American Journal of Plant Sciences, 2012, 3, 1632-1639
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2012.311198 Published Online November 2012 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ajps)
The Shola (Tropical Montane Forest)-Grassland
Ecosystem Mosaic of Peninsular India: A Review
Milind Bunyan1, Sougata Bardhan2, Shibu Jose2*
1School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Gainesville, USA; 2The Center for Agroforestry, School of Natural Resources, 203
Anheuser-Busch Natural Resources Building, University of Missouri, Columbia, USA.
Received August 17th, 2012; revised September 24th, 2012; accepted October 10th, 2012
ABSTRACT
Tropical montane forests (alternatively called tropical montane cloud forests or simply cloud forests) represent some of
the most threatened ecosystems globally. Tropical montane forests (TMF) are characterized and defined by the presence
of persistent cloud cover. A significant amount of moisture may be captured through the condensation of cloud-borne
moisture on vegetation distinguishing TMF from other forest types. This review examines the structural, functional and
distributional aspects of the tropical montane forests of peninsular India, locally known as shola, and the associated
grasslands. Our review reveals that small fragments may be dominated by edge effect and lack an “interior” or “core”,
making them susceptible to complete collapse. In addition to their critical role in hydrology and biogeochemistry, the
shola-grassland ecosystem harbor many faunal species of conservation concern. Along with intense anthropogenic
pressure, climate change is also expected to alter the dynamic equilibrium between the forest and grassland, raising
concerns about the long-term sustainability of these ecosystems.
Keywords: Shola Forests; Western Ghats; GIS; Biodiversity; Species Composition; Shola Fragments
1. Introduction
Tropical montane forests (alternatively called tropical
montane cloud forests or simply cloud forests) represent
some of the most threatened ecosystems globally. Tropi-
cal montane forests (TMF) are characterized and defined
by the presence of persistent cloud cover. A significant
amount of moisture may be captured through the con-
densation of cloud-borne moisture on vegetation distin-
guishing TMF from other forest types. Bruijzneel and
Hamilton [1] described five kinds of TMF. Four of these,
i.e. lower montane forest, lower montane cloud forest,
upper montane cloud forest and subalpine cloud forest,
are based on elevation and tree height whereas the last
one an azonal low elevation dwarf cloud forest.
Elevations at which TMF are found, vary with moun-
tain range size and insularity or proximity to coast. Due
to the mass-elevation effect (also known as the Masse-
nerhebung effect), larger mountain ranges permit the
extension of the altitudinal range of plant species. Simi-
larly, higher humidity levels near coastal mountains en-
able the formation of clouds at lower altitudes. On insu-
lar or coastal mountain ranges, TMF has been reported
from elevations as low as 500 m (Bruijzneel and Hamil-
ton, 2000). As elevation increases, tree height in TMF
reduces and leaf thickness and complexity in tree archi-
tecture increases. Other distinctive features of TMF are
the prolific growth of epiphytes and mosses and the lack
of vertical stratification. TMF soils are typically clay-rich,
have low pH, abundant organic matter and are often nu-
tritionally poor. TMF are characterized by high levels of
endemism driven by the limited availability of habitat [2].
Located in the headwater catchments of seasonal or per-
ennial streams, TMF provides often undervalued ecosys-
tem services to downstream communities.
Within the Western Ghats-Sri Lanka (WGSL) biodi-
versity hotspot [3], TMF occurs as a mosaic of forests
(locally and hereafter sholas) and grasslands and is com-
monly referred to as the shola-grassland ecosystem. With
limited exceptions [4,5], data from the shola-grassland
ecosystem mosaic are rarely included in biome-wide
popular [1] as well as academic [2,6] synopses of scien-
tific literature. As such, this document aims to provide a
synthesis of current research and the state of knowledge
of the shola-grassland ecosystem from peer-reviewed
literature published on tropical montane forests in the
WGSL biodiversity hotspot. Additionally, a synopsis of
research on the sholas of Kerala was also reviewed [7].
*Corresponding author.

The Shola (Tropical Montane Forest)-Grassland Ecosystem Mosaic of Peninsular India: A Review 1633
2. The Shola-Grassland Ecosystem Mosaic
2.1. Background
The Western Ghats located in the WGSL hotspot are a
1600 km long mountain (160,000 km2) chain in southern
India. Located above 1700 m, the shola-grassland eco-
system mosaic consists of rolling grasslands with shola
fragments restricted to sheltered folds and valleys in the
mountains separated from the grasslands with a sharp
edge. Since, sholas frequently have persistent cloud
cover they can be classified as lower montane cloud for-
est or upper montane cloud forest depending on elevation
[1]. Ecologists and foresters have been puzzled over the
pattern of the shola-grassland ecosystem mosaic for dec-
ades. While some of the earliest scientific descriptions of
the shola-grassland ecosystem described the mosaic as
dual climax [8], proponents of the single climax concept
[9] argued that the forests represented a biotic [10,11] or
edaphic climax [12]. A δC13 analysis of peat samples
from shola fragments in the Nilgiris indicated that shola
and grasslands have undergone cyclical shifts in domi-
nant vegetative cover. Arid conditions from 20,000 -
16,000 yr BP led to predominance of C4 vegetation. This
was followed by a wetter phase which peaked around
11,000 yr BP leading to a dominance in C3 vegetation.
