A reconnaissance survey was conducted on the uses and role of invasive alien species (IAS) to local livelihoods in the Chandaka Dampada Wildlife Sanctuary (CDWS) located in Khurdha and cuttack districts of Odisha, India. The Vegetation of the sanctuary was sampled in 100 quadrats, each having 20 m×20 m through a combination of random and systematic sampling. Group discussions were also arranged with one hundred twenty local inhabitants (10 % of the total inhabitants) to document the various uses of IAS. A total of 18 alien plant species belonging to 8 different families, of which Asteraceae constitutes the highest number (7 species), include herbs (5 species), shrubs (1 species) and climbers (1 species). The majority of the identified species were found to be used for medicine, followed by human food, fodder, insecticidal and ornamental purposes. It is true that the alien species have some negative impacts on local ecosystems, but not all of them are harmful. Therefore, assessment and careful documentation on utilization of invasive alien plant species of the sanctuary in terms of economic and social benefit to the local community was done to provide a possible and effective tool for management of IAS.

Keywords: Chandaka Wildlife Sanctuary (CWS), ecosystem, invasion, Invasive Alien Species (IAS), Management

One of the biggest worldwide issues that natural ecosystems face is the invasion of exotic species. Plant invasion of the ecosystem occurs both naturally and with human assistance.¹ In addition to causing the extinction of native species, these species are also responsible for biodiversity loss, global environmental changes, endangering species, and disturbances to ecosystem processes.^2–7 Moreover, managing these invasive species comes with a huge financial expense.⁸ Even though many invasive species are known to exist in India, a comprehensive inventory of the status of such species is still lacking.

Nayar et al.,⁹ 1977 estimated that roughly 18% of the flora in India comprise adventives aliens, of which about 55% are from America, 15% are from Europe and Central Asia, and 30% are from Asia. According to Reddy,¹⁰ there are 173 invasive plant species in 44 families and 117 genera. Studies revealed that Tropical America and Tropical Africa contributed the greatest contributions to India's invasive flora i.e. around 74% and I1%, respectively.¹¹ As long as the public and policymakers are aware of these, the rapidly advancing field of invasion biology and the developing technologies for managing established invasive species and identifying unintentionally introduced invaders can lead to significant progress in the struggle against invasive exotic species.

There are considerable inconsistencies in the definition and application of the term invasive alien species (IAS), and not all of these species are harmful, despite the widespread belief that damaging characteristics of IAS frequently threaten the local biodiversity.¹² Most crops in many locations are imported, as are many of the animals raised for food. Introduced species form the foundation of a few lucrative forest industries. Furthermore, introductions for the biological control of alien pests have frequently led to significant reductions in crop loss and pesticide use. Our agricultural and forestry systems rely heavily on a variety of foreign species.¹³ Harun et al.,¹⁴ from Malayasia recently noted that one of the main IAS of Malayasia and other tropical nations is the dried root of the water hyacinth. This powder can significantly lower the arsenic levels in water and make it safe for human consumption.¹⁵ More than 360 IAS are believed to exist in India.¹⁶ Some of these IAS are invasive, growing either freely or widely farmed across the nation.¹⁷ Among these, the majority of the shrubs and herbs were brought to the nation during the British colonial era for their aesthetic value, while the majority of the timber species were brought in between the late 1980s and the early 1990s to satisfy the nation's quickly expanding need for timber. At the worldwide, national, and regional levels, a number of researches have been done on the ecological and economic effects of IAS.^17–19

Locally Chandaka-Damapara Wildlife Sanctuáry (CDWS) near Bhubaneswar represents the north-eastern limits of Eastern Ghats and is now an isolated forest, which once formed a part of vast Eastern Ghats forest and Central Indian Elephant range has been explored floristically by many workers,^20–23 but till yet no investigation was carried out to document the invasive alien plants in its forest covers. As invasive species has huge ecological impacts and preference over native species in forest ecology, documentation of alien plants in this important sanctuary is necessary. Keeping in view of the above mentioned facts the study attempts to make an inventory of the alien flora, their classification and uses to local livelihoods in and around the sanctuary.

