Forests of Uttarakhand: Diversity, Distribution, Use Pattern and Conservation

Vishwambhar Prasad Sati*1 and S. K. Bandooni2

1Department of Geography and Resource Management, School of Earth Sciences, Mizoram University, Aizawl, Mizoram, India 2Department of Geography, S.B.S.E.C., University of Delhi, Delhi, India

*Correspondence: [email protected]

ABSTRACT The Uttarakhand Himalaya contains rich forest diversity. Forests are distributed along the altitudinal gradients from broad leaf deciduous forests to pine, mixed-oak, coniferous forests and alpine meadows. The rural people are largely dependent on them for their livelihoods and they have traditional practices to conserve forests. This paper aims to examine diversity, distribution, use pattern and conservation of forests in Uttarakhand. The study is based on data gathered from secondary sources and through participatory observation method. We have gathered time series data on vertical distribution of forests, district wise forest cover and change and forest land use, and analyzed them. Further, we have described use pattern and conservation of forest in Uttarakhand. Data show that a large geographical area of the Uttarakhand Himalaya (61.32%) is under forests. Forest diversity varies vertically and horizontally and area under forest is different from district to district. Forest plays a significant role in enhancing livelihoods, income and economy of the local people and the state, respectively. The study suggests that even forest cover is increasing in Uttarakhand, however we need to further conserve them sustainably. A sustainable use of forest resources will manifest rural economy more viable.

Keywords: Forest diversity, Distribution pattern, Sustainable use, Conservation, Uttarakhand.

(UEPPCB 2004). Uttarakhand’s forests are distributed along INTRODUCTION the altitudinal gradients vary from tropical to subtropical, Forests play an important role in sustaining life of both temperate and alpine. Broad leaf deciduous forests are found human and animal. It is a major life supporting resource and in the Tarai and Doon plains. Pine forest is densely and one amongst the major sources of livelihoods in mountainous extensively distributed above the valleys and mid-altitudes, region. Rural people of Uttarakhand are directly dependent mixed-oak forest lies in the temperate zone and conifer forest on forest resources (CEDAR 2010) for fuel-wood, fodder and lies in cold climate zone. Further, grasslands–subtropical, food and they practice community forestry, maintained by temperate and alpine are extensively found along these village community forest councils commonly known as Van gradients. Economic viability of these forests is substantial. Panchayat which was introduced in 1920 (Phartiyal et al., The local people conserve forest using traditional methods 2006). Forests not only provide fire-wood, fodder and wild which not only benefit carbon sequestration but also enable fruits, but also provide leaf litter for manuring crop fields restoration and conservation of forests, meadows and (Singh et al., 2004). In Uttarakhand, about 38% green feeds biodiversity together with local socio-economic upliftment are obtained from fodder trees and 31% fodder is obtained (Rao et al., 1999; Maikhuri et al., 1997; Saxena et al., from grasslands (Rawat et al., 2012). The marginal farmers 2001). Common property resources are community forests, rear livestock in the grasslands temperate and subtropical and pasturelands and water resource, which rural people use and gather fodder from tree leaves (Singh et al., 2009). Besides, conserve together (Joshi 2006). a variety of medicinal plants also grow in all the altitudinal The state of Uttarakhand is bestowed with rich and zones. diversified forest resources with their high economic viability. Uttarakhand state has 7,869 floral species (SFR 2005). In spite of being economically viable and a substantial option The plant diversity is so high from the valleys to the alpine of livelihoods of the rural people, the forests of Uttarakhand meadows (Kumari et al., 2009). It has eight forest types out are largely unused. It is because of the remoteness and of total 16 forest types existing in India (Champion et al., inaccessibility of forest areas. Further undulating and 1968). There are over 12000 Van Panchayats, which cover precipitous slopes hinders its more sustainable use. On the 15.1% area of the total forest area. Besides, out of the total other hand, forest fire, overgrazing, lopping of trees for fodder forest area, 69.2% forest is under forest department, 14.8% and firewood and removal of leaf and wood litters from the under civil forests and the rest belong to private forests forest floor, are the major anthropogenic activities, which

