Impacts of rubber plantation on diversity of understory vegetation and soil animals in Bao Lam rubber enterprise, Bao Lam district, Lam Dong province
Silviculture
IMPACTS OF RUBBER PLANTATION ON DIVERSITY OF UNDERSTORY
VEGETATION AND SOIL ANIMALS IN BAO LAM RUBBER ENTERPRISE,
BAO LAM DISTRICT, LAM DONG PROVINCE
Le Xuan Truong1, Ngo Gia Bao2
1,2 Vietnam National University of Forestry
SUMMARY
This study was conducted in Bao Lam rubber enterprise, Bao Lam district, Lam Dong province and concentrated
in impacts of rubber plantation on diversity of understory vegetation and soil animals. Based on data collected
from the rubber tree plantations, number of species and number of individuals of understory vegetation, and soil
animals in five plots of rubber trees, five plots of adjacent vegetation, the characteristics of distribution were
figured out and diversity indices of understory vegetation and soil animal were determined. With understory
vegetation, there are 56 species of 35 vegetation families in study site, mainly belonging to Araceae, Asteraceae,
Euphobiaceae, Moraceae, Myrsinaceae, Rubiaceae and Poaceae. Species composition of understory vegetation in
rubber plantation is different from the adjacent vegetation. All diversity indices in rubber plantation are lower
than that of adjacent vegetation. With soil animals, there are 15 species of 10 families in study site, mainly
belonging to Megasoclecidae, Glossoscolecidae, Fomicidae, Termitoidae, and Noctuidae. Species composition
of soil animals in rubber plantation is similar with adjacent vegetation. Diversity indices of soil animals between
rubber plantation and adjacent vegetation are not significantly differentas well.
Keywords: Diversity, impacts, rubber plantation, soil animals, understory vegetation.
I. INTRODUCTION
II. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
2.1 Study objects
Rubber (Heveabrasillensis) belongs to
Euphobiaceae family; it is one of trees that
have high economic value, besides taping for
latex itstrunk can be used for furniture
processing industry. It was developed rapidly
since the first rubber tree appeared in Vietnam
in 1877, the total area of rubber plantation
reached 981,000 hectares in 2015 (The Vietnam
Rubber Association, 2015).
Understory vegetation and soil animals in
rubber plantation and adjacent vegetation which
belong to Bao Lam Enterprise in Bao Lam
district, Lam Dong province.
2.2 Methodology
Data collection
Based on the data collected in five plots of
rubber plantation and five plots of adjacent
vegetation (area of each plot is 1,000 m2 (25 m
x 40 m)) toinvestigate the growth indicators of
rubber plantation stands and adjacent
vegetationsuch as: height, diameter at breast
height (DBH) and canopy coverage.
Characteristics of understory vegetation and
soil animals were also investigated by
collecting data of number of species, number of
However, there are some opposite opinions
about the impacts of rubber on environment.
Though it was popularly thought that rubber
has positive impacts on environment, it was
considered to have negative impacts to local
people health and biodiversity. This study was
conducted to check the hypothesis that there is
any differencein biodiversityof understory
vegetation and soil animals between rubber
plantation and other adjacent vegetation, and
then some suggestions for sustainable
development of rubber plantation in Vietnam
will be suggested.
individuals,
species
composition
and
distribution (Magurran, A.E., 1988). Species
diversity indiceswere determined by using
Simpson’s diversity index, Shannon-Weaver
diversity index for the understory vegetation
53
JOURNAL OF FORESTRY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY NO. 5 - 2017
Silviculture
and soil animals in plots (James A. Danoff-
Burg, 2003).
ni: Number of individual of species i;
N: Total number of individuals of all
species in a plot;
Data analysis
Calculate Simpson’s diversity index:
H’ focuses on number of species and the
evenness of species. The higher the H’ the more
species richness or more special species
(Shannon, C. E. And W. Wiener, 1963).
