chapter vii - shodhgangashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/32949/11/11_chapter 7.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
CHAPTER V II
G R O W T H I N R E L A ! 1 0 N
T 0
B I O 1 1 5 F A C T O R S
The biotic factors have since^been considered as
an integral part of the mosaic of factors that control and
influence the growth of a plant species (McDougall 1918).
The biotic factors are important because they w i k as the
directly effecting disjunctive and conductive symbiotic
elements, which influence through association o f species,
pollination, dispersal, competition and parastisim on the
life of a plant species. Clements (1939) stressed » s r the
influence o f biotic factors in three aspects i . e . , •‘action*1
(effect of environment on the organism); "reaction** (effect
of organism on the environment ) and rtco-actionM (mutual
effect between the organisms). In general the biotic factors
have been found effecting the life as also the physical1
surroundings of the plants (Misra 1959), Thus it becomes
rather imperative to study the effect of the various living
organisms (directly or indirectly ) on the plant species*
Owing to the toxic nature o f the white milky
latex present in various plant parts, Buohorbia helioscopia
is rarely giazed by animals though due to their somewhat
diffuse habit the plants are often trampled by man and the
- 153
animals. In addition, becuase of its growth as an unwanted
weed in fields and orchards, it is usually eradicated through
mowing and hand pulling practices. But, as the seeds are the
only means o f propogation, this mechanical eradication
proves effective only during preflowering phase. Eradication
at later stages (flowering or fruiting ) becomes ineffective
as most o f the mature seeds are returned to the soil even
after complete eradication*
Birds have been found to do least damage to the
plants, as they do not seem to have any taste for any of the
plant parts mainly because o f the acrid latex. However, rats
were observed damaging the seed, as under laboratoiy conditions
the seeds kept in open were often eaten away by rats.
The plants are self tBisompatible, as the pollination
in nature is mostly due to flying insects litoe bees, flies,
butterflies and yes& ants. The nectar secreted by the glands
bordering the cyathium forms the chief attraction for these
insects. Two prominent insects namely the green lice (Aphids)
and green moth (Gut worm) have been observed parasitising
the plants. Though the damage cause^by the former is neglegible
the latter insect species has been observed cutting o ff
the entire shoot slightly above the soil at times and mostly
eating away the leaves irrespective o f their size and age
on the plant. The roots of the plant species are often
attacked by nematodes ( Ptylarynchvs %>. ) in damp and
shaded habitats producing innumerable galls on the laterals.
The incidence of the nematode attack is linked with the poor
aeration of the soil. Ealiosome or the o il body used as food
by the ants forms the chief attraction for these insects
to visit the plants. In order to lick away the o il ants
have been observed carrying away the fruits as also the seeds
154 -
from the ground to their respective holes. Late in the
growing season both the seagonal forms o f the plant species
fall pray to rusting disease due to the attack o f Buaomyces
he lioscoplae and Me lams no ra sp. Both the ffcingal plants form
large dark brown to yellow pustules on the leaf surfaces,
more frequently on the lower surface, propcjgating mainly by
te leu to spores. The fungal mycelia form a net woife ramifying
through the intercellular spaces of the leaf mesophylly By
the time the teleutospo res mature, the leaf tissues are
damaged and the leaf growth as also the photo synthetic surface
of the plant reduced. The affected plants 5 riow distinct s i ^ s
of early degeneration under natural conditions of growth. In
the 'summer* form the infection usually starts May onwards
when the plants are at the flowering stage, while in the
•winter* form the attack is most severe during October
to December when the plants are at preflowering stage. Plarits
with and without fUngal infection collected from various
sites were scrutinized for shoot length, average number of
pustules per leaf and the fresh and the dry weight o f the
shoots and the average mean o f 20 readings are set in table 70*
On an average 9 .5 to 10.7 pustules were observed
to occur per leaf surface from the various study sites. As
compared to the uninfected plants the average values for
shoot length, leaf number and the dry weight of the shoot
in diseased plants were observed to be low. The average shoot
length in diseased plants varied from 12.7 to 14 .9 cm in the
•winter* form at various sites as compared to 15.2 to 21 .2 cm
in the healthy plants* The dry weight of the shoot on an
average Varied from 0.412 to 0 .469 gm in the diseased plants
while the values were comparatively higher in the healthy
plants.
