_Jibrin and Abdulhamed BEST published journal 2016

Jibrin et al., (2016) Biological and Environmental Sciences Journal for the Tropics 13(1) June, 2016 ISSN 0794 – 9057

ECOLOGICAL VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF KPASHIMI FOREST RESERVE AND SURROUNDING PARKLAND AREA IN NIGER STATE,

NIGERIA

Jibrin A.1*, Abdulhamed A. I.1 and Abdulkadir A. 2 1Department of Geography, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, NIGERIA

2Department of Geography, Federal University of Technology, Minna, NIGERIA *Correspondence: Jibrin, A. Tel: +234-803-697-8420. E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT The weight of scientific evidence indicates that forest ecosystems are highly vulnerable to climate change. However, there is little understanding on the implications of climate change for woodland ecological functioning in the developing countries such as Nigeria. The aim of the study was to examine the ecological vulnerability of Kpashimi forest reserve to climate change. The study employed the IPCC Vulnerability Index (IPCC-VI) based on the exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity levels of the ecosystem. Data were obtained through ecological Survey (ES) and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) with active participation of the nine forest dependent communities surrounding Kpashimi forest reserve. The results were obtained using composite index; generated by aggregating the indicators. The findings revealed that Kpashimi forest reserve and the surrounding parkland is vulnerable to climate change impacts due to higher index values of exposure (0.387) and sensitivity (0.397) above the adaptive capacity index value (0.356). It also shows that the overall IPCC-VI yielded 0.012 values which indicates moderately vulnerable situation of the forest reserve ecosystem to the adverse effect of climate change. By implication, the forest reserve is highly sensitive and more exposed to climate change impacts than its capacity to adapt to the impact. Consequently, ecological threshold may soon be exceeded and ecological resilience undermined. The study thus recommends diversification and extension of protected areas for the conservation of ecosystems that are most vulnerable to climate change. It also recommends reformation of existing vegetation management activities so as to maximize climate change mitigation and adaptation opportunities.

Keywords: forest ecosystem, vulnerability, exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity,

INTRODUCTION There is overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is currently having ecological, social and economic impacts at local, national, regional and global scales. Over the coming decades, the impact on ecosystems is likely to become more severe (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-IPCC, 2007a). Like many other developing countries, Nigeria’s forest and savannah ecosystems are highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and climate variability (Odjugo, 2005; Adefolalu et al., 2007; and Ayuba et al., 2007). While details are still lacking, it is expected that the effects of any significant change in climate would shift the boundaries of major ecological zones of the country as well as have tremendous impact on the wildlife they support (Federal Republic of Nigeria -FRN 2003). These conditions together with the country’s ecological diversity and enormous environmental problems (United Nations Environment Programme –UNEP, 2008) make the requirement for mitigation and adaptation quite considerable. Yet, according to FRN (2003), the potentials to support adaptation and mitigation measures is yet to be fully realized due to low level of information on the actual ecological vulnerability of ecosystems in Nigeria.

Forest ecosystems provide many provisioning, supportive, regulating and cultural services that are

indispensable for human subsistence and development (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment- MEA, 2005). Their ability to continue to provide these services and other functions is mostly determined by climatic conditions and human interference. Consequently, the growth, survival, regeneration and productivity of the forest ecosystems are climate dependent (Brovkin, 2002). According to FRN (2003), climate change will affect forestry through higher temperatures, elevated Co2 concentration, precipitation changes, increased weeds, pests and disease pressure, and increased vulnerability of organic carbon pools. To deal with current and future limitations posed by these changes on forest ecosystems, assessments of ecosystem vulnerability are crucial for identifying adaptation needs and for avoiding the worst possible consequences of climate change, for both human and natural systems. They are also needed for detecting locations and ecosystems, in which investments in adaptation and ecosystem management can produce the biggest returns.

Ecological vulnerability assessment is a risk assessment process that evaluates the likelihood that adverse ecological effects may occur or have occurred as a result of exposure to one or more stressors (Environmental Protection Agency –EPA, 1992).

