Impact of Mikania micrantha invasion and perceptions of local communities in Central Nepal

Figures & data

Map of the study area showing Kumroj Buffer Zone Community Forest in the bufferzone of the Chitwan National Park, Nepal.

Table 1. Description of variables used in the analysis

Variables	Category used	Description
Caste Group	Damai, Janajati, Tharu, and Brahmin/Chhetri	Damai traditionally engages in crafts like tailoring; Janajati refers to diverse indigenous ethnic groups; Tharu represents an indigenous group in the Terai region; and Brahmin/Chhetri consists of high-caste groups.
Types of Residents	Native and Migrant	Native residents are those originally from the study area, while Migrant residents have relocated from other parts of the country, such as Gorkha, Kaski, Lamjung, Syangja, and Tanahun.
Occupation Types	Agriculture, Jobs, Animal Products, Remittance, and Others	Agriculture involves farming, Job includes formal employment, Animal Product covers animal husbandry, Remittance relies on income from family members working abroad, and Others encompass any other occupation.
Housing Types	General, Mud, Concrete	General housing types have roofing made of corrugated galvalume steel sheet, Mud houses are constructed primarily using mud, and Concrete types are built using concrete for a more durable structure.

Table 2. Summary of sociodemographic and characteristics of household respondents (n = 144)

Variables	Categories	Mean ± standard deviation	Percentage (%)
Age of respondents (years)		47 ± 12.76 yrs
	<35		26.4%
	35–54		45.8%
	≥55		27.8%
Gender	Male		52%
	Female		48%
Caste group	Damai		3.5%
	Janajati		19.4%
	Tharu		34.7%
	Brahmin/Chhetri		42.4%
Education level	Illiterate		10%
	Primary/Literate		50.7%
	Higher/Secondary		36.2%
	Have a bachelor’s degree		2.8%
Annual household Income level (US dollar)^ϯ		$1693.5 ± 1454.8
	Low ≤ $1000/yr		45.1%
	Average >$1000–$2000/yr		22.2%
	High >$2000		32.6%
Occupation	Agriculture		52.8%
	Job		22.9%
	Animal product ^Ϩ		11.8%
	Remittance		6.3%
	Others		6.3%
Walking distance to the forest area		20.7 ± 12.5 min
	Near (<15 min)		42.4%
	Medium (15 ~ 30 min)		32.6%
	Far (30 ~ 50 min)		25%
Types of residents	Native		51.4%
	Migrant		48.6%
Family members	The number of family members	5.41 ± 2.25 /household
Housing type	Concrete		56.3%
	General		31/9%
	Mud		11.8%
Landholding	Landholding size (ha)	3.59 ± 3.74 ha

^ϯAnnual income in Nepalese rupee/currency (NRP) was converted into US dollars using the ratio of NRP/USD, where 1 USD was equivalent to 110 NRP during the survey year.

^ϨAnimal products include the sales of livestock and fisheries.

Table 3. Contributing percentage of primary income sources in the annual gross family income, average income (mean ± standard deviation), and agricultural and animal contribution percentage (mean ± standard deviation) to the primary income sources

Income sources	Total contribution (n = 144)	Average income (mean ± stdev)	^ϯϯAgricultural contribution (%)	^ϨAnimal product contribution (%)
Agriculture	52.78%	$1018 ± 971 (n = 76)	69.7 ± 17.1	32.2 ± 10.7
Animal products	11.81%	$2397 ± 1817 (n = 17)	23.4 ± 23.5	79.5 ± 16.2
Jobs	22.92%	$2454 ± 1593 (n = 33)	16.3 ± 8.12	13.7 ± 11.4
Others	6.25%	$1721 ± 938 (n = 9)	31.0 ± 18.8	15.9 ± 10.2
Remittance	6.25%	$3253 ± 878 (n = 9)	16.6 ± 11.1	5.95 ± 4.38

^ϯϯAgriculture and ^Ϩanimal products contribute to gross family income since it is an integral part of livelihood in the rural community in Nepal.

Table 4. Perception related to M. micrantha invasion

Variables	Category/Respondent (%)	χ2	p-value
Arrival of M. micrantha
General	After 1993 (61.1); 3–4 years ago (28.5); Not sure (10.4)	57.04	<0.001
Resident type	Native (36.8); Migrant (24.3)	12.98	<0.001
Observation in farmland	Yes (68.75), No (31.75)	20.25	<0.001
Walking distance from forest	Near (34.7); Medium (20.8); Far (13.2)	9.76	0.07
Usage of M. micrantha	Using (61.8); Not using (38.2)	7.5	0.005
M. micrantha abundance and invasion	Increasing (44); decreasing (41); same (10); cannot say (5)	70.5	<0.001
M. micrantha as a bio-product	Using as a raw material (18); not using (82)	58.78	<0.001
Perception of M. micrantha invasion
General	Negative (43.7); mixed (29.2); no feeling (27.1)	7.13	0.028
Walking distance from forest	Near (29.8); medium (10.4); far (3.4)	40.41	<0.0001
Resident type	Migrant (27.8); native (16)	7.13	0.028

