Wildlife Ecological Spectrum: unveiling alpha (α), beta (β), and gamma (γ) diversity of the Kaptai National Park, Bangladesh

Wildlife Ecological Spectrum: unveiling alpha (α), beta (β), and gamma (γ) diversity of the Kaptai National Park, Bangladesh | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Wildlife Ecological Spectrum: unveiling alpha (α), beta (β), and gamma (γ) diversity of the Kaptai National Park, Bangladesh Mehedi Hasan Rakib, Mohd Imran Hossain Chowdhury, Chinmoy Das, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4668666/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study investigates the impact of different habitats forests, rivers, and tourist areas on the biodiversity of trees, birds, mammals, reptiles, and invertebrates. Data were collected from 90 plots, using quadrat sampling for trees, circular strip transects for birds, live trapping for small mammals, and reptiles, pitfall traps for ground-dwelling species and invertebrates, and transects for butterflies. Biodiversity indices, including alpha, beta, and gamma diversity, were calculated using the R programming environment, specifically the vegan and iNEXT packages. Results indicated significant differences in species richness and composition among habitats. Forest areas had an alpha diversity index of 86 for trees, 104 for birds, 46 for mammals, 45 for reptiles, and 35 for invertebrates. River-associated forests showed higher species richness and evenness, with significant beta diversity, particularly among invertebrates. Tourist areas exhibited reduced species richness, with the alpha diversity index slightly lower at 84 for trees and 33 for invertebrates. The Shannon diversity index values were highest for trees (3.60) and lowest for invertebrates (1.00), indicating a well-balanced distribution of species in forests and a significant impact of human activities in tourist areas. Statistical analyses, including the Games-Howell test and NMDS, confirmed significant differences in species distributions across habitats. Rarefaction curves highlighted the highest species richness in forests, while tourist areas showed a quicker plateau, indicating fewer overall species. The study also examined the impact of conservation efforts, correlating diversity metrics with reforestation and anti-poaching activities. The findings underscore the importance of habitat-specific conservation strategies. Recommendations include prioritizing the protection of high-biodiversity habitats, restoration initiatives in disturbed areas, continuous ecological monitoring, public education, and stringent enforcement of environmental policies. These measures are crucial for enhancing biodiversity conservation and maintaining ecological integrity in diverse habitats. This research provides valuable insights into the relationship between habitat types and biodiversity, informing effective management practices to preserve ecological diversity. Biodiversity iNEXT Kaptai National Park Forest ecology NMDS Rarefaction Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Introduction Kaptai National Park (KNP) is a vital protected area in Bangladesh's Kaptai Upazila of the Rangamati Hill District, spanning 5,464.78 hectares. Established in 1999, the park aims to protect its rich biodiversity (Rahman et al., 2020 ), which has been threatened by human activities and environmental changes. The transition of the Kaptai forest into a national park brought stricter regulations, causing tension between the local communities, who depend on the forest for their livelihoods, and park managers (Ahsan & Haidar, 2017; Hasan et al., 2023 ). This situation illustrates the delicate balance between conservation efforts and the needs of local people, emphasizing the importance of collaborative management strategies. Historically, Kaptai National Park was known as the Sitapahar Reserve, covering 14,448 acres (Abdullah et al., 2022 ; Chowdhury et al., 2018 ). Local communities used this land for subsistence until the 1960s when the Kaptai hydroelectric dam was built, displacing thousands of people to the forest's outskirts and interior. These communities relied on the forest for agriculture, fishing, bamboo and handloom crafts, and jhum cultivation (a traditional form of shifting agriculture), increasing pressure on forest resources. The situation worsened in 1975 due to armed conflicts between local tribes and the Bangladesh government. In response, the government designated the area as Kaptai National Park in 1999 to protect the forest by limiting human activities. While crucial for conservation, this move restricted local communities' access to forest resources, leading to tensions (Abdullah et al., 2018 ; Chowdhury et al., 2019 ). To address these conflicts, Bangladesh adopted a forest co-management system that involves local communities in decision-making, recognizing their essential role in conservation. As of 2016, 17 of Bangladesh's 49 protected areas operate under co-management frameworks, with Kaptai National Park being a key example (M. M. Rahman, Mahmud, et al., 2017). This approach aims to balance ecological preservation with the socio-economic needs of forest-dependent populations, fostering cooperation and shared stewardship. Kaptai National Park features mixed evergreen forests, diverse wildlife, and significant water bodies, including Kaptai Lake and the Karnaphuli River. These natural resources support the park's biodiversity and provide essential services to residents (Reza, 2010 ; Reza & Perry, 2015 ). The park's moist tropical climate, characterized by high annual rainfall and a pronounced monsoon season, influences its ecological dynamics and management Challenges. The Park’s biodiversity is remarkable, with a variety of plant and animal species. The plant life includes teak ( Tectona grandis ), garjan ( Dipterocarpus turbinatus ), and several bamboo ( Bambusa spp. ) and cane ( Saccharum spp. ) species. The fauna includes numerous bird species like sparrows ( Passer domesticus ), egrets ( Ardea alba ), and kingfishers ( Alcedo atthis ), and mammals such as elephants ( Elephas maximus ), barking deer ( Muntiacus muntjak ), and gibbons ( Hylobatidae spp. ) (Jorin, et al., 2023; Hasan, Kabi, et al., 2023 ; Miah et al., 2023 ; Reza, 2010 ; Reza & Perry, 2015 ). The park's aquatic ecosystems, especially Kaptai Lake, support a significant fish population, vital for many local residents' livelihoods. The management of Kaptai National Park has evolved to address both conservation and community needs. The Integrated Protected Area Co-management (IPAC) project, launched in 2009, integrates local communities into the park's stewardship (Chakraborty et al., 2021 ; Nolan & Callan, 2006 ; M. M. Rahman, Al Mahmud, et al., 2017 ; Smith et al., 2020 ). This project promotes the sustainable use of resources while protecting the park's ecological integrity, aiming to resolve conflicts and enhance conservation efforts. Kaptai National Park exemplifies the broader challenges and opportunities in conservation management. Its journey from a reserved forest to a contested protected area, and finally to a co-managed park, reflects ongoing efforts to balance human needs with ecological preservation. By involving local communities in management, the park aims to achieve a sustainable balance, ensuring the protection of its invaluable biodiversity while supporting the livelihoods of those who depend on its resources (Alam et al., 2019 ; Chowdhury et al., 2018 ; Rahman et al., 2020 ; Uddin et al., 2020 ). This study aims to assess biodiversity across different forest habitats within Kaptai National Park, Bangladesh, employing tailored ecological methods. It focuses on quantifying species richness, abundance, and diversity indices for trees, birds, mammals, reptiles, and invertebrates in the general forest, river-associated, and tourist-associated areas. Utilizing rigorous sampling techniques like quadrat sampling, transect surveys, live trapping, and pitfall traps, the research aims to elucidate biodiversity patterns influenced by habitat types and human activities. Statistical analyses using R programming will evaluate these patterns, correlating biodiversity metrics with conservation efforts. Ultimately, this study seeks to inform habitat-specific conservation strategies crucial for preserving Kaptai National Park's rich biodiversity amidst environmental and anthropogenic pressures. Methods Study region Kaptai National Park, established in 1999, is a major national park in Bangladesh, located in the Rangamati district and covering a vast 5,464.78 hectares (M. M. Rahman et al., 2020 ). It is part of the Rangamati Hill Tracts (South) Forest Division, which was formed by splitting the Chittagong Hill Tracts Forest Division. The Park includes six forest reserves and is also part of the Rampahar Reserve Forest of the Chittagong South Forest Division. Geographically, it is situated in the Kaptai Upazila of the Rangamati Hill Tract district, northeast of Chittagong city. The Park is divided into two forest ranges: the Kaptai Range and the Karnaphuli Range. It lies between the geographical coordinates of 20°30'1.3'' N and 22°10'18.2'' N latitude, and 92°10'11.9'' E and 92°17'0'' E longitude (Chowdhury et al., 2018 ; Dutta et al., 2015 ; Sharashy, 2022 ). Kaptai National Park stands out for its diverse flora and fauna and plays a crucial role in the conservation of the region's rich biodiversity (Das et al., 2016 ). Its establishment was aimed at protecting this biodiversity from threats posed by human activities and environmental changes, ensuring the park remains a haven for numerous plant and animal species (Sharashy, 2022 ). Sampling design and biodiversity sampling In ecological research, various methods are used to study different groups of species. For trees, researchers use quadrat sampling, which involves setting up specific land areas to study plant distribution. Bird surveys employ the circular strip transect method (Scherer et al., 2021 ), where observation points are set up, and observers count birds along designated circular and straight paths. For mammals and reptiles, live trapping is used for small species, while larger mammals are tracked through signs like footprints (Scherer et al., 2023 ). Reptiles and other ground-dwelling species are often caught using pitfall traps (Bredemeier et al., 2007 ), which are buried containers. Invertebrates like bugs are also surveyed with pitfall traps, and butterflies are monitored along predetermined paths called transects (Scherer et al., 2021 ). Each method is specifically designed for the group being studied, ensuring effective data collection (Fig. 1). The study focused on assessing biodiversity across three different forest habitats: general forest areas, forest areas near rivers, and forest areas near tourist sites. Forest areas were defined as regions within a meter of the buffer zone, river-associated forest areas as 30 meters from the river's edge, and tourist-associated forest areas included all relevant sections. Data were systematically collected from 90 plots (Brockerhoff et al., 2017 ; Rahman et al., 2016 ; Reza, 2010 ; Reza & Perry, 2015 ; Scherer et al., 2021 ), with each habitat containing 6 plots for each group of species (trees, birds, mammals, reptiles, and invertebrates), resulting in a total of 18 plots per group (Fig. 1). The data were analyzed using the R programming environment. Biodiversity indices such as abundance, evenness, and the Shannon and Simpson indices (Table 1 ) were calculated using the vegan package (Miah et al., 2023 ; Nolan & Callan, 2006 ). Visualizations were created with the ggplot2 package, and the Games-Howell test was used to produce violin plots showing biodiversity variations across habitats. Further statistical analysis was conducted using the iNEXT package, including one-way ANOVA to explore biodiversity differences. The study also examined the impact of conservation efforts by correlating diversity metrics with factors like reforestation projects and anti-poaching patrols (Smith et al., 2020 ). Preliminary results showed significant differences in biodiversity among the habitats, with river-associated forests exhibiting higher species richness and evenness, likely due to their proximity to water bodies. These findings highlight the importance of tailored conservation strategies and emphasize the need for habitat-specific management practices to enhance biodiversity conservation effectively. Table 1 Equation used in the analysis Sn. Equation 1 α r f t = Ʃ Abundance α r f t 2a β r ⁓ f = Ʃ A r ⁓ A f | β r ⁓ f = Ʃ | A r ⁓ A f | 2b β r ⁓ t = Ʃ A r ⁓ A t | β r ⁓ t = Ʃ | A r ⁓ A f | 2c β f ⁓ t = Ʃ A f ⁓ A t | β f ⁓ t = Ʃ | A f ⁓ A t | 3 γ = (S r \(\cup\) S t \(\cup\) S f ) 4 𝐻 = − \(\sum _{i=1}^{s}{p}_{i}\) . \(\text{ln}{P}_{i}\) \({J}^{{\prime }}=\frac{H}{\text{ln}S}\) Note: Equations used in this analysis of biodiversity. Where, S = species, A = abundance, f = forest area, r = river associated forest area, t = tourist associated with forest, S is the number of species, Shannon-Wiener index \({H}^{{\prime }}(\text{C}\text{o}\text{l}\text{w}\text{e}\text{l}\text{l}, 2009; \text{M}\text{a}\text{g}\text{u}\text{r}\text{r}\text{a}\text{n}, 1988; \text{S}\text{i}\text{m}\text{p}\text{s}\text{o}\text{n}, 1949)\) , J′ is Pielou's evenness index (Pielou, 1966 ), and p i is the proportion of individuals in the 𝑖 th species. 