- 155 «
Table 70* Effect of rust disease on the growth of
B. helloscooia ( ‘winter’ form).
S. No jstudy site jj&ate o f freight/JNumber o f Jblumoer o f Jury weiglxc fobserva.jj plant jleaves/ Ipustules/tshoot(gm) it ion . Kcm) 8 Plant I plant fi
1. Campus 15 .6 .69 1 2 .7 (1 .2 ? 15(2 .5) 9 .5 (1 .8 ) 0 .412(0 .08)
.d o . 15 .6 .69 15 .2 (2 .1 ) 19(2 .9) 2 0 .586 (0 .12 )
2 . Shalimar 21 .6 .69 14 .6 (2 .7 ) 13(3 .0) 1 0 .2 (1 .5 ) 0 .431 (0 .09 )
-do- 21 .6 .69 15 .8 (3 .2 ) 13(4 .1) - . 0 .592(0.11]
3 . Lal Bagh 12 .7 .69 14 .9 (2 .8 ) 16(3 .5) 1 0 .7 (2 .2 ) 0.469(0.13]
-do. 12 .7 .69 2 1 .2 (3 .9 ) 25 (5 .2 ) » - 0 .875(0 .22)
* ( ) = Standard error
Thus it is evident that the overall growth of the
'winter1 form plants in addition to seed set is hindered
because o f the rust invasion. The ‘ summer1 form plants being
attacked at a very late stage o f growth do not suffer any
damage both ir^erms of growth and seed output.
Under natural conditions o f growth the f"summer*
form plants ;?row well spaced from each other even when forming
pure stands while the 'winter* form plants either occur as
dense stands that are sp*®*d over large areas or in isolated
strips maintaining large or small distances from each other
( P i g 4 2 ) . The 'summer* form plants grow in pure stands during
early phases of growth, which dominate the sites o f their
occurence and prevent the invasion by any other grass or
forb species. The ‘ winter1 form always takes the position
of dominance as in the season of their growth most of the
plant species have already completed their life cycle andUvc
either dried up or died. However, during early spring season
also^the plants of this form dominate the various sites (Fig42).
OOMPSriTIONi
Billings (1957) while reviewing the literature on
competition effects in plants s tat *s that the environmental
and genetic factors are involved during the effect of
competition on survival in times o f stress. He further quotes
n variation in the environmental factors, will determine the
survival of the individuals of the same species of a pure
stand, while the perfectly adapted individuals in mixed
stands will survive in uniform environmental conditions".
Effect of Intra. specific competition on plant growth*
Following experiment was designed to evaluate the
effect of intra-specific competition on the growth performance
of Supho rbia helioscopla.
24 polythelene bags o f 16x12 on size were filled
with garden soil and arranged in two groups o f 12 hags each
for the tw3 seasonal forms. The bags were further arranged
in 4 sets with three jjags per set. Seedlings i*ared from one
year old seeds were transplanted at cotyledonary leaf stage
into the bags according to the following schedule o f densities*
Set No. Number o f plants per bag
1. One
20 Two
3* Bbur
4. Eight plants per bag.
The bags were regularly watered and the plants
were allowed to grow continuously for three months (April to
July ) . Later the plants were extricated from the soil and
scrutinized for Various growth parameters (table 71) fig.
