ASSESSMENT OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES ON THE VEGETATION OF TROPICAL RAINFOREST IN KAKAMEGA COUNTY, KENYA
FRED SESWA N50/CE/21360/2012
THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF DEGREEMASTER OFENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCESCHOOL OF ENVRIRONMENTAL STUDIESKENYATTA UNIVERSITY.NAIROBI (KENYA)
NOVEMBER, 2016
ii
DECLARATIONS
This study work has not been submitted for the award of any Masters degree in any University.
SIGNATURE ……….…... DATE……….…... FRED SESWA. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE.
We confirm to have supervised this study work in this thesis done by the candidate.
SIGNATURE ……….…... DATE……….…... PROF. SHYAM MANOHAR. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE KENYATTA UNIVERSITY, NAIROBI (KENYA).
SIGNATURE ……….…... DATE……….…... DR. ESTHER KITUR. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE KENYATTA UNIVERSITY, NAIROBI (KENYA).
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
A lot of people contributedto completion of my study. I highly appreciate my supervisor Prof. Shyam Manohar for his academic guidance, critic encouragement, thorough correction of the drafts, and completion of this research.
I also appreciateDr. Esther Kitur my second supervisorfor her insight and practical suggestions. I convey my sincere thanks to Kakamega forest research assistants Mr. Robert Copeland Musumba, Wilberforce Musumba and Joel
Mbongani for their time and experience in assisting in field work and specimen identification without which it would have been impossible to collect data.I also thank my wife Salome, daughters Sasha and Laura for their encouragement and providing a good environment and being there for me during my study.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENT
DECLARATIONS ...... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... iii TABLE OF CONTENT ...... iv LIST OF TABLES ...... vi LIST OF FIGURES ...... vii LIST OF PLATES ...... viii ABBREVIATIONS ...... ix ABSTRACT ...... x CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1. Background Information ...... 1 1.2 Problem Statement and Justification ...... 5 1.3 Research Questions ...... 6 1.4 Research Hypotheses...... 6 1.5 General Objective ...... 7 1.5.1 Specific Objectives ...... 7 1.6 Conceptual Framework ...... 7 1.7 Significance and Anticipated Output ...... 9 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 11 2.1 Introduction ...... 11 2.2 Impacts of Human activities on Tropical Rainforest in South America ..... 13 2.3 Impacts of human activities on tropical rainforest in South East Asia ...... 15 2.4 Impacts of Human activities on Tropical Rainforest in Australia ...... 16 2.5 Impacts of Human activities on Tropical Rainforest in West and central Africa ...... 17 2.6 Impact of Human activities on the Tropical Rainforest in Madagascar ...... 18 2.7 Impact of Human activities on the Tropical Rainforest in East Africa ...... 19 CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND METHODS ...... 23 3.1 Study area: ...... 23
v
3.2 Geology and Soil characteristics: ...... 24 3.3 Climate ...... 24 3.4 Data collection...... 24 3.4.1 Sampling techniques ...... 25 3.4.2 Vegetation Data collection ...... 25 3.4.3 Traditional uses and values of Plant species or their parts collected from the rainforest of Kakamega...... 26 3.4.4 Human impacts on Isecheno nature forest reserve part of Kakamega rainforest...... 26 3.5 Field Data Analysis ...... 27 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 30 4.1 Floristic composition of Isecheno forest nature reserve...... 30 4.1.1 Growth forms within the study area ...... 36 4.2 Uses and importance of plant species collected from tropical rainforest of Kakamega...... 48 4.3 Human impacts on the Rainforest of Kakamega ...... 68 4.4 Quantitative analysis of plant species affected by identified human activities in the study area...... 87 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 91 5.1 Conclusion ...... 91 5.2 Recommendations ...... 91 REFERENCES ...... 93 5.0 APPENDICES ...... 104
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1: Floristic composition of collected plant species within Kakamega forest, Kenya (January –December 2014)…….…...... 32
Table 4.2: Plant species, families and their respective growth forms recorded from rainforest of kakamega, Kenya………………………………..37
Table 4.3: Diversity index and Importance percentage (IP) of the plant species studied in Kakamega rainforest, Kenya ..……………………………43
Table 4.4:Plant families, their genera & species, vernacular names and uses by local community residing near the Rainforest of Kakamega, Kenya ……………………………………………………………….……….52
Table 4.5: Quantitative analysis of human activities on plant species for specific uses within the study area of Isecheno nature reserve part of Kakamega Rainforest..………………..……………………………...70
Table 4.6: Quantitative data on human disturbances along eight transects studied within Kakamega main forest (From January to December, 2014) …71
Table 4.7: Human activities and affected numbers of plant species within the study area of kakamega forest, Kenya. …………….………………..73
Table 4.8: Plant families and their number of species afected by main human activities within Tropical Rainforest, Kakamega County of Kenya...84
Table 4.9: Analysis of variance between the number of plant species affected and identified human activities in the Tropical Rainforest of Kakamega County, Kenya………………………………………………………..88
Table 4.10: Quantitative analysis of differences between the numbers of plant species affected by human activities in various plant families……...89
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Map of the world showing distribution of tropical Rainforest (source: RainforestFoundationUK, 1982)………….…………………………..1 Figure 1.2: Conceptual Framework shows managed forest areas degradation due to human activities………………………………………………... 8 Figure 3.1: Map of Kakamega Tropical Rainforest showing location of transects and quadrats used to collect vegetation data.….………….………….23 Figure 4.1:Shows Plant families and their number of species studied within Tropical Rainforest of Kakamega ……...…………………………..36 Figure 4.2: Growth forms studied in kakamega rain forest Kenya ……………...37
Figure 4.3: Growth forms and their Percentages within Rainforest of Kakamega, Kenya……………………………………………………………….41
Figure 4.4: Plant families and their number of species affected due to use by local population from tropicalrainforest of Kakamega, Kenya…………..49
Figure 4.5: Bar diagram shows plant species collected for different uses from Isecheno nature reserve, part of Kakamega Rainforest, Kenya.……..50
Figure 4.6: Types of human activities and number of plantspecies affected/ha within Isecheno nature reserve section of main tropical rain forest, Kakamega County, Kenya …………...………………………….....72 Figure 4.7: Most preferred and disturbed plant species due to logging within Isecheno nature reserve part of main tropical rain forest of .………75 Figure 4.8: Preferred tree species for debarking in Isecheno nature reserve (study area) of within Kakamega tropical rainforest, Kenya..……………...79
Figure 4.9: Number of preferred plant species suffered due to root harvesting for medicinal values from this forest (study area)…………………...... 81
viii
LIST OF PLATES
Plate 4.1 (a) and (b) show illegal logging of Harungana madagascariensis within the study area………………………………………………………….77 Plate 4.2: (a) human path (trails) used for firewood collection and eco-tourisim and (b) headlots of firewood harvested from Kakamegaforest...…..…78 Plate 4.3: Stem of Trichilia emetic(Family: Meliaceae)debarked for its gynoecological value from Kakamega rainforest..………………….79 Plate 4.4: (a) Cattle grazing into Kakamega Rainforest and (b) Cattle track used to bring animals into Kalunya glade for grazing……………..……..80 Plate 4.5: Illegal root harvest (a) Mondia whyteiand Toddalia asiaticafrom Kakamega forest, Kenya……………………………..………………..82 Plate 4.6: Burnt hollow part of Cordia africana stem shows honey harvested from the study area………...………………………………………..82
ix
ABBREVIATIONS
FAO: Food and Agricultural Organization
GIS: Geographic Information Systems
GOK: Government of Kenya
GPS: Global Positioning Systems
KIFCON: Kenya Indigenous Forest Conservation
KNBS: Kenya National Bureau of Statistics
KWS: Kenya Wildlife Services
UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme
x
ABSTRACT The present research work was conducted from January to December, 2014 to assess human activities on the vegetation of Isecheno nature reserve part of the tropical rainforest of Kakamega County, Kenya. The objectives were to: (i) Study the floristic composition of Kakamega rainforest, (ii) investigate the uses of collected plant species or their parts by the local and commercial traders and (iii) monitor and assess impacts of human activities on the rain forest vegetation. Vegetation data was collected using line transects and quadrats. Within each quadrat, the plant species were identified, counted and recorded. Forest structure was assessed by calculation importance percentage. Interviews and questionnaires were used to collect information on the uses of collected plant species or their parts by local or commercial traders. Ground truthing was done within a 20m belt transect to assess human activities. The study recorded 146 plant species belonging to 124 genera and 57 families. Euphorbiaceaewas represented by 13 speciesbeing highest number of species in a family whereas 31 families had 1 species each. The growth forms in the forest are trees (81), Shrubs (32), Herbs (13) climbers (16) and Liana (4). Mimulopsis arborescenshas the highest importance value 53.84 whereas Senna spectabilis, toona ciliata and Croton macrostachyus each showed the lowest importance value of 0.03. The plant species diversity ranged between 0.0003 and 0.350 with the average of 3.16. There are 69 genera comprising of 83 plant species belonging to 33 families studied for their uses and mostly collected for medicine by local community of Kakamega which they use to treat or cure several infections, diseases and health problem. People also depend on the forests products for their livelihood from plant leaves, timber for buiding & construction, poles, fruits, grass and firewood collection. The study revealed that logging, debarking, root harvesting, footpaths/trails, cattle tracks and traditional honey harvesting are the main threats to the vegetation. Total of 487 trees belonging to 35 species are logged with highly affected Funtumia africana (67 trees). 108 debarked trees belonged to 15 species and Zathoxyllum gilletii (15trees) is highly debarked. Signs of root harvested from 55 plants belonging to 12 species and highly exploited species is Mondia whytei (12 plants). Cordia africana is highly affected for traditional honey harvesting. ANOVA test shows a significant difference (F=60.486; df=3; P=0.000) between the number of affected plant species and identified human activities and Kruskal-wallis test showed a statistically significant difference between (X2=30.518; P=0.000<0.05) the numbers of plant species affected in various plant families by monitored human activities thus both null hypotheses are rejected. Due to deforestationthe unique diversity of flora and fauna of this rainforest is in danger. Strong enforcement of environmental laws is necessary to stop illegal exploitation and over harvesting of resources. To restore degraded plant species, tissue culture must be practiced to enhance the lost taxonomic diversity. Application of biotechnology will be the best solution to restore this unique forest for present and future generations.
xi
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background Information
Tropical rainforests are very dense, warm and wet forests existing in a narrow
band along north and south of the equator (tropic of Cancer 23.5oN Latitude
and the tropic of Capricorn 23.5oS Latitude).
Figure 1.1: shows tropical rainforest of Amazon, Congo River Basin, Madagascar East Asian and Australia (Source: Rainforest foundation, U.K 1982)
The largest stretch of rainforests is found in South America(Amazon). More than
50% area of this tropical rainforest if situated in Brazil, and contains less than
2
1 /3of the global remaining equatorial rainforest; twenty percent of the forest exists in Indonesia, India, South East Asia, the Congo basin, Uganda, western and coastal Kenya. The remaining 30% fragments of rainforests are scattered around the globe in other tropical coutries. (Figure 1.1).
Tropical rainforests are stratified vertical with seven strata or zonations with unique life forms present within the forest. The first layer is the emergent layer comprised of large canopy trees usually over 50 meters high. The second layer is upper canopy trees (30-50m) which comprises of tall trees; while the third stratum is the middle height tree layer (18-27m) and comprised of trees, climbers and woody lianas. The fourth canopy layer has short trees (14-17meters) while the fifth stratum is the shrublayer (10 – 13m). The sixth layer is the herbaceous strata composed of tree seedlings, gramminoids, bryophytes, pteridophytes and forbs.
The seventh stratum is the ground cover and comprises creepers, runners, moss and lichens.
In the past, the tropical rainforests covered about 14% of the earth surface area but currently only about 6% cover is left which is support more than 5 million plant and animal species i.e 2/3 of the world flora and fauna that are increasingly threatened by over-exploitation and habitat loss at very high rate (Myers, 2000).
The highest biodiversity in the tropical rainforest is well known reservoir for the highest biodiversity comprising medicinal plants, home for wild animals, source of genetic materials, wild ancestors of agronomic crops, fruits, resins, lignin, gums, rubber, source of water and carbon sinks. The main cause ofbiological diversity lossincludes anthropogenic activities (Millennium Ecosystem
3
Assessment, 2005). Nations with equatorial rainforests have small scale farners residing around the forest who obtain their livelihood from resources of equatorial rain forests (Myers, 1992).
This scenario is not different from tropical rainforest of Kakamega where an increase in human population has put pressure on kakamega forest threatenening to inflict permanent damage to this ecosystem.
When the tropical rainforest of Kakamega was gazatted as a Trust forest in 1933 was covering approximately 24,598 hectares, few forest reserves like Isecheno nature reserve (295hectares) and Yala nature reserves (460hectare) were created within the equatorial rain forest of Kakamega in the year 1967(Glenday, 2006).
During the year 1985, nearly 4400 hectares of the northern section of the tropical rain forest Kisere nature reserve was established and gazatted (KIFCON, 1994).
The main objective was to protect the rain forest from exploitation; therefore it was divided to preserve the different forest sections of equatorial rain forest of kakamega.However before independence the nature reserves were affected by selective logging by local population and it was estimated that 20 to 30 % of the stems had been cleared in the sub-canopy layer (KEFRI, 2010).
Consequently this forest cover has been declining over time as expressed by
Althof (2005) who asserts that this rainforest reduced to about 11,848 hectares.
This forest is closely associated both geographically and biologically with other two forest fragments namely Kisere (484hectares) located 6 km to the north and
Malava (718hectares) located 12km to the west (KWS, 2007).
4
Due to inadequate enforcement of environmental laws, most Kenyan forests are loosing their diversity and facing challenges of deforestation, fragmentation and degradation due to anthropogenic activities.
Despite being a national unique rainforest, it has been over exploited for timber, poles, post, grazing, charcoal& fuel wood, farming and medicinal extraction for its economic values for survival of local community (Tsingali and Kassilly 2009).
This forest being the only remnant of equatorial rainforest situated in Kakamega
County of Kenya provides a unique shelter for a remarkable diversity of flora and fauna (KIFCON, 1994 and Mitchell et al., 2004).
Floristic composition is the part of an inventory of any natural ecosystem composed of taxonomic and species diversity which indicates the genetic diversity of equatorial rainforest of Kakamega as high biodiversity area with unique plants and animals. The previous studies of floristic composition of
Kakamega tropical rain forest and its fragmentspresents 370 plant species
(Kokwaro, 1988), 213 plants species Beentje (1994) and 397 species of plants comprising of 112 trees species, 62 shrubs species, 58 climber’s species, 141 herbs species and 24 ferns species (Althof, 2005).
Each growth form provides suitable habitats for several plants and animal species within an ecosystem and also plays a significant role to maintain the surrounding physical environment. Therefore, for effective conservation of any ecosystem it is important to understand its past and current floristic composition.
.
5
1.2 Problem Statement and Justification
The equatorial rainforest of Kakamega is surrounded by a human population of about 280,000 with 358 persons per square kilometer practicing small scale farming and some engaging in small scale business in the nearby markets (Mars,
2010). The forest surrounding has a high density of human beings who are intensively involved in agricultural practices. According to (Guthiga, 2006), 52% of the human populations live below poverty line and relay on farm returns of around 60% as household income which is the main occupation in the region.
The majority of people mainly depend onthe equatorial rain forestof Kakamega resources putting a long term pressure on these unique resources leading severe reduction and fragmentation this forest (Althof, 2005).
The unique equatorial rainforest of Kakamega possess a high biological diversity that experience anthropogenic impacts due to Settlement, road network; infrastructure, agriculture, illegal logging, fuel-wood collection, charcoal making, collecting plants and their parts for medicinal purposes and hunting of animals have degraded this forests biodiversity and cover (Tsingali and Kassilly 2009).
During the year 1931 before this forest was gazated, gold mineral was discovered within the rainforest by several European prospectorsand mining was doneleaving glades inside the forest(Mitchell, 2004). The urbanization and expansion of
Kakamega town due to increase in human population is contributing to the rapid decline of the forest area. Also forest cover loss could be due to road networks infrastructure for example Kakamega-Webuye road construction lead to separation of Malava fragment into eastern and western part from the main forest.
6
Tropical rainforest of Kakamega forest has been threatened by excessive, wasteful and uncontrollable use by a poor growing human population around it since 1933.
The study of floristic composition and growth form in equatorial rainforest is essential in understanding suitable habitats for several plants and animal species within this uniqueterrestrial ecosystem which plays a significant role in maintaining physical environment.
1.3 Research Questions
This research focused on answering the following questions listed below:
i. What is the current floristic composition, species diversity and
dominance of plant species in the tropical rainforest of Kakamega in
Kenya?
ii. Which plant species or their parts do the local people and commercial
traders collect?
iii. What are the main threats of human activities on this forest?
1.4 Research Hypotheses
This study was guided by the following two hypotheses:
i. There is no significant difference between the numbers of plant species
affected and identified human activities.
ii. There is no significant difference between the numbers of plant species
affected in various plant families due to human activities.
7
1.5 General Objective
The main objective of this present research was to assess the human impacts on the vegetation of Kakamega rainforest.
1.5.1 Specific Objectives
The specific objectives of the study were as follows:
i. To study the floristic composition of Kakamega forest, Kenya.
ii. To investigate the uses of collected plant species or their parts by the
local community and commercial traders.
iii. To monitor and assess impacts of human activities on equatorial
rainforest vegetation.
1.6 Conceptual Framework
Rainforest deforestation and degradation is a global problem.The impact of human activities on equatorial rainforest of Kakamega is summarized in conceptual framework emphazising on the combination of numerous factorsof degradation. During the study period, the anthropogenic activities were assessed as the main causeof Kakamega forest degradation.
The conceptual framework also shows the impacts of increasing human population growth which changed the level of utilization of this rainforest product as a result of demographic transition and a source of income. Figure 1.2 displays the relationships between the variables and their indicators.
