Banner
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

Full Research Article

Floristic Diversity of the Family Fabaceae (Leguminosae) in Community Forests of South Haryana, India

K
K.C. Meena1
N
Neetu Singh1
M
M.S. Bhandoria2
P
Pradeep Bansal3
S
S.S. Yadav1,*
1Department of Botany, Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak-124 001, Haryana, India.
2Department of Botany, Government College for Women, Mahendergarh-123 029, Haryana, India.
3Department of Botany, Kishan Lal Public College, Rewari-123 401, Haryana, India.

  • Submitted05-05-2025|

  • Accepted08-07-2025|

  • First Online 17-09-2025|

  • doi 10.18805/LR-5515

ABSTRACT

Background: Fabaceae is third largest family of angiosperms and second important family from commercial and economic point of view. The purpose of the present study was to examine the floristic analysis and species diversity of the family Fabaceae in Community Forests of South Haryana, India in view of recent classification recognised by Legume Phylogeny Working Group. Though the community forests are fragmented still act as local mini biodiversity host spots harbouring rich plant diversity.

Methods: Repeated floristic surveys were conducted in different seasons during the year 2023 and 2024. Detailed field notes were recorded and photographs were taken in the natural conditions.

Result: The outcome of study revealed 61 species belonging to 34 genera, 16 tribes and 4 subfamilies from the studied area. The subfamily Papilionoideae is the most dominant, comprising 10 tribes, 21 genera and 41 species. Phaseoleae is the largest tribe with 7 genera and 9 species, followed by Mimoseae with 4 genera and 4 species. Indigofera emerged as the largest genus, comprising 8 species. The Simpson’s index value proved that the Fabaceae family in Community Forests has high diversity. The analysis of growth form indicated that the Fabaceae family is dominated by Herbs with a proportion of 48%. Therophytes have highest number of species (44%), followed by Phenerophytes (36%), Chaemephytes (18%), Hemicrytophytes (2%). The findings of the present study will be helpful for botanists, conservationist, policy planners and local people for effective management of community forests.

INTRODUCTION

Fabaceae is one the well-known family of the flowering plants. It got its name from genus Faba, which is presently included as species in genus Vicia (Jussieu, 1789). In fact, the Latin word Faba which literally means bean and this family is popularly also called as the legume, bean or pea family. Leguminosae is the erstwhile name of the family which is contemplated valid as per International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) article 18.5 of Vienna code. Worldwide, Fabaceae is the third largest family of the angios-perms after Orchidaceae and Asteraceae (Lewis et al., 2005, Christenhusz et al., 2016 and LPWG, 2017). It is represented by about 20,000 species belonging to 765 genera which are further grouped into 36 tribes and six sub-families (LPWG, 2017; Kumar et al., 2022; Legume Data Portal, 2022). Globally, largest and widespread genera of family is Astragalus containing over 2400 species, followed by Acacia with about 950 species and Crotolaria and Indigofera having about 700 species each (Verma and Jain, 2022). Woody legumes are primarily found in tropical and subtropical climates while herbaceous legumes are dominant in temperate regions (Sanjappa, 1992).
       
About 1297 species belonging to nearly 179 genera represented in India out of which 23% are endemic to India (Bhatia et al., 2023). The greatest diversity of legumes in India is occurred in biodiversity hotspots like eastern Himalaya and Western Ghats (Sanjappa, 1992, 1995). Peninsular India has the greatest diversity of legumes, harbouring over 550 species, followed by the Himalayan region with nearly 500 species and north-eastern India with about 400 species. In India, Crotalaria is reported as largest genus of legumes with 97 species followed by Astragalus containing 85 species (Sanjappa, 1992).
       
It is ranked second only after family Poaceae in terms of commercial and economic importance, as most of the members of this family are source of protein-rich seeds for the human diet, palatable nutritious fodder, timber, fuelwood, tannins, resins, pulp, toxins, dye, medicines and ornamental plants (Singh et al., 2007; Sharma, 2013, Ahmad et al., 2016 and Grygier et al., 2023). Genus Phaseolus, Glycine, Pisum, Cicer, Arachis, Medicago and Glycyrrhiza mostly having herbaceous plants are widely cultivated throughout world for economic value to human beings (Harris, 2004; Verma and Jain, 2022). Worldwide more than 150 species of Fabaceae have been recorded for use of fodder and food (Olmedilla et al., 2010). Certain members of the family function as keystone species in various ecosystems while others act as bottom-up control species (Sanjappa, 2001; Sanjappa, 2020).
       
Although not all but majority of species of family Fabaceae have ability to form root nodules in association with nitrogen fixing bacteria Rhizobium and other genera for fixing atmospheric nitrogen in the soil (Rainer et al., 2018) and helps in maintaining nutrient cycle which ensure better plant growth, wider habitats adaptability and ecological success (Harris, 2004; Ney et al., 2019). Keeping in view the global significance of legumes, the year 2016 was declared as International Year of Pulses by United Nations General Assembly (Balan and Pradeep, 2021).
       
Systematics of Fabaceae has always remained in discussion among the taxonomists and underwent tremendous changes in its classification. On the basis of aestivation of petals and sepals, Bentham (1865) put all legumes under the order Rosales in Leguminosae family which were further grouped into three sub-families, namely, Mimoseae, Caesalpinieae and Papilionaceae. On the contrary, Hutchinson (1973) and Cronquist (1988) established all three sub-families as distinct families under the order Fabales. Under Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification (APG IV, 2016), all legumes are put in a single family Fabaceae under the order Fabales. Most recently, based on studies of phylogenomics and plastomes DNA, the Legume Phylogeny Working Group have placed all the legumes in a single family Fabaceae which is further divided into six subfamilies i.e. Caesalpinioideae, Cercidoideae, Duparquetioideae, Detarioideae, Dialioideae and Papilionoideae (LPWG, 2017; Bruneau et al., 2024). The sub-families are further divided into tribes.
       
