Report of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel Part I Submitted to The Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India 31 August 2011 Report of the WGEEP Panel Members Prof. Madhav Gadgil Chairman Shri B.J. Krishnan Member Dr. K.N. Ganeshaiah Member Dr. V.S. Vijayan Member Prof. (Ms.) Renee Borges Member Prof. R. Sukumar Member Dr. Ligia Noronha Member Ms Vidya S. Nayak Member Dr. D. K. Subramaniam Member Dr. R.V. Varma Member (ex-officio) Chairman, Kerala State Biodiversity Board Chairman, National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) Member (ex-officio) Prof S.P. Gautam Member (ex-officio) Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) Dr. R.R. Navalgund Member (ex-officio) Director, Space Application Centre (SAC) Dr. G.V. Subrahmanyam Member-Secretary (ex-officio) Advisor (RE), Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India, New Delhi iii Report of the WGEEP Annexure B: Commissioned Papers Sl.No. Name Theme 1 V.B.Savarkar, Protected Areas in Support of Conservation of Biological Diversity and Other Values of Western Ghats 464 Rasta Peth, Flat 3, Nr. MSEDC Ltd. Power House, Opposite. Mahalaxmi Motors, Pune-411011. Maharashtra. E-mail : woodowl464@yahoo.co.in 2 Mohana, G.S. Assistant Professor (Genetics and Plant Breeding) , Ponnampet-571 216, Coorg district, Karnataka state, INDIA Wild Relatives of Cultivated Plants and Crop genetic Resources of the Western Ghats: Phone: 08274 249156 Mobile: + 91 99022 73468; 99862 23568 Email: mohangs2007@gmail.com Also at Department of Forest Biology and Tree Improvement, College of Forestry (UAS, Bangalore) Phone: 08274 249370 extn. 215 3 Padmalal, D Centre for Earth Science Studies, Thiruvanathapuram- 695031, Kerala, India Alluvial Sand Mining: The Kerala Experience E mail: drdpadmalal@gmail.com 4. N. Baskaran (with technical assistance of R. Sukumar), Asian Nature Conservation Foundation, Innovation Centre, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012 The State of Asian Elephants in the Western Ghats, Southern India and Its Implications to Promote Conservation of the Ecology of Western Ghats E-mail: basakar@ces.iisc.ernet.in 5 V. Bhaskar Professor of Forestry & Former Director (Rtd.), National Afforestation & Eco-Development Board, Regional Centre, Ministry of Environment & Forest, Govt. of India, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore – 560 065 Balsams (Genus : Impatiens L.) Of Western Ghats Residence: No. 33, 'Udayaravi', 2nd Main Road, Cholanagar, R.T. Nagar P.O., Bangalore - 560 032 Email: vbhaskar49@yahoo.co.in or vbhaskar49@gmail.com 6 K.A.Subramanian, Biodiversity and Status of Riverine Ecosystems of the Western Ghats 115 Report of the WGEEP 2011 Sl.No. Name Theme Scientist C, Zoological Survey of India Prani Vigyan Bhavan, M-Block New Alipore Kolkata-700 053 Ph: +91-33-24008595 (O) Fax:+91-33-24008595 (O) Mobile: +91-9088039540 E-mail: subbuka.zsi@gmail.com 7 R J Ranjit Daniels Managing Trustee, Care Earth Trust, No 5, 21st Street, Thillaiganganagar, Chennai 600 061 Ecologically Sensitive Areas and Birds of the Western Ghats E-mail: ranjit.daniels@gmail.com; www.careearthtrust.org 8 S K Khanduri IFS Director,Environment and Climate Change, Social Forestry Complex, Vattiyurkavu PO Forest Management In Kerala in Context of Evolving Forestry and Conservation Concerns for Western Ghats Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 695013 E-mail: skhanduri@sify.com 9 E Somanathan, Incentive-Based Approaches to Nature Conservation Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi E-mail:som@isid.ac.in 10 M. D. Subash Chandran CES Field Station, Viveknagar, Kumta – 581343, Uttara Kannada) On Understanding and Saving the Sacred Groves of Western Ghats E-mail: mdschandra@yahoo.com 11 Aparna Watve BIOME, 34/6, Gulawani Maharaj Road, Pune 411004 Rocky Plateaus (Special focus on the Western Ghats and Konkan) E-mail: aparnawatve@gmail.com 12 Mrunalini Vanarase Regeneration of Streams of Western Ghats Ecological Society, Pune E-mail: ioraespune@gmail.com, ecological.society@gmail.com 13 Vinod Kumar Uniyal, IFS, Head, PA Network, WL Management and Conservation Education 116 Ecodevelopment Committees: Translating Theory into Practice Report of the WGEEP Sl.No. Name Theme Wildlife Institute of India P.B.No. 18, Chandrabani Dehradun (Uttarakhand) -248001 E-mail: vkuniyal50@rediffmail.com 14 Dilip B. Boralkar Industrial Pollution Former Member Secretary, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board # 602, Amar Residency, Sion-Trombay Road, Punjabwadi, Deonar, Mumbai 400 088 E-mail: dbboralkar@gmail.com 15 N. Anil Kumar & M. K. Ratheesh Narayanan M S Swaminathan Research Foundation, Community Agro-biodiversity Centre, Diversity, Use Pattern and Management of Wild Food Plants of Western Ghats: A Study from Wayanad District Puthurvayal P.O, Wayanad 673 121, Kerala E-mail: anil@mssrf.res.in 16 Narayan G. Hegde Tree Planting on Private Lands BAIF Development Research Foundation Pune 411 058 E-mail: nghegde@baif.org.in 17 Dr. Ritwick Dutta Co Convener, EIA Resource and Response Centre, N-71 Lower Ground Floor, Greater Kailash -1 New Delhi A Framework for EIA Reforms in the Western Ghats E-mail: ritwickdutta@gmail.com www.ercindia.org 18 Honnavalli N. Kumara1 and Mewa Singh2 Salimali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, Anaikatti P.O., Coimbatore, 641108, India. 1 Distribution, Status And Conservation of Primates of the Western Ghats Biopsychology Laboratory, University of Mysore, Mysore, 570006, India 2 E-mail: mewasingh@bsnl.in 19 R.S. Bhallaa, Jagdish Krishnaswamyb, SrinivasVaidyanathana Foundation for Ecological Research, Advocacy and Learning a Vulnerabilities of Critical Ecosystems and Services in the Western Ghats to Overland Flows and Sedimentation During Extreme Rainfall Events Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment b E-mail: jagdish@atree.org, jagdish.krishnaswamy@gmail.com 20 Livelihood Security in the Western Ghats – Snehlata Nath 117 Report of the WGEEP 2011 Sl.No. Name Theme Keystone Foundation, Groves Hill Road, Kotagiri, Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu Some Notes & Discussions E-mail: sneh@keystone-foundation.org 21 R J Ranjit Daniels Managing Trustee, Care Earth Trust, No 5, 21st Street, Thillaiganganagar, Chennai 600 061; Spatial Heterogeneity, Landscapes and Ecological Sensitivity in the Western Ghats E-mail: ranjit.daniels@gmail.com 22 M.S. Viraraghavan Hillview, Fernhill Road, Kodaikanal 624101, Tamil Nadu Hill Stations in the Western Ghats. Kodaikanal – A Case Study E-mail: girija.vira@gmail.com 23 Anita Varghese 1,2,Tamara Ticktin 2, Snehlata Nath1, Senthil Prasad1, Sumin George1 Keystone Foundation, Kotagiri, Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu, India. kf@keystone-foundation.org 1 Non Timber Forest Products: Experiences in Conservation, Enterprise, Livelihoods and Traditional Knowledge in the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, Western Ghats, India Department of Botany, University of Hawaii, Manoa, HI. 2 E-mail: anita@keystone-foundation.org 24 N.A. Aravind* and K.V. Gururaja** Amphibians of the Western Ghats *SuriSehgal Centre for Biodiversity and ConservationAshoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), Royal Enclave, Sriramapura, Jakkur PO., Bangalore 560064 E-mail: aravind@atree.org **Centre for Infrastructure, Sustainable Transportation and Urban Planning (CiSTUP), Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012 E-mail: gururaj@cistup.iisc.ernet.in 25 G. Ravikanth Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Royal Enclave, Srirampura, Jakkur Post, Bangalore 560064, India Conservation of Forest Genetic Resources in Western Ghats, India Phone: 091-080-23635555 (110) Email: gravikanth@atree.org 26 N A Madhyastha and Aravind N A* Land Snails of Western Ghats Malacology Centre, Poornaprajna College Udupi 576101 *ATREE, Royal Enclave, Sriram Puram, P O Jekkur, Bangalore 64. E Mail: na.madhyastha@gmail.com 27 Shashidhar Viraktamath* and Bhaktibhavana Rajankar 118 Wild Bees of Western Ghats: Crop Pollination Deficits Report of the WGEEP Sl.No. Name Theme Department of Agricultural Entomology, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad 580005 *E-mail: shashiv777@gmail.com 28 Kalyan Kumar Chakravarty A Prolegomena towards a Strategy for Bio Cultural Survival in the Western Ghats B-15 (8th Floor), Delhi Administration Officers' Flats, Sector D-2, Near DDA Sports Complex, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110070 Mobile - 9818857536 Res.