Pakistan - House hold energy strategy study : biomass resource assessment

PAKISTAN HOUSEI-IOLD ENERGY STRATEGY STUDY ' BIOMASS WOURCE M S E s S m Gary Archer ~ i o m a s sSupply Studies supervisor June 1993 PROJECT FIELD. TEAM ASHFAQ HAHXOOD S e n i o r C h i e f , Energy Wing/ N a t i o n a l P r o j e c t D i r e c t o r GHULAX HAIDER A s s i s t a n t N a t i o n a l P r o j e c t D i r e c t o r , B n e r g y Wing MEDINE OUERGHI C h i e f T e c h n i c a l A d v i s e r , T h e W o r l d Bank GARY ARCHER Biomass S u p p l y S u p e r v i s o r , T h e World B m WAQAR HAIDER G e n e r a l Energy A d v i s e r , T h e World Bank ZAXIR AHHAD E n e r g y E c o n o m i s t , E n e r g y Wing H O H N A D IQBAL B i o m a s s S u p p l y Assistant, T h e W o r l d B a n k QAtS6R SOHAIL R e s u l t s T a b u l a t i o n s u p e r v i s o r , Energy Wing GAUHAR SIDDIQUE Demand S u r v e y A s s i s t a n t , T h e W o r l d Bank ASRFAQ ~ O B ~ D Demand S u r v e y Assiatant, Energy R i n g A d m i n i s t r a t i v e a n d secretarial s u p p o r t w a s p r o v i d e d by: F a u r i a J a v a i d , Gul ZaPan, A r i r Q u r e s h i , A r s h a d R h u r s h i d , Y a s m i n Akhtar, Amjad tlusskin, A l i B a m d a h i , Xunrraf man, - i d Huosain a n d Hohammed E j a r . F i e l d S u r v e y s w e r e i m p l e m e n t e d b y the F e d e r a l Bureau of Statistics, Aftab A s s o c i a t e a , A a i a n i c s L t d a n d RCG/HBI Inc. ,  CONTENTS Listoftables ...................... iv Listoffigures ....................... v List of associated documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Abbreviations ....................... viii . Executive summary ...................... ix I. INTRODUCTION 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 Importance of woodfuels and agricultural residues in the household energy sector ............. 2 1.2 Need for comprehensive database . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.3 ....... Biomass supply survey in the HESS context 3 1.4 Survey objectives ................... 4 2. SAMPLING FRAME 2.1 Lack of pre-existing sampling frame .......... 5 2.2 Agro-ecological zonation from NOAA AVHRR imagery . . . . 5 2.3 Application of Landsat TM imagery ........... 9 11. WOODY BIOMASS SURVEY 3. WOODY BIOMASS SAMPLING DESIGN 3.1 Variable probability sampling for PSUs ......... 12 3.2 Location of SSUs from imagery and topographic maps . . . 21 4. WOODY BIOMASS MODELS 4.1 Availabledata. .................... 23 4.2 Need for whole-tree biomass models for Pakistan vegetation ....................... 24 4.3 Destructive sampling of trees and shrubs ........ 24 4.4 Laboratory procedure for density and moisture content ... ..................... 25 4.5 Biomass estimation by component ...,. ...... 25 4.6 Final biomass models for trees and shrubs . . . . . . . 27 5. FIELD MEASUREMENTS 5.1 Variable plot and 3P sampling ............. 33 5.2 Measurements on tallied trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 5.3 Measurements on 3 P t r e e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6. MODELLING OF WOODY BIOMASS PRODUCTIVITY 6.1 Available data and need for further data ........ 36 6.2 Productivity data obtained from field measurements . . . 37 6.3 Biomass productivity model for trees . . . . . . . . . . 37 6.4 Biomass productivity model for shrubs . . . . . . . . . 44 7. ESTIMATES OF STANDING BIOMASS AND PRODUCTIVITY 7.1 Sampling distribution by zone and province....... 46 7.2 Standing biomass by zone and province . . . . . . . . . 46 7.3 Productivity by zone and province . . . . . . . . . . . 50 111. AGRICULTURAL RESIDUES SURVEY 8. SAMPLING AND MEASUREMENT OF AGRICULTURAL RESIDUES 8.1 Area sampling frame methodology and its relevance ... 52 8.2 Processing of Landsat T M imagery and selection of psus.......................... 53 8.3 Location of PSUs from imagery and topographic maps... 54 8.4 Selection and location of SSUs for target crops . . . . 54 8.5 Crop yield and residue sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 8.6 Laboratory procedures for crop yields and residues ... 56 9 . ESTIMATES OF'ANNUAL AGRICULTURAL RESIDUE PRODUCTION 9.1 Sampling distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 9.2 Comparison of ratio estimators and area-based estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 9.3 Crop residue estimates by zone and province ...... 64 IV . CONCLUSIONS 10 . CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10.1 Conclusions ...................... 67 10.2 ~ecommendations for future work ............ 67 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 APPENDIX A . BASIC DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 APPENDIX B . WOODY BIOMASS TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 APPENDIX C . CROP RESIDUE TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214  LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Change in forest cover in Pakistan 1880-1980 .. 2 Table 2.1 Modified agro-ecological zonation for sampling stratification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Table 2.2 Landsat TM imagery used . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Table 3.1 Distribution of woody biomass PSUs by agro- ecological zone and Landsat TM scene . . . . . . 17 Table 3.2 Location listing for woody biomass PSUs within a Landsat scene ............. 21 Table 4.1 Volume tables for commercial timber species inPakistan. .................. 23 Table 5.1 Codes for tree amenity value and degree of crowndamage .................. 34 Table 6.1 Yield tables for commercial tree species in Pakistan .............. ..... . 36 Table 6.2 Literature references on shrub biomass productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Table 6.3 Subdivision of agro-ecological zones for modelling purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Table 7.1 Distribution of woody biomass PSUs by sampling zone and province . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Table 7.2 Distribution of woody biomass standing stock by zoneandprovince .............. 47 Table 7.3 Estimation of sampling error for the woody biomasssurvey ................. 49 Table 7.4 ............. .. Distribution of woody biomass productivity by zone and province . 50 Table 8.1 Major target crops for the agricultural residues survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Table 9.1 Distribution of agricultural residue PSUs by harvest season and Landsat TM scene . . . . . . . 57 Table 9.2 Number of PSUs by crop and Landsat scene . . . . 58 Table 9.3 Estimated crop residues by zone and province .. 65  LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Interrelationships between the different components of the HESS project ......... 3 Figure 2.1 Agro-ecological zonation of ~ a k i s t a n developed from AVHRR imagery and GIs data ... 7 Figure 2.2 Modified agro-ecological zonation of Pakistan developed for sampling stratification ................. 8 Figure 2.3 Overview of an unrectified Landsat TM scene annotated to show the position of the subscene for each selected GCP ......... 11 Figure 2.4 A zoomed subscene of one of the GCPs . . . . . . 12 Figure 3.1 Selection of woody biomass PSUs from classified Landsat TM imagery ......... 18 Figure 3.2 Woody biomass sampling stratum for one Landsat TM scene overlain on the agro- ecological zonation to generate sampling expansion factors ............... 19 Figure 3.3 Distribution of woody biomass PSUs within Landsat TM scenes throughout Pakistan ..... 20 Figure 3.4 Landsat TM subscene showing the location of one woody biomass PSU, for use by a field team.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 4.1 Relationship between actual bole biomass and bole biomass extrapolated to tip of tree .. 27 Figure 4.2 Commercial timber biomass as a fraction of bole biomass extrapolated to tip of tree .... 29 Figure 4.3 Polewood biomass as a fraction of bole biomass extrapolated to tip of tree . . . . . 29 Figure 4.4 Branch biomass as a function of dbh and crownwidth .................. 30 Figure 4.5 Biomass of twigs and leaves as a function of crown length and crown width . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 4.6 Shrub biomass as a function of ground cover percent and average shrub height ........ 32 Figure 6.1 Models and data for tree RGR .......... 40 Figure 6.2 Roundwood as a fraction of total tree biomass, for trees with undamaged crowns .... 43 Figure 6.3 Roundwood as a fraction of total tree biomass, for varying degrees of crown damage ..................... 43 c Figure 6.4 Model for shrub RGR with selected plotted data from the literature ............ 45 Figure 8.1 Landsat TM subscene showing the location of one crop residue PSU, for use by a field team.. .................... 55 Figure 9.1 Relationship between cotton boll weights for I earlier and final pickings ............ 59 Figure 9.2 Relationship between weight of cotton sticks and weight of lint cotton per hectare ..... GO Figure 9.3 Relationship between weight of maize residue - and grain yield ................ 61 Figure 9.4 Relationship between green cane weight and both trash and bagasse ............. 62 Figure 9.5 Residue:yield relationships for rice and wheat ..................... 63  LIST OF ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS I.S. Limited. 1991. Pakistan Land Cover Zonation - Final - Report. For Pakistan Household Energy Strategy Study. Imaging Systems Ltd., University of Reading, March, 1991. Asianics and HESS. 1991. Biomass Estimation Techniques - a Manual of Instruction. I. Prepared for field staff undertaking the inventory of woody biomass resources. For Pakistan Household Energy Strategy Study. Asianics Agro-Dev International and HESS, Islamabad, July, 1991. Asianics and HESS. 1992. Biomass Estimation Techniques - a Manual of Instruction. 11. Prepared for field staff undertaking the inventory of agricultural residues resources. For Pakistan Household Energy Strategy Study. Asianics Agro-Dev International and HESS, Islamabad, March, 1992. Asianics. 1992. Biomass Resource Survey - Field Implementation Report. For Pakistan Household Energy Strategy Study. Asianics Agro-Dev International, Islamabad, November, 1992.  ABBREVIATIONS 3P Probability proportional to prediction ASF Area sampling frame AVHRR Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer satellite imagery dbh Diameter at breast height, measured at 1.3 metres from the ground FBS Pakistan Federal Bureau of statistics FSMP Pakistan Forestry Sector aster Plan GCP Ground control point GIs Geographic information system GPS Global positioning system HESS Pakistan Household Energy Strategy Study NDVI Normalised difference vegetation index .. PSU Primary sampling unit RGR Relative growth rate SPANS Spatial Analysis System (geographic information system) SSU Secondary sampling unit SUPARCO Pakistan Space and Upper Atmosphere Research commission - TM Landsat Thematic Mapper satellite imagery USAID United States Agency for International Development  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background The household sector consumes approximately half of the total energy used in Pakistan. Of the energy used by households, by far the greatest proportion comes from wood and other biomass resources such as dung and crop residues. Government figures show that approximately 80 percent of household energy is coming from biomass fuels. Evidence suggests that such heavy reliance on these fuels has a number of undesirable conscqucnccs, including environmental damage due to overexploitation of natural vegetation, fertility losses on agricultural land due to diversion of dung and crop residues from fertiliser to fuel, and reduced household welfare caused by use of low quality fuels. In the long term the question of the sustainability of supply of biomass resources to meet household energy demand is crucial to household and national welfare. The Government of Pakistan realised that a comprehensive database for the household energy sector was an essential pre-requisite to successful energy planning and policy formulation and in 1988 entered into an agreement to carry out a national Household Energy Strategy Study (HESS). The project aimed to chart a n , economically and environmentally sustainable household strategy by developing a database which would include, inter alia, the supply and demand of traditional household fuels. An important component of this database would be the national supply situation for biomass fuels. Sampling Frame The HESS project was designed to include a number of different components, to provide the data necessary for the development of a comprehensive energy strategy for the household sector. The supply components, consisting of separate surveys of woody biomass and crop residue supply, were designed to be linked with - a parallel database on household energy 'demand including biomass fuels - to produce an integrated database for energy planning, using a consistent sampling frame developed in the form of a national agro-ecological zonation. A national agro-ecological zonation was created for Pakistan using multi-temporal Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) satellite imagery to distinguish between patterns of vegetation activity with time. The satellite imagery was obtained as monthly composites of daily images covering six annual growing seasons from 1982 to 1987, then combined with ancillary ~eographicInformation System'(G1S) data on rainfall, topography, climate and the extent of irrigated farmland to produce a zonation of fourteen land cover types for the whole of Pakistan. This zonation provided a national sampling frame to link the supply and demand components of the project and to provide a valid basis for extrapolatingithe results of the supply survey to the national level.. I Agro-ecological zonation of Pakistan. Zone Description Area (km2) Percent 1 Hyperarid desert 58738 6.7 2 Arid desert 193604 22.1 3 4 Transitional arid/eemi-arid rangelands Moderate productivity semi-arid 117833 74819 13.4 8.5 - 5 6 High productivity eemi-arid Sub-tropical rain-fed agriculture 61180 27878 7.0 3.2 - 7 Permanent anow 25019 2.9 8 High mountain valleys 18964 2.2 9 Alpine and temperate ecrub and foreet 94747 10.8 10 Temperate and sub-tropical Himalayan foothille 10637 1.2 11 Marginal irrigated 1940 0.2 12 Moderate productivity irrigated 74533 8.5 13 High productivity irrigated 111717 12.7 I L 14 Indue delta ewampe ------ 5619 0.6 ----- ------ 877227f 100.0 ----- * includes the area of Jammu and Kashmir on the Pakistan side of the Line of Control Multi-stage sampling was used for the biomass supply survey to - maximise efficiency. The agro-ecological zonation developed from AVHRR imagery provided the first stage of a multi-stage sampling frame. The second stage consisted of twelve scenes of Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) imagery for a more detailed classification of the vegetation. Sampling units were then selected by variable probability sampling from the digital vegetation classification from each Landsat scene, for field measurement of woody biomass and crop residues. Field teams were given precision-corrected satellite images and topographic maps to guide them accurately to each sampling unit. Woody Biomass Survey The sampling methodology ensured that sampling units fell in areas of woody biomass vegetation in all agro-ecological zones - throughout Pakistan. The methodology proved very efficient, with more that 93 percent of Primary Sampling units (PSUs) containing measurable woody biomass. All woody biomass was measured, including commercial timber trees, all other tree species and woody shrubs. A specialised form of variable probability sampling (Probability ~roportional'to prediction, or 3P) was used, to sample all vegetation as efficiently as possible over a wide range of vegetation types from northern forests to farmland to arid zones. Mathematical models were developed from destructive sampling of trees and shrubs to predict their biomass content by component (commercial timber, poles, large branches, small branches, twigs and leaves). Models were also developed to allow for the effects of crown damage due to lopping on tree biomass and growth. Biomass productivity models were developed for trees and shrubs using both primary data from growth measurements in the field and secondary data from forestry yield tables and the scientific literature. Final productivity models were based on relative  growth rate (RGR), which was modelled separately for each tree in the sample using models which varied with total tree biomass, species, amenity value, extent of crown damage and agro- ecological zone. For sampling purposes the fourteen agro-ecological zones were modified to eight, by combining some and splitting others. For example, there were sufficient samples to split the irrigated zones between northern provinces (Punjab plus NWFPINorthern Areas) and southern provinces (Sindh plus the canal irrigation areas of Baluchistan). The sampling frame was then used to generate estimates of woody biomass standing stock and productivity by province and agro-ecological zone. Biamass Standing stock and amuel p r o d w t i v i t y (millions of t o m s ) Agro-ecological zone Irrigated Irrigated Irrigated Irrigated Forested high prod high prod low prod low prod Rainfed and (North) (South) (North) (South) ogric. highlnnd S m i - o r i d Dercrt lotnl Zone # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Totalstandingstock 59.19 11.02 26.78 8.66 4.46 81.66 11.16 7.85 210.78 Total wood growth 7.08 0.91 3.98 2.66 0.42 5.22 0.94 1.48 22.70 Total fwlwood growth 5.98 0.82 3.51 2.55 0.42 4.56 0.80 1.48 20.13 Twigs/leaves growth 2.44 0.35 1.56 2.14 0.24 2.01 0.20 1.16 10.10 Roundwood f u e l growth 3.55 0.47 1.96 0.41 0.18 2.55 0.59 0.32 10.03 Province Northern Phjeb Sir& WFP Baluch and AJK Total Total standing stock 90.06 24.98 45.24 13.82 36.67 210.78 Total wood growth 11.12 3.96 3.39 1.88 2.35 22.70 Total fuelwood growth 9.60 3.73 2.96 1.79 2.05 20.13 Twigs/leaves growth 4.12 2.64 1.29 1.15 0.90 10.10 Roundwood f u e l growth 5.49 1.08 1.67 0.64 1.15 10.03 Agricultural Residues Survey Sampling practice for the agricultural residues survey was adapted from Area Sampling Frame (ASF) methodology being currently applied for crop yield estimation in Pakistan. All aspects of sampling and field measurement were kept as compatible as possible with the Pakistan ASF, so that future agricultural residue surveys could be carried out in conjunction with routine crop yield surveys once the ASF has been completed for the whole of the country. In the absence of a completed ASF a modified sampling methodology -- was used by drawing variable probability samples from digital crop classifications developed from the Landsat imagery. Field teams'were given satellite images and topographic maps to guide them to each sampling unit. Crop residues were measured within one week of harvest to ensure representativeness of results; automatic computerised procedures for satellite image processing, sample selection and printing of images enabled a very tight time schedule to be met. The following target crops were covered, chosen for their relative importance in terms of residues: Target crop Kharif harveet Rabi harveet C o t ton Sugarcane Maize Rice Wheat Both crop yields and residues were measured, with laboratory processing using the same equipment and procedures as for ASF surveys. This enabled the use of both ratio estimators (quantity of crop residue and crop yield expressed as ratios) and area- based estimators to be compared; the outcome was that ratio estimators were most effective for sugarcane residue and area- based estimators were most effective for other crops. These estimators were applied to Government statistics for crop yields and areas to produce national estimates of crop residues by province, and combined with crop classifications from Landsat imagery to produce estimates by agro-ecological zone. Amual crop residue a v a i l a b i l i t y (millions of tomes). Agro-ecological zone Irrigated Irrigated Irrigated Irrigated Forested high prod high prod low prod low prod Rainfed and Crop (North) (South) (North) (South) agr i c . highland Semi - a r i d Desert Total Cotton 8.24 1.38 1.70 1.13 0.00 0.00 0 -00 0.00 12.46 Maize 1.83 0.03 0.19 0.05 0.06 1.27 ' 0.03 0.00 3.47 Sugarcane 7.78 1.83 0.83 2.41 0.00 0.02 0,02 0.00 12.88 Rice 4.81 1.09 0.30 1.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.16 Wheat 11.36 1.65 2.31 1.21 1 .OO 1.79 1.26 0.07 20.65 Province Northern Pmjab Sindh NWFP Baluch and AJK Total Cotton 9.20 2.36 0.74 0.16 0.00 12.46 Maize 2.00 0.14 0.73 0.02 0.57 3.47 Sugarcane 7.98 4.00 0.65 0.25 0.01 12.88 Rice 4.74 2.88 0 -38 0.16 0.00 8.16 Wheat 13.64 3.02 2.21 0.96 0.82 20.65 Conclusions Use of satellite imagery at two scales (AVHRR for national coverage and Landsat TM for detailed subsampling) together with GIs data and efficient multi-stage sampling designs allowed a national inventory of woody vegetation and crop residues in Pakistan to be carried out quickly and efficiently. An effective agro-ecological zonation enabled the results of woodfuel supply and demand surveys to be well integrated. The work was completed within severe time constraints and has contributed to the successful development of a household energy planning database for Pakistan. I. INTRODUCTION  1. BACKGROUND 1.1 Importance of woodfuels and agricultural residues in the household energy sector The househo.ld sector consumes approximately half of the total energy used in Pakistan. Of the energy used by households, by far the greatest proportion comes from wood and other biomass resources such as dung and crop residues. The Pakistan Household Income and Expenditure Survey (FBS, 1990) reported figures indicating approximately 80 percent of household energy coming from biomass fuels in 1987/88. Evidence suggests that such heavy reliance on biomass fuels has a number of undesirable consequences, including environmental damage due to overexploitation of natural vegetation, fertility losses on agricultural land due to diversion of dung and crop residues from fertiliser to fuel, and reduced household welfare caused by use of low quality fuels. For cxamplc, 'l'ablc 1.1 g i v e r ; figures on the estimated decline of Pakistan's forest cover over a period of 100 years. T a b l e 1 . 1 . Change i n f o r e s t c o v e r i n P a k i s t a n 1880-1980 ( a r e a s i n s q u a r e k m ) . Year Cloeed f o r e s t Open f o r e e t Total f o r e s t area S o u r c e : WRI and IIED, 1 9 8 8 . These figures represent an average loss of more than 200 square kilometres per year of closed forest and more than 1000 square kilometres per year of total forest cover between 1950 and 1980, and there are indications that the rate of loss has increased still further in recent years. Human activites such as farming, commercial timber harvesting and increasing urbanisation would also play a role. In the long term the question of the sustainability of supply of biomass resources to meet household energy demand is crucial to household and national welfare. 1.2 Need for comprehensive database The Government of Pakistan realised that a comprehensive database for the household energy sector was an essential pre-requisite to successful energy planning and policy formulation and in 1988 entered into an agreement to carry out a national Household Energy Strategy Study (HESS). The project aimed to chart an economically and environmentally sustainable household strategy by developing a database which would include, inter alia, the supply and demand of traditional household fuels. An important component of this database would be the national supply situation for biomass fuels. Statistics were available on wood supply from ~overnmentforests, but there were indications that much of the fuelwood supply was coming from private farmlands, for which little data was available. In addition, no comprehensive information was available on the supply of lower quality fuels and on crop residue yields. Millington (1988) reviewed various data sources on supply of biomass fuels, but concluded that there was insufficient information on amounts, regional variations and seasonal fluctuations in production. A biomass supply survey was therefore included as an important part of the HESS project. 1.3 Biomass supply survey in the HESS context The HESS project was designed to include a number of different components, to provide the data necessary for the development of a comprehensive energy strategy for the household sector. Figure 1.1 shows the components of the project related to database development and their interrelationships. The supply components, consisting of separate surveys of woody biomass and crop residue supply, were designed to be linked with a parallel database on household energy demand - including biomass fuels to produce an - integrated database for energy planning, using a consistent sampling frame developed in the form of a national agro- ecological zonation. DEMAND STUDIES CONSISTENT SUPPLY STUDIES SAHPLING FRAME Energy demand survey Woody biomass eupply eurvey Appliance load curve - monitoring eurvey BASED ON AGRO-ECOLOGICAL Crop reeiduee supply ZONATION ourvey FUELWOOD MARKET STRUCTURE SURVEY 4 INTEGRATED DATABASE Figure 1.1. Interrelationships between the different components of the HESS project . 1.4 Survey objectives ! The objectives of the biomass resource surveys were to develop a supply database containing data on the standing stocks and annual productivity of woody biomass throughout Pakistan, and on the annual production of agricultural residues which could be used as household fuel. The woody biomass survey was designed to cover all woody vegetation, including trees and shrubs, on both public and private land throughout the country, and the agricultural residues survey was to be,targeted on crops producing significant quantities of burnable residues. An important initial objective was to develop the agro-ecological zonation to create the link between the supply and demand components of the project (Figure 1.1), and to provide a valid r basis for extrapolating the results of the supply survey to the national level.  2. ' SAMPLING FRAME 2.1 Lack of pre-existing sampling frame The woody biomass and agricultural residues surveys required a national zonation which reflected the range of natural vegetation as well as agricultural land use. A suitable zonation was also required to provide a valid sampling frame to spatially link the results of the supply and demand surveys. No pre-existing sampling frame was available for Pakistan which suited the needs of the project. The forest types of Pakistan have been described and mapped by Champion et al. (1965a), but only at a very small scale and with little reference to the effects of human activity on natural vegetation communities. The Atlas of Pakistan (Survey of Pakistan, 1986) contains data on natural vegetation, climate, soils and the distribution of agricultural crops, but the information is.generalised and at small scales. An agro- ecological zonation has been developed by the Pakistan Agricultural Research Council (PARC, 1980), showing areas with similar potential for particular economic activities; crop (1976) but the information ecological zones have mapped by ~ a f i q ' is general and at relatively small scales. The use of satellite imagery enables actual land cover classes to be mapped at a national level, which is a more preferable approach to developing a valid and robust sampling frame. 2.2 Agro-ecological zonation from NOAA AVHRR imagery There are well-established methodologies for developing land cover zonations at national scales by using multi-temporal Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) imagery to distinguish between patterns of vegetation activity with time (Justice et al., 1986; Townshend et al., 1987). A national agro- ecological zonation was created for Pakistan using a similar methodology. AVHRR imagery was obtained as monthly composites of daily images covering six annual growing seasons from 1982 to 1987, converted to a standard index of vegetation activity, the Normalised Difference Vegetation Index or NDVI (Rouse et al., 1973). This imagery, with a pixel size of 4 km, was imported into a SPANS geographic information system (GIs) and combined with ancillary data on rainfall, topography, climate and the extent of irrigated farmland to produce a zonation of fourteen land cover types for the whole of Pakistan. The availability of six full years of data also allowed the stability of each zone over time to be estimated. Details are given in the final report by I.S. Limited (1991). Some further work was done in Pakistan to improve the quality of the ancillary data, by using information digitised from Landsat satellite imagery for the Pakistan Forestry Master Plan project to extract more accurate boundaries for the irrigated farmland. The accuracy of co-registration of the AVHRR imagery and the ancillary data within the GIS was also improved. The final version of the agro-ecological zonation is shown in Figure 2.1. The zonation was modified for the purposes of national sampling stratification, by merging some classes and splitting others. A s shown in Table 2.1, a total of eight land cover classes were developed from thirteen of the fourteen original classes. The fourteenth class, permanent snow, was not relevant to either the supply or demand survey and was excluded from the stratification. C - The modified zonation is shown in Figure 2.2. Table 2.1. Modified agro-ecological zonation for sampling stratification. Agro- ecol Zone . Description Sampling Zone Description 13 High productivity irrigated ) 1 High productivity irrigated (North) 1 2 High productivity irrigated (South) 11 Marginal irrigated 1 3 Low .productivity 12 Moderate productivity 1 .irrigated (North) irrigated 1 4 Low productivity irrigated (South) 6 Sub-tropical rain-fed 5 Rain-fed agriculture agriculture 8 High mountain valleys 1 6 Forested, scrub and 9 Alpine and temperate scrub ) highland6 and forest 1 10 Temperate and sub-tropical ) Himalayan foothills 1 14 Indus delta swamps 1 3 Transitional arid/semi-arid ) 7 Semi-arid rangelands 1 4 Moderate productivity semi- ) arid 1 5 High productivity semi-arid ) 1 Hyperarid desert 1 8 Desert 2 Arid desert 1 Note: zone 7 (permanent snow) omitted Legend Figure 2.1. Agro-ecological zonation of Pakistan developed from AVHRR imagery and G I s data. The locations of twelve selected Landsat TM scenes are also shown. -7- Figure 2 . 2 . Modified agro-ecological zonation of Pakistan developed f o r sampling e t r a t i f i c a t i o n . -8- 2.3 Application of Landsat TM imagery Multi-stage sampling (Langley, 1969; Titus et al., 1975) was used for the biomass supply survey to maximise efficiency. The agro- ecological zonation developed from AVHRR imagery provided the first stage of a multi-stage sampling frame, with national coverage at a resolution of 4 km. The second stage consisted of twelve scenes of Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) imagery, each with a coverage of 185 x 170 km and a resolution of 30 metres, for a more detailed classification of the vegetation. Sampling units were then selected within each Landsat scene for field measurement of woody biomass and crop residues. Twelve Landsat scene locations were selected, to cover the full range of agro-ecological zones, including 'lcorell and " n ~ n - c o r e ~ ~ areas (I.S. Limited, 1991), population distribution, growing areas for crops with useful residues, and adequate representation of each of Pakistan's four main provinces. Figure 2.1 shows the locations of the twelve scenes, where the twelve squares shown are 120 km x 120 km subscenes taken from within each scene for selection of field sampling units. All processing of Landsat TM imagery was carried out using R- CHIPS software (I.S. ~ i m i t e d ,1988), on a Compaq 386/33 fitted with a Number Nine Revolution graphics card and high resolution colour monitor. A nine-track tape drive was used to copy image data from computer compatible tapes (CCTs) acquired and supplied by the Satellite Ground Station of the Pakistan Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission (SUPARCO). Acquisition dates were chosen from SUPARCO archives to maximise the value of the Landsat imagery for both woody vegetation and crop sampling. This required a tradeoff between the optimal season for classifying woody vegetation (June-July) and for classifying crops at their stage of maximum greenness (March-April for the spring or r a b i harvest and September for the autumn or k h a r i f harvest). Because most of the wood supply was known to come from cultivated farmlands, imagery selected primarily for crop detection could also provide a sample frame for sampling trees on farms. The relative scarcity of areas of closed forest in Pakistan together with crop ephemerality made it more cost effective to time the imagery primarily to capture crops. Of the two harvest seasons, the r a b i is almost entirely wheat, whereas the k h a r i f includes a wide range of different crops; r a b i imagery was therefore selected for all twelve locations so as to achieve as uniform a spectral signature as possible for cultivated farmland, with backup k h a r i f coverage of six scenes from the most important agricultural areas for cross checking purposes. Largely cloud free imagery was selected with dates as close as possible to the r a b i optimum: February for arid areas with early maturing rain-fed crops, March for irrigated farmlands on the plains and April-May for highland agriculture. Dates selected for the six k h a r i f images were as close to September as possible. Table 2.2 lists the imagery used. Because all Landsat imagery was to be precision rectified during the project it was hoped that imagery could be obtained from SUPARCO with radiometric but no geometric correction, so that it would not have to be resampled more than once; this was to minimise the effects of image resampling on the accuracy of classifying land cover (Forster and Trinder, 1984; Smith and Kovalick, 1984). In the event it was necessary to accept system - corrected imagery, and nearest neighbour resampling was therefore specified to preserve pixel reflectance values. M imagery ueed. Table 2 . 2 . Landeat T Scene numbere a r e ehown i n F i g u r e 2 . 1 . Date f o r coverage Date for c o v e r a g e Scene N o . Path Row of r a b i h a r v e s t of k h a r i f h a r v e s t Sampling units for field measurements of biomass fuels were confined to a 120 km x 120 km square of precision-corrected image within each Landsat scene. The maximum sized square which would fit within each scene was approximately 150 x 150 km. However, both imagery and topographic maps were needed for the field work - and maps of some areas were not available. It was therefore found necessary to use a smaller sized square of 120 x 120 km), so that an area could be selected within each image with maximum map coverage. Field work for the woody biomass component of the survey was not highly time-critical, but field measurement of crop residues such as cotton sticks and maize stalks had to be carried out within a week before harvest. To meet the very tight time schedule, as .