Biodiversity hot-spot modeling and temporal analysis of ... · In 1997 Harini Nagendra from Center...
Transcript of Biodiversity hot-spot modeling and temporal analysis of ... · In 1997 Harini Nagendra from Center...
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Volume 4, No 5, 2014
© Copyright by the authors - Licensee IPA- Under Creative Commons license 3.0
Research article ISSN 0976 – 4402
Received on December 2013 Published on March 2014 772
Biodiversity hot-spot modeling and temporal analysis of Meghalaya using
Remote sensing technique Krishnanjan Pakrasi1, Arya V.S 2, Sudhakar S.3
1- Student (M.Tech Geoinformatics), Department of Environmental Science and Engineering
Guru Jambheshwar Univeristy of Science and Technology (Hisar, Haryana).
2- Senior Scientist-SG, Haryana Space Applications Centre (HARSAC)(Department of
Science and Technology, Government of Haryana).
3- Director of North Eastern Space Applications Centre, Umiam, Meghalaya, India Govt. of
India, Department of space.
doi: 10.6088/ijes.2014040404518
ABSTRACT
Biodiversity is variation of leaving creatures within an ecosystem, biome or an entire planet.
Health of an ecosystem can be measured through this variation. Remote sensing helps to
manipulate and analyze the image data produced by these remote sensors. The primary goal
of remote sensing is not only the obtain knowledge, but also its application of gained
knowledge. Satellites provide real-time global coverage of the Earth. Biophysical spectral
modeling techniques allow stratifying vegetation types based on the canopy closure (Roy et
al., 1996). Through this such approach mapping and monitoring of forest condition and
degradation processes can be done. This study has been taken up Meghalaya, state of India.
The flora of Meghalaya is the richest in India. A wide variety of timber species, medicinal
plants, and economically important plants are reported from this region. Due to lack of
systemic approach it is being destroyed by weed, firewood, timber, jhum cultivation. Large
scale over exploration has led to decrease in population of various orchids found here. Here
in this study LISS-III data are used.
Keywords: Classification, NDVI, Patchiness, Porosity, Interspersion, Shape index.
1. Introduction
The North Eastern Region (NER) of India combined of the states of Arunachal Pradesh,
Assam, Manipur, Nagaland, Mizoram, Sikkim and Tripura. The region stretches between 210
50’ and 29034’N latitude and 85034’ and 97050’ E longitude. The region has a population of
39 m and geographical area of 26.2 million hectare. On an average, the NE region receives
about 2450 mm of rainfall. The Cherrapunji-Mawsynram range receives rainfall as high as
11,500 mm, annually. Great variation in temperature regime can be fiend too in this region.
The temperature varies from 150C to 320C in summer and 00C to 260C in winter. At the
confluence of the Indo-Malayan, Indo-Chinese and Indian biogeographical realms, the NE
region is unique in providing a profusion of habitats, which features diverse biota with a high
level of endemism. The region is also the residence of approximately 225 tribes in India, out
of 450 in the country. North eastern region has been in focus for its high biodiversity and this
region has been a priority for leading conservation agencies of the world.
At global level many works has done on Biodiversity using Remote sensing and GIS. P.S
Roy et al. (1999) worked on Biodiversity Characterization at landscape level using
Biodiversity hot-spot modeling and temporal analysis of Meghalaya using Remote sensing technique
Krishnanjan Pakrasi et al, International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 4, No.5, 2014
773
Geospatial modeling Technique. Department of Space and Department of Biotechnology did
joint project (2002) on Biodiversity Characterization at Landscape Level in North-East India
using Satellite Remote Sensing and Geographic Information System. A.K. Skidmore, B.O.
