Paper · 2019 · Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry

Community structure and diversity of natural forest along altitudinal gradient and aspects in western Himalaya

Sonam Rajput; CL Thakur; Jayashree Behera

20
claims
34
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

In this present study, we aimed to determine the plant diversity and floristic composition in temperate natural forest of western Himalaya. We selected three altitude range viz., lower, middle and higher altitudinal range on four aspects viz., northern, southern, western and eastern. Oak is the dominant tree species followed by pine in the case of tree species at the study site. Berberis aristata and Sarcococca saligna were dominant shrub species which belong to berberidaceae and buxaceae families. In the case of herb species, Cyperus rotundas and Viola serpens were most dominant herb species which belong to cyperaceae and violaceae families whereas, Arisaema sp. was inferior herb species which belong to araceae family. Higher number of tree and shrub species were observed at lower altitudinal range on western aspect and southern aspect whereas, least number of tree and shrub species were observed at higher altitudinal range on eastern aspect but in the herb species, maximum number were recorded at higher altitudinal range on northern aspect and minimum at lower altitudinal range on eastern aspect. In vegetation indices, tree species diversity ranged from 0.47 to 1.28, simpson’s dominace between 0.51 to .021 and species richness from 1.08 to 0.35 and shrub species diversity ranged between 2.09 to 1.40, simpson’s dominace from 0.98 to 057 and species richness ranged from 2.28 to 1.11. In herbaceous, species diversity ranged from 2.45 to 1.66, simpson’s dominace from 093 to 0.51 and species richness between 2.59 to 1.34. A pattern of tree and shrub species reduced with increasing altitude on all aspect but herb species increased with increasing altitude with all aspects. However, tree and shrub species showed similar trend but herb species showed reversed pattern to the tree and shrub species.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Oak was the dominant tree species at the study site, followed by pine.

Taxon
OakQuercuse0
Outcome
dominant tree speciese0
Comparator
pinee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Quercus
Quercus · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)WikiVagant · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Oak is the dominant tree species followed by pine in the case of tree species at the study site.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 285–381 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Berberis aristata was a dominant shrub species.

Taxon
Berberis aristataBerberis aristatae0
Outcome
dominant shrub speciese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Berberis aristata
Berberis aristata · TaxonP Jeganathan · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Berberis aristata and Sarcococca saligna were dominant shrub species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 382–450 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sarcococca saligna was a dominant shrub species.

Taxon
Sarcococca salignaSarcococca salignae0
Outcome
dominant shrub speciese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Sarcococca saligna
Sarcococca saligna · TaxonDinesh Valke from Thane, India · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Berberis aristata and Sarcococca saligna were dominant shrub species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 382–450 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cyperus rotundas was among the most dominant herbs.

Taxon
Cyperus rotundase0
Outcome
most dominant herb speciese0

Verbatim

e0

“Cyperus rotundas and Viola serpens were most dominant herb species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 533–599 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Viola serpens was among the most dominant herbs.

Taxon
Viola serpense0
Outcome
most dominant herb speciese0

Verbatim

e0

“Cyperus rotundas and Viola serpens were most dominant herb species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 533–599 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Arisaema sp. was an inferior herb species.

Taxon
Arisaema sp.Arisaemae0
Outcome
inferior herb speciese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Arisaema
Arisaema · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Arisaema sp. was inferior herb species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 659–697 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tree and shrub species counts were highest at lower altitude on western and southern aspects.

Taxon
natural forestt0
Outcome
number of tree and shrub speciese0
Direction
Highere0
Setting
lower altitudinal range on western aspect and southern aspecte0

Verbatim

t0

“natural forest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 37–51 · show in text ↑
e0

“Higher number of tree and shrub species were observed at lower altitudinal range on western aspect and southern aspect”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 730–848 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tree and shrub species counts were lowest at higher altitude on the eastern aspect.

Taxon
natural forestt0
Outcome
number of tree and shrub speciese0
Direction
leaste0
Setting
higher altitudinal range on eastern aspecte0

Verbatim

t0

“natural forest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 37–51 · show in text ↑
e0

“least number of tree and shrub species were observed at higher altitudinal range on eastern aspect”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 858–956 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Herb species count was highest at higher altitude on the northern aspect.

