World J. Cur. Sci. Res. (2021) 1:2

World Journal of Current Scientific Research

Journal Homepage: www.wjcsr.com

Studies on Community Structure of Tal Chhapar Wildlife Sanctuary of ,

Bagoriya, J.K.*, Barupal, G. K. and Kapoor, B. B. S.

Department of Botany, Govt. Dungar College, -334001, India

A R T I C L E I N F O ABSTRACT

Keywords: The Tal Chhapar wild life sanctuary lies in Tehsil of in the north-eastern part of Community structure Rajasthan. This area is protecting a good number of plants and animal species especially Black bucks. The Phyto-sociological analysis, present observation enumerates the community structure of this area. During the present study on the Tal chhapar wildlife basis of floral composition, ecological relationship, including human and biotic activities, fourteen plant sanctuary communities were recorded. These plant communities frequently occurred in Charwas and Rampura areas of Tal Chhapar wild life sanctuary. In phytosociological practice, dominance and homogeneity are closely * Corresponding related. Areas in which one or a few species are predominant with even distribution are considered as author. E-mail addresses: homogenous. They are more or less evenly distributed, but scarce species are mostly hidden by the jitendrabotany1986@ dominants. In present study, Arnebia hispidisima, Boerhavia diffusa, Pedalium murex, Capparis decidua, gmail.com Crotalaria burhia, Calligonum polygonoides, Leptadenia pyrotechnica, Salvadora persica, Ziziphus nummularia, Ziziphus mauritiana, Aerva persica and Tephrosia purpurea, different species of Heliotropium and Prosopis were observed from different selected areas of Tal Chhapar wildlife sanctuary and considered as homogenous species in this region.

Tal Chhapar area was a game reservoir for the erstwhile Maharaja of Bikaner state and was declared a reserved area for 1. Introduction the protection of wild animals and birds in the year 1962. The Tal Chhapar wild life sanctuary lies in Sujangarh Tehsil of Churu Rajasthan, the largest state in the country in terms of district in the north-eastern part of Rajasthan. The sanctuary lies geographical area, is treasured with a wide range of on Nokha- Sujangarh highway. It is the only sanctuary in India physiographic and climatic conditions. It has unique rich which houses a good population of Black bucks and covers an diversity of plants with different habitats. Floristic studies on area of 719 hectares. The Tal Chhapar has both extremes of vegetation of arid zone of Rajasthan have been reviewed and climate as it is too hot during summer, cold and dry in winter. documented earlier by many workers (Pandey and Shetty, High wind velocity, low relative humidity and too scanty rainfall 1984; Singh et al. 1989; Kumar and Bhandari, 1993; Bhandari, are the climate characteristics of this area. The study area shows 1995; Sharma, 2002). great floristic diversity which includes two different sites i. e. The Churu district is situated in the north-eastern part of Charwas and Rampura. Rajasthan which comes under arid zone of Rajasthan desert. A The minimum size of the quadrate was found by “species lot of work has been done on the exploration of floristic area curve” method, which was 1 x 1 m for herbs and under diversity, phytosociological analysis and community structure shrubs, whereas, quadrate of 3 x 3 m for large shrubs and trees. of different places of the arid region of Rajasthan by many Various phyto-sociological parameters like frequency, density, workers (Joshi, 1958; Nair, 1961; Singh et al. 1997; Pandey and abundance, dominance and Important Value Index (IVI) were Singh, 2000; Sharma and Aggarwal, 2008; Sharma and Pandey, analyzed. 2010; Chaudhary and Shringi, 2017). The present study was designed to record the community structure of Tal Chhapar 2.2. Phyto-sociological Analysis wild life sanctuary area situated in Churu district of Rajasthan. In present study the phyto-sociological analysis of plant 2. Materials and Method community was determined by means of quadrate method (Mishra, 1968) at different sites of Tal Chhapar wild life 2.1. Study Area

This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Cite this article as Bagoriya, J.K., Barupal, G.K. and Kapoor, B.B.S. 2021. Studies on Community Structure of Tal Chhapar Wildlife Sanctuary of Rajasthan, India. World J.Cur. Sci. Res.,1(2):129-133. Studies on Community Structure of Tal Chhapar Wildlife Sanctuary of Rajasthan, India Bagoriya et al

