See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337811342
ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF MONOCULTURE OF EXOTIC TREE SPECIES IN SAKHIPUR AREA OF TANGAIL DISTRICT BANGLADESH A THESIS SUBMITTED TO FACULTY OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES JAH...
Book · June 2016
CITATIONS READS 0 252
1 author:
Md. Mijanur Rahman. Phd Jahangirnagar University
15 PUBLICATIONS 50 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Md. Mijanur Rahman Protected Area Management Advisor GIZ’s Sundarbans Management Project (SMP) Bangladesh Forest Department Bana Bhaban (ground floor) Boyra, Khulna-9000, Bangladesh M +880 171 12 36 182 View project
AgroForestry improvement Partnership AFIP View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Md. Mijanur Rahman. Phd on 07 December 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF MONOCULTURE OF EXOTIC TREE SPECIES IN SAKHIPUR AREA OF TANGAIL DISTRICT BANGLADESH
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO FACULTY OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES JAHANGIRNAGAR UNIVERSITY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN BOTANY
MD. MIJANUR RAHMAN
DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY JAHANGIRNAGAR UNIVERSITY SAVAR, DHAKA-1342
JUNE 2016
ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF MONOCULTURE OF EXOTIC TREE SPECIES IN SAKHIPUR AREA OF TANGAIL DISTRICT BANGLADESH
MD. MIJANUR RAHMAN
ROLL NO. : 164 REGISTRATION NO. : 1532 SESSION: 2009-10
PhD PROGRAM JAHANGIRNAGAR UNIVERSITY SAVAR, DHAKA-1342
SUPERVISOR CO-SUPERVISOR DR. SALEH AHAMMAD KHAN DR. GAZI MOSHAROF HOSSAIN PROFESSOR PROFESSOR DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY JAHANGIRNAGAR UNIVERSITY JAHANGIRNAGAR UNIVERSITY SAVAR,DHAKA-1342, BANGLADESH SAVAR, DHAKA-1342, BANGLADESH
PLANT SYSTEMATICS AND BIODIVERSITY LABORATORY DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY JAHANGIRNAGAR UNIVERSITY SAVAR, DHAKA-1342
JUNE 2016
i
ABBREVIATIONS
ACF Assistant Conservator of Forests ADB Asian Development Bank AIGA Alternative Income Generating Activities ANOVA Analysis of Variance BARC Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council BBS Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics BCR Benefit Cost Ratio BDT Bangladeshi Taka BFD Bangladesh Forest Department BFRI Bangladesh Forest Research Institute BGD Bangladesh BNH Bangladesh National Herbarium CCF Chief Conservator of Forests CEGIS Center for Environmental and Geographic Information Services cm Centimeter
CO2 Carbon dioxide DAE Department of Agricultural Extension DBH Diameter at Breast Height DFO Divisional Forest Officer DMRT Duncan's Multiple Range Test FAO Food and Agricultural Organization FGD Focus Group Discussion FWT Forestry and Wood Technology g Gram GIS Geographic Information System GO Government Organization ha Hectare IFESCU Institute of Forestry and Environmental Science Chittagong University IPNI International Plant Names Index IRR Internal Rate of Return JU Jahangirnagar University JUH Jahangirnagar University Herbarium K Potassium Km Kilometer KU Khulna University LGED Local Government Engineering Department LULUCF Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry ii m Meter meq Milliequivalents MoEF Ministry of Environment and Forests N Nitrogen NGO Non-Government Organization NPV Net Present Value NRM Natural Resources Management NTFPs Non Timber Forest Products NWRD National Water Resources Database OC Organic Carbon OM Organic Matter P Phosphorous SAARC South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation SAC Species Area Curve SAIC SAARC Agricultural Information Centre SD Standard Deviation spp. Species SRDI Soil Resource Development Institute TANDP Thana Afforestation and Nursery Development Project UNDP United Nations Development Program UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change μg Microgram
iii
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the work presented in this thesis entitled “Ecological and Socio-Economic Impacts of Monoculture of Exotic Tree Species in Sakhipur Area of Tangail District, Bangladesh” is the result of my own investigation. I further declare that this thesis has not been submitted anywhere for the award of any academic degree in any university. All quotations have been distinguished by quotation marks, and all sources of information have been specifically acknowledged by reference to the respective author/s.
Savar, Dhaka Md. Mijanur Rahman June, 2016 Author
iv
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the research work presented in this dissertation entitled “Ecological and Socio-Economic Impacts of Monoculture of Exotic Tree Species in Sakhipur Area of Tangail District, Bangladesh” is the outcome of the original work carried out by Md. Mijanur Rahman at the Plant Systematics and Biodiversity Laboratory, Department of Botany, Jahangirnagar University under our joint supervision.
This is further certified that the style and contents of this dissertation is approved for submission in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Botany.
(Dr. Saleh Ahammad Khan) (Dr. Gazi Mosharof Hossain) Supervisor Co-supervisor Professor Professor Department of Botany Department of Botany Jahangirnagar University Jahangirnagar University Savar, Dhaka-1342, Bangladesh Savar, Dhaka-1342, Bangladesh
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It is great pleasure for me to extend my profound gratitude, who has provided continued support and advice in formulating ideas, preparing proposal, conducting field works, processing and analyzing data, and writing this dissertation. It is my greatest pleasure to express my heartiest gratitude, most sincere appreciation and profound thanks to my supervisors Dr. Saleh Ahammad Khan, Professor and Dr. Gazi Mosharof Hossain, Professor, Department of Botany, JU, Savar, Dhaka, Bangladesh for their overall supervision, fruitful criticism, valuable suggestions, proper evaluation and continuous encouragement throughout the research period.
My sincere appreciation goes to all honorable members of this dissertation examination committee for their critical and constructive comments and suggestions on all aspects. I am highly grateful to the Chairman, Department of Botany, Professor Mohd. Talim Hossain; Ex. Chairman, Professor Dr. Mahfuzur Rahman and respective teachers of the same faculty and Md. Abdur Rahim, Senior Technical Officer and staffs of Department of Botany, JU. My profound gratitude to the BNH for identifying plant names whenever needed. I am especially grateful to Mises Hosne Ara, Director, Dr. Sarder Nasir Uddin, Senior Scientific Officer and other Scientific Officers and staffs of BNH for their help for the identification of my collected plant specimens.
My sincere gratitude goes to Director, SRDI for providing permission and laboratory facilities for soil analysis. I must thank to Dr. Md. Abdur Rouf, Senior Scientific Officer; A.K.M. Monjurul Hasan and Shamima Nasrin, Scientific Officer, Md. Azhar Uddin, Laboratory Attendant and Staffs of SRDI, Dhaka regional office for providing accompaniment support and facilities for soil analytical works and also for their cordial help and suggestions. Thanks are also due to Professor Dr. Sirajul Hoque, Department of Soil, Water and Environment, Dhaka University; A.T.M. Emdad Hossain, Divisional Officer, Soil Science Division, BFRI, Chittagong; Farid Uddin Ahmed, Executive Director, Arannayk Foundation (Tropical Forest Conservation Foundation), Dhaka; Professor Dr. Mohammad Al-Amin, IFESCU; Professor Dr. Md. Sirajul Islam, IFESCU; Professor Dr. Mohammad Mahfuzur Rahman, IFESCU and Professor Dr. Md. Enamul Kabir, FWT, KU; Dr. S. M. Feroz, Assistant Professor, FWT, KU for their sincere helps during research guiding and discussions.
My heartfelt appreciation is due to Md. Yunus Ali, CCF, Dhaka and Md. Tariqul Islam, Assistant Chief Conservator of Forests (ACCF), Management Plan, Dhaka; Shah-E- Alam, DFO and Shorfuddin Ahmed Chowdhury, ACF of Tangail Forest Division for providing permission to work in Sal Forests areas and valuable information in relation to research and data collection. At the same time, I also wish to express my gratefulness to forest officers and staffs of Hoteya Range of Tangail Forest Division for their sincere cooperation during field works and data collection. vi
My Profound gratitude to Md. Shahar Uddin, Director (NRM); Nizamuddin Ahmed, Project Coordinator; Md. Motiur Rahman, Programme Organizer and Shombhu Nath, Programme Organizer of Proshika who have provided local transportation and accommodation in Proshika Sakhipur office during the field survey. My sincere gratitude to the forest villagers, local peoples of the study area who consented to provide information without which it would not be possible to conduct this research work.
I am extremely grateful to my beloved mother, brothers, sisters, friends and other relatives for their continuous moral support and encouragement. I wish to express my utmost indebtedness from the core of my heart to my wife Nazmun Naher whose sincere sacrifice and continuous encouragement and field assistance, data entry enable me to finish this research work. I am also greatly thankful to all my well wishers, friends and colleagues who sometimes accompanied, encouraged and advised me in different ways. Finally, the authors gracefully acknowledge the valuable comments, critics and suggestions made by the external reviewers Professor Dr. Mohammad Al-Amin, IFESCU and Professor Dr. Md. Enamul Kabir, FWT, KU for overall improvement of the research.
Finally, all praise goes to the almighty Allah, the most merciful for the smooth execution of this research program.
Author
vii
ABSTRACT
This study was carried out to investigate the impacts of monoculture of exotic tree species (Acacia and Eucalyptus) on species composition and diversity of the undergrowths, woodlot productivity, physico-chemical properties of soil, and the socio-economy of the local people in relation to indigenous (Shorea and Mangifera) tree plots in Sakhipur area of Tangail district. Data were collected from 12 research plots of exotic and indigenous tree species located in public and private land, and 30 woodlots of exotic tree species located in private land through intensive field visits conducted from April 2010 to November 2011 covering three seasons of summer, monsoon and winter.
This study has reported the occurrence of a total of 182 plant species under 150 genera and 56 families from all research plots of the study area collectively. A total of 116 undergrowth species including 32 tree species were found in exotic stands and 150 species including 42 tree species in indigenous stands. The exotic tree plots were comprised of 19% less species in comparison to indigenous plots. In both of exotic and indigenous tree stands, most of the plant species were Angiosperms (±95%) and only ±5% were Pteridophytes. In summer, monsoon and winter seasons, a total of 86, 87 and 76 undergrowth species were found respectively in exotic tree plots and 118, 113, 111 undergrowth species in indigenous tree plots. In summer 69, 61, 93 and 42 species, in monsoon 77, 55, 90 and 46 species and in winter 68, 39, 82 and 51 species were found in Acacia-, Eucalyptus-, Shorea- and Mangifera plots respectively. Out of 182 plant species, the indigenous tree plots harbored 34 number of undergrowth species more than that of exotic tree plots covering all seasons.
In exotic tree plots, Acacia auriculiformis was found with highest relative density whereas in indigenous plots Shorea robusta. The herbaceous species Axonopus compressus and Clerodendrum viscosum were found with highest relative frequency in exotic- and indigenous tree plots respectively. The relative abundance of Cyperus iria and Axonopus compressus was found to be highest in exotic- and indigenous plots, respectively. Indigenous tree plots, especially the Shorea plots, were found with higher stem density (174637 per ha), stem volume (222 m³/ha), and basal area coverage (16 m²/ha) than that of exotic species plots. But the tree height (10 m) and DBH (13 cm) of Acacia were highest in the area. The number of tree per plot in Acacia-, Shorea and Eucalyptus or Mangifera plots were significantly different. Gross timber production was significantly different in Acacia-Shorea plots versus Eucalyptus-Mangifera plots.
The average value of Shannon-Wiener diversity index was 2.65 and 3.28 collectively in all exotic and indigenous plots respectively, which depict that the extent of species diversity was higher in indigenous tree plots than in exotic tree plots and the flora of the study area was highly diversified. Out of the four categories of sampling research plots, the Shorea plots were clearly richer in species diversity. viii
The influence of all of the soil physical and chemical properties studied was not prominent on the overall phytodiversity and species richness of the study area. Soil properties of Acacia-, Eucalyptus-, Shorea- and Mangifera plots were significantly different except in case of OC and OM. The monoculture of exotic Acacia and Eucalyptus might have significant impacts on pH, N, P and K of the soil of the study area, but they do not have any influence on OC and OM. P content in the soil of the study area showed positive and highly significant (at 1% level of significance) correlation to the no. of species whereas negative but significant correlation was observed for seedling density at 5% level of significance. K content in the soil of the study area showed positive and significant (at 5% level of significance) correlation to Shannon-Wiener diversity (H) but negatively correlated with seedling density.
The two major reasons for the preferrence of fast growing Acacia auriculiformis over other species for woodlot plantation by the local people were that this exotic tree species produced small-dimension timber suitable for furniture making and also good for fuel wood. In an average, a tree grower spending an average 208753±48057 BDT for raising one hectare woodlot plot, were expecting to sale the timber by 1951869±943607 BDT per ha after completion of tree rotation, where the expected net profit from timber sale would be 1806726±897146 BDT per ha. Benefit cost analysis for one ha private woodlot plantations showed that, the BCR was 1.147 on ±10 years rotation which was comparatively higher and the NPV was 84,074 BDT, whereas the IRR was 14.55% found to be comparatively higher. The sensitivity analysis showed that, 10% potential risk of damages of the final crops could be managed by tree grower (BCR 1.04 and NPV 20994 BDT) but the risk more than that level would be the loss project of the tree grower. If there is no risk of crop harvesting, the base case scenario (lending interest rate) in interest rate 12% showed the BCR 1.15 and NPV 84074 BDT which was profitable in plantation business. If the less interest rate trend found in future (government lending interest rate decreasing) that will confirm more BCR and NPV, which indicated better profit for tree growers. The benefit cost analysis indicated woodlot project was financially viable.
Local peoples were found to be interested to plant fast growing exotic timber species to meet their immediate financial demand within a short period. The monoculture of exotic species seems financially profitable for the short term projects and to have a promising prospect in Sakhipur and its adjacent areas, but if the long term perspectives are considered then ultimately it is not economically viable and not appropriate to ensure the sustainability of biodiversity and ecosystem conservation. During the questionnaire survey, the villagers and tree growers depicted some problems of the exotic species, such as the trees of exotic species absorb more ground water that other trees hardly grow under them; they had a low number of twigs and leaves that not decompose after falling on the ground; they allow minimum collection of fuel wood; and growth of crops is slow under the exotic trees etc. They also opined that, it was not meaningful to replace Shorea trees by any other species. Monoculture of exotic species should, therefore, be discouraged for afforestation but might be operational in some degraded, fellow or specified lands. ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents Page Abbreviations i-ii Declaration iii Certificate iv Acknowledgement v-vi Abstract vii-viii Table of contents ix-xii List of tables xiii List of figures xiv List of appendices xv
CHAPTER-I: INTRODUCTION 1-4
1.1. Background 1 1.2. Problem statement and justification 2 1.3. Objectives 3 1.4. Scope 3
CHAPTER-II: LITERATURE REVIEW 5-20
2.1. Plantation of exotic tree species in Bangladesh and other 5 countries and its impacts 2.2. Plantation of indigenous tree species in Bangladesh and other 15 countries and its impacts 2.3. Natural ‘Sal’ forests of Bangladesh and its impacts 18
CHAPTER-III: MATERIALS AND METHODS 21-39
3.1. Description of the study area 21 3.1.1. Area and location 21 3.1.2. Climate 21 3.1.3. Soil 24 3.1.4. Floristic composition 24 3.1.5. Socio economic condition 25 3.2. Selection of research plots 25 3.3. Data collection and analysis 27 3.3.1. Assessment of ecological impacts 27 A) Study on undergrowth vegetation 27 Undergrowth vegetation survey 27 Determination of quadrat size 28 x
Contents Page Quadrat sampling and recording 28 Specimen collection and preservation 28 Specimen examination 29 Specimen identification 29 Nomenclatural information 29 Supplementary data collection 30 Data analysis 30 B) Study on tree productivity 32 Enumeration of plot trees 32 Calculation of tree density 32 Measurement of tree height 33 Measurement of tree diameter at breast height 33 Calculation of gross tree stem volume 33 Calculation of tree basal area 33 C) Study on soil physico-chemical properties 34 Soil sample collection 34 Soil data analysis 34 3.3.2. Socio-economic impacts of monoculture of exotic tree species 35 Selection and investigation of woodlots and tree growers 36 Benefit cost analysis of the woodlots plantations of exotic tree 36 species Focus group discussion 38 Key informant interview 39 Secondary data collection 39
CHAPTER-IV: RESULTS 40-71
4.1. Ecological impacts 40 4.1.1. Undergrowth vegetation 40 Taxonomic enumeration and species composition 40 Phytosociology of undergrowth vegetation 44 Phytodiversity index 49 4.1.2. Tree productivity 50 Tree density 51 Tree height 51 Tree diameter at breast height 52 Tree basal area 52 Tree stem volume 52 4.1.3. Soil physico-chemical properties 54 pH 54 xi
Contents Page Organic carbon 54 Organic matter 54 Nitrogen 55 Phosphorous 55 Pottasium 55 4.2. Socio-economic impacts of the monoculture of exotic tree 57 species 4.2.1. Information of the tree growers 57 4.2.2. Characteristics and factors of woodlot plantation of exotic tree 61 species 4.2.3. Expenditure for woodlot plantation of exotic tree species 62 4.2.4. Benefit cost analysis on woodlots of exotic tree species 65 4.2.5. Impacts of woodlots of exotic tree species on timber market and 68 local employment 4.2.6. Perception of the tree growers on woodlot plantation derived 69 losses and benefits
CHAPTER-V: DISCUSSIONS 72-105
5.1. Ecological impacts 73 5.1.1. Undergrowth vegetation 73 Taxonomic enumeration and species composition 74 Phytosociology of undergrowth vegetation 77 Phytodiversity index 79 5.1.2. Tree productivity 81 Tree density 82 Tree height 83 Tree diameter at breast height 83 Tree basal area 84 Tree stem volume 85 5.1.3. Soil physico-chemical properties 86 pH 86 Organic carbon 87 Organic matter 88 Nitrogen 89 Phosphorous 89 Pottasium 90 5.2. Socio-economic impacts of the monoculture of exotic tree 92 species 5.2.1. Information of the tree growers 93 xii
Contents Page 5.2.2. Characteristics and factors of woodlot plantation of exotic tree 94 species 5.2.3. Expenditure for woodlot plantation of exotic tree species 96 5.2.4. Benefit cost analysis on woodlots of exotic tree species 96 5.2.5. Impacts of woodlots of exotic tree species on timber market and 100 local employment 5.2.6. Perception of the tree growers on woodlot plantation derived 101 losses and benefits
CHAPTER-VI: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 106-109
6.1. Conclusions 106 6.2. Recommendations 108
References 110-123
Appendices 124-164
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page Table 4.1. Herbaceous undergrowth species found to dominate in the exotic and 43 indigenous tree research plots in different season. Table 4.2. Shannon-Wiener diversity index (H) of different exotic and indigenous 50 plots during summer, monsoon and winter seasons in Sakhipur, Tangail. Table 4.3. Tree composition of twelve research plots in Sakhipur, Tangail. 51 Table 4.4. Comparative growth performance in research plots and private woodlots 52 in Sakhipur, Tangail. Table 4.5. Tree density, height, DBH, basal area and gross tree stem volume 53 recorded from Acacia, Eucalyptus, Shorea and Mangifera plots in Sakhipur, Tangail. Table 4.6. Tree density, height, DBH, basal area and gross tree stem volume in 53 exotic and indigenous research plots in Sakhipur, Tangail. Table 4.7. Average values of pH, OC, OM, N, P, K contents recorded from 56 different exotic and indigenous plots during different seasons in Sakhipur, Tangail (Average values shows with ±SD). Table 4.8. Basic information of private land woodlot tree growers in Sakhipur, 59 Tangail. Table 4.9. Household information of private land woodlot tree growers in Sakhipur 60 upazila of Tangail district. Table 4.10. Characteristics of different private woodlot plantations raised by tree 63 growers in Sakhipur upazila of Tangail district. Table 4.11. Expenditure of tree grower for raising one hectare private woodlot 64 plantations in Sakhipur upazila of Tangail district. Table 4.12. Sensitivity of BCR and NPV with reference to changes in the interest 65 rate for one hectare woodlot monoculture plantation in Sakhipur, Tangail Table 4.13. Sensitivity of BCR, NPV, and IRR with reference to potential risk of 66 damages of the final crops for one hectare woodlot plantation in Sakhipur, Tangail Table 4.14. Future valuation and expected profit of woodlot trees per ha raised in 67 the private land in Sakhipur, Tangail. Table 5.1. Taxonomic enumeration of some local floras of Bangladesh. 75 Table 5.2. The results of DMRT analysis on different parameters of four types of 80 research plots in Sakhipur, Tangail. Table 5.3. Pearson correlation involving species number, seedling density, 86 diversity index values, and soil properties in Sakhipur, Tangail. Table 5.4. Results of DMRT analysis of the data collected on soil properties of 91 four types of research plots in Sakhipur, Tangail.
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page Figure 3.1. The study area, Sakhipur, Tangail. 22 Figure 3.2. Monthly average rainfall and yearly average rainfall in Sakhipur, 23 Tangail. Figure 3.3. Monthly average temperature and yearly average temperature in 23 Sakhipur, Tangail. Figure 3.4. Monthly average relative humudity in Sakhipur, Tangail. 23 Figure 3.5. Monthly average sunshine in Sakhipur, Tangail. 23 Figure 3.6. Monthly average wind speed in Sakhipur, Tangail. 24 Figure 3.7. Location of research plots in the study area, Sakhipur, Tangail. 26 Figure 4.1. Species composition in different tree plots in summer, monsoon and 41 winter seasons in Sakhipur, Tangail. Figure 4.2. Species composition in exotic and indigenous plots in summer, 42 monsoon and winter seasons in Sakhipur, Tangail. Figure 4.3. Average undergrowth density per hectare in different tree plots in 44 Sakhipur, Tangail. Figure 4.4. Average undergrowth density per haectare in different tree plots in 45 three seasons in Sakhipur, Tangail. Figure 4.5. Tree growers perception (in percentage) on plantation damaging 62 factors. Figure 4.6. Timber supply chain in Sakhipur upazila of Tangail district. 69 Figure 4.7. Private woodlot tree growers perception on losses and benefits derived 70 from monoculture woodlot plantations.
xv
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Title Page Appendix 1 Checklist of undergrowth plant species recorded from Sal forest 124 areas of Sakhipur upazila of Tangail district. Appendix 2 Total number of individuals, density, relative density, frequency, 131 relative frequency, abundance, relative abundance considering all undergrowth species in exotic plots. Appendix 3 Total number of individuals, density, relative density, frequency, 136 relative frequency, abundance, relative abundance considering all undergrowth species in indigenous plots. Appendix 4 Total number of individuals, density, relative density, frequency, 143 relative frequency, abundance and relative abundance considering only the seedlings and saplings of tree species as undergrowths in exotic plots. Appendix 5 Total number of individuals, density, relative density, frequency, 145 relative frequency, abundance and relative abundance considering only the seedlings and saplings of tree species as undergrowths in indigenous plots. Appendix 6 Soil pH recorded from different exotic and indigenous plots during 147 different seasons in 2010 to 2011. Appendix 7 Soil Organic Carbon (OC) contents (%) found in different exotic 148 and indigenous plots during different seasons in 2010 to 2011. Appendix 8 Soil Organic Matter (OM) contents (%) recorded from different 149 exotic and indigenous plots during different seasons in 2010 to 2011. Appendix 9 Soil Nitrogen (N) contents (%) found in different exotic and 150 indigenous plots during different seasons in 2010 to 2011. Appendix 10 Soil Phosphorus (P) contents (μg/g) found in different exotic and 151 indigenous plots during different seasons in 2010 to 2011. Appendix 11 Soil Potassium (K) contents (meq/100g) found in different exotic 152 and indigenous plots during different seasons in 2010 to 2011. Appendix 12 Calculation of Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 153 Appendix 13 Calculation of Net Present Value (NPV) and Benefit Cost Ratio 154 (BCR) Appendix 14 Average benefit cost analysis for one hectare woodlot monoculture 155 plantation in Sakhipur, Tangail Appendix 15 Field Survey Questionnaire 156 Appendix 16 Photographic Presentation. 162
C HAPTER - I I NTRODUCTION P a g e 1
CHAPTER-I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Bangladesh had been facing an acute famine of timber and associated produces like biomass, fuel and fodder since the seventies because of widening gap between the supply and demand, that had been causing over exploitation from the government managed forest lands and village woodlots as well. To bridge the gap between demand and supply of the forest produces, a number of tree plantation projects/programs were launched by the Government of Bangladesh and development agencies that basically targeted the fallow land, marginal land, roadsides, railway, canal/river banks and embankments (FAO/UNDP, 1981). The exotic and indigenous timber yielding species are being used in creating the plantation forests or intensively managed forest stands artificially with the primary purpose of wood production (Evans, 1999). Many of the exotic tree species had been introduced to new habitats by humans (Ridenour and Callaway, 2001 and Dogra et al., 2010) due to economic reasons. Acacia Mill. and Eucalyptus L'Hér. are being widely considered as the most common species for monoculture as well as social/community forestry programs for the high volumes of biomass grown within a short time frame, but present unique challenges for management (Jagger and Pender, 2003).
In Bangladesh, plantation programs with exotic tree species are getting priority in both public and private sectors. A priority program of fast growing exotic tree species has recently been taken up to minimize the acute shortage of timber and fuel wood and to contribute as a means of poverty reduction in Bangladesh. Block or woodlot plantation includes fallow lands with degraded fertility which is not suitable for agricultural production. Various plantation or reforestation and afforestation programs with exotic tree species have shown success (Hossain and Pasha, 2001; Ara et al., 1989). But, the choice of species is still under debate, particularly regarding the plantations of some exotics species (i.e. Acacia auriculiformis A. Cunn. ex Benth. and Eucalyptus camaldulensis Dehnh.). In contrast, the exotic plant species can be invasive when they are deliberately or intentionally planted outside their natural range into new areas where they are able to establish themselves and quickly invade and out-compete native plant species for resources (Randall, 1996; Williamson, 1996 and Akter and Zuberi, 2009). This scenario has been facilitated by the campaign of social forestry programme publicizing planting of certain quick-growing exotic trees supposedly having higher timber-value and fuel wood value. Recent research has emphasized on the potential advantages of plantation with indigenous species instead of exotic species (Erskine et al., 2006; Hartley, 2002; Lambert et al., 2005; Piotto et al., 2010), however, there is a strong debate on the impacts of using exotic versus indigenous tree species in plantation programs. C HAPTER - I I NTRODUCTION P a g e 2
Some public opinions have also been raised against the cultivation of exotic species like Acacia auriculiformis and Eucalyptus camaldulensis in plantation programs claiming that these species have a damaging impact on the ecosystems, though such opinion is not backed by sufficient scientific information and research or field experiments (Hossain, 2003). In this context, comperative studies on the monoculture of exotic tree species versus indigenus tree species nedd to be conducted from ecological and socio-economic point of view for better understanding required in correct choice and selection of tree species for future plantation programs for sustainable development.
1.2. PROBLEM STATEMENT AND JUSTIFICATION
Plantation in public and private land helps in improving the socio-economic condition of the rural people by generating income and employment but the consequence or advantage and/or disadvantage of the plantation programs with exotic species is a matter of great debate. Tangail is one of the pioneer districts where the community people, farmers, NGOs and Bangladesh Forest Department (BFD) raised huge plantations of Acacia spp. and some of Eucalyptus and Swietenia Jacq. Enum. in their homesteads, marginal lands, fallow lands, farm lands and cleared Sal forest lands to get more economic return within short period of time. Acacia auriculiformis and Eucalyptus camaldulensis are most commonly used in Bangladesh in various reforestation and afforestation programs because of their fast growing characteristics and production of high volumes of biomass within a short time frame, short rotation, non-palatability to grazing animals and ability to thrive in poor soils.
Some studies on undergrowth species composition in different areas of this country (Ahmed; 1996; Al-Amin et al., 2004; Malaker et al., 2010) including the deciduous Sal forest areas of Modhupur-Mymensingh-Gazipur regions (Green, 1981; Rahman, 2001, 2009; Khan et al., 2007) have been conducted. However, no study included an integrated and comparative inventory on the composition of undergrowth species and soil status in exotic and indigenous tree plots of this country. Some studies on plantation programs have been conducted in central Sal (Shorea robusta) forest areas (e.g. Kabir and Ahmed, 2005; Motiur, 2006; Alam et al., 2008 and Haque, 2007). The previous studies did not give attention to the remote areas like Sakhipur of Tangail to findout the ecological and socio-economic status of plantation forestry, especially the monoculture woodlots formed in public and/or private lands in relation to natural or Sal forests of the area. None of the previous studies assessed the environmental/ecological and socio-economic impacts of monoculture of exotic tree species combindly in comparison to indigenous tree species of Sal forest areas of Tangail.
A number of studies have also been carried out on plantations of exotic or indigenous species in Bangladesh, but these studies did not cover the comparative inventory on C HAPTER - I I NTRODUCTION P a g e 3 exotic and indigenous plantation in an integrated approach incorporating the aspects of phytodiversity, soil status, stand productivity and socio-economic impacts (Islam et al., 2003; Ara et al., 1989 and Davidson and Das, 1985). Few studies (e.g. Akter and Zuberi, 2009; Barua et al., 2001; Hossain and Pasha, 2001 and Hossain, 2003) on comparative performance of exotic and indigenous forest species have been conducted but these studies did not include the Sal forests of Bangladesh. Several other studies have focused on the management issues of plantation forestry, but none of these studies has specifically evaluated the indicators of sustainable forestry management from ecological and socio- economic point of view with an integrated approach. The existing research on exotic (and invasive) species in Bangladesh is limited in terms of detailed investigations of their effects on native ecosystems (Akter and Zuberi, 2009; Barua et al., 2001; Hossain and Pasha, 2001; Hossain, 2003 and Islam et al., 2003). Detailed and quantitative investigations of exotics in biogeographic and ecological aspects, including their impacts on formation of the understories, are still scarce (Islam et al., 1999). Though much of the biodiversity harbored in the forests resides in undergrowth vegetation and data on undergrowth species of the forests help us to have an idea on the actual species richness and diversity existing under their canopy cover, but studies on undergrowth species in forested areas and impacts of plantations with exotic versus indigenous tree species on the undergrowths are still inadequate in our country.
1.3. OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the study were:
To investigate the comparative status of exotic and indigenous tree plots of the study area in species composition and species diversity of the undergrowths and woodlot productivity.
To examine the physico-chemical properties of soil of both exotic and indigenous tree plots of the study area.
To analyze the socio-economic aspects of exotic tree species cultivation (i.e. Acacia spp. and Eucalyptus spp.) in the study area.
1.4. SCOPE
The study area Hoteya Forest Range of Tangail district, one of the forest areas that harbor the typical deciduous forests of S. robusta as well as the massive plantations of exotic tree species, is an appropriate area for conducting a comparative study on undergrowth composition in exotic and indigenous tree plots. Moreover, a large number of of Acacia regeneration was found in this study area which is also uncommon phenomenon. The objectives of this study were to assess the impacts of monoculture of exotic tree species C HAPTER - I I NTRODUCTION P a g e 4 on the species composition and status of undergrowths in relation to that of indigenous tree species and to provide the baseline data on the undergrowth species of the plantation forests of exotic and indigenous tree species that might be useful in biodiversity conservation through appropriate selection of tree species for massive plantation programs.
Sakhipur of Tangail district is one of the areas that harbor typical Shorea forests of Bangladesh as well as massive plantations of exotic tree species. Therefore, Sakhipur of Tangail district is an appropriate area for conducting a comparative study on undergrowth species diversity, ecology and socio-economy in typical exotic and indigenous tree plots. Considering the facts mentioned above, there was a large scope of studying environmental impacts of monoculture of exotic tree species in relation to undergrowth species diversity, and ecological and socio-economic aspects in indigenous tree plots of Shorea forest areas.
This study was undertaken to know the species composition, phytodiversity, ecological impacts and extent of socio-economic benefits of the monoculture plantations of fast growing exotic species (Acacia auriculiformis and Eucalyptus camadulensis) in comparison to that of indigenous species (Shorea robusta and Mangifera indica L.) formed in public and private lands of the study area. This study will also explore which extent of socio-economical benefits are generating through the plantation of fast growing exotic species. Data from this study would be useful for the farmers, nursery owners, businessmen, consumers, research & extension organizations (Forest Department, Agriculture Department, and Department of Environment) and policy makers.
CHAPTER-II LITERATURE REVIEW P a g e 5
CHAPTER-II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. PLANTATION OF EXOTIC TREE SPECIES IN BANGLADESH AND OTHER COUNTRIES AND ITS IMPACTS
Exotic plants are non-native species that grow outside their natural adapted ranges and dispersal potential (Randall, 1996). Exotic plant species become invasive when they are deliberately or intentionally planted outside their natural range into new areas where they are able to establish themselves and quickly invade and out-compete native plant species for resources (Randall, 1996; Williamson and Fitter, 1996 and Akter and Zuberi, 2009). The introduction of exotic plant species by humans increased significantly during the last five centuries, especially during the turn of the 20th century, due to rapid increase in global trade (Dogra et al., 2010). The reason for the rapid expansion of fast-wood exotic tree species plantations is purely economic. Fast-wood plantations can produce one and a half to two times more wood per hectare per year, and reach at maturity two to three times faster, than longer-rotation softwood plantations (Cossalter and Pye-Smith, 2003).
Other factors that have also influenced the dissemination of exotics were their efficient dispersal capacities, large reproductive output, and greater tolerance to a broad range of environmental conditions than local endemic or idigenous species (Campbell, 2005). Anthropogenic and natural disturbances are also considered to be an important catalyst accelerating the establishment of exotic species in natural systems (Jentsch and Beierkuhnlein, 2003). Exotic trees are widely planted in tropical countries for industrial purposes as well as for afforestation, and ecological implications of such practices are often questioned that are reported by many authors (Poore and Fries, 1985).
In some situations, fast-growing plantations may have a positive impact on biodiversity when the natural vegetation has already been destroyed or seriously declined. In many parts of China and India, plantations have been established on barren lands or abandoned agricultural lands. In Congo, Eucalyptus plantations established on Savannas, seldom colonized by forest species, have acted as a nurse crop for species invading from nearby natural forests. This phenomenon of plantations “catalysing” natural forest restoration on degraded land has been documented for several types of plantations, including the fast- wood, in many countries (Parrotta and Turnbull, 1997; Cossalter and Pye-Smith, 2003).
The tropical and sub-tropical plantation forestry has focused on a small number of fast growing colonizing species like Acacia, Eucalyptus, Gmelina L., Pinus L., Populus L. and Tectona L.f. (Evans, 1992). These species have the ability to capture the site rapidly and tolerate harsh soil and climatic conditions and abuse from animals, humans and fire CHAPTER-II LITERATURE REVIEW P a g e 6
etc. Eucalyptus plantations improve the soil by building up organic matter (Bernhard- Reversal and Loumeto, 2002). These characteristics of exotics are a pre-requisite for success on the often highly degraded sites. The necessity of mixed plantation along with monoculture woodlot model on the private lands was raised to bridge the gap between demand and supply of the timber, fruits, fuels and fodder and also to prevent the trend of rapid environmental degradation. DeBell et al. (1985), Turnbull (1999), Forrester et al. (2005) and Bristow et al. (2006) proposed to maximize the productivity and enhance the ecological services of forest plantations through mixed plantation of Eucalyptus and native species, because the productivity of Eucalyptus might be enhanced when mixed with native species under appropriate species management (Erskine et al., 2006). Higher yield advantages of exotics over indigenous species have been attributed to their greater tolerance of degraded sites and their escape from specialized pests and diseases. Thus, the diminishing natural forest resources are being compensated by rapid expansion of planted exotic trees worldwide (Davidson, 1995).
The ability of trees to remove CO2 from the atmosphere has encouraged some governments and organizations to advocate planting fast-growing trees as climate change mitigation measures to counter the threat of global warming. However, many environmentalists are opposed to such a move, in part because they believe developed countries should reduce their carbon emissions at source, in part because they consider the exotic fast-wood plantations to be environmentally and socially harmful (Cossalter and Pye-Smith, 2003). Much of the opposition to fast-wood plantations is based on the belief that, they have a damaging impact on the environment and ecosystem as well. Fast growing exotic tree plantations are frequently associated with negative environmental and social impacts like decrease in water availability, modifications of soils physico-chemical properties, depletion of biodiversity, encroachment on indigenous people’s community’s agricultural lands and forests, and eviction of indigenous peoples from their lands with loss of livelihoods (Carman et al., 2006). When new fast growing plantations are established, the existing vegetation-closed forest, scrubland, grassland or whatever - must be removed, and before a single tree is planted the vast majority of mammals, birds and other creatures will be forced to flee. The exotic species negatively affect the environment and ecosystems, pose threat to indigenous plants and wildlife species, soil ecology and dynamics, and agricultural ecosystems (Randall, 1996; Vitousek et al., 1996; Williamson and Fitter, 1996; Kaiser, 1999; D’Antonio et al. 2001; Hulme, 2003; Kil et al., 2004; Pimentel et al., 2005; and Simberloff, 2005; Dogra et al., 2010).
Davidson and Das (1985) studied the ecological aspects and growth performance of Acacia and Eucalyptus plantations. In this relation, some of the successful species namely, Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Acacia mangium and Acacia auriculiformis have already been discarded from large-scale plantation programs due to controversy about their suitability or negative impacts on the ecosystems. CHAPTER-II LITERATURE REVIEW P a g e 7
Biswas et al. (2007, 2012) and Stinson et al. (2006) claimed that in many cases, exotic species have also proved problematic for high conservation value areas due to their detrimental effects that can potentially threaten the persistence of native flora and fauna. Soil degradation has become an increasingly serious problem, especially in the tropics and subtropics, due to poor agricultural practices, deforestation and overgrazing, and fast growing tree plantations can also result in soil degradation if they are poorly planned and managed. Rapid deforestation has not only resulted in severe shortage of fuel and timber but it has threatened the ecological balance resulting natural climates which demand quick afforestation of fast growing exotic tree (Hocking, 1987). The existing research on exotic and invasive species in Bangladesh is still limited in terms of detailed investigations of their effects on native ecosystems (Akter and Zuberi, 2009; Barua et al., 2001; Hossain and Pasha, 2001; Hossain, 2003 and Islam et al. 2003).
Hossain (2003) in his research stated that, Bangladesh has a very long history of plantation forestry starting from 1871 with Teak/Segun (Tectona grandis), the seeds of which were brought from Myanmar. Teak/Segun was dominant in the plantation forestry until the mid 1960s, along with indigenous species like Dipterocarpus turbinatus, Shorea robusta, Artocarpus chaplasha and Syzygium grande. The study revealed that, more than 130 exotic tree species have been tried so far in the plantation programs, but most of them did not show promising growth performances. The exotics that proved successful in trials and plantations are Tectona grandis, Acacia auriculiformis, Acacia mangium, Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Eucalyptus tereticornis, Swietenia macrophylla, Pinus caribaea, Leucaena leucocephala and Dalbergia sissoo. Conversion of natural forests (particularly the evergreen and semi-evergreen hill forests with high biological diversity) relies on the rationale that, plantation forests will produce better and higher yields.
The term ‘monoculture’ refers to the cultivation or growth of a single crop on forested land which may be exotic or indigenous. In case of tree plantation, monoculture refers to the planting of one species of tree. In forestry, monoculture stands are that which are planted and most oftenly harvested as a unit by clear cutting, which drastically alters the habitat and provides limited resources for wildlife. Monoculture is reverse to polyculture or mixed culture. Polyculture means plantation of multiple tree species in the same space/area including companion planting, beneficial weeds, and alley cropping etc. allowing reproduction of the diversity of natural ecosystems, avoiding large stands of single tree species. Monoculture tree plantation practice has been evident since the colonial period and has rendered many native and unique ecosystems exposed to invasion by exotic species (Simberloff, 2005; Underwood et al., 2004 and Bhagwat et al., 2012).
Light demanding, colonizing exotic species have been the most successful in monocultures under plantation management (Hughes, 1994). Successful exotics are being CHAPTER-II LITERATURE REVIEW P a g e 8
planted as monocultures in many areas worldwide (Evans, 1992 and Hughes, 1994). The introduction of fast growing exotic species in the tropics has occurred extensively for commercial timber production through replacing local indigenous species (Hossain and Pasha, 2001; Bhagwat et al., 2012 and Mukul et al., 2006). Eucalyptus camaldulensis Dehnh. and Acacia auriculiformis species are widely used in plantation forestry, agroforestry, community forestry and homesteads forestry because of their fast growing characteristics, short rotation, non-palatability to grazing animals and specially their ability to thrive in poor soils.
Monoculture of exotic tree species plantings provide great yields and more efficient harvesting than natural stands of trees. Many social forestry or plantation forestry programs (i.e. woodlot) rely on monoculture of exotic species for short-term high yields and economic returns. Monocultures of exotic species promote growth maximization due to less pressure from the presence of other species; however, the use of one exotic species has strong potential to disrupt native ecosystems. Felton et al. (2016) claimed that, there is evidence that mixed-species approaches to production forestry in general can provide positive outcomes relative to monocultures, though it is less clear to what extent multiple benefits can be derived from specific mixed-species alternatives.
Although exotic woody species provide important goods and services to society in Bangladesh, information on the extent of their invasion is not so remarkable. In Bangladesh, large number of tree species has been introduced in the past; most do not naturalized, and most of those that naturalized do not become important invasive (Hossain et al., 1998). In this region, the first attempt of raising forest plantation was made in 1871 with exotic Teak (Tectona grandis L.f.) species in the Chittagong Hill Tracts followed by Swietenia macrophylla var. marabaensis Ledoux & Lobato (Chowdhury, 1982; Das, 1982 and Hossain et al., 1998). The natural multistoried forests of Bangladesh were gradually under the process of conversion from natural to artificial through the removal of existing growing stock and planting with exotic tree species (Hoque, 1977). In 1978 and onwards, extensive trials of Acacia and Eucalyptus species were started to find out the very fast growing exotics for some difficult areas. Plantation projects with species of Acacia and Eucalyptus were introduced to Bangladesh in the late 1980s under various reforestation and/or afforestation programs aided by donor countries/ agencies. After successive elimination, provenance and growth and yield trials by BFRI, Acacia auriculiformis A. Cunn. ex Benth. and Eucalyptus camaldulensis Dehnh. had been recommended as promising exotic tree species for the large scale afforestation and/or reforestation programs in Bangladesh (Zashimuddin et al., 1983; Davidson and Das, 1985; Latif et al., 1985; Amin et al., 1995; Hossain et al., 1989, 1994, 1996b). CHAPTER-II LITERATURE REVIEW P a g e 9
The plantation and harvesting of exotic tree species affected the natural ecosystem and the natural regeneration processes which has been observed in all areas though it has directly increases the income of local peoples (Elahi, 2006). Recently, some public opinions based on some media and social reports have been raised against the cultivation of exotic species like Eucalyptus and Acacia in plantation programs that these species have a damaging impact on the ecosystems, though according to Hossain (2003), such opinion is not backed by sufficient scientific information, research or field experiments. Exotic tree species, i.e. Eucalyptus or Acacia, is blamed for uptaking more water than other species, reducing soil fertility leading to soil erosion, providing harmful environment for wildlife and prohibiting the formation of native understorey vegetation. Acacia mangium Willd. suffers from heart rot disease due to which this species is not suitable in the new plantation programs. Critics also arosed that Teak/Segun (Tectona grandis) plantation depletes soil fertility, prevents the formation and productivity of undergrowth vegetation and depends on only suitable specific site conditions (ADB, 1992). EL-Khawas and Shehata (2005) and Forrester et al. (2006) claimed that monoculture of Eucalyptus may cause soil degradation and loss of productivity. Ara et al. (1989) claimed that, all sort of exotic tree plantation does not have any expressed spirit of sustainable economic entrepreneurship for enhancing people livelihood.
In contrast, the some forestry, agroforestry experts and scientists concluded that these fast growing exotic tree species may be a suitable species for afforestation and/or reforestation in denuded areas, marginal lands, roadside plantations and agroforestry programs (Hossain et al., 1997 and Amin et al., 1995). Various reforestation and/or afforestation programs with exotic tree species (i.e., Acacia spp., Eucalyptus spp.) have shown success (Hossain and Pasha, 2001 and Ara et al., 1989). Eucalyptus camaldulensis experimental plantations showed excellent yield in a closed spaced plantation (Davidson and Das, 1985), though in hilly areas the production reduced to as low. The growth behavior of some exotic tree plantations in the hilly area was erratic and poor throughout the rotation cycle which may be due to the wrong selection of seeds and site (Amin et al., 1995). The most commonly used exotic species Acacia auriculiformis have shown success in degraded sites (Ara et al., 1989). Some Acacia plantations showed better survival and growth in different areas of the country.
Hossain et al. (1998b) reported the formation of luxuriant undergrowth vegetation and biomass production under Eucalyptus plantations in comparison to some other afforestation species. The monoculture woodlot plantations have some advantages over natural forest from management and economic point of views, such as concentrated production and ability to choose species with desirable characteristics etc. Though Acacia auriculiformis is blamed for pollen allergy, there are no detail studies in favor of this criticism. Moreover, there are some weeds and grasses that are more responsible for pollen allergy than the Acacia species (Hossain, 2003). CHAPTER-II LITERATURE REVIEW P a g e 10
Since the 1980s, scientific interest has increasingly focused on appropriate strategies for forest plantations to provide multiple ecosystem services and a broader range of goods while meeting the economical demand for high timber productivity in Bangladesh. Published informations and research articles on the species composition and diversity, soil physico-chemical properties, tree growth and productivity, socio-economic impacts of plantation of exotic species and indigenous forests on the Sakhipur areas of Tangail are not available.
Former plantation forestry traditionally concentrated on monocultures based on a few well-known exotic tree species (Kelty, 2006). Many of the exotic tree species had been introduced to new habitats by humans due to economic reasons. Higher yield advantages of exotics over indigenous species have been attributed to their greater tolerance of degraded sites and their escape from specialized pests and diseases. Thus, the diminishing natural forest resources are being compensated by rapid expansion of planted exotic trees worldwide (Evans, 1992). Due to global environmental/climatic change, development processes, and ever-increasing population pressures, tropical forest ecosystems are now more vulnerable to anthropogenic pressures and influences than they have been in the past (Randall et al., 2008; Vila et al., 2011 and Watt, 1998).
Some studies have been conducted on plantations of exotic trees and and their impacts. Cossalter and Pye-Smith (2003) studied on ‘fast-wood forestry activities and its myths and realities’ which had provided a comprehensive analysis of the arguments for and against exotic fast-wood plantations. This review explores the impact of the fast-wood plantation on biological diversity, soil and water resources. This study claims that, plantation of fast growing exotic species brings valuable social benefits, jobs, infrastructure and wealth to the rural communities. Fast growing tree plantations can result in soil degradation if they are poorly planned and managed.
Rosoman (1994) studying the environmental effects of exotic monoculture tree plantations in New Zealand reported that, the plantation decline soil nutrient and tree harvesting causes accelerated soil nutrient loss. Many exotic monoculture practices are detrimental to critical environmental factors such as soil physical properties. Exotic monoculture tree plantations do not help maintain landscape and biological diversity. Regimented, uniform rows of monocultural plantations are the opposite of diversity. He suggested that indigenous species plantations can maintain soil and water values, and actively protects biodiversity. Afforestation or reforestation with mixed species performs better habitats, higher economic values incorporating timber production with other products and lower extraction impacts.
Evans and Turnbull (2004) overviewed tree planting for industrial, social, environmental and agroforestry purposes in the tropics. They draw the general principles of plantation CHAPTER-II LITERATURE REVIEW P a g e 11
management and showed nexus among fast growing species plantations, exotic monocultures and their ecological and socio-economic impact, soil organic carbon and biomass of exotic tree plantations. This study demonstrated that, tree planting can play many roles and valuable interventions, which also emphasis on the importance of forest science and silviculture in sustainable development schemes. They opined that, as the rain forests are disappearing, development of planted forests in tropical countries is accelerating to satisfy the ever-growing global demands for wood products as well as to improve the local environment and livelihoods of poor people, they suggested.
Jactel and Brockerhoff (2007) studied the advantages and impacts of mixed species plantations or polyculture over monoculture. The study showed a significant reduction of herbivory in more diverse forests but this varied with the host specific of insects. They found that, in diverse species forests, herbivory by oligophagous species was virtually always reduced, whereas the response of polyphagous species was variable. Their analysis revealed that, the species composition of tree mixtures may be more important because species diversity effects on herbivory (animal that feeds on plants) were greater, when mixed forests comprised of taxonomically more distant tree species. This research provides new support for the role of biodiversity in ecosystem functioning across trophic levels.
Dreschel et al. (1991) investigated the effect of Acacia auriculiformis on soil amelioration, leaf litter quality and decomposition on five years old fallow land in Central Togo. They found that, the top soil pH increases significantly with increasing litter calcium levels. Under Acacia, who had the highest biomass production, litter accumulation appeared due to low mineral soil calcium and phosphorus; and the top soil pH under Acacia was lower than under grass or bush fallow or the other species. They also remarked that, Acacia stands high biomass production supporting soil acidification and Acacia plantation performed slow litter mineralization of Acacia was possibly caused by the thick, leathery consistence and high tannin content of its litter. Pure Acacia stands seemed to be less favourable for improving soil fertility on planted fallows but more suited for firewood plantations and top soil protection.
