Sustainable utilization and conservation of plant biodiversity in montane ecosystems: the western Himalayas as a case study

INVITED REVIEW
Sustainable utilization and conservation of plant biodiversity in montane
ecosystems: the western Himalayas as a case study
Shujaul Mulk Khan1,5,2,*, Sue E. Page3, Habib Ahmad4 and David M. Harper5,1,*
1
Centre for Landscape and Climate Research, University of Leicester, UK, 2
Department of Botany, Hazara University, Mansehra,
Pakistan, 3
Department of Geography, Universityof Leicester, UK, 4
Department of Genetics, Hazara University Mansehra, Pakistan
and 5
Department of Biology, University of Leicester, UK
* For correspondence. E-mail shuja60@gmail.com or dmh@le.ac.uk
Received: 28 January 2013 Returned for revision: 6 March 2013 Accepted: 17 April 2013
† Background Conservation of the unique biodiversity of mountain ecosystems needs trans-disciplinary approaches
to succeed in a crowded colloquial world. Geographers, conservationists, ecologists and social scientists have, in the
past, had the same conservation goals but have tended to work independently. In this review, the need to integrate
different conservation criteria and methodologies is discussed. New criteria are offered for prioritizing species
and habitats for conservation in montane ecosystems that combine both ecological and social data.
† Scope Ecological attributes of plant species, analysed through robust community statistical packages, provide un-
biased classifications of species assemblages and environmental biodiversity gradients and yield importance value
indices (IVIs). Surveys of local communities’ utilization of the vegetation provides use values (UVs). This review
suggests a new means of assessing anthropogenic pressure on plant biodiversity at both species and community
levels by integrating IVI and UV data sets in a combined analysis.
† ConclusionsMountainecosystemsarehotspotsforplantconservationeffortsbecausetheyholdahighoverallplant
diversity as communities replace each other along altitudinal and climatic gradients, including a high proportion of
endemic species. This review contributes an enhanced understanding of (1) plant diversity in mountain ecosystems
with special reference to the western Himalayas; (2) ethnobotanical and ecosystem service values of mountain vege-
tation within the context of anthropogenic impacts; and (3) local and regional plant conservation strategies and pri-
orities.
Key words: Anthropogenic impacts, conservation, ecosystem services, montane ecosystems, plant biodiversity,
sustainable utilisation, western Himalayas.
INTRODUCTION
Ecosystem ecology is a major part of the discipline of ecology
(Barbault, 1997); the term ecosystem was invented by Sir Arthur
Tansley (Tansley, 1935) for a community of organisms and their
environment. Ecosystem ecology has become very important in
the 21st century because of the highlyaccelerated rate of anthropo-
genic modification of natural systems. Human alteration of natural
ecosystems dates back millenniato the use of fire, overexploitation
andlatertotheintroductionofagriculture.Themorerecentagricul-
tural expansions in the past 200 years, however, linked to increases
in population, industrialization and anthropogenic climatic
changes, are recognized as the main causal factors of the massive
degradation of natural ecosystems that we now experience
(Billings, 1972; Odum and Odum, 1972; Macdonald and
Service, 1996; Macdonald and Willis, 2013).
On a global scale, mountain, highland and plateau ecosystems
above 1500 m, which cover approximately one-fifth of the
earth’s land surface (Geist, 2005), support a high and varied
plant biodiversity due to their diverse landscape and climate,
despite supporting about 12 % of the world’s human population
(Cincottaetal.,2000;Loucksetal.,2008).Mountainecosystems
do not just provide direct and indirect ecosystem services for the
sustenance of human life; their influence is far more widespread
becauselowlandecosystemsandhumanpopulationsalsodepend
on them for services. The western Himalayan region provides an
example, where there is a long-established tradition of using
plants directly for medicinal purposes and as a source of
fodder for livestock. Here, as well as all over South Asia, the
mountains are crucial for the resilience of lowland human settle-
ments which depend on their major river catchments for both
agricultural and domestic water supplies (Manandhar and
Rasul, 2009; Xu et al., 2009; Rasul, 2010). The Himalayas are
the origin of ten of the largest rivers in Asia and the economies
of several south Asian countries are mainly based on the flow
of these rivers, which ensure food security by providing irriga-
tion water for rice and wheat – the major staple foods
(Adhikari et al., 1995; Archer and Fowler, 2004; Rasul, 2010).
The shrubby vegetation of high altitudes also regulates ava-
lanche movements and protects soils from wash-out and
erosion (Hester and Brooker, 2007). Unwise use of montane
plant resources is a direct threat to biodiversity maintenance
and the continued proper functioning of mountain ecosystems
(Sharma et al., 2010; Tarrasoń et al., 2010), as well as to the con-
tinuance of traditional livelihoods at both local and regional
scales. High-altitude species and ecosystems are also potentially
under threat of biodiversity loss from global warming – a conse-
quenceofbothgeographicalrangecontractionandmountain-top
ecosystem extinction risk (La Sorte and Jetz, 2010; Mondoni
et al., 2011, 2012).
# The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company. All rights reserved.
For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
Annals of Botany Page 1 of 23
doi:10.1093/aob/mct125, available online at www.aob.oxfordjournals.org
byguestonJuly14,2013http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom

Increasingawarenessofhumanimpactsonecosystemshasgen-
eratedagrowingappreciationofthewiderangeofbenefitsthatbio-
logical resources and ecological processes provide to human
societies in the past decade and a half, called ecosystem services
(MEA, 2005). These are defined as ‘conditions and processes
through which ecosystems and species in them sustain and fulfil
human life’ (Deane, 1999) or as the ‘components of nature used
for human well-being’(Boyd andBanzhaf,2006).Ecosystem ser-
vices result from interactions between biotic and abiotic compo-
nents of ecosystems (Adhikari et al., 1995; Singh, 2002) and can
be grouped into four categories according to the benefits that
they provide for people – provisioning, regulating, supporting
and cultural services (MEA, 2003). Plant species are the
primary producers in every ecosystem and also the primary
source of direct and indirect goods and services to humans
(Fig. 1). Their direct provisioning services to humans are food,
fodder, medicines, timber, fuel-wood and grazing, while regulat-
ing services include moderating air and water quality and erosion
control. They also play a vital role in supporting services such as
soil formation, and nutrient and water cycling and in cultural ser-
vices, including traditional human knowledge systems.
Maintaining a high level of plant diversity is connected to the
maintenance of ecosystem services provision, even though the
mechanismsmaynotyetbeentirelyclear,anditiswidelybelieved
thatmorespecieswillbeneededtoprovideecosystemfunctioning
under future environmental change scenarios (Haines-Young and
Potschin,2010;Isbelletal.,2011).Thus,preservingasmuchplant
biodiversity as possible across the widest range of ecosystems is
generally seen as an indispensable approach to maintain the ben-
efits that they provide to humans.
Ecosystems in high mountain regions are intricate and signifi-
cant cost and time factors are involved in their study, particularly
where they are remote. Conserving plant biodiversity requires
consistent and sound qualitative as well as quantitative records
of botanical data on a regular basis (Clubbe et al., 2010) and
robust phytosociological (quantitative ecological) techniques
are essential to achieve this. Ethnobotanical methods can be
linked to this, to describe and evaluate the nature and value of
the ecosystem services that plant communities provide for
local people. Data obtained through acombination of these tech-
niques provides basic knowledge forconservation managers and
biodiversity plannersto evaluate the services provided by moun-
tain ecosystems and to formulate sustainable management
options.
This review provides an overview of ecological knowledge
about montane ecosystems in a way which seeks to integrate
the previously different approaches, drawing upon the authors’
experience of the western Himalayas. Until our recent work
undertaken there, no previous attempt had been made to
combine quantitative and qualitative ecological (phytosociolo-
gical) and ethnobotanical data in order to describe and assess
plant communities and their associated provisioning services
as a basis for plant conservation planning. These two methodo-
logical approaches are now described in more detail. The
reviewaddressestheapplicationofphytosociologicaltechniques
to vegetation description and quantification and then goes on to
review ethnobotanical approaches to the assessment of plant
uses. It discusses how importance value indices (IVIs), derived
from phytosociological data, can be combined with use values
(UVs), derived from ethnobotanical studies, to provide a new
• Food
• Fodder and grazing land
• Medicine
• Timber
• Fuel
• Ornamental resources
• Soil formation
• Nutrient cycling
• Water cycling
• Primary production
• Climate regulation
• Air quality
• Water regulation
• Water quality
• Flood and erosion control
• Biodiversity
• Pollination
• Pest regulation
• Cultural diversity
• Knowledge systems
• Recreation and
ecotourism
• Aesthetics
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Provisioning
services
Ecosystem functions,
interactions and services
Supporting
services
Cultural
services
Regulating
services
FIG. 1. Classification of ecosystem services in the western Himalayan region with modifications to the broad categories specified in the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (MEA, 2003; Kremen, 2005; Wallace, 2007).
Khan et al. — Plant biodiversity conservation in montane ecosystemsPage 2 of 23

gateway to the assessment of anthropogenic pressures on plant
biodiversity at both species and community levels. In the
western Himalayas, there is well-established traditional eco-
logical knowledge of plant use for human well-being, but this
isatriskoflossalongsidethegrowingthreatstothespeciesthem-
selves as a result of a range of anthropogenic impacts.
PHYTOSOCIOLOGY AND ETHNOBOTANY
USED TO IDENTIFY AND QUANTIFY
VEGETATION-DERIVED ECOSYSTEM
SERVICES
Phytosociology
The distribution of individuals of the same and different plant
speciesinacommunityisafunctionofmicro-environmentalvar-
iations, time and biotic relationships. Plant species assemble in a
community in a definite fashion and understanding this can be
helpful during quantification and evaluation of ecosystem ser-
vices (Daubenmire, 1968; Billings, 1972; Mueller-Dombois
and Ellenberg, 1974; Rieley and Page, 1990; Greig-Smith,
2010). Phytosociology is the science of vegetation classification
based on each species’ co-occurrence and its relation to the sur-
rounding environment. This has provided valuable methods for
vegetation assessment that have been applied in vegetation
mapping, ecosystem services quantification and biodiversity
conservation (Rieley and Page, 1990; Ewald, 2003; Biondi,
2011). The health of ecosystems is closely allied to their plant
biodiversity (Ruiz et al., 2008; Scha¨fer, 2011) and thus vegeta-
tion classification is a vital first step towards ecosystem manage-
mentandconservation.Thisknowledgeisparticularlyimportant
when studying rare or endemic species, for developing manage-
ment strategies to protect them and/or reducing fragmentation of
their habitats (Ewald, 2003; Aægisdo´ttir et al., 2009).
Phytosociological field techniques allow ecologists to calcu-
late diversity, richness and abundance of plant species in an eco-
system which not only helps them to decide on conservation
priorities, but also their role as indicators of particular habitat
types (Whittaker et al., 2001; Greig-Smith, 2010; Tu¨xen and
Whittaker, 2010). Moreover, IVIs can be calculated from such
data by adding the relative values of species cover, density and
frequency. In addition, frequency, constancy and fidelity ana-
lyses help to identify the most threatened species and those habi-
tats needing protection (Baillie, 2004; Hesterand Brooker, 2007;
Zou et al., 2007).
Phytosociology originated with the Swiss ecologist Josias
BraunBlanquet (1884–1980)inEurope.Anumberofplantsoci-
ology schools developed subsequently at the beginning of the
20th century, two of which rapidly gained importance – the
Zurich-Montpellier and the Uppsala schools. In 1915, Braun
Blanquet defined the plant community as a plant group having
characteristic (indicator) species and a stability with the sur-
rounding environment (Rodwell, 1991–2000; Podani, 2006).
The plant community of a region is a function not only of time
but also of other factors such as altitude, slope, latitude, aspect,
rainfall and humidity, all of which play a role in its formation
and composition (Kharkwal et al., 2005). The ecological diver-
sity of vegetation communities is a measure of the strength of
the whole ecosystem (Thompson and Brown, 1992;
McGrady-Steed and Morin, 2000). The choice of sampling
method used in any phytosociological study depends on the
types of data desired, the objective of the study, the morphology
of the vegetation, the geomorphologyof the region, the available
resources and time (Moore and Chapman, 1986; Biondi, 2011).
The number of samples to be taken from a study area has to be
enough to provide a good representation of the plant communi-
ties of that area.
The most common quantitative sampling methods are the
quadrat and line transects. The quadrat method originated with
Frederick Edward Clements (1874–1945) (Weaver and
Clements, 1938, 1966). In its simplest form the quadrat is used
to count the individuals and estimate cover of each species to de-
termine their abundance, but it is also used to determine differ-
ences in the composition and structure of vegetation. It allows
the user to define a fixed area, called a plot or releve´, within
which plant characteristics are measured. This may be adapted
in a variety of ways for analysing almost any type of vegetation.
The line transect is typically used when there are apparent vege-
tation differences, such as along a gradient, from one point of
interest to another within a sampling site. The two methods are
often used together, especially when both quantification of vege-
tation and assessment of ecological gradients are desirable.
Speciescomposition,plantspeciesdensity,coverandabundance
are the most important characteristics for sampling with quadrats
(Cox, 1996; Khan et al., 2013a). Several scales for ranking vege-
tation cover have been suggested; two commonly used are the
Braun Blanquet (1884–1980) and Daubenmire (1968) cover
class scales (Braun-Blanquet et al., 1932; Daubenmire, 1968).
This is done by assigning cover class estimates for herbaceous
and shrubby vegetation while diameter at breast height (dbh) is
used for trees (Goldsmith et al., 1986).
Once phytosociological data are collected, they need to be
analysed in a statistical framework. Multivariate statistical
techniques, which have emerged in the last few decades,
help ecologists to discover structure in the data set and to
analyse the effects of environmental factors on whole groups
of species (Clymo, 1980; Bergmeier, 2002; Anderson et al.,
2006). Computer technology has revolutionized the field of
community ecology, with a range of statistical programs avail-
able to help ecologists to understand and interpret ecological
data in a more precise way. Software packages such as
TWINSPAN, DECORANA (Hill, 1979; Hill and Gauch,
1980), CANOCO (ter Braak, 1989; ter Braak and Smilauer,
2002) and PC-ORD (McCune, 1986; McCune and Mefford,
1999; Grandin, 2006) are examples of packages used for vege-
tation classification and ordination in quantitative ecology
(Gilliam and Elizabeth, 2003). Community data are summar-
ized by constructing a low dimensional space, in which
similar samples and species are placed close together and dis-
similar ones far apart from each other by convenient and ob-
jective means (Gauch, 2010). Agglomerative cluster analysis
(ACA), indicator species analysis (ISA), detrended corres-
pondence analysis (DCA), principal components analysis
(PCA) and canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) are the
most widely used classification and ordination techniques to
determine plant communities, their ecological gradients, indi-
cator species, and the significance of the relationships between
floristic and environmental data (Hill and Gauch, 1980; ter
Braak, 1987; Dufreˆne and Legendre, 1997). More recently
the combination of field survey with remote sensing
Khan et al. — Plant biodiversity conservation in montane ecosystems Page 3 of 23

