معرفی و تعیین ضریب محافظه‌کاری گونه‌های گیاهی زاگرس مرکزی (مطالعه موردی: جنگل کاکارضا، استان لرستان)

نوع مقاله: علمی- پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکترای جنگل‌داری، دانشکده کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه لرستان، خرم‌آباد، ایران

2 دانشیار، گروه جنگلداری، دانشکده کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه لرستان، خرم‌آباد، ایران

3 استادیار، گروه جنگلداری، دانشکده کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه لرستان، خرم‌آباد، ایران

چکیده

آشفتگی‌های طبیعی و انسانی منجر به کاهش تنوع بیولوژیکی و درنتیجه کاهش پایداری اکوسیستم‌ها شده‌اند، بنابراین متریک‌هایی که اطلاعات کیفی بیشتری در مورد تک‌تک گونه‌ها و ترکیب کلی جوامع گیاهی فراهم کنند، می‌توانند برای ارزیابی محیط‌های طبیعی، ارزش‌های حفاظتی آنها و اثرات آشفتگی‌های انسانی، مفید واقع شوند. در پژوهش پیش‌رو برای اولین بار در ایران، در جنگل کاکارضا استان لرستان، ضریب محافظه‌کاری (Conservatism coefficient) گونه‌های گیاهی با استفاده از قطعات نمونه اصلاح‌شده ویتاکر تعیین شد. این ضریب با توجه به میزان حساسیت گونه‌های گیاهی در برابر آشفتگی‌ها و همچنین برمبنای میزان تعلقه و پایبندی گونه‌های گیاهی به شرایط اکولوژیک با استفاده از نظرات متخصصان گیاه‌شناسی تعیین شد. براساس نتایج مشخص شد که 57/67 درصد گونه‌ها در طبقه اول ضریب محافظه‌کاری (CC:1-3)، 32/17 درصد در طبقه دوم (CC:4-6)، 8/46 درصد در طبقه سوم (CC:6-8) و 1/58 درصد در طبقه چهارم (CC:9-10) قرار داشتند. همچنین گونه‌های Astragalus leonardii ،Astragalus longirostratus  وBunium luristanicum در طبقه چهارم قرار گرفتند و بیشترین ضریب محافظه‌کاری را داشتند. بر این اساس و با توجه به اطلاعات موجود در زمینه موقعیت حفاظتی این سه گونه، می‌توان آنها را به‌عنوان گونه‌های معرف جنگل‌های کمتر تخریب‌یافته بلوط زاگرس معرفی کرد. استفاده از ضریب محافظه‌کاری در مناطق جنگلی کمتر دست‌خورده و مقایسه آن با مناطق دیگر، با بررسی ارزش حفاظتی مناطق مختلف و تعیین گونه‌های با ارزش حفاظتی بیشتر، منجر به ارزیابی بهتر برنامه‌های مدیریتی و احیایی خواهد شد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Introducing Conservatism Coefficient and determining it for ground flora in middle Zagros Forest, (Case study: Kakareza Forest, Lorestan province)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Zahra Mirazadi 1
  • Babak Pilehvar 2
  • Kambiz Abrari Vajari 3
1 Ph.D. Student Forestry, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Lorestan University, Khoramabad, Iran
2 Associate Prof., Department of Forestry, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Lorestan University, Khoramabad, Iran
3 Assistant Prof., Department of Forestry, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Lorestan University, Khoramabad, Iran
چکیده [English]

Natural and anthropogenic disturbances result to loss of biodiversity and ecosystem stability decline. Metrics that aggregate more qualitative information on individual species and overall community composition could be useful to better assess factors such as the conditions of natural areas, their conservation value and the impact of human disturbance. This is the first study that determine conservatism coefficient for vascular plants in Lorestan province. The standard modified multi-scale Whittaker plots were used for vegetation sampling. A panel of botanists and ecologists were asked to assign conservatism coefficient to each native species based on their knowledge and previous experiences about plant species sensitivity to disturbances and fidelity to a specific habitat by using floristic list. Results showed that conservatism coefficient were accepted by botanists and ecologists and can be used in the next researches for identifying forests conservative values. Based on the results of 57.67 % of plants were ranked fell into the first category (1-3), while 32.27 % fell into second category (4-6), approximately 8.46% of plants were ranked into third  category (7-8) and finally 1.58 % of plants were ranked in the forth category (9-10). Astragalus leonardii Maassoumi, A. longirostratus Pau. and Bunium luristanicum Rech. f. have the most values of conservatism coefficient were ranked fell into the forth category. Based on the results and with regard to species conservation status, these species can be introduced as an indicator of intact oak forest. Determining CC in the natural intact regions and comparing it with other regions is useful for evaluation of restoration programs succession.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Disturbance
  • fidelity
  • floristic quality
  • Invasive species

- Anonymous, 2002. Multipurposes forestry plan of Kakareza. Forestry Department, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Lorestan University,110p (In Persian).

- Andreas, B.K., Mack, J.J. and McCormac, J.S., 2004. Floristic quality assessment index (FQAI) for vascular plants and mosses for the state of Ohio. Published by Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus, 217p.

- Assadi, M., 1988-2011. Flora of Iran, Vols. 1-72. Published by Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands, Tehran (In Persian).

- Bernthal, T.W., 2003. Development of a floristic quality assessment methodology for Wisconsin. Published by Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Fisheries Management and Habitat Protection, Wisconsin, 22p.

