Research Article Land Use and Land Cover Change, and Woody...

Research ArticleLand Use and Land Cover Change and WoodyVegetation Diversity in Human Driven Landscape ofGilgel Tekeze Catchment Northern Ethiopia

Samuale Tesfaye1 Etefa Guyassa12 Antony Joseph Raj1

Emiru Birhane1 and Gebeyehu Taye Wondim13

1 Department of Land Resources Management and Environmental Protection Mekelle University Mekrsquoele Ethiopia2Department of Geography Ghent University Belgium3Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences KU Leuven Belgium

Correspondence should be addressed to Antony Joseph Raj drajr tnyahoocom

Received 8 January 2014 Revised 7 April 2014 Accepted 14 April 2014 Published 12 June 2014

Academic Editor Guy R Larocque

Copyright copy 2014 Samuale Tesfaye et alThis is an open access article distributed under theCreativeCommonsAttribution Licensewhich permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properly cited

Land use and land cover (LULC) change through inappropriate agricultural practices and high human and livestock populationpressure have led to severe land degradation in the Ethiopian highlandsThis has led to further degradation such as biodiversity lossdeforestation and soil erosion The study examined woody vegetation diversity status and the impact of drivers of change acrossdifferent LULC types and agroecological zones in Gilgel Tekeze catchment northern Ethiopian highlands LULC dynamics wereassessed usingGIS techniques on 1976 1986 and 2008 satellite images Vegetation data were collected from 135 sample plots (20mtimes20m) from five LULC types namely forest shrub-bush grazing settlement and cultivated land in the three agroecological zonesKolla Weyna-Dega and Dega Differences in vegetation structure and composition and their relationship to agroecological zoneswere tested using two-way ANOVA and PCA technique The results show that vegetation structure and composition significantlydiffered across all LULC types in different agroecological zones particularly in sapling density tree height and shrub height andin each agroecological zone between forest land shrub-bush land and settlement area Overall Weyna-Dega agroecological zoneand the shrub-bush land had more structural and compositional diversity than the other agroecological zones and LULC types

1 Introduction

The Ethiopian highlands are subjected to important landdegradation Several studies have shown that there weresignificant land use and land cover changes in the Ethiopianhighlands during the second half of the 20th century [1ndash6]Most of these studies pointed out that rugged topographyinappropriate agricultural practices and high human andlivestock population pressure have been the main facilitatorsfor the land degradation processes in the highlands [7ndash9]Following the pressure on natural resources the land useand land cover types are changing so rapidly Around 19thcentury about 40 of the land mass of Ethiopia was underforest cover but this figure had gone below 3 before twodecades [10] A study by Tekle and Hedlund [5] reportedthat open areas and settlements have increased at the expense

of shrub land and forests in South Wello of north centralhighlands Bewket [2] noted the problem of downstreamsedimentation caused by upstream degradation resultingfrom land use and land cover changes in the Chemogawatershed north western highlands and this has led toextensive flooding and damage on important agriculturallands Serious trends of land degradation resulting fromthe expansion of cultivation on steep slopes at the expenseof natural forests have been observed in the north-westernhighlands [7]

Similar to other parts of the highlands of Ethiopia thestudy area Gilgel Tekeze catchment in NorthWello is denselypopulated area that has resulted in severe degradation ofland resources and has low agricultural productivity In orderto compensate for reduced agricultural production due todegradation cultivation and grazing activities have spread

Hindawi Publishing CorporationInternational Journal of Forestry ResearchVolume 2014 Article ID 614249 10 pageshttpdxdoiorg1011552014614249

2 International Journal of Forestry Research

Red SeaEritrea

Sudan

Amhara

Blue Nile

Tigray

Afar

Oromia

Addis Abeba

Meket Woreda

Benshagul Gumez

Somali

0 225 4501125(km)

(km)

NMeket Woreda

Gilgel Tekeze catchment

Sample plots

Drainage lines

0 10 205

Figure 1 Location of study area Gilgel Tekeze catchment Amhara Region Northern Ethiopia

to steep landscapes at the expense of forest and naturalvegetation [8] The forest areas with native plants have beenencroached by exotic species like Eucalyptus globulus treesthat might lead to poor diversity and final replacement ofthe high forest to a bush land [11 12] This has led tofurther degradation such as soil erosion deforestation andbiodiversity loss [13 14] Particularly biodiversity loss hasincreased at an alarming rate in the highlands [13]

Many of these changes have been discerned by digital dataprocessed from the satellite images and Arial photographs atappropriate scale and quality which have also been supple-mentedwith data fromfield observation field interviews anddiscussions with local people and key informants Indexes[13] and models [15] of biodiversity can then be applied toindicate whether the land use and land cover changes weresustainable or unsustainable in respect to woody vegetationstructure and composition Despite Gilgel Tekeze catchmentis one of the highly populated and tributary of Tekeze riverit lacks attention of scientific information on land use andcover change Such analyses are very important for thefuture planning and decision-making in the development andimplementation of environmental rehabilitation programsBesides it contributes to fill the gaps on scientific informa-tion in the forestry sector of Ethiopia [16] in general andparticularly in the northern Ethiopian highlands [17] Thepresent research study was carried out with the followingobjectives (a) to evaluate land use and land cover change from1973 to 2008 (b) to investigate woody vegetation structureand composition across various land use and land covertypes in different agroecological zones and (c) to studythe patterns in woody vegetation structure and compositionalong agroecological zones

2 Material and Methods

21 Study Area The study was conducted on Gilgel Tekezecatchment in Meket District Amhara Regional State andNorthern Ethiopia (Figure 1) It covers an area of 352 km2

and extends from 11∘4110158402310158401015840 to 11∘5610158400510158401015840 North and from38∘4010158403010158401015840 to 38∘5110158405910158401015840 East The study area is an extensionof the typical agroclimatic profile of mount Abuna Yosefwhich is situated about 45 km northeast of the study areaand extends from the cold and wet upper zones (Wurch4260m) to the hot and dry lower zones (Kolla 1656m) of theGilgel Tekeze riverThe area extends from south to north overelevations of 2970masl and 1656masl

Geologically the area belongs to the Trapp series ofTertiary volcanic eruptions Its topography is typical of vol-canic landscapes which were later deeply incised by streamsresulting in the current diversity of landforms The sloperanges from nearly flat (lt2) to those which are extremelysteep (gt83)The area is a part of the northeastern Ethiopianhighlands dominantly covered by basic and ultrabasic rocks(basalt hornblende serpentinite and peridotite) and pyro-clastic rocks both consolidated and unconsolidated [18]The soils have developed from volcanic ashes and reworkedmaterials resulting fromTertiary volcanic eruptions and sedi-mentation processes According to the FAO soil classification[19] Vertisols and Leptosols are the dominant soil types of thearea The Vertisols are found in the upper- and low-lying ofthe middle catchment of the study area Leptosols are mainlyfound in the hillsides and lower catchments As a result ofdegradation the soils on steep slopes appear to have beendowngraded to Regosols and Cambisols

Due to the relief differences the Meket district has awide range of agroecological zones According to the localclassification the agroecology zones of the district are Kolla(warm semiarid lowlands 1300 to 1800m asl)WeynaDega(mild subhumidhighlands 1800 to 2400masl) Dega (coolhumid highlands 2400 to 3200m asl) and Wurch (coldhumid highlands over 3200m asl) [20] The Kolla (warm)Weyna Dega (mild) and Dega (cool) agroecological zonescover 17 69 and 14 of the catchment respectivelyThe study area experiences mean annual temperature andrainfall ranging from 15∘C to 17∘C and from 934 to 1342mmrespectively About 50 of the annual rainfall falls between

International Journal of Forestry Research 3

Table 1 Descriptions of LULC categories for the study area

Land use land cover General description

Forest land (both naturaland plantation)

Area covered with shrubs forming closed canopies and trees including Asst (Erica arborea) andothers which are relatively tall and dense trees include scattered remnant Juniperus procera Ficusvasta and Ficus sur Besides plantations both indigenous and mainly exotic (Eucalyptus globulus andCupressus lusitanica) trees that are planted in hillsides mountains and degraded areas

Shrub-bush land Areas with more than 50 shrub canopy (mixed with some trees) and less than 50 herbaceous andgrass covers

Grazing land Areas with more than 50 covered grasses (mixed with some shrubs) and less than 50 herbaceousand have bare lands usually used for grazing

Cultivated land Areas of land ploughedprepared for growing rain fed crops This category includes areas currentlyunder crop fallow and land under preparation