Zhang et al. (2012) studying ‘biomass and carbon storage of Acacia and Eucalyptus plantations in the South China’ revealed that, the accumulation of biomass increased with stand age and Acacia plantations generated a higher biomass density than the Eucalyptus. They concluded that, forest management intensification and reforestation programmes, especially targeting Acacia or mixed Acacia/Eucalyptus forests, offer good potential for future carbon sequestration where forest plantations represent an important carbon sink. In Southern China, fast growing Acacia and Eucalyptus are favoured plantation species, but little is known regarding their efficiency with respect to biomass production, CHAPTER-II LITERATURE REVIEW P a g e 12
partitioning and dynamics with stand age, or the contribution made by the understory, litter and coarse woody debris to the volume of biomass and fixed carbon.
Bernhard-Reversat and Schwartz (1997) studied on lignin, nitrogen and tannin contents of fresh and decaying litter in natural rain forest and planted stands of Acacia, Eucalyptus in Congo, together with litterfall and forest floor accumulation. Lignin evolution in aging litter exhibited different patterns. They found that, the lignin was accumulated under Eucalyptus plantation, but disappeared under natural forest, and was intermediate under Acacia plantations.
Bernhard-Reversat and Loumeto (2002) found that, Eucalyptus plantations have improved the soil by building up organic matter. They opined that, tree species and rainfall are the main factors controlling litterfall, and litterfall in plantations is not basically different from natural forests. They commented that, most exotic species have low leaf litter nitrogen content and high nitrogen use efficiency but indigenous species have comparatively high nitrogen content. Thay also concluded that, in Africa, fast growing plantations are made with a reduced number of exotic genus, mainly Eucalyptus, Pinus and Acacia, which are selected for their fast growth rate, whereas a greater variety of species are planted for timber, often chosen among local indigenous species.
In another study Forrester et al. (2005) claimed that, Eucalyptus plantations with other nitrogen fixing tree species (polyculture) have more potential to increase timber productivity and also maintaining soil fertility in comparison to Eucalyptus monocultures. But, it is difficult to predict combinations of species and sites that will lead to these benefits. The study revealed that, several trials with the mixtures of species (contrasted four or more different species compositions) were significantly more productive than monocultures, and there is no instance in which mixtures of species was less productive than monocultures.
Davidson (1995) takes up issues including climate and micro-climate, hydrology, soil erosion, soil nutrients, competition and other interactions with flora and fauna, allelopathy and fire with the plantation of Eucalyptus trees as exotics. He remarked that, Eucalyptus like many other tall trees, by themselves, may not protect the soil from erosion perfectly and this species may not provide ideal habitats for the native wildlife and they may upset local traditions and values. He concluded that, the planted Eucalyptus trees will be successful only if they can grow well in the local climate and soil conditions, and only if they can provide the benefits required, either for industry or rural people in a sound landuse and environmental management programme. CHAPTER-II LITERATURE REVIEW P a g e 13
Lemma et al. (2007) studied the factors controlling soil organic carbon sequestration under exotic tree plantations in Ethiopia. They examined the influence of litter production, litter quality and micro-climate on differences in soil organic carbon accretion under exotic tree species established on farmland. They found soil organic carbon accretion was greater under Pinus plantations than under Eucalyptus plots. The results of this study suggested that, total litter input and the proportion of fine woody litter were the main factors that accounted for the interspecific differences in soil organic carbon accretion.
Poore and Fries (1985) stated that a number of crops (i.e. ginger, turmeric, varieties of vegetables etc.) cannot grow satisfactorily near or under the shadow of exotic tree stand i.e. Acacia or Eucalyptus.
Dogra et al. (2010) reviewed alien plant invasion and their impact on indigenous species diversity at global scale. They mentioned that, plant invasion is a threat to the species diversity around the world during the 21st century after habitat loss which is human introduced and/or natural means like winds, birds, animals, water. It affects indigenous species diversity, soil ecology and dynamics (soil nutrient cycling), and economics of agricultural ecosystem throughout the world. They recommended for conserving our indigenous species diversity, understanding the process of plant invasions and their impact on species diversity in various habitats around the world.
Stinson et al. (2006) studied the problematic impacts of exotic species in conservation value areas. They remarked that, the impact of exotic species on native organisms is widely acknowledged, but poorly understood. They present a evidence that, antifungal phyto-chemistry of the invasive plant (Alliaria petiolata, a European invader of North American forests) suppresses native plant growth by disrupting mutualistic associations between native canopy tree seedlings and below ground arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. The results revealed that, invasive plants can impact native flora, and may help to explain how this plant successfully attack relatively undisturbed forest habitat.
Pimentel et al. (2005) executed a study on the environmental and economic costs associated with both plants and animals alien invasive (non-native) species in the United States. They find out few ecological factors that may cause alien invasive species to become abundant and persistent. These include: the lack of controlling natural enemies; the development of new associations between alien parasite and host; artificial and/or disturbed habitats that provide favorable invasive ecosystems for the aliens; and invasion by some highly adaptable and successful alien species. The study revealed that, some non-indigenous invasive species, however, have caused major economic losses in agriculture, forestry, and several other sectors of the United States economy, in addition CHAPTER-II LITERATURE REVIEW P a g e 14
to harming the environment. So prevent or reduce the introduction of potentially harmful exotic species should be focused on by educating the public and private agencies.
In Bangladesh, existing research on exotic and invasive species is limited in terms of detailed investigations of their effects on native ecosystems, as reported by some authors e.g.. Barua et al. (2001), Hossain and Pasha (2001), Islam et al. (1999) and Islam et al. (2003). They felt that, detailed and quantitative investigations of exotics biogeographic and ecological aspects are still scarce in the country.
In Bangladesh, Chowdhury (1982) studied on introduction of exotic species in the plantation program and their performance and impacts. He mentioned that, the monoculture woodlot plantations have some advantages over natural forests from management and economic point of views, such as concentrated production and ability to choose species with desirable characteristics etc.
Ali (2009) carried out a research to assess the contribution of social forestry program in tree resource development, knowledge and socio-economic improvement of the beneficiaries and poverty alleviation in Gazipur and Tangail districts. He analysed that, the higher financial benefit was derived from the BFD’s social forestry program. The research concluded that, the plantation programs through exotic species have improved the socio-economic condition of the participants.
Elahi (2006) stated that, during the last three decades there has been a rush for planting cheap trees of foreign origin under the social forestry program of the government with the help of a number of NGOs and commercial nurseries in northern Bangladesh (also elsewhere in the country). He remarked that, the plantation and harvesting of exotic tree species affected the natural ecosystems and the natural regeneration processes which has been observed in all areas though it has directly increases the income (tangible benefit) of local peoples.
Newaz and Millat-E-Mustafa (2004) did a research on growth and yield prediction models for Acacia mangium grown in the plantations of the central region of Bangladesh. He mentioned that Acacia mangium is a very fast growing species that has been introduced in the plantations in Bangladesh for its faster growth and wide range of adaptability.
Kabir and Webb (2005) investigated the productivity and suitability of social forestry woodlot species in Dhaka Forest Division, Bangladesh. They investigated the biophysical and social suitability of three exotic species (Acacia auriculiformis, Acacia mangium and Eucalyptus camaldulensis) in eight years old monoculture plantations for woodlots. They CHAPTER-II LITERATURE REVIEW P a g e 15
analysed that, the survival, average height, productivity and gross revenue earned from Acacia auriculiformis were substantially higher than Eucalyptus camaldulensis and local people preferred Acacia than Eucalyptus. But the rural communities should get preferences of in selecting suitable tree species for future woodlot establishment where market might affect local people’s choice of species.
Al-Amin et al. (2004) studied the composition and status of undergrowth (shrubs, herbs and grasses) of a degraded natural forests and plantation forests of exotic Tectona grandis and Eucalyptus camaldulensis in Chittagong South forest division, Bangladesh. They remarked that, under appropriate protection conditions these degraded exotic species plantations seem to catalyze natural forest succession by modifying understory micro- climate conditions and soils, thereby creating a more favourable environment for the establishment of native forest flora and also for attracting seed dispersing wildlife which lead to the progressive enrichment of biological diversity. The coppice of Tectona grandis and Eucalyptus camaldulensis might act as a facilitator of the regeneration of shrubs and herbs from a completely barren to a condition of conservation.
Akter and Zuberi (2009) studied on invasive alien plant species in northern Bangladesh through identification, inventory and impacts analysis. They found that, the presence of alien plant species always reduced the number of associated species, in most cases significantly. They opined that, the existence of phenotypic variation in the morphological and reproductive characters of the invasive alien plant species from the different sites indicates their ability to invade and adapt to new habitats.
2.2. PLANTATION OF INDIGENOUS TREE SPECIES IN BANGLADESH AND OTHER COUNTRIES AND ITS IMPACTS
Indigenous plant is one that occurs naturally in the place in which it is currently found, and has not been assisted in its travels by people. In biogeography, a species is defined as indigenous to a given region or ecosystem if its presence in that region is the result of natural processes only, i.e., without any human intervention. Being indigenous does not mean that a species has always occurred where it is now found; distribution of some species can be shifted through natural process.
Former plantation forestry has traditionally concentrated on monocultures based on a few well-known exotic tree species (Evans and Turnbull, 2004; Kelty, 2006 and Lambert et al., 2005). But recent research has emphasized on the potential advantages of plantation with indigenous species instead of exotic species, planted in mixed stands rather than in monocultures (Erskine et al., 2006; Hartley, 2002; Lambert et al., 2005 and Piotto et al., 2010). In recent years, multiple species plantations including high value native CHAPTER-II LITERATURE REVIEW P a g e 16
(indigenous) species have been used in tropical forestry systems (Erskine et al., 2005; Duarte et al., 2006; Guerrero and Bustamante, 2007). Indigenous tree species were found highly adaptable, fast growing, productive, and site improving, suitable for reforestation (Islam et al., 1999).
The role of indigenous trees and other forest products on food security, and rural household development welfare in general can help to identify ways for allowing local people to grow more trees, thus bringing about economic, environmental, and social benefits. These benefits can come, apart from marketable products, also from environmental protection provided by the trees, increased biodiversity, or the ability of trees to prevent global warming (Romm, 1989 and Mol and Wiersum, 1990). Indigenous trees are the essential component of the agricultural farming systems and people/farmer had a wide selection of species on farmlands. Most of these indigenous species are cultivated or managed to meet the immediate needs of the population such as food, medicines, income, agricultural materials and ecological needs (Raintree, 1987). Various scholars (Hough, 1990; Warner, 1991 and Bisong, 1993) have identified indigenous trees in farming system as a strategy for restoring degraded areas, increasing people’s access to valued forest products and conserving existing forest ecosystem. The role of indigenous trees and forestry in maintaining stability in ecosystem has come to the forefront in the search for solution to environmental degradation.
Indigenous tree species gather and sequester more timber and carbon respectively than exotic tree species in the plantation sites (Akter et al. 2013). Plantation and sustainable utilization of indigenous tree species benefit people’s livelihoods, conservation of valuable tree species with economic and ecological importance (Buyinza et al. 2015). Forest management with indigenous species has been recognised to be the only way to ensure, under certain conditions, a sustainable form of land use. The plantation of indigenous plant species have always been the important sources of timber, fruits, food, fodder, fuel, bamboo, canes, medicines etc., though the landuse changes have altered the vegetation in the indigenous Sal forests of Bangladesh. Plant species diversity in the converted land has been found to be significantly lower than that in the relatively undisturbed natural forests stands. Due to changes in the landuse pattern in the Sal forests, below ground soil decomposer community has been changed (Hossain et al. 2010).
In Bangladesh, village forest as well as homestead forest, mainly dominated by indigenous tree species, is the old practice and an integral part of the traditional farming system for its socio-economic importance. Indigenous tree species plantation may have more positive effects on the environment, fulfill traditional services to local landowners, and require less financial investment by eliminating dependency on external seed sources and foreign technologies. CHAPTER-II LITERATURE REVIEW P a g e 17
The dynamics of plantation ecology and management necessarily differ by landscape and geographic area, climate and ecosystems types, anthropogenic factors etc. Moreover it also considers socio-economic factors, native community type and structure, tree crop species composition, and pest dynamics. There is growing recognition that, the fate of the world’s terrestrial biodiversity depends on the management of human dominated tropical and sub-tropical forests landscapes which are dominated by indigenous tree species. While global and national level environmental changes are transforming the ecology of tropical and sub-tropical forests, a number of studies have also demonstrated that, these indigenous (native) forests are resilient to environmental and anthropogenic disturbances over timescales of centuries or millennia?
Sist and Saridan (1999) claimed that in the humid tropics, the larger the area of natural indigenous forests converted through fast growing tree plantation, the greater the number of species will be affected.
Bhagwat et al. (2012) studied the resilience of an ancient tropical indigenous forest landscape to environmental change in India. In this research they examine the relationship between vegetation cover and variation in monsoon rainfall, soil erosion, and fire over the period of thousand years in an ancient tropical landscape in India. They opiend that climate and landuse changes might have synergistic effects on this forested landscape, although the relationship between these factors and vegetation cover has varied over time. They remarked that, tree taxa present throughout the succession have lighter seeds, which denotes that dispersal mode might be an important factor in their persistence where as heavy seeds dispersal were in troublesome conditions due to dispersal agents. Research results suggested to retain native tree cover on this landscape (even if fragmented) are key measures to maintain its ecological resilience to environmental and anthropogenic disturbance.
Hartley (2002) stated that, plantation forests can play a role in conserving biodiversity and it can occupy an increasing proportion of future landscapes. He suggested, during plantation establishment, forest managers should consider mother tree management, where mature native trees and/or understory vegetation are not harvested or allowed to regenerate. He concluded that, polycultures should be favored over monocultures by planting indigenous tree species and/or leaving some native trees unharvested.
Erskine et al. (2006) emphasised that, the native or indigenous species should generally be favored over exotics tree species in case of better forest management. They recommended, plantation site preparation should minimize natural disturbances as much as possible, and conserve coarse woody debris in the site. This study revealed that, earlier thinning schedules or longer rotations can strongly affect biodiversity, left mother trees while harvesting as second rotation. CHAPTER-II LITERATURE REVIEW P a g e 18
In Bangladesh, studies on agroforestry, poverty alleviation, socio-economic impacts of social forestry, ecology, phytodiversity and soil nutrient status of ‘Sal’ tract, and performance of exotic plantation has been carried out by a number of researchers like Islam (1998), Rahman (2001), Ali (2009), Hossain et al. (2010) and Rahman et al. (2010) which are also mentioned in the introduction chapter as well.
Islam et al. (1999) studied on comparative performance of survival, growth, and biomass production of exotic and indigenous tree species under reforestation in tropical semi- evergreen degraded forest land in Chittagong, Bangladesh. They remarked that, both exotic and indigenous forest tree species had shown similar capability in the biomass production where tree height was found a better predictor of biomass production than diameter. There have been improvements in soil properties under reforestation. This study showed that, among the exotic species Acacia auriculiformis were found highly adaptable, fast growing, productive, site improving and suitable for reforestation of degraded lands.
2.3. NATURAL ‘SAL’ FORESTS OF BANGLADESH AND ITS IMPACTS
The forests of Bangladesh are broadly classified into three categories based on the topographic conditions (a) Hill forests, (b) Plain ‘Sal’ forests, and (c) Mangrove littoral forests (FAO, 2000a). Plain land ‘Sal’ forests are tropical moist deciduous type of forests. Such forests are normally present in most of the lowlands and floodplains in the central and northern parts of the country. The forests consist of patches of Sal trees occasionally with other tree species. In Bangladesh, the deciduous forests, spread over the central and northern region (about 120255 ha.) had considerable environmental and economic importance, but fall under most degradation forests in the country (Khan, 1990). These forests lie mainly in the districts of Dhaka, Tangail, Mymensingh, Rangpur, Dinajpur and Rajshahi (FAO, 2000b). These forests are dominated by indigenous Shorea robusta Gaertn. (Fam. Dipterocarpaceae Blume) or Sal (local name) trees due to which they are popularly known as ‘Sal’ forests.
Shorea robusta is extremely eco-friendly and its dead leaves, once mixed with the soil, increase soil fertility (Gain, 1998). This tree species is economically very important because the trees of this species are enriched in hardwood and useful as poles and sawn timber for house building and efficient fuel wood. These deciduous Sal forests of this country produce wild fruits and tubers (e.g., potatoes), animal feed including grass as well as straw and other plants that are variousely used by the local peoples. Local community including tribal populations (Adivasi) of Sal tract used to consider these Sal forests as their socio-economic base for livelihoods and medicinal value (Gain, 1998). The Sal forests are considered one of the richest ecosystems in regard to forest diversity in Bangladesh and global aspect and also playing an important role to global climate change CHAPTER-II LITERATURE REVIEW P a g e 19
mitigation i.e. sinks carbon (biomass storage). But unfortunately these forests in Bangladesh are now threatened due to multiferous anthropogenic activities (Malaker et al., 2010; Motiur, 2006; Alam et al., 2008; Haque, 2007 and Rahman et al. 2010).
In Bangladesh a number of researchers carried out their study on phytodiversity, conservation management, socio-economic and ecological importance and impacts of indigenous Sal forests.
Rahman et al. (2010) studied the present threats to tropical moist deciduous Sal (Shorea robusta) forest ecosystem of Madhupur Sal forests of central Bangladesh, where climber species richness and population structure were investigated. They observed species richness as well as climber diversity was higher in natural stand than the successional stand where the natural stand showed the higher species richness (25 species from 20 genera and 15 families) than successional stand (7 species from 7 genera and 6 families). The concentration of dominance was higher in successional stand due to highly abundance of a single species (Mikania cordata). They also found that, species richness of climbers was related to the species richness of trees.
Kabir and Ahmed (2005) studied on wildlife biodiversity in Bhawal Sal forests of Gazipur and they found few species are endangered among the existing wildlife. They emphasised on to improve conservation management of indigenous Sal forests and to conserve wildlife. They recommended, the BFD staff can also put up some awareness signboards regarding forests tree conservation and wildlife protection; and so far Sal forest co-management has great importance for conservation and social wellbeing.
Islam (2006) studied the physical and social dimensions of deciduous Sal forest resources located in the central part of Bangladesh. This study emphasized on the underlying social factors and drivers that badly impacted on the Sal forests, ranging from social dynamics such as land tenancy disputes, historical legacies and local corruption to policy failure due to political ecology. He considered both science (i.e. remote sensing) and social science (i.e. political ecology that includes role and inter-relations of power, the ideological dilemma); and the research findings suggested that, these two strands can work together for the better management (including resource assessment, monitoring and progress evaluation) of forest resources in Bangladesh.
Khan et al. (2007) reviewed the distribution and overall status of different types of forests in Bangladesh, highlighting their floral and faunal diversity including Sal forests. The research findings recommended that, conservation management, restoration of degraded forests, co-management, benefit sharing and peoples/stakeholder participation, strict enforcement of forest laws, provision for livelihoods of forest dependent peoples, relocation of settlers/villagers, soil and water conservation, research and education, forest CHAPTER-II LITERATURE REVIEW P a g e 20
protection and biodiversity conservation, ecosystems management, ecotourism are the various elements that can lead to better forest management. They also suggested that, a societal consensus with strong political commitment and dedication of forest officials regarding forest management is the crying to overcome the situation.
Alam et al. (2008) analysed the past, present and future actions regarding sustainability of Sal (Shorea robusta) forests in Bangladesh. He remarked that, the most of the forest area at present is under occupation by encroachers and the remaining forest stands are stocked poorly. Moreover, the biodiversity of Sal forests has declined rapidly and many animal species have become locally extinct which is very important for ecosystem functioning. He commented that, BFD has established agroforestry and woodlot plantations as sustainable production system in the encroached and degraded forest area using in a participatory approach but failed to maintain conservation of Sal forests. He suggested that, the present management trend is inadequate; and intensive as well as improved management policy is essential to restore the forest ecosystem of Sal tract.
Rahman (2001) worked on ecology, phytodiversity and nutrient status of central Sal forests. This study revealed that, the soil physico-chemical properties of the Sal forest were better than those of deforested forest areas but the overall nutrients status was poor mainly due to antropogenic factors. He did not found prominent influence of soil physico- chemical properties on overall phytodiversity, species richness or on the vegetation dynamics in Sal forest ecosystems. He commented that, a number of causes were earmarked for the repid reduction of phytodiversity as well as the gradation of soil quality in Sal forests including mainly, continuous removal of fallen leaves from soil surface, soil erosion, over-explotation of different economically important species, illegal cutting and stealing of Sal trees, exotic tree species plantation in the Sal forests, indiscriminate use of herbs, shrubs and small trees including Sal coppics as fuel, intentional forest floor fire etc.
Islam and Sato (2010) studied to find out the constraints of participatory agroforestry program in the Sal forests of Bangladesh. They stated that, the participatory agroforestry program so far quite successful for increasing income as well as alleviating poverty, and it might also be of interest for other degraded Sal forests areas. They suggested improving the program with some measures, such as, improvement of road infrastructure, reduce bureaucracy, provide loan facility, abolish middleman exploitation, provide more agroforestry training and quality planting materials, avoid invasive exotic species and resolve market monopoly.
Gain (1998) studied on the ecosystem services provided by indigenous Sal forests and its great importance. He claimed that, exotic monoculture plantation, extraction of raw materials from the natural forests, rubber plantation in place of native forests, the so- called "social forestry" programme etc. have greatly contributed to the rapid destruction of the Sal forests as well as biodiversity. CHAPTER-III MATERIALS AND METHODS P a g e 21
CHAPTER-III
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
The size, location, climate, soil, floristic composition and socio-economic aspects of the study area Sakhipur of Tangail district have been described below.
3.1.1. AREA AND LOCATION
The Sakhipur upazila occupies an area of 435 km² including 191 km² forest area. The upazila is bounded on the north by Ghatail upazila on the east by Bhaluka upazila of Mymensingh district and Sreepur upazila of Gazipur district, on the south by Mirzapur upazila and Kaliakair upazila of Gazipur district and on the west by Basail and Kalihati upazilas (BBS, 2012). Sakhipur upazila is consisted of 6 unions, 1 pouroshova, 59 mauza, and 122 villages (BBS, 2012). Sakhipur is situated in 80 km north from the capital city Dhaka. It is located between 24°11´and 24°26´ north latitudes; and between 90°04´ and 90°18´ east longitudes (Figure-3.1, 3.7).
3.1.2. CLIMATE
The Sakhipur area enjoys a sub-tropical monsoon climate with three distinct seasons, viz., summer (March to mid June), monsoon (mid June to mid October) and the winter (mid October to February). Among the climatic factors, rainfall, humidity, sunshine penetration, evaporation and evapo-transpiration, canopy structure etc. affect the growth and development of vegetation, woodlots and Shorea trees as well as the associated undergrowth species to varying extents. The climatic data has been collected from NWRD/CEGIS and analyzed accordingly.
In the study area, the mean annual rainfall ranges from minimum 1126 to maximum 2748 mm and the mean annual temperature from minimum 20.25°C to maximum 31.48°C (Figures 3.2, 3.3; NWRD/CEGIS, 2015). This tropical climate condition is characterized by a distinct rainy season from April to October and a strong dry season from November to March. The relative humidity varies between 69 and 86%, the duration of sunshine ranges average from 5-9 hours and average maximum wind speed were 87 km/hour (Figures 3.4, 3.5, 3.6; NWRD/CEGIS, 2015).
CHAPTER-III MATERIALS AND METHODS P a g e 22
Study Area, Sakhipur
Figure 3.1. The study area, Sakhipur, Tangail. (Source: GIS/LGED)
CHAPTER-III MATERIALS AND METHODS P a g e 23
Figure 3.2. Monthly average rainfall and yearly average rainfall in Sakhipur, Tangail.
Figure 3.3. Monthly average temperature and yearly average temperature in Sakhipur, Tangail.
Figure 3.4. Monthly average relative humidity Figure 3.5. Monthly average sunshine in in Sakhipur, Tangail. Sakhipur, Tangail. (Source: NWRD/CEGIS 2015) CHAPTER-III MATERIALS AND METHODS P a g e 24
3.1.3. SOIL
Sakhipur area belongs to the bio-ecological zone of Madhupur Sal (Shorea robusta) tract (Nishat et al. 2002). According to Richards and Hassan (1988), the soils of this area have a moderate to strong acidic reaction. The topography of this area is characterized by plain land or low hills rising 3.0-4.5 m above the surrounding paddy fields, locally known as 'chalas', which are intersected by numerous Figure 3.6.Monthly average wind speed in depressions or ‘baids’ (Ismail and Miah, Sakhipur, Tangail (Source: NWRD 1973). /CEGIS 2015).
Three major soil types are observed in Sakhipur areas, viz., deep red brown terrace soils; shallow red brown terrace soil and brown mottled terrace soils (Richards and Hassan, 1988). About half of the Sal forests land is covered by deep red brown terrace soil. The soils are moderately to strongly acidic in reaction with pH 5.0-5.5 (UNDP/FAO, 1988). Major physical problems of soils of this tract are low organic matter content, low fertility and low moisture holding capacity (Alam, 1995). The partly weathered/unweathered Madhupur tract clay is very compact and greatly affects root penetration of crop (Amin et al., 1995).
3.1.4. FLORISTIC COMPOSITION
Sakhipur is a part of Madhupur Sal tract due to which its floristic composition, wildlife and forest characteristics are almost similar to that of other parts of this tract. As the forest area of Sakhipur is not under the status of protected area like Modhupur national park, it is relatively under more anthropogenic pressures in respect to a protected area. The Sal forest of Sakhipur is composed of few scattered and degraded patches. Shorea robusta is the dominant tree species of Sal forest which represents 70% to 75% trees of the forest and is associated with other tree species, such as Terminalia bellirica (Gaertn.) Roxb., Albizia procera (Roxb.) Benth., Lagerstroemia speciosa (L.) Pers. and Ficus spp.
Rahman (2009) reported a total of 134 species including 70 trees, 15 shrubs, 49 herbs from Madhupur areas. According to Malaker (2010) Madhupur Sal forest is composed of a total of 174 plant species under 131 genera and 54 families of which about 102, 17, 34 and 21 species are categorized as tree, shrub, herb and climber, respectively. In addition CHAPTER-III MATERIALS AND METHODS P a g e 25
to many tree species, mostly of timber value, this forest houses many medicinal plants like Hartaki (Terminalia chebula Retz.), Bohera (Terminalia belerica (Gaertn.) Roxb.), Arjun (Terminalia arjuna (Roxb. ex DC.) Wight & Arn.) and Kurchi (Holarrhena antidysenterica Roth) and many undergrowth herbs of medicinal importance, like Shothi (Curcuma zedoaria (Christm.) Roscoe), Bon-ada (Curcuma amada Roxb.) etc. that grow luxuriantly there (Khan, 1990). Besides, the Shorea trees, Acacia, Eucalyptus, Swietenia, Artocarpus J. R. Forst., Mangifera, Albizia Durazz. Mag. are commonly found in the village forests of the area, though Acacia is the dominant.
3.1.5. SOCIO ECONOMIC CONDITION
According to the 2011 Bangladesh census, Sakhipur harbors a total of 277685 population with density of 638 per km². Males constitute 47.55% of the population, and females 52.44%. Sakhipur has an average literacy rate of 41.1% (male 44.4% and female 38.1%). Main crops of this area were paddy, jute, sugarcane, wheat, onion, brinjal, chilli, mustard seed and pulse; and the main fruits were jackfruit, banana, mango, papaya, berry, litchi, pineapple, guava and watermelon. Fisheries, dairies and poultry farms were also being developed there. Transport found in this area were horse carriage, bullock/buffalo cart, rickshaw/van, truc, bus, country boat and mechanized boat.
Many of the households were connected with labor employment in abroad resulting solvency throughout the area. The direct environmental threats in Sakhipur areas were change of land use system, high population growth, over exploitation of natural resources, fragmentation and loss of habitats, change in hydrological regime, pollution, uncontrolled tourism, unsustainable agricultural practices, occurrence invasive alien species, monoculture of exotic species, climate change, legal and institutional systems, and lack of awareness among majority of the local people etc. A huge number of local people were directly dependent on Sal forests resources for timber, fuelwood, medicinal plant for their livelihoods.
The indigenous Sal forest of Sakhipur is under the process of destruction due to human pressure, e.g. human settlement, fire wood collection, forest floor firing, picnic gatherings and several cultivation programs, such as bamboo (Bambusa spp.) cultivation, cassava (Manihot esculenta) cultivation, and pineapple (Ananas comosus) within the forest areas, insect infestation and afforestation/reforestation with exotic species.
3.2. SELECTION OF RESEARCH PLOTS
The strategies for selection of research plots were comprised of (i) data of Bangladesh Forest Department on the exotic tree plantation in Madhupur Sal tract, (ii) field reconnaissance survey, (iii) record of previous studies in Madhupur Sal tract, (iii) data on CHAPTER-III MATERIALS AND METHODS P a g e 26
the availability of massive plantations of exotic species (Acacia auriculformis), (iv) consideration of the existence of homogeneous factors etc. and (v) relevancy with the objectives of this study. Based on the diverse ecological habitats, topography, species coposition and vegetation cover of the forest areas of Sakhipur, a total of 12 research plots were selected for this study for data collection throughout the study period (Figure- 3.9).
= Location of one research plot
Map of Sakhipur Upazila
Figure 3.7. Location of research plots in the study area, Sakhipur, Tangail. (Source: CEGIS, 2015)
These 12 numbers of research plots located in public and private land were composed of 3 Acacia auriculiformis plots, 3 Shorea robusta plots, 3 Eucalyptus camaldulensis plots and 3 Mangifera indica plots. Each research plot size (36 m x 36 m = 0.132 ha) was considered in connection to research objectives (Figure-3.9). The exotic species Acacia auriculiformis occupied the major percentage of plantation at Sakhipur upazila of Tangail district, but the plantations of Eucalyptus camadulensis and Swietenia macrophylla were very less in that area. Furthermore, Sakhipur is dominated by indigenous Shorea robusta forest which was considered here as true plots for research objectives. CHAPTER-III MATERIALS AND METHODS P a g e 27
For the convenience of comparison in woodlot-based socio-economic aspects, a total of 30 private woodlots, including 20 of Acacia auriculiformis, 8 of Eucalyptus camaldulenis, and 2 of Swietenia macrophylla were also selected from the adjacent areas of 12 research plots and only the average (mean) data on all types of woodlots were considered in data analyses; and plot area and related data were converted into one hectare for standard comparison and analysis of the research.
3.3. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS This study were consisted of four major parts, viz. (i) plant and soil sample collection, (ii) field data recorded on various aspects, (iii) questionnaire surveys, and (iv) plant sample study and soil sample analysis in the laboratory.
Bangladesh has a subtropical monsoon climate characterized by wide seasonal variations in rainfall, moderately warm temperatures, and high humidity. Now a days, three seasons were generally recognized: a hot, humid summer from March to June; a less hot, rainy monsoon season from June to October; and a cool, dry winter from October to March. These 3 seasons were considered for sampling and recording data from the selected sites. The representative data were collected over a period of 2 years ranging from April 2010 to November 2011. The plant and soil samples of the selected sites were collected and recorded 3 times per year, i.e., 2 times in each of April, July, and November months covering summer, monsoon and winter seasons respectively. In this research all the data collected in the plots (36 m x 36 m = 0.132 ha) were converted to one hectare in order to have better comparison and understanding.
Data were statistically analyzed using SPSS software (version 16.0). One way ANOVA (DMRT) was used to test for significant differences (P<0.05) for marginal means of variables. Besides, data were also analyzed through Microsoft Excel.
3.3.1. ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS
This section describes the methodologies of undergrowth vegetation survey, tree productivity and physico-chemical properties of soil in the study area.
A) Study on Undergrowth Vegetation
Undergrowth Vegetation Survey Transect method was applied to conduct the survey in the selected plots of the study area to detect the ecological status of the undergrowths there. In this method, the transect line was laid out across the area to be surveyed and necessary number of quadrats were placed in a systematic way. The plant species found inside each of the quadrats were then CHAPTER-III MATERIALS AND METHODS P a g e 28
recorded with particular collection number and preliminarily identified, individuals of each species were counted.
Determination of Quadrat Size To determine the standard size of the quadrate, the ‘Species Area Curve’ (Cain, 1938; Braun-Blanquet, 1964) was prepared first. Based on the data from SAC, the 4m x 4m size was found to be the convenient quadrate size for collecting the undergrowth data.
Quadrat Sampling and Recording Field data for the assessment of undergrowth species diversity were collected following the quadrat method (Braun-Blanquet, 1932; Raunkiaer, 1934). In each research plot, 10 quadrats were placed systematically following transect line. Necessary field data from each quadrat including the taxonomically important all field characters of each plant specimen with particular collection or serial number and date were carefully recorded. The number and frequency of all undergrowth plant species found in each quadrat were recorded manually using their collection number and scientific or local name in case of known plants. Quadrat data from all research plots were collected during summer, monsoon and winter seasons. Thus for undergrowth vegetation survey, the data were collected from a total of 720 quadrats (12 plots x 10 quadrats x 6 season) placed in these research plots in 6 seasons over two years.
Specimen Collection and Preservation The representative plant specimens belonging to each species were collected only from the healthy twigs with bud, flowers and/or fruits in each sampling site. In case of tree species, collection of smallest flowering branch with fruits and in case small herbaceous species, collection of whole individual plant or tuft of plants with flowers and fruits were preferred. A particular collection or serial number was given for each specimen and all relevant field information, viz., date of collection, locality, local name/s, habit, habitat, height of the stem, color and scent of the flower and fruits were recorded in the field notebook. Data on the range of local distribution were also recorded in the note book during the field visits. Flowering and fruiting time were determined on the basis of field observation during the field trips conducted in different months and verified with the data available in authentic taxonomic literatures. Using the standard herbarium techniques (Hyland, 1972; Jain and Rao, 1977), the freshly collected specimens were properly processed, pressed and managed in the field station, and dried and preserved at Jahangirnagar University Herbarium (JUH), maintained by Plant Systematics and Biodiversity Laboratory, Department of Botany, JU. The dried specimens were mounted on white stiff board (42 cm × 28 cm) by using inorganic glue. A herbarium label with available field information was permanently attached with the sheet CHAPTER-III MATERIALS AND METHODS P a g e 29
of each specimen. The dried and mounted specimens were deposited in JUH. The voucher specimen/s of each taxon was selected considering the best representation of the vegetative and reproductive characters.
Specimen Examination Preferably both fresh and the herbarium specimens of each taxon were examined at Plant Systematics and Biodiversity Laboratory, Department of Botany, JU or Bangladesh National Herbarium (BNH), using hand lenses and sterio binocular microscopes. Besides the author’s own collections, the herbarium specimens previously collected from Bhawal- Modhupur tract of Bangladesh by different collectors and deposited at JUH and BNH were also carefully examined. The important taxonomic characters of representative plant specimens belonging to each taxon were recognized through matching them with those of closely related taxa and consulting the key characters used in modern floras (e.g. Wu et al., 1995-2013; Nasir and Ali, 1980-2005).
Specimen Identification Identification of all plant specimens collected from Sakhipur, Tangail have been confirmed through (1) consultation with the experienced plant taxonomists of Plant Systematics and Biodiversity Laboratory, Department of Botany, JU and BNH and (2) matching the specimens with (i) authentically identified herbarium specimens housed at BNH, Dhaka University Salar Khan Herbarium and JUH, (ii) clear type images available in the websites of different international herbaria, and (iii) taxonomic descriptions and keys available in standard taxonomic literatures (Hooker, 1872-1897; Prain,1903; Nasir and Ali, 1980-2005; Wu et al., 1995-2013; Siddiqui et al., 2007-2008; Ahmed et al., 2008-2009; Watson et al., 2011; Flora of North America Editorial Committee, 1993- 2014) the authentic interactive keys available in the websites of different scientific institutions. For the confirmation of the family of unknown plant specimens, the taxonomic keys to the families of angiosperms or the available interactive keys were followed first and thereafter the key to the genera of the relevant family and key to the species of the related genus were followed, respectively to know the genus and species of the plant specimens. Thus the identification of each specimen was comprised of its species name, genus name and family name.
Nomenclatural Information The original and updated nomenclatural information was incorporated following Index Kewensis, recent taxonomic publications, viz., Nasir and Ali, 1980-2005; Wu et al., 1995- 2013; Watson et al., 2011 and Flora of North America Editorial Committee, 2004, and the nomenclatural data bases of IPNI (2008) and TROPICOS (2010). The local name/s of plant species were recorded by asking the local or neighboring people during the period of field trips. Huq (1986) and Pasha and Uddin (2013) were also consulted to know the CHAPTER-III MATERIALS AND METHODS P a g e 30
local names of the species. Press et al. (2000), Ali and Qaiser (2001-2008), Flora of North America Editorial Committee (1993-2014), Heywood et al. (2007) and Wu et al. (1995- 2013) were consulted to know the current worldwide distribution of different taxa. Information on the description of different taxa and their distribution in Bangladesh were verified following Khan (1972-1987), Khan and Halim (1987), Mia and Rahman (1990), Siddiqui et al. (2007-2008), and Ahmed et al. (2008-2009).
Supplementary Data Collection The supplementary data included in this dissertation were collected from relevant publications available at the library of BNH, BFD, SRDI, SAIC and websites of relevant institutions/organisations. The taxonomic characteristics of the species were compared with that of the recent floras (e.g. Flora of China). The economic and/or ethnobotanical importance of the species mentioned here were known through interviews with the local people and from the relevant literatures (e.g., Ghani, 1998; Lu and Olson, 2001; van Valkenburg and Bunyapraphatsara, 2001).
Data Analysis Density Density gives an idea of degree of competition (Shukla and Chandal, 1980; Mueller- Dombois and Ellenberg, 1974). It is described as the number of individuals per unit area. In other words, the average number of individuals per unit area is known as density. In this research undergrowth density per quadrat (16 m²) has been multiplied by 625 to get density per hectare in order to have better understanding and comparison. It is the numerical strength of a species in relation to a definite unit space. The following formula was used for calculation of the density of the species: Total no. of individuals of a species Density (D) = Total no. of quadrats studied
Relative Density Number of individuals of one species as a percentage of the total number of individuals of all species is termed as relative density. The proportion of density of a species to that of a stand as a whole is also referred to as relative density (Shukla and Chandal, 1980; Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg, 1974). The following formula was used for calculation of the relative density of the species: Total no. of individuals of a species Relative Density (RD%) = X 100 Total no. of individuals of all species
CHAPTER-III MATERIALS AND METHODS P a g e 31
Frequency Frequency means dividing the number of plots in which a given species is found by the total number of plots sampled. This is described as the percentage (%) of quadrats occupied by a given species. The following formula was used for calculation of the frequency of the species: No. of quadrats in which it occurred Frequency (F) = X 100 Total no. of quadrats studied
Relative Frequency The dispersion of species in relation to that of all species is termed as relative frequency for a species. Relative frequency denotes the number of occurrences of one species as a percentage of the total number of occurrences of all species (Shukla and Chandal, 1980; Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg, 1974). The following formula was used for calculation of the relative frequency of the species:
Frequency of the species in stand Relative Frequency (RF%) = X 100 Sum of the frequency of all species in stand
Abundance The estimated number of individuals of a species per unit area is referred to as abundance. It is the number of individuals per quadrat of occurrence. The abundance is usually expressed by assigning the species to one of the classes viz., rare, occasional, frequent, abundant and very abundant (Shukla and Chandal, 1980; Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg, 1974). It was determined using the following formula: Total no. of individuals occur Abundance (A) = No. of quadrats in which species occurred
Relative Abundance Relative abundance is the abundance of each species divided by the total abundance of all quadrat species combined and multiply by 100 (Shukla and Chandal, 1980; Mueller- Dombois and Ellenberg, 1974). It was calculated using the following formula. Abundance of each species Relative Abundance (RA%) = X 100 Total Abundance of all quadrat
Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index The Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index (Shannon and Wiener, 1963) is one of several diversity indices used to measure the species diversity. It takes into account the number of CHAPTER-III MATERIALS AND METHODS P a g e 32
species and evenness of the species. This index was calculated from the following formula given by Magurran (1988): Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index (H) = -Σ (n/N) In (n/N) = -Σ pi In pi Where, Pi = n/N = The proportion of individuals or the abundance of the ith species expressed as a proportion of total cover. n= number of individuals of a particular species. N= total number of individuals of all species. In = log base In other words, pi is the proportion of the ith species and the number of all individuals of all species (ni/N).
The standard range of Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index is 1-4. The highest value of Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index value indicates highly diversified area and lowest value indicates low diversified vegetation.
B) Study on Tree Productivity
Forest stand tree productivity denotes capacity of the plot/stand to grow trees (m³/ha/year) which is relatively uniform in species composition or age and managed as a single unit for production. In this study, the status of tree productivity in each of the Acacia, Eucalyptus, Shorea and Mangifera research plots was estimated through calculating the number of trees, tree density and tree height, tree stem volume, DBH (tree diameter 1.37 m above the ground) and basal area of each tree of each plot. The procedures of calculating these parameters of tree productivity in the research plots have been briefly described below:
Enumeration of Plot Trees
The number of trees per plot of each species was manually enumerated in the research sample plots and the collected data were finally recorded in Microsoft Excel spreadsheets accordingly for further analysis.
Calculation of Tree Density
Tree density refers to the number of stems (>5 cm dbh) in a specified area which is usually standardized to square meters or hectare. In this research tree density per plot (36 m x 36 m = 0.132 ha.) has been converted into one hectare for better understanding and comparison. Stem density can be used as an index of abundance, biomass and system productivity within a certain habitat. CHAPTER-III MATERIALS AND METHODS P a g e 33
Measurement of Tree Height
The height of the trees of the research sample plots were measured by range finder. The field data were noted accordingly and transferred into Microsoft Excel spreadsheets accordingly for further analysis.
Measurement of Tree Diameter at Breast Height
In this study, tree diameter at breast height (DBH) above 5 cm was considered as tree and DBH below 5 cm was considered as sapling/seedlings. DBH of each tree stem was measured by DBH measuring tape. The collected field data were noted and finallly transferred to Microsoft Excel spreadsheets accordingly for further analysis.
Calculation of Gross Tree Stem Volume The gross tree volumes were calculated by measuring total tree height and diameter. The stem volume is generally expressed as m³/ha (NFA/FAO, 2005-07). The following formula was used for calculation of gross tree stem volume:
Gross Tree Stem Volume = dbh² / 4 * π * Htot * π * fgross Where, dbh = diameter at breast height Htot = Tree Total Height π = 3.1416 fgross = 0.5
Calculation of Tree Basal Area Basal area is the term used in forest management that defines the area of a given section of land that is occupied by the cross-section of tree trunks and stems at their base. Measurements were usually made for a plot and this is then scaled up for one hectare of land for comparison purposes to examine a forest's productivity and growth rate. Basal area is generally expressed as m²/ha. To estimate tree BA, the tree DBH was recorded in cm using the following formula (Hedl, 2009):
π (dbh/2)² Basal Area = 10000 = 0.00007854 x dbh² where dbh in cm and BA will be in m²
CHAPTER-III MATERIALS AND METHODS P a g e 34
C) Study on Soil Physico-Chemical Properties
Soil sampling and testing provides an estimate of the capacity of the soil to supply adequate nutrients to meet the needs of growing trees. As one of the key objectives of this research were to estimate the soil physico-chemical properties and comparative status of soil nutrients of selected exotic and indigenous tree plots in different seasons.
Soil Sample Collection
Soil samples were collected from 12 research plots (with 3 replications for each plot) of exotic (Acacia spp. and Eucalyptus spp.) and indigenous plantations (Shorea robusta and Mangifera indica) of the study area to know the physico-chemical properties. Soil samples from surface level to 30 cm depth were collected through soil augur (considering 3 replications for each plot). Three composite (mixture) soil samples, each of which was prepared by mixing two original soil samples, were collected from each study plot. The collected soil samples were then dried in shade sun and passed through a 2 mm sieve. The sieved soil samples of about 500 gm were then taken into sample polybags, tagged and preserved for conducting physico-chemical analysis. This procedure was followed in collection of soil samples from all research plots. Thus a total of 36 composite soil samples were collected from 12 research plots in each season that means a total of 216 soil samples (12 plots x 3 composite samples x 6 season) were collected from these research plots in six seasons over two years.
Soil Data Analysis
The collected soil samples were analyzed to determine some major physical and chemical properties of soils to assess the present soil nutrient status. The soil analysis was done to know the status of pH, OC, OM, N, P and K in the soil samples. The laboratory analyses of all soil samples were conducted in SRDI Laboratory, Farmgate, Dhaka. Standard scientific methods were followed for soil physico-chemical properties analysis. pH
Soil pH was measured electro-chemically by using Griffin (Model-40) glass electrode pH.
Organic Carbon
Soil organic carbon was determined by Walkley and Black’s (1934) wet oxidation method using 1 gm soil outlined by Jackson et al. (1973).
CHAPTER-III MATERIALS AND METHODS P a g e 35
Organic Matter
Soil organic matter content was determined by multiplying the value of organic carbon with Van Bemmelen conventional factor 1.724 (Waksman, 1936).
Nitrogen
Total nitrogen was determined by micro-Kjeldahl’s distillation method following extraction from 2 gm soil with concentrated H₂SO₄ (sulfuric acid) as described by Jackson et al. (1973).
Phosphorus
Available soil phosphorus was extracted with Bray-1 reagent (Bray and Kurtz, 1945). The phosphate content of the extract was determined by ascorbic acid blue color method (Murphy and Riley, 1962). The intensity of color was determined by using Spectrophotometer.
Potassium Potassium was determined in the same solution (same as Phosphorus analysis) by atomic absorption spectrophotometer following the procedure mentioned by Bray and Kurtz (1945).
3.3.2. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF MONOCULTURE OF EXOTIC TREE SPECIES Necessary field visits were completed to collect the socio-economic data through field observation and questionnaire surveys. Detailed information on socio-economic condition in the study area in respect to monoculture woodlot of exotic trees in public and private forests was collected. Observations on the following aspects helped to cross check the collected information and data: (i) Sal forest management practices, (ii) wildlife and biodiversity, (iii) woodlot and homestead plantations, (iv) saw milling and furniture making shops, (v) local people attitude, (vi) agricultural activities, (vii) land use pattern, (viii) socio-economic activities, and (ix) others related activities.
At first, the necessary informal discussions with the local people on their their socio- economic activities were conducted. These informal discussions helped to generate successive questions for interview or further discussions. Accordingly a comprehensive semi-structured questionnaire was prepared (modified from Rahman, 2003). Finally a detail questionnaire survey and focus group discussion (FGD) were carried out on the woodlot tree growers of the study areas in 2010-11 and the necessary information were collected different aspects of plantation. Though, the number of interviews as well as CHAPTER-III MATERIALS AND METHODS P a g e 36
relevant data collection varied on the availability of the potential interviewees, GO and NGOs organisational support and other circumstances.
Selection and Investigation of Woodlots and Tree Growers Woodlots of exotic species Acacia, Eucalyptus and Swietenia raised at private land were selected from the study areas through purposive stratified random sampling and accordingly interviews were conducted. The appropriate woodlots and respective households who were growing exotic trees or practicing monoculture of exotic tree species in their own land with at least 0.132 ha (36 m x 36 m) land were searched through reconnaissance field visit and with the help of local guides, local staffs of BFD, DAE, Proshika NGO and local government authorities. Finally a total of 30 exotic woodlots tree growers at private level were selected from different areas of Sakhipur for data collection through semi-structured questionnaire survey (Table-4.8).
To conduct the questionnaire survey, a semi-structured questionnaire was used. The questionnaire was composed of two parts, namely a) household information, and b) woodlot/block plantation (Appendix-15). The questionnaire surveys were conducted by a working team led by the author and the data collected through face to face interview. The goal of the interviews was to determine participants’ demographic and socio-economic status as well as the expenditure or maintenance costs of and financial gains or profit from the tree plantation plots. The tree growers who were cultivated the fast growing exotic tree species as monoculture in their own land for quick economic return through timber production were showed as per expenditure and income. The sample unit was the household of the selected farmer who was involved as the respondent. Information and data on growth performance of the woodlot trees were collected from the fields and analysed accordingly. The current and future valuation woodlots were done in consultation with local experts, forester, timber traders and tree growers.
The tree growers were done first thinning on the fourth year of woodlot plantation and they thinned out average 34% trees from the woodlot plantation sites as a part of tending operation. Furthermore, at second thinning on the seventh year of woodlot plantation, the tree growers again thinned out average 50% trees out of last survived trees in the plots. The thinnined out trees (used as fuel, stick, pole) were generated income which had been added with the total revenue of the woodlot. But the elimination rate (thinning percentage) of saplings or trees of woodlot may be varied based on edaphic factor, natural disaster, insect attack, tending or cultural operation and overall tree growth.