Oindo, M.Y Said from ITC Netherland did Biodiversity Assessment by Remote sensing in
2002. “Remote sensing for biodiversity science and conservation” was published by Woody
Turner from NASA office of Earth Science, Sacha Spector from Center for biodiversity and
conservation, Ned Gardiner from Earth science division NASA in 2003. “Source book on
Remote sensing and Biodiversity indicators” was prepared in 2007 by jointly with NASA-
NGO Biodiversity and UNEP-WCMC. In 1997 Harini Nagendra from Center for Ecological
Sciences, Bangalore and Madhav Gadgil from Biodiversity unite, Bangalore studied on
Remote sensing as a Tool for Estimating Biodiversity. D.M. Debinski et al. (1998) worked
on Remote sensing and GIS based model for Habitats and Biodiversity in the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem. In 2003 B. B. Salem published his paper on Application of GIS to
biodiversity monitoring in Journal of Arid Environments.
2. Study area
The study “Modeling on Biodiversity hot-spot modeling and temporal analysis of Meghalaya
using Remote sensing technique” has been taken up Meghalaya state of India is a state in
north-eastern India. Geographically the area lies between coordinates 2500’00” N to
26010’00” N and 89045’00” E to 92045’00” E. Area of Meghalaya is about 8,700 sq mi
(22,720 km²). The population numbered 2,175,000 in 2000. The state is bounded on the north
by Assam and by Bangladesh on the south. The capital is Shillong also known as the
Scotland of the East, which has a population of 260,000. It was previously part of Assam, but
on 21 January 1972, the districts of Khasi, Garo and Jaintia hills became the new state of
Meghalaya. The area is rich in a wide range of flora and fauna. The vegetation is very
interesting having a mixture of Asiatic and Indian Peninsular elements. Meghalaya occupies a
unique position in the North Eastern Himalayas. More than 90 per cent of the forested areas
fall in private or community lands, the richness of biodiversity in these areas outside the state
owned lands cannot be regarded as permanent repositories. The chances of them being put
under shifting cultivation are inherently predominant (Singh, 2001). This state has two
national parks and three wildlife sanctuaries, the national parks covers an area of 267.48 km2
approx. These protected areas owned by the state forest department are diverse and support a
large number of species, which are important with respect to biodiversity.
Figure 1: Map showing study area (Meghalaya)
Biodiversity hot-spot modeling and temporal analysis of Meghalaya using Remote sensing technique
Krishnanjan Pakrasi et al, International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 4, No.5, 2014
774
3. Objectives of the study
1) Preparation of vegetation cover type and land use maps using temporal satellite remote
sensing data to identify Vegetation changes over Meghalaya between 1997 and 2007.
2) Monitoring the biological rich area of Meghalaya. This study is carried out using IRS 1C-
LISS III images of Year: 1997 and 2007. ASTER DEM, Forest map of Meghalaya (Forest
and Environment Department of Meghalaya), SOI topo-sheets on 1:250,000, Rainfall and
Temperature data from Indian Meteorological Department have been used as Ancillary data.
4. Material and methods
This study is carried out using IRS 1C-LISS III images of Year: 1997 and 2007. ASTER
DEM, Forest map of Meghalaya (Forest and Environment Department of Meghalaya), SOI
topo-sheets on 1:250,000, Rainfall and Temperature data from Indian Meteorological
Department have been used as Ancillary data.
Methodology used to carry out this study is divided mainly into two parts i.e. Vegetation /
Land Cover Mapping and Monitoring Biological rich areas. The brief descriptions of the
methodology along with Flow Charts are given in figure 2 and 3.
4.1 Methodology for Vegetation / Land Cover Map:
Satellite images are geo-rectified from 1:250000 SOI topo-sheets and mosaic together.
Mosaic file is further subseted by administrative vector boundary (figure. 1) of Meghalaya.
NDVI values are extracted and classified. Then main subseted image have classified by
hybrid classification technique and classified NDVI image used as vegetation mask (figure.
4) based on knowledge based approach. Extracted administrative boundaries, communication
and settlement layers are superimposed on classified vegetation layers.
