Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)

ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 6.887


Volume 7 Issue I, Jan 2019- Available at www.ijraset.com

Woody Stem Density and above-Ground Biomass


in Pachaimalai Hills of Southern Eastern Ghats,
Tamil Nadu, India
S. Manikandan1, M. Udayakumar2, T. Sekar3
1, 3
PG & Research Department of Botany, Pachaiyappa’s College, Chennai -30, Tamil Nadu, India.
2
Department of Plant Science, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Tirunelveli Tamil Nadu, India.

Abstract: The present study aims to Woody stem density and above-ground biomass (AGB) in Pachamalai Hills of Southern
Eastern Ghats Tamil Nadu. In 10ha plot was established and each plot was sub-divided into two hundred and fifty (20m × 20m)
workable sub plots, from ground level to above 1.3m. All trees ≥ 30 cm girth at breast height (GBH at 1.3 m) were measured.
Basal area of trees also varied considerably among species. For multi-stemmed trees, sampled trees were tagged with aluminium
tags to facilitate further survey and monitoring. The aboveground biomass of trees in semi evergreen forests was estimated by
using the allometric formula was developed through destructive sampling methods. In a total of 5644 woody stem trees density of
species varied considerably among species. Memecylon umbellatum recorded the highest number of density (3113) individuals
followed by Buchanania lanceolata (605 trees), Memecylon edule (520 trees), Buchanania lanzan (350) and Psydrax dicoccos
(203 trees) in study area. A sum 61 woody tree species (≥ 30 cm gbh) that belong to 45 genera and 30 families were recorded
from Pachamalai Hills of Southern Eastern Ghats Tamil Nadu.
Keywords: Woody Stem Density, Above dry Ground Biomass, Tropical Forest, Species Richness, Pachaimalai Hills, Southern
Eastern Ghats

I. INTRODUCTION
The terrestrial ecosystems of world covered around 30 % of forest area by Muraoka et al., (2015) [1]. Ketterings QM et al., (2001)
[2] suggested that the estimation of woody stem density and above-ground biomass (AGB) is an vital aspect of studies of carbon
stocks and the effects of deforestation and carbon sequestration on the universal carbon. Brown S (2002) [3] & Fearnside PM (1996)
[4] reported that the permanent sampling plots have long been used in ecological studies for evaluating how much biomass is consist
in ecosystem.
According to FAO (2001) [5] the woody plants accumulate carbon in their wood and other organs, thereby acting as relatively a
carbon stockpile, almost all terrestrial carbon stored in forests area, contributing about three-fourths of total carbon exchange
between terrestrial ecosystem and the atmosphere of carbon annually. Htun et al. (2011) [6] described that the forest ecosystems
have different impacts by disturbance of Human, the impact of anthropogenic pressures on forest characteristics may be specific site
and the greatness and frequency of disturbance may also vary between sites. Pragasan & Parthasarathy (2010) [7] proposed that the
world biodiversity is declining quickly due to habitat demolition, over exploitation, pollution and species introduction caused by
humans due to improvement and modernization.
Sapkota et al. (2010) [8] considered the most of the natural forests occur in fragments and in degraded forms causing a lot of spatial
and sequential variation in species richness, composition and productivity at local and regional levels anthropogenic pressures often
lead to altered environmental circumstances, which influence the process that can both augment and erode species diversity in a
forest community. Peh (2009) [9] repotted that typically species diverse areas can sometimes also include areas from one to several
thousand is called classical monodominance, Monodominant forests have been reported from Asian Whitmore (1984) [10]. The tree
species richness of the monodominant and mixed forest types is generally similar, except for the presence or absence of the
monodominant species was proposed by Connell & Lowman (1989) [11].
Shorea albida is the example of traditional monodominant species in a south-east Asia and Neotropics was explained Anderson
(1961) [12]. The present study in most important objectives were to estimate the Above Ground Biomass (AGB) of these forests
using basal area (BA) values and species richness, woody stem density and BA, even though all these sites go to the same tropical
semi evergreen forest type.

