B.Sc. Final Project Report (Md. Nazmul Haque, Roll-1295)

NATURAL FOREST AND AGROFOREST: A COMPARATIVE STUDY IN
MADHUPUR SAL FOREST, BANGLADESH

A Dissertation Submitted to the Department of Environmental Sciences,
Jahangirnagar University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
of BACHELOR OF SCIENCE (B.Sc.) IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Course No. Env.470

SUBMITTED BY
Exam. Roll: Env. 020807
Reg. No: 17756
Session: 2001‐2002

Department of Environmental Sciences
Jahangirnagar University
Savar, Dhaka‐1342

May, 2007

DEDICATED
TO
MY BELOVED
PARENTS

i
ABSTRACT

The present study was conducted with comparative study between natural forest (NF)
and agroforest (AF) in Madhupur Sal forest of Bangladesh from July, 2006 to February,
2007. The maximum and the minimum soil pH of NF were 5.5 and 4.6 respectively and
the maximum and the minimum soil pH of AF were 7.1 and 4.4 respectively in August,
2006. Again the maximum and the minimum soil pH of NF were 4.9 and 4.0 respectively
and the maximum and the minimum soil pH of AF were 6.5 and 4.2 respectively in
February, 2007. The maximum and the minimum iron (Fe) content of NF were 465.08 ppm
and 160.08 ppm respectively and the maximum and the minimum iron content of AF were
579.36 ppm and 138.49 ppm respectively in August, 2006. Again, the maximum and the
minimum iron content (Fe) of NF were 419.23 ppm and 102.84 ppm respectively and the
maximum and the minimum iron content of AF were 256.41 ppm and 30.41 ppm
respectively in February, 2007. The maximum and the minimum soil organic matter of NF
were 2.75% and 0.91% respectively and the maximum and the minimum soil organic
matter of AF were 2.72% and 0.87% respectively in August, 2006. Again, the maximum and
the minimum soil organic matter of NF were 2.70% and 0.91% respectively and the
maximum and the minimum soil organic matter of AF were 2.72% and 0.72% respectively
in February, 2007. A total of 23 species of herbs were observed in NF and 5 species of
herbs were observed in AF. A total of 8 species of shrubs were observed in NF and 3
species of shrubs were observed in AF. A total of 53 species of trees were observed s in
NF and 7 species of trees were observed in AF. A total of 8 species of climbers were
observed in NF and 3 species of climbers were observed in AF. A total of 5 species of
amphibians were observed in NF and 3 species of amphibians were observed in AF. A
total of 6 species of reptiles were observed in NF and 3 species of reptiles were observed
in AF. A total of 58 species of birds were observed in NF and 21 species of birds were
observed in AF. A total of 10 species of mammals were observed in NF and 4 species of
mammals were observed in AF.

ii
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ADB Asian Development Bank

AF Agroforest

BFIDC Bangladesh Forest Industries Development Corporation

BFRI Bangladesh Forest Research Institute

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FD Forest Department

NF Natural forest

NGOs Non‐Governmental Organizations

MoE Ministry of Environment

TANDP Thana Afforestation and Nursery Development Project

iii
CONTENTS

Dedication ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. i
Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ii
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ……………………………………………………………….. iii
Contents …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. iv‐vii
List of Tables …………………………………………………………………………………………………… viii
List of Figures …………………………………………………………………………………………………. viii‐xi
List of Maps ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. xi

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1‐5
1.1 General …………………………………………………………………………………….. 1
1.2 Aims and Objectives …………………………………………………………………. 5

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 6‐10
2.1 Literature Review ……………………………………………………………………… 6

CHAPTER THREE STUDY AREA 11‐19
3.1 General …………………………………………………………………………………….. 11
3.2 Madhupur Sal Forest ………………………………………………………………… 12
3.2.1 Geographical and Ecological conditions ……………………………………. 12
3.2.2 Topographical conditions ………………………………………………………….. 13
3.3 Climate ……………………………………………………………………………………… 17
3.4 Meteorological Data …………………………………………………………………. 18
3.5 Description of Different Sites ……………………………………………………. 18
iv
3.5.1 Natural Forest (NF) ……………………………………………………………………. 18
3.5.2 Agro‐forest (AF) ………………………………………………………………………… 19

CHAPTER FOUR MATERIALS AND METHODS 20‐25
4.1 Materials Used For Soil Collection …………………………………………….. 20
4.2 Methods Used For Soil Analysis ………………………………………………… 20
4.2.1 Collection of the Soil Sample …………………………………………………….. 20
4.2.2 Laboratory Work ………………………………………………………………………. 20
4.2.2.1 Soil pH ………………………………………………………………………………………. 21
4.2.2.2 Soil Iron (Fe) ……………………………………………………………………………… 21
4.2.2.3 Soil Organic Carbon ………………………………………………………………….. 21
4.2.2.4 Soil Organic Matter ………………………………………………………………….. 23
4.3 Materials Used For Observation of Flora and Fauna …………………. 23
4.4 Methods Used For Observation of Flora and Fauna ………………….. 23
4.4.1 Strip Transect Method ………………………………………………………………. 23
4.4.2 Quadrat Method ………………………………………………………………………. 24
4.4.3 Dropping/Calls/Songs ……………………………………………………………….. 24
4.4.4 Collection and Identification …………………………………………………….. 24
4.4.5 Local Information ……………………………………………………………………… 24
4.4.6 Identification of Birds ……………………………………………………………….. 24
4.4.7 Identification of Reptiles and Mammals ……………………………………. 25
4.5 Software …………………………………………………………………………………… 25

v
CHAPTER FIVE RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 26‐67
5.1 Results ………………………………………………………………………………………. 26
5.1.1 Soil Analysis Results ……………………………………………………………….... 26
5.1.1.1 Soil pH ………………………………………………………………………………………. 26
5.1.1.2 Soil Iron (Fe) ……………………………………………………………………………… 27
5.1.1.3 Soil Organic Matter …………………………………………………………………… 28
5.1.2 Flora Results ……………………………………………………………………………… 29
5.1.2.1 Herbs ………………………………………………………………………………………… 29
5.1.2.2 Shrubs ………………………………………………………………………………………. 31
5.1.2.3 Trees ………………………………………………………………………………………… 33
5.1.2.4 Climbers ……………………………………………………………………………………. 36
5.1.3 Fauna Results ……………………………………………………………………………. 47
5.1.3.1 Amphibians ………………………………………………………………………………. 47
5.1.3.2 Reptiles …………………………………………………………………………………….. 48
5.1.3.3 Birds …………………………………………………………………………………………. 50
5.1.3.4 Mammals ………………………………………………………………………………….. 54
5.2 Discussion …………………………………………………………………………………. 63

CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 68‐69
6.1 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………… 68
6.2 Recommendations ……………………………………………………………………. 68
6.3 Limitations ……………………………………………………………………………….. 69

REFERENCES 70‐73

vi
APPENDICES 74‐78
Appendix I The maximum (Max.) and minimum (Min.) temperature

(Temp.) of the study area from July 2006 to February 2007 ….. 74
Appendix II Total rainfall of the study area from July 2006 to February
2007 ……………………………………………………………………………………… 74
Appendix III The maximum (Max.) and minimum (Min.) relative humidity
(R.H.) of the study area from July 2006 to February 2007 ………
74
Appendix IV Soil pH of NF and AF in August, 2006 ……………………………………….. 75
Appendix V Soil pH of NF and AF in February, 2007 …………………………………….. 75
Appendix VI Soil iron (Fe) content of NF and AF in August, 2006 ………………….. 75
Appendix VII Soil iron (Fe) content of NF and AF in February, 2007 ……………….. 76
Appendix VIII Soil organic matter of NF and AF in August, 2006 …………………….. 76
Appendix IX Soil organic matter of NF and AF in February, 2007 …………………. 76
Appendix X List of plants which provide food for capped langurs and 77

monkeys ………………………………………………………………………………..
Appendix XI List of common plants which food and nesting sites for birds … 77
Appendix XII: List of medicinal plants which found in Madhupur Sal forest …. 77

vii
List of Tables
Table No. Table Names Page No.
Table 5.1 List of herbs identified in NF with their status 29
Table 5.2 List of herbs identified in AF with their status 30
Table 5.3 List of shrubs identified in NF with their status 31
Table 5.4 List of shrubs identified in AF with their status 32
Table 5.5 List of trees identified in NF with their status 33
Table 5.6 List of trees identified in AF with their status 35
Table 5.7 List of climbers identified in NF with their status 36
Table 5.8 List of climbers identified in AF with their status 37
Table 5.9 List of amphibians identified in NF with their status 47
Table 5.10 List of amphibians identified in AF with their status 47
Table 5.11 List of reptiles identified in NF with their status 48
Table 5.12 List of reptiles identified in AF with their status 49
Table 5.13 List of birds identified in NF with their status 50
Table 5.14 List of birds identified in AF with their status 52
Table 5.15 List of mammal identified in NF with their status 54
Table 5.16 List of mammals identified in AF with their status 54
List of Figures
Figure Figure Names Page

No. No.
Fig. 3.1 The maximum (Max.) and minimum (Min.) temperature (Temp.) of 17
the study area from July 2006 to February 2007
Fig. 3.2 Total rainfall of the study area from July 2006 to February 2007 17
Fig. 3.3 The maximum (Max.) and minimum (Min.) relative humidity (R.H.) 18
viii
of the study area from July 2006 to February 2007
Fig. 5.1 Soil pH of NF and AF in August, 2006 26
Fig. 5.2 Soil pH of NF and AF in February, 2007 27
Fig. 5.3 Soil iron content (ppm) of NF and AF in August, 2006 27
Fig. 5.4 Soil iron content (ppm) of NF and AF in February, 2007 28
Fig. 5.5 Soil organic matter of NF and AF in August, 2006 28
Fig. 5.6 Soil organic matter of NF and AF in February, 2007 29
Fig. 5.7 No. of different species of herbs observed in NF and AF 31
Fig. 5.8 No. of different species of shrubs observed in NF and AF 33
Fig. 5.9 No. of different species of trees observed in NF and AF 36
Fig. 5.10 No. of different species of climbers observed in NF and AF 37
Fig. 5.11 Total no. of different species of flora observed in NF and AF 38
Fig. 5.12 Tangail‐Mymensingh road beside the natural forest 39
Fig. 5.13 View of natural forest 39
Fig. 5.14 Tree has been cut from the natural forest 39
Fig. 5.15 View of agro‐forest 40
Fig. 5.16 View of agro‐forest after crop plantation 40
Fig. 5.17 Encroachment in agro‐forest after crop harvest 40
Fig. 5.18 Ban ghagra (Urena lobata) 41
Fig. 5.19 Lajjabati (Mimosa pudica) 41
Fig. 5.20 Bhant (Clerodendrum viscosum) 41
Fig. 5.21 Satthi (Curcuma zeoderia) 41
Fig. 5.22 Anarash (Ananas comosus) 42
Fig. 5.23 Chotto Kalkesunde (Cassia obtusifolia) 42
Fig. 5.24 Ban tezpata (Melastoma malabathricum) 42
Fig. 5.25 Kurchi (Holarrhena antidysenterica) 42
Fig. 5.26 Amrah (Spondias pinnata) 43
Fig. 5.27 Segun (Tectona grandis) 43
Fig. 5.28 Bohera (Terminalia belerica) 43
Fig. 5.29 Chalta (Dellenia indica) 43
Fig. 5.30 Shal (Shorea robusta) 44
ix
Fig. 5.31 Bot (Ficus bengalensis) 44
Fig. 5.32 Sinduri (Mallotus phillippensis) 44
Fig. 5.33 Pia (Toona ciliata) 44
Fig. 5.34: Pepey (Carica papaya) 45
Fig. 5.35 Akashmoni (Acacia auriculiformis) 45
Fig. 5.36 Bash (Bambusa spp.) 45
Fig. 5.37 Bara Kalkesunda (Cassia siamea) 45
Fig. 5.38 Assam lata (Mikania scandens) 46
Fig. 5.39 Bet (Calamus rotung) 46
Fig. 5.40 Kanchan (Bauhinia acuminata) 46
Fig. 5.41 Amal lata (Vitis trifolia) 46
Fig. 5.42 No. of different species of amphibians observed in NF and AF 48
Fig. 5.43 No. of different species of reptiles observed in NF and AF 49
Fig. 5.44 No. of different species of birds observed in NF and AF 53
Fig. 5.45 No. of different species of mammals observed in NF and AF 55
Fig. 5.46 Total no. of different species of fauna observed in NF and AF 55
Fig.5.47 Indian bull frog (Rana tigrina) 56
Fig. 5.48 Bengal monitor lizard (Varanus bengalensis) 56
Fig. 5.49 Common bronze‐back tree snake (Dendrelaphis tristis) 56
Fig. 5.50 Black headed oriole (Oriolus xanthornus) 57
Fig. 5.51 Chestnut‐tailed starling (Sturnus malabaricus) 57
Fig. 5.52 Crested serpent eagle (Spilornis cheela) 57
Fig. 5.53 Dark‐sided flycatcher (Muscicapa sibirica) 58
Fig. 5.54 Grey‐crowned pygmy wood‐pecker (Dendrocopos canicapillus) 58
Fig. 5.55 Lesser golden‐backed wood‐pecker (Dinopium bengalensis) 58
Fig. 5.56 Large cuckoo shrike (Coracina macei) 59
Fig. 5.57 Spangled drongo (Dicrurus hottentottus) 59
Fig. 5.58 Coppersmith barbet (Megalaima haemacephala) 59
Fig. 5.59 Lineated barbet (Megalaima lineata) 60
Fig. 5.60 Small minivet (Pericrocotus cinnamomeus) 60
Fig. 5.61 Brain‐fever bird (Cuculus varius) 60
x
Fig. 5.62 Emarald dove (Chalcophaps indica) 61
Fig. 5.63 Spotted dove (Streptopelia chinensis) 61
Fig. 5.64 A pair of Common Mayna (Acridotheres tristis) 61
Fig. 5.65 Capped langur (Trachypithecus pileatus) 62
Fig. 5.66 Hoary‐bellied Himalayan squirrel (Callosciurus pygerythrus) 62
Fig. 5.67 Leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis) 62
Fig. 5.68 Species status of herbs in NF (a) and AF (b) 65
Fig. 5.69 Species status of shrubs in NF (a) and AF (b) 65
Fig. 5.70 Species status of trees in NF (a) and AF (b) 65
Fig. 5.71 Species status of climbers in NF (a) and AF (b) 65
Fig. 5.72 Species status of amphibians in NF (a) and AF (b) 67
Fig. 5.73 Species status of reptiles in NF (a) and AF (b) 67
Fig. 5.74 Species status of birds in NF (a) and AF (b) 67
Fig. 5.75 Species status of mammals in NF (a) and AF (b) 67