techniques for mapping vegetation and habitat types has
increased (Sherrouse et al., 2010; Kumar et al., 2011; ten
Brink et al., 2013).
Humans have used the services of ecosystems, particularly the
vegetation, for millennia, but in lessthan 100 years it has become
increasinglyobviousthatouruseisnolongersustainableandthat
many ecosystems are no longer functioning adequately.
Phytosociological knowledge now needs to be combined with
equally rigorous ethnobotanical analysis if humankind is to
have any hope of restoring ecosystem services to their optima
again.
The ethnobotanical approach for assessing plant-based
ecosystem services
Natural vegetationprovidesbasicneeds forindigenous human
communities and is often their prime source of livelihood, espe-
cially in the developing world. Plant–human relationships are as
old as human history. In AD 77, the Greek surgeon Dioscorides
published ‘De Materia Medica’, a catalogue of about 600 plants
intheMediterranean region,withinformation onhowtheGreeks
used the plants, especially for medicinal purposes. The records
from earlier cultures of Africa and China, the Nile and the
Indus valleys have also revealed the use of herbal medicines by
the inhabitants of those regions over several millennia (Baqar,
2001). The American botanist John William Hershberger used
the term ethnobotany for the first time in 1895 in a lecture in
Philadelphia to describe the scientific study of the relationships
that exist between people and plants (Hershberger, 1895).
Ethnobotany involves botany, anthropology, ecology, econom-
ics and linguistics. It can inform us about the present-day uses
of plant species, including the development of new products
such as drugs from plants, and their conservation status.
Traditional botanical knowledge can be used in the assessment
of economic benefits derived from plants, both at basic and at
commercial levels. Such knowledge can be used as an analytical
tool for the quantification of provisioning services provided by
vegetation and can also maximize the value of traditional eco-
logical knowledge. It can be applied in long-term management
and conservation strategies (Pieroni and Giusti, 2009; Anthwal
et al., 2010; Tang and Gavin, 2010). The World Health
Organization (WHO) has recognized the role that plants play
in traditional healing systems and thereby their contribution to
the provision of health services, particularly in the developing
world. Moreover, plants have provided the models for 50 % of
the present-day allopathic drugs in the developed world
(Robbers et al., 1996). Due to this immense value, some of the
plants utilized for ethnomedicines are in decline due to over-
collecting.
Ethnobotanical studies investigate the structural relationships
between human society and the environment using socio-
anthropological methods; these relationships can be social,
economic, symbolic, religious, commercial and/or artistic
(Aumeeruddy, 2003). Such studies can thus be a useful tool to
quantify ecosystem services (Ford, 1994; Phillips et al., 1994).
Recently, in rapidly developing parts of theworld, ethnobotanic-
al studies have progressed from the production of inventories of
plant species towards more practical quantitative approaches
which place emphasis on sustainable use and the conservation
of plant resources (Rossato et al., 1999; Da Cunha and De
Albuquerque, 2006; Uniyal et al., 2006; De Albuquerque,
2009; Teklehaymanot and Giday, 2010).
Information on how indigenous people interact with the
natural environment can be collected and analysed in a number
of ways depending on the study objectives and research ques-
tions. Such analyses may range from laboratory analyses (e.g.
to identify therapeutic compounds), to ethnobotanical surveys
and assessment of priorities for conservation management.
Whatever the analyses may be used for, one common require-
ment is that the information is obtained in a systematic manner
(Martin, 2004; Thomas et al., 2007, 2009) but, in contrast to
scientific fieldwork, ethnobotanical surveys require that the
researcher deploys additional skills such as calmness, patience,
courtesy, empathy and keeping secrets (Ragupathy et al., 2008;
Miehe et al., 2009) in their interactions with indigenous
communities.
Ethnobotanical data have been analysed qualitatively to
record plant uses and the plant parts that are collected, but
more recently, quantitative ethnobotany has led to more rigorous
hypothesis-based analyses of data sets (Phillips et al., 1994;
Rossato et al., 1999; Da Cunha and De Albuquerque, 2006; De
Albuquerque, 2009). Ethnobotanical data sets based on indigen-
ous traditional knowledge can be tallied and analysed together
with datafrom vegetation surveysto provide a better understand-
ing and management of ecosystems (Moerman, 1991; Negi,
2010). One such approach, which will be described in more
detail below, is the integration of plant UVs derived from ethno-
botanical surveys with phytosociological data on the distribution
and relative importance of individual plant species within acom-
munity, by dividing the number of uses of particular species in a
region by the number of informants from that region (Phillips
et al., 1994; Mucina, 1997; Da Cunha and De Albuquerque,
2006).
BOTANICAL CONSERVATION IN ASIAN
MONTANE ECOSYSTEMS
The unique topographic attributes of mountain areas, such as
slope, aspect and altitude, provide characteristic spatial patterns
for mountain ecosystems and processes (Radcliffe, 1982).
Prominent vegetation zones are based mainly on altitudinal
and climatic variations, while the variation in aspect enhances
habitat heterogeneity and brings micro-environmental variation
in to the vegetation pattern (Clapham, 1973). High mountains all
over the globe are important locations for species-rich assem-
blages (Dirnbo¨ck et al., 2001; Vetaas and Grytnes, 2002;
Casazza et al., 2005, 2008; Fu et al., 2006; Nowak et al., 2011)
and endemic floras (Myers et al., 2000; Halloy and Mark,
2003; Kazakis et al., 2007; Khan, 2012). The Himalayas, the
mountains of Central Asia, south-west China, the Caucasus,
East Africa and the Andes are recognized as globally important
biodiversity hotspots (Fig. 2).
Mountain biodiversity is, however, under threat and a number
of endangered plant species are on the verge of disappearance
because montane plant species respond in a very sensitive way
to environmental change (Gordon et al., 2002; Holtmeier and
Broll, 2005; Miller et al., 2006; Thuiller, 2007). This is, in
part, a consequence of the narrow ecological amplitudes dis-
played by many montane and alpine species, but it also reflects

increasing grazing pressure or collection for food or other uses
(Hobbs and Huenneke, 1992). As a result, mountain regions
are predicted to be locations for rapid species extinction, particu-
larly under the threat of global warming (Kullman, 2010).
Studies have already shown an upward elevation shift of
habitattypesandofalpine species overtherecent pastandtheap-
pearance of species from lower altitudes at higher elevations
(Valley, 2003; Dobbertin et al., 2005; Beckage et al., 2008;
Lenoir et al., 2008; Walther et al., 2009; Takahashi et al.,
2012), combined with the dominance of more resistant and vig-
orous species. Consequently, vegetation homogeneity has
increasedinsomelocations,enhancedbytheselectiveutilization
of plants by humans (Collins et al., 2002; Kikvidze et al., 2005;
Srivastava and Vellend, 2005; Del Moral et al., 2010; Grabherr
et al., 2011).
Montane ecosystems need proper management against these
negative climatic and anthropogenic influences for their future
sustainability (Kessler, 2000; Halloy and Mark, 2003;
Holzinger et al., 2008; Erschbamer et al., 2011). Sustainable
approaches to resource use are particularly urgent in less eco-
nomically developed countries where there is a strong reliance
by the indigenous people on plant resources. In the Himalayas,
for example, there is widespread traditional use of species,
often resulting in overuse, combined with a lack of botanical
recording which makes the planning of conservation strategies
a challenging task. The Himalayas differ from other mountain
systems, for example the European Alps, in that in the former
the people still possess an intact traditional healthcare system
and ethnobotanical knowledge. Ethnobotanical knowledge has
been largely lost in the Alps by contrast, and there is also a
lower population density at high altitudes. The main land-use
problem in the Alps at the current time is land abandonment,
rather than degradation through over-exploitation (Gehrig-
Fasel et al., 2009; Niedrist et al., 2009).
Bringing sustainability into the use and management of plant
resources in mountain areas is a challenging task, especially in
remote mountain ranges such as the Himalayas, Hindu Kush
and Karakoram where there are both geographical and geopol-
itical constraints. These mountain ranges are also located in
geopolitically immature and democratically young countries
such as India, Nepal, Pakistan and Afghanistan where, in the
majority of cases, policy-makers and politicians pay little
regard to the scientific evidence on plant biodiversity and
threats to its survival when taking decisions related to natural
resource management. In addition, parts of these geopolitical
territories have faced various political or tribal conflicts
and unrest, e.g. the Hindu Kush mountains in Afghanistan.
Such unrest reduces the opportunity for documentation of
existing biodiversity and the implementation of conservation
management.
California
Floristic
Province
Madrean
Pine-Oak
Woodlands
Tumbes-
Chocó-
Magdalena
Caribbean
Islands
Mediterranean
Basin
Caucasus Mountains of
Central Asia
Mountains of
Southwest
China
Irano-
Anatolian
Indo-
Burma
Himalaya
Japan
Philippines
Polynesia-
Micronesia
Sundaland
Wallacea
East
Melanesian
Islands
New
Caledonia
Southwest
Australia
Forests
of East
Australia
Western
Ghats
and
Sri LankaHorn of
Africa
Mesoamerica
Cerrado
Atlantic Forest
Guinean Forests
of West Africa
Cape
Floristic
Region
Biodiversity hot spots
Maputaland-
Pondoland-Albany
Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa
Madagsscar
and the
Indian Ocean
Islands
Tropical
Polynesia -
Micronesia
New
Zealand
Andes
Chilean
Winter
Rainfall-
Valdivian
Forests
Succulent
Karoo
New Zealand
EasternAfromontane
FIG. 2. Biodiversityhotspotsaroundtheglobe(Myersetal.,2000).Source:http://www.conservation.org/where/priority_areas/hotspots/Pages/hotspots_main.aspx)

The plant resources and botanical importance of the Central Asian
mountains – the three largest mountain ranges of the world
The Irano-Turanian region of the Tethyan sub-kingdom has a
rich and significant floristic diversity due to the presence of
several mountain ranges. This region, which encompasses
Afghanistan, most parts of Iran and north-western Pakistan, a
few central Asian states, southern China and northern India, sup-
ports diverse vegetation communities, owing to the diversity of
geo-climatic zones and the presence of five significant mountain
systems – the Kirthar and Suleiman with the world’s largest
three – Hindu Kush, Karakorum and Himalayas (Fig. 3).
These mountain ranges meet together in north-western
Pakistan where they hold a plant biodiversity of about 19 000
species (Champion and Harry, 1965; Dasti et al., 2010).
The Kirthar mountain range commences at the Arabian Sea
coast and extends about 300 km northwards to the Mula River
in the east-central Baluchistan of Pakistan. Due to low rainfall,
poor soil conditions, deforestation and grazing pressures these
mountains are less rich in floristic diversityand are predominant-
lyoccupiedbyxerophyticplantspeciessuchasZiziphusnummu-
laria, Salvadora oleoides, Dodonea viscosa, Grewia tenax and
Capparis deciduas (Enright et al., 2005; Perveen and Hussain,
2007).
The Sulaiman Mountains are a major geological feature of
the northern Baluchistan province; they extend westward to
the Zabul province in Afghanistan and northward to the
Hindu Kush. Their vegetation is sparse and scattered in the
form of tufts of grasses and thorny plants; Pinus gerardiana
(Chilghoza) forests are unique to this range.
The Hindu Kush mountain range stretches 800 km between
the Suleiman range (in the south-west), the Himalayas (in the
east) and the Karakorum (in the north-east) and forms the
geopolitical boundary between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The
forest areas of the Hindu Kush are characterized by Cedrus
deodara, Picea smithiana, Pinus wallichiana, Pinus roxburgii
and Abies pindrow especially in wetter areas that come under
the influence of the monsoon. The eastern part of the Hindu
Kush becomes increasingly similar to the adjacent Himalayas
in terms of climate and flora, and thus most bio-geographers
use the collective term Hindu Kush-Himalaya (HKH) for these
ranges (Miehe et al., 2009; Dong et al., 2010).
The Karakorum mountain range, which is about 500 km long,
connects the plateaux of Tibet and the Pamir and forms a part of
the political border between Pakistan, India and China (Xiang
et al., 2002; Phartiyal et al., 2005; Eberhardt et al., 2007;
Marston, 2008; Khan et al., 2009). The vegetation is mainly
xeric in nature due to the cold, arid climate. Vegetation zones
can be categorized on the basis of humidity and elevation gradi-
ent from semi-desert, through montane shrub to alpine meadow.
A few studies indicate the shrubby nature of the vegetation
at lower altitudes (around 2700 m), with alpine pastures at
higher altitudes (above 3500 m). Characteristic plant species
of the Karakorum Range are Salix karelinii and Juniperus
semiglobosa.
The Himalayan range of mountains is about 2500 km long and
400 km wide and occupies a comparatively small part of
Pakistani territory but a larger part of India, Nepal and China.
Important indicator species of the Himalayan range are Pinus
wallichiana, Abies pindrow, Rhododendron species, Fragaria
nubicola, Viola species and Clematis species. Floristically, the
vegetation of the western and northern Himalayas becomes
increasingly analogous, respectively, to that of the Hindu
Kush and the monsoon belt of the Karakorum mountains in
terms of species composition and richness, owing to geological,
USSR
IRAN
PAKISTAN
CHINA
INDIA
KIR
SUR
KAR
HKR
HIR
WESTERN
IRANO-TURANIAN
SUBREGION
EASTERN
IRANO-TURANIAN
SUBREGION
SAHARO-SINDIAN
REGION
INDIAN REGION
SINO JAP
ANESE
REG
IO
N
FIG. 3. Irano-Turanian region showing five of the world’s significant mountain systems: the Himalayas Range (HIR), Karakorum Range (KAR), Hindu Kush Range
(HKR), Suleiman Range (SUR) and the Kirthar Range (KIR). Source: http://botany.org/plantsciencebulletin/psb-2008-54-4.php