- much of the image processing as possible was automated. Up to sixteen ground control points (GCPs) were selected within the 120 x 120 km square area on each image, as clearly identifiable points on both 1:50,000 scale topographic maps and on the imagery. Image coordinates for each GCP were fed into an automatic procedure to produce hard copy imagery as standard false-colour composites (bands 2,3,4) on an HP PaintJet printer. Figure 2.3 shows an overview of a full Landsat TM scene annotated to show the position of the subscene for each selected GCP, and Figure 2.4 shows a zoomed subscene of one GCP at 4x enlargement.  LANDSAT TM PATH 150 ROW 37 07-MAR-90 BANDS 4 3 2 subscane location Figure 2.3. Overview of an unrectified Landeat TM scene annotated to show the position of the eubecene for each selected GCP. Approximate ecale is 1:1,000,000. Location of the 120 x 120 km eubscene used for field work is also ehown as a superimposed square, but it appeare at an angle because the imagery ie unrectified.  LANDSAT TM PATH 150 ROW 37 07-MAR-90 120x128 SUBSCENE NO 1 X OFFSET 756 Y OFFSET 2352 Figure 2.4. A zoomed eubscene of one of the CCPs shown in Figure 2.3 (a road- rail crossing at Jand) at 4x enlargement, on which individual image pixels can be identified. To overcome some limitations in map accuracy, position fixes were taken at each GCP using global positioning system (GPS) equipment, which was set to the same polyconic map projection as the agro-ecological zonation developed from the AVHRR imagery. Hard copy of zoomed Landsat subscenes allowed individual pixels to be identified at each GCP in the field. GPS readings were taken as averages of 32 observations at each point, which in most cases gave positional accuracies within 20 metres. Altitude readings obtained with the GPS units enabled image coordinates for each GCP to be adjusted for relief displacement. Because all imagery had already been system corrected, rectification models were limited to first order; root mean square (RMS) errors for each Landsat scene varied from 14 metres to 42 metres. Ground truthing was carried out in conjunction with field work for ground control. Because of time constraints, no more than four days could be spent within each image. Travel between GCPs provided useful transects over large parts of each image and further land cover details were recorded at most GCPs while position fixes were in progress. Results from this work were used to produce precision-corrected Landsat TM imagery and to generate digital classifications of vegetation cover for drawing field samples for both the woody biomass and crop residue surveys. 11. WOODY BIOMASS SURVEY  3. WOODY BIOMASS SAMPLING DESIGN 3.1 Variable probability sampling for PSUs Digital classifications of vegetation cover from the Landsat TM imagery was used as a second-level sampling frame for drawing field samples for the woody biomass survey. The time schedule for the project made it necessary to consider alternatives to conventional supervised image classification. Rapid preliminary classifications were carried out with six bands for all twelve Landsat scenes, using a minimum distance classifier to reduce processing time,as much as possible, and spectral classes were then pooled into broad vegetation cover classes (scrub, forest and cultivated farmland), but it was not possible to achieve satisfactory consistency between imagery of different regions, acquisition dates and atmospheric conditions in the time available. , . :. To achieve consistent land cover classes between scenes, a NDVI transform was used as input for classifying each image; this had the double adyantage of introducing the stability of a band ratio and also providing some link with the AVHRR NDVI imagery used for the first sampling stage. Secondly, variable probability sampling was used for selection of primary sampling units (PSUs) for field work, to ensure robustness with respect to any variation in classification accuracy between images. The following appr~achwas used: (i) The AVHRR agro-ecological zonation had been'shown to provide a sound sampling frame at the national level (I.S. Limited, 1991); this was confirmed during ground truthing for the twelve Landsat scenes and from overlay comparisons. The zonation :provided a basis for introducing consistency between scenes, in that the proportion of vegetation cover classes falling within each zone would be typical of that zone. (ii) For the woody biomass survey, ground truthing confirmed that all vegetation cover classes derivable from the Landsat imagery contained significant woody biomass resources. This included cultivated farmland which, although having spectral signatures overwhelming characteristic of crops, included an important tree component. Because no reliable information was available on sampling variances within each class, and there was no time to collect adequate data, the only feasible sampling allocation was area proportional for each class. NDVI transforms (rescaled over the range 0 to 255) from Landsat bands 4 and 3 were overlain on the preliminary image classifications and false-colour composites, to establish the NDVI ranges for each vegetation cover class. Comparisons within and between images made it obvious that there was considerable overlap of NDVI ranges between classes. However, because sampling was to be area proportional, a single stratum was developed to cover all vegetation classes for sampling purposes. A common NDVI threshold was established which included all classes to be sampled - a value of 25 (rescaled) was found'to perform well for all scenes. The use of both a normalised band ratio and a common threshold compensated to a great extent for variations in image quality and classification accuracy between scenes. The use of variable probability sampling for selection C~ of field sampling units corrected for any remaining variation between images. Software was developed to select PSUs directly from a precision- rectified classification for each image, with probability proportional to the number of vegetated pixels within each PSU. The same classification was then overlain on the AVHRR agro- ecological zonation - Figures 3.1 and 3.2 illustrate the procedure. Sampling expansion factors could then be developed ; ' from (i) the proportion of vegetated pixels within each PSU and (ii) the vegetated area falling in a given agro-ecological zone within each Landsat scene. This approach automatically compensated for any remaining under- or over-classification within each scene. If, for example, the vegetation in a given scene was under-classified the expansion factors for individual PSUs would be inflated, but the vegetated area falling within each agro-ecological zone in the scene would be correspondingly r reduced; if the vegetation was over-classified the effects would compensate in reverse. When the Landsat classifications were imported into the GIs and overlain on the agro-ecological zonation the vegetation distribution matched well with the zones. Overlaying the vegetation stratum derived from the Landsat imagery on the agro- ecological zonation provided a robust and effective second stage sampling frame, in that zonal differences are also reflected in both the proportions of vegetation types and in the quantities of vegetation biomass per hectare. Figure 3.2 shows the overlay for one Landsat subscene as an example, where the densest vegetation is associated with the irrigated zones in the south-east corner of the image. No reliable information was available on sampling variances for woody biomass and crop residues for different sizes of primary and secondary sampling units, and there was no time to carry out adequate pilot studies. Sampling unit sizes were selected on the basis of past experience and some field testing, to provide a balanced two-stage design which could be applied efficiently in the field. A PSU size of 400 x 400 metres was used, with secondary sampling units (SSUs) as systematic samples 200 metres apart within each PSU. Details are given in the woody biomass survey manual (Asianics and HESS, 1991) and the biomass survey field report (Asianics, 1992). Figure 3.3 shows the distribution of woody biomass PSUs within Landsat scenes throughout Pakistan. Table 3.1 shows the distribution of woody biomass PSUs by agro-ecological zone. Table 3.1. Distribution of woody biomass PSUs by agro-ecological zone and Landsat TM scene. Landsat TM Scene No. Zone NO. Total 1 Total Notes: 1. Zones are numbered as per Table 2.1. 2. Zone 7 (permanent snow) omitted. 3. Scenes are numbered as per Table 2.2. 4. A total of 578 PSUs were measured in the field. After locating PSUs on the imagery and cross checking recorded vegetation against the vegetation visible on the imagery, five PSUs were rejected as having been wrongly located and 573 PSUs were retained.  M imagery a t ( a ) S e c t i o n o f Landsat T ( b ) Imagery w i t h s a m p l i n g s t r a t u m 1:50,000 s c a l e . o v e r l a i n i n blue. ( c ) G r i d of 400x400 m woody biomass ( d ) S e l e c t e d woody biomass PSU, w i t h PSUs, r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e p o p u l a t i o n l o c a t i o n o f SSUs a t e a c h c o r n e r from which t h e sample i s drawn. o f t h e i n n e r 200x200 m s q u a r e . The p r o b a b i l i t y o f s e l e c t i o n i s p r o p o r t i o n a l t o t h e a r e a of sampling s t r a t u m w i t h i n e a c h PSU. F i g u r e 3.1. M imagery. S e l e c t i o n of woody biomass PSUs from c l a s s i f i e d L a n d s a t T -18- Figure 3.2. Woody biomaee eampling etratum for one Landeat TM ecene (ecene number 2 in Figure 2) overlain on the agro-ecological zonation to generate eampling expaneion factore. The eampling etratum ie ehown in red and woody biomaee PSUe are ehown ae white dote. -19- Legend Figure 3 . 3 . D i s t r i b u t i o n o f woody biomaee PSUe (ehown a s white d o t e ) within Landeat TM ecenee throughout Pakistan. -20- 3.2 Location of 68Us from imagery and topographic maps An initial target of 600 PSUs was set for field sampling for the woody biomass survey. To enable the work to be completed on time, software was developed to automate the printing of precision-rectified subscenes at 1:50,000 scale centred on each PSU, and to specify PSU locations on matching topographic maps at the same scale. Because details of the map projection used for 1:50,000 maps by the Survey of Pakistan were not made available to the project an alternative polyconic map projection was used for both the agro-ecological zonation and for rectifying the Landsat imagery. The difference in map projection plus some positional differences between GPS fixes and the maps sometimes required an adjustment to the position of the PSU on the map to match the location selected by variable probability sampling on the imagery. Table 3.2 shows part of a PSU location listing for one Landsat scene, and Figure 3.4 shows a printed subscene for one PSU, with the locations of each SSU indicated. The printed subscenes and topographic maps were used by the field teams to locate each PSU in the field. See the woody biomass survey manual and field report for details. Table 3.2. L o c a t i o n l i s t i n g f o r woody biomass PSUs w i t h i n a Landsat s c e n e . L i s t o f PSUs f o r Scene No. 15037A Page 1 PSU Hap Latitude Longitude Location on Hap o f NW SSU 1 43C6 33'38.37'N 72'25.81'E 129.8mm from r i g h t 245.lmm from t o p 2 43G2 33'30.63'N 73O12.31'E 83.5mm from r i g h t 23.2mm from bottom 3 43C10 33'35.86.N 72'44.71.E 9.0mm from r i g h t 216.7mm from bottom 4 43C6 33'33.18'N 72'16.50'E 46.5mm from l e f t 117.6mm from bottom 5 43C10 33'30.96'N 72'41.38'E 112.4mm from r i g h t 35.5mm from bottom 6 43C6 33'30.66.N 72'29.15'E 26.5mm from r i g h t 24.5mm from bottom 7 43C15 33'29.57'N 72'58.22'E 55.3mm from r i g h t 15.9mm from t o p 8 43C7 33O29.38'N 72'20.26'E 163.2mm from l e f t 22.8mm from t o p 9 43G7 33'27.45.N 73'16.32-E 40.9mmfromleft 94.3mm f r o r n t o p 10 43G3 33027.3S1N 73'12.93'E 64.2mm from r i g h t 98.lmm from t o p The field methodology proved effective; validation checks of approximately 10 percent of the field sample sites showed that PSUs had been accurately located on the ground. For the woody biomass survey, more than 9 3 percent of the PSUs contained measurable woody vegetation, indicating that the sampling frame was efficient.  Landsat TM Image No. 15037A PSU No. 1 Date of Imagery 07-Mar-90 Scale 1: 50000 .- a Each corner of the green square indicates the position of one SSU NW SSU at position: Lat 33O38.37'N Lon 7Z025.818E Figure 3 . 4 . Landsat TM eubscene ehowing t h e l o c a t i o n o f one woody biomaee PSU, for u s e by a f i e l d team.  4. WOODY BIOMASB MODEL8 4.1 Available data Models for estimating the wood content of standing trees, usually referred to as volume tables, are an essential tool in forest management. Such models cover the important commercial timber species in Pakistan (see Table 4.1), but produce estimates of the volume of the tree components used for commercial timber, the tree bole, rather than the total weight of the tree including bole, large branches, small branches, twigs and leaves. Work is described in the literature on estimating the total biomass of standing trees (Stromgaard, 1985; Brown et al., 1991; and others), but no work is recorded in Pakistan on models for estimating the total biomass of standing trees. Table 4.1. Volume tables for commercial timber speciee in Pakistan. Species Author and date A c a c i a n i l o t i c a (riverine) Qadri and Hafeez, 1969 A c a c i a n i l o t i c a (Bahawalpur) Qazi and Cheema, 1974 A c a c i a n i l o t i c a (Sindh) Hafeez and Cheema, 1971 Acer c a e s i u m (AJK and NWFP) Cheema and Fatime, 1985 A e s c u l u s i n d i c a (NWFP) Cheema and Hussain, 1987a Bombax c e i b a (Changa Manga) Cheema and Hussain, 1984a Coniferous species (AJK) Malik et al., 1971 Coniferous species (Malakand) Qazi and Huesain, 1975 Coniferous species (Northern) PFI, 1969 Coniferous species (Northern) Malik, 1970 Dalbergia s i s s o o Hafeez et al., 1973 D a l b e r g i a s i s s o o (Punjab) Hueeain and Abbas, 1974 E u c a l y p t u s c a m a l d u l e n s i s (Punjab) Hussain, 1979 Farmland tree speciee (NWFP) Cheema and Abbasi, 1992 Forest tree species (Hazara) Cheema and Huasain, 1978 Praxinus e x c e l s i o r Cheema and Fatime, 1991 Hybrid poplar (Changa Manga) Huesain and Zahir, 1975 Hybrid poplar (Punjab) Cheema and Huaeain, 1984b J u g l a n s r e g i a (NWFP) Abbas and Cheema, 1981 J u g l a n s r e g i a (Kaghan) Hueeain and Qazi, 1974 Morus a l b a (irrigated) Malik et al., 1971 Pinus roxburghii Hussain and Cheema, 1984 P i n u s r o x b u r g h i i (Hazara) Hussain and Ghauri, 1977 Pinus w a l l i c h i a n a Cheema and Huaaain, 1984c Populus c i l i a t a (NWFP) Cheema and Hussain, 1988 Populus e u p h r a t i c a (Sindh) Huasain and Ghauri, 1976 Populus n i g r a (Mardan) Huaaain and Cheema, 1973 P r o s o p i s s p i c i g e r a (Sindh) Cheema and Huasain, 1981 Prunus padus (NWFP) Cheema and Husaain, 1987b S a l i x t e t r a s p e r m a (Mardan) Malik and Moosvi, 1970 4.2 Need for whole-tree biomass models for Pakistan vegetation The purpose of the woody biomass survey was to estimate standing stock and productivity in terms of total biomass of all tree and shrub species usable for household fuel, and subdivisions of this total biomass into different components (commercial timber, large branches, small branches, twigs and leaves). Biomass models are - well covered in the literature (e.g., Stromgaard, 1985; Buech and Rugg, 1989; Brown et al., 1991), but in the absence of pre- existing data for Pakistan trees, it was necessary to develop models of total tree biomass which could be used to generate estimates at a national and regional level. The conventional approach to developing tree volume tables involves destructive sampling and measurement of large numbers of . r . trees. Separate models are developed for each species in each major locality, with each model typically requiring the felling and detailed measurement of a minimum of 100 to 200 trees. To cover even the major tree and shrub species throughout Pakistan in this way would have involved an effort far beyond the - resources of this project, and would have caused the destruction of large numbers of trees in a country with limited wood supplies. It was therefore necessary to develop a different r approach. - The major variables correlated with the commercial wood content of a tree are: stem diameter, height, rate of taper of the bole, and - where wood volume is to be estimated without bark - bark thickness. Typically, only diameter and height or diameter alone are measured during conventional forest inventories, and the variability introduced by the remaining variables which are not - measured (e.g. taper and bark thickness) is allowed for by using a volume table which applies only to a specific species and locality. Additional variables correlated with total tree biomass include crown density, crown depth, crown width and extent of crown damage, which introduce further variation. The approach developed involved measuring sufficient variables on sample trees to cover as much of the above sources of variation as possible, i.e. diameter at breast height (dbh), height, rate of taper of the bole, crown width, crown depth and estimating the extent of crown damage. The fact that tree biomass including bark was to be estimated meant that bark thickness could be disregarded. The aim was to develop~modelsof tree biomass and its components which were as far as possible species- and site- independent, thus requiring many fewer trees to be destructively sampled. Estimation of shrub biomass was similarly generalised, by developing a model based on percentage canopy cover and average [ height regardless of species. 4.3 Destructive sampling of trees and shrubs A total of 140 trees over a range of species and sizes throughout Pakistan were destructively sampled and measured. Wherever possible, samples were taken in or near woody biomass PSUs, but because samples could be felled and measured only with the consent of landowners or managers it was sometimes necessary to measure samples away from the PSUs. Every effort was made to obtain a representative.sample of tree species and sizes. Distributions are shown in Tables A-1 and A-2. Each destructively sampled tree was first measured standing, in exactly the same way as trees measured during the woody biomass inventory (see section 5.3). The tree was then felled and detailed measurements were taken of bole and,branches down to a diameter of 5 cm to allow their green volumes to be estimated, and samples were taken for determining the relationship between green volume and dry weight. All branches smaller than 5 cm in diameter plus leaves were weighed, and samples taken for determining moisture content. All samples were immediately sealed in plastic bags to prevent moisture being lost before they reached the laboratory in Islamabad. A detailed description of t h e methodology is g i v e n in tt~cwoody biornann n u r v c y manual and field report. Eleven shrub plots covering a range of species and sizes were also measured in the same way as shrubs measured during the woody biomass inventory (see section 5.1), then harvested and weighed. Distributions by species and size are shown in Table A-3. Samples were again taken for laboratory determination of moisture content. 4.4 Laboratory procedure for density and moisture content All wood and foliage samples from destructively sampled trees and shrubs were sealed in plastic bags to prevent moisture loss and sent from the field to Islamabad as quickly as possible. On receipt all samples were first weighed before the bags were opened, to record the weight including moisture; bag weight was then subtracted to give nett sample weight. Green volumes of all wood samples were measured immediately after weighing using a simple water displacement vessel and measuring cylinder. All samples were then oven dried and reweighed to determine moisture contents and green wood densities. 4.5 Biomass estimation by component Laboratory results from drying and weighing of wood and foliage samples were used to convert wood volume measurements and green foliage weights from destructively sampled trees into air dry biomass. Wood density results from the samples showed considerable variation and were combined with data from the literature on wood densities for Pakistan species (Ayaz, 1981; Siddique et al., 1986; Stoehr et al., 1990) to produce the best available density estimates; results (adjusted to oven dry weight per green volume) are.given in Table A-4. Foliage moisture contents also varied considerably and an average dry weightlgreen weight weight ratio of 0.45 was used for all species. Sampling variation from both of these sources will somewhat reduce the precision of biomass estimates, but the results will be unbiased for estimates at the national and regional level. Field measurements on sample trees for the biomass inventory included direct measures of bole size (section 5.3). ÿ his enabled tree bole volume including bark to be estimated directly and then converted to equivalent air dry biomass. Models were =-. then developed to estimate bole biomass down to different diameters, i.e. down to 20 cm for commercial timber and down to 5 cm for polewood. For commercial timber a small end diameter of 20 cm over bark was used to correspond to a smaller end diameter under bark, because in practice logs are often used commercially down to smaller sizes, e.g. 15 cm, due to local timber shortages or the short rotations over which trees are often grown by farmers. Biomass components of this kind can be modelled r I. separately, but this can give inconsistent results for different tree sizes; models which predict the fraction of total bole biomass for each component can be developed to give consistent estimates for all tree sizes and therefore this approach was used here. Prediction models for air dry biomass of branches (down to a - diameter of 5 cm) and twigs and leaves (less than 5 cm) were developed on all destructively sampled trees and then tested for r species independence. The effects of different levels of - severity of lopping were modelled as correction factors. 4.6 Final biomass models for trees and shrubs Bole biomass, consisting of timberwood (down to a diameter of 20 cm) plus smallwood (between 20 cm and 5 cm in diameter) was estimated by extrapolating bole diameter measurements to the tip of the tree. Figure 4.1 illustrates the excellent correlation between wood biomass extrapolated in this way and actual bole biomass. 0 5 'lo Bole volume e r t r a p o l a t e d t o t i p o f t r e e Cm3) - ' I lne o f z e r o d ~ f f e r e n c e Figure 4.1. Relationship between actual bole biomass and bole biomass extrapolated to tip of tree. Final models for estimating fractions of bole biomass for commercial timber and poles are given below. In each case the models are mathematically constrained to behave in a biologically sensible manner. For example in the case of timber biomass (to a small end of 20 cm) the fraction becomes zero at a dbh of 17 cm, which is a size of tree whose bole at ground level would be t- approximately 20 cm, i . e . it would have no bole biomass greater than 20 cm diameter. For large diameters the function becomes almost 1, because in large trees a very high percentage of the bole biomass is greater than 20 cm diameter. The same model structure is used for polewood fraction (to a small end of 5 cm), which becomes zero at a dbh of 3.5 cm, because trees of this size would have no bole biomass greater than 5 cm diameter. The models are shown in Figures 4.2 and 4.3. timber biomass to a small end of 20 cm, as a fraction of bole biomass: F, = 1 - (17.0 / D)2"90 for D > 17.0 cm = o ' for D I 17.0 cm r where F, = timber as a fraction of bole biomass i D = dbh in cm .................Equation 4.1 pole biomass to a small end of 5,cm, as a fraction of bole biomass : F, = 1 - (3.5 / D ) ~ . ~ ~ for D > 3.5 cm = 0 for D I 3.5 cm where F, = polewood as a fraction of bole bi.omass D = dbh in cm .................Equation 4.2  dbh (cm) Figure 4.2. Commercial timber biomaee (to a small end diameter of 20 cm) ae a fraction of bole biomaee extrapolated to tip of tree. 0 92 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 '10 80 90 im iio dbh Ccm) Figure 4.3. Polewood biomaee (to a emall end diameter of 5 cm) ae a fraction of bole biomaee extrapolated to tip of tree. No significant differences between species were found for the model of branch biomass (defined as branchwood down to a diameter of 5 cm). Branch biomass showed good correlations with crown width, crown length and dbh, but crown length and dbh were highly correlated and only one of the two could be retained in the final model, which is given below. The model is again constrained to c- behave sensibly, in that it becomes zero when crown width is zero; it also becomes zero for trees with dbh of 10 cm or less, because such trees were observed to have no branchwood above 5 cm diameter. The model is shown in Figure 4.4. Wb = 0.391367 (D - ~ ~~ 1 0 . 0 ) w ~ ~. ~~ D ~ ~ for ~ cm > 10.0 ~ = 0 for D s 10.0 cm where Wb = oven dry branch biomass in kg D = dbh in cm W = crown width in m ................. Equation 4.3 - D 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 (dbh- 1 0 ) n 0 . 9 2 3 1 1 7 * ( c r o w n w ~ d t h ) " I ,03170 Shlsham 0 Con~fers Babul + Other $ Figure 4.4. Branch biomaee ae a function of dbh and crown width. No eignificant difference8 between epeciee were found. The model for biomass of twigs (less than 5 cm diameter) plus leaves showed some differences between species. E u c a l y p t u s camadulensis is an exotic species with a noticeably thinner crown than tree species native to Pakistan and showed a very clear departure from the model. Tamarix a r t i c u l a t a is a species with a dense crown which showed a departure from the model in the opposite direction. No other species showed significant differences, which indicates that the aim of producing a species- independent model was largely achieved. Final models are given below and are shown in Figure 4 . 5 . The models are constrained t o pass through the origin, so that biomass of twig^ and lcavcs becomes zero when either crown length or crown width become zero, for example in the case of trees whose crowns have been fully lopped. w, - - 0 . 7 8 5 4 5 8 ~1.z"ul ~1.03178 for mixed species - . 0 4 3 5 5 6.8 ~ 1 . 2 3 4 0 1 ~1.03170 for E. c a m a l d u l e n s i s - 1.339418 ~1.23401 ~1.03178 for T. a r t i c u l a t a where W, = oven dry branch biomass in kg L = crown length in m W = crown width in m ................. Equation 4.4 Ccrown l e n g t h I A l 25891 * Ccrown w i d t h ) ^ 1 . 0 5 2 0 4 Euca l yptus 0 Tamar i x + Other s p e c i e s Figure 4.5. Biomaee of twige and leavee ae a function of crown length and crown width. Significant departuree from the model are ehown for Eucalyptus and Tamarix epeciee.  b . As discussed in section 5.4, simple methods of estimating shrub biomass were employed in this study, to avoid a disproportionate use of resources on measuring a minor component of the total wood biomass. The model for shrub biomass used in this work was applied to plots of 2 metre radius, within which shrub cover percent and average height were estimated. It was based on eleven destructive samples covering a range of localities, species and sizes (see Table A - 3 ) . The model, which is constrained to become zero when either shrub cover percent or average height become zero, is given below'and shows a good fit to the data, as shown in Figure 4.6. where W, = oven dry shrub biomass in tonnes/ha C = shrub cover percent in a plot of 2 m radius H = average shrub height in m ................. Equation 4.5 100 zoo 300 Cground cover % j + Caverage s h r u b ht i n m] Figure 4 . 6 . Shrub biomaee a e a f u n c t i o n o f ground cover percent and average ehrub h e i g h t .  5. FIELD MEASUREMENTS 5.1 Variable plot and 3P sampling Surveys of woody vegetation can be carried out in a variety of ways. A common mcthod is to cotablioll rixcd-orca ploto and measure all vegetation falling within each plot. This method was used by Phillips (1992) for a survey of farm trees in Pakistan. Natural woody vegetation, however, can often include large numbers of small trees and much lower numbers of larger trees; a large amount of the effort is then concentrated on measuring many small trees and only a small proportion of the effort is spent on measuring the larger trees which contribute the most biomass. One solution to this problem is to establish a range of plot sizes at each.sample point, with small sized trees measured within small plots and larger trees measured within larger plots, e.g. McCarthy (1981). A more efficient solution is to use a form of variable probability sampling referred to as angle count sampling (Husch et al., 1972), which effectively creates a separate plot.size for each size of tree in a manner related to the importance of the tree in terms of its biomass contribution per hectare. Details of the theory are summarised in the woody biomass survey manual. Biomass surveys commonly involve a form of double sampling, in which an essential minimum number of measurements are taken on all trees in the sample and a subsample of trees are then selected for more detailed measurement; tree biomass estimates derived from this subsample are then related back to the other trees in the sample. A form of variable probability sampling referred to as ,probability proportional to prediction (PPP, or 3P) provides a simple, efficient and objective method of selecting the subsample (Husch et al., 1972; Grosenbaugh, 1964). A summary of the theory is given in the woody biomass survey manual. 3P sampling requires that a numerical attribute (the predictor variable) be assigned to each tree in the sample, on the basis of which the subsample is selected. With experienced enumerators carrying out a conventional timber inventory, the predictor variable can be a direct estimate of the commercial volume of wood in the tree, but this is not feasible for surveys of total woody biomass using less experienced field staff. In such cases a proxy variable is used which is more easily estimated and is closely correlated with parameter to be estimated. For the HESS woody biomass survey, dbh was used as a precise and convenient proxy variable for selecting 3P trees. Analysis of existing tree size data from volume tables for Pakistan species indicated that total tree biomass would be strongly correlated this was then used to determine the with the function (dbh)2.3; distribution of random numbers for selecting 3P trees. The suitability of this function was confirmed following the analysis of measurements of total biomass on destructively sampled trees (section 4.3), which indicated that the actual relationship was (dbh)2.2". 5.2 Measurements on tallied trees Field plots were established at each SSU and details recorded of location and site factors, including aspect, slope and land use. Angle count sampling with a Spiegelrelaskop was used to select sample trees i n situations where trcc dbli wao rclrdlly vlslblc. L- In a small minority of cases where tree dbh was obscured, angle count sampling was replaced with fixed-area plots of 6 metres radius; this included shrubby vegetation such as heavily browsed Acacia modesta and Quercus ilex, thickets of Prosopis juliflora and some orchard trees with dense low crowns. For all tallied trees in variable radius (angle count) plots the species and dbh were recorded; amenity value and degree of crown damage caused by lopping were also given a coded score', as shown in Table 5.1. In the 6 metre radius plots dbh was not visible, and crown damage was not applicable and was not recorded. Table 5.1. Codes for tree amenity value and degree of crown damage. - Amenity value Code Crown condition Code r None of the cleeeee below 0 1ntact 0 Linear plantationm raised 1 25% removed 1 on state lands along roads, canals and railway linee 50% removed 2 Household trees 2 75% removed 3 Hedges 3 All removed 4 Trees growing in graveyards 4 Where shrubs were present they were assessed in 2 metre radius plots by recording crown cover percentage, average height and numbers of stems by species; shrub biomass was estimated using equation 4.5. Full details of field measurement practice for tallied trees are given in the woody biomass survey manual and field report. 5.3 Measurements on 3P trees 3P sampling for commercial timber volume is often combined with measurements of upper diameters on tree boles with optical instruments such as dendrometers (Grosenbaugh, 1964), which can produce direct estimates of commercial timber for the target population without the need for volume models at all. This method cannot be fully applied to inventories of total woody biomass, because the biomass of other components such as branches, twigs and leaves cannot be measured so simply. A modified approach was used for this survey, with sufficient measurements taken on 3P trees to allow the biomass models described in section 4 to be applied, while at the same time using upper bole measurements to improve the estimation of stem biomass. After the tree tally was completed for one SSU, 3P trees were selected from a list of'random diameters, as explained in section 5.1. Additional measurements were then taken on the selected 3P trees for estimation of tree biomass and its components. As explained in section 4.6, bole biomass was closely approximated by extrapolating bole diameter measurements to the tip of the tree. The total height of each 3P tree was measured, and lower bole diameter measurements trees were taken at 3 0 cm and dbh with a. diameter tape. Upper diameters were measured optically using a Spiegelrelaskop; although such measurements were less precise than direct measurement made by climbing or by felling the trees, the lower precision was more than offset by the greatly increased numbers of trees which could be measured in this way. Bole volumes were then converted to'biomass estimates using the wood density figures in Table A-4, and timber and pole components were estimated using equations 4.1 and 4.2. Measurements of crown width and crown depth were also taken on 3P trees to enable biomass of branches, twigs and leaves to be estimated, using equations 4.3 and 4.4. Biomass estimates for 3P trees were then applied to all tallied trees using standard ratio estimators ( ~ u s c h et al., 1972). Full details of field measurement practice for 3P trees are given in the woody biomass survey manual and field report.  6. MODELLING OF WOODY BIOMASB PRODUCTIVITY 6.1 Available data and need for further data Models have been developed for estimating the productivity of some important commercial tree species in Pakistan, in the form -. of yield tables (listed in Table 6.1). These yield tables estimate productivity in the form of commercial timber volume which does not include other biomass components of importance to this study, such as branches, twigs and leaves. Work is described in the literature on estimating productivity of total tree biomass (e.g., Chaturvedi and Singh, 1987; Pande et al., 1987; Rana et al., 1988) but does not cover Pakistan. Table 6 . 