Advertisement

Woody Perennial Diversity at Various Land forms of the Five Agro-Climatic Zones of Rajasthan, India

  • Manish Mathur
  • S. SundaramoorthyEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Sustainable Development and Biodiversity book series (SDEB, volume 24)

Abstract

Across the globe, the plant biodiversity have been gauged with many gradients like altitude/slope, grazing, nutrients and land uses. However, relationships between land forms and phyto-diversity have rarely been addressed. We compared the diversity of woody perennials at six different land forms of five agro-climatic zones of arid and semi-arid areas of Rajasthan, India. Characteristics of land forms (Hills and Piedmonts, Older Alluvial Plains [OAP], Sandy Undulating Hummocky Plains [SUHP], Younger Alluvial Plains [YAP], Sand Dune and Sandy Plains) along with generalized plant community succession trends were described. Five agro-climatic zones included arid Western, irrigated North Western plains, hyper arid partial irrigated, internal drainage dry zone and transitional plain of Luni basin. Thus, phyto-diversity was studied with land form specific as well as zonal specific approaches. Diversity patters were analyzed with help of species richness, diversity index (Shannon-Weaver index, H) and with evenness (E). SHE analysis was performed to quantify the patterns of these diversity patterns for a specific land form among the agro-climatic zones. Further, plant community behaviors under zonal and land form specific approaches were visualized through Principal Component Analysis (PCA). Our study identifies threshold limits (upper and lower) for different diversity parameters among agro climatic zones and at different land forms. Among the agro-climate zone, log normal (increase in dominance (S) and H but a decline in E) patterns were identified at SUHP, sandy plain, YAP and sand dune. While broken stick models (both S and H are expected to increase and E to stay constant) were identified at Hills and Piedmonts and at OAP. With this study, we identified zonal specific indicator species at different land forms. We linked the magnitude of land forms heterogeneity and their impacts on phyto-diversity. The present work can be extended with scientific inventories pertaining to effects of land forms on ecological roles of dominant/indicator species and effects of different pedological factors of such land forms on community composition and plant bio-diversity.

Keywords

Phyto-diversity Land forms Agro-climatic zone SHE analysis Species richness Principal Component Analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Department for Facilities, UGC-CAS for financial support and CAZRI for granting study leave to the first author