©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved 151


International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 6.887
Volume 7 Issue I, Jan 2019- Available at www.ijraset.com

II. MATERIALS AND METHODS


A. Study Area
The tropical forests of the Pachamalai Hills situated in Southern Eastern Ghats of Tamil Nadu with latitudes 11°33'31.24" to
11°34'16.30" N and longitudes 78°55'25.41" to 78°55'19.50" E. The mixed deciduous forest is current in the elevation between 400
to 1200 m, while semi-evergreen forests occupy the elevation between 1200 to 1600 m. They occupy an area of about 527.61 sq. km
and altitudes range of 160 to 1072 m.
The chain of discontinuous low range running usually northeast-southwest parallel to the coast of the Bay of Bengal in Eastern
Ghats. It covers an area of about 75,000 sq km in the Indian peninsular, with an normal width of 220 km in the north and 100 km in
the south region.
These extend over a length of 1750 km between the rivers of Mahanadi and Vaigai next to the East Coast of India. These sites were
selected to represent various levels of site disturbance (relatively undisturbed, averagely disturbed to much disturbed), soil type
(alluvial, coastal sandy and red ferrallitic), total areal extent of forests (small to large – 0.5 to 10 ha), temple structure (small,
primitive to large, well constructed) and extent of biodiversity, based on preliminary site survey, ranging from – low to high
diversity (10 to 95 species) etc. Pachamalai hill range extends into Trichy and Salem districts of Tamil Nadu. The approach to the
hills is from Punavarai, Uppiliyapuram.

B. Methodology
In this study, 10 ha plot was established and each plot was sub-divided into two hundred and fifty (20 m × 20 m) workable sub plots,
from ground level to above 1.3m . All trees ≥ 30 cm girth at breast height (GBH at 1.3 m) were measured. For multi-stemmed trees,
bole girth was measured separately basal area calculated and summed. Sampled trees were tagged with aluminium tags to facilitate
further survey and monitoring.

III. DATA ANALYSIS


The allometric formula was used to calculate for aboveground dry biomass of trees by destructive harvesting of trees with the
permission of Forest Department of Tamil Nadu, India. Biomass estimate of developed formula was compared with a widely used
and accepted tree allometric formula which constructed with destructive trees from a wide range of tropical dry forests.
This study is developed through allometric formula AGB dry = exp(2.2014*LN(DBH)- 1.0615); where, AGB dry = Aboveground
dry biomass of tree (kg); DBH = diameter at breast height (cm); 2.2014 and -1.0615 are constants Allometric formula which
constructed with destructive trees from a wide range of tropical dry forests: AGB = p x exp(-0.667 + 1.784 ln(D) + 0.207(ln(D))2 -
0.0281(ln(D))3) Chave J et al., (2005) [13]; where -0.667, 1.784, 0.207 and -0.028 are constants; D = trunk diameter at breast height
(cm); LN = Natural logarithm; p = oven-dry wood specific gravity/wood density (g cm- 3). By this regression model the total AGB
(kg) of a tree with diameter D is proportional to the product of wood specific gravity (g cm-3) (p, represent an oven-dry mass (105
°C, 48 h) divided by green volume. Sekar T (2015) [14] were retrieved the species of wood density.

IV. RESULTS
A. Woody Stem Density and Species Richness
In a total of 5644 woody stem trees density of species varied considerably among species. Memecylon umbellatum recorded the
highest number of density 3113 individuals followed by Buchanania lanceolata (605 trees), Memecylon edule (520 trees) and
Buchanania lanzan (350) in study area.
While, nine species namely Dichrostachys cinerea, Dipterocarpus indicus, Euphorbia tirucalli, Grewia tiliifolia, Myristica
dactyloides, Olea paniculata, Premna tomentosa, Sapindus emarginatus and Sapium insigne each represented by single individual in
study area (Table 1).
A total of 61 woody tree species (≥ 30 cm gbh) that belong to 45 genera and 30 families were recorded in study plot. The most
species in family Euphorbiaceaere represented by large number of species (7 species) followed by Combretaceae and Anacardiaceae
each represented by five species (5 species), Rubiaceae, Mimosaceae and Ebenaceae each represented by four species (4 species),
Verbenaceae and Rutaceae each represented by three species (3 species) Sterculiaceae, Sapotaceae, Moraceae and Melastomataceae
each represented by two species (2 species) whereas, 18 families had one species’ each in study area (Table 1).