physiographic and climatic similarities. Alpine and subalpine
habitats, where altitude becomes the most powerful limiting
factor, further strengthen thefloristicaffinities with highereleva-
tion vegetation of the Hindu Kush and the western Himalayas
(Miehe et al., 1996; Pei, 1998; Hamayun et al., 2006;
Eberhardt et al., 2007; Qureshi et al., 2007a; Wazir et al.,
2008; Ahmad et al., 2009; Ali and Qaiser, 2009).
Plant diversity decreases with a reduction in the monsoon
effect as one moves from south-east to north-west in the
Himalayas. Other factors responsible for this decline are the in-
crease in altitudinal and latitudinal gradients. In general the
Himalayan vegetation ranges from tropical evergreen species
in the south-east to thorn steppe and alpine species in the north-
western parts (Behera and Kushwaha, 2007; Fig. 4). The domin-
ance of an endemic flora in the western Himalayas, especially at
high elevations, indicates the high conservation importance of
these ecosystems (Dhar 2002); Dhar advocates that the timber-
line zones should be protected as priority regions. Throughout
the Himalayan range, plants are threatened by the high anthropo-
genic pressures exerted by farming, herding, fuel, timber, and
medicinal plant collection. In response, the mountain vegetation
of this region has become a significant focus inrecent ecological,
conservation and ethnobotanical studies (Hamayun et al., 2003;
Parolly, 2004; Lovett et al., 2006; Khan et al., 2007, 2012a, b;
Shaheen et al., 2011, 2012).
Plant conservation efforts in the Himalayas
Despite possessing very diverse vegetation (Shrestha and
Joshi, 1996), the plant resources of the Irano-Turanian region
in general and the Himalayas in particular have not been exam-
ined thoroughly due to climatic, socioeconomic and geopolitical
constraints. These mountains support approximately 19 000
plant species of which approximately 7500 are valued for their
medicinal uses (Pei, 1998). Unlike the eastern Himalayas,
where monsoon-driven vegetation predominates under higher
rainfall and humidity (Behera et al., 2005; Dutta and Agrawal,
2005; Roy and Behera, 2005; Chawla et al., 2008; Anthwal
et al., 2010), the vegetation in the western Himalayas in
general (Dickore´ and Nu¨sser, 2000; Chawla et al., 2008;
Ahmad et al., 2009; Kukshal et al., 2009; Shaheen et al.,
2011), and in the Naran Valley in particular (Khan et al.,
2011a), has closer affinities with that of the Hindu Kush moun-
tains, which have a drier and cooler climate (Noroozi et al.,
2008; Wazir et al., 2008; Ali and Qaiser, 2009). Nevertheless,
the vegetation in both these mountain systems as well as in the
Karakorum (Miehe et al., 1996; Eberhardt et al., 2007) exhibits
greatsimilarityabovethetreeline(Mieheetal.,2009),wherecli-
matic conditions are more comparable.
Only very few studies have used modern numerical/statistical
techniquestoquantifyandmodelplantspecies,communitiesand
environmental as well as cultural drivers of vegetation variation
CHINA
1
2
3 6
4
5
Dhangarti
INDIA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Kathmandu 8
7
9
Mount Everest
Sikkim
(INDIA)
FIG. 4. Vegetation zonations in the Himalayas, using Nepal as an example. (1) Western Himalayan alpine shrub and meadows. (2) Western Himalayan subalpine
conifer forests. (3) Himalayan subtropical pine forests. (4) Himalayan subtropical broadleaf forests. (5) Savanna and grasslands. (6) Western Himalayan broadleaf
forests. (7) Eastern Himalayan alpine shrub and meadows. (8) Eastern Himalayan broadleaf forests. (9) Eastern Himalayan subalpine conifer forests. Source:
World Wildlife Fund http://www.eoearth.org/article/Nepal?topic=49460

in thisregion, particularly in themore distant and leastaccessible
parts of the mountains. In addition, plant community identifica-
tion and classification using modern techniques has so far been
restricted to the plains and low-altitude areas (Qureshi et al.,
2006; Dasti et al., 2007; Perveen and Hussain, 2007; Saima
et al., 2009; Siddiqui et al., 2009). The remote mountainous
areasmustnowbethefocusforvegetationstudiesduetotheirim-
portant phytogeographical location (Adhikari et al., 1995). In
addition to the scientific exploration ofbiotic and abiotic compo-
nents of mountain ecosystems, there is also an immediate need
for facilitation, social mobilization and education of the indigen-
ous people of these remote regions. Education and awareness
about habitat destruction, and decreasing biodiversity with in-
creasing population and climate change are high priorities (Dıáz
et al., 2006; Ma et al., 2007; Hermy et al., 2008; Giam et al.,
2010). The indigenous mountain people have a great deal of trad-
itionalecologicalknowledgeaboutvegetationecosystemservices,
particularly provisioning services, which, in return, needs to be
documented and incorporated into conservation and climate
change adaptation strategies. Thus, there needs to be a three-way
participatory flow of knowledge and information between vegeta-
tion scientists, local people and conservation managers.
In a recent review, Vacˇka´rˇ et al. (2012) pointed out that each
aspect of biodiversity cannot be assessed using a single indicator
and suggested the use of multiple indices and indicators for a
better understanding of biodiversity in relation to human activ-
ities (Dolan et al., 2011; Feola et al., 2011; Vacˇka´rˇ et al.,
2012). In our study in the western Himalayas (Khan, 2012), we
employed two different approaches to identify indicator
species based on ecological as well as cultural analyses.
‘Ecological’indicatorspecieswereidentifiedasaresultofexten-
sive vegetation description and statistical analysis, while ‘trad-
itional’ indicator species were recognized on the basis of
ethnobotanical surveys amongst local people. The ecological
componentofthis studywas distinctiveas ourwork identified in-
dicator species based on their ecological fidelity and abundance.
Othervegetationstudiesalongenvironmentalgradientsinmoun-
tain ecosystems have merely compared the diversity indices
among communities and treated all species equally without con-
sidering theirecological position and their meaning in those par-
ticular ecosystems (Carpenter, 2005; Oommen and Shanker,
2005; Gould et al., 2006; Ren et al., 2006; Dasti et al., 2007;
Crimmins et al., 2008; Wazir et al., 2008; Siddiqui et al.,
2009). We used species abundance data in PCORD to calculate
the indicator values and thus at least one statistically significant
indicator species was selected from each of the tree, shrub and
herb layers in each of the plant communities using ISA. At the
same time the faithfulness of these indicators was tested by
their categorization in fidelity classes. Species with higher fidel-
ity values were considered to have the maximum conservation
priority, i.e. these were species having restricted distribution,
and probably special or fragmented habitats and were at
highest risk (Zou et al., 2007; Pinke and Pa´l, 2008; Haarmeyer
et al., 2010). One of the individual aspects of our study was com-
bining IVIs and UVs in theiranalysesto obtain residual values of
plant species signifying anthropogenic pressure on them. Thus,
thisapproachopensupanewwaytostudyandmanageecosystem
services and environmental sustainability (Layke et al., 2011;
Moldan et al., 2011) and to prioritize special habitats and
species of conservation importance.
Identification of traditional use patterns of plant resources in the
westernHimalayas;asteptowardsbetterconservationmanagement
In the remote valleys of the Himalayas people exploit natural
resources and vegetation according to their seasonal migration
with livestockto summer pasturesand theyhavevaluable knowl-
edge of the ecosystem servicesthat can be derived from the vege-
tation. The use of plants for medicinal uses, grazing and fodder
now imposes a high pressure on the plant biodiversity, with
implications for longer-term sustainability; with some species
under such continuous pressure they are likely to become
extinct in the near future. Anthropogenic activities and biodiver-
sity are in conflict with each other. People choose species only
because of their own needs and hence put pressure on rare
species (Ahmad et al., 2002). The major social problems respon-
siblefortheenormous anthropogenicpressuresonthevegetation
in the region are the increased population, prevailing poverty,
lackofawarenessandpooreducation,which combinetoincrease
the competition for and overexploitation of the natural plant
resources.
In a study of the Naran Valley (Khan, 2012), we evaluated the
knowledge of local people about recent trends in abundance of
various plant species. There was a close coincidence between
the findings from both ecological and ethnobotanical perspec-
tives indicating a high extinction risk for plant species most
valued (Khan et al., 2012b). Many of the species recorded in
this study (83 %) provide an array of provisioning services.
Preference analysis showed medicinal use to be highest
(56.9 % of responses) followed by grazing and food (13.1 and
10.8 %, respectively). The elevated priority given to medicinal
use illustrates the depth of traditional knowledge about plants
in the community and the lack of basic health facilities. It can
also be attributed to the high market value of medicinal species
(Khan et al., 2013b).
Each medicinal speciesfound intheregion is noteworthy but a
few have a pre-eminent importance in the local healthcare
system. Dioscorea deltoidea, for example, is used to treat
urinary tract problems, and as a tonic and anthelmintic. Local
hakeems (experts in traditional medicine) use Podophyllum hex-
andrum in digestive troubles and for treating cancer. Powdered
bark of Berberis pseudoumbellata is used for the treatment of
fever, backache, jaundice and urinary tract infections whilst its
fruit is valued as a tonic. Orchid species such as Cypripedium
cordigerum and Dactylorhiza hatagirea are considered to be
aphrodisiacs and used as nerve tonics. All of these species are
listed by CITES (the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) (Fig. 5). We
found 97 prominent remedial uses of medicinal plants, divided
into 15 major categories based on ailments of specific parts of
the human system. The largest number of ailments cured with
medicinal plants were associated with the digestive system
(32.76 % responses) followed by those associated with the re-
spiratory and urinary systems (13.72 and 9.13 %, respectively)
(Khan et al., 2013b). There was considerable harmony
between peoples’ own perception of the ecological status of
each species when compared with the classification of the
plant species according to the IUCN Red List criteria.
Indigenous people reported a reducing trend in the availability
and population sizes of 112 plant species (56.56 % of the total
species), 32 of which fell in the IUCN category of Critically

Endangered, 22 in Endangered, 18 in Vulnerable, 24 in Near
Threatened and only 16 in the category of Least Concern.
Alarmingly, most of the species of conservation concern were
classed as either endemic, indicator or faithful species with
high habitat specificity, indicating that these species required
specific conservation attention from all stake holders (Khan
et al., 2011a, b, 2012a, b, 2013c) (Fig. 6).
Integration of species’ IV (abundance) with UV gave the
pattern of use with high significance (Khan et al., 2011b;
Khan, 2012) and residual value analyses using linear regression
statistics revealed that 93 species (50.8 % of the used and 46.9 %
of the total species) had residual values greater than the standard
deviation, signifying they are overused. The top 10 species with
highest residuals were Juglans regia, Polygonatum verticilla-
tum, Origanum vulgare, Cedrus deodara, Malva neglecta,
Rumex nepalensis, Rheum australe, Geranium wallichianum,
Polygonum aviculare and Paeonia emodi.
Reduction in vegetation-derived ecosystem services: a threat to
sustainable utilization of plant biodiversity in mountain ecosystems
Plant resources are the most accessible source of products and
incomes foreconomically marginalized societies, and are subse-
quently under extensive pressure to provide both provisioning
and environmental benefits. Sustainable utilization and conser-
vationofbiodiversityareessentialforthecontinuationofecosys-
tem functioning (Srivastava and Vellend, 2005; Kienast et al.,
2009); nevertheless, indigenous people give less attention to
long-term ecosystem goods and services as they focus, of
necessity, on marginal and short-term benefits. Local residents,
especially of the older generation, prefer to live in the mountains
because they can derive free benefits from accessing a range of
plant-derived provisioning ecosystem services. In contrast,
members of the younger generation tend to leave these rural
spaces in search of education, facilities and an ‘easy’ modern
life;thus,theyarelessawareofordependentuponecosystemser-
vices. Over time, the traditional ecological knowledge of the
older generation will diminish or, at worst, be entirely lost.
Extensive use of natural vegetation in the past has decreased
the provisioning services in montane ecosystems (Pereira
et al., 2005; Sharma et al., 2008; Duraiappah, 2011; Khan
et al., 2012b). The consequence of the imbalance in supply of
these services and the increasing human demands has been de-
terioration in the condition of the natural habitats and increasing
rarity of plant biodiversity (Dıáz et al., 2006; Giam et al., 2010;
Khan et al., 2012b). These effects are becoming exacerbated as
indigenous people can neither access alternative services
locally (e.g. healthcare services, which are either sparsely
located and/or expensive) nor can they compete in urban soci-
eties. Linked with the imminent threat of species extinctions as
a result of non-sustainable exploitation, the traditional indigen-
ous knowledge of the people is at considerable threat of being
eroded and ultimately lost.
Plant biodiversity can, however, be restored and the risks of
ecosystem degradation may be combated, if measures such as re-
forestation, establishment of protected areas, greater awareness
by the people and ex-situ conservation of rare species can be
initiated (Brown and Shogren, 1998; Parody et al., 2001;
A B C
D E F
FIG. 5. SixofthemoreimportantplantspeciesusedfortraditionalmedicineinthewesternHimalayas.(A)Podophyllumhexandrum(seeAppendix,speciesno.69for
details). (B) Rheum australe (species no. 79). (C) Primula denticulata (species no. 72). (D) Polygonatum verticillatum (species no. 70). (E) Fritillaria roylei (species
no. 39). (F) Paeonia emodi (species no. 60).

Niemi and McDonald, 2004; Pereira et al., 2005; Muzaffaret al.,
2011). Long-term management and conservation strategies
might therefore have optimistic outcomes for both maintaining
and restoring mountain biodiversity and ecosystem services,
which would also have a positive impact on the lowland ecosys-
tems by ensuring the flow of rivers for irrigation of agricultural
land (Archer and Fowler, 2004).
Biodiversity conservation: the role of indigenous knowledge
In addition tothe three mostwidelyaccepted biodiversity con-
servation criteria – rarity, threat and endemism – there are other
important criteria that should be considered – historical, trad-
itionalandeducationalvalues.Traditionalecologicalknowledge
in Asia in general and in the remote valleys of the western
Himalayas and Hindu Kush in particular, can play a key role in
the formulation and implementation of conservation strategies.
Such knowledge reflects a life time’s experience of the relation-
ship between human cultures and the natural environment.
Increasing urbanization and industrialization cause losses of
traditional knowledge as the natural environment becomes
degraded or as people move away from their native villages.
Traditionalethnomedicinalknowledgeisaparticularandvaluable
formofindigenousknowledge;itisaculturalassetthatcanbeused
for the recognition and preservation of valuable species as well as
the habitats in which they occur (Pieroni et al., 2007; Jules et al.,
2008;Gaikwadetal.,2011).IntheHimalayas,populationgrowth,
prevailing povertyand expansion of agricultural land are the main
causes of habitat and biodiversity loss and achieving the goal of
sustainable resource use requires the management and collabor-
ation of various governmental and non-governmental agencies
involved in natural resources supervision and management
together with the local communities (Gorenflo and Brandon,
2005). Apart from a numberof other constraints, geopolitical bar-
riers have always been hurdles in effective conservation measures
and strategies and must be overcome for the betterment of sustain-
able future (Sandwith, 2003).
The need for an IUCN Red Data book for Himalayan biodiversity
Thereisnothoroughwork,suchasaRedDataBook,onendan-
gered plant species in the Himalayan region, despite its unique
Critically Endangered = 8
Endangered = 7
Endemic = 19
Endangered = 7
Endemic = 19
Hindu Kush
Range
Naran Valley, Himalayas Range2450 m
S - Aspect
4000 m 2450 m 4100 m
N - Aspect
3450 m
Lake Saiful Malook
Malika Parbat
(5,291 m)
Lake Lulusar
Babusar Pass
Endangered = 3
Endemic = 10
Endangered = 8
Endemic = 24
Endangered = 4
Endemic = 5
Com. 5
Com. 4
Com. 3
Com. 2
Com. 1
FIG. 6. SchematicmapoftheNaranValley,westernHimalayashowingitsvariousvegetationzones(communities,Com.)andconservationstatusofendemicspecies.
For area and communities details see Khan et al., 2011a, b, 2012a, b; Khan, 2012.