List of Maps
Map No. Map Names Page No.
Map 3.1 Map of Bangladesh showing Madhupur National Park 14
Map 3.2 Map of Tangail district showing Madhupur National Park. 15
Map 3.3 Map of Madhupur National Park showing natural forest (NF) 16
and agro‐forest (AF)

xi
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General

The forest is an important natural resource that plays several important roles in nature.
It is a storehouse of biological diversity. It is generally recognized that a minimum of 25
to 33 percent of the land in any country should be covered by forest in order to maintain
a balanced ecosystem. The forested areas, however, are decreasing day by day all over
the world as a result of human activities. Asia is losing almost 1% of tropical forest per
year. In Asia, some 67% of wildlife habitat has been converted to other uses (McNeely.
1991).

In Bangladesh the total area of forest land is 2.53 million hectares representing about
17.5% of the country’s area. Bangladesh Forest Department manages 1.53 million
hectares of forest land. Ministry of Environment and Forest and its associated agencies
like Forest Department (FD), Bangladesh Forest Industries Development Corporation
(BFIDC) and Bangladesh Forest Research Institute (BFRI) are mainly assigned with
responsibilities for development of forestry sector of Bangladesh. Forest Department is
the main agency responsible for forest resources conservation, management and
development. Bangladesh is one of the first signatories of the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) and has thus committed itself to conserving natural and biological
resources.

In the past few decades over 100,000 hectares of high forests has been converted into
plantations. A total of 12, 58, 022 hectares area of plantations is accomplished during
the plantation years of 1981‐1987 by forest department (Reza et al. 1992).

Bangladesh being a tropical country containing 120,000 hectares of inland moist
deciduous Sal (Shorea robusta) forests, which is 0.81% of the country and is distributed
in the districts of Dhaka, Tangail, Mymensingh, Dinajpur, Rangpur (White and Ali. 1979,
Reza et al. 1992). The tropical moist deciduous forest of Bangladesh is commonly known
as 'Sal Forests'. Many people nearby Sal forest area are realizing that they are not
getting timber, fuelwood, and other forest product as they got before. Besides, the
growing stock of the existing Sal forests and its associates are declining day by day. So
1
they have started plantation like wood lot plantation and agroforestry practice in their
own land and the government land (which were occupied by forest before) through
participatory approach with Forest Department with financial assistance from the Asian
Development Bank (ADB) and Thana Afforestation and Nursery Development Project
(TANDP) in November 1989 (PROSHIKA. 1995). According to the report of Forestry
Master Plan completed in 1993 the Sal forest in Tangail district has shrunk to 1000
hectares in 1990 from 20,000 hectares in 1970.

Agroforestry is the combination of agricultural and forestry technologies to create
integrated, diverse and productive land use systems (Garrett et al. 2000). Agroforestry
reduces the dependence of farmers on forest for the purpose of firewood, fodder,
timber and other products. It increases the income of the farmers.

The World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) made this definition in 1993: “Agroforestry is a
collective name for land use systems and practices in which woody perennials are
deliberately integrated with crops and/or animals on the same land management unit.
The integration can be either in a spatial mixture or in a temporal sequence. There are
normally both ecological and economic interactions between woody and non‐woody
components in Agroforestry”.

Agroforestry is aimed at producing timber. In such plantations, trees are planted on
private or public forest land. When the trees mature on public forest land under
agroforestry the benefits are distributed between the government and the participants.
The Forest Department (FD) is practicing agroforestry in the Sal forest for decades
together on a participatory approach to replant the barren forest land with financial
assistance from the Asian Development Bank (ADB). It has been observed that,
agroforestry practice is very much profitable land use but it destroys fertility of the land
very rapidly. If the nutrient uptake by the planted exotic species and the growth rate are
relatively higher than the native species specially the undergrowth, then they can
negatively affect the growth of the latter ones.

2
It is true that there is no alternative which can stop the world wide loss of natural
forests. However, reforestation is one of the efforts which can minimize the human
demand and thus decrease the pressure on natural forests. At present, tree plantation
has become a world wide social movement but the reforestation efforts that are taking
place are usually of monoculture plantations grown for single purpose.

Natural forests throughout the country are increasingly being depleted. Various types of
development activity, such as dikes, highway, road construction, and other
infrastructure development have further intensified deforestation, and destruction of
natural forests in Bangladesh.

The reduction of Sal forest is occurring through over‐exploitation, deforestation,
excessive leaf‐litter collection, encroachment, indiscriminate collection of specific
economically important plant species (i.e. medicinal, fodder etc), and other form of
human interference. On social point of view, Sal forest is one of the main forested areas
in Bangladesh where a cross section of tribal people has been dwelling and they are
dependent on Sal forests for their total livelihood. Commercial fuel‐wood plantation
through agroforestry is also responsible for the degradation of traditional Sal forests.
Under a project, funded by the Asian Development Bank, the degraded and un‐
encroached government Sal forest areas in Madhupur were brought under woodlot
plantation. But this has caused humanitarian as well as ecological harm to the forest. In
addition, it has cleaned out coppices of Sal trees and other indigenous species of plants.
This has destroyed the possibility of the regeneration of the natural forests in many
places. The forest has been exhausted to such an extent that it has lost the main
features of the original Sal forest. With the disappearance of the natural forest most of
the wild animal life in the Sal forest has also vanished rapidly.

Natural forest is most important natural habitat for wild life. Forest is composed of a
large flora and fauna. It maintains ecological balance and biological diversity. Forest
provides food, fuel, fodder, fiber, shelter and timber to man. Forests control air pollution
to a great extent. Green plants of the forests are primary producers of the food chain. It
supports industrial and commercial activities. It conserves water and soil moisture.
3
Forests play a significant role in keeping the balance of atmospheric gases by consuming
CO2 and releasing O2. Oxygen is essential for all living organisms. It maintains soil
fertility, regulates earth’s temperature and checks soil erosion.

"Ecosystem" is the term used for the sum total of vegetation, animals, and physical
environment in whatever size segment of the world is chosen for study (Fosberg. 1967).
Ecosystems are interacting complexes of living organisms (plants, fungi, bacteria,
animals) and the physical environment (soil, air, water, bedrock) immediately affecting
them

Biological diversity or biodiversity refers to the richness of life forms in our environment,
including different species of plants, animals and micro‐organisms, along with the genes
they contain, and the ecosystems they form.

“Biological Diversity” means the variability among living organisms from all sources
including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems, and the ecological
complexes of which they are part; it includes diversity within species between species,
and of ecosystems (Article II, CBD. 1992).

Biological diversity or biodiversity refers to the variability among the living organisms;
plants, animals and microbes from all sources including terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems and ecological complexes of which they are part (Shukla et al. 2000).

By this comparative study between natural forest (NF) and agro‐forest (AF), an ample
possibility may generate for the reforestation of denuded natural forest and enrichment
of the species diversity of Madhupur Sal forest.

4
1.2 Aims and Objectives

The present study has the following objectives ‐

1. Identify and register the floral species of natural forest (NF) and agro‐forest (AF).
2. Identify and register the faunal species of natural forest (NF) and agro‐forest (AF).
3. Study the chemical properties of the soil (i.e. soil pH, soil organic matter and soil
iron content) of natural forest (NF) and agro‐forest (AF).
4. Find the effects of natural forest degradation.
5. Find the effects of agro‐forestry on biodiversity.
6. Compare the species diversity of natural forest (NF) and agro‐forest (AF).

5
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Literature Review

Rahman (2004) studied on some important physical parameters of soils of six major Sal
forests of Bangladesh. He observed soil colors, particle sizes, soil textural classes and
maximum water holding capacity in different depths and in different ecological habitats.
He found that soil texture, soil color and maximum water holding capacity were
different in different Sal forest sites.

Uddin et al. (2006) studied the role of participatory agroforestry on community
development in Sal forest area, Bangladesh. They found that, agroforestry was proved to
be a profitable land use. They also found that the socio‐economic status and overall
living standard of the farmers were improved radically after taking part in the
participatory approach and the physio‐climatic structure of the region was also changed
in a positive path.

Kumar (2006) studied the potentiality of agro‐forestry to arrest land degradation in Asia.
He found that agro‐forestry improve site productivity through interactions among trees,
soil, crops and livestock and thus restore part, if not all, of the degraded lands. He also
found that despite of advantages, agro‐forestry as a land use option has not attracted
much attention from the planners and extension community.

Nath et al. (2005) studied the effects of small‐scale agroforestry on upland community
development in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh. The study clarified the merits and
demerits of different agroforestry systems as perceived by farmers, their impacts on the
rural economy and the environment, farmers' attitudes toward the adoption of
agroforestry and impacts of various government policies. They found that the
agroforestry interventions have in fact increased farmers' income through employment
and the selling of farm products, as well as by improving the ecological conditions of
these areas through reduction of soil erosion, increasing tree coverage, and maintaining
soil fertility.

6
Muhammed et al. (2005) studied the policy and plan versus implementation of forest
management in Bangladesh. Due to various socio‐economic and socio‐political factors,
forest cover of the country reduced drastically and all such policy initiatives proved
ineffective. They found that while traditional forest management resulted in a net loss of
forest resource cover, social forestry on the other hand, is playing a vital role in the
expansion of forest cover benefiting thousands of poor people.

Laakso et al. (2006) studied the Non‐wood Forest Benefits and Agroforestry Practices in
the Fouta Djallon Highlands of Guinea. They examined the benefits a rural family gets
from forests and trees in their everyday life, how significant those benefits are for their
livelihood, and what people think about some agroforestry practices. They found that
the benefits offered by forests are both indirect and direct. Wood used for cooking
remains the most important livelihood product from forests. Many non‐wood forest
products, like medicinal and food plants, are important to the villagers. The forest land
and the use of leaves as fertilizers are also essential for agriculture and cattle husbandry.
The most explicit value is that from fruits that can be sold for a profit. Other benefits of
trees, such as providing shade and windbreaks, are also highly valued. The agroforestry
practices studied were not well known in the study villages.