Settlements Area of homestead which is surrounded by some shrubs and boundary planting trees (mainlyEucalyptus globulus)

Bare Land Area under degraded grass lands and with some areas that are bare ground (rocks)River bed gravel and rocks(Flood plains) River beds which include sands gravel and bed rocks

July and August March and April are the hottest months andSeptember is the coldest month

In the study area patchy remnants of old-aged Afromon-tane forests are found almost only around the ChurchesThese churchyards are covered with indigenous trees ofmainly Juniperus procera Olea europaea Ficus vasta Prunusafricana Acacia abyssinica Cordia africana and Podocarpusfalcatus The upper catchment (mainly Dega Agroecologicalzone) contains planted tree species in the form of homesteadfarm boundary woodlot plantation Species include Eucalyp-tus globulus Cupressus lusitanica Eucalyptus camaldulensisChamaecytisus palmensis Acacia decurrens Acacia salignaGrevillea robusta and Schinus molle

22 Land Use and Land Cover Dynamics The study area hasbeen defined to have seven land use and land cover (LULC)categories based on Tegene [21] supplemented with fieldobservation namely forest land shrub-bush land grazingland cultivated land settlement bare land and river bedgravel and rock (flood plain) as described in Table 1

To classify and verify these major LULC training siteswere developed and prefield image processingwas done usingcolor composite of bands 4 5 and 3 in RGB transformationof unsupervised and supervised methods with the help ofclassifiers for recent image (SPOT 5 imagery) of year 2008Field verification and data collection were made on thetraining sites using global positioning system (GPS) withmore than 350 readings for the year 2008 and 255 reading forthe year 1986 from the field topographicmap and old photossupplemented by dwellers information The classification ofolder images (1976 MMS imagery) was based on integrationof unsupervised classification and visual signature editions[22] involving the spectral values of the recent image thatled us to signature collection for supervised classificationThen a class separability test was performed to evaluate thesignificance of difference (degree of separability) betweenLULC classes [23] The supervised maximum likelihoodclassification algorithm was used for all the images whichis generally recognized as the best classifier technique [24]

After classification was performed an accuracy assessmentwas taken for the years 1986 (TM imagery) and 2008 withthe reference pixels of 155 and 265 respectively using errormatrix to evaluate the accuracy of classification

23 Vegetation Sampling Techniques For the vegetation cen-sus a stratified random sampling procedure was used inthis study Five strata were defined according to classifiedLULC types in three agroecological zones namely (i) forestland (ii) shrub-bush land (iii) grazing land (iv) settlementland and (v) cultivated land However land use and landcover types bare land and floodplains were not includedfor the assessment because of the poor availability of woodyvegetation Data collection was conducted from November2008 to February 2009 The estimated variables of the woodyvegetation (trees and shrubs) were plant species richnessplant height and dead trees Trees and shrubs were classifiedbased on height namely rooted woody and self-supportingplants ge3m in height were classified as trees whereasrooted woody self-supporting andmultistemmed or single-stemmed plants greater than 1m but lt3m in height wereclassified as shrubs [25]

A total of 135 plots (20m times 20m) were sampled in thestudy sites that is nine plots (three plots in each similar threeLULC) in five LULC types and 45 plots in each agroecologicalzone Quadrants were established and marked permanentlyusing a plastic ribbon attached to four wooden pegs untilthe end of the study The numbers of living stems and deadstumps were counted and recorded while the heights of allwoody species were measured using a hypsometer and 6mgraduated pole and a handheld GPS was used to mark thelocation of each sampling plot Plant identification was doneby referring Manuals [26ndash28] For species that were difficultto identify in the field herbarium specimens were collectedpressed dried and transported to the National Herbarium intheDepartment of Biology AddisAbabaUniversity Ethiopiafor proper identification Collected data were summarizedand tested for normality using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov testand data for tree density shrub density sapling density and


Table 2 Area of land use and land cover types for 1976 1986 and 2008 in Gilgel Tekeze catchment

Land use 1976 1986 2008Area (ha) Area () Area (ha) Area () Area (ha) Area ()

Forest land 1704 484 85952 244 1624 461Shrub-bush land 11809 3352 612582 1739 5168 147Grazing land 2867 814 180806 513 4327 123Cultivated land 17839 5063 228935 6498 23296 6612Settlement 7597 215 259755 737 4278 1211River bed gravel and rock (flood plain) 1688 048 28563 081 3204 091Bare land 855 024 66292 188 1139 032Total 35233 100 35233 100 35233 100

Table 3 Land use and land cover changes for periods 1976ndash1986 1986ndash2008 and 1976ndash2008

Land usePeriods of net change Annual rates of change ()

1976ndash1986 1986ndash2008 1976ndash2008 1976ndash1986 1986ndash2008 1976ndash2008Area () Area () Area () Area () Area () Area ()

Forest land minus24 217 minus023 024 01 0007Shrub-bush land minus1613 minus272 minus1885 1613 012 059Grazing land minus301 minus39 minus691 0301 018 022Cultivated land 1435 114 1549 1435 005 048Settlement 522 477 999 0522 022 031River bed gravel and rock (flood plain) 033 01 043 0033 0004 001Bare land 164 minus155 009 0164 007 0003

dead trees were found to be not normally distributed hencedata were normalized using log

10(x + 1) transformation

[29] Species diversity in different land use and land coverareas was determined by calculating the Shannon-Weiner(H1015840) diversity index [30] Differences in vegetation structureand composition were tested using two-way analysis ofvariance (ANOVA) at 5 level of significance using theStatistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 19 forWindows [31] Post hoc analysis for variables with significantdifferences was carried out using Tukeyrsquos Honestly Signifi-cant Difference (HSD) Furthermore principal componentanalysis (PCA) was performed to determine the underlyingpatterns of the vegetation data using the 135 sample plots inJMP-5 version 5 for Windows

3 Results and Discussion31 Land Use and Land Cover Change Detection The landuse and land cover analysis indicates that forest land andshrub-bush land have decreased by 24 and 1613 percentrespectively between the years 1976 and 1986 while cultivatedand settlement land have increased by 1435 and 522 percentrespectively (Tables 2 and 3)This suggests that the forest andshrub-bush lands were declining at an average rate of 024and 161 percent per annum respectively while cultivatedland and settlement areas increased at the rate of 144 and052 percent per annumover the ten-year periodThis changeshows that the rate of decline of the natural vegetation coverin the catchment is increasing as population and area undersettlement are rising There are different factors accountingfor this trend namely population pressure and drought as

reported from interviews and discussion with local villagersin the catchment and experts of the district agricultural andrural development office

The second period (1986ndash2008) data shows that forestlands increased by 217 percent as compared to the first period(1976ndash1986) which is associated to the 198586 drought inthe area and there was a huge campaign in this part of thecountry for planting trees and constructing terraces in thehillslopes Similarly cultivated land settlements and floodplain showed respectively positive increments On the otherhand shrub-bush land and grazing land decreased by 272and 39 percent respectively It is noted that the expansion ofcultivated land and settlement occurredmainly at the expenseof shrub-bush land and grazing land during the period 1976ndash2008

Generally the LULC image (Figure 2) and data (Table 2)of three periods indicate both conversion and modificationof LULC types The area under shrub-bush land and grazingland declined by 1885 and 691 percent respectively duringthe period 1976ndash2008 whereas cultivated land and settlementexpanded by 1549 and 999 percent respectively The shrub-bush land and grazing land decreased by 059 and 022percent per annum while cultivated land and settlementincreased by 048 and 031 percent per annum respectively(Table 3) It should be noted that compared to the periodsof 1976ndash1986 both the contracting and expanding rates aredecreased This could be due to shortage of land to expand(cultivated land) at the expense of other LULC (forest shrub-bush and grazing land) and land rehabilitation programsin the study area through plantation and exclosures (areas


475000 490000

475000 490000

0

1312000

1304000

1296000

1312000

1304000

1296000

Forest landShrub-bush landGrazing landCultivated land

Settelement

N

River bed gravel and rockBare land

5 10

(km)

(a)

0 5

(km)

475000 490000

475000 490000

1312000

1304000

1296000

1312000

1304000

1296000


Settelement

N


10

(b)

0 5 10

(km)

475000 490000

475000 490000

1312000

1304000

1296000

1312000

1304000

1296000


Settelement

N


(c)

Figure 2 Land use and land cover maps of Gilgel Tekeze catchment for the years 1976 (a) 1986 (b) and 2008 (c)

of natural vegetation on degraded lands protected from theintrusion of humans or livestock)

