See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282643787

Mauritius & Rodrigues Historical Context

Research · October 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3372.6169

CITATIONS READS

0 3,013

3 authors:

John Mauremootoo Anthony Cheke

InSpiral Pathways Independent Researcher
22 PUBLICATIONS   443 CITATIONS    110 PUBLICATIONS   1,199 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Iain Watt
VLH
12 PUBLICATIONS   135 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Island Invasive Conference Dundee 2017 View project

no project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by John Mauremootoo on 07 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 State of the Hotspots
Mauritius & Rodrigues Historical Context
Originally drafted for Conservation International’s State of the Hotspots publication:
Madagascar & Indian Ocean Islands

Mauremootoo, J.R., Cheke, A.S. & Watt, I.

The kind of scene that might have greeted the Dutch upon their arrival in Mauritius in 1598. This
scene was soon to change radically and for ever. Painting by Julian Pender Hume

Suggested Citation:
Mauremootoo, J.R., Cheke, A.S. & Watt, I. (2003). Mauritius & Rodrigues Historical Context.
Unpublished Book Chapter produced for Conservation International’s State of the Hotspots
publication: Madagascar & Indian Ocean Islands. 44pp.

1
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3
Biological Communities of Mauritius ............................................................................................ 3
Biological Communities of Rodrigues .......................................................................................... 4
Changes in the state of Mauritian and Rodriguan Biodiversity following their discovery .............. 4
The period from discovery to colonisation................................................................................ 4
Mauritius .............................................................................................................................. 4
Rodrigues .......................................................................................................................... 10
1638 – 1710: The Dutch Period in Mauritius .......................................................................... 13
Mauritius ............................................................................................................................ 13
Rodrigues .......................................................................................................................... 16
1721 – 1810: The French Period in Mauritius ........................................................................ 16
Mauritius ............................................................................................................................ 16
Rodrigues .......................................................................................................................... 20
1810 – 1886: The initial British Period in Mauritius ................................................................ 21
Mauritius ............................................................................................................................ 21
Rodrigues .......................................................................................................................... 26
1886 - 1968: The later British period in Mauritius ................................................................... 27
Mauritius ............................................................................................................................ 27
Rodrigues .......................................................................................................................... 31
Independence to the present day .......................................................................................... 33
Mauritius ............................................................................................................................ 33
Rodrigues .......................................................................................................................... 36
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 37
References ............................................................................................................................... 39

2
Introduction
Mauritius and Rodrigues were uninhabited islands until several hundred years ago. The
dramatic extinction process that has continued in these islands to this day began the moment
they came under the influence of human beings. Historical processes have helped to determine
the fate of the biota of Mauritius through three phases of colonisation and 30 years of
independence.

One of the main motivations for the settlement of Mauritius was the exploitation of the island’s
valuable ebony and the stimulus for the settlement of Rodrigues was the tortoise trade. The
prevailing mentality among the early settlers was one of rapid exploitation. This exploitative ethic
is one of the themes running through the history of resource use in Mauritius and Rodrigues.
The resultant land degradation coupled with the continuing ravages caused by invasive alien
species has led extinction crises as dramatic as anywhere in the world.

The impacts of man’s actions on the biota of Mauritius and Rodrigues have been well
documented; at least as far as terrestrial biodiversity is concerned. Yet in spite of this many
Mauritians and Rodriguans are not aware that there is much more to extinction on their islands
than the demise of the dodo on Mauritius and the solitaire on Rodrigues.

This chapter summarises many of the details of the extinctions and ecological changes that
have occurred since Mauritius and Rodrigues were brought under man’s influence. It is to be
hoped that knowledge of what we have lost will serve as a motivation to look after what remains.

Biological Communities of Mauritius

The terrestrial biological communities of Mauritius five centuries ago would have resembled
those of other sub-tropical oceanic islands of several hundred square kilometres in area and
less than a maximum of one thousand metres in altitude. Coastal formations included sand
dune, sand scrub, coastal cliff, calcareous substrate and mangrove communities. Other low
altitude communities were palm-rich woodlands in dry locations and lowland ebony forest in
wetter areas. These forests graded into mid-altitude ebony (Diospyros species) and bois d’olive
(Cassine orientalis) forest. These in turn graded into upland forest formations, community
composition varying with soil conditions and rainfall. Marshes characterised by Pandanus
species were typical of poorly drained areas, heath vegetation was found on shallow soils and
full canopy forest dominated as soil deepened. Mossy forest of the type common in La Réunion
was found in small areas receiving an average annual rainfall between 4,000 and 5,000 mm.

The main coastal ecosystems in Mauritius are associated with the fringing reefs of which there
are three types, the peripheral fringing reef, sheltered fringing reef, and lagoon patch reefs. The
peripheral reef encloses the lagoon and has a reef flat rarely more than 25 m wide. The fringing
sheltered reefs are characterised by large colonies of tabulate Acropora and foliaceous
Montipora corals. The patch reefs are in the lagoon have a high cover of Acropora and Pavona
corals. The extent of the lagoon between the shore and the peripheral reef varies in width from
200 m to 6 km on the south-east coast. Depths within the lagoon vary from approximately 1 m
to a maximum of 9 m. The marine inshore ecosystems can be differentiated into a variety of
habitats such as coral/foraminifera sand beaches, rocky shores, cliff shores facing oceanic
swell, river mouths and associated mud flats, lagoons of a number of clearly different
ecosystems, coral reef flats and outer reef faces. Each of these habitats have communities
identifiable by characteristic vertebrates, invertebrates, plants and other groups.

3
Biological Communities of Rodrigues
Leguat, Tafforet and Pingré, on the island from 1691 – 1693, 1725 – 1726 and 1761 respectively
(Leguat 1708, Tafforet 1726 and Pingré ca.1763), give good descriptions of Rodrigues before it
was affected by major deforestation. It is likely that coastal communities would have resembled
those of Mauritius with their exact nature depending on site-specific factors. However, it is highly
unlikely that mangroves were ever present on Rodrigues as they were not described in any of
these early accounts. Forests would have dominated the interior of the island. Leguat (1708)
describes the trees as ‘great and tall’. In fact Mascarene forest trees are generally much shorter
than comparable continental formations (Vaughan and Wiehe 1941, Lorence and Sussman
1988, Strasberg 1996). However, the trees could have reached 20-30 m in sheltered areas such
as well-watered valleys around Port Mathurin, which would have appeared high to a European,
especially one who had not seen land for several months. The height of the forests probably
varied according to exposure, with those on the windward side being lower, as is the case with
the forests of today that are composed primarily of introduced species. High tortoise densities
and porous substrates in certain dry lowland areas may have given rise to a woodland formation
of the type once present in drier parts of Mauritius. The first thorough botanical descriptions of
Rodrigues are from 1874 (Balfour 1879) and by this time the vegetation of Rodrigues had been
radically transformed from its original state, as discussed later in this chapter.

The lagoon ecosystem in Rodrigues would have comprised of essentially the same formations
as those of Mauritius though their proportionate representation would have been very different
given their very different physical nature of their respective lagoons.

For a detailed description of the original and modified biological communities of Mauritius and
Rodrigues refer to biodiversity chapter.

Changes in the state of Mauritian and Rodriguan Biodiversity

following their discovery

The period from discovery to colonisation

Mauritius
Mauritius was probably long known to a variety of people from the Indian Ocean rim before
being marked on maps by the Portuguese in the early 16th century. The first known descriptions
of the forests of Mauritius are from the Dutch who took possession of the island in 1598, naming
it Mauritius after Prince Maurits van Nassau (Moree 1998). At this time Mauritius was becoming
a strategically important land base between the Cape of Good Hope and the East. The islands
were useful for victualling stops and as bases from which to launch raids on ships from rival
countries. Mauritius was also attracting attention for its endemic ebony Diospyros tesselaria,
which was becoming very sought after in Europe. The increasing interest in Mauritius, from
several powers including the French and British who visited the island on a number of
occasions, prompted the Dutch to occupy the island from 1638.

The initial impression of the new colonists gained of Mauritius was one of abundance. The
animals were easy to hunt, with birds that could be caught by hand, and fish were plentiful. Van
Warwijck, who led the 1598 landing, described the soil as fertile with trees that are ‘so close to
each other that one can hardly walk in the forest’ (Brouard 1963). An anonymous contemporary
engraving (Fig. 1.) gives the impression of a rich environment of palms and broadleaved trees,
plentiful fish, tortoises or turtles, fruit bats and several species of bird including the dodo
(Raphus cucullatus) and what appears to be a large parrot – the raven-parrot (Lophopsittacus
mauritianus). The engraving also conveys the ethic of exploitation that accompanied the early
European travellers with fishing, woodcutting and possibly clearance of land using fire featuring
prominently.

4
Even at this time Mauritius was not pristine. Rats (Rattus species) were mentioned in 1602 and
must have colonised the island before colonisation, given the pre-colonisation extinctions
discussed below. This would not be surprising in view of the many previous shipwrecks that had
occurred around the island. Javanese macaques (Macaca fascicularis) are mentioned in 1606.
Cattle (Bos taurus), rusa or Javan deer (Cervus timorensis), wild pigs (Sus scrofa) and goats
(Capra hircus) had been introduced to Mauritius before 1648 in order to provide food for passing
sailors (Cheke 1987a). Introduced pest species that are likely to have had major ecological
impacts in both Mauritius and Rodrigues are detailed in Table 1.

Table 1. Some of the principle introduced animal species currently feral on Mauritius and Rodrigues that are
likely to have strong negative effects on native terrestrial biodiversity (compiled from Cheke 1987a, Jones
1996, Mamet 1954, Holway et al. 2002, Lach 2003 and Griffiths and Florens unpublished data). ? indicates
doubt

Date of
Feral on introduction
Latin Name Common name Date of Introduction Rodrigues to Rodrigues Possible negative role

Pre- Predator of many animal

Rattus Rattus Black rat Before 1598 Yes colonisation groups and seeds
Predator of many animal
groups and vegetation,
Javanese alien plant seed
Macaca fascicularis macaque Between 1598 & 1606 No disperser
Predator of invertebrates
Introduced and eggs on ground,
after 1761 and disturbance of
not feral from vegetation, alien plant
Sus scrofa Pig 1606 No at least 1916 seed disperser

Introduced in
1862 and
Rusa or Javan eliminated by Browser of native
Cervus timorensis deer 1639 No 1956 vegetation

reported in
1755 scarce
or eliminated Predator of many animal
Felis catus Cat 1709 or before No from 1923 groups

Predator of many animal

Rattus norvegicus Brown rat 1735? Yes 1795 or before groups and seeds
Disperser of alien plant
Between 1864 seeds, competition with
Acridotheres tristis Common mynah early 1760s Yes & 1874 native birds

Indian house Predator of invertebrates

Suncus murinus shrew c1770 Yes 1997 and eggs on ground
Eats native vegetation,
Giant African prey source for other
Achatina fulica landsnail Before 1781 No Unknown alien pests
Predator of invertebrates
and eggs on ground,
alien plant seed
Tenrec ecaudatus Tenrec c1790 No disperser

Ptychadena Predator of invertebrates

mascareniensis Frog c1792 No and eggs on ground
Giant African
Achatina panthera landsnail Before 1847 No Unknown As above
Indian wolf Predator of native
Lycodon aulicum snake 1870s No lizards
Rose-ringed Competitor for native
Psittacula krameri parakeet 1886 No birds
Disperser of alien plant
Pycnonotus Red-whiskered seeds, nest predator,
jocosus bulbul 1892 or before No spider predator

5
 Date of
Feral on introduction
Latin Name Common name Date of Introduction Rodrigues to Rodrigues Possible negative role
Asian garden Predator of invertebrates
lizard or and competitor for native
Calotes versicolor bloodsucker c1900 Yes 1997 reptiles

Herpestes Lesser Indian Predator of many animal

javanicus mongoose 1900 No groups

Predator of invertebrates
Bufo gutturalis Little toad 1922 No and eggs on ground
Displacement of native
ants and other
invertebrates, tending
Pheidole Homoptera, nectar-
megacephala Big-headed ant before 1947 Yes before 1879 robbing
Displacement of native
ants and other
invertebrates, predation
on bird hatchlings,
Anoplolepis Long-legged or tending Homoptera,
gracilipes crazy ant before 1954 Yes before 1954 nectar-robbing
Euglandina rosea Rosy wolfsnail 1961 Yes 1961 Predator of native snails
Predator of invertebrates
and competitor for native
Cameleo pardalis Chameleon before 1989 No reptiles
Currently pest on
riverine vegetation with
Golden mystery potential to expand into
Pomacea bridgesi snail Before 1999 No suitable native habitat

The dramatic effects of introduced mammals on the fauna of oceanic islands, even in the
absence of significant hunting or habitat destruction, can be vividly illustrated by the fact that it is
likely that between 20-25% of ‘large vertebrate species’ (as defined in Table 2) found on the
Mauritian mainland were already extinct (or at least made severely rare) from the main island
before colonisation (Table 2). It is highly unlikely that such conspicuous species would not have
been mentioned by early travellers if they had seen them. The lack of snakes was generally
welcomed by early settlers and is widely reported upon (Cheke 1987a). In fact a legend
developed that the snakes of Mauritius had been exorcised by a Portuguese monk (Crépin
1922).

Offshore islets, which remained rat-free in many cases, had already become key refuges for
species extirpated by introduced predators on mainland Mauritius. Snakes were found on
Mauritian islets in the 1670s (Pitot 1905), Telfair’s skink (Leiolopisma telfairii) has been saved by
extinction by the fact that Round Island (its sole remaining refuge) has never been colonised by
rats. On this island this species is found in its thousands. Yet another powerful illustration of the
impact of introduced predators. The islets, notably Round Island and Serpent Island, which also
always remained rat-free are still homes to several species of seabird that may have been
extirpated from the mainland before 1638 (Table 2.).

