Mitigating infestation of MikaniaMicrantha for Biodiversity Conservation and

Livelihoods of Forest Dependent Communities

Project Report

Green Governance Nepal (GGN)

New Baneshwor, Kathmandu
Nepal
Phone: 9841210554
Email: program@ggnepal.org

Website: www.ggnepal.org.np

April, 2012
2
Contents
1. Background........................................................................................................................................3

1.1. Objectives..................................................................................................................................4

2 Methodology......................................................................................................................................5

2.1 Establishment of forest management experimental plots............................................................5

2.1.1 Open woodlands........................................................................................................................5

2.1.2 Closed Woodlands....................................................................................................................6

2.2 Composting......................................................................................................................................7

3. Results and discussion...................................................................................................................8

3.1 Descriptive statistics........................................................................................................................8

3.2 Effects of cutting..............................................................................................................................9

3.3 Cost of Cutting...............................................................................................................................11

3.4 Composting....................................................................................................................................11

Photographs from the field......................................................................................................................15

Cutting operation.................................................................................................................................15

Composting..........................................................................................................................................17

3
1. Background
Mile-a-minute (Mikaniamicrantha, hereafter Mikania), iscolonizing the Tropical part of Nepal
including Buffer-Zone and core area of Chitwan National Park. This Central and South
American vine is locally known as Lahareor LahareBanamara, is listed as one of the worst
invaders (Holm et al. 1977, Lowe et al. 2000). The vine is notorious for its two major
characteristics. First, it has a vigorous and rampant growth and rapid proliferation from both
seed and vegetative parts. It can grow about 8-9 cm in a day and have the competency to
colonize terrestrial ecosystem within a night (Choudhury 1972). Second, it climbs up to the top
of the canopy trees and creates a dense cover, which damages or kills other plants by blocking
the light and smothering them (Holm et al. 1977). There allelopathic effects on neighboring
plants are likely to enhance Mikaniamonoculture in the invaded area (Ismail &Mah1993).

In Nepal, the vine was first reported in 1963 in Ilam district before spreading westward (Tiwari
et al. 2005), and now recorded in twenty Terai districts (Rai& Scarborough 2011). Mikaniais
considered as a one of the most serious menace to bio-diversity conservation in tropical part of
Nepal (Poudel et al. 2005). This statement has been verified by two studies that up to 90% of
forest patches have been colonized by the vines in KoshiTappu Wildlife Reserve and Janakauli
buffer-zone community forest in Chitwan (e.g. Sapkota2007, Siwakoti 2007). Because of its
colonization, both buffer zone and the core area of Chitwan National Park are being affected
severely and local community has experienced the increased time in the forest products
collection, migrating wild animals due to habitat loss and decreased number of visitors in
community forests (Rai& Scarborough 2011).

Changes in the ecosystem may have severe impacts on wild animals. For example, colonization
of Mikaniais likely to reduce the availability of native species. This can be translated into the
negative impacts on herbivores including Rhino and Deer. A change in the availability of game
population is likely to reduce the population of Royal Bengal Tiger. Continuation of existing
situation may bring disaster in the invaded ecosystem as both rural inhabitants and wild animals
may have to be migrated. In this context, an appropriate strategy to control the spread of
Mikaniais sought.

4
There are several strategies to control the spread of invasive plants including chemical,
biological and manual measures. Removing Mikaniamanually can be the most effective way as
former two strategies may have undesirable effects on non-target species and the environment
(Zhang et al. 2004). Cutting Mikaniavines near the ground in summer and autumn can be
efficient to control their diffusion (Kuo et al., 2002). They have observed that cutting once a
month for three consecutive months can eliminate up to 92-98% of the vines. Likewise, cutting
only once and twice in the summer or autumn can reduce the vines by 50% and 90%
respectively. Cutting does not only reduce the biomass of Mikaniabut also increase species
diversity of the community (Lian et al. 2006).