8
Response Measures International/Regional/ Increased Social Economic National forest policies Activities Poulation control Agriculturalexpansion Local Development Mining n programs Infrastructural development Governmentdirectives Illigal fuel wood collection, Enforcement of charcoal making, collecting Environmental Laws medicinal plants or their Demand and supplyof parts, traditional honey resources harvesting
Increasing forest Degradation /fire/fragmentation e soil erosion,floods Habitat alteration/clearance/Reduction of vegetation cover Loss of biological diversity/Extinction of species Disruption of the hydrological cycle and acquatic ecosystems, shrinking water table
Food insecurity, malnutrition &increased poverty Drought and global warming,
Figure 1.2: Conceptual Framework shows managed forest areas degradation due to human activities.
The growthof human population around the forest has increased socio-economic
activities such as Agriculture, illigal activities like logging, fuel wood collection,
charcoal making, collecting medicinal plants or their parts and traditional honey
harvesting to cater for their needs. Increase in human activities have resulted in
forest fragmentations and forest area reduction/cleared land cover. Deforestation
increases evaporation from soils of open areas reducing the amount of water
availability to primary producers including crops, therefore water stress effects on
plant growth.
9
Removal of vegetation will obviously lead to loss of moisture and hence less ability to support plant and vegetation growth. An increased loss of vegetation cover will consequently lead to loss of animal and plants habitats resulting to ecosystem degradation.
A drastic change in forest land cover may result to habitat alteration, encroachment and fragmentation thus leading to increasing forest degradation.
Rainforest degradation is accelerated due to socio economic activities which have modified the natural environment to support or sustain the needs of the ever growing human population.
The degradation of this forest would lead to various environmental problems that would affect the livelihood of the population in the ecosystem, hydrological cycle and acquatic ecosystems, soil erosion, poor vegetation cover, loss of genetic & taxonomic biodiversity, reduced agricultural yields, global warming and loss of livestock with no cultivation. If the unsustainable utilization of this rainforest is not addressed by appropriate conservation measures by the government of Kenya, then it will continue fragmenting, degrading and complete loss of this ecosystem, food insecurity & malnutrition, increased poverty among the people, extreme weather patterns, and general decline in economic and national development.
1.7 Significance and Anticipated Output
Due to human activities this equatorial rainforest is experiencing several negative impacts namely; fragmentation, loss of the forest cover, species habitats. The results provide floristic composition inventory of Kakamega tropical rainforest and anthropogenic impacts on the taxonomic of the tropical rain forest ecosystem.
10
The study findings shall be helpful to the policy makers, nature conservationists and also to the Kenya wildlife service for conservation and management of this equatorial rainforest as an urgent need to protect this unique resource for present and future generations of Kenya.
The inventory of floristic composition and growth forms will be useful for restoration of degraded forest land through conservation, proper management practices and enforcement of environmental laws to stabilize the climate of the area. Therefore study of floristic composition, growth forms and uses of plants and their parts collected from this forest for its economic value and main threats of human activity to this tropical rain forest of Kakamega is essential for further researches as well as managing the biodersity restoration for present and future generation.
11
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Globally equatorial rainforests are located innationswith identical ecological and biogeographically entities with high unique diversityof flora and fauna (Primack and Corlett, 2005). The tropical rainforests are one of the most diverse and unique habitats supporting more than 5 million plant and animal species i.e 2/3 of the world flora and fauna that are being depleted at very high rate (Whitmore, 1997 and Myers 2000). Human beings living around the forest benefit economically, socially and politically from tropical rainforests resources (Soper, 1995).
The highest biodiversity in the tropical rainforest is well known reservoir for the highest biodiversity comprising medicinal plants, home for wild animals, source of genetic materials, wild ancestors of agronomic crops, fruits, resins, lignin, gums, rubber, source of water and carbon sinks. There is no other terestrial ecosystem that supports high biological diversitylike equatorial rainforests
(Laurance & Bierregaard, 1997).
All over the world human activities have affected tropical rainforests but intensity of their disturbance on these rainforests differs from one nation to another. Many studies have reported that the local human population living around the forest has a low living standard and they extract resources from the forest to meet their daily need for their own survival (Myers, 1992). Since ancient times the tropical rainforests have been affected by anthropogenic activities leading to loss of their land cover, species diversity and their habitats there by affecting ecosystem stability. Wright (2005) noted that more than ahalf of the tropical rain forest that
12 was there before civilization has been lost in 21st centuary due to anthropogenic activies taking place in these unique forests.
Anthropogenic activities are affecting and destroying most of the tropical rainforest globally resulting to secondary extinctions of high magnitudealtering both species diversity and richness (Dunne et al.2002). In other studies forest deforestation and degradation is significantly caused by poor famersaround the forest among the human populationwho are trying to earn their livelihood on marginal lands (Myers, 1988).
Human activities mostly from agricultural practices such as growing crops for subsistence and rearing animals have greately impactedon tropical rainforest of the world by encouraging clearing forest vegetation through logging to create more land for these agricultural practices (Anderson, 1990).
Millions of hectares under tropical rainforest are lost each year for agriculture, illegal logging, mining, and other anthropogenic activities (Barber et al. 2002,
Curran et al. 2004 and Sala et al. 2000). Bradshaw et al. (2009) noted that the rates at which tropical rainforest are being destroyed willlead todisappearance of hundreds of wild flora and fauna species. If uncontrolled, these human activities could potentially eliminate most of the tropical rainforests which are the most important environmental regions of the world which hold millions of diverse, unique flora and fauna (Myer, 2000). Anthropogenic activites in most of the tropical rainforest of the world are the main cause of continous loss of flora and fauna, habitat distruction, fragmentation and invesion of weeds and has an
13 indirect cause of global warming effect in the world (Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment 2005).
2.2 Impacts of Human activities on Tropical Rainforest in South America
Globally South America still has most of tropical rainforests located in the
Amazon basin covering about six million square kilometer, including most of the
Brazil and part of the French Guiana, Surinam, Guyana, Venezuela, Colombia,
Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia. Most of local poor people live around the tropical rainforestand depend on the rainforest resources for their livelihood. In the year
2002-2003 this forest lost most of its vegetation cover by clearing for grazing cattle, ranching, commercial farming, valuable hardwood, housing states, agricultural extension and transnatonal highways and other infrastructional requirements.
The study on deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia revealed that encroachment into the tropical rainforest by creating more land for agricultural practices was the main threat affecting the forest ecosytem.More than 70% of original tropical rain forest of Amazon and over 91% of the forest land is cleared in the 21st centuaryand used for rearing ruminant animals (Fearnside, 2005).
Laurance et al. (2002) observed that the tropical rainforest areahad been clearedfor agricultural practices and mostly for subsistence farmingdue to the initiative of the government clearing forest for road consstruction;this had serious negative impact than those in any other major tropical rainforest areas.Globally,
Brazil is one of the countrygrowingsoybeansin a plantation mostly for commercial
14 export and used for production of renewable energy (biodiesel) and as prices for soybeans goes up due to high demand, farmers would want to increase supply by producing more. The needs of soybean farmers have been used to validate many of the controversial transportation projects that are currently developing in the
Amazon.
Most of these roads are constructed to facilitate production and transportation of soya beans for export by large scale farmers who have displaced subsitence farming hence clearing more forested areas (Fearnside, 2002).
The first two highways: the Belém-Brasília (1958) and the Cuiaba-Porto Velho
(1968) were the only federal highways in the Legal Amazon to be paved and passable year-round before the late 1990s. These two highways are said to be the main cause of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. The Belém-Brasília highway attracted nearly two million settlers in the first twenty years. The success of the Belém-Brasília highway in opening up the forest was re-enacted as paved roads continued to be developed unleashing the irrevessible spread of settlement.
The completion of the roads was followed by a wave of resettlement and the settlers had a significant effect on the forest. Clearing of this tropical rainforest and burning of its vegetation is observed to be happening along this established roads (Laurance et al., 2002). Although enforcement of environmental regulation on protection is improving in Amazonia, Brazilian laws and polices on clearing land for agriculture is considered an ‘effective use’ of land and is the beginning towards land ownership has become a challenge to the government in controlling
15 anthropogenic activities in tropical rainforest (Fearnside 2005, and Laurance et al.
2002).
Thereare two other major tropical rainforest blocks in the Neotropics: the
Brazilian Atlantic Forest along the southeast coast of Brazil, the stretch of tropical rainforest that expanded from the Pacific coast of northwest South America through Central America to southern Mexico(Primack and Corlett, 2005).
2.3 Impacts of human activities on tropical rainforest in South East Asia
During the study of world’s humid tropical rainforests deforestation rate Achard et al. (2002) found thatthe highest rate of forest loss and degradation is in tropical rainforest Southeast Asia with less than half of the forest remaining. The rate of tropical rainforest deforestation in Southeast Asiahas continuously increased during during 21st centuary (DeFries et al., 2002). The growth of poor human population around the forest have cleared forest vegetation by logging trees and encroaching forested land for plantation farming or commercial reforestation
(Corlett 2005, Mackinnon 2005).
Most of remaining tropical rainforest in South East Asia is found in Indonesia with natural resources including large oil and natural reserves and mineral deposits such as gold.During 1900, Indonesia had the highest land coverof tropical rain forest amounting to about 84 per cent of the Indonesia land area.
During 1970s, forest clearing intensified and it rapidly increased since then.
Thereforeapproximately 170 million ha of tropical rainforest cover during 1900 had reduced toabout 98 million ha before the start of 21stcentury, morethan half
16 of which is believed to be lost due to anthropogenic activity. Barber et al. (2002) found that the rate of deforestation in Indonesia is accelerating at the rate of
20,000 km2 per year and only 2% of the forest is left. It was estimated during the year 2008 that tropical rainforests in Indonesia would be lost by the year 2018.
Most of tropical rainforest in Indonesia has been cleared to create land for establishing valuable tree plantation required by various pulp campanies in the county. Indonesia is globally known for exporting the plywood and processedtimber products increasing demand for timberwhich encourages illegal logging from the local population to increase supply (Barber et al.
2002).Generally, loggingencourages forest clearingby creating agricultural land for farming practices.
The study onoil palm plantations and tropical rain forest clearance in Indonesia found out that during the year 2000 about three million hectares which was about two-thirds of the tree plantations on former tropical rain forest land consist of oil palm plants(Glastra et al., 2002). In the next 20 years international demand for palm oil in developed countries of Asia will be very high and therefore Indonesia shall be required to increase its supply of palm oil hence increasing land area under plantation by clearing more tropical rainforest in areas like Sumatra and
Papua(Slade et al.,2007).
2.4 Impacts of Human activities on Tropical Rainforest in Australia
The tropical rainforest in Australia is highly protected basing on its small forest area compared to other tropical rainforest of the world. This forest had early been
17 subjected to anthropogenic activities but protection of the remaining tropical rainforest forest is enforced by the countries regulations (McDonald and Lane
2002, Stork 2005).
This tropical rainforest of Australia has earned the country foreign exchange through tourism. Although there a few minor environmental challenges facing this tropical rainforest as compared to how other tropical rainforest are being degraded globally. One of the outstanding threat affecting the forest ecosystem is climate change that is affecting endemic vertebrate within the forest than can not tolerate effect climate change in tropical rainforest habitats(Hilbert et al. 2001, Meynecke
2004).
2.5 Impacts of Human activities on Tropical Rainforest in West and central Africa
According to FAO (2006) global forest resources assessment, most of the tropical rainforest was lost in Africa continent during this 21st centuary due to anthropogenic activities with less than 22.8 percent of West Africa's tropical rainforest is remaining. It is estimated in Congo basin alone every year 10,000 square kilometer of tropical rainforest is cleared for farmingequal to the size of
Jamaica. According to Draulans and Van Krunkelsven (2002) the tropical rainforest in African countries have experienced pressure from ever growing human population with low living standards who dependon tropical rainforest resources for their daily needs straining the stability forest ecosystem.
Africa continent has the second world largest tropical rainforest after Amazon in central Africa covering over a million square kilometres, an area twice the size of
18
France. Studies have shown that human activities have already cleared out more than half of West Africa’s original forests and deforestation is very high in
Central Africa.
According to Minnemeyer (2002), most of theWest Africa tropical rainforests have been cleared due to high human population of small scale who are encroaching the forest for their livelihood. During mapping tropical rainforest deforestation in Central Africait was found that theequatorial rainforest experiences different human activities on its vegetation especially logging of its trees (Zhang et al. (2005).
Deforestation in the Democratic Republic of Congo has been due to poor enforcement of policies on logging and mining requirements, clearance of forested areafor agricultural activities by small scale farmers and settlement around the forest.
2.6 Impact of Human activities on the Tropical Rainforest in Madagascar
Goodman and Benstead (2003) points out that nearly 90 million years of isolation has given rise in endemism of around 80% flora and fauna on the earth, due to low living standards of ever growing human population that entirely depend on forest resources. Whereas Yoder et al. (2005) noted that biological diversity of
Madagascar is “extraordinarily distinctive, diverse, and endangered”. Most of the tropical rainforest on the eastern island of Madagascar has been destroyed by anthropogenic activities and the little forest remaining is highly fragmented
(Dufils, 2003 and Du Puy 7 Moat, 2003).
19
Although deforestation rates have gradually reduced, the main illegal human activity on the tropical rainforest is vegetation encroatchment by small scale farmers to create more land for growing paddy rice and keeping animals.
Goodman & Benstead (2003) noted that hunting of small wild animals and collecting firewood by both cutting down trees and collecting dead branches are the main anthropogenic activities affecting this tropical rainforest. Brown and
Gurevitch (2004) points out that invasive elien weeds are highly colonizing
Madagascar tropical rainforest compared to othertropical rainforest in different countries.
2.7 Impact of Human activities on the Tropical Rainforest in East Africa
Equatorial rainforest is of the world is the least explored terrestrial ecosystem that is experiencing high impacts of anthropogenic (Köhler, J. 2004). Only about
0.1% of the estimated 10 million km2 of tropical rainforest in the world occur in the eastern Africa.
Lung and Schaab (2004) using remotely-sensed imagery noted that abouttwenty percent of the the equatorial rainforest area had been lost during 21st centuary.
The equatorial rainforest of Kakamega is nolonger a single continuous forested area but rather highly fragmented, disturbed and over exploited due to anthropogenic activities of small scale farmers residing around the forest
(Kokwaro, 1988 and Wass, 1995).
Myers (1992) observed that many nations in the world where tropical rainforest are located are surrounded by small scale farmers who depend on the forest
20 ecosystem resources for their daily needs. He further emphasized that low living standards of this human population will interfere with the stability of equatorial rain forest ecosystem national and international by utilizing their resources hence loss of biological diversity and ecosystem services (Myers, 1992). The scenario is not diffferent from Tropical rainforest of Kakamega County in Kenya. Nambiro
(2000) noted many families that stay around the forest on daily bases depend on its resources to earn a living hence exploitation. Fashing et al., (2004) reported that with growing human population more people will extract resources from the forest with very little knowledge of management and conservation resulting to permanment damage to forest ecosystem.
The population census of Kakamega East district had a total population of about
159,475 with a human density of about 360 people per square kilometer (Mars group Kenya, 2010). Many families have their homes around the forest practising agriculture on their small farms. According to Githiga (2006), 52% of the populations live under poverty line and farm wages provide 60% of the household income which is the main occupation in the region. There is a wide spread dependence on the forest by the local people who obtain the livelihood by mainly harvesting firewood, thatch grass and medicinal plants.
Tsingali and Kassilly (2009) explain that the increase in human population around the Kakamega forest has resulted to clearing large sections of the forest for their livelihood. Studies have shown that many homes around the forestdepend on the forest ecosystem resources and services to obtain their daily needs (Githiga et al.,
2006). Despite being a national unique rainforest ecosystem, the forest has been
21 subjected to destruction through human activities such as agriculture and illegal logging for timber. Mitchell (2004), points out that some priveleges of the local population tosustainably utilizeforest resources was reinstated by ammended environmental policies. For example during the year 1959 and 1964, the previleges of the local community to sustainably utilize the forest for farming and collection dead branches for firewood was reinstated. This had early been raised by the Kenya indigenous forest conservation (1994) which notes that human activities had contributed to wide spread commercial logging.
Mogaka et al, (2001), observed that in Kakamega rain forest, main anthropogenic activites weretree felling, making charcoal, debarking and hunting of small wild animals. Bleher (2006), during his study in the tropical rainforest of Kakamega, he noted several cut tree stambs all over the forest.
Equatorial rainforest of Kakamegawasabout 8245 hectares and six forest fragments, the smallest fragment measuring about 65 hectaresand the larges measures 1370 hectares (Peters et al. 2009).The fragmentation is just like many other rainforests in the world (Miao, 2008). Currently about 19% of the kakamega rainforest is managed as a National Reserve by the Kenya Wildlife Service
(Kenya Indigenous Forest Conservation Programme, 1994). The Kenya Wildlife
Service policiesrestrict harvesting or utilization of forest resources; restrictions on access and extraction are strictly enforced, anthropogenic impacts are relatively low (Bleher et al., 2006). Studies by Tsingalia & Kassilly, (2010) points out that human disturbance were responsible for fragmentation of the forest block, opening patches for regeneration and reduce forest cover (Lung & Schaab, 2010).
22
Forest fragmentation and selective logging have altered species diversity, richness and tropical rain forest ecosystems(Schleuning et al. 2011). In a fragmented forest, many species are inhibited from crossing forest gaps and therefore many isolated populations will not be “rescued” or supplemented by individuals dispersing from forest fragments. Therefore, these species face additional risks of extinction.
Kakamega forest is known for its unique biodiversity of wild flora and fauna.
There are 93 plant families consisting of 397 species of plants comprising of 112 trees species, 62 shrubs species, 58 climber’s species, 141 herbs species and 24 ferns species (Althof, 2005).
23
CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Study area:
This study was carried outin Isecheno nature reserve section of equatorial rainforest nature reserve located in Kakamega County of Kenya at Latitudes 0°
19' N and Longitudes 34° 52' E;
Figure 3.1: Map of Kakamega Tropical Rainforest showing location of transects and quadrats used to collect vegetation data.
