VEGETATION of NEW GUINEA: its Classification, and Management. With notes on – Biodiversity, and Conservation Climate change, and Carbon With a possible solution using Set Aside. ROBERT JOHNS – e­mail ­ [email protected] Source: Shearman et al (2008). The Forests of New Guinea (Papua and Papua New Guinea) are very important internationally –for biodiversity, conservation and Carbon . Forest Areas Extensive areas in NG are at higher altitudes. These are very important as protection forests, and for biodiversity and Conservation. They could be greatly impacted by climatic Change, especially El Nino related events. They also conserve large amounts of Carbon. Dendrobium habbemense PM Sum Phi Bor Jav Sul Mal NG 0 – 1000 m 126.0 386.7 258.3 698.6 125.5 135.6 55.8 625. 3 1000 – 2000 m 4.5 40.0 19.6 33.8 9.6 31.2 2.1 97.2 2000 – 3000 m t 3.2 0.9 1.3 t 4.0 0.2 64.8 3000 + m - 0.5 - t - t - 10.5 Vegetation Classification No standard system has yet been applied for the classification of the vegetation of PNG. Systems are adopted for many reasons :– economic, practical, etc. Most reflect the available resources and the objectives of the classification. Early classification systems were developed by Lane Poole in PNG and H.J. Lam based on his expedition to Papua. Source: Shearman et al (2008). A basic classification aimed at classifying forests as merchantable or non merchantable. ‘Standard’ Classification Mangrove Forests (MF) Lowland Swamp Forests (LSF) Lowland Tropical Rain Forest (LTRF) sea level to [300 –] 700 m Lower Montane Forest (LMF) [500 –] 1700 ‐2200 m Mid Montane Forest (MMF) [1700 ‐] 2200 ‐ 2900 M Upper Montane Forest (UMF) 2900 – 3200 M Subalpine Forest (SAF) above 3200 to forest margin. Classification Hammermaster system is the basis for most subsequent classifications of forests in PNG. There is little correlation between the system used by Hammermaster (1995) based on remote sensing and ‘standard’ systems based on physiognomy, structure, and floristics. This system has been adopted in PNG because: i. It is much cheaper and more rapid to do mapping from aerial photos and remote sensing data; ii. The expense of a structural / floristic based classification is very high; iii. We do not have the detailed knowledge to identify many of the forest species.; iv. There has been little success reported on research to relate forest structure to a classification based on remote sensing. (This is important to relate carbon to vegetation types) There are problems because the different forest types cannot be distinguished. Forest has also been mapped as merchantable or unmerchantable. Comparison of Vegetation Types Hammermaster ‘Standard’ Low alt. forest on plains and fans, below 1000 m. LTRF 1. Large, medium, small crowned forest. Open forest. Low alt. forest on ‘uplands ‘to 1000 m alt. 2. Large or medium crowned f. (to 500‐700 m) LTRF 2. Large or medium crowned f. (above 500‐700 m) LMF Mixed forest composition – many Lauraceae LMF 2. Small crowned forest with: LMF Araucaria, Castanopsis, Casuarina , Eucalyptopsis, Agathis Forest above 1000 m alt. ( Hammesmas ter as Lower Montane Forest) 3. Small crowned forest or very small crowned forest. MMF Nothofagus, conifers, mixed Forest above 1000 m alt . (Hammermaster as Lower Montane Forest) 4. Small and very small crowned forest. UMF Nothofagus forest (N. pullei). Conifers (Papuacedrus, Phyllocladus, Dacrycarpus). 5. Very small crowned forest above 3000 m alt. (Hammermaster ‐ Montane Forest) Conifers SAF 3 Savanna SF 38 Hot Springs LTRF 40 LTRF ‐Hoskins 5,18,19 Nothofagus MMF 41, 42, 44 Deciduous 10, 22, 36 Mixed LTRF 26 Secondary, early LMF LTRF 35 Mixed LTRF disturbed. 43 Deciduou s LTRF 23, 24 Araucaria LMF 1, 11, 33 , 34 , 37 , 39 25 1 – layered LMF 4, 16, 17, 27 Mixed LMF Mixed LTRF 28, 29 Castanopsis / Alstonia LMF 20, 22 Mixed LMF 32 Eucalyptus deglupta 21 A. hunsteinii LMF 6, 7 LTRF – s wampy Hoskins. Levee. 2, 8, 14, 15 9, 13, 30 , 31 seasonally LTRF A. cunninghamii LMF swa m py LTRF The classification using the ‘We bb’ prop forma gives a detailed classification of the forest types based on the structure and physiognamy of the forest. (with some floristic data included). Regional Vegetation Classification ‐ 1 The proposed development of a detailed classific – ation based on structure and physiognamy is planned (hoped) to provide an interface between remote sensing classifications and ground data. We will collect structural/physiognomic data from a series of plots using the proforma developed by Webb et al. This data will be used to generate a classification of the forest vegetation which can then be super‐ imposed on existing ‘vegetation maps’. The results can then be used for forest management, and the production of maps (and estimates) of carbon. Regional Vegetation Classification ‐ 2 In addition a circular plot will be established at each site. In this plot all species will be collected to provide a floristic basis for the classification. This will strengthen the classification by giving