ENVIS Bulletin Himalayan Ecology, Vol 26, 2018 21 are affecting plant diversity in the Uttarakhand Himalaya 0.66 in comparision to 0.9 in Europe and Nepal. In terms of (Malik et al., 2016). Forest fire is the major disturbance for pine and oak forests, genetic diversity is also less. forests expansion although used for the growth of grasses in grazing land (Kumar et al., 2005). Mounting population Data collection and analysis pressure on forests has depleted a substantial forest cover, This study was carried out employing qualitative approach. which is resulted in landslides and flashfloods. This has led Data on forest diversity, distribution and use pattern were threatening for species and many of them are on the verge of collected from secondary sources and through participatory extinction (Ram et al., 2004). observation method. The Forest Survey of India data of The main objective of conducting this study was to 2015 and Land Use Statistics, the Ministry of Agriculture, examine diversity, distribution, economic viability, use Government of India (GOI) data of 2001 and 2015 were pattern and conservation of forests of Uttarakhand. It further gathered appropriately. These data are related with vertical studied that how the abundant forest resources can be used distribution of forests, district wise forest cover/change, area sustainably so that the fragile landscape can be restored and under tree species and forest land use. I visited the entire the rural people can harness forest products to carry their Uttarakhand Himalaya several times to study diversity, livelihoods sustainably. distribution and use pattern of forest and compare them with the data of secondary sources. Further, the gathered data were METHODOLOGY analyzed qualitatively and supported by suitable graphs. THE STUDY AREA The Uttarakhand Himalaya having 53,483 km2 geographical RESULTS area, stretches between 28o43’ N-31o28’ N and 77o 34’ E- Forest diversity and distribution 81o03’ E (Fig. 1). Out of its total area, 93% is mountainous Diversity and distribution of forest species in Uttarakhand mainland, of which, 19% area is under permanent snow Himalaya vary according to the altitudinal gradient (Sati cover, glaciers and steep slopes. Due to physical constraints, 2006), from <500 m to >4,000 m (Table 1). Floral diversity trees cannot grow in these locations. Uttarakhand can be is the lowest in pine forest whereas it is the highest in mixed- divided mainly into four physiographic zones–the Greater oak forest. Tropical deciduous forest and coniferous forest have Himalaya, Middle Himalaya, Shivalik ranges and Doon and substantial floral diversity. In mixed oak forest, dominating Tarai regions. Climate varies from sub-tropical to temperate species are oak itself Tilonj, Kafal, Bhamore, Dal Chini and and frigid cold with temperature ranging from sub-zero to Burans. In pine forest, pine is single species and it does not 43oC. Average annual rainfall is 1550mm. The recorded allow other trees to grow. There are a number of species of forest area stands for 34,662 km2, which is 61.43% (MOA same genera in coniferous forest among them dominating 2012) of its geographical area. Of which reserve forest species are deodar, fir, spruce and Ringal (small bamboo). constitutes 71.08%, protected forest 28.51% and unclassified Tropical forests such as Sal and Shisham are widely distributed forest covers only 0.41% area. Per capita forest cover is 0.248 in Tarai, Doon valley and Shivalik regions (<300 m). Other ha. It shares 3.15% of India’s forest area. A study carried out tree species in this region are Khair, Semal, Kanju, Sissoo and by the Forest Research Institute Dehradun (FRI 2015) states Haldu. Bushes and shrubs are also found in this region. Total that Uttarakhand has less genetic diversity of Deodar as it is area under these forests is about 2,826 km2. Forests distributed between 300 and 1100m are characterised by mixed tropical forests with bushes and scrubs. These forests occupy 4,018 km2 areas. Pine forests are densely distributed between 1,100 and 1,800 m and possessed 10024 km2 areas. Mixed oak forests are found between 1800 and 2800 m with high biodiversity. Coniferous forests are found between 2800 and 3400m and beyond of it, vast alpine pasturelands are found (Fig. 2 & 3).

Fig. 2. Graphic representation of vertical distribution of forests in Fig. 1. Map showing location of the Uttarakhand Himalaya Uttarakhand

22 ENVIS Centre on Himalayan Ecology Area under Tree Species Figure 4 shows that the Himalayan dry and moist temperate forests have the highest area i.e. 39.02% followed by pine with 29.61% and tropical dry and moist deciduous forests (26.25%). Area under alpine dry and moist scrub is 4.98 and plantation forest covers 2.7%.