The weakening of the monsoon around 6000 yr BP led to
the expansion of the C4 vegetation again and the estab-
lishment of the current pattern, although a brief warm,
wet phase around 600 - 700 yr BP also occurred [13].
2.2. What Is Not a Shola?
Arguably, the shola-grassland ecosystem mosaic is
among the most distinct ecosystem types in the WGSL
biodiversity hotspot. Although, sholas are typically seen
at elevations ≥1700 m, sholas at elevations as low as
1050 m have been studied by ecologists [14]. In the
Anamalais and Nilgiris, the shola-grassland mosaic is
characteristically patchy. Often though, shola fragments
are linear strips that may or may not be contiguous with
lowland evergreen forest which contain a different suite
of species. While species dominance patterns are distinct
from lowland forest, sholas of different regions exhibit
little similarity in species composition.
Yet, physiognomic characteristics of sholas are con-
sistent. Sholas consist of profusely branched, stunted
trees (rarely exceeding 15 m) with prolific epiphytic
growth. In order to distinguish shola from non-shola for-
est types, despite the varied conditions under which they
are found, we propose that ecologically, a shola be de-
fined as a high elevation (≥1700 m) stunted forest with
distinct physiognomy. Studies on sholas at elevations
below 1700 m should be restricted to shola fragments
surrounded by grasslands. Indeed, in plots located at
lower elevations, Sudhakara et al. [14] recorded families
uncommon to sholas but common to lowland forests
(Bombaceae, Clusiaceae, Dichapetalcaeae).
3. Flora, Fauna, and the Soil
In this section we will discuss about the different envi-
ronmental and ecosystem parameters generally observed
in the shola grassland ecosystem. Flora, fauna, hydrology,
and soil nutrient cycling have been discussed in great
detail. We have also reviewed the dynamics of edge ef-
fect in the shola-grassland ecosystem.
3.1. Flora
Since Thomas and Palmer [15] have provided a compre-
hensive review of current research on grasslands in the
shola-grassland ecosystem mosaic, we will restrict this
section to reviewing work on the shola vegetation only.
Shola fragments contain species of both tropical and
temperate affinities. Also, the grasslands of the Western
Ghats show more biogeographic similarity with Western
Himalayan species than TMF in Sri Lanka [16]. Phyto-
geographical analysis of shola genera reveals that genera
found on the fringes of shola fragments and as isolated
trees on grasslands are typically temperate (Rubus,
Daphiphyllum and Eu rya ) or sub-tropical (Rhodod endron,
Berberis, Mahonia are Himalayan) in origin. Species
within shola fragments on the other hand are IndoMa-
layan or Indian (rarely Paleotropical) in origin [17,18].
Overstory species in the shola are dominated by mem-
bers of Lauraceae, Rubiaceae, Symplocaceae, Myrtaceae,
Myrsinaceae and Oleaceae while dicotyledonous under-
story species are dominated by Asteraceae, Fabaceae,
Acanthaceae, [19,20]. Dominant monocot species in the
understory include members of Poaceae, Orchidaceae &
Cyperaceae [20]. Along edge-interior gradients in shola
fragments, species were found to be significantly influ-
enced by soil moisture (overstory and understory) and
soil nitrogen (understory only) [21]. However this study
was based on observations from a single shola patch.
Based on our knowledge of species-area curves, we
might expect that the limited availability of suitable
habitat for shola species within the shola-grassland eco-
system mosaic would limit α-diversity. However esti-
mates for α-diversity are highly variable. Estimates for
Shannon-Weiner’s diversity index (H’) range from 4.71
[14] to 0.87 [22]. Estimates for endemism are also highly
variable-from 19.5% to 83.3% [18]. Historically, the re-
generation of arborescent flora in shola fragments had
been expressed as a concern [23]. A series of studies now
indicate that shola species show adequate regeneration
under natural conditions [12,20]. Additionally, germina-
tion rates as high as 95% have been recorded for shola
species in germination trials [24].

The Shola (Tropical Montane Forest)-Grassland Ecosystem Mosaic of Peninsular India: A Review 1634
As with other TMF, shola fragments exhibit prolific
epiphytic growth. Studies in TMF have shown that epi-
phytic species may constitute up to 25% of all biomass in
tropical montane forests [25]. They also provide micro-
habitats for invertebrates and amphibians [26], store sig-
nificant amounts of water [27] and influence nutrient
cycling [26]. However, given the extent of scientific lit-
erature on arborescent flora in the shola [7,19,21], very
limited work exists on epiphytes in the shola-grassland
ecosystem mosaic [28]. Similarly, very few studies have
quantified productivity in the shola-grassland ecosystem
mosaic. In a comparison of net primary productivity
(NPP) patterns of exotic plantations and native shola
forest, NPP and biomass of older exotic plantations
(Eucalytpus globulus and Pinus patula) were signifi-
cantly higher than that of shola species. However this
was at the cost of lowering of NPP and biomass in the
understory in exotic plantations, possibly due to allelo-
pathic inhibition [29].