Themain finding in this study shows that there is a majordecline in forest cover particularly natural forestsMost forestareas that were covered by native plants previously now haveexotic plants dominantly with Eucalyptus globulus trees andshrub-bush land which is in line with Tegene [21] and Tekleand Hedlund [5] who reported 58 percent decline in forestcover of Derekolli catchment and 51 percent decline of theforest cover in Kallu district of southern Wello However itis contrary to the work of Woslashien [32] and Crummey [33]who reported a substantial increase in the forest cover in

the Wello region as a whole at 1998 more than in the 1930sThe patterns observed in the Gilgel Tekeze catchment arethinning of natural forest and consequent change to shrub-bush land and grazing land particularly in the hillside andalong the rivers

The change from reduction of more natural vegetation(natural forest and shrub-bush land) to expanded cultivatedland wasmore of conversion and high change of this type wasobserved between 1976 and 1986 These findings again wellagree with that of Zeleke [34] and Teketay [35] who reported3942 and 242 percent increase of cultivated land for Dem-becha area of Gojam and head stream of Abbay watershed


Blue Nile basin between 1957 and 1982 respectively Incontrast with that of Tekle and Hedlund [5] who indicatedan increase of 24 percent for Kallu district in the period of1957ndash1986 FAO [19] concluded that significant conversion tocropland did not take place since 1957 as most of the landsuitable for cultivation was already in use On the other handin the period of 1986ndash2003 there was little change in the areaof cultivated land which very well agrees with that of Tegene[21] and Zeleke [34] The cultivated land in the period 1986ndash2003 of the Gilgel Tekeze catchment recorded an expansionof 114 percent and the study by Tegene [21] and Zeleke [34]also reported an expansion of less than 15 and 35 percentrespectively

Moreover the expansion of settlements in the area(Figure 2) was also observed mainly as the expense of bothcultivated land and grazing land and this also agrees withAerts et al [13] who reported an increase of rural settlementby 171 and 132 percent for the periods 1957ndash1986 and 1982ndash2001 respectively Settlement in the Gilgel Tekeze catchmentshowed the increase of 522 and 477 percent for the periods1976ndash1986 and 1986ndash2008 respectively This is in contrary toTegene [21] who reported less expansion

32 Woody Vegetation Structure and Composition across LandUse and Land Cover Types in Different Agroecological ZonesThe inventory of woody plants across five different LULCtypes in three agroecological zones has identified differ-ent woody plant species composition representing differentfamilies in the study area A total of 79 different woodyplant species representing 49 families were recorded inthe five LULC types in three agroecological zones Out ofthe total families recorded 31 families contain indigenouswoody species and the remaining 18 families comprise exoticspecies Fabaceae andRosaceae are identified as the dominantfamilies in all LULC types and agroecological zones Theresult of woody plant composition inventory across differentagroecological zones reveals the presence of 21 plant speciesrepresenting 18 families in Dega 51 plant species representing31 families in Weyna Dega and 45 plant species representing32 families in Kolla agroecological zone In terms of plantstructure or life forms the percentages of trees recorded were65 42 and 40 inDegaWeynaDega andKolla agroecologicalzones respectively while the proportion of shrubs was 3457 and 59 and the rest were woody herbs The dominantwoody species of the plant communities in Dega includeEucalyptus globulus Juniperus procera Cupressus lusitanicaand Grevillea robusta The dominant woody species inWeyna Dega are Cordia africana Eucalyptus camaldulensisEuclea racemosa and Dodonaea angustifolia while Acaciaetbaica Acacia saligna Commiphora africana and Boswelliapapyriferawere founddominant inKolla agroecological zone

In Dega agroecological zone the total number of speciesand families in LULC class cultivated land was low thatis 6 and 4 whereas settlement had maximum of 23 and14 respectively In Weyna Dega the species and familieswere 11 and 23 in grazing land (low) while forest land hadmaximum of 24 and 25 respectively LULC type grazing landcontained the lower that is 13 species and 8 families andshrub-bush land had maximum of 19 and 26 respectively

in Kolla agroecological zone However density and dead treedid not follow the same trend as the total number of speciesand families Forest land and settlements had the highertree and sapling density while grazing and cultivated landexhibited the lowest tree shrub and sapling density in eachagroecological zone (Table 4) In terms of the number of deadtrees settlement land rankedfirst and followed by forest land

Tukeys HSD test (119865430= 269 119875 lt 005) shows that

vegetation structure and composition significantly differedacross LULC types in different agroecological zone particu-larly in the following variables namely sapling density treeheight and shrub height (Table 4) Most of the variablesincluding tree density and shrub density in Dega significantlydiffered while the two agroecological zonesWeyna Dega andKolla did not show significant difference in most variablesThe variables tree density dead tree and woody speciesdiversity in forest land of Dega agroecological zone showedsignificant difference with Weyna Dega and Kolla forestlands In contrary the variables shrub density sapling densitytree height and shrub height showed significant differencein forest land of three agroecological zones In terms ofshrub-bush land the variables dead tree and woody speciesdiversity differed significantly in three agroecological zoneswhile no significant difference was recorded in tree heightand shrub height variables On the other LULC types of threeagroecological zones significant differences were recordedmore on tree density shrub density and woody speciesdiversity (Table 4)

Analysis of variance within each agroecological zoneshowed significant difference in tree density shrub densitytree height and shrub height variables between forest landand shrub-bush land LULC types in Dega agroecologicalzone but in the other LULC types these variables did notshow significant differences Besides significant differenceswere recorded in sapling density and dead tree variables inall LULC types of Dega agroecological zone In Weyna Dega(Table 4(b)) LULC types showed significant differences insapling density woody species diversity and dead tree whilethe variables shrub density tree height and shrub heightdid not show significant differences in most LULC typesSignificant differences were obtained for tree density shrubdensity and sapling density between the different LULC typesinKolla while species diversity and shrub height amongmostof LULC types in Kolla agroecological zone did not showsignificant differences (Table 4(c))

The study reveals that tree species diversity was higherin shrub-bush land which is not as much protected likethe forested area that is natural forest and plantation Thisfinding is contrary to the widely accepted perception thatdiversity is low in poorly managed areas exposed to grazingand settlement However the perception is supported by ourresults inWeynaDega area that species richness and diversitywere higher in the forest land than in shrub-bush land andother LULC (Table 4(b))

This finding suggests that disturbance factors and agroe-cological zonesmay have a significant effect on plant commu-nities and their composition and functioning are importantfactors to consider when studying biodiversity [35 36]and anthropogenic disturbances may be more pronounced


Table4Ve

getatio

nattributes

fors

ampleplotsa

crossd

ifferentlanduseandland

covertypes

inDega(a)Weyna

Dega(b)andKo

lla(c)Agroecologicalzon

eandsig

nificantlevelsfrom

two-way

ANOVA

with

equalsam

ples

izetests

(a)

Varia

ble

AgroecologicalZ

onemdash

Dega(

D)

119865430119875value

Forestland

(FLD

)Sh

rub-bu

shland

(SBL

D)

Grazing

land

(GLD

)Settlem

entland(SLD

)Cu

ltivatedland

(CLD

)Tree

density

inHa

161942plusmn1294

5a28333plusmn8926c

d13058plusmn2581cd

1050plusmn8522b

27083plusmn1915

1cd269

lt000

01Sh

rubdensity

inHa

2916

7plusmn8250d

e850plusmn10017

b27225plusmn8781d

e30833plusmn119

25d

e2770

8plusmn10017

de269

lt000

01Saplingdensity

inHa

18325plusmn2041ef

g11392plusmn2081b

cdef

6947plusmn1038f

g1472plusmn2743a

0g269

lt000

01Deadtre

einHa

7775plusmn2742c

d2775plusmn389

e44

25plusmn618

de1370

8plusmn1506b

558plusmn78

9e269

lt000

01Tree

height

(m)

1015plusmn15

9a18

6plusmn007

c31plusmn

031

bc314plusmn041

bc433plusmn329

bc269

lt000

01Sh

rubheight

(m)

167plusmn0277a

b14plusmn010

ab15

9plusmn017

ab13

3plusmn009

abc

10plusmn022

bc269

00113

Woo

dyspeciesd

iversity(H1015840)

111plusmn

027

e15plusmn004

bcde

125plusmn006

de119plusmn010

e20plusmn033

a269

05794

Values

with

different

superscriptletterswith

inrowsd

iffer

significantly

(Tuk

eyrsquosHSD

119875lt005)

