Content uploaded by Mohit Kumar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mohit Kumar on Dec 03, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Changing Landscape of Marine National Park and Sanctuary,
Gulf of Kachchh: Ecological Assessment of Mangroves and Coral
Reefs
Mohit Kumar
1,2
•Rohit Magotra
1
•Jyoti Parikh
1
•A. S. Rajawat
3
Received: 20 June 2017 / Revised: 1 August 2017 / Accepted: 7 September 2017
The National Academy of Sciences, India 2017
Abstract This paper assesses the ecological changes in
mangroves and coral reefs of Marine National Park and
Sanctuary (MNP&S), Gulf of Kachchh, Gujarat, India
during 1972–2014. Landsat 1 Multi Spectral Scanner data
were used for 1972 to map the mangroves and coral reefs
whereas Landsat 8 Optical Land Imager data were used to
map the coral reef extent only, in MNP&S in 2014. Pub-
lished literature sources were used to record the area of
mangroves and coral reefs of MNP&S for various years
between 1972 and 2014, and the changes were analyzed.
For the year 1972, total mangrove area mapped is
175.36 sq. km and the total reef area mapped comes out to
be 402.14 sq. km. The total area of reef in MNP&S com-
puted for 2014 is 443.49 sq. km. Our analysis shows that
MNP&S witnessed severe loss of mangroves till 1992, with
annual rate of mangrove degradation being 2.89%.
Exploitation by local communities and careless release/
spillage of oil and brine by nearby industries were found to
be two major anthropogenic factors responsible for
degradation of mangroves over a period of four decades.
Major reasons found for degradation of reefs in MNP&S
were mining and deposition of sediments. The area esti-
mates for coral reefs reported in this paper for 2014 are the
latest figures available for coral reefs in this region. It is
recommended that monitoring of coastal habitats in
MNP&S should be done regularly to understand the
changes in the ecology of the area.
Keywords Marine National Park and Sanctuary
Mangroves Coral reefs Gulf of Kachchh
Remote sensing
1 Introduction
One of the highly diverse and productive ecosystems of
earth is found in marine and coastal regions. These areas
support a variety of coastal and marine habitats like man-
groves, coral reefs, seagrasses, seaweeds/algae and salt-
marshes. These habitats help in the production of detritus
and recycling of nutrients, and thereby enrich the coastal
waters and support the benthic population of the sea.
Marine and coastal ecosystems throughout the world face
serious threats from pollution, over exploitation, conflict-
ing use of resources, damage and destruction of habitats,
and other harmful consequences of unsustainable anthro-
pogenic development. Realizing the need to preserve
marine and coastal areas, the International Union for
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN)
Commission on Natural Parks and Protected Areas
(CNPPA), has promoted the establishment and manage-
ment of a global representative system of Marine Protected
Areas (MPAs) [1].
In India, Marine Protected Areas may be either national
parks or sanctuaries. National parks are accorded higher
level of protection than sanctuaries. These MPAs cover
coastal wetlands, mangroves, coral reefs, lagoons, seagrass
beds and other biologically active resources. There are 31
MPAs in the country which occupy an area of 627,121 ha
[2].
&Mohit Kumar
mohitk@irade.org; mohit6kumar@gmail.com
1
Integrated Research and Action for Development (IRADe),
C-80, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi 110017, India
2
Institute of Science, Nirma University, SG Highway,
Ahmedabad 382481, India
3
Space Applications Centre (SAC), Ahmedabad 380015, India
123
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., India, Sect. A Phys. Sci.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40010-017-0457-3
The southern coast of Gulf of Kachchh (GoK) boasts of
a diversity of coastal and marine life; and realizing the
importance of this zone, the Government of Gujarat
declared some part of this coast as Marine Sanctuary in
1980. In 1982, the area under marine sanctuary was
expanded and some of the areas of the marine sanctuary
were raised to the level of Marine National Park to provide
more protection to these areas (Fig. 1). Marine Sanctuary
(MS) covers an area of 457.92 sq. km whereas the Marine
National Park (MNP) is established in an area of 162.89 sq.
km.
However, this region has also been extensively exploited
for economic development activities due to strategic location
and importance of Gulf. Salt works, thermal power station,
fertilizer plant, cement manufacturing unit, offshore oil ter-
minal, soda ash industry, ship breaking yard, ports, jetties—
all influence the area overlapping with the limits of MNP&S.
Therefore, ecosystems in this marine protected area have
been facing immense pressure due to industrialization,
urbanization, tourism, shipping related activities and salt
pans. The growing pressure on these habitats, require that
these coastal habitats be continuously monitored so as to plan
a suitable conservation strategy for them. Ground-based
monitoring and survey techniques are costly, time-consum-
ing and often difficult to implement as these plants grow
mostly in intertidal areas which are difficult to access fre-
quently. With the advent of space-borne remote sensing
technologies it has become possible to get a synoptic cov-
erage of a larger area, at cost-effective and repetitive manner
which is extremely useful for mapping and inventory pur-
poses as well as to identify temporal changes occurring in
coastal environment. In this study, we have analyzed the
changes in mangroves and coral reefs of MNP&S over the
last several decades using satellite images and published
literature with a view to understand the causes of their
degradation and factors supporting their revival.