Obviously, manual cutting can increase the management cost as removal demands a huge
amount of labour. Utilization of Mikaniacan reduce the management cost byexploiting them
economically. This requires the transformation of the vines into usable products. They are being
used as fodder; however, they have negative impacts on animals (Siwakoti 2007), and offered
products are secondary (Rai et al. 2012). In several cases, invasive plants can be
commoditized(e.g. Kannanet al. 2008, Hall 2009). It may also possible to convert Mikaniainto
economic goods and composting would be a better option. The role of organic farming in bio-
diversity conservation and rural livelihoods is undisputed.

In this context, an action research has been designed to examine the performance of cutting the
vines in the regeneration layers and, assess the quality and quantity of compost from different
composting technologies. The experimental plots will be established in Janakauli Buffer Zone
Community Forest User Groups, Bachhauli, Chitwan.

1.1. Objectives
The overall objective of the proposed program is to mitigate the impacts of Mikaniamicrantha.
The specific objectives are;
 To investigate the appropriate measures to control the colonization of
Mikaniamicrantha,
 To explore the possible use of Mikaniamicrantha,

5
2 Methodology
The research is carried out with the participation of Janakauli BZCFUG. To investigate the
effects of cutting to control the spread of Mikania, experimental plots inside the forest were
established. A demonstration plot was established to examine the effects of different
composting techniques on the quality and quantity of compost manure prepared from Mikania.

1 Establishment of forest management experimental plots

The light has an indispensable rolein the establishment and growth of regenerations. The canopy
opening can influence the growth and spread of Mikaniaas well as native species. Therefore,
experimental plots were established in open woodlands and forestland. Four treatments were
defined as per Kuo et al. (2002). The description of the treatments is reported in Table 1.

Table 1Description of the treatments

Treatment Description Remark
T1 Cut Once The interval between two cuttings
T2 Cut Twice is three weeks.
T3 Cut Thrice
T0 No Cutting

2.1.1 Open woodlands

For the purpose of this research, open woodlands are defined as the forest patches having a
canopy opening more than 80%. Figure 1reports the experimental plot designed in open
woodlands. A plot of 40m×20m was laid, and 32 sub-plots of 5m×5m were nested. The sub-
plots were numbered 1 to 8 from north to south and a, b, c and d from west to east. In order to
assess the effects of the vegetations in ground level, only Mikaniawas removed from the half of
the plot and from the second half of the total plot all vegetation except seedlings of trees and
shrubs were removed. A complete block design was carried out to allocate the treatments
systematically in each sub-plot. This means no repetition of treatment in a column and marked
by colour ribbons and enamel paints.
Figure 1 Design of experimental plots in open woodlands
Removal of Mikania only Removal of all vegetation
6
 (Except seedlings of trees and shrubs)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

A T1 T2 T3 T0 T1 T2 T3 T0

B T2 T3 T0 T1 T2 T3 T0 T1

C T3 T0 T1 T2 T3 T0 T1 T2

D T0 T1 T2 T3 T0 T1 T2 T3

Height and dbh (diameter at breast height) of each plant having more than 10 cm dbh were
measured in each sub-plot. For regenerations, a square meter quadrate was laid in the north-west
corner of the sub-plot. In each quadrant, number of each species were recorded, and height of
seedlings of trees and shrub life-forms were measured. In the columns 1 to 4, only Mikaniavines
were cut above the ground and in the columns 5 to 8, all vegetation were cut except seedlings
belongs to tree and shrub life-forms. All removed vegetationwas weightedand recoded.

2.1.2 Closed Woodlands

A plot of 40m×20m was laid, and 8 sub-plots of 10m×10m were nested. This is because canopy
cover may have effects on the spread of Mikaniaas this is a light demander species. In each sub-
plot, treatments was allocated systematically. Height and dbh of plants having more than 10 cm
dbh were measured in the sub-plot and two quadrates of a square meter were laid in north-west
and south-east corners of the each sub-plot to measure the ground vegetations. Individual
species were counted and height of the plants of tree and shrub life-forms were measured. Only,
the vines of Mikaniawere removed from the treated sub-plots and weighted individually.