(phone) – 26891504 E-mail: msk4747@yahoo.co.in 29 K.S. Valdiya Geological Framework and Tectonics of Western Ghāt Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research, Bangalore – 560 064 E-mail: ksvaldiya@gmail.com, valdiya@jncasr.ac.in 30 D.J. Bhat Department of Botany, Goa University, Goa403 206, India Documentation of Micro-Fungal Diversity in the Forests of Western Ghats, India E-mail: bhatdj@rediffmail.com 31 Aquatic Fungi in the Western Ghats – Current Status and Future Concerns K.R. Sridhar Department of Biosciences, Mangalore University, Mangalagangotri, Mangalore 574 199, Karnataka, India E-mail: sirikr@yahoo.com 32 Sanjeeva Nayaka and Dalip Kumar Upreti Lichenology Laboratory, National Botanical Research Institute (CSIR) Lichen Diversity in Western Ghats: Need for Quantitative Assessment and Conservation Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow – 226 001, U.P. E-mail: nayaka.sanjeeva_n@gmail.com 33 A.Sundara, Glimpses of the Prehistoric and the ProtoHistoric Cultures in the Region of Western Ghat and Ecology "Kartikeya" 1st floor, Sharada Nagara, SHRINGERI 577139 (Karnataka) E-mail: nasundara@gmail.com 34 Mining – Goa, Konkan (social and ecological aspects) Rajendra Kerkar Keri – Sattari, Goa 403505 119 Report of the WGEEP 2011 Sl.No. Name Theme E-mail: rpkerkar@yahoo.com 35 Glenn Kalavampara Goa Mineral Ore Exporters Association, P.O Box 113, Vaglo Building, Panaji - Goa 403001 Mining – Geological and Economic Perspective E-mail: Gmoea1963@yahoo.com, glenngoa@yahoo.com 36 Dr. Jayendra Lakhmaprukar Gujarat Ecological Society, 3rd Floor, Synergy House, Subhanpura, Vadodara- 390023 Mining in Gujarat – Impacts on Biodiversity E-mail: jlakhmapurkar@yahoo.com 37 EQUATIONS Tourism in Forest Areas of Western #415, 2 C Cross, 4th Main, OMBR Layout, Banaswadi , Bengaluru – 560043, India Ghats Telephone: +91-80-25457607 / 25457659 Fax: +91-80-25457665 Email: info@equitabletourism.org Url: www.equitabletourism.org Research Team : Rosemary Viswanath, Aditi Chanchani, Varun Santhosh, Sabitha Lorenz Advisory Team : K T Suresh E-mail: ktsuresh2006@gmail.com 38 Sahyadri -‘Western Ghats’ : An Overview of Private Ownership, Commercial Development and its Impact on Ecosystem Manasi Karandikar and Ketaki Ghate Oikos, 210, Siddharth Towers, Kothrud, Pune – 29. E-mail: oikos@oikos.in Website: www.oikos.in 39 Devavrat Mehta Chairman, Hlmc, Panchagani-Mahabaleshwar Tourism Development Strategy in Western Ghats No. 404, SHALAKA M.K.Road, MUMBAI-400021 E-mail: devshalaka@rediffmail.com 40 Vishwambhar Choudhari Critical Analysis of Environmental Impact Assessment Process and Environmental Clearance Procedure in India Oasis Environmental Foundation, Pune E-mail: oasisenv@vsnl.com 41 Vijay Paranjpe Gomukh Environmental Trust For Sustainable Development, Pune E-mail: gomukh@pn3.vsnl.net.in 120 Threats to the Western Ghats of Maharashtra: An Overview Report of the WGEEP Sl.No. Name Theme 42 Adv. Norma Alvares Political Struggle through Law Goa Foundation G-8, St Britto’s Apts, Feira Alta,Mapusa, Bardez, Goa – 403507 The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) route to environmental security in India with special reference to the environment movement in Goa. E-mail: goafoundation@gmail.com, cnalvares@gmail.com 121 Lichens diversity in Western Ghats: Need for quantitative assessment and conservation Sanjeeva Nayaka and Dalip Kumar Upreti Lichenology Laboratory, National Botanical Research Intitute (CSIR) Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow – 226 001, U.P. nayaka.sanjeeva_n@gmail.com Abstract: Undoubtedly, Western Ghats has rich diversity of lichens represented by 1096 species distributed under 188 genera and 50 families. The region also has highest number of endemic species with 257 species, of which 180 taxa occur exclusively in Western Ghats. The threats that apply to biodiversity in general are also true for lichens. Air pollution, climate change and over exploitation of economically important lichen may further cause damage diversity. The lichens being sensitive organism demand specific conservation strategies and approaches. To initiate conservation action for lichen in Western Ghats there exist several lacunae such as, lack of quantitative data, frequent observations, floras, Red List of threatened taxa and inadequate ecological information with a studied species. Hence, it has been not possible to ascertain real status of endemic and rare taxa. To ensure successful conservation of lichen diversity in Western Ghats the most important prerequisite would be gathering quantitative data at habitat, ecosystem, local and regional level. This would assist conservation biologist to identify threatened taxa and habitat, and prioritize action. This article explores diversity; ecology of lichens in Western Ghats, problems associated with conservation and suggests possible remedies. Introduction: Lichen is a stable, self-supporting symbiotic association of a fungus (mycobiont) and one or more algal and/or cyanobacterial photobionts (Kirk et al. 2008). The major portion of the lichen is made of mycobiont (90%) which provides shape, structure and colour to the thallus. Hence, the lichens are included in the fungal kingdom where 1/5th of an estimated 1.5 million species of are thought to be lichenized (Nimis et al. 2002). The peculiar characteristics of symbiotic association empower lichens to exploit a wide range of habitats, dominating > 8% of the earth’s 1 terrestrial area (Ahmadjian 1995). They are the most useful indicators of air pollution, ecosystem health and changing climate. India being a mega-diversity country with at least three biodiversity hotspots (Western Ghats, Himayalays and Indo-Burma (www.biodiversityhotspots.org)) also has a rich diversity of lichens harboring 2305 species (Singh and Sinha 2010). [Western Ghats, here after referred as WG]. Lichens of India are being studied since 1753 A.D. with Linnaeus mentioning Lichen fuciformis (L.) DC (= Roccella montagneii Bél.) from India in his monumental work ‘Species Plantarum’. Bélanger (1834-38) was the first person to study lichens of WG and described 40 taxa from Pondicherry and Coramandel Coast. Awasthi (1965) and A. Singh (1964) have compiled lichens reported by various researchers till 1960s from India including WG region. The School of Lichenology at Lucknow University, Agarkar Research Institute, Pune, National Botanical Research Institute, Lucknow and Keral Forest