Advertisement

Vegetos

pp 1–8 | Cite as

Positive relationship between species richness and aboveground biomass in Kumaun Himalayan forest

  • Sanjay KumarEmail author
  • Jyoti Joshi
  • Priyanka Bhatt
  • Neha Chopra
Research Articles

Abstract

Understory vegetation is an important part of forest ecosystem which affect the physical and chemical properties of soil, quality and quantity of forest litter and water storage capacity of litter soil layer. Thus, the influence of soil nutrients on the understory species composition of forest ecosystem cannot be ignored. The authors set 15 typical plots with area of 1 × 1 m in chir pine (Pinus roxburghii Sarg.), oak (Quercus leucotrichophora A. Camus)—chir pine mixed and oak–cypress (Cupressus torulosa D. Don) mixed forest. Chemical properties of the soil were analyzed at 0–10 cm, 10–20 cm and 20–30 cm in all the selected forest types. Phytosociological and diversity parameters were also calculated for each forest type. The present study reveals that carbon, nitrogen, pH and phosphorus are the most important environmental drivers which influence understory species composition. Plant species richness significantly correlated with species composition. To maintain the diversity and structure of ecosystems we should consider the co-evolution of both vegetation and soil. Further studies on climate and microorganism are needed to further explore the interactive relationships among vegetation and soil properties.

Keywords

Soil fertility Pinus roxburghii Quercus leucotrichophora Cupressus torulosa Forest diversity 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declare that they have no conflict of interests.

