See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/379154129

Impact of Monoculture and Mixed Species Plantation Practices on Biodiversity :

A Critical Review

Chapter · March 2024

CITATIONS READS

0 57

3 authors:

Srijita Jana Niloy Roy

Government of West Bengal Government of West Bengal
4 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS 6 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Narayan C Saha
Academy of Biodiversity Conservation
11 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Niloy Roy on 22 March 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Impact of Monoculture and Mixed Species Plantation Practices on
Biodiversity : A Critical Review

Srijita Jana1, Niloy Roy2 and Narayan Chandra Saha3

1
Forest range officer, Purba Medinipur, WB , 2Forest Range officer, Jhargram, WB,
3
Uttarakhand Forestry Training Academy, Haldwani
*Corresponding author email- srijita.jana@gmail.com

ABSTRACT: This study is carried out to highlight the various issues arises from monoculture and
mixed species plantation practices adopted in the different parts of the country. Several forestry
plantations of monoculture plantation as well as mixed species plantations are being observed
recently and observations are recorded. Various interesting issues, both positive and negative have
come into light viz. soil quality, disease susceptibility, undergrowth factor, presence of biodiversity,
study on weeds and herbs, beneficial insects, avifauna, small mammals etc. A comparative analysis
between the forest developed by monoculture practices with mixed plantation forest / naturally
grown forest is discussed in this article. This study also reveals the impact of general trends in
forestry plantations on biodiversity which is now-a-days a great concern.

KEYWORDS: Monoculture, Mixed Plantation, Natural forest, Biodiversity, Biological desert,

Incursive species

INTRODUCTION: In forestry, monoculture can be defined as the planting of one species of tree
in the entire plantation. These practices have certain economic and environmental benefits over the
natural mixed forests. But it is also blamed for various types of negative impacts on the environment
like climate change, decrease in soil fertility, change in soil pH, environmental degradation, loss of
biodiversity, social impact like lesser employment opportunities etc which are actually the
‘externalized costs’ of some cheap economic /industrial gain. Even some of the activists termed
these monoculture tree plantations as “Green deserts not forests”. In the year 2004, September 21 st
was declared as International Day against Monoculture Tree Plantations to highlight the social
upheaval and environmental degradation, including impacts on global biodiversity and climate
change by several environmental and social organizations.
Along with the rising demand for various goods and services from forests, to cope with
degradation of natural forests and to assuage deforestation, plantation forests are developing very
rapidly in the world which now accounts for 3% of global forest cover (FAO, 2020). In the world's
plantations scenario, the maximum plantations are monocultures, with just a few certain numbers of
tree species in common practice. Tectona grandis, Eucalyptus sp, Pinus roxburghii, Acacia
auriculiformis, Prosopis juliflora, etc. are the most widely worldwide planted tree species,
with Picea smithieana, Pseudotsuga sp, Swietenia mahogany, Gmelina arborea and certain other
region specific species being quite important.
In plantations, monocultures have been practiced for a long time. Nichols et al. (2006),
reported that the earliest monoculture was documented in 1368. The basic goal was to simplify the
structure, meet the scarcity of timber and speed up the cycles of natural ecosystems, with the aim to
1
produce large amounts of wood in the minimum time period (Baltodano,
Baltodano, 2000;
2000 Griess and Knoke,
2011).
In some areas, monoculture was intentionally introduced to revive the degraded forest areas,
eg, Prosopis juliflora in Rajasthan and Runn of Kachh of Gujarat, Acacia auriculiformis
auriculifo in the
South-Western
Western part of West Bengal, Pinus roxburghii in parts of Uttarakhand and Himachal
Pradesh. There was no alternative to these species (monoculture) to give support to the local people
and to get some benefits out of it, to provide habitat to the local fauna and restore the ecological
balance of the areas.
Indeed, 45% of forest restoration commitments from tropical countries involve establishing
monoculture plantations, despite the diversification of plantations being a key policy
recommendation in a recent IPBESIPBES-IPCC report (Lewis et al., ., 2019; Pörtner et al., 2021).
Experimental and theoretical work demonstrates that diverse plant systems are more productive and
stable through time compared to monocultures, as well as better able to support diverse animal
assemblages and provide other critical ecosystem services (Cardinale et al., ., 2012; Messier et al.,
2021; Tilman et al., 2014). In the present study
study, an attempt has been made to highlight
hi the impact of
monoculture and mixed plantation
plantation/forest on biodiversity which is now at a crossroad.
crossroad

GENERAL TRENDS IN FORESTRY PLANTATION:

As there is a huge rapid growth in the human population worldwide, natural demand for the
consumption of wood and related forest produces is also increasing pressure upon the natural forest.
Every year, large parts of natural forests are felled, damaged, degraded, and converted for different
land use purposes resulting gradual decrease in global forest area and nd degradation in ecology
(Matthew 2006).. To alleviate such problems and to increase the production of industrial wood and
other forest produces,
es, plantation forestry developed
developed.. It has been identified by several studies that
most of the plantations are mono
monocultures with a very few numbers of common tree species (Chingliu
et al 2018). During the study, several factors come into focus which are supposedly having a
negative impact on the environment and overall society as a whole, overriding the economic gains.
STUDY AREA : This study wa was made from April to July 2023 and carried out at plantations of the
different zones of the Jhargram Forest Division area of West Bengal.. The area is shown in green
colour in the division map (Fig 11). More than 30 plantations and forests were re observed during the
study period.
Fig 1 : Map of Study area of Jhargram Forest Division, West Bengal

West Bengal Jhargram District Jhargram Forest Division

2
METHODOLOGY OF STUDY: Several sites of both types of forests have been studied
thoroughly from different points of views like soil quality followed as per the standard method of
Soil Survey Manual ( AISLUS, Govt. of India, 1970), undergrowth analysis, the richness of weeds,
variety of faunal biodiversity viz. Insects, birds, small mammals etc. The bird-watching activity has
been executed every day 4 hrs in the morning and evening in April - July 2023, in several
monocultures as well as mixed species plantations. The identification of sighted birds and mammals
is confirmed by the local foresters and subsequently by the experts as and when required. Graphical
representation of avifaunal sighting frequency and their comparative analysis are also considered
here. A sample plot method has been used to study the weeds and herbs in detail and the location
map has been measured with the help of GARMIN e-trex 20. Mathematical analysis with the help of
the Shannon Index is also done based on the observations of weeds and herbs. Only birds and
smaller mammals are considered during the study. The images from the field are taken by Redmi 10
camera with OpenCam android application.

OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS:

1) SOIL QUALITY:
There are multiple prominent issues, generated by monoculture practices, which are
gradually deteriorating the soil quality by several means. Top Soil erosion, soil degradation and
depletion of soil nutrients, all are prominent signs of poor soil quality. Monoculture plantations
affect soil structure and deplete organic matter and nutrient levels, essential bacteria and
microorganisms due to the removal of dry leaves from the forest floor for various reasons. If the
efficiency of nutrient trapping within the soil is of concern, then it gets affected very adversely by
monoculture practices. Specific species not only consume specific nutrients from soil resulting in
deficiency of that particular nutrient in the root zone but also have limited capability to trap different
types of nutrients in soil. Some species like Eucalyptus sp (Binkley et al. 2003) are eventually
making the soil acidic. Some research revealed that certain species absorb more water which may
lead to affect the groundwater table and the depletion of soil moisture in that region (Morris et al.,
2004; Bowyer, 2006). Mixed forests are expected to store more carbon in aboveground biomass than
less diverse or monoculture forests (Jucker et al., 2014).
During observation in the soil of monoculture forests, very little humus content has been
noticed. In fact in some area due to lack of undergrowth, soil are exposed and prone to erosion.
During the rainy season the topsoil is washed away easily. In monoculture practices generally,
Acacia auriculiformis, Tectona grandis, Eucalyptus sp. etc has been planted but, these fast-growing
species have not visible contribution to soil quality improvement. Sal monoculture plays a
comparatively far better role in the matter of soil improvement as well as undergrowth factors than
other quick-growing species in monoculture. Local Tribal people are very much dependent on these
Sal forests for mushrooms, medicinal plants, sal leaves (for sal-leaf plate making) and tasar cocoon
collection.

3
 Plate 1(a-d) : Health of Soil in Monoculture and Mixed Culture (Photo : Niloy Roy)

a,b-Exposed soil and no improvement in soil quality in monoculture

c- Lack of humus content in soil of monoculture d- Creepers, Indication of healthy forest in

forest mixed forest/plantation

2) DISEASE SUSCEPTIBILITY:
In the case of monoculture, chances of susceptibility to pests and diseases increase as they
possess closeness in tree species and similarity in genetic composition. Particular species can act as a
good source of food and habitat for pathogens and insects which in time may result in colonization
and spread infection (Huuskonen et al 2021). Increasing use of herbicides, insecticides and chemical
fertilizers, in turn, leads to much more use of chemicals. It also causes growing susceptibility to pest
and disease attacks (Charlie, 2022). Even monoculture plantations have lower resistance to abiotic
and biotic oppressions generated by sluggish climatic conditions (Felton et al., 2010). Once attacked
by a disease or pest, it spreads very rapidly among the entire stands, even in total plantation as there
is almost no resistance available due to the same species genera. Diversification of species in mixed
forests also increases resistance to disease and pests (Gamfeldt et al., 2013; Jactel et al., 2021).
All the major pests of Indian forests are most injurious in pure plantations. In the case of the
same disease-susceptible species, incidence of damages can be greatly reduced by practicing mixed
plantation. It has been established that damages done by Ganoderma lucidum fungus can be reduced
by raising the susceptible species in an intimate mixture with resistant species like Bombax ceiba
and Ailanthus sp. and attack of spike disease in Santalum album can be prevented by planting
Azadirechta indica ( Neem), Cassia siamea (Minjiri), Sisoo (Khanna,1998; Pullaiah et.al, 2021).
Similar things were also observed in our study area.

