sign in sign up
<<
Home , Acanthus ilicifolius, Alysicarpus, Avicennia officinalis, Bruguiera cylindrica, Canavalia rosea, Colutea

International Journal of Research in Social Sciences Vol. 9 Issue 1, January 2019, ISSN: 2249-2496 Impact Factor: 7.081 Journal Homepage: http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected] Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International Journal - Included in the International Serial Directories Indexed & Listed at: Ulrich's Periodicals Directory ©, U.S.A., Open J-Gage as well as in Cabell’s Directories of Publishing Opportunities, U.S.A

An Assessment of Floral Diversity in the Forest of ,

Karaikal District, Puducherry

Duraimurugan, V.* Jeevanandham, P.**

Abstract The tropical coastal zone of the world is covered by a dynamic system in a state of continual adjustment as a result of natural process and human activities. The mangrove ecosystem is a unique association of , animals and micro-organisms acclimatized to life in the fluctuating environment of the tropical and subtropical and intertidal zone covering more than 10 million ha worldwide. The present study documents the directly observed diversity of true and their associates, in the mangroves of Karaikal. The present study recorded a sum of 136 . Among the plants 8 species were true mangroves and 128 species were mangrove associates. The family is the dominant group represent three species followed by Avicenniaceae with two species. The associated mangrove flora recorded in the present study falls to 128 genera belongs to 42 families from 20 orders. As per IUCN current status, most of the mangrove species in decreased status. The base line information is very much helpful for the conservation and feature references.

Key words: Avicenniaceae, Flora, Karaikal, Mangrove, Rhizophoraceae.

* P.G. and Research Department of Zoology and Wildlife Biology, A.V.C College (Autonomous), Mannampandal, , ,– 609 305,.

** Department of Zoology, TBML College, Poraiyar, Tamil Nadu, India 609 307.

457 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]

ISSN: 2249-2496 Impact Factor: 7.081

Introduction As per Pritchard [23] statement an estuary may be defined as a semi-enclosed coastal body of water which has a free connection with the open sea and within which sea water is measurably diluted by fresh water from river and land drainage. At the same time the fresh water carrying the fertile silt and runoff from the land. Estuary is always a home for unique floral and faunal community of the world. The estuaries always have a unique feature of physical and chemical nature, in connection with their shape, catchment area, connection to the sea and tidal regime of the area [11][4]. The growth and distribution of floral community will be determined by the salinity and the amount of flooding [22],[21] of the estuarine marshes and marine ecosystem. Estuaries support different microhabitats, such as mangroves, salt marshes, sea-grass, mudflats etc. The algal groups and seagrasses are more towards the sea coast of the estuaries. The mangrove plants are well adapted near the mouth of the rivers and deltas. Estuaries contribute particularly priceless protection beside the stormy waters of the sea and also providing a protected haven for the thousands of livings that use estuaries as, feeding and breeding grounds.

Mangroves are represents a characteristic littoral, evergreen forest of the estuary ecosystem and in fact form an icon for the estuarine ecosystem(https://www.pmfias.com / mangrove-estuarine-ecosystems/) [28] The extensive development of mangroves depends on a layer of sand or earth, normally deposited by action of rivers and high flood tides and shores, free of strong wave and tidal actions of the sea. It also required slat marine water and brackish water [33]. The shorelines of tropical of the world have best developed mangroves between the high and low tide regions [29]. The great mangrove forest formations are naturally grow in the privileged muddy shorelines that are frequently connected with the formation of deltas at the mouth of a riverine system [9]. The evergreen mangroves grows not only in the estuarine habitats, it can also be growing on sandy and rocky shores, coral reefs and oceanic islands. For an instance where islands can be completely surrounded by mangroves, it is not possible to describe a typical mangrove, as the differences in the girth and height, within the same species, is immense, depending on the many environmental and other factors that control growth [19],[5]. Mangroves are trees and fall into two groups according to their habitats in nature: true mangroves and mangrove associates. The river Arasalaru estuary mangroves acts as a sink for sewage discharges. Conservation priorities and restoration measures must be decided based upon the inventorisation of biological diversity [13]. The floral groups which border the estuaries are exceedingly tailored to a dynamic ecosystem. The estuarine environments experience daily changes due to tidal influences of the sea, and seasonal changes due to rainfall and river flow regimes [20]. Vegetations play an indispensable role in the maintenance of a biologically balanced and healthy waterway [34][36]. It gives an extensive range of functions that are essential for supporting the floral and faunal life and for maintaining the value of the ecosystem. These functions include: flood control; shoreline stabilisation; sediment, nutrient and pollutant filtering and, most importantly, the provision of food, shelter and breeding habitats for a wide range of organisms [34]. Hence the botanical assessments, such as floristic composition and structure are essential to understand the extant of phytodiversity of any ecosystem [36]. Hence, the present study was carried out to document the plant diversity of the karaikal mangrove.

