ISSN: 1412-033X E-ISSN: 2085-4722 -...

ISSN: 1412-033XE-ISSN: 2085-4722

Journal of Biological DiversityVolume 16 Number 1 April 2015

ISSN/E-ISSN:1412-033X (printed edition), 2085-4722 (electronic)

EDITORIAL BOARD (COMMUNICATING EDITORS):Abdel Fattah N.A. Rabou (Palestine), Alan J. Lymbery (Australia), Alireza Ghanadi (Iran), Ankur Patwardhan (India), Bambang H.

Saharjo (Indonesia), Daiane H. Nunes (Brazil), Ghulam Hassan Dar (India), Guofan Shao (USA), Faiza Abbasi (India), HassanPourbabaei (Iran), Hwan Su Yoon (South Korea), I Made Sudiana (Indonesia), Ivan Zambrana-Flores (United Kingdom), Joko R.

Witono (Indonesia), Katsuhiko Kondo (Japan), Krishna Raj (India), Livia Wanntorp (Sweden), M. Jayakara Bhandary (India), MahdiReyahi-Khoram (Iran), Mahendra K. Rai (India), Mahesh K. Adhikari (Nepal), Mara La Torre Cuadros (Peru), Maria Panitsa

(Greece), Muhammad Akram (Pakistan), Muhammad Iqbal (Indonesia), Mochamad A. Soendjoto (Indonesia), Mohib Shah (Pakistan),Mohamed M.M. Najim (Srilanka), Pawan K. Bharti (India), Paul K. Mbugua (Kenya), Rasool B. Tareen (Pakistan), Seweta Srivastava

(India), Seyed Aliakbar Hedayati (Iran), Shahabuddin (Indonesia), Shahir Shamsir (Malaysia), Shri Kant Tripathi (India), Stavros Lalas(Greece), Subhash Santra (India), Sugiyarto (Indonesia), T.N.Prakash Kammardi (India)

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF:S u t a r n o

EDITORIAL MEMBERS:English Editors: Suranto, Wiryono ([email protected]); Technical Editor & Banking: Solichatun ([email protected])

Distribution & Marketing: Rita Rakhmawati ([email protected]); Webmaster: Ari Pitoyo ([email protected])

MANAGING EDITORS:Ahmad Dwi Setyawan ([email protected])

PUBLISHER:The Society for Indonesian Biodiversity

CO-PUBLISHER:Department of Biology, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta

ADDRESS:Jl. Ir. Sutami 36A Surakarta 57126. Tel. +62-271-7994097, Tel. & Fax.: +62-271-663375, Email: [email protected]

ONLINE:biodiversitas.mipa.uns.ac.id

EXPERTISE AND CORRESPONDING EMAIL OF THE COMMUNICATING EDITORS:GENETIC DIVERSITY: Alan J. Lymbery ([email protected]), Hwan Su Yoon ([email protected]), Mahendra K. Rai([email protected]). SPECIES DIVERSITY: Joko R. Witono ([email protected]), Katsuhiko Kondo ([email protected]),

Livia Wanntorp ([email protected]), Mahesh K. Adhikari ([email protected]), Maria Panitsa ([email protected]),Mohib Shah ([email protected]), Paul K. Mbugua ([email protected]), Rasool B. Tareen ([email protected]).ECOSYSTEM DIVERSITY: Abdel Fattah N.A. Rabou ([email protected]), Alireza Ghanadi ([email protected]), Ankur

Patwardhan ([email protected]), Bambang H. Saharjo ([email protected]), Daiane H. Nunes ([email protected]),Faiza Abbasi ([email protected]), Ghulam Hassan Dar ([email protected]), Guofan Shao ([email protected]), Hassan

Pourbabaei ([email protected]), I Made Sudiana ([email protected]), Ivan Zambrana-Flores ([email protected]),Krishna Raj ([email protected]), Mahdi Reyahi-Khoram ([email protected]), Muhammad Iqbal ([email protected]),

Mochamad A. Soendjoto ([email protected]), Mohamed M.M. Najim ([email protected]), Pawan K. Bharti([email protected]), Seweta Srivastava ([email protected]), Seyed Aliakbar Hedayati ([email protected]),

Shahabuddin ([email protected]), Shahir Shamsir ([email protected]), Shri Kant Tripathi ([email protected]),Stavros Lalas ([email protected]), Subhash Santra ([email protected]), Sugiyarto ([email protected]), T.N. Prakash Kammardi

([email protected]). ETHNOBIOLOGY: M. Jayakara Bhandary ([email protected]), Mara La Torre Cuadros([email protected]), Muhammad Akram ([email protected]).

Society for IndonesiaBiodiversity

Sebelas Maret UniversitySurakarta

BIODIVERSITAS ISSN: 1412-033XVolume 16, Number 1, April 2015 E-ISSN: 2085-4722Pages: 1-9 DOI: 10.13057/biodiv/d160101

Effects of timber harvest on structural diversity and speciescomposition in hardwood forests

FARZAM TAVANKAR1,, AMIR ESLAM BONYAD21Department of Forestry, Khalkhal Branch, Islamic Azad University, Khalkhal, Iran. P.O. Box 56817-31367, Tel.: +98 4532451220-2,

Fax: +98 42549050452, email: [email protected] of Forestry, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Guilan, Somehsara, Iran.

Manuscript received: 13 August 2014. Revision accepted: 10 September 2014.

Abstract. Tavankar F, Bonyad AE. 2015. Effects of timber harvest on structural diversity and species composition in hardwood forests.Biodiversitas 16: 1-9. Forest management leads to changes in structure and species composition of stands. In this research vertical andhorizontal structure and species composition were compared in two harvested and protected stands in the Caspian forest of Iran. Theresults indicated the tree and seedling density, total basal area and stand volume was significantly (P < 0.01) higher in the protectedstand. The Fagus orientalis L. had the most density and basal area in the both stands. Species importance value (SIV) of Fagusorientalis in the protected stand (92.5) was higher than in the harvested stand (88.5). While, the SIV of shade-intolerant tree species suchas Acer insigne, Acer cappadocicum and Alnus subcordata was higher in the harvested stand. The density of trees and seedling of raretree species, such as Ulmus glabra, Tilia begonifolia, Zelkova carpinifolia and Fraxinus coriarifolia, was also higher in the protectedstand. The Shannon-Wiener diversity index in the protected stand (0.84) was significantly higher (P < 0.01) than in the harvested stand(0.72). The highest diversity value in the harvested stand was observed in DBH of 10-40 cm class, while DBH of 40-70 cm had thehighest diversity value in the protected stand.

Key words: Beech stands, Shannon-Wiener index, stand structure, uneven aged management.

INTRODUCTION

One main principle of biodiversity protection in multiplemanagement of national forest is the protection of standsstructure composition (Eyre et al. 2010; Sohrabi et al.2011). In forest science, stand structure refers to the within-stand distribution of trees and other plants characteristicssuch as size, age, vertical and horizontal arrangement, orspecies composition (Powelson and Martin 2001).Structural diversity is a straightforward indicator ofpotential biodiversity in forest landscapes because a diversestand structure provides better habitat for forest-dwellingorganisms. Broadly accepted, a structurally diverse standprovides living space for a number of organisms.Increasing and maintaining structural diversity in foreststands, also has become an important forest managementstrategy for adapting climate change. Conservation offorests biodiversity is one of important objective insustainable forest management (Burton et al. 1992;Brockerhoff et al. 2008). It is common opinion in forestecology that different management practices are a majordeterminant of forest diversity and that a more complexforest structure is linked to a high diversity of plant andanimal species (Pretzsch 1997; Boncina 2000; Shimatani2001). Forest management leads to changes in horizontaland vertical structure (Kuuluvainen et al. 1996; North et al.1999) and in the species composition (Nagaike Hayashi2004; Uuttera et al. 1997). The idea that biodiversity can be

maintained by managing the structural diversity of stands isa common argument among researchers (Buongiorno et al.1994; Lindenmayer and Franklin 1997; Sullivan et al.2001; Franklin et al. 2002; Kant 2002; Varga et al. 2005).Some silvicultural practices can enhance biologicaldiversity in managed forests, such as retaining old trees(Seymour and Hunter 1999), maintaining adequate levelsof dead wood (Sturtevant 1997), establishing mixed stands(Palik and Engstrom 1999) or extending rotation lengths(Ferris et al. 2000).

The Caspian natural forests of Iran also called Hyrcanianforests, are located on the southern border of the CaspianSea and cover an area of 2 million hectares. The stands inthis area are the most valuable and economical. The mainbenefits of these forests are essentially two-fold: on the onehand there is its wood production while on the other handthere are various physical and social effects frequentlytermed as forest influence. In many instances, the lattertranscends is the significance of forests as producers ofwood (Bonyad et al. 2012). The current forest harvestingmethod in these forests is mainly selective cutting. Themain goal of selection cutting management is uneven agedand mixed stands that are close to nature. Selection cuttingis the silvicultural practice of harvesting a proportion of thetrees in a stand (Pourmajidian and Rahmani 2009). Inselective cutting, each tree must be individually assessed todecide whether it should be cut or left. In reality, thismethod is the practice of removing mature timber or

BIODIVERSITAS 16 (1): 1-9, April 20152

thinning to improve the timber stand. Selection cuttingimproves the health of the stand and releases space foryoung trees to grow. In the selection system, regeneration,tending, and harvesting all take place concurrently (MarvieMohadjer 2006). Selection cutting may include opening upareas to allow tree species that require greater lightintensity to grow but that are not large enough to meet thelegal definition of a clear cut (Nyland 1998; Anderson et al.2000; Webster and Lorimer 2002; Pourmajidian andRahmani 2009). Selection cutting is appropriate for forestscomposed of trees of different sizes and ages. Selectioncutting does not have a visual impact on landscapesbecause only some of trees are removed, a factor that ismuch appreciated by forest users. Uneven-agedmanagement is one alternative that could generatesustainable harvests while maintaining continuous forestcover and protecting stands diversity (Guldin 1996).

A planned program of silvicultural treatments ensuresthe conservation and maintenance of biological diversityand richness for sustainable forestry (Torras and Saura2008; Schumann et al. 2003; Battles and Fahey 2000;Simila et al. 2006). The uneven-aged management can beeconomically viable while preserving forest stand diversity(Buongiorno et al. 1994, Schulte and Buongiorno 1998,Volin and Buongiorno 1996).