6
Table 2. Native vertebrate species of Mauritius adapted from Cheke (1987a). Species have been divided into several categories:

A. Species that may have become extinct from the Mauritian mainland before colonisation. These species are definitively known only from sub-fossil remains.
B. Species that may have become extinct from the Mauritian mainland before colonisation but are not known from sub-fossil remains.
C. Species that have become extinct from the Mauritian mainland since colonisation for which the species names given in this table are likely to be precise.
D. Species that have probably become extinct from the Mauritian mainland since colonisation for which the species names given in this table are not
necessarily precise.
E. Species that may or may not have been resident.
F. Species that may have always been confined to islets.
G. Species extant on the Mauritian mainland that are likely to have been present at the time of colonisation.
H. Species extant on the Mauritian mainland that may have been self-introduced after colonisation.
I. Species extant on Mauritian islets that may have been self-introduced after colonisation.
Landbirds includes freshwater species
1
No distinction is made between the two species of tortoise in the accounts quoted in Cheke (1987a).
The category of ‘Large vertebrates' referred to in this chapter is taken as meaning all native vertebrates except the following: geckos apart from Phelsuma
guentheri, skinks apart from Leiolopisma (‘Didosaurus’) mauritiana and Leiolopisma telfairii and the blind-snake Typhlops cariei.
? Indicates uncertainty
Blank cells indicate that no information is available

Group Species Category Latin name Last record on Mainland Last record on islet Provenance
A Reed cormorant Landbird Phalacrocorax africanus Native
A Night heron Landbird Nycticorax mauritianus 1693 Endemic
A Réunion Harrier Landbird Circus maillardi 1627? Endemic to Mauritius & Réunion
C Dodo Landbird Raphus cucullatus 1640 1662 Endemic
C Raven-parrot Landbird Lophopsittacus mauritianus 1673-75? Endemic
C Dimorphic egret Landbird Egretta (garzetta) dimorpha 1693 Native
C Mauritian sheldgoose Landbird Alopochen mauritianus 1693 Endemic
C Red rail Landbird Aphanapteryx bonasia 1693 Endemic
C Coot Landbird Fulica newtoni 1693 Endemic
C Teal Landbird Anas theodori 1696 Endemic
C Greater Flamingo Landbird Phoenicopterus ruber 1708 Indigenous
D Grey parrot Landbird "Lophopsittacus bensoni" Before 1759 Endemic
D Rail Landbird Dryolimnas sp. Endemic
C Dutch or blue pigeon Landbird Alectroenas nitidissima 1826 Endemic
C Mauritius owl Landbird Mascarenotus commersoni 1836 Endemic
G Mauritius Kestrel Landbird Falco punctatus Extant Endemic
G Pink Pigeon Landbird Columba mayeri Extant Endemic

7
Group Species Category Latin name Last record on Mainland Last record on islet Provenance
G Echo Parakeet Landbird Psittacula eques echo Extant Endemic to Mau & Réunion
G Cave Swiflet Landbird Collocalia francica Extant Endemic to Mau & Réunion
G Mascarene Swallow Landbird Phedina borbonica Extant Native
G Mauritius Bulbul Landbird Hypsipetes olivaceus Extant Endemic
G Mauritius Cuckoo Shrike Landbird Coracina typica Extant Endemic
G Paradise Flycatcher Landbird Terpsiphone bourbonnensis Extant Endemic to Mau & Réunion
G Grey White Eye Landbird Zosterops mauritianus Extant Endemic
G Olive White Eye Landbird Zosterops chloronothos Extant Endemic
G Mauritius Fody Landbird Foudia rubra Extant Endemic
H Green Heron Landbird Butorides striatus Extant Native
H Moorhen Landbird Gallinula chloropus Extant Native
A Abbot's booby Seabirds Sula abbotti 1668 Native
C Frigate birds Seabirds Fregata spp. 1607-1638 Native
C Audobon's shearwater Seabirds Puffinus lherminieri c1900 19th Century Native
G Red tailed tropic bird Seabirds Phaeton rubricauda Extant Native
F Masked booby Seabirds Sula dactylatra N/A Extant Native
G White-tailed tropic bird Seabirds Phaeton lepturus Extant Extant Native
I Round Island petrel Seabirds Pterodroma arminjoniana N/A Extant Native
H Barau’s petrel Seabird Pterodroma baraui Endemic to Mascarenes?
B or F Wedge-tailed shearwater Seabirds Puffinus pacificus Extant Native
B or F Common (brown) noddy Seabirds Anous stolidus N/A Extant Native
B or F Lesser noddy Seabirds Anous tenuirostris N/A Extant Native
F Sooty tern Seabirds Sterna fuscata N/A Extant Native
C Flying fox Mammals Pteropus subniger 1864 Endemic
A Flying fox Mammals Pteropus rodricensis 1703? Endemic to Mascarenes?
G Flying fox Mammals Pteropus niger Extant Endemic to Mascarenes
G Insectivorous bat Mammals Tadarida acetabulosus Extant Native
G Insectivorous bat Mammals Taphozous mauritianus Extant Native
Leiolopisma (Didosaurus)
A Skink Reptiles mauritiana Pre-colonisation Endemic
A Telfair's skink Reptiles Leiolopisma telfairii Pre-colonisation Extant Endemic to Mau & Réunion
Round Island Keel Scale
A Boa Reptiles Casarea dussumieri Pre-colonisation Extant Endemic
A Guenther's gecko Reptiles Phelsuma guentheri Pre-colonisation Extant Endemic
A Blind-snake Reptiles Typhlops cariei Pre-colonisation Endemic

8
Group Species Category Latin name Last record on Mainland Last record on islet Provenance
Round Island burrowing
B boa Reptiles Bolyeria multicarinata Pre-colonisation 1975 Endemic
Geochelone (Cylindrapsis)
C Giant tortoise1 Reptiles inepta 1721 1844 Endemic
Geochelone (Cylindrapsis)
C Giant tortoise1 Reptiles triserrata 1721 1844 Endemic
C Durrell's Night Gecko Reptiles Nactus durrelli Extant Endemic
Gunner's Quoin Night
C Gecko Reptiles Nactus coindemirensis Extant Endemic
C Serpent Is Night Gecko Reptiles Nactus serpensinsula Extant Endemic
C Bojer's skink Reptiles Gongylomorphus bojerii 1870s Extant Endemic to Mauritius & Réunion
G Macchabé skink Reptiles Gongylomorphus fontenayi Extant Extant Endemic
G Bouton's Skink Reptiles Cryptoblepharus boutonii Extant Extant Native
G Green Gecko Reptiles Phelsuma cepediana Extant Endemic
G Green Gecko Reptiles Phelsuma guimbeaui Extant Endemic
G Green Gecko Reptiles Phelsuma guimbeaui rosagularis Extant Endemic
G Ornate Day Gecko Reptiles Phelsuma ornata Extant Extant Endemic

9
Figure 1. Anonymous engraving of Dutch activity on Mauritius in 1598 from Het Tvveede Boeck
(1601).

Rodrigues
The Portuguese were the first Europeans to discover Rodrigues in the mid 16th Century and the
Dutch landed in the 1601 but did not settle (North-Coombes 1971). In common with Mauritius it
appears that rats were introduced to Rodrigues prior to settlement (Leguat 1708). There are no
indications that any other introduced mammals became established during this period. There is
not enough information to estimate the number of extinctions that predated settlement in
Rodrigues but it is clear that pre-colonisation introductions were having some impact (Table 3.).
Leguat reported that the island’s doves (‘Alectroenas’ rodricanus) nested only on offshore islets
‘to avoid the persecution of the rats’ (Leguat 1708).

10
Table 3. Native terrestrial vertebrate species of Rodrigues (adapted from Cheke 1987a). Species have been divided into several categories:
A. Species that may have become extinct from the Rodriguan mainland before colonisation. These species are definitively known only from sub-fossil
remains.
B. Species that may have become extinct from the Rodriguan mainland before colonisation but are not known from sub-fossil remains.
C. Species that have become extinct from the Rodriguan mainland since colonisation for which the species names given in this table are likely to be precise.
D. Species that have probably become extinct from the Rodriguan mainland since colonisation for which the species names given in this table are not
necessarily precise.
E. Species that may or may not have been resident.
F. Species that may have always been confined to islets.
G. Species extant on the Rodriguan mainland that are likely to have been present at the time of colonisation.
H. Species extant on the Rodriguan mainland that may have been self-introduced after colonisation.
Landbirds includes freshwater species
1
No distinction is made between the two species of tortoise in the accounts quoted in Cheke (1987).
? Indicates uncertainty
Blank cells indicate that no information is available

Group Species Category Latin name Last record on Mainland Last record on islet Provenance
A Bulbul Landbird Hypsipetes 'rodricanus' nomen nudum Pre-colonisation Endemic
A Unknown affinity Landbird Rodriguites microcarina' nomen nudum Pre-colonisation Endemic
C Night-heron Landbird Nycticorax megacephala Before 1761? Endemic
C Leguat’s rail Landbird Aphanapteryx leguati 1726? Endemic
C Solitaire Landbird Pezophaps solitaria 1755? Endemic
C Pigeon Landbird ‘Alectroenas’ rodricanus 1726? Endemic
C Large green parrot Landbird Necropsittacus rodricanus 1726? Endemic
C Rodrigues parakeet Landbird Psittacula exsul 1874? Endemic
C Rodrigues owl Landbird Mascarenotus murivora 1726? Endemic
C Starling Landbird Necropsar rodricanus 1726? Endemic
H Green Heron Landbird Butorides striatus Extant Extant? Native
G Rodrigues fody Landbird Foudia flavicans Extant Endemic
G Rodrigues warbler Landbird Acrocephalus rodericanus Extant Endemic
A Petrel new species Seabird Pterodroma sp. nov. Endemic?
C Mascarene black petrel Seabird Pterodroma aterrima 1726 End to Rod & Réunion
B Abbot’s booby Seabird Sula abbotti 1763 Native
F Lesser frigatebird Seabird Fregata ariel 1875 Native
E Crested tern Seabird Sterna bergii 1874 Native
F Roseate tern Seabird Sterna dougallii N/A Extant Native
H Barau’s petrel Seabird Pterodroma baraui 1974 End to Mascaarenes?

11
Group Species Category Latin name Last record on Mainland Last record on islet Provenance
C Fairy tern Seabird Gygis alba Extant Native
C Red-footed booby Seabird Sula dactylatra N/A 1874 Native
G Red tailed tropic bird Seabird Phaeton rubricauda Extant Native
G White-tailed tropic bird Seabird Phaeton lepturus Extant Native
B or F Wedge-tailed shearwater Seabird Puffinus pacificus c1995 Native
B or F Common (brown) noddy Seabird Anous stolidus N/A Extant Native
B or F Lesser noddy Seabird Anous tenuirostris N/A Extant Native
F Sooty tern Seabird Sterna fuscata N/A Extant Native
A Flying fox Mammal Pteropus niger End to Mascarenes
G Flying fox Mammal Pteropus rodricensis Extant End to Mau & Rod?
C Giant tortoise1 Reptile Geochelone (Cylindrapsis) peltastes 1795 ? Endemic
C Giant tortoise1 Reptile Geochelone (Cylindrapsis) vosmaeri 1768 ? Endemic
C Liénard’s gecko Reptile Phelsuma gigas Before 1761? 1841 Endemic
C Day gecko Reptile Phelsuma edwardnewtonii 1870s 1917 Endemic
G Night gecko Reptile Lepidodactylus lugubris Extant Native
A Night gecko Reptile Nactus species Endemic?
A Night gecko Reptile Nactus species Endemic?
A Day gecko Reptile Phelsuma species Endemic?
A Day gecko Reptile Phelsuma species Endemic?

12
1638 – 1710: The Dutch Period in Mauritius
Mauritius
The Dutch East India Company, who occupied the island, were more concerned with the Cape
and the East Indies and beyond than in Mauritius, in which they consistently under invested.
Successive under-resourced Governors failed to maintain order and in many cases conducted
themselves as potentates. Settlers, a disproportionate number of whom were men, were often
demoralised and rebellious putting drinking, stealing and trading with passing ships above
activities that would have benefited the colony as a whole; while slaves, mainly from
Madagascar but also from a diverse range of countries in Southern Asia, continually escaped
into the almost impenetrable inland forests rather than continue to work under the brutal
conditions to which they were subjected. It is likely that only strategic considerations kept the
Dutch on Mauritius for so long although they did in fact abandon the island from 1658 – 1665.

The main economic activity on Mauritius under the Dutch was extraction of timber, principally
black ebony whose wood was described as being the ‘best in the world’ by Jacob Van der
Meersch one of the island’s Dutch Governors (Brouard 1963). Ebony was selectively logged
from accessible areas around the original settlement in Grand Port (van Warwijck’s Haven) from
which the exploitation moved northwards towards Flacq and to other coastal forests, with logs
moved by sea to Grand Port or to Port Louis (Port North West). By the final years of the Dutch
occupation nearly all black ebony of commercial size had been logged from the coastal
lowlands. Other species were also exploited but not on nearly the same scale (Brouard 1963).

The selectivity of the logging meant that there was no mass deforestation, nor was there
significant clearance of land for agriculture for the colony that rarely numbered many more than
a hundred people (Moree 1998). In spite of this the terrestrial plant and animal communities of
Mauritius were changed considerably during this period. Selective logging not only
disproportionately affected the most valuable timber trees but would also have removed
proportionally more individuals of a certain size class so forest structure would have been
considerably altered. Palms, a key species group, were considerably depleted from the lowlands
through exploitation for their edible hearts, the use of their leaves for thatching materials, the
tapping of certain species for liquor, and from wildfires (Brouard 1963, Maunder et al. 2002).
This would have greatly changed the palm-rich forest that dominated areas of the north and
west of Mauritius and would have affected ecosystem functioning in all low lying forests, where
palms would have been a dominant element before settlement. In spite of this clearance palms
were still widespread in Mauritian forests in French times.

In spite of these processes Mauritius still gave the impression of abundance to many who
visited. Hoffman, a priest who stayed on the island from 1673–1675, upon arrival described
Mauritius as ‘paradise on earth’ and was extremely impressed by the ‘abundance of fish and
meat, as well as fruits in Mauritius’. There was apparently still ‘an abundance of birds and
tortoises’. Dugongs (Dugong dugong) and marine turtles were plentiful in Mauritian waters and
apparently provided enormous amounts of meat, while the eggs from the green turtle (Chelonia
mydas) were a popular delicacy (Grandidier et al. 1903-20). Governor Lamotius, present in
Mauritius from 1677 to 1692, gives a similar picture of abundance in 1690 (Moree 1998).

The hastened extinction rate of the years immediately preceding colonisation continued during
the Dutch period. It seems likely that up to 20 % of Mauritius’ large vertebrate species
disappeared from the mainland during this time (Table 2.). Dodos, large flightless pigeons so
frequently reported by the first chroniclers to visit Mauritius, were last recorded from the
Mauritian mainland in 1640, only two years after colonisation (Grandidier et al. 1903-1920).
Dodos continued to survive on offshore islets into the 1660s. The last recorded sighting is
thought to have been made by Evertsz, a Dutch sailor shipwrecked in Mauritius in 1662, on an

13
island off the east coast, almost certainly Ile D’Ambre (Cheke in press). Later dodo sightings
have been claimed but these may well have in fact been red rails to which one of the dodo’s
previous names ‘dodaarsen’ had been transferred in the mid 1660s (ref)

As well as extinctions it was clear that certain species, notably tortoises were becoming rare
during the Dutch period (Bour 1981, Barnwell 1948). Tortoises were valued for oil and their
meat, which was a well-known cure for scurvy. The ability of the tortoises to go without food and
drink for several months made them ideal sources of fresh meat for sailors. As a consequence
tortoises were harvested in great quantities for passing ships, thus further depleting the
Mauritian population (Cheke 1987a). Hunting practices were hugely wasteful with tales of
colonists killing 500 tortoises for half a barrel of oil and leaving the carcasses to rot (Pitot 1905,
Barnwell 1948). By the end of the 17th Century tortoises had become very rare (Leguat 1708)
though this was not due to hunting alone as discussed below. Many other native animals were
hunted for food and it is likely that many marine species were affected by over-exploitation
during this period. It was noted by Hoffman in 1673 that colonists survived ‘largely on meat and
killed enormous quantities of land animals and turtles and dugongs’, no doubt far in excess of
their needs (Grandidier et al. 1903-20). The dodo was probably hunted more for sport than for
its meat, which not particularly palatable. Its flavour, as well as its comical appearance, might be
the reason why one of the Dutch names for the dodo was 'walghvogel' meaning disgusting bird.

Most species that were hunted would have had access to plentiful refuge habitats, probably not
even frequented by runaway slaves. It seems likely that introduced predatory mammals were
the ultimate cause of most of the extinction over this period, though hunting probably
accelerated the extinction process. Alien species such as rats, cats (Felis catus) and monkeys,
would have been formidable predators of eggs and young of animals that nested in trees while
predation by pigs, introduced by the Dutch in 1606 (Pitot 1905), could have caused additional
catastrophic mortality to species such as dodos, rails and tortoises that laid their eggs on the
ground. Pigs were soon very numerous on Mauritius and were seen by the Dutch as the main
reason that tortoises were not reproducing on mainland Mauritius (Pitot 1905, Lougnon 1957).