Species composition:
ꢆꢁ (ꢆꢁ 1)
ꢈ
∑
D’= 1-
ꢁ
ꢇ (ꢇ 1)
Where D’: Simpson’s diversity index;
m: Total of number species in a plot;
Pi = ni/N: The ratio of each species in a
plot;
Ki= (ni/N)*10
Where Ki: Composition coefficient of species i;
ni: The number of individual of species i;
N: Total number of individuals in the
plot.
ni: Number of individual of species i;
N: Total number of individuals of all
species in a plot;
Compare differences between biodiversity
indices:
0≤ D’ ≤ 1; If a community has high D’
value it has high biodiversity
We used Mann-Whitney U Test using SPSS.
The U statistics will be compared to 1.96. If U
statistics is higher than 1.96 two indices are
significantly different. Otherwise they are not
significantly different (Nguyen Hai Tuat,
Nguyen Trong Binh, 2005).
(Simpson, E. H., 1949).
Calculate Shannon-Weaver diversity index:
ꢂ
∑
( )
H’= - ꢃꢄꢅ(ꢀꢁ. lg ꢀꢁ )
Where H’: Shannon – Weaver diversity index;
m: Total number of species in a plot;
Pi = ni/N;
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. Structural characteristics of rubber
plantation
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for variablesin plots
Height (m) DBH (cm)
Mean Mean
Canopy coverage
(%)
Vegetation
type
Plot
S
V%
S
V%
Mean
S
V%
13.17
15.78
10.76
16.95
10.30
16.31
15.24
14.81
11.63
12.43
2.31 17.54 13.14 6.16 46.88 85.60 2.36 2.76
5.24 33.21 14.57 7.27 49.90 86.40 2.76 3.16
3.68 34.20 12.38 5.11 41.28 79.40 1.90 2.39
4.96 29.26 14.87 5.63 37.86 89.10 1.83 2.05
2.74 26.60 10.35 3.72 35.94 85.10 1.85 2.17
1
2
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
RB
RB
RB
RB
RB
3
4
5
1.15
1.04
0.98
7.05
6.82
6.62
18.47 1.56
8.45
90.20 1.89 2.10
6
16.42 1.98 12.06 86.70 2.04 2.35
13.46 1.64 12.18 81.20 1.67 2.06
7
8
1.39 11.95 12.23 1.69 13.82 76.70 1.91 2.49
1.16 9.33 11.69 1.76 15.06 79.90 1.67 2.09
9
10
*RB: Rubber plantations
*AV: Adjacent vegetation
54
JOURNAL OF FORESTRY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY NO. 5 - 2017
Silviculture
The mean height of rubber plantations range
from 11.63 m to 16.31 m and adjacent
vegetations are from 10.30 m to 16.95 m. The
average coefficient of variation (VH%) on the
height in rubber plots is 8.35%, lower than that
in the adjacent vegetation (28.16%). The mean
of DBH of rubber plantations are from 11.69
cm to 18.47 cm and mean DBH of adjacent
vegetation are form 10.35 cm to 14.87 cm.
Average coefficient of variation on the tree
diameter in rubber plot is 12.31%, much lower
than that in the adjacent vegetation (VD% =
85.12%). So the average height and diameter of
trees in rubber plots aremore uniform than
those in the adjacent vegetation plots, because
rubber plantations are even-age and they have
been applied similar tending activities
meanwhile adjacent vegetations are secondary
tropical forest.
About canopy coverage: Based on the data
in Table 1, the means canopy coverage of
rubber plantation range from 76.70% to
90.20%; those values are from 79.40% to
89.10%. Vegetation coverage in both rubber
plantation and adjacent vegetationare quite
high. This is good for protecting soil from
erosion. The average coefficient of variation on
the canopy coverage in rubber plot (VC%) is
2.22%, slightly lower than that in the adjacent
vegetation (VC% = 2.51).