Beech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky) is the most industrialcommercial tree species among more than 80 broad-leavedtrees and shrubs. Many studies have been carried out onplant biodiversity in Beech stands in Iran and around theworld (Sohrabi et al. 2011; Pourmajidian et al. 2009;Brunet et al. 2010; Sefidi et al. 2011; Pourbabaei et al.2013). The study of forest structure especially in virginforests is very important and gives us comprehensiveinformation about the condition in forest for programming.The selection cutting, such as other forestry practices, canleads to changes in stand structure and tree compositions.The stand structural diversity can be characterizedhorizontally, i.e. the spatial distribution of trees, andvertically in their height differentiation (Zenner and Hibbs2000). In this research, stand volume and structure, tree andseedling density, and species composition were comparedin the harvested and protected Beech dominated stands.The objective of this study was effects of timber harvestingon structural diversity and species composition in orientalBeech stands in the Iranian Caspian forests.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study areaThe study area is Iranian Caspian forests. These forests

are suitable habitats for a variety of hardwood species andinclude various forest types. Approximately 60% of theseforests are used for commercial purposes and the rest ofthem are more or less degraded (Marvie Mohadjer 2006).This study was conducted in Nav forests (latitude 37 38'34" to 37 42' 21" N, longitude 48 48' 44" to 48 52' 30"E) in Guilan province, north of Iran. Two adjacentcompartments of 123 (protected) and 112 (harvested) withareas of 43 and 63 ha were selected for collection of data.

The physiographical characteristics of these compartmentsare almost similar. The elevation of these compartmentsranges from 850 m to 1,100 m asl. The climate is temperateon based Demarton climate classification, with a meanannual temperature of 9.1C and mean annual precipitationof 950 mm for along with the 1990 to 2008 years.Vegetation period maintains for 7 months in average. Theoriginal vegetation of this area is an uneven-aged mixedforest dominated by Fagus orientalis and Carpinus betulus,with the companion species Alnus subcordata, Acerplatanoides, Acer cappadocicum, Ulmus glabra and Tiliarubra. The soil type is forest brown soil and the soil texturevaries between sandy clay loam to clay loam. This studywas carried out in two areas, harvested and protectedcompartments in the Nav forest area of Iran (Nav ForestManagement Plan 1998).

Data collectionData were collected by circular sample plots with an

area of 0.1 hectare. The sample plots were located on thestudy area through systematic grid (100 m 100 m) with arandom start point. Diameter at breast height (DBH) of alltrees (DBH 7.5 cm) was measured by diameter tape.Individuals of trees with DBH < 7.5 cm were counted byspecies as seedling. Height was measured to the nearest musing Suunto clinometer.

Data analysisSpecies importance value (SIV) for each specious was

calculated by (Ganesh et al. 1996; Krebs 1999; Pourbabaeiet al. 2013; Rezaei Taleshi 2014): SIV= Relative density(RD) + relative frequency (RF) + relative dominance (RD).Basal area was considered for dominancy and relativedominance (RD) calculated by: RD = (basal area of aspecies 100) / total basal area of all species. The speciesdiversity index was computed using the Shannon-Wienerinformation function (Krebs 1999; Sharma et al. 2009;Abedi and Pourbabaei 2010; Pourbabaei et al. 2012) as:H'=-ni/n log2 ni/n, where: ni = denote to the SIV of aspecies and n= denote to the sum of total SIV of all species.The species evenness index was computed using thePielous evenness index (J) as: J = H' / ln S, where ln isNatural logarithm, S is the total species number in eachplot. Also species richness (S) was number of species perplot. After checking for normality (Kolmogorov-Smirnovtest) and homogeneity of variance (Levenes test), themeans of stand characteristics (tree and seedling density,basal area, stand volume) in two compartments (harvestedand protected) were compared using independent samples ttest. The means of biodiversity indices (diversity, evennessand richness) in two compartments were also comparedusing independent samples t test. The means of biodiversityindices in DBH classes compared using a one-wayANOVA. Multiple comparisons were made by Tukeys test(significance at < 0.05). Regression analysis was appliedto test the relations between DBH and stand volume, treedensity and tree height. SPSS 19.0 software was used forstatistical analysis; also the results of the analysis werepresented using descriptive statistics.

TAVANKAR & BONYAD Effects of timber harvest on hardwood forests 3

Figure 3. Study site map of Nav-forest, northern Iran. A. Guilan Province, Iran, B. Nav-forest within study site, near Nav ( ), Asalem,Talesh, Guilan, Iran, C. Detailed site of forest sampling.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

ResultsThe stand parameters in two studied compartments are

shown in table 1. The results indicated the tree and seedlingdensity in the protected stand was significantly higher (P 100 cm in the protected stand were significantlyhigher than harvested stand (Table 5). The value ofevenness index was significantly higher in the protectedstand than the harvested stand only in the DBH class of >100 cm (Table 5). The values of richness index in the all ofDBH classes in the protected stand were significantlyhigher than the harvested stand (Table 5).

Table 1. Stand parameters (mean standard deviation) in the study sites.

Parameter Harvested Protected T-Value

Tree density (stem.ha-1) 232.7 57.7 344.1 41.3 11.14**

Basal area (m2.ha-1) 17.4 2.3 24.9 5.2 8.59**

Volume (m3.ha-1) 154.3 14.2 257.3 17.3 31.05**

Seedling density (stem.ha-1) 350.4 18.1 486.8 68.5 10.87**

Note: **: P < 0.01.

Table 2. Frequency and basal area of tree species in the study sites.

Density (stem.ha-1) Basal area (m2.ha-1)Tree species FamilyHarvested Protected Harvested Protected

Fagus orientalis Lipsky Fagaceae 66.8 89.1 5.1 7.9Carpinus betulus L. Corylaceae 32.6 54.7 2.8 3.4Acer insigne Boiss. Aceraceae 28.1 38.0 2.3 2.6Acer cappadocicum Gled. Aceraceae 26.5 32.6 1.8 2.3Alnus subcordata C.A.M. Betulaceae 25.0 30.1 1.1 1.7Acer platanoides L. Aceraceae 23.3 28.4 0.7 1.4Quercus castaneifolia Gled. Fagaceae 9.6 20.5 0.9 1.6Tilia begonifolia Stev. Tiliaceae 5.2 20.3 0.7 1.8Ulmus glabra Huds. Ulmaceae 3.3 10.8 0.6 1.4Zelkova carpinifolia Diopp Ulmaceae 2.8 8.5 0.5 1.0Fraxinus coriarifolia Scheel Oleaceae 2.2 4.1 0.3 0.6Mespilus germanica L. Rosaceae 2.0 2.4 0.1 0.2Cerasus avium L. Rosaceae 1.7 2.0 0.1 0.2Pyrus communis L. Rosaceae 1.2 1.8 0.1 0.1Prunus divaricata Ledeb. Rosaceae 1.0 1.5 0.1 0.1Sorbus torminalis L. Rosaceae 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.1

Table 3. Biodiversity indices (mean standard deviation) in DBH classes.

Diversity* Evenness RichnessDBH (cm)Harvested Protected Harvested Protected Harvested Protected

10-40 0.78 0.18a 0.70 0.13b 0.51 0.14b 0.46 0.18b 4.96 1.50a 6.80 1.54b40-70 0.55 0.16b 0.91 0.19a 0.60 0.17a 0.53 0.12b 4.51 1.45ab 6.21 1.53ab70-100 0.44 0.15c 0.81 0.20a 0.66 0.15a 0.71 0.16a 3.88 1.38b 5.65 1.58a> 100 0.40 0.10c 0.55 0.13c 0.53 0.14b 0.76 0.19a 3.20 1.25c 4.31 1.62aAll trees 0.72 0.15 0.84 0.09 0.61 0.08 0.70 0.07 3.77 1.09 4.79 1.08Note: *: Different letters in each column indicated significant difference at = 0.05.


Table 4. ANOVA results for means of biodiversity indices in DBH class.

Indices Sites SS df MS F P-Value

Harvested 3.307 3 1.102 182.05 0.000DiversityProtected 3.839 3 1.279 201.38 0.000

Harvested 2.736 3 0.912 112.45 0.000EvennessProtected 3.263 3 1.088 131.52 0.000

Harvested 49.293 3 16.431 28.760 0.000RichnessProtected 64.72 3 21.573 30.536 0.000

Table 5. Results of t test for comparing means of biodiversity indices in harvested and protected stands according DBH class.

DBH (cm) Diversity Evenness Richness

10-40 1.678N.S 1.982N.S 5.528**40-70 2.543* 2.104N.S 3.371**70-100 4.659** 2.001N.S 4.580**> 100 2.324* 3.064** 5.051**All trees 5.032** 6.058** 4.584**Note: N.S: Not significance, *: P < 0.05, **: P < 0.01

Figure 1. SIV of tree species in the harvested and protected stands.

Figure 2. Volume of tree species in the harvested and protected stands.


Figure 3. Seedling density of tree species in the harvested and protected stands.

Figure 4. Relation between DBH and tree height in the harvested and protected stands.

Figure 5. Relation between DBH and tree density in the harvested and protected stands.


Figure 6. Relation between DBH and stand volume in the harvested and protected stands.

DiscussionUnderstanding the effects of forest management

practices on plant species diversity is important forachieving ecologically sustainable forest management(Banda et al. 2006; Nagaike et al. 2006; Liang et al. 2007;Sefidi et al. 2011). The results of this study indicated thetree and seedling density, total basal area and stand volumein the protected stand was higher than in the harvestedstand. Managing the forest for periodic income from thesale of trees as raw material for forest products depends onbeing able to regenerate the forest successfully. Forests arethe most species rich of all terrestrial ecosystems andprovide essential benefits to society. Forest managementplan should describe both short and long term managementgoals and how to maintain forest productivity. Qiu et al.(2006) investigated effects of selection cutting on the foreststructure and species diversity of evergreen broad-leavedforest in northern Fujian, China. They reported selectioncutting of low and medium intensities caused to littlevariation in the stand structure, while high intensity ofselection cutting caused to significantly changing in thestand structure. Sohrabi et al. (2011) studied structuraldiversity of Beech stands in northern Iran and reported themost diversity of trees is in low height and diameter classes.

The results of this study indicated the density of treesand seedling of rare tree species, for example, Ulmusglabra, Tilia begonifolia, Zelkova carpinifolia andFraxinus coriarifolia, in the protected stand was higherthan in the harvested stand. It is widely demonstrated thatmore species contribute to greater ecosystem stability.Nowadays, forest management practices increasinglypromote conservation and enhancement of biodiversity.Forest management typically has a marked affect on plantspecies diversity, which is an important ecologicalindicator (Lindenmayer et al. 2000). Poor forestmanagement practices contribute to decline or loss ofbiodiversity. The conservation of biodiversity has become amajor concern for resource managers and conservationistsworldwide and it is one of the foundation principles ofecologically sustainable forestry (Carey and Curtis 1996;Hunter 1999).

Our results indicated the species importance value(SIV) of shade-intolerant species such as Acer insigne,Acer cappadocicum and Alnus subcordata in the harvestedstand were higher than protected stand. The diversity of aforest stand may not be sufficiently described by treespecies diversity alone. Forest ecologically managementinclude forest ecosystem, wood production and non timbervalues (Lindenmayer et al. 2000; Pourbabaei andPourrahmati 2009). The forest biodiversity guidelines focuson how best to conserve and enhance biodiversity inforests, through appropriate planning, conservation andmanagement. Tavankar et al. (2011) investigated effects ofselection cutting on species diversity of trees andregeneration at a 10 years period in the Caspian forests.Their results indicated species diversity of tree andregeneration were slightly increased after 10 years fromcutting since. Also the researchers reported the speciesimportance value (SIV) of Beech and Hornbeam trees weredecreased, but SIV of Maple and Alder trees wereincreased at the end of period.

