| Literature DB >> 25781482 |
Anita Varghese1, Tamara Ticktin2, Lisa Mandle3, Snehlata Nath4.
Abstract
The harvest of non-timber forest products (NTFPs), together with other sources of anthropogenic disturbance, impact plant populations greatly. Despite this, conservation research on NTFPs typically focuses on harvest alone, ignoring possible confounding effects of other anthropogenic and ecological factors. Disentangling anthropogenic disturbances is critical in regions such as India's Western Ghats, a biodiversity hotspot with high human density. Identifying strategies that permit both use and conservation of resources is essential to preserving biodiversity while meeting local needs. We assessed the effects of NTFP harvesting (fruit harvest from canopy and lopping of branches for fruit) in combination with other common anthropogenic disturbances (cattle grazing, fire frequency and distance from village), in order to identify which stressors have greater effects on recruitment of three tropical dry forest fruit tree species. Specifically, we assessed the structure of 54 populations of Phyllanthus emblica, P. indofischeri and Terminalia chebula spread across the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, Western Ghats to ask: (1) How are populations recruiting? and (2) What anthropogenic disturbance and environmental factors, specifically forest type and elevation, are the most important predictors of recruitment status? We combined participatory research with an information-theoretic model-averaging approach to determine which factors most affect population structure and recruitment status. Our models illustrate that for T. chebula, high fire frequency and high fruit harvest intensity decreased the proportion of saplings, while lopping branches or stems to obtain fruit increased it. For Phyllanthus spp, recruitment was significantly lower in plots with more frequent fire. Indices of recruitment of both species were significantly higher for plots in more open-canopy environments of savanna woodlands than in dry forests. Our research illustrates an approach for identifying which factors are most important in limiting recruitment of NTFP populations and other plant species that may be in decline, in order to design effective management strategies.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25781482 PMCID: PMC4364117 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119634
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Location, species, and tenural status of NTFP in study plots in the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve (NBR).
| Location in NBR | # NTFP harvester villages surveyed | Commercially harvested NTFP study species | Tenural status of NTFP collection in the region (at the time of the survey) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 9 |
| NTFP collection, sale and storage organized through contractors and traders. |
|
| 5 |
| NTFP collection, sale and storage organized through the local Village Forest Protection Council and the state Forest Department. |
|
| 7 |
| The north eastern slopes of the Kotagiri region were closed for NTFP collection on a commercial scale as of four years before this study. The Konavakarai slopes and other forest areas of Kotagiri were open for collection but little occurred, since the option for wage labor in the area was high. |
|
| 4 |
| NTFP collection is organized through the Village Forest Protection Councils (VFPC) and the local Self Help Groups (SHG) who take the help of private contractors and traders. |
|
| 5 |
| The area was closed for NTFP collection as of five years before this study. |
Fig 1Location of study sites in the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, South India.
The 1 ha plots were located within reserve forests adjoining harvester villages.
Classification of disturbance types assessed as predictors of regeneration status of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) harvested in the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve.
| Type of disturbance | Low | Medium | High |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| On average <10% of trees harvested annually for fruit. Subsistence NTFP collection taking place. | On average 20–40% of trees harvested annually for fruit. NTFP collection for commercial trade occurs but trade is unorganized and institutional mechanism is poor. | On average >70% trees harvested annually for fruit. NTFP collection is carried out for commercial trade, and is organized through government supported institutions (VFPC & SHG) or through private traders |
|
| No lopped branches or stems of study species observed in plot. Harvesters confirm these are never cut for fruit harvest. | Lopped branches or stems of study species observed in plot. Harvesters confirm that stems and branches are sometimes cut for fruit harvest. | |
|
| No signs of livestock grazing and no cattle dung was observed. Harvester’s information corroborates that no livestock are grazed here. Villages with livestock are >5kms away from plot. | Cattle dung present on the way to the plot but not in the plot. Harvesters inform that sometimes grazing takes place. Nearest village with livestock < 5kms from plot. | Cattle dung present in the plot. Harvesters inform that site is a preferred grazing area. Nearest village with livestock is within 1km from plot. |
|
| Harvesters report no history of fire incidences in the past 5 years and no signs of past fires. | Harvester report one fire incident in the past five years and there are signs of past fire | Harvesters report more than one incident of fire in the past five years and there are signs of recent fire |
|
| Mistletoe not observed on trees in the plot or in neighboring trees and harvesters confirm that it has not been sighted. | Mistletoe observed only on neighboring trees, but not on trees in the plots. | Mistletoes found on trees in the plots. |
Fig 2Size class distributions of populations of Terminalia chebula, Phyllanthus emblica and Phyllanthus indofischeri in the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve.
