Phytosociological and Ethnobotanical Studies of Mohmand Agency Department of Botany Islamia College Peshawar 2017

PHYTOSOCIOLOGICAL AND ETHNOBOTANICAL STUDIES OF MOHMAND AGENCY

SHAH KHALID

DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY ISLAMIA COLLEGE PESHAWAR 2017

PHYTOSOCIOLOGICAL AND ETHNOBOTANICAL STUDIES OF MOHMAND AGENCY

Thesis submitted to the Department of Botany, Islamia College Peshawar, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

IN BOTANY

SHAH KHALID

DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY ISLAMIA COLLEGE PESHAWAR 2017

iii

To my Parents And My Mentor Prof. Dr. Syed Zahir Shah

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………………………I

LIST OF TABLES ...... vi LIST OF FIGURES ...... vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... x ABSTRACT ...... 1 CHAPTER 1 ...... 3 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 3 1.1. General objectives ...... 3 1.2. Site Description ...... 3 1.2.1. Boundary and Locality ...... 3 1.2.2. Administration ...... 4 1.2.3. People of Mohmand Agency ...... 5 1.2.4. Demography ...... 6 1.2.5. Physiography ...... 6 1.2.6. Climate ...... 7 1.2.7. Education ...... 7 1.2.8. Agriculture ...... 8 1.2.9. Forests ...... 9 1.3. Scope of the Study Area ...... 9 1.4. Introduction to Phytosociology ...... 12 1.4.1. History and Scope of Phytosociology ...... 13 1.4.1.1. Dependent Unions ...... 13 1.4.1.2. Commensal Unions...... 14 1.4.2. Classification of Plant Communities ...... 14 1.4.3. Life Form: An Important Character in Plant Sociology ...... 14 1.4.4. Properties of Communities for Identification...... 17 1.4.4.1. Species Richness...... 17

1.4.4.2. Species Diversity ...... 18 1.4.4.3. Species Abundance ...... 18 1.4.5. Factors Shaping the Plant Communities ...... 18 1.4.6. Analyses of Plant Communities ...... 19 1.4.7. Importance of Phytosociology ...... 20 1.5. The Science of Survival: Ethnobotany ...... 35 1.5.1. Different Uses of Plants ...... 37 1.5.2. Why Ethnobotany Is Important ...... 37 1.6. Conservation of Flora ...... 46 CHAPTER 2 ...... 50 2. METHODOLOGY ...... 50 2.1. Phytosociology ...... 50 2.1.1. Reconnaissance ...... 50 2.1.2. Primary Survey ...... 50 2.1.3. Extensive Survey ...... 51 2.1.4. Method for Sampling ...... 51 2.1.5. Community Attributes That Were Studied...... 51 2.1.5.1. Importance Value (IV) ...... 51 2.1.5.2. Similarity Index (SI) ...... 52 2.1.5.3. Species Diversity (SD) ...... 52 2.1.5.4. Species Richness (SR) ...... 52 2.1.5.5. Maturity Index ...... 53 2.1.5.6. Life Form ...... 53 2.1.5.7. Leaf Size Spectra ...... 54 2.1.5.8. Leaf Types ...... 54 2.1.5.9. Phenological Behavior ...... 54 2.2. Ethnobotany ...... 55 2.2.1. Data Collection ...... 55 2.2.1.1. Relative Frequency Citation ...... 56 2.2.1.2. Use Value (UV) ...... 56 2.2.1.3. Relative Importance ...... 56

2.2.1.4. Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient ...... 57 2.3. Palatability ...... 57 2.4. Measurement of Rangeland Productivity ...... 57 2.5. Nutritional and Chemical Analysis of Some Selected Plants ...... 57 2.6. Edaphology ...... 58 2.7. Conservation Status of the Flora ...... 58 2.8. Data Analysis ...... 59 CHAPTER 3 ...... 60 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 60 3.1. Floristics ...... 60 3.1.1. Life Form and Its Seasonality ...... 62 3.1.2. Leaf Size Spectra and Its Seasonality ...... 63 3.2. Phenology ...... 78 3.3. Community Structure ...... 94 3.3.1. Spring Aspect ...... 95 3.3.1.1. Artemisia-Brachypodium-Aristida Community (AMB) ...... 95 3.3.1.2. Dodonaea-Brachypodium-Hordeum Community (DSK) ...... 95 3.3.1.3. Hordeum-Medicago-Peganum Community (KJK) ...... 96 3.3.1.4. Bromus-Trigonella-Silene Community (LSP) ...... 97 3.3.1.5. Aristida-Hordeum-Phalaris Community (KTP) ...... 97 3.3.1.6. Dodonaea-Rumex-Acacia Community (PRG) ...... 98 3.3.1.7. Hordeum-Medicago-Peganum Community (KJK) ...... 99 3.3.1.8. Brachypodium-Astragalus-Teucrium Community (SAF) ...... 99 3.3.1.9. Medicago-Acacia-Acacia Community (TRG) ...... 100 3.3.1.10. Hordeum-Malcolmia-Rhazya Community (YKG) ...... 100 3.3.2. Summer Aspect ...... 101 3.3.2.1. Artemisia-Brachypodium-Aristida Community (AMB) ...... 101 3.3.2.2. Dodonaea-Brachypodium-Hordeum Community (DSK) ...... 102 3.3.2.3. Hordeum-Medicago-Peganum Community (KJK) ...... 102 3.3.2.4. Aristida-Hordeum-Phalaris Community (KTP) ...... 103 3.3.2.5. Bromus-Trigonella-Monotheca Community (LSP) ...... 103

iii

3.3.2.6. Dodonaea-Acacia-Mentha Community (PRG) ...... 104 3.3.2.7. Hordeum-Medicago-Peganum Community (KRP) ...... 104 3.3.2.8. Brachypodium-Astragalus-Teucrium Community (SAF) ...... 105 3.3.2.9. Medicago-Acacia-Acacia Community (TRG) ...... 106 3.3.2.10. Hordeum-Malcolmia-Rhazya Community (YKG) ...... 106 3.3.3. Winter Aspect ...... 107 3.3.3.1. Artemisia-Acacia-Malcolmia Community (AMB) ...... 107 3.3.3.2. Dodonaea-Medicago-Alyssum Community (DSK) ...... 108 3.3.3.3. Medicago-Herneraria-Filago Community (KJK)...... 108 3.3.3.4. Medicago-Acacia-Trigonella Community (KRP) ...... 109 3.3.3.5. Malcolmia-Polygonum-Dodonaea Community (KTP) ...... 110 3.3.3.6. Bromus-Trigonella-Monotheca Community (LSP) ...... 110 3.3.3.7. Dodonaea-Rumex-Acacia Community (PRG) ...... 111 3.3.3.8. Teucrium-Cynodon-Acacia Community (SAF)...... 111 3.3.3.9. Medicago-Acacia-Acacia Community (TRG) ...... 112 3.3.3.10. Malcolmia-Rhazya-Medicago Community (YKG) ...... 112 3.3.4. Autumn Aspect ...... 113 3.3.4.1. Acacia-Salvia-Aristida Community (AMB) ...... 113 3.3.4.2. Dodonaea-Aristida-Acacia Community (DSK) ...... 114 3.3.4.3. Monotheca-Rhazya-Acacia Community (KJK)...... 114 3.3.4.4. Acacia-Withania-Ziziphus Community (KRP) ...... 115 3.3.4.5. Polygonum-Dodonaea-Withania Community (KTP) ...... 115 3.3.4.6. Monotheca-Salvia-Rhazya Community (LSP) ...... 116 3.3.4.7. Dodonaea-Acacia-Acacia Community (PRG) ...... 116 3.3.4.8. Astragalus-Teucrium-Acacia Community (SAF) ...... 117 3.3.4.9. Acacia-Acacia-Tribulus Community (TRG) ...... 117 3.3.4.10. Rhazya-Ziziphus-Acacia Community (YKG) ...... 118 3.3.5. Discussion ...... 118 3.3.5.1. Community Structure ...... 118 3.3.6. Diversity Indices ...... 119 3.3.7. Species Richness ...... 121

3.3.8. Maturity Index (MI)...... 121 3.3.9. Similarity Index ...... 133 3.4. Rangeland Productivity ...... 179 3.5. Edaphology ...... 180 3.6. Ethnobotany ...... 183 3.6.1. Ethnobotanical Importance of Plants ...... 184 3.6.2. Statistical Analysis-Correlation of the Ethnobotanical Information ...... 185 1.1.1. Discussion-Ethnobotany...... 185 1.2. Palatability of Vegetation ...... 217 1.3. Conservation ...... 225 1.4. Chemical and Nutritional Analysis of Some Selected Plants ...... 242 1.4.1. Essential Elements...... 242 1.4.2. Nutritional Contents ...... 243 CHAPTER 4 ...... 245 2. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 245 2.1. Conclusion ...... 245 2.2. Recommendations ...... 247 3. REFERENCES ...... 248

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Number of families, genera and species of Mohmand Agency ...... 61 Table 2. Floristic composition, ecological characteristics and seasonality of different species of Mohmand Agency ...... 65 Table 3. Seasonal variation of various ecological characteritics of the flora of Mohmand Agency ...... 76 Table 4. Summary of ecological characteristics ...... 77 Table 5. Phenological behavior of the flora during different months ...... 82 Table 6. Monthwise occurrence of species in different phenological stages ...... 94 Table 7. Families at different sites with respective total importance values ...... 123 Table 8. Number of species with their life forms, leaf sizes, habits and leaf type at different sites ...... 126 Table 9. Plant communities of Mohmand Agency with their respective sites and ecological indices ...... 131 Table 10. Similarity indices of major plant communities of Mohmand Agency ...... 134 Table 11. Species with their respective importance values (IV) in different season at different sites ...... 135 Table 12. Summary of different sites with number of species in different habit, life form and leaf size classes ...... 178 Table 13. TIV of species from different habits, life form and leaf sizes ...... 179 Table 14. Rangeland productivity (g/m2) of selected sites in different seasons ...... 180 Table 15. Physical properties of soil of different sites ...... 182 Table 16. Chemical properties of soils of different sites ...... 182 Table 17. Correlation Matrix-Relationship among RFC, EIV, UV and RI ...... 192 Table 18. Species, family and vernacular names with ethnobotanical indices of the plants of Mohmand Agency ...... 193 Table 19. Species with families and respective level of palatability ...... 218 Table 20. Sepcies, their conservational attributes and conservation status ...... 228 Table 21. Number of Species in Different Conservation Status from Different Families ...... 235

Table 22. Selected species with micro and macro nutrient contents ...... 244 Table 23. Selected species with percent nutritional contents ...... 244

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Pakistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Showing Relative Position of Mohmand Agency (FATA)...... 10 Figure 2. Map of Mohmand Agency Showing Relative Position of Research Sites...... 11 Figure 3. Number of species in vegetative stage in different months ...... 80 Figure 4. Number of species in flower stage in different months ...... 80 Figure 5. Number of species in reproductive stage/fruiting in different months ...... 81 Figure 6. Number of species in post reproductive stage in different months ...... 81 Figure 7. Correlation among UV, RI and RFC ...... 192 Figure 8. Different plant use categories with respective number of species used ...... 187 Figure 9. Some of the Important Species on the bases of RFC ...... 188 Figure 10. Some of the Important Species on the bases of UV ...... 188 Figure 11. Some of the Important Species on the bases of RI ...... 187

vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S.No. Abbr. Full Term S.No. Abbr. Full Term

1 AIV Average Importance Value 21 IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

2 AMB Ambar Site 22 KJK Khwezo Site

3 AP Aphyllous 23 KRP Krhapa Site

4 Au Autumn Season 24 KTP Kutatrap Site

5 CH Chamaephytes 25 LP Leptophylls

6 D Dicot 26 LP Less Palatable

7 D-1 Simpson Diversity Index 27 LSP Loya Sha Pindialai Site

8 DSK Danish Kool Site 28 M Monocot

9 E Endangered 29 MC Microphanerophytes

10 EC Electrical Conductivity 30 MC Microphylls (leaf size)

11 FATA Federally Administered 31 MG Megaphanerophytes (life form) Tribal Areas

12 FL In Flowering 32 MG Megaphylls (leaf size)

13 FR In Fruit 33 MI Maturity Index

14 G Gymnosperms 34 MP Moderately Palatable

15 GE Geophytes 35 MS Mesophylls (leaf size)

16 H Herbs 36 MS Mesophanerophytes (life form)

17 H’ Shannon Diversity Index 37 NN Nanophanerophytes

18 HC Hemicryptophytes 38 NP Nanophylls (Leaf Size)

19 HP Highly Palatable 39 NP Non Palatable (Palatability)

20 I Infrequent 40 NWFP North West Frontier Province

41 OM Organic Matter 56 USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republicans

viii

42 PR Post Reproductive 57 UV Use Value

43 PRG Prhang Ghar Site 58 V Vegetative Phase (In Phenology)

44 R Rare 59 V Vulnerable (In Conservation Status)

45 RFC Relative Frequency Citation 60 Wi Winter season

46 RI Relative Importance 61 YKG Yekka Ghund Site

47 S Shrubs 62 IV Importance Value

48 SAF Safi Site 63 FIV Family Importance Value

49 Su Summer Season 64 SZ Season

50 Sp Spring Season

51 T Tree

52 TH Therophytes

53 TIV Total Importance Value

54 TRG Targhakhy Site

55 UOP University of Peshawar

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Alhamdulellah! I have completed my dissertation and it is a moment of extreme honor and joy for me to pay special thanks to my teacher and research supervisor Prof. Dr. Syed Zahir Shah (Former Dean, Faculty of Life and Chemical Sciences, Islamia College Peshawar) for his consistent help and guidance throughout the entire span of this work. His critical analysis of each step—from experiments to surveys and from writing to filtering—enabled me to shape my research work. I am also thankful to Prof. Dr. Muhammad Saleem Khan, Chairman Department of Botany Islamia College Peshawar, for his guidance, and especially for providing me a suitable space for research work and thesis write up. I would also like to avail the opportunity of thanking Prof. Dr. Siraj Uddin, Chairman, Department of Botany, University of Peshawar for valuable suggestions and corrections in this document.

I would also like to avail the opportunity to pay special thanks to my teachers, Prof. Dr. Samin Jan (Ex-Chairman Department of Botany, Islamia College Peshawar), Dr. Izhar Ahmad, Dr. Arshad Iqbal, Dr. Wisal Muhammad Khan and Mr. Khushnood ur Rehman for their support and guidance whenever I needed.

Special thanks are extended to my colleagues & teachers Dr. Barakatullah and Dr. Naveed Akhtar who were always there to help me in shaping this manuscript. Mr. Muhammad Anwar Sajad, Mr. Sher Wali, Mr. Maqsood Anwar and Miss. Syeda Asma Taskeen could not be forgotten in this regard. They always encouraged me and helped me in different steps during the entire progress. I am extremely thankful to my supervisor Prof. Dr. Aaron M. Ellison, Harvard University, who shaped the entire idea about the data and its analysis. I would like to thank all the non-teaching staff of Department of Botany, Islamia College Peshawar for their help.

At last, thanks to my parents and siblings for supporting me throughout the entire span of my academic career.

Shah Khalid

ABSTRACT

This thesis explored phytosociology, ethnobotany and conservation status of the flora of Mohmand Agency (FATA, Pakistan). Flora from 10 selected sites comprising 170 plant species was distributed among 144 genera and 49 families. Among angiosperms, Asteraceae and Poaceae were the two leading families, with 22 species each, followed by Brassicaceae and Fabaceae with 11 species each. Moreover, Lamiaceae, Boraginaceae and Amaranthaceae were some of the other important families. Dicots were most dominant with 141 species from 118 genera and 43 families; monocots were 27 species from 24 genera and 4 families. Gymnosperms were very sparsely distributed in the area with a representation of only 2 species (Ephedra intermedia and Pinus roxburghii). It is worth mentioning that Astragalus was the most represented genus with 4 species.

Vegetation of the area was classified in 40 different plant communities on the bases of altitude and seasonal variation. Based on diversity indices Artemisia-Brachypodium-Aristida and Aristida-Hordeum-Phalaris were the most diverse communities. Species Richness evaluation of the communities indicated that Artemisia-Brachypodium-Aristida and Dodonaea-Rumex-Acacia communities were having the highest species-richness-values (3.1 and 2.86 respectively). Maturity Indices of all the communities were calculated which showed that Dodonaea- Brachypodium-Hordeum and Hordeum-Medicago-Peganum communities were the most mature communities in the research area with MI values of 51.7 and 50 respectively. All the communities were dissimilar as none of the two communities had a similarity index equal to or more than 65 percent.

Life form classification of flora indicated that therophytes were dominant with 97 (57%) species followed by nanophanerophytes and hemicryptophytes (21=12.4% species each). Chamaephytes (17=10% species), geophytes (7=4% species), microphanerophytes (3=1.8% species), mesophanerophytes and megaphanerophytes (2=1.2% species each) were also reported from the area. Leaf size assessment of the flora revealed that it was dominated by nanophylls (74=43% species) and microphylls (47=27.6% species). Leptophylls (33=19.4% species), mesophylls (11=6.5 species) and aphyllous plants (4=2.4 species) were also found in the area. Only 1 species—Nannorrhops ritchiana (0.6%)—was found to be megaphyllous.

Phenological behavior of the plants was studied round the year. It was observed that March-to-June time period of the year was characterized by rich flora and most of the species were in active stage of their life. April was characterized by high flowering spell, with 41% flora in flowering condition. Most of the species were in fruiting condition during the month of May. January was with most of the species (63%) in dormant/post reproductive phase of their life cycle. Spring season was characterized by the presence of 166 species, followed by summer (135 species) and winter (95 species) while autumn—with 54 species—was the least populated season of the year.

People of the area have a high degree of dependency on the plant resources of this area. Most of the plant species were predominantly utilized as fuel (93%), fodder (40%) and medicine (39%). People use many plant species for as first aid in common ailments. Some species were also used as timber (5%) and for many other miscellaneous purposes. Elder folks were found to be more informative, in terms of ethnobotanical information, as compared to the youngsters. Different ethnobotanical indices (Relative Frequency Citation, Relative Importance and Use Value) were also calculated to have a clear picture about the usage and importance of specific plant species. Rangelands were analyzed for annual biomass productivity with the aim to encompass the rangeland productivity of the research area. Average biomass production was calculated and was found to be 19.6g/m2.

Conservation status of the species was evaluated, using IUCN criteria, enumerating 13 species in endangered category, 32 in vulnerable, 82 in rare and 38 species in infrequent category. No species was reported in dominant category indicating poor floristic health of the area. Biotic and abiotic stresses are responsible for the present status of the flora. Grazing (which is directly related to the palatability of vegetation) and cutting are the two major biotic stresses in the area. Plant species were divided into 4 classes of palatability: highly palatable, moderately palatable, less palatable and non-palatable. Results revealed 68 (40%) species to be highly palatable, 39 (22%) moderately palatable, 25 (14%) less palatable and 38 (22%) species non- palatable.

Five plant species comprising Caralluma tuberculata, Fagonia indica, Sageretia thea, Monotheca buxifolia and Ziziphus mauritiana were screened for elemental and nutritional contents. C. tuberculata was with relatively high amount of NPK (Sodium, Phosphorus and Potassium) followed by S. thea and Z. mauritiana. Micronutrient study indicated that Zn and Co was found in highest concentration (57ppm and 2.5ppm respectively) in M. buxifolia. Fe, Pb and Cr concentrations were highest (514ppm, 1.2ppm and 9.3ppm respectively) in F. indica. Carbohydrates, proteins, fats, fibers and ash contents of the selected species were analyzed. S. thea and M. buxifolia were with highest concentrations (57% and 51% respectively) of carbohydrates. M. buxifolia and C. tuberculata were having 3.5 and 3.1% protein contents and 1.2 and 1.2 % fats contents respectively, making them the highest fats and proteins containing plants. S. thea and M. buxifolia were the plants with highest relative ash contents (11.7% and 11.6% respectively) followed by F. indica and C. tuberculata (9.8 and 9.5% respectively). The plants were found to have enough nutrients for the foraging animals and there is no need of external augmentation of nutrients. Soil samples were collected from 10 study sites and were screened for different physicochemical attributes. The results showed that, to a greater extent, the soil of the area is silt loam in texture with pH ranging from 7.4 to 8.4 mol/L i.e. slightly alkaline.

CHAPTER 1

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. General objectives

The present study investigates the distribution of plants, composition & structure of plant assemblages, conservation status of plant species and relationship of plants with the local inhabitants of Mohmand Agency (32° 58´–35° 00´ N; 69° 15´–71° 50´ E), FATA (an area on Pakistan-Afghanistan border). These objectives were accomplished by visiting the area frequently for understanding phenological behavior of the plants. The area was sampled through quadrates for the structure, composition and establishment of plant communities. Data regarding ethnobotany was collected by interviews while conservation status was assessed using IUCN (2001) criteria.

1.2. Site Description

Mohmand Agency is one of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), commonly known as Tribal Areas of Pakistan (Figure 1). FATA is a narrow strip of mountainous region lying on the eastern side of Pak-Afghan border where different Pashtun tribes are living. Mohmand Agency was delineated from the rest of FATA regions by government of Pakistan in 1951. It has an area of 2296 km, surrounded by Bajaur Agency on the north (snowcapped mountains of Bajaur Agency can be seen from Mohmand Agency) and Afghanistan on west. Kabul River is on its south (Separating it from Khyber Agency and Peshawar District) while districts of Charsadda and Peshawar are lying on its east side (Figure 2). The border between these two settled districts—Charsadda & Peshawar—and Mohmand Agency is not a constant and clear demarcation line, as the Mohmand tribe is spilled from the Agency into some parts of these districts (Shah, 1993; Ahmad, 1980).

1.2.1. Boundary and Locality FATA has two boundaries; one boundary separates it from the settled districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the other one—Durand Line—is an international border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The strip of land between the two borders is called the Tribal Areas of Pakistan and is divided into 7 agencies (Bajaur, Mohmand, North Waziristan, South Waziristan, Kurram, Orakzai and Khyber Agency) and Frontier Regions (FR). These tribal areas are studded with

high peaked mountains, intervened by small and beautiful valleys. Hindu Kush, Himalaya and Karakorum are the main belts of mountains found in the tribal areas (Shah, 1993).

Being part of the tribal area, Mohmand agency has the same physical features as rest of the FATA. The region, with few exceptions, has desolate and rugged monotony of brownish hills, alternated by sun-backed and dusty plains. The mountains are fissured by seasonal streams in which water flows only in rainy season. W.R.H. Merk (1984) summed up the terrain as ―the aspect of the mountain hills is exceedingly dreary, and the eye is everywhere met by dry ravines between long rows of rocky hills and crags, scantily clothed with coarse grass, scrub wood, and the dwarf palm (mazarai), leading up to the highest peaks of Ilazai and Tatara‖(Ahmad, 1979).

1.2.2. Administration Mohmand Agency is comprised of seven ―Tehsils‖ which are separate administrative units. These Tehsils are Halemzai, Pindialai, Safi, Upper Mohmand, Ambar, Prhang Ghar and Ekka Ghund. Under the British rule, the administrative control of the tribal areas was under the central government. After independence of Pakistan in 1947, ministry of foreign affairs got the control of the tribal areas. Later on, a new ministry—ministry of states and frontiers—was established and was given the charge of controlling matters related to the tribal areas (Shah, 1993). Since 1947 until 1951, Mohmand Agency was considered as part of the District Peshawar and was under the administrative control of the deputy commissioner of the Peshawar. The commissioner was residing in Peshawar and was controlling the region with the help of a political tehsildar based in Shabqadar. In 1951, when Mohmand Agency was separated as a new Agency in FATA, political agent was appointed as the ultimate administrator. The political agent, based in Peshawar, was an ambassador from the Governor of the then NWFP (North West Frontier Province) to the Mohmand Agency. The governor is/was an agent of the president of Pakistan for the tribal areas.

This setup was slightly modified in 1965 by appointing two political tehsildar, one each for Upper Mohmand and Lower Mohmand. These political tehsildars were based in their respective localities and were under the administrative authority of the assistant political officer. In 1973, the administrative team including political agent was moved to Ekka Ghund. This was the first time in history that the administrative bodies were moved inside the Mohmand Agency. In 1977, the headquarters of the administration moved from Ekka Ghund to Ghlanai, which is the

permanent headquarters of the Mohmand Agency since then. The current administrative setup could easily be understood by the following hierarchy (Ahmad, 1980; Shah, 1993).

Political Agent Mohmand Agency Ghalanai

Assistant Political Agent Assistant Political Agent Lower Mohmand Upper Mohmand

Political Tehsildar Political Tehsildar And And

Political Naib Tehsildar Political Naib Tehsildar (for each tehsil) (for each tehsil)

1.2.3. People of Mohmand Agency The region is called Mohmand Agency because a Pashtun tribe ―Mohmand‖ is living here. People of this tribe are also living on the other side of the Durand line in Ningarhar and Kunar areas of Afghanistan. Settled districts of Charsadda, Mardan and Peshawar have also many settlements of Mohmand Tribe, which have migrated from their original place (Lal Baha, 1978; Bureau of Statistics, 1990).

―Pukhto‖ or Pashto is the language spoken in Mohmand Agency. The dialect of Pashto, spoken in this region is different and distinct from other dialects. It is somehow similar to the dialect of Peshawar, Charsadda and Mardan due to its close proximity to these areas (Ahmad, 1980). Majority of the people are ―Sunni‖ Muslims, mostly ―Hanafi‖ (following the ways of

Imam Abu Hanifa). Their social structure is tightly governed by the ―Pakhtunwali‖ and Islam. Pakhtunwali is an unwritten code of law followed by all Pashtuns. ―Mullas‖, ―Pirs‖, ―Mian‖ and ―Syeds‖ are influential and revered people among Mohmands and they consider them worth respect from religious point of view (Ahmad, 1980).

1.2.4. Demography For understanding an area from any perspective, population is an important factor to enumerate and should be given importance, especially, while designing policies for the development of the area. To date, five censuses for population have been conducted in Pakistan. First one, carried out in 1951 that recorded a population of 129300 in Mohmand Agency. Second and third were conducted in 1961 and 1972 respectively, reporting a population of 294,215 and 382,922 respectively in the research area. The population decreased to 163,933 according to the fourth census (1981). The last census was completed in 1998 measuring a population of 334,453 in Mohmand Agency (Population Census of Pakistan, 1998). The recent survey of Mohmand Agency has given an estimated population of 0.461 million, with 0.242 million males and 0.219 million females (Important Agency Wise Socio-economic Indicators of FATA, 2013).

1.2.5. Physiography Terrain of Mohmand Agency is mountainous with small plains and valleys. There are three main ranges of mountains in Mohmand Agency viz. Sapper hills, Ilazai hills and Malakand hills. The ―Ilazai‖ mountain is the highest peak in Mohmand Agency with a height of 2716 m. The average height of the mountains is 1066.8 meters. The Sapper range enters into Mohmand Agency from northern side that is an extension from Dir-Bajaur ranges. West of the region is covered by Ilazai hills while Malakand hills cover it from the east (Geography Department UOP, 1975).

From northeastern side, Swat River enters in to the region draining the area. Flowing eastwards, river Swat collects its parts from Danish Kool, Ambar and Pindialai rivers, entering eastwards into Charsadda at ―Munda Pul‖ region. Due to the location of the rivers in deep gorges, water from these rivers cannot be used for irrigation in Mohmand Agency. The level of the fields is high compared to the level of the rivers. Some of the streams of Mohmand agency are drained by Kabul River that is flowing on the southern border of the Agency (Shah, 1993; Geography Department UOP, 1975).

Most of the terrain, being mountainous and stony, is less fertile. The plain area is very little and is in the form of small valleys. Some parts of Danish Kool, Pindialai and Prang Ghar are fertile pieces with good agricultural productivity (Geography Department UOP, 1975).

1.2.6. Climate Climatic conditions of Mohmand Agency are extreme in both summer and winter. The summer is very hot while winter is very dry and cold. June and July are considered the hottest months with a mean maximum temperature of 38 and 28 degrees Celsius respectively. The coldest months, as in most of the plain areas of Pakistan, are December and January with mean maximum temperature of 12 Co in December and 9Co in January (Bureau of Statistics, NWFP, 1989).

Annual rainfall is reported to be 154.4mm, mostly happening in winter and is very meager for normal crop production. In areas where there is no other source of irrigation, agricultural production is very poor due to low rainfall. Recently the situation is a bit improved due to tube wells installed by government, Non-Government Organizations and on personal investment. Still most of the land is ―Barani‖, or dependent upon the rain only for its irrigation (Bureau of Statistics, NWFP, 1989).

1.2.7. Education In comparison to the literacy rate of settled areas of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa i.e. 65% (Annual Statistical Report Government School, 2015), the literacy rate of Mohmand Agency is only 15%. There are two reasons for education to reach late in Mohmand agency. One reason is that Mohmand tribe was having a constant hostility towards British and was not able to accept anything offered by the British. Other reason is late (1951) establishment of Mohmand Agency, compared to other agencies most of which were established in 1890 (Shah, 1993; Ahmad, 1980).

Until 1973, there were only three middle schools in Mohmand Agency that increased to 27 in 1990. The first high school of Mohmand Agency was established at Shabqadar in 1955. Number of high schools increased to 14 in 1990 (Shah, 1993). Recent studies have shown that the number of educational institutes has increased greatly. A report published by the government of Pakistan in 2013 has shown that there are 422 primary, 65 middle and 24 high schools in the area, presently. There are two degree colleges for boys and one Degree College for girls. The

College of Management Sciences and the Technical Education Institute in Ghalanai are first of their kind and is a good start for providing the students of the area with diversity of education. These are the various efforts due to which the literacy ratio has been increased to 15.8% (Important Agency Wise Socio-economic Indicators of FATA, 2013).

To meet the needs of the modern world, youth has to get higher education that needs extensive system of educational institutes and scholarships for the students of FATA, to encourage them for higher education. In Mohmand Agency, the intermediate college at Ekka Ghund was established in 1978 that has now been upgraded to Degree College (Shah, 1993). Nevertheless, the colleges in FATA are lacking in the basic facilities, science laboratory, equipment and staff. The government is doing a good job by providing the youth with different scholarship but still the region is very poor in this regard and more efforts are needed.

1.2.8. Agriculture Agriculture is a major source of development in many countries including Pakistan. It is also playing an important role in the development of Mohmand Agency. Cultivation of crops, forestry, fruit production and animal husbandry are some of the areas that are to be improved. Geographically the Mohmand Agency can be separated into two zones for agricultural production. First one is highly mountainous region with scanty rainfall, few water sources and resultantly low agricultural production. The other zone is of high productivity due to nearness to the canal system of Warsak Dam on Kabul River. This region is on the border of Peshawar (Shah, 1993).

Land of the mountainous region is irrigated by natural springs, streams, tanks and tube wells. However, most of them have to depend only on rain. According to FATA Development Statistics (1988-89), out of total 229620 hectare of Mohmand Agency, only 13337 hectares is arable land. Most of the land is cultivated by the landowners themselves. Due to lack of water, the income of the farmers is low.

The predominant agricultural products of Mohmand Agency are wheat, maize, barley, sugarcane and vegetables (e.g. tomato, red pepper and onion etc.). Sugarcane is a cash crop and is cultivated in the irrigated lands. Wheat is the most cultivated crop followed by maize. The

trend is now changing and people try to cultivate more vegetables because of its good market price (Fata Development Statistics, 2013).

Wheat and maize are the major crops, cultivated on 7441 ha and 2425 ha respectively. Annual production of wheat and maize in 2012-13 was 10512 and 3260 metric tons respectively. Sugarcane is another cash crop that is not very common because of its high water requirements. It is cultivated on 325 ha with an annual production of 8900 metric tons. Mohmand agency produces 13% of the total sugar produced in FATA. Annual production of vegetables is 7830 tons, cultivated on 1093 ha. Annual production of fruits is 1786 tons with a cultivation area of 186 ha. Production of fruits is 2.43% of the total production of fruits in FATA. Production of fruits and vegetables is not very good but the government is constantly trying to improve the condition (Important Agency Wise Socio-economic Indicators of FATA, 2013).

1.2.9. Forests Forests are present on 1581 ha land in Mohmand Agency. Shrubs and grasses with small percentage of trees are the common natural forms of vegetation in Mohmand agency. For the development of the forests, soil formation is necessary but opposite is the case here. Human and animal activities are causing a lot of erosion of the already formed soil. Cutting of vegetation by the local people, overgrazing by the animal and lack of interest of the locals in the development of the forests have made the problem more serious. Mostly shrubs and thorny bushes contribute to the total vegetation. Acacia, black berry, wild olive and oak are the common tree species found in the region. There are some other tree species that are found sporadically (Important Agency Wise Socio-economic Indicators of FATA, 2013).

1.3. Scope of the Study Area Access to the region for the study is hard due to many factors. The present situation due to war on terror and talibanization made it harder even to travel. It is very difficult to access every part of the region. In past, very little was done on the area mostly by the British officers who were unable to go deep into the ravines of the social, cultural and private life of the people of this area. After independence, some people studied the area from different perspective (Shah, 1993; Ahmad, 19980). The area has to be studied more thoroughly for different aspects and natural scientist, social scientists and international workers should be encouraged to take the task that will help in understanding the problems and will help in the development of the area. The

present study is an attempt to understand the vegetation of the area with an emphasis on the conservation status and relationship of the local people with plants.

Figure 1. Pakistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa showing relative position of Mohmand Agency (FATA).

Figure 2. Map of Mohmand Agency showing relative position of research sites. Key:1=YKG (Yakka Ghund) Site, 2=TRG (Targhakhy) Site, 3=KRP (Krhapa) Site, 4=LSP (Loya Sha, Pindialai) Site, 5=DSK (Danish Kool) Site, 6=KTP (Kutatrap) Site, 7=AMB (Ambaar) Site8=PRG (Prhang Ghar) Site, 9=KJK (Khwajawas Kaly) Site, 10=SAF (Safi) Site

1.4. Introduction to Phytosociology

Study of the structure, composition and causes of distribution of plant communities is called phytosociology. All the plant cover that is present on the earth is called ―vegetation‖, which includes an enormous diversity of hundreds of thousands of different kinds of plant species. Vegetation can be subdivided into populations (groups of co-occurring individuals of the same plant species) and communities (groups of co-occurring individuals of different plant species). Communities may have distinctive characters that depend on both local environmental conditions and the particular species. Phytosociology (literally ―plant sociology‖) is the study of plant communities and their relationships (Causton, 1988). It is primarily concerned with the spatial distribution and life forms of different plants (Rejmanek, 1977). It also includes description of the co-occurrence of plant communities and ecosystem functions (Ewald, 2003). Before going into the details of the phytosociology, here it is necessary to clarify that the term phytosociology is more used in Europe and is not much used in the recent vegetation science papers. The term is replaced by the American term ―Plant Community Ecology‖ or ―Vegetation Ecology‖ which is broader than plant sociology but the contexts in which these two terms are used is the same and reflect the same meaning: study of the plant communities (Ewald, 2003).

Plant sociology differs from human sociology in the sense that in human sociology goal of the study is only one species but in plant sociology, all the species of the plants in the community are studied. In phytosociological studies, plants are grouped according to their structure and adaptation whereas in human sociology people may be grouped by, for example, their occupations, age and other character. At earlier stages of ecological succession plant communities are composed of only a few species that may be simple in their structure and adaptations. As succession proceeds, more plants become part of community and it becomes more and more complex (Harper, 1917). Structure of the plant community is the key marker of vegetation in semi-arid ecosystem in long term and helps in understanding the history and future of vegetation (Khan and Hussain, 2013). This study will provide a data for the future studies about the long-term changes in the vegetation and its conservation. In addition, it will provide baseline information about the interrelationship of plants and people of Mohmand Agency.

1.4.1. History and Scope of Phytosociology Krylov (1898) and Paczoski (1896) introduced ―phytosociology‖ to ecologists but it was not until 1917 that it became a popular area of ecological research (Braun-Blanquette, 1932). Although the term has been under a strict criticism from the very beginning but it is easily understandable context and expressiveness of its core ideas made it popular in scientific spheres throughout the world (Ewald, 2003).

Phytosociology includes five areas of scientific inquiry:

1. Investigation of the composition of plant communities 2. Knowledge about the dependence of plant communities on one another and on associated abiotic factors (―syngenesis‖) 3. Observation of the processes of formation and decline of plant communities (―syngenetics‖); 4. Study of the occurrence of plant communities with reference to space (―synchronology‖); 5. Grouping and naming of various units of plant communities (―systematics‖).

Among these five areas, the first one is of foremost importance as it deals with the investigation of the structural foundation of a plant community (Braun-Blanquette, 1932).

The relationships among plants with one another are many, but not all of them are considered for the community relationship. Rather the communal relationships of the plants can be divided into two broad categories: dependent unions and commensal unions (Braun-Blanquette, 1932; Tilman, 1997a).

1.4.1.1. Dependent Unions All dependent unions are those relationships in which the partner plants are dependent upon one another in some way. Plants may depend on one another only for mechanical support or for some protection from or exposure to sunlight, alternatively they may be growing upon another plant as a parasite and will be dependent upon the host plant for food and water. Some plants, called humus plants, grow near the rotting parts of other plants because they can only survive in the presence of that humus. Out of all these, parasitism and nutritive symbiosis are considered clear examples of dependent unions (Nickrent and Musselman, 2010; Sumner, 2012).

1.4.1.2. Commensal Unions According to Van Beneden (Braun-Blanquet, 1932), commensal organisms enter separately into the environment but they use similar or identical resources in a given habitat. They are bound to each other due to their competition for various abiotic factors, such as nutrients, space or light. The intensity of a commensal relationship depends on the individual species. If they are the same species or different species with the same requirements at the same time, they may compete intensely. Competition is likely to be most severe when conditions are favorable, although it does not disappear even in the most stressful conditions such as those found in desert and alpine regions (Braun-Blanquet, 1932). Some ecologists have doubts about the role of competition in shaping the plant communities but it depends on the intensity of competition that how much it plays its role in organization of plant communities (Bengston et al., 1994).

1.4.2. Classification of Plant Communities Different approaches are used to separate one community from another but in most cases communities are defined by the number and characters of their component species. Characters used may include physical, taxonomic, or statistical ones or the interactions of species with one another.

1.4.3. Life Form: An Important Character in Plant Sociology ―The form which the vegetative body of the plant produces as the result of all the life processes which are affected by the environment has been designated as the vegetative form, growth form and life form‖. Species that show similar morphological characters in response to various environmental factors are grouped under the same life form. The use of life form in dividing the plants can be traced back to the work of Humboldt (1806).The idea was later on trimmed and pruned by different scientists including Kerner (1863), Grisebach (1872) and Warminng (1908). Present system of life form in practice, was presented by a Danish plant ecologist Christen Christensen Raunkiær in 1904. How the species behave in the unfavorable part of the season and how they protect their perennating buds and seeds for the next growing seasons, are the characters that determine the position of the species in this classification(Malik et al., 2007).

Extensive study of the life form provides understanding about the physiological processes of plant communities (Oosting, 1956.) and is an important physiognomic character, which clarify adaptation to climatic conditions (Malik et al., 2007). Braun-Blanquette divided all the plants into ten life form classes; each life form class was further divided into groups and subgroups as follow:

I. PHYTOPLANKTON (microscopic floating plants): 1. Areoplankton Microorganisms that are floating in the air are called aeroplanktons. 2. Hydroplankton

Microorganisms, freely floating in the water.

3. Cryoplankton These are special protists that inhabit snow and ice. II. PHYTOEDAPHON (microscopic soil flora): 1. Aerophytobionts: Soil microbiota, which undergo aerobic respiration. 2. Anaerophytobionts: Soil microbiota that carry out anaerobic respiration. III. ENDOPHYTES 1. Endolithophytes: Algae fungi and lichens, inhabiting rocks are included in this group 2. Endoxylophytes: Those parasitic plants, which live inside other plants are called endolithophytes. 3. Endozoophytes: All the protists that are living inside higher animals, most often as pathogens. IV. THEROPHYTES (annuals) 1. Thallotherophytes: All the annual molds and slime molds, having heterotrophic mode of nutrition. 2. Bryotherophytes: Leafy mosses and liver worts, completing life cycle in a single growing season. 3. Pteridotherophytes: The vascular cryptogams, which have a resting period in summer.

4. Eutherophytes: These are annual seed plants, composed of three classes i.e. creeping therophytes, climbing therophytes and erect therophytes. V. HYDROPHYTES (water plants); 1. Hydrophyta natantia: This group includes annual free floating plants of water 2. Hydrophyta adnata: Annual hydrophytes that are attached to the substratum. 3. Hydrophyta radicantia: Higher aquatic plants, with well-developed roots. VI. GEOPHYTES (earth plants): These are plants whose perennating organs are buried in the soil. 1. Geophyta mycetosa (fungus geophytes): These are fungi which are parasites on the roots of the higher plants. 2. Geophyta parasitica (root parasites): Higher parasitic plants, feeding on the roots of the host. 3. Eugeophytes: These are higher plants which have their own perennating organs in the soil in the form of bulbs, rhizomes and root bulbs. VII. HEMICRYPTOPHYTES: Some plants have their perennating structures not underground, but close to the surface of the ground, and are called hemicryptophytes. 1. Hemicryptophyta thallosa (attached thalloid plants): 2. Hemicryptophyta radicantia (rooted hemicryptophytes).

VIII. CHAMAEPHYTES: (surface plants): In these plants, the renewal structures are above the surface at certain height and protected by the mother plant. These are dependent upon the mother plant for their protection. 1. Bryochamaephyta reptantia (carpet mosses): 2. Chamaephyta lichenosa (fruticose lichens): 3. Chamaephyta reptantia (creeping herbs) 4. Chamaephyta succulent (leaf succulents): 5. Chamaephyta pulvinata (cushion plants): 6. Chamaephyta sphagnoidea (bog mosses) 7. Chamaephyta graminidea (hard grasses) 8. Chamaephyta velantia (trailing shrubs. 9. Chamaephyta suffrutescentia (semishrubs)

IX. PHANEROPHYTES: (aerial plants): Plants having their renewal or perennating structures 25-30cm above the surface of the ground. 1. Nanophanerophyta (shrubs) 2. Macrophanerophyta (trees) 3. Phanerophyta succulent (stem succulents) 4. Phanerophyta herbaceae (herbaceous stems): 5. Phanerophyta scandentia (lianas) X. EPIPHYTA ARBORICOLA: (tree epiphytes): These are highly specialized independent phanerophytes set upon the trees, their trunks and branches.

If the life forms of two different communities are having similarities, there is a good reason to say that the physical condition of the communities will be the same (Malik et al., 2007; Hussain et al., 2015). Life form is an excellent indicator of the abiotic factors of the ecosystem (Malik et al., 2007) and for most of the studies regarding life form, Raunkiaer’s life form classification is used (Hussain, 1989; Hussain et al., 2015).

1.4.4. Properties of Communities for Identification It is easier to recognize and differentiate plant communities than to record and describe the characters which make the communities different (Oosting 1956). Although plant communities can be classified by many characters, sometimes a community is so complex and the number of species is so large that it is difficult to delineate or define the community by only a single character. Nonetheless, there are some characters or properties of communities that can be used to compare them and aids in their classification and definition (Morin, 1999).

1.4.4.1. Species Richness One single character that is commonly used to define a plant community is the total number of species present—species richness. It is an important feature in foundational studies of community ecology (MacArthur and Wilson 1967, Connell 1978, Hubbell 2001). Many other important attributes of a community including resistance to invasion, natural disturbance and primary production (Tilman and Downing, 1994; Naeem et al., 1994; Tilman et al., 1996; McGrady-Steel et al., 1997) are directly related to species richness (Morin, 1999). In mountainous areas of Pakistan, the species richness and its relationship with altitude is very little touched by the scientists (Acharya et al., 2009; Saqib et al., 2011). Mohmand agency is a

mountainous region and the floristic list of the species will add to the previous literature of mountainous plants of Pakistan.

1.4.4.2. Species Diversity Although species richness is an important character, it does not provide any information about the rarity or commonness of individual species. Diversity refers to the various kind of species found in the community. The diversity of a single habitat is sometime known as alpha diversity (Whittaker, 1975). There is another kind of diversity known as beta diversity which is the inter-habitat or the regional diversity (Morin, 1999). Quantification and assessment of biological diversity is of central importance in ecology (Chao et al., 2014); species richness being a prominent factor in community ecology (Hubb, 2001) and conservation biology (Brook et al., 2003) is a major index in defining the health of plant communities. It is indicative of the climate, altitude and related habitat conditions. All the characters of the species reflect the prevalent ecological conditions of the area (Khan and Hussain, 2013). Species diversity assessment will be helpful in understanding the predominant ecological conditions of the research area.

1.4.4.3. Species Abundance Phytosociology has a long tradition of using the relative abundance of different types of species in a community (Morin, 1999). There are many species abundance distributions, each with its own statistical distribution in which most commonly used are the broken-stick, geometric and lognormal distributions (Whittaker, 1975; May, 1975).

1.4.5. Factors Shaping the Plant Communities The purpose of vegetation analyses will not be fully apprehended if not accompanied by the governing forces or factors which shaped communities. A term ―habitat‖ is used for the dwelling place of a species; all the abiotic factors of that habitat are called the climatic factors and are one side of the plant sociology. Study of these climatic factors is indispensable for obtaining a clearer picture of the plant community. Individual measurements are not important, as the climatic conditions are subject to abrupt a change, which is why constant and long-term measurements are desired. Automatic equipment is best tools for furnishing this tedious job very easily (Braun-Blanquet, 1932).

Important environmental factors in governing the formation and changes in the plant communities are temperature, light, water, wind and soil along with orographic and edaphic factors (Hussain et al., 2015). There are many biotic factors that have their role in shaping and structuring plant life and in turn, plant communities. Man and other animals are important due to their role in shaping the plant communities. Animal feed on different plants and use certain plants more than other plants. Plants rely upon animals for dispersal of its seeds and pollination. Of all the factors, in today’s world, man is the most important factor for plants; and can possibly be the biggest threat to very rare plant communities of the world (Bradford, 2015).

1.4.6. Analyses of Plant Communities Measurement of different parameters of vegetation is essential for the establishment of a community. Characters of the vegetation are derived from the morphology of the plants, usually called structure, or from the species found in a community, known as floristic composition. For sampling a plant community, a part or sample which is considered representative of the whole community, is taken for measurement. This is the reason the term ―sampling‖ is used for vegetation analysis (Maaler, 2009). Communities may change with passage of time, slower or faster, depending upon the community. The structure and composition of the community ought to be understood for better knowledge about long-term community and ecosystem dynamics (Khan and Hussain, 2013). Plant communities are always subject to change due to ecological driving forces (Khan et al., 2013; Khan and Hussain, 2013).

In the present study, two problems were encountered in the sampling of vegetation in the very beginning. First one: It was difficult to delineate the extent to which an area has been occupied by the ―type‖ plant. Second one: The area occupied by that ―type‖ plants may be very large, and practically it is impossible to sample the whole area. The first problem is addressed by Can and Castro (1959) by the idea of ―reconnaissance‖. Reconnaissance is a short and cursory inspection of the area-to-be-sampled for understanding the vegetation pattern and dominant species, in relation to various abiotic factors. The second problem can be tackled with restricting the sampling to predefined ―local universe‖. Sampling of some representative spots should be accomplished so that can best represent the vegetation. Reconnaissance is followed by a survey of the area, called the primary survey, with the purpose of describing the local dominant plants.

The detailed sampling can then be designed according to the specific objectives of the research. There could be four common objectives behind a community analysis:

1. Phytosociological: Main purpose of this study is the classification of the vegetation in communities. 2. Ecological: The purpose of this kind of survey is to understand the changes in the vegetation in relation to changes in the environmental conditions. 3. Dynamical: The change in vegetation with the passage of time is studied. Plots are sampled and identified permanently for future studies to track long-term changes in the community. 4. Applied: To survey the vegetation for management.

Next stage after primary survey is extensive survey. In this survey the community is thoroughly sampled for all characters that can affect the plant community. In this survey, the unit of sampling has to be marked or delineated to make it easily measurable. This delineated area could be called a sample plot, a quadrate, a stand or a site. Sometime a French term ―releve‖ is also used but sample plot or quadrate is most commonly used terms (Maaler, 2009).

1.4.7. Importance of Phytosociology Every branch of science has attached with it, an art, which is used for the welfare of human being (Harper, 1917). Forestry deals with all the forests that are in natural or nearly natural conditions. By utilizing the knowledge collected by the plant sociologist, foresters can better understand the laws that govern the development and decline of the forests (Burrascano, 2013).

Phytosociology is a handy tool for the classification and identification of the forests. It represents the data about the forest in a condensed form so that everyone can understand and use the data. All the historical, sociological and habitat factors and their importance to the forest are clearly explained if the rules of plant sociology are followed in the data collection. Phytosociology gives firsthand information about the type of vegetation, degree of distribution of different species, dominance and co-dominance of different species and many other parameters associated with vegetation. Vegetation of an area is also an indicator of the climatic condition prevailing there (Burrascano, 2013).

Since the start of phytosociology as a science, many scientists tried and are trying to study and explain phytosociology and related phenomena with reference to different areas. Some of the recent and related research is discussed below to have an idea about the work done so far in this field.

Alhassan (2015) studied phytosociology of weed specie in research farm at Irrigation Research Station (Institute of Agriculture Research) at Ahmadu Bello University, Nigeria. The importance value index indicated that out of total 26 weed species, Echinochloa colona, Digitaria horizontallis and Cyperus iria were the most important weeds in this area. Ismail and Ewald (2015) studied phytosociological characteristics and patterns of diversity of the herbaceous vegetation in some localities of Al-abassia, Sudan. The study resulted in the recording of 48 species, from 42 genera and 20 families among which Tetrapogon cenchriformis was the dominant species followed by Spermacoce pusilla.A study was conducted by Javier Ramirez et al. (2015) for the identification of weed communities in the rice fields of Colombia. The studies showed that 42 weed species were present in the fields, in which Echinochloa colona was the dominant genus. We˛grzyn and Wietrzyk (2015) reported five plant associations from the exposed ridges of Svalbard region viz: (1) the Pedicularietum hirsutae ass. nov., (2) the Deschampsietum alpinae We˛grzyn and Wietrzyk 2015 stat. nov., and (3) the Minuartia biflora community, (4) the Anthelietum juratzkanae Kobayashi ex We˛grzyn and Wietrzyk 2015 and (5) the Gymnomitrietum coralloidis Hadacˇ ex We˛grzyn and Wietrzyk 2015 stat. nov. Rahees et al. (2014) studied the community structure and floristic diversity of Kadalundi- Vallikkunnu Community Reserve (Kerala, India). Out of total seven species from five families, Avicennia officinalis, Rhizophora mucronata and Excoecaria agallochawere some of the dominant species. Bernini et al. (2014) studied the mangrove vegetation of estuary of Itabapoana River, Southeast Brazil. Avecinnia germinans, Lagunclaria racemosa and Rhizophora mangle were some of the important species. Fruiting in these communities was highest during rainy season. Sindhumathi et al., (2014) studied mangrove vegetation of Kerala. They reported that in terms of density and basal area, Rhizophora mucronata was the dominant while Bruguiera cylindrica was dominant in terms of frequency. Overall appearance of the community showed that Rhizophora, Avicennia officinalis, Bruguiera cylindrica and Aegiceras corniculatum.

Junior et al. (2014) studied understory floristic diversity of 10 central Brazilian semi- deciduous tropical forests. Five common and representative species were Cheiloclinium cognatum, Cordiera sessilis, Trichilia catigua, Siparuna guianensis and T. clasussenii. They reported that the area with the same severity of disturbance has the similar kind of understory. Saurav and Das(2014) studied phytosociology of Darjeeling Himalaya vegetation zone of India was studied by. They reported that Rhododendron arboreum Smith, Daphne bholua var. glacialis (Smith and Cave) Burtt. and Fragaria nubicola (Lindley ex Hooker f.) were some of the dominant species. Rare species like Gamblea ciliata C.B. Clarke, Sambucus adnata Wallich ex DC., Treutlera insignis Hooker f., Arisaema concinuum Schott and Codonopsis affinis were also part of this community. Phytosociology of Hebron area of Palestine was studied by Ighbareyeh et al. (2014). Eight associations were established as result of this inventory viz: ASL1-association of woody plants (association one)-Pistacio palaestinae-Quercetum lokii; ASL2-Capparido sinaicae- Ceratonietum siliquae; ASL3—Cerasus microcarpae-Quercetum ithaburensis; ASL4—Pyro siriacae-Abietetum cilicicae; ASL5-Abio ciliciae-Ceratonietum siliquae; ASL6-Periploco aphylli-Pinetum halepensis; ASL7-Cytisopsis pseudocytiso-Tamaricetum tetragynae and ASL8- Crataego sinaicae-Tamaricetum jordanii. Jai et al. (2014) reported that Parthenium hysterophorus is a strong competitive plant, and its control is possible by utilizing plants that can compete with this plant. Their results revealed that Cassia occidentalis was an efficient plant in competing P. hysterophorus, and its abundance was decreased to maximum possible level. Dakskobler (2014) studied Quercus petraea stands in Vipavska Brda (Southwestern Slovenia). They reported that the herb layer Erica carnea. Some the major species of these stands were Erica carnea, Sorbus aria, Lathyrus linifolius, Loranthus europaeus and Erythronium dens-canis. Khan et al. (2014) studied floristic structure and phytosociology of 40 stands of Pinus roxberghii in northern areas of Pakistan. Some of the major plant associations that were established through cluster analysis are: (1) P. roxburghii (2) Pinus-Quercus baloot and (3) Pinus-Olea ferruginea community types. Total tree density was 14700 plants per hectare, in which Pinus occupied 80-100% area.

Kaya (2014) analyzed the vegetation of national park of the Tek Tek Mountains in Turkey. Various associations were identified during this study. One new association was observed, and was belonging to shrub vegetation (Ceraso tortusae - Pistacietum palaestinae); two other vegetational associations were reported to belong to steppe vegetation (Achilleo aleppicae - Centaureetum virgatae and Eryngietum cretico – virentis). These associations were compared with one another and no similarity was found among these associations. Sher et al. (2013) studied the floristic diversity and ecological characteristics of Gadoon Hills of District Sawabi (Pakistan). They reported that the vegetation of the area is diverse ranging from grasses to large trees. Two hundred and sixty species were recorded from 211 genera and 90 families. Among these families, dicots were represented by 77, monocot by 7, pteridophytes by 4 and gymnosperm by 2 species. Carvalho et al. (2013) conducted analyzed the structural and floristic diversity of the riverine forest of Cerrado, Brazil. A sum total of 971 individuals from 80 species and 35 families were recorded. The physiognomy of these vegetation indicated lots of heterogeneity in this area. Shah et al. (2013) conducted an inquiry of vegetation of Mastuj valley, Pakistan. Plant communities that were established are Epilobium-Rheum- Matricaria,Betula-Salix-Rosa Betula- Ribes-Rosa, Acantholimon-Ephedra-Ribes, Betula-Juniperus-Acantholimon, Betula-Salix-Rosa and Cicer-Aristida-Tricholepsis. It was concluded that tundra kind of vegetation form its own particular kind of communities in a peculiar microhabitat. Amjad et al. (2013) studied Pinus-Quercus forests of Nikyal hills of Azad Kashmir (Pakistan). They divided the vegetation into 13 plant communities viz. Myrsine-Pinus-Rhus community, Olea-Punica-Berberis community, Olea-Themeda-Pinus community, Myrsine- Rhus-Pinus community, Quercus community, Rubus-Quercus-Oxalis community, Olea- Themeda-Pinus community, Myrsine community, Quercus-Oxalis- Justicia community, Quercus-Myrsine-Berberis community, Quercus-Rabdopsia- Themeda community, Pinus- Quercus- Indigofera community and Pinus-Quercus-Oxalis community. Rao et al. (2013a) conducted a study about phytosociology of Red Sand Dunes in Vishakhapatnam. A total of 105 species of 41 families were reported from the study area. In herbs, Tephrosea purpurea, in shrubs, Lantana camara and in trees, Anacardium occidentale was the common species, based on the IVI. Beside this Acalypha alnifolia, Atylosia scaraeboides, Waltheria indica and Sapindus emarginatus were the common species.

Sharma and Sharma (2013) reported the effect of trees on the understory grasses and its phytosociological attributes in Central Aravallis, India. They reported that the trees have impact on the importance value of grasses. Some grasses were found in association with some specific trees. These grasses were an important agent in modification of the soil conditions. Rao et al. (2013b) analyzed the tree diversity in the tropical forests of Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh, India. They reported 129 tree species from 46 families and 96 genera. Most common species were Alangium salvifolium, Cassia fistula, Morinda tinctoria, Wrightia tinctoria, Lannea coromandelica, Diospyros sylvatica, Dalbergia paniculata, Chloroxylon swietenia, Cleistanthus collinus and Xylia xylocarpa. Saglam (2012) studied the phytosociology of the shrub and steppe vegetation of the forest of Kizilag, Isparta (Turkey). Using three-dimensional ordination they established five different associations in the area. Nazir et al. (2012) studied the impact of environmental factors and anthropogenic disturbances plant species composition and diversity of the Lesser Himalayan sub-tropical forests in Kashmir, Pakistan. Some of the major communities that were identified were Pinus- Poa-Maytenus, Myrsine-Themeda, Pinus, Colebrookia-Themeda-Dodonaea, Themeda-Carissa- Adhatoda, Themeda-Dodonaea-Eriophorum, Adhtoda-Themeda, Carissa-Myrsine-Themeda, Carissa-Themeda-Dodonaea and Dodonaea-Carissa-Pinus community. An ecological study of the forest of Thandiani, Abbottabad was accomplished by Khan et al. (2012). The vegetation was of moist temperate kind among which fifteen plant communities were identified having 90 different species. Among these species 23 were shrubs and trees while 44 were herbs. Some plants were having medicinal values. Khan et al. (2012) studied the maturity indices of the 22 plant communities found in Takht-e-Nasrati region of District Karak, Pakistan. They cocluded that the maturity level of community is maximum is spring and decreases with the decrease in floristic diversity. Mishra et al. (2012) studied the annual variation in relative density, relative frequency, relative dominance and importance value of some species of Anpara region of Sonebhadra (U.P. India) was studied by. They concluded that E. hirta was having the highest of the above- mentioned four values (14.13, 11.27, 2.64 and 28.04 respectively) in year 2010. These values decreased in 2011 (7.10, 6.37, 4.7 and 18.17 respectively).

Setubal and Boldrini (2012) studied the phytosociology of subtropical grassland on the Granitic Hills of Southern Brazil. The grasslands were reported to have 177 species, among which 15% were of common occurrence. It was concluded that the grassland has diverse vegetation due to the presence of some rare and uncommon species. Tomaselli et al. (2011) studied the vegetation of Trentino (Italy), reporting 139 species. The vegetation was classified into 7 associations i.e. Platyhypnidio-Fontinalietea antipyreticae, Montio-Cardaminetea, Adiantetea, Scheuchzerio-Caricetea nigrae, Molinio-Arrhenatheretea andGalio-UrticeteaandMulgedio-Aconitetea. Out of these classes, Platyhypnidio-Fontinalietea antipyreticae and Montio-Cardaminetea is the core of the vegetation of the area. Fazal et al. (2010) studied vegetation of District Haripur of Pakistan reporting 211 species belonging to 170 genera and 66 families. Gymnosperms were represented by 4 families with 5 genera and 5 species. Most of the plants are dicots with 55 families, 141 genera and 180 species. Saima et al. (2010) analyzed the floristic composition of Ayubia National Park, Abbottabad (Pakistan) in which they recorded 65 families with 139 genera and 167 species. Pinus wallichiana, Taxus wallichiana, Abies pindrow and Cedrus deodara were the dominant tree species. Yousafzai et al. (2010) established 7 different plant communities in different graveyards of Swat (Pakistan). These communities were from different location. In the same manner Khan et al. (2010a) studied the phytosociology and physicochemical analysis of Quercus baloot forests of Chitral (Pakistan). Khan et al. (2010b) studied the ecological characters of Monotheca buxifolia from different location of Dir (Pakistan). Hussain et al. (2010) studied the vegetation of some locations of Karachi, in which they recorded 59 herbaceous, 29 under shrubs, 11 shrubs, 7 climbers and 18 trees. Farooq et al. (2010) studied the vegetation of Shawal, South Waziristan (Pakistan) and established 4 plant communities (Pinus-Abies, Pinus-Abies-Sophora, Abies-Pinus and Abies- Cedrus community) on the bases of importance value of the species. The area is characterized as dry temperate. Hussain et al.(2010) studied Central Karakoram National Park (Pakistan) or phytosociological attributes. Picea smithiana and Pinus wallichiana in association with Juniperus excelsa were the dominant species. Some stands were purely consisted of Pinus species.

Guglieri-Caporal et al. (2010) studied that weeds in the cultivated pastures in Mato Grosso do Sul State of Brazil, reporting a total of 104 species. Some of the important species were Sida rhombifolia, Brachiaria decumbens, B. brizantha and Desmodium incaum in the un- grazed land, while Paspalum notatum was the dominant one in the grazed lands. Manhas et al. (2010) studied the vegetation of some parts of India (Pathankot, Hoshiarpur and Garhshanker) with the conclusion that the dominant plants were dicots (77.7%) followed by monocotyledons (20.4%) and pteridophytes (1.9%). Among all plants, Ipomea was the dominant genera. Therophytes were the most dominant plants (52%) followed by phanerophytes (27%). Floristic composition and ecological characteristics of vegetation of Aghberg Rangeland of Quetta Pakistan were studied by Durrani et al. (2010). They reported 123 species from 36 different families from protected lands. The unprotected areas in contrast were having only 28 species. Vadel (2010) studied the plant communities of Hornádske vápence (Slovakia). Dominant community was Festuco-Brometea in which most plants were xerothermophyllous, and were widely distributed on rocky slopes in south oriented regions. Ahamd et al. (2010) studied the vegetation of some selected graveyards of upper Swat. Vegetation of these graveyards represents somewhat natural vegetation of the area because of the reverence the graveyards in this area. The plants are, to some, extent undisturbed. Badshah et al. (2010) studied the vegetation in Tabai area. They reported that vegetation was different at different elevations. Two reasons were found to be responsible for the change in the original vegetation viz. grazing and deforestation. Tiko Baran area of Khirtar range of District Dadu (Pakistan) was studied by Hussain and Perveen (2009) for it plant diversity and phytosociological attributes. The roadside plant communities were distinct in which most of the plants was pollution tolerant (pollution excluders or accumulator). Ray and George (2009) studied the floristic composition and phytosociology of some roadside communities in Kerala, India. The 110 km long road of busy traffic had a sum total of 85 species from 27 families. Kaya et al. (2009) analyzed the vegetation of forest and dry streams of Karacandag, Diyarbakir (Turkey). Three new plant associations viz: Teucrio multicauli-Crataegetum aroniae, Nepeto trachionatae-Quercetum brantii and Acanthi dioscoridi-Viticetum agni-casti were identified by this study.

Rawat and Chandhok (2009) analyzed distribution and species richness of 6 forest stands, located around Govind Pashu Vihar National park of Uttarakhand. Total tree species density was reported to be 470 Ind/ha to 600 ind/ha. Picea smithiana was of the maximum density with 290 ind/ha, while the least density was reported for Pinus wallichiana (20ind/ha). It was concluded that most of the trees were randomly distributed. Lamb et al.(2009) reported that competition between root and shoot affect the plant communities’ diversity and evenness. Hussain et al. (2009) studied vegetation of district Chakwal of Pakistan for its ecological characters. They reported 69 species of plants that were belonging to 29 families. Density cover and frequency varied among trees grasses and shrubs. The season was also playing a role in the changes of these parameters. Flat areas were having denser vegetation compared to sloped areas. Wazir et al. (2008) studied Chapursan valley of Gilgit (Pakistan). They divided the vegetation is broadly of five kinds: crassulescent steppes, chamaephytic steppes, erne, moist subalpine pastures and riverine pseudo-steppes. The gradients that were used for the differences in the classification of the plants were topographic and edaphic factors. Kohyani (2008) studied impact of grazing on two grasslands Belgium.They reported that grazing could cause the shifts in plant communities. Dureji Game Reserves in Pakistan were studied by Perveen et al. (2008). Total 79 species of plants from 66 genera and 32 families were reported from the study site. The vegetation was also studied for its phenological behavior and quantitative characters. Arshad et al. (2008) studied the vegetation of Cholistan desert (Pakistan) its ecological attributes. Soil chemical composition had an impact on the vegetation. Haloxylon recurvum and Suaeda fruticosa were related to soil with more salinity and less organic matter. Soil in which amount of organic matter is high supported Colligonum polygonoides, Aerva javanica, Capparis decidua, Dipterygium glaucum and Haloxylon recurvum. Ahmad et al. (2008b) reported that woody plants of Leguminoceae can be found very commonly in the Soone Valley of Punjab (Pakistan). Acacia modesta and Prosopis juliflora are the common woody plants that are found in the form of uni-species stands. Medicago polymorpha, and Melilotus indica are the common herbaceous plant, which are more common during winter. An association of Acacia modesta and Olea ferruginea can be observed on higher elevations.

Qureshi (2008) studied Nara Desert area for establishing plant communities using the tradition IV method.Vegetation of Cholistan was studied by Arshad et al. (2008). They reported that some of the major factors in the distribution of the plants in Cholistan desert are ionic concentration, salinity and organic matter contents. Wahab et al. (2008) studied the vegetation of Dangam district of Afghanistan. Two monospecific and one bi-specific community were identified in the study area. It was also indicated that the regeneration status of the plant was very poor due to lack of new tree seedling in the forest. Devinieau and Fournier (2007) studied the relationship of the plants species to various ecological driving forces. They concluded that the species success in the habitat is a character of the ecological conditions of that habitat. Lepping and Daniëls (2007) studied the beach and salt marsh vegetation in Uummannaq District, northern West Greenland. The vegetation was characterized by a local occurrence and there was no extensively covered area. Mertensia maritima sp. maritime community occurred on gravely stones, while Honchenya peploides var. diffusa community was found on sandy beaches. From Siran reserves and Guzara forests, Sher et al. (2007) reported 383 species in which 279 were herbs. Gymnosperms were represented by 5, broad leaved trees were by 43 and shrubs were represented by 56 species. In the same manner Hussain et al. (2005) inventoried the Ghalegay Hills of Sawat (Pakistan) and reported 92 species from 56 families. Among these dicots were represented by 49 families, monocotyledon and pteridophytes by 3 families each, and gymnosperms were represented by one family. Some of the major families on the bases of number of species are Rosaceae with ten species, Asteraceae with 6 species, and Lamiaceae and Poaceae with six species each. Sher and Khan (2007) studied vegetation of Chagharzai valley of District Buner (Pakistan). Sum total of 222 species belonging to 88 families were reported from the area out of which 78 families were dicot, 7 were monocot, 3 families were of pteridophytes and only one family was of gymnosperms. Asteraceae was the dominant family. Zahidullah et al. (2007) recorded 279 (229 genera and 81 families) species of plants from Kot Mazararay Baba of District Malakand (Pakistan). Dicotyledons were represented by 69 families and 204 species (from 181 genera). Monocots were represented by 11 families, with 47 genera and 54 species. Poaceae family was the dominant family with most species.

