<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJE</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Ecology</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2162-1985</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/oje.2023.1310046</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJE-128723</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Earth&amp;Environmental Sciences</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Tree Species Diversity and Edaphic Factors Associated with Different Land Uses in Tropical Forest Ecosystems, Tanzania
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>George</surname><given-names>B. Bulenga</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Salim</surname><given-names>M. S. Maliondo</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Josiah</surname><given-names>Z. Katani</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gert</surname><given-names>Nyberg</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>4</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Research and Publication, Tanzania Research and Conservation Organization (TRCO), Morogoro, Tanzania</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff4"><addr-line>Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Ume&amp;amp;#229;, Sweden</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Department of Forest Resources Assessment and Management, Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA), Chuo Kikuu, Tanzania</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Department of Ecosystems and Conservation, Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA), Chuo Kikuu, Tanzania</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>17</day><month>10</month><year>2023</year></pub-date><volume>13</volume><issue>10</issue><fpage>759</fpage><lpage>772</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>7,</day>	<month>July</month>	<year>2023</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>28,</day>	<month>October</month>	<year>2023</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>31,</day>	<month>October</month>	<year>2023</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  It has been reported that changes to miombo woodland ecosystems through conversion to other land uses alter tree species diversity and soil properties. The aim was to assess whether the Important Value Index (IVI), Shannon- Wiener diversity index (
  <em>H'</em>), and soil chemical properties differ between land uses in the Kibutuka miombo woodland ecosystem. IVI and 
  <em>H'</em> were used to indicate tree species dominance and diversity. Statistical analyses were performed in R software. IVI of 
  <em>Brachystegia</em> was significantly (
  <em>p</em> &lt; 0.05) higher in the intact forest than in the combined land uses, while tree species of the genera 
  <em>Combretum</em>, 
  <em>Milletia</em>, and 
  <em>Diplorhynchus</em> had significantly (
  <em>p</em> &lt; 0.05) higher IVI in combined land uses than in the intact forest. The intact forest had significantly (
  <em>p</em> &lt; 0.05) higher diversity than the degraded and agricultural lands. The intact forest had significantly (
  <em>p</em> &lt; 0.05) higher soil Ca
  <sup>2+</sup>, K
  <sup>+</sup>, and Na
  <sup>+</sup> than combined land uses. Soil C, N, and P were significantly (
  <em>p</em> &lt; 0.05) higher in intact forests than in the degraded forest. Degradation seen at a landscape scale for vegetation parameters, but not for soil parameters, indicates that the land use change taking place in the Kibutuka miombo woodland ecosystem is recent and the degradation seen in vegetation is still not reflected in the soil properties.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Degradation</kwd><kwd> Dominance</kwd><kwd> Miombo Woodlands</kwd><kwd> Soil Chemical Properties</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Deforestation and forest degradation are expanding rapidly in the miombo woodlands of Sub-Saharan Africa. This contributes to global environmental challenges, such as biodiversity loss and climate change [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref1">1</xref>] . It also seriously affects the provision of several ecosystem services, thereby influencing local livelihoods. Increase in population, demand for forest products and services, agricultural expansion, and wood extraction for energy [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref2">2</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref3">3</xref>] are some of the major factors increasing the problem by affecting ecosystem processes and functions. In Tanzania, the total annual loss of forest and woodlands is approximately 372,871 ha [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref4">4</xref>] .</p><p>Several studies have revealed that miombo woodlands display local variation in abundance and species diversity, mainly influenced by past and present land use and edaphic factors [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref5">5</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref6">6</xref>] . The presence of tree species in the genera Brachystegia, Julbernardia, and/or Isoberlinia indicates a forest that is typical of miombo woodland [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref7">7</xref>] . Degraded miombo woodlands are often dominated by Combretum species [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref8">8</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref10">10</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref11">11</xref>] . The majority of studies have been undertaken in intact miombo woodlands only by assessing their vegetation structures, yet most miombo woodlands are affected by human disturbance [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref12">12</xref>] , leading to changes in their vegetation structure and soil properties, especially soil organic matter [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref13">13</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref14">14</xref>] . In