Analyses of plant diversity in a sacred grove of Puddukottai ...

© 2018 IJRAR December 2018, Volume 5, Issue 4 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)

IJRAR1944443 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 433

Analyses of plant diversity in a sacred grove of

Puddukottai District, Tamil Nadu, India

Dhanasekar S1*, Muthukumar B2*, Soosairaj S3*

1. GUEST LECTURER, PG & RESEARCH DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY, ARIGNAR ANNA GOVT. ARTS COLLEGE, MUSIRI, TAMILNADU, INDIA.

2. ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, PG & RESEARCH DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY, NATIONAL COLLEGE, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI, TAMILNADU, INDIA

3. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,. PG & RESEARCH DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY, ST JOSEPH’S COLLEGE, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI, TAMILNADU, INDIA

ABSTRACT

Assessment on the plant diversity in Kanadukathaan sacred grove near Naratharmalai in the Pudukottai district of Tamil Nadu,

India, was carried out during 2015 – 2016. In the study, a total of 113 plant species were recorded belonged to 100 genera distributed

among 54 families, in which 2 families are vascular cryptogams (Pteridophyta) and 1 family was non – vascular cryptogams (Bryophyta)

and all other families are Angiosperms. Fabaceae (10 species) is a dominant family followed by Rubiaceae (8 species), Euphorbiaceae (6

species) and 4 species each from Malvaceae and Poaceae. The diversity indices namely Shannon – Weiner index, Simpson index, evenness

index, etc., were analysed. Among the total species, two species were in vulnerable condition in regard to red data book.

KEY WORDS: Sacred groves, Cryptogams, Angiosperms, Diversity indices, RED data book

INTRODUCTION

Classification is an essential process in our daily

lives and a necessary tool for our survival. For example we

need to know which plants, animals and fungi are useful and

are poisonous or dangerous (Kushwah and Kumar, 2000). As

defined at the Rio-convention (1992), Biological diversity

(Biodiversity) means “the variability among living organisms

from all sources including inter alia, terrestrial, marine and

other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of

which they are part” .This includes diversity within species,

between species and ecosystems.

India is rich in biodiversity at ecosystems and

species level and ranks sixth among 12 mega biodiversity

countries in world. Out of 1.7 million globally described

species, India possesses 49,219 species of flora and 81,251

species of fauna. This represents about 7% of world species

(Kotwal,1997).Forests are very complex and genetic

composition in their relation with biotic environment

(Fanta,1998).Forests still cover about 25% of the world but

this area is shrinking at the rate of 11.3 million hectares per

year (FAO,1999).

Many parts of the globe are constantly losing

organisms through pollution, loss of natural habitats and

environmental degradation due to human over population.

The conservation of biodiversity is a vast undertaking

requiring the globalisation of existing knowledge and new

information on the monitoring and management of

biodiversity on an unprecedented scale (Smith et al., 1993).

The different ways in which human influence affect

biodiversity at all its different levels are considered beneath

five headings:

i. Agriculture, forestry and fisheries and the

over harvesting of resources.

ii. Habitat destruction, conversion,

fragmentation and degradation.

iii. Introduction of exotic or invasive or

organisms and diseases.



iv. Pollution of soil, water and atmosphere.

v. Global change.

The degradation of tropical forests and destruction

of habitat due to anthropogenic activities are the major

causes of decline in the global biodiversity. Therefore in

many areas the reconstruction of a disturbed ecosystem is

being taken upon a priority basis, both for biodiversity

conservation and for maintaining landscape productivity

(Solbrig, 1991).

The indigenous communities still practice some

cultural linkages between social and biophysical ecosystems.

They have not co-evolved with surrounding environmental

conditions but also they have maintained it in a diverse and

productive state on the basis of traditional practices and

beliefs (Chandra Prakash Kala, 2011).

SACRED GROVES

Many traditional conservation practices of

indigenous people in many parts of the world such as

protection of small forest patches by dedicating them to the

local deity, also contributed to the conservation and

protection of biodiversity such forests patches called sacred

groves. Sacred groves are tracts of virgin forest harbouring

rich biodiversity, protected by the local people based on their

indigenous cultural and religious beliefs and taboos. Sacred

groves are patches of natural vegetation surviving in the man

modified landscapes (Jayapalet al., 2014).

Such traditional practices have been invariably operating in

different parts of India (Anthwalet al., 2006). Sacred groves

are the tracts of virgin forest that were left untouched by

local inhabitants, sometime women are not allowed enter

them, harbour rich biodiversity and are protected by the local

people due to their beliefs and taboos that the idols reside in

them (Gadgil and Vartak,1975; Khiewtam and

Ramakrishnan,1989).

In India over 13,720 sacred groves have been

enlisted that exist across diverse topography and climatic

conditions from down south to north however, the actual

number is thought to be much larger than that (Chandra

Prakash Kala, 2011).

The sacred groves of Tamilnadu are a part of the

local folklore and religion. Every village may have a grove, a

protected area associate with local folk deities of obscure

origin. Amman or the mother goddess enshrined in one of

her many synonymatic forms as Kali, Mari, Pidari, Ellaikali,

etc. in fulfilment of prayers for a good harvest or good

health. The people of the village make votive offerings of

terracotta horses, bulls or elephants to Ayyanar, the mythical

watchman of the village whose statue is also consecrated in

the groves.

Sacred groves are important, not only because they

are sacred, but values of for reaching importance are implicit

them. The scientific economical social and spiritual values in

them will have to explicit. The vegetation in undisturbed

groves is luxuriant and comprises several stories of trees

mixed with shrubs, lianas and herbs. The soil is rich in

humus and covered with thick litter (AnishBabuet al., 2014).



Sacred groves are the treasure house of rare and

endangered species of animals and abode of many medicinal,

endemic, endangered and economically important plants.

The ponds and streams adjoining groves are perennial

sources of water. Many animals and birds resort to them for

their water requirements during summer. Traditionally, some

gender issues were associated with the sacred groves,

especially with respect to collection and use of resources.

Before entering the sacred grove women were adviced to

take bath. During monthly menstruation women were strictly

prohibited going inside the sacred groves, as there was a

strong belief that it might defiled her or the deities living in

the sacred grove. The villagers generally performed the

purifying ritual of deceased family at tenth days of the death

of the person. People strictly followed these customary

norms in view of their own welfare as well as their deities

and society.

The present study aims

1. To analyse the species diversity of trees, shrubs

and Herbs in of 0.1 ha area.

2. Important value index analysis of the plant

species observed in this sacred grove along

with relative frequency, density and

abundance.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Human beings depend on biological resources of

food, energy, construction materials, medicine, inspiration

and besides much else, biological resources have the critical

character of being renewable, so with proper management

they can be used sustainably (Mc Neely et al., 1990).

Amongst them forest biodiversity is a part of our daily life

and livelihood and constitutes the resources upon which

society, nations and future generations depend. Yet by our

heedless actions we are eroding this biological capital at an

alarming rate (Kushwah and Kumar, 2000).

Human activity has accelerated the extinction of

species in recent centuries. Between 1600 and 1950, the rate

of extinction went one species every 10 years. Currently it

is perhaps one species every year. So although these trends

are useful indicators, they may not reflect what is happening

to diversity as a whole. There is now an agreement among

scientists that species are disappearing at rate for than

previously believed and that reduction of the richest habitats

is putting the world on the threshold of another mass

extinction, this time created by man (Meyers, 1986).

The most important of all vegetation on earth, the

tropical forest cover only 11% of the land surface, yet hold

at least half of the world’s species, most of them neither

named not studied. Tropical forest originally covered 16

million km2 of intact primary forests (Lanly, 1982). This

rate is alarming and we need to focus our attention at the

species level assessing biodiversity for conservation

planning. In some communities biodiversity measures may

be expressed by the number of species, but in others by the

number of genera and families, However, William et al.,

(1994) found a very close relationship between the number

of species present in 0.1 ha plots and the number of species

present. These authors point out that complete count of

organisms are impractical at present and that solutions are

needed at present and that indirect solutions are needed that

are both cheap and quick.



Indian subcontinent has the unique distinction of

having one of the richest floral diversity (17,000 species).

India has a vast stretch of forest covering about 76.52

million has as recorded forest. In terms of legal status,

forest in India is classified into reserved, protected and un-

classed which constitute about 54.44, 29.18 and 16.38

percent of the total recorded area respectively.

(Udayalakshmi et al., 1998).