The structural attributes of forest stands are increasinglyrecognized as being of theoretical and practical importancein the understanding and management of forest ecosystems(Franklin et al. 2002). The structural diversity can becharacterized by diameter variation of trees in a foreststand. The regression analysis of relation between DBHand tree height showed the height of trees with DBH of >30 cm in protected stand were higher than in the harvestedstand. Pourmajidian and Rahmani (2009) compared standstructure after 12 years in a Beech stand. They reported thestand volume was not significantly changed, but densityand basal area of trees significantly increased after 12years. Structural diversity is an important property of foreststands. Diameter diversity is the most straightforward wayfor quantifying vertical structure (canopy layering) of aforest stand because diameter is strongly associated withtree height and crown width (Neumann and Starlinger2001). The regression analysis of relation between DBHand tree density showed the density of trees in the protectedstand were higher than in the harvested stand in the allDBH classes. Villela et al. (2006) studied effect of


selective logging on stand structure in Brazil forests andreported did not differ in stem density and total basal areain logged and unlogged stands, but unlogged stand hadmore density of large diameter trees and greater mean ofcanopy height.

Forest managers have been seeking a feasible way tointegrate biodiversity issues into management plans. Tocontrol forest stand structure may be the most practical wayto manage biodiversity in forest ecosystems. The regressionanalysis of relation between DBH and stand volumeshowed the trees with DBH of almost 80 cm have the moststand volume in the both harvested and protected stands.Kia-Daliri et al. (2011) investigated how to marking oftrees that will be harvested during selection cutting and itsimpact on stand structure in a mixed Beech stand inCaspian forest. They reported the most marked andharvested trees were large diameter (DBH > 60 cm), highquality and Beech specimen.

It is now widely accepted that forests should bemanaged in an ecologically sustainable fashion (Kohm andFranklin 1997; Lindenmayer et al. 2000). Biodiversity is anessential case for life continuance, economical affairs andecosystems function and resistance (Singh 2002).Biodiversity measurement is recognized as guidance forconservation plans in local scale. The knowledge of thefloristic composition of an area is a perquisite for anyecological and phyto-geographical studies and conservationmanagement activities (Jafari and Akhani 2008).

Forests are among the most diverse and complexecosystems in the world, providing a habitat for a multitudeof flora and fauna. The results of this study indicated thevalue of biodiversity indices (diversity, evenness andrichness) in the protected stand were significantly higherthan in the harvested stand. It has been well documentedthat species composition and diversity can be used asindicators of past management practices in forested areas(Hunter 1999; Kneeshaw et al. 2000). Species richness anddiversity are useful indicators of the effects of forestmanagement practices (Nagaike et al. 2006). Speciesdiversity is an important index in community ecology(Myers and Harms 2009). Ecologically sustainable forestryis the practice of land stewardship that integrates growingand harvesting of trees while protecting soil, water,biodiversity and landscape.

In this research effects of timber harvesting onstructural diversity and species composition in mixedBeech (Fagus orientalis L.) stands were studied in theCaspian forests of Iran. They are suitable habitats for avariety of hardwood species such as Beech, Hornbeam,oak, maple and Alder. The silvicultural method is singleselection cutting and commercial logging is accomplishedwithin the legal framework of forestry management plan inthe Caspian forests of Iran. These forests are the mostvaluable forests in Iran. These forests are known as one ofthe most basic resources for wood production and have abig share in supplying wood to the related industries. Oursuggestion for biodiversity conservation is to leave the treespecies that are less dense in these stands, such as Ulmusglabra, Zelkova carpinifolia, Fraxinus coriarifolia andCerasus avium and logging operation focus on the tree

species that are high density. Diversity of species iscorrelated to the diversity of their habitats. Marking fortrees selection should not be only for harvesting of thewood, but also it should consider the uneven agedstructure, keeping the seed trees and their regeneration andthe diversity of wood species. The conservation ofbiological diversity is one of the goals of ecologicallysustainable forestry (Lindenmayer et al. 2000). Fullyprotected areas are often assumed to be the best way toconserve plant diversity and maintain intact forestcomposition and structure (Banda et al. 2006). Forestprotection should aim at ensuring that forests continue toperform all their productive, socio-economic andenvironmental functions in the future. Forest structure isthe important feature in management of forest ecosystems(Zenner and Hibbs 2000; Tavankar 2013).

REFERENCES

Abedi R, Pourbabaei H. 2010. Plant diversity in natural forest of GuilanRural Heritage Museum in Iran. Biodiversitas 11 (4): 182-186.

Anderson SC, Kupfer JA, Wilson RR, Cooper RJ. 2000. Estimating forestcrown area removed by selection cutting: a linked regression GISapproach based on stump diameters. For Ecol Manag 137 (1-3): 171-177.

Banda T, Schwartz MW, Caro T. 2006. Woody vegetation structure andcomposition along a protection gradient in a miombo ecosystem ofwestern Tanzania. For Ecol Manag 230: 179-185.

Battles JJ, Fahey TJ. 2000. Gap dynamics following forest decline: A casestudy of Red spruce forests. Ecol Appl 10: 760-774.

Boncina A. 2000. Comparison of structure and biodiversity in theRajhenav virgin forest remnant and managed in the Dinaric region ofSlovenia. Global Ecol Biogeogr 9: 201-211.

Bonyad AE, Sima A, Bakhshandh B, Dadras H. 2012. Evaluation of non-destructive Meyer method for determination the bark volume ofBeech (Fagus oriantalis Lipsky) in different geographical aspects.Caspian J Environ Sci 10 (1): 67-73.

Brockerhoff EG, Jactel H, Parrotta JA, Quine CP, Sayer J. 2008.Plantation forests and biodiversity: Oxymoron or opportunity? BiodivConserv 17: 925-951.

Brunet J, Fritz , Gustav Richnau G. 2010. Biodiversity in Europeanbeech forests-a review with recommendations for sustainable forestmanagement. Ecol Bull 53: 77-94

Buongiorno J, Dahir S, Lu HC, Lin CR. 1994. Tree size diversity andeconomic returns in uneven-aged forest stands. For Sci 40 (1): 83-103.

Burton PJ, Balisky AC, Coward LP, Cumming SG, Kneeshaw DD. 1992.The value of managing for biodiversity. For Chron 68 (2): 225-237.

Carey AB, Curtis RO. 1996. Conservation of biodiversity: a usefulparadigm for forest ecosystem management. Wildlife Soc Bull 24 (4),610-620.

Eyre TJ, Butler DW, Kelly AL, Wang J. 2010. Effects of forestmanagement on structural features important for biodiversity inmixed-age hardwood forests in Australias subtropics. For EcolManag 259: 534-546.

Ferris R, Peace AJ, Humphrey JW, Broome AC. 2000. Relationshipsbetween vegetation, site type and stand structure in coniferousplantations in Britain, For Ecol Manag 136: 35-51.

Franklin JF, Spies TA, Van Pelt R, Carey AB, Thornburgh DA, Berg DR,Lindenmayer DB, Harmon ME, Eeton WSK, Shaw DC, Bible K,Chen J. 2002. Disturbances and structural development of naturalforest ecosystems with silvicultural implications, using Douglas-firforests as an example. For Ecol Manag 155 (1-3): 399-423.

Ganesh T, Ganesan R, Soubadra Devy M, Davidar P, Bawa K. 1996.Assessment of Plant biodiversity at a mid elevation evergreen forestof Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, Western Ghats, India. CurrSci 71: 379-392.

Guldin JM. 1996. The role of uneven-aged silviculture in the context ofecosystem management. Wes J App For 11 (1): 4-12.


Hunter ML. 1999. Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK..

Jafari SM, Akhani H. 2008. Plants of jahan nama protected area, Golestanprovince, N. Iran. Pak J Bot 40 (4): 15331554.

Kant S. 2002. The marginal cost of structural diversity of mixed uneven-aged hard maple forests. Can J For Res 32 (4): 616-628.

Kia-Daliri H, Akhavan R, Anisi I. 2011. Timber marking and its impacton forest stand (Case study: Shourab district of Golband region). IranJ For 3 (1): 49-59.

Kneeshaw DD, Leduc A, Drapeau P, Gauthier S, Pare D, Carigan R,Doucet R, Bouthillier L, Messier C. 2000. Development of integratedecological standards of sustainable forest management at anoperational scale. For Chron 76: 481-493.

Kohm K, Franklin JF. 1997. Forestry in 21st century, Island press, CoveloCalifornia.

Krebs CJ. 1999. Ecological Methodology. Harper and Row, New York.Kuuluvainen T, Penttinen A, Leinonen K, Nygren M. 1996. Statistical

opportunities for comparing stand structural heterogeneity inmanaged and primeval forests: An example from boreal spruce forestin southern Finland. Silva Fennica 30: 315-328.

Liang J, Buongiorno J, Monserud RA, Kruger EL, Zhou M. 2007. Effectsof diversity of tree species and size on forest basal area growth,recruitment and mortality. For Ecol Manag 243, 116-127.

Lindenmayer D, Franklin J. 1997. Managing stand structure as part ofecologically sustainable forest management in Australian mountainash forests. Conserv Biol 11 (5): 1053-1068.

Lindenmayer DB, Margules CR, Botkin DB. 2000. Indicator ofbiodiversity for ecologically sustainable forest management. ConservBiol 14 (4): 941-950.

Marvie-Mohadjer M. 2006. Silviculture in Iran. Tehran University Press.Myers JA, Harms KE. 2009. Seed arrival, ecological filters and plant

species richness: a meta-analysis. Ecol Lett 12 (11): 1250-1260.

Nagaike T, Hayashi A. 2004. Effects of extending rotation period on plantspecies diversity in Larix kaempferi plantations in central Japan. AnnFor Sci 61: 197-202.

Nagaike TA, Hayashi A, Kubo M, Abe MN, Arai N. 2006. Plant speciesdiversity in a managed forest landscape composed of Larix kaempferiplantations and abandoned coppice forests in Central Japan. For Sci52 (3): 324-332.

Nav Forest Management Plan. 1998. Asalem Natural Resources Office,Forestry Plan of District 1. Nav, Asalem, Guilan Province, Iran.

Neumann M, Starlinger F. 2001. The significance of different indices forstand structure and diversity in forests. For Ecol Manag 145: 91-106.

North MP, Franklin JF, Carey AB, Forsman ED, Hamer T. 1999. Foreststand structure of the northern spotted owls foraging habitat. For Sci45: 520-527.