B E S T J O U R N A LBEST JOURNAL 13(1): 182 - 191 Date received: 12/04/2016 Date accepted: 5/06/2016 Printed in Nigeria

182


An ecological risk assessment commonly evaluates the potential adverse effects that human activities have on the plants and animals that make up ecosystems, and has developed, in recent years as an alternative assessment paradigm (EPA, 1992; Suter, 1993). Some investigators conceptualized ecological vulnerability as a function of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity (Eakin and Luers, 2006; Gallop´ın, 2006). The definition is valuable as it embraces its own characters for ecosystem that is, experiencing internal or external system disturbance (MaCarthy et al., 2001), the ability of a system to adjust its behavior and characteristics in order to enhance its capacity versus external stress (Brook, 2003), and the establishing principle of ecological vulnerability index system (David, Andrew and Lindsay, 2012). The assessment of ecological vulnerability is progressively important as it enables one to ascertain the potential problem and to stimulate eco-environment protection (Ying et al., 2007).

There are many attempts to define vulnerability in relation to climate change. Vulnerability is defined as ‘the propensity of human and ecological systems to suffer harm and their ability to respond to stresses imposed as a result of climate change effects’ (Adger et al., 2007). The IPCC (2007b) defines vulnerability to climate change as a function of three elements: exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity (Adger, 2006; Reed et al., 2013). Exposure refers to the extent to which a community is exposed to climate-related events; sensitivity refers to the extent to which the community is affected by the exposure; and adaptive capacity is the ability of the community to withstand or recover from the effects of the exposure. The combination of these three elements determines the extent to which an individual or group, a physical or social system is vulnerable to climate change and has been used extensively in assessing climate change vulnerability (Cinner et al., 2012; Shah et al., 2013). Resilience is closely linked with the concept of vulnerability. Resilience is the ability to return to a steady state following a perturbation (Tilman and Downing, 1994; Tilman, 1996). While Gunderson (2000) defined ecological resilience as the amount of disturbance that an ecosystem could withstand without changing self-organized processes and structures.

IPCC (2007a) Fourth Assessment Report gave the most acceptable definition of climate change, which states that “climate change is a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (eg. by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an

extended period typically decades or longer”. The climate of Nigeria has shown considerable temporal and spatial shifts in its variability and change since the late 1960s and early 1970s through a careful study of meteorological data (FRN, 2003; Nigerian Meteorological Agency, 2012). Specifically, Odjugo, (2005); Adefolalu et al., (2007); and Ayuba et al., 2007) have shown that Nigeria is already being plagued with diverse ecological problems, which have been directly linked to the on-going climate change. These studies focused more on climatic impacts. Most available data on climate change are mainly global whereas the effects are more at local levels. Jibrin (2009; 2013; and 2014; Jibrin et al., 2013) studied deforestation and forest degradation in the Kpashimi forest reserve. However, reliable information is lacking on the ecological vulnerability of the forest reserve; while it is exposed to climate change stressors. The aim of the study is to examine the ecological vulnerability of Kpashimi forest reserve to climate change. The objectives of the study were to: determine the degree of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity of Kpashimi forest reserve and surrounding parkland area in Niger state.

MATERIALS AND METHODS Study area Kpashimi Forest Reserve is located between latitude 8o

40′ to 8o 52′ North and longitude 6o 39′ to 6o 49′ East covering approximately 213.101 kilometres square (Figure 1). The study area is characterized by alternating wet and dry season climate coded as ‘Aw’ by Koppen’s classification. The mean annual rainfall is about 1,400 mm with mean annual temperature of about 28oC (Ojo, 1977). The geology of the study area is made up of cretaceous sedimentary rocks underlain by the Precambrian basement complex rocks (FORMECU, 1994). The topography is gently undulating. Soils in the study area based on the CCTA (Commission de Cooperation Technique en Afrique) classification system belong to ferruginous tropical soils. In some depressional areas, and valley bottom positions hydromorphic soils are found; while those around the inselbergs and other residual hills, and at the bed of rivers, are weakly developed (Areola, 1978; Jaiyeoba and Essoka, 2006). The study area lies within the southern Guinea savannah; classified as woodland savannah vegetation with the understory dominated by annual grasses (Keay, 1953; Jaiyeoba and Essoka, 2006).

