Regional Environmental Change

, Volume 16, Supplement 1, pp 5–15 | Cite as

Changes in the dry tropical forests in Central India with human use

  • Meghna AgarwalaEmail author
  • Ruth S. DeFries
  • Qamar Qureshi
  • Yadvendradev V. Jhala
Original Article


Understanding changes in forest composition and structure is important to help formulate effective policies that promote future ability of forests to provide local livelihood needs, habitat and ecosystem services. This is particularly important in dry tropical forests that are ecologically different from other forests and are heavily used by local, forest-dependent residents. In this study, we identify biophysical, demographic and use factors associated with differences in species diversity, vegetation structure (abundance at different size classes), biomass and relative abundance of species across the Kanha–Pench landscape in Central India. We sampled vegetation in twenty transects across different human and livestock population densities and frequencies of use. We found that biomass, species diversity and vegetation (abundance at different size classes) are negatively associated with increasing population density, and species composition at different size classes is significantly different at higher frequencies of use at low population densities. Lack of difference in species composition at high population densities may be due to colonization and growth of individuals at some of these sites due to creation of new ecological niches and gaps at high human use. Relative abundance of species at different size classes also varies with frequency of use and population density. Results suggest that human use is altering relative abundance of species, which may change long-term forest composition and thus alter biomass and vegetation structure of the forest. We conclude that human use is an agent in altering long-term composition that can alter availability of tree species for local use and other ecosystem services.


India Kanha–Pench landscape Long-term forest composition Relative abundance Sustainable forest use 



We are grateful to assistance and data from the Wildlife Institute of India, Madhya Pradesh Forest Department, PCCF (MP), CF (Jabalpur-Central Circle), DFO (Seoni), DFO (Balaghat) and Department of Animal Husbandry. NSF Grant Number 1029219 supported this research. This project was approved under IRB Protocol Number IRB-AAAI1677 and Animal Care Protocol AC-AAAE0703. Funding during the writing was provided by Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), a CGIAR Research Center, through a grant from USAID Developing Systems for Reducing Emissions from Land. We also thank the DeFries Lab for comments, Krithi Karanth, Kuldip Tekam, Dharmendra Tekam, Yamuna and Gyaani Marabi on site.

Supplementary material

10113_2015_903_MOESM1_ESM.doc (1.3 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 1350 kb)
10113_2015_903_MOESM2_ESM.docx (28 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 27 kb)


