The sacred in forests, trees, and seeds: boon or bane of ecosystem services?
Book Chapter in: Anthropology, Nutrition and Wildlife Conservation (Editors: Edmond
Dounias, Igor de Garine and Valérie de Garine), Publisher: Estudios del Hombre,
University of Guadalajara (Mexico) (in press) [Invited chapter]
Renee M. Borges
Centre for Ecological Sciences
Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore 560 012
Email: renee@ces.iisc.ernet.in
1
The sacred is often associated with symbols: these could be natural products, living or
non-living, or human artefacts. Examples of natural products include holy cows, or the
Kaaba meteorite rock (Farrington 1900), while human constructs include the chalice and
menorah. The sacred could be regarded as nutrition for the human spirit, which may
contribute to the well-being of the body (Ellison and Levin 1998, Eckersley 2007), and
thus have survival advantage. This would, therefore, warrant an inclusion of the sacred
in a volume on nutrition, wildlife and anthropology. Attributing sacred status to an object
is likely to make that object more valuable, and should contribute to its preservation.
This may, however, result in situations where the sacred symbols are preserved even
under extremely unenviable conditions as sometimes occurs with cows in India.
Furthermore, the sacredness of an object may also contribute to the need for its
acquisition, and may in turn contribute to its overexploitation, especially if this object is
of natural origin, and cannot be manufactured as can human artefacts. Thus the impact of
sacred status on a natural object may vary, with corresponding variable impacts on the
ecology of which the object forms a part. This paper explores specific cases of natural
sacred symbols from India, at a scale ranging from sacred groves, through sacred trees,
and finally to sacred seeds, and examines whether the sacred can be the bane or the boon
of ecosystem services.
Sacred groves
Many cultures across many countries have the concept of sacred groves, and these can be
of many different typologies with specific local names: e.g. feng shui forests (Zhuang and
Corlett 1997), devrais (Gagdil and Vartak 1974), devarakudus (Chandrakanth et al.
2
2004), orans, and safety forests (Hughes and Subhash Chandran 1998). In most sacred
groves, patches of natural forest were demarcated near villages or hamlets. These patches
usually also contain a temple or an altar, or other artefact of worship, and sometimes may
also have a burial ground, and thus may also be assumed to be the repository of ancestors
or their spirits. In some cases, as in Tanzania, the trees themselves within the grove are
worshipped (Mgumia and Oba 2003), while in other cases, social taboos may protect the
entire grove (Gadgil and Vartak 1974). The concept of sacred groves has been examined
and reviewed extensively (Hughes and Subhash Chandran 1998, Bhagwat and Rutte
2006) and so will not be dealt with in any detail here. In India, sacred groves have dotted
the landscape for centuries, and have increased in importance from the perspective of
conservation as the boundaries of villages have been increasingly juxtaposed as a result
of the increasing expansion of human populations, and of agriculture, with resultant
cutbacks to original forests. According to ancient tradition, especially in India, not even
a leaf or a flower was removed from these groves; usually entry into the grove was
allowed only with bare feet, such that the grove was accorded the same respect as a
temple. However, in the last 50 years, with human population explosions, and greater
demands on fuelwood and forest products, even the sacred groves have not been spared,
and in many parts of India, sacred groves are under great threat (Chandrashekara and
Sankar 1998, Chandrakanth et al. 2004). In tribal areas, where local inhabitants are often
cash-starved, since they have an economy which is largely based on barter of goods and
services, meagre cash incentives from unscrupulous timber or charcoal merchants can
induce communities to sell the timber from their sacred groves for extremely paltry sums.
In one documented case (Borges 1996), the Mahadeo Koli inhabitants of Ahupe village in
3
the seasonal cloud forest of the Western Ghats of Maharashtra were willing to sell their
entire sacred grove for Rs. 20,000/- (approximately $400 dollars). This grove is located
at the source of the Ghod river, and its destruction would have compromised the water
security of this village and of others downstream. Fortunately, timely intervention by a
non-governmental organisation saved the grove. Economic imperatives are thus
beginning to cut at the roots of sacred values, with strong impacts on the conservation of
plant and animal taxa that would have received automatic protection by virtue of their
occurrence in the sacred grove.
