Introduction

Phytosociology is an arch to describe the population dynamics, community structure, and diversity indices of plant communities [1]. A phytosociological study of the area gives a detailed explanation of the distribution pattern of species and their relationships between different plant communities [2]. The study of plant communities is the best way to learn about the habitat and vegetation structure of these communities [3]. Phytosociological methods often involve the quantitative understanding of various parameters like abundance, density, frequency, etc. [4]. The ecological properties of vegetation composition, like productivity, competition, niche structure, stability, and the relationship of plants in their community, are all determined by species diversity [5]. Such properties are often of critical ecological significance as they shed light on many interesting processes operating at the community level and provide an explanation of not only within-community patterns but also vegetation processes such as dynamics, stability, structuring, and functioning of communities and species diversity [6-9]. The species diversity of these communities is related to their structural habitat, which is supported by the internal and external function and potential of their habitat [10, 11].

Naturally, herbs serve as shelter and habitat for many animals and form the complex food chain and food webs [12-15]. Grasses provide shelter for a large number of microbial communities [16]. They also protect topsoil from soil erosion, improve water penetration into soils, and increase soil holding capacity [17-19]. Anthropogenic and multi-environmental factors affect species diversity, such as air, water, and other atmospheric factors [20-23]. Environmental factors, disturbance, dispersal ability and rate of plant species, and various ecological interactions determined the structure of the vegetation community in a complex ecosystem [24-26].

Humans, through overpopulation, exerted pressure on habitat destruction and reduced this influx [27, 28]. It was observed that agricultural land use in the study area affects plant composition and pattern [29, 30]. Making decisions for the conservation and management of floristic composition and structures of vegetation and biodiversity provides basic information to evaluate these results [10].

The aim of the present investigation was to analyze the phytosociological characteristics and diversity patterns of the herbaceous plants of the area, to measure the species diversity and its components for the phytosociological analysis, and to examine the environmental factors and anthropogenic pressure that were exerted on the herb layer of the study area as one of the main medicinal, economic, and fodder resources in Choti Zareen, Dera Ghazi Khan, Pakistan.

Material and Methods

Study Area

The study was conducted in Choti Zareen locality, 30 km south of the district of Dera Ghazi Khan, Pakistan, and 26 km east of the Koh-e-Suleiman range, extending from latitude 29°41`N to 29°52`N and from longitude 70°20` to 70°34`E (Fig. 1). The study area has a tropical monsoon and temperate climate, with high temperatures during the summer of about 50ºC, while during the winter the average temperature is 4ºC. The rainy season extends from July to August, with annual monsoon rainfall ranging from 87 to 165.83 mm. The field study was conducted from 2022 to 2023, covering both dry and rainy seasons. Eight vegetation sites were selected based on their physiognomy, topography, and altitude, representing vegetation variation (Table 1). The Choti Zareen supported plain, desert, fluvial, and wetland habitats, causing a large amount of plant diversity.

Fig. 1.

The map of the study area.

https://www.pjoes.com/f/fulltexts/186936/PolJEnvironStud-2025-34-3-2359-2374_Fig_1_min.jpg
Table 1.

Coordinates, altitude, and soil type of the study sites.

Site #LocationLatitude (N)Longitude (E)Altitude (M)Soil Type
1.Basti Talpur29˚43՝ N70˚ 29՝ E93 mSandy loam
2.Mithawan29˚46՝ N70˚ 20՝ E190 mSandy loam
3.Chak Talpur29˚47՝ N70˚22՝ E157 mLoam
4.Qaim Wala29˚52՝ N70˚ 29՝ E116 mSandy loam
5.Khanpur29˚45՝ N70˚ 34՝ E86 mSandy loam
6.Bakherwah29˚41՝ N70˚ 24՝ E136 mSilt loam
7.Rohi Talpur29˚ 45՝ N70˚ 26՝ E134 mSilt loam
8.Chak Jalloharr29˚50՝ N70˚ 24՝ E145 mSandy loam

Vegetation Sampling and Data Collection

At each of the 8 sites, random quadrate sampling was used to measure the herbaceous diversity of the study area. 50 quadrates (1 × 1 m) in size were randomly placed for sampling in each site, and a total of 400 quadrates were taken from 8 different sites. For the valuation of the dominance of plant species in the vegetation community, the density, frequency, and abundance, and were converted into relative values and summed to obtain statistical data. The importance value index (IVI) of the study area was calculated by the methods of Dangoli & Shivakoti [31] and Chaudhry et al. [32]. Species richness and evenness were determined in the studied sites, and species diversity was measured using the Shannon diversity index (H) [33]. The Pielou index was used for the estimation of species evenness (E) [34].