Research Institute, Thrissur contributed immensely towards the lichen study of WG. However, large number of lichens from WG were mostly included in monographs studies and a very few floristic works at regional or local level are available. Patwardhan (1983), and Singh and Sinha (1977) estimated about 800 lichen species to occur in WG while Kumar and Stephen (1999) listed 771 species. Nayaka and Upreti (2005) in their attempt to update the checklist of lichens from WG enumerated a total of 949 lichen taxa belonging to 929 species 20 varieties, which was about 45% of the total lichen flora of the country. Further, WG also had the highest number of endemic lichens represented by 253 species (>26%). In the present communication we relook in to the current status of lichen diversity in WG, their ecology and conservation status. Diversity of lichen in WG: Indian part of WG that stretches from Tapti Valley in north to the Kanyakumari in the south, crosses states of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Among them except for Gujarat the records of lichens available for all remaining states. The lichen taxa, their 2 growth form, substratum and distribution status were compiled for all the five states through published literatures. The nomenclature was updated following Singh and Sinha (2010) while Lumbsch and Huhndorf (2007) was followed for classification. The study revealed the occurrence of 1114 lichen taxa with 1096 species and 16 intra-specific taxa in WG, which is >47% of all lichens known from the country. They are distributed under 188 genera and 50 lichen families. The lichen flora of WG is dominated by microliches (leprose and crustose forms) with 719 taxa (>64%). Among macrolichens foliose forms are represented by 324 taxa (including squmulose forms) and fruticose by 71. Among the five states Tamil Nadu records the highest number of lichens with 736 taxa followed by Kerala, Karnataka and Maharashtra with 455, 391 and 184 taxa respectively, while Goa recorded only 46 taxa. Based on the 10 dominant families, 10 largest genera and other interesting features of lichen communities Singh and Sinha (1997) divided India in to eight lichenogeographic regions. Among them according to recent observation undoubtedly WG records the highest number lichen taxa (1096 spp.) followed by Eastern Himalayas (850 spp., Bajarbarua et al. 2002,) and Western Himalayas (~800 spp. unpbulished). Ecology of WG lichen: The distribution of lichens is governed by microclimatic factors, which causes a separation of habitat in to much smaller units in case of cryptogams than in phaenerogams. Hence, the cryptogams inhabit special microhabitats and niches within the phytocoenosis (Canters et al. 1991). The four major ecological factors that produce several microclimatic niches for lichen growth in WG are substrate, vegetation, climate and altitude. The lichens grow on any fairly stable substratum and use them mostly for attachment. There are reports of lichens growing on several manmade substrates like metal and plastic (Brightman and Seaward 1977). Considering the natural substrates lichens can be either corticolous (bark inhabiting), saxicolous (rock inhabiting), terricolous (on soil), follicolous (on leaf) or muscicolous (on moss). There are also few examples where lichens are parasitic (Sphinctrina angelica Nyl. 3 and S. tubaeformis A. Massal.) grow on other lichens, while few have broader niche width and grow on more than one substrate. WG provides a wide range of substrates for the lichens where 953 were corticlous, 230 saxicolous, 73 terricolous, 56 follicolous and 22 were muscicolous. The high diversity of corticolous lichens in WG can be directly attributed to the high diversity of vascular plants (trees and shrubs) in the region. The canopy, trunk, base and leaves are the four microclimatic zones that can be distinguished in a tree based on the lichen community. The canopy, which has comparatively more moisture and shade, is preferred by fruticose lichens such as Usnea, Ramalina and some Parmelioid lichens. Growth of lichens on tree bark depends on its stability, texture, pH and water retention ability. WG has the maximum number of Pyrenocarpous (perithecia bearing) lichens (200) followed by Graphidaceous (125) and Thelotremataceous lichens (65), which clearly indicates the presence of many smooth barked trees as these lichens prefer to grow on such barks. The rough barked trees encourage Parmelioid and Physioid lichens along with members of Buellia, Lecanoraceae, Lecideaceae and Pertusariaceae. The rough barks help lichens in trapping their spores or vegetative diaspores and retains moisture for longer duration. The tree bases which usually have soil deposition are preferred by species of Phaeophyscia, Peltigera and Cladonia. The shiny, smooth evergreen leaves in outer canopy, shady understory, in light gaps and near water bodies provide suitable substratum for foliicolous lichens. They are potential indicators of forest health, anthropogenic disturbance and micro-site (Lucking 1997). Out of the 56 foliicolous lichens that are found in WG 48 are obligate leaf inhabiting and reported mainly from Nilgiri and Palni Hills (Pinakiyo and Singh 2004). The type of rock (calcareous, silicious, laterite etc.) and pH (alkaline/acidic) are important factor responsible for colonization of the rock by lichen communities. The rough rock surfaces normally bear richer lichen flora than the smooth one (Brodo 1973), as it can trap lichen spores, nutrient and retain moisture for longer duration. The muscicolous lichen on the other hand prefers the rough and bushy nature of the mosses which are efficient in trapping the lichen propagules. The hygroscopic nature of the mosses provides better water relation and microclimatic niche to the lichens growing on them (Nayaka et al.2007). 4 Wide variation in rainfall patterns in the WG, coupled with the region’s complex topography, create a wide array of vegetation types. The major vegetation types of WG region belongs to scrub forests in the low-lying rain shadow areas and the plains, deciduous and tropical rainforests up to about 1,500 m above sea level, and a unique mosaic of montane (shola) forests and rolling grasslands above 1,500 m. Apart from the natural vegetation the cultivated plants, plantations such as tea, coffee, palm and teak provide an additional substrate for many lichen taxa to colonize. The lichen community in each vegetation type differs to a great extent. The deciduous and scrub forest exhibit scarce to poorer lichen diversity in comparison to evergreen forest due to less moisture and more open canopy. Such vegetation mostly support the crustose and light loving lichens species of Dirinaria, Pyxine, Lecanora, Heterodermia and Arthonia while evergreen forest have dense moist places suitable for growth of Cladonia, Collema, Leptogium, Lobaria, Stica, Pannaraceous, Parmelioid and fruticose lichens. The thick evergreen forest usually bears much of the lichens on their fringes. Optimum growth of lichen diversity in WG is found to between 1000 – 2400 m (Singh et al. 2004). The altitude in and around Nilgiri and Palni hills ranges up to 2500 m, which provide a temperate climate most suitable for luxuriant growth of lichens. Hence this region is richer in lichen diversity and abundance. The WG has a varied climate with summer, rainy and winter seasons. The annual rainfall varies from 2350 – 7450 mm. The lichens are perennial and their community composition and structure do not