Abstract
Species relative dominance by basal area was assessed along an agro ecological gradient in the Mau Forest Complex (MFC). Trees were recorded per species and diameter at breast height (D1.3) for size class D1.3 ≥ 10 cm in 60 quarter hectare plots distributed in 7 agro ecological zones (AEZ) namely LH1, LH2, LH3, LH4, UH0, UH1 and UH2. Basal area per species was used to calculate species relative dominance i.e. the proportion of basal area by a species to the total basal area of the AEZ. Species associations were analysed as the group of highly ranked species in each AEZ. Sorensons similarity index was used to calculate the proportion of similar species among AEZ. Analysis of variance compared basal area among AEZ and Tukey’s multiple comparison test used to identify specific AEZ with differences. Tabernaemontana stapfiana (Britten) was ranked first in LH1, UH1 and UH0 with relative dominance values of 22.66%, 22.89% and 30.73% respectively. It was however not recorded in any other AEZs. Dombeya goetzenii (K. Schum) occurred in 6 of the 7 AEZs but had moderate dominance values in each of the 6 AEZs. The sum of dominance values per species in all AEZs indicated no species mono-dominance and different species dominated at different AEZs. Co-dominance resulted in species associations like Tabernaemontana-Allophylus-Eke-bergia-Albizia in LH1, Juniperus-Dombeya-Casearia-Prunus in LH2, Acokanthera-Cussonia-Olea-Teclea in LH4 and Tabernaemontana-Syzygium-Podocarpus-Neoboutonia in UH1. Species richness was highest in UH1 and had the highest similarity indices with those of other AEZs. The UH1 had a species similarity of 67% with LH1, 63% with LH2 and 56% with LH4. However, species in the very humid zone UH0 differed with those of the drier lower highland zones (UH0 vs LH3 and vs LH4 = 31% and 37% respectively). Basal area differed significantly among AEZ ( = 3.76) showing that they differ in stocking levels. Tukeys test showed that high potential zones of LH1, LH2, UH0, UH1 did not differ and similarly the lower potential zones; LH3 and LH4. The results show that the variation of species and forest stocking in the MFC is strongly influenced by AEZ and proposes future biomass mapping to be done along AEZ.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 20
Claim · model-written summary
Tabernaemontana stapfiana was ranked first in LH1 with a relative dominance of 22.66%.
- Taxon
- Tabernaemontana stapfiana
Tabernaemontana stapfianae1 - Outcome
- relative dominance valuese1
- Value
- 22.66%e1
- Setting
- LH1e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tree Species Dominance”
e1“Tabernaemontana stapfiana (Britten) was ranked first in LH1, UH1 and UH0 with relative dominance values of 22.66%, 22.89% and 30.73% respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Tabernaemontana stapfiana was ranked first in UH1 with a relative dominance of 22.89%.
- Taxon
- Tabernaemontana stapfianaTabernaemontana stapfianae1
- Outcome
- relative dominance valuese1
- Value
- 22.89%e1
- Setting
- UH1e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tree Species Dominance”
e1“Tabernaemontana stapfiana (Britten) was ranked first in LH1, UH1 and UH0 with relative dominance values of 22.66%, 22.89% and 30.73% respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Tabernaemontana stapfiana was ranked first in UH0 with a relative dominance of 30.73%.
- Taxon
- Tabernaemontana stapfianaTabernaemontana stapfianae1
- Outcome
- relative dominance valuese1
- Value
- 30.73%e1
- Setting
- UH0e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tree Species Dominance”
e1“Tabernaemontana stapfiana (Britten) was ranked first in LH1, UH1 and UH0 with relative dominance values of 22.66%, 22.89% and 30.73% respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Tabernaemontana stapfiana was not recorded in any other agro-ecological zone.
- Taxon
- Tabernaemontana stapfianaTabernaemontana stapfianae1
- Outcome
- not recorded in any other AEZse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tree Species Dominance”
e1“Tabernaemontana stapfiana (Britten) was ranked first in LH1, UH1 and UH0 with relative dominance values of 22.66%, 22.89% and 30.73% respectively”
e2“It was however not recorded in any other AEZs”
Claim · model-written summary
Dombeya goetzenii occurred in 6 of the 7 agro-ecological zones.