Fig. 1 Location of Marine National Park and Sanctuary along the southern coast of Gulf of Kachchh. (Source: MNP office, Jamnagar)
M. Kumar et al.
123
2 Study Area
The MNP&S is situated along the southern coast of Gulf of
Kachchh in Morbi, Jamnagar and Devbhumi Dwarka dis-
tricts between 20150N–23400N latitudes and 68200–
70400E longitudes. There are 42 islands in MNP&S, out of
which 37 islands are covered under National Park and rest
5 islands are covered under Sanctuary area. The MNP&S in
Gulf of Kachchh supports a variety of marine biodiversity
due to availability of a diversity of habitats viz. coral reefs,
mangrove forests, sandy beaches, mudflats, creeks, rocky
coast, seagrass beds, etc. The biodiversity of this eco-re-
gion includes 108 species of algae, 70 species of sponges,
72 species of hard and soft corals, more than 200 species of
fishes, 27 species of prawns, 30 species of crabs, 4 species
of seagrasses, 3 species of sea turtles, 3 species of sea
mammals, more than 200 species of molluscs, 94 species of
water birds, 92 species of bivalves, 55 species of gas-
tropods and 78 species of birds [3–8]. This diversity of
habitats caters to the needs of thousands of flora and fauna
species and provides them shelter. We can find variety of
floral and faunal species like octopus, jelly fish, star fish,
colourful corals, exotic marine flowering plants, puffer fish,
sea horse, huge green sea turtles, lobsters, dolphins, etc. at
MNP&S.
The region is also a hub of many threatened species of
flora and fauna. 23 algal species, 26 coral species and 6
core mangrove species found in this region have been
classified as either ‘Rare’ or ‘Threatened’. Among the
seagrasses reported from this region, Halodule uninervis,
Halophila ovalis and Halophila ovata have been classified
as very rare [5]. Two core mangrove species viz. Sonner-
atia apetala and Bruguiera gymnorrhiza have become
extinct [8]. Among the marine mammals found in MNP&S,
Common Dolphin and Porpoise have been classified as
‘Threatened’ whereas Dugong has been classified as ‘En-
dangered’ [8]. All the 8 species of sharks found in this
region have been labelled as either ‘Rare’ or ‘Threatened’
[8]. Among the turtles found here, Green and Olive Ridley
Turtles are ‘Endangered’ whereas the Leatherback Turtle is
classified as ‘Uncommon’ [8].
3 Methodology
We have compiled a variety of resources to learn about the
changes that have happened in mangrove and coral reef
habitats of MNP&S over the years. These resources include
published literatures as well as openly accessible Landsat
satellite images. Landsat 1 MSS (Multi Spectral Scanner)
data were used for 1972 to map the mangroves and coral
reefs whereas Landsat 8 OLI (Optical Land Imager) data
were used to map the coral reef extent only, in MNP&S in
2014. Information regarding mangrove cover for 2014 was
taken from FSI (Forest Survey of India) data. Resources
from published literature were used to record the area of
mangroves and coral reefs for various years between 1972
and 2014, and the changes were compared and analyzed.
The satellite data of 1972 were selected to study the eco-
logical conditions of mangroves and coral reefs before the
declaration of this region as MNP&S. The images of 2014
were chosen because the recent available area estimates for
mangroves in this region is from FSI for 2014. In this way,
we had area estimates for 2014 from FSI (for mangroves)
and from our own analysis (for coral reefs).
Pre-processing of satellite images involve geometric and
radiometric correction. Landsat MSS data were georefer-
enced to OLI data using selected and sharp ground control
points such as road intersections, airport runway, jetties
etc.; with root mean square (RMS) error kept to less than
one pixel. Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordi-
nate system and WGS 84 datum was used for both the
images. Landsat MSS data were resampled to 30 m reso-
lution to minimize the mapping inaccuracy arising due to
varying spatial resolution of two datasets [9]. Radiometric
correction involves computation of apparent reflectance
from DN (Digital Numbers) values [10]. To cover entire
coastal belt of MNP&S, we mosaicked two Landsat scenes
for 1972 (of 6 and 7 December 1972), and three scenes for
2014 (of 04 and 11 January 2014). We used NIR (Near
Infra-Red), Red and Green bands to create an FCC (False
Colour Composite) as this combination highlights the
subtle differences among various coastal features. Landsat
1 MSS provides data in 4 bands with 60 m spatial resolu-
tion. Landsat 8 OLI is the most advanced sensor of Landsat
family providing data in 11 bands (30 m for band 1–7 and
9; 15 m for band 8; and 100 m for band 10–11) covering
various ranges of electromagnetic spectrum. The temporal
resolution of MSS is 18 days while that for OLI sensor is
16 days.
Mapping was done using visual interpretation of satellite
images at the scale of 1:50,000. Visual interpreta-
tion/manual digitization of surface features on satellite
images takes into account visual cues, such as tone, texture,
shape, pattern, and relationship of target feature to sur-
rounding objects. The tonal variations of surface features
observed in an FCC are function of their characteristic
reflectance recorded by the sensor in different regions of
electromagnetic spectrum. For example, Mangrove forests
comprise of evergreen trees and shrubs, growing mostly in
intertidal areas characterized by meandering creeks, coastal
lagoons and various river distributaries. Their complete
spectral response in optical domain of electromagnetic
spectrum is a function of chlorophyll content in their
leaves, density and structure of mangrove patches and
Changing Landscape of Marine National Park and Sanctuary, Gulf of Kachchh: Ecological…
123
varying moisture levels in the mudflat in response to tidal
fluctuations. Accordingly, the mangroves with different
canopy density exhibit distinct spectral behavior in differ-
ent regions of electromagnetic spectrum. Depending on the
canopy cover, mangroves are frequently classified as dense,
sparse and degraded. Dense mangroves (with canopy
density[40%) show highest reflectance in the NIR region,
followed by sparse mangroves (having canopy density
10–40%) and degraded mangroves (canopy density
\10%). Spectral response of vegetation communities, in
the visible region of electromagnetic spectrum is affected
by leaf pigmentation. In the NIR region, the internal
structure of leaves and the stacking of leaves determine the
spectral response whereas the leaf moisture content affects
the behavior in SWIR region. Sparse and degraded man-
groves show higher reflectance values relative to dense
mangroves in SWIR regions. In addition, the overall
reflectance of three mangrove communities is also influ-
enced by the humidity gradient in soil which in turn varies
as per the tide levels. As the space available among indi-
vidual plants is more in degraded and sparse category of
mangroves, the reflectance from wet ground also influences
the overall reflectance of these mangrove communities.
