B.Sc. Final Project Report (Md. Nazmul Haque, Roll-1295)

NATURAL FOREST AND AGROFOREST: A COMPARATIVE STUDY IN

MADHUPUR SAL FOREST, BANGLADESH

A Dissertation Submitted to the Department of Environmental Sciences,

Jahangirnagar University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

of BACHELOR OF SCIENCE (B.Sc.) IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Course No. Env.470

SUBMITTED BY

Exam. Roll: Env. 020807

Reg. No: 17756

Session: 2001‐2002

Department of Environmental Sciences

Jahangirnagar University

Savar, Dhaka‐1342

May, 2007

DEDICATED

TO

MY BELOVED

PARENTS

i

ABSTRACT

The present study was conducted with comparative study between natural forest (NF)

and agroforest (AF) in Madhupur Sal forest of Bangladesh from July, 2006 to February,

2007. The maximum and the minimum soil pH of NF were 5.5 and 4.6 respectively and

the maximum and the minimum soil pH of AF were 7.1 and 4.4 respectively in August,

2006. Again the maximum and the minimum soil pH of NF were 4.9 and 4.0 respectively

and the maximum and the minimum soil pH of AF were 6.5 and 4.2 respectively in

February, 2007. The maximum and the minimum iron (Fe) content of NF were 465.08 ppm

and 160.08 ppm respectively and the maximum and the minimum iron content of AF were

579.36 ppm and 138.49 ppm respectively in August, 2006. Again, the maximum and the

minimum iron content (Fe) of NF were 419.23 ppm and 102.84 ppm respectively and the

maximum and the minimum iron content of AF were 256.41 ppm and 30.41 ppm

respectively in February, 2007. The maximum and the minimum soil organic matter of NF

were 2.75% and 0.91% respectively and the maximum and the minimum soil organic

matter of AF were 2.72% and 0.87% respectively in August, 2006. Again, the maximum and

the minimum soil organic matter of NF were 2.70% and 0.91% respectively and the

maximum and the minimum soil organic matter of AF were 2.72% and 0.72% respectively

in February, 2007. A total of 23 species of herbs were observed in NF and 5 species of

herbs were observed in AF. A total of 8 species of shrubs were observed in NF and 3

species of shrubs were observed in AF. A total of 53 species of trees were observed s in

NF and 7 species of trees were observed in AF. A total of 8 species of climbers were

observed in NF and 3 species of climbers were observed in AF. A total of 5 species of

amphibians were observed in NF and 3 species of amphibians were observed in AF. A

total of 6 species of reptiles were observed in NF and 3 species of reptiles were observed

in AF. A total of 58 species of birds were observed in NF and 21 species of birds were

observed in AF. A total of 10 species of mammals were observed in NF and 4 species of

mammals were observed in AF.

ii

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ADB Asian Development Bank AF Agroforest BFIDC Bangladesh Forest Industries Development Corporation BFRI Bangladesh Forest Research Institute CBD Convention on Biological Diversity FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FD Forest Department NF Natural forest NGOs Non‐Governmental Organizations MoE Ministry of Environment TANDP Thana Afforestation and Nursery Development Project

iii

CONTENTS

Dedication ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. i

Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ii

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ……………………………………………………………….. iii

Contents …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. iv‐vii

List of Tables …………………………………………………………………………………………………… viii

List of Figures …………………………………………………………………………………………………. viii‐xi

List of Maps ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. xi

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

1‐5

1.1 General …………………………………………………………………………………….. 1

1.2 Aims and Objectives …………………………………………………………………. 5

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

6‐10

2.1 Literature Review ……………………………………………………………………… 6

CHAPTER THREE STUDY AREA

11‐19

3.1 General …………………………………………………………………………………….. 11

3.2 Madhupur Sal Forest ………………………………………………………………… 12

3.2.1 Geographical and Ecological conditions ……………………………………. 12

3.2.2 Topographical conditions ………………………………………………………….. 13

3.3 Climate ……………………………………………………………………………………… 17

3.4 Meteorological Data …………………………………………………………………. 18

3.5 Description of Different Sites ……………………………………………………. 18

iv

3.5.1 Natural Forest (NF) ……………………………………………………………………. 18

3.5.2 Agro‐forest (AF) ………………………………………………………………………… 19

CHAPTER FOUR MATERIALS AND METHODS

20‐25

4.1 Materials Used For Soil Collection …………………………………………….. 20

4.2 Methods Used For Soil Analysis ………………………………………………… 20

4.2.1 Collection of the Soil Sample …………………………………………………….. 20

4.2.2 Laboratory Work ………………………………………………………………………. 20

4.2.2.1 Soil pH ………………………………………………………………………………………. 21

4.2.2.2 Soil Iron (Fe) ……………………………………………………………………………… 21

4.2.2.3 Soil Organic Carbon ………………………………………………………………….. 21

4.2.2.4 Soil Organic Matter ………………………………………………………………….. 23

4.3 Materials Used For Observation of Flora and Fauna …………………. 23

4.4 Methods Used For Observation of Flora and Fauna ………………….. 23

4.4.1 Strip Transect Method ………………………………………………………………. 23

4.4.2 Quadrat Method ………………………………………………………………………. 24

4.4.3 Dropping/Calls/Songs ……………………………………………………………….. 24

4.4.4 Collection and Identification …………………………………………………….. 24

4.4.5 Local Information ……………………………………………………………………… 24

4.4.6 Identification of Birds ……………………………………………………………….. 24

4.4.7 Identification of Reptiles and Mammals ……………………………………. 25

4.5 Software …………………………………………………………………………………… 25

v

CHAPTER FIVE RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 26‐67

5.1 Results ………………………………………………………………………………………. 26

5.1.1 Soil Analysis Results ……………………………………………………………….... 26

5.1.1.1 Soil pH ………………………………………………………………………………………. 26

5.1.1.2 Soil Iron (Fe) ……………………………………………………………………………… 27

5.1.1.3 Soil Organic Matter …………………………………………………………………… 28

5.1.2 Flora Results ……………………………………………………………………………… 29

5.1.2.1 Herbs ………………………………………………………………………………………… 29

5.1.2.2 Shrubs ………………………………………………………………………………………. 31

5.1.2.3 Trees ………………………………………………………………………………………… 33

5.1.2.4 Climbers ……………………………………………………………………………………. 36

5.1.3 Fauna Results ……………………………………………………………………………. 47

5.1.3.1 Amphibians ………………………………………………………………………………. 47

5.1.3.2 Reptiles …………………………………………………………………………………….. 48

5.1.3.3 Birds …………………………………………………………………………………………. 50

5.1.3.4 Mammals ………………………………………………………………………………….. 54

5.2 Discussion …………………………………………………………………………………. 63

CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

68‐69

6.1 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………… 68

6.2 Recommendations ……………………………………………………………………. 68

6.3 Limitations ……………………………………………………………………………….. 69

REFERENCES

70‐73

vi

APPENDICES 74‐78

Appendix I The maximum (Max.) and minimum (Min.) temperature

(Temp.) of the study area from July 2006 to February 2007 …..

74

Appendix II Total rainfall of the study area from July 2006 to February

2007 ………………………………………………………………………………………

74

Appendix III The maximum (Max.) and minimum (Min.) relative humidity (R.H.) of the study area from July 2006 to February 2007 ………

74

Appendix IV Soil pH of NF and AF in August, 2006 ……………………………………….. 75

Appendix V Soil pH of NF and AF in February, 2007 …………………………………….. 75

Appendix VI Soil iron (Fe) content of NF and AF in August, 2006 ………………….. 75

Appendix VII Soil iron (Fe) content of NF and AF in February, 2007 ……………….. 76

Appendix VIII Soil organic matter of NF and AF in August, 2006 …………………….. 76

Appendix IX Soil organic matter of NF and AF in February, 2007 …………………. 76

Appendix X List of plants which provide food for capped langurs and monkeys ………………………………………………………………………………..

77

Appendix XI List of common plants which food and nesting sites for birds … 77

Appendix XII: List of medicinal plants which found in Madhupur Sal forest …. 77

vii

List of Tables

Table No. Table Names Page No.

Table 5.1 List of herbs identified in NF with their status 29

Table 5.2 List of herbs identified in AF with their status 30

Table 5.3 List of shrubs identified in NF with their status 31

Table 5.4 List of shrubs identified in AF with their status 32

Table 5.5 List of trees identified in NF with their status 33

Table 5.6 List of trees identified in AF with their status 35

Table 5.7 List of climbers identified in NF with their status 36

Table 5.8 List of climbers identified in AF with their status 37

Table 5.9 List of amphibians identified in NF with their status 47

Table 5.10 List of amphibians identified in AF with their status 47

Table 5.11 List of reptiles identified in NF with their status 48

Table 5.12 List of reptiles identified in AF with their status 49

Table 5.13 List of birds identified in NF with their status 50

Table 5.14 List of birds identified in AF with their status 52

Table 5.15 List of mammal identified in NF with their status 54

Table 5.16 List of mammals identified in AF with their status 54

List of Figures

Figure

No.

Figure Names Page

No.

