Status of Biodiversity in Mining Area of Kamatagi (North Karnataka, INDIA) a Case Study

International Journal of Advancements in Research & Technology, Volume 4, Issue 11, November -2015 26 ISSN 2278-7763

Status of Biodiversity in Mining Area of Kamatagi (North Karnataka, INDIA) A Case Study

Dr. R.G.Konnur Department of Zoology, SVP- SSBM First Grade College, BADAMI-587201, Karnataka State, INDIA , Email : [email protected].

ABSTRACT

Unchecked population growth and anthropocentric causes including mining led to devastation of habitat, loss of biodiversity, shift or change, or extinction of species of flora & fauna. One such study was conducted near Kamatagi (North Karnataka) that lies on low profile hills of Western Ghats. Quarterly survey for flora & fauna including physicochemical factors and socio-economic survey studies have suggested a shift or change in species composition in mined area in par with un-mined (natural ) habitat. There was a general trend in the dominance of natural/ wild varieties of plants in un-mined region than in the mining belt. It reflected a situation of habitat fragmentation and loss of native plants. The mined area however has prevalence of cultivable/ornamental plant species. An analyses of fauna indicated a least variability & differences in species composition. Insects among invertebrates and aves & mammals among vertebrates have dominated the rest of animal groups in mined as well as un-mined regions

The reasons for sparse distribution & stunted growth of trash/wild plants in un-mined region concurrent to rich growth of cultivable plants in mining belt is discussed. Recent insights in biodiversity conservation and effective nurturing of both biodiversity as well as mining isIJOART also discussed in this paper. INTRODUCTION Human beings are traditionally dependent on plants, animals & microbes in their surroundings since ancient times for various purposes such as food, medicine, cloth, cosmetics, dyes, fiber, pesticides, building materials & house hold articles of daily use. Now it is a question how safe these plants & animals under the present trend of ecosystem exploitation. Unchecked population growth & anthropocentric causes devasted the habitat and extinction of many species of plants & animal (Sharma 1997,Subramaniyan 2007,Khan MA, 2012). Mining activities are considered to cause a serious damage to flora & fauna by way of destruction of their natural habitat. It is the general perception that mining harms our biodiversity by way of deforestation, habitat degradation, isolation, soil erosion, inundation of aquatic ecosystems etc,.(Odum, E P 1971, Gadgil M.1993, Gupta R K, Chauhan Anita 1994 ,Gupta R K 2012).

Key-wards:sustainable biodiversity, deforestation,edge effect,stunted growth, conservation, a forestation, mining, habitat fragmentation, cultivable plants, trash/wild plants

Studies also suggest a less stable dynamics of fauna due to increasing patchiness (Kareiva.p,1987) caused by mining, edge effect (Fisher J & David Lindenmoyer,2007) etc,. Now, because the mining occupies 2nd position in industrial sector & supports the Indian economy, science based approach & biodiversity offsets towards nurturing both mining & biodiversity are now under consideration to avoid loss due to mining ( ICMM,2005; Malik Virah et.al.,2014). Keeping this in view, research studies were carried out near Kamatagi (Bagalkot dt.-north Karnataka) for a period of one year from 2012-2013. This study aimed at reporting the effects of mining on status of biodiversity i.e., to know whether the mining has its deteriorating effects on biota at this region, if any?.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study area (mining site) is located on stretches of low profile hills of Western Ghats. It lies at a distance of 6-7km, towards east of Kamatagi (Bagalkot dt.) just beside Bagalkot-Raichur state highway at 600 msl (Map-1). Approximate coverage area of mining activity is 60-70 ha. Quarterly survey for flora & fauna, physicochemical parameters and socio-economic studies were carried out; but, the data on flora & fauna alone are chosen here to interpret the results. Quadrate method was adopted to analyze the composition of flora & fauna. The average of four study stations as one unit in the mining area and one in the non- mining (natural) habitat were the sampling sites. The index method was adopted to represent the number of individual species (Phillip E.A.1959, Misra,1968 and Sundarapandian S M 2012 ). IJOART

RESULTS

. The average values of quarterly survey on qualitative & quantitative aspects of flora and fauna in mining & non-mining areas are summarized in Table-I and Table-II respectively.