Nyland D. 1998. Selection system in northern hardwoods. J For 96 (7):18-21.

Palik B, Engstrom RT. 1999. Species composition, in: Hunter ML (ed.),Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, UK.

Pourbabaei H, Asgari F, Reif A, Abedi R. 2012. Effect of plantations onplant species diversity in the Darabkola, Mazandaran Province, Northof Iran. Biodiversitas 13 (2): 72-78.

Pourbabaei H, Haddadi-Moghaddam H, Begyom-Faghir M, Abedi T.2013. The influence of gap size on plant species diversity andcomposition in beech (Fagus orientalis) forests, Ramsar, MazandaranProvince, North of Iran. Biodiversitas 14 (2): 89-94.

Pourbabaei H, Pourrahmati G. 2009. Plant species diversity in loblollypine (Pinus taeda L.) and sugi (Cryptomeria japonica D. Don.)plantations in the Western Guilan, Iran. Int J Biodiv Conserv 1 (2):38-44.

Pourmajidian MR, Malakshah NE, Fallah A, Parsakhoo A. 2009.Evaluating the shelterwood harvesting system after 25 years in abeech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky) forest in Iran. J For Sci 55 (6): 270-278.

Pourmajidian MR, Rahmani A. 2009. The influence of single-treeselection cutting on silvicultural properties of a northern hardwoodforest in Iran. American-Eurasian J Agric Environ Sci 5 (4): 526-532.

Powelson A, Martin P. 2001. Spacing to increase diversity within stands[Internet]. Stand Density Management Diagrams. Available from:http: //www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/pubs/standman/Sp_Div.pdf

Pretzsch H. 1997. Analysis and modelling of spatial stand structures:methodological considerations based on mixed beech-larch stands inLower Saxony. For Ecol Manag 97: 237-253.

Qiu RH, Chen H, Zhuo LX. 2006. Effects of selection cutting on the foreststructure and species diversity of evergreen broad-leaved forest innorthern Fujian, southern China. For Stud China 8 (1): 16-20.

Rezaei Taleshi SA. 2014. A comparative study on plant diversity in alder(Alnus subcordata) stands of natural and plantation areas.Biodiversitas 15 (1): 39-47.

Schulte BJ, Buongiorno J. 1998. Effects of uneven-aged silviculture onthe stand structure, species composition, and economic returns ofloblolly pine stands. For Ecol Manag 111: 83-101.

Schumann ME, White AS, Witham JW. 2003. The effects of harvestcreated gaps on plant species diversity, composition, and abundancein a Maine oak-pine forest. For Ecol Manag 176: 543-561.

Sefidi K, Marvie Mohadjer MR, Mosandl R, Copenheaver CA. 2011.Canopy gaps and regeneration in old-growth Oriental beech (Fagusorientalis Lipsky) stands, northern Iran. For Ecol Manag 262: 1094-1099.

Seymour R, Hunter ML. 1999 Principles of ecological forestry, in: HunterML (ed). Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, UK.

Sharma CM, Suyal S, Gairola S, Ghildiyal SK. 2009. Species richness anddiversity along and altitudinal gradient in moist temperate forest ofGarhwal Himalaya. J Amer Sci 5 (5): 119-128.

Shimatani K. 2001. On the measurement of species diversity incorporatingspecies differences. Oikos 93: 135-147.

Simila M, Kouki J, Monkkonen M, Sippola A, Huhta E. 2006. Covariationand indicators of species diversity: Can richness of forestdwellingspecies be predicted in northern boreal forests? Ecol Indicator 6: 686-700.

Singh JS. 2002. The biodiversity crisis: a multifaceted review. Curr Sci82: 499-500.

Sohrabi V, Rahmani R, Moayeri MH, Jabbari S. 2011. Assessment ofstructural diversity of Beech forest stands in north of Iran. Int J Biol 3(3): 60-65.

Sturtevant BR, Bissonette JA, Long JN, Roberts DW. 1997. Coarsewoody debris as a function of age, stand structure, and disturbance inboreal Newfoundland. Ecol Appl 7: 702-712.

Sullivan TP, Sullivan DS, Lindgren PMF. 2001. Influence of variableretention harvests on forest ecosystems. I. Diversity of stand structure.J Ecology 38 (6): 1221-1233.

Tavankar F, Mahmoudi J, Iranparast Bodaghi A. 2011. The effect ofsingle selection method on tree species diversity in the northernforests of Iran (Case study: Asalem-Nav, Gulan province). J Sci Techin Nat Resour 6 (1): 27-40.

Tavankar F. 2013. Woody species diversity and stand types in relict ofHyrcanian lowland forests, north of Iran. Plant Sci Feed 3 (7): 83-87

Torras O, Saura S. 2008. Effects of silvicultural treatments on forestbiodiversity indicators in the Mediterranean. For Ecol Manag 255:3322-3330.

Uuttera J, Maltamo M, Hotanen JP. 1997. The structure of forest stands invirgin and managed peat lands: a comparison between Finnish andRussian Karelia, For Ecol Manag 96: 125-138.

Varga P, Chen HYH, Klinka K. 2005. Tree-size diversity between single-and mixed-species stands in three forest types in western Canada. CanJ For Res 35 (3): 593-601.

Villela DM, Nascimento MT, De Aragao LEOC, Da Gama DM. 2006.Effect of selective logging on forest structure and nutrient cycling in aseasonally dry Brazilian Atlantic forest. J Biogeogr 33: 506-516.

Volin VC, Buongiorno J. 1996. Effects of alternative managementregimes on forest stand structure, species composition, and income: amodel for the Italian Dolomites. For Ecol Manag 87: 107-125.

Webster CR, Lorimer CG. 2002. Single-tree versus group selection inhemlock-hardwood forests: are smaller openings less productive? CanJ For Res 32 (4): 591-604.

Zenner EK, Hibbs DE. 2000. A new method for modeling theheterogeneity of forest structure. For Ecol Manag 129: 75-87.


Effect of Alnus subcordata, Acer insigne and Sequoia sempervirensplantations on plant diversity in Hyrcanian forest of Iran

FATEMEH GHEIBI, MOSLEM AKBARINIA, YAHYA KOOCHFaculty of Natural Resources and Marine Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, 46417-76489, Noor, Mazandaran, Iran.

Tel: + 98-122-6253101 (-3), Fax: + 98-122-6253499, email: [email protected].

Manuscript received: 19 June 2014. Revision accepted: 27 September 2014.

Abstract. Gheibi F, Akbarinia M, Kooch Y. 2015. Effect of Alnus subcordata, Acer insigne and Sequoia sempervirens plantations onplant diversity in Hyrcanian forest of Iran. Biodiversitas 16: 10-15. Forest plantation is a common action in order to restore thedegraded forests in Hyrcanian forests of Iran. This study compares the plant biodiversity in four 25-year-old stands of plantation,adjacent understorey of alder (Alnus subcordata C. A. Mey.), maple (Acer insigne Boiss.), sequoia or red wood (Sequoia sempervirens(D. Don) Endl.) and mixed stand (maple and sequoia), located in Salmanshahr of Mazandaran Province, northern Iran. Research carriedout in, 10 sample plots with 20m 20m area which taken by systematic-random in each plantation. All understorey species wereidentified, recorded and then the biodiversity indices (diversity, richness and evenness) were calculated. Our findings show that theplanted species had significant effects on understorey diversity. Statistical comparisons revealed that the highest and lowest diversity(Simpson and Shanon-Winer) and richness (Margalef and Menhinic) indices occurred in sequoia and alder stands, respectively. Theevenness indices (Camargo and Smith-Wilson) were significantly greater in maple, sequoia and mixed stands compared with the aldertype. As a conclusion, floristic change trends were different according to the planted tree species. A good understanding of thecomplexity of vegetation processes requires long-term monitoring of vegetation change.

Key words: diversity, evenness, richness, sequoia, understorey.

INTRODUCTION

Biodiversity is necessary for mankind life duration,economical issues and for ecosystem stability and function(Singh 2002). Biodiversity is declining at an unprecedentedrate and on a global scale. Indeed, loss of ecosystemfunctions and services associated with such declines hasgenerated international debate (Zhou et al. 2006). Severalcauses have been identified to explain such loss, includingincreased land use by an expanding human population(Lambin and Geist 2006) and global climate change(Thuiller 2007). Biodiversity is often used to compare theforest ecosystems the ecological status of forest ecosystemsand evaluate the forest communities and ecosystems(Esmailzadeh and Hosseini 2008). Forests support about65% of the worlds terrestrial taxa (Lindenmayer et al.2006) and have the highest species diversity for manytaxonomic groups including birds, invertebrates andmicrobes (Lindenmayer et al. 2006). High species diversityin ecosystems led to high food chain and more complexnetwork environment (Lindenmayer et al. 2003). Thelayers of vegetation in a forest ecosystem support desirablehabitats for these taxonomic groups. So forests in the worldhave the most contribution to biodiversity in terrestrialecosystems. Loss of native species or alteration andintroduction of invasive species through habitat destructionis considerable because of vicinity of forest ecosystems tohuman population centers (Pilehvar et al. 2010).

Caspian forests of Iran are located in the north of Iranand south coast of Caspian Sea, also known as the

Hyrcanian forests (Takhtajan 1974; Kooch et al. 2014a,b).These forests cover 1.8 million hectares of land area.Approximately 60 percent of these forests are used forcommercial purposes and the rest of them are degraded.They are suitable habitats for a variety of hardwood speciessuch as beech, hornbeam, oak, maple, alder, andencompass various forest types including 80woody species(Marvie Mohadjer 2005). Today, the Caspian forests ofIran are depleting rapidly due to population growth, andassociated socio-economic problems, industrialdevelopment and urbanism (Poorzady and Bakhtiari 2009).Forest plantation is a common action in order to restore thedegraded forests in the Caspian region (Kooch et al. 2012;Mohammadnezhad Kiasari et al. 2013).

Forest plantations are being established at an increasingrate throughout much of the world, and now account for5% of global forest cover (FAO 2001). Plantations canbuffer edges between natural forests and non-forest lands,and improve connectivity among forest patches, whichmight be important for some populations (Cullen et al.2004). The primary aim of almost all plantations is theproduction of large quantities of woodland fiber (e.g. fortimber and pulp production). However, there are oftenimportant opportunities for biodiversity conservationwithin plantations (Hartley 2002). Various studies havefound that plantations of native or exotic timber species canincrease biodiversity by promoting woody understoreyregeneration (Carnevale and Montagnini 2002). Plantationspromote understorey regeneration by shading out grasses,increasing nutrient status of topsoil (through litter fall), and

GHEIBI et al. Effect of commercial trees plantations on plant diversity 11

facilitating the influx of site-sensitive tree species (Cusackand Montagnini 2006).