183


Figure 1: Relief and Drainage system of Kpashimi forest reserve. Methods Ecological Survey (ES) and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniques were adopted for the study with active participation of the nine forest dependent communities surrounding Kpashimi forest reserve. Forest dependent people are defined by DFID (2000) as those that use forest as a source of water, fuel wood, shelter and a broad suite of non-timber forest products (medicinal plants, culinary herbs, fodder, rattans, gums, resins, latex and oils). Structured questionnaire was used. Using the formula of Yamane (1967), the study area with an estimated population of about 30,000, yielded the sample size of 395. Each of the nine communities was considered as a cluster and an equal number of 44 copies of a questionnaire was

administered randomly in the communities comprising of Nassarawa, Fapo, Gulu, Lafian Kpada, Makeri, Kunko, Lafian zago, Zago, and Mayaki. Analysis of survey data used a 5-point likert scale statistical technique, with categories as follows: (5 = very high, 4 = high, 3 = moderate, 2 = low and 1 = very low.

The IPCC-IV vulnerability assessment framework was employed in this study based on three components of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. Each of these components of vulnerability consists of a series of indicative conditions. The data for the indicators was normalized to bring consistency using the formula eq. (1) or eq. (2). For each component a value was obtained by combining the data for the indicators under it using the formula eq. (3).

184

Jibrin et al., (2016) Biological and Environmental Sciences Journal for the Tropics 13(1), June, 2016 ISSN 0794 – 9057

…………………………………………………………………….……………………………….. eq.(1)

…………………………………………………………………………………………… eq.(2)

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………eq.(3)

Where: Xij= normalized score for observed values of positively related indicators Yij= normalized score for observed values of negatively related indicators Min= minimum indicator value Max= maximum indicator value VI= Component Vulnerability index K= indicators The aggregate final vulnerability index for the study area was calculated using the formula (eq. 4). Scaling is done from -1 to +1 indicating low to high vulnerability.

………

………………………eq.(4) Where: IPCC-VI= IPCC Vulnerability Index Eindex = Exposure index ACindex = Adaptive Capacity index Sindex = Sensitivity index

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The indicator framework for vulnerability assessment employed in this study is presented in Table 1. The table indicates the values for each of the measured indicators, the respective component values and the aggregate IPCC-VI value.

Exposure: The exposure component encompasses two broad elements – aspects of the system of interest that are likely to be affected by climate change and the changes in the climate itself. The types and magnitude of exposure to climate change impacts was measured using a total of 16 indicators (see table 1). Figure 2 indicates that increasing temperature, erratic rainfall pattern uncertainty in the onset and end of rainy season are the major indicator variables that make the area more vulnerable to climate change. The recent scenario analysis for temperature and rainfall for the study area by FRN (2003) indicates that there will be a decrease in rainfall for the region in the first four months of the year (January – April) with increase in temperature conditions of between 3o to 5o for the rest of the 21st century. Therefore, reduction in plant cover and productivity may be an obvious response of the forest reserve to any drying trends. If climate factor such as temperature and precipitation change in a region beyond the tolerance of a species phenotypic plasticity the distribution changes of the species may be inevitable (Lynch and Lande, 1993). There is already strong evidence that plant species are shifting their ranges in altitude and latitude as a response to changing regional climates (Parmesan and Yohe, 2003). The effect of temperature changes is likely to be larger and more important than any other factor (Kehlenbeck and Schrader, 2007). In turn, changes in vegetation composition may have significant effects on the local heat balance while extreme temperatures can be harmful when beyond the physiological limits of plant.

185


Table 1: The Vulnerability indicator assessment results

Note: F.R.= Functional Relationship ; + = Positive functional relationship; - = Negative functional relationship

Component S. No

Indicator F.R. Indicator Index

Component Index

EXPOSURE

1 Delay in rainy season onset + 0.418

0.387

2 Decreasing amount of annual rainfall + 0.181 3 Erratic rainfall pattern + 0.842 4 Heavy and long periods of rainfall + 0.172 5 Early rains followed by dry weeks + 0.574 6 Uncertainty in the onset and end of rainy season + 0.712 7 Increasing length of dry season + 0.301 8 Increasing incidence of drought + 0.010 9 Increasing temperature + 0.971 10 Increasing thunderstorm and strong winds + 0.220 11 Overflowing of stream and river in the rainy season + 0.435 12 Increasing cases of flooding incidence + 0.441 13 Increasing rate of soil erosion + 0.327 14 Decrease in soil moisture + 0.052 15 Unpredictability of rainfall + 0.522 16 Occurrence of Heat waves + 0.018

