & Sindh

Extensively used as fodder grass due to its high nutrient value in the desert.

38

Lemna maxima Blatt. & Hallb.

Lemnaceae Minute, floating aquatic herb

Rare & endemic

W. Rajasthan (Jaisalmer Dt.)


39 Lemna minima Blatt. & Hallb.

Lemnaceae Minute, floating aquatic herb

Rare & endemic

W. Rajasthan (Mt. Abu)


40

Lindernia bracteoides (Blatt. & Hallb.) Mukherjii

Scrophulariaceae

Herb Probably extinct

Rajasthan (Mt. Abu)


41

Luffa hermaphrodita Singh & Bhandari

Cucurbitaceae Climber Rare & endemic

W. Rajasthan Loss of habitats and economic uses.

42 Melhania futtyporensis Munro ex Mast. var. major (Blatt. & Hallb.) Santapau

Sterculiaceae Herb/undershrub

Vulnerable Rajasthan & Gujarat

Loss of Habitats.

43 Melhania magnifolia Blatt. & Hallb.

Sterculiaceae Herb/undershrub

Rare & endemic

Rajasthan Loss of habitat.

44 Merremia rajasthanensis Bhandari

Convolvulaceae Twiner Rare & endemic

W. Rajasthan Loss of habitat.

45 Monsonia heliotropioides (Cav.) Boiss.

Geraniaceae Annual herb Very rare W. Rajasthan Loss of habitat and urbanization.

46

Moringa concanensis Nimmo ex Dalz. & Gibs.

Moringaceae Tree Vulnerable Rajasthan & Gujarat

Loss of habitats and economic uses.

47

Odontanthera varians (Stocks) Mabberley “Dodha”

Asclepiadaceae Herb Indetermina-te

W. Rajasthan, Gujarat, Arabia,

Loss of habitats and exploited for its medicinal value.

???� Pandey, Meena, Padhye and Singhadiya

��

�

�

Bahrin, Iran & Pakistan

48 Oldenlandia clausa Blatt. Rubiaceae Herb Rare & endemic

W. Rajasthan (Mt. Abu)

Loss of habitats.

49

Panicum nehruense Jauhr & Joshi

Poaceae Grass Rare & endemic

W. Rajasthan and Gujarat

Over grazing due to fodder grass.

50 Pavonia arabica Hochst. ex Steud. var. glutinosa Blatt. & Hallb.

Malvaceae Herb Rare & endemic


Loss of habitats and grazing in draught.

51 Pavonia arabica Hochst. ex Steud. var. massuriensis Bhandari

Malvaceae Herb Rare & endemic

W. Rajasthan (Jodhpur Dt.)

Known only from type collection and type locality loss of habitat due to urbanization

52

Psoralia plicata Delile “Jhil”

Fabaceae Undershrub Vulnerable W. Rajasthan, Gujarat & Pakistan

Loss of habitat due to urbanization.

53 Pulicaria rajputanae Blatt. & Hallb.

Asteraceae Herb Rare & endemic


Over grazing and habitats loss.

54 Rosa clinophylla Thory “Gulab”

Rosaceae Shrub Vulnerable Rajasthan (Mt. Abu), Karnataka, W. Bengal & Burma

Loss of habitat due to rapid urbanization.

55 Sida tiagii Bhandari Malvaceae Herb Indetermin-ate

W. Rajasthan & Pakistan

Loss of habitat and over grazing.

56

Strobilanthes hallbergii Blatt.

Acanthaceae Undershrub/shrub

Endemic probably extinct

Rajasthan (Mt. Abu)


57 Tecomella undulata (Sm.) Seem. “ Rohira, Rohido, Desert teak, State flower tree”

Bignoniaceae Tree Vulnerable W. Rajasthan, Gujarat, Punjab, Maharashtra, Arabia & Pakistan

Over exploitation for its timber and medicinal value.

58

Tephrosia collina Sharma var. collina

Fabaceae Herb Rare & endemic

Rajasthan & Gujarat

Loss of habitat and grazing.