3.2. Fauna
The shola-grassland ecosystem mosaic provides habitat
for many faunal species of conservation concern includ-
ing the tiger (Panthera tigris tigris), dhole (Cuon alpinus),
gaur (Bos gaurus gaurus) Nilgiri langur (Trachypithecus
johnii) and Nilgiri marten (Martes gwatkinsii). Endemic
to the ecosystem-mosaic is the Nilgiri tahr (Niligiritragus
hylocrius) which has been studied meticulously over the
years [30-34]. Although considered a flagship species for
the ecosystem, uncertainty over population estimates
persists [35] even as the population shows a declining
trend [36].
Faunal species too have been observed to mirror the
shola-grassland ecosystem mosaic pattern through habitat
preferences. Small mammal communities in the Nilgiris
(two species of the nine recorded), showed a high degree
of preference for either shola or grassland despite a lack
of resource-driven interspecific competition. However,
these patterns were obscured in exotic plantations [37].
Strong habitat selection patterns have also been observed
in avian species in the shola-grassland ecosystem mosaic.
Habitat suitability models for the Nilgiri laughing thrush
(Garrulax cachinnans) indicate that habitat use typically
restricted to shola cover might extend to exotic planta-
tions (unsuitable habitat) when located near shola frag-
ments [38]. Other avian species such as the black and
orange flycatcher (Ficedula nigrorufa) have also been
known to show a strong preference for shola cover.
Other than those mentioned above, inventories have
also been conducted on amphibian, avian, invertebrate
and fish species [7,39]. However with the exception of
the Nilgiri tahr, the body of scientific literature on faunal
species in the shola-grassland ecosystem mosaic is lim-
ited (Table 1).
Table 1. Faunal species richness in tropical montane forests.
Cover class Site Elevation Taxa Species richnessSpecies
diversity (H’)
Percent
endemism Source
1600 - 1700 Birds 30 - 20 Nameer (2001)
Mannavan shola
2000 - 2100 Birds 40 - 23 Nameer (2001)
Kerala - Fish 24 - - Ghosh (2001)
Chembra 1700 Insects 81 4.22 - Mathew et al. (2001)
1800 - 2500 Small mammals8 - - Shanker (2001)
Bacteria 93.22 - - Venkatachalam et al. (2007)
Tropical
montane
forest/Shola
Nilgiris
2000 - 2050
Fungi 7.78 - - Venkatachalam et al. (2007)
1800 - 2500 Small mammals3 - - Shanker (2001)
Bacteria 30.31† - - Venkatachalam et al. (2007)Grassland Nilgiris
2000 - 2050
Fungi 8.89* - - Venkatachalam et al. (2007)
1800 - 2500 Small mammals3 - - Shanker (2001)
Bacteria 37.53† - - Venkatachalam et al. (2007)
Plantation
(Mixed) Nilgiris
2000 - 2050
Fungi 7.66* - - Venkatachalam et al. (2007)
1800 - 2050 Small mammals4 - - Shanker (2001)
Bacteria 18.54† - - Venkatachalam et al. (2007)
Plantation
(Tea) Nilgiris
2000 - 2050
Fungi 5.78* - - Venkatachalam et al. (2007)
§0 - 10 cm, *0 - 15 cm, #0 - 20 cm; +Undefined (depth of O horizon); aJeeva and Ramakrishnan 1997; ‡Percent concentration.

The Shola (Tropical Montane Forest)-Grassland Ecosystem Mosaic of Peninsular India: A Review 1635
3.3. Hydrology
Globally, tropical montane forests have been shown to
significantly influence ecosystem hydrology and bio-
geochemistry [1]. In addition to providing cover and re-
ducing erosion potential, net precipitation (precipitation
reaching the ground) under tropical montane forests is
often greater than 100% (and as high as 180%). This has
been attributed to condensation of wind-driven fog on
tree crowns (termed fog drip). In areas of low precipita-
tion such as the Canary Islands, interception of cloud
water can double annual precipitation [40]. Protection of
tropical montane habitat serves the purpose of hydro-
logical regulation for downstream consumers also. This
is especially significant in the Western Ghats where ma-
jor rivers originating in the shola-grassland ecosystem
mosaic provide hydrological services to consumers. A
study by Krishnaswamy et al. [41] demonstrated that
individual rainfall events could contribute as much as
20% - 30% of the annual sediment load of 239 - 947
Mg·km−2 [41]. Other studies report significantly lower
sediment load estimates (30 - 97 Mg·km−2·year−1) from
other areas [42,43] with as much as 90% of the annual
runoff occurring during the SW Monsoon [42].
3.4. Soils and Nutrient Cycling
Soils in the shola-grassland ecosystem mosaic are gran-
itic or metamorphic gneisses in origin. They are of vary-
ing depth, ranging from deep [8] to shallow, stony soils
[44]. Typically, soils are shallower in the grasslands as
compared to shola soils and are more prone to soil mois-
ture loss. During the dry season, shola soils have been
shown to retain as much as twice the soil moisture in the
surrounding grasslands [42]. Shola and grassland soils
also differ nutritionally. Total N, available P and K are
higher in the sholas as compared to adjoining grasslands.
