Ecology and Development Series No. 10, 2003 - ZEF

Ecology and Development Series No. 10, 2003 - ZEF Ecology and Development Series No. 10, 2003 - ZEF

13.07.2015 Views

Floristic analysis of the undisturbed forestRO Species Family N %N. LN F %F BA GF Distribution type75 Clematis simensis Ranunculaceae 1 0.01 14 2 3.4 0.00 C76 Psychotria orophila Rubiaceae 1 0.01 27 1 1.7 0.00 T AfrM/e77 Vernonia auriculifera Asteraceae < 1 0.01 9 2 3.4 0.02 S78 Chionanthus milds Oleaceae < 1 0.01 9 2 3.4 0.00 S79 Rhoicissus tridentata Vitaceae < 1 0.01 9 2 3.4 0.00 C80 Rubus apetalus Rosaceae < 1 0.01 18 1 1.7 0.00 S81 Ficus lutea Moraceae < 1 0.01 1 12 20.7 3.17 T GC-ZI-SZfr-Mad.82 Ficus sur Moraceae < 1 0.01 2 10 17.2 0.60 T GC-ZI-TP-SZfr83 Ficus vasta Moraceae < 1 0.01 2 7 12.1 4.09 T84 Flacourtia indica Flacourtiaceae < 1 0.01 4 3 5.2 0.02 T GC-SZ-AfrM-Asia85 Crossopteryx febrifuga Rubiaceae < 1 0.01 4 3 5.2 0.01 S86 Grewia ferruginea Tiliaceae < 1 0.01 6 2 3.4 0.00 S87 Genus6 sp. Celastracceae < 1 0.01 6 2 3.4 0.00 T88 Phytolacca dodecandra Phytolaccaceae < 1 0.01 5 2 3.4 0.01 C89 Albizia gummifera Fabaceae < 1 0.01 1 7 12.1 0.55 T Sub-AfrM/n-e (-SZfr-Mad)90 Sida ternata Malvaceae < 1 0.01 9 1 1.7 0.00 S91 Clematis longicauda Ranunculaceae < 1 0.01 9 1 1.7 0.06 C92 Bridelia micrantha Euphorbiaceae < 1 0 1 5 8.6 0.17 T GC-ZI-AfrM-SZfr93 Prunus africana Rosaceae < 1 0 2 3 5.2 0.39 T AfrM/n-e94 Polyscias fulva Araliaceae < 1 0 2 2 3.4 0.18 T AfrM/n-e (-SZfr)95 Maytenus senegalensis Celastraceae < 1 0 3 1 1.7 0.00 T96 Schefflera abyssinica Araliaceae < 1 0 1 1 1.7 0.17 T AfrM/n-e (-SZfr)97 Apodytes dimidiata Icacinaceae < 1 0 1 1 1.7 0.05 T AfrM/n-e (-SZfr-Mad-Asia)98 Ficus mucuso Moraceae < 1 0 1 1 1.7 0.91 T GC/n-e99 Aningeria altissima Sapotaceae < 1 0 1 1 1.7 0.01 T GC/n-e (-SZfr).100 Celtis zenkeri Ulmaceae < 1 0 1 1 1.7 0.02 T GC-ZI-SZfr101 Stereospermum kanthianum Bignoniaceae < 1 0 1 1 1.7 0.02 S102 Genus7 sp. Family 3 < 1 0 1 1 1.7 0.00 TAt the family level, Moraceae and Rubiaceae are the most diverse with 10 specieseach, followed by Celastraceae with 8 species, and Euphorbiaceae and Fabaceae with 6species each. In terms of stand density, Dracaenaceae is the most abundant, mainly due toD. fragrans, followed by Rubiaceae, mainly due to C. arabica (Table 4.1 and Appendix 3).45

Floristic analysis of the undisturbed forest4.3.2 Classification and indicator speciesThree vegetation groups (Figure 4.1) were identified using cluster analysis in combinationwith MRPP. The analysis was based on abundance data of the plant species in the studyplots. One plot (Plot68) was an outlier due to the very high abundance of Diospyrosabyssinica (mainly seedlings) and was, therefore, excluded from the analysis. The T-valuestatistic for the seven groups was –22.18 (P < 0.001), while the A statistic (chancecorrectedwithin-group agreement) was 0.19. The T test statistic is based on Pearson typeIII distribution. The P-value associated with T is determined by numerical integration of thePearson type III distribution. The A statistic is a descriptor of within-group homogeneity,and falls between 0 and 1. When the items are identical, A=1. In community ecology valuesof A are commonly below 0.1 (McCune and Mefford 1999). The community types variedin size, ranging from 13-23 plots.46

