Sunteți pe pagina 1din 96

NATURAL FOREST AND AGROFOREST: A COMPARATIVE STUDY IN MADHUPUR SAL FOREST, BANGLADESH

A Dissertation Submitted to the Department of Environmental Sciences, Jahangirnagar Un i ve rsi t y, in Part ial Fu lfillm en t of th e Require ments for the Degree of BACHELOR OF SCIENCE (B.Sc.) IN ENVI RONMENTAL SCIENCES

Course No. Env.470

SUBMITTED BY Exam. Roll: Env. 020807 Reg. No: 17756 Session: 20012002

Env. 020807 Reg. No: 17756 Session: 2001 ‐ 2002 Department of Envir onmental Sciences Jahangirnagar

Department of Envir onmental Sciences Jahangirnagar University Savar, Dhaka1342

May, 2007

DEDICATED TO MY BELOVED PARENTS
DEDICATED
TO
MY BELOVED
PARENTS

ABSTRACT

The present study was conducted with compar ative study between na tural forest (NF) and agrofor e st (AF) in Madhupur Sal forest of Bangladesh from July, 2006 to February, 2007. The maximum and the minimum soil pH of NF were 5.5 and 4.6 respectively and the maximum and the minimum soil pH of AF were 7.1 and 4.4 respectively in August, 2006. Again the maximum and the minimum soil pH of NF were 4.9 and 4.0 respectively and the maximum and the minimum soil pH of AF were 6.5 and 4.2 respective ly in February, 2007. The maximum and the minimum iron (Fe) content of NF were 465.08 ppm and 160.08 ppm respectively and the maximum and the minimum iron content of AF were 579.36 ppm and 138.49 ppm respectively in August, 2006. Again, the maximum and the minimum iron content (Fe) of NF were 419.23 ppm and 102.84 ppm respectively and the maximum and the minimum iron content of AF were 256.41 ppm and 30.41 ppm respectively in February, 2007. The maximum and the minimum soil organic matter of NF were 2.75% and 0.91% respectively and the maximum and the minimum soil organic matter of AF were 2.72% and 0.87% respectively in August, 2006. Again, the maximum and the minimum soil organic matter of NF were 2.70% and 0.91% respectively and the maximum and the minimum soil organic matter of AF were 2.72% and 0.72% respectively in February, 2007. A total of 23 spe c ies of herbs were observed in NF and 5 species of herbs were observed in AF. A total of 8 species of shrubs were observed in NF and 3 species of shrubs were observed in AF. A total of 53 species of trees were observed s in NF and 7 species of trees were observed in AF. A total of 8 species of climbers were observed in NF and 3 species of clim bers were observed in AF. A total of 5 species of amphibians were observed in NF and 3 species of amphibians were obse r ve d in AF. A total of 6 sp ecies of reptiles were observed in NF and 3 species of reptiles were observed in AF. A total of 58 spe c ies of birds were observed in NF and 21 species of birds were observed in AF. A total of 10 species of mammals were observed in NF and 4 species of mammals we r e observed in AF.

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ADB Asian Deve lopm ent Bank

AF Agroforest

BFIDC Bangladesh Forest Industries Development Corporation

BFRI Bangladesh Forest Resear ch Institute

CBD Convention on Bi ological Diversity

FAO Food and Agricultur e Organization of the United Nations

FD Forest Department

NF Natural for e st

NGOs NonGovernmental Organizations

MoE Ministry of Environment

TANDP Tha na Afforestation and Nu rsery De ve l opm e nt Project

CONTENTS

Dedication ……………………………………………………… ……………………………………………….

i

Abstract …………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………

ii

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ………………………………………………………………

iii

Contents ………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………….

ivvii

List of Tables …………………………………………………… ………………………………………………

viii

List of Figur es …………………………………………………………………………………………………. viii xi

List of Maps ……………………………………………………… …………………………………………….

CHAP TER ONE INTRODUCTIO N

1.1 General ……………………………………………………………………………………

1.2 Aims and Objectives ………………………………………………………………….

CHAP TER TWO LITE RATURE REVIEW

2.1 Literature Re vie w ………………………………………………………………………

CHAP TER THREE STUDY AREA

xi

15

1

5

610

6

1119

3.1

General ……………………………………………………………………………………

11

3.2

Madhupur Sal Forest …………………………………………………………………

12

3.2.1

Geographical and Ecological conditions …………………………………….