TABLE-I. Composition and Quantitative Flora Analyzed for study stations

Composition of Flora Mined area Unmined(Natural) Habitat Acacia Arabica ++ +++ A. nilotica + +++

A.catechu ++ ++ Australian acacia ++ ++ Albizia lebbeck + ++ Bauhinia vaigate + + Baugain villea ++ - Cassia auriculata +++ ++ Carissa indica + ++ C. caridosa + + Caryota daman ++ + Dalburgia sisa ++ ++ Delonix regia +++ ++ Duranta seens + - Eucalyptus longifolia ++ ++ Euphorbia antignasium + ++ IJOART Ficus sp. ++ ++ Hibiscus rosa ++ - Indigofera + ++ Jaltropha provera - ++ Neem plant + ++ Opuntia - ++ Pongamia pinnata +++ +

Parthenium weed + + Protopis alba - ++ Phyllantus emblica ++ + Tectona grandis ++ + Zizypus zuzuba + +++

Thatch grass + ++ * Index for Quantity: + 1-5/10x10 sq. m, ++ 6-25/10x10 sq.m, +++ 26 & >/10x10sq.m , - No representation +*Rarely sighted The composition of plants listed in Table 1 suggests that the plant varieties- Pongamia pinnata, Cassia auriculata, Phyllanthus emblica,Caryota daman,Delonix regia etc., dominated in the mining area with index value ++ and +++; whereas, plant species-Acacia nilotica ,A.arabica, Ziziphus zuzuba,Neem plant, Jaltropha provera.dominated in the non-

Copyright © 2015 SciResPub. IJOART International Journal of Advancements in Research & Technology, Volume 4, Issue 11, November -2015 29 ISSN 2278-7763 mining (natural) habitat. Their index value varied between ++ and +++ in the region. The non-mining region also had moderate distribution of thatch grass. The plant species –Dalburgia sisa ,Eucalyptus longifolia, Ficus sp., Australian acacia & A.catechu distributed equally in both the mining as well as non-mining regions. TABLE. II: Composition and Quantitative Fauna analyzed for study stations

Composition of Fauna Mined area Un-mined/natural Habitat INVERTEBRATES Termite + +++ Solenopsis sp.(Red ant) ++ +++ Spider + ++ Butter fly ++ +++ May fly + ++ Dragon fly + ++ Lac insect - ++ Grass hopper - ++ Carausius (Stick insect) - + Mantis religosa(preying mantis) + ++ Schistocera gregaria (Locust) + ++ Vespa orientalis (red wasp) + ++ Julus terestricus (a millipede) - + Scolopendra (a centipede) + + VERTEBRATES Bufo melanosticus(terr.frog) - + Mabouia carinata(IJOART skink.-lizard) - + Calotes versicolor + ++ Varanus monitor + + Passer domesticus(house sparrow) ++ +++ Myana bird + ++ Corvus sp.(crow) + + Hoofe hoofe ++ ++ Pavo cristatus (comm..pea fowl) - + Baya bird - + Swift ++ +++ Tochus birostricus(grey hornbil) - + Langoor(black monkey) + + Macaca macaca(red monkey) + + Mangoose + ++ Manis( Pangolin-ant eater) - +* Wild pig +* +* Hystrix (spine pig) - +*

* Index for Quantity: + 1-5/10x10 sq. m, ++ 6-25/10x10 sq.m, +++ 26 & >/10x10sq.m , - No representation +*Rarely sighted

The composition of Invertebrate animals recorded belongs to two major groups i.e., Arthropoda & Mollusca. Insects of the group arthropoda accounted to 99% and the remaining 1% constituted by Mollusca. Termites, red ant, Dorylus sp.(winged ants) butterfly & grasshopper etc., dominated in the non- mining area. Flying insects like-may fly dragon fly recorded seasonally i.e., during rainy season in both the regions, their index value ranged between + to++( 1-5 to 6-25 indls.). Lac-insect, grasshopper, millipede, stick-insect did not show their representation in the mining area. The quantity of termite, red ant, butter-fly was significantly high in non-mining region with Index value of +++( >25 indls.)