endemic flora. There has been very limited and fragmented pub-
lished work on only a few IUCN Red List plant species (Ali,
2008; Alam and Ali, 2009, 2010; Ali and Qaiser, 2011), so one
can find very few comparators to evaluate endangered and critic-
al plant species at a national level (Ali, 2008). In part this is a
result of the political conflict in this area over the last century
(Hanson et al., 2009). New efforts are, however, emerging and
can be seen in a few publications over the last two or three
years (Alam and Ali, 2010; Ali and Qaiser, 2011), although
these provide descriptions of a very limited number of species.
The case study by Khan (2012) can be compared with studies
from other areas of the Himalaya, especially the eastern, in
terms of the potential for linking endemism and ecosystem ser-
vices (Samant and Dhar, 1997; Aumeeruddy, 2003; Kala,
2007;Qureshietal.,2007b)andcouldleadthewayindeveloping
a robust approach to critically evaluate the vegetation across the
wider Himalayan region. In our studyof the Naran Valleyseveral
plant species were recorded that are known to be endangered
either globally or regionally and are listed by CITES. On the
basis of IUCN criteria, several species were categorised as
Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN), Vulnerable
(VU) and Near Threatened (NT). Only 39.4 % of the total
species come under the IUCN criterion of Least Concern (LC)
(IUCN Categories, 2001; IUCN Standards and Petitions
Subcommittee, 2011).
The western Himalayas host a flora that is rich in endemic
species, with 300 endemic species documented (Ali et al.,
1972–2009; Ali, 2008). Endemic species have an exceptional
individuality and significance as their distribution is limited to
a particular region, and hence ecologists and taxonomists
always emphasize their quantification, documentation and con-
servation as a key priority. In 2002, the Convention on
Biological Diversity agreed to protect 50 % of the significant
regions for plant diversity and conservation based on species en-
demism, richness and ecosystem endangerment (Ma et al.,
2007). In our study of the Naran Valley, 64 plant species
(32.32 %) of the total are endemic to the three mountain
systems of the Himalayas, Hindu Kush and Karakorum.
Twenty of these are endemic to the Himalayas alone, 29 are mu-
tually shared by the Himalayas and Hindu Kush, while 19 are
mutually shared by all three mountain ranges (reference: Flora
of Pakistan). Applying IUCN Red List criteria at a regional
level to these 64 endemic species, shows 20 as Critically
Endangered (CR), 14 as Endangered (EN), 12 as Vulnerable
(VU), 11 as Near Threatened (NT) and only seven as of Least
Concern (LC). These results indicate that the Naran Valley is
Valuation of regulatory
services for flood control,
erosion control, irrigation
water and hydropower
development
Molecular and biochemical
studies of the species under
various environmental
gradients
Consultation with
government for
sustainable management of
the resources and policy
issues
Valuation of cultural services
for preservation and its use
in conservation strategies
Valuation of supporting
services like soil analyses,
formation and nutrient
cycles, etc.
• Prioritization
• In situ conservation
• Domestication of rare species
Future
Future
Future
Future
Plants
Ecosystem functions,
interactions, goods
and services
Environment
People
FIG. 7. The major topics for biodiversity conservation in montane ecosystem.

a hot spot for endemic flora, with three species being endemic to
Pakistan (Appendix). The endemic species have a high fidelity
level (fidelity classes 3–5), signifying the selective nature of
the environmental conditions under which they grow (Khan,
2012). The highest numbers of endemic subalpine species
were recorded in a northern aspect plant community at altitudes
of between 2800 and 3400 m and in a timberline plant commu-
nity (3300–4000 m).
We thus suggest that the use of IUCN Red List criteria should
be given priorityand that newgovernment and corporate policies
be implemented to allow for ecosystem services to be included
systematically in economic decisions. Such concepts can also
be applied beyond land and resource management, in broader
government and corporate investment decisions that impact bio-
diversity.Bybuildingontheevidenceandtoolsfrompastefforts,
new solutions can be designed to maintain the critical plant
resources that sustain both the mountain and the lowland ecosys-
tems. A narrow range of habitats for specific indicator species
and the presence of endemic vegetation in the region indicate
that, once deteriorated, these mountain plant species would be
extremely difficult to restore due to a number of climatic,
edaphic and anthropogenic constraints. Our study emphasizes
the importance of this fragile ecosystem for long-term environ-
mental sustainability and ecosystem services management
(Fig. 7).
SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS
This review emphasizes the need for sustainable utilization of
plant biodiversity in order to maintain provisioning ecosystem
services on the one hand and indigenous traditional knowledge
which enables these uses on the other hand. The anthropogenic
impacts on the vegetation require an assessment of the conserva-
tion status of all plant species and of the indicator, rare and
endemicspeciesinparticular.Wehavedemonstratedhowaneth-
noecological approach towards biodiversity conservation can be
linked to quantitative ecology. This is a novel, integrative ap-
proach involving knowledge obtained from phytosociological
classification, ordination, distribution, richness, diversity, eco-
system services and ethnobotanical perceptions of conservation.
The findings from our case study from a remote Himalayan
valley, located amongst three of the world’s largest mountain
ranges, illustrates how this approach can be used to identify the
conservation status of plant species, from the perspective of
both ecological criteria (i.e. endemism, endangerment and
rarity) and the traditional knowledge of local people. Future
work should address the long-lasting consequences of the loss
of plant biodiversity for the sustainability of ecosystem services
other than just provisioning services, i.e. also regulatory, sup-
porting and cultural services.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Professor Pat Heslop-Harrison, Department of Biology,
University of Leicester, is gratefully acknowledged for con-
structive assessment of S.H.K.’s PhD which led to the present
invited review. Professor Heiko Balzter (Professor of Physical
Geography and Director of the Centre for Landscape and
Climate Research) is also acknowledged for providing facilities
in Leicester as Research Fellow to complete this paper.
LITERATURE CITED
Aægisdo´ttir HH, Kuss P, Sto¨cklin J. 2009. Isolated populations of a rare alpine
plant show high genetic diversity and considerable population differenti-
ation. Annals of Botany 104: 1313–1322.
AdhikariBS,Rawat YS, SinghSP. 1995. Structure and functionof highaltitude
forests of Central Himalaya II. Nutrient dynamics. Annals of Botany 75:
249–258.
Ahmad H, Ahmad A, Jan MM. 2002. The medicinal plants of Salt Range.
Journal of Biological Sciences 3: 175–177.
Ahmad H, Khan SM, Ghafoor S, Ali N. 2009. Ethnobotanical study of upper
siran. Journal of Herbs, Spices and Medicinal Plants 15: 86–97.
Alam J, Ali SI. 2009. Conservation status of Astragalus gilgitensis Ali
(Fabaceae): a critically endangered species in the Gilgit district, Pakistan.
Phyton – Annales Rei Botanicae 48: 211–223.
Alam J, Ali SI. 2010. Contribution to the red list of the plants of Pakistan.
Pakistan Journal of Botany 42: 2967–2971.
Ali H, Qaiser M. 2009. The ethnobotany of Chitral Valley, Pakistan with
particular reference to medicinal plants. Pakistan Journal of Botany 41:
2009–2041.
AliH,QaiserM.2011.ContributiontotheredListofPakistan:acasestudyofthe
narrow endemic Silene longisepala (Caryophyllaceae). Oryx 45: 522–527.
Ali SI. 2008. Significance of Flora with special reference to Pakistan. Pakistan
Journal of Botany 40: 967–971.
Ali SI, Nasir E, Qaiser M. 1972–2009. Flora of Pakistan. Pakistan Agricultural
Research Council and The University of California, USA.
Anderson MJ, Ellingsen KE, McArdle BH. 2006. Multivariate dispersion as a
measure of beta diversity. Ecology Letters 9: 683–693.
Anthwal A, Gupta N, Sharma A, Anthwal S, Kim K. 2010. Conserving bio-
diversity through traditional beliefs in sacred groves in Uttarakhand
Himalaya, India. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54: 962–971.
Archer DR, Fowler HJ. 2004. Spatial and temporal variations in precipitation in
the Upper Indus Basin, global teleconnections and hydrological implica-
tions. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 8: 47–61.
Aumeeruddy YaSJP. 2003. Applied Ethnobotany; case studies from the
Himalayan region. People and plants working paper 12. Godalming:
WWF, 3–4.
Baillie JEMea. 2004. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. A Global Species
Assessment. IUCN-SSC (http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/red_list_2004/
GSA_book/Red_List_2004_book.pdf).
Baqar SR. 2001. Text Book of Economic Botany. Rawalpindi: Ferozsons (PVT)
Ltd.
BarbaultR. 1997.LaBiodiversite´;Introductiona` labiologiedelaconservation.
Paris: Les Fondamentaux, Hachette.
Beckage B, Osborne B, Gavin DG, Pucko C, Siccama T, Perkins T. 2008. A
rapid upward shift of a forest ecotone during 40 years of warming in the
Green Mountains of Vermont. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences USA 105: 4197–4202.
Behera MD, Kushwaha SPS. 2007. An analysis of altitudinal behavior of tree
species in Subansiri district, Eastern Himalaya. Biodiversity and
Conservation 16: 1851–1865.
Behera MD, Kushwaha SPS, Roy PS. 2005. Rapid assessment of biological
richness in a part of Eastern Himalaya: an integrated three-tier approach.
Forest Ecology and Management 207: 363–384.
Bergmeier E. 2002. The vegetation of the high mountains of Crete – A revision
and multivariate analysis. Phytocoenologia 32: 205–249.
Billings WD. 1972. Plants, man, and the ecosystem, 2nd edn. London:
Macmillan.
Biondi E. 2011. Phytosociology today: methodological and conceptual evolu-
tion. Plant Biosystems 145: 19–29.
Boyd J, Banzhaf S. 2006. What are ecosystem services? The need for standar-
dized environmental accounting units. RFFP Discussion Paper 06–02.
Washington, DC.
Braun-Blanquet J, Conard HS, Fuller GD. 1932. Plant sociology: the study of
plant communities. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Brown GMJr, Shogren JF. 1998. Economics of the Endangered Species Act.
Journal of Economic Perspectives 12: 3–20.
Carpenter C. 2005. The environmental control of plant species density on a
Himalayan elevation gradient. Journal of Biogeography 32: 999–1018.
CasazzaG,BarberisG,MinutoL.2005.Ecologicalcharacteristicsandrarityof
endemic plants of the Italian Maritime Alps. Biological Conservation 123:
361–371.