(b)

Varia

ble

Agro-EcologicalZo

nemdashWeyna

Dega(

WD)

119865430119875value

Forestland

(FLW

D)

Shrub-bu

shland

(SBL

WD)

Grazing

land

(GLW

D)

Settlem

entland(SLW

D)

Cultivated(C

LWD)

Tree

density

inHa

1150plusmn5567b

36667plusmn3782c

2277

5plusmn3982c

d3777

5plusmn3218

c9375plusmn8523c

d269lt000

01Sh

rubdensity

inHa

425plusmn12271

cd129167plusmn7573a

7055plusmn12255

bc48333plusmn6908c

d4375plusmn2652

cd269lt000

01Saplingdensity

inHa

18325plusmn2041b

11392plusmn208

bcdef

6942plusmn1038c

defg

1472

5plusmn2743b

cd0g

269lt000

01Deadtre

einHa

4175plusmn898

de9175plusmn815

bc2042plusmn519

e3425plusmn576

de139plusmn401

e269lt000

01Tree

height

(m)

791plusmn

131ab

25plusmn014

c206plusmn028

c257plusmn017

c2plusmn17

8c269lt000

01Sh

rubheight

(m)

17plusmn009

a17

6plusmn024

a17

1plusmn014

a16

6plusmn026

ab075plusmn025

c269

00113

Woo

dyspeciesd

iversity(H1015840)

2plusmn033

a254plusmn014

ab228plusmn011

abc

259plusmn021

a207plusmn029

abcde

269

05794

Values

with

different


inrowsd

iffer

significantly

(Tuk

eyrsquosHSD

119875lt005)

(c)

Varia

ble

Agro-EcologicalZo

nemdashKo

lla(K

)119865430119875value

Forestland

(FLK

)Sh

rub-bu

shland

(SBL

K)Grazing

land

(GLK

)Settlem

entland(SLK

)Cu

ltivatedland

(CLK

)Tree

density

inHa

93608plusmn2397b

38892plusmn2080c

1694

7plusmn2754c

d175plusmn40

82c

d5558plusmn3989d

269

lt000

01Sh

rubdensity

inHa

3861plusmn

6819

de133333plusmn10560

a41425plusmn1663c

d3610

8plusmn2574

de8608+3068e

269

lt000

01Saplingdensity

inHa

3277

5plusmn2184a

1555plusmn3745b

c6667plusmn684

defg

11942plusmn2827b

cde

3333plusmn2357e

fg269

lt000

01Deadtre

einHa

355plusmn19

5de

2092

5plusmn1893a

2033plusmn1455e

833plusmn1179

e2867plusmn1706

e269

lt000

01Tree

height

(m)

427plusmn037

bc217plusmn012

c19

3plusmn019

c10

3plusmn005

c46plusmn328

bc269

lt000

01Sh

rubheight

(m)

16plusmn006

ab14

1plusmn009

ab12

5plusmn009

abc

173plusmn006

a13plusmn004

abc

269

00113

Woo

dyspeciesd

iversity(H1015840)

261plusmn075

a267plusmn011

a225plusmn009

abcd

254

+021

ab1plusmn029

e269

05794

Values

with

different


inrowsd

iffer

significantly

(Tuk

eyrsquosHSD

119875lt005)


outside forested areas [37] Similarities across the LULC stratawere found in sapling density shrub density and dead treedensity whereas tree density tree height and shrub heightdiffer across agroecological zones

The varying levels of disturbance in different LULC cate-gories have an effect on plant biodiversity In the unprotectedareas vegetation losses can be a result of selective extractionof forest and woodland resources for purposes such as fuelwood construction materials and other nonwood forestproducts [37 38] The study conducted in Sekota districtof Amhara region [39] very well confirms the fact that themain reason for destruction of woody vegetation was theever increasing population pressure In addition Semegne[40] in Bella-Welleh watershed (Sekota) near to the studyarea pointed out that population pressure is the cause of theobserved land use and land cover changes and total numberof household increased by 205 percent between 1965 and 1982In linewith this study theGilgel Tekeze catchment settlementaccounts the increase of 215 757 and 1214 percent for theyears of 1976 1986 and 2008 respectively (Table 3)

It has been reported that the structural complexity ofan ecological community is positively correlated with thediversity of plant life [35] Protected and developed areassuch as exclosures are often assumed to be the best way toconserve plant diversity andmaintain intact woodlandforestcomposition and structure [36] This ultimately determinesbiodiversity at various scales providing habitat for uniquewildlife species that require unique and variable forage andcover opportunities or ldquonichesrdquo for survival and reproduc-tion

33 Patterns in Woody Vegetation Structure and CompositionFigure 3 shows a PCA biplot of sample plots and measuredvariables in the study area Axis 1 explained 7733 of thevariance in vegetation data and defined a gradient from areaswith shrubs density and woody species diversity to areaswith a higher density of trees and saplings AccordinglySBLD SBLWD SBLK CLD CLWD and CLK correlatednegatively with axis 1 whereas FLD SLD and SLWD pos-itively correlated with Axis 1 Moreover Axis 2 explained11 of the vegetation data and defined a gradient fromareas characterized with diversity of woody plants tallertrees and shrubs to areas with higher densities of trees andshrubs CLD CLWD CLK SLD and SLWD had a negativecorrelation with Axis 2 whereas mostly SBLD SBLWDand SBLK to a lesser extent FLD and SLD were positivelycorrelated with Axis 2

The number of species and families common to allagroecological zones were only two Acacia saligna andRhamnus prinoides were recorded in all the agroecologicalzones However the number of common species and familiesincreased as the land use and land cover types were stratifiedin agroecology LULC types located in Dega andWeyna Degashared 8 species and 5 families while those located in Kollaand Weyna Dega agroecological zones shared 34 species and25 families in common

Most communal areas in Ethiopian highlands are asso-ciated with human population increase encroachmentsin protected areas and increased dependency on natural

Tree density

Shrub density

Woody spp noSapling density

Dead plant density

Tree heightshrubheightwoodyspeciesdiversityFLD1

FLD2FLD3SBLD1

SBLD2SBLD3

GLD1GLD2

GLD3 SLD1SLD2

SLD3

CLD1CLD2

CLD3

FLWD1FLWD2

FLWD3

SBLWD1SBLWD2

SBLWD3

GLWD1

GLWD2GLWD3

SLWD1SLWD2

SLWD3

CLWD1CLWD2CLWD3

FLK1FLK2FLK3

SBLK1SBLK2

SBLK3

GLK1GLK2GLK3SLK1SLK2SLK3

CLK1CLK2CLK3

0

20

40

60

Axi

s 2 (1

1)

0 20 40 60Axis 1 (7733)

VariablesLULC types in different Agroecological zone

minus20

minus20

Figure 3 Principal component analysis biplot of measured vegeta-tion variables from the 135 Sample plots in Gilgel Tekeze catchmentof LULC types across three agroecological zones (see Table 4)

resources for livelihood which often result in habitat loss anddegradation thus influencing woody vegetation abundancesand their distribution [4 6] Besides the environmentalvariables that influence species composition and distributionalong the gradient anthropogenic activities are key factorsthat influenced the observed pattern of species distributioncomposition and diversity in all sample plots as shownin Table 4 and Figure 3 Most of the areas in the Degaagroecological zone were under population pressure Degazone served for settlements and agricultural activities for thelocal people In this zone major parts of protected forests areplantation with one or two exotic plants like Eucalyptus glob-ulus and Cupressus lusitanica whereas in Weyna Dega andKolla agroecological zones which have lower population andlivestock pressure covered higher species diversityThe highlydiverse community of these zones partly indicates less humanimpact compared to that of Dega agroecology zone whichhad less species evenness and appeared monocrops in mostparts of the zone down to plantation and enrichment It canbe argued that the relationship between high species diversityand the drivers of change is largely dependent on the typeof vegetation community the degree of human impact andother natural factors as well as its location on the landscapeAlthough species diversity was high inWeynaDega andKollazones it was not evenly distributed across the LULC typesindicating that plant species were evenly distributed onlyin forest land and shrub-bush land in these agroecologicalzones where the degree of impact was relatively less severeThe uneven distribution of species typically in grazing landsettlement land and cultivated land in most parts of thecatchment suggests a gradual deterioration of the naturalfunctioning state of the area This is largely attributed to theloss of species through anthropogenic impacts

