Wildlife Ecological Spectrum: unveiling alpha (α),

beta (β), and gamma (γ) diversity of the Kaptai

National Park, Bangladesh
Mehedi Hasan Rakib

Institute of Forestry and Environmental Sciences, University of Chittagong

Mohd Imran Hossain Chowdhury
Institute of Forestry and Environmental Sciences, University of Chittagong
Chinmoy Das
Institute of Forestry and Environmental Sciences, University of Chittagong
Tonima Hossain
Institute of Forestry and Environmental Sciences, University of Chittagong
Md. Seikh Sadiul Islam Tanvir
Institute of Forestry and Environmental Sciences, University of Chittagong

Research Article

Keywords: Biodiversity, iNEXT, Kaptai National Park, Forest ecology, NMDS, Rarefaction

Posted Date: July 24th, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4668666/v1

License:   This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Read Full License

Additional Declarations: No competing interests reported.

Page 1/20
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.

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
Page 2/20
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
Page 3/20
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

Page 4/20
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 αr f t = Ʃ Abundance αr f t

2a βr ⁓ f = Ʃ Ar ⁓ Af | βr ⁓ f = Ʃ | Ar ⁓ Af |

2b βr ⁓ t = Ʃ Ar ⁓ At | βr ⁓ t = Ʃ | Ar ⁓ Af |

2c βf ⁓ t = Ʃ Af ⁓ At | βf ⁓ t = Ʃ | Af ⁓ At|

3
γ = (Sr ∪ St ∪Sf)

4 s

𝐻 = −∑i=1 pi . lnPi

′
J = H
lnS

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 indexH , J′ is Pielou's
′
(Colwell, 2009; Magurran, 1988; Simpson, 1949)

evenness index (Pielou, 1966), and pi is the proportion of individuals in the 𝑖th species. 1 to 3
equations are used for data analysis for this study.

Page 5/20
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;

Page 6/20
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.

Page 7/20
 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 Pi of

the total population. Compute the Shannon-Wiener index H by summing the products of each Pi and
′

its natural logarithm. Then, divide H 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

Page 8/20
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.

Page 9/20
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.

Page 10/20
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
AcknowledgmentsThe 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 interestThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materialsData will be available on a formal request from the corresponding
authors.

FundingNot Applicable (N/A)

References
1. 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
2. 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
Page 11/20
 3. 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
4. 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
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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
8. 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
9. 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
10. 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
11. 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.
12. 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
13. 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.
14. 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.

Page 12/20
 https://doi.org/10.4172/21689776.1000136
15. 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
16. 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.
17. 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
18. 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
19. 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
20. 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
21. 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
22. Magurran, A. E. (1988) Ecological Diversity and Its Measurements. Princeton Univsity Pres,
Princeton, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7358-0
23. 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
24. 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
25. 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
26. Nolan, K. ., & Callan, J. . (2006). Beachcomber Biology : The Shannon-Weiner Species Diversity Index.
ABLE 2005 Proceedings, 27, 334–338.

Page 13/20
27. 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
28. 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
29. 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
30. 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
31. 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
32. 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
33. 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
34. 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
35. 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
36. 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.
37. Roy, S., & Bhattacharya, K. R. (2023). A New Biodiversity Index and the Corresponding Index of
Evenness : A Simple Theoretical Analysis. 4(3), 445–453.
38. 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.

Page 14/20
 International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 26(12), 2315–2320.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-02003-y
39. 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
40. 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.
41. Simpson, E. Measurement of Diversity. Nature 163, 688 (1949). https://doi.org/10.1038/163688a0
42. 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
43. 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
44. 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
45. 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

Figures

Page 15/20
Figure 1

Biodiversity study in Kaptai National Park, Bangladesh: survey locations and methodological overview.

Figure 2

Revealing ecological disparities in tree abundance, evenness, and Shannon Index across Forest, River,
and Tourist areas. An F-test (FWelch (2,2)) indicates significant differences among the areas. Pairwise
comparisons using the Games-Howell test reveal significant distinctions. Additionally, Bayesian analysis

Page 16/20
is incorporated, with log Bayes Factors (log(BF)) providing strong evidence for differences between the
areas.

Figure 3

Revealing ecological disparities in bird abundance, evenness, and Shannon index across Forest, River,
and Tourist areas. An F-test (FWelch(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.

Figure 4

Uncovering 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-

Page 17/20
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.

Figure 5

Highlighting 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.

Figure 6

Exploring 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.
Page 18/20
Figure 7

Rarefaction 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.

Page 19/20
Figure 8

Multidimensional Scaling (NMDS) analysis: comparing three habitats with loss of maximum dimension
habitat.

Page 20/20