24 between 1574-1623metres above the sea level and at the distance of 425km
North-West from the capital city Nairobi, (Kenya) and 15 km from Kakamega town along the Kakamega Eldoret road (figure 3.1).
3.2 Geology and Soil characteristics:
Kakamega equatorial rainforest is situated on the Lake Victoria basin on underlying rock of basalt (KIFCON, 1994). Clayey-loamy soils formed from granite rock are approximately 56% and othe rocks are basalt, phenolites and gneiss (Tsingalia, 2009). This clayey-loamy soil is fertile, deep and well drained(Tsingalia, 2009).
3.3 Climate
Thetemperatures are 11-32oC throughout the year with a mean minimum and maximum temperature (11oC-21oC and 28oC -32oC). The rainfall distribution is a bimodal with long rains in March to June and short precipitationin July to
November with highest rainfallin August, short dry spellbetweenDecember to
March. The annual rainfall is between 1500 mm to 2000 mm.
3.4 Data collection
Isecheno nature reserve in equatorial rainforest of Kakamega location adjacent to tea plantation where anthropogenic activities are carried out was selected to assess the impact of anthropogenic activities on the vegetation of equatorial rainforest of
Kakamega given that some human activities are allowed in the nature reserve by
Kenya forest Service.
25
3.4.1 Sampling techniques
Systematic sampling using transects and quadrats were used (Kent and Coker,
1992; Muller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974) to collect vegetation data.
Transect/and quadrats methods were used to record the floristic data. Sampling quadrats were arranged along eight transects, each starting from the peripheral of the glade in the core of the forest following the compass direction of (E, NE, N,
NE, N, NW, W, SW, S, SE) towards the tea plantation (figure 3.1). The starting point and end point of each transect line and each quadrat site were recorded using a GPS (Garmin eTrex 10/20/30) and visualized in ArcView 3.X to allow way points to be relocated in the future.
8 transect with different 10m by 10m (100m2) quadrats. The first quadrat was set at 5m from the edge of the glade and more quadrats added at an interval of 50m along the line transect so that maximum variations could be recorded.
3.4.2 Vegetation Data collection
An extensive survey was carried out during the period of January to December
2014. Transect/and quadrats methods were used to record the floristic data. In total 219 quadrats were studied for sampling. A checklist of trees, shrubs, herbs climbers and lianas was prepared from systematically selected quadrats along transects. Angiospermae species seen within 10m redius from the quadrats were also noted for floristic composition. Local names of plant species were noted during practical work.
26
Specimens of Angiospermae available in the isecheno reserve were collected, pressed, dried and mounted on standard sheets for further identification. Those specimens of Angiospermae that were not identified during the practical workwere taken to the herbarium section of the national Museum of Kenya for identification using previous collection. The growth forms of all plants were identified, determined and classified according to (Agnew & Agnew, 1994;
Beentje, 1994, Hamilton, 1991; Kokwaro, 1988 and 1994; Troupin, 1982 and
1983).
3.4.3 Traditional uses and values of Plant species or their parts collected from the rainforest of Kakamega.
Interviewsand questionnaire were used to study the uses of plants or their parts collected/harvested by locals and commercial traders. During the field study to
Kakamega region, several in depth-interviews lasting between 10 to 30minutes were conducted from twenty key informants well versed with the diverse uses of plants Collected from this forest, including six elderly people, six village elders, two assistant chiefs, one zonal manager of the Kakamega forest and five local people found extracting resouces from the forest.
3.4.4 Human impacts on Isecheno nature forest reserve part of Kakamega rainforest.
Survey work concentrated on investigation of the forest nature reserve’s human disturbance along eight transects located systematically following compass direction. During this survey, indicators of anthropogenic disturbance were noted in the survey sheet and photos taken along the 20 m wide belt transect.
27
Four people (one recorder, one ‘transecter’ who measured the transect line at the end of the rope and two walkers to identify the disturbance parameters on each side of the strip). Walked along all 8 belt transects and recorded the disturbance parameters encountered and also took photographs were also taken. All the data collected was based on unit area, the data incuded;
(i) Logging was monitored by noting the number of plantscut inthe lenth of
belt transects, expressed them per unit sampled area.
(ii) Debarking was assessed by noting the number of trees whose bark has
been chopped and expressed per unit area sampled.
(iii) Root harvesting was monitored by recording the number of trees from
which roots have been dug and expressed per unit area sampled.
(iv) Traditional honey gathering sites were notedburnt hollow hive on the
stems and expressed per unit area sampled.
(v) Foot paths were assessed by noting the number of routes in the forest
used by locals e.g. for firewood collection and expressed per unit area.
(vi) Cattle tracks were assessed by noting the number of cattle tracks routes
leading to Kalunya glades and expressed per unit area sampled.
3.5 Field Data Analysis
During the assessment, the vegetation data gathered were quantitatively analyzed by calculatingdensity, frequency, Cover/Coverage and the importance value.
Importance percentage is the sum of relative density, relative frequency and relative dominance of a species in a community or forest. It provides a better index than density alone regarding the importance or function of a species in its
28 habitat. It also gives rank or order for a particular species within the forest community (Odum, & Barett, 2005; Kent & Coker, 1992; Krebs, 1985; Mueller-
Dumbois & Ellenberg, 1974).
Quantitative data were analysed according to Mueller-Dumbois & Ellenberg,
(1974).
1. Relative Density = Density of individual plant speciesX100 Total number of Densities of all species
2. Relative Frequency = Frequency of a plant speciesX100 Sum of frequencies of all plant species
3. Relative Cover = Cover of a speciesX (100) Total cover of all species Importance Percentage (IP) is the sum of the relative frequency,
relative density and relative dominance.
Species diversity was calculated according to Shannon and Wiener,
(1963).
푆
퐻’ = − ∑ 푝i log푒푝i 푖=1 Where: H’ = the value of Shannon-Wiener index of species diversity pi = the Proportion of the ith species log푒 = the natural logarithm of pi
S = the number of species in the community.
29
Shannon-Wiener index is the most popular measure of species diversity because it accounts both for species richness and evenness and its not affected by sample size (kent and coker, 1992; Krebs, 1999). A species is considered as an indicator of the group when its indicator value is significantly higher at diversity.
To analyse plant species collected for traditional uses and its value from
Kakamega forest, formal data were preceded by cleaning up the data and coding to facilitate further analysis. Descriptive statistical analysis using frequency count and percentage were used to explain the floristic composition of the plant species utilized from the forest. Response from interviwees were Qualitatively analysed using content and structural functional analytical technigues from which components were broken down into smaller meangful units on the traditional uses of plant species extracted from the forest (Kajembe, 1994).
To analyse the differences among group means and their association, ANOVA and Kruskal- Wallis tests were performed (P≤0.05) to test whether there is significant difference in means of plant species in various plant families affected by identified human. A value less than p < 0.05 indicates that the differences between the analysed group’s means are significant, a value less than p < 0.001 as highly significant. These data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for
Social Scientists (SPSS) version 20.
30
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Floristic composition of Isecheno forest nature reserve
The present study examined the flora of Isecheno nature reserve which is the part of the rainforest of Kakamega County. There were 146 plant species belonging to
124 genera and 57 families (Table 4.1). At present, Euphorbiaceae family is represented by 13 species; Moraceae and Rubiaceae with 11 species each;
Acanthaceae and Fabaceae with 7 species each; Rutaceae has 6 species; Sapotac eae, Flacourtiaceae,Meliaceae, Sapindaceae and Ulmaceae have 5 species each; Bignoniaceae is represented by 4 species; Mimosaceae, Piperaceae ,
Rosaceae, Boraginaceae and Verbenaceae represents only 3 species each;
Apocynaceae, Asclepediaceae, Celastraceae, Dracaenaceae, Menispermaceae,
Myrtaceae and Oleaceae are represented by 2 species each whereas 33 families namely Adiantaceae, Alangiaceae, Anacardiaceae, Annonaceae, Araceae,
Araliaceae, Balsaminaceae, Basellaceae, capparaceae, commelinaceae,
Cucurbitaceae, Dennistaedtiaceae, Dryopteridaceae, Ebenaceae, Gutiferae,
Melianthaceae, Musaceae, Myrsinaceae, Nyctaginaceae, Olacaceae, Orchidaceae,
Poaceae, Passifloraceae, Pittosporaceae, Plantaginaceae, Rhamnacea,
Rhizophoraceae, Solanaceae, Sterculiaceae, Theaceae, Urticaceae, Vitaceae and
Zingiberaceae have only 1 species.
The current floristic composition of isecheno Nature reserve is poorbecause 54% of the studied families were represented by only one species. More plant species
(richness) in a family support tropical rainforest ecosystem against severe depletion incase of degradation. Loss of such biodiversity not only implies the
31
native extinction of the family and its genera but also complete interference with
the stability of forest ecosystem. Euphorbiaceae with the highest representation in
plant species is mostly found in marginal areas therefore this forest is highly
degraded Keating, (2000) and Gentry, (1988) documented similar floristic
composition.
Table 4.1: Floristic composition of collected plant species within Kakamega forest, Kenya. (January –December 2014)
No. Family Genus and their species 1 Acanthaceae 1. Acanthus pubescens (Oliv.) Engl. 2.Brillantaisia madagascariensi Lindau 3. Hypoeste saristata (Vahl) Sol. Ex Roem. & Schult 4.(i) Justicia extensa T. Anderson (ii) Justicia flava (Forssk.)Vahl. 5.(i) Mimulopsis arborescens C. B. Clarke. (ii)Mimulopsis solmsii Schweinf. 2 Adiantaceae 1. Doryopteris concolor (Langsd. & Fisch.)Kuhn var. Kirkii (Hook.) 3 Alangiaceae 1. Alangium chinense (Lour.) Harms 4 Anacardiaceae 1. Sclerocarya birrea (A.Rich.) Hochst. 5 Annonaceae 1 .Monodora myristica (Gaertn.) Dun. 6 Apocynaceae 1. Funtumia africana (Benth.) Stapf 2. Tebernaemontane ventricosa A.DC. 7 Araceae 1. Culcasia falcifolia 8 Araliaceae 1. Polyscias fulva 9 Asclepediaceae 1. Mondia whitei 10 Balsaminaceae 1. Impatiens burtonii Hook.f. 11 Basellaceae 1.Basella alba L. 12 Bignoniaceae 1.(i)Kigelia africana (Lam.) Benth. (ii) Kigelia moosa (Sprague.) Bidgood & Verdc. 2. Markhamia lata (Benth.) 3. Spathodea compunulata (Seem.) 13 Boraginaceae 1. (i) Cordia africana Lam. (ii) Cordia milenii Baker 2. Ehretia cymosa Thonn. 14 Capparaceae 1.Ritchiea albersii Gilg 15 Celastraceae 1. Hippocrat africana Loes. 2. Maytenus hetephyllaN. Robson 16 Commelinaceae 1. Aneilema beniniense (P.Beauv.) Kunth
32
17 Cucurbitaceae 1.Momordica foetida Schumach 18 Dennstaedtiaceae 1.Pteridium aquilinum (L) Kuhn 19 Dryopteridaceae 1.Dryopteris athamatica (Kunze) Kuntze 20 Ebenaceae 1.Diospyros abyssinica (Hiern)White 21 Euphorbiaceae 1.Acalypha fruticosa Forssk. 2.Alchornea laxiflaro Pax & K. Hoffm. 3.Bischofia janica Bl. 5.(i) Croton macrostachyus Del. (ii) Croton megalocarpus Hutch. (iii) Croton sylvaticus Hochst. 6.(i) Erythrococca atrovirens (Pax) Prain (ii)Erythrococca trichogyne (Muell.Arg.) Prain 7.Macaranga kilimandscharica Pax 8. Margaritaria discoidea (Baill.) Webster 9.Phyllanthus fische Pax 10.Sapium eipticum Pax 22 Fabaceae 1. Acacia brevispica (Benth.) Brenan 2.Acrocarpus fraxinifolius J.P.M Brenan 3.Craibia brownie Dunn 4.Dalbergia lacteal Vatke 5. Desmodium repantum (Vahl) DC. 6. Erythrina abyssinica DC. 7.Senna spectabilis DC 23 Flacourtiaceae 1.Casaeria battiscombei R. E. Fries 2. (i) Dovyalis abyssinica (A.Rich.) Warb (ii) Dovyalis macrocalyx (Oliv.) Warb. 3. Rawsonia lucida Harv. & Sond 4.Oncoba routledgei 24 Guttiferae 1. Harungana madagascariensis Lam.ex Poir. 25 Meliaceae 1. Khaya anthoca C. DC. 2.Lepidotrichilia volkensis (Guerke ) Lerroy
33
3.Trichilia emetica Vahl 4.Toona ciliate M. 5.Turraea holsti Guerke 26 Melianthaceae 1.Bersama byssinica Fres.
27 Menicpermace 1.Stephania byssinica Walp. 2.Tiliacora ffunifera Oliv. 28 Mimosaceae 1.(i) Albizia gummifera (J.F.Gmel) C. A. Sm. (ii) Albizia grandibracteata Taub. 2.Entada abyssinica steud. Ex A. Rich 29 Moraceae 1.Antiaris toxicaria (Pers.) Lesch. 2.(i) Ficus asperifolia Miq. (ii) Ficus bubu Warb. (iii) Ficus exasperata Vahl. (iv) Ficus lutea Vahl. (v) Ficus natalensis Hochst. (vi) Ficus sur Forssk. (vii) Ficus thonningii Bl.. 5.Trilepisium madagascariense DC. 30 Musaceae 1.Ensete ventricosum (J.F.Gmel.) Horan 31 Myrsinaceae 1.Maesa lanceolata Forssk. 32 Myrtaceae 1.Psidium guajava L. 2.Syzygium cumini (L.) 33 Nyctaginaceae 1.Pisonia aculeata L. 34 Olacaceae 1.Strombos scheffleri Engl. 35 Oleaceae 1.Chionanthus mildbredii Schellenb. Stearn 2.Olea capensis L. 36 Orchidaceae 1.Aerangis kotschyana (Rchb.f.) Schltr 37 Passifloraceae 1 .Adenia cissampeloides (Benth.) Harms 38 Piperaceae 1.(i) Pipa capense L. (ii) Pipar guineense & Thonn. (iii) Pipar umbellatum L. 39 Pittosporaceae 1.Pittosporu manii (s.l.) 40 Plantaginaceae 1. Plantago palmata Hook. f. 41 Poaceae 1.Leptaspis coculeata Thwaites
34
42 Rhamnaceae 1.Maesopsis eminii Engl. 43 Rhizophoraceae 1.Cassipourea ruwensorensis (Engl.) Alston 44 Rosaceae 1.Eriobotrya japonica Lindl 2.Prunus african Kalkm. 3.Rubus keniensis Standl. 45 Rubiacae 6. Pavetta oliveriana Hiern var. oliveriana 7. Psychotria peduncularis (Salisb.) Steyerm. 8. Rothmannia urcelliformis (Hiern) Robyns 9. Rutidea orientalis (Sond.) Bridson 10.Tarenna pavettoides (Harv.) Sim. 46 Ruscaceae 1.(i) Dracna fragransGawl. (ii) Dracna laxsima Engl. 47 Rutaceae 1.Clasen anisata Benth. 2.Faropsis angoleis Dale 3.Tecle nolis Del. 4.Todali siatic Lam. 5.(i) Zatholum chaybeum. Engl. (ii) Zathoxylum gilleti Waterm 48 Sapindaceae 1.(i) Allolus bysinicusRadlk. (ii) Alphylus fricanus Beauv. 2.Blihia ujugata Bak. 3.Debolia kilimascharica Taub. 4.Pallinia pinate L. 49 Sapotaceae 1.Anigeri ltisima Aubrév. & Pellegr. 2. Bequaiodendron oblanatum Moore 3.(i) Chryphyllum lbidum Don (i) Chryphyllum ridifolium Franks 4.Manikar utugi Chiov. 50 Solanaceae 1.Solanum mauritianum Scop. 51 Sterculiaceae 1.Dombeya burgessiae Gerrard 52 Theaceae 1.Camellia sinensis (L) Kuntze
35
53 Ulmaceae 1.(i) Caltis african f. (ii) Caltis dundii Engl. (iii) Caltis dbraedii Engl. 2.Chatacm ristat Planch 3.Trem entalis Bl. 54 Urticaceae 1.Urera trinervis (Hochst.) Friis & Immelmann 55 Verbenaceae 1.Clerodendrum johnstonii Oliv. 2.Premna angolensis Guerke 3.Vitex keniensis Turill 56 Vitaceae 1. Leea guineense G. Don.
57 Zingiberaceae 1. Afromomum africana K. Schum.
Totals Families (57) Genera (124) Plant species (146)
36
14
12
10
8
6 13 11 11 4 7 7 6 5 5 5 5 5 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
0 1
Oleaceae
Rutaceae
Rosaceae
Fabaceae
Ulmaceae
Moraceae
Meliaceae
Myrtaceae
Rubiaceae
Piperaceae
Sapotaceae
Sapindaceae
Mimosaceae
Celastraceae
Acanthaceae
Verbenaceae
Bignoniaceae
Boraginaceae
n=33Families
Apocynaceae,
Dracaenaceae
Flacourtiaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Asclepediaceae Menispermaceae Plant Families
Figure 4.1: Plant families and their number of species studied within Tropical Rainforest of Kakamega.
4.1.1 Growth forms within the study area
The growth forms of the prevailing flora exhibited a great diversity and reflect a typical tropical rainforest flora (figure 4.2)
The distribution of vascular plant species of Isecheno nature reserve were grouped into five growth forms represented by 81 trees (55.48%), 32 shrubs (21.92%), 13 herbs (8.90%), 16 climbers (10.96%) and 4 lianas (2.74%). More than half of the studied growth forms were trees whereas the smallest growth form was the lianas with 4 species recorded.
37
90 80
70 60 50 40 30 20
10 Number ofspecies Number 0
Growth forms Figure 4.2: Growth forms studied in Kakamega Rainforest, Kenya.