floristic information. In addition each site can be revisited to assess any changes in floristics on the sites and the data will then be available to show any floristic changes which may occur due to climatic change. This project hopefully will be funded by EU through FORNET. Lowland tropical rain forest ‐ LTRF Lowland tropical rain forest is one of the most diverse of all plant communities. Sustainable manage‐ ment of the LTRF will depend on the recognition of the many different forest types. These are dominated by several tree genera. Each type will require different management practices. Amongst the dominant genera are: Anisoptera, Hopea, Pometia, Pterocarpus, Intsia, Octomeles, Eucalyptus deglupta, and Terminalia brassii,P(on swampy sites) Lowland Tropical RF – Normanby Is. LOWER MONTANE FOREST –LMF. Lower montane forest occurs at altitudes from 300 m (on isolated coastal mountains), generally starting at c. 500 m, and extending up to the traditional level of subsistence agriculture (1500 m+). It is characterised by Castanopsis which forms often pure stands on drier valley floors in the major mountain valleys. Associated trees are Araucaria, Agathis, Lauraceae, Lithocarpus, Eucalyptopsis, and in some areas ridge top stands of Anisoptera and Hopea. The forest is much poorer in epiphytes than the ‘Nothofagus’ dominated mid montane forest where the trees are taller, the branches and trunks densely covered with epiphytic mosses, ferns, and epiphytic shrubs. LMF The ‘characteristic’ LMF species: Castanopsis and Lithocarpus , are often dominant . Others common genera are Araucaria, and Agathis. Photos‐ Vidiro Gei. LOWER MONTANE FOREST – LMF. Ridge LMF dominated by Castanopsis with emergent Araucaria. Source: Shearman et al (2008). Lower montane forest (Castanopsis, Lithocarpus) around Lake Trist, Morobe Province. Photo. P. Sherman (2008). Mid Montane Forest ‐ MMF MMF is dominant above 1500 up to 2800 m. Main genus is Nothofagus (S Beech) particularly N. grandis. Usually mixed with podocarps, Lauraceae, Cunoniaceae. Very diverse in epiphytes, orchids, ferns, and also a rich flora of gingers (Riedelia Alpinia) and Rhododendron. A mixture of N, S and endemic elements. MMF Throughout New Guinea ‐ very important Protection Forest in Highlands. Starts Above traditional zone of village agriculture. Disturbed forest areas important for diversity in genera such as Saurauia And Cyathea ‐the tree ferns. The Northern Element Upper Montane Forest ‐ UMF The UMF occurs from about 2800 m altitude up to 3200 m ‐ grades into subalpine forest (SAF). Forest is relatively short , 12‐15 m tall, trees densely covered with epiphytes – orchids, ferns, and slender climbers. A relatively low number of species compared with MMF. Dominant trees are Dacrycarpus, Papuacedrus, Podocarpus., often with significant numbers of tree ferns. BIODIVERSITY and CONSERVATION New Guinea is the center of biodiversity in S. E. Asia. There are probably 25,000 to 30,000 species of vascular plants. Vascular Plant Diversity in NG Analysis of Vascular Plant Records in Database Total Species in database = 17,657 records. 1 collection 9081 spp. 51.4 percent 2 collections 2386 spp. 13.1 percent 3 collections 1251 spp. 6.5 percent 4 collections 867 spp. 5 collections 616 spp. 6 collections 433 spp. 7 collections 348 spp. 8 collections 279 spp. 9 collections 224 spp. 10 + collections Rest of species (1073 spp.). Conservation in Milne Bay Province The endemic plants in the Milne Bay Archipelago have recently been studied (Johns et al 2008). In total there are nearly 240 species restricted to the Archipelago. Several genera are represented by a significant number of local endemics: Cyathea (4 spp.); Hunga (2 spp,); Diospyros (3 spp.); Boea (3 spp.); Calophyllum (2 spp.); Vaccinium (3 spp.); Codiaeum (3 spp.); Macaranga (3 spp.); Phyllanthus (3 spp.); Astronidium (4 spp.); Myristica (9 spp.); Syzygium (4 spp.); Anthoriza (3 spp.); Dolicholobium (5 spp.); Hydnophytum (6 spp.); Psychotria (3 spp.); Ptychosperma (4 spp.); Freycinetia (14 spp.); and Pandanus (7 spp.). Of particular interest is the genus Rosselia which is known from only 2 collections at low altitudes near Jinjo on Rossel Island. It is critically endangered, possibly extinct. Rare and Endangered Species Milne Bay Archipelago Boea sp. and Saurauia sp. (RHS). Critical Species for Conservation. Conservation International listed19 plant species from M.B.P. for priority conservation – CR, VU, EN ‐ most with a restricted range, RR, of distribution. The database assembled by Robert Johns shows that 240 species of vascular plants should be listed from Milne Bay Archipelago as RR, mostly as CR, VU or EN. The existing collections include several species yet to be described. Three new species in Saurauia have been collected. None of the islands have been properly collected. It is probable that the high altitude endemic plants from Misima (the area of the mine) are now extinct. A preliminary check list is being prepared for each of the islands.