Fig. 3.1 The maximum (Max.) and minimum (Min.) temperature (Temp.) of

the study area from July 2006 to February 2007

17

Fig. 3.2 Total rainfall of the study area from July 2006 to February 2007 17

Fig. 3.3 The maximum (Max.) and minimum (Min.) relative humidity (R.H.) 18

viii

of the study area from July 2006 to February 2007

Fig. 5.1 Soil pH of NF and AF in August, 2006 26

Fig. 5.2 Soil pH of NF and AF in February, 2007 27

Fig. 5.3 Soil iron content (ppm) of NF and AF in August, 2006 27

Fig. 5.4 Soil iron content (ppm) of NF and AF in February, 2007 28

Fig. 5.5 Soil organic matter of NF and AF in August, 2006 28

Fig. 5.6 Soil organic matter of NF and AF in February, 2007 29

Fig. 5.7 No. of different species of herbs observed in NF and AF 31

Fig. 5.8 No. of different species of shrubs observed in NF and AF 33

Fig. 5.9 No. of different species of trees observed in NF and AF 36

Fig. 5.10 No. of different species of climbers observed in NF and AF 37

Fig. 5.11 Total no. of different species of flora observed in NF and AF 38

Fig. 5.12 Tangail‐Mymensingh road beside the natural forest 39

Fig. 5.13 View of natural forest 39

Fig. 5.14 Tree has been cut from the natural forest 39

Fig. 5.15 View of agro‐forest 40

Fig. 5.16 View of agro‐forest after crop plantation 40

Fig. 5.17 Encroachment in agro‐forest after crop harvest 40

Fig. 5.18 Ban ghagra (Urena lobata) 41

Fig. 5.19 Lajjabati (Mimosa pudica) 41

Fig. 5.20 Bhant (Clerodendrum viscosum) 41

Fig. 5.21 Satthi (Curcuma zeoderia) 41

Fig. 5.22 Anarash (Ananas comosus) 42

Fig. 5.23 Chotto Kalkesunde (Cassia obtusifolia) 42

Fig. 5.24 Ban tezpata (Melastoma malabathricum) 42

Fig. 5.25 Kurchi (Holarrhena antidysenterica) 42

Fig. 5.26 Amrah (Spondias pinnata) 43

Fig. 5.27 Segun (Tectona grandis) 43

Fig. 5.28 Bohera (Terminalia belerica) 43

Fig. 5.29 Chalta (Dellenia indica) 43

Fig. 5.30 Shal (Shorea robusta) 44

ix

Fig. 5.31 Bot (Ficus bengalensis) 44

Fig. 5.32 Sinduri (Mallotus phillippensis) 44

Fig. 5.33 Pia (Toona ciliata) 44

Fig. 5.34: Pepey (Carica papaya) 45

Fig. 5.35 Akashmoni (Acacia auriculiformis) 45

Fig. 5.36 Bash (Bambusa spp.) 45

Fig. 5.37 Bara Kalkesunda (Cassia siamea) 45

Fig. 5.38 Assam lata (Mikania scandens) 46

Fig. 5.39 Bet (Calamus rotung) 46

Fig. 5.40 Kanchan (Bauhinia acuminata) 46

Fig. 5.41 Amal lata (Vitis trifolia) 46

Fig. 5.42 No. of different species of amphibians observed in NF and AF 48

Fig. 5.43 No. of different species of reptiles observed in NF and AF 49

Fig. 5.44 No. of different species of birds observed in NF and AF 53

Fig. 5.45 No. of different species of mammals observed in NF and AF 55

Fig. 5.46 Total no. of different species of fauna observed in NF and AF 55

Fig.5.47 Indian bull frog (Rana tigrina) 56

Fig. 5.48 Bengal monitor lizard (Varanus bengalensis) 56

Fig. 5.49 Common bronze‐back tree snake (Dendrelaphis tristis) 56

Fig. 5.50 Black headed oriole (Oriolus xanthornus) 57

Fig. 5.51 Chestnut‐tailed starling (Sturnus malabaricus) 57

Fig. 5.52 Crested serpent eagle (Spilornis cheela) 57

Fig. 5.53 Dark‐sided flycatcher (Muscicapa sibirica) 58

Fig. 5.54 Grey‐crowned pygmy wood‐pecker (Dendrocopos canicapillus) 58

Fig. 5.55 Lesser golden‐backed wood‐pecker (Dinopium bengalensis) 58

Fig. 5.56 Large cuckoo shrike (Coracina macei) 59

Fig. 5.57 Spangled drongo (Dicrurus hottentottus) 59

Fig. 5.58 Coppersmith barbet (Megalaima haemacephala) 59

Fig. 5.59 Lineated barbet (Megalaima lineata) 60

Fig. 5.60 Small minivet (Pericrocotus cinnamomeus) 60

Fig. 5.61 Brain‐fever bird (Cuculus varius) 60

x

Fig. 5.62 Emarald dove (Chalcophaps indica) 61

Fig. 5.63 Spotted dove (Streptopelia chinensis) 61

Fig. 5.64 A pair of Common Mayna (Acridotheres tristis) 61

Fig. 5.65 Capped langur (Trachypithecus pileatus) 62

Fig. 5.66 Hoary‐bellied Himalayan squirrel (Callosciurus pygerythrus) 62

Fig. 5.67 Leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis) 62

Fig. 5.68 Species status of herbs in NF (a) and AF (b) 65

Fig. 5.69 Species status of shrubs in NF (a) and AF (b) 65

Fig. 5.70 Species status of trees in NF (a) and AF (b) 65

Fig. 5.71 Species status of climbers in NF (a) and AF (b) 65

Fig. 5.72 Species status of amphibians in NF (a) and AF (b) 67

Fig. 5.73 Species status of reptiles in NF (a) and AF (b) 67

Fig. 5.74 Species status of birds in NF (a) and AF (b) 67

Fig. 5.75 Species status of mammals in NF (a) and AF (b) 67

List of Maps

Map No. Map Names Page No.

Map 3.1 Map of Bangladesh showing Madhupur National Park 14

Map 3.2 Map of Tangail district showing Madhupur National Park. 15

Map 3.3 Map of Madhupur National Park showing natural forest (NF)

and agro‐forest (AF)

16

xi

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

The forest is an important natural resource that plays several important roles in nature.

It is a storehouse of biological diversity. It is generally recognized that a minimum of 25

to 33 percent of the land in any country should be covered by forest in order to maintain

a balanced ecosystem. The forested areas, however, are decreasing day by day all over

the world as a result of human activities. Asia is losing almost 1% of tropical forest per

year. In Asia, some 67% of wildlife habitat has been converted to other uses (McNeely.

1991).

In Bangladesh the total area of forest land is 2.53 million hectares representing about

17.5% of the country’s area. Bangladesh Forest Department manages 1.53 million

hectares of forest land. Ministry of Environment and Forest and its associated agencies

like Forest Department (FD), Bangladesh Forest Industries Development Corporation

(BFIDC) and Bangladesh Forest Research Institute (BFRI) are mainly assigned with

responsibilities for development of forestry sector of Bangladesh. Forest Department is

the main agency responsible for forest resources conservation, management and

development. Bangladesh is one of the first signatories of the Convention on Biological

Diversity (CBD) and has thus committed itself to conserving natural and biological

resources.

In the past few decades over 100,000 hectares of high forests has been converted into

plantations. A total of 12, 58, 022 hectares area of plantations is accomplished during

the plantation years of 1981‐1987 by forest department (Reza et al. 1992).

Bangladesh being a tropical country containing 120,000 hectares of inland moist

deciduous Sal (Shorea robusta) forests, which is 0.81% of the country and is distributed

in the districts of Dhaka, Tangail, Mymensingh, Dinajpur, Rangpur (White and Ali. 1979,

Reza et al. 1992). The tropical moist deciduous forest of Bangladesh is commonly known

as 'Sal Forests'. Many people nearby Sal forest area are realizing that they are not

getting timber, fuelwood, and other forest product as they got before. Besides, the

growing stock of the existing Sal forests and its associates are declining day by day. So

1

they have started plantation like wood lot plantation and agroforestry practice in their

own land and the government land (which were occupied by forest before) through

participatory approach with Forest Department with financial assistance from the Asian

Development Bank (ADB) and Thana Afforestation and Nursery Development Project

(TANDP) in November 1989 (PROSHIKA. 1995). According to the report of Forestry

Master Plan completed in 1993 the Sal forest in Tangail district has shrunk to 1000

hectares in 1990 from 20,000 hectares in 1970.

Agroforestry is the combination of agricultural and forestry technologies to create

integrated, diverse and productive land use systems (Garrett et al. 2000). Agroforestry

reduces the dependence of farmers on forest for the purpose of firewood, fodder,

timber and other products. It increases the income of the farmers.

The World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) made this definition in 1993: “Agroforestry is a

collective name for land use systems and practices in which woody perennials are

deliberately integrated with crops and/or animals on the same land management unit.

The integration can be either in a spatial mixture or in a temporal sequence. There are

normally both ecological and economic interactions between woody and non‐woody

components in Agroforestry”.

Agroforestry is aimed at producing timber. In such plantations, trees are planted on

private or public forest land. When the trees mature on public forest land under

agroforestry the benefits are distributed between the government and the participants.

The Forest Department (FD) is practicing agroforestry in the Sal forest for decades

together on a participatory approach to replant the barren forest land with financial

assistance from the Asian Development Bank (ADB). It has been observed that,

agroforestry practice is very much profitable land use but it destroys fertility of the land

very rapidly. If the nutrient uptake by the planted exotic species and the growth rate are

relatively higher than the native species specially the undergrowth, then they can

negatively affect the growth of the latter ones.

2

It is true that there is no alternative which can stop the world wide loss of natural

forests. However, reforestation is one of the efforts which can minimize the human

demand and thus decrease the pressure on natural forests. At present, tree plantation

has become a world wide social movement but the reforestation efforts that are taking

place are usually of monoculture plantations grown for single purpose.

Natural forests throughout the country are increasingly being depleted. Various types of

development activity, such as dikes, highway, road construction, and other

infrastructure development have further intensified deforestation, and destruction of

natural forests in Bangladesh.

The reduction of Sal forest is occurring through over‐exploitation, deforestation,

excessive leaf‐litter collection, encroachment, indiscriminate collection of specific

economically important plant species (i.e. medicinal, fodder etc), and other form of

human interference. On social point of view, Sal forest is one of the main forested areas

in Bangladesh where a cross section of tribal people has been dwelling and they are

dependent on Sal forests for their total livelihood. Commercial fuel‐wood plantation

through agroforestry is also responsible for the degradation of traditional Sal forests.

Under a project, funded by the Asian Development Bank, the degraded and un‐

encroached government Sal forest areas in Madhupur were brought under woodlot

plantation. But this has caused humanitarian as well as ecological harm to the forest. In

addition, it has cleaned out coppices of Sal trees and other indigenous species of plants.

This has destroyed the possibility of the regeneration of the natural forests in many

places. The forest has been exhausted to such an extent that it has lost the main

features of the original Sal forest. With the disappearance of the natural forest most of

the wild animal life in the Sal forest has also vanished rapidly.

Natural forest is most important natural habitat for wild life. Forest is composed of a

large flora and fauna. It maintains ecological balance and biological diversity. Forest

provides food, fuel, fodder, fiber, shelter and timber to man. Forests control air pollution

to a great extent. Green plants of the forests are primary producers of the food chain. It

supports industrial and commercial activities. It conserves water and soil moisture.

3

Forests play a significant role in keeping the balance of atmospheric gases by consuming

CO2 and releasing O2. Oxygen is essential for all living organisms. It maintains soil

fertility, regulates earth’s temperature and checks soil erosion.

"Ecosystem" is the term used for the sum total of vegetation, animals, and physical

environment in whatever size segment of the world is chosen for study (Fosberg. 1967).

Ecosystems are interacting complexes of living organisms (plants, fungi, bacteria,

animals) and the physical environment (soil, air, water, bedrock) immediately affecting

them

Biological diversity or biodiversity refers to the richness of life forms in our environment,

including different species of plants, animals and micro‐organisms, along with the genes

they contain, and the ecosystems they form.

“Biological Diversity” means the variability among living organisms from all sources

including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems, and the ecological

complexes of which they are part; it includes diversity within species between species,

and of ecosystems (Article II, CBD. 1992).

Biological diversity or biodiversity refers to the variability among the living organisms;

plants, animals and microbes from all sources including terrestrial and aquatic

ecosystems and ecological complexes of which they are part (Shukla et al. 2000).

By this comparative study between natural forest (NF) and agro‐forest (AF), an ample

possibility may generate for the reforestation of denuded natural forest and enrichment

of the species diversity of Madhupur Sal forest.

4

1.2 Aims and Objectives

The present study has the following objectives ‐

1. Identify and register the floral species of natural forest (NF) and agro‐forest (AF).

2. Identify and register the faunal species of natural forest (NF) and agro‐forest (AF).

3. Study the chemical properties of the soil (i.e. soil pH, soil organic matter and soil

iron content) of natural forest (NF) and agro‐forest (AF).

4. Find the effects of natural forest degradation.

5. Find the effects of agro‐forestry on biodiversity.

6. Compare the species diversity of natural forest (NF) and agro‐forest (AF).

5

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Literature Review

Rahman (2004) studied on some important physical parameters of soils of six major Sal

forests of Bangladesh. He observed soil colors, particle sizes, soil textural classes and

maximum water holding capacity in different depths and in different ecological habitats.

He found that soil texture, soil color and maximum water holding capacity were

different in different Sal forest sites.

Uddin et al. (2006) studied the role of participatory agroforestry on community

development in Sal forest area, Bangladesh. They found that, agroforestry was proved to

be a profitable land use. They also found that the socio‐economic status and overall

living standard of the farmers were improved radically after taking part in the

participatory approach and the physio‐climatic structure of the region was also changed

in a positive path.

Kumar (2006) studied the potentiality of agro‐forestry to arrest land degradation in Asia.

He found that agro‐forestry improve site productivity through interactions among trees,

soil, crops and livestock and thus restore part, if not all, of the degraded lands. He also

found that despite of advantages, agro‐forestry as a land use option has not attracted

much attention from the planners and extension community.

Nath et al. (2005) studied the effects of small‐scale agroforestry on upland community

development in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh. The study clarified the merits and

demerits of different agroforestry systems as perceived by farmers, their impacts on the

rural economy and the environment, farmers' attitudes toward the adoption of

agroforestry and impacts of various government policies. They found that the

agroforestry interventions have in fact increased farmers' income through employment

and the selling of farm products, as well as by improving the ecological conditions of

these areas through reduction of soil erosion, increasing tree coverage, and maintaining

soil fertility.

