Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 April 2023 | 15(4): 22990–23004

 

 

ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print) 

https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8231.15.4.22990-23004

#8231 | Received 15 October 2022 | Final received 19 March 2023 | Finally accepted 01 April 2023

 

 

Identification, prioritization, and management of biodiversity hot specks: a case study of Western Ghats of Maharashtra, India

 

Shivam Trivedi 1  & Erach Bharucha 2

 

1 Naoroji Godrej Centre for Plant Research, 431, Lawkim Campus, Shindewadi, Shirwal, Satara, Maharashtra 412801, India.

2 Bharati Vidyapeeth Institute of Environment Education and Research, Bharati Vidyapeeth University, Dhankawadi, Pune, Maharashtra 411043, India.

1 trivedi.shivam07@gmail.com (corresponding author), 2 kapilabharucha@gmail.com

 

 

Editor: Mewa Singh, University of Mysore, Mysuru, India.          Date of publication: 26 April 2023 (online & print)

 

Citation: Trivedi, S. & E. Bharucha (2023). Identification, prioritization, and management of biodiversity hot specks: a case study of Western Ghats of Maharashtra, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 15(4): 22990–23004. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8231.15.4.22990-23004

 

Copyright: © Trivedi & Bharucha 2023. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.  JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and distribution of this article in any medium by providing adequate credit to the author(s) and the source of publication.

 

Funding: The research is a part of self funded doctoral research of Dr. Shivam Trivedi.

 

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

 

Author details: Dr. Shivam Trivedi is a scientist at the Naoroji Godrej Centre for Plant Research. He is an experienced environment researcher and a nature conservation expert with a demonstrated history of working in the biodiversity and natural capital conservation research, corporate social responsibility, sustainability and academic sector for over 10 years. Dr. Trivedi is also a member of the international Education for Sustainable Development Expert Net Committee. Dr. Erach Bharucha is the director at the Bharati Vidyapeeth Institute of Environment Education and Research. He is a surgeon by profession, and a biodiversity conservation expert by passion. He has been active in the field of wildlife and nature conservation over the past five decades and has extensively studied the protected areas and tribal cultures of India. He is also the ex-chairman of the Maharashtra State Biodiversity Board.

 

Author contributions: ST—manuscript writing and editing, data (collection, interpretation and analysis) and photography. EB—guidance on writing, editing manuscript and data interpretation.

 

Acknowledgements: The authors are thankful to the Naoroji Godrej Centre for Plant Research, the Bharati Vidyapeeth University and the Bharati Vidyapeeth Institute of Environment Education and Research for their support and encouragement. The authors are also thankful to the reviewers for their critical comments in enhancing the quality of this research article.

 

 

 

Abstract: The Western Ghats are globally recognized as a hotspot of rich, endemic, and threatened biodiversity. Within this hotspot of biological diversity, there are islands of natural landscapes that can be termed as ‘hot specks’. These hot specks require careful prioritization and specific management strategies as they vary in objectives and ownership. Conserving hot specks of biodiversity is of great relevance because creating new protected areas with wildlife corridors between them has become relatively impossible in the present context of intensive land-use change in this rapidly developing region. Management strategies, however, must be based on scientific assessment and using a set of prioritization criteria for selecting the most appropriate forms of management. The conservation action plan for the Western Ghats has become a controversial issue based on the findings in the report submitted by the Western Ghats Expert Ecological Panel and the High Level Work Group on Western Ghats. In the present context of rapidly changing land-use patterns, economic development, forest fragmentation, isolation of habitats, linear intrusion, neo-urbanization and industrial growth are threats to the pristine nature of the ghats. Thus, there is an urgent need to identify, prioritize and manage the smaller fragments of biological importance within the larger ecologically sensitive landscape. A prioritization model for different types of hot specks is essential so that it can be easily replicated by training frontline forest staff, community-based organizations, Biodiversity Management Committees, and non-government organizations for implementing a strategy and action plans for the sites by using the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. Support of the local Biodiversity Management Committees and the State Biodiversity Board is essential for the conservation management of these biodiversity-rich sites. This study presents an innovative approach to prioritize areas outside the formally notified boundaries of the national parks and wildlife sanctuaries to assess the conservation value of hot specks of diversity through a rapid biodiversity assessment tool. This can lead to a rational conservation strategy that conservation planners and practitioners can use.

 

Keywords: Biological diversity, forts, hotspot, hot specks, management strategies, plateaus, rapid biodiversity assessment tool, sacred groves.

 

 

Introduction

 

Western Ghats – a global biodiversity hotspot

The term ‘biodiversity hotspot’ was first introduced in the late 1980s by Norman Myers as ‘specific areas on earth’s land surface harbouring disproportionately large numbers of extant species’ (Reid 1998). At first, a list of 18 biodiversity hotspots was identified based on the richness of higher plant species (Mittermeier et al. 1998). Later new areas were included, and the list of biodiversity hotspots was increased to 25 (Fisher & Christopher 2007; Laurance 2007b). Currently, 35 global biodiversity hotspots have been identified (Laurance 2007a; Williams et al. 2011).

The Western Ghats are one of the first 18 globally identified biodiversity-rich hotspots. The mountain range is believed to be older than the Himalayas and spreads across six western states of India, in Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala (Kumara & Singh 2004; Pai 2005). Among these six states, Maharashtra is the most urbanized and industrialized region making it vital to create a locale-specific viable management strategy for this ecologically sensitive area (Mohan & Pant 1982; Ghatge et al. 2013).

