Global Journal of Environmental Research 7 (3): 52-55, 2013

ISSN 1990-925X
IDOSI Publications, 2013
DOI: 10.5829/idosi.gjer.2013.7.3.8198

Diminishing of Mangrove Cover Posing Potential Threats to the

Biodiversity of Pulicat Lake, South India

Vaithianathan Kannan

PG Research Department of Zoology and Wildlife Biology AVC College (Autonomous)

Mannampandal, Mayiladuthurai 609305 Tamil Nadu, India

Abstract: Coastal zones are facing intense and sustained anthropogenic pressure from a range of driving forces.
Demands on the environment are raising serious concerns from environmentalists, stakeholders, coastal
communities and researchers. Pulicat Lake is the second largest lake and a very fragile ecosystem. Pulicat
provides nursery and breeding grounds to many species of coastal-marine fauna including birds and also
supports commercial fishing. Mangroves flourished in Pulicat until the eighteenth century. After several
interventions by humans and nature, the mangrove vegetation started to diminish. At present, there are only
few patches of mangrove plants left in the Pulicat therefore serious conservation action and restoration is
required to prevent the loss of biodiversity.

Key words: Biodiversity Conservation Mangroves Restoration East Coast India

INTRODUCTION hectares (19.8%) is found in the Andaman and Nicobar

Mangroves are the salt-tolerant evergreen littoral
forest found in the intertidal zones of sheltered shores,
estuaries, tidal creeks, backwaters, lagoons, marshes and
mudflats of the tropical and subtropical latitudes [1].
Mangrove plants have peculiar adaptations such as a
strong supporting, interlocking and breathing root system
called pneumatophores; viviparous mode of reproduction,
salt regulation and nutrient retention [2]. They are a
unique ecosystem that provides ecosystem services to
humans. Globally mangroves have an estimated cover
of 15.2 million hectares and are found in 123 countries
worldwide. The most extensive is present in Asia (39%)
[3]. Information on Indian mangroves was first
documented in 1987 and after one decade a detailed status
report on mangroves of India was reported [4]. A number
of studies revealed about the occurrence of mangroves
from different parts of the Indian coast [5]. At present,
there are about 4,87,100 hectares of Indian mangrove
wetlands remains of which 2,75,800 (56.7%) hectares is
spread along the east coast region and 1,14,700 hectares
(23.5%) in the west coast region the remaining 96,600
islands. Of the 56.7% of the mangrove wetlands for the
east coast andhra Pradesh has 42,900 hectares of the total
mangrove cover [6].
The Pulicat Lake (1325-1355N, 8003-8019E) is
the second largest lake in India with an area of 720 km2
span [7] the entire lake has extensive mudflats subject
to tidal influence. The heritage values of Pulicat Lake
have been recognised right from the sixth century [8].
Pazhaverkaddu means Jungle of roots, possibly
implying to the mangrove vegetation, as mangrove forests
were luxuriant in Pulicat Lake until around the end of the
eighteenth century [9,10]. The Dutch stayed at Pulicat
until the year sixteen ninety (Approx) and their ships were
able to enter Pulicat Lake, which was then about 3.8 m
deep. During this period there was assumed to be large
scale destruction of mangroves due to the building of the
port. Possibly, because of exploitation of the mangroves
and several human interventions, the depth of the lake
reduced to 2 m by approximately eighteen hundred AD
[9-11]. The lakes name was originally derived from the
mangrove vegetation, but now there are only small
patches left in this lake, which demands serious

Corresponding Author: Vaithianathan Kannan, PG Research Department of Zoology & Wildlife Biology AVC College
(Autonomous) Mannampandal, Mayiladuthurai 609305 Tamil Nadu, India.