The vegetation analysis of the studied communities was analyzed for the Importance Value Index, which was obtained by Density (D), Frequency, and their relative values.

Density(D)=Number of individuals of species in all the sample plotsTotal number of sample plots studied
Relative Density (R.D)=Number of individuals of speciesTotal number of sample plots studied×100
Frequency(F)=Number of points at which species occourTotal number of points sampled×100
Relative Frequency (R.F)=frequency of a specieTotal frequencies of all species×100
Importance Value Index=Relatve Density+Relative Frequency2

Diversity Indices

For the measurement of species diversity in herbaceous communities, commonly indices are usually used in ecology. The purpose of diversity indices was to measure species diversity and vegetation composition in plant communities [35]. For quantifying community diversity, indices provided an authentic and fruitful source, and they were useful in the analysis of the community structure of the plain and desert areas. Different types of diversity indices had been applied to contrast the plant species sampled from different sites. The general species diversity of the vegetation communities was measured by the popular Shannon– Wiener information theory function:

H=−∑PilnPiI=1…. S

Where H is showing the Shannon diversity-index, which is general species diversity, Pi is the proportion of individuals in a community, ln is the natural log, taking the base e and expressed heterogeneity, and S denotes the total number present in the community [33, 36]. The variance of general diversity, Var (H), was calculated by Magurran [35], as follows:

Var (H)=∑Pi(lnPi)2−(∑PilnPi)2N+(S−1)2N 2i=1,S

General diversity consists of two diversity components: species richness and evenness. Species richness is expressed as S; the function ratio of the total number of individuals (N); and equitability (J) measures the evenness of the allocation of individuals among the species [35]. The evenness and its variance, Var (J), were measured in accordance with Pielou [37].

Fig. 2.

Top families according to the number of species present in the study area.

https://www.pjoes.com/f/fulltexts/186936/PolJEnvironStud-2025-34-3-2359-2374_Fig_2_min.jpg
J=HHmax=Hln S

The equitability (J) is the ratio between observed H and maximal diversity H max. The variance of equitability was estimated as:

Var (J)=(H)(ln S)2

The Simpson Index determines the dominance of species. The formula for the Simpson index is:

D=Σni(ni−1)N(N−1)

Where D = Simpson’s Index, ni = the number of individuals of species I, and N = the total number of individuals.

Results and Discussion

A total of 120 species, representing 92 genera from 35 families, were recorded from the studied area. Poaceae was the dominant family with 28 species, followed by Asteraceae (14), Amaranthaceae (8), Euphorbiaceae (7), Boraginaceae, Cyperaceae, and Polygonaceae (5 species each), Brassicaceae, Convolvulaceae, Fabaceae, and Solanaceae (4 species each), Cucurbitaceae and Plantaginaceae (3 species each), Aizoaceae, Caryophyllaceae, Oxalidaceae, and Zygophyllaceae (2 species each), while the other 18 families were represented by only one species (Fig. 2).

Table 2.

Vegetation composition of the herbaceous layer of various sites (Frequency (F), Relative Density (R.D.), and Relative Frequency (R.F.).