Species composition of understory vegetation
Table 2. Species composition of understory vegetation in plots
Sl Xi
(Number (number of (Average
of species) individuals) number )
N
Vegetation
type
Plot
Species composition
1.14 Ch + 0.86 Bo + 0.86 Cn + 0.86 Dm
+ 0.57 Bg + 0.57 Ct + 0.57 Cx + 0.57 Gt
+ 0.57 La + 0.57 Ru + 0.57 Rn + 0.57 Tk
1.60 Ho + 1.60 Ld + 1.20 Ba + 1.20 Dr
1.35 Bb + 1.35 Ct + 1.08 Dx + 1.08 La +
0.81 Be + 0.81 Cn + 0.81 Ms
1
AV
26
42
1.62
2
3
AV
AV
22
28
39
55
1.77
1.96
0.71 Bg + 0.71 Ct + 0.71 Cx + 0.71 Ho +
0.71 Ms + 0.71 Qd + 0.71 St + 0.71 Tp +
0.71 Tk
4
AV
21
35
1.67
1.18 Ct + 1.18 Ho + 0.88 Bc + 0.88 Cg +
0.88 La + 0.88 Xu
5
AV
27
43
1.59
3.33 Ct + 2.50 Bb + 1.67 Dx
1.43 Ct + 1.43 Dx + 1.43 La + 1.43 Qb +
0.95 Cm + 0.95 Ho
2.61 Ct + 1.74 Du + 1.30 Bo + 1.30 Ck
1.48 Bb + 1.48 Ct + 1.48 Ho +1.11 Co +
1.11 Dm + 1.11 Tp
6
7
8
9
RB
RB
RB
RB
11
15
18
16
19
30
24
26
1.73
2.00
1.33
1.63
1.60 Bo + 1.60 La + 1.20 Cm + 1.20 Dr
+ 1.20 Dx
10
RB
11
21
1.91
*RB: Rubber plantations
In which:
*AV: Adjacent vegetation
Ba: Euodia lepta; Bb: Chromolaena odorata; Bc: Breynia fruticosa; Be: Mallotus floribundus;
Bg: Hibiscus sabdariffa; Bo: Lygodium flexuosum; Cg: Cynodon dactylon; Ch: Phyltanth usurinaria;
Ck: Grewia asiatica; Cm: Chrysopogon aciculatus; Cn: Embeli aribes; Co: Cyperus rotundus;
Ct: Lophantherum gracile; Cx: Achyranthes aspera; Dm: Colocasia gigantean; Dr: Canna edulis;
Du: Streblus indica; Dx: Dryopteris filix-mas; Gt: Catunaregam tomentosa; Ho: Ageratum conyzoides;
La: Psychotria montana; Ld: Vernonia amygdalina; Ms: Rubus alcaefolicus; Qb: Selaginella frondosa;
Qd: Blechnum oriantale; Rn: Sauropus androgynous; Ru: Mallotus philippinensis;
St: Strophanthus caudatus; Tk: Helicteres hirsuta; Tp: Smilax glabra; Xu: Lasianthuswallichii
55
JOURNAL OF FORESTRY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY NO. 5 - 2017
Silviculture
The number of species of understory
vegetation in rubber plantation is from 11 to 18.
Meanwhile in adjacent vegetation this number
is from 21 to 28, much higher than that in
rubber plantation. Adjacent vegetation plots
have more and different dominant species than
that in theplots of rubber plantation. Species
composition of understory vegetation in plots
of rubber plantation isdifferent from adjacent
vegetation. It might prove that rubber plantation
has impacts on composition of understory
species.
Diversity of understory vegetation
Two diversity indices used to compare are:
Simpson’s diversity index and Shannon-
Weaver diversity index. All data are showed in
the Table 3.