3) STUDY ON UNDERGROWTH:
Species used for monoculture often prohibit the growth of other species also. There is very
little undergrowth which could contribute to biodiversity, soil and water conservation or fodder
needs. A differently layered mixed forest is considered the most productive one from all aspects,
including species diversity and economic viability (Plate 2, a-h).

4
Plate-2(a–h): Photo plate showing comparison of Monoculture and Mixed Plantation/Forest
Photo : Niloy Roy
Monoculture Mixed Forest/Plantation

As a general practice, prior to plantation work, the forest department usually removes all the
undergrowth (fig 2) throughout the selected plot to reduce weeds and interspecies competition. So,
the regeneration of other species with the time besides the growth of main plantation species,
becomes very much visible.
Fig 2: Undergrowth removal before plantation

5
4) REVIEW ON BIODIVERSITY:
There is a difference of opinion between researchers about the effect of monoculture practice
on biodiversity. Study reveals that monoculture may increase the biodiversity in degraded lands as it
has the potential to provide habitat for indigenous fauna and flora but mostly it leads to a lower level
of biodiversity. It negatively impacts on species richness and abundance (Felton et al, 2010) within
the production stands. Even some of researchers considered exotic monoculture as ‘Biological
Desert’(Bremer et al, 2010; Brockerhoff et al., 2013) as they can host very few species. The practice
of clear felling as per the management policy is responsible for the drastic alteration of habitat.
Plantation patterns and designs also affect biodiversity as it provide a poor habitat for birds
(Chaudhary et al., 2016; Dislich et al., 2017). Not only the designs but also the plantation technique,
choice of species, stand density, chemical used and harvesting calendar as per the working plan all
factors have a cumulative effect on the maintenance of biodiversity. In the long term, it may become
a threat and lead to the extinction of a vast range of forest-dependent taxa.
Research shows that teak plantation has a destructive effect on the environment as it reduces
around 10 percent biodiversity of original plant species (Jue, 2014). Monoculture does not have
potential to support a variety of wildlife, specifically that wildlife which uses some trees as their
fodder, resulting in a significant negative environmental impact. Single-species plantations have a
severe negative impact on groundwater tables, leading to water stress in neighboring communities
and ecosystems. Single-genera plantation practices are also the major cause of the destruction of or
damage to ecosystems such as wetlands and grasslands, and thus a major cause of biodiversity loss.
During our study, the birds observed mainly are Pied Myna, Hoopie, Black Drongo, Green
Bea Eater, Alexandrine Parakeet, Asian Koel, Common Myna, Jungle Babbler, Purple Sunbird,
Indian Roller, The Great Caucal, Oriental Magpie Robin, Rufous Treepie, Red vented Bulbul etc. A
comparative study on the sighting frequency is done based on the observation (Chart 1) which
clearly expresses that except Greater Coucal and Purple sunbird, other avifauna are more common in
mixed plantation /forest than in monoculture.
Chart 1: Frequencies of Sighting of Avifauna (a comparative study)

Mixed Plantation / Forest Monoculture

Pied Myna 2 6
Hoopoe 01
Black drongo 16 25
Green bea-eater 2 6
Alexandrine Parakeet 7 33
Asian Koel 9 11
Common Myna 32 55
Jungle Babbler 56 62
Purple Sunbird 16 23
Indian Roller 0 4
The Great Coucal 2 6
Orental Magpie Robin 24 47
Rufous Treepie 8 30
Red vented Bulbul 16 55

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

6
 In our study, a comparative analysis of small animals sighted in different plantations has
been done and depicted in tabular form (Table 1). In mixed forests,, the presence of small animals is
higher as compared to monoculture plantation
plantations.
Table 1 : Comparative
mparative study on animals sighted in different plantations in Jhargram
Type of Spotted Red Jungle
Hare Fox Civet Mongoose Peacock
Plantation Dear Fowl
Monoculture Present Rare Occasional Absent Rare Absent Occasional
Mixed Forest Present Present Present Present Present Present Present

5) REVIEW ON INSECTS:
Monoculture in Crop Production also contributes
ontributes to Pollinator Decline (Kluser et al, 2010)
which may lead to an “insect apocalypse” which means a smaller proportion of such plants are
pollinated resulting in risk to production capacity besides
esides Biodiversity Loss (Jactel et al., 2007).
Study reveals that pollination is gradually decreasing in monoculture practices leading to
deterioration
ation in biodiversity, as opposed to mixed plantation/forest. It is also true that Apiculture in
bee-box
box is practiced in Eucalyptus monoculture when it remains in flowering condition.