References

  1. Baghani M, Adel S, Barani H (2009) The role of SHE analysis in defining species diversity components of mountain rangelands (ZIARAT basin, Gorgan). J Agric Sci Nat Resour 6(1):212–220Google Scholar
  2. Bawa AK, Gupta IC, Sharma BD (1988) Natural resources and their management in rangelands of western Rajasthan. Curr Agric 12:33–56Google Scholar
  3. Bhattarai KR, Vetaas OR, Grytnes JA (2004). Relationship between plant species richness and biomass in arid sub-alpine grassland of the central Himalayas Nepal. Folia Geobot 39:57–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buzas MA, Hayek LAC (1998) SHE analysis for biofacies identification. J Foramin Res 28:233–239Google Scholar
  5. Champion HG, Seth SK (1968) A revised survey of the forest types of India. The Manager of Publications, New Delhi, p 404Google Scholar
  6. Corenblit D, Gurnell AM, Steiger J, Tabacchi E (2008) Reciprocal adjustments between landforms and living organisms: extended geomorphic evolutionary insights. Catena 73:261–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Javed MD (2016) Distribution, species diversity and composition of plant communities in relation to various affecting factors in an alpine grassland at Bandipora, Kashmir. Pak J Bot 48(2):551–560Google Scholar
  8. Khan MA, Ram B (2003) Integrated natural resources and environmental impact assessment for sustainable development of Hanumangarh District, Rajasthan. Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur, India, p 172Google Scholar
  9. Khan MA, Moharana PC, Singh SK (2003) Integrated natural resources and environmental impact assessment for sustainable development of Ganganagar District, Rajasthan. Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur, India, p 111Google Scholar
  10. Kolarkar AS, Joshi DC, Sharma KD (1992) Rehabilitation of degraded arid ecosystem. Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur, p 203Google Scholar
  11. Larkin D, Vivian-Smith G, Zedler JB (2006) Topographic heterogeneity theory and ecological restoration. Island PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Ludwig JA, Reynolds JF (1999) Statistical ecology. A primary methods and computing. Wiley, New York, p 337Google Scholar
  13. Magurran AE (2004) Measuring biological diversity. Blackwelll Publishing, USA, p 248Google Scholar
  14. Mathur M (2005) Ecology and prospecting of some medicinal plants of aphrodisiac potential. Ph.D. thesis, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur, India, p 465Google Scholar
  15. Mathur M (2015) Comportments of probability approaches in ethno-botanical inventories and the validations’ of outcome through internal matrix exploration. Med Plants 7(2):79–94Google Scholar
  16. Mathur M (2018) Magnitude of temporal fluctuations of composite environment and their impacts on Cassia auriculata (Linn.) performance. Trop Ecol 59(1):1–12Google Scholar
  17. Mathur M, Sundaramoorthy S (2013) Economic assessment and conservation priorities of the Indian Thar desert medicinal plants. Indian J Nat Prod Resour 4(3):283–294Google Scholar
  18. Mathur M, Sundaramoorthy S (2016) Pattern of herbaceous species richness and productivity along gradients of soil moisture and nutrients in the Indian Thar desert. J Arid Environ 125:80–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Narain P, Singh M, Khan MS, Kumar S (2005) Shrubs of Indian arid zone. Arid Agro-ecosystem Directorate, Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur, p 178Google Scholar
  20. Nawal K, Al-Amin N, Stigter CJ, El-Tayeb Mohammed A (2006) Establishment of tress for sand settlement in a completely decertified environment. Arid Land Res Manag 20:209–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ott T, Van Aarde RJ (2014) Coastal dune topography as a determinant of abiotic conditions and biological community restoration in northern KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Landscape Ecol Eng 10:17–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pelffini M, Bollati I (2014) Landforms and geomorphosites ongoing changes: concepts and implications for geoheritage promotion. Quaestiones Geogr 33(1):131–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Prakash I, Gupta RK (1976) An ecological exploration of an extremely arid tract of Rajasthan. Indian J Ecol 3(1):11–21Google Scholar
  24. Salarian T, Jouri MH, Askarizadeh D, Mahmoudi M (2015) The study of diversity indices of plant species using SHE method (case study: Javaherdeh Rangeland, Ramsar, Iran). J Range Sci 5(1):27–37Google Scholar
  25. Satyanarayan Y, Gaur YD (1968) Phytosociological changes of monsoon vegetation in semi-rocky habitats. J Indian Bot Soc 3–4:371–384Google Scholar
  26. Saxena S (1977a) Desertification due to ecological changes in the vegetation of the Indian desert. Ann Arid Zone 16(3):367–373Google Scholar
  27. Saxena S (1977b) Vegetation and its succession in the Indian desert. Desertification and its control. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, pp 176–192Google Scholar
  28. Shankar V (1986) Vegetation recovery under protection. In: Shankarnarayan KA, Shankar V (eds) Desert environment conservation and management. Central Arid Zone Research Institute Monograph, p 134Google Scholar
  29. Sharma KK, Mehra SP (2009) The thar of Rajasthan (India): ecology and conservation of a desert ecosystem. In: Sivaperuman C et al (eds) Functional ecology and conservation of the great Indian desert. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  30. Singh S, Sharma KD, Joshi DC (1995) Integrated natural and human resources appraisal for sustainable development of Jalore district. Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur, India, p 108Google Scholar
  31. Singh S, Vangani NS, Singh N (1996) Integrated natural and human resources appraisal for sustainable development of Sikar district. Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur, India, p 172Google Scholar
  32. Singh G, Singh K, Mishra D, Shukla S (2012) Vegetation diversity and role of Leptadenia pyrotechnica in biomass contribution and carbon storage in arid zone of India. Arid Ecosyst 2(4):264–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Slaymaker O, Spencer T, Embleton-Hamann C (2011) Geomorphology and global environmental change. Cambridge University Press, p 211Google Scholar
  34. Solon J, Degórski M, Roo-Zielińska E (2007) Vegetation response to a topographical-soil gradient. Catena 71:309–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stallins JA (2006) Geomorphology and ecology: unifying themes for complex systems in biogeomorphology. Geomorphology 77:207–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Swanson FJ, Kratz TK, Caine N, Woodmansee RG (1988) Landform effects on ecosystem patterns and processes. Bioscience 38:92–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tiwari JC, Tripathi D, Sharma AK, Harsh LN, Khan MA (2007) Woody vegetation in forest of Kumbhalgarh central hills lying in transitional zone between arid and semi-arid tract. In: Trivedi PC (ed) Global biodiversity: status and conservation. Pointer Publishers, Jaipur, pp 1–29Google Scholar
  38. Wilson B, Orchard K, Phillip J (2012) SHE analysis for biozone identification among foraminiferal sediment assemblages on reefs and in associated sediment around St. Kitts, Eastern Caribbean Sea, and its environmental significance. Mar Micropalentol 83:38–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Xlstat (2007). Data analysis and statistical solution for microsoft excel. Addinsoft, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ICAR-Central Arid Zone Research InstituteJodhpurIndia
  2. 2.Department of Botany, Center of Advanced StudiesJNV UniversityJodhpurIndia

Personalised recommendations