Löbel and Dengler (2007) studied the grassland vegetation of Southern Oland in Germany establishing 15 plant associations. Harsh and variable environmental conditions resulted in small plant sizes. Yadav and Gupta (2007) studied vegetation of Rajhistan (India) with special reference to the impact of human disturbance on the vegetation. There was a big difference in the species diversity of the disturbed and undisturbed forests; and it was suggested that measures for urgent conservations of the area are needed. Perveen and Hussain (2007) studied the Gorakh hills of Dadu district of Pakistan. Species diversity was analyzed as a quantitative study. Species density, life form, species cover, relative density and relative frequency were some of the ecological parameters that were also studied. Ahmad et al. (2007) reported that the indigenous local plants of Soan valley are at the brink of extinction. They devised some methods to cope with this problem. Khanum and Ahmad (2006) designed a study to explore the vegetation of the area after this disaster. Two regions that were selected for the study are Jhelum and Neelam Valley. The results indicated that the herb and shrub layer was mostly affected by the earthquake. Twenty-four different plant communities were established by Ahmed et al. (2006) in various climatic zones of the Pakistan Himalayan forests. They recognized 4 kinds of forest vegetation, many of which were having same floristic composition qualitatively, but differed from one another in quantitative values. Some of the tropical rain forests of Valparai plateau, in Western Ghats India were studied by Muthuramkumar et al. (2006). Sum total of 312 species belonging to 103 families were recorded in this study. Trees were 1968 from 144 species, lianas were 2250 from 60 species, and understory plants were 6123 from 108 species. The understory plants were very dense due to the occurrence of many invasive and highly competitive weeds. Segawa and Nkuutu (2006) studied floristic composition of Lake Victoria of Central Uganda reporting 179 plants species from 146 genera and 70 families. Seventy tow tree species, 39 lianas, 10 shrubs and 58 species of herbs were reported from the study area.Eberhardt et al. (2006) studied vegetation ecology and human impact on plants of Hunza valley (Pakistan), with special preference to altitudinal distribution of the plants. Golluscio et al. (2005) stated that life form and phenology are the two important characters of the plants that determine the ability of a species to use the resources. Grasses have

its own distinct way of phenological behavior. They are more active in autumn-winter, in contrast to most of the dicot plants, which have a more spring summer dominant aspect. Buraye (2005) inventoried calcareous grasslands of the Devonian Lime Stone Hills in Viroin (Belgium). On the bases of ordination, seven kinds of vegetation were established in the study area. The area is home to a diverse kind of plants including many rare plant species. Eminagaolu et al. (2005) studied the structural aspects of Quercus pontica and Betula medwediewii communities in Artvin province northern Anatolia, Turkey. They reported that main component of these communities were Abies nordmanniana subsp. nordmanniana and Picea orientalis. The vegetation was a safe refuge for many rare plants. Some of the abiotic vegetation controlling factors were pH and soil composition. The impact of fire on the Quercus coccifera dominated communities was studied by Turken and Duzenli (2005) for possible impact of fire on these communities. It was found that the plants are trying to bring back in shape the original community. After 14 years, the similarity between the species richness and floristic composition was 93.8% between the pre-fire and post- fire communities. Hukusima et al. (2005) analyzed the beech (Fagus hayatae) forests of Taiwan. Total of 163 species were recorded from 234 releves. The flora of these forests was compared with the adjacent flora of Japan and The evergreen forests. There were 29 common species with the evergreen forests, while with Japan’s forests, 57 species were found common. Ali and Benjaminsen (2004) conducted a survey to analyze the use of the plants for fuel and wood and the extent of deforestation in Basho valley of Himalaya. The issue of deforestation was discussed for its local perception, administrative reforms, state involvement and struggle of the community.

Life forms and species diversity of the tropical dry forest of Northwester Costa Rica, Brazil were studied by Hukra et a.l (2004). Three hindered and twenty-eight species of species were identified from the area belonging to 247 genera and 79 species. The species were almost from all classes including herbs, shrubs, trees, grasses and lianas with no woody species.

Kotli Hills of Pakistan were studied by Malik and Malik (2004). They established some communities in these forests which were Adiantum-Olea, Acacia modesta, Dodonaea-Acacia-

Themeda, Pinus-Themeda, Imperata-Pinus, Pinusroxburghii and Pinus-Carissa-Themeda communities.

Patrcick et al. (2004) studied Degeya, Lufuka and Mpanga forest of central Uganda for it phytosociology. For assessment of the regeneration, distribution and density, DBH, number of species of saplings and seedlings and pole of six different trees were measured. Woodlands of Masai Mara National Reserves of Kenya were analyzed by Walpole et al. (2004). These forests were severely damaged for the last four decades due to elephants and fires occurrence. The area’s vegetation was classified into 13 kinds of woody habitats.

Eberhardt (2004) analyzed vegetation ecology and floristic composition and diversity of Hunza Valley, Western Karakorum Range of Pakistan. Details about the distribution (regional and altitudinal) were accomplished for 528 plant species from 244 genera and sixty-two families.

Bacchetta et al. (2004) studied the deciduous oak woods of Sardinia (an autonomous region in vicinity of Italy) and three new associations were established. The new associations were Lonicero implexae-Quercetum virgilianae, Ornithogalo pyrenaici-Quercetum ichnusae and Glechomo sardoae-Quercetum congestae.

de Deyn (2004) stated that although community development is dependent upon the nutrient available in the soil, but herbivore, soil micro-biota and symbiotic plant associates also play a significant role in the formation of plant communities. The effect of soil nutrients on the communities can be minimized by the soil micro-organism.

Shinwari and Gilani (2003) analyzed plant resources of Astor and Gilgit areas of Pakistan. They reported that plant resources are declining due to ill-trained collectors of the plants. They collect plants in such a manner which harms the life of the plant.

Two sites of the Bolivian Amazon forests were studied by Claros (2003) for understanding species diversity and structure of the forest. They reported that as the age of the stand increases basal area and species diversity in the forest increases. Two hundred and fifty plant species were recorded from these sites.

The relationship of the stability of the ecosystem and the richness of the grasses in it was studied by Kennedy et al. (2003) at Kruger National Park, the largest reserves in Africa. They

reported 489 grasses form 189 different sites. They concluded that the stability of the ecosystem is negatively affected by the species richness in terms of grasses.

Plant community’s distribution of in Crete, Aegean was studied by Vogiatzakis et al. (2003). They reported 125 species among which 47 were endemic belonging to 35 families. Most frequent life forms were hemicryptophytic and chamaephytic.

Antje et al. (2003) studied the floristic composition of 14 mesas in South African, with reference to its latitude gradient. They reported that species found here are mostly adapted to this habitat and the diversity in this region is more compared to the plain areas. These mesas can act as a source to recolonize the lost vegetation.

Kwiatkowski (2002) studied mountains and some plateau of Western Poland for the assessment of its vegetation reporting 600 different species. Among those, 160 species were rare or endangered with a uniform distribution in the entire region.

Sharma and Upadhaya (2002) studied the floraof Aravalli hills of Jaipur, Indiain relationship to the slope. Therophytes were dominant plants and were found mostly in rainy season. The biomass in the protected area was high compared to unprotected area. The study concluded that the protection has increased the diversity and richness of the plants and nutrient holding capacity of the soil. Gutkowski et al. (2002) analyzed foothills of Dynow (Poland) for it floristic composition, recording of 7 species that were mountainous in its nature; 7 exotic species were also reported in this study. The plants were studied with their geobotanical importance.

Mark et al. (2001) studied vegetation of alpine zone of southern part of Tierra. Richness of the flora was altitude dependent; as the elevation from the ground level increased, the floristic composition decreased. Chamaephytes and hemicryptophytes were the dominant life forms in the study area.

Nara desert in Pakistan was studied by Bhatti et al. (2001). They reported 150 species from 110 genera and 42 families. Among these plants, 20 species were grasses, 3 sedges and 1 species was gymnosperm. Durrani et al. (2005) analyzed Harboi range of Kalat (Pakistan) for it vegetation. They reported 202 species belonging to 45 families. Some of the leading families were Poaceae, Asteraceae, Lamiaceae, Brassicaceae and Papilionaceae. The only tree was

Juniperus macropoda. The dominant plants in terms of its life form were therophytes followed by hemicryptophytes.

Peer et al. (2001) inventoried the vegetation of some parts of Hindu Kush and Karakorum ranges reporting 100 different species. On the bases of phytomass and micro-climatic conditions three kinds of classes (steppe) were recognized: (1) The open semi desert-steppe; (2) The more mesophyllous steppe and (3) the thorn cushion-steppe.

Hussain and Bacha (1998) analyzed the vegetation of Pirghar Hill of South Waziristan (Pakistan) for its phytosociological characters. The vegetation on both sides of the slope was different from one another in terms of it life form and leaf size. As the altitude increases, leptophylls are increased in its occurrence. The southern slope was having higher productivity compared to northern slope.

Yeo et al. (1998) studied phytosociology and conservation status of some grassland in Wales. They reported that due to intensification of agriculture 30 sites are on warrant for conservation and need special attention. It needs urgent habitat restoration and protection.

Kelly and Iremonger (1997) studied the floristic composition and environmental factors affecting vegetation, of the wetlands in almost all of the regions of the Ireland. Two environmental factors are important gradients for vegetation: hydrological and edaphic. Classification of vegetation resulted in 7 groups, out of which communities were established.

de-Mera and Orellana (1996) classified the vegetation of Southern Portugal, Southwestern Spain and Northern Morocco by sampling 103 releves at different sites. Two new associations were identified viz. Querco lusitanicae-Stauracanthetum boivinii-Cistetosum sulcate subass nova (in Southern Portugal) and Stauracantho boivinii-Drosophylletum lusitanici- Saturejetosum salzmanii sub class Nova (in ISouth-western Spain).

Johnson (1995) studied subalpine vegetation of Colorado and the factors that are influencing the vegetation were analyzed. He concluded that in this region has actually created a micro environment that is suitable for other species of the same kind, and it is easy for them to occupy this habitat.

Pignatti et al. (1995) explained the concept of class in vegetation ecology. He stated that vegetation class is generally defined by the characteristic specie, which might not be a good representative of the whole plant community.

Chytry et al. (1993) studied vegetation of Svjatoj Nos Peninsula, Eastern Siberia, classifying it into 48 plant communities. The communities were steppe vegetation, sand dunes, meadows, bogs; mires, tall herb with poor ferns, aquatic macrophyte vegetation, sub alpine forb vegetation and alpine tundra.

Hussain et al. (1993) established plant communities 20 different graveyards in district Sawabi (Pakistan). Vegetation was divided into three main communities viz. Dalebergia sissoo- Melia azedarach, Ziziphus mauritiana (with two subtypes) and Acacia modesta (with 5 subtypes) plant communities.

Success of a species in a community is determined by both direct and indirect interactions among the species. Indirect species interaction occurs when one species affects other species by a third party species. It was reported that direct interactions among the plants species are, in most cases, negative, while indirect interactions are positive, such as facilitation (Miller, 1993).

Harris and Kirkpatrick (1991) established 11 plant communities of Callitris, in Tasmania. The communities were grouped in two large groups on the bases of Callitris rhomboidea and Callitris oblonga. Callitris genus was reported to occupy almost 14% of the vegetation in the recorded region, and its occurrence showed some evidences that this species was part of a large rain forest before the anthropogenic disturbance. Ahmad et al. (1990) studied the occurrence of Juniperus excelsa in parts of Baluchistan. Ahmad et al. (1991) also described the vegetation and its dynamics for Pinus girardiana forests of Baluchistan. Marwat et al. (1990) studied the plant sociology of the Zangilora area of Quetta in Pakistan, in relation to various abiotic factors (wind, humidity, pH, soil and precipitation) and biotic factors. The communities that were established hashigh diversity with 63 different species. Kirkman et al. (1989) studied the plant communities in north and South Carolina on the bases of 67 stands. They concluded that the changes in the plant communities are associated with changes in the soil conditions, especially changes brought about by fire.

Chaghtai et al. (1989) studied Miranjani top, Galis, NWFP and Hazara region to explore the temporal changes in the vegetation. They reported that the lower slopes of the area were occupied by arboreal kind of vegetation, top is dominated by grasses and the middle portions of the slopes are covered by tall shrubs. Vegetation of Miranjani top has been changed to considerable extent from1974-86. Chaghtai et al. (1988) analyzed some of the upland forests of Nowshehra for its ecology. Ahmad et al. (1988a) studied road plant communities of Gilgit-Chillas road at 32 different locations. They observed the structure of plant population of the planted trees. Vegetation on the roadside of the Silk Road (from Gilgit to Passu) was also studied and 6 plant communities were established Ahmad et al. (1988b). Plants of the roadside were reported to have speciel character for tolerating the pollution. Tareen et al. (1987) studied plant communities of Chiltan area of Quetta. They established 11 plant communities in the study area. Ahmad (1986) studied different plant communities of foothills of Himalayan Range of Pakistan with respect to 17 different sites ranging from Gilgit to Passu. Six different plant communities were established during this expedition. Kayani et al. (1984)carried out a phytosociological investigation of Pashin area of Quetta (Pakistan). During this study, six plant communities were identified that were explained in relationship to the chemical and physical properties of soil. Chaghtai et al. (1983) studied dry streams of Peshawar for their vegetation and ecology. Different species are the components of this habitat, depending upon the moisture availability and extent of disturbance. Most of the species were annual weeds. Most of the sites were having almost same floristic composition. Vegetation and plant communities of Kohat were analyzed by Chaghtai and Yousaf (1976). Multivariate analysis of vegetation of Skardu was accomplished by Ahmad (1976). In the same manner road side communities of Shandur and Gilgit were studied by Ahmad and Qadir (1976).

1.5. The Science of Survival: Ethnobotany

Ethnobotany is the science of interrelationships of people with the plants in space and time (The Kaua’i Declaration, 2007). ―Ethno‖ means study of people and ―Botany‖ stands for

study of plants. It is a study which focusses on how the people, collectively as a society and culture, perceive the plants of a specific area (Chaudhry et al., 2000). The definition of ethnobotany can be summarized in four words: plants, people, uses and interactions. The roots of ethnobotany are anchored in pure botany as the science of botany started with goal to cure illness by use of plants (Abbasi et al., 2012).

The relationship of plants and human is not limited to the use of plants as food and shelter or clothing, rather the plants has spiritual, religious and medicinal values which are considered more important than the aforementioned uses of plants (The Kaua’i Declaration, 2007). In simple words, someone cannot think about life without plants which are serving the human form prehistoric times (Arizona Academic Standards, 2012).

Hershberger (1896) defined the term as the ―study of plants used by primitive and aboriginal people‖. Since that time the traditional knowledge of the plant diversity and uses of the plant communities by the regional people was called ethnobotany.Hershberger’s explanation is still the core of the science of ethnobotany, but Cotton’s (1996) definition has changed the emphases slightly. He defines ethnobotany as ―all studies which concern the mutual relationship between plants and traditional people‖. At the beginning the focus of ethnobotany was to study and gather information about the uses of the plants by the people which are known as the data gathering stage. At present the focus has been shifted from uses to interactions of plants and people. Interaction includes ecology, cognition and uses of plants (Turner, 1995; Balick, 1996; Cotton, 1996).

Botany was actually ―Ethnobotany‖ when it was first realized as a science as focus of plant scientists was to search for better plants that could be used as remedies against diseases. Although in today’s medicine the place has been taken by many synthetic drugs but still ethnobotany is an important science in the discovery of new medicines. Recent inquiries of some of the tribal region and their traditional uses of plants has brought a lot of new information to light which can be used for further research. In this way ethnobotany is always trying to extend the boundaries of botany and medicine to far flung regions of the globe. In Pakistan and India, use of plants as traditional medicine also has a long history and people have a strong relationship with plants. In India the knowledge of plants as medicine is called ―Ayurveda‖ while in Pakistan the same field is named as ―Unani‖ medicines (Abbasi et al., 2012).

1.5.1. Different Uses of Plants For primary health care, the people of tribal areas depend on plants as their first medicine. The understanding about the uses of plants is a result of the knowledge that passes from generation to generation. Sometimes there are special people who have command over the uses of plants. Some people are qualified herbalists and they have gained this knowledge as part of their education which is also a source of knowledge for the local people. In most of the rural areas, where people are dependent on the plants for their first add, they have only traditional knowledge, lacking any kind of scientific knowledge. This results in two problems; one is that when plant is collected before time of reproduction, it affects the conservation status of the plant. Another problem is that sometimes the plant is collected before it can assemble the required drug in sufficient amount. The processing of the medicinal plants also needs care and knowledge. Various parts of the plants are used for this purpose, including leaves, flowers, fruits, rhizomes, tubers, bulbs, roots, rinds and seeds etc. Beside medicine the plants are sources of food for almost all organisms on the planet including human. For most parts of the world, the plants are used as fuel for fire which is also a threat to the biodiversity. The population is increasing using more and more wood, with no planning for sustainability. According to FAO, 80 percent of the plants that are removed are used as fuel. Many plants are used for the tools and equipment of the agriculture, esp. in Pakistan where traditional methods of agriculture are still in practice. Plant is also a cheap and easily available source for fencing and hedges to the farmers. Lumber is used for furniture and house building. Beside all these there are a lot of miscellaneous uses of the plants(Abbasi et al., 2012).

1.5.2. Why Ethnobotany Is Important The world in which our ancestors lived was completely different from today’s world. For the last century and especially after the industrial revolution, plants and environmental resources are being used in very fast rate, and surely they are going to deplete one day if the pace of usage was running the same way without planning. The recent uses of plant resources are not in sustainable way and severity has been brought about by the global rise of the population, lack of education and poverty. Due to the ignorance and lack of interest of people in the flora, many species from the rural areas of Pakistan are vanishing with a fast rate (Khan and Hussain, 2013).

In this condition, ethnobotany is of pivotal importance in incorporating the idea of the importance of these resources in communities and cultures (The Kaua’i Declaration, 2007).

Since the hatch of the human civilization, ethnobotany is a field that was present, although unknown as ―Ethnobotany‖. Many researchers did significant contributions to this field by studying uses and importance of plants in lives of the people. Some of the related work is presented below to have an understanding of the scope of this field and to relate the present work to the previous.

Saqib and Sultan (2015) studied the ethnobotanically important plants of Palas valley of Pakistan, reporting 139 species belonging to 72 families. Common used parts of the plants included fruit, wood, bark, root, leaves and whole plant. Most of the plants were used as medicine by the local people (83 sp.), 3 species were used for veterinary medicines, 68 species were utilized as food, 29 as fuel and 10 species were used as timber.

Yaseen et al. (2015) reported 87 species of ethnobotanical importancefom Thar (Sindh, Pakistan) that were distributed among 32 families including Amaranthaceae, Cucurbitaceae and Euphorbiaceae. Most of the sepcies that are in use were herbs (73.56%) and most commonly used parts of the plant were leaves and seeds. Bibi et al. (2014) studied the medicinal plants of District Mastung of Baluchistan reporting 100 species from 47 families. The dominant family was Asteraceae with 11 species. The common medicinal preparation was decoction. The study concluded that the traditional knowledge is depleting day by day and it is needed to conserve this knowledge.

Amjad and Arshad (2014) studied the uses of different species in Kotli, Azad Kashmir, Pakistan. They reported 33 different woody species that were used have more than one uses. Among them only 5 species were having only one use.

Irum Naz (2014) studied the taxonomical perspective of the medicinal plants species that were used in Attock, Pakistan, reporting 80 plants form 64 families. These species were used against different disease including asthma, piles, cancer, skin diseases, diabetes, cough, inflammation, kidney stones, Jaundice; the plants were also used as refrigerant, antidote and astringent etc.

Ahmad et al. (2014) inventories Chail valley of Swat (Pakistan) reporting 50 species belonging to 35 families and 48 genera. Leaves, roots, rhizome, fruits, seeds, bark were most commonly used parts of the plant. Decoction was the most commonly used type of preparation that was helpful against many ailments includingskin infection, digestive disorders, asthma, chronic dysentery, urinary disorder and angina.

Azhar et al. (2014) reported that Calatropis procera is one of the common medicinal plants in Cholistan Desert (Pakistan) which was used for 29 different ailments by the locals including snake bite, wounds, swellings and veterinary diseases. Its active medical characters can be attributed to the large amount of secondary metabolites that are produced by the plant. Kayani et al. (2014) documented the use of medicinal plantsfor respiratory disorders by the people of Gallies-Abbotabad Pakistan. They reported 120 species that were used, mostly in the form of decoction.Leaves were the commonly used parts of the plants.

Khan and Musharaf (2014) inventoried the ethnobotanical information about the Kotal wild life park and the related area. They reported 211 species from the area, belonging to 64 families and 140 genera. The species were used for different purposes including medicine, food, fodder and shelter. Naseem et al. (2014) studied some plant species from Pakistan that were effective against kidney stones (Renal Calculi). They provided all the basic information about the plants including their scientific name, family, distribution, local name, parts used, major constituent and habit. In terms of habit, herbs were the dominant plants used.

Zereen at al. (2013) reported 35 plants species from 22 families that were in common use of the people in Central Punjab of Pakistan. These species were used for different purposes including medicine, shelter, fodder, food, fuel wood, etc. The dominant family, of which four members were in use, was Capparaceae. Bazai et al. (2013) documented 26 medicinal species from 13 families and 20 genera that were used in some villages of Zarghoon Juniper ecosystem area of Baluchistan; these plants were in the daily usage of the local people for different purposes. Commonly used parts were leaves, flowers seeds and roots.

Shah (2013) reported 131 species distributed among 49 families from some parts of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. These species were used for different purposes including urinary tract infection, respiratory tract infection, sexual problem, digestive disorders, wound

healing, liver problems, skin diseases, malaria, vomiting, piles, Jaundice, epilepsy, gummosis, hepatitis and ring worm etc.

Qaiser et al. (2013) studied economically important plants of Waziristan Agency (Pakistan) that are used by Wazir and Daurh tribes of Pukhtun. They reported a total of 88 speciesfrom 53 families. Among these plants 16 species were used as anthelmintic, 18 astringent, 13 purgative, 14 diuretic, 6 sedative, 10 stimulant, and 5 each were used as carminative and antispasmodic.

Hadi et al. (2013) reported 29 species form 16 families from district Chitral, Pakistan. Most important family was Rosaceae with 8 species, followed by Eleagnaceae, Salicaceae, Fabaceae, and Moraceae. Leaves and fruits were the commonly used parts of the plants.

Qureshi and Shaheen (2013) reported about ethnobotany of tehsil Kotli Sattain, Rawalpindi, Pakistan. They collected information about 200 species that were in use of the people for years. In 5 years, they collected all the information including plants species and names, it uses, habitat, habit and occurrence.

The ethnobotanical inventory of Neelam valley and Muzaffarabad of Azad Kashmir, Pakistan was conducted by Ishtiaq et al. (2013) reporting 12 species that used for different purposes including medicine, fuel, fodder, food and shelter. An inventory was accomplished by Murad et al. (2012) to collect the local information about the uses of the plants resources of Hazar Nao forests of Malakand (Pakistan). They reported 90 species from 56 families that were in use of the local people for various purposes. Sarangzai et al. (2012) collected ethnobotanical information about Juniperus excelsa from Ziarat, Baluchistan (Pakistan). They reported that this species has an immense importance in the lives of the locals and has almost all kinds of uses.

Nasrullah (2012) studied Jandool Valley of Dir Lower Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Pakistan) for it ethnobotanical wealth. They reported 67 species from 39 families that were in use of the local people as fuel, fodder, timber and medicine.

Ahmad et al. (2012) studied the ethnobotanica wealth of Cholistan desert of Pakistan. It was reported that the area was rich in plant resources and the local inhabitant are dependent on the plants for different needs e.g. medicine, food, shelter, fuel, fodder and timber.

Ahmad et al. (2011) studied plant resources of Kabal area of Sawat (Pakistan). They reported 140 species out of which a large portion (95.48%) was dicot and the rest of the species (4.51%) were monocot. Common uses of the plants were as medicine, fuel, food, fodder and timber. Mahmood et al. (2011) reported 29 species form 20 families having medicinal importance from Mirpur, Azad Kashmir, Pakistan. Achyranthes aspera L., Adiantum incisum Forssk., Aerva javanica (Burm.f) juss., Argemone mexicana L., Boerhavia diffusa and Butea monosperma (Lam.) Kuntze were some of the commonly used species that were in use for different ailments.

Shinwari et al. (2011) studied Kohat pass, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for its plants resources. The study revealed 60 species from 30 families that were in the daily use of the people. Ninety percent of the plants were used as medicine, while 31.7% are used as food. Fodder and fuel comprised 25% (each) of the total plants used.

Khan et al. (2010) studied Poonch Valley of Azad Kashmir, Pakistan for its ethnobotany. They reported that there are169 species in the area that are used as medicine and food. Some of the plants that are used as medicine, timber, fuel and food need conservation and sustainable way of use.

Hub area of Lasbela (Baluchistan) was studied by Qasim et al. (2010). They accumulated the ethnobotanical information 48 species that were distributed among 26 families. The plants were used for various purposes including medicine (22 percent), fodder (56 percent), house hold utensils (5 percent) food (5 percent) and some miscellaneous uses. Hayat et al.(2009) studied plants diversity of Artemisia species that is represented by 38 different species in Pakistan. Twelve of the Artemisia species are in common use of the people of Pakistan, in different areas e.g. in the form of food, fumigant, ornament or medicine.

Medicinal plants of Malam Jabba Valley of Swat were studied by Sher and Hussain (2009). They stated that management is needed in almost all parts of the country where medicinal plants are collected and sold without proper knowledge. Iqbal and Humayun (2004) recorded 187 plants (75 families) from ths area. The stated that due to indiscriminate deforestation and lack of interest of the local people made these forests vulnerable to biotic stress.

Kifayatullah Khan (2009) reported 51 species form Northern Areas of Pakistan that were distributed among 36 families. Naltar, Astor, Skardu, Diamer, Jaglot, Ghizer and Nagar were the various areas from which the information was collected. Siran Valley of District Mansehra was studied by Ahmad et al. (2009). They reported 143 species that were in use of the local people for cure of different diseases.

Fifty-one plants from 43 genera and 28 families were recorded from Nara desert of Pakistan which are in use of the ―Thari‖ people. Twenty-one species are reported for their novel uses by the people, as these uses of the plants were not reported by any study in Indo-Pak. Leaves, roots and fruits are the common parts of the plants that are used; in some cases, whole plant is also used (Qureshi and Bhatti, 2008).

Athar and Bukhari (2006) studied 63 speciesfrom 19 families of vegetables that are used in summer and winter seasons in Pakistan. They stated that vegetables are vulnerable to toxic metals contamination which are usually used for the improvement of the product.

Ahmad et al. (2004) studied the southern far extension of Hindu Kush range of Pakistan for their ethnobotanically important plants. They reported 172 species from 82 families. Bulk of the population of the area was poor and rural and that is why these plants were their ultimate sources, mostly as medicine. In most cases a single plantwas used for many purposes.

Ahmad (2003) studied the medicinal plants of Swat that are cultivated at different sites in the area. They reported thatGingko biloba, Corus sativus, Colchicum luteum, Matricharia chamomilla, Viola odorata, Aconitum violaceum, A. heterophyllum, Podophyllum hexandrum, Valerina jatamansi and Bistora amplexicaulis can be successfully grown in this area for economic purpose.

Ole-Midron (2003) studied plants that were used as veterinary medicine in different parts of Kenya. There are regional and seasonal diseases among animals for which 18 different plants species were used.

Khan et al. (2003) explored the ethnobotanical resources of Gokand Valley of District Buner, Pakistan reporting 138 species, in which 40 were cultivated while rest of them were wild.

The study revealed that the most serious threat to biodiversity is the consumption of plants as fuel as 90 percent of the plants were used in this form.

The ethnobotanical knowledge of District Buner of Pakistan was documented by Humayun (2003). He stated that the area has a precious wealth of medicinal plants. In the area 94 different plants species were used for different purposes including medicine, fodder, food, timber, fuel, agricultural tools, thatching and fencing. Ghotge et al. (2002) studied the practices of the people of Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh in which they reported the local available plants for curing different diseases of animals. Most of the diseases of the animals were cured locally by these homemade medicines. Alaroa et al. (2002) studied the plants that were used by the herdsmen in different parts of Nigeria. They stated that the people used different parts and extracts of plants for curing their animal’s diseases. Seeds, leaves, fruits, barks, roots and extracts of some plants were some of the commonly used parts. Fifty-four veterinary medicinal plants species (31 families) from district Bhimbar of Azad Kashmir were reported by Chaudary (2002). Several domesticated animals were found to be treated with these simple anecdotes of plants.

Bar Shinkai valley of Northern Areas of Pakistan was studied by Shinwari et al. (2002) for its current scenario of medicinal plants. They concluded that 22% of medicinal plants species are used for stomach and digestive problems while 11% are used for pulmonary and bronchial disorders.

Study about the ―maswak‖ used by many Muslims was carried out by Dastagir (2001). He took two plants species for this study i.e. Acacia nilotica and Juglans regia, which are used for cleaning teeth by the people in different parts of the country. Muhammad Ishtiaq et al. (2001) conducted a survey to collect ethnobotanical information from Samanhni valley of Azad Kashmir. They collected 36 plants of 26 families that were used for different sexual diseases and birth control. Qureshi and Khan (2001) studied the medicinal plants from Kahuta Rawalpindi (Pakistan) enlisting 25 plants specie from 18 families. Local inhabitants of the area were using these plants for different ailments. Some of the commonly used plants are Cyperus rotundus, Saussurea heteromella, Pongamia bipinnata, Euphorbia helioscopia and Boerhavia procumbens.

Chaudary et al. (2000) conducted a survey about the medicinal plants of the Sawat. There are 5000 families living in Swat, and they annually collect almost 5000 tons per year. The medicinal plants of Hindu Kush Himalayas were studied by Shinwari et al. (2000). They estimated that the total number of medicinal plants from Sawat is 345 (12%).

Lans and Brown (1998) studied plants and methods of uses of these plants for curing four common diseases in Trinidad and Tabago (South America). Total 12 species were reported to be used for these diseases. Margalla Hills National Park in Islamabad (Pakistan) was studied by Shinwari and Khan (1998). They reported 27 tree and 24 shrub species that were used locally as medicine, fodder, shelter, and food and for other cultural practices. Schillhorn van Veen (1997) conducted a survey to document various plants that are used for controlling animal parasitic diseases. They reported that the farmers are very rich in the knowledge about the plants and its uses for curing the animal’s diseases.

Qureshi et al. (1997) studied the gymnosperms of Chitral with emphasis on its medicinal importance. Shinwari et al. (1996) studied the ethnobotanical resources of Kaghan valley of Mansehra (Pakistan). They reported 48 medicinal plant species from the area out of which 26 were used by the people for various diseases. Among these plants 21 species were used as food and shelter while 8 species were used as fodder.

Fifty-six edible and economically important mushroom species were identified from different parts of Pakistan by Sultana et al. (1996). Most of the species were reported from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Azad Kashmir (44). From Baluchistan 4 species were reported while form Sindh and Punjab 3 and 5 species (respectively) were reported.

Badshah et al. (1996) conducted a study of the Pirghar hills of South Waziristan and reported 83 species of plants that were having some kind of medicinal importance. Khan and Fevre (1996) studied the medicinal plants of Chitral by collecting the indigenous knowledge about plants. From Northern part of Chitral 171 species were reported, belonging to 36 families. Ahmad and Sirjuddin conducted an ethno medicinal study of Swat in 1996. The study encompassed a total of 1541 plants species, from 135 families. Out of these 48 species were reported to have medicinal values and were used by the local people.

Khan et al. (1996) stated that plant diversity of Hindu Kush ranges has been decreased due to excessive usage of plants as fuel. The results and impact of these shortages have been discussed in details. They suggested that the local people must be provided an alternative source of fuel to protect this unique biodiversity.Martin (1995) surveyed plants of the Suleman range and concluded that shortage of fuel to the local people is a threat to the shrubs and trees of the area. The problem was intensified bycutting Pinus gerardiana through which large number of people earn their livelihood by selling them.

Sudarsanam et al. (1995) reported 106 plan species from Andhra Pradesh that were used for curing different kind of animal ailments in the region described detail usage of these plants. Palandri area of District Poonch was studied for its ethnobotany by Haq and Hussain (1995). They recorded 47 speciesof medicinal importance. During the survey all the uses of the plants from the local people were recorded. Shinwari et al.(1995) studied the ethnobotanical resources of Kharan district, Baluchistan.

Bhyuan (1994) collected the indigenous medicinal information from Lohit, Arunachal Pradesh, India. In this study he described 15 drugs that are of plants origin and are used for abortion and ease in delivery. Gottesfeld (1994) studied the plants that were used by the people of the British Columbia. They documented 59 species of vascular and 3 species of non-vascular plants that were in use of the people in different forms, including food and medicine etc.

Sen et al. (1994) studied 44 local plants species from 17 different families from herbarium sheets of Central National Herbarium and Industrial Section of Museum of India. Leeflang (1993) studied the plants that were used for different ailments of animals in Nigeria. All the knowledge that was present in that area about the uses and identification of these plants was documented.

Medicinal plants of district Khairpur were studied by Haq (1993). Fifty-three wild and 17 cultivated plants were reported that were having medicinal values. The medicinal plants of Baluchistan were studied by Goodman and Ghafoor (1992) collecting 114 species with medicinal uses and economic importance. In 1992 Bhattari conducted a survey to document the 58 plants of different regions of Nepal that were in use of the farmers as veterinary medicine. The knowledge about the administrative methods and dosage was recorded too. Manandhar (1992) studied some

tribal areas of Nepal, which were very rich in indigenous knowledge about plants. Various plants were recorded from the area which were commonly used by the inhabitants of this region. He suggested that the plants that are used should be screened for their chemical composition, as the knowledge about the plants from the tribal people is not always being authentic.

Chaudri and Qureshi (1991) concluded that there are 709 plants species of vascular plants that are in danger of extinction. Siddique and Khan (1991) studied the medicinal plants that could possibly play a role in the heart problems. They screened different plants pharmacologically for this purpose and enlisted 7 species that were useful for heart problems. Malik et al. (1990) studied 6 different districts of Baluchistan and collected some basic information about the ethnobotany of the area. Farooq (1990) stated that there are 52 species of plants from 25 families which are being used in India and Pakistan as traditional medicine for various ailments. Lakshman and Narayan (1990) assembled to local knowledge about their ethnomedicines from the tribal people of Anaikkaty hill of Tamil Nadu (India). Mainly focused plants were those used for birth control. Sixteen plant species were identified and information about the parts used and the practice of using the plant was documented.

Zaman and Khan (1970) studied the medicinal plants of West Pakistan and documented 100 species from the area. Kazmi and Siddiqui (1953) studied the medicinal plants from Astor and upper Guraiz valley of Pakistan. They collected important information like uses of the plants, habitat and local names of the plants.

1.6. Conservation of Flora

The term conservation is used in two senses: active and passive, which can clearly define its nature in biological sciences. In active sense, conservation means taking all measures to ensure a better chance of persistence in the future, for a valuable thing which is needed to be conserved. In plant world there are many aspects that need conservation including plants diversity. This kind of conservation can closely be related to restoration which is not only conservation but also improving the conditions (Jamal, 2009). Conservation in its passive sense means all the actions and practices by the people with no or less intentions of conservation. This involves the traditional practices of the people. Active conservation can easily be practiced by passive conservation by bringing the conservation practices in the daily lives of the people.

Conservation should not be considered as a discipline rahther it should become part of daily behavior of the people (Chunlin and Shengii, 2003).

Recently the problem of plant conservation has reached to an alarming condition because of the human interference and the un-educated behavior of the people towards biodiversity. The human is acause of local species extinction, deforestation, shortage of natural resources and environmental degradation. The major threat to biodiversity is human and his activities (Hamilton and Hamilton, 2006).

Main causes of extinction of plant diversity areunjust distribution of resources, destroying natural forests and habitats for intensification of agriculture and exerting extreme pressure on wild plants for getting more and more benefits from them without any restoration and conservation practice. The problem is further intensified by the increase in uses of plants by a single human, as an average human is consuming 460% resources of what he was using a century ago (Laurance, 2001). Some of the major threats to the conservation of plants are agriculture, logging, grazing, domestic animals, burning, tourism, roads, mining, NTFP (Non- timber forest products) collection, fuel wood collection, hunting, invasive plants and animals, buildings and dams (Hamilton, 1997).

The most authentic source of work and progress regarding conservation of plants is the globally recognized and inventoried ―IUCN Red List of Threatened Species‖. In this system plants are assigned different categories on the bases of some criteria. Those species which are classified as critically endangered or vulnerable are regarded as threatened. These species have a chance of extinction in the near future i.e. after few years to many thousand years (Jamal, 2009).

Some workers have studied the conservation status of plants of some area of Pakistan. The lack of education and proper programs for conservation made it very hard to conserve the flora but the recent researcher are exploring the problems and it is hoped that in future, planning will be designed for saving the plants from extinction.

Ahmad et al. (2007) studied the conservation status of some plants in the selected mountainous regions of Pakistan. They reported that the plants in these regions are having special characters, which make them survive in the kind of environment. Hadi et al. (2009) studied the graveyard situated in Palosi region of District Peshawar, Pakistan. They reported

some characteristic plants from the region including Capparis decidua, Aerva javanica, Prosopis fracta and Peganum harmala. Hussain et al. (2010b) studied the conservation status of the flora of Karachi and reported 135 species that were classified as endangered. Abbas et al. (2010) stated that on the bases of information collected, Cadaba heterotricha can be classified as endangered in Pakistan.

Asadullah and Rashid (2014) studied threatened plant species of Mankial Valley in Hindu Kush Range of Pakistan. They reported 45 different speciesfrom 43 genera and 35 families that were under threat. The study evaluated that among these plants, 13 were vulnerable, 21 were endangered and 11 were classified as critically endangered.

Haq (2011) studied the conservation status of plants from Nandiar Khuear catchment, Distric Battagram; Pakistan. They reported 37 species in which 23 were endangered and 14 were critically endangered. The major factors that were playing in this loss of species include loss of natural habitat, deforestation, unplanned and uncontrolled plants collection, erosion, overgrazing, invasive plants and attack of invasive insects.

Khan and Musharaf (2015) studied vegetation of Takht Bhai, District Mardan (Pakistan). Theyreported 34 species out of which twelve species were categorized as rare, 11 vulnerable, 9 endangered and 2 were included in infrequent category.

Khan et al. (2014) studied the plants diversity and its conservation status of Pooch Valley of Azad Kashmir, Pakistan. They reported that 145 species are threatened, 30 endangered, 68 are vulnerable and 47 species are rare. Soil erosion, uprooting of the plants, overgrazing and other anthropogenic disturbances were stood responsible for present poor conservation status of the plant. Hussain and Khan (2013) evaluated the conservation of the plants of Takht e Nasrati (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan). They reported that among the total species, 20 were vulnerable, 16 were rare, 7 endangered and 2 species were infrequent.

Hussain et al. (2012) studied medicinal and its conservation status of Kurram agency. It was concluded that 37 percent of the species that are used as medicine are critically endangered, 20% are endangered and 35% are vulnerable. Among the total only 8% of plants were in secure position.

Ahmad et al. (2012) studied medicinal plants and the threats to plants resources of Soon Valley of Punjab (Pakistan). They stated that deforestation, lowering of the water table, less rainfall and overgrazing, fires, illegal honey hunters, herds of animals and uprooting of the plants are some other reason which has forged a threat to plants.

Razzaq et al. (2015) studied medicinal plants and their conservations status of district Shangla of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Pakistan). They reported 25 species belonging to 21 different families. The flora was under severe biotic pressure in the form of deforestation, overgrazing, overpopulation, habitat deterioration and invasive plant species.

A regarding conservation of the plants there is no scientific work done in Mohmand Agency till date, and this is one of the reason for the selection of this area for the present work. The study will provide baseline information for further work, from different perspective.

CHAPTER 2

2. METHODOLOGY

The study is an attempt to explore the vegetation, its relationship with the local people and conservation status of the flora of Mohmand Agency; a tribal region of Pakistan, lying on the Pak-Afghan border (Durand line). The survey of the area was carried out following Cain and Castro (1959) from March 2013 to March 2015. The process of the study consisted of three stages including reconnaissance, primary survey and intensive survey. There are three aspects of this study: phytosociology, ethnobotany and conservation status of the plants. Methodology for each is given separately.

2.1. Phytosociology

Plant communities were established and phenological behavior of plants of the region was described. Various steps of the study are as follow.

2.1.1. Reconnaissance The term was mostly used in past for engineering and military purposes and was applied to a preliminary examination of the area. In vegetation ecology it is applied for a convenient traverse of the region to-be-studied by most convenient and available means. The purpose of this survey is to search by eye ―the most general and obvious features‖ of the research area. This survey was carried out in March 2013. It helped in knowledge about physiognomy, dominant and common species, apparent interrelationship of various types of vegetation and its relationship with environment. Nature of the community (natural or disturbed) and utilization of the plants were observed. During this survey some plants were also collected.

2.1.2. Primary Survey The primary survey is for the purpose of description of the major plant associations and enlisting the floristic composition in the region (Tansley, 1946). The primary survey was carried out in April and May 2013. Major plant associations were observed, with relationship to elevation and climatic conditions. Plants were collected in this survey and were identified for future studies. Most of the plants were collected during this time.

2.1.3. Extensive Survey Based on reconnaissance and primary surveys, the area was divided into 10 sites viz. 1. YKG (Yekka Ghund), 2. TRG (Targhakhy), 3. KRP (Krhapa), 4. LSP (Pindialai), 5. DSK (Danish Kool), 6. KTP (Kutatrap), 7. AMB (Ambar), 8. PRG (Prang Ghar), 9. KJK (Khwezo Juma Khel) and 10. SAF (Safi/Safo). Overall appearance, homogeneity of vegetation and various biotic and abiotic factors were the bases for selection of these sites. These sites represented the area that was visited during the two earlier surveys. In this survey all the flora was analyzed from dominant to rare. The composition and structure of all the sites were studied; quantitative and qualitative data was collected by sampling of all the sites. The area was visited and sampled in four different seasons in the consecutive two years. A general survey was also carried out monthly for assessment of the phenological behavior of the plants. Plants were collected during all the three surveys and were pressed and dried. All the plants were identified with help of flora of Pakistan (Ali and Qaiser, 2010) and later on confirmed at Department of Botany, University of Peshawar. The vouchered specimens, mounted on herbarium sheets, with list of the plants, were submitted to Department of Botany, Islamia College Peshawar. 2.1.4. Method for Sampling For analysis of each site, 10 quadrates were sampled randomly for each herbs, shrubs and trees. The size of quadrate was 1x1m for herbaceous vegetation, 5x5 for shrubs and 20x20 for trees. Based on collected data density, abundance and cover were determined (Hussain et al., 1993).

2.1.5. Community Attributes That Were Studied Cover and abundance were various quantitative analytic characters that were recorded. There relative values were also calculated (Ahmad and Shoukat, 2012). Phenological behavior, occurrence of plants in different seasons, life form, leaf form and habit of the plants were the qualitative characters (Badshah, 2013) that were recorded.

2.1.5.1. Importance Value (IV) Importance value is an analytic character, calculated for a species by summing up its relative density, relative frequency and relative cover. It was calculated as follow: Importance Value = Relative Density+Relative Cover+Relative Frequency

Plant communities were established on the bases of the importance values. Family importance value was also calculated to evaluate the relative importance of the families (Badshah, 2013).

2.1.5.2. Similarity Index (SI) Similarity index is a desirable characteristic for comparison of plant communities. For the stands, similarity index was calculated following Sorensen (1948) and Motyka et al. (1950).

Similarity index = 2 ∑ nc ∑n1+∑n2 ―nc‖ indicates the number of common species between two communities ―n1‖ is the number of individual species of site 1 ―n2‖ is the number of individual species in site 2

2.1.5.3. Species Diversity (SD) How many species and how even are they found, is the species diversity of an ecological community. It can be measured by following Shannon (1963) and Simpson (1949)as given by Ahmad and Shaukat(2012). Simpson Index of Diversity= 1-D Where, D= Simpson’s index=N(N-1) ∑n(n-1) N = Total number of individuals of all species, n = Number of individuals of a species.

Shannon Diversity Index= H H= ∑pi log pi

2.1.5.4. Species Richness (SR) Species richness is the count of different species in a community (Menhinick, 1964; Ahmad and Shaukat, 2012). It is calculated by the following way.

S. R (d)= S/√N

S = Total number of species in a stand N = Total number of individuals in a stand and SR (d) = species richness

2.1.5.5. Maturity Index This term was introduced by Pichi-Sermolli in 1948. It is a quotient of the total of the frequency percentages of all the species in a community. It can be calculated as:

MI = Frequency percentages of all species in a stand Total number of species in a stand

2.1.5.6. Life Form Life form is an adaptation of the plant to its environment. How many different kinds of life forms are present in a community, is called biological spectrum of that community. During this study all the plant species were assigned their life forms according to Raunkiaer’s criteria (1934), following Muller and Ellenberg (1974), Hussain (1989) and Shah and Hussain (2009). i. Therophytes These are seed bearing annual plants which overwinter in the form of seeds that are produced at the end of the growing season. ii. Geophytes These are annual plants in terms of their above ground parts. They overwinter by their underground parts (rhizome, bulb, corm and tuber). iii. Hemicryptophytes This group includes all the plants, aerial parts of which die at the end of the growing season and leave their perennating parts just below the ground level. In some cases, they may be above the ground but may be covered with litter. iv. Chamaephytes Plants with perennating structures just above the ground up to 25 cm height are included in this group.

v. Phanerophytes All higher plants, whose perennating parts are above 25cm from the ground level. They are further divided into different classes. A. Nanophanerophytes Perennating buds are 0.25 (25 cm)-2 m (0.8 ft. to 6 ft.) above ground level. B. Microphanerophytes Perennating structures are 2-7.5 m (6 ft. to 25 ft.) above the ground level. C. Mesophanerophytes Perennating structures are present 7.5-30 m (25 ft. to 100 ft.) above the ground level. D. Megaphanerophytes Including large trees with perennating structure located above 30 m (100 ft.) from ground level. 2.1.5.7. Leaf Size Spectra The leaf size is an important tool in classification and organization of plant associations. It is an adaptation of the plants to the physical conditions of the area. Leaves were divided into various leaf kinds (Ahmad and Shaukat, 2012). i. Leptophyll Leaf area up to 25 mm2 ii. Nanophyll Leaf area from 25 to 225 mm2 iii. Microphyll Leaf area from 225 to 2025 mm2 iv. Mesophyll Leaf area from 2025 to 18225 mm2 v. Macrophyll Leaf area from 18225 to 164025 mm2 vi. Megaphyll Leaf area larger than class v.

2.1.5.8. Leaf Types Plants were divided into 4 categories (S: Simple, C: Compound, I: Incised/indented and N: Needle) on the bases of shape of their leaves following Hussain et al. (2015).

2.1.5.9. Phenological Behavior For understanding the phenological behavior, the data was obtained from the plants in two forms. One way to obtain the data was observing the plants during different seasons and

classification on the bases of presence absence during the four seasons. This data was called aspect of the plants in different seasons and was presented as (Bacha, 2013): Sp. A: Spring aspect (February-April) Su. A: Summer aspect (May-August) Au. A: Autumn aspect (September-October) Wi. A: Winter aspect (November-January)

The other form of the data for phenology was obtained by monthly visits. The phenological behavior of the plants was recorded in different months of the years. These were described in four stages (Bacha, 2013).

V: Indicates leaves, or indicated the active and vegetative status of the plant. FL: Indicates flowering or reproductive stage of the plant FR: Indicates fruiting stage of the plant PR: Indicates post reproductive stage of the plant

2.2. Ethnobotany

This part of the research dealt with the investigation of relationship of flora to the people of the area. It is the science of human-plant interaction. The information was collected from the local people, some herbal experts and ―hakims‖ (a local medical practitioner which uses plant and minerals to cure illnesses). 2.2.1. Data Collection Mohmand Agency was thoroughly visited and interviews were held with 100 local individuals including elder men (40%) and women (15%), as elders are considered more informative about the uses of the plants (Mussarat et al., 2014), ―Hakeem’s‖ (15%), some youngsters (10%) and herders (20%) following the Code of Ethics (The ISE Code of Ethics, 2006). According to their information the plants were divided into 7 categories i.e. food, medicine, fodder, timber, furniture, fuel and the plants that were used for miscellaneous purposes. For the current data some important quantitative matrices were calculated following Barkatullah et al. (2015).

2.2.1.1. Relative Frequency Citation For assessment of the ethnobotanical importance of the plants, RFC is an efficient index. It is calculated from Frequency Citation (FC)—the number of uses mentioned by all the users for a particular species) divided by the total number of individuals interviewed (Kayani et al., 2014). Value of RFC lies between 0 and 1; 0 indicate the plant not mentioned by even a single person, and 1 indicates that every interviewee mentioned the particular plant to be useful (Sadeghi and Mahmood, 2014). RFC can be calculated by the following formula. In which FC indicated Frequency Citation while N is the total number of individuals interviewed. RFC=FC/N

2.2.1.2. Use Value (UV) Use value is also important quantitative matric for knowing the relative importance of a plant species (Ong and Kim, 2014). It is calculated using formula: UV = ∑Ui/N (Phillips and Gentry 1993, 1994; Rossato et al., 1999; Silva and Albuquerque, 2004). In this formula Ui indicates the total uses of a specific species mentioned by one interviewee where ―N‖ is the total number of individuals interviewed.

2.2.1.3. Relative Importance Relative Importance (RI) is a measure of the general usage of a species (Albuquerque et al., 2006), and can be calculated using the formula RI=NUC+NT, where NUC (Number of Use Categories) and NT (Number of use attributes) can be separately calculated. NUC can be calculated by dividing Number of Use Categories of a Specific species (NUCS) by Number of Use Categories of most Versatile plant Species (NUCVS) i.e. NUC=NUCS/NUCVS. On the other hand, NT can be calculated by dividing number of all uses of all categories attributed to a species (NTS), divided by number of uses of all categories attributed to the most versatile taxon (NT.MIT) i.e. NT= NTS/NT.MIT (Phillips and Gentry, 1993). For example, Cannabis sativa is used as fuel and medicine (2 use categories or NUCS=2); in medicine it is used as aphrodisiac and stimulant (2 use attributes) and in fuel it is used for some rituals and cooking (2 use attributes), making it 4 uses attributes (NTS=4). Acacia nilotica is the most versatile species reported in this study, with 5 use categories (NUCVS=5) and 10 (NT.MIT) use attributes. We can calculate the RI for C. sativa as:

RI=NUC+NT While NUC=NUCS/NUCVS and NT=NTS/NT.MIT By putting the respective values in formula, RI for C. sativa can be calculated.

2.2.1.4. Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient Pearson correlation is a quantitative measure of correlation of two variables, which is the covariance of the respective variables when divided by product of their standard deviation (Mukaka, 2012). Higher value of this variable show higher degree of correlation (Barkatullah et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2014). Correlation of the quantitative indices was calculated in relation to each other using the following formula

Where ―r‖ is the correlation while x and y are the variables; ―x bar‖ and ―y bar‖ are values of X and Y for one individual (ith individual).

2.3. Palatability

The plants were divided into various palatability classes: highly palatable, moderately palatable, less palatable and non-palatable (Hussain and Durrani, 2009; Badshah, 2013). The information was collected from local herders and farmers. Some of the observations were recorded during the surveys.

2.4. Measurement of Rangeland Productivity

Productivity of rangeland was measured by analyzing the weight of herbaceous biomass following Badshah (2013) and Hussain and Durrani (2007).

2.5. Nutritional and Chemical Analysis of Some Selected Plants

Five plants i.e. Fagonia indica, Monotheca buxifolia, Caralluma tuberculata, Sageretia thea and Ziziphus mauritiana were analyzed for nutritional and elemental contents. These plants

were selected on the bases of the usage and popularity of these plants in the local communities of the research area.

2.6. Edaphology

Soil samples form 10 different sites were taken and were analyzed for different physicochemical properties.

2.7. Conservation Status of the Flora

The conservation status of the plant was assessed following Anon., 2001; Shah and Hussain, 2012 and Badshah, 2013. The plants were given their own values according to the following criteria and were classified into its respective class.

Availability Collection 0 = Uncommon or very rare 0 = More than 1000 kg/yr. 1 = Less common or rare 1 = Consumed from 500-1000 kg/yr. 2 = Occasional 2 = Consumed from 300-500 kg/yr. 3 = Abundant 3 = Consumed from 100-200 kg/yr. Growth Part used 0 = Regrowth in more than 3 years 0 = Root/Whole plant 1 = Regrowth within 3 years 1 = Bark 2 = Regrowth within 2 years 2 = Seeds, Fruits 3 = Regrowth within 1 year 3 = Flowers 4 = Regrowth in a season 4 = Leaves/Gum/Latex Total Score: 1. 0-4 Endangered: 2. 5-8 Vulnerable: 3. 9-12 Rare: 4. 13-14 Infrequent: 5. 5-16 Dominant

2.8. Data Analysis

The data analysis was accomplished by using R programming language with the help of Prof. Dr. Aaron M. Ellison, Senior Ecologist at Harvard University, Harvard Forest, MA, USA.

CHAPTER 3

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1. Floristics

Floristic composition is considered to be a pre-requisite for any kind of phytosociological study (Rafay et al., 2013). Mohmand Agency was studied for its various floristic characters. Results revealed that the region has 170 different plant species, belonging to 144 genera and 49 families. Among these dicots were dominant with 141 species of 118 genera and 43 families. Twenty-seven species were monocot, belonging to 24 genera and 4 families. There were only two gymnosperm families Ephedraceae and Pinaceae with 1 species each i.e. Ephedra intermedia and Pinus roxburghii respectively (Table 1 and 2).

Among 49 families Poaceae and Asteraceae were the largest families in terms of species number and were represented by 22 species each followed by Brassicaceae and Fabaceae with 11 species each. Lamiaceae and Boraginaceae were having 9 and 8 different species respectively followed by Amaranthaceae, Caryophyllaceae (7 species each), Plantaginacea (6 species), Apocynaceae, Polygonaceae, Solanaceae (5 species each), Geraniaceae, (4 species), Asparagaceae and Rhamnaceae (3 species each). The remaining families have 2 or one species each (Table 2). Poaceae, Asteraceae, Papilionaceae and Brassicaceae were the leading families in District Tank (Badshah et al., 2013). This result is in conformity with our findings and is an indication of the similarity between the habitats. In Pakistan many areas have been floristically established and the findings indicated high number of species from Poaceae, Asteraceae, Fabaceae and Brassicaceae (Qureshi and Bhatti, 2008; Perveen et al. 2008; Qureshi and Bhatti, 2005; Badshah et al., 2010; Hussain et al., 2009)

Astragalus was the leading genus with 4 specie followed by Erodium and Rumex (3 species each). Among rest of the genera 20 were represented by 2 species each; the remaining were having only one species each (Table 2). Genera from family Fabaceae are usually found in high number with some other families in different parts of Pakistan (Pinheiro et al., 2006; Ferraz et al., 2004; Durrani et al., 2005; Stewart, 1972; Ali and Qaiser, 1995; Nasir and Ali, 1971).

Because of low annual rainfall and biotic stress, the vegetation is very sparse and spring is the only season that all the area becomes green and plants sprout. The seasonal polarity can be

observed from the number of plant species in different seasons. One hundred and sixty-six species were present in active condition during spring season. In summer the number of species decreased to 135. A very abrupt change in vegetation was observed in autumn and the number of species decreased to 54. Winter season was again suitable for the growth of some plant species and 95 different species were observed during this season (Table 5 and 6). A difference in the flora of different seasons was usually due to ephemerals and some perennials which perennate through underground stem (Hussain et al., 2008; Badshah et al., 2013). In most of the areas of Pakistan same pattern of vegetation richness is found in different season i.e. spring has highest number of species followed by summer, winter and autumn (Durrani et al., 2010; Ahmad et al., 2009; Badshah et al., 2013).

Flora is an indication of all the plants, of all species in a specified geographic area that indicate a specific geological time in the history. In contrast vegetation refers to the number of plants and their relative distribution in a specific area (Badshah et al., 2013; Ali, 2008). Study of the floristic composition of an area is an important aspect to be recorded for the future studies (Qureshi et al., 2011). Flora can be affected by many factors including soil deterioration, overgrazing, deforestation and high level of dependency of locals on the plants (Rafay et al., 2013). Less water availability results in poor floristic composition (Rafay et al., 2013). Areas with same physical conditions have similarities in their floristic composition (Arshad et al., 2008). Badshah et al. (2013) studied the floristic composition of District Tank which is having almost same physical conditions as Mohmand agency. He reported 205 species from 56 families. Collection and naming plant species is less time consuming and easy compared to detail vegetation study (Saima et al., 2010) and the present study is a start point for further studies, as floristic list is a ―suitable starting point‖ for any kind of detailed study (Keith, 1988).

Table 1. Number of families, genera and species recorded in Mohmand Agency

Group Families Genera Species Total 49 144 170 Dicot 43 118 141 Monocot 4 24 27 Gymnosperm 2 2 2

3.1.1. Life Form and Its Seasonality Life form indicates the interface of plants and their environmental conditions. It is an important index in explaining the kind of vegetation and is best indicator of the abiotic factors of the ecosystem (Malik et al., 2007). If the life forms of two different communities are having similarities, there is a good reason to say that the condition of the communities will also be the same (Malik et al., 2007; Hussain et al., 2015). For most of the studies regarding life form, Raunkiaer’s life form classification (1934) is used (Hussain, 1989; Hussain et al., 2015) and has been followed in the present study. This classification takes into account the relative position and degree of protection of plant propagules (Badshah, 2013).

The data indicated that therophytes were the dominant plants with 97 species, which account for 57% of the total flora. Nanophanerophytes and hemicryptophytes were next to therophytes with 21 (12.4%) species each. Chamaephytic life form was found in case of 17 (10%) species, followed by geophytes with 7 (4%) species. Mesophanerophytes and megaphanerophytes were represented by only 2 species each (Table 3 and 4).

Among different seasons, therophytic life form was dominant in the three seasons, with the exception of autumn in which nanophanerophytes were dominant. Spring was dominated by therophytes with 93 species, followed by hemicryptophytes and nanophanerophytes (21 species each). High number of therophytes in spring may be attributed to the unfavorable condition for these plants in other seasons (Musila et al., 2003). During summer the therophytes decreased to 67 species, but was still the dominant life form. Nanophanerophytes decreased from 21 to 20 species, and hemicryptophytes from 21 to 19 species (Table 3).

An abrupt change in the life form was observed when the summer season was coming to an end. During autumn, therophytic life form decreased to only 10 species, making nanophanerophytes the dominant life form with 19 species followed by chamaephytes with 11 species (Table 3).

In winter, again a rise has been observed in the number of therophytic species, which increased to 37, thus making it again the dominant life form. Nanophanerophytic life form was almost constant (21-19 species) throughout the year, and in winter it was the second dominant life form, followed by hemicryptophytes with 17 species. Least represented life forms were

megaphanerophytes and mesophanerophytes, with only two species each, throughout the year (Table 3).

Vegetation of an area is indicator of climatic condition prevailing there. The dominance of therophytes in the research area may largely be because of the prevalence of arid climatic condition in the area (Cain and Castro, 1959; Shimwell, 1971). The area has intense sunlight and open mountains and plains, which make the habitat unfavorable for other life forms. Other regions with less availability of water are also characterized by high number of therophytic species (Hussain et al., 2009), with sub dominance of nanophanerophytes (Fazal et al., 2010) and hemicryptophytes (Sher and Khan, 2007). Therophytes (Musila et al., 2003; Manhas et al., 2010) and chamaephytes (Batalha and Martins, 2002) are the major life forms of deserts, arid regions and open lands. Some parts of Pakistan including Kotli (Nazir and Malik, 2006) and some parts of Buner (Sher and Khan, 2007) have been reported to have high number of therophytes, nanophanerophytes and hemicryptophytes, which are in line with the recent work.

3.1.2. Leaf Size Spectra and Its Seasonality Leaf size is an important character for determination of the kind of flora. Classification based on leaf size is an essential tool in vegetation ecology (Cain and Castro, 1959). Overall leaf size spectra indicated that nanophylls with 74 (43%) species were dominant, with microphylls (47) and leptophylls (33) being next in order of dominance. Mesophyllous leaf size was found in 11 species, while 4 plants were reported to have aphyllous condition. Only one plant (Nannorrhops ritchiana) was found with megaphyllous leaves (Table3 and 4).

Seasonality of the leaf sizes showed that nanophylls had almost a uniform dominancy in all the seasons. During spring, 72 different plant species were found with nanophyllous condition, while microphylls and leptophylls were represented by 46 and 33 species respectively. Mesophyllous leaf form was present in 11 species (Table 4).

During summer nanophylls were dominant, but the number decreased from 72 species (in spring) to 59 species in summer. Nanophylls were followed by microphylls and leptophylls with 38 (22.35%) and 24 species (14%) respectively. Number of nanophylls further decreased in autumn to 24 species, but was still the dominant leaf size class, followed by microphylls with 14, leptophylls with 6 and mesophylls with 5 plant species. In winter 35 species were belonging to

nanophyllous class, followed by leptophylls and microphylls with 6 and 5 species respectively. Throughout the year, there was only one megaphyllous species, and 4 aphyllous species, which were almost uniform throughout the year (aphyllous species decreased to 3 in winter) (Table 3).

Leaf size is an indicator of the environmental conditions, e.g. drought (Batalha and Martins, 2002) altitudinal (Malik et al., 2007), and climatic variations (Badshah et al., 2010). The present results showed that nanophylls were dominant in all the sampled site, an indicative character of arid and saline ranges (Cain and Castro, 1959; Khan et al., 2013; Tareen and Qadir, 1993; Hussain et al., 2005; Nasir and Sultan, 2002). Highest number of nanophyllous plants was reported in spring; similar results were obtained from Azad Kashmir (Hussain and Chaudary, 2009), Kotli (Malik et al., 2007), Waziristan, Tank (Badshah et al., 2010, 2013) and Chagharzai (Sher and Khan 2007) areas. Some studies (Khan et al., 2014) suggest that leptophylls are found in abundance in the hilly areas, while nanophylls and microphylls are characteristics of plain areas. Leaf size varied from season to season, that may be due to high number of annuals which contributed high percentage (57.1%) to the flora (Table 2).

