IVI AND OTHER

INDICES
CALCULATION
FOR IIFM TREES

SUBMITTED BY
RAJNISH SHARMA 19F032
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 2
Important Value Index: ....................................................................................................... 2
Simpson’s Diversity Index: ................................................................................................. 3
Simpson's Index (D) ......................................................................................................... 3
Simpson's Index of Diversity 1 - D ................................................................................. 4
Simpson's Reciprocal Index 1 / D .................................................................................. 4
Shannon Index:..................................................................................................................... 5
Evenness Index:.................................................................................................................... 5
Margalef's richness Index: ................................................................................................... 5
2. OBJECTIVE........................................................................................................................... 6
3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 6
Sampling design:.................................................................................................................. 6
Data collection: ..................................................................................................................... 6
Estimation of IVI and Biodiversity indexes: ...................................................................... 6
4. Calculation............................................................................................................................ 8
Importance values Index IVI............................................................................................. 10
RESULT .................................................................................................................................. 11
Interpretation: ................................................................................................................. 11
Simpson’s index ................................................................................................................. 13
Interpretation: ................................................................................................................. 14
Shannon Index ................................................................................................................... 15
Interpretation: ................................................................................................................. 15
Evenness index................................................................................................................... 17
Interpretation: ................................................................................................................. 17
Margalef's richness index .................................................................................................. 17
Interpretation: ................................................................................................................. 17
5. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 18
6. REFRENCES ....................................................................................................................... 19

PAGE 1
1. INTRODUCTION
Biodiversity is an extension of the biological diversity. It includes
variety of living organism, the genetic differences among them, the communities
and the ecosystem in which they occur. It focuses on recognizing every biota
that can be characterized by taxonomy, ecological and genetic diversity. And
the way these dimensions vary over space and time is a key feature of
biodiversity. Only the multidimensional assessment of biodiversity can provide
us the insights into the relationship between changes in biodiversity and
changes in ecosystem functioning and ecosystem services. To measure these,
we use various diversity indices or tools. In spite of many tools and data
sources, biodiversity remains difficult to quantify precisely. This is because the
multidimensionality of biodiversity.
DIVERSITY INDEX is used as quantitative measure to calculate the
number of different types of species are there in a dataset and can be used to
find the relation among the individuals distributed among those types like
evenness and richness.
When the diversity indices are used in ecology, the interest is on
species, but they can also be used for various other categories like genera,
family, functional type. In demography, the entities of interest are generally
demographic group. For information science, the entities are different types of
letters of alphabet.
Many diversity indices only measure the categorical diversity
between entities. But the problem is that they do not consider the total variation
between entities which occurs only when both the qualitative and categorical
diversity are calculated. To minimize the error due to multidimensionality of
biodiversity, many attempts has been made to formulate a compound index to
measure the abundance and richness.
In this report, we discuss about each of those and try to measure
each diversity factor using these indices.

Important Value Index:

Importance values of tree species is based on frequency (calculated

from number of plots), density (calculated from number of individuals) and
dominance (calculated from basal area).
Importance Value is a measure of how dominant a species is in a given
forest area. The IVI is describing the importance of the analyzed species. It is
weighting relative basal area dominance, relative density and relative frequency
equally.
The concept of Importance Value Index has been developed for
expressing the dominance and ecological success of any species, with a single
value. The IVI depicts the phytosociological structure of a species in its totality
PAGE 2
in the community. The IVI is of great help in getting the overall picture of the
ecological importance of a species.

Simpson’s Diversity Index:

Simpson's Diversity Index is a measure of diversity. In environment, it is

regularly used to evaluate the biodiversity of natural surroundings. It considers
the number of species present, just as the richness of every species.

Before taking a gander at Simpson's Diversity Index in more detail, it is essential

to comprehend the fundamental ideas laid out underneath.

Biological Diversity - the great variety of life

Biological variety can be measured from various perspectives. The two

fundamental elements considered when estimating decent variety are richness
and evenness. Richness is a proportion of the quantity of various types of life
forms present in a specific region. For instance, species richness is the number
of various species present. In any case, assorted variety depends on
extravagance, yet in addition to equality. Uniformity looks at the likeness of the
populace size of every one of the species categories present.

1. Richness

The number of species per sample is a measure of richness. The more species
present in a sample, the 'richer' the sample.

2. Evenness

Evenness is a measure of the relative abundance of the different species

making up the richness of an area.

The term 'Simpson's Diversity Index' can actually refer to any one of 3 closely
related indices.