Floristic analysis of the undisturbed forestRO Species Family N %N. LN F %F BA GF Distribution type75 Clematis simensis Ranunculaceae 1 0.01 14 2 3.4 0.00 C76 Psychotria orophila Rubiaceae 1 0.01 27 1 1.7 0.00 T AfrM/e77 Vernonia auriculifera Asteraceae < 1 0.01 9 2 3.4 0.02 S78 Chionanthus milds Oleaceae < 1 0.01 9 2 3.4 0.00 S79 Rhoicissus tridentata Vitaceae < 1 0.01 9 2 3.4 0.00 C80 Rubus apetalus Rosaceae < 1 0.01 18 1 1.7 0.00 S81 Ficus lutea Moraceae < 1 0.01 1 12 20.7 3.17 T GC-ZI-SZfr-Mad.82 Ficus sur Moraceae < 1 0.01 2 <strong>10</strong> 17.2 0.60 T GC-ZI-TP-SZfr83 Ficus vasta Moraceae < 1 0.01 2 7 12.1 4.09 T84 Flacourtia indica Flacourtiaceae < 1 0.01 4 3 5.2 0.02 T GC-SZ-AfrM-Asia85 Crossopteryx febrifuga Rubiaceae < 1 0.01 4 3 5.2 0.01 S86 Grewia ferruginea Tiliaceae < 1 0.01 6 2 3.4 0.00 S87 Genus6 sp. Celastracceae < 1 0.01 6 2 3.4 0.00 T88 Phytolacca dodec<strong>and</strong>ra Phytolaccaceae < 1 0.01 5 2 3.4 0.01 C89 Albizia gummifera Fabaceae < 1 0.01 1 7 12.1 0.55 T Sub-AfrM/n-e (-SZfr-Mad)90 Sida ternata Malvaceae < 1 0.01 9 1 1.7 0.00 S91 Clematis longicauda Ranunculaceae < 1 0.01 9 1 1.7 0.06 C92 Bridelia micrantha Euphorbiaceae < 1 0 1 5 8.6 0.17 T GC-ZI-AfrM-SZfr93 Prunus africana Rosaceae < 1 0 2 3 5.2 0.39 T AfrM/n-e94 Polyscias fulva Araliaceae < 1 0 2 2 3.4 0.18 T AfrM/n-e (-SZfr)95 Maytenus senegalensis Celastraceae < 1 0 3 1 1.7 0.00 T96 Schefflera abyssinica Araliaceae < 1 0 1 1 1.7 0.17 T AfrM/n-e (-SZfr)97 Apodytes dimidiata Icacinaceae < 1 0 1 1 1.7 0.05 T AfrM/n-e (-SZfr-Mad-Asia)98 Ficus mucuso Moraceae < 1 0 1 1 1.7 0.91 T GC/n-e99 Aningeria altissima Sapotaceae < 1 0 1 1 1.7 0.01 T GC/n-e (-SZfr).<strong>10</strong>0 Celtis zenkeri Ulmaceae < 1 0 1 1 1.7 0.02 T GC-ZI-SZfr<strong>10</strong>1 Stereospermum kanthianum Bignoniaceae < 1 0 1 1 1.7 0.02 S<strong>10</strong>2 Genus7 sp. Family 3 < 1 0 1 1 1.7 0.00 TAt the family level, Moraceae <strong>and</strong> Rubiaceae are the most diverse with <strong>10</strong> specieseach, followed by Celastraceae with 8 species, <strong>and</strong> Euphorbiaceae <strong>and</strong> Fabaceae with 6species each. In terms of st<strong>and</strong> density, Dracaenaceae is the most abundant, mainly due toD. fragrans, followed by Rubiaceae, mainly due to C. arabica (Table 4.1 <strong>and</strong> Appendix 3).45

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!