458 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]

ISSN: 2249-2496 Impact Factor: 7.081

MATERIALS AND METHODS The present investigation was carried out in mangrove forest at Karaikal (10.93oN and 79.83oE) of Puducherry Union Territory, Southeast coast of India between January 2015 and December 2015. The area of Karaikal is 161 sq. km which is about 150 km from the south of Puducherry Union Territory and is surrounded by district of Tamil Nadu. This district consists of almost entirely coastal alluvial soil which is highly suitable for cultivation of paddy and pulses. The planted mangrove of Karaikal is situated in the tri junction of River Arasalaru, and Beach of Karaikal. This mangrove forests was established by M.S. Swaminathan Foundation and with the help of Department of Tourism and Development, Forest and Wildlife and Fisheries of Puducherry during 2009-10 (10 ha). Currently, the area of mangroves is 32. 3ha. The mangroves plantation is surrounded by human settlements and opens into fishing areas of Bay of Bengal. The mangroves receive marine water from the Bay of Bengal and fresh water from the River Arasalaru and other small tributaries of the river Cauvery. The small channels running across Karaikal are also bringing the sewage and household wastes into the mangrove ecosystem. Data Collection Field surveys were regularly undertaken in and around the Karaikal mangrove forest from January 2014 and December 2017. Plants either with or fruits were collected and photographed, and identified or confirmed with available regional floras [8][15]-[17] [14], revisions [24],[6],[4],[7],[1] and monographs [32],[30],[31][10]. Families are arranged according to Phylogeny Group III Classification [2]. Abbreviations of authors’ names of plant names strictly follow Brummitt and Powell [3]. The current nomenclature of all taxa was further determined by referring to authentic databases, such as International Plant Names Index (IPNI), and Tropicos. The Global Information Facility—is an international network and research infrastructure funded by the world’s governments and aimed at providing anyone, anywhere, open access to data about all types of life on Earth is also used to identify the species and conformations. E-flora of karaikal is also used to identify the species. Results and Discussion

A Sum of 136 plant species were recorded/ identified during the study period. These flora were classified into two groups as true mangrove and mangrove associated flora. Eight mangrove species were recorded in the study area (Table 1). The family Rhizophoraceae is the dominant group represent three species followed by Avicenniaceae with two species. The family and represent one species each. According to International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural resources status all the mangrove plants are coming under ―Least concern‖ group. As seen in plate1,2 medium sized trees ( officinalis L, Lam and cylindrica L.) were the dominant groups, followed by big trees (Avicennia marina (Forsk.) Vierh and Rhizophora apiculata Blume). trifoliata Lour, agallocha L and ilicifolius represented small tree and respectively. In West coast of kerala 15 true mangrove species were recorded by [34] belonging to 9 genera and 6 families. The family Rhizophoraceae dominanat represented with 7 species in west coast of Kerala[34] , which shows the newly emerged mangrove of Karaikal also support the Rhizophoraceae as dominant.

459 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]

ISSN: 2249-2496 Impact Factor: 7.081

Earlier studies in the same area revealed that 7 species of true mangrove were recorded [18], has 10 true mangrove species, Mahe has 5 Mangrove and has 17 species of mangroves [18].

Fig. 1: The graph shows the growth forms of true mangrove plants.

Visual inspection revealed that, among the seven species of mangroves the medium sized tree species are more than the big trees. The small and shrub species are low in the karaikal manmade mangrove.

460 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]

ISSN: 2249-2496 Impact Factor: 7.081

The associated mangrove flora recorded in the present study falls to 128 genera belongs to 42 families from 20 orders (Table 3).. The analysis shows a maximum number of species belonging to the order (19 %) followed by (14 %), (13 %), (9 %), (8 % ), (6 %) and (5 %) . The order and Malvales represented 4 % of flora each, Cucurbitales, Rosales and Sapindales represented 2 % each, Arecales, Brassicales, , Myrtales, Ranunculales and Zygophyllales represented 1.5 %. The order Pandanales and Vitales represented the least floral community of the study area 0.75 %.