McNeely (2004) studied the management of relationships between forests, agroforestry
and wild biodiversity. Biodiversity is a forest value that does not carry a market price. It
is the foundation, however, upon which productive systems depend. He found that, the
relationship between agroforestry and the wild biodiversity contained in more natural
forests is a complicated one, depending on the composition of the agroforestry system
itself and the way it is managed. Complex forest gardens are more supportive of
biodiversity than monocrop systems, shade coffee more than sun coffee, and systems
using native plants tend to be more biologically diverse. Nonnative plants, especially
potentially invasive alien species, threaten biodiversity and need to be avoided. The
relationship between forests, agroforestry and wild biodiversity can be made most
productive through applying adaptive management approaches that incorporate
ongoing research and monitoring in order to feed information back into the
7
management system. Clear government policy frameworks are needed that support
alliances among the many interest groups involved in forest biodiversity.

Hossain (2005) studied the threatened forest genetic resources and strategies for
conservation in Bangladesh. He observed that, the natural forests of Bangladesh, one of
the richest and biologically diverse forest resources are facing severe threats recently.
The natural forests of the country are declining at an alarming rate. Forest genetic
resources are disappearing due to clearing land for agriculture, shifting cultivation,
construction of roads, habitation, logging for timber, fuelwood collection,
encroachment, and conversion of forest lands for other uses. The physical, demographic,
and economic pressures are also altering the natural environment rapidly. In this way
many plant and animal species, widely distributed in the past, have either become
extinct or can only be found in low densities in localized areas. However, very recently,
conservation efforts through in situ and ex situ programs are gaining priority in both
public and private levels. Conservation and utilization of forest genetic resources are
given emphasis with an aim of improving forest products as well as collection and supply
of improved materials from the genetic resources.

Sinha et al. (2005) studied the propagation and silviculture of two forest trees, Shorea
robusta and Dipterocarpus turbinatus, for restoration of a sustainable forest ecosystem.
Shorea robusta and Dipterocarpus turbinatus of the family Dipterocarpaceae, two tree
species of the rain forests in South and Southeast Asia, are of great economic
importance for timber. They are generally propagated by seed that are recalcitrant and
lose their viability within a few days of maturity. Moreover, the survival rate of seedlings
planted in the open spaces of degraded forests is very low. They compared propagation
methods by seed germination, cutting and layering, and in vitro micropropagation and
found that, for large scale planting materials in these two species, seed collection at
proper maturation time is the best, ensuring 75% healthy seedlings.

Ruark et al. (2003) studied the roles for agroforestry in helping to achieve sustainable
forest management. Forestry is faced with the challenge of meeting an increasing
demand for goods, as well as for an expanding array of services, like clean water, soil
8
conservation, and wildlife habitat, from a fixed or shrinking land base. They observed
that, for balance forestry with the sustainability of other sectors, like agriculture and
communities, are needed. Agroforestry, the deliberate cultivation of trees or other
woody plants with crops or pasture for multiple benefits, is an important category of
planted forests that has the potential to provide farmers, communities, and society‐at‐
large with a wide array of forest‐related goods and services. Agroforestry can
complement forestry sector efforts in sustainable forest management by providing a set
of tree‐based conservation and production practices for agricultural lands. Some
important sustainability issues on which agroforestry can assist forestry are: biological
diversity, wood and non‐timber products, ecosystem integrity, soil and water quality,
terrestrial carbon storage, and socioeconomic benefits.

Neupane et al. (2001) studied the impact of agroforestry intervention on farm income
under the subsistence farming system of the middle hills in Nepal. They observed that
the agricultural system including agroforestry was more profitable than the conventional
one. Agroforestry had great potential for enhancing food production and farmers'
economic conditions in a sustainable manner through its positive contributions to
household income.

Thiollay (1995) studied the role of traditional agroforests in the conservation of rain
forest bird diversity in Sumatra. He compared bird community composition and
structure among three different types of traditionally managed agroforests and the
nearby primary forests in southwestern Sumatra during the breeding season. The
species were classified according to size, main diet, and observed habitat use. He found
that, species richness, diversity, and equitability were all significantly lower (12% to 62%
less) in every agroforest than in the primary forest and the coefficients of similarity
between the natural and managed forest communities were low (0.43‐0.55). Among the
216 species occurring in samples, 56% significantly decreased in or disappeared from
agroforests, whereas only 22% appeared or increased. The factors affecting biodiversity
in agroforests may involve reduced tree height, canopy foliage volume, vertical diversity
of the vegetation structure, floristic richness, and associated variety of food resources.
High hunting pressure may also be a factor. Agroforests also function as buffer zones
9
between densely populated and protected areas and are one of the most successful
examples of silviculture of dipterocarps.

Unfortunately no sufficient research and study has been done on the comparative study
between natural forest (NF) and agro‐forest (AF) of Madhupur Sal forest under
Madhupur National Park Range. As a result no relevant literature in this aspect was
available. The present study was an attempt first of its kind to investigate the status of
natural forest (NF) and agro‐forest (AF). In this study, the status of natural forest (NF)
and agro‐forest (AF) of Beribaid Beat of Madhupur National Park Range were observed
from August, 2006 to February, 2007. Therefore this study will show the new arena of
knowledge regarding this field.

10
CHAPTER THREE
STUDY AREA
3.1 General

Bangladesh covers an area of 147,570 sq km. It extends from 20°34΄N to 26°38΄N
latitude and from 88°01΄E to 92°41΄E longitude. Maximum extension is about 440 km in
the E‐W direction and 760 km in the NNW‐SSE direction (Map 3.1).

Madhupur Upazila of TangailT district containing area of 500.70 sq km, is bounded by
Jamalpur Sadar Upazila on the north, Gopalpur and Ghatail Upazilas on the south,
Muktagachha and Fulbaria Upazilas on the east, Sarishabari and Gopalpur Upazilas on
west. The main rivers are Jhinai, Bangshi, Banar and Atrai. Madhupur Thana, now an
Upazila, was established in 1898. The Upazila consists of two municipalities (Madhupur
and Dhanbari), 18 wards, 47 mahallas, 10 union parishads, 242 mouzas and 343 villages.
The population of Madhupur is 375295 of which male 51.13% and female 48.87%. There
is about muslim 89%, hindu 7%, christian 4% and others 0.31%. Ethnic nationals are Garo
and Koch. The average literacy of Madhupur is 25.3% of which male 30.2% and female
20.1%. The numbers of educational institutions are 5 colleges, 30 high schools, 137
madrasas, 156 government primary schools, 53 non‐government primary schools, 3
missionary high schools, 13 missionary primary schools, 13 kindergartens, and 57 NGO
managed primary schools. The main occupations are 52.29% agriculture, 22.8%
agricultural laborer, 2.82% wage laborer, 8.42% commerce, 2.11% transport, 2.79%
service, 8.77% others. Of the total land, 32900 hectares cultivable, 2000 hectares fallow
land; 65% land is under irrigation. The main crops are paddy, jute, wheat, cotton, potato,
patal, ginger, betel leaf, kasava and vegetables. Of the total length of road metalled are
150 km and semi metalled are 19 km. There are total 45 numbers of ‘hats’ (weekly
market) and ‘bazars’ (daily market). The main operationally important NGOs are BRAC,
ASA, PROSHIKA and CARITAS, World Tourist Mission, Family and Child Welfare Centre.

11
3.2 Madhupur Sal Forest

3.2.1 Geographical and Ecological conditions
The study area comprised of Sal forest is situated in the Madhupur Upazila (Sub‐district)
of Tangail district (Map 3.2). Though the forest was under the Mymensingh Forest
division, before now it is managed under Tangail Forest Division (Hossain. 2005). The
forest is demarcated by Banar River in Mymensingh and Banshi River in Tangail and
located 80 kilometers north‐east of Dhaka. The forests extend between 23°50΄‐24°50΄N
and 89°54΄‐90°50΄E (Nishat et al. 2002) covering an area of 24150.02 ha which are
honeycombed with habitation and agricultural land comprising four Ranges namely
Madhupur, Aronkhola, Dokhola and Madhupur National Park Sadar (Anon. 1992). The
major Sal forests lies in the districts of greater Mymensingh and Tangail which is the
largest belt, distributed between the Brahmaputra and the Jamuna extending a length of
about 96 km and width of about 8 to 24 km running from north to south. This belt is
known as 'Madhupur Garh' (Rahman. 2004). The major constituent trees shed their
leaves during winter or dry season to reduce the loss of water through transpiration. In
this type of forest, the Sal tree comprises about 90 percent of the major floral
composition. The tree attains a height of 10‐25 meter and most leaves drop off during
winter.

Madhupur National Park Sadar Range comprises five bits namely National Park Sadar,
Laharia, Beribaid, Gachabari and Rajabari. It is situated in the north‐eastern end of
district besides the Tangail‐Mymensingh highway (Map 3.3). According to the Forest
Department, the total area of Madhupur National Park Sadar Range is 12,104.68 ha of
which natural forest is 3,364.24 ha, Sal forest is 52 ha, agro‐forest is 173.12 ha and the
remains used for other purposes.

During the present study, the natural forest and agro‐forest of Beribaid Bit were visited.
The area of Beribaid Bit is 1773.07 ha of which 906.88 ha natural forest, 45.00 ha agro‐
forest and the remains used for other purposes.

12
3.2.2 Topographical conditions

The Madhupur tract consists of Pleistocene terraces and recent alluvial floodplain. It
occupies the central part of the Ganges–Brahmaputra‐Meghna Delta. Geologically it is
terrace from one to ten meters above the adjacent floodplains. The upland terrace soils
are called ‘Chala’ and the valley soils are called 'baid’ locally. The imperfectly drained
level upland and the valley soils are used for paddy cultivation by holding rainwater. The
soil profile color is yellowish‐brown and textural class is clay‐loam (Rahman. 2004). The
soil is compact and hard when dry, but melts with the rainfall and becomes soft and
tenacious.

13

Map 3.1: Map of Bangladesh showing Madhupur National Park.
14

Map 3.2: Map of Tangail district showing Madhupur National Park.
15
Scale 1:1OOOOO

Map 3.3: Map of Madhupur National Park showing natural forest (NF) and agro‐forest
(AF).

16
3.3 Climate

The area, like the rest of Bangladesh, enjoys the monsoon type of climate of the Indian
Subcontinent. Winter starts from November and continues till February. Rainy season
starts from June and continues till September. The maximum temperature during the
study period was 32.9°C in August, while the minimum temperature was 10.2°C in
January (Fig. 3.1). The maximum rainfall was 3927 mm in September. There was no
rainfall in December and January (Fig. 3.2). The maximum relative humidity was 100% in
September, December, January and February and the minimum relative humidity was
23% in January (Fig. 3.3) (Source: Meteorological Center, Tangail).

35
30
25
Temp. (ºC)
20 Max. Temp.
15 Min. Temp.
10
5
0
J A S O N D J F
Month
Fig. 3.1: The maximum (Max.) and minimum (Min.) temperature (Temp.) of the study
area from July 2006 to February 2007.

4000
3500
Total Rainfall (mm)
3000
2500
2000
1500 Total Rainfall
1000
500
0
J A S O N D J F
Month
Fig. 3.2: Total rainfall of the study area from July 2006 to February 2007.
17
100
80
R. H. (%)
60 Max. R. H.
40 Min. R. H.
20
0
J A S O N D J F
Month
Fig. 3.3: The maximum (Max.) and minimum (Min.) relative humidity (R.H.) of the study

3.4 Meteorological Data
The meteorological data from July 2006 to February 2007 were collected from the
meteorological center in Tangail.

3.5 Description of Different Sites
In the present investigation a total of two sites of Madhupur Sal forest area were visited
two months interval from July 2006 to February 2007.

3.5.1 Natural Forest (NF)
This site has been selected from the Beribaid bit of Madhupur National Park Range
which is located near Telki Bazar. It is situated beside the Tangail‐Mymensingh high‐way.

Geographical location of NF
Latitude: N 24° 40.778̕
Longitude: E 90° 07.675̒
Elevation: 24m

18
3.5.2 Agro‐forest (AF)
This site has been selected from the Beribaid bit of Madhupur National Park Range
which is located beside Telki Bazar. It is also situated beside the Tangail‐Mymensingh
high‐way. Agroforestry practice started here from 2001 by the Forest Department (FD).