59

Tephrosia collina Sharma var. lanuginocarpa

Fabaceae Herb Rare & endemic

Rajasthan & Gujarat

Loss of habitat and grazing.

60 Tephrosia falciformis Ramaswami “Rati – biyani”

Fabaceae Herb Vulnerable Rajasthan, Gujarat & Pakistan

Over grazing and habitats loss.

61 Tribulus rajasthanensis Bhandari & Sharma

Zygophyllaceae Prostrate herb Vulnerable Rajasthan, Gujarat & Pakistan

Over grazing in dry climate.

62

Veronica anagallis – aquatic L. var. bracteosa Blatt. & Hallb.

Scrophulariaceae

Herb Rare & endemic probably extinct

Rajasthan (Mt. Abu)


63

Veronica beccabunga L.

var. attennuata Blatt. &

Hallb.

Scrophulariacea

e

Herb Rare &

endemic

probably

extinct

Rajasthan (Mt.

Abu)

Only known from

type collection.

64 Withania coagulans Solanaceae Undershrub Vulnerable Rajasthan, Habitats loss and

??@�Pandey, Meena, Padhye and Singhadiya

��

�

�

(Stocks) Dunal “Panner

bandh, Panner Patta”

Afghanistan &

Pakistan

used as milk

coagulant and high

medicinal value.

65 Ziziphus truncata Blatt. &

Hallb. “Borti”

Rhamnaceae Shrub/tree Rare &

endemic

W. Rajasthan

& Gujarat

Over exploitation as

fire – wood and as

hedge.

Most of these above endenmic taxa were published between 1918 - 90 and they could not spread widely as expected during such a long time. It is very intresting to note that some of the taxa still confined to type localities and there is no further collection till now they are : Alsicarpus monilifer (L.) DC. var. venosa Blatt. & Hallb., Anticharis glandulosa Aschers. var. caerulea Blatt. & Hallb., Barleria prionitis L. subsp. prionitis var. dicantha Blatt. & Hallb., Brachiaria chennaveeraina Basappa, Cenchrus prieurii (Kunth) Maire var. scabra Bhandari, Convolvulus auricomus (A. Rich.) Bhandari var. ferruginosus Bhandari, Convolvulus blatteri Bhandari, Digitaria pennata (Hochst.) T. Cooke var. shettyana Pandey &Vyas, *Dicliptera abuensis Blatt., Echinops rajasthanense Pandey &Singh, *Farsetia macrantha Blatt. & Hallb., *Hydrilla polysperma Blatt.,*Ipomoea carica (L.) Sweet var. semine-glabra (Blatt. & Hallb.) Bhandari, *Lemna minima Blatt. & Hallb., *Lindernia bracteoides (Blatt. & Hallb.) Mukerjee, Luffa hermaphrodita Singh & Bhandari, Merremia rajasthanensis Bhandari, Oldenlandia clausa Blatt., *Pavonia arabica Hochst. ex Steud. var. massuriensis Bhandari,*Strobilanthus hallberghii Blatt., *Veronica anagallis - aquatica L. var. bracteosa Blatt.. The taxa marked with astrick (*) may be extinct, since their type localities are vanished due to rapid urbanization and repeted searches in near by area and other parts have so far not been collected. The other taxa have a very restricted distribution (Pandey et al., l.c.).The probable reasons for the rarity of these taxa are badly disturbed ecosystem, lower range of adaptibility, grazing, rapid urbanization and climatic factors. The authors therefore, recommend that“Ex -situ” conservation and multiplication of germplasm by biotechnological methods may give desirable results. Emphasis should also be given for the

establishment of National Parks and Sanctuaries, where these can multiply freely. The recent establishment of “Thar Biosphere Reserve” may play a better role in this direction.Thus, there is an urgent need of “Desert Botanic Garden (DBG)” in the heart of desert which may also serve as an intrinsic laboratory of nature for study of phenotypes and genotypes of all species which show some outstanding properties and so also to develop a National Cactarium.