4 Conclusions

The present research work on the long-term dynamics inLULC types and the impacts on woody vegetation diversity


in the Gilgel Tekeze catchment has revealed that there weresubstantial LULC changes in the area during 1976ndash2008periods The proportional changes in area were determinedfor the total LULC types in three different periodsThemulti-temporal analysis of satellite image data clearly indicated thatshrub-bush and grazing lands have decreased in contrarycultivated land and settlement have showed a subsequentexpansion in 1976 1986 and 2008 years Forest land bareland and flood plain have shown little change Though theforest lands have shown a slight change the natural vegetationcover had been extensively cleared and most of the clearedareas were gradually replaced with plantations Generallythe first period between 1976 and 1986 years has shownrapid changes as compared with the period between years1986 and 2008 This might have been aggravated by theoccurrence of 198586 drought Based on field observationand discussionwith local people themajor underlying causesfor the changes of this LULC types are through settlementsdeforestation overgrazing edaphic (topographic erosion)and biotic factors (planting one or two exotic species) withallelopathic effects in the study area

This LULC changes have resulted in the observed varia-tions in woody vegetation diversity and pattern in the differ-ent LULC types and agroecological zones Our study providesevidence that vegetation structure and composition signifi-cantly differed across LULC in different agroecological zonesparticularly in the following variables namely tree densitysapling density dead tree and woody species diversity It alsoshows that tree species diversity was higher in shrub-bushland which is not as much protected like the forested areathat is natural forest and plantation However improvingdiversity of trees inside forested areas and understanding thecauses for less diversity of trees in these forested areas callfor further investigation The introduction of conservationmeasures in the catchment through construction of soiland water conservation structures and planting seedlingshave helped in the gradual restoration of the catchmentThis should be supported by a carefully selected restorationmeasure(s) such as reintroduction of diversified species toenhance more sustainable ecosystem which will ultimatelyaddress and protect vegetations

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Horn of Africa-RegionalEnvironment Centernetwork (HOAREC) and AmharaRegional Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development forfinancing this research project Our heartfelt appreciationand thanks are extended to the farmers and Dstrict andKebele administrators who live in Gilgel Tekeze catchmentfor their kindness cooperation and time devoted during thefield work and interviews

References

[1] S Abate Land Use Dynamics Soil Degradation and Potentialfor Sustainable Use in Metu Area Illubabur Region EthiopiaUniversity of Berne Berne Switzerland 1994

[2] W BewketTowards IntegratedWatershedManagement in High-land EthiopiaTheChemogaWatershed Case StudyWageningenUniversity 2003

[3] E Feoli L G Vuerich and Z Woldu ldquoProcesses of envi-ronmental degradation and opportunities for rehabilitation inAdwa Northern Ethiopiardquo Landscape Ecology vol 17 no 4 pp315ndash325 2002

[4] S Kidanu Using Eucalyptus for Soil amp Water Conservation onthe Highland Vertisols of Ethiopia Wageningen University andResearch Centre Wageningen The Netherlands 2004

[5] K Tekle and L Hedlund ldquoLand cover changes between 1958and 1986 in Kalu District Southern Wello EthiopiardquoMountainResearch and Development vol 20 no 1 pp 42ndash51 2000

[6] G Zeleke and H Hurni ldquoImplications of land use and landcover dynamics for mountain resource degradation in theNorthwestern Ethiopian highlandsrdquo Mountain Research andDevelopment vol 21 no 2 pp 184ndash191 2001

[7] P Dubale ldquoSoil and water resources and degradation factorsaffecting productivity in Ethiopian highland agro-ecosystemsrdquoNortheast African Studies vol 8 no 1 pp 27ndash52 2001

[8] HHurni ldquoLand degradation famines and resource scenarios inEthiopiardquo inWorld Soil Erosion and Conservation D PimentelEd pp 27ndash62 Cambridge University Press Cambridge UK1993

[9] B Shiferaw and S T Holden ldquoResource degradation andadoption of land conservation technologies in the EthiopianHighlands a case study inAndit TidNorth ShewardquoAgriculturalEconomics vol 18 no 3 pp 233ndash247 1998

[10] EFAP Ethiopian Forestry Action Program (EFAP) EFAP AddisAbeba Ethiopia 1994

[11] TFAP Tigray Forestry Action Plan (TFAP) TFAP MekelleEthiopia 1996

[12] Z Bahru ldquoThe forests of wallo in Historical perspectivewith a focus on the Yagof State forestrdquo in Proceedings of the1997 Conference on Environmental and Development pp 12ndash14Debre Zeit Ethiopia 1997

[13] R Aerts J Nyssen andM Haile ldquoThink note on the differencebetween ldquoexclosuresrdquo and ldquoenclosuresrdquo in ecology and theenvironmentrdquo Arid Environments vol 73 pp 762ndash763 2009

[14] D T Asefa G Oba R B Weladji and J E Colman ldquoAn assess-ment of restoration of biodiversity in degraded high mountaingrazing lands in northern Ethiopiardquo Land Degradation andDevelopment vol 14 no 1 pp 25ndash38 2003

[15] D Teketay ldquoThe impact of clearing and conversion of dryAfromontane forests into arable land on the composition anddensity of soil seed banksrdquo Acta Oecologica vol 18 no 5 pp557ndash573 1997

[16] D Teketay ldquoForestry research in Ethiopia past present andfuturerdquo in Proceedings of the National Conference on ForestResources of Ethiopia Status Challenges and OpportunitiesAddis Ababa Ethiopia 2002

[17] R Aerts Dispersal and recruitment of Olea europaea ssp cus-pidata in degraded Afromontae savanna implications for forestrestoration in the highlands of northern Ethiopia [PhD thesis]Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Leuven Belgium 2006


[18] FAOISRIC Soil and Terrain Digital Database for Eastern Africa(11000000Million Scale) Food andAgricultureOrganization ofthe United Nation Rome Italy 1998

[19] FAO ldquoEthiopian geomorphology and soils (11 000 000 scales)rdquoAssistance to land use planning Addis Ababa Ethiopia 1984

[20] H Hurni Agro-Ecological Belts of Ethiopia Explanatory Noteson Three Maps at a Scale of 1 000 000 Research ReportSoil Conservation Research Program (Ethiopia) Centre forDevelopment and Environment University of Bern 1998

[21] B Tegene ldquoLand useland cover changes in the Derekolli catch-ment of the south Wollo Zone of Amhara Region EthiopiardquoEastern Africa Social Science Research Review vol 18 no 1 pp1ndash20 2002

[22] ERDAS ERDAS Field Guide ERDAS Atlanta Ga USA 1999[23] B R BottomleyMapping Rural Land Use amp Land Cover Change

in Carroll County Arkansas Utilizing Multi-Temporal LandsatThematic Mapper Satellite Imagery University of Arkansas1998

[24] A P Gautam E L Webb G P Shivakoti and M A Zoe-bisch ldquoLand use dynamics and landscape change pattern ina mountain watershed in Nepalrdquo Agriculture Ecosystems andEnvironment vol 99 pp 83ndash96 2003

[25] E Gandiwa and S Kativu ldquoInfluence of fire frequency onColophospermummopane and Combretum apiculatumwood-land structure and composition in northern GonarezhouNational Park Zimbabwerdquo Koedoe vol 51 no 1 13 pages 2009

[26] S Edwards M Tadesse and I Hedberg Flora of Ethiopiaand Eritrea Volume 2 part 2 The National Herbarium AddisAbaba Ethiopia 1995

[27] S Edwards M Tadesse and I Hedberg Flora of Ethiopiaand Eritrea Volume 3 The National Herbarium Addis AbabaEthiopia 1989

[28] B Azene Useful Trees and Shrubs for Ethiopia IdentificationPropagation and Management for Agricultural and PastoralCommunities RSCUSIDA 1993

[29] J H McDonald Handbook of Biological Statistics SparkyHouse Baltimore Md USA 2nd edition 2009

[30] J A Ludwig and J F Reynolds Statistical Ecology A Primer onMethods and Computing John Wiley amp Sons New York NYUSA 1988

[31] SPSS lsquoSPSS for Windowsrsquo Release 6 1 SPSS Chicago Ill USA1994

[32] H Woslashien ldquoWoody plant cover and farming compounddistribution on the Mafud escarpment Ethiopia An aerialphoto interpretation of changes 1957ndash1986rdquo Working Paperon Ethiopian Development 9 Centre for Environment andDevelopmentUnit SMUUniversity of Trondheim TrondheimNorway