ADAPTIVE CAPACITY

1 Restriction on logging and lumbering - 0.741

0.356

2 Agroforestry practices - 0.681 3 Afforestation - 0.302 4 Reforestation - 0.675 5 Watershed management - 0.19 6 Selective tree cutting - 0.391 7 Planting trees for shade - 0.503 8 Use of energy saving stove - 0.024 9 Use of local drip irrigation - 0.69 10 Avoidance of bush burning - 0.241 11 Increasing fallow period - 0.331 12 Incentives for conservation - 0.017 13 Erosion control measures - 0.102 14 Use of resistant varieties of plant species. - 0.097

SENSITIVITY

1 Reduced vegetation cover by living plants + 1.000

0.397

2 Reduced ground cover by litter and plant residues + 0.311 3 Decline in species diversity + 0.418 4 Decline in plant life form composition + 0.271 5 Increase in undesirable plant species (weeds) + 0.190 6 Reduced tree density + 0.851 7 Reduced plant vigor and biomass production + 0.256 8 Increase in invasive species/loss of native species + 0.134 9 Reduced forage production. + 0.657 10 Increase in relative area of bush and shrubs + 0.226 11 Increased plant mortality + 0.118 12 Reduced natural regrowth + 0.632 13 Pest and disease infestation + 0.210 14 Soil compaction + 0.083 15 Change of color of leaves + 0.616 16 The grasses dries up faster + 0.473 17 Drying up of streams and rivers + 0.309

IPCC-Vulnerability Index 0.012

186


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Indi

cato

r ind

ex v

alue

Exposure Indicator serial number Fig. 2: Magnitude of Indicator values for Exposure component

Adaptive capacity: Adaptive capacity denotes the capacity to cope up with the changes and adapt to changing conditions. A total of 14 indicators (see table 1) were used to determine the coping or adaptive capacity of the Kpashimi forest reserve and surrounding parkland to threatening climate change impacts. Figure 3 reveals that restriction on logging and lumbering, use of local drip irrigation and agroforestry practices have the stronger shock absorbers to resist perturbations that may result from climate change impacts. The low level of incentives for conservation as indicated in the fig. 3 would significantly increase the vulnerability of the ecosystem. In ecological resilience, resilience is conceptualized as the capacity to absorb shocks while continuing to function (Adger, 2000; Peterson, 2000).

When change occurs, resilience provides the components for renewal and reorganization (Gunderson and Holling, 2002; Berkes et al., 2002). This implies that the less resilient the system, the lower the capacity to adapt to and adjust to changes. When a system improves its resilience, its vulnerability decreases. When it loses resilience it becomes more vulnerable. The narrative stems from ecology, where the loss of a functional component or group in an ecosystem will severely affect the capacity of the system to reorganize after a disturbance. Consequently, certain species, communities, and ecosystems may not be particularly resilient to the increases in stress or changes in habitat, and they may be subjected to severe declines in abundance or may be lost entirely from the landscape.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Indi

cato

r Ind

ex v

alue

Adaptive Capacity Indicator serial number Fig. 3: Magnitude of Indicator values for Adaptive capacity component

Sensitivity: Sensitivity reflects the degree of response to a given shift in climate. The sensitivity of the Kpashimi forest reserve and surrounding parkland to the amount of exposure to climate change impacts was measured using 17 indicators (see table 1). Figure 4 shows that reduced vegetation cover by living plants, reduced tree density, and reduced forage production are the most obvious feedback responses due to climate change impact. Studies of natural, managed, and disturbed or

impacted ecosystems have shown that ecosystems under stress appear to keep more of their functional performance than their species composition (Holling et al., 1995), as processes are buffered by species redundancy. Thus, species composition appears more sensitive than ecosystem processes since it responds more quickly and recovers more slowly (Angermeir and Karr, 1994).

