Received: Sep 22, 2016; Accepted: Oct 07, 2016; Published: Oct 14, 2016; Paper Id.: IJASROCT201642
INTRODUCTION
Agricultural biodiversity or in short agrobiodiversity can be regarded as a subset of biodiversity that is in
Original Article
and around farmlands. It is the outcome of the interactions among genetic resources, the environment and the
management practices. Agrobiodiversity, in general, is the plant genetic resource for food and agriculture
production. It has an important role to meet the demand for food resources of a growing population (Thrupp 1998).
Urban, peri-urban and rural food systems are increasingly important to the food and nutrition security of cities, as
rural farm communities will continue to supply much of the food for most urban populations. In the back ground,
the present study was conducted with the objectives to assess the agrobiodiversity along the urban and rural
gradients around Bangalore.
www.tjprc.org
editor@tjprc.org
348
In order to have fair representation of three systems, stratified random sampling procedures were followed. In each system,
three quadrats were been laid and the cropping systems noted down with different crops grown.
Vegetation Sampling
Three sample plots of the size 100 x 100 m were laid in each sampling site to study the impact on urbanization on
agro-biodiversity. All the trees with gbh 30 cm (girth at breast height, i.e., 1.37 m from the ground) were enumerated in
the entire 100 x 100 m plot with their girth and height. Shrubs were enumerated in two 10 x 10 m subplots laid in opposite
corner of the large plot with their number and collar girth. Herbaceous species including climbers were recorded in four 1 x
1 m subplots of four corners of the main plot. The sample plots were marked with nylon threads and corners were
demarcated with wooden pegs and tied with red ribbon for easy visibility.
With respect to floristic richness, among the three sampling sites, rural sampling site has highest species diversity
and richness and dominance of species is shared by many species and also of native species. In other two sampling sites, it
Impact Factor (JCC): 4.8136
349
is dominated by few species and mostly of exotic species. Similar study with the meta-analysis of the publication of
agrobiodiversity revealed that about 30% more species richness and 50% more abundance of species in organic farming
system practicing away from the urban areas compared to the intensive farming around the urban areas
(Bengtsson et al., 2005).
Tree Component
Importance value index reveals that in urban site Azadirachta indica was the dominant species with an IVI of
67.92 followed by Eucalyptus camaldulensis (IVI of 62.2) and Casuarina equisetifolia (IVI of 30.07). In peri-urban site,
Eucalyptus camaldulensis was the dominant species with an IVI of 40.28 followed by Tectona grandis (IVI of 32.83) and
Artocarpus heterophyllus (IVI of 25.74). In rural site, Cocos nucifera was the dominant tree species with an IVI of 40.22
followed by Azadirachta indica (IVI of 39.63) and Grevillea robusta (IVI of 28.13). In urban site five dominant species
shared the 65% of the total IVI. Whereas, in peri-urban site the dominant five species shared about 45% of the total IVI. In
rural site 52% of the total IVI was shared by the five dominant species.
Shrub Component
Only rural site showed more number of shrubby species compared to other two sites. In urban site shrub species
were found and the Lanatana camara was the dominant species covering 65% of the total IVI. In peri-urban site, only five
species of shrubs were found growing among them Citrus limon and Cassia auriculata were the dominant species and they
shared 57% of the total IVI. Whereas in rural site, 12 shrubby species were found growing and there also Lantana camara
was the dominant species followed by Tabernaemontana alternifolia and Hibiscus rosa-sinensis. These three shared about
43% of the total IVI.
Herb Component
Highest number herbaceous species were noticed urban site, where an exotic weedy species Parthenium
hysterophorus was the dominant herb followed by Alternanthera sessilis and Calyptocarpus vialis. In peri-urban site
Calyptocarpus vialis, an exotic species was the dominant followed by Alysicarpus monilifer and Celosia argentea.
However in rural site Eleusine indica, wild relative of ragi, was the dominant species followed by Coriandrum sativum and
Malvastrum coromandelianum.