©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved 152


International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 6.887
Volume 7 Issue I, Jan 2019- Available at www.ijraset.com

Table 1: Binomial, Family, Common Name, and Density of Trees recorded from Pachaimalai hills in Tamil Nadu
S.No Binomial Name Family Name Common Name Density
1 Acacia nilotica (L.) Willd. ex Del. Mimosaceae Karuvelam 7
2 Ailanthus excelsa Roxb. Simaroubaceae Perumaram 4
3 Albizia amara (Roxb.) Boivin Mimosaceae Usilai 15
4 Albizia lebbeck (L.) Willd. Mimosaceae Vaagai 2
Anogeissus latifolia (Roxb. Ex DC.) Wall ex
5
Guill. & Perr. Combretaceae Vellai namai 11
6 Atalantia monophylla (L.) Correa Rutaceae Kaattu Elumichai 12
7 Buchanania axillaris (Desr.) Ramam. Anacardiaceae Kaattu maangai 4
8 Buchanania lanceolata Wight Anacardiaceae - 605
9 Buchanania lanzan Spreng. Anacardiaceae Saarai paruppu 350
10 Chloroxylon swietenia DC. Rutaceae Purasa maram 3
11 Clausena dentata (Willd.) M. Roem Rutaceae Kaattu Karuvaeppilai 146
12 Commiphora caudata (Wight & Arn.) Engler Burseraceae Pachai kiluvai 37
13 Dichrostachys cinerea (L.) Wight & Arn. Mimosaceae Vidathalam thazhai 1
14 Diospyros buxifolia (Blume) Hiern Ebenaceae Chinnathuvarai 78
15 Diospyros ebenum Koen. Ebenaceae Karungali 35
16 Diospyros montana Roxb. Ebenaceae Vakkanai 3
17 Diospyros ovalifolia Wight Ebenaceae Vedi kandru 24
18 Dipterocarpus indicus Bedd. Dipterocarpaceae Ennai 1
19 Euphorbia antiquorum L. Euphorbiaceae Sadura-kalli 13
20 Euphorbia nivulia Buch.-Ham. Euphorbiaceae Ilaikkalli 5
21 Euphorbia tirucalli L. Euphorbiaceae Tirukkalli 1
22 Ficus benghalensis L. Moraceae Aalamaram 19
23 Ficus microcarpa L.f. Moraceae Kal-athi 3
24 Gmelina arborea Roxb. Verbenaceae Kumizha maram 3
25 Grewia tiliifolia Vahl. Tiliaceae Unu 1
26 Ixora pavetta Andr. Rubiaceae Korivi, 8
27 Lagerstroemia parviflora Roxb. Lythraceae Peikadukkaai 4
28 Lannea coromandelica (Houtt.) Merr. Anacardiaceae Odhiya maram 15
29 Mallotus philippensis (Lam.) Muell.-Arg. Euphorbiaceae Kapli 4
30 Manilkara hexandra (Roxb.) Dubard Sapotaceae Paala maram 8
31 Meliosma simplicifolia (Roxb.) Walp. Sabiaceae Chembavu 8
32 Memecylon edule Roxb. Melastomataceae vellaiKasaan 520
33 Memecylon umbellatum Burm. Melastomataceae Kaasan 3113
34 Mimusops elengi L. Sapotaceae Magizham 20
35 Myristica dactyloides Gaertn. Myristicaceae Kaatu jathikai 1
36 Ochna serrulata Walp Ochnaceae serunthi 3
37 Olea paniculata R. Br. Oleaceae Perum pungu 1
38 Pavetta indica L. var. indica Rubiaceae Pavattai 3
39 Phoebe wightii Meisner Lauraceae - 41
40 Phyllanthus emblica L. Euphorbiaceae Nelli 19
41 Phyllanthus polyphyllus Willd. Euphorbiaceae Sirunelli 9
42 Plumeria alba L. Apocynaceae Perunkalli 24
43 Pongamia pinnata (L.) Pierre Fabaceae Punga maram 19
44 Premna tomentosa Willd. Verbenaceae Podanganari 1
45 Prunus ceylanica (Wight) Miq. Rosaceae Pazhamkaachi 5