Table 5. Parameter estimates for the generalized model with logit function for the response on the use of Mikania micrantha (Yes = 1, No = 0) at a significance level (α) of 0.05. Odds ratio is obtained by exponentiation of the estimate of the model

Variables	Estimates	Std. error	z-value	Pr(>|Z|)	Odds ratio
Intercept	−4.696	1.596	−2.943	0.003*	0.009
Income source_Agriculture	1.801	1.230	1.464	0.143	6.058
Income source_ Animal products^Ϩ	1.766	1.337	1.323	0.186	5.864
Income source_Job	2.357	1.253	1.881	0.06	10.556
Income source_Remittance	0.556	1.545	0.360	0.719	1.744
Landholdings	0.432	0.201	2.148	0.032*	1.541
No of family members	0.694	0.185	3.744	<0.001*	2.001
Residents_Native	0.045	0.645	0.071	0.944	1.047
Housing Type _General	−1.694	0.741	−2.285	0.022*	0.184
Housing Type_Mud	2.682	1.525	1.758	0.079	14.618
Distance_Far	−0.504	0.561	−0.898	0.369	0.604
Distance_Medium	0.329	0.520	0.633	0.527	1.389
Caste_Brahmin/Chhetri	−1.0434	0.6008	−1.736	0.083	0.352
Caste_Damai	−0.4900	1.1600	−0.422	0.673	0.613
Caste_Janjati^ϨϨ	−1.6386	0.6890	−2.378	0.017*	0.194
Landholdings: No. of family members	−0.0747	0.0308	−2.425	0.015*	0.928
Native: Housing Type _General	0.3698	0.9631	0.384	0.701	1.447
Native: Housing Type _MUD	−6.8287	2.1890	−3.120	0.002*	0.001

^ϨAnimal products = Sales of livestock, dairy product, and fisheries; ^ϨϨJanjati = Gurung, Magar, and Newars; *significance level of α = 0.05; The parameter estimate significance is compared with the base level for each factor. For example, the base level are others, near, and Tharu for the income source, distance category, and caste group respectively.

Figure 3. Chisquare model correspondence analysis showing variability in the peoples’ spatial perception (solid triangles) of Mikania micrantha in the study area, Kumroj Buffer Zone Community Forest, Chitwan, Nepal. The first dimension (left to right) shows the variability due to the distance. The second dimension (top to bottom) shows variability among the perception type.

Figure 4. Inhibition by M. micrantha on native vegetation community forest area, Kumroj BZCF, CNP, Nepal. In the picture Aspidopterys cordata (a native vegetation with some traditional medicinal values) is covered by the weed.

Figure 2. Response percentage on the potential factors regulating the abundance (increase & decrease) of Mikania micrantha and its invasion.

Table 6. Impact of M. micrantha

Variables	Category/Respondent (%)	χ2	p-value
General	Negative (43.7); mixed (29.2); nothing (27.1)	7.13	<0.02837
Walking distance from forest	Near (29.8); medium (10.4); far (3.4)	40.41	<0.0001
Resident type	Migrant (27.8); native (16)	7.13	<0.02837
Impact of M. micrantha on different areas
Impact on the habitat of wildlife	Impact (57); no impact (43)	2.51	0.1133
Impact on access to forest resources	Collect multiple products (80.5); Don’t collect (19.5)	52.56	<0.0001
Forest product use from CF vs BZF	Fuelwood (87.3)	59.64	<0.0001
	Fodder (90.3)	65.28	<0.0001
Quality and quantity of timber	Decrease in timber quality (83.6)	48.44	<0.0001
	Decrease in timber quantity (63.6)	65.14	<0.0001
Quality and quantity of fodder	Decrease in fodder quality (81.5)	39.76	<0.0001
	Decrease in fodder quantity (75.7)	91.01	<0.0001
Quality and quantity of wild vegetables	Decrease in quality and quantity of wild vegetables (80.5)	14.05	<0.0001
Impact on the household activity	Agree (68); disagree (32)	18.06	<0.0001
Alternative to scare forest resources	Reduce forest consumption (19.5); practice agroforestry (16); travel to more forest area (12.5); adopt other measures (52)	57.72	<0.0001
Change in household structure	Disagree (79)	47.84	<0.0001
Potential controlling and coping measures for M. micrantha invasion
Control measures	Mechanical (86.6); chemical treatment (11.1); doing nothing (2.1)	187	<0.0001
Control measures with distance	Distance	11.63	<0.0203
	Caste group	14.07	<0.0288
Coping measures	Utilizing as fodder (34); compost manure (30.5); bio-briquette (2.8)	28.3	<0.0284
Coping measures	Housing types	13.69	<0.033
Institution responsibility	BZCFUG (30); National Trust for Nature Conservation (11); Buffer zone management committee (9%)	63.17	<0.0001

Figure 5. M. micrantha invading wheat field, Ghokrela village, Kumroj BZCFUG.

Figure 6. Response percentage for the intervention actions implemented by the concerned agencies to control the invasion of Mikania micrantha. BZCFUG= Buffer zone community forestry user group; NGO = non-governmental organization.

Data availability statement

Data not available-participant consent.