addition, considering the land uses of specific sites, the species diversity and soil chemical properties will always be different [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref15">15</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref16">16</xref>] . Understanding the impact of land use changes on tree species diversity and soil chemical properties in tropical forests, especially the miombo woodland ecosystems, is important. Berihu et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref17">17</xref>] reported huge losses in soil carbon, soil nitrogen, and other nutrients when the forest was converted to other land use in the drylands of Ethiopia. In another study in Cameroon, Tellen and Yerima [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref18">18</xref>] reported significant reductions in silt content, moisture content, organic matter, organic carbon, total nitrogen, available phosphorus, pH, cation exchange capacity, and exchangeable bases, but increased bulk density, electrical conductivity, and exchangeable acidity after conversion of natural forest or savanna to farmland.</p><p>By studying a miombo woodland of southeastern Tanzania stratified into three land uses, namely intact forest (with very minor or no human activity), degraded forest (with cutting of valuable tree species), and agricultural land (with ongoing agricultural activities or fallow), we aim to fill knowledge gaps concerning vegetation and soil chemical degradation. The aim was to assess whether the Important Value Index (IVI), Shannon-Wiener diversity index (H'), and soil chemical properties differ between land uses in the Kibutuka miombo woodland ecosystem. Therefore, this study provides new data on tree species dominance, diversity, and soil chemical properties in the Kibutuka miombo woodland ecosystem in Tanzania, which is undergoing rapid conversion to sesame cultivation.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Methods</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Description of Study Site</title><p>This study was conducted in the Kibutuka division, in Liwale district, Lindi region, Tanzania (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref> upper left). The Kibutuka miombo woodland ecosystem is found within six villages: Kibutuka, Ngumbu, Kitogoro, Kiangara, Kiperere,</p><p>and Mirui (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref> right). The altitude of the Liwale district ranges from 300 to 600 m.a.s.l and it lies between 36˚50' and 38˚48'E, 8˚ and 10˚50'S. The climate of Liwale district is influenced by south-easterly winds in the middle of the year and north-easterly winds at the turn of the year. The temperature ranges from 20˚C to 30˚C and the average is 25˚C over the year. The rainfall pattern is unimodal, with the wetter season starting in mid-November and lasting until mid-April, and a dry season from June to October [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref19">19</xref>] . According to the Mtwara weather station, the annual rainfall for Liwale ranges from 600 mm to 900 mm. Vegetation is characterized by miombo woodland and the predominant genera are Brachystegia and Julbernardia, which reach a height of 15 - 20 m, while most of the trees are understory species, 5 - 10 m tall, e.g. Diplorhynchus condylocarpon (M&#252;ll. Arg.), Combretum molle (R. Br. ex G. Don) and Combretum zeyheri (Sond.). The soils of Liwale are mainly deep sandy clay soils [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref20">20</xref>] . Several studies have revealed that the soils of the miombo woodlands are generally leached, sandy, and poor in nutrients [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref8">8</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Sampling Design</title><p>The National Forest Resource Monitoring and Assessment (NAFORMA) exercise conducted between 2009 and 2013 established a number of sampling clusters in the Liwale district, which are characterized by miombo woodlands. During this study, four NAFORMA clusters found in the study area were used, and seven clusters were added in order to improve the reliability of the estimates. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref> shows the old NAFORMA clusters (yellow in color) and new clusters (black in color) in the Kibutuka miombo woodland ecosystem. Each cluster comprised 10 circular plots of 15 m radius spaced at an interval of 250 m (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>(a)). Five plots were located in a south to north transect while the other five plots were located west to east. In this study, only three plots in each cluster (plots 4, 7, and 10) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>(a)) were chosen systematically for data collection, making a total of 33 plots. These plots were later categorized into three land uses (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). In each plot, three sub-plots were demarcated at an interval of 5 m from the plot center (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>(b)) and slope correction was considered during plot layout.