Journal of Resources and Ecology ›› 2021, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (1): 1-10.DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.01.001
• Forest Ecosystem • Next Articles
Received:
2020-07-18
Accepted:
2020-09-07
Online:
2021-01-30
Published:
2021-03-30
Contact:
Hari Prasad PANDEY
Hari Prasad PANDEY. Implications of Anthropogenic Disturbances for Species Diversity, Recruitment and Carbon Density in the Mid-hills Forests of Nepal[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021, 12(1): 1-10.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.jorae.cn/EN/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.01.001
Fig. 1 Map showing the study area Note: Numbers in the Nepal national map indicate the names of the seven Provinces; 1=Province 1; 2=Province 2; 3=Bagmati Province; 4=Gandaki Province; 5=Lumbini Province; 6=Karnali Province; and 7=Sudurpachhim Province.
Fig. 2 Concentric sample plot layout in the forests Note: AGTB= Above-ground tree biomass; AGSB= Above-ground sapling biomass; SOC= Soil organic carbon; LHG= Leaf-litter, herbs and grass; and DBH= Diameter at breast height.
S.N. | Variables | Unit | Quantity | Remarks |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Species richness | number of species | 26.00 | Woody habit only |
2 | Tree density | number ha-1 | 1468.80 | |
3 | Sapling density | number ha-1 | 2695.80 | Recruitments or regeneration |
4 | Seedling density | number ha-1 | 32522.00 | |
5 | Biomass density | t ha-1 | 151.15 | |
6 | SOC density | t ha-1 | 46.76 | |
7 | Total carbon density | t ha-1 | 117.80 |
Table 1 Basic characteristics of the forests surveyed in this study
S.N. | Variables | Unit | Quantity | Remarks |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Species richness | number of species | 26.00 | Woody habit only |
2 | Tree density | number ha-1 | 1468.80 | |
3 | Sapling density | number ha-1 | 2695.80 | Recruitments or regeneration |
4 | Seedling density | number ha-1 | 32522.00 | |
5 | Biomass density | t ha-1 | 151.15 | |
6 | SOC density | t ha-1 | 46.76 | |
7 | Total carbon density | t ha-1 | 117.80 |
Fig. 4 Relationships between response variables and predictor variables, showing only the significant results among the variables Note: A: Biomass density and lopping intensity; B: Carbon density and lopping intensity; C: Species richness and number of stumps; D: Saplings and lopping intensity; E: Seedlings and trampling intensity; F: Saplings and number of stumps.
Attributes | Disturbances | DF | Deviance | Resid. DF | Resid. Deviance | F-value | P-value | Sig. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Species richness | Number of stumps | 1 | 5.796 | 87 | 83.82 | 6.5418 | 0.0125 | Yes |
Degree of lopping | 3 | 0.408 | 84 | 83.41 | 0.1537 | 0.9270 | No | |
Degree of cutting | 3 | 4.774 | 81 | 78.64 | 1.7964 | 0.1549 | No | |
Dropping count | 1 | 0.219 | 80 | 78.42 | 0.2471 | 0.6205 | No | |
Degree of trampling | 3 | 5.944 | 77 | 72.48 | 2.2365 | 0.0907 | No | |
Number of saplings | Number of stumps | 1 | 148.035 | 87 | 1554.60 | 8.7686 | 0.0041 | Yes |
