J

o
u
r
n
a
l

o
f

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

i
n

B
i
o
l
o
g
y

An assessment of Floristic Diversity of Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary,
Hospet, Bellary District, Karnataka, India
Keywords:
Melursus ursinus, Flora, Cassia fistula, Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary, Deccan
plateau.
ABSTRACT:


The plant resources of Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary of Bellary district was
studied and analyzed to decipher the information on the diversity, which revealed a
total of 98 species of plants belonging to 85 genera and 37 families. The data collected
was analyzed to determine important value index (IVI), Shannon Weiners Index,
Indices of species richness (R) and evenness (e). The objective of this work is to help
foresters and ecologists by giving an account of floral status of the study area. The
biodiversity of this area is threatened by cattle (livestock) grazing, water scarcity,
mining and related problems. Hence, it is suggested to adopt strict control measures
to protect and maintain the biodiversity in the Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary, which will
help to sustain the wild herbivore at sanctuary.
828-839 | JRB | 2013 | Vol 3 | No 2

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

www.jresearchbiology.com
Journal of Research in Biology
An International Scientific
Research Journal
Authors:
Harisha MN and
Hosetti BB
*
.


Institution:
1. Department of Post
Graduate studies and
research in Wildlife
Management, Kuvempu
University, Jnana Sahyadri,
Shankaraghatta- 577451,
Shimoga, Karnataka.

*Department of Post
Graduate studies and
research in Applied Zoology,
Kuvempu University, Jnana
Sahyadri, Shankaraghatta-
577451, Shimoga,
Karnataka.













Corresponding author:
Hosetti BB.




Email:
hosetti57@gmail.com



Web Address:
http://jresearchbiology.com/
documents/RA0330.pdf.
Dates:
Received: 02 Feb 2013 Accepted: 09 Feb 2013 Published: 02 Apr 2013
Article Citation:
Harisha MN and Hosetti BB.
An assessment of Floristic Diversity of Daroji Sloth bear Sanctuary, Hospet, Bellary
District, Karnataka, India.
Journal of Research in Biology (2013)3(2): 828-839
Journal of Research in Biology
An International Scientific Research Journal
Original Research


INTRODUCTION
The forest types in India ranged from thorny
scrubby jungle to moist evergreen forest along with
moist grasslands and characteristic shola vegetation. In
each of different types of forest, very diverse plants and
faunal species are found growing naturally. Identification
of species and their diversity is a mammoth task and is
virtually impossible to have a complete inventory of
Indian biodiversity (Harisha et al., 2008). Due to
geographical variation, deccan plateau region of India
possess great diversity in agricultural as well as wild
floral and faunal diversity (Khan, 2011). The Deccan
plateau region of Bellary in particular is highly over
exploited by several anthropogenic activities, including
different types of mining. The study site is naturally
spread with hillocks, boulders, undulated terrain with
sloppy lands covered with natural jungle scrub with
native herbs, shrubs, climbers and tree species. The main
aim of sanctuary is to conserve and maintain the
rich flora and fauna with reference to sloth bear,
Melursus ursinus and its food web present in Deccan
plateau region of Bellary.
Since the Deccan plateau region is rich in
biodiversity, highly exploited for the natural resources
resulting in threat to diversity and gene pool, nearly
600 tree species found in this region are facing threat of
extinction (Khan, 2011). Studies of plant and avifaunal
diversity can be used to interpret the well being of forest
ecosystem and also as an indicator of disturbance if any
in the system. Long term management plan of forest
ecosystem should incorporate the diversification of
vegetation by using diversity indices. In order to
understand the importance of a site it is necessary to
examine the significance in terms of the presence and
abundance of species (Bruford, 2002). The present study
attempts to understand the impact of changes in the
forest cover of Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary due to
human activities.

STUDY AREA
The unique Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary, Hospet,
in Bellary district is the only sanctuary located in North
Karnataka, situated between 15
o
14' to 15
o
17' N latitude
and 76
o
31' to 76
o
40' E longitude. It belongs to Deccan
Plateau scrub jungle with granite boulder outcrops.
Renowned world heritage centre - Hampi is situated only
15 kilometers away from this sanctuary. The
Government of Karnataka, in October 1994, declared
5,587.30 hectares of Bilikallu reserve forest as Daroji
Bear Sanctuary. Since it has a suitable habitat for the
Indian Sloth Bears due to the rock-strewn hillocks, and
characterized by vast stretches of undulating plains with
intermittent parallel chains of hills. The sanctuary lies at
an elevation of 647 m above mean sea level. The area
experienced high temperature with a maximum 43C
during January to May.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Field data were collected in different seasons
during January 2009- December 2011 in the study area
stretching up to 4 km radius. The area is a long narrow
strip of hills with sandy and clay loams with rocky
mountain. The vegetation was analyzed by means of
1010 m quadrates by random sampling to give most
representative composition of forestlands. Plant species
collected in each quadrates were identified by consulting
the Flora of Madras Presidency (Gamble, 1935).
DATA ANALYSIS
The data was analyzed for measuring the
Important Value Index (IVI), Shannon-Weiner Index
(H), Species richness Index (R), Species Evenness Index
(E) and the Index of Dominance (ID). The values of
relative density, relative frequency and relative
abundance were calculated following the methods of
Shukla and Chandel (1980). The Shannon-Wiener Index
was calculated according to Michael (1990) as follows.
Shannon Weiners Index
(H') = Pi ln Pi
Harisha and Hosetti,2013
829 Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 828-839

Harisha and Hosetti,2013
Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 828-839 830
S
l
.
N
o

S
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c

N
a
m
e
s

F
a
m
i
l
y

N

T
O

T
T

D

F

A

R
D

R
F

I
V
I

1

B
a
r
l
e
r
i
a

s
p
.

A
c
a
n
t
h
a
c
e
a
e

2

2

1
2

0
.
1
7

0
.
1
7

4
4
2
.
0

0
.
2
3

2
.
7
8

3
.
0
0

2

L
e
p
i
d
a
g
a
t
h
i
s

c
u
s
p
i
d
a
t
a

A
c
a
n
t
h
a
c
e
a
e

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3

A
l
a
n
g
i
u
m

s
a
l
v
i
i
f
o
l
i
u
m

(
L
.

f
.
)

W
a
n
g
e
r
i
n
,

*

A
l
a
n
g
i
a
c
e
a
e

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4

A
m
a
r
a
n
t
h
u
s

v
i
r
i
d
i
s

L
.
*

A
m
a
r
a
n
t
h
a
c
e
a
e

1

1

1
2

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
8

8
8
4
.
0

0
.
1
1

1
.
3
9

1
.
5
0

5

A
c
h
y
r
a
n
t
h
e
s

a
s
p
e
r
a

L
.

*

A
m
a
r
a
n
t
h
a
c
e
a
e

1
1

4

1
2

0
.
9
2

0
.
3
3

2
2
1
.
0

1
.
2
4

5
.
5
6

6
.
8
0

6

A
e
r
v
a

l
a
n
a
t
a

(
L
.
)

J
u
s
s
.

e
x

S
c
h
u
l
t
.