187


Changes in species composition may also significantly alter ecosystem performances (Naeem et al., 1994), like the resilience of ecosystems to several sources of disturbance. Forest ecosystems are highly sensitive to changes in precipitation (Hilbert et al., 2001; Hughen et al., 2004). There is evidence of change in the onset and cessation of the rainy season, as well as the intensity

and duration of rainfall events in all parts of Nigeria (Nigerian Environmental Study/Action Team -NEST, 2003). These changes can affect the physiological and migratory pattern of some species. According to Malcolm et al. (2006), changes in the precipitation pattern affect the structure and function of forest ecosystems and ecological interactions among species.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Indi

cato

r Ind

ex v

alue

Sensitivity Indicator serial number Fig. 4: Magnitude of Indicator values for Sensitivity component

The results of the major component calculations are presented collectively in figure 5 illustrating a vulnerability triangle, which plots the contributing factor scores for exposure, adaptive capacity and sensitivity. It shows that Kpashimi forest reserve and surrounding parkland is vulnerable to climate change impacts due to higher values of exposure (0.387) and sensitivity

(0.397) above the adaptive capacity value (0.356) (see table 1). This shows that the study area is considerably sensitive and exposed to climate variability, extremes, and their consequences while the adaptive capacity at which it can cope with or adjust to climate change impacts is low

.

0.387

0.356

0.397

0.330

0.340

0.350

0.360

0.370

0.380

0.390

0.400

EXPOSURE

ADAPTIVE

CAPACITYSENSITIVITY

Fig.5: Vulnerability triangle diagram of the contributing factors of the IPCC-VI for Kpashimi forest

reserve and surrounding parkland area It is noteworthy that the overall IPCC-Vulnerability Index (ranges between -1 to +1) is 0.012 (see table 1) which denotes moderately vulnerable condition. The IPCC-VI becoming positive means the ecosystem is more exposed to climate extremes and variability than

its capacity to adapt or overcome those adverse situations. In fact, but for the protected area status of the forest reserve, the ecosystem would be highly vulnerable to climate change impacts.

188


Although organisms and the ecosystems can adapt autonomously, the ability of the ecosystem to autonomously respond to climate change is inherently limited. Therefore, in addition to autonomous adaptation, there must also be planned adaptation and adoption of adaptation strategies.

CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATIONS The findings from this study revealed that over the last few years, there has been more climatic variability due to uncertain precipitation pattern and increasing temperature. Consequently, the ecosystem of Kpashimi forest reserve and surrounding parkland area is moderately vulnerable to the impact of climate change. This is because the exposure and sensitivity levels are very high whereas the adaptive capacity level is low. Consequently, ecological threshold may soon be exceeded and ecological resilience undermined. The findings from this study provide baseline information for future studies on climate change impact on the ecosystem of the study area. The analysis presented above provide a broad indication of current level of

vulnerability of the Kpashimi forest reserve and surrounding parkland area; due to climate stressors. Drawing on the above analysis, the following measures are recommended:

i. Diversification and extension of protected areas for the conservation of ecosystems that are most vulnerable to climate change and sea level rise;

ii. Maintaining ecological structure and processes at all levels and reducing existing pressure on natural ecosystems;

iii. Monitoring to evaluate species and ecosystems stability from climate change perspective.

iv. Reformation of existing vegetation management activities so as to maximize climate change mitigation and adaptation opportunities.

v. Further, priority must be placed on assessing future climate conditions which impact the most vulnerable species so that current and future management actions can be most effectively targeted.

REFERENCES

Adefolalu D.O.A. (2007). Climate change and economic sustainability in Nigeria. Paper presented at the International conference on climate change, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka 12-14 June 2007.

Adger W. N. (2000). Social and Ecological Resilience: Are They Related? Progress in Human Geography 24, 347-364

Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16, 268-81

Adger, W.N., Agrawala, S., Mirza, M.M.Q., Conde, C., O’Brien, K., Pulhin, J., Pulwarty, R., Smit, B., Takahashi, K. (2007) Assessment of Adaptation Practices, Options, Constraints and Capacity. In: Parry, M.L., Canziani, O. F., Palutikof, J. P., van der Linden, P. J., Hanson, C. E. (eds), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 717-743

Angermeir, P.L., and Karr, J.R. (1994). Biological integrity versus biological diversity as policy directives: protecting biotic resources. In: Bioscience 44: 690-697

Areola, O. (1978). Soil and vegetation resources of Nigeria. In Oguntoyinbo et al. (Eds.), A geography of Nigerian development. Heinemann Education Books Nigeria Limited.

