Land Use Change and Mountain Biodiversity - Chapter 22 pps

293 22 Effects of Anthropogenic Disturbances on Biodiversity: A Major Issue of Protected- Area Management in Nepal Khadga Basnet INTRODUCTION Nepal has been giving a high priority to biodiversity conservation for more than three decades by creating and managing protected areas (protected areas), which cover more than 19% of the total area of the country. There are nine national parks, three wildlife reserves, one hunting reserve, and three conservation areas and buffer zones. Most of the protected areas lie along the international borders with China and India (Figure 22.1), and represent mainly two Global 200 ecoregions, as identified by the World Wildlife Fund. These include alpine shrubs and meadows in the mountains and Tarai-Duar savannas and grasslands in the lowland Tarai (see Box 22.1). For more than three decades, a large number of management prob- lems, including biological, sociocultural, eco- nomical, political, and developmental issues (Basnet 2003a, 2003b), have been encountered in managing these protected areas. Livestock grazing and pasture management proved to be one of the major issues of all the protected areas of Nepal (Richard et al. 2000). The main objective of this chapter is to explore the impacts of anthropogenic disturbances (e.g. livestock grazing and resource harvesting) on the biodiversity of alpine pastures in mountain parks, particu- larly focusing on: 1. Pasture management and pattern, frequency, and intensity of livestock grazing across the protected areas of Nepal 2. Effects of livestock grazing on wildlife and plant communities 3. Effects of resource harvesting on local species These important questions from the biodiversity conservation point of view are investi- gated through literature review, field research, and case studies from the mountain protected areas (e.g. Shey Phoksundo National Park) of Nepal (Basnet 2000; Richard et al. 2000). There are nine mountain protected areas that cover about 21,040 km 2 , including >2,954 km 2 (Biodiversity Profile Project, 1995a,b; Basnet 2003b) in the alpine shrub and meadow ecoregion. Tarai parks, which cover more than 3,428 km 2 , come under Tarai-Duar savannas and grasslands ecoregion (Box 22.1). In the tarai parks, livestock grazing is strictly prohibited, but in the mountain parks, local residents can use pastures and manage them for their livestock grazing. Nepalese rangelands (grasslands, pastures, and shrub), which are not confined exclusively to the protected areas, usually have high biodiversity as they range from tropical savannas to alpine meadows and even to cold, arid steppes in the north of the Himalayas. Grazing land covers about 1.7 million hectares (12% of the total area of Nepal) and almost 70% of the total grazing land lies above 3,000 m (Table 22.1). Because of difficult terrain and steep slopes, almost 63% of the rangeland forage is not accessible to livestock (His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, 1993; Pariyar 1998). 3523_C022.fm Page 293 Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:52 AM Copyright © 2006 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 294 Land Use Change and Mountain Biodiversity FIGURE 22.1 Protected areas of Nepal. Khaptad NP (225 sq. km) Rara NP (106 sq. km) Shey Phoksundo NP (3555 sq. km) Dhorpatan HR (1325 sq. km) Shivapuri WR (144 sq. km) Annapurna CA (7629 sq. km) China (Tibet) KATHMANDU Langtang NP (1710 sq. km) Masaslu CA (1663 sq. km) Sagarmatha NP (1148 sq. km) Parsa WR (499 sq. km) Khosi Tappu WR (175 sq. km) Makalu Barun NP & Buffer zone (2330 sq. km) Kanchanjanga CA (2035 sq. km) Royal Chitwan NP (932 sq. km) RBNP extension area (549 sq. km) & Buffer zone (344 sq. km) Royal Bardia NP (968 sq. km) & Buffer zone (326 sq. km) Tanakpur-sukla- Bardia Corridor N S W E 50 0 50 100 150 Kilometers India LEGEND Protected Areas of Nepal National Park (NP) Conservation Area (CA) Wildlife Reserve (WR) Hunting Reserve (HR) Buffer Zone (BZ) RBNP Extension Area Corridors Chure-basante- dudwa corridor 3523_C022.fm Page 294 Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:52 AM Copyright © 2006 