Figure 2: Methodology for Vegetation Land Cover Map
Methodology for Monitoring Biological rich areas
Biodiversity hot-spot modeling and temporal analysis of Meghalaya using Remote sensing technique
Krishnanjan Pakrasi et al, International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 4, No.5, 2014
775
Figure 3: Methodology for Monitoring Biological rich areas
The classified vegetation and land cover images are further classified in forest and non forest
areas. Extracted Bio rich areas from satellite images (work done previously by NESAC) have
used as mask. After this landscape analysis like patchiness, porosity, and interspersion has
done. Patchiness is a measure of the density of patches of all types (Romme, 1982). The
vegetation/land cover type map was reclassified into two classes’ viz., forest and non-forest.
A grid cell of n x n is convoluted through the entire spatial layer.
(1)
Where N is the number of boundaries between adjacent cells, and Di is dissimilarity value for
the ith boundary between adjacent cells. Count of density or number of patches of patches
within single land cover type. Lower porosity values indicate less interaction among the
landscape elements and higher porosity values indicate higher interaction among the
landscape elements and heterogeneity resulting in high fragmented landscape.
(2)
Where Cpi is the number of closed patches of ith cover class.
Interspersion is the measure of spatial intermixing of land use/ land cover. It is calculated by
the number of surrounding grid cells that differ from the central cell. It shows the
homogeneity of the landscape and landscape diversity. For analyzing interspersion 3X3 grid
has been moved over the classified images.
(Lyon 1983) (3)
Where SFi is shape factor.
Calculations of disturbance patches are calculated by shape index value through object base
approach. The smoother the border of an image object represents lower its shape index. It is
Biodiversity hot-spot modeling and temporal analysis of Meghalaya using Remote sensing technique
Krishnanjan Pakrasi et al, International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 4, No.5, 2014
776
calculated from the Border Length feature of the image object divided by four times the
square root of its area. Smoother shape represents less disturbed patch and irregular shape
indicate high disturbed patch.
(4)
Where bv is the image object border length and is the border of square with area.
Figure 4: Derived Vegetation mask
Figure 5: Showing the vegetation type of 1997
Biodiversity hot-spot modeling and temporal analysis of Meghalaya using Remote sensing technique
Krishnanjan Pakrasi et al, International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 4, No.5, 2014
777
Figure 6: Showing the vegetation type of 2007
Figure 7: Fragmentation 1997
Biodiversity hot-spot modeling and temporal analysis of Meghalaya using Remote sensing technique
Krishnanjan Pakrasi et al, International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 4, No.5, 2014
778
Figure 8: Fragmentation 2007
Figure 9: Homogeneity 1997
Biodiversity hot-spot modeling and temporal analysis of Meghalaya using Remote sensing technique
Krishnanjan Pakrasi et al, International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 4, No.5, 2014
779
Figure 10: Homogeneity 2007
Figure 11: Porosity 1997
Biodiversity hot-spot modeling and temporal analysis of Meghalaya using Remote sensing technique
Krishnanjan Pakrasi et al, International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 4, No.5, 2014
780
Figure 12: Porosity 2007
Figure 13: Snowing disturbance patches in 1997
Biodiversity hot-spot modeling and temporal analysis of Meghalaya using Remote sensing technique
Krishnanjan Pakrasi et al, International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 4, No.5, 2014
781
Figure 14: Snowing disturbance patches in 2007
Table 1: shows the changes between 1997 and 2007
Class Area in ha (2007) Area in ha (1997) Changes (Area in ha)
Semievergreen 479250.67 665553.13 186302.46
Evergreen 312999.18 428611.72 115612.54
Sal 12899.3 10002.73 -2896.56
Bamboo 13329.82 25661.72 12331.9
Mixed pine 116019.77 104281.25 -11738.52
Pine 26867.28 52501.56 25634.28
Degraded forest 136816.31 50974.61 -85841.7