Fig. 3. [A] Tropical broadleaf deciduous forests in the Rajaji National Park near Dehradun [B] Subtropical pine forests in Jaharikhal, Pauri [C] Mixed oak forests and coniferous forests in the Kedarnath Valley [D] Alpine Meadows in the Kedarnath Valley Fig. 4. Area under tree species (Source: SFRI 2015) The highest forest area (41.35%) is found between 1000 and 2000m followed by forest lies between 2000 and 3000m (23.18%). Forest area between 500m and 1000m is 16.57% while the lowest forest area (0.08%) is found under >4000m. Forest area <500 m is 11.56% whereas 7.14% forest is found between 3000 and 4000m. In terms of forest types such as very dense, medium dense and open forests, the highest areas is under medium dense forest (56.11%) followed by open forest (24.47%) and then very dense forest (19.61%). Very dense forests lie between 500 and 3000m while medium dense forests are located from <500 to 4000m. In terms of open forest, the highest area lies between 1000 and 3000 m.

Table 1. Vertical distribution of forest cover in Uttarakhand (Area in km2) Altitude VDF MDF OF Total zone Fig. 5. Geographical area and forest cover in 2001 and 2015 (Land Use Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, GOI 2001 and 2015) km2 (%) <500m 548 1732 546 2826 11.65 District wise geographical area and forest cover 500-1000m 1035 2189 794 4018 16.57 Geographical area and state and district shares of forest were 1000-2000m 1727 5477 2820 10024 41.35 analyzed. Area wise, three districts–Chamoli, Uttarkashi and 2000-3000m 1345 3074 1202 5621 23.18 Pithoragarh have the highest geographical area in Uttarakhand (Fig. 5). Pauri, Nainital, Tehri, Almora and Dehradun districts 3000-4000m 99 1126 506 1731 7.14 are medium in size whereas Champawat, Rudraprayag, >4000m 0 4 16 20 0.08 Bageshwar, Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar (USN) are 4754 13602 5884 the smallest districts in area. I did not notice any significant Total 24240 100 (19.61%) (56.11%) (24.47%) relationship between districts’ geographical area and forest cover. For example Chamoli district is the biggest in area Source: Based on SRTM, Digital Elevation Model, State Forest where as its area under forest is only one-third. Uttarkashi and Reports of India, 2015 Pithoragarh have the same situation. In contrast, Champawat Figures in parenthesis are the % of forest area district is the smallest in geographical area however; its forest

ENVIS Bulletin Himalayan Ecology, Vol 26, 2018 23 area is two-third. Proportion of forest cover is also high in received decrease in forest cover from 34.2% (highest) in USN Bageshwar district. to 1.99% (lowest) in Rudraprayag. Forest cover has decreased In the meantime, when we look into the state share of forest in Haridwar district by 3.92% and similarly it has decreased by in these districts, Pauri, Nainital, Uttarkashi and Chamoli 3.34% in Nainital district. The highest increase in forest cover districts have the highest share. Meanwhile, state share of forest was noticed in Dehradun district (7.8%) followed by Almora in USN, Haridwar, Champawat, Rudraprayag and Bageshwar (5.88%), Champawat (5.24%), Bageshwar (5.08%), Tehri districts is the lowest. Other districts Dehradun, Almora and (4.45%), Pauri (4.04%), Chamoli (3.79%) and Pithoragarh Tehri have medium share of forest area. It shows that the (3.39%). Uttarakhand as a whole received 1.26% increase in biggest is the district’s size, higher is the state share of forest. forest area. Data on forest land use were analyzed (Table 3). In Uttarakhand, three types of forest land use: dense forest, open Share of state’s forest area and forest at district level forest and shrubs are found. Time series forest land use data Percentage share of state’s forest area and share of forest of 2001 and 2015 were gathered from SRTM digital elevation at district level was analyzed using data of 2001 and 2015 model and I analyzed them comparing two data. (Table 2). Out of the total state forest area, Pauri, Nainital and Uttarkashi districts had the highest area under foresti.e. 13% each in 2001. Chamoli had 11%, Tehri had 9% and Pithoragarh had 9% forest area. Haridwar and USN had the lowest state forest area share i.e. 3% each. Other districts had 5% and 6% state’s forest share. Further, district share of forest cover was observed and changes were noticed during the period 2001- 2015 in Uttarakhand. Nainital district had the highest forest area (70.67%) followed by Champawat district (67.04%), Pauri district (61.34%) and Bageshwar district (60.69%). In terms of the lowest forest area, USN had 19.91% followed by Haridwar (24.92%), Chamoli (33.39%) and Uttarkashi (38.32%). Other districts had between 25% and 60% forest (2015). Uttarakhand state had 45.32% forest. Fig.6 shows forest cover change (percentage of district’s forest area) Fig. 6. Forest cover change (percentage of district’s forest area); between 2001 and 2015. Four districts of Uttarakhand have (Land Use Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, GOI 2001 and 2015)