Though this could be attributed to higher litter decompo-
sition and nutrient recycling rates in the sholas, these
differences are rarely significant. Jose et al. [12] report
organic carbon content in shola surface soils that are
comparable to those recorded in TMF in Ecuador. These
values though are much higher than those recorded by
other authors for surface soils under varied types of cover
in the shola-grassland ecosystem mosaic (Table 2). No
soil-depth related trends have been reported for plant
essential micronutrients (Cu, Mn, Zn and Fe) in sholas or
adjacent grasslands although differences between sholas
and adjacent grasslands have been observed [45]. Shola
soils have higher soil nutrient pools than those under
exotic plantations of blue gum (E. globulus) or tea (Ca-
mellia sinensis) [29,46]. Nutrient cycling under natural
shola vegetation has also been described as steady state
and less likely to suffer losses to leaching since the return
through leaf litter is low [29].
Trends in biogeographical affinities have also been
recorded for soil microflora. Though most soil fungal
species recorded in soils in the shola-grassland ecosys-
tem mosaic are cosmopolitan in distribution, the preva-
lence of the genus Penicillium is characteristic of temper-
ate forests [47] Soil fungal species diversity is compara-
ble between shola fragments and grasslands (H’SHOLA
= 4.18, H’GRASSLAND = 4.18) albeit highly habitat
specific [47]. Shola soils also had significantly higher
soil bacterial and actinomycetes populations than grass-
land or plantation soils while fungal populations were
highest in grassland soils. Plantation soils under tea, blue
gum and black wattle (Acacia mearnsii) were also con-
sistently observed to have lower soil microbial biomass
than soils under native vegetation [46].
3.5. The Shola-Grassland Edge
The current dynamic equilibrium between insular shola
fragments and grasslands is indicative of the existence of
alternate stable states enforced by environmental parame-
ters [48,49]. A change in parameters causes a shift in
dominant cover (Figure 1). Applied to the shola-grass-
land ecosystem mosaic, these parameters might include
frost [8,50,51], fire [10], grazing [10,11], soil nutrient
status [12], soil depth (Ganeshaiah, personal communica-
tion), wind [52] and illegal harvesting [44]. The persis-
tence of the mosaic in areas relatively free of anthropo-
genic grazing and illegal harvesting in some protected
Paramete
r
(b)
(a)
Figure 1. Alternate stable state diagram for the shola-
grassland ecosystem mosaic. A change in parameter (e.g.
frost, fire) can cause a shift in communities. An increase in
fire occurrence can move the dominant community (ball)
from shola (a) to grassland (b). A reversal of the parameter
can cause the community to return to its original state
along the dashed line). (

The Shola (Tropical Montane Forest)-Grassland Ecosystem Mosaic of Peninsular India: A Review 1636
Table 2. Surface soil chemical characteristics in tropical montane forests.
Soil nutrients
pH C N P K Ca Mg
Cover class Site
% kg·ha−1
Authors
Brahmagiri 5.60* 2.80* 0.18*‡ 0.02* 0.14* 0.02* Thomas and Sankar
(2001)
Nilgiri hills 5.44# 1.65# 306.91#7.27# 138.43#183.40§a 6.8§a Venkatachalam et al.
(2007)
Eravikulam - 22.48# 1.21#‡ 0.02#‡ 0.01#‡ - - Jose et al. (1994)
Ecuador
(1960 m) 4.60+ 39.00+ 2.10+‡ 0.87+‡ 0.35+‡ 0.36+‡ 0.14+‡ Wilcke et al. (2008)
Ecuador
(2090 m) 3.90+ 48.50+ 1.80+‡ 0.57+‡ 0.11+‡ 0.51+‡ 0.06+‡ Wilcke et al. (2008)
Tropical montane
forest/Shola
Ecuador
(2450 m) 4.40+ 35.60+ 1.20+‡ 0.34+‡ 0.11+‡ 0.18+‡ 0.03+‡ Wilcke et al. (2008)
Brahmagiri 5.00* 2.40* 0.04*‡ 0.01*‡ 0.03*‡ 0.02*‡ Thomas and Sankar
(2001)
Nilgiri hills 4.04# 0.87# 132.92#1.84# 70.68# - - Venkatachalam et al.
(2007)
Grassland
Eravikulam 18.88# Jose et al. (1994)
Plantation
(Eucalyptus globulus) - - 97.50§ 10.60§ 74.50§ 123.60§45.70§ Jeeva and Ramakrishnan (1997)
Plantation
(Pinus patula) - - 188.50§22.70§ 109.80§158.80§127.90§ Jeeva and Ramakrishnan (1997)
Plantation (Mixed) 4.45# 1.10# 199.99#3.67# 88.65# - - Venkatachalam et al.
(2007)
Plantation (Tea)
Nilgiri hills
4.06# 0.98# 205.32#4.14# 100.19#- -
Venkatachalam et al.
(2007)
§0 - 10 cm, *0 - 15 cm, #0 - 20 cm; +Undefined (depth of O horizon); aJeeva and Ramakrishnan 1997; ‡Percent concentration.
areas make these two parameters tenuous for explaining
the pattern. Although some authors have observed grass-
land soils to be shallower than shola soils [12]; others [45]
did not find a consistent trend. Moreover, shola species
have been observed growing on shallow soils too [8].