The extent o f growth as measured in terms of shoot
length in the ‘ winter* form was little affected by varying
(*SF = 'summer' form, WF = 'winter' form; ^Significant at
1 percent; ** Significant at 5 percent
)
o
•O 00 CO M • •o o
CO 00
x3 ns *"> © -a ^3CD CD H* >-*4 >1 3 *< SB CDet w Wo ffl c+p-t—1 £3 CDSB C + H *3 05 era C Q CDCtOQ a - 3 H-
CD ct V«0o3*
§ dCD
ctr->- •oM CDCt •o
H*4 {BCD
&
s£ CO s£ So £ co*3 ^ •i
00 00
Ol CO
->J 00 ^ o • •CO 01
o co
s s so o o
/ ' o o • •co co HCJ tJ O
' \ o o
CnCO CO
-O -<1 CO CO • •o o o o
• •
o00
oCO
CO
J-l -O533co Ol
o • •■o 00 00 00 co cn
O CO • •O ) CO£ 8 3
•>3
O H • •cn coH OH Cfc
0>
iS
M :0 • •o o
M te! o O'00 H • •o o
_ I-1 00 H Cn i-j • •o o
01 CO
• •o o
01CO•CO*
o> Ol CO CO
CO00 I-*01 CO • • o o
i $
CO 01 • •CO 00
O l
to1*1
H1 H »-! O l • •00 CO 01
01**1
CO CO Ol CO • •o o
s ; nolari'*1
CO £> I-1 ■ •Ol 00 Ol
►f* CO 00 CO • • o o
coco • •toco
O l
-4 C> • *N>0>
hf CO •9 I-j • •o o
CO w H CO
s h
• •o o
COco • •o J-* 01 &
• •o o
M CO CO 01 • • ~J CO
CO fe • •o o
H co • •-J
CO
1 o
I-1 COo o • •o o
S o *COto oo
H*
T3CD O h * f-3 3 O t - " - 3CD O s '
l-J c+ H j C+ a £13 C t a aSB te * 03 O i~ i tra < SB era erat 3 M c+ c+ CD t—• c+ c tM 4 £T P' CA JT a1SB O cd a aa 5 w p O O V P O oc+S a g H j Mj CD 3
o ' CD O ' 4 crCD a cd O 4 CD cnO 1-J £B x i a"CD << SB M _ o oo w O 3 93 O c t o>-% \ H j o a c t
•o O p r el /■>CA H1 3 o «<“SCD £B w 3 O(S a o 39* c t 3w
»3j * *
CO COsO cn • •00 O l Ol
H CO CJvO CO• • MOl Ol H(-■ Ol
>■4101
H* CO O l H • •00 CO CO CO
H CO CO oo • •CO *-3
O l
H
O l>O tc t o J l-J CD
00 CO CO o CO CD c t• • • • • • sb s ;o o O l f—1 o c t CD>3**
* o * • 3 © cd a 3 c t ca
CO H* Ol(D 00 Ol oo cO CO H* Ol Ol• • • • • • • • • •00 CO ->3 Ol o CO CO CO* * * * ■* * * * ** # * * * * *
CO
%
o3*JTao.CD>4
a
M
oM
oM<
♦d
SBacf w
a>p
£3JB I—1
2s
B(0
COcdctCO
Od o cd
ct
w a>CD
<=ISC
$»aC5CD
4toct
Table
j&
. Effe
ct
of pla
nt
densit
y
on the
gro
wth
behavio
ur
of S.
helio
sooft
fca
Figure 41* Photograph shoving the growth perfo nc€d f S. he llo sco pi a plants sown in different densities'Tn iha various bags*
Figure 42* Photographs showing the gorwth per romance ofI . heliogcoad* plants i» different *srt<si&tion? in nature the various slties*
- 158
density while in the 1 summer* form a marked reduction was
observed in the values with increasing plant density. However,
the roots were most affected by competition in both the seasonal
forms as maximum growth of the roots was observed in set 1,
which contained only one plant per bag. The roots in this set
showed an average length of 44,85 cm and 31,5 cm in the ’winter*
and ’ summer' forms respectively, Although the leaf number
per plant did not bear any correlation with the plant density
yet higher leaf dimensions were attained by the leaf on plants
that were grown under lesser densities in both the forms.
In both the forms the growth o f the branches was hindered under
higher densities though branches ' attained variable lengths
in different densities in the 'winter* form. Maximum seeds set
in both the fbrms was observed in set 1, wfeterre the plants
grow in isolation. Plants attained maximum dry matter in both
the forms when grown free of competition effects.
Statistically the values for root length, branch
length and seed output are highly significant at 1 percent
between the various treatments in both the forms, while the
values for inflorescence number per plant and dry weight of the
plants are highly Significant at 5 percent. The growth o f the
two forms maintains a uniform distinction in the different
treatments and various values for the growth parameters of
the plants are highly significant at 5 percent.
Thus from these computations it can easily be
inferred that plants show a difference in their vegetative
and reproductive growth under different densities, their
being an increase in all the growth values under lower
densities of sowing.
n:
The plant species occurs as a dominant in every
type o f association. Thus in order to evaluate the growth
behaviour of the plant species when growing in association
with other plants, 9 different associations were selected
at the University Campus0 The plants dug out from one square
meter area from each of the associations selected for the
purpose were assessed for the growth of the shoot and root
(table 7 2 ) . In these assessments the growth of the shoot
was not seen to be much influenced by the different plant
species that grew in its association as co-dominants or
as mere intruders at the various sites. However, due to
increased competition effects by other snecies as also
their varying densities, the root extension at different
sites varied a good deal.