Figure 2 Design of experimental plots in closed woodlands

7
 Removal of Mikania only

1 2 3 4

A T1 T3 T1 T3

B T2 T0 T2 T0

2.2 Composting
Pit method was used to transform Mikaniainto the manure. Different techniques used in this
action research are shown in Figure 3. Two main treatments were assigned: Mikaniaonly and
Mikaniawith other vegetations. Composting with locally available plant materials can help to
reduce the allelopathic potentialities; however, composting alone can also reduce these
substances significantly (Wakjira et al. 2009). They were treated by two different techniques: (i)
using effective microorganisms (EMs), and, (ii) using local materials. All treatments were
replicated twice; hence, total eight pits were constructed to prepare the compost. This means
four pits were filled with only Mikaniaand rest fours are Mikaniawith others.

The size of each pit was 3’ ×3’× 2.5’. In each pit, the average quantity of Mikaniafilled was 220
kg in pure Mikaniapits and in the mixed pits other vegetations constitutes one-third of the total
weight (71 kg). Both dried and fresh vines were used equally in volume with altered layers. The
layers were separated by soil and water mixed of local materials including compost, goat dung
and molasses.

Following materials were used:

 Without EM treatment pits: Animal urine, Mollasses, simple water (2 litre:1 kg: 50
litre) solution and black forest soil and goat dung (4:1 Kg)

8
  With EM treatment pits: EM, molasses, simple water (2 litre:1kg: 50 litre) solution and
black forest soil and goat dung (4:1 Kg).
As an intermediate treatment, all pitswere turned in two months to manipulate the moisture.

Figure 3 Composting techniques used

M
n
a
k
i
a
k
i
P
M a
i
t n
i
a
t
o
d
n r
e
h
h
t
e
M
a
n
o
v
t
a
g
e d
o
y
l
n
o
i

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Descriptive statistics

The descriptive statistics reported in Table 2 measured as baseline information. The abundance
of Mikaniain terms of its coverage indicates that the upper canopy cover plays an important role
to the abundance of Mikania. Mikaniacoverage in the open woodland is higher than that of the
closed woodland, and the removed bio-mass from the open woodland (Mikania only) is 27kg/
25sq m, whereas it is only 28 kg from the 100 Sq m. inthe closed woodland. The results
corroborate Ipor (1991) that Mikaniacan not perform well under the shade more than 25%
canopy coverage.
Table 2 Descriptive statistics (Average plot)
Mikania Biomass
Crown Mikania Seedlings
Strata cover removed
Cover (Base) (Base)
(Base) (kg)

9
 Open woodland (Mikania only) 16 2.5 27 373 3

Open woodland (All shrubs) 20 1.9 60 334 3.9

Closed woodland 62 1.2 28 270 3

3.2Effects of cutting
Table 3 reports the effects of different cutting operations in three different plot types. The
results clearly show that manual cutting can reduce the abundance of Mikania. The rate of
Mikania reduction increases with the number of cutting operations consistently. Cutting the
Mikania can reduce the number of vines up to 91%. The results are consistent with Kuo et al.
(2002). In all strata, Mikania becoming more abundant in the control plots (no cutting). This
implies that in the absence of cutting operations, Mikania become more abundant in the buffer
zone. The local community has also same observation that Mikaniais increasing rapidly
(Raiet.al. 2012). The abundance of Mikania does not only reduce the availability of native
vegetation, but also increase the livelihood vulnerability of the BZ community, particularly for
those who depends on forest resources (Shackleton et al. 2007).

Table 3 Effects of cutting on the regenerations of Mikania and native species

Open woodland Open woodland Close canopy
(Mikania only) (Mikania with other (Mikaniaonly)
shrub)
Treatment
Mikania Regeneratio Mikania Regeneratio Mikania Regeneratio
(%) n (%) n (%) n
(Number) (Number) (Number)
T0 34.05 0.25 66.12 0 36.14 0
T1 -8.15 1.75 54.81 0.86 -35.24 0.43
T2 -85.35 2.5 -80.17 0.11 -80.51 0.75
T3 -87.94 2.5 -86.4 0.36 -91.48 0
Admittedly, manual cutting can reduce the number of Mikania; however, ANOVA test in Table
4 shows that in open canopy there is no significant difference between cutting once and no
cutting, and cutting twice and thrice. But in the closed canopy every cutting intensity or
treatments are significantly different than no cutting, and insignificant between cutting twice
and thrice. This means to produce visible results, cutting operation should be carried out at least

10
twice a year. The effects of a single cutting operation are similar to the no treatment.
Nevertheless, effects between two and three consecutive cuttings have no significant
differences. Therefore, forest user groups can select any cutting intensity according to their
facility particularly considering the available resources but should be at least two operations per
year.

