Claim · model-written summary
The authors interpret the grove as less disturbed, pristine and a climax community relative to adjoining forest.
- Taxon
- forestt0
- Outcome
- less disturbance, pristine nature, and climax communitye0
- Comparator
- non-SG areae0
- Setting
- SGe0
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentDirectionValueQualifier
Verbatim
e0“indicate the less disturbance, pristine nature, and climax community of SG than the non-SG area”
t0“forest”
Title
C Akhil; Chandran; P Sujanapal; et al. Journal of Environmental Science Computer Science and Engineering & Technology 2023. doi:10.24214/jecet.a.12.4.44658
Other claims from this paper (12)
- Observation The study documented 90 flowering plant species in 37 families and 65 genera.
- Observation The sacred grove contained 76 species, including 60 trees, 10 shrubs and 6 climbers.
- Observation The non sacred grove contained 63 species, including 51 trees, 7 shrubs and 5 climbers.
- Observation Rubiaceae was dominant in the sacred grove.
- Observation Ebenaceae and Rubiaceae dominated the non sacred grove.
- Observation Tree density was equal at 2490/ha in both forests.
- Observation Mean stand basal area was higher in the sacred grove at 55.54 m/ha than the non sacred grove at 34.95 m/ha.
- Observation Dipterocarpus indicus was the dominant vegetative constituent in the sacred grove by IVI.
- Observation Polyalthia fragrans was dominant in the non sacred grove.
- Observation The sacred grove had biomass of 471 t/ha.
- Observation The sacred grove had carbon sequestration of 235.46 t/ha.
- Recommendation The authors conclude sacred grove practices preserve forest condition and support secondary growth in adjacent non sacred areas.