6

Muhammed et al. (2005) studied the policy and plan versus implementation of forest

management in Bangladesh. Due to various socio‐economic and socio‐political factors,

forest cover of the country reduced drastically and all such policy initiatives proved

ineffective. They found that while traditional forest management resulted in a net loss of

forest resource cover, social forestry on the other hand, is playing a vital role in the

expansion of forest cover benefiting thousands of poor people.

Laakso et al. (2006) studied the Non‐wood Forest Benefits and Agroforestry Practices in

the Fouta Djallon Highlands of Guinea. They examined the benefits a rural family gets

from forests and trees in their everyday life, how significant those benefits are for their

livelihood, and what people think about some agroforestry practices. They found that

the benefits offered by forests are both indirect and direct. Wood used for cooking

remains the most important livelihood product from forests. Many non‐wood forest

products, like medicinal and food plants, are important to the villagers. The forest land

and the use of leaves as fertilizers are also essential for agriculture and cattle husbandry.

The most explicit value is that from fruits that can be sold for a profit. Other benefits of

trees, such as providing shade and windbreaks, are also highly valued. The agroforestry

practices studied were not well known in the study villages.

McNeely (2004) studied the management of relationships between forests, agroforestry

and wild biodiversity. Biodiversity is a forest value that does not carry a market price. It

is the foundation, however, upon which productive systems depend. He found that, the

relationship between agroforestry and the wild biodiversity contained in more natural

forests is a complicated one, depending on the composition of the agroforestry system

itself and the way it is managed. Complex forest gardens are more supportive of

biodiversity than monocrop systems, shade coffee more than sun coffee, and systems

using native plants tend to be more biologically diverse. Nonnative plants, especially

potentially invasive alien species, threaten biodiversity and need to be avoided. The

relationship between forests, agroforestry and wild biodiversity can be made most

productive through applying adaptive management approaches that incorporate

ongoing research and monitoring in order to feed information back into the

7

management system. Clear government policy frameworks are needed that support

alliances among the many interest groups involved in forest biodiversity.

Hossain (2005) studied the threatened forest genetic resources and strategies for

conservation in Bangladesh. He observed that, the natural forests of Bangladesh, one of

the richest and biologically diverse forest resources are facing severe threats recently.

The natural forests of the country are declining at an alarming rate. Forest genetic

resources are disappearing due to clearing land for agriculture, shifting cultivation,

construction of roads, habitation, logging for timber, fuelwood collection,

encroachment, and conversion of forest lands for other uses. The physical, demographic,

and economic pressures are also altering the natural environment rapidly. In this way

many plant and animal species, widely distributed in the past, have either become

extinct or can only be found in low densities in localized areas. However, very recently,

conservation efforts through in situ and ex situ programs are gaining priority in both

public and private levels. Conservation and utilization of forest genetic resources are

given emphasis with an aim of improving forest products as well as collection and supply

of improved materials from the genetic resources.

Sinha et al. (2005) studied the propagation and silviculture of two forest trees, Shorea

robusta and Dipterocarpus turbinatus, for restoration of a sustainable forest ecosystem.

Shorea robusta and Dipterocarpus turbinatus of the family Dipterocarpaceae, two tree

species of the rain forests in South and Southeast Asia, are of great economic

importance for timber. They are generally propagated by seed that are recalcitrant and

lose their viability within a few days of maturity. Moreover, the survival rate of seedlings

planted in the open spaces of degraded forests is very low. They compared propagation

methods by seed germination, cutting and layering, and in vitro micropropagation and

found that, for large scale planting materials in these two species, seed collection at

proper maturation time is the best, ensuring 75% healthy seedlings.

Ruark et al. (2003) studied the roles for agroforestry in helping to achieve sustainable

forest management. Forestry is faced with the challenge of meeting an increasing

demand for goods, as well as for an expanding array of services, like clean water, soil

8

conservation, and wildlife habitat, from a fixed or shrinking land base. They observed

that, for balance forestry with the sustainability of other sectors, like agriculture and

communities, are needed. Agroforestry, the deliberate cultivation of trees or other

woody plants with crops or pasture for multiple benefits, is an important category of

planted forests that has the potential to provide farmers, communities, and society‐at‐

large with a wide array of forest‐related goods and services. Agroforestry can

complement forestry sector efforts in sustainable forest management by providing a set

of tree‐based conservation and production practices for agricultural lands. Some

important sustainability issues on which agroforestry can assist forestry are: biological

diversity, wood and non‐timber products, ecosystem integrity, soil and water quality,

terrestrial carbon storage, and socioeconomic benefits.

Neupane et al. (2001) studied the impact of agroforestry intervention on farm income

under the subsistence farming system of the middle hills in Nepal. They observed that

the agricultural system including agroforestry was more profitable than the conventional

one. Agroforestry had great potential for enhancing food production and farmers'

economic conditions in a sustainable manner through its positive contributions to

household income.

Thiollay (1995) studied the role of traditional agroforests in the conservation of rain

forest bird diversity in Sumatra. He compared bird community composition and

structure among three different types of traditionally managed agroforests and the

nearby primary forests in southwestern Sumatra during the breeding season. The

species were classified according to size, main diet, and observed habitat use. He found

that, species richness, diversity, and equitability were all significantly lower (12% to 62%

less) in every agroforest than in the primary forest and the coefficients of similarity

between the natural and managed forest communities were low (0.43‐0.55). Among the

216 species occurring in samples, 56% significantly decreased in or disappeared from

agroforests, whereas only 22% appeared or increased. The factors affecting biodiversity

in agroforests may involve reduced tree height, canopy foliage volume, vertical diversity

of the vegetation structure, floristic richness, and associated variety of food resources.

High hunting pressure may also be a factor. Agroforests also function as buffer zones

9

between densely populated and protected areas and are one of the most successful

examples of silviculture of dipterocarps.

Unfortunately no sufficient research and study has been done on the comparative study

between natural forest (NF) and agro‐forest (AF) of Madhupur Sal forest under

Madhupur National Park Range. As a result no relevant literature in this aspect was

available. The present study was an attempt first of its kind to investigate the status of

natural forest (NF) and agro‐forest (AF). In this study, the status of natural forest (NF)

and agro‐forest (AF) of Beribaid Beat of Madhupur National Park Range were observed

from August, 2006 to February, 2007. Therefore this study will show the new arena of

knowledge regarding this field.

10

CHAPTER THREE

STUDY AREA

3.1 General

Bangladesh covers an area of 147,570 sq km. It extends from 20°34΄N to 26°38΄N

latitude and from 88°01΄E to 92°41΄E longitude. Maximum extension is about 440 km in

the E‐W direction and 760 km in the NNW‐SSE direction (Map 3.1).

Madhupur Upazila of TangailT district containing area of 500.70 sq km, is bounded by

Jamalpur Sadar Upazila on the north, Gopalpur and Ghatail Upazilas on the south,

Muktagachha and Fulbaria Upazilas on the east, Sarishabari and Gopalpur Upazilas on

west. The main rivers are Jhinai, Bangshi, Banar and Atrai. Madhupur Thana, now an

Upazila, was established in 1898. The Upazila consists of two municipalities (Madhupur

and Dhanbari), 18 wards, 47 mahallas, 10 union parishads, 242 mouzas and 343 villages.

The population of Madhupur is 375295 of which male 51.13% and female 48.87%. There

is about muslim 89%, hindu 7%, christian 4% and others 0.31%. Ethnic nationals are Garo

and Koch. The average literacy of Madhupur is 25.3% of which male 30.2% and female

20.1%. The numbers of educational institutions are 5 colleges, 30 high schools, 137

madrasas, 156 government primary schools, 53 non‐government primary schools, 3

missionary high schools, 13 missionary primary schools, 13 kindergartens, and 57 NGO

managed primary schools. The main occupations are 52.29% agriculture, 22.8%

agricultural laborer, 2.82% wage laborer, 8.42% commerce, 2.11% transport, 2.79%

service, 8.77% others. Of the total land, 32900 hectares cultivable, 2000 hectares fallow

land; 65% land is under irrigation. The main crops are paddy, jute, wheat, cotton, potato,

patal, ginger, betel leaf, kasava and vegetables. Of the total length of road metalled are

150 km and semi metalled are 19 km. There are total 45 numbers of ‘hats’ (weekly

market) and ‘bazars’ (daily market). The main operationally important NGOs are BRAC,

ASA, PROSHIKA and CARITAS, World Tourist Mission, Family and Child Welfare Centre.

11

3.2 Madhupur Sal Forest

3.2.1 Geographical and Ecological conditions

The study area comprised of Sal forest is situated in the Madhupur Upazila (Sub‐district)

of Tangail district (Map 3.2). Though the forest was under the Mymensingh Forest

division, before now it is managed under Tangail Forest Division (Hossain. 2005). The

forest is demarcated by Banar River in Mymensingh and Banshi River in Tangail and

located 80 kilometers north‐east of Dhaka. The forests extend between 23°50΄‐24°50΄N

and 89°54΄‐90°50΄E (Nishat et al. 2002) covering an area of 24150.02 ha which are

honeycombed with habitation and agricultural land comprising four Ranges namely

Madhupur, Aronkhola, Dokhola and Madhupur National Park Sadar (Anon. 1992). The

major Sal forests lies in the districts of greater Mymensingh and Tangail which is the

largest belt, distributed between the Brahmaputra and the Jamuna extending a length of

about 96 km and width of about 8 to 24 km running from north to south. This belt is

known as 'Madhupur Garh' (Rahman. 2004). The major constituent trees shed their

leaves during winter or dry season to reduce the loss of water through transpiration. In

this type of forest, the Sal tree comprises about 90 percent of the major floral

composition. The tree attains a height of 10‐25 meter and most leaves drop off during

winter.

Madhupur National Park Sadar Range comprises five bits namely National Park Sadar,

Laharia, Beribaid, Gachabari and Rajabari. It is situated in the north‐eastern end of

district besides the Tangail‐Mymensingh highway (Map 3.3). According to the Forest

Department, the total area of Madhupur National Park Sadar Range is 12,104.68 ha of

which natural forest is 3,364.24 ha, Sal forest is 52 ha, agro‐forest is 173.12 ha and the

remains used for other purposes.

During the present study, the natural forest and agro‐forest of Beribaid Bit were visited.

The area of Beribaid Bit is 1773.07 ha of which 906.88 ha natural forest, 45.00 ha agro‐

forest and the remains used for other purposes.

12

3.2.2 Topographical conditions

The Madhupur tract consists of Pleistocene terraces and recent alluvial floodplain. It

occupies the central part of the Ganges–Brahmaputra‐Meghna Delta. Geologically it is

terrace from one to ten meters above the adjacent floodplains. The upland terrace soils

are called ‘Chala’ and the valley soils are called 'baid’ locally. The imperfectly drained

level upland and the valley soils are used for paddy cultivation by holding rainwater. The

soil profile color is yellowish‐brown and textural class is clay‐loam (Rahman. 2004). The

soil is compact and hard when dry, but melts with the rainfall and becomes soft and

tenacious.

13

Map 3.1: Map of Bangladesh showing Madhupur National Park.

14

Map 3.2: Map of Tangail district showing Madhupur National Park.

15

Scale 1:1OOOOO

Map 3.3: Map of Madhupur National Park showing natural forest (NF) and agro‐forest

(AF).

16

3.3 Climate

The area, like the rest of Bangladesh, enjoys the monsoon type of climate of the Indian

Subcontinent. Winter starts from November and continues till February. Rainy season

starts from June and continues till September. The maximum temperature during the

study period was 32.9°C in August, while the minimum temperature was 10.2°C in

January (Fig. 3.1). The maximum rainfall was 3927 mm in September. There was no

rainfall in December and January (Fig. 3.2). The maximum relative humidity was 100% in

September, December, January and February and the minimum relative humidity was

23% in January (Fig. 3.3) (Source: Meteorological Center, Tangail).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

J A S O N D J F

Month

Tem

p. (º

C)

Max. Temp.Min. Temp.