Some authors have also identified two more mangrove
classes: back mangroves and defoliated mangroves [10].
Back mangroves constitute ecotone between marsh com-
munities and mangroves. This zone comprises of Suaeda,
Salicornia and Sparse density of Avicennia plants [10].
Defoliated mangroves class includes stumps of dead
mangrove trees with leaves completely shed off [11].
Mudflats are differentiated as per their submergence and
exposure during tidal conditions. Intertidal mudflat (fre-
quently encountered category of mudflats; regularly inun-
dated by tides; gets exposed after few hours of interval and
then gets submerged again) shows higher reflectance than
subtidal mudflat (mostly submerged; exposed only during
low tides) in visible/infrared regions of electromagnetic
spectrum. In addition, mangroves form irregular patches,
with smooth texture and are associated with dark (if wet) or
light (if dry), muddy substratum. Visual interpretation of
satellite images takes into account these characteristics of
mangroves and other intertidal categories, as the basic
elements of image interpretation. Mangroves are evergreen
plants and hence can be observed any time during the year,
however, to study coral reefs of the MNP&S, satellite
images of October to March months are considered ideal.
This is because images of these months are mostly cloud
free. In addition, these months are also favorable for pro-
fuse algal growth on the reef which helps in identifying and
mapping the ecological condition of reefs. Both the satel-
lite datasets selected in this study were of low tide condi-
tion which helped in visual interpretation of reefs. In the
FCC prepared in this study, coral reefs appeared smooth,
irregular but of distinct shape, and turquoise blue or
greenish black in tone. They are located either adjacent to
the coast or around an island. The image interpretation key
developed by Space Applications Centre [12] was used for
visual interpretation of satellite images. The accuracy
assessment was done only for coral reef maps prepared for
2014 period as we did not have any reference data for
1972. A minimum of 50 points for each thematic category
of a map are considered sufficient to provide a good clas-
sification accuracy estimate for that category [13,14].
Therefore, we selected 50 random points scattered
throughout the various reefs of MNP&S in 2014 images.
These 50 points were verified through field visits and
through maps published in various literatures [7].
4 Results and Discussions
4.1 Mangroves
4.1.1 Variations in Mangrove Cover
Mangroves of MNP&S fall under the administrative dis-
tricts of Morbi, Jamnagar and Devbhumi Dwarka today.
The district of Devbhumi Dwarka and Morbi were created
in 2013. Probably the earliest record regarding the man-
groves of Jamnagar is the Imperial Gazette of India, Vol.
XVIII (1908) wherein it has been documented that Jam-
nagar (then known as Navanagar State) had mangrove
forests along the coastal belt and that these forests were
largely used for firewood and pasture requirements [15].
These mangrove forests extended from Okha in the west to
Navlakhi in the east and continued further upto Surajbari
creek [15]. They were dense and fairy tall. Overall, they
were in good condition though the species diversity was
not very high [15]. Later the Cher (local name for Avi-
cennia sp.; also used synonymously for mangroves in
general in Gujarat) forests of Okha Mandal (including 31
islands) were declared as Reserved Forests vide Notifica-
tion No. 90 of the Baroda State, dated 24 April 1919
[15,16]. In 1955 and 1956, Cher forests of Navanagar State
were taken over by the Director of Marine Product,
Government of Saurashtra and were notified as Forests
[16]. The Working Plan of Baroda (1977) provides the total
mangrove notified area in Jamnagar district as 665.93
square kilometer (sq. km) out of which 103.25 sq. km area
was leased out to 21 salt industries [16]. Today, the man-
groves in Morbi, Jamnagar and Devbhumi Dwarka district
fall under the management control of MNP, Jamnagar.
There have been different agencies involved in mapping
of mangroves and coral reefs using satellite data. In this
section, we will review the mangrove area reported by
different agencies over the years. Satellite images provide
M. Kumar et al.
123
an excellent record of the past and we used satellite images
of Landsat 1 MSS to map the MNP&S for 1972 (Fig. 2).
We mapped mangroves, coral reefs, islands, mudflats,
sand, salt pans and high tide line (HTL). For the year 1972,
total mangrove area mapped is 175.36 sq. km and the total
salt pan area mapped is 65.24 sq. km in MNP&S. The total
reef area mapped for 1972 comes out to be 402.14 sq. km.
Space Applications Centre (SAC), a unit of Indian Space
Research Organization (ISRO) reported the mangrove
cover for Jamnagar district mapped using Landsat TM
(Thematic Mapper) data of 1986 as 131.2 sq. km [17].
They further mapped the mangrove cover in Jamnagar
using IRS (Indian Remote Sensing Satellite) LISS (Linear
Imaging Self Scanning) II data of 1991–1992 period and
reported the area as 98.3 sq. km [17]. SAC further mapped
the mangrove communities of entire nation using satellite
data of 2005–2007 period and reported the mangrove cover
for Jamnagar as 149.62 sq. km [18].
