Sal Heartwood Borer Infestation Assessment – Community Presentation

Creator prompt

The idea behind this presentation

--- # **Slide 1: Title** ### *Sal Heartwood Borer (Hoplocerambyx spinicornis) Infestation* * Assessment of Current Situation * Amarkantak Range, Anuppur Forest Division * Madhya Pradesh Forest Department * Scientific Investigation & Management Strategy --- # **Slide 2: Executive Summary** * Infestation detected during Oct–Nov 2025. * Scientific survey conducted jointly with SFRI. * Localized infestation observed in selected compartments. * Integrated management and monitoring proposed. --- # **Slide 3: Anuppur Forest Division** * Administrative profile and forest area. * Distribution of Sal forests. * Ecological importance of Amarkantak. * Forest management framework. --- # **Slide 4: Ecological Importance** * Origin of Narmada, Son and Johila Rivers. * Dense natural Sal forest ecosystem. * High biodiversity and ecosystem services. * Environmentally sensitive landscape. --- # **Slide 5: About Sal Heartwood Borer** * Scientific classification and host species. * Life cycle and seasonal activity. * Nature of damage to Sal trees. * Identification in the field. --- # **Slide 6: History of Sal Borer in India** * First reported in Singhbhum (1897). * Major outbreaks across Central India. * Identified as a periodic forest pest. * Scientific management evolved over time. --- # **Slide 7: History in Madhya Pradesh** * Outbreaks recorded since 1905. * Major infestations in Dindori region. * Large outbreak during 1995–99. * Valuable management lessons available. --- # **Slide 8: Historical Outbreak Analysis** * Magnitude of previous infestations. * Trees affected and removed. * Control measures adopted. * Population decline after intervention. --- # **Slide 9: Comparison of Past Outbreaks** * 1995–99 represented the largest outbreak. * Significant reduction by 2014–15. * Improved monitoring reduced spread. * Scientific management proved effective. --- # **Slide 10: Current Outbreak Timeline** * Infestation reported in Oct–Nov 2025. * SFRI informed on 04 Nov 2025. * Joint inspection on 10–11 Nov 2025. * Continuous monitoring initiated. --- # **Slide 11: Scientific Investigation** * Joint inspection by SFRI experts. * Detailed field assessment conducted. * Compartments inspected systematically. * Technical recommendations issued. --- # **Slide 12: Survey Methodology** * Sample plot-based assessment. * Tree grading (T1–T6). * GPS and compartment mapping. * Statistical estimation of infestation. --- # **Slide 13: Survey Results** * 47 compartments assessed. * 15 compartments affected. * 222 sample plots established. * Estimated affected trees calculated. --- # **Slide 14: Infestation Distribution** * Affected compartments identified. * Severity mapped spatially. * Localized hotspots detected. * GIS-based monitoring proposed. --- # **Slide 15: Field Observations** * Crown drying and yellowing observed. * Exit holes and galleries recorded. * Larger trees more susceptible. * Regeneration noticed in some trees. --- # **Slide 16: Severity Classification** * Six infestation grades (T1–T6). * Classification based on symptoms. * Supports management prioritization. * Useful for long-term monitoring. --- # **Slide 17: Dindori Case Study** * Historical infestation area. * Forest ranges affected. * Extent of damage documented. * Valuable reference for management. --- # **Slide 18: Trees Affected** * Range-wise affected trees. * Total affected forest area. * Distribution across compartments. * Comparative analysis presented. --- # **Slide 19: Beetle Population** * Trap-based beetle monitoring. * Range-wise beetle abundance. * Population variation observed. * Supports outbreak forecasting. --- # **Slide 20: Trap Tree Operations** * Trap trees established strategically. * Beetles attracted before emergence. * Timely felling interrupted breeding. * Proven management technique. --- # **Slide 21: Key Findings** * Infestation remains localized. * No epidemic condition observed. * Early intervention is effective. * Continuous monitoring essential. --- # **Slide 22: Scientific Recommendations** * Increase survey intensity. * Implement trap tree operations. * Remove infested branches promptly. * Coordinate with neighbouring divisions. --- # **Slide 23: Integrated Management Strategy** * Regular monitoring programme. * Silvicultural interventions. * Mechanical and chemical control. * Capacity building of field staff. --- # **Slide 24: Future Monitoring** * Permanent monitoring plots. * GIS and drone surveillance. * Annual health assessment. * Digital database development. --- # **Slide 25: Action Plan (2026–2028)** * Intensive field monitoring. * Preventive control measures. * Scientific research collaboration. * Periodic review and evaluation. --- # **Slide 26: Expected Outcomes** * Early detection of outbreaks. * Reduced tree mortality. * Improved forest health. * Sustainable Sal forest management. --- # **Slide 27: Way Forward** * Strengthen institutional collaboration. * Adopt adaptive management practices. * Enhance staff capacity. * Ensure long-term ecosystem resilience. --- # **Slide 28: Thank You** * Summary of key messages. * Acknowledgement of collaborating institutions. * Questions and discussion. * Contact details. ### Presentation Tip Use the **4×4 Rule** for a clean executive presentation: * **Maximum 4 bullet points per slide** * **Maximum 4–6 words per bullet** * Support each slide with **one visual** (map, chart, infographic, photograph, or timeline) instead of dense text. This style is commonly used in presentations for senior government officials and technical review committees. Follow Design: **Palette:** Deep forest green #1B3B2B, organic bark brown #5C4033, muted field khaki #D2B48C, warnings in warning rust-red #A04000, background in clean paper cream #FDFBF7 **Type:** Lora for elegant, authoritative scientific headings; DM Sans for clean, legible body text and field data **Layout:** Asymmetric, inspired by field-guide catalog pages; thin vintage borders; slides structured with "Metadata Blocks" in the top-right corner containing compartment codes, survey dates, and officer badges **Framework treatment:** The T1–T6 severity classification is rendered as a clean, rustic botanical grading table; comparison timelines are styled as a delicate, hand-drawn chronological scale; maps and spatial data are framed with thin, technical-drawing wireframe borders **Feels like:** An elegant, high-end botanical research journal meets a modern environmental field dispatch

Sal Heartwood Borer Infestation Assessment – Community Presentation | Presenton