Sampling of the forest area concerned has been

carried out on varied scales depend upon the terrain and

finally it is found that one hectare plots are deal to sample

floristic composition in many types of tropical forest

(Campbell, 1989). Many pioneering studies have been

carried out by ecologists and scientists worldwide adopting

the measure described above. Still more dealing with

species richness and floristic composition in four hectares in

central Amazonia were inventoried for all trees with

diameter at breast height (DBH) with girth to 10cm or

greater by Ferreira and Prance (1998). A different pertaining

to tree population in low diversity forest, i.e Guyana

(Johnston, 1998) stressed on the distribution and abundance

of non-timber forest produce. The trees in the area

(diameter greater than 10 cm) were assessed.

At a broader scale, spatial distribution patterns of

tropical trees may be determined by gradients in resource

availability. Patterns in tropical forest community

composition were first documented in 1960s (Ashton, 1964)

and now have been shown to reflect differences in the

availability of either water (Newbery et al, 1996) or

nutrients (Baillie et al., 1987).

Still there are certain patches of forests small and

large conserved by the local people such nature conservation

practices are very ancient tradition in India. Useful

biodiversity species have much reverence in culture of our

country. Sacred groves are a group of trees or a patch of

vegetation protected by the local people through religions

and cultural practices evolved to minimize destruction

(Israel et.al., 1997).

Sacred groves are seen throughout India, having

varied forms, cultural practices and belief systems. The

vegetation in the groves is highly varied viz. mangroves,

fresh water swamps or other tropical forest types. Sacred

groves represent long tradition of environmental

conservation based on indigenous knowledge by the tribal

communities (Patel and Patel, 2013).

In India sacred groves are known by several names

kavunagakavu or sarppakavu in kerala, deorais or deobam in

Maharashtra, orans or kenkri in Rajasthan, devarkadu or

sindharavana in Karnataka, sarana in Bihar and koilkadu or

koilpathai in Tamilnadu. However, such sacred groves are

not restricted to India alone. They are also found in Afro-

Asian countries like Ghana, Syria, Nigeria and Turkey

(Bijukumar, 1998).

Traditional knowledge is collectively owned

property and is integral to the cultural or spiritual identity of

the social group in which it operates and is preserved. In

traditional societies, sustainable natural resource

management is driven by the beliefs and behaviour of

human communities and local cultures are strengthened by

the intimate connections to the natural environment to

sustain those (Rist et al., 2003).



The UNESCO – MAB biosphere reserve concept

clearly recognize the importance of sacred sitter. Sacred

groves are places in counteract of sustainable utilization and

development of natural resources. These groves conserve

valuable biodiversity and are protected by the local

community for centuries on the basis of cultural, religious

and spiritual beliefs and taboos that the deities reside in

them and protect the villages from different calamites (Khan

et al., 2008).

The sacred groves are thought to be a rich source of

medical, rare and endemic plants, as refugia for relic flora of

a region and as centres of seed dispersal (Whittaker, 1975;

Jeeva et al; 2007). Haridasan and Rao (1985-87) have

reported some valuable species confined to sacred groves

only. Plant wealth and self-conservation potential of sacred

groves are impressive enough for them to be acknowledged

as ‘mini biosphere reserves’ (Gadgil and Vartak, 1975).

Sacred groves are tracts of virgin forests which are

vestiges of an ancient practice in which people protected the

forest to avoid the wrath of its resident god. These beliefs

were strengthened by bestowing certain taboos / cults,

strong beliefs, supplemented by mystic folklores to it

(Gadgil and Vartak, 1975).

These sacred groves are realizing its role in

conserving biodiversity. Some serious efforts have

conducted in the recent past to documents, inventory and

map of their distribution across the country, etc. Sacred

groves need to be urgently inventoried and mapped to

document their precise locations and conservation status

across country (Harsh Singh et al; 2013).

Biodiversity Exploration in Sacred groves:

Visalakshi (1995) made a work on Vegetation

analysis of two tropical dry evergreen forests in Southern

India. In this work the density and the basal area were

greater for Albizia amara and Syzygium cumini in

Marakkanam Reserve Forest (MRF) whereas Puthupet

Sacred Grove (PSG) stand density was greater for

Memecylon umbellatum and basal area was high for

Flacourtia indica.

Debal Deb et al., (1997) explained that sacred

groves harbour not only plant species but host many

avifaunal species too.

Roy Burman, (1998) studied the sacred groves in

India are mostly seen among the Hindu communities. The

Sacred groves are no longer found in their pristine form and

in many areas are fast depleting. Often the gradual lack of

faith in the religion has been described as the reason for

these pathetic conditions. If this trend continues these

vestiges (Sacred Groves) may be wiped out completely.

Muthukumar et al., (2005) made a study on woody

Vegetation structure in a sacred grove of Pudukkottai

district. The inventory area (1ha) yielded a total of 38

woody species (≥gbh) coming together 35 genera and 23

families. Of these 15 species were trees, 15 shrubs and 8

straggler, lianas and vines. Chloroxylon swietenia, Wrightia

tinctoria and Albizzia amara have showed the highest

density values and frequency values.

Skumaran and Jeeva (2008) studied the floristic

richness of the sacred grove of Agatheeshwaram,

Kaniyakumari district. It covers an area 2.6ha. Altogether 98



angiospermic species from 87 genera and 43 families were

enumerated from sacred grove. Of these species 80.6% are

used as medicine, 6.12% have a timber value and 10.20%

are used as minor forest produce by local inhabitants of the

study area. Some rare, endangered and endemic plants are

confined to this grove.

Sulekha Joshi and Shringi, S.K. (2014) made a

work in Jawahar Sagar Sanctuary which is one of the richest

floristic regions of Rajasthan. In this floristic analysis of this

area 422 species of angiosperm plants were documented. In

this study 37 Plants species have been recorded as rare or

endangered plants. Red data categories and present status of

37 Plants are also enumerated. Many of these plants species

have immediate attention for their conservation. This study

also highlight that some are rare or endangered plants

abundantly found in JawaharSahar Sanctuary area. This

study says that sacred groves are refugee of endangered and

endemic plants.

Debabrata Das (2014) studied the diversity index

of the tree as 0.55. The site differs from Khirkul in such a

way that; Khirkul sacred grove with the tree species

diversity value was 0.86. The dominance indices were found

for 0.34 and 0.06 for Singhabahini and Khirkul groves

respectively. Evenness indices were 0.70 and 0.48

respectively for Singhabahini and Khirkul groves

respectively. Richness indices of tree species in two sites

were 2.02 and 4.45 for Singabahini and Khirkul

respectively.

Switzer and Nelson (1972) mentioned as the forest

floor is an important component of forest ecosystems since

it represents a stage in the nutrient transfer of

biogeochemical cycles. A Substantial portion of the annual

nutrient requirements of forest ecosystems are supplied by

the mineralization of organic matter in the forest floor and

soil surface.

Ovington (1961) mentioned much of the energy

and carbon fixed by forest is annually added to the forest

floor through litter fall.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Area

The present diversity study was done in a sacred

grove ordained to Ayannar (as Kanadukathaan) the presiding

deity (Plate-1). The sacred grove is situated in Oorapatti

village which is 12km away from Nartharmalai. Oorapatti

village is lies in Annavasal taluk of Pudukottai district. It is

located within latitudes 10023′00"N to 10049′00" N and

longitudes 78052′00"E to 78080′00" E.

The sacred grove is spread over 10 acres with

KanadukathanAyannarKovil in midst and ValadiyarKovil in

front (Plate-2) with a raised pool of 2 acres in between them.

Inspite of the human activity within its premises, the site is

well protected and conserved since it is revered as sacred.

The temple is taken care by the local Muthuraiyar

community. Women are not entering the grove in all times.

They enter only during the festivals and when they are

providing terracotta as honour to residing god for aspiration

succeeded (Plate -3). A special festival is conducted every

year in the end of the July and in the middle of the August.

The impact of developing community is noticed on the

sacred grove by the occasional garazing of cattle / goat and



also disintegrated by sacrificing cattles. Paddy (Oryza

sativa), Red gram (Cajanu scajan), Ground nut (Arachis

hypogea) etc, are cultivated surrounding the grove. Fishing

in the pool is carried out by some men when they are not get

labouring.

Materials

1. Measuring tape

2. Rope

3. Sickle

4. Paper & Pen

5. Field note book

6. Newspapers to collect unknown specimens.

Methodology

A 0.1 ha area was randomly marked with ropes into

10(10 × 10m) workable quadrats. Within each quadrat all the

individuals of trees, shrubs lianas, stragglers and climbers

girth ≥ 10cm gbh (girth at breast height) were measured

(Plate – 4) and entered in the field note book. Multi-stemmed

individuals were measured separately and added. Three 1 𝑚2

quadrats also studied randomly within each 10 × 10m

quadrats for herbs and are documented in field note book..