Further, a few of the 19Taxa presumed to be rare and threatened by Pandey, et al. (l.c.) and Singh & Pandey (l.c.) and in Singh & Pandey (Press) were of course, previously confined to Rajasthan which now have a comparatively wide range of adaptation and have migrated eastwards (Gujarat, Punjab, Maharashtra) and west wards (Pakistan, Africa etc.). These taxa are Abelmoschus tuberculatus Pal et Singh var. deltoidefolius Paul & Nayar, Abutilon bidentatum Hochst ex A. Rich. var. major (Blatt. & Hallb.) Bhandari, Abutilon fruticosum Guill & Perr. var. chrysocarpa Blatt. & Hallb., Ammannia desertorum Blatt. & Hallb., Cenchrus rajasthanensis Kanodia & Nanda, Cleome gynandra L. var. nana (Blatt. & Hallb.) Bhandari, Euphorbia jodhpurensis Blatt. & Hallb., Gisekia pharnaceoides L. var. pseudopaniculata Jeffrey, Melhania futteyporensis Munro ex. Mast.var. major (Blatt. & Hallb.) Santapau, M. magnifolia Blatt. & Hallb., Panicum nehruense Jauhr & Joshi, Pavonia arabica Hochst. ex. Steud. var. glutinosa Blatt. & Hallb., Pulicaria rajputanae Blatt. & Hallb., Sida tiagii Bhandari, Tephrosia collina Sharma var. collina Sharma, Tephrosia collina Sharma var. lanuginocarpa Sharma, Tephrosia falciformis Ramaswami, Tribulus rajasthanensis Bhandari and Ziziphus truncata Blatt. & Hallb. Some others are wide, though

??B� Pandey, Meena, Padhye and Singhadiya

��

�

�

important for Rajasthan marked with double asterisk (**) in the list. The danger of extinction of such taxa is rather low. However, the life of these species also may be insured on having a DBG as suggested above.

One of the important cause of threat to some species is their over exploitation for various economic uses in the State has also seriously threatened them viz. (i) Citrullus colocynthis (L.) Schrad. “Tumba, Tumbo, Thumba” The seeds yields a non - edible and volatile oil which has found a reputable place in the soap industry and as a lubricant. In the area its fruits are indiscriminately collected by the local people and the tradesmen of neighbouring states. Since the plant reproduces by seeds and if this practices will continue for a longer period, this species may become endangered. Besides above uses, the dry seeds are also eaten with the flour of “Bajra” during scarcity. The oil cake is eaten by the cattle. The pulp is solid to be of highly medicinal value. It is also a very good soil binder. Its cultivation will not only restrict the danger of its vulnerability, but also play a vital role in the economic development of the state. (ii) Commiphora wightii (Arn.) Bhandari is well known for its gum-resin called ”Guggal” is not only being tapped for extraction of resin in unscientific manner but also the chemical are applied on incisions to obtain more and more yield on commercial scale, which finally lead to death of plant. The gum-resin is used in perfumes and pharmaceutical industries. The wood is also used as fire-wood. The other factors responsible for depleting population is climatic changes which retarded the growth and seed production in its entire range of distribution (Singh, l.c.). (iii) Epedra ciliata Fisch. & Mey. ex Mey. The solitary living indigenous Gymnosperm in the desert, is on the verge of vulnerability. It is being used as fire-wood on large scale.The collections in different herbaria revealed that the number of female plants is rather low in this area, lead inadequate reproductive mechanism may also be one of the reasons for its rarity.Hence its

