Does Land Use Influence Plant Diversity and Soil Properties in Watershed Ecosystem?

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1540386/v1

PDF

Research Article

Does Land Use Influence Plant Diversity and Soil Properties in Watershed Ecosystem?

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1540386/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Sustainably managed watershed ecosystems play vital roles in ecological stability and contribute to livelihood sustenance. Unfortunately, most watershed ecosystems are threatened by anthropogenic activities such as arable crop cultivation, and infrastructural development. This study investigated the influence of land use on soil physicochemical properties and floristic composition in the watershed of a man-made reservoir (Awba dam). A systematic random sampling technique was used to lay plots (25m by 25m) in alternate positions on identified land use types. Plant species were enumerated and composite soil samples (0-25 cm depth) were collected from four quadrants in each sample plot. Descriptive statistics and diversity indices were computed, and principal component analysis were used to assess the relationship among the variables. Land-use significantly influenced soil chemical properties. Soil from the secondary regrowth had the highest pH (6.25), grassland had the highest organic carbon content (1.95%) while wetland had the highest available phosphorus (40.90 %). There was a significant relationship between species diversity and soil physicochemical properties. A positive relationship was observed between the species dominance, evenness indices with sodium Fe, potassium and calcium. The analysis also revealed that manganese, acidity, and sodium content in soil were more associated with farmland, availability of phosphorus in soil soil PH and high species diversity are more associated with riparian forest, while number of species occurrence are associated with secondary regrowth in the area. This study had revealed that land use system influenced tree species diversity and soil properties in the watershed ecosystem. Therefore, appropriate measures are needed to ensure the survival of key tree species in the watershed to help maximize the structural and functional role of the ecosystem.

Land Use

Soil Physicochemical

Floristic Composition

Watershed and Species Diversity

Watershed ecosystems provide numerous ecological services ecosystem system kwon as ecosystem services such as provisioning services (sources of food, fiber, industrial enzymes, ornamental resources, cosmetics, emulsifiers and medical resources air), regulatory services (purification, climate regulatory and carbon sequestration), cultural services (aesthetic benefits, therapeutics, religious and heritage values) and supportive services such as nutrient cycling, habitat functioning and primary production [1]. Species diversity within the watershed ecosystem can combine all of the fundamental ecological benefits. Plant species composition and abundance in the watershed ecosystem have increasingly become important in biodiversity conservation, especially with the alarming rate at which watershed ecosystems are being degraded [2]. Overexploitation in the tropical watershed ecosystem has been reported to have resulted in land changes and degradation, the land-use changes, therefore, leading to the depredation of soil properties and irreversible loss of flora and fauna [3]. Understanding the major driver of ecosystem productivity is crucial, knowledge of soil properties could help in determining ecosystem functioning. Human activities have been identified as major drivers of ecological changes in watersheds especially with increasing demand for available land for food production and infrastructural development [4–5]. Moreover, the soil conditions of many watershed ecosystems have been on the decline, due to overexploitation. Watershed ecosystems have suffered major setback due to massive land conversion for developmental projects, particularly in the tropics, Understanding the mechanisms of plant diversity and composition in watershed ecosystems are important for management to develop a management plan (Reddy et al., 2008; Lukácz et al., 2013). Hence, it is expedient that the plant diversity and floristic composition of watershed ecosystems be regularly assessed to ensure proper management and conservation of their biological resources [6–7]. Therefore, this study assessed plant diversity and soil physicochemical properties of different land use types in the watershed ecosystem of Awba dam in the University of Ibadan, Nigeria.

Study Area

The Awba dam is located along latitude N 7° 26´ 544´´ to N 7° 26´ 560´´ and longitude E 3° 53´ 177´´ to 3° 53´ 236´´in the southern area of the University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria (Fig. 1). The dam was constructed in April 1964 to provide water for municipal use by the university community [8]. It has an altitude of 185 m above sea level. There are two major seasons; the rainy season (April to October) and dry season (November-March). The mean annual rainfall is 1237 mm, while mean temperature ranges from 24.5°C − 28.8°C.

Sampling Procedure

The major land-use types identified within the study area were; farmland, grassland, secondary regrowth and wetland. Systematic random sampling technique was used to lay four (25 m by 25 m) plots in alternate positions in each land use type. All tree species with dbh > 10cm were identified. Five Quadrats (5m x 5m) were randomly laid on each of the sample plots and all the herbs, shrubs, wildlings and shrubs within the entire quadrat were identified.