CasazzaG, ZappaE, MariottiMG,Me´dail F, MinutoL. 2008.Ecologicaland
historicalfactorsaffectingdistributionpatternandrichnessofendemicplant
species: the case of the Maritime and Ligurian Alps hotspot. Diversity and
Distributions 14: 47–58.
Champion G, Harry SSK. 1965. Forest types of Pakistan. Pakistan Forest
Institute: Peshawar, Pakistan.
ChawlaA,RajkumarS,SinghKN,LalB,SinghRD,ThukralAK.2008.Plant
species diversity along an altitudinal gradient of Bhabha Valley in western
Himalaya. Journal of Mountain Science 5: 157–177.
Cincotta RP, Wisnewski J, Engelman R. 2000. Human population in the bio-
diversity hotspots. Nature 404: 990–992.
Clapham WB. 1973. Natural ecosystems. New York: Macmillan/
Collier-Macmillan.
Clubbe C, HamiltonM, Corcoran M.2010. Using the Global Strategy for Plant
Conservation to guide conservation implementation in the UK Overseas
Territories. Kew Bulletin 65: 509–517.
Clymo RS. 1980. Preliminary survey of the peat-bog Hummell Knowe Moss
using various numerical methods. Vegetatio 42: 129–148.
Collins MD, Va´zquez DP, Sanders NJ. 2002. Species–area curves, homogen-
ization and the loss of global diversity. Evolutionary Ecology Research 4:
457–464.
Cox GW. 1996. Laboratory manual of general ecology, 7th edn. Dubuque:
Willium C. Brown Publishers.
Crimmins TM, Crimmins MA, Bertelsen D, Balmat J. 2008. Relationships
between alpha diversity of plant species in bloom and climatic variables
across an elevation gradient. International Journal of Biometeorology 52:
353–366.
Da Cunha LVFC, De Albuquerque UP. 2006. Quantitative ethnobotany in an
Atlantic Forest fragment of Northeastern Brazil – Implicationsto conserva-
tion. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 114: 1–25.
Dasti AA, Saima S, Athar M, Attiq-ur-Rahman , Malik SA. 2007. Botanical
composition and multivariate analysis of vegetation on the Pothowar
Plateau, Pakistan. Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 1:
557–568.
Dasti AA, Saima S, Mahmood Z, Athar M, Gohar S. 2010. Vegetation zon-
ation along the geological and geomorphological gradient at eastern slope
of Sulaiman Range, Pakistan. African Journal of Biotechnology 9:
6105–6115.
Daubenmire RF. 1968. Plant communities: a textbook of plant synecology.
New York: Harper and Row.
De Albuquerque UP. 2009. Quantitative ethnobotanyor quantification in ethno-
botany? Ethnobotany Research and Applications 7: 1–4.
Deane V. 1999. Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems.
Population and Environment 20: 277–278.
Del Moral R, Saura JM, Emenegger JN. 2010. Primary succession trajectories
on a barren plain, Mount St. Helens, Washington. Journal of Vegetation
Science 21: 857–867.
Dhar U. 2002. Conservation implications of plant endemism in high-altitude
Himalaya. Current Science 82: 141–148.
Dıáz S, Fargione J, Chapin FSIII, Tilman D. 2006. Biodiversity loss threatens
human well-being. PLoS Biology 4: 1300–1305.
Dickore´ WB, Nu¨sser M. 2000. Flora of Nanga Parbat (NW Himalaya, Pakistan).
An annotated inventory of vascular plants with remarks on vegetation dy-
namics. Englera 19: 1–253.
Dirnbo¨ckT,DullingerS,GrabherrG.2001.Anewgrasslandcommunityinthe
Eastern Alps (Austria): evidence of environmental distribution limits of
endemic plant communities. Phytocoenologia 31: 521–536.
Dobbertin M, Hilker N, Rebetez M, Zimmermann NE, Wohlgemuth T,
Rigling A. 2005. The upward shift in altitude of pine mistletoe (Viscum
album ssp. austriacum) in Switzerland—the result of climate warming?
International Journal of Biometeorology 50: 40–47.
Dolan RW, Moore ME, Stephens JD. 2011. Documenting effects of urbaniza-
tion on flora using herbarium records. Journal of Ecology 99: 1055–1062.
Dong S, Wen L, Zhu L, Li X. 2010. Implication of coupled natural and human
systems in sustainable rangeland ecosystem management in HKH region.
Frontiers of Earth Science in China 4: 42–50.
Dufreˆne M, Legendre P. 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the
need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological Monographs 67:
345–366.
Duraiappah AK. 2011. Ecosystem services and human well-being: do global
findings make any sense? Bioscience 61: 7–8.
Dutta RK, Agrawal M. 2005. Development of ground vegetation under exotic
tree plantations on restored coal mine spoil land in a dry tropical region of
India. Journal of Environmental Biology 26: 645–652.
Eberhardt E, Dickore´ WB, Miehe G. 2007. Vegetation map of the Batura
Valley (Hunza Karakorum, North Pakistan). Erdkunde 61: 93–112.
Enright NJ, Miller BP, Akhter R. 2005. Desert vegetation and vegetation–en-
vironment relationships in Kirthar National Park, Sindh, Pakistan. Journal
of Arid Environments 61: 397–418.
Erschbamer B, Unterluggauer P, Winkler E, Mallaun M. 2011. Changes in
plant species diversity revealed by long-term monitoring on mountain
summits in the Dolomites (northern Italy). Preslia 83: 387–401.
Ewald J. 2003. A critique for phytosociology. Journal of Vegetation Science 14:
291–296.
Feola S, Carranza ML, Schamineé JHJ, Janssen JAM, Acosta ATR. 2011.
EU habitats of interest: an insight into Atlantic and Mediterranean beach
and foredunes. Biodiversity and Conservation 20: 1457–1468.
Ford RI. 1994. The nature and status of ethnobotany. Anthropological Papers of
the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology. No. 67. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan.
Fu C, Hua X, Li J, Chang Z, Pu Z, Chen J. 2006. Elevational patterns of frog
species richness and endemic richness in the Hengduan Mountains,
China: geometric constraints, area and climate effects. Ecography 29:
919–927.
Gaikwad J, Wilson PD, Ranganathan S. 2011. Ecological niche modeling of
customarymedicinalplantspeciesusedbyAustralianAboriginestoidentify
species-rich and culturally valuable areas for conservation. Ecological
Modelling 222: 3437–3443.
Gauch HG. 2010. Multivariate analysis in community ecology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
GehrigFaselJ,GuisanA,Zimmermann NE.2009.TreelineshiftsintheSwiss
Alps: climate change or land abandonment? Journal of Vegetation Science
18: 571–582.
GeistH.2005.Ourearth’schangingland:Anencyclopediaofland-useandland-
cover change. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Giam X, Bradshaw CJA, Tan HTW, Sodhi NS. 2010. Future habitat loss and
the conservation of plant biodiversity. Biological Conservation 143:
1594–1602.
Gilliam FS, Elizabeth SN. 2003. Making more sense of the order: a review of
Canoco for Windows 4.5, PC-ORD version 4 and SYN-TAX 2000.
Journal of Vegetation Science 14: 297–304.
Goldsmith FB, Harrison CM, Morton AJ. 1986. Description and analysis of
vegetation. In: Moore PD, Chapman SB. eds. Methods in plant ecology,
2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications: 437–524.
Gordon JE, Dvora´k IJ, Jonasson C, Josefsson M, Kociańova´ M, Thompson
DBA. 2002. Geo-ecology and management of sensitive montane land-
scapes. Geografiska Annaler, Series A: Physical Geography 84: 193–203.
Gorenflo LJ, Brandon K. 2005. Agricultural capacity in high biodiversity forest
ecosystems. Ambio 34: 199–204.
GouldWA,GonzalezG,CarreroRG.2006.Structureandcompositionofvege-
tation along an elevational gradient in Puerto Rico. Journal of Vegetation
Science 17: 653–664.
Grabherr G, Gottfried M, Pauli H. 2011. Global change effects on alpine plant
diversity. In: Zachos FE, Habel JC. eds. Biodiversity hotspots. Distribution
and protection of conservation priority areas. Springer: 529–536.
Grandin U. 2006. PC-ORD version 5: a user-friendly toolbox for ecologists.
Greig-Smith P. 2010. Quantitative plant ecology, 3rd edn. Oxford: Blackwell
Scientific.
Haarmeyer DH, Schmiedel U, Dengler J, Bo¨sing BM. 2010.How does grazing
intensity affect different vegetation types in arid Succulent Karoo, South
Africa? Implications for conservation management. Biological Conservation
143: 588–596.
Haines-Young R, Potschin M. 2010. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem
services and human well-being. In Raffaelli D, Frid C. eds. Ecosystem
ecology: a new synthesis. BES Ecological Reviews Series. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 110–139.
Halloy SRP, Mark AF. 2003. Climate-change effects on alpine plant biodiver-
sity: a New Zealand perspective on quantifying the threat. Arctic, Antarctic,
and Alpine Research 35: 248–254.
Hamayun M, Khan MA, Begum S. 2003. Marketing of medicinal plants of
Utror-Gabral Valleys, Swat, Pakistan. Journal of Ethnobotanical Leaflets
2: 25–32.

Hamayun M, Khan SA, Lee I-, Khan MA. 2006. Conservation assessment of
Hindu-Kush Mountain Region of Pakistan: a case study of Utror and
Gabral Valleys, District Swat, Pakistan. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences
5: 725–732.
Hanson T, Brooks TM, Da Fonseca GAB, et al. 2009. Warfare in biodiversity
hotspots. Conservation Biology 23: 578–587.
Hermy M, Van Der Veken S, Van Calster H, Plue J. 2008. Forest ecosystem
assessment, changes in biodiversity and climate change in a densely popu-
lated region (Flanders, Belgium). Plant Biosystems 142: 623–629.
Hester A, Brooker R. 2007. Threatened habitats: marginal vegetation in upland
areas. Issues in Environmental Science and Technology 25: 107–134.
Hill MO. 1979. TWINSPAN; A Fortran program forarranging multivariate data
in an ordered two-way table by classification of the individuals and attri-
butes.
Hill MO, Gauch HGJr. 1980. Detrended correspondence analysis: an improved
ordination technique. Vegetatio 42: 47–58.
Hobbs RJ, Huenneke LF. 1992. Disturbance, diversity, and invasion: implica-
tions for conservation. Conservation Biology 6: 324–337.
Holtmeier FK, Broll G. 2005. Sensitivity and response of northern hemisphere
altitudinal and polar treelines to environmental change at landscape and
local scales. Global Ecology and Biogeography 14: 395–410.
Holzinger B, Hu¨lber K, Camenisch M, Grabherr G. 2008. Changes in plant
species richness over the last century in the eastern Swiss Alps: elevational
gradient, bedrock effects and migration rates. Plant Ecology 195: 179–196.
IUCN.2001.IUCNRedList CategoriesandCriteria,Version3.1.IUCNSpecies
Survival Commission. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.
IUCN Standards, Petitions Subcommittee. 2011. Guidelines for Using the
IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria, Version 9.0. Prepared by the
Standards and Petitions Subcommittee. Downloadable from http://
www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf.
Isbell F, Calcagno V, Hector A, et al. 2011. High plant diversity is needed to
maintain ecosystem services. Nature 477: 199–202.
Jules P, Bill A, Fikret B, Simone FA, Nigel D, Eugene H. 2008. How do bio-
diversityandcultureintersect?In:Plenarypaperpresentedat theconference
for Sustaining Cultural and Biological Diversity in a Rapidly Changing
World: Lessons for Global Policy, 2–5.
Kala CP. 2007. Local preferences of ethnobotanical species in the Indian
Himalaya: implications for environmental conservation. Current Science
93: 1828–1834.
Kazakis G, Ghosn D, Vogiatzakis IN, Papanastasis VP. 2007. Vascular plant
diversity and climate change in the alpine zone of the Lefka Ori, Crete.
Biodiversity and Conservation 16: 1603–1615.
Kessler M. 2000. Elevational gradients in species richness and endemism of
selected plant groups in the central Bolivian Andes. Plant Ecology 149:
181–193.
Khan SD, Walker DJ, Hall SA, Burke KC, Shah MT, Stockli L. 2009. Did the
Kohistan-Ladakh island arc collide first with India? Bulletin of the
Geological Society of America 121: 366–384.
Khan SM. 2012. Plant communities and vegetation ecosystem services in the
Naran Valley, Western Himalaya. PhD Thesis, University of Leicester.
Khan SM, Ahmad H, Ramzan M, Jan MM. 2007. Ethnomedicinal plant
resources of Shawar Valley. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences 10:
1743–1746.
Khan SM, Harper DM, Page S, Ahmad H. 2011a. Species and community di-
versity of vascular flora along environmental gradient in Naran Valley: a
multivariate approach through Indicator Species Analysis. Pakistan
Khan SM, Harper DM, Page S, Ahmad H. 2011b. Residual value analyses of
the medicinal flora of the Western Himalayas: the Naran Valley, Pakistan.
Pakistan Journal of Botany 43: SI-97–104.
KhanSM,AhmadH,PageS,HarperDM.2012a.Anthropogenicinfluenceson
the natural ecosystem of the Naran Valley in the western Himalayas.
Pakistan Journal of Botany 44 (SI): 231–238.
Khan SM, Page S, Ahmad H, Shaheen H, Harper DM. 2012b. Vegetation dy-
namics in the Western Himalayas, diversity indices and climate change.
Journal of Science, Technology and Development 31: 232–243.
KhanSM,PageS,AhmadH,etal.2013a.Phyto-climaticgradientofvegetation
and habitat specificity in the high elevation western Himalayas. Pakistan
Khan SM, Page S, Ahmad H, et al. 2013b. Medicinal flora and ethnoecological
knowledge in the Naran Valley, Western Himalaya, Pakistan. Journal of
Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 9: 4.
Khan SM, Page S, Ahmad H, Harper D. 2013c. Identifying plant species and
communities across environmental gradients in the Western Himalayas:
method development and conservation use. Ecological Informatics 14:
99–103.
Kharkwal G, Mehrotra P, Rawat YS, Pangtey YPS. 2005. Phytodiversity and
growth form in relation to altitudinal gradient in the Central Himalayan
(Kumaun) region of India. Current Science 89: 873–878.
Kienast F, Bolliger J, Potschin M, et al. 2009. Assessing landscape functions at
the continental scale: a methodological framework. Environmental
Management 44: 1099–1120.
Kikvidze Z, Pugnaire FI, Brooker RW, et al. 2005. Linking patterns and pro-
cessesinalpine plantcommunities:a globalstudy. Ecology86: 1395–1400.
Kremen C. 2005. Managing ecosystem services: what dowe need to knowabout
their ecology? Ecology Letters 8: 468–479.
Kukshal S, Nautiyal BP, Anthwal A, Sharma A, Bhatt AB. 2009.
Phytosociological investigation and life form pattern of grazinglands
under pine canopy in temperate zone, Northwest Himalaya, India.
Research Journal of Botany 4: 55–69.
Kullman L. 2010. Alpine flora dynamics – a critical review of responses to
climate change in the Swedish Scandes since the early 1950s. Nordic
Kumar A, Chawla A, Rajkumar S. 2011. Characterization of Solang valley
watershed in western Himalaya for bio-resource conservation using
remote sensing techniques. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
179: 469–478.
LaSorteFA,JetzW.2010.Projectedrangecontractionsofmontanebiodiversity
under global warming. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences 277: 3401–3410.
Layke C, Mapendembe A, Brown C, Walpole M, Winn J. 2011. Indicators
from the global and sub-global Millennium Ecosystem Assessments: an
analysis and next steps. Ecological Indicators 17: 77–87.
Lenoir J, Gegout J, Marquet P, De Ruffray P, Brisse H. 2008. A significant
upward shift in plant species optimum elevation during the 20th century.
Science 320: 1768–1771.
Loucks C, Ricketts TH, Naidoo R, Lamoreux J, Hoekstra J. 2008. Explaining
the global pattern of protected area coverage: relative importance of verte-
brate biodiversity, human activities and agricultural suitability. Journal of
Biogeography 35: 1337–1348.
Lovett JC, Marshall AR, Carr J. 2006. Changes in tropical forest vegetation
along an altitudinal gradient in the Udzungwa Mountains National Park,
Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology 44: 478–490.
Ma C, Moseley RK, Chen W, Zhou Z. 2007. Plant diversityand priority conser-
vationareasofNorthwesternYunnan,China.BiodiversityandConservation
16: 757–774.
Macdonald D, Service K. 1996. Key topics in conservation biology. Chichester:
Wiley.
Macdonald D, Willis K. 2013. Key topics in conservation biology 2. Chichester:
Wiley.
Manandhar P, Rasul G. 2009. The role of the Hindu Kush-Himalayan (HKH)
mountain system in the context of a changing climate: a panel discussion.
Mountain Research and Development 29: 184–187.
Marston RA. 2008. Land, life, and environmental change in mountains. Annals
of the Association of American Geographers 98: 507–520.
Martin GJ. 2004. Ethnobotany; a methods manual. London: WWF and IIED.
McCune B. 1986. PC-ORD: an integrated system for multivariate analysis of
ecological data. Abstracta Botanica 10: 221–225.
McCune B, Mefford MJ. 1999. PC-ORD. Multivariate analysis of ecological
data, version 4.
McGrady-Steed J, Morin PJ. 2000. Biodiversity, density compensation, and
the dynamics of populations and functional groups. Ecology 81: 361–373.
MEA. 2003. Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment.
Millennium ecosystem assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Miehe G, Miehe S, Schlu¨tz F. 2009. Early human impact in the forest ecotone of
southern High Asia (Hindu Kush, Himalaya). Quaternary Research 71:
255–265.
Miehe S, Cramer T, Jacobsen J, Winiger M. 1996. Humidity conditions in the
western Karakorum as indicated by climatic data and corresponding distri-
bution patterns of the montane and alpine vegetation. Erdkunde 50:
190–204.
Miller RM, Rodrı´guez JP, Aniskowicz-Fowler T, et al. 2006. Extinction risk
and conservation priorities. Science 313: 441.
Moerman DE. 1991. The medicinal flora of Native North America: an analysis.
Journal of Ethnopharmacology 31: 1–42.

