Environment, Development and Sustainability

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02020-9

Community structure and species diversity of forest

vegetation in a protected area of Western Himalayan region
of India

Dipika Rana1,2 · Kulraj Singh Kapoor2 · Anupam Bhatt3 · Sher Singh Samant2

Received: 10 August 2020 / Accepted: 25 November 2021

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2021

Abstract
The monitoring of species diversity is a key pre-requisite for understanding and manag-
ing forest ecosystems. The vegetation assessment of the forests at the habitat and com-
munity levels in the forest ecosystems can help in its proper monitoring and formulation
of conservation strategies. With this aspect, the present study was conducted in the Shimla
water catchment Sanctuary (SWCS) of Western Himalayan region from 2011 to 2014. A
total of 476 species of vascular plants were recorded with angiosperms (101 families, 307
genera, and 431 species), gymnosperms (3 families, 7 genera, and 9 species), and pterido-
phytes (11 families, 17 genera, and 36 species). Among these 39 species were the trees,
81 shrubs, 320 herbs, and the remaining 36 species were pteridophytes. The quantitative
analysis showed the presence of 312 species at varying altitudes, aspects, slopes in the
different identified communities. Further, tree communities were delineated based on IVI
while shrub communities on the basis of relative density. A total of twenty-one forest com-
munities (trees 15 and shrubs 6) were identified in the altitudinal range between 1850 to
2750 m above msl. In general, Shannon diversity index (H’) for trees ranged from 1.40 to
2.10, seedlings (0.67–1.51); saplings (0.62–1.72); shrubs 2.02–3.16 and herbs 2.47–4.38
while the values of concentration of dominance for trees ranged from 0.17 to 0.45, whereas
in seedlings these values varied from 0.28 to 0.77. Saplings showed a range of 0.18–0.57,
shrubs from 0.03 to 0.17, and herbs 0.03–0.16 for the values of Cd. The similarity values
were evaluated by the Jaccard index among different communities in the tree, seedling,
sapling, shrub, and herb layers which showed the presence and absence of various spe-
cies. More than 50 per cent similarity was found in the shrub layer (77 community pairs)
followed by seedling layer (61 community pairs), sapling layer (47 community pairs), and
tree layer (44 community pairs). Least similarity (less than 50 per cent) was found for herb
layer (7 community pairs) with maximum dissimilarity. The high level of dissimilarity can
be attributed to the high level of disturbance in the forest layer. The application of veg-
etation indices can be a useful tool in predicting the structure of the forest vegetation and
also vital in developing adequate management strategies for conservation of plant diversity.
In the SWCS, the plant communities with high species diversity and more heterogeneity
require specific conservation strategies as these can be considered as rich zones or pockets
of floral diversity in this ecosystem. Invasions by non-native species can be a threat to the
forest flora that needs proper management.

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 D. Rana et al.

Keywords Himalaya · Sanctuary · Species diversity · Concentration of dominance ·

Jaccard index

1 Introduction

The Himalayan region comprises of earth’s most diverse mountain ecosystems that are
characterised by harsh climate, varying seasons, and a high diversity of both plant spe-
cies and communities (Kala & Mathur, 2002; OOmmen & Shanker, 2005). The Himalaya
covers more than six per cent of the total geographic area with over 105 protected areas
(Green, 1993). The protected areas (PAs) can be considered as repositories of biodiversity
in a given geographical unit (Brandt & Rickard, 1995) but it is a matter of concern that
adequate databases on existing biodiversity in most of the PAs in the Himalaya are not
available (Stohlgren et al., 1995). The vegetation distribution pattern, communities, and
population dynamics in high-altitude areas of the fragile Himalaya have seldom been given
due attention by researchers and are hence poorly understood (Sharma et al., 2014). In the
absence of sufficient information, it becomes difficult to develop appropriate management
strategies of PAs.
The Indian Himalayan Region (IHR) has a majority of protected and unprotected areas
that are unexplored or under-explored. These areas can be best sites to study the nature and
dynamics of vegetation in time and space so that ecological generalisations are validated
with scientific thoughts and rigour (Rawat & Singh, 2006). The hilly state of Himachal
Pradesh is located in the North-Western region which encompasses wide plant diversity
due to different climatic zones (Chauhan & Thakur, 1995) and hence, commonly regarded
as a veritable of plant resources. The state has 32 wildlife sanctuaries, five National parks,
and three conservation reserves to conserve the total range of wildlife available in the state,
covering all the agro-climatic zones in the state (ENVIS, 2020).
A wide array of environmental issues that are confronting the world today and impact-
ing varied ecosystems calls upon for developing specific mitigation strategies. This can be
achieved by assessment and prioritisation of floristic diversity in view of its expected loss
due to rapid changes in the land-use system through biotic and abiotic interferences in the
wake of climate change (Anton et al., 2010; Brockway, 1998; MacDonald et al., 2008).
The inadequate knowledge of forest botany amongst the foresters and other professionals is
leading to the plantations of wrong species causing unorganised management of the forest
areas (ICIMOD, 2015). Thus, numerous efforts to incorporate biodiversity into forest man-
agement and planning are encouraging nowadays (Barnosky et al., 2011).
Thus, botanical and ecological records can provide basic information about the vari-
ous changes in vegetation and biodiversity over the period of time (Haslett et al., 2010;
Jackson & Hobbs, 2009; Mulchand, 2013; Willis & Bhagwat, 2010). Vegetation ecol-
ogy investigates the species composition and their sociological interaction in communi-
ties (Mueller-Dombois & Ellenberge, 1974). The plant communities can be distinguished
from one another on the basis of distinctive floristic composition (Danasereau, 1960), and
thereby, any depletion of biodiversity is bound to alter the attributes of the community
(Mishra et al., 2004).
Species diversity is considered as a special form of textural diversity and is treated with
both structure and dynamics in the plant community (Van der Marrel, 1996). The con-
cept of diversity is generally concerned with the representation of variability involved in
the natural communities and thus the study of species diversity is helpful to understand

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Community structure and species diversity of forest vegetation…

community composition and its structure and development (Li et al., 2002). There is a
strong evidence that forest resilience is related to biodiversity that normally occurs in the
ecosystem (Folke et al., 2004; Thompson et al., 2009). In particular certain species and
groups of species perform key functions in forests and so are essential for the forest to
maintain all of its functional processes (Diaz & Cabido, 2001) and build resilience in the
long term.
Thus, the present study was undertaken in the Shimla water catchment Sanctuary
(SWCS) to study the floristic composition and assess the community structure of the veg-
etation using different phytosociological methods along the altitudinal gradient.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Study area

The present study was conducted in Shimla water catchment Sanctuary that is located
between 31° 05′ to 31° 75′ N and 77° 12′ to 77° 15′ longitudes with altitudinal range var-
ying between 1850 and 2750 m amsl. The sanctuary area represents the only remaining
undisturbed middle altitude forest in the lower ranges of the Western Himalaya and is the
main catchment area for Shimla (Singh et al., 1990). Apart from a little tree felling carried
out during World War II, the area has been totally protected, since settlements were relo-
cated in the early part of the twentieth century.
The vegetation mainly comprises of temperate and sub-tropical types. The forests in
the area are characterised by broad-leaved deciduous forests (i.e. Aesculus indica, Juglans
regia); evergreen coniferous forests (i.e. Abies pindrow, Cedrus deodara, Picea smithiana,
and Pinus wallichiana); evergreen broad-leaved forests (i.e. Quercus floribunda, Quecus
leucotricophora, and Quercus semecarpifolia, and sub-tropical forests (i.e. Pinus rox-
burghii). The area also harbours rich faunal diversity. The temperature here varies typi-
cally from −6 to 31 °C during different seasons of the year. The average temperature dur-
ing summer ranges between 19 and 28 °C whereas in winters it shows the variations from
−1 to 10 °C. Monthly precipitation varies between 15 mm in November and 434 mm in
August (Tyagi et al., 2010). The catchment area is known for performing hydrological
functions for Shimla city from past 144 years (Rana et al., 2013). This makes the area even
more important for its various ecosystem services.