*

A
m
a
r
a
n
t
h
a
c
e
a
e

3
7

6

1
2

3
.
0
8

0
.
5
0

1
4
7
.
3

4
.
1
9

8
.
3
3

1
2
.
5
2

7

P
u
p
a
l
i
a

l
a
p
p
a
c
e
a

(
L
.
)

J
u
s
s
.

A
m
a
r
a
n
t
h
a
c
e
a
e

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

8

A
r
i
s
t
o
l
o
c
h
i
a

i
n
d
i
c
a

L
.

*

A
r
i
s
t
o
l
o
c
h
i
a
c
e
a
e


2

2

1
2

0
.
1
7

0
.
1
7

4
4
2
.
0

0
.
2
3

2
.
7
8

3
.
0
0

9

C
a
l
o
t
r
o
p
i
s

g
i
g
a
n
t
e
a

(
L
.
)

W
.

T
.

A
i
t
o
n

*

A
s
c
l
e
p
i
a
d
a
c
e
a
e

2

2

1
2

0
.
1
7

0
.
1
7

4
4
2
.
0

0
.
2
3

2
.
7
8

3
.
0
0

1
0

C
a
r
i
s
s
a

c
a
r
a
n
d
a
s

L
.

*

A
p
o
c
y
n
a
c
e
a
e

9

3

1
2

0
.
7
5

0
.
2
5

2
9
4
.
7

1
.
0
2

4
.
1
7

5
.
1
8

1
1

H
e
m
i
d
e
s
m
u
s

i
n
d
i
c
u
s

(
L
.
)

W
.

T
.

A
i
t
o
n

*

A
p
o
c
y
n
a
c
e
a
e

6

2

1
2

0
.
5
0

0
.
1
7

4
4
2
.
0

0
.
6
8

2
.
7
8

3
.
4
6

1
2

W
r
i
g
h
t
i
a

t
i
n
c
t
o
r
i
a

(
R
o
x
b
.
)

R
.

B
r
.

*

A
p
o
c
y
n
a
c
e
a
e

8

3

1
2

0
.
6
7

0
.
2
5

2
9
4
.
7

0
.
9
0

4
.
1
7

5
.
0
7

1
3

C
r
y
p
t
o
l
e
p
i
s

b
u
c
h
a
n
a
n
i
i

R
o
e
m
.

&

S
c
h
u
l
t
.

*

A
s
c
l
e
p
i
a
d
a
c
e
a
e

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1
4

P
e
r
g
u
l
a
r
i
a

d
a
e
m
i
a

(
F
o
r
s
k
.
)

C
h
i
o
v
.

*

A
s
c
l
e
p
i
a
d
a
c
e
a
e

2

2

1
2

0
.
1
7

0
.
1
7

4
4
2
.
0

0
.
2
3

2
.
7
8

3
.
0
0

1
5

L
e
p
t
a
d
e
n
i
a

r
e
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
a

(
R
e
t
z
.
)

W
i
g
h
t

&

A
r
n
.

M

A
s
c
l
e
p
i
a
d
a
c
e
a
e

3

1

1
2

0
.
2
5

0
.
0
8

8
8
4
.
0

0
.
3
4

1
.
3
9

1
.
7
3

1
6

T
y
l
o
p
h
o
r
a

i
n
d
i
c
a

(
B
u
r
m
.

f
.
)

M
e
r
r
.

*

A
s
c
l
e
p
i
a
d
a
c
e
a
e

1

1

1
2

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
8

8
8
4
.
0

0
.
1
1

1
.
3
9

1
.
5
0

1
7

A
s
p
a
r
a
g
u
s

r
a
c
e
m
o
s
u
s

W
i
l
l
d
.

*

L
i
l
i
a
c
e
a
e

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1
8

A
g
e
r
a
t
u
m

c
o
n
y
z
o
i
d
e
s

L
.

*

A
s
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e

4

1

1
2

0
.
3
3

0
.
0
8

8
8
4
.
0

0
.
4
5

1
.
3
9

1
.
8
4

1
9

P
a
r
t
h
e
n
i
u
m

h
y
s
t
e
r
o
p
h
o
r
u
s

L
.

A
s
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e

1
6

1

1
2

1
.
3
3

0
.
0
8

8
8
4
.
0

1
.
8
1

1
.
3
9

3
.
2
0

2
0

T
r
i
d
a
x

p
r
o
c
u
m
b
e
n
s

L
.

*

A
s
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e

4

3

1
2

0
.
3
3

0
.
2
5

2
9
4
.
7

0
.
4
5

4
.
1
7

4
.
6
2

2
1

C
y
a
n
t
h
i
l
l
i
u
m

c
i
n
e
r
e
u
m

(
L
.
)

H
.

R
o
b
.

*

A
s
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e

3
2

1
0

1
2

2
.
6
7

0
.
8
3

8
8
.
4

3
.
6
2

1
3
.
8
9

1
7
.
5
1

2
2

C
a
p
p
a
r
i
s

d
i
v
a
r
i
c
a
t
a

L
a
m
.

C
a
p
p
a
r
a
c
e
a
e

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2
3

C
a
p
p
a
r
i
s

h
o
r
r
i
d

C
a
p
p
a
r
a
c
e
a
e

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2
4

C
a
p
p
a
r
i
s

z
e
y
l
a
n
i
c
a

L
.

*

C
a
p
p
a
r
a
c
e
a
e

6

3

1
2

0
.
5
0

0
.
2
5

2
9
4
.
7

0
.
6
8

4
.
1
7

4
.
8
5

2
5

O
p
u
n
t
i
a

s
t
r
i
c
t
a

(
H
a
w
.
)

H
a
w
.

C
a
c
t
a
c
e
a
e

1

1

1
2

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
8

8
8
4
.
0

0
.
1
1

1
.
3
9

1
.
5
0

2
6

G
y
m
n
o
s
p
o
r
i
a

m
o
n
t
a
n
a

(
R
o
t
h
)

B
e
m
t
h
.

C
e
l
a
s
t
r
a
c
e
a
e

1

1

1
2

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
8

8
8
4
.
0

0
.
1
1

1
.
3
9

1
.
5
0

2
7

C
a
s
s
i
a

t
o
r
a

L
.

*

F
a
b
a
c
e
a
e

5

1

1
2

0
.
4
2

0
.
0
8

8
8
4
.
0

0
.
5
7

1
.
3
9

1
.
9
5

2
8

C
a
s
s
i
a

a
b
s
u
s

L
.

F
a
b
a
c
e
a
e

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

T
a
b
l
e
.
1
.

S
p
e
c
i
e
s

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e

V
a
l
u
e

i
n

D
a
r
o
j
i

S
l
o
t
h

b
e
a
r

S
a
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
.

Harisha and Hosetti,2013
831 Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 828-839

2
9

A
n
o
g
e
i
s
s
u
s

l
a
t
i
f
o
l
i
a

(
R
o
x
b
.

e
x

D
C
.
)

W
a
l
l
.

e
x

G
u
i
l
l
.