Forest Survey of India (FSI) has been mapping the forest
cover of entire nation (which also includes mangroves) at
an interval of 2 years since 1987. From 1987 to 1989, they
included ‘mangrove’ as category of forest and did not
differentiate mangroves further into density classes. Also,
the assessments from 1987 to 1989 were restricted up to
states and did not provide forest estimates at the district
level. Therefore, it is difficult to arrive at mangrove esti-
mates for Jamnagar from FSI reports of 1987–1989 period.
District-wise forest estimates were provided for the first
time in 1991 by FSI. It is also pertinent to note here that
FSI assessments are based on satellite images of roughly
2–3 years back from the year in which the report was
published (Table 1).
They reported same mangrove area for Jamnagar for
1991, 1993, 1995 and 1997 assessment years as 118 sq. km
[19–22]. For 1999, the mangrove area reported by FSI for
Jamnagar was 140 sq. km [23]. It is important to note here
that FSI did not differentiate mangroves into density clas-
ses in these assessments. Differentiation of mangroves in
dense and sparse density classes was initiated by FSI from
2001. The variations in dense and sparse mangrove area in
Jamnagar reported by FSI from 2001 to 2015 is shown in
Table 1. As per FSI, the increase in mangrove cover in
Jamnagar is all because of increase in sparse mangrove
cover.
GEER (Gujarat Ecological Education and Research)
Foundation mapped the mangrove area for various taluka
of Jamnagar for 1998 as 141.4 sq. km [15]. This includes
58.21 sq. km of mangrove cover on various islands.
Looking at the trends of statistics reported by different
agencies over the years, it seems that mangroves have
Fig. 2 Map of MNP&S prepared for the year 1972
Changing Landscape of Marine National Park and Sanctuary, Gulf of Kachchh: Ecological…
123
increased in MNP&S over the years. However, most of the
growth of mangroves is accountable to increase in sparse
mangrove cover. To find out the rate of change in man-
grove cover over the years in MNP&S, we selected man-
grove area mapped by us for 1972; mangrove area mapped
by SAC for 1986 and 1992; mangrove area mapped by
GEER Foundation for 1998; and mangrove area given by
FSI for the years 2005, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015. We
omitted the area given by FSI for the years 1991, 1993,
1995, 1997, 1999, 2001 and 2003 because FSI reported
same mangrove area for the years 1991, 1993, 1995 and
1997; whereas the area reported for the years 1999, 2001
and 2003 are almost similar to the area reported by GEER
Foundation for 1998. The area reported by SAC for
2005–2007 was also not considered for computation of rate
of change in mangrove cover as we have already consid-
ered mangrove area given by FSI for these years. The rate
is computed using the equation r =1/(t
2
-t
1
)9LN (a
2
/
a
1
)[9]. In this equation r represents the rate of change, t
2
and t
1
are the two years during which the rate of change is
being calculated and a
2
and a
1
are the area estimates for t
2
and t
1
respectively. Table 2represents the annual rate of
change in mangrove cover in MNP&S during 1972–2015.
As is clear from the table, MNP&S witnessed severe
loss of mangroves till 1992 with annual rate of mangrove
degradation being 2.89%. The situation started to improve
when large-scale plantation activities of mangroves were
undertaken in 1987–1988, the results of which were
reflected in 1992 and 1998.
4.1.2 Causes of Mangrove Degradation
Over the years, there seem to be two major anthropogenic
factors reported for the destruction of mangroves in
MNP&S: Exploitation by local communities and careless
release/spillage of oil and brine by nearby industries [8].
Damage by cyclone in 1998 and 1999 is the only natural
cause reported so far for significant destruction of man-
groves in MNP&S.
4.1.2.1 Mangrove Exploitation by Local Communi-
ties Mangroves were heavily damaged during the period
from 1973 to 1976 as these years were marked with
drought and the entire coastal belt was declared open for
collection of wood and fodder. Coastal mangroves were
more damaged due to their proximity to local villages.
Nayak et al. [24] used satellite images to map mangroves
and coral reefs of a stretch of MNP&S between Rozi and
Vadinar, and reported the mangrove cover in 1975 to be
138.5 sq. km. Mangrove cover in this stretch reduced to
50 sq. km in 1982 and then to 33 sq. km in 1985 [24].
However, some improvement was reported in 1988 as the
mangrove area in this stretch increased to 47 sq. km in this
year [24]. Key factor responsible for mangrove degradation
in 1988 was heavy exploitation by the local communities as
the restrictions were relaxed due to the continuous drought
during 1986–1988 [16]. Mostly mangroves were harvested
for firewood and fodder collection. Grazing by camels also
imposed significant damage on mangroves as trampling by
camels damaged all the regenerating shoots of the plants
and therefore such plants usually didn’t grow further and
remained stunted [16]. These camels (Kharai breed) can
even swim in low tides and reach up to nearby islands.
Table 1 Mangrove area reported by FSI for Jamnagar in different years
Year in which report was published Time-period of satellite images used Mangrove area for Jamnagar (sq. km)
Total Dense Sparse
1991 1987–1989 118 NA NA
1993 1989–1991 118 NA NA
1995 1991–1993 118 NA NA
1997 1993–1995 118 NA NA
1999 1996–1998 140 NA NA
2001 2000 142 28 114
2003 2002 141 29 112
2005 2004 150 28 122
2009 2006 157 28 129
2011 2008–2009 159 28 131
2013 2010–2011 167 28 139
2015 2013–2014 173 28 145
M. Kumar et al.
123
Grazing by camels even damaged pneumatophores. Addi-
tionally, grazed vegetation didn’t produce flowers and
fruits, thus their natural regeneration was severely affected.