Degree of lopping | 3 | 168.849 | 84 | 1385.70 | 3.3338 | 0.0237 | Yes | |
Degree of cutting | 3 | 11.427 | 81 | 1374.30 | 0.2256 | 0.8783 | No | |
Dropping count | 1 | 31.542 | 80 | 1342.80 | 1.8687 | 0.1756 | No | |
Degree of trampling | 3 | 64.271 | 77 | 1278.50 | 1.2690 | 0.2901 | No | |
Number of seedlings | Number of stumps | 1 | 2.348 | 87 | 345.69 | 0.6518 | 0.4220 | No |
Degree of lopping | 3 | 3.197 | 84 | 342.49 | 0.2959 | 0.8283 | No | |
Degree of cutting | 3 | 15.074 | 81 | 327.42 | 1.3950 | 0.2507 | No | |
Dropping count | 1 | 2.807 | 80 | 324.61 | 0.7792 | 0.3801 | No | |
Degree of trampling | 3 | 42.268 | 77 | 282.34 | 3.9116 | 0.0118 | Yes | |
SOC density | Number of stumps | 1 | 0.576 | 87 | 267.18 | 0.1863 | 0.6672 | No |
Degree of lopping | 3 | 19.920 | 84 | 247.26 | 2.1470 | 0.1011 | No | |
Degree of cutting | 3 | 4.196 | 81 | 243.07 | 0.4523 | 0.7164 | No | |
Dropping count | 1 | 1.272 | 80 | 241.80 | 0.4111 | 0.5233 | No | |
Degree of trampling | 3 | 9.642 | 77 | 232.15 | 1.0392 | 0.3801 | No | |
Total biomass density | Number of stumps | 1 | 0.240 | 87 | 9885.60 | 0.0022 | 0.9624 | No |
Degree of lopping | 3 | 1048.380 | 84 | 8837.20 | 3.1911 | 0.0282 | Yes | |
Degree of cutting | 3 | 380.290 | 81 | 8456.90 | 1.1575 | 0.3315 | No | |
Dropping count | 1 | 57.820 | 80 | 8399.10 | 0.5280 | 0.4697 | No | |
Degree of trampling | 3 | 488.810 | 77 | 7910.30 | 1.4879 | 0.2245 | No | |
Total carbon density | Number of stumps | 1 | 0.050 | 87 | 2843.70 | 0.0014 | 0.9699 | No |
Degree of lopping | 3 | 367.040 | 84 | 2476.70 | 3.7827 | 0.0138 | Yes | |
Degree of cutting | 3 | 85.480 | 81 | 2391.20 | 0.8810 | 0.4548 | No | |
Dropping count | 1 | 21.050 | 80 | 2370.20 | 0.6508 | 0.4223 | No | |
Degree of trampling | 3 | 132.510 | 77 | 2237.60 | 1.3657 | 0.2596 | No |
Table 2 Statistical test outputs on response variables against predictors
Attributes | Disturbances | DF | Deviance | Resid. DF | Resid. Deviance | F-value | P-value | Sig. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Species richness | Number of stumps | 1 | 5.796 | 87 | 83.82 | 6.5418 | 0.0125 | Yes |
Degree of lopping | 3 | 0.408 | 84 | 83.41 | 0.1537 | 0.9270 | No | |
Degree of cutting | 3 | 4.774 | 81 | 78.64 | 1.7964 | 0.1549 | No | |
Dropping count | 1 | 0.219 | 80 | 78.42 | 0.2471 | 0.6205 | No | |
Degree of trampling | 3 | 5.944 | 77 | 72.48 | 2.2365 | 0.0907 | No | |
Number of saplings | Number of stumps | 1 | 148.035 | 87 | 1554.60 | 8.7686 | 0.0041 | Yes |
Degree of lopping | 3 | 168.849 | 84 | 1385.70 | 3.3338 | 0.0237 | Yes | |
Degree of cutting | 3 | 11.427 | 81 | 1374.30 | 0.2256 | 0.8783 | No | |
Dropping count | 1 | 31.542 | 80 | 1342.80 | 1.8687 | 0.1756 | No | |
Degree of trampling | 3 | 64.271 | 77 | 1278.50 | 1.2690 | 0.2901 | No | |
Number of seedlings | Number of stumps | 1 | 2.348 | 87 | 345.69 | 0.6518 | 0.4220 | No |
Degree of lopping | 3 | 3.197 | 84 | 342.49 | 0.2959 | 0.8283 | No | |
Degree of cutting | 3 | 15.074 | 81 | 327.42 | 1.3950 | 0.2507 | No | |
Dropping count | 1 | 2.807 | 80 | 324.61 | 0.7792 | 0.3801 | No | |