Unidentified plants were collected, dried using standard

herbarium techniques and identified. The recorded data were

utilized to calculate the following calculation.

1. Frequency – Proportion of total number of sample

taken that contain the species.

% F = No.of quadrats in which species present

Total no.of quadrats studied × 100

2. Density – Number of individuals expressed per unit

area.

D = No.of individuals of a species

Total no.of quadrats studied

3. Abundance – Total number of individuals of a species

in all quadrats studied.

AB =Total no.of individuals of a species

No.of quadrats in which the species occured

4. Basal area – It is the ground occupied by the

individual (Woody species).

BA = 𝑃2/4𝜋 × 100 × xm2

Where, P = Perimeter (Girth)

𝜋 = 22

7 or 3.14

X = No. of quadrats

5. Relative frequency – The dispersion of species in

relation to that of all the species.

R.F= % frequency of a species

Sum of frequency of all the species×100

6. Relative density – The proportion of density of a

species to that of stand as a whole.

R.D = Density of a species

Sum of density of all the species×100

7. Relative basal area - The proportion of basal area of a

species to that total area of all the species

R.BA = Basal area of a species

Total area of all the species×100

8. Proportion index

Pi = Frequency of the species

Total no.of species

9. Important value Index for woody species

IVI = R.F+R.D+R.BA

10. Important value index for Herbaceous species

IVI = R.F+R.D+R.AB

11. Simpson’s index (λ) = 𝛴Pi2



12. Shannon and Wiener index

H' = -𝛴[(ni/N).Ln(ni/N)]

Where ‘ni’ is the IVI of individual species N is the

total IVI of all the species.

13. Dominance concentration

Concentration of dominance (Cd) of each stand was

calculated as by Simpson (1949).

Cd = 𝛴(ni/N)2

14. Evenness index

Evenness index (E) will be calculated according to

Pielou (1966).

E = H/log S

Where, S = Number of species

H' =Shannon index

15. Species Richness index (Margalef, 1958).

D = S-1 /log N.

Where, S = Number of species, N=Important value

index.

16. Stand density = Total number of individuals

17. Stand basal area = 𝛴 of all BA of all the species.

18. AB/% F ratio,

Distribution of species is regular if the ratio is 0.025,

Random if between 0.025 and 0.05 and contagious if

>0.05 by Curtis and Cottam, 1956.

Soil sampling

The soil factor too was analysed as the soil is one

of the factor to influence the plant community structure.

Two samples were collected at two different localities in the

sacred grove. The top layer (around 5cm deep) was

removed and 30cm pits were made and 250 g of soil

samples were collected by scrapping around the pits. The

samples were analysed for N, P, K and electrical

conductivity (EC) at the government soil testing laboratory

in Trichy.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The data collected during the field sampling are

tabulated and consolidated separately for trees, Shrubs and

Herbs. Lianas, vines and straggler which are with Shrubs,

Bryophytes (Riccia sp.), Pteridophytes (Hemionitis arifolia

and Marselia quadrifolia Plate – 4) are included with

herbaceous species (Tables- 1to4).

In the present study of 113 species were recorded

belonging to 100 genera distributed among 54 families, in

which 2 families were vascular cryptogams (Pteridophytes)

and one family was belongs to non-vascular cryptogam

plants (Bryophytes). All other 51 families belong to the

angiosperms. The present study showed more number of

plant species than the phyto-sociological and ethnobotanical

studies of sacred groves, in Pudukottai district, Tamilnadu

India (Vinoth-Kumar et al., 2011). Among them, Fabaceae

(10 sps.) is a dominant family followed by Rubiaceae (8

sps.), Euphorbiaceae (6 sps.), Poaceae and Malvaceae (4

sps. each), Amaranthaceae, Asteraceae, Convolvulaceae,

Lamiaceae, Liliaceae, Rutaceae, Boraginaceae,

Asclepediaceae and Acanthaceae (3 sps. each),

Apocyanaceae, Menispermaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Arecaceae,

Capparaceae, Moraceae, Verbenaceae, Oleaceae, Aizoaceae

and Rhamnaceae (2 sps. each).

The remaining families contribute a single species

each. This study shows about 22 tree species, 25 shrub

species and 88 herbaceous species (together with saplings of



trees, shrubs, Lianas, straggler and climbers). This number

of individual is relatively equal when compare to the

floristic composition on the selected sacred groves of

Perambalur district (Ravikumar et al, 2014).

GIRTH CLASS-WISE DIVERSITY AND DENSITY OF

TREE AND SHRUB SPECIES

Species richness, stand density and diversity

indices consistently decreased with increasing size girth

classes of tree and shrub species from 10cm to 560cm. from

the total stands of 109 tree species 59 species have 10 to 50

cm girth class (54.13%), 24 species with 50 to 100 cm girth

class (22.02%), 4 species with 100 to 150 cm girth class

(3.67%), 7 species with 200 to 250 cm girth class (6.42%)

and 12 species with above 250 cm girth (11.01%). But the

shrub species have 160 total stands of which 152 species

have 10-50 cm girth class which was 95% of the total stand,

7species with 50-100 girth class i.e. 4.375 percent and a

single species within the girth class 100-150cm with 0.625

percent. The present study results with increased number of

species in shrubs than trees because of having lower girth

classes.

STAND BASAL AREA TO THE TREE SPECIES OF

THE STUDY AREA

Species contribution to the total basal area is shown

in. Tamarindus indica (88.14m2) is the highest contributor

followed by Albizia amara (64.03m2) (Plate – 5) and Ficus

benghalensis (24.96m2) to the total basal area with the

related percentages of 37.42, 27.18 and 10.59 respectively.

STAND BASAL AREA TO THE SHRUB SPECIES OF

THE STUDY AREA

In shrub species Memecylon umbellatum has

contributed high basal area (3.906m2) followed by

Euphorbia antiquorum (2.10m2) and the Straggling shrub

Derris scandens (0.561m2). The woody climber (liana)

Combretum ovalifolium contributed (0.427m2) and other

shrub species together contributed (2.384m2). The related

percentages of Memecylon umbellatum, Euphorbia

antiquorum, and Derris scandens are 41.615, 22.46 and 5.98

respectively.

FREQUENCY AND ABUNDANCE OF THE TREE

SPECIES

The sacred grove is mostly covered by deciduous

species whose frequency and abundance values are

discussed below. Albizia amara (90), Strychnos nuxvomica

(60), Elaeodendron glaucum (50) and the small tree Atlantia

racemosa (50) have contributed highest frequency values.

The abundant tree species encountered in the study area are

Gyrocarpus americanus (4.0) followed by Albizia amara

(2.7) and the six species Atlantia racemosa, Cassia fistula,

Commiphora caudata, Crateva adansonii, Gardenia

resinifera and Plieospermium alatum contributed the

medium abundance value (2.0) of the study area. The other

tree species contributed lowest abundance value 1.0 to 1.5.

DENSITY, FREQUENCY AND ABUNDANCE OF

HERBACEOUS SPECIES

Among the herbaceous species covered by the

sacred grove 28 species were seedlings of trees, shrubs,

lianas, stragglers and climbers. The other 60 species are



herbs. Phylanthus amarus (19.00) followed by Hybanthus

enneaspermus (16.00) and Blepharis madaraspatensis

(11.60) have showed highest density values. Riccia sp.

(Bryophyte) was counted in thalli colonies also contributed.

Among the seedlings of trees Strychnos nuxvomica (3.2)

followed by Gyrocarpus americanus (1.8) (Plate – 11),

Albizia amara (1.7) and Psydrax dicoccos (1.2) showed the

highest density. This resulted in the regeneration of

dominant tree species of this grove. In the seedlings of

shrub species Memecylon umbellatum (5.0) and Jasminum

angustifolium (4.6) (Plate – 9) contributed the highest

density values followed by Clausena dentata and Randia

dumetorum showed the dense value (1.8) and (1.6)

respectively. By compare of the seedlings density (trees and

shrubs) showed that shrub species dominated than tree

species. Memecylon umbellatum belongs to Melastomaceace

family is the dominated species is quite dominant in this

grove. Phyllanthus amarus (100) followed by Hybanthus

enneaspermus (90) and Mollugo pentaphylla (90)

contributed the highest frequency value.