Recognition of the need to conserve the natural resources of Mauritius has been a theme
among several Governors and visitors to the island through out its chequered colonial history.
Governor Hugo (1673-1677) proposed restricting hunting although it is not clear if this restriction
was ever enforced (Pitot 1905). The Dutch saw no need to replant forest trees and simply
moved their extractive activities elsewhere once the most suitable trees were exploited. A ban
on the cutting of palm trees by visiting sailors was declared (Harris 1681 cited in Brouard 1963).
It is unlikely that it was successfully imposed and anyway it did nothing to address the rate of
destruction of palms by the resident Dutch. In 1690 it was suggested by Governor Lamotius
(1677-1692) that a coconut tree (Cocos nucifera) should be planted in place of every palm felled
(Pitot 1905).

Although their agricultural efforts were limited the Dutch did introduce fruit trees such as oranges
(Citrus sinensis), lemons (Citrus limon), mangoes (Mangifera indica) and grapefruits (Citrus
paradisi) (Rouillard and Guého 1999). One of the most significant Dutch introductions was sugar
cane, the commodity that was later to dominate the economy of Mauritius (Rouillard and Guého
1999). Of all the plants believed to have been introduced by the Dutch only jamrosa (Syzygium
jambos) has become a major invader (Table 4.). Even this species may not have actually been
introduced at this time as the original reference (Pitot 1905) interprets ‘jumboo’ mentioned in
Benjamin Harry’s log as meaning jamrosa when the term could have applied to several other
fruits.

14
Table 4. Some of the principal invasive woody and shrubby plants in Mauritius and Rodrigues (adapted
from Strahm 1999). Habitat in which these species are most aggressive is given as L lowland or U upland.
1 2
Introduction dates apply to Mauritius only. ? indicates doubt. from Rouillard and Gueho (1999) G.
3
D'Argent pers. comm., A.S.C pers. obs.
Scientific name Common name Habitat Island Introduction Date
1 3
Syzygium jambos Jamrosa U M,R 1677-1692 or 1750s
1
Ravenala madagascariensis Ravenal U M,R 1751
1
Rubus alceifolius Framboise marron U M 1752 or before
1
Furcraea foetida Aloes L M,R 1754 or before
1
Psidium cattleianum Chinese guava U M,R 1763 or before
1
Flacourtia indica Prune Malgache C, L M 1772 or before
1
Lisea glutinosa Bois d'oiseau U M,R 1775 or before
1
Hiptage benghalensis Liane cerf L, U M 1785 or before
1
Ardisia crenata Arbre de noel U M Around 1800
1
Leucaena leucocephala (False) acacia L M,R 1810 or before
1
Litsea monopetala Yatis U M 1815
1
Acacia nilotica Piquant loulou L M,R 1816 or before
1
Wikstroemia indica Herbe tourterelle L, U M,R 1828 or before
1
Lantana camara Vielle fille L M,R 1837 or before
1
Tabebuia pallida Tecoma L M,R 1860s
1
Schinus terebinthifolius Poivre marron L M 1863 or before
1
Ligustrum robustum subsp. walkeri Troene, Privet U M,R Around 1900?
1
Ossaea marginata U M 1930s
2
Clidemia hirta Koster's curse U M 1940-1950
2
Homalanthus populifolius U M 1960-1970

Descriptions of the flora and fauna of Mauritius are found in Dutch accounts but they are usually
imprecise and therefore difficult to interpret (Cheke 1987a), hardly surprising given the small
size of the Dutch colony. An exception to this were the efforts of Lamotius who listed Mauritian
medicinal plants and carried out one of the first scientific collections of marine species collecting
and describing 225 different marine species from the lagoon (Valentyn in Grandidier et al. 1903-
1920) though this work has unfortunately never been published.

Towards the end of the Dutch period deer and cattle became scarce. This was ascribed to
cyclones, droughts and disease (Brouard 1963). It is possible that the latter could have been a
manifestation of density dependent processes that often affect newly invasive species after an
initial explosive growth period (Williamson 1996).

With the then-exploitable ebony largely exhausted the Dutch finally left Mauritius in 1710. The
impacts of alien species may have also contributed to their departure with accounts of rats,
caterpillars and monkeys devastating crops (Momber 1709 cited by Brouard 1963). While keen
to leave Mauritius the Dutch did not want the island to be occupied by a rival power because of
its valuable strategic location. All colonists were ordered to release their dogs into the forest in
order that they would exterminate all the island’s (native and introduced) game species.
Fortunately this attempted mass extinction was unsuccessful probably due to a disease
epidemic (Barnwell 1948).

15
Rodrigues
The first settlement of Rodrigues took place in 1691 when a party of eight French Huguenots
took refuge on the island following their escape from France to avoid persecution (North-
Coombes 1979). The original plan was to found a French Huguenot colony in Ile Bourbon (La
Réunion) under the protection of the Dutch East India Company though the identity of the island
was concealed under the name of “Eden” (North-Coombes 1971). Finding Ile Bourbon to be still
occupied by the French East India Company the would-be colonists set sail for Rodrigues. The
group established a base and waited for the other planned colonists who would join them.

The party’s leader François Leguat published an account of his stay on the island in 1708
(North-Coombes 1971 and 1979). Rodrigues was described as a kind of paradise, with large
numbers of land tortoises, bats and birds, including the dodo-like solitaire (Pezophaps solitaria),
while the sea was a source of abundant supplies of fish, turtles, dugongs, oysters, lobsters and
prawns. Leguat’s accounts include vivid descriptions of a lush evergreen landscape, rich in
palms, ebonies and screw pines (Pandanus heterocarpus), with abundant freshwater from
rivulets fed by perennial springs. He writes of three species of tortoises though fossil remains
have been found of only two species (Cylindrapsis peltastes and C. vosmaeri). Tortoises were
recognised to be of excellent food value (North Coombes 1994). Leguat mentions ten plant
species, several of which do not correspond with known Rodriguan species, implying that they
became extinct or at least very rare before 1874 when the first scientific descriptions of the flora
of Rodrigues were made (Balfour 1877). Leguat’s description of the birds is more complete. The
existence of these species, including the Rodrigues solitaire, has been amply confirmed by sub-
fossil evidence (Cowles 1987). These findings helped to confirm Leguat’s account as authentic
(North-Coombes 1991) having been dismissed as a work of fiction by many critics, e.g. Atkinson
(1922).

The impact of this group of settlers on the ecosystems of Rodrigues was probably not huge.
They introduced no invasive species of animals or plants. Their hunting was for subsistence only
and it is unlikely that they were given to the excesses of their contemporaries in Mauritius, nor
were there any passing crews with whom they could trade. They cultivated a small amount of
land using the vegetable seed they had brought with them but did not introduce any livestock to
the island. They used local woods and palm leaves to build their shelters, ate palm heart and
tapped lataniers (Latanier vandermeerschii) for liquor.

The Eden that was Rodrigues lacked a key element; the eight Huguenot Adams were without
any Eves. In 1693 after two years and no signs of an end to this state of affairs the party
decided to set sail for Mauritius in a boat fashioned from an oak beam that had washed up on
the shore. They reached Mauritius after an epic nine-day voyage. This was to be the only
attempt to colonise Rodrigues during the Dutch period.

1721 – 1810: The French Period in Mauritius

Mauritius
The French, who were based in Ile Bourbon, which they had occupied since 1665, claimed
Mauritius in 1715, naming it Ile de France. The island was settled from 1721 and it was
administered by the French East India Company until 1767 when Ile de France and Ile Bourbon
were transferred to the French crown. Ile de France possessed harbours, which were lacking in
Ile Bourbon, so it was an ideal base for the reprovisioning of ships. In addition it served as a
location from which to aggravate the competing British ships that were operating in the region
(Brouard 1963).

Settlers came directly from France and settlers together with their slaves came from Ile
Bourbon. Slaves were also brought from Madagascar, Mozambique and Arab trading posts in
East Africa, West Africa and India (Teelock 2001). Contemporary Chinese migration (Ly-Tio-

16
Fane Pineo 1985) established the multiracial composition of the new colony at a very early
stage. The French continued the timber extraction began by the Dutch but also established the
infrastructure for long-term colonisation of Ile de France and encouraged permanent settlement
and agriculture. Land “Concessions” were granted to French settlers in return for the cultivation
of export products such as coffee (Coffea species), sugar (Saccharum officinarum) and indigo
(Indigofera tinctoria) and spices from the 1770s. The French also encouraged women and
families to settle as part of their effort to establish their colony on a stable footing.

In spite of these measures, the new colony initially seemed to be following in the footsteps of its
Dutch predecessor: soldiers and workers frequently rebelled in response to lack of investment
by the company; many slaves responded to ill-treatment by escaping to the forests from where
they would attack colonists; and pests including deer, monkey and rats destroyed crops
(Lagesse 1972). Bertrand Francois Mahé de La Bourdonnais took over as governor of Ile de
France in 1735 and set about turning the fortunes of the colony around. He rapidly organised the
provision of vital infrastructure and services such as a reliable water supply system, housing,
store buildings and roads. These developments helped facilitated the establishment of profitable
enterprises, mainly in agriculture. In addition any disorder was brutally suppressed.

From the earliest days, slavery was to play a key role in the history of Ile de France. It has been
estimated that 160,000 slaves were imported into the colony during the French period. Harsh
treatment kept the slaves generally subservient (Bernadin de Saint Pierre 1773), though
rebellions were feared, notably in the years immediately after the French revolution of 1789
when Ile de France practiced a form of autarky from 1796 following its refusal to abolish slavery
as decreed by revolutionary France in 1794 (Toussaint 1972). This state ended in 1802 when
slavery and the slave trade were once more legalised under Napoleon. Slavery allowed the
expansion of plantation agriculture and the amassing of large fortunes by a small elite as well as
the creation of a successful bourgeoisie (socio–economic chapter). By the end of the French
period about a quarter of the land was cultivated under a diverse range of crops. The population
had undergone a corresponding increase from 800 in 1735 to ca.78,000 in 1807, of which 8 %
were white colonists, another 8 % were free coloured, a new class that had emerged in the
course of the French period, and 84 % were slaves (Toussaint 1972).

The economy of Ile de France went through periods of prosperity and penury depending on
many factors; including the quality of the colonial administration, the interest taken in the colony
by the French which was usually at its peak during times of heightened military conflict with
Britain, the scope for free trade, which was limited when Ile de France was under company
administration and varied thereafter, the price of the commodities produced by Ile de France on
the world market, and the activities of pirates, which if French often brought an influx of wealth
into the colony and if British usually had the opposite effect. In addition of course there were the
vagaries of droughts, cyclones and agricultural pests that have been a recurring theme
throughout the history of Mauritius and Rodrigues. Added to this list of “Acts of God” were
human disease epidemics that first affected Mauritius in the French period, a reflection of the
island’s increased human population density and growing links with the outside world.

Most of the coastal belt and the palm rich forest, already degraded during the Dutch period,
would probably have been almost entirely transformed under the French, while dry forest zones
would have further degraded. Dry season fires were frequent in these locations and would have
been an additional source of degradation. The higher altitude areas of the south, east and
centre of the island probably largely escaped direct exploitation and agricultural development.
By the end of the French period about 35 % of the island, mostly that below the 200 m contour,
had been deforested (Fig. 2.) (Brouard 1963).

17
Figure 2. Changes in indigenous forest cover in Mauritius. Areas under indigenous forest
(black) in 1773 (after Desroches), 1835 (after Fraser), 1872 (after Gleadow 1904), 1935 (after
Vaughan and Wiehe 1937) and 1997 (after Page and D’Argent 1997).

18
Hunting continued to be widespread and it is likely that it was the cause of increasing rarity of
many species and the extinction others. Dugongs, for example, were becoming increasingly
rare. The last positive account of a dugong in Mauritian waters was in 1768 (Bernadin de St.
Pierre 1773), although it is probable that they persisted up to the end of the century (Cossigny
1799 quoted in Cheke 1987a). The greater flamingo (Phoenicopterus ruber) may have been
hunted to extinction during the French period. Both species of course could also have been
affected by loss of habitat and decreasing food supplies so, as in many other cases; it is difficult
to categorically ascribe extinction to a single cause. The parrot “Lophopsittacus bensoni” was
the only endemic large vertebrate to become extinct from Mauritius during this period. This bird
was frequently hunted for food, though its extinction could have been hastened by the loss of
lowland forest, where it had often been observed by the Dutch (Cheke 1987a), as well as the
impact of the existing suite of introduced predators.

Throughout the historic period in Mauritius concern about deforestation has been expressed for
a variety of reasons including the loss of prize timber species; fuel wood shortages; protection of
water supplies and the protection of soils. Pierre Poivre who was ‘Intendent’ (the chief
administrator) of the island from 1767 to 1772 personified these concerns. He commented on
the get rich quick attitudes and greed of the colonists in Mauritius. He was concerned that little
thought was given for the future, resulting in the potential over exploitation of natural resources.
He took energetic measures to regulate and limit hunting and fishing activities so as to ‘preserve
the stocks of game, deer, fish, land and seabirds and sea turtles and to stop the reckless
destruction of the islands forests’. Various decrees were issued to that effect and he even
encouraged inhabitants to plant indigenous trees while at the same time vigorously promoting
the introduction of useful exotic plants.

A lot of the concerns that had been expressed in an ad hoc manner and in fragmented directives
were summarized in the first comprehensive forest legislation the ‘Reglemment économique’
passed in 1769 (Rouillard 1866-1869). This legislation was to form the basis for all forest
regulations to come in Mauritius and Rodrigues. Its provisions deal with such matters as:
minimizing use or wood by preventing building of wooden houses in Port Louis; the prohibition of
fires; the control of firewood supplies; the maintenance of a proportion of all concessions as
forest; the setting aside of areas unsuited to cultivation such as mountains and cliffs (the future
‘mountain reserves’); the protection and replanting of trees along rivers (the future ‘river
reserves’); the planting of trees along highways (the future ‘road reserves’); the protection and
replanting of trees along the sea shores (the future ‘Pas Geometriques’) and the fencing of land
against free-ranging cattle. This legislation also contained details of penalties for contraventions.
Unfortunately enforcement was poor, as has been the case with so much legislation that has
been relevant to conservation in Mauritius and Rodrigues to date. Only one official, who had
additional duties to perform, was put in charge of enforcement in 1777. The 1804 ‘Arreté’ on
forest administration reinforced the above act and incorporated control of shooting and fishing
into forestry legislation. Forest staff numbers were increased in the succeeding years to about
twenty but legislation was still difficult to enforce. Wooden houses were still built in towns in spite
of legislation. Illegal hunting was rife, notably during the 1796-1802 period, when order broke
down and many people took to living in the forests (Flinders 1814).

General calls were made for the protection of forests or an individual species but the distinction
between native and introduced ecosystems or species was seldom made clear (Brouard 1963).
If distinctions were made at all it would often be the introduced species that were singled out for
protection. An illustration of this is the case of the mynah bird (Acridotheres tristis), introduced to
control locusts in the early 1760s, which in 1767 was the first animal to be given official
protection in Mauritius (Cheke 1987a). Many accounts from the French period, notably those of
Joseph François Charpentier de Cossigny discuss native tree species but mainly with regard to
their utility value. Forests were considered important for watershed protection, without regard to
the provenance of the trees in this forest, and this continued to be the main criterion that
determined the degree of protection afforded to forests up to the 1940s.