Eb r survival and quick colonization of the plant
suecies at the various sites during Various seasons^ $he
combination of usually prompt and complete germination with
high rate of natural seeding as also the fast rate of root
and shoot growth, give an edge to the plant species over the
other species, that start growth slightly late.
Reproductive and vegetative growth:
The plant samples collected from different sites
during the various growth seasons were sorted into, leaf,
root and shoot portions. Later these were even oven dried
for determining the weight of the dry matter. The loss in
weight was expressed as percentage moisture in terms of dry
weight of the plant (table ) .
The average values for fresh weight, dry weight,
percentage moisture and the shoot/root ratio of the plant
vary at the different sites (table 73 ) . However, higher fresh
tm lo 9 •"
Interftspeciflc comT
T a b l e ? tr 0 G r o w t h b e h a v i o u r o f 3 . h e H o s c o p i a i n d i f f e r e n ta s s o c i a t i o n s i n n a t u r e .
$ 7 N o jT L i s t o f ~a s s o c i a t e d l e v e r a g e n u m b e r 1 ' l e n g t h 'Ccnfif p l a n t s p e c i e s j o f p l a n t s / X S h o o t j R o o t„L ____ feq* m. . . 6................... _ ! _ _ ______
1 0 P l a n t a g o l a n e e o l a t a 1 5 . 5 + 1 * 2 2 7 . 2 * 2 . 8 1 3 . 7 + 3 . 0TT a f 5 u o u s n a f a n s 2 .0 * * 2 2 . 5 + 5 , 9 3 1 . 5 + 6 . 2TBuifco r b l a rig l i o s c o o i a 1 2 . 0 2 0 . 4 + 3 . 5 2 9 . 9 + 2 . 72 . a a o s e 1 1 a b u r s a - p a s t o r l s 2 1 . 0 2 9 . 5 + 2 . 9 1 9 . 3 + 4 . 2f f u pfao r b l a ^ E e l l o s c o p l a 1 8 . 0 2 1 . 6 + 3 . 7 2 1 . 5 * 4 . 1i—r i m ‘ni n m iw i— — mm■ ■!»i—— »— wtmmm— n— am ^
3 . S e t a r i a g a l a c u a 1 3 1 . 5 1 1 . 5 + 1 . 9 1 4 . 7 + 3 . 3S . I f e l t o S T O r t a 1 5 . 7 1 5 . 2 * 2 . 9 1 7 . 2 + 1 . 3T l anTTago, l a n c e o l a t a 1 0 . 5 1 2 . 4 * 5 . 7 2 0 . 2 * 4 . 64 C 3. h e l l o s g o p i a 1 5 . 0 1 7 . 2 + 3 . 5 ° 3 . 7 + 5 . 3‘S e f a r l a g a l a c a a 2 4 . 0 1 0 . 3 + 1 . 2 1 2 . 4 * 1 . 7TTcfon i s S D B ' i 4 . 5 3 7 . 5 + 5 . 7 1 8 . 2 * 3 . 9
2 5 . 4 * 2 . 61 3 . 7 * 1 . °2 9 . 1 + 2 . 3Me d i e a g o s a t j v a 7 . 0 1 2 . 2 * 1 . 8P :SgTOt h e c a s p s " 1 3 . 2 1 3 . 5 * 2 . 03 ."“ "Sg l i o s c o p i a 1 5 . 0 2 5 . 5 + 3 . 0
o, P a p a v e r s p s* 3 e T i 0 scopia■R rcara” ?ncata
^ » n 3 ; r o p 0 2 o n ; s p s
4 . 09 . 08 .04 . 05 . 0
3 0 . 2 + 6 . 1 2 5 . 2 * 3 . 8 2 4 . 7 * 2 . 2 4 6 . 2 + 9 . 3 21.4+2.8
3 9 . 2 # - 3 . 5 2 1 , 9 * 2 . 7 1 7 . 5 * 3 . 91 3 . 2 + 9 . 5r u n n e
7 . V e r o n i c a b i l o b ai^r^iioscopir
2 5 . 01 0 . 3 4 5 . 5 + 3 . 72 6 . 5 + 3 . 2 2 4 . 2 * 3 . 52 3 . 7 + 2 . 3
S . h e lio s co ~>i a S y s a mb rT um ~"s p ssmm K . 1Jyjioaon Qc,cty Ion
£?•> he lio scopjaP a I n t a 20 * l a nc eo I s t aj a . 33 ■ > .n c « q ( t T t '"H» . S a n m <' ’ — — ---------* ----------R> a bu Ibo sa
3 . 0 1 1 . 5 4 . 01 7 . 0 1 9 . 33 1 . 0
2 5 . 5 + 3 . 27 9 . 0 * 3 . 61 4 . 0 * 3 . 23 5 . 1 + 2 . 3 2 6 . 2 + 5 . 5 4 3 . 2 + 5 . 6
2 6 . 4 + 4 . 5 2 9 . 4 + 1 . 3 2 0 . 3 + 2 . X2 3 . 4 + 1 . 31 3 . 7 + 2 . 21 3 . 5 * 3 . 9
.UW •'■’as.ia» -tf-t
- 161
and dry matter is produced by the ‘ winter* form at all the
