Felling Ficus: The Cultural Status of Fig Trees in a Rural Assamese Community, India

H Eden W Cottee-Jones, Robert J. Whittaker


Scattered fig (Ficus spp. Moraceae) trees are critically important for biodiversity conservation in tropical rural landscapes. By providing large fruit crops, they help maintain seed dispersal networks and facilitate forest restoration. The conservation of fig trees scattered across rural landscapes is therefore vital for the preservation of ecosystem services and biodiversity beyond the borders of protected areas. Given the threats to scattered fig trees, it is increasingly important to identify potentially effective local conservation strategies that accommodate existing perceptions of their value. We used ethnographic techniques to assess the attitudes of villagers towards fig trees in the village of Komargoan and its surroundings in Assam, India. As reported for other parts of South Asia, we found fig trees have significant sacred status, which included taboos against cutting them down. However, we discovered mixed and sometimes contradictory understandings of the religious attributes of fig trees, which were sometimes believed to be inhabited by gods or ancestral spirits. The benefits most commonly associated with fig trees by interviewees were their aesthetic beauty, large size, and shade during the daytime heat. When the presence of these trees incurred economic costs, their religious, aesthetic, and practical benefits were not sufficient reasons to prevent people from cutting them down, although often saplings would be planted in another place as compensation. Unexpectedly, figs were only planted by respected members of the community, usually older men, who had sufficient social status. Any conservation strategy aiming to sustain the abundance of figs in rural Assam is more likely to be successful if these cultural views are taken into account.


Assam; Conservation strategies; Cultural values; Ficus spp.; Sacred trees; Scattered trees

Full Text:



Barua, M. and J. Tamuly. 2011. Conservation of figs and frugivores in Assam, India. Final project report. The Rufford Small Grants Foundation, London.

Berg, C. C. and E. J. H. Corner. 2005. Moraceae–Ficus. Nationaal Herbarium Nederland, Universiteit Leiden Branch, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Berkes, F. 2004. Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology 18:621–630.

Bhagwat, S. A., N. Dudley and S. R. Harrop. 2011. Religious following in biodiversity hotspots: challenges and opportunities for conservation and development. Conservation Letters 4:234-240.

Caughlin, T. T., T. Ganesh and M. D. Lowman. 2012. Sacred fig trees promote frugivore visitation and tree seedling abundance in south India. Current Science 102:918–922.

Chandrakanth, M. G., J. K. Gilless, V. Gowramma and M. G. Nagaraja. 1990. Temple forests in India’s forest development. Agroforestry Systems 11:199–211.

Chaudhary, L. B., J. V. Sudhakar, A. Kumar, O. Bajpai, R. Tiwari and G. V. S. Murthy. 2012. Synopsis of the Genus Ficus L. (Moraceae) in India. Taiwania 57:193–216.

Chazdon, R. L., C. A. Harvey, O. Komar, D. M. Griffith, B. G. Ferguson, M. Martínez-Ramos, H. Morales, R. Nigh, L. Soto-Pinto, M. van Breugel and S. M. Philpott. 2009. Beyond reserves: a research agenda for conserving biodiversity in human-modified tropical landscapes. Biotropica 41:142–153.

Dutta, A. C. 2006. Dictionary of economic and medicinal plants. Doss Publications, Jorhat, India.

Eshiamwata, G. W., D. G. Berens, B. Bleher, W. R. J. Dean and K. Böhning-Gaese. 2006. Bird assemblages in isolated Ficus trees in Kenyan farmland. Journal of Tropical Ecology 22:723–726.

Gadgil, M. and R. Guha. 1993. This fissured land: an ecological history of India. Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

Gibbons, P., D. B. Lindenmayer, J. Fischer, A. D. Manning, A. Weinberg, J. Seddon, P. Ryan and G. Barrett. 2008. The future of scattered trees in agricultural landscapes. Conservation Biology 22:1309–1319.

GOI (Government of India). 2011. Census of India, 2011. Provisional population totals, Assam. Government of India, New Delhi.

