ecology report 2

7/31/2019 Ecology Report 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ecology-report-2 1/18

faasm1 22350861

A Comparison of the Secondary Forest of Kuala Selangor at Kuala Selangor Nature Park

and Primary Lowland Dipterocarp Forest of the Gombak Reserve

ABSTRACT

A study was conducted by using stratified haphazard sampling at secondary forest at

Taman Alam, Kuala Selangor and primary lowland dipterocarp forest at Gombak Reserve. This

study aimed to compare the distribution of different types of species and plants and also to

investigate the links between abiotic and biotic factors with the density of species in both

secondary forest and primary lowland dipterocarp forest. The secondary forest had higher

number of species (1214 species) compared to the primary lowland dipterocarp forest at Gombak

which only contained 248 species. In the secondary forest, the soil was grey clay whereas at

Gombak the soil was clay and coarse sand and it was yellow-brownish in colour. The salinity

obtained from the secondary forest was 2.1‰ higher than primary forest which was zero because

of the location of the secondary forest was nearer to the seawater that provided salts.The

percentage of canopy cover and leaf litter cover were higher in primary lowland dipterocarp and

the percentage of ground cover was higher in the secondary forest. The species that was highly

abundant in the secondary forest were Asystasia intrusa (herb), Stenoclaena palustris(fern),

Nephrolepis biserrata (fern) whereas the primary lowland dipterocarp rich in Tectaria

semipinnata (fern), Licuala sp (fan palm), Hill Coconut, and etc.

(208 words)

INTRODUCTION

Secondary forest is formed as consequence of human activities on forest lands. In this

study, the secondary forest of Kuala Selangor Taman Alam and the primary lowland dipterocarp

forest at Gombak Reserve were studied. Originally, the Kuala Selangor Taman Alam was mostly

developed with mangrove ecosystem extended along the coastline of the Selangor river estuary.

In the 1960’s, redevelopment was marked to this park and an embankment was built in order to

drain the swampland habitats and reduce flooding of Kuala Selangor village. Then, the area had

an extreme logging and occupied by secondary growth species including Acacia trees, creepers,



faasm1 22350861

and mangrove ferns and strangling figs. This area had now become a secondary forest and full

with a lot of species such as Stenoclaena palustris.

The primary lowland dipterocarp forest constitute to the primary forest of the plains,

undulating land and about up to 300m altitude. Commonly, high proportions of emergent and

dominant strata are formed from dipterocarps (Krishnapillay, 2004). Dipterocarp species is

suitable to grow in the equatorial climate and temperature of Malaysia which is 25ºC to 27 ºC

(Manokaran & Konchummen, 1992). This forest has diverse forest types and species up to 85%

canopy layer and it has two-winged fruit structure mostly abundant with dipterocarpaceae family

(Appanah, 1993). Lowland dipterocarp forest constitute mostly in Borneo, Sumatra, Java, and

Peninsular of Malaysia.

The purpose of this study was to differentiate between these two types of forests in the

form of its structure and biodiversity and also to determine the links between biotic and abiotic

factors. In order to study the individual plants distribution and the types of plants present in both

forests, many studies had been performed. For instance, Manokaran and Kochummen (1992)

performed a study in the primary lowland and hill dipterocarp forest to investigate the growth of

trees by calculating the diameter breat height (DBH) for each species.

(311 words)

METHODS & MATERIALS

There were two different forests chosen for this studies which were secondary forest of Kuala

Selangor and primary lowland dipterocarp forest of the Gombak Reserve. The total area studied

in both secondary forest and primary lowland dipterocarp forest were 90m2. Three sites were

chosen at the secondary forest which was near the chalets (N 3°20’ 19.1” E 101°14’ 36.0”), at

the mid region (N 3°20’ 19.8” E 101°14’ 33.3”) and near the bund (N 3°20’ 10.6” E 101°14’

278”). The other three sites of primary lowland dipterocarp forest were at the top of ridge (N

3°18’ 56.4” E 101°44’ 28”), at the mid region (N 3°18’ 57.3” E 101°44’ 26.2”) and near the river

(N 3°18’ 59.4” E 101°44’ 24.4”). Each forest in each sites were used similar size of quadrat

which were 30m2

quadrats and stratified haphazard sampling was used in this study.