population have shrunk to a great extent in its entire range of distribution from India to Syria. (iv) Tecomella undulata (Sm.) Seem. popularly known as “Marwar teak, Rohiro, Rohira, Desert teak” is the main source of timber in the desert. It is also a “State flower tree” in Rajasthan. Obsevations have reveald that its regeneration capacity is also very low; once the plant is cut, it is cut forever. Under such conditions, the survival of this taxon is also unlikely, if such factors will continue operating. Thus maximum afforestation of such an economically important tree is most essential to balance the ecosystem in the state. (v) Calligonum polygonoides L. locally called “Phog, Phogro” extensively used as fire-wood in the desert. Its flower buds are also used with curd as a cold drink in summers. Its present population under depletion if current trend will continue. These practices should immediately stopped and some other alternative sources of fire-wood should be introduced in the area. (vi) Cordia crenata Delile “Gundi, Gundia” It is considered as an endangered species at present (Pandey & Teotia, 2000). This may perhaps be due to its edible fruits besides its use as fire-wood. However, individuals of the species reported from Gujarat also (Gaina, 2010). (vii) Lasiurus sindicus Henr. It is a common fodder grass in the desert, but due to uncontroled grazing and loss of natural habitats and irrigation by Indra Gandhi Canal Project.The grass species may depleted at a critical stage. Hence, immediate steps should be taken to develop pastureland and grassland for the use of this species in scientific manner. ECONOMICALLY IMPORTANT PLANTS The flora of Rajasthan comprising many economically useful and medicinally important plants whose proper scientific management and exploitation can lead to economic development and upliftment of the area. The study of such plants in desert and Rajasthan has drawn the attention of several workers. However, Singh & Pandey (l.c.) may be referred for this, where they dealt with viz. food

Pandey, Meena, Padhye and Singhadiya ??C�

��

�

�

plants, non-edible oil, gum-resin, Tanin, dye, fibre, timber, fire - wood and medicinal plants. Over exploitation of some of these plants has already been discussed above, which if not be checked will lead depletion of local plant resources. While rest also should be exploited in a sustainable manner shall keep the diversity of the state enriched. Different uses of plants and their total number are as under: (i) Food plants 65 spp. (ii) Non-edible oil 11 spp. (iii) Gum-resin 7 spp. (iv) Tanin 10 spp. (v) Dye 12 spp. (vi) Fibre 29 spp. (vii) Timber 34 spp. (viii) Fire - wood 26 spp. (ix) Medicinal plant 668 spp. (x) Miscellaneous use 20 spp.(Singh & Pandey, l.c.). THE IMPACT OF CANAL IRRIGATION Prior to the construction of the Ganga canal which was formerly opened in October 1957 in Ganganagar district, the entire district was nearly barren of vegetation like the rest of the Great Indian desert. The extensive facilities provided by the Ganga, Bhankra and Indra Gandhi canal Project have transformed a vast stretch of arid land into cultivated fields, opening scope for the invasion of the area by many weeds (Dawre et al., 1981; Dhillon & Bajwa, 1972). Singh and his team has done lot of work on the impact of canal irrigation on the natural flora of N. Rajasthan. A preliminary study on the impact of canal irrigation on the flora of Rajasthan desert has also been done by Roy & Shetty (1980). Above studies are restricted to Ganganagar, Bikaner and Churu district in Rajasthan. But ICNP now irrigating quite a lot of area in Barmer and Jaisalmer district and also providing drinking water to many districts like Jodhpur, Nagaur and Pali. On the basis of above studies and floristic survey of N.W. Rajasthan (Ganganagar, Bikaner, Jaisalmer, Barmer and Churu districts) by the Scientists of BSI, Arid Zone Regional Centre, Jodhpur also listed 106 species invaded in the irrigated areas of N.W Rajasthan from the neighbouring states, viz. Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir through canal water. The irrigation by a net-work of canal system over last 50 years or so in Ganganagar district has changed 21% of the species of the natural flora,whereas, in Bikaner the change is 12% and same is the fate for Churu district. Now on the basis of above observation