Numerous studies have shown that the establishment ofplantations or restoration plantings on degraded lands canameliorate unfavorable microclimatic and soil conditions,and provide habitat for seed-dispersing wildlife, there bygreatly accelerating natural forest regeneration (Carnus etal. 2006). Previous studies investigated the effect ofdifferent land use and also cover on plant biodiversity withdifferent condition (Nagaike 2002; Esmailzadeh andHosseini 2008; Pilehvar et al. 2010, Taleshi and Akbarinia2011; Mohammadnejad Kiasari et al. 2013). Here wedesigned to investigate and compare the plant diversity inthe stands of 25-year-old plantation (sequoia, maple, alderand sequoia-maple mixed). The results of this study can beuseful for forest plantation and conservation of biodiversityin degraded lands located in northern forests of Iran andsame situation. This information also can be used as thedatabase for further research.


Site characteristicsThe study area is located at the Tilekenar district of

Salmanshahr in Mazandaran Province, in the north of Iran,between 3639'36N-3640'01N and 5109'55 E-5110'18 E at the coast of Caspian sea (Figure 1). Study

stands were located at an altitude of 250 m above sea leveland with gentle slope (0-5%). Annual rainfall averages1300 mm, with wetter months occurring betweenSeptember and February. In the dry season from April toAugust, monthly rainfall usually averages less than 40 mmfor four months. The soils have textures of loam and clayloam with an acidic pH in the top layers; in the deep layers,soil textures were clay and silty clay and soil pH was lessacidic. Previously this area was dominated by degradednatural forests containing native tree species such asQuercus castaneifolia, Zelkova carpinifolia, Parrotiapersica, Carpinus betulus, Diospyros lotus and Buxushyrcana. While 25 years ago after clear cutting (in smallareas in degraded natural forests), reforestations have beenestablished (within 33 m spaces) in this area with somenative species including alder (Alnus subcordata C. A.Mey.), maple (Acer insigne Boiss.), as well as exoticspecies of sequoia or red wood (Sequoia sempervirens (D.Don) Endl.) and mixed stand (maple and sequoia).

Data collection and diversity measuresResearch done in, 10 sample plots with 400 m2

(20m20m) areas taken by systematic-random in eachplantation. The entire understorey species were identified,recorded and then the values of diversity (Simpson andShanon-Wiener indices), richness (Margalef and Menhinicindices) and evenness indices (Camargo and Smith-Wilsonindices) were calculated by using PAST and EcologicalMethodology software's as follow (Mesdaghi 2001, 2005):

Figure 1. Site locations of study area in Mazandaran Province, north of Iran.

50o 00

Caspian Sea

Sequoia sempervirensMixed standAlnus subcordata

Acer insigne


..............................................(1)

Where, S is Simpson index; s is the number of species;ni is the number of ith species in sample; N is the numberof all species.

..............................................(2)

Where, H is Shannon-Wiener index; s is the number ofspecies; PI is the proportion of individuals found in the ithspecies.

.........................................................(3)

Where, R is Margalef index; s is the number of species;N is the number of all species.

................................................................(4)

Where, R is Menhinic index; s is the number of species;N is the number of all species.

..................... (5)

Where, E is Camargo species evenness indexes; Pi isthe ratio of ith species to all species; Pj is the ratio of jthspecies to all species; S is the number of species.

..(6)

Where, Evar is Smith and Wilson index; ni is the numberof ith species in sample; nj is the number of jth species insample; S is the number of all species.

Statistical analysisThe normality of the variables was checked by the

Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, while Levenes test was used toexamine the equality of the variances. Differences inbiodiversity indices (diversity, richness and evenness)among afforested stands were tested with ANOVA One-way analysis. Duncans test was used to separate theaverages of the dependent variables which weresignificantly affected by treatment. Significant differencesamong treatment averages for different parameters weretested at P 0.05.


A total number of 47 plant species were identified inthe studied stands (Table 1).Our findings show that theplanted species had significant effects on understoreydiversity (Table 2). Statistical comparisons revealed thatthe highest and lowest diversity (Simpson and Shanon-Winer) and richness (Margalef and Menhinic) indicesoccurred in sequoia and alder stands, respectively (Figure2a, b , c, d). The evenness indices (Camargo and Smith-Wilson) were significantly greater in pure maple andsequoia as well as mixed stands compared with the aldertype (Figure 2 e,f).

In the early stages after clear cutting due to highintensity light herbaceous plant diversity rapidly increasedand sometimes invasive species are dominant (Humpheryet al. 2003). Diversity index is the combination of speciesrichness and evenness that have both the species richnessand evenness in a quantity collects (Brockway et al. 1998).Biodiversity in a plantation area increase when trees are cutdown to grow seedlings during planting seedlings in achange of fluctuate.

In the present study, the most dominant species in allstands belongs to those after the destruction of the naturalarea expand sand shows the breakdown of naturalecosystem of the destroyed area (Marvie Mohadjer 2005).Initially, study area was in the natural forest and slowlybecome dilapidated due to human influences, and topreventing the process of destruction and human poachinginto forest plantation of exotic and native species has beensuggested. The destruction of the ecosystem stops and withtime recover and return to the natural ecosystem would berequire a lot of time finally what is visible the plantationwas able to stop the destruction. Various species richnessshows that the numbers of plant species in an area areachieved. So far, a large number of species richness, whichwas invented by the index counts the total number ofspecies (Maguran 1988), as is most celebrated for speciesrichness (Kent and Coker 1992). Our findings showed thatthe number of species in the stands of sequoia and mixedare more than others, as shown in Figure 3, by the Margalefindex. The simple stand most common criterion forassessing species richness of habitats and plantcommunities is the number of species (Humphrey et al.1996).

The broken branches in sequoias stand were moredetected than other stands that cause more light to penetrateinto the stand and may cause a higher diversity in sequoiastand. Dense canopy of alder and maple perhaps is onereason for the low number of species on the forest coverplantation compared to sequoia stand. The result ofFallahchai and Hashemi (2012) research showed thatShanon-Winer diversity index had greater amounts in thePinus taeda stand than to the other broad-leaved stands. Asshown indifferent researches that planting of tree species ina plantation canopy over time, that larger trees are alsowider and it would reduce the variation in stand plantation.Plant diversity will be reduced with closing of canopycover gradually (Kuksina and Ulanova 2000).Since thesequoia stand that is a species of conifers, its soils are more


acidic than other sand presence of higher percentage offerns can be a reason for the higher diversity and richnessof the stand.

Barbier et al. (2008) in their review study on the effectof tree on herbaceous species diversity and the mechanismsaffecting boreal forests also concluded that presence ofacidic friendly (Acidophilus) under a canopy of conifersspecies diversity in these populations will increase. Also,the effect of these have on the soil and encourage moreherbaceous plants that are more oriented toward acidic soilsto increase some parameters in this stand (Humphery et al.2002). As alder species belong to those that leaves earlierand shed it after other therefore over the years a massivecanopy will be emerge which with the high humidity of the

stand can also reduce biodiversity. The numerical value ofthe indices was not too different, because after 25 yearssince plantation the plantation covers of different standsbecome similar to each other.

Table 2. ANOVA for biodiversity indices in the studied stands

Biodiversity indices F-value Sig.Diversity Simpson 7.161 .000**

Shannon-Wiener 5.426 .001**Richness Margalef 3.374 .019**

Menhinic 9.812 .000**Evenness Camargo 11.011 .000**

Smith and Wilson 9.331 .000**Note: **Different is significant at the 0.01 level.

Table 1. Average percentage of floor coverings in the studied stands.

Scientific name Sequoia Maple Alder Mixed

Brachypodium pinnatum (L.) P.Beauv. 0.1 0.14 0 0.06Carex sylvatica L. 1.53 1.76 2.57 1.34Conyza bonariensis (L.) Cronq. 0 0.18 0 0Oxalis corniculata L. 0 0.08 0 0Oplismenus undulatifolius (Ard.) P. Beauv. 14.94 15.68 51.7 20.64Calystegia sepium (L.) R.Br. 0 0.2 0.64 0.23Cyclamen coum Miller. 0 0.1 0 0Primula heterochroma Stapf. 0 0.12 0.24 0Parietaria officinalis L. 0 0.54 0 0Pteris cretica L. 5.26 0.44 0.82 11.54Urtica dioica L. 0 0.06 0 0.04Scutellaria tournefortii Benth. 0 0.04 0.12 0Viola alba L. 1.78 1.26 1.06 1.31Fragaria vesca L. 0.12 0.04 0 0.04Geum urbanum L. 0 0 0.42 0Prunella vulgaris L. 0 0 0.88 0Hypericum androsaemum L. 0.02 0 0.04 0Polystichum aculeatum (L.) Roth 1.9 0 0.56 1.7Clinopodium vulgare L. 0 0 0.38 0Solanum nigrum L. 0 0 0.1 0Stellaria media (L.) Cyr. 0 0 0.1 0Cardamine impatiens L. 0 0 0.06 0Phytolacca aquatica L. 0 0 0.13 0Plantago major L. 0.02 0 0 0Hedera pastuchovii Woron. 0.14 0 0 0.08Danae racemosa (L.) Moench 0 0 0 0.06Phyllitis scolopendrium (L.) Newm. 0.04 0.04 0 0.44Lamium album L. 0 0 0.26 0Sanicula europaea L. 0.38 0 0 0.04Smilax excelsa L. 0.38 0.24 0.36 0.36Pteris dentate Forssk 0.1 0 0 0Mentha aquatica L. 0.2 0 0 0Microstegium vimineum (Trin.) A. Camus. 0.62 0.39 0.51 2.08Carpesium cernuum L. 0.24 0 0 0.2Pimpinella affinis Ledeb 0.22 0 0 0Ajuga reptans L. 0.26 0 0 0.3Potentilla reptans L. 0.16 0 0 0.12Tamus communis L. 0.04 0 0 0.09Athyrium filix-femina (L.) Roth 3.66 0 0.2 1.6Setaria viridis (L.) P. Beauv. 0.1 0 0 0Mercurialis perennis L. 0.06 0 0 0.44Ruscus hyrcanus Woron. 0.76 0.78 1.26 0.7Sambucus nigra L. 0.06 0 0.58 1.5Rubus persicus Bioss. 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.4Melissa officinalis L. 0 0 0 0.04Ilex spinigera (Loes) Loes 0 0 0 0.6Unknown 0 0 0 0.4


Figure 2. Average values of Simpson (A) and Shanon-Wiener (B) Margalef (C) and Menhinic (D) Camargo (E) and Smith-Wilson (F)indices for understorey.

Here we designed to investigate and compare the plantdiversity in the stands of 25-year-old plantation (sequoia,maple, alder and sequoia-maple mixed). Our findingsindicated that the floristic change trends were differentaccording to the planted tree species. It is recommended topreserve biodiversity of the north forest of the country indestructed areas with planting of such species as sequoiamixed with native species. Since, this study examined a 25year old plantation biodiversity which within this durationnumerous species entered and disappeared so it issuggested such studies be conducted to documentsuccession years and biodiversity in this area again in thefollowing years. It is recommended that these trees plantedin degraded lands and clear cut areas in small zones.

