Composition and Structure of Himalayan Oak (Quercus leucotrichophora A. Camus) Forest under Various Degrees of Disturbance

  • Prasad, Sunil ;
  • Uniyal, Pooja ;
  • Chauhan, D.S.
  • Received : 2013.10.30
  • Accepted : 2015.02.04
  • Published : 2015.02.28


Forest disturbance sometime considered as a tool of management as it believed that mid level disturbance constructs better micro-climatic conditions which ultimately boost up the plant diversity. The effect of different levels of disturbance on species composition and regeneration is very important. Present attempt was carried out in a temperate evergreen oak forest which was under various degree of disturbance. The study area is one of the large ranges of oak forest in Garhwal Himalaya and compensating various types of daily needs of local people. On the basis of IVI values Quercus leucotrichophora holds first position in all the disturbance zones whereas Myrica esculenta upgraded it's rank in highly disturbed zone and showed less impacted species by disturbance. Berberis aristata and Eupatorium adenophorum in shrub layer and Anaphalis adnata and Bidens pilosa in herb layer were found as disturbance friendly species because they attained higher rank in highly disturbed zone whereas Caryopteris foetida was found disturbance-sensitive in shrub layer. The banj oak regenerated well under mid disturbance as compared to no and high degree of disturbance and a sharp downfall in the species diversity was recorded with increasing magnitude of disturbance. Density-diameter curves showed a reverse trend of lower density in higher girth classes. The results of the study should be useful for the forest management strategies.


disturbance;diversity;himalaya;Quercus leucotrichophora;temperate


  1. Knight DH. 1963. A distance method for constructing forest profile diagrams and obtaining structural data. Tropical Ecology 4: 89-94.
  2. Menon S, Bawa KS. 1997. Applications of Geographic Information Systems (GIS), remote-sensing, and a landscape ecology approach to biodiversity conservation in the Western Ghats. Current Science 73: 134-145.
  3. Mishra BP, Tripathi OP, Tripathi RS, Pandey HN. 2004. Effects of anthropogenic disturbance on plant diversity and community structure of a sacred grove in Meghalaya, northeast India. Biodiversity and Conservation 13: 421-436.
  4. Mishra R. 1968. Ecology work book. Oxford and IBM publishing Co. Calcutta, pp 244.
  5. Osmaston AE. 1927. A forest flora of Kumaun. Govt Press Allahabad, United Province, pp 605.
  6. Pandey SK, Shukla RP. 2001. Regeneration strategy and plant diversity status in degraded sal forests. Current Science 81: 95-102.
  7. Pimm SL, Russell GJ, Gittleman JL, Brooks TM. 1995. The future of biodiversity. Science 269: 347-350.
  8. Rao P, Barik SK, Pandey HN, Tripathi RS. 1990. Community composition and population structure in a sub-tropical broad leaved forest along a disturbance gradient. Vegetatio 88: 151-162.
  9. Roberts MR, Gilliam FS. 1995. Disturbance effects on herbaceous layer vegetation and soil nutrients in Populus forests of northern lower Michigan. Journal of Vegetation Science 6: 903-912.
  10. Sagar R, Rughuvanshi AS, Singh JS. 2003. Tree species composition, dispersion and diversity along a disturbance gradient in a dry tropical forest region of India. Forest Ecology and Management 186: 61-71.
  11. Sapkota IP, Tigabu M, Oden PC. 2010. Changes in tree diversity and dominance across a disturbance gradient in Nepalese Sal forests. Journal of Forestry Research 21: 25-32.
  12. Saxena AK, Singh JS. 1982. A phytosociological analysis of woody species in forest communities of a part of Kumaun Himalaya. Vegetatio 50: 3-22.
  13. Saxena AK, Singh SP, Singh JS. 1984. Population structure of forests of Kumaon Himalaya: implications for management. Journal of Environmental Management 19: 307-324.
  14. Schmelz DV, Lindsey AA. 1965. Size-class structure of old-growth forests in Indiana. Forest Science 11: 258-264.
  15. Shannon CE, Wiener W. 1963. The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
  16. Simpson EH. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature (London) 163: 688.
  17. Singh SP. 1998. Chronic disturbances, a principal cause of environmental degradation in developing countries. Environmental Conservation 25: 1-2.
  18. Thadani R, Ashton PMS. 1995. Regeneration of banj oak (Quercus leucotricophora A. Camus) in the central Himalaya. Forest Ecology and Management 78: 217-224.
  19. Vogl RJ. 1980. The ecological factors that produce perturbation dependent ecosystems. In: The Recovery process in damaged ecosystems (Cairns J, ed). Ann Arbor Science publishers, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, pp 63-94.
  20. Westman WA. 1990. Managing for biodiversity. Bioscience 40: 26-33.
  21. White PS. 1979. Pattern, processes and natural disturbance. Botanical Review 45: 229-299.

Cited by

  1. Forest Composition and Structure Under Various Disturbance Regimes in the Alaknanda River Basin, Western Himalaya vol.37, pp.3, 2017,