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Anthropogenic Disturbances on Biodiversity and Protected Area Management in Nepal 295 Box 22.1—Two Prominent Global 200 Ecoregions of Nepal During the second half of the 1990s, WWF identified more than 240 ecoregions as the world’s most unique and biologically repre- sentative places, meriting focused conservation. They are called Global 200 ecoregions. Two prominent and distinct ecoregions of Nepal include: Alpine shrub and meadow: Himalayan alpine belt grasslands or meadows are classi- fied according to their locations, type of vegetation, and diversity. They include: (1) Trans- Himalayan, (2) Northern Himalayan, (3) Western Himalayan, (4) Eastern Hima- layan alpine shrub and meadow, and (5) High- altitude cold steppe (Wikramanayake et al. 1998). All the mountain parks belong to the Eastern Himalayan alpine shrub and meadow ecoregion, which is one of the two prominent Global 200 ecoregions that stretches along the northern part of Nepal. It is characterized by: (1) the highest species richness in the Eastern Himalayas, (2) the highest area of endemism, (3) the highest concentration of plants and animals, (4) the highest numbers of globally threatened species, and (5) a large number of natural and anthropogenic threats including landslides, overgrazing, encroachment, illegal harvesting of NTFPs (nontimber forest products), and illegal hunting. Tarai-Duar savannas and grasslands : The tropical alluvial grasslands, distributed in the lowlands of Nepal and Assam, are the last remnants of a once-extensive ecosystem in southern Nepal and northern India (Lehmkul, 1994; Peet et al. 1997). These ecosystems (known as Charkose Jhadi in Nepal) are the tallest grasslands (up to 6-m tall) in the world, and are now confined mainly to protected areas (Bell and Oliver 1992; Peet et al. 1997). Some of the distinguished characteristics of the ecoregion include: 1. A large number of rare, endangered and threatened, and endemic wildlife species together with some habitat specialists. 2. The highest densities of tigers, rhi- noceros, and ungulate biomass in Asia (Wikramanayake et al. 1998). 3. Records of more than 100 species of mammals (including endemic species) and about 500 species of birds (including 18 endemic species). 4. High floral diversity with more than 248 grass species and 9 grassland assemblages (Lehmkul 1994, Peet et al. 1997). 5. Migration of megafauna (e.g. ele- phants) and breeding grounds for endangered bird species (e.g. Sarus crane). 6. Large number of human settlements and disturbances. These unique habitats, at present, are facing several direct (e.g. deforestation) and indirect (e.g. population growth) threats and ecological degradation throughout their range. PASTURE MANAGEMENT AND LIVESTOCK GRAZING P ASTURE M ANAGEMENT In Nepal, the highland resource management is closely related to the local religious institutions such as the gompas (monasteries) and their administrators, the lamas (priests), and also the villages. Two parallel systems of resource management, the gompa system and the talukdar system managed by talukdars (collective name for government revenue collectors such as jimu- wal for irrigated fields and mukhiya for upland fields), are common in high-mountain areas of Nepal. Both of these systems involved community participation in the management process, which followed unwritten rules and regulations formulated by lamas in the past. Parajuli (1998) explored how these two systems operate in one of the highland villages of Shey Phoksundo National Park (SPNP) (Box 22.2). In the gompa system of resource management, all natural resources were managed by a religious hierarchic institution locally known as dratsang (a religious committee with different members in a hierarchic system). It is mainly responsible for monitoring and regulating forests, wildlife, 3523_C022.fm Page 295 Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:52 AM Copyright © 2006 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 296 Land Use Change and Mountain Biodiversity pastures, and livestock grazing, including rota- tion of herds in seasonal pastures and