Among the Vertebrates- Birds & Mammals were dominated over the rest of animal groups. Passer domesticus, Myana, Swift, Corvus sp.(Crow), Hoofe hoofe were common with reduced index value (+/++ ). Swift & house sparrow recorded a higher index value of ++ & +++(6-25 &> 25 indls. respectively) in mining as well as non-mining areas.

The composition of Mammals included Manis, Mangoose, Wild pig ,Macaca macaca, Languor,& Hystrix etc.,. Manis & Hystrix were sighted very rarely i.e., occasionally in these habitats. Among the rest of the vertebrates Bufo melanosticus ( land frog) & Mabauia carinata( skink) an amphibian and reptilian respectively recorded with a low index value +,(1-5 indls.) only in the non-mining region.

DISCUSSION

The status of vegetation was considered as basic measure to know the effect of mining on biodiversity. Hence, due importance was given to record the composition of flora & fauna and their quantity in both the mining as well as non-mining regions. The collectedIJOART data on flora suggest that, in general, there is a shift in the species composition of plants. The cultivable plant species like P.pinnata, C.auriculata, P.emblica,C.daman & D.regia preferred the mining area when compared to non-mining habitat.. The natural/wild plants like- A.nilotica, A.arabica, Z.zuzuba, J.provera & Indigofera etc., flourished in non-mining area(Table I). The reason for higher index value of cultivable plant sp. in mining area may be attributed to their conducive soil factors, like root penetration created after removal of stones/rocks during the mining process. In addition, timely watering, care and promotion of a forestation by the mining authority under conservation acts laid by the govt. could have encouraged rich plant growth. But these conservation acts in the mining area in the present study may not be expected to a long run for a sustainable ecosystem. The de- conservation process by the mining authority may go hand in hand, due to commercial thinking & their intention of siphoning maximum profit out of their rights to utilize the entire lease period (Gupta R.K,2012) .

The natural/ wild plants like- A.nilotica, A.arabica, Z.zuzuba, J.provera & Indigofera etc.,although flourished better in non-mining area, but these plants had stunted growth. The vegetation too was sparse with plants of bushy nature & consisted of trash plants. Two reasons are predicted for stunted growth-one being the soil with high % of stones/rocks, that

Copyright © 2015 SciResPub. IJOART International Journal of Advancements in Research & Technology, Volume 4, Issue 11, November -2015 31 ISSN 2278-7763 could have prevented the root penetration of these plants. Secondly, low annual rainfall (<600 mm/yr ), and non retention of rained water due to sloping hill.

Research reviews suggest that, stones/rocks of the size more than 25cm could severely affect the root penetration of plants and result in stunted growth, that too when the percentage of stones exceeds 50-60(%) of soil(Stone E.L.1991). Substantially rich growth of cultivable plants at some regions of mining site suggest that, the soil minerals are not yet fully exploited or degraded. It is also witnessed that, large size stones were sufficiently sortedout in mining process. The study stations like no.2&3(Map 1) out of total number 4 stations (averaged as one unit) have experienced overburden of dumps of mineral stones, resulted in very sparse vegetation or no vegetation at all. Asthana D.K.& Meera Aasthana(2010) and Aravind Kumar et al.(2010) suggest that, overburden dumps of mining could contribute to a severe environmental degradation due to alteration in the surface topography. Kotiyar et al.,(1987) and Gupta R.K.(2012) are of the opinion that, mining activities should be undertaken in conformity with the objectives of safe disposal of mined waste for sustainable ecosystem. ICMM (2005) suggest that, there should be systematic planning & biodiversity offsets while establishing mining industries, so that damage due to mining could be compensated.

The data on fauna are not considered as significant in assessing the effect of mining on their diversity due to their migratory behavior. The present case is an example of surface (opencast) mining. It incurs less damage to biota than pit mining.