Study area

The Chandaka Dampara Wildlife Sanctuary (CDWS) is a wildlife reserve located in the north western fringe of Bhubaneswar in the Indian state of Odisha. Nestled on Khurda uplands of the Eastern Ghats biotic region, Chandaka forest is spread over 193 square kilometres of rolling table land and small sprawling hillocks of Khurda and Cuttack districts. It was designated as an elephant reserve in December 1982. Geographically, the area lies between 20°12' 30"-20°26 03" N and 85°49'35"-85°34'42" E (Figure 1). The legal boundary of the sanctuary has been duly described by forest block boundaries in the State Govt. notification No. 13482/FFAH, dated 10.06.1988 comprising of reserved forests (7RFs), demarcated protected forests (11 nos. DPFs), revenue lands, private lands and human settlements. Chandaka wildlife sanctuary and its adjoining areas coming under the Chandaka wildlife division is under the administrative jurisdiction of Khurda and Cuttack districts. It includes 47 villages and 7 reserve forests namely Chandaka, Damana, Banapita, Tarkai, Chudanga, Jagannatha Prasad and Bharatpur reserve forest.

Figure 1 Location map of the study area.

The sanctuary experiences a wet tropical monsoon type of climate with three distinct seasons i.e. summer, monsoon and winter. The maximum daily temperature of the study area recorded in May is around 42°C and the minimum temperature recorded in the month of December is around 11°C. Average relative humidity of the study area is generally very high i.e. 77% in the morning and 68% in evening. The sanctuary receives moderate rainfall of about 1500 mm per annum.²² The terrain is generally undulating; the north-west and south-west portions are mostly hilly which is broken by small low hills with moderate to steep slopes. The north east to central portions is relatively flat with undulations.

The sanctuary is a biodiversity hotspot and home to a wide range of flora and fauna. Floristically the sanctuary is characterized by mixed tropical dry deciduous and moist deciduous forests with miscellaneous species dominated by Strychnous nuxvomica, Diospyros sylvatica, Aegle marmelos, Xylia xylocarpa, Pterospermum xylocarpum, Cassia fistula, Shorea robusta, Careya arborea, Syzygium cumini, Pongamia pinnata, Tectona grandis, and Lagerstroemia parviflora. In addition to the diverse group of plant species the animal species of the sanctuary includes 37 species of mammals, 167 species of birds, 33 species of reptiles, 13 species of amphibians and 28 species of fishes.²⁴

The entire area of Chandaka-Damapara Wildlife Sanctuary was divided into smaller units for floristic inventory. The entireSanctuary area was divided into smaller grids, which formed the sampling plots both for qualitative and quantitative assessment of plant biodiversity. In each grid, random quadrats of 20 m × 20 m were laid fixing GPS points for enumeration of all standing trees >30cm girth at breast height (gbh). Saplings, shrubs and climbers/ lianas were enumerated from five 5 m × 5 m plot within each 20 m × 20 m quadrat. Likewise enumerated data on herbaceous species were collected from five small sample plots measuring 1 m × 1 m within each 5 m × 5 m plot. During the field trips, the plants were initially identified by the respondents (community members / local people of the villages inhibited in and around the sanctuary) by vernacular names. Furthermore, 120 numbers of local inhabitants who have long been inhabited in and around the sanctuary area were interviewed to explore their perception regarding utilisation of invasive alien plant species for various purposes as medicine, timber, fodder, etc. In addition to these community consultations, field observations, literature review, group discussions were also taken into consideration to know the utilisation of invasive alien plant species of the sanctuary. To identify the invasive alien plant species of the sanctuary, flora of Haines,²⁵ Gamble and Fischer,²⁶ Saxena and Brahmanm,²⁷ Mooney²⁸ were followed. The nativity of the species was recorded based on the available literature.^10,29–33

A total number of 18 species belonging to 17 genera and 8 families have been recorded as invasive alien plants of the sanctuary. The habit, nativity, and the impact of invasive species on forest and other ecosystems including grassland and scrubland ecosystems of the sanctuary were noticed to prepare a catalogue of invasive alien/exotic plant species (Table 1). Among these, the monocot was represented by a single genus (Cyperus) and a single family (Cyperaceae). However, dicots were represented by 16 genera and 7 families. Among the families of alien species, Asteraceae was the most dominant (7 species) followed by Fabaceae (4 species) and Lamiaceae (2 species). However, rest of the families having one species each (Figure 2). Considering the geographical regions, majority of the aliens (17 species) have their origin from American continent while only one species has its origin from African continent. In view of habit, annuals comprise 61% (11 species) of invasive flora of the sanctuary. Moreover, most of the recorded species of IAS were herbs (78%) followed by shrubs (17%) and climbers (5%); however, not a single species of IAS was recorded under trees (Table 1). The majority of the species were inadvertently brought about by trade, notably the import of grains.