 

Biodiversity conservation – a significant concern

The impacts on the landscape of the Ghats have initiated unsustainable patterns of land management in the Western Ghats (Panayotou & Ashton 1992; Menon & Bawa 1997). This has become a serious concern for biodiversity conservation as new protected areas are not a feasible option in the present context. The notified protected areas are being conserved through the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and various rules and regulations. These formally recognized protected areas were considered an adequate strategy for conserving biodiversity two to three decades ago (Beresford & Phillips 2000). However, recent studies have shown that a large part of the floral and faunal species diversity is present in the landscape elements outside the protected area network (Bhagwat & Rutte 2006). The current protected areas are thus insufficient for conserving the species and ecosystems, which are critical biological assets at global, national and local scales (Lindenmayer & Franklin 2002; Bhagwat et al. 2005; Lindenmayer et al. 2006; Shrestha et al. 2010).

Due to the current rapid growth of urbanization, industrialization, mining, transportation facilities, and infrastructure development, it is not feasible to notify new protected areas under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 or extend the boundaries of the existing protected areas, or create viable corridors between the protected areas is also a contentious issue (Mathur & Sinha 2008). The existing pressures are leading to a loss of species diversity in the protected areas and potential forested corridors connecting them (Gardner et al. 2010). However, there are several small and large landscape elements in the Western Ghats with high species concentrations that are not confined within the boundaries of existing protected areas in this ecologically sensitive area (Gadgil et al. 2011). The surrounding landscape elements of the protected areas form a matrix of cultural landscape elements that are permeable to several species such as small mammals, avifauna, amphibia, reptiles and insect life. The specialized habitat fragments surrounded by human-dominated land-use are representatives of small patches of natural or semi-natural ecosystems of the Western Ghats (Anand et al. 2010). These biodiversity-rich islands of forests are referred to as ‘hot specks’ (Cherian 1995). As defined, these hot specks are miniscule areas of species concentration, varying in size from five to rarely a few hundreds or more square meters falling within of far outside todays recognized hotspots where species-packing of diverse groups, including many endemics is found (Cherian 2000). They constitute a mix of varied elements that are effective as a support system for biodiversity conservation and could constitute a second line of reserves that act as biodiversity rich islands between the protected areas for a variety of floral and faunal elements (Bharucha 2006a, b).

 

Need for identifying biodiversity hot specks

A greater ecosystem is present in the landscape matrix dominated by socio-ecological elements outside the protected area boundaries. Conserving this large ecosystem is not a possible solution considering the human dependency on these landscapes. There is a need to identify key locations within this ecosystem for managing important ecological functions (DeFries et al. 2007). Identifying and conserving the biodiversity-rich ‘hot specks’ in a mosaic of cultural landscapes has become a priority for developing a network of biodiversity rich islands that will support the effective movement of wild fauna between the protected areas, as creating continuous corridors between protected areas is not a feasible option (Bhagwat et al. 2014; Trivedi et al. 2018). The increasing pressures on land use thus requires an innovative strategy aimed at conserving these multiple biodiversity rich hot specks that can act as areas that fauna can use to cross from one forest patch to another. Hot specks of diversity nested between existing protected areas are essential elements within the matrix of man-modified cultural landscapes.

 

Purpose of the study

The purpose of this study was to:

Identify the different important landscape element typologies of hot specks present with the Western Ghats of Maharashtra (Figure 1).

Prioritize each site within these different landscape elements using a set of scientific assessment parameters based on the evaluation of their biodiversity  and  anthropogenic threats that affect them adversely.

Suggest a unique management strategy based on the prioritization of these hot specks.

This study can act as an up scalable model for the rest of a large number of hot specks in the Western Ghats.

 

 

Methods

 

Identification of hot specks

A survey of relevant literature provided a list of 14 possible hot speck typologies (Bharucha 2010; Trivedi & Bharucha 2019). Based on the available secondary data, sacred groves, forts, and plateaus were selected for the survey as they are key areas easily demarcated and can be managed (Naravane 1995; Deshmukh et al. 1998; Watve 2013). Hot specks under the three typologies (sacred groves, forts and plateaus) were plotted on a study area map and were selected for the ground survey through a purposive sampling technique.

 

Assessment of the hot specks

The  Rapid  Biodiversity Assessment Tool was developed consisting of important parameters categorized into biodiversity and anthropogenic threats that were further divided into several relevant subcategories (Figure 2). These parameters included shape and size, structure of the forest and its condition, presence of faunal diversity, special features, surrounding matrix (Hopkins & Skellam 1954; Adams et al. 1998; Ranta et al. 1998; Vázquez-García & Givnish 1998; Plumptre 2000; Ricketts 2001; Hill et al. 2005; Ormsby 2011; Trivedi et al. 2018). Anthropogenic threats include various types of gradually increasing local livelihood threats such as clearing natural landscapes for expanding agriculture and grazing, forest fires, felling of trees and lopping branches and current modern threats arising from the rapid sale of land, development of roads and transportation, powerlines, mining, windmills, industries, neo-urbanization and tourism were included as a part of the evaluation (Padhye et al. 2006; Davidar et al. 2007; Anitha et al. 2009; Subramanian et al. 2011; Mehta & Kulkarni 2012; Trivedi et al. 2018). The assessment parameters were quantified using a score from 0 to 10 (0 – absent, 2.5 – poor/ low, 5 – fair/ moderate, 7.5 – good/ significant, and 10 – very good/ high) (Trivedi et al. 2018). This scoring system was developed based on the assessment technique used for assessing the management effectiveness evaluation (MEE) of tiger reserves in India (Mathur et al. 2011).