in near future the fate for Barmer, Jaisalmer, Jodhpur and Nagaur district will be same. The most striking example of this naturalization of Himalayan plants in the Rajasthan desert are species of Riccia, Marchantia and Ophioglossum vulgatum L.(Singh & Brar, l.c.) which are quite common in canal irrigated areas. Some other vascular plants are from temperate Himalayan plants such as Ammi majus, Arenaria serpyllifolia, Astragalus submbellatus, Astragalus tribuloides, Cichorium intybus, Cotula anthemoides, Verbascum Thapsus, etc. Salvia anthelmifolia, Plantago amplexicaulis, Pouzolzia pentandra. Further, protracted irrigation has brought about so much amelioration in the climate that it is already supporting laxurient growth of such woody forms of humid tropics viz. Bambusa sps., many other tree species such as Dalbergia sissoo, Cordia dichotoma, Jacaranda mimosefolia, Kigelia pinnata, Emblica officinalis and many species of Ficus, Morus, Phoenix and Citrus are growing well in the area (Singh, l.c.).

Many of the common species of unirrigated desert which originally available in the area have disappeared due to irrigation facilities and most probably due to losing competion against new extrants. Though irrigation has affected the water content and texture of soil substantially, which lead luxurient growth of vegetation in the area. Due to large scale irrigation facilities extensive areas in cultivation and all natural pockets of flora and wastelands have become scarce, wild and natural species can only grow as weed with the crop, which ultimately removed by the farmers.This lead reduction in natural flora in the area. However, whatever might be the factors responsible for the change of the natural flora, they are all consequent to the introduction of irrigation facilities in the area. The following are the species introduced in the area through canal water: 1. Ranunculus cantonensis DC. 2. Ranunculus sceleratus L. 3. Argemone ochroleuca Sweet subsp. ochroleuca 4. Dilophia salsa Thoms. 5. Malcolmia africana R.Br. 6. Hypecoum procumbens L. 7. Oligomeris linifolia (Vahl) Macbride

??�� Pandey, Meena, Padhye and Singhadiya

��

�

�

8. Astragalus subumbellatus Klotzsch 9. Astragalus tribuloides Del. 10. Lotus corniculata L. 11. Medicago minima Lam. 12. Medicago lupulina L. 13. Trigonella hamosa L. 14. Trigonella pubescens Edgew. 15. Trifolium alexandrinum L. 16. Myriophyllum spathulatum Blatt. et Hallb. 17. Myriophyllum spicatum L. 18. Anethum graveolens L. 19. Ammi majus L. 20. Apium graveolens L. 21. Centella asiatica (L.) Urban 22. Oenanthe javanica (Bl.) DC. 23. Psammogeton canescens (DC.) Vatke 24. Trachyspermum ammi (L.) Sprangue 25. Ammannia auriculata Willd. 26. Ageratum haustonianum Mill. 27. Carthamus oxycantha Beib. 28. Cichorium intybus L. 29. Cirsium wallichii DC. 30. Conyza bonariensis (L.) Cronq. 31. Cotula anthemoides L. 32. Lactuca scariola L. 33. Parthenium hysterophorus L. 34. Solbia anthemoides (Juss.) R. Br. 35. Verbesina encelioides (Cav.) Benth. & Hook.f. ex A. Gray 36. Schenoclea zeylanica Gaertn. 37. Gastrocotyle hispida (Forssk.) Bunge 38. Heliotropium bacciferum Forssk. 39. Heliotropium currasavicum L. 40. Cuscuta capitata Roxb. 41. Lycium europaeum L. 42. Antirrhinum orontium L. 43. Majus pumilus (Burm.f.) Steenis 44. Verbascum thapsus L. 45. Orobanche aegyptiaca Pers. 46. Pedalium murex L. 47. Verbena tenuisecta Briq. 48. Utricularia inflexa Forssk. 49. Plantago amplexicaulis Cav. 50. Kochia indica Wt. 51. Amaranthus graecizans L. 52. Amaranthus tricolor L. 53. Polygonum glabrum Willd. 54. Polygonum lanigerum R. Br. 55. Chrozophora hierosolymitana Spreng. 56. Chrozophora oblongifolia (Del.) A. Juss. 57. Chrozophora prostrata Dalz.