commercial harvesting of pasture products. Lamas also fix the dates for harvesting medicinal plants, fodder, and grass. Thus, an annual calendar, with specific dates for upward, downward, inward, and outward movements of livestock in different pastures is maintained. Violators of the rules are fined in cash or kind, and the revenue generated is used in religious ceremonies or community development. The talukdar system was introduced in 1911 to collect revenue from various land users. Besides liaising between government and local people, the talukdar had the responsibility of maintaining local security, settling disputes, and controlling and managing agriculture land, forests, and pastures by pro- viding general guidelines based on the traditional rules and regulations made by the lamas. Thus, talukdars actually implemented the lama’s system. This system ended in 1996 when the government assigned village development committees (the lowest political unit) to collect local revenues. L IVESTOCK G RAZING Animal husbandry is an integral part of the subsistence agriculture in both mountain and tarai. It is the main occupation of more than 68% of the total households of SPNP (King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation [KMTNC 2004a]). Literature review and case studies show that livestock grazing is common in both tarai and mountain parks of Nepal (Table 22.2), but the grazing pressure is higher in the Tarai parks for several reasons: 1. Tarai parks are mostly surrounded by human settlements, agriculture land, and degraded forests (BPP 1995c). 2. Grazing areas outside the protected areas are limited, and the frequency of livestock grazing is high. 3. Human population has been growing in the buffer-zone areas, where the resources are limited. 4. There are a large number of unpro- ductive livestock (Dhakal 1995; Shrestha 1998). In contrast to the tarai parks, local residents are allowed to graze their livestock in the mountain parks, where human population is relatively low with sparsely scattered settlements, and alpine meadows are relatively large. Besides, grazing pattern in the mountain parks is still guided by traditional transhumance systems (e.g. rotational grazing). For example, livestock move upward in summer and reach the maximum altitude (3000 to greater than 5000 m) during July and August and then slowly return to the lower region (< 3000 m). During December and January, livestock grazing is at the lowest altitude of the area. TABLE 22.1 Distribution of rangelands in Nepal according to Land Resources Mapping Project (LRMP), 1986 Ecological Regions Altitudinal Range (m) Total Land Area of Nepal Grazing Land Area of Nepal km 2 Percent km 2 Percent Tarai (tropical zone) <500 21,220 14.4 496.6 2.92 Churia range (subtropical zone) 501–1,000 18,790 12.7 205.5 1.2 Middle mountains (subtropical and temperate zones) 1,001–3,000 43,503 29.5 2,927.8 17.2 High mountains (subalpine and alpine zones) 3,001–5,000 29,002 19.7 5,071.3 29.8 High Himalayan (nival zone) Above 5,000 34,970 23.7 8,315.4 48.9 Total 147,484 100.00 17,016.6 100.00 3523_C022.fm Page 296 Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:52 AM Copyright © 2006 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Anthropogenic Disturbances on Biodiversity and Protected Area Management in Nepal 297 TABLE 22.2 Protected areas (including their buffer zones) of Nepal showing their altitudinal ranges, areas, and anthropogenic disturbances Mountain Parks and Buffer Zones Altitude Range (m) Protected Area (Km 2 ) Grazing Competition MAPs/Grass Harvest Diversity Loss Sources Core Buffer Khaptad National Park 1400–3300 225 NA X X X X BPP 1995b, Richard et al. 2000 Langtang National Park 792–7245 1710 420 X X X X BPP 1995a, Richard et al. 2000 Makalu Barun National Park 435–8463 1500 830 X X X X BPP 1995a Rara National Park 2800–4048 106 NA X X X X BPP 1995a, Richard et al. 2000 Sagarmatha National Park 2845–8848 1148 275 X X X X BPP 1995a Shey Phoksundo National Park 2000–2732 3555 449 X X X X BPP 1995a, Richard et al. 2000 Shivapuri National Park 1336–2732 144 NA X X X X BPP 1995b, KMTNC 2004b Dhorpatan Hunting Reserve 2850–5500 1325 