Moldan B, Janousˇkova´ S, Ha´k T. 2011. How to understand and measure envir-
onmental sustainability: indicators and targets. Ecological Indicators 17:
4–13.
Mondoni A, Probert RJ, Rossi G, Vegini E, Hay FR. 2011. Seeds of alpine
plants are short lived: implications for long-term conservation. Annals of
Botany 107: 171–179.
Mondoni A, Rossi G, Orsenigo S, Probert RJ. 2012. Climate warming could
shift the timing of seed germination in alpine plants. Annals of Botany
110: 155–164.
Moore PD, Chapman SB. 1986. Methods in plant ecology, 2nd edn. Oxford:
Blackwell Scientific Publications: 437–524.
Mucina L. 1997. Classification of vegetation: Past, present andfuture. Journalof
Vegetation Science 8: 751–760.
Mueller-Dombois D, Ellenberg H. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation
ecology. New York: Wiley.
Muzaffar SB, Islam MA, Kabir DS, et al. 2011. The endangered forests of
Bangladesh: Why the process of implementation of the Convention on
Biological Diversity is not working. Biodiversity and Conservation 20:
1587–1601.
Myers N, Mittermeler RA, Mittermeler CG, Da Fonseca GAB, Kent J. 2000.
Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858.
Nasir E, Ali SI. 1971–1998. Flora of Pakistan. Pakistan Agricultural Research
Council: The University of California, USA.
NegiCS.2010.Traditionalcultureandbiodiversityconservation:Examplesfrom
Uttarakhand, Central Himalaya. Mountain Research and Development 30:
259–265.
Niedrist G, Tasser E, Lu¨th C, Dalla Via J, Tappeiner U. 2009. Plant diversity
declines with recent land use changes in European Alps. Plant Ecology 202:
195–210.
Niemi GJ, McDonald ME. 2004. Application of ecological indicators. Annual
Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35: 89–111.
Noroozi J, Akhani H, Breckle S. 2008. Biodiversity and phytogeography of the
alpine flora of Iran. Biodiversity and Conservation 17: 493–521.
Nowak A, Nowak S, Nobis M. 2011. Distribution patterns, ecological character-
istic and conservation status of endemic plants of Tadzhikistan – A global
hotspot of diversity. Journal for Nature Conservation 19: 296–305.
Odum EP, Odum HT. 1972. Natural areas as necessary components of
man’s total environment. Transactions of the 37th North American
Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, March 12–15 1972, Wildlife
Management, 178–189.
Oommen MA, Shanker K. 2005. Elevational species richness patterns emerge
from multiple local mechanisms in Himalayan woody plants. Ecology 86:
3039–3047.
Pandey A, Pandey R, Negi KS, Radhamani J. 2008. Realizing value of genetic
resources of Allium in India. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 55:
985–994.
Pant S, Samant SS. 2006. Diversity, distribution, uses and conservation status of
plant species of the Mornaula Reserve Forests, West Himalaya, India.
International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 2: 97–104.
ParodyJM,CuthbertFJ,DeckerEH.2001.Theeffectof50years oflandscape
change on species richness and community composition. Global Ecology
and Biogeography 10: 305–313.
Parolly G. 2004. The high mountain vegetation of Turkey – A state of the art
report, including a first annotated conspectus of the major syntaxa.
Turkish Journal of Botany 28: 39–63.
Pei SJ. 1998. Biodiversity conservation in the mountain development of Hindu
Kush-Himalayas. In: Chou C, KTS H. eds. Frontiers in biology; the chal-
lenge of biodiversity, biotechnology and sustainable agriculture. Taipei:
Academica Sinica, 223–234.
Pereira E, Queiroz C, Pereira HM, Vicente L. 2005. Ecosystem services and
human well-being: a participatory study in a mountain community in
Portugal. Ecology and Society 10: 14.
Perveen A, Hussain MI. 2007. Plant biodiversity and phytosociological attri-
butes of Gorakh hill (Khirthar range). Pakistan Journal of Botany 39:
691–698.
Phartiyal B, Sharma A, Upadhyay R, Ram-Awatar A, Sinha AK. 2005.
Quaternary geology, tectonics and distribution of palaeo- and present
fluvio/glacio lacustrine deposits in Ladakh, NW Indian Himalaya – A
study based on field observations. Geomorphology 65: 241–256.
Phillips O, Gentry AH, Reynel C, Wilkin P, Galvez-Durand BC. 1994.
Quantitative ethnobotany and Amazonian conservation. Conservation
Biology 8: 225–248.
Pieroni A, Giusti ME. 2009. Alpine ethnobotany in Italy: traditional knowledge
of gastronomic and medicinal plants among the Occitans of the upper
Varaita valley, Piedmont. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
5: 32.
PieroniA,HoulihanL,AnsariN,HussainB,AslamS.2007.Medicinalpercep-
tions of vegetables traditionally consumed by South-Asian migrants living
in Bradford, Northern England. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 113:
100–110.
Pinke G, Pa´l R. 2008. Phytosociological and conservational study of the arable
weed communities in western Hungary. Plant Biosystems 142: 491–508.
PodaniJ.2006.Braun-Blanquet’slegacyanddataanalysisinvegetationscience.
Qureshi RA, Ahmad S, Khan AG. 2006. Hierarchical cluster analysis of
Saussurea DC. (Compositae) of Pakistan based on morphological charac-
ters. International Journal of Botany 2: 319–323.
Qureshi RA, Ghafar SA, Ghufran MA. 2007a. Ethnobotanical studies of eco-
nomically important plants of Gilgit and surrounding areas, Pakistan.
Pakistan Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research 50: 60–67.
Qureshi RA, Ghufran MA, Sultana KN, Ashraf M, Khan AG. 2007b.
Ethnobotanical studies of medicinal plants of Gilgit District and surround-
ing areas. Ethnobotany Research and Applications 5: 115–122.
RadcliffeJE.1982.Effectsofaspectandtopographyonpastureproductioninhill
country. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 25: 485–496.
Ragupathy S, Steven NG, Maruthakkutti M, Velusamy B, Ul-Huda MM.
2008. Consensus of the ‘Malasars’ traditional aboriginal knowledge of me-
dicinal plants in the Velliangiri holy hills, India. Journal of Ethnobiology
and Ethnomedicine 4: 8
Rana MS, Samant SS. 2009. Prioritization of habitats and communities for con-
servation in the Indian Himalayan region: A state-of-the-art approach from
Manali Wildlife Sanctuary. Current Science 97: 326–335.
Rana VK, Rawat N, Chaturvedi AK, Nautiyal BP, Prasad P, Nautiyal MC.
2009. An exploration on the phenology of different growth forms of an
alpine expanse of North-West Himalaya, India. New York Science Journal
2: 29–41.
Rasul G. 2010. The role of the Himalayan mountain systems in food securityand
agricultural sustainability in South Asia. International Journal of Rural
Management 6: 95–116.
Ren H, Niu S, Zhang L, Ma K. 2006. Distribution of vascular plant species rich-
ness along an elevational gradient in the Dongling Mountains, Beijing,
China. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 48: 153–160.
Rieley J, Page S. 1990. Ecology of plant communities. Harlow: Longman.
Robbers JE, Speedie MK, Tyler VE. 1996. Pharmacognosyand pharmacobio-
technology. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.
Rodwell JS. 1991–2000. British plant communities. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Rossato SC, Leitaõ-Filho HDF, Begossi A. 1999. Ethnobotany of Caicaras of
the Atlantic Forest coast (Brazil). Economic Botany 53: 387–395.
Roy PS, Behera MD. 2005. Assessment of biological richness in different alti-
tudinal zones in the Eastern Himalayas, Arunachal Pradesh, India.
Current Science 88: 250–257.
Ruiz D, Moreno HA, Gutie´rrez ME, Zapata PA. 2008. Changing climate and
endangered high mountain ecosystems in Colombia. Science of the Total
Environment 398: 122–132.
Saima S, Dasti AA, Hussain F, Wazir SM, Malik SA. 2009. Floristic composi-
tions along an 18 – km long transect in ayubia National Park district
Abbottabad, Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Botany 41: 2115–2127.
Samant SS, Dhar U. 1997. Diversity, endemism and economic potential of wild
edible plants of Indian Himalaya. International Journal of Sustainable
Development and World Ecology 4: 179–191.
Sandwith T. 2003. Overcoming barriers: conservation and development in the
Maloti-Drakensberg Mountains of Southern Africa. Journal of
Sustainable Forestry 17: 149–169.
Scha¨fer RB. 2011. Biodiversity, ecosystem functions and services in environ-
mental risk assessment: Introduction to the special issue. Science of the
Total Environment 415: 1–2.
Shaheen H, Khan SM, Harper DM, Ullah Z, Allem Qureshi R. 2011. Species
diversity, community structure, and distribution patterns in western
Himalayan alpine pastures of Kashmir, Pakistan. Mountain Research and
Development 31: 153–159.
Shaheen H, Ullah Z, Khan SM, Harper DM. 2012. Species composition and
community structure of western Himalayan moist temperate forests in
Kashmir. Forest Ecology and Management 278: 138–145.

Sharma E, Tse-ring K, Chettri N, Shrestha A. 2008. Biodiversity in the
Himalayas–trends, perception and impacts of climate change. In: Sharma
E. ed. Proceedings of the International Mountain Biodiversity Conference
Kathmandu, November 16–18 2008. International Centre for Integrated
Mountain Development, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Sharma E, Chettri N, Oli KP. 2010. Mountain biodiversity conservation and
management: a paradigm shift in policies and practices in the Hindu
Kush-Himalayas. Ecological Research 25: 909–923.
Sherrouse BC, Clement JM, Semmens DJ. 2010. A GIS application for asses-
sing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services.
Applied Geography 31: 748–760.
ShresthaMR,RokayaMB,GhimireSK.2006.AchecklistofTrans-Himalayan
dicotfloraofDolpoanditssurroundingregioninNorthwestNepal.Scientific
World 4: 84.
Shrestha TB, Joshi RM. 1996. Rare, endemic and endangered plants of Nepal.
WWF.
Siddiqui MF, Ahmed M, Wahab M, et al. 2009. Phytosociology of Pinus
roxburghii Sargent. (Chir pine) in Lesser Himalayan and Hindu Kush
range of Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Botany 41: 2357–2369.
Singh A, Samant SS. 2010. Conservation prioritization of habitats and
forest communities in the Lahaul Valley of proposed cold desert biosphere
reserve, north western Himalaya, India. Applied Ecology and
Environmental Research 8: 101–117.
Singh SP. 2002. Balancing the approaches of environmental conservation by
considering ecosystem services as well as biodiversity. Current Science
82: 1331–1335.
SrivastavaDS,VellendM.2005.Biodiversity-ecosystemfunctionresearch:Isit
relevant to conservation? Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and
Systematics 36: 267–294.
Takahashi K, Hirosawa T, Morishima R. 2012. How the timberline formed:
Altitudinal changes in stand structure and dynamics around the timberline
in central Japan. Annals of Botany 109: 1165–1174.
Takhtadzhian AL, Cronquist A. 1986. Floristic regions of theworld. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
TangR, GavinMC.2010.Traditionalecologicalknowledgeinformingresource
management: Saxoul conservation in inner Mongolia, China. Society and
Natural Resources 23: 193–206.
Tansley AG. 1935. The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms.
Ecology 16: 284–307.
Tarrasoń D, Urrutia JT, Ravera F, Herrera E, Andre´s P, Espelta JM. 2010.
Conservation status of tropical dry forest remnants in Nicaragua: Do eco-
logical indicators and social perception tally? Biodiversity and
Conservation 19: 813–827.
Teklehaymanot T, Giday M. 2010. Quantitative ethnobotany of medicinal
plants used by Kara and Kwego semi-pastoralist people in lower Omo
River Valley, Debub Omo Zone, Southern Nations, Nationalities and
Peoples Regional State, Ethiopia. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 130:
76–84.
ten Brink DJ, Hendriksma HP, Bruun HH. 2013. Habitat specialization
through germination cueing: a comparative study of herbs from forests
and open habitats. Annals of Botany 111: 283–292
ter Braak CJF. 1987. The analysis of vegetation-environment relationships by
canonical correspondence analysis. Vegetatio 69: 69–77.
ter Braak CJF. 1989. CANOCO – an extension of DECORANA to analyze
species-environment relationships. Hydrobiologia 184: 169–170.
ter Braak CJF, Smilauer P. 2002. CANOCO reference manual and user’s guide
to Canoco for Windows: Software for Canonical Community Ordination,
version 4.5.
Thomas E, Vandebroek I, Van Damme P. 2007. What works in the field? A
comparison of different interviewing methods in ethnobotany with special
reference to the use of photographs. Economic Botany 61: 376–384.
Thomas E, Vandebroek I, Van Damme P, et al. 2009. The relation between ac-
cessibility, diversity and indigenous valuation of vegetation in the Bolivian
Andes. Journal of Arid Environments 73: 854–861.
Thompson DBA, Brown A. 1992. Biodiversity in montane Britain: habitat vari-
ation, vegetation diversity and some objectives for conservation.
Biodiversity and Conservation 1: 179–208.
Thuiller W. 2007. Biodiversity: climate change and the ecologist. Nature 448:
550–552.
Tu¨xen R, Whittaker RH. 2010. Handbook of vegetation science. The Hague:
Junk.
UniyalSK,KumarA,LalB,SinghRD.2006.Quantitativeassessmentandtrad-
itional uses of high value medicinal plants in Chhota Bhangal area of
Himachal Pradesh, western Himalaya. Current Science 91: 1238–1242.
Vacˇka´rˇ D, ten Brink B, Loh J, Baillie JEM, Reyers B. 2012. Review of multi-
species indices for monitoring human impacts on biodiversity. Ecological
Indicators 17: 58–67.
Valley HP. 2003. Upward shift of Himalayan pine in western Himalaya, India.
Current Science 85: 1135.
Vetaas OR, Grytnes J. 2002. Distribution of vascular plant species richness and
endemic richness along the Himalayan elevation gradient in Nepal. Global
Ecology and Biogeography 11: 291–301.
Wallace KJ. 2007. Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions.
Biological Conservation 139: 235–246.
Walther GR, Beibner S, Burga CA. 2009. Trends in the upward shift of alpine
plants. Journal of Vegetation Science 16: 541–548.
Wazir SM, Dasti AA, Saima S, Shah J, Hussain F. 2008. Multivariate analysis
of vegetation of Chapursan valley: An alpine meadow in Pakistan. Pakistan
Weaver JE, Clements FE. 1938, 1996. Plant ecology, 2nd edn. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Whittaker RJ, Willis KJ, Field R. 2001. Scale and species richness: towards a
general, hierarchical theory of species diversity. Journal of Biogeography
28: 453–470.
Xiang F, Wang C-, Zhu L. 2002. Cenozoic molasse at the south edge of the
Qinghai-Tibetan plateau. Journal of the Chengdu Institute of Technology
29: 515–520.
Xu J, Grumbine RE, Shrestha A, et al. 2009. The melting Himalayas:
Cascading effects of climate change on water, biodiversity, and livelihoods.
Conservation Biology 23: 520–530.
Zou D, He Y, Lin Q, Cui G. 2007. Evaluation of the level of threat and protective
classification of the vegetation of Makehe Forest in Sanjiangyuan Nature
Reserve, west China. Frontiers of Forestry in China 2: 179–184.
APPENDIX
Species of conservation priority from a case study in one
Himalayan valley (Khan, 2012) based on their residual values
(descending order), % constancy, perception of abundance
(trend mentioned by indigenous people), IUCN criteria at re-
gional level and data on endemism or other level of threat from
the published literature.