Table 2. Percentage share of state’s forest area and percentage share of forest at district level Percentage share of state’s forest area Percentage share of forest at district area District 2001 2015 2001 2015 Pauri 13 13.5 58.9 61.3 Nainital 13 12.4 73.1 70.7 Uttarkashi 13 12.7 38.3 38.3 Chamoli 11 11.1 32.2 33.4 Tehri 9 8.9 56.7 59.2 Pithoragarh 8 8.7 28.6 29.7 Almora 6 6.5 47.6 50.4 Dehradun 6 6.6 48.1 51.9 Bageshwar 5 5.6 57.8 60.7 Champawat 5 4.9 63.7 67 Rudraprayag 5 4.7 58.1 56.9 Haridwar 3 2.4 25.9 24.9 USN 3 2.1 30.3 19.9

Source: Land Use Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, GOI 2001 and 2015

24 ENVIS Centre on Himalayan Ecology Table 3. Forest land use (area in km2) Types 2001 2015 Change (%) Dense forest 19,023 18,356 -3.5 Open forest 4,915 5,884 +19.71 Shrubs 598 307 -48.7 Total 23,938 24,240 +1.26 % of 44.76 45.32 +1.25 geographical area

Source: Based on SRTM, Digital Elevation Model, State Forest Reports of India, 2015

A large part is covered by dense forest which is above 80% followed by open forest. Meanwhile, shrub’s area is very little. In terms of changes in forest land use, dense forest has decreased by 3.5% and area under shrubs also decreased by 48%. However, open forest increased by 19.71% during the reported period. I have analyzed district wise levels of forest cover high, medium and low (Table 4). In state share of forest cover, four districts – Pauri, Nainital, Uttarkashi and Chamoli have high level while Haridwar and USN have low level. Other districts have medium level of state share. In terms of percentage Fig. 7. [A] Women carrying oak leafs (major fodder) in Gairsain [B] of district’s geographical area, Nainital, Champawat, Pauri and Resin is extracted from pine trees in Jakholi [C] Amanla, wild fruit Bageshwar have high level meanwhile; Haridwar and USN grows in the valleys and mid-altitudes [D] Kafal, wild fruit grows in temperate zone along with mixed oak forests have low level. Other districts have medium level.

Table 4. District wise levels of forest cover (2015) (A) Percentage of state’s forest area Indices Levels Districts fall under each indices >10 High Pauri, Nainital, Uttarkashi and Chamoli 5-10 Medium Tehri, Pithoragarh, Almora, Dehradun, Bageshwar, Champawat and Rudraprayag <5 Low Haridwar and USN (B) Percentage of district’s geographical area >60 High Nainital, Champawat, Pauri and Bageshwar 30-60 Medium Tehri, Rudraprayag, Dehradun, Almora, Uttarkashi and Chamoli <30 Low Pithoragarh, Haridwar and USN

Source: SFRI, 2015

Forest use pattern sub-tropical grasslands are extensive and fodder leafs, mainly About 70% of the economy is dependent on agriculture, from mixed oak forests, are abundant, milk production is livestock and forest in Uttarakhand. At the meantime, the substantial. The areas of mountainous mainland that falls rural people of Uttarakhand are substantially dependent on under temperate forests are rich in fodder and consequently forests for fuel-wood, fodder and food/fruits (Sati 2006), milk production in these areas is high. Pine and oak leafs are because the remote villages do not have much support of also used to make animal beds and manure. Firewood is used liquid petroleum gas (LPG) and fodder. Forests provide for cooking food and warming house by about 90% rural fodder in the forms tree leafs and grasses from both people. It is generally obtained from pine and oak trees, which subtropical and temperate grasslands. People use them through are extensively found in the mid-altitudes and the highlands sending livestock in the forest area and collecting grasses respectively 1000-2400 m. It is collected from dry or dead and tree leafs from forests for stall feeding. Availability of trees mainly by women. Cutting of young trees for firewood grasses and fodder leaves have great implications on milk is prohibited. During summer, the rural people gather fuel production. I observed that the areas where temperate and wood and stall them for the winter season when the highland