Degree of trampling | 3 | 42.268 | 77 | 282.34 | 3.9116 | 0.0118 | Yes | |
SOC density | Number of stumps | 1 | 0.576 | 87 | 267.18 | 0.1863 | 0.6672 | No |
Degree of lopping | 3 | 19.920 | 84 | 247.26 | 2.1470 | 0.1011 | No | |
Degree of cutting | 3 | 4.196 | 81 | 243.07 | 0.4523 | 0.7164 | No | |
Dropping count | 1 | 1.272 | 80 | 241.80 | 0.4111 | 0.5233 | No | |
Degree of trampling | 3 | 9.642 | 77 | 232.15 | 1.0392 | 0.3801 | No | |
Total biomass density | Number of stumps | 1 | 0.240 | 87 | 9885.60 | 0.0022 | 0.9624 | No |
Degree of lopping | 3 | 1048.380 | 84 | 8837.20 | 3.1911 | 0.0282 | Yes | |
Degree of cutting | 3 | 380.290 | 81 | 8456.90 | 1.1575 | 0.3315 | No | |
Dropping count | 1 | 57.820 | 80 | 8399.10 | 0.5280 | 0.4697 | No | |
Degree of trampling | 3 | 488.810 | 77 | 7910.30 | 1.4879 | 0.2245 | No | |
Total carbon density | Number of stumps | 1 | 0.050 | 87 | 2843.70 | 0.0014 | 0.9699 | No |
Degree of lopping | 3 | 367.040 | 84 | 2476.70 | 3.7827 | 0.0138 | Yes | |
Degree of cutting | 3 | 85.480 | 81 | 2391.20 | 0.8810 | 0.4548 | No | |
Dropping count | 1 | 21.050 | 80 | 2370.20 | 0.6508 | 0.4223 | No | |
Degree of trampling | 3 | 132.510 | 77 | 2237.60 | 1.3657 | 0.2596 | No |
[1] | Acharya K P, Dagi R B, Acharya M. 2011. Understanding forest degradation in Nepal. Unasylva, 62: 31-38. |
[2] |
Allnutt T F, Asner G P, Golden C D, et al. 2013. Mapping recent deforestation and forest disturbance in northeastern Madagascar. Tropical Conservation Science, 6(1):1-15.
DOI URL |
[3] | ANSAB. 2010. Forest carbon stock measurement: Guidelines for measuring carbon stocks in the community-managed forest. Asia Network for Sustainable Agriculture and Bio-resources (ANSAB), Federation of Community Forest Users, Nepal (FECOFUN), International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD), 76. www.ansab.org. |
[4] | ANSAB. 2011. Forest carbon stock in community forests in three watersheds (Ludikhola, Kayarkhola and Charnawati). Asia Network for Sustainable Agriculture and Bio-resources (ANSAB), Federation of Community Forest Users, Nepal (FECOFUN), International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD). |
[5] | Baral S K, Katzensteiner K. 2009. Diversity of vascular plant communities along a disturbance gradient in a central mid-hill community forest of Nepal. Banko Janakari, 19(1): 3-10. |
[6] |
Barlow J, Lennox G, Ferreira J, et al. 2016. Anthropogenic disturbance in tropical forests can double biodiversity loss from deforestation. Nature, 535: 144-147.
DOI URL PMID |
[7] | CFUG. 2008. Constitution and operational plan of community forest user groups. Gorkha: Community Forest User Groups (Ghaledanda Ranakhola CFUG and Ludi Damgade CFUG). |
[8] |
Chave J, Andalo C, Brown S. 2005. Tree allometry and estimation of carbon stocks. Oecologia, 145(1): 87-99.
DOI URL |
[9] |
Chhettri N, Sharma E, Deb D C. 2002. Impact of firewood extraction on tree structure, regeneration and woody biomass productivity in a trekking corridor of the Sikkim Himalaya. Mountain Research and Development, 22(2): 150-158.