Table 2. Floristic composition, ecological characteristics and seasonality of different species of Mohmand Agency

S. N. Family Species/Plant Rank Life Leaf Seasonal Aspect

Habit Form Size Type Sp Sm Au Wi

1 1.Acanthaceae Diclipetra bupleuroides Nees D H TH NN S + + - -

2 Justicia adhatoda L. D S NP MC S + + + +

3 2.Aizoaceae Trianthema portulacastrum L. D H TH NN S + + + -

4 3.Amaranthaceae Achyranthes aspera L. D H NP NN S + + + +

5 Aerva javanica (Burm. f.) Juss. D H CH LP S + + + +

6 Chenopodium album L. D H TH NN S + - + +

7 Chenopodium= murale L. D H TH NN S - + + -

8 Pupalia lappacea (L.) Juss. D H HC NN S + + + +

9 Salsola kali L. D H CH LP S + + + +

10 Suaeda aegyptiaca (Hasselq.) Zohary D H CH LP S + + + +

11 4.Amaryllidaceae Allium griffithianum Boiss. D H GE MS S + + - +

12 5.Apocynaceae Calotropis procera (Aiton) W.T. Aiton D S NP MS S + + + +

13 Caralluma tuberculata N.E. Br. D H NP AP A + + + -

14 Nerium indicum Mill. D S NP MS S + + + +

15 Periploca aphylla Decne. D S NP AP A + + + +

16 Rhazya stricta Decne. D S NP MC S + + + +

17 6.Arecaceae Nannorrhops ritchiana (Griff.) Aitch. M S NP MG C + + + +

18 7.Asparagaceae Asparagus gracilis Salisb. M H GE LP N + + - +

19 Asparagus setaceus (Kunth) Jessop M H GE LP N + + - -

20 Scilla griffithii Hochr. M H GE LP S + - + +

21 8.Asteraceae Artemisia maritima Ledeb. D S HC LP C + + - +

22 Calendula arvensis L. D H TH MC S + + - -

23 Carthamus lanatus L. D H TH NN I + + - +

24 Carthamus oxycantha M. Bieb. D H TH NN I + + - -

25 Centauria iberica Trevir. ex Spreng. D H TH NN I + + - -

26 Cousinia prolifera Jaub. and Spach D H TH NN I + + - -

27 Crepis sancta (L.) Babc. D H TH NN I + + - +

28 Echinops echinatus Roxb. D H TH MS I + - - -

29 Erigeron trilobus (Decne.) Boiss. D H TH MC S + + - -

30 Filago hurdwarica (Wall. ex DC.) D H TH NN S + + - + Wagenitz

31 Filago pyramidata L. D H TH MC S + - - +

32 Ifloga spicata (Forssk.) Sch. Bip. D H TH LP S + + - -

41 Lactuca serriola L. D H TH MC I + + - -

42 Lactuca tatarica (L.) C.A. Mey. D H TH MC I + - - -

33 Launaea procmbens (Roxb.) Ramayya D H CH MS I + + - - and Rajagopal

34 Pentanema vestitum Y. Ling D H TH NN S + - - -

35 Phagnolon niveum Edgew. D H TH NN S + + - -

36 Pterachaenia stewartii (Hook.f.) R.R. D H TH NN S + + - - Stewart

37 Saussurea heteromalla (D. Don) Hand. - D H TH MC S + + - + Mazz.

38 Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertn. D H TH MS I + + - -

39 Sonchus asper (L.) Hill D H TH MC I + - - +

40 Taraxacum officinale F.H. Wigg. D H TH MC I + - - +

43 9.Bignoniaceae Tecomella undulata(Sm.) Seem. D H NP MC S + + + +

44 10.Boraginaceae Anchusa arvensis (L.) M. Bieb. D H TH NN S + + - -

45 Arnebia griffithii Boiss. D H TH LP S + + - -

46 Ehretia obtusifolia Hochst. ex A. DC. D S NP MC S + + + +

47 Heliotropium europaeum L. D H TH MC S + + - +

48 Heliotropium ovalifolium Forssk. D H TH MC S + - - -

49 Nonea caspica (Willd.) G. Don D H TH NN S + - - -

50 Nonea edgeworthii A. DC. D H TH NN S + - - -

51 Onosma hispida Wall. ex G. Don D H TH MC S + + - +

52 11.Brassicaceae Alyssum desertorum Stapf D H TH LP S + - - +

53 Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. D H TH LP S + + - +

54 Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik. D H TH NN I + + - -

55 Cardaria draba (L.) Desv. D H CH MC S + + + +

56 Coronopus didymus (L.) Sm. D H TH NN C + + - +

57 Farsetia jacquemontii Hook. f. and D H NP LP S + - - + Thomson

58 Goldbachia laevigata (M. Bieb.) DC. D H CH NN S + - - -

59 Lepidium apetalum Willd. D H TH MC I + + - -

60 Malcolmia africana (L.) W.T. Aiton D H TH NN I + + - -

61 Malcolmia cabulica (Boiss.) Hook. f. D H TH MC I + + - + and Thomson

62 Sisymbrium irio L. D H TH NN I + + - -

63 12.Cannabaceae Cannabis sativa L. D H TH MC S + + - +

64 13.Capparaceae Capparis decidua (Forssk.) Pax D T MS AP A + + + +

65 14.Caprifoliaceae Lonicera japonica Thunb. D S NP MC S + + + +

66 Scabiosa olivieri Coult. D H TH NN S + - - -

67 15.Caryophyllaceae Arenaria serpyllifolia L. D H TH LP S + + - -

69 Herneraria cinerea DC D H TH LP S + - - +

68 Herneraria hirsuta L. D H HC LP S + + - -

70 Silene apetala Willd. D H TH NN S + - - -

71 Spergula arvensis L. D H TH LP S + + - +

72 Vaccaria hispanica (Mill.) Rauschert D H TH NN S + - - -

73 Velezia rigida L. D H TH LP S + - - +

74 16.Cleomaceae Cleome brachycarpa M. Vahl ex Triana D H TH NN C + - - + and Planchon

75 17.Cucurbitaceae Citrullus colocynthis (L.) Schrad. D H TH MS I + + + -

76 18.Ephedraceae Ephedra intermedia Schrenk ex C.A. G S NP AP A + + + + Mey.

77 19.Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia granulata Forssk. D H HC LP S + + - +

78 20.Fabaceae Acacia modesta Wall. D T MG LP C + + + +

79 Acacia nilotica (L.) Willd. ex Delile D T MG LP C + + + +

80 Albizia lebbeck (L.) Benth. D S MC LP C + + - +

81 Astragalus hamosus L. D H CH NN C + + + -

84 Astragalus pyrrhotrichus Boiss. D H CH NN C - + - -

82 Astragalus scorpioides Pourr. ex Willd. D H CH MC C + + - -

83 Astragalus tribuloides Delile D H CH NN C + + + -

85 Cassia senna L. D S CH NN C + + - -

86 Medicago minima (L.) L. D H HC LP C + + - +

87 Trigonella incisa Hornemann ex Fischer D H TH NN C + + - + and Meyer

88 Vicia sativa L. D H TH NN C + + - +

89 21.Geraniaceae Erodium alnifolium Guss. D H TH MC I + - - -

90 Erodium ciconium (L.) L'Hér. ex Aiton D H TH MC C + + - -

91 Erodium cicutarium (L.) L'Hér. ex Aiton D H TH MC C + - - -

92 Geranium rotundifolium L. D H TH NN I + - - -

93 22.Lamiaceae Ajuga bracteosa Wall. ex Benth. D H TH MC I + + - -

94 Mentha longifolia (L.) Huds. D H GE MC S + + - +

95 Micromeria biflora (Buch. -Ham. ex D. D H CH MC S + + + +

Don) Benth.

96 Nepeta raphanorhiza Benth. D H HC NN C + + - +

97 Otostegia limbata (Benth.) Boiss. D S NP NN S + + + +

98 Salvia aegyptiaca L. D H CH NN S + + + +

99 Salvia moocroftiana Wall. ex Benth. D H HC MC S + + - +

100 Teucrium stocksianum Boiss. D H HC NN S + + + +

101 Ziziphora tenuior L. D H TH NN S + + - -

102 23.Linaceae Linum corymbulosum Rchb. D H TH LP S + + - -

103 24.Malvaceae Malva neglecta Wallr. D H CH MC I + + + +

104 Malva parviflora L. D H TH MC I + + - -

105 25.Nitrariaceae Peganum harmala L. D H TH NN C + + - -

106 26.Nyctaginaceae Boerhavia procumbens Banks ex Roxb. D H HC NN S + - - +

107 27.Oleaceae Olea ferruginea Royle D T MC MC S + + + +

108 28.Papveraceae Fumaria indica Pugsley D H TH LP C + - - +

109 Papaver rhoeas L. D H TH MC C + + - -

110 29.Pinaceae Pinus roxburghii Sarg. G T TH NN N + + + +

115 30.Plantaginaceae Kickxia incana (Wall.) Pennell D H TH NN S + + - -

116 Kickxia ramosissimaJanch. D H TH NN S + + - -

111 Misopates orontium (L.) Raf. D H TH NN S + - - -

112 Plantago lanata Lag. and Rodr. D H TH NN S + - - +

113 Plantago ovata Forssk. D H TH NN S + + - +

114 Veronica biloba L. D H TH NN S + + - -

117 31.Plumbaginaceae Limonium macrorhabdon Kuntze D H HC NN S + + - +

118 32.Poaceae Agrostis viridis Gouan M H GE NN S + + + +

119 Aristida adscensionis L. M H HC MC S + + + -

120 Aristida cyanantha Nees ex Steud. M H HC MC S + + - -

121 Brachypodium distachyon (L.) P. Beauv. M H TH NN S + + - -

122 Bromus pectinatus Thunb. M H TH NN S + + - +

123 Cenchrus ciliarus L. M H HC NN S + + + +

124 Chrysopogon serrulatus Trin. M H HC NN S + + + +

125 Cymbopogon jwarancusa (Jones) M H HC LP S + + - + Schult.

126 Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. M H HC LP S + + - +

127 Eragrostis papposa (Roem. and Schult.) M H TH NN S + + + - Steud.

128 Heteropogon contortus (L.) P. Beauv. ex M H HC LP S + + - + Roem. and Schult.

130 Hordeum jubatum L. M H TH MC S + + - -

129 Hordeum murinum L. M H TH NN S + + - -

131 Lamarckia aurea (L.) Moench M H TH NN S + + - -

132 Pennisetum oreintale Rich. M H CH MS S + + + -

133 Phalaris minor Retz. M H TH MC S + + - -

134 Phleum paniculatum Huds. M H TH NN S + + - +

136 Poa annua L. M H TH LP S + - - +

135 Poa bulbosa L. M H GE LP S + + - +

137 Rostraria cristata (L.) Tzvelev M H TH NN S + + - -

138 Tetrapogon villosus Desf. M H HC NN S + + - -

139 Themeda anathera (Nees ex Steud.) M H TH MC S + + - + Hack.

140 33.Polygalaceae Polygala hohenackeriana var. rhodopea D H TH NN S + + - - Velen.

141 34.Polygonaceae Emex spinosa (L.) Campd. D H TH MC S + - - +

142 Polygonum plebeium R. Br. D H HC NN S + + + +

143 Rumex dentatus L. D H TH MS S + - - +

144 Rumex hastatus D. Don D H TH MC S - - + +

145 Rumex vesicarius L. D H TH LP S + - - +

146 35.Primulaceae Anagallis arvensis L. D H TH LP S + + - +

147 36.Rananculaceae Clematis graveolens Lindl. D H NP NN C + + - - (Rananculaceae)

148 Rananculus muricatus L. D H TH MC I + + - -

149 37.Resedaceae Oligomeris linifolia (Vahl) J.F. Macbr. D H TH NN S + - - +

150 38.Rhamnaceae Sageretia thea (Osbeck) M.C. Johnst. D S NP NN S + + + +

151 Ziziphus mauritiana Lam. D T MC NN S + + + +

152 Ziziphus nummularia (Burm. f.) Wight D S NP NN S + + + + and Arn.

153 39.Rosaceae Cotoneaster nummularius Fisch. and D T NP NN S + + + + C.A. Mey.

154 Duchesnea indica (Andrews) Teschem. D H TH MC C + + - -

155 40.Rubiaceae Galium aparine L. D H TH NN S + + + -

156 41.Salvadoraceae Salvadora persica L. D T NP MC S + + + +

157 42.Sapindaceae Dodonaea viscosa Jacq. (Sapindaceae) D S NP NN S + + + +

158 43.Sapotaceae Monotheca buxifolia (Falc.) A. DC. D T NP NN S + + + +

159 44.Scrophulariaceae Scrophularia striata Boiss. D H HC NN S + - - +

160 45.Solanaceae Verbascum thapsus L. D H TH MS S + + - +

161 Datura innoxia Mill. Solanaceae D H TH MS S - + + -

162 Solanum nigrum L. D H TH MC S + + - -

163 Solanum surattense Burm. f. D H TH MC I + + - -

164 Withania coagulans (Stocks) Dunal D S CH MC S + + + +

165 Withania somnifera (L.) Dunal D S CH MC S + + - +

166 46.Tamaricaceae Tamarix indica Willd. D T MS NN N + + + +

167 47.Thymelaeaceae Thymelaea passerina (L.) Coss. and D H TH LP S + - - - Germ.

168 48.Urticaceae Forsskaolea tenacissima L. D H HC NN S + + - +

169 49.Zygophyllaceae Fagonia indica Burm. f. D H TH LP S + + - +

170 Tribulus terrestris L. D H TH MC C + + + -

Table 3. Seasonal variation of various ecological characteritics of the flora of Mohmand Agency

Character Season Spring Summer Autumn Winter Life Form No. % No. % No. % No. % CH 17 10.2 16 11.9 11 20.4 9 9.5 GE 7 4.2 6 4.4 2 3.7 6 6.3 HC 21 12.7 19 14.1 6 11.1 17 17.9 MC 3 1.8 3 2.2 2 3.7 3 3.2 MG 2 1.2 2 1.5 2 3.7 2 2.1 MS 2 1.2 2 1.5 2 3.7 2 2.1 NP 21 12.7 20 14.8 19 35.2 19 20 TH 93 56 67 49.6 10 18.5 37 38.9 Total 166 100 135 100 54 100 95 100 Leaf size AP 4 2.4 4 3 4 7.4 3 3.2 LP 33 19.9 24 17.8 6 11.1 26 27.4 MC 46 27.7 38 28.1 14 25.9 25 26.3 MG 1 0.6 1 0.7 1 1.9 1 1.1 MS 10 6 9 6.7 5 9.3 5 5.3 NN 72 43.4 59 43.7 24 44.4 35 36.8 Total 166 100 135 100 54 100 95 100 Leaf shape Simple 110 66.3 87 64.4 40 74.1 71 74.7 Compound 23 13.9 21 15.6 6 11.1 12 12.6 Incised 25 15.1 19 14.1 2 3.7 6 6.3 Needle 4 2.4 4 3 2 3.7 3 3.2 Aphyllous 4 2.4 4 3 4 7.4 3 3.2 Total 166 100 135 100 54 100 95 100 Habit Trees 10 6 10 7.4 10 18.5 10 10.5 Shurbs 18 10.8 18 13.3 14 25.9 16 16.8 Herbs 138 83.1 107 79.3 30 55.6 69 72.6 Total 166 100 135 100 54 100 95 100

Table 4. Summary of ecological characteristics

Serial Character Number Percentage 1 Floristic Species i Total 170 ii Families 49 iii Genera 144

2 Habit i Trees 10 5.9 ii Shrubs 18 10.6 iii Herbs 142 83.5 3 Life Form i CH 17 10 ii GE 7 4.1 iii HC 21 12.4 iv MC 3 1.8 v MG 2 1.21 vi MS 2 1.2 vii NP 21 12.4 viii TH 97 57.1 4 Leaf Size i AP 4 2.4 ii LP 33 19.4 iii MC 47 27.6 iv MG 1 0.6 v MS 11 6.5 vi NN 74 43.5 5 Leaf i SimpleShape 113 66.5 ii Compound 24 14.1 iii Incised 25 14.7 iv Needle 4 2.4

3.2. Phenology

The study showed that May was the month where 166 out of 170 species were in vegetative (active) condition, while in April, March and June 164, 160 and 156 species were in vegetative condition respectively. The vegetation with leaves started decreasing from June onward, with July having 125 species, and a further decrease in August (90 species), September (59 species) and October (50 species). November, with only 18 plant species, was the month with least plants in vegetative condition. From November onwards, the vegetation again started increasing and in December 32 species were reported in vegetative phase, and the number further increased to 54 species in January (Table 5 and6; Figure 3).

Of the total 170 species 70 were in flowering condition during April, the month with highest number of species in flowering condition, followed by March (60 species) and May (59 species). The percentage of flowering plants decreased somehow in June (21 species). Number of plants in flowering stage abruptly decreased from August onwards with only 4 plants in flowering condition, decreasing further to2 in September and only 1 in October. In December number of flowering plants increased to 3, with further increase up to 5 in January (Table 5 and 6; Figure 4).

May, June and July were the months in which most of the species (71, 68 and 65 species respectively) were in fruiting condition. Plants species with fruits decreased a bit on both sides of the summer, with 46 plant species in April and 43 species in August. From August onwards, the fruiting plant species started to decrease with faster rate, and 23 species were found in fruiting condition in September, 10 in October and only 2 species were found to be in fruiting condition in November. December and January were the only months in which no plant species was recorded in fruiting condition (Table 5 and 6; Figure 5).

November was the month in which most of the plant species (147 species) were in post reproductive condition, followed by December (134 species) October (131 species) and September (109 species). Months with least plant species in post reproductive stage were May (4 species), April (5 species) and March (8 species), which were the months of spring season in this region (Table 5 and 6; Figure 6).

Phenological behavior is a planned timetable of plants for various life stages, which are governed by climatic and environmental conditions (Nath et al., 2008). Phenology is relation of plants to the periodic change of the environment (Badshah, 2013) and is the seasonal occurrence of different developmental stages (Kafak et al., 2009). It is the best character of flora that can provide information about the ongoing climatic long-term changes during the year (Menzel et al., 2006). Most of the plants were found in active and growing condition during warmer months of the year, which extended from February to end of August. The growing season started from February and reached to peak in March and April, with a decreasing trend towards the start of the summer. Sufficient amount of plants in the growing condition during warmer months is an indication of spring phenology (Zhang et al., 2007). Most of the plants are usually in flowering condition in warmer months in different parts of the world, with semi-arid habitat characters (Rocha et al., 2004), which is in conformity with our findings, as the study area has very less annual rain fall.

Fruiting was observed mostly towards the end of the growing seasons, as reported by some other studies (Badshah et al., 2013). Shifting of fruiting to end of the growing season is possibly because the successive seeds of the fruits have more availability of sunlight at the end of the growing season, as less plant cover is there to block sunrays (Menzel et al., 2006). Our results are in conformity with Badshah et al. (2013) and Osada et al. (2003), who also reported April-May period as most populated months, in terms of vegetative plants. The reproductive phase is always followed by dormant phase. In this area dormant period started in October and extended to December, with a slight break in January. These results are in line with the finding of Badshah et al. (2013), who stated that 57% plants remained dormant during October to December period, which is usually accompanied by leaf fall.

According to the locals, the spring starts earlier than its commencement 40-50 years ago. Duration of the summer has also extended; The severity of the cold weather has been decreased. It is a well-established fact that global climate changes have caused significant changes in the phenological behavior of the flora (IPCC, 2001; Menzel et al., 2006; Walther et al., 2002; Parmesan andYoho, 2003; Root et al., 2003). Temperature is a key factor in designing the phenological behavior of the plants. The spring phenology is a good indication of climate change compared to autumn or winter phenologies (Menzel et al., 2006).

180 160

140 120 100 80 60

NumberSpecies of 40 20 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Months

Stage

Figure 3. Number of species in active stage in different months

NumberSpecies of 20

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Months

Figure 4. Number of species in flowering stage in different months

NumberSpecies of 20

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Months

Figure 5. Number of species in reproductive fruiting/stage in different months

120

100

40 NumberSpecies of

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Months

Figure 6. Number of species in post reproductive stage in different months

Table 5. Phenological behavior of the flora during different months

S.No Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1 Acacia modesta Wall. - - V - FL - FR - - - PR -

2 Acacia nilotica (L.) Willd. ex Delile - - V - FL - FR - - - PR -

3 Achyranthes aspera L. - FL - FR - - PR - - - - L

4 Aerva javanica (Burm. f.) Juss. - V - - FL - FR - - - - PR

5 Agrostis viridis Gouan V - FL - - FL - PR - - - -

6 Ajuga bracteosa Wall. ex Benth. - - V FL FR - - - PR - - -

7 Albizia lebbeck (L.) Benth. V - - FL - FR - - - PR - -

8 Allium griffithianum Boiss. - - - FL - - FR PR - - V -

9 Alyssum desertorum Stapf V - FL FR - - PR - - - - -

10 Anagallis arvensis L. - - V FL FR - - PR - - - -

11 Anchusa arvensis (L.) M. Bieb. - V - FL - - FR - - - PR -

12 Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. - V FL FR - - PR - - - - -

13 Arenaria serpyllifolia L. V - - FL - - FR - PR - - -

14 Aristida adscensionis L. - - - - V FL - FR - - PR -

15 Aristida cyanantha Nees ex Steud. - - V FL - FR - - - PR - -

16 Arnebia griffithii Boiss. - V FL FR - - - PR - - - -

17 Artemisia maritimaLedeb. PR - V FL - FR ------

18 Asparagus gracilisSalisb. - - V - - FL - FR - - PR -

19 Asparagus setaceus (Kunth) Jessop PR - - V FL - FR - - - - -

20 Astragalus hamosus L. - V FL FR - - PR - - - - -

21 Astragalus pyrrhotrichus Boiss. - - V FL - FR - - PR - - -

22 Astragalus scorpioides Pourr. ex - V FL FR - - PR - - - - - Willd.

23 Astragalus tribuloides Delile V FL - FR - - PR - - - - -

24 Boerhavia procumbens Banks ex FL FR - PR ------V Roxb.

25 Brachypodium distachyon (L.) P. - V FL - FR - PR - - - - - Beauv.

26 Bromus pectinatus Thunb. V - FL FR - - PR - - - - -

27 Calendula arvensis L. - V FL - FR - PR - - - - -

28 Calotropis procera (Aiton) W.T. - V - FL - FR - - - - - PR Aiton

29 Cannabis sativa L. V - - - FL - FR - PR - - -

30 Capparis decidua (Forssk.) Pax - V - FL FR - PR - - - - -

31 Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik. - V FL FR - PR ------

32 Caralluma tuberculata N.E. Br. - V - FL - FR - - - - - PR

33 Cardaria draba (L.) Desv. V - - FL - FR - - - PR - -

34 Carthamus lanatus L. - - FL - FR - - PR - - - V

35 Carthamus oxycanthaM. Bieb. - V - FL - FR - - - - - PR

36 Cassia senna L. - - V - FL - FR - - PR - -

37 Cenchrus ciliarus L. - V - FL - FR - PR - - - -

38 Centaurea iberica Trevir. ex - V FL FR - PR ------Spreng.

39 Chenopodium album L. V - FL - FR - - PR - - - -

40 Chenopodium murale L. PR - - - - - V FL - FR - -

41 Chrysopogon serrulatus Trin. - - V - - - - - FL FR - PR

42 Citrullus colocynthis (L.) Schrad. - - FL FR - PR - - - - - V

43 Clematis graveolens Lindl. - V FL - - - FR - PR - - - (Rananculaceae)

44 Cleome brachycarpa M. Vahl ex FL - - - FR - PR - - - V - Triana and Planchon

45 Coronopus didymus (L.) Sm. - - V - - FL FR - - - PR -

46 Cotoneaster nummularius Fisch. - V - FL - - FR - - PR - - and C.A. Mey.

47 Cousinia prolifera Jaub. and Spach - V - FL - FR - - PR - - -

48 Crepis sancta (L.) Babc. V - FL - FR - - PR - - - -

49 Cymbopogon jwarancusa (Jones) - V - - - FL - FR - - PR - Schult.

50 Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. - V - FL - FR - - - - PR -

51 Datura innoxia Mill. Solanaceae - - - - V FL FR - - - PR -

52 Diclipetra bupleuroides Nees - - V - FL - FR - PR - - -

53 Dodonaea viscosa Jacq. - V FL - FR - - - - PR - - (Sapindaceae)

54 Duchesnea indica (Andrews) - - V - FL - FR - PR - - - Teschem.

55 Echinops echinatus Roxb. - V FL FR - - PR - - - - -

56 Ehretia obtusifolia Hochst. ex A. - - FL - FR - PR - - - - V DC.

57 Emex spinosa (L.) Campd. V - FL FR - - - PR - - - - (Polygonaceae)

58 Ephedra intermedia Schrenk ex - V - - - FL - FR - - - PR C.A. Mey.

59 Eragrostis papposa (Roem. and - - V FL FR - - - - PR - - Schult.) Steud.

60 Erigeron trilobus (Decne.) Boiss. - - V FL FR - PR - - - - -

61 Erodium alnifolium Guss. - V FL FR - - PR - - - - -

62 Erodium ciconium (L.) L'Hér. ex - V FL FR - - PR - - - - - Aiton

63 Erodium cicutarium (L.) L'Hér. ex - V FL FR - - PR - - - - - Aiton

64 Euphorbia granulata Forssk. - - V - FL - FR - - PR - -

65 Fagonia indica Burm. f. - - V - FL - FR - PR - - -

66 Farsetia jacquemontii Hook. f. and - V - FL - FR - PR - - - - Thomson

67 Filago hurdwarica (Wall. ex DC.) - - V - FL - FR - PR - - - Wagenitz

68 Filago pyramidata L. - - V - FL - FR - PR - - -

69 Forsskaolea tenacissima L. V - FL - FR - - - - - PR -

70 Fumaria indica Pugsley V - - FL - FR - - - PR - -

71 Galium aparine L. - - V - FL - FR PR - - - -

72 Geranium rotundifolium L. - V FL FR - PR ------

73 Goldbachia laevigata (M. Bieb.) - V FL - FL - PR - - - - - DC.

74 Heliotropium europaeum L. FL - - FR - PR - - - - - V

75 Heliotropium ovalifolium Forssk. - V - FL FR PR ------

76 Herneraria cinerea DC - - FL FR - PR - - - - - V

77 Herneraria hirsuta L. - - V - FL FR - - PR - - -

78 Heteropogon contortus (L.) P. - V - - - FL - FR - - PR - Beauv. ex Roem. and Schult.

79 Hordeum jubatum L. - - V FL FR - - PR - - - -

80 Hordeum murinum L. - - V FL FR - - PR - - - -

81 Ifloga spicata (Forssk.) Sch. Bip. - - V - - FL - FR - - PR -

82 Justicia adhatoda L. - - V - - FL - FR PR - - -

83 Kickxia incana (Wall.) Pennell - V - FL - - FR - PR - - -

84 Kickxia ramosissimaJanch. - V - FL - - FR - PR - - -

85 Lactuca serriola L. - - V FL - FR - PR - - - -

86 Lactuca tatarica (L.) C.A. Mey. - V FL FR - - PR - - - - -

87 Lamarckia aurea (L.) Moench - V FL - FR - - PR - - - -

88 Launaea procmbens (Roxb.) - - - V - FL - FR - PR - -

Ramayya and Rajagopal

89 Lepidium apetalum Willd. - V - FL FR - PR - - - - -

90 Limonium macrorhabdon Kuntze - V - - - - FL - FR PR - -

91 Linum corymbulosum Rchb. - V - FL FR - PR - - - - -

92 Lonicera japonica Thunb. - - - - FL - FR - PR - - V

93 Malcolmia africana (L.) W.T. Aiton V - FL FR - PR ------

94 Malcolmia cabulica (Boiss.) Hook. - FL - FR - - PR - - - - V f. and Thomson

95 Malva neglecta Wallr. - V - - - FL FR - - - - PR

96 Malva parviflora L. - V - - FL - FR PR - - - -

97 Medicago minima (L.) L. - - FL FR - - - PR - - - V

98 Mentha longifolia (L.) Huds. - - V - - FL - FR - PR - -

99 Micromeria biflora (Buch.-Ham. ex - - V - FL - FR - - - PR - D. Don) Benth.

100 Misopates orontium (L.) Raf. - V FL FR - - PR - - - - -

101 Monotheca buxifolia (Falc.) A. DC. - V - FL - - FR - - - PR -

102 Nannorrhops ritchiana (Griff.) - V - - FL - - - - FR - PR Aitch.

103 Nepeta raphanorhiza Benth. - - V - FL FR - - - PR - -

104 Nerium indicum Mill. - V - FL FR - - - PR - - -

105 Nonea capsica (Willd.) G. Don - V FL FR - PR ------

106 Nonea edgeworthii A. DC. - V FL FR - PR ------

107 Olea ferruginea Royle - V - - FL - FR - - - PR -

108 Oligomeris linifolia (Vahl) J.F. V - FL - FR - - PR - - - - Macbr.

109 Onosma hispidaWall. ex G. Don - - V - FL - FR - - PR - -

110 Otostegia limbata (Benth.) Boiss. - V - FL - FR - - - - PR -

111 Papaver rhoeas L. - V FL - - FR PR - - - - -

112 Peganum harmala L. - V FL - FR - PR - - - - -

113 Pennisetum oreintale Rich. - - V - - FL - - FR - PR -

114 Pentanema vestitum Y. Ling - V FL FR - PR ------

115 Periploca aphylla Decne. - V - - - FL - - FR - - PR

116 Phagnalon niveum Edgew. - - V - - FL FR - PR - - -

117 Phalaris minor Retz. - - V FL FR - - PR - - - -

118 Phleum paniculatum Huds. V - - - FL - FR PR - - - -

119 Pinus roxburghii Sarg. - V - FL - - FR - - - PR -

120 Plantago lanata Lag. and Rodr. - - V - FL - FR - PR - - -

121 Plantago ovata Forssk. - V - FL - - FR - - - PR -

122 Poa annua L. V - - FL - FR - - PR - - -

123 Poa bulbosa L. V - - FL - FR - - PR - - -

124 Polygala hohenackeriana var. - V - FL FR - PR - - - - - rhodopea Velen.

125 Polygonum plebeium R. Br. V - FL - FR - - - - PR - -

126 Pterachaenia stewartii (Hook.f.) - V - FL FR - PR - - - - - R.R.Stewart

127 Pupalia lappacea (L.) Juss. - - FR - - PR V - - - FL -

128 Rananculus muricatus L. - V - - FL FR - - PR - - -

129 Rhazya stricta Decne. - V - FL - FR - - - - - PR

130 Rostraria cristata (L.) Tzvelev V - - FL - FR - PR - - - -

131 Rumex dentatus L. - V FL FR - - - - PR - - -

132 Rumex hastatus D. Don - V FL FR - - - - - PR - -

133 Rumex vesicarius L. - FL FR - - - - PR - - - V

134 Sageretia thea (Osbeck) M.C. - V - - - - FL FR - - PR - Johnst.

135 Salsola kali L. ------FL FR - PR - V

136 Salvadora persica L. - V - - - FL - FR - PR - -

137 Salvia aegyptiaca L. - - V FL FR - - - - PR - -

138 Salvia moocroftiana Wall. ex Benth. V - - - FL - FR - PR - - -

139 Saussurea heteromalla (D. Don) V - FL FR - - PR - - - - - Hand-Mazz.

140 Scabiosa olivieri Coult. - V FL FR PR ------

141 Scilla griffithii Hochr. - - FL FR - PR - - - - v -

142 Scrophularia striata Boiss. - - FL FR - PR - - - - - V

143 Silene apetala Willd. - V FL FR - - PR - - - - -

144 Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertn. V - FL - FR - - PR - - - -

145 Sisymbrium irio L. - V FL - FR - - PR - - - -

146 Solanum nigrum L. - V FL - FR - - - PR - - -

147 Solanum surattense Burm. f. - V - FL FR - - - PR - - -

148 Sonchus asper (L.) Hill V - FL - FR - - PR - - - -

149 Spergula arvensis L. - FL - FR - - - PR - - - V

150 Suaeda aegyptiaca (Hasselq.) V - - - FL - FR - - PR - - Zohary

151 Tamarix indica Willd. V - - - FL - FR - - - PR -

152 Taraxacum officinaleF.H. Wigg. - FL FR ------PR - V

153 Tecomella undulata(Sm.) Seem. - - V FL FR - - - - PR - -

154 Tetrapogon villosus Desf. - V - FL - FR - - PR - - -

155 Teucrium stocksianum Boiss. V - - - FL - - FR - - PR -

156 Themeda anathera (Nees ex Steud.) - - V - - - FL - FR - PR - Hack.

157 Thymelaea passerina (L.) Coss. and - V FL FR - PR ------Germ.

158 Trianthema portulacastrum L. - - - V - - FL - FR - PR -

159 Tribulus terrestris L. - - V FL - FR - - - PR - -

160 Trigonella incisa Hornemann ex - FL - FR - - - PR - - - V Fischer and Meyer

161 Vaccaria hispanica (Mill.) V FL - FR - PR ------Rauschert

162 Velezia rigida L. - - V - FL - FR - - PR - -

163 Verbascum thapsus L. - V - FL - - - - FR - PR -

164 Veronica biloba L. - V FL - FR - - PR - - - -

165 Vicia sativa L. V - FL FR - - - PR - - - -

166 Withania coagulans (Stocks) Dunal - - V - - FL - FR PR - - -

167 Withania somnifera (L.) Dunal - V FL FR - - - PR - - - -

168 Ziziphora tenuior L. - V FL FR - - PR - - - - -

169 Ziziphus mauritiana Lam. V - - FL - - - FR - - PR -

170 Ziziphus nummularia (Burm. f.) - - - V - FL - FR - - PR - Wight and Arn.

Table 6. Monthwise occurrence of species in different phenological stages

Month Vegetative Flowering Fruiting Post Reproductive January 54 5 0 108 February 119 11 1 46 March 160 61 5 8 April 164 70 46 4 May 166 59 71 2 June 156 39 68 2 July 125 21 65 1 August 90 4 43 10 September 59 2 23 21 October 40 1 10 34 November 18 2 2 43 December 33 3 0 42

3.3. Community Structure

Quantitative study of the research area showed that family Fabaceae had highest importance value (3.38) which is mainly due to the distribution of its members throughout the area. Sapindaceae (FIV=2.27) was next in order, due to the high occurrence of Dodonaea viscosa in the region, followed by Poaceae and Caryophyllaceae with FIV of 1.84 and 1.51 respectively. Other families with high quantitative occurrence were Urticaceae, Zygophyllaceae (FIV=1.5 each), Lamiaceae (FIV=1.36), Apocynaceae (FIV=1.35) and Sapotaceae (FIV=1.33). Families with least occurrence were Tamaricaceae (.02), Cucurbitaceae (.01) and Nitrariaceae (.01) (Table 7).

Plant communities were established on the bases of the altitude and climatic conditions that were the major factors in designing the pattern of vegetation. Each area had different vegetation during different seasons; and so do the communities. Forty different kinds of communities were established in Mohmand Agency. The characteristic features of these communities are given below.

3.3.1. Spring Aspect 3.3.1.1. Artemisia-Brachypodium-Aristida Community (AMB) This community was dominated by Artemisia maritima, Brachypodium distachyon and Aristida cyanantha with importance values of 0.45, 0.18 and 0.12 respectively. It was composed of 49 species including 43 herbs, 4 shrubs and 2 tree species with TIV (Total Importance Value) of 2.88 while AIV (Average Importance Value) was 0.59. The community was dominated by herbaceous vegetation. TIV of the dominant three species was 0.74, while the remaining plant species had TIV of 2.13 (Table 11and 14). Therophyte (TH) was dominant life form represented by 31 species followed by hemicryptophytes (HC) with 8 species. Chamaephytes (CH) and nanophanerophytes (NP) were represented by 3 and 4 species respectively; two species were geophytes (GP) while only one species of megaphanerophyte (MG) was found in this community (Table 12and 14).Nanophylls (NN) and leptophylls (LP) were dominant with 19 and 15 species respectively, followed by microphylls (MC) with 9 species. Mesophyllous (MS) plants were 4 in number, while aphyllous (AP) and megaphyllous plants (MG) were having 1 species each. Most of the species (33) were with simple leaves; compound and indented leaves were found in 6 and 7 species respectively. Only one species was reported to have needle like leaves in this community (Table 12). Other important species of the community include Arnebia griffithii, Acacia nilotica, Malcolmia cabulica, Tetrapogon villosus, Medicago minima, Ziziphora tenuior, Silene apetala, Malcolmia africana, Forsskaolea tenacissima and Heteropogon contortus (Table 11). Vegetation is affected directly by climatic condition and soil of an area and changes in these abiotic factors can bring a change in the vegetation of the region. The community is formed as result of the specific environmental conditions prevailing in this area and the human disturbances (Grubb, 1987). Annuals were the dominant plant in this community which was the same trend observed by Badhshah et al. (2013), Malik and Malik (2004) and Arshad and Akbar (2008).

3.3.1.2. Dodonaea-Brachypodium-Hordeum Community (DSK) This community was mainly dominated by three species i.e. Dodonaea viscosa, Brachypodium distachyon and Hordeum jubatum sharing a TIV of 1.02. The community was characterized by presence of total 38 species (TIV=2.67; AVI=.070) including 34 herbs

(TIV=2.15), two shrubs (TIV=.43) and 2 tree species (TIV=.090). The community was dominated by herbaceous vegetation (Table 11 and 14).

Therophytes were represented by 24 species; all other life forms were represented by only few species. Hemicryptophytes were 4 while geophytes and chamaephytes were represented by 3 species each. Mega and nanophanerophytes were 2 species each in this community. Most of the plants i.e. 16 species (42%) were leptophyllous, followed by nanophylls with 13 species (34%) and microphylls with 7 species (18%). Only 2 species were mesophyllous. Among total 38 species 26 (68%) were having simple leaves; seven species had compound leaves, 3 indented and 2 were having needle like leaves (11, 13 and 14).

Other members of this community included Arenaria serpyllifolia, Alyssum desertorum, Fagonia indica, Silene apetala, Spergula arvensis, Velezia rigida, Heteropogon contortus and Rhazya stricta (Table 11). This community was reported from DSK site. The current findings are in line with the findings of many other ecologists (Perveen and Hussain, 2007; Malik and Hussain, 2008)

3.3.1.3. Hordeum-Medicago-Peganum Community (KJK) This community was present in both the spring and summer seasons and was a characteristic of KJK site. Community comprised of total 30 species with TIV of 2.94. Herbaceous vegetation was dominant with 25 species (TIV=2.63) followed by trees (4 species having TIV=0.22) and shrubs (1 species with IV=0.073). Three dominant species (Hordeum jubatum, Medicago minima and Peganum harmala) had a high TIV of 1.52 compared to rest of the species (27 species with TIV=1.41). Maximum species were therophytic (15 species with TIV=1.50) followed by hemicryptophytes and nanophanerophytes (5 and 3 species respectively). Chamaephytes, geophytes and megaphanerophytes were represented by 2 species each; there was only one species with microphanerophytic life form (Table 11, 13 and 14).

Most of the flora was nanophyllous (11 species) followed by leptophyllous (9 species) and microphyllous species (7 species). Least represented leaf size was mesophyllous with only three species. Thirty species were having simple leaves, followed by compound leaves with 9 species. Indented leaves were found in case of only 2 species (Table 11, 13 and 14).

Beside the three important plants, other species of this community were Tetrapogon villosus, Herneraria hirsuta, Filago pyramidata, Monotheca buxifolia, Rhazya stricta, Acacia modesta, Calotropis procera, Poa annua, Tribulus terrestris, Echinops echinatus, Trigonella incisa and Forsskaolea tenacissima (Table 11). Same trends in the community were observed by many workers (Malik and Malik, 2004; Arshad and Akbar, 2008 and Shah and Hussain, 2008)

3.3.1.4. Bromus-Trigonella-Silene Community (LSP) The community was dominated by Bromus pectinatus (IV=0.39), Trigonella incisa (IV=0.36) and Silene apetala (IV=0.18). Total 35 species made this community with TIV of 2.95 (AIV=0.084) and was dominated by herbs (30 species). Shrubs and trees were less in number (1=2.8% and 4=11.4% species respectively). Contribution to the total importance value by the three dominant species was 0.94. Rest of the TIV (2.00) was the contribution of the remaining species. The dominant life form was therophytic with 19 species followed by hemicryptophytes (6 species), chamaephytes and nanophanerophytes (4 and 3 species respectively). Megaphanerophytes were 2 species, while microphanerophytes were represented by only 1 species. Classification on the bases of leaf size spectra indicated that nanophyllous and leptophyllous plants were dominant with 13 and 12 species respectively. Eight microphylls were found while only 2 species were having mesophyllous leaf size (Table 11and 13).

Species with simple leaves were dominant in this community. They were 26 out of 35 with 74% share to the flora of the community. Six species were having compound leaves while there were only three species with indented leaves. Other important species were Monotheca buxifolia, Arenaria serpyllifolia, Cynodon dactylon, Salvia aegyptiaca, Hordeum jubatum, Rhazya stricta, Forsskaolea tenacissima and Acacia modesta (Table 11 and 14). The community is found in LSP site. The present findings are in line with previous reports of many workers (Sher and Khan, 2007; Arshad and Akbar, 2002; Hussain et al., 2009)

3.3.1.5. Aristida-Hordeum-Phalaris Community (KTP) The community, established in KTP site, was formed of 54 species, with dominant herbaceous vegetation (46 species) followed by a small number of shrubs (6 species) and trees (2 species). The community was dominated by Aristida cyanantha, Hordeum jubatum and Phalaris minor having a TIV of 0.62 while the rest of the species had a TIV of 2.3. There were 34 species with therophytic life form dominating the community. A relatively small number of

hemicryptophytes (9 species), nanophanerophytes (7 species) and chamaephytes (3 species) were part of this community. Only a single geophytic species was also found. Most of the species were nanophyllous (24 species) with microphylls (16 species) and leptophylls (11 species) as codominant. There were two mesophyllous and only one aphyllous species in this community (Table 11, 13 and 14).

Other important species of this community were Malcolmia cabulica, Polygonum plebejum, Dodonaea viscosa, Vicia sativa, Onosma hispida, Lactuca serriola, Malcolmia africana, Forsskaolea tenacissima, Alyssum desertorum, Cymbopogon jwarancusa and Withania coagulans (Table 11).Similar findings were documented by many workers from different parts of Pakistan (Malik and Hussain, 2008 and Hussain, 2003).

3.3.1.6. Dodonaea-Rumex-Acacia Community (PRG) The community, established in PRG site, was made up of 61 species with TIV of 2.87 and AIV of 0.046. Dodonaea viscosa, Rumex vesicarius and Acacia nilotica were the three dominant species with TIV of 0.91, while the remaining plants have TIV of 1.96. Forty-eight herbs, 8 shrub and 6 tree species made this community. The dominant life form was therophytic with 33 species followed by nanophanerophytes (9 species), chamaephytes (8 species), geophytes and hemicryptophytes (4 species each). Megaphanerophytic life form was represented by 2, while the microphanerophytes and mesophanerophytes were represented by only 1 species each (Table 11and 13).

When the plants were classified on the bases of leaf size, nanophylls and microphylls were dominant (21 and 19 species respectively), followed by leptophylls (16 species) and mesophylls (4 species). Aphyllous and megaphyllousplants were only 1 species each. Forty-two species out of 61 were reported to have simple leaves followed by plants with indented (11 species) and compound (7 species) leaves. Needle shaped leaves were least represented (2 species). Other characteristic species of this community were Monotheca buxifolia, Arenaria serpyllifolia, Cynodon dactylon, Salvia aegyptica, Hordeum jubatum, Rhazya stricta, Forsskaolea tenacissima and Acacia modesta (Table 11, 13 and 14). Wahab et al. (2008) and Shah and Hussain (2008) reported same trends in the flora.

3.3.1.7. Hordeum-Medicago-Peganum Community (KJK) Thirty-eight species made this community (AIV=0.076; TIV=2.9) that was dominated by herbs with 30 species (TIV=2.4); shrubs and trees were less in number (5 and 3 species respectively). Three dominant species (Hordeum jubatum, Medicago minima and Peganum harmala) contributed 0.70 to the TIV, compared to the TIV of remaining species (2.11). Therophytes were dominant with 21 species followed by chamaephytes (6 species), hemicryptophytes, nanophanerophytes (4 species each) and megaphanerophytes (2 species). Only one plants species was reported with megaphanerophytic life form. Eight species of leptophylls made this leaf size class as the dominant one, with a codominance of nanophylls (7 species). Microphyll species were 3 in number with only 2 mesophyllous species (Table 11, 13 and14).

Result showed that of the total 38 species, 23 were having simple leaves, 6 compound and 8 species were having indented leaf shape. Other codominant species, beside the three dominants, were Acacia modesta, Brachypodium distachyon, Trigonella incisa, Cynodon dactylon, Aristida cyanantha, Withania coagulans, Arenaria serpyllifolia and Ziziphus Mauritiana (Table 11). The community is a characteristic feature of KRP site. Similar findings were documented by many workers from different parts of Pakistan (Malik and Hussain, 2008 and Hussain, 2003; Wahab et al., 2008 and Arshad et al., 2008).

3.3.1.8. Brachypodium-Astragalus-Teucrium Community (SAF) This community was found in SAF site and was comprised of total 46 species with a TIV and AIV of 2.93 and 0.06 respectively. Brachypodium distachyon, Astragalus scorpoides and Teucrium stocksianum were the dominant species (TIV=0.52). The community was dominated by herbaceous vegetation (36 species) with some trees (4 species) and shrubs (3 species). Most of the spring communities are dominated by therophytes, and same case is here. The community had 24 therophytic species, with a weak codominance of hemicryptophytes (10 species), chamaephytes (5 species) and nanophanerophytes (4 species). Least represented life forms were megaphanerophytes (2 species) and microphanerophytes (1 species) (Table 11and 13).

Nanophylls were 18 species followed by leptophylls (16 species). Two megaphyll species and only one aphyllous species were also part of this community. Out of total 46 species, 37 were reported to have simple leaves; all other leaf shapes were represented by less percentage of

species. Some of the other important species in this community were Arenaria serpyllifolia, Hordeum jubatum, Cynodon dactylon, Acacia nilotica, Medicago minima, Micromeria biflora, Heteropogon contortus, Tetrapogon villosus and Ziziphus mauritiana (Table 8, 11and 14). Many of the previous findings (Wazir et al., 2008; Badshah et al., 2010; Malik and Malik, 2004) support the current results.

3.3.1.9. Medicago-Acacia-Acacia Community (TRG) Total 41 species comprised this community with TIV of 2.78 and AIV of 0.067. Medicago minima, Acacia nilotica and Acacia modesta were dominant species (TIV=0.76). This is a characteristic spring community of TRG site. Herbs were dominant (36 species) with shrubs (3 species) and trees (2 species) in codominance. Twenty-seven species were therophytes, 5 hemicryptophytes, 4 chamaephytes, 3 nanophanerophytes and 2 species were megaphanerophytes (Table 8, 11 and 14).

Leaf size spectra analysis showed that nanophylls with 19 species were dominant with co-dominance of leptophylls (11 species) and microphylls (8 species). Mesophyllous condition was found in 3 species. Twenty-six species had simple leaves, with 7 species having compound and 8 having indented leaves (Table 8 and14).

Other important species in this community were Astragalus tribuloides, Brachypodium distachyon, Tetrapogon villosus, Cousinia prolifera, Capsella bursa-pastoris, Tribulus terrestris and Peganum harmala(Table 11, 13 and 14).The current results are in conformity with the findings of Ahmad et al. (2008), Sher and Khan (2007) and Badshah et al. (2010).

3.3.1.10. Hordeum-Malcolmia-Rhazya Community (YKG) Hordeum-Malcolmia-Rhazya community was composed of total 41 species having a TIV of 2.88 (AIV=0.070). Three dominants (Hordeum jubatum, Malcolmia cabulica and Rhazya stricta) had 0.80 share in TIV. The remaining plants had TIV of 2.08. Herbaceous plants were dominant with 33 species, followed by shrubs (5 species) and trees (3 species). Life form classification revealed that therophytes with 26 species were dominant, with small number of geophytes (6 species), hemicryptophytes (4 species), chamaephytes, geophytes, microphanerophytes, megaphanerophytes and mesophanerophytes (1 species each) (Table 8 and 11).

100

Microphyllous and nanophyllous species were dominant with 15 and 13 species respectively, with co-dominance of leptophylls (11 species). Aphyllous and megaphyllous plants were represented by only 1 species each. When the plants in this community were classified based on leaf shape, it was reported that 25 species were having simple leaves, 8 compound and 7 species were found with indented leaves. Only one species was reported to have aphyllous condition. Other important plants of this community were Medicago minima, Albizia lebbek, Ziziphus nummularia, Acacia nilotica, Brachypodium distachyon, Scabiosa olivieri and Salvadora persica (Table 8, 11, 13 and 14). The community was established found in YKG site. Malik and Husaain (2008), Wazir et al. (2008) and Badshah et al. (2010) have similar findings from different areas of Pakistan.

3.3.2. Summer Aspect 3.3.2.1. Artemisia-Brachypodium-Aristida Community (AMB) Artemisia-Brachypodium-Aristida community is made up of total 41 species with 35 herbs, 4 shrubs and 2 trees species. Total importance value of this community was 2.62 (AIV=0.06). Artemisia maritima, Brachypodium distachyon and Aristida cyanantha were the dominant species which contributed 0.74 to total importance value, while contribution of rest of the species to TIV was 1.37. Life form classification indicated that therophytes were dominant with 21 species, followed by hemicryptophytes (9 species), chamaephytes, nanophanerophytes (4 species each) and geophytes (2 species). Only one megaphanerophyte species was found, making it the least represented life form. Nanophylls with 16 and leptophylls with 12 species were the dominant leaf size spectra followed by microphylls (8 species) and mesophylls (3 species) (Table 8 and 11). One species was found each with aphyllous and megaphyllous condition. Simple leaves were dominant in most of the communities; here 26 species were with simple leaves, 6 with compound and 7 species were found with indented leaves. Only one species was reported to have needle type of leaves (Table 12and 14). The current findings are in accordance with the results of many workers (Hussain, 2006; Malik and Hussain, 2008 and Arshad et al., 2008). Other important species of this community were Arnebia griffithii, Acacia nilotica, Malcolmia cabulica, Tetrapogon villosus, Medicago minima, Astragalus tribuloides, Ziziphora tenuior, Malcolmia Africana and Forsskaolea tenacissima (Table 11).

101

3.3.2.2. Dodonaea-Brachypodium-Hordeum Community (DSK) The community was made up of 29 species (TIV=2.54; AIV=0.08). Dodonaea viscosa, Brachypodium distachyon and Hordeum jubatum dominated this community with a TIV of 1.02. Twenty-five species among 29 were herbaceous, 2 shrubs and two species of trees were found. Life form analysis showed that therophyte species were 14 in number, followed by hemicryptophytes (5 species) and chamaephytes (4 species). Geophytes, megaphanerophytes and nanophanerophytes were 2 species each. Leaf size spectra were studied and was reported that nanophylls (11 species) and leptophylls (10 species) were dominant, followed by microphyllous plants (7 species). Only one mesophyll species was present in this community. Eighteen species in this community were reported to have simple leaves, 8 compound, 2 needle, while only one species was found with indented leaves (Table 12and 14). Similar trends in the community structure could be found in the findings of many ecologists (Perveen et al., 2008; Batalha and Martins, 2004).

Some of the dominant plants of this community are Aristida adscensionis, Medicago minima, Arenaria serpyllifolia, Fagonia indica, Acacia nilotica, Spergula arvensis, Astragalus scorpoides, Heteropogon contortus and Rhazya stricta (Table 11).

3.3.2.3. Hordeum-Medicago-Peganum Community (KJK) Hordeum-Medicago-Peganum community had 27 species (TIV=2.74) with herbaceous vegetation as dominant one (22 species). Trees were represented by four species with TIV=0.22 while there was only one shrub species i.e. Rhazya stricta. Dominant three species (Hordeum jubatum, Medicago minima and Peganum harmala) contributed 1.52 to TIV, while all other (24 species) had TIV of 1.22 (Table 12and 14).

Life form classification of the species indicated that therophytes were dominant with 11 species (TIV=1.24) followed by hemicryptophytes (5 species), nanophanerophytes and chamaephytes with 3 species each. Two species each were belonging to geophytic and megaphanerophytic life forms. Only one species was reported with microphanerophytic life form (Table 12and 14).

Classification on the bases of leaf size indicated that nanophylls were dominant with 12 species followed by leptophylls (8 species) and microphylls (5 species); mesophyllous species

102

were least represented (by 2 species). All the species were having only two kinds of leaves, either simple (17 species) or compound (10 species). Simple leaves were dominant as compared to compound leaves. Other important species of this community included Tetrapogon villosus, Monotheca buxifolia, Rhazya stricta, Acacia modesta, Astragalus tribuloides and Calotropis procera (Table 11, 13 and 14). Hussain et al. (2009) and Ali and Malik (2010) have reported similar results during studies on vegetation.

3.3.2.4. Aristida-Hordeum-Phalaris Community (KTP) Aristida-Hordeum-Phalaris community was composed of total 43 species, with 2.54 TIV (AIV=0.059). Dominant species i.e. Aristida cyanantha, Hordeum jubatum and Phalaris minor had a TIV of 0.61, while the remaining species had 1.92 TIV. The community was dominated by herbs (35 species) with small amount of shrubs (6 species) and trees (2 species). Therophytes were dominant in this community and were represented by 23 species, followed by hemicryptophytes (8 species), nanophanerophytes (7 species) and chamaephytes (4 species). There was only one species with geophytic life form. Most of the species were nanophylls (22 species) followed by microphylls (12 species) and leptophylls (6 species). Mesophylls were represented by 2 species, while there was only one plant with aphyllous condition (Table 11, 13 and 14). The current findings are in line with the results obtained by Manhas et al. (2010) and Shah and Hussain (2008).

There were 32 species with simple leaves, 6 with compound and 4 species were found with indented condition. Dominant species beside the important three were Malcolmia cabulica, Polygonum plebejum, Dodonaea viscosa, Vicia sativa, Onosma hispida, Lactuca serriola, Malcolmia africana, Forsskaolea tenacissima and Cymbopogon jwarancusa (Table 11 and 14)

3.3.2.5. Bromus-Trigonella-Monotheca Community (LSP) There were 29 different species in this community with TIV and AIV of 2.58 and 0.089 respectively. Bromus pectinatus, Trigonella incisa and Monotheca buxifolia were the dominant species that contributed 0.93 to the TIV. Rest of the TIV(1.65) was the contribution of the remaining species. The community was dominated by herbaceous vegetation (24 species) with a small number of trees (4 species) and a single shrub species (Table 12and 14).

103

Therophytes were dominant (12 species) followed by hemicryptophytes (6 species), chamaephytes (5 species) and nanophanerophytes (3 species). Megaphanerophytes and microphanerophytes were represented by 2 and 1 species respectively. Most of the flora was nanophyllous (12 species) followed by leptophylls and microphylls (8 and 7 species respectively). Least represented leaf type was mesophyllous with only 2 species. Out of the total 29 species, 19 species were found with simple leaves, 7 with compound and only 3 species were found with indented leaves. Other important species of this community included Arenaria serpyllifolia, Cynodon dactylon, Salvia aegyptiaca, Hordeum jubatum, Rhazya stricta, Forsskaolea tenacissima and Acacia modesta (Table 11, 13 and 14). Manhas et al. (2010) also reported the same results their studies.

3.3.2.6. Dodonaea-Acacia-Mentha Community (PRG) A total of 53 species made this community having a TIV of 2.39 and AIV of .045. Three dominant species (Dodonaea viscosa, Acacia nilotica and Mentha longifolia) contributed 0.75 to TIV compared to TIV of rest of the species (1.63). In almost all communities, herbaceous vegetation was dominant. Thirty-eight species were reported to be herbs, 9 shrubs and only 6 were tree species in this community. Classification on the bases of life from indicated that therophytic life form was dominant (24 species) followed by chamaephytes and nanophanerophytes (8 species each). The least represented life form in this community was microphanerophytes and mesophanerophytes (1 species each). Nanophylls with 18 species were dominant followed by microphylls and leptophylls with 17 and 11 species respectively. Only one species was found in this community with megaphyllous condition. Most of the species (35) were having simple leaves, with a small percentage of plants having compound (7 species) and indented (8 species) leaves (Table 8, 13 and 14). Husain et al. (2009) and Siddequi et al. (2010) came up with same findings, as reported in the current study.

Some of the important plants of this community beside the three dominants were Arenaria serpyllifolia, Cynodon dactylon, Salvia aegyptica, Hordeum jubatum, Rhazya stricta, Forsskaolea tenacissima and Acacia modesta (Table 11).

3.3.2.7. Hordeum-Medicago-Peganum Community (KRP) Hordeum-Medicago-Peganum community was made up of total 31 species with 2.6 TIV and 0.085 AIV. Hordeum jubatum, Medicago minima and Peganum harmala were dominant

104

species in this community contributing 0.79 to TIV. Herbs were dominant in this community with 23 species. Shrubs and trees were represented by 5 and 3 species respectively (Table 13).

Therophytes, being dominant, were represented by 14 species (TIV=1.59) followed by chamaephytes (6 species), hemicryptophytes, nanophanerophytes (4 species each) and megaphanerophytes (2 species). Microphanerophytes were represented by only one (Table 12and 14).

Most of the species in this community were nanophylls and microphylls followed by leptophylls (12, 10 and 7 species respectively). Aphyllous and mesophyllous plants were represented by one species each. Simple leaf was the dominant leaf shape with 16 species followed by compound and indented leaves (7 species each). Other important species of this community included Acacia modesta, Brachypodium distachyon, Trigonella incisa, Cynodon dactylon, Astragalus tribuloides, Aristida cyanantha and Withania coagulans (Table 11 and 14). Out results are in conformity with the findings of Badshah et al. (2010) and Batalha and Martins (2004).

3.3.2.8. Brachypodium-Astragalus-Teucrium Community (SAF) Brachypodium-Astragalus-Teucrium community comprised of 36 species with an average importance value of 0.071 and TIV of 2.55. Dominant species were Brachypodium distachyon, Astragalus scorpoides and Teucrium stocksianum. These three species had a TIV of 0.052 compared to TIV of rest of the species (2.03). Herbaceous plant species were 29, with 3 shrubs and 4 tree species (Table 11 and 14).

Classification on the bases of life form indicated that therophytes with 14 species were dominant in this community followed by hemicryptophytes (9 species) and chamaephytes (6 species). Nanophanerophytes and megaphanerophytes were represented by 4 and 2 species respectively. Microphenrophyte was the only life form that was represented by a single species (Table 13).

Leptophylls and nanophylls were in co-dominance in the community, each with a representation of 10 species, followed by microphylls (7 species). Mesophyllous leaf size was found in 2 species, with only one plant species having aphyllous condition. Twenty-seven plant species were found to have simple leaves, 6 compound and 2 species were having indented

105

leaves. Other plants of this community were Arenaria serpyllifolia, Hordeum jubatum, Cynodon dactylon, Acacia nilotica, Medicago minima, Micromeria biflora, Heteropogon contortus, Tetrapogon villosus and Ziziphus mauritiana (Table 11, 13 and 14).The current results can be confirmed by many of the previous findings (Hussain et al., 2009; Ali and Malik, 2010 and Badshah et al., 2010).

3.3.2.9. Medicago-Acacia-Acacia Community (TRG) Medicago-Acacia-Acacia Community was characterized by presence of 37 different species (TIV=2.78; AIV=0.075; TIV of the remaining plant species=2.02). Medicago minima, Acacia nilotica and Acacia modesta were dominant species with TIV of 0.76. Therophytes were dominant (22 species) in the community while all other life forms were represented by small number of individuals (chamaephytes and hemicryptophytes by 5 each; nanophanerophytes by 3 and megaphanerophytes by 2 species). Herbs were represented by 32 species making it the dominant habit in this community, with 3 shrubs and 2 tree species (Table 11 and 14).

Most of the species were having simple leaves (22 species). Eight species were having compound while 7 species were found with indented leaves. Classification on the bases of leaf size indicated that nanophylls (21 species) were dominant, followed by leptophylls (9 species) and microphylls (6 species); only 3 species were found with mesophyllous condition (Table 13). Ali and Malik (2010) and Malik and Malik (2014) have reported the same trends in their findings.

Some of the important species of the summer aspect of this community were Astragalus tribuloides, Brachypodium distachyon, Tetrapogon villosus, Cousinia prolifera, Capsella bursa- pastoris, Tribulus terrestris and Peganum harmala (Table 11).

3.3.2.10. Hordeum-Malcolmia-Rhazya Community (YKG) Number of individuals in Hordeum-Malcolmia-Rhazya community was 32 different species (TIV=2.5; AIV=0.070), in which the dominant three species (Hordeum jubatum, Malcolmia cabulica and Rhazya stricta) had 0.80 contribution to TIV. Herbaceous vegetation in the community was dominant and was represented by 24 species, with small number of shrubs (5 species) and trees (3 species). Life form study indicated that just like most of the spring and

106

summer communities, therophytes were dominant in this community (16 species) with small number species with other life forms (Table 12and 14).

Leaf studies of the community indicated that microphylls and nanophylls were the dominant with 11 species each, followed by leptophylls. Only one species was reported to have aphyllous condition. Most of the species were with simple leaves (20 species) followed by compound (7 species) and indented (4 species) leaves. Other important species of this community were Medicago minima, Astragalus tribuloides, Albizia lebbek, Ziziphus nummularia, Acacia nilotica, Brachypodium distachyon and Salvadora persica (Table 11 and 14). Perveen and Hussain (2009), Ali and Malik (2010) and Arshad and Akbar (2002) have reported similar findings in their inventories.

3.3.3. Winter Aspect 3.3.3.1. Artemisia-Acacia-Malcolmia Community (AMB) Artemisia-Acacia-Malcolmia community was characteristic of the winter season in AMB site. The dominant species in this community (Artemisia maritima, Acacia nilotica and Malcolmia cabulica) were hard stemmed plants, which can survive in the intense weather condition. The community comprised of 24 species (TIV=1.52; AVI=.063), including 18 species (75%) herbs, 4 (17%) species of shrubs and 2 (8.3%) tree species. Total Importance Value of the three dominant species was 0.64, while all the other species (21) of the community had TIV of 0.88 (Table 11and 14).

The community was dominated by therophytes with 11 species. Hemicryptophytes were represented by 5 species, nanophanerophytes by 3 and megaphanerophytes by only one species. Geophytes and chamaephytes were represented by 2 species each. Leptophylls were dominant with 11 (45%) species followed by nanophylls with 6 species. Micro- and mesophanerophytes were represented by 3 (12.5%) species each, while only one (4.1%) species was reported to belong to megaphyllous leaf type (Table 12 and 14). The results are in conformity with the findings of Malik and Malik (2004) and Malik and Hussain (2008).

Other dominant plants, beside the three most important, were Acacia nilotica, Malcolmia cabulica, Medicago minima, Forsskaolea tenacissima, Heteropogon contortus, Salvia aegyptica,

107

Euphorbia granulata, Herneraria hirsuta, Rumex dentatus, Anagallis arvensis and Fagonia indica (Table 11).

3.3.3.2. Dodonaea-Medicago-Alyssum Community (DSK) The community comprised of 22 species with TIV of 1.4 and AIV of 0.06. Eighteen species out of 22 were herbs, indicating its dominancy in the community. Shrubs and trees were represented by 2 species each. Total importance value of the three dominant species (Dodonaea viscosa, Medicago minima and Alyssum desertorum) was 0.61; rest of the 19 species had TIV of 0.79 (Table 11 and 14).

Therophytes were dominant with 12 species, followed by hemicryptophytes (5 species). Nanophanerophytic, geophytic and megaphanerophytic life forms were represented by two species each. When species were classified on the bases of leaf size spectra, leptophylls were dominant with 13 species, followed by nanophylls (5 species). Microphylls were 3 species, while mesophylls were represented by only 1 species. Sixteen species out of 22 were reported to have simple leaves. Four species were with compound leaves, while aphyllous and indented conditions were found in one species each (Table 11and 14). Ali and Malik (2010) and Malik and Malik (2014) have reported the same trends in their findings.

Other species of high occurrence in this community were Fagonia indica, Acacia nilotica, Spergula arvensis, Velezia rigida, Heteropogon contortus, Rhazya stricta, Themeda anathera, Anagallis arvensis, Herneraria hirsuta, Chrysopogon serrulatus, Filago hurdwarica and Acacia modesta (Table 11).

3.3.3.3. Medicago-Herneraria-Filago Community (KJK) Twenty different species formed this community having an AIV of 0.08 and TIV of 1.7. TIV of Medicago minima, Herneraria hirsuta and Filago pyramidata (three dominants) was 0.84, compared to the TIV of rest of the species (0.85). The community was dominated by herbaceous vegetation with 15 species, followed by 4 tree species and a single shrub species (Table 11 and 14).

Study showed 8 species of therophytes in this community which was the dominant life form. This was followed by nanophanerophytes and hemicryptophytes with 3 species each.

108

Microphanerophytes and geophytes both were represented by 2 species. Microphanerophytes and chamaephytes were also present in this community (1 species each) (Table 13).

Leaf size spectra were reported to be somewhat uniform among different species. Most of the species were leptophylls (8 species) or nanophylls (7 species). Microphyllous kind of leaves were found in case of three species, while there were only 2 species with mesophyllous leaf condition. Most plant species were having simple leaves (16 species) with only 4 species with compound leaves (Table 12and 14). The current results are in conformity with the findings of Ahmad et al. (2008), Sher and Khan (2007) and Badshah et al. (2010).

Other important species of this community were Monotheca buxifolia, Rhazya stricta, Acacia modesta, Calotropis procera, Poa annua, Trigonella incisa, Forsskaolea tenacissima, Mentha longifolia, Bromus pectinatus, Cynodon dactylon, Plantago ovata, Ziziphus mauritiana, Fagonia indica and Acacia nilotica (Table 11).

3.3.3.4. Medicago-Acacia-Trigonella Community (KRP) The community comprising of 23 species, had a dominancy of herbaceous vegetation (15 species). Shrubs (5 species) and trees (3 species) were codominant. TIV of the community was 1.63 (AIV=0.071), in which the three major species (Medicago minima, Acacia modest and Trigonella incisa) contributed 0.55 while the remaining species has TIV of 1.08 (Table 11and 14).

The community had large percentage of therophytes (9 species), in codominance with chamaephytes and nanophanerophytes (4 species each). Hemicryptophytes and megaphanerophytes were represented by 3 and 2 species respectively. Only a single species was found in this community with microphanerophytic life form (Table 13).

Microphylls were dominant with 9 species, followed by leptophylls and nanophylls (6 species each); only one species was aphyllous. Most of the plants were with simple leaves (14 species) followed by species with compound (5 species) and indented (3 species) leaves (Table 13). Many of the previous findings (Wazir et al., 2008; Badshah et al., 2010; Malik and Malik, 2004) support the current results.

109

Other dominants of this community included Cynodon dactylon, Withania coagulans, Ziziphus mauritiana, Filago pyramidata, Emex spinosa, Salvia aegyptiaca, Malva neglecta, Fagonia indica, Acacia nilotica, Plantago ovata, Anagallis arvensis and Ziziphus nummularia (Table 11).

3.3.3.5. Malcolmia-Polygonum-Dodonaea Community (KTP) Thirty-three different species were found in Malcolmia-Polygonum-Dodonaea community, with herbs as dominant vegetation type (25 species), followed by shrubs (6 species) and trees (2 species). TIV of all the species was 1.54 (AIV=0.046). Malcolmia cabulica, Polygonum plebejum and Dodonaea viscosa were the three dominant species having a TIV of 0.25 compared to the TIV of remaining species (1.29).Most of the species were therophytes (15 species) in codominance with hemicryptophytes (8 species) and nanophanerophytes (7 species). Chamaephytes and geophytes were represented by 2 and 1 species respectively (Table 8, 13 and 14).

Nanophylls were 14 species in codominance with leptophylls (9 species) and microphylls (8 species). Twenty-seven species were reported to have simple leaves. Compound and indented condition was found in 3 and 2 species respectively (13 and 14). Other species of this community included Vicia sativa, Onosma hispida, Forsskaolea tenacissima, Alyssum desertorum, Cymbopogon jwarancusa, Withania coagulans, Herneraria hirsuta, Rumex vesicarius and Teucrium stocksianum (Table 11).Malik and Husaain (2008), Wazir et al. (2008) and Badshah et al. (2010) have similar findings from different areas of Pakistan.