Two factors were measured which were biotic and abiotic factors. Biotic factors such as

number of species, diameter at breast height, percentage of canopy cover, ground cover and leaf



faasm1 22350861

litter cover were pooled. The quadrat was placed in every site based on the elevation to count the

number of species exist in both forests. There were so many species present in the primary forest

at Gombak, thus, in order to determine the existence of species easier, taxonomy was given to

each group. Estimation scale was given in the handout given to determine the percentage of

canopy, ground and leaf litter covers in each site. The structure of the forest was determined by

looking to the top layer of the forest and estimated whether the forest absent any layer such as

emergent, canopy, understory or seedling layer. Besides, diameter at breast height (dbh) of the

plants species was also measured by using a ruler and the canopy height was determined by the

estimation method using clinometer.

Besides biotic factor, the plants species also were influenced by the abiotic factors such

as air and soil temperature, type of soils, tidal range, and salinity of soil, depth of water table and

density of light. Soil and air temperature were measured using an oven thermometer, whereas

density of photosynthetically active radiation of light was measured using a light meter. The

salinity of soil in both forest were measured using a conductivity meter and auger was used to

determine the type of soils and the depth of water table. The tidal range was determined and

calculated by the distance from the ground to the lowermost lichen growing on the trees in both

secondary and primary forests. All the data of biotic and abiotic factors were pooled and the

standard deviation, mean, and standard error were calculated statistically by using Excel.

(449 words)

RESULTS

In the secondary forests, there were canopy, understory and seedlings layers found.

However in the primary lowland dipterocarp forest, there had complete forest layers which were

emergent, canopy, understory and seedlings layers. The average canopy height in secondary

forest was 21 meters which was lower than primary lowland dipterocarp forest at Gombak

Reserve which was 34 meters. In the secondary forest, the average thickness of humus layer was

2 cm whereas the average thickness of humus layer for primary lowland dipterocarp was 2.3 cm.

For the average thickness of leaf litter layer in both forests, the primary lowland dipterocarp

forest at Gombak had thicker leaf litter layer which was 3.8cm than the secondary forest which

was 2.35cm.



faasm1 22350861

Figure 1: Mean percentage of canopy cover at three different sites of secondary and primary

lowland dipterocarp forests (±1 SE).

Figure 2: Mean percentage of ground cover at three different sites of secondary and primarylowland dipterocarp forests (±1 SE).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3

% C a n o p y C o v e r

Secondary Forest

Primary Lowland Dipterocarp

Forest

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


% G r o u n d C o v e r

Secondary Forest


Forest



faasm1 22350861

Figure 3: Mean percentage of leaf litter cover at three different sites of secondary and primary

lowland dipterocarp forests (±1 SE).

The average mean percentage of canopy cover in the primary lowland dipterocarp forest was

87.33% which 6.5% higher than the mean percentage of secondary forest which was 87.33

(Figure 1). As shown in Figure 2, the average mean percentage of ground cover in secondary

forest was 50.5% which 19.3% higher than in primary lowland dipterocarp which was 31.2%.

Furthermore, the average mean of leaf litter cover for primary lowland dipterocarp forest was

95.2% and for secondary forest was 90.8%, thus, the average mean of leaf litter cover for

primary lowland dipterocarp forest was 4.4% higher than in secondary forest (Figure 3).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


% L e a f L i t t e r C o

v e r

Secondary Forest


Forest



faasm1 22350861

Figure 4: Mean abundance per m2

of different types of species at 3 sites in secondary forest atTaman Alam, Kuala Selangor (±1 SE).

Figure 5: Mean abundance per m2

of different types of species at 3 sites in primary lowland

dipterocarp forest at Gombak Reserve (±1 SE).

