International Research Journal of Environment Sciences__________________________________ ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(12), 69-81, December (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association 69 Tree Diversity, Population Structure and Utilization in Traditionally Managed Sub-Tropical Wet Evergreen Forests of Meghalaya, North East IndiaLynser M.B.* and Tiwari B.K.Department of Environmental Studies, Shillong College, Shillong, Meghalaya, 793003, INDIA Department of Environmental Studies, North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong, Meghalaya, 793022, INDIAAvailable online at: www.isca.in, www.isca.me Received 4th November 2015, revised 15th November 2015, accepted 20th December 2015 AbstractForest dependent communities of Meghalaya, India have evolved various traditional forest management systems for managing their forests. This study aims to understand the impact of different management systems on tree species diversity and population structure. Three traditionally managed subtropical wet evergreen forests in the state were studied following standard vegetation analysis methods. The study reveals that management systems have an effect on tree species diversity and population structure in that higher tree species diversity, density and basal cover were found in forest management systems involving higher degree of protection and low disturbance. The use percentage of economically important tree species was higher in forests with low protection and high disturbance. The findings highlight the important contribution of traditional forest management practices by the local people in maintaining a balance between conservation and sustainable utilization of forest resources. Keywords: Species diversity, density, forest management practices, disturbancesIntroduction Forests are vital to our survival and well-being. Trees in forest ecosystems are considered as an important component as they provide resources and ameliorate habitat of almost all other species found therein, thus supporting their survival. They are also a source of a variety of products required in the day to day activities of thousands of tribal communities living in the forest fringes. Growing human need of forest resources has led to a fast depletion of natural forest cover. Human activities like collection of timber, fuel wood and non-wood forest products and practices of grazing and trampling cause varying level of disturbance and alteration in the habitats of many forest species resulting in spatial and temporal variation in species richness, composition, productivity and regeneration status of trees1-4. Traditional forest management systems practiced by the local communities in many parts of the world has enabled forest protection and extraction of forest resources in a sustainable manner5,6. An understanding of the variability of these characteristics of the forests and their interactions in different traditional management systems can help evolve a management regime to enhance productivity, limit nancial inputs, maintain species composition and conserve the plant diversity of community managed forests2,7. Forest dependent communities of northeast India have evolved elaborate institutions for management of their forests and have established mechanisms for their enforcement. These traditional forest management systems have been working fairly well until modern forest management system borrowed primarily from Europe was put in place initially by the colonial regime and later continued by the Government of India. In isolated pockets these age old community forest management systems are still functional and are contributing to conservation and sustainable utilization of forest resources. The tribal communities of Meghalaya, a hilly state in the Northeastern India, are among such communities who have retained their traditional forest management systems5,8. The state is endowed with rich forest resources with more than 77 percent of its total geographical area under forest cover. More than 80 percent out of 3 million people live in the rural areas and are dependent on forests for their livelihood, creating a tremendous pressure on the forest resources. A unique pattern of forests ownership exists, where 90 percent of the forests are owned by the communities10. These community forests are managed in a way to provide benefit to the community as a whole. They are of several types and are subject to different extraction and protection regimes; which vary from totally set aside with no extraction to those which are subjected to day to day extraction of forest produce. The present investigation was undertaken with the objective of understanding the relationship between the degree of protection, disturbance level of forests under different management systems in Meghalaya, India and the resultant variation in tree species diversity and population structure. It also aims to analyze the contribution from these forests in terms of plant