Since sacred groves are associated with human habitation, their location also reflects land
utilisation patterns. For example, in Manipur within the biodiversity hot spot of the
north-eastern part of India, the greatest number of such groves is in the fertile valleys,
while some others exist on hill slopes (Khumbongmayum et al. 2005). This may have
further consequences for the types of organisms that can be protected within groves, and
is a subject for more investigation. In areas of India where sacred groves are most
abundant, e.g. the biodiversity hot spot of the Western Ghats, the species diversity
contained within the groves was found to be a function of the distance of the grove from
large patches of natural forest, such that even a few extra kilometers of separation made a
dramatic difference in terms of a decline in species diversity within the grove (Bhagwat
et al. 2005). This indicates that the biological exchange between grove and natural forest
is governed by distance-responsive processes such as seed rain, pollinator movements,
animal movement and dispersal. In Kodagu District of Karnataka State in India, the
amount of land under sacred groves was estimated at just 0.6% of the area of the District
4
(Chandrakanth et al. 2004). This means that sacred groves are usually small and thus
individual groves can only be expected to protect a subsample of regional biodiversity,
and they do harbour, for example, various endangered trees and lianas (Ramanujam and
Cyril 2003, Reddy and Parthasarathy 2003). However, a network of such small sacred
groves could protect different subsamples of this biodiversity, and thus contribute to
ecosystem processes at a larger scale. Therefore, a sacred grove must be evaluated not
only for its species diversity (so far mostly restricted to studies of plants, butterflies,
reptiles, amphibians) but also for its role as a refuge for pollinators, seed dispersers,
parasites of insect pests, and other such important taxa which constitute mobile functional
links (Gilbert 1980, Lundberg and Moberg 2003) that can radiate from the grove into the
landscape matrix to perform ecosystem services. A network of sacred groves could serve
as stepping stones for these mobile links and facilitate this ecological connectivity as was
suggested for North Kannara (Uttara Kannnada) District of Karnataka State in the
Western Ghats of India (Daniels et al. 1993). In the heterogeneous mosaic of small
fields, villages, and towns that constitute most of India, these sacred groves are
particularly suited for their role as refugia for endangered organisms as well as for these
mobile links, which especially in the case of pollinators can move out from the grove into
the agricultural matrix and also participate in crop pollination (Borges 2003a, b). Indeed,
most crops in India are serviced by wild pollinators, since managed pollination via the
introduction of bee hives (e.g. hives of Apis mellifera or Apis cerana) is neither popular
not currently successful within the Indian agricultural system (Borges 2003b). These
wild pollinators, such as stingless bees, adrenid bees, or carpenter bees, for example,
could nest in the grove. The presence of hundreds of hives of the rock bee Apis dorsata
5
on individual large old-growth trees within some groves is an example of the role that old
growth trees within sacred groves can play. The rock bees are also nomadic and move
with the availability of nectar and pollen sources (Roubik 2005; personal observations);
thus providing them with nesting substrates at strategic locations (as could occur in a
grove) could be extremely important in preserving these mobile functional links with
important impacts on the integrity of ecosystem processes at a landscape level. It is
therefore extremely important to view conservation as a process that provides organismal
and ecosystem process linkages between regions (Groves et al. 2002).
The sacred grove concept has proved useful in the past and certainly has important
biological value in the future. It is also interesting that even within geopolitical domains
where the sacred has been denied within the recent historical past, a renewed recognition
of traditional values and the need for protection of sacred forests is occurring (Liu et al.
2002, Anderson et al. 2005, Salick et al. 2007). Whether community-based conservation
of groves will continue to work in a globalised world remains to be seen, and perhaps this
will only be possible if the concept of the local community is strengthened (Perrings and
Gadgil 2003, Berkes 2007).
Sacred trees
Throughout the world, particular trees have been worshipped, often for very specific
reasons (Porter 1993, Dafni 2006) that may be unrelated to the utility value of the tree
species. In the date palm worshipped in the Assyrian culture of Mesopotamia, however,
utility was certainly an important factor since date palms were an important source of
6
food (Porter 1993). The date palm is dioecious with male and female trees; consequently
pollen must be transferred between the sexes for fruit formation. Hammurabi’s ancient
Babylonian code, therefore, even mentioned very specific strictures to be passed on
individuals who did not pollinate their date palms, and special guardians (hand
pollinators) of these trees were designated (Pruessner 1920). In India, there is a plethora
of sacred trees (Upadhyaya 1963, Chandrakanth et al. 1990). Also, many trees are
accorded special protection as a result of specific taboos or traditions (Colding and Folke
1997). In this paper, I will focus only on the genus Ficus (family Moraceae) because
Ficus religiosa and Ficus benghalensis not only have special religious significance in
India but Ficus also plays an important role in ecosystems as a keystone species
(Terborgh 1983, but see Borges 1993), and hence warrants discussion in the context of
the sacred groves mentioned above. In the sacred cacao groves of the Maya, trees such as
Ficus were also preserved (Gómez-Pompa et al. 1990), while in the feng-shui forests of
Hong Kong, the family Moraceae (represented largely by Ficus) is the most dominant
taxon (Zhuang and Corlett 1997). Ficus religiosa (the pipal or peepul tree) is sacred to
Hindus and Buddhists and is believed to be the tree under which the Buddha achieved
enlightenment. Ficus benghalensis (banyan, vad, vat tree) is also called the wishfulfilling tree (kalpavriksha) and many myths are associated with it. One of these myths
is that of Vat Savitiri according to which a Hindu woman named Savitri lost her husband
who died under a banyan tree; Savitri prayed to Yama, the God of Death, to give her back
her husband, and her wish was granted. Yama also decreed that in the memory of this
event, Hindu women who propitiated him through worshipping the banyan tree would
retain their husbands in this and in subsequent lives. Therefore, each year married Hindu
7
women worship the tree and tie a sacred thread around it. Banyan trees with sacred
threads circling their trunks can be seen throughout India particularly in the western parts.