</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Distribution of plots in different land use types in the Kibutuka miombo woodland ecosystem</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Land use type</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number of plots</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Intact forest (with very minor or no anthropogenic activities)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Degraded forest (with cutting of valuable tree species)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Agricultural land (with ongoing agricultural activities or fallow)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >All land uses combined (at a landscape scale)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Data Collection</title><p>A hand-held GPS (Map76cx) was used to record the geographical location and altitude of each plot. In each sampling plot, we used the NAFORMA protocol, in which four points located systematically at the main cardinal points of the compass (north, south, east, and west) were identified. A soil mini-pit was excavated at each point to 20 cm depth with at least one vertical surface that was used for volumetric soil sampling. The collected soil samples were placed into a clearly labeled paper bag to create a composite sample. The total weight of the soil sample was measured using a digital weighing scale to the nearest gram. In each sub-plot, all plant species with Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) ≥ 5 cm were measured, counted, and identified by their botanical names. If plants could not be identified in the field, voucher specimens were collected and then identified in the Tanzania National Herbarium. We used the measurement criteria shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>.</p></sec><sec id="s2_4"><title>2.4. Data Analysis</title><p>Tree species diversity measurements were calculated using the following formula: Importance Value Index (IVI) = Relative density + Relative frequency + Relative dominance. The IVI is commonly used in ecological studies to indicate the ecological importance of a tree species in a given ecosystem [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref21">21</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref22">22</xref>] . Munishi et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref23">23</xref>] concluded that dominance in terms of IVI is a good parameter to use as it gives an indication of species that are important elements of the miombo. Density = Number of species/Total area sampled while Relative density = Density of a species/Total density of all species &#215; 100. Frequency = Area of plots in which a species occurs/Total area sampled while Relative frequency = Frequency of a species/Total frequency of all species &#215; 100. Dominance = Total basal area of a species/Total area sampled while Relative dominance = Dominance of a species/Total dominance of all species &#215; 100.</p><p>Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) in R software version 3.5.1 was used to compare IVI of tree species in different land use types [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref24">24</xref>] . Differences were considered</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> DBH measurements within a sample plot</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Plot radius (m)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Tree DBH (cm)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 ≥ DBH ≤ 10</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 &gt; DBH ≤ 20</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >DBH &gt; 20</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>to be statistically different when p ≤ 0.05. Tree species richness was estimated as the number of tree species found in the 0.071 ha plot (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref> right, i.e. 15 m radius = 15 &#215; 15 &#215; 3.14/10,000 = 0.071 ha) in each land use type for the 33 sampled plots. The Shannon Wiener diversity index was computed as H ′ = − ∑ i = 1 s ( p i ) ( ln p i ) where Pi = ni/N (ni = the number of individuals in a single species i, N = the total number of individuals in the community for all species), H' = the Shannon-Wiener diversity index. A larger value of H' indicates greater species diversity and vice versa. The index considers both species richness (the number of different species present in a community) and species evenness or dominance [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref25">25</xref>] .</p><p>Air-dried soil samples were passed through a 2 mm sieve to remove stones, gravel, and fine and coarse roots. Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) was determined by the Walkley-Black dichromate wet oxidation method, Total Nitrogen (TN) content was determined using the Micro-Kjeldahl method, while available Phosphorus (P) was determined by the Bray P-1 method. Calcium (Ca<sup>2+</sup>) and magnesium (Mg<sup>2+</sup>) were determined using an Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (AAS) while sodium (Na<sup>+</sup>) and potassium (K<sup>+</sup>) were determined using a Flame Emission Spectrophotometer (FES). After extraction of exchangeable bases, the residual soil was washed with ethanol and then the remaining ammonium ions ( NH 4 + ) were extracted with 10% Sodium chloride (NaCl) for determination of CEC by titration [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref26">26</xref>] . Soil pH was measured using a Beckman’s glass electrode pH meter after 10 g of the soil sample was suspended in 25 mL distilled water (1:2.5 ratio of soil to water). Pairwise t-tests were used to compare importance value indices, Shannon-Wiener diversity indices, and soil properties between intact forest, degraded forest, agricultural land, and combined land uses in R software version 3.5.1 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref24">24</xref>] with p ≤ 0.05 considered significant.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Dominant Tree Species in Terms of IVI in Different Land Use Types in the Kibutuka Miombo Woodland Ecosystem</title><p>The most dominant tree species based on IVI in the different land use types are shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>. The IVI for typical miombo woodland tree species from the genus Brachystegia was significantly (p &lt; 0.05) higher in the intact forest than in the combined land uses, while the IVIs for tree species in the genera Combretum, Milletia, and Diplorhynchus were significantly (p &lt; 0.05) higher in the combined land uses than in the intact forest.