Phytosociology of tree species in the Riverine Forest of Amirthi River, Amirthi Range of Vellore Forest Division, Tamil Nadu, India
Sakthivel N.1*, S. F. Lesley Sounderraj2, Ramarajan S3, S. F. Wesley Sunderraj4
1Department of Zoology, Voorhees College, Vellore
2Department of Zoology, Voorhees College, Vellore
3Sri Paramakalyani College, Alwarkurchi.
*Corresponding Author E-mail: wesley.gff@gmail.com
Abstract:
A rapid inventory on phytosociology of tree species and their relation to the riverine forest of Amirthi river, Vellore Forest Division, Tamil Nadu, was explored using tree spies data-set of 35 quadrates in the study area. A very high species diversity of 69tree species with 754 individuals were recorded within the 0.35ha of area sampled. Among those species, Albizialebbeck, Ziziphusmauritiana, Bambusaarundinacea, Dalbergialanceolaria, Wrightiatinctoria, Tamarindusindica, Tectonagrandis, Pongamiapinnata, Ailanthus excelsa and Syzygiumcuminiwere the predominant tree species estimated top ten ranking order of Important Value Index (IVI). Fabaceae, Moraceae, Euphoraceae, Anacardiaceae, Meliaceae, Mimosaceae and Rubiaceae were the seven dominant families reported maximum species richness ranged from eight to four species. Shannon-Weiner index (H′) ranged from 3.61 to 3.69 while Simpson index from 0.95 to 0.96, and evenness index from 0.53 to 0.58. Since the IVI deals the density, distribution and dominance of a species, selected species of top 20 ranked IVI value were recommended for restoring the riverine forest of Amirthi river.
KEY WORDS: Amirthi river, Riverine forest, Tree species, Diversity, IVI values, Restoration.
1. INTRODUCTION:
Vegetation communities established along the river or stream margin is defined as Riparian ecosystem, which is interfaces between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (Gregory et al., 1991). Riparian ecosystem is also known as gallery forests and stream side forests (Brinson 1990). Riparian vegetation zones are known for its species-rich habitats and higher rates of biomass production when compared with other adjacent forest communities (Brinson, 1990; Decamps & Tabacchi, 1994). Their high species diversity is due in part to floods which create a mosaic of microhabitats within which numerous plant species coexist (Swanson et al., 1982; Gregory et al., 1991).
Plant communities in these systems are likely to be affected by both longitudinal i.e. upstream-downstream (Vannotte et al., 1980; Noss, 1983) and transversal linkages for species recruitment and diversity. As a consequence of the shifting mosaic of landforms and communities resulting from natural disturbance (Whittaker, 1977), high levels of species richness are usually reported along the rivers. According to intermediate disturbance hypothesis (IDH), intermediate intensity and frequency of disturbance would create the highest diversity (Connell, 1978).
Bachan (2002, 2003) recorded 329 flowering plants from the Vazhachal region of the Chalakkudy river basin. Tripathi and Singh (2009) stated that, there was highest species richness in riverine forest compared to plantation. Jayaram (2000) indicated that the high floristic wealth of Cauvery river basin formsa separate phytogeographic unit. There was a significant difference between the average number of species recorded between forest zone and agro‐ecosystem of Cauvery river basin (Sunil et al., 2010).
In addition to floral species richness, riparian habitats also support high faunal diversity and also threatened species. Diverse floral (78 plant species) and faunal (fishes, reptiles and bird species) species within 0.25ha of the riverine vegetation of river Tambiraparani in Tamil Nadu (Johnsingh and Joshua 1989).The riparian vegetation corridor in the Cauvery river provide habitat for threatened mammalian fauna like; Asian elephant ( Elephas maximus ), otter species (Amblonyxcinereus and Lutraperspicillata – vulnerable), Nilgiri langur (Trachypithecusjohnii), Grizzled Giant Squirrel (Ratufa macroura) (Baskaran et al. 2011and Shenoy et al.2006). The riverine gallery forests of Thambiraparani and Servalar rivers and the riverine forest of Alagarkoil valley in Tamil Nadu provide potential habitat for Nilgiri langur and Grizzled Giant Squirrel respectively (Sunderraj and Johnsingh 2001 and Joshua and Johnsingh 1992).
Above all, riparian forest provides diverse ecosystem services such as preventing soil erosion, control floods, provide nutrient supply, food resources, maintain hydrological regime and climate stability, and therefore attracted international concern in the recent years (Scott et al. 2009). The riparian forest has been recanalized as “Key stone ecosystem” because it harbours certain unique habitats which are highly influenced by water (Goebel et al. 2003) and wildlife biologist recognized it as a critically and functionally dominant component of a terrestrial landscape (Tabacchi et al. 1998).