Plant species identification was done with the assistance of a taxonomist, while unidentified samples were collected for identification at the Forestry Herbarium Ibadan, Forestry Research Institute of Nigeria. The species were identified following Angiosperm phylogeny group VI (APG4) standard. The number of tree species in each plant family were determined. For species richness, the frequency of occurrence was determined. The number of tree species in each family was used to classify the diversity of tree species.

Species Diversity Classification and Diversity Indices

Shannon-Wiener diversity index was estimated using Eq. 1:

Where: H¹ = Shannon diversity index, S = total number of species in the community, p_i = proportion of a species to the total number of plants in the community and Ln = natural logarithm.

Simpson's Diversity Index was calculated using Eq. 3

Where:

n = number of individuals of each species and N = total number of individuals of all species

Species evenness (E) which is the abundance of species relative to other species in a specific community was determined using Shannon’s equitability (E^H) (Eq. 4)

S = total number of species in each of the vegetation type.

Frequency was obtained by counting the number of individual species occurring in the study area.

Dominance was computed by identifying species most commonly found in the study area.

Soil Sampling and Laboratory Analysis

Soil samples were collected from 25 cm depths in each of the four quadrats in a plot and bulked together. The composite soil samples were air-dried, with a roller and homogenized to pass through a 2 mm sieve. Then, the physical and chemical properties of the soil were determined.

The soil properties assessed included Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P), Potassium (K), Organic Carbon (C), pH, texture, bulk density, and moisture content. Total Nitrogen was analyzed using the Kjeldahl method [9]. Available Phosphorus was extracted using an HCl: NH4 mixture based on the method [10]. Phosphorus in the extract was subsequently determined on a Spectronic 21D spectrophotometer by blue ammonium molybdate method with ascorbic acid as a reducing agent. Exchangeable bases were extracted with 1.0 M NH4OAc (pH 7.0), then exchangeable K in the extract was determined by flame photometry. Soil organic carbon was determined using the wet oxidation method [11]. Soil pH was determined potentiometrically in 0.01M CaCl₂ solution using soil to solution ratio of 1:2 [12]. Soil particle size distribution was determined using the hydrometer method after dispersing soil with sodium hexametaphosphate solution [13]. The USDA particle size classes, namely, sand (2.0-0.05mm), silt (0.05-0.002mm), and clay (< 0.002mm), were used to classify the textural classes. Soil bulk density was determined from soil samples taken at 25cm depth. Moisture content which is the ratio of the mass of water contained in the pore spaces of soil to the solid mass of particles in that material was determined as described by Black [14].

Statistical Analysis

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine significant differences in variables measured across the different land-use types. All tests were conducted at P ≤ 0.05 level of significance. Diversity indices were computed using Past 3 software while principal component analysis was used to determine the relationship between soil properties, species diversity, and land use type using the R programme.

Plant Species Composition and Diversity in Awba Dam

A total of 8, 55, 39 and 60 plant species in the grassland, secondary regrowth, wetlnd and farmland, respectively. (Table 1). Gliricidia sepium (87%), Newbouldia leavis (33%), and Azadirachta indica (32%) were the most dominant tree species. while Anthocleista nobilis and Anthocleista djalonensis were the least represented species (Table 3). The farmland, secondary regrowth, and wetland had species evenness of 0.95, 0.70, and 0.79, respectively. Seondary regrowthhad the highest Simpson (0.92) and Shannon Wiener (3.2) diversity indices (Table 2).

Table 1

Plant Species Composition and Distribution in Awba Dam Watershed Ecosystem
	Trees	%	Shrubs, Herbs grass,	%	Life form
Farmland	9	15.00	51.0	85.00	60
Grassland			8.0	100.00	8
Secondary regrowth	35	63.64	20.0	36.36	55
Wetland	13	33.33	26.0	66.67	39
Total	57		105		162

Table 2

Diversity indices and structural variables of plant species on different land use types of Awba dam Watershed
	FARMLAND	SECONDARY	WETLAND
Dominance_D	0.09	0.06	0.07
Simpson_1-D	0.91	0.94	0.93
Shannon_H	2.43	3.2	2.81
Evenness_e^H/S	0.95	0.7	0.79
DBH (cm)	57.329	48.164	57.329
Height (m)	10.547	8.600	10.547