Figure 2 Number of species under different families of IAS.

The study documented seven uses of the identified species in the Chandaka Wildlife Sanctuary based on people’s perception (Figure 3). However, most of the species were found to be of medicinal use. Apart from medicinal uses the other predominant uses of the identified IAS of the sanctuary were found to be used for human food, fodder, insecticidal and ornamental purposes (Figure 3). However, fuel and other uses of IAS of the sanctuary were limited as compared to medicinal, human food, fodder, insecticidal and ornamental uses. Further, from the study it was revealed that forest dependent community used different parts of invasive plants in their day to day practices for different purposes. The uses of invasive plants mentioned by the respondents were mostly consumed after processing such as macerating, squeezing, grinding, blending, soaking or boiling in water, milk, or mustard oil, rubbing or burning. Some are taken raw and some are applied externally. The most plant parts that were used are 46% leaves, followed by 15.4% roots, 12% whole plant, seeds and stem of 11.5% each and 3.8% flower (Fig.4). It is obviously recorded that more than 60% percent of the invasive species were under the consideration of medicinal purposes.

Figure 3 Major uses of IAS in the Chandaka wildlife sanctuary, Odisha.

All the 18 exotic species belonging to eight different families were reported as invasive alien species (IAS) from various literatures.^15,18,34,35 The alien species amounted to 2.75% of 655 wild terrestrial plant species of the sanctuary.²³ Though most of the alien species are invasive and cause a major threat to the local ecosystem, but many of the identified IAS in the locality was introduced to meet the increasing demand for health care, horticulture, farming and ornamental purpose in an immense manner.¹³ Out of 8 IAS families only two families accounts the 61% of the total alien flora. Asteraceae is the dominant alien family having 39% of total alien flora of the sanctuary followed by Fabaceae and Lamiaceae. Our finding about the distribution of families of alien species in CWDS is in accordance with the findings of earlier workers in other parts of India.^36,37 In this catalogue of alien species 5 families are represented by single species while one family has only two species (Table-1). Much more number of IAS in Asteraceae in comparison to other families may be a much higher reproductive capacity than those of other families. This high reproductive potential is achieved by partitioning of reproductive capital into a large number of propagules that are minute, light, and wind dispersed.³⁸ Various other workers have also reported the dominance of Asteraceae among invasive alien species in India^39,40 and in Indian Himalayan region.⁴¹ Family Asteraceae is followed by Fabaceae one among the largest families of alien flora of India and having the potential of nitrogen fixing capacity would be helpful to them in colonizing the empty niches.⁴⁰ Furthermore, most of the recorded species of IAS were herbs (78%) followed by shrubs (17%) and climbers (5%) but not a single species of IAS was recorded under trees (Table 1). Regarding the prevalence of herbaceous plants in the IAS, a number of researches conducted in India and other nations corroborate our findings.^42–44 The presence of herbaceous IAS flora may be due to its easier accessibility in the surrounding areas compared to trees, shrubs, and climbers/lianas (Lulekal et al., 2013). Within the range of IAS in various wildlife sanctuaries in India, which ranged from 4 to 163 species, is the number of IAS recorded in the current study.^45–50

The local population of the sanctuary utilized a variety of IAS plant parts, including leaves, stems, roots, whole plants, seeds, and flowers (Figure 4). The most often used plant parts were the leaves (12 sp.) followed by roots (4 sp.), the entire plant, the seed and stem with 3 sp. each, and the flower (1 sp.) (Figure 4). Leaves and roots were the most favoured plant parts as they contain a high concentration of the bioactive compounds.⁵¹ Based on the findings of the study, it was confirmed that the aerial part of the plant is the most preferred plant part (77.78%) and underground and whole plant are the less preferred plant parts (38.89%). This claim is supported by a scientific study by Hamburger and Hostettmann.⁵² However, wide utilization of roots⁵³ and whole plants⁵⁴ has serious consequences as it could result in the complete destruction of an individual plant species. Leaves, buds and flowers are the soft parts which are the richest sources of volatile compounds.⁵⁵ Numerous researchers have indicated that leaves are mostly used in various parts of India.^{43,44,56–62}

Figure 4 Percentage of IAS parts used for different purposes.