In the Indian landscape, F. religiosa and F. benghalensis are extensively planted as well
as protected. They have also been used as avenue trees along highways (ancient and
modern), and hence provide serial linkages in the form of arterial connections between
forest patches. A rough estimate of the densities of planted or protected Ficus trees in
India associated with villages can be made in the following way: assume a minimum of
two Ficus trees per village (usually associated with at least two temples that most villages
contain); thus the number of Ficus trees = villages in India x 2 = 638596 x 2 = 1277192 =
approximately a minimum number of 1.3 million Ficus trees associated with just village
habitation (data on number of villages from
www.censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001). Thus sacred trees such as Ficus provide
many nodes in the linkage network that passes through forest, agroforests, agricultural
lands, towns, and cities. There are also about 4000 small towns scattered over the
hinterland of India (http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001), within which
there are probably at least three Ficus trees per km2 which can serve as additional nodes.
One town in the State of Gujarat in India (Vadadora) derives its name from Vad =
banyan, as a result of its large number of banyan trees. Thus, Ficus can be viewed as a
key facilitator of network linkage.
Figs are well known as a keystone species for frugivores in the Old World tropics, since
their continuous fruiting at the population level has been found to be important for wide-
8
ranging frugivores such as hornbills, primates, and bats in India and other parts of Asia
(Kannan and James 1999, Datta and Rawat 2003, Kinnaird et al. 2005, Muscarella and
Fleming 2006), as well as in Africa (Bleher et al. 2003). Considering that fig trees are
nursery pollination mutualisms in which figs breed their own obligate wasp pollinators
within the fig syconia, the persistence of a fig population would therefore depend also on
the persistence of the fig/wasp mutualism (Cook and Rasplus 2003). Attempts to model
the minimum viable population size of fig trees have been made from this perspective
(Anstett et al. 1995, 1996). Since fig trees are normally rare in forests compared to other
tree species, these models found that only the rarest fig species would be vulnerable to
habitat fragmentation, and that the vulnerability of the species or population would be
most evident when syconia are produced in a markedly seasonal manner. Studies on fig
wasp dispersal (Harrison 2003) have found that fig wasps disperse to distances in excess
of 30 km from their natal syconia, and that this is true mostly of monoecious fig species.
Fortunately, F. religiosa and F. benghalensis are both monoecious, not strongly seasonal
in their flowering, and most trees of these species are likely to be within 30 km of each
other, thus ensuring continued viability of their populations.
A most important attribute of Ficus which also applies to F. religiosa and F.
benghalensis, both of which have medium-sized fleshy fruit, is that they attract large
numbers of specialized or generalised frugivores. They also produce massive fruit crops.
Thus large numbers of frugivores occur with the fruiting tree crown; these frugivores,
that may have also visited other tree species before entering Ficus tree crowns, drop
seeds from these other trees that they carry in their guts or cheek pouches, beneath the
9
large spreading extents of the fig trees. These seeds may germinate beneath fig trees.
Thus even isolated Ficus trees can serve as foci of recruitment and thus regeneration of
tropical forest trees (Whittaker and Jones 1994, Galindo-Gonzalez et al. 2000, Guevara et
al. 2004), as has also been shown for isolated individuals of several important fruit
species (Toh et al. 1999, Slocum 2001). Furthermore, even isolated Ficus trees also serve
to support diverse assemblages of frugivores such as birds (Eshiamwata et al. 2006).
Besides frugivores, figs have also been recently found to support a diverse community of
insect herbivores (Novotny and Basset 1998, Basset and Novotny 1999, Novotny et al.
2005). Furthermore, studies have shown that many of these herbivores are not speciesspecific but share congeneric hosts (Novotny et al. 2004, Novotny and Basset 2005).
These findings have important implications for the role of even isolated trees of F.
religiosa and F. benghalensis in serving as staging posts for the survival of diverse
communities of arthropods that can then move through the landscape using the fig trees
as hosts, and may thus even connect with other non-sacred Ficus species which are
locally abundant in certain landscapes, e.g. Ficus hispida, Ficus exasperata, Ficus
mysorensis, Ficus arnottiana (often mistaken for F. religiosa). Thus the sacred figs F.
religiosa and F. benghalensis can help successional processes resulting in rainforest
expansion and restoration of degraded habitats (Puyravaud et al. 2003).