1 to 3 equations are used for data analysis for this study. Results Comparison of site alpha, beta, and gamma diversity In examining the tree communities across forest, river, and tourist areas, we found that the distribution of tree species was quite uniform. The evenness analysis revealed no significant differences between these habitats, with p-values of 0.319 across the board. This means that tree species are spread out similarly in all three environments. When looking at diversity indices, both forest and river habitats had an alpha diversity index of 86 (Majumdar et al., 2014 ), while the tourist area was slightly lower at 84. This indicates a consistent number of unique tree species in each habitat, with the tourist area having just a bit less diversity (Mahmud, et al., 2017). The beta diversity index, which measures differences in species composition between habitats using Bray-Curtis dissimilarity, showed moderate to significant differences. This means that while the number of species might be similar, the actual types of species vary between the habitats. Overall, the gamma diversity index, which considers unique species across all habitats, was 46. This suggests a moderate level of species uniqueness across the different environments, indicating a fair amount of diversity within the tree populations studied (Fig. 2). In the bird section, the evenness of species across river, forest, and tourist areas showed no significant differences, with a p-value of 0.318. This means the variation in evenness within each habitat is much greater than any differences between them. When looking at diversity indices, the forest had an alpha diversity index of 104 for unique species, while both the river and tourist habitats were at 105, indicating a similar number of unique bird species in each habitat. The beta diversity index (Brockerhoff et al., 2017 ; Souza Valente et al., 2020 ; Głowacka & Flis-Olszewska, 2022 ; Majumdar et al., 2014 ), using Bray-Curtis dissimilarity, showed moderate to high differences in species composition between the habitats, indicating noticeable differences in the types of species present. Overall, the gamma diversity index for unique species across all habitats was 51, suggesting a rich variety of bird species (Fig. 3). In the mammal section, the evenness of species across different habitats—river, forest, and tourist areas—showed no significant differences (P = 0.32). The alpha diversity index for unique species was consistent at 46 for all habitats, indicating a similar number of unique mammal species in each area. The beta diversity index, calculated using Bray-Curtis dissimilarity, showed moderate to high differences in species composition between the habitats, meaning there are noticeable differences in the types of species present in each habitat (Dutta & Hossain, 2016 ; Kessler et al., 2009 ). Overall, the gamma diversity index for unique species across all habitats was 9, suggesting a limited number of unique species. These results indicate a relatively uniform distribution of mammal species across the surveyed habitats, with minimal variation in species evenness (Fig. 4). In the reptile section of our study, we found that the evenness of species across different habitats—river, forest, and tourist areas—was quite similar, with no significant differences (p-values around 0.32). Both the river and forest habitats hosted 45 species each, reflecting a consistent level of alpha diversity. The tourist habitat was slightly less diverse, with 41 species (Mandl et al., 2010 ; Roy & Bhattacharya, 2023 ; Uddin et al., 2020 ). When we looked at beta diversity, which measures differences in species composition between habitats using the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity index, we noticed distinct patterns in species abundance. This means that while the number of species might be similar, the specific species present varied between habitats. The overall diversity, or gamma diversity index, was 12 (Rahman et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2019 ; Reza & Perry, 2015 ; Uddin et al., 2020 ), indicating a slightly higher total diversity compared to the bird and mammal sections of the study. These results suggest that while the number of species (evenness) is fairly uniform across the different reptile habitats, there are some differences in which species are found where (Fig. 5). In our study of invertebrates, we found that the evenness of species across rivers, forests, and tourist habitats was quite similar, with no significant differences (p-values around 0.321). This means that species were distributed evenly across these habitats. Both the river and forest habitats had 35 species each, reflecting their alpha diversity, while the tourist habitat had slightly fewer species, with 33 (Reza, 2010 ). When we looked at beta diversity using the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity matrix, we observed differences in species composition between the habitats. This analysis highlighted unique patterns in species abundance and showed that the community structures varied among the habitats. The gamma diversity index, which represents the total number of unique species across all habitats, was 3 (Majumdar et al., 2014 ; Rahman et al., 2011 ). This indicates a relatively low overall diversity compared to other sections of the study. These findings suggest that while species distribution is quite uniform across different invertebrate habitats, the specific species present and their community structures differ (Fig. 6). Overall, these findings suggest that while there are no significant differences in evenness among habitats, there are notable differences in species composition, indicating varied community structures across the studied invertebrate habitats. Comparative analysis across habitats The tree forests in our study show the highest levels of species abundance, evenness, and Shannon index, indicating a well-balanced distribution of species. On the other hand, the tourist area has the lowest scores in these metrics, which might be due to environmental stress or human impact. The forests near rivers have lower evenness compared to the main forest area, suggesting a less uniform distribution of trees in these regions (Mohd-Taib et al., 2020 ; Pozo & Säumel, 2018 ). For birds, mammals, and reptiles, the Games-Howell test revealed significant differences between the areas. Specifically, pairwise comparisons showed that the tourist-associated forest area is markedly different from both the river-associated forest area and the tourist area itself. These differences are marked on the plot with brackets and p-values (Rahman et al., 2010). Furthermore, Bayesian analysis provided log Bayes Factors, offering strong evidence for these differences. The Games-Howell test for invertebrates also indicated significant differences between the habitats. Pairwise comparisons showed that the tourist-associated forest areas are significantly different from the main forest area (p = 0.01) and the tourist area (p < 0.05). Bayesian analysis reinforced these findings, with log Bayes Factors showing strong evidence for differences: -2.56 for the comparison between forest within river habitats and − 35.96 for forest within tourist areas. Table 2 Shannon and evenness indices of several forest taxonomy groups under biodiversity study. Shannon Diversity Evenness Tree 3.60 0.94 Birds 2.44 0.62 Mammals 1.92 0.87 Reptiles 2.39 0.96 Invertebrates 1.00 0.91 Note: This table displays Shannon and evenness indices for different taxonomic groups within forest ecosystems, providing insights into species diversity and the evenness of species distribution—key indicators in ongoing biodiversity assessments. Species abundance and evenness are crucial biodiversity metrics. Abundance counts individuals per species, while evenness assesses their distribution. To calculate evenness, use Pielou's index: first, determine each species' proportion \({P}_{i}\) of the total population. Compute the Shannon-Wiener index \({H}^{{\prime }}\) by summing the products of each \({P}_{i}\) and its natural logarithm. Then, divide \({H}^{{\prime }}\) by the natural logarithm of the total species count S . This index reveals how evenly individuals are spread across species. Rarefaction of taxonomic groups within habitats We assessed species richness across trees, birds, mammals, reptiles, and invertebrates in forest, river, and tourist areas using rarefaction curves. The forest habitat boasted the highest species richness, especially among trees, which showed a steep initial increase in the curve, indicating a high diversity even with small sample sizes. Mammals and reptiles also exhibited significant richness, with invertebrates slightly lower (Das et al., 2016 ). In contrast, the river habitat had notably low invertebrate diversity, evidenced by a steep rarefaction curve. The tourist area showed the highest tree diversity but plateaued quickly (Dutta et al., 2015 ), suggesting fewer overall species. Birds and invertebrates in tourist areas had comparable but significantly lower richness than in forests, reflecting the negative impact of human disturbance on these habitats. The rarefaction curves reveal significant differences in species richness among various taxonomic groups and habitats. Forest habitats are highly diverse, especially for trees, and have moderate diversity for mammals and reptiles. River habitats, on the other hand, are particularly rich in mammals, reptiles, and invertebrates (Chowdhury et al., 2019 ; Das et al., 2016 ; Rahman et al., 2013 ). Tourist areas, likely impacted by human activity, generally show reduced species richness across most groups, though trees still maintain considerable diversity. These findings highlight the crucial role of habitat type in determining species diversity and offer valuable insights for conservation efforts aimed at preserving biodiversity (Brockerhoff et al., 2017 ; Valente et al., 2020; Rahman, Mahmud, et al., 2017), particularly in forest areas affected by tourism ( Fig. 7 ). Non-metric Multidimensional Scaling (NMDS) Analysis To visualize the differences in species composition among five taxonomic groups (trees, birds, mammals, reptiles, and invertebrates) across three distinct habitats (forest, river, and tourist area), we performed an NMDS analysis. In the forest habitat, the NMDS plot showed a distinct clustering of tree species, indicating a unique composition separate from other habitats, highlighting the specialized nature of forest tree communities (Głowacka & Flis-Olszewska, 2022 ; Rahman, Mahmud, et al., 2017; Scherer et al., 2023 ). Mammals and reptiles also formed noticeable clusters, reflecting their adaptation to the forest environment. Birds and invertebrates were more dispersed, suggesting they are more broadly distributed across different habitats. In the river habitat, invertebrates exhibited a unique clustering pattern, indicating their specialization in aquatic environments (Reza, 2010 ; Reza & Perry, 2015 ; Roy & Bhattacharya, 2023 ; Xu et al., 2014 ), while birds showed moderate clustering, reflecting the diversity of avian species in riverine areas. Trees and mammals were more scattered, showing less distinct species composition than in forests, and reptiles were the least distinct, with a widespread distribution. In the tourist area, species composition differed from forest and river habitats, likely due to human disturbance. Birds and invertebrates showed moderate clustering but were less distinct, and mammals and reptiles had the most dispersed distribution (Uddin et al., 2020 ), indicating less specialized communities. These findings highlight significant differences in species composition among taxonomic groups and habitats, emphasizing the importance of forest habitats for unique tree and mammal communities, river habitats for invertebrate diversity, and the impact of human activity on species composition in tourist areas. This information is valuable for developing conservation strategies to preserve the unique species compositions across different habitats. Discussion Our study set out to explore how different habitats—forests, rivers, and tourist areas—affect the diversity and species composition of trees, birds, mammals, reptiles, and invertebrates. Using alpha (α), beta (β), and gamma (γ) diversity indices, along with rarefaction curves and NMDS analysis, we gained insights into how habitat types influence species diversity and composition. Comparing our findings with existing research, we found both similarities and contrasts. Our α-diversity indices revealed rich species diversity across habitats, with forests and rivers supporting diverse tree populations (86 species each), consistent with stable environments noted by Hayat et al., (2010). In contrast, bird diversity was unexpectedly high across all habitats (104–105 species), differing from Hayat et al., (2010), who observed declines in human-affected areas. β- Diversity assessments highlighted distinct species compositions influenced by habitat types, resonating with Hayat et al., (2010) for mammals and extended to reptiles and invertebrates in our study. Evenness metrics indicated relatively balanced species distributions within taxonomic groups across habitats (p-value around 0.32), contrasting with findings by (Roy & Bhattacharya, 2023 ) in impacted areas. Our rarefaction curves echoed patterns seen in disturbed habitats reported by Tripathi et al., (2004), particularly evident in tourist areas where species richness plateaued quicker due to likely habitat degradation. NMDS analysis confirmed significant differences in species composition among habitats, aligning with Tripathi et al., (2004) and illustrating habitat-specific clustering for reptiles and birds, while also revealing similar patterns for invertebrates and trees. Lower Shannon-Wiener index values (1.10–1.35) in our study indicated reduced species diversity compared to global tropical forests, highlighting regional biodiversity disparities noted in studies across India (Kumar et al., 2006; Tripathi et al., 2004; Gopalakrishna et al., 2015; Panda et al., 2013; Thakur and Khare, 2006; Parthasarathy and Sethi, 1997; Velho and Krishnadas, 2011; Parthasarathy and Karthikeyan, 1997; Bhuyan et al., 2003) and Malaysia (Hayat et al., 2010). Factors like habitat fragmentation and human activities likely contribute to this lower diversity, underscoring the need for targeted conservation efforts and further research to address