Table 1. Community Structure of Charwas Area of Tal Chhapar Wildlife Sanctuary S. % Relative Relative Relative Plant species Frequency Abundance Density IVI No Frequency Dominancy Frequency Density 1 Aerva persica 50 C 2.50 0.75 4.10 4.16 1.41 9.67 2 Argemone mexicana 20 A 1.25 1.35 0.08 1.39 1.06 2.53 3 Aristida adscensionis 86 E 2.59 2.02 19.31 12.29 1.03 32.63 4 Arnebia hispidisma 15 A 1.33 0.20 39.54 1.04 0.85 41.43 5 Boerhavia diffusa 35 B 2.50 0.75 4.10 4.16 1.41 9.67 6 Calotropis procera 50 C 2.60 0.30 0.84 8.33 7.36 16.53 7 Cenchrus biflorus 55 C 16.90 9.30 0.01 6.28 1.26 7.55 8 Cenchrus ciliaris 55 C 1.90 1.05 0.96 9.16 5.94 16.06 9 Citrullus colocynthis 25 B 3.18 1.75 0.56 6.28 2.76 9.60 10 Corchorus tridens 40 B 2.75 1.10 0.21 6.66 6.23 13.10 11 Crotalaria burhia 40 B 1.72 0.45 19.05 6.66 2.65 28.36 12 Cynodon dactylon 75 D 17.53 12.15 0.12 8.55 21.42 30.09 13 Cyperus iria 40 B 2.02 1.85 1.07 2.55 2.02 5.64 14 Cyperus rotundus 100 E 2.09 0.97 38.62 8.73 3.04 50.39 15 Dactylotenium aegyptium 80 D 2.12 1.70 21.62 7.62 1.27 30.51 16 Haloxylon recurvum 10 A 1.00 0.10 9.27 0.69 0.42 10.38 17 Lasiuruss indicus 60 C 1.97 1.04 0.09 1.70 1.26 3.05 18 Leptadenia pyrotechnica 35 B 1.28 0.45 0.61 2.97 2.27 5.85 19 Mollugo cerviana 70 D 2.50 0.75 0.71 11.66 9.91 22.28 20 Pedalium murex 25 B 0.80 0.25 0.38 1.39 1.06 2.83 21 Prosopis juliflora 100 E 1.37 1.05 36.21 8.28 5.23 49.72 22 Pulicaria crispa 55 C 1.27 0.70 6.17 3.84 2.97 12.98 23 Salsola baryosma 100 E 2.24 0.83 22.47 11.20 1.91 34.68 24 Solanum surattense 30 B 1.75 1.23 0.97 5.45 2.09 8.51 25 Suaeda fruticosa 100 E 1.85 1.20 13.67 6.62 1.04 21.33 26 Tephrosia purpurea 55 C 1.45 0.80 17.11 6.28 1.26 24.65 27 Vernonia cinerea 70 D 2.04 0.62 1.25 3.82 5.05 10.12 28 Xanthium strumarium 30 B 1.16 0.35 0.39 2.09 1.48 3.96 29 Ziziphus nummularia 35 B 1.33 0.20 0.25 1.04 0.85 2.14 sanctuary i.e. Charwas and Rampura. The community (ii) Crotalaria burhia community structure of both the study areas is presented in the following This community is widespread in sanctuary area. It provides tables 1 and 2. valuable fodder grass that is much relished by cattle. Associated 3. Result and Discussion species include Calligonum polygonoides, Cenchrus ciliaris, Aerva persica, Cynodon dactylon, Tribulus terrestris, Tephrosia purpurea On the basis of floral composition and ecological and Cyperus iria. relationship, fourteen plant communities from Charwas and Rampura area of Tal Chhapar wild life sanctuary were reported (iii) Calotropis procera community frequently during the study period. This community is very common on boundary areas of the (i) Aerva persica community sanctuary. Other associates are Aerva persica, Boerhavia diffusa, Crotalaria burhia, Cenchrus ciliaris, Indigofera cordifolia, Lasiurus This community is wide spread in boundary area of sanctuary. sindicus, Suaeda fruticosa, Salsola baryosma and Dichanthium Other associates are Tephrosia purpurea, Boerhavia diffusa, annulatum. Argemone maxicana, Crotalaria burhia, Arnebia hispidisima, Citrullus colocynthis, Corchoru stridens, Momordica balsaminia and Echinops echinatus.