SpeciesDensity/m2FR.D.R.F.
Site 1: Basti Talpur
Cynodon dactylon L.2.8246.0247.5
Dactyloctenium aegyptium L.2.24204.8196.25
Desmotachya bipinnata L.2.64205.6806.25
Dichanthium annulatum Forssk.2.88166.1965
Typha angustifolia L.2124.3033.75
Site 2: Mithawan
Chloris flagellifera Nees.3.846015.19015.464
Aerva javanica Burm. f.2.24348.8618.763
Eragrostis minor Host.1.84327.2788.247
Fagonia cretica L.1.2204.7475.155
Solanum virginianum L.1.6206.3295.155
Site 3: Chak Talpur
Aerva javanica Burm. f.2.08305.9776.466
Chloris flagellifera Nees.1.92245.5175.172
Fagonia cretica L.1.76245.0575.172
Solanum virginianum L.1.2203.4484.310
Glinus lotoides L.1.44204.1384.310
Site 4: Qaim Wala
Cenchrus ciliaris L.2.32326.7137.442
Eragrostis minor Host.1.68184.8614.186
Aerva javanica Burm. f.0.96182.7784.186
Chloris flagellifera Nees.1.12183.2414.186
Alternanthera sessilis L.1.52164.3983.721
Site 5: Khanpur
Chenopodiastrum murale L.3.04247.955.941
Typha angustifolia L.1.44223.7665.446
Melilotus indicus L.1.28183.3474.455
Fagonia cretica L.1.84184.8124.455
Vicia sativa L.1.76164.6033.960
Site 6: Bakherwah
Fagonia cretica L.2.32245.9065.505
Citrullus colocynthis L.1.68244.2775.505
Eragrostis minor Host.1.44163.6663.670
Euphorbia serpens Kunth.0.96162.4443.670
Aerva javanica Burm. f.1.12162.8513.670
Site 7: Rohi Talpur
Chenopodiastrum murale L.3.76249.4576.154
Cenchrus ciliaris L.1.52203.8235.128
Fagonia cretica L.1.84184.6284.615
Cyperus rotundus (L.)1.2143.0183.590
Chrozophora plicata Vahl.1.04142.6163.590
Site 8: Chak Jalloharr
Aerva javanica Burm. f.1.52244.1585.455
Convolvulus arvenses L.2.8247.6595.455
Glinus lotoides L.2245.4705.455
Convolvulus prostratus Forssk.1.04202.8454.545
Solanum virginianum L.0.88182.4074.091

For the vegetation composition, a total of 5 species have been selected from each site with the highest density and frequency. In the present study, density (density/m2), relative density (%), frequency (%), and relative frequency (%) were calculated for all 120 species (Table 2). The result highlighted that the species Chloris flagellifera showed the highest density and relative density, followed by Chenopodiastrum murale in sites 2, 7, and 5, respectively. Whereas frequency and relative frequency were found highest from Chloris flagellifera in site 2, followed by Aerva javanica, Cenchrus ciliaris, and Eragrostis minor as compared to other sites (Table 2).

Fig. 3.

Vegetation composition with species diversity=H, species evenness=J, variance of evenness=Var(J), variance of diversity=Var(H), species richness=d1 and Dominance=D values of different sites (1= Achyranthes aspera, 2= Aerva javanica, 3= Aeluropus lagopoides, 4= Alternanthera sessilis, 5= Amaranthus deflexus, 6= Anagallis arvensis, 7= Asphodelus tenuifolius, 8= Boerhavia diffusa, 9= Carthamus lanatus, 10= Cenchrus ciliaris, 11= Chenopodiastrum murale, 12= Cleome brachycarpa, 13= Chloris flagellifera, 14= Chrozophora plicata, 15= Citrullus colocynthis, 16= Convolvulus arvenses, 17= Convolvulus prostrates, 18= Cressa cretica, 19= Crisium arvense, 20= Cynodon dactylon, 21= Cyperus rotundus, 22= Dichanthium annulatum, 23= Echinops echinatus, 24= Eclipta alba, 25= Eragrostis minor, 26= Euphorbia helioscopia, 27= Euphorbia hirta, 28= Euphorbia serpens, 29= Fagonia cretica, 30= Fumaria parviflora, 31= Galium aparine, 32= Glinus lotoides, 33= Heliotropium europoeum, 34= Heliotropium ovalifolium, 35= Imperata cylindrica, 36= Launaea nudicaulis, 37= Malcolmia Africana, 38= Medicago polymorpha, 39= Melilotus indicus, 40= Oxalis dilleniid, 41= Parthenium hysterophorus, 42= Persicaria glabra, 43= Phalaris minor, 44= Phragmites australis, 45= Phyla nodiflora, 46= Polypogon monspeliensis, 47= Ranunculus sceleratus, 48= Reseda villossa, 49= Solanum americanum, 50= Solanum virginianum, 51= Sonchus oleraceus, 52= Sorghum halepense, 53= Spergularia marina, 54= Taraxacum officinale, 55= Tribulus terrestris, 56= Typha angustifolia, 57= Vicia sativa, 58= Zaleya pentandra).