Fig. 3.1: The maximum (Max.) and minimum (Min.) temperature (Temp.) of the study

area from July 2006 to February 2007.

0500

1000150020002500300035004000

Tota

l Rai

nfal

l (m

m)

J A S O N D J F

Month

Total Rainfall

Fig. 3.2: Total rainfall of the study area from July 2006 to February 2007.

17

0

20

40

60

80

100

J A S O N D J F

Month

R. H

. (%

)

Max. R. H.

Min. R. H.

Fig. 3.3: The maximum (Max.) and minimum (Min.) relative humidity (R.H.) of the study


3.4 Meteorological Data

The meteorological data from July 2006 to February 2007 were collected from the

meteorological center in Tangail.

3.5 Description of Different Sites

In the present investigation a total of two sites of Madhupur Sal forest area were visited

two months interval from July 2006 to February 2007.

3.5.1 Natural Forest (NF)

This site has been selected from the Beribaid bit of Madhupur National Park Range

which is located near Telki Bazar. It is situated beside the Tangail‐Mymensingh high‐way.

Geographical location of NF

Latitude: N 24° 40.778̕

Longitude: E 90° 07.675̒

Elevation: 24m

18

3.5.2 Agro‐forest (AF)

This site has been selected from the Beribaid bit of Madhupur National Park Range

which is located beside Telki Bazar. It is also situated beside the Tangail‐Mymensingh

high‐way. Agroforestry practice started here from 2001 by the Forest Department (FD).

Geographical location of AF

Latitude: N 24° 40.409̒

Longitude: E 90° 07.036̒

Elevation: 33m

19

CHAPTER FOUR

MATERIALS AND METHODS

4.1 Materials Used For Soil Collection

1. Polythene bag

2. Threads

3. Marker pen

4. Spade

4.2 Methods Used For Soil Analysis

Two sites were selected for the analysis of soil to compare the soil properties of natural

forest (NF) and agro‐forest (AF) of Beribaid Bit of Madhupur National Park Range. The

chemical parameters of soil were analyzed by following different standard methods. The

soil samples were collected for analysis in August, 2006 firstly and February, 2007

secondly. The basic methodological approaches of this investigation are presented

below –

4.2.1 Collection of the Soil Sample

Soil sample collection is an important process for understanding the present nutrient

status of the soil sample. The soil samples were collected from about 1 ft. deep from 10

places of the Natural Forest (NF) and Agro‐forest (AF). The soil samples were mixed

thoroughly and made a composite sample. About 400 to 500 gm soil samples were taken

into a polythene bag. However the fresh samples were used to determine the pH of the

soil sample. The samples were dried in shade place and pulverized with a wooden

hammer. The bag with soil samples were tightly closed with thread and added an

information sheet at the neck of the bag. The collected samples were taken to the

laboratory for analysis.

4.2.2 Laboratory Work

The sample was analyzed to determine some major chemical properties of soils with a

view to assess the present nutrient status of NF and AF. Standard methods were

followed for soil analysis.

20

4.2.2.1 Soil pH

The pH of freshly collected soil was determined by using pH meter (HANNA 301). 25 ml

of water was added with 10 gm of soil sample and stirred the mixture for 10 minutes.

Then the sample was allowed to stand for 30 minutes. The pH meter was calibrated

with two known buffer solutions (pH 4.0 and 7.0). The electrode was washed with

distilled water and dried by tissue paper. Then the electrode was immersed into the soil

suspension and was kept at that condition until stable reading was observed and then

the reading was recorded.

4.2.2.2 Soil Iron (Fe)

Soil Extraction Solution – ASI

(0.25 NaHCO3 – 0.01M EDTA – 0.01N NH4F with 0.5 Superfloc 127 per 10 liters)

210gm NaHCO3, 37.2gm disodium EDTA, 3.7gm NH4F were dissolved in about 7 liters of

water and 0.5gm Superfloc 127 was added with it. Final volume was made to 10 liters.

The pH of the solution of 8.4 was adjusted with concentrated (conc.) NaOH solution.

Procedure

2.5mg of soil sample was taken and added with 25ml of ASI extracting solution. The

mixture was stirred at about 400rpm for 10 minutes and then filtered. The concentration

of iron (Fe) was read on the Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (AAS) direct from

the soil filtrate. The name of the AAS used for the determination of iron was CHEMITO

Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (model no AA203).

Standard for iron

The standard solution of iron in ASI extracting solutions having the following

concentrations:

0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, μg/ml.

4.2.2.3 Soil Organic Carbon

Soil organic carbon content was estimated by wet design method.

21

Reagents

1. Concentrated sulfuric acid (H2SO4).

2. Phosphoric acid (H3PO4).

3. Standard 1N Potassium dichromate (K2Cr2O7) solution: exactly 49.03gm of

K2Cr2O7 was dissolved in water and diluted the solution to 1 liter.

4. Diphenylamine indicator solution: approximately 0.5gm of reagent grade

diphenylamine was dissolved in 20ml of water and 100ml conc. H2SO4.

5. Ferrous sulphate (FeSO4) solution: 278gm of FeSO4 .7H2O crystals were

dissolved in water followed by an addition of 15ml conc. H2SO4 and diluted up to

1000ml.

Procedure

In a 500 ml clean dry conical flask soil sample (2 g dried sample) was taken and 10 ml of

1N K2Cr2O7 solution and 10 ml of concentrated H2SO4 were added carefully. The

content was occasionally shaken until it became cold. Then 150 ml distilled water, 10 ml

concentrated H3PO4 and 0.2 g sodium fluoride (NaF) was added. After further cooling,

diphenylamine indicator (60 drops or 3ml) was added until the color of the solution

became deep violet. The content was titrated against normal ferrous sulfate solution. At

the end point, the color of the solution changed to deep bottle green. A blank

experiment was run using all the chemicals except soil as control.

Calculation

× × × ××

(B‐T) 3 N 100 1.3 Percent of organic carbon =

1000 W

Where,

B = Amount of N FeSO4 solution (ml) required in blank experiment.

T = Amount of FeSO4 solution (ml) required in soil experiment.

N = Strength of N FeSO4 solution.

W = Weight of soil (gm).

22

It has been estimated that only about 77% carbon of the organic compounds in soil is

oxidized by this procedure.

4.2.2.4 Soil Organic Matter

The organic matter content of the soil was determined by multiplying the percentage of

organic carbon with conventional Van Bemmelen's factor of 1.724 (Piper. 1950).

Calculation

Percentage of organic matter = Percentage of organic carbon x 1.724**

** = Since soil organic matter contains about 58% carbon.

4.3 Materials Used For Observation of Flora and Fauna

1. Binoculars (7×50)

2. Digital camera with zoom lens (70‐300 mm); Nikon D70S, IVC

3. GPS (Etrex Vista C)

4. Compass and watch

5. Scale and measuring instruments

6. Note book and pencil

7. Field guide

4.4 Methods Used For Observation of Flora and Fauna

To perform the experiment, a series of survey on plants (flora) and animals (fauna) were

maintained. For collecting of data, different methods were followed for different types

of species which are given below:

4.4.1 Strip Transect Method

For getting data regarding with the species available in the study areas were recorded by

strip transect method .In total 15 transect lines were made to observed the wild animals

and their different activities .It was about 500 meter length and 50 meter in both sides.

23

4.4.2 Quadrat Method

To determine the richness of herbs and shrubs, quadrate method were used. Ten

quadrat, each of 10x10 m dimension were selected randomly .In each quadrate the

number of various rooted plant species were recorded.

4.4.3 Dropping/Calls/Songs

In case of nocturnal animals like owl, jackal and other nocturnal animals the dropping of

the roosting place was observed and the species was identified. Calls and songs were

recorded in case of both nocturnal and diurnal animals.

4.4.4 Collection and Identification

The important and unknown specimens were collected and then identified in the

laboratory with the helps of some books, comparing with the museum specimens in the

department and concerned teachers.

4.4.5 Local Information

The wild species which were not observed, information was also recorded by

interviewing the local people, forest guards, workers, farmers, and firewood collectors.

Information was also collected from the oldest peoples to gain information about past

status and distribution of flora and fauna of the study area.

4.4.6 Identification of Birds

The birds were observed either through a pair 7×50 binocular or by naked eyes. Notes

were taken on different ecological and ethological aspects. Identification was based

mainly on field characters of external morphology, call (Mitchell 1997), flight and sitting

postures. A Nikon digital camera (model no ‐ D70S) with 70‐300 mm zoom lens and an

IVC digital camera with 5 pixel were used to take photographs. Birds were identified

with the help of key characteristics and illustrations brought forward by Ali and Riply

(1983, 1987), Ali (1996), Cerney (1975), Hyman, Marchant and prater (1986).

24

Status

The status of birds was assumed by direct field visits (Khan1980), i.e. very common (VC) ‐

seen 55‐75% of the visit, common (C) ‐ seen 25‐45% of the visit and rare (R) ‐ seen less

than 20% of the visit, resident (r) ‐ seen to makes nest, migrant (M) ‐ the species was

recorded at a special time (month).

4.4.7 Identification of Reptiles and Mammals

Transect line method were used to observe reptiles and mammals. Night visit was made

for nocturnal mammals and reptiles. Some were identified through calls. Local people’s

information was also taken to list many reptiles and mammals.

4.5 Software

Software such as, ArcView GIS 3.3, for mapping sample point location on the image and

Excel, for statistical analysis was used.

25

CHAPTER FIVE

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 RESULTS

The following results were obtained from the field surveys and observations. The

analytical and observed results have been presented below systematically under the

following heads:

5.1.1 Soil Analysis Results

The findings of the chemical parameters of the soils of natural forest (NF) and agro‐

forest (AF) are given below:

5.1.1.1 Soil pH

The values of soil pH are presented in Fig. 5.1 and 5.2 respectively. The maximum and the

minimum soil pH of NF were 5.5 and 4.6 respectively in August, 2006. The maximum and

the minimum soil pH of AF were 7.1 and 4.4 respectively in August, 2006.

01234567

8

pH

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sample No

pH (NF)

pH (AF)

Fig. 5.1: Soil pH of NF and AF in August, 2006.

Again, the maximum and the minimum soil pH of NF were 4.9 and 4.0 respectively in

February, 2007. The maximum and the minimum soil pH of AF were 6.5 and 4.2

respectively in February, 2007.

26

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

pH

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sample No

pH (NF)

pH (AF)

Fig. 5.2: Soil pH of NF and AF in February, 2007.

5.1.1.2 Soil Iron (Fe)

The values of soil iron (Fe) content are presented in Fig. 5.3 and 5.4 respectively. The

maximum and the minimum iron content of NF were 465.08 ppm and 160.08 ppm

respectively in August, 2006. The maximum and the minimum iron content of AF were

579.36 ppm and 138.49 ppm respectively in August, 2006.

050

100150200250300350400450500550600

Iron (ppm)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sample No.

Iron (NF) Iron (AF)

Fig. 5.3: Soil iron content (ppm) of NF and AF in August, 2006.

Again, the maximum and the minimum iron content of NF were 419.23 ppm and 102.84

ppm respectively in February, 2007. The maximum and the minimum iron content of AF

were 256.41 ppm and 30.41 ppm respectively in February, 2007.

27

050

100150200250300350400450

Iron (ppm)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sample No.

Iron (NF) Iron (AF)

Fig. 5.4: Soil iron content (ppm) of NF and AF in February, 2007.