2.2 Survey and sampling

Initially, the reconnaissance surveys were carried out in 2011 for the qualitative assessment
of the vegetation after which from 2012 to 2014 quantitative assessment was accomplished
through stratified random sampling. Sampling was done in all the 43 compartments in the
four beats of sanctuary along the altitudinal range varying from 1850 to 2750 m above msl
(Fig. 1). The various compartments of the sanctuary were considered as the possible zona-
tions for sampling (Table 1) (Rana & Kapoor, 2015).
The geographical area of each compartment was noted from the previous compartment
history files of the forest department. The minimum quadrat size was determined through a
species area curve for phytosociological sampling. At least 20–25 per cent of the total area
of each compartment was sampled for representative sampling and in order to cover all the
possible zonations of the study area. In order to cover total of 900 plots of size 50 m × 50 m

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 D. Rana et al.

Fig. 1  Location of Shimla water catchment Sanctuary

Table 1  Administrative units and area statement of Shimla water catchment Sanctuary (Source: Manage-
ment plan of Shimla water catchment Sanctuary)
Block Beat Compartments falling under respective beats Area (ha)

Chharabra Chharabra 1a, 2a, 3a, 4a, 8, 9a 190.171

Churat 1b, 2b, 3b, 4b, 7, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 288.462
Seog Kufri 9b, 9c, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14a, 14b, 15 174.084
Seog 5, 6, 16a, 16b, 17, 18, 19, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 367.603
Total 1020.32

were surveyed and diversity assessment within this identified plot was accomplished by
laying out 10 random quadrats of size 10 m × 10 m for trees, 20 quadrats of size 5 m × 5 m
for shrubs and 40 quadrats of size 1 m × 1 m for herbs nested in the same plot (Fig. 2).
Habitat, aspect, slope, latitude, and longitude were also noted. Circumference for each of
the individual tree was recorded at breast height (cbh at 1.37 m from the ground). Based on
the cbh, classification of all the individuals was done as a tree (cbh >  = 31.5 cm), as sap-
ling (cbh 10.5–31.4 cm), and as seedling (cbh < 10.5 cm). Shrubs were considered as the
woody species having several branches arising out of their base (Dhar et al., 1997; Joshi &
Samant, 2004; Samant & Joshi, 2004).
The physical characters and dominance of vegetation defined the habitat type. The
sites with poor vegetation and higher disturbance were considered as exposed habitats,
while those with closed canopy and high percentage of humus were considered as moist
habitats. In the similar manner sites with open canopy, low percentage of moisture,
and humus were classified as dry habitats. The mapping of the sites was done using
global positioning system (GPS) while the slope was measured using Abney’s level.

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Community structure and species diversity of forest vegetation…

Fig. 2  Diagram depicting the sampling methodology

Plant specimens were collected onsite and various attributes like altitudinal range(s),
habitat(s), and life form(s) were noted on the spot. The plant species were later taken
to the lab of the institute and identified consulting the local and regional floras (Collett,
1921; Polunin & Stainton, 1984). The identified species were listed and their family
names and plant authority were validated using the plant list database (https://​www.​
thepl​antli​st.​org).

2.3 Analyses of data

The vegetation data were quantitatively analysed for dominance, density, and frequency
using standard analytical and statistical methods in excel and SPSS (Curtis & McIntosh,
1950; Dhar et al., 1997; Greig-Smith, 1957; Kershaw, 1973; Samant et al., 2002). The
data were analysed compartment-wise, and the tree communities were identified on the
basis of importance value index (IVI) while shrub communities were delineated based
on relative density. The IVI was calculated as the sum of the relative frequency (Rf),
relative density (Rd), and relative basal area (RBa) (Mishra, 1991). A single species
with an IVI ≥ 50 per cent was categorised as a pure community of that particular species
while two or three species forming IVI ≥ 50 per cent was categorised as a mixed com-
munity of those species (Rana et al., 2020). The abundance of different sites was pooled
to get community average in terms of density, total basal area including IVI.
On the basis of phytosociological studies, the species diversity for the identified
communities was worked out using Shannon diversity index (Shannon & Wiener, 1963),
and concentration of dominance was evaluated using Simpson’s index (Simpson, 1949),
while the floristic similarities of the communities with each other were evaluated by
computing Jaccard Similarity Coefficient (Pielou, 1984). Further, the comparative scor-
ing of the communities was done on the basis of percentage similarity values. The for-
mulas used for the computations have been given below:

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 D. Rana et al.

s
∑
𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐧 𝐃𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐱 (H � ) = − Pi ∗ lnPi
i=1

where H = the Shannon diversity index. ­Pi = fraction of the entire population made up of
species i. S = numbers of species encountered. ∑ = sum from species 1 to species S
(No. of species common in X and Y)
𝐉𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐱 = ∗ 100
(Total number of species in X and Y)

𝐉𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐱 = 1 − similarity index

∑
� 1 − n (n − 1)
𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐬 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐱(𝐂𝐝) =
N (N − 1)
where n = the number of individuals displaying one trait. N = the total number of all
individuals.

3 Results

3.1 Floristic composition

In 2011, a qualitative assessment was done through reconnaissance surveys to prepare an

inventory of plant species present in the area. A total of 476 species of vascular plants were
listed. Amongst these 431 species of angiosperms (belonging to 101 families and 307 gen-
era), 9 species of gymnosperms (belonging to 3 families and 7 genera), and 36 species of
pteridophytes (belonging to 11 families and 17 genera) were recorded. Of the total species
present, 39 were trees, 81 shrubs, 320 herbs, and the remaining 36 species were pterido-
phytes. From 2012 to 2014, the quantitative assessment was carried out across the whole
area using stratified random sampling method. The data analysis showed the presence of
312 species at varying altitudes, aspects, and slopes in the different identified communities.

3.2 Structural pattern of the identified communities

A total of 21 forest communities (15 tree communities and 6 shrub communities) were
identified between an altitudinal range of 1850–2750 m above msl based on the importance
value index (IVI). Highest IVI was observed for Abies pindrow (76.72) and Taxus bac-
cata (51.90) thus constituting an Abies pindrow-Taxus baccata mixed community. Simi-
larly, Aesculus indica had highest IVI (100.18), Cedrus deodara (124.45) constituting pure
communities. Similarly, other communities were identified (Table 2). The major attributes
of the identified communities have been presented in Table 3. The forest communities
were represented by evergreen coniferous communities (i.e. Abies pindrow-Taxus baccata
mixed, Cedrus deodara, Picea smithiana, Pinus wallichiana); broad-leaved evergreen com-
munity (i.e. Quercus floribunda, Quercus leucotricophora, Quercus semecarpifolia), and
broad-leaved deciduous communities (i.e. Aesculus indica). Of the total forest communi-
ties, 06 shrub communities (i.e. Berberis lycium-Indigofera heterantha-Cotoneaster micro-
phyllus mixed, Lonicera angustifolia-Elaeagnus conferta mixed, Rubus ellipticus-Rosa
brunonii-Sorbaria tomentosa mixed, Salix denticulata-Berberis aristata-Rosa brunonii