Simpson's Index (D)

Simpson's Index (D) measures the likelihood that two individuals arbitrarily
chose from a sample will have a place with similar species types (or some
classification other than species). There are two variants of the formula for
computing D. Either is adequate, but be consistent.

PAGE 3
 D= (n / N)2

n = the total number of organisms of a particular species

N = the total number of organisms of all species

The value of D ranges between zero and 1

With this list, 0 represent the limitless decent variety and 1, no assorted variety.
That is, the greater the estimation of D, the lower the assorted variety. This is
neither instinctive nor sensible, so to get over this issue, D is frequently
subtracted from 1 to give:

Simpson's Index of Diversity 1 - D

The value of this index also ranges between 0 and 1, but now, the greater the
value, the greater the sample diversity. This makes more sense. In this case,
the index represents the probability that two individuals randomly selected from
a sample will belong to different species.

Another way of overcoming the problem of the counter-intuitive nature of

Simpson's Index is to take the reciprocal of the Index.

Simpson's Reciprocal Index 1 / D

The value of this index starts with 1 as the lowest possible figure. This figure
would represent a community containing only one species. The higher the
value, the greater the diversity. The maximum value is the number of species
(or another category being used) in the sample. For example, if there are five
species in the sample, then the maximum value is 5.

The name 'Simpson's Diversity Index' is often very loosely applied and all three
related indices described above (Simpson's Index, Simpson's Index of Diversity
and Simpson's Reciprocal Index) have been quoted under this blanket term,
depending on author. It is therefore important to ascertain which index has
actually been used in any comparative studies of diversity.

PAGE 4
Shannon Index:
The Shannon diversity index (H) is another index that is commonly used to
characterize species diversity in a community. Like Simpson's index,
Shannon's index accounts for both abundance and evenness of the species
present. The proportion of species i relative to the total number of species (pi)
is calculated, and then multiplied by the natural logarithm of this proportion (ln
pi). The resulting product is summed across species, and multiplied by -1:

Evenness Index:
Evenness Index /Shannon's equitability (EH) can be calculated by
dividing H by Hmax (here Hmax = ln S). Equitability assumes a value between
zero and 1 with 1 being complete evenness.

Margalef's richness Index:

Species richness S is the simplest measure of biodiversity and is simply a count
of the number of different species in a given area. This measure is strongly
dependent on sampling size and effort.
The Margalef diversity index can easily be calculated in a spreadsheet:
d = (S - 1) / ln N
Where S is the number of species, and N is the total number of individuals
in the sample

PAGE 5
2. OBJECTIVE
Calculation of importance value index (IVI) of tree species in IIFM campus and
estimation of various diversity indices like Simpson index, Shannon index (also
termed the Shannon-Wiener index) and others.

3. METHODOLOGY
Girth at breast height (GBH) and overall height were measured for randomly
selected twelve hundred twenty-five trees by a group of students from Post
Graduate Diploma in Forestry Management (PGDFM) during the month of
January, 2020. Data was entered in to MS Excel sheet and all GBH figures were
converted in to corresponding DBH figures by dividing by pie (3.141).

Sampling design:
• Laying of four 10mx10m quadrates.
• Girth at breast height (GBH) and overall height were measured for
randomly selected hundred twenty trees by a group of students from Post
Graduate Diploma in Forestry Management (PGDFM) during the month
of January, 2020.

Data collection:
• Measure GBH and overall height of trees (> 10 cm GBH) and noting down
of species name.

Estimation of IVI and Biodiversity indexes:

• IVI, Simpson’s index, Shannon Index, Evenness Index, Margalef's
richness Index are calculated based on corresponding formula.
• Density = Total no of individual of a species / total number of quadrates
• Frequency= Total no of quadrates in which species occurred/total no of
quadrates studied x 100
• Formula for (Abundance) = π x (Average diameter)2/4 x no. of the species
• Relative Density (RD) = Density/Total density X 100
• Relative Frequency (RF) = Frequency /Total Frequency X 100
PAGE 6
• Relative abundance or dominance (RA) = Basal area of a species / Basal
area of all the species X 100
• IVI = RD + RF + RA
• Species covered have been listed under below table-

PAGE 7
4. Calculation
S. QA QA QA QA QB QB QA QA QA Tota
No Species Name 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 l
Leucaena
1 leucocephala 2 8 0 5 0 0 0 0 3 18

2 Acacia catechu 0 1 0 5 1 2 0 0 0 9
Diospyros
3 melanoxylon 0 0 0 13 4 1 3 4 0 25
Lannea
4 coromandelica 3 3 1 0 0 3 1 2 0 13