Economic Value
Out of recorded species, 84 species have various economical values, which are used by the farmers. Of the
economically important species, medicinal plant ranked first with 70 species (48.28%) followed by 28 species (19.31%) of
Gums & Resins value and 11 species (7.59%) each of fodder and timber value (Figure 1). Out of 70 medicinal species
recorded in the study sites, the rural and peri-urban sites accounted for 36 species each and 25 species from urban site. For
all other uses rural site accounted for maximum number of species followed by peri-urban and urban sites except for gums
and resins, where peri-urban sites accounted for 16 species compared to rural site with 15 species. In present scenario,
timber and oil yielding species is found to be the major component that generates income to some extent and other uses are
for their livelihood subsistence. Similar studies conducted in Naban river watershed, China, where NTFPs like bamboo
shoots and medicinal plants yield little income to them, many of the villagers collecting the same for their livelihood
subsistence (Dahaneh, 2012, Moinuddin and Xie, 2009). Higher usage of plants as medicine in an agrobiodiversity system
was also observed in home garden agrobiodiversity system in Kanykmari district, India (Paul and Jeeva, 2013).
www.tjprc.org
editor@tjprc.org
350
Figure 1: Economic Values of Species Found in all the Three Sampling Sites
REFERENCES
1.
BENGTSSON, J., AHNSTRM, J., AND WEIBULL, C,A. 2005. The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and
abundance: a meta-analysis Jou. of App. Eco, 42: 261269
2.
DAHANEH, A. G. 2012. Agrobiodiversity and its use in Naban River Watershed National Nature Reserve: implications for
bio-cultural diversity conservation. Ph. D. thesis submitted to University of Hohenheim.
3.
MOINUDDIN, H. AND XIE, J. 2009. Ecosystem Services Valuation as a Basis for Promoting Policies Conducive to PES and
Climate Change Mitigation in Xishuangbanna, Southern Yunnan, China. In: International Conference on Sustainable Land
use and Ecosystem Conservation, 4-7 May 2009, Beijing, P.R. China.
4.
PAUL, Z. M. AND S. JEEVA. 2013. Agrobiodiversity in the Homegardens of Chirakkarai Village, Kanyakumari District,
Tamilnadu, India. Indian Forester, 11: 1003-1011.
5.
THRUPP, L. A. 1998, Cultivating diversity. Agrobiodiversity and food security. World Resources Institute, Washington DC, 80
p. http://pdf.wri.org/cultivatingdiversity_bw.pdf. Accessed 13 Jul 2012.
APPENDICES
Table 2: Importance Value Index of Top Five Species of Trees, Shrubs and Herbs in Three Sampling Sites
Urban
Species
Azadirachta indica
Eucalyptus
camaldulensis
Casuarina equisetifolia
Cordia obliqua
Santalum album
Lantana camara
Solanum erianthum
Parthenium
hysterophorus
Alternanthera sessilis
Impact Factor (JCC): 4.8136
22.64
Sampling Sites
Peri-urban
Species
IVI
Tree Component
Eucalyptus camaldulensis
13.43
Cocos nucifera
40.22
20.73
Tectona grandis
10.94
Azadirachta indica
39.63
10.02
6.54
5.70
Grevillea robusta
Tamarindus indica
Moringa oleifera
28.13
26.26
22.05
192.53
107.47
Artocarpus heterophyllus
8.58
Cassia fistula
6.53
Acacia catechu
5.83
Shrub Component
Citrus limon
33.54
Cassia auriculata
23.56
Lantana camara
16.78
Erythroxylum monogynum
14.90
Murraya koenigii
11.22
Herb Component
Lantana camara
Tabernaemontana alternifolia
Unidentified
Hibiscus rosa-sinensis
Phyllanthus reticulatus
56.25
40.98
32.91
32.35
21.22
16.99
Calyptocarpus vialis
28.89
Eleusine indica
27.69
16.03
Alysicarpus monilifer
17.78
Coriandrum sativum
21.03
IVI
Rural
Species
IVI
Calyptocarpus vialis
Eleusine indica
Aristida hystrix
www.tjprc.org
15.71
15.71
14.10
Table 2: Contd.,
Celosia argentea
15.93
Oxalis corniculata
15.93
Cassia tora
14.07
351
Malvastrum coromandelianum
Lagascea mollis
Dinebra retroflexa
19.36
17.69
16.03
editor@tjprc.org