Riccia sp. (35.33) (Plate – 13), Spermacocce

articularis (22.00), Phyllanthus amarus (19.00) and

Hybanthus enneaspermus (17.00) contributed the highest

abundance value of the grove. The other herbaceous species

of the grove together showed (82.5%) abundant value.

DISTRIBUTION STUDIES (AB/%F)

The ratio of Ab/%F shows the distribution pattern

of each species. The tree species Elaeodendron glaucum and

Strychnos nuxvomica have showed regular distribution.

Acacia leucophloea, Albizia amara, Azadirachta indica,

Cassia roxburghii, Cordiaobliqua, Ficus religiosa, Psydrax

dicoccos (Plate – 7) and Manilkara hexandra shows

random distribution while others shows contagious

distribution among the tree species (Table – 4). Among the

shrubs Tarena asiatica (Plate – 8) had highly regular

distribution followed by Clausena dentata, Derris scandens,

Euphorbia antiquorum and Randia dumetorum(Plate – 6)

are within the range < 0.025. Memecylon umbellatum,

Zizyphus rugosa, Grewia rhamnifolia and Gmelina asiatica

are in random distribution while others are contagious in

distribution (Table – 5). Among the herbaceous species ten

species are in random distribution and all the other species

are in contagious distribution (Table – 6).

IMPORTANT VALUE INDEX (IVI) ANALYSIS

Among the tree species Albizia amara had (65.08)

important value index (IVI) was very high followed by

Tamarindus indica (43.41) and Gyrocarpus americanus

(24.0) (Table – 4). In this study area, among the shrub

species Memecylon umbellatum had highest important value

index (71.13) followed by Euphorbia antiquorum (41.35)

and Derris scandens (24.87) (Table – 5). Phyllanthus

amarus showed highest important value index (15.43)

followed by Hybanthus enneaspermus (13.5) and Riccia sp.

(thalli colonies) (12.34) (Table – 6). The plant species

showed high important value index (IVI) are due to their

high number of individuals.



PHYTO– DIVERSITY INDICES ANALYSIS

The tree population comprises the number of

species (22) with genera (20) and families (13). The

diversity indices showed Shannon – Weiner index value

(2.75), evenness index (1.35), species richness index (43.6),

Simpson index (0.094) and the dominance concentration of

the tree species (0.495) . The dominance concentration (Cd)

was highest compare to the sacred grove in Konjikuppam

village of Cuddalore district (Nithyadevi and Sivakumar

2015). Among the shrub populations number of species

(25), Shannon- Wiener index (H’) was (2.685) higher than

Konjikuppam sacred grove (Nithyadevi and Sivakumar,

2015). Species richness index (64.19) was highest compare

to the tree species of the present study. The other diversity

indices showed Simpson index (0.091), evenness index

(1.22) and concentration dominance (0.112). In the present

study, herb populations number of species along with

seedlings of trees and shrubs (88) with genera (82) and

families (47). Herb populations diversity indices showed

Shannon Weiner index (4.505), Simpson index (1.002),

evenness index (1.35), species richness index (880) and the

species dominance concentration (0.02).

SOIL – TEXTURE AND N, P, K ANALYSIS

The composition and growth of vegetation is

limited by the physical and chemical properties of the soil.

Few species specifically require high alkaline or acidic soil

condition.

The soil analysis showed the absence of lime in

study area. The sandy loamy soil of sample -1 showed high

acidic pH than sample – 2. The N, P, K content of sample –

2 are higher than sample -1 which showed very least

vegetation.

RED DATA ANALYSIS

Of the 113 plant species recorded in the study area Corypha

umbraculifera and Psydrax dicoccos were found to be

vulnerable in status. Gloriosa superba and Commelina

erecta were in least concern and the other 109 species were

invulnerable in nature.

CONCLUSION

The present study was done in a sacred grove

situated in Oorapatti village of Pudukottai district.In the

present study a total of 113 plant species were recorded

under 100 genera and 54 families. Of these 2 families were

belong to Pteridophyta and one family belongs to

Bryophyta.The family Fabaceae comprises10 species

followed by Rubiaceae (8 Species), Poaceae and Malvaceae

(4 species each) and the other families contributed (1 to 3

species each).Tamarindus indica (88.14 m2) has highest

basal area among the tree species and Memecylon

umbellatum contributed highest basal area (3.91m2) among

the shrub species .Albizia amara showed highest frequency

in the study area. This study includes 88 herbaceous species

that are herbs, seedlings of trees, shrubs and climbers.

6.566 4.088 3.531 3.302

82.51

Riccia sp. Spermacocce

articularis

Phyllanthus

amarus

Hybanthus

enneaspermus

Others

Fig - 1: Shows the relative abundance of the herb

species



Corypha umbraculifera and Psydrax dicoccos were found to

be vulnerable regard to IUCN RED LIST. In the present

study area conservation status except making broad path

around the temple and sacred grove is good by restricting to

cut trees or woods for fuel and furniture and also the

unknown new people are restricted to enter the grove

without permission of the local community people.

59

24

4 3 7 12

152

7 10

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 -50 51 -100

101 -150

151 -200

201 -250

> 251

Fig - 2: Tree species versus shrub species to various girth classes

No.of

individuals of

tree species

No.of

individuals of

shrub species

Memecylon

umbellatum

42%

Euphorbia

antiquorum

22%

Derris

scandens

6%

Combretum

ovalifolium

5%

Others

25%

Fig:Stand basal area of different shrub species



BIBILIOGRAPHY

AnishBabu, V.B., Antony, V.T., Binu Thomas and Haritha,

R.N. 2014.Phytodiversity of sacred grove at Moonamkadvu,

Kasargode District, Kerala, India.Plant Sciences

Feed.4(7):57-63.

Anthwal, A., Sharma, R.C. and Archana Sharma, A.2006.

Sacred Groves: Traditional way of conserving plant

diversity in garhwal Himalaya, Uttaranchal. The Journal of

American Science.2(2):35-38.

Ashton, P.S. 1964. Speciation among tropical trees : some

deductions in the light of recent evidence.

Bot.J.ofLinn.Society. 155-196.

Biju Kumar, A.1998. Sacred groves – cover story. Science

Reporter.Oct :10-13.

Ballie, I.C., Ashton, P.S., Court, M.N., Anderson, J.A.R.,

Fitzpatric E.A. and Tinsley.J. 1989. Site characteristics and

distribution of tree species in mixed Dipterocarp forests on

tertiary sediments in Central Sarawak, Malaysia. Journal of

Ecology.56 : 827 – 844.

Cambell, D.G.1989. Brazallian Amazon. In : Floristic

Inventory of Tropical countries. (Cambell, D.G. and

Hammond, H.D., eds), New York Botanical Garden, New

York. 523 – 533.

Chandra Prakash Kala. 2011. Traditional Ecological

knowledge, Sacred Groves and Conservation of Biodiversity

in Pachmarhi Biosphere Reserve of India. Journal of

Environ mentalProtection.2:967-973.

Curtis, J. and Cottom, G. 1956. Plant Ecology work book

laboratory field reference manual, Burgers Publishing Co.



Minnesotta, the use of distance measures in

phytosociologucal sampling. 163.

Debarbrata Das. 2014. Singhabahini Sacred grove a 1000

years old sacred grove represents nature made nursery of

forests plants for future study. Int. J. Pure App. Biosci.2(5)

:239-245.

Debal Deb, KaushikDeuti andMalhotra, K.C. 1997. Sacred

grove as bird refugia.Current Science.73:815-817.

Fanta, J. 1998. Guest Editorial in Biodiversity and

conservation. 7: (2) : 143-145.

FAO [The United Nations Food and Agricultural

Organization]. 1999. World forest cover beats a rapid

retreat. Inter Press Service, Via Econet.

Ferreira, L.V. and Prance G.T. 1998. Species richness and

floristic composition in four hectares in the Jau National

Park in upload forests in Central Amazonia. Biodiversity

and conservation.7:1349 – 1364.

Gadgil, M. and Vartak, V.D. 1975. Sacred Groves of India

a plea of the continuos conservation.

J.BombayNat.His.Soc.72(2):313-320.

Haridasan, K. and Roa, R.R. 1985 – 1987. Forest flora of

Megalaya.2 volumes.Bisher Singh Mahendra Pal Singh,

Dehra Dun, India.