DOI URL |
[10] | DDC. 2011. District profile of Gorkha. Gorkha: District Development Committee. |
[11] | DFRS. 2015a. State of Nepal’s forests. Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) Nepal, Department of Forest Research and Survey (DFRS). Kathmandu, Nepal. |
[12] | DFRS. 2015b. Middle mountains forests of Nepal. Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) Nepal, Department of Forest Research and Survey (DFRS). Kathmandu, Nepal. |
[13] | FAO. 2020. Global forest resources assessment 2020—Key Findings. Rome. |
[14] |
Gautam T P, Mandal T N. 2016. Effect of disturbance on biomass, production and carbon dynamics in the moist tropical forest of eastern Nepal. Forest Ecosystems, 3:11. DOI: 10.1186/s40663-016-0070-y.
DOI URL |
[15] |
Geider R J, Delucia E H, Falkowski P G. 2001. Primary productivity of planet earth: Biological determinants and physical constraints in terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Global Change Biology, 7: 849-882.
DOI URL |
[16] | IPCC. 2006. IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories: Intergovernmental panel on climate change, national greenhouse inventory program. United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). |
[17] | IPCC. 2007. Climate change: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. |
[18] |
Marion-Kissling K, Hegetschweiler T, Rusterholz H P. 2009. Short-term and long-term effects of human trampling on above-ground vegetation, soil density, soil organic matter and soil microbial processes in suburban beech forests. Applied Soil Ecology, 42(3): 303-314.
DOI URL |
[19] | MacDicken K. 1997. A guide to monitoring carbon storage in forestry and agroforestry projects arlington (VA). Forest Carbon Monitoring Programme, Winrock International Institute for Agriculture Development. |
[20] |
Moreno-Mateos D, Barbier E, Jones P, et al. 2017. Anthropogenic ecosystem disturbance and the recovery debt. Nature Communications, 8:14163. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms14163.
DOI URL PMID |
[21] |
Pandey H, Pandey P, Pokhrel S, et al. 2019. Relationship between soil properties and forests carbon: Case of three community forests from Far Western Nepal. Banko Janakari, 29(1): 43-52.
DOI URL |
[22] |
Paudyal K, Baral H, Burkhard B. 2015. Participatory assessment and mapping of ecosystem services in a data-poor region: A case study of community-managed forests in central Nepal. Ecosystem Services, 13: 81-92.
DOI URL |
[23] | Poudyal B H, Maraseni T, Cockfield G. 2019. Impacts of forest management on tree species richness and composition: Assessment of forest management regimes in Tarai landscape Nepal. Applied Geography, 111: 1-11. |
[24] |
Pawar G V, Singh L, Jhariya M K, et al. 2014. Effect of anthropogenic disturbances on biomass and carbon storage potential of a dry tropical forest in India. Journal of Applied and Natural Science, 6(2): 383-392.
DOI URL |
[25] | Pearson T R, Brown S L, Birdsey R A. 2007. Measurement guidelines for the sequestration of forest carbon. Northern Research Station, Department of Agriculture, USA. |
[26] |
Rana E, Thwaites R, Luck G. 2017. Trade-offs and synergies between carbons, forest diversity and forest products in Nepal community forests. Environmental Conservation, 44(1): 5-13.
DOI URL |
[27] | R Core Team. 2018. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. |
[28] |
Sahu P K, Sagar R, Singh J S. 2008. Tropical forest structure and diversity in relation to altitude and disturbance in a Biosphere Reserve in central India. Applied Vegetation Science, 11(4): 461-470.
DOI URL |
[29] |
Sapkota I P, Tigabu M, Odén P C. 2009. Spatial distribution, advanced regeneration and stand structure of Nepalese Sal(Shorea robusta) forest subject to disturbances of different intensities. Forest Ecology and Management, 257(9): 1966-1975.