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Table 2  Community wise Importance Value Index (IVI) of Trees in Shimla Water Catchment Sanctuary
Community Types
Taxa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Abies pindrow 76.72 – – – – – – 27.07 – – – – – 37.20 –

Acacia mollisima – 15.69 – – 23.77 – – – – – – – – – –
Aesculus indica – 100.18 – 20.35 – – 28.15 – – 31.15 – – – – –
Buxus wallichiana – – – 15.87 – – 10.14 – – 16.68 – 27.02 – – –
Cedrus deodara 46.98 45.43 124.45 65.56 109.76 105.01 34.97 47.87 39.03 44.15 46.95 47.31 48.42 40.33 48.81
Celtis australis – – – – – 19.68 7.77 – 32.88 – – – – – –
Cornus capitata – – – – – – – – – – – – 22.53 – –
Cornus macrophylla – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 24.83
Cupressus torulosa – – – – – – 100.60 – – – – – – – –
Ilex dipyrena – – – – 17.56 – – – – 24.70 24.87 – – – –
Juglans regia – – – – – – – – – – – – 20.88 – –
Lyonia ovalifolia – – – 43.97 20.81 – – – – – – – – – –
Community structure and species diversity of forest vegetation…

Morus serrata – – – – – – 12.13 – – – – – – – –

Neolitsea umbrosa – 31.05 16.40 – – – – – – – – 18.10 22.13 – 22.81
Persea duthiei – – – – – – – – – – – – 22.55 – 36.64
Picea smithiana 25.26 – 26.63 22.76 26.86 – – 125.25 – 21.28 45.71 18.10 – 35.46 19.64
Pinus patula – – – – – – 18.98 – – – – – – – –
Pinus roxburghii – – – – – – – – 117.41 – – – – – –
Pinus wallichiana – 32.76 38.45 57.99 – 28.72 28.41 – – 105.67 – – – – 38.94
Pistacia integerrima – – – – – – – – 40.11 – – – – – –
Pyrus pashia – – – – – – – – 39.11 – – – – – –
Populus ciliata – 26.9 – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Quercus floribunda 20.15 – 24.89 28.42 91.07 26.77 28.38 26.73 – 39.29 123.96 41.08 70.69 39.20 –
Quercus leucotricophora – 20.07 31.03 82.35 12.92 – 31.47 – – 148.40 92.80 – –
Quercus semecarpifolia 34.62 – 19.19 16.7 10.18 13.34 17.55 26.27 – – 36.62 – – 147.81 19.04

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Table 2  (continued)
Community Types
Taxa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

13
Rhododendron arboreum 44.37 – 19.27 28.38 – 24.14 – 46.82 – – 21.89 – – – 89.28
Robinia pseudo–acacia – 27.91 – – – – – – – 17.08 – – – – –
Taxus baccata 51.90 – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Abbreviations used:–1–Abies pindrow–Taxus baccata, 2–Aesculus indica, 3–Cedrus deodara, 4–Cedrus deodara–Pinus wallichiana mixed, 5–Cedrus deodara–Quercus flo-
ribunda mixed, 6–Cedrus deodara–Quercus leucotricophora mixed, 7–Cuppressus torulosa,8–Picea smithiana, 9–Pinus roxburghii, 10–Pinus wallichiana,11–Quercus flori-
bunda, 12–Quercus leucotricophora, 13–Quercus leucotricophora–Quercus floribunda, 14–Quercus semecarpifolia, 15–Rhododendron arboreum
D. Rana et al.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Table 3  General characteristics of identified community types in Shimla water catchment Sanctuary
Communities SR Habitat (s) Slope (0) Aspect Altitudinal range (m) Latitude Longitude TBA ­(m2 ­ha–1)

Forest tree communities

Abies pindrow–Taxus baccata 2 D,SM 35–45 NW,SW 2670 31005′34.8″–31005′39″ 77015′52″–77016′00.8″ 8.95
subsp. wallichiana
Aesculus indica 3 SM,WC 25–45 N,NW,SE 2290–2330 31005′58.7″–31006′05″ 77014′01.4″– ­77014′11.4″ 51.95
Cedrus deodara 8 SM,WC 35–60 N,NE,NW,SE,SW 2200–2550 31005′22″–31006′24.5″ 77015′15.7″–77015′22″ 119.75
Cedrus deodara–Pinus wal- 2 SM 30–55 SE,SW 2304–2330 31007′01″–31007′05″ 77013′51″–77014′07″ 70.78
lichiana
Cedrus deodara–Quercus 3 SM,WC 20–45 NW,S,SW 2320–2345 31005′22″–31006′49″ 77014′33″–77015′22″ 60.3
floribunda
Cedrus deodara–Quercus 3 D,SM,WC 20–45 NW,SE 2270–2289 31005′54″–31006′25″ 77014′04″–77014′23″ 50.99
leucotricophora
Cupressus torulosa 3 SM 30–45 NE,SE,SW 2300–2333 31006′0.5″–31006′10″ 77014′30.8″–77014′31″ 55.64
Quercus leucotricophora– 4 SM,WC 15–30 E,NW,SE,SW 2200–2348 31005′59″–31006′49.8″ 77013′29.1″–77014′20″ 36.04
Quercus floribunda
Picea smithiana 4 SM,WC 20–50 NE,SW,W 2280–2410 31006′14″–31006′57″ 77013′36″–77014.1′37″ 12.69
Community structure and species diversity of forest vegetation…

Pinus roxburghii 4 D, Ex 30–55 S,SW 1900–2190 31005′41″–31005′48.8″ 77013′33.6″–77014′05″ 40.65

Pinus wallichiana 4 Ex, SM 20–55 E,NE,NW,SW 2250–2333 31005′59″–31006′1.0″ 77014′03.1″–77014′31″ 57.5
Quercus floribunda 3 SM,WC 30–55 E,NE,SW 2363–2444 31005′23″–31006′14″ 77015′11″–77,015′30″ 14.25
Quercus leucotricophora 5 D,SM,WC 30–50 E,NE,NW,SE 2045–2290 31006′45″–31007′0.1″ 77013′59″–77014′9.1″ 45.15
Quercus semecarpifolia 3 SM,WC 30–60 NE,NW,W 2500–2670 31005′42″–31007′14.6″ 77013′53.1″–77015′55″ 81.94
Rhododendron arboreum 3 Ro, SM 30–45 NE,NW,SW 2220–2464 31006′10″–31006′43″ 77014′25″–77015′23″ 19.92
Forest Shrub Communities
Berberis lycium–Indigofera 1 Shr 35 S 2300 31006′03″ 77015′22″ –
heterantha–Cotoneaster
microphyllus
Lonicera angustifolia–Elae- 1 Ro 30 NW 2437 31006′16″ 77014′12″ –
agnus conferta

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Table 3  (continued)
Communities SR Habitat (s) Slope (0) Aspect Altitudinal range (m) Latitude Longitude TBA ­(m2 ­ha–1)
0 0
Rubus ellipticus–Rosa bruno- 1 Ro 60 SW 2350 31 05′22.9″ 77 14′58.8″ –

13
nii–Sorbaria tomentosa
Salix denticulata–Berberis 1 Ex 45 SW 2410 31006′30″ 77014′21″ –
aristata–Rosa brunonii
Sarcococca saligna–Daphne 1 Shr 15 SW 2040 31006′44″ 77013′59″ –
papyracea–Prinsepia utilis
Viburnum cotinifolium–Spiraea 1 Ex 55 W 2470 31006′15″ 77014′20″ –
canescens