3.3.3.6. Bromus-Trigonella-Monotheca Community (LSP) Twenty-two species made Bromus-Trigonella-Monotheca community with a TIV of 2.07 (AIV=0.094), in which contribution of the three dominant species (Bromus pectinatus, Trigonella incisa and Monotheca buxifolia) was 0.93. Rest of the species of this community has a TIV of 1.14. Herbaceous species were dominant with 17 species followed by trees (4 species). Only one species was reported with shrubby habit. Most of the species were belonging to therophytic life form (10 species) followed by hemicryptophytes (4 species), nanophanerophytes (3 species), megaphanerophytes and chamaephytes (2 species each). Classification on the bases of leaf size indicated that leptophylls and nanophylls were dominant species with 10 and 7 species respectively. Microphylls (4 species) and mesophylls (1 species) were also found in this

110

community (Table 8, 11 and 14). The current findings are in line with the result obtained by many other workers (Sher and Khan, 2007; Ali and Malik, 2010 and Hussain et al., 2009)

The shape of leaf was reported to be diverse in different species, with simple leaf as dominant (17 species) followed by compound (4 species) and indented (1 species) leaves. Some of the important species in this community were Cynodon dactylon, Salvia aegyptiaca, Rhazya stricta, Forsskaolea tenacissima, Acacia modesta, Heteropogon contortus, Filago hurdwarica, Fagonia indica, Velezia rigida, Medicago minima and Malcolmia cabulica (Table 8, 11and 14).

3.3.3.7. Dodonaea-Rumex-Acacia Community (PRG) Forty different species were present in Dodonaea-Rumex-Acacia community, with TIV of 2.23 and AIV of 0.055. Important three species were Dodonaea viscosa, Rumex dentatus and Acacia modesta. These species had a contribution of 0.73 to the TIV. Community was dominated by herbs with 27 species followed by shrubs (7 species) and trees (6 species). Therophytic life form was dominant (15 species) followed by nanophanerophytes (8 species), chamaephytes (5 species), geophytes and hemicryptophytes (4 species each). Only one species each was reported to have microphanerophytic and mesophanerophytic life forms. The community was almost equally dominated by leptophylls, microphylls (12 species each) and nanophylls (11 species). Most of the plant species (31) were having simple leaves. Four species were having compound leaves, while 2 species were reported to have indented leaves. This community had some other important plants, beside the three dominants, that are Cynodon dactylon, Salvia aegyptica, Rhazya stricta, Forsskaolea tenacissima, Acacia modesta, Heteropogon contortus, Filago hurdwarica and Fagonia indica (Table 8, 11, 14). The current findings are in conformity with results of many contemporary workers (Wahab et al., 2006; Arshad and Akbar, 2008; Shah and Hussain, 2008 and Malik and Hussain, 2003)

3.3.3.8. Teucrium-Cynodon-Acacia Community (SAF) Teucrium-Cynodon-Acacia community composed of 33 different species with 26 herbaceous, 3 shrubby and 4 tree species. Total species in this community showed TIV of 1.94 with AIV of 0.05. Teucrium stocksianum, Cynodon dactylon and Acacia nilotica were dominants with TIVof 0.37 compared to the TIV of rest of the species (1.57). Twenty-seven species were having simple leaves, three compound while 2 species had indented leaves. Only one species was found with aphyllous condition. Life form classification showed that therophytes with 14 species

111

were dominant followed by hemicryptophytes (9 species), nanophanerophytes (4 species), chamaephytes (3 species) and megaphanerophytes (2 species). Only one species was reported from the community to have microphanerophytic life form (Table 8, 11and 14).

Classification on the bases of leaf size spectra indicated that leptophylls (14 species) and nanophylls (10 species) were dominant, followed by microphyllous plants. Mesophylls were least represented with only 2 species. Important species from this community were Medicago minima, Micromeria biflora, Heteropogon contortus, Ziziphus mauritiana, Alyssum desertorum, Salvia aegyptica, Monotheca buxifolia, Malcolmia cabulica, Spergula arvensis, Salvia moocroftiana, Otostegia limbata, Bromus pectinatus and Velezia rigida (Table 8, 11 and 13). Our results were supported by some of the previous work (Malik and Malik, 2004; Ahmad et al., 2008; Badshah et al., 2010 and Hussain, 2003)

3.3.3.9. Medicago-Acacia-Acacia Community (TRG) Medicago minima, Acacia nilotica and Acacia modesta were dominant species in this community (TIV=0.76). The community was dominated by herbs (20 species) and composed of 25 different plant species with a TIV of 1.69 (AIV=0.067). Three dominants had significant contribution to the TIV (0.75) while the remaining 22 species were having relatively low TIV value (0.093). Numbers of therophytic species were 14, with 4 species of hemicryptophytes, 3 nanophanerophytes and 2 species (each) of chamaephytes and megaphanerophytes. Leaf size spectra indicated that leptophylls were dominant with 10 species followed by nanophylls (8 species) and microphylls (5 species); only two mesophyllous species were found in this community (Table 8, 11 and 14). The current findings are in line with the results obtained by Manhas et al. (2010) and Shah and Hussain (2008).

Out of total 25 species, 18 were having simple leaves, 4 had compound and 3 species were found to have indented leaves. Some other important species of the community were Filago hurdwarica, Rhazya stricta, Trigonella incisa, Malcolmia cabulica, Phleum paniculatum, Aerva javanica, Fagonia indica, Cynodon dactylon and Plantago lanata (Table 11 and 14)

3.3.3.10. Malcolmia-Rhazya-Medicago Community (YKG) Total 23 species combined to form Malcolmia-Rhazya-Medicago community (TIV=1.77, AIV=0.077) in which 15 species were herbs, 5 shrubs and 3 species were trees. Therophytes

112

were dominant with 10 species, followed by hemicryptophytes and nanophanerophytes (4 species each). Chamaephytes, geophytes, microphanerophytes, megaphanerophytes and mesophanerophytes each were represented by 1 species (Table 12and 14).

Leaf size spectra indicated that leptophylls, represented by 9 species, were dominant followed by microphylls with 7 and nanophylls with 6 species. Aphyllous condition was found in only 1 species. Sixteen species out 23 were having simple leaves, while compound and indented leaves were found in 4 and 2 species respectively. Other important species of this community were Albizia lebbek, Ziziphus nummularia, Acacia nilotica, Salvadora persica, Filago hurdwarica, Filago pyramidata, Cynodon dactylon and Fagonia indica (Table 8, 11and 14). The current results are in conformity with the findings of Ahmad et al. (2008), Sher and Khan (2007) and Badshah et al. (2010).

3.3.4. Autumn Aspect 3.3.4.1. Acacia-Salvia-Aristida Community (AMB) This community was characteristic of autumn season in AMB site and was composed of 9 different species including 5 (55.6%) herbs, 2 (22.2 %%) shrubs and 2 (22.2%) trees. Acacia nilotica, Salvia aegyptiaca and Aristida adscensionis were the dominant species with TIV of .021 (AIV=.044), while the remaining 6 species had a TIV of 0.19. The community is dominated by herbaceous vegetation. Dominant life form was nanophanerophytic with 4 species followed by therophytes (2 species) megaphanerophytes, hemicryptophytes and chamaephytes (1 species each). Dominant leaf size was nanophyllous with 4 species. All other leaf sizes (LP, MC, AP, MG and MS) were represented by one species each. Most of the species were having simple leaves (66.6%) (Table 10 and11). Beside the dominants, other important species of this community included Nerium indicum, Nannorrhops ritchiana Galium aparine, Chenopodium album, Otostegia limbata and Caralluma tuberculata (Table 8, 11 and 14). Perveen and Hussain (2009), Ali and Malik (2010) and Arshad and Akbar (2002) have reported similar findings in their inventories.

113

3.3.4.2. Dodonaea-Aristida-Acacia Community (DSK) The community comprised of total 9 species with TIV and AIV of 0.98 and 0.10 respectively. The dominant three species which included Dodonaea viscosa, Aristida adscensionis and Acacia nilotica had a TIV of 0.73. Rest of the species had TIV equal to 0.24. Herbaceous vegetation was dominant in the community with 5 species, followed by 2 shrubs and 2 tree species. Life form in the community had almost a uniform pattern and chamaephytes, hemicryptophytes, megaphanerophytes and nanophanerophytes were represented by 2 species each. Geophytes were represented by only one species (Table 11 and 14). Three species each were belonging to leptophyllous and mesophyllous leaf size classes while microphylls and mesophylls were 2 and 1 species respectively. All the species in this community were having only two kinds of leaves; six species were having simple leaves and 3 had compound leaves. Other dominant species of this community were Astragalus scorpoides, Rhazya stricta, Chrysopogon serrulatus, Pennisetum oreintale, Acacia modesta and Scilla griffithii (Table 8, 11 and 14). Manhas et al. (2010) also reported the same results their studies.

3.3.4.3. Monotheca-Rhazya-Acacia Community (KJK) Monotheca-Rhazya-Acacia community comprised of total 9 species (TIV=0.48; AIV=0.053) including 4 herbs (TIV=0.18), one shrub (IV=0.73) and 4 tree species (TIV=0.22). TIV of the three dominant species (Monotheca buxifolia, Rhazya stricta and Acacia modesta) was 0.22 (AIV=0.072) while all the remaining 6 species had TIV of 0.26 (Table 11and 14). The community was dominated by nanophanerophytes (3 species). Chamaephytes, megaphanerophytes (2 species) and microphanerophytes (1 species) were also present in this community. Leptophyllous and nanophyllous plants were dominant with 3 species each. Microphylls were 2 species, while mesophylls were represented by only one species. Maximum plants (5 species) were having simple leaves while four species were found to have compound leaves. Codominant of this community included Calotropis procera, Tribulus terrestris, Ziziphus mauritiana, Acacia nilotica, Suaeda aegyptiaca and Astragalus scorpoides (Table 8, 11and13). Similar findings were documented by many workers from different parts of Pakistan (Malik and Hussain, 2009 and Hussain, 2003).

114

3.3.4.4. Acacia-Withania-Ziziphus Community (KRP) Acacia-Withania-Ziziphus community was dominated by shrubby vegetation with 5 species, followed by trees and herbs with 3 species each. The community consisted of 11 species with a TIV of 0.68 and AIV of 0.062. Contribution of the three dominants (Acacia modesta, Withania coagulans and Ziziphus mauritiana) to the TIV was 0.31. Contribution of the remaining species to the TIV was 0.37. The community was equally dominated by chamaephytes and nanophanerophytes (with 4 species each) followed by megaphanerophytes with 2 species. Only one species in this community was found to have microphanerophytic life form (Table 11and 14).

Most of the species in this community were microphyllous (5 species). Nanophylls were represented by 3, leptophylls by 2 while aphyllous plants were represented by only 1 species. Simple leaf was the dominant leaf type with a representation of 7 species, followed by compound leaves with 2 species. Indented leaves were found in only 1 species. The community comprised of other important species including Salvia aegyptica, Malva neglecta, Acacia nilotica, Ziziphus nummularia, Justicia adhatoda, Periploca aphylla, Cardaria draba and Rhazya stricta (Table 8, 11and 14). Similar findings were documented by many workers from different parts of Pakistan (Malik and Hussain, 2009 and Hussain, 2003).

3.3.4.5. Polygonum-Dodonaea-Withania Community (KTP) The community was made up of 13 species with TIV of 0.64 (AIV=0.049). Polygonum plebejum, Dodonaea viscosa and Withania coagulans were the dominant species having a TIV of 0.22. Rest of 0.41of TIV is contributed by the remaining species. With co-dominant herbaceous and shrubby vegetation, the community comprised of 6 shrubs, 5 herbs and 2 tree species. Nanophanerophytes were dominant with 7 species; Chamaephytes, hemicryptophytes and therophytes were represented by 3, 2 and 1 species respectively. Nanophylls were found to be dominant (8 species), followed by microphylls (3 species). Aphyllous and mesophyllous plant species were represented by 1 species each. Simple leaf type was found in 12 species (Table 8, 11and 14). Wahab et al. (2008) and Shah and Hussain (2008) reported same trend in the flora.

Other important species of this community were Pennisetum oreintale, Teucrium stocksianum, Micromeria biflora, Periploca aphylla, Galium aparine, Cotoneaster nummularia, Otostegia limbata, Rhazya stricta, Monotheca buxifolia and Sageretia thea (Table 11).

115

3.3.4.6. Monotheca-Salvia-Rhazya Community (LSP) Autumn communities were less populated as compared to other communities. Ten species constructed this community with chamaephytic and nanophanerophytic life forms as dominant one with 3 species each. Megaphanerophytes (2 species), microphanerophytes and therophytes (1 species each) were also a proportion of this community. TIV of all the species was 0.70 (AIV=0.070) in which the contribution of the three important species (Monotheca buxifolia, Salvia aegyptiaca and Rhazya stricta) was 0.37, while the remaining species had a TIV equal to 0.32. A codominance of herbs and tree (with 5 and 4 species respectively) was found in this community, with only one shrub species. The species showed almost a uniform distribution among leaf size classes and leptophyllous, microphyllous and nanophyllous plants were represented equally by 3 species each, with only one mesophyllous species. Six plant species were having simple leaves, while 4 were with compound leaves. Other important species of this community were Acacia modesta, Tribulus terrestris, Acacia nilotica, Aerva javanica, Calotropis procera, Astragalus hamosus and Olea and ferruginea (Table 8, 11 and 14). Hussain et al. (2009) and Ali and Malik (2010) have reported similar results during studies on vegetation.

3.3.4.7. Dodonaea-Acacia-Acacia Community (PRG) Dodonaea-Acacia-Acacia community composed of total 22 species having TIV of 1.36 (AIV=0.06), in which 0.73 was the contribution of the three dominants (Dodonaea viscosa, Acacia nilotica and Acacia modesta). The community showed somewhat uniform distribution of herbs, shrubs (8 species each) and trees (6 species). Dominant species of this community were nanophanerophytes (7 species) followed by chamaephytes and therophytes (5 and 4 species respectively). Megaphanerophytes were represented by 2, while geophytes, hemicryptophytes, microphanerophytes and mesophytes were represented by 1 species each. Nanophylls were dominant with 8 species, followed by microphylls (6 species) and leptophylls (4 species).Megaphylls had a representation of only one species. It was also reported that most of the species were having simple leaves (17 species). Compound leaves were found in case of 3 species with only 1 species each with aphyllous and needle leaf condition. Some of the other important species of this community were Acacia modesta, Tribulus terrestris, Acacia nilotica, Aerva javanica, Calotropis procera, Astragalus hamosus and Olea ferruginea (Table 8, 11 and 14). The current findings are in line with the findings of many other ecologists (Perveen and Hussain, 2007; Malik and Hussain, 2006 and Wahab et al., 2008).

116

3.3.4.8. Astragalus-Teucrium-Acacia Community (SAF) Total 14 species made this community. Dominancy of herbaceous vegetation (7 species) with some shrubs (3 species) and trees (4 species) was reported. Community had a TIV of 1.64 (AIV=0.07). Astragalus scorpoides, Teucrium stocksianum and Acacia nilotica were the dominant species that contributed 0.42 to TIV. Life form diversity was not that much high (like spring and summer aspect of this area) and only 5 different life forms were reported. Chamaephytes and nanophanerophytes were represented by 4 species each, followed by hemicryptophytes (3 species) and megaphanerophytes (2 species). Microphanerophytic life form was represented by only one species (Table 8 and 14).

Nanophylls were dominant with 8 species, while other leaf size classes such as leptophylls, microphylls (2 species each) and megaphylls (1 species) were very less as compared to the other dominant leaf sizes. Out of 14 total species, 10 were having simple leaves, 3 compound and only 1 species was reported to have indented leaves. Some of the other important plant species of this community were Micromeria biflora, Ziziphus mauritiana, Salvia aegyptica, Monotheca buxifolia, Otostegia limbata, Pupalia lappacea, Calotropis procera, Periploca aphylla, Withania coagulans, Acacia modesta and Polygonum plebejum (Table 11and 14). Same trends in the community were observed by many workers (Malik and Malik, 2004; Arshad and Akbar, 2008)

3.3.4.9. Acacia-Acacia-Tribulus Community (TRG) Number of individual species in Acacia-Acacia-Tribulus community were 11, with 6 herbs, 3 shrubs and 2 tree species. Total importance value of the plants was 0.82 (AIV=0.074), in which the three dominants (Acacia nilotica, Acacia modesta and Tribulus terrestris) contributed 0.48 to the TIV. The remaining plant had a TIV of 0.33. Life form study indicated that the community was dominated by chamaephytes, nanophanerophytes and therophytes with 3 species each, with only 2 megaphanerophytes (Table 11 and 14).

A leaf size spectrum was analyzed and it was reported that nanophylls were dominant with 4 species, while leptophylls and microphylls were represented by 3 species each. Only one mesophyllous species was reported from this community. Seven species were with simple leaves while four species were found to have compound leaves. Other leaf sizes were not represented in this community due to less species diversity. Some codominants, beside the three dominants, in

117

this community were Rhazya stricta, Eragrostis papposa, Aerva javanica, Withania coagulans, Ziziphus nummularia, Calotropis procera, Astragalus hamosus and Chenopodium murale (Table 8, 11 and 14). Many of the previous findings (Wazir et al., 2008; Badshah et al., 2010; Malik and Malik, 2004) support the current results.

3.3.4.10. Rhazya-Ziziphus-Acacia Community (YKG) Rhazya-Ziziphus-Acacia community was less populated (8 species) with only one herbaceous, 4 shrubs and 3 tree species. TIV of all the 8 species was 0.67 (AIV=0.08) in which three dominants (Rhazya stricta, Ziziphus nummularia and Acacia nilotica) had a contribution of 0.41. Rest of 0.26 was shared by the remaining species. Life form study indicated that nanophanerophytes with 4 species was the dominant life form. All other life forms (therophytes, mesophanerophytes, megaphanerophytes and chamaephytes) were represented by 1 species each (Table 8 and 14).

Leaf size spectra indicated that microphylls were dominant with 5 species followed by nanophylls and leptophylls with 1 species each. Out of total 8 species, 5 species had simple while 2 were having compound leaves. Only one species was reported with aphyllous condition. Other important species that were part of this community were Salvadora persica, Tribulus terrestris, Capparis decidua, Withania coagulans and Tecomella undulate (Table 11 and 14). The current findings are in line with the results obtained by Manhas et al. (2010), Shah and Hussain (2008) and Husain (2003).

3.3.5. Discussion 3.3.5.1. Community Structure It has always been the main objective of phytosociology to describe vegetation types within a specific location, in relation to the environmental conditions that are responsible for making that particular kind of vegetation (Palmer and White, 1994). Information about the community is always needed for research and derived applications e.g. habitat classification, nature conservancy and management etc. Factors that are partly responsible for shaping communities, like mutualism, competition and herbivory has significant values, but all these are aspects of plant life. For better assessment of these factors, classification and description of plant communities is needed (Cerny, 2007).

118

In semi-arid regions, community structure is one of the major markers for identification of long-term changes in vegetation. Different biotic and abiotic characters determine the kind of community in an area (Khan and Hussain, 2013). For understanding the structural and functional complexities of plant life, in relation to its environment, plant community’s establishment is a useful tool. Community studies provide a diverse array of information about life of plants, which could be used for future studies (Muller Dumbois and Ellenberg, 1974). In the study area, communities were established for the first time, which will provide information for habitat management in future (Brinkman et al., 2008).

Plant life and community structure is an indication of changes in habitat due to various biotic and abiotic factors (overgrazing, soil erosion, land sliding, pathogens, habitat destruction, and other anthropogenic activities). The concept of community is not only important as plant science but it has its scope in land management, environmental issues and financial and political policies (Cerny, 2007; Brinkman et al., 2008). The area was reported to have diverse array of plant communities, which reflects different habitat conditions that were prevailing in this area in the history (Champion et al., 1965). Some of the studies (Grubb, 1987) suggest that biotic factors and especially human activities are more important in shaping plants communities.

Changes in the community structure are due to change in the altitude, season, biotic and an abiotic factor, in which most important one is human disturbance. Vegetation structure of different parts of Pakistan has been studied by different scientists from different perspectives (Champion et al., 1965; Beg, 1975; Roberts, 1991, 1997). The findings of the current study are in line, up to more or less extent, with the findings of many other ecologists (Malik and Malik, 2004; Badshah, 2013; Ahmad et al., 2006; Badshah et al., 2010; Perveen and Hussain, 2007; Hussain et al., 2005; Sher and Khan, 2007; Wahab et al., 2008; Arshad et al., 2008; Arshad and Akbar, 2002; Perveenet al., 2008; Hussain and Perveen, 2009; Nazir and Malik, 2006; Shah and Hussain, 2008).

3.3.6. Diversity Indices It is very important for understanding of the community dynamics, impact of various biotic and abiotic factors, organization, complexity and function of community, to know about the species diversity in a community (Bacha, 2013; Shoukat et al., 1978; Malik and Hussain, 2008). Diversity indices are mathematical measures for quantifying the diversity of species (The 119

Institute for Environmental Modeling, 2016). Two diversity indices were calculated for different communities, i.e. Simpson Index of Diversity (1-D) and Shannon Diversity Index (H′).

Simpson Index (SI) of Diversity is a measure of the probability of two individuals randomly selected from the community will belong to two different species. It ranges form 0-1. Simpson Index of 1 indicates that every time you pick two individuals from a community, they will be from different species, thus showing that the community is most diverse. SI of 0 shows that if two individuals are picked up from a community, there is zero probability that these two individual will be from different species, thus showing absolute uniform community of only one kind of species (Offwell Woodland and Wildlife Trust, 2016). Simpson Index for different communities of Mohmand Agency ranged from 0.99-0.87. Artemisia-Brachypodium-Aristida and Aristida-Hordeum-Phalaris communities were among the most diverse communities (having SI of 0.99 and 0.987 respectively), followed by Dodonaea-Acacia-Mentha (0.985) and Aristida- Hordeum-Phalaris (0.984) communities. Lowest value for Simpson Index was reported for Dodonaea-Aristida-Acacia community (0.871), which is a characteristic community of autumn season in DSK site (Table 9).

Shannon Diversity Index (SDI) showed the differences among communities. Artemisia- Brachypodium-Aristida was the most diverse community as its SDI (4.71) suggested followed by Dodonaea-Brachypodium-Hordeum (4.5) and Hordeum-Medicago-Peganum community (4.2). Least diverse community was Malcolmia-Rhazya-Medicago community with SDI of 2.43 (Table 9). Autumn and winter aspect of the communities was having less diversity, as compared to spring and summer aspects (Table 9).

Quantification of biological diversity is one of the main aspects of ecological studies (Chao et al., 2014; Arrhenius, 1921; Gleason, 1922; Peet, 1974; Magurran, 1988) and is an active area of research in ecology (Magurran 2004, Magurran and McGill 2011). It is an easy ―proxy‖ for other kinds of diversities (Wilson, 1988). Structure and composition of communities are important attributes of ecosystem which indicate the relationship of environmental and anthropogenic variables. High diversity indicates the mature stage of ecological succession. Another factor for high diversity is availability of water (Adhikar et al., 1991). Diversity indices are indicators of the productivity and health of the vegetation, providing an understanding of the processes that are pivotal for organization and development of communities (Badshah, 2013;

120

Malik and Hussain, 2009; Shoukat et al., 1978). In the present study all the site varied from one another in terms of species diversity, which showed different levels of susceptibility to various biotic and abiotic factors (Badshah, 2013).

Species diversity is useful for comparison of two plant communities; mature communities have high diversity, compared to young communities. Diversity of community is determined by two components i.e. species richness and species evenness (Ahmad and Shaukat, 2012).

3.3.7. Species Richness Species richness is the total number of different species found in a community. It is an important feature in foundational studies of community ecology (MacArthur and Wilson 1967, Connell 1978, Hubbell 2001). For assessment of species richness, Menhinick Index (D), which is count of different species in a community, was calculated for all the communities. It was reported that Menhinick Index (D) ranged from 3.1 for Artemisia-Brachypodium-Aristida to 0.4 for Dodonaea-Aristida-Acacia. Artemisia-Brachypodium-Aristida (summer) was having highest species richness (6) followed by Dodonaea-Rumex-Acacia (2.86), Aristida-Hordeum-Phalaris (2.8) and Aristida-Hordeum-Phalaris (2.45) communities (Table 9).

The concept of richness of species in a community is one of the most fundamental and oldest concept in phytosociology (Hutchinson 1959, Whittaker 1965, Peet, 1974; Magurran, 1988; Gotelli and Colwell, 2001). It has been reported in many ecological inventories (Tilman and Downing, 1994; Naeem et al., 1994; Loreau, 2000) that some important processes and stability of the ecosystems are directly affected by species richness. This index is the quickest possible way to assess the conservation status of flora in an area, and helps in management of natural ecosystems (Colwell and Coddington, 1994; Gaston, 1996).

Species richness and diversity was assessed with the help of quadrates. Taking samples of the desired area is a common practice, as it is impossible for botanists to search for each and every species (Palmer, 1995; Gaston, 1996; Palmer et al., 2002).

3.3.8. Maturity Index (MI) Maturity index is a term introduced by Pichi-Sermolli in 1948, which shows the maturity level of a plant community. According to this concept, a community with less diversity, and few

121

dominants is considered more mature compared to a community with high diversity and more evenness of a species (Pichi-Sermolli, 1948). Dodonaea-Brachypodium-Hordeum community was the most mature community in Mohmand Agency, with MI of 51.67, followed by Hordeum- Medicago-Peganum(spring) and Hordeum-Medicago-Peganum (summer) communities with MI of 50 and 43 respectively. The least mature community was Polygonum-Dodonaea-Withania with MI of 3.1 (Table 9).

Maturity index is a parameter of high importance in community ecology, giving the information about plant life and structure of vegetation. Lesser adaptability of the plants to their natural environment results in less mature communities. The study area has many communities with less value of maturity index, which is an indication of high biotic stress that kept plant communities in a constant immature state (Saxena and Singh, 1984; Negi, 2009). Our results indicated less maturity indices, which were the same trends observed by Khan et al. (2010, 2012) and Saxena and Singh (1984), which related the smaller values of MI to high level of biotic and abiotic disturbances. Season wise changes in the maturity index are controlled by number of species in a season, along with the number of non-palatable and less useful plants, as the plants that are more useful/palatable are less in number, ultimately decreasing the MI of the community (Khan et al., 2012).

122

Table 7. Families at different sites with respective total importance values

Sites with Importance Value of Families

Family AMB DSK KJK KRP KTP LSP PRG SAF TRG YKG Total Fabaceae 0.17 0.21 0.33 0.32 0.13 0.43 0.26 0.51 0.64 0.38 3.38 Sapindaceae - 0.97 - - 0.3 - 1 - - - 2.27 Poaceae 0.12 0.36 0.31 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.04 0.21 0.14 0.11 1.84 Caryophyllaceae 0.15 0.33 - 0.14 0.13 0.39 0.02 0.27 0.08 - 1.51 Urticaceae 0.29 - 0.22 - 0.26 0.29 0.1 - 0.2 0.14 1.5 Zygophyllaceae 0.06 0.07 0.29 0.41 - 0.12 - 0.08 0.35 0.12 1.5 Lamiaceae 0.09 - 0.03 0.06 0.1 0.18 0.58 0.31 - 0.01 1.36 Apocynaceae 0.08 0.08 0.17 0.07 0.07 0.18 0.16 - 0.17 0.37 1.35 Sapotaceae - - 0.32 - 0.11 0.6 - 0.3 - - 1.33 Primulaceae 0.18 0.15 - 0.24 - - 0.09 0.23 0.2 - 1.09 Thymelaeaceae - 0.15 - 0.24 0.11 0.16 - 0.23 - - 0.89 Brassicaceae 0.07 0.03 - 0.06 0.11 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.09 0.14 0.64 Plantaginaceae - - 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.1 0.14 0.09 0.61 Asteraceae 0.18 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.11 0.06 0.59 Polygalaceae .03 .04 - - - - .04 - - - 0.11 Polygonaceae 0.03 0.03 - 0.07 0.1 - 0.15 0.05 0.03 - 0.46 Rhamnaceae - - 0.05 0.17 0.03 - - 0.12 0.06 0.13 0.56 Solanaceae 0.05 - - 0.14 0.05 - 0.05 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.45 Amaranthaceae 0.03 - 0.03 - - 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.12 - 0.39 Salvadoraceae ------0.31 0.31

123

Scrophulariaceae 0.03 - 0.03 - 0.07 - 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.02 0.3 Rubiaceae 0.13 - - - 0.16 - - - - - 0.29 Amaryllidaceae 0.13 - - - 0.14 - - - - - 0.27 Nyctaginaceae - - - - 0.19 - 0.07 - - - 0.26 Arecaceae ------0.25 - - - 0.25 Geraniaceae - 0.07 0.05 - 0.04 - - - - 0.09 0.25 Plumbaginaceae - 0.13 - - 0.11 - - - - - 0.24 Boraginaceae 0.09 - - 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.03 - - - 0.23 Capparaceae ------0.08 - - 0.15 0.23 Papveraceae - - 0.13 ------0.09 0.22 Ephedraceae - - - - - 0.21 - - - - 0.21 Oleaceae - - - - - 0.12 0.08 - - - 0.2 Asparagaceae 0.06 0.1 - - - - 0.03 - - - 0.19 Malvaceae - - - 0.19 ------0.19 Resedaceae - - - - 0.13 - 0.06 - - - 0.19 Rosaceae - - - - 0.14 - 0.05 - - - 0.19 Linaceae 0.09 - - - - - 0.05 - - - 0.14 Bignoniaceae ------0.11 0.11 Acanthaceae - - - 0.1 ------0.1 Euphorbiaceae 0.27 ------0.1 0.1 Pinaceae ------0.08 - - - 0.08 Aizoaceae - - - 0.06 ------0.06 Rananculaceae ------0.04 - - - 0.04 Cannabaceae ------0.03 - - - 0.03

124

Cleomaceae ------0.03 - - - 0.03 Caprifoliaceae ------0.02 - - - 0.02 Tamaricaceae - - - - - 0.02 - - - - 0.02 Cucurbitaceae - - - - - 0.01 - - - - 0.01 Nitrariaceae ------0.01 - - - 0.01

125

Table 8. Number of species with their life forms, leaf sizes, habits and leaf type at different sites

SEASON SPRING

S. No. SITE

Life Form AMB DSK KJK KRP KTP LSP PRG SAF TRG YKG 1 CH 3 3 2 6 3 4 8 5 4 1 2 GE 2 3 2 0 1 0 4 0 0 1 3 HC 8 4 5 4 9 6 4 10 5 6 4 MC 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 5 MG 1 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 1 6 MS 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 7 NP 4 2 3 4 7 3 9 4 3 4 8 TH 31 24 15 21 34 19 33 24 27 27 S. No. Leaf Size 1 AP 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 LP 15 16 9 8 11 12 16 16 11 11 3 MC 9 7 7 13 16 8 19 9 8 15 4 MG 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 MS 4 2 3 2 2 2 4 2 3 1 6 NN 19 13 11 14 24 13 21 18 19 14 S. No. Habit 1 H 43 34 25 30 46 30 48 39 36 34 2 S 4 2 1 5 6 1 8 3 3 5 3 T 2 2 4 3 2 4 6 4 2 3 S. No. Leaf Type

126

1 A 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 C 6 7 9 6 5 6 7 5 7 8 3 I 8 3 2 8 6 3 10 3 8 7 4 N 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 S 33 26 19 23 42 26 42 37 26 26 SEASON SUMMER

S. No. Life Form AMB DSK KJK KRP KTP SITELSP PRG SAF TRG YKG 1 CH 4 4 3 6 4 5 9 6 5 2 2 GE 2 2 2 0 1 0 4 0 0 1 3 HC 9 5 5 4 8 6 4 9 5 6 4 MC 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 5 MG 1 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 1 6 MS 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 7 NP 4 2 3 4 7 3 8 4 3 4 8 TH 21 14 11 14 23 12 24 14 22 17 S. No. Leaf Size 1 AP 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 LP 12 10 8 7 6 8 12 10 9 9 3 MC 8 7 5 10 12 7 17 7 6 11 4 MG 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 MS 3 1 2 1 2 2 4 2 3 0 6 NN 16 11 12 12 22 12 18 16 19 12 S. No. Habit 1 H 35 25 22 23 35 24 38 29 32 25 2 S 4 2 1 5 6 1 9 3 3 5

127

3 T 2 2 4 3 2 4 6 4 2 3 S. No. Leaf Type 1 A 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 C 6 8 10 7 6 7 7 6 8 7 3 I 7 1 0 7 4 3 8 2 7 4 4 N 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 S 26 18 17 16 32 19 35 27 22 21 SEASON AUTUMN

S. No. Life Form AMB DSK KJK KRP SITEKTP LSP PRG SAF TRG YKG 1 CH 1 2 2 4 3 3 5 4 3 1 2 GE 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 HC 1 2 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 0 4 MC 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 5 MG 1 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 1 6 MS 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 7 NP 4 2 3 4 7 3 7 4 3 4 8 TH 2 0 1 0 1 1 4 0 3 1 S. No. Leaf Size 1 AP 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 LP 1 3 3 2 0 3 4 2 3 1 3 MC 1 2 2 5 3 3 6 2 3 5 4 MG 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 MS 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 6 NN 4 3 3 3 8 3 8 8 4 1 S. No. Habit

128

1 H 5 5 4 3 5 5 8 7 6 1 2 S 2 2 1 5 6 1 8 3 3 4 3 T 2 2 4 3 2 4 6 4 2 3 S. No. Leaf Type 1 A 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 C 2 3 4 2 0 4 3 3 4 2 3 I 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 S 6 6 5 7 12 6 17 10 7 5 SEASON WINTER

SITE S. No. Life Form AMB DSK KJK KRP KTP LSP PRG SAF TRG YKG 1 CH 2 0 1 4 2 2 5 3 2 1 2 GE 2 2 2 0 1 0 4 0 0 1 3 HC 5 4 3 3 8 4 4 9 4 4 4 MC 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 5 MG 1 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 1 6 MS 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 7 NP 3 2 3 4 7 3 8 4 3 4 8 TH 11 12 8 9 15 10 15 14 14 10 S. No. Leaf Size 1 AP 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 LP 11 13 8 6 9 10 12 14 10 9 3 MC 3 3 3 9 8 4 12 6 5 7 4 MG 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

129

5 MS 3 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 0 6 NN 6 5 7 6 14 7 11 10 8 6 S. No. Habit 1 H 18 18 15 15 25 17 27 26 20 15 2 S 4 2 1 5 6 1 7 3 3 5 3 T 2 2 4 3 2 4 6 4 2 3 S. No. Leaf Type 1 A 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 C 6 4 4 5 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 I 2 1 0 3 2 1 2 2 3 2 4 N 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 S 15 16 16 14 27 17 31 27 18 16

130

Table 9. Plant communities of Mohmand Agency with their respective sites and ecological indices

Site Season Shannon Simpson Sorenson MI Communities

AMB Spring 4.72 0.99 3.16 5.32 Artemisia-Brachypodium-Aristida AMB Summer 4.61 0.99 2.61 6 Artemisia-Brachypodium-Aristida AMB Autumn 4.58 0.97 1.47 4.6 Acacia-Salvia-Aristida AMB Winter 4.52 0.99 2.35 4.17 Artemisia-Acacia-Malcolmia DSK Spring 4.5 0.96 1.06 33.08 Dodonaea-Brachypodium-Hordeum DSK Summer 4.34 0.96 0.74 51.68 Dodonaea-Brachypodium-Hordeum DSK Autumn 4.31 0.87 0.49 41 Dodonaea-Aristida-Acacia DSK Winter 4.3 0.93 1.2 13.11 Dodonaea-Medicago-Alyssum KJK Spring 4.28 0.95 0.84 43.58 Hordeum-Medicago-Peganum KJK Summer 4.26 0.95 0.7 50.44 Hordeum-Medicago-Peganum KJK Autumn 4.21 0.97 1.23 6.6 Monotheca-Rhazya-Acacia KJK Winter 4.15 0.9 0.85 26.53 Medicago-Herneraria-Filago KRP Spring 4.15 0.96 2.05 10.19 Hordeum-Medicago-Peganum KRP Summer 4.15 0.98 1.43 16.06 Hordeum-Medicago-Peganum KRP Autumn 4.08 0.97 1.28 7.33 Acacia-Withania-Ziziphus KRP Winter 4.03 0.97 1.66 9.38 Medicago-Acacia-Trigonella KTP Spring 4 0.99 2.8 6.27 Aristida-Hordeum-Phalaris KTP Summer 4 0.98 2.45 6.65 Aristida-Hordeum-Phalaris KTP Autumn 3.91 0.98 2.03 3.15 Polygonum-Dodonaea-Withania KTP Winter 3.87 0.99 2.29 5.36 Malcolmia-Polygonum-Dodonaea LSP Spring 3.84 0.97 1.17 27.79 Bromus-Trigonella-Silene LSP Summer 3.83 0.97 1.07 27.81 Bromus-Trigonella-Monotheca LSP Autumn 3.72 0.96 1.15 10.64 Monotheca-Salvia-Rhazya

131

LSP Winter 3.67 0.95 0.85 31.7 Bromus-Trigonella-Monotheca PRG Spring 3.55 0.98 2.87 9.59 Dodonaea-Rumex-Acacia PRG Summer 3.54 0.99 2.68 9.05 Dodonaea-Acacia-Mentha PRG Autumn 3.54 0.97 1.47 11.52 Dodonaea-Acacia-Acacia PRG Winter 3.52 0.98 2.18 9.85 Dodonaea-Rumex-Acacia SAF Spring 3.36 0.98 1.82 13.51 Brachypodium-Astragalus-Teucrium SAF Summer 3.35 0.98 1.94 12 Brachypodium-Astragalus-Teucrium SAF Autumn 3.34 0.94 1.2 11.19 Astragalus-Teucrium-Acacia SAF Winter 3.31 0.98 2.21 7.76 Teucrium-Cynodon-Acacia TRG Spring 3.26 0.98 2.33 7.71 Medicago-Acacia-Acacia TRG Summer 3.18 0.98 2.02 8.57 Medicago-Acacia-Acacia TRG Autumn 3.14 0.96 1.21 8.25 Acacia-Acacia-Tribulus TRG Winter 3.12 0.97 2.06 6.15 Medicago-Acacia-Acacia YKG Spring 3.06 0.98 1.88 10.19 Hordeum-Malcolmia-Rhazya YKG Summer 3.02 0.98 1.53 11.52 Hordeum-Malcolmia-Rhazya YKG Autumn 2.85 0.95 0.82 12 Rhazya-Ziziphus-Acacia YKG Winter 2.43 0.98 1.35 9.83 Malcolmia-Rhazya-Medicago

MI=Maturity Index

132

3.3.9. Similarity Index Similarity index is a measure of the similarities of two communities when compared to each other. It was calculated by Sorenson’s (1948) method. It only considers the presence absence data, and no importance is given to the relative abundance of a species. It was found that there was no significant similarity among communities, and all the communities were rather dissimilar (Table 10). According toMuller Dumbois and Ellenberg (1974) and Chao et al. (2006, 2008), if two communities has less than 65% similarity, they will be considered as dissimilar or different from each other. Highest degree of similarity (55.5%) among these forty communities was found between Brachypodium-Astragalus-Teucrium and Hordeum-Malcolmia-Rhazyacommunities, followed by 52.17% for Bromus-Trigonella-Sileneand Brachypodium-Astragalus-Teucrium, 50% for Bromus-Trigonella-SileneandMedicago-Acacia-Acacia and 49.5% for Hordeum-Medicago- PeganumandBrachypodium-Astragalus-Teucriumcommunities. Least similarity (19.05%) was found between Artemisia-Brachypodium-AristidaandHordeum-Medicago-Peganum communities (Table 10).

The current studyis in line with the finding of Shah et al. (1991) and Malik and Hussain (2008). These studies found high degree of similarity in significant percentage of plant communities. The similarity in the communities could be attributed to similar abiotic conditions e.g. soil, water, light, pH (Marwat et al., 1989) and pollution etc. (Badshah, 2013). The major abiotic factor that really decide the diversity among different communities is the soil properties, as rest of the climatic conditions are the same over a large area, in most cases (Marwat et al., 1989). The statement is a confirmation of our findings as the soil samples from all the different sites had different physicochemical properties (Table 15 & 16).

133

Table 10. Similarity indices of major plant communities of Mohmand Agency

Artemisia- X Brachypodium-Aristida

Dodonaea- 32.73 X Brachypodium- Hordeum

Hordeum-Medicago- 19.05 23.53 X Peganum

Hordeum-Medicago- 35.42 27.5 31.58 X Peganum

Aristida-Hordeum- 40.38 37.21 21.95 32.61 X Phalaris

Bromus-Trigonella- 36.56 37.33 45.07 44.44 34.48 X Silene

Dodonaea-Rumex- 49.25 31.03 21.43 31.15 40.63 32.48 X Acacia

Brachypodium- 38.53 37.36 41.38 49.48 44.66 52.17 34.59 X Astragalus-Teucrium

Medicago-Acacia- 30.93 30.38 37.33 49.41 30.77 50 39.67 41.67 X Acacia

Hordeum-Malcolmia- 28.57 24 37.68 40.51 30.59 40.54 24.35 55.56 43.59 Rhazya

134

Table 11. Species with their respective importance values (IV) in different season at different sites

S.No. SPECIES SZ Importance Values-Spring Season

Sp AMB DSK KJK KRP KTP LSP PRG SAF TRG YKG

1 Anchusa arvensis (L.) M. Bieb. 1 ------0.01 - - -

2 Acacia modesta Wall. 1 0 0.04 0.07 0.16 - 0.07 0.09 0.04 0.19 -

3 Acacia nilotica (L.) Willd. ex Delile 1 0.1 0.05 0.04 0.05 - 0.04 0.23 0.12 0.21 0.11

4 Achyranthes aspera L. 1 ------0.02 - - -

5 Aerva javanica (Burm. f.) Juss. 1 - - - - - 0.04 0.03 - 0.05 -

6 Agrostis viridis Gouan 1 ------0.02 - - -

7 Ajuga bracteosa Wall. ex Benth. 1 - - - - - 0.03 0.02 - - -

8 Albizia lebbek (L.) Benth. 1 ------0.11

9 Allium griffithianum Boiss. 1 0.03 - - - 0.03 - - - - -

10 Alyssum desertorum Stapf 1 - 0.06 - - 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.05

11 Anagallis arvensis L. 1 0.04 0.04 - 0.05 - - 0.03 0.05 0.04 -

12 Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. 1 - - - - 0.03 - - - - -

13 Arenaria serpyllifolia L. 1 0.06 0.12 - 0.08 0.05 0.17 0.03 0.13 - -

14 Aristida adscensionis L. 1 0.05 0.3 - - - - 0.05 - - -

135

15 Aristida cyanantha Nees ex Steud. 1 0.12 - - 0.09 0.35 0.04 - - - 0.06

16 Arnebia griffithii Boiss. 1 0.11 - - - - - 0.05 - - -

17 Artemisia maritimaLedeb. 1 0.45 - - - - - 0 - - -

18 Asparagus gracilis Salisb. 1 0.03 0.03 - - - - 0.02 - - -

19 Asparagus setaceus (Kunth) Jessop 1 - 0.03 ------

20 Astragalus hamosus L. 1 - - - - - 0.04 - - 0.03 -

21 Astragalus pyrrhotrichus Boiss. 1 - 0.03 - - - - 0.03 0.04 - -

22 Astragalus scorpioides Pourr. ex Willd. 1 - 0.05 0.03 - - - - 0.17 - -

23 Astragalus tribuloides Delile 0 0.07 0.03 0.07 0.1 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.19 0.12

24 Boerhavia procumbens Banks ex Roxb. 1 - - - - 0.05 - 0.02 - - -

25 Brachypodium distachyon (L.) P. Beauv. 1 0.18 0.32 - 0.13 - - 0.06 0.22 0.16 0.11

26 Bromus pectinatus Thunb. 1 - - 0.05 - - 0.4 - 0.05 - -

27 Calendula arvensis L. 1 0.06 0.04 - - 0.03 - 0.05 - - -

28 Calotropis procera (Aiton) W.T. Aiton 1 - - 0.06 - - 0.04 - 0.05 0.03 -

29 Cannabis sativa L. 1 ------

30 Capparis decidua (Forssk.) Pax 1 ------0.04 - - 0.05

31 Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik. 1 - - - - 0.04 - 0.02 - 0.09 -

136

32 Caralluma tuberculata N.E. Br. 1 0.03 ------

33 Cardaria draba (L.) Desv. 1 - - - 0.04 - - 0.03 - - -

34 Carthamus lanatus L. 1 0.03 ------

35 Carthamus oxycantha M.Bieb. 1 0.04 - - - - - 0.02 - - -

36 Cassia senna L. 1 ------0.03 - - -

37 Cenchrus ciliarus L. 1 ------

38 Centaurea iberica Trevir. ex Spreng. 1 ------

39 Citrullus colocynthis (L.) Schrad. 1 ------

40 Chenopodium album L. 1 0.03 - - - - - 0.03 - - -

41 Chenopodium murale L. ------

42 Chrysopogon serrulatus Trin. 1 - 0.04 ------

43 Clematis graveolens Lindl. 1 ------0.03 - - -

44 Cleome brachycarpa M. Vahl ex Triana 1 ------0.02 - - 0.04 and Planchon

45 Erigeron trilobus (Decne.) Boiss. 1 ------0.02 - - -

46 Coronopus didymus (L.) Sm. 1 ------

47 Cotoneaster nummularius Fisch. and 1 - - - - 0.04 - 0.04 - - - C.A. Mey.

137

48 Cousinia proliferaJaub. and Spach 1 0.06 - - 0.06 - - 0.03 - 0.09 -

49 Crepis sancta (L.) Babc. 1 ------0.04 -

50 Cymbopogon jwarancusa (Jones) Schult. 1 - - - - 0.06 - 0.02 0.04 0.03 -

51 Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. 1 - - 0.04 0.12 - 0.16 - 0.12 0.04 0.06

52 Datura innoxia Mill. ------

53 Diclipetra bupleuroides Nees 1 - - - - 0.03 - - - - -

54 Dodonaea viscosa Jacq. 1 - 0.38 - - 0.08 - 0.42 - - -

55 Duchesnea indica (Andrews) Teschem. 1 - - - - 0.03 - - - - -

56 Echinops echinatus Roxb. 1 - - 0.05 ------0.03

57 Ehretia obtusifolia Hochst. ex A. DC. 1 ------0.02 - - -

58 Emex spinosa (L.) Campd. 1 - - - 0.06 - - 0.03 - 0.03 -

59 Ephedra intermedia Schrenk ex C.A. 1 ------Mey.

60 Eragrostis papposa (Roem. and Schult.) 1 ------0.06 - Steud.

61 Erodium alnifolium Guss. 1 ------0.02 -

62 Erodium ciconium (L.) L'Hér. ex Aiton 1 - 0.04 0.05 - 0.05 - - - - 0.04

63 Erodium cicutarium (L.) L'Hér. ex Aiton 1 ------0.06

138

64 Euphorbia granulata Forssk. 1 0.06 ------0.03

65 Fagonia indica Burm. f. 1 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.05 - 0.05 - 0.05 0.04 0.06

66 Farsetia jacquemontii Hook. f. and 1 ------0.02 - - - Thomson

67 Filago hurdwarica (Wall. ex DC.) 1 - 0.04 0.04 - - 0.06 - - 0.07 0.08 Wagenitz

68 Filago pyramidata L. 1 - - 0.08 0.06 0.02 - - 0.04 - 0.07

69 Forsskaolea tenacissima L. 1 0.06 - 0.05 - 0.06 0.08 0.03 - 0.04 0.04

70 Fumaria indica Pugsley 1 0.04 ------

71 Galium aparine L. 1 0.03 - - - 0.04 - - - - -

72 Geranium rotundifolium L. 1 - 0.04 ------

73 Goldbachia laevigata (M. Bieb.) DC. 1 - - - 0.03 ------

74 Heliotropium europaeum L. 1 - - - - 0.03 0.04 - - - -

75 Heliotropium ovalifolium Forssk. 1 0.02 - - - 0.02 0.03 - - - -

76 Herneraria cinerea DC 1 0.04 - 0.04 ------0.04

77 Herneraria hirsuta L. 1 0.05 0.04 0.08 - 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.04 - 0.05

78 Heteropogon contortus (L.) P. Beauv. ex 1 0.06 0.05 - - 0.05 0.06 - 0.09 - - Roem. and Schult.

139

79 Hordeum jubatum L. 1 0.03 0.32 0.74 0.3 0.17 0.11 0 0.12 - 0.31

80 Hordeum murinum L. 1 ------0.05 -

81 Ifloga spicata (Forssk.) Sch. Bip. 1 ------0.02 - 0.06 0.03

82 Justicia adhatoda L. 1 - - - 0.04 ------

83 Kickxia incana (Wall.) Pennell 1 - - - - 0.04 - - - - 0.03

84 Kickxia ramosissima Janch. 1 0.03 - - - 0.05 - 0.02 - - -

85 Lactuca serriola L. 1 0.05 0.03 - - 0.07 - 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.03

86 Lactuca tatarica (L.) C.A. Mey. 1 0.04 - 0.04 - 0.02 - 0.02 - - 0.03

87 Lamarckia aurea (L.) Moench 1 - - - - 0.05 - 0.04 - - -

88 Launaea procmbens (Roxb.) Ramayya 1 0.04 - - 0.06 - 0.05 0.02 - 0.05 - and Rajagopal

89 Lepidium apetalum Willd. 1 - - - 0.04 ------

90 Limonium macrorhabdon Kuntze 1 - 0.03 - - 0.03 - - - - -

91 Linum corymbulosum Rchb. 1 0.02 - - - - - 0.02 - - -

92 Lonicera japonica Thunb. 1 ------0.01 - -

93 Malcolmia africana (L.) W.T. Aiton 1 0.07 - - - 0.07 - - - - 0.04

94 Malcolmia cabulica (Boiss.) Hook. f. and 1 0.09 - - 0.05 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.29 Thomson

140

95 Malva neglecta Wallr. 1 - - - 0.06 ------

96 Malva parviflora L. 1 - - - 0.03 ------

97 Medicago minima (L.) L. 1 0.07 0.17 0.67 0.28 0.04 0.05 - 0.1 0.36 0.12

98 Mentha longifolia (L.) Huds. 1 - - 0.05 - - - 0.1 - - -

99 Micromeria biflora (Buch. -Ham. ex D. 1 - - - - 0.05 - - 0.1 - - Don) Benth.

100 Misopates orontium(L.) Raf. 1 - - - - - 0.03 0.03 0.02 - -

101 Monotheca buxifolia (Falc.) A. DC. 1 - - 0.07 - 0.03 0.17 - 0.06 - -

102 Nannorrhops ritchiana (Griff.) Aitch. 1 0.04 - - - - - 0.02 - - -

103 Nepeta raphanorhiza Benth. 1 - - - 0.05 ------

104 Nerium indicum Mill. 1 0.04 - - - - - 0.05 - - -

105 Nonea caspica (Willd.) G. Don 1 - - - 0.03 ------

106 Nonea edgeworthii A. DC. 1 0.02 ------

107 Olea ferruginea Royle 1 - - - - - 0.04 0.03 - - -

108 Oligomeris linifolia (Vahl) J.F. Macbr. 1 - - - - 0.03 - 0.02 - - -

109 Onosma hispida Wall. ex G. Don 1 - - - - 0.07 - 0.02 - - -

110 Otostegia limbata (Benth.) Boiss. 1 0.03 - - - 0.04 - 0.02 0.05 - -

111 Papaver rhoeas L. 1 - - 0.04 ------0.03

141

112 Peganum harmala L. 1 - - 0.1 0.21 - - - - 0.08 -

113 Pennisetum oreintale Rich. 1 - 0.04 - - 0.06 - - - - -

114 Pentanema vestitum Y. Ling 1 ------0.04 - -

115 Periploca aphylla Decne. 1 - - - 0.04 0.04 - - 0.05 - -

116 Phagnalon niveum Edgew. 1 ------

117 Phalaris minor Retz. 1 - - - - 0.1 - - - - -

118 Phleum paniculatum Huds. 1 ------0.05 -

119 Pinus roxburghii Sarg. 1 ------0.03 - - -

120 Plantago lanata Lag. and Rodr. 1 ------0.04 0.03

121 Plantago ovata Forssk. 1 - - 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.03 - 0.04 0.04 0.05

122 Poa annua L. 1 - - 0.06 - - - 0.07 - - 0.04

123 Poa bulbosa L. 1 ------0.05 - -

124 Polygala hohenackeriana var. rhodopea 1 0.04 0.04 - - - - 0.03 - - - Velen.

125 Polygonum plebeium R. Br. 1 - - - - 0.09 - - 0.03 - -

126 Pterachaenia stewartii (Hook.f.) R.R. 1 - - - 0.05 - - - 0.02 0.05 0.04 Stewart

127 Pupalia lappacea (L.) Juss. 1 ------0.05 - -

142

128 Rananculus muricatus L. 1 ------0.01 - -

129 Rhazya stricta Decne. 1 - 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.06 - 0.07 0.19

130 Rostraria cristata (L.) Tzvelev 1 - 0.04 ------

131 Rumex dentatus L. 1 0.05 0.04 - 0.03 - - 0.06 - - -

132 Rumex hastatus D. Don ------

133 Rumex vesicarius L. 1 - 0.03 - - 0.05 - 0.27 0.03 - -

134 Sageretia thea (Osbeck) M.C. Johnst. 1 - - - - 0.03 - - - - -

135 Salsola kali L. 1 ------0.02 - - -

136 Salvadora persica L. 1 ------0.09

137 Salvia aegyptiaca L. 1 0.06 - - 0.06 - 0.11 0.07 0.07 - -

138 Salvia moocroftiana Wall. ex Benth. 1 ------0.04 0.05 - -

139 Saussurea heteromalla (D. Don) Hand. - 1 0.03 - - - - - 0.02 - - - Mazz.

140 Scabiosa olivieri Coult. 1 ------0.1

141 Scilla griffithii Hochr. 1 - 0.03 ------

142 Scrophularia striata Boiss. 1 ------0.03 - -

143 Silene apetala Willd. 1 0.07 0.05 - 0.06 0.05 0.18 - - 0.05 -

144 Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertn. 1 ------0.02 - -

143

145 Sisymbrium irio L. 1 ------0.03 -

146 Sonchus asper (L.) Hill 1 - 0.03 - - - - 0.02 - - -

147 Solanum nigrum L. 1 0.03 ------0.03 - -

148 Solanum surattense Burm. f. 1 - - - 0.05 - - 0.03 - - 0.03

149 Spergula arvensis L. 1 - 0.05 - - 0.03 - - 0.06 - -

150 Suaeda aegyptiaca (Hasselq.) Zohary 1 - - 0.04 ------

151 Tamarix indica Willd. 1 - - - - 0.03 - - - - -

152 Taraxacum officinale F.H. Wigg. 1 - - - 0.04 0.03 - - 0.03 0.03 0.03

153 Tecomella undulata (Sm.) Seem. 1 ------0.03

154 Tetrapogon villosus Desf. 1 0.08 - 0.09 - - 0.07 - 0.09 0.13 -

155 Teucrium stocksianum Boiss. 1 - - - - 0.05 - - 0.14 - -

156 Themeda anathera (Nees ex Steud.) 1 - 0.05 ------Hack.

157 Thymelaea passerina (L.) Coss. and 1 - 0.04 - 0.05 0.03 0.04 - 0.04 - - Germ.

158 Trianthema portulacastrum L. 1 ------0.01 -

159 Tribulus terrestris L. 1 - - 0.06 - - 0.05 - - 0.09 0.05

160 Trigonella incisa Hornemann ex Fischer 1 - - 0.05 0.12 0.05 0.37 - - 0.06 -

144

and Meyer

161 Vaccaria hispanica (Mill.) Rauschert 1 0.02 0.04 ------

162 Velezia rigida L. 1 0.02 0.05 - - 0.03 0.05 - 0.05 0.03 -

163 Verbascum thapsus L. 1 - - 0.04 - - - 0.02 0.04 0.03 -

164 Veronica biloba L. 1 ------0.04 -

165 Vicia sativa L. 1 0.04 0.04 - - 0.07 - - - - -

166 Withania coagulans (Stocks) Dunal 1 - - - 0.09 0.06 - 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04

167 Withania somnifera (L.) Dunal 1 0.03 ------

168 Ziziphora tenuior L. 1 0.07 - - - 0.05 0.03 - 0.04 - 0.03

169 Ziziphus mauritiana Lam. 1 - - 0.04 0.06 - - - 0.08 - -

170 Ziziphus nummularia (Burm. f.) Wight 1 - - - 0.05 - - - - 0.04 0.11 and Arn.

S.No. SPECIES Importance Values-Summer Season

SU AMB DSK KJK KRP KTP LSP PRG SAF TRG YKG

1 Anchusa arvensis (L.) M. Bieb. ------

2 Acacia modesta Wall. 1 - 0.04 0.07 0.16 - 0.07 0.09 0.03 0.19 -

3 Acacia nilotica (L.) Willd. ex Delile 1 0.1 0.05 0.04 0.05 - 0.05 0.23 0.12 0.21 0.11

4 Achyranthes aspera L. 1 ------0.01 - - -

145

5 Aerva javanica (Burm. f.) Juss. 1 - - - - - 0.04 0.03 - 0.05 -

6 Agrostis viridis Gouan 1 ------0.02 - - -

7 Ajuga bracteosa Wall. ex Benth. 1 - - - - - 0.03 0.02 - - -

8 Albizia lebbek (L.) Benth. 1 ------0.11

9 Allium griffithianum Boiss. 1 0.03 ------

10 Alyssum desertorum Stapf ------

11 Anagallis arvensis L. 1 0.04 0.04 - - - - - 0.05 0.04 -

12 Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. ------

13 Arenaria serpyllifolia L. 1 0.06 0.12 - - - - - 0.13 - -

14 Aristida adscensionis L. 1 0.05 0.3 - - - - 0.05 - - -

15 Aristida cyanantha Nees ex Steud. 1 0.12 - - 0.09 0.35 0.04 - - - 0.06

16 Arnebia griffithii Boiss. 1 0.11 ------

17 Artemisia maritimaLedeb. 1 0.45 ------

18 Asparagus gracilis Salisb. 1 0.03 0.03 - - - - 0.02 - - -

19 Asparagus setaceus (Kunth) Jessop 1 - 0.03 ------

20 Astragalus hamosus L. 1 ------0.03 -

21 Astragalus pyrrhotrichus Boiss. 1 ------0.03 0.04 - -

146

22 Astragalus scorpioides Pourr. ex Willd. 1 - 0.05 0.03 - - - - 0.17 - -

23 Astragalus tribuloides Delile 1 0.07 0.03 0.07 0.1 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.19 0.12

24 Boerhavia procumbens Banks ex Roxb. ------

25 Brachypodium distachyon (L.) P. Beauv. 1 0.18 0.32 - - - - - 0.22 0.16 0.11

26 Bromus pectinatus Thunb. 1 ------0.05 - -

27 Calendula arvensis L. 1 0.06 0.04 ------

28 Calotropis procera (Aiton) W.T. Aiton 1 - - 0.06 - - 0.04 - 0.05 0.03 -

29 Cannabis sativa L. 1 ------0.03 - -

30 Capparis decidua (Forssk.) Pax 1 ------0.04 - - 0.05

31 Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik. 1 - - - - 0.04 - - - 0.09 -

32 Caralluma tuberculata N.E. Br. 1 0.03 ------

33 Cardaria draba (L.) Desv. 1 - - - 0.04 - - 0.03 - - -

34 Carthamus lanatus L. 1 0.03 ------

35 Carthamus oxycantha M. Bieb. 1 0.04 - - - - - 0.02 - - -

36 Cassia senna L. 1 ------0.03 - - -

37 Cenchrus ciliarus L. ------

38 Centaurea iberica Trevir. ex Spreng. 1 ------0.03 - - -

147

39 Citrullus colocynthis (L.) Schrad. ------

40 Chenopodium album L. ------

41 Chenopodium murale L. 1 ------0.03 -

42 Chrysopogon serrulatus Trin. 1 - 0.04 ------

43 Clematis graveolens Lindl. ------

44 Cleome brachycarpa M. Vahl ex Triana ------and Planchon

45 Erigeron trilobus (Decne.) Boiss. 1 ------0.02 - -

46 Coronopus didymus (L.) Sm. 1 ------0.02 -

47 Cotoneaster nummularius Fisch. and 1 - - - - 0.04 - 0.04 - - - C.A. Mey.

48 Cousinia proliferaJaub. and Spach 1 0.06 ------0.09 -

49 Crepis sancta (L.) Babc. 1 ------0.04 -

50 Cymbopogon jwarancusa (Jones) Schult. 1 ------0.04 0.03 -

51 Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. 1 - - - 0.12 - 0.16 - 0.12 0.04 0.06