A detailed growth forms of Isecheno nature reserve is provided in table 4.2 below which comprises of detailed account of Plant species with their families, growth forms {Herb (H), Shrub (S), Tree (T), Climber (C), Lianas (L)}
Table 4.2: Plant species, families and their respective growth forms recorded from rainforest of kakamega, Kenya.
Spec. Plant Species Family Growth forms (T= No. trees, S=shrubs, C=cli mber,H=herbs,L= lianas)
1 Khaya anthotheca Meliaceae T 2 Chaetacme aristata Ulmaceae S 3 Antiaris toxicaria Moraceae T 4 Strombosia scheffleri Olacaceae T 5 Dracaena fragrans Dracaenaceae S 6 Trichilia emetic Meliaceae T 7 Trilepisium Moraceae T madagascariense 8 Dovyalis abyssinica Flacourtiaceae T 9 Prunus Africana Rosaceae T 10 Clausena anisata Rutaceae S
38
11 Heinsenia diervilleoides Rubiaceae T 12 Diospyros abyssinica Ebenaceae T 13 Markhamia lutea Bignoniaceae T 14 Monodora myristica Annonaceae T 15 Dracaena laxissima Dracaenaceae S 16 Erythrococca atrovirens Euphorbiaceae S 17 Pisonia aculeate Nyctaginaceae C 18 Brillantaisiamadagascar Acanthaceae H iensis 19 Piper capense Piperaceae H 20 Morus mesozygia Moraceae T 21 Piper guineense Piperaceae C 22 Mimulopsis arborescens Acanthaceae S 23 Afromomum Africana Zingiberaceae H 24 Maesopsis eminii Rhamnaceae T 25 Allophylus africanus Sapindaceae T 26 Dryopteris athamatica Dryopteridaceae H 27 Funtumia Africana Apocynaceae T 28 Tiliacora funifera Menispermaceae L 29 Ficus exasperate Moraceae T 30 Aningeria altissima Sapotaceae T 31 Bequaertiodendron Sapotaceae T oblanceolatum 32 Desmodium repantum Fabaceae H 33 Albizia gummifera Mimosaceae T 34 Chionanthus mildbraedii Oleaceae T 35 Dombeya burgessiae Sterculiaceae T 36 Cassipourea Rhizophoraceae T ruwensorensis 37 Blighia unijugata Sapindaceae T 38 Deinbollia Sapindaceae T kilimandscharica 39 Turraea holstii Meliaceae T 40 Lepidotrichilia volkensis Meliaceae T 41 Rothmannia Rubiaceae S urcelliformis 42 Pteridium aquilinum Dennstaedtiaceae H 43 Basella alba Basellaceae C 44 Mimulopsis solmsii Acanthaceae S 45 Leea guineense Vitaceae S 46 Croton sylvaticus Euphorbiaceae T 47 Celtis Africana Ulmaceae T 48 Celtis durandii Ulmaceae T 49 Acalypha fruticosa Euphorbiaceae S 50 Psychotria peduncularis Rubiaceae S 51 Ficus asperifolia Moraceae S
39
52 Zanthoxyllum gillettii Rutaceae T 53 Solanum mauritianum Solanaceae S 54 Teclea nobilis Rutaceae T 55 Bersama abyssinica Melianthaceae S 56 Camellia sinensis Theaceae S 57 Urera trinervis Urticaceae C 58 Manilkara butugi Sapotaceae T 59 Croton megalocarpus Euphorbiaceae T 60 Impatiens burtonii Balsaminaceae H 61 Aneilema beniniense Commelinacea C 62 Premna angolensis Verbenaceae T 63 Zathozylum chalybeum Rutaceae T 64 Justicia flava Acanthaceae C 65 Dovyalis macrocalyx Flacourtiaceae S 66 Sclerocarya birrea Anacardiaceae T 67 Bischofia javanica Euphorbiaceae T 68 Polyscias fulva Araliaceae T 69 Ficus sur Moraceae T 70 Alangium chinense Alangiaceae T 71 Sapium ellipticum Euphorbiaceae T 72 Eriobotraya japonica Rosaceae T 73 Hippocratea Africana Celastraceae L 74 Ensete ventricosum Musaceae T 75 Ficus lutea Moraceae T 76 Pavetta oliveriana Rubiaceae C 77 Ficus natalensis Moraceae T 78 Kigelia Africana Bignoniaceae T 79 Mondia whitei Asclepediaceae H 80 Maytenus heterophylla Celastraceae S 81 Alchornea laxiflora Euphorbiaceae S 82 Olea capensis Oleaceae T 83 Milicia excels Moraceae T 84 Momordica foetida Cucurbitaceae C 85 Rutidea orientalis Rubiaceae C 86 Erythrococca trichogyne Euphorbiaceae S 87 Tebernaemontane Apocynaceae T ventricosa 88 Cordia Africana Boraginaceae T 89 Ritchiea albersii Capparaceae S 90 Tarenna pavettoides Rubiaceae S 91 Oxyanthus speciosus Rubiaceae S 92 Aerangis kotschyana Orchidaceae H 93 Pittosporum manii Pittosporaceae T 94 Vitex keniensis Verbenaceae T 95 Harungana Guttiferae T madagascariensis
40
96 Keetia gueinzii Rubiaceae C 97 Adenia cissampeloides Passifloraceae C 98 Culcasia falcifolia Araceae L 99 Stephania abyssinica Menispermaceae L 100 Doryopteris concolor Adiantaceae H 101 Chrysophyllum albidum Sapotaceae T 102 Dalbergia lacteal Fabaceae S 103 Casaeria battiscombei Flacourtiaceae T 104 Margaritaria discoidea Euphorbiaceae T 105 Syzygium cumini Myrtaceae T 106 Bridelia micrantha Euphorbiaceae T 107 Piper umbellatum Piperaceae S 108 Kigelia moosa Bignoniaceae T 109 Spathodea campanulata Bignoniaceae T 110 Chrysophyllum Sapotaceae T viridifolium 111 Acanthus pubescens Acanthaceae S 112 Macaranga Euphorbiaceae T kilimandscharica 113 Fagaropsis angolensis Rutaceae T 114 Acrocarpus fraxinifolius Fabaceae T 115 Vangueria apiculata Rubiaceae S 116 Albizia grandibracteata Mimosaceae T 117 Rawsonia lucida Flacourtiaceae S 118 Clerodendrum johnstonii Verbenaceae C 119 Acacia brevispica Fabaceae T 120 Cordia milenii Boraginaceae T 121 Phyllanthus fischeri Euphorbiaceae S 122 Allophylus abyssinicus Sapindaceae S 123 Paullinia pinnata Sapindaceae C 124 Hypoestes aristata Acanthaceae H 125 Leptaspis coculeate Poaceae H 126 Rubus keniensis Rosaceae S 127 Periploca linearifolia Asclepediaceae C 128 Celtis mildbraedii Ulmaceae T 129 Coffea eugenioides Rubiaceae S 130 Oncoba routledgei Flacourtiaceae T 131 Ficus thonningii Moraceae T 132 Craibia brownie Fabaceae T 133 Toddalia asiatica Rutaceae C 134 Plantago palmate Plantaginaceae H 135 Ehretia cymosa Boraginaceae T 136 Erythrina abyssinica Fabaceae T 137 Maesa lanceolata Myrsinaceae T 138 Entada abyssinica Mimosaceae T 139 Justicia extensa Acanthaceae C
41
140 Ficus bubu Moraceae T 141 Leptactina platyphylla Rubiaceae S 142 Psidium guajava Myrtaceae T 143 Trema orientalis Ulmaceae T 144 Croton macrostachyus Euphorbiaceae T 145 Toona ciliate Meliaceae T 146 Senna spectabilis Fabaceae T
Totals: Trees (T)=81(55.48%), Shrubs(S)=32(21.92%),Herbs (H) =13(8.90%) Climber(C)=16(10.96%) and Lianas (L)= (2.74%).
Key: -T: tree > 5 m, S: shrub 1-5 m, H: herb < 1 m, C: climber and L: lianas.
55%
Trees Shrubs Climbers 22% Herbs lianas
3% 11% 9%
Figure 4.3: Growth forms and their Percentages within Rainforest of Kakamega, Kenya.
Table 4.3 shows the result of the vegatation analysis based on the actual observation and data gathered. Quantitative analysis of 146 plant species revealed three plant species with highest importance percentage on a scale of 300.0 were
Mimulopsis arborescens (53.84), Piper guineense (41.17) and Draceana fragrans
(12.04). On the other hand the three tropical rainforest plant species having the lowest rank were Toona ciliata (0.03), Senna spectabilis (0.03) and Croton macrostachyus (0.03).
42
On the growth forms, Morus mesozygia (10.23) tree, Mimulopsis arborescens
(53.84) shrub, Piper guineens (41.17) climber and Brillantaisia madagascariensis
(6.69) herb showed the highest importance value.
43
Table 4.3: Diversity index and Importance percentage (IP) of the plant species studied in Kakamega rainforest, Kenya.
Plant Species Diversity Density RD Freguency RF Cover RC IP Index (D) (%) (F) (%) (m2) (%) Mimulopsis arborescens 0.350 48.70 26.01 89.95 3.217 26.13 24.61 53.84 Piper guineense 0.319 36.50 19.5 89.95 3.231 19.58 18.44 41.17 Dracaena fragrans 0.143 8.7 4.647 0.836 2.988 4.67 4.40 12.04 Morus mesozygia 0.071 3.3 1.763 31.96 1.144 7.77 7.32 10.23 Maesopsis eminii 0.148 9.20 4.915 8.68 0.325 4.93 4.64 9.88 Funtumia africana 0.069 3.2 1.701 89.5 3.199 1.71 4.50 9.4 Brillantaisiamadagascariensis 0.145 8.9 4.75 31.96 1.144 4.78 0.8 6.69 Trilepisium madagascariense 0.060 2.6 1.389 69.86 2.502 1.39 1.31 5.20 Antiaris toxicaria 0.049 2.1 1.122 83.56 2.988 1.13 1.06 5.17 Desmodium repantum 0.081 3.9 2.083 27.40 0.979 2.09 1.97 5.03 Teclea nobilis 0.058 2.5 1.335 61.64 2.220 1.34 1.26 4.82 Dracaena laxissima 0.061 2.7 1.442 48.86 1.762 1.45 1.37 4.57 Heinsenia diervilleoides 0.042 1.7 0.908 73.05 2.627 0.9 0.85 4.39 Cassipourea ruwensorensis 0.050 2.1 1.122 61.19 2.18 1.13 1.06 4.36 Blighia unijugata 0.040 1.6 0.855 64.38 2.302 0.86 0.81 3.97 Pteridium aquilinum 0.048 2.0 1.068 42.47 1.519 1.07 1.01 3.60 Allophylus africanus 0.038 1.5 0.801 55.25 1.959 0.81 0.76 3.52 Dovyalis abyssinica 0.038 1.5 0.801 61.9 1.959 0.81 0.76 3.52 Afromomum africana 0.038 1.5 0.801 54.79 1.959 0.81 0.76 3.52 Tiliacora funifera 0.039 1.5 0.801 52.05 1.959 0.81 0.76 3.52 Aningeria altissima 0.035 1.3 0.694 54.79 1.957 0.70 0.66 3.31 Clausena anisata 0.034 1.3 0.694 49.77 1.780 0.70 0.66 3.13 Turraea holstii 0.031 1.1 0.588 54.79 1.959 0.60 0.57 3.12 Trichilia emetic 0.026 0.9 0.81 47.95 1.730 0.48 0.45 2.99 Piper capense 0.040 1.6 0.855 36.99 1.322 0.86 0.81 2.99
44
Pisonia aculeate 0.028 1 0.534 52.97 1.894 0.54 0.51 2.94 Celtis durandii 0.027 1 0.534 50.97 1.794 0.54 0.51 2.84 Khaya anthotheca 0.048 2.0 1.068 17.35 0.622 1.18 1.11 2.80 Diospyros abyssinica 0.028 1 0.534 44.29 1.583 0.54 0.51 2.63 Bequaertiodendron 0.035 1.3 0.694 52.05 1.126 0.70 0.66 2.48 oblanceolatum Mimulopsis solmsii 0.035 1.3 0.694 18.26 1.126 0.70 0.66 2.48 Strombosia scheffleri 0.034 1.3 0.694 31.05 1.126 0.70 0.66 2.48 Celtis Africana 0.023 0.8 0.427 39.27 1.419 0.43 0.40 2.25 Rothmannia urcelliformis 0.023 0.8 0.427 31.05 1.114 0.43 0.40 1.94 Psychotria peduncularis 0.019 0.6 0.321 36.07 1.305 0.32 0.30 1.93 Culcasia falcifolia 0.016 0.5 0.267 40.18 1.437 0.23 0.22 1.92 Albizia gummifera 0.021 0.7 0.374 30.59 1.094 0.37 0.35 1.82 Chionanthus mildbraedii 0.021 0.7 0.374 28.77 1.044 0. 37 0.35 1.77 Polyscias fulva 0.020 0.7 0.374 26.48 0.947 0.37 0.35 1.67 Bersama abyssinica 0.016 0.5 0.267 31.05 1.114 0.27 0.25 1.63 Lepidotrichilia volkensis 0.016 0.5 0.267 29.68 1.076 0.27 0.25 1.59 Acalypha fruticosa 0.028 1 0.534 12.79 0.472 0.54 0.51 1.52 Hippocratea africana 0.035 1.3 0.694 4.11 0.157 0.70 0.66 1.51 Markhamia lutea 0.019 0.6 0.321 23.74 0.865 0.32 0.30 1.49 Casaeria battiscombei 0.018 0.6 0.321 21.46 0.783 0.32 0.30 1.40 Pittosporum manii 0.016 0.5 0.267 23.74 0.865 0.27 0.25 1.38 Leea guineense 0.016 0.5 0.267 23.29 0.833 0.27 0.25 1.35 Ficus lutea 0.014 0.4 0.214 25.57 0.929 0.21 0.20 1.34 Zanthoxyllum gillettii 0.015 0.5 0.267 22.37 0.801 0.27 0.25 1.32 Prunus Africana 0.025 0.8 0.427 11.87 0.440 0.43 0.40 1.27 Dryopteris athamatica 0.029 1.1 0.588 10.96 0.111 0.60 0.57 1.27 Piper umbellatum 0.019 0.6 0.321 15.98 0.572 0.32 0.30 1.19 Chaetacme aristata 0.012 0.3 0.160 23.74 0.865 0.16 0.15 1.18 Justicia flava 0.018 0.6 0.321 11.87 0.440 0.32 0.30 1.06 Momordica foetida 0.010 0.3 0.160 17.35 0.622 0.16 0.15 0.93
45
Stephania abyssinica 0.013 0.4 0.214 2.74 0.490 0.22 0.21 0.91 Alangium chinense 0.009 0.3 0.160 15.98 0.586 0.16 0.15 0.90 Croton megalocarpus 0.009 0.2 0.107 18.26 0.668 0.11 0.10 0.88 Impatiens burtonii 0.018 0.6 0.321 4.57 0.179 0.32 0.30 0.80 Aerangis kotschyana 0.016 0.5 0.267 6.39 0.243 0.27 0.25 0.76 Ficus sur 0.008 0.2 0.107 14.16 0.522 0.12 0.11 0.74 Bischofia javanica 0.012 0.3 0.160 10.96 0.407 0.16 0.15 0.72 Deinbollia kilimandscharica 0.008 0.2 0.107 13.7 0.490 0.11 0.10 0.70 Chrysophyllum albidum 0.008 0.2 0.107 11.87 0.490 0.11 0.10 0.70 Monodora myristica 0.011 0.3 0.160 8.68 0.357 0.16 0.15 0.67 Dovyalis macrocalyx 0.011 0.3 0.160 9.59 0.357 0.16 0.15 0.67 Leptactina platyphylla 0.012 0.4 0.214 6.39 0.243 0.22 0.21 0.67 Oxyanthus speciosus 0.008 0.2 0.107 11.87 0.440 0.11 0.10 0.65 Agelaea pentagyna 0.008 0.2 0.10 11.87 0.439 0.11 0.10 0.64 Manilkara butugi 0.007 0.2 0.107 13.7 0.425 0.11 0.10 0.63 Leptaspis coculeate 0.015 0.5 0.267 3.65 0.147 0.23 0.22 0.63 Ensete ventricosum 0.007 0.2 0.107 10.96 0.407 0.11 0.10 0.61 Pavetta oliveriana 0.007 0.2 0.107 10.96 0.407 0.11 0.10 0.61 Ficus exasperate 0.007 0.2 0.107 10.96 0.393 0.11 0.10 0.60 Acrocarpus fraxinifolius 0.006 0.2 0.107 9.59 0.393 0.11 0.10 0.60 Erythrococca atrovirens 0.006 0.2 0.107 10.96 0.393 0.11 0.10 0.60 Dombeya burgessiae 0.007 0.2 0.107 9.59 0.343 0.11 0.10 0.55 Alchornea laxiflora 0.006 0.1 0.053 11.87 0.425 0.05 0.05 0.53 Tebernaemontane ventricosa 0.008 0.2 0.107 8.68 0.311 0.11 0.10 0.52 Mondia whitei 0.005 0.1 0.053 10.96 0.407 0.05 0.05 0.51 Syzygium cumini 0.005 0.1 0.053 10.96 0.393 0.05 0.05 0.50 Fagaropsis angolensis 0.005 0.1 0.053 11.87 0.425 0.07 0.07 0.49 Erythrina abyssinica 0.007 0.2 0.107 6.85 0.261 0.11 0.10 0.47 Croton sylvaticus 0.004 0.1 0.053 9.59 0.343 0.05 0.05 0.45 Albizia grandibracteata 0.006 0.1 0.053 9.59 0.343 0.05 0.05 0.45 Doryopteris concolor 0.007 0.2 0.107 6.39 0.239 0.11 0.10 0.45
46
Solanum mauritianum 0.006 0.2 0.107 6.39 0.229 0.11 0.10 0.44 Ficus natalensis 0.002 0.04 0.214 5.48 0.197 0.02 0.02 0.43 Milicia excels 0.002 0.05 0.027 9.59 0.357 0.03 0.03 0.41 Keetia gueinzii 0.004 0.09 0.048 6.39 0.289 0.05 0.05 0.39 Chrysophyllum viridifolium 0.004 0.1 0.053 7.76 0.279 0.05 0.05 0.38 Rawsonia lucida 0.004 0.1 0.053 7.76 0.279 0.05 0.05 0.38 Phyllanthus fischeri 0.001 0.3 0.160 1.37 0.064 0.16 0.15 0.37 Toddalia asiatica 0.005 0.1 0.053 6.39 0.243 0.05 0.05 0.35 Clerodendrum johnstonii 0.004 0.1 0.053 6.39 0.243 0.05 0.05 0.35 Paullinia pinnata 0.004 0.09 0.05 6.39 0.243 0.05 0.05 0.34 Allophylus abyssinicus 0.007 0.2 0.107 3.65 0.132 0.11 0.10 0.34 Acacia brevispica 0.004 0.1 0.053 6.39 0.229 0.05 0.05 0.33 Ficus asperifolia 0.003 0.08 0.042 6.39 0.243 0.04 0.04 0.33 Kigelia Africana 0.004 0.1 0.053 5.48 0.197 0.05 0.05 0.3 Sapium ellipticum 0.003 0.08 0.043 5.94 0.214 0.04 0.04 0.30 Zathozylum chalybeum 0.002 0.04 0.214 1.37 0.064 0.02 0.02 0.30 Tarenna pavettoides 0.004 0.1 0.053 5.48 0.197 0.05 0.05 0.30 Kigelia moosa 0.004 0.09 0.048 4.57 0.179 0.05 0.05 0.28 Hypoestes aristata 0.005 0.1 0.053 4.57 0.179 0.05 0.05 0.28 Olea capensis 0.005 0.1 0.053 4.11 0.160 0.05 0.05 0.26 Cordia milenii 0.003 0.08 0.043 4.57 0.179 0.04 0.04 0.26 Maytenus heterophylla 0.003 0.07 0.037 4.57 0.179 0.04 0.04 0.26 Rubus keniensis 0.006 0.2 0.107 1.37 0.050 0.11 0.10 0.26 Spathodea campanulata 0.003 0.07 0.04 4.57 0.164 0.04 0.04 0.24 Vitex keniensis 0.003 0.06 0.032 4.57 0.179 0.03 0.03 0.24 Ficus thonningii 0.003 0.06 0.032 4.57 0.179 0.03 0.03 0.24 Harungana madagascariensis 0.003 0.06 0.032 4.57 0.179 0.03 0.03 0.24 Psidium guajava 0.005 0.1 0.115 1.37 0.064 0.05 0.05 0.23 Eriobotraya japonica 0.002 0.05 0.027 4.57 0.164 0.03 0.03 0.22 Coffea eugenioides 0.002 0.05 0.027 4.57 0.164 0.03 0.03 0.22 Basella alba 0.006 0.2 0.107 4.57 0.016 0.11 0.10 0.22
47