4.1.2.2 Mangrove Degradation Due to Oil Spills One of
the most severe damage on mangroves was inflicted by oil
spills. There have been several incidences of oil spill in
MNP&S, however their impacts on mangroves have not
been studied in detail in every case. One oil spill incidence
in 1999 was investigated by SAC [10] where mangroves
around south-east of Jindrabet (island) were found severely
damaged (Fig. 3).
An estimated 14.7 sq. km of mangrove cover in south-
east of Jindra bet was considerably affected [25]. SAC
continuously monitored the MNP&S during this period
using the satellite data of November–December 1999,
March-November 2000 and January 2001 [10]. Defoliation
of mangroves was reported for March 1999. In November
1999 some improvement was observed, however, there was
again a decline in December 1999 and then some
improvement was observed in March 2000, November
2000 and December 2001 [10]. The ground survey carried
out by SAC in March 1999 revealed mangroves as standing
dead with all leaves shed off [10]. Crude oil coats the root
of mangroves which reduces severely the ability of the
plant for gaseous exchange. Long term persistence of the
oil lead to loss of leaves (defoliation). Such leafless plants
are termed as ‘‘standing dead’’.
Kumar et al. [26] mapped the mangroves around Jindra,
island using satellite data of 2006, 2009 and 2011. They
reported an increase in mangrove area in this region and the
area impacted by oil spill in 1998–1999 (southeast of Jin-
dra bet, where mangroves were defoliated) was observed
under sparse mangrove cover in 2006 [26].
4.1.2.3 Mangrove Degradation Due to Saltpans Another
significant cause of mangrove destruction was the expan-
sion of saltpans along the coast. Large portion of mangrove
areas were leased out to industries for the creation of
saltpans [16] which took a heavy toll on the ecology of
MNP&S. The Government of Gujarat granted lease to 27
salt industries in Jamnagar, but some of these leases were
later cancelled. In June, 2001 around one lakh mangrove
trees were reported to be fatally affected due to leakage of
Fig. 3 Degradation of mangroves around southeast of Jindra bet due to oil spill (Landsat images, courtesy USGS)
Table 2 Annual rate of change (in %) in mangrove cover in MNP&S (Minus sign indicates negative change, i.e. degradation of mangroves)
1972 1986 1992 1998 2005 2009 2011 2013 2015
1972 -2.07 -2.89 -0.83 -0.47 -0.29 -0.25 -0.12 -0.03
1986 4.81 0.62 0.70 0.78 0.77 0.89 0.95
1992 6.06 3.25 2.75 2.53 2.53 2.46
1998 0.84 0.95 0.90 1.11 1.19
2005 1.14 0.97 1.34 1.43
2009 0.63 1.54 1.62
2011 2.45 2.11
2013 1.76
Changing Landscape of Marine National Park and Sanctuary, Gulf of Kachchh: Ecological…
123
brine from the pipelines of Tata Chemicals Ltd. near
Poshitra [8].
4.1.2.4 Mangrove Destruction by Cyclones Cyclones in
1998 and 1999 seriously damaged the mangroves of
MNP&S. Old, tall trees on Jindra and Pirotan islands were
reported to be completely damaged due to cyclones [8]. In
particular, one third of mangrove forest on Pirotan was
completely damaged [8]. Heavy winds uprooted large
trees. Thick layer of mud and sand was deposited on
pneumatophores which blocked the respiratory process
resulting in mortality of trees [8].
Over the last 40 years, mangroves faced degradation due
to reckless exploitation by local communities and careless
negligence by nearby coastal industries (for example, oil
spill or release of highly concentrated brine from salt
manufacturing industries). However, area under mangroves
has increased because there have been serious plantation
efforts carried out by Marine National Park authorities in
collaboration with local communities and organizations.
Mangrove plantation was initiated way back in 1983 by
MNP authorities and by 2015 an area of 472.44 sq. km
(Fig. 4) of mangroves was planted at various locations
within MNP&S. These plantations were carried out under
various schemes such as Cher Plantation, Coastal Border
Plantation etc.
4.2 Coral Reefs
Corals are benthic, sessile, marine invertebrates and build a
framework of calcium carbonate (known as reef) which
provides refuge to many other life forms. The earliest
record of study concerning the corals in the Gulf is prob-
ably that of Mr James Hornell who studied corals off the
Okha coast in 1909 [15]. The southern flank of GoK is
inhabited by northernmost of Indian reefs. These reefs have
been classified into fringing reefs, platform reefs, patch
reefs and coral pinnacles. The area off the coast of Jam-
nagar has fringing reefs around Pirotan, Narara, Dhani and
Jindra-Chhad islands, whereas the reef around Mundeka-
Dideka, Kalubhar and Bural Chank are classified as plat-
form reefs. There are also some coral pinnacles observed
near Kudda reef and south of Bural Chank reef [27]. Patch
reefs are Paga, Goose and the one around Ajad island
(Fig. 5). The diversity of corals in MNP&S is relatively
low due to the geographical location of the reefs, extreme
environmental variations (temperature range 15–35 C,
Salinity range 25–40%), strong tidal currents and heavy silt
load [12]. 56 coral species, including 44 hard corals have
been recorded from this region [12,15] whereas 199 spe-
cies are reported from other Indian reefs and more than 600
species have been recorded world over [28]. Ikedella
misakiensis, a rare species of corals which is recorded from
only 3 places of this planet, has been found growing in the
Gulf of Kachchh [12,25]. Ikedosoma pirotanensis, another
species of coral has been recorded from Gulf of Kachchh
only [12].