There were total of 1214 number of species live in the secondary forest including trees,

shrubs, herbs, palms, grasses, ferns and fungi (Figure 4), while 248 species live in the primary

lowland dipterocarp forest which was less than in the secondary forest including trees and

saplings, shrubs and herbs, climbers, palms, mosses, ferns, and fungi (figure 5). The species that

was most abundant in the secondary forest were Asystasia intrusa (herb), Stenoclaena

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

14.000


M e a n A b u n d a n c e o f

s p e c i e s i n

s e c o n d a r y f o r e s t p e r m 2

Trees

Shrubs

Herbs

Palms

Grasses

Ferns

Fungi

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90


A b u n d a n c e o f p l a n t s a t M a n g r o v e

f o r e s t s

Tress & Saplings

Shrubs & Herbs

Climbers

Palms

Ferns

Moss

Fungi



faasm1 22350861

palustris(fern), Nephrolepis biserrata (fern) and etc, whereas the primary lowland dipterocarp

rich in Tectaria semipinnata (fern), Licuala sp (fan palm), Hill Coconut, and etc.

Figure 6: Relative abundance per m2 of different types of species at Kuala Selangor secondary

forest.

Figure 7: Relative abundance per m2

of different types of species in primary lowland dipterocarp

forest at Gombak Reserve (±1 SE).

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

Herbs Ferns Trees Fungi Grasses Palms Shrubs

R

e l a t i v e A b u n d a n c e o f s p e c i e s p e r m 2

Species Rank

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

Tress &

Saplings

Palms Shrubs &

Herbs

Ferns Climbers Moss Fungi R e l a t i v e a b u n d a n c e o f s p e c i e s p e r m 2

Species Rank



faasm1 22350861

As shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7, based on the relative abundance in an area of 90m2,

the species were ranked in descending order. The most abundant species in the secondary forest

was herbs, followed by ferns, trees, fungi, grasses, and palms whereas no shrubs were found in

this forest. Conversely, in the primary lowland dipterocarp forest, trees and saplings were the

most abundant followed by palms, shrubs and herbs, ferns, climbers, and moss. The least

abundant in lowland dipterocarp forest was fungi. In the primary lowland dipterocarp, large

species like trees and palms were abundant compared to secondary forest, small species like

herbs and ferns were abundant.

In the secondary forest, the mean air temperature decrease as nearer to the bund (Site 1)

as well as in the primary lowland dipterocarp forest, the mean air temperature decreased slightly

as nearer to the river (Figure 8). Though, the average mean air temperature in secondary forest

(31.6ºC) was higher than primary lowland dipterocarp forest (28.7ºC). Furthermore, the mean

soil temperature in secondary forest was slightly decreased but constant after the mid region, yet,

it was higher than the mean soil temperature in primary lowland dipterocarp that was increased

slightly and constant after the mid region (Figure 9).

.

Figure 8: Mean air temperature (ºC) at each site in both forests (±1 SE)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 1 2 3 4

A i r t e m p e r a t u r e ( o C )

Sites

Secondary Forest


Forest



faasm1 22350861

Figure 9: Mean soil temperature (ºC) at each site in both forests (±1 SE)

The tidal range in both forests was none and the salinity in secondary forest was 2.1‰ which

higher than in primary lowland dipterocarp forest which was 0‰. Besides, the texture and

colour of soil were also determined by using auger. The colour of the soil in secondary forest

was grey and the texture was clay compared to the texture of soil in primary lowland dipterocarp

which was muddy and the colour was yellow-browninsh. However at Site 3 of primary lowland

dipterocarp forest, the texture and colour of the soil were different from Site 1 and 2. The colour

was pale grey and the soil consisting coarse sand. The mean depth of water table at the secondary

forest was 37cm but at Site 1 and 2 of primary lowland dipterocarp forest, it was too deep to

measure the water table. However, at Site 3, the depth of water table was able to measure which

was 0-10 cm. At the secondary forest, the photosynthetically active radiation of light was81.8fluxes which higher than at the primary lowland dipterocarp which was 1.13fluxes.