  1. Ahrends A, Burgess ND, Milledge SAH, Bulling MT, Fisher B, Smart JCR, Clarke GP, Mhoro BE, Lewis SL, Dasgupta PS (2010) Predictable waves of sequential forest degradation and biodiversity loss spreading from an African city. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:14556–14561. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0914471107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anitha K, Joseph S, Chandran JR, Ramasamy EV, Prasad SN (2010) Tree species diversity and community composition in a human-dominated tropical forest of Western Ghats biodiversity hotspot, India. Ecol Complex 7:217–224. doi: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2010.02.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bawa KS, Seidler R (1998) Natural forest management and conservation of biodiversity in tropical forests. Conserv Biol 12:46–55. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.96480.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beyer HL (2004) Hawth’s analysis tools for ArcGIS. Accessed 25 Jan 2010
  5. Brandeis D (2007) Forest flora of north-west and central India: A handbook of indigenous trees and shrubs of those countries. Second reprint. Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, DehradunGoogle Scholar
  6. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretical approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Census of India (2011) Census data purchased for 2001 and 2011. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of IndiaGoogle Scholar
  8. Collins SL, Suding KN, Cleland EE, Batty M, Pennings SC, Gross KL, Grace JB, Gough L, Fargione JE, Clark CM (2008) Rank clocks and plant community dynamics. Ecology 89:3534–3541. doi: 10.1890/07-1646.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crook C, Clapp RA (1998) Is market-oriented forest conservation a contradiction in terms? Environ Conserv 25:131–145. doi: 10.1017/S0376892998000186 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Department of Animal Husbandry (2012) All India livestock census, 2007. Ministry of Agriculture, Government of IndiaGoogle Scholar
  11. Feng T, Cheng S, Min Q, Li W (2009) Productive use of bioenergy for rural household in ecological fragile area, Panam County, Tibet in China: the case of the residential biogas model. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 13:2070–2078. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2009.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Forest Survey of India (2011) India state of forest report 2011. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of IndiaGoogle Scholar
  13. Garcia-Fernandez C, Ruiz-perez M, Wunder S (2008) Is multiple-use forest management widely implementable in the tropics? For Ecol Manage 256:1468–1476. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.04.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hein L, Van Der Meer PJ (2012) REDD+ in the context of ecosystem management. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4:604–611. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2012.09.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heywood VH, Iriondo JM (2003) Plant conservation: old problems, new perspectives. Biol Conserv 113:321–335. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00121-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jansen A, Robertson AI (2001) Relationships between livestock management and the ecological condition of riparian habitats along an Australian floodplain river. J Appl Ecol 38:63–75. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2664.2001.00557.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jena J, Borah J, Dave C, Vattakaven J (2014) Lifeline for tigers: Status and conservation of the Kanha–Pench corridor. WWF-India, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  18. Jensen OP, Branch TA, Hilborn R (2012) Marine fisheries as ecological experiments. Theor Ecol 5:3–22. doi: 10.1007/s12080-011-0146-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kohler F, Gillet F, Gobat J-M, Buttler A (2006) Effect of cattle activities on gap colonization in mountain pastures. Folia Geobot. doi: 10.1007/BF02904943 Google Scholar
  20. Kumar R, Shahabuddin G (2005) Effects of biomass extraction on vegetation structure, diversity and composition of forests in Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. Environ Conserv 32:248. doi: 10.1017/S0376892905002316 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lefevre KL, Sharma S, Rodd FH (2012) Moderate human disturbance of rain forest alters composition of fruiting plant and bird communities. Biotropica 44:427–436. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2011.00809.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Madhya Pradesh Forest Department (2011) Compartment data collected from divisional forest offices (East and West Mandla, North Balaghat and South Seoni divisions). Madhya Pradesh Forest Department, BhopalGoogle Scholar
  23. Miles L, Newton A, DeFries R, Ravilious C, May I, Blyth S, Kapos V, Gordon J (2006) A global overview of the conservation status of tropical dry forests. J Biogeogr 33:491–505. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2005.01424.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nagendra H (2012) Assessing relatedness and redundancy of forest monitoring and change indicators. J Environ Manage 95:108–113. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.10.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oksanen AJ, Blanchet FG, Kindt R et al (2013) Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.0-10. Accessed 12 Dec 2013
  26. Qureshi Q, Saini S, Basu P, Gopal R, Raza R, Jhala YV (2014) Connecting tiger populations for long-term conservation. National Tiger Conservation Authority and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. TR2014-02Google Scholar
  27. R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  28. Sagar R, Singh JS (2005) Structure, diversity, and regeneration of tropical dry deciduous forest of northern India. Biodivers Conserv 14:935–959. doi: 10.1007/s10531-004-0671-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saha S, Howe HF (2003) Species composition and fire in a dry deciduous forest. Ecology 84:3118–3123. doi: 10.1890/02-3051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Saigal S (2008) Non-timber forest products and forest governance: synthesis report based on three state-level studies carried out during 2006–2007. Forest Governance Learning Group-IndiaGoogle Scholar
  31. Sasaki N, Putz FE (2009) Critical need for new definitions of “forest” and “forest degradation” in global climate change agreements. Conserv Lett 2:226–232. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00067.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Scheffer M, Carpenter S, Foley JA, Folke C, Walker B (2001) Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413:591–596. doi: 10.1038/35098000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schmidt IB, Mandle L, Ticktin T, Gaoue OG (2011) What do matrix population models reveal about the sustainability of non-timber forest product harvest? J Appl Ecol 48:815–826. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.01999.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Seidl R, Fernandes PM, Fonseca TF, Gillet F, Jonsson AM, Merganicova K, Netherer S, Arpaci A, Bontemps J-D, Bugmann H, Gonzales-Olabarria JR, Lasch P, Meredieu C, Moreira F, Schelhaas M-J, Mohren F (2011) Modelling natural disturbances in forest ecosystems: a review. Ecol Modell 222:903–924. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.09.040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shahabuddin G, Kumar R (2006) Influence of anthropogenic disturbance on bird communities in a tropical dry forest: role of vegetation structure. Anim Conserv 9:404–413. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2006.00051.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sharma S, Dutta T, Maldonado JE, Wood TC, Panwar HS, Seidensticker J (2013) Forest corridors maintain historic gene flow in a tiger metapopulation in the highlands of central India. Proc R Soc. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2013.1506 Google Scholar
  37. Ticktin T (2004) The ecological implications of harvesting non-timber forest products. J Appl Ecol 41:11–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2004.00859.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Troup RS (1983) Silviculture of Indian trees Vol I-VI. Forest Research Institute, DehradunGoogle Scholar
  39. Turner MD (1998) Long-term effects of daily grazing orbits on nutrient availability in Sahelian West Africa: I. Gradients in the chemical composition of rangeland soils and vegetation. J Biogeogr 25:669–682. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2699.1998.2540669.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vetter S (2005) Rangelands at equilibrium and non-equilibrium: recent developments in the debate. J Arid Environ 62:321–341. doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2004.11.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wildlife Institute of India (2011) Census of India for critical wildlife habitats. Data used with permission. Wildlife Institute of India, DehradunGoogle Scholar
  42. Zianis D (2008) Predicting mean aboveground forest biomass and its associated variance. For Ecol Manage 256:1400–1407. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meghna Agarwala
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ruth S. DeFries
    • 1
  • Qamar Qureshi
    • 2
  • Yadvendradev V. Jhala
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental BiologyColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Wildlife Institute of IndiaChandrabani, DehradunIndia

Personalised recommendations