Plant communities and factors responsible for vegetation pattern in an alpine area of the northwestern Himalaya

Abstract

The study intended to describe the alpine vegetation of a protected area of the northwestern Himalaya and identify the important environmental variables responsible for species distribution. We placed random plots covering different habitats and altitude to record species composition and environmental variables. Vegetation was classified using hierarchical cluster analysis and vegetationenvironment relationships were evaluated with Canonical Correspondence Analysis. Four communities, each in alpine shrub and meadows were delineated and well justified in the ordination plots. Indicator species for the different communities were identified. Maximum species richness and diversity were found in community IV among shrub communities and community II among the meadows. Studied environmental variables explained 61.5% variation in shrub vegetation and 59.8% variation in meadows. Soil variables explained higher variability (~35%) than spatial variables (~21%) in both shrubs and meadows. Altitude, among the spatial variables and carbon/nitrogen ratio and nitrogen among the soil variables explained maximum variation. About 40% variations left unexplained. Latitude and species diversity among the other variables had significant correlation with ordination axes. Study showed that altitude and C/N ratio played a significant role in species composition. Extensive sampling efforts and inclusion of other non-studied variables are also suggested for better understanding.

The response of vegetation dynamics of the different alpine grassland types to temperature and precipitation on the Tibetan Plateau

“…The Tibetan Plateau, with an extreme altitude (1000-8846 m), is the highest plateau in the world (Rana et al 2011). The mountainous natural landscape presents vertical variations with the rise in elevation, ranging from the rainforest to alpine snow and ice.…”

Valuation of Aghanashini Estuarine Ecosystem Goods and Services

“…In KWLS, trees density ranged 160.00-860.00 Ind ha -1 , these values are lesser than the earlier reported values (320-1787.50 Ind ha -1 ) from low and high altitude forests of west Himalaya (Ralhan et al 1982;Saxena and Singh 1982b;Tewari 1982;Kalakoti et al 1986;Adhikari et al 1991;Rawat 2001;Joshi 2002;Joshi and Samant 2004;Samant and Joshi 2005;Pant 2005; Pant and Samant 2012; Rana et al 2011) and higher than reported values (average 214.88 Ind ha -1 ) from Khokhan Wildlife Sanctuary, Manali, Wildlife Sanctuary Great Himalayan National Park Rawat and Singh 2006). Similarly, the total basal area in the KWLS (2.75-253.00m 2 ha -1 ) was higher to the values reported earlier (17.9-234.31 m 2 ha -1 ) from high altitude areas (Kalakoti et al 1986;Bankoti et al 1992;Joshi 2002;Samant et al 2002;Pant 2005;Pant and Samant 2012;Rana et al 2011) and also higher than the earlier re-ported value (average 35.37m 2 ha -1 ) from Great Himalayan National Park Rawat and Singh 2006). This clearly indicates that the total basal area and density are directly proportional to each other that is lesser the density, the value of the total basal area will be higher vise versa.…”

Compositional and Structural Diversity of Forest Vegetation in Kais Wildlife Sanctuary, North Western Himalaya: Conservation Implications

“…In KWLS, trees density ranged 160.00-860.00 Ind ha -1 , these values are lesser than the earlier Biodiversity, 10(1-2): 1-14 (2019) reported values (320-1787.50 Ind ha -1 ) from low and high altitude forests of west Himalaya (Ralhan et al 1982;Saxena and Singh 1982b;Tewari 1982;Kalakoti et al 1986;Adhikari et al 1991;Rawat 2001;Joshi 2002;Joshi and Samant 2004;Samant and Joshi 2005;Pant 2005; Pant and Samant 2012; Rana et al 2011) and higher than reported values (average 214.88 Ind ha -1 ) from Khokhan Wildlife Sanctuary, Manali, Wildlife Sanctuary Great Himalayan National Park Rawat and Singh 2006). Similarly, the total basal area in the KWLS (2.75-253.00m 2 ha -1 ) was higher to the values reported earlier (17.9-234.31 m 2 ha -1 ) from high altitude areas (Kalakoti et al 1986;Bankoti et al 1992;Joshi 2002;Samant et al 2002;Pant 2005;Pant and Samant 2012;Rana et al 2011) and also higher than the earlier re-ported value (average 35.37m 2 ha -1 ) from Great Himalayan National Park Rawat and Singh 2006). This clearly indicates that the total basal area and density are directly proportional to each other that is lesser the density, the value of the total basal area will be higher vise versa.…”