Grassland fires are used as a management tool in the
shola-grassland ecosystem mosaic to reduce fuel loads
[16] and in some instances a protective belt is cleared of
vegetation around the shola before the grasslands are
fired to preclude fire from the shola (personal observa-
tion). These fires could act as an effective deterrent in the
colonization of the grasslands by shola species. Addi-
tionally, a study on vegetation fires during the dry season
(February-June) of 2006 revealed that tropical montane
forests in the Indian subcontinent accounted for 8.07%
(92 fires) of all fires [53]. Although current understand-
ing points to fire as the dominant factor responsible for
the maintenance of the edge, ambiguity remains.
4. Conclusions
Historically, the shola-grassland ecosystem mosaic has
undergone extensive habitat loss. Plantations of exotic
tree species were established in the grasslands aimed at
augmenting timber production as early as 1843 [54] with
further introductions in 1870 in the Palni hills [55]. Plan-
tation programs were expanded under colonial rule to
establish extensive tea plantations in the mosaic. Post
independence, tree plantation programs also received
national (federal) budgetary support [56]. Significant
populations of invasive shrubs and herbs (Eupatorium
glandulosum, Ulex europaeus and Cytisus scoparius) in
the shola-grassland ecosystem mosaic were reported by
early researchers [10,57]. This list continues to expand as
new exotic species (e.g. Calceolaria mexicana, Erig-
eron mucronatum) have recently been reported from the
ecosystem [58].
To our knowledge only one study to date quantifies
edge effects in the shola-grassland ecosystem mosaic
[21]. Unlike the sholas, fragmentation in other tropical
montane forests (such as the neotropics) is often a result
of recent anthropogenically induced pressures (e.g. fire,
conversion to pasture). As such, edge effect studies in the

The Shola (Tropical Montane Forest)-Grassland Ecosystem Mosaic of Peninsular India: A Review 1637
shola-grassland ecosystem might be especially insightful
since species in older fragments have had time to equili-
brate with fragmentation-induced pressures [59,60]. Frag-
mentation studies often observe a proportional increase
in area under edge influence with diminishing fragment
size. Small fragments may then be dominated by edge
effect and lack an “interior” or “core”, making them sus-
ceptible to complete collapse [61]. An edge effect study
in the shola-grassland ecosystem would help us under-
stand patterns in small fragments since shola fragments
in the shola-grassland ecosystem mosaic are often small
(~1 ha).
Threats to the mosaic today include the harvesting of
shola species to meet biomass and fuelwood require-
ments and cattle grazing [62]. In areas adjoining settle-
ments, these threats can be significantly amplified alter-
ing patterns in species richness and dominance [63]. The
WGSL biodiversity hotspot is likely to undergo extinc-
tions in plant and vertebrate species due to the limited
availability of habitat [64]. Further, globally, TMF ex-
perience higher annual loss in habitat than any other
tropical forest biome (FAO 1993). As Sukumar et al. [13]
suggest, climate change is expected to alter the dynamic
equilibrium between the forest and grassland through a
reduction in the incidence of frost coupled with the
strengthening of the monsoon which would select for C3
species. Responding to these threats appropriately re-
quires the application of current state of knowledge cou-
pled with an identification of gaps in our knowledge
base.
REFERENCES
[1] L. A. Bruijnzeel and L. S. Hamilton, “Decision Time for
Cloud Forests,” IHP Humid Tropics Programme Series,
No. 13, UNESCO, Paris, 2000.
[2] P. Bubb, I. May, L. Miles and J. Sayer, “Cloud Forest
Agenda,” UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, 2004.
http://www.unep-wcmc.org/resources/publications/UNEP
_WCMC_bio_series/20.htm
[3] N. Myers, R. A. Mittermeier, C. G. Mittermeier, G. A. B.
da Fonseca and J. Kent, “Biodiversity Hotpots for Con-
servation Priorities,” Nature, Vol. 491, No. 333, 2000, pp.
853-858. doi:10.1038/35002501
[4] W. L. Werner, “Biogeography and Ecology of the Upper
Montane Rain Forest of Sri Lanka (Ceylon),” In: L. S. Ha-
milton, J. O. Juvik and F. N. Scatena, Eds., Ecological
Studies 110: Tropical Montane Cloud Forests, Springer-
Verlag, New York, 1995, pp. 343-352.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-2500-3_25
[5] H. Somanathan and R. M. Borges, “Influence of Exploi-
tation on Population Structure, Spatial Distribution and
Reproductive Success If Dioecious Species in Fragmented
Cloud Forest in India,” Biological Conservation, Vol. 80,
2000, pp. 9-15.
[6] L. S. Hamilton, J. O. Juvik and F. N. Scatena, “Ecological
Studies 110: Tropical Montane Cloud Forests,” Springer-
Verlag, New York, 1995. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-2500-3
[7] K. K. N. Nair, S. K. Khanduri and K. Balasubramanayam,
“Shola Forests of Kerala: Environment and Biodiversity,”
Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi, 2001.