Ayuba, H.K., Maryah, U.M., Gwary, D.M. (2007). Climate change impact on plant species composition in six semi-arid rangelands of Northern Nigeria. Nigerian Geographical Journal 5(1): 35-42.

Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C. (2002) Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Brook, N. (2003). Vulnerability, risk and adaptation: a conceptual framework. Working Paper 38, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.

Brovkin, V. (2002). Climate-vegetation interaction. Journal of Physics. 12:57-72.

Cinner, J., McClanahan, T., Graham, N., Daw, T., Maina, J., Stead, S.(2012). Vulnerability of coastal communities to key impacts of climate change on coral reef fisheries. Global Environmental Change , 22, 12–20.

David, J.A., Andrew, J.D. and Lindsay, C.S. (2012.) Using principal component analysis for information-rich socio-ecological vulnerability mapping in Southern Africa. Applied Geography, vol. 35, no. 1-2, pp. 515–524.

Department for International Development -DFID (2000). Numbers of Forest Dependent People: A Feasibility Study DFID's Forestry Research Programme.

Eakin, H. and Luers, A. L. (2006.) Assessing the vulnerability of social environmental systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, vol. 31, pp. 365–394.

Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. (1992). Framework for ecological risk assessment. Washington, DC: Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/630/R- 92/001

Federal Republic of Nigeria-FRN (2003). Nigeria’s first national communication under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Ministry of Environment of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. 189


Forest Management Evaluation and Co-ordinating Unit -

FORMECU (1994). World Bank/Government of Nigeria Forestry III project Vol. VI Environmental Assessment, Forest Management Component, kpashimi Forest Reserve, Final Draft.

Gallop´ın, G. C. (2006.). Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 293–303.

Gunderson, L. H., Holling, C. S. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA

Gunderson, L.H. (2000). Ecological Resilience in Theory and Application. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31: 425-439.

Hilbert, D.W., Ostendorf, B. & Hopkins, M.S. (2001). Sensitivity of tropical forests to climate change in the humid tropics of north Queensland. Austral Ecology, 26, 590- 603.

Holling, C.S., Schindler, D.W, Walker, B.H., and Roughgarden, J. (1995). Biodiversity in the functioning of ecosystems: an ecological primer and synthesis. In: C.A. Perrings, K.G. Maler, C. Folke, C.S. Holling and B.O. Jansson (eds.): Biodiversity loss: ecological and economic issues. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 44-83.

Hughen, P.E., Eglinton,T.I., Xu, L.& Makou, M. (2004). Abrupt Tropical vegetation response to rapid climate changes. Science 304, 1955-1959.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate –IPCC (2007a). Climate change 2007. The fourth assessment report (AR4). Synthesis report for policymakers http: // www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment report/ar4/syr/ar4_ syr_spm.pdf. (Access 10th August, 2009).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate -IPCC. (2007b). Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden & C. E. Hanson (Eds.), Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (p. 976). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Jaiyeoba, I. A., and Essoka, P. E. (2006). Soils and Vegetation. The Middle Niger River Basin: A field course hand book. Department of Geography, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.

Jibrin, A., Isyaku U., Garba S. and Aminu Z. (2013). Importance of Indigenous Knowledge in

Biodiversity Conservation: A Case Study of Communities Surrounding Kpashimi Forest Reserve, Niger State, Nigeria. Journal Of Environmental Science, Toxicology And Food Technology (IOSR-JESTFT), International Organisation of Scientific Research, Ghaziabad. Volume 5, Issue 6, Pp 10-17Doi: 10.9790/2402-0561017

Jibrin, A. (2013). A Study of Variation in Physiognomic Characteristics of Guinea Savanna Vegetation, In: Environment and Natural Resources Research Canadian Center of Science and Education, Toronto 3(2), 52–60. doi:10.5539/enrr.v3n2p52

Jibrin, A. (2014). Assessment Of Vegetation Cover Dynamics In The Kpashimi Forest Reserve, Niger State, Nigeria. Zaria Geographer, Department of Geography, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. Volume 21 (1) Pp 119- 131

Jibrin, A. (2009). An Assessment of the Pattern of and Changes in the Vegetation Cover of Kpashimi Forest Reserve, Niger State. An unpublished M.Sc. Research thesis, Department of Geography, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.