Abbreviations Used: SR–Site Representation, SM–Shady Moist, D–Dry, Ro–Rocky, WC–Water courses, Ex-Exposed, Shr–Shrubbery, N–North, S–South, E–East, W–West,
NE–North East, NW–North West, SE–South East, SW–South West; N = North; E = East; ha = Hectare; Ind = Individual; 0 = Degree
D. Rana et al.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Community structure and species diversity of forest vegetation…

mixed, Sarcococca saligna-Daphne papyracea-Prinsepia utilis mixed, Viburnum cotini-

folium-Spiraea canescens mixed) were recorded in the shady moist, watercourses, dry,
exposed, rocky, and shrubbery habitats of the forest zone. Maximum sites were represented
by Cedrus deodara community (8 sites) followed by Quercus leucotricophora (5 sites).
Two communities Cedrus deodara-Quercus leucotricophora and Quercus leucotricophora
were found in maximum habitats i.e. dry, shady moist and watercourses. Maximum aspects
were covered by Cedrus deodara community (5 no.) followed by Quercus leucotricophora-
Quercus floribunda, Pinus wallichiana, Quercus leucotricophora (4 no. each). The total
tree density ranged from 244 to 1018 Ind h­ a−1 in the forest zone. Highest density for tree
communities was observed for Cedrus deodara (1018 Ind h­ a−1) followed by Pinus wal-
lichiana (780 Ind h­ a−1) and Cedrus deodara-Pinus wallichiana (664 Ind h­ a−1) communi-
ties. Density for the shrub communities varied from 1600 Ind h­ a−1 to 3111 Ind h­ a−1. The
highest density was observed for Sarcococca saligna-Daphne papyracea-Prinsepia utilis
mixed (3111 Ind ­ha−1) followed by Lonicera angustifolia-Elaeagnus conferta (2667 Ind
­ha−1) communities. Similarly, total basal area ranged from 8.95 to 119.75 m ­ 2 ­ha−1 for the
tree communities (Fig. 3).

3.3 Shannon diversity index (H’)

Community-wise diversity of trees, saplings, seedlings, shrubs, and herbs has been pre-
sented in Table 4a. In general, species diversity (H’) for trees ranged from 1.40 to 2.10,

3500
3111

3000
2667
2440
2500
Tree Density (Ind ha - 1)

2160
2080
2000
1600
1500

1018
1000
780
617 664 633 629 635
545 540 513
500 393 438
278 318
244

Forest communities

Fig. 3  Forest communities and their respective tree densities (Abbreviations used: AP-TB = Abies
pindrow-Taxus baccata subsp. wallichiana mixed, AI = Aesculus indica, CD = Cedrus deodara, CD-
PW = Cedrus deodara-Pinus wallichiana mixed, CD-QF = Cedrus deodara-Quercus floribunda mixed,
CD-QL = Cedrus deodara-Quercus leucotricophora mixed, CT = Cuppressus torulosa, QL-QF = Quercus
leucotricophora-Quercus floribunda mixed, PS = Picea smithiana, PR = Pinus roxburghii, PW = Pinus
wallichiana, QF = Quercus floribunda, QL = Quercus leucotricophora, QS = Quercus semecarpifolia,
RA = Rhododendron arboreum, BL-IH-CM = Berberis lycium-Indigofera heterantha-Cotoneaster micro-
phyllus mixed, LA-EC = Lonicera angustifolia-Elaeagnus conferta mixed, RE-RB = ST = Rubus ellipticus-
Rosa brunonii-Sorbaria tomentosa mixed, SD-CM-BA = Salix denticulata-Berberis aristata-Rosa brunonii
mixed, SS-DP-PU = Sarcococca saligna-Daphne papyracea-Prinsepia utilis mixed and VC = Viburnum
cotinifolium-Spiraea canescens mixed)

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Table 4  Community wise (a.) species diversity (H’) & (b.) concentration of dominance (Cd) of Trees, Saplings, Seedlings, Shrubs and Herbs
Community types a. Species diversity (H’) b. Concentration of dominance (Cd)

13
S. No A] Tree Communities Trees Seedlings Saplings Shrubs Herbs Trees Seedlings Saplings Shrubs Herbs

1 Abies pindrow–Taxus baccata mixed 1.86 1.36 1.27 2.60 3.54 0.14 0.53 0.36 0.08 0.04
2 Aesculus indica 1.90 0.67 1.02 3.16 3.79 0.23 0.52 0.40 0.05 0.05
3 Cedrus deodara 1.80 1.07 1.35 2.61 3.79 0.40 0.57 0.19 0.15 0.07
4 Cedrus deodara–Pinus wallichiana mixed 2.07 1.46 1.04 2.76 3.54 0.20 0.49 0.44 0.07 0.05
5 Cedrus deodara–Quercus floribunda mixed 1.61 0.98 1.07 2.59 3.47 0.31 0.62 0.43 0.09 0.05
6 Cedrus deodara–Quercus leucotricophora mixed 1.68 1.47 1.59 2.98 4.19 0.28 0.63 0.22 0.05 0.05
7 Cuppressus torulosa 2.10 1.46 1.04 2.45 3.05 0.23 0.49 0.44 0.12 0.07
8 Picea smithiana 1.59 1.32 1.27 3.16 4.38 0.42 0.53 0.36 0.03 0.03
9 Pinus roxburghii 1.65 1.28 1.72 3.01 3.94 0.33 0.28 0.18 0.04 0.05
10 Pinus wallichiana 1.87 0.69 0.62 2.72 3.35 0.25 0.77 0.57 0.06 0.05
11 Quercus floribunda 1.60 1.36 1.34 2.78 3.49 0.34 0.67 0.45 0.06 0.06
12 Quercus leucotricophora 1.47 1.08 1.10 2.89 3.83 0.45 0.60 0.35 0.06 0.04
13 Quercus leucotricophora–Quercus floribunda mixed 1.76 1.09 1.59 3.14 3.74 0.22 0.57 0.21 0.03 0.05
14 Quercus semecarpifolia 1.40 1.36 1.35 2.74 4.11 0.40 0.57 0.24 0.06 0.03
15 Rhododendron arboreum 1.93 1.51 0.65 2.97 3.59 0.19 0.51 0.57 0.04 0.05
B] Shrub communities
16 Berberis lycium–Indigofera heterantha– Cotoneaster microphyllus – – – 2.93 3.44 – – – 0.08 0.07
mixed
17 Lonicera angustifolia– Elaeagnus conferta mixed – – – 2.73 2.90 – – – 0.04 0.09
18 Rubus ellipticus–Rosa brunonii– Sorbaria tomentosa mixed – – – 2.02 2.47 – – – 0.17 0.16
19 Salix denticulata–Berberis aristata– Rosa brunonii mixed – – – 2.55 3.18 – – – 0.07 0.08
20 Sarcococca saligna–Daphne papyracea–Prinsepia utilis mixed – – 2.72 3.17 – – – 0.06 0.10
21 Viburnum cotinifolium–Spiraea canescens mixed – – – 2.30 3.07 – – – 0.14 0.11
D. Rana et al.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Community structure and species diversity of forest vegetation…

seedlings (0.67–1.51); saplings (0.62–1.72); shrubs 2.02–3.16 and herbs 2.47–4.38. The
highest diversity (2.10) for trees was reported in Cuppressus torulosa, followed by Cedrus
deodara-Pinus wallichiana mixed (2.07), Rhododendron arboreum (1.93), and Aesculus
indica (1.90) communities. Among the seedlings, highest diversity was reported in Rho-
dodendron arboreum (1.51), followed by Cedrus deodara-Quercus leucotricophora mixed
(1.47), Cedrus deodara-Pinus wallichiana mixed, and Cupressus torulosa (1.46 each)
communities. It was lowest in Aesculus indica (0.67) community. Among the saplings,
highest diversity was reported in Pinus roxburghii (1.72), followed by Cedrus deodara-
Quercus leucotricophora mixed and Quercus leucotricophora-Quercus floribunda mixed
(1.59 each) communities. It was lowest in Pinus wallichiana (0.62) community. Highest
shrub diversity was found in the Aesculus indica and Picea smithiana (3.16) communities,
followed by Quercus leucotricophora-Quercus floribunda mixed (3.14), Pinus roxburghii
(3.01), and Cedrus deodara-Quercus leucotricophora mixed (2.98) communities. In the
shrub layer, Rubus ellipticus-Rosa brunonii-Sorbaria tomentosa mixed community showed
the lowest diversity (2.02). Highest diversity of herbs was found in the Picea smithiana
(4.38), followed by Cedrus deodara-Quercus leucotricophora mixed (4.19), Quercus
semecarpifolia (4.11), and Pinus roxburghii (3.94) communities while the lowest herb
diversity was found in the Rubus ellipticus-Rosa brunonii-Sorbaria tomentosa mixed com-
munity (2.47).