NA X X X X BPP 1995a, Richard et al. 2000 Annapurna Conservation Area 1151–8091 7629 0 X X X X BPP 1995a, Richard et al. 2000 Kanchenjunga Conservation Area 1200–8586 2035 0 X X X X BPP 1995a, Richard et al. 2000 Manaslu Conservation Area 2000–8156 1663 0 X X U U BPP 1995a Total area of the mountain protected areas 21040 1974 Tarai Parks and Buffer Zone Royal Bardia National Park 152–1441 968 328 XX XX XX X BPP 1995c, Richard et al. 2000 Royal Bardia National Park Extension Area a 153–1247 549 a 344 a XXX XXX XX X Basnet et al. 1998 Royal Chitwan National Park 150–815 932 750 XX XX XX X BPP 1995c Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve 75–81 175 173 XXX XXX XX X BPP 1995c, Richard et al. 2000 Parsa Wildlife Reserve 100–950 499 NA XX XX XX X BPP 1995c, Richard et al. 2000 Royal Shuklaphanta Wildlife Reserve 92–270 305 243.5 XX XX XX X BPP 1995c, Richard et al. 2000 Total area of the Tarai protected areas 3428 1838.5 Total area of all the protected areas 24468 3812.5 Total percent of the protected areas 19.2% Note: X, XX, and XXX indicate moderate, high, and very high intensities of disturbances, respectively; NA = not available; U = unknown. a Not gazetted. 3523_C022.fm Page 297 Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:52 AM Copyright © 2006 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 298 Land Use Change and Mountain Biodiversity As a result, although the frequency of grazing is very high, the intensity of grazing is not that serious in comparison to the Tarai parks. Box 22.2—Shey Phoksundo National Park The park, gazetted in 1984, is located in Dolpa and Mugu districts of the mid- western development region of Nepal (Fig- ure 22.1). Covering about 3555 km 2 , it is the largest national park, that represents trans-Himalayan flora, fauna, and ecosystems in Nepal. With extensive alpine grassland (Figure 22.2) within an elevation rang- ing from 2000 to 6883 m, SPNP also represents the alpine shrub and meadow ecoregion designated by Global 200 (Wikramanayake et al. 1998). SPNP is home to more than 30 species of mammals (including 3 protected species in Nepal), about 200 avifauna, and 6 reptilian species. More than 35 bird species found in SPNP are internationally important (BPP 1995a, Basnet 1998). Indicator species of the upper region of the park include blue sheep ( Pseudois nayaur Hodson), snow leopard ( Panthera uncia Shreber), wolf ( Canis lupus Linnaeus), and the Himalayan thar ( Hemitragus jemlahicus H. Smith). The lower region of the park includes the common leopard ( Panthera pardus Linnaeus) and the musk deer ( Moschus chrysogaster Hodson). The Great Tibetan sheep ( Ovis ammon hodsoni Blyth), wild yak ( Bos grunniens Linnaeus), Tibetan antelope ( Pantholopos hodgsoni Abel), Tibetan wild ass ( Equus kiang Moorcroft), and the Tibetan gazelle ( Gazella gazella Pallas) are some of the unique wild fauna that may occur intermittently around the Nepal–Tibetan border of the park (Figure 22.1). More than 407 medicinal and aromatic plants have been reported from the park (Ghimire et al. 2001). Based on species diversity, the park can be divided into three zones: (1) lower zone (below 2800 m), (2) middle zone (2800 to 4500 m), and (3) upper zone (above 4500 m) (see also Basnet 1998). The middle zone is the highest in species richness and habitat diversity. The buffer zone (outside the park) of the park includes more than 449 km 2 of nine village development committees. There are about 3000 people in the park, 13,000 people in total, and more than 5466 households in the park and buffer zone of Dolpa Dis- trict alone (Basnet 1998). Subsistence agriculture, animal husbandry, and trade are the main income sources of local people. IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING IN SPNP Livestock grazing generates a large number of direct and indirect impacts on park management and wildlife species. Some of the direct effects often cited (e.g. KMTNC 2004a, 2004b, 2004c) include: 1. Competition for forage between livestock and wildlife. 2. Degradation of wildlife habitats and biodiversity loss. 3. Poaching wildlife (e.g. snow leopard, Tibetan wolf) that prey upon livestock. 