12

3.2.2

Topographical conditions …………………………………………………………

13

3.3

Climate ………………………………………………………………………………………

17

3.4

Meteorological Data ………………………………………………………………….

18

3.5

Description of Different Sites …………………………………………………….

18

3.5.1

Natural Forest (NF) …………………………………………………………………….

18

3.5.2 Agroforest (AF) …………………………………………………………………………

CHAP TER FOUR MATERIALS AND METHODS

19

2025

4.1

Materials Used For Soil Collection ……………………………………………

20

4.2

Methods Us ed For Soil Analysis …………………………………………………

20

4.2.1

Collection of the Soil Sample ……………………………………………………

20

4.2.2

Laboratory Work ……………………………………………………………………….

20

4.2.2.1

Soil pH ……………………………………………………………………………………….

21

4.2.2.2

Soil Iron (Fe) ………………………………………………………………………………

21

4.2.2.3

Soil Organic Carbon …………………………………………………………………

21

4.2.2.4

Soil Organic Matter …………………………………………………………………

23

4.3

Materials Used For Observation of Flora and Fauna ………………….

23

4.4

Methods Us ed For Observation of Flora and Fauna …………………

23

4.4.1

Strip Transect Method ……………………………………………………………….

23

4.4.2

Quadrat Method ……………………………………………………………………….

24

4.4.3

Dropping/Calls/Songs ………………………………………………………………

24

4.4.4

Collection and Identification ……………………………………………………

24

4.4.5

Local Information ………………………………………………………………………

24

4.4.6

Identification of Birds ………………………………………………………………

24

4.4.7

Identification of Reptiles and Mammals …………………………………….

25

4.5

Software ……………………………………………………………………………………

25

CHAP TER FIVE RESULTS AND D ISCUSSIO NS

2667

5.1

Results ……………………………………………………………………………………….

26

5.1.1

Soil Analysis Results ………………………………………………………………

26

5.1.1.1

Soil pH ……………………………………………………………………………………….

26

5.1.1.2

Soil Iron (Fe) ………………………………………………………………………………

27

5.1.1.3

Soil Organic Matter ……………………………………………………………………

28

5.1.2

Flora Results ………………………………………………………………………………

29

5.1.2.1

Herbs …………………………………………………………………………………………

29

5.1.2.2

Shrubs …………………………………………… ………………………………………….

31

5.1.2.3

Trees …………………………………………………………………………………………

33

5.1.2.4

Climbers …………………………………………………………………………………….

36

5.1.3

Fauna Result s …………………………………………………………………………….

47

5.1.3.1

Amphibians ……………………………………………………………………………….

47

5.1.3.2

Reptiles ……………………………………………………………………………………

48

5.1.3.3

Birds ………………………………………………………………………………………….

50

5.1.3.4

Mammals …………………………………………………………………………………

54

5.2

Discussion ………………………………………………………………………………….

63

CHAP TER SIX CO NCL USION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6869

6.1 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………

68

6.2 Recommendations …………………………………………………………………….

68

6.3 Limitations ………………………………………………………………………………

69

REFERENCES

7073

APPENDICES

7478

Appendix I

The maximum (Max.) and minimum (Min.) temperature

(Temp.) of the study area from July 2006 to February 2007 …

74

Appendix II

Total rainfall of the stu dy area from July 2006 to February

2007 ……………………………………………… ………………………………………

74

Appendix III

The maximum (Max.) and minimum (Min.) relative humidity (R.H.) of the study area fr om July 2006 to February 2007 ………

 

74

Appendix IV

Soil pH of NF and AF in August, 2006 ………………………………………

75

Appendix V

Soil pH of NF and AF in February, 2007 ……………………………………

75

Appendix VI

Soil iron (Fe) content of NF and AF in August, 2006 …………………

75

Appendix VII Soil iron (Fe) content of NF and AF in February, 2007 ………………

76

Appendix VIII Soil organic matter of NF and AF in August, 2006 ……………………

76

Appendix IX

Soil organic matter of NF and AF in February, 2007 ………………….

76

Appendix X

List of plant s which provide food for capped langurs and monkeys ………………………………………………………………………………

77

Appendix XI

List of common plants which food and nesting sites for birds

77

Appendix XII:

List of medicinal plants which found in Madhupur Sal forest ….