Table 4 ANOVA Test (LSD) for change in Mikania (%) by treatment

Open Canopy Close canopy
Dependen Treat Treat Mikania + other
Mikania only Mikania only
t Variable (I) (J) shrubs
Mean Mean
SE Mean Dif SE SE
Dif. Dif
T1 T2 95.71* 38.32 136.06* 23.81 33.59 25.98
T1 T3 96.89* 38.32 143.56* 23.81 41.98 25.98
Mikania *
T1 T0 -25.19 38.32 -25.8 23.81 -89.37 25.98
Change
(%) T2 T3 1.18 38.32 7.5 23.81 8.39 25.98
T2 T0 -120.91* 38.32 -161.86* 23.81 -122.96* 25.98
T3 T0 -122.09* 38.32 -169.36* 23.81 -131.30* 25.98
Note : * indicates significant at 5% level.

Regarding the promotion of regenerations of native vegetations after cutting Mikania, the
results in Table 3 show that it can enhance the regeneration of native vegetations.When the
periodic cutting reduces the competitiveness of Mikania, it can be expected that this promotes
the increase in the biomass of other native species (Lian et al. 2006). However, the ANOVA test
shows that the effects of removing Mikaniaon native species regenerations are insignificant.
This might be due to the length of the experiment. Increasing the duration of observation may
produce the statistically significant results.

3.3 Cost of Cutting

Based on the required man-days to remove Mikaniain different cutting regimes, the costs of the
operation were calculated. In this calculation, only actual costs were included. The average
man-days required for each type of cutting strategy is reported in Table 5. The operating costs
are also consistently lower (five times) in the closed canopy. This indicates that cutting vines
demanda high cost in open canopy forest lands including grassland.

11
Table 5 : Average labourrequired for cutting operations (Man-days/ha)
Open Woodland Open Woodland Closed Canopy
Treatments ( Mikaniaonly) (Cutting All) (Mikaniaonly)
CuttingOnce 78.13 70.83 14.58
Cutting Twice 85.42 100.00 18.23
Cutting Thrice 112.50 119.79 23.96

Required man days clearly indicate that cost of operation increases with the cutting intensity.
Therefore, forest user groups can select the appropriate cutting intensity based on their available
budget. However, it is also true that the cost of the operation in forest patches could be
minimized as this estimation is based on the performance in comparatively small plots.

3.4 Composting
It took three months to prepare manure in all pits. Table 6 reports the status of manure in
different pits.Using Mikaniaonly can produce manure 40% of the total material used by weight.
The results show that the quantity of compost is high in the mixed plots, and more in the
without EM.This means more manure can be produced mixing locally available materials. The
decomposition is better in the pits with EM as per expected. In the given time period,
Mikaniadecomposed better than other materials. However, due to the risk of having the
presence of allelopathic substance, preparing compost using Mikaniaonly may not suitable. But
in the mixed pits, for full decomposition, it may take more than three months.

Table 6 Status of Manure in different pits

Material used Compost
S.N. Treatments Observation
(Kg) (Kg)

1 Pure Mikania with EM 245 99 Decomposition well

2 Mixed with EM 245 114 Mikaniadecomposed well,but

other materials partially,

3 Pure Mikaniawithout EM 245 110 Partial decomposition

4 Mixed without EM 245 120 Partial decomposition

12
Table 7 depicts the average nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) contain in the
manure. The parameters total nitrogen, total phosphorus and total potassium were determined
by test method Kjeldhal Digestion, Ascorbic Acid and Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer
respectively. The manure have average nutrient content as livestock manure.