The rapid biodiversity assessment tool (RBAT) is modified from the rapid assessment and prioritization of protected area management (RAPPAM) technique developed for WWF’s ‘Forest for Life’ programme (Ervin 2003a; Getzner et al. 2012). These tools were modified so that they can be used by ground level practitioners such as forest department staff and the local Biodiversity Management Committees under the provisions of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (National Biodiversity Authority 2002).

A set of questions was designed for conducting semi-structured interviews with the local people (Longhurst 2003). The interview data is an essential part of the RBAT. It fills the one-time temporal gaps from the survey and provides a time series over the last couple of decades. Interviews can be done relatively quickly and provide local insights that are not obvious in a biodiversity and vegetation-based site analysis (Ervin 2003b). Thus, social issues and cryptic faunal values have emerged through this exercise.

 

Developing a geospatial database of the hotspecks

A normalized difference vegetation index’ (NDVI) was processed using LANDSAT 8 satellite images for the entire study area. The technique was first used in the early 1970s, and it uses visible and near-infrared bands of the electromagnetic spectrum for identifying the presence of live vegetation on the ground (Sahebjalal & Dashtekian 2013). A buffer of 2 km2 was created around the hot specks surveyed to study the peripheral vegetation cover. The GPS coordinates of hot specks were documented during ground-truthing and were plotted for the Western Ghats of Maharashtra using the ArcGIS platform.

Road network was acquired from Open Street Map and overlaid on the study area to identify the type of road connectivity to the hot specks. A buffer of 2 km2 was created around all the identified hot specks from the secondary database to develop a network of hot specks forming a potential wildlife corridor. The database of all the three hot speck typologies was linked with the hot speck maps, and a geospatial database was developed to acquire additional information on the hot specks (Kushwaha & Roy 2002).

A prioritization matrix was developed consisting of 16 categories for prioritizing the surveyed hot specks. These hot specks were then categorized in the matrix based on the biodiversity and anthropogenic threat values obtained from the field survey (Trivedi et al. 2018).

 

Developing management strategy for hot specks in the Western Ghats

Notifying these biodiversity hot specks as protected areas under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 can create new conflict issues. However, the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 is a feasible option since several local and tribal communities are dependent on these hot specks for their livelihood, and local Biodiversity Management Committees are empowered to legally take on this task (West & Brockington 2006). The conservation of these areas requires an innovative approach through which multi-stakeholder participation is incorporated into the management of the hot specks (Miller 2005).

A detailed literature of traditional, existing and new conservation approaches was reviewed for defining possible management strategies. Several new approaches under the rules and guidelines of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 were identified and can be used for conserving the prioritized hot specks based on the scores from assessment of biodiversity and anthropogenic threats (Gadgil et al. 2011).

The conservation of these hot specks requires active participation of various stakeholders. Government departments, especially the Forest Department and the Maharashtra State Biodiversity Board, as well as educational institutes and non-government organizations, have a crucial role in building and strengthening the capacity of the local communities and generating awareness for conserving these islands of rich biodiversity (Singh & Rahman 2012).

The Companies Act, 2013 has provided a potential pathway for corporates to initiate biodiversity conservation through their Corporate Social Responsibility (Ministry of Corporate Affairs 2013). Additional funding through corporates is an option for supporting these programs (National Biodiversity Authority 2019).

 

 

Results

 

A sample size of 51 hot specks (19 sacred groves, 15 forts and 17 plateaus) were identified for the ground survey through purposive sampling from a total of 376 hot specks (Figure 3 & 4). The data collected from the ground survey and interviews were assessed for their biodiversity and anthropogenic threat scores (Table 1). They were depicted graphically and plotted in the prioritization matrix (Figure 5, 6 & 7; Table 2, 3 & 4). The combination of biodiversity and anthropogenic threats show that one sacred grove, one fort and one plateau recorded high biodiversity asset values. There is a significant negative correlation between biodiversity and anthropogenic threat scores, indicating that as anthropogenic threats increase, the value of biodiversity decreases (Table 5). Assessment of threats indicated that there had been a loss of traditional knowledge practices such as spiritual importance, agriculture and grazing while tourism, transportation, and urbanization had a more significant role in degrading the biodiversity of the hot specks and had spread across the surrounding matrix in the landscape.

 

Geospatial analysis

The results of geospatial analysis indicated that the scores of biodiversity and anthropogenic threats could be closely linked to the road connectivity of the hot specks (Figure 8). It provided an indicator of the overall anthropogenic threats that were degrading the biodiversity values of the hot specks. The anthropogenic threats showed that roads were linked to other threats as a cause- and- effect phenomenon which has increased over time. The effect of one threat that led to degrading the hot speck became a driving force for other threats. The analysis of road network connectivity to the hot specks has indicated that a total of  nine hot specks (five sacred groves, two forts and two plateaus) are connected with a national highway, seven hot specks (two sacred groves, three forts and two plateaus) are connected with state highway, two hot specks (two forts) are connected with major district road, 32 hot specks (11 sacred groves, eight forts and 13 plateaus) are connected with other district roads and one hot speck (one sacred grove) is connected with a dust road. The road connectivity to a hot speck has led to other threats causing degradation of the biodiversity in the hot specks. Moderate to high anthropogenic threats have been recorded in four of the five hotspecks connected by national highways. The results showed that 32 out of 51 hot specks were connected by other district roads, which recorded moderate to high anthropogenic threats. A further analysis indicated that the stretch of the other district roads connecting the 17 hot specks were connected indirectly to either a national or state highway. In the case of Korigad fort, Khingar, Ambral, Dandeghar, Rajapuri, Mahabaleshwar 1, 2, & 3 plateaus, the hot specks are connected by other district roads, which is further connected to major district roads. The major district roads are in the near vicinity of popular tourist destinations.