APPENDIX
Species
no. Name IV
Residual
value
%
Constancy Trend
IUCN criteria applied
to our results
Endemic and Threatened status (IUCN)
at regional and global level (from
published literature)
1 Abies pindrow Royle 3027 14.038 16 D NT
2 Acantholimon
lycopodioides Boiss.
154 –14.114 2 NC VU A4cd; B2bc(i,ii,iv); C1 + 2ab
3 Acer caesium Wall ex
Brandis
49 7.538 1.6 D CR A3cd + 4cd; B2b(iii,v)c(i,ii,iv);
C1 + 2ab; D
Vulnerable in the Himalaya
4 Achillea millefolium L. 364 –5.419 16.6 NC LC
5 Aconitum heterophyllum
Wall.
58 –6.4 3.4 D EN A3cd + 4 cd; C1 + 2ab; D; E Endemic to the Himalaya and Hindu
Kush /Vulnerable species of Pakistan
6 Aconitum violaceum
Jacquen ex. Stapf
154 –5.977 8.4 D VU A4cd; B2bc(i,ii,iv); C1 + 2ab; D Endemic to the Himalaya also
Vulnerable (Kumar et al., 2011)
7 Actaea spicata L. 33 –8.362 1.4 D NT
8 Adiantum venustum
D. Don
108 –4.828 9.2 NC LC
9 Aesculus indica (Wall.
Ex Camb) Hook.
11 5.774 0.6 D CR A3cd +4cd; C1 + 2ab; D
10 Alliaria petiolata (M.
Bieb.) Cavara and
Grande
13 3.942 1.2 D CR A3cd +4cd; C1 + 2ab; D
11 Allium humile Kunth. 155 –12.238 6.8 D NT Endemic to the Himalaya (Samant and
Dhar, 1997; Pandey et al., 2008)
12 Alopecurus arundinaceus
Poir.
194 4.637 6 D LC
13 Anaphalis triplinervis
(Sims) C. B. Clarke
132 4.023 6.2 D NT
14 Androsace hazarica R.R.
Stewart ex Y. Nasir
62 –11.543 4.6 D CR A4cd; B2bc(i,ii,iv); C1 + 2ab; E Endemic to Pakistan (Ali et al., 1972–
2009)
15 Androsace primuloides
Duby
133 –11.984 5 D CR A3cd + 4; B2b(iii,v)c(i,ii,iv);
C1 + 2a; E
Endemic to the Himalaya and Hindu
Kush
16 Androsace rotundifolia
Watt
456 –10.121 26.8 D LC
17 Anemone falconeri
Thoms.
155 –10.12 9.6 D EN A3cd + 4cd; B2b(iii,v)c(i,ii,iv);
C1 + 2a; D; E
Kush (Ali et al., 1972–2009)
18 Anemone obtusiloba
D.Don
143 –8.046 9.2 D NT Endemic to the Himalayas, Hindu Kush
and Karakorum (Shrestha et al., 2006;
Rana and Samant, 2009)
19 Anemone rupicola
Cambess
227 –12.307 8.2 D NT
20 Anemone tetrasepala
Royle
304 –11.046 10.6 D NT Endemic to the Himalayas and Hindu
Kush (Rana and Samant, 2009)
21 Angelica glauca Edgew. 167 –4.195 6 D EN A3cd + 4cd; B2b(iii,v)c(i,ii,iv);
C1 + 2; D; E
Kush (Samant and Dhar, 1997; Rana
and Samant, 2009)
22 Apluda mutica (L.) Hack 188 –10.325 8.6 D LC
23 Aquiligea fragrans
Benth.
29 –9.337 1.2 D CR A3cd + 4cd; B2b(iii)c(i,iv);
C1 + 2; D
Kush (Ali et al., 1972–2009)
24 Arnebia benthamii
Wallich ex. G. Done
107 –12.71 6 D CR A3cd + 4cd; B2b(iii,v)c(i,ii,iii,iv);
C1 + 2ab; D
Endemic to the Himalaya/Critically
Endangered in the Himalaya (Shrestha
et al., 2006; Kumar et al., 2011)
25 Artemisia brevifolia L. 4385 –18.552 40.2 I LC
26 Artemisia vulgaris L. 381 –8.524 6.4 NC LC
27 Asparagus racemosus
Willd.
36 5.619 3.8 D CR A3cd + 4cd; B2b(iii,v)c(i,ii);
C1 + 2; D; E
28 Asperula oppositifolia
Reg. and Schmalh.
125 –12.934 4.8 D NT
29 Asplenium
adiantum-nigrum
18 –12.269 0.6 D NT
30 Aster falconeri
(C. B. Clarke) Hutch
243 –13.667 11.6 NC NT Endemic to the Himalaya and Hindu
Kush (Shrestha et al., 2006; Rana and
Samant, 2009)
31 Astragalus anisocanthus
Boiss.
271 –4.841 12.8 NC LC
32 Astragalus scorpiurus
Bunge
296 –13.996 13.4 D LC
Continued

APPENDIX Continued
Species
no. Name IV
Residual
value
%
Constancy Trend
to our results
33 Berberis
pseudoumbellata Parker
979 14.761 14.8 NC VU A3cd + 4; C1 + 2ab; D Near Endemic to the Himalaya (Samant
and Dhar, 1997; Singh and Samant,
2010)
34 Bergenia ciliata (Haw.)
Sternb.
45 –6.437 2.6 D VU A3 + 4cd; C1; D1 Endemic to the Himalaya (Shaheen
et al., 2011)
35 Bergenia strachyei
(Hook. f. and Thoms)
Engl
958 –9.183 17.4 I LC Nearly endemic to the Himalayas and
Hindu Kush also Vulnerable in the
Himalaya (Ali et al., 1972–2009; Singh
and Samant, 2010; Kumar et al., 2011)
36 Betula utilis D. Don 2635 9.312 8.4 D CR A3cd + 4;
B2b(i,ii,iii,iv,v)c(i,ii,iv);C1 + 2a; D; E
Endangered species in the Himalaya
and Hindu Kush (Ali et al., 1972–
2009)
37 Bistorta afﬁnis (D.Don)
Green
788 7.829 25.2 I LC Endemic to the Himalayas, Hindu Kush
Rana and Samant, 2009)
38 Bistorta amplexicaulis
(D. Don)
180 13.625 11.4 NC NT Endemic to the Himalaya and Hindu
Kush (Rana and Samant, 2009)/
Endangered species of the Pakistan
39 Bromus hordeaceus L. 279 3.109 11.8 NC LC
40 Caltha alba Jack. Ex
Comb
182 17.712 10.4 D NT
41 Capsella bursa-pastoris
(L.) Medic.
86 4.308 5.6 NC LC
42 Cassiope fastigiata
(Wallich) D. Done
C1 + 2ab; D;
Endemic to the Himalayas, Hindu Kush
and Karakorum (Shrestha et al., 2006)
43 Cedrus deodara (Roxb.
Ex Lamb.) G. Don
663 24.724 7.2 D CR A3cd + 4cd; B2b(iii,v)c(i,ii,iv); C1 Endemic to the Himalaya and Hindu
Kush; National tree of the Pakistan
(Takhtadzhian and Cronquist, 1986;
Ali, 2008; Singh and Samant, 2010)
44 Cerastium fontanum
Baumg.
667 –7.338 21.8 NC LC
45 Chenopodium album L. 196 18.625 6.8 NC LC
46 Clematis montana
Buch.-Ham. ex DC
110 –0.841 5.6 D NT
47 Colchicum luteum
Baker
261 3.221 9 NC EN A3cd + 4cd; B2b(iii,v)c(i,ii,iv); C1 Endangered species of Pakistan (Ali
et al., 1972–2009)
48 Convolulus arvensis L. 57 0.489 3.2 NC VU A3 + 4; C1 + 2a; E
49 Corydalis diphylla Wall. 194 –3.363 9.4 NC LC
50 Corydalis govaniana
Wall.
C1 + 2ab; D;
Endemic to the Himalayas of Pakistan
(Ali et al., 1972–2009; Rana and
Samant, 2009; Kumar et al., 2011)
51 Cotoneaster
cashmiriensis G.Klotz
79 –12.648 3.4 D VU A3cd + 4;
B2b(i,ii,iii,iv,v)c(i,ii,iii,iv); C1 + 2ab;
D1; E
52 Cotoneaster microphyllus
Wall. ex Lindl
291 9.035 12 D VU A3cd + 4; C1; D
53 Crataegus oxycantha L. 10 –1.269 0.8 D CR A3cd + 4; C1 + 2; D; E
54 Cynoglossum
glochidiatum Wall. Ex
Benth
792 3.873 36.2 NC LC
55 Cynoglossum himaltoni 261 –0.915 12.8 D LC
56 Cynoglossum
lanceolatum L.
7 –3.201 0.8 NC LC
57 Cyperus niveous 379 –14.512 16.6 D LC
58 Cypripedium
cordigerum D. Don
34 –5.369 3.2 D CR A4cd; B2bc(i,ii,iv); C1 + 2ab; D Endemic to the Himalaya (Ali et al.,
1972–2009)/Endangered/on CITES list
59 Dactylis glomerata L. 361 6.6 13.2 NC LC
60 Dactylorhiza hatagirea
(D. Don) Soo
29 –9.337 3.4 D CR A3cd + 4;
B2b(i,ii,iii,iv,v)c(i,ii,iii,iv); C1; E
Kush/Critically Endangered (Singh and
Samant, 2010; Kumar et al., 2011)
61 Dioscoria deltoidia Wall. 30 –4.344 3.6 D CR A3cd + 4; B2b(iii,v)c(i,ii,iv);
C1 + 2; D; E
Vulnerable/on CITES list
62 Draba oreads Schrenk 85 –2.685 6.6 NC LC
Continued

APPENDIX Continued
Species
no. Name IV
Residual
value
%
Constancy Trend
to our results
63 Dracocephalum nutans
L.
115 –4.872 4.6 D NT
64 Dryopteris juxtapostia
Christ
147 14.929 7 D NT
65 Dryopteris stewartii
Fras.-Jenk.
791 –6.195 25.4 I LC Endemic to Pakistan (Ali et al., 1972–
2009)
66 Eclipta prostrata L. 49 –12.462 4.8 NC LC
67 Ephedra gerardiana
Wall. Ex Stapf
604 –0.91 8.2 D EN A3 + 4cd; C1 + 2ab; D; E Endangered species of Pakistan
68 Epilobium angustifolium
L.
40 3.594 3.2 D VU A4cd; B2bc(i,ii,iv); C1 + 2ab; D
69 Equisetum arvense L. 84 –6.679 5.4 NC LC
70 Eragrostis cilianensis
(All.) Lut. ex F.T.
Hubbard
109 0.166 4.8 NC VU A4cd; B2bc(i,ii,iv); C1 + 2ab
71 Eremurus himalaicus
Baker
794 7.792 20.4 I LC Endemic to the western Himalaya (Ali
et al., 1972–2009)
72 Erigeron multiradiatus
(Lindl. Ex DC)
C. B. Clarke
48 7.544 2.6 D EN A3cd + 4; C1 + 2; D; E
73 Erysimum melicentae
Dunn.
57 –4.511 5 NC VU A3cd + 4;
D1
Endemic to the Himalaya and the
Hindu Kush (Nasir and Ali, 1971–
1998; Shrestha et al., 2006)
74 Euphorbia wallichii
Hook. f.
165 7.818 7.2 NC CR A3 + 4cd; C1 + 2ab; D
75 Euphrasia himalayica
Wetts.
328 –2.195 16.4 D NT Endemic to the Himalaya and Hindu
Kush (Shrestha et al., 2006)
76 Fragaria nubicola Lindl.
Ex Lacaita
1629 9.481 55.6 I LC
77 Fritillaria roylei Hook. f. 24 –9.306 1.4 D CR A3 + 4cd;
D
Kush/also rare and Critically
Endangered (Ali et al., 1972–2009)
78 Gagea elegans Wall. Ex
D. Don
214 –13.487 9.2 D NT
79 Galium aparine L. 206 11.563 6 NC LC
80 Galium asperuloides 230 –3.586 7.6 NC LC Endemic to the Himalayas and Hindu
Kush (Singh and Samant, 2010)
81 Gentiana carinata Griseb 421 –6.773 14.4 NC LC
82 Gentiana kurro Royle 70 –9.592 3.4 D CR A4cd; B2bc(i,ii,iv); C1 + 2ab; D Endemic to the Himalaya and Hindu
Kush/Endangered (Ali et al., 1972–
2009)
83 Gentiana moorcroftiana
(Wallich ex G. Don)
Airy Shaw
201 1.594 9.4 D VU A3cd + 4;
D1; E
Kush (Ali et al., 1972–2009)
84 Gentianodes argentia
Omer, Ali and Qaiser
115 0.128 4.2 D EN A3 + 4cd;
B2b(i,ii,iii,iv,v)c(i,ii,iii,iv); C1 + 2; D
Endemic to Pakistan (Ali et al.,
1972–2009)
85 Geranium nepalense
Sweet.
86 –6.692 3.4 D VU A3cd + 4; B2b(i,ii,iv,v)c(i,ii,iii,iv);
C1 + 2ab; D1
86 Geranium polyanthes
Edgew and Hook. F
188 –4.356 10.4 D LC
87 Geranium wallichianum
D. Don ex. Sweet
154 18.886 9.2 D EN A3 + 4cd;
B2b(i,ii,iii,iv,v)c(i,ii,iii,iv); C1 + 2ab
Kush (Ali et al., 1972–2009)/
Vulnerable species of Pakistan
88 Geum elatum Wall. Ex
G. Don
74 –12.617 4.8 D VU A3 + 4; D; E Endemic to the Himalaya (Shrestha
et al., 2006; Rana and Samant, 2009;
Kumar et al., 2011)
89 Gnaphalium afﬁne
D. Don
453 –15.09 19.2 NC LC
90 Gratiola ofﬁcinalis L. 9 0.787 1.4 D EN A3 + 4; C1; D; E
91 Hackelia uncinata (Royle
ex Benth) Fischer
462 5.923 24.8 NC LC
92 Heracleum candicans
Wall. ex DC.
28 7.669 3.4 D CR A3cd + 4; B2b(iv,v)c(i,ii,iv);
C1 + 2ab; D
Kush (Nasir and Ali, 1971–1998; Pant
and Samant, 2006)
Continued