Agriculture 64532.85 28810.16 -35722.7
Abandoned Jhum 737562.74 461928.13 -275634.62
Grassland 329641.81 390532.42 60890.61
Water body 8696.12 13433.98 4737.87
Table 2:Fragmentation 1997 Table 3: Fragmentation 2007
Category Area in ha Category Area in ha
High 5812.25 High 117258.2
Medium 7080.1 Medium 514193
Low 5176.47 Low 757079.7
Table 4: Homogeneity 1997 Table 5: Homogeneity 2007
Category Area in ha Category Area in ha
Very high 557112.1 Very high 664682.2
High 516328.5 High 617746.8
Biodiversity hot-spot modeling and temporal analysis of Meghalaya using Remote sensing technique
Krishnanjan Pakrasi et al, International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 4, No.5, 2014
782
Low 316877.7 Low 410197.9
Very Low 557145 Very low 856440.2
Table 6: Porosity 1997 Table 7: Porosity 2007
Category Area in ha Category Area in ha
High 360139.8 High 441422
Medium 235832 Medium 298583.1
Low 354931.3 Low 854694.9
Table 8: Disturbance area in Biological richness
Area in sq km
Patch Category Year 1997 Year 2007 Area change (Sq Km)
Highly disturbed 132.039 223.54 91.5
Very highly disturbed 101.83 152.2 50.37
less disturbed 51.89 213.51 161.62
Very less disturbed 82.81 85.47 2.65
5. Result and conclusion
Forests of Meghalaya have been classified into Sub-Tropical-Evergreen, Semi-evergreen,
Grasslands, Sal forest, Bamboo forest, Mixed pine forest, Pine forest, Degraded forest,
Agriculture, Abandoned Jhum, Water body. From the comparative study between 1997 and
2007 (figure.5 and 6) it is found that 325246 ha forest areas are reduced within ten years. In
the other hand Jhum cultivation is increased about 275634 ha. Following table no.1 is shown
the changes.
The parameters like fragmentation, porosity, and interspersion have been used to understand
the disturbance regime and biologically rich areas. Forest fragmentation is one of the greatest
threats to biodiversity in forests, especially in the tropics. The effect of fragmentation on the
flora and fauna of a forest patch depends on a) the size of the patch, and b) its degree of
isolation. From the compare study between 1997 and 2007 (figure. 7 and 8) it can be seen
that total fragmentation is highly increased (table 2 and 3). Forests under the private land
parcels are fragmented more. Re bhoi, East khasi hills, jaiantia hills are more affected by
forest fragmentation. Human land uses, like shifting cultivation, tend to expand over time in
this area.
Interspersion represents the spatial intermixing or homogeneity (Figure 9 and 10) among the
landscape features. Higher value of interspersion means dispersal ability of the central class
will be low or reduced or in other words the influence of resistance by neighbors will be
much which may lead to the extinction of the central class.
Porosity shows the overall clue of to the change of species isolation between 1997 and 2007.
In the maps (figure 11 and figure 12) Lower porosity value indicates the lower interaction
among landscape elements, homogeneity and low fragmented habitats in the forest class and
higher porosity value indicates the higher interaction among landscape elements,
heterogeneous and high fragmented habitats in the forest class. During ten years period the
porosity is increased in the state (table 6 and 7).
Biodiversity hot-spot modeling and temporal analysis of Meghalaya using Remote sensing technique
Krishnanjan Pakrasi et al, International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 4, No.5, 2014
783
It is previously mentioned that category of disturbance patchs in biorich area is calculated by
shape index value. These parameters were derived using detailed object based analysis. The
disturbance type has been derived using masking and classification technique. For the better
analysis patch categories are divided into highly disturbed, very highly disturbed, less
disturbed, very less disturbed. Very highly disturbed area represents man made features,
highly disturbed area represents Jhum cultivation and agricultural areas, less disturbed area
represents natural vegetation cover changes, and very less disturbed area represents degraded
forest, grassland etc ( Figure 13 and 14). Bellow table 8 is shows the changes between 1997
and 2007.