Riparian plant communities are sensitive to anthropogenic interference (Malanson, 1993) resulting disturbance adapted communities. Riparian landscapes are highly threatened ecosystems as they are inherently rare habitats, occupying a mere one-thousandth of the earth’s surface (Hynes, 1970).Human activities have been drastically transformed the major rivers of Asia such as Indus, Ganges and Yangtze (Dudgeon, 2000) and are now categorized as threatened ecosystems (Dudgeon, 1992; Johnsingh & Joshua, 1989) due to the loss of species richness. In India, the riparian forests are under threat due to anthropogenic disturbances such as deforestation, overgrazing and land reclamation (Gopal, 1988 and Sen et al. 2008). Diverse biotic disturbances on the riverine gallery forests and their impacts on key and threatened Grizzled Giant Squirrel and Nilgiri langurhave been discussed in details (Joshua and Johnsingh 1994 and Sunderraj and Johnsingh 2001). Riparian forests adjoining stream and river banks have been almost entirely eliminated outside the protected areas (Gadgil, 2004).
In spite of the above discussed very high ecological and conservation significance of the riparian forests, and the existing anthropogenic pressures and resultant habitat degradation, studies on this ecosystem is still rare in Indian and probably due to lack of awareness and the complexities Sunil et al.2016).In Indian scenario, few riparian vegetation diversity research have been conducted in Tambiraparani River (Johnsingh & Joshua, 1989 and Sunderraj and Johnsing 2001) in Tamil Nadu, Chalakkudy river (Bachan, 2003) and Valapattanam river (Sreedharan, 2005) of Kerala, Yamuna river (Chauhan & Gopal, 2005) of Delhi, Cauvery river (Sunil et al., 2010) of Tamil Nadu, and Pamba river basin (Joby2012) and Bharathappuzha river (Cherullipadi and Paul 2016) of Kerala.
Understanding phytosociology of tree species is important for helping forest managers to evaluate the complexity and resources of forest and thereby initiate proper management plans. Therefore, this study discussed the results of phytosociology of tree species of riverine forest of Amirthi river, Vellore forest division, Tamil Nadu, focusing the management aspect for ensuring the ecological sustainability of the riverine forest.
2. Study Area:
The study area, located in the southern part of the Eastern Ghats, the riverine habitat of Amirthi Range, bordering the Tellai and Puthur Reserved Forests of Vellore Forest Division, Tamil Nadu. The riverine forest stretch surveyed for phytosociology of the trees species extends over a length of 14.5 km (Lat. 12o 45’ N; Long.79o 5’ E) and the elevation ranged between minimum of273mand of maximum 634m above MSl(Fig. 1). The temperature ranges between 41o during summer and 20o in winter and receives average annual rain fall 795mm. Of which, the Northeast monsoon contributes 535mm while Southwest 442mm (CCC &AR and TNSCCC 2015). According to Champian and Seth (1968) the riverine habitat of the study area falls under Southern Dry Tropical Riverine Forest Type (5A/ISI- 153).
Indian – Tamil Nadu
|
Tamil Nadu – Vellore Forest District
|
Amirthi River in Amirthi Range - Part of Vellore Forest District
---------- Riverine Forest Study Stretch |
3. Field methods:
Quantitative data were collected in 35 quadrats of 10 x10m in size all along the elevation gradient covering the stretch of 14.5km of the Amirthi river. The sizes of the quadrats for phytosociologystudy was determined by species-area curve method (Braun-Blanquet, 1932 and Misra 1968). Since the width of the riverine forest on both the banks varied from 15 to 20m, quadrats were nested randomly where the vegetation covered more than 15m width on both the banks. Care was given while placing the quadrats spatially representing the inner edge (inner slope of the bank-water front), middle (mid of river bank) and outer edge (outer slope of the river bank) to cover the entire width of the riverine habitat. A total of 0.35ha of area was sampled within the riverine forest. In each quadrat,all the trees species with > 20 cm GBH (i.e., girth at breast height - 1.37 m from the ground) were identified, enumerated and GBH measured (Sunderraj and Johnsingh2001 and Bachan 2003) for further analysis.
Vegetation structure and community composition was assessed using the following quantitative parameters such Importance Value Index (IVI = Relative frequency -RF + Relative density - RD + Relativedominance - RDo)and Species diversity index (H’ = - ∑ pi ln pi; where, pi= ni/N; and ni = abundance of each species, N= total abundance of all species) were derived from the field data (Misra 1968 and Shannon &Weaver 1963) respectively. Concentration of dominance (Cd = S (ni/N)2) was calculated following Simpson (1949). Evenness (e = H/log S, where, H= Shannon Wiener’s index and S = number of species) was computed following Curtis & McIntosh, (1950). The total value of IVI (300) was converted into 100% for final ranking and discussion. Flora of Gamble and Fischer (1915‐1936) and Henry and Nair (1983-1989) were referred for species identification and nomenclature.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:
4.1. Species Composition:
River Amirthi is the seasonal river with 14.5 km length flow across the Amirthi rangeof Velloer forest division, Eastern-Ghats. The river cuts across a diverse array of ecosystem settings from undulating deciduous to plains scrub areas. The river has undergone agricultural progress by the few tribal and non-tribal hamlets Taxonomically, in total 69 tree species belonging to 58 genera under 28 families were recorded from the study area. Fabaceae was dominated with 8 species followed by The Eastern Ghats
The Eastern Ghats River Amirthi is the seasonal river with 14.5 km length flow across the Amirthi rangeof Velloer forest division, Eastern-Ghats. The river cuts across a diverse array of ecosystem settings from undulating deciduous to plains scrub areas. The river has undergone agricultural progress by the few tribal and non-tribal hamlets resulting fragmented riparian vegetation along the stretches and hitherto no floristic and ecological studies on this river.