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 1 2 3 4

S o i l t e m p e r a t u r e ( o C )

Sites

Secondary Forest


Forest



faasm1 22350861

Figure 10: The relationship between percentage of canopy cover and PAR of light in three

different sites in primary lowland dipterocarp forest (±1 SE).

Figure 11: The relationship between percentage of canopy cover and PAR of light in three

different sites in secondary forest (±1 SE).

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 P e r c e n t a g e f o r c a n o p y c o v e r & f l u x e s f o r l i g h t

P A R

Sites

% CANOPY COVER

Light: PAR

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 P e r c e n t a g e f o r c a n o p y c o v e r a

n d f l u x e s f o r

l i g h t P A R

Sites

% CANOPY COVER

Light: PAR



faasm1 22350861

As shown in Figure 10 and 11, there were links between the percentage of canopy cover and

PAR of light in both forests. In primary lowland dipterocarp, the percentage of canopy cover was

higher when the PAR of light was lower. In the secondary forest, the overall result was

percentage of canopy cover was inversely proportional to the PAR of light.

(761 words)

DISCUSSION

As shown in the results, the forest layer of secondary forest was made up of canopy,

understory and seedlings layers but absent in emergent layer. However in the primary lowland

dipterocarp, there was a complete forest layer consisting, emergent, canopy, and understory and

seedling layers. Both forest had a canopy layer however they was different in the mean height

where primary lowland dipterocarp forest had mean canopy height which was 34m higher than

the mean canopy height of secondary forest which was 21m. Besides, the diameter of breast

height in primary lowland dipterocarp forest was 95cm compared in the secondary forest which

was 80cm.

In addition, the average mean percentages of canopy cover in the primary lowland

dipterocarp forest was 87.33% which 6.5% higher than the mean percentage of secondary forest

which was 87.33 (Figure 1). This might due to more forest layers present; the canopy layer at

primary lowland dipterocarp forest was thicker and 248 species present in this forest including

Pinanga sp, Tectaria semipinnata, Shorea curtisii and so on (Refer to Appendix 1). However,

there were 1214 species exist in the secondary forest mostly herbs and ferns and this might due

to the absent of emergent layer where high amount of light penetrated into the understory and

seedling layer was high. The DBH was needed to determine the species growth at each site for

instance; the DBH of Anisoptera levis at Site 2 in primary lowland dipterocarp forest was 95cm.

The link between the PAR of light reaching the ground and percentage of canopy cover

was shown in the Figure 10 and 11 where there was link between these biotic and abiotic factors.

Penetration of direct sunlight through small openings in the canopy is called sunflecks. If the

percentage of canopy cover was higher, less sunflecks reached the ground layer (Denicola, et.al,

1992). The average mean percentage of ground cover in secondary forest was 19.3% higher than



faasm1 22350861

in primary lowland dipterocarp which was (Figure 2). High intensity of light could lead to high

percentage of ground cover where herbs, ferns, and etc. They could grow as they used the

sunlight to undergo photosynthesis. However, because of the presence of shade adapted species

such as tracheophytes which adapted itself to protect from high light intensity due to its thick,

wavy cuticle and epidermis.

Leaf litter cover is due to the falling of leaves form the trees forming a ‘carpet-like’ cover

that provides shelter to the tiny creatures such as mollucs (Appanah, 1993). Furthermore, the

average mean of leaf litter cover for primary lowland dipterocarp forest was 4.4% higher than in

secondary forest (Figure 3). This might cause by the effect of higher percentage of canopy cover

in the primary lowland dipterocarp. When there was higher percentage of canopy cover, the leaf

fell down to the ground was increased.

As shown in Figure 4 and 5, there were abundant of species present in an area for both

forests. In the secondary forest, there was more species present in Site 1 compared to the other

two sites whereas in the primary lowland dipterocarp there was also more species in Site 1.