1 . Y i e l d t a b l e s f o r commercial tree s p e c i e s i n P a k i s t a n . Species Author and d a t e Acacia a r a b i c a Hafeez, 1973 Dalbergia s i s s o o ( i r r i g a t e d ) Hussain and Glennie, 1978 E u c a l y p t u s carnal dul e n s i s Hussain and Abbas, 1983 Pinus r o x b u r g h i i ( N W F P ) Hussain e t a l . , 1978 Pinus r o x b u r g h i i (Punjab) Hussain et a l . , 1979 Pinus r o x b u r g h i i Cheema, 1992 Pinus w a l l i c h i a n a Cheema and K l e i n e , 1990 Popul u s hybrid Hussain and s h e i k h , 1981 Selected investigations on biomass productivity of woody shrubs described in the literature are listed in Table 6.2, but no work is recorded for Pakistan. Table 6 . 2 . L i t e r a t u r e r e f e r e n c e e on ehrub biomasm p r o d u c t i v i t y . Speciee Locality Author and d a t e Prosopis j u l i f l o r a Kenya Maghembe et a l . , 1983 - P r o s o p i s j u l i f 1ora India Gurbachan-Singh et a l . , 1984 Prosopis j u l i f l o r a India Gurumurti, 1984 Prosopis j u l i f l o r a India Singh, 1989 Commiphora and Acacia Kenya Mackel et a l . , 1989 Tarchonanthus camphorat u s Kenya Young and Francombe, 1991 There was a need to develop models of woody biomass productivity on as sound a basis as possible for both trees and shrubs, to allow the sustainable woody biomass supply to be estimated. Conventional methods for developing such models involve the monitoring and measurement of yield plots for different species/ site combinations over a number of years, but this approach was clearly beyond the resources of this project. It was therefore necessary to develop timely and cost-effective methods of developing productivity models which could be applied to the whole woody biomass resource on a national basis. Two main approaches were used. Firstly, the woody biomass supply survey attempted to collect data on tree growth, by either taking increment cores from standing trees with clearly visible annual rings or by obtaining information from landowners on the ages of planted trees. Secondly, information available from applicable literature on tree and shrub productivity was combined with data from the field to produce suitable models. 6.2 Productivity data obtained from field measurements Only some tree species in Pakistan have visible annual rings which can be used to estimate growth (Champion et al., 1965b). Out of a total of 881 3P trees, increment cores were extracted and read only from a small number, the majority of which were conifers : Abies pindrow A l b i z z i a lebbek Alnus n i t i d a Cedrus deodara Juniperus macropoda Melia azedarach Pinus gerardiana Pinus h a l e p e n s i s Pinus w a l l i c h i a n a Prosopis c i n e r a r i a Tamarix a r t i c u l a t a Tamarix d i o i c a Total 36 Reliable tree ages were recorded for only 31 3P trees, but fortunately it was possible to supplement these with an additional 454 observations taken by Hocking et al. (1991) for the Pakistan Forestry Sector Master Plan (FSMP). 6.3 Biomass productivity model for trees Primary and secondary data were combined to produce the final productivity models for tree growth. Because conventional yield tables use tree age as an independent variable and tree age was unavailable for most sample trees, it was necessary to develop an alternative model form. Relative growth rate (RGR), which expresses growth as a proportion of current biomass, was used in place of age. Pakistan yield table results for different species were converted to equivalent RGR values and combined with HESS and Forestry Master Plan tree growth data. Figure G.l(a) shows sclcctcd results. It was not feasible to develop separate tree biomass productivity models for all species/site combinations in Pakistan; general models were therefore developed to produce growth estimates adequate for mixed species on a national or regional basis. The models are dependent on tree biomass, agro- ecological zone, species end use, extent of crown damage due to lopping and amenity value, as follows:  8 8 Tree biomass: Results from the woody biomass survey (section 7) indicated that a large proportion of the wood resource is in the form of young small trees on farms. ' S u c h trees have considerably higher RGR than older larger trees. It was therefore necessary to make the growth model sensitive to tree size. r - (b) Agro-ecological zone: A basic subdivision was made between high- and low-productivity zones. High-productivity zones included all irrigated zones and low-productivity included all other zones - see Table 6.3. The assumption that growing conditions within irrigated zones are reasonably uniform can be applied if results are not intended for use below the level of zone. Within low-productivity zones there is a wide variation in growing conditions for example in arid zones growing conditions vary from tubewell - . I irrigation to dry watercourses - but for national and regional planning purposes a single model category can be used to cover all low-productivity zones without excessive overall bias. 6 Table 6.3. Subdivieion of agro-ecological zonee for modelling purpoeee. High-productivity zones Low-productivity zones 1 High-productivity 5 Rain-fed agriculture irrigated (North) 2 High-product ivity 6 Poreeted, scrub and irrigated (South) highlands 3 Low-productivity 7 Semi-arid irrigated (North) 4 Low-product ivity 8 Deeert irrigated (South) (c) Species end use: Different tree components are used for fuelwood depending on species, and even those components normally used for commercial timber generate residues which can be used for fuel. Fuelwood biomass growth was modelled for those components of each tree species normally used for fuel. (d) Extent of crown damage: In some cases, individual trees are heavily lopped for fuel or fodder. When more than about half of a tree's canopy is removed the loss of photo- synthetic capacity causes a significant drop in growth. Because of the practice of lopping trees in Pakistan this effect must be allowed for, even though the small proportion of trees with a high degree of crown damage implies that total growth estimates will not be very sensitive to the exact form of the model. (e) Amenity value: As explained in section 5.2, all tallied trees were coded for amenity value (see Table 5.1), with a  specific coding for trees growing in graveyards. Given the very strong prohibitions against exploiting the vegetation in graveyards in Pakistan (Dove and Rao, 1992), the productivity of trees growing in graveyards was excluded from the total; this represented 0.7 percent of all trees. Each variable is discussed in detail below. (a) Tree biomass. The basic model predicts RGR as a function of tree biomass in high-productivity zones, for trees with no crown damage which are wholly used for fuel. It is given below as equation 6.1 and illustrated in overlay Figure 6.l(b), which shows the relationship between the model and the selected RGR values for different species and sites in Figure 6.l(a). RGR as a function of tree biomass in high-productivity zones, for trees with no crown damage which are wholly used for fuel: where R = RGR in kg of annual growth per kg of total tree biomass B = total tree biomass in kg ................. Equation 6.1 (b) Agro-ecological zone. The basic model given in equation 6.1 was modified to reduce RGR for low-productivity zones so as to fit the available yield data. A factor of 50 percent gave a reasonable fit to the data; the model is given below and is shown in overlay Figure 6.l(b). However a factor of 50 percent reduction is a somewhat conservative assumption, in that a reduction in RGR has a multiplicative effect over time and therefore reduces total growth by considerably more than 50 percent, which is probably pessimistic for semi-arid and barani zones at least (Forestry Planning and Development Project, pers. comm.). Final results (see Table B-1) show that approximately 36 percent of total productivity comes from low-productivity zones. Although total biomass productivity estimates for Pakistan would not be greatly altered with changes in the growth assumptions for low-productivity zones, the wood resource in these zones is important for local household use, especially in isolated areas. Wood productivity estimates for these zones which can be applied regionally and nationally are therefore required for the development of relevant household energy strategies.  SOa 1000 Tree biomass Ckg) Figure 6 . l ( b ) . Models for tree RGR. Upper curve: high-productivity tones (TRANSPARENT OVERLAY) Lower curver low-productivity tone.  500 1000 Tree b i omass C kg] - F i g u r e 6 . l ( a ) . Some o f t h e d a t a u s e d f o r tree RGR m o d e l l i n g . A * + - + A * + FSMP young trees E . camaldulensis Irrigated D. s i s s o o HESS o l d e r trees P . wallichiana S i t e Index 34 * * * A. nilotica S i t e Class I1  RGR as a function of tree biomass in low-productivity zones, for trees with no crown damage which are wholly used for fuel : where R = RGR in kg of annual growth per kg of total tree biomass B = total tree biomass in kg ................. Equation 6.2 (c) Species end use. Table A-6 lists the end uses of'each species by biomass component. These end uses were coded and applied to growth modelling by component for each sample tree, to ensure that growth rates reflected as accurately as possible the most likely end uses. (d) Extent of crown damage. Growth of twigs and leaves was of particular interest, given the range of fuel quality used by households and the need to match this with equivalent components of the supply. To allow for the effects of lopping, 3P sample trees were first adjusted to a common base, i.e. no crown damage, and biomass and growth estimates for each sample tree were then adjusted for degree of actual damage. This required the development of models for the biomass components (roundwood versus twigs and leaves) of trees with different degrees of crown damage. Crown damage for all sample trees was assessed visually into five classes, ranging from no damage to complete crown removal (Table 5.1). As explained in section 4.3, each destructively sampled tree was first measured standing, in exactly the same way as other sample trees and by the same field staff; these measurements included the same visual assessment of crown damage, which enabled the actual amount of crown removal associated with each visual class to be quantitatively assessed. A model with a similar structure to equation 4.2 was used to model the biomass of roundwood (i.e., total tree biomass excluding twigs and leaves) as a fraction of total tree biomass. As explained in section 4.6, these models are constrained to become zero for trees which are too small to have any bole or branchwood above 5 cm in diameter. By first modelling the roundwood biomass of trees with undamaged crowns and then modelling the same biomass component for trees with varying degrees of crown damage, it was possible to estimate the actual proportion of crown removed for each crown damage class. The model is given below and is shown for each crown damage class in Figures 6.2 and 6.3. and Appendix C Tables give the distributions of Landsat crop classifications, crop areas and yields by zone and province which were used to generate the results. Table 9.3. Eetimated crop reeiduee by zone and province (millionm of tonnee). I r r high I r r high Irr low Irr low Rainfed Forest/ Semi- Crop (North) (South) (North) (South) agric. highland arid Desert Total Cotton 8.24 1.38 1.70 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.46 Mai ze 1.83 0.03 0.19 0.05 0.06 1.27 0.03 0.00 3.47 Sugarcane 7.18 1.83 0.83 2.41 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 .12.88 Rice 4.81 1.09 0.30 1.% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.16 Uheat 11.36 1.65 2.31 1.21 . 1.00 1.TO 1.26 0.07 20.65 Prwlnce Northern Pmjab Sinch NVFP Baluch andAJK Total Cotton 9.20 2.36 0.74 0.16 0.00 12.46 Maize 2.00 0.14 0.73 0.02 0.57 3.47 Sugarcane 7.98 4.00 0.65 0.25 0.01 12.88 Rice 4.74 2.88 0.38 0.16 0.00 8.16 Uheat 13.64 3.02 2.21 0.96 0.82 20.65  a C r o w n class 0 Figure 6 . 2 . Roundwood ( i . e . , t r e e biomass excluding t w i g s and l e a v e s ) a s a f r a c t i o n o f t o t a l t r e e biomass, f o r t r e e s with undamaged crowns. dbh Ccm) o C r o w n c lacs I C r o w n c lass 2 .I C r o w n c lass 3 Figure 6 . 3 . Roundwood ( i - e . , t r e e biomass excluding t w i g s and l e a v e s ) a s a f r a c t i o n o f t o t a l t r e e biomass, f o r varying degrees o f crown damage. Table B-3 shows the low proportions of trees in crown damage classes 3 and 4 (75 percent removed and all crown removed, respectively), which implies that overall growth estimates will be relatively insensitive to the growth assumptions used. However the adjustment of all data to a common base improves comparability between regions. 6.4 Biomass productivity model for shrubs It was not possible to collect usable growth data for shrubs during the time frame of the project, and no suitable data was available on shrub growth for Pakistan. A model was therefore developed from shrub productivity data for relevant species and r L. . localities (Table 6.2). Prosopis juliflora was emphasised because of its importance as a source of fuelwood in Pakistan. The basic model developed, for Prosopis in high-productivity zones, is given below and shown in Figure 6.4. Because it was not'possible to identify individual shrub plants in continuous thickets, individual shrub biomass could not be used as a predictor variable in the model. Average shrub height was therefore used instead. where R = RGR in kg of annual growth per kg of shrub biomass H = average shrub height in metres ................. Equation 6.4 For consistency with the tree growth models, RGR was halved for low-productivity zones. Given the highly aggressive growth behaviour of Prosopis, growth rates were again halved for non- Prosopis shrubs in each case. Figure 6.4 shows the behaviour of the model against some of the shrub productivity data from the literature. Where necessary, shrub height was estimated using equation 4.5. As shown in Table B-1, shrubs contribute 4.6 percent of the woody biomass standing stock in Pakistan, and approximately 25 percent of the annual growth. Although total biomass productivity estimates for Pakistan would not vary greatly with changes in the detail of the shrub growth model, the shrub contribution represents a significant resource in the form of low-quality fuel and should therefore be estimated as competently as possible.  Aver a y e I;hr ub tlr;' I gt11 CllleLr CJSJ Prosopls Cgood s i t e ) T a r c honar t hus ( s e m i - a r i dl + Prosop~s(moderate s ~ t e ] Figure 6.4. Model for shrub RGR with selected plotted data from the literature. Curves are shown as follows: - upper curve: Prosopis in high-productivity zones - middle curve: Other shrubs in high-productivity zonee and Prosopis in low-productivity zones - lower curve: Other ehrube in low-productivity zonee  7. ESTIMATES OF STANDING BIOMASS AND PRODUCTIVITY 7.1 Sampling distribution by zone and province Sampling design is discussed in section 3. Table 3.1 shows the i ' distribution of PSUs by agro-ecological zone, but as explained in section 2.2 the fourteen classes were modified to eight for sampling purposes (Figure 2.2). Table 7.1 shows the distribution of woody biomass PSUs for these eight sampling zones and by province. Table 7.1. Distribution of woody biomaee PSUa by eampling zone and province. i' Sampling zone No. of PSUs Province No. of PSUs 1 Irrigated high 1 Punjab 228 (North) 2 Irrigated high 2 Sindh 192 (South) 3 Irrigated low 3 NWFP and. 99 (North) Northern 4 Irrigated low 4 Baluchietan 54 (South) --- 5 Rain-fed Total 573 agriculture --- 6 Forested, ecrub and highlands 7 Semi-arid 8 Deeert 23 --- Total 573 --- The number of PSUs provided sufficient samples to split the - irrigated zones between northern provinces (Punjab plus NWFPINorthern Areas) and southern provinces (Sindh plus the area of canal irrigation in the Nasirabad and Zhob districts of Baluchistan), but the numbers of samples within the other zones are not sufficient for further splitting. It follows from this that the final results of the woody biomass survey can be disaggregated down to the level of zone or down to the level of province, but - with the exception of the north/south split for irrigated zones - not down to the level of zones within provinces. 7.2 Btanding biomass by zone and province Table 7.2 summarises the distribution of woody biomass standing stock by zone and province. Detailed results are given in the tables in Appendix B. Table 7 . 2 . D i e t r i b u t i o n o f woody biomaee s t a n d i n g e t o c k by zone and p r o v i n c e . Standing e t o c k Standing e t o c k Zone ( m i l l i o n tonnes) Province ( m i l l i o n tonnee) Irrigated high 59.2 1 Punjab 90.1 (North) Irrigated high 11.0 2 Sindh 25.0 (South) 3 I r r i g a t e d low 26.8 3 NWFP and 81.9 (North) Northern* 4 I r r i g a t e d low 8.7 4 Baluchietan 13.8 (South) ----- 5 Rain-fed 4.5 Total Pakistan 210.8 agriculture 6 F o r e s t e d , scrub 81.7 and highland8 7 Semi-arid 11.2 8 Deeert 7.8 ----- T o t a l Pakistan ----- 210.8 * E s t i m a t e s f o r Northern Areas and AJK need t o be q u a l i f i e d becauee o f l i m i t e d f i e l d samples i n t h e s e a r e a e - see d i e c u e e i o n below. Table B-1 shows a separate estimate for Northern Areas plus AJK, which has been combined with NWFP in the above table. Because of problems in obtaining clearance for use of satellite imagery, no Landsat imagery of AJK or sensitive border areas was selected. Therefore only one Landsat scene covered this area (scene 1 in Figure 2 . 1 ) , and even within this scene field teams were unable to reach some PSUs which fell in high mountain areas where the forest cover is reasonably high. For these reasons it is possible that woody biomass resources for the northern part of the country have been underestimated. Estimates prepared by the FSMP (Reid Collins and Silviconsult, 1 9 9 2 ) give a total of 100 million cubic metres for Northern Areas plus AJK, or approximately 7 0 million tonnes, of coniferous growing stock only. When this is compared with the HESS estimate in Table B-1 of 37 million tonnes for all woody biomass in the same area it does appear possible that there has been an underestimate. The true figure for total woody biomass standing stock for Pakistan may therefore be higher than 2 1 0 million tonnes, but the possible underestimate is of limited importance for household energy because (i) tree growth rates in northern areas are low and (ii) only a small percentage- of national fuelwood supply comes from these areas. Because of the multi-stage and variable probability sampling used to maximise the efficiency of the woody biomass survey, estimating the precision of the results is a non-trivial exercise. The first level of sampling consisted of twelve Landsat scenes, but these were selected as a representative subsample not only of the zonation but also of 'lcore" and 'Inon- corem areas, population distribution, cropping patterns and provincial coverage (section 2.3). Within each scene, PSUs were selected by variable probability sampling from a sampling stratum derived from digital classification of the Landsat imagery, which was then overlain on the zonation, and expansion factors were developed both for individual PSUs and also for all PSUs in a given zone within each .Landsat scene (section 3.1). Each PSU contained four SSUs, and within each SSU a specialised form of variable probability sampling (3P) was used to select a subsample of tallied trees for more detailed measurement (section 5). Biomass estimates for each 3P tree were derived from biomass models developed from another subsample of destructively measured trees (section 4) and applied to all tallied trees using ratio estimators. Each sampling stage contributes a level of variability to the final results. An adequate approximation of the sampling error can be made as follows. The variance of SSUs can be taken as subsuming all sources of variation up to this stage, i.e. the biomass models, 3P sampling, ratio estimators and the variance of tallied trees within each SSU; then, if individual SSU results are first adjusted for vegetation content of the PSU in which they occur before calculating their variances as stratified samples within each zone, and the area of each zone is adjusted by the proportion of ands sat-classified vegetation falling within the zone, the results can be treated as a conventional two-stage sample stratified by zones. Variability between-Landsat scenes can be accounted for by pooling samples from the same zone between scenes. . The above procedure takes account of all sources of variation. The first step - calculation of sampling error for two-stage sampling within each zone - requires the following formula (Freese, 1962) : where s , = standard error of zone mean n = number of PSUs selected within the zone N = total population of PSUs within the zone m = number of SSUs selected within each PSU M = total population of SSUs within a PSU : s =sample variance between PSUs - - [xi=i.n 2/m (xj=1,rnYij) - 2 / m n/ (~i=l,nxj=1,mYij) ~(n-1) sW2 = sample variance within PSUs - = [zi=l.nxj=l.m~: Xi=l,n '/m] /n(m-l) (zj=l,rn~ij) Because of the very low sampling fraction within each zone the term n/N is extremely small and can be omitted. The formula then reduces to: with the SSU contribution now confined to the term sB2. The second step is calculation of the overall standard error for a stratified sample by zone, with the zone weightings based on the estimated area of vegetated stratum within each zone. The formula is (Freese, 1962) : s where , = standard error of the overall mean = weighting for the k" zone = sampling variance for the ' k zone . nk = number of sampling units in the ' k zone Table 7.3 gives the results of sampling error calculations. Expressed in terms of tonnes of woody biomass per hectare of vegetated sampling stratum falling within the zones, the 95 percent confidence intervals for the overall mean are 18.677 k 3.606 tonnes/ha, or a sampling error of f 19.3 percent. The relatively high level of sampling error reflects the high level of variability found for total woody biomass. Considerably lower sampling errors could be expected from similar numbers of samples in conventional forest inventory of commercial timber volumes in closed forest, 'but total woody biomass inventory of all woody vegetation from small shrubs to large trees covers a resource which is much more variable, even with good sampling stratification. Table 7.3. Estimation of sampling error for the woody biomass survey (values adjusted for eampling stratum content of PSUs). Total Stratum Zone area of area in No. of No. of standard Zone zone ( km2 ) zone ( km2 ) PSUs . SSUs error(%) 1 Irr high (North) 2 Irr high (South) 3 Irr low (North) 4 Irr low (South) 5 Rainfed agriculture 6 Forested+highlands 7 Semi-arid 8 Desert Overall standard error: 9.85% 95% confidence interval: f19.31% The sampling error estimate of + 19.3 percent implies that the 95 percent confidence intervals for the total standing stock given in Table 7.2 would be 210.8 + 40.6 million tonnes. It should be noted, as discussed earlier, that this estimate of the sampling error is not based on entirely rigorous statistical method. However the approach should give a reasonably accurate indication of the sampling precision achieved. 7.3 Productivity by gone and province Table 7.4 summarises the distribution of woody biomass productivity by zone and province. Detailed results are given in the tables in Appendix B. As discussed in the previous section, woody biomass standing stock may have been underestimated in northern areas of Pakistan, but because (i) trees in these areas - have very low growth rates, and (ii) only a small percentage of national fuelwood supply comes from these areas, the relevance to total woody biomass productivity would be small. Table 7 . 4 . D i s t r i b u t i o n o f woody biomaee p r o d u c t i v i t y by 'zone and province. Productivity Productivity Zone ( m i l l i o n tonnee/yr) Province ( m i l l i o n tonnee/yr) 1 I r r i g a t e d high 7.08 1 Punjab 11.12 (North) 2 I r r i g a t e d high 0.91 2 Sindh 3.96 (South) 3 I r r i g a t e d low 3.98 3 NWFP and 5.74 (North) Northern 4 I r r i g a t e d low (South) 2.66 4 Baluchietan ----- 1.88 5 Rain-fed 0.42 Total Pakistan 22.70 agriculture 6 Forested, ecrub 5.22 and highland6 7 Semi-arid 0.94 8 Deeert 1.48 ----- Total Pakistan 22.70 ----- For the same reasons discussed in the previous section, - calculation of sampling error for total woody biomass productivity is not straightforward. However, given that all of the growth modelling is based on ratio estimators (see section 6), sampling error for productivity should be very similar to the k19.3 percent for total standing stock. If f20 percent is accepted as a reasonable estimate, the 95 percent confidence intervals for total woody biomass productivity would be 22.7 f 4.5 million tonnes per year. 111. AGRICULTURAL RESIDUES SURVEY  8. SAMPLING AND MEASUREMENT OF AGRICULTURAL RESIDUES 8.1 Area sampling frame methodology and its relevance Area sampling frame (ASF) methodology provides a very efficient basis for estimating crop yields (Houseman, 1975). It has been in use in the USA since 1954, where it is now the main basis for the production of agricultural statistics in almost all US states, and has been successfully introduced in many developing countries (USAID, 1989). A joint FBS-USAID project in Pakistan (USAID, 1988) completed the establishment of an agricultural ASF over the whole country by late 1992, and full scale crop yield sampling using the ASF began in the same year. The crop residue inventory was designed to include the measurement of both crop yields and crop residues, to allow the development of residue:yield ratio estimators as well as area- based estimates of residue yields. Because it would be efficient to carry out any future inventories of crop residues in conjunction with routine field measurements of crop yields, the methodology for the HESS inventory of crop residues was developed to be as compatible as possible with the Pakistan agricultural ASF. ASF methodology involves the delineation of permanent or long- term sampling segments from air photos or satellite imagery (USAID, 1989), which are used as a sampling frame for subsequent agricultural surveys. At the time of starting the HESS crop residue survey the Pakistan ASF had not been completed and therefore a modification of the ASF was developed using temporary sampling segments selected from digitally classified Landsat imagery. Segment sizes were selected in consultation with staff working on the Pakistan ASF project, to provide a balanced two- stage design which could be applied efficiently in the field. A PSU size of 300 x 300 metres was chosen as a suitable balance between sampling efficiency and effective application in the field. SSUs were located randomly in randomly selected fields of target crops within each PSU, using sampling methodology closely modelled on ASF practice. As explained in section 2.3, crop residues were surveyed during both the r a b i and k h a r i f harvest seasons. Table 8.1 lists the main target crops with residues of potential use for household fuel covered during each season. Table 8.1. Major target crops for the agricultural reeiduee survey, with reeidues of potential uee for houeehold fuel. Target crop Kharif harvest Rabi harveet cotton sugarcane Maize Rice Wheat A few minor crops with residues used in limited areas were also included (tobacco, rape and mustard, sunflower, sesame) but it was found that these crops made no significant contribution to national household energy supply. It was beyond the resources of the HESS agricultural residues project to generate precise estimates of the areas and yields of target crops in Pakistan, nor was this necessary or appropriate given that statistics are collected annually by the federal and provincial governments. For this reason the survey was designed to take advantage of the considerable amount of field work carried out by government agencies, by estimating residue quantities using government statistics for crop yields and areas sown. Crop residue:yield ratios were estimated, together with area based residue estimates, so that they could be used with official crop yield and area figures to estimate total residue availability. This involved a sampling approach which differed from the woody biomass survey: the agro-ecological zonation was used to ensure that a representative sample of zones and localities was covered, the Landsat imagery was used to ensure that field sampling was confined to croplands, and both government statistics and Landsat digital crop classifications were used to develop final expansion factors. 8.2 Processing of Landsat TM imagery and selection of PSUs Landsat TM imagery for the biomass resource survey was selected as a compromise between the requirements of the woody biomass and agricultural residues surveys. As discussed in section 2.3, the twelve Landsat scenes used for sampling stratification (Figure 2.1) were selected to coincide with maximum crop greenness during the rabi season, to allow successful classification of both woody vegetation and crops, and to achieve as uniform a spectral signature as possible for croplands. The Landsat imagery was used for selecting crop residue field samples which were completely independent of those selected for the woody biomass survey. A separate digital classification was developed for each scene to cover only croplands, and PSUs 300 x 300 metres in size were selected using a similar procedure to that described in section 3.1 for woody biomass sampling. Variable probability sampling was again used for the crop residue sample; this ensured that PSUs were concentrated in areas with high crop cover to maximise the value of field work, but also produced some coverage of marginal areas with lower crop density to achieve representativeness. A consequence of the use of imagery acquired during the r a b i season was that during the k h a r i f round of the survey the crop distribution shown on the imagery did not always correspond to the situation on the ground. This was particularly the case for areas where a r a b i monocrop rotation was practiced, but because it was too time-consuming and impractical to digitally classify all twelve Landsat scenes for the k h a r i f also, this situation was allowed for by drawing an additional 20 percent of PSUs for use as replacement samples. When field teams encountered a PSU during the kharif round of the survey where no crop was present a replacement PSU was substituted. 8.3 Location of P8Us from imagery and topographic maps - Automated procedures were again used for processing and printing precision-rectified imagery for each PSU, as described in section 3.2, plus location listings for the PSUs on 1:50,000 scale maps. Whereas for the woody biomass survey the imagery showed only the position of the four SSUs within each PSU, for the crop residue survey the imagery showed each 300 x 300 metre PSU in full (see Figure 8.1) so that the outer boundaries of each PSU could be [ ' determined and SSUs selected in fields of target crops. The agricultural residues survey manual (Asianics and HESS, 1992) and final report (Asianics, 1993) give full details. Automation of image processing and printing enabled a very tight field schedule to be met, so that field teams could time their work to match the harvesting of'each target crop. - Without carefully timed multi-temporal imagery and large amounts of ground truthing it would not have been possible to develop r I detailed Landsat classifications which accurately distinguished between types of crops. Given that this was impractical in the time available the sampling frame for the crop residue survey was no more specific than cropped land regardless of type of crop, but because of the predominance of target crops the sampling frame proved reasonably efficient: measurable residues were found in more than 84 percent of the crop residue PSUs. 8.4 Belection and location of BBUs for target crops The crop residue PSUs selected from the imagery and located by teams in the field were temporary equivalents of the ASF segments. Within each selected PSU, SSUs were selected for target crops in a way which was as compatible as possible with ASF field methodology. Once the PSU had been located and its boundaries identified, all fields falling within the PSU which contained target crops were enumerated. A maximum of four crop residue SSUs were established within each PSU, with the actual number dependent on the number of fields of target crop or crops occurring within the PSU. When more than one target crop was encountered within one PSU the SSUs were distributed so that all target crops were sampled. Random number lists were used to (i) select fields of target crops for sampling, and (ii) locate measurement plots randomly within each selected field. Details are given in the agricultural residues survey manual. 8.5 Crop yield and residue sampling Field sampling was carried out within one week before harvest, to ensure that crop yield and residue measurements related to fully mature crop. Yield and residue samples were collected from each Landsat TM Image No. 15037A PSU No. 59 Date of Imagery 07-Mar-90 Scale 1: 50000 The green square indicates the position of the PSU NW corner of PSU at position: Lat 32O35.86'N Lon 73O19.50'E Figure 8 . 1 . Landeat TH eubecene ehowing t h e l o c a t i o n of one crop reeidue PSU, f o r uee by a f i e l d team. measurement plot, following standard ASF procedures. Only in the case of cotton was the procedure varied significantly, because it was not practical within the time limits of the survey to send teams back to cover each of up to five pickings for this crop; instead, cotton sampling was limited to the week before the final picking, at which time the number of empty cotton burrs was used to estimate the yields from earlier pickings, using correction factors as explained in section 8.2. Plot sizes for each crop were based on the experience and recommendations of the Pakistan ASF project, as follows: Plot size for Plot size for Target crop broadcast planting row planting Cotton 3 metres x 1 metre 3 metres x 2 rows Sugarcane 4 metres x 1 metre 4 metres x 1 row Maize 7 metres x 1 metre 7 metres x 2 rows Rice 80 cm x 80 cm 80 cm x 5 rows Wheat 60 cm x 60 cm 60 cm x 3 rows All plots were destructively sampled and samples of both crop yield and crop residue put into bags and sent to the ASF laboratories in Islamabad. Subsampling was used within the plots where necessary to restrict samples to a manageable size. In the case of sugarcane the weight of green canes was recorded and subsampling of residues was carried out. Full details of field sampling procedure are given in the agricultural residues survey manual. 