[33] D Crummey ldquoDeforestation in Wallo process or illusionrdquoJournal of Ethiopian vol 31 no 1 pp 1ndash41 1998

[34] G Zeleke ldquoLandscape dynamics and soil erosion processmodelling in the north-western ethiopian highlandsrdquo AfricanStudies Series Global Change Biology vol 10 pp 452ndash472 2000

[35] D Teketay ldquoSeedling populations and regeneration of woodyspecies in dry Afromontane forests of Ethiopiardquo Forest Ecologyand Management vol 98 no 2 pp 149ndash165 1997

[36] T Bekele ldquoPlant Population Dynamics of Dodonaea angusti-folia and Olea europaea ssp cuspidata in Dry AfromontaneForests of Ethiopiardquo Comprehensive Summaries of UppsalaDissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 559Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis Uppsala Sweden 2000


[38] K A Brown S Spector and W Wu ldquoMulti-scale analysis ofspecies introductions combining landscape and demographicmodels to improve management decisions about non-nativespeciesrdquo Journal of Applied Ecology vol 45 no 6 pp 1639ndash16482008

[39] B Kidane and A Tesfaye ldquoAgroforestry practices and treeplanting constraints and opportunities in Sekota district ofAmahera regional Staterdquo in The Challenges of DryLand ForestRehabilitation in Ethiopia B Muys K Gebrehiwot and SBruneel Eds vol 1 pp 1817ndash3322 Journal of the Dry LandsIndexed by African Journals Online 2006

[40] G Semegne Determinants of Land use Land cover dynamics innorthern Ethiopia High lands Quantitative study of the bella-welleh Watershed (Sekota) [MS thesis] Ethiopia 2006

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Forestry ResearchInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Environmental and Public Health

Journal of



EcosystemsJournal of


MeteorologyAdvances in

EcologyInternational Journal of


Marine BiologyJournal of


Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Applied ampEnvironmentalSoil Science

Volume 2014

Advances in


Environmental Chemistry

Atmospheric SciencesInternational Journal of



Waste ManagementJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal of

Geophysics


Geological ResearchJournal of

EarthquakesJournal of


BiodiversityInternational Journal of


ScientificaHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

OceanographyInternational Journal of


The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of Computational Environmental SciencesHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014


ClimatologyJournal of


Red SeaEritrea

Sudan

Amhara

Blue Nile

Tigray

Afar

Oromia

Addis Abeba

Meket Woreda

Benshagul Gumez

Somali

0 225 4501125(km)

(km)

NMeket Woreda

Gilgel Tekeze catchment

Sample plots

Drainage lines

0 10 205

Figure 1 Location of study area Gilgel Tekeze catchment Amhara Region Northern Ethiopia

to steep landscapes at the expense of forest and naturalvegetation [8] The forest areas with native plants have beenencroached by exotic species like Eucalyptus globulus treesthat might lead to poor diversity and final replacement ofthe high forest to a bush land [11 12] This has led tofurther degradation such as soil erosion deforestation andbiodiversity loss [13 14] Particularly biodiversity loss hasincreased at an alarming rate in the highlands [13]

Many of these changes have been discerned by digital dataprocessed from the satellite images and Arial photographs atappropriate scale and quality which have also been supple-mentedwith data fromfield observation field interviews anddiscussions with local people and key informants Indexes[13] and models [15] of biodiversity can then be applied toindicate whether the land use and land cover changes weresustainable or unsustainable in respect to woody vegetationstructure and composition Despite Gilgel Tekeze catchmentis one of the highly populated and tributary of Tekeze riverit lacks attention of scientific information on land use andcover change Such analyses are very important for thefuture planning and decision-making in the development andimplementation of environmental rehabilitation programsBesides it contributes to fill the gaps on scientific informa-tion in the forestry sector of Ethiopia [16] in general andparticularly in the northern Ethiopian highlands [17] Thepresent research study was carried out with the followingobjectives (a) to evaluate land use and land cover change from1973 to 2008 (b) to investigate woody vegetation structureand composition across various land use and land covertypes in different agroecological zones and (c) to studythe patterns in woody vegetation structure and compositionalong agroecological zones

2 Material and Methods

21 Study Area The study was conducted on Gilgel Tekezecatchment in Meket District Amhara Regional State andNorthern Ethiopia (Figure 1) It covers an area of 352 km2

and extends from 11∘4110158402310158401015840 to 11∘5610158400510158401015840 North and from38∘4010158403010158401015840 to 38∘5110158405910158401015840 East The study area is an extensionof the typical agroclimatic profile of mount Abuna Yosefwhich is situated about 45 km northeast of the study areaand extends from the cold and wet upper zones (Wurch4260m) to the hot and dry lower zones (Kolla 1656m) of theGilgel Tekeze riverThe area extends from south to north overelevations of 2970masl and 1656masl

Geologically the area belongs to the Trapp series ofTertiary volcanic eruptions Its topography is typical of vol-canic landscapes which were later deeply incised by streamsresulting in the current diversity of landforms The sloperanges from nearly flat (lt2) to those which are extremelysteep (gt83)The area is a part of the northeastern Ethiopianhighlands dominantly covered by basic and ultrabasic rocks(basalt hornblende serpentinite and peridotite) and pyro-clastic rocks both consolidated and unconsolidated [18]The soils have developed from volcanic ashes and reworkedmaterials resulting fromTertiary volcanic eruptions and sedi-mentation processes According to the FAO soil classification[19] Vertisols and Leptosols are the dominant soil types of thearea The Vertisols are found in the upper- and low-lying ofthe middle catchment of the study area Leptosols are mainlyfound in the hillsides and lower catchments As a result ofdegradation the soils on steep slopes appear to have beendowngraded to Regosols and Cambisols

Due to the relief differences the Meket district has awide range of agroecological zones According to the localclassification the agroecology zones of the district are Kolla(warm semiarid lowlands 1300 to 1800m asl)WeynaDega(mild subhumidhighlands 1800 to 2400masl) Dega (coolhumid highlands 2400 to 3200m asl) and Wurch (coldhumid highlands over 3200m asl) [20] The Kolla (warm)Weyna Dega (mild) and Dega (cool) agroecological zonescover 17 69 and 14 of the catchment respectivelyThe study area experiences mean annual temperature andrainfall ranging from 15∘C to 17∘C and from 934 to 1342mmrespectively About 50 of the annual rainfall falls between


































475000 490000

475000 490000

0

1312000

1304000

1296000

1312000

1304000

1296000


Settelement

N


5 10

(km)

(a)

0 5

(km)

475000 490000

475000 490000

1312000

1304000

1296000

1312000

1304000

1296000


Settelement

N


10

(b)

0 5 10

(km)

475000 490000

475000 490000

1312000

1304000

1296000

1312000

1304000

1296000


Settelement

N


(c)


















Table4Ve

getatio

nattributes

fors

ampleplotsa

crossd


covertypes

inDega(a)Weyna

Dega(b)andKo


eandsig

nificantlevelsfrom

two-way

ANOVA

with

equalsam

ples

izetests

(a)

Varia

ble

AgroecologicalZ

onemdash

Dega(

D)

119865430119875value

Forestland

(FLD

)Sh

rub-bu

shland

(SBL

D)

Grazing

land

(GLD

)Settlem

entland(SLD

)Cu

ltivatedland

(CLD

)Tree

density

inHa

161942plusmn1294

5a28333plusmn8926c

d13058plusmn2581cd

1050plusmn8522b

27083plusmn1915

1cd269

lt000

01Sh

rubdensity

inHa

2916

7plusmn8250d

e850plusmn10017

b27225plusmn8781d

e30833plusmn119

25d

e2770

8plusmn10017

de269

lt000

01Saplingdensity

inHa

18325plusmn2041ef

g11392plusmn2081b

cdef

6947plusmn1038f

g1472plusmn2743a

0g269

lt000

01Deadtre

einHa

7775plusmn2742c

d2775plusmn389

e44

25plusmn618

de1370

8plusmn1506b

558plusmn78

9e269

lt000

01Tree

height

(m)

1015plusmn15

9a18

6plusmn007

c31plusmn

031

bc314plusmn041

bc433plusmn329

bc269

lt000

01Sh

rubheight

(m)

167plusmn0277a

b14plusmn010

ab15

9plusmn017

ab13

3plusmn009

abc

10plusmn022

bc269

00113

Woo

dyspeciesd

iversity(H1015840)