sites as compared to the ‘ summer* form*
gm as at site ]& to a maximum of 4,030 gm as at site 3* Out
of this total minimum fresh weight of 0*368 gm per plant,
0 ,218 , 0*130 and 0.020 gm weight are contributed by shoot,
root and the leaf respectively* &nd out of the maximum fresh
weight of 4*030 gm per plant, the shoot, root and the leaves
contributed 3.680 gm, 0 .187 gm and 0 ,163 gm respectively. In
the ’ winter* form out of the minimum fresh weight o f 2 ,195 gm
per plant (site /7^ 1 ,549 , 0 .430 and 0 .225 gm weight are
contributed by shoot, root and leaf fraction of the plant
respectively. Similarly for the maximum fresh weight of
40 .391 gm per plant (site 1 ), the shoot, root and the leaf
fraction conttlbuted 39,084 gm, 0 .950 gm and 0,357 gm to
the total weight o f the plant,
The net biomass calculated in terms of the dry
weight of the plant varies between a minimum of 0 .190 gm
(site 0 to 0 .915 as, the maximum (site 3 ) . Out o f the total
minimum, the shoot, root and the leaf portion contributed
0.062 gm, 0 .040 gm and 0 .007 gm respectively, while for the
total maximum weight, 0 .834 , 0 .049 and 0.032 gm are
contributed by the shoot, root and the leaf portions of the
plant in 'summer* form. In the * winter* form the totalo • u
biomass in terms varies between 0.-494 gm as the minimum
on dry weight basis.
In the 'summer* form maximum shoot/raot ratio
(1 7 .0 ) on dry weight basis is attained at site 3, while in
the 'winter* form the maximum shoot/root ratio of 24 .7 is
In the 'summer* form the average fresh weight
accumulated by the plant varies between a minimum of i>^368'
(at site Jk) to 9 .982 gm as the maximum plant,
- 162 -
attained at site 1,
Total net productivity in relation to growth*
For estimating the total above and under groundp
production for the two seasonal forms fifty 1 m' quadrats
were laid at random at the various preselected sites and an
estimate of the number of plants of the two seasonal forms
in one square meter area was made alongwith the total
number of fruits produced. Monoliths were extricated from
the quadrat sites and after washing away the soil the plants
were sorted into root (under ground) and shoot (above ground)
portions which were dried in an electirc oven to a constant
weight for estimating the dry matter production (table )*
The average density of the 'winter* form varied from
8 .7 plants per quadrat as minimum at site 4 to the maximum
of 29 .35 plants per quadrat at site 11, while in the 'summer*
form the density values varied between a minimum of 9 plants
per quadrat at site 10 to 35 plants per quadrat at site) 3
as the maximum. The values for the reproductive productivity
as measured in terms of total seed out put per quadrat
fluctuated between a minimum of 2205 as minimum at site 3
to 15950 seeds per quadrat as maximum at site 10 in the
•winter* form while the value estimated for the 'summer form
ranged between a minimum of 135 at site 10 to 7484 as
maximum at site 3* The values point to the fact that the
reproductive productivity does not bear any direct correlation
with the plant density at the various sites and is entirely
a function of the plant.