Benefit Cost Analysis on the Woodlots Plantations of Exotic Tree Species
This study has assessed the costs and benefits of woodlot plantation. It focuses on developing plantation system, followed by estimating the expenditure/costs and CHAPTER-III MATERIALS AND METHODS P a g e 37
benefits/revenue for the species planted. The costs projected here are based on ±10 year (with different cycle of harvest depending on the species) rotation for one hectare plantation of woodlot. Based on the costs and benefits estimated, the feasibility for the woodlot plantation was examined. This feasibility analysis employed three main economic tools, i.e. the net present value (NPV), benefit cost ratio (BCR) and internal rate of return (IRR). A spreadsheet model (MS Excel 2010) was used to develop and calculate the NPV, IRR and BCR.
Net Present Value
The term net present value is usually computed by finding the difference between the present worth of the benefit stream minus the present worth of the cost stream. The formula use for calculating the net present value is as below (Gittenger, 1974);
Net present value = Ʃ (Bt – Ct)/(1 + i)t
Where, t = year, B = benefits, C = cost and i = discount rate.
Benefit Cost Ratio
Net present value tells us how much the expected present profit could be earned from the investment but it does not reveal the proportion of total benefits against the total costs invested. To do this, benefit cost ratio analysis is the right financial tool to be employed. The following formula was used for calculating benefit costs ratio (Gittenger, 1974):
Benefit costs ratio = Ʃ {Bt /(1 + i)t}/ Ʃ {Ct/(1 + i)t}
Where, t = year, B = benefits, C = cost and i = discount rate.
Internal Rate of Return
Apart from the net present value and benefit cost ratio analysis, internal rate of return is another financial tool to determine the integrated planting. Internal rate of return is measured when the discounted total benefits minus discounted total cost is equal to zero. The investment should only be carried out if the internal rate of return is more than capital cost interest rate (i.e. bank loan interest rate). The mathematical formula for the above financial tools can be summarized as follow (Gittenger, 1974);
Internal rate of return = Ʃ{(Bt – Ct)/(1 + i)t} = 0
Where, t = year, B = benefits, C = cost and i = discount rate.
Economic cost and benefits were adjusted with the conversion factors where the discount (interest) rate base was 12% and the gross benefits accrued after 10 year rotation. Relating to this study considering ±10 year rotation (age), number of trees existing in the CHAPTER-III MATERIALS AND METHODS P a g e 38
plots, thinning, pruning, growth performance (height and diameter) of the trees; the valuation of Acacia, Eucalyptus and Swietenia tree plots were calculated. The future tree valuation (revenue) were carried out for 20 Acacia, 8 Eucalyptus and 2 Swietenia woodlot plots and the average values of the woodlot plot of each species were calculated in consultation with BFD officials, tree growers and timber traders.
Focus Group Discussion
In addition to the individual interviews and direct observation, FGD (a useful Participatory Rural Appraisal-PRA technique) was also conducted to promote closer interaction with the interviewees for obtaining more realistic responses. FGD were separately held with the beneficiaries, tree growers, local people, timber traders and related stakeholders. Gathering of focus groups consisting of local stakeholders living within and nearby forests were organized by the working team led by the researcher. The interviews were conducted at different places, preferably at local market (Bazar), tea stalls, road junctions and other local community places where local people gathered spontaneously. These discussions provided an overview and general contextual information of their activities, roles and responsibilities in traditional Shorea forest management and also their overall reaction in participatory forestry activities. The objectives of FGD were to-
(i) to collect specific information through consultation with local people, forest villagers, businessman and resource user groups etc. (ii) to find out the socio-economic impacts of exotic and indigenous tree plantation in public and private land on rural livelihoods, business, land use pattern and existing ecosystems.
During FGD, site specific information through consultation with local people, forest villagers, tree growers, timber traders, different professional groups, resource user groups (fuel wood collectors, sawmill owners), local public representatives and government representatives (i.e. BFD, DAE) etc were collected. This was basically informal interview but a checklist of issues was identified earlier and used as a basis for questions. The following aspects were prioritized in FGD: (a) socio-economic and ecological benefits/losses from the woodlot plantation of exotic species, (b) wildlife in woodlot plantations and adjacent Shorea forests, (c) potential timber tree species for commercial woodlot plantations, (d) impacts of exotic tree species monoculture on socio-economic and ecosystems, (e) importance and benefit of Shorea forest management, (f) present condition of timber market, and (g) present Shorea forest management system.
CHAPTER-III MATERIALS AND METHODS P a g e 39
Key Informant Interview
The purposes of this interview were to explore relevant data from different corners and working groups. Questioning and discussion with key informants (i.e. Assistant Chief Conservator of Forests for Management Plan, ACF, Forest Range Officer and Beat Officer) were conducted on the traditional Sal forest management system and wildlife management, and woodlot plantation of exotic tree species at government forest land. NGOs staff, teachers, government officers, union parishad chairman and member, and local elites who provided important data on woodlots of exotic tree species and Shorea, local environment/ecosystem, the participatory social forestry programme. A typical key interview lasted for about one hour and a prepared checklist of questions was used for the purpose of interview.
Secondary Data Collection Secondary data were collected from related literatures and published documents of government and non-government office for referring or supporting the findings. Secondary data were collected to assess socio-economic impacts of monoculture of exotic species, landuse pattern, threats to Sal forests ecosystems and biodiversity. Some demographic data and other related information were collected from the union parishad, upazila agriculture office, forest range/beat office, Proshika, BRAC office situated in Sakhipur and divisional forest office in Tangail. The complementary secondary information on woodlot plantation, Sal forests management and other related information were also collected from other several sources, such as, BFD, BFRI, BARC, SAIC, CEGIS, IFESCU, KU, JU and other research and development organizations. Demographic, socio-economic, landuse, forests and others related informations were collected from relevant books, journals, published documents and maps, field documents and project reports, various policy relevant documents and websites. C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 40
CHAPTER-IV
RESULTS
The results of this study on ecological impacts of monoculture plantations of exotic Acacia and Eucalyptus on undergrowth vegetation, tree productivity and soil properties in respect to the natural forest of Shorea and monoculture of indigenous Mangifera have been presented in the following. The findings on socio-economic impacts of woodlot production by monoculture plantations of Acacia and Eucalyptus in respect to that by natural forests of Shorea and plantations of Mangifera on the local economy and everyday life of the local people have also been presented in the following.
4.1. ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS
The resuts of studying the ecological impacts of monoculture plantations of exotic Acacia and Eucalyptus, natural forests of Shorea and plantations of indigenous Mangifera on undergrowth vegetation, tree productivity and soil properties have been described under the following headings:
4.1.1. UNDERGROWTH VEGETATION
Taxonomic Enumeration and Species Composition
A total number of 182 species under 150 genera belonging to 56 families were found as undergrowths in the selected tree plots of exotic (Acacia and Eucalyptus) and indigenous (Shorea and Mangifera) species in the Sal (Shorea) forest areas of Sakhipur. Out of these species, 133 were dycotyledons, 41 were monocotyledons and rests of 8 were pteridophytes (Appendix 1).
In summer, monsoon and winter seasons, a total of 86, 87 and 76 undergrowth species were found respectively in exotic tree plots and 118, 113, 111 undergrowth species in indigenous tree plots. In summer 69, 61, 93 and 42 species, in monsoon 77, 55, 90 and 46 species and in winter 68, 39, 82 and 51 species were found in Acacia-, Eucalyptus-, Shorea- and Mangifera plots respectively. (Figure 4.1).
During this study, considering all undergrowth plants, a total of 86, 87 and 76 species were combinedly found in all exotic plots, whereas 118, 113 and 111 species in all indigenous plots during summer, monsoon and winter seasons respectively (Figure 4.2). On the other C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 41 hand, a total of 116 species including 32 tree species were found in all exotic plots combinedly in all seasons and 150 species including 42 tree species in all indigenous plots combinedly in all seasons.
On the other hand, the seedlings/saplings (referred also as undergrowth tree species in this dissertation) of 22, 14, 32 and 6 tree species were found in summer season, of 23, 9, 27 and 4 tree species monsoon season, of 15, 8, 29 and 6 tree species in winter season Acacia, Eucalyptus, Shorea and Mangifera plots respectively. These findings showed that the seedling/saplings of maximum number of tree species were found in Shorea plots in respect to other plots (Figure 4.1).
All exotic tree plots were found to harbor 24 tree species combinedly in summer season, 24 in monsoon season, and 18 in winter season, whearas, all indigenous tree plots were found to harbor 32, 27 and 30 tree species combinedly in summer, monsoon and winter seasons respectively. Considering all seasons together, the exotic tree plots (all) were found to inhabit the seedlings/saplings of 32 tree species combinedly and all indigenous plots the seedlings/saplings of 42 tree species combinedly as the undergrowths (Figure 4.2).
Figure 4.1. Species composition in different tree plots in summer, monsoon and winter seasons in Sakhipur, Tangail.
C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 42
Figure 4.2. Species composition in exotic and indigenous plots in summer, monsoon and winter season in Sakhipur, Tangail.
The analysis of habit categories recorded in all research plots of the study area revealed that, the total number and percentage of trees, shrubs and herbs were, respectively, 47 and 26%, 19 and 11%, and 116 and 63%. A total of 32 (45%), 11 (9%) and 73 (46%) undergrowth species recorded from the exotic tree plots and 42 (28%), 18 (12%) and 90 (65%) species found in the indigenous tree plots were trees, shrubs and herbs respectively. Undergrowth vegetation survey also revealed that, 96 species (53%) out of 182 species were found in both exotic and indigenous plots where the total number and percentage of trees, shrubs and herbs were, respectively, 29 and 30%, 8 and 9%, and 59 and 61%.
Some of the important dominant herbaceous undergrowth species in the research plots were observed during summer, rainy moonson and winter season are shown in table 4.1.
C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 43
Table 4.1. Herbaceous undergrowth species found to dominate in the exotic and indigenous tree research plots in different season. Sl. # Name of Species All Season Summer Monsoon Winter 1 Ageratum conyzoides √ √ 2 Axonopus compressus √ 3 Cheilanthus belangiri √ 4 Chromolaena odorata √ √ 5 Clerodendrum viscosum √ 6 Commelina erecta √ 7 Curcuma zedoaria √ 8 Cynodon dactylon √ 9 Cyperus rotundus √ 10 Desmodium triflorum √ 11 Dioscorea belophylla √ √ 12 Dioscorea hamiltonia √ √ 13 Dioscorea triphylla √ 14 Eupatorium odoratum √ 15 Evolvulus nummularius √ 16 Hedyotis scabra √ 17 Hyptis suaveolens √ √ 18 Ichnocarpus frutescens √ 19 Imperata cylindrica √ √ 20 Kyllinga nemolaris √ 21 Lindernia ciliata √ √ 22 Ludwigia hyssopifolia √ 23 Microlepia strigosa √ 24 Mikania cordata √ 25 Mimosa pudica √ 26 Panicum vicinus √ 27 Phyllanthus urinaria √ 28 Rungia pectinata √ 29 Selaginella ciliaris √ 30 Spermacoche articularis √ 31 Xeromphis spinosa √
C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 44
Phytosociology of Undergrowth Vegetation
Undergrowth Plant Density
Considering the undergrowth tree species only i.e., seedling/saplings of tree species, the highest average undergrowth plant density 22592±7325 per ha was calculated for Acacia plots which was followed by 16875±1491 per ha and 4944±1254 per ha respectively for Shorea and Eucalyptus plots, whereas the extreamely lowest value 4726±2855 per ha was calculated for Mangifera plots (Figure 4.3). These data showed the following trend of undergrowth plant density in four selected plots- Acacia> Shorea> Eucalyptus> Mangifera plots. The mean value of undergrowth plant density 16667±4607 and 12708±1909 per ha calculated for exotic and indigenous tree plots respectively (Figure 4.3).
Figure 4.3. Average undergrowth density per hectare in different tree plots in Sakhipur, Tangail.
The undergrowth tree species density recorded from the selected research plots was varied from 1479 to 30958 per ha during three different seasons, whereas the highest value 30958 per ha was recorded from Acacia plots during winter season and the lowest value 1479 per ha was recorded from Mangifera plots during summer season (Figure 4.4). The average undergrowth tree density per ha 21875 was recorded as the highest for exotic plots during winter season, whereas the lowest value 10625 per ha was recorded for indigenous plots during summer season considering only tree species (Figure 4.4).
C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 45
Figure 4.4. Average undergrowth density per hectare in different tree plots in three seasons in Sakhipur, Tangail.
On the other hand, considering all undergrowth species including tree species seedlings/saplings, climbers, grasses and sedges in the calculation, the highest average value of undergrowth density (387052±106848 per ha) was recorded from Mangifera plots which was followed by 342135±145009 per ha and 222465±102954 per ha, respectively from Eucalyptus and Acacia plots, whereas the lowest value 68429±8872 per ha was found from Shorea plots. These data showed the following sequence of undergrowth plant density in four types of tree plots: Mangifera> Eucalyptus> Acacia> Shorea plots.
The highest mean value of undergrowth plant density 262292±117188 per ha was calculated for exotic tree plots and the lowest value 174583±41384 per ha was calculated for indigenous tree plots considering all species of tree species seedlings/saplings, climbers, grasses and sedges. The undergrowth plant density recorded from all types of tree plots during three different seasons was varied from 59536 to 485271 per ha, where the highest value 485271 per ha was recorded from Eucalyptus plots during winter season and the lowest value 59536 per ha was recorded from Shorea plots during summer season. Considering all undergrowth species (i.e. tree species seedlings/saplings, climbers, grasses and sedges) in the calculation, the highest average undergrowth plant density 379375 per ha was recorded from exotic tree plots during winter season, whereas the lowest value 128125 per ha was recorded from indigenous plots during summer season.
C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 46
Relative density
Considering all undergrowth species, the highest relative density was found in exotic plots for Axonopus compressus (23.35%), followed by Spermacoche articularis (20.79%), Desmodium triflorum (14.29%), Chromolaena odorata (5.35%) and Acacia auriculiformis (4.93%). The lowest relative density, almost zero percent was found for Pueraria phascoloides, Modhica trilobata, Bombax ceiba, Albizia lebbeck and Centrosema pubescens (Appendix 2).
Whereas in indigenous plots, the relative density was found to be highest for Axonopus compressus (16.33%), followed by Desmodium triflorum (11.73%), Spermacoche articularis (10.40%), Cynodon dactylon (8.90%) and Cyperus rotundus (5.04%) taking all undergrowth plant species under consideration. The lowest relative density, almost zero percent, was found for Axonopus compressus, Desmodium triflorum, Spermacoche articularis, Cynodon dactylon and Cyperus rotundus (Appendix 3).
On the other hand, considering only the seedlings/saplings of the tree species as the undergrowths, the relative density in exotic plots was found to be highest for Acacia auriculiformis (77.17%), followed by Shorea robusta (5.37%), Azadirachta indica (4.52%), Holarrhena antidysentarica (3.24%) and Litsea glutinosa (2.79%). The lowest relative density, (0.02%) was found for Bombax ceiba and Albizia lebbeck followed by Alstonia scholaris (0.04%), Borassus flabellifer (0.05%) and Hymenodictyon excelsum (0.06%) (Appendix 4). In indigenous plots the relative density was found to be highest in Shorea robusta (54.28%), followed by Antidesma ghaesembilla (7.39%), Acacia auriculiformis (6.34%), Litsea glutinosa (4.88%) and Holarrhena antidysenterica (3.74%). The lowest relative density, (0.02%) was found for Litsea salicifolia and Alostonia scholaris followed by (0.04%) for Melia azadirach, Borassus flabellifer and (0.05%) for Grewia microcos (Appendix 5).
Frequency
Among all undergrowth species of exotic tree plots, the highest frequency per quadrat was found for A. compressus (70.74%), followed by S. articularis (66.11%), A. auriculiformis (65.37%), C. viscosum (64.07%) and C. odorata (61.48%). The lowest frequency per quadrat was found (0.19%) for Centrosema pubescens, C. iria, Fimbristylis miliacea, Modhica trilobata and Pteris ensiformis (Appendix 2). In contrast, in indigenous tree plots it was found to be highest in C. viscosum (65.74%), followed by S. robusta (63.15%), C. zedoaria (56.48%), I. frutescens (46.67%) and D. hamiltonii (44.26%) per quadrat. The lowest C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 47 frequency per quadrat was found (0.19%) for Melia azadirach, Modhica trilobata, Raphidophora hookeri, Sarcolobus sp. and Zehneria japonica (Appendix 3).
In case of undergrowth tree species of exotic tree plots, the frequency was found to be highest in A. auriculiformis (65.37%), followed by S. robusta (24.44%), L. glutinosa (14.44%), A. indica (10.37%) and H. antidysentarica (8.89%). The lowest frequency per quadrat (0.19%) was found for Bombax ceiba and Albizia lebbeck, followed by (0.37%) for Aegle marmelos and Alstonia scholaris and (0.56%) for Randia dumetorum (Appendix 4). Wheareas, in indigenous tree plots the highest frequency was recorded for S. robusta (63.15%), followed by A. ghaesembilla (36.85%), L. glutinosa (22.78%), Careya arborea (20.74%) and Hymenodictyon excelsum (20%). The lowest frequency per quadrat was found (0.19%) for Melia azadirach, Litsea salicifolia, Borassus flabellifer, Neonauclea sessilifolia followed by 0.37% for Microcos paniculata (Appendix 5).
Relative Frequency
The highest relative frequency in exotic plots was found for Axonopus compressus (7.46%), followed by Spermacoche articularis (6.97%), Acacia auriculiformis (6.90%), Clerodendrum viscosum (6.76%) and Chromolaena odorata (6.49%) considering all plant species. The lowest relative frequency per quadrat was found (0.02%) for Centrosema pubescens, C. iria, Fimbristylis miliacea, Modhica trilobata and Pteris ensiformis (Appendix 2). In contrast, in indigenous plots, the relative frequency was found to be highest in Clerodendrum viscosum (5.02%), followed by Shorea robusta (4.83%), Curcuma zedoaria (4.32%), Ichnocarpus frutescens (3.57%) and Dioscorea hamiltonii (3.38%) considering all plant species. The lowest relative frequency per quadrat was found (0.01%) for Melia azadirach, Modhica trilobata, Raphidophora hookeri, Sarcolobus sp. and Zehneria japonica (Appendix 3).
On the other hand, considering only the seedling and saplings of tree species in calculation, the relative frequency in exotic plots was found to be highest in Acacia auriculiformis (37.24%), followed by Shorea robusta (13.92%), Litsea glutinosa (8.23%), Azadirachta indica (5.91%) and Holarrhena antidysentarica (5.06%). The lowest frequency per quadrat (0.11%) was found for Bombax ceiba and Albizia lebbeck, which was followed by (0.21%) for Aegle marmelos and Alstonia scholaris and (0.32%) for Randia dumetorum (Appendix 4). Wheareas, in indigenous plots, the highest relative frequency was recorded for Shorea robusta (20.48%), followed by Antidesma ghaesembilla (11.95%), Litsea glutinosa (7.39%), Careya arborea (6.73%) and Hymenodictyon excelsum (6.49%). The lowest frequency per quadrat was found (0.06%) for Melia azadirach, Litsea salicifolia, Borassus flabellifer, Neonauclea sessilifolia followed by 0.12% for Microcos paniculata (Appendix 5). C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 48
Abundance
Including all undergrowth plant species in the calculation, per quadrat abundance of C. iria was found to be highest (329) in exotic plots, which was followed by A. compressus (138), S. articularis (132), D. triflorum (100) and C. dactylon (93). The lowest abundance per quadrat was found (2) for Smilax ovalifolia, Careya arborea, Lannea coromandelica, Borassus flabellifer and Pueraria phascoloides (Appendix 2). In contrast, in indigenous plots, the abundance of A. compressus was found to be highest (141), which was followed by D. triflorum (140), C. dactylon (108), S. articularis (106) and A. conyzoides (71). The lowest abundance per quadrat was found (1) for Neolamarckia cadamba, Alostonia scholaris, Dillenia pentagyna, Garuga pinnata and Zehneria japonica (Appendix 3).
On the other hand, in case of undergrowth tree species only, the highest abundance in exotic plots was found for A. auriculiformis (32), followed by A. indica (12), H. antidysentarica (10), Phyllanthus emblica (7) and E. camaldulensis (7). The lowest abundance per quadrat was found (2) for Borassus flabellifer, Lannea coromandelica, Careya arborea followed by (3) for Gmelina arborea and Ficus hispida (Appendix 4). Whereas, in indigenous plots the abundance of S. robusta was found to be highest (18), which was followed by A. auriculiformis (17), P. emblica (14), H. antidysenterica (6) and Phoenix sylvestris (6). The lowest abundance per quadrat was found (1) for Dillenia pentagyna, Alostonia scholaris, Bombax ceiba, Butea monosperma and Zanthoxylum rhetsa (Appendix 5).
Relative Abundance
In exotic plots, relative abundance of Cyperus iria per quadrat was found to be highest (13.39%), which was followed by Axonopus compressus (5.64%), Spermacoche articularis (5.37%), Desmodium triflorum (4.08%) and Cynodon dactylon (3.80%), if all undergrowth plant species included in the calculation. The lowest relative abundance per quadrat was found (0.06%) for Pueraria phascoloides followed by (0.07%) for Borassus flabellifer, (0.08%) for Lannea coromandelica and Careya arborea and (0.09%) for Smilax ovalifolia (Appendix 2). In contrast, in indigenous plots, the relative abundance of Axonopus compressus was found to be highest (6.43%), which was followed by Desmodium triflorum (6.42%), Cynodon dactylon (4.95%), Spermacoche articularis (4.84%) and Ageratum conyzoides (3.23%) considering all undergrowth plant species in the calculation. The lowest relative abundance per quadrat was found (0.05%) for Zehneria japonica, Garuga pinnata, Dillenia pentagyna, Alostonia scholaris and Neolamarckia cadamba (Appendix 3).
On the other hand, considering only the seedling and saplings of tree species in calculation, the relative abundance in exotic plots was found highest for Acacia auriculiformis (19.78%), C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 49 followed by Azadirachta indica (7.31%), Holarrhena antidysentarica (6.10%), Phyllanthus emblica (4.38%) and Eucalyptus camaludensis (4.22%). The lowest abundance per quadrat was found (1.09%) for Borassus flabellifer followed by Lannea coromandelica (1.25%), Careya arborea (1.30%), Gmelina arborea (1.56%) and Ficus hispida (1.58%) (Appendix 4). Whereas, in indigenous plots the relative abundance of Shorea robusta was found to be highest (12.72%), which was followed by Acacia auriculiformis (12.35%), Phyllanthus emblica (9.95%), Holarrhena antidysenterica (4.26%) and Phoenix sylvestris (4.11%). The lowest abundance per quadrat was found (0.72%) for Dillenia pentagyna and Alostonia scholaris followed by Bombax ceiba (0.82%), Butea monosperma (0.83%), and Zanthoxylum rhetsa (0.86%) (Appendix 5).
Phytodiversity Index
In this study, the values of Shannon-Wiener diversity index were analysed and presented in Table 4.1.
Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index
Considering all undergrowth species of all research plots, the values of Shannon-Wiener diversity index (H) were found to vary between 1.47 and 2.27, where the highest value 2.27 was recorded from Shorea plots during monsoon season and the lowest value 1.47 from Eucalyptus plots during winter season. The highest mean value (2.25±0.02) of Shannon- Wiener diversity index was found in Shorea plots, which was followed by the index values 1.75±0.09, 1.72±0.09, and 1.60±0.11 recorded from Acacia, Mangifera and Eucalyptus plots respectively. The average value 2.19±0.09 of Shannon-Wiener diversity index was recorded as the highest for indigenous plots, whereas the lowest value 1.77±0.11 was recorded for exotic plots (Table 4.2). Therefore, the data of Shannon-Wiener diversity index calculated for four types of plots showed the following trend in four types of tree plots- Shorea > Acacia > Mangifera > Eucalyptus plots.
On the other hand, considering only the seedling and saplings of tree species as the undergrowths, the highest mean value 1.11±0.05 was recorded from Shorea plots, which was followed by 0.95±0.15, 0.76±0.10 and 0.70±0.04, recorded from Eucalyptus, Mangifera and Acacia plots respectively. The highest mean value 1.23±0.08 was found in indigenous plots and the lowest mean value 0.77±0.11 was found in exotic plots (Table 4.2).
C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 50
The mean values of Shannon-Wiener diversity index calculated for the seedling and saplings of all tree species as undergrowths grwoing in all of four selected plots showed the following sequence in term of index values- Shorea > Eucalyptus > Mangifera > Acacia plots.
Table 4.2. Shannon-Wiener diversity index (H) of different exotic and indigenous plots during summer, monsoon and winter seasons in Sakhipur, Tangail. All undergrowth species Undergrowth tree species only Name of Acacia Eucalyptus Shorea Mangifera Acacia Eucalyptus Shorea Mangifera season plots plots plots plots plots plots plots plots Summer 1.86 1.67 2.24 1.79 0.75 0.78 1.08 0.87 Monsoon 1.69 1.67 2.27 1.63 0.69 0.99 1.08 0.72 Winter 1.72 1.47 2.25 1.75 0.67 1.07 1.17 0.68 Average 1.75 1.60 2.25 1.72 0.70 0.95 1.11 0.76 ±SD ±0.09 ±0.11 ±0.02 ±0.09 ±0.04 ±0.15 ±0.05 ±0.10 Name of All undergrowth species Undergrowth tree species only season Exotic plots Indigenous plots Exotic plots Indigenous plots Summer 1.89 2.28 0.90 1.14 Monsoon 1.74 2.11 0.73 1.27 Winter 1.68 2.18 0.68 1.29 Average 1.77 2.19 0.77 1.23 ±SD ±0.11 ±0.09 ±0.11 ±0.08
4.1.2. TREE PRODUCTIVITY
The data collected on tree productivity including tree density, tree height, DBH, basal area and tree stem volume in the research plots in different exotic and indigenous plots are presented below.
The data recorded on tree composition in research plots showed that the number of trees in Acacia plots ranged from 697 to 1818 per ha, in Eucalyptus plots 515 to 674 per ha, in Mangifera plots 424 to 962 per ha trees, and in Shorea plots 1515 to 3477 per ha trees, whereas, the average age of the trees ranged from eight to nine years (Table 4.3).
C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 51
Table 4.3. Tree composition of twelve research plots in Sakhipur, Tangail. Sl. No. Plot name and ID Plantation year Average age of the trees (year) No. of trees per ha 1 Acacia – P1 2002 9 697 2 Acacia – P2 2003 8 1818 3 Acacia – P3 2003 8 1371 4 Shorea - P4* - 8 to 9 3477 5 Shorea – P5* - 8 to 9 2454 6 Shorea –P6* - 8 to 9 1515 7 Eucalyptus – P7 2002 9 606 8 Eucalyptus – P8 2002 9 674 9 Eucalyptus – P9 2003 8 515 10 Mangifera – P10 2003 8 924 11 Mangifera – P11 2003 8 962 12 Mangifera - P12 2003 8 424 Total 15439 * Shorea grown up naturally, it is not planted
Tree Density
The highest mean value of tree density was found to be 1626±1211 per ha in indigenous tree plots and the lowest value 947±493 per ha in exotic tree plots of ±9 years old plantation. The highest value of average tree density (2482±981 per ha) was found in Shorea plots which was followed by that in Acacia, Mangifera and Eucalyptus plots (1295±564, 770±300 per ha and 598±80 per ha respectively) (Table 4.6). Based on the data found on tree density of four types of plots, the following trend can be recoznized- Shorea > Acacia > Mangifera > Eucalyptus plots. On the other hand, in private woodlot plots of ±6 years old plantation, the average tree density 2014±125 and 1749±157 per ha were recorded for Acacia and Eucalyptus plots respectively (Table 4.4).
Tree Height
The mean tree height recorded for exotic and indigenous tree plots were 10±1 m and 6±2 m respectively in ±9 years old plantation. The highest mean tree height 10±3 m was found in Acacia plots, which was followed by 9±3 m, 7±2 m and 4±2 m recorded for Eucalyptus, Shorea and Mangifera plots respectively (Table 4.6). The data collected on the tree height from four types of plots showed the following sequence- Acacia> Eucalyptus> Shorea> Mangifera plots. On the other hand, in the private woodlot plots of ±6 years old plantation, the average tree height 10±3 m and 10±4 m were calculated for Acacia and Eucalyptus plots, respectively (Table 4.4). C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 52
Tree Diameter at Breast Height
The mean tree diameter at breast height (DBH) per tree was calculated as 12±2 cm and 10±1 cm for exotic and indigenous tree plots respectively in ±9 years old plantation. The highest mean DBH 13±2 cm was calculated for Acacia plots, followed by 11±2 cm and 10±5 cm for Shorea and Eucalyptus plots whereas the lowest value 9±3 cm was calculated for Mangifera plots (Table 4.6). The collected data related to the tree DBH of four types of tree plots showed the following sequence- Acacia> Shorea> Eucalyptus> Mangifera plots. On the other hand, in the private woodlot plots of ±6 years old plantation, the average DBH per trees was found as 12±4 cm and 10±6 cm for Acacia and Eucalyptus plots, respectively (Table 4.4).
Table 4.4. Comparative growth performance in research plots and private woodlots in Sakhipur, Tangail. Type of plots Type of Average age Average tree Average tree Average tree species (yr.) density/ha±SD height (m)±SD DBH (cm)±SD Research plots Acacia ±9 1295±564 10±3 13±2 (woodlots in Eucalyptus ±9 598±80 9±3 10±5 government land) Acacia ±6 2014±125 10±3 12±4 Private woodlots Eucalyptus ±6 1749±157 10±4 10±6
Tree Basal Area
In the 12 research plots, the mean tree basal area (BA) 14±13 m² and 11±8 m² per ha were calculated respectively for indigenous and exotic tree plots of ±9 years old plantation. The mean basal areas for Shorea, Acacia, Eucalyptus and Mangifera plots were calculated as 23±3 m², 16±5 m², 5±6 m², and 5±3 m² per ha respectively (Table 4.6).
Tree Stem Volume The average gross tree volume in research plots calculated for exotic and indigenous tree plots were 186±109 cm³ and 178±203 cm³ per ha respectively in ±9 years old plantation. The maximum value of the average gross tree volume 321±25 m³ per ha was recorded from Shorea plots and followed by 263±43 m³ per ha and 109±132 m³ per ha were recorded from Acacia and Eucalyptus plots respectively, whereas the minimum value 34±21 m³ per ha was recorded from Mangifera plots (Table 4.6). Hence, the data regarding the average gross tree stem volume the selected plots showed the following sequence- Shorea > Acacia > Eucalyptus > Mangifera plots. C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 53
The detail data on tree density, height, DBH, basal area and gross tree stem volume recorded and calculated per ha for Acacia, Eucalyptus, Shorea and Mangifera plots are presented in Table 4.5 and 4.6.
Table 4.5. Tree density, height, DBH, basal area and gross tree stem volume recorded from Acacia, Eucalyptus, Shorea and Mangifera research plots in Sakhipur, Tangail. Type of plots Density/ha Height (m) DBH (cm) Basal area Gross tree stem (m²/ha) volume (m³/ha) Acacia – P1 697 14 14 11 255 Acacia – P2 1818 8 10 16 225 Acacia – P3 1371 9 14 21 310 Average±SD 1295±564 10±3 13±2 16±5 263±43 Eucalyptus – P7 606 13 16 12 261 Eucalyptus- P8 674 6 6 2 25 Eucalyptus- P9 515 8 7 2 42 Average±SD 598±80 9±3 10±5 5±6 109±132 Shorea - P4 3477 6 9 27 310 Shorea – P5 2455 7 10 22 303 Shorea –P6 1515 9 13 21 350 Average±SD 2482±981 7±2 11±2 23±3 321±25 Mangifera – P10 924 2 5 2 10 Mangifera – P11 962 3 9 8 42 Mangifera - P12 424 6 12 5 49 Average±SD 770±300 4±2 9±3 5±3 34±21
Table 4.6. Tree density, height, DBH, basal area and gross tree stem volume in exotic and indigenous research plots in Sakhipur, Tangail. Type of plots Density/ha Height (m) DBH Basal area Gross tree stem (cm) (m²/ha.) volume (m³/ha) Acacia 1295±564 10±3 13±2 16±5 263±43 (Average±SD) Eucalyptus 598±80 9±3 10±5 5±6 109±132 (Average±SD) Exotic plots 947±493 10±1 12±2 11±8 186±109 (Average±SD) Shorea 2482±981 7±2 11±2 23±3 321±25 (Average±SD) Mangifera 770±300 4±2 9±3 5±3 34±21 (Average±SD) Indigenous plots 1626±1211 6±2 10±1 14±13 178±203 (Average±SD)
C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 54
4.1.3. SOIL PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
The detail results on physico-chemical parameters of soil, such as pH, OC, OM, N, P and K have been presented in Appendix 6 to 11 and summerised in the Table 4.7 described under the following heads: pH The pH values recorded from the soil samples of the selected plots during three different seasons were found to be acidic and varied from 3.80 to 6.00. The highest mean pH value 4.95±0.41 was recorded from the soil samples of Mangifera plot which was followed by Shorea (4.67±0.42) and Acacia (4.52±0.50) plots, whereas the lowest mean pH value 4.48±0.48 was recorded from the soil samples of Eucalyptus plots (Table 4.7 and Appendix 6). On the other hand, the average values of soil pH varied among the three seasons, where the highest mean pH value 5.160.16 was found during winter season and followed by 4.520.27 during summer season, whereas the lowest value 4.290.22 was recorded during monsoon season (Table 4.7 and Appendix 6). Considering the average pH values recorded from all of the four types of research plots during three different seasons showed the following sequence- Mangifera > Shorea > Acacia > Eucalyptus plots.
Organic Carbon (OC) The values of OC contents (%) recorded from the soil samples of the selected plots during three different seasons were varied from 0.06% to 1.50%. The highest mean OC value 0.94±0.13% was recorded from the soil samples of Shorea plot which was followed by Mangifera (0.86±0.12%) and Acacia (0.79±0.13%) plots, whereas the lowest mean OC value 0.78±0.09% was recorded from the soil samples of Eucalyptus plots (Table 4.7 and Appendix 7). The average values of OC also varied among the three seasons, where the highest mean OC value 0.91±0.06% was found during monsoon season and it was followed by 0.81±0.07% during summer season and by 0.69±0.02% during winter season (Table 4.7 and Appendix 7). Based on the data regarding average values of OC contents found in four types of research plots during three different seasons showed the following sequence as- Shorea > Mangifera > Acacia > Eucalyptus plots.
Organic Matter (OM) The OM contents (%) values recorded from the soil samples of the selected plots during three different seasons were found to vary from 0.10% to 2.59%. The highest mean OM value 1.48±0.21% was recorded from the soil samples of Shorea plot which was followed by Mangifera (1.36±0.24%) and Acacia (1.34±0.15%) plots, whereas the lowest mean OM C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 55 value 1.31±0.18% was recorded from the soil samples of Eucalyptus plots (Table 4.7 and Appendix 8). On the other hand, the average values of soil OM varied among the three seasons, where the highest mean OM value 1.57±0.10% was found during monsoon season and followed by 1.40±0.12% during summer season, whereas the lowest value 1.19±0.04% was recorded during winter season (Table 4.7 and Appendix 8). The values of average OM contents recorded from four types of research plots during three different seasons can be recognized as the following sequence- Shorea > Mangifera > Acacia > Eucalyptus plots.
Nitrogen (N) The N contents (%) values recorded from the soil samples of the selected plots during three different seasons were varied from 0.01% to 0.15%. The highest mean N value 0.09±0.01% was recorded from the soil samples of Mangifera plot, which was followed by 0.08±0.01% in all of Shorea, Acacia and Eucalyptus plots (Table 4.7 and Appendix 9). On the other hand, the average values of N varied among the three seasons, where the highest mean N value 0.09±0.01% was found during monsoon season and followed by 0.08±0.00% during summer season, whereas the lowest value 0.07±0.00% was recorded during winter season (Table 4.7 and Appendix 9). The average values of N contents recorded from four types of research plots of this study showed the following trend- Mangifera > Shorea > Acacia > Eucalyptus plots.
Phosphorous (P) The P values (μg/g) recorded from the soil samples of the selected plots during three different seasons were varied from 0.08 μg/g to 11.26 μg/g. The highest mean P value 5.36±1.00 μg/g was recorded from the soil samples of Mangifera plot which was followed by Eucalyptus (2.77±0.11 μg/g) and Acacia (2.12±0.80 μg/g) plots, whereas the lowest mean P value 1.99±0.65 μg/g was recorded from the soil samples of Shorea plots (Table 4.7 and Appendix 10). On the other hand, the average values of P varied among the three seasons, where the highest mean P value 3.68±1.82 μg/g was found during summer season and followed by 2.85±1.12 μg/g during monsoon season, whereas the lowest value 2.66±1.86 μg/g was recorded during winter season (Table 4.7 and Appendix 10). Data regarding the average P values recorded from the selected four types of research plots showed the following trend- Mangifera > Eucalyptus > Acacia > Shorea plots.
Potassium (K) The K values (meq/100g soil) recorded from the soil samples of the selected plots during three different seasons were varied from 0.06 meq/100g to 0.74 meq/100g. The highest mean C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 56
K value 0.23±0.00 (meq/100g) was recorded from the soil samples of Shorea plot which was followed by Mangifera (0.21±0.01 meq/100g) and Acacia (0.18±0.01 meq/100g) plots, whereas the lowest mean K value 0.17±0.02 meq/100g was recorded from the soil samples of Eucalyptus plots (Table 4.7 and Appendix 11). On the other hand, the average values of K varied among the three seasons, where the highest mean K value 0.20±0.02 meq/100g was found during summer and monsoon season and it was followed by 0.19±0.03 meq/100g during winter seasons (Table 4.7 and Appendix 11). Thus, considering the average K values recorded from four types of research plots during three seasons showed the following trend- Shorea > Mangifera > Acacia > Eucalyptus plots.
Table 4.7. Average values of pH, OC, OM, N, P, K contents recorded from different exotic and indigenous plots during different seasons in Sakhipur, Tangail (Average values shows with ±SD). Type of plots Summer Monsoon Winter Average of all seasons Average pH Acacia 4.340.17 4.130.12 5.080.08 4.52±0.50 Eucalyptus 4.320.14 4.110.11 5.020.19 4.48±0.48 Exotic 4.330.15 4.120.11 5.050.14 4.50±0.49 Shorea 4.500.20 4.360.19 5.140.09 4.67±0.42 Mangifera 4.900.52 4.570.70 5.380.44 4.95±0.41 Indigenous 4.700.44 4.460.51 5.260.33 4.81±0.41 Grand Total Average 4.520.27 4.290.22 5.160.16 4.660.21 Average Organic Carbon (OC) contents (%) Acacia 0.77±0.13 0.92±0.21 1.00±0.21 0.79±0.13 Eucalyptus 0.83±0.18 0.83±0.18 0.68±0.21 0.78±0.09 Exotic 0.80±0.15 0.87±0.19 0.67±0.20 0.80±0.04 Shorea 0.74±0.18 0.94±0.14 0.85±0.15 0.94±0.13 Mangifera 0.90±0.15 0.96±0.21 0.72±0.07 0.86±0.12 Indigenous 0.82±0.18 0.95±0.17 0.71±0.12 0.90±0.12 Grand Total Average 0.81±0.07 0.91±0.06 0.69±0.02 0.80±0.04 Average Organic Matter (OM) contents (%) Acacia 1.33±0.23 1.59±0.36 1.73±0.37 1.36±0.22 Eucalyptus 1.43±0.31 1.42±0.31 1.17±0.36 1.31±0.18 Exotic 1.38±0.27 1.51±0.33 1.16±0.35 1.35±0.17 Shorea 1.28±0.31 1.62±0.24 1.46±0.26 1.48±0.21 Mangifera 1.55±0.26 1.65±0.36 1.25±0.13 1.36±0.24 Indigenous 1.41±0.31 1.63±0.30 1.22±0.21 1.42±0.21 Grand Total Average 1.40±0.12 1.57±0.10 1.19±0.04 1.39±0.06 Average Nitrogen (N) contents (%) Acacia 0.08±0.01 0.09±0.02 0.07±0.02 0.08±0.01 Eucalyptus 0.08±0.02 0.08±0.02 0.07±0.02 0.08±0.01 C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 57
Type of plots Summer Monsoon Winter Average of all seasons Exotic 0.08±0.02 0.09±0.02 0.07±0.02 0.08±0.01 Shorea 0.07±0.02 0.09±0.01 0.07±0.02 0.08±0.01 Mangifera 0.09±0.02 0.10±0.02 0.07±0.01 0.09±0.01 Indigenous 0.08±0.02 0.09±0.02 0.07±0.01 0.08±0.01 Grand Total Average 0.08±0.00 0.09±0.01 0.07±0.00 0.08±0.00 Average Phosphorus (P) contents (μg/g) Acacia 2.92±1.57 2.12±0.46 1.31±0.30 2.12±0.80 Eucalyptus 2.73±0.72 2.89±0.67 2.69±1.02 2.77±0.11 Exotic 2.83±1.19 2.51±0.68 2.00±1.02 2.45±0.42 Shorea 2.65±2.17 1.97±0.33 1.35±0.47 1.99±0.65 Mangifera 6.40±2.88 4.41±2.70 5.27±2.92 5.36±1.00 Indigenous 4.52±3.14 3.19±2.25 3.31±2.86 3.67±0.74 Grand Total Average 3.68±1.82 2.85±1.12 2.66±1.86 3.06±1.57 Average Potassium (K) contents (meq/100g) Acacia 0.18±0.04 0.19±0.03 0.17±0.05 0.18±0.01 Eucalyptus 0.19±0.06 0.16±0.05 0.16±0.05 0.17±0.02 Exotic 0.18±0.05 0.17±0.04 0.18±0.11 0.17±0.01 Shorea 0.23±0.03 0.22±0.03 0.22±0.07 0.23±0.00 Mangifera 0.21±0.14 0.22±0.04 0.21±0.16 0.21±0.01 Indigenous 0.22±0.10 0.22±0.03 0.22±0.12 0.22±0.01 Grand Total Average 0.20±0.02 0.20±0.03 0.19±0.03 0.20±0.03
4.2. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE MONOCULTURE OF EXOTIC TREE SPECIES
To assess the socio-economic impacts of the monoculture of exotic tree species, basic information on the tree growers were collected, expenditure and valuation of woodlot plantation were calculated, the role of village woodlot in the household- and local economy was evaluated, and the relationships of village forest production with species richness, education level, and household size etc. were estimated through intensive questionnaire surveys. Data on socio-economic impacts of exotic monoculture woodlots in the study area have been presented and discussed under the following heads.
4.2.1. INFORMATION OF THE TREE GROWERS
All the tree growers household heads participated in the questionnaire survey were married male. Among them 90% of the households respondent were educated, of which 73% were with secondary education and 10% of the household heads were illiterate. The respondent C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 58 land owners, who producing woodlots commercially in their lands, were in average 48 years old, with a minimum of 26 years to a maximum of 81 years old, but 73% of them were 36-50 years old (Table 4.8).
The records showed that, 63% of the families were comprised of less than six members, and 37% family of 6-9 members. The average size of the respondent’s family was five (with a range of 2-9) (Table 4.9). In almost 100% of the households, the earning members were the males.
Education Among the 30 woodlot tree growers, 3 (10%) of household heads were illiterate (no schooling) and 27 (90%) were literate, of which 5 (17%) were educated at primary level, 14 (47%) at secondary level, 7 (23%) at higher secondary levels and only one (3%) was found as highly educated (Table 4.8).
Land Use Pattern Lands were found to be utilized primarily for farming, housing and minimal forestry (tree cultivation) purposes. The average land holding size per household/respondent was 0.88±0.76 ha, of which 54%, 29% and 17% was used for agricultural, tree plantation and homesteads purposes respectively. The average land size for each homestead was 0.15±0.14 ha with a minimum size 0.02 ha to maximum size 0.54 ha. In case of land holdings, respondents were divided into three land holdings classes such as respondents having more than 0.20 ha of land, classified as large farmer; less than 0.20 ha but greater than 0.10 ha, classified as medium farmer; and less than 0.10 ha but greater than 0.02 ha, classified as small farmer (Table 4.9).
Out of 30 respondent tree growers, only 7 (23%) households’ had more than 0.20 ha to maximum 0.54 ha. homestead land. In contrary, 8 (27%) households’ had land size of more than 0.10 ha to maximum 0.20 ha; and 15 (50%) households had land size more than 0.02 ha to maximum 0.10 ha (Table 4.9). Land allocated for homestead was significantly smaller than that for agricultural activities. Traditionally farmers were used to grow cereal crops, vegetables and spices in their farms lands. Agriculture was a major source of income for 70% households. Small to medium scale business, daily laborer, and jobs service were other major sources of household income. Especially, in case of private land, this study showed that, woodlot tree grower families depend on forest produce income for major purposes as they were investing land for long time. In the study area 80%, 30%, 83% and 13% households of the tree growers were engaged with the rearing of cow, goat, chicken and duck respectively besides buffalo and ships were found very small number in Sakhipur areas of Tangail district. C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 59
Table 4.8. Basic information of private land woodlot tree growers in Sakhipur, Tangail. Resp. Name of respondent Age Education Occupation Village Plot species ID 1 Narendra Kuch 48 Eight Business Kalidas Acacia 2 Atowar Hossain 38 SSC Agriculture Kalidas Acacia 3 Dewan Sujat Ali 50 SSC Agriculture Kochua Acacia 4 Dewan Ainuddin 70 Nil Agriculture Kochua Swietenia 5 Shakil Anowar 50 MA Teacher GarhGobindapur Acacia 6 Hazi Sadek Ali Mia 81 HSC Agriculture Kahartali Eucalyptus 7 Abdul Jalil 45 Eight Business Sakhipur Sadar Eucalyptus 8 Delowar Hossain Talukdar 70 HSC Agriculture Sanbandha Acacia 9 Md. Sadakur Rhaman 38 HSC Business Bonki Acacia 10 Abdul Gafur 42 HSC Agriculture Sakhipur Sadar Acacia 11 Md. Lal Mia 45 Five Agriculture Sakhipur College Road Acacia 12 Babul Sikdar 40 Eight Agriculture Purba Para, Shola Protima Eucalyptus 13 Md. Kayemuddin Sikdar 65 Five Agriculture Kochua Swietenia 14 Md. Hasmot Ali Mia 55 Eight Agriculture Kirton Khola Acacia 15 Arshad Ali 60 Nil Agriculture Purba Para, Shola Protima Acacia 16 Amjad 60 Eight Agriculture Garh Gobindapur Acacia 17 Ratan 38 SSC AgriBusiness Shola Protima Acacia 18 Abul Hossain Sarkar 48 SSC UP Member Shola Protima Acacia 19 Kurshid Alam 45 SSC Agriculture Purba Para, Protima Bonki Acacia 20 Azhar Ali 26 HSC Agriculture Shola Protima Eucalyptus 21 Sadek 42 Eight Agriculture Protima Bonki Eucalyptus 22 Lebu Mia 45 Five Agriculture Ballar chala Acacia 23 Harun 36 SSC Agriculture Ballar chala Acacia 24 Azmat Ali 38 Six Business Ballar chala Eucalyptus 25 Meser Ali Mia 60 Nil Agriculture Ballar chala Acacia 26 Taru Mia 47 Five Business Panaullah para Acacia 27 Md. Saiful Islam 40 Five Agriculture Panaullah para Acacia 28 Nazrul Islam 39 Six Agriculture Panaullah para Acacia 29 Chalim Uddin 50 HSC Business Protima Bonki Eucalyptus 30 Hanif Member 40 HSC UP Member Protima Bonki Eucalyptus
Household Income Sources The average annual income of the respondents was 195267±133340 BDT with a minimum of 36000 BDT to a maximum of 556000 BDT. This average annual income per household was consisted of 158567±110460 BDT from agricultural activities (76%) and 36700±64536 BDT from off-farm activities (24%). The major occupation of 70% respondents was agriculture and the rests (30%) were engaged in job service and others small business. The small to medium scale agricultural business, fish culture, daily laborer, and job service were other major sources of household income. C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 60
Table 4.9. Household information of private land woodlot tree growers in Sakhipur upazila of Tangail district. Resp. House members Homestead site information Specification of farmer’s land ID no. Total Male Female Farmer House Land Soil Drainage Homestead Agricultural Land with tree/ Total land category structure land (ha) land (ha) vegetation cover (ha) (ha) 1 6 3 3 Medium Kancha Upland Clay Very Good 0.11 0.32 0.77 1.20 2 5 3 2 Medium Kancha Upland Sandy Very Good 0.40 0.90 0.40 1.70 3 4 3 1 Large Pacca Upland Sandy Loamy Very Good 0.54 1.80 0.80 3.14 4 7 4 3 Medium Kancha Upland Sandy Loamy Very Good 0.22 0.20 0.04 0.46 5 4 1 3 Medium Pacca Plain land Sandy Loamy Good 0.05 0.20 0.13 0.38 6 9 5 4 Large Semi pacca Plain Land Clay Good 0.32 0.05 0.26 0.63 7 4 2 2 Small Pacca Plain Land Clay Good 0.02 0.12 0.40 0.54 8 6 3 3 Large Pacca Plain Land Clay Good 0.40 1.40 1.32 3.12 9 7 2 5 Medium Kancha Plain Land Clay Good 0.15 0.07 0.11 0.33 10 7 2 5 Medium Kancha Low Land Clay Good 0.10 1.40 0.36 1.86 11 4 2 2 Medium Kancha Upland Clay Good 0.07 0.08 0.12 0.27 12 4 1 3 Medium Semi Pacca Plain Land Sandy Loamy Good 0.14 0.60 0.12 0.86 13 8 4 4 Medium Kancha Upland Loamy Good 0.07 0.16 0.26 0.49 14 7 3 4 Medium Semi Pacca Upland Sandy Loamy Good 0.08 0.28 0.16 0.53 15 9 4 5 Medium Semi Pacca Plain Land Sandy Loamy Good 0.19 0.30 0.12 0.61 16 7 3 4 Medium Semi Pacca Plain Land Sandy Loamy Good 0.09 0.20 0.20 0.49 17 4 1 3 Medium Semi Pacca Plain Land Sandy Loamy Good 0.22 1.60 0.18 2.00 18 3 2 1 Medium Semi Pacca Plain Land Sandy Loamy Good 0.50 0.28 0.10 0.88 19 4 3 1 Small Kancha Plain Land Sandy Land Good 0.12 0.44 0.40 0.96 20 4 2 2 Medium Semi Pacca Plain Land Sandy Loamy Good 0.12 0.80 0.12 1.04 21 5 2 3 Small Semi Pacca Plain Land Sandy Loamy Good 0.12 0.60 0.06 0.78 22 5 2 3 Small Kancha Plain Land Loamy Good 0.05 0.20 0.26 0.52 23 6 4 2 Small Kancha Plain Land Loamy Good 0.05 0.24 0.13 0.42 24 5 2 3 Small Kancha Plain Land Sandy Good 0.02 0.20 0.13 0.35 25 2 1 1 Small Kancha Plain Land Clay Good 0.02 0.32 0.13 0.48 26 5 3 2 Medium Pacca Plain land Lomy Good 0.04 0.40 0.13 0.57 27 4 3 1 Small Kancha Plain land Lomy Good 0.02 0.24 0.13 0.39 28 5 3 2 Small Kancha Plain land Sandy Loamy Good 0.02 0.20 0.13 0.35 29 5 3 2 Medium Pacca Upland Clay Good 0.06 0.40 0.13 0.59 30 5 3 2 Medium Pacca Plain land Lomy Good 0.06 0.22 0.13 0.41 Ave.±SD 5.3±1.7 2.6±1.0 2.7± 1.2 0.15±0.14 0.47±0.48 0.26±0.27 0.88±0.76 Percentag 49% 51% 17% 54% 29% 100% e
C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 61
4.2.2. CHARACTERISTICS AND FACTORS OF WOODLOT PLANTATION OF EXOTIC TREE SPECIES
In the study areas, woodlot plantations (monoculture) of indigenous species were not found but indigenous fruit tree species i.e. Mangifera orchard plantation were found in few places. Another indigenous forest tree species i.e. Shorea block or woodlot plantations were not found in the study areas but exists in the natural forest conditions and still few small patches found at homestead land. On the other hand, it was observed that, all the woodlot plantations (monoculture woodlot) were done by fast growing exotic tree species i.e. Acacia, Eucalyptus, Swietenia where Acacia occupies the major portion. An adequate number of monoculture woodlots of exotic species of different ages were raised in the private land of the study areas, among them 30 number of similar kinds of woodlot plots were purposively selected based on this study objectives. Questionnaire survey revealed that, among the 30 woodlot tree growers (respondent), 60% and 40% tree growers were collected seedlings from the local nurseries and local market respectively.