6) REVIEW ON WEEDS AND HERBS HERBS:

In our study an area about 3 Ha (22030’37’’, 86054’51’’). of Sarakata mouza, Kapgari forest
Beat, Parihati Forest Range, Jhargram Fore
Forest division on which 3 types of forest have been found
viz. Monoculture (Eucalyptus sp)) ; Sa
Sal forest ; Mixed Forest/ plantation (Fig 3).

Fig 3: Sample Plot used for weed study during April-July ‘2023

Some specificic species have been seen in monoculture forest. Most of them are reported
incursive
ive species by nature and all can be referred to as weeds with very small amount of reported
medicinal plants. In the other case, the specific species that have been seen in mixed
mixe forests are not
reportedly incursive
sive with some minor exception
exceptions as well as cannot be mentioned as weeds
weed (Table 3).

Table 3: Weeds and Herbs observed in Monoculture and Mixed Forest/ Plantation
IUCN Mixed Forest Native Fodder Weed
No.
Species Status Monoculture Incursive* Value Toxicity potential
1 Urena sinuata LC Present Rare No No Absent Yes38
2 Heliotropium indicum LC Present Rare Yes No Present Yes3,17
3 Vitex negundo LC Present Absent Yes No Absent No
4 Sida cordifolia LC Present Rare No No Absent Yes21
7
 Spermacoce
5
ocymoides LC Present Absent No No Absent Yes50
6 Breynia retusa LC Present Rare Yes No Absent No
7 Mimosa pudica LC Present Rare No No Absent Yes25
8 Chromolaena odorata LC Present Absent Yes No Present Yes1,51
9 Crotalaria juncea LC Present Absent No No Present Yes32
10 Ziziphus sp LC Present Absent Yes No Absent Yes18

11 Smilax ovalifolia LC Absent Present No No Absent No

12 Phyllanthus niruri LC Present Present No Yes46 Absent No
13 Lygodium palmatum G4 Absent Present No No Absent No
14 Cleome viscosa LC Rare Present No Yes30 Absent Yes36
15 Cheilanthes tenuifolia LC Absent Present No No Absent No
16 Coldenia procumbens LC Absent Present No No Absent No
17 Elephantopus scaber LC Absent Present No No Absent No
18 Hemidesmus indicus LC Absent Present No No Absent No
Desmodium
19
molliculum NE Absent Present No Yes24 Absent No
Andrographis
20
paniculata LC Rare Present No No Absent Yes43
21 Lygodium flexuosum LC Absent Present No No Absent No
22 Endodeca serpentaria G4 Absent Present No No Absent No
Melochia
23
corchorifolia LC Present Present No Yes37 Absent No

*Incursive means aggressive invasion. In the sample plot, there are so many imaginary subplots that
have been seen of 0.5*0.5 m2 areas where the colonies of the same species have grown replacing
others. Those species are referred to here as incursive species. The word 'Invasive' cannot be used
here because the mentioned herbs are native to India or, Indian subcontinent. They also cannot be
referred to as 'Noxious' because it needs a formal declaration for it. Their weed potentiality criteria
are regarded according to the declared document of the Weed Science Society of America (WSSA,
2016).
Photographs are taken in monoculture and mixed forest/plantation sites given in Plate
3(a-l) and 4(a-p). These images have been taken from the northern Jhargram region in which 4 forest
ranges are situated. (Belpahari, Parihati, Silda, Gidhni).
Plate – 3 a-l: Weeds and Herbs observed in Monoculture Plantation Area

8
 a-Urena sinuata b-Heliotropium indicum c-Vitex negundo d-Croton bonplandianus

e-Breynia retusa f-Mimosa pudica g-Chromolaena h-Cassia occidentalis

odorata

i-Sida cordifolia j-Spermacoce verticillata k-Scoparia dulcis l-Crotalaria juncea

Plate – 4 a-p: Weeds and Herbs observed in Mixed forest/ Plantation Area

a-Smilax ovalifolia b-Phyllanthus niruri c-Lygodium palmatum d-Evolvulus

nummularis

e-Cheilanthes f-Coldenia procumbens g-Elephantopus scaber h-Cleome viscosa

tenuifolia
9
i-Hemidesmus indicus j-Desmodium k-Melochia l-Meyna spinosa
molliculum corchorifolia

m-Lygodium n-Andrographis o-Tephrosia hamiltonii p-Endodeca

flexuosum paniculata serpentaria
(All photos documented by Niloy Roy)

Study on Diversity of Weeds and Herbs : In the present study, the diversity of weeds and
herbs was also worked out by the Shannon Diversity Index. This index is sometimes called the
Shannon-Wiener Index. It is a way to measure the diversity of species in a community
(Shannon,1948).