https://www.pjoes.com/f/fulltexts/186936/PolJEnvironStud-2025-34-3-2359-2374_Fig_3_min.jpg

There are 10 important species selected with diversity indices from each site concerning their diversity pattern and conservation status at different sites. The result showed that the highest Simpson Index (D) was observed in Khanpur site no. 5 by Dichanthium annulatum because the study was conducted from December to April, which is the best season for its growth and yield production (Fig. 3).

The lowest Simpson index (D) was shown by Euphorbia hirta in site no. 2, Mithawan. Unusually, the overall highest Simpson index (D) is shown by Basti Talpur site no. 1 and the lowest by Mithawan site no. 2, which is the fluvial site. Mithawan is facing large grazing pressure, and agricultural activity is increasing day by day. Chloris flagellifera in site 2 had the highest general diversity (H) among all the sites, followed by Cenchrus ciliaris in site 4 and Aerva javanica in site 8 with Shannon diversity-index 2.61 and 2.41, respectively. The highest values of the Shannon Diversity-Index (H) in these sites indicate greater species richness and diverse community structure. Conversely, Sonchus oleraceus had the lowest 0.41 Shannon Diversity index in site 3 as compared to other sites. Across all sites, we observed that Aerva javanica had consistent Shannon Diversity-Index (H) values, which indicated its suitable habitat. In comparison to all sites, 4 and 5 had an even distribution of plant species. This means these are least disturbed by human impact, and these sites can maintain their diversity pattern through many ecological processes (Fig. 3).

The clear superiority in terms of species richness and evenness had been taken by Chloris flagellifera in site 2, followed by Cenchrus ciliaris and Aerva javanica in sites 4 and 3, respectively. The highest values of species richness and evenness of these species are an indication of dominance and adaptation in their respective ecosystems. In terms of even distribution and stability, the communities of site 4, site 5, and site 6 had the highest stability in their species richness and evenness in comparison to the other 5 sites, which had fluctuations between high and low in their values of species richness and evenness. Our observations of the diversity indices of each site indicated that a large number of dominant species in the study area are invasive, and the fluctuation of values between high and low for some species is proof of this phenomenon. The invasive species pose a major threat to the diversity of the area. The other reason is that the pressure exerted on many plant species, mainly fodder plants that belong to the Poaceae family, is because people of the study area are farmers in professions that have grazing animals like goats, sheep, cows, etc. and we know these animals consume more fodder and exert pressure on the natural vegetation of the study area (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4.

Shows the highest diversity indices of different sites in the study area.

https://www.pjoes.com/f/fulltexts/186936/PolJEnvironStud-2025-34-3-2359-2374_Fig_4_min.jpg
Table 3.

Importance Value Index (IVI) and random distribution pattern of recorded plant species from various sites (Ann.=Annual, Per.= Perennial, Fd. = Fodder, Med.= Medicinal).