5.1.1.3 Soil Organic Matter

The values of soil organic matter are presented in Fig. 5.5 and 5.6 respectively. The

maximum and the minimum organic matter of NF were 2.75% and 0.91% respectively in

August, 2006. The maximum and the minimum organic matter of AF were 2.72% and 0.87%

respectively in August, 2006.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Organic Matter (%)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sample No.

Organic Matter (NF)Organic Matter (AF)

Fig. 5.5: Soil organic matter of NF and AF in August, 2006.

28

Again, the maximum and the minimum organic matter of NF were 2.70% and 0.91%

respectively in February, 2007. The maximum and the minimum organic matter of AF were

2.72% and 0.72% respectively in February, 2007.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Organic Matter (%)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sample No.

Organic Matter (NF)Organic Matter (AF)

Fig. 5.6: Soil organic matter of NF and AF in February, 2007.

5.1.2 Flora Results

A variety of species of herbs, shrubs, trees and climbers were observed with their status

in NF and AF during the study periods which are presented below.

5.1.2.1 Herbs

The species of herbs observed in NF and AF are presented below with their status:

Table 5.1: List of herbs identified in NF with their status.

Status codes: VC – very common, C – common, R – rare.

Species type: W – wild, P – planted.

Sl. No.

Common name Scientific name Present status

Species type

Family: Acanthaceae 01 Kalomegh Andrographis paniculata Nees C W Family: Amaranthaceae 02 Apang Achyranthes aspera L. C W Family: Capparidaceae

29

03 Hurhuria Cleome viscosa L. R W Family: Compositae 04 Kukurshinga Blumea lacera (Burm. F.) DC. VC W 05 Shealmotra Vernonia patula (Dryand.) Merr. VC W 06 Fulkuri Ageratum conyzoides L. C W 07 Ghagra Xanthium indicum Koenig C W Family: Convolvulaceae 08 Swarnalata Cuscuta reflexa Roxb. R W 09 Rail lata Ipomoea cairica (L.) Sweet VC W Family: Cucurbitaceae 10 Telakucha Coccinea cordifolia (L.) Cogn. C W Family:‐Gramineae 11 Durbaghash Cynodon dactylon Pers. VC W 12 Premkata Chrysopogon aciculatus (Retz.)

Trin. VC W

Family: Leguminosae 13 Lajjabati Mimosa pudica L. VC W 14 Chotto

Kalkesunde Cassia obtusifolia C W

15 Jutasalpani Desmodium pulchellum Benth. C W Family: Malvaceae 16 Ban ghagra Urena lobata L. VC W Family: Pedaliaceae 17 Til Sesamum indicum L. R W Family: Solanaceae 18 Arsawgandha Withania somnifera Dunal VC W Family: Teliaceae 19 Assar, Patka Grewia microcos L. C W Family: Umbelliferae 20 Thankuni Centella asiatica (L.) Urban. C W Family: Verbinaceae 21 Bhant Clerodendrum viscosum Vent. VC W Family: Zingiberaceae 22 Satthi Curcuma zeoderia Roscoe C W 23 Keumul, Kura Costus speciosus (Koen. Ex

Retz.) Smith C W

Table 5.2: List of herbs identified in AF with their status.



Sl. No. Common name Scientific name Present status Species typeFamily: Bromelidaceae 01 Anarash Ananas comosus (L.) Merr. VC P

30

Family: Verbinaceae 02 Bhant Clerodendrum viscosum Vent. C W Family: Convolvulaceae 03 Rail lata Ipomoea cairica (L.) Sweet VC W Family:‐Gramineae 04 Durbaghash Cynodon dactylon Pers. VC W Family: Zingiberaceae 05 Satthi Curcuma zeoderia Roscoe C W

In Case of Herbs

Species Composition

A total of 23 species of herbs were observed belonging to 15 families in NF and 5 species

of herbs were observed belonging to 5 families in AF. Fig. 5.7 shows the no. of different

species of herbs observed in NF and AF.

23

5

NFAF

Fig. 5.7: No. of different species of herbs observed in NF and AF.

5.1.2.2 Shrubs

The species of shrubs observed in NF and AF are presented below with their status:

Table 5.3: List of shrubs identified in NF with their status.



Sl. No.


Species type

Family: Acanthaceae 01 Bashok Adhatoda vasica Nees C W Family: Asclepiadaceae

31

02 Akanda Calotropis gigantea Br. C W Family: Flacourtiaceae 03 Beuchi Flacourtia indica (Burm. f.)

Merr. C W

Family: Leguminosae 04 Arhar Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp. R W Family: Melastomiaceae 05 Ban tezpata Melastoma malabathricum L. VC W Family: Meliaceae 06 Bhuiokra/Matmati Lippia javanica (Mill.) N.E.Br. VC W Family: Solanaceae 07 Dhutura Datura metel L. VC W Family: Verbinaceae 08 Kutush kanta Lantana camara L. var. VC W

Table 5.4: List of shrubs identified in AF with their status.



Sl. No. Common name Scientific name Present status Species type Family: Melastomiaceae 01 Ban tezpata Melastoma malabathricum

L. C W

Family: Solanaceae 02 Dhutura Datura metel L. R W Family: Verbinaceae 03 Kutush kanta Lantana camara L. var. C W

In Case of Shrubs

Species Composition

A total of 8 species of shrubs were observed belonging to 8 families in NF and 3 species

of shrubs were observed belonging to 3 families in AF. Fig. 5.8 shows the no. of different

species of shrubs observed in NF and AF.

32

8

3NFAF

Fig. 5.8: No. of different species of shrubs observed in NF and AF.

5.1.2.3 Trees

The species of trees observed in NF and AF are presented below with their status:

Table 5.5: List of trees identified in NF with their status.



Sl. No.


Species type

Family: Anacardiaceae 01 Am Mangifera indica L. C W 02 Amrah Spondias pinnata (L.f.) Kurz C W Family: Annonaceae 03 Gandigajari Miliusa velutina Hk. f.&T. C W Family: Apocynaceae 04 Kurchi Holarrhena antidysenterica

Wall C W

05 Sharpagondha Rauwolfia sarpentina Benth. R W Family: Bombacaceae 06 Shimul Bombax ceiba R W Family: Burseraceae 07 Neur Burserra serrata Wall R W Family: Combretaceae 08 Arjun Terminalia arjuna Bedd R W 09 Bohera Terminalia belerica Roxb. C W 10 Haritaki Terminalia chebula Retz. R W 11 Katbadam Terminlalia catappa L. R W Family: Dillenaceae 12 Ajuli Dellenia pentagyna Roxb. R W 13 Chalta Dellenia indica L. C W

33

Family: Dipterocarpaceae 14 Shal/Gajari Shorea robusta Gaertn VC W Family: Ebenaceae 15 Gab Diospyros peregrina L. R W Family: Euphorbiaceae 16 Amloki Phyllanthus embelica L. R W 17 Arboroi Phyllanthus acidus (L.) Skiels R W 18 Sinduri Mallotus phillippensis

Muell.Arg.VC W

Family: Gramineae 19 Bash Bambusa spp. R P Family: Guttiferae 20 Nageswar Mesua nagesarium (Berm.f.)

Kost R W

Family: Lauraceae 21 Kharajora Litsea monopetala (Roxb.)

Pers. C W

Family: Leguminosae 22 Shonalu /Bandarlathi Cassia fistula L. R W 23 Kanchan Bauhinia acuminata L. VC W 24 Lohakat Xylia dolabiformis Benth R W 25 Bara

Kalkesunda/Minjuri Cassia siamea Lam. C W

26 Palash Butea monosperma (Lam.) Taub.

R W

27 Sisu Dalbergia sissoo Roxb. C P 28 Koroi Albizzia procera Benth C W Family: Lythraceae 29 Jarul Lagerstroemia speciosa (L.)

Pers C W

30 Shidah Lagerstroemia parviflora Roxb. C W Family: Meliaceae 31 Nim Azadirachta indica A. Juss. R W 32 Roina Aphanamixis polystachya

(Wall.) R.N. R W

33 Pia Toona ciliata J. Roem C W 34 Chikrassi Chikrassia tabularis Juss R W Family: Moraceae 35 Asathwa Ficus religiosa L. C W 36 Bot Ficus bengalensis L. C W 37 Chambal Artocarpus chaplasha Roxb. R W 38 Kathal Artocarpus heterophyllus

Lamk. C W

39 Chapalish Artocarpus chaplasha Roxb. C W 40 Pakur Fiscus benjamina L.var.

comusa (Roxb.) Kurz. C W

34

41 Sheora Streblus asper (Lour.) VC W Family: Myrtaceae 42 Jam Syzygium grandis (Wt.) Wall. R W Family: Rubiaceae 43 Bhutum Hymenodictyon excelsum

Wall. C W

44 Kaika Adina cordifolia Benth & Hook C W 45 Kadam Anthocephalus chinensis

(Lam.) Rich. R W

Family: Rutaceae 46 Bajna Zanthoxylum rhetsa (Roxb) R W 47 Bel Aegle marmelos (L.) R W 48 Matkila Glycosmis arborea DC. C W Family: Sapindaceae 49 Joyna Schleichera oleosa (Lour.)

Oken. R W

Family: Sterculiaceae 50 Ulatkambal Abroma augusta L. R W 51 Janglibadam Sterculia foetida L. C W Family: Verbenaceae 52 Segun Tectona grandis L. f. C P 53 Gamari Gmelina arborea L. C P

Table 5.6: List of trees identified in AF with their status:



Sl. No. Common name Scientific name Present status Species type Family: Caricaceae 01 Pepey Carica papaya L. VC P Family: Dipterocarpaceae 02 Sal/Gajari Shorea robusta Gaertn R W Family: Leguminosae 03 Akashmoni Acacia auriculiformis VC P 04 Mangium Acacia mangium VC P Family: Moraceae 05 Bot Ficus bengalensis L. R W Family: Myrtaceae 06 Eucalyptus Eucalyptus camaldulensis C P Family: Verbenaceae 07 Gamari Gmelina arborea L. C P

35

In Case of Trees

Species Composition

A total of 53 species of trees were observed belonging to 23 families in NF and 7 species

of trees were observed belonging to 6 families in AF. Fig. 5.9 shows the no. of different

species of trees observed in NF and AF.

53

7

NF

AF

Fig. 5.9: No. of different species of trees observed in NF and AF.

5.1.2.4 Climbers

The species of climbers observed in NF and AF are presented below with their status:

Table 5.7: List of climbers identified in NF with their status.



Sl. No. Common name Scientific name Present status Species typeFamily: Acanthaceae 01 Nillata Thunbergia grandiflora Roxb. C W Family: Compositae 02 Assam lata Mikania scandens VC W Family: Smilacaceae 03 Kumari lata Smilax zeylanica L. VC W Family: Dioscoreaceae 04 Kukur alu Dioscorea pubera Bl. C W 05 Chupri alu Dioscorea alata L. C W Family: Vitaceae 06 Harjora Vitis quadrangularis Wall. C W 07 Amal lata Vitis trifolia L. VC W Family: Palmae 08 Bet Calamus rotung Willd. C P

36

Table 5.8: List of climbers identified in AF with their status.



Sl. No.

Common name

Scientific name Present status

Species type

Family: Acanthaceae 01 Nillata Thunbergia grandiflora Roxb. C W Family: Compositae 02 Assam lata Mikania cordata (Burm. f.)

Roxb. VC W

Family: Vitaceae 03 Amal lata Vitis trifolia L. VC W

In Case of Climbers

Species Composition

A total of 8 species of climbers were observed belonging to 6 families in NF and 3 species

of climbers were observed belonging to 3 families in AF. Fig. 5.10 shows the no. of

different species of climbers observed in NF and AF.

8

3NFAF

Fig. 5.10: No. of different species of climbers observed in NF and AF.

37

The total number of different species of flora (herbs, shrubs, trees and climbers)

observed in NF and AF is shown in fig. 5.11.