Maximum values for dry natter production of the
under ground parts (4,27lgm per quadrat ) are obtained at
site I in the 'wintetr* form and (2 ,2 7 | gm per quadrat )
are obtained
- 163 -
at site 2 in the 1 summer’ form. The values for above ground
productivity vary between 87*257 gm dry weight per quadrat
and 29.190 gm dry weight per quadrat (site 1 and 4 ) in the
•winter* and ’ summer’ forms respectively as the maximum,
contributed by the shoots. Thus it becomes apparent from
these estimations that the diy matter production bears a direct
correlation with the extent of the vegetative growth of the
plant as si ss ted by the density per unit area*
For the total under ground productivity per
quadrat (a ll the plant species growing therein) 29.457 gm
dry weight at site 10 (0.600 gm ) are contributed by the
•summer’ form plants o f B. heliosoopla. Out of 62.472 gm
dry weight as the maximum contributed by the shoots of a n
the plants per quadrat at site 4, 29.190 gm are contributed
by the shoots of the 'summer’ form*
Thus the average density values workout to be
higher for the 'summer' form while the total productivity
per unit a r e a (reproductive as also the vegetative ) is
considerably higher in the 'winter’ form. This accounts
for the higher survival value and better vegetative growth
of the 'winter' form plants under natural as well as
cultural growth as compared to the ’ summer' form that flower
and fruit immediately after the climatic conditions are
favourable in ^pril to May, due to which the vegetative life
span in this olant form is cut very short.
•s
um
me
r1 fo
rm,
WP =
'win
ter*
fo
rm)
COoo
top-
£aaft4JMOrial•i
CO•4»4
e
COo
*82
CD cn 00 M Hp » • o • •
nj tn f CO 03 o c!S5 33 05 cr CJ 33 C33 ‘i M C3 3 H-
8 P3 tot—* H*
£15B ®
4 3 05 s e 01 :-jCD OQ 05 i—* Ti3
c r r->05 ct^ 2
CO I **3
1 CO1*3
COi*=3
i cq 1*1
, COl**a
H ^ CO M M N M H CO CO kO :o (-> HOi O D O'i Ol •O co ~0 (-> oo cn I-1 CO CO Oi• • * • a • • • • • • • • • • •c o o
8 °COO c o o c n O - J O o o H O
•O M • •Ol Ol -J l-lV 6
CD CO • •COO
!_iO
C'O CO • •H O
U
CO • •CO f-J CD 00
CD I—* • •O H H CD 1+ '+l_j O
HOl rf!> a oCTj O1 + ^COOA ft
oo to coc-o 05 CD 00 Ol cn oo w w-JCO
c o o H OA #O O O O )_ iO C’O O ■ A
h * £ >O CO
S 3 • •00 H
S f eu s • •cnco • •H H*’S ' i • •H O
H
CO ^0
'6 'S• O00 O H
Ol CD d HB S . »00 CO1356000
168.015950
3005440 CO 00 00 H £ < o
713.02550 a'- -n3K f e
O Ol
CO o
S3&
'4'<J• a00 H
C* CO • •CO ^ .01 ^
S 'S • *CD 00
COM CO C j O
CO CD
• •CO G>
Ol CD 00 00
• aH CO
-O CO • •o o1+J**? * 6cD»
o>
fe;
J-J H-1O l CO o •O CO
H ^ • •CD Ol
iX) i—‘ • •tt* Oi
t -1 COo*• Ol CD
COCD »js>
aH CO
1+1+ CO o • • Ol 00
O M o •(fs- 00
00 DO
<y> oo h w
H^ CO
H H • •cD -O COJH
• *CO CO
M M -J CD • •C O i—1
so • •^ CT>
X) CO • •CD -<1 -0 00
0 •01 cn
i£> H Ol CO
x •• Ol 01 >£»• COI+
1+ 0J J O * ,
cn
H H Oi ~sl • »H O
00 (£■ • •CO 00
ai co *=9 *53
H Hg S£ . 01 ® O
t—1 • •lO tO -O vD
'4 '3 • •00 CO CO 03
u>•o -Da •CO £01 05
• •CD H
•o1+H
-.0* (£> CO
(■) cttO.SJ
; u
0)
Hi&G Jr-*0)
-a h-1IttDc rCO
133c t
H-«3M5CD
0>ac t
COc t
£Q j
'.0H*CtCD
W•
<D
d3P-£QcrH*<3co
&3Lii
<CD
•rDcrO ’:
c t
CO
3
poc+H*<H*ct"C
^ 3'
k-
I co
H*O7)acoH*■ fB
COCD
VIU
r~v Q ■ i3 wN . /
Table 74 . Data fo r tha Importance value in d ic ie 1Ks o f the d i f f e r e n t a s s o c ia te s
o f a . h e lio scooja (se a so n a l forms) at d i f fe r e n t study s i t e s .