19
The French period was a very active time for the development of botanical and acclimitisation
gardens created in order to establish useful and beautiful plants for the new colony (Rouillard
and Guého 1999). In 1736 Labourdonnais acquired Mon Plaisir that was to become the site for
Pamplemousses botanic garden, the world’s oldest tropical botanic garden (Heywood 1983).
Labourdonnais began to introduce plants into Mauritius that could be useful for staple crop and
edible fruit production. Before his period as Intendent Poivre travelled extensively in search of
useful plants to introduce to Ile de France. The emphasis was on finding spices, which could be
grown in the new colony in order to break the monopoly of the Dutch who controlled the
Moluccas in the then Dutch East Indies. Poivre founded Pamplemousses Garden and continued
to encourage the search for useful plants during his period as Intendent, a search that was
continued by his successor Nicolas Céré.

Non-native timber trees were first introduced to Mauritius during the French period. Oak
(Quercus robur) chestnut (Fagus castanea) and bois noir (Albizia lebbeck) were among those
that grew well and were planted in degraded areas (Brouard 1963). Many of the staple food
plants, fruits and spices used today in Mauritius were introduced during the French period.
These include manioc (Manihot esculenta), rice (Oryza sativa), lychees (Litchi chinensis),
longans (Euphoria longan), pepper (Piper nigrum), nutmeg (Myristica fragrans) and cloves
(Syzygium aromaticum) (Rouillard and Guého 1999).

The brown rat (Rattus norvegicus) and the Indian house shrew (Suncus murinus) were
accidental introductions during the French period (Table 1) and several game bird species were
deliberately introduced (Jones 1996). Unfortunately, it was a period in which many of the alien
plants, that were to become major long-term threats to Mauritius’ native forests, were
introduced. Some notable French introductions were Chinese guava (Psidium cattleianum)
originally from Brazil, false acacia (Leucaena leucocephala) from Central America and ravenal
(Ravenala madagascariensis) from Madagascar (Table 4.) (Rouillard and Guého 1999). Flinders
(1814), writing in 1806 makes reference to the colonisation of ‘raspberries’, probably framboise
marron (Rubus rosifolius) and wild tobacco (Solanum species) making paths impassable. It is
not clear, however, how far invasion had proceeded at that stage though it had become a
problem in disturbed areas.

It was during the French time that the Mauritian tradition of natural history was established and
thorough descriptions of native and introduced species and ecosytems date from this period.
Mauritius’ strategic location ensured that it was frequently visited by western travellers, many of
whom had an interest in natural history. Jacques Henri Bernadin de Saint Pierre (in Mauritius
from 1768-1770) was one such traveller. Others such as Philibert Commerson (1768-1770 and
1772-1773) came specifically to document aspects of Mauritius’ natural history. Affluence in
certain sections of the white settler community facilitated the emergence of a tradition of
Mauritian-born natural historians.
Rodrigues
Rodrigues remained uninhabited from Leguat’s departure in 1693 until 1725 when a small
French party were accidentally left on the island for nine months (North-Coombes 1971). In
1736 tortoise exploitation on the island was officially endorsed in order to replace supplies that
had been practically exhausted from Mauritius (North-Coombes 1994, Bour 1981). By 1771,
when the island was once more abandoned, the same fate had been dealt to Rodrigues’
tortoises, estimated to have numbered between 150,000 and 200,000 before exploitation began
(North Coombes 1994). The activities of the few soldiers, slaves and freemen established for the
tortoise trade caused only minor deforestation. The flora and fauna of Rodrigues suffered
dramatically over this period nonetheless. Regeneration of some tree species appears to have
been prevented; probably by seed predation by rats (Cheke 1987a); all but three of the landbird
species of Rodrigues were lost between 1725 and 1790 and it appears that the large gecko

20
Phelsuma gigas was confined to (presumably predator-free) offshore islets before 1761 (Cheke
1987a).

These extinctions parallel those that occurred in Mauritius during the Dutch occupation. Hunting
may have contributed to the loss of vertebrates from Rodrigues during this period but it is likely
that inaccessible refuges would have been readily available with the good forest cover that
existed at the time. The ultimate cause of the extinction of many of these species is likely to be
introduced predators, notably cats that went feral during this period (Cheke 1987a). Goats, pigs
and cattle also went feral during this time further increasing the pressure on the native forest.

What was to be the permanent settlement of Rodrigues began in 1792. The French revolution
had recently taken place and many of the French settlers in Mauritius were nervous about their
future. Some decided to resettle in the then unpopulated island of Rodrigues. Most did not stay
for long and Rodrigues was never occupied by many more than a handful of families and their
slaves for the next forty years. This did not, however, mean that there was very little impact on
the once rich biodiversity of Rodrigues.

Lack of intrinsic or extrinsic regulation and the activities of a small population in a vulnerable
environment, in which no area is inaccessible, combined to cause the dramatic degradation of
the forests of Rodrigues in the century from 1792. This has been characterised by Gade (1985)
as an enactment of the ‘tragedy of the commons’ scenario described by Hardin (1968); a
situation in which long term exploitation in an open access system is unsustainable because
access rights are not balanced by stewardship responsibilities.

From the beginning of settlement salted fish, dried fish, dugongs and turtles were the main
exports to Mauritius whereas agriculture, which increasingly took the form of shifting cultivation
was primarily for subsistence purposes. Grazing was unrestricted. This situation suited the
settlers as they could easily round up some of these animals for sale to sailors, initially chiefly
the British who were blockading Mauritius.

The British eventually took possession of Rodrigues in 1809 in order to use the island as a base
from which to take control of Mauritius. The British commander in Rodrigues lieutenant colonel
Keating echoed the sentiments expressed by Hoffman and Lamotius over 100 years before in
Mauritius when he wrote of ‘rivulets … which flow the entire year … timber of nearly every kind
within our reach …delightful valleys …’ and ‘soil naturally rich…’ (North-Coombes 1971). It is not
surprising that Keating’s descriptions are not detailed as he was busy planning the invasion of
Mauritius from Rodrigues. However, the contrast between his accounts and those that were
soon to follow illustrates that although the causes of ‘ecological meltdown’ of Rodrigues had
been established by 1809 their consequences were not yet apparent.

1810 – 1886: The initial British Period in Mauritius

Mauritius
British forces left Rodrigues for Ile Bonaparte, the name by which La Réunion was known at the
time, in July 1810. The French capitulated in Bourbon but they defeated the British in Mauritius
the following month in the Battle of Grand Port. A much larger British contingent, reinforced by
troops transferred from India, were reassembled in Rodrigues and set sail to Ile de France,
which was claimed for Britain and renamed Mauritius in December 1810.

The British did not attempt to change much in their new colony. The Treaty of Capitulation
stated that all private property ownership was to be respected, existing laws and customs were
maintained and no attempt was made to suppress Catholicism or the French language.
Population increase, agricultural expansion and forest loss and degradation continued as it had
under the French (Brouard 1963). One major change under the British, however, was an
increased rate in the expansion of the area under sugar cane. In 1810 45 km 2 was under sugar

21
and in 1830 it had expanded to 225 km2. In the meantime the population had increased to
100,000 (Cheke 1987a).

From the 1830s the rate of forest clearance accelerated for a combination of reasons: Sugar
production was boosted by the removal of a discriminatory tax on sugar on the London market in
1825 (Toussaint 1973); there was increasing demand for wood for steam-powered sugar mills
and slavery was fully abolished in 1839 (after a period of ‘apprenticeship’ from 1835). A minority
of former slaves set up shifting cultivation systems in areas of forest (Peerthum 1989) adding to
forest degradation.

A system of importation of indentured labour from India was established in order to increase the
labour supply following the abolition of slavery. This system was based on a limited period of
contract labour. Initially a return passage was provided but its provision was subject to many
conditions and was finally abolished in 1853 (Reddi 1984) so labourers either had to pay for
their passage home or stay in Mauritius. The indentured labour system shared many of the
coercive features of slavery. In most cases indentured labourers were initially settled in camps
on sugar estates, often tied to a single employer, subject to long hours and low pay and to
restricted movement within Mauritius. The system of internal passes was tightened up from
1867–1878 (Reddi 1984, Virahsawmy 1984).

Unlike slaves indentured labourers still had the possibility of contact with home and in many
cases individuals did end their indenture as planned (Carter 1996). These freemen either
returned home or established alternative livelihoods in Mauritius often as vegetable producers
for the local market or in the commercial sector. This group together with runaway and freed
slave and coloured populations established villages in the centre of the island and along the
coast in addition to the earlier villages established in the north and in other areas around former
estate camps.

For most of the period of indentured labour importation the importation rate was deliberately
kept high in order to suppress wage competition and therefore keep labour costs low. This
policy, together with periods of high sugar prices such as those prevailing during the 1850s led
to periods of extremely high labour importation, peaking in 1859 during which 44,000 Indians
were imported to Mauritius (Addison & Hazareesingh 1984). The population of Mauritius tripled
from 100,000 in 1830 to 300,000 in 1860 with Indians becoming the majority racial group in the
1850s. The rapidly increasing population helped cause a huge increase in demand for fuel wood
(Brouard 1963). Other pressures for forest clearance included the opening of railways using
wood-burning locomotives from 1864 and 1865 and the mass settlement of higher altitude areas
on the Mauritian central plateau following malaria epidemics of 1865-68 (Mamet 1979). This in
turn led to an increasing use of plateau areas for sugar cane cultivation.

As a consequence of these processes only about 3.9 % of the Mauritian mainland was under
good grade native forest by 1880, 8.5 % was under native forest and degraded native forest and
17 % under forest of any kind (Thompson 1880). Much of this was plantation of filao (Casuarina
equisetifolia), bois noir and other trees that had been created by sugar planters. Filao was very
widely planted along the coast of Mauritius both for its wood and as a windbreak during this
period.

Many of the emancipated slaves settled in the coastal areas, where despite the difficulties, they
could fish for a living. This must have had a significant impact on the marine resources at the
time, although there are no records of it. There were no traditional fishing rights, the seas were
common property and therefore the controls often found in traditional fishing communities did
not operate, resulting in a free for all approach to the fisheries. Additionally, the massive
destruction of the forests during this period must have resulted in serious upstream erosion
leading to heavy sedimentation in the lagoons, smothering coral and other sensitive habitats.

22
The prevalence of malaria in the coastal areas probably served as a countervailing force,
controlling the rampant growth of the population in these areas, and this must have diminished
pressure on fish stocks to some extent.

The Mauritius owl (Mascarenotus commersoni), blue pigeon (Alectroenas nitidissima) and the
fruitbat (Pteropus subniger) all became extinct during this period, the last three extinctions to
date of large vertebrates from the Mauritian mainland. These species may have been finally
driven to extinction by the increased rate of habitat destruction and direct hunting pressure that
ensued from the 1830s onwards (Brouard 1963).

The effect of pests and disease is one factor that has been overlooked as a cause of forest
degradation in the recent literature on Mascarene ecology (Cheke and Hume in prep.). In 1845
Louis Bouton, Mauritius’ most active botanist of the Nineteenth Century, wrote about his
observations in the Piton de Milieu area of ‘large quantities of trees dying or already dead.’ This
he ascribed to a disease that ‘seemed … to threaten to take down the entire forest’. Other
accounts such as those of Pike (1873), Gordon in 1874 (in Cheke and Hume in prep.), Ryan
(1855) and Clark (1859) (both cited in Cheke and Hume in prep.) refer to dead and dying trees
over a large part of the upland plateau. One area of forest Bois Sec was named after its
‘thousands of dried-up skeletons of trees blanched to a ghostly whiteness’ (Pike 1873).

Gleadow (1904) believed the mortality agent to be a beetle, possibly a Curculionid although it
seems more likely to have been a Scolytid in view of Gleadow’s illustrations of under-bark
galleries (Cheke and Hume in prep.). He describes the mode of mortality being the eating of the
cambium layer. A more likely cause could have been the role of the beetle as a disease vector.
This would be consistent with the observations of Bouton (1845) and Thompson (1880). The
latter mentions attacks of wood boring beetles and associated fungal infestations though he did
not believe these to be the main mortality agents. Unfortunately there are no known specimens
of the beetle and there have been no documented reports of dieback episodes since Gleadow’s
report. At the time drought and/or cyclones were the popular explanation for the dieback
phenomena. This reflects a tradition of ascribing calamitous events in Mauritius and Rodrigues
to these twin causes. It may be the case that the observed dieback was due to a combination of
causes; a newly established disease or disease vector going through an epidemic phase,
facilitated by a host that was stressed by climatic factors, in possible combination with other
factors such as forest clearance increasing exposure and competitive interactions with alien
invasive species.

One of the consequences of the mass dieback of native trees was their replacement by ravenal
and other invasive species (Newton 1863). Although invasive alien species had been
commented upon during the French period (e.g. the account of Flinders mentioned previously),
their prevalence in areas of native forest was far more frequently documented from the mid
nineteenth century. Many of the plants species that are currently the most problematic for
Mauritian native forests were well established in Mauritius’ forests during this period. In addition
to ravenal and framboise marron (Rubus rosifolius) (and later R. alceifolius), Chinese guava,
jamrosa and herbe tourterelle (Wikstroemia indica) were abundant in upland forests and false
acacia and bois de campêche (Haematoxylum campechianum) were common in lowland areas
(Brouard 1963, Rouillard & Guého 1999).

Awareness of the fact that particular introduced species have negative ecological impacts in
Mauritius dates back a long time but this has not translated itself into a movement to protect
native forests against introductions generally. Louis Bouton illustrated this ambivalent attitude
with his identification of framboise marron as a cause of forest degradation on the one hand
(Bouton 1860, 1870) and his recommendations for further introductions of forest trees on the
other (Bouton 1871).

23
Species introductions whether by organised acclimitisation societies, on an ad hoc basis or
accidental continued under the British. Among the plant species introduced during this period
those that would become serious invaders were Vielle fille (Lantana camara), privet (Ligustrum
robustum subsp. walkeri) and piquant loulou (Acacia nilotica subsp. Adstringens) (Table 4.).
Animal introductions under the British during this period were mostly of gamebirds such as the
common quail (Coturnix coturnix) and Indian blue quail (Excalfactoria chinensis), both probably
subsequently wiped out by the introduced lesser Indian mongoose (Herpestes javanicus)
introduced in 1900 (Jones 1996). Amongst the pest animal species introduced during this period
were the giant African landsnail (Achatina fulica) some time in the mid-late eighteenth century
and the Indian wolf snake (Lycodon aulicum), which was well established by the late 1870s.

From the 1850s onwards concern about the negative impacts of deforestation motivated
legislation and forest-related publications that appeared with particular frequency in the years
between 1872 and 1883 (Brouard 1963). There was not always a consensus among decision
makers on the role of the forests in Mauritius. Mann (1860) wrote that ‘trees have little or nothing
to do with the quality of rain … the real value of trees … consists of preserving and husbanding
the rain water after it has fallen.’ In spite of his endorsement of the role of forests he stated that
it would be ‘impolitic to attempt, and impractical to secure, the permanency of any great extent
of forest in Mauritius.’ Instead he recommends the ‘establishment of reservoirs and extension of
the canal system.’ This seems to imply that reservoirs and canals can substitute for the
protection of watersheds, presaging the ideas that Hotchin was to implement in Rodrigues
nearly a century later with devastating effects that are discussed later in this chapter. In contrast
many others felt that the forests increased the amount of rain falling in Mauritius (e.g. Water
Supply Commission 1870 cited by Brouard 1963).

It is likely that this misapprehension helped to maintain some forest cover in Mauritius during
this period. However, the most important mistaken belief that helped save the little forest that
has remained was the idea that the spread of malaria was a direct consequence of forest
destruction. The members of the Commission of Enquiry into the origin of the Epidemic Fever in
1870 had unanimously agreed that ‘the diminution … of the forest which has occasioned
increased radiation of heat from the soil: the drying up of numerous springs: the reduction of
rivers to a low level, the pollution of their waters, the formation of torrents, and the deposit of
alluvial matter in marshy places and at the mouth of rivers were all responsible for that terrible
scourge.’ (Brouard 1963).