change with the seasons. However, rainy and winter seasons are more favorable for the growth, dispersal of spores and multiplication. Affinities of WG lichens: The geographical location of the WG in tropics is an important factor for its higher biological diversity. According to Wilson (1992) as many as three quarters of the world’s species are confined to the tropics and Southeast Asia is a mega-diversity region. The lichen flora of WG has dominance of cosmopolitan elements. It shares as much as 19% of its lichen flora with African countries and 8% with Tropical America. Further, WG also exhibit similarity with 5 Himalayan lichen flora with a number of common species indicating less effect of geographical barriers. Hence the gene flow from tropical belt as well as Himalayas enriches the lichen diversity of the WG. Threats to lichen diversity in WG: Lichens are sensitive organisms. Their response to environmental change may include changes in their diversity, abundance, morphology, physiology, accumulation of pollutants etc. (Nimis et al. 2002). The main threats that apply to biodiversity in general are also true for lichens, which revolve around increased population, e.g. urbanization, industrialization, agriculture, tourism, forestry, habitat destruction and fragmentation, hydroelectric projects, mining, air pollution, climate change etc. Habitat degradation and loss is the most serious threat to biodiversity in general (Groom et al. 2006) and in lichens in particular (Wirth 1976, 1999). Natural forests were found to host a characteristic lichen flora that is not found in secondary forests or fragmented forest landscapes (Bergamini et al. 2005). Habitat fragmentation leads reduced population size in lichens and in heterothallic species, the lack of a compatible partner precludes sexual reproduction. This situation might be aggravate in small populations, populations that have gone through genetic bottlenecks during extended time periods with small population sizes, or newly founded populations (Scheidegger and Werth 2009). The agricultural practices not only destroy natural vegetation but also lead to eutrophication and reclamation due to usage of fertilizers and pesticides. The grazing is another agriculture associated problem which is detrimental for soil inhabiting lichens. Overbrowsing of the Cladonia heath by increasing domesticated reindeer populations in Scandinavia and Alaska has long been recognized as an important factor causing the severe decline of lichens (Suominen and Olfosson 2000). The fire as a forest management practice to grow fresh grass in sanctuaries cause serious threat to terricolous, saxicolous as well as corticlous lichens growing over nearby trees. A sharp increase in the demand for herbal products, spice and condiments the non-timber forest products (NTFPs) are being been over exploited throughout India. Unregulated harvesting of lichens has become a serious hazard to biodiversity in Himalayas and WG (Upreti 6 et al. 2005). In a study conducted in Uttarakhand few macrolichens (Parmelia spp., Everniastrum spp., Usnea spp., and Ramalina spp.) represented the most heavily traded species of NTFPs (Chatterjee et al. In Press). In Karnataka large amount of lichens are collected by villagers and sold to the mediators or nearest dealers at the rate of Rs. 35 – 45 per kg. Further, these lichens were dried, processed, graded and were sold in the market at Rs. 200 – 230 per kg. In this way every year about 8 – 12 tons of lichens are being harvested from the WG forests (Personal communication, Vinayaka, K.S. unpublished). Any herbal preparation needs large amount of raw material and lichens weigh very low, especially after drying. Lichens are also slow growing organism and their annual growth ranges from few millimeters to centimeter. Hence, once if they are removed from their natural habitat they take several years to reestablish. Other apprehension coupled with lichen harvesting is collection of co-occurring lichens along with preferred ones. Mostly crustose and smaller foliose lichens belong to this category; some times they may be rare or threatened. Such twigs or bark after removal of desired lichens will be either burnt or thrown leading to destruction of lichen diversity. The over exploitation can lead to a reduced propagule source and, as a consequence, a lower rate of recruitment. The productivity of the lichen community is reduced while the demand for the resource remains constant. Because these lichens are an important part in the cultural life of a large human population, increasing market prices will in all likelihood not regulate the demand for this resource (Scheidegger and Werth 2009). Yet another threat which is specific to lichens and other poikilohydric cryptogams is air pollution, which has led to the severe decline of numerous species throughout Central Europe (Nimis et al. 2002). Lichens exhibit different levels of sensitivity to the pollution. The fruticose lichens are more sensitive, followed by foliose, while crustose are much tolerant species. Upreti et al. (2009) reviewed the air pollution monitoring studies with lichens in India. Loss of the lichen diversity and change in their community due to air pollution, urbanization and changed climate was clearly witnessed in Bangalore (Nayaka et al. 2003) and Kolkata cities (Upreti et al. 2005). Unfortunately, such studies are not available for any localities in WG. 7 Among all the threats climate change is likely to have dramatic effects on distribution and abundance of lichen populations (Ellis et al. 2007). The lichens at temperate and alpine region would be affected more with migration species to the cooler elevation and invasion of alien species at warmer regions, hence altering the structure of lichen community and eventually extinction of sensitive species. Lacunae in lichenological studies in WG for conservation: Conservation biology aims at maintaining self-sustaining populations of rare and endangered species. In India the conservation strategy mostly involves protection and restoration of habitat or an ecosystem. Such strategy usually assumes safeguarding a larger area will takes care of other organisms within that ecosystem. However, cryptogams like lichen demand specific conservation strategies and approaches. Lichens often have specific habitat requirements mostly decided by microclimate and are not generally shared by other organisms. Habitats rich in threatened organism such as birds, mammal and vascular plant may not be also rich in threatened lichen taxa. The management techniques and conservation measures for these organisms may be contradictory to lichens (Brown et al. 1994). Some of the threats like climate change and air pollution would have greater affects on lichens than vascular plants and animals. Therefore, an ecosystem approach of conservation rarely leads to successful results in these inconspicuous organisms. Therefore the modern conservation concepts have expanded to include traditionally neglected groups of organisms and it has become more appreciative that understanding and maintaining the biodiversity of taxa other than vascular plants and vertebrate animals must be addressed explicitly (Will-Wolf and Scheidegger 2002). Further, the bioindicators such as lichens would have much importance as Article 7 in Convention on Biological Diversity necessitates signatory countries to identify components of biological diversity important for long-term conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. In European countries major efforts in lichen conservation have focused either on habitat conservation or species protection – that is, either ‘‘freezing’’ the habitat in the present state, or prolonging the life of a few survivors of a population (Scheidegger and Werth 2009). 