underlying causes. Our findings highlight the critical role of habitat type in shaping species diversity and composition, consistent with broader ecological studies. Protecting forest and river habitats is crucial for biodiversity conservation, especially given the vulnerability of invertebrate populations in river ecosystems noted by Kurnar et al. (2006). Similarly, mitigating human impacts in tourist areas is essential to preserve species richness and composition, aligning with conservation priorities emphasized by Pomda et al. (2013) for sustaining diverse reptile communities through effective habitat preservation strategies. Conclusion Our ecological study across forest, river, and tourist area habitats reveals intriguing differences in biodiversity among trees, birds, mammals, reptiles, and invertebrates. While evenness levels and alpha diversity indices indicate consistent species distributions within each group across habitats, beta diversity indices unveil significant variations in species composition and community structures unique to each habitat type. Forests emerge as biodiversity hotspots with well-balanced ecosystems, likely due to minimal human disturbance. In contrast, tourist areas show less distinct species compositions, likely influenced by higher human activity and environmental stress. River habitats stand out for their specialized invertebrate communities adapted to aquatic life, highlighting the ecological specialization fostered by diverse environments. The Games-Howell test underscores these differences in species distributions, particularly between natural and human-impacted areas, underscoring the profound impact of human activity on biodiversity. Rarefaction curves further emphasize these disparities, with forests exhibiting the highest species richness, especially among trees, while tourist areas demonstrate reduced richness across most taxonomic groups. NMDS analysis visually confirms these patterns, illustrating distinct clustering of species groups according to habitat type, aligning with our quantitative findings and showcasing the unique ecological niches and adaptive strategies of species. To address these ecological insights effectively, we propose several recommendations. Conservation efforts should prioritize the protection of high-biodiversity habitats like forests and rivers. Restoration initiatives are critical in tourist areas to enhance biodiversity and restore ecosystem balance. Continuous ecological monitoring and research will facilitate adaptive management strategies in response to evolving conditions and challenges. Public education plays a crucial role in promoting awareness and responsible behavior towards natural habitats, supporting broader conservation objectives. Finally, stringent enforcement of environmental policies is essential to mitigate the negative impacts of tourism and urban development, ensuring the preservation of ecological integrity and promoting sustainable interactions with nature. Declarations Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the Institute of Forestry and Environmental Sciences, University of Chittagong, Bangladesh, for providing the necessary facilities and guidance for this study. The authors also extend their gratitude to the Management Committee of Kaptai National Park, as well as the anonymous reviewers and editors of the journal, for their valuable comments and suggestions, which greatly contributed to enhancing the manuscript's quality. Author Contributions Mohd Imran Hossain Chowdhury and Mehedi Hasan Rakib played a key role in shaping the methodology, conducting investigations, drafting the original manuscript, performing formal analyses, and contributing to the review and editing process, as well as creating visualizations. Mehedi Hasan Rakib, Md. Seikh Sadiul Islam Tanvir, Chinmoy Das, and Tonima Hossain were instrumental in curating the data. Together, Mohd Imran Hossain Chowdhury and Mehedi Hasan Rakib led the conceptualization of the study, refined the methodology, administered the project, allocated resources, conducted formal analyses, participated in manuscript writing and review, and provided supervision throughout. All authors critically reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript before submission. Competing interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Availability of data and materials Data will be available on a formal request from the corresponding authors. Funding Not Applicable (N/A) References Abdullah, M. R., Rahman, M., & Sarwar, A. K. M. G. (2018). Threatened plants in Kaptai National Park in Rangamati, Bangladesh . https://doi.org/10.17011/conference/eccb2018/108150 Abdullah, M. R., Sarwar, A. G., & Rahman, M. M. (2022). Threatened Vascular Plants of Karnaphuli Range Under Kaptai Reserve Forest of Rangamati, Bangladesh. Plant Physiology and Soil Chemistry , 2 (2), 97–101. https://doi.org/10.26480/ppsc.02.2022.97.101 Ahsan, M. F., & Al Haidar, I. K. (2017). A comparative study of avian diversity in Teknaf Wildlife Sanctuary,Inani Reserve Forest and Chittagong University campus in Bangladesh. Journal of Threatened Taxa , 9 (5), 10158–10170. https://doi.org/10.11609/JOTT.2942.9.5.10158-10170 Alam, M., Rahman, M. R., Chowdhury, M. A., & Alam, M. S. (2019). Community Dependency and Conservation Practices in Khagrachari, Bangladesh: A Study on Management of Village Common Forests (VCFs). Asian Journal of Research in Agriculture and Forestry , September , 1–13. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajraf/2019/v4i230060 Bredemeier, M., Dennis, P., Sauberer, N., Petriccione, B., Török, K., Cocciufa, C., Morabito, G., & Pugnetti, A. (2007). Biodiversity assessment and change - The challenge of appropriate methods. In Issues in Environmental Science and Technology (Vol. 25, Issue July). https://doi.org/10.1039/9781847557650-00217 Brockerhoff, E. G., Barbaro, L., Castagneyrol, B., Forrester, D. I., Gardiner, B., González-Olabarria, J. R., Lyver, P. O. B., Meurisse, N., Oxbrough, A., Taki, H., Thompson, I. D., van der Plas, F., & Jactel, H. (2017). Forest biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services. Biodiversity and Conservation , 26 (13), 3005–3035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1453-2 Chakraborty, A., Barman, H., Saha, G. K., & Aditya, G. (2021). Wintering waterbird assemblage in an emerging wetland of West Bengal, India: Characterization for conservation management. Ornis Hungarica , 29 (1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.2478/orhu-2021-0001 Chowdhury, B., Hossain, M. K., Hossain, M. A., & Khan, B. M. (2018). Native tree species diversity of Rampahar Natural Forest Reserve in Rangamati South Forest Division, Bangladesh. Ceylon Journal of Science , 47 (2), 129. https://doi.org/10.4038/cjs.v47i2.7508 Chowdhury, M. A., Islam, K. N., Hafiz, N., & Islam, K. (2019). Diversity of trees in a community managed forest: the case of Komolchori VCF, Khagrachari, Bangladesh. Geology, Ecology, and Landscapes , 3 (2), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/24749508.2018.1508980 Colwell, R. K. (2009). III.1 Biodiversity: Concepts, Patterns, and Measurement. In Princeton University Press eBooks (pp. 257-263). https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400833023.257 Das, A., Sharma, P., Surendran, H., Nath, A., Ghosh, S., Dutta, D., Mondol, J., & Wangdi, Y. (2016). Additions to the herpetofauna of Royal Manas National Park, Bhutan, with six new country records. Herpetology Notes , 9 (November), 261–278. de Souza Valente, C., Rodiles, A., Freire Marques, M. R., & Merrifield, D. L. (2020). White spot syndrome virus (WSSV) disturbs the intestinal microbiota of shrimp (Penaeus vannamei) reared in biofloc and clear seawater. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology , 104 (18), 8007–8023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-020-10816-4 Dutta, S., & Hossain, M. K. (2016). Infestation of imperata cylindrica L. and its impacts on local communities in secondary forests of sitakunda botanical garden and eco-park, chittagong, Bangladesh. International Journal of Conservation Science , 7 (1), 167–180. Dutta, S., Mk, H., M, A. H., & Chowdhury, P. (2015). Exotic Plants and their Usage by Local Communities in the Sitakunda. Forest Research , 4 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4172/21689776.1000136 Głowacka, A., & Flis-Olszewska, E. (2022). The biodiversity of weed communities of dent maize, narrow-leaved lupin and oat in relation to cropping system and weed control. Agronomy Science , 77 (3), 123–137. https://doi.org/10.24326/as.2022.3.9 Habibur Rahman, M., Abu Sayed Arfin Khan, M., Jannatul Fardusi, M., & Roy, B. (2010). Status, Distribution and Diversity of Invasive Forest Undergrowth Species in the Tropics: a Study from Northeastern Bangladesh. Journal of Forest Science , 26 (3), 149–159. Hasan, M., Jorin, T., & Sayok, A. K. (2023). Biodiversity Information Systems in Geospatial Applications for Protected Area Management. March . https://doi.org/10.5923/j.ajgis.20231201.01 Hasan, M., Kabi, J., Nazrul, K., Miah, M. R., Parisha, J. T., Alam, S.-E., Sayok, A. K., Sarok, A., & Uddin, M. B. (2023). Enhancing National Park Information Knowledge to Improve Biodiversity Conservation in Bangladesh: A Study on Policy Perspectives. International Journal of Plant Research , 2023 (1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.plant.20231301.01 Kessler, M., Abrahamczyk, S., Bos, M., Buchori, D., Putra, D. D., Gradstein, S. R., Höhn, P., Kluge, J., Orend, F., Pitopang, R., Saleh, S., Schulze, C. H., Sporn, S. G., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Tjitrosoedirdjo, S. S., & Tscharntke, T. (2009). Alpha and beta diversity of plants and animals along a tropical land-use gradient. Ecological Applications , 19 (8), 2142–2156. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-1074.1 Liu, G., Bou, G., Su, S., Xing, J., Qu, H., Zhang, X., Wang, X., Zhao, Y., & Dugarjaviin, M. (2019). Microbial diversity within the digestive tract contents of Dezhou donkeys. PLoS ONE , 14 (12), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226186 Majumdar, K., Shankar, U., & Datta, B. K. (2014). Trends in Tree Diversity and Stand Structure during Restoration: A Case Study in Fragmented Moist Deciduous Forest Ecosystems of Northeast India. Journal of Ecosystems , 2014 , 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/845142 Magurran, A. E. (1988) Ecological Diversity and Its Measurements. Princeton Univsity Pres, Princeton, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7358-0 Mandl, N., Lehnert, M., Kessler, M., & Gradstein, S. R. (2010). A comparison of alpha and beta diversity patterns of ferns, bryophytes and macrolichens in tropical montane forests of southern Ecuador. Biodiversity and Conservation , 19 (8), 2359–2369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9839-4 Miah, R., Hasan, M., Parisha, J. T., & Sayok, A. K. (2023). A Framework on Biodiversity Conservation Related Policy Analysis . January . https://doi.org/10.5923/j.ajee.20231301.01 Mohd-Taib, F. S., Mohd-Saleh, W., Asyikha, R., Mansor, M. S., Ahmad-Mustapha, M., Mustafa-Bakray, N. A., Mod-Husin, S., Md-Shukor, A., Amat-Darbis, N. D., & Sulaiman, N. (2020). Effects of anthropogenic disturbance on the species assemblages of birds in the back mangrove forests. Wetlands Ecology and Management , 28 (3), 479–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-020-09726-z Nolan, K. ., & Callan, J. . (2006). Beachcomber Biology : The Shannon-Weiner Species Diversity Index. ABLE 2005 Proceedings , 27 , 334–338. Pozo, P., & Säumel, I. (2018). How to bloom the green desert: Eucalyptus plantations and native forests in uruguay beyond black and white perspectives. Forests , 9 (10). https://doi.org/10.3390/f9100614 Pielou, E. C. (1966) The Measurement of Diversity in Different Types of Biological Collections. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 13, 131-144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(66)90013-0 Rahman, M. H., Khan, M. A. S. A., Roy, B., & Fardusi, M. J. (2011). Assessment of natural regeneration status and diversity of tree species in the biodiversity conservation areas of Northeastern Bangladesh. Journal of Forestry Research , 22 (4), 551–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-011-0198-0 Rahman, M. H., Roy, B., Anik, S. I., & Fardusi, M. J. (2013). Ecotourism and Protected Area Conservation in Bangladesh: a Case Study on Understanding the Visitors Views on Prospects and Development. Journal of Forest and Environmental Science , 29 (1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.7747/jfs.2013.29.1.15 Rahman, M. M., Al Mahmud, M. A., Ahmed, F. U., & Deb, R. (2017). Developing alternative income generation activities reduces forest dependency of the poor and enhances their livelihoods: The case of the chunati wildlife sanctuary, Bangladesh. Forests Trees and Livelihoods , 26 (4), 256–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2017.1320590 Rahman, M. M., Mahmud, M. A. Al, Shahidullah, M., Nath, T. K., & Jashimuddin, M. (2016). The competitiveness of the phytosociological attributes of the protected areas in Bangladesh with that in the other tropical countries. Journal of Sustainable Forestry , 35 (6), 431–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2016.1202841 Rahman, M. M., Mahmud, M. A. A., & Shahidullah, M. (2017). Socioeconomics of biodiversity conservation in the protected areas: a case study in Bangladesh. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology , 24 (1), 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2016.1169453 Rahman, M. M., Rahman, M. M., & Huda, M. K. (2020). Tree species diversity of the Kaptai National Park in Rangamati district, Bangladesh. Jahangirnagar University Journal of Biological Sciences , 8 (2), 71–79. https://doi.org/10.3329/jujbs.v8i2.49837 Reza, A. (2010). Colubrid Snake Lycodon zawi (Serpentes: Colubridae) from Lawachara National Park in Bangladesh. Russian Journal of Herpetology , 17 (1), 75–77. http://rjh.folium.ru/index.php/rjh/article/view/108 Reza, A. H. M. A., & Perry, G. (2015). Herpetofaunal species richness in the tropical forests of Bangladesh. Asian Journal of Conservation Biology , 4 (2), 59. Roy, S., & Bhattacharya, K. R. (2023). A New Biodiversity Index and the Corresponding Index of Evenness : A Simple Theoretical Analysis . 