58. Euphorbia helioscopia L. 59. Euphorbia parviflora L. 60. Euphorbia serpens H. B. E. 61. Pouzolzia pentandra (Roxb.) Benn. 62. Ficus palmata Forssk. 63. Lemna trisulca L. 64. Zeuxine strateumatica (L.) Schlecht. 65. Carex fedia Nees 66. Cyperus alopecuroides Rottb. 67. Cyperus brevifolius (Rottb.) Hassk. 68. Cyperus exaltatus Retz. 69. Eleocharis dulcis (Burm,f, )Trin ex Hensch. 70. Fimbristylis dyphylla (Retz.) Vahl 71. Fimbristylis schoenoides (Retz.) Vahl 72. Fimbristylis woodrowii C.B. Clarke 73. Mariscus squarrosus (L.) C.B. Clarke 74. Pycreus polystachyus P. Beauv. 75. Scirpus tuberosus Desf. 76. Arundinella pumila (Hochst. ex Rich.) Steud. 77. Avena sterlis L. var. culta Raizada 78. Bothriochloa inculpta (Hochst. ex Rich.) A. Camus. 79. Arundo donax L. 80. Catabrosa aquatiac (L.) P. Beauv. 81. Crypsis schoenoides (L.) Lam. 82. Dichanthium odoratum (Lisboa) Jain 83. Digitaria bicornis (Lam.) Roem. 84. Digitaria stricta Roth ex Roem. 85. Dendrocalamus strictus (Roxb.) Nees 86. Dinebra retroflexa (Vahl) Panz. 87. Diplachne fusca (L.) P. Beauv. 88. Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. 89. Elytrophorus spicatus (Willd.) A. Camus 90. Eragrostis japonica (Thunb.) Trin. 91. Eragrostis nutans (Retz.) Nees ex Steud. 92. Erianthus ravennae (L.) P. Beauv. 93. Leptochloa chinensis (L.) Nees 94. Lolium temulentum L. 95. Panicum maximum Jacq. 96. Panicum miliaceum L. 97. Panicum psilopodium Trin 98. Panicum repens L. 99. Panicum walense Mez. 100. Phalaris minor Retz. 101. Polypogon monspeliensis (L.) Desf. 102. Setaria homonyma (Steud.) Chiov. 103. Sporobolus indicus R.Br. 104. Sporobolus ioclados (Nees ex Trin.) Nees 105. Stipagrostis plumosa (L.) Munro ex T. Anders. 106. Tripogon jacquemontii Stapf.

??��

Pandey, Meena, Padhye and Singhadiya ??��

��

�

�

??!� Pandey, Meena, Padhye and Singhadiya

��

�

�

��

?? �Pandey, Meena, Padhye and Singhadiya

��

�

�

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors are thankful to Dr. P. Singh, Director, Botanical Survey of India, Kolkata for the facilities and encouragement during the course of present study. The authors are also thankful to Dr. V. Singh, Ex-Additional Director, Botanical Survey of India, Jodhpur for going through the manuscript and various suggestions. REFERENCES Dawre, M.S., Pandey, R.P., Roy, G.P. and

Shetty, B.V. (1981). A contribution towards the flora of Ganganagar district. Bull. Bot. Surv. India. 21(1-4): 129-134.

Dhillon, K.B.S. and Bajwa, P.S. (1972). Acontribution to the botany of Ganganagar district, north Rajasthan. Bull. Bot.. Surv. India. 11: 234 -244.

IUCN. (1970). Problems of threatened species. IUCN. Publ., New Delhi. Ser. 18: p.132.

Jain, S.K. and Shastry, A.R.K. (1980). Threatened plants of India: A state of the art report. BSI, Calcutta.

Jain, S.K. and Shastry, A.R.K. (Eds.). (1984). The Indian plant Red data Book - I. BSI, Calcutta.