Geographical location of AF
Latitude: N 24° 40.409̒
Longitude: E 90° 07.036̒
Elevation: 33m

19
CHAPTER FOUR
MATERIALS AND METHODS
4.1 Materials Used For Soil Collection

1. Polythene bag
2. Threads
3. Marker pen
4. Spade

4.2 Methods Used For Soil Analysis

Two sites were selected for the analysis of soil to compare the soil properties of natural
forest (NF) and agro‐forest (AF) of Beribaid Bit of Madhupur National Park Range. The
chemical parameters of soil were analyzed by following different standard methods. The
soil samples were collected for analysis in August, 2006 firstly and February, 2007
secondly. The basic methodological approaches of this investigation are presented
below –

4.2.1 Collection of the Soil Sample
Soil sample collection is an important process for understanding the present nutrient
status of the soil sample. The soil samples were collected from about 1 ft. deep from 10
places of the Natural Forest (NF) and Agro‐forest (AF). The soil samples were mixed
thoroughly and made a composite sample. About 400 to 500 gm soil samples were taken
into a polythene bag. However the fresh samples were used to determine the pH of the
soil sample. The samples were dried in shade place and pulverized with a wooden
hammer. The bag with soil samples were tightly closed with thread and added an
information sheet at the neck of the bag. The collected samples were taken to the
laboratory for analysis.

4.2.2 Laboratory Work
The sample was analyzed to determine some major chemical properties of soils with a
view to assess the present nutrient status of NF and AF. Standard methods were
followed for soil analysis.

20
4.2.2.1 Soil pH
The pH of freshly collected soil was determined by using pH meter (HANNA 301). 25 ml
of water was added with 10 gm of soil sample and stirred the mixture for 10 minutes.
Then the sample was allowed to stand for 30 minutes. The pH meter was calibrated
with two known buffer solutions (pH 4.0 and 7.0). The electrode was washed with
distilled water and dried by tissue paper. Then the electrode was immersed into the soil
suspension and was kept at that condition until stable reading was observed and then
the reading was recorded.

4.2.2.2 Soil Iron (Fe)
Soil Extraction Solution – ASI
(0.25 NaHCO3 – 0.01M EDTA – 0.01N NH4F with 0.5 Superfloc 127 per 10 liters)
210gm NaHCO3, 37.2gm disodium EDTA, 3.7gm NH4F were dissolved in about 7 liters of
water and 0.5gm Superfloc 127 was added with it. Final volume was made to 10 liters.
The pH of the solution of 8.4 was adjusted with concentrated (conc.) NaOH solution.

Procedure
2.5mg of soil sample was taken and added with 25ml of ASI extracting solution. The
mixture was stirred at about 400rpm for 10 minutes and then filtered. The concentration
of iron (Fe) was read on the Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (AAS) direct from
the soil filtrate. The name of the AAS used for the determination of iron was CHEMITO
Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (model no AA203).

Standard for iron
The standard solution of iron in ASI extracting solutions having the following
concentrations:
0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, μg/ml.

4.2.2.3 Soil Organic Carbon
Soil organic carbon content was estimated by wet design method.

21
Reagents
1. Concentrated sulfuric acid (H2SO4).
2. Phosphoric acid (H3PO4).
3. Standard 1N Potassium dichromate (K2Cr2O7) solution: exactly 49.03gm of
K2Cr2O7 was dissolved in water and diluted the solution to 1 liter.
4. Diphenylamine indicator solution: approximately 0.5gm of reagent grade
diphenylamine was dissolved in 20ml of water and 100ml conc. H2SO4.
5. Ferrous sulphate (FeSO4) solution: 278gm of FeSO4 .7H2O crystals were
dissolved in water followed by an addition of 15ml conc. H2SO4 and diluted up to
1000ml.

Procedure
In a 500 ml clean dry conical flask soil sample (2 g dried sample) was taken and 10 ml of
1N K2Cr2O7 solution and 10 ml of concentrated H2SO4 were added carefully. The
content was occasionally shaken until it became cold. Then 150 ml distilled water, 10 ml
concentrated H3PO4 and 0.2 g sodium fluoride (NaF) was added. After further cooling,
diphenylamine indicator (60 drops or 3ml) was added until the color of the solution
became deep violet. The content was titrated against normal ferrous sulfate solution. At
the end point, the color of the solution changed to deep bottle green. A blank
experiment was run using all the chemicals except soil as control.

Calculation

(B‐T) × 3 × N × 100 × 1.3

Percent of organic carbon =
1000 × W
Where,
B = Amount of N FeSO4 solution (ml) required in blank experiment.
T = Amount of FeSO4 solution (ml) required in soil experiment.
N = Strength of N FeSO4 solution.
W = Weight of soil (gm).

22
It has been estimated that only about 77% carbon of the organic compounds in soil is
oxidized by this procedure.

4.2.2.4 Soil Organic Matter
The organic matter content of the soil was determined by multiplying the percentage of
organic carbon with conventional Van Bemmelen's factor of 1.724 (Piper. 1950).

Calculation
Percentage of organic matter = Percentage of organic carbon x 1.724**
** = Since soil organic matter contains about 58% carbon.

4.3 Materials Used For Observation of Flora and Fauna

1. Binoculars (7×50)
2. Digital camera with zoom lens (70‐300 mm); Nikon D70S, IVC
3. GPS (Etrex Vista C)
4. Compass and watch
5. Scale and measuring instruments
6. Note book and pencil
7. Field guide

4.4 Methods Used For Observation of Flora and Fauna

To perform the experiment, a series of survey on plants (flora) and animals (fauna) were
maintained. For collecting of data, different methods were followed for different types
of species which are given below:

4.4.1 Strip Transect Method
For getting data regarding with the species available in the study areas were recorded by
strip transect method .In total 15 transect lines were made to observed the wild animals
and their different activities .It was about 500 meter length and 50 meter in both sides.

23
4.4.2 Quadrat Method
To determine the richness of herbs and shrubs, quadrate method were used. Ten
quadrat, each of 10x10 m dimension were selected randomly .In each quadrate the
number of various rooted plant species were recorded.

4.4.3 Dropping/Calls/Songs
In case of nocturnal animals like owl, jackal and other nocturnal animals the dropping of
the roosting place was observed and the species was identified. Calls and songs were
recorded in case of both nocturnal and diurnal animals.

4.4.4 Collection and Identification
The important and unknown specimens were collected and then identified in the
laboratory with the helps of some books, comparing with the museum specimens in the
department and concerned teachers.

4.4.5 Local Information
The wild species which were not observed, information was also recorded by
interviewing the local people, forest guards, workers, farmers, and firewood collectors.
Information was also collected from the oldest peoples to gain information about past
status and distribution of flora and fauna of the study area.

4.4.6 Identification of Birds
The birds were observed either through a pair 7×50 binocular or by naked eyes. Notes
were taken on different ecological and ethological aspects. Identification was based
mainly on field characters of external morphology, call (Mitchell 1997), flight and sitting
postures. A Nikon digital camera (model no ‐ D70S) with 70‐300 mm zoom lens and an
IVC digital camera with 5 pixel were used to take photographs. Birds were identified
with the help of key characteristics and illustrations brought forward by Ali and Riply
(1983, 1987), Ali (1996), Cerney (1975), Hyman, Marchant and prater (1986).

24
Status
The status of birds was assumed by direct field visits (Khan1980), i.e. very common (VC) ‐
seen 55‐75% of the visit, common (C) ‐ seen 25‐45% of the visit and rare (R) ‐ seen less
than 20% of the visit, resident (r) ‐ seen to makes nest, migrant (M) ‐ the species was
recorded at a special time (month).

4.4.7 Identification of Reptiles and Mammals
Transect line method were used to observe reptiles and mammals. Night visit was made
for nocturnal mammals and reptiles. Some were identified through calls. Local people’s
information was also taken to list many reptiles and mammals.

4.5 Software
Software such as, ArcView GIS 3.3, for mapping sample point location on the image and
Excel, for statistical analysis was used.

25
CHAPTER FIVE
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 RESULTS

The following results were obtained from the field surveys and observations. The
analytical and observed results have been presented below systematically under the
following heads:

5.1.1 Soil Analysis Results
The findings of the chemical parameters of the soils of natural forest (NF) and agro‐
forest (AF) are given below:

5.1.1.1 Soil pH
The values of soil pH are presented in Fig. 5.1 and 5.2 respectively. The maximum and the
minimum soil pH of NF were 5.5 and 4.6 respectively in August, 2006. The maximum and
the minimum soil pH of AF were 7.1 and 4.4 respectively in August, 2006.

8
7
6
5
pH 4
pH (NF)
3
pH (AF)
2
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Sample No

Fig. 5.1: Soil pH of NF and AF in August, 2006.

Again, the maximum and the minimum soil pH of NF were 4.9 and 4.0 respectively in
February, 2007. The maximum and the minimum soil pH of AF were 6.5 and 4.2
respectively in February, 2007.
26
7
6
5
4
pH
3 pH (NF)
2 pH (AF)
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Sample No
Fig. 5.2: Soil pH of NF and AF in February, 2007.

5.1.1.2 Soil Iron (Fe)
The values of soil iron (Fe) content are presented in Fig. 5.3 and 5.4 respectively. The
maximum and the minimum iron content of NF were 465.08 ppm and 160.08 ppm
respectively in August, 2006. The maximum and the minimum iron content of AF were
579.36 ppm and 138.49 ppm respectively in August, 2006.

600
550
500
450
400
350
Iron (ppm) 300
Iron (NF)
250
200 Iron (AF)
150
100
50
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Sample No.
Fig. 5.3: Soil iron content (ppm) of NF and AF in August, 2006.

Again, the maximum and the minimum iron content of NF were 419.23 ppm and 102.84
ppm respectively in February, 2007. The maximum and the minimum iron content of AF
were 256.41 ppm and 30.41 ppm respectively in February, 2007.
27
450
400
350
300
250
Iron (ppm)
200 Iron (NF)
150 Iron (AF)
100
50
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Sample No.
Fig. 5.4: Soil iron content (ppm) of NF and AF in February, 2007.

5.1.1.3 Soil Organic Matter
The values of soil organic matter are presented in Fig. 5.5 and 5.6 respectively. The
maximum and the minimum organic matter of NF were 2.75% and 0.91% respectively in
August, 2006. The maximum and the minimum organic matter of AF were 2.72% and 0.87%
respectively in August, 2006.

2.5
2
Organic
1.5
Matter (%) Organic Matter (NF)
1 Organic Matter (AF)
0.5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Sample No.
Fig. 5.5: Soil organic matter of NF and AF in August, 2006.

28
Again, the maximum and the minimum organic matter of NF were 2.70% and 0.91%
respectively in February, 2007. The maximum and the minimum organic matter of AF were
2.72% and 0.72% respectively in February, 2007.

2.5
2
Organic
1.5
Matter (%) Organic Matter (NF)
1 Organic Matter (AF)
0.5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Sample No.

Fig. 5.6: Soil organic matter of NF and AF in February, 2007.

5.1.2 Flora Results

A variety of species of herbs, shrubs, trees and climbers were observed with their status
in NF and AF during the study periods which are presented below.

5.1.2.1 Herbs
The species of herbs observed in NF and AF are presented below with their status:

Table 5.1: List of herbs identified in NF with their status.
Status codes: VC – very common, C – common, R – rare.
Species type: W – wild, P – planted.

Sl. Common name Scientific name Present Species
No. status type
Family: Acanthaceae
01 Kalomegh Andrographis paniculata Nees C W
Family: Amaranthaceae
02 Apang Achyranthes aspera L. C W
Family: Capparidaceae
29
03 Hurhuria Cleome viscosa L. R W
Family: Compositae
04 Kukurshinga Blumea lacera (Burm. F.) DC. VC W
05 Shealmotra Vernonia patula (Dryand.) Merr. VC W
06 Fulkuri Ageratum conyzoides L. C W
07 Ghagra Xanthium indicum Koenig C W
Family: Convolvulaceae
08 Swarnalata Cuscuta reflexa Roxb. R W
09 Rail lata Ipomoea cairica (L.) Sweet VC W
Family: Cucurbitaceae
10 Telakucha Coccinea cordifolia (L.) Cogn. C W
Family:‐Gramineae
11 Durbaghash Cynodon dactylon Pers. VC W
12 Premkata Chrysopogon aciculatus (Retz.) VC W
Trin.
Family: Leguminosae
13 Lajjabati Mimosa pudica L. VC W
14 Chotto Cassia obtusifolia C W
Kalkesunde
15 Jutasalpani Desmodium pulchellum Benth. C W
Family: Malvaceae
16 Ban ghagra Urena lobata L. VC W
Family: Pedaliaceae
17 Til Sesamum indicum L. R W
Family: Solanaceae
18 Arsawgandha Withania somnifera Dunal VC W
Family: Teliaceae
19 Assar, Patka Grewia microcos L. C W
Family: Umbelliferae
20 Thankuni Centella asiatica (L.) Urban. C W
Family: Verbinaceae
21 Bhant Clerodendrum viscosum Vent. VC W
Family: Zingiberaceae
22 Satthi Curcuma zeoderia Roscoe C W
23 Keumul, Kura Costus speciosus (Koen. Ex C W
Retz.) Smith

Table 5.2: List of herbs identified in AF with their status.