The respondents involved in woodlot production in their lands were variable in case of land ownership but they mostly owned an average land of 0.13±0.01 ha which were converted to one hectare of land for the convenient of data analysis and presentation. The farmers (tree growers) were used to plant the seedlings of 1.08±0.20 years old and average 1.33±0.23 m height and maintained 1.5 m x 1.5 m (4,444 seedlings per ha) to 2 m x 2 m spacing (2,500 seedlings per ha) to raise woodlot plantations. The average number of saplings/seedlings planted initially per hectare was recorded highest 4,318 and lowest 1,894 and these variations in number of seedlings were mainly due to the spacing reported by the respondents.
While survey executed, the average age of the privately owned woodlot of exotic trees was 6.37±2.46 years, and in average, one hectare of woodlot plots was comprised of 1,923±974 trees, of which the average tree height and DBH were 9.52±2.13 m and 11.57±4.73 cm respectively (Table 4.10).
Plantation Damaging Factors
In questionnaire survey, 83% woodlot tree growers opined that plantations were damaged by cattle grazing/trampling, whereas 33% said that plantations were damaged by storm/cyclone. These two damaging factors were mainly responsible in their eyes for damage of plantation. Besides, 27% and 23% woodlot tree growers said that plantations were damaged by fuel wood collection or branch cutting and human interference respectively (Figure 4.5). C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 62
Nevertheless, poultry or wildlife disturbance, flood hazards, insect or fungal attack also occur in woodlot plantation but negligible percentage.
Figure 4.5. Tree growers perception (in percentage) on plantation damaging factors.
4.2.3. EXPENDITURE FOR WOODLOT PLANTATION OF EXOTIC TREE SPECIES
Woodlot plantation and maintenance is a labor intensive work. Statements collected from the tree growers depicted that, out of total expenditure, more than 80% was used for seedlings purchase and labor hiring. The rest of the costs were goes under staking, fencing, manuring and transport of seedlings. In contrast, a minimum amount of budget was used for thinning, pruning and irrigation purposes. Pest attack in exotic woodlot plantation was negligible. Expenditure of tree grower for raising one hectare of private woodlot plantations in Sakhipur upazila of Tangail district were summerised in the Table 4.11.
C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 63
Table 4.10. Characteristics of different private woodlot plantations raised by tree growers in Sakhipur upazila of Tangail district. Resp. Type of Average height Average age of Plantation Age of Trees per ha. Average height Average DBH Tree growth Previous land ID woodlot of seedlings (m) seedlings (yr.) year trees (yr.) while survey (m) of trees (cm) of trees pattern use 1 Acacia 1.22 1.5 2007 4 3553 9.76 11.94 Fast Agriculture 2 Acacia 0.91 1 2008 4 3788 6.71 6.37 Fast Agriculture 3 Acacia 0.91 1 2008 4 3788 8.23 10.35 Fast Fallow land 4 Swietenia 1.52 1.5 2001 10 1894 10.67 13.54 Medium Agriculture 5 Acacia 1.52 1 2006 6 1515 10.67 11.15 Fast Agriculture 6 Eucalyptus 1.22 1 2007 5 3788 9.76 6.37 Medium Agriculture 7 Eucalyptus 1.52 1 2007 4 1742 10.67 7.96 Fast Agriculture 8 Acacia 1.22 1 2005 6 1652 10.67 11.15 Medium Agriculture 9 Acacia 1.52 1 2007 5 1591 10.67 1.60 Fast Sal forest 10 Acacia 0.91 1 2005 6 3030 10.67 23.89 Fast Agriculture 11 Acacia 1.52 1.5 2007 4 1515 7.62 10.35 Fast Agriculture 12 Eucalyptus 1.52 1 2006 5 2030 6.71 8.76 Fast Agriculture 13 Swietenia 0.91 0.8 1997 15 1515 9.15 18.31 Medium Agriculture 14 Acacia 1.52 1.5 2008 4 2303 10.67 9.55 Fast Agriculture 15 Acacia 1.52 1 2005 5 1538 9.15 19.11 Fast Agriculture 16 Acacia 1.52 2007 4 1894 8.54 7.96 Fast Agriculture 17 Acacia 1.52 1 2005 6 1894 9.15 18.31 Medium Sal forest 18 Acacia 0.91 1 2004 7 2273 9.15 11.15 Fast Agriculture 19 Acacia 1.52 1.5 2005 6 1970 8.23 12.74 Fast Agriculture 20 Eucalyptus 1.22 1 2006 5 1591 10.67 8.76 Fast Agriculture 21 Eucalyptus 1.52 1 2006 5 3030 10.67 11.15 Fast Agriculture 22 Acacia 1.52 1 2005 6 2720 5.18 8.76 Fast Sal forest 23 Acacia 1.52 1 2002 9 1371 8.23 14.33 Fast Sal forest 24 Acacia 1.22 1 2002 9 606 12.80 15.92 Fast Sal forest 25 Acacia 1.22 1 2002 9 697 12.50 16.72 Fast Sal forest 26 Acacia 1.22 1 2002 9 697 14.02 14.33 Fast Sal forest 27 Acacia 1.22 1 2002 9 712 13.41 14.33 Fast Sal forest 28 Acacia 1.22 1 2004 7 1818 7.93 10.35 Fast Sal forest 29 Eucalyptus 1.52 1 2005 6 674 6.10 5.57 Fast Agriculture 30 Eucalyptus 1.52 1 2004 7 515 7.32 6.37 Fast Agriculture Average 1.33 1.08 6.37 1923 9.52 11.57 ± SD ±0.23 ±0.20 ±2.46 ±974 ±2.13 ±4.73 C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 64
Table 4.11. Expenditure of tree grower for raising one hectare private woodlot plantations in Sakhipur upazila of Tangail district. Resp. Seedling Transport/ Labor/ Fencing Staking Manuring Pesticide Irrigation/ Thinning Pruning Total projected ID purchase carrying watcher (BDT) (BDT) (BDT) (BDT) watering (BDT) (BDT) expenditure/ cost (BDT) (BDT) (BDT (BDT) upto rotation (BDT) 1 15152 758 199159 3788 5788 5930 0 0 15152 13576 259301 2 22727 3030 160818 15152 7576 4273 0 6580 14682 9901 244738 3 22727 3788 189242 15152 5788 15152 0 0 12682 8680 273210 4 15152 6061 170833 6818 7361 8990 0 6545 7800 6590 236150 5 15152 3030 128788 7576 6990 6580 0 0 13400 8300 189815 6 22727 5000 180303 37879 15152 15152 0 0 9900 15190 301302 7 12121 758 141742 45455 8500 15152 3788 7576 12000 9500 256591 8 10455 6061 136258 3400 9000 6570 0 0 14800 13500 200043 9 22727 2273 133864 6900 7576 9091 0 5303 13900 8400 210033 10 21212 3030 116606 18939 5303 15152 0 0 9500 5600 195342 11 15152 1515 130303 11364 11364 13636 0 0 12500 9400 205233 12 10606 4545 122242 3500 9491 9091 3030 3788 13000 5500 184794 13 9091 3030 141818 7800 9061 4188 0 0 8900 12300 196188 14 11364 1515 135364 5600 6818 6545 0 6570 10600 10350 194726 15 8523 3788 127508 4545 6788 6930 0 0 12400 6590 177072 16 18939 3303 160985 4100 6788 10720 0 1370 9840 11900 227945 17 11364 15152 170076 7200 9848 18939 1300 0 14590 9630 258099 18 9091 10001 186364 9091 12121 9848 0 4261 14000 7900 262676 19 9848 10394 177424 4590 15152 10091 0 0 7000 14350 248849 20 6439 3788 130833 12121 9091 4471 0 4545 13670 6600 191559 21 15152 18182 200212 30303 15152 4988 0 0 9900 9070 302958 22 15152 6061 128356 7000 9801 3788 0 6800 15000 12070 204028 23 15152 11364 120735 7000 12121 5066 1370 4041 9840 8000 194688 24 7576 4545 83982 3500 7701 3991 0 0 13250 10000 134545 25 11364 6091 79818 5600 13600 5430 0 0 8500 15300 145703 26 15152 4000 84970 7500 11364 7576 4550 11060 9980 156151 27 13636 5152 89991 4305 13636 4545 0 0 12400 6000 149666 28 15152 12121 122727 7600 13636 6545 0 0 9890 11700 199371 29 4545 2273 71983 11364 7576 5788 0 5871 14780 13633 137813 30 4545 1515 79980 4410 8788 4273 0 0 10890 9300 123701 Aver. 13600 5404 136776 10652 9631 8283 327 2260 11861 9960 208753 ±SD ±5283 ±4288 ±37077 ±10183 ±3004 ±4217 ±926 ±2843 ±2358 ±2856 ±48057 % 6.51% 2.59% 65.52% 5.10% 4.61% 3.97% 0.16% 1.08% 5.68% 4.77% 100% C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 65
4.2.4. BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS ON WOODLOTS OF EXOTIC TREE SPECIES
The results of benefit-cost analysis on the woodlots have been presented in Table 4.14. The results showed that in average, a tree grower spent 208753±48057 BDT for woodlot plantation in one hectare of land. On the other hand, they were expecting to sale the timber/wood by 1951869±943607 BDT and to get the, expected net profit of 1806726±897146 BDT in ten years of rotation period (Table 4.14).
Net Present Value, Internal Rate of Return and Benefit Cost Ratio
Net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR) and benefit cost ratio (BCR) are used to evaluate the financial feasibility of the plantation project. All costs incurred and revenues gained from the project are discounted to present value for both NPV and IRR. Hence, a discounted rate (base) of 12% has been used as the proximity rate of capital loan in Bangladesh.
Benefit cost analysis for one hectare (average made from 30 woodlots) private woodlot plantations showed that, the BCR was 1.15 on a ten year rotation and the NPV was 84,074 BDT, whereas the IRR was 15% (Appendix 12, 13). From NPV point of view, the net present return from this woodlot is 84,074 BDT per ha, which is financially a viable option for investment into woodlot forestry.
Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity of BCR and NPV with reference to changes in the interest rate for one hectare woodlot monoculture plantation in Sakhipur, Tangail has been analysed. If there is no risk of crop destroy, but the changes in interest rate 5%, 10%, 12% (base case scenario), 15% and 20% showed BCR 1.66, 1.28, 1.15 (base case scenario), 0.98 and 0.75 respectively; and NPV 495394, 169794, 84074, -12251 and -113096 (Table 4.12).
Table 4.12. Sensitivity of BCR and NPV with reference to changes in the interest rate for one hectare woodlot monoculture plantation in Sakhipur, Tangail
Interest Rate Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) Net Present Value (NPV) 5% 1.66 495394 10% 1.28 169794 12% (Base Case) 1.15 84074 15% 0.98 -12251 20% 0.75 -113096
C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 66
To test the woodlot plantation project viability with respect to changes in risk of crop destroy in the final harvest, a sensitivity analysis is carried out. In this study, variation of sensitivity are based on negative decreases for benefit of 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% due to damage of final harvest showed BCR 1.04, 0.93, 0.82, 0.71 and 0.60 respectively; and NPV 20994, -42087, -105167, -168248 and -231329 BDT and IRR 12.68%, 10.56%, 8.16%, 5.36% and 2.02% respectively (Table 4.13).
Table 4.13. Sensitivity of BCR, NPV, and IRR with reference to potential risk of damages of the final crops for one hectare woodlot plantation in Sakhipur, Tangail
Damage thresholds Benefit Cost Ratio Net Present Value Internal Rate of Return (BCR) (NPV) (IRR) 10% 1.04 20994 12.68% 20% 0.93 -42087 10.56% 30% 0.82 -105167 8.16% 40% 0.71 -168248 5.36% 50% 0.60 -231329 2.02% C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 67
Table 4.14. Future valuation and expected profit of woodlot trees per ha raised in the private land in Sakhipur, Tangail. Resp Name of No. of No. of trees Expected no. trees Expected Projected Average Average Projected benefit Average Average ID tree saplings encountered will remain per price per benefit benefit benefit including expenditure/ expected species planted while survey hectare upto ±10 tree upto from tree from from thinnings and cost (BDT) Profit initially per ha. (after years rotation rotation sale thinning prunning prunning (BDT) (BDT) per ha. 1st thinning) (after 2nd thinning) (BDT) (BDT) (BDT) (BDT) 1 Acacia 3939 3553 1777 2000 3553030 57159 33295 3643485 259301 3384184 2 Acacia 4242 3788 1894 2000 3787879 61364 36818 3886061 244738 3641322 3 Acacia 4167 3788 1894 2200 4166667 60606 26900 4254173 273210 3980963 4 Mehagony 2500 1894 947 2500 2367424 34470 28409 2430303 236150 2194153 5 Acacia 2424 1515 758 1800 1363636 31818 22727 1418182 189815 1228366 6 Eucalyptus 4318 3788 1894 1500 2840909 62121 29800 2932830 301302 2631528 7 Eucalyptus 2652 1742 871 1500 1306818 35227 26136 1368182 256591 1111591 8 Acacia 2576 1652 826 1500 1238636 34015 24773 1297424 200043 1097382 9 Acacia 2576 1591 795 2000 1590909 33712 23864 1648485 210033 1438452 10 Acacia 3258 3030 1515 2000 3030303 47727 25500 3103530 195342 2908188 11 Acacia 2652 1515 758 2600 1969697 34091 28000 2031788 205233 1826555 12 Eucalyptus 2652 2030 1015 1700 1725758 36667 19500 1781924 184794 1597130 13 Mehagony 2652 1515 758 2800 2121212 34091 13400 2168703 196188 1972515 14 Acacia 2652 2303 1152 2000 2303030 38030 27091 2368152 194726 2173425 15 Acacia 2652 1538 769 2600 1999242 34205 31601 2065048 177072 1887976 16 Acacia 2652 1894 947 2500 2367424 35985 26691 2430100 227945 2202155 17 Acacia 2614 1894 947 2500 2367424 35606 24220 2427251 258099 2169152 18 Acacia 2652 2273 1136 2000 2272727 37879 19900 2330506 262676 2067830 19 Acacia 2652 1970 985 2400 2363636 36364 16900 2416900 248849 2168051 20 Eucalyptus 2576 1591 795 1900 1511364 33712 22040 1567116 191559 1375557 21 Eucalyptus 3258 3030 1515 1600 2424242 47727 25600 2497570 302958 2194612 22 Acacia 3106 2720 1360 1900 2583712 44659 27670 2656041 204028 2452014 23 Acacia 2727 1371 686 2100 1439773 34129 17971 1491872 194688 1297184 24 Eucalyptus 2197 606 303 1900 575758 25000 29890 630648 134545 496103 25 Acacia 2121 697 348 2200 766667 24697 25400 816764 145703 671061 26 Acacia 1894 697 348 2200 766667 22424 20350 809441 156151 653290 27 Acacia 1970 712 356 2600 925758 23258 34890 983905 149666 834239 28 Acacia 2689 1818 909 1800 1636364 35985 38500 1710848 199371 1511477 29 Eucalyptus 1932 674 337 2000 674242 22689 37881 734813 137813 597000 30 Eucalyptus 1894 515 258 2000 515152 21515 25390 562057 123701 438355 Mean±SD 2761 1923 962 2077 1951869 37231 26370 2015470 208753 1806727 ±658 ±974 ±487 ±357 ±943607 ±11330 ±6082 ±954632 ±48057 ±919144 C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 68
4.2.5. IMPACTS OF WOODLOTS OF EXOTIC TREE SPECIES ON TIMBER MARKET AND LOCAL EMPLOYMENT
In the study areas, the monoculture woodlot of exotic tree species showed a great impact on timber market and local employment. A total of 37 sawmills in Sakhipur Paorashava areas were found to be involved in woodlot business as well as timber trading in full swing. On the contrary, a number of 350 furniture making shops of different sizes were enlisted by furniture shops owners association of Sakhipur. It was remarked that, about 90% of the timbers used by these shops were of Acacia. As the backup for theses shops, few thousands of peoples were engaged with tree felling/harvesting, wood and furniture transportation/carrying, timber sawing, furniture making and sale business. About 370 labors were employed in 37 sawmills and 1050 labors in 350 furniture shops in different positions for different period of time. Nevertheless, thousands of labor was hired in transportation/carrying of the timbers, furniture and fuel woods using hundreds of vehicles. Hundreds of Faria or local businessman was engaged with timber trading/business and marketing.
During this survey, 93% tree growers opined that, there were high demands of timber and fuel wood species in the local markets which were linked to meet the national demand and supply, and in contrast, only 7% tree growers opined that there were medium demands of timber and fuel wood species. It is also found that, 73% the woodlots plots had access to ‘pacca’ road and 37% to ‘kancha’ road to reach the markets for selling the timber products. All the participants suggested to improve the road network so that they can easily carry the woodlot products from the field. No remarkable problem was found in timber marketing, as reported by all the respondents. Tree growers had easy access to the local markets without the harassment by the middlemen who were taking the incentives for selling the trees.
Sometimes middleman or Faria from Dhaka and other adjacent districts were used to visit the woodlots plots and if tree grower agreed then they harvest timber directly from the tree grower’s woodlot plots (Figure 4.6). The survey data revealed that, about 40% tree growers directly sold timber/fuel wood products to local market by their own initiatives and 60% tree grower were sold timber/fuel wood products through middleman or Faria.
C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 69
Figure 4.6. Timber supply chain in Sakhipur upazila of Tangail district.
4.2.6. PERCEPTION OF THE TREE GROWERS ON WOODLOT PLANTATION DERIVED LOSSES AND BENEFITS
There are thirteen questions (part of questionnaire survey) were asked to the respondents to know their perception on the monoculture woodlot plantation of exotic tree species in order to know the benefir and losses from the woodlot plantation programme. The tree growers’ opinions on the loss and benefits derived from monocultures were found to be different in term of loss and benefit categories which is derived from questionnaire survey (Figure 4.7). In this connection, 93%, 97%, 87% and 77%, i.e. most of the tree growers, mentioned that exotic monoculture gives benefits for fuel wood, pole/post, wind break/shelter belt and fencing/boundary respectively and on the other hand 67% and 47% of the tree growers thought that monoculture plantation of exotic species produce scenic beauty and somehow support for bird nest and roosting respectively (Figure 4.7).
The results of statistical analysis showed that, only 7% of the respondents showed their negative attitude for woodlot production of exotic tree species in their own land concerning financial benefits. Most of the respondents (tree growers) mentioned that, the forests trees are the prime source of their energy/household consumption through collection of firewood, dry leaves and branches etc, and even they use the dried climbers and leaves as fuel. People living in the areas adjacent to the forests, collect small twigs, chips of bark, branches, and decayed branches as firewood for their household consumption and for selling in the markets. C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 70
Figure 4.7. Private woodlot tree growers perception on losses and benefits derived from monoculture woodlot plantations.
According to the tree growers/respondents, fuel woods from the Sal forest and adjacent village forest were in great demand in the cities (e.g. Dhaka, Gazipur, Tangail). Women and children were most active in collecting twigs, dry leaves and branches from the forest, while men were involved when they need to cut trees and to carry heavier bulks out of the forests. Overall analyses of environmental as well as ecological aspects on monoculture of exotic species plantation revealed that, 30% respondents had showed positive attitude for monoculture of exotic tree species in their field and the rest 70% showed negative attitude. Monoculture woodlot of fast growing exotic tree species plantation had created income and employment flow in the study areas o Sakhipur, Tangail. For example, a total of 52 tree nurseries were found to involve 520 regular labors and more than 2,444 day labors were involved in 30 woodlot plantation activities in the private land. About 63% tree growers received training on community/social forestry, and tree farming techniques and management from GO/NGO. C HAPTER - IV R ESULTS P a g e 71
The field observation showed that several threats, such as over exploitation of plant resources, especially illegal tree cutting and fuel wood collection, land encroachment for rapidly expanding agriculture, pollution, urbanization, huge exotic tree species plantations and cattle grazing etc. were functioning in the indigenous tree plots of the Sal forest areas that could be responsible for the undergrowth species and genetic diversity loss there. Whereas, several drivers, such as over exploitation of plant resources, especially by illegal tree cutting, fuel wood collection, and cattle grazing etc. were observed as functioning in the exotic tree plots that could loss their undergrowth species and genetic diversity.
C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 72
CHAPTER-V
DISCUSSIONS
Bangladesh Forest Department and other national and international organizations implemented different types of forestry projects throughout the country to increase the forest coverage through massive plantation of selected tree species including the fast growing exotic species, largely for poverty reduction throughout the country. These organizations had facilitated tree nursery establishments and plantation programs in order to huge seedling production and plantation of fast growing exotic tree species to get quick economic returns. They had given technical and financial support to the farmers for the long period resulting mass awareness among the peoples about timber tree cultivation in village homesteads, croplands, fallow lands and other areas. As the consequence, the previous management plans and policies for selected forests including the Sal forest under Tangail Forest Division emphasized on the increase of productivity by growing the exotic tree species of high value timber stocks through clear felling the existing degraded natural Sal stands followed by artificial regeneration with exotic or fast growing species. To increase the financial returns was the main objective of these plans and policies. Even now some of the government management strategies and policies reflect the same objectives as in the past which is detrimental for the remaining forests as well as ecosystems. These plans and policies decreased the possibility of horizental expansion of the regeneration of natural indigenous Shorea forest in the adjacent village forest areas.
The sustainability of plantation forestry through monoculture of exotic species is an issue of wide interest and debate. The relative benefits and costs of plantation forestry in terms of its social and environmental impacts, are the subject of greater controversy, and pose the greatest challenge to plantation foresters and tree growers. Our experience with plantation forestry offers us an excellent platform for raising these challenges. Exploration and recording of plant resources, species composition of different forest stands, soil properties of the habitats and their multi-dimensional analysis plays an important role for their sustainable use and conservation management. There is an increasing concern among foresters, ecologists, botanists, conservationists and policy makers about the threat of uncontrolled introduction of aggressive tree species in the plantation programs. Invasion of exotics may cause major loss of biodiversity and species extinction either due to direct replacement by exotics or indirect effects on the ecosystem. The main criticism of woodlot plantations was that, they threaten the habitat of indigenous forest tree communities and uptake more water from soil. In addition, severe ecological problems were caused by woodlots because, in many places throughout the Sal forest, coppices of Shorea trees and other indigenous species were clear-cut for the preparation of woodlot block plantation or monoculture of exotic species (Friends of the Earth, 2000). C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 73
The impact of clearing the forest for woodlot and agroforestry plantation affected particularly faunal diversity of that area, as these trees do not support wildlife because they do not produce edible fruit or nectar for them (Ameen, 1999). Concern also exists on the degradation of the environment, e.g., the controversial effect of Eucalyptus and Acacia on environment. There are also risks of the decline of growth and yield in second and successive rotations, or the infestation of pests and diseases. Plantation of exotic species adversely affects the natural ecosystem in Shorea forest areas (Roy et al., 2011).
However, as the need to increase tree planting activities is particularly important in our country, where tree coverage is very low and high poverty exists, the BFD initiated woodlot plantation scheme in remote areas like Sakhipur of Tangail district with various exotic species, i.e. Acacia spp. and Eucalyptus spp. in the Shorea forest and adjacent community in 1987-88 under the TANDP with the objective of to meet the fuel wood and timber requirement of the local communities. From that time, in parallel to government program the local community people also started exotic species plantation in their household premises and later on in farmland. They produced huge plantations of Acacia spp. and other exotic species (i.e. Eucalyptus spp., Swietenia macrophylla) due to their wide range of adaptability and satisfactory growth performance in short time.
Previously no attention was given to find out the ecological and socio-economic status of plantation forestry in Bangladesh, especieally in the remote areas like Sakhipur of Tangail. The environmental and socio-economic impacts of monoculture of exotic tree species were not also assessed there in comparison to indigenous tree species of Sal forest with an integrated approach incorporating the aspects of phytodiversity, soil status, stand productivity and socio-economic impacts.
This study assessed the ecological and socio-economic impacts of the monoculture of two exotic tree species Acacia auriculiformis and Eucalyptus camadulensis in comparison to the plantation of two indigenous tree species Shorea robusta and Mangifera indica in Sakhipur area of Tangail district, focusing mostly on A. auriculiformis and S. robusta. The results of this study showed the current status of plant species diversity, soil properties and comparative woodlot productivity of exotic and indigenous tree species and give an insight into the socio-economic impacts of monoculture on the local economy and everyday life of the local people of the study area.
5.1. ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS
5.1.1. UNDERGROWTH VEGETATION
The undergrowth vegetation as well as diversity of plant communities is to a large extent affected by plantations with fast growing exotic species. The invasive characteristics of C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 74 exotic species on indigenous species is chiefly suppressive in nature in which the abundance and species richness is negatively affected. The impacts of the exotic species were not uniform in all the cases, rather few exotic monoculture plots in the sample plots showed a good regeneration due to well protection and maintenance of their wilderness conditions by the tree growers in the state owned forest land under Hoteya forest range of Tangail forest division. It varies with the abundance of the planted species, but also with the type of the alien species, ecological conditions, and other factors. Impacts of monoculture of exotic tree species on the undergrowth vegetation seem to be related to some management measures and anthropogenic activities. Some of the well-discussed problems, such as spread nature of Acacia auriculiformis, can be mitigated by proper, informed, and consistent management (Kotiluoto and Makandi, 2004). It means that the extent of adverse impacts of monoculture of exotic tree species can be mitigated.
Taxonomic Enumeration and Species Composition
In this study, a total of 182 plant species was recorded under 150 genera and 56 families of which about 47, 19 and 116 species were classified as trees, shrubs and herbs respectively (Appendix 1). The taxonomic enumeration in the sampling plots of the study area has been found higher in respect to that of some floristic studies as well as lower in respect to some other floristic studies considering the size of area (Table 5.1). This variation of undergrowth species has also been reported from different forest areas. For example, Rahman (2001) found 273, 199 and 166 undergrowth species considering all types of plants in Madhupur, Chandra and Bhawal-Rajendrapur Sal forest respectively. Modhupur national park traditionally harbor more species than Sakhipur area as it is especially protected by the BFD since long time through different conservation initiatives. The species composition reported for Chandra and Bhawal-Rajendrapur Sal forest (Rahman, 2001) seem to be consistent to the species enumeration for Sakhipur area by this study. But considering the size of the sampling areas of Sakhipur considered under this study, its species composition seems higher than that of Chandra and Bhawal- Rajendrapur Sal forest estimated by Rahman (2001).
A total of 221 plant species including 24 species of climbers, 27 species of grasses, 3 species of palms, 105 species of herbs, 19 species of shrubs, and 43 species of trees have been found in the central Sal forests (Khan et al., 2007; Green, 1981). This enumerations showed the occurrence of higher number of species there than that reported by this study where their study area were larger. Malaker et al. (2010) found a total of 174 plant species under 131 genera and 54 families of which about 102, 17, 34 and 21 species were classified as tree, shrub, herb and climber respectively according to their growth habits, which was similar to this study, though the size of the study area of Malaker et al. (2010) was larger. C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 75
A total number of 134 species was recorded from Modhupur National Park, of which 70 were represented by tree species, 15 by shrub species, 26 by climbers and 23 by herbs (Rahman, 2009). Ahmed (1996) found a total of 36 families comprising of 129 plant species in monoculture plantation in Savar and adjoining areas considering all seasons. In these studies, the species enumeration seems lower than that reported by this study.
Table 5.1. Taxonomic enumeration of some local floras of Bangladesh.
Authors Study Area Area/km2 Species Genera Family Rahman and Hassan (1995) Bhawal National Park 50 202 147 52 Rahman and Uddin (1997) Sitakundo 383 203 154 54 Rashid and Mia (2001) Madhupur National Park 84 237 159 53 Jahanginar University Islam et al. (2001) 3 154 143 58 campus (wild) Rema Kalenga Wildlife Uddin (2002 ) 18 435 278 81 Sanctuary Uddin and Rahman (1999) Himchari National Park 23 400 276 85 Alam et al. (2006) Kapasia (wild), Gazipur 22 187 160 65 Uddin and Hassan (2010) Lawachara National Park 12 374 264 84 Malaker et al. (2010) Madhupur Sal Forest 30 174 131 54 Arefin et al. (2011) Satchari National Park 2 245 183 72 Rahman et al. (2012) Dhamrai Upazila (wild) 307 263 210 79 Uddin and Hassan (2012) Rampahar and Sitapahar 10 595 368 89 Jahangirnagar University Sultana et al. (2013) 3 403 286 88 campus (wild) This study Sakhipur, Tangail 64 182 150 56
The variation in the comparative findings on taxonomic enumeration and species composition of different areas of this country might be due to different reasons. The previous studies on taxonomic enumeration and species composition of different areas of this country have been conducted in different extents using different sample collection methods and strategies. The consideration of a specific number of quadrat sampling plots on selected part of an areas or plant samples from the selected sites of an area do not represent the floristic composition of that area appropriately.
In the study area, there were some species those occurred either in plantation forest or natural forest only and constituted different species composition there. It is noted that, most of the plantation forest of the study area was comparatively disturbed but few were in undisturbed or wilderness conditions and these undisturbed woodlot plots showed more species diversity and regeneration status which is positively remarkable in Hoteya forest range of Sakhipur areas of Bangladesh. C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 76
In this study, 116 undergrowth species including 32 woody tree/plant species were found in exotic tree plots and 150 species including 42 woody tree/plant species in indigenous plots which indicate that indigenous tree plots harbored the higher number of species (19%) than the exotic tree plots, considering all types of plant species and all seasons (Figure 4.2). The uncommon species was relatively higher in number in indigenous tree plots than that in exotic tree plots facing similar extent of ecological and anthropogenic stresses. This scenario proves that plantations of indigenous tree species are relatively better in harboring better species richness and diversity, consistent with Montagnini et al. (2005). The rare orchid species Gastrodia zeylanica Schltr. and Geodorum densiflorum (Lamk.) Schltr. were found only in indigenous plots but no orchid was observed in exotic tree plots. The average number of grass species was significantly higher in younger woodlots than the older ones, and grass coverage was slightly higher in such locations. The reason for this is that grasses quickly colonise in disturbed and spacious areas like the new woodlots, but on the older woodlots they gradually disappeared due to the shade cast by the tree canopy.
The study results and findings showed that, the Shorea plots harbored the maximum number of species in all seasons, which was followed by the Acacia plots (Figure 4.1). According to field observations, both types of these plots were relativelely under less human interferences, and more wildness existed in Shorea plots. The reason of contrasting scenario in Mangifera plots include the orchard nature of the plots, deeper shade under most of the trees, and frequent human disturbances. Eucalyptus plots were found with relatively less extent of species composition than the plots of other exotic species that might be due to more human intereferances there.
The undergrowths plant species, especially that of monoculture plantation of exotic species, were known to be disturbed by biotic and abiotic factors. Among the biotic factors, clear felling, fuel wood collcetion, leaf litter collection, cattle grazing, firing, and making pathways for walking by the people etc. were mostly recognised by the respondents. The abiotic factors recognized in the study area includes shade, rainfall, temperature, soil moisture and humidity etc. The different management systems were also the important reasons for the high internal variation in species richness for the exotic and indigenous sites. Some woodlot tree growers weed out the seedlings of indigenous or associate species, but others would encourage the growth of such species. In some cases fire was allowed to pass through the indigenous stands (i.e. Shorea robusta) as a weed control method, supported by Tyynela (2001). Thus, human intereferences, management initiatives, shade and wildness were recognized as the kye factors influencing the occurrence and existance of undergrowth species in the reserch plots of the study area especially in the Acacia plots. C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 77
The occurrence of herbaceous plant species, especially grasses and sedges, and abundance of particular plant populations were found to fluctuate along with the seasonal changes in a year. This phenemenon is desirable, since the availability of soil moisture, precipitation and temperature etc. plays a major role on the development and sustenance of the associated vegetation in the sampling plots.
Phytosociology of Undergrowth Vegetation
The data on undergrowth plant density have been presented under two categories: i) considering all the plants, i.e., all grasses and sedges, herbs, shrub and tree species, found in the plots, and ii) considering only the seedlings and saplings of the woody tree species, referred also as undergrowth tree species. Based on two categories, data has been analyzed and presentation accordingly.
Undergrowth Plant Density
In the study areas, the scenario of undergrowth plant density per ha and species number was found contrasting in the different seasons and different tree plots (Figure 4.3, 4.4). In Mangifera plots, the number of plant individuals of few species, especially of grasses and sedges, was higher in respect to that of other plots, whereas, in Acacia plots, the number of individuals of undergrowth tree seedlings and saplings were higher than that of Mangifera and Eucalyptus plots. It was observed that, most of the Acacia and Eucalyptus plots were dominated by the herbs, especially the grasses and sedges including the invasive species than the Shorea plots and due to this reason the density of undergrowth plant species in Acacia and Eucalyptus plots were found much more than in Shorea plots. But the individuals of woody species were mostly found in Shorea forest plots with better wildness conditions.
The findings of this study on undergrowth plant density of Shorea plots considering all species are nearly consistent with Sapkota et al. (2009) who found 56954 individuals per ha land. Thapliyal (2002) found 390000 and 590000 plants individuals per ha in the 14 year old Acacia and Eucalyptus plots respectively, which is much higher than the data on undergrowth plant density of Acacia and Eucalyptus plots recorded by this study, but this can be possible because more number of individuals of herbs/grasses per ha land can exist in the plots. Rahman (2009) found the woody undergrowth plant (excluding grasses and sedges) density 8193 per ha for Sal forest in Gazipur of Bangladesh which is lower in number than this study perhaps due to topographical nature and low wilderness or protection status. Islam (2004) found 81970 plants per ha in Modhupur Sal forest considering all plant individuals and 37371 woody seedlings, i.e., undergrowth tree species per ha, which is greater than the record of this study that may be due to the C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 78 impacts of more conservation measures than that in Sakhipur Sal forest and more wildness and better conditions for the growth of undergrowth species.
Relative Density
The relative density of the species was also found contrasting in exotic and indigenous plots. It was remarked that, seedlings and saplings in some undisturbed Acacia monoculture (woodlot) plots formed a dense layer of vegetation that might be the reason of finding highest relative density of Acacia auriculiformis. The finding of relative density for Shorea robusta and Litsea glutinosa in Shorea plots was consistent with the relative density recorded for Shorea robusta (53.00%) and Litsea glutinosa (3.90%) by Islam (2004).
Uemura (1994) reported that, the species diversity of understory vegetation in different environments vary with light condition. In the monoculture plantation, the trees were planted with more or less similar gaps owing to which a homogeneous canopy was formed. Whereas in case of Sal forest, the trees were naturally scattered in position owing to which a homogeneous canopy was not formed. Thus the penetration and falling of solar light on the ground of exotic and indigenous tree plots was different and the regeneration of undergrowths has been affected differently. Thick, leathery and phyllodic leaves of this exotic species (Acacia auriculiformis) and their dense canopy may also affect the number, growth and development of the undergrowth plant species (Ahmed, 1996). The density of the natural recruitment is frequently disturbed or damaged due to clearing of forest floor, human interference, grazing/trampling and leaf litter collection (Kotiluoto and Makandi, 2004) and these stresses were found operating in most of the research plots of the study area.
Relative Frequency
The relative frequency of species per quadrat considering all plant species and only the tree seedling in exotic and indigenous plots were showed in the Appendix 2, 3, 4 and 5. The finding of relative frequency for Clerodendrum viscosum and Ichnocarpus frutescens was in consistent with Islam (2004) who found the relative frequency of Clerodendrum viscosum and Ichnocarpus frutescens as 4.60% and 4.30% respectively. The relative frequency recorded here for Shorea robusta and Litsea glutinosa seems somewhat higher than the findings of Islam (2004) who reported the relative frequency 14.00% and 5.12% for Shorea robusta and Litsea glutinosa, respectively.
Relative Abundance
The species relative abundance per quadrat in exotic and indigenous plots considering all plant species and only the tree seedling were showed in the Appendix 2, 3, 4 and 5. Islam C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 79
(2004) found the relative abundance 27.27% for Shorea robusta which is comparatively higher and 6.50% for Phyllanthus emblica which is lower in comparison to the data provided by this study. Much higher relative abundance of Shorea robusta (59.5%) was reported from Modhupur National Park by Rahman (2009) which might be due to higher regeneration of Shorea robusta due to protection measures and conservation management in Modhupur Sal forest areas were taken by the BFD. Results of this study concluded that, the regeneration status of exotic and indigenous stands were fluctuated with the soil conditions, protection measures and wildness of the habitats. The monoculture of exotic tree species has adverse impacts on species richness and habit of undergrowth species.
Phytodiversity Index
Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index
The values of Shannon-Wiener diversity index (Table 4.2) showed that, the flora of the study area was highly diversified and the extent of phytodiversity was higher in indigenous, especially in Sal (Shorea), forest area, than in exotic species plantation areas. The average Shannon-Wiener diversity index recorded from the study area were consistent with Kibria and Anik (2010) who studied homestead village forest of northern part of Bangladesh. The Shannon-Wiener diversity index value (1.75±0.09) found in the Acacia plots of the study area was much less than the value 6.07 reported by Chowdhury and Huda (2002) for the Acacia plots in the forests of Bangladesh. The findings of average Shannon-Wiener index value (2.19±0.09) for all indigenous plots seems appparently similar to that of Roy et al. (2011) but the value found for exotic tree plots (1.77±0.11) was less with their index value (2.73) reported for natural degraded ‘Sal’ forest in Modhupur.
The findings of average Shannon-Wiener index value (2.19±0.09) for all indigenous plots and that (2.25±0.02) from Shorea plots seem lower than the index value (3.23) reported by Kumari and Biswas (2003) from Selakui Sal forest of India and that (3.29) reported by Kumar et al. (2006) from secondary Sal forests of Garo Hills of India. The Shannon- Wiener index value (1.60±0.11) found in Eucalyptus plots was notably higher than that (0.59) reported by Tyynela (2001) for Eucalyptus camaldulensis woodlots in north-east Zimbabwe. All values of Shannon-Wiener index found in the exotic and indigenous tree plots of the study area seem similar to the index value reported by Sapkota et al. (2009) from Sal forest in Nepal (2.29), Dutta and Devi (2013) from Sal (Shorea robusta Gaertn.) forest of Assam, north-east India (2.32) and Chaturvedi and Raghubanshi (2014) Sal forest of India (2.26).
The results of the study on species diversity depicted that indigenous tree plots, especially the Shorea plots, are clearly rich in species diversity than the tree plots of exotic species, C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 80 supported by Montagnini et al. (2005). Moderately high diversity of the various functional groups of plants (trees, shrubs and herbs) were found in the indigenous Shorea forests, though the areas were facing human settlement, encroachment, leaf litter collection, over-exploitation, illegal tree felling and multifarious anthropogenic activities.
The results of DMRT (Duncan's Multiple Range Test) analysis of species number, density, diversity indices, number of trees per plot, and gross timber production in four types of research plots of the study, as presented in Table 5.2, show that there was no significant difference (at 5% level by DMRT) among the four types of research plots if the Eucalyptus and Mangifera plots are included. No significant difference in was found between the Eucalyptus and Mangifera plots in any parameter. In contrast, the Acacia plots showed significant differences for all parameters except Shannon-Wiener diversity index and Gross timber production. In case of Shannon-Wiener diversity index, only the Shorea plots showed significant difference with other plots. In gross timber production, there was no significant difference between Shorea and Acacia plots. All of the parameters related to vegetation were significantly different when only the indigenous (Shorea and Mangifera) tree plots were considered, but in case of the exotic (Acacia and Eucalyptus) tree plots these parameters, except the index values of Shannon-Wiener, were significantly different at 5% level (Table 5.2).
Table 5.2. The results of DMRT analysis on different parameters of four types of research plots in Sakhipur, Tangail. Plot type No. of species Density Shannon-Wiener No. of trees Gross Timber Index per plot Production Acacia 71.3333b 355.6667ab 2.6300a 20.0000b 263.8333b Eucalyptus 51.6667a 547.3333c 2.4067a 10.3333a 109.3333a Shorea 88.3333c 109.6667a 3.3733b 29.3333c 316.3333b Mangifera 46.3333a 619.0000c 2.5833a 5.3333a 33.6667a Note: Values in the same column that do not share common letters are significantly different at 5% (α = 0.05) level among the plots after DMRT.
Species diversity in Sal forests of Sakhipur areas contributes to the economy of the local people by supplying material used for small-income generating activities, such as the sale of local foods, fuel wood, fodder, grass and traditional medicines and others non-timber forest products (NTFPs) etc. Field observations showed that, the Acacia and Eucalyptus plots did not support the undergrowth vegetation as supported by the natural Shorea forests. It indicates that, the monoculture of exotic tree species may have negative impacts on the species richness and diversity of the undergrowths species. It was found that, when the large numbers of individuals of many dominant species were associated with rare species with few individuals, then the species diversity appears high. In the exotic tree plots, the number of grass and sedge individuals were found much higher in C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 81 comparison to indigenous tree plots and as a result the values of diversity indices for the exotic tree plots was increased. But the data analysis excluding the grass and sedge individuals showed that the diversity indices for exotic tree species was much lower than that of indigenous plots. In the study areas it was seen that, the old tree plots provide favorable habitat for numerous indigenous species including the undergrwths. It was also observed that, the micro-climatic differences in temperature, light and air due to canopy occupied by Shorea robusta has positive influence on the growth and establishment of undergrowth vegetation.
In Sakhipur Sal forest areas, numerous anthropogenic pressures, including human settlement, urbanization and industrialization, irresponsible plantation forestry activities with exotic tree species, over-exploitation, lack of appropriate management systems and protection measures, absence of enough wildness in the habitats and lack of adequate public awareness etc., are responsible for decreasing plant species diversity and species richness there. Negative changes in vegetation pattern and structure due to forest degradation, deforestation, reforestation activities have also been reported by local peoples and workers. Different management systems operated in the woodlots and forests of the study area were found as an important reason for the high internal variation in species richness for the exotic and indigenous sites. Some of the woodlot tree growers weed out seedlings of indigenous or associate species, but others encouraged the growth of such species. In some cases fire was allowed to pass through the indigenous stands (Shorea robusta) as a weed control method, supported by Tyynela (2001). The field observation during the study also suggested that, if the above stresses or factors remain active then as the consequences the plant diversity existing in the study area might be lost.
5.1.2. TREE PRODUCTIVITY
In Sakhipur area of Tangail, the mass people were reported getting notable financial benefits within ±10 years through cultivating the fast growing exotic tree species and for this reason people were planting a lot of fast growing exotic tree species there. The trees of a single species Acacia auriculiformis occupied the major percentage of plantation in village forest and farmland in Sakhipur area, but the plantations of Eucalyptus camadulensis and Swietenia macrophylla were poor percentage there. Sakhipur area is dominated by Sal (Shorea) forest which is now under ecologically risky condition.
In case of 12 research plots, data on tree density, tree height, DBH, basal area and tree volume were collected, whereas, in case of 30 private woodlot plots basal area and tree volume were not measured because these parameters were not complementary to the research objectives. The results of this study depicted that indigenous tree plots, especially the Shorea plots, were comparatively higher in stem density, tree stem volume, basal area coverage than the exotic species plots that might be due to the natural condition C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 82 of the habitats and relatively less anthropogenic pressure. Stand productivity, i.e. tree basal area is nevertheless highly correlated with tree volume and biomass and is used as the measure of plantation productivity widely. The facts mentioned by the respondents that, plot tree coverage and productivity were decreased due to over-exploitation, branch cutting, illicit cutting of trees, poor protection, fuel wood and leaf collection, soil erosion, poor silvicultural management (tending operation), land use changes, encroachment etc.
It was observed that, the growth performance (i.e. average tree height and DBH) of ±6 years old private woodlot trees (i.e. Acacia auriculiformis Eucalyptus camaldulensis) were comparatively better than ±9 years old woodlot plots trees (i.e. Acacia auriculiformis and Eucalyptus camaldulensis) in public land. Moreover the density of trees in private woodlot plots were more than that of woodlot plots raised in public/government land (Table 4.5). It might occurred due to tending operation, soil condition, irrigation, protection, fencing, weeding, height and age of seedlings planted, pilferage of trees, etc.
Tree Density
In case of Eucalyptus camaldulensis plots, field observation showed that, illegal felling and lack of proper management resulted in the occurrence of minimum number of trees in contrast to large number of trees in Shorea plots due to natural condition of the habitats. In practical, the double plantation spacing (4 m x 4 m) was maintained in case of edible fruit yielding Mangifera trees due to which less number of tree stem occurred in Mangifera plots.
Das and Sarker (2014) reported the average tree density 374 per ha in fourteen years old Swietenia mahagoni plots and 374 per ha in ten years old Acacia plots which is less in comparison to the data provided by the present study. Combalicer et al. (2011) found the average stem density of 667 per ha in the ten years old Acacia auriculiformis plots in the Philippines which is also lower than the stem density reported by this study. In contrast, Kabir and Webb (2005) reported 2200 and 1900 stem per ha in an eight years old Acacia auriculiformis and Eucalyptus camaldulensis plots respectively, Islam (2013) reported 2366 stem per ha at seven years old Acacia plantation in Tangail, whereas, Tyynela (2001) found 887 stem per ha in Eucalyptus camaldulensis woodlots in north-eastern Zimbabwe, which is higher than the stem density measured in this study. In contrast, Jalota and Sangha (2000) found 1492 trees per ha in six year old monoculture of Eucalyptus plantations in India and Sapkota et al. (2009) found 2774 stem per ha in a Sal forest of Nepal, both of which are higher than the stem density measured in this study.