©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved 153


International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 6.887
Volume 7 Issue I, Jan 2019- Available at www.ijraset.com

46 Psydrax dicoccos Gaertn. Rubiaceae Alumba 203


47 Pterospermum canescens Roxb. Sterculiaceae Sembolavu 10
48 Pterospermum suberifolium (L.) Willd. Sterculiaceae - 10
49 Sapindus emarginatus Vahl Sapindaceae Soappukkaai 1
50 Sapium insigne (Royle) Benth. Euphorbiaceae Sakkarakkalli 1
51 Scaevola sericea Vahl Goodeniaceae - 4
52 Semecarpus anacardium L. Anacardiaceae Seraangottai 2
53 Strychnos nux-vomica L. Loganiaceae Yetti 20
54 Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels Myrtaceae Navaal 6
55 Tarenna asiatica (L.) Kuntze ex K. Schum. Rubiaceae Therani 33
56 Terminalia bellirica (Gaertn.) Roxb. Combretaceae Thani 28
57 Terminalia chebula Retz. Combretaceae Kadukaai 33
58 Terminalia paniculata Roth Combretaceae manimarudhu 12
59 Terminalia tomentella (Kurz) C.B.Clarke Combretaceae Semmara 12
60 Vitex altissima L.f. Verbenaceae Mayilaadi 46
61 Ziziphus xylopyrus (Retz.) Willd. Rhamnaceae Kottai-ilandhai 14
Total 5644

B. Basal area and Aboveground Biomass


Basal area of trees varied noticeably among species. Memecylon umbellatum had the largest share in tree basal area (85.61 m2/10ha)
followed by Buchanania lanceolata (26.49 m2/10ha), Memecylon edule (26.35 m2/10ha), Buchanania lanzan (15.9 m2/10ha) and
Plumeria alba (5.9 m2/10ha). On an average, each hectare had 20.18 m2/ha in study plots (Table 2).
Aboveground dry Biomass of trees varied significantly among species. Memecylon umbellatum had the largest share in
aboveground biomass (1148.58 tonne/10 ha) followed by Buchanania lanceolata (404.43 tonne/10 ha), Memecylon edule (303.84
tonne/10 ha), Buchanania lanzan (237.53 tonne/10 ha), Plumeria alba (78.56 tonne/10 ha). On an average, each hectare had 274.07
tonne/ha in study plots (Table 2).

Table 2: Binomial, Basal area and Aboveground dry Biomass of trees recorded from Pachaimalai Hills Tamil Nadu.
Basal Area Aboveground dry Biomass
S. No. Botanical Name 2
(m /10 ha) (tonne/10 ha)
1 Acacia nilotica (L.) Willd. ex Del. 0.28 5.11
2 Ailanthus excelsa Roxb. 0.17 2.68
3 Albizia amara (Roxb.) Boivin 0.53 4.96
4 Albizia lebbeck (L.) Willd. 0.1 0.81
Anogeissus latifolia (Roxb. Ex DC.) Wall ex Guill. &
5
Perr. 0.34 5.1
6 Atalantia monophylla (L.) Correa 0.43 6.05
7 Buchanania axillaris (Desr.) Ramam. 0.06 0.62
8 Buchanania lanceolata Wight 26.35 404.43
9 Buchanania lanzan Spreng. 15.9 237.53
10 Chloroxylon swietenia DC. 0.14 2.99
11 Clausena dentata (Willd.) M. Roem 4.86 57.09
12 Commiphora caudata (Wight & Arn.) Engler 2.5 36.25
13 Dichrostachys cinerea (L.) Wight & Arn. 0.41 24.25
14 Diospyros buxifolia (Blume) Hiern 1.7 19.77
15 Diospyros ebenum Koen. 2.44 29.83
16 Diospyros montana Roxb. 0.2 1.68
17 Diospyros ovalifolia Wight 0.81 8.58