4.2.1 Variations in the Area of Coral Reefs
As we observed in the case of mangroves, here also dif-
ferent agencies have mapped the reefs of MNP&S for
various years and reported different areas. A comparative
assessment of changes in reef area in MNP&S is presented
below.
We have mapped the reefs using Landsat data of 1972
and 2014. Figure 1presented earlier in the text shows the
reefs mapped for the year 1972. The area of reef in
MNP&S in 1972 was found to be 402.14 sq. km. Figure 6
shows the coral reef map of 2014. The total area of reef in
MNP&S computed for 2014 was 443.49 sq. km. As stated
previously, accuracy assessment was done only for 2014
coral reef map as we did not have any reference data for
1972. Out of 50 randomly selected points on various reefs
Fig. 4 Area of mangrove plantation done since 1983 (area in hectare). Source: MNP office,Jamnagar
M. Kumar et al.
123
of MNP&S in 2014 map, 45 points were identified as
belonging to reefs. Rest five points were found under water
during the field visit. This way we get overall accuracy of
90% for coral reef map of 2014.
Figure 7provides the area of individual reefs mapped
for 2014. As can be seen from Fig. 7, Bural Chank is the
largest reef conglomeration in MNP&S and Sri is the
smallest.
Fig. 5 Reefs of MNP&S in Gulf of Kachchh [Image: Landsat 1 MSS of 1972; courtesy: United States Geological Survey (USGS)]
Fig. 6 Coral reef map of MNP&S, Jamnagar for 2014 (Data used: Landsat 8 OLI)
Changing Landscape of Marine National Park and Sanctuary, Gulf of Kachchh: Ecological…
123
Space Applications Centre (SAC) has been monitoring
the study area since 1975 using satellite data. The reef area
mapped in the Gulf for the year 1975, 1985 and 1986 was
217.2 sq. km, 179.7 sq. km and 123.2 sq. km respectively
[24]. A decline of 94 sq. km in reef area was reported
between 1975 and 1986 [24]. The reefs undergoing sig-
nificant reductions in area were Bural Chank, Narara and
Goos [27]. The core area of MNP including Mundeka-
Dideka, Jindra-Chhad and Pirotan islands underwent a
decrease of 63.5 sq. km between 1975 and 1985. The
condition of coral reefs in MNP&S improved significantly
after the area was legislatively protected. Bahuguna et al.
[27] mapped the coral reefs of MNP&S using the satellite
images of 1988, 1989 and 1990 and reported an increase of
23 sq. km in the core MNP area. The various reef cate-
gories mapped for entire MNP&S for 1988–1990 are
shown in Table 3[27].
Later, SAC mapped the coral reefs of the country using
satellite data at 1:25,000 scale [18]. For Jamnagar, they
calculated the reef area to be 352.52 sq. km using the
satellite data of 2004–2007 period. They observed a total of
21 eco-morphological categories of coral reefs in MNP&S.
Major categories reported by them were: Reef flat, Muddy
reef flat, Sparse algae on reef flat, inner reef flat and dense
algae [18].
Gujarat Ecology Commission (GEC), in collaboration
with Bhaskaracharya Institute of Space Applications and
Geo-informatics (BISAG), mapped the coral formations of
entire Gujarat using satellite data of 2010 (in some cases
satellite data of 2006 was also used) [7]. The area of coral
reefs situated along Jamnagar coast, calculated by them
comes out to be 413.02 sq. km.
Figure 8represents a comparative assessment of chan-
ges in the area of coral reefs in MNP&S over the years.
There could be several reasons for the variations in the
area of reefs reported by various agencies over the years as
observed in Fig. 8. As coral reefs mostly remain sub-
merged under water, the exposure of reefs in different
satellite images heavily depend on the tidal conditions at
the time of image acquisition. Though the effort is always
to select satellite images of low tide conditions, it is not
possible to acquire images which render identical exposure
of all reefs. This fact markedly affects the area of reefs
mapped using satellite images of different time-periods. In
this study, we mapped the reef areas of MNP&S using
satellite images of 1972 and 2014. We found that the dif-
ferences in the reef areas for 1972 and 2014 are chiefly
because of varying exposure of reefs in the images of two
time-periods. In addition, use of different satellite data
having variable spatial resolution also significantly affects
the computation of overall reef area. The interpretation
methods employed by various agencies also differ which
possibly led to variations in the reef area provided. How-
ever, there are also ample evidences of reef degradation in
MNP&S [8,12,18]. Major reasons for degradation of reefs
were anthropogenic exploitation and deposition of sedi-
ments by natural coastal processes. Construction of jetties,
Single Buoy Moorings (SBMs) and other infrastructure in
MNP also possibly contributed to the sediment load. It was
reported that the reefs which were interpreted as died out
during the period 1975–1985 were heavily buried under
mud [8]. Therefore, it seems that the area of reefs buried
under mud was not included in the overall reef area in
MNP&S reported for 1975, 1985 and 1986. These facts
make it all the more necessary to carry out monitoring of
reefs in MNP&S regularly. Chief reasons observed for
degradation of reefs in MNP&S during the last four dec-
ades are summarized below.