Harsh Singh, PriyankaAgnihotri, Pandey, P.C. and Tariq

Hussain. 2013. Role of traditional knowledge in conserving

biodiversity : A case study from PatalBhuvaneshwar Sacred

Grove, Kumaon Himalaya, India. J.Biodevers Manage

Forestry.2:2.

Israel, EDOI.,Viji, C. and Narasimhan, D. 1997. Sacred

groves; traditional ecological heritage.Int.J.

Eco.Env.Sci.23:463-470.

Jayapal, J., Tangavelou, A.C., and Panneerselvam, A.

2014.Studies on the plant diversity of Muniandavar Sacred

groves of Thiruvaiyaru, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu,

India.Hygeia:JournalforDrugsand Medicines. 6(1):48-62.

Jeeva, S., Kingston, C., Kiruba.S.,Kannan,D. And Jasmine

T Sawian 2007. Medicinal plants in the sacred forests of

Southern Western Ghats. In National conference on Recent

Trends on Medicinal Plants Research. Organized by centre

for advanced studies in Botany, University of Madras,

Guindy Campus, Chennai – 600025.

Johnston, M. and Gillman. 1995. Tree population studies in

low – diversity forests, Guyana. T. Floristic composition

and stand structure. Biodiversity and Conservation.4 : 339-

362.

Khan, M.L., Khumbongmayum, AD. And Tripathi, R.S.

2008. The sacred groves and their significance in conserving

biodiversity on overview.International Journal of Ecology

and Environment sciences.34 : 277 – 291.

Kheitwan, R.S. and Ramakrishnan, P.S. 1989.Socicultural

studies of the sacred groves at Cherrapunji and adjoining

areas in North Eastern India. Man in India. 69(1): 64 – 71.

Kotwal, P.C. 1997. Biodiversity Conservation and

Constraints in

India.IndianInstituteofforestmanagement,Bhopal.13.

Kushwah, R.B.S. and Kumar.V. 2000. Status of flora in

protected areas. Case studies of Satpuda, Bandhavgarh,



Indravati and Madhav National park of Madhyapradesh,

India. IndianForester.71-77.

Lanly, T.P. 1982.Tropicl Forest Resources. FAO, Rome.

Forestry.Paper No.30.

Margalef, R. 1958. Perspective in Ecological

theory.University of Chicago Press.

McNeely, J.A. et al. 1990. Conserving the world’s

Biological Diversity. IUCN, WRI, World Bank, WWF –

US, CI, Washington DC.

Meyers, N. 1986. Tropical deforestation and Mega –

extinction spasm in soule(ed) Conservation Biology. The

Science of Scarcityand Diversity.394-409.

Muthukumar, B., Dhanasekar,S., Soosairaj, S.,

Nagamurugan, N. and Balaguru, B. 2005. Woody vegetation

structure in a sacred grove of Pudukottai District,

Tamilnadu, South India.Indian J. Environ. &Ecoplan.10(2)

: 409 – 412.

Newbery, D.M., Cambell, E.J.F., Protocor, J. And still, M.J.

1996.Primary lowland olipberocarp forest at Danum Valley,

Sabah, Malaysia. Species composition and patterns in the

understorey.Begetabio .122 : 193 – 220.

Nithyadevi, J. and Sivakumar, R. 2015. Phytosocialogical

and ethnomedicinal studies of sacred groves in

Konjikuppam village, Cuddalore district, Tamil Nadu.

International letters of NaturalSciences.32 : 77 – 91.

Ovington, J.D. 1961. Some aspects of energy flow in

Plantation of Pinussylvestris.Annals of Botony .25:12-20.

Patel, P.K and Patel, M.K. 2013. Sacred groves in

conservation of palnt biodiversity in Banaskantha district,

Gujarat, India. Recent Reserach in scinence and technology

.5(1)13-16.

Pielou, E.C. 1966. Species Diversity and Pattern diversity in

the study of ecological; succession .Jour. of theoretical

Biology .10:370-383.

Rajkumar, G., Ravipaul, S., Sivasamy, A., Anuradha, G. and

RiyasMohmaed. 2014. Floristic composition and practices

on the selected sacred gives of Perambalur district,

TamilNadu. Int.J.Modn. Revs.2(11):486-491.

Rist, S., Delgado, F. and Wiesmann, U. 2003.The Role of

social learning processes in the emergence and development

of Arymara land use system. Mountain Research and

Development.23:263-270.

Shannon, C.E and Wiener, W. 1963. The Mathametical

Theory of Communication,University Illinois Press,Urban.

Smith, F.D.M, May .R.M., Pellew, R., Johanson, T.M. and

Walter, K.R. 1993. Estimating extinction rates.J.Nature.

64:494-496.

Solbrig, O.T. 1991. From genes to ecosystems: A Research

Agenda for Biodiversity. IUBS-SCOPE-

UNESCO,Harvard,Cambridge,Massachusetts.

Sukumaran, S. and Jeeva, S. 2008. A Floristic Study on

miniature sacred forest at Agatheeshwaram, Southern

Perinsular India.EurAsian.J.Biosci.2:66-72.

Sulekha Joshi and Shringi, S.K. 2014.Floristic diversity with

special reference to rate and threatened Plant of

JawaharSagar Sanctuary Area near Kota



Rajasthan.Bilolgiocal Forum-An

InternatioalJournal.6(1):84-91.

Switzer, G.L. and Nelson, L.E. 1972. Nutrient accumulation

and Cycling in loblolly pine (Pinustaeda L.) Palntation

ecosystems; the first twenty years. Soil Science Society of

America Proceedings.36:43-147.

Udayalakshmi, V., Murthy, M.S.R and Dutt, C.B.S.

1998.Efficient forest resources management through GFS

and remote sensing.Current Science.75(3).272-282.

Vinothkumar, D., Murugacelh, S. and KethsyPrabavathy, A.

2011.Phytosocialogical and Ethnobotanical studies of sacred

groves in pudukottai District, Tamil Nadu, India.Asian

J.Exp.Biol.Sci.2(2):306-315.

Visalakshi, N. 1995.Vegetation Analysis of two Tropical

dry Evergreen forests in Southern India. Tropical

Ecology.36:11-127.

Whittaker, R.H. 1975. Communities and Ecosystems.

Macmillan Publishing Company, New York.

Williams, P.H. Humphries, C.J. and Vane. Wright, R.T.

1991. Measuring biodiversity, taxonomic relatedness for

Conservating Priorities.Aust. Syst. Bot.4:665-679.

www.iucnredlist.org/“The IUCN Red List of Threatened

Species”

http://www.iucnredlist.org/



ACKNOLEDGEMENT: I thank my research supervisor Dr. B. Muthukumar, Associate Professor, National College,

Tiruchirappalli, Tamilnadu, India who is great to me and accept me as a part time research scholar and paved way of life to

me. Also, I thank Dr. S. Soosairaj who taught me and help me to identify the plants and also I thank my friend Arumugam,

Government school teacher helped me during my field work.