Structure and composition of vegetation communities of any areas determine by physical and other geological characteristics of landscape, which also shows the dominant habitats and distribution pattern of each composition with dominant floral species. To know these, the overall vegetation characteristics were quantitatively evaluated within 0.35ha of area and discussed tree species composition, richness and also disturbance factors subjectively with management plans
Resulting fragmented riparian vegetation along the stretches and hitherto no floristic and ecological studies on this river.
Structure and composition of vegetation communities of any areas determine by physical and other geological characteristics of landscape, which also shows the dominant habitats and distribution pattern of each composition with dominant floral species. To know these, the overall vegetation characteristics were quantitatively evaluated within 0.35ha of area and discussed tree species composition, richness and also disturbance factors subjectively with management plans.
Taxonomically, in total 69 tree species belonging to 58 genera under 28 families were recorded
Moraceae (6 species), and Euphorbiaceae (5 species). Anacardiaceae, Meliaceae, Mimosaceae and Rubiaceae families recorded four species each (Figure 2). Those, seven families alone reported overall of 35tree species of total 69 of the riverine habitatwhich shared 25 and 50.72 % of the total families and species of the study area respectively.
Figure 2. Taxonomical diversity and ranking of families.
In the riparian forest of the river Amirthi Albizialebbeck (5.14%), Ziziphusmauritiana (5.00%), Bambusaarundinacea (4.93%), Dalbergialanceolaria (4.83%), Wrightiatinctoria (4.05%), Tamarindus indica (3.78%), Tectonagrandis (3.18%), Pongamiapinnata (3.14%), Ailanthus excelsa (2.86%) and Syzygiumcumini (2.64%) were the dominant species as per the top ten ranking IVI value. Those top ranking species shared cumulative percent of 39.55%, while 20 species added up to 59.00% (Table 1) showing the predominant in terms of more abundance (density), frequency (distribution) and dominance (biomass).
Out of 69 tree species reported, 13 species were estimated IVI values > 2.0%, while 22 species secured 2-1% and rests of 34 species secured < 1.0 %. The most uncommon species (the least 10 species) in the riverine habitat were Swieteniamahagoni, Cassia fistula, Holarrhenapubescens, Haldinacordifolia, Vitex negundo, Diospyros ebenum, Cassine glauca, Cassinepaniculata, Crateva religiosa, Annona reticulata were the most uncommon species of the study area on the basis of their 10 lowest IVI value (Table 1).The stand density estimates was754 individuals, and other indices estimated were Shannon-Weiner index (H′) of 3.61, Simpson index 0.95, and evenness index 0.53 of the study area (Table 2).
The list of tree species showed domination of thorny (Ziziphusmauritiana) and deciduous species (Albizialebbeck, Bambusaarundinacea, Dalbergialanceolaria, Wrightiatinctorial, Tectonagrandis and Ailanthus excelsa) in the riverine forest. Buffering of thorny scrub and deciduous forests along this riverine forest and management intervention by the forest department in the form of plantation could be the reasons for such domination. True riverine species like; Syzygiumcumini, Terminalia arjuna, Schleicheraoleosa, Mangiferaindica showed domination between 10 and 20th IVI rank orders. Continuous increase in wood cutting may threaten the abundance status of those true and even common species of riverine forest (Johinsing and Joshua 1989).
4.2. Species Richness:
Tree species richness of riverine habitat of Amirthi river (69 species within 0.35ha) showed higher richness compared to the riverine habitat of Tambiraparani river studied in two different locations and they reported only 47 tree species in 0.25ha (Johnsing and Joshua 1989) and 64 species in 1.5ha (Sunderraj and Johnsing 2001). The Chalakkudy river (30 species ha-1) in Kerala (Bachan 2003) estimated very low species richness compared to this study area.
Comparison of number of tree species of the study area was found to be lower than the other tropical forests (Fox et al 1997; Kadavul and Parthasarathy1999 and Bachan, 2003). However, some studies in other forests types; such as humid tropical evergreen forest (61ha-1), tropical rainforests (43 ha-1), tropical moist forests (45 ha-1), temperate forests (50 ha-1), (Brockway 1998; Strasberg 1996; Tripathi 2001; Tripathi et al. 2004) reported low species richness than the study area.
Interference of local villagers and tribal population along Amirthi river in the form of marginal agriculture, and tree cutting for pole and fire wood along the riverine habitat could be attributed to shifting mosaic of landform (Whittaker, 1977) and intermediate and or minimal disturbance (Connell, 1978 and Sunil et al. 2016) which favoured high species richness. The 14.5km long riverine habitat with flat to moderately undulating terrains, altitudinal variation (from 273m to 634m) and seasonal fluctuation in the water flow facilitated diverse micro habitats which support the concept of mosaic of microhabitats (Swanson et al., 1988; Gregory et al., 1991 and Ayappan & Parthasarathy 1999) and the spatial heterogeneity (Gould & Walker, 1997; Ferreira & Stohlgren, 1999) area viewed as the major causes of high species richness.