Denoted as H, this index is calculated as:

H = -Σpi * ln(pi)
where:
• Σ: A Greek symbol that means “sum”
• ln: Natural log
• pi: The proportion of the entire community made up of species i

The higher the value of H, the higher the diversity of species in a particular community. The
lower the value of H, the lower the diversity. A value of H = 0 indicates a community that only has
one species (Table 4). An approximate number of sightings of several weeds and herbs have been
noted in both the Monoculture and mixed forests. The Shannon Diversity index clearly shows that
the mixed forest (SDI = 2.33) is more diverse in plants than Monoculture (SDI = 2.23). The SDI
value for species prevalent in monoculture is higher than in mixed forest. In the contrary, the mixed
forest results in higher valued SDI than monoculture for species dominant in mixed plantation
practices.

Table 4 – Species Diversity Study of Weeds and Herbs In both Monoculture and
Mixed Forest/Plantation by Shannon Diversity Index
in Monoculture in Mixed forest
Sl. Species Freq. Pi In(Pi) Pi * Freq. Pi In(Pi) Pi *
ult
ur
e

10
 In(Pi) In(Pi)
1 Urena sinuata 13 0.01 -5.16 -0.03 3 0.00 -6.75 -0.01
2 Heliotropium indicum 240 0.11 -2.25 -0.24 7 0.00 -5.91 -0.02
3 Vitex negundo 60 0.03 -3.63 -0.10 22 0.01 -4.76 -0.04
4 Sida cordifolia 310 0.14 -1.99 -0.27 14 0.01 -5.21 -0.03
5 Spermacoce verticillata 290 0.13 -2.06 -0.26 10 0.00 -5.55 -0.02
6 Breynia retusa 25 0.01 -4.51 -0.05 8 0.00 -5.77 -0.02
7 Mimosa pudica 300 0.13 -2.02 -0.27 20 0.01 -4.86 -0.04
8 Chromolaena odorata 600 0.26 -1.33 -0.35 65 0.03 -3.68 -0.09
9 Crotalaria juncea 35 0.02 -4.17 -0.06 5 0.00 -6.24 -0.01
10 Ziziphus sp 80 0.04 -3.35 -0.12 8 0.00 -5.77 -0.02
1.75 0.29

11 Smilax ovalifolia 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 40 0.02 -4.16 -0.06

12 Phyllanthus niruri 120 0.05 -2.94 -0.16 370 0.14 -1.94 -0.28
13 Lygodium palmatum 1 0.00 -7.73 0.00 40 0.02 -4.16 -0.06
Mixed Forest species

14 Cleome viscosa 2 0.00 -7.03 -0.01 82 0.03 -3.45 -0.11

15 Cheilanthes tenuifolia 12 0.01 -5.24 -0.03 600 0.23 -1.46 -0.34
16 Coldenia procumbens 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 65 0.03 -3.68 -0.09
17 Elephantopus scaber 25 0.01 -4.51 -0.05 54 0.02 -3.86 -0.08
18 Hemidesmus indicus 1 0.00 -7.73 0.00 65 0.03 -3.68 -0.09
19 Desmodium molliculum 5 0.00 -6.12 -0.01 120 0.05 -3.07 -0.14
20 Andrographis paniculata 8 0.00 -5.65 -0.02 180 0.07 -2.66 -0.19
21 Lygodium flexuosum 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 105 0.04 -3.20 -0.13
22 Endodeca serpentaria 22 0.01 -4.64 -0.04 90 0.03 -3.35 -0.12
23 Melochia corchorifolia 120 0.05 -2.94 -0.16 600 0.23 -1.46 -0.34
0.48 2.04
Total= 2269 Total= 2573
SDI= 2.23 2.33

In the present observation, a comparative study has been analyzed on different parameters in
Monoculture and Mixed Forest/ Plantation and depicted in tabular form (Table: 5). The table
indicates mixed plantation is beneficial to richness of biodiversity.
Table 5: comparative study on several factors in Monoculture and Mixed Forest/ Plantation
Mixed
Several Factors Monoculture
Forest/Plantation
Biodiversity Rarely found Present
Weeds Present Incursive
Healthy Undergrowth Absent or, moderately present (Saal) Present
Soil Quality improvement -- Occurs
Soil Erosion can be found Rare
Creepers Rarely found Present
Disease Susceptibility
Susceptible --
Factor

11
 Soil Exposed More Less
Humus and bio-content in
Less More
Soil
Fire prone Susceptible Susceptible
Pollinator Less More
Caterpillar Less More

7) REVIEW ON CARBON FIXATIONON:

In our study, it has been observed that carbon fixation is more in mixed and natural forests as
biomass growth is greater. Warner et al, 2022, reported in mixed forests, carbon stock is higher than
the monocultures of their constituent species, containing on average 70% more carbon. Similar work
has also reported that monoculture forests often lack resilience to perturbation (Jactelet al., 2017,
2021). Further decrease of long-term carbon storage potential in monoculture is reported by
(Hutchison et al., 2018; Messier et al., 2021; Osuri et al., 2020). In replacement of mixed one, large-
scale monoculture tree plantations undermine food security and sovereignty, land reform processes,
and thus contribute to increased food prices, hunger and malnutrition (Friends of the Earth
International, August 2008).