52 Datura innoxia Mill. 1 ------0.03 - - -

53 Diclipetra bupleuroides Nees ------

54 Dodonaea viscosa Jacq. 1 - 0.38 - - 0.08 - 0.42 - - -

148

55 Duchesnea indica (Andrews) Teschem. 1 ------

56 Echinops echinatus Roxb. ------

57 Ehretia obtusifolia Hochst. ex A. DC. 1 ------0.02 - - -

58 Emex spinosa (L.) Campd. ------

59 Ephedra intermedia Schrenk ex C.A. 1 ------0.03 - - Mey.

60 Eragrostis papposa (Roem. and Schult.) 1 ------0.06 - Steud.

61 Erodium alnifolium Guss. ------

62 Erodium ciconium (L.) L'Hér. ex Aiton 1 - 0.04 0.05 - 0.05 - - - - 0.04

63 Erodium cicutarium (L.) L'Hér. ex Aiton ------

64 Euphorbia granulata Forssk. 1 0.06 ------0.03

65 Fagonia indica Burm. f. 1 0.04 0.06 0.04 - - - - 0.05 0.04 0.06

66 Farsetia jacquemontii Hook. f. and ------Thomson

67 Filago hurdwarica (Wall. ex DC.) 1 - 0.04 ------0.07 0.08 Wagenitz

68 Filago pyramidata L. ------0.04 - 0.07

69 Forsskaolea tenacissima L. 1 0.06 - 0.05 - 0.06 0.08 0.03 - 0.04 0.04

149

70 Fumaria indica Pugsley ------

71 Galium aparine L. 1 0.03 - - - 0.04 - - - - -

72 Geranium rotundifolium L. ------

73 Goldbachia laevigata (M. Bieb.) DC. ------

74 Heliotropium europaeum L. 1 - - - - 0.02 - - - - -

75 Heliotropium ovalifolium Forssk. ------

76 Herneraria cinerea DC 1 0.04 ------0.04

77 Herneraria hirsuta L. ------

78 Heteropogon contortus (L.) P. Beauv. ex 1 0.06 0.05 - - - - - 0.09 - - Roem. and Schult.

79 Hordeum jubatum L. 1 0.03 0.32 - 0.3 - - - 0.12 - 0.31

80 Hordeum murinum L. 1 ------0.05 0

81 Ifloga spicata (Forssk.) Sch. Bip. 1 ------0.02 - 0.06 0.03

82 Justicia adhatoda L. 1 - - - 0.04 ------

83 Kickxia incana (Wall.) Pennell 1 ------0.03

84 Kickxia ramosissima Janch. 1 0.03 - - - 0.05 - 0.02 - - -

85 Lactuca serriola L. 1 0.05 ------0.03 0.05 0.03

86 Lactuca tatarica (L.) C.A. Mey. ------

150

87 Lamarckia aurea (L.) Moench 1 ------0.03

88 Launaea procmbens (Roxb.) Ramayya 1 0.04 ------0.05 - and Rajagopal

89 Lepidium apetalum Willd. 1 ------

90 Limonium macrorhabdon Kuntze 1 - 0.03 ------

91 Linum corymbulosum Rchb. 1 0.02 - - - - - 0.02 - - -

92 Lonicera japonica Thunb. 1 ------

93 Malcolmia africana (L.) W.T. Aiton 1 0.07 ------0.04

94 Malcolmia cabulica (Boiss.) Hook. f. and 1 0.09 ------0.06 0.05 0.29 Thomson

95 Malva neglecta Wallr. 1 ------0.03 - - -

96 Malva parviflora L. 1 ------0.03 - - -

97 Medicago minima (L.) L. 1 0.07 0.17 0 0 0.04 - - 0.1 0.36 0.12

98 Mentha longifolia (L.) Huds. 1 ------0.1 - - -

99 Micromeria biflora (Buch. -Ham. ex D. 1 - - - - 0.05 - - 0.1 - - Don) Benth.

100 Misopates orontium(L.) Raf. ------

101 Monotheca buxifolia (Falc.) A. DC. 1 - - 0.07 - 0.03 0.17 - 0.06 - -

151

102 Nannorrhops ritchiana (Griff.) Aitch. 1 0.04 - - - - - 0.02 - - -

103 Nepeta raphanorhiza Benth. 1 ------

104 Nerium indicum Mill. 1 0.04 - - - - - 0.05 - - -

105 Nonea caspica (Willd.) G. Don ------

106 Nonea edgeworthii A. DC. ------

107 Olea ferruginea Royle 1 - - - - - 0.04 0.03 - - -

108 Oligomeris linifolia (Vahl) J.F. Macbr. ------

109 Onosma hispida Wall. ex G. Don 1 ------

110 Otostegia limbata (Benth.) Boiss. 1 0.03 - - - 0.04 - 0.02 0.05 - -

111 Papaver rhoeas L. 1 ------0.03

112 Peganum harmala L. 1 ------0.08 -

113 Pennisetum oreintale Rich. 1 - 0.04 - - 0.06 - - - - -

114 Pentanema vestitum Y. Ling 0 ------

115 Periploca aphylla Decne. 1 - - - 0.04 0.04 - - 0.05 - -

116 Phagnalon niveum Edgew. 1 ------

117 Phalaris minor Retz. 1 ------

118 Phleum paniculatum Huds. 1 ------0.05 -

152

119 Pinus roxburghii Sarg. 1 ------0.03 - - -

120 Plantago lanata Lag. and Rodr. ------

121 Plantago ovata Forssk. 1 ------0.04 0.04 0.05

122 Poa annua L. 1 ------0.04

123 Poa bulbosa L. ------

124 Polygala hohenackeriana var. rhodopea 1 0.04 0.04 ------Velen.

125 Polygonum plebeium R. Br. 1 - - - - 0.09 - - 0.03 - -

126 Pterachaenia stewartii (Hook.f.) R.R. 1 ------0.02 0.05 0.04 Stewart

127 Pupalia lappacea (L.) Juss. 1 ------0.05 - -

128 Rananculus muricatus L. 1 ------

129 Rhazya stricta Decne. 1 - 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.06 - 0.07 0.19

130 Rostraria cristata (L.) Tzvelev 1 - 0.04 ------

131 Rumex dentatus L. ------

132 Rumex hastatus D. Don ------

133 Rumex vesicarius L. ------

134 Sageretia thea (Osbeck) M.C. Johnst. 1 ------

153

135 Salsola kali L. 1 ------0.02 - - -

136 Salvadora persica L. 1 ------0.09

137 Salvia aegyptiaca L. 1 0.06 - - 0.06 - 0.11 0.07 0.07 - -

138 Salvia moocroftiana Wall. ex Benth. 1 ------0.04 0.05 - -

139 Saussurea heteromalla (D. Don) Hand. - 1 0.03 - - - - - 0.02 - - - Mazz.

140 Scabiosa olivieri Coult. ------

141 Scilla griffithii Hochr. ------

142 Scrophularia striata Boiss. ------

143 Silene apetala Willd. ------

144 Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertn. 1 ------

145 Sisymbrium irio L. 1 ------0.03 -

146 Sonchus asper (L.) Hill 0 ------

147 Solanum nigrum L. 1 0.03 ------0.03 - -

148 Solanum surattense Burm. f. 1 ------0.03

149 Spergula arvensis L. 1 - 0.05 - - - - - 0.06 - -

150 Suaeda aegyptiaca (Hasselq.) Zohary 1 - - 0.04 ------

151 Tamarix indica Willd. 1 ------

154

152 Taraxacum officinale F.H. Wigg. ------

153 Tecomella undulata (Sm.) Seem. 1 ------0.03

154 Tetrapogon villosus Desf. 1 0.08 ------0.09 0.13 -

155 Teucrium stocksianum Boiss. 1 - - - - 0.05 - - 0.14 - -

156 Themeda anathera (Nees ex Steud.) 1 - 0.05 ------Hack.

157 Thymelaea passerina (L.) Coss. and ------Germ.

158 Trianthema portulacastrum L. 1 ------

159 Tribulus terrestris L. 1 - - 0.06 - - 0.05 - - 0.09 0.05

160 Trigonella incisa Hornemann ex Fischer 1 ------0.06 - and Meyer

161 Vaccaria hispanica (Mill.) Rauschert ------

162 Velezia rigida L. ------

163 Verbascum thapsus L. 1 ------0.04 0.03 -

164 Veronica biloba L. 1 ------0.04 -

165 Vicia sativa L. 1 0.04 0.04 ------

166 Withania coagulans (Stocks) Dunal 1 - - - 0.09 - - 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04

155

167 Withania somnifera (L.) Dunal 1 0.03 ------

168 Ziziphora tenuior L. 1 0.07 ------0.04 - 0.03

169 Ziziphus mauritiana Lam. 1 - - 0.04 0.06 - - - 0.08 - -

170 Ziziphus nummularia (Burm. f.) Wight 1 - - - 0.05 - - - - 0.04 0.11 and Arn.

S.No. SPECIES Importance Values-Autumn Season

Au AMB DSK KJK KRP KTP LSP PRG SAF TRG YKG

1 Anchusa arvensis (L.) M. Bieb. ------

2 Acacia modesta Wall. 1 - 0.07 0.16 - 0.07 0.09 0.03 0.19 - -

3 Acacia nilotica (L.) Willd. ex Delile 1 0.1 0.04 0.05 - 0.05 0.23 0.12 0.21 0.11 0.1

4 Achyranthes aspera L. 1 ------

5 Aerva javanica (Burm. f.) Juss. 1 - - - - 0.04 0.03 - 0.05 - -

6 Agrostis viridis Gouan 1 - - - - - 0.02 - - - -

7 Ajuga bracteosa Wall. ex Benth. ------

8 Albizia lebbek (L.) Benth. ------

9 Allium griffithianum Boiss. ------

10 Alyssum desertorum Stapf ------

11 Anagallis arvensis L. ------

156

12 Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. ------

13 Arenaria serpyllifolia L. ------

14 Aristida adscensionis L. 1 0.05 - - - - 0.05 - - - 0.05

15 Aristida cyanantha Nees ex Steud. ------

16 Arnebia griffithii Boiss. ------

17 Artemisia maritimaLedeb. ------

18 Asparagus gracilis Salisb. ------

19 Asparagus setaceus (Kunth) Jessop ------

20 Astragalus hamosus L. 1 - - - - 0.04 - - 0.03 - -

21 Astragalus pyrrhotrichus Boiss. ------

22 Astragalus scorpioides Pourr. ex Willd. 1 - 0.03 - - - - 0.17 - - -

23 Astragalus tribuloides Delile ------

24 Boerhavia procumbens Banks ex Roxb. ------

25 Brachypodium distachyon (L.) P. Beauv. ------

26 Bromus pectinatus Thunb. ------

27 Calendula arvensis L. ------

28 Calotropis procera (Aiton) W.T. Aiton 1 - 0.06 - - 0.04 - 0.05 0.03 - -

157

29 Cannabis sativa L. ------

30 Capparis decidua (Forssk.) Pax 1 - - - - - 0.04 - - 0.05 -

31 Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik. ------

32 Caralluma tuberculata N.E. Br. 1 0.03 ------0.03

33 Cardaria draba (L.) Desv. 1 - - 0.04 - - 0.03 - - - -

34 Carthamus lanatus L. ------

35 Carthamus oxycantha M. Bieb. ------

36 Cassia senna L. ------

37 Cenchrus ciliarus L. 1 ------

38 Centaurea iberica Trevir. ex Spreng. ------

39 Citrullus colocynthis (L.) Schrad. 1 ------

40 Chenopodium album L. 1 0.03 - - - - 0.03 - - - 0.03

41 Chenopodium murale L. 1 - - - - - 0.02 - 0.03 - -

42 Chrysopogon serrulatus Trin. 1 ------

43 Clematis graveolens Lindl. ------

44 Cleome brachycarpa M. Vahl ex Triana ------and Planchon

45 Erigeron trilobus (Decne.) Boiss. ------

158

46 Coronopus didymus (L.) Sm. ------

47 Cotoneaster nummularius Fisch. and 1 - - - 0.04 - 0.04 - - - - C.A. Mey.

48 Cousinia proliferaJaub. and Spach ------

49 Crepis sancta (L.) Babc. ------

50 Cymbopogon jwarancusa (Jones) Schult. ------

51 Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. ------

52 Datura innoxia Mill. 1 - - - - - 0.03 - - - -

53 Diclipetra bupleuroides Nees ------

54 Dodonaea viscosa Jacq. 1 - - - 0.08 - 0.42 - - - -

55 Duchesnea indica (Andrews) Teschem. ------

56 Echinops echinatus Roxb. ------

57 Ehretia obtusifolia Hochst. ex A. DC. 1 - - - - - 0.02 - - - -

58 Emex spinosa (L.) Campd. ------

59 Ephedra intermedia Schrenk ex C.A. 1 ------Mey.

60 Eragrostis papposa (Roem. and Schult.) 1 ------0.06 - - Steud.

159

61 Erodium alnifolium Guss. ------

62 Erodium ciconium (L.) L'Hér. ex Aiton ------

63 Erodium cicutarium (L.) L'Hér. ex Aiton ------

64 Euphorbia granulata Forssk. ------

65 Fagonia indica Burm. f. ------

66 Farsetia jacquemontii Hook. f. and ------Thomson

67 Filago hurdwarica (Wall. ex DC.) ------Wagenitz

68 Filago pyramidata L. ------

69 Forsskaolea tenacissima L. ------

70 Fumaria indica Pugsley ------

71 Galium aparine L. 1 0.03 - - 0.04 - - - - - 0.03

72 Geranium rotundifolium L. ------

73 Goldbachia laevigata (M. Bieb.) DC. ------

74 Heliotropium europaeum L. ------

75 Heliotropium ovalifolium Forssk. ------

76 Herneraria cinerea DC ------

160

77 Herneraria hirsuta L. ------

78 Heteropogon contortus (L.) P. Beauv. ex ------Roem. and Schult.

79 Hordeum jubatum L. ------

80 Hordeum murinum L. ------

81 Ifloga spicata (Forssk.) Sch. Bip. ------

82 Justicia adhatoda L. 1 - - 0.04 ------

83 Kickxia incana (Wall.) Pennell ------

84 Kickxia ramosissima Janch. ------

85 Lactuca serriola L. ------

86 Lactuca tatarica (L.) C.A. Mey. ------

87 Lamarckia aurea (L.) Moench ------

88 Launaea procmbens (Roxb.) Ramayya ------and Rajagopal

89 Lepidium apetalum Willd. ------

90 Limonium macrorhabdon Kuntze ------

91 Linum corymbulosum Rchb. ------

92 Lonicera japonica Thunb. 1 ------

161

93 Malcolmia africana (L.) W.T. Aiton ------

94 Malcolmia cabulica (Boiss.) Hook. f. and ------Thomson

95 Malva neglecta Wallr. 1 - - 0.06 ------

96 Malva parviflora L. - - - 0.03 ------

97 Medicago minima (L.) L. ------

98 Mentha longifolia (L.) Huds. ------

99 Micromeria biflora (Buch.-Ham. ex D. 1 - - - 0.05 - - 0.1 - - - Don) Benth.

100 Misopates orontium(L.) Raf. ------

101 Monotheca buxifolia (Falc.) A. DC. 1 - 0.07 - 0.03 0.17 - 0.06 - - -

102 Nannorrhops ritchiana (Griff.) Aitch. 1 0.04 - - - - 0.02 - - - 0.04

103 Nepeta raphanorhiza Benth. ------

104 Nerium indicum Mill. 1 0.04 - - - - 0.05 - - - 0.04

105 Nonea caspica (Willd.) G. Don ------

106 Nonea edgeworthii A. DC. ------

107 Olea ferruginea Royle 1 - - - - 0.04 0.03 - - - -

108 Oligomeris linifolia (Vahl) J.F. Macbr. ------

162

109 Onosma hispida Wall. ex G. Don ------

110 Otostegia limbata (Benth.) Boiss. 1 0.03 - - 0.04 - 0.02 0.05 - - 0.03

111 Papaver rhoeas L. ------

112 Peganum harmala L. ------

113 Pennisetum oreintale Rich. 1 - - - 0.06 ------

114 Pentanema vestitum Y. Ling ------

115 Periploca aphylla Decne. 1 - - 0.04 0.04 - - 0.05 - - -

116 Phagnalon niveum Edgew. ------

117 Phalaris minor Retz. ------

118 Phleum paniculatum Huds. ------

119 Pinus roxburghii Sarg. 1 - - - - - 0.03 - - - -

120 Plantago lanata Lag. and Rodr. ------

121 Plantago ovata Forssk. ------

122 Poa annua L. ------

123 Poa bulbosa L. ------

124 Polygala hohenackeriana var. rhodopea ------Velen.

125 Polygonum plebeium R. Br. 1 - - - 0.09 - - 0.03 - - -

163

126 Pterachaenia stewartii (Hook.f.) ------R.R.Stewart

127 Pupalia lappacea (L.) Juss. 1 ------0.05 - - -

128 Rananculus muricatus L. ------

129 Rhazya stricta Decne. 1 - 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.06 - 0.07 0.19 -

130 Rostraria cristata (L.) Tzvelev ------

131 Rumex dentatus L. ------

132 Rumex hastatus D. Don 1 ------

133 Rumex vesicarius L. ------

134 Sageretia thea (Osbeck) M.C. Johnst. 1 - - - 0.03 ------

135 Salsola kali L. 1 - - - - - 0.02 - - - -

136 Salvadora persica L. 1 ------0.09 -

137 Salvia aegyptiaca L. 1 0.06 - 0.06 - 0.11 0.07 0.07 - - 0.06

138 Salvia moocroftiana Wall. ex Benth. ------

139 Saussurea heteromalla (D. Don) Hand. ------Mazz.

140 Scabiosa olivieri Coult. ------

141 Scilla griffithii Hochr. 1 ------

164

142 Scrophularia striata Boiss. ------

143 Silene apetala Willd. ------

144 Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertn. ------

145 Sisymbrium irio L. ------

146 Sonchus asper (L.) Hill ------

147 Solanum nigrum L. ------

148 Solanum surattense Burm. f. ------

149 Spergula arvensis L. ------

150 Suaeda aegyptiaca (Hasselq.) Zohary 1 - 0.04 ------

151 Tamarix indica Willd. 1 ------

152 Taraxacum officinale F.H. Wigg. ------

153 Tecomella undulata (Sm.) Seem. 1 ------0.03 -

154 Tetrapogon villosus Desf. ------

155 Teucrium stocksianum Boiss. 1 - - - 0.05 - - 0.14 - - -

156 Themeda anathera (Nees ex Steud.) ------Hack.

157 Thymelaea passerina (L.) Coss. and ------Germ.

165

158 Trianthema portulacastrum L. 1 ------

159 Tribulus terrestris L. 1 - 0.06 - - 0.05 - - 0.09 0.05 -

160 Trigonella incisa Hornemann ex Fischer ------and Meyer

161 Vaccaria hispanica (Mill.) Rauschert ------

162 Velezia rigida L. ------

163 Verbascum thapsus L. ------

164 Veronica biloba L. ------

165 Vicia sativa L. ------

166 Withania coagulans (Stocks) Dunal 1 - - 0.09 0.06 - 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 -

167 Withania somnifera (L.) Dunal ------

168 Ziziphora tenuior L. ------

169 Ziziphus mauritiana Lam. 1 - 0.04 0.06 - - - 0.08 - - -

170 Ziziphus nummularia (Burm. f.) Wight 1 - - 0.05 - - - - 0.04 0.11 - and Arn.

S.No. SPECIES Importance Values-Winter Season

Wi AMB DSK KJK KRP KTP LSP PRG SAF TRG YKG

1 Anchusa arvensis (L.) M. Bieb. ------

166

2 Acacia modesta Wall. 1 - 0.04 0.07 0.16 - 0.07 0.09 0.03 0.19 -

3 Acacia nilotica (L.) Willd. ex Delile 1 0.1 0.05 0.04 0.05 - 0.05 0.23 0.12 0.21 0.1

4 Achyranthes aspera L. 1 ------

5 Aerva javanica (Burm. f.) Juss. 1 - - - - - 0.04 0.03 - 0.05 -

6 Agrostis viridis Gouan 1 ------0.02 - - -

7 Ajuga bracteosa Wall. ex Benth. ------

8 Albizia lebbek (L.) Benth. 1 ------

9 Allium griffithianum Boiss. 1 0.03 - - - 0.03 - - - - 0.03

10 Alyssum desertorum Stapf 1 - 0.06 - - 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.03 -

11 Anagallis arvensis L. 1 - 0.04 - 0.05 - - 0.03 0.05 0.04 -

12 Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. 1 - - - - 0.03 - - - - -

13 Arenaria serpyllifolia L. ------

14 Aristida adscensionis L. ------

15 Aristida cyanantha Nees ex Steud. ------

16 Arnebia griffithii Boiss. ------

17 Artemisia maritimaLedeb. 1 ------

18 Asparagus gracilis Salisb. 1 ------

167

19 Asparagus setaceus (Kunth) Jessop ------

20 Astragalus hamosus L. ------

21 Astragalus pyrrhotrichus Boiss. ------

22 Astragalus scorpioides Pourr. ex Willd. ------

23 Astragalus tribuloides Delile ------

24 Boerhavia procumbens Banks ex Roxb. 1 - - - - 0.05 - 0.02 - - -

25 Brachypodium distachyon (L.) P. Beauv. ------

26 Bromus pectinatus Thunb. 1 - - 0.05 - - 0.4 - 0.05 - -

27 Calendula arvensis L. ------

28 Calotropis procera (Aiton) W.T. Aiton 1 - - 0.06 - - 0.04 - 0.05 0.03 -

29 Cannabis sativa L. 1 ------

30 Capparis decidua (Forssk.) Pax 1 ------0.04 - - -

31 Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik. ------

32 Caralluma tuberculata N.E. Br. ------

33 Cardaria draba (L.) Desv. 1 - - - 0.04 - - 0.03 - - -

34 Carthamus lanatus L. 1 ------

35 Carthamus oxycantha M.Bieb. ------

168

36 Cassia senna L. ------

37 Cenchrus ciliarus L. 1 ------

38 Centaurea iberica Trevir. ex Spreng. ------

39 Citrullus colocynthis (L.) Schrad. ------

40 Chenopodium album L. 1 0.03 - - - - - 0.03 - - 0.03

41 Chenopodium murale L. ------

42 Chrysopogon serrulatus Trin. 1 - 0.04 ------

43 Clematis graveolens Lindl. ------

44 Cleome brachycarpa M. Vahl ex Triana 1 ------0.02 - - - and Planchon

45 Erigeron trilobus (Decne.) Boiss. ------

46 Coronopus didymus (L.) Sm. 1 ------

47 Cotoneaster nummularius Fisch. and 1 - - - - 0.04 - 0.04 - - - C.A. Mey.

48 Cousinia proliferaJaub. and Spach 1 ------0.03 - - -

49 Crepis sancta (L.) Babc. 1 ------0.04 -

50 Cymbopogon jwarancusa (Jones) Schult. 1 - - - - 0.06 - 0.02 0.04 0.03 -

51 Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. 1 ------

169

52 Datura innoxia Mill. ------

53 Diclipetra bupleuroides Nees ------

54 Dodonaea viscosa Jacq. 1 - 0.38 - - 0.08 - 0.42 - - -

55 Duchesnea indica (Andrews) Teschem. ------

56 Echinops echinatus Roxb. ------

57 Ehretia obtusifolia Hochst. ex A. DC. 1 ------0.02 - - -

58 Emex spinosa (L.) Campd. 1 - - - 0.06 - - 0.03 - 0.03 -

59 Ephedra intermedia Schrenk ex C.A. 1 ------.03 - - Mey.

60 Eragrostis papposa (Roem. and Schult.) ------Steud.

61 Erodium alnifolium Guss. ------

62 Erodium ciconium (L.) L'Hér. ex Aiton ------

63 Erodium cicutarium (L.) L'Hér. ex Aiton ------

64 Euphorbia granulata Forssk. 1 ------

65 Fagonia indica Burm. f. 1 - 0.06 0.04 0.05 - 0.05 - 0.05 0.04 -

66 Farsetia jacquemontii Hook. f. and 1 ------0.02 - - - Thomson

170

67 Filago hurdwarica (Wall. ex DC.) 1 - 0.04 0.04 - - 0.06 - - 0.07 - Wagenitz

68 Filago pyramidata L. 1 - - 0.08 0.06 0.02 - - 0.04 - -

69 Forsskaolea tenacissima L. 1 0.06 - 0.05 - 0.06 0.08 0.03 - 0.04 0.06

70 Fumaria indica Pugsley 1 0.04 ------0.04

71 Galium aparine L. ------

72 Geranium rotundifolium L. ------

73 Goldbachia laevigata (M. Bieb.) DC. ------

74 Heliotropium europaeum L. 1 - - - - 0.03 0.04 - - - -

75 Heliotropium ovalifolium Forssk. ------

76 Herneraria cinerea DC ------

77 Herneraria hirsuta L. 1 - 0.04 0.08 - 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.04 - -

78 Heteropogon contortus (L.) P. Beauv. ex 1 - 0.05 - - 0.05 0.06 - 0.09 - - Roem. and Schult.

79 Hordeum jubatum L. ------

80 Hordeum murinum L. ------

81 Ifloga spicata (Forssk.) Sch. Bip. ------

82 Justicia adhatoda L. 1 - - - 0.04 ------

171

83 Kickxia incana (Wall.) Pennell ------

84 Kickxia ramosissima Janch. ------

85 Lactuca serriola L. ------

86 Lactuca tatarica (L.) C.A. Mey. ------

87 Lamarckia aurea (L.) Moench ------

88 Launaea procmbens (Roxb.) Ramayya ------and Rajagopal

89 Lepidium apetalum Willd. ------

90 Limonium macrorhabdon Kuntze 1 - 0.03 - - 0.03 - - - - -

91 Linum corymbulosum Rchb. ------

92 Lonicera japonica Thunb. 1 ------

93 Malcolmia africana (L.) W.T. Aiton ------

94 Malcolmia cabulica (Boiss.) Hook. f. and 1 - - - 0.05 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.05 - Thomson

95 Malva neglecta Wallr. 1 - - - 0.06 ------

96 Malva parviflora L. ------

97 Medicago minima (L.) L. 1 - 0.17 0.67 0.28 0.04 0.05 - 0.1 0.36 -

98 Mentha longifolia (L.) Huds. 1 - - 0.05 - - - 0.1 - - -

172

99 Micromeria biflora (Buch. -Ham. ex D. 1 - - - - 0.05 - - 0.1 - - Don) Benth.

100 Misopates orontium(L.) Raf. ------

101 Monotheca buxifolia (Falc.) A. DC. 1 - - 0.07 - 0.03 0.17 - 0.06 - -

102 Nannorrhops ritchiana (Griff.) Aitch. 1 0.04 - - - - - 0.02 - - 0.04

103 Nepeta raphanorhiza Benth. 1 - - - 0.05 ------

104 Nerium indicum Mill. 1 0.04 - - - - - 0.05 - - 0.04

105 Nonea caspica (Willd.) G. Don ------

106 Nonea edgeworthii A. DC. ------

107 Olea ferruginea Royle 1 - - - - - 0.04 0.03 - - -

108 Oligomeris linifolia (Vahl) J.F. Macbr. 1 - - - - 0.03 - 0.02 - - -

109 Onosma hispida Wall. ex G. Don 1 - - - - 0.07 - 0.02 - - -

110 Otostegia limbata (Benth.) Boiss. 1 0.03 - - - 0.04 - 0.02 0.05 - 0.03

111 Papaver rhoeas L. ------

112 Peganum harmala L. ------

113 Pennisetum oreintale Rich. ------

114 Pentanema vestitum Y. Ling ------

115 Periploca aphylla Decne. 1 - - - 0.04 0.04 - - 0.05 - -

173

116 Phagnalon niveum Edgew. ------

117 Phalaris minor Retz. ------

118 Phleum paniculatum Huds. 1 ------0.05 -

119 Pinus roxburghii Sarg. 1 ------0.03 - - -

120 Plantago lanata Lag. and Rodr. 1 ------0.04 -

121 Plantago ovata Forssk. 1 - - 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.03 - 0.04 0.04 -

122 Poa annua L. 1 - - 0.06 - - - 0.07 - - -

123 Poa bulbosa L. 1 ------0.05 - -

124 Polygala hohenackeriana var. rhodopea ------Velen.

125 Polygonum plebeium R. Br. 1 - - - - 0.09 - - 0.03 - -

126 Pterachaenia stewartii (Hook.f.) R.R. ------Stewart

127 Pupalia lappacea (L.) Juss. 1 ------0.05 - -

128 Rananculus muricatus L. ------

129 Rhazya stricta Decne. 1 - 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.06 - 0.07 -

130 Rostraria cristata (L.) Tzvelev ------

131 Rumex dentatus L. 1 0.05 0.04 - 0.03 - - 0.06 - - 0.05

174

132 Rumex hastatus D. Don 1 ------

133 Rumex vesicarius L. 1 - 0.03 - - 0.05 - 0.27 0.03 - -

134 Sageretia thea (Osbeck) M.C. Johnst. 1 - - - - 0.03 - - - - -

135 Salsola kali L. 1 ------0.02 - - -

136 Salvadora persica L. 1 ------

137 Salvia aegyptiaca L. 1 0.06 - - 0.06 - 0.11 0.07 0.07 - 0.06

138 Salvia moocroftiana Wall. ex Benth. 1 ------0.04 0.05 - -

139 Saussurea heteromalla (D. Don) Hand. - 1 0.03 - - - - - 0.02 - - 0.03 Mazz.

140 Scabiosa olivieri Coult. ------

141 Scilla griffithii Hochr. 1 - 0.03 ------

142 Scrophularia striata Boiss. 1 ------0.03 - -

143 Silene apetala Willd. ------

144 Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertn. ------

145 Sisymbrium irio L. ------0.03 -

146 Sonchus asper (L.) Hill 1 - 0.03 - - - - 0.02 - - -

147 Solanum nigrum L. 0 0.03 ------0.03 - 0.03

148 Solanum surattense Burm. f. 0 - - - 0.05 - - 0.03 - - -

175

149 Spergula arvensis L. 1 - 0.05 - - 0.03 - - 0.06 - -

150 Suaeda aegyptiaca (Hasselq.) Zohary 1 - - 0.04 ------

151 Tamarix indica Willd. 1 ------

152 Taraxacum officinale F.H. Wigg. 1 - - - 0.04 0.03 - - 0.03 0.03 -

153 Tecomella undulata (Sm.) Seem. 1 ------

154 Tetrapogon villosus Desf. ------

155 Teucrium stocksianum Boiss. 1 - - - - 0.05 - - 0.14 - -

156 Themeda anathera (Nees ex Steud.) 1 - 0.05 ------Hack.

157 Thymelaea passerina (L.) Coss. and ------Germ.

158 Trianthema portulacastrum L. ------

159 Tribulus terrestris L. ------

160 Trigonella incisa Hornemann ex Fischer 1 - - 0.05 0.12 0.05 0.37 - - 0.06 - and Meyer

161 Vaccaria hispanica (Mill.) Rauschert ------

162 Velezia rigida L. 1 0.02 0.05 - - 0.03 0.05 - 0.05 0.03 0.02

163 Verbascum thapsus L. 1 - - 0.04 - - - 0.02 0.04 0.03 -

176

164 Veronica biloba L. ------

165 Vicia sativa L. 1 - 0.04 - - 0.07 - - - - -

166 Withania coagulans (Stocks) Dunal 1 - - - 0.09 0.06 - 0.03 0.04 0.04 -

167 Withania somnifera (L.) Dunal 1 0.03 ------0.03

168 Ziziphora tenuior L. ------

169 Ziziphus mauritiana Lam. 1 - - 0.04 0.06 - - - 0.08 - -

170 Ziziphus nummularia (Burm. f.) Wight 1 - - - 0.05 - - - - 0.04 - and Arn.

SZ=Season, Sp=spring, Su=summer, Au=autumn, Wi=winter

177

Table 12. Summary of different sites with number of species in different habit, life form and leaf size classes

Site with number of species in respective group Character AMB DSK KJK KRP KTP LSP PRG SAF TRG YKG Total 51 40 31 39 55 36 66 47 43 42 Trees 2 2 4 3 2 4 6 4 2 3 Shrubs 4 2 1 5 6 1 9 3 3 5 Herbs 45 36 26 31 47 31 51 40 38 34

LIFE FROM CH 4 4 3 7 4 5 9 6 5 2 GE 2 3 2 0 1 0 4 0 0 1 HC 9 5 5 4 9 6 5 10 5 6 MC 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 MG 1 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 1 MS 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 NP 4 2 3 4 7 3 9 4 3 4 TH 31 24 15 21 34 19 35 24 28 26 LEAF SIZE AP 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 LP 15 16 9 8 11 12 16 16 11 11 MC 10 8 7 13 16 8 20 9 8 15 MG 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 MS 4 2 3 2 2 2 5 2 3 1 NN 20 14 12 15 25 14 23 19 21 14

LEAF TYPE Simple 34 27 19 23 42 26 45 37 27 25 Compound 7 8 10 7 6 7 8 6 8 9 Incised 8 3 2 8 6 3 10 3 8 7 Needle 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Aphyllous 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1

178

Table 13. TIV of species from different habits, life form and leaf sizes

SITE Plants Types AMB DSK KJK KRP KTP LSP PRG SAF TRG YKG TIV (All plants) 3 2.99 3 3 3 3 2.99 3 2.99 3 Three dominant 0.74 1.02 1.52 0.78 0.61 0.94 0.91 0.52 0.75 0.79 Remaining 2.25 1.97 1.47 2.21 2.38 2.5 2.08 2.47 2.24 2.2 Trees 0.13 0.09 0.22 0.27 0.07 0.31 0.44 0.29 0.39 0.25 Shrubs 0.5 0.43 0.07 0.25 0.28 0.09 0.09 0.14 0.14 0.5 Herbs 2.3 2.47 2.7 2.46 2.65 2.58 1.86 2.6 2.45 2.25 AIV 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.71 LIFE FROM CH 0.2 0.14 0.13 0.43 0.22 0.29 0.27 0.47 0.35 0.15 GE 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.03 0 0.21 0 0 0.03 HC 0.99 0.59 0.89 0.53 0.78 0.45 0.16 0.73 0.6 0.35 MC 0 0 0.041 0.06 0 0.03 0.31 0.07 0 0.11 MG 0.1 0.09 0.1 0.21 0 0.11 0.31 0.14 0.39 0.11 MS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 0 0 0.05 NP 0.13 0.43 0.2 0.16 0.28 0.3 0.69 0.21 0.13 0.41 TH 1.5 1.65 1.5 1.5 1.67 1.79 1.27 1.34 1.5 1.75 LEAF SIZE AP 0.28 0 0 0.04 0.04 0 0.03 0.04 0 0.05 LP 1.2 0.9 1.08 0.83 0.49 0.82 0.98 1.05 1.08 0.69 MC 0.5 0.55 0.38 0.68 1.04 0.36 0.69 0.42 0.41 1.08 MG 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0 0 0 MS 0.16 0.07 0.15 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.18 0.08 0.11 0.03 NN 1.05 1.46 1.38 1.35 1.3 1.71 1.08 1.37 1.38 1.13

3.4. Rangeland Productivity

For assessment of the rangeland productivity, 6 sites were selected and herbaceous biomass was determined by harvest method. Highest amount of herbaceous biomass was reported in spring season, with an average productivity of 8.4 g/m2, followed by summer (6.8 g/m2) and winter (2.8 g/m2). Autumn being the lowest productive season had an average productivity of 1.6 g/m2. Annual productivity average was 19.6 g/m2 (Table 14). Productivity of an area is directrly

179

related to the vegetation in that area, and is a good character indicating the health of plant community (Bonham, 1989; Badshah, 2013). Rangeland productivity of some areas of Paksitan has been studied by different workers (Bacha et al., 2010; Malik et al., 2005)

Table 14. Rangeland productivity (g/m2) of selected sites in different seasons

Season Sites

Site1 Site2 Site3 Site4 Site5 Site6 Total Average Spring 8.9 10.3 5.8 9.4 8.4 7.4 50.2 8.4 Summer 6.8 7.6 4.9 7.3 7.6 6.8 41 6.8 Winter 2.5 3.1 1.1 2.9 3.1 4.2 16.9 2.8 Autumn 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.7 2 1.7 9.6 1.6 Total 19.7 22.5 13 21.3 21.1 20.1 117.7 19.6

3.5. Edaphology

Soil samples from different sites were analyzed for physicochemical properties. Soil properties that were analyzed included textural classification, EC (Electrical conductivity), lime, pH, NPK contents, Fe, Zn, Cu and organic matter contents.

KJK was the only site with loamy soil, and KTP was the only site with silty soil; rests of the 8 sites were found to have silt loam kind of soil texture. Highest amount of clay was found in soil samples of SAF site, followed by PRG and KRP each with 10.4% clay. TRG site was having the least percentage (2.4%) of clay in the soil. Highest percentage of silt was found in soil samples of KTP, while samples from most of the other sites had silt contents between 44.3 and 66.3%. Sand contents analysis showed that KJK site was the sandiest area, with 49.3% sand in the soil. Least amount of sand was reported from KTP site i.e. 9.3% (Table 15).

Soil form KJK site was found to have high EC (49.3dS/m), with AMB and DSK in next order (EC=43.3 and 39.3 dS/m respectively). Least electrical conductivity was found in soil of KTP having EC of 9.3 dS/m (Table 15).

Results revealed that highest percentage of lime contents were present in soil of YKG (23.5%) and KJK (21%) sites, followed by AMB (18.4%), KRP (16.9%) and KTP (16.5%). Acidic properties of the soils of different sites indicated the neutral nature of most of the area.

180

Nine sites were found to have pH between 7.35 and 7.89 mole/L, showing a neutral range, with only one site being basic, with pH value of 8.46 mole/L (Table 16).

Nitrogen phosphorus and potassium concentrations were also determined in the soil samples. Results indicated that TRG site was rich in terms of nitrogen contents (48ppm). AMB and KRP’s soil sample were next in order and were having 41ppm and 39ppm of nitrogen respectively. Least amount of nitrogen was investigated in DSK site (23ppm). Phosphorous contents were found to be gradually decreasing among different sites. Highest amount was found in DSK’s soil (11ppm), which gradually decreased to 10 ppm (AMB), 8ppm (KJK and YKG each), 7ppm (KTP and SAF each), 6ppm (KRP and TRG each) and 5ppm (PRG). Lowest level (2ppm) of phosphorus was recorded for LSP site. Potassium contents analysis indicated that soil samples from KJK and SAF sites were the highest K containing soils (21 and 19 ppm respectively) (Table 16).

Iron, Zinc and Copper content analyses were accomplished for examining the relative proportion of these elements insoil samples. Iron was found in highest concentration (21ppm) in KJK site; SAF, LSP and YKG were next in order with 19, 18 and 17 ppm concentration. Highest amount of Zn was found in AMB site’s soil (1.8 ppm), followed by KJK and LSP with 1.63 and 1.6 ppm concentrations respectively. Least Zn concentration of 0.97 ppm was found in TRG site. Copper contents were also assessed in the soil samples, showing highest amount of copper in AMB and KRP sites (4 ppm each). Least amount of this metal was found SAF site’s soil (2.5 ppm) (Table 16). Organic matter contents assay showed less percentage of organic material in the soil. Highest percentage of organic contents of 0.94% which was found in PRG site. Following this were three sites, KRP, KTP and DSK with 0.81% OMC each. With regard to organic contents poorest soil was from KJK site with only 0.52% organic matter (Table 16).

Chemical and physical properties of the soil have important role in defining the vegetation of an area. These factors determine the boundaries for vegetation. Soil pH is one of the major factors, which is usually altitude dependent, in the distribution of species along the landscape (Perry, 2003). High nitrogen contents are another factor in deciding the vegetation of the area; its high concentration indicates higher rates of decomposition and vice versa. Phosphorous, which is also an important aspect of soil, is found to be less in concentration in Mohmand Agency compared to its concentration in the soil of plain areas.This fact supported by

181

many other studies (Tie et al., 1979; Edwards and Grubb, 1982; Pendry and Proctor, 1996). Soil with high pH has less concentration of phosphorous, which is due to the fact that it can fix more phosphorous than soil with low pH (Sanchez, 1976). Soil of many mountainous regions has similarities in physical and chemical properties (Shmida et al., 1986; Dasti and Malik, 1998) and the current study is not a different case.

Table 15. Physical properties of soil of different sites

Serial Site Textural Clay(%) Silt(%) Sand(%) Soil EC(dSm-1) Class 1 AMB Silt loam 4.39 52.29 43.29 0.01

2 DSK Silt loam 8.38 52.27 39.25 0.22 3 KJK Loam 6.35 44.28 49.29 0.1 4 KRP Silt loam 10.4 52.26 37.30 0.1 5 KTP Silt 4.39 86.27 9.27 0.33 6 LSP Silt loam 6.36 58.29 35.25 0.13 7 PRG Silt Loam 10.4 60.3 29.28 0.09 8 SAF Silt loam 12.37 62.26 25.27 0.14 9 TRG Silt loam 2.4 66.29 31.29 0.09 10 YKG Silt loam 6.39 66.3 27.25 0.13

Table 16. Chemical properties of soils of different sites

Serial Site Lime pH N P K Fe Zn Cu Om

(%) Mole/L ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm (%) 1 AMB 18.4 7.43 41 10 100 12 1.8 4.1 0.71 2 DSK 13.6 7.4 23 11 90 16 1.37 3.3 0.8 3 KJK 21 7.89 26 8 120 21 1.63 3.1 0.52 4 KRP 16.4 7.77 39 6 130 16 1.12 4 0.81 5 KTP 16.5 7.7 34 7 160 13 1.3 2.98 0.81 6 LSP 0.93 7.65 37 2 210 18 1.6 2.6 0.73 7 PRG 16.9 7.84 33 5 130 14 1.2 3.1 0.94 8 SAF 6.75 7.35 31 7 170 19 1.2 2.5 0.68 9 TRG 1.25 7.67 48 6 210 15 0.97 3.8 0.7 10 YKG 23.5 8.46 38 8 160 17 1.4 3.9 0.65

182

3.6. Ethnobotany

People of the area have a high degree of dependency on the plants which are used as fuel, fodder, medicine, timber and for many other purposes. Elders have more knowledge about the plants, and their usage compared to young tribesmen. Due to the arid climate of the region, mostly perennial tree species stood first with reference to ethnobotanical usage.

The flora was found to be under extreme biotic stress, which is obvious form the decline in the occurrence of some important plants species (e.g. Caralluma tuberculata and Nannorrhops ritchiana). Improper collection and usage of the plants has endangered many species. The area is very rich in terms of medicinal plants that were in use of the people for the treatments of almost all common ailments. Usage of plants was based on the traditional heritage of knowledge. This knowledge may further be validated by pharmacological and phytochemical studies, to prevent any damage that could possibly occur due to usage of crude plants. The ethnobotanical survey is first of its kind in Mohmand Agency and is aimed to provide the baseline information about the human-plants interaction, with the hope that it will open new areas for further research (Table 18).

During the study 170 species belonging to 49 families were recorded that were in use of the people for different purposes, from food to fodder and from medicines to rituals. Different quantitative indices (UV, RI and RFC) were calculated to get a clearer picture of the usage and relative importance of the plants. Fuel was the most common use of plants with 158 (92%) species followed by fodder (69 species or 40.5%) and medicine (67 or 39.4%). Twenty species(11.76%) were in use as food, 6 (3.5%) as timber and 3 (1.8%) species were used for furniture purposes. There were 18 (10.5%) species that had miscellaneous uses (Figure 7).

The flora comprised of 43 dicots (87%), 4 monocots (8.2%) and 2 gymnosperms (4.2%) families. Most dominant families, in terms of species representation, were Asteraceae and Poaceae represented by 22 (45.8%) species each, followed by Brassicaceae and Fabaceae with 11 (22.9%) species each. Lamiaceae was represented by 9, Boraginaceae by 8, Amaranthaceae and Caryophyllaceae by 7 species each, Plantaginaceae by 6 and Apocynaceae, Solanaceae and Polygonaceae were represented by 5 species each. Geraniaceae was having 4 species, while Asparagaceae and Rhamnaceae were represented by 3 species each. Acanthaceae,

183

Caprifoliaceae, Malvaceae, Papveraceae, Rananculaceae, Rosaceae, Scrophulariaceae, Zygophyllaceae have their representation in the form 2 species each, while rest of the families (Aizoaceae, Amaryllidaceae, Arecaceae, Bignoniaceae, Cannabaceae, Capparaceae, Cleomaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Ephedraceae, Euphorbiaceae, Linaceae, Nitrariaceae, Nyctaginaceae, Oleaceae, Pinaceae, Plumbaginaceae, Primulaceae, Resedaceae, Rubiaceae, Salvadoraceae, Sapindaceae, Sapotaceae, Tamaricaceae, Thymelaeaceae, Urticaceae and Polygalaceae) were represented by only one species each. Some of the major species that were mostly used (for multipurpose) are Acacia modesta, A. nilotica, Monotheca buxifolia, Olea ferruginea, Ziziphus mauritiana, Cotoneaster nummularius, Albizia lebbeck, and Cymbopogon jwarancusa (Figure 2).

3.6.1. Ethnobotanical Importance of Plants Three quantitative indices were calculated for the assessment of the ethnobotanical importance of the plants in the study area. These indices are RI (Relative Importance), UV (Use Value) and RFC (Relative Frequency Citation). Species having high values for these indices were more important than others.

RFC (ranges from 0-1) is an indication of how many interviewees have mentioned a plant species as useful. Monotheca buxifolia was having the highest RFC value (0.97) which indicated that almost all the informants were aware of the usage of this plant. The lowest value bearing species were Papaver rhoeas (.02) and Ehretia obtusifolia (.05), which indicated their less importance. Ziziphus mauritiana (0.96), Z. nummularia (0.96), Acacia modesta (0.93), Cotoneaster nummularius (0.92), Peganum harmala (0.92), A. nilotica (0.91), Mentha longifolia (0.91), Pinus roxburghii (0.91), Dodonaea viscosa (0.90), Olea ferruginea (0.89), Cynodon dactylon (0.88) and Nannorrhops ritchiana (0.88) were some of the highly cited species (Table 18; Figure 8).

Use value (UV) is an important index showing the uses and information level of the local people about uses of a specific species. Highest value for UV was recorded for A. modesta (1.89) followed by M. buxifolia (1.76). These high values can be attributed to their high usage and inclination of the locals to these plants. A. nilotica is multipurpose tree and its different parts are used extensively. In the same manner M. buxifolia is a common and characteristic fruit of this area, wood and shoots of which are also used for different purposes. Lowest value was recorded for E. obtusifolia (0.07), an indication of the least usage of this plant. Other important species

184

with high use value were C. nummularius (1.66), A. nilotica (1.61), O. ferruginea (1.57), P. harmala (1.36), Z. mauritiana (1.28), M. longifolia (1.25), N. ritchiana, P.roxburghii (1.19 each), Fagonia indica (1.18) and Cymbopogon jwarancusa (1.15) as shown in table 18 and figure 9.

Relative Importance showed that how much a species is useful for different purposes (Galeano 2000, Torre-Cuadros and Islebe 2003). It ranges from 2 for A. modesta to .03 in case of E. obtusifolia and many other species (Table 18). The high RI value of A. modesta showed the versatility of the plant, as the plant is used for fuel, fodder, medicine, roofing, thatching, furniture, as honeybee attractant and for making agricultural tools. Other species with high RI values were A. nilotica (1.7), A. lebbeck (1.7), Z. mauritiana (1.6), O. ferruginea (1.5), M. buxifolia (1.4), H. contortus (1.4), Sageretia thea (1.36), Justicia adhatoda (1.3) and C. nummularius (1.2). These high values are an indication of the diversity of the usage of these plants (Table 18; Figure 10).

3.6.2. Statistical Analysis-Correlation of the Ethnobotanical Information Pearson Correlation Matrix was calculated for RI, UV and RFC. Correlation values showed a positive relationship among these values (Fig. 11). Correlation value between RFC and UV was 0.93, for RI and RFC it was 0.65 and 0.68 for UV and RI (Table 17; Figure 11).

1.1.1. Discussion-Ethnobotany Plants are used by people as medicine, fuel, fodder, timber wood and for other needs of life (Joshi et al., 1982), and that is the reason that vegetation has a great influence on lives of the people (FAO, 1995; Black, 1996). Mohmand Agency is a rural area and the people’s dependence upon plants is more (Malla and Chhetri, 2009) compared to urbanized areas. Some species were more important than others e.g. Acacia modesta, A. nilotica, Monotheca buxifolia, Olea ferruginea and Ziziphus mauritiana. These plants are used in different parts of Pakistan for common purposes including fuel, medicine and shelter (Murad et al., 2011; Badshah and Hussain, 2011; Rashid and Sarfraz, 2009; Shinwari and Qaiser, 2011; Memon, 2012a). A. modesta is a plant with many uses, and is extensively used as medicine (Murad et al., 2011), timber, honeybee attractant, fodder, fencing agent and in constructions (Sher et al., 2012).

185

The tree is a xerophyte and grows wild which is mostly found in countryside, rather than urbanized areas (Stewart, 1972; Sher et al., 2010; Hussain and Sher, 2005), a reason for its extensive use. Medicinally, the plant is very important and its different parts (oil, flowers, resins and bark) are used for different ailments (Sher et al., 2010) e.g. skeletal and muscular pains, chronic stomach disorders (Murad et al., 2011) and backache (Rashid et al., 2011). It is also a controlling agent in dysentery and is used as tonic (Sher et al., 2010; Hussain and Sher, 2005).

Acacia nilotica, a multipurpose tree with many uses (Singh et al., 2009), is another highly used species in this area, where it is used as fuel, fodder, medicine, timber wood, for thatching, roofing, and other miscellaneous purposes. In rural areas, where this plant is abundant, it is main source of fuel wood (Badshah and Hussain, 2011). This plant has anti-mutagenic, anticancer, anti-fungal, molluscicidal, cytotoxic, anti-diabetic, antioxidant, anti-bacteria, anti-hypertensive and antispasmodic activities (Gilani et al., 1999).

It is also used in West Africa against cancer, tumors, small pox, ulcer and liver and spleen disorders (Kalaivani and Methew, 2010). Gum obtained from this plant is astringent, emollient, anti-asthmatic, antipyretic and liver tonic (Baravkar et al., 2008). Pods are reported to have anti-diarrheal, anti-spasmodic, anti-hypertensive, antifertility and astringent qualities (Gilani et al., 1999; Asres et al., 2005; Singh et al., 2009). Seeds of this plant are antiplasmodial and spasmogenic (El-Tahir et al., 1999; Amos et al., 1999). The medicinal importance of this tree can be attributed to different kinds of biologically active compounds (Ali et al., 2012). Ethnobotanical importance of this plant is also acknowledged by ayurvedic practices in India (Sing et al., 2009b).

Some species are important fuel source in Mohmand Agency, in which Dodonaea viscosa is on top. According to the statements of the locals, this is the most commonly used fuel species. Barakatullah et al. (2015) have also reported that D. viscosa and Pinus roxburghii are the most preferred species for fuel purposes in hilly areas of Malakand. Some anti-protozoal, anti-microbial and hepatoprotective qualities have also been attributed to D. viscosa by Ali et al. (2014), Naidoo et al. (2012) and Muhammad et al. (2012).

186

160

140

120 100 80 60

40 NumberSpecies of 20 0 Fodder Medicine Fuel Food Misc. Timber Furniture Use Categories

Figure 7. Different plant use categories with respective number of species used

2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4

Relative Relative Improtance 0.2 0

Plant Species

Figure 8. Some of the important species on the bases of RI

187

U V

2 1.8 1.6

1.4 1.2 1

0.8 Use Use Value 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

Plant Species

Figure 9. Some of the important species on the bases of UV

0.95

0.9

0.85

0.8

0.75

Relative Relative Frequency Citation 0.7

Plant Species

Figure 10. Some of the Important Species on the bases of RFC

188

Some of the fruits are characteristic of the area, including Monotheca buxifolia (locally known as ―gwargwara‖): a highly used plant. The species is subtropical and is characteristic of mountainous regions of Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan (Shahina and Martin, 1998). It is distributed in different parts of Pakistan including Kala Chitta Hills, Zhob, Loralai, Gorakh Hills, Kohat, Drosh Chitral and District Attock (Nasir and Ali, 1972). The species is highly preferred in the rural areas (Khan et al., 2010; Al-Yahyai and Al-Nabhani, 2006) and is considered one of the most commonly used multipurpose species in mountainous regions of Pakistan (Hassan et al., 2014). The fruits of the plant, having a distinctive taste, are locally used as laxative, digestive and are good for urinary tract disorders (Rashid and Sarfraz, 2009). It is reported that M. buxifolia can be used as antioxidant against free radicals; this quality is due to presence of many bioactive compounds (Jan et al., 2013).

Olea ferruginea, a native species of Mediterranean region (Syria, Palestine, Italy, Spain, France, Greece, Turkey, Morocco and Algeria) covering almost 8 million hectares (Pereira et al., 2007; Guinda et al., 2004), is another plant with high usage value, mostly used as medicine. The plant grows in a wide range in sub-tropical areas in Himalayas and is spread from Kashmir (Pakistan) to Nepal. O. ferruginea has antioxidant (Aytul, 2010), anti-bacterial, anti- inflammatory, (Aliabadi et al., 2012; Upadhyay et al., 2010; Nora et al., 2012), antihypertensive (Hansen et al., 1996), hypoglycemic (Gonzalez et al., 1992), and hypocholesterolemic properties (Hussain et al., 2014). Triterpenes, Phenols, Oleuropein and flavonoids are various active compounds reported from the leaves of O. ferruginea, while oil of the plant is considered useful all over the world (Hussain et al., 2014).

Ziziphus mauritiana and Cotoneaster nummularius are used as fruits, along with M. buxifolia (Table 18). The former two plants are important not only because of their fruits, but also as fuel, timber wood and as medicine. High medicinal values of these plants make them a cheap source of medicine for the locals (Shinwari and Qaiser, 2011).

Fruits of Z. mauritiana are consumed as fresh, dry as well as in processed form (Memon, 2012a). It is a characteristic species of rural areas of Sindh province of Pakistan (Memon et al., 2012b) and is a well-known medicinal and nutritional plant (Ashraf, 2015). It is used in ulcers, cuts, abscesses, and as wounds healer; it is also used in fevers, swellings and pulmonary ailments. Its uses as sedative, laxative, anti-nausea, anti-diarrheal, anti-rheumatic, gonorrhea

189

curer, (Michel, 2002) and as anthelmintic (Hussain et al., 2008) have also been reported. The plant is useful for asthma, fever, gingivitis, liver diseases and epilepsy (Morton, 1987; Msonthi and Magombo, 1983).

Cotoneaster nummularius is utilized mainly as fruite, which is astringent and expectorant. Wood is used as fuel, while leaves are used as fodder. Humayun (2006) reported that C. nummularius is used for making agricultural tools, walking sticks and fencing around fields in hilly and some plain areas of Pakistan. This species is reported form Western Himalays (Haq et al., 2010) Buner (Humayun, 2003), Dir upper (Hussain et al., 2014), Mastuj Valley Chitral (Hussain, 2012) and Northern Pakistan (Inam-ur-Rahim, 2011).

Plants are easily and cheaply available to the people of Mohmand Agency mainly because of dependency of people on plants. There were many medicinally important species in Mohmand Agency that were considered as important as allopathic drugs. These medicinal plants are an important source for pharmaceutical substances (Pearce and Puroshothaman, 1992; Principe, 1991; Samant and Mohinder, 2003; Aggimarangsee et al., 2005; Shrestha and Dhillion, 2003; Thomas et al., 2008). Mentha longifolia, Peganum harmala, Fagonia indica and Tamarix indica are some of the important medicinal plants that are in use of the locals.

Mentha longifolia is aromatic herbs which mostly grow on moist soils and semi shady spots (Shinwari and Chaudheri, 1992; Qaiser and Nazimuddin, 1981; Sher and Khan, 2007; Ibrar et al., 2007; Shinwari et al., 2011). It is a common herbal medicine, mostly used for its activity in improving the health of the stomach and its antiseptic nature (Karousou et al., 2007). The plant is reported to have antispasmodic, anti-asthmatic, stimulant and carminative effects (Chopra et al., 1986). It is also utilized in treatment of headache, fever, digestive problems and many other minor ailments (Foster and Duke, 1990). M. longifolia is also used as vegetable along with some other plants including C. tuberculata, Malva neglecta and Trigonella incisa.

Fagonia indica is medicinaly used in the Mohmand Agency and is worldwide known for its medicinal value. The plant is used as antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, analgesic, astringent, antimicrobial, febrifuge and prophyltetic agent against small pox (Anil et al., 2012). Tamarix indica is an ethnobotanically important plant. Its bark is used as a wound healer. T. indica has more active compounds than other Tamarix species (Naz et al., 2013). Panhwar and Abro (2007)

190

reported that aerial parts of T. indica are used as diarrhea and dysentery controlling agent, while the bark is used as astringent and tonic. Plant decoction is anti-nociceptive (Sarker and Sarker, 2009), cytotoxic and diuretic (Rahman et al., 2011).

Caralluma tuberculata is a preferred vegetable, now declining with a very fast rate due to extremely high biotic pressure (Khalid and Shah, 2016). The plant is abundantly found on the mountains of Pak-Afghan border. The vegetable is a delicacy and is considered a good nutritious and medicinal plant. It is used both in fresh as well as cooked form (Ahmad et al., 2014). Wide usage of this plant in the history has been reported as vegetable and medicine (Girach et al., 2003). It is used for cancer, diabetes, scorpion sting, snakebites, skin rashes and inflammation (Adnan et al., 2014; Abdel-Sattar et al., 2007).

The area is rich in many medicinal plants, but keeping the overall concern of the people about the plants, it may have been observed that most of the species are declining with a very fast rate. Interviewee showed a serious concern about some of the characteristics species of the region, that they are used with high rate and probably they would not be able to preserve them for future generations. The senior folks further argued that some of the species like C. tuberculata, N. ritchiana, C. nummularia, Sageretia thea and O. ferruginea were more common in the days when they were kids, but now these species are becoming uncommon.

Plant diversity has been drastically changed in the previous few decades in the research area. Bibi et al. (2014a and 2014b) reported the same concerns about the local flora depletion in Saon Valley of Pakistan. In Pakistan, overall conservation measures of plants are slow due to enormous cutting, over grazing, poor collection techniques, high illiteracy in the area, smuggling of wood and non-serious and passive policies of the government (Humayun, 2003). There is a local conservatory system in the FATA called ―Nagha‖, under which the prescribed mountain or area is prohibited for cutting by locals, that if somebody cut even a single branch from that prescribed area, he will be heavily fined by the local council called ―Jarga‖ (Khan, 2016). This is a good practice, in keeping the preservation alive, but still the erosion of the flora is fast, as ―Nagha‖ system is applied for a period of few years and to some limited area. Due to the unrest and the week economical condition of the area (Murad et al., 2013) it is harder for the people to pay much attention to a ―minor‖ issue like conservation. It is on behalf of the government, media and scientists, to make aware the locals about the importance and value of the indigenous flora.

191

Table 17. Correlation Matrix-Relationship among RFC, UV and RI

RFC U V RI

RFC 1

U V 0.93 1

RI 0.65 0.68 1

Correlation Between UV, RI and RFC 2.5

1.5

Correlation 1

0.5

1 6

11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96

101 106 111 116 121 126 131 136 141 146 151 156 161 166 Species

U V RI RFC

Figure 11. Correlation among UV, RI and RFC

192

Table 18. Species, family and vernacular names with ethnobotanical indices of the plants of Mohmand Agency S.No Plant Name (Family) Local name Habit Use (s) and Description RFC U V RI

1. Acacia modesta Wall. Palosa T The plant is used as timber (roofing, doors, windows 0.93 1.89 2 and furniture), and for making agricultural tools. It is (Fabaceae) also used as fuel and medicine. Gum of this plant is

mixed with milk and honey and is used for backache and general weakness; extracts from branches are used for gas trouble and are very good for thatching. Roots are used as toothbrush (locally known as ―maswak‖).

2. Acacia nilotica (L.) Keekar T Plant is used as timber (roofs, door, windows and 0.91 1.61 1.7 Willd. ex Delile furniture) and for making agricultural tools. It is also (Fabaceae) used as fuel and medicine. Decoction of the bark is used against toothache. Green pods of the plant are used as fodder while branches are used as toothbrush (―maswak‖).

3. Achyranthes aspera L. Jishay H Decoction of the mature plant parts is used against 0.12 0.26 0.6 (Amaranthaceae) fever.

4. Aerva javanica (Burm. Kharh H The mature inflorescence of the plant is used by the 0.11 0.13 0.6 f.) Juss. Botay shepherds for making pillows. The plant is also used as (Amaranthaceae)

193

fuel.

5. Agrostis viridis Gouan Pashakalai H The local herders consider this plant as a good fodder 0.14 0.19 0.7 (Poaceae) for increasing quantity of milk in cows.

6. Ajuga bracteosa Wall. Paankash H Decoction of the plant is used as refrigerant. The plant 0.24 0.35 0.9 ex Benth. (Lamiaceae) is palatable, but not preferred.

7. Albizia lebbeck (L.) Sreekh S Bark powder of the plant is used against dysentery. 0.77 1.08 1.7 Benth. (Fabaceae) Extract obtained from the pods is used for curing influenza. The plant is a good source of fuel and is used for thatching fencing and roofing purposes.

8. Allium griffithianum Pyazakay H This plant is used for the treatment of pimples. 0.08 0.11 0.3 Boiss. (Amaryllidaceae)

9. Alyssum desertorum Sharshamy H The plant is used as fuel and fodder. 0.18 0.23 0.6 Stapf (Brassicaceae)

10. Anagallis arvensis L. Bandakay H Paste of the plant is applied on skin in a number of skin 0.16 0.37 1.2 (Primulaceae) problems. The plant is used as fodder; also children use its flowers for making jewelry for dolls.

11. Anchusa arvensis (L.) NA H It is used as fuel. 0.07 0.13 0.6 M. Bieb. (Boraginaceae)

194

12. Arabidopsis thaliana NA H Plant is used as fuel. 0.11 0.18 0.6 (L.) Heynh. (Brassicaceae)

13. Arenaria serpyllifolia L. NA H Used as fuel. 0.09 0.14 0.6 (Caryophyllaceae)

14. Aristida adscensionis L. Naree H Crushed plant is used for controlling excessive bleeding 0.67 0.98 1 (Poaceae) Wakha from wounds. It is also considered good in healing wounds.

15. Aristida cyanantha Nees Naree H Used in wound healing. It is a common source of 0.73 1.03 0.9 ex Steud. (Poaceae) Wakha fodder.

16. Arnebia griffithii Boiss. Peghumbri H Plant is considered a sign of spring and its flowers are 0.21 0.26 0.7 (Boraginaceae) considered effective for general treatment of any kind of Gul ailment.

17. Artemisia maritima Darorhan S Used commonly for fuel purposes; in some parts it is 0.18 0.55 0.6 Ledeb. (Asteraceae) considered an insect repelling agent.

18. Asparagus gracilis Thindonry H Plant is potted and is used for ornamental purposes. 0.22 0.25 0.9 Salisb. (Asparagaceae)

19. Asparagus setaceus Thindonry H Plant is potted and is used for ornamental purposes. 0.19 0.27 0.9 (Kunth) Jessop (Asparagaceae)

195

20. Astragalus hamosus L. Khatmema H The plant is considered poisonous. The smoke of pods 0.11 0.17 0.6 (Fabaceae) is used as insect repellent.

21. Astragalus scorpoides Mamoon H The plant is a sign of spring and is commonly used as 0.27 0.33 0.9 Pourr. ex Willd. fodder by the grazing animals. It is considered good for (Fabaceae) improving quality and quantity of milk in sheep and goats.

22. Astragalus tribuloides Mamoon H The plant is a sign of spring and is palatable. It is 0.19 0.35 0.9 Delile (Fabaceae) considered good for improving quantity and quality of milk in sheep and goats.

23. Astragalus Mamoon H The plant is a sign of spring and is palatable. It is 0.29 0.37 0.9 pyrrhotrichus Boiss. considered good for improving quantity and quality of (Fabaceae) milk in sheep and goats.

24. Boerhavia procumbens Ensat H Used as fresh fodder. 0.07 0.18 0.6 Banks ex Roxb. (Nyctaginaceae)

25. Brachypodium Warokay H Plant is used both fresh as well as hay fodder. 0.1 0.14 0.6 distachyon (L.) P. Jawdar Beauv. (Poaceae)

26. Bromus pectinatus Naray H Plant is used as fresh as well as hay fodder 0.13 0.16 0.6 Thunb. (Poaceae) Jawdar

196

27. Calendula arvensis L. Zear Gulay H Plant is used as fodder but not generally preferred. 0.27 0.76 0.9 (Asteraceae) Flowers of the plant are dried, crushed and are used for stomach problems.

28. Calotropis procera Spalmai H Latex of the plant is used for abdominal pain and for 0.69 0.92 0.8 (Aiton) W.T. Aiton killing lice. Dry powdered roots are used against snake (Apocynaceae) bite.

29. Cannabis sativa L. Bhang H It is a narcotic agent and refrigerant. ―Bhangawa‖ is a 0.61 1.01 0.8 (Cannabaceae) local drink prepared form extract of this plant.When mixed with soda and dry fruits, bhangawa is used as aphrodisiac. It is also extensively used for fuel purposes.

30. Capparis decidua Kirha S The plant is used for making agricultural tools, and as 0.34 0.68 1.2 (Forssk.) Pax fuel. It is a good honey bee attractant. Fruits are edible. (Capparaceae)

31. Capsella bursa-pastoris Bhambesa H Used in crushed form for healing wounds; also used as 0.17 0.36 0.9 (L.) Medik. fodder. (Brassicaceae)

32. Caralluma tuberculata Pamankay H This plant is used as vegetable and is cooked with 0.67 1.13 1.1 N.E. Br. (Apocynaceae) different kinds of condiments. It is considered good against obesity, urinary disorders and stomach

197

problems.

33. Cardaria draba (L.) Ghana H Used as fuel. 0.06 0.08 0.3 Desv. (Brassicaceae)

34. Carthamus lanatus L. Kareza H The plant is used as an effective agent against heart 0.21 0.57 0.7 (Asteraceae) burn and stomach disorders.

35. Carthamus oxycantha Kareza H Used in cure of heart burn and stomach disorders. 0.27 0.55 0.6 M.Bieb. (Asteraceae)

36. Cassia senna L. Jinjanrh S The plant is a source of fuel and the pods are used 0.44 0.75 0.9 (Fabaceae) against mouth sours.

37. Cenchrus ciliarus L. Peshlakai H Extract of the plant is used in controlling cough. 0.33 0.39 0.6 (Poaceae)

38. Centaurea iberica Ghana H Used as fuel and is considered a blood purifier. 0.07 0.26 0.9 Trevir. ex Spreng. (Asteraceae)

39. Chenopodium album L. Naray H The plant is used as purgative in crushed form. It is also 0.39 0.79 0.9 (Amaranthaceae) Sarmay used as vegetable and fodder.

40. Chenopodium murale L. Perh H Used as purgative in crushed form. It is also used as 0.68 0.71 0.6 (Amaranthaceae) Sarmay vegetable and fodder.

41. Chrysopogon serrulatus NA H Used as fuel. 0.1 0.19 0.6 Trin. (Poaceae)

198

42. Citrullus colocynthis Maraghony H Dry fruits of this plant are used for abdominal pain. The 0.27 0.35 0.6 (L.) Schrad. plant is also used as fuel. It is considered poisonous (Cucurbitaceae) when taken in large amount.

43. Clematis graveolens Speen H It is a poisonous plant which is used to cure abdominal 0.15 0.28 0.6 Lindl. (Rananculaceae) Gwalay discomforts in animals. It is given to animals mixed with bread in small amount.

44. Cleome brachycarpa M. NA H Only goats and sheep graze on this plant. 0.09 0.35 0.3 Vahl ex Triana and Planchon (Cleomaceae)

45. Coronopus didymus (L.) Skha Botay H Used as fodder. Milk of the animals after consuming 0.55 0.83 0.6 Sm. (Brassicaceae) this plant has a specific taste which is usually preferred by some locals. Dried powdered form of the plant is used against obesity.

46. Cotoneaster Mamanrha T Fruits of this plantare edible and have a distinct taste. 0.92 1.66 1.2 nummularius Fisch. and The braches of the plant are used as fuel.Wood is used C.A. Mey. (Rosaceae) for making different kinds of agricultural tools.

47. Cousinia prolifera Jaub. Kareza H The plant has medicinal importance and is used as pain 0.23 0.25 1 and Spach (Asteraceae) killer in powdered form.

48. Crepis sancta (L.) Babc. Ziarh H Used as common fodder for cattles. It is also used in 0.49 1.03 0.3 (Asteraceae)

199

Gwalay powdered form to improve brain health.

49. Cymbopogon Sargarhay H Plant is spread in the lawns of village mosques for 0.79 1.15 1.2 jwarancusa (Jones) covering land surface. It is a substitute of carpet in Schult. (Poaceae) villages. It is an insect and arthropod repellent. The plant is used as fresh and hay fodder. It is thought that it has the ability to increase milk productivity of animals.

50. Cynodon dactylon (L.) Kabal H This is a very popular palatable grass. Medicinally, the 0.88 0.81 1 Pers. (Poaceae) plant is used in blood clotting of wounds. The dry plant is powdered and is applied on wounds of different origins for healing.

51. Datura innoxia Mill. Batura S The plant is narcotic and is also used against burnt 0.13 0.17 0.7 Solanaceae wounds.

52. Diclipetra bupleuroides NA H The plant is used as fuel. 0.09 0.16 0.3 Nees (Acanthaceae)

53. Dodonaea viscosa Jacq. Ghawarasky S The plant is most common fuel source. Paste of leaves 0.9 1.05 0.9 (Sapindaceae) is made into a poultice and is used for healing wounds. It is also used for hedging and thatching purposes.

54. Duchesnea indica Da Zmaky H Used as fodder. 0.08 0.13 0.3 (Andrews) Teschem. Toot (Rosaceae)

200

55. Echinops echinatus Azghay H The plant is used against skin diseases in animals. It is 0.09 0.27 0.3 Roxb. (Asteraceae) also used as a source of fuel.

56. Ehretia obtusifolia NA S It is used as fodder and fuel. 0.05 0.07 0.3 Hochst. ex A. DC. (Boraginaceae)

57. Emex spinosa (L.) Murdar H The plant is considered a nuisance by the local people 0.06 0.12 0.9 Campd. (Polygonaceae) Botay and only use of the plants is as fuel.

58. Ephedra intermedia Khwaga S Used as fuel and washing scotches. It is considered that 0.36 0.58 0.6 Schrenk ex C.A. Mey. the plant can reduce stomach acidity. (Ephedraceae)

59. Eragrostis papposa Gaya H Plant is a common fodder and is used as fuel. 0.18 0.32 0.6 (Roem. and Schult.) Steud. (Poaceae)

60. Erigeron trilobus Geedarh H Seeds of the plant are considered effective in liver 0.12 0.29 0.6 (Decne.) Boiss. Botay disorders; also used as fuel. (Asteraceae)

61. Erodium alnifolium NA H Used as fodder 0.05 0.12 0.3 Guss. (Geraniaceae)

62. Erodium ciconium (L.) NA H Plant is used as fodder. 0.08 0.15 0.3 L'Hér. ex Aiton (Geraniaceae)

201

63. Erodium cicutarium (L.) NA H Used as fodder. 0.09 0.13 0.3 L'Hér. ex Aiton (Geraniaceae)

64. Euphorbia granulata Warha H Plant is used in colic and is effective against 0.11 0.16 1 Forssk. (Euphorbiaceae) Shodapai rheumatism. It is also used as body tonic in mixed form with different oils.

65. Fagonia indica Burm. f. Azghakay H Used as refrigerant and blood purifier. It is also used 0.82 1.18 0.9 (Zygophyllaceae) against jaundice and indifferent stomach problems.