4.3. Disturbance factors:
Though, study on biotic disturbance was not the objective of this study, during the field survey, in many places cutting of small trees (stumps)for firewood and pole (hut construction) and lopping of trees for leaf fodder and livestock grazing (cattle dungs) were observed. In addition, frequent evidences of day-spending (garbage disposals) and bathing in the river especially during summer is a common recreation for the nearby villagers. Clearing of ground cover and cooking food and few worshiping sites along the riverine habitat were also noticed. Intensive increase in such biotic disturbances would lead to habitat degradation and affect the species composition in term of loss of canopy cover, tree density, diversity and also impact upon the associated key fauna and diversity (Joshua and Johnsingh 1989 and Sunderraj and Jhonsingh 2001).
5. Conclusion and Management plans:
The riverine forest of Amirthi river reported very high tree species diversity and supports marginal agriculture of few villages located along the river and also large extent of agriculture area along the foothills of the Amirthi forest through the maintenance of ground water regime and nutrient supply and also climate stability at local scale. Therefore, this riverine forest should be protected and managed for its biological and ecological importance.
Protection:
The frontline staffs of the forest department should make frequent survey and inspection of the riverine forest stretch to check and control the wood cutting pressure. The villagers (non-tribe) should be strictly warned and not to involve in tree and pole cutting along the riverine forest.
Livestock grazing and lopping of trees for leaf fodder would reduce the seed production and regeneration potential of those species. Therefore, the villagers should be educated to avoid grazing and lopping trees in the riverine forests.
Awareness Education:
Few hundreds of students and public visit the Amirthi Zoological Parks and locals also use the riverine and forest stretch for their day spending. Therefore, they should be educated through keeping display boards messaging not to clear the vegetation – ground cover for cooking food and throwing of garbage in the forest areas. There should provision of dustbins in the places where the locals use the forest stretches intensively.
Habitat restoration:
Under the provision of habitat management, efforts should be taken by the Forest Department to restore the riverine forest. The habitat management should focus on planting of multi species approach and priority should be given to plant top 20 ranking (excluding Ziziphusmauritiana, Tectonagrandis, Ailanthus excelsa) IVI species.
Riparian and moisture preferring species like: Syzygiumcumini, Terminalia arjuna, Schleicheraoleosa, Ficushispida, Tamarindusindica, and Pongamiapinnata should be given high priority in planting more saplings for a better stability and resilience of the riverine ecosystems. Mangiferaindica, Alangiumsalvifolium, are also suggested in spite of they secured 26th and 27th RO in IVI values due to common species of the riverine habitat in nature while Streblus asper and Barringtoniaacutangula can be included because of true riparian species secures 33 and 48 rank in the IVI list (Table 1).
Based on the field observation on the frequency of spatial distribution of tree species within the riverine habitat, it is suggested to plant species specific to the three segments of the riverine habitat identified. Among those, a total 13 species recommended to plant close to the waterfront i.e., inner edge of the riverine habitat while 17 species on the river bank and rests along the outer edge of the bank (Table 3). Since the micro habitats and spatial heterogeneity promote high species richness, providing such suitable niche to specific species would ensure high survival and growth potential of the species planted.
Research:
In spite of the existing biotic disturbances, this riverine forest observed many birds and butterfly species. Study on these faunal groups is very important to monitor the status of the riverine forest because they are highly sensitive to change in environmental and habitat qualities and act as ecological indicators. Hence, the State Forest Department is suggested to encourage and facilitate to carry outshort term research and status survey projects on those faunal groups involving local college and university students.
Table 1. List of Trees species identified in the Amirthi riverine forest and their estimated Important Value Index – IVI and Rank Order-RO.