Rahman (2009) found the average tree density 1784 individuals per ha for Sal forest in Bangladesh, Kumar et al. (2006) found 887 trees per ha in Sal plantation forest in Garo Hills of India and Chaturvedi and Raghubanshi (2014) found 516 trees per ha in Sal forest C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 83 of India, none of which is in consistent to the records of this study. Das (2000) found 4700 individuals including trees and saplings per ha in Modhupur tract Sal forest; and Dutta and Devi (2013) found the average trees and saplings per ha 3848 in Sal (Shorea robusta) forest of Assam, north-east India but these findings are not truly comparable with that of this study. Field observations indicated that, number of trees per ha may vary due to illegal felling, protection level, encroachment, natural disaster (cyclone/storm), site condition, human interference and removal of undergrowth regeneration etc.
Tree Height
The tree heights recorded in this study were higher than Bhat et al. (2001)’s average 5.86 m height of trees found in five years old Acacia auriculiformis plots in southern India, Ali (2009)’s average 4.15 m height found in Acacia woodlot plots and 6.78 m height in ten years old Eucalyptus woodlot plots, Tyynela (2001)’s average 7.1 m tree height in Eucalyptus camaldulensis woodlots in north-eastern Zimbabwe, Das (2000)’s report of about 8 m average tree height in Shorea plots and Rahman (2009)’s record of 5.9 m tree height for central Sal forest of Bangladesh. Islam (2013) reported 11 m tree height at seven years old Acacia plantation in Tangail which was consistent with this study results.
The tree heights found in this study are much lower than Das and Sarker (2014)’s record of 19 m tree height in ten years old Acacia plots in Gazipur Bhawal, Das and Sarker (2014)’s report of average 24 m tree height in fourteen years old Swietenia mahagoni plots in Bhawal Sal forest, Kabir and Webb (2005)’s findings of 14.8 m and 14.4 m high trees in Acacia auriculiformis and Eucalyptus camaldulensis plots respectively in a eight years old woodlot of Dhaka Forest Division and Combalicer et al. (2011)’s findings of average 12 m height in the ten year old Acacia auriculiformis plots in the Philippines.
The higher tree height found in some tree species might be due to their vigorous growth performance, protection, site suitability and tending operation etc. In general, the growth performance among the stands might be varied depending on protection level, undergrowth vegetation status, micro-climate, tending operation, edaphic factors and age of stand.
Tree Diameter at Breast Height
The DBH values found for Acacia and Eucalyptus in the sampling plots of this study are somewhat lower than the values reported by Ali (2009), who found average 16 cm DBH in Acacia woodlot plots and 21 cm DBH in Eucalyptus woodlot plots of ten years old. But these DBH values of this study are in conformity with Combalicer et al. (2011) who found the average DBH 12 cm in the ten year old Acacia auriculiformis plots in the Philippines, Islam (2013) reported 15 cm tree DBH at seven years old Acacia plantation in Tangail and Tyynela (2001) who reported 7.5 cm DBH in Eucalyptus camaldulensis C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 84 woodlots in north-eastern Zimbabwe. The average DBH 3.19 cm for five years old Acacia auriculiformis plots reported by Bhat et al. (2001) from southern India is lower than that found in this study.
The DBH values found for Shorea in the sampling plots of this study are lower than the average DBH of about 30 cm reported by Das (2000) from older Sal stand in central Bangladesh, which might be due to lower age class tree plots of this study, but closer to that (average DBH 7.4 cm) reported by Rahman (2009) from central Sal forest of Bangladesh.
The growth performance of trees might be varied due to undergrowth vegetation, wildness, and protection level, tending operation, edaphic factors and age of stand. With an increase of the DBH the relative abundance of tree decreased in the research plots. The abundance of trees of higher diameter class increased with their wildness and protection level.
Tree Basal Area
In Bhawal Sal forest, a study completed in ten years old Acacia plots by Das and Sarker (2014) revealed average basal area of 25 m²/ha for mature tree which is slightly higher than that of the present study. In the Philippines, a study done by Combalicer et al. (2011) reported the basal area 49 m²/ha in the ten year old Acacia auriculiformis plots which is very high than the data (16±5 m²) presented by this study. Tyynela (2001) found 8 m²/ha tree basal area in Eucalyptus camaldulensis woodlots in north-eastern Zimbabwe which is nearly in consistent with the data (6±6 m²) of this study.
Rahman (2009) found the average basal area 19 m²/ha and 17 m²/ha for Modhupur and Bhawal Sal forest, respectively, Sapkota et al. (2009) reported the average basal area 19 m²/ha from Sal forest of Nepal, and Chaturvedi and Raghubanshi (2014) found the average basal area was 13 m²/ha in Sal forest of India. These values of basal area are somewhat lower than the data (23±3 m²) of this study. In contrast, Gupta and Kumar (2014) in northern Indian Sal forest found the average basal area 29 m²/ha and Kumar et al. (2006) in secondary Sal forest in Garo Hills of India found the average basal area 54 m²/ha that are remarkably higher than this study. Lower tree volume as well as basal area was found in Eucalyptus and Mangifera plots because plant density of Eucalyptus and Mangifera in these plots was decreased due to plantation strategies and human disturbances.
C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 85
Tree Stem Volume
Kabir and Webb (2005) found the tree volume of 273 m³/ha in eight years old Acacia auriculiformis plots in Dhaka Forest Division and Islam (2013) reported 275 m³/ha tree volume at seven years old Acacia plantation in Tangail that was somewhat higher to the data (263±43 m³/ha) recorded in this study. Jalota and Sangha (2000) showed the average timber productivity 201.64 m³/ha at the eighth year of Eucalyptus plantations in the northern India and Kabir and Webb (2005) reported tree volume of 275 m³/ha in case of eight years old Eucalyptus camaldulensis plots, and both of these values are remarkably higher than that (109±132 m³/ha) found in this study.
According to field observations it can be noted that, due to illegal felling and lack of proper management, minimum number of Eucalyptus trees were found to occur in the research plots of this study. Orchard type plantation strategy followed in Mangifera plot was the notable reason of less number of trees in the plots and as the result less tree stem volume per ha produced. The wood production varies due to education, awareness, soil fertility, fertilizer application, quality planting material, protection/fencing, irrigation, pruning, thinning, plantation technique and management (Kabir and Webb, 2005 and Ali, 2009). Variable tree stem volumes per ha in respect to the findings of other studies might be related to the stand age, management system and extent of anthropogenic pressure etc.
Both exotic and indigenous forest species were found similarly capable to survive in the poor or degraded site conditions and able to perform satisfactory amount of tree volume as well as tree biomass production where Shorea trees showed more stem volume followed by Acacia and others. The tree density, tree stem volume and basal area coverage in indigenous plots were found comparatively higher than exotic tree plots due to less human interference, less illegal felling and conservation management initiatives. In the exotic tree plots, the tree stem density, tree stem volume and basal area coverage decreased due to human interference, cattle grazing, illegal felling, lack of technical knowledge and inadequate care etc. and this statement is supported by Das (2008).
The results of Pearson correlation analysis between the parameters of plant species and soil physico-chemical properties in exotic and indigenous plots showed significant negative correlations between soil pH and OM and OC and significant positive correlations between OC and OM, N and OC/OM (Table 5.3). P content in the soil of the study area showed significant positive correlation with number of species, whereas negative but significant correlation for seedling density. Seedling density was also found negatively correlated with number of species. Highly significant correlation between OM and OC may be attributed due to conversion of OC to OM. K content in the soil of the C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 86
study area showed positive and significant correlation to Shannon-Wiener diversity (H’) but negatively correlated with seedling density (Table 5.3).
Table 5.3. Pearson correlation involving species number, seedling density, diversity index values, and soil properties in Sakhipur, Tangail. Parameters No. of Density H pH OM OC N P K Species No. of Species 1 Seedling Density -.860* 1 Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index .863* -.710 1 Index pH .057 .404 .215 1 OM (%) .318 -.694 .220 -.880* 1 OC (%) .296 -.676 .202 -.885* 1.000** 1 N (%) .373 -.648 .190 -.808 .950** .950** 1 P (μg/g) .944** -.882* .797 -.004 .398 .379 .435 1 K (meq/100g) .680 -.474 .827* .405 .069 .060 .102 .760 1 Pearson correlation. *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
5.1.3. SOIL PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
Soil physico-chemical properties factors play a potential role on the vegetation dynamics in village and Shorea forest ecosystems. But every physico-chemical attribute of soil do not have direct influence or effect on plant diversity or vegetation dynamics. According to the results and field observation of this study, the influence of all of the soil physical and chemical properties were not prominent on the overall phytodiversity, species richness or on the vegetation dynamics in village homestead and Sal forest ecosystem. However, increased availability of organic matter (OM) and occurrence of numerous leguminous plants might have enhanced the N status, and hence the supply of plant available nutrients in the area. The enrichment in plant available nitrogen due to monoculture tree plantations might be helpful in further soil-nutrient cycling there. The plantations have maintained the nutrient regeneration through addition of organic matters and their further decomposition. Additionally, the number of seedlings and saplings in the study areas indicated that the natural regeneration takes place moderately satisfactorily.
pH
The most important single electro-chemical preperties of soils that influence the physical, chemical and bilogical preperties is the soil pH. This important property of the soils of study area indicated that, in the distant past the study area was a vast area of Sal forest and geographically it is a part of Modhupur Pleistocene terrace. Soils of all of the sites C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 87 were found to be acidic in nature which favors Shorea forests, that are acidic soil lover (Ganggopadhyay et al., 1990; Rashid et al., 1995; Rahman, 2001). These pH values indicated that, soil pH was somewhat variable in the Sakhipur areas of Tangail and no remarkable change was found between exotic monoculture planted sites with comparison to indigenous forest sites in this study (Table 4.7).
Islam et al. (1999) showed presence of average pH value 5.30 in both Acacia and Eucalyptus plots of four years old plantation in the forest land of Chittagong, Chowdhury and Huda (2002) reported the average pH value 4.43 in Acacia plots in the forests of Bangladesh, Haque and Karmakar (2009) found the pH value 4.47 in the forest areas of Chittagong region, that are nearly consistent to the present study. Tyynela (2001) reported the average soil pH value 5.46 in Eucalyptus camaldulensis woodlots in north-east Zimbabwe, which was slightly higher than the data recorded in this study. The findings on pH values by this study are in consistent also with Rahman (2001) who found pH values from 4.41-4.96 in Sal forests of Bangladesh and Rashid et al. (1995) who showed the range of pH values from 4.47 to 5.77 in Chandra Sal forest araes. Dutta and Agrawal (2002) found the range of pH values as 6.61–6.86 in the plots of Acacia auriculiformis which is remkarkebly higher than the finding of this research. Islam et al. (2001) recorded the soil pH of woodland with exotic species as 5.08-5.27 and Roy, et al. (2011) reported the soil pH condition in natural Shorea forest in Modhupur national park as 5.30 and these range of pH values are somewhat higher but in conformity with the finding of this study results (Table 4.7).
Ganggopadhyay et al. (1990) reported the pH values in range of 5.30 to 6.70 in the Sal area of West Bengal, India. Nearly same results were reported by Sapkota et al. (2009) who found the average soil pH value 5.50 in Sal forest of Nepal and Chaturvedi and Raghubanshi (2014) who found the pH value 6.26 in Sal forest of India. These findings of pH in India and Nepal are somewhat higher than the findings of the present research.
Organic Carbon
In Acacia, Eucalyptus, Shorea and Mangifera plots, collectively in exotic monoculture and the indigenous tree plots the organic carbon were found more or less same percentage (Table 4.9). Islam et al. (1999) in the forest land of Chittagong found OC values 0.65% and 0.51% in Acacia and Eucalyptus plots respectively in four years old plantation which is comparatively less than the record of this study. Ganggopadhyay et al. (1990) reported the OC values to vary from 0.11% to 0.63% in the Sal area of West Bengal, India, Dutta and Agrawal (2002) found maximum OC value 0.60% in the plots of Acacia auriculiformis in India and Tyynela (2001) found the average soil OC value 0.47 in Eucalyptus camaldulensis woodlots in north-east Zimbabwe. All of these findings on OC values are notably lower than that recorded by this study. But Chaturvedi and C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 88
Raghubanshi (2014) found the OC value was 1.54% in Sal forest of India which is remarkably higher than the record of this study (Table 4.7). Rahman (2001) reported that, the OC values in the Sal forests area might be vary due to the removal of forest litter by the local forest dwellers, leaf collection, tree twigs removal and illegal cutting of trees/undergrowth, human settlement in this areas.
Organic Matter
According to soil testing results, in Acacia, Eucalyptus, Shorea and Mangifera plots, collectively in exotic monoculture and the indigenous tree plots the OM were found more or less same percentage in the study areas (Table 4.10). Islam et al. (2001) found that the soil OM values of woodland comprised of exotic species contained an average of 1.47% and Chowdhury and Huda (2002) reported the average OM value 1.25% in Acacia plots which is nearly consistent with the findings of the present study (Table 4.7).
Rahman (2001) found OM values between 0.70% and 1.00% in Bhawal-Rajedrapur Sal forest soils, which were comparatively less than that of this study. Rashid et al. (1995) reported that soil OM values varied from 0.32% to 1.36% in typical Sal growing areas which were similar to this study; but he also found 0.20% to 0.74% in deforested areas of Chandra Sal forest areas which was less than this study that may be due to the removal of leaf litter, biotic interference and illegal extraction of trees and undergrowth in this areas. Similar results were also observed by Haque and Karmakar (2009) in Chittagong region forest areas where he found OM value 1.35%.
Roy et al. (2011) reported the average OM value 2.02% in Shorea forest soils in Modhupur National Park, Sapkota et al. (2009) found average OM value 2.00% in Sal forest of Nepal and Rahman et al. (2012) found the OM value 2.24% in the Sal forest. These values of organic matter are apparently higher than that found during this study that might be due to less accumulation of leaf litter and less favorable environment for decomposition and protection in the study area.
Hence, the plants litter inputs are the major pathway for the return of OM to the soil, but the leaf litter and above ground twig collection from the plantation site giving very little change to add OM into the soil (Rahman, 2001). Bernhard-Reversat (1993) claimed that Acacia plantations, with their low level of plant species richness, had the highest soil OM content and litter input where nitrogen fixation by Acacia might be an important factor which is supported by this study results.
C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 89
Nitrogen
In the four types of research plots in Acacia, Eucalyptus, Shorea plots, the N values was same (0.080.01%) except Mangifera plots (0.090.01%), collectively in exotic monoculture and the indigenous tree plots it was same (Table 4.7).
Chowdhury and Huda (2002) found average N value 0.09% in Acacia plots in forests of Bangladesh which is in consistent with this study. Islam et al. (1999) reported N value 0.06% from four years old Acacia plots in Chittagong which is comparatively less than the record of this study but their report of 0.04% OM in Eucalyptus plots is half to the value of present investigation that might be due to leaf litter collection and soil organic nutrient run off. Dutta and Agrawal (2002) found N values ranges from 0.05% to 0.06% in the plots of Acacia auriculiformis which is comparatively less than the record of this study. Although Acacia auticuliformis had higher amounts of litter fall, a slow litter decomposition rate could have been responsible for the lack of significant variations in soil N values (Duguma and Tonye, 1994). Rahman (2001) found the N values ranges from 0.07% to 0.09% in the Sal forest and Ganggopadhyay et al. (1990) reported the N values ranges from 0.02% to 0.08% in the Sal forest area in West Bengal, India that are in conformity with the records of this study.
The findings of comparatively much higher soil N value 0.11% in natural degraded Sal forest in Modhupur by Roy et al. (2011), N value 0.16% in the Sal forest of India by Chaturvedi and Raghubanshi (2014) and N value 0.34% in Sal forest of Nepal by Sapkota et al. (2009) are not supported by the results of this study that might be affected by the amounts of leaf litter falls, growth of understory vegetation, mode of forest protection and conservation, and extent of climate and biological nitrogen fixation in soils.
Rahman (2001) observed that, total N value were fairly good in Modhupur Sal forest areas compared to other Sal forest areas and the degraded Sal forest possesses low value of N in comparison to other ecological habitat of Sal forests, supported by this study. In this study, the N value was found comparatively more, perhaps due to fast-growing exotic trees have extensive root systems with profuse bundles of N-fixing nodules that have allowed them to survive and grow on plantation sites, compete with weeds successfully, higher amounts of litter fall and improve the soil characteristics over time (NAS, 1980 and Cole et al., 1996).
Phosphorus
The P values (μg/g) in these four types research plots indicated that P was variable (Table 4.7). The soil physico-chemical properties analyses showed that, the soil properties of exotic and indigenous tree plots notably varied only in respect to available P. The P C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 90 values was exceptionally high (5.36 μg/g) in Mangifera plots perhaps due to different cultural practices and fertilizer application in comparison to other plots.
Islam et al. (2001) recorded the average available soil P value 0.46 μg/g in woodlands which is comparatively less than the record of this study. Chowdhury and Huda (2002) revealed the average P value was 3.80 in Acacia plots in forests of Bangladesh and Dutta and Agrawal (2002) found the average available P value 3.60 μg/g in the Acacia auriculiformis plots in India that are notably higher than the available P content found in this study.
Roy et al. (2011) reported soil P value 2.16 µg/g from natural degraded Sal forest in Modhupur which is nearly similar to the value reported by this study. Rahman (2001) reported P values the ranges from 1.96 to 34.66 µg/g in the Sal forest soils, which was very much higher than that of this research finding, though he reported that the degraded Sal forest possesses the exceptionally high value of available P in comparison to other ecological habitat of Sal forests.
Potassium
The K values (meq/100g soil) found in the studies indicated the presence of somewhat different amounts of available K values in all types of research plots and these differences also found collectively in exotic monoculture and indigenous tree plots (Table 4.7).
Status of K, the most important soil nutritional elements of Shorea forest ecosystems of Bangladesh, were studied by Rahman (2001) who reported K value ranges from 0.09 to 0.19 meq/100g in the Sal forest soil of Modhupur tract, which is in conformity with that of the present study. Ganggopadhyay et al. (1990) reported that K value ranges from 0.05 to 0.81 meq/100g in the Sal area in West Bengal, India that covers the range of K values reported by this study. Roy et al. (2011) reported K value 0.30 meq/100g in natural degraded Sal forest in Modhupur, Bangladesh which is somewhat higher than the findings of the present research.
Results of DMRT analysis of the data on soil properties of four types of research plots indicate that soil pH of the four types of plots significantly differed but no difference existed between the mean values of OC and OM (Table 5.4). Acacia and Eucalyptus plots showed significant difference with Shorea and Mangifera plots for N and P content. Only Eucalyptus plots showed significant variation to rest of the plots for K content of the soil. Based on the findings of DMRT analysis, it can be concluded that, whatever the extent is, the monoculture of exotic Acacia or Eucalyptus had significant impacts on pH, N, P and K, but no influence on OC and OM of the soil. Soils of all plots were found to be acidic in nature and this result was in the general agreement that Shorea forest occurs mainly in acidic soil, nevertheless Acacia also grows well in acidic soils. C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 91
Table 5.4. Results of DMRT analysis of the data collected on soil properties of four types of research plots in Sakhipur, Tangail. Plot type pH OC OM N P K Acacia 4.5861ab .8088a 1.3932a .0806ab 2.4494ab .2014b Eucalyptus 4.4833a .7780a 1.3402a .0772ab 2.7730b .1696a Shorea 4.6975b .7629a 1.3147a .0758a 1.9836a .2203b Mangifera 4.9517c .8593a 1.4800a .0859c 5.3587c .2144b Note: Values in the same column that do not share common letters are significantly different at 5% (α = 0.05) level among the plots after DMRT.
It is evident that, influence of soil physico-chemical attributes on the overall fluctuation of phytodiversity and vegetation dynamics was not prominent. In general, Shorea prefers acidic soil with pH ranges from 4.57 to 4.81. The organic matter values were found to be poor in the Shorea forests of Bangladesh which may be due to uninterrupted leaf litter collection and consequent soil erosion of the exposed forest floor. Values of total nitrogen (N) and available potassium (K) were more or less uniform both in Shorea forest sites as well as in other habitats of the study area. However, considering all the major physical and chemical attributes, the soils of Sakhipur areas were found to be the most suitable for sustainable growth and development of Shorea and exotic tree species, especially Acacia and their plantations and these findings were supported by Das (2008).
In the study area, clear felling, fuel wood collection, leaf litter collection, grazing, firing and making pathways for the walking by the local people etc. were recognized as soil degrading factors. It was further noticed that, due to geographical location and easy encroachment, the diversity of undergrowth resources in Shorea forests as well as their soil nutritional potentialities are being degraded through different activities, creating severe consequences in Shorea forest ecosystem and these observation are mostly supported by Rahman (2001). On the other hand, adverse biochemical changes of soil owing to lack of available decomposition mechanisms, especially lack of degradable falling leaves and other plant parts due to clearing by leaf litter collectors, accumulation of thick, leathery and phyllodic leaves of this exotic tree species, and erosion of denuded soil, seems to hamper the recycling of soil organic matter, while the dense foliage of the tree species, like in Mangifera and many Acacia and Eucalyptus plots, seems to play a negative role on the growth and development of the undergrowth species by restricting the light penetration to the soil surface.
C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 92
5.2. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF MONOCULTURE OF EXOTIC TREE SPECIES
Tree plantation both at public and private sector had got momentum in the last two decades which helps in improving the socio-economic condition of the rural people by generating employment, especially in nurseries, plantation programs and timber business. Regular plantation of Acacia auriculiformis and sporadic plantations of Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Swietenia macrophylla species were found to establish on the homesteads and village croplands in Sakhipur, Tangail.
Most of the respondent (tree growers) opined that, the abandoned or unused land of the homesteads, where water logging exists for long time and which is not so fertile, are used for fast growing exotic tree plantation as it is not so harmful and they are growing well with wide adaptive capacity. Moreover, agricultural land (farm land) is used for woodlot plantation as it is less troublesome than agricultural crops production. Among all other exotic species available in Bangladesh, Acacia auriculiformis were found highly adaptable and fast growing tree species to withstand even in the degraded site conditions and in a wide range of soils under different conditions (NAS, 1980; Akkasaeng et al., 1989; Duguma and Tonye, 1994; Kamara and Maghembe, 1994). Acacia, Eucalyptus and Swietenia proved successful for afforestation, reforestation and agroforestry programs in Bangladesh but in Sakhipur, Tangail areas community people mostly received Acacia and provided evidence of success plantation.
Exotic tree species exert pressure on the environment, and consequently directly or indirectly may affect the economy at micro and macro levels that need to be studied through detail investigation. In many situations, the decisions to use exotic tree species in plantation programs have been based firstly on the potential economical benefits and secondly on the short-term returns generated by these species, without considering whether the massive plantation of these tree species create long-term outcomes or environmental sustainability. Poorer communities that do not understand the complexity of using exotic species rather used to see short-term economic benefits as the success. They do not understand if the exotic tree species monoculture disrupts natural ecosystem as well as biodiversity and reduces growth and output in the long run, then their long-term economic impact may suffer. Considering these facts, the socio-economic impacts of monoculture of exotic tree species in Sakhipur area were assessed to know how monoculture plantation of exotic tree species are affecting the local economy and every- day life of the local people.
Household benefits and perceptions on positive and negative impacts of introducing exotic tree species were assessed during the study through questionnaire survey. The most common benefit that was conveyed by tree grower households was income and C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 93 employment and the most common perceived family benefit. Hence, it can be implied that there is an expectation in the community that investments in forestry production (woodlot block plantation) will encourage development in the way of better health care, education, household infrastructure improvement and insurance etc. and this statement is supported by the study of Tschirley and Benfica (2001). Hence, the households conveyed a strong willingness to participate in monoculture plantation of exotic tree species (plantation forestry) on their own land as well as in public land.
The homestead or village forests as well as woodlots were supplying most of the national demands for timber, fuel, fruits and biomass. The public and private owned forests cover in turn was depleting rapidly to meet the crying need of ever increasing population of Bangladesh. The country had limited public and private forest resources (about 14%) that were managed through traditional systems by the BFD and local people. Timber and other forest products in village forest were usually supplied more than 80% of the total production of the country.
5.2.1. INFORMATION OF THE TREE GROWERS
During the questionnaire survey, the tree growers were asked relevant questions regarding the introduction of plantation programs of monoculture woodlots with exotic species and in the study area and their impacts on their economic benefits and livelihoods. The questions they were asked were formulated to gain an understanding of the livelihood strategies of rural residents. The demographic feature of the surveyed tree growers’ households is represented in Table 4.9. A total of 30 respondent tree growers were interviewed who are engaged in exotic woodlot plantation practices in their own land. The study results showed that, most of the respondent tree growers didn’t exceed higher secondary levels and 83% of their lands were used for agricultural purposes as well as tree plantation, and only 17% for the dwelling house and homestead uses (Table 4.8 and 4.9).
The farmers keep their lands under cultivation all of the year with different kinds of crops. The rural households view trees as a ready source of income. Trees in the homestead or in woodlot in general and fruit trees in particular have a considerable share in the family income. The farmers have taken up the idea of planting tree in their cropland as an alternative resource for their household and/or livelihoods security. However, once the woodlot plantation established in the cropland, the farmers start harvesting the trees after 10 years to get the considerable economic benefit (separate income sources). In most cases, all of the farming activities are manual, undertaken with the help of family members and hired labor. Rural livelihood strategies are typically heavily reliant on C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 94 agriculture as well as natural resources (Scoones, 1998) and for the households in this study this statement was certainly found to be true.
It was very difficult to get information about the income of people in rural areas as they are mostly involved in small to medium scale business, daily labor, fish culture, and civil servant and other activities beside their main involvements in agriculture and they are very reluctant to answer such questions. These scenarios derived from the questionnaire survey indicated that, the living standard and income of most of the tree growers in the study area were below the mark.
As the consequences, they were in search for alternative ways for improving their livelihood and most of the farmers expected that the concept of plantation might be way to complement their family income greatly and in short time if they go forward to fast growing exotic tree production and selling the timber to the market. Many of them will construct new houses and manufactured household furniture through selling trees in the coming days. Tree selling will not only meet their cash requirement but also for education, marriage, treatment, festivals and even land purchase. The farmers thought that, who have trees at a harvestable age, perceive trees as their social insurance and bank balance as well. Selling trees became the most common strategy for the tree grower farmer to cope up the difficulties of their existing livelihood. Whenever they felt need cash for health treatment, dowry, festivals, repairing or construction of new houses, trees will be sold accordingly. Keeping in mind woodlot plantation forests have been established as even-aged monoculture crops of trees with the primary purpose of wood production (Evans, 1996).
5.2.2. CHARACTERISTICS AND FACTORS OF WOODLOT PLANTATION OF EXOTIC TREE SPECIES
As a part of this study, the factors influencing farmer’s decisions, species selection, mind- set about tree planting and benefits, and environmental aspect were analyzed. In this relation, socio-economic impact assessment was done to determine the factors that influenced the farmers in exotic tree planting decisions. The questionnaire survey conducted under this study revealed that, seedlings were not available in the BFD nurseries and most of the seedlings were collected from local market and private nurseries. All the farmers were used to plant ±1.33 m height seedlings and even more height seedlings in the monoculture woodlots or block plantations which were one year old and even more because they preferred to plant larger seedlings to get the benefit of nursing cost and protection from small cattle’s or goats (Table 4.10).
Most of the farmer opined that, they preferred to plant fast growing exotic timber tree species for future woodlot or block plantation as it gives immediate return with easy cultivation. Seedlings/saplings were planted by their own initiatives along with BFD and C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 95
NGOs (especially Proshika) promotional activities and technical support. The decision on spacing for plantations depends upon many variables such as management objectives, site condition and choice of species which is also reported by the study of Rahman (1995).
Sometimes, plantation might be failed due to lack of care, protection, pest attack and natural calamities. Proper maintenance of woodlot plantation such as fencing, weeding, cleaning, fertilizing, watering is required after planting of seedlings. Damage by the cattle cannot be avoided without continued fencing or physical presence at the plantation site.
The tree growers principal objective of the woodlot establishment was to grow short rotation trees that will meet the demand of fuel, timber and access to more income but attitudes of tree growers toward tree farming issues may differ based on their objectives. The very few number of woodlot with Eucalyptus and Swietenia species were found in Sakhipur upazila of Tangail district, Bangladesh. Hence, the major percentage of woodland owners prefer fast growing exotic timber species especially Acacia as it was delivering economic return with in very short span of time (±10 years).
The study results revealed that, monoculture of exotic woodlots contribute remarkable household income than indigenous slow growing tree species, but slowly affecting existing local environment as well as ecosystem. In the monoculture woodlot, the wood production and economic return varies across land holding size, tending or cultural operation, education and technical know-how. It was observed that, artificial forest or plantation forest production in their own land depends significantly on species choice, land use pattern, topography, tending operation and the education level of tree grower etc. But the woodlot forestry development through exotic tree species may create more pressure on existing natural resources and ecosystems as well as indigenous Sal forests.
Ideally village forests in Bangladesh comprised of a mixture of fruit, timber, medicinal and bamboo species but in Sakhipur, Tangail expansion of exotic species plantation either monoculture woodlot or other form is increasing day by day than mix species cultivation, though which in future may reduce phytodiversity in this region. Woodlot as well as agroforestry plantations in Bangladesh provide year round subsistence livelihood opportunities usually being fulfilled by forest products and NTFPs. It also provides a ground through which other livelihood objectives, such as gender equality through access to resources, income and employment, and sustainable use of resources, may be achieved.
The major factors influencing the peoples towards exotic tree species plantation were: (i) increase in tree planting with the amount of land owned; (ii) farmers whose main source of income was non-agricultural were more likely to decide to plant trees in the homestead and farmland; (iii) purchase cost of fuel wood and scarcity of fuel wood; (iv) number of family member; and (v) knowledge of forestry extension activities. The survey data showed that, 63% tree grower had received training on social forestry as C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 96 well as tree farming techniques and management in the study area, which is also reported by Das (2008). GOs and NGOs initiatives were found to improve the tree productivity through providing quality planting materials (seedlings/saplings) and technical support to the tree growers/farmers. Besides, a huge number of training was delivered to community people to raise tree nursery and improve tree cultivation techniques.
The findings of this study suggested that, diversification of plantation forests and extension of education amongst land owners would improve forest production, ecosystem as well as socio-economic development. Hocking et al. (1997) suggested that cultivation of trees on village forest in crowded countries like Bangladesh can be intensified and diversified but the dense planting, the yield is not optimized. Therefore, it is time to supplement the farmers' indigenous knowledge of silviculture with scientific knowledge.
5.2.3. EXPENDITURE FOR WOODLOT PLANTATION OF EXOTIC TREE SPECIES
The questionnaire survey revealed that, most of the expenditure was used for seedlings purchase and labor/watcher hiring followed by staking, fencing, manuring and transport cost (Table 4.11). In Bangladesh, the afforestation activities attempt to promote the income generation as well as employment opportunities as a social benefit to disadvantaged sections of the society and to create a self reliant system to cater to a community’s basic needs which is also mentioned by Shiva et al. (1981). Seedling production, planting, tending and harvesting of trees generated earning opportunities among the local communities in the study area. Many participants in social forestry programs and tree growers are self employed, to a varying extent (Shiva et al. 1981). Nevertheless, the seedling production and transportation in the beginning stages of the plantations offers a lot of employment opportunities in the study areas.
5.2.4. BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS ON WOODLOTS OF EXOTIC TREE SPECIES
The majority of households thought that, the greatest benefits of forestry to their families and the community are the creation of employment and income, both directly and indirectly. However, the generation of employment and income might create positive cultural and social impacts (Forestal Oriental, 2006). Profitability of the woodlot plantation was found to be changing. Possible reasons identified for changing profitability of the woodlot plantation include species selection, negligence in plantation care and maintenance and illegal felling. The results of this study indicated that, there was a variation in between the poor and rich tree growers in ranking the reasons and perceptions. Woodlot plantation could be managed as a profitable enterprise if the above C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 97 variables were controlled and directed in a positive way, handle with care and then this program can be considered as financially successful.
The Acacia, Eucalyptus and Swietenia plot trees sale valuation were calculated considering about ten (±10) year rotation, number of tree exist in the plot, thinning, growth performance of the trees. In this connection, the future valuation of 20 Acacia, 8 Eucalyptus and 2 Swietenia woodlot plots were carried out and species-wise average values of woodlot plot were calculated per hectare accordingly. Each woodlot growers were expecting to sale their timbers produced per hectare by 1951869±943607 BDT where the net profit would be 1806726±897146 BDT per hectare (Table 4.14). Muhammed et al. (2005) in his studies in Tangail Forest Division found the net sale value 193054 BDT per ha where the cost was 76025 BDT considering ten years old trees in Acacia woodlot, which is much less than that of the present study. A survey in India by Jalota and Sangha (2000) found that, six year old monoculture of Eucalyptus plantations is expected to sale 2411407 BDT per ha, which was higher than the results of present study. Survey showed that, most of the tree growers might be able to earn handsome cash through fast growing exotic tree production investing minimum cost which is in conformity with the statement of Ali (2009) and Ahmed et al. (2007). Different studies (e.g. Ahmed et al., 2007; Safa, 2004; Muhammed et al., 2008) have indicated that agroforestry is financially more viable than woodlot management. Safa (2004) reported that, the revenue/benefit from tree selling might be useful for education, marriage, treatment, festivals, construct houses, furniture making, land purchase and livelihoods activities etc.
Net Present Value, Internal Rate of Return and Benefit Cost Ratio
This study examined the costs and benefits of fast growing exotic woodlot plantation. The financial analysis carried out in this study indicates that, the monoculture of selected exotic tree species might provide a consistent return to the tree growers. The benefit cost analysis for one hectare (average made from 30 woodlots) monoculture exotic woodlot tree plantations showed that, NPV was 84,074 BDT, BCR 1.15 and the IRR 15% on ten year rotation that are positive and comparatively higher (Appendix 12, 13). It means the woodlots plantation project is a financially viable option in the study area.
Yunus (2014) reported that, the NPV, BCR and IRR were 14170 BDT, 1.49 and 21% respectively at seven years old ‘Sissoo’ (Dalbergia sissoo DC.) plantation in Mymensingh. His average result based on the studies in other areas of Bangladesh, showed that the NPV, BCR and IRR were 63033 BDT, 1.90 and 25%, respectively at eight years old ‘Sissoo’ plantation, where the NPV was lower, but BCR and IRR were comparatively higher than the results of this study. Islam (2013) studying six years old Acacia plantation in Tangail reported the NPV, BCR and IRR as 14,801 BDT, 1.28 and C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 98
17%, respectively, which indicated that the NPV record of that study was lower, but BCR and IRR were consistent with this study.
In a study conducted by Goswami (1976), the BCR and IRR of exotic tree plots were found to be 2.90 and 20% respectively at ten years rotation which is consistent with this study. In the report of Trivedi (1986), the IRR was found to be 22% at 10 year rotation and 20% at 20 year rotation of exotic trees that were higher than the records of this study. Terwari (1994) found BCR and IRR as 5.07 and 18%, respectively, at 10% discount rate that were higher than the records of this study, but the recorded IRR is consistent with this study.
Sensitivity Analysis
The sensitivity analysis based on the results derived from NPV, BCR and IRR showed that, 10% potential risk of damages of the final crops (where the BCR and NPV might be 1.04 and 20994 BDT respectively) could be managed by the tree growers but the crop damage more than that level would be the loss project for them (Table 4.13). If there is no risk of final crop harvesting, the base case scenario in 12% lending interest rate might be with BCR 1.15 and NPV 84074 BDT, profitable in plantation business. If the trend of less interest rate on lending continues in future, it will generate more BCR and NPV, which indicate better profit as well (Table 4.12).
The maintenance cost of woodlot plantation is assumed low by the tree growers family in term of their expected benefits from the plantation. The BCR, NPV and IRR results depicted that the investments for monoculture woodlot with exotic species were feasible. The results indicated that, the woodlot tree plantations are profitable than usual agribusiness (i.e. paddy rice production) in the study area. Based on the assumptions made, establishing woodlot plantation seems to be profitable investment due to which woodlot plantation in Sakhipur upazila of Tangail district of Bangladesh is increasing day by day.
The woodlots grown in private land possessed high survival rate, excellent growth and required very low expenditure in forming the plantation. It is to be noted that, the age of the Swietenia plot trees was higher than that of Acacia and Eucalyptus plots, so the tree height and DBH were found comparatively higher, though Swietenia is a slow growing species. Therefore, effective development and management of village woodlot forest with mixture of fast growing exotic and indigenous species, i.e., mixed plantation can be considered as a good option for sustainable development and poverty reduction, supported by Kibria and Anik (2010).
Apparently, the findings of questionnaire survey showed that, the tree productivity or woodlot of exotic tree species provides more cash benefits than that of indigenous tree C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 99 species. Though the tree productivity or woodlot of indigenous tree species provides less cash benefits than that of exotic tree species plots, but in the long run it is beneficial considering the negative impacts of exotic tree plantation. In addition to cash benefits by wood/timber production, the indigenous tree plantation offer other benefits, such as through supporting NTFPs of different medicinal and other economically important undergrowth species, fruits, higher number of wildlife with species diversity, carbon storage, phytodiversity along with rare and endangered species and healthy ecosystem (intangible benefit).
The tree growers also emphasized on the importance of fuel wood and their main interest was to get immediate return from the plantation. During the survey, it was observed that the aged or older persons were not interested to form plantations of exotic species like Acacia and Eucalyptus, rather they were interested to plant indigenous species, e.g., Sal (Shorea robusta), Jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus), Mangifera (Mangifera indica), Jam (Syzygium spp.), Neem (Azadirachta indica), Chalta (Dillenia indica) etc. In contrary, field survey revealed that, Acacia auriculiformis was the most popular species by the local people, followed by Eucalyptus camaldulensis and Swietenia macrophylla. In the survey, it was found that the two most frequently cited reasons why local people preferred Acacia auriculiformis over Eucalyptus camaldulensis and Swietenia macrophylla for their woodlot plantation were firstly that Acacia was the only tree species that produced small-dimension timber suitable for furniture making and secondly that they felt Acacia produced fuelwood of high fuel value. Kabir and Webb (2005) mentioned that, the Acacia timber grain direction and texture is similar with Teak (Tectona grandis) timber and often wood carpenter fraud the customer through replacing the Acacia timber in the furniture by the name of Teak.
The tree growers as well as farmers found the job as agricultural labors only during peak agricultural crop seasons and remain jobless for the rest several months of the year. Woodlot production in their fields can save them from poverty in such a way that it will provide them some supporting and intermediate returns before harvesting of trees. Within a short time (i.e. after about two or three years) after plantation the farmers usually get twigs, branches and grows crops and other vegetables as intermediate products. Therefore, though food production was the basic need of the respondents, it was also profitable for them to grow fast growing exotic species woodlots in their agricultural lands.
The survey in the saw mill and furniture making shop revealed that, Acacia timber was more valuable due to its grain direction and finishing like Teak (Tectona grandis) timber. Therefore, the value and market demand of Acacia was more than that of Eucalyptus. Nevertheless, wood productions of Acacia plots were always faster than any other fast growing exotic tree species grown in the tract of Sakhipur. It was noted that, the tree C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 100 growers in the study area favored the planting of exotic tree species because of wide adaptability of the species (grows wells/fast growing both in dry and moist lands). Nevertheless, the other reasons were the non-palatable, excellent timber and fuel wood productivity, ornamental and less shade casting characteristics of the plant.
It is quite apparent that, the whole social forestry program in Sal forest is far from ground level reality of social and economic entrepreneurship and lacks long term planning wisdom for poverty alleviation and ecosystem management, and this statement is supported by the assessment done by Proshika (1998). Although the exotic tree species are sufficient for short-term use, but the long-term ecological and economic impacts are often over looked. Most of the tree growers (respondents) reported and realized that, the exotic tree species (i.e., Acacia, Eucalyptus) must have some negative impacts of shading on other smaller or shorter plants and they will compete for water and nutrients as it is a fast growing species. But on the other hand they said that, the growth performance of exotics, especially Acacia, was satisfactory and widely accepted by community peoples in Sakhipur areas of Tangail district. Besides, the tree growers believed that, monoculture of exotic tree species was not feasible for environment and biodiversity but they are eager to create monoculture plantations of exotic tree species as it is giving more profit within short time. According to field survey, observations and results analysis, it can be concluded that the fast growing exotic tree species woodlot has direct and short term positive financial impacts on the local economy and socio-economic development (livelihoods) of the beneficiaries as well as in local community level, but not at the environmental or ecological perspective.
5.2.5. IMPACTS OF WOODLOTS OF EXOTIC TREE SPECIES ON TIMBER MARKET AND LOCAL EMPLOYMENT
The results of this study showed that, exotic tree monoculture (especially Acacia woodlot) in Sakhipur areas has promising prospects of economical benefits for the tree growers, community people as well as market actors. Tree growers usually sale their produced standing trees at the gate of their farms instead of secondary markets or saw mill gates to avoid felling and carrying cost and harass by the middlemen in some cases, though they get comparatively lower prices than that at secondary markets or saw mill gates. This study depicted that, few thousands of people were enagaged with tree nurseries, tree felling/harvesting, wood and furniture transportation/carrying, timber sawing, furniture making and wood/timber business and marketing. These sort of business market and supply chains, directly accelerated the local economy in Sakhipur, which is exceptional example in Bangladesh. In contrary, the establishment of wood based small industries, furniture shops and traditional brick-burning kilns in the close vicinity of forests, established through political influence and power exercise, were creating pressure on forest resources in Sakhipur, Tangail. C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 101
According to the respondents, the market demanded major tree species were Akasmoni (Acacia auriculiformis), Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), Gamar (Gmelina arborea), Mehagony (Swietenia macrophylla), Jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus), Teak (Tectona grandis), Sal/Gojari (Shorea robusta), Neem (Azadirachta indica), Koroi (Albizia spp.) and Mango (Mangifera indica). During the survey, most of the tree growers opined that, there were high demands of timber and fuel wood species in the local and national level market including that of the capital city Dhaka. The remaining tree growers opined that, there were medium demands of timber and fuel wood. Though the tree growers (respondents) were apparently unaware about any good quality of indigenous tree species in relation to biodiversity conservation but they could recognize the exotic trees as economically viable species due to their fast growing characteristics and increasing market demand, especially for timber for furniture making.
Economy of the bi-products and access to market of minor forest products were not explored. Economic benefit that occurs geometrically with the maturity of the Shorea trees is on the way but exploration of the accessible markets for trees and tree products is yet to be done. ESRU (1992) reported that, Shorea poles and sawn timbers are used in house building, piling as it is heavy hardwood and these poles have an unlimited market demand across the country especially in the capital city Dhaka. But its only one problem is that, it is relatively very slow growing species in respect to Acacia or Eucalyptus.
The NGOs have added a new dimension to forest management, which has ensured community participation and protection of the forests (Safa, 2006). They are actively supporting people in afforestation activities, mainly by supporting social forestry programs, nursery developments and tree plantation campaign, environmental awareness building, etc. But it was found during the survey that, the role of the NGOs in protecting natural forest and forest related activities were not enough and satisfactory. Field survey and observation were found to be useful in gathering information about social variables by interviewing local inhabitants, businessman, forest officials, NGO activists, and politicians.
5.2.6 PERCEPTION OF THE TREE GROWERS ON WOODLOT PLANTATION DERIVED LOSSES AND BENEFITS
The results of questionnaire survey conducted under this study showed that, in respect to participating farmers and from socio-economic aspects, 93% respondents had showed their positive attitude for exotic tree species grown up in the field and the rest 7% showed negative attitude. Most of the tree growers did not bother for the adverse effect of exotic trees, as they believed that the profit from the plant was more than the loss (Figure 4.8). This finding did not support Islam (2006), who examined the ongoing social forestry C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 102 programs by BFD in the central part of Bangladesh and found that such programs are not well accepted by most of the local people.
During this study, both the positive socio-economic impacts and negative environmental (ecological) impacts of the monoculture plantation with exotic tree species were found. The following problems of the exotic species of Acacia and Eucalyptus were recorded in the field through direct observation and interview with the villagers and tree growers during the questionnaire survey: o Trees of these exotic species absorb more groundwater that no other tree could grow under them; o Growth of crops is very slow under these exotic trees; o Tree of these species had a low number of twigs and leaves; o The leaves of these species are thick and leathery and usually do not be decomposed after falling on the ground; o These exotic trees allow minimum collection of fuel wood but the natural Sal forests allow more fuel wood; o No or very few bird was appeared in the plantation area of these species; o Bush or shrub formation was not allowed in plantation area of these species; o Bees were not attracted to these exotic trees so that harvesting of honey was impossible; o The quality harvest of pineapple, an important crop of the region, requires mulching with tree leaves. But leaves of exotic trees are not good anyway for mulching; o These fast growing exotic trees require chemical fertilizers and/or pesticides for tending.
However, during the survey most of the farmers were found enthusiastic to raise monoculture plantations of exotic tree species even in their agricultural lands. The most important aspect was that, monoculture plantation, mixed plantation or agroforestry practices whatever they are offered, in each case the ultimate goal or demand was the quick return from the plantation with low investment. Though people were practicing all of these but they have some extra eagerness in woodlot plantations as well as agroforestry. The existing tree growers were expecting that, most of the farmers might go for woodlot block plantation in practice in the near future leaving regular agricultural practices. Local peoples were also interested on fast growing exotic timber species as it to meet their immediate demand within a short period. From the discussion above it can be said that, monoculture of exotic trees has a promising prospect in Sakhipur area as well as other adjacent areas. Tree growers opined that, they were interested in preferring the fast growing tree species, especially Acacia for future woodlot block plantation due to its wide range of adaptive capacity and excellent timber and fuel wood productivity, C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 103 supported by NAS (1980), Akkasaeng et al. (1989), Duguma and Tonye (1994), Kamara and Maghembe (1994), Rahman (2003), Kabir and
Webb (2005) and Das (2008). But there has been a complete loss of native tree species in many areas in the world due to monoculture planting of fast growing exotic species like Eucalyptus (Zhang and Fu, 2009).
Information obtained from the villagers revealed that, the woodlot plantation activities were imposed by BFD on the local people and BFD did not bother to explain the objectives and necessity of woodlot to them. Local peoples complained that, in the name of increasing the tree coverage in central part of Bangladesh, BFD destroyed valuable natural Sal (Shorea) forests to raise the woodlot forestry. It was reported that, after illegal felling of Shorea trees, and even uprooting and burning the coppice of Shorea trees, the BFD employees distributed different sizes of plots to the villagers for cultivation after clearing undergrowth bushes, the fact supported by Gain (1998).
On the other hand, the respondents and local people mentioned that, it was not meaningful to replace Shorea trees by any other species because Shorea trees need minimum tending and new trees (Sal coppice) grow up naturally from the felled Shorea plant with some other ecological services. Besides, the timber and NTFPs of Sal forest had a number of utilities and positive impact to society livelihoods and ecosystem. Hence, as the results of massive afforestation in Sal forest areas, especially with fast growing exotic tree species, the most obvious and potentially devastating impacts will be habitat fragmentation and land use changes. On the other hand, the move of the majority of the farmers from agricultural practices into woodlot forestry (block plantations) might creates shortage of agricultural land resulting remarkably less production of staple foods which is also not supported by the LULUCF strategy of UNFCCC.
It is evident that BFD clear out natural forests to make room for this social forestry programs that eventually cause deforestation (Islam, 2006). Inappropriate implementation of the plantation programs, like woodlot or agroforestry projects of Acacia tree species, or the national park and eco-park projects involving the exotic tree species without consulting the local stakeholders and conducting any compatibility assessment, mislead the authorities to act against the sustenance of the natural forests (Islam, 2006). One would now be shocked seeing that, even significant parts of indigenous Sal (Shorea robusta) forests are now cleared in many areas to prepare grounds for man-made plantation forests, mainly the woodlot in Modhupur Tracts of Bangladesh. Large areas of natural Shorea forests and adjoining areas have been cleared to plant mainly Acacia spp. trees. The forest officials seem to like to undertake the responsibility to implement such type of project as they could easily gain money by selling valuable Acacia timber in ten years, while satisfying both the government and the donor agencies as to show their C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 104 performance of the 'social forestry' program, supported by Gain (1998). But in Australia itself, where the exotic trees species of Eucalyptus and Acacia were originated, there is a campaign for planting Neem (Azadirachta indica) trees of South Asian/Indian varieties!
Monoculture of exotic woodlots provide shelter for less number of wildlife than indigenous tree plots/stands that might be due to the absence of bush, undergrowth, creepers, fruits, insects and human interferences, supported by Elmarsdottir et al. (2008) and Proshika (2000). The highest number of respondents stated that, over-exploitation of resources and weak law and order enforcement were the major reasons for decreasing wildlife in Sal forests. In addition, setting of cluster village or encroachment in the forest areas defragmented the habitats and disturbed wildlife, as mentioned by the local resident. During the data collection in the exotic woodlots, only a few numbers of local resident birds e.g. common myna (Acridotheres tristis), oriental magpie-robin (Copsychus saularis), jungle babbler (Turdoides striata), black drongo (Dicrurus macrocercus) and three striped palm squirrel (Funambulus palmarum), reptiles, insects were observed.