Table 3. Diversity indicesof understory vegetation in plots
Sl (number of
species)
N (number of
individual)
Plot
Vegetation type
D'
H'
1
2
3
AV
AV
AV
18
12
14
35
25
37
0.96
0.93
0.93
2.80
2.35
2.50
4
AV
AV
RB
RB
RB
RB
RB
18
15
6
42
34
12
21
23
27
25
42
27
42
12
12
25
0.96
0.95
0.85
0.93
0.87
0.92
0.92
0.96
0.93
0.96
0.85
0.85
0.93
2.83
2.61
1.63
2.29
2.06
2.21
2.27
2.83
2.29
2.83
1.63
1.63
2.35
5
6
7
11
9
8
9
10
11
18
11
18
6
10
Max (10 plots)
Max (Rubber)
Max (Adjacent vegetation)
Min (10 plots)
Min (Rubber)
6
Min (Adjacent vegetation)
*RB: Rubber plantations
12
*AV: Adjacent vegetation
The table 3 shows that the Simpson’s
diversity indices of understory vegetation of
rubber plantation are from 0.85 to 0.93, lower
than that of adjacent vegetation which range
from 0.93 to 0.96. It means understory
vegetation in rubber plantation has low
biodiversity than that in adjacent vegetation.
The Shannon-Weaver diversity indices of
understory vegetation in rubber plantation are
from 1.63 to 2.29. Those values of adjacent
vegetation are from 2.35 to 2.83. Understory
vegetation in adjacent vegetation has higher
species richness than that in rubber plantation.
The highest diversity indices valuesisbelonging
to plot 4 (plot of adjacent vegetation) and
thelowest diversity indexisbelongingto plot 6
(plot of rubber plantation).
56
JOURNAL OF FORESTRY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY NO. 5 - 2017
Silviculture
5
Figure 1. Number of species in plot
comparison
Figure 2. Number of individuals in plot
comparison
5
Figure 3. Simpson’s diversity index in plot
comparison
Figure 4. Shannon-Weaver diversity
index in plot comparison
The differencein diversity of understory
vegetation between rubber plantation and
adjacent vegetationis identified by Mann-
Whitney U test and the resultsare showed in the
following table 4.
Table 4. Biodiversity indices comparison
Rubber
Adjacent
|
|
ꢉ ꢊꢋꢌꢋ
Conclusion
plantation vegetation
Significantly different
(Sig. Diff.)
Number of species (Sl)
9.40
15.40
3.63
Number of individuals (N)
Simpson (D')
21.60
0.90
2.09
34.60
0.95
2.62
2.10
2.31
2.10
Sig. Diff.
Sig. Diff.
Shannon - Weaver (H')
Sig. Diff.
It isshowed that |U Stat| of all valuesare
higher than 1.96. It means the biodiversity of
understory vegetation between 2 types of
vegetationare significantly different. Besides
that, the mean values of all diversity indices of
adjacent vegetation are higher than that of
rubber plantation. So rubber plantation
decreases diversity of understory vegetation.
57
JOURNAL OF FORESTRY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY NO. 5 - 2017
Silviculture
Species composition of soil animals
Table 5. Species composition of soil animals in plots
Sl
N
Xi
Vegetation
type
Plot
(Number of (number of
species)
(Average
number )
Soil animal species composition
individuals)
3.38 Mc + 1.76 Kl + 1.47 Kv + 1.25 Gi
+ 0.88 Kb
1
AV
12
136
11.33
2
3
AV
AV
8
8
89
92
11.33
11.50
6.29 Mc + 1.35 Gi
3.37 Mc + 2.17 Kl + 1.63 Gi + 1.30 Bh
4
AV
8
70
8.75
3.86 Mc + 2.00 Kv + 1.71 Gi + 1.57 Kb
5
6
7
8
AV
RB
RB
RB
9
10
7
81
75
73
9.00
7.50
10.43
3.09 Mc + 2.59 Kv + 1.60 + 1.11 Dm
3.2 Mc + 2.53 Gi + 1.33 Kv
4.66 Mc + 2.19 Kv + 2.05 Gi
7
130
18.57
4.77 Mc + 1.46 Kl + 1.38 Kb
9
RB
RB
11
8
82
96
7.45
3.90 Mc + 1.46 Kv + 1.34 Gi + 1.10 Kl
4.17 Mv + 2.40 Gi + 1.46 Kl
10
12.00
*RB: Rubber plantations
*AV: Adjacent vegetation
Where:
Bh: Canthon vigilans; Gi: Pontoscolex corethrurus; Kb: Leptogeny spp; Kl: Solenopsis spp;
Kv: Oecophylla smaragdina; Mc: Macrotermes annandalei
The numbers of species of soil animal in
rubber plantation are from 7 to 10 species.