©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved 154


International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 6.887
Volume 7 Issue I, Jan 2019- Available at www.ijraset.com

18 Dipterocarpus indicus Bedd. 0.01 0.12


19 Euphorbia antiquorum L. 0.28 2.23
20 Euphorbia nivulia Buch.-Ham. 0.16 1.35
21 Euphorbia tirucalli L. 0.02 0.2
22 Ficus benghalensis L. 2.93 46.75
23 Ficus microcarpa L.f. 1.28 17.08
24 Gmelina arborea Roxb. 0.09 0.76
25 Grewia tiliifolia Vahl. 0.02 0.13
26 Ixora pavetta Andr. 0.16 2.52
27 Lagerstroemia parviflora Roxb. 0.15 1.97
28 Lannea coromandelica (Houtt.) Merr. 1.19 11.75
29 Mallotus philippensis (Lam.) Muell.-Arg. 0.06 0.42
30 Manilkara hexandra (Roxb.) Dubard 0.9 9.48
31 Meliosma simplicifolia (Roxb.) Walp. 0.14 1.66
32 Memecylon edule Roxb. 26.49 303.84
33 Memecylon umbellatum Burm. 85.61 1148.58
34 Mimusops elengi L. 1.11 9.98
35 Myristica dactyloides Gaertn. 0.02 0.13
36 Ochna serrulata Walp 0.03 0.29
37 Olea paniculata R. Br. 0.02 0.16
38 Pavetta indica L. var. indica 0.07 0.6
39 Phoebe wightii Meisner 1.55 19.41
40 Phyllanthus emblica L. 0.77 7.51
41 Phyllanthus polyphyllus Willd. 0.26 2.96
42 Plumeria alba L. 3.61 78.56
43 Pongamia pinnata (L.) Pierre 0.53 5.49
44 Premna tomentosa Willd. 0.02 0.43
45 Prunus ceylanica (Wight) Miq. 0.15 2.16
46 Psydrax dicoccos Gaertn. var. dicoccos 5.9 73.73
47 Pterospermum canescens Roxb. 0.71 6.39
48 Pterospermum suberifolium (L.) Willd. 0.22 2.61
49 Sapindus emarginatus Vahl 0.01 0.08
50 Sapium insigne (Royle) Benth. 0.05 0.87
51 Scaevola sericea Vahl 0.21 1.87
52 Semecarpus anacardium L. 0.07 0.61
53 Strychnos nux-vomica L. 0.53 5.01
54 Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels 0.74 10
55 Tarenna asiatica (L.) Kuntze ex K. Schum. 0.51 7.11
56 Terminalia bellirica (Gaertn.) Roxb. 1.58 17.34
57 Terminalia chebula Retz. 1.1 14.11
58 Terminalia paniculata Roth 0.27 3.21
59 Terminalia tomentella (Kurz) C.B.Clarke 0.32 4.5
60 Vitex altissima L.f. 3.97 56.85
61 Ziziphus xylopyrus (Retz.) Willd. 0.77 12.17
Total 201.81 2740.71

©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved 155


International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 6.887
Volume 7 Issue I, Jan 2019- Available at www.ijraset.com

C. Contribution Of Families On Basal Area And Above-Ground Dry Biomass


The members of the family Melastomataceae contributed a higher proportion (112.1 m2/10 ha) followed by Anacardiaceae (43.57
m2/10 ha), Rubiaceae (6.63 m2/10 ha), Apocynaceae (5.44 m2/10 ha) and Rutaceae (5.15 m2/10 ha) to total biomass, and the very
lowest proportion of the family is Sapindaceae (0.01 m2/10 ha) (Table 3).
The part of the family Melastomataceae contributed a higher proportion (1452.42 tonne/10 ha) followed by Anacardiaceae (654.95
tonne/10 ha), Rubiaceae (83.95 tonne/10 ha), Apocynaceae (78.56 tonne/10 ha) and Rutaceae (66.14 tonne/10 ha) to total biomass,
and the very lowest proportion of the family is Sapindaceae (0.08 tonne/10 ha) (Table 3).