&

P
e
r
r
.

C
o
m
b
r
e
t
a
c
e
a
e

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3
0

C
o
m
m
e
l
i
n
a

b
e
n
g
h
a
l
e
n
s
i
s

L
.

C
o
m
m
e
l
i
n
a
c
e
a
e

1
0

3

1
2

0
.
8
3

0
.
2
5

2
9
4
.
7

1
.
1
3

4
.
1
7


5
.
3
0

3
1

C
y
a
n
o
t
i
s

t
u
b
e
r
o
s
a

(
R
o
x
b
.
)

S
c
h
u
l
t
.

&

S
c
h
u
l
t
z
.
f
.

C
o
m
m
e
l
i
n
a
c
e
a
e

2
7

5

1
2

2
.
2
5

0
.
4
2

1
7
6
.
8

3
.
0
5

6
.
9
4

1
0
.
0
0

3
2

I
p
o
m
o
e
a

o
b
s
c
u
r
a

(
L
.
)

K
e
r

G
a
w
l
.

C
o
n
v
o
l
v
u
l
a
c
e
a
e

2

2

1
2

0
.
1
7

0
.
1
7

4
4
2
.
0

0
.
2
3

2
.
7
8


3
.
0
0

3
3

C
u
s
c
u
t
a

r
e
f
l
e
x
a

R
o
x
b
.

*

C
o
n
v
o
l
v
u
l
a
c
e
a
e

1

1

1
2

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
8

8
8
4
.
0

0
.
1
1

1
.
3
9


1
.
5
0

3
4

E
v
o
l
v
u
l
u
s

a
l
s
i
n
o
i
d
e
s

(
L
.
)

L
.

*

C
o
n
v
o
l
v
u
l
a
c
e
a
e

5
0

1
1

1
2

4
.
1
7

0
.
9
2

8
0
.
4

5
.
6
6

1
5
.
2
8


2
0
.
9
3

3
5

M
e
r
r
e
m
i
a

t
r
i
d
e
n
t
a
t
a

(
L
.
)

H
a
l
l
i
e
r

f
.
)

C
o
n
v
o
l
v
u
l
a
c
e
a
e

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3
6

T
r
i
c
h
o
s
a
n
t
h
e
s

s
p
.

C
u
c
u
r
b
i
t
a
c
e
a
e

1

1

1
2

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
8

8
8
4
.
0

0
.
1
1

1
.
3
9

1
.
5
0

3
7

D
i
o
s
p
y
r
o
s

p
a
n
i
c
u
l
a
t
a

D
a
l
z
.

E
b
e
n
a
c
e
a
e

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3
8

K
i
r
g
a
n
e
l
i
a

r
e
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
a

(
P
o
i
r
.
)

B
a
i
l
l
.
)

*

P
h
y
l
l
a
n
t
h
a
c
e
a
e

2

2

1
2

0
.
1
7

0
.
1
7

4
4
2
.
0

0
.
2
3

2
.
7
8

3
.
0
0

3
9

E
u
p
h
o
r
b
i
a

t
i
r
u
c
a
l
l
i

L
.

*

E
u
p
h
o
r
b
i
a
c
e
a
e

1
1

3

1
2

0
.
9
2

0
.
2
5

2
9
4
.
7

1
.
2
4

4
.
1
7

5
.
4
1

4
0

A
b
r
u
s

p
r
e
c
a
t
o
r
i
u
s

L
.

*

F
a
b
a
c
e
a
e

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4
1

A
c
a
c
i
a

c
a
t
e
c
h
u

(
L
.

f
.
)

W
i
l
l
d
.

*

F
a
b
a
c
e
a
e

4
9

1
0

1
2

4
.
0
8

0
.
8
3

8
8
.
4

5
.
5
4

1
3
.
8
9

1
9
.
4
3

4
2

A
c
a
c
i
a

l
e
u
c
o
p
h
l
o
e
a

(
R
o
x
b
.
)

W
i
l
l
d
.

F
a
b
a
c
e
a
e

9

2

1
2

0
.
7
5

0
.
1
7

4
4
2
.
0

1
.
0
2

2
.
7
8

3
.
8
0

4
3

A
c
a
c
i
a

n
i
l
o
t
i
c
a

(
L
.
)

D
e
l
i
l
e
)

F
a
b
a
c
e
a
e

2
7

6

1
2

2
.
2
5

0
.
5
0

1
4
7
.
3

3
.
0
5

8
.
3
3

1
1
.
3
9

4
4

A
c
a
c
i
a

s
i
n
u
a
t
a

a
u
c
t
.
)

F
a
b
a
c
e
a
e

5

2

1
2

0
.
4
2

0
.
1
7

4
4
2
.
0

0
.
5
7

2
.
7
8

3
.
3
4

4
5

A
l
b
i
z
i
a

a
m
a
r
a

(
R
o
x
b
.
)

B
o
i
v
i
n
,

*

F
a
b
a
c
e
a
e

4

2

1
2

0
.
3
3

0
.
1
7

4
4
2
.
0

0
.
4
5

2
.
7
8

3
.
2
3

4
6

A
l
b
i
z
i
a

o
d
o
r
a
t
i
s
s
i
m
a

(
L
.

f
.
)

B
e
n
t
h
.

F
a
b
a
c
e
a
e

6

2

1
2

0
.
5
0

0
.
1
7

4
4
2
.
0

0
.
6
8

2
.
7
8

3
.
4
6

4
7

B
a
u
h
i
n
i
a

r
a
c
e
m
o
s
a

L
a
m
.

F
a
b
a
c
e
a
e

4

2

1
2

0
.
3
3

0
.
1
7

4
4
2
.
0

0
.
4
5

2
.
7
8

3
.
2
3

4
8

C
a
s
s
i
a

a
u
r
i
c
u
l
a
t
a

L
.

*

F
a
b
a
c
e
a
e

1

1

1
2

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
8

8
8
4
.
0

0
.
1
1

1
.
3
9

1
.
5
0

4
9

C
a
s
s
i
a

f
i
s
t
u
l
a

L
.

*

F
a
b
a
c
e
a
e

1

1

1
2

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
8

8
8
4
.
0

0
.
1
1

1
.
3
9

1
.
5
0

5
0

C
r
o
t
a
l
a
r
i
a

p
a
l
l
i
d
a

A
i
t
o
n

F
a
b
a
c
e
a
e

1

1

1
2

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
8

8
8
4
.
0

0
.
1
1

1
.
3
9

1
.
5
0

5
1

D
a
l
b
e
r
g
i
a

l
a
n
c
e
o
l
a
r
i
a

L
.

f
.

F
a
b
a
c
e
a
e

1
2

3

1
2

1
.
0
0

0
.
2
5

2
9
4
.
7

1
.
3
6

4
.
1
7

5
.
5
2

5
2

D
e
s
m
o
d
i
u
m

t
r
i
f
l
o
r
u
m

(
L
.
)

D
C
.