5 Mitragyna parvifolia 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Lagerstroemia
6 parviflora 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

7 Bombax ceiba 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

8 Gardenia latifolia 0 0 12 0 1 4 0 3 0 20

9 Azadirachta indica 1 2 3 0 0 0 1 7

10 Wrightia tinctoria 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

11 Miliusa Tomentosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3

12 Zizyphus xylopyra 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5

13 Manilkara hexandra 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

14 Careya arborea 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

15 Butea Monosperma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

16 Ficus Religiosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4

17 Dalbergia paniculata 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4

18 Anogeissus latifolia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3
Holoptelea
19 integrifolia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Total 125

PAGE 8
 Frequenc Avg. Diameter No of Abundanc
Species Name Density y (cm) Area (cm2) species e
Leucaena
leucocephala 2.00 44.44 9.91 77.12 18.00 1388.19
Acacia catechu 1.00 44.44 8.84 61.34 9.00 552.02
Diospyros
melanoxylon 2.78 55.56 6.77 35.97 25.00 899.32
Lannea
coromandelica 1.44 66.67 13.68 146.95 13.00 1910.35
Mitragyna
parvifolia 0.44 11.11 8.04 50.76 4.00 203.05
Lagerstroemia
parviflora 0.11 11.11 26.94 569.84 1.00 569.84
Bombax ceiba 0.11 11.11 9.87 76.51 1.00 76.51
Gardenia
latifolia 2.22 44.44 8.96 63.02 20.00 1260.47
Azadirachta
indica 0.78 44.44 16.56 215.29 7.00 1507.01
Wrightia
tinctoria 0.22 11.11 9.39 69.29 2.00 138.57
Miliusa
Tomentosa 0.33 11.11 17.41 237.93 3.00 713.80
Zizyphus
xylopyra 0.56 22.22 8.85 61.53 5.00 307.66
Manilkara
hexandra 0.33 11.11 12.05 113.96 3.00 341.89
Careya arborea 0.11 11.11 7.64 45.86 1.00 45.86
Butea
Monosperma 0.11 11.11 19.11 286.62 1.00 286.62
Ficus Religiosa 0.44 11.11 20.06 316.00 4.00 1264.01
Dalbergia
paniculata 0.44 11.11 15.45 187.28 4.00 749.12
Anogeissus
latifolia 0.33 11.11 10.08 79.84 3.00 239.52
Holoptelea
integrifolia 0.11 11.11 37.26 1089.89 1.00 1089.89
Total 13.89 455.56 266.89 3785.01 125.00 13543.70

PAGE 9
Importance values Index IVI

Species Name RD RF RA IVI

Leucaena leucocephala 14.40 9.76 2.04 26.19

Acacia catechu 7.20 9.76 1.62 18.58

Diospyros melanoxylon 20.00 12.20 0.95 33.15

Lannea coromandelica 10.40 14.63 3.88 28.92

Mitragyna parvifolia 3.20 2.44 1.34 6.98

Lagerstroemia parviflora 0.80 2.44 15.06 18.29

Bombax ceiba 0.80 2.44 2.02 5.26

Gardenia latifolia 16.00 9.76 1.67 27.42

Azadirachta indica 5.60 9.76 5.69 21.04

Wrightia tinctoria 1.60 2.44 1.83 5.87

Miliusa Tomentosa 2.40 2.44 6.29 11.13

Zizyphus xylopyra 4.00 4.88 1.63 10.50

Manilkara hexandra 2.40 2.44 3.01 7.85

Careya arborea 0.80 2.44 1.21 4.45

Butea Monosperma 0.80 2.44 7.57 10.81

Ficus Religiosa 3.20 2.44 8.35 13.99

Dalbergia paniculata 3.20 2.44 4.95 10.59

Anogeissus latifolia 2.40 2.44 2.11 6.95

Holoptelea integrifolia 0.80 2.44 28.79 32.03

Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 300.00

PAGE 10
RESULT
▪ Calculation of IVI=RF+RD+RA
▪ IVI for the given quadrates is calculated to be 300.

Interpretation:
A high importance value indicates that Species A is well represented in the
stand because of some combination of a) a large number of individuals of
Species A compared with other species in the stand, or b) a smaller number of
individuals of Species A, but the trees are large compared with others in the
stand
Therefore, in our dataset, the species of most importance is Diospyros
melanoxylon with 33.15 value while Careya arborea is the least impotant
species with IVI value 4.45 value.