Table 3: Family Name, Basal Area (m2 /10 ha) and Aboveground dry Biomass (tonne/10 ha) from Pachaimalai Hills Tamil Nadu.
S. No. Family Name Basal Area (m2/10 ha) Aboveground dry Biomass (tonne/10 ha)
1 Anacardiaceae 43.57 654.95
2 Apocynaceae 3.61 78.56
3 Burseraceae 2.51 36.26
4 Combretaceae 3.61 44.31
5 Dipterocarpaceae 0.02 0.12
6 Ebenaceae 5.15 59.86
7 Euphorbiaceae 1.61 15.55
8 Fabaceae 0.53 5.49
9 Goodeniaceae 0.21 1.87
10 Lauraceae 1.55 19.42
11 Loganiaceae 0.53 5.01
12 Lythraceae 0.15 1.97
13 Melastomataceae 112.1 1452.42
14 Mimosaceae 1.32 35.12
15 Moraceae 4.2 63.82
16 Myristicaceae 0.02 0.13
17 Myrtaceae 0.74 10.01
18 Ochnaceae 0.03 0.2
19 Oleaceae 0.02 0.16
20 Rhamnaceae 0.77 12.17
21 Rosaceae 0.15 2.17
22 Rubiaceae 6.63 83.95
23 Rutaceae 5.44 66.14
24 Sabiaceae 0.14 1.66
25 Sapindaceae 0.01 0.08
26 Sapotaceae 2 19.46
27 Simaroubaceae 0.16 2.68
28 Sterculiaceae 0.93 9.01
29 Tiliaceae 0.02 0.13
30 Verbenaceae 4.08 58.03
Total 201.81 2740.71

V. DISCUSSION
A. Tree Density
The average stand for woody stem density recorded in this study area (564 trees ha-1) is greater than which has been reported for
different tropical forest sites, firme forest Brazilian Amazon in recorded 473 trees ha-1 (mean) from Campbell et al. (1986) [15];
and also recorded 419 trees ha-1 in lowland forest of Mara Brazil by Thompson et al. ( 1992) [16]; Valencia et al. (1994) [17] is
recorded that 307 species ha−1 in Amazonian Ecuador, Udayakumar M et al (2016) [18] is reported the tropical semi evergreen

©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved 156


International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 6.887
Volume 7 Issue I, Jan 2019- Available at www.ijraset.com

forest of Pachaimalai hills (213 trees ha-1); the average tree stand density recorded in this study is lesser than which has been
reported for Sal dominated central Himalayan forest of India (1150-1920 trees ha-1) of Pande PK (1999) [19]; deciduous scrub
forest of BR hills in India (2685 trees ha-1) by Uma Shankar et al (1998) [20].

B. Species Richness
Species richness is recorded in study area 61 species in 10 ha range 28-35 species ha-1 is higher than in tropical dry evergreen
forests of Thiruvarur and Nagapattinam (range 26-3) by Udayakumar M (2014) [21]. Tropical dry deciduous of Madhya Pradesh
(range 2-14 species) reported by Pande P K (2005)[22]; tropical dry evergreen forest (TDEF) of Villupuram (21 species) of
Ramanujam MP (2001) [23], the average tree species richness is recorded in this study is lesser than which has been reported for
tropical evergreen of Western Ghats (range 64-82) by Bajalwan A (2010) [24]; giant evergreen forests of Andaman (68-75 species)
by Rasingam L et al.,(2009) [25].

C. Basal Area
The present basal area is found in this study (20.18 m2 ha-1) is higher than in which has been recorded for tropical dry forests of
Chattishgarh (4.99-7.34 m2 ha-1) by Bajalwan A (2010) [24]; TDEFs of Nagapattinam and Thiruvarur (mean 18.99 m2 ha-1) of
Udayakumar M (2014) [21]; whereas basal area of this study is lower than in trees in five inland tropical dry evergreen forests of
peninsular India, Pudukottai (22.1 m2 ha-1) by Mani S et al (2005) [26]; and tropical dry forests of Mudumalai (24.7 m2 ha-1) by
Sukumar R et al (1997) [27].