Table

Floristic Composition and Relative Frequency of Tree Species in Awba Dam Watershed Ecosystem
Name	Common Name	Family	Frequency	Relative Frequency %
Albizia zygia	West African Albizia	Leguminosae	5	1.40
Allophylus afrianus	African false currant	Sapindaceae	3	0.84
Anthocleista djalonensis	Cabbage	Loganiaceae	1	0.28
Anthocleista nobilis	Cabbage	Loganiaceae	1	0.28
Antiaris africana	False Iroko	Moraceae	2	0.56
Azadirachta indica	Neem tree	Meliaceae	32	8.96
Bridelia micrantha	Mitzeeri	Phyllanthaceae	3	0.84
Cnestis ferruginea	Omu aja	Connaraceae	3	0.84
Elaeis guineensis	Oil palm	Arecaceae	20	5.60
Ficus capensis	Cape fig	Moraceae	7	1.96
Ficus exasperata	Sandpaper tree	Moraceae	11	3.08
Ficus lutea	Giant-leaved fig	Moraceae	2	0.56
Ficus thonningii	Common wild fig	Moraceae	8	0.22
Gliricidia sepium	Qiuck stick	Fabaceae	87	24.37
Holarrhena floribunda	False rubber tree	Apocynaceae	16	4.48
Lecaniodiscus cupanioides	Lecaniodiscus	Sapindaceae	31	8.68
Leucaena leucocephala	Jumbay	Fabaceae	1	0.28
Margaritaria discoidea	Pheasant-berry	Phyllanthaceae	28	7.84
Milicia excelsa	Iroko	Moraceae	1	0.28
Morinda lucida	Brimstone tree	Rubiaceae	2	0.56
Morus mesozygia	Black mulberry	Moraceae	3	0.84
Newbouldia leavis	Boundary tree	Bignonoaceae	33	9.24
Peltophorum pterocarpum	Copperpod	Fabaceae	3	0.84
Raphia hookeri	Raphia palm	Arecaceae	2	0.56
Spondias mumbin	Yellow mombin	Anarcadiaceae	10	2.80
Sterculia tragacantha	African tragacanth	Sterculiaceae	2	0.56
Trema orientalis	Charcoal tree	Cannabaceae	4	1.12
Trichilia megalanta		Meliaceae	3	0.84
TOTAL			357

Soil Physical and Chemical properties across Land Use Types

Aluminum and Magnesium did not significantly differ across the land use types (Table 3a). Calcium significant differed across land use types and was highest in the wetland (2.95) and least in the grassland soil (2.21). The secondary regrowth had the lowest sand content (78%) while farmland had the highest (82%). The silt was highest in the grassland (14.1%) and least in the wetland (11.1%). Wetland had the highest clay (10%) while grassland had the least (5.1%). soil pH varied significantly across the land-use types (Table 3a). Organic carbon was highest in the grassland (1.95) while farmland soil had the least (1.08). The soil in the secondary regrowth (0.21%) and grassland (0.22%) had the highest nitrogen while farmland had the least (0.11%). Phosphorus was highest in the wetland soil (40.90%) and lowest in the grassland soil (35.82%). The farmland had the highest exchangeable acidity (0.4) which was least in secondary regrowth and wetland (0.29). The secondary forest had the least exchangeable hydrogen ion (0.21) while grassland and farmland soil had the highest (0.29). The Potassium (K), Copper (Ca), and Sodium (Na) were not significantly different across the land use types.