S.No0 Name o f the____i,plant .spasiqg. F i — r ~ fi
i .
2 0
3 .
4.
5 .
6 .
7 .
8*
9.
10. 11. 12.1 3 .
14 .
1 5 .
16 .
1 7 .
1 3 .
Amar&nthus q/jj^crytg.
Androspogon 16 .9
A n agaH is a rv e n s is
A rab ld op sis
Artem asia vulgare
A plum
lUlasr
1.8
2 .5
0.2
6 .9
0 .5
4 .5
3 .2
I tA -* -
0.8
2 .3
0 .5
4 .0
1 . 7
10.2 0.8
3 .2
6.2
1 . 4
3 .9
0 .9
4 .2
3 . 1
1.2
5 .2
m
2.2
20.0
3 .7
1 . 9
1 5 .7
1.2
7 . 1
wm
0 . 3
1 2 .4
6 . 8
21.2
1.2
2 .9
4 . 9
Bothreochjtoa 7 . 9 - mm 2 . 8 1 1 . 7 4 . 9 - 5 . 7 mm 2 . 6
Brassica compestris 3 . 8 4 . 1 1 . 5 1 . 7 1 . 2 2 . 5 0 . 8 0 . 7 2 . 8 2 . 8
Broraus scoparius 1 . 5 5 4 . 6 9 . 3 Ml 2 . 4 - 4 . 2 6 . 8 - 6 . 9
Carduous crisp u s 1 . 3 1 . 7 4 . 5 5 . 1 - 2 . 9 3 . 7 2 . 9 - 4 . 7
Carthamus t in e t o m s 2 . 5 1 . 7 - - 0 . 4 wm- 0 . 3 0 . 8 - -
C ap salla b u r sa .p a s to ris 5 . 1 2 . 1 1 . 0 0 . 8 - 2 . 2 3 . 7 4 . 5 1 . 2 1 . 7 2 . 6
Cichorium intybus 4 . 2 1 . 8 - mm 1 . 1 2 . 1 - 1 . 3 - 1 . 7
Convolvulous arvensis 2 . 9 - 1 . 5 mm 2 . 9 0 . 4 - - wm 1 . 0
Ceratocephalus fa lcatus 0 . 2 - mm 0 . 2 - - - - -
Cy,t>3don dactylon 1 5 . 2 1 2 . 9 1 2 . 3 2 0 . 4 5 . 1 1 3 . 4 wm 1 2 . 5 7 O1 O ^ 1 4 . 2
Dacus carotus 1 . 2 1 . 5 0 . 2 0 . 4 0 . 6 - ■■ 1 . 0 - -
19 . Di c ant hium a nnu la turn 15.9 12.2 10.0 6.2 2.7 4.7 5 .1 8.0 2.8 4.520. Erogeron fa lc a tu a 1 .3 - - 2.6 1 . 2 • 0.3 0.42a. E*yangium 0.2 1 . 3 0 .5 » 2 .1 0.8 0.6 mm
22. Euphorbia h e lio scopia(SF) 16 .2 1 3 . 7 2 1 .9 36 .5 2 3 .2 3 1 . 1 19 .4 12 .7 2 5 .2 35 .72 3 . Euphorbia h e lio scopia fw F } 2 1 . 1 1 5 .2 1 3 .8 14 .7 21.2 12.2 15 .6 10*0 3.5.8 21.824. rb£a enjodi 6 . 1 1 . 2 - - 3 .5 1 . 4 1.0 2 .925 . Euphorbia peplus 5 .2 - 2 .1 1 . 8 0 .5 Mi
26. Pumaria p a r v i f lo r a 0 .4 - 0.6 .. 1 . 0 1.2 2 .427 . Heramiun a co n it ifo liu m 0.3 0 .4 0.6 1.2 _ 0 .523 . Oalium aparine 0.1 0.2 wm - 0 .3 Ml 0 . 1 0 .529 . Gnophalium pultoinatum 1 . 2 - vu cs «. 1.2 0.2 wm
30. Hypericum perforatum 1.8 - wm 2.2 Mi 0.2 p. mm M