107.28
67.8457.85
37.6732.45
18.8718.16 16.72 16.51 14.11 11.4811.19 9.92 8.32 6.64 4.69 1.82 0.97 0.65 0.35
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Area (in sq km)
Fig. 7 Area of different reefs in
MNP&S
Table 3 Area of reef categories in MNP&S in 1988–1990 Source:-
Bahuguna et al.,[27]
Reef category Area (in sq. km)
Reef flat 148.4
Sand over reef 11.8
Mud over reef 117.1
Reef vegetation 112.1
Algae over reef 53.8
Sand with vegetation 17.0
Total 460.2
M. Kumar et al.
123
4.2.2 Reasons for Degradation of Coral Reefs
4.2.2.1 Human Exploitation Large-scale degradation of
corals dates back to 1930 when Digvijay Cement Company
was established and coral mining started. Mining for pro-
duction of cement inflicted considerable damage to reefs of
MNP&S. In particular, Narara reef was more severely
damaged [24]. This exploitation continued up to several
decades until the late seventies and early eighties [28]. Quite
often mining exceeded the leased areas. Immediate impact of
mining was dredging of live corals however it also added a
huge silt load in the adjacent water column which further
spread on other reefs. According to an estimate, this activity
led to a loss of 50–70% coral cover on the affected reefs [28].
Mining was later banned as the area was declared a protected
area in 1980 by the state government notification. However,
construction and developmental activities continued to add
pressure on the coral reefs of MNP&S. Construction of jet-
ties, ports, SBMs (Single Buoy Moorings), under-sea oil
pipelines, all led to direct or indirect damage to reefs in this
regions. Felling of mangroves along the shore as well as on
islands allowed the terrigenous sediments to get deposited on
reefs. Mangrove roots trap the sediments and thus help pre-
vent their deposition on corals. However, removal of man-
groves exposed reefs to coastal sediments. Another
anthropogenic reason for coral degradation is eutrophication
of coastal waters. Eutrophication favors excessive algal
growth on reefs. Some species of marine algae (such as Ulva)
may cover the corals completely and thus reduce the avail-
ability of sunlight to them. Sunlight is required for the algal
symbiont residing in the polyp’s body for photosynthesis. In
addition, algal blades trap mud below them which kills corals
by smothering. Coral growth is optimum in oligotrophic
waters but eutrophication results in more algal growth which
disturbs the delicate equilibrium between corals and algae on
reefs.
4.2.2.2 Natural Causes of Coral Degradation Extreme
geographical isolation is one of the major natural causes of
restricted proliferation of reefs in MNP&S. Such isolation
does not permit immigration of coral species from other
reef regions [28]. The Gulf is characterized by extreme
tidal current velocities which are not ideal for settlement of
corals [28]. High tidal amplitudes led to prolong exposure
of corals which might led to desiccation of many corals.
Also, high tidal amplitude results in scouring of creeks
which further adds sediment to the adjacent water column
[28]. In addition, sediments poured in the Gulf by mighty
River Indus also gets deposited on MNP&S reefs. Such a
heavy silt load smothers the coral polyps which led to the
loss of coral abundance and coral diversity.
Another signature of coral stress is reflected in the form
of bleaching. Bleaching may be because of natural or
anthropogenic causes or a synergistic impact of both.
Adhavan et al. [4] conducted a rapid survey of coral
diversity on Pirotan island and found bleached coral
colonies. The possible reasons suggested for this bleaching
of coral colonies were increase in the sea surface temper-
ature (SST) and sedimentation [4]. It was emphasized that
increase in SST was possibly because of delay in arrival of
southwest monsoon which resulted in prolonged summer
season [4].
5 Conclusion
This paper reports the ecological assessment of mangroves
and coral reefs of MNP&S over a period of four decades.
Mangroves and coral reefs of MNP&S have faced con-
siderable damage due to anthropogenic as well as natural
causes. Human exploitation of these coastal habitats over a
span of 40 years has led to significant degradation of dif-
ferent parts of the MNP&S. However, both these natural
Fig. 8 Changes in reef area in
MNP&S during the period
1972–2014. Source: The data
for 1975, 1985 and 1986 are
taken from Nayak et al. [24];
data for 1988-90 are taken from
Bahuguna et al. [27]; data for
2004-07 are from SAC[18]; data
for 2010 are from GEC &
BISAG [7]; and data for 1972
and 2014 are from our own
analysis
Changing Landscape of Marine National Park and Sanctuary, Gulf of Kachchh: Ecological…
123
systems have shown the ability to bounce back from the
cycle of destruction. Of course, the efforts by Marine
National Park authorities and state forest officials are sig-
nificant in helping mangroves and coral reefs re-grow
along the southern coast of the Gulf of Kachchh. Mangrove
plantation and coral transplantation efforts have been suc-
cessful to some extent in developing the ecology of the
area. However, in addition to focusing on monospecific
plantation of Avicennia (which of course has proved very
successful), attempts should also be made to grow other
mangrove species such as Rhizophora,Sonneratia,Bru-
guiera,Ceriops etc. Additionally, efforts should be made to
improve the density of mangroves in MNP&S. Dense
mangroves will prove more efficient in carbon sequestra-
tion than sparse mangroves. For corals, local species should
be transplanted more and more at different places within
MNP&S instead of bringing species from other parts of the
country. Local coral species are accustomed to harsh
environmental conditions of the Gulf and more likely to
proliferate suitably. It is also recommended that monitoring
of coastal habitats in MNP&S should be done regularly to
understand the changes in the ecology of the area. This will
help in developing policies for better management of
MNP&S.
Acknowledgements This paper is part of the project ‘‘Review of
Status of Marine National Park, Jamnagar: Evolving a Vision State-
ment for Management of MNP’’ funded by Deutsche Gesellschaftfu
¨r
Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ), Germany and Ministry
of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC), Govern-
ment of India vide grant no. No. 22-3/06-CS. Authors thank MNP
officials in Jamnagar for providing necessary permission to visit the
area as well as for accessing the information about MNP&S.