Table 7 Average NPK in manure

Sample Nitrogen (%) Phosphorus (%) Potassium (%)
Mikania with EM 0.805 0.225 1.18
Mixed With EM 0.96 0.2 1.225
Mikania without EM 0.695 0.09 1.4
Mixed without EM 0.995 0.245 1.06

4. Conclusion
The results show that manual cutting can reduce the abundance of Mikania; however, it
demands labour.The removed vines can be used to make manure and using effective
microorganisms would be better. However, Mikaniaonly could be decomposed well, mixing
with locally available materials may reduce the allelopathic potentialities of Mikania. Following
tips should be considered while employing manual cutting;
 Cutting operations should be carried out before flowering i.e. August ,
 Cutting operations should be two or more than two times in three weeks interval,
 After removing Mikania, it would be better to manipulate the canopy,

Reference
Choudhury, A.K., 1972. Controversial Mikania (climber)-a threat to the forests and agriculture.
Indian Foresters 98, 176-186.

Ismail, B.S., Mah, L.S., 1993. Effects of Mikania micrantha H.B.K. ongermination and growth
of weed species. Plant and Soil 157, 107-113.

Hall, S., 2009. Cultural Disturbances and Local Ecological Knowledge Mediate Cattail (Typha
domingensis) Invasion in Lake Pátzcuaro, México. Human Ecology 37, 241-249.

13
Holm, L.G., Plucknett, D.L., Pancho, J.V., and, Herberger, J.P. 1977. The Worlds’ worst weeds:
distribution and biology. The University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Kannan, R., Joseph, G., Uma Shaanker, R., 2008. Lantana Furniture: Value added Lantana
products to conserve Bamboo and Rattan. In: Arunachalam, A., Arunachalam, K. (Eds.),
Biodiversity Utilization and Conservation. AaviskarPublishers Jaipur.

Kuo, L.K., Chen, T.Y., Lin, C.C. etal. 2002. Using a consecutivecuttingmethod and
allelopathyto control the invasive vine, Mikaniamicrantha H. B. K. Taiwan Journal of Forest
Science 17: 171–181.

Lian, J., Ye, W., Cao, H., Lai, Z., and, Liu, S. 2006. Effect of periodic cutting on the structure
of the Mikaniamicranthacommunity.Botanical Studies 47:185-190.

Lowe, S., Browne, M., Boudjelas, S., and, Poorter, D. 2000. 100 of the Worlds’ worst invasive
alien species. A selection fromthe Global Invasive Species Database.The Invasive Species
Specialist Group, Auckland, New Zealand.

Poudel, A., Baral, H.S., Ellison, C., Subedi, K., Thomas, S., and, Murphy, Sean. 2005.
Mikaniamicranthaweed invasion in Nepal. A summary report of the first national workshop for
stakeholders, Kathmandu, Nepal.Himalayan Nature, IUCN-Nepal and CAB International.

Rai, R.K., and, Scarborough, H. 2011. Non-market valuation in developing countries: does
modeof payment matter in choice experiment surveys? A paper presented in EAAERE 2nd
Congress, Bandung.Available :http://www.eaaere2012.org/FP/0015%20-%20Rai,
%20Scarborough.pdf. Accessed : 3/13/2012.

Rai, R.K., Scarborough, H., Subedi, N., and, Lamichhange, B. 2012. Invasive plants- do they
devastate or diversify rural livelihoods? Rural farmers’ perception of three invasive plants in
Nepal.Journal for Nature Conservation, dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2012.01.003.

Sapkota, L. 2007. Ecology and management issues of Mikaniamicranthain Chitwan national

park, Nepal.BankoJanakari, 17(2):27-39.

Siwakoti, M., 2007. Mikaniaweed: a challenge for conservationists.Our Nature,5: 70-74.

Tiwari, S., Adhikari, B., Siwakoti, M. &Subedi, K. 2005.An inventory and assessment of
invasive alien plant species in Nepal. IUCN The World Conservation Union, Nepal.

Wakjira, M., Berecha, G., and Tulu, S. 2009. Allelopathic effects of an invasive alien weed
PartheniumhysterophorusL. composton lettuce germination and growth.African Journal of
Agricultural Research 4(11): 1325-1330.

14
Zhang, L.Y., Ye, W.H., Cao, H.L., and, Feng, H.L. 2004.Mikaniamicrantha H.B.K. inChina- an
overview.Weed Research 44:42-49.

15