APPENDIX Continued
Species
no. Name IV
Residual
value
%
Constancy Trend
to our results
93 Hyoscyamus niger L. 15 –9.251 0.8 D CR A3cd + 4; C1; E Near Threatened/Alien (Nasir and Ali,
1971–1998)
94 Hypericum perforatum L. 242 16.339 12.6 D EN A3 + 4; C1; D; E
95 Impatiens bicolor Royle 480 3.134 28.8 D LC
96 Impatiens edgeworthii
Hook.f.
114 14.861 6 NC LC
97 Indigofera heterantha
Wall. Ex Brand
17 8.737 0.8 D CR A3 + 4cd; B2b(i,v)c(i); C1; D; E
98 Inula grandiﬂora Willd. 31 –6.35 0.6 D CR A3 + 4cd;
B2b(i,ii,iii,iv,v)c(i,ii,iii,iv); C1; D; E
Near Threatened in Himalayas (Nasir
and Ali, 1971–1998)
99 Inula multiradiata 30 –12.344 0.8 D NT
100 Iris hookeriana Foster 1574 –14.979 30.8 NC NT Endemic to the Himalaya and Hindu
Kush/Vulnerable species of the
Pakistan (Ali et al., 1972–2009)
101 Juglans regia L. 214 28.513 2.2 D CR A3cd + 4cd;
102 Juncus membranaceus
Royle ex D. Don
198 7.613 4.2 NC LC
103 Juniperus communis L. 5505 –6.477 38.8 D LC
104 Juniperus excelsa
M. Bieb
1063 5.935 21.4 D NT
105 Juniperus squamata
Buch.-Ham. ex D. Don
1399 –14.848 11 D VU A4cd; B2bc(i,ii,iv); C1 + 2ab Native to the Himalaya and Karakorum
106 Lathyrus pratensis L. 14 8.756 2 D LC Alien (indigenous to Europe)
107 Leucus cephalotes (Roth)
Spreng.
63 2.451 2.2 D VU A3 + 4; C1; E
108 Malva neglecta Wallr 669 22.649 38.2 NC LC
109 Mentha longifolia (L.)
Hudson.
81 –2.661 2 I LC
110 Mentha royleana Benth.
in Wall.
10 –4.219 0.8 NC EN A3 + 4; C1; D; E
111 Minuartia kashmirica
(Edgew) Mattf
109 –8.834 5.2 NC LC Native to the Himalaya and Karakorum
(Ali et al., 1972–2009)
112 Morina longifolia Wall.
ex. Dcs
36 –12.381 1.8 NC LC
113 Nepeta laevigata
(D. Done) Hand.-Mazz
114 4.06 5.8 D EN A3 + 4cd;
B2b(i,ii,iii,iv,v)c(i,ii,iii,iv); D; E
Native to the Himalaya and Karakorum
(Ali et al., 1972–2009)
114 Onopordum acanthium
L.
469 –16.071 32.2 I LC
115 Onosma bracteatum
Wall.
134 7.01 7.2 D NT Endemic to the Himalayas (Shrestha
et al., 2006)
116 Origanum vulgare L. 163 25.83 11.2 NC LC
117 Orobanche alba Stephen
ex Wallid
24 –1.325 1.4 D CR A3cd + 4cd;
B2b(i,ii,iii,v,v)c(i,ii,iii); C1 + 2ab
118 Oxyria digyna L. 383 10.463 18.6 NC LC Alien
119 Oxytropis cachemiriana
Camb.
191 13.656 10 I LC
120 Paeonia emodi Wall. Ex
Royle
17 17.737 1.2 D CR A3cd + 4;
Kush (Samant and Dhar, 1997)/
121 Parnassia nubicola Wall. 100 –5.834 4.4 NC NT Endemic to the Himalayas (Pant and
Samant, 2006; Shrestha et al., 2006)
122 Pedicularis pictinata
Wall. ex. Benth
112 3.147 2.8 D CR A3 + 4cd; B2b(i,ii,iii)c(i,iv);
C1 + 2; D; E
Endemic to the Himalaya (Kumar et al.,
2011)
123 Pennisetum lanatum
Klotzsch
84 3.321 3.4 D NT
124 Phleum alpinum L. 63 9.451 4 NC LC
125 Phlomis bracteosa Royle
ex Benth.
60 8.47 2 D LC Endemic to the Himalayas, Hindu Kush
Singh and Samant, 2010)
126 Picea smithiana (Wall.)
Boiss.
287 1.06 6.6 D EN A3cd + 4;
C1 + 2a; E
Endemic to the Himalaya, Hindu Kush
and Karakorum (Takhtadzhian and
Cronquist, 1986; Singh and Samant,
2010)
Continued

APPENDIX Continued
Species
no. Name IV
Residual
value
%
Constancy Trend
to our results
127 Pimpinella acuminata
(Edgew.) C.B. Clarke
20 7.718 2.2 D CR A3cd + 4cd; C1 + 2b; D; E Endemic to the Himalaya (Ali et al.,
1972–2009; Rana and Samant 2009)
128 Pimpinella diversifolia
(Wall.) DC
58 8.482 2.4 D NT
129 Pinus wallichiana
Jackson
2116 5.698 15.6 D VU A3cd + 4; B2b(i,iii,v); C1 + 2ab Endemic to the Himalaya, Hindu Kush
and Karakorum (Takhtadzhian and
Cronquist, 1986; Singh and Samant,
2010)
130 Plantago himalaica
Pilger
92 –3.729 4 D CR A3 + 4cd; B2b(i,ii,iii,iv,v)c(i,ii,iii);
C1 + 2b
Endemic to the Himalayas (Nasir and
Ali, 1971–1998; Pant and Samant,
2006)
131 Plantago lanceolata L. 406 15.32 28 NC LC
132 Plantago major L. 287 16.178 19.6 D EN A3cd + 4;
C1; E
Rare species of Pakistan
133 Poa alpina L. 1593 0.319 40 NC LC
134 Poa annua L. 61 8.464 4.2 NC LC
135 Poa stewartiana Bor in
Kew Bull.
309 6.817 13.8 D LC
136 Podophyllum
hexandrum Royle
72 –3.605 4 D CR A3 + 4cd;
B2b(i,ii,iii,iv,v)c(i,ii,iii,iv); C1 + 2a;
D; E
Critically Endangered/on CITES list;
endemic to the Himalayas, Hindu Kush
and Karakorum (Shrestha et al., 2006)
137 Polygonatum
verticillatum (L.) Allioni
386 –15.835 9.4 D EN A3cd + 4;
B2b(i,ii,iii,iv,v)c(i,ii,iii,iv); C2ab
Vulnerable in Pakistan/on CITES list
138 Polygonum alpinum
(All.) Schur
641 17.861 17 NC LC
139 Polygonum aviculare L. 569 –11.338 14.4 NC LC
140 Polygonum molle
(D.Done) Hara
351 –13.189 10.2 D LC
141 Polygonum plebeium
R. Br
166 27.283 19 NC LC
142 Poplus glauca H. Haines 333 9.774 2.8 NC LC
143 Potentilla anserina L. 567 3.32 22.2 NC LC
144 Potentilla atrosanguinea
Lodd.
216 6.501 8.4 NC NT Endemic to the Himalayas and Hindu
Kush (Rana and Samant, 2009)
145 Potentilla nepalensis
Hook. f.
549 1.376 20.8 NC LC
146 Primula calderana Balf.
F and cooper
82 –4.667 3.6 D VU A3cd + 4;
B2b(i,ii,iii,iv,v)c(i,ii,iii,iv); C1; D1
147 Primula denticulata
Smith
145 7.942 8.4 D EN A4cd; B2bc(i,ii,iv); C1 + 2ab; D; E
148 Primula glomerata Pax. 58 –4.387 3.8 D VU A3 + 4; C1; E Endemic to the Himalaya (Shrestha
et al., 2006)
149 Primula rosea Royle 223 –5.543 10.4 D VU A3cd + 4;
B2b(i,ii,iii,iv,v)c(i,ii,iii); C1 + 2ab;
D1; E
Kush (Ali et al., 1972–2009)
150 Prunella vulgaris L. 71 16.072 4 NC LC
151 Prunus cerosioides
D. Don
124 11.402 0.8 NC CR A3 + 4; C1 + 2b; D; E
152 Pseodomertensia
parvifolia (Decne)
37 1.613 3.2 D VU A3cd + 4; C1; E
153 Pseudomertensia
moltkioides Royle and
Kazmi
85 5.315 4.2 D CR A3cd + 4cd; C1 + 2a; E Endemic to Pakistan (Ali et al., 1972–
2009)
154 Pseudomertensia
nemerosa (D. C)
R. Stewart and Kazmi
79 4.352 3.6 D NT
155 Pteris vittata L. 47 –12.536 5 NC Endemic to the Himalaya (Ali et al.,
1972–2009)
156 Ranunculus hirtellus
Royle ex D. Don
180 –14.276 5 D CR A3cd + 4; C1; E Endemic to the Himalaya (Kumar et al.,
2011)
157 Ranunculus laetus Wall.
Ex Hook.f. and Thoms
80 –13.654 4 D VU A3cd + 4cd; C1 + 2; D; E
158 Ranunculus muricatus L. 73 –13.611 3.4 NC LC
Continued

APPENDIX Continued
Species
no. Name IV
Residual
value
%
Constancy Trend
to our results
159 Rheum australe D.Don 1320 20.406 31.6 NC CR A3cd + 4cd; 2ab; E Endemic species of the Himalayas,
Hindu Kush and Karakorum also
Vulnerable/Near Threatened (Samant
and Dhar, 1997; Shrestha et al., 2006)
160 Rhododendron
hypenanthum Balf.f
946 1.649 3.8 D EN A3cd + 4;
Endemic to the Himalayas, Hindu Kush
Rana and Samant, 2009) Vulnerable/
Near Threatened
161 Ribies alpestre Decne 98 6.234 2.2 D CR A3 + 4cd;
B2b(i,ii,iii,iv,v)c(i,ii,iii,iv); C1 + 2b;
D; E
162 Rosa webbiana Wallich
ex Royle
1943 4.648 28 D LC
163 Rubus sanctus Schreber 72 10.395 1.6 D NT
164 Rumex dentatus L. 632 12.885 42.8 I LC
165 Rumex nepalensis
Sprenge
147 21.929 8 NC NT
166 Salix ﬂabellaris
Andersson in Kung
1100 14.506 13.6 D EN A3cd + 4; B2b(i,ii,iii,iv,v)c(i,iv);
C1 + 2ab; D
Endemic to the Himalaya, Hindu Kush
and Karakorum (Ali et al., 1972–2009)
167 Salvia lanata Roxb. 88 –4.754 3.4 NC NT Alien
168 Salvia moorcroftiana
Wallich ex Benth
103 1.029 6 NC EN A3 + 4cd; C1 + 2; D; E Endemic to the Himalaya and Hindu
Kush (Ali et al., 1972–2009)
169 Sambucus weightiana
Wall. Ex Wight and Arn
4926 –22.759 34.4 I LC
170 Saussurea albescens
Hook. f. and Thoms
59 –12.524 4 NC NT
171 Saussurea fastuosa
(Decne.) Schultz-Bip
29 –2.337 2 D NT
172 Saussurea graminifolia
Wallich ex DC
85 –12.685 4 NC NT
173 Scirpus polygenosa 126 –12.033 5.8 NC LC
174 Sedum album L. 304 –15.133 17 NC LC
175 Sedum awersii Ledeb 195 –14.369 10.4 NC LC
176 Senecio
chrysanthemoides DC
94 –12.741 2.6 NC LC
177 Sibbaldia cuneata
O. Kuntze
1162 –8.221 31.2 NC LC
178 Silene vulgaris Garck 39 –2.4 4.2 D NT
179 Sorbaria tomentosa
(Lindl.) Rehder
730 –12.692 8 D EN A3cd + 4; C1; E
180 Stipa himalaica Rozhev. 72 –12.605 4.8 D LC Endemic to the Himalaya and
Karakorum (Ali et al., 1972–2009)
181 Strobilanthes glutinosus
Nees
59 –6.524 2.2 D VU A3cd + 4;
D1
Endemic to the Himalaya (Ali et al.,
1972–2009)
182 Swertia ciliata (D. Don
ex G. Don) B. L. Burtt
82 11.333 7 NC NT Endemic to the Himalayas and Hindu
Kush (Shrestha et al., 2006)
183 Swertia speciosa D. Don 19 –12.275 1.4 NC NT
184 Sysimbrium irio L. 67 11.426 3.2 D LC
185 Tamarix dioica Roxb. ex
Roch
195 –10.369 3.2 NC LC
186 Taraxacum ofﬁcinale
Weber
689 3.494 52.2 NC LC Alien
187 Thymus linearis Benth. 2333 4.964 64.2 NC LC
188 Trifolium refens L. 357 15.625 16.8 I LC Alien
189 Trillidium govanianum
(Wall. Ex D. Don)
Kunth
48 –6.456 1.8 D EN A3 + 4; C1 + 2; D; E Endemic to the Himalaya (Rana and
Samant, 2009)
190 Tussilago farfara L. 43 6.576 2.2 D EN A3 + 4; C1 + 2; D; E
191 Ulmus wallichiana
Planch.
21 5.712 0.6 D CR A3cd + 4cd;
D
Endemic to the Himalaya (Ali et al.,
1972–2009)
192 Urtica dioica L. 407 9.314 16.4 I LC Alien
Continued

APPENDIX Continued
Species
no. Name IV
Residual
value
%
Constancy Trend
to our results
193 Valeriana pyrolifolia
Decne
185 12.693 10.6 NC LC
194 Verbascum thapsus L. 434 3.109 33.2 NC LC Alien
195 Viburnum cotinifolium
D. Don
163 12.83 6.2 D EN A3 + 4; C1 + 2; D; E Endemic to the Himalaya (Pant and
Samant, 2006; Rana and Samant, 2009;
Singh and Samant, 2010)
196 Viburnum grandiﬂorum
Wall. Ex DC.
79 8.352 1.6 D VU A3 + 4; C1; E
197 Vicia bakeri Ali. 43 –12.424 1.6 D CR A3bcd + 4abcd;
B2b(i,ii,iii,iv,v)c(i,ii,iii,iv); C1 + 2b;
D; E
Endemic to the Himalaya/Pakistan
(Ali et al., 1972–2009)
198 Viola canescens Wall.
Ex Roxb.
1656 8.369 68.4 NC VU A3cd + 4;
Endemic to the Himalayas (Rana and
Samant, 2009) and Vulnerable species
of Pakistan
The importance values (IV) and Constancy refer to the quadrat (phytosociological) data set; social perception (trend) refer to the questionnaires
(ethnobotanical) data set whilst residual values refer to the combined analyses of both the data sets. Bold text indicates endemic species. These are endemics of
the Himalayas, Hindukush and Karakorum.

Sustainable utilization and conservation of plant biodiversity in montane ecosystems: the western Himalayas as a case study

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Sustainable utilization and conservation of plant biodiversity in montane ecosystems: the western Himalayas as a case study (20)

More from Shujaul Mulk Khan (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Sustainable utilization and conservation of plant biodiversity in montane ecosystems: the western Himalayas as a case study