77

List of Tab les

Table No.

Table Names

Page No.

Table 5.1

List of herbs identified in NF with their status

 

29

Table 5.2

List of herbs identified in AF with their status

 

30

Table 5.3

List of shrub s identified in NF with their status

 

31

Table 5.4

List of shrub s identified in AF with their status

 

32

Table 5.5

List of trees identified in NF with their status

 

33

Table 5.6

List of trees identified in AF with their status

 

35

Table 5.7

List of climbers identified in NF with their status

 

36

Table 5.8

List of climbers identified in AF with their status

 

37

Table 5.9

List of amphibians identified in NF with their status

 

47

Table 5.10

List of amphibians identified in AF with their status

 

47

Table 5.11

List of reptiles identified in NF with their status

 

48

Table 5.12

List of reptiles identified in AF with their status

 

49

Table 5.13

List of birds identified in NF with their status

 

50

Table 5.14

List of birds identified in AF with their status

 

52

Table 5.15

List of mammal identified in NF with their status

 

54

Table 5.16

List of mammals identified in AF with their status

 

54

List of Figures

 

Figure

Figure Names

 

Page

No.

 

No.

Fig. 3.1

The maximum (Max.) and minimum (Min.) temperature (Temp.) of the study area from July 2006 to February 2007

17

Fig. 3.2

Total rainfall of the study area from July 2006 to February 2007

 

17

Fig. 3.3

The maximum (Max.) and minimum (Min.) relative humidity (R.H.)

18

 

of the study area from July 2006 to F e bruary 2007

 

Fig. 5.1

Soil pH of NF and AF in August, 2006

26

Fig. 5.2

Soil pH of NF and AF in February, 2007

27

Fig. 5.3

Soil iron content (ppm) of NF and AF in August, 2006

27

Fig. 5.4

Soil iron content (ppm) of NF and AF in February, 2007

28

Fig. 5.5

Soil organic matter of NF and AF in August, 2006

28

Fig. 5.6

Soil organic matter of NF and AF in February, 2007

29

Fig. 5.7

No. of different species of herbs obs e rved in NF and AF

31

Fig. 5.8

No. of different species of shrubs ob served in NF and AF

33

Fig. 5.9

No. of different species of trees obs e rved in NF and AF

36

Fig. 5.10

No. of different species of climbers observed in NF and AF

37

Fig. 5.11

Total no. of different species of flor a observed in NF and AF

38

Fig. 5.12

Tangail Mymensingh road beside the natural forest

39

Fig. 5.13

View of nat ural forest

39

Fig. 5.14

Tree has been cut from the natural for e st

39

Fig. 5.15

View of agroforest

40

Fig. 5.16

View of agroforest after crop plantation

40

Fig. 5.17

Encroachment in agroforest after crop harvest

40

Fig. 5.18

Ban ghagra (Urena lobata )

41

Fig. 5.19

Lajjabati ( Mimosa pudica )

41

Fig. 5.20

Bhant ( Clerod endrum viscosum)

41

Fig. 5.21

Satthi ( Curcuma zeoderia )

41

Fig. 5.22

Anarash ( Ananas comosus )

42

Fig. 5.23

Chotto Kalkesunde ( C assia obtusifo li a )

42

Fig. 5.24

Ban tezpata ( Melastoma malabathricum )

42

Fig. 5.25

Kurchi ( Ho larrhena antidysenterica)

42

Fig. 5.26

Amrah ( Spondias pinnata )

43

Fig. 5.27

Segun ( Tectona grandis )

43

Fig. 5.28

Bohera ( Terminalia belerica )

43

Fig. 5.29

Chalta ( Dellenia indica)

43

Fig. 5.30

Shal ( Shorea robusta)

44

Fig. 5.31

Bot ( Ficus bengalensis)

44

Fig. 5.32

Sinduri (Mallotus phillippensis)

44

Fig. 5.33

Pia ( Toona ciliata )

44

Fig. 5.34:

Pepey (Carica papaya )

45

Fig. 5.35

Akashmoni ( Acacia auriculiformis)

45

Fig. 5.36

Bash ( Bambusa spp.)