ENVIS Bulletin Himalayan Ecology, Vol 26, 2018 25 region receives snowfall. Timber is used for making houses and that USN and Haridwar districts obtain the lowest forest cover furniture. It meets the need of constructing houses and making because these districts lie in plain regions where arable land furniture for household uses after getting permission from the is more than 70%, and population concentration is high. Two Van Panchayat. Non-timber forest products in the form of a districts of mountainous mainland– Chamoli and Uttarkashi number of wild fruits are abundant. There are seasonal wild also obtain less forest area. We observed that a large part of fruits with high nutrient value and plenty. During summer, these districts fall under perpetual snow cover area and alpine Kafal (Fig. 7) Hansole and Kilmode and during winter Bhamor pasturelands therefore, forest cover is less. It was noticed that and Bhatmoya grow. People eat Bedu and Timila as both fruits Nainital district possess the highest area due to large tract of and vegetables. Resin extracted from pine trees. It has multiple forest and world famous Corbett National Park.We have further uses and Uttarakhand state is number one in resin production in noticed the reasons of decrease and increase in forest cover India. Oak bark is used for making Agricultural tools and it is at the district level in Uttarakhand. The three districts where produced largely from Uttarakhand. forest cover has decreased are located in the plain region. A large forest area has been transferred for either cultivation or Conservation of Forest construction of settlements and thus forestland has decreased. The state of Uttarakhand has a long and rich history of conserving In Rudraprayag district, the cause of decrease in forest area forest through applying indigenous and modern knowledge. As, during the period was mainly the Kedarnath disaster of 2013, livelihoods of a large group of people is dependent on forest when cloudburst triggered debris flow and flashfloods have products, they are more aware towards conservation of forests. devastated the entire landscape. A report from NRSC, ISRO, Until today, people of Uttarakhand worship a number of plant Hyderabad (2013) states that about 125ha. grassland and 46 ha species such as oak, Peepal and sacred groves during various forest cover loss was noticed in Rudraprayag district due to the occasions. As a result, it has a vast forest cover of vary valuable said incident. The other reason is that the district has famous tree species. highland pilgrimage ‘Kedarnath’ where number of people visit Uttarakhand state has been conserving forest through every year. To provide them services - lodging and boarding– the establishing Van Panchayat, an old and only form of conserving local people construct business avenues along the river valley forest in India. A substantial forest area comes under Van and for that they cut forest. The other reasons for decrease in Panchayat in Uttarakhand and the rural people use and conserve forest cover are rotational felling and diversion of forestlands them. Every village has its own forest area under Van Panchayat for developmental activities (SFRI 2015). We observed that (total number in the state is 7348). Besides, village people help increase in forest area in Pauri, Chamoli, Tehri, Pithoragarh, the forest officials in conserving forest. Almora, Bageshwar and Champawat was due to out-migration Uttarakhand is a land where the world famous Chipco from these districts. Increase in forest area in other districts, Movement started in the 1970’s. Chipco means hugging the and Uttarakhand as a whole, has a number of driver forces; trees. The state government (then Uttar Pradesh) ordered cutting among them Forest Act of India, Van Panchayat and people’s of large-scale temperate forest from the hills of Uttarakhand. participation in forest conservation are prominent.Changes in The local people, whose livelihood was dependent on the forest forest cover in the state were due to a number of driving forces. for fodder, firewood and food, opposed illegal cutting of trees. Although, a part of Dehradun district i.e. the Doon valley, has They hugged trees and warned contractors that before cutting received an exodus immigrants after 2000 when it became trees, you have to cut our heads. This has become a mass the state capital yet its mountainous parts received increase in movement and the state government was compelled to cancel forest cover. Almora, Pauri and Tehri districts noticed exodus its venture. out-migration and as a result, forest cover increased. Forest Joint forest management (JFM), another means of forest Act of India 1982 has played a significant role in increasing conservation, was initiated in 1992 when it was a part of Uttar forest area. There are several social groups working actively Pradesh State. There are 10107 JFM committees managing in conserving forests. All these drivers have manifested in about 0.86 million ha (25%) of forest area. About 0.5 million increase in forest cover. families are involved in these committees and of which, 15,000 families are scheduled tribes (MoEF 2005). Under JFM, CONCLUSION employees of State Forest department and office bearer of The study revealed that Uttarakhand state has abundant forest village assembly work together to conserve forests. Besides, resources, which are economically viable and which have high soil conservation department also conserve forest mainly in the potential for the economic development of the state. However, degraded land. use pattern of forest products are limited upto the surrounding villages and a number of dense forest areas are unused mainly DISCUSSION those are located in the high lands/ remote regions. Forest Both vertical and horizontal variations in forest cover and its products: timber and non-timber can further enhance the rural density were noticed in the Uttarakhand Himalaya. We observed livelihoods, if they are sustainably used. Among the major