From the above study it is clearly seen that Biodiversity of Meghalaya is under great threat
due to impact of human activities. Old practice of shifting cultivation, over exploitation of
forests and mining activities are responsible for loss of biodiversity. Permanent agriculture in
the higher plateaus has also resulted in the loss of forest cover. From the study of this project
it is found that in 1997 there were 57.47% forest cover in Meghalaya but in after ten years, in
2007 forest cover reduced at 42.92%. It is clearly seen that the jhum cultivation is increased
about 12% during ten years. It is also observed that fragmentation of landscape has been one
of the major causes of biodiversity loss. Disturbance patch in biorich area in 1997 was 368.56
km2 and in 2007 it increased almost double at 674.72 km2 which affects the Biologicaly rich
areas of Meghalaya. The species like Diospyros undulata, Nymphaea pygmaea and Luvunga
scandens are thought to be locally extinct (Khan et al., 1997). Important bio-rich sites
identified in Meghalaya are Nokrek Biosphere reserve and Balphakram National Park. So it is
recommended that immediate action must be taken to control human impact on forest
resources especially in biorich areas.
Acknowledgement
I am very thankful to Mrs. Kasturi Chakroborty Scientist D and Dr. K.K. Sharma form North
Eastern Space Applications Centre. I am very grateful to them for providing timely
suggestions and sorting out implementation difficulties. Also thanks to the research fellows
of this organization. I give special thanks to Dr. S.Sudhakar Director of the same organization
that he gives me his valuable time to guide me and teach about scenarios of Biodiversity in
Meghalaya and Dr. V.S. Arya Scientist SG from Haryana Space Applications Centre who
inspire me to write this paper. Thanks to all the members of North Eastern Space
Applications Centre for cooperation with me every time and provide me logistical supports.
6. References
1. Report: Biodiversity Characterization at Landscape Level in North-East India using
Satellite Remote Sensing and Geographic Information System (2002), Department of
Space and Department of Biotechnology. ISBN - 81-901418-0-5, pp 313.
2. Report: State of the Environment Report, Meghalaya, (2005), Department of
Environment and Forests, Government of Meghalaya, pp 76.
3. Report: State of Forest Report 2005, Forest Survey of Inda, Dehra Dun, pp 87.
4. Annual Report 2009 – 10, ICAR Research Complex for NEH Region, Dr. S. V.
Ngachan, Dr. N. S. Azad Thakur, Dr. Anupam Mishra, Dr. A. Pattanayak, pp 252.
Biodiversity hot-spot modeling and temporal analysis of Meghalaya using Remote sensing technique
Krishnanjan Pakrasi et al, International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 4, No.5, 2014
784
5. Report: Sourcebook on Remote Sensing and Biodiversity Indicators (2007): NASA-
NGO Biodiversity Working Group and the World Conservation Monitoring Centre of
the United Nations Environment Programme, ISBN: 92-9225-072-8, pp 203.
6. Technical Report: The impacts of climate change on biodiversity in Caribbean
islands, Caribbean Natural Resources Institute. Report No.386, pp 28.
7. Policy Notes for Parliamentarians July-August (2010), The Human Impact of Climate
Change in India Advancing political leadership. Research and Coordination: Freya
Seath and Pallavi Agarwal, pp 94.
8. Antenucci J.C., Brown K., Croswell P.L. and Kevany M. (1991), Geographic
Information Systems: A Guide to the Technology, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York.
9. Burnett M.B., August J. Brown and Killingbeck K.T., (1998). The influence of
geomorphological heterogeneity on biodiversity: I. A patch-scale perspective.
Conservation Biology, 12, pp 363-370.