52
 Global J. Environ. Res., 7 (3): 52-55, 2013
conservation action. Historical records show that
about 6,650 to 7,000 years ago, there were luxurious
mangroves, chiefly of the family Rhizophoraceae, on
the north-western shores of the Pulicat Lake. By
approximately 1400 AD the mangrove vegetation seemed
to have shifted eastwards, by approximately 18 km, due
to the massive marine regression. Much later, by about
1450 to 1800 AD. these mangroves extended southwards
[12]. Approximately ten species of mangroves was
recorded on the banks of Buckingham Canal in the
southern part of Andhra Pradesh. On the eastern bank of
the Pulicat Lake, of the total mangrove vegetation, the
most dominant species (about 80%) was found to be the
Excoecaria agallocha [13]. Presently the sparse bushes
of Avicennia marina (Endangered sp.) are found in the
south near Ennore, Kuruvithittu and in small patches
present at the northern parts of Pulicat Lake near
Durgarajapattinam. Some natural regeneration can also be
found along the eastern banks of the Buckingham Canal,
north of the Sullurpet-Sriharikota road, south of the
Sullurpet-Sriharikota road up to Pulincheri kuppam and
Rettela and in the Sriharikota Island [14]. In 2010 the
Global Nature Fund declared the Pulicat as the
threatened lake of the year [15].
Mangroves are largely destroyed by human-induced
activities such as urbanization and agriculture, which
poses significant, threats [16]. In India, Mumbai city is
one of the well-known examples of the mangrove
destruction due to urbanization. All the seven islands of
Mumbai were reclaimed and linked to a continuous
landmass after destroying mangroves in the process. In
Pulicat Lake an analysis of mangrove history indicated
that mangroves flourished at about 6650 years,
whereas the periods around 3100-2799 AD and 2599-2250
AD years were found unfavourable for mangroves [5].
At present, the area is represented by Psamophytes and
is devoid of any mangroves therefore restoration action
must be taken to reintegrate mangroves in the Pulicat
Lake. Palaeo-vegetational records from Pulicat Lake at 4 m
(msl) dated to about 7000 years shows 75 per cent
mangrove taxa in the area, which is now 18 km inland from
the present shoreline [10]. This constant interference
in mangrove forests has made the system to shrink in an
alarming way and at a faster rate than inland tropical
forests and coral reefs [17]. A study predicted that
relative sea level rise could be the greatest threat to the
existing mangroves [18]. It will take millions of years to
correct the loss of species and genetic diversity by
destruction of natural habitats - and we are at the brink of
53
losing some of the precious and key plant and animal
genomes that are likely will not return in the future
[19].
Preserving the environmental diversity of mangroves
is essential to maintaining the monetary values for the
people who live near them and who depend on them for
their survival. This vegetation provides a buffer zone and
acts as a barrier against the sea furies, floods etc. thereby,
averting soil erosion in the coastal zone and protecting
the human habitation [10]. Apart from providing a degree
of coastal protection for communities - there is evidence
that mangroves helped reduce the impact of the Indian
Ocean tsunami in 2004 [20].
Ecological restoration of mangrove forests has only
received attention very recently [21]. In consulting the
original literature on mangrove restoration [21-32] we can
find discussions of the costs of restoration. The costs to
successfully restore both the vegetative cover and the
ecological functions of a mangrove forest have been
reported to be USD 500,000/ha [33, 34].
Palynostratigraphical evidences from areas along the