3.4 Concentration of dominance (Cd)

The concentration of dominance (Cd) of trees, seedlings, saplings, shrubs, and herbs on
the community basis has been presented in Table 4b. In general, the values of concen-
tration of dominance for trees ranged from 0.17 to 0.45, whereas in seedlings these val-
ues varied from 0.28 to 0.77. Saplings showed a range of 0.18–0.57, shrubs from 0.03 to
0.17, and herbs 0.03–0.16 as far as the values of Cd are concerned. Highest concentration
of dominance of trees was reported in Quercus leucotricophora (0.45), followed by Picea
smithiana (0.42), Cedrus deodara, and Quercus semecarpifolia (0.40 each) communities.
It was recorded lowest in Abies pindrow-Taxus baccata mixed (0.14) community. Among
the seedlings, highest concentration of dominance was reported in Pinus wallichiana (0.77)
followed by Quercus floribunda (0.67), Cedrus deodara-Quercus leucotricophora mixed
(0.63), and Cedrus deodara-Quercus floribunda mixed (0.62) communities. It was lowest
in Pinus roxburghii (0.28) community. Among the saplings, the highest concentration of
dominance was reported in Pinus wallichiana and Rhododendron arboreum communities
(0.57 each), followed by Quercus floribunda (0.45), Cedrus deodara-Pinus wallichiana
mixed and Cupressus torulosa (0.44 each) communities. Least values were observed in
Pinus roxburghii (0.18) community.
In the shrub layer, Rubus ellipticus-Rosa brunonii-Sorbaria tomentosa mixed commu-
nity showed the highest concentration of dominance (0.17), followed by Cedrus deodara
(0.15), Viburnum cotinifolium-Spiraea canescens mixed (0.14) and Cupressus torulosa
(0.12) communities. Picea smithiana and Quercus leucotricophora-Quercus floribunda
mixed communities showed the lowest concentration of dominance (0.03). Amongst herbs,
Rubus ellipticus-Rosa brunonii-Sorbaria tomentosa mixed community showed the highest
concentration of dominance (0.16), followed by Viburnum cotinifolium-Spiraea canescens
mixed (0.11) and Sarcococca saligna-Daphne papyracea-Prinsepia utilis mixed (0.10)
communities. Picea smithiana and Quercus semecarpifolia communities showed the low-
est concentration of dominance (0.03) among herbs.

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 D. Rana et al.

3.5 Jaccard similarity among the forest communities

The comparison among the communities in the forest zone was done at the tree, sapling,
seedling, shrub, and herb layers in the forest zone using the Jaccard similarity index to
evaluate the similarity percentage (Fig. 4).
In the tree layer maximum communities (49 community pairs) were in the transition
phase with 25 to 50 per cent similarity while more than 50 per cent similarity was shown
by 44 community pairs and a very low number of community pairs showed less than 25
per cent similarity. In the seedling layer maximum community pairs showed more than
50 per cent similarity (61 community pairs) while lesser number of communities showed
similarity less than 25 per cent. In the sapling layer maximum community pairs showed
similarity between 25 and 100 per cent with only fewer community pairs (12 no.) having
similarity less than 25 per cent. Maximum similarity (more than 50 per cent) was observed
in the shrub layer with least dissimilarity in this layer. In the herb layer, maximum commu-
nity pairs showed least similarity with highest dissimilarity among the various community
pairs.

4 Discussion

Species diversity is one of the most important indices that can be used to evaluate eco-
systems at different scales (Ardakani, 2004). The use of various indices like species rich-
ness or Shannon index and Jacquard similarity coefficient can help predict the degree of
complexity of the plant communities and also provide information on the homeostatic
capacity of the forest ecosystems to unforeseen environmental changes (Christopher, 2020;
Mirdavoodi & Zahedi, 2005). Similarity indices provide mathematical expressions for the
similarity of communities (Mueller-Dombois & Ellenberge, 1974). Such indices have been
variously referred to as community coefficients or overlap indices and have been used for
the ordination of plant communities.
The SWCS has high species diversity among the communities within a comparatively
small geographical area that may be due to its unique topography and favourable climatic
conditions for the growth and development of such species (Rana et al., 2020). The number

160

140

120 Similarity more

No. of communities

than 50 percent
100

80 Similarity
between 25-50
60 percent
Similarity less
40
than 25 percent
20

0
Tree Seedling Sapling Shrub Herb

Life form

Fig. 4  Similarity per cent between the communities in the various forest layers

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Community structure and species diversity of forest vegetation…

of species present in the SWCS is comparable with the earlier studies conducted in the
Himalayan regions. A total of 607 species of vascular plants were reported from Kais
Wildlife Sanctuary (Lal, 2007) while 637 species of vascular plants were reported from
Manali Wildlife Sanctuary (Rana & Samant, 2009) and 354 medicinal plant species were
reported from Cold Desert Biosphere Reserve (Singh, 2007).
In the SWCS, high species diversity was found in the tree, shrub, and herb layers. High
species diversity in an area signifies stability in ecological systems (Mirdavoodi & Zahedi,
2005). The tree diversity was comparable to the earlier reports (Lal & Samant, 2019
(0.27–2.17); Rana, 2007 (3.64), while for shrubs, it was within the range as mentioned in
the previous studies (Rawat et al., 2015 (2.34); Rana et al., 2011 (4.05). In case of herbs,
species diversity was higher and comparable than the earlier reported values (Samant et al.,
2002 (2.74–4.13); Lal & Samant, (2.88–4.26); Rana et al., 2011 (3.64). The higher spe-
cies diversity in the area can also be attributed to the appropriate protection efforts, low
anthropogenic activities, and rich soil cover in the area. Retention of soil moisture due to
heavy snowfall, rainfall, and presence of natural water sources might be the other causes
that favour floristic diversity (Tilman & Lehman, 2001). Forest type and species richness
affect forest biodiversity and these can be an important factor in ecosystem function and
provision of ecosystem services. Diverse communities having higher species diversity have
higher chances of resilience and recovery from various natural and man-made disturbances
like (forest fires, invasive species, and habitat fragmentation) (Oliver et al., 2015; Sousa-
Silva et al., 2018).
Higher heterogeneity of species in the communities promotes higher stability and resil-
ience than the monotypic and pure communities. The coniferous communities showed sim-
ilarity in one or two layers only which may be due to different environmental and physical
conditions. Highest dissimilarity was observed in the herb layer among all the life forms
which can be due to the annual life cycle of the herbs causing their widespread dispersal
among different communities. Absence of disturbances favours the growth of herb species
making them grow and flourish. Least dissimilarity was observed in the shrub layer mak-
ing this life form more unstable in the future. A number of factors govern the extent of
similarity or dissimilarity among the communities that are distribution range of species,
habitats, aspects, and other environmental conditions (Arya & Samant, 2017). The under-
story plant diversity is also governed by the forest type (Chavez & Macdonald, 2010; Wulf
& Naaf, 2009) and it is essential from a conservation perspective to protect mixed-species
forests by maintaining understory composition and diversity as well as habitat heterogene-
ity (Bartels & Chen, 2010; Hart & Chen, 2008; Yu & Sun, 2013).
Understanding forest structure is a pre-requisite to describe various ecosystem processes
to model dynamics of forests (Elourard et al., 1997; Monarrez-Gonzalez, 2020). Many
ecologists have considered communities as integrated (possibly discrete) entities with
emergent structure and function shaped by species interactions and co-evolution (Dolezal
& Srutek, 2002). In the forest ecosystems, understory vegetation plays crucial role in regu-
lating succession (Royo & Carson, 2006) and it also contributes to the major portion of
floristic diversity (Roberts & Gilliam, 2003). Thus, understanding the mechanisms that
maintain understory vegetation is crucial for forest management (Bartels & Chen, 2010). A
species accumulation curve is a good estimator to assess and compare diversity as a func-
tion of sampling effort (Ugland, 2003). In the present study, species accumulation curve
showed that the graph reached its asymptotic level at community no. 18 and any further
increase in sample size would have not led to inclusion of additional species (Fig. 5). The
rank abundance curve was also plotted to illustrate genus distribution for shrubs and herbs
for the twenty-one communities represented by different line shapes and colours (Fig. 6).