4 (3), 445–453. Scherer, L., De Laurentiis, V., Marques, A., Michelsen, O., Alejandre, E. M., Pfister, S., Rosa, F., & Rugani, B. (2021). Linking land use inventories to biodiversity impact assessment methods. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment , 26 (12), 2315–2320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-02003-y Scherer, L., Rosa, F., Sun, Z., Michelsen, O., De Laurentiis, V., Marques, A., Pfister, S., Verones, F., & Kuipers, K. J. J. (2023). Biodiversity Impact Assessment Considering Land Use Intensities and Fragmentation. Environmental Science and Technology , 57 (48), 19612–19623. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c04191 Sharashy, O. S. (2022). Plant biodiversity on Coastal rocky ridges habitats with reference to census data in Ras El-Hekma and Omayed Area, Egypt. Sebha University Journal of Pure & Applied Sciences , 21 (1), 41–45. Simpson, E. Measurement of Diversity. Nature 163, 688 (1949). https://doi.org/10.1038/163688a0 Smith, J., Bass, S., & Roe, D. (2020). Biodiversity mainstreaming: a review of current theory and practice. IIED, London , December , 1–56. https://www.iied.org/17662iied Uddin, M., Chowdhury, F. I., & Hossain, M. K. (2020). Assessment of tree species diversity, composition and structure of Medha Kachhapia National Park, Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. Asian Journal of Forestry , 4 (1), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.13057/asianjfor/r040104 Uddin, M. N., Hossain, M. M., Karim, M. S., Siriwong, W., & Boonyanuphap, J. (2020). The phytosociological attributes of village common forests in Chittagong hill tracts, Bangladesh. Songklanakarin Journal of Science and Technology , 42 (4), 819–829. https://doi.org/10.14456/sjst-psu.2020.105 Xu, Z., Hansen, M. A., Hansen, L. H., Jacquiod, S., & Sørensen, S. J. (2014). Bioinformatic approaches reveal metagenomic characterization of soil microbial community. PLoS ONE , 9 (4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093445 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4668666","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":325573804,"identity":"fb1f2460-648e-4f6a-aa9a-030edde300b4","order_by":0,"name":"Mehedi Hasan Rakib","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Institute of Forestry and Environmental Sciences, University of Chittagong","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mehedi","middleName":"Hasan","lastName":"Rakib","suffix":""},{"id":325573805,"identity":"74abf559-a19f-4a94-a631-cd519c960dc1","order_by":1,"name":"Mohd Imran Hossain Chowdhury","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Institute of Forestry and Environmental Sciences, University of Chittagong","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mohd","middleName":"Imran Hossain","lastName":"Chowdhury","suffix":""},{"id":325573807,"identity":"337f305f-3440-481e-b18c-742228b9ba3e","order_by":2,"name":"Chinmoy Das","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Institute of Forestry and Environmental Sciences, University of Chittagong","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Chinmoy","middleName":"","lastName":"Das","suffix":""},{"id":325573808,"identity":"064566c8-f5b2-4498-b9a2-238b84089237","order_by":3,"name":"Tonima Hossain","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Institute of Forestry and Environmental Sciences, University of Chittagong","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tonima","middleName":"","lastName":"Hossain","suffix":""},{"id":325573810,"identity":"6b8c4fd6-58ac-48c0-b456-028a2190f2fa","order_by":4,"name":"Md. Seikh Sadiul Islam Tanvir","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Institute of Forestry and Environmental Sciences, University of Chittagong","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Md.","middleName":"Seikh Sadiul Islam","lastName":"Tanvir","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-07-01 14:12:18","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4668666/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4668666/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":60997823,"identity":"5345ca2e-9866-489a-a426-556577080f4a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-24 12:26:35","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":149287,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eBiodiversity study in Kaptai National Park, Bangladesh: survey locations and methodological overview.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4668666/v1/09e9ec9c2556933ebe39b49d.png"},{"id":60996925,"identity":"b7564bc4-8a5f-4280-9b40-cfb1349af43f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-24 12:18:35","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":61135,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRevealing ecological disparities in tree abundance, evenness, and Shannon Index across Forest, River, and Tourist areas. An F-test (F\u003csub\u003eWelch\u003c/sub\u003e (2,2)) indicates significant differences among the areas. Pairwise comparisons using the Games-Howell test reveal significant distinctions. Additionally, Bayesian analysis is incorporated, with log Bayes Factors (log(BF)) providing strong evidence for differences between the areas\u003cstrong\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4668666/v1/29d376624be733bd31a729fe.png"},{"id":60996927,"identity":"28c9df32-017a-48a7-968e-b675e529438c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-24 12:18:35","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":59459,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRevealing ecological disparities in bird abundance, evenness, and Shannon index across Forest, River, and Tourist areas. An F-test (F\u003csub\u003eWelch\u003c/sub\u003e(2,2)) indicates significant differences among the areas. Pairwise comparisons using the Games-Howell test reveal significant distinctions. Additionally, Bayesian analysis is incorporated, with log Bayes Factors (log(BF)) providing strong evidence for differences between the areas.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4668666/v1/65c7beebc54e6a0655f68147.png"},{"id":60996919,"identity":"a5ea9310-596c-47d3-95de-effd0eca0d8e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-24 12:18:34","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":51727,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eUncovering ecological variations in mammal abundance, evenness, and Shannon index across Forest, River, and Tourist areas. An F-test demonstrates significant disparities among these areas. The Games-Howell test further identifies significant differences through pairwise comparisons. Moreover, Bayesian analysis is used, with log Bayes factors (log(bf)) offering robust evidence of these differences.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4668666/v1/18c6b1d192013be9d67d87ac.png"},{"id":60997806,"identity":"9b3c503a-450a-494f-a43d-bb87c5b67dc6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-24 12:26:34","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":54052,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eHighlighting ecological differences in reptile abundance, evenness, and Shannon index across Forest, River, and Tourist Areas. An F-test shows significant variations among the areas. The Games-Howell test conducts pairwise comparisons that identify clear differences. Additionally, Bayesian analysis is employed, with log Bayes Factors (log(BF)) indicating substantial evidence of these differences.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4668666/v1/45234659b6d9e79125feb5b5.png"},{"id":60996923,"identity":"a5b27e4e-f616-4780-a80f-dba8a5654ade","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-24 12:18:35","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":54770,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eExploring differences in invertebrate abundance, evenness, and diversity in forest, river, and tourist areas. An F-test shows significant differences between these areas. The Games-Howell test identifies important distinctions through pairwise comparisons. Also, Bayesian analysis with log Bayes factors strongly supports these differences.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4668666/v1/4548204684cb87f19aff67ee.png"},{"id":60997824,"identity":"6d30dda2-6371-46f8-831e-33486df0ba32","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-24 12:26:35","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":41257,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRarefaction curves for five taxonomic groups (trees, birds, mammals, reptiles, and invertebrates) across forest, river, and tourist area habitats. The shaded areas represent the 95% confidence intervals. The X-axis shows the number of sequencing strips randomly extracted from a sample, while the Y-axis indicates the number of Shannon indexes constructed, reflecting sequencing depth. Different habitats are represented by different colored curves.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4668666/v1/929fa7a0a2fc6b13c053d7a6.png"},{"id":60997805,"identity":"194036e0-ed31-4ebf-a659-35fb6e922916","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-24 12:26:34","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":60918,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMultidimensional Scaling (NMDS) analysis: comparing three habitats with loss of maximum dimension habitat.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4668666/v1/f3e63cd791158a72b930b5ef.png"},{"id":63926647,"identity":"59f64b2d-efdf-4bdd-9379-a8b117bf549e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-03 23:13:03","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":980962,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4668666/v1/dc233d47-3d56-4cea-bc7a-9df4e940664a.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Wildlife Ecological Spectrum: unveiling alpha (α), beta (β), and gamma (γ) diversity of the Kaptai National Park, Bangladesh","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eKaptai National Park (KNP) is a vital protected area in Bangladesh's Kaptai Upazila of the Rangamati Hill District, spanning 5,464.78 hectares. Established in 1999, the park aims to protect its rich biodiversity (Rahman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), which has been threatened by human activities and environmental changes. The transition of the Kaptai forest into a national park brought stricter regulations, causing tension between the local communities, who depend on the forest for their livelihoods, and park managers (Ahsan \u0026amp; Haidar, 2017; Hasan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This situation illustrates the delicate balance between conservation efforts and the needs of local people, emphasizing the importance of collaborative management strategies. Historically, Kaptai National Park was known as the Sitapahar Reserve, covering 14,448 acres (Abdullah et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Chowdhury et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Local communities used this land for subsistence until the 1960s when the Kaptai hydroelectric dam was built, displacing thousands of people to the forest's outskirts and interior. These communities relied on the forest for agriculture, fishing, bamboo and handloom crafts, and jhum cultivation (a traditional form of shifting agriculture), increasing pressure on forest resources. The situation worsened in 1975 due to armed conflicts between local tribes and the Bangladesh government. In response, the government designated the area as Kaptai National Park in 1999 to protect the forest by limiting human activities. While crucial for conservation, this move restricted local communities' access to forest resources, leading to tensions (Abdullah et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Chowdhury et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). To address these conflicts, Bangladesh adopted a forest co-management system that involves local communities in decision-making, recognizing their essential role in conservation. As of 2016, 17 of Bangladesh's 49 protected areas operate under co-management frameworks, with Kaptai National Park being a key example (M. M. Rahman, Mahmud, et al., 2017). This approach aims to balance ecological preservation with the socio-economic needs of forest-dependent populations, fostering cooperation and shared stewardship.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eKaptai National Park features mixed evergreen forests, diverse wildlife, and significant water bodies, including Kaptai Lake and the Karnaphuli River. These natural resources support the park's biodiversity and provide essential services to residents (Reza, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Reza \u0026amp; Perry, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). The park's moist tropical climate, characterized by high annual rainfall and a pronounced monsoon season, influences its ecological dynamics and management Challenges. The Park\u0026rsquo;s biodiversity is remarkable, with a variety of plant and animal species. The plant life includes teak (\u003cem\u003eTectona grandis\u003c/em\u003e), garjan (\u003cem\u003eDipterocarpus turbinatus\u003c/em\u003e), and several bamboo (\u003cem\u003eBambusa spp.\u003c/em\u003e) and cane (\u003cem\u003eSaccharum spp.