However, the total abundance per m2

for secondary forest was 40.47 higher than in primary

lowland dipterocarp which was 4.60 only.

Soil temperature is a significant factor that controls or has a strong impact on plant

growth and soil formation. The mean soil temperature is rather closely related to mean air

temperature (Smith, et al., 1964) and may affect by the amount and distribution of rain and,

shade and leaf litter layers in the forests. The mean soil temperature at Gombak primary lowland

dipterocarp was 24.4 ºC where it was lower than at secondary forest which was 26.8 ºC. This

could be linked to the intensity of light reaching the ground. Soil temperature low was due to

more shaded area where intensity of sunlight such as in the secondary forest low, the PAR of

light was 81.8fluxes. Thus, the soil temperature in the forest was slightly higher.

Species diversity was determined by the abiotic factor because the soils in both forest was

different. In the secondary forest, the colour of the soil was grey and with clay texture compared

to the texture of soil in primary lowland dipterocarp which was muddy and the colour was

yellow-browninsh. While at Site 3 of primary lowland dipterocarp forest, the texture and colour

of the soil were different from Site 1 and 2. The colour was pale grey and the soil consisting

coarse sand. The factor that affects the colour and texture of soil in the secondary forest was the

plants which they supplied upper layers of soil with an organic substance and recycling nutrients



faasm1 22350861

from lower to upper layers. Basically, leaves, branches, and bark from huge plants fall onto the

soil and were decomposed by fungi, bacteria, insects, earthworms, and burrowing animals. They

were releasing plant nutrients by eating and breaking down organic substance. Besides, some of

them changed into certain elements, such as sulfur and nitrogen which were usable for plants. In

contrary, the soil characteristics in the primary lowland dipterocarp forest were affected by the

present of iron, aluminium oxides and acid silicate. Whereas at Site 3 it was slightly different,

this might be due to the deposition of sand in the soil as it was nearer to the river.

The mean thickness of humus layer in the secondary forest was 2 cm whereas the mean

thickness of humus layer for primary lowland dipterocarp was 2.3 cm. For the mean thickness of

leaf litter layer in both forests, the primary lowland dipterocarp forest at Gombak had thicker leaf

litter layer which was 3.8cm than the secondary forest which was 2.35cm.These might cause by

the rate of leaf litter decomposition was faster in the primary lowland dipterocarp forest

compared to the secondary forest. The rate of leaf litter decomposition was influenced by the soil

and microorganisms present in the soil for the reabsorption of plants (Sekyere, et al., 2006).

Salinity is how much of salt in soil and water. The salinity was the conductivity of water table

times 0.648 and the result was in part per thousand (‰). In secondary forest, the salinity was

2.1‰ which higher than in primary lowland dipterocarp forest which was 0‰. This might be due

to the location of the secondary forest itself where it was nearer to the sea and mangrove forests.

There were some deficiencies that might occur in this study like the ruler might cause

inaccuracy of diameter at breast height measurement. This could be overcome by using meter

tape instead of ruler. The temperature measured by an oven thermometer was not reliable as it

could give an inaccurate results and this can be replaced by using an air temperature sensor for

air temperature measurement and use soil digital thermometer to measure soil temperature.

Furthermore, some of the species names and its types in the taxonomy were unusual could lead

to imprecision of species identification. The stratified sampling method also could lead to bias

selection because the site was chosen based on personal or group choices and this could be

substituted using random sampling method.

(1191 words)



faasm1 22350861

REFERENCES

Appanah S. 1993. Mass flowering of dipterocarp forest in the aseasonal tropics. Journal of

Bioscience; 18(4): 457-474.

Denicola, D.M., Hoagland, K.D. & Roemer, R.C. 1992, Influences of canopy cover on spectral

irradidance and periphyton assemblages in prairie stream, Journal of the North American

Benthological Society; 11(4): 391-404.