4. Livestock trampling and killing a large number of wildlife species (e.g. small mammals). Indirect impacts include: 1. Harvesting medicinal and aromatic plants (MAPs) from the pastures. 2. Transferring diseases and parasites to wildlife species. 3. Soil erosion and compaction. In this section, competition between livestock and wildlife, habitat degradation and biodiversity loss, and harvesting MAPs from the pastures have been presented as case studies. W ILDLIFE –L IVESTOCK C OMPETITION The issue of wildlife–livestock competition was examined in blue sheep ( Pseudois nayaur ) and livestock in SPNP (Basnet 1998, 2003a). The 3523_C022.fm Page 298 Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:52 AM Copyright © 2006 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Anthropogenic Disturbances on Biodiversity and Protected Area Management in Nepal 299 FIGURE 22.2 Land use map of Shey Phoksundo National Park, Dolpa. Shey Phoksundo National Park (Landuse map) 29°00' LEGEND Land use classes: Grassland Forest Perpetual snow/glacier Rock Shrubs Cultivated land Lake 29°45'29°45' 29°30' 29°15' 83°00'82°45' 82°45' 10 0 10 20 Kilometers 83°00' 29°00' 29°15' 29°30' 83°15' 83°15' 82°30' 82°30' 3523_C022.fm Page 299 Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:52 AM Copyright © 2006 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 300 Land Use Change and Mountain Biodiversity study focused on three different but related aspects: (1) productivity and vegetation cover of alpine pastures, (2) status of blue sheep and livestock, and (3) seasonal movement of blue sheep and livestock along the altitudinal gradient and their overlap. Pasture productivity and ground cover were assessed using 12 20 m × 20 m plots and 36 20-m transects in upper Dolpa, (Karang at 4100 m, Pauwa at 5000 m, Shey at 4150 m, and Pericopuwa at 3900 m) and lower Dolpa (Ankhe at 2800 m and Suligad at 2600 m) during a peak period of livestock grazing (Basnet 1998, 2003a). From each plot, a subplot of 20 cm × 20 cm was randomly selected and all the vegetation was clipped and weighed to estimate biomass per unit area of the pastures. Information on the livestock holdings of local people, abun- dance of both wildlife and livestock and their movement along the altitudinal gradient, spatial and temporal (seasonal) overlapping of wildlife and livestock, and food composition in the park and buffer zone was gathered using the rapid rural appraisal and additional questionnaire survey. The study showed that: 1. The pastures were productive with standing biomass of 2 to 13 t per hectare, 47 to 66% ground cover by vegetation, and high species diversity with >407 species in all the alpine pastures of Dolpa (Ghimire et al. 2001). 2. Pasture productivity was signifi- cantly higher ( p < .05) in lower Dolpa than in upper Dolpa. 3. The pastures were not overgrazed or degraded except in a few small areas in Shey, Pericopuwa, Pungmo, and Jagadula, where large herds of livestock were kept continuously for several weeks during summer. Regarding the status of blue sheep and livestock: 1. Blue sheep are widely distributed on the grassy slopes with cliffs above the timberline (3900 m), sometimes descending as low as Ankhe (2800 m) during winter (Wegge 1979; Yonzon 1990). 2. More than 400 individuals were sighted mostly in the trans-Hima- layan pastures such as Naure (4540 m); Shey (4150 m); Yak-yong (4600 m); Angjir, Kagmara, Pungmo (3700 m); Namdo (4082 m); Key (3830 m); and Vijer and Pauwa (4500 m); some of which (e.g. Shey, Pericopuwa, and Kagmara) have been known for stable populations of blue sheep for years (Schaller 1974; Yonzon 1990; Prieme and Oksnebjerg 1992; Rich- ard 1994; Basnet 1998). 3. Livestock density was relatively low with 5466 households, each holding an average of 2.2 cows, 8.9 sheep or goats, 0.2 buffalo, and 1 yak. 4. The livestock number has been decreasing recently due to changing socioeconomic conditions (Dhakal 1998) and increasing frequency of wildlife predation by the Tibetan wolf. Regarding the seasonal movement and overlap of wildlife and livestock: 1. Blue sheep move to a lower region (as low as 2800 m) of their range during winter and forage on shrubs and forbs that emerged after livestock grazing in summer, whereas the livestock move to even lower regions (below 2800 m), where the winter cold is less severe and the food is relatively abundant. 