resources used by the people. International Research Journal of Environment Sciences ______________________________________________ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(12), 69-81, December (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association 70 Material and Methods Study area: The study was conducted in the sub-tropical wet evergreen forests of Saw Symper, located in the central plateau of Meghalaya (1400 m to 1760 m above MSL) between 91° 30' - 91° 40' N latitude and 25° 25' - 25° 15' E longitude, 14 km from Mawsynram the world’s heaviest rainfall area. The area has a monsoonic climate and about 75% of the total annual rainfall is received between June and September. Average maximum and minimum temperature during summer months (July-August) was 23°C and 18°C respectively and during the winter (December-January) it often comes down as low as 1°C. Owing to the topography and the persistent rains, most of the top soils in the area have been washed away, making a large part of arable lands unsuitable for agriculture. The area is inhabited by the people belonging to Khasi tribe who practice shifting cultivation on hill slopes, though on a limited scale. The landscape is mainly dominated by grasslands dotted with patches of wet evergreen forests. These forests have been free from human interference over several centuries particularly due to low density of human population in the area; hence the need for any kind of management systems for their forests did not arise. However, during past five to six decades as population increased so do activities like timber and fuel wood extraction, cattle grazing and shifting cultivation. During this time, the local communities started setting aside patches of forest and devise various management practices for forest protection and resource extraction. Three traditionally community managed forests called by different local names, located within the same physiographic zone and altitudinal range (1600-1740 masl) and of about same age and history were selected for the study (figure-1 and table-1). Figure-1 Location map of the study area International Research Journal of Environment Sciences ______________________________________________ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(12), 69-81, December (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association 71 Table-1 Characteristic features of three traditionally managed forests selected for the studyForests Law Kyntang (LKY) Law Adong (LAD) Law Raid (LRA) Common name Sacred ForestVillage Protected ForestGroup of Village Forest Area (ha) 30 60 150 Altitude (m) 1631-1736 1621-1728 1616-1705 Topography Steep slope (60-70%) Steep slope (60-70%) Steep slope (60-70%) Management institution Village Council Village Council Group of Village Council Level of accessibility Low Moderate High Products Extracted Extraction of few NTFPs only Full extraction of NTFPs, Regulated extraction of Firewood and Timber Full extraction of NTFPs, Firewood and Timber Assessing disturbance level: In order to rank the level of disturbance of these forests, the type of management systems (intensity of activities permitted) and the percentage of cut stems were considered11, 12. Disturbance level was assessed by assigning a score of 0 to 10 for various activities permitted with zero value signifying least disturbance, 5 for moderate disturbance and 10 for high disturbance. Forests close to human settlements are subjected to human activities such as collection of forest products and grazing. The percentage of cut stumps in each forest was also calculated and assigned similar scores. Scores for various factors were summed to obtain a total disturbance score for each forest (table-2). Intensity of disturbances varies in an order LKYLADLRA. Table-2 Disturbance score of three forestsForests LKYLADLRA Timber extraction 0 5 5 Firewood extraction 0 5 10 NTFPs extraction 5 10 10 Charcoal making 0 0 10 Livestock grazing 5 5 10 Shifting cultivation 0 0 5 Forest fire 0 0 5 Distance from Settlements 0 5 0 *Cut stems 0 (0) 5 (2) 10 (45) Total Score 10 35 65 *Figures in parenthesis give the percentage of cut stems Vegetation sampling: The floristic composition and phytosociology of the tree community of the three forests were studied using quadrat method13. In each forest 35 quadrats of 10m x10m were randomly laid for tree sampling. All the tree species (�30 cm cbh (circumference at breast height i.e., 1.37 m above the ground) occurring within the quadrats were measured. If a tree trunk was buttressed at breast height, the girth was measured just above the buttress, and if a tree was branched at or below breast height, it was counted as two (or more) trees and each measured just above the branch point14. For multi-stem trees bole girths were measured separately and treated as individual tree11. Saplings and seedlings were not considered for the study. Plant identification: Specimens of all species were collected and herbarium was prepared. Identification was