Dalbergia lacteal 0.003 0.06 0.032 3.65 0.147 0.03 0.03 0.21 Urera trinervis 0.002 0.05 0.027 3.65 0.147 0.03 0.03 0.20 Bridelia micrantha 0.003 0.06 0.032 3.65 0.132 0.03 0.03 0.19 Oncoba routledgei 0.002 0.05 0.027 3.65 0.132 0.03 0.03 0.19 Premna angolensis 0.002 0.05 0.027 3.65 0.132 0.03 0.03 0.19 Adenia cissampeloides 0.003 0.06 0.032 3.65 0.132 0.03 0.03 0.19 Craibia brownie 0.002 0.04 0.021 3.65 0.132 0.02 0.02 0.17 Vangueria apiculata 0.002 0.05 0.027 3.20 0.114 0.03 0.03 0.17 Ehretia cymosa 0.002 0.04 0.021 3.20 0.114 0.02 0.02 0.16 Margaritaria discoidea 0.001 0.03 0.02 2.28 0.097 0.02 0.02 0.14 Cordia Africana 0.001 0.03 0.016 2.28 0.097 0.02 0.02 0.13 Sclerocarya birrea 0.001 0.03 0.016 2.28 0.097 0.02 0.02 0.13 Ficus bubu 0.001 0.03 0.016 2.28 0.082 0.02 0.02 0.12 Maesa lanceolata 0.001 0.03 0.016 2.28 0.082 0.02 0.02 0.12 Celtis mildbraedii 0.002 0.04 0.021 2.28 0.082 0.02 0.02 0.12 Ritchiea albersii 0.001 0.02 0.011 2.28 0.082 0.01 0.01 0.10 Acanthus pubescens 0.001 0.03 0.016 1.37 0.064 0.02 0.02 0.10 Plantago palmate 0.001 0.03 0.016 1.37 0.064 0.02 0.02 0.10 Periploca linearifolia 0.0009 0.02 0.011 1.37 0.064 0.01 0.01 0.09 Erythrococca trichogyne 0.001 0.02 0.011 1.37 0.064 0.01 0.01 0.09 Entada abyssinica 0.003 0.06 0.032 0.46 0.018 0.03 0.03 0.08 Aneilema beniniense 0.001 0.03 0.016 0.46 0.032 0.02 0.02 0.07 Camellia sinensis 0.001 0.02 0.011 0.46 0.032 0.01 0.01 0.05 Justicia extensa 0.001 0.02 0.011 0.46 0.032 0.01 0.01 0.05 Macaranga kilimandscharica 0.0005 0.009 0.005 0.46 0.032 0.005 0.005 0.04 Trema orientalis 0.001 0.02 0.011 0.46 0.018 0.01 0.01 0.04 Senna spectabilis 0.0005 0.009 0.005 0.46 0.018 0.005 0.005 0.03 Toona ciliate 0.0005 0.009 0.005 0.46 0.018 0.005 0.005 0.03 Croton macrostachyus 0.0003 0.005 0.003 0.46 0.018 0.005 0.005 0.03 Totals 3.1607 187.2 100 2679.87 100 106.19 100 300 RD= Relative Density, RF= Relative Frequency; RC= Relative Cover/coverage; IP= Importance Percentage.
48
The plant species diversity indices (Shannon-Weiner index–H’) ranged between
0.0003 and 0.350 (Table 4.3), with the overall H’ being 3.161 which was high according to the H’ Index which usually ranges between 1.5 and 3.5 and rarely it exceeds 4.5 (Nagendra, 2002; Bhatt and Purohit, 2009). High diversity implys that the chance of picking two plants same species in the forest is low, due to high species diversity. Moreover, plant species that existed in greatest number (i.e. highest Importance percentage) had also the highest species diversity index and vice versa. The higher species diversity is likely caused by ongoing disturbance.
4.2 Uses and importance of plant species collected from tropical rainforest ofKakamega.
Total numbers of 146 plant species in Isecheno nature reserve belong to 57 families, out of these 83 plant species belong to 69 genera from 33 families were recorded to study the traditional values based on the information collected from local human population of Kakamega. They are mainly collected for their medicinal values to treat several infections, diseases and other human health probl ems. Mostly used families with respect to number of species were Moraceae (9) E uphorbiaceae (7), Rutaceae (6), Fabaceae (6) Flacourtiace (5) Ulmaceae (5),
Bignoniaceae (4), Boraginaceae (4), Piperaceae(3), Sapotaceae (3), Verbenaceae
(3), Acanthaceae (2), Meliaceae (2), Mimosaceae (2), Myrtaceae (2), Rubiaceae (
2), Sapindaceae (2) and other 16 families were represented by ony 1 species each
(figure 4.4).
49
10 9 8 7 6 5 9 4 7 3 6 6 5 5 2 4 4 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 0
Plant Families
Figure4.4: Plant families and their number of speciesaffected due to use by local populationfrom tropicalrainforest of Kakamega, Kenya.
48% of the families recorded for their uses were represented by only one species.
These families could have lost its plant species due to unsustainable collection of medicinal plants and construction materials for both consumption and selling purpose by the local people putting more pressure on the tropical rainforest resources.
Uses of the plants recorded: A total 69 plant species are mostly collected for medicine by local community of Kakamega which they use to treat or cure several infections, diseases and health problems. There is unsustainable collection of medicinal plants, for both consumption and commercial purposes. 60 plant species are collect for construction either as poles, post, timber or ‘fitos’ mostly
50 for building and furniture making. 40 tree species are cut and collected for fuel or fire wood by womenor for making charcoal.
75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 69 30 60 25 20 40 15 10 5 13 5 0 4 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
uses of Rainforest plants of Kakamega
Figure 4.5: Bar diagram shows plant species collected for different uses from Isecheno nature reserve, part of Kakamega Rainforest, Kenya.
People collect fruits from 13 plant species for consumption and selling. 5 plant species are used to provide food to livestock either through branches, leaves or the whole plant is harvested. 4 plant species are used for asthetic value when planted around the homestead, wrapped around the waist or when the leaves are used as diapers. Leaves collected from 2 plants species are used in foods like bananas to
51 enhance ripening. 2 plant species are chewed before eating food to enhance appetite.
Small branches from 2 plant species are used as tooth brush when chewed when 1 plant species if crushed provides tooth paste to avoid tooth ache. 2 plant species their bark and flexible branches are used in making ropes for tying fuel wood, grass and bee hives.
There are plant species used during ceremonies, provides edible seeds, seeds are crushed and added to food during cooking as spices, some produce poison, seeds from plants are crushed and used to prepare beverage, each represented by one plant species (fig 4.5).
The growing human populations obtain plant leaves, timber, buiding construction, poles, fruits, ropes and firewood collection e.t.c for both consumption and commercial purposes. Due to over-exploitation of the forest resources, biodiversity of Isecheno nature reserve is being depleted at high rates.
The plant species in Table 4.4 are useful and used by local communities for their personal and commercial uses.
52
Table 4.4: Plant families, their genera & species, vernacular names and traditional uses of rainforest plant species by local community from Kakamega County, Kenya.
No Vernacular Family Plant species Name Uses 1 Acanthaceae Acanthus The ashes from the burned leaves are licked to treat pubescens Lirakalu/ cold, cough and liver problem. Marakalu-Luhya
Justicia flava Masambuki Leaves are used as salt to spice food. chumbi/ Roots are boiled and liquid taken to cure stomach- Lihululu-Luhya ache and diarrhea and when roots and leaves are boiled together the decoction is used to cure eye. infection
2 Anacardiaceae Sclerocarya Ong’ong’o-Luo Provide Firewood, charcoal and timber
birrea
3 Annonaceae Mondora Mwototo/
myristica Lubushi-Luhya Its bark is mixed with the bark of Olea capensis and Trichiliaemetica, then boiled and its decoction taken orally to cure stomach-ache. Stem used for making bows and ‘fitos’ for building.
4 Apocynaceae Funtumia Mutondo-Luhya The bark is either chewed or boiled and its decoction africana taken to cure toothache. Provide good timber for construction
53
5 Mondia whitei Mukombero- Asclepediaceae The decoction of boiled roots is used for deworming Luhya and to cure measles, also roots are used as tooth
brushes. The bark is chewed as appetizer
6 Araliaceae Polyscias fulva Mwandzi-Luhya, Provide firewood and timber. Leaves are boiled and consumed to cure stomach pains
7 Kigelia africana Kumototo, Bignoniaceae Kumufungu- It provides timber for furniture(stools), firewood,
Luhya charcoal and poles
Its medicinal from leaves, bark, roots and stem to treat
diarrhoae
Kigelia moosa Murabe/murave- Liquid from boiled bark can be used by women for Luhya abortion. Liquid from boiled leaves cure malaria, skin
diseases and leprosy.
Blanket soaked with the liquid of boiled fruits cure
measles in children.
54
Markkhamia Lusiola/Shisimb Leaves and stems are chewed to heal coughs. Leaves lutea ali-Luhya, are also crushed, soaked in water and its liquid taken Siala-Luo to cure stomach-ache. Wood is hard, tough & somewhat termite resistant & therefore used for poles, posts, tool handles, banana props and building. It provides firewood, charcoal and timber for furnitures. Ropes extracted from the bark.
Mutsulio, Spathodea Kumuchirisia- The bark is chewed and put on the lips to treat swollen campanulata Luhya, lips and the bark is boiled the children are bathed with the liquid against skin-rashes. Provide firewood, charcoal and used for carvings.
8 Cordia africana Mukumari- Provide timber, firewood, edible fruits. The fleshy part Luhya of the bark is wrapped around the broken bone to Boraginaceae hasten healing. Cordia millenii Mungoma- Fresh juice from the bark used to treat broken bones. Luhya Traditionally Bark and used root for decoctions making arefurniture, administered mortars to for treat for headache. crushing grain & beehives. The wood is used for firewood, for building, timber and furniture. Fruit gum used as glue. Fruits
are edible
Ehretia cymosa Shikuti/ Crushed leaves are applied on the wound to disinfect Shekutu -Luhya and also for firewood, charcoal, poles and tool
handles.
55
Maytenus Kumwayakhafu- Provide firewood, charcoal, poles, and walking sticks. heterophylla Luhya
9 Cucurbitaceae Momordica Lilande-Luhya Roots are crushed and soaked in water and its liquid foetida handlestaken to treat cold, throat, measles and stomach-ache. Roots, leaves and bark are medicinal 10 Ebenaceae Diospyros Lusui-Isukha,
abyssinica Ochol-Luo Roots are mixed with the bark of Zathoxylm gillettii
and Azadiracta indica, boiled and its decoction taken
to treat venereal like syphilis diseases and Malaria.
To prevent bad dreams at night the bark is placed
under the pillow.
Provide firewood, charcoal, timber for construction
and furniture’s, low quality poles, tool handles and
walking sticks
11 Bridelia Shikangania/ Euphorbiaceae The wood is used for building poles & construction of micrantha Kumulonda traditional granaries because it’s termite resistant. ng’ombe-Luhya It provides timber, firewood, charcoal, jembe and axe handles A bark is boiled in water and liquid taken against dysentery in children, headache, worms and cure joint pains.
the
56
Croton Musutsu-Luhya It provides timber, firewood, charcoal, jembe and tool mycrostachyus handles like pangas. Whooping cough is treated with the inhalation of the steam of the boiled bark, with the same liquid is used for deworming. Stomach-ache can be treated with drinking liquid of the seeds that are soaked in water.
Croton Musine-Luhya An infusion of bark is used to kill intestinal worms, megalocarpus relieve whooping cough and stomach-ache.
Oil is a powerful purgative. Provide firewood, timber,
charcoal and poles
Croton Musutsu-Luhya, sylvaticus Munamalira- The decoction of boiled bark is used as bathing water Kak against skin rashes. Also drunk to control syphilis and other veneral diseases.
Macaranga Sebesebet-Nandi Provide firewood, charcoal, timber and poles kilimandscharica Roots bark and leaves are boiled and liquid taken for fever and digestive problems.
57
Margaritaria Atego- Luo Provide firewood, charcoal, timber, poles discoidea It is medicinal (roots) for various body pains like digestive problems
Sapium Mugoso, Provide firewood, charcoal, timber, tool handles, ellipticum Kumuchaso- fodder and medicinal for relieving stomach pain. Luhya
12 Fabaceae Acacia Osiri-Luo Firewood, rafters and roots are medicine for cold, brevispica leprosy
Acrocarpus Firewood and timber for light construction fraxinifolius Craibia brownie Muhandi-Luhya Provide timber, used to make baskets from its flexible branches and provides edible fruits
Dalbergia lacteal Provide firewood, charcoal, timber and poles. Bark, roots and leaves are medicinal for removing pimples
Erythrina Murembe-Luhya Firewood, timber for doors and furniture like stools abyssinica
58
Senna spectabilis Igasha-Teso The wood is termite resistant used for poles, posts, tool handles, firewood and charcoal.
13 Flacourtiaceae Casaeria Namasinzi- Good for timber and also used as firewood. battiscombei Luhya The roots are boiled and the liquid taken to treat stmach-ache. The same liquid is used to cure some of sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis
Dovyalis Akudho-Luo Provide edible fruits and planted as hedges. abyssinica To cure abdominal pains the roots are boiled and it decoction taken.
Edible fruits. Dovyalis Kumusongolamu Bark and roots boiled filtrate are used to treat stomach macrocalyx nwa-Luhya pains.
If the freshroots are crushed and soaked in water and the filtrate drunk it cures headache.
Oncoba Decoction of boiled roots is used for deworming and routledgei Shirikali-Luhya, against stomach-ache. Sao-Luo Provide timber and firewood.
Mushirakalu/ Rawsonia lucida munamatolo- The liquid from boiled leaves and roots is used against Luhya stomach-ache and veneral diseases.
59
14 Musila-Isukha, Guttiferaceae Harungana Lumasaii-Kabras Sap of the bark for colouring nails and hair. madagascariensis Namasasile- Provides timber, firewood, charcoal, poles and tool Bukusu handles. Provide edible fruits, lipstick and toothpaste substitutes from chewed bark and roots. Decoction from boiled bark is used to cure stomach- ache and when mixed with the leaves treat dysentery.
15 Meliaceae Toona ciliata Provide timber used in carpentry and joinery, bark and leaves are medicinal, bark extract are insect repellant. Provide firewood and charcoal
Trichilia emetica Monyamo/ Liquid from boiled roots cure stomach-ache. Munyama-Luhya The decoction from boiled bark is used to prevent miscarriage during pregnancy and treat fever. Firewood, funiture, poles, posts, tool handles and carvings
16 Bersama Shirikamabinga– Used to provide firewood, charcoal and timber for Melianthaceae abyssinica Luhya furniture
17 Mimosaceae Albizia Mukhunzuli– gummifera Luhya Liquid from boiled bark treat malaria. Used as firewood, timber, beehive making. Leaves are used to speed up ripening of bananas.
60
Entada Musembe-Luhya Provide firewood. Roots, barks and leaves are abyssinica medicinal for malaria and typhoid. If the child is shows stunted growth, the ashes of the bark is mixed together with the burned roots and leaves of microglossa pyrifolia, oil added and rubbed on the wrist and chest of the child.