While Ficus trees in villages are rarely destroyed, since they are associated with temples,
destruction of Ficus trees is recently occurring within cities to make way for construction
projects, and along highways in the course of road widening efforts to meet connectivity
10
demands and traffic requirements. This is resulting in large-scale removal of avenue
trees, most of which were Ficus benghalensis, while others also constituted fruit trees of
economic importance such as the tamarind (Tamarindus indicus). A major reason for
the planting of Ficus along highways could have been that they are relatively easy to
propagate from cuttings, and also have very fast growth rates. The consequence for
ecosystem services of the destruction of these linkage nodes must be examined at local
and regional scales across the Indian landscape.
Sacred seeds
In this part, I focus on the seeds of a single species Elaeocarpus ganitrus Roxb.
(Elaeocarpaceae) (synonyms: E. angustifolius Blume, E. sphaericus (Gaertn.) K.
Schum.), the rudraksha of the Hindu religion. Rudraksha when translated signifies the
eye of the god Rudra or Shiva (the destroyer in the Hindu pantheon), and it is believed
that Rudra shed tears which when crystallized into these seeds, fell to the earth, and gave
rise to the rudraksha-bearing trees. According to one legend (recounted in the Devi
Bhagawata), Shiva, when exhorted by the other gods to control the very powerful demon
Tripurasura, went into a meditative state. On awakening from this state, his tear drops
formed the rudraksha seeds. According to another legend recounted in the Shiva
Mahapurana, when Shiva (Rudra) was asked by his consort Parvati, about the origin of
the rudraksha beads, Shiva said that he performed penance with closed eyes for a
thousand years. As he was tired of keeping his eyes closed for such a long time, he
opened them, and tear drops fell out to form the seeds. Whatever the mythological origin
11
of the rudraksha, the seeds have great religious significance, and are also supposed to
have medicinal properties with either prophylactic or curative effects.
The genus Elaeocarpus has about 350 species and is distributed in rainforest throughout
south and south-east Asia, Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand and Hawai’i (Zmarzty
2001, Rossetto et al. 2004). E. ganitrus is restricted to the Himalyan regions of India and
Nepal, up to 800 m, and in India occurs especially in Arunachal Pradesh in the north-east
and some parts of Assam and West Bengal. Although other species of Elaeocarpus occur
in the Himalyan region which is considered to be the abode of god Shiva, it is not known
why E. ganitrus alone acquired mythological status. It has been suggested that the
association of Elaeocarpus with god Shiva may be due to the iridescent blue fruits since
blue is the colour connected with Shiva (Lee 1998). However, since all Elaeocarpus
fruits are blue or bluish (Willson and Whelan 1990), the reason for the choice of E.
ganitrus as the rudraksha is lost in antiquity. While the fact that the rudraksha is the
stony endocarp of a blue fleshy fruit may have been known to the ancient forest dwellers,
it is an incontrovertible fact that the current users of rudraksha today are completely
ignorant of this fact. The blue iridescent colour of the fruit is structural, and not due to
pigments, and the partially transparent fruit walls allow photosynthetically active
radiation to penetrate, allowing photosynthesis to occur even in the fruits (Lee 1991, Lee
1998). Furthermore, the fruit does not lose its colour even when dropped to the ground,
and may thus attract fruit dispersers even on the ground. It is unfortunate, however, that
we do not yet know if the fruits reflect ultraviolet light as most blue or violet fruits do, as
this could enhance their attraction by bird dispersal agents (Siitari et al. 1999).
12
The flowers of Elaeocarpus may be pollinated by bees, flies or they may be pollinated by
moths, while flying foxes and birds have also been observed to feed on them (Mathews et
al.2002, Devy and Davidar 2003, Rossetto et al. 2004). The seeds are protected by a
stony hard and sculptured endocarp, with deep longitudinal furrows. The number of
locules in the fruit are usually five, and the sculpturing on the endocarp usually
corresponds to the number of developing loculi which appear externally as “faces” (or
mukhis) (Figure 1).
Various traditions for adornment with rosaries of rudrakshas bearing different numbers
of mukhis exist; for example, celibate yogis are supposed to wear rudrakshas with eleven
mukhis, while married yogis wear those with two (Blackman 1918). The five-faceted
rudrakshas are supposed to be sacred to the god Hanuman, or the five-facets are also
thought to be representative of the five aspects of Shiva (Blackman 1918). Since the
modal value of mukhis is usually five, reduced or highly increased numbers of these
mukhis may be indicative of fruit abnormalities; for example in E. williamsianus
shriveled locules and misshapen fruit were a result of poor pollination in highly
endangered populations in fragmented rainforests in Australia (Rossetto et al. 2004).