CONCLUSION:
The species observed in monoculture plantations mostly have shown weed potentiality
contrary to species found in mixed plantations. Due to low species diversity, there is a chance of
being less available fodder for cattle and getting eradicated totally from a particular area. It is very
surprising that to cope with the survival strategy, most the species of monoculture are weeds, non-
palatable, with defensive adaptive features like thorny bodies, rough and hairy leaf surfaces and
sometimes poisonous. The same monoculture weed species mentioned in this study have also been
found in the degraded, sterile, barren lands and roadside areas throughout the entire study area of
Jhargram.
This is obvious that monoculture is useful for producing fast-growing economic species.
Such plantations often provide raw materials for industries and act as ‘bio-fuels’. It may also have
potential to provide habitat for indigenous species and thus to increase biodiversity in barren,
degraded land to some extent, but as a whole, it is not at all recommended from a conservation of
biodiversity viewpoint. There are perceptions and reasons to believe that monoculture not only
permanently degrades or depletes soil and water resources but also the restrictive and uniform
habitat limits the opportunity for encouraging biodiversity. Since 1989, there have been changes in
the perception of the purposes of forestry. The most significant shift is towards enhanced
environmental awareness, biodiversity conservation, Sustainable Development of Forests and green
labeling. Funding sectors like bank also changed their policy and loan projects to support
biodiversity conservation (Asian Development Bank, Policy on Forestry, 1995 and NABARD). In
2002, responding to a petition of Andaman & Nicobar, the Supreme Court gave a verdict that there
should be no expansion of monoculture or commercial plantations on Forest Land. Now-a-days, as
per the Forest Department’s Working Plan prescriptions, in most cases, mixed species plantation is
being adopted for the same reason. In 2011, the Global Forest Coalition along with UNFCCC has
Excluded Monoculture Tree Plantations from Financial Support to Forest and Climate Change-
related Programs.
12
 Since 2005-06, forest divisions of South-West Bengal including Jhargram Forest Division
have initiated a mixed model of Sal plantation which can be referred as the 60:40 Model of which
60% saplings will be sal and the rest 40% saplings will be comprised of miscellaneous species like
Syzygium cumini, Phyllanthus emblica, Terminalia tomentosa, Terminalia bellirica, Bombax ceiba,
Holoptelea integrifolia, Alstonia scolaris, Pongamia pinnata, Azadirachta indica, Dalbergia sissoo
etc. in support of Biodiversity conservation. Another plantation model of 70:30 in plantation of
South-West Bengal is also implemented where 70% fast-growing species and 30% local indigenous
species are introduced to shift from pure monoculture. Through field observation, it reveals that in
different ways, viz. topsoil formation, number of pollinators, variety in undergrowth, richness in
biodiversity etc., mixed plantation practices are definitely more beneficial over monoculture
practices. It is also recommended to encourage mixed plantation practices over monoculture when
suitable climatic and edaphic factors are available.

Acknowledgements : We would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to Sri Niraj Singhal, IFS,
PCCF(HoFF), Forest Directorate, Govt of West Bengal, for his encouragement and support in the
grassroot level study. The Senior authors are indebted to Dr Tejaswini Arvind Patil, IFS, Director of
Uttarakhand Forestry Training Academy, Haldwani, for her inspiration during the probationary
period, for documentation and writing article, based on field observation. The authors are greatly
acknowledging, Dr Sudhir Chandra Das (IFS), Retd CCF, Govt of West Bengal, for going through
the manuscript and providing valuable suggestions to enrich the paper. Our thanks go to Dr Anupam
Khan, Divisional Forest Officer, Purba Medinipur and Pankaj Suryawanshi, Divisional Forest
Officer, Jhargram for extending cooperation in the present study in their spare time.