Sl. No. Common name Scientific name Present status Species type
Family: Bromelidaceae
01 Anarash Ananas comosus (L.) Merr. VC P
30
Family: Verbinaceae
02 Bhant Clerodendrum viscosum Vent. C W
Family: Convolvulaceae
03 Rail lata Ipomoea cairica (L.) Sweet VC W
Family:‐Gramineae
04 Durbaghash Cynodon dactylon Pers. VC W
Family: Zingiberaceae
05 Satthi Curcuma zeoderia Roscoe C W

In Case of Herbs
Species Composition
A total of 23 species of herbs were observed belonging to 15 families in NF and 5 species
of herbs were observed belonging to 5 families in AF. Fig. 5.7 shows the no. of different
species of herbs observed in NF and AF.

5
NF
23 AF
Fig. 5.7: No. of different species of herbs observed in NF and AF.

5.1.2.2 Shrubs
The species of shrubs observed in NF and AF are presented below with their status:

Table 5.3: List of shrubs identified in NF with their status.

No. status type
Family: Acanthaceae
01 Bashok Adhatoda vasica Nees C W
Family: Asclepiadaceae
31
02 Akanda Calotropis gigantea Br. C W
Family: Flacourtiaceae
03 Beuchi Flacourtia indica (Burm. f.) C W
Merr.
Family: Leguminosae
04 Arhar Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp. R W
Family: Melastomiaceae
05 Ban tezpata Melastoma malabathricum L. VC W
Family: Meliaceae
06 Bhuiokra/Matmati Lippia javanica (Mill.) N.E.Br. VC W
Family: Solanaceae
07 Dhutura Datura metel L. VC W
Family: Verbinaceae
08 Kutush kanta Lantana camara L. var. VC W

Table 5.4: List of shrubs identified in AF with their status.

Family: Melastomiaceae
01 Ban tezpata Melastoma malabathricum C W
L.
Family: Solanaceae
02 Dhutura Datura metel L. R W
Family: Verbinaceae
03 Kutush kanta Lantana camara L. var. C W

In Case of Shrubs
Species Composition
A total of 8 species of shrubs were observed belonging to 8 families in NF and 3 species
of shrubs were observed belonging to 3 families in AF. Fig. 5.8 shows the no. of different
species of shrubs observed in NF and AF.

32
3
NF
8
AF
Fig. 5.8: No. of different species of shrubs observed in NF and AF.

5.1.2.3 Trees
The species of trees observed in NF and AF are presented below with their status:

Table 5.5: List of trees identified in NF with their status.

No. status type
Family: Anacardiaceae
01 Am Mangifera indica L. C W
02 Amrah Spondias pinnata (L.f.) Kurz C W
Family: Annonaceae
03 Gandigajari Miliusa velutina Hk. f.&T. C W
Family: Apocynaceae
04 Kurchi Holarrhena antidysenterica C W
Wall
05 Sharpagondha Rauwolfia sarpentina Benth. R W
Family: Bombacaceae
06 Shimul Bombax ceiba R W
Family: Burseraceae
07 Neur Burserra serrata Wall R W
Family: Combretaceae
08 Arjun Terminalia arjuna Bedd R W
09 Bohera Terminalia belerica Roxb. C W
10 Haritaki Terminalia chebula Retz. R W
11 Katbadam Terminlalia catappa L. R W
Family: Dillenaceae
12 Ajuli Dellenia pentagyna Roxb. R W
13 Chalta Dellenia indica L. C W
33
Family: Dipterocarpaceae
14 Shal/Gajari Shorea robusta Gaertn VC W
Family: Ebenaceae
15 Gab Diospyros peregrina L. R W
Family: Euphorbiaceae
16 Amloki Phyllanthus embelica L. R W
17 Arboroi Phyllanthus acidus (L.) Skiels R W
18 Sinduri Mallotus phillippensis VC W
Muell.Arg.
Family: Gramineae
19 Bash Bambusa spp. R P
Family: Guttiferae
20 Nageswar Mesua nagesarium (Berm.f.) R W
Kost
Family: Lauraceae
21 Kharajora Litsea monopetala (Roxb.) C W
Pers.
Family: Leguminosae
22 Shonalu /Bandarlathi Cassia fistula L. R W
23 Kanchan Bauhinia acuminata L. VC W
24 Lohakat Xylia dolabiformis Benth R W
25 Bara Cassia siamea Lam. C W
Kalkesunda/Minjuri
26 Palash Butea monosperma (Lam.) R W
Taub.
27 Sisu Dalbergia sissoo Roxb. C P
28 Koroi Albizzia procera Benth C W
Family: Lythraceae
29 Jarul Lagerstroemia speciosa (L.) C W
Pers
30 Shidah Lagerstroemia parviflora Roxb. C W
Family: Meliaceae
31 Nim Azadirachta indica A. Juss. R W
32 Roina Aphanamixis polystachya R W
(Wall.) R.N.
33 Pia Toona ciliata J. Roem C W
34 Chikrassi Chikrassia tabularis Juss R W
Family: Moraceae
35 Asathwa Ficus religiosa L. C W
36 Bot Ficus bengalensis L. C W
37 Chambal Artocarpus chaplasha Roxb. R W
38 Kathal Artocarpus heterophyllus C W
Lamk.
39 Chapalish Artocarpus chaplasha Roxb. C W
40 Pakur Fiscus benjamina L.var. C W
comusa (Roxb.) Kurz.
34
41 Sheora Streblus asper (Lour.) VC W
Family: Myrtaceae
42 Jam Syzygium grandis (Wt.) Wall. R W
Family: Rubiaceae
43 Bhutum Hymenodictyon excelsum C W
Wall.
44 Kaika Adina cordifolia Benth & Hook C W
45 Kadam Anthocephalus chinensis R W
(Lam.) Rich.
Family: Rutaceae
46 Bajna Zanthoxylum rhetsa (Roxb) R W
47 Bel Aegle marmelos (L.) R W
48 Matkila Glycosmis arborea DC. C W
Family: Sapindaceae
49 Joyna Schleichera oleosa (Lour.) R W
Oken.
Family: Sterculiaceae
50 Ulatkambal Abroma augusta L. R W
51 Janglibadam Sterculia foetida L. C W
Family: Verbenaceae
52 Segun Tectona grandis L. f. C P
53 Gamari Gmelina arborea L. C P

Table 5.6: List of trees identified in AF with their status:

Family: Caricaceae
01 Pepey Carica papaya L. VC P
Family: Dipterocarpaceae
02 Sal/Gajari Shorea robusta Gaertn R W
Family: Leguminosae
03 Akashmoni Acacia auriculiformis VC P
04 Mangium Acacia mangium VC P
Family: Moraceae
05 Bot Ficus bengalensis L. R W
Family: Myrtaceae
06 Eucalyptus Eucalyptus camaldulensis C P
Family: Verbenaceae
07 Gamari Gmelina arborea L. C P

35
In Case of Trees
Species Composition
A total of 53 species of trees were observed belonging to 23 families in NF and 7 species
of trees were observed belonging to 6 families in AF. Fig. 5.9 shows the no. of different
species of trees observed in NF and AF.

NF
53 AF
Fig. 5.9: No. of different species of trees observed in NF and AF.

5.1.2.4 Climbers
The species of climbers observed in NF and AF are presented below with their status:

Table 5.7: List of climbers identified in NF with their status.

Family: Acanthaceae
01 Nillata Thunbergia grandiflora Roxb. C W
Family: Compositae
02 Assam lata Mikania scandens VC W
Family: Smilacaceae
03 Kumari lata Smilax zeylanica L. VC W
Family: Dioscoreaceae
04 Kukur alu Dioscorea pubera Bl. C W
05 Chupri alu Dioscorea alata L. C W
Family: Vitaceae
06 Harjora Vitis quadrangularis Wall. C W
07 Amal lata Vitis trifolia L. VC W
Family: Palmae
08 Bet Calamus rotung Willd. C P
36
Table 5.8: List of climbers identified in AF with their status.

Sl. Common Scientific name Present Species
No. name status type
Family: Acanthaceae
01 Nillata Thunbergia grandiflora Roxb. C W
Family: Compositae
02 Assam lata Mikania cordata (Burm. f.) VC W
Roxb.
Family: Vitaceae
03 Amal lata Vitis trifolia L. VC W

In Case of Climbers
Species Composition
A total of 8 species of climbers were observed belonging to 6 families in NF and 3 species
of climbers were observed belonging to 3 families in AF. Fig. 5.10 shows the no. of
different species of climbers observed in NF and AF.

3
NF
8
AF
Fig. 5.10: No. of different species of climbers observed in NF and AF.

37
The total number of different species of flora (herbs, shrubs, trees and climbers)
observed in NF and AF is shown in fig. 5.11.

55 53
50
45
40
35
30 NF
25 23 AF
20
15
10
5 8 7 8
5 3 3
0
Herb Shrub Tree Climber

Fig. 5.11: Total no. of different species of flora observed in NF and AF.

38

Fig. 5.12: Tangail‐Mymensingh road beside the natural forest.

Fig. 5.13: View of natural forest.

Fig. 5.14: Tree has been cut from the natural forest.
39

Fig. 5.15: View of agro‐forest.

Fig. 5.16: View of agro‐forest after crop plantation.

Fig. 5.17: Encroachment in agro‐forest after crop harvest.
40

Fig. 5.18: Ban ghagra (Urena lobata) Fig. 5.19: Lajjabati (Mimosa pudica)

Fig. 5.20: Bhant (Clerodendrum viscosum) Fig. 5.21: Satthi (Curcuma zeoderia)
41

Fig. 5.22: Anarash (Ananas comosus) Fig. 5.23: Chotto Kalkesunde (Cassia
obtusifolia)

Fig. 5.24: Ban tezpata (Melastoma Fig. 5.25: Kurchi (Holarrhena
malabathricum) antidysenterica)
42

Fig. 5.26: Amrah (Spondias pinnata) Fig. 5.27: Segun (Tectona grandis)

Fig. 5.28: Bohera (Terminalia belerica) Fig. 5.29: Chalta (Dellenia indica)
43

Fig. 5.30: Shal (Shorea robusta) Fig. 5.31: Bot (Ficus bengalensis)

Fig. 5.32: Sinduri (Mallotus phillippensis) Fig. 5.33: Pia (Toona ciliata)

44

Fig. 5.34: Pepey (Carica papaya) Fig. 5.35: Akashmoni (Acacia auriculiformis)

Fig. 5.36: Bash (Bambusa spp.) Fig. 5.37: Bara Kalkesunda (Cassia siamea)
45

Fig. 5.38: Assam lata (Mikania scandens) Fig. 5.39: Bet (Calamus rotung)

Fig. 5.40: Kanchan (Bauhinia acuminata) Fig. 5.41: Amal lata (Vitis trifolia)
46
5.1.3 Fauna Results

A variety of species of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals were observed with
their status in NF and AF during the study periods which are presented below.

5.1.3.1 Amphibians
The species of amphibians (Class: Amphibia) observed in NF and AF are presented below
with their status:

Table 5.9: List of amphibians identified in NF with their status.