23

5 83

53

7 83

05

10152025303540455055

Herb Shrub Tree Climber

NFAF

Fig. 5.11: Total no. of different species of flora observed in NF and AF.

38

Fig. 5.12: Tangail‐Mymensingh road beside the natural forest.

Fig. 5.13: View of natural forest.

Fig. 5.14: Tree has been cut from the natural forest.

39

Fig. 5.15: View of agro‐forest.

Fig. 5.16: View of agro‐forest after crop plantation.

Fig. 5.17: Encroachment in agro‐forest after crop harvest.

40

Fig. 5.18: Ban ghagra (Urena lobata) Fig. 5.19: Lajjabati (Mimosa pudica)

Fig. 5.20: Bhant (Clerodendrum viscosum) Fig. 5.21: Satthi (Curcuma zeoderia)

41

Fig. 5.22: Anarash (Ananas comosus) Fig. 5.23: Chotto Kalkesunde (Cassia

obtusifolia)

Fig. 5.24: Ban tezpata (Melastoma Fig. 5.25: Kurchi (Holarrhena

malabathricum) antidysenterica)

42

Fig. 5.26: Amrah (Spondias pinnata) Fig. 5.27: Segun (Tectona grandis)

Fig. 5.28: Bohera (Terminalia belerica) Fig. 5.29: Chalta (Dellenia indica)

43

Fig. 5.30: Shal (Shorea robusta) Fig. 5.31: Bot (Ficus bengalensis)

Fig. 5.32: Sinduri (Mallotus phillippensis) Fig. 5.33: Pia (Toona ciliata)

44

Fig. 5.34: Pepey (Carica papaya) Fig. 5.35: Akashmoni (Acacia auriculiformis)

Fig. 5.36: Bash (Bambusa spp.) Fig. 5.37: Bara Kalkesunda (Cassia siamea)

45

Fig. 5.38: Assam lata (Mikania scandens) Fig. 5.39: Bet (Calamus rotung)

Fig. 5.40: Kanchan (Bauhinia acuminata) Fig. 5.41: Amal lata (Vitis trifolia)

46

5.1.3 Fauna Results

A variety of species of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals were observed with

their status in NF and AF during the study periods which are presented below.

5.1.3.1 Amphibians

The species of amphibians (Class: Amphibia) observed in NF and AF are presented below

with their status:

Table 5.9: List of amphibians identified in NF with their status.


Sl. No. Common name/Bengali name Scientific name Present status Family: Bufonidae 01 Common toad/Kuno bang Bufo melanostictus VC Family: Rhacophoridae 02 Tree frog/Gecho bang Rhacophorus leucomystax C Family: Ranidae 03 Indian bull frog/Kula bang Rana tigrina C 04 Skipper frog/Kotkoti bang Rana cyanophlyctis C Family: Microhylidae 05 Ballon frog/Phutka bang Uperodon globolosum R

Table 5.10: List of amphibians identified in AF with their status:


Sl. No. Common name/Bengali name Scientific name Present status Family: Bufonidae 01 Common toad/Kuno bang Bufo melanostictus VC Family: Rhacophoridae 02 Tree frog/Gecho bang Rhacophorus leucomystax R Family: Ranidae 03 Indian bull frog/Kula bang Rana tigrina C

47

In Case of Amphibians

Species Composition

A total of 5 species of amphibians were observed belonging to 4 families in NF and 3

species of amphibians were observed belonging to 3 families in AF. Fig. 5.42 shows the

no. of different species of amphibians observed in NF and AF.

53

NFAF

Fig. 5.42: No. of different species of amphibians observed in NF and AF.

5.1.3.2 Reptiles

The species of reptiles (Class: Reptilia) observed in NF and AF are presented below with

their status:

Table 5.11: List of reptiles identified in NF with their status.


Sl. No.

Common name/Bengali name Scientific name Present status

Family: Varanidae 01 Bengal monitor lizard/Gui shap Varanus bengalensis VC Family: Agamidae 02 Garden lizard/Raktachusha Calotes versicolor VC Family: Elaphidae 03 Bengal cobra/Gokhra Naja naja kaouthia

Lesson R

Family: Colubridae 04 Common bronze‐back tree

snake/Gecho shap Dendrelaphis tristis C

05 Rat snake/Daraj Ptyas mucosus C Family: Gekkonidae 06 Wall lizard/Tokkhak Gecko gecko C

48

Table 5.12: List of reptiles identified in AF with their status.


Sl. No.


Family: Varanidae 01 Bengal monitor lizard/Gui shap Varanus bengalensis R Family: Agamidae 02 Garden lizard/Raktachusha Calotes versicolor C Family: Gekkonidae 03 Wall lizard/Tokkhak Gecko gecko R

In Case of Reptiles

Species Composition

A total of 6 species of reptiles were observed belonging to 5 families in NF and 3 species

of reptiles were observed belonging to 3 families in AF. Fig. 5.43 shows the no. of

different species of reptiles observed in NF and AF.

6

3NFAF

Fig. 5.43: No. of different species of reptiles observed in NF and AF.

49

5.1.3.3 Birds

The species of birds (Class: Aves) observed in NF and AF are presented below with their

status:

Table 5.13: List of birds identified in NF with their status.

Status codes: VC – very common, C – common, R – rare, r – resident, M – migrant.

Sl. No.


Family: Accipitridae 01 Crested serpent eagle Spilornis cheela VC, r 02 Changeable hawk eagle Spizactus cirrhatus R, r 03 Short‐toad eagle Circaetus gallicus R, r Family: Alaudidae 04 Assam winged bush Mirafra asamica C, r Family: Apodidae 05 Palm swift/Nakkati Cypsiurus parvus VC, r Family: Artamidae 06 Ashy swallow‐shrike Artamus fuscus VC, r Family: Campephagidae 07 Common wood shrike Tephrodornis pondicerianus VC, r 08 Large cuckoo shrike Coracina macei C, r 09 Small minivet Pericrocotus cinnamomeus VC, r Family: Capitonidae 10 Lineated barbet Megalaima lineata VC, r 11 Coppersmith barbet Megalaima haemacephala VC, r Family: Charadriidae 12 Fantail snipe Gallinago gallinago VC, M Family: Columbidae 13 Red turtle dove/Lal ghughu Streptopelia tranquebarica C, r 14 Spotted dove/Tila ghogho Streptopelia chinensis VC, r 15 Emerald dove/Shabuj ghogho Chalcophaps indica R, r Family: Coraciidae 16 Indian roller/Nil kanta Coracias bengalensis C, r Family: Corvidae 17 Indian tree pie Dendrocitta vagabunda VC, r Family: Cuculidae 18 Brain‐fever bird Cuculus varius VC 19 Indian cuckoo Cuculus micropterus C 20 Rufous‐bellied plaintive cuckoo Cacomantis merulinus C 21 Koel/Kokil Eudynamys scolopacea VC 22 Large green‐billed malkoha/Ban

kokil Rhopodytes tristis C, r

50

Family: Dicruridae 23 Black drongo/Feocha Dicrurus adsimilis VC, r 24 Bronzed drongo/Vutraj Dicrurus aeneus C, r 25 Hairy‐crested drongo/Jhutidar

fingay Dicrurus hottentotus C, r

26 Spangled drongo Dicrurus hottentottus C Family: Irenidae 27 Common iora Aegithina tiphia VC, r 28 Goldenfronted chloropsis Chloropsis aurifrons C, r Family: Lanidae 29 Brown shrike Lanius cristatus VC, M Family: Meropidae 30 Green bee‐eater Merops orientalis VC 31 Chestnut headed bee‐eater Merops leschenaulti C Family: Muscicapidae 32 Red‐breasted flycatcher Muscicapa parva VC, r 33 Black napped flycatcher Hypothymis azurea C, r 34 Dark‐sided flycatcher Muscicapa sibirica R 35 Yellow breasted babbler Macronous gularis C, r 36 Jungle babbler Turdoides striatus C, r 37 Streaked fantail warbler Cisticola juncidis VC, r 38 Tailor bird/Tuntuni Orthotomus sutorius VC, r 39 Blyth’s reed warbler Acrocephalus dumetorum VC 40 Magpie‐robin/Doel Copsychus saularis VC, r 41 Shama Copsychus malabaricus C 42 Orange headed ground thrush Zoothera citrina C, r Family: Oriolidae 43 Black headed oriole Oriolus xanthornus VC, r Family: Paridae 44 Grey tit Parus frontalis C, r Family: Phasianidae 45 Red jungle fowl Gallus gallus R, r Family: Picidae 46 Rufous wood‐pecker/Kath

thokra Micropternus brachyurus C, r

47 Grey‐crowned pygmy wood‐pecker

Dendrocopos canicapillus R

48 Lesser golden‐backed wood‐pecker/Kath thokra

Dinopium bengalensis VC, r

49 Fulvous‐breasted pied wood‐pecker/Kath thokra

Picoides macei VC, r

Family: Ploceidae 50 House sparrow Passer domesticus VC, r Family: Psittacidae 51 Roseringed parakeet/Tia Psittacula krameri VC, r 52 Red‐breasted parakeet/Tuta Psittacula alexandri C, r

51

Family: Pycnonotidae 53 Red‐whiskered bulbul Pycnonotus jacosus VC, r 54 Red‐vented bulbul Pycnonotus cafer VC, r Family: Sturnidae 55 Chestnut‐tailed starling/Kath

shalik Sturnus malabaricus VC, r

56 Pied myna/Goshalik Sturnus contra VC, r 57 Common myna/Shalik Acridotheres tristis VC, r 58 Jungle myna/Ban shalik Acridotheres fuscus VC, r Family: Strigidae 59 Brown wood owl Strix leptogrammica R, r 60 Brown fish owl Bubo zeylonensis R 61 Spotted owlet/Kotre pecha Athene brama VC, r

Table 5.14: List of birds identified in AF with their status.

Status codes: VC – very common, C – common, R – rare, r – resident, M – migrant.

Sl. No.


Family: Columbidae 01 Red turtle dove/Lal ghughu Streptopelia tranquebarica C, r 02 Spotted dove Streptopelia chinensis C, r Family: Cuculidae 03 Koel/Kokil Eudynamys scolopacea VC Family: Dicruridae 04 Hairy‐crested drongo/Jhutidar

fingay Dicrurus hottentotus R, r

Family: Meropidae 05 Green bee‐eater Merops orientalis VC Family: Muscicapidae 06 Red‐breasted flycatcher Muscicapa parva C, r 07 Tailor bird/Tuntuni Orthotomus sutorius C, r 08 Magpie‐robin/Doel Copsychus saularis VC, r 09 Shama Copsychus malabaricus C Family: Picidae 10 Rufous wood‐pecker/Kath

thokra Micropternus brachyurus C, r

11 Lesser golden‐backed wood‐pecker/Kath thokra

Dinopium benglensis VC, r

12 Fulvous‐breasted pied wood‐pecker/Kath thokra

Picoides macei C, r

Family: Ploceidae 13 House sparrow Passer domesticus VC, r Family: Psittacidae 14 Roseringed parakeet/Tia Psittacula krameri R, r

52

Family: Pycnonotidae 15 Red‐whiskered bulbul Pycnonotus jacosus C, r 16 Red‐vented bulbul Pycnonotus cafer C, r Family: Sturnidae 17 Grey headed myna/Kath shalik Sturnus malabaricus C, r 18 Pied myna/Goshalik Sturnus contra VC, r 19 Common myna/Shalik Acridotheres tristis VC, r Family: Strigidae 20 Brown wood owl Strix leptogrammica R, r 21 Spotted owlet/Kotre pecha Athene brama C, r

In Case of Birds

Species Composition

A total of 61 species of birds were observed belonging to 25 families in NF and 21

species of birds were observed belonging to 11 families in AF. Fig. 5.44 shows the no. of

different species of birds observed in NF and AF.