Pollination studies have not, however, been conducted on E. ganitrus; hence it is not
known for example, if apomixis (fruit formation without fertilization) can occur, or
whether the plant is exclusively self-incompatible, and therefore how endocarps with
different numbers of seed-bearing locules are produced. In E. williamsianus, for
example, the plant is clonally propagated in a fragmented rainforest and the entire
13
population consists of just eight genets; no seedlings have been found in this site
(Rossetto et al. 2004). This may be a consequence of a breakdown of pollinator and seed
dispersal services in the fragmented populations. In Arunachal Pradesh, the following
taxa have been observed to feed on E. ganitrus fruits (Bhuyan 2002): long-distance
dispersers (birds and bats); short distance dispersers (primates, wild boar, deer, mithun or
wild cattle); short-distance dispersers or more probably seed predators (tree squirrels,
flying squirrels); secondary dispersers and hoarders (rodents). Thus, seeds may be
exchanged over small or large distances by these dispersers who may contribute to the
genetic heterogeneity of populations. The large number of frugivores observed
consuming rudraksha fruit is also indicative of the importance of these fruit to the fruit
consumers. However, no quantitative data are available on this aspect.
For our purpose, the relevant point is that the sacred value of the seeds is related to the
number of mukhis. For example, a single faceted rudraksha is supposed to be extremely
valuable. How rudrakshas were exchanged or bought in ancient times is not clearly
documented. However, it is clear from recent evidence that the price of rudrakhas is
inversely related to their frequency in the population, at least in Nepal, with one-mukhi
and greater than 7 or 9 mukhi-rudrakshas being very rare (Figure 2). For example, a 21mukhi rudraksha can be priced at Rs. 12.5 lakh ($25,000) (The Hindu: Monday,
September, 04, 2006 [online edition]). This surely must be the most expensive
pollination product ever known. Furthermore, if the rare rudrakshas actually result from
pollination aberrations or other reproduction abnormalities, or even if they occur by
normal rare events, the dynamics of this trade in sacred seeds becomes extremely
14
complex. For example, collection of rudraksha is a cottage-industry in Nepal and parts
of India, and considering the economic gains from collecting a rudraksha with a rare
configuration of mukhis, obvious imperatives dictate that seed collection is enhanced to
find such rare configurations. This can have severe impacts on the health and survival of
E. ganitrus populations. Furthermore, rudraksha populations in the Himalayas are under
serious threat due to various anthropogenic factors and developmental factors (e.g.
hyrdroelectric dams, logging, mining, road building) and are showing the effects of
population declines. One study in Arunachal Pradesh in India found that, even in
undisturbed forest, there were only 200 seedlings and two saplings/ha of E. ganitrus
(Bhuyan et al. 2002) resulting in highly skewed population structure (Khan et al. 2005);
furthermore, the removal of large quantities of unripe fruit for rudraksha stone collection
by the local has further depleted the potential seed bank (Khan et al. 2004a). Thus the
populations of rudraksha are severely threatened. Furthermore, E. ganitrus is an
understorey species, which means that even plantation of this species can only be
successful when raised in the shade of an overstorey of vegetation (Khan et al. 2004b),
making commercial production a complex endeavour. As yet, no published studies on
rudraksha population structure from Nepal are available, but it is highly likely that the
same conditions of population decline in number and in genetic heterogeneity will
prevail. The conservation situation with rudraksha is therefore the exact opposite of that
with figs, wherein E. ganitrus is additionally highly endangered precisely because of its
sacred value, and because of the value of atypical endocarps. This may also be the only
known case of depredation of natural products in the quest for atypica.
15
To the uninitiated, “fake” rudraksha seeds may also be valuable. As the population of
true rudraksha declines it is very likely that some of the other approximately 25 species
of Elaeocarpus found in the Indo-Nepal area may begin to get seriously exploited.
Already, several species of Elaeocarpus from south India are supposedly being exploited
to produce rudraksha rosaries that are being sold to unsuspecting pilgrims at the various
holy sites (temples) in south India and other parts of India also. Many such rosaries are
freely available throughout the country (personal observation). Much more work needs
to be done on this problem.
Conclusions
The sacred can be a boon to ecosystem services when it is embodied by groves of trees
which can serve not only to preserve local biological diversity but also as refugia for
important mobile functional links that can radiate from the grove and participate in key
ecosystem processes such as pollination. When the sacred is embodied in a keystone
species such as Ficus, the boon to ecosystem process is enhanced. Such keystone
elements not only nourish animal communities but also serve as nodes in a network that
can connect sacred groves and larger forest patches. However, when the sacred is
embodied in the form of seeds, and when atypical endocarps are preferred, this sanctity
can have serious negative effects on the long-term survival of the very tree species that
produces the sacred seeds, creating a gap with potential cascading effects in ecosystem
processes supported by this species. The sacred may thus even be the bane of ecosystem
services.