REFERENCES

Barbier EB, Koch EW, Silliman BR, Hacker SD, Wolanski E, PrimaveraJ, Reed DJ. 2008. Coastal ecosystem-based management withnonlinear ecological functions and values. Science 319: 321-323.

Brockway DG, Outcalt KW, Wilkins RN. 1998. Restoring longleaf pinewiregrass ecosystems: plant cover, diversity and biomass followinglow-rate hexazinone application on Florida sand hills. For EcolManag 103: 159-175.

Carnevale N, Montagnini F. 2002. Facilitating regeneration of secondaryforests with the use of mixed and pure plantations of indigenous treespecies. For Ecol Manag 163: 217-227.

Carnus JM, Parrotta J, Brinkerhoff EG, Arbez M, Jactel H, Kremer A,Lamb D, OHara K, Walters B. 2006. Planted forests andbiodiversity. J Forestry 104: 65-77.

Cullen L, Lima JF, Beltrame TP. 2004. Agroforestry buffer zones andstepping stones: tools for the conservation of fragmented landscapesin the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. In: Schroth G, da Fonseca GAB,

A B

C D

E F


Harvey CA, Gascon C, Vasconcelos HL, Izac AMN (eds).Agroforestry and Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Landscapes.Island Press,Washington, DC.

Cusack D, Montagnini F. 2006. The role of native species plantations inrecovery of understorey woody diversity in degraded pasturelands ofCosta Rica. For Ecol Manag 188: 1-15.

Esmailzadeh O, Hosseini SM. 2008. The relationship between plantsEcological groups and plant Biodiversity indices in Afratakhteh Yew(Taxus baccata) reserved area. Iranian J Environ Stud 33: 85-96.

Fallahchai MM, Hashemi SA. 2012. Study of shrub and grassy herbaldiversity in natural stand and of forested stands in Caspian Forest. JBasic Appl Sci Res 2: 2098-2104.

FAO. 2001. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000. Main Report.FAO Forestry Paper 140, Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations, Rome.

Hartley M. 2002. Rationale and methods for conserving biodiversity inplantation forests. For Ecol Manag 155: 81-95.

Humphery JW, Ferris F, Quine CP (eds). 2003. Biodiversity in BritainsPlanted Forests. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.

Humphrey JW, Davey S, Peace AJ, Ferris R, Harding K. 2002. Lichensand bryophyte communities of planted and semi-natural forests inBritain: the influence of site type, stand structure and deadwood. BiolConserv 107: 165-180.

Humphrey WF, Dalke A, Schulten K. 1996. VMD-Visual MolecularDynamics. J Mol Graph 14: 33-38.

Kent M, Coker P. 1992. Vegetation description and analysis. CRC Press,Boca Raton, FL, US.

Kooch Y, Hosseini SM, Samonil P, Hojjati S M. 2014a. The effects ofwind throw disturbances on biochemical and chemical soil propertiesin the Northern mountainous forests of Iran. Catena 116: 142-148.

Kooch Y, Hosseini SM, Zaccone C, Jalilvand H, Hojjati SM. 2012. Soilorganic carbon sequestration as affected by afforestation: the DarabKola forest (North of Iran) case study. J Environ Monit 14: 2438-2446.

Kooch Y, Zaccone C, Lamersdorf NP, Tonon G. 2014b. Pit and moundinfluence on soil features in an Oriental Beech (Fagus orientalisLipsky) forest. European J For Res 133: 347-354.

Kuksina N, Ulanova G. 2000. Plant species diversity in spruce forest afterclear cutting disturbance: 16 year monitoring in Russian Tajo,proceeding of reforestation and management of biodiversity, Finland,August 21-24.

Lambin EF, Geist HJ. 2006. Land-Use and Land-Cover Change: LocalProcesses and Global Impacts (Global Change-The IGBP Series).Springer, Berlin.

Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF, Fisher J. 2006. General managementprinciples and a checklist of strategies to guide forest biodiversityconservation. Biol Conserv 131:433-445.

Lindenmayer DB, Hobbs RJ, Salt D. 2003. Plantation forests andbiodiversity conservation. Australian Forestry 66: 62-66.

Maguran AE. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement, Princeton,Princeton university press.

Marvie Mohadjer M. 2005. Silviculture. Tehran University Press, Tehran.Mesdaghi M. 2001. Descriptions and Analysis of Vegetation. Tehran

University Press, Tehran.Mesdaghi, M., 2005. Plant Ecology. Mashhad University Press, Mashhad.Mohammadnejad Kiasari Sh, Sagheb-Talebi Kh, Rahmani R, Akbarzadeh

M. 2013. Comparison of plants diversity in natural forest andafforestation (Case Study: Darabkola, Mazandaran). J Wood For SciTechnol 19:59-76.

Nagaike T. 2002. Differences in plant species diversity between conifer(Larix kaempferi (Lam.) Carr.) plantations and broad-leaved (Quercuscrispula Blume.) Secondary forests in central Japan. For Ecol Manag168: 111-123.

Pilehvar B, Veiskarami G, Abkenar KT, Soosani J. 2010. Relativecontribution of vegetation types to regional biodiversity in CentralZagros forests of Iran. Biodiv Conserv 19: 3361-3374.

Poorzady M, Bakhtiari F. 2009. Spatial and temporal changes ofHyrcanian forest in Iran. Forest: Bio geosci For 2: 198-206.

Singh JS. 2002. The biodiversity crisis: A multifaceted review. CurrentSciences 82: 499-500.

Takhtajan A. 1974. Floristic Regions of the World. University ofCalifornia Press. Los Angeles.

Taleshi H, Akbarinia M. 2011. Biodiversity of woody and herbaceousvegetation species in relation to environmental factors in lowlandforests of eastern Nowshahr. Iranian J Biol 24: 766-777.

Thuiller W. 2007. Biodiversity: climate change and the ecologist. Nature448: 550-552.

Zhou Z, Sun OJ, Huang J, Gao Y, Han X. 2006. Land-use affects therelationship between species diversity and productivity at the localscale in a semi-arid steppe ecosystem. Funct Ecol 20: 753-762.


Plant species diversity among ecological species groups in the CaspianSea coastal sand dune; Case study: Guilan Province, North of Iran

MOKARRAM RAVANBAKHSH1,, TAYYEBEH AMINI2, SAYED MOHSEN NASSAJ HOSSEINI11Environmental Research Institute, Academic Center for Education, Cultural Research (ACECR), Rasht, Iran, Tel. 0098-131-3232413,

Fax. 0098-131-3242006, email: [email protected] and Natural Resources Research Center of Mazandaran (RCANRM), Noshahr, Iran

Manuscript received: 3 August 2014. Revision accepted: 30 September 2014.

Abstract. Ravanbakhsh M, Amini T, Hosseini SMN. 2015. Plant species diversity among ecological species groups in the Caspian Seacoastal sand dune; Case study: Guilan Province, North of Iran. Biodiversitas 16: 16-21. Biodiversity is often discussed in terms ofspecies diversity is concentrated. Species diversity is one of the important characteristics of biological communities and its as a functionof the number and size represent populations of species in a special geographic region.The aim of this study was to identification ofecological species groups and investigates the diversity among ecological species groups. The research area comprises a coastal dunesystem in northern of Guilan Province, Iran. Vegetation sampling was carried out along 22 shore perpendicular transects, approximately500-m long. A total of 62 plot of 25 square meters were taken in transects. In each sampled plot, the cover percentage value of eachspecies was estimated using Bran-Blanquet scales. Vegetation classified using Two-Way Indicator Species Analysis (TWINSPAN). Thecomparison of diversity indices among groups were performed with ANOVA test. The results revealed that there were 232 plant taxaand 8 ecological species group in the region. Results of analysis of variance in species diversity indices showed significant differencesamong the groups in terms of biodiversity indices. The survey of variation in the groups showed that groups 5 and 6 had the highest andgroups 1, 2, 3, and 7 had the lowest indices. Checking of the group's position with high diversity in comparison with other groups in thiscoastal area indicates that the group settled on the coastal land with stabilized soil and proper distance from the sea had higher diversityindices.

Key words: Coastal sand dune, ecological species groups, plant species diversity, Guilan, Iran.

INTRODUCTION

Iran is one of the centers of plant diversity is consideredold world so that nearly 22 percent of the 8000 plantspecies of flora are the endemic (Ghahreman 1975).Despite to endangered state of coastal vegetation in Iran,some fragmented sandy areas are still natural. Some ofthese separated sandy patches often constitute parts ofCaspian coastal ecosystems designed in Ramsar checklistof International Wetlands (Alagol, Ulmagol and AjigolLakes, Amirkelayeh Lake, Anzali Mordab (Talab) complexMR., Bujagh National Park, Gomishan Lagoon, MiankalehPeninsula, Gorgan Bay and Lapoo-Zaghmarz Ab-bandan)and others are considered as part of protected areas, nohunting areas, wildlife refuges, biosphere reserves(Naqinezhad 2012b; Ramsar 2014).

During the last decades, a few studies were conductedon the Flora, identification of vegetation groups andecological characters in these ecosystems. Most of thesestudies concentrated in the wetlands on the southern beachof the Caspian Sea (Riazi 1996; Asri and Eftekhari 2002;Ejtehadi et al. 2003; Asri and Moradi 2004, 2006; Shokri etal. 2004; Asri et al. 2007; Sharifnia et al. 2007; Khodadadiet al. 2009). Rarely floristic and vegetation groupingstudies were carried out on the southern coastal area of theCaspian Sea (Frey 1974; Amini 2001; Akhani 2003;Ghahreman et al. 2004; Sobh Zahedi et al. 2005, 2007;Naqinezhad 2012b). Ecological species groups differ from

individual indicator species, in that once vegetation-environment relationships are established the abundance ofmultiple species of a group may strongly indicateenvironmental site conditions than the abundance ofindividual species (Bergeron and Bouchard 1984; Spiesand Barnes 1985).

This study was carried out to evaluate the significanceof coastal dune habitats for biodiversity conservation. Inorder to achieve this gold, the vegetation of the nearlyunaltered coastal sand dune between Roodsar and Astara,on the southern Caspian Sea, was described by means ofecological species groups and quantitative analysis of thevegetation by diversity indices.