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 D. Rana et al.

350

300

Commulative Species 250

200

150

100

50

0
0 5 10 15 20 25

Forest Communities

Fig. 5  Species accumulation curve for different forest communities

Fig. 6  Species rank abundance curves for different forest communities

The X-axis showed the abundance rank and the Y-axis showed the relative abundance.
Only a few genera dominate each community with a long tail representing rare genera.
This species distribution pattern agrees with the species abundance pattern in other envi-
ronments. In the shrub layer, highly diverse communities were Aesculus indica followed
by Picea smithiana and Quercus leucotricophora-Quercus floribunda while least diverse
community was Cedrus deodara. In the herb layer, the highly diverse communities were
Picea smithiana followed by Cedrus deodara-Quercus leucotricophora and Quercus seme-
carpifolia while least diverse community was Rubus ellipticus-Rosa brunonii-Sorbaria
tomentosa.
The statistical analysis revealed a positive correlation between total tree density and
concentration of dominance of shrubs (r = 0.55, p < 0.05, R2 = 0.29) and herbs (r = 0.55,
p < 0.05, R2 = 0.30). Species richness of trees also showed positive correlation with
concentration of dominance of herbs (r = 0.80, p < 0.01, R2 = 0.63) while a significant
positive correlation was also seen between species richness of trees and concentration
of dominance of shrubs (r = 0.55, p < 0.05, R2 = 0.29). The results are comparable with

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Community structure and species diversity of forest vegetation…

the previous studies conducted in the other regions of the Western Himalaya (Sharma
& Samant, 2013). The species richness showed negative correlation along the altitude
(r = −0.28, p < 0.01) that revealed decreased species richness with the increasing alti-
tude attributed to severe climatic conditions at the higher elevations making unfavour-
able for the survival of various species. Other factors affecting the species richness are
the biotic disturbances and open access at some fringes of the area (Das et al., 2018;
Dutta & Devi, 2013). The monotonic decrease in tree species richness with increasing
altitude is consistent with the results from other studies (Stevens, 1992) of the Himala-
yan region (Fig. 7).

y = 3250.9x + 338.11 y = 9312.2x + 93.262

r= 0.55, p<0.05, R² = 0.2982 r= 0.55, p<0.05, R² = 0.3016
Total tree density (Ind ha -1)
Total tree density (Ind ha -1)

1200 1200
1000 1000
800 800
600 600
400 400
200 200
0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.05 0.1
Cd shrubs Cd herbs

y = 0.0029x + 0.0172 y = 0.0058x + 0.0032

0.08 r= 0.80, p<0.01, R² = 0.636 r= 0.55, p<0.05, R² = 0.2996
0.16
0.07
0.14
0.06
0.12
Cd herbs

Cd shrubs

0.05 0.1
0.04 0.08
0.03 0.06
0.02 0.04
0.01 0.02
0 0
0 10 20 0 5 10 15 20
Species richness (trees) Species richness (trees)

y = -0.0482x + 181.58
r= -0.28, p<0.01, R² = 0.0809
140
120
Species richness

100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1000 2000 3000
Altitude

Fig. 7  Correlation among the different attributes

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 D. Rana et al.

5 Conclusions

The present study provides a better insight about the assessment of floristic diversity,
analysis using vegetation indices, and interpretation to evaluate the structure of forest eco-
system in order to devise management strategies. The Shimla water catchment Sanctuary
has rich floral diversity, and it is essential to carry out assessment of the vegetation in the
future as well. The more diverse communities with increased heterogeneity can be consid-
ered as the hotspots of this forest ecosystem that require regular monitoring using sampling
methods in the geo-referenced plots to understand the dynamics of vegetation in the area. It
is essential for the forest managers to go for the systematic plantations of the native species
avoiding monotypic species. Adequate management of invasive species is also crucial that
can help other species to flourish well. As the sanctuary area is performing hydrological
functions from past many years, it is essential to study the correlation among the hydrol-
ogy and vegetation of this area. Further, establishment of meteorological` facilities shall be
very useful in conducting studies pertaining to climate change in the future.
The phytosociological studies can be of immense importance and usage if implemented
in a proper manner for the management of the biodiversity in the region. The vegetation
indices can help predict the structure of the forest ecosystem and understand the dynamics
of vegetation. Community and habitat-specific measures are essential for the conservation
of floristic diversity. Overall, proper management of forest ecosystem can provide multiple
sustainable services and environmental stability that is directly linked to the welfare of the
inhabitants of the area.

Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s10668-​021-​02020-9.

Acknowledgements The officials of Forest department, especially Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
(PCCF, Shimla), and forest guards of SWCS, Shimla are highly acknowledged for their kind cooperation
during the entire period of research work. Financial support provided by G.B. Pant institute of Himala-
yan Environment & Development, Almora (UK) under project No. GBPI/IERP/12-13/03/14 is also highly
acknowledged. Thanks are also due to the Ex-Director Dr. V.P. Tiwari for providing facilities to carry out
research work and staff of Himalayan Forest Research Institute, Shimla for their cooperation during entire
period of research.

References
Anton, C., Young, J., Harrison, P. A., Musche, M., Bela, G., Feld, C. K., Harrington, R., Haslett, J. R.,
Pataki, G., Rounsevell, M. D. A., Skourtos, M., Sousa, J. P., Sykes, M. T., Tinch, R., Vandewalle, M.,
Watt, A., & Settele, J. (2010). Research needs for incorporating the ecosystem service approach into
EU biodiversity conservation policy. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19, 2979–2994.
Ardakani, M.R. (2004). Ecology. Tehran University Press, pp. 340.
Arya, S. C., & Samant, S. S. (2017). Assessment of vegetation and prioritization of communities for conser-
vation in Latakharak alpine meadows of Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, West Himalaya India. Inter-
national Journal of Advanced Research, 5(9), 1349–1366.
Barnosky, A. D., Matzke, N., Tomiya, S., Wogan, G. O. U., Swartz, B., Quental, T. B., Marshall, C.,
McGuire, J. L., Lindsey, E. L., Maguire, K. C., Mersey, B., & Ferrer, E. A. (2011). Has the earth’s
sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature, 471, 51–57.
Bartels, S. F., & Chen, H. (2010). Is understory plant species diversity driven by resource quantity or
resource heterogeneity? Ecology, 91, 1931–1938.
Brandt, C. A., & Rickard, W. H. (1995). Alien taxa in the North American shrub steppe four decades after
cessation of livestock grazing and cultivation agriculture. Biological Conservation, 68, 95–106.