16
References
Anderson DA, Salick J, Moseley RK, Xiaokun O. 2005. Conserving the sacred
medicine mountains: a vegetation analysis of Tibetan sacred sites in Northwest
Yunnan. Biodiversity and Conservation 14:3065-3091.
Anstett M-C, Hossaert-McKey M, McKey D. 1997. Modeling the persistence of small
populations of strongly interdependent species: figs and fig wasps. Conservation
Biology 11:204-213.
Anstett M-C, Michaloud G, Kjellberg F. 1995. Critical population size for fig/wasp
mutualism in a seasonal environment: effect and evolution of the furation of
female receptivity. Oecologia 103:453-461.
Basset Y, Novotny V. 1999. Species richness of insect herbivore communities on Ficus
in Papua New Guinea. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 67:477-499.
Beier P, Van Drielen M, Kankam BO. 2001. Avifaunal collapse in West African forest
fragments. Conservation Biology 16:1097-1111.
Bhagwat SA, Kushalappa CG, Williams PH, Brown ND. 2005. A landscape approach to
biodiversity conservation of sacred groves in the Western Ghats of India.
Conservation Biology 19:1853-1862.
Bhagwat SA, Rutte C. 2006. Sacred groves: potential for biodiversity management.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4:519-524.
Bhuyan P. 2002. Ecological studies on seed production, dispersal, germination and
seedling fitness of Rudraksh (Elaeocarpus ganitrus Roxb.). PhD thesis, NorthEastern Hill University, Shillong, India.
17
Bhuyan P, Khan ML, Tripathi RS. 2002. Regeneration status and population structure of
Rudraksh (Elaeocarpus ganitrus Roxb.) in relation to cultural disturbances in
tropical wet evergreen forest of Arunachal Pradesh. Current Science 83:13911394.
Blackman WS. 1918. The rosary in magic and religion. Folklore 29:255-280.
Bleher B, Potgieter CJ, Johnson DN, Böhning-Gaese. 2003. The importance of figs for
frugivores in a South African coastal forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 19:375386.
Borges R. M. 1993. Figs, Malabar giant squirrels, and fruit shortages in two tropical
forests in India. Biotropica 25: 183-190.
Borges, R. M. 2003a. The anatomy of ignorance or Ecology in a fragmented landscape:
do we know what really counts? Pages 56-85 in Battles Over Nature. Science
and the Politics of Conservation. V. Saberwal and M. Rangarajan, editors.
Permanent Black, New Delhi.
Borges, R. M. 2003b. Conservation of pollinator services in rain forests. In:
Conservation of Rainforests in India (A. K. Gupta, A. Kumar and V.
Ramakantha, editors). Chapter 16; pp 229-242; ENVIS Publication, Wildlife
Institute of India.
Borges, R. M. 1996. Joint management of Bhimashankar Wildlife Sanctuary. In:
Towards Participatory Conservation in India. (A. Kothari, N. Singh, and S. Suri,
editors). Sage Publications, New Delhi. Pp. 151-166.
18
Chandrakanth MG, Bhat MG, Accavva MS. 2004. Socio-economic changes and sacred
groves in South India: protecting a community-based resource management
institution. Natural Resources Forum 28:102-111.
Chandrakanth MG, Gilless JK, Gowramma V, Nagaraja MG. 1990. Temple forests in
India’s forest development. Agroforestry Systems 11:199-211.
Chandrashekara UM, Sankar S. 1998. Ecology and management of sacred groves in
Kerala, India. Forest Ecology and Management 112:165-177.
Colding J, Folke C. 1997. The relations among threatened species, their protection, and
taboos. Conservation Ecol. 1(1): 6. http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss1/art6
Cook JM, Rasplus J-Y. 2003. Mutualists with attitude: coevolving fig wasps and figs.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18:241-248.
Dafni A. 2006. On the typology and the worship status of sacred trees with special
reference to the Middle East. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2:26
doi:10.1186/1746-4269-2-26
Daniels RJR, Subash Chandran MD, Gadgil M. 1993. A strategy for conserving the
biodiversity of the Uttara Kannada District in South India. Environment and
Conservation 20:131-138.
Datta A, Rawat GS. 2003. Foraging patterns of sympatric hornbills during the
nonbreeding season in Arunachal Pradesh, Northeast India. Biotropica 35:208218. Decher J. 1997. Conservation, small mammals, and the future of sacred
groves in West Africa. Biodiversity and Conservation 6:1007-1026
19
Devy MS, Davidar P. 2003. Pollination systems of trees in Kakachi, a mid-elevation wet
evergreen forest in Western Ghats, India. American Journal of Botany 90:650657.
Eckersley RM. 2007. Culture, spirituality, religion and health: looking at the big picture.