The various studies have been conducted in overseas and India for documentation and enumeration of members of Fabaceae family. The initial systematic investigation of Indian legumes was started from Malabar region of South India by a Dutch Botanist Van Rheede in the year 1678 and succeeded to enlist and describe 63 species of 33 genera (Nicolson et al., 1988). Later on Lamarck (1785), Willdenow (1802), Candole (1825), Taubert (1894), Roxburgh (1795, 1832), Wallich (1820), Wight and Arnott (1834) fitfully narrated various genera and species of Indian legumes. Baker (1876-78) conducted extensive survey during British India period and documented 183 species across 132 genera which also were reported in “The Flora of British  India,”  published by J.D. Hooker. Later, Sanjappa (1992) documented about 1252 species belonging to 199 genera in India.
               
Some researchers have also documented the floristic diversity of Haryana but no systematic efforts have been made for investigating composition and diversity of family Fabaceae in the State of Haryana especially in the Community Forests. Moreover, recent nomenclature changes, new classification of family Fabaceae and lack of comprehensive investigation of the species richness at sub-families level necessitated further in-depth studies. Hence, the present study was conducted to prepare the checklist and evaluate the diversity of this family as per new classification for Community Forests of South Haryana.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Haryana is a Northern Indian state with an area of 44,212 Km2. The study was conducted in Rewari and Mahendergarh districts (Fig 1). These districts are situated in the most southern tip of the state boundary and bordered with state of Rajasthan. The region is characterised by arid to semi-arid climatic conditions with seasonal scanty annual rainfall amounting 450-500 mm. The topography of the area is representing by rolling landscape, alluvial plans, semi stabilized sand dunes and scattered Aravalli Hills. The soil of the region is sandy to sandy loam with poor organic carbon content. The Dhohan, Sahibi and Krishnawati are seasonal rivers originating from Aravalli hills from Rajasthan seasonally recharge the ground water in the area. The vegetation is tropical dry deciduous and thorny in nature. The district Rewari and Mahendergarh are administratively divided in seven and eight Community Development Blocks respectively. One Community Forest (CF) area from each block of both the districts was selected for floristic study. Thus, fifteen CFs were selected in both the district as per detail given below (Table 1). Extensive and repeated seasonal floristic surveys were conducted in the selected Community Forests. Pre-monsoon and post monsoon Frequent field surveys were conducted during different seasons during  2023 and 2024.

Fig 1: Map of the study site.



Table 1: List of community forests selected for the present study.


       
The plants were identified with the help of published literature viz. Flora of Haryana by Jain et al., (2000) and Kumar (2001), Sanjappa (1995), Kanji Lal (1966), Jain et al., (1982) and Legume Data Portal. The collected plants were photographed and standard techniques were adopted for processing of specimens (Bridson and Forman, 1998). For the documentation of species and the classification of family Fabaceae under tribes and sub-families the system recognised by LPWG (2017) and Lewis et al., (2005) was adopted. The basic and widely accepted classification concept of life form and growth form as suggested by Von Humboldt (1806); Raunkiaer (1934); Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg (1974) were followed to study various plant life forms. The International Plant Names Index (https://www.ipni.org/), The World Flora Online (https://www. worldfloraonline.org/) and Plants of the World Online (https://powo.science.kew.org/) were followed for updated names.
 
Calculation of species diversity of family fabaceae
 
The local species diversity of family Fabaceae was evaluated as per the method given by Simpson’s Index (1949) which is denoted by “D” and values ranges between 0 and 1. The Simpson’s Index is calculated by the following formula:


Where,
N = The total number of all species in Fabaceae family.
ni = The number of species of each genus.
       
In the present study the diversity score of the Fabaceae family was calculated based on number of species in genus and the number of individuals for each of those species.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In the present study a total of 61 species belonging to 34 genera of family Fabaceae were recorded from the Community Forests of south Haryana (Table 2). Herbs (29 species) followed by trees (20 species), shrubs (8 species) and climbers (4 species) are the major growth form. The dominance of herbs can be referred to the arid and dry habitat conditions. Out of the six known subfamilies of legumes worldwide, four are represented in the study area (Table 3).

Table 2: Checklist of species of family Fabaceae in community forests of South Haryana.



Table 3: Sub-families and tribes of fabaceae.


       
Many plant species belonging to family Fabaceae are used for numerous purposes. Pandey and Kumar (2024) reviewed the diversity of grain legumes of Himalayan region of Uttarakhand of India and highlighted their importance in meeting protein and micronutrient security. Jahan and Rahaman (2022) investigated that out of 254 species of family Fabaceae, 169 species belonging to 61 genera possessed therapeutic potential. Jat et al., (2024) reviewed the bioactive compounds and their potential uses of legume crops. Singh et al., (2024) evaluated the antimicrobial and antioxidant properties of Trigonella foenum-graecum concluded that it oil has good pharmaco-logical potential.
       
The subfamily Papilionoideae is the most species-rich, comprising 10 tribes, 21 genera (63%) and 41 species (67%). This is followed by Caesalpinioideae, which includes 4 tribes, 11 genera (32%) and 17 species (28%). Cercidoideae is represented by single tribe and one genera (2.9%) and two species (3%), while Detaroideae consists of single tribe, single genus (2.9%) and single species (1.6%) (Fig 2). According to the classification of global legumes by Lewis et al., (2005), a total of 36 tribes have been identified, out of which 16 tribes (44.44 % of the total) are found in the Community Forests of south, Haryana.

Fig 2: Sub families, genera and species of fabaceae.


       
Phaseoleae is the largest tribe with 9 genera and 7 species, followed by Mimoseae with 4 genera and 4 species, Cassieae and Trifolieae both with 3 genera, 6 species, Acacieae with 3 genera and 5 species. Desmodieae, Fabeae, Ingeae and Millettieae are represented by 2 genera each and 6 spp, 2spp, 3 spp and 5 spp. respectively. Tribe Genisteae represented by one genus and 8 species, Cercideae and Crotalarieae with one genus and 2 species each while tribe Abreae, Dalbergieae, Detarieae and Sesbaniieae with one genera and one species each (Fig 3).

Fig 3: Tribes wise distribution of genera and species.


       
At the genus level, Indigofera emerges as the largest, comprising of 8 species. It is followed by Alysicarpus with 5 species and Senna and Tephrosia with 4 species each while Vachellia with 3 species; Bauhinia, Crotolaria, Albizia, Erythhrina, Medicago, Melilotus, Rhynchosia and Trifolium with 2 species each. The remaining 21 genera are represented by a single species (Fig 4).