[8] C. R. Ranganathan, “Studies in the Ecology of the Shola
Grassland Vegetation of the Nilgiri Plateau,” Indian For-
ester, Vol. 64, 1938, pp. 523-541.
[9] F. E. Clements, “Nature and Structure of Climax,” Journal
of Ecology, Vol. 24, No. 1, 1936, pp. 252-284.
doi:10.2307/2256278
[10] N. L. Bor, “The Vegetation of the Nilgiris,” Indian For-
ester, Vol. 64, 1938, pp. 600-609.
[11] W. A. Noble, “The Shifting Balance of Grasslands, Shola
Forests and Planted Trees on the Upper Nilgiris, Southern
India,” Indian Forester, Vol. 93, 1967, pp. 691-693.
[12] S. Jose, A. Sreepathy, B. Mohan Kumar and V. K.
Venugopal, “Structural, Floristic and Edaphic Attributes
of the Shola-Grassland Forests of Eravikulam in Penin-
sular India,” Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 65,
No. 2-3, 1994, pp. 279-291.
doi:10.1016/0378-1127(94)90176-7
[13] R. Sukumar, H. S. Suresh and R. Ramesh, “Climate
Change and Its Impact on Tropical Montane Ecosystems in
Southern India,” Journal of Biogeography, Vol. 22, No.
2-3, 1995, pp. 533-536. doi:10.2307/2845951
[14] K. Sudhakara, “Inventory and Computerized Herbarium of
Higher Plants in the Sholas of Munnar, Idukki District,” In:
K. K. N. Nair, S. K. Khanduri and K. Balasubramanayam,
Eds., Shola Forests of Kerala: Environment and Biodi-
versity, Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi, 2001, pp.
179-208.
[15] S. M. Thomas and M. W. Palmer, “The Montane Grass-
lands of the Western Ghats, India: Community Ecology
and Conservation,” Community Ecology, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2007,
pp. 67-73. doi:10.1556/ComEc.8.2007.1.9
[16] P. V. Karunakaran, G. S. Rawat and V. K. Uniyal, “Ecol-
ogy and Conservation of the Grasslands of Eravikulam
National Park and the Western Ghats,” Wildlife Institute
of India, Dehradun, 1998.
[17] H. S. Suresh and R. Sukumar, “Phytogeographical Affini-
ties of Flora of Nilgiri Biospehere Reserve,” Rheedea, Vol.
9, No. 1, 1999, pp. 1-21.
[18] K. K. N. Nair and A. R. R. Menon, “Endemic Arborescent
Flora of the Sholas of Kerala and Its Population and Re-
generation Status,” In: K. K. N. Nair, S. K. Khanduri and
K. Balasubramanayam, Eds., Shola Forests of Kerala:
Environment and Biodiversity, Kerala Forest Research
Institute, Peechi, 2001. pp. 209-236.
[19] P. Davidar, D. Mohandass and S. L. Vijayan, “Floristic
Inventory of Woody Plants in a Tropical Montane Forest
in the Palni Hills of the Western Ghats, India,” Tropical
Ecology, Vol. 48, No. 1, 2007, pp. 15-25.
[20] K. Swarupanandan, N. Sasidharan, K. C. Chacko and S. C.
Basha, “Floristic and Ecological Studies on the Sholas of
Idukki District,” In: K. K. N. Nair, S. K. Khanduri and K.
Balasubramanayam, Eds., Shola Forests of Kerala: Envi-
ronment and Biodiversity, Kerala Forest Research Institute,

The Shola (Tropical Montane Forest)-Grassland Ecosystem Mosaic of Peninsular India: A Review 1638
Peechi, 2001, pp. 259-286.
[21] S. Jose, A. R. Gillespie, S. J. George and M. K. Kumar,
“Vegetation Response along Edge-Interior Gradients in a
High Altitude Tropical Forest in Peninsular India,” Forest
Ecology and Management, Vol. 87, No. 1-3, 1996, pp.
51-62. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(96)03836-4
[22] K. S. Murali, R. S. Shetty, K. N. Ganeshaiah and R. U.
Shaanker, “Does Forest Type Classification Reflect Spa-
tial Dynamics of Vegetation? An Analysis Using GIS
Techniques,” Current Science, Vol. 75, No. 3, 1998, pp. 220-
227.
[23] Vishnu-Mittre and H. P. Gupta, “A Living Fossil Com-
munity in South Indian Hills,” Current Science, Vol. 37,
No. 23, 1968, pp. 671-672.
[24] R. K. Srivastava, “Seed Germination Tests of Pioneer
Shola Species in Nilgiris,” Annals of Forestry, Vol. 8, No.
2, 2000, pp. 293-294.
[25] P. Foster, “The Potential Negative Impacts of Global
Climate Change on Tropical Montane Cloud Forests,”
Earth Science Reviews, Vol. 55, No. 1-2, 2001, pp. 73-
106. doi:10.1016/S0012-8252(01)00056-3
[26] D. H. Benzing, “Vulnerabilities of Tropical Forests to
Climate Change: The Significance of Resident Epiphytes,”
Climatic Change, Vol. 39, No. 2-3, 1998, pp. 519-540.
doi:10.1023/A:1005312307709
[27] A. M. Sugden, “Aspects of Ecology of Vascular Epiphytes
in Two Colombian Cloud Forests: II. Habitat Preferences
of Bromeliaceae in the Serrania de Macuira,” Selbyana,
Vol. 5, 1981, pp. 264-273.