8 Unfortunately, in India conservation of ‘lichens’ was never matter of discussion at any juncture. To design an effective conservation strategy quantitative data or authentic frequent observation on a taxa is very important. In India rigorous lichenological studies have been initiated only after 50s of last century and till now a very few lichenologist exist. Consequently it has become practically impossible document lichen diversity of whole country or WG. Moreover, lichens are documented only once from most of the places and no attempts have been made to check changes in the lichen flora in those locality over the years. In most of the past collection precise localities were not mentioned. For example, they were either mentioned as south India, Indian Oriental or Peninsular India (Awasthi 1965); hence it has become difficult to trace the exact localities. Indian Lichenologists till recently did not note down the waypoints or coordinates of any collection site. Except for altitude and substratum (as bark, rock, soil, leaf etc.) no other ecological data have been recoded for a habitat. In lichens, the population dynamics of the symbiotic organism is closely tied to the dynamics of its substrate (Scheidegger and Werth 2009). However, even while mentioning the substratum Indian researchers failed to identify host species, which leaves a huge lacuna in lichen diversity information. The community ecology or quantitative data for lichens is very rare (Neg 2000, Negi and Gadgil 1996, Negi and Upreti 2000). The only aim of lichen researchers in the past is to enrich their herbarium with specimens representing diverse regions. The lichens collected from various places of WG are included in monographs or revisionary studies of selected taxa. He remaining specimens are just dumped in the herbarium. The floras or checklist of lichens at local or regional level are rare (Singh 1984, Nayaka et al. 2001, Nayaka and Upreti 2002, Vinayaka et al. 2010) and hence it is has become difficult to reassess the changes in any site. About 24% (257 spp.) of the WG lichen flora is endemic of which 180 occur exclusively in the WG region (Appendix 1). The maximum number of endemic species in WG is an indication of region being evolutionary importance as well as threat prone (Menon and Bawa 1997). High conservation priority may be given to endemic species for which the country has a high international responsibility (Scheidegger and Werth 2009). Among the 180 exclusive endemic species most of them are recent collections (after 1970s), 143 are collected from few localities 9 and at least 16 are known from their type locality only (Appendix 2). A total of 42 species were newly described (after year 2000) and hence prioritizing them for conservation would be illogical. The conservation issue is further complicated because most of the endemic taxa are microlichens and only 18 are macrolichens. The microlichens are toughest group to identify especially in field. And hence there exists ample of scope for error during the assessment. Some of the lichens such as Arthonia inconspicua (collected in 1879), Byssophragmia monospora (1931), Graphina aeola (1879), Lecanora lecideoides (1931) and Leptogium phyllocarpum var. crassiusculum (1847) were not recollected for a long time, and their current status is not known. An important tool for setting priorities in conservation strategies are Red Lists of species or habitats. Red Lists of species estimate the current degree of threat of organisms at the global or any regional level. Therefore, consistency and objectivity in assessing extinction risks are important requirements for a successful handling of Red Lists in the practice of nature conservation (Dietrich et al. 2000). Such Red Data Books for lichens are available for few countries such as Britain and Ireland (Church et al. 1997), Sweden (Aronsson et al. 1995), Germany (Cezanne et al. 2002), Switzerland (Clerc et al. 1992), Japan (Inoue 1998, Shibuichi 1998), Russia (Trass 1984, Moutchnik and Zavarzin 2004, Malysheva 2006, Biazrov 2009), Lativa (Piterans and Zeiviniece 2000), Netherlands (Siebel et al. 1992) and Ukrainian (Popova 1999). India is yet to produce such list of lichens. Preparing for lichen conservation in WG: The present number of lichens for WG is based on the survey of limited localities and still a poor estimate. WG has more than 40 protected areas in the form of Sanctuaries, National Parks, Biosphere and Reserve Forests. Documentation of lichens for most of these areas is not available. A maximum record of lichens (736 sp.) from Tamil Nadu is due to extensive exploration in Nilgiri and Palni hills during 1970s, and there is a need for reassessment of lichen diversity in these areas. To bring forth the lichens in to conservation forum a great deal of effort is needed which may include; 1. Collecting quantitative data and monitoring, 2. Assessment of 10 status of endemic, rare taxa and Red Listing, 3. Population biology of threatened species, 4. Regulating collection of economically important species, and 5. Capacity building for lichen conservation. The lichens may not require any special statistical tools for data analysis. One can follow any simple, but uniform method throughout the study so that data fits in to a statistical application. Species richness would be a most simple but important information that can be gathered. It is a fundamental measure of biodiversity, and current trends of declining species richness in many regions of the world are a major ecological, economical, and cultural problem (Bergamini et al. 2005). Magurran (1988), Ludwig and Reynolds (1988) discussed in detail statistical methods and provided several diversity indices most of them are applicable for lichens too. Will-Wolf et al. (2002a) designed macro and microplot method for monitoring lichen biodiversity and ecosystem function. The macroplots of 0.03 – 1 ha of size and more than 3 replicates; within the macroplots, the microplots of size 0.01 – 1.5 m2 and 5 – 60 replicates for tree trunks, soil and rocks, and for tree branches of length 0.2 – 1 m about 25 – 100 replicates are suggested. However, species area curve would decide the adequacy of sampling. Similar to the microplots quadrate method can also be used to assess the abundance of forest lichens in terms of frequency and estimate of cover. Plotless sampling techniques such as recording hits of species along transects on the ground, or around trunks, or along branches can also used to estimate the abundance of species (Will-Wolf et al. 2002b). A systematic quantitative data collection would automatically help to assess the actual status of rare and threatened taxa. It would be better if same methodology is followed throughout the region and the result would be comparable. Further, it is a necessity to record the coordinates of the study site which can be linked to various Geographic Information System applications and visualized globally. This would also help to interpret result better and draw a close relation to lichen, vegetation and the region. Along with the meteorological data information that the lichen collector should record is the identity of host plant, which will be helpful to understand the host – lichen relation and also to appraise the surrogacy of higher plants for conservation. 