World. J. Cur. Sci. Res. (2021) 130

Studies on Community Structure of Tal Chhapar Wildlife Sanctuary of Rajasthan, India Bagoriya et al

Table 2. Community Structure of Rampura Area of Tal Chhapar Wildlife Sanctuary Frequenc Relative S. % Relative Relative Plant species y Abundance Density Frequenc IVI No Frequency Dominancy Density y 1 Aerva persica 50 C 2.60 0.30 0.84 8.33 7.36 16.53 2 Argemone mexicana 30 B 1.33 0.40 0.09 2.55 2.02 4.66 3 Aristida adscensionis 80 D 2.56 2.02 40.83 12.60 2.04 55.47 4 Boerhavia diffusa 40 B 2.00 0.80 0.05 3.40 4.04 7.49 5 Calotropis procera 50 C 1.40 0.70 0.26 8.33 3.96 12.55 6 Cenchrus biflorus 55 C 1.81 1.00 0.04 4.68 5.05 9.77 7 Cenchrus ciliaris 85 E 8.41 7.15 0.25 14.16 40.50 54.91 8 Citrullus colocynthis 35 B 1.28 0.45 0.32 5.83 2.54 8.69 9 Cynodon dactylon 70 C 2.18 1.20 0.01 4.68 6.06 10.75 10 Cyperus iria 45 C 2.22 1.00 0.03 3.82 5.05 8.90 11 Cyperus rotundus 100 E 2.23 1.92 20.41 4.02 2.03 26.66 12 Desmostachya bipinnata 85 E 1.16 0.25 0.05 2.55 1.76 4.36 13 Dichanthium annulatum 100 E 8.41 7.15 0.25 14.16 40.50 54.91 14 Echinops echinatus 50 C 1.40 0.70 0.26 8.33 3.96 12.55 15 Haloxylon recurvum 35 B 1.60 0.40 0.06 2.12 2.20 4.38 16 Leptadenia pyrotechnica 40 B 2.00 0.80 0.05 3.40 4.04 7.49 17 Mollugo cerviana 70 D 2.50 1.75 0.71 11.66 9.91 22.28 18 Lasiurus sindicus 65 D 1.65 1.05 0.13 5.53 5.30 10.96 19 Prosopis juliflora 100 E 2.19 1.60 48.45 6.97 5.30 60.72 20 Pulicaria crispa 65 D 1.89 1.20 0.09 5.53 6.06 11.68 21 Salsola baryosma 100 E 2.75 2.20 0.01 6.80 11.11 17.92 22 Solanum surattense 30 B 0.79 0.25 3.42 2.31 2.91 8.64 23 Suaeda fruticosa 100 E 1.29 1.08 41.07 8.32 3.39 52.78 24 Tephrosia purpurea 45 C 2.22 1.00 0.03 3.82 5.05 8.90 25 Xanthium strumarium 30 A 1.25 0.25 1.07 1.70 1.26 4.03 26 Ziziphus nummularia 55 C 2.18 1.20 0.01 4.68 6.06 10.75

(iv) Lasiurus sindicus community Prosopis juliflora, Salvadora persica, Calotropis procera, Aerva persica and Crotalaria burhia. This is most common grass of the sanctuary. This grass is very good fodder for Black buck and other animals of the sanctuary. (viii) Ziziphus nummularia community Other associates are Cynodon dactylon, Cenchrus biflorus, It is conspicuous on sandy to sandy loam soil. Its leaves are eaten Cenchrus ciliaris, Cenchrus setigerus, Dactyloctenium by animals. Associated species are Crotalaria burhia, Aerva aegypticum, Eragrostis tremula and Vernonia cinerea. persica, Leptadenia pyrotechnica, Prosopis cineraria, Citrullus (v) Cyperus rotundus community colocynthis and Boerhavia diffusa.

This community is widespread in sanctuary area. This is (ix) Suaeda fruticosa community favourate food of deer. Other associates are Suaeda fruticosa, Suaeda fruticosa is the dominant shrub in the study area. Leaves Haloxylon recurvum, Salsola baryosma, Lasiurus sindicus, of this plant are eaten by Black buck and other animals. Other Cyperus iria, Cenchrus ciliaris, Cenchrus setigerus, associates are Haloxylon recurvum, Salsola baryosma, Dactyloctenium aegypticum and Panicum antidotale. Zygophyllum simplex, Chenopodium album, Cyperus rotundus and (vi) Salsola baryosma community Vernonia cinerea.