66. Farsetia jacquemontii NA H Plant is considered a blood purifier and is used against 0.19 0.38 1 Hook. f. and Thomson pains of bones and muscles. (Brassicaceae)

67. Filago hurdwarica Kharh H Used as fodder. 0.16 0.29 0.3 (Wall. ex DC.) Botay Wagenitz (Asteraceae)

68. Filago pyramidata L. Kharh H Plant is used as fodder. 0.17 0.27 0.3 (Asteraceae) Botay

69. Forsskaolea tenacissima Thora H Used as expectorant, brain tonic, and is effective against 0.37 0.41 0.8 L. (Urticaceae) Panrha obesity. It is also used as fresh and hay fodder.

70. Fumaria indica Pugsley Shatara H Plant is used against whooping cough, fever and 0.23 0.42 1.1 (Papveraceae) hypertension. It is also used as blood purifier, and both

202

fresh as well as hay fodder.

71. Galium aparine L. Marghai H Poultice made from paste of the plant is applied on 0.23 0.25 1 (Rubiaceae) Khpa broken bones and cramps. Also used as fuel.

72. Geranium rotundifolium Khaperak, H It is effective against stomach disorders and is also used 0.19 0.29 0.6 L. (Geraniaceae) as fodder. Khaperak

73. Goldbachia laevigata NA H Plant is a fodder and is also used as fuel. 0.06 0.18 0.6 (M. Bieb.) DC. (Brassicaceae)

74. Heliotropium Lingatai H Paste is made form fresh stem and is warmed in a cotton 0.14 0.23 0.7 europaeum L. cloth then applied on scorpion sting. Dry plant powder (Boraginaceae) is a blood purifier.

75. Heliotropium NA H Used as fodder and fuel. 0.08 0.2 0.6 ovalifolium Forssk. (Boraginaceae)

76. Herneraria hirsuta L. Khor Botay H Plant is palatable herb. 0.14 0.18 0.3 (Caryophyllaceae)

77. Herneraria cinerea DC Khor Botay H Plant is used as fodder by grazing animals. 0.2 0.21 0.3 (Caryophyllaceae)

78. Heteropogon contortus Barwaza H Used as fresh and hay fodder; stretched to cover 0.69 1.06 1.4 (L.) P. Beauv. ex Roem. mosque’s floors in some rural areas. It is considered

203

and Schult. (Poaceae) good for wound healing and scorpion sting.

79. Hordeum murinum L. Warha H Used as fresh and hay fodder and is also used as 0.6 0.88 1 (Poaceae) Lashaka refrigerant and diuretic.

80. Hordeum jubatum L. Lashaka H Used as fresh and hay fodder; it is used as refrigerant 0.6 0.88 1 (Poaceae) and diuretic.

81. Ifloga spicata (Forssk.) NA H Plant has its uses in the form of fodder as well as fuel. 0.1 0.12 0.3 Sch. Bip. (Asteraceae)

82. Justicia adhatoda L. Bhansa S Decoction of the plant is used in pneumonia and general 0.46 0.89 1.3 (Acanthaceae) fever. Plant is good honey bee attractant and soil binder. It is also used for thatching and roofing purposes.

83. Kickxia incana (Wall.) Prewatkai H Used as fodder 0.12 0.23 0.3 Pennell (Plantaginaceae)

84. Kickxia ramosissima Prewatkai H Used as fodder 0.16 0.21 0.3 Janch. (Plantaginaceae)

85. Lactuca serriola L. Shodapai H Plant is used against tooth decay and is considered a 0.1 0.18 0.7 (Asteraceae) worm controlling agent.

86. Lactuca tatarica (L.) Shodapai H Plant is used against tooth decay and is considered a 0.12 0.19 0.7 C.A. Mey. (Asteraceae) worm controlling agent.

204

87. Lamarckia aurea (L.) Wakha H The plant is a common fodder. 0.16 0.21 0.6 Moench (Poaceae)

88. Launaea procmbens Shodapai H The plant is considered very useful against eye 0.09 0.13 0.9 (Roxb.) Ramayya and irritations and infections. It is mixed with kohl, for Rajagopal (Asteraceae) improving eye site.

89. Lepidium apetalum Alam H Seeds of this plant are mixed in various drinks and are 0.09 0.45 0.3 Willd. (Brassicaceae) considered good for improving health of the stomach.

90. Limonium NA H Used as fuel. 0.08 0.09 0.6 macrorhabdon Kuntze (Plumbaginaceae)

91. Linum corymbulosum Zearh H Dry powder made from all parts of the plant is used in 0.37 0.58 0.3 Rchb. (Linaceae) Gwalay heart burn. Also used as fodder.

92. Lonicera japonica NA H Used as fuel. 0.11 0.14 0.9 Thunb. (Caprifoliaceae)

93. Malcolmia africana (L.) Kharorha H Plant is boiled and the extract is mixed with milk for 0.23 0.35 0.9 W.T. Aiton curing stomatitis. It is also grazed by sheep and goats. (Brassicaceae)

94. Malcolmia cabulica Kharorha H Extract is obtained after boiling the plant and is mixed 0.14 0.31 0.7 (Boiss.) Hook. f. and with milk for curing stomatitis.It is also grazed by sheep Thomson (Brassicaceae) and goats.

205

95. Malva neglecta Wallr. Panerak H Plant is extensively used as vegetable and is considered 0.29 0.81 1.2 (Malvaceae) good in improving brain efficiency. It is also used as fodder.

96. Malva parviflora L. Panerak H Used extensively as vegetable and it is considered 0.47 0.81 1.2 (Malvaceae) important in improving brain efficiency. Plant is also used as fodder.

97. Medicago minima (L.) Speshatay H Plant is used as vegetable. Paste of the plant is mixed 0.56 0.63 1 L. (Fabaceae) with other condiments and is used in fresh form to improve health of stomach. It is also used as fodder.

98. Mentha longifolia (L.) Eenalay H It is good in relieving abdominal discomforts. Dry 0.91 1.25 1.2 Huds. (Lamiaceae) powdered leaves are very effective against gas trouble. Decoction of the plant is effective against chest pain and backache. A paste called ―chakni‖ is made from the plant, and is used as delicacy in cuisine.

99. Micromeria biflora NA H Used as fuel and fodder. 0.12 0.16 0.3 (Buch-Ham. ex D. Don) Benth. (Lamiaceae)

100. Misopates orontium (L.) NA H Used as fuel. 0.08 0.09 0.3 Raf. (Plantaginaceae)

101. Monotheca buxifolia Gwargara T Decoction of the plant is used to cure hiccups. Oil 0.97 1.76 1.4 (Falc.) A. DC.

206

(Sapotaceae) obtained from seeds are used against arthritis. The fruits are used fresh as well as in dried form.

102. Nannorrhops ritchiana Mayzaray T Extract of the leaves are used against physical eye 0.88 1.19 1.1 (Griff.) Aitch. injury. The leaves are extensively used for making mats, (Arecaceae) baskets, caps and other handicrafts. Plant that is grown in mosques is revered and is considered cure for almost all diseases. Most important usage of this plan is that leaves are weaved into speciel cordage which is used for weaving beds and chairs.

103. Nepeta raphanorhiza Banapsha H Used as fodder as well as fuel. 0.15 0.3 0.6 Benth. (Lamiaceae)

104. Nerium indicum Mill. Ganderay S Extract from the plant is used in different skin disorders. 0.87 0.78 1.2 (Apocynaceae) Plant is a good honey bee attractant.

105. Nonea caspica (Willd.) NA H It is used as fuel. 0.13 0.14 0.3 G. Don Boraginaceae

106. Nonea edgeworthii A. NA H The plant is used as fuel. 0.12 0.14 0.3 DC. (Boraginaceae)

107. Olea ferruginea Royle Khona T Oil of the plant is extremely useful and used for almost 0.89 1.57 1.5 (Oleaceae) all sorts of ailments. The oil is a skin, scalp and brain health improving agent. It increases the health of the

207

skin when applied in pure form. It is considered to increase male potency. The leaves of this plant are used against diabetes. Decoction made from different parts of the plant is used for toothache. The elders use the shoots of the plant as walking stick. Handles of knives and agricultural tools are made from the wood of this plant are highly valued compare to handles made from other kind of wood.

108. Oligomeris linifolia NA H The plant is used as fodder. 0.13 0.2 0.3 (Vahl) J.F. Macbr. (Resedaceae)

109. Onosma hispida Wall. Gozabanrh H Plant is used by locals for improving brain health and 0.16 0.21 0.3 ex G. Don efficiency. (Boraginaceae)

110. Otostegia limbata Spin S Leaves are crushed and made into poultice which is 0.12 0.49 0.9 (Benth.) Boiss. Azghay applied on pimples. It is also used for fencing and (Lamiaceae) hedging purposes.

111. Papaver rhoeas L. Reedi Gul H The plant is a sign of spring. It is considered an 0.02 0.11 0.6 (Papveraceae) ornamental plant in the fields.

112. Peganum harmala L. Speelanay H Plant parts and seeds are partially burnt and the smokeis 0.92 1.36 1.1 (Nitrariaceae) considered to give protection from evil stares. The

208

smoke is considered to increase the spiritual strength of mind. Shoots are crushed, warmed and the paste is placed on injured and inflamed regions of the body as remedy. Plant is also considered as insect repellent.

113. Pennisetum oreintale Baajra H Seeds are usually fed to domesticated birds. It is also 0.76 0.83 0.9 Rich. (Poaceae) used as fresh as well as hay fodder. Bread is prepared form the flour.

114. Pentanema vestitum Y. NA H The plant is used as fuel as well as fodder. 0.21 0.26 0.6 Ling (Asteraceae)

115. Periploca aphylla Bararha S The plant is burnt into ash which is mixed with tobacco 0.32 0.81 0.7 Decne. (Apocynaceae) for making snuff. The fresh parts of the plant are used by the local kids as chewing gum.

116. Phagnalon niveum NA H Used as fodder. 0.11 0.24 0.3 Edgew. (Asteraceae)

117. Phalaris minor Retz. Wakha H Crushed plant is applied on fresh wounds for controlling 0.19 0.37 0.6 (Poaceae) bleeding and on old wound for healing. Also used as fresh and hay fodder.

118. Phleum paniculatum Gaya H Plant is a source of fresh and hay fodder. 0.09 0.31 0.3 Huds. (Poaceae)

209

119. Pinus roxburghii Sarg. Nakhtar T The plant is considered the best and valuable source of 0.91 1.19 1 (Pinaceae) timer in the area. It is also used as fuel. Gum (―Chirh‖ in local language) is obtained from the stem which has multipurpose uses.

120. Plantago lanata Lag. Speghol H The seeds are mixed with local drinks and used in 0.27 0.38 0.7 and Rodr. abdominal discomforts. (Plantaginaceae)

121. Plantago ovata Forssk. Speghol H The seeds are mixed with local drinks and used in 0.19 0.38 0.7 (Plantaginaceae) abdominal discomforts.

122. Poa bulbosa L. Da Ubo H Plant is a common fodder. 0.24 0.31 1 (Poaceae) Gaya

123. Poa annua L. (Poaceae) Da Ubo H Common fodder. 0.2 0.31 1 Gaya

124. Polygala NA H Used as fodder. 0.28 0.3 0.3 hohenackeriana var. rhodopea Velen. (Polygalaceae)

125. Polygonum plebeium R. NA H Used as fuel. 0.16 0.21 0.3 Br. (Polygonaceae)

126. Pterachaenia stewartii NA H Used as fodder. 0.09 0.18 0.3 (Hook.f.) R.R. Stewart

210

(Asteraceae)

127. Pupalia lappacea (L.) Jeshay H The decoction obtained from the plant is used in 0.09 0.2 0.3 Juss. (Amaranthaceae) stomach pain.

128. Rananculus muricatus Zearh H The plant is fed to pregnant animals to facilitate 0.12 0.32 0.6 L. (Rananculaceae) Gwalay delivery.

129. Rhazya stricta Decne. Gandeer S The extract obtained from the plant is used as blood 0.54 0.91 0.8 (Apocynaceae) purifier. It is also effective against cough and is a good expectorant. It is also a good source of fuel.

130. Rostraria cristata (L.) Gaya H Used as fodder as well as fuel. 0.1 0.42 0.6 Tzvelev (Poaceae)

131. Rumex dentatus L. Shalkhay H Plant is cooked as vegetable and is also used as fodder. 0.39 0.44 1 (Polygonaceae) Also used in different problems of stomach.

132. Rumex hastatus D. Don Shalkhay H Plant is cooked as vegetable and is used as fodder. It is 0.34 0.46 1 Polygonaceae also used in different problems of stomach.

133. Rumex vesicarius L. Tarookay H The plant is used as vegetable in fresh form. It has a 0.21 0.33 0.9 (Polygonaceae) distinctive sour taste. The plant is used in different problems of stomach.

134. Sageretia thea (Osbeck) Mamanrha S Fruits are edible and the wood of this plant is used for 0.67 1.01 1.3 M.C. Johnst. making handles of agricultural tools, especially handles

211

(Rhamnaceae) of knives. Fruits are considered to improve eye site and general eye health.

135. Salsola kali L. Warkhary H Used as dish scotch. 0.08 0.14 0.3 (Amaranthaceae)

136. Salvadora persica L. Maswak T The shoots and roots of the plant are used as ―maswak‖ 0.61 0.86 0.9 (Salvadoraceae) (a toothbrush). Wood is used for many purposes including fuel.

137. Salvia aegyptiaca L. NA H Plant is used as fodder as well as fuel. 0.21 0.22 0.6 (Lamiaceae)

138. Salvia moocroftiana Khardag H Plant is a refrigerant and is considered good in stomach 0.14 0.23 1 Wall. ex Benth. problems. It is also used for ornamental purposes. (Lamiaceae)

139. Saussurea heteromalla NA H The plant is used for improving health of muscles and 0.06 0.08 0.6 (D. Don) Hand-Mazz. bones. It is administered both orally and externally as (Asteraceae) balm mixed with oils.

140. Scabiosa olivieri Coult. NA H Used as fodder and fuel. 0.07 0.13 0.6 (Caprifoliaceae)

141. Scilla griffithii Hochr. Lala H Extract obtained from boiled leaves is mixed with 0.08 0.31 0.6 (Asparagaceae) drinks and is used in morning for improving stomach health.

212

142. Scrophularia striata Khararhai H Used against stomach worms and is considered 0.14 0.41 0.3 Boiss. poisonous in high amounts. (Scrophulariaceae)

143. Silene apetala Willd. Mangoti H Plant is used as fodder. 0.09 0.15 0.3 (Caryophyllaceae)

144. Silybum marianum (L.) Lachidana H Seeds are used against hepatitis. Seeds are mixed with 0.45 0.73 0.9 Gaertn. (Asteraceae) molasses and are eaten by kids just as a sweet dish.

145. Sisymbrium irio L. Ooray H Seeds of this plant are mixed in pickles. Plant is also a 0.19 0.29 0.6 (Brassicaceae) good source of fodder.

146. Solanum nigrum L. Kach H Plant is used against stomach disorders. It is also 0.28 0.73 0.9 (Solanaceae) Macho consumed as vegetable. The fruits are eaten by kids.

147. Solanum surattense Zear H Plant is considered poisonous and is used in controlling 0.34 0.63 1 Burm. f. (Solanaceae) Azghay tooth worms. It is also used in skin irritations.

148. Sonchus asper (L.) Hill Shodapai H Plant is given to livestock when they are unwilling to 0.09 0.42 0.6 (Asteraceae) give proper amount of milk, especially when their calf is dead.

149. Spergula arvensis L. Resha H Used as fodder. 0.15 0.23 0.3 (Caryophyllaceae)

150. Suaeda aegyptiaca Warkharhy H It is used for treatment of various eye problems. Fresh 0.31 0.45 1 (Hasselq.) Zohary

213

(Amaranthaceae) plant is also used as dish scotch.

151. Tamarix indica Willd. Ghaz T Bark of the plant is warmed, crushed, made into powder 0.49 1.14 1.1 (Tamaricaceae) and is applied on burnt wounds to heal it. Decoction of this plant is used against stomach and eye problems. Wood is useful for making furniture and handles of agricultural tools.

152. Tara xacum Zeargwalay H Used for washing dishes. 0.21 0.62 0.3 officinaleF.H. Wigg. (Asteraceae)

153. Tecomella NA T Used for ornamental purposes. It is also used as fencing 0.38 0.69 0.6 undulata(Sm.) Seem. and hedging agent around the crop fields. (Bignoniaceae)

154. Tetrapogon villosus Wakha H Used as fodder. 0.39 0.56 0.3 Desf. (Poaceae)

155. Teucrium stocksianum Mashtera H Used to kill worms in the intestinal tract and in other 0.36 0.81 0.5 Boiss. (Lamiaceae) stomach problems. Nose bleeding is also reduced by utilizing this plant. The powdered form is given to domesticated animals for increasing their heat endurance during summer.

156. Themeda anathera Ugad Botay H Used as fodder. 0.17 0.37 0.3 (Nees ex Steud.) Hack.

214

(Poaceae)

157. Thymelaea passerina Zangali H Used for washing dishes 0.05 0.13 0.3 (L.) Coss. and Germ. Warkharhy (Thymelaeaceae)

158. Trianthema Ensut H Plant is applied in paste form on skin to combat various 0.21 0.42 0.9 portulacastrum L. problems of skin. It is a common fodder plant during (Aizoaceae) summer.

159. Tribulus terrestris L. Markondai H Used to increase urinary retention. 0.17 0.33 0.6 (Zygophyllaceae)

160. Trigonella incisa Malkhwazy H Used as vegetable and fodder.Vegetable form is 0.45 0.69 1 Hornemann ex Fischer preferred by aged people and it is considered that it and Meyer (Fabaceae) gives general strength to the body.

161. Vaccaria hispanica Mangotay H Used commonly as fodder and the fruits are eaten by 0.05 0.22 0.6 (Mill.) Rauschert kids. (Caryophyllaceae)

162. Velezia rigida L. NA H Used as fodder and is mostly consumed by the browsing 0.08 0.18 0.3 (Caryophyllaceae) mammals.

163. Verbascum thapsus L. Khar H Decoction of the plant is used in controlling sneezing 0.31 0.53 0.6 (Scrophulariaceae) Ghwag and cough. Also used as fodder.

164. Veronica biloba L. Bandaki H Used as fodder. 0.05 0.2 0.6

215

(Plantaginaceae)

165. Vicia sativa L. Pali Botay H The plant is commonly used as fodder. Pods and seeds 0.26 0.34 0.6 (Fabaceae) are eaten by children.

166. Withania coagulans Khamazory S The latex is used for fermenting milk and is goodfor 0.72 0.93 0.6 (Stocks) Dunal lowering sugar level. It is also used as fuel. (Solanaceae)

167. Withania somnifera (L.) Kotilal S It is used to increase the fertility of a women. The kids 0.61 0.84 0.6 Dunal (Solanaceae) make necklaces from its fruits.

168. Ziziphora tenuior L. NA H Used as fuel as well as fodder. 0.08 0.29 0.6 (Lamiaceae)

169. Ziziphus mauritiana Bera T The powdered leaves mixed with oils are used as hair 0.96 1.28 1.6 Lam. (Rhamnaceae) tonic. Fine quality of walking sticks is made from its branches. It is a good source of timber and a good honey bee attractant. Fruits are edible while roots are used for making toothbrushes.

170. Ziziphus nummularia Karkanda S Fruits are edible but not preferred. Plant is mostly used 0.96 1.07 0.6 (Burm. f.) Wight and for fuel and hedge purposes. Arn. (Rhamnaceae)

216

1.2. Palatability of Vegetation

Accessibility of the grazing animals to a plant is a factor that determines the palatability of vegetation. There are many factors including physical and chemical characteristics of the plants which determine the relative response of the animals toward them (Badshah, 2013; Heady, 1964). In Mohmand Agency out of 170 total species, 68 were highly palatable, 39 moderately, 25 less and 38 species were non-palatable. High palatability was a character of family Poaceae, where 17 species were reported to be highly palatable, followed by Brassicaceae (9 species), Asteraceae (7 species), Boraginaceae (5 species) and Fabaceae (4 species). Asteraceae and Geraniaceae were having the highest number of moderately palatable species (4 species each). Fabaceae and Caryophyllaceae were next in order with 3 species each as moderately palatable. Asteraceae were having 4 species that were less palatable which made it the highest less palatable species having family, followed by Lamiaceae with 3 species. In the same manner highest number of non-palatable species was also found in family Asteraceae (7 species). Lamiaceae and Solanaceae being second with 4 species each (Table 19).

Palatability of a plant is decided by a particular sense of the animals (Heath et al., 1985). It is a major factor that determines the diversity and richness of a community; less palatable species tend to be more abundant compared to more palatable species. Many factors are responsible for the degree of palatability of vegetation. These factors may be animal or plant based factors. Animal-based factors include hunger, general-health, pregnancy and differential preference of foraging animal. Plant factors that are responsible for determining the palatability of vegetation includes maturity of the plant, seasonal availability, phenology, growth stage, chemical and morphological nature, accessibility to the plant/relative position of the plant and relative abundance of the associated plants (Wahid, 1990; Kababia et al., 1992; Grunwaldt et al., 1994; Nyamangara and Ndlovu, 1995).

It was a general observation in the area that goats were more likely to graze on shrubs, while sheep liked to feed on herbs. These results are in conformity with many of the findings of palatability-based studies (Wilson et al., 1995; Huston, 1978; Grunwaldt et al., 1994; Khan, 1996). Sheep like fresh fodder owing to its odor and taste (Black and Kenney, 1984) while goats can consume as high as 79-86% of the dry forage during winter season (Kababia et al., 1992). The sheep and goats feed on different species, but this difference comes to lesser extent during 217

autumn and winter, when plants availability decreases. Preference of animals for their forage depends upon season (Nyamangara and Ndlovu, 1995). In growing season plant diversity is high and animals mostly feed on grasses (50%) but toward the end of the growing preferences changes from grasses to more shrubby and perennial vegetation because of the less or non- availability of herbaceous vegetation (Migongo-Bake and Hansen, 1987).

Most important fraction of animal diet is grasses, which are more preferred, as shown by Migongo-Bake and Hansen (1987). They reported that more than 50% of the forage species were grasses in rangelands of Africa. Fruits and flowers could also be used by some animals, which are season dependent (Pfister and Malechek 1986). Shrubs are the next source of fodder in the absence of grasses and forbs (Lichacar et al., 1996). In dry regions use of shrubs by foraging animals increases as reported in some rangelands of Baluchistan; animals fed on 51-81% of shrubby species, rather than grasses by Waheed (1990).

Although palatable species are an important source of food for the browsing animals, grazing and browsing has a very significant impact on the vegetation and reduces the biodiversity and plant cover of an area, which in turn has many deleterious impacts on the climate and soil (Liu et al., 1996; Hickman et al., 1996; Batanouny, 1996; Makulbekova, 1996; Hussain and Chaghtai, 1984; Hussain and Durrani, 2007, 2008).

Table 19. Species with families and respective level of palatability

S.N. Family/Species HP MP LP NP Acanthaceae 1 0 0 1 1 Diclipetra bupleuroides Nees 1 0 0 0 2 Justicia adhatoda L. 0 0 0 1 Aizoaceae 0 1 0 0 3 Trianthema portulacastrum L. 0 1 0 0 Amaranthaceae 3 1 1 2 4 Achyranthes aspera L. 0 1 0 0 5 Aerva javanica (Burm. f.) Juss. 0 0 0 1 6 Chenopodium album L. 0 0 0 1 7 Chenopodium murale L. 1 0 0 0 8 Pupalia lappacea (L.) Juss. 1 0 0 0 9 Salsola kali L. 1 0 0 0

218

10 Suaeda aegyptiaca (Hasselq.) Zohary 0 0 1 0 Amaryllidaceae 0 0 0 1 11 Allium griffithianum Boiss. 0 0 0 1 Apocynaceae 2 0 0 3 12 Calotropis procera (Aiton) W.T. Aiton 0 0 0 1 13 Caralluma tuberculata N.E. Br. 1 0 0 0 14 Nerium indicum Mill. 0 0 0 1 15 Periploca aphylla Decne. 1 0 0 0 16 Rhazya stricta Decne. 0 0 0 1 Arecaceae 0 1 0 0 17 Nannorrhops ritchiana (Griff.) Aitch. 0 1 0 0 Asparagaceae 1 1 1 0 18 Asparagus gracilis Salisb. 1 0 0 0 19 Asparagus setaceus (Kunth) Jessop 0 0 1 0 20 Scilla griffithii Hochr. 0 1 0 0 Asteraceae 7 4 4 7 21 Lactuca tatarica (L.) C.A. Mey. 0 1 0 0 22 Lactuca tatarica L. 0 0 0 1 23 Artemisia maritima Ledeb. 0 0 0 1 24 Calendula arvensis L. 0 1 0 0 25 Carthamus lanatus L. 0 0 0 1 26 Carthamus oxycantha M.Bieb. 0 0 0 1 27 Centaurea iberica Trevir. ex Spreng. 0 1 0 0 28 Cousinia prolifera Jaub. and Spach 0 1 0 0 29 Crepis sancta (L.) Babc. 1 0 0 0 30 Echinops echinatus Roxb. 0 0 1 0 31 Erigeron trilobus (Decne.) Boiss. 1 0 0 0 32 Filago hurdwarica (Wall. ex DC.) Wagenitz 0 0 1 0 33 Filago pyramidata L. 1 0 0 0 34 Ifloga spicata (Forssk.) Sch. Bip. 1 0 0 0 35 Launaea procmbens (Roxb.) Ramayya and Rajagopal 1 0 0 0 36 Pentanema vestitum Y. Ling 0 0 1 0 37 Phagnalon niveum Edgew. 0 0 0 1 38 Pterachaenia stewartii (Hook.f.) R.R. Stewart 0 1 0 0 39 Saussurea heteromalla (D. Don) Hand. -Mazz. 0 0 0 1

219

40 Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertn. 1 0 0 0 41 Sonchus asper (L.) Hill 1 0 0 0 42 Taraxacum officinale F.H. Wigg. 0 0 1 0 Bignoniaceae 1 0 0 0 43 Tecomella undulata(Sm.) Seem. 1 0 0 0 Boraginaceae 5 1 1 1 44 Anchusa arvensis (L.) M. Bieb. 1 0 0 0 45 Arnebia griffithii Boiss. 1 0 0 0 46 Ehretia obtusifolia Hochst. ex A. DC. 1 0 0 0 47 Heliotropium europaeum L. 1 0 0 0 48 Heliotropium ovalifolium Forssk. 0 0 1 0 49 Nonea caspica (Willd.) G. Don 0 1 0 0 50 Nonea edgeworthii A. DC. 1 0 0 0 51 Onosma hispida Wall. ex G. Don 0 0 0 1 Brassicaceae 9 1 1 0 52 Alyssum desertorum Stapf 1 0 0 0 53 Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. 1 0 0 0 54 Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik. 1 0 0 0 55 Cardaria draba (L.) Desv. 1 0 0 0 56 Coronopus didymus (L.) Sm. 1 0 0 0 57 Farsetia jacquemontii Hook. f. and Thomson 1 0 0 0 58 Goldbachia laevigata (M. Bieb.) DC. 1 0 0 0 59 Lepidium apetalum Willd. 1 0 0 0 60 Malcolmia africana (L.) W.T. Aiton 0 0 1 0 61 Malcolmia cabulica (Boiss.) Hook. f. and Thomson 0 1 0 0 62 Sisymbrium irio L. 1 0 0 0 Cannabaceae 1 0 0 0 63 Cannabis sativa L. 1 0 0 0 Capparaceae 0 0 0 1 64 Capparis decidua (Forssk.) Pax 0 0 0 1 Caprifoliaceae 0 2 0 0 65 Lonicera japonica Thunb. 0 1 0 0 66 Scabiosa olivieri Coult. 0 1 0 0 Caryophyllaceae 3 3 0 1 67 Arenaria serpyllifolia L. 1 0 0 0

220

68 Herneraria hirsuta L. 0 0 0 1 69 Herneraria cinerea DC 1 0 0 0 70 Silene apetala Willd. 0 1 0 0 71 Spergula arvensis L. 0 1 0 0 72 Vaccaria hispanica (Mill.) Rauschert 1 0 0 0 73 Velezia rigida L. 0 1 0 0 Cleomaceae 0 0 0 1 74 Cleome brachycarpa M. Vahl ex Triana and Planchon 0 0 0 1 Cucurbitaceae 0 0 1 0 75 Citrullus colocynthis (L.) Schrad. 0 0 1 0 Ephedraceae 0 1 0 0 76 Ephedra intermedia Schrenk ex C.A. Mey. 0 1 0 0 Euphorbiaceae 0 0 0 0 77 Euphorbia granulata Forssk. 0 0 0 0 Fabaceae 4 3 2 2 78 Acacia nilotica (L.) Willd. ex Delile 1 0 0 0 79 Acacia modesta Wall. 1 0 0 0 80 Albizia lebbek (L.) Benth. 1 0 0 0 81 Astragalus hamosus L. 0 1 0 0 82 Astragalus scorpioides Pourr. ex Willd. 0 1 0 0 83 Astragalus tribuloides Delile 0 0 1 0 84 Astragalus pyrrhotrichus Boiss. 0 0 1 0 85 Cassia senna L. 0 0 0 1 86 Medicago minima (L.) L. 0 1 0 0 87 Trigonella incisa Hornemann ex Fischer and Meyer 0 0 0 1 88 Vicia sativa L. 1 0 0 0 Geraniaceae 0 4 0 0 89 Erodium alnifolium Guss. 0 1 0 0 90 Erodium ciconium (L.) L'Hér. ex Aiton 0 1 0 0 91 Erodium cicutarium (L.) L'Hér. ex Aiton 0 1 0 0 92 Geranium rotundifolium L. 0 1 0 0 Lamiaceae 0 2 3 4 93 Ajuga bracteosa Wall. ex Benth. 0 0 0 1 94 Mentha longifolia (L.) Huds. 0 0 1 0 95 Micromeria biflora (Buch. -Ham. ex D. Don) Benth. 0 0 0 1

221

96 Nepeta raphanorhiza Benth. 0 1 0 0 97 Otostegia limbata (Benth.) Boiss. 0 0 0 1 98 Salvia aegyptiaca L. 0 1 0 0 99 Salvia moocroftiana Wall. ex Benth. 0 0 1 0 100 Teucrium stocksianum Boiss. 0 0 1 0 101 Ziziphora tenuior L. 0 0 0 1 Linaceae 0 0 1 0 102 Linum corymbulosum Rchb. 0 0 1 0 Malvaceae 0 1 1 0 103 Malva neglecta Wallr. 0 0 1 0 104 Malva parviflora L. 0 1 0 0 Nitrariaceae 0 0 0 1 105 Peganum harmalaL. 0 0 0 1 Nyctaginaceae 0 0 0 1 106 Boerhavia procmbens Banks ex Roxb. 0 0 0 1 Oleaceae 1 0 0 0 107 Olea ferruginea Royle 1 0 0 0 Papveraceae 0 2 0 0 108 Fumaria indica Pugsley 0 1 0 0 109 Papaver rhoeas L. 0 1 0 0 Pinaceae 0 0 0 1 110 Pinus roxburghii Sarg. 0 0 0 1 Plantaginaceae 3 1 0 0 111 Misopates orontium (L.) Raf. 1 0 0 0 112 Kickxia incana (Wall.) Pennell 0 0 1 0 113 Kickxia ramosissima Janch. 0 0 1 0 114 Plantago lanata Lag. and Rodr. 1 0 0 0 115 Plantago ovata Forssk. 1 0 0 0 116 Veronica biloba L. 0 1 0 0 Plumbaginaceae 0 1 0 0 117 Limonium macrorhabdon Kuntze 0 1 0 0 Poaceae 17 2 2 1 118 Agrostis viridis Gouan 1 0 0 0 119 Aristida adscensionis L. 0 1 0 0 120 Aristida cyanantha Nees ex Steud. 0 1 0 0

222

121 Brachypodium distachyon (L.) P. Beauv. 0 0 1 0 122 Bromus pectinatus Thunb. 0 0 0 1 123 Cenchrus ciliarus L. 1 0 0 0 124 Chrysopogon serrulatus Trin. 1 0 0 0 125 Cymbopogon jwarancusa (Jones) Schult. 1 0 0 0 126 Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. 1 0 0 0 127 Eragrostis papposa (Roem. and Schult.) Steud. 1 0 0 0 128 Heteropogon contortus (L.) P. Beauv. ex Roem. and 1 0 0 0 129 HordeumSchult. murinum L. 1 0 0 0 130 Hordeum jubatum L. 1 0 0 0 131 Lamarckia aurea (L.) Moench 1 0 0 0 132 Pennisetum oreintale Rich. 1 0 0 0 133 Phalaris minor Retz. 1 0 0 0 134 Phleum paniculatum Huds. 1 0 0 0 135 Poa bulbosa L. 1 0 0 0 136 Poa annua L. 1 0 0 0 137 Rostraria cristata (L.) Tzvelev 1 0 0 0 138 Tetrapogon villosus Desf. 0 0 1 0 139 Themeda anathera (Nees ex Steud.) Hack. 1 0 0 0 Polygalaceae 0 1 0 0 140 Polygala hohenackeriana var. rhodopea Velen. 0 1 0 0 Polygonaceae 2 2 2 0 141 Emex spinosa (L.) Campd. 0 0 1 0 142 Polygonum plebeium R. Br. 0 0 1 0 143 Rumex dentatus L. 1 0 0 0 144 Rumex hastatus D. Don 0 1 0 0 145 Rumex vesicarius L. 1 0 0 0 Primulaceae 0 0 1 0 146 Anagallis arvensis L. 0 0 1 0 Rananculaceae 0 0 0 2 147 Clematis graveolens Lindl. 0 0 0 1 148 Rananculus muricatus L. 0 0 0 1 Resedaceae 1 0 0 0 149 Oligomeris linifolia (Vahl) J.F. Macbr. 1 0 0 0 Rhamnaceae 3 0 0 0

223

150 Sageretia thea (Osbeck) M.C. Johnst. 1 0 0 0 151 Ziziphus mauritiana Lam. 1 0 0 0 152 Ziziphus nummularia (Burm. f.) Wight and Arn. 1 0 0 0 Rosaceae 1 1 0 0 153 Cotoneaster nummularius Fisch. and C.A. Mey. 0 1 0 0 154 Duchesnea indica (Andrews) Teschem. 1 0 0 0 Rubiaceae 0 1 0 0 155 Galium aparineL. 0 1 0 0 Salvadoraceae 0 0 0 1 156 Salvadora persica L. 0 0 0 1 Sapindaceae 0 0 1 0 157 Dodonaea viscosaJacq. 0 0 1 0 Sapotaceae 1 0 0 0 158 Monotheca buxifolia (Falc.) A. DC. 1 0 0 0 Scrophulariaceae 0 1 2 1 159 Scrophularia striata Boiss. 0 1 0 0 160 Verbascum thapsus L. 0 0 0 1 Solanaceae 0 1 0 4 161 Datura innoxia Mill. 0 0 0 1 162 Solanum nigrum L. 0 1 0 0 163 Solanum surattense Burm. f. 0 0 0 1 164 Withania coagulans (Stocks) Dunal 0 0 0 1 165 Withania somnifera (L.) Dunal 0 0 0 1 Tamaricaceae 0 0 0 1 166 Tamarix indica Willd. 0 0 0 1 Thymelaeaceae 0 1 0 0 167 Thymelaea passerina (L.) Coss. and Germ. 0 1 0 0 Urticaceae 0 0 1 0 168 Forsskaolea tenacissima L. 0 0 1 0 Zygophyllaceae 1 0 0 1 169 Fagonia indica Burm. f. 0 0 0 1 170 Tribulus terrestris L. 1 0 0 0 Grand Total 68 39 25 38

224

1.3. Conservation

A total of 170 species belonging to 49 families (Table 2) were found in Mohmand agency which were assessed for their conservation status. The species were divided into 5 categories that were reflecting their conservation status. It was found that 13 species were endangered including Albizia lebbeck, Tamarix indica, Tecomella undulata, Acacia modesta, A. nilotica, Pinus roxburghii, Ziziphus mauritiana, Caralluma tuberculata, Cotoneaster nummularia, Dodonaea viscosa, Nannorrhops ritchiana, Olea ferruginea and Salvadora persica (Table 22).

Monotheca buxifolia, Rhazya stricta, Sageretia thea, Z. nummularia, Peganum harmala, Periploca aphylla, Ephedra intermedia and Withania coagulans, along with other 32 species were vulnerable. Fagonia indica, Nerium indicum and Cassia senna were among other 88 species that were classified as rare. Thirty-two plant species were found to be infrequent, including Forsskaolea tenacissima, Aristida cyanantha, A. adscensionis and Verbascum thapsus. There was no dominant species in the area, which indicated the unfavorable conditions for the plants (Table 22).

Among the 49 families, Fabaceae was the most affected family with 3 endangered species. This was followed by Apocynaceae, Arecaceae, Bignoniaceae, Oleaceae, Pinaceae, Rhamnaceae, Rosaceae, Salvadoraceae, Sapindaceae and Tamaricaceae with 1 species each. In vulnerable status, Poaceae was the highest threatened family with 7 species, followed by Brassicaceae with 4, Fabaceae with 3 and Apocynaceae and Rhamnaceae with 1 species each (Table 21 and 22).

There were 13 species each in family Asteraceae and Poaceae that were classified as rare. Boraginaceae was next in order with 5 species, followed by Fabaceae, Amaranthaceae, Caryophyllaceae, Lamiaceae, Plantaginaceae and Polygonaceae with 4 species each. Solanaceae, Asparagaceae and Scrophulariaceae were having 3 species each in rare class. This was followed by Brassicaceae, Apocynaceae, Acanthaceae, Malvaceae and Zygophyllaceae with 2 species each. Fourteen families were found to have only 1 species each in rare class. In the rest of the families there was no species in the said class (Table 22).

Highest number of infrequent species belonged to Asteraceae family (7 species), followed by Lamiaceae and Brassicaceae (5 species each). Amaranthaceae and Geraniaceae

225

were found to have 3 while Poaceae and Polygonaceae had 2 species each in infrequent class. Eleven families were found to have only 1 species each in infrequent category. It is concluded that Fabaceae and Asteraceae were the most affected families in terms of conservation status (Table 21 and 22).

Plants are importance part of biodiversity, which have an enormous effect on the ecosystem and lives of other living organisms (Ahmad et al., 2010; Bocuk et al., 2011). They have all the essential requirements for the life of humans (Morgan, 1981). Loss of many species from the tropical forest is observed due to the destruction and degradation of natural habitats by anthropogenic disturbances (Wilson, 1998). Plants in the Himalayan regions of Pakistan are facing the same problem due to human interference in these natural ecosystems (Khan et al., 2014).

The destruction of the flora is not only the loss of plants, but a threat to the human civilization (Dyke, 2003). It is not the loss of a single plants, rather it is a change in the whole ecosystem. It has been noted that with the extinction of a single species, there is an overarching effect on the environment (Ellison, 2010) which may result in the loss of as high as 30 other species (Krishnamurthy, 2003).

It is widely accepted fact that the extinction rate of plants has touched a level that daily a single species is lost which is 10-10,000 time faster than its natural rate (Hilton-Taylor, 2000; Akeroyd, 2002). This level of loss may be mainly attributed to degradation and alteration of habitat, urbanization, introduction of new invasive species, plant diseases and pollution along with global climatic change (Thomas et al., 2004). Human activities have resulted in extinction of 80,000 species which is a great loss (Butt et al., 2015; Hamilton and Hamilton, 2006).

Pakistan, supporting a wide range of different ecosystems (Khan et al., 2014), has 6000 different plants species (Ali and Qaiser, 2010). Along with other issues, an important issue of loss of biodiversity also exists (Alam and Ali, 2010). Few projects have been launched for the assessment and conservation of natural flora (Jan et al., 2014). Rapid urbanization (Butt et al., 2015) and lack of proper knowledge and techniques for the collection and use of plants (Ahmad, 2007; Razzaq et al., 2015) may be the main causes of extinction of many species in Pakistan. About 10% of the total reported flora of Pakistan is endangered (Shinwari et al., 2012). IUCN is

226

considered as the most authoritative and comprehensive source of the global biodiversity conservation status (IUCN, 2004; Jamal, 2009). According to IUCN there are 20 species which are threatened in Pakistan (Shah and Baig, 1999).

It is the job of ecologist to find out and understand the intimate ties that human has with other forms of biodiversity, and make him aware of the importance of other creatures (Davis and Richardson, 1995). This will result in a changed approach towards biodiversity (Ramakrishnan et al., 1998; Mishra et al., 2003). Conservation awareness should be given proper weightage and it must be promoted just like our culture (Chunlin and Shengji, 2003) by which we will be able to save this precious wealth for the coming generations.

227

Table 20. Species, their conservational attributes and conservation status

Serial Family Plant A C G P TS ST

1 1.Acanthaceae Diclipetra bupleuroides Nees 1 3 3 4 11 R 2 Justicia adhatoda L. 1 3 3 4 11 R 3 2.Aizoaceae Trianthema portulacastrum L. 1 2 4 0 7 V 4 3.Amaranthaceae Achyranthes aspera L. 0 3 3 4 10 R 5 Aerva javanica (Burm. f.) Juss. 2 3 4 4 13 I 6 Chenopodium album L. 3 3 3 0 9 R 7 Chenopodium murale L. 3 3 3 0 9 R 8 Pupalia lappacea (L.) Juss. 1 3 4 4 12 R 9 Salsola kali L. 2 3 4 4 13 I 10 Suaeda aegyptiaca (Hasselq.) Zohary 2 3 4 4 13 I 11 4.Amaryllidaceae Allium griffithianum Boiss. 1 3 4 4 12 R 12 5.Apocynaceae Calotropis procera (Aiton) W.T. Aiton 2 3 2 4 11 R 13 Caralluma tuberculata N.E. Br. 0 1 3 0 4 E 14 Nerium indicum Mill. 3 3 0 4 10 R 15 Periploca aphylla Decne. 1 3 0 4 8 V 16 Rhazya stricta Decne. 3 2 0 0 5 V 17 6.Arecaceae Nannorrhops ritchiana (Griff.) Aitch. 0 0 0 4 4 E 18 7.Asparagaceae Asparagus gracilis Salisb. 1 3 3 4 11 R 19 Asparagus setaceus (Kunth) Jessop 1 3 3 4 11 R 20 Scilla griffithii Hochr. 1 3 3 4 11 R 21 8.Asteraceae Artemisia maritima Ledeb. 1 3 4 0 8 V 22 Calendula arvensis L. 3 3 3 4 14 I 23 Carthamus lanatus L. 3 3 3 4 13 I

228

24 Carthamus oxycantha M. Bieb. 3 3 3 2 11 R 25 Centaurea iberica Trevir. Ex Spreng. 2 3 4 4 13 I 26 Cousinia prolifera Jaub. and Spach 3 3 3 4 13 I 27 Crepis sancta (L.) Babc. 3 3 4 4 14 I 28 Echinops echinatus Roxb. 2 3 1 4 10 R 29 Erigeron trilobus (Decne.) Boiss. 1 3 3 0 7 V 30 Filago hurdwarica (Wall. ex DC.) Wagenitz 3 3 4 0 10 R 31 Filago pyramidata L. 2 3 4 0 9 R 32 Ifloga spicata (Forssk.) Sch. Bip. 2 3 3 4 12 R 33 Lactuca serriola L. 3 3 3 4 13 I 34 Lactuca tatarica (L.) C.A. Mey. 2 3 3 4 12 R 35 Launaea procmbens (Roxb.) Ramayya and Rajagopal 2 3 3 4 12 R 36 Pentanema vestitum Y. Ling 2 3 3 4 12 R 37 Phagnolon niveum Edgew. 2 3 3 4 12 R 38 Pterachaenia stewartii (Hook.f.) R.R. Stewart 1 3 3 4 11 R 39 Saussurea heteromalla (D. Don) Hand. -Mazz. 2 3 3 4 12 R 40 Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertn. 2 3 3 2 10 R 41 Sonchus asper (L.) Hill 3 3 3 4 13 I 42 Taraxacum officinale F.H. Wigg. 3 3 4 4 14 I 43 9.Bignoniaceae Tecomella undulata(Sm.) Seem. 0 2 0 0 2 E 44 10.Boraginaceae Anchusa arvensis (L.) M. Bieb. 2 3 3 4 7 V 45 Arnebia griffithii Boiss. 2 3 3 4 12 R 46 Ehretia obtusifolia Hochst. ex A. DC. 1 3 0 4 8 V 47 Heliotropium europaeum L. 3 3 4 4 14 I 48 Heliotropium ovalifolium Forssk. 3 3 4 0 10 R

229

49 Nonea caspica (Willd.) G. Don 2 3 3 4 12 R 50 Nonea edgeworthii A. DC. 1 3 3 4 11 R 51 Onosma hispida Wall. ex G. Don 1 3 3 4 11 R 52 11.Brassicaceae Alyssum desertorum Stapf 3 2 3 0 8 V 53 Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. 2 2 3 0 7 V 54 Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik. 2 3 3 0 8 V 55 Cardaria draba (L.) Desv. 1 3 3 0 7 V 56 Coronopus didymus (L.) Sm. 2 3 4 4 13 I 57 Farsetia jacquemontii Hook. f. and Thomson 2 3 4 4 13 I 58 Goldbachia laevigata (M. Bieb.) DC. 2 3 3 4 12 R 59 Lepidium apetalum Willd. 2 3 4 4 13 I 60 Malcolmia africana (L.) W.T. Aiton 3 2 4 4 13 I 61 Malcolmia cabulica (Boiss.) Hook. f. and Thomson 3 2 4 4 13 I 62 Sisymbrium irio L. 2 3 3 4 12 R 63 12.Cannabaceae Cannabis sativa L. 2 3 3 4 12 R 64 13.Capparaceae Capparis decidua (Forssk.) Pax 1 3 3 4 12 R 65 14.Caprifoliaceae Lonicera japonica Thunb. 0 3 0 4 7 V 66 Scabiosa olivieri Coult. 1 3 4 4 12 R 67 15.Caryophyllaceae Arenaria serpyllifolia L. 2 3 3 0 8 V 68 Herneraria cinerea DC 2 3 4 0 9 R 69 Herneraria hirsuta L. 3 3 4 0 10 R 70 Silene apetala Willd. 3 3 4 4 14 I 71 Spergula arvensis L. 1 3 3 4 11 R 72 Vaccaria hispanica (Mill.) Rauschert 2 3 3 4 12 R 73 Velezia rigida L. 2 2 4 0 8 V

230

74 16.Cleomaceae Cleome brachycarpa M. Vahl ex Triana and Planchon 2 3 3 0 8 V 75 17.Cucurbitaceae Citrullus colocynthis (L.) Schrad. 0 3 4 4 11 R 76 18.Ephedraceae Ephedra intermedia Schrenk ex C.A. Mey. 0 3 0 4 7 V 77 19.Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia granulata Forssk. 2 3 4 4 13 I 78 20.Fabaceae Acacia modesta Wall. 3 0 0 0 3 E 79 Acacia nilotica (L.) Willd. ex Delile 3 0 0 0 3 E 80 Albizia lebbeck (L.) Benth. 1 1 0 0 2 E 81 Astragalus hamosus L. 3 3 3 0 9 R 82 Astragalus pyrrhotrichus Boiss. 2 3 3 0 8 V 83 Astragalus scorpioides Pourr. ex Willd. 1 3 3 4 11 R 84 Astragalus tribuloides Delile 3 2 1 4 10 R 85 Cassia senna L. 0 3 3 2 8 V 86 Medicago minima (L.) L. 3 3 4 4 14 I 87 Trigonella incisa Hornemann ex Fischer and Meyer 3 3 4 0 10 R 88 Vicia sativa L. 1 2 3 0 6 V 89 21.Geraniaceae Erodium alnifolium Guss. 2 3 4 4 13 I 90 Erodium ciconium (L.) L'Hér. ex Aiton 2 3 4 4 13 I 91 Erodium cicutarium (L.) L'Hér. ex Aiton 2 3 4 4 13 I 92 Geranium rotundifolium L. 2 3 1 4 10 R 93 22.Lamiaceae Ajuga bracteosa Wall. ex Benth. 2 3 4 4 13 I 94 Mentha longifolia (L.) Huds. 2 2 4 4 12 R 95 Micromeria biflora (Buch. -Ham. ex D. Don) Benth. 2 3 4 4 13 I 96 Nepeta raphanorhiza Benth. 1 3 3 4 11 R 97 Otostegia limbata (Benth.) Boiss. 2 3 2 4 11 R 98 Salvia aegyptiaca L. 3 3 4 4 14 I

231

99 Salvia moocroftiana Wall. ex Benth. 2 3 4 4 13 I 100 Teucrium stocksianum Boiss. 2 3 3 4 12 R 101 Ziziphora tenuior L. 3 3 4 4 14 I 102 23.Linaceae Linum corymbulosum Rchb. 2 3 4 4 13 I 103 24.Malvaceae Malva neglecta Wallr. 2 2 4 4 12 R 104 Malva parviflora L. 1 2 4 4 11 R 105 25.Nitrariaceae Peganum harmala L. 3 2 3 0 8 V 106 26.Nyctaginaceae Boerhavia procumbens Banks ex Roxb. 2 3 4 0 9 R 107 27.Oleaceae Olea ferruginea Royle 2 2 0 0 4 E 108 28.Papveraceae Fumaria indica Pugsley 2 3 4 4 13 I 109 Papaver rhoeas L. 2 3 3 2 10 R 110 29.Pinaceae Pinus roxburghii Sarg. 0 3 0 0 3 E 111 30.Plantaginaceae Kickxia incana (Wall.) Pennell 2 3 3 4 12 R 112 Kickxia ramosissima Janch. 2 3 3 4 12 R 113 Misopates orontium (L.) Raf. 1 3 3 4 11 R 114 Plantago lanata Lag. and Rodr. 3 3 3 2 11 R 115 Plantago ovata Forssk. 2 3 3 2 10 R 116 Veronica biloba L. 1 3 3 4 11 R 117 31.Plumbaginaceae Limonium macrorhabdon Kuntze 1 3 3 4 11 R 118 32.Poaceae Agrostis viridis Gouan 2 2 4 0 8 V 119 Aristida adscensionis L. 3 2 4 4 13 I 120 Aristida cyanantha Nees ex Steud. 2 3 4 4 13 I 121 Brachypodium distachyon (L.) P. Beauv. 3 2 4 0 9 R 122 Bromus pectinatus Thunb. 3 1 3 0 7 V 123 Cenchrus ciliarus L. 2 2 4 0 8 V

232

124 Chrysopogon serrulatus Trin. 2 3 3 0 8 V 125 Cymbopogon jwarancusa (Jones) Schult. 2 2 4 4 12 R 126 Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. 3 3 4 0 10 R 127 Eragrostis papposa (Roem. and Schult.) Steud. 2 3 4 0 9 R 128 Heteropogon contortus (L.) P. Beauv. ex Roem. and Schult. 2 2 4 4 12 R 129 Hordeum jubatum L. 3 2 4 0 9 R 130 Hordeum murinum L. 3 2 3 0 8 V 131 Lamarckia aurea (L.) Moench 2 3 4 0 9 R 132 Pennisetum oreintale Rich. 2 2 4 0 8 V 133 Phalaris minor Retz. 3 2 4 0 9 R 134 Phleum paniculatum Huds. 2 3 4 0 9 R 135 Poa annua L. 3 3 4 0 10 R 136 Poa bulbosa L. 2 3 4 0 9 R 137 Rostraria cristata (L.) Tzvelev 2 2 4 0 8 V 138 Tetrapogon villosus Desf. 2 2 4 0 8 V 139 Themeda anathera (Nees ex Steud.) Hack. 2 3 4 0 9 R 140 33.Polygalaceae Polygala hohenackeriana var. rhodopea Velen. 2 3 3 4 12 R 141 34.Polygonaceae Emex spinosa (L.) Campd. (Polygonaceae) 3 3 4 4 14 I 142 Polygonum plebeium R. Br. 2 3 4 4 13 I 143 Rumex dentatus L. 2 2 4 4 12 R 144 Rumex hastatus D. Don 2 2 4 4 12 R 145 Rumex vesicarius L. 2 2 4 2 10 R 146 35.Primulaceae Anagallis arvensis L. 2 3 3 4 12 R 147 36.Rananculaceae Clematis graveolens Lindl. (Rananculaceae) 1 3 3 4 11 R 148 Rananculus muricatus L. 2 3 4 4 13 I

233

149 37.Resedaceae Oligomeris linifolia (Vahl) J.F. Macbr. 2 3 4 4 13 I 150 38.Rhamnaceae Sageretia thea (Osbeck) M.C. Johnst. 1 2 0 2 5 V 151 Ziziphus mauritiana Lam. 2 1 0 0 3 E 152 Ziziphus nummularia (Burm. f.) Wight and Arn. 2 2 0 2 6 V 153 39.Rosaceae Cotoneaster nummularius Fisch. and C.A. Mey. 1 1 0 2 4 E 154 Duchesnea indica (Andrews) Teschem. 2 3 4 0 9 R 155 40.Rubiaceae Galium aparine L. 2 3 4 0 9 R 156 41.Salvadoraceae Salvadora persica L. 1 3 0 0 4 E 157 42.Sapindaceae Dodonaea viscosa Jacq. (Sapindaceae) 3 1 1 0 4 E 158 43.Sapotaceae Monotheca buxifolia (Falc.) A. DC. 3 0 0 2 5 V 159 44.Scrophulariaceae Scrophularia striata Boiss. 1 3 3 4 11 R 160 Verbascum thapsus L. 2 3 3 4 12 I 161 45.Solanaceae Datura innoxia Mill. Solanaceae 2 3 4 2 11 R 162 Solanum nigrum L. 2 3 4 0 9 R 163 Solanum surattense Burm. f. 2 3 3 2 10 R 164 Withania coagulans (Stocks) Dunal 3 3 1 4 7 V 165 Withania somnifera (L.) Dunal 1 3 3 2 9 R 166 46.Tamaricaceae Tamarix indica Willd. 1 1 0 0 2 E 167 47.Thymelaeaceae Thymelaea passerina (L.) Coss. and Germ. 2 3 3 4 12 R 168 48.Urticaceae Forsskaolea tenacissima L. 3 3 4 4 14 I 169 49.Zygophyllaceae Fagonia indica Burm. f. 3 3 4 0 10 R 170 Tribulus terrestris L. 3 2 4 0 9 R A=Availability, C=Collection, G=Growth, P=Parts Used, TS=Total Score, R=Rare; I=Infrequent; V=Vulnerable; E=Endangered

234

Table 21. Number of Species in different conservation status from different families

SN Family Species E V R I

1 1.Acanthaceae Diclipetra bupleuroides Nees 0 0 1 0 2 Justicia adhatoda L. 0 0 1 0 3 2.Aizoaceae Trianthema portulacastrum L. 0 1 0 0 4 3.Amaranthaceae Achyranthes aspera L. 0 0 1 0 5 Aerva javanica (Burm. f.) Juss. 0 0 0 1 6 Chenopodium album L. 0 0 1 0 7 Chenopodium murale L. 0 0 1 0 8 Pupalia lappacea (L.) Juss. 0 0 1 0 9 Salsola kali L. 0 0 0 1 10 Suaeda aegyptiaca (Hasselq.) Zohary 0 0 0 1 11 4.Amaryllidaceae Allium griffithianum Boiss. 0 0 1 0 12 5.Apocynaceae Calotropis procera (Aiton) W.T. Aiton 0 0 1 0 13 Caralluma tuberculata N.E. Br. 1 0 0 0 14 Nerium indicum Mill. 0 0 1 0 15 Periploca aphylla Decne. 0 1 0 0 16 Rhazya stricta Decne. 0 1 0 0 17 6.Arecaceae Nannorrhops ritchiana (Griff.) Aitch. 1 0 0 0 18 7.Asparagaceae Asparagus gracilis Salisb. 0 0 1 0 19 Asparagus setaceus (Kunth) Jessop 0 0 1 0 20 Scilla griffithii Hochr. 0 0 1 0 21 8.Asteraceae Artemisia maritima Ledeb. 0 1 0 0 22 Calendula arvensis L. 0 0 0 1 23 Carthamus lanatus L. 0 0 0 1

235

24 Carthamus oxycantha M. Bieb. 0 0 1 0 25 Centaurea iberica Trevir. ex Spreng. 0 0 0 1 26 Cousinia prolifera Jaub. and Spach 0 0 0 1 27 Crepis sancta (L.) Babc. 0 0 0 1 28 Echinops echinatus Roxb. 0 0 1 0 29 Erigeron trilobus (Decne.) Boiss. 0 1 0 0 30 Filago hurdwarica (Wall. ex DC.) Wagenitz 0 0 1 0 31 Filago pyramidata L. 0 0 1 0 32 Ifloga spicata (Forssk.) Sch. Bip. 0 0 1 0 33 Lactuca serriola L. 0 0 0 1 34 Lactuca tatarica (L.) C.A. Mey. 0 0 1 0 35 Launaea procmbens (Roxb.) Ramayya and Rajagopal 0 0 1 0 36 Pentanema vestitum Y. Ling 0 0 1 0 37 Phagnolon niveum Edgew. 0 0 1 0 38 Pterachaenia stewartii (Hook.f.) R.R. Stewart 0 0 1 0 39 Saussurea heteromalla (D. Don) Hand. -Mazz. 0 0 1 0 40 Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertn. 0 0 1 0 41 Sonchus asper (L.) Hill 0 0 0 1 42 Taraxacum officinale F.H. Wigg. 0 0 0 1 43 9.Bignoniaceae Tecomella undulata(Sm.) Seem. 1 0 0 0 44 10.Boraginaceae Anchusa arvensis (L.) M. Bieb. 0 1 0 0 45 Arnebia griffithii Boiss. 0 0 1 0 46 Ehretia obtusifolia Hochst. ex A. DC. 0 1 0 0 47 Heliotropium europaeum L. 0 0 0 1 48 Heliotropium ovalifolium Forssk. 0 0 1 0

236

49 Nonea caspica (Willd.) G. Don 0 0 1 0 50 Nonea edgeworthii A. DC. 0 0 1 0 51 Onosma hispida Wall. ex G. Don 0 0 1 0 52 11.Brassicaceae Alyssum desertorum Stapf 0 1 0 0 53 Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. 0 1 0 0 54 Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik. 0 1 0 0 55 Cardaria draba (L.) Desv. 0 1 0 0 56 Coronopus didymus (L.) Sm. 0 0 0 1 57 Farsetia jacquemontii Hook. f. and Thomson 0 0 0 1 58 Goldbachia laevigata (M. Bieb.) DC. 0 0 1 0 59 Lepidium apetalum Willd. 0 0 0 1 60 Malcolmia africana (L.) W.T. Aiton 0 0 0 1 61 Malcolmia cabulica (Boiss.) Hook. f. and Thomson 0 0 0 1 62 Sisymbrium irio L. 0 0 1 0 63 12.Cannabaceae Cannabis sativa L. 0 0 1 0 64 13.Capparaceae Capparis decidua (Forssk.) Pax 0 0 1 0 65 14.Caprifoliaceae Lonicera japonica Thunb. 0 1 0 0 66 Scabiosa olivieri Coult. 0 0 1 0 67 15.Caryophyllaceae Arenaria serpyllifolia L. 0 1 0 0 68 Herneraria cinerea DC 0 0 1 0 69 Herneraria hirsuta L. 0 0 1 0 70 Silene apetala Willd. 0 0 0 1 71 Spergula arvensis L. 0 0 1 0 72 Vaccaria hispanica (Mill.) Rauschert 0 0 1 0 73 Velezia rigida L. 0 1 0 0

237

74 16.Cleomaceae Cleome brachycarpa M. Vahl ex Triana and Planchon 0 1 0 0 75 17.Cucurbitaceae Citrullus colocynthis (L.) Schrad. 0 0 1 0 76 18.Ephedraceae Ephedra intermedia Schrenk ex C.A. Mey. 0 1 0 0 77 19.Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia granulata Forssk. 0 0 0 1 78 20.Fabaceae Acacia modesta Wall. 1 0 0 0 79 Acacia nilotica (L.) Willd. ex Delile 1 0 0 0 80 Albizia lebbeck (L.) Benth. 1 0 0 0 81 Astragalus hamosus L. 0 0 1 0 82 Astragalus pyrrhotrichus Boiss. 0 1 0 0 83 Astragalus scorpioides Pourr. ex Willd. 0 0 1 0 84 Astragalus tribuloides Delile 0 0 1 0 85 Cassia senna L. 0 1 0 0 86 Medicago minima (L.) L. 0 0 0 1 87 Trigonella incisa Hornemann ex Fischer and Meyer 0 0 1 0 88 Vicia sativa L. 0 1 0 0 89 21.Geraniaceae Erodium alnifolium Guss. 0 0 0 1 90 Erodium ciconium (L.) L'Hér. ex Aiton 0 0 0 1 91 Erodium cicutarium (L.) L'Hér. ex Aiton 0 0 0 1 92 Geranium rotundifolium L. 0 0 1 0 93 22.Lamiaceae Ajuga bracteosa Wall. ex Benth. 0 0 0 1 94 Mentha longifolia (L.) Huds. 0 0 1 0 95 Micromeria biflora (Buch. -Ham. ex D. Don) Benth. 0 0 0 1 96 Nepeta raphanorhiza Benth. 0 0 1 0 97 Otostegia limbata (Benth.) Boiss. 0 0 1 0 98 Salvia aegyptiaca L. 0 0 0 1

238

99 Salvia moocroftiana Wall. ex Benth. 0 0 0 1 100 Teucrium stocksianum Boiss. 0 0 1 0 101 Ziziphora tenuior L. 0 0 0 1 102 23.Linaceae Linum corymbulosum Rchb. 0 0 0 1 103 24.Malvaceae Malva neglecta Wallr. 0 0 1 0 104 Malva parviflora L. 0 0 1 0 105 25.Nitrariaceae Peganum harmala L. 0 1 0 0 106 26.Nyctaginaceae Boerhavia procumbens Banks ex Roxb. 0 0 1 0 107 27.Oleaceae Olea ferruginea Royle 1 0 0 0 108 28.Papveraceae Fumaria indica Pugsley 0 0 0 1 109 Papaver rhoeas L. 0 0 1 0 110 29.Pinaceae Pinus roxburghii Sarg. 1 0 0 0 111 30.Plantaginaceae Kickxia incana (Wall.) Pennell 0 0 1 0 112 Kickxia ramosissima Janch. 0 0 1 0 113 Misopates orontium (L.) Raf. 0 0 1 0 114 Plantago lanata Lag. and Rodr. 0 0 1 0 115 Plantago ovata Forssk. 0 0 1 0 116 Veronica biloba L. 0 0 1 0 117 31.Plumbaginaceae Limonium macrorhabdon Kuntze 0 0 1 0 118 32.Poaceae Agrostis viridis Gouan 0 1 0 0 119 Aristida adscensionis L. 0 0 0 1 120 Aristida cyanantha Nees ex Steud. 0 0 0 1 121 Brachypodium distachyon (L.) P. Beauv. 0 0 1 0 122 Bromus pectinatus Thunb. 0 1 0 0 123 Cenchrus ciliarus L. 0 1 0 0

239

124 Chrysopogon serrulatus Trin. 0 1 0 0 125 Cymbopogon jwarancusa (Jones) Schult. 0 0 1 0 126 Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. 0 0 1 0 127 Eragrostis papposa (Roem. and Schult.) Steud. 0 0 1 0 128 Heteropogon contortus (L.) P. Beauv. ex Roem. and Schult. 0 0 1 0 129 Hordeum jubatum L. 0 0 1 0 130 Hordeum murinum L. 0 1 0 0 131 Lamarckia aurea (L.) Moench 0 0 1 0 132 Pennisetum oreintale Rich. 0 1 0 0 133 Phalaris minor Retz. 0 0 1 0 134 Phleum paniculatum Huds. 0 0 1 0 135 Poa annua L. 0 0 1 0 136 Poa bulbosa L. 0 0 1 0 137 Rostraria cristata (L.) Tzvelev 0 1 0 0 138 Tetrapogon villosus Desf. 0 1 0 0 139 Themeda anathera (Nees ex Steud.) Hack. 0 0 1 0 140 33.Polygalaceae Polygala hohenackeriana var. rhodopea Velen. 0 0 1 0 141 34.Polygonaceae Emex spinosa (L.) Campd. (Polygonaceae) 0 0 0 1 142 Polygonum plebeium R. Br. 0 0 0 1 143 Rumex dentatus L. 0 0 1 0 144 Rumex hastatus D. Don 0 0 1 0 145 Rumex vesicarius L. 0 0 1 0 146 35.Primulaceae Anagallis arvensis L. 0 0 1 0 147 36.Rananculaceae Clematis graveolens Lindl. (Rananculaceae) 0 0 1 0 148 Rananculus muricatus L. 0 0 0 1

240

149 37.Resedaceae Oligomeris linifolia (Vahl) J.F. Macbr. 0 0 0 1 150 38.Rhamnaceae Sageretia thea (Osbeck) M.C. Johnst. 0 1 0 0 151 Ziziphus mauritiana Lam. 1 0 0 0 152 Ziziphus nummularia (Burm. f.) Wight and Arn. 0 1 0 0 153 39.Rosaceae Cotoneaster nummularius Fisch. and C.A. Mey. 1 0 0 0 154 Duchesnea indica (Andrews) Teschem. 0 0 1 0 155 40.Rubiaceae Galium aparine L. 0 0 1 0 156 41.Salvadoraceae Salvadora persica L. 1 0 0 0 157 42.Sapindaceae Dodonaea viscosa Jacq. (Sapindaceae) 1 0 0 0 158 43.Sapotaceae Monotheca buxifolia (Falc.) A. DC. 0 1 0 0 159 44.Scrophulariaceae Scrophularia striata Boiss. 0 0 1 0 160 Verbascum thapsus L. 0 0 0 1 161 45.Solanaceae Datura innoxia Mill. Solanaceae 0 0 1 0 162 Solanum nigrum L. 0 0 1 0 163 Solanum surattense Burm. f. 0 0 1 0 164 Withania coagulans (Stocks) Dunal 0 1 0 0 165 Withania somnifera (L.) Dunal 0 0 1 0 166 46.Tamaricaceae Tamarix indica Willd. 1 0 0 0 167 47.Thymelaeaceae Thymelaea passerina (L.) Coss. and Germ. 0 0 1 0 168 48.Urticaceae Forsskaolea tenacissima L. 0 0 0 1 169 49.Zygophyllaceae Fagonia indica Burm. f. 0 0 1 0 170 Tribulus terrestris L. 0 0 1 0 Tota 13 32 87 38 E=Endangered,l V=Vulnerable, R=Rare, I=Infrequent

241

1.4. Chemical and Nutritional Analysis of Some Selected Plants 1.4.1. Essential Elements Some of the plant species are very commonly used and highly valued in Mohmand Agency. Five such species were selected for chemical screening, on the bases of the relative importance and use value of the plant. Monotheca buxifolia, Ziziphus mauritiana, Caralluma tuberculata, Fagonia indica and Sageretia thea were five species that were analyzed for various chemicals and nutritional contents.