FamiliesLife cycleEconomic importanceSite 1Site 2Site 3Site 4Site 5Site 6Site 7Site 8
Aizoaceae
Trianthema portulacastrum (L.)Ann.Fd.2.28_______
Zaleya pentandra (L.)Per.Fd._1.152.303.48__4.301.78
Amaranthaceae
Achyranthes aspera (L.)Per.Med.4.24__5.343.24___
Aerva javanica (Burm.f.) Juss. & Schult.Per.Med.3.5313.249.455.583.164.694.216.89
Alternanthera sessilis (L.)Ann.Med.2.20__5.92_2.14_2.88
Amaranthus albus (L.)Ann.Med.______2.78_
Amaranthus deflexus (L.)Ann.Med.3.71_____3.18_
Amaranthus viridis (L.)Ann.Med.1.59_______
Chenopodiastrum murale (L.)Ann.Med.1.511.784.20_10.927.3112.534.42
Chenopodium album (L.)Ann.Med._1.84___6.492.183.99
Asphodelaceae
Asphodelus tenuifolius (Cav.)Ann.Med.__2.64__2.294.45_
Asteraceae
Carthamus lanatus (L.)Ann.Med.______3.18_
Crisium arvense (L.)Ann.Med.2.82__4.534.665.65__
Echinops echinatus (Roxb.)Ann.Med._2.36_4.532.841.072.583.33
Eclipta alba (L.)Per.Med.2.20__4.53___2.43
Erigeron bonariensis (L.)Ann.Med._1.15_____2.00
Gnaphalium uliginosum (L.)Ann.Med._____2.78__
Launaea capitata (Spreng.) DandyAnn.Med.2.71_______
Launaea nudicaulis (L.) Hook.f.Ann.Med.____2.841.483.501.56
Launea mucronata (Forssk.)Ann.Med._1.72______
Parthenium hysterophorus (L.)Ann.Med.___4.99____
Reichardia picroides (L.) RothPer.Med._____0.87__
Sonchus oleraceus (L.)Ann.Med._1.721.672.212.702.23_
Taraxacum officinale (L.)Per.Med._1.472.99__3.79__
Xanthium strumarium (L.)Ann.Med.1.85__1.39____
Boraginaceae
Heliotropium bacciferum (Forssk.)Per.Fd._1.841.98_____
Heliotropium europoeum (L.)Ann.Fd._6.494.945.11_3.215.914.86
Heliotropium ovalifolium (Forssk.)Per.Med.1.85_1.75__4.23_
Heliotropium ramosissimum (Lehm.) Sieber ex DC.Per.Med.__1.98___3.33_
Heliotropium strigossum (Wild.)Per.Med._1.152.41_____
Brassicaceae
Lepidium didymum (L.)Ann.Fd.______2.23_
Malcolmia africana (L.)Ann.Med.______2.84_
Moricandia arvense (L.)Ann.Fd._2.99______
Sisymbrium irio (L.)Ann.Fd.___3.83____
Capparidaceae
Cleome brachycarpa (Vahl ex DC.)Per.Med.__2.53___2.583.77
Caryophyllaceae
Spergularia marina (L.) Besser.Ann.Med.___4.411.29___
Stellaria media (L.) Vill,Dist.Ann.Med.1.77______1.77
Convolvulaceae
Convolvulus arvenses (L.)Per.Med.5.06_3.42_6.094.842.6410.39
Convolvulus prostratus (Forssk.)Per.Med.__5.32_1.583.774.705.12
Cressa cretica (L.)Per.Med._0.57_5.924.66_1.72_
Ipomea lacunosa (L.)Ann.Med.1.68______
Cucurbitaceae
Citrullus colocynthis (L.)Per.Med._1.724.283.83_7.033.04_
Cucumis maderaspatanus (L.)Per.Med.1.77_______
Cucumis melo var.agrestis (Naudin.)Ann.Med.3.10_____1.12_
Cyperaceae
Cyperus difformis (L.)Ann.Med.1.59___4.55___
Cyperus rotundus (L.)Per.Med.4.144.513.53_5.672.934.813.33
Eleocharis geniculata (L.) Roem. & Schult.Ann.Med.____3.29___
Schoenoplectus lacustris (L.) Palla.Per.Med.___3.251.12___
Scirpus maritimus (L.)Per.Med.____2.87___
Equisetaceae
Equisetum ramosissimum (Desf.)Per.Med.1.57_______
Euphorbiaceae
Chrozophora plicata (Vahl) A.Juss. ex Spreng.Ann.Med.__3.534.06_3.624.415.53
Euphorbia helioscopia (L.)Ann.Med.____3.75___
Euphorbia hirta (L.)Ann.Med._1.724.86_____
Euphorbia maculata (L.)Ann.Med._5.86______
Euphorbia prostrata (Aiton.)Ann.Med.__1.09_____
Euphorbia serpens (Kunth.)Ann.Med.2.13____4.28_2.00
Phyllanthus maderaspatensis (L.)Ann.Med.__3.74_____
Fabaceae
Medicago polymorpha (L.)Ann.Fd._______3.99
Melilotus indicus (L.) All.Ann.Fd.____5.584.863.703.98
Vicia sativa (L.)Ann.Med.____6.583.621.523.10