CONCLUSION 1. The co-dominanceIJOART of cultivable & natural plant species in two different habitats reflects a situation of habitat fragmentation; & suggest that the mining could interrupt uniform distribution of biota due to edge effects. 2. Partial mining with removal of stones/rocks to a depth of 5-10m on low profile hills or surface (opencast) mining belt may support both plant growth as well as monitory benefits from mining. 3. Overburden of huge mining dumps/rocks could apprehend plant growth due to change in topography, competiveness and change in other physicochemical factors of soil . 4. Either of the habitats (mining or non-mining) are conducive for rich flora of any kind of plants (natural or cultivated), provided growth promoting parameters should exist (at least at a minimum level) in such habitats.

SUGGESTIONS

1. For sustainable and more economic benefit cultivable/ornamental plants should be replaced by perennial & economically beneficial plants, that ensures long lasting conservation measure. 2. Mining should have limitations to retain minimum quantity of mineral pool in the residue for supporting biota, i.e., sustainable exploitation for future lives of plants (Kotiyar et.al.,1987) ,there should be strict promulgation of laws to this effect.

3. Surface (opencast) mining should be preferred, to avoid severe damage done to ecosystem in pit mining. 4. Reclamation of mined land to the extent of agriculture/a forestation usage should be made mandatory to the miners.

ACKNOLEDGEMENTS

I extend my gratitude to University Grants Commission, SWRO, Bangalore, for providing financial assistance to pursue this research problem. I am grateful to my Institution for giving me the opportunity to serve & granting necessary permission to carryout research activities. I thank Dr.A.A.Topalakatti for analyzing the flora for this project.

REFERRENCES

Arvind Kumar Rai, Biswajit Paul, and Gurdeep Singh 2010: A study on the Bulk density and its effect on the growth of selected grasses in coal mine overburden dumps, Jharkhand,India. International Journal of Environmental Sciences,vol.1,no.4.

Asthana D.K. and Meera Asthana.,2010:Environmental Studies, S. Chand, ND, India

Fisher J and David Lindenmayar,2007: Landscape Modification and habitat fragmentation.

Fosberg, F.R.1986 : Biodiversity, Environmental Awareness,9,pp125-129.

Gupta R.K.and Chauhan Anita 1994:Biodiversity Protection &Soil conservation in India,Indian Journal of Soil Conservation. 22, pp.201-213. Gupta, R.K. 2012IJOART:.Relevance of Biodiversity Concept in Environmental Protection of Mined Area .Envt. Biodiversity & Conservation, A.P.H Publn.ND, pp.17-23

ICMM 2005: International Council on Mining & Minerals, July 2005. Biodiversity Offsets- A Briefing paper for the Mining Industry..

Kareiva P.1987. Habitat fragmentation and the stability of Predator-Prey Interactions.Nature,326, pp 388-390.

Katiyar,V.S.,Shastry,G. and Adhikari,R.N.1987.Mechanical measures for mine spoils and landslides. Indian Journal of Soil Conservation,15.,pp.108-116.

Malik Virah-Swamy, Johnnes Ebeling and Roslyn Taplin, 2014:Mining and Biodiversity Offsets: A transparent and Science based approach to measure “No net Loss”,J .Environmental Management ,43,1,pp.61-70.

Misra,R. 1968. Ecology Workbook. Oxford & IBH Co.pp.244.

Odum,E.P.1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. W.B. Sounders Company Philadelphia ,London,Toronto.

Phillips,E.A. 1950. Methods of Vegetation Study. Henry Halt and Co.Inc.

Sharma P.D.1997:Environmental Biology & Toxicology, Rastogi Publication, ND, India

Stone E.L. and P.J Kaliz, 1991: On the Maximum Extent of tree roots. Forest Ecology & Management,46, pp.59-102,Elsevier Science Publishers,B.V.Amsterdam.

Sundarapandian,S. Chandrashekran and P.S. Swamy, 2012.: Vegetation Structure and Composition under Different Landscape Elements at Kodayar in Western Ghats of Tamilnadu. Envt.Biod. & Conservation., A.P.H.Publn.ND, pp.197-224.

******

IJOART