Study areaThe research area comprises a coastal dune system in

northern Guilan Province, Iran, between 48 52 44 - 5035 59 E and 36 56 4-38 26 55 N. The study areawas delimited using a Landsat 7ETM satellite image (Path166/ Row 34) (Figure 1).The Caspian Sea constitutes thesouthern limit of the study area. The climate is humid andvery humid with cool winter according to Eumbergerclimate classification (Abedi and Pourbabaei 2010). Guilanhas a humid subtropical climate with by a large margin theheaviest rainfall in Iran reaching as high as 1,900 mm in

RAVANBAKHSH et al. Plant diversity in the Caspian Sea coastal sand dune 17

the southwestern coast and generally around1, 400 mm.Rainfall is heaviest between September and Decemberbecause the onshore winds from the Siberian High arestrongest, but it occurs throughout the year though leastabundantly from April to July. Humidity is very highbecause of the marshy character of the coastal plains andcan reach 90 percent in summer for wet bulb temperaturesof over 26C (Zarekar et al. 2012). Mean annualtemperature is 15.8C and precipitation is 1506 mm.Maximum and minimum temperature is 27.8C in Augustand 4.1C in February, respectively. The Alborz rangeprovides further diversity to the land in addition to theCaspian coasts ( Zarekar et al. 2012).

Sampling methodsData collection was performed from May 2011 to May

2012. Voucher specimens were submitted in GuilanUniversity Herbarium (GUH). Prior to the commencementof fieldwork a short reconnaissance survey was undertakento get an overview of the area (Mashwani et al. 2011). Atotal of 22 site were selected and one transect wasestablished in each site. For detailed data collection linetransect survey was selected which is a very popularvegetation survey technique (Kent and Coker ,1992).Vegetation sampling was carried out along 22 shoreperpendicular transects between 100-500-m long (Figure1). The length of transects was variable depended on thestrip of the natural vegetation. Size of sampling plots was

determined using nested plot sampling and species/areacurve (Muller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974). A total of 62sampling areas were selected in stands of vegetation thatwere homogeneous to the eye in floristic composition andstructure (Monserrat et al. 2012). In each sampled plot, thecover percentage value of each species was estimated usingBraun-Blanquet scale (Braun-Blaunquet 1964, Muller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974).

Data analysisVegetation analysis method

The floristic data matrix consists of 62 plots and 116species. To classify vegetation types present in the studyarea, the vegetation data were analyzed using two-wayindicator species analysis (TWINSPAN) using PC-ORDversion 4.14 (Mc Cune and Mefford 1999).This analysiswas used to produce a divisive classification of the stationsand plant species matrix (Murphy et al., 2003). Thismethod is a commonly employed program in ecologicalstudies for the classification of vegetation types accordingto their floristic similarity (Kent and Coker,1992).Classification was stopped at the fifth level, so thatthe result in groups would contain sufficient number ofsamples to characterize each vegetation groups(Vogiatzakis et al. 2003; Khaznadar et al. 2009). Thenames of identified vegetation types were derived from thedendrogram and importance of more frequent species intoeach group of plots (Abedi et al. 2011).

Figure 1. Location of Guilan Province in Iran and vegetation sampling in coastal sand dune.


Measuring plant diversityTo quantify the diversity of the plant species, The

Shannon-Wieners (H'), Simpson index (1-D), Margalef srichness index (DMg) and Pielou s evenness index (E1)were used. The formulas are as follows.

H' = Shannon-Wiener's diversity index, D = Simpson'sindex, DMg = Margalef 's richness, E1 = Pielou's evenness,Pi = relative frequency of ith species, S = number ofspecies, N = Total individual of species (Ludwig andReynolds 1988).

Comparison of plant diversityNormality of the data distribution was checked by

Kolmogorov -Smirnov test, and Levenes test was used toexamine the equality of the variances. One -way analyses(ANOVA) of variance were used to compare groups withnormal distribution data. Duncan test was used to test forsignificant differences in the species richness, diversity andevenness indices among the groups. This analysis wasconducted using SPSS 16.0.


Vegetation groupsThe application of TWINSPAN analysis led to identify

vegetation groups associated with the distribution of theseplants in the region (Figure 2). The classification wasstopped at fifth level of division, leaving only groups witha sufficient number of samples to characterize thevegetation communities. Thus, 62 sampling plots wereclassified into eight groups. In the first level, 62 samplingplots were divided into two groups (Eigenvalue = 0.536).The indicator species which have been seen on the left sideincluded: Alnus subcordata, Oxalis corniculata andScutellaria tournefortii. The indicator species on the rightside were Crypsis schoenoides and Argusia sibirica. In

Figure 2. Classification of ecological species groups by using TWINSPAN analysis.Note: Aln sub = Alnus subcordata, Oxa cor = Oxalis corniculata, Scu tou = Scutellaria tournefortii, Cry sch = Crypsis schoenoides,Arg sib = Argusia sibirica, Con arv = Convolvulus arvensis , Phy nod = Phyla nodiflora, Con per = Convolvulus persicus, Cen asi= Centella asiatica, Pun gra = Punica granatum, Ery cau = Eryngium caucasicum, Jun acu = Juncus acutus, Era bra = Eragrostisbarrelieri, Sil lat = Silene latifolia, Rub san = Rubus sanctus, Tor lep = Torilis leptophylla, Cen ibe = Centaurea iberica.

N

niPiPD1

s

1i

2i

LnN

1SDMg

s

1i

s

1i

)pi(log)Pi(PilnPiH

Aln sub (1.9)Oxa cor (0.8)Scu tou (0.7)

Cry sch (22.5)Are sib (12.0)

Are sib (11.0)Cry sch (15.1)

Cen asi (5.0)Cry sch (15.1)Oxa cor (7,1)

Arg sib (9.2)

Oxa cor (8.0)Phy nod (2,5)

Era bar (0.3)Sil lat (1.3)

Cry sch (3.10)Cen ibe (1,6)

Pun gra (1,9)Eri cau (3.4)

Jun acu (3.0)Scu tou (3.0)

Con per (7.0)

Con arv (2.0)

Rub san (0.4)Tor lep (0.4)


Table1 1. ANOVA results of diversity indices among groups and mean and standard error of diversity indices.

Diversity index F P Mean square df Mean and standard error

Shanon diversity index 3.756 .003* .606 7 1.4910.662Simpson diversity index 3.074 .010* .068 7 0.65720.236Margalef richness index 2.769 .018* 1.872 7 2.0700.285Pielou 's evenness index 2.679 .021* .051 7 0.65720.236

the second level, 35 sampling plots were divided into twogroups (Eigenvalue = 0.523) with Convolvulus arvensis(group 1) on the left side as indicator species. Also, on theright side, there was not any indicator species. In this level,27 sampling plots were divided into two groups(Eigenvalue = 0.585) with Phyla nodiflora and Oxaliscorniculata on the left and right side, respectively, asindicator species.

In the third level, 33 sampling plots were divided intotwo groups (Eigenvalue = 0.499); the indicator species onthe left side was Convolvulus persicus (group 2) and therewas not any indicator species on the right side. In this level,18 sampling plots were divided into two groups(Eigenvalue = 0.586). The indicator species on the left sideincluded: Centella asiatica, Crypsis schoenoides andOxalis corniculata. The indicator species on the left sidewere Punica granatum and Eryngium caucasicum (group3). Also, in this level, 9 sampling plots were divided intotwo groups (Eigenvalue = 0.791). The indicator species onthe left side were Juncus acutus and Scutellaria tournefortii(group 4) while on the right side, there was not anyindicator species.

In the fourth level, 26 sampling plots were divided intotwo groups (Eigenvalue = 0.527); the indicator species onthe left side were Argusia sibirica and Crypsis schoenoidesand those on the right side included: Eragrostis barrelieri,Silene latifolia (group 5). In this level, 12 sampling plotswere divided into two groups (Eigenvalue = 0.616); theindicator species were Rubus sanctus hyrcanus andTorilis leptophylla (group 6) on the right side while therewas not any indicator species on the left side. In the fifthlevel, 21 sampling plots were divided into two groups(Eigenvalue = 0.540) that those indicator species on the leftand right side were Argusia sibirica (group7), and Crypsisschoenoides and Centaurea iberica (group8), respectively.

Species diversity among groupsFirst of all, based on Kolmogorov-Smirnov test it

should be approved that the data are normal. .For analyzingthe diversity among the groups, one-way Analysis ofvariance (ANOVA) was used. ANOVA results of diversityindices among groups and mean and standard error ofdiversity indices were listed in Table 1. ANOVA showedthat there were significant differences among groups interms of biodiversity indices (P


Figure 3. Changes in Shannon-Wieners diversity index amongecological groups.

Figure 4. Changes in Simpson's diversity index among ecologicalgroups.

Figure 5. Changes in Margalef's richness index among ecologicalgroups.

Figure 6. Changes in Pielou's evenness index among ecologicalgroups.

arceuthoides, Salicornia europaea, Tamarix ramosissima,Artemisia tschernieviana, Convolvulus persicus,Tournefortia sibirica, Filaginella sp., Juncus maritimus-Rubus sanctus, Juncus littoralis-Punica granatum, Juncuslittoralis-Rubus sanctus, Mespilus germanica-Punicagranatum, Punica granatum, Rhamnus pallasii-Punicagranatum, Rubus sanctus-Punica granatum, Saccharumgriffithii, Saccharum kajkaiense, Sambucus ebulus,Phragmites australis, Phragmites australis-Juncus acutus,Scirpus lacustris, Typha laxmannii, Typha laxmannii-Phragmites australis (Asri et al. 2007).

These groups, types and communities indicated thatsome of them belong to Freshwater or marginal freshwaterecosystems those were plentifully found in the wetlandsand southern coastal area of the Caspian Sea. Our studyshowed that the vegetation types included: Convolvuluspersicus, Juncus acutus, Punica granatum and Rubussanctus have been reported in the other studies (Shokri etal. 2004; Ejtehadi et al. 2005; Asri et al. 2007; Naqinezhad2012a). The following ecological species groups werereported firstly from Iran containing: Convolvulus arvensis,Eragrostis barrelieri-Silene latifolia, Argusia sibirica andCrypsis schoenoides-Centaurea iberica.

As was mentioned in the results, the goal of thisresearch was to investigate diversity indices amongecological groups. The results of the ANOVA and theDuncan's tests showed that the groups differed significantlyin terms of biodiversity indices. Checking of the 3-6Figures indicated that groups 5 and 6, and 1, 2, 3 and 7 hadthe highest and lowest level of the indices, respectively.The reason of high diversity in groups 5 and 6 can beinterpreted that these groups belong to coastal pasture grassincluding helliophyta species. Also, the group 6 was amarginal sea shrub cover consisting of some sciophytaspecies in the under layer of canopy cover and helliophytaspecies in the open space between shrubs. Also, these twogroups were grown on the stabilized soil with appropriatedistance from the sea. In contrast, the reasons of the lowspecies diversity in the groups 1, 2 and 7 were perhapsgrowing in dont fixed sand dunes and being closely to thesea.