11 Conservation of threatened taxa is of the primary importance. IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee (2010) provided detailed guidelines for using Red List categories. The criteria and sub-criteria to categorize organisms are fully quantitative and require corresponding data. For any given species, the norm can be defined in terms of population size, geographic delimitation or degree of fragmentation. Dietrich et al. (2000) invested five long years to collect data for establishing Red List of Switzerland lichens as per revised IUCN Red List categories (1994). A representative survey, based on a stratified random sample of 826 permanent observation plots, the mapping in squares of 400 km2, and survey of other floristic lichen data (herbarium, published and unpublished literature etc.) helped them to propose 38% of Switzerland lichen flora as ‘threatened’. Scheidegger and Goward (2002) discussed in detail and provided methodology for investigating lichens for Red List and conservation action plans which can easily adapted to WG. Three guiding principles of conservation biology in their application to lichen conservation are allowing for evolutionary change, dynamic ecology and human presence (Groom et al. 2006). Understanding the ecology and population biology of the targeted lichen species are important for the development of appropriate conservation strategies. The life history of lichens includes reproduction, production of spores (sexual or asexual), dispersal of spores and propagules, establishment, juvenile development and adult thallus. Detailed demographic investigations that include all life-stages are still largely missing for lichen populations. Such data are urgently needed for detailed analyses of the continuous decline of populations of threatened species in presumably intact habitats (Scheidegger and Werth 2009). Mode of reproduction, size of the propagule, dispersal distance and availability of suitable habitat decides the survival of targetted lichen population. The over exploitation of economically important lichens can be regulated only by creating awareness among local inhabitants, lichen collectors, sales brokers, forest officials and policy makers. Unlike vascular plants lay man does not have any knowledge on the lichens and they are considered as forest waste and allowed to collect in any amount. Regulation of collection 12 should be associated with habitat protection approach. Lichens being the part of cultural life of people banning their collection may not be possible. However, alternate method for sustainable utilization can be suggested. Partial harvest of economically important lichens, where in at least 40% of the trees having those lichens should be left untouched. Further, from those trees the lichens are removed at least 1 or 2 thalli should be left untouched. A forest should be given enough time, say 10 years for reestablishment and enough growth of lichens. Meanwhile lichens should be harvested in other forests and process should continue alternatively. Upreti and Nayaka (2008) proposed the creation of lichen garden, enriching the botanical gardens with lichens and declaring lichen rich sites as ‘lichen sanctuaries’ as methods for conservation of lichens. The lichen garden can be created or enriched by transplanting the lichens collected from near by forests or from regions have same climatic condition. The idea of transplantation also could be extended to the forests with depleted lichen diversity and abundance. The mycobionts grow faster in in vitro culture than the composite thallus, and have the ability to produce the same secondary metabolites. Aposymbiotically and axenically grown mycobionts can replace naturally grown thalli to meet the demand of large quantities of biologically active lichen substances (Brunauer and Stocker-Wörgötter 2005). Also, the development of bioreactors for cultures and genetic manipulation would facilitate large-scale production of lichen metabolites (Oksanen 2006). Ministry of Environment and Forest, Govt. of India, launched ‘All India Coordinated Project on Capacity Building in Taxonomy (AICOPTAX)’ in 1999. Since then the project has produced at least eight lichen taxonomists. With this background or in addition there is need for launching similar capacity building project on quantitative estimation of lichen diversity in WG. Minimum of five research groups should work simultaneously in five states for five years with similar methodology to arrive at fair conclusion on diversity and status of lichens in WG. Conclusion: The WG like other parts of the tropics is undergoing rapid transformation. The deforestation rate is high and forests are being transformed into agriculture and monoculture plantations 13 (Menon and Bawa 1997). The replacement of natural forests with plantation forests has both a drastic effect on species richness and composition of lichen communities ( Rose 1992). Upreti and Nayaka (2008) recognized a total of 25 lichen rich sites throughout India for declaring as ‘lichen sanctuaries’. As discussed earlier due to the lacking of quantitative data and frequent observation on lichens it has become difficult to assess the status of lichen diversity in WG. This has handicapped us from prioritizing an ecologically sensitive site for conservation. However, due to its rich lichen diversity, pressure of urbanization, tourism and changing climate in Nilgiri and Palni hills can be considered as ecologically sensitive and conservation attention may drawn. Acknowledgments: We are thankful to Director, NBRI for providing laboratory facilities to work and finance under in house project, OLP-001, to Dr. G.P. Sinha for valuable suggestions. References: Ahmadjian, V. 1995. Lichens are more important than you think. BioScience 45(3): 124. *Aronsson, M., Hallingbäck, T., Mattsson, JE (eds.) 1995. Rödlistade växter i Sverige 1995 [Swedish Red data Book of Plants 1995]. ArtDatabanken, Uppsala. Awasthi, D.D. 1965. Catalogue of lichens from India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Ceylon. Beihefte zur Nova Hedwigia, Heft 17. Verlag von J. Cramer, Weinheim. *Bélanger, M.C. 1834-38. Voyage aux Indes Orientales. Années 1825-29. Botanique, II. partie, Cryptogamie par Ch. Bélanger et Bory de St. Vincent. Paris. Pp. 113-144. Bergamini et al. 2005. Performance of macrolichens and lichen genera as indicators of lichen species richness and composition. Conservation Biology 19(4): 1051–1062. Biazrov, L.G. 2009. Red data Book of the Moscow Region, Second Edition. The Bryologist 112(4): 873-874. Brightman, F,H. and Seaward, M.R.D. 1977. Lichens of man-made substrates. In Lichen Ecology (Ed. M.R.D. Seaward). Academic Press, London. Pp. 253-293. Brodo, I.M. 1973. Substrate ecology. In The Lichens (Eds. Ahmadjian, V. and Hale, M. E), Academic Press, New York and London. Pp. 401-441. Brown, M.J., Jarman, S.J. and Kantvilas, G. 1994. Conservation and reservation of non-vascular plants in Tasmania, with special reference to lichens. Biodiversity and Conservation 3: 263-278. Brunauer, G. and Stocker-Wörgötter, E. 2005. Culture of lichen fungi for future production of biologically active compounds. Symbiosis 38: 187–201. Bujarbarua, P., Sinha, G.P. and Singh, K.P. 2002. The lichen diversity in Eastern Himalayas. In Science and Ethics of Environmental Care and Sustainability (Ed. A. Kumar). Dr. Shyama Prasda Mukherjee Govt. Degree College, Allahabad. Pp. 127-136. 