Verbatim
t0“Tree Species Dominance”
e2“Dombeya goetzenii (K. Schum) occurred in 6 of the 7 AEZs but had moderate dominance values in each of the 6 AEZs”
Claim · model-written summary
Dombeya goetzenii had moderate dominance values in each of the 6 zones where it occurred.
Verbatim
t0“Tree Species Dominance”
e2“Dombeya goetzenii (K. Schum) occurred in 6 of the 7 AEZs but had moderate dominance values in each of the 6 AEZs”
Claim · model-written summary
No tree species was mono-dominant across the agro-ecological zones.
Verbatim
t0“Tree Species Dominance”
e3“The sum of dominance values per species in all AEZs indicated no species mono-dominance and different species dominated at different AEZs”
Claim · model-written summary
Different tree species dominated at different agro-ecological zones.
Verbatim
t0“Tree Species Dominance”
e3“The sum of dominance values per species in all AEZs indicated no species mono-dominance and different species dominated at different AEZs”
Claim · model-written summary
Co-dominance produced tree species associations in LH1, such as Tabernaemontana-Allophylus-Eke-bergia-Albizia.
Verbatim
t0“Tree Species Dominance”
e4“Co-dominance resulted in species associations like Tabernaemontana-Allophylus-Eke-bergia-Albizia in LH1”
Claim · model-written summary
Species richness was highest in UH1, which also had the highest similarity with other zones.
Verbatim
t0“Tree Species Dominance”
e5“Species richness was highest in UH1 and had the highest similarity indices with those of other AEZs”
Claim · model-written summary
UH1 had a species similarity of 67% with LH1.
Verbatim
t0“Tree Species Dominance”
e6“The UH1 had a species similarity of 67% with LH1, 63% with LH2 and 56% with LH4”
Claim · model-written summary
UH1 had a species similarity of 63% with LH2.
Verbatim
t0“Tree Species Dominance”
e6“The UH1 had a species similarity of 67% with LH1, 63% with LH2 and 56% with LH4”
Claim · model-written summary
UH1 had a species similarity of 56% with LH4.
Verbatim
t0“Tree Species Dominance”
e6“The UH1 had a species similarity of 67% with LH1, 63% with LH2 and 56% with LH4”
Claim · model-written summary
Species in the very humid zone UH0 differed from those in LH3, with a similarity of 31%.
Verbatim
t0“Tree Species Dominance”
e7“However, species in the very humid zone UH0 differed with those of the drier lower highland zones (UH0 vs LH3 and vs LH4 = 31% and 37% respectively)”
Claim · model-written summary
Species in the very humid zone UH0 differed from those in LH4, with a similarity of 37%.
Verbatim
t0“Tree Species Dominance”
e7“However, species in the very humid zone UH0 differed with those of the drier lower highland zones (UH0 vs LH3 and vs LH4 = 31% and 37% respectively)”
Claim · model-written summary
Basal area differed significantly among agro-ecological zones.
Verbatim
t0“Tree Species Dominance”
e1“Basal area differed significantly among AEZ”
Claim · model-written summary
High-potential zones LH1, LH2, UH0 and UH1 did not differ in basal area.
Verbatim
t0“Tree Species Dominance”
e1“Tukeys test showed that high potential zones of LH1, LH2, UH0, UH1 did not differ and similarly the lower potential zones; LH3 and LH4”
Claim · model-written summary
Lower-potential zones LH3 and LH4 did not differ from each other in basal area.
Verbatim
t0“Tree Species Dominance”
e1“Tukeys test showed that high potential zones of LH1, LH2, UH0, UH1 did not differ and similarly the lower potential zones; LH3 and LH4”
Claim · model-written summary
Variation of species and forest stocking in the Mau Forest Complex is strongly influenced by agro-ecological zone.
Verbatim
t0“Tree Species Dominance”
e1“the variation of species and forest stocking in the MFC is strongly influenced by AEZ”
Claim · model-written summary
Future biomass mapping should be done along agro-ecological zones.
Verbatim
t0“Tree Species Dominance”
e1“proposes future biomass mapping to be done along AEZ”