Mondal, M.S. (1991). ‘Massuria hill’ A type locality at Jodhpur, Rajasthan. J. Nat. Bot. Soc. 45: 31-34.

Nayar, M.P. and Shastry, A.R.K. (Eds.). (1987-89). Red data Book. Vol. 1-3, BSI, Calcutta.

Pandey, R.P. (1983). Rastriya Maru Udhyan avem Marusthasl main Podhon ko surakshit Rakhane ki sambhvnayan. Bharat ki Vanaspati. (Sanklan avem sampadan S.K. Jain & V.N. Mundal) 115-163. BSI Calcutta (in Hindi).

Pandey, R.P., Shetty, B.V. and Malhotra, S.K. (1983). A preliminary census of rare and threatened plants of Rajasthan. An assessment of threatened plants of India (Eds. S.K. Jain & R.R. Rao). pp.55-62.

Pandey, R.P. and Malhotra, S.K. (1985). Rare and threatened plants of Rajasthan. Proc. Nat. Symp. Evaluat. Environ. Zoology

Department, J.N.V. University. Geobios. 238-241.

Pandey, R.P. and Priyanku, T. (2000). Cordia crenata Delile subsp. crenata - a taxon almost extinct in wild. Ind. Journ. For. 23(1): 129-134.

Roy, G.P. and Shetty, B.V. (1980). The impact of canal irrigation on the flora of Rajasthan desert. In Arid zone Research & Development (Ed. H.S. Mann). pp.183-189. CAZRI, Jodhpur.

Sharma, S. 1983. A census of rare and endemic flora of S.E. Rajasthan. An assessment of threatened plants of India (Eds. S.K. Jain & R.R. Rao). pp.63-70.

Shetty, B.V. and Singh, V. (1987, 91, 93). Flora of Rajasthan Vol. I, II & III. Botanical Survey of India, Kolkata.

Singh, N.P. and Pandey, R.P. (1997). Depleting plant resources in the Rajasthan desert. Bull. Bot. Surv. India. 36(1-4): 47-60.

Singh, N.P. and Pandey, R.P. (in press). Conservation of plant diversity in Rajasthan status report on conservation of bio-diversity. Ministry of Environment & Forest, New Delhi

Singh, V. (1977). Phytogeographical reassessment on the Flora of Rajashan. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 74: 444-451.

Singh, V. (1985). Threatened taxa and scope for conservation in Rajasthan. J. Econ. Tax. Bot. 7:573-577.

Singh, V. and Pandey, R.P. (1984). Arid zone: in Bharat ki Vanaspatic vividhta (in Hindi, Eds. V.N. Mudgal & P.K. Hajara). pp.115-127.

Singh, V. and Pandey, R.P. (1996). An assessment of wild relatives of cultivated plants in Indian Desert and their conservation. In Scientific Horticulture (Ed. S.P. Singh), Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur. 5: 155-162.

Singh, V. and Pandey, R.P. (1998). Phytodiversity of Rajasthan. In: Floristic studies and conservation strategies in India (Eds. N. Mudgal & P.K.Hajara). BSI, Calcutta. 3: 1383-1418.

?@A� Pandey, Meena, Padhye and Singhadiya

��

�

�

INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS AIM AND SCOPE

Biological Forum–An International Journal is efforts to motivate the scholars and researchers towards the scientific attitude. It is biannual journal and invites original work in the following field i.e. Taxonomy, Microbiology, Biochemistry, Biotechnology, Genetics, Genomics, Cell Biology, Molecular Biology, Mycology, Toxicology, Ichthyology, Entomology, Limnology, Marine Science, Nematology, Ecology, Biodiversity, Environmental Science, Forestry, Soil Sciences, Agriculture, Ethnobotany and Bioinformatics. Article can be research papers, review papers, or short communications. Research papers should be Original, indicating the period (years) of experimentation, based on data of minimum two years and for full research paper work must not be of more than 5 years old. The review papers, research papers, and short communications should not exceed 30, 20 and 5 typed pages including tables, illustrations, drawings and graphs. Authors are required to sign a copyright form granting the Publisher rights for all papers accepted for publication. Production will not start until we have received of a signed copyright form.