done following flora references like Forest Flora of Meghalaya15 and Flora of Assam16. The identifications were confirmed by consulting the herbaria at Botanical Survey of India, North-Eastern Circle, Shillong. The nomenclature of the species follows the regional flora. Utilization of tree species: Data on utilization of tree species found in the study area were collected following ethno-botanical methods as described by Jain17. Data analysis: Important community parameters such as frequency, density, abundance, basal area and important value index (IVI) of all tree species were computed following Misra (1968)13. To determine species richness, diversity and evenness indices in the five forests, Margalef’s index (DMg), the Shannon’s diversity index (H'), Simpson’s dominance index (D), Pielou’s evenness index were calculated18. Circumferences at breast height (cbh) of trees in a forest were divided into various size classes and size structure of tree species in each forest was determined. The successional status of tree species was classed in early, mid and late succession following Shukla and Ramakrishnan19. International Research Journal of Environment Sciences ______________________________________________ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(12), 69-81, December (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association 72 Results and Discussion Floristic diversity and species richness: A total number of 70 tree species (1 unidentified) belonging to 50 genera and 31 families were recorded from the three forests with Lauraceae and Fagaceae as the dominant families. The families, genera and species of the three forests are given in table 3. Tree species richness was found to be comparatively higher in traditionally managed forests with less disturbances and higher degree of protection (LKY and LAD) than in highly disturbed and unprotected forests (LRA). Forest LKY was found to have highest tree species with 52 species belonging to 41 genera and 28 families, LAD with 48 species representing 36 genera under 25 families and lowest for LRA with 30 species from 26 genera under 21 families. The floristic richness recorded in the present study is higher than 45 species reported by Tripathi and Khongjee20 and Tripathi and Tripathi21 in subtropical humid forest and subtropical evergreen forest of Meghalaya. Despite the study site being located in a very high rainfall area with rugged terrain, where most of the top soil have been washed away, the high diversity status may be attributed to the different management practices which regulate human activities in these forests. Plant diversity of an area is related to a variety of factors such as topography, climate, soil and natural/human disturbance. As all the three studied forests are located within a distance of 10 km and an elevation between 1621 and 1736 m, the soil, climate and topography largely remain the same. But the difference in type of management and human interference between each studied forest has considerable influence on species richness as there is a decreased from 52 species in the protected and undisturbed forest LKY to 31 species in the unprotected and highly disturbed forest LRA which clearly demonstrates the reduction in tree species diversity in human impacted forests. Anthropogenic factors such as mining, timber extraction and livestock grazing resulted in a sharp decline in forest vegetation attributes2,11,22,23. Stand density and basal cover: Tree density was recorded to be highest in LAD (1671 individuals ha-1), followed by LKY (1669 individuals ha-1) and lowest in LRA (540 individuals ha-1) (table-4). Tree species like Quercus sp., Castanopsis purpurella and Helicia neligarica contribute maximum density in LKY, while Lithocarpus fenestratus and Quercus glauca shows maximum density in LAD. In LRA, trees like Helicia nilagiricaand Schefflera hypoleuca have maximum density. The basal area of tree species in the three forests varied greatly. It decreased with increase in disturbances. The maximum basal area was recorded in LKY (77.57 m ha-1), followed by LAD (62.72 m ha-1) and least in LRA (12.36 m ha-1) (table-4). Maximum basal area in LKY was exhibited by tree species Betula alnoides. In LAD and LRA, maximum basal area was contributed by tree species like Schima khasiana and Myrica esculenta respectively. It was noted in the present study that tree species richness, density and basal area decreased with increase in disturbance. These findings are in conformity with those of Chittibabu and Parthasarathy, Bhuyan et al. and Tripathi and Khongjee2,20,24, which also showed reduced species richness, density, and basal area, as well as altered species composition in disturbed plots, as compared to the undisturbed plots. Murali et al. found that unrestricted and open accessibility to forests can result in enhanced utilization of the forest resources and this may eventually lead to a decrease in species richness. Further, forests with open accessibility such as