\u003c/em\u003e) species. The fauna includes numerous bird species like sparrows (\u003cem\u003ePasser domesticus\u003c/em\u003e), egrets (\u003cem\u003eArdea alba\u003c/em\u003e), and kingfishers (\u003cem\u003eAlcedo atthis\u003c/em\u003e), and mammals such as elephants (\u003cem\u003eElephas maximus\u003c/em\u003e), barking deer (\u003cem\u003eMuntiacus muntjak\u003c/em\u003e), and gibbons (\u003cem\u003eHylobatidae spp.\u003c/em\u003e) (Jorin, et al., 2023; Hasan, Kabi, et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Miah et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Reza, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Reza \u0026amp; Perry, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). The park's aquatic ecosystems, especially Kaptai Lake, support a significant fish population, vital for many local residents' livelihoods. The management of Kaptai National Park has evolved to address both conservation and community needs. The Integrated Protected Area Co-management (IPAC) project, launched in 2009, integrates local communities into the park's stewardship (Chakraborty et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Nolan \u0026amp; Callan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; M. M. Rahman, Al Mahmud, et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Smith et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This project promotes the sustainable use of resources while protecting the park's ecological integrity, aiming to resolve conflicts and enhance conservation efforts. Kaptai National Park exemplifies the broader challenges and opportunities in conservation management. Its journey from a reserved forest to a contested protected area, and finally to a co-managed park, reflects ongoing efforts to balance human needs with ecological preservation. By involving local communities in management, the park aims to achieve a sustainable balance, ensuring the protection of its invaluable biodiversity while supporting the livelihoods of those who depend on its resources (Alam et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Chowdhury et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Rahman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Uddin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study aims to assess biodiversity across different forest habitats within Kaptai National Park, Bangladesh, employing tailored ecological methods. It focuses on quantifying species richness, abundance, and diversity indices for trees, birds, mammals, reptiles, and invertebrates in the general forest, river-associated, and tourist-associated areas. Utilizing rigorous sampling techniques like quadrat sampling, transect surveys, live trapping, and pitfall traps, the research aims to elucidate biodiversity patterns influenced by habitat types and human activities. Statistical analyses using R programming will evaluate these patterns, correlating biodiversity metrics with conservation efforts. Ultimately, this study seeks to inform habitat-specific conservation strategies crucial for preserving Kaptai National Park's rich biodiversity amidst environmental and anthropogenic pressures.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eStudy region\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKaptai National Park, established in 1999, is a major national park in Bangladesh, located in the Rangamati district and covering a vast 5,464.78 hectares (M. M. Rahman et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). It is part of the Rangamati Hill Tracts (South) Forest Division, which was formed by splitting the Chittagong Hill Tracts Forest Division. The Park includes six forest reserves and is also part of the Rampahar Reserve Forest of the Chittagong South Forest Division. Geographically, it is situated in the Kaptai Upazila of the Rangamati Hill Tract district, northeast of Chittagong city. The Park is divided into two forest ranges: the Kaptai Range and the Karnaphuli Range. It lies between the geographical coordinates of 20\u0026deg;30\u0026apos;1.3\u0026apos;\u0026apos; N and 22\u0026deg;10\u0026apos;18.2\u0026apos;\u0026apos; N latitude, and 92\u0026deg;10\u0026apos;11.9\u0026apos;\u0026apos; E and 92\u0026deg;17\u0026apos;0\u0026apos;\u0026apos; E longitude (Chowdhury et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Dutta et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Sharashy, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKaptai National Park stands out for its diverse flora and fauna and plays a crucial role in the conservation of the region\u0026apos;s rich biodiversity (Das et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Its establishment was aimed at protecting this biodiversity from threats posed by human activities and environmental changes, ensuring the park remains a haven for numerous plant and animal species (Sharashy, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eSampling design and biodiversity sampling\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn ecological research, various methods are used to study different groups of species. For trees, researchers use quadrat sampling, which involves setting up specific land areas to study plant distribution. Bird surveys employ the circular strip transect method (Scherer et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), where observation points are set up, and observers count birds along designated circular and straight paths. For mammals and reptiles, live trapping is used for small species, while larger mammals are tracked through signs like footprints (Scherer et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Reptiles and other ground-dwelling species are often caught using pitfall traps (Bredemeier et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e), which are buried containers. Invertebrates like bugs are also surveyed with pitfall traps, and butterflies are monitored along predetermined paths called transects (Scherer et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Each method is specifically designed for the group being studied, ensuring effective data collection (Fig.\u0026nbsp;1).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe study focused on assessing biodiversity across three different forest habitats: general forest areas, forest areas near rivers, and forest areas near tourist sites. Forest areas were defined as regions within a meter of the buffer zone, river-associated forest areas as 30 meters from the river\u0026apos;s edge, and tourist-associated forest areas included all relevant sections. Data were systematically collected from 90 plots (Brockerhoff et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Rahman et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Reza, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Reza \u0026amp; Perry, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Scherer et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), with each habitat containing 6 plots for each group of species (trees, birds, mammals, reptiles, and invertebrates), resulting in a total of 18 plots per group (Fig. 1). The data were analyzed using the R programming environment. Biodiversity indices such as abundance, evenness, and the Shannon and Simpson indices (Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) were calculated using the vegan package (Miah et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Nolan \u0026amp; Callan, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Visualizations were created with the ggplot2 package, and the Games-Howell test was used to produce violin plots showing biodiversity variations across habitats. Further statistical analysis was conducted using the iNEXT package, including one-way ANOVA to explore biodiversity differences. The study also examined the impact of conservation efforts by correlating diversity metrics with factors like reforestation projects and anti-poaching patrols (Smith et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePreliminary results showed significant differences in biodiversity among the habitats, with river-associated forests exhibiting higher species richness and evenness, likely due to their proximity to water bodies. These findings highlight the importance of tailored conservation strategies and emphasize the need for habitat-specific management practices to enhance biodiversity conservation effectively.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEquation used in the analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.5166%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSn.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEquation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" style=\"width: 2.1327%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.5166%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026alpha;\u003csub\u003er f t\u003c/sub\u003e = Ʃ Abundance \u0026alpha;\u003csub\u003er f t\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 2.1327%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.5166%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026beta;\u003csub\u003er ⁓ f\u003c/sub\u003e = Ʃ A\u003csub\u003er\u003c/sub\u003e ⁓ A\u003csub\u003ef\u003c/sub\u003e | \u0026beta;\u003csub\u003er ⁓ f\u003c/sub\u003e = Ʃ | A\u003csub\u003er\u003c/sub\u003e ⁓ A\u003csub\u003ef\u003c/sub\u003e |\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 2.1327%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.5166%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026beta;\u003csub\u003er ⁓ t\u003c/sub\u003e = Ʃ A\u003csub\u003er\u003c/sub\u003e ⁓ A\u003csub\u003et\u003c/sub\u003e | \u0026beta;\u003csub\u003er ⁓ t\u003c/sub\u003e = Ʃ | A\u003csub\u003er\u003c/sub\u003e ⁓ A\u003csub\u003ef\u003c/sub\u003e |\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 2.1327%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.5166%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2c\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026beta;\u003csub\u003ef ⁓ t\u003c/sub\u003e = Ʃ A\u003csub\u003ef\u003c/sub\u003e ⁓ A\u003csub\u003et\u003c/sub\u003e | \u0026beta;\u003csub\u003ef ⁓ t\u003c/sub\u003e = Ʃ | A\u003csub\u003ef\u003c/sub\u003e ⁓ A\u003csub\u003et\u003c/sub\u003e|\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 2.1327%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.5166%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gamma; = (S\u003csub\u003er\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\cup\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e S\u003csub\u003et\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\cup\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003eS\u003csub\u003ef\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 2.1327%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.5166%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e𝐻 = \u0026minus;\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\sum _{i=1}^{s}{p}_{i}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\text{ln}{P}_{i}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({J}^{{\\prime }}=\\frac{H}{\\text{ln}S}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 2.1327%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNote: Equations used in this analysis of biodiversity. Where, S\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;species, A\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;abundance, f\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;forest area, r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;river associated forest area, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;tourist associated with forest, S is the number of species, Shannon-Wiener index\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({H}^{{\\prime }}(\\text{C}\\text{o}\\text{l}\\text{w}\\text{e}\\text{l}\\text{l}, 2009; \\text{M}\\text{a}\\text{g}\\text{u}\\text{r}\\text{r}\\text{a}\\text{n}, 1988; \\text{S}\\text{i}\\text{m}\\text{p}\\text{s}\\text{o}\\text{n}, 1949)\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e, J\u0026prime; is Pielou\u0026apos;s evenness index (Pielou, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1966\u003c/span\u003e), and p\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e is the proportion of individuals in the 𝑖\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e species. 1 to 3 equations are used for data analysis for this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eComparison of site alpha, beta, and gamma diversity\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn examining the tree communities across forest, river, and tourist areas, we found that the distribution of tree species was quite uniform. The evenness analysis revealed no significant differences between these habitats, with p-values of 0.319 across the board. This means that tree species are spread out similarly in all three environments. When looking at diversity indices, both forest and river habitats had an alpha diversity index of 86 (Majumdar et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), while the tourist area was slightly lower at 84. This indicates a consistent number of unique tree species in each habitat, with the tourist area having just a bit less diversity (Mahmud, et al., 2017). The beta diversity index, which measures differences in species composition between habitats using Bray-Curtis dissimilarity, showed moderate to significant differences. This means that while the number of species might be similar, the actual types of species vary between the habitats. Overall, the gamma diversity index, which considers unique species across all habitats, was 46. This suggests a moderate level of species uniqueness across the different environments, indicating a fair amount of diversity within the tree populations studied (Fig. 2).