14 Canters, K.J., Schöller, H., Ott, S. and Jahns, H. 1991. Microclimatic influences on lichen distribution and community development. Lichenologist 23(3): 237-252. *Cezanne, R. Eichler, M. Thüs, H 2002. Nachträge zur "Roten Liste der Flechten Hessens." Erste Folge [Supplement to the "Red data list of lichens of Hesse, " first issue]. Botanik und Naturschutz in Hessen 15: 107-142. Chatterjee, S., Acharya, A., Jha, A.B., Singh, J. and Prasad, R. (In Press). Setting standards for sustainable harvest of wild medicinal plants in Uttarakhand: A case study of lichens. TERI Publication. Church, J.M., Coppins, B.J., Gilbert, O.L., James, P.W. and Stewart, N.F. 1996. Red data Books of Britain and Ireland: Lichens. Volume 1: Britain. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. *Clerc, P., Scheidegger, C. and Ammann, K. 1992. Liste rouge des macrolichens de la Suisse [The Red data list of Swiss macrolichens]. Botanica Helvetica 102: 71-83. Dietrich, M., Stofer, S., Scheidegger, C., Frei, M., Groner, U., Keller, C., Roth, I. and Steinmeier, C 2000. Data sampling of rare and common species for compiling a red list of epiphytic lichens. Forest, Snow and Landscape Research 75(3): 369-380. Ellis, C.J., Coppins, B.J., Dawson, T.P., Seaward, M.R.D. 2007. Response of British lichens to climate change scenarios: trends and uncertainties in the projected impact for contrasting biogeographic groups. Biological Conservation 140: 217–235. Groom, M.J., Meffe, G.K. and Carroll, C.R. 2006. Principles of Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland. Inoue, M. 1998. Our continual project on Japanese Red data lichens – Lichen. News Bulletin of the Lichenological Society of Japan 11(1): 1-3. IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee. 2010. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 8.1. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Subcommittee in March 2010. http://intranet.iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SSC/RedList/RedListGuidelines.pdf. *IUCN, 1994: IUCN Red List Categories. Prepared by IUCN Species Survival Commission. Gland, IUCN. th Kirk, P.M., Cannon, P.F., Minter, D.W. and Stalpers, J.A. 2008. Dictionary of the Fungi, 10 Ed. CAB International, Oxon. Kumar, M. and Stephen, S. 1999. Lichen of Western Ghats-An Overview. In Biology of Lichens (Eds. K.G. Mukerji, B.P. Chamola, D.K. Upreti and R.K. Upadhyay). Aravali Books International, New Delhi. Pp. 297-331. Lucking, R. 1997. The use of foliicolous lichens as bioindicators in the tropics, with special reference to the microclimate. Abstracta Botanica 21(1): 99-116. Ludwig, J.A. and Reynolds, J.F. 1988. Statistical Ecology. A Primer on Methods and Computing. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Lumbsch, H. T. and S.M. Huhndorf (ed.) 2007. Outline of Ascomycota - 2007. Myconet, 13: 1-58. Magurran, A.E. 1988. Ecological Diversity and its Measurements. Croom Helm, Landon. *Malysheva, N.V. 2006. The lichens of Russian cities included in Red data books. Botanicheskii Zhurnal (St. Petersburg) 91(8): 1287-1301. Menon, S. and Bawa, K.S. 1997. Applications of geographic information systems (GIS), remote-sensing, and a landscape ecology approach to biodiversity conservation in the Western Ghats. Current Science 73: 134-145. Moutchnik, E.E. and Zavarzin, A.A. 2004. Lichens in the Red data books in Russia. In Book of Abstracts of the 5th IAL Symposium. Lichens in Focus (Eds. T. Randlane and A. Saag). Tartu University Press. Pp. 33-34. Nayaka, S. and Upreti, D.K. 2002. Lichens flora of Sharavati River Basin, Shimoga district, Karnataka, India, with six new records. J. Econ. Taxon. Bot. 26(3): 627-648. 15 Nayaka, S. and Upreti, D.K. 2005. Status of Lichen Diversity in Western Ghats, India. Sahyadri E-News, Western Ghats Biodiverstity Information System - Issue XVI: http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/biodiversity/newsletter/issue16/main_index.htm Nayaka, S., Upreti, D.K. and Saxena, S. 2007. Muscicolous lichens of Indian subcontinent. In Current Trends in Bryology (Eds. V. Nath and A.K. Asthana). Bishen Singh Mabedra Pal Singh, Dehra Dun. Pp. 245-254. Nayaka, S., Upreti, D.K., Gadgil, M. and Pandey, V. 2003. Distribution pattern and heavy metal accumulation in lichens of Bangalore City with special reference to Lalbagh garde. Current Science 84(5): 64-68. Nayaka. S., Upreti. D.K. and Divakar, P.K. 2001. Distribution and diversity of lichens in Meghamalai Wildlife Sanctuary, Kambam district, Tamil Nadu, India. Biological Memoirs 27(2): 51-58. Negi, H.R. 2000. On the patterns of abundance and diversity of macrolichens of Chopta-Tunganath in the Garhwal Himalaya. Journal of Biosciences 25(4): 367-378. Negi, H.R. and Gadgil, M. 1996. Patterns of distribution of macrolichens in western parts of Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve. Current Science 71(7): 568-575. Negi, H.R. and Upreti, D.K. 2000. Species diversity and relative abundance of lichens in Rumbak catchment of Hemis National Park in Ladakh. Current Science 78(9): 1105-1112. Nimis, P.L., Scheidegger, C. and Wolseley, P. 2002 (eds). Monitoring with Lichens – Monitoring Lichens (Eds. P.L. Nimis , G. Scheidegger and P. Wolseley). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands. Pp. 1-4. Oksanen, I. 2006. Ecological and biotechnological aspects of lichens. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 73(4): 723-734. Patwardhan, P.G. 1983. Rare and endemic lichens in the Western Ghats, South Western India. In An Assessment of Threatened Plants of India (Eds. S.K. Jain and R.R. Rao). Botanical Survey of India, Howrah. Pp. 318-322. Pinokiyo, A. and Singh, K. P. 2004. Foliicolous lichen diversity in India. Phytotaxonomy 4: 109-121. *Piterans, A. and Zeiviniece, A. 2000. Lichens in the reserves and other important woods of eastern Latvia [Samblikud Ida-Läti kaitsealadel ja muudes olulistes metsades]. Folia Cryptogamica Estonica 37: 79-84. *Popova, L. 1999. Red data book lichens in the National Nature Park "Synevyr" (the Ukrainian Carpathians). In International Conference on Lichen Conservation Biology, Licons (Ed. Anon). Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, Birmensdorf, Switzerland. Rose, F., 1992. Temperate forest management: its effects on bryophyte and lichen floras and habitats. In Bryophytes and Lichens in a Changing Environment (Eds. J.W. Bates and A. Farmer). Clarendon Press, Oxford. Pp. 211–233. Scheidegger, C. and Goward, T. 2002. Monitoring lichens for conservation: red lists and conservation action plans. In Monitoring with Lichens – Monitoring Lichens (Eds. P.L. Nimis , G. Scheidegger and P. Wolseley). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands. Pp. 163-181. Scheidegger, C. and Werth, S. 2009. Conservation strategies for lichens: insights from population biology. Fungal Biology Reviews 23. 55–66. Shibuichi, H. 1998. Red data list of lichens in Saitama Prefecture - Lichen. News Bulletin of the Lichenological Society of Japan 11(2): 25-26. *Siebel, H.N., Aptroot, A., Dirkse, G.M., van Dobben, H.F., van Melick, H.M.H. and Touw, A. 1992. Rode lijst van in Nederland verdwenen en bedreigde mossen en korstmossen. Gorteria 18: 1-20. Singh, A. 1964. Lichens of India. Bull. Natl. Bot. Gard. 93: 1-356. Singh, K.P. 1984. Synopsis of lichens from Palni Hills, India. Biological Memoirs 9(2): 105-150. Singh, K.P. and Sinha, G.P. 1997. Lichens. In Floristic Diversity and Conservation Strategies in India, vol. I (Cryptogams and Gymnosperms) (Eds. V. Mudugal and P.K. Hajra). Botanical Survey of India, Howrah. Pp. 195-234. 