</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Tree species dominance in terms of IVI compared between intact forest and degraded forest, agricultural land, and combined land uses in the Kibutuka miombo woodland ecosystem</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Dominant tree species</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Intact forest</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Degraded forest</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Significance</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Agricultural land</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Significance</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Combined land uses</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Significance</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Combretum molle</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Combretum zeyheri</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Brachystegia boehmii (Taub.)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Diplorhynchus condylocarpon</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Milletia stuhlmannii (Taub.)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Brachystegia speciformis (Benth.)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Combretum collinum (Fresen.)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Markhamia obtusifolia (Baker)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Combretum binderianum (Kotschy)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Other species</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >58.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>***Significant at p &lt; 0.001, **Significant at p &lt; 0.01, *Significant at p &lt; 0.05 and NS: Not Significant.</p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Tree Species Diversity in Different Land Use Types in the Kibutuka Miombo Woodland Ecosystem</title><p>The Shannon-Wiener diversity indices associated with the different land uses are shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>. Intact forest is significantly (p &lt; 0.05) more diverse than degraded forest and agricultural land. At landscape level (combined land uses), the Shannon-Wiener diversity index was significantly (p &lt; 0.05) higher than for intact forest.</p></sec><sec id="s3_3"><title>3.3. Soil Chemical Properties in Different Land Use Types in the Kibutuka Miombo Woodland Ecosystem</title><p>The mean values and significant differences between soil chemical properties associated with different land uses are presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>. All soil chemical properties except Mg<sup>2+</sup> and soil pH were significantly (p &lt; 0.05) higher in intact forests compared to degraded forest and agricultural land. In the combined land uses, Ca<sup>2+</sup>, K<sup>+</sup>, and Na<sup>+</sup> were significantly (p &lt; 0.05) different from intact forest.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><sec id="s4_1"><title>4.1. Tree Species Dominance</title><p>The genera Combretum, Brachystegia, and Diplorhynchus were the dominant tree species in the Kibutuka miombo woodland ecosystem (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>). This study suggests that the most important tree species in intact miombo woodlands (the genera Brachystegia, Julbernadia, and/or Isoberlinia) are declining due to ongoing human pressure in the Liwale district. This indicates that the Kibutuka miombo woodland ecosystem is currently being degraded due to clearing woodlands for agricultural (sesame) cultivation and as a source of energy. A major proportion of this degradation of Brachystegia and Julbernadia in this ecosystem</p><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Tree species richness and Shannon-Wiener diversity indices compared between intact forest and degraded forest, agricultural land, and combined land uses in the Kibutuka miombo woodland ecosystem</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Land use categories</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Tree species richness</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >H'</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Significance</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Intact forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Degraded forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Agricultural land</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Combined land uses</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >102</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>***Significant at p &lt; 0.001, **Significant at p &lt; 0.01, *Significant at p &lt; 0.05 and NS: Not Significant.</p><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Mean values of soil chemical properties compared between intact forest and degraded forest, agricultural land, and combined land uses in the Kibutuka miombo woodland ecosystem</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Soil properties</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Intact forest</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Degraded forest</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Significance</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Agricultural land</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Significance</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Combined land uses</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Significance</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >SOC (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.98</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.82</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total N (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >P (mg·kg<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.98</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CEC (cmol·kg<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.73</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ca<sup>2+</sup> (cmol·kg<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.93</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.38</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mg<sup>2+</sup> (cmol·kg<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.68</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >K<sup>+</sup> (cmol·kg<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.73</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Na<sup>+</sup> (cmol·kg<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >pH in H<sub>2</sub>O</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.99</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.86</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.94</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>***Significant at p &lt; 0.001, **Significant at p &lt; 0.01, *Significant at p &lt; 0.05 and NS: Not Significant.