F
a
b
a
c
e
a
e

1
7

6

1
2

1
.
4
2

0
.
5
0

1
4
7
.
3

1
.
9
2

8
.
3
3

1
0
.
2
6

5
3

I
n
d
i
g
o
f
e
r
a

t
i
n
c
t
o
r
i
a

L
.

F
a
b
a
c
e
a
e

1
9

5

1
2

1
.
5
8

0
.
4
2

1
7
6
.
8

2
.
1
5

6
.
9
4

9
.
0
9

5
4

T
e
p
h
r
o
s
i
a

p
u
r
p
u
r
e
a

(
L
.
)

P
e
r
s
.

*

F
a
b
a
c
e
a
e

1
9

9

1
2

1
.
5
8

0
.
7
5

9
8
.
2

2
.
1
5

1
2
.
5
0

1
4
.
6
5

5
5

M
i
m
o
s
a

p
u
d
i
c
a

L
.

*

F
a
b
a
c
e
a
e

2

2

1
2

0
.
1
7

0
.
1
7

4
4
2
.
0

0
.
2
3

2
.
7
8

3
.
0
0

5
6

P
a
r
k
i
n
s
o
n
i
a

d
i
g
i
t
a
t
a

F
a
b
a
c
e
a
e

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5
7

P
i
t
h
e
c
e
l
l
o
b
i
u
m

d
u
l
c
e

(
R
o
x
b
.
)

B
e
n
t
h
.

F
a
b
a
c
e
a
e

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5
8

L
e
u
c
a
s

a
s
p
e
r
a

(
W
i
l
l
d
.
)

L
i
n
k

*

L
a
m
i
a
c
e
a
e

1
5

4

1
2

1
.
2
5

0
.
3
3

2
2
1
.
0

1
.
7
0

5
.
5
6

7
.
2
5

5
9

L
e
u
c
a
s

s
t
r
i
c
t
a

B
e
n
t
h
.

L
a
m
i
a
c
e
a
e

1
2

6

1
2

1
.
0
0

0
.
5
0

1
4
7
.
3

1
.
3
6

8
.
3
3

9
.
6
9

6
0

H
y
p
t
i
s

s
u
a
v
e
o
l
e
n
s

(
L
.
)

P
o
i
t
.

L
a
m
i
a
c
e
a
e

1
7

3

1
2

1
.
4
2

0
.
2
5

2
9
4
.
7

1
.
9
2

4
.
1
7

6
.
0
9

6
1

O
c
i
m
u
m

a
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
u
m

L
.

*

L
a
m
i
a
c
e
a
e

5
2

2

1
2

4
.
3
3

0
.
1
7

4
4
2
.
0

5
.
8
8

2
.
7
8

8
.
6
6

6
2

A
b
u
t
i
l
o
n

i
n
d
i
c
u
m

(
L
.
)

S
w
e
e
t

M
a
l
v
a
c
e
a
e

3

2

1
2

0
.
2
5

0
.
1
7

4
4
2
.
0

0
.
3
4

2
.
7
8

3
.
1
2

6
3

G
r
e
w
i
a

h
i
r
s
u
t
a

V
a
h
l
,

T
i
l
i
a
c
e
a
e

6
4

1
0

1
2

5
.
3
3

0
.
8
3

8
8
.
4

7
.
2
4

1
3
.
8
9

2
1
.
1
3

6
4

G
r
e
w
i
a

d
a
m
i
n
e

G
a
e
r
t
n
.

T
i
l
i
a
c
e
a
e

6
0

9

1
2

5
.
0
0

0
.
7
5

9
8
.
2

6
.
7
9

1
2
.
5
0

1
9
.
2
9

6
5

G
r
e
w
i
a

t
i
l
i
i
f
o
l
i
a

V
a
h
l
.

T
i
l
i
a
c
e
a
e

1
0

2

1
2

0
.
8
3

0
.
1
7

4
4
2
.
0

1
.
1
3

2
.
7
8

3
.
9
1

Harisha and Hosetti,2013
Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 828-839 832

6
6

H
i
b
i
s
c
u
s

l
o
b
a
t
u
s

(
M
u
r
r
a
y
)

K
u
n
t
z
e

M
a
l
v
a
c
e
a
e

1

1

1
2

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
8

8
8
4
.
0

0
.
1
1

1
.
3
9

1
.
5
0

6
7

S
i
d
a

c
o
r
d
a
t
a

(
B
u
r
m
.

f
.
)

B
o
r
s
s
.

W
a
a
l
k
.

M
a
l
v
a
c
e
a
e

2

1

1
2

0
.
1
7

0
.
0
8

8
8
4
.
0

0
.
2
3

1
.
3
9

1
.
6
2

6
8

S
i
d
a

c
o
r
d
i
f
o
l
i
a

L
.

*

M
a
l
v
a
c
e
a
e

4

2

1
2

0
.
3
3

0
.
1
7

4
4
2
.
0

0
.
4
5

2
.
7
8

3
.
2
3

6
9

G
u
a
z
u
m
a

u
l
m
i
f
o
l
i
a

L
a
m
.

M
a
l
v
a
c
e
a
e

1
5

6

1
2

1
.
2
5

0
.
5
0

1
4
7
.
3

1
.
7
0

8
.
3
3

1
0
.
0
3

7
0

C
e
n
t
e
l
l
a

a
s
i
a
t
i
c
a

(
L
.
)

U
r
b
.

*

A
p
i
a
c
e
a
e

1

1

1
2

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
8

8
8
4
.
0

0
.
1
1

1
.
3
9

1
.
5
0

7
1

C
o
c
c
u
l
u
s

h
i
r
s
u
t
u
s

(
L
.
)

D
i
e
l
s
*

M
e
n
i
s
p
e
r
m
a
c
e
a
e

1
4

6

1
2

1
.
1
7

0
.
5
0

1
4
7
.
3

1
.
5
8

8
.
3
3

9
.
9
2

7
2

S
t
e
p
h
a
n
i
a

j
a
p
o
n
i
c
a

(
T
h
u
n
b
.
)

M
i
e
r
s

*

M
e
n
i
s
p
e
r
m
a
c
e
a
e

7

4

1
2

0
.
5
8

0
.
3
3

2
2
1
.
0

0
.
7
9

5
.
5
6

6
.
3
5

7
3

M
e
l
i
a

d
u
b
i
a

*

M
e
l
i
a
c
e
a
e

2

1

1
2

0
.
1
7

0
.
0
8

8
8
4
.
0

0
.
2
3

1
.
3
9

1
.
6
2

7
4

F
i
c
u
s

a
r
n
o
t
t
i
a
n
a

(
M
i
q
.
)

M
i
q
.

M
o
r
a
c
e
a
e

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7
5

F
i
c
u
s

b
e
n
g
h
a
l
e
n
s
i
s

L
.

*

M
o
r
a
c
e
a
e

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7
6

F
i
c
u
s

r
a
c
e
m
o
s
a

L
.