Medical Journal of Australia 186:S54–S56
Ellison CG, Levin JS. 1998 The religion-health connection: evidence, theory, and future
directions. Health Education and Behavior 25:700-720.
Eshiamwata GW, Berens DG, Bleher B, Dean WRJ, Böhning-Gaese K. 2006. Bird
assemblages in isolated Ficus trees in Kenyan farmland. Journal of Tropical
Ecology 22:723-726.
Farrington OC. 1900. The worship and folk-lore of meteorites. The Journal of American
Folklore 13:199-208.
Gadgil M, Vartak VD. 1974. The sacred groves of the Western Ghats in India.
Economic Botany 30:152-160.
Galindo-Gonzalez J, Guevara S, Sosa VJ. 2000. Bat- and bird-generated seed rains at
isolated trees in pastures in a tropical forest. Conservation Biology 14:16931703.
Gilbert LE. 1980. Food web organization and the conservation of neotropical diversity.
In: Soulé ME, Wilcox BA (eds). Conservation of neotropical biology: an
evolutionary–ecological perspective. Sunderland, Massachusetts, Sinauer. Pp 1133.
Gómez-Pompa A, Flores JS, Fernández MA. 1990. The sacred cacao groves of the
Maya. Latin American Antiquity 1:247-257
20
Groves CR, Jensen DB, Valutis LL, Redford KH, Shafer ML, Scott JM, Baumgartner JV,
Higgins JV, Beck MW, Anderson MG. 2002. Planning for biodiversity conservation:
putting conservation science into practice. BioScience 52:499-512.
Guevara S, Laborde J, Sanchez-Rios G. 2004. Rain forest regeneration beneath the
canopy of fig trees isolated in pastures of Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. Biotropica 36:99108
Harrison RD. 2003. Fig wasp dispersal and the stability of a keystone plant resource in
Borneo. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (Supplement) 270:S76-S79.
Hughes JD, Subhash Chandran MD 1998. Sacred groves around the earth: an overview.
Pages 69-86 in: Ramakrishnan PS, Saxena KG, and Chandrashekara UM (eds).
Conserving the sacred for biodiversity management. Oxford and IBH, New
Delhi.
Kannan R, James DA. 1999. Fruiting phenology and the conservation of the great pied
hornbill (Buceros bicornis) in the Western Ghats of southern India. Biotropica
31:167-177.
Khan ML, Bhuyan P, Tripathi RS. 2004a. Conservation status of Rudraksh in tropical
wet evergreen forests of Arunachal Pradesh. Current Science 86:646-650.
Khan ML, Bhuyan P, Tripathi RS. 2004b. Survival and growth of seedlings of Rudraksh
(Elaeocarpus ganitrus) under varied canopy conditions after transplant. Tropical
Ecology 45:233-239.
Khan ML, Bhuyan P, Tripathi RS. 2005. Effects of forest disturbance on fruit set, seed
dispersal and predation of Rudraksh (Elaeocarpus ganitrus Roxb.) in northeast
India. Current Science 88:133-142.
21
Khumbongmayum A D, Khan ML and Tripathi RS. 2005 Sacred groves of Manipur,
northeast India: biodiversity value, status and strategies for their conservation
Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 1541–1582
Kinnaird MF, O’Brien TG. 2005. Fast foods of the forest: the influence of figs on
primates and hornbills across Wallace’s Line. In: Tropical fruits and frugivores:
the search for strong interactors. JL Dew and JP Boubli (eds) Pp. 155-184.
Springer, Netherlands
Lee DW. 1991. Ultrastructural basis and function of iridescent blue colour of fruits in
Elaeocarpus. Nature 349:260-262.
Lee DW. 1998. The biology of rudraksha. Current Science 75:26-30.
Liu H, Xu Z, Xu Y, Wang J. 2002. Practice of conserving plant diversity through
traditional beliefs: a case study in Xishuangbanna, southwest China. Biodiversity
and Conservation 11:705-713.
Lundberg J, Moberg F. 2003. Mobile link organisms and ecosystem functioning:
implications for ecosystem resilience and management. Ecosystems 6:87-98.
Matthews ML, Endress PK. 2002. Comparative floral structure and systematics in
Oxalidales (Oxalidaceae, Connaraceae, Brunelliaceae, Cephalotaceae,
Cunoniaceae, Elaeocarpaceae, Tremandraceae). Bot J Linn Soc 140:321–381.
Mgumia FH, Oba G. 2003. Potential role of sacred groves in biodiversity conservation
in Tanzania. Environment and Conservation 30:259-265.
Muscarella R, Fleming TH. 2007. The role of frugivorous bats in tropical forest
succession. Biological Reviews 82:573-590.