</p><p>is due to their use as firewood, poles, timber, and charcoal production. Furthermore, these tree species are known to have low recovery rates after major disturbances because of their poor dispersal ability and short-lived seeds [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref27">27</xref>] .</p><p>In this study, tree species in the genera Combretum and Diplorhynchus were found to dominate both degraded woodlands and agricultural land. The results of this study are similar to those reported by other scholars, namely that dominance of Combretum species often characterizes areas with high land use pressure, where the species becomes the fastest growing and most dominant trees in the early stages of succession [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref8">8</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref10">10</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref11">11</xref>] . Furthermore, Ribeiro et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref28">28</xref>] and Ryan and Williams [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref9">9</xref>] reported that Combretum species tend to occupy more disturbed areas. In this study, agricultural land included fallow areas, where tree species in the genera Combretum and Diplorhynchus were found to dominate (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>). The dominance of tree species of Combretum, Milletia, and Diplorhynchus in combined land uses indicates that the vegetation of the Kibutuka miombo woodland ecosystem is degrading.</p></sec><sec id="s4_2"><title>4.2. Tree Species Diversity</title><p>In general, the Kibutuka miombo woodland ecosystem has high tree species diversity. An ecosystem with a value of H' greater than 2 is regarded as having an intermediate to high species diversity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref27">27</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref29">29</xref>] . The high species diversity in the Kibutuka miombo woodland ecosystem may be due to the presence of riverine vegetation, as one-third of our survey plots were close to rivers or streams. In addition, it may be due to the high tree species richness in intact forests and the dominant Combretum, Milletia, and Diplorhynchus species found in degraded forests and agricultural land. The tree species diversity recorded in this study is relatively high but within the range of other miombo woodlands in Tanzania (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref>).</p><p>A study by Malimbwi et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref30">30</xref>] revealed that among the environmental factors, human-induced disturbances such as charcoal production, honey collection, illegal tree harvesting, agricultural activities, shifting cultivation, and grazing, together affect plant diversity. Giliba et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref27">27</xref>] also reported that climatic and edaphic variability and anthropogenic activities are other factors associated with differences in species diversity in any forest ecosystem.</p><p>All the previous studies listed in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref> were mainly conducted in intact forests. Their Shannon Wiener diversity indices are greater than 2, representing the threshold for “medium to high” tree species diversity in the miombo woodlands of Tanzania. However, in this study (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>), even the degraded forest and agricultural land including fallow (with scattered trees) had Shannon-Wiener diversity indices greater than 2, indicating high tree species diversity. Therefore, studying tree species diversity in miombo woodland ecosystems, degraded and agricultural lands, and/or fallow requires further investigation.</p><table-wrap id="table6" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref></label><caption><title> Tree species diversity in the Kibutuka miombo woodland ecosystem in comparison to other studies of miombo woodland ecosystems in Tanzania</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Source</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Species richness</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Shannon-Wiener diversity index</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >This study (2023)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >102</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.06</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nkonoki and Msuya [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref31">31</xref>]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >95</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.17</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Giliba et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref27">27</xref>]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >110</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.27</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mwakalukwa et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref15">15</xref>]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.44</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mbwambo [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref32">32</xref>]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.44</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Christoganus [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref33">33</xref>]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.09</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Njana [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref34">34</xref>]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >82</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.40</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mafupa [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref35">35</xref>]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.90</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mohamed [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref36">36</xref>]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.10</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Jew et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref11">11</xref>]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.44</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Chamshama et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref7">7</xref>]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >102</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.10 to 3.30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nduwamungu [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref37">37</xref>]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.26 to 3.79</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Zahabu [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref38">38</xref>]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.90 to 3.10</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec><sec id="s4_3"><title>4.3. Soil Chemical Properties</title><p>All values of soil chemical properties associated with all land use (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>) were found within the normal range. Land use history helps to explain soil degradation due to land use change [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref16">16</xref>] . However, degradation of soil chemical properties may take more time to manifest than changes in land use and vegetation cover. The Kibutuka miombo woodland ecosystem had soils with pH values within the normal range in all land uses (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>) and similar to the value of 5.68 recorded by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref39">39</xref>] at Angai miombo woodland in the same district. The majority of soils in the tropics and sub-tropics are slightly acidic and have a mean pH value of 5.9, which is favorable for the growth of plants [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref40">40</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref41">41</xref>] . The study by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref39">39</xref>] found that soils in the Angai miombo woodland are clayey and more fertile, which is similar to the findings of the current study. Rennestad and Gassesse [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref42">42</xref>] reported that nutrient levels in intact miombo woodlands and adjacent recently cultivated land (which includes a few trees) did not differ significantly, indicating that recent degradation has not caused changes in soil chemical properties. On the other hand, Berhu et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref17">17</xref>] reported huge losses of soil carbon, soil nitrogen, and other nutrients when the forest was converted to other land uses in drylands in Ethiopia. In another study in Cameroon, Tellen and Yerima [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128723-ref18">18</xref>] reported significant reductions in silt content, moisture content, organic matter, organic carbon, total nitrogen, available phosphorus, pH, cation exchange capacity, and exchangeable bases, but increased bulk density, electrical conductivity, and exchangeable acidity after conversion of natural forest or savanna to farmland.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>In the intact forests, Brachystegia spp. dominates, whilst at a landscape level, the most dominant tree species are from the genera Combretum, Milletia, and Diplorhynchus. This indicates that vegetation in the Kibutuka miombo woodland ecosystem is degrading due to ongoing land use change. However, the soils in the Kibutuka miombo woodland are not degraded despite the land use change taking place. This could indicate that the land use change or degradation is recent or mild. We conclude that, with about one-third of the landscape remaining as intact forest, one-third as degraded forest, and the remaining one-third (and expanding) as agricultural land, there is vegetation degradation at the landscape level. Furthermore, the degradation seen in vegetation at the landscape scale is not yet reflected in the soil’s chemical properties. Further degradation and increased land use change (deforestation) will probably be associated with soil degradation.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>This study was funded by the Biodiversity Project through Sokoine University of Agriculture, College of Forestry, Wildlife, and Tourism in the Department of Forest Resources Assessment and Management. Special thanks go to Liwale District Natural Resources Officer, Mr. Damas for his consultation with the village leaders in the Kibutuka division and for paving the way for data collection.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Funding</title><p>This study was financed by the Swedish Research Council, Grant No. SWE-2012-125.