LRA experiencing firewood and timber extraction and to some extent shifting cultivation harbour low species richness (table-4). Higher density and basal area of tree species in LAD and LKY forests than in LRA forest was primarily due to restricted extraction of timber and firewood from these forests. A steep decline in tree density in LRA is because of greater human disturbances as most of the young and mature trees in this forest are harvested for firewood and charcoal making. Frequency and Dominance distribution pattern: In all the forests, majority of tree species (77–87%) showed low frequency (20%) and none of the individual having &#x-3.3;女80% frequency (Figure 2 and Annexure 1). In forest LRA, tree species in frequency class C, D and E are absent. Frequency class A was dominant; therefore, the forest may be termed as highly heterogeneous and patchy in terms of species distribution. Quercus sp., Castanopsis purpurella and Helicia neligarica were among the most frequently found species in forest LKY, while Schima wallichii, Lithocarpus fenestratusand Aralia aramata aremore frequently found in forest LAD. In LRA, trees like Helicia nilagirica,Schefflera hypoleuca and Aralia aramata have highest frequency. Based on importance value (IVI), it was found that tree species share almost equal IVI in all the three forest (Annexure 1). In LKY Quercus sp. was the dominant species with highest IVI (55.9) followed by species like Castanopsis purpurella (33.4), Schima wallichii (28.7), Helicia nilagirica (22.6) etc. Lithocarpus fenestratus was the dominant tree species in LAD forest with highest IVI (40.6) while, Helicia nilagirica is the most dominant tree species in LRA forest (IVI=37.4). The dominance-diversity curve shows that in all the three forests relatively few species had a high IVI value (figure-3). There was a variation in the dominant and co-dominant species even though all the three forests were located under similar agro-climatic conditions. This variation in species diversity and composition may be attributed to the differences in microenvironment which is the outcome of human activities that takes place in the forests25. The dominance–distribution curve showed a log-normal distribution which represents equitability and stability of the community that signifies abundance of species having intermediate dominance values in the community18. It also indicates maturity and complexity of natural community. International Research Journal of Environment Sciences ______________________________________________ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(12), 69-81, December (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association 73 Table-3 Families, genera and species of trees recorded in the three forestsFamily LKY LAD LRA Gen Sp Gen Sp Gen Sp Aceraceae 1 1 1 1 - - Anacardiaceae 1 1 1 1 1 1 Aquifoliaceae 1 2 - - - - Araliaceae 3 3 4 5 2 2 Betulaceae 1 1 - - - - Caprifoliaceae - - 1 1 - - Celastraceae 1 1 1 1 - - Clusiaceae 1 1 1 1 1 1 Elaeocarpaceae 1 1 1 2 1 1 Eurphobiaceae 1 1 2 2 2 2 Fagaceae 3 6 3 6 2 2 Hamamelidaceae 1 1 1 1 1 1 Juglandaceae 1 1 - - - - Lauraceae 5 7 5 7 3 4 Leeaceae 1 1 1 1 1 1 Magnoliaceae 2 2 1 1 - - Moraceae 1 2 1 3 1 3 Myricaceae 1 2 1 2 1 2 Myrtaceae 1 2 1 1 1 1 Olacaceae 1 1 1 1 1 1 Palmae - - - - 1 1 Pittosporaceae - - 1 1 - - Proteaceae 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rosaceae 3 3 1 1 1 1 Rubiaceae 2 2 - - 1 1 Sapotaceae 1 1 1 1 1 1 Symplocaceae 1 3 1 2 1 1 Theaceae 2 2 2 3 1 1 Thymelaeaceae 1 1 1 1 1 1 Vaccinaceae 1 1 1 1 - - Verbenaceae 1 1 - - - - Total* 28,41,52 25,36,48 21,26,30 *Number of families, genera and species International Research Journal of Environment Sciences ______________________________________________ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(12), 69-81, December (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association 74 Table-4 Density, basal area and species richness, diversity, dominance and evenness indices of tree species of three forestsAttributes LKY LAD LRA Density (individuals ha-1) 1669 1671 540 Basal area (m ha-1) 77.57 62.72 12.36 Margalef's richness index 8.18 7.38 5.72 Shannon diversity index 3.01 3.03 3.00 Simpson's dominance index 0.09 0.08 0.07 Pielou eveness index 0.76 0.78 0.87 Figure-2 Frequency distribution of tree species in the three forests Figure-3 Dominance-diversity curves for tree species in the three forests International Research Journal of Environment Sciences ______________________________________________ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(12), 69-81, December (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association 75 Species richness, diversity, dominance and evenness indices: Margalef’s species richness index for trees was found to fluctuate from one forest to the other. It was highest in LKY (8.18), followed by LAD (7.38) and least for LRA (5.72). On the other hand, the Shannon species diversity index was found to vary slightly between the different forests. Forest