Nitrogen contents analysis showed that C. tuberculata with 19.7 g/kg nitrogen was on top, followed by Z. mauritiana (16.05 g/kg), S. thea (13.2 g/kg), M. buxifolia (11.3 g/kg) and F. indica (9.7 g/kg). Phosphorus was analyzed for these sample plant species. Phosphorus was highest in C. tuberculata (4.13g/kg) followed by S. thea (3.25g/kg) and Z. mauritiana (3.17). Least Phosphorus contents were found in M. buxifolia (2.86g/kg) and F. indica (2.76 g/kg). Potassium was highest in C. tuberculata (2.87 g/kg) followed by S. thea (2.39 g/kg), Z. mauritiana (2.29 g/kg), M. buxifolia (1.86 g/kg) and F. indica (1.58 g/kg) (Table 22).

Z. mauritiana was having the highest concentration of Mg (2036 ppm) followed by C. tuberculata (1923 ppm), F. indica (1838 ppm), M. buxifolia (1823 ppm) and S. thea with least concentration (1746 ppm). Ca contents analysis showed that M. buxifolia was having highest concentration of calcium (658 ppm). S. thea and C. tuberculata were next in order with 617 and 572 ppm respectively followed by F. indica with least calcium content (37 ppm) (Table 22).

Micronutrients assessment of different plants showed that Zn was in highest concentration in M. buxifolia (57 ppm), followed by Z. mauritiana (46ppm) and C. tuberculata (41 ppm). Manganese concentration was highest in F. indica (33.5ppm); least value for this element was recorded in case of S. thea i.e. 14 ppm. Highest concentrations of Fe, Pb and Cr were found in F. indica (514 ppm, 1.2 ppm and 9.3 ppm respectively). Cobalt concentration was highest in M. buxifolia (2.5), followed by Z. mauritiana and F. indica (1.9, 1.78 ppm respectively). Highest copper concentration was found in C. tuberculata (11.23 ppm) and S. thea (10.76) followed by Z. mauritiana (7.98 ppm). F. indica was the least copper containing species with a concentration of 5.34ppm (Table 23).

242

1.4.2. Nutritional Contents Carbohydrates, proteins, fats, fibers and ash contents of the selected species were analyzed to investigate the relative nutritional contents in these plants. Sageretia thea and Monotheca buxifolia were the species with highest concentration of carbohydrates (57% and 51% respectively). Least carbohydrate contents were reported from Fagonia indica (29%). Protein percentage was much less in comparison to carbohydrate contents in these species. M. buxifolia and Caralluma tuberculata were having 3.5 and 3.1% protein and 1.2% and 1.2 % fat contents respectively, making them the highest fats and proteins containing species. F. indica was having the least protein contents (2.4%).

Highest relative concentration of fibers was found in F. indica (24.6%) followed by C. tuberculata and Ziziphus mauritiana (23.5 and 21.7% respectively). Least fiber concentration was found in M. buxifolia (19.6%). Classification on the bases of ash contents indicated that S. thea and M. buxifolia were species with highest relative ash contents (11.7% and 11.6% respectively), followed by F. indica and C. tuberculata with 9.8% and 9.5% ash respectively. Least percentage of ash (7.3%) was recorded in Z. mauritiana (Table 23).

Plants, being the primary source of proteins, carbohydrates, minerals, oils and water are considered the basic source of nutrition for human and animals. Each and every biological molecule that is obtained from plants has its own importance (Aruoma, 2003; Agte et al., 2000; Underwood, 1977). Analysis of these chemicals has not only its role in identification of the nutritional importance of the plants, but also in its taxonomic classification (Siddique, 1998). The nutritional contents of these plants decide the productivity of the animals in that particular area (Badshah, 2013).

243

Table 22. Selected species with micro (ppm) and macro (g/kg) nutrient contents

Plants Mg Ca Na Zn Mn Cr Cu Fe Pb Co N P K

Caralluma tuberculata N.E. Br. 1923 572 225 41 23.7 3.8 11.2 450 0.679 1.31 19.7 4.13 2.87

Sageretia thea M.C. Johnst. 1746 617 86 39 14 1.2 10.7 398 0.419 0.98 13.2 3.25 2.39

Ziziphus mauritiana Lam. 2036 338 123 46 16 2.4 7.9 237 0.765 1.9 16.05 3.17 2.29

Monotheca buxifolia(Falc.) A. DC. 1823 658 194 57 26 7.1 6.7 212 0.257 2.5 11.3 2.86 1.86

Fagonia indica Burm. f. 1838 37 176 37 33.5 9.3 5.3 514 1.2 1.78 9.7 2.76 1.58

Table 23. Selected species with percent nutritional contents

Species Carbohydrate Protein Fats Ash Fibers Sageretia thea (Osbeck) M.C. Johnst. 57 2.7 1.5 11.7 21.7 Monotheca buxifolia (Falc.) A. DC. 51 3.5 1.2 11.6 19.6 Fagonia indica Burm. f. 29 2.4 0.73 9.8 24.6 Caralluma tuberculata N.E. Br. 48 3.1 1.3 9.5 23.5 Ziziphus mauritiana Lam. 43 3 0.95 7.3 21.5

244

CHAPTER 4

2. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1. Conclusion

1. The current study was an attempt to explore the phytosociology, ethnobotany and conservation status of the wild flora of Mohmand Agency, Pakistan. 2. A total of 170 species, belonging to 144 genera and 49 families were recorded form the area. 3. Flora was dominated by dicots with 43 families, 118 genera and 141 species; monocots were represented by 4 families, 24 genera and 27 species. 4. Only two species of gymnosperms i.e. Pinus roxburghii and Ephedra intermedia were found in the area. 5. Asteraceae and Poaceae were the dominant families with 22 species each followed by Brassicaceae and Fabaceae (11 species each). Lamiaceae, Boraginaceae and Amaranthaceae were some of the other leading families. 6. Astragalus was the leading genus with 4 different species. 7. Therophytes were dominant with 97 species followed by nanophanerophytes and hemicryptophytes (21 species each). Chamaephytes (17 species), geophytes (7species), microphanerophytes (3 species), mesophanerophytes and megaphanerophytes (2 species each) were also documented from the area. 8. The flora was dominated by nanophylls (74 species) and microphylls (47 species). Leptophylls (33 species), mesophylls (11 species) and aphyllous plants (4 species) were also found in the research sites; only 1 species was found to be megaphyllous. 9. Most of the species (113 species) were having simple leaves. Twenty-four species were found to have compound leaves while indented and needle shaped leaves were also documented in case of 25 and 4 species respectively. 10. Phenological behavior of the species indicated that March to June time of the year was characterized by rich flora during which most of the species were active. 11. Most of the species (41%) were in flowering condition in April. In May 41% of the species were in fruiting condition. January was a month with most of the flora (63% of total species) in dormant/post-reproductive phase of life cycle.

245

12. Structure of vegetation was established by defining 40 different plant communities based on altitude, climatic conditions and seasons. 13. Similarity index of these communities showed that all these communities were different form each other. 14. Biomass of the selected rangelands was estimated which showed an average biomass production of 19.6g/m2. 15. Most of the flora is utilized as fuel (93%), fodder (40%) and medicine (39%). A small portion of the flora is used as timber (5%) and for other purposes. 16. Conservation status of different species was assessed using the criteria of IUCN, which indicated 13 species as endangered, 32 vulnerable, 82 rare and 38 species as infrequent. 17. Palatability of the vegetation showed that 68 different species were highly palatable, 39 moderately palatable, 25 less palatable and 38 species were non-palatable. 18. Elemental and nutritional analysis of some selected plant species revealed that they have good nutrition for the animals, as all the essential requirements were present in them. 19. Physicochemical properties of the soil showed that soil of the area are mostly silt loam in texture, with pH ranging from 7.4 to 8.4 mol/L (alkaline).

246

2.2. Recommendations

1. The area is extremely weak in terms of education; people of the area should properly be educated so they can understand the importance of biodiversity. 2. Plant diversity of the area is very poor, and less plant cover is present on soil. Government should take serious steps to improve the diversity of the flora by introducing new projects. 3. Most of the flora is used as fuel; if the area is provided with alternate source of fuel, biotic stress on the flora could significantly be decreased. 4. Fodder is another main source of consumption of the plants; cultivation of fodder crops can reduce this biotic stress up to considerable extent. 5. Conservation status of the flora indicated that plants are depleting day by day, especially some of the characteristic species of the area. Projects should focus on the reforestation of Nannorrhops ritchiana, Caralluma tuberculata, Olea ferruginea, Monotheca buxifolia, Sageretia thea, Pinus roxburghii and Acacia species. 6. The NGO’s should also focus on saving the vegetation of the area. 7. People of the area should be trained and educated about the sustainable collection and uses of medicinal plants. 8. Researchers from around the world should be attracted to the area so the problems of the flora could be surfaced; this could be achieved by providing coverage to the area in print and electronic media to highlight vegetation related issues. 9. Botanical garden for the medicinal and rare flora of the area should be established, with duties to keep an eye on the issues related biodiversity and conservation. 10. Biodiversity and vegetation cover are two different parameters and both are important. In this area conservation and protection of the vegetation is more important. The species of the area, if protected, may form thick scrub forests in the area. 11. For each and every developmental step, economic stability and peace are of utmost importance, which are unfortunately missing in Mohmand Agency. Government officials should take serious and calculated measures to put the region on the track in terms of peace and economic issues.

247

REFERENCES

Abbas, H., M. Qaiser and J. Alam. 2010. Conservation status of Cadaba heterotricha Stocks(Capparaceae): an endangered species in Pakistan. Pak. J. of Bot., 42(1): 35-46.

Abbasi, A. M., A. M. Khan, M. A. Ahmad, M. Zafar. 2012. Medicinal plants biodiversity of lesser Himalayas-Pakistan. ISBN 978-1-4614-1574-9. Springer New York.

Abdel-Sattar, E., A. A. Ahmed, M. E. F. Hegazy, M. A. Farag and M. A. Al-Yahya. 2007. Acylated pregnane glycosides from Caralluma russeliana. Phytochem., 68(10):1459-1463.

Acharya, K., R. Chaudhary and O. Vetaas. 2009. Medicinal plants of Nepal: Distribution pattern along an elevational gradient and effectiveness of existing protected areas for their conservation. Banko Janak., 19(1): 16-22.

Adhikari, B. S., H. C. Rikhari, Y. S. Rawat and S. P. Singh. 1991. High altitude forest composition diversity and profile in a part of Kaumaun Himalaya. Tropic. Ecol., 32 (1): 86- 97.

Adnan, M., I. Ullah, A. Tariq, W. Murad, A. Azizullah and A. Khan. 2014. Ethnomedicine use in the war affected region of Northwest Pakistan. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed., pp 10-16.

Adnan, M., S. Jan, S. Mussarat, A. Tariq, S. Begum, A. Afroz and Z. K. Shinwari. 2014. A review on ethnobotany, phytochemistry and pharmacology of plant genus Caralluma. R. Br. J. Pharm. Pharmacol., 66(10):1351-68 doi: 10.1111/jphp.12265.

Agency Wise Socio economic Indicators of FATA. 1990. Bureau of Statistics, Planning and Development Department, Government of NWFP Peshawar

Agency Wise Socio economic Indicators of FATA. 2013. Bureau of Statistics, Planning and Development Department, Government of NWFP Peshawar.

Aggimarangsee, N., N. Sitasuwan, C. Trisonthi and W.Y. Brockelman. 2005. Diversity of medicinal plants at Khao Lommuak in Prachuap Khiri Khan Province, Thailand. Acta Hort., (ISHS) 675:31-35.

Agte, V. V., K. V. Tarwadi, S. Mngale and S. A. Chiplonkar. 2000. Potential of indigenous green vegetables as natural sources of fortification of eight micronutrients. J. Food Comp. Anal., 13: 885-891.

Ahamd, H. and Sirajuddin. 1996. Ethnobotanical profile of Swat. Proceedings of the first training workshop on Ethnobotany and applied conservation, Pakistan Agricultural Research Center, Islamabad, pp.201-211

248

Ahamd, M., S. Sultana, S. Fazl-i-Hadi, T. ben Hadda, S. Rashid, M. Zafar, M. A. Khan, M. P. Z. Khan and G. Yaseen. 2014. An Ethnobotanical Study of Medicinal Plants in High Mountainous Region of Chail Valley District Swat, Pakistan. J. of Ethnobiol. and Ethnomed., 10:36

Ahmad, S. A. 2007. Medicinal wild plants from Lahore-Islamabad Motorway (M-2). Pak. J.

Bot., 39(2):355-375

Ahmad, M. and S. S. Shaukat. 2012. A Text Book of Vegetation Ecology. Abrar Sons, 61 New Urdu Bazar, Karachi-74200.

Ahmad, A. S. 1978. Colonial Encounter on the NWFP. Asian Affairs. Oxford, p. 2092.

Ahmad, A. S. 1980. Pukhtun Economy and Society: Traditional structure and economic development in a tribal society. Routledge and Kegan Paul Publishers, London.

Ahmad, B., S. J. Abbas, F. Hussain, S. Bashir and Dawood Ahmad. 2014. Study on Caralluma tuberculata nutritional composition and its importance as medicinal plant. Pak. J. Bot., 46(5): 1677-1684

Ahmad, H. 2003. Capacity building for cultivation and sustainable harvesting of medicinal and aromatic plants. Proceedings of international workshop on conservation and sustainable uses of medicinal and aromatic plants of Pakistan, P. 31-36

Ahmad, H., S. Khan, A. Khan and M. Humayun. 2004. Ethnobotanical resources of Mani Khel forests, Orakzai Tirah, Pakistan. J. of Ethnobot. Leaflet, (www.siu.edu/~ebl)

Ahmad, H., S. M. Khan, S. Ghafoor and Niaz Ali. 2009. Ethnobotanical study of Upper Siran. J. of Herbs, Spec. and Med. Plants, 15:86-97

Ahmad, I., M. Ibrar, Barakatullah and Niaz Ali. 2011. Ethno botanical study of Tehsil Kabal, Swat District, KP Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 2011:1-9

Ahmad, I., M.S.A. Ahmad, M. Hussain, M. Ashraf, M.Y. Ashraf and M. Hameed. 2010. Spatiotemporal aspects of plant community structure in open scrub rangelands of sub mountainous Himalayan plateaus. Pak. J. Bot., 42(5): 3431-3440.

Ahmad, K., M. Hussain, M. Ashraf, M. Luqman, M. Y. Ashraf and Z. I. Khan. 2007. Indigenous vegetation of Soone Valley: at the risk of extinction. Pak. J. Bot., 39 (3): 679-690.

Ahmad, K.S., W. K. Kiyani, M. Hameed, F. Ahmad, T. Nawaz. 2012. Floristic diversity and ethnobotany of Senhsa, District Kotli, Azad Jammu and Kashmir (Pakistan). Pak. J. Bot, 44(SI): 195-201,

249

Ahmad, M. S. Sultana, S. Fazl-i-hadi, T. bin Hadda, S. Rashid, M. Zafar, M. A. Khan, M. P. Z. Khan and Ghulam Yaseen. 2014. An Ethno botanical study of medicinal plants in high mountainous region of Chail valley (District Swat-Pakistan). J. of Ethnobiol. and Ethnomed., 10(36):1-18

Ahmad, M., S. S. Shoukat and D. Khan. 2010b. Status of vegetation analysis in Pakistan. Int. J. Biol. Biotech., 7 (3): 147-158.

Ahmad, M., T. Hussain, A. H. Sheikh, S. S. Hussain and Mohammad Faheem Siddqui. 2006. Phytosociology and structure of Himalayan forests from different climatic zones of Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 38(2):361-383

Ahmad, S. S., A. Wahid and K. F. Akbar. 2010a. Multivariate classification and data analysis of vegetation along Motorway (M-2), Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 42 (2): 1173-1185.

Ahmad, S., H. M. Wariss, K. Alam, S. Anjum and Muhammad Mukhtar. 2002. Ethnobotanica studies of plants resources of Cholistan Desert, Pakistan. Int. J. of Sci. and Res., 3(6):1782 -1788

Ahmad, S., M. Islam, G. Bano, S. Aslam and S. Koukab. 2009. Seasonal variation in current season and dead biomass of Chrysopogon aucheri (Boiss) Stapf in highland Baluchistan. Pak. J. Bot., 41 (2): 519-528.

Ahmed, A. S. 1980. Pakhtun Economy and Society: Traditional Structure and Economic Development in a Tribal Society. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, Boston Henley.

Ahmed, K., M. Hussain, M. Ashraf, M. Luqman, M. Y. Ashraf and Z.I. Khan. 2007. Indigenous of Soone Valley at the risk of Extinction. Pak. J. Bot., 39:679-690.

Ahmed, M and A.M. Sarangezai. 1991. Dendrochronological approach to estimate age and growth rate of various species from Himalyan region of Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 23:78-89.

Ahmed, M. 1976. Multivariate analysis of the vegetation around Skardu. Agri-Pak. 2:177.

Ahmed, M. 1986. Vegetation of some foothill of Himalayan range in Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 18: 261-269.

Ahmed, M. 1988a. Plant communities of some northern temperate forests of Pakistan. Pak. J. For., 38: 33-40.

Ahmed, M. 1988b. Population studies of some planted tree species of Quetta. J. Pure.Appl. Sci., 7:25-29.

Ahmed, M. and S.A. Qadir. 1976. Phytosiological studies along the way of Gilgit to Gopis, Yasin and Shunder. Pak. J. Forest. 26: 93-104.

250

Ahmed, M., A. Mohammad and S. Mohammad. 1991. Vegetation Structure and Dynamics of Pinus gerardiana forests in Baluchistan. Paki. J. Veg. Sci., 2: 119-124.

Ahmed, M., E. Naqui and E.L.M. Wang. 1990b. Present state of juniper in Roadhmullazi forest of Baluchistan, Pakistan. Pak. J. For., 227-236.

Ahmed, M., T. Hussain, A.H. Sheikh, S.S. Hussain and M. F. Siddiqui. 2006. Phytosociology and structure of Himalayan forests from different climatic zones of Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 38: 361-383.

Ahmad, K., Z. I. Khan, M. Ashraf, M. Hussain, M. Ibrahim and E. E. Valeem. 2008b. Status of plant diversity at Kufri (Soone Valley) Punjab, Pakistan and prevailing threats therein. Pak. J. Bot., 40 (3): 993-997.

Ajose, F. O. A. 2007. Some Nigerian plants of dermatologic importance. Int. J. Dermatol. 46(Suppl. 1):S48–S55.

Akeroyd, J. 2002. A rational look at extinction. Plant Talk, 28: 35-37.

Alam, J. and S. I. Ali. 2010. Contribution to the Red List of the Plants of Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 42(5): 2967-2971.

Alaroa, J. P., G. E. Jokthan and K. Akut. 2002. Ethno veterinary medical practice for ruminants in the sub-humid zone of northern Nigeria. Prev. Vet. Med., 54(1):79-90

Albuquerque, U. P. R., F. P. Lucena, J. M. Monteiro, A. T. N. Florentino, Cecília de Fátima and C. B. R. Almeida. 2006. Evaluating Two Quantitative Ethnobotanical Techniques. Ethnobot. Res.and Applic., 4:051-060.

Alhassan, J., S. A. Dadari, J. A. Y. Shebayan and B. A. Babaji. 2015. Phytosociology attributes of weeds in lowland paddy at Talata Mafara, Sudan Savannah, Nigeria. Intern. J. of Agron. and Agric. Res., 6(4):8-13

Ali H. and M. Qaiser. 2010. Contribution to the Red List of Pakistan. A case study of Astragalus gahiratensis Ali (Fabaceae-Papilionoideae). Pak. J. Bot. 42(3):1523-1528.

Ali, A., N. Akhtar, B. A. Khan, M. S. Khan, A. Rasul, Shahi-Uz-Zaman, N. Khalid, K. Waseem, T. Mahmood and L. Ali. 2012. Acacia nilotica: A Plant of Multipurpose Medicinal Uses. J. of Med. Pl. Res., 6(9):1492-1496.

Ali, H., N. Kabir, A. Muhammad, M. R. Shah, S. G. Musharraf, N. Iqbal and S. Nadeem. 2014. Hautriwaic acid as one of the hepatoprotective constituent of Dodonaea viscosa. Phytomedi., 21(2):131–140.

251

Ali, J. and A. Benjaminsen. 2004. Fuel wood Timber and Deforestation in the Himalayas the case of Basho valley, Baltistan region, Pakistan. Mount. Rese. and Develop., 24: 312- 318.

Ali, J., T. A. Benjaminsen, A. A. Hammad and O. B. Dick. 2005. The road to deforestation: An assessment of forest loss and it causes in Basho valley, Northern Pakistan. Glob. Environ. Change, 15(2005):370-380

Ali, S. I. 2008. The significance of flora with special reference to Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 40(30): 967-971.

Ali, S. I. and M. Qaiser. 1986. A phytogeographical analysis of the phanerogames of Pakistan and Kashmir. Proc. Royle Soc. Edinburg, 898, pp. 89-100

Ali, S.I. 2008. The significance of flora with special reference to Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 40(30): 967-971.

Ali, S. M and R. N. Malik. 2010. Vegetation communities of urban open spaces: Green belts and parks in Islamabad city. Pak. J. Bot., 42 (2): 1031-1039.

Ali, S.I. 2008. The significance of flora with special reference to Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot, 40(30): 967-971,

Ali, S.I. and M. Qaisar. 1995-2009. Flora of Pakistan. Pakistan Agricultural Research Council, Islamabad.

Al-Tamimi, F. A. and A. E. M. Hegazi. 2008. A case of castor bean poisoning. Sultan Qaboos Univ. Med. J. 8:83–87

Al-Yahyai and Al-Nabhani. 2006. Botanical description and propagation of Monotheca buxifolia (13-19 August), 27 International Horticulture Exhibitions (IHC 200). Korea (ABS).

Amjad, M. S. and M. Arshad. 2014. Ethnobotanical inventory and medicinal uses of some important woody plant species of Kotli, Azad Kashmir, Pakistan. Asian Pacific J. of Tropic. Biomed., 4(12):952-958

Amjad, M. S., M. Arshad and Imtiaz Ahmad. 2013. Phytosociology of Pinus-Quercus forest vegetation of Nikyal hills, District Kotli, Azad Kashmir, Pakistan. Intern.J. of Agric. and Crop Sci., 5(24):2952-2960

Amos, S., P. A. Akah, C. J. Odukwe, K. S. Gamaniel and C. Wambede. 1999. The pharmacological effects of an aqueous extract from Acacia nilotica seeds. Phytother. Res., 13:683-685.

Anil, P., B. Nikhil, G. Manoj and N. B. Prakash. 2012. Phytochemical and Biological Activities of Fagonia indica. Intern. Res. J. of Pharm., 3(6):56-59

252

Anonymous. 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN Gland Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 2: 30.

Antje, B. 2002. Determinants of inselberg floras in arid Nama Karoo land scapes. J. Biogeograph., 28 (10): 1211-1220.

Arizona Academic Standards. 2012. What is Ethnobotany? Desert Discovery Class Material. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum. 1-3

Arrhenius, O. (1921). Species and area. J. of Ecol., 9:95-99

Arshad, M. and G. Akbar. 2002. Benchmark of plant communities of Cholistan desert. Pak. J. Biol. Scie., 5: 1110-1113.

Arshad, M., A. U. Hussain, M. Y. Ashraf, S. Noureen and M. Moazzam. 2008. Edaphic factors and distribution of vegetation in the Cholistan desert, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 40 (5): 1923-1931.

Arshad. M., M. Ahmed, E. Ahmed, A. Saboor, A. Abbas and S. Sadiq. 2014. An ethno biological study in Kala Chitta hills of Pothwar Region, Pakistan: multinomial logit specification. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed., pp 10-13.

Aruoma, O. L. 2003. Methodological considerations for characterizing potential antioxidant actions of bioactive compounds in plant foods. Mutat. Res., 522 -524 (2003): 9-20.

Asad Ullah and Abdur Rashid. 2014. Conservation Status of Threatened Medicinal Plants of Mankial Valley Hindu Kush Range, Pakistan. Internat. J. of Biodivers. and Conser., 6(1):59-70.

Asres, K., A. Seyoum, C. Veeresham, F. Buca and S. Gibbons. 2005. Naturally derived anti-HIV agents. Phytother. Res., 19: 557-581.

Athar, M. and T. Z. Bukhari. 2006. Ethnobotany and production of constraints of traditional and commonly used vegetables of Pakistan. J. of Vegetab. Sci., 12(2):27-38

Aytul, K. K. 2010. Antimicrobial and antioxidant activities of olive leaf extract and its food applications. A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate School of Engineering and Sciences of İzmir Institute of Technology.

Azhar, M. F., M. T. Siddiui, M. Ishaque and A. Tanveer. 2014. Study of Ethnobotany and indigenous use of Calotropis procera in Cholistan Desert, Punjab, Pakistan. J. of Agric. Res., 52(1):117-126

Bacchetta, G., E. Biondi, E. Farris, R. Filigheddu and L. Mossa. A phytosociological study of the deciduous oak woods of Sardinia (Italy). Fitosociologia, 41(1)53-65.

253

Badshah, L. 2013. Ecological Evaluation of Plant Resources and Vegetation Structure of District Tank, Pakistan. Ph. D thesis. Department of Botany, university of Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.

Badshah, L. and F. Hussain. 2011. People preferences and use of local medicinal flora in District Tank, Pakistan. J. Med. Plants Res., 5(1): 22-29.

Badshah, L. F. Hussain and Z. Sher. 2013. Floristic Inventory, Ecological Characteristics and Biological Spectrum of Rangeland, District Tank, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 45(4): 1159- 1168

Badshah, L., F. Hussain and N. Akhtar. 2010a. Vegetation structure of subtropical forest of Tabai, South Waziristan, Pakistan. Front. Agri. China, 4(2): 232-236.

Badshah, L., Farrukh Hussain and Z. Mohammad. 1996. Floristic and ethnobotanical studies on some plants of Pirghar Hills of South Waziristan, Pakistan. Pak. J. of Plant Sci., 2(2):167 -177.

Badshah, L., M. Ibrar and F. Hussain. 2010b. An ethnobotanical study on the usage of wild medicinal herbs from Malana hills, Parachinar, Kurram Valley. J. Biol. Biotech., 7 (3): 267-271.

Balick, M. J., P. A. Cox. 1996. Plants, people, and culture: the science of ethnobotany. Scientific American Library, New York.

Baravkar, A. A., R. N. Kale, R. N. Patil and S. D. Sawant. 2008. Pharmaceutical and biological evaluation of formulated cream of methanolic extract of Acacia nilotica leaves. Res. J. Pharm. Technol., 1(4): 481-483.

Barkatullah, M. Ibrar, A. Rauf, T. B. Hadda, M. S. Mubarak and S. Patel. 2015. Quantitative ethnobotanical survey of medicinal ﬂora thrivingin Malakand Pass Hills, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. J. of Ethnopharmac., 169(2015):335-346.

Barohi, K. 1958. Fundamental Law of Pakistan. Din Muhammadi Printers. Karachi. P. 926.

Batalha, M. A. and F. R. Martins. 2002. Life-form spectra of Brazilian Cerrado sites. Flora, Morphology and Distribution.Funct. Ecol. of Plants, 197 (6): 452-460.

Batanouny, K.H. 1996. Biodiversity in the rangelands of the Arab countries. In: Proc. Rangelands. In a sustainable biosphere. (Ed.): N.E. West. 5th International Congress 1995, Salt Lake City Utah. Pp. 39 - 40.

Bazai, Z. A., R. B. Tareen, A. K. K. Achakzai and H. Batool. 2013. Application of the participatory rural appraisal (PRA) to assess the Ethnobotany and forest conservation status of

254

the Zarghoon Juniper Ecosystem, Baluchistan, Pakistan. Internat. J. of Experim. Bot., 82: 69 -74.

Beg, A. R. 1975. Wildlife habitat types of Pakistan. Botany Branch, Bull. 5. PFI, Peshawar, Pakistan: 56 pp.

Begon, M., C. R. Townsend and J. L. Harper. 2006. Ecology: from individual to ecosystem. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

Bekele, T. 1994. Phytosociology and Ecology of a Humid Afromontane Forest on the Central Plateau of Ethiopia. J. of Veget. Sci., 5(1):87-98.

Bengtsson, J. T. Fagerstrom and H. Rydin. 1994. Competition and coexistence in plant communities. Elsevier Science ltd. 9(7):246-250.

Berger, U., C. Piou, K. Schiffers, V. Grimm. 2008. Competition among plants: Concepts, individual-based modeling approaches, and a proposal for a future research strategy. Perspect. in Plant Ecol., Evol. and Syst., 9(3-4)121-135.

Bernini, E., T. Chagas, F. Lage-pinto, G. Calegarion and C. E. Rezende. 2014. Phytosociology and litter fall in the mangrove estuary of the Itabapoana River, Southeast Brazil. Pan-Americ. J. of Aquatic Sci., 9(2):88-102.

Bhattari, N. K. 1992. Folk use of plants in veterinary medicines in central Nepal. Fitoterapia, 63(6):497-506.

Bhatti, G. R., S. Muqarrab and R. Qureshi. 2001. Floristic study of arid zone (Desert Nara, Region) Sindh, Pakistan. Final Technical Report, PSF Project. No. SSALU/ ENVR (45).

Bhuyan, D. K. 1994. Herbal Drugs used by the tribal people of Lohit District of Arunachal Pradesh for abortion and easy delivery. A Report on Advances in Plant Sciences. 7(2):47- 202.

Bibi, S., J. Sultana, H. Sultana and R. N. Malik. 2014a. Ethnobotanical uses of medicinal Plants in the highlands of Soan Valley, Salt Range, Pakistan. J. Ethnopharmacol. 155:352–361.

Bibi, T., M. Ahmad, R. B. Tareen, N. M. Tareen, R. Jabeen, Saeed-Ur-Rehman, S. Sultana, M. Zafar and Ghulam Yaseen. 2014. Ethnobotany of medicinal plants in District Mastung of Baluchistan province, Pakistan. J. of Ethnopharmacol., 157:79-89.

Biology Discussion. 2015. Study of Plant community structure (with diagrams). An online resource (http://www.biologydiscussion.com/plants/study-of-plants-community- structure- with-diagram/6806)

255

Black, J.L. and P.A. Kenney. 1984a. Factors affecting diet selection by sheep. I. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 35: 551-563.

Bocuk, H., C. Ture and O. Ketenoglu. 2009. Plant diversity and conservation of the Northeast Phrygia region under the impact of land degradation and desertification (Central Anatolia, Turkey). Pak. J. Bot., 41(5): 2305-2321.

Bonham, C.D. 1989. Measurement for terrestrial vegetation. John Wiley and Sons. New York.

Bounoua, L.,G. J. Collatz, S. O. Los, P. J. Sellers, D. A. Dazlich,C. J. Tucker, D. A. Randall. 2000. Sensitivity of climate to changes in NDVI. J. of Climate, 13, 2277 – 2292.

Bradfor, A. 2015. Deforestation: facts, causes and effects. Online resources from live science: http://www.livescience.com/27692-deforestation.html

Brands, P. J. Honest and N. Marsh. 2000. Effects of topography on the relationship between soil conditions and the vigor of Andropogon gerardii and Sorghastrum nutans. Tillers, 2:1-10

Braun-Blanquette, J. 1932. Plant Sociology, the study of plant communities (An authorized English translation of Pflanzensoziologie). Geoege D. Fuller and Henry S. Conard, United States of America.

Brinkmann, K., A. Patzelt, U. Dickhoefer, E. Schlecht, A. Buerkert. 2009. Vegetation patterns and diversity along an altitudinal and a grazing gradient in theJabal al Akhdar Mountain range of northern Oman. J. of Arid Environ., 73: 1035–1045.

Brook, B. W., N. S. Sodhi, and P. K. L. Ng. 2003. Catastrophic extinctions follow deforestation in Singapore. Nature, 424:420–426.

Brotherson, J. D. 1983. Species composition, distribution and phytosociology of Kalsow Prairie, a mesic tall grass prairie in Iowa. Great Basin Natur., 43(1): 137-167.

Bruno, J. F. and M. D. Bertness. 2000. Habitat modification and facilitation in Benthic Marine Communities. In Bertness MD, Hay ME, Gaines SD, eds. Marine Community Ecology. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates.

Bunnell, F.L. and D.J. Vales. 1990. Comparison of methods for estimating forest over story cover: differences among techniques. Canad. J. of Fores. Res., 20:101–107.

Bureau of Statistics, Planning and Development Department, Government of NWFP Peshawar. 1990. Socio Economic Indicators of FATA.

Burnham, K.P.,and W.S. Overton.1978. Estimation of the size of a closed population when capture probabilities vary among animals. Biometrik., 65, 623-633.

256

Burrascano, C. B. S. 2013. The role of plant sociology in the study and management of European forest ecosystems. Ital. Soci. of Silvic. and Forest Ecol., 6:55-58.

Buss, L. W. 1981.Group living, competition and the evolution of cooperation in a sessile invertebrate. Science, 213:1012–1014.

Butaye, J., O. Honnay, D. Adriaens, L. M. Delescaille and M. Hermy. 2005. Phytosociology and Phytogeography of the calcareous grassland on Devonian limestone in the southwest Belgium. Belg. J. of Bot., 138(1):24-38.

Butt, A., F. Mateen, I. Javed and A. Jabeen. 2015. A Comparative Analysis of National and International Plant Conservation Techniques: A Review. J. of Sci. and Engin. Res., 2(3):44 50.

Cain, S.A. and G.M. Castro de Oliveira. 1959. Manual of Vegetation Analysis. Harper and Brothers, New York.

Calow, P. 1998. The Encyclopedia of Ecology and Environmental Management. Blackwell Science, Oxford.

Cámara-Leret, R., N. Paniagua-Zambrana, H. Balslev and M. J. Macía. 2014. Ethnobotanical knowledge is vastly under-documented in northwestern South America. PLoS One 9, e85794.

Carvalho, M. B., L. C. Bernacci and R. M. Coelho. 2013. Floristic and Phytosociology in a physiognomic gradient of riverine forest in Cerrado, Campinas, SP. Bio. Neotropic., 13(3):110-120.

Causton, D.R. 1988. An introduction to vegetation analysis; principles, practice and interpretation. Unwin Hyman Ltd. 15/17 Broadwick Street, London W1V 1FP, UK. P. 2-3.

Cerny, T. 2007. Phytosociological study of selected critical thermophilous vegetation complexes in the Czech Republic. A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Botany Faculty of Sciences Charles University, Prague.

Chaghtai, S. M. and M. Yousaf. 1976. The ecology of native vegetation of Kohat, NWFP, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 8(1):27-36.

Chaghtai, S.M., H.R. Khattak, S.Z .Shah and J. Shah. 1988. Ecology of an upland forest near Nowshehra, NWFP. Pak. J. Bot., 20:113-124.

Chaghtai, S.M., S.H. Shah and M.A. Akhtar. 1978. Phytosociological study of the Graveyards of Peshawar district NWFP. Pak. J. Bot., 10: 17-30.

257

Chaghtai, S.M., S.Z. Shah and J. Shah. 1989. Temporal changes in vegetation of Miranjani top Galis, Hazara NWFP. Pak. J. Bot., 21:107-117.

Chaghtai, S.M., N.A. Rand and H.R. Khattak. 1983. Phytosociology of the Muslim Grave yard of Kohat Division, NWFP. Pak. J. Bot., 15: 99-108.

Champion, H. G., S. K. Seth and G. M. Khattak. 1965. Forest Types of Pakistan. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar.

Chao, A. 1984. Nonparametric estimation of the classes in a population. Scandin. J. of Stat., 11: 265-270.

Chao, A. 1987. Estimating the population size for capture-recapture data with unequal catchability. UNESCO – EOLSS Sample Chapters Environmetrics - The Inventory and Estimation of Plant Species Richness - A. Chiarucci and M.W. Palmer ©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS) Biometrics, 43:783-791.

Chao, A., N. J. Gotelli, T. C. Hseih, E. L. Sander, K. H. Ma, R. K. Colwell and A. M. Ellison.2014. Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: a framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies. Ecol. Monograph., 84(1):45–67.

Chaudary, M. I., M. A. Khan and Aminullah Shah. 2001. An ethno medicinal inventory of plants used for family planning and sex disease treatment in Samahni Valley, Azad Kashmir, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bio. Sci., 9:2546-2555.

Chaudary, M. I. 2002. Ethno veterinary medicinal plants from Samahni Valley District Bhimber, Azad Kashmir, Pakistan. Asian J. of Plant Sci., 5(2):390-396.

Chaudhary, M., S. Ahmad, A. Ali, H. Sher and S. Malik. 2000. Technical report. Market study of medicinal herbs in Malakand Peshawar, Lahore and Karachi. SDC-intrco-operation, Peshawar, P. 7.

Chaudhri, M. and R. Qureshi, 1991. Pakistan Endangered Flora II: A Checklist of rare and seriously threatened taxa of Pakistan. Pak.Syst., 5: 1‒84.

Chaudhry, I. I. 1957. Succession in the vegetation of the arid region of Pakistan. In soil erosion and its control in Arid and semi-arid zones. FACP symposium Karachi, pp. 141-146.

Chhetri, R. B.1994. Further observation on Ethnomedicobotany of Khasi Hills in Meghalaya, India. Ethnobot., 6:33-36.

Chopra, R. N.,S. L.Nayar and I. C. Chopra. 1986. Glossary of Indian Medicinal Plants. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi.

258

Chunlin, L. and P. Shengii. 2003. Cultural diversity promotes conservation and application of biological diversity. Acta Botanica Yunnanica, 14:11-22.

Chytry, M., P. Pesout and O. A. Anenchonov. 1993. Syntaxonomy of vegetation of Svjatoj Nos Peninsula, Lake Baikal 1. Non forest communities. Folia Geobot. and Phytotaxon., 28(4):337-383.

Claros, M. P. 2003. Changes in forest structure and species composition during secondary forest succession in the Bolivian Amazon1. Biotropica, 35 (4): 450- 461.

Colwell, R. K. and J.A. Coddington.1994. Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 345, 101-118.

Connell, H. J. 1978. Diversity in Tropical Rain Forest and Coral Reefs. Science, New Series,

199(4335):1302-1310.

Cotton, C. M. 1996. Ethnobotany: Principles and Applications. Wiley, Chichester.

Dakskobler, I. 2014. Phytosociological description of Quercus peraea forest stands with Chamaecytisus hirsutus and Erica carnea in the Vipavska Brda (Southwester Slovenia). Acta Silvae et Ligni, 103:1-20.

Dastagir, G. 2001. Pharmacognostic studies of Accacia nilotica L. and Juglans regia Wall. Used as maswaks. Pak. J. of Plant Sci., 3:93-100.

Dasti, A.A. and S.A. Malik. 1998. A transect of vegetation and soils on the Indus valley scarp slope, Pakistan. Pak J. Plant Sci., 4(2): 73-84.

Daubenmire, R. F. 1978. Plant and Environment, 3rd edition. John Willey and Sons New York.

Davis, G. and D, Rechardson.1995. Mediterranean Type Ecosystems: The Function of Biodiversity. Springer, Berlin, Germany, p.366.

De Deyn, G. B., C. E. Raaijmakers and W. H van der Putten. Plant community development is affected by nutrient and soil biota. J. ofEcol., 92(5):824-834.

De Lucena, L. E., C. P. De Moraes, A. G. Beck, C. Capucho, A. De Souza, C. A. Dubbern, V. F. da Salvia and Viviane Zrozo. 2007. Phytosociology of Orchidaceae family in fragment of swampy forest from Monjolinho country seat, Municipal district of Santa Cruz Das Palmeiras, SP, Brasil. Anais do VIII Congresso de Ecologia do Brasil, 1-2. de-Mera, A. G. and J. A. V. Orellana. 1996. Phytosociological study of the plant communities with Stauracanthus boivinii of the Iberian Peninsula and NW of Africa, using multivariate analysis. Botanica Helvetica, 106:45-56.

259

Devineau, J. L. and A. Fournier. 2007. Integrating environmental and sociological approaches to assess the ecology and diversity of herbaceous species in a Sudantype savanna (Bondoukuy, Western Burkina Faso). Flora, Morph., Distrib., Funct. Ecol. of Plants, 202 (5): 350-370.

Durrani, M. J., A. Razaq, S. G. Muhammad and F. Hussain. 2010. Floristic diversity, ecological, characteristics and ethnobotonical profile of plants of Aghberg rangelands, Balochistan, Pakistan. Pak. J. Pl. Sci., 16 (1): 29-36.

Durrani, M. J., F. Hussain and S. U. Rehman. 2005. Ecological characteristics of plants of Harboi rangeland, Kalat, Pakistan. J. Trop. and Sub Trop. Bot., 13 (2): 130-138.

Dyke, F.V. 2003. Conservation Biology. McGraw Hill, New York.

Eberhardt, E. 2004. Plant life of the Karakorum. The vegetation of the upper Hunza catchment (Northern Areas, Pakistan): Diversity syntaxonomy, distribution. Dissertation Botanicae 387. Berlin, Stuttgrat.

Eberhardt, E., W.B. Dickore and G. Miehe. 2006. Vegetation of Hunza Valley diversity, altitudinal distribution and human impact In: H. Kreutzmann. (ed): Karakoram in transition. Culture, Development and ecology in the Hunza valley. Karachi. 109-122.

Eddleston, M., H. Persson. 2003. Acute plant poisoning and antitoxin antibodies. J. Toxicol. Clin. Toxicology, 41:309–315.

Edwards, P.J. and P.J. Grubb. 1982. Studies of mineral cycling in a montane rain forest in New Guinea, I. V. Soil characteristics and the division of mineral elements between the vegetation and soil. J. Ecol., 70: 649-666.

Ehrlich, P. R. andA. Ehrlich.1981. Extinction the cause and consequences of the disappearance of species. Random House, N.Y.

El-Tahir, A., G. M. Satti and S. A. Khalid. 1999. Antiplasmodial activity of selected Sudanese medicinal plants with emphasis on Acacia nilotica. Phytother. Res., 13: 474-478

Ellison, A. M. 2010. Partitioning Diversity. Ecology, 91(7):1962-1963.

Eminagaoglu, O., H. G. Kutbay, A. Bilgin and E. Yalcin. 2005. Contribution to the phytosociology of tertiary relict species in Northeaster Anatolia (Turkey). Belg. J. of Bot., 139(1):124 130.

Erwin, T. L. 1982. Tropical forests: their richness in Coleoptera and other Arthropod species. Coloept.Bull.,36:74-75.

Ewald, J. 2003. A Critique for Phytosociology. J. of Veget. Sci., 14:291-296.

260

Faiz ul Haq, H. Ahmad, M. Alam, I. Ahmad and Rahatullah. 2010. Species diversity of vascular plants of nandiar valley western Himalaya, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., Special Issue (S.I. Ali Festschrift), 42:213-229.

Faiz Ul Haq. 2011. Conservation Status of the critically endangered and endangered species in the Nandiar Khuwar Catchment District Battagram, Pakistan. Internat. J. of Biod. and Cons., 3(2):27-35.

FAO, 2015. Corporate document repository (http://www.fao.org/docrep/t1765e/t1765e0t.htm). The National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory. 2015. Wind Erosion (http://milford.nserl.purdue.edu/weppdocs/overview/wndersn.html)

Farooq, S. 1990. A review of medicinal plants of Pakistan. Scientif. Khyb., 3(1):511-520

Farooq, S., A. Z. Khan, M. Yousaf and Hina Afzal. 2010. Phytosociological Study of Push Ziarat Area (Shawal) In the South Waziristan, Pakistan. Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res.,16(1): 47-55.

FATA Development Statistics. .1989. Bureau of Statistics, Planning and Development Department, Government of NWFP Peshawar.

Fazal, H., N. Ahmad, A. Rashid and S. Farooq. 2010. A Checklist of phanerogamic flora of Haripur Hazara, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 42 (3): 1511-1522.

Ferraz, E.M.N., E.D.L. Araujo and S.I.D. Silva. 2004. Floristic similarities between lowland and montane areas of Atlantic Coastal Forest in Northeastern Brazil. Plant Ecol., 174: 59- 70.

Fisher, G. C. 1975. Some Aspects of the Phytosociology of Heathland and Related Communities in the New Forest, Hampshire, England. J. of Biogeogr., 2(2):103-116

Foster, S. and J. A. Duke. 1990. A Field Guide to Medicinal Plants and Herbs. Eastern and Central N. America. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston MA.

Franklin institute. 2012. "Living Things: Habitats and Ecosystems" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat)

Fraser-Tytler, W. K. 1950. Afghanistan: A Study of Political Developments in Central Asia. G. Cumberlege. P. 74.

Galeano, G. 2000. Forest use at the Pacific Coast of Chocó, Colômbia: AQuantitative Approach. Econ. Bot., 54:358-376.

Gaston K.J., and R.M. May. 1992. The taxonomy of taxonomists. Nature, 356: 281-282.

Gaston, K.J. 1996. Species richness: measure and measurement. In Gaston, K.J. (ed.), Biodiversity. A biology of numbers and differences. Blackwell Science, pp.77-113.

261

Gauch, H. G. 1982. Multivariate analysis in community ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Geography Department, University of Peshawar. 1975. Land use survey of NWFP, part one. University of Peshawar.

Ghazanfar, S.A. 2010. Restoring Saline Habitats: Identification and name changes in halophytes of the Arabian Peninsula. In: Urbanization, Land Use, Land Degradation and Environment. (Eds.): MunirOzturk, AhmetRuhiMermut, Ali Celik.New Delhi; NAM SandT Centre.

Ghosh, P. 2015. Major Qualitative character of Plant community and Animal Community: Essay. Share your essay: an online plat form to share your essay. (http://www.shareyouressays.com/121301/major-qualitative-characters-of-plant- community-and-animal-community-essay)

Ghotge, N.S., S.R. Ramdas, S. Ashalata, N.P. Mathur, V. G. Broome and M. L. Rawsanyasi. 2002. A social approach to the validation of traditional veterinary remedies. Ind. J. of Pharm., pp.77-113.

Gilani, A. H., F. Shaheen, M. Zaman, K. H. Janbaz,B. H. Shah and M. S. Akhtar. 1999. Studies on antihypertensive and antispasmodic activities of methanol extract of Acacia nilotica pods. Phytother. Res., 13:665- 669.

Gilfedder, L. and J. B. Patrick. 1997. Aspect of the distribution, Phytosociology ecology and management of Danthonia popinensis D. I. Morris, an endangered Wallaby grass from Tasmania. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, 131:31-35.

Girach, R. D., H. Khan and M. Ahmad. 2003. Botanical identification of Thuhar seldom used as Unani medicine. Hamdard Medicus, 46(1):27-33.

Gleason H.A. (1922). On the relation between species and area. Ecology, 3:158-162.

Golluscio, R. A., M. Oesterheld and M. R. Aguiar. 2005. Relationship between phenology and life form: a test with 25 Patagonian species. Ecography, 28 (3): 273-282.

Gonzalez, M., A. Zarzuelo and M. J. Gamez. 1992. Hypoglycemic activity of olive leaf. Planta Med., 58(6):513-515.

Goodman, S. M. and A. Ghafoor. 1995. The Ethnobotany of Southern Baluchistan, Pakistan, with particular reference to medicinal plants. Fieldiana Bot. 0(31):I-V, 1-84.

Gopal, G.V. 2004. Medicinal plants in India and their conservation: An ethno botanical approach. Ethno medicinal Plants. Pointer Publishers, Jaipur, India, pp.1-17.

262

Gotelli N. J. and R.K. Colwell. 2001. Quantifying Biodiversity: Procedures and Pitfalls in the Measurement and Comparison of Species Richness. Ecol. Letters, 4:379-391.

Gottesfeld, L. M. J. 1994. Wet Summit, Ethnobotany and traditional plant uses. J. of Ethnobot., 14(2):185-201.

Grisebach, A. H. R. 1872. Die Vegetation der Erde nach ihrer klimatischen Anordnung. W.

Engelmann,Leipzig, Germany.

Grubb, P. J. 1987. Plant population and vegetation in relation to habitat disturbance and competition: problems of generalization. In. J. White (Ed.). The population structure of vegetation (Hand book of vegetation, part III). W. Junk, Dordrecht.

Grunwaldt, E.G., A.R. Pedrani and A.I. Vich. 1994. Goat grazing in arid piedmont of Argentina. Small Ruminant Res., 13: 211-216.

Guglieri-Caporal, A., F. J. M. Caporal and Arnildo Pott. 2010. Phytosociology Of Sown Pasture Weeds Under Two Levels Of Degradation In Brazilian Savanna Areas, Mato Grosso Do Sul State, Brazil. Pesquisa Agropecuária Tropic., 40(3):312-321.

Guinda, A., T. Albi, M. C. P. Camino and A. Lanzon. 2004. Supplementation of oils with oleanolic acid from the olive leaf (Olea europaea). Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol., 106:22-26.

Gutkowski, B., Krowiak, M., Niedzwiecka, J. and I. K. Oklejewicz. 2002. Floristic notes from the Dynow foothills (Western Carpathians). Fragm. F. Geobot. Polonica, 9: 43-47.

Habib ul Hassan, W. Murad, A. Tariq and A. Ahmad. 2014. Ethno-veterinary study of medicinal plants in Malakand Valley, District Dir (Lower), Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Irish Veterin. J., 67:6-12.

Hadi, F.M. Naseem, S. M. Shah, Asadullah and F. Hussain. 2009. Prevalence and ecological characteristics of summer weeds in crop and vegetablefields of Botanical Garden Azakhel, University ofPeshawar, Pakistan. Pak. J. Pl. Sci. 15 (2), 101-105.

Hadi, F., A. Razzaq, Aziz ur Rahman and Abdur Rashid. 2013. Ethnobotanical notes on woody plants of Valley, Torkhow, District Chitral, Hindu Kush Range, Pakistan. Scholarly J. of Agric. Sci., 3(11):468-472.

Hadi, F., P. Akhtar, S. M. Shah and F. Hussain. 2009. Graveyard of Palosi, District Peshawar, as an example of conservation of local plants. PUTAJ Sci., 16: 21-28.

Hairston, N. G. 1981. An experimental test of a guild. Ecology, 62:65-72.

263

Hamayun, M., S.A. Khan, E.Y. Sohn and I. Lee. 2006. Folk medicinal knowledge and conservation status of some economically valued medicinal plants of District Swat, Pakistan. Lyonia, 11(2):101-113.

Hameed, M., T. Nawaz, M. Ashraf, F. Ahmad, K. S. Ahmad, M. S. A. Ahmad, S. H., Raza, M. Hussain, I. Ahmad. Floral biodiversity and conservation status of the Himalayan foothill region, Punjab. Pak. J. Bot, 44: 143-149, 2012.

Hamilton, A. and P. Hamilton. 2006. Plant Conservation. An Ecosystem Approach. Bath Press, UK.

Hamilton, A. C. 1997. Threats of plants: An analysis of center of Plant diversity in D. H. Touchell and K. W. Dixon (eds) Conservation into the 21st century. Proceedings of the fourth international Botanic Gardens Conservation Congress, Kings Park and Botanic Garden, Perh, Australia. Pp. 309-322.

Hamzaoğlu, E. 2005. The steppe vegetation of Dinek Mountain (Kırıkkale). Gazi University J. of Sci.17: 1–13.

Hansen, K., A. Adsersen, C.S. Brogger, J. S. Rosendal, U. Nyman and S. U. Wagner. 1996. Isolation of an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor from Olea europea and Olea lancea. Phytomed., 2: 319-325.

Hanson, H. C. 1950. Ecology of the grassland. Bot. Rev., 16:232-260

Haq, I. 1993. Medicinal plants of Mansehra District NWFP, Pakistan. Hamdard Medicine, 34(3):51-86.

Haq, I. and Z. Hussain. 1995. Medicinal plants of Palandri, District Poonch (Azad Kashmir). Pak. J. of Sci., 1(1):115-126.

Harper, R. M. 1917. The new science of Plant Sociology. The scientific monthly, 4(5): 456-460.

Harris, S. and J. B. Kirkpatrick. 1991. The phytosociology and synecology of Tasmanian vegetation with Callitris. Royal Society of Tasmania Hobart., 179-189.

Harshberger, J. W. 1896. Purpose of Ethnobotany. Botanical Gazette, 21:146-154.

Hayat, M. Q., M. A. Khan, M. Ashraf and Shazia Jabeen. 2009. Ethnobotany of the Genus Artemisia L. (Asteraceae) in Pakistan. Ethnobot. Res. and Applic., 7:147-162.

Heady, H. G. 1964. Palatability of herbage and animal preferences. J. Range manag., 17: 76-82.

Heath, M.E., R.F. Barnes and D.S. Metcalfe. 1985. Forages: The Science of Grassland Agriculture. Iowa State University, Iowa, Aims.

264

Hickman, K., D. Hartnett and R. Cochran. 1996. Effects of grazing systems and stocking rates on plant diversity in Kansas tall grass prairie. In: Proc. Rangelands. In a sustainable biosphere. (Ed.): N.E. West. 5th International Congress 1995, Salt Lake City Utah. pp. 228- 229.

Hilton-Taylor, C. 2000. 2000 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Hoareau, L. and E. J. De Silva. 1999. Medicinal plants: A re-emerging health aid. Elect. Journal of Biotech. V. 2.

Hogg. A. and J. B. Kirkpatrick. 1974. The phytosociology and synecology of some southern Tasmanian Eucalypt forests and woodlands. J. of Biogeog., 1(4):227-245.

Hopkins, B. 1957. Pattern in the plant community. J. of Ecol., 45(2):451-463.

Host, C. P. 2010. Evolution in response to direct and indirect ecological effects in Pitcher plant inquiline communities. Americ. Natur., 176(6):675-686.

Hubbell, S.P. 2001. The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford.

Hukusima, di Tukasa, Sheng-You Lu, T. Matsui, T. Nishio, Chiung-Lien Liu e Sandro Pignatti and presenta dal Socio S. Pignatti. 2005. Phytosociology of Fagus hayatae forests in Taiwan. Rend. Fis. Acc. Lindei, 16(9):171-189.

Humayun, M. 2003. Ethnobotanical Studies of Some Useful Shrubs and Trees of District Buner, NWFP Pakistan. J. of Ethnobot. Leaflet, (www.siu.edu/~ebl).

Hamayun, M., S. A. Khan, E. Y. Sohn and I. Lee. 2006. Folk medicinal knowledge and conservation status of some economically valued medicinal plants of District Swat, Pakistan. Lyonia 11(2), 101-113.

Humboldt, F. W. H. A. von. 1806. Versuche über die elektrischen Fische. Gilberts Ann. Physik

22:1– 13.

Hussain, F. and M. Khan. 2013. Conservation status of plant species in Tehsil Takht-eNasrati, District Karak, Khyber Pakhtun Khawa, Pakistan. Internat. J. of Biod. and Conser., 5(1): 20-26.

Hurka, A. H. 2004. Species richness and composition during sylvigenesis in a tropical dry forest in northwestern, Costa Rica. Trop. Ecol., 45 (1): 43-57.

265

Hussain, A., I. A. Qarshi, R. Liaqat, S. Akhtar, I. Aziz, Ikram Ullah and Z. K. Shinwari. 2014. Antimicrobial potential of leaf and fruit extracts and oils of wild and cultivated edible olive. Pak. J. Bot., 46(4):1463-1468.

Hussain, A., M. A. Farooq, M. Ahmad, M. Akbar and Muhammad Usama Zafar. 2010. Phytosociology and Structure of Central Karakoram National Park (CKNP) of Northern Areas of Pakistan. World Appl. Sc. J., 9 (12): 1443-1449.

Hussain, A., M. N. Khan, Z. Iqbal and M. S. Sajid. 2008. An account of the botanical anthelmintic used in traditional veterinary practices in Sahiwal district of Punjab. Pak. J. Ethnopharmacol., 119: 185–190.

Hussain, A., S. N. Mirza, I. A. Khan and M. A. Naeem. 2009. Determination of relative species composition and seasonal plant communities of nurpur reserved forest in scrub rangelands of District Chakwal. Pak. J. Agri. Sci., 46 (1): 55-59.

Hussain, F. 1989. Field and Laboratory Manual of Plant Ecology. University Grants Commission, Islamabad.

Hussain, F. 1989. Field and Laboratory Manual of Plant Ecology. UGC. Islamabad.

Hussain, F. 2012. Ethnomedicinal plant wealth of Mastuj valley, Hindukush range, District Chitral, Pakistan. J. of Medic. Plants Res., 6(26):4328-4337.

Hussain, M. 2003. Exploitation of forage legume diversity endemic to Soone valley in the Salt Range of the Punjab. Annual technical report submitted to PARC, Islamabad, Pakistan. Pp. 18-21.

Hussain, F. and H. Sher. 2005. Ethnomedicinal uses of plants of district Swat, Pakistan. Pak. J. Plant Sci., 11(2):137-158.

Hussain, F. and L. Bacha. 1998. Vegetation structure of Pirghar hills South Waziristan Agency, Pakistan. J. of Trop. and Subtrop. Bot., 6(3):187-195.

Hussain, F. and M. J. Durrani. 2007. Forage productivity of arid temperate Harboi rangeland, Kalat, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 39 (5): 1455-1470.

Hussain, F. and M. J. Durrani. 2008. Mineral composition of some range grasses and shrubs from Harboi rangeland Kalat, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 40 (6): 2513-2523.

Hussain, F. and M. J. Durrani. 2009. Seasonal availability, palatability and animal preferences of forage plants in Harboi arid range land, Kalat, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 41 (2): 539-554.

Hussain, F. and M.J. Durrani. 2008. Forage productivity of arid temperate Harboi rangeland, Kalat, Pakistan. Pak J. Bot., 39(5): 1455-1470.

266

Hussain, F., S. M. Shah, L. Badshah and M. J. Durrani. 2015. Diversity and ecological characteristics of flora of Mastuj Valley, district Chitral, Hindukush range, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 47(2): 495-510.

Hussain, F. and S.R. Chaghtai. 1984. The effect of overgrazing on the development of herbaceous vegetation of Zangilora, Quetta, Baluchistan. Pakistan, 9: 29-38.

Hussain, F., I. Iqbal and P. Akhtar. 2005. Floristic and vegetation studies of Ghalegay Hills, District Swat, Pakistan. Inter. J. Biol. and Biotech., 2(4): 847-852.

Hussain, F., M. Ahmed, M. J. Durrani and G. Shaheen. 1993. Phytosociology of vanishing tropical deciduous forests in district Swabi, Pakistan, I. A. community analysis. Pak. J. of Bot., 25(1):55-61.

Hussain, F., S. M. Shah, L. Badshah and M. J. Durrani. 2015. Diversity and ecological characteristics of flora of Mastuj valley, District Chitral, Hindu Kush range, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 47(2):495-510.

Hussain, M. I. and A. Perveen. 2009. Plant biodiversity and phytosociological attributives of Tiko Baran (Kirthar Range). Pak. J. Bot., 41 (2): 581-586.

Hussain, S.S. 1969. Phytosociology Survey of Wah Garden (Cambellpur District) Agriculture Pakistan, pp203.

Hussain, S. S., M. Ahmad, M. F. Siddiqui and M. Wahab. 2010b. Threatened and endangered native plants of Karachi. J. Biol. Biotech., 7 (3): 259-266.

Hussain, T. and M. I. Chaudhary. 2009. A Floristic Description of Flora and Ethnobotany of Samahni Valley (A. K.), Pakistan. Ethnobotanical Leaflets, 13: 873-99.

Hussain, W., Abbas Ullah, J. Hussain, S. Hussain, Z. K. Shinwari and M. Ibrar. 2014. Ethno- Medicinal Plants of Tehsil Barawal Bandi Dir Upper Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pakistan. J. of Appl. Pharmaceut. Sc., 4 (07):094-097.

Hussain, W., J. Hussain, R. Ali, I. Khan, Z. K. Shinwari, I. A. Nascimento and W. A. Lope. 2012. Tradable and conservation status of Medicinal Plants of Kurran Valley, Parachinar, Pakistan. J. of Appl. Pharmaceut. Sci., 2(10):66-70.

Huston, J.E. 1978. Symposium. Dairy goats. Forage utilization and nutrient requirements of the goats. J. Dairy. Sci., 61: 988-993.

Hutchinson, G.E. (1959). Homage to Santa Rosalia, or, why are there so many kinds of animals? Americ. Naturalist, 93, 145-159.

267

Ibrar, M., F. Hussain and A. Sultan. 2007. Ethnobotanical studies on plant resources of Ranyal Hills, District Shangla, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 39(2):329-337.

Ifrikhar Ahmad, M. Hussain, A. Rehman, I. Mustafa, M. Farooq, S. Jabeen and S. Zafar. 2012. Threats to medicinal plant diversity of Soon Valley (Salt Range) of Punjab, Pakistan. Internat. Researchers, 1(4):157-169.

Ighbareyeh, J. M. H., A. Cano-Ortiz, A. A. A. Sulienieh, M. M. H. Ighbareyeh and E. Cano. 2014. Phytosociology with other characteristic biology and economically of plant in Palestine. Americ. J. of Plant Sci., 5:3104-3118.

Important Agency Wise Socio Economic Indicator of FATA. 2013. Bureau of Statistics, FATA Cell, Planning and Development Department, FATA Secretariat Peshawar.

Inam-ur-Rahim, D. Maselli, Henri Rueff and U. Wiesmann. 2011. Indigenous fodder trees can increase grazing accessibility for landless and mobile pastoralists in northern Pakistan. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice, pp.201-211.

Indian Independence Act. 1947. Chapter 30, sec. 7(c).

IPCC. 2001. Contribution of working group II to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptations, and Vulnerability (eds McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS), p. 1032. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Iqbal, I. and M. Humayun. 2004. Studies on the traditional uses of plants of Malam Jabba Valley, District Swat Pakistan. J. of Ethnobot. Leaflet, 2 (1): 49-52.

Irum Niaz. 2014. Ethnobotanical investigation of Medicinal Flora used by Indigenous people in District Attock, Pakistan. J. of Adv. Bot. and Zoo., 1(4):1-7.

Ishtiaq, M., M. A. Khan and Aminullah Shah. 2001. An ethno medicinal inventory of plants used for family planning and sex disease treatment in Samahni Valley, Azad Kashmir, Pakistan. Ind. J. of Trad. Knowledge, 7(2):277-283.

Ishtiaq, M., P. Iqbal and T. Hussain. Ethnobotanical uses of Gymnosperms of Neelam Valley and Muzaffarabad of Kashmir. Ind. J. of Trad. Knowledge, 2(3):404-410.

Ismail, I. M. and Alawia A. Elawad. 2015. Phytosociological analysis and species diversity of herbaceous layer in Rashad and Alabassia Localities, South Kordofan State, Sudan. Jordan J. of Biol. Sci., 8(2):151-157.

IUCN. 2004. IUCN website species information service, www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/ programs/sisindex.html.

268

IUCN. 2008. IUCN Red List of Threatened species, www.iucnredlist.org cited on May 31, 2013

Jai, K., S. A.Bhalerao and M. S. Paul. 2014. Phytosociology of Parthenium hysterophorus and its possible management through some potential bio-agents. Internat. J. of Life Sci., 2 (1): 49- 52.

Jamal, Z. 2009. Biodiversity Ethnobotany and Conservation status of the Flora of Kaghan Valley Mansehra, NWFP, Pakistan. Ph. D thesis, department of Plant sciences, Quaid-i-Azam University Islamabad Pakistan.

Jan, G., F. G. Jan, M. Humayun, K. Khan and A. Khan. Diversity and conservation status of vascular plants of Dir Kohistan valley, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province. J. of Biodiv. and Envir. Sci., 5(1):164-172.

Javier Ramírez, S., C. V. Hoyos and G. Plaza. 2015. Phytosociology of weeds associated with rice crops in the department of Tolima, Colombia. Agronomía Colombiana, 33(1), 64-73.

Johnson, F. L. 1984. Phytosociology of second-growth forests in Bowie County, Texas. The Southwestern Naturalist, 9(1):81-87.

Johnson, J. B. 1995. Phytosociology and Gradient Analysis of a Subalpine treed fen in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. Canad. J. of Bot., 74:1203-1218.

Johnson, N. C. 2010. Resource stoichiometry elucidates the structure and function of arbuscular mycorrhiza across scales. New Phytol., 185:631-647.

Jones, C. G., J. H. Lawton and M. Shachak. 1997. Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos, 69:373-386.

Jones, C. G., L. H. Lawton, M. Shachak. 1997. Positive and negative effects of organisms as ecosystem engineers. Ecology, 78: 1946–1957.

Junior, J. A., S. F. Lopes, V. S. Vale, C. S. Arantes, A. P. Oliveira and I. Schiavini. Floristic patterns in understory under different disturbance severities in seasonal forests. J. of Trop. Forest Sci., 26(4):458-468.

Kababia, D., S. Landan, A. Perevolostsky, Y. Vecht, L. Eliasof and S. Zeltzer. 1992. The feeding behaviour of milking goats in woody rangeland in the Judean Mountains. Hasssadch, 72: 1536-1540.

Kafak, S. B., A. Mataji and S. A. Hashemi. 2009. Detecting Hornbeam Trees Phenological Characteristics of Mountain Forest. Americ. J. Environ. Sci., 5 (5): 669-677.