45

Fig. 5.37

Bara Kalkesunda ( Cassia siamea)

45

Fig. 5.38

Assam lata (Mikania scandens)

46

Fig. 5.39

Bet ( Calamus rotung)

46

Fig. 5.40

Kanchan ( Bauhinia acuminata )

46

Fig. 5.41

Amal lata ( Vi tis trifolia)

46

Fig. 5.42

No. of different species of amphibians observed in NF and AF

48

Fig. 5.43

No. of different species of reptiles observed in NF and AF

49

Fig. 5.44

No. of different species of birds ob s e rved in NF and AF

53

Fig. 5.45

No. of different species of mammals observed in NF and AF

55

Fig. 5.46

Total no. of different species of fauna observed in NF and AF

55

Fig.5.47

Indian bull frog ( Rana tigrina )

56

Fig. 5.48

Bengal monitor lizard ( Varanus bengalensis)

56

Fig. 5.49

Common bronze back tree snake ( De ndrelaphis tristis )

56

Fig. 5.50

Black headed oriole ( Orio lus xanthornus )

57

Fig. 5.51

Chestnut tailed starling (Sturnus malabaricus)

57

Fig. 5.52

Crested serpent eagle ( Spilornis cheela )

57

Fig. 5.53

Darksided flycatcher (Muscicapa sibirica )

58

Fig. 5.54

Grey crowne d pygmy woodpecker ( Dendrocopos canicapillus )

58

Fig. 5.55

Lesser goldenbacked woodpecker ( Dinopium bengalensis)

58

Fig. 5.56

Large cuckoo shrike ( Cora cina macei)

59

Fig. 5.57

Spangled drongo ( Dicrurus hottentottus )

59

Fig. 5.58

Coppersmith barbet ( Me galaima haemacephala)

59

Fig. 5.59

Lineated barbet ( Megalaima lineata )

60

Fig. 5.60

Small minive t ( Pericr ocotus cinnamomeus )

60

Fig. 5.61

Brainfever bird ( Cuculus varius )

60

Fig. 5.62

Emarald dove ( Chalcophaps indica )

61

Fig. 5.63

Spotted dove ( Streptopelia chinensis)

61

Fig. 5.64

A pair of Common Mayna ( Acridotheres tristis)

61

Fig. 5.65

Capped langur ( Trachypithecus pileatus )

62

Fig. 5.66

Hoary bellied Himalayan squirrel ( Call osciurus pygerythrus )

62

Fig. 5.67

Leopard cat ( Prionailurus bengalensis )

62

Fig. 5.68

Species status of herbs in NF (a) and AF (b)

65

Fig. 5.69

Species status of shrubs in NF (a) and AF (b)

65

Fig. 5.70

Species status of trees in NF (a) and AF (b)

65

Fig. 5.71

Species status of climbers in NF (a) and AF (b)

65

Fig. 5.72

Species status of amphi bians in NF (a) and AF (b)

67

Fig. 5.73

Species status of reptiles in NF (a) and AF (b)

67

Fig. 5.74

Species status of birds in NF (a) and AF (b)

67

Fig. 5.75

Species status of mammals in NF (a) and AF (b)

67

List of Maps

Map No.

Map Names

Page No.

Map 3.1

Map of Bangladesh showing Madhupur National Park

14

Map 3.2

Map of Tang ail district showing Madhupur National Park.

15

Map 3.3

Map of Madhupur National Park showing natural forest (NF) and agrofor e st (AF)

16

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

The forest is an important natural resource that plays several important roles in na ture.

It is a storehouse of biological diversity. It is generally re c ognize d that a minimum of 25 to 33 percent of the land in any country should be covered by forest in order to maintain

a balanced ecosystem. The forested areas, however, ar e decreasing day by day all over the world as a re sult of human activities. Asia is losing almost 1% of tropical forest per year. In Asia, some 67% of wildlife ha bitat has been converte d to other uses (McNeely. 1991) .

In Bangladesh the total area of forest land is 2.53 million hectares representing about 17.5% of the country’s area. Bangladesh Forest Department manages 1.53 m illion hectares of forest land. Ministry of Environment and Forest and its associated agencies like Forest Department (FD), Bangladesh Forest Industries Development Corporation (BFIDC) and Bangladesh Forest Research Institute (BFRI) are mainly assigned with responsibilities for de ve lopm e nt of forestry se c tor of Bangladesh. Forest Department is the main age nc y responsible for forest resources conservation, management and development. Bangladesh is one of the first signatories of the Convention on Biologi c al Diversity (CBD) and has thus committed itse lf to conserving natural and biological resources.