Holoptelea integrifolia
Anogeissus latifolia
Dalbergia paniculata
Ficus Religiosa
Butea Monosperma
Careya arborea
Manilkara hexandra
Zizyphus xylopyra
Miliusa Tomentosa
SPECIES NAME Wrightia tinctoria
Azadirachta indica
Gardenia latifolia
Bombax ceiba
Lagerstroemia parviflora
Mitragyna parvifolia
Lannea coromandelica
Diospyros melanoxylon
Acacia catechu
Leucaena leucocephala
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
NO OF TRESS IN NINE QUADRATES

As shown in Figure observed the highest count is of twenty-five for Diospyros

melanoxylon combining all quadrates and lowest one in Holoptelea integrefolia,
Butea Monosperma, Careya arborea, Bombax ceiba, and Lagerstormia
Parvifolia each having a count of one.

PAGE 11
 3% 1%

10%
13%
37% 42%

48%
46%

10-25 25-50 50-75 75-100 >=100 0-5 5-10 10-15

The average tree height was 6 m with a height range of 1 to 15 m. Tree

distribution by height class intervals shows that 10 % of individuals were in the
height class of 10- 15 m, followed by 48% in the height class of 5 - 10 m and
42% in the height class of 0 - 5 m (Figure). The tallest tree was Ficus religiosa
of height 14m.
The average GBH was 34 cm with a GBH range of 10 to 117cm.Tree distribution
by GBH class intervals shows that 37% of individuals were in GBH class of 10-
25cm, followed by 46% in the GBH class of 25-50cm, 13% in 50-75cm, 3% in
75-100cm and 1% above 100cm class. This deficit a high degree of unevenness
in terms of age and growth of tree. The tree with highest GBH was Holoptelea
integrifolia with GBH of 117cm.

PAGE 12
Simpson’s index

Species Name Number (n) n (n-1)

Leucaena leucocephala 18.00 306
Acacia catechu 9.00 72
Diospyros melanoxylon 25.00 600
Lannea coromandelica 13.00 156
Mitragyna parvifolia 4.00 12
Lagerstroemia parviflora 1.00 0
Bombax ceiba 1.00 0
Gardenia latifolia 20.00 380
Azadirachta indica 7.00 42
Wrightia tinctoria 2.00 2
Miliusa Tomentosa 3.00 6
Zizyphus xylopyra 5.00 20
Manilkara hexandra 3.00 6
Careya arborea 1.00 0
Butea Monosperma 1.00 0
Ficus Religiosa 4.00 12
Dalbergia paniculata 4.00 12
Anogeissus latifolia 3.00 6
Holoptelea integrifolia 1.00 0
Total 125.00 1632

Simpson’s index 0.11

0.89
Simpson’s index of diversity
Simpson Reciprocal Index 9.50

PAGE 13
Interpretation:
The most common dominance measure is Simpson’s index.
SI: the value of this index ranges between 0 and 1. Here, zero means infinite
diversity while 1 means no diversity.
Here, we have obtain a very high diversity of value 0.11

SID: The value of this index ranges between 0 and 1, and the greater the value,
the greater the sample diversity.
Here, we have obtained a greater diversity with value 0.89

SRI: The value of this index starts with 1 as the lowest possible figure. This
figure would represent a community containing only one species. The higher
the value, the greater the diversity. The maximum value is the number of
species (or another category being used) in the sample.
Here, we would get the range from 1 to 19, due to presence of 19 species in
our dataset. The value that we obtained 9.50 indicates the moderate diversity
of species in our dataset.

PAGE 14
Shannon Index

Species Abundance Pi Pi ln Pi
Leucaena leucocephala 1388.19 0.102 -0.23348
Acacia catechu 552.02 0.041 -0.13043
Diospyros melanoxylon 899.32 0.066 -0.18008
Lannea coromandelica 1910.35 0.141 -0.27627
Mitragyna parvifolia 203.05 0.015 -0.06297

Lagerstroemia parviflora 569.84 0.042 -0.1333

Bombax ceiba 76.51 0.006 -0.02924
Gardenia latifolia 1260.47 0.093 -0.22098
Azadirachta indica 1507.01 0.111 -0.24433
Wrightia tinctoria 138.57 0.010 -0.04688
Miliusa Tomentosa 713.80 0.053 -0.15511
Zizyphus xylopyra 307.66 0.023 -0.08597
Manilkara hexandra 341.89 0.025 -0.09287
Careya arborea 45.86 0.003 -0.01926
Butea Monosperma 286.62 0.021 -0.08159
Ficus Religiosa 1264.01 0.093 -0.22134
Dalbergia paniculata 749.12 0.055 -0.16011
Anogeissus latifolia 239.52 0.018 -0.07136
Holoptelea integrifolia 1089.89 0.080 -0.20278
Total 13543.70 1.000 -2.64837

Shannon Index( Hs) 2.648

Interpretation:
Typical values are generally between 1.5 and 3.5 in most ecological studies,
and the index is rarely greater than 4. The Shannon index increases as both
the richness and the evenness of the community increase.
Shannon Index (Hs) 2.648 depicts both the richness and the evenness of the
community. The fact that the index incorporates both components of
biodiversity can be viewed as both a strength and a weakness. It is a strength
because it provides a simple, synthetic summary yet it makes it difficult to
compare communities that differ greatly in richness like in case of IIFM campus.