26 ENVIS Centre on Himalayan Ecology forest use, forest based small-scale industries at village level Rao KS, Maikhuri RK, Saxena KG (1999). International Tree and sustainable management of forests and grasslands are Crops Journal, 10(1): 1-17. essential. For instance furniture industry, dairy farming and wild fruits and flowers based processing centres have potential Sati VP (2006). Forest Resource Management in Mountain for utilizing forest products sustainably. This can be carried out Regions: A Case for the Pindar Basin of Uttaranchal along with maintaining conservation measures. Pine trees are Himalaya. Lyonia: A Journal of Ecology and Application, the most susceptive to forest fire thus prompt and immediate 11(1): 75-84. measures are to be taken up. In the meantime, pine is the most economically viable trees. Saxena KG, Rao KS, Sen KK, Maikhuri RK, Semwal RL (2001). Conservation Ecology, 5: 14, online http//www. REFERENCES consecol.org./vol15/iss2/art14. CEDAR 2010. Centre for ecological development and research, final report, available at: www.cedarhimalaya.org. SFRI (2015). State Forest Report of India, Ministry of Environment & Forest, Dehradun. Champion HG, Seth SK (1968). A revised survey of the forest types of India, Government of India Publications, New Delhi. SFRI (2005). Forest survey of India, Ministry of Environment & Forest, Dehradun, 140-142. Joshi BK (2006). Common property resources synergy and perspectives of sustainable management in Garurganga Singh K, Singh HS (2009). Forage resource development in watershed, Indian Central Himalaya. Journal of Human Uttarakhand Experiences and observations, 1-35. Ecology, 20: 69-75 Singh SP, Tewari A, Jina BS (2004). Climate Change Challenge Kumari P, Tiwari LM (2009). Biodiversity in Uttarakhand (3C) and social-economic-ecological, International Journal Himalaya region. Nature and Science, 7(3): 545-552. of Ecological Environmental Science, 31: 45-48.

Kumar A, Ram J (2005). Anthropogenic disturbances and plant UEPPCB (2004). State of Environment Report for Uttaranchal, biodiversity in forests of Uttaranchal, Central Himalaya. Uttaranchal Environmental Protection and Pollution Control Biodiversity Conservation, 14(1): 309-331. Board, Government of Uttaranchal, Dehradun.

Maikhuri RK, Semwal RL, Rao KS, Saxena KG (1997). International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 4(1): 192-203.

Malik ZA, Bhatt AB (2016). Regeneration status of tree species and survival of their seedlings in Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuary and its adjoining areas in Western Himalaya, India, Tropical Ecology, 4(2): 23-29.

MOA (2012). Land use Statistics, Minstry of Agriculture, GOI Phartiyal P and Tewari A (2006). IASCP Conference Papers, http://www.indiana.edu.

MoEF (2005). Proceedings of the National Workshop on Joint Forest Management.

Phartiyal P, Tewari A (2006). IASCP Conference Papers, http:// www.indiana.edu.

Ram J, Kumar A, Bhatt J (2004). Plant diversity in six forest types of Uttaranchal, Central Himalaya, India. Current Science, 86: 975–978.

ENVIS Bulletin Himalayan Ecology, Vol 26, 2018 27