Accordingly most of the respondents opined that, wildlife of the study area has been changed due to exotic tree plantation activities, whereas a few of them disagreed with the opinion. Most of the tree growers opined that, exotic monoculture tree plantations have been found to be poor habitat for native birds due to absence of fruits and insects. Bird species that mostly feed on fruits and nectar, and those that nest in holes of tree trunk or are insectivorous were almost absent in exotic monoculture plantation sites. Old, dead and moribund trees that support bird life and many insects were completely absent in exotic tree plots/stands. Thus, the findings of this study suggested for emphasizing the mixed plantation programs with both indigenous and exotic species to favor biodiversity conservation and demand of the local people. Beyond this, to promote ecological and economic stability at community level, community based natural resource management in the Sal forest, would be the most viable option which is supported by the study of Adhikari et al. (2004). In the study of Elmarsdottir et al. (2008) it is indicated that, species richness can be affected by forest management (stand density and thinning regime), choice of tree species and also afforestation strongly affects species composition in all aspects. Due to continuous monoculture of exotic tree species in an area, some species might be disappeared from the forest floor, others invasive species may colonize the new habitats and ultimately the biogeography of the area might be changed adversely in the long run. Therefore, it is very important to adopt effective and realistic strategies in forest management planning for conservation of biodiversity.
Village homestead forests and Shorea forests are important from both national economic and environmental perspectives. The scientific, productive and intensive sustainable management systems and strategies can save the valuable flora as well as biodiversity of study area. At the same time homestead forest and woodlot block plantations should be C HAPTER - V D ISCUSSION S P a g e 105 managed in such a way so that, the phytodiversity is well maintained. Forest Managers should aim at managing Shorea forests simultaneously for multiple products and ecological sustainability as well as for the socio-economic benefits of poor forest- dependent people living in and around the forest area. Managing forests at private and public level should be with such aims that it will earn money, save the land from encroachment, ensure a scope of employment and income generation, and be a model of sustainable land management practice in Bangladesh (Alam et al., 2008). Under the circumstances of high density population pressure, poverty and scarcity of land resources in Bangladesh, it is essential that any available land will have to be intensively utilized through sustainable development while maintaining an ecological balance. C HAPTER - V I C ONCLUSIONS AND R ECO MMENDATIONS P a g e 106
CHAPTER-VI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1. CONCLUSIONS
This study has assessed the ecological and socio-economic impacts of the monoculture of exotic species Acacia auriculiformis and Eucalyptus camaldulensis in comparison to the plantation of indigenous species Shorea robusta and Mangifera indica in 12 research plots in ‘Sal’ forest area and 30 private woodlot plots including two Swietenia macrophylla plots in the private lands of Sakhipur area of Tangail district. The results of this comparative study gives an insight into the ecological and socio-economic impacts of monoculture of exotic tree species with following conclusions:
1) The undergrowth flora of the whole study area composed of a total of 182 species under 150 genera and 56 families seems rich. But the indigenous tree plots, especially the Shorea plots, harbor higher number of species than the exotic tree plots in all seasons and the number of uncommon species is relatively higher in indigenous tree plots than that in exotic tree plots facing similar extent of ecological and anthropogenic stresses.
2) The undergrowth plant density is highest in Mangifera plots if all undergrowth plants species are considered, whereas, it is highest in Acacia plots when only the seedling and sapling of tree species are considered. The species with highest value of relative density, relative frequency and relative abundance are found to be different in indigenous and exotic tree plots and in comparision to all undergrowth species versus the undergrowth tree seedlings and saplings only.
3) Undergrowth species diversity, stem density, tree stem volume, and basal area coverage are higher in indigenous tree plots than in exotic tree plots. But tree height and DBH of Acacia auriculiformis plots was highest in the area. Gross timber production in Acacia- and Shorea plots or Eucalyptus- and Mangifera plots are not significantly different.
4) The influence of soil physical and chemical properties on the overall phytodiversity and species richness of the study area is not prominent, though pH, N, P and K of the soil of Acacia-, Eucalyptus-, Shorea- and Mangifera plots were significantly different. Findings of these results concluded that, the monoculture of exotic Acacia and Eucalyptus might have significant impacts on pH, N, P and K of the soil of the study area, but they do not have any influence on OC and OM.
5) The growth performance of ±6 years old trees of Acacia auriculiformis and Eucalyptus camaldulensis were comparatively better in private woodlot plots than C HAPTER - V I C ONCLUSIONS AND R ECO MMENDATIONS P a g e 107
±9 year’s old trees of these species in public woodlot plots. The density of trees in private woodlot plots were higher than that of public woodlot plots.
6) 93% of the respondent tree grower prefer to grow exotic tree species in their lands and argued that the profit from these trees is more important than the environmental losses. Only 7% of the tree grower are aware about the adverse impacts of growing the exotic tree species and show negative attitude for growing these species in their lands.
7) Business with tree plantation is found to be more profitable than that on usual agricultural production. Acacia auriculiformis contributes in earning better household income through producing small-dimension timber suitable for making furniture and fuelwood and is preferred over Eucalyptus camaldulensis and Swietenia macrophylla for woodlot plantation.
8) Local peoples including 7% of the tree growers opined that, the exotic tree species absorbs more ground water than indigenous tree species, no other tree could grow under them, wildlife resource is adversely changed and depleted due to the monoculture of exotic tree species and it is not meaningful to replace Shorea trees by any exotic species.
9) Woodlot production of fast growing exotic tree species has short term financial impacts on the local economy and socio-economic development. But monoculture of exotic tree species fails to ensure the sustainability of biodiversity and healthy ecosystem, and therefore, be discouraged for massive afforestation programs.
C HAPTER - V I C ONCLUSIONS AND R ECO MMENDATIONS P a g e 108
6.2. RECOMMENDATIONS
Studies on fast growing indigenous tree species should be conducted to find out the efffective alternative of woodlot production through exotic tree plantation in order to conserve the plant species diversity and to contribute in socio-economic development. Besides, alternative sources of income, especially through increasing the scope of agribusiness, implementation of different rural development projects, vocational employment or establishment of small industries etc., should be introduced or increased to skip the need of exotic tree plantation.
Considering the increasing demand of the growing population and interest of the tree growers, the monoculture of exotic tree species can be considered in abandoned, unused, degraded, fallow, less fertile or specified lands or for limited and site specific plantation only until the introduction of the fast growing indigenous tree species and confirmation of alternative sources of income. Besides, experiments on new modeling of plantation programs should be conducted to reduce the plant diversity loss.
Government strategies and policies on the introduction and plantation of exotic species for timber and fuel wood production need to be revised based on ecological and socio-economic insights. Besides, the forest staffs should be properly trained up for improving their ethical values and understanding on the need of ecosystem maintenance in natural condition and biodiversity conservation.
Experiments on mixed tree cropping for timber production with short rotation of agroforestry products, such as nuts, fruits, honey, herbs, firewood should be conducted.
Adequate awareness building programmes to increase the understanding of the vulnerability of the environment, climate change adapataion/mitigation, the importance of indigenous ‘Sal’ forest conservation, management and maintenance of the village/homestead forest biodiversity should be implemented for the sake of future generation.
REFERENCES P a g e 110
REFERENCES
ADB. 1992. Forest Institutions, Forestry Master Plan, ADB (TA No. 1355-Ban), UNDP/FAO project BGD/88/025. 162-191. Adhikari, B., Di Falco, S., Lovett, J.C. 2004. Household Characteristics and Forest Dependency: Evidence from Common Property Forest Management in Nepal. Ecological Economics. 48(2):245-257. Ahmed, I.J.1996. Studies on the undergrowths of monoculture plantation of Acacia auriculiformis A. Cunn. Ex. Benth. in Bangladesh: Savar and it’s adjoining areas. M.Sc. Thesis. Department of Botany, Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka. Ahmed, R., Uddin, M.B. and Alam, M. 2007. Participatory Agroforestry Production Model in Degraded Deciduous Forest: A Sustainable Landuse Experience from Bangladesh. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology. Ahmed, Z.U., Hassan, M.A., Begum, Z.N.T., Khondker, M., Kabir, S.M.H., Ahmad, M., Ahmed, A.T.A., Rahman, A.K.A. and Haque, E.U. (Eds.). 2008-2009. Encyclopedia of Flora and Fauna of Bangladesh. Vols. 6-10, 12. Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Dhaka. Akkasaeng, R., Gutteridge, R.C., Wanapat, M. 1989. Evaluation of trees and shrubs for forage and fuelwood in Northeast Thailand. The International Tree Crops Journal. 5: 209–220. Akter, A. and Zuberi, M.I. 2009. Invasive alien species in Northern Bangladesh: Identification, inventory and impacts. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation. 1(5):129-134. Akter, S., Rahman, M.S. and Al-Amin, M. 2013. Chittagong University Campus: Rich in Forest Growing Stock of Valuable Timber Tree Species in Bangladesh. Journal of Forest Science. 29(2):157-164. Alam, M., Furukawa, Y., Sarker, S.K. and Ahmed, R. 2008. Sustainability of Sal (Shorea robusta) forest in Bangladesh: past, present, and future actions, International Forestry Review. 10:29-37. Alam, M.K. 1995. Diversity in the Woody Flora of Sal Forests of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Forest Science. 24:41-52. Alam, M.S., Hassan, M.A. and Uddin, M.Z. 2006. A Preliminary Checklist of the angiospermic flora of Ghagotia union under Kapasiaupazila in Gazipur district, Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. Plant Taxon. 13(2):155-170. Al-Amin, M., Alamgir, M. and Patwary, M.R.A. 2004. Composition and status of undergrowth of a deforested area in Bangladesh. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences. 3(5):651-654. Ali, Q.L. 2009. Socio-economic impact and lesson learned from the management of social forestry programme implemented by government and nongovernment organizations in Bangladesh. PhD Thesis. Department of Botany, Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka, Bangladesh. REFERENCES P a g e 111
Ali, S.I. and Qaiser, M. 2001-2008. Flora of Pakistan (Fascicles series), Department of Botany, University of Karachi, Pakistan. Ameen, M. 1999. Development of guiding principles for the prevention of impact of alien species. Paper presented at a preparatory workshop for the 4th meeting of SBSTTA to CBD, organized by IUCN Bangladesh, Dhaka. Amin, S.M.R., Ali, M.O. and Fattah, M.I.M. (Eds.). 1995. Eucalypts in Bangladesh. Proceedings of a seminar held at the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council, Dhaka on April 6, 1994. 73. Ara, S., Gafur. M.A. and Islam, K.R. 1989. Growth and biomass production performance of Acacia auriculiformis and Eucalyptus camaldulensis reforested in the denuded hilly lands. Bangladesh J. Bot. 18(2):187-195. Arefin, M.K., Rahman, M.M., Uddin, M.Z. and Hassan, M.A. 2011. Angiosperm Flora of Satchari National Park, Habiganj, Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. Plant Taxon. 18(2):117-140. Barua, S.P., Khan, M.M.H. and Reza, A.H.M.A. 2001. The status of alien invasive species in Bangladesh and their impact on the ecosystems. IUCN, Bangladesh. BBS. 2012. Community Report, Tangail Zila, Population and Housing Census-2011, Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Statistics and Informatics Division, Ministry of Planning. Bernhard-Reversat, F. 1993. Dynamics of litter and organic matter at the soil-litter interface in fast-growing tree plantations on sandy ferralitic soils (Congo). Acta Oecologia. 14:179-195. Bernhard-Reversat, F. and Loumeto, J. J. 2002. The litter system in African forest-tree plantations. In: V. M. Reddy (Ed.), Management of Tropical Plantation-forests and Their Soil-litter System, Science Publishers Inc., Enfield, New Hampshire, U.S.A., 11-39. Bernhard-Reversat, F. and Schwartz, D. 1997. Change in lignin content during litter decomposition in tropical forests soils (Congo): Comparison of exotic plantations and native stands, C.R Acad. Sci. Paris. Sci. Terre et Planet es. 325:427-432. Bhagwat, S.A., Nogué, S. and Willis, K.J. 2012. Resilience of an ancient tropical forest landscape to 7500 years of environmental change. Biological Conservation. 153:108-117. Bhat, D.M., Murali, K.S. and Ravindranath, N.H. 2001. Formation and recovery of secondary forests in India: a particular reference to Western Ghats in southern India. Journal of Tropical Forest Sciences. 13(4):601-20. Bisong, F. E. 1993. Farming systems, Human Ecology and Natural Resources conservation in the Cross River State, FDD/CRSFP, caliber. 15-85. Biswas, S.R., Choudhury, J.K., Nishat, A., Rahman, M.M. 2007. Do invasive plants threaten the Sundarbans mangrove forest of Bangladesh? Forest Ecology and Management. 245:1-9. Biswas, S.R., Khan, M.S.I., Mallik, A.U. 2012. Invaders’ control on post-disturbance succession in coastal mangroves. Journal of Plant Ecology. 5:157-166. Braun-Blanquet, J. 1932. Plant Sociology. New York. REFERENCES P a g e 112
Braun-Blanquet, J. 1964. Pflanzensoziologie. Grundzüge der Vegetationskunde. 3. Aufl. Berlin, Wien, New York: Springer Verlag. 865. Bray, R.H. and Kurtz, L.T. 1945. Determination of total, organic, and available forms of phosphorus in soils. Soil Science. 59:39-45. Bristow, M., Vanclay, J.K., Brooks, L. and Hunt, M. 2006. Growth and species interactions of Eucalyptus pellita in a mixed and monoculture plantation in the humid tropics of north Queensland. Forest Ecology and Management. 233:285- 294. Buyinza, J., Agaba, H., Ongodia, G., Eryau, K., Sekatuba, J., Kalanzi, F., Kwaga, P., Mudondo, S. and Nansereko, S. 2015. On-farm Conservation and Use Values of Indigenous Trees Species in Uganda. Res. J. Agriculture and Forestry Sci. 3(3):19- 25. Cain, S.A. 1938. The species-area curve. American Midland Naturalist. 19:573-581. Campbell, S. 2005. A global perspective on forest invasive species: the problem, causes, and consequences. In: McKenzie, P., Brown, C., Jianghua, S. and Jian, W. (Eds.), The Unwelcome Guests-Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Forest Invasive Species Conference. FAO-RAP, Bangkok. 9-10. Carman, N., Langelle, O., Perry, A., Petermann, A., Smith, J.D. and Tokar, B. 2006. Ecological and social impacts of fast growing timber plantations and genetically engineered trees. Dogwood Alliance, Ashville, NC, USA.1-12. Chaturvedi, R.K. and Raghubanshi, A.S. 2014. Assessment of carbon density and accumulation in mono- and multi-specific stands in Teak and Sal forests of a tropical dry region in India. Forest Ecology and Management. 339:11-21. Chowdhury, M.A.M. and Huda, M.K. 2002. Quantitative dynamics and phytodiversity of undergrowth in forests of Bangladesh. Journal of the National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka. 31(1&2):215-229. Chowdhury, R.A. 1982. Afforestation of denuded hills of Chittagong and Chittagong Hill Tracts. Proceedings of Second Bangladesh National Conference on Forestry, Dhaka.1-5. Cole, T.G., R.S. Yost, R. Kablan and T. Olsen. 1996. Growth potential of twelve Acacia species on acid soils in Hawaii. Forest Ecol. Manag. 80:175-186. Combalicer, M.S., Lee, D.K., Woo, S.Y., Park, P.S. and Lee, K.W. 2011. Above ground biomass and productivity of nitrogen-fixing tree species in the Philippines. Scientific Research and Essays. 6(27):5820-5836. Cossalter, C. and Pye-Smith, C. 2003. Fast-wood forestry: myths & realities. CIFOR, Indonesia. 1-60. D’Antonio, C.M., Levine, J.M. and Thomson, M. 2001. Ecosystem resistance to invasion and the role of propagule supply: a California perspective. Journal Mediterranean Ecology. 27:233-245. Das, M.K. 2000. Natural Sal forest protection by villagers’ groups in Central Bangladesh. Grassroots Voice: A Journal of Indigenous Knowledge & Development. 3(3):119- 121. Das, M.K. 2008. Proshika: Marginalized peoples’ participation in Bangladesh. International Journal of Social Forestry. 1(2):184-193. REFERENCES P a g e 113
Das, N. and Sarker, S.K. 2014. Tree species diversity and productivity relationship in the central region of Bangladesh. Journal of Forests. 1(3):47-56. Das, S. 1982. The forest management practice in Bangladesh. Proceedings of Second Bangladesh National Conference on Forestry, Dhaka. 6-18. Davidson, J. 1995. Ecological aspects of Eucalyptus plantations. Proceedings of the Regional Expert Consultation on Eucalyptus, 4-8 October, 1993, vol. 1, RAPA publication: 1995/6. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, 35- 72. Davidson, J. and Das, S. 1985. Eucalypts in Bangladesh-A review. Bangladesh Forest Research Institute, Chittagong, Bangladesh. 246. DeBell, D.S., Whitesell, C.D. and Schubert, T.H. 1985. Mixed Plantations of Eucalyptus and Leguminous Trees Enhance Biomass Production. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Research Paper PSW- 175. Dogra, K.S., Sood, S.K., Dobha, P.K. and Sharma, S. 2010. Alien plant invasive and their impact on indigenous species at a global scale: a review. J. Ecol. Nat. Environ. 2(9):175-186. Dreschel, P., Glaser, B. and Zech, W. 1991. Effect of four multipurpose tree fallow in central Togo. Agrofor.System. 16:193-202. Duarte, N.F., Bucek-Uber, E., Karam, D., Sa, N., Scotti, M.R.M. 2006. Mixed field plantation of native and exotic species in semi-arid Brazil. Aust. J. Bot. 54:755- 764. Duguma, B. and Tonye, J. 1994. Screening of multiple purpose tree and shrub species for agroforestry in the humid lowlands of Cameroon. Forest Ecology and Management 64: 135-143. Dutta, G. and Devi, A. 2013. Plant diversity and community structure in tropical moist deciduous Sal (Shorea robusta Gaertn.) forest of Assam, northeast India. Journal of Environmental and Applied Bioresearch. 1-6. Dutta, R.K. and Agrawal. 2002. Effect of tree plantations on the soil characteristics and microbial activity of coal mine spoil land. Department of Botany, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221005, India. Tropical Ecology. 43(2):315-324. Elahi, K.M. 2006. Social forestry, exotic trees and monga, Department of Environmental Science, Stamford University Bangladesh, Dhaka. El-Khawas, S.A. and Shehata, M.M. 2005. The Allelopathic Potentialities of Acacia nilotica and Eucalyptus rostrata on Monocot (Zea mays L.) and Dicot (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Plants. Biotechnology. 4(1):23–34. Elmarsdottir, A., Fjellberg, A., Halldorsson G., Ingimarsdottir, M., Nielsen, O.K., Ny- gaard, P., Oddsdottir, E.S. and Sigurdsson, B.D. 2008. The effects of afforestation on biodiversity. In: Halldorsson, G., Oddsdottir, E.S.and Sigurdsson, B.D. (Eds.) AFFOR-NORD–Effects of Afforestation on Ecosystems, Landscape and Rural Development. TemaNord. 562:37-47. Erskine, P.D., Lamb, D. and Bristow, M. 2005. Reforestation in the Tropics and Subtropics of Australia using Rainforest Tree Species. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra. REFERENCES P a g e 114
Erskine, P.D., Lamb, D. and Bristow, M. 2006. Tree species diversity and ecosystem function: can tropical multi-species plantations generate greater productivity? Forest Ecology and Management. 233:205-210. ESRU. 1992. Sal forest products utilization by rural communities (Memo). Dhaka: Environmental Survey and Research Unit, Geography Department, University of Dhaka. Evans, J. 1992. Plantation Forestry in Tropics, 2nd ed., Clarendon press, Oxford. 403. Evans, J. 1996. The sustainability of wood production from plantations: evidence over three successive rotations in the Usutu Forest, Swaziland. Commonwealth For. Rev. 75(3):234-239. Evans, J. and Turnbull, J.W. 2004. Plantation Forestry in the Tropics. Role of Silviculture, and Use of Planted Forests for Industrial, Social, Environmental and Agroforestry Purposes. Clarenden Press, Oxford, UK. FAO. 2000a. Forest Resources of Bangladesh-Country Report, Rome, Italy. FAO. 2000b. Global Forest Resources Assessment, Rome, Italy. FAO/UNDP. 1981. Tropical Forest resources assessment project, Rome, Italy. Felton, A., Nilsson, U., Sonesson, J., Felton, A.M. and Roberge, J. 2016. Replacing monocultures with mixed-species stands: Ecosystem service implications of two production forest alternatives in Sweden. Ambio. 45(2):124-139. Flora of North America Editorial Committee (Eds.).1993-2014. Flora of North America North of Mexico.Vols.1-28. New York and Oxford. Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2004. Flora of North America (on line). Vols.1-27. Oxford University Press. Forestal Oriental. 2006. Environmental impact assessment: Aspectoseconómicos y sociales. Forestal Oriental, Uruguay. Forrester, D.I., Bauhus, H. and Cowie, A.L. 2005. On the success and failure of mixed species tree plantations: lessons learned from a model system of Eucalyptus globulus and Acacia mearnsii. Forest Ecology and Management. 209:147-155. Forrester, D.I., Bauhus, J., Cowie, A.L. and Vanclay, J.K., 2006. Mixed-species plantations of eucalyptus with nitrogen-fixing trees: a review. Forest Ecology and Management. 233:211–230. Friends of the Earth. 2000. Tree Trouble. “Global Warming and Monoculture Plantations: A Double Menace to Bangladesh” under a compilation of testimonies on the ‘Negative Impact of Large-scale Monoculture Tree Plantations’ prepared for the sixth Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC. Gain, P. 1998. The last forest of Bangladesh. Society for Environment and Human Development (SEHD), Dhanmondi, Dhaka, Bangladesh. 1-174. Ganggopadhyay, S.K., Nath, S., Dash, P.K., and Banerjee, S.K. 1990. Distribution of organic matter in coppice Sal (Shorea robusta) in relation to soil chemical attributes. Indian Forester. 116(5):407-417. Ghani, A. 1998. Medicinal plants of Bangladesh: Chemical constituents and uses. Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Dhaka. 1-460. Gittinger, J.P. 1974. Economic analysis of agricultural projects. The Jhons Hoskins University press Baltimore and London. 98. REFERENCES P a g e 115
Goswami, K. V. 1976. Cost benefits analysis of afforestation in deep ravines of Gujrat. Indian Agriculture Economic. 31(1):48-55. Green, K.M. 1981. Preliminary Observations on the Ecology and Behavior of the Capped Langur, Presbytis pileatus, in the Madhupur Forest of Bangladesh. International Journal of Primatology. 2:131-151. Guerrero, P.C. and Bustamante, R.O. 2007. Can native tree species regenerate in Pinus radiata plantations in Chile? Evidence from field and laboratory experiments. Forest Ecology and Management. 253: 97-102. Gupta, S.R. and Kumar, R. 2014. Vegetation composition and plant biodiversity in forest ecosystems of Siwaliks in northern Haryana. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences. 4(2): 76-88. Haque, N. 2007. Depletion of Tropical Forests with Particular Reference to Bangladesh. Retrieved February 10, 2009, from http://www.eb2000.org/short_note_10.htm Haque, S.M.S and Karmakar, N.C. 2009. Organic matter accumulation in hill forests of Chittagong region, Bangladesh. Journal of Forestry Research. 20(3):249-253. Hartley, M.J. 2002. Rationale and methods for conserving biodiversity in plantation forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 155: 81-95. Hedl, R. 2009. A new technique for inventory of permanent plots in tropical forests: a case study from lowland dipterocarp forest in Kuala Belalong, Brunei Darussalam. Institute of Botany, Czech Academy of Sciences. Heywood, V.H., Brummitt, R.K., Culham, A. and Seberg, O. 2007. Flowering plants families of the world. Firefly Books, Richmond Hill, Ontario. 424. Hocking, D. 1987. Technical document no.3 Village and Farm Forestry in Bangladesh, Swiss Development Cooperation, Dhaka. Hocking, D., Hocking, A. and Ray, I. 1997. Trees in Bangladesh paddy fields and homesteads: the future of forestry in crowded countries, Commonwealth Forestry Review. 76(4):255-260. Hooker, J.D. 1872-1897. The Flora of British India, Vols. 1-7. L. Reeve & Co. Ltd., Kent, England. Indian reprint 1973.Bishen Sin gh Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehra Dun, India. Hoque, A.K.M.F. 1977. Soil erosion in teak plantations. Proceedings of First Bangladesh National Conference on Forestry, Dhaka. 80-83. Hossain, M.K. 2003. Growth Performance and Critics of Exotics in the Plantation Forestry of Bangladesh. Institute of Forestry and Environmental Sciences, Chittagong University, Chittagong-4331, Bangladesh. Hossain, M.K. and Pasha, M.K. 2001. Alien Invasive Plants in Bangladesh and their Impacts on the Ecosystem. In: Assessment and Management of Alien Species that Threatened Ecosystem, Habitats and Species. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD Technical Paper No. 21, Montreal, Canada, 73-75. Hossain, M.K., Hossain, M.S. and Muhammad, N. 1998. A comparative study of undergrowth of Eucalyptus camaldulensis and some other plantation in Sal forest areas of Bangladesh. Indian J. For. 21(2):93-96. Hossain, M.K., Islam, Q.N., Islam, S.A., Tarafdar, M.A., Zashimuddin, M. and Ahmed, M. 1989. Assistance to the Second Agricultural Research Project, Bangladesh. REFERENCES P a g e 116
Status Report on the Activities of the Silvicultural Research Division, BFRI, FAO, Chittagong. 20. Hossain, M.K., Islam, S.A., Zashimuddin, M., Tarafdar, M.A. and Islam, Q.N. 1997. Growth and biomass production of some Acacia and Eucalyptus species in degenerated Sal forest areas of Bangladesh. The Indian For. 123(3):211-217. Hossain, M.K., M.S. Hossain and N. Muhammad. 1998b. A comparative study of undergrowth of Eucalyptus camaldulensis and some other plantation in Sal forest areas of Bangladesh. Indian J. For. 21(2):93-96. Hossain, M.K., Sarker, S. and Kamaluddin, M. 1996b. Initial growth performance of Eucalyptus species and provenances at Chittagong University Campus. Chittagong Univ. Stud., part II, Science. 20(1):129-131. Hossain, M.K., Zashimuddin, M., Islam, S.A., Tarafdar, M.A. and Islam, Q.N., 1994. Growth and yield of coppice crops of three Eucalyptus species in the Sal forests of Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. For. Sci. 23(2):61-66. Hossain, M.Z., Saha, M.L., Aziz, C.B. and Hoque, S. 2010. Effects of deforestation on the properties of soil of Sal forests in Bangladesh. The Dhaka Univ. J. Biol. Sci. 19:63‐72. Hough, J. 1990. Michiru Mountain conservation Area: Integrating conservation with human needs. In: West, P.C. and Steven, R.B. (Eds.), Resident people and Natural parks: Social Delimmas and strategies in international conservation, University of Amazons press. 130-137. Hughes, C.E. 1994. Risks of species introductions in tropical forestry. Comm. For. Rev. 73(4):243-252. Hulme, P.E. 2003. Biological invasions: winning the science battles but losing conservation war? Oryx. 37(2):178-193. Huq, A.M. 1986. Plant Names of Bangladesh. Bangladesh National Herbarium, BARC, Dhaka, Bangladesh.1-289. Hyland, B.P.M. 1972. A technique for collecting botanical specimens in rain forest. Flora Malesiana Bulletin. 26:2038-2040. IPNI. 2008. The International Plant Names Index.
Islam, M.M., Amin, A.S.R. and Sarker, S.K. 2003. Bangladesh Country Report. In: Pallewatta, N., Reaser, J.K., Gutierrez, A.T. (Eds.), Invasive Alien Species in South-Southeast Asia: National Reports & Directory of Resources. The Global Invasive Species Programme, Cape Town, South Africa.7-20. Islam, S.S. 1998. Community forestry in Bangladesh- A case study of Betagi-Pomra community forestry model. Thai J. Forest. 17:139-146. Islam, S.S., Islam, M.S., Hossain, M.A.T. and Alam, Z. 2013. Optimal Rotation Interval of Akashmoni (Acacia auriculiformis) Plantations in Bangladesh. Kasetsart J. (Soc. Sci) 34:181-190. Islam, S.T. 2006. Resource assessment of deciduous forests in Bangladesh, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses. dur. ac. uk/ 3889/ Ismail, M. and Miah, M.M. 1973. Studies on some deciduous Sal forests of Bangladesh. In: Ismail, M. (Ed.), Ecology of Bangladesh Vegetation 2. Botanical Survey of Bangladesh, Department of Botany, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh.165-187. Jackson, M.L., Lee, S.Y., Brown, J.L., Sachs, I.B. and Syers, J.K. 1973. Scanning electron microscopy of hydrous metal oxide crusts intercalated in naturally weathered micaceous vermiculite. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 37:127-131. Jactel, H. and Brockerhoff, E.G. 2007. Tree diversity reduces herbivory by forest insects. Ecology Letters. 10:835-848. Jagger, P. and Pender, J. 2003. The role of trees for sustainable management of less- favored lands: the case of Eucalyptus in Ethiopia. Forest Policy and Economics. 5(1):83-95. Jain, S.K. and Rao, R.R. 1977. A Handbook of Field and Herbarium Methods. Today & Tomorrow’s Printers and Publishers, New Delhi. 157. Jalota, R.K. and Sangha, K.K. 2000. Comparative ecological-economic analysis of growth performance of exotic Eucalyptus tereticornis and indigenous Dalbergia sissoo in monoculture plantations. In Ecological Economics. 33:487–495. Jentsch, A. and Beierkuhnlein, C. 2003. Global climate change and local disturbance regimes as interacting drivers for shifting altitudinal vegetation patterns in high mountains. Erdkunde. 57:218-233. Kabir, D.S. and Ahmed, A.Z. 2005. Wildlife Biodiversity in Bhawal National Park: Management Techniques and Drawbacks of Wildlife Management and Nature Conservation. Our Nature. 3:83-90. Kabir, M.E and Webb, E.L. 2005. Productivity and suitability analysis of social forestry woodlot species in Dhaka Forest Division, Bangladesh. Forest Ecology and Management. 212:243-252. Kaiser, J. 1999. Stemming the tide of invasive species. Science. 285(5435):1836-1841. Kamara C.S. and Maghembe J.A. 1994. Performance of multipurpose tree and shrub species 28 months after planting at Chalimbana, Zambia. Forest Ecology and Management. 64:145-151. Kelty, M.J. 2006. The role of species mixtures in plantation forestry. Forest Ecology and Management. 233:195-204. REFERENCES P a g e 118
Khan, M.A.S.A., Uddin, M.B., Uddin, M.S., Chowdhury, M.S.H. and Mukul, S.A. 2007. Distribution and status of forests in the tropics: Bangladesh perspective. Proceedings of the Pakistan Academy of Sciences. 44:145-153. Khan, M.S. (Ed.). 1972-1987. Flora of Bangladesh, Fascicles. 1-39. Bangladesh National Herbarium, Dhaka. Khan, M.S. 1990. Towards sustainable development: Genetic Resources in Bangladesh. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. World Conservation Union. National Conserve. Strat. Bangladesh Agril. Res. Council, Dhaka. Khan, M.S. and Halim, M. 1987. Aquatic Angiosperm of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council. Kibria, M.G. and Anik, S.I. 2010. Homestead Plant Species Diversity and Its Contribution to the Household Economy: a Case Study from Northern Part of Bangladesh. Journal of Forest Science. 26(1):9-15. Kil, H-JI., Shim, K.C. and Lee, H.J. 2004. Assessing ecological risk of invasive alien plants in South Korea. Weed Technology. 18:1490-1492. Kotiluoto, R. and Makandi, H.A. 2004. Impact of tree planting on plant species diversity in Unguja, Zanzibar. Report for Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Government of Finland. Kumar, A., Marcot, B.G. and Saxena, A. 2006. Tree species diversity and distribution patterns in tropical forests of Garo Hills in India. Current Science. 91(10):1370- 1381. Kumari, V. and Biswas, S. 2003. Forest Biodiversity Conservation Study of Indian Himalayan Eco-sensitive Sites. XII World Forestry Congress, Quebec City, Canada. Lambert, M.C., Ung, C.H. and Raulier, F. 2005. Canadian national tree above ground biomass equations. Can. J. For. Res. 35:1996-2018. Latif, M.A., Khan, S.A. and Kamaluddin, M. 1985. Prospects of Acacia mangium for afforestation in Bangladesh. Pakistan J. For. 35(1):7-12. Lemma, B., Kleja, D., Olsson, M. and Nilsson, I. 2007. Factors controlling soil organic carbon sequestration under exotic tree plantations: A case study using the CO₂ Fix model in southwestern Ethiopia. Forest Ecology and Management. 252(1-3):124- 131. Lu, L. and Olson, M. 2001. Moringaceae. In: Z-Y Wu and P Raven (Eds.), Flora of China, Volume 8: Brassicaceae through Saxifragaceae. Missouri Botanical Garden Press, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. Magurran, A.E. 1988. Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement. Croom Helm, London. Malaker, J.C., Rahman, M.M., Prodhan, A.K.M.A.D., Malaker, S.K. and Khan, M.A.H. 2010. Floristic composition of Madhupur Sal forest in Bangladesh. Department of Crop Botany, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh-2202, Bangladesh. Mia, M.M.K. and Rahman, M. 1990. Preliminary ethnomedicinal studies at Sandwip island of Bangladesh. In: Ghani, A. (Ed.), Traditional Medicine. Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka. 104-108. REFERENCES P a g e 119
Mol, P.W. and Wiersum, K.F. 1990. Communal management of forests in South and Southeast Asia (Wageningen: Agricultural University, Department of Forestry). Montagnini, F., Cusack, D., Petit, B., Kanninen, M. 2005. Environmental services of native tree plantations and agroforestry systems in Central America. J. Sustainable For. 21(1):51–67. Motiur, M.R. 2006. Management and economics of homestead forests in Bangladesh. PhD thesis submitted to United Graduate School of Agricultural Sciences, Ehime University, Matsuyama, Japan. Mueller-Dombois D. and Ellenberg, H. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Muhammed, N. and Koike, M. 2005. Can Social Forestry Effectively Contribute to Poverty Alleviation in Rural Bangladesh? A Case Study. In: K. Naito (Ed.), The Role of Forests for Coming Generations- Philosophy and Technology for Forest Resource Management, Japan Society of Forest Planning Press, Tokyo. 107-118. Muhammed, N., Koike, M., Haque, F. and Miah, M.D. 2008. Quantitative assessment of people-oriented forestry in Bangladesh: A case study in the Tangail forest division. Journal of Environmental Management. 88(1):81-92. Mukul, S.A., Uddin, M.B. and Tito, M.R. 2006. Study on the status and various uses of invasive alien species in and around Satchari National Park, Sylhet, Bangladesh. Tiger Paper. 33(4):28-32. Murphy, J. and Riley, J.P. 1962. A modified single solution method for determination of phosphates in natural waters. Anal. Chim. Acta. 27:31-36. NAS. 1980. Firewood Crops - Shrubs and Tree Species for Energy Production, National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC, USA. Nasir, E. and Ali, S.I. (Eds.). 1980-2005. Flora of Pakistan. Vols. 1-209. University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan. Newaz, M.S. and Millat-E-Mustafa, M. 2004. Growth and yield prediction models for Acacia mangium grown in the plantations of the central region of Bangladesh. New Forests. 27:81-88. NFA/FAO. 2005-2007. National Forest and Tree Resources Assessment, Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF), Bangladesh and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. 61. Nishat, A., Huq, S.M.I., Barua, S.P. Reza, A.H.M.A. and Khan, A.S.M. 2002. Bio- ecological Zones of Bangladesh. The World Conservation Union (IUCN), Dhaka, Bangladesh. 25, 54-55. NWRD/CEGIS. 2015. National Water Resources Database /Center for Environment and Geographic Information Services. CEGIS is a public trust under the Ministry of Water Resources, Dhaka-1212, Bangladesh. Parrotta, J.A. and Turnbull, J.W. (Eds.). 1997. Catalyzing native forest regeneration on degraded tropical lands. Forest Ecology and Management (Special Issue). 99(1- 2):290. Pasha, M.K. and Uddin, S.B. 2013. Dictionary of Plant Names of Bangladesh (Vascular Plants). Janokalyan Prokashani. Chittagong, Dhaka, Bangladesh.1-434. REFERENCES P a g e 120
Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R. and Morrison, D. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics. 52(3):273-288. Piotto, D., Craven, D., Montagnini, F. and Alice, F. 2010. Silvicultural and economic aspects of pure and mixed native tree species plantations on degraded pasture-lands in humid Costa Rica. New Forests. 39:369–385. Poore, M.E.D. and Fries, C. 1985. The ecological effect of Eucalyptus. FAO Forestry paper 59, Rome. 87. Prain, D. 1903. Bengal Plants, Vol. 1 & 2, Calcutta, West Bengal. Press, J.R., Shrestha, K.K. and Sutton, D.A. 2000. Annotated checklist of the flowering plants of Nepal. The Natural History Museum, London, UK. Proshika, 2000. Institute for development policy analysis and advocacy (IDPAA), Social forestry in Modhupur Garh: Problems and prospects. Proshika. 1998. Discourse. A journal of Institute of Development Policy Advocacy and Analysis (IDPAA), Dhaka, 2(2):69-70. Rahman, L.M. 1995. Silvicultural aspects of tree spacing. Term Paper, M.Sc. in Environmental Forestry, School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor, UK (Unpublished). Rahman, L.M. 2003. The homegardens of Bangladesh: trends and implications for research. Presented to XII World Forestry Congress, 2003, Canada. Rahman, M.A. and Uddin, S.B. 1997. Assessment of plant diversity of Sitakunda in Chittagong. Bangladesh J. Pl. Taxon. 1(1):17-36. Rahman, M.H., Bahauddin, M., Khan, M.A.S.A., Islam, M.J. and Uddin, M.B. 2012. Assessment of soil physical properties under plantation and deforested sites in a biodiversity conservation area of north-eastern Bangladesh. International Journal of Environmental Sciences. 3(3):1079-1088. Rahman, M.M. 2001. Ecology, phytodiversity and nutrient status of “Sal” (Shorea robusta Gaertn.) forests in Bangladesh. Jahangirnagar University, Department of Botany, Dhaka, Bangladesh.1-193. Rahman, M.M. 2009. Plant diversity and anthropogenic disturbances in the Sal (Shorea robusta Gaertn.) forests of Bangladesh. PhD Thesis, Institute of Silviculture, Department of Forest and Soil Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria. 7-30. Rahman, M.M., Rahman, M.M., Guogang, Z. and Islam.K.S. 2010. A review of the present threats to tropical moist deciduous Sal (Shorea robusta) forest ecosystem of central Bangladesh; Education and Research Center for Subtropical Field Science, Faculty of Agriculture, B 200 Monobe, Kochi University, Nankoku, Kochi, Japan. 783-850. Rahman, M.O. and Hassan M.A. 1995. Angiospermic flora of Bhawal National Park, Gazipur (Bangladesh). Bangladesh J. Pl. Taxon. 2(1&2):47-79. Rahman, M.O., Antara, R.T., Begum, M. and Hassan, M.A. 2012. Floristic diversity of Dhamrai upazila of Dhaka with emphasis on medicinal plants. Bangladesh J. Bot. 41(1):71–85. REFERENCES P a g e 121
Raintree, J.B. 1987. ‘Agroforesty, Tropical land use and Tenure’ Proceedings of an international workshop on Tenure issues in Agroforesty ICRAF, Nairobi, 35-77. Randall, J.M. 1996. Weed control for the preservation of biological diversity. Weed Technology. 10(2):370-383. Randall, J.M., Morse, L.E., Benton, N., Hiebert, R., Lu, H. and Killeffer, T. 2008. The invasive species assessment protocol: a tool for creating regional and national lists of invasive nonnative plants that negatively impact biodiversity. Invasive Plant Science and Management. 1:36–49. Rashid, S.H, Rahman, M.M. and Hossain, A.B.M.E. 1995. An inventory of the undergrowth resources in Chandra Sal Forest at Gazipur, Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. of Life Sciences. 7(1&2):111-118. Rashid, S.H. and Mia, M.M.K. 2001. Angiospermic flora of Madhupur National Park, Tangail, Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. Plant Taxon. 8(2):63-82. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical geography. Claredon, Oxford. Richards, B.N. and Hassan, M.M. 1988. A coordinated forest soils research programme for Bangladesh. Working Paper No.4, Second Agricultural Research Project (Forestry Sector), UNDP/FAO Project BGD/83/010. Ridenour, W.M. and Callaway, R.M. 2001. The relative importance of allelopathy in interference: the effects of an invasive weed on a native bunchgrass. Oecologia. 126(3):444-450. Romm, J. 1989. Forestry for development: some lessons from Asia. The Journal of World Forest Resource Management. 4(1):37-46. Rosoman, G. 1994. An ecoforestry review of the environmental effects of exotic monoculture tree plantations in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Roy, B., Rahman, M. H. and Fardusi, M. J. 2011. Impact of banana based agroforestry on degraded Sal forest (Shorea robusta C.F. Gaertn.) of Bangladesh: a Study from Madhupur National Park. JBES. 2(1):62-72. Safa, M.S. 2004. The effect of participatory forest management on the livelihood and poverty of settlers in a rehabilitation program of degraded forest in Bangladesh. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy. 3(2):223-238. Safa, M.S. 2006. The role of NGOs in improving social forestry practice: Do they promote livelihood, sustainability and optimal land use in Bangladesh? Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy. 5:207–229. Sapkota, I.P., Tigabu, M. and Odén, P.C. 2009. Species diversity and regeneration of old- growth seasonally dry Shorea robusta forests following gap formation in Nepal. J. For. Res. 20(1):7-14. Scoones, I. 1998. ‘Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis’. IDS Working Paper. No.72. Brighton: IDS. Shannon, C.F. and Wiener, W. 1963. The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Shiva, V., Sharatchandra, H.C. and Bandyopadhyay, J. 1981. Social economic and ecological impact of social forestry in Kolar. Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, India. REFERENCES P a g e 122
Shukla, S.R. and Chandal S.P. 1980. Plant ecology. (4th Edn). S. Chandel and Co. Ramnagar, New Delhi. 197. Siddiqui, K.U., Islam, M.A., Ahmed, Z.U., Begum, Z.N.T., Hassan, M.A., Khondker, M., Rahman, M.M., Kabir, S.M.H., Ahmed, A.T.A., Rahman, A.K.A. and Haque, E.U. (Eds.). 2007-2008. Encyclopedia of Flora and Fauna of Bangladesh. Vols. 5&11. Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Simberloff, D. 2005. Non-native species do threaten the natural environment! Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics. 18:595-607. Sist, P. and Saridan, A. 1999. Stand structure and floristic composition of a primary lowland dipterocarp forest in East Kalimantan. "Journal of Tropical Forest Science. 11(4):704-22. Stinson, K.A., Campbell, S.A., Powell, J.R., Wolfe, B.E., Callaway, R.M., Thelen, G.C., Hallett, S.G., Prati, D. and Klironomos, J.N. 2006. Invasive plant suppresses the growth of native tree seedlings by disrupting below ground mutualisms. PLOS Biology. 4:727-731. Sultana, S., Uddin, S.N., Khan, S.A. and Rahim, M.A. 2013. A taxonomic study on the flora of Jahangirnagar university campus. Bangladesh J. Pl. Taxon. Tewari, D. N. 1994. A monograph on dalbergia sissoo roxb. International Book Distributors, Dehra Dun-248001. India. 192-201. Thapliyal, M. 2002. A comparative study of ground flora of unilocation monoculture of Acacia auriculiformis, Casuarina equisetiforlia, Eucalyptus tereticornis and Tectonagrandisin Panampally, Palakkad, Kerala. Indian Journal of Forestry. 25(1):82-86. Trivedi, S. N. 1986. Financial appraisal for some afforestation species in Bihar (India) under the risk of illicit felling. Forest Ecology and Management. 17:261-277. TROPICOS. 2010. Missouri Botanical Garden. Missouri Botanical Garden, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA. http://www.tropicos.org. Tschirley, D.L. and Benfica, R. 2001. 'Smallholder agriculture, wage labour and rural poverty alleviation in land-abundant areas of Africa: evidence from Mozambique. Journal of Modern African Studies. 39(2):333-358. Turnbull, J.W. 1999. Eucalypt plantations. New Forest. 17:37-52. Tyynela, T.M. 2001. Species diversity in Eucalyptus camaldulensis woodlots and miombo woodland in Northeastern Zimbabwe. New Forests. 22:239-257. Uddin M.Z. and Hassan, M.A. 2010. Angiosperm diversity of Lawachara National Park (Bangladesh): a preliminary assessment. Bangladesh J. Plant Taxon. 17(1):9-22. Uddin, M.Z. 2002. Exploration, documentation and germplasm collection of plant genetic resources of Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary (Habiganj) in Bangladesh. Ph.D. Thesis (unpublished), University of Dhaka. 1-320. Uddin, S.B. and Rahman. M.A. 1999. Angiospermic flora of Himchari National Park, Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. Plant Taxon. 6(1):31-68. Uddin, S.N. and Hassan, M.A. 2012. Angiosperm flora of Rampahar reserve forest under Rangamati district in Bangladesh. I. Liliopsida (Monocots). Bangladesh J. Plant Taxon. 19(1):37-44. Uemura, S. 1994. Patterns of leaf phenology in forest understory. Can J Bot. 72:409-414. REFERENCES P a g e 123
Underwood, E.C., Klinger, R. and Moore, P.E. 2004. Predicting patterns of non-native plant invasions in Yosemite National Park, California, USA. Diversity and Distribution. 10:447-459. UNDP/FAO. 1988. Land resources appraisal of Bangladesh for agricultural development. Report to Agro-ecological regions of Bangladesh. UNDP/FAO project BGD/81/035 Technical Report 2. 570. Van Valkenburg, J.L.C.H. and Bunyapraphatsara, N. (Eds.). 2001. Plant Resources of South-East Asia no. 12(2). Medicinal and poisonous plants 2. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands. 782. Vila, M., Espinar, J.L., Hejda, M., Hulme, P.E., Jarosik, V., Maron, J.L., Pergl, J., Schaffner, U., Sun, Y. and Pysek, P. 2011. Ecological impacts of invasive alien plants: a meta-analysis of their effects on species, communities and ecosystems. Ecology Letters. 14:702–770. Vitousek, P.M., D’Antonio, C.M., Loope, L.L. and Westbrooks, R. 1996. Biological invasion as global environment change. American Scientist. 84:486-478. Waksman , S.A. 1936. Humus, Origin, Chemical Composition, and Importance in Nature, The Williams & Wilkins Company, Baltimore, MD. Walkley, A. and Black, I.A. 1934. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining organic carbon in soils: Effect of variations in digestion conditions and of inorganic soil constituents. Soil Sci. 63:251-263. Warner, K. 1991. Shifting cultivation: Local Technical Knowledge and Natural Resource management in the Tropics. FAO, Rome. 1-22. Watson, M.F., Akiyama, S., Ikeda, H., Pendry, C.A., Rajbhandari, K.R. and Shrestha, K.K. (Eds.). 2011. Flora of Nepal. Vol. 3. Magnoliaceae to Rosaceae. Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh. 1-512. Watt, A.D. 1998. Measuring disturbance in tropical forests: a critique of the use of species-abundance models and indicators measures in general. Journal of Applied Ecology. 35:467-469. Williamson, M.H. and Fitter, A. 1996. The characters of successful invaders. Biological Conservation. 78(1):163-170. Wu, C.Y., Raven, P.H. and Hong, D.Y. (Eds.).1995-2013. Flora of China. Vols. 2-25. Science Press and Missouri Botanical Garden Press, Beijing and St. Louis. Yunus, M., Hossain, M. A. T., Yasmin, F. and Milon, M. 2014. Economic Rotation of Sissoo Tree Plantations (Strip) in Bangladesh. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development. 4(9):449-457. Zashimuddin, M., Latif, M.A., Khan, S.A. and Davidson, J. 1983. Performance of different provenances of Acacia mangium in Bangladesh. Bano Biggyan Patrika. 12(1&2):57-61. Zhang, C. and Fu, S. 2009. Allelopathic effects of eucalyptus and the establishment of mixed stands of eucalyptus and native species. Forest Ecology and Management. 258(7):1391-1396. Zhang, H., Guan, D. and Song, M. 2012. Biomass and carbon storage of Eucalyptus and Acacia plantations in the Pearl River Delta, South China. For. Ecol. Manag. 277: 90-97. A PPENDICES P a g e 124
Appendix 1. Checklist of undergrowth plant species recorded from Sal forest areas of Sakhipur upazila of Tangail district. Sl. # Scientific Name Family Name Common/Local Name Habit Group* Exotic plot Indigenous plot Specimen # 1 Acacia auriculiformis A. Cunn. ex Benth. Mimosaceae Akasmoni Tree D √ √ MR-1 2 Aegle marmelos L. Rutaceae Bel Tree D √ √ MR-54 3 Ageratum conyzoides L. Asteraceae Phulkuri Herb D √ MR-93 4 Albizia lebbeck (L.) Benth. Mimosaceae Kalo Koroi Tree D √ √ MR-179 5 Albizia procera (Roxb.) Benth. Mimosaceae Sil Koroi Tree D √ √ MR-56 6 Alstonia scholaris (L.) R. Br. Apocynaceae Chatian Tree D √ √ MR-43 7 Alternanthera sessilis (L.) R. Br. ex DC. Amaranthaceae Haicha, Malancha Herb D √ √ MR-89 8 Ampelocissus barbata (Wall.) Planch. Vitaceae Angur Lata Herb D √ √ MR-154 9 Ampelocissus latifolia (Roxb Ampelocissus.) Planch. Vitaceae Angur Lata Herb D √ MR-41 10 Andrographis paniculata (Burm. f.) Wall. ex Nees Acanthaceae Kalomegh Herb D √ √ MR-80 11 Anisomeles indica (L.) Kuntze. Lamiaceae Gobura Herb D √ MR-49 12 Antidesma acidum Retz. Euphorbiaceae Chagolnadi Tree D √ √ MR-52 13 Antidesma ghaesembilla Gaertn. Euphorbiaceae Chagol Ledi, Chukaiya Tree D √ √ MR-31 14 Artocarpus chama Buch.-Ham. Moracerae Chapalish, Chambol, Tree D √ √ MR-148 15 Artocarpus heterophyllus Lam. Moraceae Kanthal Tree D √ √ MR-58 16 Axonopus compressus (Sw.) P. Beauv. Poaceae Carpet grass Herb M √ √ MR-5 17 Azadirachta indica A. Juss. Meliaceae Neem Tree D √ √ MR-59 18 Bambusa balcooa Roxb. Poaceae Borak Bansh Shrub D √ MR-180 19 Bauhinia racemosa Lamk. Caesalpiniaceae Kanchon Tree D √ MR-147 20 Blumea lacera (Burm. f.) DC. Asteraceae Kukur sunga Herb D √ MR-40 21 Blumea flava DC. Asteraceae Herb D √ MR-111 22 Bombax ceiba L. Bombacaceae Simul Tree D √ √ MR-84 23 Borassus flabellifer L. Arecaceae Taal Tree M √ √ MR-7 24 Bridelia retusa (L.) A. juss. Euphorbiaceae Fasha, Kanta Khoi Tree D √ √ MR-108 25 Butea monosperma (Lam.) Taub. Caesalpiniaceae Palash Tree D √ √ MR-86 26 Calamus guruba Buch.-Ham. ex Mart. Arecaceae Cane/ Rattan (Jali bet) Shrub D √ MR-44 (Continued).