Fig 4: Top ten genera of family fabaceae.


 
Life forms
 
Life forms are a vital aspect of understanding vegetation, offering an initial insight into its ecological characteristics (Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg, 1974). Raunkiaer (1934) classified plants into five main life forms-Phanerophytes (Ph), Chamaephytes (Ch), Hemicryptophytes (H), Cryptophytes (Cr) and Therophytes (Th). The results revealed that the Therophytes consisting of 27 species representing (44%) of total species was dominant life form followed by Phenerophytes with 22 species representing (36%), Chamaephytes 11 species (18%) and Hemicryptophytes with only one species (2%) (Table 4). The Therophytes life forms indicate the typical desert vegetation in this region.

Table 4: Life form composition of the enumerated species.


 
Species diversity of fabaceae
 
Species level measurement of biodiversity is necessary to evaluate the ecosystem stability, sustainability and productivity for maintaining balance in any ecosystem (Ardakani, 2004). The local diversity can be evaluated with the help of various mathematical tools (Eshaghi, 2009) and Simpson (1949). The species richness is widely used for assessment of plant diversity of particular area or region. The value of Simpson’s index is denoted by “D” which range between 0 and 1. When the value is closer to 1, it represent more diversity and value closer to 0 shows less diversity (Ket, 2012). It simply means that as species richness and evenness increases, the diversity increases. The Simpson’s Index is calculated by the following formula:

 
Where,
N = The total number of all species in Fabaceae family.
ni = The number of species of each genus.
       
The diversity score of the Fabaceae family is given in Table 5.

Table 5: Number of species of each genus in the Fabaceae family.



Simpson’s Diversity Index (D) is calculated as under-
Sni (ni-1) = 2+ 20+2+2+2+56+2+2+2+12+12+2+6 = 122
N (N-1) = 61 (61-1) = 3660
 
Simpson’s Diversity index = 1- (122/ 3660)
 
= 1- 0.0333
= 0.967
       
Thus, the Sampson’s diversity index revealed that the family Fabaceae has high diversity in the study area.

CONCLUSION

The community forests of south Haryana are rich reserviour of legumes. Total 61 species belonging to 34 genera and 16 tribes were reported from this region. The Sampson’s Index also revealed that the Fabaceae has a high diversity in the study area. The high proportion of herbaceous growth form indicates harsh dry climatic conditions of the area. Therophytes lifeform displayed the maximum of species which also indicate the arid climatic conditions. Though these community forests serve as local mini biodiversity hubs but now-a-days, the floristic diversity in these ecosystems is under severe pressure from many natural and anthropogenic factors. The immediate attention is needed to conserve and protect these unique ecosystems to provide various goods and services to the local communities in perpetuity.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors are thankful to the Forest and Wildlife Department, Haryana, especially officers and frontline staff of Rewari and Mahendergarh for providing basic information, advice and assistance during the field survey.
 
Author’s contribution statement
 
K. C. Meena: investigation, methodology, writing- original draft, field-studies; SS Yadav: conceptualization, data analysis; methodology, investigation, resources, writing-review and editing; Neetu Singh: Writing-review and editing; Makhan Singh and Pradeep Bansal: species identification, field studies data curation.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

REFERENCES


  1. Ahmad, F., Anwar, F. and Hira, S. (2016). Review on medicinal importance of fabaceae family. Pharmacology Online. 3: 151-156.

  2. APG IV (Angiosperm Phylogeny Group) (2016). An Update of the angiosperm phylogeny group classification for the orders and Families of Flowering Plants: APG IV. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society. 181: 1-20.

  3. Ardakani, M.R. (2004). Ecology. Tehran University Press, p. 340. Colinvaux P (1993). Ecology. John Wiley and Sons Inc. New York, pp. 648-684.

  4. Baker, J.G. (1876-78). Leguminosae. In: J.D. Hooker, Flora of British India. Reeve and Co., London. 2: 56. 306.

  5. Balan, A.P. and Pradeep, S.V.  (2021). Legumes of Kerala, India: A checklist. Journal of Threatened Taxa. 13(5): 18257-18282. doi.org/10.11609/jot.6475.13.5.18257-18282.

  6. Bentham, G. (1865). Description of some new genera and species of tropical leguminosae. Trans. Linn. Soc. 1865(25): 297-320.

  7. Bhatia, H., Srivastava, G., Mehrotra, R.C. (2023) Legumes from the paleocene sediments of India and their ecological significance. Plant Diversity. 45: 199-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pld.2022.08.001.

  8. Bridson, D.M. and Forman, L. (1998). The Herbarium Handbook. Third Edition. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

  9. Bruneau, A., de Queiroz, L.P., Ringelberg, J.J., Borges, L.M., Bortoluzzi, R.L.D.C., Brown, G.K. (2024). Advances in Legume Systematics 14. Classification of Caesalpinioideae. Part 2: Higher-level classification. Phyto Keys. 3240: 1-552. 

  10. Burman, N.L. (1786). Flora Indica: Cui Accedit Series Zoophytorum- Indicorumnec non Prodromus Florae Capensis. Cornelius Haak, Leiden and Johannes Schreuder, Amsterdam.

  11. Candole, A.P. de (1825). Leguminosae. Prodromussystematis- naturalis. Regni Vegetabilis. 2: 93-524.

  12. Christenhusz, M.J.M.M. and Byng, J.W. (2016). The number of known plants species in the world and its annual increase. Phytotaxa. 261: 201-217.

  13. Cronquist, A. (1988). Evolution and Classification of Flowering Plants, 2nd ed. Columbia University Press, New York Botanical Garden, New York, 1988.

  14. Eshaghi, R.J., Manthey, M. and Mataji, A. (2009). Comparison of plant species diversity with different plant communities in deciduous forests. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Tech. 6(3): 389-394.

  15. Grygier, A., Chakradhari, S., Ratusz, K., Rudzi´nska, M., Patel, K.S. (2023). Evaluation of selected medicinal, timber and ornamental legume species’ seed oils as sources of Bioactive Lipophilic Compounds. Molecules. 28: 3994.