[28] T. K. Abraham, “Meliolaceous and Soil Fungi and Lichen
Flora of the Sholas of Munnar and Waynad,” In: K. K. N.
Nair, S. K. Khanduri and K. Balasubramanayam, Eds.,
Shola Forests of Kerala: Environment and Biodiversity,
Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi, 2001, pp. 118-135.
[29] V. Jeeva and P. S. Ramakrishnan, “Studies on Impact of
Plantation Forestry in Nilgiri Hills of the Ghats on Soil
Quality and Nutrient Cycling,” Tropical Ecology, Vol. 38,
No. 2, 1997, pp. 215-235.
[30] E. R. C. Davidar, “A Note on the Status of the Nilgiri Tahr
in the Grass Hills in the Anamalais,” Journal of the
Bombay Natural History Society, Vol. 68, No. 2, 1971, pp.
347-354.
[31] C. Rice, “The Behavior and Ecology of the Nilgiri Tahr
(Hemitragus hylocrius Ogilby, 1838),” Ph.D. Thesis, Texas
A & M University, Texas, 1984.
[32] C. Rice, “Habitat, Population Dynamics and Conservation
of the Nilgiri Tahr, Hemitragus hylocrius,” Biological
Conservation, Vol. 44, No. 3, 1988, pp. 137-156.
doi:10.1016/0006-3207(88)90099-7
[33] C. Mishra and A. J. T. Johnsingh, “Population and Con-
servation Status of the Nilgiri Tahr Hemitragus hylocrius
in Anamalai Hill, South India,” Biological Conservation,
Vol. 86, No. 2, 1998, pp. 199-206.
doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(98)00004-4
[34] Daniels, “The Nilgiri Tahr: An Endemic South Indian Moun-
tain Goat,” Macmillan India, New Delhi, 2006.
[35] R. J. R. Daniels, P. S. Easa and M. Alembath, “Distribu-
tion and Status of the Endangered Nilgiri Tahr,” Current
Science, Vol. 94, No. 1, 2008, pp. 10-11.
[36] M. Alembath and C. Rice, “Nilgiritragus Hylocrius,”
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, 2008.
www.iucnredlist.org
[37] K. Shanker, “The Role of Competition and Habitat in
Structuring Small Mammal Communities in a Tropical
Montane Forest Ecosystem in Southern India,” Journal of
Zoology, Vol. 253, No. 1, 2001, pp. 15-24.
doi:10.1017/S0952836901000024
[38] A. A. Zarri, A. R. Rahmani, A. Singh and S. P. S. Khush-
waha, “Habitat Suitability Assessment for the Endangered
Nilgiri Laughing Thrush: A Multiple Logistic Regression
Approach,” Current Science, Vol. 94, 2008, pp. 1487-
1494.
[39] K. P. Dinesh, C. Radhakrishnan and G. Bhatta, “A New
Species of Nyctibatrachus Boulenger (Amphibia: Anura:
Nyctibatrachidae) from the Surroundings of Bhadra Wild-
life Sacntuary, Western Ghats, India,” Zootaxa, Vol. 1914,
2008, pp. 45-56.
[40] A. Gioda, J. Maley, R. E. Guasp and A. A. Baladón,
“Some Low Elevation Fog Forests of Dry Environments:
Application to African Palaeoenvironments,” In: L. S. Ha-
milton, J. O. Juvik and F. N. Scatena, Eds., Ecological
Studies 110: Tropical Montane Cloud Forests, Springer-
Verlag, New York, 1995, pp. 156-164.
[41] J. Krishnaswamy, M. C. Kiran and K. N. Ganeshaiah,
“Tree Model Based Eco-Climatic Vegetation Classifica-
tion and Fuzzy Mapping in Diverse Tropical Deciduous
Ecosystems Using Multi-Date NDVI,” International Jour-
nal of Remote Sensing, Vol. 25, No. 6, 2005, pp. 1185-
1205. doi:10.1080/0143116031000149989
[42] T. P. Thomas and S. Sankar, “The Role of Sholas in
Maintaining Watercourses in the High Ranges of Kerala,”
In: K. K. N. Nair, S. K. Khanduri and K. Balasubrama-
nayam, Eds., Shola Forests of Kerala: Environment and
Biodiversity, Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi,
2001, pp. 71-115.
[43] D. C. Sahoo, V. N. Sharda, M. Jayakumar, K. P. Tripathi,
M. V. Padmanabhan, B. Raghunath and B. Chandran,
“Hydrology of Small Watersheds in High Hills of Nil-
giris,” Indian Journal of Soil Conservation, Vol. 34, 2006,
pp. 97-101.
[44] R. K. Gupta and K. A. Shankarnarayan, “Ecological
Status of the Grasslands in South India,” Tropical Ecology,
Vol. 3, 1962, pp. 75-78.
[45] V. Nandakumar, P. Rajendran and K. N. Babu, “Charac-
terization of Soils in the Sholas of Idukki and Wayanad
Districts,” In: K. K. N. Nair, S. K. Khanduri and K.