References:
1. Anushika S , Wannee J (2017). Wound Healing Property Review of Siam Weed, 11(21):35-38, doi:
10.4103/phrev.phrev_53_16
2. Baltodano J. (2000). Monoculture forestry: a critique from an ecological perspective. In Tree
Trouble: a compilation of testimonies on the negative impact of large-scale monoculture tree
plantations prepared for the 6th COP of the FCCC. Friends of the Earth International, 2– 10.
3. Bhagirath S. and David E. (2008). Seed Germination Ecology of Purple-Leaf Button Weed
(Borreria ocymoides) and Indian Heliotrope (Heliotropium indicum): Two Common Weeds of
Rain-Fed Rice, Weed Science , Volume 56 , Issue 5, 670 – 675
4. Binkley D, Randy Senock, Suzanne Bird, Thomas G Cole (2003). Twenty years of stand
development in pure and mixed stands of Eucalyptus saligna and N-fixing Falcataria
moluccana,Forest Ecology and Management, Elsevier, Volume 182, Issues 1–3, 3 September 2003,
Pages 93-102
5. Bowyer J.L. (2006). Forest plantations Threatening or Saving Natural Forests? IUCN/WWF Forest
Conservation Newsletter, 31, pp. 8-9
6. Bremer, L.L., Farley, K.A. (2010). Does plantation forestry restore biodiversity or create green
deserts? A synthesis of the effects of land-use transitions on plant species richness. Biodiversity and
Conservation 19(14), 3893-3915
7. Brockerhoff, E.G., Jactel, H., Parrotta, J.A., Ferraz, S.F. (2013). Role of eucalypt and other planted
forests in biodiversity conservation and the provision of biodiversity-related ecosystem services.
Forest Ecology and Management 301, 43-50
8. Cardinale , J. Emmett Duffy, Andrew Gonzalez, David U Hooper (2012). Biodiversity loss and its
impact on humanity. Nature, 486(7401), 59–67
9. Charlie J, (2022). Monoculture, for-profit plantations, and the health of forests
13
10. Chaudhary, A., Burivalova, Z., Koh, L. P., Hellweg, S., (2016). Impact of forest management on
species richness: global meta-analysis and economic trade-offs. Scientific Reports 6, 23954
11. Chingliu, Oleksandra Kuchma, Konstantin V. Krutovsky (2018). Mixed-species versus
monocultures in plantation forestry: Development, benefits, ecosystem services and perspectives for
the future, Global Ecology and Conservation, Elsevier, Volume 15
12. Dislich et al, (2017). A review of the ecosystem functions in oil palm plantations, using 668 forests
as a reference system. Biological Reviews 92(3), 1539-1569
13. FAO 2020, https://www.fao.org/3/ca9825en/ca9825en.pdf
14. Felton A, Matts Lindbladh, Jörg Brunet, Örjan Fritz (2010). Replacing coniferous monocultures
with mixed-species production stands: An assessment of the potential benefits for forest
biodiversity in northern Europe, Forest Ecology and Management 260(6), 939-
947……DOI:10.1016/j.foreco.2010.06.011
15. Forests are more than Carbon, Friends of the Earth International, August (2008)
16. Gamfeldt et al (2013). Higher levels of multiple ecosystem services are found in forests with more
tree species. Nature Communications, 4(1), 1340
17. Ghosh P, Prakriti Das, Chandrima Das, Sirshendu Chatterjee (2018). Morphological
characteristics and Phytopharmacological detailing of Hatishur (Heliotropium indicum Linn.): A
concise review, Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry 2018; 7(5): 1900-1907
18. Global Compendium of Weeds (2017)
19. Global Forest Coalition, UNFCCC (2011)
20. Griess, V. C., Knoke, T. (2011). Growth performance, windthrow, and insects: meta-analyses of
parameters influencing performance of mixed-species stands in boreal and northern temperate
biomes. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 41(6), 1141-1159
21. Hayashi K, Evangeline T. Hayashi, Dougbedji Fatondji (2013). Evaluation of the Indigenous use
of the weed Sida cordifolia in the Sahelian Zone of West Africa, JARQ 47(4), 389-396
22. Hutchison, C., Gravel, D., Guichard, F., & Potvin, C. (2018). Effect of diversity on growth,
mortality, and loss of resilience to extreme climate events in a tropical planted forest experiment.
Scientific Reports, 8(1), 1–10
23. Huuskonen et al (2021). What is the potential for replacing monocultures with mixed-species stands
to enhance ecosystem services in boreal forests in Fennoscandia? Forest Ecology and Management,
Elsevier, Volume 479, issue:1, 118558
24. https://livestock.kerala.gov.in/fodder-development/
25. https://web.archive.org/web/20080226133716/http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/natres/weeds/ntweeds/de
clared.html
26. Jactel, H., & Brockerhoff, E. G. (2007). Tree diversity reduces herbivory by forest insects. Ecology
Letters, 10(9), 835–848
27. Jactel H, Jürgen Bauhus, Johanna Boberg, Damien Bonal, Castagneyrol B, Barry Gardiner, Jose
Ramon Gonzalez-Olabarria, Julia Koricheva, Nicolas Meurisse & Brockerhoff (2017). Tree
Diversity Drives Forest Resistance to Natural Disturbances. Current Forestry Reports, 3(3), 223–
243
28. Jactel, H., Moreira, X., &Castagneyrol, B. (2021). Tree Diversity and Forest Resistance to Insect
Pests: Patterns, Mechanisms, and Prospects. Annual Review of Entomology, 66, 277–296
29. Jue, 2014, University of Forestry, Yezin, Impacts of forestry monoculture plantations to Biological
Diversity
30. Jéronime Marie-Ange Sènami Ouachinou et al (2018). Breeders’ knowledge on cattle fodder species
preference in rangelands of Benin, doi: 10.1186/s13002-018-0264-1
31. Jucker, T., Bouriaud, O., Avacaritei, D., & Coomes, D. A. (2014). Stabilizing effects of diversity
on aboveground wood production in forest ecosystems: Linking patterns and processes. Ecology
Letters, 17(12), 1560–1569