- Botta-Dukat, Z., 2005. Rao's quadratic entropy as a measure of functional diversity based on multiple traits. Journal of Vegetation Science, 16: 533-540.

- Cohen, M.J., Carstenn, S. and Lane, C.R., 2004. Floristic quality indices for biotic assessment of depressional marsh condition in Florida. Ecological Applications, 14(3): 784-794.

- Cretini, K.F., Visser, J.M., Krauss, K.W. and Steyer, G.D., 2012. Development and use of a floristic quality index for coastal Louisiana marshes. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 184: 2389-2403.

- Davis, P.H., 1965-1988. Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands, Vols. 1-9. Published by University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.

- Fennessy, S., Gernes, M., Mack, J. and Wardrop, D.H., 2001. Methods for evaluating wetland condition: using vegetation to assess environmental conditions in wetlands. Published by United States Environmental Protection Agency, USA, 46p.

- Fernandez-Gimenez, M. and Allen-Diaz, B., 2001. Vegetation change along gradients from water sources in three grazed Mongolian ecosystems. Plant Ecology, 157: 101-118.

- Gerken Golay, M., 2013. Assessing the composition and function of hardwood forest herbaceous flora: implications and applications for forest restoration. Ph.D. thesis, University of Iowa, Iowa, 153p.

- Ghahreman, A., 1978-2000. Flora of Iran, Vols. 1-20. Published by Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands, Tehran (In Persian).

- Gilliam, F.S., 2007. The ecological significance of the herbaceous layer in temperate forest ecosystems. BioScience, 57: 845-858.

- Grime, J.P., 1974. Vegetation classification by reference to strategies. Nature, 250: 26-31.

- Hiddink, J.G., Jennings, S. and Kaiser, M.J., 2007. Assessing and predicting the relative ecological impacts of disturbance on habitats with different sensitivities. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44: 405-413.

- Hill, M.O., Roy, D.B. and Thompson, K., 2002. Hemeroby, urbanity and ruderality: bioindicators of disturbance and human impact. Journal of Applied Ecology, 39: 708-720.

- Jalili, A. and Jamzad, Z., 1999. Red Data Book of Iran. Published by Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands, Tehran, 748p (In Persian).

- Matthews, J.W., 2003. Assessment of the floristic quality index for use in Illinois. Natural Areas Journal, 23: 53-60.

- Matthews, J.W. and Endress, A.G., 2008. Performance criteria, compliance success, and vegetation development in compensatory mitigation wetlands. Environmental Management, 41: 130-141.

- McKinney, M.L., 2006. Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biological Conservation, 127: 247-260.

- McKinney, M.L., 2008. Do humans homogenize or differentiate biotas? It depends. Journal of Biogeography, 35: 1960-1961.

- Mortellaro, S., Barry, M., Gann, G., Zahina, J., Channon, S., Hilsenbeck, Ch., Scofield, D., Wilder, G. and Wilhelm, G., 2009. Coefficients of conservatism values and the floristic quality index for the vascular plants of south Florida. Published by South Florida Ecological Services Field Office Vero Beach, Florida, 78p.

- Mushet, D.M., Euliss, N.H. and Shaffer, T.L., 2002. Floristic quality assessment of onenatural and three restored wetland complexes in North Dakota, USA. Wetlands, 22: 126-138.

- Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., Da Fonseca, G.A.B. and Kent, J., 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403: 853-858.

- Nichols, J.D., Perry, J.E. and DeBerry, D.A., 2006. Using a floristic quality assessment technique to evaluate plant community integrity of forested wetlands in southeastern Virginia. Natural Areas Journal, 26(4): 360-369.

- Niemi, G.J. and McDonald, M.E., 2004. Application of ecological indicators. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 35: 89-111.

- Rechinger, K.H., 1963-2012. Flora Iranica, Vols. 1-173. Akademische Druck-u. Verlagsanstalt, Graz.

- Rooney, T.P. and Rogers, D.A., 2002. The modified floristic quality index. Natural Areas Journal, 22: 340-344.

- Sanderson, E.W., Jaiteh, M., Levy, M.A., Redford, K.H., Wannebo, A.V. and Woolmer, G., 2002. The human footprint and the last of the wild. BioScience, 52: 891-904.

- Spyreas, G. and Matthews, J.W., 2006. Floristic conservation value, nested understory floras, and the development of second-growth forest. Ecological Applications, 16: 1351-1366.

- Spyreas, G., Meiners, S.J., Matthews, J.W. and Molano-Flores, B., 2012. Successional trends in floristic quality. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49: 339-348.

- Swink, F.A. and Wilhelm, G.S., 1994. Plants of the Chicago Region. Indiana Academy of Science Press, Indiana, 921p.

- Taft, J.B., Hauser, C. and Robertson, K.R., 2006. Estimating floristic integrity in tallgrass prairie. Biological Conservation, 131: 42-51.

- Taft, J.B., Wilhelm, G.S., Ladd, D.M. and Masters, L.A., 1997. Floristic Quality Assessment for Vegetation in Illinois: A Method for Assessing Vegetation Integrity.  Illinois Native Plant Society Publisher, Carbondale, 95p.

- Townsend, C.C., Guest, E., Omar, S.A. and Al-kayat, A.H., 1966-1985. Flora of Iraq, Vols. 1-9. Published by Ministry of Agriculture & Agrarian Reform, Baqdad.

- Tracy, B.F. and Sanderson, M.A., 2000. Seedbank diversity in grazing lands of the northeast United States. Journal of Range Management, 53(1): 114-118.