*

M
o
r
a
c
e
a
e

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7
7

F
i
c
u
s

t
o
m
e
n
t
o
s
a

R
o
x
b
.

M
o
r
a
c
e
a
e

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7
8

S
y
z
y
g
i
u
m

c
u
m
i
n
i

(
L
.
)

S
k
e
e
l
s

*

M
y
r
t
a
c
e
a
e

1

1

1
2

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
8

8
8
4
.
0

0
.
1
1

1
.
3
9

1
.
5
0

7
9

B
o
e
r
h
a
v
i
a

d
i
f
f
u
s
a

L
.

*

N
y
c
t
a
g
i
n
a
c
e
a
e

5

3

1
2

0
.
4
2

0
.
2
5

2
9
4
.
7

0
.
5
7

4
.
1
7

4
.
7
3

8
0

X
i
m
e
n
i
a

s
p
.

O
l
a
c
a
c
e
a
e

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

8
1

P
h
y
l
l
a
n
t
h
u
s

a
m
a
r
u
s

S
c
h
u
m
a
c
h
.

*

P
h
y
l
l
a
n
t
h
a
c
e
a
e

2
0

1

1
2

1
.
6
7

0
.
0
8

8
8
4
.
0

2
.
2
6

1
.
3
9

3
.
6
5

8
2

Z
i
z
i
p
h
u
s

j
u
j
u
b
a

M
i
l
l
.

*

R
h
a
m
n
a
c
e
a
e

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

8
3

B
o
r
r
e
r
i
a

h
i
s
p
i
d
a

(
L
i
n
n
.
)

K
.

S
c
h
u
m
.

R
u
b
i
a
c
e
a
e

2
8

4

1
2

2
.
3
3

0
.
3
3

2
2
1
.
0

3
.
1
7

5
.
5
6

8
.
7
2

8
4

B
o
r
r
e
r
i
a

s
t
r
i
c
t
a

(
L
.

f
.
)

G
.

M
e
y
.

*

R
u
b
i
a
c
e
a
e

4
2

8

1
2

3
.
5
0

0
.
6
7

1
1
0
.
5

4
.
7
5

1
1
.
1
1

1
5
.
8
6

8
5

C
a
n
t
h
i
u
m

p
a
r
v
i
f
l
o
r
u
m

L
a
m
.

*

R
u
b
i
a
c
e
a
e

1
1

3

1
2

0
.
9
2

0
.
2
5

2
9
4
.
7

1
.
2
4

4
.
1
7

5
.
4
1

8
6

O
l
d
e
n
l
a
n
d
i
a

c
o
r
y
m
b
o
s
a

L
.

R
u
b
i
a
c
e
a
e

2
0

2

1
2

1
.
6
7

0
.
1
7

4
4
2
.
0

2
.
2
6

2
.
7
8

5
.
0
4

8
7

M
o
r
i
n
d
a

t
i
n
c
t
o
r
i
a

R
o
x
b
.


m
a
d
d
i
,

E
T

*

R
u
b
i
a
c
e
a
e

2
2

5

1
2

1
.
8
3

0
.
4
2

1
7
6
.
8

2
.
4
9

6
.
9
4

9
.
4
3

8
8

M
o
r
i
n
d
a

t
o
m
e
n
t
o
s
a

B
.
H
e
y
n
e

e
x

R
o
t
h

R
u
b
i
a
c
e
a
e

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

8
9

P
a
v
e
t
t
a

i
n
d
i
c
a

L
.

R
u
b
i
a
c
e
a
e

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9
0

R
a
n
d
i
a

u
l
i
g
i
n
o
s
a

(
R
e
t
z
.
)

P
o
i
r
.

R
u
b
i
a
c
e
a
e

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9
1

I
x
o
r
a

b
r
a
c
h
i
a
t
a

R
o
x
b
.

e
x

D
C

R
u
b
i
a
c
e
a
e



















9
2

Z
i
z
i
p
h
u
s

m
a
u
r
i
t
i
a
n
a

L
a
m
.

*

R
h
a
m
n
a
c
e
a
e

1
3

4

1
2

1
.
0
8

0
.
3
3

2
2
1
.
0

1
.
4
7

5
.
5
6

7
.
0
3

9
3

Z
i
z
i
p
h
u
s

o
e
n
o
p
l
i
a

(
L
.
)

M
i
l
l
.

R
h
a
m
n
a
c
e
a
e

5

3

1
2

0
.
4
2

0
.
2
5

2
9
4
.
7

0
.
5
7

4
.
1
7

4
.
7
3

9
4

C
a
r
d
i
o
s
p
e
r
m
u
m

h
a
l
i
c
a
c
a
b
u
m

L
.

*

S
a
p
i
n
d
a
c
e
a
e

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9
5

S
a
p
i
n
d
u
s

t
r
i
f
o
l
i
a
t
u
s

L
.

*

S
a
p
i
n
d
a
c
e
a
e

1

1

1
2

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
8

8
8
4
.
0

0
.
1
1

1
.
3
9

1
.
5
0

9
6

W
i
t
h
a
n
i
a

s
o
m
n
i
f
e
r
a

(
L
.
)

D
u
n
a
l

*

S
o
l
a
n
a
c
e
a
e

1

1

1
2

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
8

8
8
4
.
0

0
.
1
1

1
.
3
9

1
.
5
0

9
7

H
o
l
o
p
t
e
l
e
a

i
n
t
e
g
r
i
f
o
l
i
a

(
R
o
x
b
.
)

P
l
a
n
c
h
.

*

U
l
m
a
c
e
a
e

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9
8

T
r
i
b
u
l
u
s

t
e
r
r
e
s
t
r
i
s

L
.

*

Z
y
g
o
p
h
y
l
l
a
c
e
a
e

3

2

1
2

0
.
2
5

0
.
1
7

4
4
2
.
0

0
.
3
4

2
.
7
8

3
.
1
2







8
8
4

















*
=
M
e
d
i
c
i
n
a
l

p
l
a
n
t
s
,

N
-
n
o

o
f

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
,

T
O
-
t
r
a
n
s
e
c
t

o
c
c
u
r
r
e
d
,

T
T
=
T
o
t
a
l

t
r
a
n
s
e
c
t
,

D
=
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
,

F
=
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
,

A
=
A
b
u
n
d
a
n
c
e
,

R
D
=
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

d
e
n
s
i
t
y

R
F
=
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
,

I
V
I
=
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t

v
a
l
u
e

i
n
d
e
x
;

-
t
v

=
o
u
t
s
i
d
e

t
h
e

q
u
a
d
r
a
t
e
s

.

Where, Pi = No. of individuals of one species/total no of
individuals in the sample.
The indices of Species Richness (R) and Species
Evenness (E) were estimated using the following
formulae.
R = (S-1)/log N
E = (H')/ log S
Where,
S = Total no. of species,
N =Total no. of individuals of all the species,
(H')= Shannon Weiners index.