The aggressive colonisation skills of invasive species and their increased adaptability to the new ecosystem they invade make them a bigger threat to native flora. The distinction is that, in contrast to native species, invasive plant species may alter the structure, decomposition, and nutrient content of the soil through their resource acquisition and consumption. Therefore, invasive species seriously impede conservation efforts and have detrimental effects on the products and services that ecosystems provide. However, it becomes clear that invading species have both advantageous and harmful effects. There are conflicts of interest among stakeholders due to the dual cost characteristics of many invasive species. In order to fully utilise the potential of invasive species, possible dangers associated with each species should be recognised and documented, followed by the development of a plan to reduce negative effects on biodiversity and habitat. A suitable marketing channel and the sustained commercial harvesting of useful invasive species that do not harm native species can be crucial in this situation. The local community can participate in this opportunity as buyers, sellers, managers, and workers, giving them the chance to make money and significantly lowering their level of poverty. The findings of the study concluded that a national programme aimed at increasing the inventory, monitoring, and research of invasive plants is necessary in order to differentiate dangerous from harmless plant species, as well as to determine the uses and effects of these species. In addition to proactive government backing and coordinating planning and management efforts with other agencies, stakeholders are required, as is raising local communities understanding of the right use of invasive species. Simultaneously, additional research and phytochemical analyses must to be carried out to fully explore the potential of these plants as pharmaceuticals, and appropriate certification for their traditional medical uses should be established.

The authors would like to thank Forest Officials of Chandaka Dampada Wildlife Sanctuary (CDWS) for providing permission to carry out the work and help rendered during the field visits. We also appreciated the hearty cooperation of the residents of CWS during the time of our field data collection in response to utilization of IAS by them for different purposes.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

None.