The most prevailing floral distribution is belongs to the family with 16 species, followed by 15 species and with 14 species. The family has represented with 7 species and Rubiaceae with 6 species. The family , , Malvaceae and has represented with 5 members of each, Euphorbiaceae has 4 members and Cucurbitaceae with 3 members. The families like Aizoaceae, Arecaceae, , Convolvulaceae, Menispermaceae, Onagraceae Orobanchaceae, Phyllanthaceae, Rhamnaceae, Zygophyllaceae are expressed with 2 species each. In the study area fallowing families, Acanthaceae, Anacardiaceae, Calophyllaceae, Cleomaceae, , Giseklaceae, Linderniaceae, Lythraceae, Meliaceae , Moraceae , Morningaceae, Nyctaginaceae, Pandanaceae, Passifloraraceae, Pedaliaceae, Plantaginaceae, Polygalaceae, sapindacease, Verbenaceae and Vitaceae are represented with one species each. Among the recorded floral diversity, as per the IUCN status 19 species coming under the least concern, 54 species not evaluated yet, 48 species are yet to be assessed and 7 species are not in the IUCN catalogue. The life growth form analysis revealed herbs occupied 58 % of the total flora compared to other growth forms. The trees and shrub were occupied 12% followed by climber (9%), creeper (8%) and low spreading shrub (1%).

461 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]

ISSN: 2249-2496 Impact Factor: 7.081

Fig. 2: Growth form of associated mangrove species in the study area during the study period.

The current study documented 135 floral species during the study period in Karaikal mangrove area. Karthigeyan[9] reported 252 species belongs to 197 genera under 64 families from 27 orders in the Adyar Estuary, . In Adayar estuary the dominant genera of the flora are Ipomoea (8 spp.), Ficus (6 spp.), (5 spp.), Alternanthera, Cleome, Euphorbia, Phyllanthus (4 spp. each), and Indigofera (3 spp. each)[25]-[27]. Very similarly the life growth form in karaikal mangrove dominated by herbs 58% . Adyar Estuary, Chennai [9] recorded that the life-form composition of Adyar estuary was dominated by herbs 49%. In West coast of kerala 33 mangrove associated species were recorded by [34] 2014). Krishnamurthy [12] reported 110 species belonging to 60 genera and 35 families from Pitchavaram mangroves. Earlier studies in Karaikal shows 14 associated species, it also documented that Pondicherry has 21 species, Mahe has 9 species and Yanam has 17 species [18]. During the present study, contamination of karaikal mangrove water by non-biodegradable trash, especially glass bottles, plastic pet bottles, plastic bags, thermocol, nylon nets, wires and wood logs recorded, it causes harmful effects on the sensitive mangrove habitats, cattle grazing also identified as one of the threats to the mangrove vegetation. Environmental laws should be strictly enacted to prevent or to reduce the

462 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]

ISSN: 2249-2496 Impact Factor: 7.081

sewage discharge both from industries and residents. Similarly, dumping of non-biodegradable materials and heavy metals into the estuary should be prohibited. Karaiakl forest department also take effective steps to protect the mangrove. It is suggested to augment the floral cover by planting fast-growing native littoral plant species along the mangrove forest. In addition, environmental consciousness should be produced among the people who residing and working on the banks of the estuary regarding the importance of ecosystems, biodiversity and conservation of nature and their values.

Table 1: This table shows name of the true mangrove plants with their family, order, IUCN status, Common name and fruiting seasons of the true mangrove plants in the study area during the study period. Scientific name of the Sl.No Vernacular name Family Order IUCN Status Common name Fruiting season mangrove plant Least 1 Avicennia officinalis L. karungkandal Lamiales white mangrove August - October Concern Avicenniaceae Avicennia Least 2 Venkandal Lamiales Gray Mangrove August - October marina (Forsk.) Vierh. Concern Least 3 Excoecaria agallocha L. Tillai Euphorbiaceae Malpighiales Blinding Tree July-August Concern Rhizophora Kandal, Least 4 Rhizophorales Red mangrove January - June mucronata Lam. Peykkandal Concern Rhizophora Least Tall-stilt 5 Cirugandal Rhizophoraceae Rhizophorales January - July apiculata Blume Concern Mangrove Bruguiera Least White Burma 6 Pannukkucci Rhizophorales October - May cylindrica (L.) Blume Concern mangrove Acanthaceae Least 7 Acanthus ilicifolius L. Kalutaimulli Scrophulariales Holy Mangrove August - October Concern Derris trifoliata Lour. Uppu Thailan- 8 Fabaceae Fabales Unknown Common Derris Through out the year kodi Table 2: This table shows the flowering season of true mangrove plants in the study area during the study period.