RESULTS
Floristic Structure: Species richness and Density
The census of individuals in the study area
resulted in 98 identified plant species which include 85
genera and 37 families. Based on their density in the
quadrate, species were grouped into following five
categories:
Predominant species (species with 50 individuals)
Four species, Grewia hirsute (64 individuals) and
Grewia sp. (60 individuals), Ocimum americanum (52)
and Evolvulus alsinoides (50 individuals) belonged to
this category representing 4% of the plots species and
26% of the plots density (242 individuals) (Table 1).
Dominant species (species with 25 to 49 individuals)
Seven species, Acacia catechu (49 individuals),
Borreria stricta (42 individuals), Aerva lanata
(37 individuals), Vernonia cinerea (32 individuals),
Borreria hispida (28 individuals), Acacia nilotica and
Cyanotis tuberose (27 individuals each) together
accounting for 7% of the plots species and 25% of the
stand density (226 individuals) represented this group.
Fairly Common species (species with 5 to 24
individuals)
Thirty species, Morinda tinctoria (22),
Oldenlandia corymbosa, Phyllanthus amarus (20 each),
Indigofera tinctoria, Tephrosia purpurea (19 each),
Desmodium trifoliate, Hyptis suaveolens (17 each),
Parthenium hysterophorus (16), Leucas aspera,
Guazuma obscura (15 each), Cocculus hirsutus (14),
Ziziphus maurtiana (13), Dalbergia lanceolaria,
Leucas stricta (12 each), Achyranthes aspera,
Euphorbia tirucalli, Canthium parviflorum (11 each),
Commelina sinensis, Grewia tiliifolia (10 each),
Carissa carandas, Acacia leucophloea (9 each),
Wrightia tinctoria (8), Stephania japonica (7),
Albizia odoratissima, Hemidesmus indicus,
Capparis zeylanica (6 each), Cassia tora,
Acacia sinuate, Ziziphus oenoplia, and Boerhavia diffusa
(5 each), accounting for 30% of total species richness
and 39% of stand density represented this group and
collectively they had 355 stems.
Common species (species with 1 to 4 individuals)
Thirty-one species, Ageratum conyzoides,
Tridax procumbens, Albizzia amara, Bauhinia racemosa,
Harisha and Hosetti, 2013
833 Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 828-839
An overview of Sanctuary Sanctuary during summer
Harisha and Hosetti,2013
Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 828-839 834

Table.2. Family composition and Family Importance Value in Daroji Sloth bear Sanctuary.
Sl. No
Family No. of species No. of trees Relative Density Relative Diversity FIV
1 Acanthaceae
2
3
0.3
2.0
2.4
2 Alangiaceae
1
1
0.1
1.0
1.1
3 Amaranthaceae
4
49
5.4
4.0
9.4
4 Aristolochiaceae
1
2
0.2
1.0
1.2
5 Apocynaceae
5
25
2.8
5.1
7.8
6 Asclepiadaceae
4
7
0.8
4.0
4.8
7 Asparagaceae
1
1
0.1
1.0
1.1
8 Asteraceae
4
56
6.2
4.0
10.2
9 Capparaceae
3
8
0.9
3.0
3.9
10 Cactaceae
1
1
0.1
1.0
1.1
11 Celastraceae
1
1
0.1
1.0
1.1
12 Cesalpinaceae
2
6
0.7
2.0
2.7
13 Combretaceae
1
1
0.1
1.0
1.1
14 Convolvulaceae
4
53
5.8
4.0
9.9
15 Commelinaceae
2
37
4.1
2.0
6.1
16 Cucurbitaceae
1
1
0.1
1.0
1.1
17 Ebenaceae
1
1
0.1
1.0
1.1
18 Euphorbiaceae
2
13
1.4
2.0
3.5
19 Fabaceae
17
178
19.6
17.2
36.8
20 Lamiaceae
4
96
10.6
4.0
14.6
21 Malvaceae
9
160
17.6
9.1
26.7
22 Mackinlayaceae
1
1
0.1
1.0
1.1
23 Menispermaceae
2
21
2.3
2.0
4.3
24 Meliaceae
1
2
0.2
1.0
1.2
25 Moraceae
4
4
0.4
4.0
4.5
26 Myrtaceae
1
1
0.1
1.0
1.1
27
Leguminosae 1
1
0.1
1.0
1.1
28 Nyctaginaceae
1
5
0.6
1.0
1.6
29 Olacaceae
1
1
0.1
1.0
1.1
30 Phyllanthaceae
1
20
2.2
1.0
3.2
31 Rhamnaceae
1
1
0.1
1.0
1.1
32 Rubiaceae
8
126
13.9
8.1
21.9
33 Rhamnaceae
2
18
2.0
2.0
4.0
34 Sapindaceae
2
2
0.2
2.0
2.2
35 Solanaceae
1
1
0.1
1.0
1.1
36 Ulmaceae
1
2
0.2
1.0
1.2
37 Zygophyllaceae
1
3
0.3
1.0
1.3