coastal belt represent the mangrove vegetation during
early to late Holocene period. Palaeovegetational records
with reference to mangrove forests have great potential in
assessing the past climate and sea level fluctuations [10,
12]. Unlike the west coast, due to low topographic slope
and more frequent storms, the east coast is more
vulnerable [17]. To avoid any tragic outcome we need to
find inexpensive ways like developing a plantation system
in the Pulicat Lake and if successful this will bring back
the mangroves and the glory of its dialect that calls
Pazhaverkaddu - the Pulicat. If the mangrove restoration
is done in adequate way, it has potential for biodiversity
enhancement (increase in fish production, prevention
from natural disasters and habitat for various faunal
groups), regeneration of ecosystem services and
provision of benefits for local communities. Successful
ecological restoration of mangrove forests is feasible and
has been done on a large scale in various parts of the
world [35]. If we look after these habitats now, then they
will be around with us in future and the economic benefits
will accrue; creating and maintaining an ecological
management practice.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank Dr. R. Padmanaban, Dr. Sandeep Sharma and
Dr. N. Parthasarathy for corrections and comments on the
manuscript.
 Global J. Environ. Res., 7 (3): 52-55, 2013
REFERENCES
1. Sandilyan, S. and K. Kathiresan, 2012. Mangrove
conservation: a global perspective. Biodiversity
Conservation, 21: 3523-3542.
2. Kathiresan, K. and B.L. Bingham, 2001. Biology of
mangroves and mangrove ecosystems. Advanced
Marine Biology, 40: 81-251.
3. Food and Agricultural Organisation, 2007. The
worlds mangroves 1980-2005, FAO, Rome.
4. Kathiresan, K., 1998. India: a pioneer in mangrove
research too. In: An Anthology of Indian mangroves
(ed. ENVIS Publication), Annamalai University,
southern India, pp: 15-19.
5. Seetharamaiah, J., A. Farooqui, KV. Suryabhagavan
and K. Nageswara Rao, 2005. Evolution of Iskapalli
lagoon in Penner delta region, east coast of India - a
sedimentological and palynological approach. Indian
Journal of Marine Sciences, 34: 267-273.
6. Forest Survey of India, 1999. State of Forest Report,
Ministry of Environment and Forests, Dehra Dun,
Uttar Pradesh, India.
7. Scott, D.A., 1989. A Directory of Asian Wetlands.
The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland,
pp: 477-478.
8. Krishnan, P.T., M.C. Ramesh Kumar, A. Azeez and
M.R. Rajkumar, 2001. Heritage Conservation Plan for
Pulicat, Part One: A Profile of Pulicat. The Indian
National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage, New
Delhi, pp: 27.
9. Anon. 1908. The Imperial Gazetteer of India.
Clarendon Press, Oxford, Vols. IX: 32-33, XX: 242,
XXIII: 98.
10. Caratini, C., 1994. Pulicat: A four century story. The
Hindu, 9 September.
11. Sanjeeva Raj, P.J., 2011. Management of the Food
Web in Pulicat Lake. Indian Journal of Environmental
Education, 11: 5-16.
12. Farooqui, A. and Vaz, G.G. 2000. Holocene
sea-level changes and climatic fluctuations:
Pulicat Lagoon: A case study. Current Science,
79: 1484-1488.
13. Jayasundaramma, B., R. Ramamurthy, E. Narasimhulu
and D.V.L. Prasad, 1987. Mangroves of South Central
Andhra Pradesh: State of Art Report and
Conservation Strategies, Proceeding of National
Seminar on Estuarine Management (Trivandrum),
pp: 160-162.
54
14. Suryanarayana, B., A.S. Rao, A.M. Rao and
V. Veeraraju, 1998. Flora of Sriharikota Island.
Technical Report: ISROSHAR-TR-99-98.Indian Space
Research Organisation, Bangalore, pp: 203.
15. Kannan, V. and J. Pandiyan, 2010. Pulicat - threatened
lake of the year 2010. Current Science, 99: 1496-1497.
16. Kathiresan, K., 2008. Mangrove resources of India:
current status, monitoring requirements and
management strategies. In: Thangaradjou, T.;
Sivakumar, K.; Ajithkumar, T.T. and Saravanakumar,
A. (eds.), Application of remote sensing and GIS
Tools for coastal and ocean resource mapping,
monitoring and management, CAS in Marine Biology,
Parangipettai, pp: 82-99.
17. Farooqui, A., 2000. Threats to our Coastal Gaurds.
http://isebindia.com/2000/00-04-1.html (accessed 28
Feb 2013)
18. Duke, N.C., J.O. Meynecke, S. Dittmann,
A.M. Ellison, K. Anger, U. Berger, S. Cannic, K. Eiele,
K.C. Ewel, C.D. Field, N. Kodedam, S.Y. Lee, C.
Marchand, L. Nordhanus and Dahdough-Guebas.
2007. A world without mangroves? Science, 17: 41-42.
19. Malhotra, R., 2010. International year of biodiversity.
Current Science, 98: 13.
20. Ramalingeswara Rao, B., 2005. Buckingham canal
saved people in Andhra Pradesh (India) from the
tsunami of 26 December 2004. Current Science,
89: 12-13.
21. Lewis, R.R., 1999. Key concepts in successful
ecological restoration of mangrove forests. In:
Coastal Environmental Improvement in
Mangrove/Wetland Ecosystems, Proceedings of the
TCE-Workshop No. II, Bangkok: Network of
Aquaculture Coordination in Asia, pp: 19-32.
22. Chapman, V.J., 1976. Mangrove Vegetation. J. Cramer,
Vaduz, Germany, pp: 447.
23. Cintron-Molero, G., 1992. Restoring mangrove
systems. In: Thayer, G.W. (eds.), Restoring the
Nations Marine Environment. College Park:
Maryland Seagrant Program, pp: 223-277.
24. Crewz, D.W. and R.R. Lewis, 1991. An Evaluation of
Historical Attempts to Establish Emergent Vegetation
in Marine Wetlands in Florida. Florida Sea Grant
Technical Publication No. 60. Gainesville: Florida Sea
Grant.
25. Field, C.D., 1996. Restoration of Mangrove
Ecosystems. (eds). International Society for
Mangrove Ecosystems, Okinawa, Japan, pp: 250.
 Global J. Environ. Res., 7 (3): 52-55, 2013
26. Hamilton, L.S. and S.C. Snedaker, 1984. Handbook of
Mangrove Area Management. (eds), East West
Environment and Policy Institute Centre, Honolulu,
Hawaii, pp: 123.
27. Lewis, R.R. and W. Streever, 2000. Restoration of
Mangrove Habitat. Technical Note ERDC TNWRP-
VN-RS-3.2.Vicksburg: U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers,
Waterways Experiment Station.
28. Lewis, R.R., 1982. Mangrove forests. In: Lewis, R.R.
(eds.), Creation and Restoration of Coastal Plant
Communities, Boca Raton: CRC Press, pp: 153-172.
29. Lewis, R.R., 1990a. Creation and restoration of coastal
plain wetlands in Florida. In: Kusler, J.A. and
Kentula, M.E. (eds.), Wetland Creation and
Restoration: The Status of the Science, Island Press,
Washington, pp: 73-101.
30. Lewis, R.R., 1990b. Creation and restoration of coastal
wetlands in Puerto Rico and the U. S. Virgin Islands.
In: Kusler JA, Kentula ME. (eds.), Wetland Creation
and Restoration: The Status of the Science, Island
Press, Washington, pp: 102-123.
55
31. Saenger, P. and N.A. Siddiqi, 1993. Land from the sea:
the mangrove afforestation programme of
Bangladesh. Ocean Coast Management, 20: 23-29.
32. Watson, J.G., 1928. Mangrove Forests of the Malay
Peninsula. Malayan Forester, Federated Malay
States, Record, pp: 6.
33. Lewis, R.R., 2001. Mangrove Restoration - Costs and
Benefits of Successful Ecological Restoration. In
review, Proceedings of the Mangrove Valuation
Workshop, University Sains Malaysia, Penang, 4-8
April, Beijer International Institute of Ecological
Economics, Stockholm, Sweden.
34. Spurgeon, J., 1998. The socio-economic costs and
benefits of coastal habitat rehabilitation and creation.
Marine Pollution Bulletin, 37: 373-382.
35. Bosire, J.O., F. Dahdouh-Guebas, M. Walton,
B.I. Crona, R.R. Lewis, C. Field, J.G. Kairo and
N. Koedam, 2008. Functionality of restored
mangroves: A review. Aquatic Botany, 89: 251-259.