2. There is some overlapping between blue sheep and livestock during summer and early fall when the grass is relatively abundant. When there is a scarcity of food, blue sheep spatially separate themselves, escaping to very steep slopes which the majority of livestock cannot reach (Schaller 1973, 1974). Studies on wildlife–livestock interactions in other protected areas of Nepal (e.g. Kanchenjunga Con- servation Area) and India (e.g. Pin Valley National Park) also showed similar results 3523_C022.fm Page 300 Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:52 AM Copyright © 2006 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Anthropogenic Disturbances on Biodiversity and Protected Area Management in Nepal 301 (Bhatnagar et al. 2000; Timilsina and Basnet 2000; Watanabe and Otaki 2002). The study concluded that livestock–blue sheep competition in SPNP was questionable because of the park’s stable populations of blue sheep and abundant resources for the last three decades (Schaller 1974; Yonzon 1990; Richard 1994; Basnet 1998) and proposed long-term experimental research to answer the question of competition or facilitation. B IODIVERSITY L OSS AND H ABITAT D EGRADATION Plant diversity in relation to grazing pressure in three alpine pastures of SPNP was studied by a team of students and instructors of San Francisco State University (Carpenter and Klein 1995). The objective of the study was to gather information about the floristic composition of pastures located at different distances from a major livestock thoroughfare to com- pare patterns of dominance and species diversity to heavy, intermediate, and low levels of grazing pressure. They selected three pastures: (1) Roman Campsite, where a large number of livestock graze and pass through, (2) Murwa Meadow, with medium traffic of livestock and grazing, and (3) Norbu Knoll, which is less accessible to livestock (Table 22.3). Species diversity of plants, ground cover, and plant heights were measured using point samples along 20-m transects. Data analysis showed that 1. Plant cover decreased with increased grazing intensity from 94.2% at Norbu Knoll to 77.4% at Roman Campsite. 2. Species of Graminaceae, Primu- laceae ( Androsace globifera) , Aster- aceae ( Anaphalis triplinervis ), and Plantaginaceae ( Plantago sp.) fami- lies made up 69.4% and 55.5% of total plant cover at the heavy- and medium-grazed sites, Roman Camp- site, and Murwa Meadow, respectively, but at Norbu Knoll with less grazing pressure, only two species TABLE 22.3 Rangeland conditions and frequency of most common taxa in three grazing sites in the Murwa River Valley of Shey Phoksundo National Park Conditions Roman Campsite Murwa Meadow Norbu Knoll Grazing intensity High Medium Low Sample size (N = number of hits) 1092 699 796 Number of taxa 27 33 61 Plant cover 77.5% 85.8% 94.3% Common taxa 7.4% 9.1% 3.3% Rare taxa 63.0% 63.6% 68.9% Diversity (alpha) 5.32 7.49 15.79 Plant height 1.3 ± 1.5 6.8 ± 13.8 9.1 ± 15.4 Dung cover 1.0% 1.3% 0.4% Frequency of taxa Graminaceae 40.5% 22.0% 25.3% Androsace globifera — 19.2% — Monocot (five star?) — 14.4% — Anaphalis triplinervis 15.0% —— Plantago species 13.8% —— Rhododendron lepidotum — — 12.4% Total cover by dominant species 69.4% 55.5% 37.6% Source: From Carpenter, C. and Klein, J. (1995). 3523_C022.fm Page 301 Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:52 AM Copyright © 2006 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 302 Land Use Change and Mountain Biodiversity ( Graminaceae species and Rhodo- dendron lepidotum ) comprised 37.6% of plant cover. 3. Species richness was inversely pro- portional to presumed grazing intensity. For example, 61 taxa were recorded at low intensity of grazing (Norbu Knoll), 33 at medium intensity of grazing (Murwa Meadow), and 27 at high intensity of grazing (Roman Campsite). 4. A log series index (alpha) showed that Norbu Knoll had the highest species diversity (alpha = 15.79) com- pared to 7.49 in Murwa Meadow and 5.32 in Roman Campsite. 