Sl. No. Common name/Bengali name Scientific name Present status
Family: Bufonidae
01 Common toad/Kuno bang Bufo melanostictus VC
Family: Rhacophoridae
02 Tree frog/Gecho bang Rhacophorus leucomystax C
Family: Ranidae
03 Indian bull frog/Kula bang Rana tigrina C
04 Skipper frog/Kotkoti bang Rana cyanophlyctis C
Family: Microhylidae
05 Ballon frog/Phutka bang Uperodon globolosum R

Table 5.10: List of amphibians identified in AF with their status:

Sl. No. Common name/Bengali name Scientific name Present status
Family: Bufonidae
01 Common toad/Kuno bang Bufo melanostictus VC
Family: Rhacophoridae
02 Tree frog/Gecho bang Rhacophorus leucomystax R
Family: Ranidae
03 Indian bull frog/Kula bang Rana tigrina C

47
In Case of Amphibians
Species Composition
A total of 5 species of amphibians were observed belonging to 4 families in NF and 3
species of amphibians were observed belonging to 3 families in AF. Fig. 5.42 shows the
no. of different species of amphibians observed in NF and AF.

3
5 NF
AF
Fig. 5.42: No. of different species of amphibians observed in NF and AF.

5.1.3.2 Reptiles
The species of reptiles (Class: Reptilia) observed in NF and AF are presented below with
their status:

Table 5.11: List of reptiles identified in NF with their status.

Sl. Common name/Bengali name Scientific name Present
No. status
Family: Varanidae
01 Bengal monitor lizard/Gui shap Varanus bengalensis VC
Family: Agamidae
02 Garden lizard/Raktachusha Calotes versicolor VC
Family: Elaphidae
03 Bengal cobra/Gokhra Naja naja kaouthia R
Lesson
Family: Colubridae
04 Common bronze‐back tree Dendrelaphis tristis C
snake/Gecho shap
05 Rat snake/Daraj Ptyas mucosus C
Family: Gekkonidae
06 Wall lizard/Tokkhak Gecko gecko C
48
Table 5.12: List of reptiles identified in AF with their status.

No. status
Family: Varanidae
01 Bengal monitor lizard/Gui shap Varanus bengalensis R
Family: Agamidae
02 Garden lizard/Raktachusha Calotes versicolor C
Family: Gekkonidae
03 Wall lizard/Tokkhak Gecko gecko R

In Case of Reptiles
Species Composition
A total of 6 species of reptiles were observed belonging to 5 families in NF and 3 species
of reptiles were observed belonging to 3 families in AF. Fig. 5.43 shows the no. of
different species of reptiles observed in NF and AF.

3
6 NF
AF
Fig. 5.43: No. of different species of reptiles observed in NF and AF.

49
5.1.3.3 Birds
The species of birds (Class: Aves) observed in NF and AF are presented below with their
status:

Table 5.13: List of birds identified in NF with their status.
Status codes: VC – very common, C – common, R – rare, r – resident, M – migrant.

No. status
Family: Accipitridae
01 Crested serpent eagle Spilornis cheela VC, r
02 Changeable hawk eagle Spizactus cirrhatus R, r
03 Short‐toad eagle Circaetus gallicus R, r
Family: Alaudidae
04 Assam winged bush Mirafra asamica C, r
Family: Apodidae
05 Palm swift/Nakkati Cypsiurus parvus VC, r
Family: Artamidae
06 Ashy swallow‐shrike Artamus fuscus VC, r
Family: Campephagidae
07 Common wood shrike Tephrodornis pondicerianus VC, r
08 Large cuckoo shrike Coracina macei C, r
09 Small minivet Pericrocotus cinnamomeus VC, r
Family: Capitonidae
10 Lineated barbet Megalaima lineata VC, r
11 Coppersmith barbet Megalaima haemacephala VC, r
Family: Charadriidae
12 Fantail snipe Gallinago gallinago VC, M
Family: Columbidae
13 Red turtle dove/Lal ghughu Streptopelia tranquebarica C, r
14 Spotted dove/Tila ghogho Streptopelia chinensis VC, r
15 Emerald dove/Shabuj ghogho Chalcophaps indica R, r
Family: Coraciidae
16 Indian roller/Nil kanta Coracias bengalensis C, r
Family: Corvidae
17 Indian tree pie Dendrocitta vagabunda VC, r
Family: Cuculidae
18 Brain‐fever bird Cuculus varius VC
19 Indian cuckoo Cuculus micropterus C
20 Rufous‐bellied plaintive cuckoo Cacomantis merulinus C
21 Koel/Kokil Eudynamys scolopacea VC
22 Large green‐billed malkoha/Ban Rhopodytes tristis C, r
kokil
50
Family: Dicruridae
23 Black drongo/Feocha Dicrurus adsimilis VC, r
24 Bronzed drongo/Vutraj Dicrurus aeneus C, r
25 Hairy‐crested drongo/Jhutidar Dicrurus hottentotus C, r
fingay
26 Spangled drongo Dicrurus hottentottus C
Family: Irenidae
27 Common iora Aegithina tiphia VC, r
28 Goldenfronted chloropsis Chloropsis aurifrons C, r
Family: Lanidae
29 Brown shrike Lanius cristatus VC, M
Family: Meropidae
30 Green bee‐eater Merops orientalis VC
31 Chestnut headed bee‐eater Merops leschenaulti C
Family: Muscicapidae
32 Red‐breasted flycatcher Muscicapa parva VC, r
33 Black napped flycatcher Hypothymis azurea C, r
34 Dark‐sided flycatcher Muscicapa sibirica R
35 Yellow breasted babbler Macronous gularis C, r
36 Jungle babbler Turdoides striatus C, r
37 Streaked fantail warbler Cisticola juncidis VC, r
38 Tailor bird/Tuntuni Orthotomus sutorius VC, r
39 Blyth’s reed warbler Acrocephalus dumetorum VC
40 Magpie‐robin/Doel Copsychus saularis VC, r
41 Shama Copsychus malabaricus C
42 Orange headed ground thrush Zoothera citrina C, r
Family: Oriolidae
43 Black headed oriole Oriolus xanthornus VC, r
Family: Paridae
44 Grey tit Parus frontalis C, r
Family: Phasianidae
45 Red jungle fowl Gallus gallus R, r
Family: Picidae
46 Rufous wood‐pecker/Kath Micropternus brachyurus C, r
thokra
47 Grey‐crowned pygmy wood‐ Dendrocopos canicapillus R
pecker
48 Lesser golden‐backed wood‐ Dinopium bengalensis VC, r
pecker/Kath thokra
49 Fulvous‐breasted pied wood‐ Picoides macei VC, r
pecker/Kath thokra
Family: Ploceidae
50 House sparrow Passer domesticus VC, r
Family: Psittacidae
51 Roseringed parakeet/Tia Psittacula krameri VC, r
52 Red‐breasted parakeet/Tuta Psittacula alexandri C, r
51
Family: Pycnonotidae
53 Red‐whiskered bulbul Pycnonotus jacosus VC, r
54 Red‐vented bulbul Pycnonotus cafer VC, r
Family: Sturnidae
55 Chestnut‐tailed starling/Kath Sturnus malabaricus VC, r
shalik
56 Pied myna/Goshalik Sturnus contra VC, r
57 Common myna/Shalik Acridotheres tristis VC, r
58 Jungle myna/Ban shalik Acridotheres fuscus VC, r
Family: Strigidae
59 Brown wood owl Strix leptogrammica R, r
60 Brown fish owl Bubo zeylonensis R
61 Spotted owlet/Kotre pecha Athene brama VC, r

Table 5.14: List of birds identified in AF with their status.
Status codes: VC – very common, C – common, R – rare, r – resident, M – migrant.

No. status
Family: Columbidae
01 Red turtle dove/Lal ghughu Streptopelia tranquebarica C, r
02 Spotted dove Streptopelia chinensis C, r
Family: Cuculidae
03 Koel/Kokil Eudynamys scolopacea VC
Family: Dicruridae
04 Hairy‐crested drongo/Jhutidar Dicrurus hottentotus R, r
fingay
Family: Meropidae
05 Green bee‐eater Merops orientalis VC
Family: Muscicapidae
06 Red‐breasted flycatcher Muscicapa parva C, r
07 Tailor bird/Tuntuni Orthotomus sutorius C, r
08 Magpie‐robin/Doel Copsychus saularis VC, r
09 Shama Copsychus malabaricus C
Family: Picidae
10 Rufous wood‐pecker/Kath Micropternus brachyurus C, r
thokra
11 Lesser golden‐backed wood‐ Dinopium benglensis VC, r
pecker/Kath thokra
12 Fulvous‐breasted pied wood‐ Picoides macei C, r
pecker/Kath thokra
Family: Ploceidae
13 House sparrow Passer domesticus VC, r
Family: Psittacidae
14 Roseringed parakeet/Tia Psittacula krameri R, r
52
Family: Pycnonotidae
15 Red‐whiskered bulbul Pycnonotus jacosus C, r
16 Red‐vented bulbul Pycnonotus cafer C, r
Family: Sturnidae
17 Grey headed myna/Kath shalik Sturnus malabaricus C, r
18 Pied myna/Goshalik Sturnus contra VC, r
19 Common myna/Shalik Acridotheres tristis VC, r
Family: Strigidae
20 Brown wood owl Strix leptogrammica R, r
21 Spotted owlet/Kotre pecha Athene brama C, r

In Case of Birds
Species Composition
A total of 61 species of birds were observed belonging to 25 families in NF and 21
species of birds were observed belonging to 11 families in AF. Fig. 5.44 shows the no. of
different species of birds observed in NF and AF.

21
NF
61
AF
Fig. 5.44: No. of different species of birds observed in NF and AF.

53
5.1.3.4 Mammals
The species of mammals (Class: Mammalia) observed in NF and AF are presented below
with their status:

Table 5.15: List of mammal identified in NF with their status.

Sl. Common name/Bengali name Scientific name Present status
No.
Family: Cercopithecidae
01 Capped langur/ Mukhpora Trachypithecus pileatus C
Hanuman
02 Rhesus monkey/Banor Macaca mulatta R
Family: Sciuridae
03 Hoary‐bellied Himalayan Callosciurus pygerythrus C
squirrel/Badami kathbirali
Family: Canidae
04 Jackel/ Shial Canis aureus R
05 Bengal fox Vulpes bengalensis R
Family: Felidae
06 Leopard cat/ Ban Biral Prionailurus bengalensis R
07 Jungle cat Felis chaus R
Family: Hystricidae
08 Indian crestless porcupine/Sajaru Hystrix hodgsonil R
Family: Muridae
09 Indian field mouse/Metho indur Mus booduga C
10 Long tailed tree mouse Vandeleuria oleracea C
Family: Pteropide
11 Flying fox/Badur Pteropus giganteus R
Family: Herpestidae
12 Common mongoose/Bara benji Herpestes edwardsi C

Table 5.16: List of mammals identified in AF with their status.

Sl. Common name/Bengali name Scientific name Present status
No.
Family: Canidae
01 Jackel/ Shial Canis aureus R
Family: Muridae
02 Indian field mouse/Metho indur Mus booduga R
Family: Pteropide
03 Flying fox/Badur Pteropus giganteus R
54
Family: Herpestidae
04 Common mongoose/Bara benji Herpestes edwardsi R

In Case of Mammals
Species Composition
A total of 12 species of mammals were observed belonging to 8 families in NF and 4
species of mammals were observed belonging to 4 families in AF. Fig. 5.45 shows the no.
of different species of mammals observed in NF and AF.

4
NF
12
AF
Fig. 5.45: No. of different species of mammals observed in NF and AF.

The total no. of different species of fauna (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals)
observed in NF and AF is shown in Fig. 5.46.

65 61
60
55
50
45
40
35 NF
30
25 21 AF
20
15 12
10 6 3
5 5 3 4
0
Amphibian Reptile Bird Mammal
Fig. 5.46: Total no. of different species of fauna observed in NF and AF.