8.6 Laboratory procedures for crop yields and residues All crop yield and residue samples from the HESS survey were processed in the ASF laboratory in Islamabad, using procedures as similar as possible to those used by the ASF project. Wheat and rice grain was extracted using ASF mechanical threshing equipment, and raw cotton and maize kernels were removed manually in accordance with ASF procedure. Residue samples of wheat and rice straw, cotton sticks, maize stalks and cobs and sugarcane trash were weighed, bulked and subsampled separately for each crop. All samples were then oven dried in ASF ovens following standard ASF procedure. This ensured that all crop yield estimates from the HESS residues survey would be directly comparable with ASF results, so that residue:yield ratios could be used with national crop yield data.  90 ESTIMATES OF ANNUAL AGRICULTURAL RESIDUE PRODUCTION sampling distribution Distribution of PSUs between Landsat scenes was weighted by the proportion of cropped area within each scene. Because the target crops grown during the kharif season have residues of greater importance for household fuel, two thirds of the PSUs were allocated to the kharif round of the survey and one third to the r a b i round. Because very little target crop was being grown in Baluchistan during the kharif season this province was omitted from the kharif round of the survey. The need to take samples within one week of harvest often ' required repeat visits by field teams. A few samples were lost due to competing harvest times in different areas, some security and accessibility problems in the field, and use of r a b i imagery for the kharif survey (see section 8.2) or no target crop in the PSU, but national coverage was generally good. Table 9.1 gives the final distribution of sampled PSUs by harvest season and Landsat scene. Table 9 . 1 . D i s t r i b u t i o n o f a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s i d u e PSUe by h a r v e s t eeaeon and Landeat T H ecene. Locations f o r each Landsat ecene a r e ehown i n Figure 2 . 1 . Landeat T H Numbere o f PSUe sampled s c e n e no. K h a r i f eeaeon Rabi eeaeon Total 278 192 T o t a l f o r both aeasone 470 Table 9.2 shows the crops covered by the sample during each round of the survey. Because some PSUs contained more than one target crop, totals for Table 9.2 exceed those shown in Table 9.1. As explained in section 8.1, sampling expansion factors were not produced for the crop residue survey by overlaying PSUs, Landsat digital classifications and agro-ecological zones, as they were for the woody biomass survey. The sampling frame for the agricultural residues survey was determined by Landsat crop classifications and government surveys of crop yields and areas,  which use a national Village Master Sample (VMS) and which are currently changing over to ASF methodology. The ratio and area- based estimators determined from the crop residue field work were applied to government figures to generate final estimates. Table 9.2. Number of PSUe by crop and Landeat ecene. Landeat Kharif eurvey Rabf eurvey ecene Rape and no. Cotton Rice Sugarcane Maize Wheat muetard Tobacco Total ' Note: eome PSUe contain more than one crop and therefore appear more than once. 9.2 Comparison of ratio estimators and area-based estimates The use of residue:yield ratios and area-based estimators was compared for each target crop. This allowed the more effective method to be selected in each case. - (a) Cotton For cotton, ratio estimation was complicated by the fact that only the last cotton picking of several was sampled (see section 8.5). Although sampling just before the last picking gave good estimates of the weight of residue (cotton sticks) per hectare, yield measurements from earlier pickings had been omitted by choice. Numbers of empty burrs were counted to give an estimate of cotton harvested earlier, but it was known that weight of cotton per boll for the final picking was not necessarily typical of earlier pickings. Data from ASF pilot surveys of all cotton pickings from 1991 (R. Addison, pers. comm.) was used to determine the relationship between cotton boll weights for earlier and final pickings, so that HESS yield figures for final pickings could be used to estimate total cotton yield. Figure 9.1 shows the relationship, shown in terms of the ratio between early and final boll weights.  0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Bol l weight a t f i n a l p i c k i n g (grams) Figure 9.1. Relationehip between cotton boll weight8 for earlier and final pickings, shown in terms of the ratio between the two. The fitted function is: where R = ratio between cotton boll weights from earlier and final pickings F = mean boll weight at final picking (grams) ................ Equation 9.1 The markedly higher ratio for low boll weights at final picking can probably be explained by the prevalence of disease in cotton crops in Pakistan (Dawn, 1992). If the cotton crop becomes diseased late in the season the cotton boll weights for the final picking will be lower than for earlier pickings, giving a high ratio between early and final boll weights, but if the crop becomes diseased early in the season it is likely that there would be no final picking at all. High final boll weights are typical of a healthy cotton crop, which would also tend to have high boll weights for earlier pickings and hence a lower ratio. Equation 9.1 was used to estimate cotton boll weights for earlier pickings from the average boll weight for the final picking for each SSU. The count of empty burrs then allowed an estimate to  s . be made of the weight of cotton harvested from all earlier pickings. Because the standard ASF plot size had been used, the results from this procedure could be checked against actual measurements of cotton yield for each picking taken by the ASF project in five districts covered by their pilot surveys during 1991. Using the same factor to convert from weight of seed cotton to weight of lint cotton in each case, the results were: ASF 251.9 grams of lint cotton per plot; HESS 244.3 grams per plot. This confirmed that the HESS procedure gave realistic yield estimates. As a check on the validity of ratio estimation for cotton residues, the relationship between cotton residue and yield per hectare was investigated. Figure 9.2 shows the plotted data. There was no significant relationship between weight of cotton sticks and weight of lint cotton per hectare (R* = 0 . 0 0 6 ) , indicating that ratio estimation could not validly be used for residue estimation with cotton; area-based estimation was therefore the only alternative. The lack of a significant relationship between cotton residue and yield is again probably due to the prevalence of disease in cotton crops: the weight of cotton for a given weight of cotton sticks would vary greatly depending on whether the cotton bolls were diseased or healthy. * ** * f n % P*, n f ***a * s * * * # " X g f # E n* #.* " *In x a #'* *** wr"; * * - - 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 weight of l i n t c o t t o n Ctonnes/ ha] Figure 9.2. Relationehip between weight of cotton eticke and weight of lint cotton per hectare.  (b) Maiee With maize, residue weights were calculated to include stalks, leaves and cobs. A reasonably good relationship was found between residue and yield (Figure 9 . 3 ) , although the relationship was somewhat non-linear and displaced from the diagonal, indicating that the ratio is not constant but varies with the level of yield per hectare: where R = weight of maize residue (tonnes/ha) G = weight of maize grain (tonnesiha) ................ Equation 9.2 A complication was encountered with maize in its variable end use, i.e. either as food crop or animal fodder. It was found that during agricultural surveys the maize yield is set to zero if the farmer indicates that the crop is intended for fodder. This means that Government statistics for maize yield are less than the total by an indeterminate amount, depending on the proportion to be used for fodder. This problem, together with the lack of a constant ratio in the relationship, meant that the - relationship could not safely be applied to published yield statistics; area-based estimation of residue was therefore used instead. Weight of grain Clonnes/ha) F i g u r e 9 . 3 . R e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n w e i g h t o f m a i z e r e s i d u e and g r a i n y i e l d .  (c) Sugarcane Sugarcane residue consists of two components: the trash left in the fields after harvest and the bagasse produced after crushing. In the case of sugarcane it was not practica1,to take samples of either green canes or bagasse for laboratory measurement. - Instead, green canes were weighed in the field before and after trimming to provide an estimate of trash weight, and a standard conversion factor of 0.30 (provided by Pakistan Society of Sugar Technologists) was applied to green cane weight to estimate the weight of bagasse. Figure 9.4 shows the relationships between sample weight of green canes and both trash and bagasse. The relationship for trash is I- 1. again somewhat non-linear, but because it represents only a small proportion of the total residue, a constant ratio.,(0.058) can be assumed without much effect on total residue estimates. Given that the major residue component for sugarcane, i.e. bagasse, could not be estimated directly by field'sampling and - was instead estimated using a ratio, it was appropriate to use a ratio estimator to estimate total residue. The ratio for estimating total sugarcane residue (bagasse plus trash) was , therefore set at 0.30 + 0.058 = 0.358 and applied to Government sugarcane statistics. - - X X X X 0 10 20 30 40 Sample weight of green canes Ckg) * Trash s a w le T r a s h r a t i o 0.05827 x Bagasse r a t i o 0 . 3 0 Figure 9.4. Relationship between green cane weight and both traeh and bagasse. ( d ) R i c e and wheat Measurement of residue and yield for both rice and wheat was straightforward, i.e. straw and grain. The residue:yield relationships for both crops are shown in Figure 9.5. (a) Rice 10 0 0 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 • Weight of gra i n C tonnes/ ha) a (b) Wheat Weight of gra i n (tonnes/ ha) Figure 9.5. Re8idue:yield relationehips for rice and wheat. The straight line in each case represents a constant ratio, and the curved line represents the fitted non-linear relationship. The fitted function for each crop is: (a) rice: R = 1.891801 GO.- ........... Equation 9.3 (b) wheat: R = 1.585980 . O G" " ........... quat ti on 9.4 where R = weight of residue (tonnes/ha) G = weight of grain (tonnes/ha) As can be seen in Figure 9.5 the residue:yield relationships do not fit well to a constant ratio, especially for wheat. The lack of a constant ratio means that the results cannot be easily applied to national or regional statistics for grain yield, because local estimates of yield per hectare would be needed to r use Equations 9.3 and 9.4 to estimate residue. Area-based estimation was therefore selected as more convenient and potentially more accurate for rice and wheat. - 9.3 Crop residue estimates by zone and province Crop yield and area statistics are published by district and r province in Pakistan, but obviously are not available distributed ' by the agro-ecological'zonation developed for the HESS project. It was therefore necessary to estimate the distribution of each target crop by zone so that residue quantities could be also be distributed by zone. Crop distribution by zone was estimated as follows. First, a digital crop classification was developed for all twelve Landsat scenes and overlain on the zonation using the GIs, to give - estimates of the density of cropped land in each zone. Weighted means were calculated for all scenes containing the same zone. Next, the digitised district boundaries and district names in the GIs were compared with the districts shown in provincial - publications of crop statistics, to check for boundary changes, changes of tehsils to district status and so on. Boundaries were adjusted where necessary and in a few cases district statistics were combined to match the boundaries available in the GIs. The district boundaries were then overlain on the zonation to produce - figures for the areas of each zone falling within each district. Finally, the estimates of crop density by zone were used to pro- rate the district crop yield and area data by zone within the district. The results were then totalled to give estimates of crop yield and crop area by zone for the whole of Pakistan. As discussed in the previous section, it was determined that area-based estimation should be used for cotton, maize, rice and wheat, and ratio estimation for sugarcane. Estimates of crop residue per hectare were used with crop areas by zone and province to generate residue estimates for the first four crops (2.59 tonnes/ha for wheat, 3.86 for rice, 3.98 for maize and 4.68 for cotton), and the residue:yield ratio of 0.358 for sugarcane was used with sugarcane yield figures by zone and province to estimate sugarcane residues. Table 9.3 gives the final results, and Appendix C Tables give the distributions of Landsat crop. classifications, crop areas and yields by zone and province'which were used to generate the results. Table 9 . 3 . Eetimated c r o p r e e i d u e e by zone and province ( m i l l i o n e of t o n n e e ) . I r r high Irr high Irr Low Irr low Rainfed Forest/ Smi- Crop (North) (South) (North) (South) agric. highland arld Desert Total Cotton 8.24 Mai r e 1.83 Sugarcane 7.78 Rice 4.81 meat 11.36 Province Northern Sindh NWFP BaLuch d AJK Total Cotton 9.20 Maize 2.00 Sugarcam 7.98 Rice 4.74 bnleat 13.64 IV. CONCLUSIONS IV. REFERENCES  10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10.1 Conclusions Use of AVHRR imagery in the form of monthly composites covering six full years together with ~ 1 s - d a t a on rainfall, topography, climate and the extent of irrigated farmland produced an agro- ecological zonation of the whole'of Pakistan quickly and efficiently. This provided an effective and consistent sampling frame to spatially link the results of the supply and demand surveys. Use of a multi-stage sampling design with Landsat TM imagery for detailed subsampling enabled a national inventory of woody vegetation and crop residues in Pakistan t o be carried out quickly and efficiently. Automated selection of sampling units from digitally classified Landsat imagery proved very effective, with over 93 percent of woody biomass PSUs containing measurable woody vegetation. Almost all crop residue PSUs fell in cropped areas and 84 percent contained target crops with measurable residues. The work was completed within severe time constraints and has contributed to the successful development of a household energy planning database for Pakistan. This should enable the challenge of conserving Pakistan's natural resources in balance with its energy needs to be met in a sustainable manner. 10.2 Recommendations for future work Results from the survey of crop residues should be valid in the medium term, when applied to Government statistics for crop areas and yields. Cotton sticks are the most important for household fuel and the per hectare figure derived from the survey could not be expected to vary significantly unless there is a major shift in cotton varieties. Other crop residues make a smaller contribution to household fuel and therefore even major changes in residue yields for sugarcane, maize, rice and wheat would be of less significance, but such changes are unlikely in the forseeable future. It should therefore be possible to apply the area-based and. ration estimators developed from this survey to future Government statistics for crop, areas and yield t o obtain reliable residue estimates. The woody biomass survey is fundamentally different from the crop residue survey, in that it estimated actual standing stocks instead of ratios. The survey should be repeated with a minimum 50 percent subsample of the same woody biomass PSUs after five years, using exactly the same field procedures and analysis techniques. his will enable actual change in national wood stocks to be monitored without introducing differences caused by changes in methodology. After this fresh PSUs should be selected from updated imagery, to allow for long term changes in tree distribution. Further analyses with AVHRR imagery should be carried out to monitor environmental change. The project already holds almost eight years of AVHRR data and this could be added to at relatively low cost. A minimum of ten years of AVHRR data should be used to generate an agro-ecological zonation for each year in the series with methodology identical to that previously employed, and pixel-based analyses carried out to detect areas showing consistent trends with time in vegetative productivity (either upwards or downwards); such areas should then be investigated in the field to determine the causes of environmental change. This would identify areas which are either under stress or are being successfully rehabilitated. Ongoing analysis of this kind with AVHRR data would provide an extremely useful and cost-effective form of environmental monitoring for t- the medium and long term. Abbas, S.H., and Cheema, M.A. 1981. Revised local and standard volume tables of walnut (Juglans regia, Linn.) in North West Frontier Province. Forestry Research Division, Forest Mensuration Branch, Publication No. 55. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. Asianics. 1992. Biomass Resource Survey - Field Implementation Report. For Pakistan Household Energy Strategy Study. Asianics Agro-Dev International, Islamabad, November, 1992. Asianics and HESS. 1991. Biomass Estimation Techniques Manual of Instruction. I. Prepared for field staff - a undertaking the inventory of woody biomass resources. For Pakistan Household Energy Strategy Study. Asianics Agro-Dev International and HESS, Islamabad, July, 1991. Asianics and HESS. 1992. Biomass Estimation Techniques - a Manual of Instruction. 11. Prepared for field staff undertaking the inventory of agricultural residues resources. For ~ a k i s t a nHousehold Energy Strategy Study. Asianics Agro-Dev International and HESS, Islamabad, March, 1992. Ayaz, M. 1981. A note on the density of Pakistani timbers. Pakistan Journal of Forestry 31: 71-74. Bell, J.F., and Dilworth, J.R. 1988. Variable Probability Sampling - Variable Plot and Three P. O.S.U. Inc., Corvallis, Oregon. Brown, S., ~illespie,A.'J.R., and Lugo, A.E. 1991. Biomass of tropical forests of south and southeast Asia. Canadian. Journal of Forest Research 21: 111-117. Buech, R.R., and Rugg, D.J. 1989. Biomass relations of shrub components and their generality. Forest Ecology and Management 26: 257-264. champion, H.K., Seth, S.K., and Khattak, G.M. 1965a. Forest Types of Pakistan. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. champion, H.K., Seth, S.K., and Khatfak, G.M. 1965b. Manual of Silviculture for Pakistan. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. Chaturvedi, O.P., and Singh, J.S. 1987. The structure and function of pine forest in central Himalaya. I. Dry matter dynamics. Annals of Botany 60: 237-252. Cheema, M.A., and Abbasi, T.M. 1992. Metric volume tables for farmland tree species in the plains and sub-mountainous zones of NWFP. Forestry Research Division, Forest Mensuration Branch, Publication No. 84. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. Cheema, M.A., Baloch, A.K., and Shah, M.M. 1992. Local metric volume table for Babul (Acacia nilotica (L.) Willd. ex Del.) in the riverain forests and linear plantations of Sindh. Forestry Research Division, Forest ~ensurationBranch, Publication No. 82. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. Cheema, M.A., and Fatime, M.A.H. 1985. Local and standard volume tables for maple (Acer caesium) of Azad Kashmir and NWFP. Pakistan Journal of Forestry 35: 187-215. Cheema, M.A., and Fatime, M.A.H. 1991. Local and standard volume tables of ash (Fraxinus excelsior) for Azad Kashmir. Forestry Research Division, Forest Mensuration Branch, Publication No. 77. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. Cheema, M.A., and Hussain, R.W. 1978. Local metric volume tables of forest tree species in Hazara. Forestry Research Division, Forest Mensuration Branch, Publication No. 43. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. Cheema, M.A., and Hussain, R.W. 1981. Local and standard volume tables of Kandi (prosopis spicigera) in Sind. Forestry Research Division, Forest Mensuration Branch, Publication No. 56. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. Cheema, M.A., and Hussain, R.W. 1984a. Assortment volume tables of Simal (Bombax ceiba) for Changa Manga plantation. Forestry Research Division, Forest Mensuration Branch, Publication No. 60. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. Cheema, M.A., and Hussain, R.W. 1984b. Local and standard volume tables of hybrid poplar in irrigated plantations of the Punjab. Forestry Research Division (Forest Mensuration Branch) Publication No. 61. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar . Cheema, M.A., and Hussain, R.W. 1984c. Taper and volume tables for Kail (Pinus wallichiana). Forestry Research Division, Forest Mensuration Branch, Publication No. 63. Pakistan Forest ~nstitute,Peshawar. Cheema, M.A., and Hussain, R.W. 1987a. Volume tables for horse chestnut (Aesculus indica) of NWFP. Forestry Research Division (Forest Mensuration Branch) Publication No. 64. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. Cheema, M.A., and Hussain, R.W. 1987b. Volume tables for bird cherry (Prunus padus) of NWFP. ~ a k i s t a nJournal of Forestry 37: 203-211. Cheema, M.A., and Hussain, R.W. 1988. Local volume tables for Palach (Populus ciliata) of NWFP. Pakistan Journal of Forestry 38: 239-248. Cheema, M.A., and Hussain, R.W. 1992. Yield tables of Chir pine Pinus roxburghii, Roxb. for Reserved Forests. Forestry Research Division, Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. Cheema, M.A.,, and Kleine, M. 1990. Yield tables for Kail (Pinus wallichlana). Forestry Research Division, Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. - Dove, M.R., and Rao, A.L. 1992. Common resource management in Pakistan: Garrett Hardin in the junglat. In: Sociology of Natural Resources in Pakistan and Adjoining Countries, edited by M.R. Dove and C. Carpenter. Vanguard Books, Lahore, Pakistan. FBS. 1990. Household Income and Expenditure Survey. Federal Bureau of Statistics, Statistics Division, Government of Pakistan. Forster, B.C., andTrinder, J.C. 1984. An examination of the effects of resampling on classification accuracy. -- . Proceedings of the 3rd Australasian Remote Sensing Conference, Queensland, Australia: 106-115. r Freese, F. 1962. Elementary forest sampling. U.S. Department - of Agriculture Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook No. 232. Grosenbaugh, L.R. 1964. STX-FORTRAN 4 program for estimates of tree populations from 3P sample-tree-measurements. U.S. Forest Service Research Paper PSW-13, Berkeley, California. Gurbachan-Singh, Abrol, I.P., and Cheema, S.S. 1989. Effects of - gypsum application on mesquite (Prosopis juliflora) and soil properties in an abandoned sodic soil. Forest Ecology and Management 29: 1-14. Hafeez, M. 1973. Provisional yield tables for riverain forests of West Pakistan Acacia arabica, Willd (Babul). Division of Forest Research Bulletin No. 5. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar . Hafeez, M., and Cheema, M.A. 1971. Provisional volume tables for Babul in linear plantations. Bulletin No. 1. Pakistan Forest Institute. Hafeez, M., Malik, M.A., and M O O S V ~ ,S.H.A. 1973. Volume tables for Shisham (Dalbergia sissoo Linn. f.) (linear plantations of West Pakistan). Division of Forestry Research, Bulletin No. 6. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. Hocking, D., Hocking, A., Hussain, R.W., Grosenick, G., and Phillips, J. 1991. Farm forestry in Pakistan. Forestry Sector Master Plan Project, Islamabad. Houseman, E.E. 1975. Area frame sampling in agriculture. Statistical Reporting Service, U.S. Department. of Agriculture, SRS No. 20. Husch, B., Miller, C.I., and Beers, T.W. 1972. Forest Mensuration, 2nd edition. Ronald Press, New York. Hussain, R.W. 1979. Local and standard volume tables of Eucalyptus camaldulensis Dehn for irrigated plantations of the Punjab. Forestry Research Division, Forest Mensuration Branch, Publication No. 51. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. Hussain, R.W., and Abbas, S.H. 1974. Volume tables .for Shisham (Dalbergia sissoo Linn.) in irrigated plantations of the Punjab. Division of Forestry Research (Forest Mensuration Branch) Publication No. 26. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. Hussain, R.W., and Abbas, S.H. 1983. Provisional yield table of Eucalyptus camaldulensis in Pakistan. Forestry Research Division (Forest Mensuration Branch) Publication No. 58. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. Hussain, R.W., and Cheema, M.A. 1973. Provisional volume tables for poplar (Populus nigra) in Mardan. Pakistan Journal of Forestry 23: 64-73. Hussain, R.W., and Cheema, M.A. 1984. Taper and volume tables of Chir pine (Pinus roxburghii). Forestry Research Division, Forest Mensuration Branch, Publication No. 62. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. Hussain, R.W., Cheema, M.A., and Glennie, E.B. 1978. Interim yield tables for Chir pine (Pinus roxburghii, Roxb.) of Reserved Forests in North West Frontier Province. Forestry Research Division, Forest Mensuration Branch, Publication No. 48. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. Hussain, R.W., and Ghauri, M.J. 1976. Local and standard volume tables for Bahan (Populus euphratica, Olivier) of Sind. . Forestry Research Division, Forest Mensuration Branch, Publication No. 41. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. Hussain, R.W., and Ghauri, M.J. 1977. Local and standard volume tables for Chir (Pinus roxburghii, Roxb.) of guzara forests of Hazara. Forestry Research Division, Forest Mensuration Branch, Publication No. 42. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. Hussain, R.W., and Glennie, E.B. 1978. Provisional yield tables for Shisham (Dalbergia sissoo, Linn.f.) in the irrigated plantations of the Punjab. Forestry Research Division, Forest Mensuration Branch Publication No. 45. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. Hussain, R.W., Glennie, E.B.! and Cheema, M.A. 1979. Interim yield tables for Chir pine (Pinus roxburghii, Roxb.) of. Reserved Forests in the Punjab. Forestry Research Division, Forest Mesuration Branch, Publication No. 49. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. Hussain, R.W., and Qazi, I.A. 1974. Volume tables for Kaghan walnut (Juglans regia). Division of Forestry Research (Forest Mensuration Branch) Publication No. 25. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. ~ u s s a i n ,R.W:, and sheikh, M.I. 1981. Provisional yield table of hybrid poplars in Pakistan. Forestry Research Division (Forest Mensuration Branch) Publication No. 57. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. Hussain, R.W., and Zahir, A. 1975. Provisional volume tables of hybrid poplar (PxE cv. 1-214) along canal bank of Changa Manga plantation. Pakistan Journal of Forestry 25: 288-295. - I.S. Limited. 1988. R-CHIPS User Guide. Imaging Systems Ltd., Department of Geography, University of Reading, Reading, UK. r I.S. Limited. 1991. Pakistan Land Cover Zonation - Final L Report. For Pakistan Household Energy Strategy Study. Imaging Systems Ltd., University of Reading, March, 1991. Justice, C.O., Holben, B.N., and Gwynne, M.D. 1986. Monitoring East African vegetation using AVHRR data. International Journal of Remote Sensing 7: 1453-1474. Langley, P.G. 1969. New multi-stage sampling techniques using space and aircraft imagery for forest inventory. Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Remote Sensing of Environment, Volume 2: 1179-1192. Mackel, R., Menz, G., and Walther, D. 1989. [Range potential and land degradation in the drylands of Kenya, represented by test sites in Samburu District]. Erkunde 43: 253-267. Maghembe, J.A., Kariuki, E.M., and Haller, R.D. 1983. Biomass and nutrient accumulation in young Prosopis juliflora at ' Mombasa, Kenya. Agroforestry Systems 1: 313-321. Malik, M.A. 1970. Local volume tables of the coniferous species of Northern West Pakistan. Forestry Research Series, Forest Record No. 3. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. Malik, M.A., Habibullah, K., and Hussain, R.W. 1971. Volume L tables for coniferous species of Azad Kashmir. Division of Forestry Research (Mensuration and Management Branch), Mensuration and Management Bulletin No. 2. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. Malik, M.A., Hussain, R.W., and Cheema, M.A. 1971. Volume, tables for mulberry (Morus alba) in irrigated plantations. Division of Forestry Research (Mensuration and Management Branch) Bulletin No. 3. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar . Malik, M.A., and Moosvi, S.H.A. 1970. Commercial volume tables for willow (Salix tetrasperma, Roxb.). Division of Forestry Research (Mensuration and Management Branch) Bulletin No. 1. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. McCarthy, H.J. 1981. Forest Inventory Handbook - Pakistan: Support to the NWFP Forestry Pre-Investment Centre, Peshawar. UNDP-FAO, Peshawar, Pakistan. Millington, A. 1988. Pakistan Household Energy Strategy ~ i s s i o n - Final Mission Report. For Joint UNDP/World Bank Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme. ETC Foundation, Leusden, The Netherlands. Pande, M.C., Tandon, V.N.! and Rawat, H.S. 1987. Organic matter production and distribution of nutrients in Eucalyptus hybrid plantation ecosystems in Karnataka. Indian Forester 113: 713-724. PFI. 1969. Standard volume tables for coniferous species of Northern West Pakistan. Forestry. Research Series, Forest Record No. 2. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. PARC. 1980. Agro-ecological Regions of Pakistan. Social Sciences and Plant Sciences Divisions, Pakistan Agricultural Research Council, Islamabad. Phillips, J. 1992. Farm forestry survey. Pakistan Forestry Sector Master Plan Project, Islamabad. Qadri, S.M.A., and Hafeez, M. 1969. Volume tables for Acacia arabica Willd (Babul) (riverain forests of West Pakistan). Forest Research Series, Forest Record No. 1. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. Qazi, I.A., and Cheema, M.A. 1974. Local volume tables for Babul (Acacia arabica, Willd) of Bahawalpur canal plantations. Division of Forestry Research (Forest Mensuration Branch) Publication No. 24. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. Qazi, I.A., and Hussain, R.W. 1975. Local volume tables of coniferous species for Malakand Civil Division. Forestry Research Division, Forest Mensuration Branch, Publication No. 35. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. Rafiq, M. 1976. Crop Ecological Zones of Nine Countries of the Near East Region. FAO, Rome. Rana, B.S., Singh, S.P.! and Singh, R.P. 1988. Biomass and productivity of chir pine (Pinus roxburghii Sarg.) forest in central Himalaya. Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy - Part B- Biological Sciences 54: 71-74. Reid Collins and Associates, and Silviconsult, Ltd. 1992. Forestry Sector Master Plan - Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Volume 1 -. National Perspective. Forestry Sector Master Plan Project, Islamabad. Rouse, J.W., Haas, R.H.! Schell, J.A., and Deering, D.W. 1973. Monitoring vegetation systems in the Great Plains with ERTS. Proceedings of the 3rd ERTS ~ymposium,Volume 1: 48-62. Siddiqui, K.M., Ayaz, M.! and Mahmood, I. 1986. Properties and uses of Pakistani timbers. Forest Products Research Division, Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. Singh, B. 1989. Rehabilitation of alkaline wasteland on the Gangetic alluvial plains of Uttar Pradesh, India, through afforestation. Land Degradation and ~ehabilitation1: 305- 310. Smith, J.L., and Kovalick, W. 1984. A comparison of the effects of resampling before and after classification on the accuracy of a Landsat derived cover type map. In: Advanced Technology for Monitoring and Processing Global Environment Data - Proceedings of the RSS/CERMA'Conference. Stoehr, G., Brunner, K., Khan, J.A., and Mahmood, I. 1990. Comparative suitability of local wood species .for tool handles. Pakistan Journal of Forestry 40: 91-103. Stromgaard, P. 1985. Biomass estimation equations for miombo woodland, Zambia. Agroforestry Systems 3: 3-13. Survey of Pakistan. 1986. Atlas of Pakistan. Director Map Publications, Survey of Pakistan, Murree Road, Rawalpindi. Titus, S., Gialdini, M. and Nichols, J. 1975. A total timber resource inventory based upon manual and automated analysis of Landsat-I and supporting aircraft data using stratified multistage sampling techniques. Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Remote Sensing of Environment: 1093-1099. Townshend, J.R.G., Justice, C.O., and Kalb, V. 1987. Characterization and classification of South American land cover types using satellite image data. International Journal of Remote Sensing 8: 1189-1207. USAID. 1988. A report on the development of the-area sampling frame and first enumerative survey in Sheikhupura District. Food Security Management Project, United States Agency for International Development Agriculture Data Collection Component, in cooperation with Federal Bureau of Statistics and Punjab Crop Reporting Service, Pakistan. USAID. 1989. A review of area sampling frame techniques and introduction to the use of SPOT imagery in area frame construction. Food Security Management Project, United States Agency for International Development Agriculture Data Collection Component, in cooperation with Federal Bureau of Statistics Agriculture Data Collection Cell, Pakistan. WRI and IIED. 1988. World Resources 1988-89: a report by the World Resources Institute and the International Institute for Environment and Development, in collaboration with the United Nations Environment Programme. Basic Books, Inc., New Y ork. Young, T.P., and Francombe, C. 1991. Growth and yield estimates in natural stands of leleshwa ( T a r c o n a n t h u s c a m p h o r a t u s ) . Forest Ecology and Management 41: 309-321. APPENDIX A. BASIC DATA  LIST OF TABLES - APPENDIX A Table A-1 Distribution of destructively sampled trees by species and size Table A-2 Distribution of destructively sampled trees by species and location Table A-3 Distribution of destructively sampled shrub plots by species and size Table A-4 Wood densities by species Table A-5 End uses for each species by component  Table A-1. Distribution of destructively sampled trees by species and size. DDH class Species <15cm 15-25cm 25-35cm 35-45cm 45-55cm 55cm+ 3 Acacia nilotica 2 8 12 6 4 Prosopis sp. 1 2 2 5 Prosopis juliflora 1 1 1 8 Mangifera indica 3 10 Tamarix articulata 1 1 1 2 13 Prunus sp. 2 1 15 Elaegnus angustifolia 1 16 Morus sp. 1 3 17 "Jugar" 1 21 Olea cuspidata 1 22 Juniperus macropoda 1 23 Abies pindrow 1 24 Salix babylonica 1 1 1 25 Ailanthus sp. 1 27 Melia azedarach 2 31 Quercus sp. 1 34 Populus nigra 2 1 35 Pinus gerardiana 1 1 36 Cedrus deodara 1 1 37 Robinia pseudoacacia 1 38 Populus x euramericana 1 4 0 Pinus wallichiana 1 43 Eucalyptus sp. 2 2 5 44 Albizzia procera 1 45 Dalbergia sissoo 2 11 16 5 3 46 Zizyphus sp. 2 1 1 1 47 Acacia modesta 2 48 Albizzia lebbek 2 56 Cordia myxa 1 1 70 Fraxinus sp. 1 79 Picea smithiana 1 80 Salmalia malabaricum 1 1 86 Broussonetia papyrifera 1 9 1 "Bhuiokra" 1 94 Populus euphratica 2 116 Avicennia officinalis 1 TOTAL 2 21 41 50 20 6 Table A-2. Distribution of destructively sampled trees by species and location. Province Species Baluch. NWFPtNorth punjab Sindh 3 Acacia nilotica 1 2 8 17 4 Prosopis sp. 2 2 1 5 Prosopis juliflora 1 2 8 Mangifera indica 3 10 Tamarix articulata 1 1 3 13 Prunus sp. 1 2 15 Elaegnus angustifolia 1 16 Morus sp. 1 3 17 "Jugar" 1 21 Olea cuspidata 1 2 2 Juniperus macropoda 1 23 Abies pindrow 1 24 Salix babylonica 1 1 1 25 Ailanthus sp. 1 27 Melia azedarach 1 1 3 1 Quercus sp. 1 34 Populus nigra 1 2 35 Pinus gerardiana 1 1 3 6 Cedrus deodara 2 37 Robinia pseudoacacia 1 38 Populus x euramericana 1 40 Pinus wallichiana 1 43 Eucalyptus sp. 1 3 5 44 Albizzia procera 1 45 Dalbergia sissoo 1 1 32 3 4 6 Zizyphus sp. 1 2 2 47 Acacia modesta 2 48 Albizzia lebbek 1 1 56 Cordia myxa 2 70 Fraxinus sp. 1 7 9 Picea smithiana 1 80 Salmalia malabaricum 1 1 86 Broussonetia papyrifera 1 91 "Bhuiokra" 1 94 Populus euphratica 2 116 Avicennia officinalis 1 TOTAL 19 21 64 36 Table A-3. ~istributionof destructively sampled shrub plots by species and size Average Shrub Species height (m) cover ( % ) 2. Nannorrhops ritchieana 0.5 75 4. Prosopis sp. 5. Prosopis juliflora 10. Tamarix sp. 2.0 75 53. Tamarix dioica 53. Tamarix dioica 1 54. Salvadora oleoides ) mixture 55. ItKarerlt 1 87. Dodonaea viscosa Table A-4. Wood densities by species (Note: oven dry weightlgreen volume) F Density Species (tonneslm3 green vol) Phoenix dactylifera Nannorrhops ritchieana Acacia'nilotica ~rosopissp. Prosopis juliflora ' capparis aphylla Eugenia jambolana * Mangifera indica Lycium barbarum Tamarix articulata Calotropis procera Zygophyllum artiplicoides Prunus sp. Prunus amygdalus b Elaegnus angustifolid Morus sp. .: 88Jugar88- Malus domestica 18S~~enu Prunus avium Olea cuspidata Juniperus macropoda I Abies pindrow Salix babylonica Ailanthus sp. Ficus religiosa Melia azedarach Citrus sp. 880ga~e81 Pistacia sp. Quercus sp. Juglans regia Alnus nitida Populus nigra Pinus gerardiana Cedrus deodara Robinia pseudoacacia Populus x euramericana Ficus palmata Pinus wallichiana Diospyros lotus Platanus orientalis ' Eucalyptus sp. Albizzia procera Dalbergia sissoo Zizyphus sp. Acacia modesta Albizzia lebbek Celtis sp.  