61

21NFAF

Fig. 5.44: No. of different species of birds observed in NF and AF.

53

5.1.3.4 Mammals

The species of mammals (Class: Mammalia) observed in NF and AF are presented below

with their status:

Table 5.15: List of mammal identified in NF with their status.


Sl. No.


Family: Cercopithecidae 01 Capped langur/ Mukhpora

HanumanTrachypithecus pileatus C

02 Rhesus monkey/Banor Macaca mulatta R Family: Sciuridae 03 Hoary‐bellied Himalayan

squirrel/Badami kathbirali Callosciurus pygerythrus C

Family: Canidae 04 Jackel/ Shial Canis aureus R 05 Bengal fox Vulpes bengalensis R Family: Felidae 06 Leopard cat/ Ban Biral Prionailurus bengalensis R 07 Jungle cat Felis chaus R Family: Hystricidae 08 Indian crestless porcupine/Sajaru Hystrix hodgsonil R Family: Muridae 09 Indian field mouse/Metho indur Mus booduga C 10 Long tailed tree mouse Vandeleuria oleracea C Family: Pteropide 11 Flying fox/Badur Pteropus giganteus R Family: Herpestidae 12 Common mongoose/Bara benji Herpestes edwardsi C Table 5.16: List of mammals identified in AF with their status.


Sl. No.


Family: Canidae 01 Jackel/ Shial Canis aureus R Family: Muridae 02 Indian field mouse/Metho indur Mus booduga R Family: Pteropide 03 Flying fox/Badur Pteropus giganteus R

54

Family: Herpestidae 04 Common mongoose/Bara benji Herpestes edwardsi R

In Case of Mammals

Species Composition

A total of 12 species of mammals were observed belonging to 8 families in NF and 4

species of mammals were observed belonging to 4 families in AF. Fig. 5.45 shows the no.

of different species of mammals observed in NF and AF.

12

4NFAF

Fig. 5.45: No. of different species of mammals observed in NF and AF.

The total no. of different species of fauna (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals)

observed in NF and AF is shown in Fig. 5.46.

5 3 6 3

61

2112

405

101520253035404550556065

Amphibian Reptile Bird Mammal

NFAF

Fig. 5.46: Total no. of different species of fauna observed in NF and AF.

55

Fig.5.47: Indian bull frog (Rana tigrina)

Fig. 5.48: Bengal monitor lizard (Varanus bengalensis)

Fig. 5.49: Common bronze‐back tree snake (Dendrelaphis tristis)

56

Fig. 5.50: Black headed oriole (Oriolus xanthornus)

Fig. 5.51: Chestnut‐tailed starling (Sturnus malabaricus)

Fig. 5.52: Crested serpent eagle (Spilornis cheela)

57

Fig. 5.53: Dark‐sided flycatcher (Muscicapa sibirica)

Fig. 5.54: Grey‐crowned pygmy wood‐pecker (Dendrocopos canicapillus)

Fig. 5.55: Lesser golden‐backed wood‐pecker (Dinopium bengalensis)

58

Fig. 5.56: Large cuckoo shrike (Coracina macei)

Fig. 5.57: Spangled drongo (Dicrurus hottentottus)

Fig. 5.58: Coppersmith barbet (Megalaima haemacephala)

59

Fig. 5.59: Lineated barbet (Megalaima lineata)

Fig. 5.60: Small minivet (Pericrocotus cinnamomeus)

Fig. 5.61: Brain‐fever bird (Cuculus varius)

60

Fig. 5.62: Emarald dove (Chalcophaps indica)

Fig. 5.63: Spotted dove (Streptopelia chinensis)

Fig. 5.64: A pair of Common Mayna (Acridotheres tristis)

61

Fig. 5.65: Capped langur (Trachypithecus pileatus)

Fig. 5.66: Hoary‐bellied Himalayan squirrel (Callosciurus pygerythrus)

Fig. 5.67: Leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis)

62

5.2 Discussion

From the soil analysis of natural forest (NF) and agroforest (AF) it is found that, the

maximum and the minimum soil pH of NF were 5.5 and 4.6 respectively and the

maximum and the minimum soil pH of AF were 7.1 and 4.4 respectively in August, 2006.

Again the maximum and the minimum soil pH of NF were 4.9 and 4.0 respectively and

the maximum and the minimum soil pH of AF were 6.5 and 4.2 respectively in February,

2007. It is clearly found that, the soil of AF was more basic than the soil of NF. In AF

fertilizer is used for more production of crops. As a result, the soil of AF was more basic

than the soil of NF. But the specialists suggested that, acidic soil is better for the growth

of Sal coppices.

The maximum and the minimum iron (Fe) content of NF were 465.08 ppm and 160.08 ppm

respectively and the maximum and the minimum iron content of AF were 579.36 ppm and

138.49 ppm respectively in August, 2006. Again, the maximum and the minimum iron

content (Fe) of NF were 419.23 ppm and 102.84 ppm respectively and the maximum and

the minimum iron content of AF were 256.41 ppm and 30.41 ppm respectively in February,

2007. It is found that, the iron (Fe) content of the soil of AF was more than the soil of NF in

August, 2006. But the iron (Fe) content of the soil of NF was more than the soil of AF in

February, 2007.

The maximum and the minimum soil organic matter of NF were 2.75% and 0.91%

respectively and the maximum and the minimum soil organic matter of AF were 2.72% and

0.87% respectively in August, 2006. Again, the maximum and the minimum soil organic

matter of NF were 2.70% and 0.91% respectively and the maximum and the minimum soil

organic matter of AF were 2.72% and 0.72% respectively in February, 2007. It is found that,

the organic matter of the soil of NF was more than the soil of AF. The number of the

varieties of species of flora (e.g. herbs, shrubs, trees & climbers) of NF is more than that of

AF. As a result, the rotten leaves of the plants enrich the soil organic matter of NF more

than that of AF.

63

A total of 23 species of herbs were observed belonging to 15 families in NF and 5 species

of herbs were observed belonging to 5 families in AF. A total of 8 species of shrubs were

observed belonging to 8 families in NF and 3 species of shrubs were observed belonging

to 3 families in AF. A total of 53 species of trees were observed belonging to 23 families

in NF and 7 species of trees were observed belonging to 6 families in AF. A total of 8

species of climbers were observed belonging to 6 families in NF and 3 species of climbers

were observed belonging to 3 families in AF. The number of different species of herbs,

shrubs, trees & climbers of NF was more than that of AF. In NF there are wide varieties

plants which indicate the richness of species of flora. There are some medicinal plants also

in NF. The fruits, leaves, flowers, barks of plants of NF provide food and medicine to

human beings as well as other living beings. The NF also provides a good quality of

timber too which is used to make different constructions. Different types of birds make

their nest in NF. On the other hand, in AF there are a few varieties of species of herbs,

shrubs, trees and climbers. AF provides the demand of food and timber but there is a

lack of richness of species diversity. So it is clearly found that, the biodiversity of NF was

richer than the biodiversity of AF.

During the study period the status of herbs, shrubs, trees and climbers were observed in NF

and AF. The status of herbs, shrubs, trees and climbers are shown in Fig. 5.68, Fig. 5.69, Fig.

5.70 and Fig. 5.71 respectively. The status codes are very common (VC), common (C) and

rare (R)

64

39%48%

13%VCCR

60%40% 0%VCCR

(a) (b)

Fig. 5.68: Species status of herbs in NF (a) and AF (b).

49%38%13%

VCCR

0%67%

33% VCCR

(a) (b)

Fig. 5.69: Species status of shrubs in NF (a) and AF (b).

8%45%47% VC

CR

42%29%

29% VCCR

(a) (b)

Fig. 5.70: Species status of trees in NF (a) and AF (b).

38%62%

0%VCCR

67%33% 0%

VCCR

(a) (b)

Fig. 5.71: Species status of climbers in NF (a) and AF (b).

65

A total of 5 species of amphibians were observed belonging to 4 families in NF and 3

species of amphibians were observed belonging to 3 families in AF. A total of 6 species

of reptiles were observed belonging to 5 families in NF and 3 species of reptiles were

observed belonging to 3 families in AF. A total of 58 species of birds were observed

belonging to 25 families in NF and 21 species of birds were observed belonging to 11

families in AF. A total of 10 species of mammals were observed belonging to 8 families in

NF and 4 species of mammals were observed belonging to 4 families in AF. The number

of different species of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals of NF was more than

that of AF. Normally, human encroachment in AF is more than that of NF. This is why;

different species of fauna does not live in AF. As AF is used for commercial purposes, it is

not suitable place for the different species of fauna. So it is also found that, the

biodiversity of NF was richer than the biodiversity of AF.

During the study period the status of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals were

observed in NF and AF. The status of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are shown in

Fig. 5.72, Fig. 5.73, Fig. 5.74 and Fig. 5.75 respectively. The status codes are very common

(VC), common (C), rare (R), resident (r) and migrant (M).

66

20%60%

20% VCCR

34%33%

33% VCCR

(a) (b)

Fig. 5.72: Species status of amphibians in NF (a) and AF (b).

33%50%17% VC

CR

0% 33%67%

VCCR

(a) (b)

Fig. 5.73: Species status of reptiles in NF (a) and AF (b).

30%18%7%2%

43%VCCRMr

18%28%8%0%

46%VCCRMr

(a) (b)

Fig. 5.74: Species status of birds in NF (a) and AF (b).

0% 42%58% VCCR

0%0%

100%VCCR

(a) (b)

Fig. 5.75: Species status of mammals in NF (a) and AF (b).

67

CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Conclusion

Comparative study between natural forest (NF) and agroforest (AF) of Madhupur Sal

Forest area were studied. From the study it is found that, the soil of AF was more basic

than the soil of NF. The iron (Fe) content of the soil of AF was more than the soil of NF in

August, 2006. But the iron (Fe) content of the soil of NF was more than the soil of AF in

February, 2007. The organic matter of the soil of NF was more than the soil of AF. The

number of different species of herbs, shrubs, trees & climbers of NF was more than that of

AF. The number of different species of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals of NF

was also more than that of AF, so it is clearly found that, the biodiversity both flora and

fauna of NF was richer than the biodiversity of AF. The impact of agroforestry is

enormous for wildlife and biodiversity.

6.2 Recommendations

1. There is an urgent need to increase the utilization of indigenous species of plants

for fruit, timber, medicine etc.

2. Agroforestry should not be practiced by clear cutting the indigenous species of

natural forest.

3. The plantation of indigenous species instead of exotic species may be helpful for

sustainable environment.

4. Though agroforest provides food and timber, it causes the loss of biodiversity, so

it should not be practiced by destroying natural forest.

5. Natural forest should be conserved by the implementation of laws, making local

people understand the importance of natural forest.

6. The Forest Department should take proper initiative to conserve natural forest

by reforestation using indigenous species.

7. Agroforestry on participatory approach helps the poor people to eliminate

poverty as well as it helps the economic development of the country. Therefore,

it should be practiced in barren land or private land but not destroying the

natural forest.

68

8. The biodiversity of natural forest should be conserved for the ecological balance

of the environment.

6.3 Limitations

1. There was a limitation of time to complete the study. The study had to be

completed within a short period of time.

2. There was no financial support to complete the study. If financial support was

available the study would be done more successfully.

69

References

Ali, S. and Ripley, S.D. 1983. A pictorial guide to the birds of the Indian Subcontinent.

Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay.

Ali, S. and Ripley, S.D. 1987. Compact handbook of the birds of India and Pakistan

together with those of Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka. Oxford University

Press, Delhi.

Ali, S. 1979 and 1996. The book of Indian birds. Bombay Wat History Society, Bombay.

Anonymous. 1992. Forestry Master Plan. Ministry of Environment and Forest,

Government of Bangladesh. UNDP/FAO/BGD 88/25.