GSI, 2011. Geology and mineral resources of Assam.

Geological Survey of India, No. 30, Part IV, Vol. 2(i): Assam. Government of India. Essar Offset, Guwahati, India.

Harvey, C. A., C. Villanueva, H. Esquivel, R. Gómez, M. Ibrahim, M. Lopez, J. Martinez, D. Muñoz, C. Restrepo, J. C. Saénz, J. Villacís and F. L. Sinclair. 2011. Conservation value of dispersed tree cover threatened by pasture management. Forest Ecology and Management 261:1664–1674.

Howe, H. F. and M. N. Miriti. 2004. When seed dispersal matters. BioScience 54:651–660.

Ismail, S. A., J. Ghazoul, G. Ravikanth, C. G. Kushalappa, R. U. Shaanker and C. J. Kettle. 2014. Forest trees in human modified landscapes: ecological and genetic drivers of recruitment failure in Dysoxylum malabaricum (Meliaceae). PLoS ONE 9:e89437.

Jadhav, S. and M. Barua. 2012. The elephant vanishes: impact of human-elephant conflict on people’s wellbeing. Health & Place 18:1356–1365.

Jain, S. and S. Kapoor. 2007. Divine botany – universal and useful but under explored traditions. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 6:534–539.

Kinnaird, M. F., T. G. O’Brien and S. Suryadi. 1996. Population fluctuation in Sulawesi Red-knobbed Hornbills: tracking figs in space and time. The Auk 113:431–440.

Kumar, A., O. Bajpai, A. K. Mishra, N. Sahu, S. K. Behera and L. B. Chaudhary. 2011. Assessment of diversity in the genus Ficus L. (Moraceae) of Katerniaghat Wildlife Sanctuary, Uttar Pradesh, India. American Journal of Plant Sciences 2:78–92.

Kunwar, R. M. and R. B. Bussmann. 2006. Ficus (fig) species in Nepal: a review of diversity and indigenous uses. Lyonia 11:85–97.

Lambert, F. R. and A. G. Marshall. 1991. Keystone characteristics of bird dispersed Ficus in a Malaysian lowland rainforest. Journal of Ecology 79:793–809.

Lansky, E., H. Paavilainen, A. Pawlus and Newman, R. 2008. Ficus spp. (Fig): ethnobotany and potential as anticancer and anti-inflammatory agents. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 119:195–213.

Manning, A. D., J. Fischer and D. B. Lindenmayer. 2006. Scattered trees are keystone structures – implications for conservation. Biological Conservation 132:311–321.

Martin, E. A., L. Ratsimisetra, F. Laloë and S. M. Carrière. 2009. Conservation value for birds of traditionally managed isolated trees in an agricultural landscape of Madagascar. Biodiversity and Conservation 18:2719–2742.

Mawdsley, N., S. G. Compton and R. J. Whittaker. 1998. Population persistence, pollination mutualisms and figs in fragmented tropical landscapes. Conservation Biology 12:1416–1420.

O’Brien, T. G., M. F. Kinnaird, E. S. Dierenfeld, N. L. Conklin-Brittain, R. W. Wrangham and S. C. Silver. 1998. What’s so special about figs? Nature 392:668.

Shanahan, M., S. So, S. G. Compton and R. Corlett. 2001. Fig-eating by vertebrate frugivores: a global review. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 76:529–572.

Shrivastava, R. J. and J. Heinen. 2007. A microsite analysis of resource use around Kaziranga National Park, India. Journal of Environment and Development 16:207–226.

Sitaramam, V., S. R. Jog and P. Tetali. 2009. Ecology of Ficus religiosa accounts for its association with religion. Current Science 97:637–640.

Terborgh, J. 1986. Keystone plant resources in the tropical forest. In Conservation biology, the science of scarcity and diversity, edited by Soulé, M. E., pp. 330–344. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA, USA.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14237/ebl.6.1.2015.269

Copyright (c) 2015 Ethnobiology Letters

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.