LAD recorded slightly higher diversity index of 3.03, followed by LKY with 3.01 and LRA with 3.00 (table-4). The main factor responsible for lower diversity index in disturbed and unprotected forest (LRA) than protected and less disturbed forests (LKY and LAD) may be attributed to disturbance impact by human activities 20. Simpson dominance index follows the same trend as species richness index. It was maximum in LKY (0.09), followed by LAD (0.08) and least for LRA (0.07). Pielou evenness index for tree species was maximum in LRA (0.87). Density girth distribution, species richness and basal area: Irrespective of protection and disturbance level, tree density and species richness in various girth classes followed the same trend. Tree density and species richness consistently decreased with increase in girth size resulting in a reverse J-shaped curve (Figure 4). In LAD and LRA, majority of the stems (73 and 80%) belonged to lower girth class (30 – 60 cm gbh). The stand density contribution by 30–60 cm class ranged from 54.5% (LKY) to 80.4% (LRA), while from girth class 120 – 150 cm onwards, stand density contribution was very low and ranged from 0.5% (LRA) to 2.9% (LKY) (table-5). Similarly, species richness in all the three forests was highest in the lowermost girth class (30-60cm). The distribution of basal area for LAD and LRA decreased with increase in girth size, whereas in forests LKY it was found that the basal area increases upto the girth class 60-90 cm beyond which it decreased with increase in girth size (Figure 4). In LKY, the girth class 180 – 210 cm shows minimum basal area (1.2 m ha-1), while the girth class 60-90 cm contributed the maximum basal area (30.5 m ha-1) (table-5). In LAD forest, the minimum basal area (3.4 m ha-1) is recorded in girth class 180 – 210 cm and highest (24.9 m ha-1) in girth class 30-60 cm. From LRA forest, minimum basal area (0 m ha-1) was recorded in girth class 150-180 cm as tree were absent in this girth class, while maximum (9.0 m ha-1) in girth class 30-60 cm. In all the three forests, species richness and density was highest in the lowermost girth class. Tree density decreases with increasing girth class resulting in a reverse J shaped curve at all sites revealing that adult individuals were few2,26. Abundance of young individuals in lower girth class is less in forest LKY due to denser canopy which inhibits growth of young seedlings. Forest LAD and forest LRA showed higher percentage of young individuals as they experience disturbances due to clear felling for timber, firewood and charcoal making. Proportion of Early and Late Successional Tree species: The percentage of early successional tree species increases with increase in level of disturbance. It was highest in most disturbed and least protected forest LRA. LRA recorded 27% of early successional tree species while LAD and LKY recorded only 17%. In terms of late successional tree species LKY recorded the highest with 52% (figure-5). Higher proportion of early successional species in disturbed forests (LRA) may be attributed to better recruitment of such species in open spaces as has been emphasized by a number of workers27,28. Seedlings have a limited tolerance range of light, temperature and humidity29 and in disturbed forests, fragmentation occurs which often alters these factors leading to reduced abundance of shade-tolerant understory seedlings as a result of limited seedling recruitment and increased mortality of established seedlings30. Table-5 Results of girth class analysis of trees in the three forests of sub-tropical evergreen forest in Saw SymperCBH class (cm) Density (trees ha-1) Species richness Basal area (m ha-1) LKY LAD LRA LKY LAD LRA LKY LAD LRA 30 - 60 909 (54.5) 1220 (73.0) 434 (80.4) 47 44 30 20.3 24.9 9.0 60 - 90 483 (28.9) 300 (17.9) 66 (12.2) 27 26 14 30.5 18.8 3.8 90 - 120 189 (11.3) 83 (5.0) 29 (5.3) 11 11 9 23.3 10.0 3.6 120 - 150 49 (2.9) 40 (2.4) 3 (0.5) 10 6 1 9.7 8.7 0.5 150 - 180 29 (1.7) 11 (0.7) 0 (0) 6 3 0 8.5 3.8 0.0 180 - 210 3 (0.2) 9 (0.5) 6 (1.1) 1 2 2 1.2 3.4 2.7 � 210 9 (0.5) 9 (0.5) 3 (0.5) 2 3 1 5.0 5.6 1.9 *Figures in parenthesis represents percentage International Research Journal of Environment Sciences ______________________________________________ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(12), 69-81, December (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association 76 Figure-4 Density, species richness and basal area of tree species in different girth classes (cm) in the three forests Figure-5 Percentage of early, mid and late successional tree species in the three forestsTree species utilized by people: A total of 32 out of 70 tree species encountered during phytosociological survey are utilized by people of the study area for different purposes. The percentage of tree species utilized by people was highest in forest LRA (51.6%), followed by LKY (48.1%) and least is in LAD (45.8 %) (table-6). Different plant parts such as fruits, leaves, stem, branches, flowers and bark