D. Aboveground Biomass
The average dry AGB quantified in this study (274.07 tonne ha-1) is higher than in Asian natural forests (70 tonne ha-1) of FAO
(2001) [28]; whereas tropical forest of Pachaimalai is 50.6 tonne ha-1 by Arul Pragasan (2015) [29]. Brown S et al (1984) [30] is
reported that Asia’s undisturbed closed forests (214.66 tonne ha-1). Whereas, the average above ground biomass of study area is
lesser than which has been recorded for giant evergreen forests of Andaman (332.40-353 tonne ha-1) by Rajkumar M et al (2008)
[31]. Moist evergreen forest (400.2- 465.4 tonne ha-1) of Ramachandra SH (1987) [32]; rain forests of India (420- 649 tonne ha-1)
by Rai SN et al (1986) [33].

VI. CONCLUSION
The main aim of this study is to estimate the Woody stem density, species richness, basal area and above-ground biomass of
Pachaimalai hills Southern Eastern Ghats Tamil Nadu. It is relatively higher, equal and lower than in tropical semi evergreen forests
around the world. This study concentrated only on a contiguous 10 ha area in Pachaimalai hills Southern Eastern Ghats. It is a
dwelling for kinds of trees and forests.

VII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We gratefully acknowledge the Ministry of Earth Science, Government of India, New Delhi for providing financial support through
a R&D project (MoES/16/25/2013/RDEAS dated 03.07.2014). We are extending our thanks to DFO, Attur and other Forest
Officials who granted permission to conduct this work.

REFERENCE
[1] Muraoka H., Saitoh T.M., Nagai, S (2015): Long-term and interdisciplinary research on forest ecosystem function: challenges at Takayama site since 1993-
Ecological Restoration 30:197-200
[2] Ketterings QM, Coe R, van Noordwijk M, Ambagau Y, Palm CA. Reducing uncertainty in the use of allometric biomass equations for predicting above-ground
tree biomass in mixed secondary forests. Forest Ecology and Management 2001;146:199–209.
[3] Brown S. Measuring, monitoring, and verification of carbon benefits for forest-based projects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A
2002;360:1669–83.
[4] Fearnside PM. Amazonian deforestation and global warming: carbon stocks in vegetation replacing Brazil’s Amazon forest. Forest Ecology and Management
1996;80:21–34
[5] FAO; State of the world’s forests 2001. Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome, 2001.
[6] Htun, N.Z., Mizoue, N., Kajisa, T. & S. Yosida. 2011. Tree species composition and diversity at different levels of disturbance in Popa Mountain park,
Myanmar. Biotropica 1–7.
[7] Pragasan, A. & N. Parthasarathy. 2010. Landscape-level tree diversity assessment in tropical forests of southern Eastern Ghats, India. Flora 205: 728-737.
[8] Sapkota, I. P., M. Tigabu & P. C. Oden. 2010. Changes in tree species diversity and dominance across a disturbance gradient in Nepalese Sal (Shorea robusta
Gaertn.f.) forests. Journal of Forest Research 21: 25-32.

©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved 157


International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 6.887
Volume 7 Issue I, Jan 2019- Available at www.ijraset.com