Table 3

Chemical properties of soil of different land use types in Awba watershed ecosystem
Soil Property	Farmland	Grassland	Wetland	Secondary Regrowth	p-value
PH (H₂O)	5.857^a	5.340^a	6.460^d	6.253^c	0.00^*
% organic Carbon	1.083^a	1.946^c	1.286^b	1.880^c	0.00^*
% Total Nitrogen	0.107^a	0.217^c	0.130^b	0.207^c	0.00^*
% Phosphorus	36.607^b	35.823^a	40.903^d	36.860^a	0.00^*
Exch Acidity (cmol/kg)	0.403^b	0.293^a	0.293^a	0.293^a	0.00^*
Exch H⁺(cmol/kg)	0.293^c	0.240^b	0.240^b	0.210^a	0.00^*
Exch AL^H+(cmol/kg)	0.103^b	0.043^a	0.043^a	0.100^b	0.00^*
Ca^+ 2 (cmol/kg)	2.857^c	2.210^a	2.950^d	2.723^b	0.00^*
Sand (%)	82.000^d	81.067^c	79.033^b	78.033^a	0.00^*
Silt (%)	12.033^b	14.100^d	11.100^a	13.033^c	0.00^*
Clay (%)	6.033^b	5.067^a	10.033^a	9.033^c	0.00^*
Mg^+ 2 (cmol/kg)	0.85^a	0.74^a	0.71^a	0.63^a	0.83^ns
K⁺(cmol/kg)	0.36 ^a	0.33^a	0.38^a	0.30^a	0.44 ^ns
Na⁺ (cmol/kg)	0.27 ^a	0.24^a	0.26^a	0.24^a	0.37 ^ns
Mn (mg/Kg)	89.54^b	83.50^a	95.10^d	91.61^c	0.00^*
Fe (mg/Kg)	126.50^d	110.81^b	106.00^a	121.50^c	0.00^*
Cu (mg/Kg)	1.38 ^a	1.65^a	1.55^a	1.22^a	0.44 ^ns
Zn (mg/Kg)	1.55 ^a	1.72^c	1.82^d	1.64^b	0.00^*
Means with the same superscript in rows are not significantly different at 5% probability level
.*=significant, ^ns = not significant (p < 0.05)

Relationship between Soil Properties, Plant Diversity and Land Use type in Watershed Ecosystem of Awba Dam

The results show at the first two components explain about 78.8% of information on the relationship between measured variables which is sufficient to guarantee the precision of interpretation. The results revealed that significant positive relationship between some diversity indices such as dominance and evenness with some soil physical and chemical properties (% sand, Fe, Na, K, Mg, Cu, Exch ALH+). The negative relationship also exists among the number of species ( Taxa), Shannon Wiener index, and Simpson diversity index with Zn and soil organic carbon which implies that a decrease species diversity might lead to decrease in soil organic carbon and zinc content in the soil (Fig. 1). The study revealed that an increase in percentage sand, Fe, Na, K, Mg, Cu, Exch ALH + in the soil might result in high species diversity (Shannon and Simpson) in the area. The results from the Biplot revealed that percentage sand, mg, Exch acidity, and Na are more associated with farmland, availability of phosphorus, soil PH, Shannon, and Simpson are more associated with riparian forest, while species number and zn are associated with secondary forest ecosystem in the area (Fig. 2).

Floristic Composition and Plant Diversity across Land Use Types

Simpson Diversity Index is a measure of diversity that takes into account the number of species present, as well as the relative abundance of each species. As species richness and evenness increase, so will diversity increase. The farmland, secondary regrowth, and wetland had a diversity index of 0.91, 0.94, and 0.93 respectively. An evaluation of the pattern of species richness in a degraded ecosystem gives an insight into the potential of ecosystem recovery [15]. Flora species differ in diversity indices because of changes in land use and soil chemical and physical properties. The four land-use types identified in this study have different floristic compositions probably as a result of persistent anthropogenic activities, the gradient of the land, nearness to the water body, and soil composition. A total of 108 species (trees, grass, shrubs, and herbs) and 38 families were identified in all study areas. There were 35 trees species encountered in the study area, which was lesser than the 57 reported by Ojo [16]. Olajuyigbe and Akwarandu, [17] and Asinwa et al. [18] also reported a higher number of tree species in a watershed ecosystems in Nigeria. The variation in plant species diversity has been attributed to the influence of anthropogenic activities such as farming, overgrazing, over-cultivation, and infrastructural development [19-20]. The grassland which had low diversity was dominated by and invasive grass species: Megathyrus maximus.