Juncaceae
Juncus maritimus (Lam.)Ann.Med.___1.970.911.50__
Leguminosae
Lathyrus aphaca (L.)Ann.Med.____3.92___
Molluginaceae
Glinus lotoides (L.)Per.Med._1.726.38_2.873.62_8.20
Nyctiginaceae
Boerhavia diffusa (L.)Ann.Med.4.87______3.32
Orobanchaceae
Lindenbergia indica (L.)_1.72____1.33
Oxalidaceae
Oxalis carniculata (L.)Ann.Med._1.15____3.393.09
Oxalis dillenii (Jacq.)Ann.Med._____4.61__
Papaveraceae
Fumaria parviflora (Lam.)Ann.Med.____4.13___
Papilionaceae
Trifolium repens (L.)Per.Fd.2.20_______
Trifolium resupinatum (L.)Ann.Fd._______4.42
Plantaginaceae
Nanorrhinum ramosissimum (Wall.)Ann.Med._2.36______
Veronica polita (Fries.)Ann.Med._______2.00
Veronica undulata (Wall.)Per.Med._______2.65
Poaceae
Aeluropus lagopoides (L.)Per.Fd.___4.872.383.36__
Agrostis capillaris (L.)Per.Fd.1.59_______
Arundo donax (L.)Per.Med.2.28_______
Bromus diandrus (Roth.)Ann.Med._____3.392.64_
Cenchrus ciliaris (L.)Per.Fd.3.255.095.3710.803.333.216.393.54
Cenchrus longispinus (Hack.)Ann.Fd.__4.17__2.113.24_
Chloris virgata (Sw.)Ann.Fd._____1.07__
Chloris flagellifera (Nees) P.M.PetersonPer.Fd._22.927.935.812.913.213.613.34
Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.Per.Med.10.51_3.85_2.001.711.57_
Dactyloctenium aegyptium (L.)Ann.Fd.8.661.473.51_____
Dactyloctenium scindicum (Boiss.)Per.Fd._4.34______
Desmotachya bipinnata (L.)Per.Med.9.09__5.341.33___
Dichanthium annulatum (Forssk.) Stapf)Per.Fd.8.104.392.735.464.074.05_3.78
Digitaria adscendens (Kunth) Henr.Ann.Fd._______2.44
Echinochloa colona (L.)Ann.Fd.1.85_5.52_____
Eragrostis minor (Host.)Ann.Fd.1.5111.403.626.62_5.504.10_
Eragrostis tenella (L.) P.Beauv. ex Roem. & Schult.Ann.Fd._6.35_____1.77
Imperata cylindrica (L.)Per.Fd.3.08__4.180.91___
Pennisetum orientale (L.)Per.E__2.73____0.89
Pennisetum setaceum (Forssk.)Per.E_2.61_1.97__0.92_
Phalaris minor (Retz.)Ann.Fd._____1.572.44
Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin.Ex Steud.Per.Fd.5.21__4.882.701.50__
Polypogon monspeliensis (L.)Ann.Med.____4.17_1.72_
Saccharum munja (Roxb.)Per.E2.48_1.094.072.70__0.45
Setaria pumila (Poiret.) Roemer & SchultesAnn.Fd.1.77_______
Sorghum halepense (L.)Per.Fd._1.155.034.06__3.412.90
Sporobolus indicus (L.)Per.Med.__5.00_____
Typha angustifolia (L.)Per.E5.90__5.466.492.78__
Polygonaceae
Persicaria glabra (Willd.) M. GómezPer.Med.5.02___2.84___
Polygonum aviculare (L.)Ann.Med._______4.20
Rumex acetosa (L.)Per.Med.____4.34___
Rumex nepalensis (Spreng.)Per.Fd.1.59_______
Rumex pulcher (L.)Per.Med.____1.09___
Pontederiaceae
Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) solms.Per.Med.2.46_______
Portulacaceae
Portulaca oleracea (L.)Ann.Med.___1.86____
Primulaceae
Anagallis arvensis (L.)Ann.Med.____5.043.363.84_
Ranunculaceae
Ranunculus sceleratus (L.)Ann.Med._____3.18__
Resedaceae
Reseda villossa (Coss.)Per.Fd._2.305.32_2.66__5.74
Rubiaceae
Galium aparine (L.)Ann.Med.__2.64_____
Solanaceae
Physalis minima (L.)Ann.Med.1.68_______
Solanum americanum (Mill.)Ann.Med.______3.81_
Solanum nigrum (L.)Ann.Med.5.21____2.983.70_
Solanum virginianum (L.)Per.Med.4.248.916.03_2.702.143.044.45
Tiliaceae
Chorchorus depressus (L.)Per.Med._0.57______
Verbenaceae
Phyla nodiflora (L.) GreenePer.Med.___5.113.082.50_2.67
Zygophyllaceae
Fagonia cretica (L.)Per.Med._7.327.70_7.048.666.946.62
Tribulus terrestris (L.)Ann.Med.2.997.762.76__4.643.70_