A PPENDICES P a g e 125
Appendix 1. Checklist of undergrowth plant species recorded from Sal forest areas of Sakhipur upazila of Tangail district (Continued). Sl. # Scientific Name Family Name Common/Local Name Habit Group* Exotic plot Indigenous plot Specimen # 27 Canscora decussata (Roxb.) Roem. & Schult Gentiaceae Dhancuni Herb D √ MR-94 28 Careya arborea Roxb. Lythraceae Gadulla, Biri Pata, Tree D √ √ MR-11 Kumbi 29 Careya herbacea Roxb. Lythraceae Gadulla Herb D √ MR-112 30 Catunaregam spinosa (Thunb.) Tirveng. Rubiaceae Ban Kata,Mon Kata Shrub D √ MR-2 31 Cassia fistula L. Caesalpiniaceae Sonalu, Badar Lathi Tree D √ MR-113 32 Centella asiatica (L.) Urb. Apiaceae Thankuni pata Herb D √ √ MR-71 33 Centrosema pubescens Benth. Fabaceae Ban Mashkolai Herb D √ MR-114 34 Cheilanthes belangeri (Bory) C. Chr. Sinopteridaceae Fern Fern P √ √ MR-4 35 Cheilanthes tenuifolia (Burm. f.) Sw. Sinopteridaceae Fern Fern P √ MR-171 36 Chloris virgata Sw. Poaceae Angulu ghass Herb M √ MR-153 37 Chrysopogon aciculatus (Retz.) Trin. Poaceae Prem Kata Herb D √ MR-79 38 Clerodendrum viscosum Vent. Verbenaceae Bhat Herb D √ √ MR-6 39 Coccinia grandis (L.) Voigt Cucurbitaceae Telakochu, Telakucha Herb D √ √ MR-105 40 Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott Araceae Bon Kochu Herb M √ √ MR-92 41 Commelina erecta L. Commelinaceae Kanai Ghass Herb M √ √ MR-115 42 Commelina nudiflora L. Commelinaceae Kanduli Herb M √ MR-34 43 Corchorus capsularis L. Tiliaceae Pat Herb D √ MR-149 44 Crinum latifolium L. Liliaceae Bon Roshun, Lily Herb M √ MR-168 45 Curculigo orchioides Gaertn. Hypoxidaceae Talmuli Herb M √ √ MR-33 46 Curcuma caesia Roxb. Zizingiberaceae Kala Haldi Herb M √ √ MR-142 47 Curcuma domestica Valeton Zizingiberaceae Halud, Haldi Herb M √ MR-172 48 Curcuma zedoaria (Christm.) Roscoe Zinzigiberaceae Shoti Herb M √ √ MR-32 49 Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. Poaceae Durba Ghas Herb M √ √ MR-73 50 Cyperus haspan L. Cyperaceae Herb M √ MR-155 51 Cyperus iria L. Cyperaceae Boro Chancha, Chara, Herb M √ √ MR-116 52 Cyperus rotundus L. Cyperaceae Mutha Ghas Herb M √ √ MR-27 53 Dentella repens (L.) J.R. Forst. & G. Forst. Rubiaceae Bhui Pat Herb D √ MR-119 54 Derris trifoliata Lour. Fabaceae Kaila Lata Herb D √ MR-157 (Continued). A PPENDICES P a g e 126
Appendix 1. Checklist of undergrowth plant species recorded from Sal forest areas of Sakhipur upazila of Tangail district (Continued). Sl. # Scientific Name Family Name Common/Local Name Habit Group* Exotic plot Indigenous plot Specimen # 55 Desmodium gangeticum (L.) DC. Fabaceae Salpan Herb D √ MR-165 56 Desmodium gyroides (Roxb. ex Link) DC. Fabaceae Chhoto Salpan Herb D √ √ MR-117 57 Desmodium motorium (Houtt.) Merr. Fabaceae Turuk handal Herb D √ MR-87 58 Desmodium pulchellum (L). Benth. Fabaceae Jhutasal Pani Shrub D √ √ MR-118 59 Desmodium triflorum (L.) DC. Fabaceae Tripotri pata Herb D √ √ MR-20 60 Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. Poaceae Makunjali Herb M √ √ MR-162 61 Dillenia pentagyna Roxb. Dilleniaceae Bon Chalta, Ajuli Tree D √ MR-109 62 Dioscorea belophylla (Prain) Voigt ex Heines Dioscoreaceae Dudh Alu Lata Herb M √ √ MR-35 63 Dioscorea bulbifera L. Dioscoreaceae Mou Alu, Mon Alu Herb M √ √ MR-169 64 Dioscorea hamiltonii Hook. f. Dioscoreaceae Dudh Alu, Sura Alu Herb M √ √ MR-19 65 Dioscorea pentaphylla L. Dioscoreaceae Jhum Alu Herb M √ √ MR-67 66 Dioscorea triphylla L. Dioscoreaceae Dud Alu Lata Herb M √ √ MR-120 67 Dysolobium pilosum (J.G. Klein ex Willd.) Fabaceae Ban barbati Herb D √ MR-167 Maréchal 68 Echinochloa colonum (L.) Link. Poacaeae Shamaghas Herb D √ MR-159 69 Eclipta prostrata (L.) L. Asteraceae Kalokeshi, Keshuti Herb D √ MR-46 70 Elephantopus scaber L. Asteraceae Hostipodi Herb D √ √ MR-78 71 Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. Poaceae Kesla Herb M √ MR-182 72 Eragrostis tenella (L.) P. Beauv. ex Roem. & Poacaeae Chira grass, Koni Herb M √ √ MR-102 Schult. 73 Eragrostis unioloides (Retz.) Nees ex Steud. Poaceae Chira Grass Herb M √ MR-121 74 Eriocaulon sexangulare L. Eriocaulaceae Herb M √ √ MR-122 75 Eucalyptus camaldulensis Dehnh. Myrtaceae Eucalyptus Tree D √ MR-76 76 Eupatorium odoratum L. Asteraceae Bahos, Assam Lata Shrub D √ √ MR-3 77 Euphorbia hirta L. Euphorbiaceae Dudhia Herb D √ MR-166 78 Evolvulus nummularius (L.) L. Convolvulaceae Bhui Okra Herb D √ √ MR-62 79 Ficus hispida L. f. Moraceae Kakdumur, Khoksha Tree D √ √ MR-66 80 Ficus religiosa L. Moraceae Pakur Tree D √ MR-106 81 Fimbristylis miliacea (L.) Vahl Cyperaceae Boro Javani Herb D √ MR-181 82 Flacourtia indica (Burm. f.) Merr. Flacourtiaceae Maina kata, Beuchi Shrub D √ MR-12 (Continued). A PPENDICES P a g e 127
Appendix 1. Checklist of undergrowth plant species recorded from Sal forest areas of Sakhipur upazila of Tangail district (Continued). Sl. # Scientific Name Family Name Common/Local Name Habit Group* Exotic plot Indigenous plot Specimen # 83 Flemingia strobilifera (L.) R. Br. Fabaceae Sim Busak Herb D √ MR-124 84 Fleurya interrupta (L.) Gaudich. Urticaceae Chutra Herb D √ √ MR-150 85 Floscopa scandens Lour. Commelinaceae Herb M √ MR-82 86 Garuga pinnata Roxb. Burseracerae Kapila, Geol Bhadi, Tree D √ MR-125 87 Gastrodia zeylanica Schltr. Orchidaceae Orchid Herb M √ MR-128 88 Geodorum densiflorum (Lamk.) Schltr. Orchidaceae Shonkho mul Herb M √ MR-81 89 Glochidion heyneanum (Wight & Arn.) Wight Euphorbiaceae Shrub D √ MR-156 90 Glycosmis pentaphylla (Retz.) A. DC. Rutaceae Motkila, Asseowra Shrub D √ MR-173 91 Gmelina arborea Roxb. ex Sm. Verbenaceae Gamar Tree D √ MR-75 92 Hedyotis scabra Wall. ex Kurz Rubiaceae Herb D √ √ MR-126 93 Hemidesmus indicus (L.) R. Br. Asclepiadaceae Anontomul, Maita Noi Herb D √ √ MR-30 94 Holarrhena pubescens Wall. ex G. Don Apocynaceae Kurchi, Kutesswar, Tree D √ √ MR-8 Sida 95 Hymenodictyon excelsum (Roxb.) DC. Rubiaceae Bhutum Gach Tree D √ MR-37 96 Hyptis suaveolens (L.) Poit. Lamiaceae Tukma Herb D √ √ MR-129 97 Ichnocarpus frutescens (L.) W.T. Aiton Apocynaceae Dudhi Lata, Nangolia Herb D √ √ MR-21 Nao Lata, Shyam Lata 98 Imperata cylindrica var. major (Nees) C.E. Poaceae Chon, Ulu Herb M √ √ MR-22 Hubb. 99 Jasminum scandens (Retz.) Vahl Oleaceae Bon Beli Shrub D √ MR-163 100 Justicia diffusa Willd. Acanthaceae Pita Papra Herb D √ √ MR-132 101 Kyllinga nemoralis (J.R. Forst. & G. Forst.) Cyperaceae Grass Herb M √ √ MR-90 Dandy ex Hutch. & Dalziel 102 Lannea coromandelica (Houtt.) Merr. Anacardiaceae Jiga Tree D √ √ MR-45 103 Leucas aspera (Willd.) Link. Lamiaceae Dandokolos Herb D √ √ MR-133 104 Leucas indica (L.) R. Br. ex Sm. Lamiaceae Dandacalos, Swetdrawn Herb D √ √ MR-70 105 Lindernia ciliata (Colsm.) Pennell Scrophulariaceae Bhui Chalta Herb D √ √ MR-130 106 Lindernia crustacea (L.) F. Muell. Scrophulariaceae Bhui Herb D √ √ MR-25 107 Litsea atrata S.K. Lee Lauraceae Chhotomenda Tree D √ MR-174 (Continued). A PPENDICES P a g e 128
Appendix 1. Checklist of undergrowth plant species recorded from Sal forest areas of Sakhipur upazila of Tangail district (Continued). Sl. # Scientific Name Family Name Common/Local Name Habit Group* Exotic plot Indigenous plot Specimen # 108 Litsea glutinosa (Lour.) C.B.Rob. Lauraceae Khara Jora, Tree D √ √ MR-14 Menda,Tholoi 109 Ludwigia hyssopifolia (G. Don) Exell Onagraceae Pani Morich Herb D √ √ MR-136 110 Lygodium flexuosum (L.) Sw. Lygodiaceae Lata Dhekia Chepa, Herb P √ √ MR-16 Deba Lata, Bhutraj 111 Lygodium yunnanense Ching Lygodiaceae Lata Dhekia Herb P √ √ MR-135 112 Mangifera indica L. Anacardiaceae Amm Tree D √ MR-101 113 Melia azedarach L. Meliaceae Ghora Neem Tree D √ √ MR-74 114 Melocanna bambusoides Trin. Sterculiaceae Mulibans, Nalibans Shrub M √ MR-134 115 Microcos paniculata L. Tiliaceae Datoi Gota, Assar Tree D √ √ MR-127 116 Microlepia strigosa (Thunb.) C. Presl Dennstaedtiaceae Fita Dekhiya Fern P √ MR-137 117 Mikania cordata (Burm. f.) B.L. Rob. Asteraceae Jossore Lata, Tara Lata Herb D √ √ MR-61 118 Miliusa velutina (Dunal) Hook. f. & Thomson Annonaceae Gandhi Gozari , Tree D √ √ MR-50 Bulgajari 119 Mimosa himalayna Gamble Mimosaceae Teora Kata Shrub D √ √ MR-85 120 Mimosa pudica L. Mimosaceae Lajjaboti Herb D √ √ MR-23 121 Modhica trilobata Roxb. Cucurbitaceae Akandaphul Herb D √ √ MR-175 122 Mucuna pruriens (L.) DC. Fabaceae Bilai Sungi, Hungi Herb D √ √ MR-104 123 Mukia maderaspatana (L.) M. Roem. Cucurbitaceae Agmukhi Herb D √ MR-97 124 Murdannia edulis (Stokes) Faden Commelinaceae Kurele Herb M √ MR-99 125 Nelsonia canescens (Lamk.) Spreng. Acanthaceae Paramul Herb D √ MR-107 126 Neolamarckia cadamba (Roxb.) Bosser Rubiaceae Kadom Tree D √ √ MR-143 127 Neonauclea sessilifolia (Roxb.) Merr. Rubiaceae Haldu, Kom Tree D √ MR-51 128 Ocimum gratissimum L. Lamiaceae Ram Tulshi Shrub D √ MR-145 129 Oldenlandia corymbosa L. Rubiaceae Khetpapra Herb D √ MR-151 130 Oplismenus compositus (L.) P. Beauv. Poaceae Gohur Herb M √ MR-158 131 Panicum vicinus F. M. Bailey Poaceae Dhani Ghass Herb M √ √ MR-26 132 Paspalidum punctatum (Brum) A. Camus Poaceae Petinar Herb D √ MR-139 133 Paspalum scrobiculatum L. Poaceae Goicha Herb D √ MR-15 134 Phaseolus aconitifolius Jacq. Fabaceae Bansim Herb D √ MR-176 (Continued). A PPENDICES P a g e 129
Appendix 1. Checklist of undergrowth plant species recorded from Sal forest areas of Sakhipur upazila of Tangail district (Continued). Sl. # Scientific Name Family Name Common/Local Name Habit Group* Exotic plot Indigenous plot Specimen # 135 Phaulopsis imbricata (Forssk.) Sweet Hort. Acanthaceae Herb D √ √ MR-60 136 Phoenix acaulis Roxb. Arecaceae Ban Khejur Shrub M √ √ MR-36 137 Phoenix sylvestris Roxb. Arecaceae Khejur Tree M √ MR-96 138 Phyllanthus embelica L. Euphorbiaceae Amloki Tree D √ √ MR-55 139 Phyllanthus reticulatus Poir. Euphorbiaceae Chitka Shrub D √ √ MR-13 140 Phyllanthus urinaria L. Euphorbiaceae Bhui Amla Herb D √ √ MR-103 141 Pogostemon auricularius (L.) Hassk. Lamiaceae - Herb D √ MR-164 142 Polygala chinensis L. Polygalaceae Meraru Herb D √ MR-131 143 Pteris ensiformis Burm. f. Pteridaceae Fern group Fern P √ √ MR-144 144 Pterygota alata (Roxb.) R. Br. Sterculiaceae Budho Narikel Tree D √ MR-64 145 Pueraria phaseoloides (Roxb.) Benth. Fabaceae Bon Borboti Herb D √ √ MR-146 146 Randia uliginosa (Retz.) Poir. Rubiaceae Mon phol/Pirulla Tree D √ √ MR-42 147 Rhaphidophora hookeri Schott Araceae Money plant, Taka Lata Herb M √ MR-63 148 Riedlea corchorifolia (L.) DC. Sterculiaceae Tiki Okra Herb D √ MR-138 149 Rungia pectinata (L.) Nees Acanthaceae Pindi, Bon Morich Herb D √ √ MR-17 150 Sarcolobus sp. R. Br. Asclepiadaceae Baualilata Herb D √ MR-68 151 Scleria levisRetz. Cyperaceae Kuch ghas Herb M √ MR-48 152 Scoparia dulcis L. Cyperaceae Bon Dhone, Misri dana Herb D √ √ MR-95 153 Selaginella ciliaris (Retz.) Spring Selaginellaceae Selaginella Fern P √ √ MR-88 154 Selaginella vaginata Spring Selaginellaceae Selaginella Fern P √ MR-177 155 Semecarpus anacardium L. f. Anacardiaceae Vebla, Bhela Tree D √ MR-57 156 Senna sophera (L.) Roxb. Caesalpiniaceae Kolkasunda Herb D √ MR-98 157 Senna tora (L.) Roxb. Caesalpiniaceae Chhoto Kalkasunda Herb D √ MR-178 158 Shorea robusta Roxb. Dipterocarpaceae Sal Tree D √ √ MR-10 159 Sida acuta Burm. f. Malvaceae Berela, Kureta Shrub D √ MR-100 160 Sida rhombifolia L. Malvaceae Berela Herb D √ MR-152 161 Smilax ovalifolia Roxb. Smilaceae Kumari Lata, Kumoira Herb D √ √ MR-38 162 Spatholobus roxburghii Benth. Fabaceae Palashiya Lata Herb D √ MR-29 163 Spermacoce articularis L. f. Rubiaceae Bag Bangla/Bagha Herb D √ √ MR-69 Jongla (Continued). A PPENDICES P a g e 130
Appendix 1. Checklist of undergrowth plant species recorded from Sal forest areas of Sakhipur upazila of Tangail district (Continued). Sl. # Scientific Name Family Name Common/Local Name Habit Group* Exotic plot Indigenous plot Specimen # 164 Spilanthes acmella (L.) L. Asteraceae Mahatitinga Herb D √ √ MR-161 165 Sporobolus diandrus (Retz.) P. Beauv. Poaceae Benajoni Herb M √ MR-72 166 Sterculia villosa Roxb. Sterculiaceae Udal, Fashiya Udal Tree D √ MR-140 167 Streblus asper Lour. Moraceae Sheora Tree D √ √ MR-9 168 Synedrella nodiflora (L.) Gaertn. Asteraceae Nakphul Herb D √ √ MR-123 169 Syzygium fruticosum DC. Myrtaceae Khudi Jam, Titi Jam Tree D √ MR-47 170 Tamarindus indica L. Caesalpiniaceae Tetul Tree D √ MR-160 171 Terminalia bellirica (Gaertn.) Roxb. Combretaceae Bohera Tree D √ MR-24 172 Thespesia lampas (Cav.) Dalzell & A. Gibson Malvaceae Ban karpas Shrub D √ MR-83 173 Triumfetta rhomboidea Jacq. Tiliaceae Ban Okra Shrub D √ √ MR-65 174 Typhonium trilobatum (L.) Schott Araceae Kharkon, Ghet Kachu Herb M √ MR-91 175 Uraria lagopodioides (L.) DC. Fabaceae Chakulia Herb D √ MR-141 176 Urena lobata L. Malvaceae Bon ghagra Herb D √ √ MR-77 177 Vangueria spinosa Roxb. Rubiaceae Bonki Kata, Maina Kata Shrub D √ MR-110 178 Vernonia cinerea (L.) Less. Asteraceae Kuksim, Sialmutra Herb D √ √ MR-39 179 Vitex peduncularis Wall. ex Schauer in A. DC. Vitaceae Horina, Goda Tree D √ MR-170 180 Zanthoxylum rhetsa (Roxb.) DC. Rutaceae Bajna, Kantaharina Tree D √ √ MR-28 181 Zehneria japonica (Thunb.) H.Y. Liu Cucurbitaceae Rakhal Shasa Herb D √ MR-53 182 Ziziphus rugosa Lam. Rhamnaceae Anoi, Ban Boroi Shrub D √ √ MR-18
* D=Dycotyledon; M=Monocotyledon; P=Pteridophyta
A PPENDICES P a g e 131
Appendix 2. Total number of individuals, density, relative density, frequency, relative frequency, abundance, relative abundance considering all undergrowth species in exotic plots. Sl.# Name of the undergrowth Total no. of Total no. Quadrat Density Relative Frequency Relative Abundance Relative species individuals of quadrat found per ha. Density (%) Frequency Abundance studied (%) (%) (%) 1 Acacia auriculiformis 7441 360 235 12918 4.93 65.37 6.90 31.62 1.29 2 Albizia lebbeck 2 360 1 3 0.00 0.19 0.02 3.00 0.12 3 Aegle marmelos 5 360 1 9 0.00 0.37 0.04 4.00 0.16 4 Alstonia scholaris 4 360 1 7 0.00 0.37 0.04 3.00 0.12 5 Ageratum conyzoides 2125 360 40 3690 1.41 11.11 1.17 53.13 2.16 6 Albizia procera 57 360 20 98 0.04 5.56 0.59 2.83 0.12 7 Alternanthera sessilis 45 360 3 79 0.03 0.93 0.10 13.60 0.55 8 Ampelosisus barbata 5 360 1 9 0.00 0.37 0.04 4.00 0.16 9 Atrocarpus heterophyllas 29 360 10 50 0.02 2.78 0.29 2.87 0.12 10 Antidesma ghaesembilla 28 360 7 49 0.02 2.04 0.21 3.82 0.16 11 Andrographis paniculata 9 360 2 15 0.01 0.56 0.06 4.33 0.18 12 Axonopus compressus 35269 360 255 61230 23.35 70.74 7.46 138.49 5.64 13 Azadirachta indica 436 360 37 757 0.29 10.37 1.09 11.68 0.48 14 Borassus flabellifer 5 360 3 8 0.00 0.74 0.08 1.75 0.07 15 Bridelia retusa 34 360 9 59 0.02 2.59 0.27 3.64 0.15 16 Bombax ceiba 2 360 1 3 0.00 0.19 0.02 3.00 0.12 17 Blumea lacera 20 360 3 35 0.01 0.93 0.10 6.00 0.24 18 Butea monosperma 17 360 4 29 0.01 1.11 0.12 4.17 0.17 19 Careya arborea 18 360 9 31 0.01 2.41 0.25 2.08 0.08 20 Centella asiatica 715 360 29 1242 0.47 7.96 0.84 24.95 1.02 21 Cheilanthus belangiri 1473 360 36 2557 0.97 10.00 1.05 40.91 1.67 22 Careya sphaerica 59 360 3 102 0.04 0.93 0.10 17.60 0.72 23 Chromolaena odorata 8085 360 221 14037 5.35 61.48 6.49 36.53 1.49 24 Chrysopogon aciculatus 1153 360 34 2001 0.76 9.44 1.00 33.90 1.38 25 Centrosema pubescens 3 360 1 5 0.00 0.19 0.02 4.00 0.16 (Continued). A PPENDICES P a g e 132
Appendix 2. Total number of individuals, density, relative density, frequency, relative frequency, abundance, relative abundance considering all undergrowth species in exotic plots (Continued). Sl.# Name of the undergrowth Total no. of Total no. Quadrat Density Relative Frequency Relative Abundance Relative species individuals of quadrat found per ha. Density (%) Frequency (%) Abundance (%) studied (%) 26 Clerodendrum viscosum 5255 360 231 9124 3.48 64.07 6.76 22.78 0.93 27 Curculigo orchioides 73 360 9 126 0.05 2.41 0.25 8.38 0.34 28 Curcuma caesia 75 360 1 130 0.05 0.37 0.04 56.00 2.28 29 Colocasia esculenta 37 360 3 65 0.02 0.93 0.10 11.20 0.46 30 Curcuma zedoaria 243 360 11 421 0.16 3.15 0.33 21.41 0.87 31 Cynodon dactylon 3238 360 35 5622 2.14 9.63 1.02 93.40 3.80 32 Cyperus rotundus 2287 360 66 3971 1.51 18.33 1.93 34.66 1.41 33 Coccinia grandis 21 360 3 37 0.01 0.93 0.10 6.40 0.26 34 Commelina erecta 115 360 6 200 0.08 1.67 0.18 19.22 0.78 35 Cyperus iria 219 360 1 381 0.15 0.19 0.02 329.00 13.39 36 Desmodium gyroides 40 360 5 69 0.03 1.30 0.14 8.57 0.35 37 Desmodium pulchellum 18 360 1 31 0.01 0.37 0.04 13.50 0.55 38 Desmodium triflorum 21589 360 215 37480 14.29 59.81 6.31 100.26 4.08 39 Digitaria sanguinalis 81 360 8 141 0.05 2.22 0.23 10.17 0.41 40 Dioscorea belophylla 804 360 66 1396 0.53 18.33 1.93 12.18 0.50 41 Dioscorea bulbifera 49 360 3 86 0.03 0.93 0.10 14.80 0.60 42 Dioscorea hemiltonii 393 360 45 683 0.26 12.41 1.31 8.81 0.36 43 Dioscorea pentaphylla 34 360 7 59 0.02 2.04 0.21 4.64 0.19 44 Dioscorea triphylla 250 360 18 434 0.17 5.00 0.53 13.89 0.57 45 Elephantopus scaber 219 360 25 381 0.15 6.85 0.72 8.89 0.36 46 Eragrostis tenella 123 360 6 214 0.08 1.67 0.18 20.56 0.84 47 Eucalyptus camadulensis 36 360 5 63 0.02 1.48 0.16 6.75 0.27 48 Evolvulus nummularius 2615 360 79 4539 1.73 21.85 2.31 33.24 1.35 49 Eriocaulon sexangulare 163 360 5 282 0.11 1.30 0.14 34.86 1.42 50 Elusine indica 47 360 1 82 0.03 0.37 0.04 35.50 1.45 (Continued).
A PPENDICES P a g e 133
Appendix 2. Total number of individuals, density, relative density, frequency, relative frequency, abundance, relative abundance considering all undergrowth species in exotic plots (Continued). Sl.# Name of the undergrowth Total no. of Total no. Quadrat Density Relative Frequency Relative Abundance Relative species individuals of quadrat found per ha. Density (%) Frequency (%) Abundance (%) studied (%) 51 Ficus hispida 29 360 11 50 0.02 3.15 0.33 2.53 0.10 52 Gmelina arborea 10 360 4 17 0.01 1.11 0.12 2.50 0.10 53 Fimbristylis spp. 15 360 1 27 0.01 0.19 0.02 23.00 0.94 54 Hemidesmus indicus 222 360 25 385 0.15 6.85 0.72 9.00 0.37 55 Hedyotis scabra 1029 360 25 1787 0.68 7.04 0.74 40.63 1.65 56 Holarrhena antidysenterica 312 360 32 542 0.21 8.89 0.94 9.75 0.40 57 Hyptis suaveolens 1095 360 29 1902 0.73 8.15 0.86 37.34 1.52 58 Hymenodictyon excelsum 5 360 2 9 0.00 0.56 0.06 2.67 0.11 59 Ichnocarpus frutescens 318 360 19 552 0.21 5.37 0.57 16.45 0.67 60 Imperata cylindrica 3199 360 62 5554 2.12 17.22 1.82 51.60 2.10 61 Justicia diffusa 174 360 7 302 0.12 2.04 0.21 23.73 0.97 62 Kyllinga nemolaris 419 360 11 728 0.28 2.96 0.31 39.31 1.60 63 Lannea grandis 8 360 3 14 0.01 0.74 0.08 3.00 0.12 64 Laportea interrupta 49 360 7 84 0.03 2.04 0.21 6.64 0.27 65 Leucas aspera 85 360 17 147 0.06 4.63 0.49 5.08 0.21 66 Leucas indica 65 360 7 112 0.04 2.04 0.21 8.82 0.36 67 Lindernia ciliata 846 360 39 1469 0.56 10.93 1.15 21.51 0.88 68 Lannea coromandelica 9 360 5 16 0.01 1.30 0.14 2.00 0.08 69 Lindernia crustacea 239 360 15 416 0.16 4.07 0.43 16.32 0.66 70 Litsea glutinosa 235 360 52 407 0.16 14.44 1.52 4.51 0.18 71 Lygodium flaexuosum 292 360 44 507 0.19 12.22 1.29 6.64 0.27 72 Ludwigia hyssopifolia 115 360 9 200 0.08 2.59 0.27 12.36 0.50 73 Lygodium giganteum 186 360 11 323 0.12 3.15 0.33 16.41 0.67 74 Melochia corchorifolia 68 360 3 118 0.05 0.93 0.10 20.40 0.83 75 Modhica trilobata 2 360 1 3 0.00 0.19 0.02 3.00 0.12 76 Melia azadirach 23 360 7 39 0.02 1.85 0.20 3.40 0.14 77 Microlepia strigosa 3622 360 47 6288 2.40 13.15 1.39 76.52 3.11 (Continued). A PPENDICES P a g e 134
Appendix 2. Total number of individuals, density, relative density, frequency, relative frequency, abundance, relative abundance considering all undergrowth species in exotic plots (Continued). Sl.# Name of the undergrowth Total no. of Total no. Quadrat Density Relative Frequency Relative Abundance Relative species individuals of quadrat found per ha. Density (%) Frequency (%) Abundance (%) studied (%) 78 Mikania cordata 429 360 29 744 0.28 8.15 0.86 14.61 0.59 79 Mimosa himalayana 18 360 3 31 0.01 0.74 0.08 6.75 0.27 80 Mimosa pudica 3003 360 102 5214 1.99 28.33 2.99 29.44 1.20 81 Mucuna pruriens 10 360 2 17 0.01 0.56 0.06 5.00 0.20 82 Miliusa velutina 12 360 2 21 0.01 0.56 0.06 6.00 0.24 83 Neolamarckia cadamba 10 360 3 17 0.01 0.93 0.10 3.00 0.12 84 Oldenlandia corymbosa 107 360 5 186 0.07 1.30 0.14 23.00 0.94 85 Oplismenus compositus 298 360 3 517 0.20 0.93 0.10 89.40 3.64 86 Panicum vicinus 1523 360 34 2644 1.01 9.44 1.00 44.78 1.82 87 Paspalum scrobiculatum 452 360 27 785 0.30 7.59 0.80 16.54 0.67 88 Phyllanthus reticulatus 139 360 31 242 0.09 8.70 0.92 4.45 0.18 89 Phyllanthus urinaria 1013 360 33 1759 0.67 9.26 0.98 30.40 1.24 90 Pterigota alata 57 360 17 100 0.04 4.63 0.49 3.44 0.14 91 Pteris ensiformis 10 360 1 17 0.01 0.19 0.02 15.00 0.61 92 Phaulopsis imbricata 33 360 5 57 0.02 1.30 0.14 7.00 0.28 93 Phoenix acaulis 33 360 8 57 0.02 2.22 0.23 4.08 0.17 94 Phyllanthus emblica 14 360 2 24 0.01 0.56 0.06 7.00 0.28 95 Pueraria phascoloides 2 360 1 3 0.00 0.37 0.04 1.50 0.06 96 Rungia pectinata 622 360 41 1080 0.41 11.48 1.21 15.05 0.61 97 Randia dumetorum 9 360 2 16 0.01 0.56 0.06 4.67 0.19 98 Scoparia dulcis 49 360 7 86 0.03 2.04 0.21 6.73 0.27 99 Selaginella ciliaris 1233 360 52 2140 0.82 14.44 1.52 23.71 0.96 100 Shorea robusta 518 360 88 899 0.34 24.44 2.58 5.89 0.24 101 Selaginella vaginalis 231 360 16 400 0.15 4.44 0.47 14.42 0.59 102 Smilax zeylanica 71 360 12 123 0.05 3.33 0.35 5.89 0.24 103 Spermacoche articularis 31411 360 238 54532 20.79 66.11 6.97 131.98 5.37 104 Smilax ovalifolia 27 360 12 46 0.02 3.33 0.35 2.22 0.09 (Continued). A PPENDICES P a g e 135
Appendix 2. Total number of individuals, density, relative density, frequency, relative frequency, abundance, relative abundance considering all undergrowth species in exotic plots (Continued). Sl.# Name of the undergrowth Total no. of Total no. Quadrat Density Relative Frequency Relative Abundance Relative species individuals of quadrat found per ha. Density (%) Frequency (%) Abundance (%) studied (%) 105 Streblus asper 9 360 3 15 0.01 0.74 0.08 3.25 0.13 106 Sporobolus diander 65 360 3 112 0.04 0.93 0.10 19.40 0.79 107 Syzygium fruticosum 121 360 24 211 0.08 6.67 0.70 5.06 0.21 108 Synedrella nodiflora 67 360 6 117 0.04 1.67 0.18 11.22 0.46 109 Terminalia belerica 11 360 4 19 0.01 1.11 0.12 2.67 0.11 110 Triumfetta rhomboidea 57 360 13 98 0.04 3.52 0.37 4.47 0.18 111 Typhonium trilobatum 7 360 1 13 0.00 0.37 0.04 5.50 0.22 112 Urena lobata 77 360 11 134 0.05 2.96 0.31 7.25 0.30 113 Vangueria spinosa 66 360 11 115 0.04 3.15 0.33 5.82 0.24 114 Vernonia patula 210 360 27 365 0.14 7.59 0.80 7.68 0.31 115 Xeromphis spinosa 1167 360 169 2027 0.77 47.04 4.96 6.89 0.28 116 Zanthoxylum rhetsa 102 360 28 177 0.07 7.78 0.82 3.64 0.15 117 Zizyphus rugosa 44 360 16 76 0.03 4.44 0.47 2.75 0.11 Total 151072 262278 100 948 100 2457 100
A PPENDICES P a g e 136
Appendix 3. Total number of individuals, density, relative density, frequency, relative frequency, abundance, relative abundance considering all undergrowth species in indigenous plots. Sl.# Name of the undergrowth Total no. of Total no. Quadrat Density Relative Frequency Relative Abundance Relative species individuals of quadrat found per ha. Density (%) Frequency Abundance studied (%) (%) (%) 1 Acacia auriculiformis 446 360 27 774 0.44 7.59 0.58 16.32 0.75 2 Aegle mermelos 13 360 5 23 0.01 1.30 0.10 2.86 0.13 3 Neonauclea sessilifolia 3 360 1 6 0.00 0.19 0.01 5.00 0.23 4 Ageratum conyzoides 1695 360 24 2942 1.69 6.67 0.51 70.61 3.23 5 Albizia procera 147 360 50 255 0.15 13.89 1.06 2.93 0.13 6 Alostonia scholaris 1 360 1 2 0.00 0.37 0.03 1.00 0.05 7 Alternanthera sessilis 111 360 11 192 0.11 2.96 0.23 10.38 0.47 8 Ampelocissus barbata 129 360 22 225 0.13 6.11 0.47 5.88 0.27 9 Ampelocissus latifolia 99 360 9 172 0.10 2.41 0.18 11.46 0.52 10 Andrographis paniculata 34 360 5 59 0.03 1.48 0.11 6.38 0.29 11 Antidesma ghaesembilla 543 360 133 943 0.54 36.85 2.82 4.10 0.19 12 Axonopus compressus 16391 360 117 28457 16.33 32.41 2.48 140.50 6.43 13 Azadirachta indica 22 360 15 38 0.02 4.07 0.31 1.50 0.07 14 Bauhinia racemosa 14 360 8 24 0.01 2.22 0.17 1.75 0.08 15 Bambusa spp. 27 360 1 47 0.03 0.37 0.03 20.50 0.94 16 Blumea lacera 134 360 19 233 0.13 5.19 0.40 7.18 0.33 17 Bombax ceiba 6 360 5 10 0.01 1.48 0.11 1.13 0.05 18 Borassus flabellifer 3 360 1 5 0.00 0.19 0.01 4.00 0.18 19 Bridelia retusa 85 360 22 148 0.09 6.11 0.47 3.88 0.18 20 Butea monosperma 11 360 9 19 0.01 2.59 0.20 1.14 0.05 21 Calamus guruba 60 360 16 104 0.06 4.44 0.34 3.75 0.17 22 Careya arborea 162 360 75 281 0.16 20.74 1.58 2.17 0.10 23 Careya sphaerica 51 360 19 89 0.05 5.37 0.41 2.66 0.12 (Continued). A PPENDICES P a g e 137
Appendix 3. Total number of individuals, density, relative density, frequency, relative frequency, abundance, relative abundance considering all undergrowth species in indigenous plots (Continued). Sl.# Name of the undergrowth Total no. of Total no. Quadrat Density Relative Frequency Relative Abundance Relative species individuals of quadrat found per ha. Density (%) (%) Frequency Abundance studied (%) (%) 24 Cassia fistula 7 360 3 13 0.01 0.93 0.07 2.20 0.10 25 Centella asiatica 595 360 24 1034 0.59 6.67 0.51 24.81 1.14 26 Cheilanthus belangiri 139 360 17 241 0.14 4.63 0.35 8.32 0.38 27 Cassia tora 10 360 1 17 0.01 0.37 0.03 7.50 0.34 28 Cheilanthus tenuifolia 62 360 3 108 0.06 0.74 0.06 23.25 1.06 29 Chromelaena odorata 1741 360 82 3022 1.73 22.78 1.74 21.23 0.97 30 Clerodendrum viscosum 4326 360 237 7510 4.31 65.74 5.02 18.28 0.84 31 Colocasia esculenta 593 360 22 1029 0.59 6.11 0.47 26.94 1.23 32 Coccinia grandis 6 360 2 10 0.01 0.56 0.04 3.00 0.14 33 Commelina erecta 1652 360 49 2868 1.65 13.52 1.03 33.95 1.55 34 Crinum spp. 629 360 81 1091 0.63 22.41 1.71 7.79 0.36 35 Curculigo orchiodes 924 360 132 1604 0.92 36.67 2.80 7.00 0.32 36 Cromelaena odorata 5 360 1 8 0.00 0.19 0.01 7.00 0.32 37 Curcuma caesia 42 360 3 73 0.04 0.74 0.06 15.75 0.72 38 Curcuma zedoaria 3187 360 203 5532 3.17 56.48 4.32 15.67 0.72 39 Curcuma longa 89 360 4 155 0.09 1.11 0.08 22.33 1.02 40 Cynodon dactylon 8935 360 83 15512 8.90 22.96 1.75 108.08 4.95 41 Cyperus haspan 47 360 2 82 0.05 0.56 0.04 23.67 1.08 42 Cyperus iria 82 360 4 142 0.08 1.11 0.08 20.50 0.94 43 Cyperus rotundus 5059 360 112 8784 5.04 31.11 2.38 45.17 2.07 44 Derris trifoliata 19 360 7 32 0.02 2.04 0.16 2.55 0.12 45 Desmodium motorium 18 360 8 31 0.02 2.22 0.17 2.25 0.10 46 Desmodium triflorum 11774 360 84 20441 11.73 23.33 1.78 140.17 6.42 (Continued). A PPENDICES P a g e 138
Appendix 3. Total number of individuals, density, relative density, frequency, relative frequency, abundance, relative abundance considering all undergrowth species in indigenous plots (Continued). Sl.# Name of the undergrowth Total no. of Total no. Quadrat Density Relative Frequency Relative Abundance Relative species individuals of quadrat found per ha. Density (%) (%) Frequency Abundance studied (%) (%) 47 Dioscorea belophylla 832 360 112 1444 0.83 31.11 2.38 7.43 0.34 48 Desmodium gyroides 9 360 3 15 0.01 0.74 0.06 3.25 0.15 49 Desmodium pulchellum 2 360 1 3 0.00 0.37 0.03 1.50 0.07 50 Digitaria sanguinalis 641 360 14 1113 0.64 3.89 0.30 45.81 2.10 51 Dillenia pentagyna 7 360 7 13 0.01 2.04 0.16 1.00 0.05 52 Dioscorea hamiltonii 1085 360 159 1883 1.08 44.26 3.38 6.81 0.31 53 Dioscorea bulbifera 78 360 3 135 0.08 0.93 0.07 23.40 1.07 54 Dioscorea pentaphylla 29 360 5 50 0.03 1.48 0.11 5.38 0.25 55 Dioscorea triphylla 595 360 73 1034 0.59 20.19 1.54 8.19 0.37 56 Elephantopus scaber 489 360 74 848 0.49 20.56 1.57 6.60 0.30 57 Eragrostis tenella 222 360 5 385 0.22 1.48 0.11 41.63 1.91 58 Euphorbia hirta 75 360 7 131 0.08 1.85 0.14 11.30 0.52 59 Eragrostis unioloides 79 360 7 138 0.08 2.04 0.16 10.82 0.50 60 Evolvulus nummularius 2873 360 47 4988 2.86 13.15 1.00 60.70 2.78 61 Eriocaulon sexangulare 63 360 5 109 0.06 1.30 0.10 13.43 0.61 62 Ficus hispida 55 360 20 96 0.06 5.56 0.42 2.77 0.13 63 Flacourtia indica 9 360 2 15 0.01 0.56 0.04 4.33 0.20 64 Flemingia strobilifera 13 360 5 23 0.01 1.30 0.10 2.86 0.13 65 Floscopa scandens 48 360 5 83 0.05 1.48 0.11 9.00 0.41 66 Geodorum densiflorum 169 360 30 294 0.17 8.33 0.64 5.64 0.26 67 Glochidion sp. 139 360 25 242 0.14 6.85 0.52 5.65 0.26 (Continued). A PPENDICES P a g e 139
Appendix 3. Total number of individuals, density, relative density, frequency, relative frequency, abundance, relative abundance considering all undergrowth species in indigenous plots (Continued). Sl.# Name of the undergrowth Total no. of Total no. Quadrat Density Relative Frequency Relative Abundance Relative species individuals of quadrat found per ha. Density (%) (%) Frequency Abundance studied (%) (%) 68 Glycosmis pentaphylla 2 360 1 3 0.00 0.19 0.01 3.00 0.14 69 Garuga pinnata 1 360 1 2 0.00 0.37 0.03 1.00 0.05 70 Microcos paniculata 3 360 1 6 0.00 0.37 0.03 2.50 0.11 71 Gastrolia zeylanica 60 360 15 104 0.06 4.26 0.33 3.91 0.18 72 Hemidesmus indicus 417 360 44 723 0.42 12.22 0.93 9.47 0.43 73 Hedyotis scabra 873 360 19 1515 0.87 5.19 0.40 46.75 2.14 74 Holarrhena 275 360 47 477 0.27 12.96 0.99 5.89 0.27 antidysenterica 75 Hymenodictyon excelsum 215 360 72 373 0.21 20.00 1.53 2.98 0.14 76 Hyptis suaveolens 39 360 7 67 0.04 1.85 0.14 5.80 0.27 77 Ichnocarpus frutescens 1711 360 168 2970 1.70 46.67 3.57 10.18 0.47 78 Imperata cylindrica 679 360 23 1179 0.68 6.30 0.48 29.97 1.37 79 Kyllinga nemolaris 543 360 19 943 0.54 5.19 0.40 29.11 1.33 80 Justicia diiffusa 86 360 3 149 0.09 0.93 0.07 25.80 1.18 81 Lannea coromandelica 51 360 14 88 0.05 3.89 0.30 3.62 0.17 82 Lannea grandis 58 360 23 101 0.06 6.48 0.50 2.49 0.11 83 Laportea interrupta 57 360 8 98 0.06 2.22 0.17 7.08 0.32 84 Leucas aspera 72 360 3 125 0.07 0.93 0.07 21.60 0.99 85 Leucas indica 212 360 17 368 0.21 4.63 0.35 12.72 0.58 86 Lindernia ciliata 478 360 15 830 0.48 4.26 0.33 31.17 1.43 87 Lindernia crustacea 360 360 11 625 0.36 3.15 0.24 31.76 1.45 88 Litsea glutinosa 359 360 82 623 0.36 22.78 1.74 4.37 0.20 (Continued). A PPENDICES P a g e 140
Appendix 3. Total number of individuals, density, relative density, frequency, relative frequency, abundance, relative abundance considering all undergrowth species in indigenous plots (Continued). Sl.# Name of the undergrowth Total no. of Total no. Quadrat Density Relative Frequency Relative Abundance Relative species individuals of quadrat found per ha. Density (%) (%) Frequency Abundance studied (%) (%) 89 Ludwigia hyssopifolia 647 360 15 1124 0.64 4.26 0.33 42.22 1.93 90 Lygodium flaexuosum 579 360 113 1006 0.58 31.30 2.39 5.14 0.24 91 Lygodium giganteum 108 360 29 188 0.11 7.96 0.61 3.77 0.17 92 Mangifera indica 22 360 7 38 0.02 2.04 0.16 3.00 0.14 93 Microlepia strigosa 225 360 15 390 0.22 4.26 0.33 14.65 0.67 94 Melia azadirach 3 360 1 5 0.00 0.19 0.01 4.00 0.18 95 Mikania cordata 597 360 25 1036 0.59 6.85 0.52 24.19 1.11 96 Miliusa velutina 67 360 42 116 0.07 11.67 0.89 1.59 0.07 97 Mimosa himalayana 97 360 43 168 0.10 12.04 0.92 2.23 0.10 98 Mimosa pudica 211 360 14 367 0.21 3.89 0.30 15.10 0.69 99 Mucuna pruriens 49 360 10 84 0.05 2.78 0.21 4.87 0.22 100 Modhica trilobata 1 360 1 2 0.00 0.19 0.01 2.00 0.09 101 Murdania scapiflora 287 360 35 498 0.29 9.63 0.74 8.27 0.38 102 Murdannia nudiflora 161 360 11 279 0.16 2.96 0.23 15.06 0.69 103 Nelsonia canescens 75 360 7 130 0.07 1.85 0.14 11.20 0.51 104 Neolamarckia cadamba 9 360 8 15 0.01 2.22 0.17 1.08 0.05 105 Ocimum gratissimum 11 360 3 19 0.01 0.93 0.07 3.20 0.15 106 Panicum vicinus 1203 360 32 2088 1.20 8.89 0.68 37.58 1.72 107 Phoenix acaulis 98 360 28 170 0.10 7.78 0.59 3.50 0.16 108 Phaseolus aconitifolius 13 360 6 23 0.01 1.67 0.13 2.22 0.10 109 Paspalum scrobiculatum 20 360 1 35 0.02 0.37 0.03 15.00 0.69 (Continued).
A PPENDICES P a g e 141
Appendix 3. Total number of individuals, density, relative density, frequency, relative frequency, abundance, relative abundance considering all undergrowth species in indigenous plots (Continued). Sl.# Name of the undergrowth Total no. of Total no. Quadrat Density Relative Frequency Relative Abundance Relative species individuals of quadrat found per ha. Density (%) (%) Frequency Abundance studied (%) (%) 110 Phaulopsis imbricata 61 360 1 105 0.06 0.37 0.03 45.50 2.08 111 Phoenix sylvestris 45 360 8 79 0.05 2.22 0.17 5.67 0.26 112 Phyllanthus emblica 275 360 20 477 0.27 5.56 0.42 13.73 0.63 113 Phyllanthus reticulatus 12 360 10 21 0.01 2.78 0.21 1.20 0.05 114 Phyllanthus urinaria 719 360 21 1248 0.72 5.93 0.45 33.69 1.54 115 Pteris ensiformis 9 360 1 15 0.01 0.37 0.03 6.50 0.30 116 Pueraria phaseoloides 59 360 13 102 0.06 3.70 0.28 4.40 0.20 117 Randia dumetorum 57 360 30 98 0.06 8.33 0.64 1.89 0.09 118 Rungia pectinata 1627 360 51 2824 1.62 14.26 1.09 31.69 1.45 119 Raphidophora hookeri 2 360 1 3 0.00 0.19 0.01 3.00 0.14 120 Sarcolobus spp. 5 360 1 9 0.01 0.19 0.01 8.00 0.37 121 Scleria levis 273 360 26 475 0.27 7.22 0.55 10.51 0.48 122 Scoparia dulcis 234 360 14 406 0.23 3.89 0.30 16.71 0.76 123 Semecarpas anacardium 67 360 23 117 0.07 6.48 0.50 2.89 0.13 124 Selaginella vaginalis 17 360 4 30 0.02 1.11 0.08 4.33 0.20 125 Selaginella ciliaris 68 360 8 118 0.07 2.22 0.17 8.50 0.39 126 Senna shophera 57 360 5 98 0.06 1.30 0.10 12.14 0.56 127 Senna tora 53 360 2 91 0.05 0.56 0.04 26.33 1.21 128 Shorea robusta 3991 360 227 6929 3.98 63.15 4.83 17.56 0.80 129 Sida acuta 11 360 3 20 0.01 0.74 0.06 4.25 0.19 130 Smilax ovalifolia 401 360 127 697 0.40 35.19 2.69 3.17 0.15 (Continued).