References

  1. Abella SR, Covington WW (2006) Vegetation–environment relationships and ecological species groups of an Arizona Pinus ponderosa landscape, USA. Plant Ecol 185(2):255–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams PW, Sidle RC (1987) Soil conditions in three recent landslides in southeast Alaska. For Ecol Manag 18(2):93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basumatary A, Bordoloi PK (1992) Forms of potassium in some soils of Assam in relation to soil properties. J Indian Soc Soil Sci 40(3):443–446Google Scholar
  4. Behari B, Aggarwal R, Singh AK, Banerjee SK (2004) Spatial variability of pH and organic carbon in soils under bamboo based agroforestry models in a degraded area. Indian For 130(5):521–529Google Scholar
  5. Biggelow SW, Canham CD (2002) Community organization of tree species along soil gradients in a north-eastern USA forest. J Ecol 90:188–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Binkley D, Giardina C (1998) Why do species affect soils? The warp and woof of tree-soil interaction. Biogeochemistry 42(1–2):89–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bombelli A, Avitabile V, Balzter H (2009) Biomass. In: di Caracalla VDT (ed) Assessment of the status of the development of the standards for the terrestrial essential climate variables (T12). Global Terrestrial Observing System, RomeGoogle Scholar
  8. Boruah HC, Nath AK (1992) Potassium status in three major soil orders of Assam. J Indian Soc Soil Sci 40(3):559–561Google Scholar
  9. Brofske KD, Chen J, Crow TR (2001) Understory vegetation and site factors: implications for a managed Wisconsin landscape. For Ecol Manag 146:75–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Haan S (1977) Humus, its formation, its relation with the mineral part of the soil, and its significance for soil productivity. In: Soil organic matter studies, vol 1. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, pp 21–30Google Scholar
  11. Faith DP, Minchin PR, Belbin L (1987) Compositional dissimilarity as a robust measure of ecological distance. Vegetatio 69:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Farley KA, Kelly EF (2004) Effects of afforestation of a Paramo grassland on soil nutrient status. For Ecol Manag 195:281–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fu BJ, Liu SL, Ma KM, Zhu YG (2004) Relationship between soil characteristics, topography and plant diversity in a heterogeneous deciduous broad-leaved forest near Beijing, China. Plant Soil 261:47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gairola S, Sharma CM, Ghildiyal SK, Suyal S (2012) Chemical properties of soils in relation to forest composition in moist temperate valley slopes of Garhwal Himalaya, India. Environmentalist 32(4):512–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grime JP, Brown VK, Thompson K, Masters GJ, Hillier SH, Clarke IP, Askew AP, Corker D, Kielty JP (2000) The response of two contrasting limestone grasslands to simulated climate change. Science 289:762–765CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gupta MK, Sharma SD (2008) Effect of tree plantation on soil properties, profile morphology and productivity index I. Poplar in Uttarakhand. Ann For 16(2):209–224Google Scholar
  17. Hasanuzzaman M, Bhuyan MH, Nahar K, Hossain MS, Mahmud JA, Hossen MS, Masud AA, Fujita M (2018) Potassium: a vital regulator of plant responses and tolerance to abiotic stresses. Agronomy 8(3):1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jackson ML (1973) Soil chemical analysis. Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  19. Jiang C, Yu G, Li Y, Cao G, Yang Z, Sheng W, Yu W (2012) Nutrient resorption of coexistence species in alpine meadow of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau explains plant adaptation to nutrient-poor environment. Ecol Eng 44:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jobbagy EG, Jackson RB (2003) Patterns and mechanisms of soil acidification in the conversion of grasslands to forests. Biogeochemistry 64:205–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jongmans AG, Pulleman MM, Marinissen JCY (2001) Soil structure and earthworm activity in a marine silt loam under pasture versus arable land. Biol Fertil Soils 33(4):279–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kahmen A, Perner J, Audorff V, Weisser WW, Buchmann N (2005) Effects of plant diversity, species composition and environmental parameters on productivity in montane European grasslands. Oecologia 142:606–615CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kashina DM, Barnes BV, Walker WS (2003) Ecological species group of landform level ecosystems dominated by jack pine in northern Lower Michigan, USA. Plant Ecol 166:75–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Loreau M, Hector A (2001) Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412:72–76CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P (2002) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: synthesis and perspectives. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. McCune B, Mefford MJ (1997) PC-ORD. Multivariate analysis of ecological data. Verson 3.0. MjM Software Design, Glenden BeachGoogle Scholar
  27. Mishra R (1968) Ecology workbook. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., Calcutta, p 244Google Scholar
  28. Naeem S (2002) Ecosystem consequences of biodiversity loss: the evolution of a paradigm. Ecology 83:1537–1552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Osmaston AE (1927) A forest flora for Kumaon. Government Press, United Provinces, AllahabadGoogle Scholar
  30. Petchey OL, Hector A, Gaston KJ (2004) How do different measures of functional diversity perform? Ecology 85:847–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Polley HW, Wilsey BJ, Derner JD (2003) Do species evenness and plant density influence the magnitude of selection and complementarity effects in annual plant species mixtures? Ecol Lett 6:248–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ram J, Kumar A, Bhatt J (2004) Plant diversity in six forest types of Uttaranchal, Central Himalaya, India. Curr Sci 86(7):975–978Google Scholar
  33. Tilman D, Knops J, Wedin D, Reich P (2002) Plant diversity and composition: effects on productivity and nutrient dynamics of experimental grasslands. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: synthesis and perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp 21–35Google Scholar
  34. Robertson GP, Vitousek PM (1981) Nitrification in primary and secondary succession. Ecology 62:376–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schmid B, Pfisterer AB (2003) Species vs community perspectives in biodiversity experiments. Oikos 100:620–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shannon CE, Weaver W (1963) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, p 117Google Scholar
  37. Sharma B, Bhatia KS (2003) Correlation of soil physical properties with soil erodibility. Indian J Soil Conserv 31(3):313–314Google Scholar
  38. Singh JS, Singh SP (1992) Forest of Himalaya. Structure and functioning and Impact of Man. Gynodya Prakashan, NainitalGoogle Scholar
  39. Spencera DF, Ksandera G, Whitehand L (2004) Spatial and temporal variation in RGR and leaf quality of a clonal riparian plant, Arundo donax. Aquat Bot 81:27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Symstad AJ, Chapin FS, Wall DH, Gross KL, Huenneke LF, Mittelbach GG, Peters DP, Tilman D (2003) Long-term and large-scale perspectives on the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Bioscience 53:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tomlinson GH, Tomlinson FL (1990) Effects of acid decomposition on the forests of Europe and North America. CRC Press, Boca Raton, p 281Google Scholar
  42. Ulrich B (1971) The ecological value of soil chemical data. In: Duvigneaud P (ed) Productivity of forest ecosystems. UNESCO, Paris, pp 101–105Google Scholar
  43. Walkley A (1947) An estimation of methods for determining organic carbon and nitrogen in soils. J Agric Sci 25:598–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wardle DA, Bonner KI, Barker GM (2000) Stability of ecosystem properties in response to above-ground functional group richness and composition. Oikos 89:11–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhenghu D, Honglang X, Xinrong L, Zhibao D, Gang W (2004) Evolution of soil properties on stabilized sands in the Tengger Desert, China. Geomorphology 59:237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Plant Research 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BotanyKumaun UniversityNainitalIndia

Personalised recommendations