14
View publication stats

32. Julissa Rojas- Sandoval, Pedro Acevedo- Rodríguez (2017). rattle weed,
doi.org/10.1079/cabicompendium.87408
33. Khanna L.S, Forest protection (1998). 148-172,
34. Kluser S, Peter – Neumann, Marie-Pierre Chauzat, Pettis Jefferey (2010). United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), Global Honey Bee Colony Disorder and Other Threats to Insect
Pollinators
35. Lewis, S. L., Wheeler, C. E., Mitchard, E. T. A., & Koch, A. (2019). Restoring natural forests is
the best way to remove atmospheric carbon. Nature, 568(7750), 25–28.
36. Maikhuri R, R. L. Semwal, Kottapalli S Rao, Sunil Nautiyal ( 200)., Cleome viscosa,
capparidaceae: A weed or a cash crop?, Economic Botany volume 54, 150–154
37. Mamatha B. S, Palaksha M. N. , Gnanasekaran D. , Senthilkumar G. P., Tamizmani T. (2018).
MELOCHIA CORCHORIFOLIA L: A REVIEW, Volume 7, Issue 19, 482-491, DOI:
10.20959/wjpr201819-13740
38. Matthew J. (2006). The role of species mixtures in plantation forestry : Forest Ecology and
Management, Elsevier, Volume 233, Issues 2–3, 15 September 2006, 195-204
39. Messier C, Jürgen Bauhus, Rita Sousa-Silva, Harald Auge (2021). For the sake of resilience and
multifunctionality, let’s diversify planted forests! Conservation Letters, 1–8
40. Morris J, Zhang Ningnan, Yang Zengjiang, John Collopy (2004) Water use by fast-
growing Eucalyptus urophylla plantations in southern China, Tree Physiol., 24 (9), pp. 1035-1044
41. Nichols, J.D., Bristow, M., Vanclay, J.K (2006). Mixed-species plantations: prospects and
challenges. Forest Ecology and Management 233(2-3), 383-390
42. Osuri, A. M., Gopal, A., Raman, T. R. S., Defries, R., Cook-Patton, S. C., & Naeem, S. (2020).
Greater stability of carbon capture in species-rich natural forests compared to species-poor
plantations. Environmental Research Letters, 15(3)
43. Perumalsamy R. , M.M. Thwin and P. Gopalakrishnakone (2007). Phytochemistry, Pharmacology
and Clinical Use of Andrographis paniculata , Natural Product Communications, Vol. 2 No. 5 page
607 - 618
44. Pörtner HO, RJ Scholes, J Agard, E Archer, A Arneth, X Bai, D Barnes, M Burrows, L Chan
(2021). IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop report on biodiversity and climate change; IPBES and
IPCC
45. Pullaiah T, Sudhir Ch. Das, Bapat V.A, Kumaraswamy M, Reddy V.D and Murty K.S.R (2021)
Edited ‘Sandalwood: Silviculture, Conservation and Applications’, Published by the Springer
Nature Singapur Pte. Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0780-6.
46. Rao Rajeswara B . R (2012). Cultivation, Economics and Marketing of Phyllanthus Species,
DOI:10.1201/b11380-4
47. Shannon CE. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal
27:379–423 DOI 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x.
48. THE BANK’S POLICY ON FORESTRY, Asian Development Bank (1995).
49. Tilman, D., Isbell, F., & Cowles, J. M. (2014). Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Annual
Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 45, 471–493
50. Victor R J. Ilango and V. S. Sharma (2008). Phyto-sociology of Weeds in Tea Plantations of South
India, Indian J. Weed Sci. 40 (1 & 2) : 73-77
51. Vijayaraghavan K et al (2017). Chromolaena odorata: A neglected weed with a wide spectrum of
pharmacological activities (Review), Volume 15 Issue 3 ,1007-1016,
doi.org/10.3892/mmr.2017.6133
52. Warner E, Susan C Cook-Patton, Owen T Lewis, Nick Brown (2022). Higher aboveground carbon
stocks in mixed-species planted forests than monocultures – a meta-analysis
53. Weed Science Society of America (2016). https://wssa.net/wp-content/uploads/WSSA-Weed-
Science-Definitions.pdf

15