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn the bird section, the evenness of species across river, forest, and tourist areas showed no significant differences, with a p-value of 0.318. This means the variation in evenness within each habitat is much greater than any differences between them. When looking at diversity indices, the forest had an alpha diversity index of 104 for unique species, while both the river and tourist habitats were at 105, indicating a similar number of unique bird species in each habitat. The beta diversity index (Brockerhoff et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Souza Valente et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Głowacka \u0026amp; Flis-Olszewska, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Majumdar et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), using Bray-Curtis dissimilarity, showed moderate to high differences in species composition between the habitats, indicating noticeable differences in the types of species present. Overall, the gamma diversity index for unique species across all habitats was 51, suggesting a rich variety of bird species (Fig. 3).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn the mammal section, the evenness of species across different habitats\u0026mdash;river, forest, and tourist areas\u0026mdash;showed no significant differences (P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.32). The alpha diversity index for unique species was consistent at 46 for all habitats, indicating a similar number of unique mammal species in each area. The beta diversity index, calculated using Bray-Curtis dissimilarity, showed moderate to high differences in species composition between the habitats, meaning there are noticeable differences in the types of species present in each habitat (Dutta \u0026amp; Hossain, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Kessler et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Overall, the gamma diversity index for unique species across all habitats was 9, suggesting a limited number of unique species. These results indicate a relatively uniform distribution of mammal species across the surveyed habitats, with minimal variation in species evenness (Fig. 4).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn the reptile section of our study, we found that the evenness of species across different habitats\u0026mdash;river, forest, and tourist areas\u0026mdash;was quite similar, with no significant differences (p-values around 0.32). Both the river and forest habitats hosted 45 species each, reflecting a consistent level of alpha diversity. The tourist habitat was slightly less diverse, with 41 species (Mandl et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Roy \u0026amp; Bhattacharya, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Uddin et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). When we looked at beta diversity, which measures differences in species composition between habitats using the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity index, we noticed distinct patterns in species abundance. This means that while the number of species might be similar, the specific species present varied between habitats. The overall diversity, or gamma diversity index, was 12 (Rahman et al., 2010; Liu et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Reza \u0026amp; Perry, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Uddin et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), indicating a slightly higher total diversity compared to the bird and mammal sections of the study. These results suggest that while the number of species (evenness) is fairly uniform across the different reptile habitats, there are some differences in which species are found where (Fig. 5).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn our study of invertebrates, we found that the evenness of species across rivers, forests, and tourist habitats was quite similar, with no significant differences (p-values around 0.321). This means that species were distributed evenly across these habitats. Both the river and forest habitats had 35 species each, reflecting their alpha diversity, while the tourist habitat had slightly fewer species, with 33 (Reza, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). When we looked at beta diversity using the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity matrix, we observed differences in species composition between the habitats. This analysis highlighted unique patterns in species abundance and showed that the community structures varied among the habitats. The gamma diversity index, which represents the total number of unique species across all habitats, was 3 (Majumdar et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Rahman et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). This indicates a relatively low overall diversity compared to other sections of the study. These findings suggest that while species distribution is quite uniform across different invertebrate habitats, the specific species present and their community structures differ (Fig. 6). Overall, these findings suggest that while there are no significant differences in evenness among habitats, there are notable differences in species composition, indicating varied community structures across the studied invertebrate habitats.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eComparative analysis across habitats\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe tree forests in our study show the highest levels of species abundance, evenness, and Shannon index, indicating a well-balanced distribution of species. On the other hand, the tourist area has the lowest scores in these metrics, which might be due to environmental stress or human impact. The forests near rivers have lower evenness compared to the main forest area, suggesting a less uniform distribution of trees in these regions (Mohd-Taib et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Pozo \u0026amp; S\u0026auml;umel, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). For birds, mammals, and reptiles, the Games-Howell test revealed significant differences between the areas. Specifically, pairwise comparisons showed that the tourist-associated forest area is markedly different from both the river-associated forest area and the tourist area itself. These differences are marked on the plot with brackets and p-values (Rahman et al., 2010). Furthermore, Bayesian analysis provided log Bayes Factors, offering strong evidence for these differences. The Games-Howell test for invertebrates also indicated significant differences between the habitats. Pairwise comparisons showed that the tourist-associated forest areas are significantly different from the main forest area (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.01) and the tourist area (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Bayesian analysis reinforced these findings, with log Bayes Factors showing strong evidence for differences: -2.56 for the comparison between forest within river habitats and \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;35.96 for forest within tourist areas.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eShannon and evenness indices of several forest taxonomy groups under biodiversity study.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eShannon Diversity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEvenness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBirds\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMammals\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReptiles\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrates\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNote: This table displays Shannon and evenness indices for different taxonomic groups within forest ecosystems, providing insights into species diversity and the evenness of species distribution\u0026mdash;key indicators in ongoing biodiversity assessments. Species abundance and evenness are crucial biodiversity metrics. Abundance counts individuals per species, while evenness assesses their distribution. To calculate evenness, use Pielou\u0026apos;s index: first, determine each species\u0026apos; proportion \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({P}_{i}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e of the total population. Compute the Shannon-Wiener index \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({H}^{{\\prime }}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003eby summing the products of each \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({P}_{i}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003eand its natural logarithm. Then, divide \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({H}^{{\\prime }}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e by the natural logarithm of the total species count \u003cem\u003eS\u003c/em\u003e. This index reveals how evenly individuals are spread across species.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eRarefaction of taxonomic groups within habitats\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWe assessed species richness across trees, birds, mammals, reptiles, and invertebrates in forest, river, and tourist areas using rarefaction curves. The forest habitat boasted the highest species richness, especially among trees, which showed a steep initial increase in the curve, indicating a high diversity even with small sample sizes. Mammals and reptiles also exhibited significant richness, with invertebrates slightly lower (Das et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast, the river habitat had notably low invertebrate diversity, evidenced by a steep rarefaction curve. The tourist area showed the highest tree diversity but plateaued quickly (Dutta et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), suggesting fewer overall species. Birds and invertebrates in tourist areas had comparable but significantly lower richness than in forests, reflecting the negative impact of human disturbance on these habitats.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe rarefaction curves reveal significant differences in species richness among various taxonomic groups and habitats. Forest habitats are highly diverse, especially for trees, and have moderate diversity for mammals and reptiles. River habitats, on the other hand, are particularly rich in mammals, reptiles, and invertebrates (Chowdhury et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Das et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Rahman et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Tourist areas, likely impacted by human activity, generally show reduced species richness across most groups, though trees still maintain considerable diversity. These findings highlight the crucial role of habitat type in determining species diversity and offer valuable insights for conservation efforts aimed at preserving biodiversity (Brockerhoff et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Valente et al., 2020; Rahman, Mahmud, et al., 2017), particularly in forest areas affected by tourism (\u003cstrong\u003eFig.\u0026nbsp;7\u003c/strong\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eNon-metric Multidimensional Scaling (NMDS) Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo visualize the differences in species composition among five taxonomic groups (trees, birds, mammals, reptiles, and invertebrates) across three distinct habitats (forest, river, and tourist area), we performed an NMDS analysis. In the forest habitat, the NMDS plot showed a distinct clustering of tree species, indicating a unique composition separate from other habitats, highlighting the specialized nature of forest tree communities (Głowacka \u0026amp; Flis-Olszewska, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Rahman, Mahmud, et al., 2017; Scherer et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Mammals and reptiles also formed noticeable clusters, reflecting their adaptation to the forest environment. Birds and invertebrates were more dispersed, suggesting they are more broadly distributed across different habitats. In the river habitat, invertebrates exhibited a unique clustering pattern, indicating their specialization in aquatic environments (Reza, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Reza \u0026amp; Perry, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Roy \u0026amp; Bhattacharya, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Xu et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), while birds showed moderate clustering, reflecting the diversity of avian species in riverine areas. Trees and mammals were more scattered, showing less distinct species composition than in forests, and reptiles were the least distinct, with a widespread distribution. In the tourist area, species composition differed from forest and river habitats, likely due to human disturbance. Birds and invertebrates showed moderate clustering but were less distinct, and mammals and reptiles had the most dispersed distribution (Uddin et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), indicating less specialized communities. These findings highlight significant differences in species composition among taxonomic groups and habitats, emphasizing the importance of forest habitats for unique tree and mammal communities, river habitats for invertebrate diversity, and the impact of human activity on species composition in tourist areas. This information is valuable for developing conservation strategies to preserve the unique species compositions across different habitats.