Several Ordinances followed in rapid succession culminating in the 1875 Ordinance ‘For the
Conservation of Woods and Forests on the Crown Reserves and Plantations and Forests…’. It
represents a clarification of previous Ordinances and is little changed in today’s Forests and
Reserves Act (1983). The ordinances of the era were all a variation of Poivre’s ‘Reglemment
économique’ passed in 1769. River and mountain reserves were further defined and protected,
recommended trees for planting and planting methods were laid down, grants were provided for
the planting of trees, penalties for contraventions were laid down and the forestry staff was
strengthened to enforce legislation.

There was a great deal of opposition to much of this legislation from land owners fearing that
they would lose control of their land. This opposition was expressed by the newly formed
Chamber of Agriculture that had been formed to protect the interests of landowners in 1859. The
general feeling was that there was a need for reafforestation but “not in my backyard” as
summarised in the following passage ‘believing that their lands have suffered by déboisement
the planters on the lowlands are … in favour of rewooding the interior and the planters in the
interior, believing that their lands have gained by déboisement are … against the rewooding of
the interior.‘ (Meldrum 1881 quoted by Brouard 1963).

The incomplete implementation of the 1875 legislation stimulated the Government to bring in R.
Thompson, an experienced forestry official previously based in India to produce the first

24
technical report on forestry in Mauritius. His 1880 ‘Report on the Forests of Mauritius, their
Present Condition and Future Management’ represented the first comprehensive statement of
forest policy for Mauritius. It was an ambitious attempt to provide for the island’s fuel and
watershed protection needs through the following measures: by allowing spontaneous regrowth
of introduced species in degraded areas; the reafforestation of bare hills and plains; restocking
natural forests; the creation of fuel reserves and the strengthening of institutions.

Thompson’s efforts, fuelled by the fear of malaria, helped to turn the course of deforestation in
Mauritius. He also mentions native forest and recommended that a tract of upland native forest
should be retained ‘intact for their glorious beauty which surpasses that of all other natural
phenomena met with on the island.’ Although the explicit consideration of native forests was a
positive step, Thompson’s statement reflects the implicit belief that the native forests of
Mauritius are essentially doomed and only small parcels can be saved, a belief that has
prevailed in many quarters to this day (e.g. Newton 1958, Strahm 1994, Lorence and Sussman
1986 and 1988, Swinnerton 2001).

The main emphasis of those concerned about deforestation during this era, as for most of
Mauritius’ history, has been on conserving or replanting forests for their perceived utility values
and not on conserving native forest per se. The prevailing attitude to native species for the
majority of the colonial period (and maybe since) could be summarised by the statement quoted
in Vaughan and Wiehe (1937) made by the Guardian of Woods and Forests in 1877 that ‘the
sooner the indigenous trees…disappear the better will it be for all concerned.’

The first legislation concerning fisheries dates back to 1831 amended in 1886, but there was
little in the way of support for this legislation.

The Mauritian tradition of natural history continued in this period. Le Societé d’Histoire Naturelle
de l’Ile Maurice, later renamed the Royal Society of Arts and Sciences of Mauritius, was founded
in 1829 (Ly-Tio-Fane 1972). Le Societé established le Muséum Desjardins in 1842. The
museum, since renamed the Mauritius Institute, was moved to its current location in 1885. The
emphasis of the museum for most of its history has been the housing of collections of
Mascarene biota. Early botanical collections were sent abroad and are now housed in large
overseas herbaria, principally those of le Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle de Paris and the
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew UK. Specimens held in Mauritius date back to 1829, when the
Colonial Herbarium was founded, together with le Societé d’Histoire Naturelle de l’Ile Maurice
(Ly-Tio-Fane 1972). After the death of Desjardin in 1840 the emphasis of the island’s biological
community was mainly botanical, though Clark was undertaking work outside the Island’s main
natural history circles from the 1840s. This work was added to by the arrival of other British
amateur naturalists in the late 1850s and early 1860s (Cheke and Hume in prep.).

From 1825 there had been some form of recognised local involvement in the governing of
Mauritius through the Colonial Council, which contained government officials and (after 1831)
individuals from the main landed and merchant classes of the island (Toussaint 1972). In the
1870s and 1880s there was increased pressure for a form of elected representation, a pressure
that increased through the struggles of landowners against the government’s forest protection
legislation. This call for more autonomy as part of the British Empire was encapsulated in the
slogan “Mauritius for the Mauritians”, popularised by local politician William Newton in the
1880s. This call was motivated by the interests of the wealthier Mauritians and was not a
demand for universal suffrage. In January 1886, in line with the demands of Newton and others,
Mauritius held its first Parliamentary elections with the franchise determined by wealth. Only
6,186 people of a population of 368,791 were eligible to vote. This voting arrangement changed
little until 1948 from which time Mauritius moved to universal adult suffrage in the pre-
independence elections of 1967.

25
Rodrigues
The British left Rodrigues in 1812, having secured their hold over Mauritius, and the island
resumed its de facto state of independence under its ruling families, though nominally still under
Mauritian control. Signs of land degradation soon began to become apparent. By 1825 when the
population of the island was only 123 the slash and burn agriculture and the actions of feral
cattle and pigs had reduced the forest to a savannah with scattered individual trees and the
occasional pocket of woodland (Cheke 1987a). Only after the abolition of slavery did the
population consistently rise above 100 individuals. Freed slaves took up subsistence agriculture
in the interior of the island after emancipation. About this time most land in Mauritius and
Rodrigues was still nominally in the hands of the crown. In Mauritius most land had already been
leased to private landlords on preferential terms but in Rodrigues most land had not yet been
assigned to a tenant. From 1836 instructions were given from London that in future crown lands
would only be allocated by sale (North-Coombes 1971). This effectively stalled any settlement of
Rodrigues for the establishment of settled agriculture.

Recommendations for the imposition and implementation of land use regulations and
management measures were outlined by those such as Corby (a government surveyor who was
posted to Rodrigues in 1843 to assess its suitability for cattle grazing), Jenner (Police Magistrate
of the island from 1863 – 1871), O’Halloran (Police Magistrate from 1879 – 1890) and other
colonial officials who were posted to Rodrigues. However, in reality settlement and land use on
Crown Land were impossible to regulate, given the limited administrative efforts of the British in
Rodrigues.

It was some time during the mid 19th century the last bird extinction up to now, that of the
parakeet Psittacula exsul occurred, while the last day gecko Phelsuma edwardnewtonii also
disappeared from the mainland around this time (Cheke 1987a). As mentioned earlier in this
chapter it is likely that some of the few plant species described by Leguat had become extinct by
the time Balfour (1877) made the first thorough description of the flora of Rodrigues. There are
also likely to have been many other plant species that were already extinct by the time Balfour
arrived in Rodrigues.

Deer, which were introduced to the island in 1862 (Strahm 1989) as well as goats, pigs and
rabbits were feral on Rodrigues during this period (North-Coombes 1971). In 1871 an area of
unimproved grazing land covering about half of the island was delineated as exclusive grazing
territory in order to promote livestock husbandry and reduce livestock incursions into fields. In
practice these ‘cattle walks’ were unregulated and overgrazing and encroachment of livestock
has continued to be a problem in Rodrigues (Gade 1985). Wood-cutting for construction of
houses and boats and for fuel, clearance of land by fire for shifting cultivation and the effect of
feral livestock resulted in an island characterised by Balfour in 1874 as ‘a bare parched volcanic
pile with deep stream courses, for the most part dry, in place of the verdant well-watered island
of 200 years ago.’ (Balfour 1879). The population of Rodrigues at this time was about 1,100
individuals, at ca.10 people per km2 a density of one seventeenth that of Mauritius yet the level
of forest destruction in Rodrigues had been even more extreme than that seen in Mauritius.

As discussed earlier insect pest outbreaks, like disease, have not often been mentioned as a
cause of forest degradation in Mascarene literature. It appears that both indigenous and
introduced trees were severely affected by an epidemic of a scale insect (‘Cochenille’) in
Rodrigues during the 1880s (Strahm 1989). According to A. Boucherat, the acting Civil
Magistrate, in 1884 these insects ‘threatened to destroy the forest.’ He singles out Bois puant
Foetidia rodriguesiana ‘which seems unable to resist its attack.’ In 1886 a cyclone exacerbated
the impact of the insect. By 1888 the epidemic was subsiding but it is likely that the outbreak
further reduced the already negligible extent of native forest.

26
The colonial administration, which became more active in Rodrigues after 1843, began to make
efforts to address the state of the island’s environment. Laws were enacted but compliance was
weak. Some tree planting had been initiated in the early nineteenth century using bois noir.
Introductions were accelerated after 1849 with the formation of the Forest Department in
Rodrigues (Gade 1985). From 1881 forest regulations ensured that reafforestation efforts were
made in watershed areas, mainly using jamrosa, a species that was noted to be readily
naturalising by Balfour in 1874 (Balfour 1879). Plantations of filao were initiated in 1884 (North-
Coombes 1971). From 1882 comprehensive legislation was adopted to impose penalties on
those removing trees or setting fires on remnant forest areas but implementation was poor.

1886 - 1968: The later British period in Mauritius

Mauritius
The rate of importation of indentured labour, though high, continued to slow down from its mid-
19th century peak until its final abolition in 1923. This slow down and the continued effects of
disease epidemics considerably reduced the rate of population increase in Mauritius up to 1944
when her population stood at 431, 070 (Fig. 3.). Nevertheless, this still represented a high
population density. The continued demands of the sugar industry upon which the economy of
Mauritius depended meant there was still a great pressure to clear more forest in Mauritius.

1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000
Population

600,000

400,000

200,000

0
1800 1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
Date

Figure 3. Population increase on the island of Mauritius & Rodrigues

In spite of considerable pressures the incessant clearing of native forests stopped in the 1880s.
Malaria was still a motivating force to conserve and replant forest until well into the twentieth
century (Brouard 1963). Nevertheless there have been several phases of forest clearance since
the 1880s. From 1895-1924 most of the Kanaka-Grand Bassin and Midlands tall forests, already
affected by the die back phenomenon documented from 1845, were felled. Paul Koenig, the
Director of Forests from 1903-1929 initiated the practice of ‘improvement fellings’ i.e. systematic
exploitation of small blocks of dead and dying trees and their replacement by forestry species
(Brouard 1963). In the lowlands species such as Eucalyptus tereticornis, Norfolk Island pine
(Araucaria cunnighamii) and filao were planted and on the plateau species such as Eucalyptus
robusta, Chinese pine (Pinus tabuliformis), filao, juniper (Juniperus species), Camphor
(Cinnamomum camphora) and Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica). The planting of
Japanese cedar was perhaps a key though inadvertent conservation measure. A 5 ha Japanese

27
cedar grove in the south-west of Mauritius became the last wild refuge of the pink pigeon
(Columba mayeri) as well as a key source area for the Mauritius fody (Foudia rubra), possibly
because it is unattractive habitat for introduced monkeys, which are major nest predators
(Safford 1997a, Carter and Bright 2002).

A less beneficial action for conservation was the widespread planting of privet from 1902. Privet
spread rapidly with the help of a suite of seed dispersers notably the red-whiskered bulbul
(Pycnonotus jocosus) that had been introduced in the latter part of the nineteenth century (Table
1). Privet was introduced to fill in gaps in forest areas and to combat the invasion of the other
species of framboise marron (Rubus alceifolius) (Rouillard and Guého 1999), which following its
introduction in 1840 (Friedmann 1997) had become a more serious invader than Rubus
rosifolius. In this respect the widespread planting of privet qualifies for inclusion in the list of
naïve biological control attempts.

A more widely documented example of this phenomenon was the introduction of the lesser
Indian mongoose in 1900 in an effort to control rats. The mongoose has been implicated in the
local extinction of Audubon’s shearwater (Puffinus lherminieri) (Cheke 1987a), four species of
introduced gamebird (Carié 1916, Jones 1996) and possibly the endemic pink pigeon (Roy
2002). Two pairs of mongooses were about to be released in Rodrigues in 1897 but O’Halloran,
the civil commissioner of the island at the time and a keen hunter, when hearing of the potential
destructive impact of mongooses on poultry and game, decided to have the animals destroyed
(North-Coombes 1971).

In 1911 the cane grub Phytalus (=Clemora) smithii became a serious pest of sugar cane. In
response the little toad Bufo gutturalis was successfully introduced from South Africa in 1922
(Greathead 1971). The introduced toad is thought to feed extensively on native landsnails and
may be one of the reasons for their increasing rarity (Griffiths 1996). Recent surveys carried out
by researchers from MWF and the University of Plymouth UK (Motala et al. unpublished data)
have indicated that native ground beetle densities are now very low and it appears that they
have declined since the pioneering surveys of Vinson in the 1950s (Vinson 1956, 1958, 1960,
1962) although quantitative comparisons are not possible. The cane toad (Bufo marinus), now a
well known invasive species notably in Australia (Covacevich and Archer 1970) was introduced
to Mauritius on at least two occasions but failed to establish (Greathead 1971). The impact of
the numerous insect biological control agents released in Mauritius against pests of sugar cane
is not known but work in the Hawaiian island of Kauai where the suite of biocontrol agents that
have been has been very similar to those released in Mauritius, indicates that many biocontrol
agents are affecting native insect species (Henneman and Memmott 2001).

Some biological control efforts have had very positive consequences for Mauritian native
biodiversity. Even though the motivation came primarily from the agricultural sector the highly
successful biological control programmes launched against black sage (Cordia curassavica) and
prickly pear (Opuntia species) and the partially successful control of Vielle fille, undertaken
between 1914 and 1947, represent some of the first positive interventions for conservation in
Mauritius (Fowler et al. 2000).

Another potentially positive initiative was instigated in the 1930s by the Forestry Service who
established two weeded plots in the Bel Ombre region to investigate the potential of native
species for forestry. Weeding was regularly carried out until the 1950s and has been maintained
sporadically since (Page and D’Argent 1997). Such efforts were never pursued on a large scale.

Increased levels of exploitation of local timber, chiefly from plantations and degraded forest,
were undertaken in Mauritius during the Second World War when shipping restrictions reduced
timber importations (Brouard 1963). Although the best indigenous forests such as those at Bel
Ombre, Macchabé and Brise Fer were protected, this period resulted in the loss of large native

28
trees from areas bordering better quality forest, further degrading the already fragmented native
forest.

The consequences of the fight against malaria were by no means all positive for the terrestrial
and marine biodiversity of Mauritius. As early as 1867 the fever enquiry commission had
recommended the drainage or filling in of marshes. These efforts accelerated from 1908 and
continued up to ca. 1960 (Mamet 1979) by which time large areas of inland marsh and coastal
wetland had been lost.

Ironically if not for the use of DDT after the Second World War it is likely that even more marsh
and wetland areas would have disappeared. Malaria was under control by the early 1950s and
declared eradicated in 1973 (Roberts 2002) although there was a brief resurgence from 1975-
1984 (Ragavoodoo 1984). Prophylactic use of DDT continued into the early 1970s and the total
use of this persistent bioaccumulating compound was substantial. It is well known that the
bioaccumulative effects of DDT nearly caused the extinction of the Mauritius kestrel (Jones et al.
1994). Effects on other components of the biodiversity of Mauritius are less well known. Much of
the DDT would have run off into the lagoon where it could have had a massive impact causing
further low key but chronic damage to the marine environment.

