| Literature DB >> 36175834 |
Assefa Ataro Ambushe1, Girma Gezimu Gebre2,3, Getahun Shanko Mamo4.
Abstract
Exclosure becomes popular as a naming of the practice of excluding degrading agents from degraded lands for natural rehabilitation. However, its role on woody species regeneration in the Loma Bosa District of the southwestern Ethiopia has not been investigated. Therefore, this study examines the role of exclosure on woody species regeneration by comparing exclosure, open woodland, and degraded land areas. A systematic transect sampling method was employed to collect vegetation data in sampling quadrats, each with a size of 20 × 20 m, evenly distributed along parallel transect lines. All the woody plant species in each plot were identified and measured for DBH and height. Twenty-six woody species, representing 16 plant families, were recorded at the study area, of which only eight were recorded all in the exclosure, open woodland and open degraded land. Species Diversity Index (H') was 2.62, 2.38, and 1.56 for woody species in exclosure, open woodland area, and open degraded land area. Wood species density were 2225 ha-1, 1642 ha-1, and 297 ha-1 for exclosure, open woodland area, and open degraded land area, respectively. The distribution of the height and DBH of the recorded species in exclosure exhibited an inverted "J" shape pattern suggesting a healthy regeneration status of the important species, while others revealed irregular and less interpretable pattern. Overall results from this study indicated that exclosure is important for improvement of woody species regeneration in degraded lands in the study area.Entities:
Keywords: Exclosure; Loma Bosa District; Open degraded land; Regeneration; Woody species
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36175834 PMCID: PMC9523939 DOI: 10.1186/s12862-022-02067-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Ecol Evol ISSN: 2730-7182
Fig. 1Map of study site (Source: Authors)
Species composition in the exclosure, open woodland and open degraded land
| No. | Scientific name of species | Family name | Exclosure | Open woodland | Open degraded land | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fr | RA | Fr | RA | Fr | RA | |||
| 1 |
| Anacardiaceae | 3 | 0.3 | 10 | 1.3 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 |
| Annonaxeae | 23 | 2.2 | 4 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 |
| Apocynaceae | 13 | 1.3 | 26 | 3.3 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 |
| Asteraceae | 3 | 0.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | Balanites aegyptiaca | Balanitaceae | 0 | 0 | 10 | 1.3 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 |
| Combertaceae | 192 | 18 | 70 | 8.9 | 4 | 6 |
| 7 |
| Combretaceae | 80 | 7.5 | 30 | 3.8 | 6 | 9 |
| 8 |
| Combretaceae | 195 | 18.3 | 82 | 10.4 | 8 | 11.9 |
| 9 |
| Combretaceae | 10 | 0.9 | 28 | 3.6 | 0 | 0 |
| 10 |
| Costaceae | 6 | 0.6 | 6 | 0.8 | 0 | 0 |
| 11 |
| Fabaceae | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0.3 | 0 | 0 |
| 12 |
| Fabaceae | 58 | 5.4 | 46 | 5.8 | 4 | 6 |
| 13 |
| Fabaceae | 10 | 0.9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 14 |
| Fabaceae | 178 | 16.7 | 212 | 26.9 | 10 | 14.5 |
| 15 |
| Fabaceae | 27 | 2.5 | 26 | 3.3 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 |
| Fabaceae | 29 | 2.7 | 82 | 10.4 | 18 | 26.9 |
| 17 |
| Flacourtiaceae | 2 | 0.2 | 2 | 0.3 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 |
| Legume | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 |
| Moraceae | 2 | 0.2 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 |
| Moraceae | 3 | 0.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 |
| Sapindaceae | 198 | 18.5 | 112 | 14.2 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 |
| Solanaceae | 5 | 0.5 | 6 | 0.8 | 5 | 7.5 |
| 23 |
| Tiliaceae | 12 | 1.1 | 2 | 0.3 | 12 | 17.9 |
| 24 |
| Malvaceae | 14 | 1.3 | 18 | 2.3 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 |
| Verbenaceae | 2 | 0.2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 |
| Xanthorrhoeaceae | 3 | 0.3 | 2 | 0.3 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 1068 | 100 | 788 | 100 | 67 | 100 | ||
Source: Field survey results
Woody species diversity, richness, evenness density per ha in exclosure, open wood land area and open degraded land area
| Habitat types | Sample (N) | Simpson’s Diversity Index (1-D) | Shannon–Weiner Diversity Index (H′) | H′ max or LN (s) | Species richness (S) | Evenness (J) | Woody species density per ha |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exclosure | 12 | 0.138 | 2.62 | 3.135 | 23 | 0.721 | 2225 |
| Open woodland | 12 | 0.167 | 2.38 | 3.091 | 22 | 0.770 | 1642 |
| Open degraded land | 6 | 0.294 | 1.56 | 2.079 | 8 | 0.751 | 279 |
Source: Field survey results
Similarity coefficient among habitat types
| Habitats | Exclosure | Open woodland | Open degraded land |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclosure | 1 | ||
| Open woodland | 0.844 | 1 | |
| Open degraded land | 0.516 | 0.533 | 1 |
Source: Field survey results
Density of woody species composition by life form and total density between habitats ha−1
| Habitat | Seedlings ha−1 | Saplings ha−1 | Shrubs ha− 1 | Trees ha−1 | Total density ha−1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exclosure | 939.6 (42.22%) | 235.4 (14.98%) | 516.7 (18.82%) | 543.8 (24.4%) | 2225 |
| Open woodland | 377.1 (22.97%) | 116.7 (7.11%) | 387.5 (23.60%) | 760.4 (46.32%) | 1642 |
| Open degraded land | 46 (15.5%) | 42 (14.1%) | 83 (28%) | 108 (36.4%) | 297 |
Source: Field survey results
Fig. 2Regeneration of individual woody species at different vegetation categories
Fig. 3Density per hectare of woody species in DBH classes
Fig. 4Density of woody species by height class distribution in the study habitats