are utilized by people for fuelwood, food, medicine, construction, etc. Majority of the tree species collected by the people are used as fuelwood (40%), followed by food (17%) and for making tools and implements International Research Journal of Environment Sciences ______________________________________________ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(12), 69-81, December (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association 77 (10%). For firewood purpose any kind of tree species is used, however, those which are abundant and easily available like Myrica spp., Quercus spp., Lithocarpus spp., Castanopsis spp.,Garcinia spp., Lindera spp. Elaeocarpus spp. and Schima wallichii are mostly collected by the people. Hard wood tree species viz., Quercus sp., Lithocarpus fenestratus, Lithocarpus dealbatus, Lithocarpus elagans, Symplocos laurina, Myrica nagi and Schima wallichii are generally preferred for charcoal making. Fruits of Myrica esculenta, Myrica nagi, Castanopsis purpurella and Pyrus pashia are commonly collected by the people. Bark of Eurya accuminata and Persea parviflora is used as a dye and leaves of Schefflera hypoleuca isused as fodder for livestock. Straight bole hard wood tree species like Exbucklandia populnea, Glochidion thomsonii, Wendlandia wallichii and Castanopsis armata are used as poles for support in construction. Further, tree species with straight bole viz., Quercus glauca, Helicia nelagirica, Castanopsis armata andCastanopsis purpurella are used for making tools and implements like handle for coal digger which is very popular in the study area. Although a good number of plant species which can be utilized by people were also found in forest LKY and LAD, but since the collection of forest products from these forests is restricted hence they are not of so much benefit to the people. Table-6 Availability of plant species utilized by people in different forests Forests LKY LAD LRA Number of tree species encountered during phytosociological survey 52 48 31 Number of tree species utilized by people 25 22 16 Percentage of tree species utilized by people 48.1 45.8 51.6 Table-7 Distribution of tree species in different use categoriesUses Categories No. of tree species Percentage Construction (poles) 3 7 Dye 2 5 Firewood 22 52 Fodder 1 2 Food 7 17 Medicinal 2 5 Ornamental 1 2 Tools and Implements 4 10 Conclusion Tree species composition and community structure of forests of the study area is a function of type of activities permitted and level of disturbances. Less disturbed traditionally managed forests restricted for extraction of timber, firewood and shifting cultivation have higher species richness and diversity than disturbed and open access forests. Tree species richness, density and basal cover were low in forests open for extraction of timber, firewood and shifting cultivation. The study brings to fore that conservation of regional biodiversity faces major challenges since it competes with basic demands of local communities. But to a large extent the traditional forest management systems practiced by people of the area are helping in conservation of biodiversity in other wise fragile forest ecosystems of this area. Thus, the findings of the study reconfirms the importance of traditional forest management practices in meeting the daily needs of the people, in conserving biodiversity as well as maintaining health of forests in the area. Acknowledgements The authors are thankful to the University Grant Commission, New Delhi for providing financial assistance. References 1.Cadotte M.W., Franck R., Reza L. and Lovett-Doust J., Tree and shrub diversity and abundance in fragmented littoral forest of southeastern Madagascar, Biodivers. Conserv.,11, 1417–1436 (2002) 2.Bhuyan P., Khan M.L. and Tripathi R.S., Tree diversity and population structure in undisturbed and human-impacted stands of tropical wet evergreen forest in Arunachal Pradesh, Eastern Himalayas, India, Biodivers. Conserv., 12, 1753 – 1773 (2003)3.Thapa N., Upadhaya K., Bhaishya R. and Barik S. K., Effect of Plantation on Plant Diversity and Soil Status of Tropical Forest Ecosystems in Meghalaya, Northeast India, Int. J. Ecol.Environ. Sci., 37 (1), 61-73 (2011)4.Kyayesimira J. and Lejju J. B., Vegetation Regeneration in Formerly degraded Hilly areas of Rwampara, South Western Uganda, Int. Res. J. Environment Sci.4(8), 1-7 (2015) 5.Tiwari B. K., Tynsong H. and Lynser M. B., Forest Management Practices of the Tribal People of Meghalaya, North-east India, J. Trop. For. Sci.,22(3), 329-342 (2010)6.Mo X., Zhu H., Zhang Y., Slik J.W.F. and Liu, J., Traditional forest management has limited impact on plant diversity and composition in a tropical seasonal rainforest in SW China, Biol. Conserv., 144, 1832–1840 (2011) International Research Journal of Environment Sciences ______________________________________________ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(12), 69-81, December (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association 78 Annexure-1 Tree species density, frequency and IVI of plants recorded in three forests of Raid Saw Symper, MeghalayaPlant Species Family SS status LKY LAD LRA Den Fre IVI Den Fre IVI Den Fre IVI Acer laevigatum Wall.Aceraceae LS 3 2.9 0.7 3 2.9 0.8 - - - Aralia aramata (G.Don) Seem.Araliaceae MS 23 22.9 5.9 94 54.3 16.5 31 25.7 18.2 Betula alnoides Buch-HamBetulaceae LS 20 17.1 10.0 - - - - - - Bleischmedia assamica Meissn. Lauraceae LS 11 8.6 2.3 49 31.4 10.1 9 8.6 5.6 Camellia caduca CBCTheaceae MS - - - 6 5.7 1.3 - - - Castanopsis armata SpachFagaceae LS 6 2.9 2.0 - - - - - - Castanopsis purpurella (Miq.) BalakFagaceae LS 217 57.1 33.4 69 25.7 14.5 29 11.4 13.9 Cinamomum bejolghota (Buch.