Protected area legislation was enacted over this period but the changes were generally not as
fundamental as those implemented between 1870 and 1883. A notable exception was the
passing of the first protected area legislation in Mauritius that explicitly incorporated native
biodiversity conservation considerations, The Ancient Monuments and National Reserves
Ordnance of 1944. This act inter alia provided for the establishment of a series of nature
reserves created with the aim of safeguarding, as far as possible, representative samples of
indigenous plant formations. The areas chosen were based on a survey carried out in 1937
(Vaughan and Wiehe 1937). Animal distributions were not considered in the establishment of
these reserves. While the boundaries of these nature reserves have been largely respected
there has been no significant active conservation in most nature reserves since their declaration
and they have continued to degrade through the impact of invasive alien species.

A White Paper on ‘Crown Forest Land (Land Utilisation) and Forestry’ was produced in 1950.
The report stated that ‘National Reserves’ of 4,500 acres of the best remnants of indigenous
forest would be preserved in perpetuity although no mechanism for this preservation is outlined.
Forestry would have first call upon the remaining Crown forest lands with the exception of some
limited areas that would be allocated to growing tea (Camellia sinensis), food crop production
and experimental fodder plantations. This led to the creation of large forest areas of over 1,000
ha, the culmination of a trend towards larger planted blocks that had replaced the practice of
‘improvement fellings’ from the 1930s. It is likely that the clearance of ‘useless scrub’ that
accompanied the creation of large forest blocks helped to further reduce native forest
biodiversity during this period.

A Fisheries Division responsible for the management of fisheries was established under the
Department of Agriculture, later to be the Ministry of Agriculture in 1940 and operated under the
Fisheries Ordinance of 1948 until it was replaced by the Fisheries Act of 1980. The benefits of
fishing reserves in protecting fish stocks and their productivity in non reserve areas was already
well known during this period. As a consequence six Fishing Reserves where seine fishing was
banned year round were set up in the lagoon in 1948. These reserves, which cover an
estimated area of 60–70 km2 were established in Port Louis, Grand Port, Black River, Poudre
d’Or, Poste La Fayette and Trou d’Eau Douce and are still in existence.

The rate of population growth in Mauritius considerably increased as malaria was brought under
control in 1950s. By 1960 a high and rapidly increasing population density was exacerbating an
already weak economic situation. This situation was further worsened by the effects of two
violent cyclones. The history of Mauritius and Rodrigues is punctuated by such events. None

29
has had more impact than Cyclone Carol, which struck the island in February 1960 just over one
month after Alix, which itself had been the worst cyclone to hit the island since 1945 (Padya
1984). Vegetable crops were wiped out, the year’s sugar crop was reduced to half its expected
yield, 70,000 buildings were destroyed and 48 people were killed (Padya 1984, Teelock 2001).
Forest plantations were dramatically affected with about 1,400 ha of upland eucalypts and 900
ha of pine destroyed or severely damaged (Brouard 1963). Native forest proved resilient in the
immediate aftermath apart from along ridges and openings subject to wind funnelling. However,
observers state that there was widespread mortality of native trees in the years immediately
following Carol (G. D’Argent pers. comm.) and many trees survived but never recovered their
vitality (A.S. Cheke pers. obs.). The vast majority of the subsequent regeneration, which would
have been predominantly of alien invasive species, has further accelerated the so far inexorable
process of native forest degradation. The huge economic impact of Cyclone Carol helped fuel
political instability and underlying ethnic tensions in a multi-ethnic country on the brink of
independence (Teelock 2001).

The leasing of areas of the Pas Géométriques in the 1960s was one source of much-needed
revenue in difficult economic times. This area, which had been economically marginal, became
an attractive location for the construction of a holiday or weekend bungalow or campement for
the rising numbers of affluent and middle class Mauritians once malaria had been eradicated
(socio-economic chapter).

The expansion of Mauritius’ hitherto small tea industry was deemed to be a useful way of
creating jobs for a rapidly expanding and under-employed population. The 1950 White Paper
discussed the release of forest land for tea production, a process that began in 1955. The area
under tea peaked at over 4, 000 ha in 1971 (Anon 1971). Production centred on a triangular-
shaped area between Curepipe in the west, Quartier Militaire in the north and Montagne Table à
Perrot in the east. Although the areas cleared were generally degraded the loss of this forest
must have contributed to the increasing rarity of the native plant and animal species found in
Mauritian forest fragments.

The early part of this period saw a lull in the activities of the island’s natural history community.
The renamed Mauritius Institute began to emphasise learned activities beyond natural history.
The government withdrew its subsidy to the Royal Society of Arts and Sciences in 1901. The
Chamber of Agriculture, the same body that had opposed the forest legislation of the 1870s with
such vigour, largely took on its functions. Not surprisingly most scientific endeavours during this
period were focused on agriculture. Natural history efforts were, however, rekindled in the
1930s. The forest ecology studies of Vaughan and Wiehe (1937, 1939, 1941, 1947) were
published internationally. In addition, a local journal, the Mauritius Institute Bulletin, was
launched in 1937. This publication became an extremely useful vehicle for the dissemination of
Mauritian natural history and observational ecology until its last edition in 1984 (Cheke 2003).
The work of Vinson for example on Mauritian entomofauna (e.g. Vinson 1956 and 1962) and
herpetofauna (e.g. Vinson and Vinson 1969) has been of immense value for the future
generations of conservationists in Mauritius. In a welcome move the Bulletin is due to be
relaunched in 2003.

As previously stated, appeals for conservation throughout the history of Mauritius had generally
failed to make a coherent distinction between native and introduced biodiversity. This began to
change in the latter part of this period. One of the first calls for the conservation of specifically
native biodiversity was made by Vaughan and Wiehe in 1941. They advocated weeding of alien
plants and fencing against introduced deer and pigs for the conservation of representative
samples of native forest communities (biodiversity and capacity chapters). Following their
studies (Vaughan and Wiehe 1941) some weeding was carried out on the 0.1 ha intensively
studied plot at Macchabé. Weeding was continued until 1952 but had only been carried out once
between 1952 and 1986 and even then not over the entire area of the plot. The plot was not
fenced against deer and pigs until 1986. Nevertheless, even this sporadic management

30
appeared to have been of relative benefit. Numbers of individuals greater than 10 cm diameter
at breast height (1.3 m) in Vaughan’s plot had fallen from 166 in 1937 to 130 in 1986 while there
were only 55 individuals of an equivalent size in an adjacent site of the equivalent area that had
never been weeded (Strahm 1994).

Towards the end of the British period several actions were taken that reflected an awareness of
the conservation value of the biodiversity of Mauritius. In 1951 Rountree outlined a plan for
research on Mauritius’ rare bird species. In 1957 protection was given to all birds except
common or alien species (Cheke 1987a). Robert Newton, the Colonial Secretary from 1954-
1957 and a keen ornithologist had helped instigate this legislation. Newton (1958) also wrote a
report to the International Council for Bird Preservation on the state of bird species in Mauritius.
Newton’s’ work and the subsequent appearance of the first bird Red Data Book (Vincent 1966)
helped to bring the plight of the avifauna of the Mascarenes to the international community.

In the 1960s the Colonial Herbarium increased its activities under the impetus of Reginald
Vaughan who became its curator in 1959 (Vaughan 1969), having previously become the first
Director of an invigorated Mauritius Institute in 1946. The herbarium collection was expanded
considerably under Vaughan and moved from the Mauritius Institute to the newly formed
Mauritius Herbarium housed at the Mauritius Sugar Industry Research Institute (MSIRI) at
Réduit.

In spite of the above activities there was no hands-on conservation work in Mauritius before
independence apart from the small-scale vegetation management at Macchabé. Natural history
was still a mainly white interest. In sharp contrast non-white Mauritians had been playing an
increasingly active part in the governing structures that were being established as Mauritius
moved towards independence.

As independence approached ethnic tension increased with many groups preferring a limited
form of autonomy within the British Empire with fear of Hindu hegemony whipped up by certain
interest groups. Dr. Seewoosagur Ramgoolam led the first independence government in 1968
following communal riots in which 25 people were killed. His government faced challenges of
severe unemployment in an economy based on a single export crop, a large and rapidly growing
population, poverty, high rates of illiteracy, communal tension and the threat of the flight of
capital abroad. Inevitably conservation considerations barely registered on the decision-maker’s
radar screens.
Rodrigues
Interest in Rodrigues from the Mauritian authorities under the British was generally sporadic,
often peaking with the arrival of a new administrator, who in many cases developed schemes for
broadening the economic base of the island. Interest at various times was expressed in using
the island for large-scale production of export crops such as cotton, tobacco and coconuts only
for meat, fish and grain to continue to provide the dependency’s small amount of export revenue
(North-Coombes 1971). Imposition of resource use regulations was periodically attempted but
was usually ineffectual. A commentary on the neglect of Rodrigues is the fact that only one
administrator stayed on the island for a period of more than five years in the Century before
independence (North-Coombes 1971).

More effort was made towards reafforestation in Rodrigues during this period nevertheless.
Efforts were stepped up from 1922, with jamrosa being the main species used until the Second
World War. After the war species such as Eucalyptus tereticornis, tecoma (Tabebuia pallida),
filao and Indian almond (Terminalia catappa) were also widely planted (Gade 1985).

In contrast to the situation in Mauritius, the lack of major infectious diseases in Rodrigues
resulted in a practically continuous population increase since settlement (Fig 4.) This increase
has been particularly pronounced since the abolition of slavery with an approximate 20-year

31
doubling time until growth rates slowed down in the 1980s (socio-economic chapter). Population
pressure and unregulated land use placed increasing strain on the island’s limited resources. As
early as 1825 deforestation was affecting water availability and since 1970 the island’s rivers
have only flowed after heavy rains (Gade 1985). None of Rodrigues’ native freshwater eel
species remain though they may have disappeared long before the 1970s as there was no
mention of them by Bertuchi (1923), who was on the island in 1916. In the meantime the
degraded land was losing its ability to absorb the intense rainfall associated with cyclonic
weather systems. Heavy runoff and siltation of the lagoon has been one of the consequences.
The effects of siltation have probably been accentuated by the shallowness and size of most of
the Rodriguan lagoon, which has meant that the silt readily settles and therefore accumulates. In
the Mauritian lagoon sediment is much more likely to be carried beyond the fringing reef
because of it relatively fast flushing rates.

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000
Population

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
1800 1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
Date

Figure 4. Population increase on the island of Rodrigues

The fate of deer illustrates the oscillations between enforcement and lack of enforcement of
regulations in Rodrigues. Following their introduction in 1862 their numbers rapidly increased to
between 1500 and 2000 by 1892 (Kennedy 1893). Lack of enforcement of hunting regulations
reduced them to tiny numbers but by 1918 their numbers were once again rising thanks to
stricter enforcement of regulations. They subsequently became a recognised agricultural pest
(Bertuchi 1923). They were hunted out with the last individual being shot in 1956 (Cheke 1987a)
though it is not clear whether the motivation was pest management. The fact that deer could be
easily eradicated from an island the size of Rodrigues illustrates that there is hardly anywhere in
Rodrigues that is inaccessible to people. Goats and pigs ceased to be feral during this period
probably due to hunting. The accessibility worked to the advantage of native biodiversity in
these instances. Unfortunately, this same accessibility has also exposed almost every part of
Rodrigues to man’s direct action and land degradation has inevitably ensued.

In the period following the initial spectacular clearance of the native forests of Rodrigues in the
early 19th century the Rodriguan forests continued to steadily degrade, through direct
destruction and the impact of alien invasive species. The rate of native forest destruction once
again accelerated during the ill-advised clearance of upland forest areas that accompanied
Rodrigues ‘agricultural revolution’ from 1955-1968. The ambitious programme that was
managed by Philip Hotchin was a response to the increasingly desperate economic,
demographic and agricultural problems facing Rodrigues at the time. Rodrigues was becoming

32
more and more dependent on Mauritius for food with its rising population and falling yields from
agriculture and fishing. The aim of the Government was to ‘provide all families on Rodrigues
with farms that would make the family self-sufficient’ (Gade 1985). Hotchin transformed
Rodrigues during his 12 years on the island. Strips of Vetiver grass (Vetiveria zizanioides) were
planted on field margins to reduce erosion, hundreds of hectares were terraced and dams were
constructed. Unfortunately such laudable efforts were accompanied by widespread clearance of
forests in watershed areas and other sites that were unsuitable for agriculture. Tree clearance
included that of many species of fruit trees such as tamarinds (Tamarindus indica) and
mangoes. These actions helped to bring Rodrigues’ three remaining vertebrate species, the
Rodrigues fody (Foudia flavicans), Rodrigues warbler (Acrocephalus rodericanus) and the
Rodrigues fruitbat (Pteropus rodricensis) to the brink of extinction (Cheke 1987a). No
information exists on the impacts of this clearance on the already tiny populations of many of
Rodrigues’ native plant species but they are likely to have been dramatic. The negative effects
of this forest clearance on the wider landscape did not become clear until after the programme
finished in 1968.

Independence to the present day

Mauritius
As previously outlined Mauritius became independent in 1968 as a very poor country with an
economy dependent on sugar, a population that was already one of the densest in the world and
growing at an exponential rate and a huge rate of unemployment. The ‘Mauritian economic’
miracle that followed has been extensively documented and is discussed in the socio–economic
chapter. In retrospect its roots can be traced to the formation of the Export Processing Zone in
the early 70s. In spite of the generally upward trajectory of the Mauritian economy since
independence has been a strong sense of uncertainly about the future at any one time in the
history of Mauritius. This was never more so than at the time of independence. Sir Seewoosagur
Ramgoolam led the new state into what then seemed an uncertain future.

Economic development and job-creation was the priority of this newly independent nation. In
1971 a World Bank financed job-creation programme “Travail Pour Tous” (work for everybody)
was initiated for the clearance of ‘scrub’ and its replacement with pine (Anon 1971). This
programme was even more destructive for native forest than the preceding clearances for tea
production. The programme continued until about 1980 with some forest clearance still going on
in certain areas e.g. Kanaka. However, the most intensive period of forest destruction finished in
1975 when over 2,000 ha of good quality and degraded forest had been cleared from Les
Mares, Kanaka and Grande Bassin. Pressure from overseas conservationists and from the then
Conservator of Forest Wahab Owadally was critical in the phasing out of the programme (G.
D’Argent pers. comm.). An examination of the poor condition of the pine plantations in areas
such as Les Mares after nearly 30 years is a graphic illustration of the futility of the scheme in
terms of productive forestry.

The clearance of the ca. 500 ha of forest at Les Mares, an area of marshy land linking the
forests of the Savanne range with those of Brise Fer and Macchabé, was particularly serious.
This area was suitable habitat for pink pigeons, Mauritius fodies olive white eyes (Zosterops
chloronothos) and paradise flycatchers (Terpsiphone bourbonnensis), possibly because its
marshy nature deterred predators playing an analogous role to that of Cryptomeria in Pigeon
Wood (Safford 1997b). The impact of the clearance on the passerines was not immediate. While
population numbers were reasonably high from 1973–1975 those studying these species
realised that this was probably due to the fact that numbers had not yet fallen in line with habitat
destruction levels (Cheke 1987b). This belief was confirmed by the time of the next census from
1992-3 (Safford 1997a) when numbers had fallen dramatically in spite of the fact that there had
been little change in forest area during the intervening years although the forest had inevitably
degraded. It is likely that many species of plants, notably in the genus Pandanus were also

33
made increasingly rare through this short but intense programme of conversion. Since this time
there has been very little forest clearance although the remaining remnants of forest are
degrading rapidly because of the effects of invasive alien species in the majority of areas in
which there is no active ecosystem management. A recent study indicates in an area of upland
forest shows a 71% decline in large trees over a 60-year period in a non-logged area
(Mauremootoo et al. in prep).