18 Antiaris Mulundu-Luhya Moraceae toxicaria The bark was formerly used as barkcloth. To treat fever the bark is soaked in water and the liquid taken and infertiltiy in women is controlled when decoction from boiled bark mixed with that of Entada abyssinica is takenwhereas the filtrates of the pounded roots are used to treat gonorrhoea and timber production.
Ficus bubu Firewood, charcoal and timber.
Ficus exasperate Museno-Luhya The milky sap of the tree if applied on the skin is used to cure skin rushes.
Ficus lutea Mukavakava- Produce fruits for monkey
Luhya Leaves are good fodder.
The fruit pulp is edible.
Bark and leaves are used traditional to treat
diabetes. The wood is used for tool handles and for
construction work
61
Ficus sur Musingo-Luhya Decoction from oiled bark used to cure stomach ache & diarrhea. Bark is ground, burned and ash is licked for cough remedy. Wood is used traditionally for stools, doors and grain Mortars and Fruits are edible
Ficus thonningii Kumutoto-Luhya Provide firewood, decoction of boiled bark mixed with that of Azadirachta indica if taken is used to treat
cold, sore throat, diarrhea, wounds, influenza and
stimulate lactation. Leaves are fodder. Fruits are edible. Fibres from the bark are used for making baskets. Features traditionally in ceremonial meetings
Trilepisium Mbalakaya- Fruits are edible. Leaves and barks are used as pain madagascariense Luhya killers.
Morus Munuku-Luhya Provide firewood and edible fruits mesozygia
Milicia excels Murumba- Provide firewood, charcoal, timber, poles, furniture, Luhya tool handles Bark is medicinal whereas leaves are used as fodder.
62
19 Musaceae Ensete Lisitsi/Masitsi- Ventricosum Luhya Leaves provide wrapping material and fibres from midrib whereas pseudostem provides medicines, dye and fodder. For measles the roots are boiled together with the roots of Acanthus eminens and the decoction taken. For ear infection the leaves are squeezed and the sap dripped into the ear.
20 Myrsinaceae Maesa Lisebesebe/ Liquid of the crushed bark and roots soaked in water is lanceolata Shishebeshebe- used to cure stomach-ache and Juice from the fruits is Luhya extracted and given to children to treat kwashiorkor (lack of nutrients)
21 Myrtaceae Psidium guajava Esipera/ Provide firewood. Lipera-Luhya Brances make tool handles Ripe fruits are edible. Small brances used as tooth brushes
Syzygium cumini Jamna-Luo Provide firewood, charcoal, poles, posts, tool handles and timber for funiture. Provide fodder, edible fruits and medicinal for diabetes. Decoction from the boiled bark if taken cures stomach-ache.
22 Olacaceae Strombosia Mwenyenye- Provide firewood, charcoal and timber for construction scheffleri Kikuyu of furnitures and furnishes.
63
23 Oleaceae Olea capensis Omuthukuyu- Luhya Wood is tough, strong & shock resistant & therefore used for building & construction and also Used for high-class furniture, panelling, flooring and tool handles Provide firewood and charcoal. Fruits are edible.
The bark decoction is used as an emetic and antihemintic, used to treat malaria, venereal diseases and female sterility; bark as is applied as a dressing to wound. Decoction from the boiled bark if taken cure veneral diseases, dysentry, ulcers and stomach upsets especially during pregnancy.
24 Piperaceae Piper capense Indana-Luhya Inhaled steam from boiled leaves cure cold and its liquid can be used for bathing water against skin rashes. Pregnant women can drink the decoction mixed with honey to relax their muscles.
Piper guineense Mulondo Musala The stem is used for making ropes. -Luhya Roots are either chewed or boiled and its liquid mixed with poridge to cure sore throats
64
Piper Matana-luhya Big leaves are used as diapers. umbellatum Liquid from boiled roots is used to hasten expulsion of placenta by women and also chewed to regain appetite.
25 Rhamnaceae Maesopsis Mutere-Luhya It provides timber for light construction and furniture emanii making, firewood. Filtrate from boiled bark is used to cure stomach-ache
26 Rosaceae Prunus africana Mwiritsa - Excellent timber for construction and furniture, (luhya), firewood, charcoal and poles Muiri -(Kikuyu) Decoction from boiled leaves and bark used to treat prostrate cancer, malaria & stomach upsets. Leaves of P. africana are used as an inhalant for fever, to improve appetite, to treat chest and stomach pain, gonorrhea, inflammations, kidney diseases, urinary tract complains. Bark infusion is used by Luhya as a purgative. Known to have antiretroviral properties
27 Rubiaceae Coffea Shimunyamunyi/ Beans are used for making coffee. eugenioides Shingung’ung’u Liquid from boiled roots used for treatment of vinereal ng’ani-Luhya diseases
65
Vangueria Shimanyamungi/ Provide Firewood apiculata Makhomoli- Fruits are edible. Luhya
28 Teclea nobilis Mutavo/ Rutaceae Kumutare-Luhya Firewood, charcoal, timber, poles, post, tool handles,
spear shafts, bows, clubs and walking stick.
Decoction from boiled leaves and roots are used to control menstrual pains and belly pains.
Clausina anisata Shisimbari-
Luhya Small soft stems are used as tooth brush as they cure
aching tooth
The bark used to cure measles
Liquid from boiled leaves and roots are taken before and after giving birth to clean the womb and also cure syphilis. To cure measles the bark is boiled and the decoction is used to take a bath. It also provides firewoods, charcoal and posts because the wood is hard and strong. Fagaropsis Shingulutsu- angolensis Luhya The bark is boiled and the decoction is taken to cure infertility in women and chest problem. Provide firewood, timber for furniture and flooring.
Toddalia Luabare/Luhabar The roots are boiled and its decoction drunk to asiatica i-Luhya cure veneral diseases, stomach-ache and prevent miscarriage.
66
Zanthoxylum Roko-Luo Firewood, charcoal, timber, furniture, poles, posts, chalybeum carvings, stem for flavouring, crushed seeds for fragrance, boiled roots its decoction treat stomach- ache and tooth brush. Zanthoxylum Shikhuma, gilletti Kumusikhu- Wood is used for carpentry and construction, furniture, Luhya firewood and charcoal. The bark is boiled and its decoction drunk to cure stomach-ache and its steam is inhaled to cure asthma.
29 Allophylus Ochorid-Atego- Used as medicine if the bark is boiled and its Sapindaceae africanus Luhya decoction drunk to cure stomach-ache. Leaves are used as fodder and thin fibrous stems are used making traditional granaries
Blighia Shiarambatsa- Decoction of boiled roots used as an aphrodisiac
unijugata Luhya whereas stem is burned and the ash licked to treat
fever. Used as firewood, charcoal making, timber for carpentry and poles
30 Sapotaceae Chrysophyllum Mululu-Luhya The wood is used for tool handles and for construction
albidum work
Manilkara Ludolio-Luhya The timber is used for construction of furniture
butungi andwhen making handles for tools
The fresh chopped bark is boiled and the liquid taken orally to treat stomach ache and weakness
67
Aningeria Mukangu-Luhya Produce good timber durable for building and altissima construction
31 Sterculiaceae Dombeya Mukasa -Luhya Used for making ropes, firewood, timber, tool handles burgessiae and bows from strong but flexible branches.
32 Ulmaceae Trema orientalis Musakala-Luhya Filtrate from crushed bark soaked in water is used to treat snake bites. Provide firewood, charcoal, pole, posts. Chaetacme Likhomo-Luhya Sap of the tree is used as poison for spear aristata
Celtis mildbraedii Shunza-Luhya Produce wood but not durable
Celtis africana Mwenye-Luhya The wood is strong & tough, and is used for building, furniture and tool handles Celtis durandii Musa-Luhya Durable wood used for building and construction. 33 Verbenaceae Clerodendrum Lisala-Luyha Roots, stems and leaves are medicinal, boiled and its johnstonii decoction drunk to cure stomach-ache Premna Mungaliguru/ Seeds are edible. angolensis Kisangula-Luhya Provide firewood and wood make tool handles Roots boiled and liquid taken to cure chest pain and infertility in women
Vitex keniensis Muhuru-Kikuyu Preovide firewood, excellent timber, poles, edible fruits.
68
The species which are very important for certain diseases like blood pressure, coughs, fever, cold and sexually transmitted diseases can be treated as per information mentioned in the Table 4.4. Such plant species must be protected and their medication be accepted so that the people of Kenya will get locally manufactured medicines at a cheaper rate and the country will not spend foreign exchange to import such requirements. The country will be self sufficient for the treatment of certain health problems with the help of local products.
4.3 Human impacts on the Rainforest of Kakamega
Tropical rainforest resources are mostly utilized by the growing population of small scale farmers around it who depend who entirely depends on it and there it is difficult to manage this forest ecosystem from human being because of over dependency on their resources(Mitinje, 2007).
Despite having environmental laws and polices in place,a lot of anthropogenic activites are still noticed in the forest. In this assessment, iilegal human activities that were identified included logging trees for timber and firewood, debarking and root harvesting of plants for medicinal purposes, foot paths used by locals and eco-tourists, cattle tracks used by livestock when grazing and honey harvesting were observed and recorded as the main human threats to the stability of tropical rainforestecosystem during the survey (Table 4.5).
Other studies by Oyugi (1996) and Mitchell (2004) noted that main human disturbance causing forest degradation were mostly selective logging of valuable
69 hard wood trees for commercially. According to this assessment, the most prevalent/wide spread human activity that was found everywhere in the studied
Isecheno nature reserve was logging.
Each disturbance parameter was ranked based on the area (the area in hectares of the habitats in the site that the human disturbance had affected). For the six disturbance parameters, the highest ranked parameters per unit area received a score of six and the lowest ranked threat received a score of one. The scores across all eight transects were added up to get a total ranking for each threat.
Total of 8 transects were surveyed period along the 20 m wide belt transect that covered a total area of 21.9 ha and each was approximately 2.74ha. Table 4.5,
Table 4.6 and Figure 4.5 provide summaries of human impact on this vegetation.
70
Table 4.5: Quantitative analysis of human activities on plant species for specific uses within the study area of Isecheno nature reserve part of Kakamega Rain forest.
Transects Number of logged trees Number Number of Number of Foot paths/ Number of trees trees whose trees used Natural trails of cattle debarked roots for beehives tracks harvested Total Diameter Diameter for medicinal purposes logged ≤ 10cm > 10cm
N 90 36 54 15 6 (-) 2 1
NE 87 36 51 28 15 (-) 3 1
E 37 14 23 8 6 (-) 1 1
NW 61 27 34 9 7 2 1 1
S 55 22 33 13 9 1 1 1
SW 58 24 34 12 2 (-) 2 2
W 48 20 28 11 3 1 2 1
SE 51 21 30 12 7 (-) 5 (-)
Totals 487 200 287 108 55 4 17 8
71
Table 4.6: Data on human disturbances along the eight transects studied within Kakamega main forest (January to December, 2014)
ha
(ha)
ha
(m)
debarking/
(ha)
of cattle of cattle
Transects Area Transect Length area Surveyed trees No. of logged/ha with trees No. of signs of with trees No. of signs of root harvesting/ with trees No. of signs of honey harvesting/ha paths/haNo. of No. tracks/ha
N 8245 1750 3.5 25.71 4.29 1.71 (-) 0.57 0.29
NE 8245 1450 2.9 30 9.66 5.17 (-) 1.03 0.34
E 8245 1050 2.1 17.62 3.81 2.86 (-) 0.4 0.4
NW 8245 1250 2.5 24.4 3.6 2.8 0.8 0.48 0.48
S 8245 1200 2.4 22.92 5.41 3.75 0.42 0.42 0.42
SW 8245 1250 2.5 23.2 4.8 0.8 (-) 0.8 0.8
W 8245 1500 3 16 3.67 1 0.33 0.67 0.33
SE 8245 1500 3 17 4 2.33 (-) 1.67 (-)
72
25
20
15
22 10
5
Number / ofspecies affected plant Number ha
5 3 1 1 1 0 Tree Debarking Root Human cattle Honey logging of trees harvesting paths tracks harvesting
Human Activities Figure 4.6: Types of human activities and number of plantspecies affected/ha within Isecheno nature reserve section of main tropical rain forest, Kakamega County, Kenya
Human disturbance level per hectare with respect to transects were North East with 46.2/Ha, South with 33.34/Ha, North with 32.57/Ha, North West 32.56/Ha,
73
South West 30.4/Ha, East with 25.09/Ha, South East 25 /Ha and western transects showed 22/Ha. (Table4.6).
Table 4.7: Human activities and affected numbers of plant species within the study area of kakamega forest, Kenya.
Human Plant Species Total activity number of affected plants Logging 1. Aningeria altissima 21 2.Antiaris toxicaria 12 3.Bequaertiodendron oblanceolatum 8 4.Bischofia javanica 8 5.Bridelia micrantha 7 6.Brillantaisia madagascariensis 8 7.Casaeria battiscombei 9 8(i).Celtis africana 19 (ii).Celtis durandii 17 9.Cordial africana 13 10(i).Croton megalocarpus 9 (ii).Croton sylvaticus 8 11(i).Dracaena fragrans 9 (ii).Dracaena laxissima 15 12.Dombeya burgessiae 14 13.Diospyros abyssinica 25 14.Erythrococca trichogyne 6 15(i).Ficus exasperata 11 (ii). Ficus natalensis 9 16.Funtumia africana 67 17.Harungana madagascariensis 18 18.Maesopsis eminii 19.Makhamia lutea 11 20.Manilkara butungi 21.Olea capensis 7 22.Polyscias fulva 10 23.Premna angolensis 24.Prunus africana 12 25.Psidium guajava 8 26.Solanum mauritianum 27.Tecla nobilis 7 28.Trichilia emeticaa29.Trilepisium madagascariense 31 30.Vitex keniensis 8 31. Pittosporum manii 9 7 14 12 27
74
11
Total 487 Debarking 1.Aningeria altissima 2 2.Antiaris toxicaria 7 3.Croton sylvaticus 8 4.Ehretia cymosa 2 5.Fagaropsis angolensis 3 6.Ficus natalensis 2 7.Funtumia Africana 6 8.Harungana madagascariensis 7 9.Khaya anthotheca 12 10.Maesa lanceolata 1 11.Olea capensis 12 12.Prunus Africana 9 13.Tecla nobilis 8 14.Trichilia emetica 14 15. Zanthoxyllum gillettii 15
Totals 108 Root 1.Celtis Africana 3 harvesting 2.Diospyros abyssinica 2 3.Harungana madagascariensis 5 4.Mondia whitei 12 5.Oncoba routledgei 3 6.Piper guineense 6 7.Rawsonia lucida 4 8.Sapium ellipticum 5 9.Sclerocarya birrea 5 10.Senna spectabilis 3 11.Toddalia asiatica 5 12.Zathozylum chalybeum 2
Totals 55 Honey 1.Cordia africana 2 harvesting 2.Ficus thonningii 1 3.Prunus africana 1 Totals 4 Total recorded individual plants 654 plant affected
75
Logging, debarking, root harvesting and honey harvesting have put great pressure on the vegetation leading to forest degradation. Over a total survey area of 21.9ha
Total of 654 different plants affected by human activities belonged to 61 genera
(Table 4.7). 487(74.47%) trees were logged belonging to 35 species. The highly logged tree species wasFuntumia africana (67), Premna angolensis (31 trees),
Trilepisium madagascariense (27trees), Diospyros abyssinica (25trees) and
Aningeria altissima (21 trees) (Figure 4.7).
80
70
60
50
40 67 30
20 31 27 25
10 21 Number Number trees logged 0
logging of specific plant species
76
Figure 4.7: Most preferred and disturbed plant species due to logging within Isecheno nature reserve part of main tropical rain forest of Kakamega
The most commonly logged genus with respect to number of species recorded were Celtis (2), Croton (2), Draceana (2) and Ficus (2). Stumps of cut trees were highly recorded along the eight transects with the highest value of 22.24 per hectare, thus an indicator of human activities in the forest. The highest tree stumps were observedin the southern part of the forest (Mutangah, 1996). Mogaka et al, (2001) found out that logging was the main illegal activity in the Kakamega forest. The highest tree stumps were for is Funtumia africana (Mutangah, 1996).
Although tree cutting was forbidden since 1975, illegal logging still occurs and it affects the conservation of the forest negatively. When assessing the logged trees with diameters ≤10cm and >10cm separately, out of 487 trees stumps observed.
58% of cut trees had a diameter of >10cm whereas 41 % of the stumps had a diameter of ≤10cm.
Men logged majority of trees (59%) by travelling far inside the forest looking for bigger-sized trees or high quality timber fell it down, carrying logs more for building material (poles and timber) than how women utilize forest for firewood because of being responsible for several domestic duties. Despite availabilities of environmental policies and laws several cut stems were recorded in Isecheno nature reserve (plate 4.1 a & b)
77
(a) (b)
Plate 4.1 (a) and (b) show illegal logging of Harungana madagascariensis within the study area. Forest vegetation is cleared to facilitate movement inside the forest to explore the rich biodiversity of rainforest (plate 4.2a). According to Hiller et al. (2004) entry into the forest encourages illegal logging in Indonesian forests. Furthermore, logging of trees provide access to the core of the forest encouragind more logging
(Wilkie et al. 1992; Rice et al. 1997; Laurance, 1998; Robinson et al. 1999).
Ideally local people are only allowed to collect vines for tying, dead and fallen tree branches but not to cut live trees. The disturbance level of this path in the study area was 0.77 per hectare.
78
Creation of foot pathin Isecheno nature reseve encouraged collecting firewood from the forest in the form of head lots (plate 4.2b).