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s9"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Bulenga, G.B., Maliondo, S.M.S., Katani, J.Z. and Nyberg, G. (2023) Tree Species Diversity and Edaphic Factors Associated with Different Land Uses in Tropical Forest Ecosystems, Tanzania. Open Journal of Ecology, 13, 759-772. https://doi.org/10.4236/oje.2023.1310046</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.128723-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Strassburg, B.B.N., Kelly, A., Balmford, A., Davies, R.G., Gibbs, H.K., Lovett, A., Miles, L., Orme, C.D.L., Price, J., Turner, R.K. and Rodrigues, A.S.L. (2010) Global Congruence of Carbon Storage and Biodiversity in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Conservation Letters, 3, 98-105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00092.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Madoffe, S.S., Rija, A.A., Midtgaad, F., Katani, J.Z., Mbeyale, G., Zahabu, E., Liwenga, E. and Christopher, B.C. (2012) Preliminary Assessment of Forest Structure, Management and Carbon Stocking in Tanzania Miombo Woodlands. Proceedings of the first Climate Change Impacts, Mitigation and Adaptation Programme Scientific Conference, Dar es Salaam, 2-3 January 2012, 106-117.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lupala, Z.J., Lusambo, L.P. and Ngaga, Y.M. (2014) Management, Growth and Carbon storage in Miombo Woodlands of Tanzania. International Journal of Forest Research, 2014, Article ID: 629317. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/629317</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">TFS (2015) National Forest Resources Monitoring and Assessment of Tanzania Mainland (NAFORMA) Report. https://www.tfs.go.tz/index.php/en/%20resources/view/naforma-report-2015</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Desanker, P.V., Frost, P.G.H., Justice, C.O. and Scholes, R.J. (1997) The Miombo Network: Frameworks for a Terrestrial Transect Study of Land-Use and Land-Cover Change in the Miombo Ecosystems of Central Africa. IGBP Report 41, THE International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, Stockholm, 109 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Givnish, T.J. (1999) On the Causes of Gradients in Tropical Tree DIVERSITY. Journal of Ecology, 87, 193-210. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.1999.00333.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chamshama, S.A.O., Mugasha, A.G. and Zahabu, E. (2004) Stand Biomass and Volume Estimation for Miombo Woodlands at Kitulangalo, Morogoro, Tanzania. The Southern African Forest Journal, 200, 59-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/20702620.2004.10431761</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Backéus, I., Pettersson, B., Str&amp;#246;mquist, L.C. and Ruffo, C. (2006) Tree Communities and Structural Dynamics in Miombo (Brachystegia-Julbernardia) Woodland, Tanzania. Forest Ecology and Management, 230, 171-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.04.033</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ryan, C.M. and Williams, M. (2011) How Does Fire Intensity and Frequency Affect Miombo Woodland Tree Populations and Biomass? Ecological Application, 21, 48-60. https://doi.org/10.1890/09-1489.1</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hofi&amp;#231;o, N.D.S.A. (2014) Sampling Sufficiency in Miombo Woodlands in Mocuba District, Zambézia Province, Mozambique. Mater’s Thesis, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Porto Alegre.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jew, E.K.K., Dougill, A.J., Sullu, S.M.O., &amp;#199;onnell, J. and Benton, T.G. (2016) Miombo Woodland under Threat: Consequences for Tree Diversity and Carbon Storage. Forest Ecology and Management, 361, 144-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.11.011</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dewees, P.A., Campbell, B.M., Katerere, Y., Sitoe, A., Cunningham, A.B., Angelsen, A. and Wunder, S. (2010) Managing the Miombo Woodlands of Southern Africa: Policies, Incentives and Options for the Rural Poor. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, 2, 57-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/19390450903350846</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chidumayo, E. and Kwibisa, L. (2003) Effects of Deforestation on Grass Biomass and Soil Nutrient Status in Miombo Woodland, Zambia. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 96, 97-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(02)00229-3</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Walker, S.M. and Desanker, P.V. (2004) The Impact of land Use on Soil Carbon in Miombo Woodlands of Malawi. Forest Ecology and Management, 203, 345-360.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.08.004</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mwakalukwa, E.E., Meilby, H. and Treue, T. (2014) Floristic Composition, Structure, and Species Associations of Dry Miombo Woodland in Tanzania. International Scholarly Research Notices, 2014, Article ID: 153278. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/153278</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Magalh&amp;#227;es, T.M. and Mamugy, F.P.S. (2020) Fine Root Biomass and Soil Properties Following the Conversion of Miombo Woodlands to Shifting Cultivation Lands. Catena, 194, Article ID: 104693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2020.104693</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Berihu, T., Girmay, G., Mulugeta, S., Berhane, E., Zenebe, A. and Sigua, G.C. (2017) Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Losses Following Deforestation in Ethiopia. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 37, Article No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0408-4</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tellen, V.A. and Yerima, B.P.K. (2018) Effects of Land Use Change on Soil Physicochemical Properties in Selected Areas in the North West Region of Cameroon. Environmental System Research, 7, Article No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-018-0106-0</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Arce, C.E. and Caballero, J. (2015) Tanzania Agricultural Sector Risk Assessment. World Bank Group Report Number 94883-TZ. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/248961468001158010/pdf/94883-REVISED-Box393201B-PUBLIC-Tanzania-Ag-Risk-Assessment-web-6-29-15-JK-jtc.pdf</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Msanya, B.M., Kimaro, D.N. and Shayo-Ngowi, A.J. (1995) Soils of Kitulang’ Halo Forest Reserve Area, Morogoro District, Tanzania. Ph.D. Thesis, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zegeye, H., Teketay, D. and Kelbessa, E. (2006) Diversity, Regeneration Status and Socio-Economic Importance of the Vegetation in the Islands of Lake Ziway, South-Central Ethiopia. Flora, 201, 483-498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2005.10.006</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kacholi, D.S. (2014) Analysis of Structure and Diversity of the Kilengwe Forest in the Morogoro Region, Tanzania. International Journal of Biodiversity, 2014, Article ID: 516840. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/516840</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Munishi, P.K.T., Philipina, F., Temu, R.P.C. and Pima, N.E. (2008) Tree Species Composition and Local Use in Agricultural Landscapes of West Usambaras Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology, 46, 66-73.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2008.00931.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">R Development Core Team (2017) R Version 3.5.1. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kent, M. (2012) Vegetation Description and Data Analysis: A Practical Approach. Wiley, Hoboken.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sparks, D.L., Page, A.L., Helmke, P.A. and Loeppert, R.H. (2020) Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3: Chemical Methods. John Wiley and Sons, New York.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Giliba, R.A., Boon, E.K., Kayombo, C.J., Musamba, E.B., Kashindye, A.M. and Shayo, P.F. (2011) Species Composition, Richness and Diversity in Miombo Woodland of Bereku Forest Reserve, Tanzania. Journal of Biodiversity, 2, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/09766901.2011.11884724</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ribeiro, N.S., Shugart, H.H. and Washington-Allen, R. (2008) The Effects of Fire and Elephants on Species Composition and Structure of the Niassa Reserve, Northern Mozambique. Forest Ecology and Management, 255, 1626-1636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.11.033</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rands, M., Adams, W., Bennun, L., Butchart, S., Clements, A., Coomes, D., Entwistle, A., Hodge, I., Kapos, V., Scharlemann, J., Sutherland, W.J. and Vira, B. (2010) Biodiversity Conservation: Challenges beyond 2010. Science, 329, 1298-1303. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1189138</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Malimbwi, R.E., Shemwetta, D.T.K., Zahabu, E., Kingazi, S.P., Katani, J.Z. and Silayo, D.A. (2005) Forest Inventory Report for Nachingwea District. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Dodoma.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nkonoki, J.B. and Msuya, S.M. (2014) Effect of Anthropogenic Activities in Dry Miombo Woodlands on Wood Stock and Tree Diversity: A Case of Chenene Reserve, Bahi, Tanzania. International Journal of Innovation and Science Research, 7, 69-77.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mbwambo, L. (2012) Impact of Decentralized Forest Management on Forest Resources and Livelihoods in North Eastern and Central Tanzania. Ph.D. Thesis, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Christoganus, J. (2018) Assessment of Floristic Composition, Stocking and Disturbance in Mkulazi Catchment Forest Reserve in Morogoro District, Tanzania. Master’s Thesis, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Njana, M.A. (2008) Arborescent Species Diversity and Stocking in Miombo Woodland of Urumwa Forest Reserve and Their Contribution to Livelihoods, Tabora, Tanzania. Master’s Thesis, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mafupa, C.J. (2006) Impact of Human Disturbances in Miombo Woodlands of Igombe River Forest Reserve, Nzega District, Tanzania. Master’s Thesis, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mohamed, B.S. (2006) Impact of Joint Forest Management on Handeni Hill Forest Reserve and Adjacent Communities, Tanga, Tanzania. Master’s Thesis, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nduwamungu, J. (1996) Tree and Shrub Diversity in Miombo Woodland: A Case Study at SUA Kitulangalo Forest Reserve, Morogoro, Tanzania. Master’s Thesis, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zahabu, E. (2001) Impact of Charcoal Extraction to the Miombo Woodlands: The Case of Kitulangalo area, Tanzania. Master’s Thesis, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dondeyne, S., Wijffels, A., Emmanuel, L.B., Deckers, J. and Hermy, M. (2004) Soils and Vegetation of Angai Forest: Ecological Insights from a Participatory Survey in South Eastern Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology, 42, 198-207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2004.00513.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Landon, J.R. (1991) Booker Tropical Soil Manual: A Handbook for Soil Survey and Agricultural Land Evaluation in the Tropics and Subtropics. Longman Scientific and Technical Publishers, Essex.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Foth, H.D (2006) Fundamentals of Soil Science. 8th Edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128723-ref42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rannestad, M.M. and Gessesse, T.A. (2020) Deforestation and Subsequent Cultivation of Nutrient Poor Soils of Miombo Woodlands of Tanzania: Long Term Effect on Maize Yield and Soil Nutrients. Sustainability, 12, Article 4113.https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104113</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>