  16. Harris, S. (2004). Woody Legumes (excluding Acacias). Tropical Forests. P. 1793- 1797.

  17. Hutchinson, J. (1973). The Families of Flowering Plants. Oxford Univ Press, London.

  18. Jahan, I., Rahman, M.A. (2022). Investigation through Bangladesh Flora: Critically Endangered Medicinal Species of Fabaceae. Legume Research. 45(12): 1501-1505. doi: 10.18805/LR-4350.

  19. Jain, S.P., Singh, J.S. and Verma, D.M. (1982). Flora of North-East Haryana (India). J. Econ. Tax. Bot. 3: 152-176.

  20. Jain, S.P., Verma, D.M., Singh, S.C., Singh, J.S. and Kumar, S. (2000). Flora of Haryana. CIMAP, Lucknow.

  21. Jat, B.L., Sharma, H.C., Pagaria, P., Meena, A.K., Mali, G.R. and Khan, T. (2024). Legumes: Source of bioactive compounds and their potential use in legume crops improvement: A review. Legume Research. 47(11): 1827-1834. doi: 10. 18805/LR-4945.

  22. Jussieu, A.L. de. (1789). Genera plantarum: Secundum ordines naturales disposita, juxta methodum in Hortoregioparisiensi- exaratam. Paris: Herissant et Barrois. 

  23. Ket, M. (2012). Vegetation Description and Data Analysis a Practical Approach (2nd edn), John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

  24. Kumar, S. (2001). Flora of Haryana (Materials). Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehra Dun.

  25. Kumar, S.N., Mishra, S., Kumar, S. (2022). Cajanus elongatus (Benth.) Maesen (Fabaceae): An addition to the legume flora of Odisha, India. Species. 23(72): 423-427

  26. Lamarck, J.B. (1785). Encyclopedie methodique Botanique. I. Paris.

  27. Legume Data Portal (2022). Available at https://www. legumedata.org/ (accessed on 27. September 2024).

  28. Lewis, G., Schrire, B., Mackinder, B., Lock, M. (2005). Legumes of the world. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, United Kingdom.

  29. LPWG, The Legume Phylogeny Working Group. (2017). A new subfamily classification of the Leguminosae based on a taxonomically comprehensive phylogeny. Taxon. 66: 44-77.

  30. Mueller-Dombois, D., Ellenberg, H. (1974). Aims and methods of vegetation ecology.New York, NY, USA: John Wiley and Sons.

  31. Ney, L., Franklin, D., Mahmud, K., Cabrera, M., Hancock, D., Habteselassie, M., Newcomer, Q., Fatzinger, B. (2019). Rebuilding soil ecosystems for improved productivity in biosolarized soils. Int. J. Agron. 2019: 582-585. 

  32. Nicolson, D.H., Suresh, C.R. and Manilal, K.S. (1988). An Interpretation of Van Rheed’s Hortus Malabaricus. Regnum Vegetabile Vol. 119. Germany.

  33. Olmedilla, A.B., Rarré, R.R., Asencio, V.C., Martín, P.M. (2010). Papel de las Leguminosasen la alimentación actual. Act. Dietética. 14: 72-76.

  34. Pandey, M. and Kumar, N. (2024). Diversity of traditional grain legumes of himalayan region of Uttarakhand: A review.  Agricultural Reviews. 45(1): 96-102. doi: 10.18805/ag.R-2362.

  35. Rainer Schultze-Kraft, R., Rao, I.M., Peters, M., Clements, R.J., Ba, C., Liu, G. (2018). Tropical forage legumes for environmental benefits: An overview. Trop. Grassl. Forrajes Trop. 6: 1-14. 

  36. Raunkiaer, C. (1934). The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography; being thecollected papers of C. Raunkiaer. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

  37. Roxburgh, W.  (1795). Plants of the Coast of Coromandel. Vol. I. (Pt IandII).

  38. Roxburgh, W. (1832). Flora India. Ed. 2. Calcutta.

  39. Sanjappa, M. (1995). Leguminosae-Papilionoideae: Indigoferae. In: Hajra and al. (eds.) Fasc. Fl. India. Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta. 21: 1-167.

  40. Sanjappa, M. (1992). Legumes of India, Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh Publishers, Dehradun, India.

  41. Sanjappa, M. (1992). Legumes of India. Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehra Dun, India, pp. 236-241.

  42. Sanjappa, M. (2001). Leguminosae, In: Singh N.P. and D.K. Singh (eds). Floristic Diversity and Conservation Strategies in India. 4: 1847-1902.

  43. Sanjappa, M. (2020). Fabaceae (Leguminosae), In: Mao, A.A. and S.S. Dash (eds.). Flowering Plants of India Annotated Checklist Dicotyledons. Botanical Survey of India, Kolkata, 705 pp. pp. 300-446.

  44. Sharma, M. and Kumar, A. (2013). Leguminosae (Fabaceae) in Tribal Medicines. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2(1): 276-283.

  45. Simpson EH (1949). Measurement of diversity. Nature (London). 163: 688.

  46. Singh, J.R., Chung, H.G., Nelson, L.R. (2007). Landmark research in legumes. Genome. 50: 525-537.

  47. Singh, N., Yadav, S.S. and Balasubramanian, N. (2024). Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Assessment of Trigonella foenum-graecum.  Legume Research. 47(7): 1113-1119. doi: 10.18805/LR-5348.

  48. Taubert, P. (1894). Leguminosae. In: A. Engler and K. Prantl, Die NaturlichenP flanzenfamilien. Ed 1, 3, 3: 259. Berlin.

  49. Verma, R. and Jain, M. (2022). Uses of medicinal plants on Fabaceae family in Betul. International Journal of Applied Research. 8(11): 169-172.

  50. Von Humboldt, A. (1806). Ideen zueinerPhysiognomik der Gewachse. T€ubingen,Germany: Cotta.

  51. Wallich, N. (1820). Description of some rare Indian plants. Asiat. Res. 13: 369-415.

  52. Wight, R and Arnott, G.A.W. (1834). Characters of three genera of Indian plants. The Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal. 16: 314-316.