A key concern is the quality of the surrounding matrix. A buffer of 2 km2 created for the hot specks identified from the secondary database have resulted in a potential intermittent functional wildlife corridor connecting protected areas from Kalsubai Wildlife Sanctuary in Maharashtra State to Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary in Goa State (Figure 9).

 

Management of hot specks – a dire need for conservation

The 51 hot specks (sacred groves, forts and plateaus) surveyed in this study are present outside the boundaries of the National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries. Hence, there are no stringent rules and regulations protecting these biodiversity rich hot specks. As a result, changes within the hot specks such as complete renovation or development of deity temples in the sacred groves were observed which has led to thinning of grove canopy and is attracting religious tourism (Image 1 & 2).

An important information recorded from the local interviews was that the sacred groves are not conserved for their biodiversity values but because of religious sentiments. However, the local people are aware of the changing landscapes leading to biodiversity loss. A growing demand of tourism for forts is leading to its beautification and attracting development of roads, small and medium scale eateries, and parking areas (Image 3,4).

These development processes are impacting the areas within fortified walls as well as the fort hill slopes. Unlike sacred groves and forts, plateaus are under pressure from tourism, roads passing through them, mining, power generation projects and grazing, all leading to loss of several seasonal endemic flora (Image 5).

Solid waste is a common threat observed in all the hot specks (Image 6). Land use change in the surrounding matrix is another anthropogenic threat found in hot specks that were connected to state or district highways. There is a dire need to develop and implement a sustainable management system for conserving these biodiversity hot specks taking into consideration the livelihood needs of the local communities.

 

 

Discussion

 

The current study has highlighted that there are several fragments of biodiversity-rich areas outside the protected areas in the Western Ghats termed here as biodiversity hot specks which can act as transit areas across permeable areas for wildlife movements between protected areas (Das et al. 2006; Ray & Ramachandra 2010; Trivedi & Bharucha 2019). These hot specks ensures the genetic viability of disjointed protected areas. There is currently sufficient evidence that they harbour significant levels of biodiversity and are used as transit areas for different species of wildlife (Trivedi et al. 2018). These identified hot specks have the potential to be developed as an additional conservation network. The hot specks support the protected areas system of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries by forming multiple islands of biodiversity in a matrix of cultural landscapes by providing permeability for movement of wild faunal diversity (DeFries et al. 2007; Perfecto & Vandermeer 2008; Ormsby & Bhagwat 2010; Ray & Ramachandra 2010). These hot specks of biodiversity are essential in a situation where developing a continuous wildlife corridor is not possible due to the existing other land-use patterns (Blicharska et al. 2013). Urbanization, tourism, and windmill installation will place further stressors on conservation values in the near future.

The ‘Rapid Biodiversity Assessment Tool’ developed for this study is also referred to as Rapid Ecological Assessment, or ‘Biorap’. This technique is used for conducting assessments for various ecosystems such as terrestrial, marine and freshwater where only a small amount of data or no information is available (Margules & Redhead 1995; Sayre et al. 1999; Patrick et al. 2014; Trivedi et al. 2018). Currently, in the Western Ghats, there is only a list of these hot specks with little if any geospatial or quality indicators for prioritization. The RBAT has filled this gap with important information on the prioritization of areas so that management can be developed on locale-specific lines.

Participation of the local communities plays a crucial role in conserving these biodiversity rich hot specks. Under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, the State Biodiversity Boards have formed the Biodiversity Management Committees (Venkataraman 2009; Laladhas et al. 2023). The Biodiversity Management Committees have developed Peoples Biodiversity Registers that contain information on the availability and knowledge of local biological resources present in the area (Gadgil et al. 2000). These prioritized hot specks outside the protected areas can be declared Biodiversity Heritage Sites under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 or as Community Reserves or Conservation Reserves under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (Singh & Kushwaha 2008; Raghavan et al. 2016). The RBAT helps choose an appropriate legal and administrative option.

Another approach for conservation is designating the hot specks under ‘Other Effective (Area Based) Conservation Measures’ developed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (Convention on Biological Diversity 2018). This is a strategy suggested in Sustainable Development Goals, Aichi Targets and the National Biodiversity Action Plan targets. Other stakeholders, such as corporates through their Corporate Social Responsibility, can provide funds. Non-government organizations, educational institutes and private landowners have an equally important role in supporting the local communities for conserving the hot specks (Kanagavel et al. 2013).

 

 

Conclusion

 

The Western Ghats is dotted with thousands of biodiversity rich hot specks present in the natural and cultural landscapes. The current study on ‘Identification, prioritization, and management of hot specks in the Western Ghats of Maharashtra’ has identified different typologies of biodiversity rich islands referred to as ‘hot specks’. These are present in the socio-ecological landscape elements outside the boundaries of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries.

The Rapid Biodiversity Assessment Tool developed for evaluating the hot specks of biodiversity has proved to be effective in assessing sacred groves, forts and plateaus. With necessary modification, this assessment tool can be used for assessing a larger number of hot specks under different typologies present in a greater ecosystem of socio-ecological landscapes. This however requires a minimum necessary capacity building of frontline forest staff, community-based organizations, Biodiversity Management Committees, and non-government organizations for implementing the assessment tool in the field. The prioritization of hot specks based on the analysis of biodiversity and anthropogenic threat scores generated from RBAT enables the land use planners to classify the sites in 16 categories. These 16 categories mentioned in the prioritization matrix enables the planners with a freedom to identify priority categories and select hot specks that urgently need to be brought under the hot specks conservation action and management plan.