Size classes 1 through 8 represent 5cm dbh divisions, with size class 1 including individuals <1 cm dbh, size class 2 from 1–5 cm dbh, size class 3 from 5–10 cm dbh, through size class 8 with individuals greater than 30 cm dbh. Trees may become reproductive at ~ 5cm dbh for P. indifischeri and ~9–10 cm dbh for P. emblica and T. chebula. The region of the population is indicated above each graph. Dry deciduous forest populations are shaded black, while savanna woodland populations are shaded gray. Additionally the levels of harvest and fire disturbance for each population is indicated by coloring the strip text, with the upper triangle indicating fire frequency and the lower triangle indicating harvest levels.
Model-averaged regression coefficients for all variables included as predictors of proportion of saplings for a) T. chebula and b) Phyllanthus spp. populations, ranked in descending importance by the sum of AICc weights of candidate models including the variable under consideration.
| Variable | Rank | Sum of AICc weights | Model-averaged estimate | Standard error | 95% confidence interval for estimate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Distance | 5 | 0.397 | -0.2601 | 0.1618 | -0.5773, 0.057 |
| Altitude | 6 | 0.263 | -0.002722 | 0.002012 | -0.006665, 0.001221 |
| Grazing | 7 | 0.145 | -0.3553 | 0.5098 | -1.3545, 0.644 |
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Fire | 2 | 0.498 | -0.2625 | 0.1568 | -0.5699, 0.0449 |
| Grazing | 3 | 0.446 | 0.3601 | 0.2371 | -0.1045, 0.8248 |
| Altitude | 4 | 0.396 | -0.000839 | 0.000623 | -0.00206, 0.000382 |
| Distance | 5 | 0.349 | 0.0911 | 0.084 | -0.0735, 0.2556 |
| Harvest | 6 | 0.244 | 0.1525 | 0.3615 | -0.5561, 0.861 |
| Species (indofischeri) | 7 | 0.209 | -0.5505 | 0.7025 | -1.9274, 0.8263 |
| Parasite | 8 | 0.2 | -0.2396 | 0.3911 | -1.0062, 0.5269 |
| Cut stems | 9 | 0.197 | 0.0619 | 0.1606 | -0.2529, 0.3767 |
Variables in bold have model-averaged estimates whose 95% confidence intervals exclude zero.
Model-averaged regression coefficients for all variables included as predictors of coefficient of skewness for a) T. chebula and b) Phyllanthus spp. populations, ranked in descending importance by the sum of AICc weights of candidate models including the variable under consideration.
| Variable | Rank | Sum of AICc weights | Model-averaged estimate | Standard error | 95% confidence interval for estimate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Distance to village | 2 | 0.244 | 0.0723 | 0.058 | -0.0414, 0.1861 |
| Harvest | 3 | 0.164 | -0.1893 | 0.2224 | -0.6252, 0.2467 |
| Vegetation type (savanna woodland) | 4 | 0.127 | 0.0609 | 0.2831 | -0.494, 0.6158 |
| Grazing | 5 | 0.125 | -0.0599 | 0.149 | -0.352, 0.2323 |
| Fire | 6 | 0.12 | -0.0022 | 0.1811 | -0.3573, 0.3528 |
| Cut stems | 7 | 0.118 | -0.008 | 0.2226 | -0.4442, 0.4283 |
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Parasite | 4 | 0.19 | 0.1926 | 0.2996 | -0.3946, 0.7797 |
| Cut stems | 5 | 0.175 | 0.166 | 0.2267 | -0.2784, 0.6103 |
| Species (indofischeri) | 6 | 0.162 | -0.1374 | 0.4561 | -1.0313, 0.7564 |
| Distance | 7 | 0.16 | -0.0061 | 0.0697 | -0.1427, 0.1306 |
| Harvest | 8 | 0.159 | 0.0989 | 0.2168 | -0.326, 0.5238 |
| Grazing | 9 | 0.151 | -0.0213 | 0.1839 | -0.3816, 0.3391 |
Variables in bold have model-averaged estimates whose 95% confidence intervals exclude zero. A positive estimated effect indicates the predictor variable is associated with more large individuals and fewer small individuals.