References
1. Kelleher G, Bleakley C, Wells S (1995) A global representative
system of marine protected areas, 4 vols. Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park Authority, The World Bank, and IUCN, Washing-
ton, DC
2. Singh HS (2003) Marine protected areas in India. Indian J Mar
Sci 32(3):226–233
3. www.mnpcs.gov.in. Accessed 14 Aug 2015 and 17 Aug 2015
4. Adhavan D, Kamboj RD, Chavda DV, Bhalodi MM (2014) Status
of intertidal biodiversity of Narara Reef, Marine National Park,
Gulf of Kachchh, Gujarat. J Mar Biol Oceanogr 3(3):1–2
5. Kamboj RD (2014) Biology and status of seagrasses in Gulf of
Kachchh Marine National Park and Sanctuary, India. Indian
Ocean Turtle Newsl 19:8–11
6. Ingle KK, Nayaka S, Bajpai R, Rawal JR, Upreti DK, Trivedi S
(2014) An account of Lichen Diversity in Islands of Marine
Protected Area, Jamnagar, Gujarat. Paper presented at the con-
ference Island Biodiversity (International Day for Biological
Diversity), Uttar Pradesh State Biodiversity Board, Lucknow,
pp 23–30
7. GEC & BISAG (2011) Coral Atlas of Gujarat State. Gujarat
Ecology Commission, Gandhinagar
8. Singh HS, Yennawar P, Asari RJ, Patel BH, Tatu K, Raval BR
(2002) An ecological and socio-economic study in Marine
National Park and Sanctuary in the Gulf of Kachchh (a com-
prehensive study on biodiversity and management issues). GEER
Foundation, p 347
9. Pasha SV, Reddy CS, Jha CS, Prasada Rao PVV, Dadhwal VK
(2016) Assessment of land cover change hotspots in Gulf of
Kachchh, India using multi-temporal remote sensing data and
GIS. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 44(6):905–913
10. SAC (2003) Community zonation of selected mangrove habitats
of India using satellite data. Scientific Note. Space Applications
Centre SAC (ISRO), Ahmedabad. SAC/RESIPA/MWRG/
MSCED/SN/17/2003
11. Shah DG, Bahuguna A, Deshmukh B, Nayak SR, Singh HS, Patel
BH (2005) Zoning and monitoring dominant mangrove commu-
nities of a part of the Marine National Park, Gulf of Kachchh.
J Indian Soc Remote Sens 33(1):155–163
12. SAC (2003) Ecomorphological zonation of selected coral reefs of
India using remotely-sensed data. Scientific Note. SAC (ISRO),
Ahmedabad. SAC/RESIPA/MWRG/MSCED/SN/16/2003
13. Congalton R (2001) Accuracy assessment and validation of
remotely sensed and other spatial information. Int J Wildland Fire
10:321–328
14. Rahman MM, Ullah MR, Lan M, Sri Sumantyo JT, Kuze H,
Tateishi R (2013) Comparison of Landsat image classification
methods for detecting mangrove forests in Sundarbans. Int J
Remote Sens 34(4):1041–1056
15. Singh HS (2000) Mangroves in Gujarat (Current Status and
Strategy for Conservation). GEER Foundation
16. Singh HS (1994) Status report on mangroves in Gujarat State.
Gujarat Forest Department
17. Bahuguna A, Chauhan HB, Nayak S (1998) Coastal vegetation of
Gujarat. In the proceedings of the workshop on integrated coastal
zone management, April 2–4, 1997, organized by Space Appli-
cations Centre, Ahmedabad and Department of Forests & Envi-
ronment, Government of Gujarat, pp 88–96
18. SAC (2012) Coastal Zones of India. Space Applications Centre
(ISRO), Ahmedabad
19. State of Forest Report (SFR) (1991) Forest Survey of India (FSI)
20. State of Forest Report (SFR) (1993) Forest Survey of India (FSI)
21. State of Forest Report (SFR) (1995) Forest Survey of India (FSI)
22. State of Forest Report (SFR) (1997) Forest Survey of India (FSI)
23. State of Forest Report (SFR) (1999). Forest Survey of India (FSI)
24. Nayak S, Pandeya A, Gupta MC, Trivedi CR, Prasad KN, Kadri
SA (1989) Application of satellite data for monitoring degrada-
tion of tidal wetlands of Gulf of Kachchh, Western India. Acta
Astronaut 20:171–178
25. Navalgund R, Bahuguna A (1999) Applications of remote sensing
and GIS in coastal zone management and conservation: Indian
experience. Invited paper at UN ESCAP/ISRO science sympo-
sium, pp 121–146
26. Kumar M, Chauhan HB, Rajawat AS, Kamboj RD, Ajai (2013)
Monitoring marine protected areas (MPAs) using Geomatics: a
case study in Gulf of Kachchh, Gujarat, India. ISG Newsl
19(3):56–62
27. Bahuguna A, Nayak S, Patel A, Aggarwal JP, Patel GA (1993)
Coral reefs of the Gulf of Kachchh, Gujarat. Scientific Note.
Space Applications Centre SAC (ISRO), Ahmedabad. SAC/RSA/
RSAG/DOD-COS/SN/04/93
28. Wafar M (1998) Management of coral reef of the Gulf of
Kachchh. In: Proceedings of the workshop on integrated coastal
zone management, April 2–4, 1997, organized by Space Appli-
cations Centre, Ahmedabad and Department of Forests & Envi-
ronment, Government of Gujarat, pp 97–103
M. Kumar et al.
123