A multi-stakeholder management approach should be developed for implementing the hot speck conservation action and management plan under the National Biodiversity Action Plan. Under this management approach, funds and resources should be allocated to the State Biodiversity Board(s) which will be used by the frontline forest staff, community-based organizations, Biodiversity Management Committees for identifying and assessing hot specks and preparing peoples biodiversity hot specks register (PBHR). Peoples biodiversity hot specks register will consist of information on biodiversity and threat existing within and outside different hot specks identified and surveyed in the socio-ecological landscapes for the prioritization purpose. Once prioritized, these hot specks should then be brought under the hot speck conservation action and management plan. This can be achieved by notifying the prioritized hot specks as Biodiversity Heritage Sites, Community Reserve, Conservation Reserves, or as Other Effective (area based) Conservation Measures under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Biological Diversity Act, 2002. Funds can then be allocated to the respective Biodiversity Management Committee for the conservation and management of the hot specks. The capacity building and training of frontline forest staff and Biodiversity Management Committees will be an important part in this entire process which can be done with the support of non-government organizations and education institutes. A public-private partnerships could be established where corporates and other sectors can put in their funds and resources for conservation and management of these biodiversity hot specks.

 

 

Table 1. Biodiversity and anthropogenic threat score of hot specks (SG—sacred groves, FT—forts, PL—plateaus).

 

Hot specks

Hot speck code

Biodiversity

Anthropogenic threats

Sector 1: Purna Wildlife Sanctuary – Kalsubai Wildlife Sanctuary

1

Inglaaj

SG1

4.38

5.69

2

Salher

FT1

4.51

3.97

3

Anjaneri

PL1

7.88

5.42

Sector 2: Kalsubai Wildlife Sanctuary – Bhimashankar Wildlife Sanctuary

4

Durga

SG2

5

2.08

5

Kothmai

SG3

3.06

3.33

6

Chavand

FT2

4.44

3.68

7

Malshejghat

PL2

2.5

5.83

8

Naneghat

PL3

5.67

3.96

9

Durgawadi

PL4

4.9

0.63

10

Warsubai

PL5

3.27

2.92

11

Hatwij

PL6

3.08

2.29

Sector 3: Bhimashankar Wildlife Sanctuary – Tamhini and Phansad Wildlife Sanctuary

12

Cheda

SG4

4.72

5.14

13

Waghjai (VS)

SG5

5.21

3.89

14

Waghjai (P)

SG6

5.21

4.44

15

Waghjai (W)

SG7

4.86

3.61

16

Waghjai (VL)

SG8

5.07

3.61

17

Bapujibuva

SG9

7.99

1.39

18

Ratnai

SG10

3.47

3.61

19

Bhorgiri

FT3

3.82

3.24

20

Korigadh

FT4

3.33

6.32

21

Ghangadh

FT5

5.28

3.53

22

Sarasgadh

FT6

2.78

6.03

23

Sudhagadh

FT7

6.32

3.59

Sector 4: Tamhini and Phansad Wildlife Sanctuary – Koyna Wildlife Sanctuary

24

Kalkai (KR)

SG11

6.11

3.87

25

Somji

SG12

4.44

3.89

26

Somjai

SG13

0.69

6.94

27

Kalkai (KI)

SG14

4.17

4.31

28

Sinhagadh

FT8

5.28

5.15

29

Raigadh

FT9

4.58

5.15

30

Lingana

FT10

5.07

3.24

31

Pratapgadh

FT11

6.18

4.71

32

Panchgani tableland

PL7

3.75

6.88

33

Khingar

PL8

4.13

5.63

34

Dandeghar

PL9

4.04

5.42

35

Ambral

PL10

4.04

5.42

36

Rajapuri

PL11

4.04

5.42

37

Mahabaleshwar1

PL12

6.06

2.92

38

Mahabaleshwar2

PL13

5.77

2.71

39

Mahabaleshwar3

PL14

5.58

2.71

Sector 5: Koyna Wildlife Sanctuary – Chandoli National Park

40

Mauli (SA)

SG15

3.47

7.5

41

Jungleejaygadh

FT12

7.78

1.32

42

Sadawaghapur

PL15

3.65

7.08

Sector 6: Chandoli National Park – Radhanagri Wildlife Sanctuary

43

Marleshwar

SG16

7.15

3.33

44

Rasaai

SG17

4.79

4.58

45

Mahipatgadh

FT13

4.79

2.65

46

Vishalgadh

FT14

6.88

5.15

47

Masaai

PL16

2.31

5.21

Sector 7: Radhanagri Wildlife Sanctuary – Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary

48

Shankar

SG18

5.49

2.92

49

Mauli (SO)

SG19

5.07

4.03

50

Samangadh

FT15

4.38

4.85

51

Amboli

PL17

7.79

2.5

 

 

Table 2. Sacred groves — prioritization matrix.

Biodiversity

Anthropogenic Threats

Prioritization matrix

High

(7.5–10)

Significant

(5–7.5)

Moderate

(2.5–5)

Low

(0–2.5)

High (7.5–10)

 

 

SG15

 

Significant (5–7.5)

 

 

SG1, SG4

SG13

Moderate (2.5–5)

 

SG5, SG6, SG8, SG11, SG16, SG19

SG3, SG7, SG10, SG12, SG14, SG17

 

Low (0–2.5)

SG9

SG18

SG2

 

 

 

Table 3. Forts — prioritization matrix

Biodiversity

Anthropogenic Threats

Prioritization matrix

High

(7.5–10)

Significant

(5–7.5)

Moderate

(2.5–5)

Low

(0–2.5)

High (7.5–10)

 

 

 

 

Significant (5–7.5)

 

FT8, FT11, FT14

FT4, FT6, FT9

 

Moderate (2.5–5)

 

FT7

FT1, FT2, FT3, FT5, FT10, FT13, FT15

 

Low (0–2.5)

FT12

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4. Plateaus — prioritization matrix.