This dominant species is much branched pale heavy shrub. It (x) Prosopis juliflora community is very good fodder for animals of sanctuary. Other associates This is the main tree flora of sanctuary. Pods of this plant are are Suaeda fruticosa, Haloxylon recurvum, Portulaca oleracea, eaten by Black buck. Other associates are Crotalaria burhia, Chenopodium album, Cyperus rotundus, Lasiurus sindicus, Cenchrus biflorus, Calotropis procera, Indigofera cordifolia, Boerhavia diffusa and Amaranthus viridis. Aristida adscensionis, Lasiurus sindicus, Mollugo cerviana and (vii) Tephrosia purpurea community Tribulus terrestris.

This community is prevalent in sandy areas. Associated (xi) Aristida adscensionis community species include Tribulus terristris, Indegofera cordifolia, This community is common in sanctuary area along with Boerhavia diffusa, Leptadenia pyrotechnica, Argemone associated annual grasses, it form large area of pasture land and mexicana, Cenchrus biflorus,Cyperus iria, Portulaca oleracea, provides valuable grass that is much relished by animals. It is

World. J. Cur. Sci. Res. (2021) 131

Studies on Community Structure of Tal Chhapar Wildlife Sanctuary of Rajasthan, India Bagoriya et al generally associated with Cynodon dactylon, Cyperus iria, showed the maximum IVI values which reveals that these Euphorbia hirta, Corchorus tridens, Lasiurus sindicus, community are considered as dominant in the desert ecosystem Dichanthium annulatum, Mollugo cerviana and Solanum of Tal Chhapar sanctuary. Parihar and Choudhary (2017) worked nigrum. on desert ecosystem of Sagar and Gajner areas of and observed the higher IVI value of Leptadenia pyrotechnica and (xii) Dichanthium annulatum community Calotropis procera. This community is common in sanctuary area throughout. Associated species are Aristida adscensionis, Amaranthus 4. Conclusion viridis, Cenchrus biflorus, Cenchrus ciliaris, Desmostachya The inhospitable climatic and poor edaphic conditions bipinnata, Panicum turgidum and Lasiurus sindicus. permit only a few species to survive in this area so that only few (xiii) Cenchrus cilliaris community specific community types are well recognized and occupying different habitats. However, biotic pressure and light intensities This community is usually found throughout sanctuary area. It may change the dominance slightly. But, by and large, present is generally associated with Aristida adscensionis, Cenchrus vegetation is highly degraded in both communities of grazing biflorus, Dactyloctenium aegypticum, Dichanthium annulatum, lands and croplands. Cenchrus setigerus, Panicum antidotale, Tephrosia purpurea, Aerva persica, Pulicaria crispa, Vernonia cinerea and Xanthium From present study, it is clear that in different selected areas strumarium. ephemerals constitute the bulk of vegetation. They appear suddenly above the ground soon after first showers, and (xiv) Pulicaria crispa community complete their life cycle within a very short time. They die out as This community is widespread in boundary area. Associated soon as the soil gets dry or may perennate by underground species include Aerva persica, Crotalaria burhia, Tephrosia rootstocks. The perennials consist of stunted, thorny or prickly purpurea, Datura innoxia, Euphorbia caducifolia, Calotropis shrubs and a few hardy herbs and trees capable of maintaining procera, Argemone mexicana and Leptadenia pyrotechnica. themselves under the stress environment. They occur in open clump formation with plenty of vacant space between them. Dominance of different species in relation to the availability of suitable niche in a community has been Acknowledgement interpreted from dominance diversity curve. In community Authors are expressing our sincere thanks to the Forest structure species diversity is always considered to be an Department, Churu especially Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, Forest important attribute as it is often related to population Officer, Tal Chhapar Sanctuary, who helped us during survey of dynamics and competition (Palit and Banerjee, 2013). It may the study area. Authors also express gratitude towards Dr. R. K. be noted that the presence of a certain species in a community Gehlot, H.O.D. P.G. Department of Botany, Govt. Dungar College, may not be of much significance because it indicates the Bikaner and Dr. Jitendra Kantiya, H.O.D., P.G. Department of potentiality of the species for a wide range of tolerance and Botany, Bhagwandas Todi College, Laxmangarh for his kind co- therefore in such situations, other criteria may be more operation during the research work. meaningful in establishing correlation between the presence of the species and environmental factors. Conflicts of interest