  53. Willdenow, C.L. (1802). Leguminosae. In: Species Plantarum Berlin. 3(2): 1171-1220.
Published In
Legume Research
Article Metrics
Metrics Icon
0
Views
0
Citations
Reviewed By
Share Article
Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Full Research Article

    Floristic Diversity of the Family Fabaceae (Leguminosae) in Community Forests of South Haryana, India

    K
    K.C. Meena1
    N
    Neetu Singh1
    M
    M.S. Bhandoria2
    P
    Pradeep Bansal3
    S
    S.S. Yadav1,*
    1Department of Botany, Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak-124 001, Haryana, India.
    2Department of Botany, Government College for Women, Mahendergarh-123 029, Haryana, India.
    3Department of Botany, Kishan Lal Public College, Rewari-123 401, Haryana, India.

    • Submitted05-05-2025|

    • Accepted08-07-2025|

    • First Online 17-09-2025|

    • doi 10.18805/LR-5515

    ABSTRACT

    Background: Fabaceae is third largest family of angiosperms and second important family from commercial and economic point of view. The purpose of the present study was to examine the floristic analysis and species diversity of the family Fabaceae in Community Forests of South Haryana, India in view of recent classification recognised by Legume Phylogeny Working Group. Though the community forests are fragmented still act as local mini biodiversity host spots harbouring rich plant diversity.

    Methods: Repeated floristic surveys were conducted in different seasons during the year 2023 and 2024. Detailed field notes were recorded and photographs were taken in the natural conditions.

    Result: The outcome of study revealed 61 species belonging to 34 genera, 16 tribes and 4 subfamilies from the studied area. The subfamily Papilionoideae is the most dominant, comprising 10 tribes, 21 genera and 41 species. Phaseoleae is the largest tribe with 7 genera and 9 species, followed by Mimoseae with 4 genera and 4 species. Indigofera emerged as the largest genus, comprising 8 species. The Simpson’s index value proved that the Fabaceae family in Community Forests has high diversity. The analysis of growth form indicated that the Fabaceae family is dominated by Herbs with a proportion of 48%. Therophytes have highest number of species (44%), followed by Phenerophytes (36%), Chaemephytes (18%), Hemicrytophytes (2%). The findings of the present study will be helpful for botanists, conservationist, policy planners and local people for effective management of community forests.

    INTRODUCTION

    Fabaceae is one the well-known family of the flowering plants. It got its name from genus Faba, which is presently included as species in genus Vicia (Jussieu, 1789). In fact, the Latin word Faba which literally means bean and this family is popularly also called as the legume, bean or pea family. Leguminosae is the erstwhile name of the family which is contemplated valid as per International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) article 18.5 of Vienna code. Worldwide, Fabaceae is the third largest family of the angios-perms after Orchidaceae and Asteraceae (Lewis et al., 2005, Christenhusz et al., 2016 and LPWG, 2017). It is represented by about 20,000 species belonging to 765 genera which are further grouped into 36 tribes and six sub-families (LPWG, 2017; Kumar et al., 2022; Legume Data Portal, 2022). Globally, largest and widespread genera of family is Astragalus containing over 2400 species, followed by Acacia with about 950 species and Crotolaria and Indigofera having about 700 species each (Verma and Jain, 2022). Woody legumes are primarily found in tropical and subtropical climates while herbaceous legumes are dominant in temperate regions (Sanjappa, 1992).
           
    About 1297 species belonging to nearly 179 genera represented in India out of which 23% are endemic to India (Bhatia et al., 2023). The greatest diversity of legumes in India is occurred in biodiversity hotspots like eastern Himalaya and Western Ghats (Sanjappa, 1992, 1995). Peninsular India has the greatest diversity of legumes, harbouring over 550 species, followed by the Himalayan region with nearly 500 species and north-eastern India with about 400 species. In India, Crotalaria is reported as largest genus of legumes with 97 species followed by Astragalus containing 85 species (Sanjappa, 1992).
           
    It is ranked second only after family Poaceae in terms of commercial and economic importance, as most of the members of this family are source of protein-rich seeds for the human diet, palatable nutritious fodder, timber, fuelwood, tannins, resins, pulp, toxins, dye, medicines and ornamental plants (Singh et al., 2007; Sharma, 2013, Ahmad et al., 2016 and Grygier et al., 2023). Genus Phaseolus, Glycine, Pisum, Cicer, Arachis, Medicago and Glycyrrhiza mostly having herbaceous plants are widely cultivated throughout world for economic value to human beings (Harris, 2004; Verma and Jain, 2022). Worldwide more than 150 species of Fabaceae have been recorded for use of fodder and food (Olmedilla et al., 2010). Certain members of the family function as keystone species in various ecosystems while others act as bottom-up control species (Sanjappa, 2001; Sanjappa, 2020).
           
    Although not all but majority of species of family Fabaceae have ability to form root nodules in association with nitrogen fixing bacteria Rhizobium and other genera for fixing atmospheric nitrogen in the soil (Rainer et al., 2018) and helps in maintaining nutrient cycle which ensure better plant growth, wider habitats adaptability and ecological success (Harris, 2004; Ney et al., 2019). Keeping in view the global significance of legumes, the year 2016 was declared as International Year of Pulses by United Nations General Assembly (Balan and Pradeep, 2021).
           
    Systematics of Fabaceae has always remained in discussion among the taxonomists and underwent tremendous changes in its classification. On the basis of aestivation of petals and sepals, Bentham (1865) put all legumes under the order Rosales in Leguminosae family which were further grouped into three sub-families, namely, Mimoseae, Caesalpinieae and Papilionaceae. On the contrary, Hutchinson (1973) and Cronquist (1988) established all three sub-families as distinct families under the order Fabales. Under Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification (APG IV, 2016), all legumes are put in a single family Fabaceae under the order Fabales. Most recently, based on studies of phylogenomics and plastomes DNA, the Legume Phylogeny Working Group have placed all the legumes in a single family Fabaceae which is further divided into six subfamilies i.e. Caesalpinioideae, Cercidoideae, Duparquetioideae, Detarioideae, Dialioideae and Papilionoideae (LPWG, 2017; Bruneau et al., 2024). The sub-families are further divided into tribes.
           