-Ham.) SwLauraceae LS - - - 3 2.9 0.8 - - - Cleidion spiciflorum (Burm.) MerrEurphobiaceae LS - - - 40 22.9 7.2 14 11.4 8.7 Clerodendrum sp.Verbenaceae MS 6 2.9 0.9 - - - - - - Daphne involucrata Wall.Thymelaeaceae ES 6 5.7 1.3 14 8.6 2.4 3 2.9 1.7 Dendropanax japonicum Seem.Araliaceae ES - - - 11 5.7 2.1 - - - Elaeocarpus lancifolius Roxb.Elaeocarpaceae MS 20 17.1 6.1 9 8.6 2.6 - - - Elaeocarpus sp.Elaeocarpaceae MS - - - 26 11.4 3.7 6 5.7 3.5 Engelhertia spicata Leschen.ex Bl.Juglandaceae LS 34 20.0 6.8 - - - - - - Eurya accuminata DC.Theaceae ES 3 2.9 0.7 - - - - - - Exbucklandia populnea GriffHamamelidaceae ES 134 37.1 21.0 103 42.9 18.6 6 5.7 3.6 Ficus nerifolia J. E. SmMoraceae MS 23 14.3 4.3 20 14.3 4.3 26 20.0 14.5 Ficus nervosa Heyne ex Roth.Moraceae MS - - - 9 8.6 2.2 6 5.7 4.2 Ficus spMoraceae MS 51 22.9 8.2 34 20.0 6.4 11 11.4 7.4 Garcinia penduculata G. DonClusiaceae LS - - - 17 11.4 3.3 34 20.0 18.2 Garcinia sp.Clusiaceae LS 3 2.9 0.6 - - - - - - Glocidion thomsonii Hk. f.Eurphobiaceae LS 20 17.1 4.2 23 17.1 4.2 11 8.6 6.4 International Research Journal of Environment Sciences ______________________________________________ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(12), 69-81, December (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association 79 Plant Species Family SS status LKY LAD LRA Den Fre IVI Den Fre IVI Den Fre IVI Helicia nilagirica Bedd.Proteaceae LS 146 62.9 22.6 100 48.6 15.9 77 40.0 37.4 Ilex embeloides Hk.f.Aquifoliaceae MS 3 2.9 0.7 - - - - - - Ilex venulosa Hk.f.Aquifoliaceae MS 3 2.9 0.7 - - - - - - Illichium griffithii Hk.f and Thoms.Magnoliaceae ES - - - 3 2.9 0.8 - - - Leea indica (Burm. F.) MerrLeeaceae ES 6 5.7 1.2 6 5.7 1.3 9 8.6 5.1 Lindera caudata Benth.Lauraceae LS 6 5.7 1.2 14 5.7 2.2 - - - Lindera latifolia Hk.fLauraceae LS - - - - - - 3 2.9 1.8 Lindera nacusua (D.Don) Merr.Lauraceae LS 17 11.4 3.1 3 2.9 0.7 3 2.9 1.9 Lithocarpus dealbatus (Hk.f.et Th.ex Miq.) RehderFagaceae LS 9 5.7 1.6 - - - - - - Lithocarpus elagans (Bl.) Hatus ex SoepadmoFagaceae LS 9 5.7 2.1 3 2.9 1.1 - - - Lithocarpus fenestratus (Roxb.) RehderFagaceae LS 46 22.9 7.3 337 57.1 40.6 23 17.1 13.8 Lithocarpus sp.Fagaceae LS - - - 3 2.9 0.7 - - - Litsea sp.Lauraceae LS 11 5.7 2.1 - - - - - - Macropanax dispermus (Bl.) O. KtzeAraliaceae MS 6 5.7 1.8 3 2.9 0.7 - - - Macropanax sp.Araliaceae MS - - - 3 2.9 0.7 - - - Manglietia insignis (Wall.) Bl.Magnoliaceae LS 3 2.9 0.6 - - - - - - Michelia doltsopa DC.Magnoliaceae LS 11 8.6 3.3 - - - - - - Microtropis discolor (Wall.) ArnCelastraceae MS 3 2.9 1.7 3 2.9 0.6 - - - Myrica esculenta Buch.-HamMyricaceae MS 9 5.7 3.0 126 45.7 24.1 3 2.9 2.4 Myrica nagi Hk. FMyricaceae MS 17 14.3 3.5 14 8.6 2.5 3 2.9 2.2 Neolitsea cassia (Linn.) Kosterm.Lauraceae LS 3 2.9 0.6 6 5.7 1.4 - - - Persea duthiei (King ex Hk.f.) Kosterm.Lauraceae LS 3 2.9 0.6 6 5.7 1.4 - - - Persea parviflora (Meissn.) Haridasan et R.R. RaoLauraceae LS 23 11.4 3.7 9 8.6 2.0 20 8.6 10.1 Photinia cuspidata (Bertol) BalakRosaceae ES 3 2.9 0.7 9 2.9 1.4 20 5.7 10.0 International Research Journal of Environment Sciences ______________________________________________ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(12), 69-81, December (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association 80 Plant Species Family SS status LKY LAD LRA Den Fre IVI Den Fre IVI Den Fre IVI Pittosporum napaulense (DC.) Rehder and WilsonPittosporaceae LS - - - 3 2.9 0.6 - - - Prunus cerasoides D. Don.Rosaceae MS 6 2.9 0.9 - - - - - - Prunus triflora Roxb.Rosaceae MS - - - - - - - - - Psychotria symplocifolia Kurz.Rubiaceae LS 3 2.9 0.6 - - - - - - Pyrus pashia D. Don.Rosaceae MS 17 8.6 2.8 - - - - - - Quercus glauca Thunb.Fagaceae LS - - - 137 31.4 21.3 - - - Quercus sp.Fagaceae LS 349 77.1 55.8 57 17.1 11.4 - - - Rhus javanica Linn.Anacardiaceae ES 3 2.9 0.6 6 2.9 0.9 6 5.7 3.4 Sarcosperma griffithii Cl.Sapotaceae MS 11 5.7 1.8 6 5.7 1.4 3 2.9 1.7 Schefflera hypoleuca (Kurz.) HarmsAraliaceae MS 6 2.9 0.9 9 5.7 2.4 54 28.6 27.9 Schima khasiana Dyer.Theaceae LS - - - 9 5.7 5.7 - - - Schima wallichii DC.Theaceae ES 143 48.6 28.7 123 68.6 33.4 9 8.6 7.1 Schoepfia fragans Wall.Olacaceae MS 29 25.7 6.0 29 17.1 5.0 9 8.6 5.4 Symplocos glomerata King ex Cl.Symplocaceae LS 23 20.0 5.3 - - - - - - Symplocos javanica (Bl.) Kurz.Symplocaceae