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Community structure and species diversity of forest vegetation…

Brockway, D. G. (1998). Forest plant diversity at local and landscape scales in the Cascade Mountains of
South western Washington. Forest Ecology and Management, 109, 323–341.
Chauhan, N. S., & Thakur, S. (1995). Conservation of plant genetic resources of Himachal Pradesh.
Indian Journal of Forestry, 18, 226–238.
Chavez, V., & Macdonald, S. E. (2010). The influence of canopy patch mosaics on understory plant
community composition in boreal mixed wood forest. Forest Ecology &amp; Management, 259,
1067–1075.
Christopher, A.O. (2020). Comparative Analyses of Diversity and Similarity indices of WestBank Forest
and Block a Forest of the International institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Lbadan, Oyo State,
Nigeria. International Journal of Forestry Research, Article ID 4865845, 8 pages.
Collett, H. (1921). Flora simlensis: A handbook of the flowering plants of simla and the neighbourhood.
Thacker Spink and Co., Calcutta, pp. 652.
Curtis, J. T., & McIntosh, R. P. (1950). The interrelations of certain analytic and synthetic phyto-socio-
logical characters. Ecology, 31, 434–455.
Dansereau, P. (1960). The origin and growth of plant communities. In: Zarrow, M.X. (Ed.), Growth in
Living 435 System: Proceedings of International Symposium on Growth, Purdue University, Indi-
ana. Basic Books, New York, pp. 573–603.
Das, S. C., Alam, M. S., & Hossain, M. A. (2018). Diversity and structural composition of species in
dipterocarp forests: A study from Fasiakhali wildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh. Journal of Forestry
Research, 29, 1241–1249. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11676-​017-​0548-7
Dhar, U., Rawal, R. S., & Samant, S. S. (1997). Structural diversity and representativeness of forest veg-
etation in a protected area of Kumaun Himalaya, India Implications for Conservation. Biodiversity
and Conservation, 6, 1045–1062.
Diaz, S., & Cabido, M. (2001). Vive la difference: Plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem pro-
cesses. Trends in Ecology &amp; Evolution, 16, 646–655.
Dolezal, J., & Srutek, M. (2002). Altitudinal changes in composition and structure of mountain temper-
ate: A case study from the western carpathians. Plant Ecology, 158, 201–221.
Dutta, G., & Devi, A. (2013). Plant diversity, population structure, and regeneration status in disturbed
tropical forests in Assam, northeast India. Forestry Research, 24, 715–720. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11676-​013-​0409-y
Elourard, C., Pascal, J. P., Pelissier, R., Ramesh, B. R., Houllier, F., Durand, M., Aravajy, S., Moravie, M.
A., & Gimaret-Carpentier, C. (1997). Monitoring the structure and dynamics of a dense moist ever-
green forest in the Western Ghats (Kodagu District, Karnataka, India). Tropical Ecology, 38, 193–214.
ENVIS Centre on Wildlife and Protected Area. (2020). Sponsored by Ministry of Environment, Forests
& Climate Change (Govt. of India). http://​wiien​vis.​nic.​in/​Datab​ase/​Himac​hal_​Prade​sh_​7823.​aspx.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., & Holling, C. S. (2004).
Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Ecology, Evolution, and Sys-
tematics, 35, 557–581.
Green, J.B. (1993). Nature reserves of the Himalaya and mountains of central Asia. IUCN Publication,
pp. 137–290.
Greig-Smith, P. (1957). The use of random and contiguous quadrates in the study of the structure of the
plant communities. Annals of Botany, 16, 293–316.
Hart, S. A., & Chen, H. (2008). Fire, logging, and overstory affect understory abundance, diversity, and
composition in the boreal forest. Ecological Monographs, 78, 123–140.
Haslett, J. R., Berry, P. M., Bela, G., Jongman, R. H. G., Pataki, G., Samways, M. J., & Zobel, M.
(2010). Changing conservation strategies in Europe: A framework integrating ecosystem services
and dynamics. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19, 2963–2977.
ICIMOD. (2015). International symposium on Transforming Mountain Forestry. 18–22 January, Forest
Research Institute, Dehradun, India. A conference brief.
Jackson, S. T., & Hobbs, R. J. (2009). Ecological restoration in the light of ecological history. Science,
325, 567–569.
Joshi, H. C., & Samant, S. S. (2004). Assessment of forest vegetation and conservation priorities of
communities in a part of Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, West Himalaya. Part 1. International
Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 11, 326–336.
Kala, C. P., & Mathur, V. B. (2002). Patterns of plant species distribution in the Trans- Himalayan region
of Ladakh, India. Journal of Vegetation Science, 13, 751–754.
Kershaw, K. A. (1973). Quantitative and Dynamics Plant Ecology (2nd ed.). Elbsd & Edward Arnold.
Lal, M., & Samant, S. S. (2019). Compositional and structural diversity of Forest vegetation in Kais
Wildlife Sanctuary, North Western Himalaya: Conservation Implications. Journal of Biodiversity,
19(1–2), 1–14.

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 D. Rana et al.