Soil Properties across the Land Use Types

The soil pH ranged from strongly to slightly acidic, the acidic nature of the soil could be attributed to heavy rainfall which leads to a high rate of leaching of bases and this is prevalent in the humid tropics. The pH of the farmland and grassland were more acidic and this may be due to factors like poorly managed cultivation, inappropriate use of fertilizer, and accelerated erosion because of the site terrain [21]. The pH range recorded in this study were similar to the range (4.9-6.2) reported in some selected soils of South-West Nigeria [22]. The soil organic carbon observed across the land use type can be classified between low to medium class. The low organic carbon observed in the farmland is probably due to the effect of continuous cultivation of crops. It might also be due to the effect of high temperature and relative humidity which favor rapid mineralization of organic matter [23]. The results agree with others studies that the land use type can affect the organic carbon content in the soil (24-26]. Consequently, the report has proven that high organic carbon is related to the rate of vegetation cover and the amount of litter produced on the soil. Total Nitrogen of the soil was low across land use types. The low Nitrogen could be a result of the leaching of the nutrient into the soil profile. Nitrogen level on the farmland soil is relatively lower than other land use types and this could be attributed to the continuous cultivation of agricultural crops (Noma et al., 2011).

Relationship among Soil Properties, Plant Diversity and Land Use type: Implications for management of the Watershed Ecosystem

The results revealed a strong significant relationship between diversity indices and soil physicochemical properties. Positive significant relationships were observed for species dominance and evenness and some soil physical and chemical properties (% sand, Fe, Na, K, Mg, Cu, Exch ALH+). Similar results were recorded by Appiah-Badu et. al. [27], where land-use effects on tree species diversity and soil properties of Awudua Forest, Ghana were examined. Yaseen, [28], reported similar results in China, it was observed that plant diversity in the tropical coastal secondary forest was associated with soil variables in the study area. It was reported that soil chemical properties and plant species diversity were strongly correlated along the rainfall gradient in the semi-arid grassland of South Africa [29]. These confirm a strong relationship between soil physical and chemical properties significantly influences species occurrences, abundant and diversity.

Regular evaluation of the floristic composition and structure of watershed ecosystems are critical for their management, sustainability, and conservation. The study revealed that the high level of farming activities had reduced the tree species composition, and altered the physical and chemical properties of the soil. The farmland had the highest composition of shrubs, herbs, grass, climbers, lianas, and ferns. There were significant relationships between species diversity and soil properties. Hence, the area has a potential for recovery if the necessary conservation and protection measures are taken.