Banglapedia. 2003. National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh. Asiatic Society of Bangladesh,

Dhaka.

CBD (1992). Convention on Biological Diversity. Text and Annexes, the Interim

Secretariat for the CBD Geneva Executive Centre.

Cerney, W. 1975. A field guide in colour to birds. Octopus Books Ltd., London.

Farooque, M. and Hasan S.R. 2004. Laws regulating environment in Bangladesh. 2nd ed.

Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA), Dhaka. pp.450‐476.

Fosberg, F.R. 1967. A classification of vegetation for general purposes. In Guide to the

check sheet for IBP areas. G.F. Peterken (editor). IBP Handbook No. 4. Blackwell

Scientific Publications, Oxford and Edinburgh, pp. 73‐133.

Gain P. 1998. The last forests of Bangladesh. Society for Environment and Human

Development (SEHD), North Dhanmondi, Dhaka.

Garret, H. E., Rietveld, W. J. and Fisher, R. F. (eds). 2000. North American agroforestry:

An integrated science and practice. American Society of Agronomy, Inc. Madison, WI.

70

Harvey, W.G. 1990. Birds in Bangladesh. University press limited, Motijheel C/A, Dhaka.

Hossain, M.K. 2005. Threatened forest genetic resources and strategies for conservation

in Bangladesh. The International Forestry Review. Forests in the Balance: Linking

Tradition and Technology. XXII IUFRO World Congress, Brisbane, Australia.

Huq, A.M. 1986. Plant names of Bangladesh. Bangladesh National Herbarium (BARC),

Dhanmondi, Dhaka.

Huyman, P., Marchant, J. and Prater, T. 1986. Shorebirds. An identification guide to the

waters of the world. Christhpher Helm, London.

Khan, M.A.R. 1982. Wildlife of Bangladesh: A checklist. University of Dhaka, Dhaka.

Khan, M.H. 1998. Taxonomy and ecology of the birds in Tangail. M.Sc. Thesis (non

published), Department of Zoology, Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka.

Khan, M.A.R. 1987. Bangladesher banyaprani (wildlife of Bangladesh). Vol. 2. Bangla

Academy, Dhaka.

Kumar B.M. 2006. “Agroforestry: the new old paradigm for Asian food security‐A

review”, Journal of Tropical Agriculture. 44 (1‐2): 1‐14.

Laakso, A. and Tyynela, T. 2006. “Non‐wood forest benefits and agroforestry practices in

the Fouta Djallon Highlands of Guinea”. Nordic Journal of African Studies. 15(4): 579–

590.

McNeely, J.A. 1991. The sinking arc: Pollution and theworldwide loss of biodiversity.

Conservation Biology. Vol. 8.No. 3. P. 3‐17.

McNeely, J.A. 2004. “Nature vs. nature: managing relationships between forests, agroforestry and wild biodiversity”. Journal of Agroforestry Systems. 61‐62(1‐3). Muhammed, N., Koike, M., Sajjaduzzaman,M. and Sophanarith, K. 2005. “ Reckoning

social forestry in Bangladesh: policy and plan versus implementation”. Oxford

71

Journals. 78(4):373‐383. http://forestry.oxfordjournals.org/misc/terms.shtml

Nath, T. K., Inoue, M. and Myant, H. 2005. “Small‐scale agroforestry for upland

community development: a case study from Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh”.

Journal of Forest Research. 10 (6): 443‐452

Neupane, R. P. and Thapa, G. B., 2001. “Impact of agroforestry intervention on farm

income under the subsistence farming system of the middle hills, Nepal”.

J. Agroforestry Systems. 53(1): 31‐37.

Nishat, A., Huq, S.M.I., Barua, S.P. and Khan, A.S.M. 2002. Bioecological zones of

Banlgaldesh. IUCN country office, Dhaka, Bangladesh. 141p.

Partha, P. 2003. Madhupurer pran boichitroy (biodiversity of Madhupur Tract). BARCIK,

Lalmatia, Dhaka.

Piper, G.S. 1950. Soil and plant analysis. Adeliade University Press, Australia.

PROSHIKA. 1995. Social forestry in Modhupur Garh: Problems and prospects. Dhaka,

Bangladesh.

Rahman M. M. 2004. “Ecological studies on some important physical properties in soils

of major Sal forests in Bangladesh”. Journal of Environmental Science (Dhaka). Vol. 2,

pp. 81‐88.

Rahman, P.S. 2001, Udvid poribeshtatta o udvid bhugul (plant ecology and plant

geography). Banglabazar, Dhaka.

Reza, N.A., Kibria, M.G., Wahidullah, A.K.M., Chowdhury, M.H., Rahman, A. and Islam,

S.S. 1992. Forest Statistics of Bangladesh. Bulletin‐3, Forest Economics and Statistics

Division, Bangladesh Forest Research Institute, Chittagong, Bangladesh. 112p.

Ruark, G.A., Schoeneberger, M.M. and Nair, P.K.R. 2003. Roles for agroforestry in helping

to achieve sustainable forest management. UNFF Intersessional Experts Meeting on

the Role of Planted Forests in Sustainable Forest Management, New Zealand.

72

Sinha, P., Roy, S.K. 2005. Propagation and silviculture of two forest trees, Shorea robusta

and Dipterocarpus turbinatus, for restoration of a sustainable forest ecosystem. The

International Forestry Review. Forests in the Balance: Linking Tradition and

Technology. XXII IUFRO World Congress, Brisbane, Australia.

Shukla, R.S. and Chandel, P.S. 2000. Plant ecology and soil science. 9th ed. S. Chand &

Company Ltd. Ram Nagar, New Delhi.

Thiollay J. M., 1995. The Role of Traditional Agroforests in the Conservation of Rain

Forest Bird Diversity in Sumatra. Conservation Biology, 9(2): 335‐353

White, R. and Ali, M.O. 1979. Research objectives. Field Document No. 2. Bangladesh

Forest research Institute, Chittagong, Bangladesh. 88p.

73

Appendices

Appendix I: The maximum (Max.) and minimum (Min.) temperature (Temp.) of the study


Month Max. Temp. (°C) Min. Temp. (°C) July 32.7 26.4

August 32.9 25.9 September 32.5 25.5 October 32.8 23.6 November 29.3 18.5 December 26.5 13.4 January 23.8 10.2 February 24.9 15.1

Appendix II: Total rainfall of the study area from July 2006 to February 2007.

Month Total Rainfall (mm) July 2754

August 2075 September 3927 October 313 November 6 December 0 January 0 February 401

Appendix III: The maximum (Max.) and minimum (Min.) relative humidity (R.H.) of the

study area from July 2006 to February 2007.

Month Max. R. H. (%) Min. R. H. (%) July 98 53

August 98 54 September 100 52 October 99 40 November 99 27 December 100 32 January 100 23 February 100 27

74

Appendix IV: Soil pH of NF and AF in August, 2006.

Soil pH Sample No. NF AF

01 5.5 4.4 02 5.3 7.1 03 4.9 4.5 04 4.7 5.0 05 5.0 4.9 06 4.6 4.9 07 5.1 4.8 08 5.0 4.9 09 5.3 5.0 10 4.6 4.9

Appendix V: Soil pH of NF and AF in February, 2007.

Soil pH Sample No. NF AF

01 4.7 4.2 02 4.5 6.5 03 4.9 6.3 04 4.8 4.6 05 4.8 6.4 06 4.2 6.0 07 4.3 4.7 08 4.5 4.5 09 4.2 4.5 10 4.0 4.9

Appendix VI: Soil iron (Fe) content of NF and AF in August, 2006.

Soil iron content (ppm) Sample No. NF AF

01 465.08 579.36 02 273.02 138.49 03 420.65 225.39 04 160.08 193.48 05 265.08 315.87 06 285.71 273.02 07 225.40 433.33 08 181.67 379.36 09 233.33 374.60 10 301.58 390.47

75

Appendix VII: Soil iron (Fe) content of NF and AF in February, 2007.

Soil iron content (ppm) Sample No. NF AF

01 318.59 248.07 02 344.87 205.77 03 361.54 201.28 04 251.92 212.18 05 150.35 184.39 06 226.92 244.23 07 223.07 210.25 08 337.18 248.13 09 419.23 256.41 10 102.84 30.41

Appendix VIII: Soil organic matter of NF and AF in August, 2006.

Soil organic matter (%) Sample No. NF AF

01 2.10 2.08 02 2.13 2.72 03 2.75 1.57 04 0.91 1.90 05 1.29 1.82 06 1.10 2.06 07 1.03 1.83 08 1.24 0.87 09 2.12 1.80 10 1.31 1.69

Appendix IX: Soil organic matter of NF and AF in February, 2007.

Soil organic matter (%) Sample No. NF AF

01 2.00 2.18 02 2.23 2.72 03 2.70 1.87 04 1.91 1.75 05 1.19 1.62 06 1.15 2.16 07 1.13 1.53 08 1.54 1.87 09 2.52 1.85 10 0.91 0.72

76

Appendix X: List of plants which provide food for capped langurs and monkeys.

Sl. No. Local name Scientific name Used parts 01 Joyna Schleichera oleosa Leaves, fruits 02 Ajuli Dellenia pentagyna Leaves, fruits 03 Chapalish Artocarpus chaplasha Fruits 04 Anarash Ananas comosus Fruits 05 Banana Musa spp. Fruits

Appendix XI: List of common plants which food and nesting sites for birds

Sl. No.

Local name

Scientific name Family name Provide food(F) and nesting site(N)

01 Koroi Albizzia procera Leguminosae N 02 Kanchan Bauhinia acuminata Leguminosae F, N 03 Akashmoni Acacia auriculiformis Leguminosae F, N 04 Shonalu Cassia fistula Leguminosae F, N 05 Kadam Anthocephalus chinensis Rubiaceae F, N 06 Ajuli Dellenia pentagyna Dillenaceae F, N 07 Jarul Lagerstroemia speciosa Lythraceae N 08 Bot Ficus bengalensis Moraceae F, N 09 Jam Syzygium grandis Myrtaceae F, N 10 Bohera Terminalia belerica Combretaceae F, N 11 Haritaki Terminalia chebula Combretaceae F, N 12 Am Mangifera indica Anacardiaceae F, N 13 Amloki Phyllanthus embelica Euphorbiaceae F, N 14 Gab Diospyros peregrina Ebenaceae F, N 15 Nim Azadirachta indica Meliaceae F, N 16 Shimul Bombax ceiba Bombacaceae F, N

Appendix XII: List of medicinal plants which found in Madhupur Sal forest.

Sl. No. Local name Scientific name Family name 01 Bohera Terminalia belerica Combretaceae 02 Haritaki Terminalia chebula Combretaceae 03 Amloki Phyllanthus embelica Euphorbiaceae 04 Bot Ficus bengalensis Moraceae 05 Kadam Anthocephalus chinensis Rubiaceae 06 Nim Azadirachta indica Meliaceae 07 Shimul Bombax ceiba Bombacaceae 08 Gamari Gmelina arborea Verbenaceae 09 Kathal Artocarpus heterophyllus Moraceae 10 Bel Aegle marmelos Rutaceae 11 Arjun Terminalia arjuna Combretaceae 12 Ulatkambal Abroma augusta Sterculiaceae 13 Chalta Dellenia indica Dillenaceae

77

14 Amrah Spondias pinnata Anacardiaceae 15 Dhutura Datura metel Solanaceae 16 Swarnalata Cuscuta reflexa Convolvulaceae 17 Lajjabati Mimosa pudica Leguminosae 18 Kalomegh Andrographis paniculata Acanthaceae 19 Bashok Adhatoda vasica Acanthaceae

78

Date post:	18-Nov-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	nazmulju
View:	1,279 times
Download:	15 times

B.Sc. Final Project Report (Md. Nazmul Haque, Roll-1295)

Documents