Biodiversity

Anthropogenic Threats

Prioritization matrix

High

(7.5–10)

Significant

(5–7.5)

Moderate

(2.5–5)

Low

(0–2.5)

High (7.5–10)

 

 

 

 

Significant (5–7.5)

PL1

 

 

PL2, PL7, PL8, PL9, PL10, PL11, PL15, PL16

 

Moderate (2.5–5)

 

PL3, PL12, PL13

PL5, PL14

 

Low (0–2.5)

 

PL17

PL4, PL6

 

 

 

Table 5. Relation between biodiversity and anthropogenic threats.

 

Hot speck type

Correlation ‘r’ (α = 0.05)

1

Sacred groves

-0.666 (p<0.05)

2

Forts

-0.518 (p<0.05)

3

Plateaus

-0.488 (p<0.05)

 

 

For figures & images - - click here for complete PDF

 

References

 

Adams, M.J., R.B. Bury & S.A. Swarts (1998). Amphibians of the Fort Lewis Military Reservation, Washington: sampling techniques and community patterns. Northwestern Naturalist 79(1) 12–18. https://doi.org/10.2307/3536812

Anand, M.O., J. Krishnaswamy, A. Kumar & A. Bali (2010). Sustaining biodiversity conservation in human-modified landscapes in the Western Ghats: remnant forests matter. Biological Conservation 143(10): 2363–2374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.01.013

Anitha, K., S. Joseph, E.V. Ramasamy & S.N. Prasad (2009). Changes in structural attributes of plant communities along disturbance gradients in a dry deciduous forest of Western Ghats, India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 155: 393–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-008-0442-z

Beresford, M. & A. Phillips (2000). Protected landscapes: a conservation model for the 21st Century. The George Wright Forum 17(1): 15–26. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43597659

Bhagwat, S.A., C.G. Kushalappa, P.H. Williams & N.D. Brown (2005). The role of informal protected areas in maintaining biodiversity in the Western Ghats of India. Ecology and Society 10(1): 40. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26267704

Bhagwat, S.A. & C. Rutte (2006). Sacred groves: potential for biodiversity management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4(10): 519–524. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2006)4[519:SGPFBM]2.0.CO;2

Bhagwat, S.A., S. Nogué & K.J. Willis (2014). Cultural drivers of reforestation in tropical forest groves of the Western Ghats of India. Forest Ecology and Management 329: 393–400. https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2013.11.017

Bharucha, E.K. (2006a). Wonders of Indian Wilderness: Protected Areas and Wildlife Sanctuaries of India. Vol.2. Mapin Publishing Pvt. Ltd, 150 pp.

Bharucha, E.K. (2006b). Protected areas and landscape linkages: Case studies from the Maharashtra scenario. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 103(2/3): 327.

Bharucha, E.K. (2010). Current ecological status and identification of potential ecologically sensitive areas in the Northern Western Ghats.  Institute of Environment Education and Research, Pune, 168 pp.

Blicharska, M., G. Mikusiński, A. Godbole & J. Sarnaik (2013). Safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystem services of sacred groves–experiences from northern Western Ghats. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 9(4): 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2013.835350

Cherian, P.T. (1995). On hot spots, warm spots and hot specks. Zoos’ Print 9(9): 9–11.

Cherian, P.T. (2000). On the status, origin and evolution of hotspots of biodiversity. Zoos’ Print Journal 15(4): 247–251.

Convention on Biological Diversity (2018). Protected Areas and Other Area-Based Conservation Measures. Downloaded on 05 January 2019. https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/9b1f/759a/dfcee171bd46b06cc91f6a0d/sbstta-22-l-02-en.pdf

Das, A., J. Krishnaswamy, K.S. Bawa, M.C. Kiran, V. Srinivas, N.S. Kumar & K.U. Karanth (2006). Prioritisation of conservation areas in the Western Ghats, India. Biological Conservation 133(1): 16–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.05.023

Davidar, P., M. Arjunan, P.C. Mammen, J.P. Garrigues, J.-P. Puyravaud & K. Roessingh (2007). Forest degradation in the Western Ghats biodiversity hotspot: Resource collection, livelihood concerns and sustainability. Current Science 93(11): 1573–1578.

DeFries, R., A. Hansen, B. L. Turner, R. Reid & J. Liu (2007). Land use change around protected areas: management to balance human needs and ecological function. Ecological Applications 17(4): 1031–1038. https://doi.org/10.1890/05-1111

Deshmukh, S., M.G. Gogate & A.K. Gupta (1998). Sacred groves and biological diversity: providing new dimensions to conservation issue, pp. 397–414. In: Ramakrishnan, P.S., K.G. Saxena & U.M. Chandrashekara (eds.). Conserving the Sacred for Biodiversity Management. UNESCO and Oxford-IBH Publishing, New Delhi, xxviii + 480 pp..

Ervin, J. (2003a). Rapid assessment of protected area management effectiveness in four countries. BioScience 53(9): 833–841. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0833:RAOPAM]2.0.CO;2

Ervin, J. (2003b). WWF: Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) Methodology. WWF International, 48 pp.