Kalaivani, T. and L. Mathew. 2010a. Free radical scavenging activity from leaves of Acacia nilotica (L.) Wil. ex Delile, an Indian medicinal tree. Food Chem. Toxicol., 48: 298-305

269

Karousou, R., M. Balta, E. Hanlidou. 2007. ―Mints‖, smells and traditional uses in Thessaloniki (Greece) and other Mediterranean countries. J. Ethnopharmacol. 109: 248-257.

Kassas, M. and M. S. El-Abyad. 1962. The phytosociology of the deserts of Egypt. Annals of Arid Zone, 1(1):54-84.

Kaufmann, R. K., L. Zhou, R. B. Myeneni, C. J. Tucker, D. Slayback, N. V. Shabanov and J. Pinzon. The effect of vegetation on surface temperature: a statistical analysis of NDVI and climate data. Geophysical Res. Lett., 30(22):1-4.

Kaul, V. and B. L. Sapru. 1973. The Phytosociology and Biomass Production Relations of seven meadowland in Srinagar. Vegetatio, 28(1-2):19-39.

Kaya, M. F. 2014. Phytosociological analysis on the national park of the Tek Tek Mountains, Sanliurfa, Turkey. Bangladesh J. Bot.,43(1): 27-35.

Kaya, O. F., O. Ketenoglu, and M. Umit Binglo. 2009. A Phytosociological survey on forest and dry stream vegetation of Karacadag (Sanliufa, Turkey). Kastamonu Univ. J. of Forstery Faculty, 9(2):157-170.

Kayani, S., M. Ahmad, M. Zafar, S. Sultana, M. P. Z. Khan, M. A. Ashraf, J. Hussain and Ghulam Yaseen. 2014. Ethnobotanical uses of medicinal plants for respiratory disorders among the inhabitants of Gallies-Abbotabad, Northern Pakistan. J. of Ethnopharmacol., 156:47-60.

Kayani, S.A., A.K. Achakzai and S.A. Qadir. 1984. Phytosociological studies in wastelands of Quetta-Pishin district, Baluchistan, Pakistan, Pak. J. Bot., 16:255-265.

Kazmi, M. A. and I. A. Siddiqui. 1953. The drug plants of Qalat state. Pak. J. Forestry, pp. 217-237.

Keith, D.A. 1988. Floristic lists of New South Wales (III). Cunninghamia, 2:39-73.

Kelly, C. K. 1990. Plant foraging: a marginal value model and coiling response in Cuscuta subinclusa. Ecology, 71:1916-1925.

Kelly, D. L. and S. F. Iremonger. 1997. Irish Wetland Woods: the plant communities and their ecology. Biology and Environment: proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 97B (1):1- 32

Kennedy, A. D., H. Biggs and N. Zambatis. 2003. Relationship between grass species richness and ecosystem stability in Kruger National Park, South Africa. African J. Ecology, 41 (2): 131- 140.

Kerner von Marilaün, A. 1863. Das Pflanzenleben der Danaulaender. Wagner, Innsbrück,

270

Austria. Partlyreprinted in Acot 1998, II:467–479.

Khalid, S. and S. Z. Shah. 2016. Plant that nobody wanted: An assessment of the conservation status of plants in Mohmand Agency FATA, Pakistan. J. Bio. Env. Sci. 8(5), 195-205.

Khan, A. A. and J. L. Fevre. 1996. Indigenous knowledge of plants: a case study in Chitral. Proceedings of the first training workshop on Ethnobotany and applied conservation, Pakistan Agricultural Research Center, Islamabad, pp. 136-151.

Khan, A., S. S. Gilani, F. Hussain and M. J. Durrani. 2003. Ethnobotany of Gokand Valley, District Buner, Pakistan. Pak. J. of Bio. Sci., 6(4):363-369.

Khan, I.I. 1996. Biodiversity depletion with respect to Human and livestock population in Indian Desert. In: Proc. Rangelands. In a sustainable biosphere. (Ed.): N.E. West. 5th International Congress 1995, Salt Lake City Utah. pp. 286-287.

Khan, M. A., A. A. Khan and M. Hussain. 2012. Ethnobotanical study about medicinal plants of Poonch Valley Azad Kashmir. The J. of Animal and Plant Sci., 22(2):493-500.

Khan, M. A., M. A. Khan, M. Hussain and G. Mujtaba. 2014. Plant diversity and conservation status of Himalayan Region, Poonch Valley Azad Kashmir Pakistan. Pak. J. of Pharma. Sci., 27(5):1215-1239.

Khan, M. A., M. A. Khan, M. Hussain and Ghulam Mujtaba. 2010. An ethnobotanical inventory of Himalayan Region Poonch Valley Azad Kashmir (Pakistan). Ethnobot. Res. and Applic., 8:107-123.

Khan, M. and F. Hussain. 2013. Plant community composition and dynamism during summer in tehsil Takht-e-Nasrati hills, District Karak, Pakistan. Global J. of Sci. Frontier Res., 13(2):20-30.

Khan, M. and S. Musharraf. 2015. Ethno medicinal and conservation status of plants species in Tehsil Takht Bhai, District Mardan, Pakistan. Internat. Letters of Natural Sci., 37(2015):18-29.

Khan, M. H. 2016. Evaluaton of Plant Resourses of Tehsil Haleemzai, Mohmand Agency. M.Phil Thesis, Department of Botany, Islamia College Peshawar, Pakistan, p.116-132.

Khan, M., and F. Hussain. 2013b. Conservation status of plant species in Tehsil Takht-e-Nasrati, District Karak, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Int. J. Biodivers. Conserv., 5(1):20-26.

Khan, M., F. Hussain and S. Musharaf. 2013a. Biodiversity of plant species in Tehsil Takht-e- Nasrati, Pakistan. Internat. J. of Biod. and Cons., 5(1):39-46.

271

Khan, M., F. Hussain and S. Musharaf. 2014. Floristic Composition and Ecological Characteristics of Shahbaz Garhi, District Mardan, Pakistan. Global J. of Sci. Frontier Res.: C Biological Sci., 14(1): 4425-4437.

Khan, M., F. Hussain and S. Musharraf. 2013a. Floristic Composition and Biological Characteristics of the Vegetation of Sheikh Maltoon Town District Mardan, Pakistan Ann. Rev.and Res. in Bio., 3(1): 31-41.

Khan, M., F. Hussain and Shahana Musharaf. 2012. Maturity index of plant life in Takht-e- Nasrati, District Karak, Pakistan. Internati. J. of Biosci. (IJB), 2(3):67-74.

Khan, M., F. Hussain, S. Musharad and Imadullal. 2011. Floristic composition, life form, and leaf size spectra of the coal mine area vegetation of Darra Adam Khel, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. J. of Biodivers. and Enviro.Sci., 1(3):1-6.

Khan, M., F. Hussain, S. Musharaf. 2011. Preliminary floristic range of Tehsil Takht-e-Nasrati Pak. Int. J. Biosci. 1(6), 88-99.

Khan, M., Z.K. Shinwari and S. Musharaf. 2011. Conservation and ecological characteristic of Trees in Tehsil Karak Pakistan. J. Bio. and Env. Sci. 1(6), 155- 164.

Khan, M.A., M. Ajab, G. Khan and M. Hussain. 2012. Ethnobotanical study about medicinal plants of poonch Valley Azad Kashmir. J. Animal and Plant Sci., 22: 493-500.

Khan, N., K. Ali and S. Shaukat. 2014. Phytosociology, structure and dynamics of Pinus roxburghii associoations from Northern Pakistan. J. of Forestry Res., 25(3):511-521.

Khan, N., M. Ahmed, M. Wahab and K. Nazim. 2010. Size class structure and regeneration potential of Monotheca buxifolia District Dir Lower Pakistan. Int.J.Biotech., 7: 187-196.

Khan, N., M. Ahmed, M. Wahab and M. Ajaib. 2010a. Phytosociology, structure and Physicochemical analysis of soil in Quercus baloot Griff, District Chitral Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 42:2429-2441.

Khan, N., M. Ahmed, M. Wahab, M. Ajaib and S. S. Hussain. 2010b. Studies along an Altitudinal Gradient in Monotheca buxifolia (Falc.) A.D, Forest, District Lower Dir, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 42(5):3029-3038.

Khan, R. M. R. 1996. Plants used by the local communities of people in the area of National Park Machyara. Proceedings of the First training on Ethnobotany and applied conservation, Pakistan Agricultural Research Center, Islamabad, pp. 51-58.

Khan, R. S. Q., S. Ahmad and B. A. Khan. 1996. Impact/solution of fuel shortage on conservation of biodiversity of Hindu Kush Himalayan region of Pakistan. Proceeding of the

272

First Training workshop. Ethnobotany Appl. Cons., Pakistan Agricultural Research Center, Islamabad, pp. 171-176.

Khanum, R. and S. Ahmad.2006 Floristic Phytosociology and effect of earthquake on the winter flora of Neelam and Jhelum Valley, Muzaffarabad district, Azad Kashmir, Pakistan. Lyonia, 11(2):443-438.

Kifayatullah Khan, Alamgeer, Alia Erum, Bashir Ahmad, Mohammad Akram, Mohammad Anwar Arshad, Junaid and Uzma Saleem. 2009. Ethnobotanical studies from Northern Areas of Pakistan. Pharmabologyonline, 1:328-354.

Kirkman, W. B., T. R. Wentworth and J. R. Ballington. 1989. The Ecology and Phytosociology of the Creeping Blueberries, Vaccinium Section Herpothamnus. Torrey Botanical Society, 116(2): 114-133.

Kohyani, P. T., B. Bossuty, D. Bonte and M. Hoffmann. 2008. Importance of Grazing and Soil Acidity for Plant Community Composition and Trait Characterisation in Coastal Dune Grasslands. Applied Vegetation Science, 11(2):179-186.

Kosambi, D. D. 1962. Myth and Reality. Mumbai, India.

Krishnamurthy, K.V. 2003. A Textbook of biodiversity Science Publishers Inc. Enfield, NH, USA.

Kwiatkowski, P. 2002. Floristic notes from the Kaczawskie Mts and Kaczawskie Plateau (Western Sudety Mts, Poland) Part 2. Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica Polonica, 9: 55-65.

Krylov, P. 1898. A synopsis of the vegetation of the gubernia of Tomask. In Russian, cited from Maycock, 1967:1034.

Lakshaman, K.K. and S. A. S. Narayan. 1990. Antifertility herbals used by the tribe in Anaik katty, Tamil Nadu, India. J. of Econ.Taxon. and Bot., 14(1):171-173.

Lal Baha. 1978. NWFP administration under British rule: 1901-1919. National Institute of Historical and Cultural Research, Islamabad.

Lamb, E. G., S. W. Kembel and J. F. Cahill. 2009. Shoot, but not the root competition reduces community diversity in experimental mesocosms. J. of Ecology, 97(1):155-163

Lans, C. and G. Brown. 1998. Observations on Ethnoveterinary medicine in Trinidad and Tabago. Journal of Prev. Vet. Med., 35(2): 125-142.

Laurence, W. F. 2001. Future Shock: Forecasting a grim fate for the Earth. Trends in Ecol. and Evol., 16:531-533.

273

Leaflong, P. 1993. Some observation on Ethnoveterinary medicine in Northern Nigeria.

Lepping, O. and F. J. A. Daniels. 2007. Phytosociology of Beach and Salt Marsh Vegetation in Northern West Greenland. Polarforschung, 76(3):95-108.

Lichacar, S., R.M. Love, D.W. Rains and H.M. Laude. 1996. The effect of some California soil on the early growth of Atriplex polycarpa (Terr.) Wats. and Atriplex repanda Phil. In: Proc. Rangelands. In a sustainable biosphere. (Ed.): N.E. West. 5th International Congress 1995, Salt Lake City Utah. pp. 300-301.

Liu, D., J. Yun, X. Hao and S. Meng. 1996. Grassland deterioration and control measures in arid and semi - arid region in China. In: Proc. Rangelands. In a Sustainable Biosphere. (Ed.): N.E. West. 5th International Congress 1995, Salt Lake City Utah. pp. 320-321.

Löbel, S. and J. Dengler. 2007. Dry grassland communities on southern Öland: phytosociology, ecology, and diversity.Acta Phytogeogr. Suec. 88: 13-31. ISBN 978-91-7210-088-6.

Looijen, R.C. and J. van Andel. 1999. Ecological communities: Conceptual Problems and Definitions. Perspect. in Plant Ecol., Evol. and Systemat.,2:210–222.

Loreau, M. 2000. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: Recent theoretical advances. Oikos 91: 3-17.

MacArthur, R. H. and E. O. Wilson. 1967. The Theory of Biogeography. Princeton University

Press.

Maaler, E. van der. 2009. Vegetation Ecology. Willey-Blackwell, Malden MA, USA.

Magurran, A. E. 2004. Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

Magurran, A. E., and B. J. McGill, editors. 2011. Biologicaldiversity: frontiers in measurement and assessment. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Magurran, A.E. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement. Chapman and Hall, London.

Mahmood, A., R. A. Qureshi, A. Mahmood, Y. Sangi, H. Shaheen, I. Ahmad and Zerqa Nawaz. 2011. Ethnobotanical survey of common medicinal plants used by people of district Mirpur, AJK Pakistan. J. of Medic. Res., 5(18):4493-4498.

Makulbekova, G.B. 1996. The ecological evaluation of the present condition of rangeland vegetation of Kazakhistan deserts. In: Proc. Rangelands. In a sustainable biosphere. (Ed.): N.E. West. 5th International Congress 1995, Salt Lake City Utah. pp. 338-339.

Malik, N. Z. and Z. H. Malik. 2004a. Present status of subtropical chirpine vegetation of Kotli Hills, Azad Jammu and Kashmir. J. Res. Sci., 15 (1): 85-90.

274

Malik, N.Z. and Z.H. Malik, 2004b. Life form and index of similarity of communities recorded at Kotli Hills during monsoon 2000. Pak. J.Life. Soc. Sci., 2: 54–6.

Malik, R. N. and S. Z. Husain. 2006. Classification andordination of vegetationcommunities of the Lohibehr reserve forest and its surrounding areas, Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 38 (3): 543-558.

Malik, R. N. and S. Z. Husain. 2003. Linking remote sensing and ecological vegetation communities: a multivariate approach. Pak. J. Bot., 40 (1): 337-349.

Malik, S., M. Shah and Q. Marwat. 1990. Ethnobotanical evaluation of valuable plants of Baluchistan, Pakistan. Project no. 123, Pakistan Science Foundation, Pakistan.

Malik, Z. H, F. Hussain andN. Z. Malik. 2007. Life form and Leaf Size Spectra of Plant Communities Harboring Ganga Chotti and Bedori Hills during 1999-2000. Internat. J. of Agric.and Biol.,833–838.

Malik, Z. H. 2005. Comparative study of the vegetation ofGanga Choti and Bedori Hills, District Bagh, Azad Jammu and Kashmir with special reference to rangeconditions. Ph. D thesis Department of Botany University of Peshawar, Pakistan.

Malla, B. and R. B. Chhetri. 2009. Indigenous knowledge on ethnobotanical plants of Kavrepalanchowk district. Kathmandu University J. of Sci., Engin. and Tech., 5(2):96- 109.

Malloch, A. J. C., J. F. Bamdele and A. M. Scott. 1985. The Phytosociology of British Sea-Cliff Vegetation with Special Reference to the Ecophysiology of Some Maritime Cliff Plants. Vegetatio, 62(1-3):309-317.

Manandar, N. P. 1992. Ethnobotanical claim on less known food plants of Nepal. Journal of Economic Bot., 17(2):373-383.

Manhas, R. K., L. Singh, H. B. Vasistha and M. Negi. 2010. Floristic diversity ofprotected ecosystems of Kandi Region of Punjab, India. New York Sci. J., 3 (4): 96- 103.

Mark, A., F. J. M. D. Katharine, A. Jan, S. Rob and W. J. Carol. 2001. Vegetation patterns, plant distribution and life forms across the alpine zone in southern Tierra del Fuego, Argentina. Austral. Ecol., 26 (4): 423-440.

Martin, J. G. 1995. Ethnobotany; A people and plants conservation manual. Chapman and Hall, New York.

Marwat, Q. D., F. Hussain and Taj Mohammad Khilji. 1990. Phytosociology of the vegetation of Zangilora area Quetta, Balochistan (Pakistan). Pak.J. of Agric. Res.,11(4):275-283.

275

May, R. M. 1975. Patterns of species abundance and diversity. Pages, 81-120 in M. L. Cody and J. M. Diamond. Ecology and Evolution of communities. Belknap Press, Cambridge.

May, R. M. 1990. How many species? Philosophical Transactions, London, 330:293-304.

McGrady-Steel, J., P. M. Harris, P. J. Morin. 1997. Biodiversity regulates ecosystem predictability. Nature, 390:162-165.

Memon.A., N. Memon, D. L. Luthria, M. I. Bhanger and A. A. Pitafi. 2012b. Phenolic Compounds and Seed Oil Composition of Ziziphus mauritiana L. Fruit.Pol. J. Food Nutr. Sci., 62 (2012b) 15.

Memon.A., N. Memon, M. I. Bhanger and D. L. Luthria. 2012a. Phenolic Acids Composition of Fruit Extracts of Ber (Ziziphus mauritiana L., var. Golo Lemai). Pak. J. Anal. Environ. Chem. 13(2):123–128.

Menhinick, E. F. 1964. A comparison of some species-individual’s diversity indices applied to samples of field insects. Ecology, 45 (4): 859-861.

Menzel, A., T. Sparks, N. Estrella, E. Kochz, A. Aasa, R. Ahas, K. Alm-ku¨bler, P. Bissollik, Ol’ga Braslavska, A. Abriede, F. M. Chmielewski, Z. Crepinsek, Y. Curnel, A. Gdahl, C. Defila, A. Donnelly, Y. Filella, K. Jatczak, F. Ma, A. Mestre, J. Uelas, P. Pirinen, V. Remis, H. Scheifinger, M. Striz, A. Susnik, Arnold J. H. Van Vliet. 2006. European phenological response to climate change matches the warming pattern. Global Change Biol., 12: 1969-1976.

Merk, W. R. H. 1984. The Mohmands. Vanguard Books ltd. Lahor, Pakistan.

Michel, A., 2002. Tree, Shrub and Liana of West African Zone. Margraf Publishers GMBH, Paris, pp: 440

Migongo-Bake, W. and R.M. Hensen. 1987. Seasonal diets of camels, cattle, sheep and goats in a common range in Eastern Africa. J. Range Mange., 40: 76-79.

Milan, C. and O. Zdenka. 2003. Plot size used for Phytosociological sampling of European vegetation. J. of veget.Sci., 14:563-570

Miller, G. and S. Spoolman. 2009. Living in the Environment: Principles, Connections, and Solutions. Cenage Learning, Belmon CA, USA.

Miller, T. E. 1993. Direct and indirect species interaction in an early old field plant community. The American Naturalist, 143(6):1007-1025.

276

Mishra, B. P., R.S. Tripathi, O.P. Tripathi andH. N. Pandey.2003. Effect of disturbance on fur dominant and economically important woody species in a broadleaved subtropical humid forest of Meghalaya, Northeast India. Cur Sci., 84:1449-1453.

Mishra, N. K., N. Mahto, V. Khatoon and Savita. 2012. Annual Variation in Phytosociological Aspects of some Medicinal Plant Species from Family Euphorbiaceae Growing in Anpara Region of distt. Sonebhadra (U.P.). Indian J. L. Sci., 2(1): 55-59

Mittlebach, G. G. 2012. Ecology. Sinauer Associates, inc. Publishers, Sunderland, MA United States of America.

Mohammad Jawad Nasim, M. H. H. Bin Asad, Durr-e-Sabih, R. M. Akram, M. S. Hussain, M. T. Khan, G. Ahmad, S. Karim, S. A. Khan and G. Murtaza. 2014. GIST of medicinal plants of Pakistan having ethnobotanical evidence to crush renal calculi (kidney stones). Acta Poloniae-Drug Res., 71(1):3-10

Morgan, W.T., 1981. Ethnobotany of the Turkana: Use of Plants by a Pastoral People and their Livestock in Kenya. J. Econ. Bot., 35:96‒130

Morin, P. J. 1999. Community Ecology, 2nd edition. Wiley Blackwell, A John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, Publications.

Morton, J. 1987. Indian Jujube. In: J. F. Morton (Eds.), Fruits of warm climates, Miami, Florida. pp. 272-275.

Motyka, J., B. Dobrzanski and S. Zawadski. 1950. Wstepne badania nad lakami polundnlowowschodneij Lubeiszczyzny. Ann. Univ. M. Curie-Jklodowska, 13: 367-447 (Sec. E. 5).

MR. G’s Environmental System. 2010. Biotic and Abiotic. Page id, 23 (http://sciencebitz.com/?page_id=23)

Msonthi, J. D. and D. Magombo. 1983. Medicinal herbs in Malawi and their uses. Hamdard Medicus, 26: 94–100.

Mueller-Dombois, D. and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Muhammad Humayun, S. A. Khan, E. Y. Sohn and In-Jung Lee. 2006. Folk medicinal knowledge and conservation status of economically valued medicinal plants of District Swat, Pakistan. Lyonia, 11(2):101-113

Muhammad, A., I. Anis, Z. Ali, S. Awadelkarim, A. Khan, A. Khalid, M. R. Shah, M. Galal, I. A. Khan and M. Iqbal Choudhary. 2012. Methylenebissantin: a rare methylene-bridged

277

bisflavonoid from Dodonaea viscosa which inhibits Plasmodium falciparum enoyl-ACP reductase. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett., 22(1):610–612

Mukaka, M.M. 2012. Statistics Corner: A Guide to Appropriate Use of Correlation Coefficient in Medical Research. Malawi Med. J., 24:69–71.

Murad, W., A. Ahmad, G. Ishaq, M. S. Khan, A. M. Khan, Ihteram Ullah, Azizullah and Ikramullah Khan. 2011. Ethnobotanical studies on plants resources of Hazar Nao Forest, District Malakand Pakistan. Pak. J. of Weed Sci., 18(4):509-527

Murad, W., A. Azizullah, M. Adnan, A. Tariq, K. U. Khan, S. Waheed and A. Ahmad. 2013. Ethnobotanical assessment of plant resources of Banda Daud Shah, District Karak, Pakistan. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed., 9:77. DOI: 10.1186/1746-4269-9-77.

Musharaf Khan, S. Musharaf and Zabta Khan Shinwari. 2011. Ethnobotanical importance of halophytes of Noshpo salt mine, District Karak, Pakistan. Res. in Pharmaceut. Biotech., 3(4):46-52.

Musharraf Khan and Farrukh Hussain. 2013. Conservation status of plant species in Tehsil Takht e Nasrati, District Karak, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Internat. J. of Biod. And Conser., 5(1):20-26.

Musharraf Khan and Shahana Musharaf. 2014. Ethnobotanical Report of Kotal Wild Life Park and Contagious Area, Pakistan. Global J. of Sci. Frontier Res.: Agric. and Veterinary,14(5):54-64.

Musila, W. M., J. I. Kinyamario and P. D. Jungerius. 2003. Vegetation dynamics of coastal sand dunes near Malindi, Kenya. African J. Ecol., 39 (2): 170-177.

Mussarat, S., N.M. Abdel-Salam, A.Tariq, S.M. Wazir, R. Ullah and M. Adnan. 2014. Use of Ethnomedicinal Plants by the People Living Around Indus River. Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med., 212634.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/212634.

Muthuramkumar, S., N. Ayyappan, N. Parthasarathy, M. Divya, S. T. R Raman, S. M. Arthur and P. L. Arul. 2006. Plant community structure in tropical rain forest fragments of the Western Ghats, India. Biotropica, 38 (2): 143-160.

Naeem S.,L.J. Thompson,S.P. Lawler,J.H. Lawton andR.M. Woodfin.1994. Declining biodiversity can alter the performance of ecosystems. Nature 368, 734-736.

Naseem, M. J., B. Asad, Durr e Sabih, R. M. Ikram, M.S. Hussain, M. T. Khan, G. Ahamand, S.

Karim, S. A. Khan and G. Murtaza. 2014. Gist of medicinal plants of Pakistan having ethnobotanical evidences to crush renal calculi (kidney stones).Acta Pol Pharm., 71(1):3 -10.

278

Naidoo, R., M. Patel, Z. Gulube and I. Fenyvesi. 2012. Inhibitory activity of Dodonaea viscosa var. angustifolia extract against Streptococcus mutans and its biofilm. J. Ethnopharmacol., 144(1)171–174.

Nasir, E. and S. I. Ali. 1971-2007. Flora of West Pakistan Department of Botany, University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan.

Nasir, Y.J., 1991. Threatened Plants of Pakistan. In: Ali, S.I. and A. Ghaffa(eds.) PlantLife of South Asia: Proceedings of the International Symposium Karachi, pp: 229‒234.

Nasir, Z. A. and S. Sultan. 2002. Floristic, biological and leaf size spectra of weeds in gram, lentil, mustard and wheat fields of district Chakwal, Pakistan. Pak. J. Biol. Sci., 5 (7): 758- 762.

Nasrullah, Mohammad Nisar, Suliman and Zahid Ali. 2012. Ethnobotanical wealth of Jandool Valley, Dir lower, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Internat. J. of Phytomedic., 4:351 -354.

Nath, A. J., G. Das and A. K. Das. 2008. Vegetative phenology of three bamboo species in subtropical humid climate of Assam. Tropical Ecol., 49 (1): 85-89.

NatureServe explorer. Ecological classifications.Natureserve: An online encyclopedia of life. http://explorer.natureserve.org/classeco.htm

Naz, F., S. Qamarunnisa, Z. K. Shinwari, A. Azhar and S. I. Ali. 2013. Phytochemical investigations of Tamarix indica willd. and Tamarix passernioides del. Ex desv. Leaves from Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 45(5):1503-1507.

Nazir, A and Z. H. Malik. 2006. Life form and index of similarity of plant communities recorded at Sarsawa Hill District Kotri. J. Res. Sci., 17 (1): 27-33.

Nazir, A., R. N. Malik and Muhammand Ajaib. 2012. Phytosociological studies of the vegetation of Sarsawa hills District Kotli, Azad Jammu Kashmir, Pakistan. Biologia (Pakistan), 58(1- 2):123-133.

Negi, S. P. 2009. Forest Cover in Indian Himalayan states, An Overview. Indian J. of Forestry 32(1), 1-5.

Nickrent, D. L. and L. J. Musselman. 2010. Introduction to parasitic flowering plants. The plants health-instructor-DOI:10.1094/PHI-I-2004-0330-0 (http://www.apsnet.org/edcenter/intropp/pathogengroups/pages/parasiticplants.aspx)

Nisar, M. F., F. Jaleel, Y. Toor, S. Ismail, M. Arfan, S. M. Haider and R. Bashir. 2013. Composition of understory vegetation in Major shrub species of Cholistan desert, Pakistan. World Applied Sci. J., 28 (5): 629-635.

279

Nora, N.B., K. Hamid, M. Snouci, M. Boumedien and M. Abdellah. 2012. Antibacterial activity and phytochemical screening of Olea europaea leaves from Algeria. Open Conf. Proc. J., 3(Supp.1-M11): 66-69.

Nyamangara, M.E. and L.R. Ndlovu. 1995. Feeding behaviour, feed intake, chemicals and botanical composition of the diet of indigenous goats raised on natural vegetation in a semiarid region of Zimbabwe. J. Agri. Sci., 124: 455-461.

Offwell Woodland and Wildlife Trust. 2016. Simpson's Diversity Index. http://www.countrysideinfo.co.uk/simpsons.htm.

Ole-Midron, J. 2003. The Masai ethnodiagnostic skills of livestock diseases; a road to traditional bio prospecting. J. of Ethnopharmac., 84(1):79-83.

Olsen, O. and I. Svanberg. 1998. Tanning with tormentil (Potentilla erecta): ecological and ethno botanical aspects, Studia ethnobiologica, Swedish Biodiversity Center, Uppsala

Ong, H.G. andY.D. Kim. 2014. Quantitative ethnobotanical study of the medicinal plantsused by the Ati Negrito indigenous group in Guimaras island, Philippines. J. Ethnopharmacol. 157, 228–242.

Oosting, H. J. 1956. The study of plant communities. W. H. Freeman and company, San Francisco, United States of America.

Osada, N., S. Sugiura, K. Kawamura, M. Cho and H. Takeda. 2003. Community level Flowering phenology and fruit set: Comparative study of 25 woody species in a Secondary forest in Japan. Ecological Res., 18 (6): 711-723.

Ozturk, M., K. R. Hakeem and F. Hanum. 2015. Climate change impact on high altitude ecosystems. Springer international publishing, Switzerland. ISBN 978-319-12858-0

Paczoski, J. 1896. Zycie gromadne roslin. Wszchswiat 16. Cited from Maycock 1967:1034.

Palmer M.W. 1995. How should one count species? Natural Areas Journal, 15:124-135.

Palmer M.W., P.G.Earls, B.W.Hoagland,P.S. White andT. Wohlgemuth. 2002. Quantitative tools for perfecting species lists. Environmetrics, 13:121-137.

Palmer, M.W. andP.S. White 1994. On the existence of ecological communities. J. Veg. Sci., 5: 279-282.

Palmer, T. M. and A. K. Brody. 2007. Mutualism as reciprocal expoitation: African paltn-ants defend foliar but not reproductive structures. Ecology, 88(12):3004-3011.

280

Palmer, T. M., M. L. Stanton, T. P. Young, J. R. Goheen, R. M. Pringle and R. Karban. 2008. Breakdown of an ant-plant mutualism follows the loss of large herbivores from an African savanna. Science, 319:192-195.

Panhwar, A. Q. and H. Abro. 2007. Ethnobotanical studies of Mahal Kohistan (Khirthar National Park). Pak. J. Bot., 39(7):2301-2315.

Parada. M., E. Carrio, M. A. Bonet, and J. Valles. 2009. ―Ethnobotany of the Alt Empordà region (Catalonia, Iberian Peninsula): plants used in human traditional medicine,‖. J. of Ethnopharmacol., 124(3):609–618.

Parker, C. and A. R. Riches. 1993. Parasitic weeds of the world: biology and control. C.A.B., international, Wallingford, United Kingdome.

Parmesan, C. and G .Yohe.2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature, 421:37–42.

Parvaiz, M. 2014. Ethnobotanical Studies on the plants resources of Mangowal, District Gujrat, Punjab, Pakistan. Avicenna J. of Phytom., 4(5):364-370.

Patisaul, H. B. and W. Jefferson. 2010. The pros and cons of phytoestrogens. Front. Neuroendocrinol., 31, 400–419.

Patrick, O., O. Joseph and A. B. Cunningham. 2004. Regeneration, density and size class distribution of tree species used for drum making in central Uganda. African J. Ecol., 42 (2): 129-136.

Pearce, D.W. and S. Puroshothaman. 1992. Protecting Biological Diversity: The economic value of pharmaceutical plants. CSERGE Global Environmental Change Working Paper 92-27, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University College, London and University of East Anglia.

Peer, T., A. Millinger, J. P. Gruber and F. Hussain. 2001. Vegetation and altitudinal zonation in relation to the impact of grazing in the steppe lands of the Hindu Kush Range (N. Pakistan). Phytocoenologia, 31 (4): 477-498.

Peet, R. K. 1974. The measurement of species diversity. Annual Rev. of Ecol. and System., 5:285-307.

Pei, S. J. 2002. Bio-cultural diversity and development of western China. J. of GradSchool of the Chinese Acad. of Sci., 19(2):107–115.

Pendry, C.A. and J. Proctor. 1996. The causes of altitudinal zonation of rain forests on Bukit Belalong, Brunei. J. Ecol., 84: 407-418.

281

Penning, S. C. and R. M. Callaway. 1996. Impacts of parasitic plants on the structure and dynamics of salt marsh vegetation. Ecology, 77(5):1410-1419.

Pereira, A. P., I. C. F. R. Ferreira, F. Marcelino, P. Valentao, P.B. Andrade, R. Seabra, L. Estevinho, A. Bento and P.A. Pereira. 2007. Phenolic compounds and antimicrobial activity of olive (Olea europaea L. Cv Cobrancosa) leaves. Molecules, 12: 1153-1162.

Perry, L. 2003. pH for Garden. Dept. of Plant and Soil Science, University of Vermont, USA.

Perveen, A. and M. I. Hussain. 2007. Plant biodiversity and phytosociological attributes of Gorakh hill (Khirthar Range). Pak. J. Bot., 39 (3): 691-698.

Perveen, A., G. R. Sarwar and I. Hussain. 2008. Plant biodiversity and phytosociological attributes of Dureji (Khirthar Range). Pak. J. Bot., 40 (1): 17-24.

Peterson, C. H. and R. Black. 1993. Experimental tests of the advantages and disadvantages of high density for two coexisting cockles in a Southern Ocean lagoon. J. of Animal Ecology, 62: 614–633.

Pfister, J.A. and J.C. Malechek. 1986. Dietary selection by goats and sheep in a deciduous woodland of North Eastern Brazil. J. Range Mange., 39: 24-28.

Phillips, E. A. 1976. Changes in the Phytosociology of Boreal-Conifer-Hardwood Forests on Mackinac Island, Michigan, 1934 to 1974. American Midland Naturalist, 96(2):317-323.

Phillips, O. and A. H. Gentry. 1993a. The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru: I. Statistical hypothesis tests with a new quantitative technique. Econom. Bot., 47:15-32.

Phillips, O. and A. H. Gentry. 1993b. The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru: II. Additional Hypothesis Testing In Quantitative Ethnobotany. Econom. Bot., 47:33-43.

Phillips, O., A.H. Gentry, C. Reynel, P. Wilkin and C. Gálvez Durand. 1994. Quantitative ethnobotany and Amazonian Conservation. Conservat. Biol., 8:225-48.

Phipps, N. 2014. Wind resistant plants for your windy garden. Gardening Know How (http://www.gardeningknowhow.com/special/spaces/wind-resistant-plants-for-your- windy-garden.htm).

Pichi-Sermolli, R. D. 1948. An Index for Establishing the Degree of Maturity in Plant Communities. J. of Ecol., 36(1):85-90

Pielou, S. L. 1984. Analysis of ecological data. J. Wiley and Sons, New York, 385.

Pignatti, S., E. Oberdorfer, J. H. J. Schaminee and V. Westhoff. 1995. On the concept of vegetation class in phytosociology. J. of Veget. Sci., 6(1):143-152.

282

Pinheiro, M.H.O. and R. Monteiro. 2006. Contribution of forest species to the floristic composition of a forested savanna in southeastern Brazil. Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology, 49(5): 763-774.

Population Census of Pakistan. 1981. Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad.

Population Census of Pakistan. 1987. Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad.

Principe, P. P. 1991. Valuing the biodiversity of medicinal plants. In: The Conservation of Medicinal Plants. (Eds.): O. Akerele, V. Heywood and H. Synge. Proceedings of an International Consultation, 21-27 March 1988, Chiang Mai, Thailand. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 79-124.

Pyšek, P. and M. Šrůtek. 1989. Numerical Phytosociology of the Subalpine Belt of the Kazbegi Region, Caucasus, USSR. Vegetatio, 81(1-2):199-208.

Qaiser, M. and S. Nazimuddin. 1981. Rhamnaceae. No. 140. In: Flora of Pakistan, (Eds.): E. Nasir and S.I. Ali. National Herbarium, Islamabad and University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan.

Qaiser, M., S. Farooq, S. N. Gilani, M. A. Wasim, M. Kakar, S. W. A. Shah and A. Rauf. 2013. Ethnobotanical survey of medicinal plants used in Wazir and Daur tribes of North Waziristan, Paksitan. Global Veteinaria, 11(3):285-292.

Qasim, M., S. Gulzar, Z. K. Shinwari, I. Aziz and M. A. Khan. 2010. Traditional ethnobotanical uses of halophytes from Hub, Baluchistan. Pak. J. Bot., 42(3):1543-1551.

Qureshi, R. 2008. Vegetation assessment of Sawan Wari of Nara desert. Pak. J. Bot., 40:1885- 1895.

Qureshi, R. A., R. Somro, M. A. Khan and A. Rashid. 1997. A checklist of gymnosperm of Chitral district, NWFP, Pakistan and their Ethnobotany. Hamdard Med., 40(3)44-54.

Qureshi, R. and G. R. Bhatti. 2008. Ethnobotany of plants used by the Thari people of Nara Desert, Pakistan. Fitoterpia, 79(2008):468-473.

Qureshi, R. and G.R. Bhatti. 2005. Nara Desert, Pakistan: Part II: Human Life. Rangelands (USA), 27(5): 32-35.

Qureshi, R. and G.R. Bhatti. 2008. Taxonomy of Scrophulariaceae from Nara Desert, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 40(3): 973-978.

283

Qureshi, R. and H. Shaheen. 2013. The ethnobotanical profile of Tehsil Kotli Sattain, Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Botanical Research and Practice, Nova Science Publishers, ISBN: 978- 1-62417- 290-8.

Qureshi, R., G.R. Bhatti and G. Shabbir. 2011. Floristic inventory of Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University research farm at Koont and its surrounding areas. Pak. J. Bot., 43(3): 1679-1684.

Qureshi, S. J. and M. A. Khan. 2001. Ethnobotanical study of Kahuta from Rawalpindi District, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bio. Sci., 1(1):27-30.

Tareen,R. B.and S. A. Qadir. 1993. Life form and Leaf size spectra of the plant communities of diverse areas ranging from Harnai, Sinjawi to Duki regions of Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot. 25 (1), 83-92.

Rafay, M., R. A. Khan, S. Yaqoob and M. Ahmad. Floristic Compositon of Grass Species in the Degrading Rangelands of Cholistan Desert. Pak. J. Agric. Sci., 50(4):599-603.

Raheesm, N., M. Kiran and V. Vishal. 2014. Phytosociological Analysis of Mangrove Forest at Kadalundi- Vallikkunnu Community Reserve, Kerala. Internat. J. of Sci., Environ. ISSN 2278-3687 (O) and Tech., 3(6):2014-2154.

Rahman, M.A., E. Haque, M. Hassanuzzan and I.Z. Shahid. 2011. Antinociceptive, anti- inflammatory and antibacterial properties of Tamarix indica roots. Int. J. Pharmacol., 7(4):527-531.

Rahmatullah, Q. and M. Ahmad. 2010. Some notes on the vegetation of Achhro Thar (white desert) of Nara Region, Sindh, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot.42(5), 2985-2994.

Ramakrishnan, P.S., K. G. Saxena and U. N. Chandrashekara.1998. Conserving the Sacred for Biodiversity Management. Oxford and IBH Publication Co. Pvt. Ltd., Newdelhi, India.

Raunkiær, C. 1934. The Life Forms of Plants and Statistical Plants Geography being the collected Papers of C. Raunkiaer. Clarendon press, Oxford.

Rao, M. K. V. and R. Shanpru.1981. Some plants in the life of Garos of Meghalaya: 153-160. In S. K. Jain (ed.) Glimpses of Indian Ethnobotany. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi.

Rao, P. S., B. Sujatha, K. Lakshminarayana and S. V. Ratnam. 2013. A study on the phytosociology soil conservation and socio economic aspects in red sand dunes near Bhimili of Vishakhapatnam. Scholar Research library, Archives ofApplied Science Research, 5(1):45-56.

284

Rao, S. D., P. P. Murty and M. Venkaiah. 2013. Phytosociological Observations on Tree Species Diversity of Tropical Forest of Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh, India. Indian J. of Plant Sci., 2(4):89-108.

Rashid, A. and S.M. Khan. 2009. Ethnobotanical study of the important wild plants of Bahadur Khel Track (Tehsil Banda Daud Shah) in Karak District. (Unpublished).

Rashid. A., M. F. Swati, H. Sher. 2011. Phytoecological evaluation with detail floristic appraisal of the vegetation around Malam Jabba, Swat Pakistan. Asian Pac. J. Tropical Biomed., pp. 461-467.

Rawat, V. S. and A. Chandhok. 2009. Phytosociological Analysis and Distribution Patterns of Tree Species: A case study from Govind Pashu Vihar, National Park, Uttarakhand. New York Sci. J., 2(4):58-63.

Ray, J. G. and J. George. 2009. Phytosociology of roadside communities to identify ecological potentials of tolerant species. J. of Ecol. and the Natural Environ., 1(5):184-190.

Razzaq, A., F. Hadi, A. Rashid, M. Ibrar and Usman Ali. 2015. Exploration of medicinal plants and their conservation status of higher altitude of District Shangla, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. American-Eurasian J. of Agric. and Environ. Sci., 15(3):328-331.

Reinhart, K. O. 2012. The organization of plant communities: negative plant-soil feedback and semiarid grasslans. Ecology, 93(11):2377-2385.

Rejmanek, M. 1977. The concept of structure in Phytosociology to Classification of Plant communities. Vegetatio, 35(1):55-61.

Roberts, F. S. 1897. Forty-One Years in India. Vol. 2. London, p. 407-408. General Staff Report on Mohmand Country. 1926. Calcutta.

Roberts, T. J. 1991. The birds of Pakistan. Vols. 1, Oxford University Press, Karachi, Pakistan.

Roberts, T. J. 997. The mammal of Pakistan. 2nd edition. Oxford University Press, Karachi: pp. 525.

Rocha, P. L. B. D., L. P. D. Queiroz and J. R. Pirani. 2004. Plant species and habitat structure in a sand dune field in the Brazilian Caatinga: a homogeneous habitat harboring an endemic biota. Revista Brasil. Bot., 27 (4): 739-755.

Root, T. L., J. T. Price, K. R.Hall, H. Stephen Schnieder, C. Rosenzweig and J. Alan Pounds. 2003. Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature, 421, 57–60.

Rossato, S. C., H. F. Leitão-Filho and A. Begossi. 1999. Ethnobotany of Caiçaras of the Atlantic Forest Coast (Brazil). Econ. Bot., 53:387-395.

285

Royal Botanic Garden. 2015. Online resource.http://www.kew.org/science-conservation/plants- fungi/fungi/relationships

Russel, G. 1972. Phytosociological Studies on a Two-Zone Shore: I. Basic Pattern. J. of Ecol., 60(2):539-545.

Rvised Agreements with Tribal People. 1947. Government of Pakistan.

Sadaqat, M. 1995. Medicinal plants of family Cucurbitaceae (Part-2). Hamdard Med., 34:91-101.

Sadeghi, Z. and A. Mahmood, 2014. Ethno-gynecological knowledge of medicinal plants used by Baluch tribes, southeast of Baluchistan. Iran. Rev. Bras. Farmacogn., 24, 706–715.

Saglam, C. 2012. A Phytosociological study of the forest, shrub and steppe vegetation of Kizildag and environs (Isparta, Turkey). Turk. J. of Bot., 37: 316-335.

Saima, S., A. A. Dasti, Q. Abbas and F. Hussain. 2010. Floristic diversity during monsoon in Ayubia National Park District Abbottabad Pakistan. Pak. J. Pl. Sci., 16 (1): 43-50.

Saleem, A. Q., Z. Kapadia, and S. Zahoor. 1994. Naturally occurring insecticides in indigenous plants. Hamdard XXXVII(4):27-39.

Samant, S. S. and P. Mohinder. 2003. Diversity and conservation status of medicinal plants in Uttaranchal State. Indian Forester, 129(9):1090-1108.

Sanchez, P.A. 1976. Properties and Management of Soils in the Tropics. Wiley, New York.

Saqib, Z. and A. Sultan. 2015. Ethnobotany of Palas valley, Pakistan. Department of Biological Science QAU, and National Research Center, Islamabad, 1-27.

Saqib, Z., R. N. Malik, M. I. Shinwari and Z. K. Shinwari. 2011. Species richness, ethno botanical species richness and human settlement along a Himalayan altitudinal gradient: prioritizing plant conservation in Palas Valley, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 43:129-133.

Sarangazi, A. M., A. Ahmad and M. Ahmad. 2012. Ethnobotany of Juniperus excelsa in Ziarat, Baluchistan, Pakistan. FUUST J. of Biol., 2(2):1-25.

Sarker, M. A. M. and M. A. M. Sarker. 2009. Antinociceptive activity of methanol extract of Tamarix indica. Bangladesh J. Physiol. Pharmacol., 25(1-2):1-3.

Sarvas, R. 1953. Measurement of the crown closure of the stand. Communicationes Instituti Forestalis Fenniae, 41(6). 13 p.

Saurav, M. and A. P. Das. 2014. Plant species Richness and Phytosociological attributes of the Vegetation in the cold temperate zone of Darjiling Himalaya, India. Internat. Res. J. of Environ. Sci.,3(10), 47-57.

286

Saxena, A. K. and J. S. Singh. 1984. Tree population structure of certain Himalayan forests and implications concerning the future composition. Vegetatio 58, 61-69.

Schillhorn van Veen, T. W. 1997. Sense of nonsense? Traditional Methods for animal parasitic disease control. Veterinary Parasitology, 71:177-194.

Segawa, P. and D. N. Nkuutu. 2006. Diversity of vascular plants on Ssese islands in Lake Victoria, central Uganda. African J. Ecol., 44 (1): 22-29.

Sen, R., L. Ghara, A. Guha, S. Bandyopadhyay, P. R. Sur and A. C. Halder. 1994. Ethnobotany uses of Herberia: X. Journal of Economic and Taxonomic Botany, 18(2):301-306.

Setubal, R. B. and I. L. Boldrini. 2012. Phytosociology and natural subtropical grassland communities on a granitic hill in southern Brazil. Rodriguésia, 63(3):513-524.

Shah, A., S. K. Marwat, F. Gohar, A. Khan, K. H. Bhatti, M. Amin, Noor Ud Din, M. Ahmad and Muhammad Zafar. 2013. Ethnobotanical study of Medicinal plants of semi-tribal area of Makerwal and Gulla Khel (Lying between Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab Province), Pakistan. American J. of Plant Sci., 4:98-116.

Shah, M. and F. Hussain. 2009. Phytosociological study of the vegetation of Hayat Abad Peshawar, Pakistan. Pak. J. Pl. Sci., 15 (2): 123-128.

Shah, S. M. and F. Hussain. 2008. Ecology of wetlands of Akbarpura, District Nowshera. Pak. J. Pl. Sci., 14 (1): 47-57.

Shah, M. and F. Hussain. 2012. Conservation assessment of plant resources of Chakesar valley District Shangla, KPK, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 44:179-186

Shah, M. and K. J. Baig. 1999. Threatened Species Listing in PAKISTAN: Status, Issues and Prospects in using IUCN Red List Criteria at National Level: A Regional Consultative Workshop for South and Southeast Asia, IUCN Reg. Biodiversity Program, Asia. Pp.70- 81.

Shah, S. I. 1993. Socio Economic Development in FATA: A case study of Mohmand Agency. National Institute of Pakistan Studies, Quaid e Azam University, Islamabad Pakistan.

Shah, S. M., F. Hussain and M. Khan. 2013. Phytosociological studies on alpine vegetation of Mastuj valley Hindu Kush range, Pakistan. Internat. J. of Biosci., 3(2):152-157.

Shahina, A.G. and F. Martin. 1998. Vegetation of Arabian Peninsula Published by Kluwer Academic publisher Netherlands. Pp 74-75.

Sharma, B. and K. Sharma. 2013. Influence of various dominant trees on phytosociology of under story herbaceous vegetation. Recent Res. in Sci. and Tech., 5(2):41-45.

287

Sharma, K.P. and B.P. Upadhaya. 2002. Phytosociology, primary production and nutrient retention in herbaceous vegetation of the forestry arboretum on the Aravalli hills at Jaipur. Tropical Ecol., 43(2):325-335.

Shengji, P. 1999. Ethnobotany for biodiversity conservation. In Bhatta, B. R., Chalise, S. R., A. K. Myint, and P. N. Sharma (eds.). Recent concepts, knowledge, Practices and new skill in participatory integrated watershed management trainers. Resource Book,FAO, ICIMOD, PWMTA. 35-38.

Sher, H. and Farrukh Hussain. 2009. Ethnobotanical evaluation of some plant resources in Northern parts of Pakistan. African J. of Biotech., 8(17):4066-4076.

Sher, H., A. Aldosari and S. Ahmad. 2012. Ethnoecological appraisal of Acacia modesta Wall. Common Tree of Dry Ecosystem in Pakistan. African J. of Agric. Res., 7(36):5083 -091

Sher, Z. and Z. D. Khan. 2007. Floristic composition, life form and leaf spectra of the vegetation of Chagharzai Valley, District Buner. Pak. J. Plant Sci., 13(1):57-66.

Sher, Z., F. Hussain and Lal Badshah. 2013. Biodiversity and ecological characterization of the flora of Gadoon rangeland, district Swabi, Khyber Pukhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Iran J. of Bot., 20(1):96-108.

Sher. H, M. N. Al-Yemeni, H. Sher. 2010. Forest Resource utilization assessment for economic development of rural community, Northern parts of Pakistan. J. Med. Plants Res., 4(12):1197-1208.

Shimwell, D. W. 1971. The Description and Classification of Vegetation Sedgwick and Jackson, London.

Shinwari, M. I. and M. A. Khan. 1998. Ethnobotany of Margalla hills national park of Islamabad. J. Ethnopharm., 69:45-56.

Shinwari, M.I., Z.K. Shinwari and B.A. Khan 1996. Ethnobotany of Kaghan Valley (Manshera) Pakistan. Proceedings of first training workshop on Ethnobotany and its application to conservation. National Herbarium, PARC. Islamabad pp. 94-103 and 171-176.

Shinwari, S., R. Qureshi and Elias Baydoun. 2011. Ethnobotanical study of Kohat pass (Paksitan). Pak. J. Bot., 43:135-139.

Shinwari, Z. K. and M. N. Chaudheri. 1992. A taxonomic revision of genus Mentha from Pakistan. Acta Phytotax. Geobot., 43(2):97-110.

Shinwari, Z. K. and M. Qaisar. 2011. Efforts on conservation and sustainable use of medicinal plants of Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 43(SI):5-10.

288

Shinwari, Z. K., M. Shah and R. Awan. 1995. Ethnobotany of Kharan District Baluchistan. Poc. Symp. Med. Pl. University of Peshawar.

Shinwari, Z. K., S. S. Gilani and M. Akhlas. 2002. Sustainable harvest of medicinal plants at Bar and Shinaki Valleys, Gilgit (Northern Pakistan). Consultancy Report, WWF-P, Gilgit.

Shinwari, Z. K., S. S. Gilani, M. Kahjoma and T. Nakaike. 2000. Status of the medicinal plants in Hindu Kush Himalayas. Nepal Japan joint symposium on conservation of natural medicinal resources and their utilization, Kathmandu, Nepal, pp. 235-242.

Shinwari, Z. K., S. Sultan and T. Mehmood. 2011. Molecular and morphological characterization of selected Mentha species. Pak. J. Bot., 43(3):1433-1436.

Shinwari, Z.K., S.A. Gilani and A.L. Khan. 2012. Biodiversity loss, emerging infectious diseases and impact on human and crops. Pak. J. Bot., 44(Special Issue): 137-142.

Shinwari, Z.K. and S.S. Gilani. 2003. Sustainable harvest of medicinal plants at Bulashbar Nullah, Astore (Northern Pakistan). J. of Ethnopharmac., 84: 289-298.

Shinwari, Z.K., S.S. Gilani and M. Shoukat, 2002. Ethnobotanical resources and implications for curriculum. In: Shinwari, Z.K., A. Hamilton and A.A. Khan (eds.), Proceedings of Workshop on CurriculumDevelopment in Applied Ethnobotany, pp: 21‒34. May, 2- 4, Nathiagali, Abbotabad, WWF, Pakistan.

Shmida, A., M. Evenari and I. Noy-Meir. 1986 Hot desert ecosystems: an integrated view. In: Ecosystems of the World 12B. Hot deserts and shrub lands, pp. 379. (Eds.): M. Evenari, I. Noy-Meir and D. W. Goodall. Amsterdam: Elsevierpp 451.

Shoukat, S. S., M. A. Kheri and M. A. Khan. 1978. The relationships amongst dominance, diversity and community maturity in desert vegetation. Pak. J. Bot., 10 (2): 183-196.

Shrestha, K. K. 1998. Ethnobotanical inventory and plant taxonomy: Basic Approaches for Ethnobotanical Research. In: Shrestha, K. K. et al. (eds.) Ethnobotany for Conservation and Community Development. Ethnobotanic. Soci. of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal, pp. 58-65.

Shrestha, P.M. and S.S. Dhillion. 2003. Medicinal plant diversity and use in the highlands of Dolakha district, Nepal. J. Ethnopharmacol., 86(1): 81-96.

Jan, S. M. R. Khan, U. Rashid and J. Bokhari. 2013. Assessment of Antioxidant Potential, Total Phenolics and Flavonoids of Different Solvent Fractions of Monotheca Buxifolia Fruit. Osong Public Health Res.Perspect., 4(5): 246–254.

Siddiqi, S. M. 1998. Nutritional composition of May grass. Pak. J. Sci. Ind. Res., 35 (11): 66-70.

289

Siddiqui, K. M. and A. Khan. 1991. Proceeding of workshop on ―promotion of medicinal plants‖. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar.

Silva, V. A. and U. P. Albuquerque. 2004. Técnicas para análise de dados etnobotânicos. Pp. 63- 88 in Métodos etécnicas na pesquisa etnobotânica, org. Edited by U.P. Albuquerque and R.F.P. Lucena. Nupeea, Recife.

Simpson, E. H. 1949. Measurement of Diversity. Nature, 163: 688.

Sindhumati, S., K. Vidyasagaran and S. Gopakumar. 2014. Phytosociology and edaphic attributes of mangroves in Chettuwai bachwater system, Thrissur, Kerala. Internat. J. of Environ. Sci., 5(2):282-290.

Singh, B. N, B. R. Singh, R. L. Singh, D. Prakash, B. K. Sarma and H. B. Singh. 2009b. Antioxidant and anti-quorum sensing activities of green pod of Acacia nilotica L. Food Chem. Toxicol., 47:778-786.

Singh, B. N., B. R. Singh, B. K. Sarma and H. B. Singh. 2009a. Potential chemoprevention of N- nitrosodiethylamine-induced hepatocarcinogenesis by polyphenolics from Acacia nilotica bark. Chem-Biol. Interact., 181: 20-28.

Sorensen, T. 1948. A Method of Establishing Groups Of Equal Amplitudes In Plant Sociology Based On Similarity Of Species Content And Its Application To Analyze The Vegetation Of Danish Commons. Biol. Skr., 5: 1-34.

Spain, J. W. 1961. The Pathan Borderlands. Middle East J., 15(2):165-177.

Stachowicz, J. J. 2001. Mutualism, facilitation and the structure of ecological communities. BioScience, 51:235-246.

Stewart, R.R. 1972. An Annotated Catalogue of the Vascular Plants of West Pakistan and Kashmir. In: Flora of West Pakistan, (Eds.): E. Nasir and S.I. Ali. 1028 pp. Fakhri Press, Karachi.

Sudarsanum, G., M. B. Reddy and N. Nagaraju. 1995. Veterinary crude drugs in Rayalaseema, Andhra Pradesh India. Indian J. of Pharm., 33(1):52-60.

Suetsugu, K., A. Kawakita and M. Kato.2008. Host range and selectivity of the Hemiparasitic plants Thesium chenese (Santalaceae). Annanls of Bot., 102(1):49-55.

Sugihara, G. 1980. Minimal community structure: an explanation of species abundance patterns. American Nature, 116:770-787.

290

Sultana, Z. K. Shinwari and F. Iftikhar. 1996. Diversity of edible mushrooms in Pakistan. Proceedings of the first training workshop on Ethnobotany and applied conservation, Pakistan Agricultural Research Center, Islamabad, pp. 46-50.

Sumner, W. 2012. Symbiosis between Mistletoe and a Tree. Prezi online presentations. https://prezi.com/ql1hdfrsyuqc/symbiosis-between-mistletoe-and-a-tree/

Szafer, W. 1966. The vegetation of Poland. International series of monographs in pure and applied Biology. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK.

T. H. Sparks and A. Menzel. 2002. Observed Changes in the Seasons: An Overview. Internat. J. on Climatology, 22, 1715–1725.

Tansley, A. G. 1946. Introduction to Plant ecology. George Allen and Enwin.

Tareen, R. B. E. Ahmad, S. A. Qadir. 1987. Farrukh Hussain edition. Plant communities around Chiltan in Quetta district of Baluchistan, Department of Botany, University of Peshawar, pp 5-10.

Taub, D. R. 2010. Effect of Rising Atmospheric Concentration of Carbon Dioxide on Plants. Nature Edu. Knowledge, 3(10):21.

The Institute for Environmental Modeling. 2016. Diversity Indices: Shannon's H and E. http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gross/bioed/bealsmodules/shannonDI.html

The ISE Code of Ethics 2006. International Society of Ethnobiology [WWW Document], n.d. URL 〈http://www.ethnobiology.net/what-we-do/core-programs/ise-ethics-program/code- of ethics/〉 (accessed 04.01.16.).

The Kaua’i Declaration. 2007. Ethnobotany, the Science of Survival: A Declaration form Kaua’i. Econ. Bot., 6(1):1-2.

The State of Population in Pakistan. 1988. National Institute of Population Studies, Islamabad. p., 25.

Thomas, C.D., A. Gameron, R.E. Green, M. Bakkenes, L.J. Beaumont, Y.C. Collingham, B.F. N. Erasmus, M.F. Siqueira, A. Grainger, L. Hannah, L. Hughes, B. Huntley, A.S. Jaarsveld, G. F. Midgley, L. Miles, M.A. Ortega- Huerta, A.T. Peterson, O.L. Phillips and S.E. William 2004. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature, 427: 145-148.

Thomas, E., I. Vandebroek, P. Goetghebeur, S. Sanca, S. Arrázola and P. Van Damme. 2008. The relationship between plant use and plant diversity in the Bolivian Andes, with special reference to medicinal plant use. Human Ecol., 36(6):861-879.

291

Tie, Y.L., I.C. Baillie, C.M.S. Phang and C.P Lim. 1979. Soils of Gunung Mulu National Park. Department of Agriculture, Sarawak.

Tilman, D. 1997a. Community invasibility: rectruitment limitation, and grassland biodiversity. Nature, 78:81-92.

Tilman, D. 1997b. Mechanism of plant competition. Plant ecology, second edition, Blackwell Science, Oxford, England.

Tilman, D. and J. A. Downing. 1994. Biodiversity and stability in grasslands. Nature, 367:363- 365.

Tilman, D., D. Wedin and J. Knops. 1996. Productivity and Sustainability Influenced by Biodiversity in Grassland Ecosystems. Nature, 379:718-720.

Tomaselli, M., D. Spitale and Alessandro Petranglia. 2011. Phytosociological and ecological study of spring in Trentino (south-eastern Alps, Italy).

Torre-Cuadros, M.A. and G.A. Islebe. 2003. Traditional ecological knowledge and use of vegetation in southeastern Mexico: a case study from Solferino, Quintana Roo. Biodiv. and Conserv., 12:2455-2476.

Tosh, J. 2004. Ethnobotany: Green Gold Branch in Botanical Sciences, Ethno medicinal Plants. Aavishkar Publishers, Jaipur, India. Pp.177-191.

Turkmen, N. and A. Duzenli. 2005. Changes in floristic composition of Quercus coccifera macchia after fire in Cukurova region in Turkey. Annales Botanici Fennici, 42(6):453-460.

Turner, N. J. 1995. Ethnobotany today in northwestern North America. In: Schultes RE, von Reis S (Eds) Ethnobotany: evolution of a discipline. Dioscorides Press, San Francisco, pp 264– 283.

Turrill, W. B. 1959. Vistas in Botany: a volume in honor of the bicentenary of Royal Botanic Garden, Kew. Pergamon press, London.

Underwood, E. J. 1977. Trace Elements in Human and Animal Nutrition.4th edition. Academic Press., New York.

Upadhyay, R.K., P. Dwivedi and S. Ahmad. 2010. Screening of antibacterial activity of six plant essential oils against pathogenic bacterial strains. Asian J. Medical Sci., 2(3): 152-158.

US Department of Agriculture. 2010. Identification of plants species, trinomials with varying wetland indicator status designation Northeast Region. Technical report number, 73.

292

Vadel, L. 2010. Phytosociological Assessment of Site of Community Importance Hornádske Vápence. Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 1, 949 01 Nitra, Slovakia, 205-211. vam der Heijden, M. G. A., R. D. Bardgett and N. M. van Straalen. 2008. The unseen majority: Soil microbes as driver of the plant diversity and productivity in terrestrial ecosystem. Ecology Letters, 11:296-310.

Vanderperren, B., M. Rizzo, L. Angenot, V. Haufroid, M. Jadoul and P. Hantson. 2005. Acute liver failure with renal impairment related to the abuse of Senna anthraquinone glycosides. Ann. Pharmacother., 39:1353–1357.

Verhoep, H. A. and P. J. Morin. 2010. Community Ecology: Process, Models and Applications. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Vitalini, S., M.,C. Iriti, D. Puricelli, A. Ciuchi, Segale and G. Fico. 2013. Traditional knowledge on medicinal and food plants used in Val San Giacomo (Sondrio, Italy)—an alpine ethnobotanical study. J. of Ethnopharmac., 145(2):617-529.

Vitousek, P. M. 1990. Biological invasion and ecosystem processes: Towards and integration of population and ecosystem studies. Oikos, 57:7-13.

Vofuatzakis, N. I., G. H. Griffiths and A. M. Mannion. 2003. Environmental factors and vegetation composition, lefka Ori Masif, Crete, S. Aegean. Global Ecol. and Biogeograph., 12(2):131-146.

Wahab, M., M. Ahmad and N. Khan. 2006. Phytosociology and dynamics of some pine forests of Afghanistan. Pak. J. Bot., 40 (3): 1071-1079.

Waheed, A. 1990. Dietary composition and nutritional status of sheep and goats grazing in two rangeland types in Balochistan, Pakistan. Ph. D. Thesis, Oregon State University.

Walpole, M. J., N. Moriaso and M. Charles. 2004. Status of the Mara woodlands in Kenya. African J. Ecology, 42 (3): 180-188.

Walter, K. S. and H. J. Gillet.1998. IUCN Red list of Threatened Plants. World Conservation Monitoring Center, IUCN The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK.

Walther, G. R. and E. Post, P. Convey. 2002. Ecological Responses to Recent Climate Change. Nature, 416, 389–395.

Ward, S. D. 1971. The Phytosociology of Calluna-Arctostaphylos Heaths in Scotland and Scandinavia: II. The North-East Scottish Heaths. J. of Ecol., 59(3):679-696.

293

Warming, E. 1908. The Structure and Biology of Arctic Flowering Plants. 1. Ericineae (Ericaceae, Pyrolaceae).1. Morphology and Biology. Commission for Scientific Research in Greenland, Copenhagen.

Wazir, S. M., A. A. Dasti, S. Saima, J. Shah and Farrukh Hussain. 2008. Multivariate Analysis Of Vegetation Of Chapursan Valley: An alpine meadow in Pakistan. Pak. J. of Bot., 40(2):615-626.

We˛grzyn, M. and P. Wietrzyk. 2015. Phytosociology of snow bed and exposed ridge vegetation of Svalbard. Polar Biol., DOI 10.1007/s00300-015-1751-7.

Web, C. O., D. D. Auckerly, M. A. McPeek and M. J. Donoghue. Phylogenies and Community Ecology. Annual Rev. of Ecol. and System., 33(2002): 475-505.

West, N. E. 1990. Structure and function of microphytic soil crusts in wild land Ecosystems of arid to semi-arid regions. Adv. in Ecol. Res., 20: 179–223.

Whittaker, R. H. 1975. Communities and Ecosystems, 2nd Edition. MacMillan, New York.

Williams P. H. 1993. Mapping the world's species: the higher taxon approach. Biodiv. Letters, 1, 2-8.

Wilson EO (Ed) (1998). Biodiversity, National academy Press, Washington Dc, USA.

Wilson, A.D., J.H. Leigh, N.L. Hindley and W.E. Mulham. 1995. Comparison of the Diets of Goats and Sheep on an Easuarina cristata - Heterodendrram oleifolium Woodland Community in Western New South Wales. Aust. J. Ex. Agri. Anim. Husb., 15: 45-53.

Wilson, D. and J. P. Cooper. 1969. Effect of light intensity during growth on leaf anatomy and subsequent light-saturated photosynthesis among contrasting Lolium genotype. New Phytologist, 68:1125-1135.

Wilson, J.B. (1999) Assembly rules in plant communities. In: Ecological Assembly Rules (eds E. Weiher and P. Keddy), pp. 130–164. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Yadav, A. S. and S. K. Gupta. 2007. Effect of Micro-Environment and Human Disturbance on the Diversity of Herbaceous Species in Sariska Tiger Project. Tropical Ecol., 48 (1): 125- 128.

Yaseen, G., M. Ahmad, S. Sultana, A. S. Alharrasi, J. Hussain, M. Zafar and Shafiq Ur Rehman. 2015. Ethnobotany of medicinal plants in the Thar Desert (Sindh) Pakistan. J. of Ethnopharmac., 2(163):43-59.

294

Yeo, M.J.M., T.H. Blachstock and D. P. Stevens. 1998. The use of phytosociological data in conservation assessment: a case study of lowland grasslands in mid Wales. Biological Conservation,86 (1998) 125-138.

Yousifzai, S.A., N. Khan, M. Wahab and K. Nazim 2010. Vegetation studies of the selected graveyards of Upper Swat. Int.J.Biotech., 7: 211-217.

Zabihullah, N. Akhtar and A. Rashid. 2007. A Checklist of plants in Manzaray Baba Valley Malakand Agency, Pakistan. Pak. J. Pl. Sci., 13 (2): 111-117.

Zaman, M. B. and M. S. Khan.1970. Hundred drug plants of West Pakistan. Medicinal plants branch, Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar, pp. 5-8.

Zereen, A., Zaheer-Ud-Din Khan and Mohammad Ajaib. 2013. Ethnobotanical evaluation of the shrubs of Central Punjab, Pakistan. Biologia (Pakistan), 59(1):139-146.

Zhang, X., D. Tarpley and J. T. Sullivan. 2007. Diverse responses of vegetation phenology to a warming climate. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34: 1940-45.

Zhang, X., Y. Wang, Q.Liang, Z. Ma, C. Xiao, H. Tan, Y. Gao. 2014. The correlation between chemical composition, as determined by uplc-tof-ms, and acute Toxicity of Veratrum nigrum L. and radix Paeoniae alba. Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med., 892797.

295