In phyto-sociological practice, dominance and The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest. homogeneity are closely related. Areas in which one or a few References species predominant with even distribution are considered homogenous. They are more or less evenly distributed, but Bhandari, M. M. 1995. Flora of Indian Desert.2nd ed. MPS Repros, scarce species are mostly hidden by the dominants (Krishna et . al., 2014; Parihar and Choudhary, 2017; Ojha, 2016). During Chaudhary, M. and Shringi, S. K. 2017. Floristic Composition of present study it was observed that Arnebia hispidisima, Beer Jhunjhunu Conservation Reserve of Rajasthan, India. The Boerhavia diffusa, Pedalium murex, Capparis decidua, Crotalaria Biobrio. 4 (1&2): 244-258. burhia, Calligonum polygonoides, Leptadenia pyrotechnica, Salvadora persica, Ziziphus nummularia, Ziziphus mauritiana, Joshi, M. C. 1958. A Preliminary survey of sand-dune vegetation Aerva persica and Tephrosia purpurea, different species of of Pilani and its neighbourhood. Journal of Indian Botanical Heliotropium and Prosopis were found in different selected Society. 37: 309 –327. areas. So, we can say these are homogenous species in this Krishna, P. H., Reddy C. S., Meena S. L. and Katewa S. S. 2014. region. The IVI helps in understanding the ecological Pattern of plant species diversity in grasslands of Rajasthan, significance of the species in a particular ecosystem. Cyperus India. Taiwania. 59: 111-118. rotundus (50.39) and Prosopis juliflora (49.72) showed the maximum IVI values in Charwas area (Table-1). In Rampura Kumar, M. and Bhandari, M. M. 1993. Impact of human activities area, Prosopis juliflora (60.62) and Aristida adscensionis (55.47) on the pattern and process of sand dune vegetation in Rajasthan desert. Desertification Bulletin N. 22: 45-54.

World. J. Cur. Sci. Res. (2021) 132

Studies on Community Structure of Tal Chhapar Wildlife Sanctuary of Rajasthan, India Bagoriya et al

Mishra, R. 1968. Ecology work book. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., Calcutta: pp, 244.

Nair, N. C. 1961. Vegetation of Jhunjhunu, Mandrella and the neighbouring places. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 58 (2): 433 – 440.

Ojha, A. 2016. Ecological study of Tal Chhapar Sanctuary, Churu (Rajasthan). J. Glob Res. 3: 27-31.

Palit, D. and Banerjee, A. 2013. Species diversity and pedological characteristics in selected sites of Senchal Wildlife Sanctuary, West Bengal, India. J. Environ Ecol. 4: 111-137.

Pandey, R. P. and Shetty, B. V. 1984. A contribution to the flora of , Rajasthan. Journ. Econ. Taxon Bot. 5: 335 – 378.

Pandey, R. P. and Singh, N. P. 2000. Studies on Phytodiversity of Kumbhalgarh wildlife sanctuary in Rajasthan. Journal of Economic and Taxonomic Botany. 24: 1, 61-69.

Parihar, R. and Choudhary, R. 2017. Phytosociological study and species diversity of desert vegetation at Bikaner district northwestern Rajasthan, India. Periodical Res. 6: 68-77.

Sharma, K. K. and Panday, A. K. 2010. Phytosociological study of vegetation of some selected arid region of the Thar desert of Rajasthan, India. Current World Environ. 5(1):51-58.

Sharma, N. 2002. The Flora of Rajasthan.Avishkar Publishers, .

Sharma, S. C. and Aggarwal, R. K. 2008. Study of Phytodiversity of in Rajasthan. Journ. Econ. Taxon. Bot. 32 (2): 359 – 373.

Singh, B. P., Kalra, P. and Romana, H. S. 1997. An analysis of the flora of Churu (North Rajasthan). J. Econ. Taxon. Bot. 2 (3): 697 –701.

Singh, B. P., Sidhu, T. S. and Singh, H. 1989. The effect of canal irrigation on the natural flora of North-West Rajasthan.J. Phytol. Res. 2(2): 20-28.

World. J. Cur. Sci. Res. (2021) 133