Fisher, B. & T. Christopher (2007). Poverty and biodiversity: measuring the overlap of human poverty and the biodiversity hotspots. Ecological Economics 62(1): 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.020

Gadgil, M., P.R.S. Rao, G. Utkarsh, P. Pramod & A. Chhatre (2000). New meanings for old knowledge: the people’s biodiversity registers program. Ecological Applications 10(5): 1307–1317. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1307:NMFOKT]2.0.CO;2

Gadgil, M., R.J.R. Daniels, K.N. Ganeshaiah, S.N. Prasad, M.S.R. Murthy, C.S. Jha, B.R. Ramesh & K.A. Subramanian (2011). Mapping ecologically sensitive, significant and salient areas of Western Ghats: proposed protocols and methodology. Current Science 100(2): 175–182.

Gardner, T.A., J. Barlow, N.S. Sodhi & C.A. Peres (2010). A multi-region assessment of tropical forest biodiversity in a human-modified world. Biological Conservation 143(10): 2293–2300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.05.017

Getzner, M., M. Jungmeier & B. Pfleger (2012). Evaluating management effectiveness of national parks as a contribution to good governance and social learning, pp. 129 –148. In: Sladnonja,B. (Ed.). Protected Area Management. InTech, 240 pp. https://doi.org/10.5770/50092

Ghatge, S.S., S.T. Shelke, S.S. Jadhav, N.A. Pawar & A.K. Chaudhari (2013). Inventory of endemic freshwater fish fauna of Maharashtra state: India. Records of the Zoological Survey of India 113(3): 79–92.

Hill, D., M. Fasham, G. Tucker, M. Shewry & P. Shaw (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of biodiversity methods: survey, evaluation and monitoring. Cambridge University Press, 573 pp.

Hopkins, B. & J.G. Skellam (1954). A new method for determining the type of distribution of plant individuals. Annals of Botany 18(2): 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a083391

Vázquez-García, J.A. & T.J. Givnish (1998). Altitudinal Gradients in Tropical Forest Composition, Structure, and Diversity in the Sierra de Manantlan. Journal of Ecology 86(6): 999–1020.

Kanagavel, A., R. Pandya, A. Prithvi & R. Raghavan (2013). Multi-stakeholder perceptions of efficiency in biodiversity conservation at limited access forests of the southern Western Ghats, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(11): 4529–4536. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3439.4529-36

Kumara, H.N. & M. Singh (2004). The influence of differing hunting practices on the relative abundance of mammals in two rainforest areas of the Western Ghats, India. Oryx 38(3): 321–327. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605304000560

Kushwaha, S.P.S. & P.S. Roy (2002). Geospatial technology for wildlife habitat evaluation. Tropical Ecology 43(1): 137–150.

Laurance, W.F. (2007a). Forest destruction in tropical Asia. Current Science 93(11): 1544–1550.

Laurance, W.F. (2007b). Have we overstated the tropical biodiversity crisis?. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22(2): 65–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.09.014

Lindenmayer, D.B. & J.F. Franklin (2002). Conserving forest biodiversity: a comprehensive multiscaled approach. Island press, Washington DC, 352 pp.

Lindenmayer, D.B., J.F. Franklin & J. Fischer (2006). General management principles and a checklist of strategies to guide forest biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 131(3): 433–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.02.019

Laladhas, K.P., J.R. Rani, J.M. Dionysius, A.S. Nair, P.R. Sudhakaran & O.V. Oommen (2023). Achievements in India’s ABS Mechanism, pp. 37–53. In: Oommen, O.V., K.P. Laladhas, P. Nelliyat & B. Pisupati (eds.). Biodiversity Conservation Through Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS), Himalayas and Indian Sub-Continent  Springer, Cham, xxvii+ 370 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16186-5_3

Longhurst, R. (2003). Semi-structured interviews and focus groups, pp. 143–156. In: Clifford, N., M. Cope, T. Gillespie & S. French (eds.). Key Methods in Geography. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, 752 pp.

Margules, C.R. & T.D. Redhead (1995). Biorap: Rapid Assessment of Biodiversity Priority Areas. CSIRO, Canberra, 70 pp.

Mathur, P.K. & P.R. Sinha (2008). Looking beyond protected area networks: a paradigm shift in approach for biodiversity conservation. International Forestry Review 10(2): 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1505/ifor.10.2.305

Mathur, V.B., R. Gopal, S.P. Yadav & P.R. Sinha (2011). Management effectiveness evaluation (MEE) of tiger reserves in India: Process and outcomes. National Tiger Conservation Authority, Government of India, 97 pp.

Mehta, P. & J. Kulkarni (2012). Identifying important areas for bird conservation in the Western Ghats region of Maharashtra, India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 109(1&2): 123–134.

Menon, S. & K.S. Bawa (1997). Applications of geographic information systems, remote-sensing, and a landscape ecology approach to biodiversity conservation in the Western Ghats. Current Science 73(2): 134–145.

Miller, J.R. (2005). Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20(8): 430–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.013

Ministry of Corporate Affairs (2013). Companies Act, 2013. Government of India, New Delhi. https://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/CompaniesAct2013.pdf

Mittermeier, R.A., N. Myers, J.B. Thomsen, G.A. Da Fonseca & S. Olivieri (1998). Biodiversity Hotspots and major Tropical Wilderness Areas: approaches to setting conservation priorities. Conservation Biology 12(3): 516–520.

Mohan, R. & C. Pant (1982). Morphology of Urbanisation in India: Some results from 1981 census. Economic and Political Weekly 17(39): 1579–1588.

Naravane, M.S. (1995). Forts of Maharashtra. APH Publishing Corporation, New Delhi, 508 pp.