These values in adjacent vegetation arefrom 8
to 12 species. Individuals of soil animal in
rubber plantation range from 73 to 130. While
in adjacent vegetation they range from 70 to
136. The average numbers between rubber
plantation plots and adjacent plots aresimilar.
The species composition of soil animals in
rubber is similar to that of adjacent vegetation.
So the impact of rubber on species component
of soil animals is negligible.
Diversity of soil animals
Two diversity indices used to compare are:
Simpson’s diversity index and Shannon-
Weaver diversity index. All data are showed in
the following table:
Table 6. Biodiversity resultsin plots
Sl (number of
N (number of
individuals)
Plot
Vegetation type
D'
H'
species)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
RB
RB
RB
RB
RB
12
8
8
8
9
10
7
6
11
8
12
11
12
6
6
8
136
89
92
70
81
75
73
130
82
96
136
130
136
70
73
70
0.81
0.58
0.80
0.68
0.80
0.81
0.70
0.70
0.80
0.75
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.58
0.70
0.58
1.86
1.31
1.73
1.87
1.77
1.88
1.39
1.41
1.91
1.59
1.91
1.91
1.87
1.31
1.39
1.31
9
10
Max (10 plots)
Max (Rubber)
Max (Adjacent vegetation)
Min (10 plots)
Min (Rubber)
Min (Adjacent vegetation)
*RB: Rubber plantations
*AV: Adjacent vegetation
58
JOURNAL OF FORESTRY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY NO. 5 - 2017
Silviculture
The maximum number of species and
number of individuals are in plot of the
adjacent vegetation. Besides that, nearly all of
the minimum diversity indices are belonging to
plots of the adjacent vegetation, except only the
number of species. The max and min values
between rubber area and adjacent vegetation
are close together.
Simpson’s diversity index and Shannon-
Weaver diversity index are in plot of rubber
plantation. Based on the maximum and
minimum value of diversity indices we can
realize that diversity of soil animals in rubber
plantation plots are similar tothat of adjacent
vegetation.
The different about diversity of understory
vegetation between rubber plantation and
adjacent vegetation is identified by using
Mann-Whitney U test function and the results
are showed in the table 7.
Simpson diversity values of soil animal in
rubber plantation range from 0.70 to 0.81.
These values of that of adjacent vegetation are
from 0.58 to 0.81. The maximum value of
Table 7. Biodiversity index comparison
Adjacent
|
|
Rubber
ꢉ ꢊꢋꢌꢋ
Conclusion
vegetation
Number of species (Sl)
Number of individuals (N)
Simpson (D')
8.40
91.20
0.75
9.00
93.60
0.73
0,65
0,10
0,31
0,10
Not Sig. Diff.
Not Sig. Diff.
Not Sig. Diff.
Not Sig. Diff.
Shannon - Weaver (H')
1.64
1.70
After analysis we have the result: |U Stat| of
all value are lower than 1.96, so all diversity
indices of soil animals in rubber plots are
nearly similar with diversity indices of soil
animals in adjacent vegetation plots. So we can
conclude that rubber plantation has negligible
impacts on diversity of soil animals.
of soil animals in adjacent vegetation; it
meansthe practices that applied in rubber
plantation did not have significant effects to
soil animal diversity so far.
When implementing tending activity in
rubber plantation such as weeding and using
herbicide people need to consider about
understory vegetation to maintain its
biodiversity for future economic and
environmental uses.
IV. CONCLUSION
The structural characteristics of rubber
plantationare not much different from
characteristics of adjacent vegetation, only
DBH of trees in rubber plantation different
from that of adjacent vegetation.
There should be more studies on the effect
of rubber plantation on biodiversity and
environment for the better vision to harmonize
economic and environmental purposes, leading
to the better strategy for conservation and
management of natural resource in the area.