5. Mean plant height varied signifi- cantly ( p < .05) from each site (Table 22.3). These findings support the intermediate dis- turbance hypothesis: Low and high levels of grazing intensity result in a decrease in standing crop and species richness of the rangeland community. H ARVESTING P RESSURE People and Plants Initiative of the World Wild- life Fund (WWF, UK) and UNESCO have been conducting long-term research on conservation of plant resources and community development in SPNP (Ghimire et al. 2000, 2001). Many of the more than 407 MAPs in SPNP (Ghimire et al. 2001) are facing threats from commercial harvesting. One of the main objectives of the ongoing research project is to explore the impacts of harvesting MAPs on the pasturelands. Highly threatened MAP species ( Nar- dostachys grandiflora , Neopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora , Dactylorhiza hatagirea , Delphinium himalayai , and Jurinea dolomiaea ) of high eco- nomical and ecological values (Box 22.3) were selected as study units for monitoring. Different pastures growing these species were selected at an altitude of 3900 to 4300 m inside the park and at 3763 to 4270 m in the buffer zone and 20 5 m × 5 m plots, each subdivided into 25 1 m × 1 m subplots were established and marked permanently. Seven plots inside the park were chosen for experimental harvesting of N. grandiflora , and N. scrophulariiflora . Using Latin square and randomized block designs, these plots were assigned for five different levels of harvesting with five replicates: (1) no harvesting, (2) 25% harvesting, (3) 50% harvesting, (4) 75% harvesting, and (5) 100% harvesting of N. scrophulariiflora . In case of N. grandiflora , the five levels of harvesting were: (1) no harvesting, (2) 10% harvesting, (3) 25% harvesting, (4) 50% harvesting, and (5) 75% harvesting. Within each subplot, plants were tagged and their growth, mortality, reproductive capacity, and phenology were recorded at reg- ular intervals throughout a year. The remaining plots, both in the park and buffer zone, were located along a gradient of different human pressure to assess structure and population dynamics of all the selected species (Box 22.3) in natural conditions. This experiment showed that 1. There was a general trend of decreasing ramet (vegetative offshoot) recruitment and survivorship with the increasing intensity of harvesting. 2. A moderate harvesting intensity (25% harvesting) had the least impact on ramet density of N. scrophulariiflora (in case of N. grandiflora , 10% harvesting had the least impact). 3. Beyond these minimum levels of harvesting, there was a reduction in the rate of ramet recruitment. 4. N. globiflora was more vulnerable to harvesting than N. scrophulariiflora . A similar trend was observed in the population dynamics of these species in the buffer-zone plots. The outcomes of the experimental and observational assessment in the park and buffer zone suggested that commercial harvesting has been a major problem in protecting species and managing alpine pastures (Ghimire et al. 2001). Currently, 23 different medicinal and aromatic products of more than 21 plant species are traded from Dolpa District. This has caused heavy pressure on local pasturelands and MAPs. The district forest office records showed that commercial harvesting for export has been 3523_C022.fm Page 302 Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:52 AM Copyright © 2006 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC [...]