S. No |
Scientific Name |
Families |
RF |
RD |
RDo |
IVI@ |
RO |
1 |
Albizialebbeck |
Mimosaceae |
2.81 |
4.11 |
8.50 |
5.14 |
1 |
2 |
Ziziphusmauritiana |
Rhamnaceae |
5.63 |
9.15 |
0.22 |
5.00 |
2 |
3 |
Bambusaarundinacea |
Poaceae |
4.38 |
10.34 |
0.08 |
4.93 |
3 |
4 |
Dalbergialanceolaria |
Fabaceae |
4.06 |
4.77 |
5.64 |
4.83 |
4 |
5 |
Wrightiatinctoria |
Apocynaceae |
6.56 |
4.64 |
0.94 |
4.05 |
5 |
6 |
Tamarindusindica |
Caesalpiniaceae |
5.31 |
4.24 |
1.77 |
3.78 |
6 |
7 |
Tectonagrandis |
Verbenaceae |
3.44 |
2.52 |
3.59 |
3.18 |
7 |
8 |
Pongamiapinnata |
Fabaceae |
3.75 |
3.45 |
2.21 |
3.14 |
8 |
9 |
Ailanthus excelsa |
Simaroubaceae |
1.25 |
0.80 |
6.53 |
2.86 |
9 |
10 |
Syzygiumcumini |
Myrtaceae |
2.81 |
2.92 |
2.18 |
2.64 (39.55) |
10 |
11 |
Hardwickiabinata |
Fabaceae |
0.63 |
0.40 |
2.82 |
2.17 |
11 |
12 |
Terminalia arjuna |
Combretaceae |
1.88 |
2.39 |
2.14 |
2.13 |
12 |
13 |
Lanneacoromandelica |
Anacardiaceae |
1.56 |
1.19 |
3.50 |
2.09 |
13 |
14 |
Diospyros melanoxylon |
Ebenaceae |
1.56 |
3.71 |
0.67 |
1.98 |
14 |
15 |
Tremaorientalis |
Cannabaceae |
1.56 |
1.33 |
3.03 |
1.97 |
15 |
16 |
Schleicheraoleosa |
Sapindaceae |
1.25 |
0.93 |
3.92 |
1.94 |
16 |
17 |
Neolamarckiacadamba |
Rubiaceae |
2.50 |
1.59 |
1.71 |
1.93 |
17 |
18 |
Mallotusphilippensis |
Euphorbiaceae |
2.19 |
2.92 |
0.17 |
1.76 |
18 |
19 |
Anogeissuslatifolia |
Combretaceae |
2.81 |
2.12 |
0.32 |
1.75 |
19 |
20 |
Ficushispida |
Moraceae |
1.56 |
1.46 |
2.18 |
1.73 (59.00) |
20 |
21 |
Ficusbenghalensis |
Moraceae |
0.31 |
0.27 |
4.56 |
1.71 |
21 |
22 |
Soymidafebrifuga |
Meliaceae |
1.56 |
1.06 |
2.36 |
1.66 |
22 |
23 |
Dalbergia sissoo |
Fabaceae |
1.56 |
1.46 |
1.94 |
1.65 |
23 |
24 |
Nyctanthes arbor-tristis |
Nyctanthaceae |
1.88 |
1.46 |
1.41 |
1.58 |
24 |
25 |
Ehretialaevis |
Boraginaceae |
2.19 |
1.99 |
0.47 |
1.55 |
25 |
26 |
Mangiferaindica |
Anacardiaceae |
0.63 |
0.66 |
3.11 |
1.47 |
26 |
27 |
Alangiumsalvifolium |
Alangiaceae |
1.88 |
2.25 |
0.18 |
1.44 |
27 |
28 |
Anogeissusacuminata |
Combretaceae |
1.25 |
1.19 |
1.53 |
1.32 |
28 |
29 |
Ficusracemosa |
Moraceae |
0.31 |
0.13 |
3.50 |
1.32 |
28 |
30 |
Melia azedarach |
Meliaceae |
0.63 |
1.06 |
2.11 |
1.26 |
29 |
31 |
Albiziaodoratissima |
Mimosaceae |
1.25 |
0.93 |
1.38 |
1.19 |
30 |
32 |
Ficus religiosa |
Moraceae |
0.63 |
0.40 |
2.39 |
1.14 |
31 |
33 |
Wrightiaarborea |
Apocynaceae |
1.56 |
0.80 |
0.88 |
1.08 |
32 |
34 |
Streblus asper |
Moraceae |
1.25 |
1.72 |
0.25 |
1.08 |
33 |
35 |
Artocarpusheterophyllus |
Moraceae |
1.56 |
0.66 |
0.92 |
1.05 |
34 |
36 |
Bombax insigne |
Bombacaceae |
0.94 |
0.40 |
0.17 |
0.97 |
35 |
37 |
Dalbergialatifolia |
Fabaceae |
0.31 |
0.40 |
2.11 |
0.94 |
36 |
38 |
Acacia catechu |
Mimosaceae |
1.25 |
0.66 |
0.88 |
0.93 |
37 |
39 |
Prosopis juliflora |
Fabaceae |
0.63 |
0.66 |
1.35 |
0.88 |
38 |
41 |
Samaneasaman |
Fabaceae |
1.25 |
0.66 |
1.71 |
0.87 |
39 |
40 |
Aegle marmelos |
Rutaceae |
0.94 |
0.80 |
0.88 |
0.87 |
39 |
42 |
Canthiumglabrum |
Rubiaceae |
1.25 |
0.80 |
0.54 |
0.86 |
40 |
43 |
Azadirachtaindica |
Meliaceae |
0.94 |
0.40 |
1.24 |
0.86 |
41 |
44 |
Morindapubescens |
Rubiaceae |
0.31 |
0.40 |
1.74 |
0.82 |
42 |
45 |
Holigarnaarnottiana |
Anacardiaceae |
0.63 |
0.66 |
1.14 |
0.81 |
43 |
46 |
Sapindusemarginatus |
Anacardiaceae |
0.63 |
0.27 |
0.17 |
0.78 |
44 |
47 |
Capparis grandis |
Fabaceae |
1.25 |
0.93 |
0.06 |
0.75 |
45 |
48 |
Albiziaprocera |
Mimosaceae |
0.63 |
0.40 |
1.14 |
0.72 |
46 |
49 |
Gmelina arborea |
Verbenaceae |
0.94 |
0.53 |
0.67 |
0.71 |
47 |
50 |
Barringtoniaacutangula |