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur study set out to explore how different habitats\u0026mdash;forests, rivers, and tourist areas\u0026mdash;affect the diversity and species composition of trees, birds, mammals, reptiles, and invertebrates. Using alpha (α), beta (β), and gamma (γ) diversity indices, along with rarefaction curves and NMDS analysis, we gained insights into how habitat types influence species diversity and composition. Comparing our findings with existing research, we found both similarities and contrasts. Our α-diversity indices revealed rich species diversity across habitats, with forests and rivers supporting diverse tree populations (86 species each), consistent with stable environments noted by Hayat et al., (2010). In contrast, bird diversity was unexpectedly high across all habitats (104\u0026ndash;105 species), differing from Hayat et al., (2010), who observed declines in human-affected areas. β- Diversity assessments highlighted distinct species compositions influenced by habitat types, resonating with Hayat et al., (2010) for mammals and extended to reptiles and invertebrates in our study. Evenness metrics indicated relatively balanced species distributions within taxonomic groups across habitats (p-value around 0.32), contrasting with findings by (Roy \u0026amp; Bhattacharya, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) in impacted areas.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur rarefaction curves echoed patterns seen in disturbed habitats reported by Tripathi et al., (2004), particularly evident in tourist areas where species richness plateaued quicker due to likely habitat degradation. NMDS analysis confirmed significant differences in species composition among habitats, aligning with Tripathi et al., (2004) and illustrating habitat-specific clustering for reptiles and birds, while also revealing similar patterns for invertebrates and trees. Lower Shannon-Wiener index values (1.10\u0026ndash;1.35) in our study indicated reduced species diversity compared to global tropical forests, highlighting regional biodiversity disparities noted in studies across India (Kumar et al., 2006; Tripathi et al., 2004; Gopalakrishna et al., 2015; Panda et al., 2013; Thakur and Khare, 2006; Parthasarathy and Sethi, 1997; Velho and Krishnadas, 2011; Parthasarathy and Karthikeyan, 1997; Bhuyan et al., 2003) and Malaysia (Hayat et al., 2010). Factors like habitat fragmentation and human activities likely contribute to this lower diversity, underscoring the need for targeted conservation efforts and further research to address underlying causes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur findings highlight the critical role of habitat type in shaping species diversity and composition, consistent with broader ecological studies. Protecting forest and river habitats is crucial for biodiversity conservation, especially given the vulnerability of invertebrate populations in river ecosystems noted by Kurnar et al. (2006). Similarly, mitigating human impacts in tourist areas is essential to preserve species richness and composition, aligning with conservation priorities emphasized by Pomda et al. (2013) for sustaining diverse reptile communities through effective habitat preservation strategies.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur ecological study across forest, river, and tourist area habitats reveals intriguing differences in biodiversity among trees, birds, mammals, reptiles, and invertebrates. While evenness levels and alpha diversity indices indicate consistent species distributions within each group across habitats, beta diversity indices unveil significant variations in species composition and community structures unique to each habitat type. Forests emerge as biodiversity hotspots with well-balanced ecosystems, likely due to minimal human disturbance. In contrast, tourist areas show less distinct species compositions, likely influenced by higher human activity and environmental stress. River habitats stand out for their specialized invertebrate communities adapted to aquatic life, highlighting the ecological specialization fostered by diverse environments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Games-Howell test underscores these differences in species distributions, particularly between natural and human-impacted areas, underscoring the profound impact of human activity on biodiversity. Rarefaction curves further emphasize these disparities, with forests exhibiting the highest species richness, especially among trees, while tourist areas demonstrate reduced richness across most taxonomic groups. NMDS analysis visually confirms these patterns, illustrating distinct clustering of species groups according to habitat type, aligning with our quantitative findings and showcasing the unique ecological niches and adaptive strategies of species.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address these ecological insights effectively, we propose several recommendations. Conservation efforts should prioritize the protection of high-biodiversity habitats like forests and rivers. Restoration initiatives are critical in tourist areas to enhance biodiversity and restore ecosystem balance. Continuous ecological monitoring and research will facilitate adaptive management strategies in response to evolving conditions and challenges. Public education plays a crucial role in promoting awareness and responsible behavior towards natural habitats, supporting broader conservation objectives. Finally, stringent enforcement of environmental policies is essential to mitigate the negative impacts of tourism and urban development, ensuring the preservation of ecological integrity and promoting sustainable interactions with nature.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/strong\u003eThe authors gratefully acknowledge the Institute of Forestry and Environmental Sciences, University of Chittagong, Bangladesh, for providing the necessary facilities and guidance for this study. The authors also extend their gratitude to the Management Committee of Kaptai National Park, as well as the anonymous reviewers and editors of the journal, for their valuable comments and suggestions, which greatly contributed to enhancing the manuscript's quality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e Mohd Imran Hossain Chowdhury and Mehedi Hasan Rakib played a key role in shaping the methodology, conducting investigations, drafting the original manuscript, performing formal analyses, and contributing to the review and editing process, as well as creating visualizations. Mehedi Hasan Rakib, Md. Seikh Sadiul Islam Tanvir, Chinmoy Das, and Tonima Hossain were instrumental in curating the data. Together, Mohd Imran Hossain Chowdhury and Mehedi Hasan Rakib led the conceptualization of the study, refined the methodology, administered the project, allocated resources, conducted formal analyses, participated in manuscript writing and review, and provided supervision throughout. All authors critically reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript before submission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interest\u003c/strong\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing\u0026nbsp;interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003eData will be available on a formal request from the corresponding authors.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003eNot Applicable (N/A)\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbdullah, M. R., Rahman, M., \u0026amp; Sarwar, A. K. M. G. (2018). \u003cem\u003eThreatened plants in Kaptai National Park in Rangamati, Bangladesh\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.17011/conference/eccb2018/108150\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbdullah, M. R., Sarwar, A. G., \u0026amp; Rahman, M. M. (2022). Threatened Vascular Plants of Karnaphuli Range Under Kaptai Reserve Forest of Rangamati, Bangladesh. \u003cem\u003ePlant Physiology and Soil Chemistry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(2), 97\u0026ndash;101. https://doi.org/10.26480/ppsc.02.2022.97.101\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhsan, M. F., \u0026amp; Al Haidar, I. K. (2017). A comparative study of avian diversity in Teknaf Wildlife Sanctuary,Inani Reserve Forest and Chittagong University campus in Bangladesh. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Threatened Taxa\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(5), 10158\u0026ndash;10170. https://doi.org/10.11609/JOTT.2942.9.5.10158-10170\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlam, M., Rahman, M. R., Chowdhury, M. A., \u0026amp; Alam, M. S. (2019). Community Dependency and Conservation Practices in Khagrachari, Bangladesh: A Study on Management of Village Common Forests (VCFs). \u003cem\u003eAsian Journal of Research in Agriculture and Forestry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eSeptember\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;13. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajraf/2019/v4i230060\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBredemeier, M., Dennis, P., Sauberer, N., Petriccione, B., T\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;k, K., Cocciufa, C., Morabito, G., \u0026amp; Pugnetti, A. (2007). Biodiversity assessment and change - The challenge of appropriate methods. In \u003cem\u003eIssues in Environmental Science and Technology\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 25, Issue July). https://doi.org/10.1039/9781847557650-00217\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrockerhoff, E. G., Barbaro, L., Castagneyrol, B., Forrester, D. I., Gardiner, B., Gonz\u0026aacute;lez-Olabarria, J. R., Lyver, P. O. B., Meurisse, N., Oxbrough, A., Taki, H., Thompson, I. D., van der Plas, F., \u0026amp; Jactel, H. (2017). Forest biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services. \u003cem\u003eBiodiversity and Conservation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(13), 3005\u0026ndash;3035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1453-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChakraborty, A., Barman, H., Saha, G. K., \u0026amp; Aditya, G. (2021). Wintering waterbird assemblage in an emerging wetland of West Bengal, India: Characterization for conservation management. \u003cem\u003eOrnis Hungarica\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;19. https://doi.org/10.2478/orhu-2021-0001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChowdhury, B., Hossain, M. K., Hossain, M. A., \u0026amp; Khan, B. M. (2018). Native tree species diversity of Rampahar Natural Forest Reserve in Rangamati South Forest Division, Bangladesh. \u003cem\u003eCeylon Journal of Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e47\u003c/em\u003e(2), 129. https://doi.org/10.4038/cjs.v47i2.7508\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChowdhury, M. A., Islam, K. N., Hafiz, N., \u0026amp; Islam, K. (2019). Diversity of trees in a community managed forest: the case of Komolchori VCF, Khagrachari, Bangladesh. \u003cem\u003eGeology, Ecology, and Landscapes\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(2), 95\u0026ndash;103. https://doi.org/10.1080/24749508.2018.1508980\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eColwell, R. K. (2009). III.1 Biodiversity: Concepts, Patterns, and Measurement. In Princeton University Press eBooks (pp. 257-263). https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400833023.257\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDas, A., Sharma, P., Surendran, H., Nath, A., Ghosh, S., Dutta, D., Mondol, J., \u0026amp; Wangdi, Y. (2016). Additions to the herpetofauna of Royal Manas National Park, Bhutan, with six new country records. \u003cem\u003eHerpetology Notes\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(November), 261\u0026ndash;278.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ede Souza Valente, C., Rodiles, A., Freire Marques, M. R., \u0026amp; Merrifield, D. L. (2020). White spot syndrome virus (WSSV) disturbs the intestinal microbiota of shrimp (Penaeus vannamei) reared in biofloc and clear seawater. \u003cem\u003eApplied Microbiology and Biotechnology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e104\u003c/em\u003e(18), 8007\u0026ndash;8023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-020-10816-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDutta, S., \u0026amp; Hossain, M. K. (2016). Infestation of imperata cylindrica L. and its impacts on local communities in secondary forests of sitakunda botanical garden and eco-park, chittagong, Bangladesh. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Conservation Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(1), 167\u0026ndash;180.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDutta, S., Mk, H., M, A. H., \u0026amp; Chowdhury, P. (2015). Exotic Plants and their Usage by Local Communities in the Sitakunda. \u003cem\u003eForest Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;9. https://doi.org/10.4172/21689776.1000136\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGłowacka, A., \u0026amp; Flis-Olszewska, E. (2022). The biodiversity of weed communities of dent maize, narrow-leaved lupin and oat in relation to cropping system and weed control. \u003cem\u003eAgronomy Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e77\u003c/em\u003e(3), 123\u0026ndash;137. https://doi.org/10.24326/as.2022.3.9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHabibur Rahman, M., Abu Sayed Arfin Khan, M., Jannatul Fardusi, M., \u0026amp; Roy, B. (2010). Status, Distribution and Diversity of Invasive Forest Undergrowth Species in the Tropics: a Study from Northeastern Bangladesh. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Forest Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(3), 149\u0026ndash;159.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHasan, M., Jorin, T., \u0026amp; Sayok, A. K. (2023). Biodiversity Information Systems in Geospatial Applications for Protected Area Management. \u003cem\u003eMarch\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.ajgis.20231201.01\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHasan, M., Kabi, J., Nazrul, K., Miah, M. R., Parisha, J. T., Alam, S.-E., Sayok, A. K., Sarok, A., \u0026amp; Uddin, M. B. (2023). Enhancing National Park Information Knowledge to Improve Biodiversity Conservation in Bangladesh: A Study on Policy Perspectives. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Plant Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2023\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;23. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.plant.20231301.01\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKessler, M., Abrahamczyk, S., Bos, M., Buchori, D., Putra, D. D., Gradstein, S. R., H\u0026ouml;hn, P., Kluge, J., Orend, F., Pitopang, R., Saleh, S., Schulze, C. H., Sporn, S. G., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Tjitrosoedirdjo, S. S., \u0026amp; Tscharntke, T. (2009). Alpha and beta diversity of plants and animals along a tropical land-use gradient. \u003cem\u003eEcological Applications\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(8), 2142\u0026ndash;2156. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-1074.1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, G., Bou, G., Su, S., Xing, J., Qu, H., Zhang, X., Wang, X., Zhao, Y., \u0026amp; Dugarjaviin, M. (2019). Microbial diversity within the digestive tract contents of Dezhou donkeys. \u003cem\u003ePLoS ONE\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(12), 1\u0026ndash;14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226186\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMajumdar, K., Shankar, U., \u0026amp; Datta, B. K. (2014). Trends in Tree Diversity and Stand Structure during Restoration: A Case Study in Fragmented Moist Deciduous Forest Ecosystems of Northeast India. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Ecosystems\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2014\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/845142\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMagurran, A. E. (1988) Ecological Diversity and Its Measurements. Princeton Univsity Pres, Princeton, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7358-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMandl, N., Lehnert, M., Kessler, M., \u0026amp; Gradstein, S. R. (2010). A comparison of alpha and beta diversity patterns of ferns, bryophytes and macrolichens in tropical montane forests of southern Ecuador. \u003cem\u003eBiodiversity and Conservation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(8), 2359\u0026ndash;2369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9839-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiah, R., Hasan, M., Parisha, J. T., \u0026amp; Sayok, A. K. (2023). \u003cem\u003eA Framework on Biodiversity Conservation Related Policy Analysis\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eJanuary\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.ajee.20231301.01\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMohd-Taib, F. S., Mohd-Saleh, W., Asyikha, R., Mansor, M. S., Ahmad-Mustapha, M., Mustafa-Bakray, N. A., Mod-Husin, S., Md-Shukor, A., Amat-Darbis, N. D., \u0026amp; Sulaiman, N. (2020). Effects of anthropogenic disturbance on the species assemblages of birds in the back mangrove forests. \u003cem\u003eWetlands Ecology and Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(3), 479\u0026ndash;494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-020-09726-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNolan, K. ., \u0026amp; Callan, J. . (2006). Beachcomber Biology : The Shannon-Weiner Species Diversity Index. \u003cem\u003eABLE 2005 Proceedings\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e, 334\u0026ndash;338.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePozo, P., \u0026amp; S\u0026auml;umel, I. (2018). How to bloom the green desert: Eucalyptus plantations and native forests in uruguay beyond black and white perspectives. \u003cem\u003eForests\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/f9100614\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePielou, E. C. (1966) The Measurement of Diversity in Different Types of Biological Collections. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 13, 131-144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(66)90013-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRahman, M. H., Khan, M. A. S. A., Roy, B., \u0026amp; Fardusi, M. J. (2011). Assessment of natural regeneration status and diversity of tree species in the biodiversity conservation areas of Northeastern Bangladesh. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Forestry Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(4), 551\u0026ndash;559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-011-0198-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRahman, M. H., Roy, B., Anik, S. I., \u0026amp; Fardusi, M. J. (2013). Ecotourism and Protected Area Conservation in Bangladesh: a Case Study on Understanding the Visitors Views on Prospects and Development. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Forest and Environmental Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(1), 15\u0026ndash;28. https://doi.org/10.7747/jfs.2013.29.1.15\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRahman, M. M., Al Mahmud, M. A., Ahmed, F. U., \u0026amp; Deb, R. (2017). Developing alternative income generation activities reduces forest dependency of the poor and enhances their livelihoods: The case of the chunati wildlife sanctuary, Bangladesh. \u003cem\u003eForests Trees and Livelihoods\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(4), 256\u0026ndash;270. https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2017.1320590\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRahman, M. M., Mahmud, M. A. Al, Shahidullah, M., Nath, T. K., \u0026amp; Jashimuddin, M. (2016). The competitiveness of the phytosociological attributes of the protected areas in Bangladesh with that in the other tropical countries. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Sustainable Forestry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(6), 431\u0026ndash;450. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2016.1202841\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRahman, M. M., Mahmud, M. A. A., \u0026amp; Shahidullah, M. (2017). Socioeconomics of biodiversity conservation in the protected areas: a case study in Bangladesh. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(1), 65\u0026ndash;72. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2016.1169453\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRahman, M. M., Rahman, M. M., \u0026amp; Huda, M. K. (2020). Tree species diversity of the Kaptai National Park in Rangamati district, Bangladesh. \u003cem\u003eJahangirnagar University Journal of Biological Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(2), 71\u0026ndash;79. https://doi.org/10.3329/jujbs.v8i2.49837\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReza, A. (2010). Colubrid Snake Lycodon zawi (Serpentes: Colubridae) from Lawachara National Park in Bangladesh. \u003cem\u003eRussian Journal of Herpetology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(1), 75\u0026ndash;77. http://rjh.folium.ru/index.php/rjh/article/view/108\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReza, A. H. M. A., \u0026amp; Perry, G. (2015). Herpetofaunal species richness in the tropical forests of Bangladesh. \u003cem\u003eAsian Journal of Conservation Biology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(2), 59.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoy, S., \u0026amp; Bhattacharya, K. R. (2023). \u003cem\u003eA New Biodiversity Index and the Corresponding Index of Evenness : A Simple Theoretical Analysis\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(3), 445\u0026ndash;453.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScherer, L., De Laurentiis, V., Marques, A., Michelsen, O., Alejandre, E. M., Pfister, S., Rosa, F., \u0026amp; Rugani, B. (2021). Linking land use inventories to biodiversity impact assessment methods. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Life Cycle Assessment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(12), 2315\u0026ndash;2320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-02003-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScherer, L., Rosa, F., Sun, Z., Michelsen, O., De Laurentiis, V., Marques, A., Pfister, S., Verones, F., \u0026amp; Kuipers, K. J. J. (2023). Biodiversity Impact Assessment Considering Land Use Intensities and Fragmentation. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science and Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e(48), 19612\u0026ndash;19623. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c04191\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSharashy, O. S. (2022). Plant biodiversity on Coastal rocky ridges habitats with reference to census data in Ras El-Hekma and Omayed Area, Egypt. \u003cem\u003eSebha University Journal of Pure \u0026amp; Applied Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(1), 41\u0026ndash;45.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSimpson, E. Measurement of Diversity. Nature 163, 688 (1949). https://doi.org/10.1038/163688a0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith, J., Bass, S., \u0026amp; Roe, D. (2020). Biodiversity mainstreaming: a review of current theory and practice. \u003cem\u003eIIED, London\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eDecember\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;56. https://www.iied.org/17662iied\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUddin, M., Chowdhury, F. I., \u0026amp; Hossain, M. K. (2020). Assessment of tree species diversity, composition and structure of Medha Kachhapia National Park, Cox\u0026rsquo;s Bazar, Bangladesh. \u003cem\u003eAsian Journal of Forestry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(1), 15\u0026ndash;21. https://doi.org/10.13057/asianjfor/r040104\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUddin, M. N., Hossain, M. M., Karim, M. S., Siriwong, W., \u0026amp; Boonyanuphap, J. (2020). The phytosociological attributes of village common forests in Chittagong hill tracts, Bangladesh. \u003cem\u003eSongklanakarin Journal of Science and Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(4), 819\u0026ndash;829. https://doi.org/10.14456/sjst-psu.2020.105\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXu, Z., Hansen, M. A., Hansen, L. H., Jacquiod, S., \u0026amp; S\u0026oslash;rensen, S. J. (2014). Bioinformatic approaches reveal metagenomic characterization of soil microbial community. \u003cem\u003ePLoS ONE\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093445\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Biodiversity, iNEXT, Kaptai National Park, Forest ecology, NMDS, Rarefaction","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4668666/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4668666/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigates the impact of different habitats forests, rivers, and tourist areas on the biodiversity of trees, birds, mammals, reptiles, and invertebrates. Data were collected from 90 plots, using quadrat sampling for trees, circular strip transects for birds, live trapping for small mammals, and reptiles, pitfall traps for ground-dwelling species and invertebrates, and transects for butterflies. Biodiversity indices, including alpha, beta, and gamma diversity, were calculated using the R programming environment, specifically the vegan and iNEXT packages. Results indicated significant differences in species richness and composition among habitats. Forest areas had an alpha diversity index of 86 for trees, 104 for birds, 46 for mammals, 45 for reptiles, and 35 for invertebrates. River-associated forests showed higher species richness and evenness, with significant beta diversity, particularly among invertebrates. Tourist areas exhibited reduced species richness, with the alpha diversity index slightly lower at 84 for trees and 33 for invertebrates. The Shannon diversity index values were highest for trees (3.60) and lowest for invertebrates (1.00), indicating a well-balanced distribution of species in forests and a significant impact of human activities in tourist areas. Statistical analyses, including the Games-Howell test and NMDS, confirmed significant differences in species distributions across habitats. Rarefaction curves highlighted the highest species richness in forests, while tourist areas showed a quicker plateau, indicating fewer overall species. The study also examined the impact of conservation efforts, correlating diversity metrics with reforestation and anti-poaching activities. The findings underscore the importance of habitat-specific conservation strategies. Recommendations include prioritizing the protection of high-biodiversity habitats, restoration initiatives in disturbed areas, continuous ecological monitoring, public education, and stringent enforcement of environmental policies. These measures are crucial for enhancing biodiversity conservation and maintaining ecological integrity in diverse habitats. This research provides valuable insights into the relationship between habitat types and biodiversity, informing effective management practices to preserve ecological diversity.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Wildlife Ecological Spectrum: unveiling alpha (α), beta (β), and gamma (γ) diversity of the Kaptai National Park, Bangladesh","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-07-24 12:18:29","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4668666/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"3ee8400a-0d0f-4b6e-8864-d6c3fca07c95","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 24th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-09-09T05:36:07+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-07-24 12:18:29","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4668666","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4668666","identity":"rs-4668666","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}