Density Species . 1. (tonneslm3 green vol) 51. "KhakroN 52. Azadirachta indica 53. Tamarix dioica 54. Salvadora oleoides 56. Cordia myxa 57. Mallotus philippinensis 61. Unidentified 62. Bauhinia sp. 65. Pinus halepensis 67. Prunus persica. 70. Fraxinus sp. 73. Eriobotrya japonica ' 74. Sagerotia theezans 75. Cassia fistula 76. Ricinus communis 77. Xanthoxylum alatum 78. Schinus molle 79. Picea smithiana 80. Salmalia malabaricum 81. Terminalia arjuna 83. Vitex negundo 84. Pyrus 85. Psidium guava 86. Broussonetia papyrifera 87. Dodonaea viscosa 88. ltMomjadariN 91. "Bhuiokratt 93. Pinus roxburghii 94. Populus euphratica 96. ItJangliJalebiu 97. Moringa oleifera 98. Ficus bengalensis 99. Lycium barbatum 101. Syzygium cumini 102. Atriplex sp. 103. Lantana sp. 105. Tamarindus indica 106. Cotoneaster bacillaris 107. Rosa sp. 108. Berberis lycium 109. Indigofera sp. 110. Adhatoda vesica 111. Pongamia glabra 112. Suaeda fruticosa 113. 114. "Jarah" 115. Carissa spinarum 116. Avicennia officinalis Table A-5. End uses for each species by component 0 = primary use not as fuel, either because preferentially used for timber or because unsuitable for burning 1 = used as fuel Stem Crown Species use use Phoenix dactylifera Nannorrhops ritchieana Acacia nilotica Prosopis sp. Prosopis juliflora Capparis aphylla Eugenia jambolana Mangifera indica Lycium barbarum Tamarix articulata Calotropis procera Zygophyllum artiplicoides Prunus sp. Prunus amygdalus Elaegnus angustifolia Morus sp. "JugarW Malus domestics vvS~zenu Prunus avium Olea cuspidata Juniperus macropoda Abies pindrow Salix babylonica Ailanthus sp. Ficus religiosa Melia azedarach Citrus sp. "Ogavevv Pistacia sp. Quercus sp. Juglans regia Alnus nitida Populus nigra Pinus gerardiana Cedrus deodara Robinia pseudoacacia Populus x euramericana Ficus palmata Pinus wallichiana Diospyros lotus Platanus orientalis Eucalyptus sp. Albizzia procera Dalbergia sissoo .  Stem Crown Species use use Zizyphus sp. Acacia modesta Albizzia lebbek Celtis sp. "Khakrott Azadirachta indica Tamarix dioica Salvadora oleoides Cordia myxa Mallotus philippinensis Unidentified Bauhinia sp. Pinus halepensis Prunus persica. Fraxinus sp. Eriobotrya japonica Sagerotia theezans Cassia fistula Ricinus communis Xanthoxylum alatum Schinus molle Picea smithiana Salmalia malabaricum Terminalia arjuna Vitex negundo Pyrus Psidium guava Broussonetia papyrifera Dodonaea viscosa adari" ItMomj "BhuiokraU Pinus roxburghii Populus euphratica "Jangli Jalebiw Moringa oleifera Ficus bengalensis Lycium barbatum Syzygium cumini Atriplex sp. Lantana sp. Tamarindus indica Cotoneaster bacillaris Rosa sp. Berberis lycium Indigofera sp. Adhatoda vesica Pongamia glabra Suaeda fruticosa ltJarahM carissa spinarum Avicennia officinalis APPENDIX B. WOODY BIOMASS TABLES  L I S T OF TABLES - APPENDIX B ALL TREES Table B-1 Biomass standing stock and productivity Table B-2 Diameter distribution Table B-3 Crown condition Table B-4 Amenity value Table B-5 Species distribution Table B-6 Species group DBH < 15 CM Table B-7 Biomass standing stock and productivity Table B-8 Crown condition Table B-9 Amenity value Table B-10 Species distribution Table B-11 Species group DBH 15-35 CM Table B-12 Biomass standing stock and productivity Table B-13 Crown condition Table B-14 Amenity value Table B-15 Species distribution Table B-16 Species group DBH > 35 CM Table B-17 Biomass standing stock and productivity Table B-18 Crown condition Table B-19 Amenity value Table B-20 Species distribution Table B-21 Species group CROWN DAMAGE LIGHT Table B-22 Biomass standing stock and productivity -88-  Table B-23 Diameter distribution Table B-24 Amenity value Table B-25 Species distribution Table B-26 Species group CROWN DAMAGE MODERATE Table B-27 Biomass standing stock and productivity Table B-28 Diameter distribution Table B-29 Amenity value Table B-30 Species distribution Table B-31 Species group CROWN DAMAGE SEVERE Table B-32 Biomass standing stock and productivity Table B-33 Diameter distribution Table B-34 Amenity value Table B-35 Species distribution Table B-36 Species group AMENITY VALUE NONE Table B-37 Biomass standing stock and productivity Table B-38 Diameter distribution Table B-39 Crown condition Table B-40 Species distribution Table B-41 Species group AMENITY VALUE ROADSIDE Table B-42 Biomass standing stock and productivity Table B-43 Diameter distribution Table B-44 Crown condition Table B-45 Species distribution Table B-46 Species group AMENITY VALUE HOUSEHOLD Table B-47 Biomass standing stock and productivity Table B-48 Diameter distribution Table B-49 Crown condition Table B-50 Species distribution Table B-51 Species group AMENITY VALUE HEDGES Table B-52 Biomass standing stock and productivity Table B-53 Diameter distribution Table B-54 Crown condition Table B-55 Species distribution Table B-56 Species group AMENITY VALUE GRAVEYARDS Table B-57 Biomass standing stock and productivity Table B-58 Diameter distribution Table B-59 Crown condition Table B-60 Species distribution Table B-61 Species group SPECIES GROUP OTHER Table B-62 Biomass standing stock and productivity Table B-63 Diameter distribution Table B-64 Crown condition. Table B-65 Amenity value SPECIES GROUP TIMBER , Table B-66 Biomass standing stock and productivity Table B-67 Diameter distribution Table B-68 Crown condition Table B-69 Amenity-value SPECIES GROUP FRUIT Table B-70 Biomass standing stock and productivity Table B-71 Diameter distribution Table B-72 Crown condition Table B-73 Amenity value LAND USE GOVT FOREST Table B-74 Biomass standing stock and-productivity Table B-75 Diameter distribution Table B-76 Crown condition Table B-77 Amenity value Table B-78 Species distribution Table B-79 Species group LAND USE PRIVATE FOREST Table 8-80 ~ i o m a s sstanding stock and productivity Table B-81 Diameter distribution Table B-82 Crown condition Table B-83 Amenity value Table B-84 Species distribution Table B-85 Species group LAND USE IRRIGATED Table B-86 Biomass standing stock and productivity Table B-87 Diameter distribution Table B-88 Crown condition Table B-89 Amenity value Table B-90 Species distribution Table B-91 Species group LAND USE BARANI Table B-92 Biomass.standing stock and productivity  Table B-93 Diameter distribution Table B-94 Crown condition Table B-95 Amenity value Table 8-96 Species distribution Table B-97 Species group LAND USE UNCLASSIFIED Table B-98 Biomass standing stock and productivity Table 8-99 Diameter distribution Table B-100 Crown condition Table B-101 Amenity value Table B-102 Species distribution Table B-103 Species group  Table 0 - 1 A l l trees Biomass standing stock and p r o d u c t i v i t y Total l r r h i g h N l r r h i g h S lrrlou N lrrlou S Barani For/High Semi-arid Desert Zone I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Area(km2) 877227 91848 m i l tomes tome/ha Twigs 31.39 1.41 Growth 4.36 0.26 Roudwood 96.4 1 2.52 Growth 7.46 0.27 Tinher 73.19 2.51 Growth 5.13 0.24 Shrubs 9.78 0.01 Growth 5.74 0.01 m i l tomes T o t a l standing 210.78 59.19 11.02 26.78 8.66 4.46 81.66 11.16 7.85 Tot wood growth 22.70 7.08 0.91 3.98 2.66 0.42 5.22 0.94 1.48 Tot f u e l growth 20.13 5.98 0.82 3.51 2.55 0.42 4.56 0.80 1.48 Twigs f u e l grow 10.10 2.44 0.35 1.56 2.14 0.24 2.01 0.20 1.16 R o u d f u e l grow 10.03 3.55 0.47 1.96 0.41 0.18 2.55 0.59 0.32 Biomass standing stock and p r o d u c t i v i t y m i l l i o n tonnes Punjab Sindh NW FP Baluch NA+AJK Total Twigs 17.39 3.06 5.40 1.83 3.71 31.39 Growth 2.99 0.32 0.59 0.15 0.31 4.36 Rouduood 37.72 11.75 21.87 7.00 18.06 96.41 Growth 3.97 0.85 1.24 0.55 0.85 7.46 Timber 33.34 7.00 16.46 2.85 13.55 73.19 Growth 3.04 0.47 0.86 0.18 0.59 5.13 Shrubs 1.61 3.16 1.SO 2.15 1.35 9.78 Growth 1.13 2.33 0.70 1-00 0.59 5.74 Total standing 90.06 24.98 45.24 13.82 36.67 210.78 Tot wood growth 11.12 3.96 3.39 1.88 2.35 22.70 Tot f u e l growth 9.60 3.73 2.96 1.79 2.05 20.13 Twigs f u e l grow 4.12 2.64 1.29 1.15 0.90 10.10 Round f u e l grow 5.49 1.08 1.67 0.64 ' 1.15 10.03  Table 8-2 A l l trees Diemeter d i s t r i b u t i o n (trees u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high Irr high Irr low Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland <5cm 1ocrn 2ocm 30cm 40cm 50cm 60m 70an 80cm 9ocm 1OOcm 105+an Total/ha 14.08 35.14 11.74 58.93 7.83 9.91 38.20 5.31 M i l l . tree1234.7 322.8 23.3 187.8 34.9 27.6 496.5 134.8 (trees with v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage diameter d i s t r i b u t i o n (trees u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high Irr high Irr low Irr l o u Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland <5cm 1Ocm 2ocm 30cm 40cm 50cm 6Ocm 70cm 80cm 9Ocm 100cm 105+cm Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (trees u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only)  Table 0-3 A1 1 trees Crown c o n d i t i o n ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high Irr h i g h Irr Lou I r r Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland 0% removed 8.99 18.65 7.08 39-79 4.91 4.54 24.69 4.56 25% removed 2.33 8.65 0.99 7.22 1.09 2.07 6.10 0.37 50% removed 1.64 5.92 1.17 6.53 0.54 2.81 4.01 0.13 ?S% removed 0.68 1.15 0.81 3.50 0.66 0.28 2.24 0.11 Allremoved 0.45 0.77 1.70 1.89 0.62 0.21 1.17 0.13 Total/ha 14.08 35.14 11.74 58.93 7.83 9.91 38.20 5.31 M i l l . trees 1234.7 322.8 23.3 187.8 34.9 27.6 496.5 134.8 ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage crown c o n d i t i o n ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high Irr high lrr Lou Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highlend 0% removed 63.8 53.1 60.3 67.5 62.7 45.8 64.6 85.9 25% removed 16.5 24.6 8.4 12.3 14.0 20.9 16.0 7.1 50% removed 11.6 16.8 9.9 11.1 6.9 28.3 10.5 2.5 ?S% removed 4.8 3.3 6.9 5.9 8.5 2.9 5.9 2.1 A1 1 removed 3.2 2.2 14.5 3.2 8.0 2.1 3.1 2.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only)  Table 0 - 4 A l l trees Amenity value (trees with and uithout v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr high Irr high Irr low Irr low . Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland Nom 13.13 37.50 11.53 33.72 8.03 19.85 38.20 3.31 0.21 Roadside 0.82 1.73 0.55 4.30 0.04 0.15 1.66 0.77 0.00 Household 1.75 2.42 1.11 23.85 0.22 0.02 1.27 . 1.23 0.18 Hedges 0.53 3.05 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 1.38 0.00 0.00 Graveyards 0.12 0.06 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.73 0.00 0.00 Total/ha 16.36 44.75 13.30 61.93 8.29 20.17 43.25 5.31 0.39 M i l l . trees 1434.9 411.0 26.4 197.3 37.0 56.2 562.1 134.8 9.9 (trees with and without v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage amenity value (trees with and without v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr high Irr high Irr low Irr low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland None 80.3 83.8 86.7 54.4 96.8 98.4 88.3 62.3 54.2 Roedside 5.0 3.9 4.1 6.9 0.5 0.7 3.8 14.5 0.0 Household 10.7 5.4 8.3 38.5 2.7 . 0.1 2.9 23.2 45.8 Hedges 3.2 6.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 Graveyards 0.8 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.7 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (trees with and uithout v i s i b l e dbh)  Table 8-5 A l l Trees Species d i s t r i h t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h a d without v i s i b l e dbh) Total lrr high lrr high l r r low lrr low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland 1. Phoenix d a c t y l i f e r a 2. Namorrhops r i t c h i e a n a 3. Acacia n i l o t i c a 4. Prosopis sp. 5. Prosopis j u l i f l o r a 6. Capparis aphylla 7 . Eugenia j a h l a n a 8 . Wangifera i n d i c a 9. Lyciun barberun 10. Tamarix a r t i c u l a t e 11. Calotropis procera 12. Zygophyl l u n a r t i p l i c o i d e 13. Prunus sp. 14. P r w s ~ y g d a l u s 15. Elaegnus a n g u s t i f o l i a 16. Horus sp. 17. . @8Jugarn 18. nalus domestica 19. YSuzenN 20. P r w s aviun 21. Olea cuspidata 22. J t n i perus macropoda 23. Abies pindrou 24. S a l i x babylonice 25. Ailanthus sp. 26. Ficus r e l i g i o s a 27. H e l i a azedarach 28. C i t r u s sp. 29. @80geve81 30. P i s t a c i a sp. 31. ouercus sp. 32. Juglans r e g i a 33. Alnus n i t i d a 34. Popllus n i g r a 35. Pinus gerardiana 36. Cedrus deodara 37. Robinia pseudoacacia 38. Populus x euramericana 39. Ficus palmate 40. Pinus wallichiana 41. Diospyros Lotus 42. Platanus o r i e n t a l i s 43. Eucalyptus sp. 44. A l b i z z i a procera 45. Dalbergia sissoo 46. Zizyphus sp. 47. Acacia modesta 48. A l b i z z i a lebbek 50. C e l t i s sp. 51. D@Khakrow 52. Azadirachta i n d i c a 53. Tamarix d i o i c a 54. Salvadora oleoides 56. Cordia nryxa 57. Wallotus phi l i p p i n e n s i s 61. U n i d e n t i f i e d 62. Bauhinia sp. 65. Pinus halepensis --. 67. P r w s persica. 70. Fraxinus sp. TJ. Eriobotrya japonica 74. Sagerotia theezans 7S. Cassia f i s t u l a 76. Ricirms c m i s 77. Xanthoxylun a l a t u n 78. Schinus molle 79. Picea smithiana 80. S a l m l i a nalabaricun  81. terminalia arjuna 83. Vitex n e g d o 84. Pyrus 85. Psidiun guava 86. Broussonet i a papyri fera 87. Dodonaea viscose 88. Wanjadario' 91. "Bhui~kra~~ 93. Pinus roxkrrghi i 94. Populus euphratica 96. "Jangli Jalebi" 97. Horinga o l e i f e r a 98. Ficus k n g a l e n s i s 99. Lyciun berbetun 101. Syzygiun cunini 102. A t r i p l e x sp. 103. Lantana sp. 105. Tamrindus indica 106. Cotoneaster b a c i l l a r i s 107. Rosa sp. 108. B e r k r i s lyciun 109. lndigofera sp. 110. Adhatoda vesica 111. Pongemia glabra 112. Suaeda f r u t i c o s a ' 114. nJarah" 115. Carissa spinarun 116. Avicennia o f f i c i n a l i s t o t a l (trees/ha) 16.36 Mi 11ion trees 1434.9 (trees with and without v i s i b l e dbh)  Table 0-6 A l l trees Species group (trees w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr high Irr high Irr low Irr low Barani Forested Semi-arid Oesert Pakistan north south north south /Highland T i h r 7.20 6.75 1.10 13.09 1.82 17.72 32.08 1.86 0.17 Fruit 6.89 24.74 8.77 44.97 5.41 2.45 8.67 2.81 0.05 Other 2.27 13.26 3.43 3.87 1.06 0.00 2.50 0.64 0.17 Total/ha 16.36 44.75 13.30 61.93 8.29 20.17 43.25 5.31 0.39 1434.9 411.0 26.4 197.3 37.0 56.2 562.1 134.8 9.9 ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage species group (trees w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr high Irr high Irr Lou Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland Ti h r 44.0 15.1 8.3 21.1 22.0 87.8 74.2 35.1 43.8 Fruit 42.1 55.3 65.9 72.6 65.2 12.2 20.0 52.9 12.7 Other 13.9 29.6 25.8 6.3 12.8 0.0 5.8 12.1 43.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (trees w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh)  Table 8-7 DBH e 15 cm B i m s s standing stock and p r o d u c t i v i t y Zone # Total l r r h i g h N l r r h i g h 5 1 2 lrrlow N 3 lrrlou S 4 Barani 5 For/High Scmi-arid 6 7 Desert 8 - AreaCM) 877227 91848 n i l tomes tome/ha T uigs 3.61 0.15 Growth 0.88 0.04 Rwdwocd 15.21 0.48 Growth 3.94 0.14 Tinkr 12.99 0.46 Growth 2.87 0.12 m i I tomes r. L- Total standing 31.81 10.05 0.55 5.55 1.06 0.97 11.36 2.17 0.10 Tot wood growth 7.68 2.82 0.14 1.87 0.31 0.14 1.96 0.42 0.01 Tot f u e l growth 6.25 2.27 0.10 1.55 0.26 0.14 1.58 ' 0.34 0.01 Twigsfuelgrow 0.88 0.39 0.01 0.21 0.04 0.02 0.18 0.01 0.00 Round f u e l grow 5.37 1.88 0.09 1.33 0.22 0.11 1.41 0.33 0.00 Bianess standlng stock and productivity m i l l i o n tonnes Pvljab Sindh NU FP Baluch NA+AJK Total Twigs 2.06 0.20 0.74 0.08 0.53 . 3.61 Growth 0.59 0.06 0.13 0.01 0.08 0.88 Roundwood 7.36 1.16 3.38 0.72 2.58 15.21 Growth 2.33 0.29 0.69 0.16 0.46 3.94 T inkr 6.70 1.08 2.60 0.61 2.00 12.99 Growth 1.70 0.24 0.49 0.10 0.34 2.87 Total standing 16.12 2.44 6.73 1.40 5.1-1 31 -81 Tot wood growth 4.62 0.60 1.31 0.27 0.88 7.68 Tot f u e l growth 3.77 0.48 1.07 0.22 0.71 6.25 Twigs f u e l grow 0.59 0.06 0.13 0.01 0.08 0.88 R o d f u e l grow 3.18 0.41 0.94 0.21 0.63 5.37  Table 0-8 DBH < 15 cm Croun c o n d i t i o n ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total I r r high Irr high Irr Lou Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland 0% removed 7.30 14.73 2.87 36.38 3.40 25% removed 1.48 6.11 0.37 5.64 0.n 50% removed 0.67 1-68 0.65 4.04 0.25 75% removed 0.24 0.20 0.40 1.12 0.35 A l l removed 0.21 0.24 0.65 1.46 0.29 Total/ha 9.90 22.94 4.94 48.64 5.06 H i l l . trees 868.6 210.7 9.8 155.0 22.6 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage croun c o n d i t i o n ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high Irr high Irr Lou Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland OX removed 73.7 64.2 58.0 74.8 67.1 25% removed 14.9 26.6 7.5 11.6 15.2 SOX removed 6.8 7.3 13.2 8.3 4.9 75% removed 2.4 0.9 8.1 2.3 7.0 ALL removed 2.1 1.O 13.2 3.0 5.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only)  Table 0 - 9 DBH < 15 cm Amenity value (trees w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbhl Total Irr high Irr h i g h Irr Lou Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland None 7.56 19.37 4.75 24.09 4.95 Roadside 0.63 1.18 0.01 2.37 0.01 Household 1.26 0.70 0.12 22.19 0.10 Hedges 0.38 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 Graveyards 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.00 Total/ha 9.90 22.94 4.94 48.64 5.06 M i l l . trees 868.6 210.7 9.8 155.0 22.6 ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage amenity value ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr h i g h Irr h i g h Irr low Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland None 76.3 84.4 96.2 49.5 97.7 Roads ide 6.4 5.1 0.3 4.9 0.2 Household 12.8 3.1 2.5 45.6 2.1 Hedges 3.8 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Graveyards 0.7 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbhl  OBH < 15 cm Species d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h end u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) Total I r r high Irr high Irr Lou Irr Lou Bereni Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highlend 1. Phoenix d a c t y l i f e r e 2. Nemorrhops r i t c h i e e n e 3. Acacia n i l o t i c e 4. Prosopis sp. 5. Prosopis j u l i f l o r e 6. Cepparis e p h y l l e 7. Eugenia j d o l e n a 8. Hangifere i n d i c e 9. l y c i u n berberun 10. Temarix a r t i c u l a t e 11. C e l o t r o p i s procere 12. Zygophyllun e r t i p l i c o i d e 13. Prvurs sp. 14. P r w s qgdalus 15. Eleegnus e n g u s t i f o l i e 16. Morus sp. 17. llJuger" 18. Helus domestice 19. loSuzenll 20. P r w s eviun 21. Olee cuspideta 22. Juniperus macropoda 23. Abies pindrou 24. S a l i x bebylonice 25. Ailanthus sp. 26. Ficus r e l i g i o s e 27. H e l i a ezedarach 28. C i t r u s sp. 29. 180gave18 30. P i s t a c i e sp. 31. Quercus sp. 32. Juglans r e g i a 33. Alnus n i t i d a 34. Populus n i g r a 35. Pinus gererdiena 36. Cedrus deodare 37. Robinie pseudoacecia 38. Populus x euramericana 39. Ficus palmate 40. Pinus u e l l i c h i a n a 41. Diospyros Lotus 42. Platanus o r i e n t e l i s 43. Eucalyptus s ~ . 44. A l b i z z i e procere 45. Delbergie sissoo 46. Zizyphus sp. 47. Acacia modeste 48. A l b i z z i a lebbek 50. Cel t i s sp. 5t . 11Khekro81 52. Azedirachta i n d i c a 53. Tamarix d i o i c e 54. Salvadore oleoides 56. Cordia myxe 57. M a l l o t u s phi1,ippinensis 6f. Unidentified. 62. Beuhinia sp. 65. Pinus halepensis 67. Prunus persica. 70. Fraxinus sp. 73. E r i o b o t r y e jeponica 74. Segerotie theezens 15. Cassia f i s t u l a 76. Ricinus carnunis 77. XanthoxyLun e l e t u n 78. Schinus m l l e 79. Picee srnithiane 80. S e l ~ n a l i amalebaricun  81. Terminal i a arjune 83. Vi tex negundo 84. Pyrus 85. Psidiun guava 86. Brwssoneti a papyri f era 87. Oodonaea viscose 88. UMomjadari" 91. UBhuiokra'l 93. Pinus roxburghii 94. Populus euphratica 96. " ~ a n gi l Jalebim 97. Horinga o l e i f e r a 98. Ficus bengalensis 99. Lyciun barbatun 101. Syzygiun cunini 102. A t r i p l e x sp. 103. Lantana sp. 105. Tamrindus indica 106. Cotoneaster b a c i l l a r i s 107. Rosa sp. 108. Berberis l y c i u n 109. Indigofera sp. 110. Adhatoda vesica 111. Pongamia glabra 112. Suaeda f r u t i c o s a 114. UJarahU 115. Carissa npinerun 116. Avicmia officinelis Total (trees/ha) 9.90 Hi 1l i o n trees 868.6 (trees u i t h and uithout v i s i b l e dbh)  Table 8-11 OBH < 15 cm Species group ( t r e e s u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr high Irr high Irr Lou Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland T ilnkr 4.77 5.84 0.50 12.13 1 .50 5.69 20.10 ' 1.60 0.04 Fruit 4.53 14.77 4.44 35.51 3.39 1.36 5.04 2.15 0.04 Other 0.60 2.34 0.00 1.00 0.17 0.00 1.35 0.37 0.00 Total/ha 9.90 22.94 4.94 48.64 5.06 7.04 26.48 4.12 0.08 868.6 210.7 9.8 155.0 22.6 19.6 344.2 104.7 2.0 ( t r e e s u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage species group ( t r e e s u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr high Irr high Irr Lou Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan 'north south north south /Highland T inkr 48.2 25.4 10.1 24.9 29.6 80.8 15.9 38.9 55.1 Fruit 45.8 64.4 89.9 73.0 67.0 19.2 19.0 52.2 44.9 Other 6.0 10.2 0.0 2.0 3.3 0.0 5.1 8.9 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh)  Table B-12 OBH 15 t o 35 t m Bianess standing stock and productivity Total l r r h i g h N l r r h i g h 5 lrrlow N lrrlou S Barani For/High Semi-arid Oerert Zone fir 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Area(km2) am27 Ulf I tome6 Twigs 10.78 Grauth 0.88 Rovrdwood 47.81 Growth 2.53 Tfnkr 31.81 Growth 1.92 mi I t o m Total standing 90.40 31.36 2.48 10.45 3.13 2.18 34.23 6.18 0.60 Tot wood growth 5.33 2.33 0.17 0.83 0.22 0.08 1 -36 0.30 0.05 Tot fuel growth 4.37 1-84 0.13 0.72 0.18 0.08 1.14 0.24 0.04 Tuigs f u e l grow 0.88 0.36 0.02 0.25 0.02 0.02 0.17 0.03 0.01 R w d f u e l grow 3.49 1.48 0.12 0.47 0.16 0.06 0.96 0.21 0.03 Biofness standing stock and productivity m i l l i o n tomes Pmjab Sir& NUFP Baluch NA+AJK Total Twigs 6.02 0.60 2.20 0.34 1.62 10.78 Grouth 0.59 0.05 0.13 0.03 0.08 0.88 20.84 4.27 11.33 2.18 9.19 47.81 Growth 1.36 0.25 0.47 0.12 0.34 2.53 T inhr 16.42 3.12 6.06 1.64 4.57 31.81 Growth 1.17 0.18 0.30 0.08 0.19 1.92 Total standing 43.28 7.98 19.59 4.17 15.38 90.40 Tot wood growth 3.11 0.49 0.89 0.23 0.61 5.33 Tot fuel growth 2.53 0.39 0.75 0.19 0.51 4.37 Tuigs fuel grow 0.59 0.05 0.13 0.03 0.08 0.88 R d fuel gron 1.94 0.34 0.61 0.16 0.43 3.49  Table 0-13 OBH 15 t o 35 cm Crown c o n d i t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr h i g h Irr h i g h Irr low Irr l o u ' Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland OX removed 1.43 3.76 2.01 2.93 1.27 0.44 4.15 0.61 0.04 25% removed 0.70 2.27 0.46 1.07 0.29 0.88 2.12 0.20 0.00 50% removed 0.82 3.70 0.40 1.77 0.25 1.15 1.92 0.10 0.00 75% removed 0.39 0.88 0.31 2.06 0.29 0.16 1.16 0.08 0.01 A l l removed 0.21 .0.51 0.89 0.39 0.31 0.07 0.49 0.11 0.01 Totel/he 3.55 11.12 4.07 8.22 2.42 2.70 9.85 1.09 0.05 M i l l . trees 311.8 102.1 8.1 26.2 10.8 7.5 128.0 27.8 1.4 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage crown c o n d i t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr h i g h Irr h i g h Irr l o u Irr l o u Bareni Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland OX removed 40.1 33.9 49.3 35.6 52.7 16.1 42.2 55.6 67.7 25% removed 19.8 20.4 11.4 13.1 12.0 32.6 21.5 18.4 3.8 50% removed 23.2 33.3 9.9 21 -5 10.4 42.7 19.5 8.7 4.9 75Xremoved 11.0 7.9 7.7 25.0 12.0 6.0 11.7 7.3 10.9 A l l removed 6.0 4.6 21.8 4.8 12.8 2.5 5.0 10.0 12.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only)  Table 6-14 DBH 15 t o 35, cm Amenity value (trees u i t h and uithout v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr high Irr high Irr Lou Irr Lou Barani Forested S c i - a r i d Desert Pakistan north south north south j /Highland None 2.89 7.80 3.49 5.71 2.31 Roadside 0.11 0.35 0.25 1.13 0.02 Household 0.38 1.62 0.28 1.33 0.09 Hedges 0.14 1.32 0.00 0.05 0.00 Graveyards 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 Total/ha 3.55 11.12 4.07 8.22 2.42 Witl. trees 311.8' 102.1 8.1 26.2 10.8 (trees with and uithout v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage emmity value (trees u i t h and uithout v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr high Irr high Irr lou Irr l o u Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south ! /Highland None 81.2 70.2 85.9 69.5 95.4 Roadside 3.2 3.1 6.3 13.7 0.7 Household 10.6 14.6 6.9 16.1 3.9 Hedges 3.9 11.9 0.0 0.7 0.0 Graveyards 1.1 0.2 1.O 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (trees with and uithout v i s i b l e dbh)  Table 8-15 OBH 15 t o 35 cm Species d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh Total Irr high I f-r h i g h Irr Lou Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland 1. Phoenix d a c t y l i f e r a 2. Namorrhops r i tchieana 3. Acacia n i l o t i c a 4. Prosopis sp. 5. Prosopis j u l i f l o r e 6. Capperis aphylla 7. Eugenia jambolana 8. Hangifera indica 9. Lyciun barbarun 10. lmnarix a r t i c u l a t a 11. Calotropis procera 12. Zygophyl lun a r t i p l icoides 13. Prunus sp. 14. Prmus amygdalus 15. Elaegnus a n g u s t i f o l i a 16. norus sp. 17. 8oJugeroo 18. nalus domestica 19. 8oSuzenoo 20. P r w s eviun 21. Olee cuspidate 22. J m i p e r u s macropoda 23. Abies pindrou 24. Sal i x babylonica 25. Ailanthus sp. 26. Ficus r e l i g i o s e 27. n e l i a azedarach 28. C i t r u s sp. 29. ooOgavell 30. P i s t a c i a sp. 31. Quercus sp. 32. Juglans r e g i a 33. Alnus n i t i d a 34. Populus n i g r a 35. Pinus gerardiana 36. Cedrus deodara 37. Robinia pseudoacacia 38. Populus x euramricana 39. Ficus palmata 40. Pinus u a l l i c h i a n a 41. Diospyros l o t u s 42. Platanus o r i e n t a l i s 43. Eucalyptus sp. 44. A l b i z z i a procera 45. Oalbergia sissoo 46. Z i zyphus sp. 47. Acacia d e s t a 48. A l b i z z i a lebbek 50. C e l t i s sp. 51. "Khakrooo 52. Azadirechta indica 53. lemarix d i o i c a 54. Salvadora oleoides 56. Cordia myxa 57. n a l l o t u s p h i l i p p i n e n s i s 61. U n i d e n t i f i e d 62. Bauhinia sp. 65. Pinus halepensis 67. P r w s persica. 70. Fraxinus sp. 73. Eriobotrya japonica 74. Sagerot ia theezans 75. Cassia f i s t u l a 76. Ricinus camrrnis 77. Xanthoxylun a l a t u n 78. Schinus molle 79. Picee smithiana 80. Salmalia malebaricun  81. Terminelia arjuna 83. Vitex negundo 84. Pyrus 85. Psidiun guava 86. Broussonetia papyri f era 87. Dodonaea viscose 88. llManjadarfll 91 . mBhuiokraw 93. Pinus roxburghi i 94. Populus euphratica 96. nJangli Jalebiw 97. Horinga o l e i f era 98. Ficus bengalensis 99. Lyciun barbatun 101. Syzygiun cunini 102. A t r i p l e x sp. 103. Lantana sp. 105. Tamnrindus~ indica 106. Cotoneaster b a c i l l a r i s 107. Rosa sp. 108. Berberis l y c i u n 109. lndigofera sp. 110. Adhatode vesica 111. Pongmia glabra 112. Sweda fruticosa 114. *Jarah" 115. Carissa spinarun 116. Avicemia o f f i c i n a l i s Total (trees/ha) 3.55 M i l l i o n trees 311.8 (trees with and w i t h w t v i s i b l e dbh)  Table 8-16 DBH 15 t o 35 cm Species group ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr high Irr high Irr Lou I r r Lou Bereni Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland Tinkr 1.24 0.87 0.45 0.52 0.27 1.74 6.61 0.25 0.01 Fruit 1.97 9.21 3.40 5.55 1.84 0.96 2.85 0.62 0.01 Other 0.34 1.04 0.21 2.15 0.30 0.00 0.39 0.23 0.03 Total/ha 3.55 11.12 4.07 8.22 2.42 2.70 9.85 1.09 0.05 311.8 102.1 8.1 26.2 10.8 7.5 128.0 27.8 1.4 ( t r e e s w i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage species group ( t r e e s w i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr high I r r high I r r Lou Irr l o u Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland Timber 34.9 7.8 11.1 6.3 11.2 64.4 67.2 22.4 16.1 Fruit 55.5 82.9 83.6 67.6 76.2 35.6 28.9 56.6 25.6 Other 9.6 9.3 5.2 26.1 12.6 0.0 3.9 21 .O 58.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh)  Teble 8-17 OBH > 35 cm Bianass standing stock end productivity Totel l r r h i g h N l r r h i g h S lrrlou N lrrlou S' For/High Semi-arid tare u 1 2 3 4 6 7 Area(km2) 877227 91848 19870 m i l tomes tonnelhe tonne/he Twigs 8.64 0.18 0.73 Growth 0.37 0.01 0.05 Rodwood 33.40 0.51 ' 2.28 Growth 0.99 0.01 0.13 Timber 28.41 0.61 0.76 Growth 0.35 0.01 0.01 mi I tomes Total standing 70.45 11.89 7.50 9.42 1.80 0.59 31.80 2.55 4.91 Tot wood growth 1.72 0.30 0.37 0.26 0.05 0.01 0.27 0.09 0.36 Tot f u e l growth 1.54 0.24 0.36 0.22 0.05 0.01 0.21 0.09 0.36 Twigs f u e l grow 0.37 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.09 R o v d f u e l grow 1.17 0.18 0.27 0.15 0.04 0.00 0.19 0.06 0.28 Bianass standing stock and p r o d u c t i v i t y m i l l i o n tomes Punjab Sindh NU FP Baluch Twigs 3.18 1.86 1.29 1.32 Growth 0.14 0.11 0.02 0.09 Rovduood 9.53 6.32 7.16 4.10 Growth 0.27 0.31 0.08 0.27 T imber 10.22 2.80 7.80 0.60 Growth 0.17 0.04 0.07 0.01 Total stending Tot wood growth Tot fuel growth Twigs f u e l grou R o d fuel grow  Table 8-18 DBH > 35 cm Crown c o n d i t i o n ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high Irr high I r r Lou Irr low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland 0% removed 0.26 0.16 2.21 0.48 0.23 0.02 0.71 0.05 0.14 25% removed 0.14 0.28 0.15 0.51 0.03 0.06 0.58 0.01 0.00 50% removed 0.14 0.54 0.11 0.73 0.04 0.08 0.31 0.01 0.00 75% removed 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.33 0.02 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.00 A l l removed 0.03 0.03 0.16 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.11 0.02 0.00 Total/ha 0.62 1.08 2.74 2.07 0.35 0.17 1.87 0.09 0.14 Mill.trees 54.3 9.9 5 .4 6.6 1.5 0.5 24.3 2.4 3.5 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage croun c o n d i t i o n (trees u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high Irr high Irr Lou Irr Lou Barani Forested S.emi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /High land O X removed 41.5 14.8 80.7 22.9 66.5 9.0 38.0 55.7 99.7 25% removed 23.2 25.8 5.6 24.4 9.7 34.4 30.9 10.8 0.0 50Xren10ved 22.4 50.1 4.1 35.0 12.2 46.9 16.4 , 10.4 0.3 75% removed 8.0 6.8 3.6 15.9 5.6 6.4. 9.1 4.2 0.0 A l l removed 4 -8 2.6 6.0 1.7 6.0 3.3 5.6 18.9 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only)  Table B-19 DBH > 35 cm Amenity value ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e . dbh) Total Irrhigh Irrhigh Irr low Irr low Barmi Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland None 0.41 0.72 1.72 0.92 0.31 Roadside 0.08 0.20 0.28 0.81 0.01 Household 0.11 0.09 0.71 0.34 0.03 Hedges 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.00 Graveyards 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 Total/ha 0.62 1.08 2.74 2.07 0.35 Mill.trees 54.3 9.9 5.4 6.6 1.5 ( t r e e s w i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage amenity value ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr h i g h Irr h i g h Irr low l r r low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland None 65.5 66.5 63.0 44.3 88.7 Roadside 12.6 18.5 10.3 38.9 3.4 Household 18.2 8.6 25.9 16.5 7.2 Hedges 1.1 5.9 0.0 0.3 0.0 Graveyards 2.6 0.5 0.8 0.0 0.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh)  Table 9-20 OBH > 35 cm Species d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr high Irr h i g h Irr low Irr low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland 1. Phoenix d a c t y l i f e r a 2 . Namorrhops r i tchieana 3 . Acacia n i l o t i c a 4 . Prosopis sp. 5. Prosopis j u l i f l o r e 6. Capparis a p h y l l a 7. Eugenia j h l a n a 8. Hangifera i n d i c a 9. Lyciun barbarun 10. Tamarix a r t i c u l a t a 11. C a l o t r o p i s procera 12. Zygophyllun a r t i p l i c o i d e s 13. Prunus sp. 14. Prunus enrygdalus 15. Elaegnus a n g u s t i f o l i a 16. Uorus sp. 17. MJugarM 18. Ualus domestice 19. nSuzenB@ 20. Prunus a v i u n 21. OLea cuspidata 22. Juniperus macropoda 23. Abies pindrow 24. S a l i x babylonice 25. Ailanthus sp. 26. Ficus r e l i g i o s a 27. U e l i a azedarach 28. C i t r u s sp. 29. gtOgavett 30. P i s t a c i a sp. 31. Quercus sp. 32. Juglans r e g i a 33. Alnus n i t i d a 34. Populus n i g r a 35. Pinus gerardiana 36. Cedrus deodara 37. Robinia pseudoacacia 38. Populus x euramericana 39. Ficus palmate 40. Pinus w a l l i c h i a n a 41. Oiospyros l o t u s 42. Platanus o r i e n t a l i s 43. Eucalyptus sp. 44. A l b i z z i a procera 45. Oalbergia sissoo 46. Zizyphus sp. 47. Acacia ~ i o d e s t a 48. ALbizzia lebbek 50. C e l t i s sp. 51. @@KhakrotB 52. Azadirachta i n d i c a 53. Temerix d i o i c a 54. Salvadora oleoides 56. Cordia myxa 57. nallotus philippinensis 61. Unidentified 62. B a h i n i a sp. 65. Pinus halepensis 67. Prunus persica. 70. Fraxinus sp. 73. E r i o b o t r y a japonica 74. Sagerot i a theezans 75. Cassia f i s t u l a 76. Ricinus commmis 77. Xanthoxylun a l a t u n 78. Schinus m o l l e 79. Picea stnithiare 80. S a l m l i a malabaricun  81. l e r m i n a l i a arjuna 83. V itex negundo Bb. Pyrus 85. Psidiun guava 86. Broussonetie papyrifera 87. Oodoneee viscose 88. n8Manj eder i 91. ~lBhuiokrall 93. Pinus roxburghi i 94. Populus euphratice 96. YJangLi Jelebiol 97. l o r inga o l e i fere 98. F icus bengelens is 99. Lyciun barbstun 101. Syzygiun cunini 102. A t r i p l e x sp. 103. Lantana sp. 105. l m n r i n d u s indice 106. Cotoneaster b a c i l l a r i s 107. Rosa sp. 108. B e r k r i r Lyciun 109. Indigofere sp. 110. Adhatoda vesice 111. Pongemie glebre 112. Swede f r u t icosa 114. nJarehu 115. Carisse spinarun 116. Avicennia o f f i c i n a l i s Total (trees/he) M i l l i o n trees (trees w i t h and without v i s i b l  Table 0-21 OBH 35 cm Species group ( t r e e s w i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) Total I r r high I r r high I r r low I r r Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland Ti h r 0.22 0.05 0.15 0.10 0.05 Fruit 0.23 0.75 0.72 1.24 0.17 Other 0.17 0.28 1.87 0.73 0.12 Total/ha 0.62 1.08 2.74 2.07 0.35 54.3 9.9 5.4 6.6 1.5 ( t r e e s u i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage species group ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr high I r r high I r r Lou I r r Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland Tiher 35.7 4.7 5.5 5.0 14.8 Fruit 37.2 69.6 26.3 59.9 49.2 Other 27.0 25.6 68.2 35.1 36.