10. Bujarbarua P and Baruah (2009), Vulnerability of fragile forest ecosystem of North
East India in context with the global climate change: an ecological projection, Earth
and Environmental Science, 6, doi:10.1088/1755-1307/6/7/072016.
11. Das P.J., (2004), Rainfall Regime of Northeast India: A Hydrometeorological Study
with Special Emphasis on the Brahmaputra Basin. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Gauhati
University (accessed October 25, 2009).
12. Debinski D. M. and Kindscher K., (1999), A remote sensing and GIS-based model of
habitats and biodiversity in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. International journal
of Remote sensing, 20(17), pp 3281- 3291.
13. Delcourt H.R. and Delcourt P.A., (1988), Quaternary Landscape ecology: relevant
scales in space and time, Landscape Ecology, 2, pp 23-44.
14. Hannah L and Lohse D, (1993), Annual Report, Conservation Institutions,
Washington D.C.
15. Lidicker W.Z.J., (1995), The landscape concept: something old, something new. In:
Lidicker, W.Z. Jr. (ed.) Landscape Approaches in Mammalian Ecology and
Conservation, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 3- 19.
16. MacKinnon J. and MacKinnon K., (1986), Review of the Protected Areas System in
the Indo-Malayan Realm, International Union for the Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K, 284.
17. Majumdar K., Tiwari K.C., Tiwari, Bhattacharjee and Nair A.P, (1979), Some
folklore medicines from Assam and Meghalaya, J. Crud. Drug. Res. 172, pp 275-281.
Biodiversity hot-spot modeling and temporal analysis of Meghalaya using Remote sensing technique
Krishnanjan Pakrasi et al, International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 4, No.5, 2014
785
18. Mittermeier R.A, (1988), Primate diversity and the tropical forest: Case studies from
Brazil and Madagascar, and the importance of the megadiversity countries, In: E.O.
Wilson (ed.), Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
19. Miller R.I, (1994), Mapping the Diversity of Nature. Chapman and Hall, London.
20. Nagendra H and Gadgil M, (1997), Remote Sensing as a tool for estimating
biodiversity, Journal of Spacecraft Technology, 7 (2), pp 1-10.
21. Nayar M.P. and Shastry A.R.K. (eds.), (1987), Red Data Book of Indian Plants, 1,
Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta, pp 367.
22. Nicholas, David, (1998), Keyword bibliography of ethnoarcheology and related
topics, Ver 3.1.
23. Peters Debra P.C., Sarah C. Goslee, (2001) Landscape Diversity, In S.A. Levin.
editor(s), Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, Academic Press, New York, pp 645-658.
24. Roy P.S. and Tomar S., (2000), Biodiversity characterization at landscape level using
geospatial-modeling technique, Biological Conservation, 95(1), pp 95-109.
25. Romme W.H., (1982), Fire and landscape diversity in subalpine forests of
Yellowstone National Park, Ecological Monographs, 52(2), pp 199-221.
26. Salem B. B, (2003), Application of GIS to biodiversity monitoring, Journal of Arid
Environments, 54, 91–114.
27. Singh B, (2001), Comments on the report, Biodiversity Characterisation at landscape
level using Remote Sensing and GIS in Meghalaya, Report of DOS-DBT Phase-I,
Personal communication, D.O. No. MFG/85/2/93 dated 20/9/2001.
28. Singh H.B. and R.K. Arora, (1978), Wild Edible Plants of India (1st Ed.), ICAR
Publication, New Delhi, p 88.
29. Tomlin C.D., (1990), Geographic Information Systems and Cartographic Modelling,
Prentice-Hall, New York.
30. Tripathi RS, Pandey HN and Tiwari BK., (1996), State of Environment of
Meghalaya. North –Eastern Hill University, Shillong -22.
31. Turner W, Spector S, Gardiner N, Fladeland M, Sterling E and Steininger M 2003:
Remote sensing for biodiversity science and conservation. TRENDS in Ecology and
Evolution,18(6), pp 306-314.