    The various studies have been conducted in overseas and India for documentation and enumeration of members of Fabaceae family. The initial systematic investigation of Indian legumes was started from Malabar region of South India by a Dutch Botanist Van Rheede in the year 1678 and succeeded to enlist and describe 63 species of 33 genera (Nicolson et al., 1988). Later on Lamarck (1785), Willdenow (1802), Candole (1825), Taubert (1894), Roxburgh (1795, 1832), Wallich (1820), Wight and Arnott (1834) fitfully narrated various genera and species of Indian legumes. Baker (1876-78) conducted extensive survey during British India period and documented 183 species across 132 genera which also were reported in “The Flora of British  India,”  published by J.D. Hooker. Later, Sanjappa (1992) documented about 1252 species belonging to 199 genera in India.
                   
    Some researchers have also documented the floristic diversity of Haryana but no systematic efforts have been made for investigating composition and diversity of family Fabaceae in the State of Haryana especially in the Community Forests. Moreover, recent nomenclature changes, new classification of family Fabaceae and lack of comprehensive investigation of the species richness at sub-families level necessitated further in-depth studies. Hence, the present study was conducted to prepare the checklist and evaluate the diversity of this family as per new classification for Community Forests of South Haryana.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    Haryana is a Northern Indian state with an area of 44,212 Km2. The study was conducted in Rewari and Mahendergarh districts (Fig 1). These districts are situated in the most southern tip of the state boundary and bordered with state of Rajasthan. The region is characterised by arid to semi-arid climatic conditions with seasonal scanty annual rainfall amounting 450-500 mm. The topography of the area is representing by rolling landscape, alluvial plans, semi stabilized sand dunes and scattered Aravalli Hills. The soil of the region is sandy to sandy loam with poor organic carbon content. The Dhohan, Sahibi and Krishnawati are seasonal rivers originating from Aravalli hills from Rajasthan seasonally recharge the ground water in the area. The vegetation is tropical dry deciduous and thorny in nature. The district Rewari and Mahendergarh are administratively divided in seven and eight Community Development Blocks respectively. One Community Forest (CF) area from each block of both the districts was selected for floristic study. Thus, fifteen CFs were selected in both the district as per detail given below (Table 1). Extensive and repeated seasonal floristic surveys were conducted in the selected Community Forests. Pre-monsoon and post monsoon Frequent field surveys were conducted during different seasons during  2023 and 2024.

    Fig 1: Map of the study site.



    Table 1: List of community forests selected for the present study.


           
    The plants were identified with the help of published literature viz. Flora of Haryana by Jain et al., (2000) and Kumar (2001), Sanjappa (1995), Kanji Lal (1966), Jain et al., (1982) and Legume Data Portal. The collected plants were photographed and standard techniques were adopted for processing of specimens (Bridson and Forman, 1998). For the documentation of species and the classification of family Fabaceae under tribes and sub-families the system recognised by LPWG (2017) and Lewis et al., (2005) was adopted. The basic and widely accepted classification concept of life form and growth form as suggested by Von Humboldt (1806); Raunkiaer (1934); Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg (1974) were followed to study various plant life forms. The International Plant Names Index (https://www.ipni.org/), The World Flora Online (https://www. worldfloraonline.org/) and Plants of the World Online (https://powo.science.kew.org/) were followed for updated names.
     
    Calculation of species diversity of family fabaceae
     
    The local species diversity of family Fabaceae was evaluated as per the method given by Simpson’s Index (1949) which is denoted by “D” and values ranges between 0 and 1. The Simpson’s Index is calculated by the following formula:


    Where,
    N = The total number of all species in Fabaceae family.
    ni = The number of species of each genus.
           
    In the present study the diversity score of the Fabaceae family was calculated based on number of species in genus and the number of individuals for each of those species.

    RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

    In the present study a total of 61 species belonging to 34 genera of family Fabaceae were recorded from the Community Forests of south Haryana (Table 2). Herbs (29 species) followed by trees (20 species), shrubs (8 species) and climbers (4 species) are the major growth form. The dominance of herbs can be referred to the arid and dry habitat conditions. Out of the six known subfamilies of legumes worldwide, four are represented in the study area (Table 3).

    Table 2: Checklist of species of family Fabaceae in community forests of South Haryana.



    Table 3: Sub-families and tribes of fabaceae.


           
    Many plant species belonging to family Fabaceae are used for numerous purposes. Pandey and Kumar (2024) reviewed the diversity of grain legumes of Himalayan region of Uttarakhand of India and highlighted their importance in meeting protein and micronutrient security. Jahan and Rahaman (2022) investigated that out of 254 species of family Fabaceae, 169 species belonging to 61 genera possessed therapeutic potential. Jat et al., (2024) reviewed the bioactive compounds and their potential uses of legume crops. Singh et al., (2024) evaluated the antimicrobial and antioxidant properties of Trigonella foenum-graecum concluded that it oil has good pharmaco-logical potential.
           
    The subfamily Papilionoideae is the most species-rich, comprising 10 tribes, 21 genera (63%) and 41 species (67%). This is followed by Caesalpinioideae, which includes 4 tribes, 11 genera (32%) and 17 species (28%). Cercidoideae is represented by single tribe and one genera (2.9%) and two species (3%), while Detaroideae consists of single tribe, single genus (2.9%) and single species (1.6%) (Fig 2). According to the classification of global legumes by Lewis et al., (2005), a total of 36 tribes have been identified, out of which 16 tribes (44.44 % of the total) are found in the Community Forests of south, Haryana.

    Fig 2: Sub families, genera and species of fabaceae.


           
    Phaseoleae is the largest tribe with 9 genera and 7 species, followed by Mimoseae with 4 genera and 4 species, Cassieae and Trifolieae both with 3 genera, 6 species, Acacieae with 3 genera and 5 species. Desmodieae, Fabeae, Ingeae and Millettieae are represented by 2 genera each and 6 spp, 2spp, 3 spp and 5 spp. respectively. Tribe Genisteae represented by one genus and 8 species, Cercideae and Crotalarieae with one genus and 2 species each while tribe Abreae, Dalbergieae, Detarieae and Sesbaniieae with one genera and one species each (Fig 3).

    Fig 3: Tribes wise distribution of genera and species.


           
    At the genus level, Indigofera emerges as the largest, comprising of 8 species. It is followed by Alysicarpus with 5 species and Senna and Tephrosia with 4 species each while Vachellia with 3 species; Bauhinia, Crotolaria, Albizia, Erythhrina, Medicago, Melilotus, Rhynchosia and Trifolium with 2 species each. The remaining 21 genera are represented by a single species (Fig 4).