In the past few decades over 100,000 hectares of high forest s has been converted into plantations. A total of 12, 58, 022 hectares area of plantations is accomplished during the plantation years of 1981 1987 by forest department (R eza et al. 1992).

Bangladesh being a tropical country containing 120, 000 hectares of inland moist deciduous Sal ( Shorea robusta ) forests, which is 0.81% of the country and is distributed in the districts of Dhaka, Tangail, My m e nsi ngh, Dinajpur, Rangpur (White and Ali. 1979, Reza et al. 1992). The tr opical moist deciduous forest of Bangladesh is commonly known as 'Sal Forests'. Many people nearby Sal forest area are realizing that they are not getting timber, fuelwood, and other forest product as they got before. Besides, the growing stock of the existing Sal forests and its associates are de clining day by day. So

they have started plantation like wood lot plantation and agroforestry practice in the i r own land and the government land (which were occupied by forest before) through participatory approach with Forest Department with financial assistance from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Thana Afforestation and Nursery Deve l opm e nt Project (TANDP) in November 1989 (PROSHIKA. 1995). According to the re port of Forestry Master Plan completed in 1993 the Sal forest in Tangail district has shrunk to 1000 hectares in 1990 from 20,000 hectares in 1970.

Agroforestry is the combination of agricultural and forestry technologies to create integrated, diverse and productive la nd use systems (Garrett et al. 2000). Agroforestry reduces the dependence of farmers on forest for the purpose of firewood, fodder, timber and other products. It increases the income of the farmers.

The World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) made this definition in 1993: “Agroforestry is a collective name for land use systems and practices in which woody perennials are deliberately integrated with crops and/or animals on the same land management unit . The integration can be either in a spa ti a l mixtur e or in a temporal sequence. There are normally both ecological and economic interactions between woody and non woody components in Agroforestry”.

Agroforestry is aimed at producing timber. In such plantations, trees are planted on private or public forest land. When the trees mature on public forest land under agroforestry the benefits are distributed between the government and the participants. The Forest Department (FD) is pr ac t i c i ng agroforestry in the Sal forest for decades together on a participatory approach to replant the barren forest land with financial assistance from the Asian Development Bank (ADB). It has been observed that, agroforestry practice is very much pr ofitable land use but it destroys fertility of the la nd very rapidly. If the nutrient uptake by the planted exotic species and the growth rate are relatively higher than the native spe c i e s specially the undergrowth, then they can negatively affect the grow th of the l a tter ones.

It is true that there is no alternative which can stop the world wide loss of nat ural forests. However, re fore station is one of the efforts which can minimize the hum a n demand and thus decrease the pressure on natural forests. At present, tree plantation has become a world wi de social movement but the reforestation efforts that are taking place are usually of monoculture plantations grown for singl e purpose.

Natural forests throughout the country ar e increasingly be ing depleted. Various types of development activity, such as dikes, highway, road construction, and other infrastructure development have further intensified deforestation, and destruction of natural forests in Bangladesh.

The reduction of Sal forest is occurring through over exploitation, deforestation, excessive leaf litter collection, encroachment , indiscriminate collection of sp ecific economically important plant species (i.e. medi cinal, fodder etc), and other form of human interference. On social point of view, Sal forest is one of the main forested areas in Bangladesh where a cross section of tribal people has been dwelling and they are dependent on Sal forests for their total livelihood. Commercial fuelwood plant a tion through agroforestry is also responsible for the degradation of traditional Sal forests. Under a project, funded by the Asian Development Bank, the degraded and un encroached government Sal forest areas in Madhupur were brought under woodlot plantation. But this has caused humanitarian as well as ecological harm to the forest . In addition, it has cleane d out coppices of Sal trees and other indigenous species of plants. This has destroyed the possibility of the regeneration of the natural forests in many places. The forest has been exhausted to such an extent that it has lost the main features of the original Sal forest. With the disappearance of the natur a l forest most of the wild animal life in the Sal forest has also van i shed rapidly.

Natural forest is most important natural habitat for wild life. Forest is composed of a large flora and fauna. It maintains ecological balance and biological diversity. For e st provides food, fuel, fodder, fibe r, shelter and timber to man. Forests control air pollution to a great extent. Green plants of the forests are primary producers of the food chain. It supports industrial and commercial activities. It conserves water and soil moi sture.