Krishnapillay, B. 2004, Tropical Ecosystems: Dipterocarps. Encyclopedia of Forest Sciences,

1682-1687

Manokaran, N. & Kochummen, K.M. (1992), Tree growth in primary lowland and hill

dipterocarp forest. Journal of Tropical Forest Science. 6(3): 332-345.

Sekyere, E.O., Cobbina, J. & Wakatsuki, T. 2006, Nutrient cycling in primary, secondary forests

and cocoa plantation in the Ashanti Region, Ghana. Journal of Applied Ecology. 9: 10-18.

Smith, G.D., Newhall, F. and Robinson, L.H. 1964. Soil-temperature regimes--their

characteristics and predictability. Soil Conservation Service Technical

Publication ,Washington D.C., 144: 33-39.



faasm1 22350861

Appendix 1

Table 1: Mean abundance per m2

of different types of species in each site in secondary forest of

Kuala Selangor.

Mean Abundance per m2 Site 1 Site 2 Site 3

TREES (NOTE DBH)

Acacia mangium 0.000 0.133 0.000

Avicennia officianalis MANGROVE TREE 0.000 0.000 0.000

Calophyllum sp 0.000 0.000 0.000

Cordia dichotoma 0.033 0.033 0.000

Ficus bengalensis 0.000 0.133 0.000

Ficus microcarpa 0.000 0.067 0.033

Macaranga sp 1 0.300 0.067 0.000

Morinda citrifolia 0.000 0.000 0.000Rubiaceae sp 1 0.067 0.000 0.033

Terminalia catappa 0.033 0.000 0.000

Tristanifolia sp 0.033 0.000 0.000

Unknown sp 1 0.000 0.100 0.000

Unknown sp 2 0.000 0.033 0.000

SHRUBS

Lantana camara 0.000 0.000 0.000

Unknown sp 1 0.000 0.000 0.000

HERBS

Asystasia intrusa 10.300 4.033 5.300

Ottochola nodusa 0.000 0.000 0.000Unknown sp 1 (red berries) 0.067 0.233 1.367

Unknown sp 2 0.033 0.067 0.133

Zingiber sp 0.133 0.167 0.000

PALMS

Salacca zalacca 0.000 0.000 0.000

Licuala spinosus 0.033 0.000 0.000

Oncosperma tigillarium 0.000 0.000 0.000

GRASSES

Bracharia mutica 0.133 0.000 0.000

Axonopus compressa 0.000 0.067 0.000

FERNS

Acrostichum aureum 0.400 0.067 0.100Stenoclaena palustris 5.133 1.233 2.100

Asplenium nidus 0.000 0.000 0.033

Nephrolepis biserrata 3.267 2.067 2.567

FUNGI

Mushrooms 0.300 0.000 0.033

Bracket fungi 0.000 0.000 0.000



faasm1 22350861

Appendix 2

Table 2: Mean abundance per m2

of different types of species in each site in the primary lowland

dipterocarp forest at Gombak Reserve

Mean Abundance per m2


TREES & SAPLINGS

Anisoptera levis /m2 0.00 0.07 0.03

Annonaceae sp 1/m2 0.00 0.00 0.00

Artocarpus rigidus /m2 0.00 0.00 0.00

Artocarpus lancifolius /m2 0.00 0.00 0.00

Balbinia sp /m2 0.00 0.00 0.00

Barringtonia sp/m2 0.10 0.00 0.00

Castanopsis sp /m2 0.00 0.30 0.00

Dillenia sp/m2 /m2 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dipterocarpus kerii /m2 0.10 0.10 0.00

Durio sp/m2 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dyera costulata /m2 0.03 0.03 0.07

Dryobalanops sp /m2 0.03 0.00 0.00

Ebenaceae sp /m

2

0.00 0.00 0.00 Eleocarpus sp/m2

0.00 0.00 0.07

Endospermum sp/m2 0.00 0.00 0.00

Eugenia sp /m2 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ficus sp/m2 0.00 0.00 0.00

Garcinia sp /m2 0.00 0.00 0.00

Gluta sp (scaly bark) /m2 0.40 0.03 0.03

Gynotroches sp /m2 0.00 0.03 0.00

Hanguaria sp/m2 0.03 0.03 0.03

Hibiscus macrophylla /m2 0.00 0.00 0.00

Hopea sp /m2 0.03 0.00 0.00

Intsia palembanica /m2 0.00 0.00 0.07



faasm1 22350861



TREES & SAPLINGS(CONT.)