Species introductions if anything accelerated in the post-colonial era. Recent naturalisations with
potentially destructive ecological effects include the chameleon (Chameleo pardalis) and the
golden apple mystery snail (Pomacea bridgesi). Reliable information has yet to be compiled on
plant introduction levels but they too are likely to be increasing. A recent study on Insect species
introductions to Mauritius shows that these have accelerated considerably in the late 20th
century (Williams and Ganeshan 2001). Of the 22 significant pests that entered Mauritius over
the century 14 have arrived since 1975.

Not all activity during this period has been destructive and in 1969, under the impetus of
Reginald Vaughan, a 1.44 ha weeded and fenced plot was established in a biodiversity-rich area
of Sideroxylon thicket at Perrier. Unlike the Macchabé plot Perrier has been consistently
maintained to date. This initiative did not result in immediate further action. It was not until 1973
that the consistently active conservation work in Mauritius that has continued to the present day
began.

The development of terrestrial conservation work in Mauritius since 1973, which is extensively
documented in the capacity chapter, has been a story of fruitful national and international
collaboration. The international appreciation of the urgency of the Mauritian situation was
heightened by the visit of Sir Peter Scott to Mauritius in 1973. This preceded the survey work by
the British Ornithological Union (BOU) expedition to the Mascarenes in 1974 and 1975
(Diamond 1987) which had been initiated by a letter from the local naturalist France Staub in ca.
1971. In parallel, a species recovery programme to save the Mauritius kestrel was developed
mainly with support from international conservation organisations. The eventual success of the
kestrel programme has acted as a flagship around which to rally support for other species and
ecosystem conservation initiatives.

Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust that has consistently supported conservation in Mauritius
since 1976 (Jones and Hartley 1995) is particularly worthy of mention as an example of the
value of a long term commitment to conservation programmes, which can rarely be completed in
the short time periods to which funding is often constrained. Concrete support from the Mauritian
Government came very soon after the kestrel programme was initiated with the building of a
captive rearing centre in 1976 (Jones and Hartley 1995). Government staff numbers working on
conservation projects have increased from a single individual in 1978 to over one hundred at
present. There has been an accompanying increase in staff in the Mauritian Wildlife Foundation,
the leading conservation NGO in Mauritius and Rodrigues from less than ten in 1984 to over 70
in 2003 (capacity chapter).

Developments in conservation have been accompanied by new or modified legislation that has
specifically dealt with conservation concerns. Endemic reptiles were given protection in 1973.
Protection was extended to all native birds in 1977 (Staub 1980). Fruit bats were given
protection in 1983. In 1994 Mauritius’ first National Park was established under the Wildlife and
National Parks Act (1993), an act that also contains other biodiversity conservation provisions.
The Forests and Reserves Act (1983) also contains conservation provisions while the
Environment Protection Act (1991) provides the overall framework for environmental protection
in Mauritius (see capacity chapter for more details of current relevant legislation).

Strategy documents written to aid Mauritian conservation include species and site management
plans. An overall conservation plan was written (Ministry of Agriculture 1985) that has now

34
largely been superseded by the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for the Republic
of Mauritius, which is currently being finalised (Government of Mauritius in prep.).

Not all legislation since independence has been positive for conservation. The Campement
Sites Tax Act of 1983 further legitimised the leasing of Pas Géométriques for private
development, a process that had been gaining momentum since the 1960s. By the mid 1980s,
tourism had become a key component of the Mauritius economy. The largely unplanned growth
in hotel development, together with smaller scale constructions, has transformed the coastal
landscape since independence (socio-economic chapter).

Recommendations for the development of marine parks and active marine conservation in
Mauritius date back to the early 1970s (Proctor and Salm 1975, Robertson 1974 and Salm
1975). Awareness of marine ecosystem degradation became more mainstream in the late 1970s
both at a public and government level. Besides the development of the Albion Fisheries
Research Centre, the first Non Governmental Organisation addressing marine environmental
issues, the Mauritius Marine Conservation Society was formed in 1980. While this organisation
has continued to support marine conservation it operates under severe constraints, as all its
staff are volunteers and work under this constraint (capacity chapter).

The ‘State of the Environment in Mauritius’ report (MoE 1991) identified the major problems in
the marine environment. These remain largely the same in 2003: Namely deteriorating water
quality from industrial and urban effluence and agriculture run off, beach erosion, decimation of
mangrove forest, sedimentation from terrigenous run off and ecological changes on the sea bed,
coral destruction and decrease in productivity from the fisheries and contamination of beaches
with urban and industrial garbage. Nonetheless there have been many advances made to
improve the situation, but the marine environment remains under severe pressure.

In 1999 the ‘National Environment Strategy’ identified the following as priority issues: Beach
erosion and over development of the coastal zone, resulting in a threat to existing commercial
interests, poor water quality in the lagoons as a result of urban and industrial effluence and
agriculture run off and loss of biodiversity due to the destruction of wetlands, mangroves and
corals. The National Environmental Investment Plan has included monitoring of lagoon waters,
establishing water quality standards, the development of a National Sewerage Masterplan and a
National Physical Development Plan, all of which will have profound positive impacts on the
remaining coastal habitat. Installation of the sewerage system in Grand Baie is underway.
Integrated planning for Grand Baie in conjunction with the installation of the sewerage system
has also been proposed. These are encouraging signs for the future.

The theme of over-exploitation and attempts by the Government through legislation to curb the
excesses continues. The legal status of the sea remains common property and an exploitative
attitude predominates whether in the fisheries or coastal tourism developments with short-term
gains and very little return in terms of supporting conservation of the resources for future
sustainable development. This situation is compounded by the dispersion of liability and
accountability among the authorities, which results in responsibility of any individual or authority
being diluted. This in turn is reflected in poor enforcement of existing legislation (capacity
chapter).

Mauritius is party to many of the key international conservation agreements including the
Convention on Biodiversity (CBD), the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species (CITES), the World Heritage Convention and the Ramsar convention on Wetlands. The
signing of these conventions has helped Mauritius to incorporate conservation into its planning
framework through, for example, the undertaking of its National Biodiversity Strategy and Action
Plan under the CBD. However, while the signing of such agreements provides guidelines and
support for conservation they have not always been translated into effective action. CITES
regulations entered into force in Mauritius in 1975 and while those applying for CITES permits in

35
Mauritius are almost always legitimate individuals or concerns; the country is still affected by an
illegal animal trade. Madagascan radiated tortoises (Geochelone radiata), a CITES Appendix I
listed species for example are known to still be imported into Mauritius and Rodrigues from
Madagascar, although the majority of individuals traded are probably locally bred while illegal
trade in Mauritian day geckos is known to be carried out. In spite of signing the World Heritage
Convention in 1995 Mauritius and Rodrigues do not yet have any World Heritage Sites.
Unfortunately the Ramsar convention on Wetlands only came into force in Mauritius in 2001
after a period in which the wetland area of the country was significantly reduced even following
the successful eradication of malaria (socio–economic chapter).
Rodrigues
In spite of the fact that the island had not fared well under any of its outside administrative
powers, the Rodriguans were concerned that their interests would be further marginalized under
the rule of a government dominated by those of a different racial and religious group to
themselves. The Rodriguan people favoured an association with Britain rather than
independence as part of Mauritius. However, the latter was the only option on offer and
Rodrigues became the tenth district of Mauritius in 1968 although the new national flag was only
finally raised in Rodrigues one year later.

Morale at the time was hardly helped by the fact that shortly before independence the island
was hit by cyclone Monique with winds of up to 286 km per hour. Its devastating impact included
the loss of virtually all crops, destruction of homes and severe soil erosion. In 1970 three
cyclones hit Rodrigues in less than a month. The erosive force of the cyclones illustrated the
folly of the forest clearance of the previous decades. The effects of cyclones were compounded
by five years of drought between 1973 and 1977. Cyclone Jacinthe in 1980 resulted in the
silting up of all the dams in Rodrigues overnight (Gade 1985), a vivid illustration of the soil
erosion problem at the time in deforested Rodrigues.

From the 1970s there has been a reafforestation of Rodrigues using almost exclusively alien
species. ca. 3000 ha of Rodrigues is now forested compared to a much smaller area in the early
1970s. The desperate need to reforest at that time lead to a search for fast-growing, hardy trees
capable of spreading spontaneously. This reafforestation has probably helped to considerably
reduce soil erosion from the levels prevailing in the 1970s. No quantitative measurements have
been undertaken but qualitative evidence such the relative lack of dam siltation following
cyclone Kalundé, a much more intensive cyclone than Jacinthe, that hit the island in 2003
(J.R.M. pers. Obs) appears to support this statement. With 90 % of people depending on
firewood in the 1970s it probably seemed unlikely that the invasiveness of the tree species used
for reafforestation would become an issue. Acacia nilotica subsp. adstringens was introduced to
the island in the mid 1970s from which time it was widely planted for erosion control, firewood
and for fodder. Economic development has meant that firewood is now hardly used in Rodrigues
(socio-economic chapter) and trees such as piquant loulou, together with older introductions
such as tecoma are becoming highly invasive.

A series of articles in the 1970s and 1980s, with appropriately dramatic titles such as
‘Rodrigues: Can its Flora be Saved?’, ‘ … Tragedy of an Island Common’ and ‘Urgency and
Inertia in the Conservation of Endangered Island Species … ‘, discussed the urgent plight of the
remaining plants and animals of Rodrigues. Calls for action led to the initiation of active
conservation work in 1982 with the WWF/Rodrigues Forestry Service Plants Programme to save
critically endangered plant species. Under the management of expatriate staff propagation
techniques were developed, new individuals of rare plants were discovered and in 1986 the
lowland Anse Quitor valley and a key upland site Grande Montagne, were declared nature
reserves.

Conservation efforts expanded to full-scale restoration of these nature reserves during the
Global Environment Facility (GEF) World Bank Biodiversity Restoration Project (1996 to 2001),

36
implemented by the Mauritian Wildlife Foundation (MWF) and the Rodrigues’ Forestry Service.
The GEF project has resulted in an increasing Rodriguan capacity in project management,
conservation horticulture, and biodiversity monitoring techniques. Rodriguan staff now carry out
daily project management. In addition large numbers of Rodriguan volunteers now participate in
conservation (Mauremootoo and Payendee 2002). These native forest restoration plots only
account for a tiny percentage of the forested area of Rodrigues but the results of these initial
restoration efforts are encouraging and possibilities exist for scaling them up (see capacity
chapter).

Increasing traffic between Mauritius and Rodrigues in recent years has meant that the potential
for inter-island species introductions has considerably heightened. The detection of Indian
house shrews and Asian garden lizards (Calotes versicolor) in Rodrigues in 1997 vividly
illustrates this. Although the island is more degraded restoration work in Rodrigues is in some
ways easier than in Mauritius because the Rodriguan ecosystems are affected by fewer invasive
alien species. This advantage could disappear if present trends continue.

Marine conservation activities have increased in recent years in Rodrigues with the pioneering
work in coral monitoring carried out by the Rodrigues Underwater Group (RUG), an NGO staffed
by volunteers. This work has been followed up and built upon by the activities of Shoals
Rodrigues, an NGO with full time staff that was originally part of the Shoals of Capricorn
Initiative (see capacity chapter). In addition to increasing knowledge of the Rodrigues marine
ecosystem Shoals have, along with MWF helped highlight conservation issues through active
education and public awareness programmes.
Conclusion
Accounts of the dramatic losses of biodiversity in the short human history of Mauritius and
Rodrigues do not make pleasant reading: A minimum of 60% of endemic landbirds extinct from
Mauritius, 80% from Rodrigues; 70% percent of endemic reptiles extinct from the Mauritian
mainland, 100% from Rodrigues; around only 1% percent of Mauritius is left under near full
canopy rainforest, none in Rodrigues and the doleful list goes on. The history of Mauritius and
Rodrigues ought to stand as a warning to people everywhere of man’s ability to wreak havoc by
unplanned development and the indiscriminate introduction of alien invasive species.

The fact that there was such a loss of endemic vertebrates from Mauritius and probably
Rodrigues even before permanent settlement testifies to the inherent vulnerability of the
ecosystems of both islands, although there is controversy over the notion that small islands are
inherently more vulnerable to biological invasions than large land masses (Simberloff 1995).
Whatever the case, it is almost certainly true that exposure to the levels of forest destruction and
species introductions that followed settlement on Mauritius and Rodrigues would have had
dramatic effects on the ecology of any equivalent land area regardless of its insularity.

The fact that by most measures of biodiversity loss Mauritius has performed the “least worst” of
the two islands, may be merely the product of Mauritius having the more resilient ecology. The
biota of Rodrigues was likely to have been already losing diversity at the time of settlement
because of its drastic reduction in size following the post-glacial sea level rises. Rodrigues is
more isolated than Mauritius and if it is indeed the older island (a possibility discussed in the
biodiversity chapter) then it is likely to have a more inherent fragile biota than Mauritius. All
areas of Rodrigues are readily accessible and therefore vulnerable to the direct effects of
people. This is not the case for Mauritius though most of the island is easily accessible.

Even with all the above caveats, the speed and the scale of the loss of terrestrial biodiversity
from Rodrigues cannot be entirely due to endogenous factors. In the little over 200 years that
have passed since the beginning of permanent settlement the vulnerable Rodrigues landscape
has been battered by destructive anthropogenic forces with minimal redress and has suffered
the consequences. Mauritius has been far from a model of good environmental management

37
since it was first settled more than 150 years prior to Rodrigues. Its few remaining terrestrial
refuge habitats have, however, had some respite from direct exploitation from time to time.
Unfortunately slow downs in forest destruction alone cannot stop the biological invasions once
they have reached an advanced stage.

International recognition of the plight of the forests and birds of Mauritius and Rodrigues has
catalysed collaborative conservation efforts that have given hope that the processes responsible
for the loss of terrestrial biodiversity on these islands can be reversed (capacity chapter).
However, the necessary actions are highly demanding and it is far from guaranteed that
sufficient resources, know-how and funds can be harnessed to make this work successful in the
long run (capacity and socio-economic chapters).

In spite of conservation efforts to date the history of the degradation of the forests of Mauritius
and Rodrigues is very poorly known; not only amongst local people but also by the majority of
foreign tourists who have been sold the “unspoilt” tropical island paradise stereotype. If this
dramatic history were better known it might help us to intervene in a wise and timely manner to
address the ongoing degradation of the marine ecosystems of Mauritius and Rodrigues. It is
likely that the marine ecosystems of these islands are more resilient than their terrestrial biota.
However, this resilience is not infinite. The marine ecosystems of Mauritius and Rodrigues are
currently being subject to the equivalent of the scorched earth colonisation of that took place in
Rodrigues between the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

There is a growing awareness that this process is taking place but vested interests and the lure
of short-term gains in a poorly regulated environment makes it very difficult to implement
sustainable alternatives. It is to be hoped that the sad history of degradation of the terrestrial
ecosystems of Mauritius and Rodrigues will act as a warning to those who manage the marine
environment. If this warning is not heeded a degraded lagoon will be a reminder that history
tends to repeat itself in spite of well-meaning calls to learn from our previous mistakes.

38
References
Addison, J. and Hazareesingh, K. 1984. A New History of Mauritius. Macmillan, London.

Anon. 1601. Het Tvveede Boeck. Journael oft Dagh-register, inhoudende een warachtich
verhael ende Historische Vertellinghe van de reyse, gedaen door de achte schepen van
Amstelredamme gheseylt inden Maent Martij 1598, onder ‘tbeleydt van den Admiral Jacob
Cornelisz. Neck, ende Wybrant Van Varvvijck als Vice-Admirael. Amsterdam.