Barringtoniaceae |
1.56 |
1.19 |
0.29 |
0.70 |
48 |
51 |
Holopteleaintegrifolia |
Ulmaceae |
0.31 |
0.13 |
1.35 |
0.60 |
49 |
52 |
Chloroxylonswietenia |
Rutaceae |
0.63 |
0.93 |
0.22 |
0.59 |
50 |
53 |
Bauhinia retusa |
Caesalpiniaceae |
0.63 |
1.19 |
0.40 |
0.58 |
51 |
54 |
Brideliaretusa |
Euphorbiaceae |
0.94 |
0.53 |
0.25 |
0.57 |
52 |
55 |
Cleistanthuscollinus |
Euphorbiaceae |
0.31 |
1.06 |
0.35 |
0.57 |
52 |
56 |
Phyllanthus emblica |
Euphorbiaceae |
0.94 |
0.66 |
0.08 |
0.56 |
53 |
57 |
Cordia macleodii |
Boraginaceae |
0.63 |
0.27 |
0.65 |
0.51 |
54 |
58 |
Strychnosnux-vomica |
Loganiaceae |
0.31 |
0.27 |
0.90 |
0.49 |
55 |
59 |
Diospyros buxifolia |
Ebenaceae |
0.63 |
0.53 |
0.22 |
0.46 |
56 |
60 |
Swieteniamahagoni |
Meliaceae |
0.31 |
0.13 |
0.92 |
0.46 |
56 |
61 |
Cassia fistula |
Caesalpiniaceae |
0.63 |
0.40 |
0.30 |
0.44 |
57 |
62 |
Holarrhenapubescens |
Apocynaceae |
0.63 |
0.53 |
0.10 |
0.42 |
58 |
63 |
Haldinacordifolia |
Rubiaceae |
1.56 |
2.12 |
0.06 |
0.36 |
59 |
64 |
Vitex negundo |
Verbenaceae |
0.63 |
0.27 |
0.06 |
0.32 |
60 |
65 |
Diospyros ebenum |
Ebenaceae |
0.31 |
0.13 |
0.47 |
0.30 |
61 |
66 |
Cassine glauca |
Celastraceae |
0.31 |
0.27 |
0.27 |
0.28 |
62 |
67 |
Cassinepaniculata |
Celastraceae |
0.31 |
0.13 |
0.08 |
0.18 |
63 |
68 |
Crateva religiosa |
Euphorbiaceae |
0.31 |
0.13 |
0.08 |
0.18 |
63 |
69 |
Annona reticulata |
Annonaceae |
0.31 |
0.13 |
0.08 |
0.17 |
64 |
RF- Relative Frequency, RD- Relative Density, RDo- Relative Dominance. @- 100% conversion of IVI value, The cumulative percent of top 10 and 20 ranking IVI values of species is given in the parenthesis
Table 2: Diversity Indices of Tree Species of the Amirthi Riverine habitat- The Study Area
Tree Species |
69 |
Matured Individuals |
754 |
Dominance-D |
0.03 |
Simpson index 1-D |
0.95 |
Shannon-Weiner index ‘ H |
3.61 |
Evenness_e^H/S |
0.53 |
Table 3. Suggested spatial distribution and planting of specific species along the three segments of the riverine habitat
S. No |
Scientific Name |
IVI -RO |
Three Segments of Riverine Habitat |
||
Inner Edge -IE |
Middle -RB |
Outer Edge-OE |
|||
1 |
Albizialebbeck |
1 |
|
X |
X |
2 |
Bambusaarundinacea |
3 |
|
X |
|
3 |
Dalbergialanceolaria |
4 |
|
X |
X |
4 |
Wrightiatinctoria |
5 |
|
X |
X |
5 |
Tamarindusindica |
6 |
X |
X |
|
6 |
Pongamiapinnata |
8 |
X |
X |
|
7 |
Syzygiumcumini |
10 |
X |
X |
|
8 |
Hardwickiabinata |
11 |
|
X |
X |
9 |
Terminalia arjuna |
12 |
X |
|
|
10 |
Lanneacoromandelica |
13 |
|
X |
X |
11 |
Diospyros melanoxylon |
14 |
|
X |
X |
12 |
Tremaorientalis |
15 |
X |
X |
|
13 |
Schleicheraoleosa |
16 |
X |
X |
|
14 |
Neolamarckiacadamba |
17 |
X |
X |
|
15 |
Mallotusphilippensis |
18 |
|
X |
X |
16 |
Anogeissuslatifolia |
19 |
|
X |
X |
17 |
Ficushispida |
20 |
X |
|
|
18 |
Ficusbenghalensis |
21 |
X |
X |
|
19 |
Mangiferaindica |
26 |
X |
X |
|
20 |
Alangiumsalvifolium |
27 |
X |
|
|
21 |
Streblus asper |
33 |
X |
|
|
22 |
Barringtoniaacutangula |
48 |
X |
|
|
|
Total |
|
13 |
17 |
8 |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
We are grateful to the State Forest Department, Tamil Nadu and Chief Conservator of Forest, Vellore Forest Division granting permission to carry out this study, which is the Part of Ph.D., program. We sincerely thank the Principal, Voorhees College, Vellore and Head of the Department – Dept of Zoology for facilities and encouragement provided during this study. We also thank Range forest officer and frontline staffs of the Amirthi Zoological Park for their constant field supports.