1. Vitousek PM, Antonio C, Loope LL, et al. Introduced species: a significant component of human caused global change. New Zealand J of Ecol. 1997;21(1):1–16.
2. Drake JA, Mooney HA, Castri F, et al. Biological invasion: global perspective. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons; 1989.
3. Parker IM, Simberloff D, Londale WM, et al. Impact: toward a framework for understanding the ecological effects of invaders. Biol Invasions. 1999;1:3–19.
4. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, et al. Biotic invasions causes epidemiology, global consequences and control. Ecol Appl. 2000;10(3):689–710.
5. Mooney HA. Invasive alien species: the nature of the problem. In: Mooney HA, Mack RN et al. editors. Invasive Alien Species: A New Synthesis. Washington: Island Press; 2005.
6. Charles H and Duke JS. Impacts of invasive species on ecosystem services. In: Nentwig W, editor. Biological Invasions. Ecological studies, 193. Berlin: Springer Verlag; 2007:217–237.
7. Pejchar L and Mooney HA. Invasive species, ecosystem services and human wellbeing. Trends in Ecol and Evol. 2009;24(9):487–504.
8. Wilgen Van BW, Richardson DM, Le Maitre DC, et al. The economic consequences of alien plant invasions: examples of impacts and approaches to sustainable management in South Africa. Env Dev and Sustain. 2001;3:145–168.
9. Nayar MP. Changing patterns of the Indian flora. Bull of Bot Surv of India. 1977;19(1–4):145–155.
10. Reddy CS, Bagyanarayana G, Reddy KN, et al. Invasion Alien Flora of India: National Biological Information Infrastructure. USA: USGS; 2008.
11. Kohli RK, Batish DR, Singh HP, et al. Status, invasiveness and environmental threats of three tropical American invasive weeds (Parthenium hysterophorus L., Ageratum conyzoides L., Lantana camara L.) in India. Biol Invasions. 2006;8:1501–1510.
12. Wittenberg R and Cock MJW. Invasive Alien Species: A Toolkit of Best Prevention and Management Practices. Wallingford, Oxon, UK: CAB International; 2001.
13. Raghubanshi AS, Rai LC, Gaur JP, et al. Invasive alien species and biodiversity in India. Curr Sci. 2005;88(4):539–440.
14. Harun I, Pushiri H, Amirul-Aiman AJ. Invasive water hyacinth: ecology, impacts and prospects for the rural economy. Plants. 2021;10(8):1613.
15. Mukul SA, Uddin MB and Tito MR. Study on the status and various uses of invasive alien plants species in and around Satchari national park, Sylhet, Bangladesh. Tiger paper. 2006;33(4):28–32.
16. Prajapati J, Singh A, Patil K, et al. An occurrence data set for invasive and naturalized alien plants in India. Ecol. 2022;103(11):e3794.
17. Mushtaq W, Shakeel A, Mehdizadeh M, et al. Impact of plant invasions on local vegetation: an Indian perspective. Biosci Biotech Res Asia. 2019;16(4):763–771.
18. Barua SP, Khan MMH and Reza AHMA. The status of alien invasive species in Bangladesh and their impact on the ecosystems. In: Balakrishna P editor. Alien Invasive Species Report of workshop on Alien Invasive Species. Colombo, Sri Lanka. IUCN Regional Biodiversity Programme of Asia; 2001.
19. Biswas SR, Choudhury JK, Nishat A, et al. Do invasive plants threaten the Sundarbans mangrove forest of Bangladesh? Forest Ecol and Mang. 2007;245(1–3):1–9.
20. Biswal AK, Thatoi HN and Sahu D. Floral diversity in Chandaka wildlife sanctuary, Orissa. J Econ Taxon Bot. 2005;29(2):385–402.
21. Behera KK, Sahoo S and Patra S. Floristic and medicinal uses of some plants of Chandaka denudated forest patches of Bhubaneswar, Orissa, India. Ethnobotanical Leaflets. 2008;12:1043–1053.
22. Mishra RK, Nanda PK, Patra BK, et al. Population structure of dominant tree species in tropical deciduous forest covers of Chandaka Dampara wildlife sanctuary, Odisha, India. Plant Sci Res. 2014;36(1-2):17–26.
23. Sahoo T, Kar SK, Mallick SN, et al. Qualitative and quantitative assessment of plant diversity of Chandaka-Damapara Sanctuary with special emphasis on identification of useful, keystone and threatened species. Plant Sci Res. 2018;40(1-2):7–18.
24. Tiwari SK, Alfred JRB, Dutta SK. Vertebrate Fauna of Chandaka Dampara Wildlife Sanctuary Orissa. Conservation Area Series; ZSI, 2002.  
25. Haines HH. The Botany of Bihar and Orissa, 4 parts. London: Adlard and Sons; 1921-1925.
26. Gamble JS, Fischer CEC. Flora of presidency of Madras, 1-3. London: Adlard and Son; 1915–1935.
27. Saxena HO and Brahmam M. Flora of Orissa, Parts 1-4. Bhubaneswar; Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. and Regional Research Laboratory; 1994–1996.
28. Mooney HF. Supplement to the Botany of Bihar and Orissa. Ranchi: Catholic Press; 1950.
29. Negi PS and Hajra PK. Alien flora of Doon valley, north west Himalaya. Curr Sci. 2007;92(7):968–978.
30. Murphy ST. Alien weed in moist forest zones of India: population characteristics, ecology and implications for impact and management. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Alien Weeds in Moist Tropical Zones: Banes and Benefits. United Kingdom: Kerala Forest Research Institute, India and CABI Bioscience; 2007:20–27.
31. Dogra KS, Sood SK, Dobhal PK, et al. Alien plant invasion and their impact on indigenous species diversity at global scale: a review. J Ecol and the Natl Environ. 2010;2(9):175–186.