Keay, R.W. J. (1953). An outline of Nigerian Vegetation. 2nd ed. Lagos: Government Printed.

Kehlenbeck, H. and Schrader, G., (2007). Climate Change, Happy future for plant pests? Ln: Secretariat of the convention on Biological Diversity, 2007. Emerging Issues for Biodiversity Conservation in a Changing Climate. CBD Technical Series No. 29, Montreal, Canada.

Lynch, M. and Lande, R. (1993). Evolution and extinction in response to environmental change. In Huey, Raymond B.; Kareiva, Peter M.; Kingsolver, Joel G. Biotic Interactions and Global Change. Sunderland, Mass: Sinauer Associates. pp. 234—50.

MaCarthy, J.J., Canziani, O.F., Leary, N.A., Dokken, D.J. and White, K.S. (2001). Climate Change 2001: Impact, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. UK.

Malcolm, J.R., Liu, C, R.P. Hansen, L., and Hannah, L. (2006). Global warming and extinction of endemic species from biodiversity hotspots. Conservation Biology, 20(2), 538-548.

Millenium Ecosystem Assessment- MEA (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington D.C., Island press.

Naeem, S., Thompson, L.J., Lawler, S.L., Lawton, J.H., and Woodfin, R.M. (1994). Declining biodiversity can alter the performance of ecosystems. In: Nature 368: 734-737

190


Nigerian Environmental Study/Action Team-NEST.

(2003). Climate Change in Nigeria. A Communication Guide for Reporters and Educators. Ibadan: NEST pp. 5-16.

Nigerian Meteorological Agency. (2012). Introduction. 2012 Nigeria Climate Review (pp. 6-7). Nigerian Meteorological Agency (NIMET), Abuja.

Odjugo, P.A.O., (2005). An analysis of rainfall pattern in Nigeria. Global Journal of Environmental Science, 4(2): 139-145.

Ojo, O. (1977). The climates of West Africa. London: Heinemann.

Parmesan, C. and Yohe, G. (2003). A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems Nature, 421 (6918): 37-42.

Peterson, G. (2000). Political Ecology and Ecological Resilience: An Integration of Human and Ecological Dynamics. Ecological Economics 35(3), 323–336

Reed, M. S., Podesta, G., Fazey, I., Geeson, N., Hessel, R., Hubacek, K. (2013). Combining analytical frameworks to assess livelihood vulnerability

to climate change and analyse adaptation options. Ecological Economics , 94, 66-77.

Shah, K. U., Dulal, H. B., Johnson, C., & Baptiste, A. (2013). Understanding livelihood vulnerability to climate change: Applying the livelihood vulnerability index in Trinidad and Tobago. Geoforum , 47, 125–137.

Suter, G.W. (1993): Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Fl.

Tilman, D. & Downing, J.A. (1994). Biodiversity and Stability in Grasslands. Nature 367: 363 365.

Tilman, D. (1996). Biodiversity: Population versus Ecosystem Stability. Ecology 77: 350-363

United Nations Environment Programme –UNEP (2008). Africa: Atlas of our changing environment. United Nations Environment Programme. ProgressPress Inc. p. 374.

Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, 2nd Ed., New York: Harper and Row.

Ying, X., Zeng, G.M., Chen, G.Q., Tang, L. Wang, K. L. and Huang, D. Y. (2007). Combining AHP with GIS in synthetic evaluation of eco-environment quality—a case study of Hunan Province, China, Ecological Modelling, vol. 209, no. 2–4, pp. 97–109.

191

_Jibrin and Abdulhamed BEST published journal 2016

Documents

Transcript of _Jibrin and Abdulhamed BEST published journal 2016