National Biodiversity Authority (2002). The Biological Diversity Act, 2002. http://nbaindia.org/uploaded/act/BDACT_ENG.pdf. Downloaded on 17 August 2015.

National Biodiversity Authority (2019). Biodiversity Finance Plan (Working Document). GoI-UNDP project on Biodiversity Finance Initiative (BIOFIN). Downloaded on 22 May 2019. Biodiversity Finance Plan Report Updated and Final (Digital Presence - Low resolution) 08-07-2019.pdf (biofin.org)

Ormsby, A.A. & S.A. Bhagwat (2010). Sacred forests of India: a strong tradition of community-based natural resource management. Environmental Conservation 37(3): 320–326. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000561

Ormsby, A.A. (2011). The impacts of global and national policy on the management and conservation of sacred groves of India. Human Ecology 39(6): 783–793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-011-9441-8

Padhye, A.D., N. Dahanukar, M. Paingankar, M. Deshpande & D. Deshpande (2006). Season and landscape wise distribution of butterflies in Tamhini, northern Western Ghats, India. Zoos’ Print Journal 21(3): 2175–2181.

Pai, M. (2005). The Western Ghats. Narcinva Damodar Naik, Goa, 237pp.

Panayotou, T. & P. Ashton (1992). Not by timber alone: economics and ecology for sustaining tropical forests. Island Press, Washington DC, pp.ii + 309pp.

Patrick, B., R. McCllelan, T. Martin, M. Tocher, K. Borkin, J. McKoy & D. Smith (2014). Guidelines for undertaking rapid biodiversity assessments in terrestrial and marine environments in the Pacific. Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, Apia, Samoa, 51 pp. http://hdl.handle.net/1834/31205

Perfecto, I. & J. Vandermeer (2008). Biodiversity conservation in tropical agroecosystems: a new conservation paradigm. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1134(1): 173–200. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1439.011

Plumptre, A.J. (2000). Monitoring mammal populations with line transect techniques in African forests. Journal of Applied Ecology 37(2): 356–368. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2000.00499.x

Raghavan, R., S. Das, P.O. Nameer A. Bijukumar & N. Dahanukar (2016). Protected areas and imperilled endemic freshwater biodiversity in the Western Ghats Hotspot. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 26: 78–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2653

Ranta, P., T.O.M. Blom, J.A.R.I. Niemela, E. Joensuu & M. Siitonen (1998). The fragmented Atlantic rain forest of Brazil: size, shape and distribution of forest fragments. Biodiversity & Conservation 7: 385–403. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008885813543

Ray, R. & T.V. Ramachandra (2010). Small sacred groves in local landscape: are they really worthy for conservation? Current Science 98(9): 1178–1180.

Reid, W.V. (1998). Biodiversity hotspots. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 13(7): 275–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01363-9

Ricketts, T.H. (2001). The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. The American Naturalist 158(1): 87–99.

Sahebjalal, E. & K. Dashtekian (2013). Analysis of land use-land covers changes using normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) differencing and classification methods. African Journal of Agricultural Research 8(37): 4614–4622.

Sayre, R., E. Roca, G. Sedaghatkish, B. Young, S. Keel & R. Roca (1999). Nature in focus: rapid ecological assessment. Island Press, Washington DC, 202 pp.

Shrestha, U.B., S. Shrestha, P. Chaudhary & R.P. Chaudhary (2010). How representative is the protected areas system of Nepal?. Mountain Research and Development 30(3): 282–294. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-10-00019.1

Singh, J.S. & S.P.S. Kushwaha (2008). Forest biodiversity and its conservation in India. International Forestry Review 10(2): 292–304. https://doi.org/10.1505/ifor.10.2.292

Singh, H.R. & S.A. Rahman (2012). An approach for environmental education by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in biodiversity conservation. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 42: 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.04.175

Subramanian, K.A., F. Kakkassery & M.V. Nair (2011). The status and distribution of dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata) of the Western Ghats, pp. 63–72. In: Molur, S., K.G. Smith, B.A. Daniel & W.R.T. Darwall (comp.). The Status and Distribution of Freshwater Biodiversity in the Western Ghats, India. IUCN, Cambridge, UK and Glad, Switzerland and Zoo Outreach Organization, Coimbatore, India.

Trivedi, S., E. Bharucha & R. Mungikar (2018). Rapid assessment of sacred groves: a biodiversity assessment tool for ground level practitioners. Journal of Threatened Taxa 10(2): 11262–11270. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3412.10.2.11262-11270

Trivedi, S. & E. Bharucha (2019). Biodiversity Hotspecks: Potential Wildlife Corridors. Ecology, Environment and Conservation 25(1): 316–322.

Venkataraman, K. (2009). India’s Biodiversity Act 2002 and its role in conservation. Tropical Ecology 50(1): 23–30.

Watve, A. (2013). Status review of Rocky plateaus in the northern Western Ghats and Konkan region of Maharashtra, India with recommendations for conservation and management. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(5): 3935–3962. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3372.3935-62

West, P. & D. Brockington (2006). An anthropological perspective on some unexpected consequences of protected areas. Conservation Biology 20(3): 609–616.

Williams, K.J., A. Ford, D.F. Rosauer, N. De Silva, R. Mittermeier, C. Bruce, F.W. Larsen & C. Margules (2011). Forests of East Australia: the 35th biodiversity hotspot, pp. 295–310. In: Zachos, F.E. & J.C. Habel (eds.). Biodiversity Hotspots: Distribution and Protection of Conservation Priority Areas. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, xvii + 546 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5_16