Table - 1

Diversity Indices of Tree Species

S.No. Name of the Species Family Status / Remarks

1 Acacia leucophloea (Roxb.) Willd. Fabaceae Invulnerable

2 Albizia amara (Roxb.) Boivin Fabaceae Invulnerable

3 Atlantia racemosa Wight & Arn. Rutaceae Invulnerable

4 Azadirachta indica A.Juss. Meliaceae Invulnerable

5 Cassia fistula L. Fabaceae Invulnerable

6 Cassia roxburghii DC. Fabaceae Invulnerable

7 Commiphora caudata (Wight & Arn.) Engl. Burseraceae Invulnerable

8 Cordia obliqua Willd. Boraginaceae Invulnerable

9 Crateva adansonii DC. Capparaceae Invulnerable

10 Diospyros montana Roxb. Ebenaceae Invulnerable

11 Elaeodendron glaucum (Rottb.)Pers. Celastraceae Invulnerable

12 Ficus benghalensis L. Moraceae Invulnerable

13 Ficus religiosa L. Moraceae Invulnerable

14 Gardenia resinifera Roth. Rubiaceae Invulnerable

15 Gyrocarpus americanus Jacq. Hernandiaceae Invulnerable

16 Manilkara hexandra Roxb. Sapotaceae Invulnerable

17 Morinda tinctoria Roxb. Rubiaceae Invulnerable

18 Plieospermium alatum (Wight & Arn.) Swingle Rutaceae Invulnerable

19 Prosopis juliflora (Sw.)DC Fabaceae Invulnerable

20 Psydrax dicoccos Gaertn. Rubiaceae Vulnerable Alc (ver.2.3)

21 Strychnos nuxvomica L. Loganiaceae Invulnerable

22 Tamarindus indicus L. Fabaceae Invulnerable



Table – 2

Diversity Indices of Shrub Species


1 Argyreia cymosa (Roxb.) Sweet Convolvulaceae Invulnerable

2 Argyreia pilosa Wight & Arn. Convolvulaceae Invulnerable

3 Asparagus racemosus Wight & Arn. Rutaceae Invulnerable

4 Carissa carrandas L. Apocyanaceae Invulnerable

5 Carissa spinarum L. Apocyanaceae Invulnerable

6 Cassia auriculata L. Fabaceae Invulnerable

7 Clausena dentata (Willd.) M.Roem Rutaceae Invulnerable

8 Combretum ovalifolium Combretaceae Invulnerable

9 Cormona retusa (Vahl.) Masamune Boraginaceae Invulnerable

10 Derris scandens Benth. Fabaceae Invulnerable

11 Euphorbia antiquorum L. Euphorbiaceae Invulnerable

12 Gmelina asiatica L. Verbenaceae Invulnerable

13 Grewia rhamnifolia Heyne. Tiliaceae Invulnerable

14 Jasminum angustifolium Vahl. Oleaceae Invulnerable

15 Maerua oblongifolia (forssk.)A.Rich Capparaceae Invulnerable

16 Memecylon umbellatum Burm.f. Melastomaceae Invulnerable

17 Opuntia stricta Haw. Cactaceae Invulnerable

18 Pandanus odaratissmus Roxb. Pandanaceae Invulnerable

19 Phyllanthus reticulatus Poir. Euphorbiaceae Invulnerable

20 Randia dumetorum Lamk. Rubiaceae Invulnerable

21 Sarcostemma brunonianum Wight & Arn. Asclepiadaceae Least Concern (ver 2.3)

22 Tarena asiatica (L.) Kuntze ex Schuman. Rubiaceae Invulnerable

23 Vitex negundo L. Verbenaceae Invulnerable

24 Zizyphus oenoplia Mill. Rhamnaceae Invulnerable

25 Zizyphus rugosa Lamk. Rhamnaceae Invulnerable

Table – 3

Diversity Indices of Herbaceous Species


1 Abutilon indicum(L.)Sweet Malvaceae Invulnerable

2 Acalypha indica L. Euphorbiaceae Invulnerable

3 Achyranthes aspera L. Amaranthaceae Invulnerable

4 Adenia wightiana(Wall.ex Wight & Arn.) Engl. Passifloraceae Invulnerable

5 Aerva lanata(L.) Juss.ex Schult. Amaranthaceae Invulnerable

6 Aeschenomene asper L. Fabaceae Invulnerable

7 Agave americana L. Agavaceae Invulnerable

8 Argyreia cymosa(Roxb.) Sweet Convolvulaceae Invulnerable

9 Argyreia pilosaWight & Arn. Convolvulaceae Invulnerable

10 Ageratum conizoides L. Asteraceae Invulnerable

11 Albizia amara (Roxb.) Boivin Fabaceae Invulnerable

12 Aloe vera(L.) Burm.f. Xanthorrhoeaceae Invulnerable

13 Anisomeles malabarica (L.) R.Br. Lamiaceae Invulnerable

14 Aponogeton natans(L.)Engl. & K.Kr. Aponogetonaceae Invulnerable

15 Aristalochia indica L. Aristalochiaceae Invulnerable

16 Aristida setacea Retz. Poaceae Invulnerable

17 Asparagus gonoclados Bak. Liliaceae Invulnerable

18 Barleria prionitis L. Acanthaceae Invulnerable

19 Blepharis madaraspatensis (L.) Heyne ex. Roth. Acanthaceae Invulnerable

20 Boerhaevia erecta L. Nyctaginaceae Invulnerable

21 Bulbostylis barbata (Rottb.) C.B.Clarke Cyperaceae Invulnerable

22 Carex longipes D.Don Cyperaceae Invulnerable

23 Carrisa carrandan L. Apocyananceae Invulnerable



24 Cassia auriculata L. Fabaceae Invulnerable

s25 Cassytha filiformis L. Lawraceae Invulnerable

26 Chloris barbata Sw. Poaceae Invulnerable

27 Cissampelos pariera L. Rutaceae Invulnerable

28 Cissus quadrangularis L. Menispermaceae Invulnerable

29 Clausena dentata (Willd.) M.Roem Vitaceae Invulnerable

30 Coccinia indica Wight & Arn Cucurbitaceae Invulnerable

31 Cocculus hirsutus Diels Menispermaceae Invulnerable

32 Combretum ovalifolium Roxb. Combretaceae Invulnerable

33 Commelina erecta L. Commelinaceae Least Concern Ver (2.3)

34 Corypha umbracaulifera L. Arecaceae Vulnerable (Ver.2.3)

35 Curculigo orchioides Gaetrn. Hyposidaceae Invulnerable

36 Cyperus iria L. Cyperaceae Invulnerable

37 Cyperus triceps (Rottb.)Endl. Cyperaceae Invulnerable

38 Dendropthae falcata (L.f.) Ettingsh Loranthaceae Invulnerable

39 Derris scandens Benth. Fabaceae Invulnerable

40 Desmodium trifflorum (L.) DC. Fabaceae Invulnerable

41 Euphorbia antiquorum L. Euphorbiaceae Invulnerable

42 Euphorbia hirta L. Euphorbiaceae Invulnerable

43 Evolvolus alsinoides L. Convolvulaceae Invulnerable

44 Gardenia resinifera Roth. Rubiaceae Invulnerable

45 Gloriosa superba L. Colichinaceae Invulnerable

46 Gomphrena decumbens Jacq. Amaranthaceae Least Concern Ver (2.3)

47 Grewia rhamnifolia Heyne. Tiliaceae Invulnerable

48 Gymnema sylvestre R.Br. Asclephiadaceae Invulnerable

49 Gyrocarpus americanusJacq. Hernandiaceae Invulnerable

50 Heliotropium zeylanicumLmk

Duthie.Fl. Boraginaceae Invulnerable

51 Hemidesmus indicus R.Br. Asclephiadaceae Invulnerable

52 Hemionitis arifolia (Burm.f.)T.Moore Hemionitidaceae Pteridophyte

53 Hibiscus micranthus L. Malvaceae Invulnerable

54 Hybanthus enneaspermus (L.) F.Muell Violaceae Invulnerable

55 Jasminum angustifolium Vahl. Oleaceae Invulnerable

56 Jasminum whightii Clarke Oleaceae Invulnerable

57 Leucas aspera Spreng. Lamiaceae Invulnerable

58 Marselia quadrifolia L. Marseliaceae Pteridophyte

59 Memecylon umbellatum Burm.f. Melastomaceae Invulnerable

60 Mitracarpus hirtus(L.) DC. Rubiaceae Invulnerable

61 Mollugo nudicaulisLamk. Aizoaceae Invulnerable

62 Mollugo pentaphylla L. Aizoaceae Invulnerable

63 Morinda tinctoria Roxb. Rubiaceae Invulnerable

64 Oldenlandia umbellatum L. Rubiaceae Invulnerable

65 Opuntia stricta Haw. Cactaceae Invulnerable

66 Orthosiphon thymiflorus (Roth.)

Sleesen Lamiaceae Invulnerable

67 Pavonia odorata Willd. Malvaceae Invulnerable

68 Pedalium murex L. Pedaliaceae Invulnerable

69 Peristrophe bicauliculata Nees Acanthaceae Invulnerable

70 Perotis indica O.Ktz. Poaceae Invulnerable

71 Phoenix sylvestrs (L.) Roxb. Arecaceae Invulnerable

72 Phyllanthus amarus Schum. & Thonn. Euphorbiaceae Invulnerable

73 Phyllanthus fraternus Poir. Euphorbiaceae Invulnerable

74 Psydrax dicoccos Gaertn. Rubiaceae Invulnerable

75 Randia dumetorum Lamk. Rubiaceae Invulnerable

76 Riccia sp. L. Ricciaceae Bryophyte

77 Sansieveria roxburghiana Schult. Liliaceae Invulnerable

78 Sarcostemma brunonianum Wight &

Arn. Rutaceae Invulnerable

79 Scoparia dulcis L. Scropulariaceae Invulnerable

80 Sida schimperiana Hochst. Malvaceae Invulnerable

81 Sperma-cocce articularis L.f. Rubiaceae Invulnerable

82 Strychnos nux-vomica L. Loganiaceae Invulnerable

83 Trachys muricatus Steud. Poaceae Invulnerable

84 Trichosanthes tricuspidata Lour. Cucurbitaceae Invulnerable

85 Tridax procumbens L. Asteraceae Invulnerable

86 Vernonia cinerea Less. Asteraceae Invulnerable

87 Zizyphus oenoplia Mill. Rhamnaceae Invulnerable

88 Zizyphus rugosa Lamk. Rhamnaceae Invulnerable



Table – 5

Diversity Indices of Shrub Species

S.No. Name of the

Species

Total

No. of

Individu

als

No. of

Quadrats in

which sp.