(a) (b)
Plate 4.2: (a) Trail / human path used for firewood collection&eco-tourism (b) Headlots of firewood harvested from Kakamega forest. In the absence of man-made trails for ecotourism development, the greater part of
Kakamega forest would not be highly disturbed.Ouma et al (2011) mentioned the high level of impacts of ecotourism trail in the northern part of the Kakamega forest was attributed not only to tourist visitation but could also be due to illegal harvest of forest resources such as firewood, grass, medicinal plants by the community members living close to the forest
Plants showing signs of debarking comprised 108 individuals. The most frequent tree species debarked were Zanthoxyllum gillettii (15 trees), Trichilia emetica (14 trees), Olea capensis (12 trees), Khaya anthotheca (12 trees) and Prunus africana
(9 trees). (Figure 4.8).
79
16 14 12 10 8 15 14 6 12 12 4 9 2
Number of Number 0 trees affected trees Zanthoxyllum Trichilia Olea capensis Khaya Prunus gillettii emetica anthotheca africana
Tree species debarked Figure 4.8: Preferred tree species for debarking in Isecheno nature reserve (study area) of within Kakamega tropical rainforest, Kenya
Debarking trees for medicinal purpose had a disturbance level of 4.93 per hectare.
(plate 4.3).
Plate 4.3:Stem of Trichilia emetic(Family: Meliaceae)debarked for its gynoecological value from Kakamega rainforest
80
The study noted that cattle tracks recorded in Isecheno nature reserve are used by livestock to access the glade and had a disturbance level of 0.37 / hectare. (Plate
4.4d).
(a) (b)
Plate 4.4: (a) Cattle grazing into Kakamega Rainforest and (b) Cattle track used to bring animals into Kalunya glade for grazing.
Grazing cattlecan strample on young plant seedlings hencehindering their proper growth (Tsingalia, 2009). Oyugi (1996) also studied and concluded that cattle’s grazing was a major problem in Isecheno the southern part of the forest.
Out of 55(8.41%) plants whose roots had been dug they belonged to 12 plant species.
81
14
12
10
8
6 12 er er ofplants 4 6 5 5 5 Numb 2
0
Selected plant species for root harvest Figure 4.9: Number of preferred plant species suffered due to root harvesting for medicinal values from this forest (study area)
The most frequent plant species selected for root harvest are Mondia whitei (12 plants), Piper guineense (6 plant), Toddalia asiatica (5 plants), Sclerocarya birrea (5 plants) and Harungana madagascariensis (5 plants). (Figure 4.9 and plate 4.5).
Lastly 4(0.61%) trees belonging to 3 species had burnt hollow stem showing signs of traditional hives from which honey had been harvested were recorded noted along the Northern and Southern East transects during the study. The highly noted tree species with burnt traditional hives were Cordia africana (2 trees), Ficus thonningii (1 tree) and Prunus africana (1 tree). (Plate 4.6)
82
(a) (b)
Plate 4.5: Illegal root harvest (a) Mondia whyteiand Toddalia asiaticafrom Kakamega forest, Kenya
Plate 4.6: Honey harvested from burnt hollow part of Cordia africana stem.
83
Finally, although we have many human activities affecting forest nature reservesglobally, logging is higher with nearly 70% in more than 200 reserves throughout the tropical rainforests (van Schaik et al. 1997) Consequently, among the illegal human activities recorded in the study area, logging and debarking are widely spread in tropical rainforest (Mogaka et al, 2001).
According to the human activities (logging, debarking, root harvesting and honey harvesting) on the vegetation of tropical rainforest of Kakamega, the study revealed that the three most exploited genera with respect to number of species were Ficus (3), Harungana (1) and Prunus (1). Ficus exasperate and Ficus natalensis were observed to be cut, Ficus natalensis had been debarked for medicinal purpose and at the same time Ficus thonningii had a burnt hive where honey was harvested. Harungana madagascariensis was found to be logged for fire wood, debarked and root harvested for medicinal purpose. Lastly Prunus africana was observed with a burnt hive suggesting that honey had been harvested, it had also been extracted by logging and debarking.
84
Table: 4.8 Plant families and their number of species afected by main human activities within Tropical Rainforest, Kakamega County of Kenya.
Plant Families No. of tree species No. of tree species No. of plant No. of tree Logged Debarked species Root species with harvested bee hives 1.Acanthaceae 1. Brillantaisia (-) (-) (-) madagascariensis
2. Anacardiaceae (-) (-) 1.Sclerocarya (-) birrea 3. Apocynaceae 1. Funtumia 1. Funtumia (-) (-) Africana africana 4. Araliaceae 1. Polyscias fulva (-) (-) (-) 5. Asclepediaceae (-) (-) 1. Mondia whitei (-) 6. Bignoniaceae 1. Markhamia lutea (-) (-) (-) 7. Boraginaceae 1. Cordia Africana 1. Ehretia cymosa (-) 1. Cordia africana 8. Ebenaceae 1. Diospyros (-) 1. Diospyros (-) abyssinica abyssinica 9. Euphorbiaceae 1.Bischofia javanica 1. Croton sylvaticus 1. Sapium (-) 2. Bridelia ellipticum micrantha 3. Croton megalocarpus 4. Croton sylvaticus 5. Erythrococca trichogyne
85
10. Fabaceae (-) (-) 1.Senna spectabilis (-) 11. Flacourtiaceae 1. Casaeria (-) 1. Rawsonia lucida (-) battiscombei 2. Oncoba routledgei 12. Guttiferae 1. Harungana Harungana 1. Harungana Madagascariensis madagascariensis
madagascariensis 13.Meliaceae 1. Trichilia emetic 1.Khaya anthotheca (-) (-) 2. Trichilia emetica 14. Moraceae 1. Antiaris toxicaria 1. Antiaris toxicaria (-) 1. Ficus 2. Ficus exasperata 2. Ficus natalensis thonningii 3. Ficus natalensis 4. Trilepisium madagascariense 15. Myrsinaceae (-) 1. Maesa (-) (-) lanceolata 16. Myrtaceae 1.Psidium guajava (-) (-) (-) 17. Olacaceae 1. Strombosia (-) (-) (-) scheffleri 18. Oleaceae 1. Olea capensis 1. Olea capensis (-) (-) 19. Piperaceae (-) (-) 1. Piper capense (-) 20. Rhamnaceae 1. Maesopsis eminii (-) (-) (-) 21. Rosaceae 1. Prunus africana 1. Prunus Africana (-) 1. Prunus africana 22. Ruscaceae 1. Dracaena (-) (-) (-) fragrans 2. Dracaena fragrans 23. Rutaceae 1. Teclea nobilis 1. Teclea nobilis 1. Toddalia (-) 2. Zanthoxyllum asiatica gillettii 2. Zathozylum chalybeum
86
24. Sapotaceae 1. Aningeria 1. Aningeria (-) altissima altissima (-) 2. Bequaertiodendron oblanceolatum 3. Manilkara butugi 25. Solanaceae 1. Solanum (-) (-) (-) mauritianum 26. Sterculiaceae 1. Dombeya (-) (-) (-) burgessiae 27. Ulmaceae 1. Celtis africana (-) 1. Celtis africana (-) 2. Celtis durandii 28Verbenaceae 1. Premna (-) (-) (-) angolensis 2. Vitex keniensis
87
4.4 Quantitative analysis of plant species affected by identified human activities in the study area.
ANOVA provides a statistical test of whether or not the means of several groups are equal and therefore generalizes the t-test to more than two groups. ANOVA are useful for comparing three or more means (groups or variable) for statistical significance. A test result (calculated from null hypotheses and the sample) is called statistically significant. If it is deemed unlikely to have occurred by chance assuming the truth or the null hypotheses. A statistically significant result when a probability (P-value) is less than a threshold (significance level), justifies the rejection of the null hypotheses.
In this study ANOVA was used to investigate differences between numbers of plant species affected by various human activities responsible for forest degradation. The main human activities identified affecting plant species in the study sites included logging, debarking, root harvesting, traditional honey harvesting on trees.
Table 4.8 highlights the findings that were generated from the computer software to show the significant difference.
88
Table 4.9: Analysis of variance between the number of plant species affected and identified human activities in theTropical Rainforest of Kakamega County
ANOVA
Trees
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between 18118.125 3 6039.375 60.486 .000 Groups
Within Groups 2795.750 28 99.848
Total 20913.875 31
The Analysis of varience (ANOVA) test shows a significant difference
(F=60.486; df=3; P=0.000) between the number of affected plant species and identified human activities. The result further shows statistical significant difference among mean number of trees affected by human activities (i.e. Number of trees logged, number of trees debarked, number of trees whose roots are harvested for medicinal purposes and number of trees used for bee hives). The lesser values of confidence level (p ≤ 0.05) from the table output of ANOVA indicate that the sample results do not correspond to the research null hypotheses and therefore was rejected. From the magnitude of the ANOVA statistics, we can see that logging of trees, debarking of trees, digging of plant roots, and using trees for traditional bee hives have different impacts on the Tropical Rainforest.
89
The study also undertook a kruskal-wallis test of differences between the numbers of plant species affected in various plant families by identified human activities.
The kruskal-wallis test is a non parametric (distribution free) test and it is used when the assumptions of ANOVA are not met. They both asses for significant differences on a continous dependent variable by grouping independent variables
(with three or more groups). Kruskal-wallis test is used when the number of groups is three or more, otherwise its reduced to mann-whitney test. However you can interprete it like that. There is no need for post-hoc test if you have only two groups.
Table 4.10: Quantitative analysis by kruskal Wallis test between the number of plant species and their families affected by humanactivities
Kruskal-Wallis test
NPar Tests
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Mean Deviation Minimum Maximum
Trees 112 .5714 .85650 .00 5.00
Groups 112 2.5000 1.12306 1.00 4.00
90
Kruskal-Wallis Test
Ranks
a,b Groups N Mean Rank Test Statistics
Trees 1 28 79.79 Trees
2 28 55.20 Chi-Square 30.518
Df 3 3 28 52.61 Asymp. Sig. .000 4 28 38.41
Total 112 a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Groups
Note: The mean ranks for the different tree categories are shown in the table above
Table 4.9 highlights the results generated from the analysis. This result showed a statistically significant difference between (X2=30.518; P=0.000<0.05) the numbers of plant species affected in various plant families by monitored human activities. This therefore means that logging, debarking, root harvesting and using trees as traditional bee hive in tropical rainforest are making a significant contribution to the forest degradation. Small values for confidence level imply that it would be very unlikely for us to obtain a value of the test statistic such as the one we would observe if the research hypothesis actually were false.
Therefore, because the p value (ie 0.000) was below 0.05, the hypotheses was therefore rejected.
91
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusion
Floristic composition in Isecheno nature reserve reveals that out of 57 families recorded 31 families consisting of (54%) were represented by one species only and 146 plant species belonged to 124 genera. This observed low floristic composition is an indication of significant loss of taxonomic diversity due to anthropogenic impacts within the nature reserve. The growth forms were 81 trees
(55%), 32 shrubs (22%), 20 Climber (14%) and 13 herbs (9%).
33 families, 69 genera and 83 plant species were studied for their use mostly collected for medicine by the local community of Kakamega which they use to treat or cure several infections, diseases and health problems. The study revealed
16 families consisting of (48%) were represented by one species only, these families could have lost its plant species due to unsustainable collection of medicinal plants and construction materials for both consumption and commercial purpose by the local people.
Vegetation of the study area is under direct threat due logging of trees (illegal timber harvesting and firewood collection), debarking, root digging, creating paths for eco-tourists, cattle tracks and honey harvesting activities.
5.2 Recommendations
There is need of awareness among the local communities on the advantages
and disadvantages of protecting this forest. The immediate attention on
people’s participation is most essential for effective conservation.
92
County and national government must provide alternative resources and assist
the local communities in terms of education, medical and other needs which
are pressuring the community not to protect this important rainforest.
Tissue culture techniques used to restore degraded plant species within the
forest.
Proper harvesting techniques and legal licence to harvest particular species
should be issued to harvest over aged plants.
Monitoring is necessary to protect this forest from illegal harvesters who must
be penalized based on the value and age of the tree(s).
It is recommended strongly that researchers must develop interest to study
more economic values of the rainforest vegetation, its conservation,
management and restoration of degraded plant species for present and future
generation. It is very important to protect thislocal biodiversity monument for
education, research, medicines and also for other beneficial purposes.
At every cost it must be protected and saved from further degradation by
strong enforcement of Environmental laws followed by Forest and wildlife
protection Act.
93
REFERENCES
Achard, F., Eva, H.D., Stibig, H.-J. et al. (2002). Determination of deforestation rates of the world’s humid tropical forests.Science 297, 999–1002.
Agnew, A.D.Q. & Agnew, S. (1994). Upland Kenya wild flowers, East Africa Natural History Society, Nairobi-kenya.
Akwee P, PalapalaV & Gweyi-OnyangoJ. (2010). A comparative study of plant species composition of grasslands in Saiwa Swamp National Park and Kakamega forest, Kenya.Journal of Biodiversity 1: 77–83.
Althof, A.J., (2005). Human impact on flora and vegetation of Kakamega Forest, Kenya. structure, distribution and disturbance of plant communities in an East African Rainforest. PhD Dissertation, University of Koblenz-Landau, Koblenz, Germany.
Anderson A.B, (1990). Alternative to deforestation: steps towards sustainable use of Amazon Rainforests: Colombia University press, London.
Asner, G.P., Knapp, D.E., Broadbent, E.N., Oliveira, P.J.C.,Keller, M., and Silva, J.N. (2005). Selective logging in the Brazilian Amazon. Science 310, 480–482.
Barber C.V., Mathews, E., Brown, D. et al. (2002). State of the Forest: Indonesia. World Resources Institute,Washington, DC.
Barnes R. (1990). Deforestation trends in tropical Africa.Journal of Ecology 28: 161–173.
Barens, B.U., D.R Zak. Denton and S.R. Spurr (1998), Forest ecology. John Wiley & Sons Inc., pp: 376.
Beentje, H.J. (1994), Kenya trees, shrubs and lianas, National Museum of Kenya, Nairobi.
Bhatt, V. and Purohit, V. K. (2009). Floristic structure and phytodiversity along an elevational gradient in Peepalkoti-Joshimath area of Garhwal Himalaya, India. Nature andScience, 7 (9) 63-74.
Bleher, B., Uster, D., Bergsdorf, T. (2006). Assessment of threat status and management effectiveness in Kakamega Forest, Kenya. Biodiversity and Conservation 15:1159-1177.
Bowles I.A., Rice R.E., Mittermeier R.A. and da Fonseca G.A.B. (1998). Logging and tropical forest conservation. Science 280: 1899–1900.
94
Bradshaw C. J. A., Sodhi N. S., Brook B. W. (2009). Tropical turmoil: a biodiversity tragedy in progress. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 79–87.
Brown, K.A. and Gurevitch, J. (2004). Long-termimpacts of logging on forest diversity in Madagascar. Proceedingsof the National Academy of Sciences of the UnitedStates of America101, 6045–6049.
Central Bureau of Statistics, (2002). Kenya 1999 Population and Housing Census. Ministry of Finance and Planning, The Population Report. Government Printer, Nairobi, Kenya
Corlett, R.T. (2005). Vegetation. In A. Gupta (ed.). The Physical Geography of Southeast Asia. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford, pp. 105–119.
Corlett R. T., Primack R. B. (2008). Tropical rainforest conservation: a global perspective. In Tropical forest community ecology (eds Carson W. P., Schnitzer S. A.). Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK.
Cox, G.W.(1996). Laboratory manual of general ecology, 7th edition. C Brown publishers Boston.
Curran, L.M., Trigg, S.N., McDonald, A.K. et al. (2004). Lowland forest loss in protected areas of Indonesian Borneo.Science 303, 1000–1003.
DeFries, R.S., Houghton, R.A., Hansen, M.C., Field, C.B., Skole, D., and Townshend, J. (2002). Carbon emissions from tropical deforestation and regrowth based on satellite observations for the 1980s and 1990s.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, United States of America 99, 14256–14261.
Dharani, N. (2002). Field guide to common trees & shrubs of East Africa, Struik Publishers,Cape Town, South Africa.
Draulans,D. andVanKrunkelsven, E. (2002). The impact of war on forest areas in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Oryx 36, 35–40.
Dufils, J.-M. (2003). Remaining forest cover. In S.M. Goodman and J.P. Benstead (eds),The NaturalHistory of Madagascar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 88–96.
Dunne J. A., Williams R. J., Martinez N. D.(2002). Network structure and biodiversity loss in food webs: robustness increases with connectance. Ecol. Lett. 5, 558–567.
95
Du Puy, D.J. and Moat, J. (2003). Using geological substrate to identify and map primary vegetation types in Madagascar and the implications forplanning biodiversity conservation. In S.M. Goodman and J.P. Benstead (eds), The Natural History ofMadagascar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 51–67.
Emerton L. (1994). Summary of the Current Value of use of Kakamega Forest. Kenya Indigenous Forest Conservation Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
FAO (2006). Global forest resources assessment 2005. Progress toward Sustainable Forest Management. Rome, Italy.
Fashing P. J, Forrestel A, Scully C & Cords M. (2003). Long-term tree population dynamics and their implications for the conservation of the Kakamega forest, Kenya. Biodiversity and Conservation 13: 753–771.
Fashing, P.J., Forrestel, A., Scully, C. & Cords, M. (2004). Long-term tree population dynamics and their implications for the conservation of the Kakamega Forest, Kenya, Biodiversity and Conservation 13: 753-771.
Fearnside, P.M. (2002). Avanca Brasil: environmental and social consequences of Brazil’s planned infrastructure in Amazonia. Environmental Management 30, 735–747.
Fearnside, P.M. (2005). Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: history, rates, and consequences.ConservationBiology 19, 680–688.
Gentry, A.H. (1988). Changes in plant communities diversity and floristic composition onenvironmental and geographical gradients, Ann. Missouri. Bot. Gard. 75 (1): 1-34
Goodman, S.M. and Benstead, J.P. (2003). The Natural History of Madagascar. University of Chicago Press,Chicago.
Government of Kenya (GoK), (2001). Kakamega district development plan 2002- 2008.Effective management for sustainable economic and poverty reduction. Kakamega District headquarters, Kakamega, Kenya.