Anon. 1971. 4-year Plan for Social and Economic Development. Government Printer. Port
Louis.

Atkinson, G. 1922. The Extraordinary Voyage in French Literature, vol 2. From 1700 to 1720.
Champion (Reprinted 1969). New York: Burt Franklin, Paris.

Balfour, I. B. 1879. The physical features of Rodriguez/Botany [of Rodrigues]. Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B- Biological Sciences 168:289-292, 302-
387.

Barnwell, P. J. 1948. Visits and Despatches 1598-1948. Port Louis Mauritius: Standard Printing
Establishment.

Bernadin de St. Pierre, J. H. 1773. Voyage à L'Isle de France, à l'Ile Bourbon et au Cap de
Bonne Espérance. Merlin, Paris.

Bertuchi, A. J. 1923. The Island of Rodrigues. John Murray, London.

Bour, R. 1981. Histoire de la tortue terrestre de Bourbon. Bulletin de l'Academie de La Reunion

25:98-147.

Bouton, L.S. 1871. Séance de vendredi 15 juillet 1870. Transactions of the Royal Sociey of Arts
and Science of Mauritius 5:42.

Bouton, L. S. 1860. Sur le mode de répartition de certains plantes à Maurice. Transaction of the
Royal Society of Arts and Sciences of Mauritius 2:113-114.

Bouton, L. S. 1870. Report on the Prodromus of Decandolle. Transaction of the Royal Society of
Arts and Sciences of Mauritius 4:31-33.

Brouard, B. R. 1963. A history of woods and forests in Mauritius. Government Printer, Port
Louis, Mauritius.

Carié, P. 1916. L'acclimatation à l'Ile Maurice. Société National d'Acclimatation de France, Paris.

Cheke, A. S. 1987a. An ecological history of the Mascarene Islands, with particular reference to
extinctions and introductions of land vertebrates. pp. 5-89. In: A. W. Diamond (eds). Studies of
Mascarene Island Birds. Cambridge University Press, London.

Cheke, A. S. 1987b. The ecology of the smaller land-birds of Mauritius. pp. 151-207. In: A. W.
Diamond (eds). Studies of mascarene Island Birds. Cambridge University Press, London.

Cheke, A. S. 2003. Treasure Island: the rise and decline of a small tropical museum, the
Mauritius Institute. pp. 197-206. In: N. Collar, C. Fisher and Feare C. (eds). Why Museums
Matter. Avian archives in an ages of extinctions. Bull. Brit. Orn. Club 123A (Supplement 2003).

39
Covacevich, J. and Archer, M. 1970. The distribution of the cane toads Bufo marinus in Australia
and effects on indigenous vertebrates. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 17:305-320.

Cowles, G. S. 1987. The fossil record. pp. 90-100. In: A. W. Diamond (eds). Studies on
Mascarene Island Birds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Crépin, P. 1922. Charpentier de Cossigny, Fonctionnaire Colonial, d'après ses écrits et ceux de
quelques-uns de ses contemporains. Université de Paris, Paris.

Diamond, A. W. 1987. Studies of Mascarene island Birds. Cambridge University press, UK.

Flinders, M. 1814. A voyage to Terra Australis; undertaken for the purpose of completing the
discovery of that vast country and prosecuted in the years 1801, 1802 and 1803. G. and W.
Nicol, London.

Fowler, S. V., Ganeshan, S., Mauremootoo, J. R. and Mungroo, Y. 2000. Biological control of
weeds in Mauritius, Past successes revisited and present challenges. Proceedings of the X
international symposium on biological control of weeds 4-14 July 1999 43-50.

Friedmann, F. 1997. Rosacées. In: J. Bosser, T.H. Cadet, J. Guého and W. Marais (eds). Flore
des Mascareignes. L'Imprimerie du Gouvernement, Port Louis.

Gade, D. W. 1985. Man and Nature on Rodrigues: tragedy of an island common. Environmental
Conservation 12:207-216.

Gleadow, F. 1904. Report on the Forests of Mauritius with a Preliminary Working Plan.
Government Printer, Port Louis.

Government of Mauritius. In prep. National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for the
Republic of Mauritius. National Parks and Conservation Service, Ministry of Agriculture, Food
Technology and Natural Resources in collaboration with UNEP and GEF, Port Louis, Mauritius.

Grandidier, A. 1903-1920. Collection des ouvrages anciens concernant Madagascar. Comité de

Madagascar, Paris.

Greathead, D. J. 1971. A review of biological control in the Ethiopean region. Technical

Communication to the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control 5.

Griffiths, O. L. 1996. Summary of the land snails of the Mascarene Islands with notes on their
status. Proceedings of The Royal Society of Arts and Sciences of Mauritius 6:37-47.

Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243-1248.

Henneman, M. L. and Memmott, J. 2001. Infiltration of a Hawaiian community by introduced

biological control agents. Science 293:1314-1316.

Heywood, V. H. 1983. Botanic gardens and taxonomy - their economic role. Bulletin of the
Botanical Survey of India 25:134-147.

Holway, D. A., L. Lach, A. V. Suarez, N. D. Tsutsui, and T. J. Case. 2002. The causes and
consequences of ant invasions. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33: 181-233.

Jones, C. G., Heck, W., Lewis, R. E., Mungroo, Y., Slade, G. and Cade, T. J. 1994. The
restoration of the Mauritius kestrel Falco punctatus population. IBIS 137:S173-S180.

40
Jones, C. G. 1996. Bird introductions to Mauritius: status and relationships with native birds. pp.
113-122. In: J. S. Holmes and J. R. Simons (eds). The introduction and naturalisation of birds.
HMSO, London.

Jones, C. G. and Hartley, J. 1995. A conservation project on Mauritius and Rodrigues: an

overview and bibliography. Dodo, Journal of Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust 31:40-65.

Kennedy, W. R. 1893. Notes on a visit to the islands of Rodriguez, Mauritius and Réunion.
Journal, Bombay Natural History Society 7:440-446.

Lach, L. 2003. Invasive ants: Unwanted partners in ant-plant interactions? Annals of the
Missouri Botanical Garden 90: 91-108.

Lagesse, M. 1972. L'Ile de France avant La Bourdonnais. Mauritius Archives Publications. 12,
110pp. (reprinted 1999, Port Louis: Editions IPC.

Leguat de la Fougere, F. 1708. Voyage et aventures de Francois Leguat et de ses compagnons

en deux isles desertes des Indes Orientales. L. de Lorme, Amsterdam & London.

Lorence, D. H. and Sussman, R. W. 1986. Exotic species invasion into Mauritius wet forest
remnants. Journal of Tropical Ecology 2:147-162.

Lorence, D. H. and Sussman, R. W. 1988. Diversity, density, and invasion in a Mauritian wet
forest. Monograph Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Gdn. 25:187-204.

Lougnon, A. 1957. L'Ile Bourbon pendant la Régence. Larose, Paris.

Ly-Tio-Fane, M. 1972. Société de'Histoire Naturelle de l'Ille Maurice. Rapports annuels, I-V.
1830-1834. Royal Society of Arts and Sciences of Mauritius, Port Louis.

Ly-Tio-Fane Pineo, H. 1985. Chinese Diaspora in the Western Indian Ocean. Edition de l'Océan
Indien - Chinese Catholic Mission, Rose Hill, Mauritius.

Mamet, R. 1954. The ants (Hymenoptera Formicidae) of the Mascarene Islands. The Mauritius
Institute Bulletin III: 249-259.

Mamet, J. R. 1979. Chronology of events in the control and eradication of malaria in Mauritius.
Revue Agricole et Sucrière de L'Ile Maurice 58:107-146.

Mann, J. R. 1860. Observations on the water supply of Mauritius. Transactions of the Royal
Society of Arts and Science of Mauritius 2:63-81.

Maunder, M., Page, W., Mauremootoo, J. R., Payendee, J. R., Mungroo, Y., Maljcovic, A.,
Vericel, C. and Lyte, B. 2002. The decline and conservation management of the threatened
endemic palms of the Mascarene islands. Oryx 36:56-65.

Mauremootoo, J. R. and Payendee, J. R. 2002. Against the Odds: Restoring the Endemic Flora
of Rodrigues. Plant Talk 28:26-28.

Mauremootoo, J. R., Sevathian, J. C., Marie, D., Virah Sawmy, M. and Motala, M. S. in prep.
The degradation of a tropical insular forest over a period of sixty years.

Ministry of Agriculture 1985. White Paper for a National Conservation Strategy. Government
Printer, Port Louis, Mauritius.

41
MoE. 1991. State of the Environment in Mauritius. Ministry of Environment and Quality of Life,
Port Louis, Mauritius.

Moree, P. J. 1998. A concise History of Dutch Mauritius, 1598-1711. Kegan Paul International &
Leiden: International Institute for Asian Studies, London.

Newton, E. 1863. Notes of a second visit to Madagascar. IBIS 5:452-61.

Newton, R. 1958. Bird Preservation in Mauritius. Bulletin of the ICBP 7:182-185.

North-Coombes, A. 1971. The island of Rodrigues. Book Printing Services Ltd. Petite Rivière,
Mauritius.

North-Coombes, A. 1979. The Vindication of François Leguat. Service Bureau, Port Louis,
Mauritius.
Pingré, G. ca.1763. Voyage à l'île Rodrigue. MS1804, Bibliothèque Ste. Geneviève, Paris.
(Edited and rearranged version of the diary, MS 1803 (1760-2).

North-Coombes, A. 1994. Histoire des Tortues de Terre de Rodrigues et le Mouvement Maritime

de LiIe 1601-1808. Mauritius Printing Specialists (Pte) Ltd, Port Louis.

Padya, B. M. 1984. The climate of Mauritius. Meteorological Office, Mauritius.

Page, W. S. and D'Argent, G. 1997. A vegetation survey of Mauritius. Report Commissioned by

IUCN, Basel. Mauritian Wildlife Foundation, Port Louis, Mauritius.

Peerthum, S. 1989. Resistance against slavery. pp. In: U. Bissoondoyal and S.B.C. Servansing
(eds). Slavery in the South West Indian Ocean. MGI, Moka, Mauritius.

Pike, N. 1873. Subtropical Rambles in the Land of Aphanapteryx. Personal Experiences,

Adventures & Wanderings in and around the Island of Mauritius. Sampson Low, Marston, Low &
Serle, London.

Pingré, G. ca.1763. Voyage à l'île Rodrigue.

Pitot, A. 1905. T'Eylandt Maurtius. Esquisses historiques (1598-1810). Précédés d'une notice
sur la découverte des Mascareignes et suivies d'une monographie du Dodo, des Solitaires de
Rodrigue et de Bourbon et de l'oiseau Bleu. Coignet frères & Cie., Port Louis, Mauritius.

Proctor, J. and Salm, R. 1975. Conservation in Mauritius 1974. IUCN, Morges, Switzerland.

Ragavoodoo, C. 1984. The resurgence of Malaria in Mauritius. Paper for an interisland seminar
on transmissible disease, Ministry of Health Mauritius,

Reddi, S. 1984. Labour protest among Indian immigrants. pp. 116-135. In: (eds). Indians
Overseas: The Mauritian Experience. MGI, Moka, Mauritius.

Roberts, J. L. 2002. Malaria control: a case study from the Republic of Mauritius.
www.unep.org/.../Final%20Case%20Studies%20for%20Layout%20-%20WORD/
Malaria%20control%20in%20Mauritius.doc. Accessed March 2003

Robertson, I. B. J. 1974. A Draft Report on the Mauritius Marine Parks. FAO, Rome.

Rouillard, J. 1866-9. A collection of laws of Mauritius and its dependencies. L. Channell, Port
Louis, Mauritius.

42
Rouillard, G. and Guého, J. 1999. Les Plantes et Leur Histoire à L'Ile Maurice. MSM Limited,
Mauritius.

Roy, S. S., Jones, C. G. and Harris, S. 2002. An ecological basis for the control of the
mongoose Herpestes javanicus in Mauritius: is eradication possible? pp. 266-273. In: C. R.
Veitch and M. R. Clout (eds). Turning the tide: the eradication of invasives species. Invasive
Species Specialist Group. IUCN., Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Safford, R. J. 1997a. Distribution studies on the forest-living native passerines of Mauritius.

Biological Conservation 80:189-198.

Safford, R. J. 1997b. The destruction of source and sink habitats in the decline of the Mauritius
Fody Foudia rubra, an island endemic bird. Biodiversity & Conservation 6:513-527.

Salm, R. 1975. The Structure and Successional Status of three coral reefs of Mauritius.
Proceedings of The Royal Society of Arts and Sciences of Mauritius 3:227 - 240.

Simberloff, D. 1995. Why do introduced species appear to devastate islands more than
mainland areas? Pacific Science 49:87-97.

Staub, F. 1980. Mauritius National Section Report 1977-1978. Bull. ICBP 13:188-190.

Strahm, W. 1989. Plant Red Data Book for Rodrigues. Koeltz Scientific books, Koennigstein,
West Germany.

Strahm, W. A. 1994. The conservation and restoration of the flora of Mauritius and Rodrigues.
PhD Thesis, University of Reading, UK,

Strasberg, D. 1996. Diversity, size composition and spatial aggregation among trees on a 1-ha
rain forest plot at la Réunion. Biodiversity and Conservation 5:825-840.

Swinnerton, K. J. 2001. A Conservation Strategy for the Pink Pigeon Columba mayeri in
Mauritius. MWF, DWCT, WPT Canada,

Tafforet, F. 1726. Relation de l'isle Rodrigue. Anonymous MS in the Archives Nationales, Fonds
des Colonies C (4) 12,Paris. Proceedings of The Royal Society of Arts and Sciences of
Mauritius 4:1-16.

Teelock, V. 2001. Mauritian History. From its Beginnings to Modern Times. MGI, Moka,
Mauritius.

Thompson, R. 1880. Report on the forests of Mauritius, their present condition and future
management. Mercantile Record Co., Port Louis, Mauritius.

Toussaint, A. 1972. Histoire des Iles Mascareigns. Berger-Levrault, Paris.

Toussaint, A. 1973. Port Louis. A Tropical City. George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London.

Vaughan, R. E. and Wiehe, P. O. 1937. Studies on the vegetation of Mauritius I,. A preliminary
survey of the plant communities. Journal of Ecology 25:289-343.

Vaughan, R. E. and Wiehe, P. O. 1939. Studies on the vegetation of Mauritius II. The effect of
environment on certain features of leaf structure. Journal of Ecology 27:263-281.

43
 Vaughan, R. E. and Wiehe, P. O. 1941. Studies on the vegetation of Mauritius III. The structure
and development of the upland climax forest. Journal of Ecology 29:127-136.

Vaughan, R. E. and Wiehe, P. O. 1947. Studies on the vegetation of Mauritius IV. Some notes
on the internal climate of the upland climax forest. Ecology 34:126-136.

Vincent, J. 1966. Red Data Book 2. Aves. IUCN, Morges, Switzerland.

Vinson, J. 1956, 1958, 1960, 1962. Catalogue of the Coleoptera of Mauritius and Rodrigues.
Bull. Mauritius Inst. 4(1)(2)(3)(4 and supplement):

Vinson, J. and Vinson, J. M. 1969. The saurian fauna of the Mascarene Islands. The Mauritius
Institute Bulletin 6:203-320.

Virahsawmy, R. 1984. Movement from camps in 1870s. pp. 145-151. In: (eds). Indians
Overseas: The Mauritian Experience. MGI, Moka, Mauritius.

Williams, J. R. and Ganeshan, S. 2001. Insects introduced into Mauritius during the 20th
century: Natural, accidental and deliberate introductions. Revue Agricol et Sucrière de l'Ile
Maurice 78:33-50.

44

View publication stats