Occurred

% F D BA R.F R.D R.BA IVI AB AB/%

F

1 Argyreia

cymosa

1 1 10 0.1 0.011 1.2 0.625 0.117 1.942 1.00 0.1

2 Argyreia pilosa 2 1 10 0.2 0.016 1.2 1.25 0.17 2.62 2.00 0.2

3 Asparagus

racemosus

1 1 10 0.1 0.02 1.2 0.625 0.213 2.038 1.00 0.1

4 Carrissa

carrandans

3 2 20 0.3 0.035 2.38 1.875 0.372 4.627 1.50 0.075

Table - 4

Diversity Indices of Tree Species

S.No. Name of the

Species

Total No.

of

Individuals

No. of

Quaderats

in which sp.

Occurred

% F D BA R.F R.D R.B

A IVI AB

AB/%

F

1 Acacia

leucophloea 4 3 30 40 8.86 5 3.6 0.04 8.64 1.3 0.04

2 Albizia amara 25 9 90 25

0 64.03 15

22.

9 27.18 65.08 2.7 0.03

3 Atlantia

racemosa 10 5 50

10

0 0.93 8.3 9.1 0.4 17.8 2 0.08

4 Azadirachta

indica 2 2 20 20 0.83 3.3 1.8 0.35 5.45 1 0.05

5 Cassia fistula 2 1 10 20 0.25 1.6 1.8 0.1 3.5 2 0.2

6 Cassia

roxburghii 3 2 20 30 1.23 3.3 2.7 0.52 6.52 1.5 0.05

7 Commiphora

caudata 2 1 10 20 0.33 1.6 1.8 0.14 3.54 2 0.2

8 Cordia

obliqua 2 2 20 20 0.25 3.3 1.8 0.1 5.2 1 0.05

9 Crateva

adansonii 2 1 10 20 0.25 1.6 1.8 0.1 3.5 2 0.2

10 Diospyros

montana 1 1 10 10 0.18 1.6 0.9 0.07 2.57 1 0.1

11 Elaeodendron

glaucam 6 5 50 60 2 8.3 5.5 0.84 14.64 1.2 0.02

12 Ficus

benghalensis 1 1 10 10 24.96 1.6 0.9 11.6 13.5 1 0.1

13 Ficus

religiosa 2 2 20 20 0.62 3.3 1.8 0.26 5.36 1 0.05

14 Gardenia

resinifera 4 2 20 40 0.21 3.3 3.6 0.08 6.98 2 0.1

15 Gyrocarpus

americanus 12 3 30

12

0 18.5 5 11 8 24 4 0.13

16 Manilkara

hexandra 5 4 40 50 20.26 6.6 4.5 8.6 19.7 1.25 0.03

17 Morinda

tinctoria 1 1 10 10 0.18 1.6 0.9 0.07 2.57 1 0.1

18 Plieospermiu

m alatum 2 1 10 20 0.19 1.6 1.8 0.08 3.48 2 0.2

19 Prosopis

juliflora 5 2 20 50 0.35 3.3 4.5 0.14 7.94 1.5 0.07

20 Psydrax

dicoccos 6 4 40 60 0.79 6.6 5.5 0.33 12.43 1.5 0.03

21 Strychnos

nuxvomica 9 6 60 90 2.21 10 8.2 1 19.2 1.5 0.02

22 Tamarindus

indicus 3 2 20 30 88.14 3.3 2.7 37.41 43.41 1.5 0.07



5 Carrissa

spinarum

1 1 10 0.1 0.015 1.2 0.625 0.16 1.925 1.00 0.1

6 Cassia

auriculata

2 1 10 0.2 0.016 1.2 1.25 0.17 2.62 2.00 0.2

7 Clausena

dentata

8 6 60 0.8 0.072 7.14 5.00 0.767 12.907 1.33 0.022

8 Combretum

ovalifolium

7 4 40 0.7 0.427 4.36 4.375 4.549 13.684 1.75 0.044

9 Cormona

retusa

3 2 20 0.3 0.11 2.38 1.875 1.171 5.426 1.50 0.075

10 Derris

scandens

15 8 80 1.5 0.561 9.52 9.375 5.976 24.871 1.88 0.023

11 Euphorbia

antiquorum

15 8 80 1.5 2.108 9.52 9.375 22.458 41.353 1.88 0.023

12 Gmelina

asiatica

3 3 30 0.3 0.093 3.57 1.875 2.409 7.854 1.00 0.033

13 Grewia

rhamnifolia

10 5 50 1.00 0.282 5.95 6.25 3.004 15.204 2.00 0.04

14 Jasminum

angustrfolium

7 3 30 0.7 0.209 3.57 4.375 2.226 10.171 2.34 0.077

15 Maerua

oblongifolia

3 2 20 0.3 0.102 2.38 1.875 1.086 5.341 1.50 0.075

16 Memecylon

umbellatum

32 8 80 3.2 3.906 9.52 20 41.615 71.135 4.00 0.05

17 Opuntia stricta 2 1 10 0.2 0.022 1.2 1.25 0.234 2.684 2.00 0.2

18 Pandanus

odaratissmus

1 1 10 0.1 0.306 1.2 0.625 3.26 5.085 1.00 0.1

19 Phyllanthus

reticulatus

1 1 10 0.1 0.011 1.2 0.625 0.117 1.942 1.00 0.1

20 Randia

dumetorum

15 8 80 1.5 0.412 9.52 9.375 4.389 23.284 1.88 0.023

21 Sarcostemma

roxburghiana

2 2 20 0.2 0.016 2.38 1.25 0.17 3.8 1.00 0.2

22 Tarena asiatica 12 8 80 1.2 0.132 9.52 7.5 1.406 18.426 1.50 0.018

23 Vitex negundo 2 1 10 0.2 0.026 1.2 1.25 0.277 2.727 2.00 0.2

24 Zizyphus

oenoplia

7 3 30 0.7 0.27 3.57 4.375 2.876 10.821 2.33 0.077

25 Zizyphus

rugosa

5 3 30 0.5 0.208 3.57 3.125 2.216 8.911 1.67 0.055

Table - 6

Diversity Indices of Herbaceous Species

S.No. Name of the

Species

Total No. of

Individuals

No. of

Quadrats in

which sp.