PAGE 15
 35.0

30.0

25.0

20.0
IVI

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Relative Dominance

The IVI-relative dominance depicts higher IVI range of species in low relative
dominance and vice versa which indicates an inverse relationship between IVI
and dominance.

4
No of tress

0
0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 >=30
IVI

More tress species lies in the 5-15 IVI index with a total of ten out of nineteen
species and mostly in equal number in other higher ranges. The lowest count
is in the 0-5 interval range.

PAGE 16
Evenness index

Species richness (S) 19

Evenness index (Hs/ln(S)) 0.89932

Interpretation:
Species Richness: Number of species per unit area is called Species
Richness. If you have a greater number of species, more will be species
richness hence stable will be the ecosystem.
Here, we obtained 19 type of species are found in our 9 quadrants of 100 sq.
metre area (total 900 sq. metres).

Evenness Index: It ranges from zero to one, with zero signifying

no evenness and one, a complete evenness.
Here, we obtained 0.89932 with indicate higher level of evenness in our dataset,
which depicts relatively high evenness in terms of species diversity in IIFM
campus. The values of species richness have been found within the range of
tropics (Campbell et al, 1992; Valencia et al, 1994). These values of the species
richness have been found lower in comparison with the humid tropical
evergreen forest (Tripathi et al, 2004), but higher than the tropical rain forest
(Strasberg, 1996).

Margalef's richness index

Species richness (S) 19

Total no of sample (n) 125

Margalef's richness index (S-1/ln(n)) 3.73

Interpretation:
This measures the evenness with which individuals are divided among the
taxa present. 3.76 shows significant richness in the area selected for study.

PAGE 17
5. Conclusion
Tropical dry deciduous forests are enriched with economically important
species, vegetation composition, diversity of species and their habitats which
provides a better and sound understanding for other tropical or dry deciduous
forest types.

Calculations of IVI have helped in understanding the ecological significance of

the species in the moderately dense tropical dry deciduous forest of IIFM
campus. The present study will serve as a primary baseline work towards
monitoring and sustaining the phyto-diversity of tropical dry deciduous forests
in the campus as well as other part of the world having similar kind of forest
areas. Study on floristic composition and diversity will be useful to the
conservation researchers and scientists and also to the forest managers for
effective management of the forest ecosystem. The mixed forests are not
adequately stocked. Due to drier conditions prevailing, the forests are open and
poor in growth. It also observed that over increasing biotic interference like
recurring fires, unrestricted heavy grazing, over exploitation and indiscriminate
felling under nectar, fast retrogression has set in the forests, tree growth is
winding down at an alarming speed.

PAGE 18
6. REFRENCES
Tigabu, M. (2006). Species Composition, diversity and local uses of tropical dry deciduous and
gallery forests in Nicaragua, 1509–1510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-005-2632-0

Tree Species diversity , distribution and population structure in a tropical dry Tree species
diversity , distribution and population structure in a tropical dry deciduous forest of
Malyagiri hill ranges , Eastern Ghats , India. (2012), (October 2017).

Pal, A. (2015). Vegetational Structures and Species Diversity In Tropical Dry Deciduous Forest
Of Uttar Pradesh, India, 141(0019), 789–797.

Panchal, N., & Gujar, R. (2014). Species Diversity and Phytosociological Analysis Of Important
Plants Of Tropical Dry Deciduous Forest Of Dahod District Of Species Diversity And
Phytosociological Analysis Of Important Plants Of Tropical Dry Deciduous Forest Of
Dahod District.

Kerkhoff, P. (2010). Measuring Biodiversity of Ecological Communities.

Devi, U., & Behera, N. (2020). Assessment of plant diversity in response to forest degradation in
a tropical dry deciduous forest of eastern ghats in orissa Author(s): U. Devi and N . Behera
Published by : Forest Research Institute Malaysia Stable URL : https://www.jstor.org/stable,
15(1), 147–163.

PAGE 19