99
909
100.0
100.0
200.0


Sida cordifolia (4 each), Abutilon indicum,
Leptadenia reticulata, Tribulus terrestris (3each),
Barleria sp., Aristolochia indica, Calotropis gigantea,
Daemia extensa, Kirganelia reticulata, Mimosa pudica,
Melia dubia, Ipomoea obscura, Sida cordata (2 each),
Cassia auriculata, Cassia fistula, Crotalaria pallida,
Hibiscus lobatus, Centella asiatica, Syzygium cumini,
Sapi ndus t rif oli at us, Wi thania somnif era,
Amaranthes viridis, Tylophora indica, Opuntia stricta,
Gymnosporia montana, Cuscuta reflexa and
Trichosanthes sp. (1 each), accounting for 32% of total
species richness and 7% of stand density represented this
group and collectively they had 61 stems.
Rare species (species with 1)
Twenty-seven species making up 27% of the
total plots species and 3% of stand density formed this
group. Anogeissus latifolia, Merremia tridentate,
Di ospyros pani culata, Abrus precatorius,
Parkinsonia digitata, Grewia damine, Ficus arnottiana,
Ficus benghalensis, Ficus racemosa, Ficus tomentosa
individuals.
Based on Species Importance Value,
Grewia hirsute figured on the top of top ten SIV
hierarchy (21.13), followed by the Evolvulus alsinoides
(20. 93), Acacia catechu (19.43), Grewia sp. (19.29),
Vernonia cinerea (17.51), Borreria stricta (15.86),
Tephrosia purpurea (14.65), Aerva lantana (12.52),
Acacia nilotica (11.39) and Desmodium trifoliate
(10.26).
Family Composition
Of the 37 families recorded (three unidentified),
Fabaceae is the dominant based on the species richness
with 17 species, followed by the Malvaceae, Rubiaceae
with nine species each, Apocynaceae with five,
Amarant haceae, Asclepiadaceae, Ast eraceae,
Convolvulaceae, Lamiaceae and Moraceae with four
species each, following by Capparidaceae with three
species, Acanthaceae, Cesalpinaceae, Commelinaceae,
Euphorbiaceae, Menispermaceae, Rhamnaceae and
Sapindaceae with two species each, Alangiaceae,
Ar ist olochiaceae, Asparagaceae, Cact aceae,
Celastraceae, Combretaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Ebenaceae,
Mackinlayaceae, Myrtaceae, Nyctaginaceae, Olacaceae,
Phyllanthaceae, Rhamnaceae, Solanaceae, Ulmaceae,
Zygophyllaceae and Meliaceae with one species each
were recorded.
Based on density, the top order of families were
Fabaceae (178 individuals), Malvaceae (160 individuals),
Rubiaceae (126 individuals), Lamiaceae (96 individuals),
Asteraceae (56 individuals), Convolvulaceae (53
individuals), Amaranthaceae (49 individuals),
Commelinaceae (37 individuals), UK (26 individuals),
Apocynaceae (25 individuals), Menispermaceae (21
individuals), Phyllanthaceae (20 individuals),
Rhamnaceae (18 individuals), Euphorbiaceae (13
individuals), Capparidaceae (8 individuals),
Asclepiadaceae (7 individuals), Nyctaginaceae (5
individuals) and Moraceae (4 individuals), Two families
were represented by three species such as Acanthaceae
and Zygophyllaceae, four families were represented by
two species such as Meliaceae, Aristolochiaceae,
Sapindaceae and Ulmaceae, thirteen families were
represented by only one species, such as Asparagaceae,
Cactaceae, Celastraceae, Combretaceae, Alangiaceae,
Cucur bit ace ae, Ebe nace ae, Legumi nosae,
Mackinlayaceae, Myrtaceae, Olacaceae, Solanaceae and
Rhamnaceae were recorded.
Harisha and Hosetti ,2013
835 Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 828-839
Sloth bear at Sanctuary
Based on FIV, Fabaceae (36.8) ranked highest
among families followed by Malvaceae (26.7),
Rubiaceae (21.9) and Lamiaceae (14.6) (Table 2).
Diversity Indices
The Shannon-Weiners diversity index was found be
3.909 for the entire study area, and the Species Richness
index and Species Evenness index were found to be
26.26, 2.03, respectively.

DISCUSSION
The study on the floristic diversity is one of the
important factor to be analyzed to assess the diversity of
a particular area as well as the diversity of the nation.
The assessment of diversity is also important during this
period where the lot of plants and animals are in threats
due to the fragmentation of habitats and decline in
habitat quality (Kumar et al., 2000). The decline of
quality of habitat and fragmentation are mainly due to
the anthropogenic activities including the conversion of
forest into agriculture land, developmental activities,
mining etc. which affects on the landscapes and species
composition (Jerath et al., 2007).
Assessment of biodiversity will help in
understanding the inter-linkages between biological
resources and human being and which help in taking the
best decisions in conservation of natural resource and
development through sustainable utilization (Jerath et al.,
2007). This could be achieved only when the
quantification of existing resource is known and the
requirements estimated. This is also true in case of wild
animals where the availability of food source is
dependent on the population of those animals in the
forest. The existence of the diversity in particular area
also depicts the wild animals to be found in that
particular forest area. In view of the above, the present
study was investigated to know the floral diversity of the
Daroji Sloth bear sanctuary.
Previous studies conducted in this sanctuary by
Neginhal et al. (2003) and Madhav Gadgil et al. (2011)
64 plant species were enumerated, but in present study
98 plant species have been recorded. The study revealed
that the species composition and diversity of this
sanctuary can be compared with that of many other dry
forests such as Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary
(Krishnamurthy et al., 2010), Savanadurga State Forest,
Karnataka (Murali et al., 2003). Species richness of the
present study (99 species for individuals 1 cm) is
closer to the species richness of the dry forests in Puerto
Rico (50 species, Murphy and Lugo, 1986), but far less
to the 133 species of Savanadurga State Forests of
Karnataka (Murali et al., 2003).
The Importance Value Index revealed that this
forest is dominated by relatively few species. The seven
species listed in top ten SIV hierarchy (Table 1)
comprise about 33 % of the importance values, which
was 62 % in Bhadra Wildlife sanctuary followed by the
dry forests in Puerto Rico (Murphy and Lugo, 1986) and
St. Lucia (Gonzalez and Zak, 1996) also recorded the
same observation with the seven most common species
dominating the forests by comprising about 55% and
67% of the total importance values, respectively.
The Shannon-Weiners diversity index for the
area as a whole was found to be 3.909, the Species
Richness index and Species Evenness index was found to
be 26.26, 2.03, respectively. Rahlan et al. (1982) stated
that higher the value of diversity, greater will be the plant
community. So it can be stated that the vegetation in
Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary is stable accordingly to the
figures obtained after the data analysis (Table 1).
The species rarity of the present study is 27%,
which is very close to tree diversity of Little Andaman
Island with 34% (Rasingam and Parathasarathy, 2009),
also close to the forests of Kuzhanthaikuppam of
Coromandel Coast (31%, Parthasarathy and Karthikeyan,
1997), Malaysia (38%, Poore, 1968) and Barro Colorado
island of Panama (40%, Thorington et al., 1982); but less
than those of tropical dry deciduous forests of Bhadra
Wildlife Sanctuary (54.3%, Krishnamurthy et al., 2010).
Harisha and Hosetti, 2013
Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 828-839 836


In tropical forests, the abundance and species richness
depend mostly on the soil type, moisture and distribution
of rainfall (Durigon and Waechter, 2011). The present
study also revealed that the soil type and rainfall pattern
of the study area promotes the rich floral diversity
indices (Shanon, 3.90). The plants enumerated during the
study also revealed that the diversity present in this area
greatly supports the food habitat of sloth bears and the
vegetation pattern and geographical location also helps
the sloth bears to live comfortably in this forest region.
The plant species like Grewia hirsute, Grewia hirsuta,
Grewia damine, Ziziphus mauritiana, Grewia tiliifolia,
Syzygium cumini, Cassia fistula, Carissa carandas,
Ziziphus oenoplia showed the density of 5.33., 5.00.,
1.08., 0.83., 0.08., 0.08., 0.75 and 0.42 respectively.
Some Ficus sp. also serves as the food for sloth bears.
The Shannon diversity indices of Western Ghats
(at different altitudes) according to Pascal is measured to
be in the range of 3.6-4.3 and the index is measured
about 2.01-3.7 in the wet evergreen forest of Coorg
district (Swamy et al., 2010). In the present study, the
Shannon diversity index is calculated to be 3.90, which
indicated that even though the forest type falls under the
dry deciduous forest, the diversity index can be largely
compared to that of the evergreen forest. The present
study signifies the long term monitoring of the
vegetation as well as the population of sloth bears in
accordance with the availability of food source and good
habitat. This type of studies greatly impact on the
ecological balance between the vegetation pattern and
the animal populations.
The floral diversity of the present study area also
comprises as many as 65 species of medicinal plants
(Table.1). There is an urgent need to protect these
medicinal plants from grazing animals (sheep, goat),
which are being forcibly invaded into the sanctuary by
the surrounding villagers. The vegetation and the wealth
of this sanctuary need to be protected also from the
mining (quarrying) which are being run nearby hillock
regions, or otherwise this may leads to the habitat
fragmentation and destruction.
Based on the present study there is a need to
undertake some special ecological developmental
projects in the area which include water harvesting
through assured tanks so that water would be available to
wildlife during hot summer. Construction of boundary
wall or fence around the protected area will reduce
poaching of wildlife, entry of domestic cattle for grazing
and deforestation in the area.