3 1 . I r t s- - 5 .2 - wm M. wm Ml
32 . K o elp in ia 4 . 1 - - - 1 . 8 0 .9 0.233 . lo tu s c a ra ic u la tu s 4 .2 - 0.9 10.2 5 . 1 1 . 2 2 .7 7 .9 5 .4 4 .234 . Lycopsis a rv e n s is - mm 1 . 8 - 2 .7 - .. wm 0 .335. Marrutoium toulgare 1 . 2 wm m 2 .1 _ 0.8 wm m 0 .436. Medicago d en ticu la ts 1 3 . 1 1 1 . 5 20.2 1 5 .9 7 . 4 3 .2 5 .7 6 .5 1 1 . 4 8.237. Medicaao fa lc a t a 4 .2 5 . 1 - 3 .7 2 .9 1 . 5 mm 5 .2 4 .738. M lig a g o s a t jv a 1 1 . 1 6 .5 1 2 .2 2 .9 3 .2 5 .9 1 0 . 1 5 .0 4 .3 3 .639. O x a iis a c e to s e l la 1 . 4 2 . 1 ~ _ 3 .8 2 .240. JSimSier dutjjyyg 0 .2 0 .3 - _ •» 0.2 o . l Ml
4 1 .
4 2 .
Poa bulbosa 1 . 2 2 . 1 1 3 .2 1 1 . 1 2.0 0 . 3 3 .5 4 .7 2 .5 4 .2
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
43.
49.
50.
5 1 .
5 3 .
54 .
5 5 .
56 .
5 7 .
58.
59,
60.
6 1 .
32. 6 3 .
Fo lygonum p ie toe gum
Po t t e n t i l a , reptans
Pheleum pratense
Plant a go lanceo la ta
Plant ago ma.jao r
Ranunculii s m c jc a tu s
Rubus 6^ *
S alv ia mo rcroftjana
Set aria g lauca
Sisymbrium as x i llare
Stella rja media
So rghum toulgare
So lanum nig ram
Taraxcum o f f c in a l e
Trigone 11a
T u lipa st e l l a t a
Verba scum thaspus
V lc ia s a t jv a
Veron ica ag re st i s
'Veronica an a g a l j g
Vu lp ia myuros
2.8 •2 . 1
3 . 2 - 1 . 1
5 . 1 1 . 2 1 . 7
1 7 . 1 1 3 . 2 1 5 . 7
CM.10 2 . 3 4 . 9
1 . 2 - 2 . 2
5 . 3 6 . 6 -
5 . 1 2 . 5 1 . 2
2 . 2 4 . 5 5 . 7
oO
- 0 . 8
0 . 3 1 . 2 -
9 . 7 4 . 8 3 . 2
2 . 0 - -
3 . 1 0 . 3 2 . 2
- - 0 . 5
2 . 5 1 . 7 -
- - 4 . 9
o . 4 - 1 0 . 1
0 . 4 - 0 . 1
3 . 2 2 . 3 0 . 2
- 1 . 0 -
I—1 •
3
3 . 2 1 5 .
0 . 8
1.0
2 4 .2
1 7 .2 2 .7
wm
1 . 5
2 .1
0.2
2.8
2 .9
4 .2
1 5 .2
2 .4
1.8
2 .7
4 .2
Mi
4 . 1
0.2
1 . 5
5 .7
1.2
1 . 5
■3.7
4 . 1
2.2
3 .2
10 .7
1 1 . 5
0.2
2 .9
9 .7
1 1 . 9
1 2 . 3
1 5 .2
2 . 2
0 .4
6 .8
0 .8
2.8
3 .0
7 .6
1.1
5 .4
1 . 5
4 .2
2 .5 0 .7
1 1 . 5 7 . 5 2 .8
1.1
2 .5 3 . 3
wm ** ^
1 2 . 3 10 .4 7 ,6
3 .4
1 4 . 3
2 .5
4.6
3 .9
0.6
4 .8
0 .4
2.6
0.9
0 .9
6.2
1.2
11.5