Title and authors names and address must be given in the front page. This must be followed by the abstract on separate page. Thereafter, material and method, results and discussion, acknowledgements, references. Tables, photographs and all figures including drawings, graphics, and diagrams must be attached after the references. Title: should be short, specific and informative. The title page should include the names (s) of author(s), affiliation, and mailing address with e-mail of corresponding author, a running short title not exceeding 40 characters. By-line should contain the place (organization) where research was conducted. Key words: Atleast 5 to 10 words. Abstract: written in complete and simple sentence, should not be more than 150 words. Key words (maximum 7) must be given, and these should appear just beneath the abstract. Introduction: part should be brief and limited to the problem or the aim and scope of the experiment. Material and Methods: relevant details should be given including experimental design and the technique (s) used along

with appropriate statistical methods used clearly along with the year of experimentation (field and laboratory). Results and Discussion: should be combined to avoid repetitions. Result should be supported by brief but advocate tables or graphic or pictorial presentation wherever necessary. All recent relevant literature should be discussed critically. All figures including drawings, graphics, and diagrams should be formatted preferably by MS-Word. If drawn in Excel the data file may also be submitted along with graphs. Scanned images of photographs must be in minimum 300dpi resolution softcopy in. tiff or .jpeg and hardcopy should be submitted. A line drawing and photographs must have legends. Original artwork should accompany two copies. Repetition in graphic and tabular matter ought to be avoided. References: The style quoting should be as follows Research article: Grochulski, P., Masson, L., Borisova, S., Pusztai, M.C., Schwarta, J.L., Brousseau, R. and Cygler, M. (1995). Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1A (a) insecticidal toxin: Crystal structure and channel formation. Journal of Molecular Biology. 254(2):447-464. Proceedings/Seminar/Conference papers: Estruch, J., Warren, G.W., Mullins, M.A., Nye, G.J., Craig, J.A. and Joziel, H.G. (1996). Transgenic Plants: An emerging approach to pest control. In: Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, 1995, USA, 93: 5369-5395. Book and Chapters: Winston, J.E. (1999). Describing Species. Columbia University Press, New York. 518pp. Stork, N. (1997). Measuring Global Biodiversity and its Decline (Eds. Reakakudla, M.L., Wilson, D.E. and Wilson, E.O.) Biodiversity II, Joseph Henry Press, Washington DC. pp.41-68

Articles should be computer-typed (Times New Roman), double spaced throughout on A-4 papers, and must be sent in triplicate along with a virus-free CD (MS Word). British spelling should be followed. All queries marked in the annotated MS by editor/ reviewer (s) must be replied and returned back promptly. In case of an article having more than one author, the entire correspondence regarding article will be made with correspondence author. Editorial board reserves the right to condense or make necessary alterations in the manuscript. All the authors should be member of Journal.

� �

�

�

�

Biological Forum

��

ISSN (Print): 0975-1130 ISSN (Online): 2249-3239�

Editorial Boards assumes no responsibility for the statements, opinions and subject matter advanced by�

Subscription Rates/Membership: Individual: Rs. 800/- (1 Year) Rs. 1200/- (2 Years) Rs. 1500/- (3 Years) Institutional / Libraries: Rs. 1200/- (1 Year) Rs. 1800/- (2 Years) Rs. 2500/- (3 Years) Foreign countries: US$150 (for 1 Year) Manuscript and all other correspondence should be addressed to: Dr. DHEERAJ VASU, Managing Editor “SATYA PRAKASHAN” 16/7698, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, Behind Liberty Cinema, New Delhi-110 005 (INDIA) Mob. 09868001440; 09039917230. E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Website: www.researchtrend.net �

��

�

�

Documents

Biological Forum-An International Journal, Spl. Iss. 4(1) (2012)