CONCLUSION
The study on the floral diversity of Daroji Sloth
Bear Sanctuary of Bellary district concludes that the
richness and diversity in the area is mainly due to the
climatological conditions prevailing there. The hard dry
condition and scarce rainfall have favored mainly thorny
and shrubby plants to adopt and grow in such harsh
terrain conditions and trees resulting in stunted growth.
The fruits, seeds and leaves are consumed by a variety of
birds and animals and thus are easily dispersed. The
present study will provide the basic information on the
present status and composition of tree species in a
limited area.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors are thankful to Kiran, M.N, ACF,
Ravindranath, I.R, RFO and forest watchers of Daroji
Sloth Bear Sanctuary, Karnataka and all those who have
shared their information on the study area during the
study period. M.N, Harisha is thankful to UGC, New
Delhi for sanctioning fellowship (RGNF), to all
researchers from Panchavati Research Academy for
Nature (PRANA) Trust, Linganamakki, Sagara (TQ),
Shivamogga and also to Kuvempu University for support
and facilities.

REFERENCES
Bruford MW. 2002. Biodiversity-Evolution. Species,
Harisha and Hosetti, 2013
837 Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 828-839
Genes. Cited in; Conserving birds biodiversity: General
Principles and their Application. Cambridge University
press U.K. 1-19.

Durigon J and Waechter JL. 2011. Floristic
composition and biogeographic relations of a subtropical
assemblage of climbing plants. Biodiversity
Conservation. 20(5):1027-1044.

Gamble JS. 1935. Flora of the Presidency of Madras.
(Vol1-4) Adlard and Son Limited 21, Hart Street. W.O.

Gonzalez OJ and Zak DR. 1996. Tropical dry forest of
St. Lucia, West Indies. Biotropica. 28: 618-626.

Harisha MN, Ajay GA, Kumar MD. 2008. Floristic
and avifaunal diversity of Jogimatti state forest,
Chitradurga, Karnataka. My forest. 44 (3): 225-235.

Jerath N, Singh G, Singh CK and Alkesh S. 2007.
Biological Diversity: The Very Stuff of Life. Punjab
Biodiversity Board, Punjab state council for science and
technology, Chandigarh and UNESCO, New Delhi.

Khan MA. 2011. Promotion and conservation of native
flora and fauna in newly established agro-biodiversity
park in Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural University,
Hyderabad. International Journal of Farm Sciences. 1
(2): 150-157.

Krishnamurthy YL, Prakasha HM, Nanda A,
Krishnappa M, Dattaraja, HS and Suresh HS. 2010.
Vegetation structure and floristic composition of a
tropical dry deciduous forest in Bhadra Wildlife
Sanctuary, Karnataka, India. Tropical Ecology. 51(2):
235-246.

Kumar A, Walker S and Molar S. 2000. Prioritisation
of Endangered species. Setting Biodiversity conservation
Priorities for India. Singh S, Sastry ARK, Mehta R and
Uppal V. New Delhi, WWF-India. 2:341-425.

Madhav Gadgil, Geetha Gadagkar, Harish R Bhat,
Prema Iyer, Ramachandra TV, Yogesh Gokhale.
2011. Checklist of Flowering Plants of Daroji Bear
Sanctuary, Karnataka. Status of Karnataka Biodiversity.
SAHYADRI E-NEWS: Issue XI. Sahyadri: Western
Ghats Biodiversity Information System ENVIS @CES,
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. http://
www.ces.iisc.ernet.in/biodiversity/sahyadri_enews/
newsletter/issue11/hotspot/index.htm.

Michael P. 1990. Ecological methods for field and
laboratory investigations. Tata McGraw Hill Publishing
Company Limited, New Delhi.

Murali KS, Kavitha A and Harish RP. 2003. Spatial
Patterns of trees and shrub species diversity in
Savanadurga State Forest, Karnataka. Current Science.84
(6): 808-813.

Murphy PG and Lugo AE. 1986. Structure and
biomass of subtropical dry forest in Puerto Rico.
Biotropica. 18(2): 89-96.

Neginhal SG, Harish R Bhat, Pramod S and Karthik
G. 2003. Biodiversity Hotspot Report for Daroji Bear
Sanctuary. http://www.ces.iisc.ernet.in/biodiversity/
sahyadri_enews/newsletter/issue11/hotspot/hotspots/
Daroji.htm.

Parthasarathy N and Karthikeyan R. 1997a.
Biodiversity and population density of woody species in
a tropical evergreen forest in Courtallum reserve forest,
Western Ghats, India. Tropical Ecology. 38: 297-306.

Parthasarathy N and Karthikeyan R. 1997b. Plant
biodiversity inventory and conservation of two tropical
dry evergreen forest on the Coromandel Coast, Southern
India. Biodiversity and Conservation. 6: 1063-1083.

Poore, MED. 1968. Studies in Malaysian rainforest. The
forest on Triassic sediments in Jengka forest reserve.
Journal of Ecology. 56: 143-196.

Harisha and Hosetti, 2013
Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 828-839 838


Rahlan PK, Saxena AK and Singh JS. 1982. Analysis
of vegetation at and around Nainital Kumaun Himalaya.
Proc. Indian Nat. Sci. Acad. B. 48B:121-137.

Rasingam L and Parathasarathy N. 2009. Tree species
diversity and population structure across major forest
formations and disturbance categories in Little Andaman
Island, India. Tropical Ecology. 50(1): 89-102.

Shukla, RS and Chandel PS. 1980. Plant Ecology. S.
Chand and Company Ltd., New Delhi. 197.

Swamy SL, Dutt CBS, Murthy MSR, Alka Mishra
and Bargali SS. 2010. Floristics and dry matter
dynamics of tropical wet evergreen forests of Western
Ghats, India. Current Science. 99(3,10) : 353-364.

Thorington Jr, Tannenbaum RWB, Tarak A and
Rudran R. 1982. Distribution of trees on Barro
Colorado Island: A five hectare sample. pp. 83-94. In:
E.G. Leigh Jr., A.S. Rand & D.M. Windsor (eds.) The
Ecology of a Tropical Forest-Seasonal Rhythms and
Long-term Changes. Smithsonian Institute Press.
Washington, DC.
Harisha and Hosetti, 2013
839 Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 828-839
Submit your articles online at www.jresearchbiology.com

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

submit@jresearchbiology.com

www.jresearchbiology.com/Submit.php.