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh)  Table 6-22 Crown damage 0.1 ( l i g h t ) Biomass standing stock and p r o d u c t i v i t y Total l r r h i g h N l r r h i g h S lrrlou N lrrlow S Barani For/High Semi-arid Desert Zone # 1 2 3 4 . 5 6 7 8 Aren(km2) 877227 91848 m i l t o m e s tome/ha Twigs 12.96 0.36 Growth 1.11 0.05 Rovduood 64.44 1.42 Growth 6.11 0.21 Tilnkr 46.80 1.45 Growth 4.00 0.18 mi l t o m e s Total standing 124.21 29.65 8.40 13.28 4.27 1.98 53.27 8.12 5.25 Tot wood growth 11.21 3.98 0.60 1.95 0.50 0.15 2.88 0.74 0.41 Tot f u e l growth 9.21 3.17 0.53 1.60 0.41 0.15 2.33 0.62 0.41 Twigs f u e l grow 1.11 0.45 0.11 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.20 0.06 0.10 R o v d f u e l grow 8.10 2.72 0.43 1.47 0.36 0.13 2.13 0.56 0.31 Biomass standing stock and p r o d u c t i v i t y m i l l i o n tomes Punjab Sindh NUFP Baluch NA+AJK Total Twigs 4.81 2.22 2.42 1.58 1.93 12.96 Growth 0.58 0.17 0.15 0.12 0.09 1.11 Roundwood 21.05 9.43 14.96 6.20 12.80 64.44 Growth 3.07 0.78 1.01 0.54 0.71 6.11 Timkr 20.26 4.56 10.96 1.84 9.18 46.80 Growth 2.27 0.39 ' 0.69 0.16 0.49 4.00 Total standing 46.12 16.21 28.34 9.63 23.91 124.21 Tot wood growth 5.92 1.34 1 -85 0.81 1.29 11.21 Tot f u e l growth 4.79 1.15 1.50 0.73 1.05 9.21 Twigs f u e l grow 0.58 0.17 0.15 0.12 0.09 1.11 Round f u e l grow 4.20 0.97 1.36 0.62 0.95 8.10  Table 8-23 Crown damage 0,l (light) D i e t e r d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high Irr h i g h Irr low Irr low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north ' south north south /Highland <5cm 1ocm 2Ocm 30cm 40cm 50cm 60cm 70cm 80cm 90cm 1oocm 105+cm Total/ha 11.31 27.30 8.07 47.01 6.00 6.62 30.78 4.94 M i l l . tree W2.2 250.8 16.0 149.8 26.8 18.4 400.1 125.3 (trees w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage diameter d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total I r r high Irr high Irr low Irr low Barani forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highlend <5cm 1Ocm 2Ocm 30cm 40cm 50cm 60cm 70cm 8Ocm 9Ocm 1OOcm 105+cm Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only)  Table 0-24 Croun damage 0.1 ( l i g h t ) Amenity value ( t r e e s u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) Total I r r high I r r high Irr Lou Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland None 8.60 22.34 6.81 22.25 5.80 6.40 26.57 2.97 Roadside 0.60 1.52 0.32 1.73 0.01 0.13 0.99 0.74 Hwseho 1d 1.58 1.30 0.91 22.99 0.18 0.01 1.17 1.22 Hedges 0.42 2.09 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 1.38 0.00 Graveyards 0.11 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.67 0.00 Total/ha 11.31 27.30 8.07 47.01 6.00 6.62 30.78 4.94 W i l l . trees 992.2 250.8 16.0 149.8 26.8 18.4 400.1 125.3 ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage amenity value ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr h i g h Irr high Irr l o u Jrr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north swth /Highland None 76.1 81.8 84.4 47.3 96.8 96.8 86.3 60.2 Roads ide 5.3 5.6 4.0 3.7 0.2 2.0 3.2 15.0 Household 14.0 4.8 11.3 48.9 3.0 0.2 3.8. 24.8 Hedges 3.8 7.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 Graveyards 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.O 2.2 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh)  Table 9-25 Crown damage 0,l ( l i g h t Species d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr high Irr high Irr low lrr l o n Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland 1. Phoenix d a c t y l i f e r a 0.11 0.04 2. Namorrhops r i t c h i e a n a 0.00 0.00 3. Acacia n i l o t i c a 1.09 3.06 I .Prosopis sp. 0.02 0.00 5. Prosopis j u l i f l o r a 0.17 0.47 6. Capparis aphylla 0.00 0.00 7. Eugenia jembolana 0.00 0.01 8. Hangifera i n d i c a 0.08 0.36 9. Lyciun barbarun 0.00 0.00 10. Tamarix a r t i c u l a t e 0.22 0.08 11. Calotropis procera 0.00 0.00 12. Zygophyllun a r t i p l i c o i d e s 0.00 0.00 13. Prunus sp. 0.43 2.80 14. Prunus amygdalus 0.00 0.00 15. Elaegnus a n g u s t i f o l i a 0.00 0.00 16. Morus sp. 0.34 0.31 17. aaJugarla 0.00 0.00 18. Malus danestica 0.22 0.00 19. "Suzeno6 0.04 0.00 20. Prunus aviun 0.00 0.00 21. Olea cuspidata 0.23 0.01 22. Juniperus macropoda 0.16 0.00 23. Abies pindrou 0.02 0.18 24. S a l i x babylonica 0.35 0.09 25. Ailanthus sp. 1.38 1.56 26. Ficus r e l i g i o s e 0.00 0.00 27. M e l i a azedarach 0.44 0.34 28. C i t r u s sp. 0.03 0.02 29. 010gave66 0.00 0.00 30. P i s t a c i a sp. 0.01 0.00 31. Puercus sp. 0.29 0.00 32. Juglans r e g i a 0.02 0.01 33. Alnus n i t i d a 0.00 0.01 34. Populus n i g r a 0.18 1.29 35. Pinus gerardiana 0.09 0.00 36. Cedrus deodara 0.16 0.00 37. Robinia pseudoacacia 0.03 0.08 38. Populus x euramericana 0.77 6.65 39. Ficus palmata 0.09 0.08 40. Pinus wallichiana 0.01 0.00 41. Diospyros l o t u s 0.06 0.36 42. Platanus o r i e n t a l i s 0.01 0.00 43. Eucalyptus sp. 0.02 0.02 44. A l b i z z i a procera 0.05 0.01 45. Dalbergia sissoo 2.02 6.22 46. Zizyphus sp. 0.18 0.33 17. Acacia modesta 0.59 0.03 48. A l b i z z i a lebbek 0.03 0.05 50. C e l t i s sp. 0.00 0.00 51. aeKhakroll 0.01 0.00 52. Azadirachta i n d i c a 0.01 0.00 53. Temarix d i o i c a 0.00 0.00 54. Salvadora oleoides 0.01 0.06 56. Cordia myxa 0.00 0.00 57. Mallotus p h i l i p p i n e n s i s 0.10 0.00 61. U n i d e n t i f i e d 0.00 0.00 62. Bauhinia sp. 0.00 0.01 - 65. Pinus halepensis 67. Prunus persica. 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 70. Fraxinus sp. 0.00 0.00 73. Eriobotrya japonica 0.00 0.04 74. Sagerotia theezans 0.00 0.00 15. Cassia f i s t u l a 0.01 0.00 76. Ricinus camamis 0.00 0.00 77. Xanthoxylun a l a t u n 0.00 0.00 78. Schinus molle 0.00 0.00 79. Picea smithiana 0.00 0.00 80. Salmelia melabaricun 0.00 0.01  81. Terminalia arjuna 83. Vitex negundo 84. Pyrus 85. Psidiun guava 86. Broussonetie papyrifera 87. Dodonaee viscose 88. YMcnnjedari88 91. WBhuiokre88 93. P i t u s roxburghi i 94. Poprlus euphretice 96. YJengli Jalebi88 97. Moringa o l e i f e r a 98. Ficus bengelensis 99. Lyciun barbatun 101. Syzygiun cunini 102. A t r i p l e x sp. 103. Lantana sp. 105. Tllnvrrindus indica 106. Cotoneaster baci 1l e r i s ' 107. Rose sp. 108. Berberis l y c i u n 109. Indigofere sp. 110. Adhatode vesice 111. Pongemie glebre 112. Swede f r u t i c o s a 114. YJereh88 115. Carisse spinarun 116. AviCe~ie off icinalis Total (trees/ha) 11.31 M i l l i o n trees 992.2 ' (trees w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh)  Table 8-26 Crown damage 0,1 ( L i g h t ) Species group (trees w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Total I r r high Irr high I r r tow I r r Low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland T i h r 5.12 5.77 0.53 12.61 1.67 5.34 22.24 1.70 0.00 Fruit 5.26 18.31 5.52 33.57 3.74 1.27 6.84 2.60 0.03 Other 0.93 . 3.23 2.02 0.83 0.60. 0.00 1.71 0.64 0.17 Total/ha 11.31 27.30 8.07 47.01 6.00 6.62 30.78 4.94 0.20 992.2 250.8 16.0 149.8 26.8 18.4 400.1 125.3 5.0 ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b t e dbh) Percentage species arbup ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr high Irr high I r r low Irr low Borani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland ' . Tinbcr 45.2 21.1 6.6 26.8 27.8 80.8 72.2 34.5 0.7 Fruit 46.5 67.1 68.4 71.4 62.3 19.2 22.2 52.6 13.3 Other 8.2 11.8 25.0 1.8 9.9 0.0 5.5 12.9 85.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (trees w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh)  Table B-27 Crown damage 2 (moderate) Biomass standing stock and p r o d u c t i v i t y Total l r r h i g h N I r r h i g h S lrrlow N lrrlow S Barani For/High Semi-arid Oesert Zone # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AreaCM) 87'7227 ,91848 m i l t o m e s tome/ha Twigs 7.61 0.36 Growth 0.60 0.03 Rovduood 18.22 0.77 Growth 1.02 0.05 Tinkr 15.24 0.79 Growth 0.92 0.06 mi 1 t o m e s T o t a l standing 41.07 17.69 0.63 Tot wood growth 2.54 1.27 0.05 Tot f u e l growth 2.08 1.02 0.03 Twigs f u e l grow 0.60 0.29 0.01 R o u d f u e l grow 1.48 0.73 0.02 Bianass standing stock and p r o d u c t i v i t y m i l l i o n tomes Punjab Sindh NUFP Be 1uch Total Twigs 4.84 0.30 1.40 0.11 7.61 Growth 0.43 0.03 0.09 0.01 0.60 Roundwood 10.31 0.74 4.00 0.20 Growth 0.68 0.04 0.18 0.01 Tiher 9.14 0.87 2.83 0.34 Growth 0.67 0.05 0.12 0.02 Total standing 24.29 1.91 8.24 Tot wood growth 1.78 0.12 0.39 Tot f u e l growth 1.44 0.09 0.33 Twigs f u e l grow 0.43 0.03 0.09 R o d f u e l grow 1.01 0.07 0.24  Crown damage 2 (moderate) Diameter d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr h i g h Irr h i g h Irr low Irr low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland Total/ha 1.64 5.92 1.17 6.53 0.54 2.81 4.01 0.13 Mill. tree 143.5 54.3 2.3 20.8 2.4 7.8 52.2 3.4 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage diameter d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr h i g h Irr h i g h Irr low Irr low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only)  Crown damage 2 (moderate) Amenity value ( t r e e s w i t h an$ without v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr high Irr high Irr low Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland None 1.31 4.40 1.08 4.98 0.54 2.76 3.31 0.12 Roadside 0.16 0.13 0.05 1.31 0.00 0.01 0.67 0.01 Household 0.08 0.64 0.04 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 Hedges 0.08 0.74 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Graveyards 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00 Total/ha 1.64 5.92 1.17 6.53 0.54 2.81 4.01 0.13 M i l l . trees 143.4 54 -3 2.3 20.8 2.4 7.8 52.2 3.4 ( t r e e s w i t h end without v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage amenity value ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr h i g h Irr h i g h Irr Lou Irr low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland None 80.0 74.4 92.7 76.3 99.6 98.1 82.5 89.6 Roadside 10.0' 2.2 4.1 20.0 0.2 0.3 16.7 6.0 Household 4.9 10.8 3.1 3.6 0.1 0.0 0.4 4.4 Hedges 4.8 12.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Graveyards 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1 .5 0.4 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh)  Table 8-30 Crown Damage 2 (moderate) Species d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr high Irr high I r r low Irr low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /High lend 1. Phoenix d a c t y l i f e r a 2. Namorrhops r i t c h i e e n a 3. Acacia n i l o t i c a 4. Prosopis sp. 5. Prosopis j u l i f l o r a 6. Capperis a p h y l l a 7. Eugenia j m h l e n a 8. Hangifera i n d i c a 9. L y c i u n barberun 10. Tamarix a r t i c u l a t e 11. C a l o t r o p i s procera 12. Zygophyllun a r t i p l i c o i d e 13. Prunus sp. 14. Prunus emygdalus 15. Elaegnus a n g u s t i f o l i a 16. Morus sp. 17. @'Jugaraa 18. Halus domestica 19. onSuzen8n 20. Prunus aviun 21. Olea cuspidate 22. Juniperus macropoda 23. Abies pindrow 24. S a l i x babylonica 25. Ailanthus sp. 26. Ficus r e l i g i o s a 27. H e l i a azedarech 28. C i t r u s sp. 29. aa0gavea4 30. P i s t a c i a sp. 31. Ouercus sp. 32. Juglens r e g i a 33. Alnus n i t i d a 34. Populus n i g r a 35. Pinus gerardiana 36. Cedrus deodara 37. Robinia pseudoacacia 38. Populus x euramericana 39. Ficus palmata 40. Pinus w a l l i c h i a n a 41. Diospyros l o t u s 42. Pletanus o r i e n t a l i s 43. Eucalyptus sp. 44. A l b i z z i a procera 45. Dalbergia sissoo 46. Zizyphus sp. 47. Acacia modesta 48. A l b i z z i a lebbek 50. C e l t i s sp. 51. "Khakroa4 52. Azadirachta i n d i c a 53. Temarix d i o i c e 54. Salvadore oleoides 56. Cordia myxa 57. Mallotus philippinensis 61. Unidentified 62. Bauhinia sp. 65. Pinus halepensis 67. Prunus persice. 70. Fraxinus sp. 73. E r i o b o t r y e jeponica 74. Segerotia theezens 75. Cassia f i s t u l a 76. Ricinus camrrnis TI. Xenthoxylun e l a t u n 78. Schinus m o l l e 79. Picea smithiena 80. Salmelia melabaricun  81. Terrninalia erjuna 83. V itex negundo 84. Pyrus 85. Psidiun guava 86. Brwssonet i a papyri fera 87. Dodonace viscose 88. UMomjaderiN 91. ~18huiokre~' 93. Pinus roxburghii 94. Poprlus euphret i c a 96. "Jengli JalebiM 97. Moringe o l e i f e r a 98. Ficus bengalensis 99. Lyciun barbetun 101. Syzygiun cunini 102. A t r i p l e x sp. 103. Lmtena sp. 105. Teunarindus indica 106. Cotoneaster beci 1l e r i s 107. Rosa sp. 108. Berberis l y c i u n 109. Indigofere sp. 110. Adhetada vesice 111. Pmgamie glabre 112. Suede f r u t i c o s e . 114. "Jarah" 115. Carissa spinarun 116. Avicernie o f f i c i n a l i s Total (trees/he) 1.64 M i l l i o n trees 143.5 (trees with and without v i s i b l e dbh)  Crown damage 2 (moderate) Species group ( t r e e s u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr h i g h I r r high I r r low I r r Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland T inkr 0.60 0.50 0.09 0.06 0.06 1.86 3.16 0.04 Fruit 0.96 ' 5.06 1.06 5.52 0.48 0.95 0.81 0.09 Other 0.08 0.36 0.02 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 Total/ha 1.64 5.92 1.17 6.53 0.54 2.81 4.01 0.13 143.5 54.3 2.3 20.8 2.4 7.8 52.2 3.4 ( t r e e s u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage species group ( t r e e s u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr high lrr high Lrr low Lrr low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland Tinkr 36.7 8.4 7.9 0.9 11.8 66.3 78.8 30.7 Fruit 58.5 85.5 90.5 84.5 88.2 33.7 20.2 67.8 Other 4.8 ' 6.0 1.6 14.5 0.0 0.0 1 .O 1.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s w i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh)  Table 8-32 Croun d m g e 3,4 (severe) Biomass standing stock and p r o d u c t i v i t y Total l r r h i g h N l r r h i g h S lrrlou N lrrlou S Berani For/High Semi-arid Desert Zone # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Area( km2) 877227 91848 mi l tomes tome/ha Tui gs 2.48 0.05 Grouth 0.41 0.01 Rouduood 13.74 0.32 Grouth 0.34 0.01 Timber 11.15 0.28 trouth 0.21 0.01 m i l tomes Total standing 27.36 5.95 1.50 5.70 1.15 0.27 10.83 1.83 0.13 l o t wood grouth 0.97 0.19 0.03 0.45 0.05 0.01 0.21 0.03 0.01 Tot f u e l growth 0.86 0.16 0.03 0.43 0.04 0.01 0.17 0.02 0.00 Twigs f u e l grou 0.41 0.06 0.01 0.25 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 Roudfwlgrow 0.45 0.10 . 0.01 0.19 0.02 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.00 Biomass standing stock and p r o d u c t i v i t y m i t t ion tomes Punjab Sindh NUFP Baluch NA*AJK Total Twigs 1.62 0.14 0.41 0.05 0.26 2.48 Growth 0.29 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.41 Rouduood 6.35 1.58 2.91 0.59 2.30 13.74 Grouth 0.23 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.34 Timber 3.94 1.58 2.67 0.67 2.30 11.15 trouth 0.10 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.21 Total standing 11.91 3.30 5.98 1.31 4.86 27.36 Tot wood growth 0.61 0.09 0.15 0.02 0.09 0.97 Tot f u e l growth 0.57 0.07 0.13 0.02 0.08 0.86 Tuigs f u e l grow 0.29 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.41 Round f u e l grow 0.28 0.04 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.45  Table 8-33 Crown damage 3,4 (severe) Diameter d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh o n l y ) Total Irr h i g h Irr h i g h Irr low Irr low Barani Forested S e m i - a r i d Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland (5cm 1ocm 2Ocm 30cm 4 0cm 50cm 60cm 70cm 80cm 90cm 1OOcm 105+cm Total/ha 1.13 1.92 2.51 5.39 1.29 0.49 3.40 0.24 Mill. tree 99.0 17.7 5.0 17.2 5.7 1.4 44.2 6.1 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh o n l y ) Percentage diameter d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh o n l y ) Total Irr h i g h Irr h i g h Irr Low Irr low Barani Forested S e m i - a r i d Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland (5cm 1Ocm 2Ocm 30cm 40cm 50cm 6Ocm 70cm 80cm 90cm 100cm 105+cm Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh o n l y )  Croun damage 3.4 (severe) Amenity value ( t r e e s u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr high Irr h i g h I r r low Irr low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north routt~ rial-th soutl~ /Wighla~d None 0.94 1.15 2.08 3.48 1.22 0.43 3.27 0.22 Roadside 0.06 0.07 0.18 1.26 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 Household 0.09 0.48 0.16 0.63 0.04 0.00 0.08 0.00 Hedges 0.02 0.22 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Graveyards 0.01 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.00 Total/ha 1.13 1.92 2.51 5.39 1.29 0.49 3.40 0.24 H i l l . trees 99.0 17.7 5.0 17.2 5.7 1.4 44.2 6.1 ( t r e e s u i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage amenity value ( t r e e s u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr high Irr high Irr low Irr low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland None 83.0 59.8 82.8 64.6 94.7 87.9 96.2 90.9 Roadside 5.8 3.6 7.0 23.4 1.9 1.O 0.1 8.4 Household 8.2 25 .O 6.3 11.7 3.4 0.8 2.4 0.7 Hedges 2.1 11.6 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Graveyards 0.9 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 10.3 1.3 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (trees u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh)  Table 8-35 Crown damage 3,4 (severe) Species d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r c c s w i t h ond without v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr h i g h Irr h i g h Irr low Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland 1. Phoenix d a c t y l i f e r a 2. N a ~ o r r h o p sr i t c h i e a n a 3. Acecia n i l o t i c e 4. Prosopis sp. 5. Prosopis j u l i f l o r a 6. Capparis aphylla 7. Eugenia jambolana 8. Hangifera i n d i c a 9. L y c i u n barbarun 10. Temarix a r t i c u l a t a 11. C a l o t r o p i s procera 12. Zygophyl lun a r t i p l icoide 13. Prunus sp. 14. Prunus amygdalus 15. Eleegnus a n g u s t i f o l i a 16. Morus sp. 17. "Jugarea 18. Malus domestics 19. "Suzenee 20. Prunus aviun 21. Olea cuspidata 22. Juniperus macropoda 23. Abies pindrou 24. S a l i x babylonice 25. Ailanthus sp. 26. Ficus r e l i g i o s a 27. M e l i a azedarach 28. C i t r u s sp. 29. vOgave8D 30. P i s t a c i a sp. 31. Puercus sp. 32. Juglans r e g i a 33. Alnus n i t i d a 34. Populus n i g r a 35. Pinus gerardiana 36. Cedrus deodara 37. Robinia pseudoacacia 38. Populus x euramericana 39. Ficus p a l m t a 40. Pinus u a l lichiana 41. Oiospyros l o t u s 42. Platanus o r i e n t a l i s 43. Eucalyptus sp. 44. A l b i z z i a procera 45. Dalbergia sissoo 46. Zizyphus sp. 47. Acacia modesta 48. A l b i z z i a lebbek 50. C e l t i s sp. 51. "KhakroIe 52. Azadirachta i n d i c a 53. Tamarix d i o i c a 54. Salvadora oleoides 56. Cordia myxa 57. Mallotus philippinensis 61. Unidentified 62. Bauhinia sp. 65. Pinus halepensis 67. Prunus persica. 70. Frexinus sp. 73. E r i o b o t r y a japonica 74. Sagerotia theezans 75. Cassia f i s t u l a 76. Ricinus c o m n n i s 77. Xanthoxylun a l a t u n 78. Schinus m o l l e 79. Picea smithiana 80. Salfnmlia m l a b a r i c m  81. Terminalia arjuna 85. Vi tex negundo 84. Pyrus 85. Psidiun guava 86. Broussonetio papyrifero 87. Dodonaea viscose 88. wMomjadari~l 91. I1BhuiokraW 95. Pinus roxburghii 94. Populus euphratica 96. I1Jangli JalebiI1 97. Moringa o l e i f e r a 98. Ficus bengalensi s 99. Lyciun barbatun 101. Syzygiun cunini 102. A t r i p l e x sp. 103. Lantana sp. 105. Temrindus indica 106. Cotoneaster baci l l a r i s 107. Rose sp. 108. Berberis Lyciun 109. Indigofera sp. 110. Adhatoda vesica 111. Pongamia glebra 112. Suaeda f r u t i c o s a 114. *Jarahu 115. Cerissa spinarun 116. Avicemia o f f i c i n a l i s Total (trees/ha) M i l l i o n trees (trees with and without v i s i b l e  Table 8-36 Croun damage 3,4 (severe) Species group (trees u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr high Irr high Irr Lou Irr Lou Barani forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland T irnber 0.52 0.49 0.48 0.08 0.09 0,. 25 2.66 0.12 0.05 fruit 0.51 1.37 1.99 3.22 1.19 0.24 0.68 0.12 0.02 Other 0.09 0.07 0.04 2.09 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 Total/ha 1.13 1.92 2.51 5.39 1.29 0.49 3.40 0.24 0.07 99.0 17.7 5.0 17.2 5.7 1.4 44.2 . 6.1 1.B ( t r e e s u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage species group (trees u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr h i g h Irr high Irr l o u Irr lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland T irnber 46.2 25.4 19.2 1.5 7.3 51.8 78.3 50.2 70.1 Fruit 45.6 71.1 79.2 59.7 92.6 48.2 20.0 49.2 29.9 Other 8.2 3.5 1.6 38.8 0.1 0.0 1.7 0.6 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh)  Amenity value 0 (none) Biomass standing stock ond p r o d u c t i v i t y Total l r r h i g h N l r r h i g h S lrrlou N lrrlou S Barani for/High Semi-arid Desert Zone # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Area(kmZ) 877227 91848 19870 m i l t o m e s tonne/ha tome/ha Twigs 24.15 1.07 0.74 Growth 3.58 0.21 0.08 Roundwood 70.82 1.81 2.13 Growth 5.37 0.21 0.15 Timber 54.76 1.73 0.89 Growth 4.12 0.18 0.07 n i l tonnes Total standing 149.73 42.34 7.67 Tot wood growth 13.07 5.48 0.59 Tot f u e l growth 11.01 4.65 0.52 Twigs f u e l grow 3.58 1.88 0.15 Round f u e l grow 7.43 2.77 0.37 Biomass standing stock and p r o d u c t i v i t y m i l l i o n tomes Punjab Sindh NUf P Baluch Total Twigs 13.28 2.33 4.66 0.55 24.15 Growth 2.42 0.27 0.54 0.06 3.58 Rwduood 25.75 8.77 18.35 2.20 70.82 Growth 2.71 0.67 1.04 0.17 5.37 Timber 21.55 5.41 13.84 1.96 54.76 Growth 2.30 0.42 0.74 0.12 4.12 Totalstanding 60.58 16.51 36.85 Tot wood growth 7.44 1.35 2.32 Tot f u e l growth 6.29 1.15 1.94 Twigs f u e l grow 2.42 0.27 0.54 Roundfuelgrow 3.86 0.88 1.41  Toble 8-38 Amenity value 0 (none) Diameter d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high Irr high I r r low I r r low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland <5cm 10cm ZOcm 30cm 40cm 50cm 60cm 70cm 80cm 9Ocm 100cm 105+cm Total/ha 10.85 27.89 9.97 30.72 7.56 9.59 33.16 3.31 0.09 H i l l . tree 951.7 256.1 19.8 97.9 33.7 26.7 430.9 84.1 2.4 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage diameter d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total I r r high Irr h i g h Irr low t r r low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland ~5cm 1Ocm ZOcm 30cm 40cm 50cm 6Ocm 70cm 80cm 9Ocm 100cm 105+cm Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only)  Table 8-39 Amenity value 0 (none) Crom condition (trees u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total lrr high Irr high Irr Lou Irr Lou Barrni Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland OXremoved 6.72 15.72 5.93 15.55 25% removed 1.89 6.61 0.88 6.70 50% removed 1.31 4.40 1.08 4.98 15%removed 0.57 0.47 0.58 2.92 A l l removed 0.36 0.68 1.49 0.56 Total/ha 10.85 27.89 9.97 30.72 7.56 M i l l . trees 951.7 256.1 19.8 97.9 33.7 (trees u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage croun condition (trees u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high Irr high Irr Lou Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland O X removed 61.9 56.4 59.5 50.6 62.9 25Xremoved 17.4 23.7 8.8 21.8 13.8 50% removed 12.1 15.8 10.9 16.2 7.2 15%removed 5 -3 1.7 5.8 9.5 8.5 A l l removed 3.4 2.4 15.0 1.8 7.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (trees with v i s i b l e dbh only)  Table 8-40 A~~fnit value y 0 (none) Species d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr high Irr h i g h Irr Lou Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south I'Highland 1. Phoenix d a c t y l i f e r a 2. Namorrhops r i t c h i e a n a 3. Acacia n i l o t i c a 4. Prosopis sp. 5. Prosopis j u l i f l o r a 6. Capparis a p h y l l a 7. Eugenia jembolam 8. Mangifera i n d i c e 9. L y c i u n barbarun 10. Tamarix a r t i c u l a t a 11. C e l o t r o p i s procera 12. Zygophyllun a r t i p l i c o i d c 13. P r m u s sp. 14. Prunus amygdalus 15. Elaegnus a n g u s t i f o l i a 16. Morus sp. 17. nJugar81 18. Malus domestics 19. 'lSuzenu 20. Prunus aviun 21. Olee cuspidata 22. Juniperus macropoda 23. Abies pindrou 24. S a l i x babylonica 25. Ailanthus sp. 26. Ficus r e l i g i o s a 27. Me1 i a azedarach 28. C i t r u s sp. 29. "Oga~e~~ 30. P i s t a c i a sp. 31. Ouercus sp. 32. Juglans r e g i a 33. Alnus n i t i d a 34. Populus n i g r a 35. Pinus gerardiana 36. Cedrus deodara 37. Robinia pseudoacacia 38. Populus x euramericana 39. Ficus palmata 40. Pinus u a l l i c h i a n a 41. Oiospyros l o t u s 42. Platenus o r i e n t a l i s 43. Eucalyptus sp. 44. A l b i z z i e procera 45. Oalbergia sissoo 46. Zizyphus sp. 47. Acacia modesta 48. A l b i z z i a lebbek 50. C e l t i s sp. 51. "Khakro" 52. Azadirachte i n d i c e 53. Temerix d i o i c a 54. Selvadora oleoides 56. Cordie myxa 57. Mellotus philippinensis 61. Unidentified 62. Bauhinia sp. 65. Pinus halepensis - 67. Prunus persica. 70. Fraxinus sp. 73. E r i o b o t r y a japonica 74. Sagerotia theezans 75. Cassia f i s t u l a 76. Ricinus c m i s 77. Xanthoxylun a l a t u n 78. Schinus m l l e 79. Picea s m i t h i a m 80. Salmalia malabaricun  81. Terminalia arjuna 83. V i tex negundo 84. Pyrus 85; Psidiun guava 86. Broussonetia papyrifera 87. Dodonaea v i scosa 88. g8Momjadari81 91. UBh~iokraH 93. Pinus roxburghii 94. Populus euphratica 96. nJangli Jalebio1 97. Moringa o l e i f e r a 98. Ficus k n g a l e n s i s 99. Lyciun barbatun 101. Syzygiun cunini 102. A t r i p l e x sp. 103. Lantana sp. 105. T m r i n d u s indica 106. Cotoneaster baci l l a r i s 107. Rosa sp. 108. B e r k r i s lyciun 109. Indigofera sp. 110. Adhatoda vesica 111. Pongamia glabra 112. Suaeda f r u t icosa 114. aJaraht8 115. Carissa spinarun 116. Avicernia o f f i c i n a l i s Total (trees/ha) 12.93 M i l l i o n trees 1134.6 (trees w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh)  Table 8-41 Amenity value 0 (none) Species group ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr h i g h Irr high Irr Lou Irr low Bara'ni Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highlend T inkr 5.85 6.00 0.84 1.27 1.75 17.58 29.45 ' 0.33 Fruit 5.25 18.37 7.89 29.30 5.24 2.26 6.68 2.57 Other 1.83 11.24 2.80 3.15 1.04 0.00 2.07 0.40 Total/ha 12.93 35.62 11.53 33.72 8.03 19.85 38.20 3.31 1134.6 327.1 22.9 107.4 35.8 55.3 496.5 84.1 ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage species group (trees w i t h end without v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr high Irr high Irr low Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland T inkr 45.2 16.9 7.3 3.8 21.8 88.6 77.1 10.0 Fruit 40.6 51.6 68.4 86.9 65.3 11.4 17.5 77.7 Other 14.2 31.6 24.3 9.3 12.9 0.0 5.4 12.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh)  Table 8-42 Amenity value 1 (roadside) Bianass standing stock and p r o d u c t i v i t y Total l r r h i g h N l r r h i g h S lrrlow N l rrlow S Barani For/High Semi-arid Desert Zone # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Area(km2) 877227 91848 m i l t o m e s tonne/ha Twigs 1.41 0.06 Grouth 0.11 0.01 Rounduood 6.05 0.17 Growth 0.26 0.01 T imkr 9.12 0.24 Growth 0.28 0.01 mi l t o m e s Total standing 16.57 4.29 1.15 Tot uood growth . 0% 1 0.24 0.02 Tot f u e l growth 0.50 0.19 0.02 Tuigs f u e l grow 0.11 0.05 0.00 Round f u e l grow 0.40 0.14 0.01 Bianess standing stock and productiv m i l l i o n tomes Punjab Sindh NUFP Baluch NA+AJK Total Tuigs 1 .OO 0.07 0.19 0.04 0.10 1.41 Grouth 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.11 Roundwood 3.64 0.47 1.03 0.21 0.69 6.05 Growth 0.16 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.26 T imkr 5.80 0.91 0.31 0.79 9.12 Growth 0.22 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.28 Total standing 1.59 16.57 Tot uood growth 0.04 0.64 Tot f u e l growth 0.04 0.50 Twigs f u e l grow 0.01 0.11 Round f u e l grow 0.03 0.40  Table 8-43 Amenity value 1 (roadside) Diameter d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high Irr h i g h Irr low Irr low Barani Forested Semi-arid Oesert Pakistan north south north south /Highland 4cm 1Ocln 2Ocm 30cm 4Ocm 5Ocm 60cm 70cm 80cm 9Ocm 1oocln 105+cm Total/ha 0.82 1.73 0.55 4.30 0.04 0.15 1.66 0.77 M i l l . tree 72.3 15.8 1.1 13.7 0.2 0:4 21.6 19.5 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage diameter d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr h i g h Irr h i g h Irr l o u Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Oesert Pakistan north south north south /Highland e5cm 1Ocm 2Ocm 30cm 40cm SOcm 60cm 70cm 80cm 9Ocm 100cm 105+cm Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh o n l y )  Table 8-44 Amenity value 1 (roadside) Crown c o n d i t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) TotaL Irr high Irr high Irr Lou lrr low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland 0% removed 0.35 0.30 0.25 1.31 0.00 0.08 0.39 0.70 0.00 ' 25% removed 0.25 1.22 0.07 0.43 0.01 0.06 0.60 0.04 0.00 50% removed 0.16 0.13 0.05 1.31 0.00 0.01 0.67 0.01 0.00 75% removed 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ALL removed - 0.05 0.03 0.08 1.16 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 TotaL/ha 0.82 1.73 0.55 4.30 0.04 0.15 1.66 0.77 0.00 M i l l . trees 72.3 15.9 1.1 13.7 0.2 0.4 21.6 19.5 0.0 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage crown c o n d i t i o n (trees w i t h v i s i b l e dbh o n l y ) Total Irr h i g h Irr h i g h Irr Low Irr low Berani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland OXremoved 42.2 17.5 45.8 30.4 4.1 52.7 23.4 91.4 0.0 25% removed 30.0 70.8 13.3 9.9 31.6 37.5 36.1 5.0 0.0 50% removed 19.9 7.6 8.8 30.3 3.4 6.6 40.2 1.O 0.0 75% removed 1.5 2.6 18.4 2.3 30.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 ALL removed 6.4 1.5 13.8 27.0 30.9 3.2 0.0 2.4 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only)  Table 6 - 4 5 Amenity value 1 (roadside) Species d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s u i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr h i g h Irr h i g h I r r Lou I r r Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Pakistan north south north, south /Highland 31863 44609 1. Phoenix d a c t y l i f e r a 0.00 0.00 2. Namorrhops r i t c h i e a n a 3. Acacia n i l o t i c a 4. Prosopis sp. 5. Prosopis j u l i f l o r a 6. Capparis a p h y l l a 7. Eugenia janbolana 8. Hangifera i n d i c a 9. Lyciun barbarun 10. Tamarix a r t i c u l a t e 11. Calotropis procera 12. Zygophyllun a r t i p l i c o i d e s 13. P r m u s sp. 14. P r w s amygdalus 15. Elaegnus a n g u s t i f o l i a 16. Norus sp. 17. o@Jugar" 18. nalus domestics 19. o*Suzenw 20. Prunus a v i u n 21. Olea cuspidata 22. J t n i p e r u s macropoda 23. Abies pindrou 24. S a l i x babylonica 25. Ailanthus sp. 26. Ficus r e l i g i o s a 27. H e l i a azedarach 28. C i t r u s sp. 29. wOgavelo 30. P i s t a c i a sp. 31. Ouercus sp. 32. Juglans r e g i a 33. Alnus n i t i d a 34. Populus n i g r a 35. Pinus gerardiana 36. Cedrus deodara 37. Robinia pseudoacacia 38. Populus x euramericana 39. Ficus palmate 40. Pinus u a l l i c h i a n a 41. Diospyros l o t u s 42. Platanus o r i e n t a l i s 43. Eucalyptus sp. 44. A l b i z z i a procera 45. Dalbergia sissoo 46. Zizyphus sp. 47. Acacia modesta 48. A l b i z z i a lebbek 50. C e l t i s sp. 51. "KhakroU 52. Azadirachta i n d i c a 53. Tamarix d i o i c e 54. Salvadora oleoides 56. Cordia myxa 57. Mallotus philippinensis 61. Unidentified 62. Bauhinie sp. 65. Pinus halepensis 67. Prunus persica. __I 70. Fraxinus sp. 73. E r i o b o t r y a japonica 74. Sagerotia theezans 75. Cassia f i s t u l a 76. Ricinus camnunis 77. Xanthoxylun a l a t u n 78. Schinus m o l l e 79. Picea s f n i t h i a m 80. Salmalia malabaricun  81. Terminalia arjuna 83. Vi tex negundo 84. Pyrus 85. P s i d i u n guava 86. Broussonetia p a p y r i f e r a 87. Dodonaea viscosa 88. olMm j adar f 91. llBhuiokrall 93. Pinus r o x k r r g h i i 94. Populus euphratica 96. *Jangl i Jalebi" 97. Moringa o l e l f e r a 98. Flcus bengalensis 99. Lyciun barbatun 101. Syzygiun c u n i n i 102. A t r i p l e x sp. 103. Lantana sp. 105. Tamarindus i n d i c a 106. Cotoneaster baci 1l a r i s 107. Rosa sp. 108. Berberis l y c i u n 109. I n d i g o f e r a sp. 110. Adhatoda vesica 111. Pongamia glabra 112. Suaeda f r u t i c o s a 114. *Jarahol 115. Carissa spinarun 116. Avicemia o f f i c i n a l i s Total (trees/ha) 0.82 1.73 M i l l i o n trees 72.3 15.8 ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh)  Table 8-46 Anlenity veluc 1 (roadside) Species group ( t r e e s u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr h,igh Irr high Irr l o u I r r Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland Area(km2) 877227 91845 19872 31863 44609 27878 129967 253832 252342 Tinkr 0.39 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 1.21 0.70 0.00 Fruit 0.39 1 -641 0.54 4.30 0.04 0.11 0.16 0.07 0.00 Other 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 Total/ha 0.82 1.73 0.55 4.30 0.04 0.15 1.66 0.n 0.00 72.3 15.8 1.1 13.7 0.2 0.4 21 -6 19.5 0.0 ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage species group (trees u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) Total I r r high Irr high I r r Lou Irr Lou Bareni Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland 7 inkr 47.4 5.0 0.4 0.1 6.6 26.7 72.6 90.7 0.0 Fruit 47.2 94.8 98.6 99.9 93.4 73.3 9.9 8.9 0.0 Other 5.4 0.2 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 17.5 0.3 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 ( t r e e s u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) .  Table 8-47 Antenity value 2 (household) Biunass standing stock and p r o d u c t i v i t y Total l r r h i g h N l r r h i g h S Irrlow N lrrlow S Barani For/High Semi-arid Desert Zone # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Area( km2) 877227 mi l tomes Twigs 3.61 Growth 0.29 Rounduood 15.08 Growth 1.59 T inrkr 6.69 Growth 0.45 m i l tomes Total standing 25.38 . 6.05 2.08 4.60 0.34 0.01 3.38 3.73 5.18 Tot wood growth 2.33 0.45 0.12 0.85 0.02 0.00 0.15 . 