REFERENCE:
1. Ayyappan, A and N. Parthasarathy. 1999. Biodiversity inventory of trees in a large sale permanent plot of tropical evergreen forest at Varagalaiar. Anamalais, Western Ghats. India, Biodiversity and Conservation 8: 1533-1554.
2. Bachan A.K.H. 2002. Riparian forest vegetation: A highly endangered wetland plant community. Proceedings of the National Seminar on Ecology and Conservation of Wetlands pp 98–103.
3. Bachan A.K.H.2003. Riparian vegetation along the middle and lower zones of the chalakkudy river, Kerala, India - Project 26/2000 Sponsored by Kerala Research Programme on Local Level Development, CDS, Thiruvananthapuram. PP 118.
4. Baskaran, N., K. Senthilkumar& M. Saravanan. 2011. A new site record of the Grizzled Giant Squirrel Ratufa macroura (Pennant, 1769) in the Hosur forest division, Eastern Ghats, India and its conservation significance. Journal of Threatened Taxa 3: 1837-1841.
5. Braun-Blanquet, J. 1932.Plant sociology: the study of plant communities. McGraw-Hill, New York.
6. Brinson, M.M. 1990. Riverine forests. In: Lugo, A.E., Brinson, M.M. & Brown, S. (Eds) Ecosystems of the World - 15: Forested wetlands. Elsevier, Oxford. pp. 87–141.
7. Brockway, D.G. 1998. Forest plant diversity at local and landscape scales in the cascade mountains of southwestern Washington. Forest Ecology and Management 109: 323-341
8. CCC & AR and TNCCC. 2015. Climate Change Projection (Rainfall) for Vellore. In: District – Wise Climate Change Information for the State of Tamil Nadu. Centre for Climate Change and Adaptation Research (CCC & AR), Anna University and Tamil Nadu State Climate Change Cell (TNSCCC), Department of Environment (DoE), Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, India. Available at URL.www.tnsccc.in
9. Champion, H.G.& S.K. Seth. 1968. A Revised Survey of the Forest Types of India. Manager of Publications, Government of Inia Press, Nashik, Maharashtra. India.
10. Chauhan, M. & Gopal, B. 2005. Vegetation structure and dynamics of a floodplain wetland along a subtropical regulated river. River research and Applications 21: 513–534.
11. Cherullipadi, L.B. &J. Paul. 2016. Diversity of herbaceous riparian flora in the lower stretch of Bharathappuzha river, Kerala. South Indian Journal of Biological Sciences 2 (1); 191-197
12. Connell, J.H. 1978. Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199: 1302–1310.
13. Curtis, J.T. & McIntosh, R.P. 1950. The inter- relations of certain analytic and synthetic phytosociological characters. Ecology 31: 434–455.
14. Decamps, H. &Tabacchi, E. 1994. Species richness in vegetation along river margins. In: Giller, P.S., Hildrew, A.G. &Rafaelli, D.D. (Eds) Aquatic ecology: Scale, pattern and process. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, UK. pp. 1–20.
15. Dudgeon, D. 1992. Endangered ecosystems: A review of the conservation status of tropical Asian rivers. Hydrobiologia248: 167–191.
16. Ferreira, L.V. & Stohlgren, T.J. 1999. Effects of river level fluctuation on plant species richness, diversity, and distribution in a floodplain forest in Central Amazonia. Oecologia120: 582–587.
17. Fox B.J, Jennifer E.T, Marelyn D.F, and Williams C. 1997. Vegetation changes across edges of rainforest remnants. Biological Conservation 82:1e13.
18. Gadgil, M. 2004.Karnataka state of environment report and action plan biodiversity sector. ENVIS Technical Report No.16. Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.
19. Gamble JS, Fischer CEC. 1915–1936. The flora of the Presidency of Madras 1-3. Adlard & Son Ltd, Landon, 2017.
20. Geobel, P.C., B. J. Palik and K.S. Pregitzer. 2003. Plant diversity contribution sofriparianareas in water-sheds of the Northern Lake States, USA. Ecological Applications 13: 1595-1609.
21. Gopal, B. (1988) Wetlands: management and conservation in India. Water Quality Bulletin 13:3–6.
22. Gould, W.A. & Walker, M.D. 1997. Landscape-scale patterns in plant species richness along an arctic river. Canadian Journal of Botany 75: 1748–1765.
23. Gregory, S.V., Swanson, F.J., McKee, W.A. & Cummins, K.W. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. Bioscience 41: 540–551.
24. Henry, A.N. and N.C. Nair. 1983-1989. The flora of Tamil Nadu (3 Vols), Coimbatore: Botanical Survey of India. 613p.
25. Hynes, 1970. Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. The ecology of running waters. Liverpool University Press, UK. 555 pp.
26. Jayaram KC. 2000. Kaveri riverine system: An environmental study. The Madras Science Foundation, Chennai, pp.1–6. 17.
