Abstract
A case study was conducted in Aghberg rangeland (Quetta District) during 2005 ? 2006. Two protected sites (without fences) were established by community participation and with collaboration of UNDP and non-protected sites were public grazing area on the immediate vicinity. It was observed that species composition, diversity, total ground cover and dry matter were significantly increased in protected sites when compared to non-protected sites. It appears that rainfall limiting the abundance of species and biomass production during 2006. But the losses provided by local inhabitants and nomads were more severe due to uprooting all the plants for fuel wood and other purposes. It is suggested that community participation can play a key role in rangeland rehabilitation if they sustain these ranges for longer period.

Abstract
Animal diets that are known to be successful are often shared by colleagues in zoological collections, within and between countries. However diets are only comparable if the compositions of the ingredients are also equivalent. For manufactured products, such as pelleted feed, this can be confirmed relatively easily by the nutrient information label. Diets for zoo animals also include many perishable ingredients, including whole prey items, forage, fruit and vegetables. Fruit and vegetables (commonly referred to as produce) typically form a large part of the fresh weight and financial cost of zoo diets. Is the produce available in different parts of the world is nutritionally equivalent? Data on food composition is published by many countries and was used to make this comparison. The produce items compared are those most popularly used by Chester Zoo, based on analysis of fruit and vegetable usage over a 12 month period (April 2008-March 2009). The ten most used fruit and vegetables (in kg fresh weight) were identified and data on their composition compared using tables published for 16 countries in Europe, the Americas, Asia and Australasia.

Abstract
Food legumes, either summer or winters have been associated with marginal inputs and interest since their domestication. Pakistan enjoys four distinguish seasons a year that favour to produce winter as well as summer legumes. Winter legumes consists of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), lentils (Lens culinaris), peas (Pisum sativum), grass pea (Lathyrus sativus) and faba bean (Vicia faba), whereas summer legumes are mungbean (Vigna radiata), black gram (Vigna mungo), cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) and moth bean (Vigna oconotifolium). Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) is confined to high mountainous region of northern areas ranging the altitude 1000 to 2400 m. These legumes have been collected and preserved in the gene bank as active collection (short duration, 10 oC, 20 years), base collection (medium term, 5 oC, 50 years) and original collection (long term,?20 oC, more than 50 years). The number preserved in the gene bank is 2243 (chickpea), 805 (lentil), 645 (peas), 99 (lathyrus), 58 (faba bean), 712 (mungbean), 647 (black gram), 192 (cowpea), 66 (moth bean) and 102 (common bean). About 90% of summer legumes and 60% winter legumes have been characterized and evaluated. The germplasm of black gram (340 accessions), mungbean (260 accessions), lentil (350 accessions), chickpea (350 accessions), wild chickpea (40 accessions), peas (345 accessions), cowpea (173 accessions) and wild Vigna spp. (one accession) have been evaluated for total seed protein profiling. Except peas and wild chickpea, a low level of genetic diversity was observed for all the material evaluated. Forty accessions of wild chickpea were evaluated for total seed proteins that indicated high level of genetic diversity as compared with cultivated chickpea. This situation lead to use of DNA markers, therefore 40 accessions of black gram, 17 of lentil and 40 of pea were analyzed for RAPD that gave higher level of genetic diversity than SDS-PAGE. It was concluded that SDS-PAGE could confidently be used for identification of various species of legumes (Vigna radiata vs V. mungo; Lens vs Vicia), whereas this technique did not prove efficient for investigating intra-specific identification and it was assumed that SDS-PAGE may define a small portion of genetic diversity in legumes. Legume genetic resources are required to be characterized and evaluated along with protein and DNA markers for predicted utilization and better gene bank management. Comprehensive data will lead to establishment of core collections and enable researchers to eliminate duplications from the collections and to minimize labor and cost involved in crop improvement program. Low genetic diversity coupled with low stability is a characteristic for most of the legumes that could be minimized by developing a sound linkage between various stakeholder including CGIAR centers for legumes development program.

Abstract
Abstract The effect of Eucalyptus leaf litter on growth and root nodulation of mung bean (Vigna radiata {L.} R. Wilczek) was studied in pot experiment under natural conditions. There were five Eucalyptus litter treatments (0%, 8%, 16%, 24%, and 32% on v/v basis) applied in garden soil. The experiment was set up in completely randomized design with nine replicates for each treatment at each harvest. The four harvests were taken at the following developmental/physiological stages: start of flowering, start of pod formation, middle of pod formation, and seed maturity. A number of growth parameters were used to collect data at each harvest. The data was subjected to statistical analysis by applying Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and the means were compared by Duncans Multiple Range Test (DMRT). The Eucalyptus litter treatments generally showed adverse effect on various parameters of vegetative growth, reproductive growth and root nodulation of mung bean. The adverse effect increased with increasing Eucalyptus litter treatments. The results highlighted negative effect of Eucalyptus plantation on the growth and yield of mung bean.

Abstract
into existence in the 19th century. Nevertheless, scientifically based knowledge on bear nutrition in terms of nutritional composition of natural food, digestion and requirements for growth, maintenance and reproduction are rare. The diet for different bear species in captivity ? with the exception of polar bears, sloth bears and giant pandas ? is often still very similar, consisting of fruits, mainly apples and pears, and vegetables, mainly carrots, to varying degrees supplemented by animal matters of different origin. This composition is based on the assumption of an omnivorous feeding style without considering species differences in terms of food composition and seasonal (and hormonally triggered) fluctuations in food intake. In consequence, nutrient composition and amounts of captive diets can differ significantly from what can be expected in the wild. In tropical bears, this feeding practice often results in obese bears, whereas bears of the moderate and higher altitudes are too lean during certain seasons. The feeding technique ? one main meal with or without several scatter feeds per day offered in similar quantities over the whole year - does apply more to a tropical carnivore than to an omnivorous carnivore with a simple digestive tract, but behavioural and physiological adaptations to survive on a mainly vegetarian diet in different climates. This technique is one of the causes for the development of stereotypic behaviours, which are frequently observed in ursids. The few scientific studies on ursid nutrition focus on digestion of the omnivorous brown bears and American black bears and the carnivorous polar bears. Similar studies are lacking for the other more tropical species with somewhat different food niches and specializations either towards more vegetarian (Andean bears) or more insectivorous diets (sun bear and sloth bear). The rapidly growing knowledge on feeding ecology of all ursid species in combination with their morphological features will be used to propose diets and feeding techniques which approach the species specific behavioural and nutritional requirements more closely. Examples of diets and feeding techniques will be provided for brown bears, polar bears, Andean and sun bears. Finally fields for research on bear feeding and nutrition will be briefly outlined.