22
Novotny V, Basset Y. 1998. Seasonality of sap-sucking insects (Auchenorrhyncha,
Hemiptera) feeding on Ficus (Moraceae) in a lowland rain forest in New Guinea.
Oecologia 115:514-522.
Novotny V, Basset Y. 2005. Host specificity of insect herbivores in tropical forests.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 272:1083-1090.
Novotny V, Miller SE, Leps J, Basset Y, Bito D, Janda M, Hulcr J, Damas K, Weiblen
GD. 2004. No tree an island: the plant–caterpillar food web of a secondary rain
forest in New Guinea. Ecology Letters 7:1090-1100.
Novotny V, Miller SE, Basset Y, Cizek L, Darrow K, Kaupa B, Kua J, Weiblen GD.
2005. An altitudinal comparison of caterpillar (Lepidoptera) assemblages on
Ficus trees in Papua New Guinea. Journal of Biogeography 32:1303-1314.
Perrings, C., Gadgil, M., 2003. Conserving biodiversity: reconciling local and global
public benefits. In: Kaul, I., Conceicao, P., le Goulven, K., Mendoza, R.L. (Eds.),
Providing global public goods: managing globalization. OUP, Oxford, pp. 532–
555.
Porter BN. 1993. Sacred trees, date palms, and the royal persona of Ashurnasirpal II.
Journal of Near Eastern Studies 52:129-139.
Pruessner AH. 1920 Date culture in ancient Babylonia. The American Journal of Semitic
Languages and Literatures 36:213-232.
Puyravaud J-P, Dufour C, Aravajy S. 2003. Rain forest expansion mediated by
successional processes in vegetation thickets in the Western Ghats of India.
Journal of Biogeography 30:1067-1080.
23
Ramanujam MP, Cyril KPK. 2003. Woody species diversity in four sacred groves in the
Pondicherry region of South India. Biodiversity and Conservation 12:289-299.
Reddy MS, Parthasarathy N. 2003. Liana diversity and distribution in four tropical dry
evergreen forests on the Coromandel coast of south India. Biodiversity and
Conservation 12:1609-1627.
Rossetto M, Gross CL, Jones R, Hunter J. 2004. The impact of clonality on an
endangered tree (Elaeocarpus williamsianus) in a fragmented rainforest.
Biological Conservation 117:33-39.
Roubik DW. 2005. Honeybees in Borneo. In: Pollination Ecology and the Rain Forest.
Sarawak Studies. Roubik DW, Sakai S, Karim AAH (eds). Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg. Pp. 89-103.
Salick J, Amend A, Anderson D, Hoffemister K, Gunn B, Zhendong F. 2007. Tibetan
sacred sites conserve old growth trees and cover in the eastern Himalayas.
Biodiversity and Conservation 16:693-706.
Siitari H, Honkavaara J, Viitala J. 1999. Ultraviolet reflection of berries attracts foraging
birds. A laboratory study with redwings (Turdus iliacus) and bilberries
(Vaccinium myrtillus). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 266:21252129.
Slocum MG. 2001. How tree species differ as recruitment foci in a tropical pasture.
Ecology 82:2547-2559.
Terborgh J. 1983. Keystone plant resources in the tropical forest. In: Conservation
biology: science of scarcity and diversity (ME Soulé, ed). Sinauer Associates,
Sunderland, Massachusetts. Pp 330-344.
24
Toh I, Gillespie M, Lamb D. 1999. The role of isolated trees in facilitating tree seedling
recruitment at a degraded sub-tropical rainforest site. Restoration Ecology 7:288297.
Upadhyaya KD. 1964. Indian botanical folklore. Asian Folklore Studies 23:15-34.
Whittaker RJ, Jones SH. 1994. The role of frugivorous bats and birds in the rebuilding of
a tropical forest ecosystem, Krakatau, Indonesia. Journal of Biogeography
21:245-258.
Willson MF, Whelan CJ 1990. The evolution of fruit color in fleshy-fruited plants.
American Naturalist 136:790-809.
Zhuang XY, Corlett RT. 1997. Forest and forest succession in Hong Kong, China.
Journal of Tropical Ecology 14:857-866.
Zmartzty S. 2001. Revision of Elaeocarpus (Elaeocarpaceae) section Elaeocarpus in
Southern India and Sri Lanka. Kew Bulletin 56:405-447.
25
Figure 1: Rudrakshas with different mukhis (locules)
The numbers under each endocarp indicate the number of mukhis.
26
Figure 2: The relationship between price of rudrakshas and their frequency in the
2500
1200000
2000
1000000
800000
1500
600000
1000
400000
500
200000
0
Frequency in
population
US $ (per seed)
population
0
1 3 5 7 9 1113151921
Number of mukhis (locules)
Black and red lines = Value per seed (US $). Source: www.rudraksha.co.uk
Green line = Frequency in population. Source: www.rudrakshanepal.com/collection.php
27