A PPENDICES P a g e 142
Appendix 3. Total number of individuals, density, relative density, frequency, relative frequency, abundance, relative abundance considering all undergrowth species in indigenous plots (Continued). Sl.# Name of the undergrowth Total no. of Total no. Quadrat Density Relative Frequency Relative Abundance Relative species individuals of quadrat found per ha. Density (%) (%) Frequency Abundance studied (%) (%) 131 Spatholobus roxburghii 569 360 73 988 0.57 20.37 1.56 7.76 0.36 132 Spermacoche articularis 10442 360 99 18128 10.40 27.41 2.09 105.83 4.84 133 Streblus asper 34 360 15 59 0.03 4.26 0.33 2.22 0.10 134 Sterculia macrophylla 4 360 2 7 0.00 0.56 0.04 2.00 0.09 135 Syzygium fruticosum 167 360 48 291 0.17 13.33 1.02 3.49 0.16 136 Synedrella nodiflora 55 360 1 95 0.05 0.37 0.03 41.00 1.88 137 Terminalia belerica 95 360 52 166 0.09 14.44 1.10 1.83 0.08 138 Thespesia lampas 161 360 39 280 0.16 10.74 0.82 4.17 0.19 139 Triumfetta rhomboidea 265 360 29 461 0.26 8.15 0.62 9.05 0.41 140 Typhonium trilobatum 394 360 31 684 0.39 8.52 0.65 12.85 0.59 141 Urena lobata 26 360 5 45 0.03 1.48 0.11 4.88 0.22 142 Vangueria spinosa 155 360 45 269 0.15 12.41 0.95 3.46 0.16 143 Vernonia patula 248 360 21 431 0.25 5.93 0.45 11.63 0.53 144 Xeromphis spinosa 777 360 155 1348 0.77 42.96 3.28 5.02 0.23 145 Zanthoxylum rhetsa 9 360 7 15 0.01 2.04 0.16 1.18 0.05 146 Zizyphus rugosa 255 360 86 442 0.25 23.89 1.83 2.96 0.14 147 Zehneria japonica 1 360 1 1 0.00 0.19 0.01 1.00 0.05 Total 100371 174256 100 1309 100 2185 100
A PPENDICES P a g e 143
Appendix 4. Total number of individuals, density, relative density, frequency, relative frequency, abundance and relative abundance considering only the seedlings and saplings of tree species as undergrowths in exotic plots. Sl.# Name of the undergrowth Total no. of Total no. Quadrat Density Relative Frequency Relative Abundance Relative species individuals of quadrat found per ha. Density (%) Frequency Abundance studied (%) (%) (%) 1 Acacia auriculiformis 7441 360 235 12918 77.17 65.37 37.24 31.62 19.78 2 Alstonia scholaris 4 360 1 7 0.04 0.37 0.21 3.00 1.88 3 Albizia lebbeck 2 360 1 3 0.02 0.19 0.11 3.00 1.88 4 Aegle marmelos 5 360 1 9 0.06 0.37 0.21 4.00 2.50 5 Albizia procera 57 360 20 98 0.59 5.56 3.16 2.83 1.77 6 Atrocarpus heterophyllas 29 360 10 50 0.30 2.78 1.58 2.87 1.79 7 Antidesma ghaesembilla 28 360 7 49 0.29 2.04 1.16 3.82 2.39 8 Azadirachta indica 436 360 37 757 4.52 10.37 5.91 11.68 7.31 9 Bridellia retusa 34 360 9 59 0.35 2.59 1.48 3.64 2.28 10 Butea monosperma 17 360 4 29 0.17 1.11 0.63 4.17 2.61 11 Borassus flabellifer 5 360 3 8 0.05 0.74 0.42 1.75 1.09 12 Bombax ceiba 2 360 1 3 0.02 0.19 0.11 3.00 1.88 13 Careya arborea 18 360 9 31 0.19 2.41 1.37 2.08 1.30 14 Eucalyptus camalduelensis 36 360 5 63 0.37 1.48 0.84 6.75 4.22 15 Ficus hispida 29 360 11 50 0.30 3.15 1.79 2.53 1.58 16 Gmelina arborea 10 360 4 17 0.10 1.11 0.63 2.50 1.56 17 Holarrhena antidysentarica 312 360 32 542 3.24 8.89 5.06 9.75 6.10 18 Hymenodictyon excelsum 5 360 2 9 0.06 0.56 0.32 2.67 1.67 19 Lannea grandis 8 360 3 14 0.08 0.74 0.42 3.00 1.88 20 Litsea glutinosa 269 360 52 468 2.79 14.44 8.23 5.18 3.24 21 Lannea coromandelica 9 360 5 16 0.10 1.30 0.74 2.00 1.25 22 Melia azadirach 23 360 7 39 0.24 1.85 1.05 3.40 2.13 (Continued). A PPENDICES P a g e 144
Appendix 4.Total number of individuals, density, relative density, frequency, relative frequency, abundance and relative abundance considering only the seedlings and saplings of tree species as undergrowths in exotic plots (Continued). Sl.# Name of the undergrowth Total no. of Total no. Quadrat Density Relative Frequency Relative Abundance Relative species individuals of quadrat found per ha. Density (%) Frequency (%) Abundance studied (%) (%) 23 Miliusa velutina 12 360 2 21 0.12 0.56 0.32 6.00 3.75 24 Neolamarckia cadamba 10 360 3 17 0.10 0.93 0.53 3.00 1.88 25 Pterigota alata 57 360 17 100 0.59 4.63 2.64 3.44 2.15 26 Phyllanthus emblica 14 360 2 24 0.15 0.56 0.32 7.00 4.38 27 Randia dumetorum 9 360 2 16 0.10 0.56 0.32 4.67 2.92 28 Shorea robusta 518 360 88 899 5.37 24.44 13.92 5.89 3.68 29 Streblus asper 9 360 3 15 0.09 0.74 0.42 3.25 2.03 30 Syzygium fruticosum 121 360 24 211 1.26 6.67 3.80 5.06 3.16 31 Terminalia belerica 11 360 4 19 0.11 1.11 0.63 2.67 1.67 32 Zanthoxylum rhetsa 102 360 28 177 1.06 7.78 4.43 3.64 2.28 Total 9641 16738 100 176 100 160 100
A PPENDICES P a g e 145
Appendix 5. Total number of individuals, density, relative density, frequency, relative frequency, abundance and relative abundance considering only the seedlings and saplings of tree species as undergrowths in indigenous plots. Sl.# Name of the undergrowth Total no. of Total no. Quadrat Density Relative Frequency Relative Abundance Relative species individuals of quadrat found per ha. Density (%) (%) Frequency Abundance (%) studied (%) 1 Acacia auriculiformis 466 360 27 809 6.34 7.59 2.46 17.05 12.35 2 Neonauclea sessilifolia 3 360 1 6 0.05 0.19 0.06 5.00 3.62 3 Aegle mermelos 13 360 5 23 0.18 1.30 0.42 2.86 2.07 4 Albizia procera 147 360 50 255 1.99 13.89 4.50 2.93 2.13 5 Antidesma ghaesembilla 543 360 133 943 7.39 36.85 11.95 4.10 2.97 6 Azadirachta indica 22 360 15 38 0.30 4.07 1.32 1.50 1.09 7 Alostonia scholaris 1 360 1 2 0.02 0.37 0.12 1.00 0.72 8 Bridelia retusa 85 360 22 148 1.16 6.11 1.98 3.88 2.81 9 Butea monosperma 11 360 9 19 0.15 2.59 0.84 1.14 0.83 10 Bauhinia racemosa 14 360 8 24 0.19 2.22 0.72 1.75 1.27 11 Bombax ceiba 6 360 5 10 0.08 1.48 0.48 1.13 0.82 12 Borassus flabellifer 3 360 1 5 0.04 0.19 0.06 4.00 2.90 13 Careya arborea 162 360 75 281 2.20 20.74 6.73 2.17 1.57 14 Cassia fistula 7 360 3 13 0.10 0.93 0.30 2.20 1.59 15 Dillenia pentagyna 7 360 7 13 0.10 2.04 0.66 1.00 0.72 16 Ficus hispida 55 360 20 96 0.75 5.56 1.80 2.77 2.00 17 Microcos paniculata 3 360 1 6 0.05 0.37 0.12 2.50 1.81 18 Holarrhena antidysenterica 275 360 47 477 3.74 12.96 4.20 5.89 4.26 19 Hymenodictyon excelsum 215 360 72 373 2.92 20.00 6.49 2.98 2.16 20 Lannea grandis 109 360 37 189 1.48 10.37 3.36 2.91 2.11 21 Litsea glutinosa 359 360 82 623 4.88 22.78 7.39 4.37 3.17 22 Litsea salicifolia 1 360 1 2 0.02 0.19 0.06 2.00 1.45 23 Mangifera indica 22 360 7 38 0.30 2.04 0.66 3.00 2.17 (Continued). A PPENDICES P a g e 146
Appendix 5. Total number of individuals, density, relative density, frequency, relative frequency, abundance and relative abundance considering only the seedlings and saplings of tree species as undergrowths in indigenous plots (Continued). Sl.# Name of the undergrowth Total no. of Total no. Quadrat Density Relative Frequency Relative Abundance Relative species individuals of quadrat found per ha. Density (%) (%) Frequency Abundance (%) studied (%) 24 Miliusa velutina 67 360 42 116 0.91 11.67 3.78 1.59 1.15 25 Melia azadirach 3 360 1 5 0.04 0.19 0.06 4.00 2.90 26 Neolamarckia cadamba 9 360 5 15 0.12 1.30 0.42 1.86 1.35 27 Phoenix sylvestris 45 360 8 79 0.62 2.22 0.72 5.67 4.11 28 Phyllanthus emblica 275 360 20 477 3.74 5.56 1.80 13.73 9.95 29 Randia dumetorum 57 360 30 98 0.77 8.33 2.70 1.89 1.37 30 Semecarpas anacardium 67 360 23 117 0.92 6.48 2.10 2.89 2.09 31 Shorea robusta 3991 360 227 6929 54.28 63.15 20.48 17.56 12.72 32 Streblus asper 34 360 15 59 0.46 4.26 1.38 2.22 1.61 33 Sterculia villosa 4 360 2 7 0.05 0.56 0.18 2.00 1.45 34 Syzygium fruticosum 167 360 48 291 2.28 13.33 4.32 3.49 2.53 35 Terminalia belerica 95 360 52 166 1.30 14.44 4.68 1.83 1.33 36 Zanthoxylum rhetsa 9 360 7 15 0.12 2.04 0.66 1.18 0.86 Total 7353 12765 100 308 100 138 100
A PPENDICES P a g e 147
Appendix 6. Soil pH recorded from different exotic and indigenous plots during different seasons in 2010 to 2011. Soil pH Plot Type Plot No. Summer Monsoon Winter 2010 2011 Average 2010 2011 Average 2010 2011 Average Acacia P1-1 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.20 4.10 4.40 5.70 5.05 Acacia P1-2 4.30 4.20 4.25 4.10 3.80 3.95 4.40 5.70 5.05 Acacia P1-3 4.00 4.50 4.25 4.00 4.10 4.05 4.20 5.80 5.00 Acacia P2-1 4.10 4.80 4.45 4.20 4.10 4.15 4.40 5.70 5.05 Acacia P2-2 4.50 4.70 4.60 4.10 4.00 4.05 4.80 5.50 5.15 Acacia P2-3 4.10 4.60 4.35 4.20 4.20 4.20 5.00 5.40 5.20 Acacia P3-1 4.00 4.60 4.30 4.30 4.30 4.30 4.50 5.80 5.15 Acacia P3-2 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.10 4.30 4.30 5.60 4.95 Acacia P3-3 4.20 4.60 4.40 4.10 4.00 4.05 4.60 5.70 5.15 Acacia Average±SD 4.190.20 4.500.25 4.340.17 4.170.16 4.090.15 4.130.12 4.510.25 5.660.13 5.080.08 Shorea P4-1 4.70 4.60 4.65 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 5.90 5.20 Shorea P4-2 4.80 4.70 4.75 4.60 4.50 4.55 4.60 5.90 5.25 Shorea P4-3 4.80 4.60 4.70 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 5.90 5.25 Shorea P5-1 4.20 4.40 4.30 4.20 4.00 4.10 4.20 5.80 5.00 Shorea P5-2 4.40 4.50 4.45 4.40 4.20 4.30 4.50 5.80 5.15 Shorea P5-3 4.10 4.20 4.15 4.00 4.20 4.10 4.50 5.70 5.10 Shorea P6-1 4.20 4.60 4.40 4.30 4.20 4.25 4.30 5.90 5.10 Shorea P6-2 4.60 4.70 4.65 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.60 5.80 5.20 Shorea P6-3 4.30 4.60 4.45 4.30 4.30 4.30 4.30 5.80 5.05 Shorea Average±SD 4.460.27 4.540.16 4.500.20 4.380.20 4.330.20 4.360.19 4.460.15 5.830.07 5.140.09 Eucalyptus P7-1 4.10 4.70 4.40 4.20 4.00 4.10 4.20 5.70 4.95 Eucalyptus P7-2 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.80 5.60 5.20 Eucalyptus P7-3 4.00 4.70 4.35 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20 5.60 4.90 Eucalyptus P8-1 4.00 4.30 4.15 4.30 4.10 4.20 4.30 5.70 5.00 Eucalyptus P8-2 4.20 4.40 4.30 4.00 4.30 4.15 4.90 5.90 5.40 Eucalyptus P8-3 4.00 4.30 4.15 4.20 4.30 4.25 4.40 5.80 5.10 Eucalyptus P9-1 4.30 4.30 4.30 4.00 3.90 3.95 4.10 5.60 4.85 Eucalyptus P9-2 4.40 4.40 4.40 3.90 4.00 3.95 4.40 5.60 5.00 Eucalyptus P9-3 4.20 4.30 4.25 4.20 4.10 4.15 4.00 5.60 4.80 Eucalyptus Average±SD 4.200.21 4.440.17 4.320.14 4.110.14 4.100.14 4.110.11 4.370.30 5.680.11 5.020.19 Mangifera P10-1 4.40 4.90 4.65 4.30 4.00 4.15 4.80 6.00 5.40 Mangifera P10-2 4.60 4.70 4.65 4.40 4.00 4.20 5.00 5.90 5.45 Mangifera P10-3 4.20 4.60 4.40 4.30 4.40 4.35 4.80 5.80 5.30 Mangifera P11-1 4.50 4.60 4.55 4.00 3.90 3.95 4.00 5.80 4.90 Mangifera P11-2 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.30 3.80 4.05 4.30 5.60 4.95 Mangifera P11-3 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.10 5.50 4.80 Mangifera P12-1 5.63 5.50 5.57 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.86 5.70 5.78 Mangifera P12-2 5.50 5.60 5.55 5.20 5.30 5.25 6.00 5.90 5.95 Mangifera P12-3 5.50 5.80 5.65 5.60 5.80 5.70 5.80 6.00 5.90 Mangifera Average±SD 4.830.55 4.980.51 4.900.52 4.620.63 4.520.79 4.570.70 4.960.77 5.800.17 5.380.44
A PPENDICES P a g e 148
Appendix 7. Soil Organic Carbon (OC) contents (%) found in different exotic and indigenous plots during different seasons in 2010 to 2011. Soil Organic Carbon (OC) contents in percentage (%) Plot Type Plot No. Summer Monsoon Winter 2010 2011 Average 2010 2011 Average 2010 2011 Average Acacia P1-1 1.15 0.06 0.60 0.69 0.75 0.72 0.79 0.07 0.43 Acacia P1-2 1.23 0.69 0.96 1.02 0.96 0.99 0.84 0.92 0.88 Acacia P1-3 0.97 0.64 0.81 1.18 0.60 0.89 0.93 0.57 0.75 Acacia P2-1 0.89 0.60 0.74 0.58 0.75 0.67 0.58 0.47 0.52 Acacia P2-2 0.83 0.36 0.59 1.15 0.81 0.98 0.56 0.13 0.35 Acacia P2-3 0.57 0.78 0.67 0.93 1.11 1.02 0.61 0.53 0.57 Acacia P3-1 1.18 0.49 0.83 1.24 1.50 1.37 1.00 0.85 0.92 Acacia P3-2 1.07 0.58 0.83 1.03 0.60 0.81 0.82 0.57 0.70 Acacia P3-3 1.14 0.72 0.93 0.82 0.90 0.86 1.18 0.63 0.90 Acacia Average±SD 1.00±0.21 0.55±0.22 0.77±0.13 0.96±0.23 0.89±0.28 0.92±0.21 0.81±0.21 0.53±0.28 0.67±0.21 Shorea P4-1 0.84 0.49 0.66 0.87 1.26 1.06 0.79 0.65 0.72 Shorea P4-2 0.87 0.49 0.68 1.20 0.90 1.05 0.89 0.52 0.70 Shorea P4-3 0.68 0.57 0.63 1.05 0.96 1.00 0.74 0.73 0.73 Shorea P5-1 0.94 0.70 0.82 1.10 1.02 1.06 1.00 0.63 0.81 Shorea P5-2 1.04 0.63 0.84 0.72 0.84 0.78 0.86 0.57 0.72 Shorea P5-3 0.77 0.33 0.55 1.16 0.99 1.08 1.05 0.78 0.91 Shorea P6-1 0.84 1.05 0.95 0.66 0.80 0.73 0.58 0.37 0.48 Shorea P6-2 1.04 1.03 1.04 1.04 0.70 0.87 0.95 0.47 0.71 Shorea P6-3 0.61 0.41 0.51 1.03 0.64 0.83 0.53 0.26 0.39 Shorea Average±SD 0.85±0.15 0.63±0.26 0.74±0.18 0.98±0.19 0.90±0.19 0.94±0.14 0.82±0.18 0.55±0.17 0.69±0.16 Eucalyptus P7-1 1.08 0.52 0.80 0.90 0.93 0.92 0.89 0.97 0.93 Eucalyptus P7-2 1.00 0.75 0.88 0.63 1.02 0.82 0.93 0.68 0.80 Eucalyptus P7-3 0.74 1.01 0.88 1.03 0.75 0.89 0.55 0.21 0.38 Eucalyptus P8-1 0.84 0.58 0.71 0.58 0.90 0.74 0.65 0.50 0.57 Eucalyptus P8-2 0.75 0.73 0.74 0.90 0.42 0.66 0.73 0.26 0.49 Eucalyptus P8-3 0.56 0.39 0.47 0.64 0.61 0.63 0.51 0.70 0.61 Eucalyptus P9-1 1.33 0.86 1.09 0.70 0.60 0.65 0.48 0.76 0.62 Eucalyptus P9-2 1.30 0.61 0.95 1.17 0.74 0.95 0.59 0.73 0.66 Eucalyptus P9-3 1.12 0.78 0.95 1.10 1.25 1.17 1.16 0.89 1.02 Eucalyptus Average±SD 0.97±0.26 0.69±0.19 0.83±0.18 0.85±0.22 0.80±0.25 0.83±0.18 0.72±0.23 0.63±0.26 0.68±0.21 Mangifera P10-1 1.49 0.58 1.04 1.00 0.96 0.98 0.65 0.89 0.77 Mangifera P10-2 1.23 0.46 0.85 1.16 0.99 1.08 0.57 0.57 0.57 Mangifera P10-3 1.36 0.61 0.99 0.89 0.42 0.65 0.77 0.65 0.71 Mangifera P11-1 1.33 0.63 0.98 1.17 0.26 0.71 0.58 1.04 0.81 Mangifera P11-2 1.25 1.03 1.14 1.25 1.20 1.22 0.70 0.78 0.74 Mangifera P11-3 1.19 0.58 0.88 1.11 1.11 1.11 0.70 0.65 0.68 Mangifera P12-1 0.70 0.70 0.70 1.16 0.83 0.99 0.79 0.78 0.78 Mangifera P12-2 0.67 0.70 0.68 1.13 1.12 1.12 0.74 0.62 0.68 Mangifera P12-3 0.95 0.70 0.82 0.71 0.74 0.72 0.58 0.97 0.77 Mangifera Average±SD 1.13±0.29 0.67±0.16 0.90±0.15 1.06±0.17 0.85±0.33 0.96±0.21 0.68±0.08 0.77±0.16 0.72±0.07
A PPENDICES P a g e 149
Appendix 8. Soil Organic Matter (OM) contents (%) recorded from different exotic and indigenous plots during different seasons in 2010-2011. Soil Organic Matter (OM) contentsin percentage (%) Plot Type Plot No. Summer Monsoon Winter 2010 2011 Average 2010 2011 Average 2010 2011 Average Acacia P1-1 1.98 0.10 1.04 1.19 1.29 1.24 1.37 0.12 0.75 Acacia P1-2 2.12 1.19 1.66 1.75 1.65 1.70 1.44 1.58 1.51 Acacia P1-3 1.68 1.10 1.39 2.03 1.03 1.53 1.61 0.99 1.30 Acacia P2-1 1.53 1.03 1.28 1.00 1.30 1.15 1.00 0.81 0.91 Acacia P2-2 1.43 0.62 1.03 1.99 1.40 1.70 0.97 0.22 0.60 Acacia P2-3 0.98 1.34 1.16 1.60 1.91 1.76 1.06 0.92 0.99 Acacia P3-1 2.03 0.84 1.44 2.13 2.59 2.36 1.72 1.46 1.59 Acacia P3-2 1.85 1.00 1.43 1.77 1.03 1.40 1.42 0.98 1.20 Acacia P3-3 1.96 1.24 1.60 1.41 1.55 1.48 2.03 1.09 1.56 Acacia Average±SD 1.73±0.37 0.94±0.38 1.33±0.23 1.65±0.39 1.53±0.49 1.59±0.36 1.40±0.35 0.91±0.49 1.16±0.37 Shorea P4-1 1.45 0.84 1.15 1.50 2.17 1.84 1.36 1.12 1.24 Shorea P4-2 1.50 0.84 1.17 2.07 1.55 1.81 1.53 0.90 1.22 Shorea P4-3 1.18 0.98 1.08 1.81 1.65 1.73 1.27 1.26 1.27 Shorea P5-1 1.62 1.20 1.41 1.90 1.76 1.83 1.72 1.09 1.41 Shorea P5-2 1.80 1.08 1.44 1.24 1.45 1.35 1.49 0.98 1.24 Shorea P5-3 1.33 0.57 0.95 2.00 1.71 1.86 1.81 1.34 1.58 Shorea P6-1 1.45 1.81 1.63 1.13 1.38 1.26 1.00 0.64 0.82 Shorea P6-2 1.80 1.78 1.79 1.80 1.21 1.51 1.64 0.81 1.23 Shorea P6-3 1.05 0.70 0.88 1.77 1.10 1.44 0.91 0.45 0.68 Shorea Average±SD 1.46±0.26 1.09±0.44 1.28±0.31 1.69±0.33 1.55±0.32 1.62±0.24 1.41±0.31 0.95±0.29 1.18±0.27 Eucalyptus P7-1 1.87 0.90 1.39 1.56 1.60 1.58 1.53 1.67 1.60 Eucalyptus P7-2 1.73 1.29 1.51 1.08 1.76 1.42 1.60 1.17 1.39 Eucalyptus P7-3 1.28 1.74 1.51 1.78 1.29 1.54 0.94 0.36 0.65 Eucalyptus P8-1 1.45 1.00 1.23 1.00 1.55 1.28 1.12 0.86 0.99 Eucalyptus P8-2 1.30 1.25 1.28 1.55 0.72 1.14 1.25 0.45 0.85 Eucalyptus P8-3 0.96 0.67 0.82 1.11 1.05 1.08 0.88 1.21 1.05 Eucalyptus P9-1 2.29 1.48 1.89 1.20 1.03 1.12 0.83 1.31 1.07 Eucalyptus P9-2 2.24 1.05 1.65 2.01 1.27 1.64 1.02 1.26 1.14 Eucalyptus P9-3 1.93 1.34 1.64 1.90 2.15 2.03 2.00 1.53 1.77 Eucalyptus Average±SD 1.67±0.46 1.19±0.32 1.43±0.31 1.47±0.38 1.38±0.43 1.42±0.31 1.24±0.39 1.09±0.45 1.17±0.36 Mangifera P10-1 2.57 1.00 1.79 1.73 1.65 1.69 1.12 1.53 1.33 Mangifera P10-2 2.12 0.80 1.46 2.00 1.71 1.86 0.98 0.98 0.98 Mangifera P10-3 2.35 1.05 1.70 1.53 0.72 1.13 1.33 1.12 1.23 Mangifera P11-1 2.29 1.09 1.69 2.02 0.44 1.23 1.00 1.79 1.40 Mangifera P11-2 2.15 1.78 1.97 2.15 2.07 2.11 1.21 1.34 1.28 Mangifera P11-3 2.05 1.00 1.53 1.92 1.91 1.92 1.21 1.12 1.17 Mangifera P12-1 1.20 1.20 1.20 2.00 1.43 1.72 1.36 1.34 1.35 Mangifera P12-2 1.15 1.20 1.18 1.94 1.93 1.94 1.27 1.07 1.17 Mangifera P12-3 1.64 1.20 1.42 1.22 1.27 1.25 1.00 1.67 1.34 Mangifera Average±SD 1.95±0.50 1.15±0.27 1.55±0.26 1.83±0.29 1.46±0.56 1.65±0.36 1.16±0.15 1.33±0.28 1.25±0.13
A PPENDICES P a g e 150
Appendix 9. Soil Nitrogen (N) contents (%) found in different exotic and indigenous plots during different seasons in 2010 to 2011. Soil Nitrogen (N) contents in percentage (%) Plot Type Plot No. Summer Monsoon Winter 2010 2011 Average 2010 2011 Average 2010 2011 Average Acacia P1-1 0.11 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.04 Acacia P1-2 0.12 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.09 Acacia P1-3 0.10 0.06 0.08 0.12 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.08 Acacia P2-1 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 Acacia P2-2 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.12 0.08 0.10 0.06 0.01 0.03 Acacia P2-3 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.10 0.06 0.05 0.06 Acacia P3-1 0.12 0.05 0.08 0.12 0.15 0.14 0.10 0.08 0.09 Acacia P3-2 0.11 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.07 Acacia P3-3 0.11 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.06 0.09 Acacia Average±SD 0.10±0.02 0.05±0.02 0.08±0.01 0.10±0.02 0.09±0.03 0.09±0.02 0.08±0.02 0.05±0.03 0.07±0.02 Shorea P4-1 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.13 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.07 Shorea P4-2 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.12 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.05 0.07 Shorea P4-3 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.07 Shorea P5-1 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.06 0.08 Shorea P5-2 0.10 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.06 0.07 Shorea P5-3 0.08 0.03 0.06 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.09 Shorea P6-1 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.05 Shorea P6-2 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.05 0.07 Shorea P6-3 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.10 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.04 Shorea Average±SD 0.08±0.01 0.06±0.03 0.07±0.02 0.10±0.02 0.09±0.02 0.09±0.01 0.08±0.02 0.06±0.02 0.07±0.02 Eucalyptus P7-1 0.11 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.09 Eucalyptus P7-2 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.08 Eucalyptus P7-3 0.07 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.04 Eucalyptus P8-1 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.06 Eucalyptus P8-2 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.05 Eucalyptus P8-3 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.06 Eucalyptus P9-1 0.13 0.09 0.11 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.06 Eucalyptus P9-2 0.13 0.06 0.10 0.12 0.07 0.10 0.06 0.07 0.07 Eucalyptus P9-3 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.10 Eucalyptus Average±SD 0.10±0.03 0.07±0.02 0.08±0.02 0.09±0.02 0.08±0.03 0.08±0.02 0.07±0.02 0.06±0.03 0.07±0.02 Mangifera P10-1 0.15 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.09 0.08 Mangifera P10-2 0.12 0.05 0.08 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.06 0.06 0.06 Mangifera P10-3 0.14 0.06 0.10 0.09 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.07 Mangifera P11-1 0.13 0.06 0.10 0.12 0.03 0.07 0.06 0.10 0.08 Mangifera P11-2 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.08 0.07 Mangifera P11-3 0.12 0.06 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.06 0.07 Mangifera P12-1 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.12 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.08 Mangifera P12-2 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.06 0.07 Mangifera P12-3 0.10 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.10 0.08 Mangifera Average±SD 0.11±0.03 0.07±0.02 0.09±0.02 0.11±0.02 0.08±0.03 0.10±0.02 0.07±0.01 0.08±0.02 0.07±0.01
A PPENDICES P a g e 151
Appendix 10. Soil Phosphorus (P) contents (μg/g) found in different exotic and indigenous plots during different seasons in 2010 to 2011. Soil Phosphorus (P) contents in micro gram per gram (μg/g) Plot Type Plot No. Summer Monsoon Winter 2010 2011 Average 2010 2011 Average 2010 2011 Average Acacia P1-1 2.10 1.83 1.97 2.50 3.00 2.75 1.31 1.22 1.27 Acacia P1-2 1.77 2.15 1.96 1.60 1.10 1.35 1.66 0.81 1.24 Acacia P1-3 2.16 2.32 2.24 2.19 2.13 2.16 2.05 1.91 1.98 Acacia P2-1 2.11 1.47 1.79 2.08 3.11 2.60 1.19 1.20 1.20 Acacia P2-2 1.89 2.10 2.00 1.83 1.99 1.91 2.10 0.87 1.49 Acacia P2-3 2.32 2.77 2.55 2.67 1.85 2.26 0.89 1.52 1.21 Acacia P3-1 4.35 2.13 3.24 2.23 2.20 2.22 1.05 0.72 0.89 Acacia P3-2 6.13 7.23 6.68 2.10 2.50 2.30 0.99 1.50 1.25 Acacia P3-3 4.04 3.69 3.87 1.77 1.30 1.54 1.74 0.93 1.34 Acacia Average±SD 2.99±1.51 2.85±1.76 2.92±1.57 2.11±0.34 2.13±0.68 2.12±0.46 1.44±0.46 1.19±0.40 1.31±0.30 Shorea P4-1 2.82 2.75 2.79 2.06 1.92 1.99 1.29 1.86 1.58 Shorea P4-2 1.93 2.23 2.08 1.96 1.85 1.91 0.80 1.25 1.03 Shorea P4-3 2.19 3.48 2.84 1.55 1.91 1.73 2.00 0.78 1.39 Shorea P5-1 4.27 9.17 6.72 1.92 1.50 1.71 0.84 0.72 0.78 Shorea P5-2 8.39 2.64 5.52 2.07 2.20 2.14 1.19 0.50 0.85 Shorea P5-3 2.67 1.00 1.84 0.98 1.80 1.39 1.00 1.31 1.16 Shorea P6-1 0.52 0.08 0.30 2.40 2.20 2.30 1.80 1.48 1.64 Shorea P6-2 1.17 1.00 1.09 3.00 1.15 2.08 1.00 1.91 1.46 Shorea P6-3 0.90 0.48 0.69 0.99 3.95 2.47 2.60 2.01 2.31 Shorea Average±SD 2.76±2.40 2.54±2.74 2.65±2.17 1.88±0.64 2.05±0.78 1.97±0.33 1.39±0.61 1.31±0.56 1.35±0.47 Eucalyptus P7-1 2.97 2.61 2.79 2.65 2.10 2.38 2.25 1.68 1.97 Eucalyptus P7-2 3.12 3.12 3.12 2.90 2.30 2.60 4.09 1.22 2.66 Eucalyptus P7-3 2.43 3.20 2.82 1.63 2.70 2.17 1.10 3.87 2.49 Eucalyptus P8-1 3.27 2.93 3.10 3.10 2.89 3.00 1.69 1.61 1.65 Eucalyptus P8-2 3.80 3.58 3.69 2.85 3.50 3.18 2.78 1.59 2.19 Eucalyptus P8-3 2.99 3.30 3.15 1.98 1.95 1.97 1.45 1.88 1.67 Eucalyptus P9-1 2.02 3.63 2.83 3.49 4.07 3.78 3.96 4.27 4.12 Eucalyptus P9-2 1.80 1.20 1.50 4.04 3.69 3.87 3.00 3.06 3.03 Eucalyptus P9-3 2.00 1.25 1.63 1.58 4.65 3.12 4.39 4.56 4.48 Eucalyptus Average±SD 2.71±0.68 2.76±0.92 2.73±0.72 2.69±0.83 3.09±0.94 2.89±0.67 2.75±1.21 2.64±1.31 2.69±1.02 Mangifera P10-1 7.04 6.39 6.72 2.40 1.80 2.10 3.37 0.98 2.18 Mangifera P10-2 5.80 10.03 7.92 5.00 2.20 3.60 4.60 5.35 4.98 Mangifera P10-3 4.40 4.70 4.55 4.31 1.50 2.91 1.78 3.80 2.79 Mangifera P11-1 9.82 7.56 8.69 6.66 8.98 7.82 10.65 9.30 9.98 Mangifera P11-2 7.66 11.26 9.46 7.07 9.75 8.41 8.16 7.48 7.82 Mangifera P11-3 10.29 10.64 10.47 6.79 8.43 7.61 9.90 8.19 9.05 Mangifera P12-1 3.17 3.57 3.37 3.14 1.28 2.21 3.61 3.24 3.43 Mangifera P12-2 4.00 2.05 3.03 2.46 2.56 2.51 4.32 4.12 4.22 Mangifera P12-3 2.90 3.90 3.40 3.04 1.93 2.49 2.55 3.49 3.02 Mangifera Average±SD 6.12±2.76 6.68±3.38 6.40±2.88 4.54±1.92 4.27±3.62 4.41±2.70 5.44±3.27 5.11±2.71 5.27±2.92
A PPENDICES P a g e 152
Appendix 11. Soil Potassium (K) contents (meq/100g) found in different exotic and indigenous plots during different seasons in 2010 to 2011. Soil Potassium (K) contents (meq/100g Plot Type Plot No. Summer Monsoon Winter 2010 2011 Average 2010 2011 Average 2010 2011 Average Acacia P1-1 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.22 0.18 0.20 0.21 0.31 0.26 Acacia P1-2 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.24 0.23 0.24 0.12 0.24 0.18 Acacia P1-3 0.30 0.20 0.25 0.20 0.19 0.20 0.25 0.09 0.17 Acacia P2-1 0.15 0.12 0.14 0.21 0.23 0.22 0.17 0.12 0.15 Acacia P2-2 0.22 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.17 0.19 Acacia P2-3 0.12 0.15 0.14 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.13 0.23 0.18 Acacia P3-1 0.17 0.21 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.17 0.11 0.14 0.13 Acacia P3-2 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.09 0.11 0.10 Acacia P3-3 0.15 0.11 0.13 0.18 0.11 0.15 0.20 0.08 0.14 Acacia Average±SD 0.19±0.05 0.18±0.04 0.18±0.04 0.20±0.03 0.17±0.04 0.19±0.03 0.17±0.06 0.17±0.08 0.17±0.05 Shorea P4-1 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.24 0.21 0.23 0.19 0.21 0.20 Shorea P4-2 0.25 0.23 0.24 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.24 0.24 0.24 Shorea P4-3 0.20 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.24 0.22 0.17 0.14 0.16 Shorea P5-1 0.22 0.19 0.21 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.29 0.34 0.32 Shorea P5-2 0.30 0.21 0.26 0.21 0.27 0.24 0.35 0.34 0.35 Shorea P5-3 0.18 0.28 0.23 0.19 0.25 0.22 0.22 0.20 0.21 Shorea P6-1 0.26 0.32 0.29 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.18 0.16 0.17 Shorea P6-2 0.31 0.21 0.26 0.20 0.17 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.17 Shorea P6-3 0.17 0.26 0.22 0.16 0.20 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.21 Shorea Average±SD 0.23±0.05 0.23±0.05 0.23±0.03 0.21±0.03 0.23±0.03 0.22±0.03 0.22±0.06 0.22±0.07 0.22±0.07 Eucalyptus P7-1 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.13 0.09 0.11 0.10 Eucalyptus P7-2 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.08 0.12 Eucalyptus P7-3 0.14 0.11 0.13 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.09 Eucalyptus P8-1 0.24 0.28 0.26 0.22 0.29 0.26 0.19 0.23 0.21 Eucalyptus P8-2 0.30 0.23 0.27 0.17 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.19 Eucalyptus P8-3 0.15 0.21 0.18 0.19 0.24 0.22 0.19 0.18 0.19 Eucalyptus P9-1 0.22 0.18 0.20 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.15 0.17 Eucalyptus P9-2 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.17 0.16 0.17 0.14 0.27 0.21 Eucalyptus P9-3 0.18±0.06 0.19±0.06 0.19±0.06 0.15±0.04 0.17±0.07 0.16±0.05 0.16±0.04 0.16±0.06 0.16±0.05 Mangifera Average±SD 0.13 0.16 0.15 0.26 0.24 0.25 0.09 0.12 0.11 Mangifera P10-1 0.10 0.12 0.11 0.30 0.22 0.26 0.10 0.11 0.11 Mangifera P10-2 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.17 0.32 0.25 0.12 0.06 0.09 Mangifera P10-3 0.30 0.27 0.29 0.19 0.11 0.15 0.36 0.18 0.27 Mangifera P11-1 0.64 0.36 0.50 0.20 0.15 0.18 0.64 0.16 0.40 Mangifera P11-2 0.40 0.28 0.34 0.23 0.18 0.21 0.30 0.74 0.52 Mangifera P11-3 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.19 0.28 0.24 0.13 0.18 0.16 Mangifera P12-1 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.24 0.27 0.26 0.10 0.10 0.10 Mangifera P12-2 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.19 0.27 0.23 0.15 0.13 0.14 Mangifera P12-3 0.23±0.18 0.19±0.09 0.21±0.14 0.22±0.04 0.23±0.07 0.22±0.04 0.22±0.18 0.20±0.21 0.21±0.16 Average±SD
A PPENDICES P a g e 153
Appendix 12. Calculation of Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
Years (t) Total Annual Costs (C) Discounted Cost Total Annual Benefits (B) Discounted Benefits C*(1+r)^(-t) B*(1+r)^(-t) 1 157648 137618 0 0 2 125038 95284 0 0 3 120596 80222 0 0 4 78527 45600 8379 4866 5 72872 36940 3200 1622 6 73420 32489 4080 1805 7 81000 31290 28852 11145 8 75220 25365 5540 1868 9 75240 22148 6230 1834 10 76393 19630 1959189 503446 Total 526,587 526,587 Sum = Total Discounted Cost (TDC) Sum=Total Discounted Benefits (TDB)
NPV = TDB – TDC IRR 15% BCR = TDB/TDC NPV 0.0 IRR = r when NPV =0, that is, TDB = TDC BCR 1.0 C = Cost B = Benefit t = time (year) Net Present Value (NPV), Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR), Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
A PPENDICES P a g e 154
Appendix 13. Calculation of Net Present Value (NPV) and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
Years (t) Total Annual Costs (C) Discounted Cost Total Annual Benefits (B) Discounted Benefits C*(1+r)^(-t) B*(1+r)^(-t) 1 157648 140757 0 0 2 125038 99680 0 0 3 120596 85838 0 0 4 78527 49905 8379 5325 5 72872 41349 3200 1816 6 73420 37197 4080 2067 7 81000 36640 28852 13051 8 75220 30380 5540 2238 9 75240 27132 6230 2247 10 76393 24596 1959189 630806 Total 573,475 657,549 Sum = Total Discounted Cost (TDC) Sum=Total Discounted Benefits (TDB)
NPV = TDB – TDC NPV 84074 BCR = TDB/TDC BCR 1.15 IRR = r when NPV =0, that is, TDB = TDC Interest rate (base case) 12% C = Cost B = Benefit t = time (year) Net Present Value (NPV), Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR), Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
A PPENDICES P a g e 155
Appendix 14. Average benefit cost analysis for one hectare woodlot monoculture plantation in Sakhipur, Tangail Year Investment and Maintenance Cost (BDT) Total Benefits (BDT) Total Seedling Transport Labor/ Fencing Staking Manu Pesti- Irrigation Thinn- Pru- Oppor- Cost Thinn- Pru- Tree Benefits purchase / carrying watcher ring cide / ing ning tunity (BDT) ing ning sale (BDT) watering Cost * 1st 12847 3939 53343 4848 5303 4116 530 72720 157648
2nd 753 682 43232 2803 2753 1667 429 72720 125038
3rd 40200 3000 1576 2500 600 72720 120596
4th 176 700 5631 72720 79227 8379 8379
5th 152 72720 72872 3200 3200
6th 72720 72720 4080 4080
7th 6230 2050 72720 81000 28852 28852
8th 2500 72720 75220 5540 5540
9th 2520 72720 75240 6230 6230
10th 783 2890 72720 76393 7320 1951869 1959189
Total 13600 5404 136776 10652 9631 8283 327 2260 11861 9960 727200 935953 37231 26370 1951869 2015470
*Opportunity Cost: It was discussed with the respondents (tree grower) of Sakhipur, Tangail. The average Boro and Aman paddy rice production (yield) rate was 4848 kg per hectare in 2010-11. Then paddy rice price was average 15 BDT per kg, so the paddy rice price for one year was 72,720 BDT per hectare. A PPENDICES P a g e 156
Appendix 15. Field Survey Questionnaire.
Ecological and socio-economic impacts of monoculture of exotic tree species in Sakhipur area of Tangail district Bangladesh
PART - A HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION OF RESPONDENT
1. Particulars of respondents: Name: Age: Education: Caste: Occupation: Village: Union: Post Office: Upazila: District: Mobile No.
2. Particulars of household members:
Family size: Total: Male: Female:
Relationship Age Education Occupation Remarks Husband Wife Father Mother Son Daughter Others Dependants
3. Category of farmer: Small / Medium / Large
4. Structure of household: Pacca / Semi Pacca / Kancha
5. Homestead site information:
a. Type of land: Upland / PlainLand / LowLand
b. Type of soil: Loamy / Sandy Loamy / Sandy / Clay
c. Inundation status: (How many times in a year/season/duration)
d. Drainage condition: Very Good / Good / Medium / Poor
e. Irrigation facilities: Yes / No (if Yes specify how irrigate and source of water)
A PPENDICES P a g e 157
6. Uses of homestead area Total homestead land: Type Area (Acre/decimal) % of total homestead area i) Housing ii) Dooryard iii) Backyard iv) Vegetable garden v) Timber trees Exotic Indigenous vi) Fruit trees vii) Pond viii) Cattle shed
7. Specification of farmer’s land: Category of land Area Tenurial status Remarks (Acre/decimal) (Own/khas/lease) HomesteadLand Cultivated/arable agricultural land Land with tree / vegetation cover Total land
8. Information on farmer’slivestock and poultry: Livestock and poultry Nos. Remarks Buffalo Cow Goat Chicken Duck
9. Income sources other than tree plantation: Category of income Income per year (BDT) Remarks Business Job Fish culture Cottage Others
10. Training, financial support and incentives received by the respondent: Particulars From Government From Non Government Organization (GO) Organization (NGO) Training Financial support Incentives or other facilities Others A PPENDICES P a g e 158
PART – B WOODLOT/BLOCK PLANTATION INFORMATION
11. Type of block / woodlot plantation: exotic / indigenous Name of species:
12. Size of block/woodlotLand (acre):
13. Block/woodlot plantation spacing (ft.):
14. Previous land use pattern:
15. Description of timber tree species of block / woodlot plantation (Over storey trees): Name of No. of Plantation Age Tree growth Tree Tree Remarks Tree Species Trees Year (Yr.) pattern (Fast/ height diameter medium/slow) i) Timber species
ii) Fuel wood species
iii) Fruit species
Total
16. List of tree species newly introduced in the woodlot/block plantation: Name of species Planting No. of Source of Reason for planting year seedlings seedlings (Future uses) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
A PPENDICES P a g e 159
17. Preferred size and age of exotic and indigenous tree seedlings for plantation in the block / woodlot plantation: Type of seedling Size/Height Age Exotic Indigenous
18. Causes of damage of planted seedlings/saplings/poles/trees for raising tree plantation in the block / woodlot plantation: Causes Protection measures A. Cattle grazing/trampling B. Human interference C. Poultry / Wildlife disturbance D. Flood E. Storm/Cyclone F. Fuel wood collection/branch cutting G. Insect/Fungus attack H. Conflict with neighbor
19. Expenditure for raising woodlot/block plantation: (exotic / indigenous) Item of expenditure Expenditure up Future Total expenditure up Remarks to date (BDT) expenditure (BDT) to harvesting (BDT) 1. Seedling purchase 2. Transport/Carrying 3. Labor 4. Fencing 5. Staking 6. Manuring 7. Pesticide 8. Irrigation/Watering 9. Thinning 10. Pruning
Total (BDT)
20. Valuation of woodlot/block plantation: (exotic / indigenous) Name of Tree No. of Average Average Present Future rotation Remarks Species trees height (ft) diameter (ft) valuation/ valuation/ Price (BDT) Price (BDT) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
21. Economic return (net profit) from woodlot/block plantation considering time frame:
Net Profit (BDT) = Total Sale/Uses valuation (BDT) – Expenditure of plantation raising (BDT) A PPENDICES P a g e 160
22. Social and environmental benefits/losses from the monoculture woodlot/block plantation of timber trees (put mark √ in the table box) Exotic / Indigenous Categories of services Remarks Benefits Losses Wind break/Shelter belt Fencing/Boundary Flood Soil compaction/binding Soil health/Humus Bird nest & singing Scenic beauty Shade Fruit Fodder Fuel wood Medicine Pole/Post
23. Economic, social and environmental benefits/losses from the undergrowths of the woodlot/block plantation: Categories of services Exotic Indigenous Remarks Fencing/Boundary Flood Soil compaction/binding Soil health/Humus Bird nest & singing Scenic beauty Shade Fodder Fuel wood Medicine
24. List of wild fauna found in woodlot/block plantations: (exotic / indigenous) Name of species Remarks 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
25. Potential timber tree species for monoculture/commercial block (woodlot) plantations: Name of potential timber tree Benefits Problems/drawbacks Remarks
A PPENDICES P a g e 161
26. Comments on monoculture woodlot/block tree plantation: (exotic / indigenous) Considering socio-economic aspect:
Considering environmental aspect:
27. Present marketing condition of trees:
A. Market demand for timber: (High / Medium / Low)
B. Name of demanded timber species:
C. Market demand for fuel wood: (High / Medium / Low)
D. Name of demanded fuel wood species:
E. Timber/fuel wood sold by: a. Directly by tree grower
b. Through Middleman
F. Marketing steps/channel:
G. Name of marketing places: Specify: H. Communication: (Pacca road / Kancha road / Waterway) Specify: I. Transport: (Van / Rickshaw / Votvoti / Mini Truc) J. Problems in marketing: (Middleman / Communication / Transport) Specify:
28. Recommendations and/or suggestions to improve marketing condition of trees/wood: a. Prospects of marketing of trees/wood: (High / Medium / Low) b. Marketing steps/channel: c. Name of marketing places: d. Communication: e. Transport: f. To overcome middleman in marketing:
29. Other issues / comments / suggestions regarding monoculture of exotic trees:
30. Concluding remarks
A PPENDICES P a g e 162
Appendix 16. Photographic Presentation.
Photograph 1: A typical Acacia woodlot Photograph 2: A typical Shorea plot/stand plot in public land, Sakhipur in public land, Sakhipur
Photograph 3: Exotic tree species seedling Photograph 4: Undergrowth in exotic tree raising in the private nursery, Sakhipur plot (woodlot) in public land
Photograph 5: Collection of undergrowth Photograph 6: Data collection from plants specimen indigenous Sal (Shorea) plot in Sakhipur
A PPENDICES P a g e 163
Appendix 16. Photographic Presentation.
Photograph 7: Women and children Photograph 8: Leaf collection from forests collected leaf for from forests in Sakhipur for fuel in Sakhipur
Photograph 9: Timber transportation by Photograph 10: Timber transportation by van in Sakhipur buffalo carrier in Sakhipur
Photograph 11: Timber transportation by Photograph 12: Saw mills mostly occupied truc in Sakhipur with exotic tree species logs in Sakhipur
A PPENDICES P a g e 164
Appendix 16. Photographic Presentation.
Photograph 13: Sawn timber of exotic Photograph 14: Furniture making by tree(Acacia)species in Sakhipur Akashmoni(Acacia)timber in Sakhipur
Photograph 15: Furniture making by Photograph 16: Fuel wood collected from Akashmoni(Acacia)timber in Sakhipur fast growing exotic trees in Sakhipur
Photograph 17: Data collection from Photograph 18: Data collection through private woodlot owner, Sakhipur, Tangail FGD, Sakhipur, Tangail
View publication stats