Taxon
natural forestt0
Outcome
numbere0
Direction
maximume0
Setting
higher altitudinal range on northern aspecte0

Verbatim

t0

“natural forest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 37–51 · show in text ↑
e0

“in the herb species, maximum number were recorded at higher altitudinal range on northern aspect”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 961–1057 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Herb species count was lowest at lower altitude on the eastern aspect.

Taxon
natural forestt0
Outcome
minimume0
Direction
minimume0
Setting
lower altitudinal range on eastern aspecte0

Verbatim

t0

“natural forest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 37–51 · show in text ↑
e0

“minimum at lower altitudinal range on eastern aspect”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1062–1114 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tree species diversity ranged from 0.47 to 1.28.

Taxon
natural forestt0
Outcome
tree species diversitye0
Value
0.47 to 1.28e0

Verbatim

t0

“natural forest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 37–51 · show in text ↑
e0

“tree species diversity ranged from 0.47 to 1.28”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1139–1186 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tree Simpson dominance ranged from 0.51 to .021.

Taxon
natural forestt0
Outcome
simpson’s dominacee0
Value
0.51 to .021e0

Verbatim

t0

“natural forest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 37–51 · show in text ↑
e0

“simpson’s dominace between 0.51 to .021”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1188–1227 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tree species richness ranged from 1.08 to 0.35.

Taxon
natural forestt0
Outcome
species richnesse0
Value
1.08 to 0.35e0

Verbatim

t0

“natural forest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 37–51 · show in text ↑
e0

“species richness from 1.08 to 0.35”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1232–1266 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Shrub species diversity ranged from 2.09 to 1.40.

Taxon
natural forestt0
Outcome
shrub species diversitye0
Value
2.09 to 1.40e0

Verbatim

t0

“natural forest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 37–51 · show in text ↑
e0

“shrub species diversity ranged between 2.09 to 1.40”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1271–1322 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Shrub Simpson dominance ranged from 0.98 to 057.

Taxon
natural forestt0
Outcome
simpson’s dominacee0
Value
0.98 to 057e0

Verbatim

t0

“natural forest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 37–51 · show in text ↑
e0

“simpson’s dominace from 0.98 to 057”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1324–1359 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Shrub richness ranged from 2.28 to 1.11.

Taxon
natural forestt0
Outcome
species richnesse0
Value
2.28 to 1.11e0

Verbatim

t0

“natural forest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 37–51 · show in text ↑
e0

“species richness ranged from 2.28 to 1.11”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1364–1405 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Herb species diversity ranged from 2.45 to 1.66.

Taxon
natural forestt0
Outcome
species diversitye0
Value
2.45 to 1.66e0

Verbatim

t0

“natural forest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 37–51 · show in text ↑
e0

“In herbaceous, species diversity ranged from 2.45 to 1.66”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1407–1464 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Herb Simpson dominance ranged from 093 to 0.51.

Taxon
natural forestt0
Outcome
simpson’s dominacee0
Value
093 to 0.51e0

Verbatim

t0

“natural forest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 37–51 · show in text ↑
e0

“simpson’s dominace from 093 to 0.51”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1466–1501 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Herb species richness ranged from 2.59 to 1.34.

Taxon
natural forestt0
Outcome
species richnesse0
Value
2.59 to 1.34e0

Verbatim

t0

“natural forest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 37–51 · show in text ↑
e0

“species richness between 2.59 to 1.34”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1506–1543 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tree and shrub species counts declined with altitude, while herb species counts increased.

Taxon
natural forestt0
Outcome
tree and shrub speciese0
Direction
reducede0
Qualifier
herb species increased with increasing altitudee0
Setting
all aspecte0

Verbatim

t0

“natural forest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 37–51 · show in text ↑
e0

“A pattern of tree and shrub species reduced with increasing altitude on all aspect but herb species increased with increasing altitude with all aspects.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1545–1697 · show in text ↑