16 Singh, K.P. and Sinha, G.P. 2010. Indian Lichens: Annotated Checklist. Botanical Survey of India, Kolkata. Singh, K.P., Sinha, G.P. and Bujarbarua, P. 2004. Endemic lichens of India. Geophytology, 2004, 33, 1-16. Suominen, O. and Olfosson, J. 2000. Impacts of semi-domesticated reindeer on structure of tundra and forest communities in Fennoscandia: a review. Ann. Zool. Fennici 37: 233–249. *Trass, H. 1984. Lichens in the Red data Book. Eesti Loodus 5: 299-302. Upreti, D.K. and Nayaka, S. 2008. Need for creation of lichen gardens and sanctuaries in India. Current Science 94(8): 976-978. Upreti, D.K., Divakar, P.K. and Nayaka, S. 2005. Commercial and ethnic use of lichens in India. Economic Botany 59(3): 269-273. Upreti, D.K., Nayaka, S. and Bajpai, A. 2005. Do lichens still grow in Kolkata City? Current Science 88(3): 338-339. Upreti, D.K., Nayaka, S. and Dubey, U. 2009. Air pollution monitoring studies with lichens in India. Applied Botany Abstracts 29(2): 174-186. Vinayaka, K.S, Krishnamurthy, Y.L and Nayaka S. 2010. Macrolichen flora of Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary, Karnataka, India. Annales of Forestry 18(1): 81-90. Will-Wolf, S. and Scheidegger, C. 2002. Monitoring lichen diversity and ecosystem function. An introduction. In Monitoring with Lichens - Monitoring Lichens (Eds. P.L. Nimis, C. Scheidegger and P.A. Wolseley). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands. Pp. 143-145. Will-Wolf, S., Esseen, P.A. and Neitlich, P. 2002b. Monitoring biodiversity and ecosystem function: forests. In Monitoring with Lichens – Monitoring Lichens (Eds. P.L. Nimis , G. Scheidegger and P. Wolseley). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands. Pp. 203-222. Will-Wolf, S., Scheidegger, C. and McCune, B. 2002a. Methods for monitoring biodiversity and ecosystem function. Monitoring scenarios, sampling strategies and data quality. In Monitoring with Lichens – Monitoring Lichens (Eds. P.L. Nimis , G. Scheidegger and P. Wolseley). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands. Pp. 147-162. Wilson, E.O. 1992. The diverisity of life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Wirth, V. 1976. Veränderungen der flechten flora und flechten vegetation in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Schriftenreihe für Vegetationskunde 10: 177–203. Wirth, V. 1999. Gefährdete flechten biotope in Mitteleuropa. Natur und Museum 129: 12–21. (* = references not seen in original) 17 Appendix 1 List of endemic lichens those occur exclusively in Western Ghats 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. Anisomeridium flavopallidum Anisomeridium immersum Anisomeridium indicum Anisomeridium monosporum Anthracothecium austroindicum Anthracothecium keralense Arthonia inconspicua Arthopyrenia keralensis Arthopyrenia macrospora Arthothelium achromaticum Arthothelium albescens Arthothelium anomalum Arthothelium chlorofuscum Arthothelium corticatum Arthothelium karnatakansis Arthothelium keralense Arthothelium maculatum Arthothelium nigrodiscum Arthothelium plicatum Arthothelium ramosum Arthothelium saxicolum Arthothelium subruanum Arthothelium zahlbrucknerii Bacidia fusconigrescens var. oleosa Bathelium tuberculosum Buellia confusa Buellia flavelloides Buellia indica Buellia nilgiriensis Buellia palniensis Buellia subsororioides Buellia substigmea Bunodophoron diplotypus Byssophragmia monospora Catillaria nilgiriensis Catillaria obscura Catillaria versicolor Cryptothecia albomaculata Cryptothecia anamalaiensis Cryptothecia awasthii Cryptothecia culbersonae Cryptothecia emergens Cryptothecia groenhartii Cryptothecia macroacarpa Cryptothecia macrospora 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. Cryptothecia verrucominuta Cryptothecia porosa Diorygma albocinerascens Diorygma albovirescens Diorygma dealbatum Diorygma excipuloconvergentum Diorygma megaspermum Diorygma megistosporum Diorygma microsporum Diorygma panchganiense Diorygma patwardhanii Diorygma rufosporum Diorygma subalbatum Diorygma tuberculosum Diorygma verrucirimosum Diploschistes megalosporus Fissurina capsulata Fissurina karnatakensis Fissurina saxicola Fissurina verrucosa Graphina aeola Graphina norlabiata Graphis ajarekarii Graphis albidofarinacea Graphis alboglaucescens Graphis asahinae Graphis cinnamomea Graphis ebrunea Graphis isidiza Graphis kollaimaliensis Graphis nigrocarpa Graphis nilgiriensis Graphis patwardhanii Graphis polystriata Graphis salacinilongiramea Graphis valparaiensis Hemithecium amboliense Hemithecium consociatum Hemithecium fulvescens Hemithecium microspermum Hemithecium norsticticum Hemithecium salacinilabiatum Hemithecium staigerae Hemithecium stictilabiatum Heppsora indica 18 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. Hypotrachyna dodapetta Laurera fusispora Laurera kundaraensis Laurera vezdae Lecanora lecideoides Leptogium phyllocarpum var. crassiusculum 97. Lithothelium filisporum 98. Lopadium coorgianum 99. Lopadium ionexcipulum 100. Lopadium nigrum 101. Lopadium patwardhani 102. Megalospora verruculosa 103. Melanohalea nilgirica 104. Mycomicrothelia nonensis 105. Ocellularia canara 106. Ocellularia canariana 107. Ocellularia jamesii 108. Ocellularia karnatakensis 109. Ocellularia mahabalei 110. Ocellularia neomasonhalei 111. Ocellularia patwardhanii 112. Ocellularia udupiensis 113. Ocellularia verrucoisidiata 114. Ocellularia verrucomarginata 115. Pallidogramme indica 116. Pallidogramme undulatolirellata 117. Pannaria nilgherrensis 118. Parmeliella subfuscata 119. Parmelinella simplicoir 120. Parmotrema awasthii 121. Parmotrema erhizinosum 122. Parmotrema kamatii 123. Pertusaria colorata 124. Pertusaria idukkiensis 125. Pertusaria punctata 126. Pertusaria splendens 127. Pertusaria subochraceae 128. Phaeographina canarensis 129. Phaeographina coorgiana 130. Phaeographina halei 131. Phaeographina noralboradians 132. Phaeographis leightonii 133. Phaeographis platycarpa var. indica 134. Platythecium commiscens 135. Platythecium occultum 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. Platythecium verrucoareolatum Porina atroperiostiola Porina aurantiaca Porina elliptica Porina halei Porina microcarpa Porina ochrostoma Porina palniensis Porina subsanctirosae Psorella isidiophora Pyrenula karnatakensis Pyrenula nanospora Pyrenula subcamptospora Pyxine austroindica Pyxine keralensis Pyxine nilgiriensis Pyxine palniensis Ramalina hossei var. divaricata Schismatomma atomellum Thelocarpon palniensis Thelotrema alboannuliforme Thelotrema armellense Thelotrema confertum Thelotrema kalakkadense Thelotrema lepademersum Thelotrema palniarium Thelotrema peoltii Thelotrema subkeralense Trypethelium flavocinereum Trypethelium karnatakense Trypethelium luteum Trypethelium oblitescens Trypethelium plicato-rimosum Usnea austroindica Usnea corralina Usnea fischerii Usnea ghattensis Usnea nilgirica Usnea pictoides Usnea spinosula Usnea stigmata Usnea stigmatoides Usnea subchalybaea Usnea vulneraria Vahliella adnata 19 Appendix 2 List of lichens known from their type locality only 1. Arthonia inconspicua 2. Byssophragmia monospora 3. Diorygma tuberculosum 4. Diploschistes megalosporus 5. Graphina aeola 6. Lecanora lecideoides 7. Leptogium phyllocarpum var. crassiusculum 8. Melanohalea nilgirica 9. Parmotrema awasthii 10. Psorella isidiophora 11. Pyxine austroindica 12. Pyxine keralensis 13. Pyxine nilgiriensis 14. Usnea corralina 15. Usnea fischerii 16. Vahliella adnata 20