32. Mishra AK, Mir SA, Sharma MP, et al. Alien plant species in Delhi flora. Int J of Geol Earth and Environ Sci. 2015;5(2):128–140.
33. Panda T, Mishra N, Pradhan BK, et al. Expansive alien flora of Odisha, India. J Agr Env Intl Dev. 2018;112(1):43–64.
34. Islam MM, Amin ASMR and Sarker SK. National report on alien invasive species of Bangladesh. In: Pallewatta, editors. Invasive Alien Species in South- South East Asia: National Reports and Directory of Resources. Cape Town, South Africa: Global Invasive Species Programme; 2003:7–24.
35. Hossain MK and Pasha MK. Alien invasive plants in Bangladesh and their impacts on the ecosystem. In: Assessment and Management of Alien Species that Threaten Ecosystems, Habitats and Species. Montreal, Canada: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD Technical Series No. 1); 2001:73–75.
36. Khuroo AA, Rashid I, Reshi Z, et al. The alien flora of Kashmir Himalaya. Biol Invasions. 2007;9:269–292.
37. Rao RR and Murugan R. Impact of exotic adventives weeds on native biodiversity in India: implication for conservation. In: Rai LC and Gaur JP editors. Invasive Alien Species and Biodiversity in India. Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University; 2006:93–109.
38. Saxena KG and Ramakrishnan PS. Partitioning of biomass and nutrients in the secondary successional herbaceous population subsequent to slash and burn. Proc Ind Nat Sci Acad. 1982;8:807–818.
39. Singh KP, Shukla AN, Singh JS. State-level inventory of invasive Alien plants, their source regions and use potential. Curr Sci. 2010;99(1):107–114.
40. Chandra Sekar K. Invasive alien plants of Indian Himalayan region: diversity and implication. Am J Plant Sci. 2012;3(2):177–184.
41. Sekar KC. Invasive alien plants of Indian Himalayan region, diversity and implication. Am J Plant Sci. 2012;3:177–184.
42. Giday M, Asfawm Z and Woldum Z. Ethnomedicinal study of plants used in Sheko ethnic group of Ethiopia. J Ethnopharmacol. 2010;132(1):75–85.
43. Bhatia H, Manhas RK and Kumar K, et al. Traditional knowledge on poisonous plants of Udhampur district of Jammu and Kashmir, India. J Ethnopharmacol. 2014;152(1):207–216.
44. Rao PK, Hasan SS, Bhellum BL, et al. Ethnomedicinal plants of Kathua district, J and K, India. J Ethnopharmacol. 2015;171:12–27.
45. Babu S and Leighton DP. The shompen of Greater Nicobar Island, India: between development and disappearance. Policy Matter. 2004;132:198–211.
46. Ramaswami G and Sukumar R. Woody plant seedling distribution under invasive Lantana camara thickets in a dry forest plot in Mudumalai, southern India. J Trop Ecol. 2011;27(4):365–373.
47. Talukdar D and Talukdar T. Inventory of invasive alien plants in Bethuadahari wildlife sanctuary in Nadia district, West Bengal, India. Trop Plant Res. 2016;3(1):120–130.
48. Jayanthi J and Jalal JS. Invasive alien species of the Great Indian Bustard wildlife sanctuary, Maharashtra, India. Indian J For. 2015;38(1):51–56.
49. Misra VK. Invasive alien plants of Palamau tiger reserve, Jharkhand. Indian For. 2020;146(11):385–409.
50. Prakash L and Balasubramanian P. Invasive alien flora of Sathyamangalam tiger reserve in southern Eastern Ghats, India. Indian For. 2018;144(9):857–862.
51. Ullah M, Khan MU, Mahmood A, et al. An ethnobotanical survey of indigenous medicinal plants in Wana district south Waziristan agency, Pakistan. J Ethnopharmacol. 2013;150(3):918–924.
52. Hamburger H and Hostettmann K. The link between phytochemistry and medicine. Phytochem. 1991;30(12):3864–3874.
53. Birhanu A. Use and Conservation of Human Traditional Medicinal Plants in Jabitehaan Wereda, West Gojam. Ethopia: Addis Ababa University; 2002.
54. Ghimire SK, Gimenez O and Pradel R, et al. Demographic variation and population viability in a threatened Himalayan medicinal and aromatic herb Nardostachys grandiflora: matrix modelling of harvesting effects in two contrasting habitats. J Appl Ecol. 2008;45:41–51.
55. Castellani DC. Plant as Medicinais. Viçosa: Agromídia software;1999.
56. Bhushan B and Kumar M. Ethnobotanically important medicinal plants in Kathua district of Billawar Tehsil, J and K, India. J Pharmacog and Phytochem. 2013;2(4):14–21.
57. Huang QQ, Wu JM, Bai YY, et al. Identifying the most noxious invasive plants in China: role of geographical origin, life form and means of introduction. Biod and Cons. 2009;18(2):305–316.
58. Hulme PE, Bacher S, Kenis M, et al. Grasping at the routes of biological invasions: A frame work for integrating pathways into policy. J Appl Ecol. 2008;45(2):403–414. 
59. Karim SMF. Intergenerational Access to Forest Resources: a Compromised Scenario in Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh. Bangladesh. Department of Forestry and Environmental Science, Shahjalal University of science and Technology; 2008. 70 p.
60. Mishra N, Panda T, Mohanty RB, et al. Traditional phytotherapy in Bhadrak district of Odisha, India. Life Sci Leaflets. 2015;60:26–40.
61. Sawarker VB. Lantana camara on wildlife habitats with special reference to the Melaghat tiger reserve. Cheetal. 1984;26:24–38.
62. Saxena KG. Biological invasion in the Indian sub-continent: review of invasion by plants. In: Ramakrishnan PS editor. Ecology of Biological Invasion in the Tropics. New Delhi, India: International Scientific Publications; 1991:53–73.