Balasubramanayam, Eds., Shola Forests of Kerala: Envi-
ronment and Biodiversity, Kerala Forest Research Institute,
Peechi, 2001, pp. 25-70.
[46] S. Venkatachalam, T. Kalaiselvi, Neelakantan and S. Gun-
asekaran, “A Comparative Study on Soil Microflora and
Nutrient Status of Sholas and Adjoining Vegetation,” In-
dian Journal of Forestry, Vol. 30, 2007, pp. 135-140.
[47] K. V. Sankaran and M. Balasundaram, “Soil Microflora of
the Sholas of Eravikulam National Park, Idukki District,”

The Shola (Tropical Montane Forest)-Grassland Ecosystem Mosaic of Peninsular India: A Review 1639
In: K. K. N. Nair, S. K. Khanduri and K. Balasubrama-
nayam, Eds., Shola Forests of Kerala: Environment and
Biodiversity, Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi,
2001, pp. 151-178.
[48] R. M. May, “Thresholds and Breakpoints in Ecosystems
with Multiplicity of States,” Nature, Vol. 269, 1977, pp.
471-477. doi:10.1038/269471a0
[49] B. E. Beisner, D. T. Haydon and K. Cuddington, “Alter-
native Stable States in Ecology,” Frontiers in Ecology and
the Environment, Vol. 1, No. 7, 2003, pp. 376-382.
doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0376:ASSIE]2.0.CO;2
[50] V. M. Meher-Homji, “Ecological Status of the Montane
Grasslands of the South Indian Hills: A Phytogeographic
Reassessment,” Indian Forester, Vol. 91, No. 4, 1965, pp.
210-215.
[51] V. M. Meher-Homji, “Phytogeography of the South Indian
Hill Stations,” Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, Vol.
94, No. 4, 1967, pp. 230-242. doi:10.2307/2483901
[52] K. Balasubramanian and K. K. Kumar, “The Riddle of the
Shola,” Evergreen, Vol. 42, 1999, pp. 1-5.
[53] R. M. Palanna, “Eucalyptus in India,” In: M. Kashio and K.
White, Eds., Reports Submitted to the Regional Expert
Consultation on Eucalyptus, Vol. 2, 1996.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/ac772e/ac772e06.htm#bm
06
[54] R. K. Srivastava, “Biotic Pressure and Entry of Exotics in
Shola Grassland Ecosystem of Upper Palnis,” Indian
Journal of Forestry, Vol. 24, No. 3, 2001, pp. 324-327.
[55] R. Raghupathy and M. Madhu, “The Natural Grasslands
of the Nilgiris: Past and Present Scenario,” Range Man-
agement and Agroforestry, Vol. 28, 2007, pp. 271-273.
[56] S. C. Agrawal, U. S. Madan, S. Chinnamani and N. D.
Rege, “Ecological Studies in the Nilgiris,” Indian Forester,
Vol. 87, No. 6, 1961, pp. 376-389.
[57] S. Seshan, “Notes from the Edge,” 2006.
http://www.gbsanctuary.org/articles/Notes_from_the_Edg
e.pdf
[58] T. Sekar, “Observations on Survival and Growth of Dif-
ferent Shola Species under a Shola Afforestation Pro-
gramme in Nilgiris District, Tamil Nadu,” Indian Forester,
Vol. 134, No. 4, 2008, pp. 451-457.
[59] U. M. Chandrasekhara, P. K. Muraleedharan and V. Si-
bichan, “Disturbed Sholas of Kerala and Strategies for Its
Conservation and Management,” In: K. K. N. Nair, S. K.
Khanduri and K. Balasubramanayam, Eds., Shola Forests
of Kerala: Environment and Biodiversity, Kerala Forest
Research Institute, Peechi, 2001, pp. 395-437.
[60] T. M. Brooks, R. A. Mittermeier, C. G. Mittermeier,
G. A. B. da Fonseca, A. B. Rylands, W. R. Konstant,
P. Flick, J. Pilgrim, S. Oldfield, G. Magin and C.
Hilton-Taylor, “Habitat Loss and Extinction in the
Hotspots of Biodiversity,” Conservation Biology,
Vol. 16, No. 4, 2002, pp. 909-923.
doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00530.x.
[61] I. M. Turner and R. T. Corlett, “The Conservation Value
of Small, Isolated Fragments of Lowland Tropical Rain
Forest,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 11, No. 8,
1996, pp. 330-333. doi:10.1016/0169-5347(96)10046-X
[62] K. A. Harper, S. E. Macdonald, P. J. Burton, J. Q. Chen,
K. D. Brosofske, S. C. Saunders, E. S. Euskirchen, D.
Roberts, M. S. Jaiteh and P. A. Esseen, “Edge Influence
on Forest Structure and Composition in Forest Frag-
ments,” Conservation Biology, Vol. 19, No. 3, 2005, pp.
768-782. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00045.x
[63] C. G. Gascon, B. Williamson and G. A. B. da Fonseca,
“Receding Forest Edges and Vanishing Reserves,” Science,
Vol. 288, No. 5470, 2000, pp. 1356-1358.
doi:10.1126/science.288.5470.1356