[9] Peh, K. S. 2009. The Relationship Between Species Diversity and Ecosystem Functioning in Low-and High-diversity Tropical African Forest. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Leeds, Leeds.
[10] Whitmore, T.C. 1984. Tropical Rain Forests of the Far East. 2nd edn. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
[11] Connell, J. H. & M. D. Lowman. 1989. Low- diversity tropical rain forests: some possible mechanisms for their existence. Ameican Naturalist 134: 88-119.
[12] Anderson, J. A. R. 1961. The destruction of Shore albida forest by an unidentified insect. Empire Forestry Review 40: 19-29
[13] Chave J, Andalo C, Brown S, Cairns MA, Chambers JQ, Eamus D, Folster H, Fromard F, Higuchi NT, Kira T, Lescure J.-P, Nelson BW, Ogawa H, Puig H,
Rie´ra B, Yamakura T. Tree allometry and improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in tropical forests. Oecologia, 2005;145:87-99.
[14] Sekar T; Estimation of Carbon Sequestration Potential of Trees in Southern Eastern Ghats of Tamil Nadu, India. Annual report submitted to Ministry of Earth
Science, Government of India, New Delhi, 2015.
[15] Campbell DG, Daly DC, Prance GT, Maciel UN; Quantitative ecological inventory of terra firme and varzea forest on the Rio Xingu, Brazilian Amazon.
Brittonia., 1986;38:369-393
[16] Thompson J, Proctor J, Viana V, Milliken W, Ratterr JD, Scoot DA; Ecological studies on a lowland evergreen rain forest on Maraca Island, Roraima, Brazil. I.
Physical environment, forest structure and leaf chemistry. J Ecol., 1992;80:689- 703.
[17] Valencia R, Balslev H and Mino GCPY (1994) High tree alpha-diversity in Amazonian Ecuador. Biodiversity and Conservation 3: 21–28
[18] Udayakumar M, Manikandan S, Tamil Selvan B, Sekar T; Density, species richness and aboveground biomass of trees in 10 ha permanent study plot,
Pachaimalai, Tamil Nadu. Sch Acad J Biosci., 2016;4(4A):342-347.
[19] Pande PK; Comparative vegetation analysis and sal (Shorea robusta) regeneration in relation to their disturbance magnitude in some sal forests. Trop Ecol.,
1999;40:51–61
[20] Uma Shankar, Murali KS, Uma-Shaanker R, Ganeshaiah KN, Bawa KS; Extraction of Non-Timber Forest Products in the Forests of Biligiri Rangan Hills,
India.4. Impact on floristic diversity and population structure in a thorn scrub forest. Econ Bot., 1998;52: 280–293.
[21] Udayakumar M; Ecological Studies on Selected Tropical Dry Evergreen Forests of Southern Coromandel Coast, Peninsular India. PhD Thesis submitted to
University of Madras, Chennai, India, 2014
[22] Pande PK; Biomass and productivity in some disturbed tropical dry deciduous teak forests of Satpura plateau, Madhya Pradesh. Trop Ecol.,2005;46: 229-239.
[23] Ramanujam MP, Kadamban D; Plant biodiversity of two tropical dry evergreen forests in the Pondicherry region of south India and the role of belief systems in
their conservation. BiodiversConserv.,2001;10: 1203-1217.
[24] Bajalwan A; Structure, composition and diversity of degraded dry tropical forest in Balamdi watershed of Chattishgarh plain, India. J Biodivers., 2010; 1: 119-
124.
[25] Rasingam L, Parthasarathy N;Tree species diversity and population structure across major forest formations and disturbance categories in Little Andaman
Island, India. Trop Ecol.,2009;50: 89- 102.
[26] Mani S, Parthasarathy N; Biodiversity assessment of trees in five inland tropical dry evergreen forests of peninsular India. Syst Biodivers, 2005;3:1-12.
[27] Sukumar R, Suresh HS, Dattaraja HS, Joshi NV; In: Dallmeier, F. and Comiskey, J.A. (eds.), Forest Biodiversity Research, Monitoring And Modeling:
Conceptual Background and Old World Case Studies, Parthenon Publishing, 1997; 529–540
[28] FAO; State of the world’s forests 2001. Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome, 2001.
[29] Arul Pragasan L: Assessment of aboveground biomass stock in the Pachaimalai forest of Eastern Ghats in India. App Ecol Environ Res., 2015;13:133-145
[30] Brown S, Lugo AE; Biomass of Tropical Forests: A New Estimate Based on Forest Volumes. Science, 1984;223:1290-1293.
[31] Rajkumar M, Parthasarathy N. Tree diversity and structure of Andaman giant evergreen forests,India. Taiwania 2008;53:356-68.
[32] Ramachandra SH; Study of organic productivity, nutrient cycling and small water shed hydrology in natural forests and in monoculture plantations of
Chikmagalur district, Karnataka, Report Submitted to Department of Ecology and Environment, Govt. of Karnataka, Bangalore. 1987.
[33] Rai SN, Proctor J; Ecological studies on four forests in Karnataka, India. I. Environment, structure, floristics and biomass. J Ecol.,1986;74: 439-454.

©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved 158