The IVI values determined the dominance of species assigned on the basis of these IVI values. Chloris flagellifera was the dominant species, followed by Aerva javanica, Cleome brachycarpa, and Chenopodiastrum murale. The dominance of species indicated the fulfillment of suitable and desired conditions for ecological success in different studied sites. The random pattern (the distribution pattern) of plant species in different habitats was assessed, and the result revealed that 100% were randomly distributed (Table 3).

Dera Ghazi Khan Rangelands and their environments are home to a diverse array of plant species that flourish in a variety of habitats. There are two types of habitats in the research area: piedmont and alluvial. Dera Ghazi Khan is located in the Suleman mountain range and is extremely rich in floral variety. We identified the quantity and composition of communities in two historical locations, Piedmont and Riparian habitats, at various altitudinal inclines. The most significant source of habitat for floral variation is topographically diversified landscapes. Species diversity is also dramatically reduced at high altitudes compared to low altitudes [38]. Kenar & Kikvidze [39] reported that biological and evolutionary processes resulted in high species richness and served as corridors of plant and animal migration in the past. Site 1 had the highest density and relative density, and Site 4 had the lowest. Site 2 also had the highest frequency and relative frequency, and Site 6 had the lowest. Site 2 had the highest diversity indices value, and site 1 had the lowest. Poaceae has the greatest species diversity in all study sites due to the production of a large number of reproductive seeds and the many means of seed dispersion through grazing animals, fluvial water, and air. The magnitude of the diversity indices varied somewhat for different species, showing a low or high degree of aggregation where it was significant. Similar results were reported by Wang et al. [40]. Ahmad et al. [38] reported that a total of 76 species were predicted during the summer season. The maximum number of species belong to the Poaceae family, including Aristida adscensionis, Brachiari areptans, Cenchrus ciliaris, Cenchchrus setiger, Chloris barbata, Cymbopogon jawarancusa, Cynodon dactylon, Cynodon glabratus, Demostachya bipinnata, Dichanthium annulatum, Enneapogon persicus, Eragrostis minor, Eragrostis barrelieri, Panicum hemitomon, Panicum repens, Phalaris minor, Phragmites australis, Saccharum munja, Saccharum officinarum, and Saccharum spontaneum, and these are followed by the Fabaceae and Amaranthaceae families from Dera Ghazi Khan.

Plant scientists worldwide show a common interest in native plant species to predict new inclusive research investigations and ethnopharmacological, ecological, and phytoplankton studies skewed toward charismatic contributions [41, 42]. The phenotypic variation and systematic importance of flowering plants are investigated in different geographical regions of Pakistan to measure the functional diversity in restored ecosystems [43, 44]. As a result, the sources of floral scent variation and floristic diversity provide phylogenetic patterns as per the investigation of earlier researchers [45, 46]. According to Sharma et al. [47], the high species richness in the temperate ecosystem is an indication of better environmental conditions for the survival of plant communities, such as moderate temperature, proper seasonal rainfall, and moisture content that are desired for healthy plant growth. Evenness accounts for more variation in the Shannon diversity index (H), which is in agreement with Yadav & Sharma [48]. The highest species richness was also shown by Chloris flagellifera in Site 2, with an altitude of 190m. With respect to sampling, it must be noted that even in the case of random sampling, the quadrats may not be independent samples as the variation in species richness in the field may influence the quadrats (that may be species poor or species rich accordingly) situated in the vicinity of each other in species poor or species rich sections [49, 50]. Variances of diversity and equitability were not unexpectedly consistently low for almost all species, as has previously been observed by Ivashchenko et al. [51]. Species diversity may be important because of its possible role in the establishment and coexistence of species though, in some model systems it is found to play hardly any role in these processes [52]. Dominance concentration (D) was found to vary inversely with general diversity (H), which is in agreement with the results of Wang et al. [40], Ivashchenko et al. [51], Hussain et al. [53], Bashir et al. [54], and Wang et al. [69].