Mannion AM. Biodiversity, biotechnology, and business. Environmental conservation, 1995;22.3: 201-210.
Houehanou TD, GlèlèKakaï RL. Assogbadjo A.E., Kindomihou V, Houinato M., Wittig R., Sinsin BA. Change in the woody floristic composition, diversity and structure from protected to unprotected savannahs in Pendjari Biosphere Reserve (Benin, West Africa). African Journal of Ecology, 2013; 51.2: 358-365.
Agus CE, Primananda E, Faridah D Wulandari, Lestari T. Role of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and Pongamia pinnata for revegetation of tropical open-pit coal mining soils. Int J Environ Sci Technol (IJEST), 2019;15(11):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-018-1983-5.
Jaji MO, Bamgbose O, Odukoya OO, Arowolo, TA. Water-Quality Assessment of Ogun River, South West Nigeria. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2007; 133: 473-482.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and human well-being Washington, DC: Island press. 2005: 5
Reddy CS, Shilpa, Giriraj A, Reddy KN, Rao KT. Structure and floristic composition of tree diversity in tropical dry deciduous forest of Eastern Ghats, Southern Andhra Pradesh, India. Asian Journal of Scientific Research 2008; 1.1: 57-64.
Lukácz BA, Sramkó G, Molnár VA. Plant diversity and conservation value of continental temporary pools. Biological Conservation, 2013;158: 393–400.
Ogundele SO. The use of ethno-archaeology in Tiv culture history. African Notes: Bulletin of the Institute of African Studies, University of Ibadan 1990; 14.1-2: 23-29.
Bradstreet, R.B. 1965. The Kjeldahl Method for Organic Nitrogen. New York: Academic Press 4: 147-168.
Bray RH, Kurtz LT. Determination of total, organic, and available forms of phosphorus in soils, Soil Science: 1945;59:1 - p 39-46
Walkley, A, Black, I. Armstrong an examination of the degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method, soil science: 1934; 37:1 - p 29-38
McLean EO. Soil pH and lime requirem32ent. Methods of soil analysis: Part 2 Chemical and microbiological properties, 1983; 9: 199-224
Bouyoucos GI. Hydrometer method improved for making particle size analysis of soil. Agronomy Journal, 1962; 54, 464– 465.
Black CA. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part I, Physical and Mineralogical Properties. Madison, Wisconsin: American Society of Agronomy. 1965.
Gillespie AR, Bocanegra-Ferguson DM, Jimenez-Osornio JJ. The propagation of Ramón (Brosimum alicastrum Sw.; Moraceae) in Mayan homegardens of the Yucatan peninsula of Mexico. New Forests, 2004; 27 (1): 25-38
Ojo SO. Evaluation of Flora Diversity and Abundance in Awba Dam Tourism Centre, Ibadan, Nigeria. Journal of Agriculture and Social Research, 2016;16.1: 75-83
Olajuyigbe SO Akwarandu KE. Floristic composition and stand structure in a tropical watershed forest: implications for biodiversity conservation. Environtropica, 2019; 15: 79 -94
Asinwa IO, Olajuyigbe SO Adegeye AO. Tree species diversity, composition and structure in Ogun River Watershed, Southwestern Nigeria. Journal of Forestry Research and Management, 2018;15.1: 114-1134.
Aju PC. Why rehabilitation, restoration and protection of watershed forests in Nigeria should be given a priority attention. Journal of Research in Forestry, Wildlife and Environment, 2017; 9: 36-43
Oke DO, Odebiyi KA. Traditional cocoa-based agroforestry and forest species conservation in Ondo State, Nigeria. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 2007; 122: 305-311.
Muche M, Kokeb A. Molla E. Assessing the physicochemical properties of soil under different land use types. Journal of Environmental & Analytical Toxicology, 2015; 5.5: 1
Adesemuyi EA, Dada BF. Characterization, Taxonomy and Mapping of Selected Soils of South-West Nigeria Using Geographic Information System. Nigerian Agricultural Journal 2018; 49.2: 76-84.
Fasina AS, Shittu OS, Omotoso SO, Adenikinju A.P. Response of cocoa to different fertilizer regimes on some selected soils of Southwestern Nigeria. Agricultural Journal, 2006;1: 272-276.
Amusan AA, Shittu AK, Makinde WO, Orewole O. Assessment of changes in selected soil properties under different land use in Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria. Electronic Journal of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2006; 5: 1178–1184.
Houghton RA. Revised estimates of the annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use and land management, 2003; 1850–2000. Tellus 55.2: 378–390.
Alcantara V, Don A. Well R, Nieder R. Deep ploughing increases agricultural soil organic matter stocks. Global change biology, 2016; 22.8: 2939-2956.
Appiah-Badu K, Anning AK, Eshun B, Mensah G. Land use effects on tree species diversity and soil properties of the Awudua Forest, Ghana, Global Ecology, 2022;34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2022.e02051
Yaseen M, Fan G, Zhou X, Long W, Feng G. Plant Diversity and Soil Nutrients in a Tropical Coastal Secondary Forest: Association Ordination and Sampling Year Differences. Forests 2022, 13, 376. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13030376
Dingaan MNV, Du Preez, PJ. Floristic composition and species diversity of urban vegetation in Bloemfontein, Free State, South Africa’, Bothalia, 2017; 47(1), a2244. https://doi.org/ 10.4102/abc.v47i1.2244

No competing interests reported.

PDF

Reviews received at journal
06 May, 2022
Reviewers agreed at journal
23 Apr, 2022
Reviewers agreed at journal
21 Apr, 2022
Reviewers invited by journal
12 Apr, 2022
Editor assigned by journal
12 Apr, 2022
Editor invited by journal
12 Apr, 2022
Submission checks completed at journal
11 Apr, 2022
First submitted to journal
09 Apr, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

Does Land Use Influence Plant Diversity and Soil Properties in Watershed Ecosystem?

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Materials And Methods

Study Area

Sampling Procedure

Species Diversity Classification and Diversity Indices

Soil Sampling and Laboratory Analysis

Statistical Analysis

Results

Plant Species Composition and Diversity in Awba Dam

Soil Physical and Chemical properties across Land Use Types

Relationship between Soil Properties, Plant Diversity and Land Use type in Watershed Ecosystem of Awba Dam

Discussion

Conclusion

References

Competing Interests

Status:

Version 1