    Fig 4: Top ten genera of family fabaceae.


     
    Life forms
     
    Life forms are a vital aspect of understanding vegetation, offering an initial insight into its ecological characteristics (Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg, 1974). Raunkiaer (1934) classified plants into five main life forms-Phanerophytes (Ph), Chamaephytes (Ch), Hemicryptophytes (H), Cryptophytes (Cr) and Therophytes (Th). The results revealed that the Therophytes consisting of 27 species representing (44%) of total species was dominant life form followed by Phenerophytes with 22 species representing (36%), Chamaephytes 11 species (18%) and Hemicryptophytes with only one species (2%) (Table 4). The Therophytes life forms indicate the typical desert vegetation in this region.

    Table 4: Life form composition of the enumerated species.


     
    Species diversity of fabaceae
     
    Species level measurement of biodiversity is necessary to evaluate the ecosystem stability, sustainability and productivity for maintaining balance in any ecosystem (Ardakani, 2004). The local diversity can be evaluated with the help of various mathematical tools (Eshaghi, 2009) and Simpson (1949). The species richness is widely used for assessment of plant diversity of particular area or region. The value of Simpson’s index is denoted by “D” which range between 0 and 1. When the value is closer to 1, it represent more diversity and value closer to 0 shows less diversity (Ket, 2012). It simply means that as species richness and evenness increases, the diversity increases. The Simpson’s Index is calculated by the following formula:

     
    Where,
    N = The total number of all species in Fabaceae family.
    ni = The number of species of each genus.
           
    The diversity score of the Fabaceae family is given in Table 5.

    Table 5: Number of species of each genus in the Fabaceae family.



    Simpson’s Diversity Index (D) is calculated as under-
    Sni (ni-1) = 2+ 20+2+2+2+56+2+2+2+12+12+2+6 = 122
    N (N-1) = 61 (61-1) = 3660
     
    Simpson’s Diversity index = 1- (122/ 3660)
     
    = 1- 0.0333
    = 0.967
           
    Thus, the Sampson’s diversity index revealed that the family Fabaceae has high diversity in the study area.

    CONCLUSION

    The community forests of south Haryana are rich reserviour of legumes. Total 61 species belonging to 34 genera and 16 tribes were reported from this region. The Sampson’s Index also revealed that the Fabaceae has a high diversity in the study area. The high proportion of herbaceous growth form indicates harsh dry climatic conditions of the area. Therophytes lifeform displayed the maximum of species which also indicate the arid climatic conditions. Though these community forests serve as local mini biodiversity hubs but now-a-days, the floristic diversity in these ecosystems is under severe pressure from many natural and anthropogenic factors. The immediate attention is needed to conserve and protect these unique ecosystems to provide various goods and services to the local communities in perpetuity.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

    The authors are thankful to the Forest and Wildlife Department, Haryana, especially officers and frontline staff of Rewari and Mahendergarh for providing basic information, advice and assistance during the field survey.
     
    Author’s contribution statement
     
    K. C. Meena: investigation, methodology, writing- original draft, field-studies; SS Yadav: conceptualization, data analysis; methodology, investigation, resources, writing-review and editing; Neetu Singh: Writing-review and editing; Makhan Singh and Pradeep Bansal: species identification, field studies data curation.

    CONFLICT OF INTEREST

    The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

    REFERENCES


    1. Ahmad, F., Anwar, F. and Hira, S. (2016). Review on medicinal importance of fabaceae family. Pharmacology Online. 3: 151-156.

    2. APG IV (Angiosperm Phylogeny Group) (2016). An Update of the angiosperm phylogeny group classification for the orders and Families of Flowering Plants: APG IV. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society. 181: 1-20.

    3. Ardakani, M.R. (2004). Ecology. Tehran University Press, p. 340. Colinvaux P (1993). Ecology. John Wiley and Sons Inc. New York, pp. 648-684.

    4. Baker, J.G. (1876-78). Leguminosae. In: J.D. Hooker, Flora of British India. Reeve and Co., London. 2: 56. 306.

    5. Balan, A.P. and Pradeep, S.V.  (2021). Legumes of Kerala, India: A checklist. Journal of Threatened Taxa. 13(5): 18257-18282. doi.org/10.11609/jot.6475.13.5.18257-18282.

    6. Bentham, G. (1865). Description of some new genera and species of tropical leguminosae. Trans. Linn. Soc. 1865(25): 297-320.

    7. Bhatia, H., Srivastava, G., Mehrotra, R.C. (2023) Legumes from the paleocene sediments of India and their ecological significance. Plant Diversity. 45: 199-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pld.2022.08.001.

    8. Bridson, D.M. and Forman, L. (1998). The Herbarium Handbook. Third Edition. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

    9. Bruneau, A., de Queiroz, L.P., Ringelberg, J.J., Borges, L.M., Bortoluzzi, R.L.D.C., Brown, G.K. (2024). Advances in Legume Systematics 14. Classification of Caesalpinioideae. Part 2: Higher-level classification. Phyto Keys. 3240: 1-552. 

    10. Burman, N.L. (1786). Flora Indica: Cui Accedit Series Zoophytorum- Indicorumnec non Prodromus Florae Capensis. Cornelius Haak, Leiden and Johannes Schreuder, Amsterdam.

    11. Candole, A.P. de (1825). Leguminosae. Prodromussystematis- naturalis. Regni Vegetabilis. 2: 93-524.

    12. Christenhusz, M.J.M.M. and Byng, J.W. (2016). The number of known plants species in the world and its annual increase. Phytotaxa. 261: 201-217.

    13. Cronquist, A. (1988). Evolution and Classification of Flowering Plants, 2nd ed. Columbia University Press, New York Botanical Garden, New York, 1988.

    14. Eshaghi, R.J., Manthey, M. and Mataji, A. (2009). Comparison of plant species diversity with different plant communities in deciduous forests. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Tech. 6(3): 389-394.

    15. Grygier, A., Chakradhari, S., Ratusz, K., Rudzi´nska, M., Patel, K.S. (2023). Evaluation of selected medicinal, timber and ornamental legume species’ seed oils as sources of Bioactive Lipophilic Compounds. Molecules. 28: 3994.