55

Fig.5.47: Indian bull frog (Rana tigrina)

Fig. 5.48: Bengal monitor lizard (Varanus bengalensis)

Fig. 5.49: Common bronze‐back tree snake (Dendrelaphis tristis)
56

Fig. 5.50: Black headed oriole (Oriolus xanthornus)

Fig. 5.51: Chestnut‐tailed starling (Sturnus malabaricus)

Fig. 5.52: Crested serpent eagle (Spilornis cheela)
57

Fig. 5.53: Dark‐sided flycatcher (Muscicapa sibirica)

Fig. 5.54: Grey‐crowned pygmy wood‐pecker (Dendrocopos canicapillus)

Fig. 5.55: Lesser golden‐backed wood‐pecker (Dinopium bengalensis)
58

Fig. 5.56: Large cuckoo shrike (Coracina macei)

Fig. 5.57: Spangled drongo (Dicrurus hottentottus)

Fig. 5.58: Coppersmith barbet (Megalaima haemacephala)
59

Fig. 5.59: Lineated barbet (Megalaima lineata)

Fig. 5.60: Small minivet (Pericrocotus cinnamomeus)

Fig. 5.61: Brain‐fever bird (Cuculus varius)
60

Fig. 5.62: Emarald dove (Chalcophaps indica)

Fig. 5.63: Spotted dove (Streptopelia chinensis)

Fig. 5.64: A pair of Common Mayna (Acridotheres tristis)

61

Fig. 5.65: Capped langur (Trachypithecus pileatus)

Fig. 5.66: Hoary‐bellied Himalayan squirrel (Callosciurus pygerythrus)

Fig. 5.67: Leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis)
62
5.2 Discussion

From the soil analysis of natural forest (NF) and agroforest (AF) it is found that, the
maximum and the minimum soil pH of NF were 5.5 and 4.6 respectively and the
maximum and the minimum soil pH of AF were 7.1 and 4.4 respectively in August, 2006.
Again the maximum and the minimum soil pH of NF were 4.9 and 4.0 respectively and
the maximum and the minimum soil pH of AF were 6.5 and 4.2 respectively in February,
2007. It is clearly found that, the soil of AF was more basic than the soil of NF. In AF
fertilizer is used for more production of crops. As a result, the soil of AF was more basic
than the soil of NF. But the specialists suggested that, acidic soil is better for the growth
of Sal coppices.

The maximum and the minimum iron (Fe) content of NF were 465.08 ppm and 160.08 ppm
respectively and the maximum and the minimum iron content of AF were 579.36 ppm and
138.49 ppm respectively in August, 2006. Again, the maximum and the minimum iron
content (Fe) of NF were 419.23 ppm and 102.84 ppm respectively and the maximum and
the minimum iron content of AF were 256.41 ppm and 30.41 ppm respectively in February,
2007. It is found that, the iron (Fe) content of the soil of AF was more than the soil of NF in
August, 2006. But the iron (Fe) content of the soil of NF was more than the soil of AF in
February, 2007.

The maximum and the minimum soil organic matter of NF were 2.75% and 0.91%
respectively and the maximum and the minimum soil organic matter of AF were 2.72% and
0.87% respectively in August, 2006. Again, the maximum and the minimum soil organic
matter of NF were 2.70% and 0.91% respectively and the maximum and the minimum soil
organic matter of AF were 2.72% and 0.72% respectively in February, 2007. It is found that,
the organic matter of the soil of NF was more than the soil of AF. The number of the
varieties of species of flora (e.g. herbs, shrubs, trees & climbers) of NF is more than that of
AF. As a result, the rotten leaves of the plants enrich the soil organic matter of NF more
than that of AF.

63
A total of 23 species of herbs were observed belonging to 15 families in NF and 5 species
of herbs were observed belonging to 5 families in AF. A total of 8 species of shrubs were
observed belonging to 8 families in NF and 3 species of shrubs were observed belonging
to 3 families in AF. A total of 53 species of trees were observed belonging to 23 families
in NF and 7 species of trees were observed belonging to 6 families in AF. A total of 8
species of climbers were observed belonging to 6 families in NF and 3 species of climbers
were observed belonging to 3 families in AF. The number of different species of herbs,
shrubs, trees & climbers of NF was more than that of AF. In NF there are wide varieties
plants which indicate the richness of species of flora. There are some medicinal plants also
in NF. The fruits, leaves, flowers, barks of plants of NF provide food and medicine to
human beings as well as other living beings. The NF also provides a good quality of
timber too which is used to make different constructions. Different types of birds make
their nest in NF. On the other hand, in AF there are a few varieties of species of herbs,
shrubs, trees and climbers. AF provides the demand of food and timber but there is a
lack of richness of species diversity. So it is clearly found that, the biodiversity of NF was
richer than the biodiversity of AF.

During the study period the status of herbs, shrubs, trees and climbers were observed in NF
and AF. The status of herbs, shrubs, trees and climbers are shown in Fig. 5.68, Fig. 5.69, Fig.
5.70 and Fig. 5.71 respectively. The status codes are very common (VC), common (C) and
rare (R)

64
13% 0%
39% VC 40% VC
48% C 60% C
R R

(a) (b)
Fig. 5.68: Species status of herbs in NF (a) and AF (b).

13% 33% 0%
49% VC VC
38% C 67% C
R R

(a) (b)
Fig. 5.69: Species status of shrubs in NF (a) and AF (b).

8% 29%
47% VC 42% VC
45% C C
29%
R R

(a) (b)
Fig. 5.70: Species status of trees in NF (a) and AF (b).

0% 33% 0%
38% VC VC
62% C 67% C
R R

(a) (b)
Fig. 5.71: Species status of climbers in NF (a) and AF (b).

65
A total of 5 species of amphibians were observed belonging to 4 families in NF and 3
species of amphibians were observed belonging to 3 families in AF. A total of 6 species
of reptiles were observed belonging to 5 families in NF and 3 species of reptiles were
observed belonging to 3 families in AF. A total of 58 species of birds were observed
belonging to 25 families in NF and 21 species of birds were observed belonging to 11
families in AF. A total of 10 species of mammals were observed belonging to 8 families in
NF and 4 species of mammals were observed belonging to 4 families in AF. The number
of different species of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals of NF was more than
that of AF. Normally, human encroachment in AF is more than that of NF. This is why;
different species of fauna does not live in AF. As AF is used for commercial purposes, it is
not suitable place for the different species of fauna. So it is also found that, the
biodiversity of NF was richer than the biodiversity of AF.

During the study period the status of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals were
observed in NF and AF. The status of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are shown in
Fig. 5.72, Fig. 5.73, Fig. 5.74 and Fig. 5.75 respectively. The status codes are very common
(VC), common (C), rare (R), resident (r) and migrant (M).

66
20% 20% 33% 34%
VC VC
60% C 33% C
R R

(a) (b)
Fig. 5.72: Species status of amphibians in NF (a) and AF (b).

17% 33% 0% 33%

VC VC
50% C 67% C
R R

(a) (b)
Fig. 5.73: Species status of reptiles in NF (a) and AF (b).

VC VC
30% 18%
43% C 46% C
2%7% 18% R 28% R
0%
8% M
M
r r

(a) (b)
Fig. 5.74: Species status of birds in NF (a) and AF (b).

0% 0%
58% 42% VC VC
C 100% C
R R

(a) (b)
Fig. 5.75: Species status of mammals in NF (a) and AF (b).
67
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Conclusion

Comparative study between natural forest (NF) and agroforest (AF) of Madhupur Sal
Forest area were studied. From the study it is found that, the soil of AF was more basic
than the soil of NF. The iron (Fe) content of the soil of AF was more than the soil of NF in
August, 2006. But the iron (Fe) content of the soil of NF was more than the soil of AF in
February, 2007. The organic matter of the soil of NF was more than the soil of AF. The
number of different species of herbs, shrubs, trees & climbers of NF was more than that of
AF. The number of different species of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals of NF
was also more than that of AF, so it is clearly found that, the biodiversity both flora and
fauna of NF was richer than the biodiversity of AF. The impact of agroforestry is
enormous for wildlife and biodiversity.

6.2 Recommendations

1. There is an urgent need to increase the utilization of indigenous species of plants
for fruit, timber, medicine etc.
2. Agroforestry should not be practiced by clear cutting the indigenous species of
natural forest.
3. The plantation of indigenous species instead of exotic species may be helpful for
sustainable environment.
4. Though agroforest provides food and timber, it causes the loss of biodiversity, so
it should not be practiced by destroying natural forest.
5. Natural forest should be conserved by the implementation of laws, making local
people understand the importance of natural forest.
6. The Forest Department should take proper initiative to conserve natural forest
by reforestation using indigenous species.
7. Agroforestry on participatory approach helps the poor people to eliminate
poverty as well as it helps the economic development of the country. Therefore,
it should be practiced in barren land or private land but not destroying the
natural forest.
68

8. The biodiversity of natural forest should be conserved for the ecological balance
of the environment.

6.3 Limitations

1. There was a limitation of time to complete the study. The study had to be
completed within a short period of time.
2. There was no financial support to complete the study. If financial support was
available the study would be done more successfully.

69
References

Ali, S. and Ripley, S.D. 1983. A pictorial guide to the birds of the Indian Subcontinent.
Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay.

Ali, S. and Ripley, S.D. 1987. Compact handbook of the birds of India and Pakistan
together with those of Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka. Oxford University
Press, Delhi.

Ali, S. 1979 and 1996. The book of Indian birds. Bombay Wat History Society, Bombay.

Anonymous. 1992. Forestry Master Plan. Ministry of Environment and Forest,
Government of Bangladesh. UNDP/FAO/BGD 88/25.

Banglapedia. 2003. National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh. Asiatic Society of Bangladesh,
Dhaka.

CBD (1992). Convention on Biological Diversity. Text and Annexes, the Interim
Secretariat for the CBD Geneva Executive Centre.

Cerney, W. 1975. A field guide in colour to birds. Octopus Books Ltd., London.

Farooque, M. and Hasan S.R. 2004. Laws regulating environment in Bangladesh. 2nd ed.
Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA), Dhaka. pp.450‐476.

Fosberg, F.R. 1967. A classification of vegetation for general purposes. In Guide to the
check sheet for IBP areas. G.F. Peterken (editor). IBP Handbook No. 4. Blackwell
Scientific Publications, Oxford and Edinburgh, pp. 73‐133.

Gain P. 1998. The last forests of Bangladesh. Society for Environment and Human
Development (SEHD), North Dhanmondi, Dhaka.

Garret, H. E., Rietveld, W. J. and Fisher, R. F. (eds). 2000. North American agroforestry:
An integrated science and practice. American Society of Agronomy, Inc. Madison, WI.

70
Harvey, W.G. 1990. Birds in Bangladesh. University press limited, Motijheel C/A, Dhaka.

Hossain, M.K. 2005. Threatened forest genetic resources and strategies for conservation
in Bangladesh. The International Forestry Review. Forests in the Balance: Linking
Tradition and Technology. XXII IUFRO World Congress, Brisbane, Australia.

Huq, A.M. 1986. Plant names of Bangladesh. Bangladesh National Herbarium (BARC),
Dhanmondi, Dhaka.

Huyman, P., Marchant, J. and Prater, T. 1986. Shorebirds. An identification guide to the
waters of the world. Christhpher Helm, London.

Khan, M.A.R. 1982. Wildlife of Bangladesh: A checklist. University of Dhaka, Dhaka.

Khan, M.H. 1998. Taxonomy and ecology of the birds in Tangail. M.Sc. Thesis (non
published), Department of Zoology, Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka.

Khan, M.A.R. 1987. Bangladesher banyaprani (wildlife of Bangladesh). Vol. 2. Bangla
Academy, Dhaka.

Kumar B.M. 2006. “Agroforestry: the new old paradigm for Asian food security‐A
review”, Journal of Tropical Agriculture. 44 (1‐2): 1‐14.

Laakso, A. and Tyynela, T. 2006. “Non‐wood forest benefits and agroforestry practices in
the Fouta Djallon Highlands of Guinea”. Nordic Journal of African Studies. 15(4): 579–
590.

McNeely, J.A. 1991. The sinking arc: Pollution and theworldwide loss of biodiversity.
Conservation Biology. Vol. 8.No. 3. P. 3‐17.

McNeely, J.A. 2004. “Nature vs. nature: managing relationships between forests,
agroforestry and wild biodiversity”. Journal of Agroforestry Systems. 61‐62(1‐3).

Muhammed, N., Koike, M., Sajjaduzzaman, M. and Sophanarith, K. 2005. “Reckoning
social forestry in Bangladesh: policy and plan versus implementation”. Oxford
71
Journals. 78(4):373‐383. http://forestry.oxfordjournals.org/misc/terms.shtml

Nath, T. K., Inoue, M. and Myant, H. 2005. “Small‐scale agroforestry for upland
community development: a case study from Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh”.
Journal of Forest Research. 10 (6): 443‐452

Neupane, R. P. and Thapa, G. B., 2001. “Impact of agroforestry intervention on farm
income under the subsistence farming system of the middle hills, Nepal”.
J. Agroforestry Systems. 53(1): 31‐37.

Nishat, A., Huq, S.M.I., Barua, S.P. and Khan, A.S.M. 2002. Bioecological zones of
Banlgaldesh. IUCN country office, Dhaka, Bangladesh. 141p.