... and India and represent mainly two ecoregions: alpine shrub and meadow in the mountains and Tarai-Duar savannas and grasslands in the lowland tarai The main objective of this chapter was to explore the impacts of anthropogenic disturbances (e.g livestock grazing and resource harvesting) on biodiversity of alpine pastures through literature review, field surveys, and case studies Specifically, it focused... depends on their proper implementation 3523_C 022. fm Page 304 Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:52 AM 304 Land Use Change and Mountain Biodiversity SUMMARY Nepal has been giving a high priority to biodiversity conservation for more than three decades, by creating and managing 16 protected areas (national parks, wildlife reserves, hunting reserves, conservation areas, and their buffer zones), which cover more... K.M., Sigdel, E.R., and Ghimire, P (1998) Royal Bardia National Park-Extension Area A Biodiversity Inventory WWF Nepal Program, Kathmandu, Nepal Basnet, K., Dhakal, D.P., and Thapa, S.B (2003) Sagarmatha National Park Management Issues Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation and UNDP, Nepal Bell, D.J and Oliver, W.L.R (1992) Northern Indian tall grasslands: management and species conservation... Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu, Nepal, pp 70–84 Biodiversity Profiles Project (BPP) (1995a) Biodiversity Profile of the High Himalaya/High Mountains Physiographic Zone Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal BPP (1995b) Biodiversity Profile of the Midhills Physiographic Zone Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal BPP (1995c) Biodiversity. .. riverine grassland and forest in Chitwan National Park, Nepal Vegetatio, 111: 29–43 LRMP (1986) Land Resource Mapping Project His Majesty’s Government of Nepal and Government of Canada Parajuli, D.B (1998) Indigenous System of Pasture Resource Management in Kunasa Area within Shey Phoksundo National Park WWF Nepal Program, Kathmandu, Nepal Pariyar, D (1998) Rangeland Resource Biodiversity and Some Options... Improvements National Biodiversity Action Plan, Kathmandu, Nepal Peet, N.B., Watkinson, A.R., Bell, D.J., and Brown, K (1997) The Management of Tall Grasslands for the Conservation of Biodiversity and Sustainable Utilization Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation and University of East Anglia 3523_C 022. fm Page 306 Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:52 AM 306 Prieme, A and Oksnebjerg, B (1992)... 22. 2) This is a justification for long-term integrated research and a holistic approach of biodiversity conservation that involves local participation, techniques, and resources Emerging conservation approaches (e.g buffer-zone development, landscape-level conservation, and transboundary conservation) with such promises have been reflected in the recent management plans of mountain protected areas of Nepal... No 34 WWF Nepal Program, Kathmandu, Nepal Basnet, K (2000) Representation of grassland ecosystems in the Himalayan ecoregions In Richard, C., Sah, J.P., Basnet, K., Karki, J.B., and Raut, Y (Eds.) Grassland Ecology and Management in Protected Areas of Nepal, Vol I International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu, Nepal, pp 7–14 Basnet, K (2003a) Wildlife-livestock competition: a major... Socio-Economic Assessment and Gender Analysis WWF Nepal Program Shrestha, K.K., Ghimire, S.K., Gurung, T.N., Lama, Y.C., and Aumeeruddy, Y (1998) Conservation of Plant Resources, Community Development and Training in Applied Ethnobotany at Shey Phoksundo National Park and Its Buffer Zone Publication Series No 33, WWF Nepal Program, Kathmandu, Nepal Copyright © 2006 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Land Use Change. .. pastures and biodiversity loss Although these results are compatible with the findings from other Himalayan protected areas (Bhatnagar et al 2000; Timilsina and Basnet 2000; Watanabe and Otaki 2002; Basnet et al 2003), they cannot be generalized because livestock grazing and other conditions (e.g ecological, sociocultural, and location) vary across the mountain protected areas of Nepal (Table 22. 2) This . alpine shrubs and meadows in the mountains and Tarai-Duar savannas and grasslands in the lowland Tarai (see Box 22. 1). For more than three decades, a large number of management prob- lems,. products), and illegal hunting. Tarai-Duar savannas and grasslands : The tropical alluvial grasslands, distributed in the lowlands of Nepal and Assam, are the last remnants of a once-extensive. with China and India and represent mainly two ecoregions: alpine shrub and meadow in the mountains and Tarai-Duar savannas and grasslands in the lowland tarai. The main objective of this chapter