Forests play a significant role in keeping the balance of atmospheric gases by consuming CO 2 and releasing O 2 . Oxygen is essential for all living organisms. It maintains soi l fertility, regulates earth’ s temperature and checks soil erosion.

"Ecosystem" is the term used for the sum total of vegetation, animals, and physical environment in whatever size segment of the world is chose n for stu dy (Fosberg. 1967). Ecosystems are interacting comple xes of living organisms (plants, fungi, bacteria, animals) and the physical environment (soil, air, water, bedrock) immediately affe cting them

Biological diversity or biodiversity refers to the richness of life forms in our environment, including different species of plants, animals and microorganisms, along with the genes they contain, and the ecosystems they form.

“Biological Diversity” means the variability am ong living organisms from all sources including, inter alia , terrestrial, mar ine and other aquatic ecosystems, and the ecological complexe s of which they ar e part; it includes diversity within species between species, and of ecosystems ( A r tic le II, CBD. 1992).

Biological diversity or biodiversity re fe rs to the variability among the living organisms; plants, animals and microbes from all sou r ces including terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and ecological complexes of which they are part (Shukla et al. 2000).

By this comparative study between natural forest (NF) and agroforest (AF), an am ple possibility may generate for the reforestation of denuded natural forest and enrichment of the species diversity of Madhupur Sal forest.

1.2 Aims and Objectives

The present study has the following objectives

1.

Identify and register the floral species of natural forest (NF) and agroforest (AF).

2.

Identify and register the faunal species of natural forest (NF) and agrofor e st (AF).

3.

Study the chemical properties of the soil (i.e. soil pH, soil org a nic matter and soil ir on content) of natural forest (NF) and agroforest (AF).

4.

Find the effects of natural forest degradation.

5.

Find the effects of agroforestry on biodiversity.

6.

Compare the species diversity of natural forest (NF) and agroforest (AF).

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Literature Review

Rahman (2004) studied on some important physical parame ters of soil s of six major Sal forests of Bangladesh. He observed soil colors, particle sizes, soil textural classes and maximum water holding capacity in different depths and in different ecological habitats. He found that soil texture, soil color and maximum water holding capacity were different in different Sal forest sites.

Uddin et al. (2006) st udied the role of participatory agroforestry on community development in Sal forest area, Bangladesh. They found that, agroforestry was proved to be a profitable land use. They also found that the socioeconomic status and overall living stand a rd of the farmers we r e impr oved radically after taking part in the participatory approach and the physioclimatic structure of the region was also changed in a positive path.

Kumar (2006) studied the potentiality of agroforestry to arrest land degradation in Asia. He found that agroforestry improve site productivity through interactions among trees, soil, crops and livestock and thus restore part, if not all, of the degraded lands. He also found that despite of advantages, agroforestry as a land use option has not attr acted much attention from the planners and extension community.

Nath et al. (2005) studi ed the effects of small scale agroforestry on upland community development in the Chittagong Hill Tr acts, Bangladesh. The st udy clarifie d the merits and demerits of different agroforestry systems as perceived by farmers, their impacts on the rural economy and the environment, farmers' attitudes toward the adoption of agroforestry and impacts of various government policies. They found that the agroforestry interventions have in fact increased farmers' inc om e through employment and the se lling of farm products, as well as by improving the ecological conditions of these areas through reduction of soil erosion, increasing tree coverage, and maintaining soil fertility.

Muhammed et al. (2005) studied the policy and plan versus implementation of forest management in Bangladesh. Due to various soc i oeconomic and sociopolitical factors, forest cover of the country reduced drastically and all such policy initiatives proved ineffective. They found that while traditional forest management re sulte d in a net loss of forest resource cover, soc i a l forestry on the other hand, is playing a vital role in the expansion of forest cover benefiting thousands of poor peopl e .