Lal, M. (2007). Assessment of floristic diversity and conservation status of plants in Kais Wildlife Sanctu-
ary of Himachal Pradesh in North-western Himalaya. Ph. D. Thesis, Kumaun University, Nainital, pp.
208.
Li, Q., Yang, L., & Zhou, J. (2002). Comparative analysis on species diversity of hill closed afforested plant
community in Beijing Jiulong Mountain. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 13, 1065–1068.
MacDonald, G. M., Bennett, K. D., Jackson, S. T., Paducci, L., Smith, F. A., Smol, J. P., & Willis, K. J.
(2008). Impacts of climate change on species, populations and communities: Palaeobiogeographical
insights and frontiers. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment, 32, 139–172.
Mirdavoodi, H. R., & Zahedi, P. H. (2005). Determination of suitable species diversity model for Meghan
playa plant association and effect of some ecological factors on diversity change. Pajuhesh and
Sazandegi, 68, 56–65.
Mishra, B. P., Tripathi, O. P., Tripathi, R. S., & Pandey, H. N. (2004). Effects of anthropogenic disturbance
on plant diversity and community structure of a sacred grove in Meghalaya, northeast India. Biodiver-
sity and Conservation, 13, 421–436.
Mishra, K.C. (1991). Manual of Plant Ecology. Oxford and IBH Publishing, pp. 508.
Monarrez-Gonzalez, J. C., Gonzalez-Elizondo, M. S., Marquez-Linares, M. A., Gutierrez-Yurrita, P. J., &
Perez-Verdin, G. (2020). Effect of forest management on tree diversity in temperate ecosystem forests
in northern Mexico. PLoS ONE, 15(5), e0233292.
Mueller-Dombois, D., & Ellenberge, H. (1974). Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. John Willey and
Sons.
Mulchand, R. (2013). Floristic diversity of the Patnadevi forest, Maharashtra, India. Journal of Environment
Research and Development, 7, 1430–1438.
Oliver, T. H., Heard, M. S., Isaac, N. J., Roy, D. B., Procter, D. E., Eigenbrod, F., Freckleton, R., Hector, A.,
Orme, C. D. L., Petchey, O. L., Proenca, V., Raffaelli, D., Suttle, K. B., Mace, G. M., Martin-Lopez,
B., Woodcock, B. A., & Bullock, J. M. (2015). Biodiversity and resilience of ecosystem functions.
Trends in Ecology &amp; Evolution, 30(11), 673–684.
Oommen, M. A., & Shanker, K. (2005). Elevational species richness patterns emerge from multiple local
mechanisms in Himalayan woody plants. Ecology, 86, 3039–3047.
Pielou, E. C. (1984). The interpretation of Ecological Data: A primer on classification and ordination.
Wiley.
Polunin, O., & Stainton, A. (1984). Flowers of the Himalaya (p. 580). Oxford University Press.
Rana, D., & Kapoor, K. S. (2015). Assessment of floristic diversity of Shimla water catchment sanctuary,
Himachal Pradesh. India. Indian Forester, 141(12), 1244–1247.
Rana, M. S., & Samant, S. S. (2009). Prioritization of habitats and communities for conservation in the
Indian Himalayan region: A state-of-the-art approach from Manali wildlife sanctuary. Current Science,
97, 326–335.
Rana, M. S., Samant, S. S., & Rawat, Y. S. (2011). Plant communities and factors responsible for vegetation
pattern in an alpine area of the North-western Himalaya. Journal of Mountain Science, 8, 817–826.
Rana, D., Kapoor, K. S., Samant, S. S., & Bhatt, A. (2020). Plant species conservation priority index for
preparing management strategies: A case study from the Western Himalayas of India. Small Scale For-
estry, 19(4), 461–481.
Rana, D., Kapoor, K.S., & Singh, V.R.R. (2013). Hydrological and Ecological studies towards integrated
water resource management: a case study of Shimla water catchment Sanctuary, Himachal Pradesh.
In: Asia Pacific workshop on forest hydrology-water and forests: beyond traditional forest hydrology,
pp. 160–165.
Rana, M.S. (2007). Assessment of floristic diversity and conservation prioritization of communities for con-
servation in Manali Wildlife Sanctuary of Himachal Pradesh in North-western Himalaya. Ph. D. The-
sis, Kumaun University, Nainital, pp. 228.
Rawat, G. S., & Singh, S. K. (2006). Structure and composition of woody vegetation along the altitudinal
and human use gradients in Great Himalayan National Park, North-western Himalaya. Proceedings of
Indian National Science Academy, 76, 194–202.
Rawat, B., Gairola, S., & Rawal, R. S. (2015). Assessing Conservation values of Forest communities in
Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve: Plant diversity, species distribution, and endemicity. Journal of Moun-
tain Science, 12(4), 878–890.
Roberts, M.R., and Gilliam, F.S. (2003). Response of the herbaceous layer to disturbance in eastern forests.
In: The herbaceous layer in forests of eastern North America, editors Gilliam, F.S. and Roberts, M.R.,
Oxford University Press, New York, USA.
Royo, A. A., & Carson, W. P. (2006). On the formation of dense understory layers in forest worldwide:
Consequences and implications for forest dynamics, biodiversity, and succession. Canadian Journal of
Forest Research, 36, 1345–1362.

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Community structure and species diversity of forest vegetation…

Samant, S.S., & Joshi, H.C. (2004). Floristic diversity, community patterns and changes of vegetation in
Nanda Devi National Park. In: Biodiversity Monitoring Expedition Nanda Devi 2003. Bishen Singh
Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehradun, pp. 39–54.
Samant, S.S., Joshi, H.C., Arya, S.C., & Pant, S. (2002). Studies on the structure, composition and changes
of vegetation in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve of west Himalaya. Final Technical Report, Ministry of
Environment and Forests, New Delhi.
Shannon, C. E., & Wiener, W. (1963). The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois
Press.
Sharma, P., Rana, J.C., Devi, U., Randhawa, S.S., & Kumar, R. (2014). Floristic diversity and distribution
pattern of plant communities along altitudinal gradient in Sangla valley, Northwest Himalaya. The Sci-
entific World Journal, Article ID 264878.
Sharma, A., & Samant, S. S. (2013). Diversity, structure, and composition of forest communities in Hirb
and Shoja catchments, of Himachal Pradesh, North West Himalaya. India. International Journal of
Botany, 9(1), 50–54.
Simpson, E. H. (1949). Measurement of diversity. Nature, 163, 688.
Singh, A. (2007). Assessment of plant diversity and conservation status of forest vegetation in a cold desert
biosphere reserve of the Western Himalaya. Thesis submitted to Kumaun University.
Singh S, Kothari A, & Pande P, (1990). Directory of national parks and sanctuaries in Himachal Pradesh:
Management status and profiles (p. 164). Indian Institute of Public Administration.
Sousa-Silva K R, Verheyen P Ponette Q, Bay E, Sioen G, Titeux H, Peer T V, de P, Meerbeek KV 2018
Tree diversity mitigates defoliation after a drought-indeuced tipping point Global Change Biology 24
9 4304 4315
Stevens, G. C. (1992). The elevational gradient in altitudinal range: An extension of Rapoport’s latitudinal
rule to altitude. American Naturalist, 133, 240–256.
Stohlgren, T. J., Quinn, J. F., Ruggiero, M., & Waggoner, G. S. (1995). Status of biotic inventories in U.S.
National Parks. Biological Conservation, 71, 97–106.
Thompson, I., Mackey, B., Mc Nulty, S., & Mosseler, A. (2009). Forest resilience, biodiversity, and cli-
mate change: a synthesis of biodiversity/resilience/stability relationship in forest ecosystems. Technical
series no. 43, Montreal, Canada, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Tilman, D., & Lehman, C. (2001). Human-caused environmental change: Impacts on plant diversity and
evolution. PNAS, 98(10), 5433–5440.
Tyagi, A., Singh, O.P., Singh, M., & Bhan, S.C. (2010). Climate of Shimla. Indian Meteorological Depart-
ment (IMD) Report.
Ugland, K. I., Gray, J. S., & Ellingsen, K. E. (2003). The species- Accumulation curve and Estimation of
species richness. The Journal of Animal Ecology, 72(5), 888–897.
Van der Maarel, E. (1996). Vegetation dynamics and dynamic vegetation science. Acta Botanica Neer-
landica, 45, 421–442.
Willis, K. J., & Bhagwat, S. A. (2010). Questions of importance to the conservation of biological diversity:
Answers from the past. Climate of the past, 6, 759–769.
Wulf, M., & Naaf, T. (2009). Herb layer response to broadleaf tree species with different leaf litter quality
and canopy structure in temperate forests. Journal of Vegetation Science, 20, 517–526.
Yu, M., & Sun, O. J. (2013). Effects of forest patch type and site on herb-layer vegetation in a temperate for-
est ecosystem. Forest Ecology &amp; Management, 300, 14–20.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

Authors and Affiliations

Dipika Rana1,2 · Kulraj Singh Kapoor2 · Anupam Bhatt3 · Sher Singh Samant2

* Dipika Rana
dipikahfri@gmail.com
1
School of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Shoolini University of Biotechnology
and Management Sciences, Solan, Himachal Pradesh 173229, India

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 D. Rana et al.

2
Forest Ecology and Climate Change Division, Himalayan Forest Research Institute,
Panthaghati, Shimla 171013, India
3
Environmental Technology Division, CSIR-Institute of Himalayan Bioresource and Technology,
Palampur 176061, India

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at

onlineservice@springernature.com