27. Joby P. 2012. Taxonomy, distribution and ecology of the riparian flora of the Pampa River, Kerala. Ph.DThesis. School of environmental science, Mahathma Gandhi University, Kottatyam.
28. Johnsingh, A.J.T. & Joshua, J. 1989. The threatened gallery forest of the River Tambiraparani, Mundanthurai Wildlife Sanctuary, South India. Biological Conservation 47: 273–280.
29. Joshua, J and Johnsingh, A.J.T. 1992. Status of endangered grizzled giant squirrel and its habitat. In Tropical ecosystem: Ecology and management, ed K.P. Singh and J.S. Singh. Wiley Eastern Limited, New Delhi. Pp 151-9.
30. Joshua, J. and A.J.T. Johnsingh. 1994. Impact of Biotic disturbances on the habitat and population of the endangered giant squirrel (Ratufa macroura) in South India. Biological Conservation 68: 29-34.
31. Kandavul K, Parthasarathy N. 1999. Plant biodiversity and conservation of tropical semi-evergreen forest in the Shervarayan hills of Eastern Ghats, India. Biodiversity and Conservation 8:421e439.
32. Malanson, G.P. 1993. Riparian Landscapes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
33. Misra, R. 1968. Ecology Work Book. Oxford and IBH Publishing Company, Calcutta.
34. Noss, F. 1983. A regional landscape approach to maintain diversity. Bioscience 33 (11): 700–707.
35. Scott, M.L., P.L. Nagler, E.P. Glenn, C. Valdes-Casillas, J.A. Erker, E.W. Reynolds, P.B. Sgafroth. E. Euduardo Gomez-Limon & D.L. Jones. 2009. Assessing the extent and diversity of riparian ecosystems in Sonora. Mexico. Biodiversity Conservation18: 247—269.
36. Sen, A., T. Jhori and S. N. Bhist. 2008.Analisis of the effects of anthropogenic interferences on tree species composition in the forest of Daddra and Nagar Haveli, India. Current Science, Vol 95, No. 1. Pp 50-58.
37. Shannon, C.E. & Weaver W. 1963.The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbane.
38. Shenoy, K., V. Surendra and K.V. Devi Prasad.2006. Factors determining habitat choice of the smoot-coated otter, Lutraprespicillata in a South Indian river system. Current Science 91: 637-643.
39. Simpson, E.H. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature 163: 688.
40. Sousa, W.P. 1979. Disturbance in marine intertidal boulder fields: the nonequilibrium maintenance of species diversity. Ecology 60: 1225–1239.
41. Sreedharan, T.P. 2005. A study on the status of Valapattanam river with special reference to its ecology and sociocultural aspects. Kerala Research Programme on Local Level Development, Thiruvananthapuram.
42. Strasberg, D.1996. Diversity, size composition and spatial aggregation among trees on a 1 ha rainforest plot at La Reunion. Biodiversity and Conservation 5:825-840.
43. Sunderrai, S. F. W. & A. J. T. John Singh. 2001. Impact of biotic disturbance on Nilgiri langur habitat, demography and group dynamics. Current Science 80: 428-436.
44. Sunil, C., Somashekar, R.K. & Nagaraja, B.C. 2016.Diversity and composition of riparian vegetation across forest and agroecosystem landscapes of river Cauvery, southern India. Tropical Ecology 57(2): 343-354, 2016
45. Sunil, C., Somashekar, R.K. & Nagaraja, B.C. 2010. Riparian vegetation assessment of Cauvery River Basin of South India. Environment Monitoring Assessment 170: 545–553.
46. Swanson, F.J., Gregory, S.V., Sedell, J.R. & Campbell, A.G. 1982. Land-water interactions: The riparian zone. In: Edmonds, R.L. (Ed) Analysis of coniferous forest ecosystems in the western United States. US/IBP Synthesis Series 14. Hutchinson Ross Publishing, Pennsylvania. pp. 267–291.
47. Tabacchi, E., L.C. David, R. Hauer, G. Pinay & A. Marie. 1998. Development, maintenance and role of riparian vegetation in the river landscape. freshwater Biology 40:497-516.
48. Tripathi K.P., S. Tripathi, T. Selven, K. Kumar, K. K. Singh, S. Mehrotra & P. Pushpangadan.2004. Community structure and spcies diversity of saddle peak forests in Andaman Island. Tropical Ecology 45: 1-10.
49. Tripathi, K. P. 2001. Ecology of a Rehabilitated Forest on Sodic Wasteland. Ph.D. Thesis Lucknow University Lucknow.
50. Tripathi, K.P. and Singh, B. 2009. Species diversity and vegetation structure across various strata in natural and plantation forests in Katerniaghat Wildlife Sanctuary, North India, Tropical Ecology 50(1): 191-200.
51. Whittaker, R.H. 1977. Evolution of species diversity in land communities. In: Hecht, M.K. & Steere, B.W.N.C. (Eds) Evolutionary Biology Vol. X. Plenum Press, New York. pp. 1–67.
Received on 10.09.2019 Modified on 28.09.2019 Accepted on 14.10.2019 ©A&V Publications All right reserved Research J. Science and Tech. 2019; 11(4):236-245. DOI: 10.5958/2349-2988.2019.00034.2 |
|