|
1. Botanical name |
Symplocos paniculata (Thunb). Miq. |
|||||||||
|
2. Synonym(s) |
Symplocos
crataegioides Buch. Ham ex. D.Don |
|||||||||
|
3. Family |
Symplocaceae
|
|||||||||
|
4. Taxonomic status |
Species |
|||||||||
|
5. Vernacular names |
Lodhra;
Lodh (Garhwal), Lodh (Kumaun) |
|||||||||
|
6. Habit |
Large
deciduous shrub / Small tree |
|||||||||
|
7. Habitat |
Temperate
forests |
|||||||||
|
8. Original global distribution |
Pakistan,
India, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar, Tibet, Japan |
|||||||||
|
9. Current regional distribution |
Himachal
Pradesh |
Sub
tropical to lower temperate forests |
||||||||
|
Jammu
& Kashmir |
- |
|||||||||
|
Uttaranchal |
Garhwal,
Kumaun |
|||||||||
|
10. Elevation range (m) |
1,000
to 2,700 |
|||||||||
|
11. Population
Reduction – PR
|
States
|
<
30% |
30
to 49% |
50
to < 80% |
³
80% |
|||||
|
Himachal
Pradesh |
ü |
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jammu
& Kashmir |
ü |
|
|
|
||||||
|
Uttaranchal |
|
ü |
|
|
||||||
|
Data quality |
3
|
|||||||||
|
11 a. Time/Rate (years/generations) |
3
generations |
|||||||||
|
12. Extent of Occurrence –
EOO |
> 20, 000 Km2
|
|||||||||
|
13. Area of Occupancy –
AOO |
> 2, 000 Km2 |
|||||||||
|
14. No. of locations / sub-populations |
Himachal Pradesh |
Jammu
& Kashmir |
Uttaranchal |
|||||||
|
Many |
Many |
Many |
||||||||
|
14 a. Data quality |
2,
3
|
|||||||||
|
15. Threats |
Tp
(Trade for parts), Lf (Loss of habitat) |
|||||||||
|
16. Trade |
Name(s) |
Pathani
Lodh
|
||||||||
|
Level(s) |
Local
ü |
Regional
ü |
National
ü |
Global
|
||||||
|
Parts
traded |
Bark
|
|||||||||
|
Effect
on population |
Not
affected |
|||||||||
|
Data
quality |
2,
3 |
|||||||||
|
17. Other comments |
§
Distribution sparse §
Used as fodder; §
Seeds to extract oil in Bhutan §
Yellow dye obtained form the bark, bark is used to check abortion,
useful in apiculture as bee forage |
|||||||||
|
18. Recent field studies |
§
O.P. Sharma, 1991. J & K State. §
Gaur, 1989 |
|||||||||
|
19. Status |
Himachal Pradesh |
Jammu & Kashmir |
Uttaranchal |
|||||||
|
- CITES
|
- |
|||||||||
|
- Legislation |
- |
|||||||||
|
- Criteria
based on |
- |
- |
VU
(A 2 c, d) |
|||||||
|
- IUCN |
LC |
LC |
VU |
|||||||
|
20. % of global presence |
2 % |
5 % |
5 % |
|||||||
|
21. Existing Conservation measures |
-
|
|||||||||
|
22. Is the presence of taxon
continuous with neighbouring areas ? |
Yes
|
|||||||||
|
23. Are the outside populations
also under similar threats / pressures ? |
Not
known
|
|||||||||
|
24. Recommendations |
Needs
population studies, habitat assessment in Kullu |
|||||||||
|
Research / Management |
- |
|||||||||
|
a) in situ |
- |
|||||||||
|
b) ex situ |
- |
|||||||||
|
i)
Cultivation |
- |
|||||||||
|
ii)
Level of difficulty in propagation / cultivation |
|
|||||||||
|
25. Existing cultivation- |
- |
|||||||||
|
26. Previous assessment |
- |
|||||||||
|
27. Data sources (Including literature) |
·
Paulonin & Stainton - Flowers of himalaya ·
Parker, 1940. - Forest flora of Punjab, Haryana, Delhi |
|||||||||
|
28. Compilers |
P.
Patnaik, Y. K. Sarin (Facilitator), C. M. Seth, Phunchok, O.
P. Sharma (Recorder), D. K. Ved, V. Prabhakaran |
|||||||||
|
29. Reviewers |
R.
D. Gaur, G. S. Rawat, S. Chandola, A. R. Nautiyal, P. P. Bhojvaid, K.
Ravikumar, Utkarsh Ghate, H. B. Naithani, S. S. Samant, V. P. Bhat, M. C.
Nautiyal, S. K. Murti, G. A. Kinhal, R. Vijaya Sankar Rekha Naithani, N.K.
Bhardwaj, Kailash Sharma, R. K. Verma, Vaneet Jishtu, Rajender Kumar, Ranjit
Rawat, N.
S. Chauhan, Vinay Tandon, H. K. Badola |
|||||||||