    16. Harris, S. (2004). Woody Legumes (excluding Acacias). Tropical Forests. P. 1793- 1797.

    17. Hutchinson, J. (1973). The Families of Flowering Plants. Oxford Univ Press, London.

    18. Jahan, I., Rahman, M.A. (2022). Investigation through Bangladesh Flora: Critically Endangered Medicinal Species of Fabaceae. Legume Research. 45(12): 1501-1505. doi: 10.18805/LR-4350.

    19. Jain, S.P., Singh, J.S. and Verma, D.M. (1982). Flora of North-East Haryana (India). J. Econ. Tax. Bot. 3: 152-176.

    20. Jain, S.P., Verma, D.M., Singh, S.C., Singh, J.S. and Kumar, S. (2000). Flora of Haryana. CIMAP, Lucknow.

    21. Jat, B.L., Sharma, H.C., Pagaria, P., Meena, A.K., Mali, G.R. and Khan, T. (2024). Legumes: Source of bioactive compounds and their potential use in legume crops improvement: A review. Legume Research. 47(11): 1827-1834. doi: 10. 18805/LR-4945.

    22. Jussieu, A.L. de. (1789). Genera plantarum: Secundum ordines naturales disposita, juxta methodum in Hortoregioparisiensi- exaratam. Paris: Herissant et Barrois. 

    23. Ket, M. (2012). Vegetation Description and Data Analysis a Practical Approach (2nd edn), John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

    24. Kumar, S. (2001). Flora of Haryana (Materials). Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehra Dun.

    25. Kumar, S.N., Mishra, S., Kumar, S. (2022). Cajanus elongatus (Benth.) Maesen (Fabaceae): An addition to the legume flora of Odisha, India. Species. 23(72): 423-427

    26. Lamarck, J.B. (1785). Encyclopedie methodique Botanique. I. Paris.

    27. Legume Data Portal (2022). Available at https://www. legumedata.org/ (accessed on 27. September 2024).

    28. Lewis, G., Schrire, B., Mackinder, B., Lock, M. (2005). Legumes of the world. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, United Kingdom.

    29. LPWG, The Legume Phylogeny Working Group. (2017). A new subfamily classification of the Leguminosae based on a taxonomically comprehensive phylogeny. Taxon. 66: 44-77.

    30. Mueller-Dombois, D., Ellenberg, H. (1974). Aims and methods of vegetation ecology.New York, NY, USA: John Wiley and Sons.

    31. Ney, L., Franklin, D., Mahmud, K., Cabrera, M., Hancock, D., Habteselassie, M., Newcomer, Q., Fatzinger, B. (2019). Rebuilding soil ecosystems for improved productivity in biosolarized soils. Int. J. Agron. 2019: 582-585. 

    32. Nicolson, D.H., Suresh, C.R. and Manilal, K.S. (1988). An Interpretation of Van Rheed’s Hortus Malabaricus. Regnum Vegetabile Vol. 119. Germany.

    33. Olmedilla, A.B., Rarré, R.R., Asencio, V.C., Martín, P.M. (2010). Papel de las Leguminosasen la alimentación actual. Act. Dietética. 14: 72-76.

    34. Pandey, M. and Kumar, N. (2024). Diversity of traditional grain legumes of himalayan region of Uttarakhand: A review.  Agricultural Reviews. 45(1): 96-102. doi: 10.18805/ag.R-2362.

    35. Rainer Schultze-Kraft, R., Rao, I.M., Peters, M., Clements, R.J., Ba, C., Liu, G. (2018). Tropical forage legumes for environmental benefits: An overview. Trop. Grassl. Forrajes Trop. 6: 1-14. 

    36. Raunkiaer, C. (1934). The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography; being thecollected papers of C. Raunkiaer. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

    37. Roxburgh, W.  (1795). Plants of the Coast of Coromandel. Vol. I. (Pt IandII).

    38. Roxburgh, W. (1832). Flora India. Ed. 2. Calcutta.

    39. Sanjappa, M. (1995). Leguminosae-Papilionoideae: Indigoferae. In: Hajra and al. (eds.) Fasc. Fl. India. Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta. 21: 1-167.

    40. Sanjappa, M. (1992). Legumes of India, Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh Publishers, Dehradun, India.

    41. Sanjappa, M. (1992). Legumes of India. Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehra Dun, India, pp. 236-241.

    42. Sanjappa, M. (2001). Leguminosae, In: Singh N.P. and D.K. Singh (eds). Floristic Diversity and Conservation Strategies in India. 4: 1847-1902.

    43. Sanjappa, M. (2020). Fabaceae (Leguminosae), In: Mao, A.A. and S.S. Dash (eds.). Flowering Plants of India Annotated Checklist Dicotyledons. Botanical Survey of India, Kolkata, 705 pp. pp. 300-446.

    44. Sharma, M. and Kumar, A. (2013). Leguminosae (Fabaceae) in Tribal Medicines. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2(1): 276-283.

    45. Simpson EH (1949). Measurement of diversity. Nature (London). 163: 688.

    46. Singh, J.R., Chung, H.G., Nelson, L.R. (2007). Landmark research in legumes. Genome. 50: 525-537.

    47. Singh, N., Yadav, S.S. and Balasubramanian, N. (2024). Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Assessment of Trigonella foenum-graecum.  Legume Research. 47(7): 1113-1119. doi: 10.18805/LR-5348.

    48. Taubert, P. (1894). Leguminosae. In: A. Engler and K. Prantl, Die NaturlichenP flanzenfamilien. Ed 1, 3, 3: 259. Berlin.

    49. Verma, R. and Jain, M. (2022). Uses of medicinal plants on Fabaceae family in Betul. International Journal of Applied Research. 8(11): 169-172.

    50. Von Humboldt, A. (1806). Ideen zueinerPhysiognomik der Gewachse. T€ubingen,Germany: Cotta.

    51. Wallich, N. (1820). Description of some rare Indian plants. Asiat. Res. 13: 369-415.

    52. Wight, R and Arnott, G.A.W. (1834). Characters of three genera of Indian plants. The Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal. 16: 314-316.

    53. Willdenow, C.L. (1802). Leguminosae. In: Species Plantarum Berlin. 3(2): 1171-1220.
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us
      Published In
      Legume Research

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)