0.33 0.40 Tot f u e l g r o w t h 2.11 0.37 0.12 0.80 0.02 0.00 0.12 0.28 0.40 Twigs f u e l grow 0.29 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.09 Round f u e l grow 1.82 0.31 0.09 0.74 0.02 0.00 0.10 0.25 0.31 Biunass standing stock and p r o d u c t i v i t y m i l l i o n tomes Punjab Sindh NUFP Baluch NA+AJK Total Twigs 1.30 0.64 0.28 1.24 0.14 3.61 Growth 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.09 0.01 0.29 Roundwood 6.19 2.31 1.34 4.58 0.65 15.08 Growth 0.91 0.16 0.13 0.36 0.03 1.59 T inkr 3.64 0.66 1.OB 0.58 0.72 6.69 Growth 0.26 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.45 Total standing 11.14 3.62 2.71 6.40 1.51 25.37 Tot wood grouth 1.30 0.25 0.20 0.52 0.07 2.33 Tot f u e l growth 1.17 0.23 0.17 0.49 0.05 2.11 Twigs f u e l grow 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.09 0.01 0.29 Round f u e l grow 1.04 0.18 0.16 0.40 0.05 1.82  Table 8-48 ty A ~ ~ r n i vnluc 2 (household) Diemeter d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total I r r high Irr high I r r low I r r low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland Total/ha 1.75 2.42 1.11 23.85 0.22 0.02 1.27 1.23 Mill. tree 153.7 22.2 2.2 76.0 1 .O 0.0 16.5 31.3 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage diameter d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high Irr high Irr low Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland <5cm 1Ocm 2Ocm 30cm 40cm 50cm 60cm 70cm 80cm 9Ocm 100cm 105+cm Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh onty)  Table 8-49 A r n i t y value 2 (household) Crown c o n d i t i o n ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high Irr high Irr tow Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland 0% removed 1.49 0.92 0.88 22.93 0.14 0.00 0.89 1.21 25% removed 0.09 0.38 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.28 0.01 50% removed 0.08 0.64 0.04 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 75% removed 0.07 0.43 0.03 ' 0.49 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 Allremoved 0.03 0.05 0.13 0.15 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.00 Total/ha 1-75 2.42 1.11 23.85 0.22 0.02 1.27 1.23 H i l l . trees 153.7 22.2 2.2 76.0 1.0 0.0 16.5 31.3 (trees w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage crown c o n d i t i o n ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high Irr high Irr low Irr low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland OX removed 85.0 37.9 79.5 96.1 64.7 25.9 70.2 98.2 25% removed 5.2 15.9 2.9 0.2 15.6 48.1 21.9 1.2 50% removed 4.6 26.4 3.3 1.O 0.2 0.0 1.3 0.5 75% removed 3.8 17.7 3.0 2.0 3.2 26.0 1.6 0.1 At 1 removed 1.4 2.1 11.3 0.6 16.3 0.0 4.9 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (trees w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only)  Table 8 - 5 0 Amenity value 2 (household) Species d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s u i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr h i g h Irr h i g h Irr Lou I r r Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Pakistan north south north south /Highland 1. Phoenix d a c t y l i f e r a 2. Namorrhops r i t c h i e a n a 3. Acacia n i l o t i c e 4. Prosopis sp. 5. Prosopis j u l i f l o r a 6. Capparis a p h y l l a 7. Eugenia jambolana 8. Mangifera indica 9. L y c i u n barbarun 10. Temarix a r t i c u l a t a 11. C a l o t r o p i s procera 12. Zygophyllun a r t i p l i c o i d e s 13. Prunus sp. 14. Prunus emygdalus 15. ELaegnus e n g u s t i f o l i a 16. Morus sp. 17. baJugaraa 18. Malus domestics 19. "Suzenbt 20. Prunus aviun 21. Olea cuspidata 22. Juniperus macropoda 23. Abies pindrou 24. S e l i x babylonica 25. Ailanthus sp. 26. Ficus r e l i g i o s a 27. Melia azedarach 28. C i t r u s sp. 29. aaOgaveu 30. P i s t a c i a sp. 31. Quercus sp. 32. Juglans r e g i a 33. Ainus n i t i d a 34. Populus n i g r a 35. Pinus gerardiana 36. Cedrus deodara 37. Robinia pseudoacacia 38. Populus x euramericana 39. Ficus palmate 40. Pinus u a l l i c h i a n a 41. Oiospyros l o t u s 42. Platanus o r i e n t a l i s 43. Eucalyptus sp. 44. A l b i z z i a procera 45. Oalbergia sissoo 46. Zizyphus sp. 47. Acacia modesta 48. A l b i z z i a lebbek 50. C e l t i s sp. 51. IaKhakrou 52. Azadirachta i n d i c a 53. Tamarix d i o i c a 54. Salvadora oleoides 56. Cordie myxa 57. Mallotus p h i l i p p i n e n s i s 61. Unidentified 62. Bauhinia sp. 65. Pinus helepensis -- 67. Prunus persica. 70. Fraxinus sp. 73. E r i o b o t r y a japonica 74. Sagerotia theezans 75. Cassia f i s t u l a 76. Rlcinus c a m u n i s 77. Xanthoxylun a l a t u n 78. Schinus m l l e 79. Picea smithiane 80. Salmelia m l a b a r i c u n  81. Terminalia arjuna 83. Vi tex negundo 84. Pyrus 85. P s i d i u n guava 86. Broussonet i a papyrifera 87. Dodonaea viscosa 88. alMmjadari~~ 91. *lBhuiokrall 93. Pinus roxburghi i 94. Populus euphratica 96. goJangl i Jalebial 97. Moringa o l e i f e r a 98. Ficus bengalensis W. Lyciun barbatun 101. Syzygiun cunini 102. A t r i p l e x sp. 103. Lantana sp. 105. Tammindus indica 106. Cotoneaster baci ll a r i s 107. Rosa sp. 108. Berberis l y c i u n 109. lndigofera sp. 110. Adhatoda vesica 111. Pongamia glabra 112. Suaeda f rut icosa 114. wJarahal 115. Carissa spinarun 116. Avicennia o f f i c i n a l i s Total (trees/ha) 1.75 M i l l i o n trees 153.7 ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh)  Table 0-51 Amenity value 2 (household) Species group ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Total I r r high I r r high Irr Lou Irr Low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland T ilnber 0.86 0.63 0.15 11.80 0.07 0.00 0.76 0.83 0.00 Fruit 0.70 1.65 0.33 11.33 0.13 0.02 0.37 0.16 0.01 Other 0.19 0.14 0.62 0.72 0.02 0.00 0.14 0.23 0.17 Total/ha 1.75 2.42 1.11 23.85 0.22 0.02 1.27 1.23 0.18 153.7 22.2 2.2 76.0 1.O 0.0 16.5 31.3 4.5 ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage species group ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr high I r r high Irr IOU I r r IOUBarani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland Tilnber 48.8 26.1 Fruit 40.2 68.2 Other 11.0 5.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh  Table 8-52 Amenity value 3 (hedges) Bionvlss atonding stock and p r o d u c t i v i t y Total l r r h i g h N l r r h i g h S lrrlou N lrrlou S Bareni For/High Semi-arid Desert Zone # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Area( k d ) 877227 mi l t o m e s Twigs 0.71 Growth 0.07 Rwnduood 2.09 Growth 0.25 Timber 2.59 Growth 0.30 mi l tomes Total standing 5.39 5.10 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 Tot wood growth 0.61 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 Tot f u e l growth 0.46 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 Tuigs f u e l grow 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 R o d f u e l grow 0.40 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 Biomass standing stock and p r o d u c t i v i t y m i l l i o n tomes Punjab Sindh NUFP Baluch NA+AJK Total Twigs 0.66 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.71 Growth 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 Rodwood 1.83 0.01 0.20 0.00 0.06 2.09 Growth 0.19 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.25 Timber 2.33 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.03 2.59 Growth 0.26 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.30 Total standing 4.82 0.01 0.47 0.00 0.09 5.39 Tot wood growth 0.51 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.61 Tot f u e l growth 0.38 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.46 Twigs f u e l grow 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 Round f u e l grow 0.32 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.40  Amenity value 3 (hedges) Diemeter d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high Irr high Irr Lou Irr low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland Total/ha 0.53 3.05 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 1.38 0.00 M i l l . tree 46.1 28.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 17.9 0.0 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage diameter d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high I r r high I r r Lou Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Pakistan north south north south /Highland <5cm 1Ocm ZOcm 30cm 40cm 50cm 60cm 70cm 80cm 9Ocm 1OOcm 105+cm Total 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only)  Table 8-54 Amenity value 3 (hedges) Crown c o n d i t i o n ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high I r r high Irr Lou Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pokiston north south north south /Highland OX rcrnoved 0.38 '1 -65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.38 0.00 0.00 25% r w v e d 0.05 0.44 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50% r w v e d 0.08 0.74 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 75% removed 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Allrmoved 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total/ha 0.53 3.05 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 1.38 0.00 0.00 M i l l . trees 46.2 28.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 17.9 0.0 0.0 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage crown c o n d i t i o n (trees u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high Irr high Irr l w Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Oesert Pakistan north south north south /Highland 0% r w v e d 71 .7 54.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 25% rcrnoved 8.9 14.3 0.0 59.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50% rmoved 14.8 24.3 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75% r w v e d 4.1 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 A1 1 removed 0.4 0.6 0.0 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only)  Table Amenity value! 3 (hedges) Species d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr h i g h Irr h i g h Irr Lou I r r Lou Berani Forested Semi-arid Pakistan north south north south /Highlend 1. Phoenix d a c t y l i f e r a 2. Nemorrhops r i t c h i e a n a 3. Acacia n i l o t i c a 4. Prosopis sp. 5. Prosopis j u l i f l o r a 6. Capparis a p h y l l a 7. Eugenia jambolana 8. Mangifera i n d i c a 9. L y c i u n barbarun 10. Tmarix erticulata 11. C e l o t r o p i s procera 12. Zygophyllun a r t i p l i c o i d e s 13. Prunus sp. 14. P r w s emygdalus 15. Eleegnus e n g u s t i f o l i e 16. Morus sp. 17. @'Jugar8@ 18. Malus domestica 19. @'Suzen@@ 20. P r w s eviun 21. Olee cuspidata 22. Juniperus macropoda 23. Abies pindrou 24. S a l i x babylonica 25. Ailanthus sp. 26. Ficus r e l i g i o s a 27. M e l i a azedarech 28. C i t r u s sp. 29. @@OgeveB@ 30. P i s t a c i a sp. 31. Ouercus sp. 32. Juglans r e g i a 33. Alnus n i t i d a 34. Populus n i g r a 35. Pinus gerardiana 36. Cedrus deodara 37. Robinia pseudoacacia 38. Populus x euramericana 39. Ficus palmate 40. Pinus w a l l i c h i a n a 41. Oiospyros l o t u s 42. Platanus o r i e n t a l i s 43. Eucalyptus sp. 44. A l b i z z i a procera 45. Delbergia sissoo 46. Zizyphus sp. 47. Acacia modesta 48. A l b i z z i a lebbek 50. C e l t i s sp. 51. @@Khakrou 52. Azadirachta i n d i c a 53. Tamarix d i o i c a 54. Selvadora oleoides 56. Cordia myxa 57. Mellotus "Milippinensis 61. Unidentified 62. Bauhinia sp. 65. Pinus halepensis 67. Prunus persice. 70. Frexinus sp. 73. E r i o b o t r y a japonica 74. Segerotie theezans 75. Cassia f i s t u l a 76. Ricinus camunis 77. Xenthoxylun e l e t u n 78. Schinus m o l l e 79. Picee smithiena 80. S e l n e l i e melebaricun  81. Terminalia arjuna 83. Vi tex negundo 86. Pyrus 85. P s i d i u n guava 86. Broussonetia p e p y r i f e r e 87. Oodonaee viscose 88. l*Mmj adar i11 91. "BhuiokraU 93. Pinus roxburgh i i 94. Populus euphratica 96. "Jangl i JalebiI1 97. Moringa o l e i f e r a 98. Ficus bengalensis 99. Lyciun barbatun 101. Syzygiun cunini 102. A t r i p l e x sp. 103. Lantana sp. 105. Tamrindus i n d i c a 106. Cotoneaster baci l l a r i s 107. Rosa sp. 108. Berberis l y c i u n 109. Indigofere sp. 110. Adhatoda vesica 111. Pongamia glabra 112. Suaeda f r u t i c o s a 114. mlJarehoo 115. Carissa spinarun 116. Avice~ia officinalis Total (trees/ha) 0.53 M i l l i o n trees 46.2 ( t r e e s w i t h end without v i s i b l e dbh)  Table 0-56 Amenity value 3 (hedges) Species group ( t r e e s u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr high I r r high Irr tou Irr tou Berani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Hightend Timber 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 Fruit 0.50 3.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 1.23 0.00 0.00 Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.OO Total/ha 0.53 3.05 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 1.38 0.00 0.00 46.2 28.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 17.9 0.0 0.0 ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage species group (trees u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) Total I r r high Irr high Irr low Irr low Bareni Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland Timber 4.4 0.1 0.0 26.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 Fruit 95.6 99.9 0.0 74.0 0.0 0.0 89.0 0.0 0.0 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Totat 100.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 ( t r e e s u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh)  Table 8-57 Amenity value 4 (graveyards) B i a M s s standing stock and p r o d u c t i v i t y Total l r r h i g h N l r r h i g h S lrrlou N lrrlou S Barani For/High Semi-arid Desert Zone AI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Area(km2) 877227 mi l t o m e s Twigs 0.31 Growth 0.00 Rovduod 2.38 Growth 0.00 Tinber 0.05 Growth 0.00 ni 1 t o m c s T o t a l standing 2.74 0.14 0.12 0.00 0.02 0.14 2.32 0.00 0.00 Tot wood growth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tot f u e l growth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Twigs f u e l grow 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 R o u d f u e l grow 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bia~ss standing stock and p r o d u c t i v i t y m i l l i o n tomcs Pmjab Sindh NW FP Baluch NA+AJK Total Twigs 0.03 0.02 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.31 Growth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Roudwod 0.32 0.19 0.95 0.01 0.91 2.38 Growth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 T inber 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 Growth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total standing 0.37 0.23 1.08 0.01 1.04 2.74 Tot wood growth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tot f u e l growth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tuigs f u e l grow 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 R o d f u e l grow 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00  Table 8-50 Anrnity voluc 4 (grovcyords) Diameter d i s t r i b u t i o n (trees u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high Irr high Irr low Irr low Barani forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland 4cm 1Om 20m 30m 40cm SOcm 60cm 70cm 80cm 9Ocm 1OO cm 105+cm Total/hs 0.12 0.06 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.74 0.00 H i l l . tree 10.8 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 9.6 0.0 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage diameter d i s t r i b u t i o n (trees u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total I r r high Irr h i g h Irr Low Irr Lou Barani forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland ~5cm lOcm 2Ocm 30cm 40cm SOcm 6Ocm 70cm 80cm 90cm lOOcm 105+cm Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 (trees u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only)  Table 8-59 Amenity value 4 (graveyards) Croun condition (trees u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high Irr high Irr low Irr lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland OX removed 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 25% removed 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.35 0.00 0.00 50% removed 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 75% removed 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 Allremoved 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.00 Total/ha 0.12 0.06 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.73 0.00 0.00 Mill. trees 10.8 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 9.6 0.0 0.0 (trees with v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage croun condition (trees with v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high Irr high Irr l o u Irr lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland O X removed 45.1 97.6 14.7 0.0 50.3 3.1 44.8 0.0 0.0 25% removed 43.3 0.7 0.8 0.0 20.4 38.7 47.1 0.0 0.0 SO X removed 3.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 19.0 26.6 2.3 0.0 0.0 75% removed 2.9 0.6 79.8 0.0 10.2 14.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 A l l removed 5.4 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 16.7 5.2 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 (trees w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only)  Tabl Amenity value! 4 (graveyards) Species d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Total lrr high Irr h i g h Irr Low lrr low f o r e s t e d Semi-arid Pakistan north south north south !Highland 1. Phoenix d a c t y l i f e r a 2. Namorrhops r i t c h i e a n a 3. Acacia n i l o t i c a 4. Prosopis sp. 5. Prosopis j u l i f l o r a 6. Capperis a p h y l l a 7. Eugenia jembolana 8. Hangifera i n d i c a 9. Lyciun berbarun 10. Tamerix a r t i c u l a t a 11. C a l o t r o p i s procera 12. Zygophyl tun a r t i p l i c o i d e s 13. Prunus sp; 14. Prunus amygdalus 15. Elaegnus a n g u s t i f o l i a 16. norus sp. 17. "JugarW 18. nalus domestice 19. uSuzenoa 20. Prunus a v i u n 21. Olea cuspidate 22. J m i p e r u s macropode 23. Abies pindrow 24. S a l i x babylonice 25. Ailanthus sp. 26. Ficus r e l i g i o s e 27. Welie azedarach 28. C i t r u s sp. 29. olOgaveM 30. P i s t a c i a sp. 31. Ouercus sp. 32. Juglans r e g i a 33. Alnus n i t i d a 34. Populus n i g r a 35. Pinus gerardiana 36. Cedrus deodara 37. Robinia pseudoacacia 38. Populus x euramericana 39. Ficus palmata 40. Pinus wallichiana 41. Diospyros l o t u s 42. Platanus o r i e n t a l i s 43. Eucalyptus sp. 44. A l b i z z i a procera 45. Dalbergia sissoo 46. Zizyphus sp. 47. Acacia modesta 48. A l b i z z i a lebbek 50. C e l t i s sp. 51. "Khakroa1 52. Azadirachta i n d i c a 53. Temerix d i o i c a 54. Salvadora oleoides 56. Cordia myxa 57. nallotus philippinensis 61. Unidentified 62. Bauhinia sp. 65. Pinus halepensis - 67. P r w s persica. 70. Fraxinus sp. 73. E r i o b o t r y a japonica 74. Sagerotis theezans 75. Cassia f i s t u l a 76. Ricinus c a m u r i s 77. Xanthoxylun a l a t u n 78. Schinus molle 79. Picea smithiana 80. Salmelia melabaricun  81. Terminalia arjuna 83. Vitex negundo 84. Pyrus 85. Psidiun guava 86. Broussonetio pnpyrlfcro 87. Dodonaea viscose 88. UMomjadari" 91. nnBhuiokra#l 93. Pinus roxburghii 94. Populus euphratica 96. UJangli Jalebiw 97. Moringa o l e i f e r a 98. Ficus bengalmsis 99. Lyciun barbatun 101. Syzygiun cunini 102. A t r i p l e x sp. 103. Lantana sp. 105. Tmarindus indica 106. Cotoneaster b a c i l l a r i s 107. Rosa sp. 108. Berberis l y c i u n 109. lndigofera sp. 110. Adhatoda vesica 111. Pongemia glabra 112. Suaeda fruticosa 114. UJarahu 115. Carissa spinarun 116. Avice~ia off icinalis Total (trees/ha) 0.12 M i l l i o n trees 10.8 (trees with and without v i s i b l e dbh)  Table 8-61 Amenity value 4 (graveyards) Species group ( t r e e s u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr h i g h Irr high Irr low Irr low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland T irnber 0.08 0.03 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.51 0.00 0.00 Fruit 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.23 0.00 0.00 Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total/ha 0.12 0.06 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.73 0.00 0.00 10.8 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 9.6 0.0 0.0 ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage species group ( t r e e s u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr h i g h Irr high Irr Lou Irr low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland Timber 68.4 50.3 96.4 0.0 78.6 59.9 69.2 0.0 0.0 Fruit 31.4 49.7 3.6 0.0 21.4 40.1 30.6 0.0 0.0 Other 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh)  Table 8-62 Species group 0 (other) standing stock ond p r o d u c t i v i t y Bia~ss Total l r r h i g h N l r r h i g h S lrrlow N lrrlow S For/High Semi-arid Desert Zone # 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 Area(kn2) 877227 129966 253832 mi 1 t onnes t onne/ha to m / h a Twigs 6.22 0.37 0.01 Growth 0.46 0.02 0.00 Roundwood 37.87 2.29 0.05 Growth 2.57 0.11 0.00 Tinber 24.19 1. 51 0.06 Growth 1.31 0.07 0.00 mi 1 tomes Total standing 68.27 5.12 0.n Tot wood growth 4.35 0.71 0.03 Tot f u e l growth 3.69 0.59 0.02 Twigs fuel grow 0.46 0.10 0.00 R o v d fuel grow 3.23 0.49 0.02 Blonrass standing stock and p r o d u c t i v i t y m i l l i o n tomes Punjab Sindh NU FP Baluch Total Twigs 1.19 0.39 2.34 0.10 6.22 Growth 0.13 0.05 0.14 0.01 0.46 Roundwood Growth T inber 6.80 0.96 3.86 - 2.64 0.19 1.58 14.15 0.73 9.08 0.93 0.08 0.86 37.87 2.57 24.19 Growth 0.34 0.08 0.43 0.07 1.31 Total standing 11.85 4.62 25.58 1.89 68.27 Tot wood growth 1.43 0.32 1.30 0.15 4.35 Totfuelgrowth 1.26 0.28 1.09 0.12 3.69 Twigs f u e l grow 0.13 0.05 0.14 0.01 0.46 Round f u e l grow 1.13 0.23 0.94 0.11 3.23  Table 8-63 Species group 0 (other) Diameter d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high Irr high Irr low Irr low Barani Forcstcd S m i - a r i d Dcscrt Pakistan north south north south /High land <5cm 1o m 2Ocm 30cm 4Ocm 50cm 60cm 70cm 80cm 90cm 1OOcm 105+un Total/ha 6.23 6.75 1.10 12.75 1.82 7.46 28.03 1.86 0.05 W i l l . tree 546.7 62.0 2.2 40.6 8.1 20.8 364.2 47.3 1.4 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage diameter d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr h i g h Irr h i g h Irr low Irr low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland <5cm 1Ocm 2Ocm 30cm 40cm 50cm 60cm 70cm 8Ocm 9Ocm 1OOcm 105+cm Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only)  Table 8-64 Species group 0 (other) Crown condition (trees u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high Irr high Irr low Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland OX removed 4.20 4.13 0.41 12.50 1-00 3.79 17.54 1.63 25% removed 0.91 1.03 0.12 0.11 0.66 1.55 4.67 0.07 50Xrmoved 0.60 0.50 0.09 0.06 0.06 1.86 3.15 0.04 75% removed 0.28 0.13 0.12 0.00 0.09 0.09 1.65 0.03 Allremoved 0.24 0.36 0.36 0.08 0.00 0.16 1.02 0.09 Total/ha 6.23 . 6.75 1.10 12.75 1.82 7.46 28.03 1.86 Mill. trees 546.7 62.0 2.2 40.6 8.1 20.8 364.2 47.3 ( t r e e s with v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage crown condition (trees u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high Irr high Irr Lou I r r Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland OX removed 67.4 70.1 37.1 98.0 55.1 25Xremoved 14.6 15.3 10.8 0.8 36.3 50% removed 9.6 7.4 8.4 0.5 3.5 75% removed 4.4 1.9 11.0 0.0 4.9 A11 removed 3.9 5.3 32.7 0.6 0.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (trees u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only)  Species group 0 (other) h n l t y value ( t r e e s u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dM1) Total Irr high Irr h i g h Irr lou Irr l o u Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland None 4.89 6.00 0.84 0.93 1.75 7.38 25.47 0.33 Roads ide 0.39 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 1.21 0.70 Household 0.86 0.63 0.15 11.80 0.07 0.00 0.76 0.83 Hedges 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 Graveyards 0.08 0.03 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.51 0.00 Total/ha 6.24 6.75 1.10 12.75 1.82 7.51 28.10 1.86 M i l l . trees 547.8 62.0 2.2 40.6 8.1 20.9 365.2 47.3 ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage amenity value ( t r e e s w i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr high Irr high Irr Lou Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland None 78.3 88.9 76.2 7.3 95.8 Roads ide 6.3 1.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 Household 13.7 9.4 13.6 92.6 4.0 Hedges . 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 Graveyards 1.3 0.4 10.1 0.0 0.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh)  Table 8-66 Species group 1 (timber) Biomass standing stock and p r o d u c t i v i t y Total l r r h l g h N l r r h i g h S lrrlou N Irrtou S Baranl For/High Semi-arid Desert Zone I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Area(kfn21 877227 91848 n i l t o m e s tome/ha Twigs 10.51 0.59 Growth 1.15 0.07 Rodwood 36.00 1.73 Growth 2.96 0.16 Tilnbcr 46.59 2.15 Growth 3.72 0.21 mi l t o m e s Total standing 93.10 41.03 4.37 17.04 3.80 1.52 19.98 5.24 0.13 Tot wood growth 7.84 3.99 0.30 1.92 0.37 0.06 0.86 0.34 0.01 Tot f u e l growth 5.98 3.04 0.22 1.46 0.28 0.05 0.65 0.26 0.01 Twigs f u e l grow 1.15 0.61 0.03 0.32 0.03 0.01 0.11 0.03 0.00 Romdfwlgrow 4.83 2.44 0.19 1.14 0.25 0.04 0.54 0.23 0.01 Biomass standing stock and p r o h t c t i v i t y million t o m s Punjab Sindh NUFP Baluch NA+AJK Total Twigs 7.09 0.61 1.57 0.32 0.92 10.51 Growth 0 -88 0.07 0.13 0.02 0.05 1.15 Rouduood 21.63 3.93 5.58 1.35 3.50 36.00 Growth 2.08 0.30 0.34 0.10 0.15 2.96 Timber 28.05 4.99 7.07 1.92 4.55 46.59 Growth 2.64 0.36 0.42 0.11 0.19 3.72 Total standing 56.77 9.53 i4.23 3.59 8.98 93.10 Tot wood growth 5.60 0.73 0.88 0.24 0.39 7.86 Tot f u e l growth 4.28 0.55 0.67 0.18 0.29 5.98 Twigs f u e l grow 0.88 0.07 0.13 0.02 0.05 1.15 R o d f u e l grow 3.40 0.48 0.55 0.16 0.24 4.83  Table 0-67 Species group 1 ( t i h r ) Diameter d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total I r r high Irr high Irr Lou I r r Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland <5cm 1Ocm 20cm 30cm 4ocm 50m 60cm 70cm 80cm 9Ocm 100cm 105+cm Total/ha 6.74 24.73 8.56 42.31 5.41 2.45 8.37 2.81 M i l l . tree 591.3 227.2 17.0 134.8 24.1 6.8 108.8 71.3 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage diameter d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high I r r high I r r Lou Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland <5cm 10cm 2Ocm 30cm 40cm 5Ocm 60cm 70cm 80cm 9Ocm 1OOcm 105+cm Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (trees w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only)  Table 9-60 Species group 1 (timber) C r o m c o n d i t i o n (trees u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high Irr high I r r Low Irr Low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland OXremoved 3.91 11.02 4.71 26.51 3.34 0.75 5.57 2.30 0.02 25% removed 1.35 7.29 0.81 7.05 0.39 0.52 1.29 0.30 0.00 50% removed 0.96 5.06 1.06 5.52 0.48 0.95 0.83 0.09 0.00 75% removed 0.32 0.97 0.68 1.45 0.57 0.19 0.57 0.08 0.02 ALL removed 0.20 0.39 1.30 1-77 0.62 0.04 0.11 0.04 0.00 . Total/ha 6.74 24.73 8.56 42.31 5.41 2.45 8.37 2.81 0.05 H i l l . trees 591.3 227.2 17.0 134.8 24.1 6.8 108.8 71.3 . 1.3 (trees u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage c r o m c o n d i t i o n (trees w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high I r r high Irr Lou Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland OXremoved 58.1 44 .5 55 - 0 62.7 61.9 30.5 66.6 82.0 44.1 25% removed 20.1 29.5 9.4 16.7 7.2 21.3 15.4 10.6 9.0 SOX rmoved 14.2 20.5 12.4 13.1 8.9 38.5 9.9 3.3 4.7 75% removed 4.7 3.9 8.0 3.4 10.6 7.9 6.8 2.9 37.3 A l l removed 2.9 1.6 15.2 4.2 11.5 1.7 1.4 1.3 4.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only)  Tablc 8 - 6 9 Species group 1 (timber) Amenity value ( t r e e s u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr h i g h Irr high Irr Lou Irr low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland None 5.26 18.37 7.89 29.30 5.24 2.26 6.71 2.57 0.04 Roadside 0.39 1.64 0.54 4.30 0.04 0.11 0.16 0.07 0.00 Household 0.70 1.65 0.33 11.33 0.13 0.02 0.37 0.16 0.01 Hedges 0.50 3.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 1.23 0.00 0.00 Graveyards 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.23 0.00 0.00 Total/he 6.89 24.73 8.77 44.97 5.41 2.45 8.70 2.81 0.05 M i l l . trees 604.5 227.2 17.4 143.3 24.1 6.8 113.1 71.3 ' 1.3 ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage amenity value (trees u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr high Irr high Irr IOU Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland None 76.3 74.3 90.0 65.1 97.0 92.3 77.1 91.7 83.7 Roadside 5.6 6.6 6.2 9.6 0.7 4.4 1.9 2.4 0.0 Household 10.2 6.7 3.8 25.2 2.4 0.6 4.3 5.9 16.3 Hedges 7.3 12.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 14.1 0.0 0.0 Graveyards 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 2.6 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh)  Table 8-70 Species group 2 ( f r u i t ) Biomass standing stock and p r o d u c t i v i t y Total l r r h i g h N l r r h i g h S lrrlow N lrrlou S Barani For/High Semi-arid Desert Zone # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Area(km2) 877227 91848 m i l t o m e s tome/ha Twigs 6.62 0.12 Growth 0.64 0.01 Rovduood 22.54 0.51 Growth 1.92 0.07 7 inbr 2.42 0.14 Grouth 0.10 0.01 mil t m s T o t a l standing 31.58 7.14 5.44 6.64 1.19 0.00 3.30 2.71 5.17 Tot wood growth 2.67 0.75 0.37 0.63 0.09 0.00 0.21 0.22 0.40 Tot f u e l grouth 2.62 0.72 0.36 0.63 0.07 0.00 0.20 0.22 0.40 Twigs f u e l grow 0.64 0.10 0.10 0.29 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.10 Romd f u e l grow 1.97 0.62 0.26 0.34 0.06 0.00 0.20 0.19 0.31 Biomass standing stock and p r o d u c t i v i t y m i l l i o n tomes Punjab Sindh NUFP Baluch NA+AJK Total Twigs 3.12 1.72 0.37 1.32 0.07 6.62 Grouth 0.37 0.12 0.04 0.10 0.00 0.64 Roundwood 9.29 5.18 2.14 4.72 1.21 22.54 Growth 0.93 0.36 0.18 0.37 0.09 1.92 7 i-r 1.42 0.43 0.31 0.07 0.19 2.42 Growth 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.10 T o t a l standing 13.84 7.33 2.82 6.11 1.48 31.58 Tot wood growth 1.36 0.51 0.22 0.48 0.09 2.67 Tot f u e l growth 1.33 0.50 0.22 0.48 0.09 2.62 Twigs f u e l grow 0.37 0.12 0.04 0.10 0.00 0.64 Romd f u e l grow 0.96 0.37 0.18 0.37 0.09 1.97  Tnble 8-71 Species group 2 ( f r u i t ) D i e t e r d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high I r r high Irr low Irr low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highlend c5cm 1o m ZOcm 30cm cocm 5ocm 60- 70un 80m 90cm 1OOc m 105+cm Total/ha 1.10 3.65 2.08 3.87 0.60 0.00 1.81 0.64 0.17 M i l l . tree 96.7 33.6 4.1 12.3 2.7 0.0 23.5 16.3 4.3 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage diameter d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high Irr high Irr low I r r low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland ~5cm 1Ocm ZOcm 30cm 40cm 50cm 60cm 70cm 80cm 9Ocm 1OOcm 105+cm Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only)  Table B-72 Species group 2 ( f r u i t ) C r o m conditfon ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high Irr high Irr Lou I r r Lou Barani Forested Semi - a r i d Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland 0% removed 0.87 25% removed 0.06 50% removed 0.08 75% removed 0.08 A l l removed 0.01 Total/ha 1-10 3.65 2.08 3.87 0.60 0.00 1.81 0.64 M i l l . trees 96.7 33.6 1.1 12.3 2.7 0.0 23.5 16.3 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage crown c o n d i t i o n ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Total Irr high Irr h i g h Irr Lou Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highlend OX removed 78.8 79.4 91 -3 19.9 93.2 25% removed 5.7 9.0 2.9 1.6 6.7 50% removed 7.2 9.8 0.9 24.5 0.0 75% removed 7.5 1.3 0.2 52.9 0.2 A l l removed 0.9 0.5 1.7 1 .O 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only)  Table 8-73 Species group 2 ( f r u i t ) k n n i t y value ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr h i g h Irr high Irr l o u Irr Low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland None 0.88 3.51 1.54 3.15 0.73 0.00 1.38 0.40 0.00 Roadside 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 Household 0.19 0.14 0.62 0.72 0.02 0.00 0.14 0.23 0.17 Hedges 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Graveyards 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 total/ha 1.11 3.65 2.17 3.87 0.75 0.00 1.81 0.64 0.17 Mill.trees 97.6 33.5 4.3 12.3 3.4 0.0 23.5 16.3 4.3 ( t r e e s w i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage amenity value ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Total Irr high Irr high Irr low Irr low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert Pakistan north south north south /Highland W one 78.7 96.2 71 .O 81.4 96.9 0.0 76.2 63.2 0.4 Roadside 4.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 16.1 0.4 0.0 Household 17.3 3.7 28.7 18.5 3.1 0.0 7.6 36.4 99.6 Hedges 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Graveyards 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh)  Table 8-74 Land use 1 (Govt f o r e s t ) Biomass standing stock and p r o d u c t i v i t y (per hectare only) lrrhigh N lrrhigh S lrrlow N lrrlow S Barani For/High Semi-arid Desert Zone # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Twigs Grouth Rwnduood Growth T imkr Grouth Shrubs Grouth Total t t t 0.33 0.25 0.16 T o t a l growth t t t 0.23 0.06 0.02 = too f e u s q l e s blank = no samples  Land use 1 (Covt f o r e s t ) Diameter d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only; per hectare only) Irr h i g h Irr h i g h Irr low Irr low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert north south north south /Highland ~5cm 1ocm 2ocm 30cm 40cm 50cm 60cm 70cm 80cm 90cm 1oocm 105+cm Totel/ha t t t 0.05 0.73 0.68 t ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage diameter d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only; per hectare o n l y ) Irr high Irr high Irr low I r r Low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert north south north south /Highland Total t t 100.0 100.0 100.0 t ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh o n l y ) = too few sanples blank = no sanples  Table 8-76 Lend use 1 (Govt f o r e s t ) Crown c o n d i t i o n (trees w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only; per hectare only) Irr high I r r high Irr low Irr low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert north south north south /Highlond O X removed t t t 0.03 0.48 0.59 t 25% removed t t 0.00 0.10 0.08 t 50% removed t t t 0.00 0.15 0.01 t 75% removed t t t 0.01 0.01 0.00 t A l l removed t t t 0.02 0.00 0.00 t Total/ha t t 0.05 0.73 0.68 t ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e d#l only) Percentage crown c o n d i t i o n ( t r e e s with v i s i b l e d#l only; per hectare only) I r r high Irr high I r r low I r r \ow Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert north south north south /Highland OX removed t t t 55.5 65.0 86.6 t 25% removed t t t 0.0 13.1 11.2 t 50% removed t t t 5.2 20.6 2.1 t 75% removed t t t 10.8 1.3 0.1 t A l l removed t t 28.4 0.0 0.0 t Total t t 100.0 100.0 100.0 t (trees w i t h v i s i b l e d#l only) = too few sanples blank = no sanples  Table 6-77 Land use 1 (Govt f o r e s t ) Amenity value ( t r e e s w i t h end u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh; per hectare only) Irr high Irr high Irr Low Irr low Bareni Forested Semi-arid . Desert north south north south /Highlend None t t t 0.05 10.99 4.62 t Roads i d e t t t 0.00 0 .OO 0.34 t Household t t t 0.00 0.00 0.00 t Hedges t t t 0.00 0.00 0.00 t Graveyards t t t 0.00 0.00 0.00 t Total/ha t t t 0.05 10.99 4.96 t ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage amenity value ( t r e e s w i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh; per hectare only) Irr high Irr high Irr low Irr low Berani Forested Semi-arid Desert north south north south /Highland None t t 100.0 100.0 93.2 t Roadside t t t 0.0 0.0 6.8 t Household t t t 0.0 0.0 0.0 t Hedges t t t 0.0 0.0 0.0 t Graveyards t t t 0.0 0.0 0.0 t Total t t 100.0 100.0 100.0 t ( t r e e s w i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) = too f e u samples blank = no samples  Table 6-78 Land use 1 (Govt f o r e s t ) Species d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s u i t h ond u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh; pcr hcctarc only) Irr h i g h Irr h i g h Irr Lou Irr Lou Bereni Forested Semi-arid Oesert north south north south /Highlend 1 . Phoenix d a c t y l i f e r e 2 . Nemorrhops r i tchieena 3 . Acacia n i l o t i c e 4 . Prosopis sp. 5 . Prosopi s j u l if l o r e 6 . Cepperis ephylle 7 . Eugenia jenbolena 8 . Hangifera i n d i c a 9. Lyciun berbarun 10. T m r i x a r t i c u l a t e 11. C e l o t r o p i s procera 12. Zygophyl lun e r t i p l icoides 13. P r v l u s sp. 14. P r m s amygdalus 15. Eleegnus e n g u s t i f o l i a 16. norus sp. 17. 