Ixonanthes sp 0.00 0.00 0.00

Knema sp 0.00 0.00 0.00

Macaranga sp 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mallotus paniculatus 0.00 0.00 0.00

Melanochyla sp 0.00 0.00 0.00

Memycylon sp 0.00 0.00 0.00

Meliaceae family sp 1 0.00 0.00 0.00

Monocarpia marginalis 0.00 0.00 0.00

Neobalanocarpus heimii 0.00 0.00 0.00

Palaquium mangae 0.00 0.00 0.00

Polythesa sp 0.00 0.00 0.00

Parashorea sp 0.00 0.00 0.00

Parishia sp 0.00 0.00 0.00

Parkia sp 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pongamia sp 0.00 0.00 0.03

Sandoricum koetjape 0.10 0.07 0.00

Sandoricum acrosum 0.00 0.00 0.00

Saraca declinata 0.00 0.00 0.03

Scaphium sp 0.00 0.00 0.00

Scorodocarpus sp 0.00 0.00 0.00

Shorea curtisii 0.80 0.03 0.00

Shorea leprosula 0.00 0.10 0.00Shorea macroptera 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sindora coriacea 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sterculia fuetida 0.00 0.03 0.00

Sterculia coccinea 0.00 0.00 0.03

Swietenia macrophylla 0.00 0.00 0.00

Trevesia burckii 0.23 0.13 0.17

Tristania whitianae 0.00 0.00 0.00

Tristania sp 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vatica sp 0.00 0.00 0.03

Xerospermum sp 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pterospermum sp 0.00 0.00 0.00

Xanthophyllum sp 0.00 0.00 0.00

Hydnocarpus sp 0.00 0.00 0.00

Adenanthera sp 1 0.00 0.00 0.00

Schima sp 0.00 0.00 0.00



faasm1 22350861



TREES & SAPLINGS(CONT.)

Unknown sp 1 0.07 0.30 0.03

Unknown sp 2 0.00 0.00 0.00

Unknown sp 3 0.20 0.03 0.07

Unknown sp 4 0.10 0.33 0.07

SHRUBS & HERBS

Colocasia sp (Taro) 0.00 0.03 0.00

Dioscorea sp 0.00 0.00 0.23

Hanguana sp 0.00 0.00 0.17

Mallotus paniculatus? 0.17 0.00 0.00

Piper sp 0.00 0.03 0.00

Zingiberaceae sp 1 0.00 0.20 0.00

CLIMBERS

Bauhinia sp 0.00 0.00 0.00

Curcurbitaceae 0.03 0.00 0.03

Unknown 0.00 0.03 0.00

PALMS

Calamus sp 0.03 0.00 0.00

Korthalsia sp 0.00 0.00 0.00

Eugeissonia tristis 0.00 0.03 0.17

Salacca sp 0.13 0.03 0.03

Pinanga sp 0.03 0.10 0.07

Licuala sp (fan palm) 0.00 0.03 0.37Caryota mitis 0.03 0.00 0.07

Iguanura sp 0.00 0.07 0.03

Hill Coconut 0.30 0.00 0.00

Ptycoraphis sp 0.00 0.00 0.10

FERNS

Drymoglossum piloselloides 0.00 0.00 0.00

Tectaria semipinnata 0.30 0.37 0.00

Fern sp 1 0.00 0.00 0.00

MOSS 0.00 0.00 0.10

FUNGI

Mushrooms 0.00 0.07 0.00

Dryospylae sp 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bracket fungi 0.00 0.00 0.00

ecology report 2

Documents