Diversity of understory vegetation in rubber
plantationsis lower than that of understory
vegetation in adjacent vegetation, it means
rubber plantation has negative impacts on
understory vegetation, leading to theless
diversity of understory vegetation, that mainly
explained by human activities in rubber
plantation area.
REFERENCES
1. James A. Danoff-Burg (2003). Choosing between
diversity indices. Department of Ecology, Evolution &
Environmental Biology, Columbia University.
2. Magurran, A.E. (1988). Ecological Diversity
and its Measurement. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ.
Diversity of soil animals in rubber plantation
isnot significantly different from the diversity
3. Nguyen Hai Tuat, Nguyen Trong Binh (2005).
59
JOURNAL OF FORESTRY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY NO. 5 - 2017
Silviculture
Exploitation and use of SPSS to process research data in
forestry. Agricultural Publishing House, Hanoi.
4. Shannon, C. E. And W. Wiener (1963). The
mathematical theory of communities. University of
Illinoisat Urbana, Illinois Press.
5. Simpson, E. H. (1949). Measurement of diversity.
London: Nature.
luong-va-nang-suat-cay-cao-su-tai-viet-nam.7964.html
ẢNH HƯỞNG CỦA VIỆC TRỒNG CÂY CAO SU
TỚI ĐA DẠNG THỰC VẬT DƯỚI TÁN RỪNG VÀ ĐỘNG VẬT ĐẤT
TẠI NÔNG TRƯỜNG CAO SU BẢO LÂM, HUYỆN BẢO LÂM, TỈNH LÂM ĐỒNG
Lê Xuân Trường1, Ngô Gia Bảo2
1,2Trường Đại học Lâm nghiệp
TÓM TẮT
Nghiên cứu tiến hành tại Nông trường Cao su Bảo Lâm, huyện Bảo Lâm, tỉnh Lâm Đồng, tập trung vào tác động
của rừng trồng Cao su tới đa dạng của thực vật dưới tán rừng và động vật đất. Dựa trên số liệu thu được về tầng
cây cao, số loài và số cá thể của lớp thực vật dưới tán rừng và động vật đất trong 5 ô tiêu chuẩn lập dưới tán rừng
Cao su, 5 ô tiêu chuẩn lập ở các thảm thực vật xung quanh khu vực đã chỉ ra đặc điểm phân bố và tính toán chỉ
số đa dạng của thực vật dưới tán rừng và động vật đất. Đối với thực vật dưới tán rừng khu vực nghiên cứu có 56
loài cây thuộc 35 họ, chủ yếu tập trung vào các họ Ráy, họ Cúc, họ Thầu dầu, họ Dâu tằm, họ Đơn nem, họ Cà
phê và họ Lúa. Tổ thành loài của lớp thực vật dưới tán rừng khác so với khu vực xung quanh. Tất cả các chỉ số
đa dạng ở rừng trồng Cao su đều thấp hơn thực vật ở khu vực xung quanh. Đối với động vật đất khu vực nghiên
cứu phát hiện 15 loài thuộc 10 họ tập trung vào các họ Giun to, họ Giun trung bình, họ Kiến, họ Mối và họ
Bướm đêm. Tổ thành loài của động vật đất dưới tán rừng Cao su tương đồng với tổ thành động vật đất dưới tán
thảm thực vật xung quanh. Chỉ số đa đạng sinh học của động vật đất ở hai khu vực này cũng tương tự nhau.
Từ khóa: Đa dạng, động vật đất, rừng trồng cao su, tác động, thực vật dưới tán rừng.
Received
Revised
Accepted
: 04/9/2017
: 18/9/2017
: 04/10/2017
60
JOURNAL OF FORESTRY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY NO. 5 - 2017
8 trang
8900
Free
Bạn đang xem tài liệu "Impacts of rubber plantation on diversity of understory vegetation and soil animals in Bao Lam rubber enterprise, Bao Lam district, Lam Dong province", để tải tài liệu gốc về máy hãy click vào nút Download ở trên
File đính kèm:
- impacts_of_rubber_plantation_on_diversity_of_understory_vege.pdf
