Fieldwork presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Fieldwork presentation

on

  • 383 views

COMPARISON OF PALM DIVERSITY BETWEEN

COMPARISON OF PALM DIVERSITY BETWEEN
SUBPLOT OF INOBONG PERMANENT
RESEARCH PLOTS, CROCKER RANGE
PARK, SABAH

Statistics

Views

Total Views
383
Views on SlideShare
381
Embed Views
2

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

2 Embeds 2

http://www.docshut.com 1
https://uclaextension.blackboard.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Fieldwork presentation Fieldwork presentation Presentation Transcript

  • Comparison of PalmDiversity betweensubplot of InobongPermanent ResearchPlot,Crocker Range Park. By AK MOHD RAFIQ BIN AK MATUSIN BS10110016
  • INTRODUCTION Arecaceae / palmae = 2800 species in 190 genera Has diversity in tropics and subtropics Vast ecological and economic importance Role as a source of raw materials for consumption, building, daily living for traditional cultures oil palm, date palm and coconut palm
  • INTRODUCTION Crocker Range Park : West Coast and interior plains of Sabah Focus on diversity of palm between C3 and D4 subplot of Inobong Permanent Research Plot.
  • OBJECTIVES To compare the DIVERSITY palm species between C3 and D4 subplots To CHECK LIST species found in both subplots
  • METHODS AND MATERIALS Location background * Crocker Range Park * Largest protected area in Sabah (139,919 ha) * 75 km long from northeast to southeast * Elevation ranges widely from lowland of 100 m to mountain
  • Figure 1.0 Location of CRP(modified from Suleiman et al., 2007).
  • Study site C3 AND D4 SUBPLOTSFigure 2.0 Diagram of a 10 m x 10 m subplots in 50 m x 50 m plot(Ishida et al., 2006).
  •  Fieldsampling : number of individual in C3 and D4 subplot will be counted Circumstances of more than 3cm Data analysis : Simpson Diversity Index ni (ni – 1) Ds = 1 - -------------- = Simpson Diversity N (N-1)
  • RESULTS C3 SUBPLOT Species : 1. Calamus comptus 2. Calamus convallium 7% Calamus comptus 3. Calamus marginatus 40% Calamus convallium Calamus 53% marginatus Subfamily : Calamoideae
  • RESULTS D4 SUBPLOTS 10% 10% Species : Calamus comptus 1. Calamus comptus Calamus marginatus 2. Calamus marginatus Licuala ahliduri 3. Licuala ahlidurii 80% Subfamilies : Calamoideae & Coryphoidea
  • Calamus marginatus,
  • Calamus convallium (C3 subplot only)
  • Calamus comptus
  • Licuala ahlidurii ( only found in D4 subplot)
  • DATA ANALYSISSIMPSON DIVERSITY INDEXC3 SUBPLOTS: 0.59D4 SUBPLOTS: 0.378
  • DISCUSSION Total number of individual in both subplots : 25 Simpson Diversity Index show C3 subplot more diverse than D4 subplot although D4 have 2 subfamilies 2 same species are found in both subplots-: Calamus comptus-: Calamus marginatus
  • 3 species of Calamoideae found in both sites are classified as climbing undergrowth rattan Rattan can inhibit in a wide range of habitat from 0 to 3000m above sea level Mostly found in lowland rain forest Thus, these 3 species can occupy both study sites Calamus comptus, Calamus marginatus, Calamus convallium
  •  Most abundance palm genus in C3 subplot is Calamus sp. Simpson Diversity Index, C3 (0.59) more diverse than D4 (0.378) C3 and D4 located at different soil surface condition. C3 subplot located at low elevation than D4 subplots C3 watery soil, near with small water flow channel Calamus sp. tend to grow rapidly in this area Apply in palm plantation
  • CONCLUSIONTotal individual 25.Study the changes trend of diversity along the subplotApply in plantation, economic uses, natural ecosystem
  • References Rimi, R., 2004. In: Maryati, M., Zulhazman, H., Tachi, T., & Nais, J. Crocker Range, Scientific Expidition 2002. Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. Suleiman, M., Ishida, H., Sugawara, A., Spait, M., Said, M. S., & Rimi, R. 2007. An introduction to the Crocker Range Park Permanent Research Plot Project. Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. Ishida, H., Takahira-Ishida, H., Said, I. M., & Rimi, R. 2006. Manual for Permanent Research Plot in Crocker Range Park. Research and Educational Component, Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystem Conservation (BBEC) Programme, Sabah. Whitmore, T.C. 1998. Palms of Malaya. Second Edition. White Lotus Co. Ltd, Thailand. Maunder, M., Lyte, B., Dransfield, J. & Baker, W. 2001. The conservation value of botanic garden palm collections. Journal of Biological Conservation 98(3):259-271. Aminuddin, M. 2003. Silviculture and Ecology of Rattan. Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Sabah.
  • THANK YOUQ & A SESSION