Occurred

% F D AB R.F R.D R.AB IVI AB/%

F

1 Abutilon

indicum 9 2 20 0.9 4.5 0.637 0.413 0.836 1.886 0.225

2 Acalypha indica 18 3 30 1.8 6 0.955 0.825 1.115 2.895 0.2

3 Achyranthes

aspera 25 5 50 2.5 5 1.592 1.146 0.929 3.667 0.1

4 Adenia

wightiana 3 2 20 0.3 1.5 0.637 0.137 0.278 1.052 0.075

5 Aerva lanata 18 3 30 1.8 6 0.955 0.825 1.115 2.895 0.2



6 Aeschenomene

aspera 3 1 10 0.3 3 0.318 0.137 0.557 1.012 0.3

7 Agave

americana 7 2 20 0.7 3.5 0.637 0.32 0.65 1.607 0.175

10 Ageratum

conizoides 18 4 40 1.8 4.5 1.273 0.825 0.836 2.934 0.112

8 Agyreia cymosa 2 2 20 0.2 1 0.637 0.092 0.185 0.914 0.05

9 Agyreia pilosa 1 1 10 0.1 1 0.318 0.046 0.185 0.549 0.1

11 Albizia amara 17 6 60 1.7 2.83

3 1.911 0.779 0.526 3.216 0.047

12 Aloe vera 19 2 20 1.9 9.5 0.637 0.871 1.765 3.273 0.475

13 Anisomeles

malabarica 8 1 10 0.8 8 0.318 0.367 1.486 2.171 0.8

14 Aponogeton

natans 14 2 20 1.4 7 0.637 0.642 1.301 2.58 0.35

15 Aristalochia

indica 3 2 20 0.3 1.5 0.637 0.137 0.278 1.052 0.075

16 Aristida setacea 6 1 10 0.6 6 0.318 0.275 0.929 1.522 0.6

17 Asparagus

gonoclados 18 6 60 1.8 3 1.911 0.825 0.557 3.293 0.05

18 Barleria prionitis 2 1 10 0.2 2 0.318 0.092 0.371 0.781 0.2

19 Blepharis

madaraspatensis 116 7 70 11.6

16.5

71 2.229 5.318 3.08 10.687 0.236

20 Boerhavia erecta 10 2 20 1 5 0.637 0.458 0.929 2.024 0.25

21 Bulbostylis

barbata 30 3 30 3 10 0.955 1.375 1.858 4.188 0.333

22 Carex longipes 9 3 30 0.9 3 0.955 0.413 0.557 1.925 0.1

23 Carrisa

carrandas 3 2 20 0.3 1.5 0.637 0.137 0.278 1.052 0.075

24 Cassia

auriculata 8 3 30 0.8

2.66

6 0.955 0.367 0.495 1.817 0.088

25 Cassytha

filiformis 2 2 20 0.2 1 0.637 0.092 0.185 0.914 0.05

26 Chloris barbata 5 2 20 0.5 2.5 0.637 0.229 0.464 1.33 0.125

27 Clausena

dentata 18 7 70 1.8

2.571

2.229 0.825 0.478 3.532 0.036

28 Cissampelos

pariera 4 3 30 0.4

1.33

3 0.955 0.183 0.247 1.385 0.044

29 Cissus

quadrangularis 8 4 40 0.8 2 1.273 0.367 0.371 2.011 0.05

30 Coccinia indica 8 4 40 0.8 2 1.273 0.367 0.371 2.011 0.05

31 Cocculus

hirsutus 7 3 30 0.7

2.33

3 0.955 0.32 0.433 1.708 0.077

32 Combretum

ovalifolium 11 3 30 1.1

3.666

0.955 0.504 0.681 2.14 0.122

33 Commelina

erecta 20 4 40 2 5 1.273 0.917 0.929 3.119 0.125

34 Corypha

umbracaulifera 7 1 10 0.7 7 0.318 0.32 1.301 1.939 0.7

35 Curculigo

orchoides 7 2 20 0.7 3.5 0.637 0.32 0.65 1.607 0.175

36 Cyperus iria 11 2 20 1.1 5.5 0.637 0.504 1.022 2.163 0.275

37 Cyperus triceps 12 4 40 1.2 3 1.273 0.55 0.557 2.38 0.075



38 Dendropthae

falcata 5 3 30 0.5 1.66 0.955 0.229 0.308 1.492 0.055

39 Derris scandens 12 5 50 1.2 2.4 1.592 0.55 0.446 2.588 0.048

40 Desmodium

triflorum 12 1 10 1.2 12 0.318 0.55 2.23 3.098 1.2

41 Euphorbia

antiquorum 10 4 40 1 2.5 1.273 0.458 0.464 2.195 0.062

42 Euphorbia hirta 44 5 50 4.4 8.8 1.592 2.017 1.635 5.244 0.176

43 Evolvolus

alsinoides 32 6 60 3.2 5.33 1.911 1.467 0.991 4.369 0.088

44 Gardenia

resinifera 6 3 30 0.6 2 0.955 0.275 0.371 1.601 0.066

45 Gloriosa superba 2 1 10 0.2 2 0.318 0.092 0.371 0.781 0.2

46 Gomphrena

decumbens 24 5 50 2.4 4.8 1.592 1.1 0.892 3.584 0.096

47 Grewia

rhamnifolia 7 4 40 0.7 1.75 1.273 0.32 0.325 1.918 0.044

48 Gymnema

sylvestre 2 2 20 0.2 1 0.637 0.092 0.371 1.1 0.1

49 Gyrocarpus

americanus 18 5 50 1.8 3.6 1.592 0.825 0.669 3.086 0.072

50 Heliotropium

zeylanicum 20 4 40 2 5 1.273 0.917 0.929 3.119 0.125

51 Hemidesmus

indicus 36 7 70 3.6 5.14 2.229 1.65 0.955 4.834 0.073

52 Hemionitis

arifolia 30 4 40 3 7.5 1.273 1.375 1.394 4.042 0.187

53 Hibiscus

micranthus 12 3 30 1.2 4 0.955 0.55 0.743 2.248 1.133

54 Hybanthus

enneaspermus 160 9 90 16

17.7

7 2.866 7.336 3.302 13.504 0.197

55 Jasminum

angustifolium 46 9 90 4.6 5.11 2.866 2.109 0.949 5.924 0.056

56 Jasminum

whightii 2 1 10 0.2 2 0.318 0.092 0.371 0.781 0.2

57 Leucas aspera 4 1 10 0.4 4 0.318 0.183 0.743 1.244 0.4

58 Marselia

tetrafolia 38 3 30 3.8

12.6

6 0.955 1.742 2.353 5.05 0.422

59 Memecylon

umbellatum 50 10 10 5 5 3.185 2.292 0.929 6.406 0.05

60 Mitracarpus

hirtus 82 5 50 8.2 16.4 1.592 7.519 3.048 12.159 0.328

61 Mollugo

nudicaulis 59 7 70 5.9 8.42 2.229 2.705 1.565 6.499 0.12

62 Mollugo

pentaphylla 92 9 90 9.2

10.22

2.866 4.218 1.899 8.983 0.113

63 Morinda

tinctoria 3 2 20 0.3 1.5 0.637 0.137 0.278 1.052 0.075

64 Oldenlandia

umbellatum 88 5 50 8.8 17.6 1.592 4.034 3.271 8.897 0.352

65 Opuntia stricta 11 3 30 1.1 3.66 0.955 0.504 0.68 2.139 0.122

66 Orthosiphon

thymiflorus 18 2 20 1.8 9 0.637 0.825 1.672 3.134 0.45

67 Pavonia odorata 10 2 20 1 5 0.637 0.458 0.929 2.024 0.25

68 Pedalium murex 10 1 10 1 10 0.318 0.458 1.858 2.634 1

69 Peristrophe

bicauliculatus 26 2 20 2.6 13 0.637 1.192 2.416 4.245 0.65



70 Perotis indica 42 5 50 4.2 8.4 1.592 1.925 1.561 5.078 0.168

71 Phoenix

sylvestre 10 2 20 1 5 0.637 0.458 0.929 2.024 0.25

72 Phyllanthus

amarus 190 10 100 19 19 3.185 8.711 3.531 15.427 0.19

73 Phyllanthus

fraternus 85 7 70 8.5

12.14

2.229 3.897 2.304 8.43 0.173

74 Psydrax dicoccos 12 3 30 1.2 4 0.955 0.55 0.743 2.248 0.133

75 Randia

dumetorum 16 6 60 1.6 2.66 1.911 0.733 0.495 3.139 0.044

76 Riccia sp. 106 3 30 10.6 35.3

3 0.955 4.86 6.566 12.381 1.177

77 Sansieveria

roxburghiana 21 3 30 2.1 7 0.955 0.962 1.301 3.218 0.233

78 Sarcostemma

brunonianum 6 2 20 0.6 3 0.637 0.275 0.557 1.469 0.15

79 Scoparis dulcis 31 3 30 3.1 10.3

3 0.955 1.421 1.92 4.296 0.344

80 Sida

schimperiana 18 2 20 1.8 9 0.637 0.825 1.672 3.134 0.45

81 Spermacocce

articularis 66 3 30 6.6 22 0.955 3.026 4.089 8.07 0.733

82 Strychnos nux-

vomica 32 7 70 3.2 4.57 2.229 1.467 0.849 4.545 0.065

83 Trachys

muricata 13 3 30 1.3 4.33 0.955 0.596 0.804 2.355 0.144

84 Trichosanthes

tricuspidata 8 4 40 0.8 2 1.273 0.367 0.371 2.011 0.55

85 Tridax

procumbens 12 1 10 1.2 12 0.318 0.55 2.23 3.098 1.2

86 Vernonia

cinerea 36 3 30 3.6 3 0.955 1.65 0.557 3.162 0.1

87 Zizyphus

oenoplia 14 7 70 1.4 2 2.229 0.641 0.371 3.241 0.028

88 Zizyphus rugosa 5 2 20 0.5 2.5 0.637 0.229 0.464 1.33 0.125

Analyses of plant diversity in a sacred grove of Puddukottai ...

Documents

Transcript of Analyses of plant diversity in a sacred grove of Puddukottai ...