Variables influencing species diversity include not just abiotic and environmental characteristics, but also climatic gradients impacted by biotic factors [55]. Sustainable use and conservation of plant biodiversity are important for geo-climatic gradients to drive plant species composition, which plays an important role in how plant species assemble locally into communities [56, 57]. An integrated framework of plant structure and function is dependent on the amount of above-ground vegetation [58], which is more constant owing to some psychological processes, and this is fully dependent on regional climatic and edaphic conditions. Our findings are also consistent with previous research [59] undertaken by several plant ecologists across Pakistan’s diverse geographical zones. Herbaceous plants (55.26%) were the most prevalent living form in the alluvial environment of the research region.

The difference in IVI values of different species is due to their environmental conditions and anthropogenic activities around the sites. The wetland habitat is dominated by Typha angustifolia, Schoenoplectus lacustris, Juncus maritimus, and Phragmites australis. In addition, increasing anthropogenic pressures make Choti Zareen biodiversity a fairly sensitive and threatened ecosystem [60, 61]. Fieldwork is essential for phytosociological study and the calculation of diversity. Our devoted findings will help to extend the consensus and concentration of researchers to the herbaceous species of temperate ecosystems in Choti Zareen. In essence, the community under study is an early successional organized community [62, 63] with a low number of species. Species richness, as evaluated by the test proposed by Zhang et al. [64], showed variability within the different sections (or patches) of the community. Zhang et al. [65] explored the phylogenetic diversity and altitudinal patterns of species diversity across temperate mountain forests located in China. [66] examined the phyto-diversity distribution in terms of elevation gradient in Saudi Arabia. [67] conducted a study on the prediction of the soil seed bank of two different geographic arid zones (piedmont and alluvia plains) in Dera Ghazi Khan, Pakistan.

Our results also show consistency in these above-mentioned measures. It is interesting to note that [40, 51, 53, 54, 68, 69] also obtained consistency in the results of the three measures mentioned above. These three similarity measures are the most popular and are recommended for use in ecology.

Ahmad et al. [70] documented that the conservation of phyto-diversity in the Koh-Suleman range mountains has been neglected, especially at lower elevation piedmont zones (Sakhi Sarwar, lower foot hill arid zone) and upper rocky slopes located at high elevations (Fort Manru). There is a need to develop biodiversity conservation strategies for all plant communities and their habitats with the establishment of topographic preferences of these species, especially in the Koh-Suleman range mountains of Gera Ghazi Khan, Pakistan.

Conclusions

The findings of the current study concluded that the study area has 120 herb species, representing 92 genera and 35 families. Poaceaceae and Asteraceae are the dominant families, according to IVI. The dominant species, according to IVI, are Chloris flagellifera and Aerva javanica. The Shannon diversity index (H) is also moderate for this study area in all sites of herbaceous diversity, but the dominant species, Chloris flagellifera, showed the highest diversity, followed by Aerva javanica. The result of this research shows that phytosociological diversity is dominant, and their distribution is favored by vegetation that has larger seed production, well-adaptive mechanisms of seed dispersal and competes for basic needs such as soil nutrients. While phytosociological diversity and distribution patterns were distracted by anthropogenic activities and environmental pressure, from this study, it is concluded that the present status of the herbaceous layer in Choti Zareen, Dera Ghazi Khan district, is satisfactory. But in the future, a lot of challenges will be faced with the diversity of herbs if grazing and anthropogenic activity continue in their present form.