Partha, P. 2003. Madhupurer pran boichitroy (biodiversity of Madhupur Tract). BARCIK,
Lalmatia, Dhaka.

Piper, G.S. 1950. Soil and plant analysis. Adeliade University Press, Australia.

PROSHIKA. 1995. Social forestry in Modhupur Garh: Problems and prospects. Dhaka,
Bangladesh.

Rahman M. M. 2004. “Ecological studies on some important physical properties in soils
of major Sal forests in Bangladesh”. Journal of Environmental Science (Dhaka). Vol. 2,
pp. 81‐88.

Rahman, P.S. 2001, Udvid poribeshtatta o udvid bhugul (plant ecology and plant
geography). Banglabazar, Dhaka.

Reza, N.A., Kibria, M.G., Wahidullah, A.K.M., Chowdhury, M.H., Rahman, A. and Islam,
S.S. 1992. Forest Statistics of Bangladesh. Bulletin‐3, Forest Economics and Statistics
Division, Bangladesh Forest Research Institute, Chittagong, Bangladesh. 112p.

Ruark, G.A., Schoeneberger, M.M. and Nair, P.K.R. 2003. Roles for agroforestry in helping
to achieve sustainable forest management. UNFF Intersessional Experts Meeting on
the Role of Planted Forests in Sustainable Forest Management, New Zealand.
72

Sinha, P., Roy, S.K. 2005. Propagation and silviculture of two forest trees, Shorea robusta
and Dipterocarpus turbinatus, for restoration of a sustainable forest ecosystem. The
International Forestry Review. Forests in the Balance: Linking Tradition and
Technology. XXII IUFRO World Congress, Brisbane, Australia.

Shukla, R.S. and Chandel, P.S. 2000. Plant ecology and soil science. 9th ed. S. Chand &
Company Ltd. Ram Nagar, New Delhi.

Thiollay J. M., 1995. The Role of Traditional Agroforests in the Conservation of Rain
Forest Bird Diversity in Sumatra. Conservation Biology, 9(2): 335‐353

White, R. and Ali, M.O. 1979. Research objectives. Field Document No. 2. Bangladesh
Forest research Institute, Chittagong, Bangladesh. 88p.

73
Appendices

Appendix I: The maximum (Max.) and minimum (Min.) temperature (Temp.) of the study
Month Max. Temp. (°C) Min. Temp. (°C)
July 32.7 26.4
August 32.9 25.9
September 32.5 25.5
October 32.8 23.6
November 29.3 18.5
December 26.5 13.4
January 23.8 10.2
February 24.9 15.1

Appendix II: Total rainfall of the study area from July 2006 to February 2007.
Month Total Rainfall (mm)
July 2754
August 2075
September 3927
October 313
November 6
December 0
January 0
February 401

Appendix III: The maximum (Max.) and minimum (Min.) relative humidity (R.H.) of the
study area from July 2006 to February 2007.
Month Max. R. H. (%) Min. R. H. (%)
July 98 53
August 98 54
September 100 52
October 99 40
November 99 27
December 100 32
January 100 23
February 100 27

74
Appendix IV: Soil pH of NF and AF in August, 2006.
Sample No. Soil pH
NF AF
01 5.5 4.4
02 5.3 7.1
03 4.9 4.5
04 4.7 5.0
05 5.0 4.9
06 4.6 4.9
07 5.1 4.8
08 5.0 4.9
09 5.3 5.0
10 4.6 4.9

Appendix V: Soil pH of NF and AF in February, 2007.
Sample No. Soil pH
NF AF
01 4.7 4.2
02 4.5 6.5
03 4.9 6.3
04 4.8 4.6
05 4.8 6.4
06 4.2 6.0
07 4.3 4.7
08 4.5 4.5
09 4.2 4.5
10 4.0 4.9

Appendix VI: Soil iron (Fe) content of NF and AF in August, 2006.
Sample No. Soil iron content (ppm)
NF AF
01 465.08 579.36
02 273.02 138.49
03 420.65 225.39
04 160.08 193.48
05 265.08 315.87
06 285.71 273.02
07 225.40 433.33
08 181.67 379.36
09 233.33 374.60
10 301.58 390.47

75
Appendix VII: Soil iron (Fe) content of NF and AF in February, 2007.
Sample No. Soil iron content (ppm)
NF AF
01 318.59 248.07
02 344.87 205.77
03 361.54 201.28
04 251.92 212.18
05 150.35 184.39
06 226.92 244.23
07 223.07 210.25
08 337.18 248.13
09 419.23 256.41
10 102.84 30.41

Appendix VIII: Soil organic matter of NF and AF in August, 2006.
Sample No. Soil organic matter (%)
NF AF
01 2.10 2.08
02 2.13 2.72
03 2.75 1.57
04 0.91 1.90
05 1.29 1.82
06 1.10 2.06
07 1.03 1.83
08 1.24 0.87
09 2.12 1.80
10 1.31 1.69

Appendix IX: Soil organic matter of NF and AF in February, 2007.
Sample No. Soil organic matter (%)
NF AF
01 2.00 2.18
02 2.23 2.72
03 2.70 1.87
04 1.91 1.75
05 1.19 1.62
06 1.15 2.16
07 1.13 1.53
08 1.54 1.87
09 2.52 1.85
10 0.91 0.72

76
Appendix X: List of plants which provide food for capped langurs and monkeys.
Sl. No. Local name Scientific name Used parts
01 Joyna Schleichera oleosa Leaves, fruits
02 Ajuli Dellenia pentagyna Leaves, fruits
03 Chapalish Artocarpus chaplasha Fruits
04 Anarash Ananas comosus Fruits
05 Banana Musa spp. Fruits

Appendix XI: List of common plants which food and nesting sites for birds
Sl. Local Scientific name Family name Provide food(F) and
No. name nesting site(N)
01 Koroi Albizzia procera Leguminosae N
02 Kanchan Bauhinia acuminata Leguminosae F, N
03 Akashmoni Acacia auriculiformis Leguminosae F, N
04 Shonalu Cassia fistula Leguminosae F, N
05 Kadam Anthocephalus chinensis Rubiaceae F, N
06 Ajuli Dellenia pentagyna Dillenaceae F, N
07 Jarul Lagerstroemia speciosa Lythraceae N
08 Bot Ficus bengalensis Moraceae F, N
09 Jam Syzygium grandis Myrtaceae F, N
10 Bohera Terminalia belerica Combretaceae F, N
11 Haritaki Terminalia chebula Combretaceae F, N
12 Am Mangifera indica Anacardiaceae F, N
13 Amloki Phyllanthus embelica Euphorbiaceae F, N
14 Gab Diospyros peregrina Ebenaceae F, N
15 Nim Azadirachta indica Meliaceae F, N
16 Shimul Bombax ceiba Bombacaceae F, N

Appendix XII: List of medicinal plants which found in Madhupur Sal forest.
Sl. No. Local name Scientific name Family name
01 Bohera Terminalia belerica Combretaceae
02 Haritaki Terminalia chebula Combretaceae
03 Amloki Phyllanthus embelica Euphorbiaceae
04 Bot Ficus bengalensis Moraceae
05 Kadam Anthocephalus chinensis Rubiaceae
06 Nim Azadirachta indica Meliaceae
07 Shimul Bombax ceiba Bombacaceae
08 Gamari Gmelina arborea Verbenaceae
09 Kathal Artocarpus heterophyllus Moraceae
10 Bel Aegle marmelos Rutaceae
11 Arjun Terminalia arjuna Combretaceae
12 Ulatkambal Abroma augusta Sterculiaceae
13 Chalta Dellenia indica Dillenaceae
77
14 Amrah Spondias pinnata Anacardiaceae
15 Dhutura Datura metel Solanaceae
16 Swarnalata Cuscuta reflexa Convolvulaceae
17 Lajjabati Mimosa pudica Leguminosae
18 Kalomegh Andrographis paniculata Acanthaceae
19 Bashok Adhatoda vasica Acanthaceae

78

B.Sc. Final Project Report (Md. Nazmul Haque, Roll-1295)

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

B.Sc. Final Project Report (Md. Nazmul Haque, Roll-1295)

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

NATURAL FOREST AND AGROFOREST: A COMPARATIVE STUDY IN

3.1 General …………………………………………………………………………………….. 11

3.2 Madhupur Sal Forest ………………………………………………………………… 12

3.2.1 Geographical and Ecological conditions ……………………………………. 12

3.2.2 Topographical conditions ………………………………………………………….. 13

3.3 Climate ……………………………………………………………………………………… 17

3.4 Meteorological Data …………………………………………………………………. 18

3.5 Description of Different Sites ……………………………………………………. 18

3.5.2 Agro‐forest (AF) ………………………………………………………………………… 19

4.1 Materials Used For Soil Collection …………………………………………….. 20

4.2 Methods Used For Soil Analysis ………………………………………………… 20

4.2.1 Collection of the Soil Sample …………………………………………………….. 20

4.2.2 Laboratory Work ………………………………………………………………………. 20

4.2.2.1 Soil pH ………………………………………………………………………………………. 21

4.2.2.2 Soil Iron (Fe) ……………………………………………………………………………… 21

4.2.2.3 Soil Organic Carbon ………………………………………………………………….. 21

4.2.2.4 Soil Organic Matter ………………………………………………………………….. 23

4.3 Materials Used For Observation of Flora and Fauna …………………. 23

4.4 Methods Used For Observation of Flora and Fauna ………………….. 23

4.4.1 Strip Transect Method ………………………………………………………………. 23

4.4.2 Quadrat Method ………………………………………………………………………. 24

4.4.3 Dropping/Calls/Songs ……………………………………………………………….. 24

4.4.4 Collection and Identification …………………………………………………….. 24

4.4.5 Local Information ……………………………………………………………………… 24

4.4.6 Identification of Birds ……………………………………………………………….. 24

4.4.7 Identification of Reptiles and Mammals ……………………………………. 25

4.5 Software …………………………………………………………………………………… 25

5.1 Results ………………………………………………………………………………………. 26

5.1.1 Soil Analysis Results ……………………………………………………………….... 26

5.1.1.1 Soil pH ………………………………………………………………………………………. 26

5.1.1.2 Soil Iron (Fe) ……………………………………………………………………………… 27

5.1.1.3 Soil Organic Matter …………………………………………………………………… 28

5.1.2 Flora Results ……………………………………………………………………………… 29

5.1.2.1 Herbs ………………………………………………………………………………………… 29

5.1.2.2 Shrubs ………………………………………………………………………………………. 31

5.1.2.3 Trees ………………………………………………………………………………………… 33

5.1.2.4 Climbers ……………………………………………………………………………………. 36

5.1.3 Fauna Results ……………………………………………………………………………. 47

5.1.3.1 Amphibians ………………………………………………………………………………. 47

5.1.3.2 Reptiles …………………………………………………………………………………….. 48

5.1.3.3 Birds …………………………………………………………………………………………. 50

5.1.3.4 Mammals ………………………………………………………………………………….. 54

5.2 Discussion …………………………………………………………………………………. 63

6.1 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………… 68

6.2 Recommendations ……………………………………………………………………. 68

6.3 Limitations ……………………………………………………………………………….. 69

Appendix I The maximum (Max.) and minimum (Min.) temperature

Appendix IV Soil pH of NF and AF in August, 2006 ……………………………………….. 75

Appendix V Soil pH of NF and AF in February, 2007 …………………………………….. 75

Appendix VI Soil iron (Fe) content of NF and AF in August, 2006 ………………….. 75

Appendix VII Soil iron (Fe) content of NF and AF in February, 2007 ……………….. 76

Appendix VIII Soil organic matter of NF and AF in August, 2006 …………………….. 76

Appendix IX Soil organic matter of NF and AF in February, 2007 …………………. 76

Appendix X List of plants which provide food for capped langurs and 77

Appendix XI List of common plants which food and nesting sites for birds … 77

Appendix XII: List of medicinal plants which found in Madhupur Sal forest …. 77

Table No. Table Names Page No.

Table 5.1 List of herbs identified in NF with their status 29

Table 5.2 List of herbs identified in AF with their status 30

Table 5.3 List of shrubs identified in NF with their status 31

Table 5.4 List of shrubs identified in AF with their status 32

Table 5.5 List of trees identified in NF with their status 33

Table 5.6 List of trees identified in AF with their status 35