Glastra, R., Wakker, E., and Richert, W. (2002). Oil Palm Plantations and Deforestation in Indonesia: What Role do Europe and Germany Play? WWF Schweiz, Zurich,Switzerland.
Glenday, J. (2006). Carbon storage and emissions offset potential in an east African tropical rainforest. Forest Ecology and Management 235:72-83.
96
Greenway, P.J., (1943). Second draft report on vegetation classification for approval of the vegetation committee, pasture resaerch conference. East African Agricultural ResearchStation. Amani.
Guthiga, P.M (2006). Economic Assessment of Different management Approaches of Kakamega forest: Cost-benefit and local community satisfaction analysis. Conference paper presented at the 8thAnnual BIOECON Conference, 29-30 August 2006, Cambridge UK.
Hamilton, A. (1991). A field guide to Ugandan forest trees, Institute of Environment andNatural Resources, Makere University, Kampala.
Haupt, M. (2000).Traditional use of and reliance on the forest among the Luhya people with special regard to the traditional medical system and the use of medicinal plants in Kakamega Forest, Western Kenya, Materialien zur Ostafrika- Forschung, Heft 24, GeographischeGesellschaft Trier, Jätzold, R. & Hornetz B. (eds.)
Hedberg, I. & Edwards. S.A. (eds.), (1989). Flora of Ethiopia, Vol. III, Pittosporaceae toAraliaceae, The National Herbarium of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Hilbert, D.W., Ostendorf, B. and Hopkins, M.S. (2001). Sensitivity of tropical forests to climate change in the humid tropics of north Queensland. Austral Ecology 26, 590–603.
Hitimana J, Kiyiapi J & Njunge J. (2004). Forest structure characteristics in disturbed and undisturbed sites of Mt Elgon moist lower montane forest, western Kenya. Forest Ecology Management 194: 269–291.
Hitimana J, MutisoF, Kiyiapi J & Sang F. (2006). Ecology, impact and potential control of Solanum mauritianum invasive species in Kenya. Pp 106–114 in Muchiri MN et al. (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd Kenya Forest Research Institute Scientific Conference. 6–9 November 2006, Muguga.
Ibanez, I. (2009). Estimating colonization potential of migrant tree species. Global change Biol, 15:1173-1188.
Ingram CJ, Whittaker RJ, Dawson PT,( 2005). Tree Structure and Diversity in Human-Impacted Littoral Forests. Journal of Environmental Management, 35: 779–798
Jepson, P., Jarvie, J.K., MacKinnon, K., and Monk, K.A. (2001). The end for Indonesia‘s lowland forests? Science 292, 859–861.
97
Kambona, O. O. (2005). Environmental Protection, Ecotourism and Rural Livelihoods. The Case of Kakamega Forest Region,Kenya. PhD Dissertation. University of Salzburg, Germany.
Keating, L. (2000). Chronically disturbed tropical alpine vegetation at a site in southern Ecuador, J., Torrey Bot., Soc 127:162-171.
KEFRI. (2010). Demostrating techniques of rehabilitating degraded natural forests in western Kenya. Research note, Kenya Forestry Research institute, Muguga, Kenya.
Kent, M. and Coker, P. (1992). Vegetation Description and Analysis. A practical approach. John Wiley and Sons, New York, Pp.363.
Kiama D & Kiyiapi J. (2001). Shade tolerance and regeneration of some tree species of a tropical rain forest in western Kenya. Plant Ecology 156: 183–191.
KIFCON, (1994). Kakamega Forest - The official guide, Kenya Indigenous ForestConservation Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
Knapp, R., (1973). Die Vegetation von Afrika, Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart.
Köhler, J. (2004). Biodiversity in conversion: The influence of fragmentation and disturbance on the biodiversity of East African highland rain forests, in: BIOTA East Africa, Final reportphase I: 2001 – 2004.
KNBS, (2010). Kenya 2009 Population and Housing Census, Ministry of Planning, National Development and Vision 2030. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, Nairobi, Kenya
Kokwaro, J.O. (1988). Conservation status of the Kakamega Forest in Kenya: The easternmost relic of the equatorial rain forests of Africa, Monographs in Systematic Botany from the Missouri Botanical Garden, 25: 471-489.
Kokwaro, J.O. (1994). Flowering plant families of East Africa - An Introduction to planttaxonomy, East African Educational Publishers, Nairobi.
Krebs, C.J. (1985). Ecology: The experimental analysis of distribution and abundance. Third edition. Harper & Row publishers, inc.,10 East 53d St.New York NY 10022. Pp. 436-461.
Kumar C. (2001). Community involvement in forest fire prevention and control: lessons from joint forest management (JFM), India. Intenational Forest Fire News 26: 28–31.
98
Laurance, W.F. & Bierregaard, R.O. (eds.) (1997). Tropical Forest Remnants: Ecology, Management, and Conservation of Fragmented Communities, University of Chicago Press, Chigaco, Illinois state, USA.
Laurance W.F. (1998). A crisis in the making: responses of Amazonian forests to land use and climate change. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13: 411–415.
Laurance W.F. (2001). Tropical logging and human invasions. Conserv. Biol. 15: 4–5.
Laurance W. F., Bierregaard, R.O. (eds.). (2002). Ecosystem decay of Amazonian forest fragments: a 22-year investigation. Conserve. Biol. 16, 605–618. Letouzey, R. (1986). Manual of Forest Botany, Tropical Africa (Vol.1, 2A, 2B), CentreTechnique Forestier Tropical, Nogent-Sur-Marne, France.
LeungYF & Marion JL. (1999). Assessing trail degradation in protected areas: application of a problem assessment method in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Environmental Conservation 26: 270–279. LeungYF& Marion JL. (2000). Recreation impacts and management in wilderness: a state of knowledge review. Pp 23–48 in Cole DN & McCool SF (eds) Proceedings of Conference on Wilderness Science in the Time of Change. 23–27 May 1999, Missazla. Lung, T. and Schaab G. (2004). Change-Detection in Western Kenya-The Documentation of Fragmentation and Disturbance for Kakamega Forest and Associated Forest Areas by Means of Remotely-Sensed Imagery. In: ISPRS Archives, Vol. XXXV, Part B (CD-ROM), Proceedings of the ISPRS XXth Congress, 12.-23. July 2004, Istanbul. Turkey. Lung. T. and Schaab, G.( 2006). Assessing fragmentation and disturbance of west Kenyan rainforests by means of remotely sensed time series data and landscape metrics. Afr J Ecology 44:491-506.
Lung T & Schaab G. (2008). Land cover change for Mabira forest and Budongo forest in Uganda—results of processing Landsat satellite imagery time series, 1972 to 2003. In Karlsruher Geowissenschaftliche Schriften. University of Applied Sciences, Karlsruhe.
LungT& SchaabG. (2010). A comparative assessment of land cover dynamics of three protected forest areas in tropical eastern Africa.Environmental Monitorting and Assessment 161: 531–548.
McDonald, G. and Lane, M. (2002). Securing the Wet Tropics? Federation Press, Leichhardt, NSW.
99
Mackinnon, K. (2005). Parks, people, and policies: conflicting agendas for forests in Southeast Asia. In E. Bermingham, C.W. Dick, and C. Moritz (eds), Tropical Rainforest: Past, Present & Future. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 558–582.
Mars Group Kenya, (2010). Kenya 2009 population data-population distribution by sex, number of households, area density and district. Nairobi, Kenya.
Mast, R.B., Mahecha, J.V.R., Mittermeier, R.A., Hemphill, A.H., and Mittermeier, C.G. (1999). Choco-Darien- Western Ecuador. In R.A. Mittermeier, N. Miers, P.R. Gil, and C.G. Mittermeier (eds), Hotspots: Earth’sBiologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions. Mittermeier, C.G.CEMEX, Mexico City,Mexico, pp. 122–131.
Meynecke, J.O. (2004). Effects of global climate change on geographic distributions of vertebrates in North Queensland. Ecological Modelling174, 347– 357.
Miao G. (2008). Modeling of carbon dynamics in an African rainforest: a case study with Coupmodel in Kakamega forest, Kenya. MSc thesis, Land and KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
Minnemeyer, S. (2002). An Analysis of Access into Central Africa’s Rainforests. World Resources Institute,Washington, DC.
Mishra, R. (1968). Ecology Work Book. Oxford and IBH Publications, Co. New Delhi.
Mitchell, N. (2004). The exploitation and disturbance history of Kakamega Forest,Western Kenya, BIOTA East Report No. 1, Bielefelder Ökologische Beiträge, Band 20, Bleher, B. & Dalitz, H. (eds.). Mligo, C. (2011). Anthropogenic disturbance on the vegetation in Makurunge woodland, Bagamoyo district, Tanzania.Tanz. J. Sci. Vol. 37, 95-108.
Mogaka, H., Simons, G., Turpie, J., Emerton, L. and Karanja, F.(2001). Economic Aspects of Community Involvement in Sustainable Forest Management in Eastern and Southern Africa. IUCN Policy Brief, 2001. Momanyi G. (2007). The role of rural poverty in deforestation of Kakamega forest, Kenya. Journal of Discovery and Innovations 19: 302–311. Mueller-Dombois, D. & Ellenberg, H. (1974). Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology, Wiley & Sons, New York.
100
Mulumba, Lukman. N,(2006). Land Use Effects on Soil Quality and Productivity in the Lake Victoria Basin of Uganda, Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Ohio State University, USA. Mutangah J.G., Mwangangi O. and Mwaura P.K. (1992). Kakamega: A Vegetation Survey Report. Kenya Indigenous Forest Conservation Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
Mutangah J.G. (1996). An Investigation of Vegetation Status and Process in Relation to Human Disturbance in Kakamega Forest, Western Kenya, Ph.D. thesis, University of WalesAberystwyth, UK.
Mutiso F. (2009). Applicability of selected sampling designs to forest health assessment: the case of Kakamega moist tropical and Mt Elgon montane forests. Unpulished MPhil thesis, Moi University, Eldoret, Kenya. Mutiso F, Mugo M & Cheboiwo J. (2011). Post-disturbance tree species regeneration and successional pathways in Blakett and Kedowa forest blocks, Mau ecosystem. Research Journal of Environmental and Earth Sciences 3: 745– 753. Myers N, (1994). The primary source: Tropical Forest and our future. New York, USA. Myers N, (1988). Threatened Biotas: Hotspots in Tropical Forest. New York, USA. Nagendra, H. (2002). Opposite trends in response for the Shannon and Simpson indices of landscape diversity. AppliedGeography 22, 175–186. Nambiro E, (2000). Socio-economic baseline survey of households around Kakamega forest ( unpublished report, ICIPE library,Nairobi, Kenya). Odum, E.P & Barret, G.W. (2005). Fundamentals of ecology. 5th edition. Brooks/cole, a division of Thomson learning Asia, 5 Shenton way#01.01 UIC building, Singapore 068808. Ouma, K, Stadel C & Eslamian S. (2011). Perceptions of tourists on trail use and management implications for Kakamega forest, western Kenya.Journal of Geography and Regional Planning 4: 243–250. Oyugi J.O. (1996). Kakamega Forest is dying. East Afr. Nat. Hist. Soc. Bull. 26: 47–49. Oyugi OJ, Brown SJ, Whelan JC,( 2007). Effects of Human Disturbance on Composition and Structure of Brachystegia Woodland in Arabuko-Sokoke Forest. African Journal of Ecology, 46: 374–383.
101
Peters MK, Fischer G, SchaabG & Draemer M. (2009). Species compensation maintains abundance and raid rates of African swarm-raiding army ants in rainforest fragments. Biological Conservation 142: 668–675. Primack, R.B. and Corlett, R.T. (2005). Tropical Rain Forests: An Ecological and Biogeographical Comparison. Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Rice R.E., Gullison R.E. and Reid J.W. (1997). Can sustainable management save tropical forests? Sci. Am. 276: 44–49.
Ricklefs, R.E. & Miller, G.L. (2000). Ecology. – W.H. Freeman & Company, New York. www.intechopen.com. Tropical Forests 214.
Robinson J.G., Redford K.H. and Bennett E.L. (1999). Wildlife harvest in logged tropical forest. Science 284: 595–596.
Robyns W. (1960-63). Flore du Congo Belge et du Ruanda-Burundi, Spermatophytes Vol. VIII-X, Publications de l`Institut Nationale pour l`Etude Agronomique due Congo Belge (I. N. E. A.C.), Bruxelles
Rowell, T. (1982). Kakamega Forest, Swara, East African Wild Life Society, Nairobi, Vol. 5:8-9
Sala O. E., Stuart F C, Armesto J.J,Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R . (2000). Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287, 1770–1774.
Schleuning. M et al. (2011). Forest fragmentation and selective logging have inconsistent effects on multiple animal-mediated ecosystem processes in a tropical forest. PLOS ONE 6 doi: 10.1371/journahpone. 0027785.
Seyani, J.H. (1991). Dombeya in Africa, Opera Botanica Belgica, Vol. II, National Botanical Garden of Belgium, Meise.
Shannon, C.E. & Wiener, W. (1963). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Sharp A.F.G, (1993). Kakamega forest rural development report. Nairobi. KIFCON and natural resources institute.
Slade E. M., Mann D. J., Villanueva J. F., Lewis O. T.(2007). Experimental evidence for the effects of dung beetle functional group richness and composition on ecosystem function in a tropical forest. J. Anim. Ecol. 76, 1094–1104.
Soper k, (1995). What is nature? Culture, politics and the non-human. Oxford; Blackwell.
102
Struhsaker T.T. (1997). Ecology of an African Rain Forest: Logging in Kibale and the Conflict Between Conservation and Exploitation. University of Florida Press,Gainesville, Florida. Stork, N.E. (2005). The theory and practice of planning for long-term conservation of biodiversity in the Wet Tropics rainforests of Australia. In E. Bermingham, C.W. Dick, and C. Moritz (eds), TropicalRainforest: Erica Schwarz CARSON: “carson_c026” — 2008/3/12 — 15:51 — page 457 — #16 Past, Present and Future. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 507–526.
Swamy, s., Dutt. C., Murthy, M., Mishra, A., Bargali S., (2010). Floristics and dry matter dynamics of tropical wet evergreen forest of western. Ghat, India, current science 99 (3): 353-364.
Tabarelli, M., Pinto, L.P., Silva, J.M.C., Hirota, M., and Bedê, L. (2005). Challenges and opportunities for biodiversity conservation in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest.Conservation Biology 19, 695–700.
Taylor, A., Chen, H., (2010). Multiple successional pathway of boreal forest stands in central Canada, Ecography 000:000_000,2010
Troupin, G. (1982). Flore des plantes ligneuses du Rwanda, Insitut National de Recherche Scientifique, Butare.
Troupin, G. (1983), Flore du Rwanda, Spermatophytes, Vol II, Annales du Musée deTervuren no. 9
Tsingalia MH, (2009). Habitat distribution severity and patterns of abundance in Kakamega forest, western Kenya: Afro.J Ecol. 28: 213-226.
Tsingalia MH, Kassily F N (2009). Origins of Kakamega Forest Grassland: A Critical Review. J Hum Ecol, 27(2): 129-135.
TsingaliaM & Kassilly N. (2010). Factors influencing succession of Kakamega forest grasslands. Journal of Human Ecology 30: 27–33.
Turrill, W.B., Polhill, R. & Beentje, H., (1952 ff.). Flora of Tropical East Africa (FTEA), prepared at the Royal Botanic Gardens/Kew with assistance from the East African Herbarium.
United Nations Population Division (2001). World Population Prospects: The 2000 Revision: Highlights. UnitedNations, NewYork.
Van Schaik C.P., Terborgh J. and Dugelby D. (1997). The silent crisis: the state of the rainforest nature reserves. In: Kramer R., van Schaik C.P. and Johnson J. (eds), The Last Stand: ProtectedAreas and the Defense of Tropical Biodiversity. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 64–89.
103
Wass, P. (1995). Kenya’s Indigenous Forests: Status, Management and Conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Wilkie D.S., Sidle J.G. and Boundzanga G.C. (1992). Mechanized logging, market hunting, and a bank loan in Congo. Conserv. Biol. 6: 570–580.
Whitmore T.C. (1997). Tropical forest disturbance, disappearance and species loss. In: Laurence W.L. and Bieregaard R.O.Jr. (eds), Tropical Forest Remnants: Ecology, Management, and Conservation of Fragmented Communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 3–12.
Wright S. J. (2005). Tropical forests in a changing environment. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 553–560.
Yoder, A.D., Olson, L.E., Hanley, C. et al. (2005). A multidimensional approach for detecting species patterns in Malagasy vertebrates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102,6587–6594.
Zhang, Q., Devers, D., Desch, A., Justice, C.O., and Townshend, J. (2005). Mapping tropical deforestation in Central Africa. Ecological Monitoring and Assessment 101, 69–83
104
5.0 APPENDICES Appendix 5.1: Field questionnaire given to people to tell about the uses of plants collected from Kakamega forest.
ANALYSIS INTERACTION BETWEEN KAKAMEGA FOREST, LOCAL POPULATION AND COMMERCIAL TRADERS.
The following questions concerns products that are obtained from the forest and their uses
1. General information a) Name: b) Age: c) Sex: d) Tribe/subtribe: e) Education/profession: 2. Are the plants found in kakamega forest of any importance to the local community and commercial traders? Why? 3. Are there restricted sites in the forest? Why? 4. Plants used for construction a) What kind of trees do you know that provide timber, poles and post obtained from the forest? b) What kind of trees is mostly collected to provide timber, poles and posts? c) How are the trees harvested from the forest to get these products? 5. Medicinal plants a) What kind of medicinal plants do you know that are obtained from the forest? b) How is the plant or its part(s) extracted for medicinal use? 6. Fire wood and charcoal a) What kind of plants do you know that are collected from the forest for firewood? b) What kinds of trees are mostly used in making charcoal from the forest? 7. Edible fruits a) What kind of plants do you know that provide edible fruit from the forest? b) How are the fruits harvested? 8. Do you know of any plant species that provide product that is extracted from the forest 9. Do you know of any plant species that was useful in the past that cannot be used anymore because they became extinct or are rare today?