18Jugar" 18. netus domestics 19. USuzenu 20. Prunus e v i u n 21. Olee cuspideta 22. Juni perus macropoda 23. Abies pindrou 24. S e l i x bebylonica 25. Ailenthus sp. 26. Ficus r e l i g i o s e 27. Hel i e azedarech 28. C i t r u s sp. 29. "OgaveW 30. P i s t a c i a sp. 31. Quercus sp. 32. Juglans r e g i a 33. Alnus n i t i d a 34. Populus n i g r a 35. Pinus gerardiana 36. Cedrus deodara 37. Robinia pseudoacacia 38. Populus x euramericana 39. Ficus palmata 40. Pinus u a l l i c h i a n a 41. Diospyros l o t u s 42. Platanus o r i e n t a l i s 43. Eucalyptus sp. 44. ALbizzia procera 45. Delbergia sissoo 46. Zizyphus sp. 47. Acacia modesta 48. A l b i z z i a lebbek 50. C e l t i s sp. 51. "Khekroo8 52. Azedirechta i n d i c a 53. Tamarix d i o i c a 54. Salvedore oleoides 56. Cordia nryxa 57. n e l l o t u s p h i l i p p i n e n s i s 61. U n i d e n t i f i e d 62. Beuhinie sp. 65. Pinus halepensis 67. Prunus persice. 70. Frexinus sp. 73. Eriobotrye japonica 74. Sagerotie theezens 75. Cassia f i s t u l a 76. Ricinus cunnunis 77. Xanthoxylun a l a t u n 78. Schinus m l l e 79. Picee smithiena 80. Sellnelie mnlebericun 81. Terminalie a r j w 83. V i t e x negundo  84. Pyrus 85. P s i d i u n guava 86. Broussonetia p a p y r i f e r a 87. Oodonaea viscose 88. qlMomjadar ill 91. qqBhuiokraM 93. Pinus roxburghi i 94. Populus euphratica 96. qqJangli Jalebiql 97. Moringa o l c i f e r a 98. Ficus bengalensis 99. Lyciun barbatun 101. Syzygiun c u n i n i 102. A t r i p l e x sp. 103. Lantana sp. 105. Tamerindus i n d i c a 106. Cotoneaster baci ll a r i s 107. Rosa sp. 108. Berberis l y c i u n 109. l n d i g o f e r s sp. 110. Adhatoda vesica 111. Pongamia g l a b r a 112. Suaeda f r u t i c o s a 114. 'qJarahql 115. Carissa spinarun 116. A v i c e ~ i a officinalis Total/ha t t ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) = too f e u sanples blank = no sanples  Table 8-79 Land use 1 (Govt f o r e s t ) Species group (trees w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh; per hectare only) Irr high Irr high Irr low I r r low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert north south north south /Highland Tinkr t 0.03 10.28 4.29 Fruit 0.02 0.71 0.38 Other 0.00 0.00 0.29 Total/ha 0.05 10.99 4.96 ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage species group (trees w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh; per hectare o n l y ) Irr high I r r high Irr low Irr low Bornni Forcstcd Scmi-arid Dccrert north south north south /Highland T inkr 59.7 93.5 86.5 Fruit 40.3 6.5 7.7 Other 0.0 0.0 5.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 * (trees w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) = too f e u samples blank = no samples  Land use 2 ( p r i v a t e f o r e s t ) Biomess standing stock ond productivity (per hcctnrc only) lrrhigh N lrrhigh S lrrlou N lrrlou S Barani For/High Semi-arid Desert Zone # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Tuigs Grouth Rounduood Grouth T imkr Grouth Shrubs Grouth Total Total grouth = too feu samples blank = no semples  Table 8-61 Land use 2 ( p r i v a t e f o r e s t ) Olemeter d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only; per hcctore only) Irr high Irr high Irr Lou Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Oesert north south north south /Highland <Scm 1ocm 2Ocm 30cm 4ocm SOcm 60cm 70cm BOcm 9Ocm 1OOcm 105+cm lotel/ha ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage diameter d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only; per hectare only) Irr high I r r high Irr Lou l r r low Borani Forested Semi-arid Desert north south north south /Highland <5cm lOcm 2Ocm 30cm 40cm SOcm 60cm 70cm 80cm 9Ocm 1OOcm 105+cm Total ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) = too feu senples blank = no samples  Table 8-62 Land use 2 ( p r i v a t e f o r e s t ) C r o m c o n d i t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only; per hectare only) Irr h i g h Irr h i g h Irr low Irr low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert north south north south /Highland OX removed 25% removed 50% removed 75% removed All removed Total/ha ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage crown c o n d i t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only; per hectare only) Irr h i g h Irr h i g h Irr low I r r low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert north south north south /Ilighland OX removed 25% removed 50% removed 75% removed All removed Total ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) = too few samples blank = no samples  Table 8-83 Lend use 2 ( p r i v a t e f o r e s t ) Amenity value ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh; per hectare only) Irr h i g h Irr high I r r low Irr Low Bareni Forested Semi-arid Desert north south north south /Highland None Roadside Household Hedges Graveyards Total/ha ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage e m n i t y value ( t r e e s w i t h and ui thout v i s i b l e dbh; per hectare only) Irr h i g h Irr h i g h Irr low Irr low Darani Fo~'cstcd S m l - e r l d Demsrt north south north south /Highlend None Roadside Household Hedges Graveyards Total ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) = too f e u samples blank = no samples  Table 8-84 . Land use 2 ( p r i v a t e f o r e s t ) Species d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh; per hectare o n l y ) Irr h i g h Irr h i g h Irr low Irr low Barani Forested Semi-arid Des north south north south /Highland t t 0.00 1 . Phoenix d a c t y L i f e r e t t 0.00 2 . Namorrhops r i t c h i e e n a t t 0.00 3 . Acacia n i l o t i c a t t 0.00 4 . Prosopis sp. t t 0.45 5 . Prosopis jul i f l o r e t t 0.00 6 . Capparis a p h y l l e 7 . Eugenia jembolana t . 0.00 t t 0.00 8 . Hangifere i n d i c a t t 0.00 9 . Lyciun barbarun t t 0.00 10. Tanerix a r t i c u l a t e t t 0.00 11. C a l o t r o p i s procera 12. Zygophyllun a r t i p l i c o i d e s t 0.00 t t 0.00 13. Prunus sp. t t 0.00 14. P r v l u s emygdalus 15. Elaegnus a n g u s t i f o l i a t t 0.00 t t 0.06 16. Horus sp. 17. I1Jugaru t t 0.00 t t 0.00 18. Halus d m s t i c e t t 0.01 19. llSuzenll 20. P r v l u s aviun t t 0.00 t t 1.87 21. Olea cuspideta t t 1.15 22. Juniperus macropoda 23. Abies pindrow t 0.04 24. S a l i x babylonice t t 0.03 25. Ailanthus sp. t t 0.00 26. Ficus r e l i g i o s e t t 0.00 27. M e l i e azedarech t t 0.00 28. C i t r u s sp. t t 0.00 29. lOgavew t t 0.00 30. P i s t a c i a sp. t t 0.06 31. Quercus sp. t 3.28 32. Juglens r e g i a t t 0.00 33. Alnus ni t i d e t t 0.00 34. Populus n i g r a t t 0.03 35. Pinus gerardiana t t 0.93 36. Cedrus deodera t 1.20 37. Robinie pseudoacacia t t 0.10 38. Populus x euramericena t t 0.00 39. Ficus palmate t t 0.00 40. Pinus w a l l i c h i a n e t t 0.11 41. Qiospyros l o t u s t t 0.00 42. Platanus o r i e n t e l i s t t 0.00 43. Eucalyptus sp. t t 0.00 44. A l b i z z i a procera t t 0.00 45. Q a l b e r g i a sissoo t I . 0.00 t t 46. Zizyphus sp. 0.00 47. Acacia modesta t t 0.06 48. A l b i z z i a lebbek t t 0.00 t t 0.15 50. C e l t i s sp. t t 0.17 51. "Khakro'l t t 0.00 52. Azedirachta i n d i c e t t 0.04 53. Temnrix d i o i c a 54. Salvadora oleoides t t 0.00 t t 0.00 56. Cordia myxa 57. H a l l o t u s p h i l i p p i n e n s i s t t 0.69 t t 0.00 61. U n i d e n t i f i e d t t 0.00 62. Bauhinia sp. t t 0.00 65. Pinus halepensis t t 67. P r w s persica. 0.00 t t 70. Fraxinus sp. 0.00 73. E r i o b o t r y a japonice t t 0.00 74. Sagerotia theezens t I . 0.00 75. Cassia f i s t u l a t t 0.01 t t 0.00 76. R i C i ~ s carmunis t t 0.00 77. Xanthoxylun e l a t u n 78. Schinus molle t t 0.00 79. Picea smithiana t t 0.00 t t 0.00 80. Salmelia malabericun 81. Tenninelie arjuna t t 0 .oo 83. V i t e x negundo t t 2-15  84. Pyrus 85. P s i d i u n guava 86. Broussonetie p a p y r i f e r a 87. Dodonaea viscose 88. "Hanjadari*8 91. 1lBhuiokrall 93. Pinus r o x b u r g h i i 94. Populus euphratica 96. OIJangl i Jalebi" 97. Horinga o l e i f e r a 98. Ficus bengalensis 99. Lyciun barbatun 101. Syzygiun c u n i n i 102. A t r i p l e x sp. 103. Lantana sp. 105. Temsrindus i n d i c a 106. Cotoneaster b o c i l l o r i s 107. Rosa sp. 108. Berberis l y c i u n 109. I n d i g o f e r a sp. 110. Adhatoda vesica 111. Pongmia g l o b r a 112. Suaeda f r u t icosa 114. OIJarahal 115. Carissa spinarun 116. A v i c e m i a o f f i c i n a l i s Total/ha ( t r e e s u i t h and u i thout v i s i b l e dbh) + = too feu sanples b\enk = no samples  Table 8-05 Land use 2 ( p r i v a t e f o r e s t ) Species group ( t r e e s w i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh; per hectare only) Irr high Irr high Irr IOU Irr Lou Boroni Forested Semi-arid Desert north south north south /Highland Timber Fruit Other Total/ha ( t r e e s w i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage species group ( t r e e s u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh; per hectare o n l y ) lrr high Irr h i g h Irr Lou Irr l o u Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert north south north south /Highland Timber Fruit Other Total ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) = too feu sanples blank = no sanples  Table 8-86 Land use 3 ( i r r i g a t e d ) Bianess standing stock and productivity (per hectare only) lrrhigh N lrrhigh S lrrlow N lrrlow S Barani For/High Semi-arid Desert Zone 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Twigs Growth Roundwood Growth Timber Growth Shrubs Growth Total 6.39 5.21 6.51 1.39 0.02 1.35 0.33 Total growth 0.76 0.42 0.89 0.24 0.00 0.09 0.03  Table B-87 Land use 3 ( i r r i g a t e d ) Diameter d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only; per hectare only) Irr high I r r high Irr Lou I r r low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert north south north south /llighlnnd Total/ha 34.82 11.30 51.49 7.59 0.25 11.43 4.27 0.18 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage diameter d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e & only; per hectare only) Irr high Irr high I r r low I r r low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert north south north south /Highland Total 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh o n l y )  l n b l c 0-00 Lend use 3 ( i r r i g a t e d ) Croun condition (trees with v i s i b l e dbh only; per hectare only) Irr high Irr high Irr Lou Irr Lou Berani Forested Semi-arid Desert north south north south /Highland 0% removed 18.46 6.84 35.34 4.80 0.03 6.96 3.72 25% removed 8.59 0.93 6.91 1.03 0.17 2.55 0.34 50% removed 5 -87 1.16 5.20 0.52 0.02 1.28 0.12 75% removed 1.13 0.68 3.37 0.63 0.03 0.51 0.08 A l l removed 0.77 1.69 0.67 0.61 0.00 0.13 0.02 Total/ha 34.82 11.30 51.49 7.59 0.25 11.43 4.27 (trees with v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage crown condition (trees with v i s i b l e dbh only; per hectare only) Irr high Irr high Irr Lou Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert north south north south /Highland O X removed 53.0 60.5 68.6 63.2 12.2 60.9 87.1 25% removed 24.7 8.3 13.4 13.6 68.0 22.3 7.9 50% removed 16.8 10.2 10.1 6.8 7.7 11.2 2.7 75% removed 3.3 6.0 6.5 8.3 12.1 4.5 1.9 A l l removed 2.2 15.0 1.3 8.0 0.0 1.1 0.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (trees with v i s i b l e dbh only)  Table 8-89 Land use 3 ( i r r i g a t e d ) Amenity value ( t r e e s u i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh; pcr hcctarc only) Irr high Irr high Irr Lou Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert north south north south /Highland None 37.21 11.41 26.77 7.79 0.24 8.17 3.05 Roadside 1.69 0.32 1.38 0.04 0.00 1.16 0.05 Household 2.42 1.11 23.62 0.22 0.01 0.79 1.18 Hedges 3.05 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 1.38 0.00 Graveyards 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 Total/he 44.43 12.86 51.83 8.05 0.25 11.79 4.27 ( t r e e s u i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage amenity value ( t r e e s u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh; per hectare only) I r r high Irr h i g h Irr Low Irr low Barani Forested Scnti-orid Desert north south north south /Highland None 83.8 88.7 51.7 96.7 94.1 69.3 71.3 Roadside 3.8 2.5 2.7 0.5 0.0 9.8 1.1 Household 5.4 8.6 45.6 2.8 5.6 6.7 27.6 Hedges 6.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 Graveyards 0.1 - 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.5 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s w i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh)  Table 8-90 Land use 3 ( i r r i g a t e d ) Species d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh; per hectare only) Irr high Irr h i g h Irr Lou Irr Lou Barani Forested 'Semi-arid Desert north south north south /Highland 1. Phoenix d a c t y l i f e r a 2. Nannorrhops r i t c h i e a n a 3. Acacia n i l o t i c a 4. Prosopis sp. 5. Prosopis jul i f l o r a 6. Capperis aphylla 7. Eugenia jembolana 8. Hangifera i n d i c a 9 . Lyciun barbarun 10. Temarix a r t i c u l a t a 11. Calotropis procera 12. Zygophyl lun a r t i p l i c o i d e 13. Prunus sp. 14. Prunus amygdalus IS . Elaegnus angust i f o l i a 16. Horus sp. 17. llJugarll 18. Halus donrstica 19. "Suzen" 20. Prunus a v i u n 21. Olea cuspidate 22. Juniperus macropoda 23. Abies pindrou 24. S e l i x babylonica 25. Ailanthus sp. 26. Ficus r e l i g i o s e 27. H e l i a azedarach 28. C i t r u s sp. 29. llOgaveu 30. P i s t a c i a sp. 31. Ouercus sp. 32. Juglans r e g i a 33. Alnus n i t i d a 34. Populus n i g r a 35. Pinus gerardiana 36. Cedrus deodara 37. Robinia pseudoacacia 38. Populus x euramericana 39. Ficus palmate 40. Pinus u a l lichiana 41. Oiospyros l o t u s 42. Platanus o r i e n t a l i s 43. Eucalyptus sp. 44. A l b i z z i a procera 45. Oalbergia sissoo 46. Zizyphus sp. 47. Acacia modesta 48. A l b i z z i a lebbek 50. C e l t i s sp. 51. lgYhakroll 52. Azadirachta i n d i c a 53. Tamerix d i o i c a 54. Salvedore o l eoides 56. Cordia myxa 57. H a l l o t u s p h i l i p p i n e n s i s 61. U n i d e n t i f i e d 62. Bauhinia sp. 65. Pinus halepensis 67. P r m s persica. 70. Fraxinus sp. 75. E r i o b o t r y a japonica 74. Sagerotia theezans 75. Cassia f i s t u l a 76. Ricinus cornrunis T7. Xanthoxylun a l a t u n 78. Schinus m l l e 79. Picea smithiana 80. Salmalia mLnbaricun 81. Terminalia arjuna 83. V i t e x ~ g I J n d 0  84. Pyrus 85. Ps i d i u n guava 86. Broussonet i a papyri fera 87. Dodonaea v i scosa 88. "Mom jodor io1 91. uBhuiokraM 93. Pinus roxburghii 94. Populus euphratica 96. llJangl i JalebiI1 97. Moringa o l e i f e r a 98. Ficus bengalensis 99. Lyciun barbatun 101. Syzygiun c u n i n i 102. A t r i p l e x sp. 103. Lantana sp. 105. Tamrindus indica 106. cotoneaster baci 1l a r i s 107. Rosa sp. 108. Berberis l y c i u n 109. l n d i g o f e r a sp. 110. Adhatoda vesica 111. Pongamia glabra 112. Suaeda f r u t i c o s a 114. I1Jarah" 115. Carissa spinarun 116. Avicennia o f f i c i n a l i s Total/ha ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh  Table 0-91 Land use 3 ( i r r i g a t e d ) Species group ( t r e e s u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh; per hcctor-e only) Irr h i g h Irr h i g h Irr Lou Irr Lou Berani Forested Semi-arid Oesert north south north south /Highlend T inber 6.75 0.95 12.90 1.61 0.16 5.99 1.03 0.00 Fruit 24.42 8.48 35.14 5.38 0.09 4.07 2.65 0.01 Other 13.26 3.43 3.79 1.06 0.00 1.73 0.60 0.17 Total/ha 44.43 12.86 51.83 8.05 0.25 11.79 4.27 0.18 ( t r e e s u i t h end u i t h w t v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage species group (trees u i t h and u i t h w t v i s i b l e d#l; per hectare only) I-' Irr h i g h Irr h i g h Irr ton lrr tow Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert north south north south /Hightend T inber 15.2 7.4 24.9 20.0 64.1 50.8 24.1 0.8 Fruit 55.0 65.9 67.8 66.8 35.9 34.5 61 - 9 4.5 Other 29.9 26.7 7.3 13.2 0.0 14.7 14.0 94.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( t r e e s w i t h end u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh)  Toblc 8 - 9 2 Lond use 4 (barani) Biomass standing stock and productivity (per hectare only) Irrhigh N lrrhigh S lrrlou N lrrlow S Bereni For/High Semi-arid Desert Zone # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Twigs Growth Roundwood Growth Timber Growth Shrubs Growth Total 0.04 Total growth 0.00 = too few sarrples blank = no samples  Land use 4 (berani) Diameter d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only; per hectore only) Irr h i g h Irr high Irr low Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert north south north south /High land <5m lOcm 2Ocm 30cm 40cm socm 60cm 70cm 80cm 9Ocm 100cm 105+un Total/ha 0.29 ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage d i a r t e r d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only; per hectare only) Irr h i g h Irr high Irr low Irr low larani Forested Semi-arid Desert north south north south /Highland (5cm 10cm 2Ocm 30cm 40cm socm 6Ocm 70cm 80cm 9Ocm 1OOcm 105+cm Total 100.0 ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) = too few samples blank = no samples  Land use 4 (barani Croun c o n d i t i o n ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only; per hcctnre only) Irr h i g h Irr high Irr Lou Irr tou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert north south north south /Highlend OX removed 0.17 25% removed 0.05 50% removed 0.05 75% removed 0.02 At 1 removed 0.00 Total/ha 0.29 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage crown c o n d i t i o n (trees u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only; per hectare only) I r r high lrr h i g h Irr Lou Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert north south north south /Highlend OX removed 58.2 25% removed 18.6 50% removed 17.4 75% removed 5.8 A l l removed 0.0 Total 100.0 ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) = too few samples blank = no samples  Land usc 4 (barani) Amcnity voluc ( t r c c s w i t h nird witliout visible dW1; pcr hcctnrc only) Irr h i g h Irr high Irr low Irr low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert north south north south /Highland None 0.29 Roadside 0.00 Household 0.00 Hedges 0.00 Graveyards 0.00 Total/ha 0.29 t ( t r e e s w i t h end without v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage amenity v e l w ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh; per hectare only) Irr high Irr h i g h Irr (ow l r r low Oarar~i Forcstccl S c c ~ ~ i - a r i d Dcscrt north south north south /Highlend None 100.0 Roads ide 0.0 Household 0.0 Hedges 0.0 Graveyards 0.0 Total 100.0 t ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) * = too f CY S ~ I I ~ ~ C S blank = no samples  Land usc 4 (bol-ani ) Species d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh; pcr hcctarc only) Irr high Irr high I r r Lou Irr l o u Berani Forested Semi-arid Desert north south north south /Highlend 1. Phoenix d a c t y l i f c r a 2. Nannorrhops r i t c h i e a n a 3. Acacia n i l o t i c a 4. Prosopis sp. 5. Prosopis j u l i f l o r a 6. Capparis e p h y l l a 7. Eugenia jembolana 8. Hangifera i n d i c a 9. Lyciun berbarun 10. Tamarix o r t i c u l a t a 11. C a l o t r o p i s procera 12. Zygophyllun a r t i p l i c o i d e s 13. Prunus sp. 14. Prunus amygdnlus 15. Elaegnus a n g u s t i f o l i a 16. norus sp. 17. IIJugarol IS . nelus domestics 19. "Suzenot 20. Prunus a v i u n 21. OLea cuspidata 22. Junipcrus n~ocropoda 23. Abies pindrou 24. S a l i x babylonica 25. Ailanthus sp. 26. Ficus r e l i g i o s a 27. Melia azedarach 28. C i t r u s sp. 29. llOgavell 30. P i s t a c i a sp. 31. Oucrcus sp. 32. Juglans r e g i a 33. Alnus n i t i d a 34. Populus n i g r a 35. Pinus gerardiana 36. Cedrus deodara 37. Robinia pseudoacacie 38. Popul us x e u r a ~ l ri rcana 39. Ficus palmata 40. Pinus u a l t i c h i a n a 41. Oiospyros l o t u s 42. Pletenus o r i e n t a l i s 43. Eucalyptus sp. 44. A l b i z z i a procera 45. Oalbergia sissoo 46. Zizyphus sp. 47. Acacia modesta 48. A l b i z z i o lcbbek 50. C e l t i s sp. 51. 11Khakro8' 52. Azadirachta i n d i c a 53. Temarix d i o i c a 54. Salvadora oleoides 56. Cordia myxa 57. n a l l o t u s p h i l i p p i n c n s i s 61. U n i d e n t i f i e d 62. Bauhinia sp. 65. Pinus halepensis 67. Prunus persica. 70. Frexinus sp. 73. E r i o b o t r y a japonice 74. Segerotia theezans 75. Cassia f i s t u l a 76. Ricinus camnunis 77. Xenthoxylun a l a t u n 78. Schinus m l l e 79. Picea smithiana 80. Satmalie malebaricun 81. Terrninalie erjuna 8 3. V i t e x negundo  84. Pyrus 85. P s i d i u n guava 86. Broussonetia p a p y r i f e r a 87. Dodonaea v i scosa 88. @'Man j adar ila 91. "Bhuiokraol 93. Pinus roxburghi i 94. Populus euphratica 96. "Jangl i Jalebioo 97. Moringa o l e i f e r a 98. Ficus bengalensis 99. Lyciun barbatun 101. Syzygiun c u n i n i 102. A t r i p l e x sp. 103. Lantana sp. 105. Tamarindus i n d i c a 106. Cotoncostcr b a c i l l o r i s 107. Rosa sp. 108. Berberis l y c i u n 109. l n d i g o f e r a sp. 110. Adhatoda vesica 111. Pongarni o g l obrn 112. Suaeda f rut icosa 114. @@Jarah" 115. Cerisse spinarun 116. Avicennia o f f i c i n a l i s Total/ha 0.29 ( t r c c s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dWi) = too feu sanples blank = no sat~ples  Table 8-97 Land use 4 (barani Species group ( t r e e s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh; per hectare only) lrr high Irr high Irr low Irr low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert north south north south /Highland T irnber 0.01 Fruit 0.28 Other 0.00 Total/ha 0.29 t ( t r e e s u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage species group ( t r e e s u i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh; per hectare only) I r r high l r r high I r r Lou I r r IOUOnrnni Forrstcd S c n ~ i - n r i d Dcacrt north south nortl~ soulll /lligl~l~~d Timber 2.1 Fruit 97.9 Other 0.0 Total 100.0 t ( t r e e s u i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) = too feu sollplcs blank = no samples  Table 8-98 Lond use 5 (unclossificd) Bicnress stending stock end productivity (per hectare only) lrrhigh N lrrhigh S lrrlow N lrrlow S Barani For/High Semi-arid Desert Zone # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Twigs Growth Rolmdwood Growth T imber Growth Shrubs Growth Total Total growth = too few samples blank = no sanples  Table 6-99 Land use 5 ( u n c l a s s i f i e d ) Diameter d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s u i t h v i s i b l e dbh only; pcr l ~ c c t a r eonly) Irr h i g h Irr high I r r Lou Irr Lou Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert north south north south /Highland <5cm 1Ocm 2Ocm 30cm 40cm 50cn1 60cm 70cm 80cm 90cm lOOcm 105+cm Total/ha t ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage diameter d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only; per hectare o n l y ) Irr high Irr h i g h I r r Lou I r r low Uorarii Forcstcd S c ~ r ~ i - a r i d north south north south /Highland <5cm 1Ocm 2Ocm 30cm 40ca 50cm 60cm 70cm 80cm 9Ocm 100cm 105+cm Total t ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) ' = too few sat~ples blank = no sanples  Table B-100 Land use 5 ( u n c l a s s i f i e d ) Crown c o n d i t i o n (trees w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only; per hectare only) Irr h i g h Irr h i g h I r r low I r r low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert north south north south /Highland OX removed 25% removed 50% removed 75% removed A l l removed Total/ha * (trees w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) Percentage croun c o n d i t i o n (trees with v i s i b l e dbh only; per hectare only) Irr h i g h I r r high l r r Low Low II'V Ool-ol~l Foresled Sr-~~l-et-ld Desert north south north south /Highland OX removed 25% removed 50% removed 75% removed A l l removed Total ( t r e e s w i t h v i s i b l e dbh only) = too few sa~rples blank = no sanples  Table 8-101 Land use 5 ( u n c l a s s i f i e d ) Amenity value ( t r e e s w i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh.; per hectare o n l y ) I r r high Irr h i g h Irr l o u Irr l o u Barani Forested semi-arid Desert north south north south /Highland None Roadsidc Household Hedges Graveyards Total/ha t ( t r e e s w i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage amenity value ( t r e e s u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh; per hectare only) I r r high Irr Iiigli Irr Lou Irr l o u Forested S m i - a r i d Uaril~i~ Dcsert north south north south /Highland None Roads ide Household Hcdgcs Graveyards Total t 100.0 ( t r e e s u i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) = too feu s a ~ ~ ~ p l e s blank = no sal~~ples  Table 0-102 Land use 5 ( u n c l a s s i f i e d ) Species d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t r e c s w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbli; per hectare o n l y ) Irr h i g h Irr h i g h l r r low I r r low Barani Forested Semi-arid Desert north south north south /Highland 1. Phoenix d a c t y l i f e r a 2. Namorrhops r i t c h i e a n a 3. Acacia n i l o t i c a 4. Prosopis sp. 5. Prosopis j u l i f l o r a 6. Cawaris aphylla 7. Eugenia jambolana 8. Hangifera i n d i c a 9. Lyciun barbarun 10. Temarix a r t i c u l a t a 11. C a l o t r o p i s procera 12. Zygophyl tun a r t i p l icoides 13. P r m u s sp. 14. Prunus a~~tygrlalus 15. Elaegnus a n g u s t i f o l i a 16. Horus sp. 17. 'Jugaru 18. nalus danestica 19. gaSuzenaa 20. Prunus a v i u n 21. Oleo cuspidata 22. Juniperus macropoda 23. Abies pindrow 24. S a l i x babylonica 25. Ailanthus sp. 26. Ficus r e l i g i o s a 27. H e l i a azedarach 28. C i t r u s sp. 29. aoOgaveaa 30. P i s t a c i a sp. 31. Ouercus sp. 32. Juglans r c g i a 33. Alnus n i t i d a 34. Populus n i g r a 35. Pinus gerardiana 36. Cedrus deodara 37. Robinia pseudoacacia 38. Populus x euramericana 39. Ficus palmata 40. Pinus w a l l i c h i a n a 41. Diospyros l o t u s 42. Platanus o r i c n t a l i s 43. Eucalyptus sp. 44. A l b i z z i a procera 45. Dalbergia sissoo 46. Zizyphus sp. 47. Acacia m d e s t a 48. A l b i z z i a lebbek SO. C c l t i s sp. 51. laKhakroal 52. Azadirachta i n d i c a 53. Tamrix dioica 54. Salvadora oleoides 56. Cordia myxa 57. Hallotus philippinensis 61. Unidentified 62. Bauhinia sp. 65. Pinus halepensis 67. Prunus persica. 70. Fraxinus sp. 73. E r i o b o t r y a japonica 74. Segerotia theezans 75. Cassia f i s t u l e 76. Ricinus canaunis 77. Xenthoxylun a l a t u n 78. Schinus m o l l e 79. Picea smithiana 80. Selmalia malabaricun 81. Terminalie a r j u n a 83. Vitcx ncgvdo  84. Pyrus 85. P s i d i u n guava 86. Broussonetia p a p y r i f e r a 87. Dodonaca viscosa 88. "Manjadar iu 91. olBhuiokram 93. P inus r o x l w r g l i i i 94. Popllus euphratica 96. O1Jangli J a l e b i " 97. Moringa o l c i f e r a 98. F i c u s bengalensis 99. L y c i u n barbatun 101. Syrygiun cunini 102. A t r i p l e x sp. 103. Lantana sp. 105. Tamarindus i n d i c o 106. Cotoncaster b a c i l l a r i s 107. Rosa sp. 108. Berberis lyciun 109. I n d i g o f e r a sp. 110. Adhatoda v c s i c a 111. Pongamia g l a b r a 112. Suaeda f r u t i c o s a 114. mJarahla 115. Carissa s p i n a r u n 116. AV~CCM ~f i~ of cinalis Total/ha ( t r e e s w i t h and w i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) = tOO ~ C W SBIIQ(CS blank = no sanples  Table 8-103 Land use 5 ( u n c l a s s i f i e d ) Species group ( t r e e s w i t h end without v i s i b l e dbh; per hectare only) 1 I t 1 r i g I r r low Irv Lou Oor'o~ri F o r c s t d Sm~cl-orld Dcrcrt north south north south /Highlend Tlrnber Fruit Other lotsl/ha 0.19 (trees w i t h and without v i s i b l e dbh) Percentage species group (trees w i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh; per hectare only) Irr high Irr trlgtr I r r ' low Irr IOU Sal~l-orld Oors~ri r o r ' c ~ t c d Dceert north south north south /Highland T imkr Fruit Other Total ( t r e e s w i t h and u i t h o u t v i s i b l e dbh) = too few s ~ m p l e s blank = no samples APPENDIX C. CROP RESIDUE TABLES  LIST OF TABLES - APPENDIX C Table C-1 Landsat crop classifications per scene Table C-2 Crop yields by district Table C-3 Crop areas by district Table C-4 Crop yields and estimated crop residue for sugarcane by zone Table C-5 Crop areas and estimated crop residue for target crops other than sugarcane by zone Table C-1. Londsot crop c l o s s i f i c o t i o n s pcr scer~c(squnrc k~n). (The r e s u l t s can be used f o r p r o r a t i n g crop d i s t r i b u t i o n s , but not as absolute areas). Scene lrrhighl Irrhigh2 Irrloul Irrlou2 Barani For/High Scmiarid Dcscrt Total 1 cropped area zone area proport i o n 2 croppcd erea zone area propor t i o n 3 cropped area zone area proport i o n 4 cropped area zone erea proportion 5 croppcd area zone area proport i o n 6 cropped area zone area proportion 7 cropped area zone area proport i o n 8 cropped area zone area proportion 9 cropped area zone area proportion 10 croppedarea tone area proportion 11 croppedarea zone area proportion 12 cropped area zone area proportion -d 0 m? c u m v 0- c 0 ? U  oQ ' ~ u o ! 1 @ ~ ! ) ~ s s~ l ~s p Qaqa l UJ) d paA!Jap s u o ! a ~ o d o ~ ssola aqa 6 u l s n do~a plnq!Jas!p a7u!~o~d aqa do) spla!A doJ3 \@a01 'u@as!qmlog 40) pau!oaqo sen aa!~as!p Aq s l o p pla!A d o ~ a ON -2 a J m SJWA Ja!lJoa WJ) aa!Jas!p Aq -aau!Ao~d qaoa JO) spla!A lsaoa do43 16/0661 6u!sn p a o ~ o d d spla!A d o n 'sanp!saJ d o ~ a 6u!amu!asa j o asod~ndaqa ~ o j*alqel!sAe aou w a n 16/066~ JO) aa!Jas!p Aq sple!A d o ~ j l :SaaON 02'0 OO'L 51-S uoas!J!zsn * S 93'0 OS'O U'9 usasp!zon .N S'L 0'0 5'8 SZ'S 30'22 81-81 no fog 0'0 8'E L'O SL'O 8L.3 56'0 !@Zl(@JO 3'0 E'O 0's 66'9 8L'E LS'ZL WJJfln 2-11 0'0 6'L 00'0 LO'L L9'0L .r*l(n 6-25 0'0 L'3 00'0 OE'9 SO'S P r W Y 9-U 5'0 9-92 90'0 26'2 6Z'OE E6'SS Es3E1 0'0 9'2 03'61 BL'L3 98'98 uoqn I - *a 0'0 E'ZZ EB'S 6E'O 75'01 lQJXlr13 8'3 8'21 88-52 S9'6L EO'SZ J!O 0'9E 3'L7L L'LS 6L'LZ LL'96 8Z'K %OMS 1'181 0'0 S'OL LL'ZL OS'3L 6L'OZ pl@l(oi@n 0'0 6'2 2'93 80'0 28'0 6E'L uoas!rpn L'S L'63 L'OL Y'O fZ.85 LO'L POqQaaoqqv 2'0 L'S8 2'11 69'6 06-95 69'6 OJqSSUOY 0-0 0'0 1-0 00'0 90'EZ L8'L l(@J@X 3'Sl 5'3 3'9 99'0 8Z'fZ 9O'LL sown 8'6LEl L'3 3'Lll EO'O 2E.E ES'OE SB'LOL U W Q Y 68/88 L' L83Z 9'0 S'OL 89'L 66'9L ES'LLL J@M@l(md djnN  U U " ' L E ! - ger b L O L V L P mn 0 5 .- C C CIm U !: 2 u 0 n- u L a m 0, ,2 t . Y) a m " a gj . F: LO) g LCI L U U a v yl- ZE -.- a- u .- u n o m 52 0 '-0 - te 6; i- O gz Y) Y) 4 3' .- $ 0 , .- - c m u 9 s me L = % ' :s Oc: '&t tO, .EXm, PP U st O U .-L u CP :m t C g,. r a , e -U U u L 0 , . - L U & .- n oL i .- us- 0 0 u- L O L 2% ZU o- q 5; : gg 2 Y)U a U L .- L a Y nu YO) a .- L U a m PG 2 02 0.5 Es PS  Table C-4. Crop y i e l d s and estimated crop residue f o r sugarcane by zone Prov Crop lrrhighN lrrhighS IrrlouN IrrlouS Baroni For/High Semiarid Desert Total Punj irruheat 8644.64 0.00 1551.86 /NUFP unirr-wheat 0.00 0.00 0.00 irr r l c e 1444.97 0.00 95.33 i r r maize 753.19 0.00 75.11 unirr malze 0.00 0.00 0.00 i r y sugar 21722.82 0.00 2320.08 unlrrsugar 0.00 0.00 0.00 i r r c o t t o n 7127.71 0.00 1374.89 Sindh heat 0.00 1169.00 0.00 900.34 1.75 0.00 196.73 6.68 2274.50 irr r i c e 0.00 532.15 0.00 901.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1433.40 i r r maize 0.00 3.35 0.00 6.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.60 irr sugar 0.00 5102.79 0.00 6712.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11815.60 irrcotton 0.00 631.75 0.00 492.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1124.60 Baluch wheat 0.0 230.0 0.0 64.5 1.O 0.0 288.2 44.5 628.3 est r i c e 0.0 152.8 0.0 134.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' 0.0 287.1 est maize 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.3 4.2 est sugar 0.0 12.6 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 , 0.0 23.6 est cotton 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 North e s t wheat e s t maize Total wheat 8644.6 1399.0 1551.9 964.8 413.4 838.6 784.7 53.9 14651.0 rife 1445.0 685.0 95.3 1035.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3260.8 maize 753.2 4.9 75.1 6.7 11.1 367.4 5.1 0.3 1223.7 sugarcane 21722.8 5115.4 2320.1 6723.8 12.3 46.1 48.2 0.0 35988.7 cotton 7127.7 632.0 1374.9 493.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9627.7 Estimated crop residue by zone ( ' 0 0 0 tonnes) wheat r i ~ e mlze sugarcane 7777 1831 831 2407 4 cotton Table C-5. Crop areas and estimated crop residue f o r target crops other than sugarcane by zone Prov Crop IrrhighN IrrhighS lrrlowN IrrlowS Barani For/High Semiarid Desert Total Puni irr uheat 4386.25 0.00 891.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5278.00 /NU~P m i r r w h e a t 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 378.90 635.89 256.96 2.05 1273.80 irr r i c e 1245.15 0.00 78.95 0.00 , 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1324.10 irrmaize 460.71 0.00 47.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 508.20 unirr maize 0.00 0.00 0.00 , 0.00 13.62 293.56 5.70 0.01 312.90 irrsugar 552.46 0.00 72.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 624.60. mirrsugar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 2.31 2.68 0.00 5.60 irr c o t t o n 1761.27 0.00 364.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2125.40 Sindh wheat 0.00 524.29 0.00 435.77 1.14 0.00 89.39 2-92 1053.50 irr r i c e 0.00 223.77 0.00 456.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 679.90 jrr maize 0.00 6.30 0.00 13.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.50 irr sugar 0.00 110.87 0.00 142.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 253.10 irrcotton 0.00 295.49 0.00 241.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 536.60 Baluch wheat 0.0 112.1 0.0 31.4 0.5 0.0 140.4 21.7 306.1 est r i c e 0.0 57.9 0.0 50.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 108.7 e s t maize 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.3 4.5 e s t sugar 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 est c o t t o n 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 North e s t wheat est maize Total wheat 4386.3 636.4 891.8 r i ~ e 1245.2 281.6 79.0 malze 460.7 7.9 47.5 sugarcane 552.5 111.1 72.1 cotton 1761.3 295.6 364.1 Estimated crop residue by zone ('000 tomes) wheat 11360 1648 2310 rice 4806 1087 305 maize 1834 32 189 sugarcane cotton 8243 1383 1704