DOI URL |
[30] | Sapkota I P, Tigabu M, Odén P C. 2010. Changes in tree species diversity and dominance across a disturbance gradient in Nepalese Sal (Shorea robusta Gaertn.) forests. Journal of Forest Research, 21: 25-32. |
[31] |
Sharma E, Chhettri N. 2005. ICIMOD’s transboundary biodiversity management initiative in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas. Mountain Research and Development, 25(3): 278-281.
DOI URL |
[32] | Shrestha K B, Maren I E, Arneberg E, et al. 2013. Effect of anthropogenic disturbance on plant species diversity in oak forests in Nepal, Central Himalaya. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 9: 21-29. |
[33] |
Sodhi S, Lee T M, Koh L P, et al. 2009. A meta-analysis of the impact of anthropogenic forest disturbance on southeast Asia’s biotas. Biotropica, 41(1): 103-109.
DOI URL |
[34] |
Soni A, Decesari S, Shridhar V, et al. 2019. Investigation of potential source regions of atmospheric Black Carbon in the data deficit region of the Western Himalayas and its foothills. Atmospheric Pollution Research, 10(6): 1832-1842.
DOI URL |
[35] | Tamrakar P R. 2000. Biomass and volume tables with species. Description for Community Forest Management, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Nepal. |
[36] |
Thapa S, Chapman D S. 2010. Impacts of resource extraction on forest structure and diversity in Bardia National Park, Nepal. Forest Ecology and Management, 259(3): 641-649.
DOI URL |
[37] |
Walkley A, Black I A. 1934. An examination of the method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science, 37(1): 29-38.
DOI URL |
[1] | GAO Wei, LIN Meimei, HUANG Yongrong, HUANG Shide, YE Gongfu, HUANG Zhiqun. Effects of Forest Types and Environmental Factors on Soil Microbial Biomass in a Coastal Sand Dune of Subtropical China [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2020, 11(5): 454-465. |
[2] | TIAN Yuhong, LIU Fenghua, WANG Tiantian. Spatial Distribution of Surface Soil Organic Carbon Density and Related Factors along an Urbanization Gradient in Beijing [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2020, 11(5): 508-515. |
[3] | USOLTSEV Vladimir Andreevich, SHOBAIRI Seyed Omid Reza, TSEPORDEY Ivan Stepanovich, AHRARI Amirhossein, ZHANG Meng, SHOAIB Ahmad Anees, CHASOVSKIKH Viktor Petrovich. Are There Differences in the Response of Natural Stand and Plantation Biomass to Changes in Temperature and Precipitation? A Case for Two-needled Pines in Eurasia [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2020, 11(4): 331-341. |
[4] | CAO Yanan, ZHANG Xianzhou, NIU Ben, HE Yongtao. Comparison of Methods for Evaluating the Forage-livestock Balance of Alpine Grasslands on the Northern Tibetan Plateau [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2020, 11(3): 272-282. |
[5] | Yeneayehu FENETAHUN, XU Xinwen, YOU Yuan, WANG Yongdong. Effects of Vegetation Cover, Grazing and Season on Herbage Species Composition and Biomass: A Case Study of Yabello Rangeland, Southern Ethiopia [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2020, 11(2): 159-170. |
[6] | FU Gang,SUN Wei,LI Shaowei,ZHONG Zhiming. Response of Microbial Communities in Soil to Multi-level Warming in a Highland Barley System of the Lhasa River [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2019, 10(4): 373-378. |
[7] | XI Min, KONG Fanlong, LI Yue. Temporal Variations in Growth and Aboveground Biomass of Phragmites australis and EVI Analysis in Jiaozhou Bay Coastal Salt Marshes, China [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2017, 8(6): 641-647. |
[8] | LIN Xueqin, SI Yuefang, WANG Dai. Challenges in Development of the Biomass Energy Industry in China [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2013, 4(4): 353-360. |
[9] | LIU Yingchun, YU Guirui, WANG Qiufeng, ZHANG Yangjian. Huge Carbon Sequestration Potential in Global Forests [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2012, 3(3): 193-201. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||