111plusmn

027

e15plusmn004

bcde

125plusmn006

de119plusmn010

e20plusmn033

a269

05794

Values

with

different


inrowsd

iffer

significantly

(Tuk

eyrsquosHSD

119875lt005)

(b)

Varia

ble

Agro-EcologicalZo

nemdashWeyna

Dega(

WD)

119865430119875value

Forestland

(FLW

D)

Shrub-bu

shland

(SBL

WD)

Grazing

land

(GLW

D)

Settlem

entland(SLW

D)

Cultivated(C

LWD)

Tree

density

inHa

1150plusmn5567b

36667plusmn3782c

2277

5plusmn3982c

d3777

5plusmn3218

c9375plusmn8523c

d269lt000

01Sh

rubdensity

inHa

425plusmn12271

cd129167plusmn7573a

7055plusmn12255

bc48333plusmn6908c

d4375plusmn2652

cd269lt000

01Saplingdensity

inHa

18325plusmn2041b

11392plusmn208

bcdef

6942plusmn1038c

defg

1472

5plusmn2743b

cd0g

269lt000

01Deadtre

einHa

4175plusmn898

de9175plusmn815

bc2042plusmn519

e3425plusmn576

de139plusmn401

e269lt000

01Tree

height

(m)

791plusmn

131ab

25plusmn014

c206plusmn028

c257plusmn017

c2plusmn17

8c269lt000

01Sh

rubheight

(m)

17plusmn009

a17

6plusmn024

a17

1plusmn014

a16

6plusmn026

ab075plusmn025

c269

00113

Woo

dyspeciesd

iversity(H1015840)

2plusmn033

a254plusmn014

ab228plusmn011

abc

259plusmn021

a207plusmn029

abcde

269

05794

Values

with

different


inrowsd

iffer

significantly

(Tuk

eyrsquosHSD

119875lt005)

(c)

Varia

ble

Agro-EcologicalZo

nemdashKo

lla(K

)119865430119875value

Forestland

(FLK

)Sh

rub-bu

shland

(SBL

K)Grazing

land

(GLK

)Settlem

entland(SLK

)Cu

ltivatedland

(CLK

)Tree

density

inHa

93608plusmn2397b

38892plusmn2080c

1694

7plusmn2754c

d175plusmn40

82c

d5558plusmn3989d

269

lt000

01Sh

rubdensity

inHa

3861plusmn

6819

de133333plusmn10560

a41425plusmn1663c

d3610

8plusmn2574

de8608+3068e

269

lt000

01Saplingdensity

inHa

3277

5plusmn2184a

1555plusmn3745b

c6667plusmn684

defg

11942plusmn2827b

cde

3333plusmn2357e

fg269

lt000

01Deadtre

einHa

355plusmn19

5de

2092

5plusmn1893a

2033plusmn1455e

833plusmn1179

e2867plusmn1706

e269

lt000

01Tree

height

(m)

427plusmn037

bc217plusmn012

c19

3plusmn019

c10

3plusmn005

c46plusmn328

bc269

lt000

01Sh

rubheight

(m)

16plusmn006

ab14

1plusmn009

ab12

5plusmn009

abc

173plusmn006

a13plusmn004

abc

269

00113

Woo

dyspeciesd

iversity(H1015840)

261plusmn075

a267plusmn011

a225plusmn009

abcd

254

+021

ab1plusmn029

e269

05794

Values

with

different


inrowsd

iffer

significantly

(Tuk

eyrsquosHSD

119875lt005)








Tree density

Shrub density


Dead plant density


FLD2FLD3SBLD1

SBLD2SBLD3

GLD1GLD2

GLD3 SLD1SLD2

SLD3

CLD1CLD2

CLD3

FLWD1FLWD2

FLWD3

SBLWD1SBLWD2

SBLWD3

GLWD1

GLWD2GLWD3

SLWD1SLWD2

SLWD3

CLWD1CLWD2CLWD3

FLK1FLK2FLK3

SBLK1SBLK2

SBLK3


CLK1CLK2CLK3

0

20

40

60

Axi

s 2 (1

1)

0 20 40 60Axis 1 (7733)


minus20

minus20



4 Conclusions







Acknowledgments


References














































Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics















































475000 490000

475000 490000

0

1312000

1304000

1296000

1312000

1304000

1296000


Settelement

N


5 10

(km)

(a)

0 5

(km)

475000 490000

475000 490000

1312000

1304000

1296000

1312000

1304000

1296000


Settelement

N


10

(b)

0 5 10

(km)

475000 490000

475000 490000

1312000

1304000

1296000

1312000

1304000

1296000


Settelement

N


(c)


















Table4Ve

getatio

nattributes

fors

ampleplotsa

crossd


covertypes

inDega(a)Weyna

Dega(b)andKo


eandsig

nificantlevelsfrom

two-way

ANOVA

with

equalsam

ples

izetests

(a)

Varia

ble

AgroecologicalZ

onemdash

Dega(

D)

119865430119875value

Forestland

(FLD

)Sh

rub-bu

shland

(SBL

D)

Grazing

land

(GLD

)Settlem

entland(SLD

)Cu

ltivatedland

(CLD

)Tree

density

inHa

161942plusmn1294

5a28333plusmn8926c

d13058plusmn2581cd

1050plusmn8522b

27083plusmn1915

1cd269

lt000

01Sh

rubdensity

inHa

2916

7plusmn8250d

e850plusmn10017

b27225plusmn8781d

e30833plusmn119

25d

e2770

8plusmn10017

de269

lt000

01Saplingdensity

inHa

18325plusmn2041ef

g11392plusmn2081b

cdef

6947plusmn1038f

g1472plusmn2743a

0g269

lt000

01Deadtre

einHa

7775plusmn2742c

d2775plusmn389

e44

25plusmn618

de1370

8plusmn1506b

558plusmn78

9e269

lt000

01Tree

height

(m)

1015plusmn15

9a18

6plusmn007

c31plusmn

031

bc314plusmn041

bc433plusmn329

bc269

lt000

01Sh

rubheight

(m)

167plusmn0277a

b14plusmn010

ab15

9plusmn017

ab13

3plusmn009

abc

10plusmn022

bc269

00113

Woo

dyspeciesd

iversity(H1015840)

111plusmn

027

e15plusmn004

bcde

125plusmn006

de119plusmn010

e20plusmn033

a269

05794

Values

with

different


inrowsd

iffer

significantly

(Tuk

eyrsquosHSD

119875lt005)

(b)

Varia

ble

Agro-EcologicalZo

nemdashWeyna

Dega(

WD)

119865430119875value

Forestland

(FLW

D)

Shrub-bu

shland

(SBL

WD)

Grazing

land

(GLW

D)

Settlem

entland(SLW

D)

Cultivated(C

LWD)

Tree

density

inHa

1150plusmn5567b

36667plusmn3782c

2277

5plusmn3982c

d3777

5plusmn3218

c9375plusmn8523c

d269lt000

01Sh

rubdensity

inHa

425plusmn12271

cd129167plusmn7573a

7055plusmn12255

bc48333plusmn6908c

d4375plusmn2652

cd269lt000

01Saplingdensity

inHa

18325plusmn2041b

11392plusmn208

bcdef

6942plusmn1038c

defg

1472

5plusmn2743b

cd0g

269lt000

01Deadtre

einHa

4175plusmn898

de9175plusmn815

bc2042plusmn519

e3425plusmn576

de139plusmn401

e269lt000

01Tree

height

(m)

791plusmn

131ab

25plusmn014

c206plusmn028

c257plusmn017

c2plusmn17

8c269lt000

01Sh

rubheight

(m)

17plusmn009

a17

6plusmn024

a17

1plusmn014

a16

6plusmn026

ab075plusmn025

c269

00113

Woo

dyspeciesd

iversity(H1015840)

2plusmn033

a254plusmn014

ab228plusmn011

abc

259plusmn021

a207plusmn029

abcde

269

05794

Values

with

different


inrowsd

iffer

significantly

(Tuk

eyrsquosHSD

119875lt005)

(c)

Varia

ble

Agro-EcologicalZo

nemdashKo

lla(K

)119865430119875value

Forestland

(FLK

)Sh

rub-bu

shland

(SBL

K)Grazing

land

(GLK

)Settlem

entland(SLK

)Cu

ltivatedland

(CLK

)Tree

density

inHa

93608plusmn2397b

38892plusmn2080c

1694

7plusmn2754c

d175plusmn40

82c

d5558plusmn3989d

269

lt000

01Sh

rubdensity

inHa

3861plusmn

6819

de133333plusmn10560

a41425plusmn1663c

d3610

8plusmn2574

de8608+3068e

269

lt000

01Saplingdensity

inHa

3277

5plusmn2184a

1555plusmn3745b

c6667plusmn684

defg

11942plusmn2827b

cde

3333plusmn2357e

fg269

lt000

01Deadtre

einHa

355plusmn19

5de

2092

5plusmn1893a

2033plusmn1455e

833plusmn1179

e2867plusmn1706

e269

lt000

01Tree

height

(m)