In conclusion, diversity is one of the main factors ofsustainable management. Identifying plants species of aregion and their biodiversity is very effective way toidentify disturbance factors and develop recovery plans. Itis also essential to maintain a high proportion of nativespecies, create protection programs and preserve the areaagainst human and livestock disturbances. Our knowledgeabout plant biodiversity of the southern Caspian coast isfragmentary and requires in-depth studies to reveal all of itscomponents. The southern Caspian coast and their sanddune went through extensive man-made changes during thepast decades. The growth of population followed by theland usage changing for agriculture and urban utilizing, hasaffected on the biodiversity. The loss of genetic and speciesdiversity by the destruction of natural habitats would needto restore many years. It is necessary to establish certainlaws and regulations in order to protect all plants speciesand ecosystems.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are indebted to Dr. S.H. Saiedie, F. Vahdati and R.Shahi from Guilan University, Iran for their helps duringthe field studies. We would also like to thank theEnvironmental Research Institute, Academic Center forEducation, Cultural Research (ACECR), Iran for theirfinancial support.

REFERENCES

Abedi R, Pourbabaei H. 2010. Plant diversity in natural forest of Guilanrural heritage museum in Iran. Biodiversitas 11 (4): 182-186.

Abedi R, Pourbabaei H. 2011. Ecological species groups in the ruralheritage museum of Guilan Province, Iran. Caspian J Env Sci 9 (2)115-123.

Akhani H. 2003. Notes on the Flora of Iran: 3. Two new records andsynopsis of the new data on Iranian Cruciferae since Flora Iranica.Candollea 58 (2): 369-385.

Amini. 2001. 'The Study of Coastal Vegetation in Mazandaran Province.[Dissertation]. Mashhad University, Mashhad. [Iran]

Asri Y, Eftekhari T. 2002. Flora and vegetation of Siah-Keshim Lagoon. JEnviron Stud 28 (1): 1-19.

Asri Y, Moradi A. 2004. Floristic and phytosociological studies ofAmirkelayeh Lagoon. J Agri Sci Nat Resour 11: 171-179.

Asri Y, Moradi A. 2006. Plant associations and phytosociological map ofAmirkelayeh Protected Area. Pajouhesh and Sazandegi 70 (1): 54-64.

Asri Y, Sharifnia F, Gholami Terojeni T. 2007. Plant associations inMiankaleh Biosphere Reserve. Mazandaran Province (N. Iran),Rostaniha 8 (1): 1-16.

Bergeron S, Bouchard A. 1984. Use of ecological species groups inanalysis and classification of plant communities in a section ofwestern Quebec. Vegetatio 56: 45-63.

Braun-Blaunquet J. 1964. Pflanzensoziologie: Grundzge DerVegetationskunde. Springer, New York.

Ramsar [Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands]. 2014. The Ramsar List.The List of Wetlands of International Importance. RamsarConvention Bureau. www.ramsar.org

Ejtehadi H, Amini T, Kianmehr H, Assadi M. 2003. Floristical andChorological Studies of Vegetation in Myankaleh Wildlife Refuge,Mazandaran Province, Iran. Iranian Int JSci 4( 2):107-120

Ejtehadi H, Amini T Zare H. 2005. Importance of Vegetation Studies inConservation of Wildlife: A Case Study in Miankaleh WildlifeRefuge, Mazandaran Province, Iran. Environ Sci 9: 53-58.

Frey W, Probst W. 1974. Vegetations analytische Untersuchungen imDnengebiet bei Babolsar (Kaspisches Meer, Iran). Bot Jahrb Syst 94:96-113.

Ghahreman A. 1975. The Species Eliminated from the Native Vegetationof Iran; Proceeding of First seminar on problems of the Naturalvegetation of Iran.Tehran, June 29-July 2 1975. [Iran]

Ghahreman, A, Naqinezhad AR, Attar F. 2004. Habitats and Flora of theChamkhaleh-Jirbagh Coastline and Amirkelayeh Wetland. J EnvironStud 33 (1): 46-67.

Kent M, Cocker P. 1992. Vegetation description and analysis: A practicalapproach. Belhaven Press, London.

Khaznadar M, Vogiatzakis IN, Griffiths GH. 2009. Land degradation andvegetation distribution in Chott El Beida wetland. Algeria J AridEnviron 73: 369-377.

Khodadadi S, Saeidi Mehrvarz S, Naqinezhad AR. 2009. Contribution tothe Flora and Habitats of the Estil Wetland (Astara) and ItsSurroundings, Northwest Iran. Rostaniha 10 (1): 44-63.

Mashwani ZUR, Arshad M, Ahmad M, Khan MA. 2011. Diversity anddistribution pattern of alpine vegetation along Lake Saif-ul-Mulook,Western Himalaya, Pakistan; Proceeding of International Conferenceon Environmental, Biomedical and Biotechnology. Shanghai 19-21August 2011. [China]

Mc Cune B, Mefford M. 1999. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data,version 4.17. M.J.M. Software. Glenden Beach, Oregon, USA.

Monserrat AL, Cintia E. Celsi, and Sonia L. Fontana . 2012. Coastal DuneVegetation of the Southern Pampas (Buenos Aires, Argentina) an ItsValue for Conservation. J Coast Res 28 (1): 23-35

Muller-Dombois D, Ellenberg H. 1974. Aims and Methods of VegetationEcology. John Wiley, New York.

Murphy KJ, Dickinson G, Thomaz SM, Bini LM, Dick K, Greaves K,Kennedy MP, Livingstone S ,McFerran H, Milne JM, Oldroyd J,Wingfield RA. 2003. Aquatic plant communities and predictors ofdiversity in a sub-tropical river floodplain: the upper Rio Parana.Brazil. Aquat Bot 77: 257-276.

Naqinezhad A. 2012a. A Physiognomic-Ecological Vegetation Mappingof Boujagh National Park, the First Marine-Land National Park inIran. Advances Bio Res 3 (1): 37-42.

Naqinezhad AR. 2012b. A Preliminary Survey of Flora and Vegetation ofSand Dune Belt in the Southern Caspian Coasts, N. Iran. Res J Biol 2(1): 23-29.

Riazi B. 1996. Siah-Keshim: The Protected Area of Anzali Wetland.Department of Environment, Tehran, Iran.

Sharifnia F, Asri Y, Gholami-Terojeni T. 2007. Plant Diversity inMiankaleh Biosphere Reserve (Mazandaran Province) in North ofIran. Pakistan J Biol Sci 10 (10):1723-1727.

Shokri M, afaian N, Ahmadi M, Amiri B. 2004. A second look onbiogeographical province of Miankaleh Biosphere Reserve. App EcolEnviron Res 2 (1): 105-117.

Sobh Zahedi S, Ali Doost M, Moradi A, Poornaesollah M. 2007.Medicinal Plants of the Coast of the Caspian Sea in Guilan, the NorthCountry. Regional Conference on Agriculture, Shabestar, Iran, 22March 2007.

Sobh Zahedi S, Ghodrati A, Moradi A, Ali Doost M. 2005. The Use ofVegetation to Stabilize and Preserve of Guilan Coastal Area. 2th

National Conference on Watershed Management and Soil and WaterResources Management, Irrigation and Water Engineering Society ofIran, Kerman, Iran, 22-23 February 2005.

Spies TA, Barnes BV. 1985. A multifactor ecological classification of thenorthern hardwood and conifer ecosystems of Sylvania RecreationArea, Upper Peninsula, Michigan. Can J For Res 15, 949-960.

Vogiatzakis IN, Griffiths GH, Mannion AM. 2003. Environmental factorsand vegetation composition. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 12, 131-146.

Zarekar A, Vahidi H, Kazemi Zamani B, Ghorbani S, Jafari H. 2012.Forest fire hazard mapping using fuzzy Ahp and GIS study area:Gilan Province of Iran. Intl J Tech Phys Probl Eng 4 (3): 47-55.


Short Communication:Note on Excoecaria indica (Willd.) Muell.-Arg, 1863 (Euphorbiaceae),from the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India; a data deficient species

PADISAMY RAGAVAN1,, K. RAVICHANDRAN2, P.M. MOHAN3, ALOK SXAENA4, R.S. PRASANTH1,R.S.C. JAYARAJ5, S. SARAVANAN1

1Institute of Forest Genetics and Tree Breeding, R.S.Puram, P.B. No 1061, Coimbatore 641002, Tamil Nadu, India.Tel. +91-422-2484100, Fax. +91-422-2430549, email: [email protected].

2Department of Environment and Forest, Andaman and Nicobar Administration, Port Blair, A & N Islands, India.3Department of Ocean studies and marine Biology, Pondicherry University, Brookshabad Campus, Port Blair, A & N Islands, India.

4Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India.5Department of Environment and Forest, Arunachal Pradesh, India.

Manuscript received: 1 October 2014. Revision accepted: 27 October 2014.

Abstract. Ragavan P, Ravichandran K, Mohan PM, Sxaena A, Prasanth RS, Jayaraj RSJ, Saravanan S. 2015. Note on Excoecariaindica (Willd.) Muell.-Arg, 1863 (Euphorbiaceae), from the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India; a data deficient species. Biodiversitas16: 22-26. Excoecaria indica (Wild.) Muell.-Arg was recorded from Middle Andaman and Great Nicobar Island representing a newaddition to the mangrove flora of the, Andaman and Nicobar islands. This species is characterized by its thorny trunk, crenulate-lanceolate leaves and cherry-sized green fruits containing three seeds. Information about E. indica is inadequate, and it is recognized asdata deficient species. Further studies and conservation measures are imperative for managing the mangrove diversity of the islands withregards to this species.

Key words: Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Excoecaria, India, new records.

INTRODUCTION

Mangrove forests are unique plant communities of thecritical interface between terrestrial, estuarine, and near-shore marine ecosystems in tropical and subtropical regions(Polidoro et al. 2010; Hanum et al. 2013). Despite itsecological and economical values, globally mangrove areasare disappearing at the rate of approximately 1% per year(FAO 2003, 2007). The mangroves of Andaman andNicobar (A & N) Islands are probably the best in India interms of its density and growth (Mandel and Naskar 2008,Dagar et al. 1991). According to the latest estimate by theForest Survey of India (Anon. 2013), the total mangrovearea is about 4,628 km2 in India, out of which, 604 km2

occur in A & N Islands. Out of this 601 km2 is in Andamanand only 3 km2 found in Nicobar Islands. Total 13 km2 areaof mangrove stands has degraded as a consequence ofmassive earthquake and subsequent tsunami of 2004 inAndaman Islands in comparison with 2011 (Anon. 2013).However, after the tsunami distribution of some mangrovespecies, not recorded earlier in ANI, are reported (DamRoy et al 2009; Nehru and Balasubramanian 2012;Goutham-Bharathi et al. 2012; Ragavan et al. 2014). Thepresent study also adds the new distributional record ofExcoecaria indica (Wild.) Muell.-Arg from this island.

The tropical indo-pacific genus Excoecaria L. belongsto the family Euphorbiaceae Juss., and includes severalmangrove representatives (Duke 2006). It is distinguished

from related genera by a combination of charactersincluding dioecious condition, axillary inflorescences, maleflowers with 3 stamens, and

Date post:	17-Mar-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	doantu
View:	229 times
Download:	0 times

ISSN: 1412-033X E-ISSN: 2085-4722 -...

Documents