Laakso et al. (2006) stud ied the Nonwood Forest Benefits and Agroforestry Practices in the Fouta Dj allon Highlands of Guinea. They examined the benefits a rural family gets from forests and trees in their everyday life , how significant those benefits are for their livelihood, and what people think about some agroforestry practices. They found that the benefits offered by forests are both indirect and direct. Wood used for cooking remains the most important livelihood produc t from forests. Many non wood forest products, like medicinal and food plants, are important to the villagers. The forest la nd and the use of leaves as fertilizers are also essential for agriculture and cattle husbandry. The most explicit value is that from fruits that can be sold for a profit. Other benefits of trees, such as providing shade and windbreaks, are also highly valued. The agroforestry practices studied were not well known in the study villages.

McNeely (2004) studied the management of relationships between forests, agroforestry and wild biodiversity. Biodiversity is a forest value that does not carry a market price. It is the foundation, however, upon which productive systems depend. He found that, the relationship between agroforestry and the wild biodiversity contained in more natural forests is a complicated one, de pe ndi ng on the composition of the agroforestry sy st em itself and the way it is managed. Complex for e st gardens are more supportive of biodiversity than monoc r op systems, shade coffee more than sun coffee, and systems using native plants tend to be more biologically diverse. Nonnative plants, especially potentially invasive alien species, threaten biodiversity and need to be avoided. The relationship between forests, agroforestry and wild biodiversity can be made most productive through applying adaptive management approaches that incorporate ongoing research and monitoring in order to feed infor m a t ion back into the

management system. Clear government policy frameworks are needed that suppor t alliances among the many interest gr oups involved in forest biodiversity.

Hossain (2005) studied the threatened forest genetic resources and strategies for conservation in Banglade sh. He observed that, the natural for e st s of Bangladesh, one of the richest and biologically diverse forest resources are facing severe thr e a t s re cently . The natural forests of the country are declining at an alarming rate. Forest genetic resources ar e disappearing due to cleari ng land for agriculture, shifting cultivation, construction of roads, habitation, loggin g for timber, fuelwood collection, encroachment, and conversion of forest lands for other uses. The physical, demographic, and economic pressures are also altering the natural environment rapidly. In thi s wa y many plant and animal species, widely distributed in the past, have either become extinct or can only be found in low densities in localized areas. However, very recently, conservation efforts through in situ and ex sit u programs are gaining priority in both public and private levels. Conservation and utilization of forest genetic resources are given emphasis with an aim of improving forest products as well as collection and supply of improved materials from the genetic resources.

Sinha et al. (2005) studi ed the propagation and silviculture of two fore st trees, Shorea robusta and Dipterocarpus turbinatus , for re storation of a sustainable for e st ecosystem. Shorea robusta and Dipterocarpus tu rbinatus of the family Dipterocarpa ceae, two tree species of the rain forests in South and Southeast Asia, are of great economic importance for timber. They are generally propagated by seed that are recalcitrant and lose their viability within a few days of maturity. Moreover, the survival rate of seedli ngs planted in the open spaces of degraded forests is very low. They compar ed propagation methods by seed germination, cutting and layering, and in vitro micropropagation and found that, for large scale planting materials in these two species, seed collection at proper maturation time is the best, ensuring 75% healthy seedlings.

Ruark et al. (2003) stud ied the roles for agroforestry in he lpi ng to achieve sustainable forest mana gement. Forestry is fa c e d with the challe nge of meeting an increasing demand for goods, as well as for an expanding array of se r vi c e s, like clean water, soil

conservation, and wildlife habitat, from a fixed or shrinking land base. They observed that, for balance fore stry with the sustainability of other se c tor s, like agriculture and communities, are needed. Agroforestry, the de liberate cultivation of trees or other woody plants with crops or pasture for multiple benefits, is an important category of planted forests that has the potential to provide farmers, communities, and society atlarge with a wide array of forest relate d goods and services. Agroforestry can complement forestry sector efforts in sustainable forest management by providing a set of tree based conservation and production practices for agricultural lands. Some important sustainability issues on which agroforestry can assist forestry are: biological diversity, wood and non timber products, ecosystem integrity, soil and water quality, terrestrial carbon stora ge, and socioeconomic benefits.

Neupane et al. (2001) studied the im pa c t of agroforestry intervention on farm income under the subsistence fa r m i ng system of the middle hills in Nepal. They observed that the agricultural system including agroforestry wa s more profitable than the conventional one. Agroforestry had great potential for enhancing food production and farmers' economic conditions in a sustainable manner through its positive contributions to household income.

Thiollay (1995) studied the role of traditional agroforests in the conservation of rain forest bird diversity in