LS 6 2.9 0.9 - - - - - - Symplocos laurina (Retz.) WallSymplocaceae LS 46 17.1 6.3 14 11.4 2.8 11 11.4 7.1 Symplocos lucida (Thumb.) S and Z.Symplocaceae LS - - - 3 2.9 0.6 - - - Syzygium sp.Myrtaceae ES 29 8.6 4.1 - - - - - - Syzygium tetragonum KurzMyrtaceae LS 49 22.9 7.5 86 34.3 13.3 34 17.1 17.4 Trachycarpus sp.Palmae ES - - - - - - 6 5.7 3.5 Vaccinium sprengelii G. DonVaccinaceae LS 6 5.7 1.2 14 5.7 2.1 - - - Viburnum spCaprifoliaceae MS - - - 3 2.9 0.6 - - - Wendlandia wallichii W. and A.Rubiaceae ES 29 20.0 5.7 - - - 6 2.9 3.0 Unidentified sp 1 - - - - - - - 57 22.9 32.9 Successional (SS) status of species: LS = Late successional, MS = Mid successional, ES = Early successional International Research Journal of Environment Sciences ______________________________________________ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(12), 69-81, December (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association 81 7.Murali K. S., Shankar U., Ganeshaih K. N., Umashaanker R. and Bawa K. S., Extraction of non timber forest products in the forest of BilgiriRangan Hill, India, 2. Impact of NTFP extraction on regeneration; population structure and species composition, Econ. Bot., 50, 252–269 (1996)8.Lynser M. B., Forest Products of Raid Saw Symper, Meghalaya and their contribution to the Livelihood of the people. Ph.D. dissertation, North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong, (2013)9.FSI., The State of Forest Report, Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi, (2011)10.Poffenberger M., Communities and Forest Management, IUCN Working Group on Community Involvement in Forest Management, Cambridge, UK, (1996)11.Muthuramkumar S., Ayyappan N., Parthasarathy N., Mudappa D., Raman T. R. S., Selwyn M. A. and Pragasan L. A., Plant Community Structure in Tropical Rain Forest Fragments of the Western Ghats, India, Biotropica,38(2), 143–160 (2006)12.Mishra B. P., Tripathi R. S., Tripathi O. P. and Pandey, H. N., Effect of disturbance on the regeneration of four dominant and economically important woody species in a broad-leaved subtropical humid forest of Meghalaya, northeast India, Curr. Sci.,84, 1449–1453 (2003)13.Misra R., Ecology Work Book, Oxford and IBH, New Delhi, (1968)14.Kumar A., Marcot B. G. and Saxena A., Tree species diversity and distribution patterns in tropical forests of Garo Hills, Curr. Sci.,91(10), 1370-1381 (2006) 15.Haridasan K. and Rao R.R., Forest Flora of Meghalaya,Vols I and II, Bishen Singh Mahendrapal Singh, DehraDun, (1985–1987)16.Kanjilal U. N., Kanjilal P. C., Das A., De R. N. and Bor N. L., Flora of Assam, Vols I-V Omsons Publication, New Delhi, (1934-1940) 17.Jain S. K., Methods and Approaches in Ethnobotany, Society of Ethnobotanist, Lucknow, (1989)18.Magurran A., Ecological Diversity and its Measurement, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, (1988)19.Shukla R. P. and Ramakrishnan P. S., Architecture and growth strategies of tropical trees in relation to successional status, J. Ecol.,74, 33–46 (1986)20.Tripathi O. P. and Khongjee R., Effect of forest fragment size on tree diversity and population structure of humid subtropical forest of Meghalaya, Biodivers. Sci.,18(2), 208–214 (2010) 21.Tripathi O. P. and Tripathi R. S., Community composition, structure and management of subtropical vegetation of forests in Meghalaya State, Northeast India, Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manage., 6(3-4), 157-163 (2011)22.Rao P., Barik S. K., Pandey H. N. and Tripathi R. S., Community composition and tree population structure in a subtropical broad leaved forest along a disturbance gradient, Vegetatio, 88, 151-162 (1990) 23.Shaheen H., Qureshi R. A. and Shinwari Z. K., Structural Diversity, Vegetation Dynamics and Anthropogenic Impact on Lesser Himalayan Subtropical Forests of Bagh District, Kashmir, Pakistan J. Bot.,43(4), 1861-1866 (2011)24.Chittibabu C. V. and Parthasarathy N., Attenuated tree species diversity in human-impacted tropical evergreen forest sites at Kolli hills, Eastern Ghats, India, Biodivers. Conserv., 9, 1493–1519 (2000)25.Cao M., Zhang J.H., Feng Z., Deng J. and Deng X., Tree species composition of a seasonal rain forest in Xishuangbanna, South West China, Trop. Ecol. 37(2), 183–192, (1996).26.Kadavul K. and Parthasarathy N., Structure and composition of woody species in tropical semi-evergreen forest of Kalrayan hills, Eastern Ghats, India, Trop. Ecol., 40(2), 247-260 (1999)27.Davies S. J., Tree mortality and growth in sympatric Macaranga species in Borneo, Ecology, 82, 920-932 (2001) 28.Lichstein J. W., Grau H. R. and Roxana A., Recruitment limitation in secondary forests dominated by an exotic tree, J. Veg.Sci.,15, 712-728 (2004)29.Gehlhausen S. M., Schwartz M. W. and Augspurger C. K., Vegetation and microclimatic edge effects in two mixed-mesophytic forest fragments, Plant Ecol., 147, 21–35 (2000)30.Bruna E. M., Effects of forest fragmentation on Heliconia cuminate seedling recruitment in central Amazonia, Oecologia,132, 235-243 (2002)