427plusmn037

bc217plusmn012

c19

3plusmn019

c10

3plusmn005

c46plusmn328

bc269

lt000

01Sh

rubheight

(m)

16plusmn006

ab14

1plusmn009

ab12

5plusmn009

abc

173plusmn006

a13plusmn004

abc

269

00113

Woo

dyspeciesd

iversity(H1015840)

261plusmn075

a267plusmn011

a225plusmn009

abcd

254

+021

ab1plusmn029

e269

05794

Values

with

different


inrowsd

iffer

significantly

(Tuk

eyrsquosHSD

119875lt005)








Tree density

Shrub density


Dead plant density


FLD2FLD3SBLD1

SBLD2SBLD3

GLD1GLD2

GLD3 SLD1SLD2

SLD3

CLD1CLD2

CLD3

FLWD1FLWD2

FLWD3

SBLWD1SBLWD2

SBLWD3

GLWD1

GLWD2GLWD3

SLWD1SLWD2

SLWD3

CLWD1CLWD2CLWD3

FLK1FLK2FLK3

SBLK1SBLK2

SBLK3


CLK1CLK2CLK3

0

20

40

60

Axi

s 2 (1

1)

0 20 40 60Axis 1 (7733)


minus20

minus20



4 Conclusions







Acknowledgments


References














































Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics


























Table4Ve

getatio

nattributes

fors

ampleplotsa

crossd


covertypes

inDega(a)Weyna

Dega(b)andKo


eandsig

nificantlevelsfrom

two-way

ANOVA

with

equalsam

ples

izetests

(a)

Varia

ble

AgroecologicalZ

onemdash

Dega(

D)

119865430119875value

Forestland

(FLD

)Sh

rub-bu

shland

(SBL

D)

Grazing

land

(GLD

)Settlem

entland(SLD

)Cu

ltivatedland

(CLD

)Tree

density

inHa

161942plusmn1294

5a28333plusmn8926c

d13058plusmn2581cd

1050plusmn8522b

27083plusmn1915

1cd269

lt000

01Sh

rubdensity

inHa

2916

7plusmn8250d

e850plusmn10017

b27225plusmn8781d

e30833plusmn119

25d

e2770

8plusmn10017

de269

lt000

01Saplingdensity

inHa

18325plusmn2041ef

g11392plusmn2081b

cdef

6947plusmn1038f

g1472plusmn2743a

0g269

lt000

01Deadtre

einHa

7775plusmn2742c

d2775plusmn389

e44

25plusmn618

de1370

8plusmn1506b

558plusmn78

9e269

lt000

01Tree

height

(m)

1015plusmn15

9a18

6plusmn007

c31plusmn

031

bc314plusmn041

bc433plusmn329

bc269

lt000

01Sh

rubheight

(m)

167plusmn0277a

b14plusmn010

ab15

9plusmn017

ab13

3plusmn009

abc

10plusmn022

bc269

00113

Woo

dyspeciesd

iversity(H1015840)

111plusmn

027

e15plusmn004

bcde

125plusmn006

de119plusmn010

e20plusmn033

a269

05794

Values

with

different


inrowsd

iffer

significantly

(Tuk

eyrsquosHSD

119875lt005)

(b)

Varia

ble

Agro-EcologicalZo

nemdashWeyna

Dega(

WD)

119865430119875value

Forestland

(FLW

D)

Shrub-bu

shland

(SBL

WD)

Grazing

land

(GLW

D)

Settlem

entland(SLW

D)

Cultivated(C

LWD)

Tree

density

inHa

1150plusmn5567b

36667plusmn3782c

2277

5plusmn3982c

d3777

5plusmn3218

c9375plusmn8523c

d269lt000

01Sh

rubdensity

inHa

425plusmn12271

cd129167plusmn7573a

7055plusmn12255

bc48333plusmn6908c

d4375plusmn2652

cd269lt000

01Saplingdensity

inHa

18325plusmn2041b

11392plusmn208

bcdef

6942plusmn1038c

defg

1472

5plusmn2743b

cd0g

269lt000

01Deadtre

einHa

4175plusmn898

de9175plusmn815

bc2042plusmn519

e3425plusmn576

de139plusmn401

e269lt000

01Tree

height

(m)

791plusmn

131ab

25plusmn014

c206plusmn028

c257plusmn017

c2plusmn17

8c269lt000

01Sh

rubheight

(m)

17plusmn009

a17

6plusmn024

a17

1plusmn014

a16

6plusmn026

ab075plusmn025

c269

00113

Woo

dyspeciesd

iversity(H1015840)

2plusmn033

a254plusmn014

ab228plusmn011

abc

259plusmn021

a207plusmn029

abcde

269

05794

Values

with

different


inrowsd

iffer

significantly

(Tuk

eyrsquosHSD

119875lt005)

(c)

Varia

ble

Agro-EcologicalZo

nemdashKo

lla(K

)119865430119875value

Forestland

(FLK

)Sh

rub-bu

shland

(SBL

K)Grazing

land

(GLK

)Settlem

entland(SLK

)Cu

ltivatedland

(CLK

)Tree

density

inHa

93608plusmn2397b

38892plusmn2080c

1694

7plusmn2754c

d175plusmn40

82c

d5558plusmn3989d

269

lt000

01Sh

rubdensity

inHa

3861plusmn

6819

de133333plusmn10560

a41425plusmn1663c

d3610

8plusmn2574

de8608+3068e

269

lt000

01Saplingdensity

inHa

3277

5plusmn2184a

1555plusmn3745b

c6667plusmn684

defg

11942plusmn2827b

cde

3333plusmn2357e

fg269

lt000

01Deadtre

einHa

355plusmn19

5de

2092

5plusmn1893a

2033plusmn1455e

833plusmn1179

e2867plusmn1706

e269

lt000

01Tree

height

(m)

427plusmn037

bc217plusmn012

c19

3plusmn019

c10

3plusmn005

c46plusmn328

bc269

lt000

01Sh

rubheight

(m)

16plusmn006

ab14

1plusmn009

ab12

5plusmn009

abc

173plusmn006

a13plusmn004

abc

269

00113

Woo

dyspeciesd

iversity(H1015840)

261plusmn075

a267plusmn011

a225plusmn009

abcd

254

+021

ab1plusmn029

e269

05794

Values

with

different


inrowsd

iffer

significantly

(Tuk

eyrsquosHSD

119875lt005)








Tree density

Shrub density


Dead plant density


FLD2FLD3SBLD1

SBLD2SBLD3

GLD1GLD2

GLD3 SLD1SLD2

SLD3

CLD1CLD2

CLD3

FLWD1FLWD2

FLWD3

SBLWD1SBLWD2

SBLWD3

GLWD1

GLWD2GLWD3

SLWD1SLWD2

SLWD3

CLWD1CLWD2CLWD3

FLK1FLK2FLK3

SBLK1SBLK2

SBLK3


CLK1CLK2CLK3

0

20

40

60

Axi

s 2 (1

1)

0 20 40 60Axis 1 (7733)


minus20

minus20



4 Conclusions







Acknowledgments


References














































Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics





















Tree density

Shrub density


Dead plant density


FLD2FLD3SBLD1

SBLD2SBLD3

GLD1GLD2

GLD3 SLD1SLD2

SLD3

CLD1CLD2

CLD3

FLWD1FLWD2

FLWD3

SBLWD1SBLWD2

SBLWD3

GLWD1

GLWD2GLWD3

SLWD1SLWD2

SLWD3

CLWD1CLWD2CLWD3

FLK1FLK2FLK3

SBLK1SBLK2

SBLK3


CLK1CLK2CLK3

0

20

40

60

Axi

s 2 (1

1)

0 20 40 60Axis 1 (7733)


minus20

minus20



4 Conclusions







Acknowledgments


References














































Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics



















Acknowledgments


References














































Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics










































Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics














Research Article Land Use and Land Cover Change, and Woody...

Documents

Transcript of Research Article Land Use and Land Cover Change, and Woody...