|
|
|
Landscape fragmentation & biodiversity conservation
Discussion
Tropical deforestation, degradation and the resultant loss in biodiversity have raised concern among conservationist in the past. The loss of biodiversity has been attributed to habitat shrinkage and fragmentation. North Eastern region of India is important for biodiversity conservation point of view because of its floristic richness and high levels of endemism (Chatterjee, 1939). The impact of fragmentation on biodiversity is significant and its study is crucial for taking corrective measures. This study also provides more consistent and accurate base line information than any of the conventional or satellite based study done so far for the region.
Forest and forest ecosystems of North-east India are under severe pressures, both from biotic and abiotic factors, due to population explosion, encroachments on forest lands, loss of forest cover for other non-forest uses, shifting cultivation practices and degradation caused by illicit felling, lopping for fuelwood & fodder, removal of forest cover for litter, forest fires etc. Given the rich biodiversity of this region, its conservation has become a major challenge. And this study has proved that space technology is providing this information in required and early times and has replaced the elaborate time-consuming land-based surveys. GIS and GPS technologies have been used for determining rich-areas in the region.
Most obvious causes of biodiversity loss in India have been habitat loss, over-exploitation, and introduction of invasive species and lack of national land use policy. The secondary factors which concerns the managers is unsustainably high rates of human population growth and natural resource consumption; inadequate knowledge and insufficient use of information and economic systems and policies that fail to value the environment and its resources.
It may be said that only with this level of understanding of biodiversity the long-term success of conservation policies is assured. The vegetation cover map of the district has provided the basic information for conservation and land use planning of the district. This study has created an information base, which will help design conservation schemes for long-term maintenance of biodiversity. The formulations of a practical conservation policy will involve a fuller consideration of human needs also. Conservation plans need to be so developed that they minimize restrictions on the people of the area. The disturbance map and biological richness map may help to plan and better manage possible nature reserves, to identify and implement buffer zones and to define multi-use areas where predominantly traditional practices can continue.
Table 2: Temporal Forest/Non-forest statistics of Meghalaya
| Land use category |
1980 |
1989 |
1995 |
| Area (Sqkm) |
Area (%) |
Area (Sqkm) |
Area (%) |
Area (Sqkm) |
Area (%) |
| Forest |
15489.28 |
69.06 |
14260.45 |
63.29 |
14157.42 |
63.09 |
| Non forest |
6169.77 |
27.51 |
8128.80 |
36.54 |
8247.55 |
36.80 |
| Cloud Cover |
769.95 |
3.43 |
39.75 |
0.17 |
24.03 |
0.11 |
References
- Anonymous. 2001, Mapping of Large scale Deforestation Sonitpur District (Assam) Assessment of Satellite Remote Sensing, NESAC, Shillong.
- Anonymous. 2001, Biodiversity Characterization of North East India at Landscape level using remote sensing and GIS. Project Report, IIRS, Dehradun.
- Bahera, M.D. 2001, Biodiversity Characterisation at Landscape Level in Subansiri District of Arunachal Pradesh (Eastern Himalaya) using Remote Sensing and GIS. Ph.D. Thesis, Gurukula Kangri University, Haridwar.
- Chatterjee, D. 1939, Studies on the Endemic Flora of India and Burma. J. Asiat. Soc., Bengal 11, 5(3): 19-67.
- Chuvieco, E. 1999, Measuring changes in landscape pattern from satellite images: short-term effects of fire on spatial diversity, Int. J. Remote Sensing, 20 (12):2331-2346.
- Coulson, R.N., C.N. Lovelady, R.O. Flamm, S.L. Spradling & M.C. Saunders. 1990, Intelligent geographic information systems for natural resource management, In: M.G. Turner and R.H. Gadner, eds., Quantitative methods in landscape Ecology, pp. 153-172. Ecological Studies 82 New York: Springler-Verlag.
- Delcourt, H.R. & P.S. Delcourt. 1988, Quaternary landscape ecology: revelant scales in space and time. Landscape Ecology, 2: 23-44.
- Gardner, R.H., R.V. O’Neill, M.G. Turner & V.H. Dale. 1989, Quantifying scale-dependent effects of animal movement with simple percolation models. Landscape Ecology. 1:19-28.
- Gilpin, M.E. & M.E. Soule. 1986. Minimum viable populations: processes of species extinctions. In: M.E. Soule (ed.). Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Pp. 19-34. Sunderland, Mass: Sinauer Associates, Inc.
- Haridason, K. & R.R. Rao. 1985. Forest Flora of Meghlaya, Volume 1. Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, 23-A Connaught Place, Dehra Dun.
- Hooker, J.D. 1854, The flora of British India, Volume 4. London, 1872 – 1897.
- Kamat, D.S. 1986, An integrated approach to remote sensing studies for wildlife habitat evaluation, Proceedings of a seminar cum workshop on Wildlife Habitat Evaluation using Remote Sensing Techniques, October 22-23:165-182.
- Kataki, S.K. 1983, Some rare plants in Khasi and Jaintai hills of Meghalya. In: An Assessment of Threatened Plants of India (S.K. Jain and R.R. Rao eds), Howarh: Botanical Survey of India, 149-150.
- Khan, M.L., S. Menon & K.S. Bawa. 1997, Effectiveness of protective area network in biodiversity conservation: a case study of Meghalya state. Biodiversity and Conservation, 6:853-868.
- Lidicker, W.Z. Jr 1995, The landscape concept : something old, something new. In : Lidicker, W.Z. Jr (ed.) Landscape approaches in mammalian ecology and conservation. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 3-19.
- Li, H. & J.F. Reynolds. 1994. A simulation experiment to quantify spatial heterogeneity in categorical maps. Ecology, 75: 36-55.
- Lubchenco, J., A.M. Olson & L.B. Brudbaker. 1991, The sustainable biosphere initiative: an ecological research agenda. Ecology, 72: 371-412.
- Lyon, J.G. 1983, Landsat-derived land cover classification for locating potential Kestrel nesting habitat. Photogramm. Engg. & Remote. Sensing. 49(2): 245-250.
- Moloney, K.A. & S.A Levin. 1996, The effect of disturbance architecture on Landscape – level population dynamics. Ecology, 77: 375-394.
- O’ Neill. R.V., B.T. Milne, M.G. Turner & R.H. Gardner. 1988, Resource utilization scales and landscpe pattern. Landscape Ecology, 2:63-91.
- Pickett, A.T.A. & K.H. Rogers. 1995, Patch Dynamics: The Transfer of Landscape structure and Function. In: J.A. Bissonete, (ed). Wildlife and Landscape Ecology. Springer-Verlag New Tourk Inc.
- Pickett, S.T.A. & White1985, The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics. Academic Press, London.
- Tomar, S. 1998. Vegetation type Mapping and Monitoring Land cover dynamics in Meghalaya (North East Himalaya), Ph.D. Thesis, HNB Garhwal University, Srinagar.
- Turner, M. G. & R.H. Gardner. 1990, Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology. The Analysis and Interpretation of Landscape Heterogeneity. Ecological Studies Series, Springer-Verlag, New York.
- White, P.S. & T.A Pickett.1985, Natural disturbance and Patch dynamics: an introduction. In : Pickett, T.A. and White, P. (eds.), The ecology of natural distural disturbance and patch dynamics. Academic Press, Orlando.
|
|
|