463 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]

ISSN: 2249-2496 Impact Factor: 7.081

Sl. Scientific name of the plant Current IUCN JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. No population Trend

1 Avicennia officinalis L. Decreasing >>>> >>>> >>>> 2 Avicennia marina (Forsk.) Decreasing Vierh. >>>> >>>> >>>> 3 Excoecaria agallocha L. Decreasing >>>> >>>> 4 Rhizophora Decreasing mucronata Lam. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 5 Rhizophora Decreasing apiculata Blume >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 6 Bruguiera cylindrica (L.) Decreasing Blume >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 7 Acanthus ilicifolius L. Unknown >>>> >>>> 8 Unknown Derris trifoliata Lour. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Table : 3 This table shows the species of associated mangrove species of the study area during the study period. S.No. Scientific name of the plant IUCN Status Vernacular name Family Order

1 Asystasia gangetica (L.) T. Anders. Not evaluated Miti-kirai Acanthaceae. Lamiales 2 Sesuvium portulacastrum (L.) L Not yet been assessed Vankaravacci Aizoaceae Caryophyllales 3 Trianthema triquetra Willd. ex Spreng. Not yet been assessed Caryophyllales

4 Achyranthes aspera L Not evaluated Nayuruvi Amaranthaceae Caryophyllales

5 Aerva lanata (L.) Juss. ex Schult Not evaluated Ulinai sirukanpulai Caryophyllales

6 Arthrocnemum glaucum (Moq.) Ung.-Sternb. Not evaluated Kolliam, Pavazhappoondu Caryophyllales

7 Pupalia lappacea (L.) A. Juss. Not yet been assessed Perunkotiveli Caryophyllales

464 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]

ISSN: 2249-2496 Impact Factor: 7.081

8 Salicornia brachiata Roxb. Not yet been assessed Cirrumari Caryophyllales 9 Salicornia indica willd Not yet been assessed Pavalappundu Caryophyllales

10 monoica Forssk. ex J. F. Gmel. Not in IUCN catalogue -Umarinandi Caryophyllales

11 Aerva persica (Burm. fil.) Merr. Not Yet been assessed Perumpoolai Caryophyllales 12 Not Yet been assessed Caryophyllales Suaeda maritima (L.) Dumort. Nir-umari

13 Suaeda nudiflora (Willd.) Moq. Not Yet been assessed Nir-umari Caryophyllales 14 Chenopodium maritimum L. Not in IUCN catalogue Yella keeray Caryophyllales 15 Not Yet been assessed Caryophyllales Gomphrena globosa L. Vaadaamalli

16 Gomphrena serrata L. Not Yet been assessed Vellai vadaamalli Caryophyllales 17 Atriplex repens Roth Not evaluated Caryophyllales

18 Lannea coromandelica (Houtt.) Merr. Not yet been assessed Oti Anacardiaceae Sapindales 19 Calotropis gigantea (L.) W.T.Aiton Not evaluated Erukku Apocynaceae Gentianales

20 Heterostemma tanjorense Wight & Arn Not evaluated Palakeerai Gentianales

21 Pergularia daemia (Forssk.) Chiov. Not yet been assessed Uttamani / veliparuthi Gentianales 22 Wattakaka volubilis (L. fil.) Stapf. Not yet been assessed Kodi palai/ perukurinjan Gentianales 23 Catharanthus roseus (L.) G. Don Not Yet been assessed Nithiyakalyani Gentianales 24 Borassus flabellifer L. Not evaluated Panai, talam Arecaceae Arecales 25 Cocus nucifera L. Not in IUCN catalogue Tennai Arecales

26 Blumea obliqua (L.) Druce Not evaluated _ Asteraceae Asterales 27 Eclipta prostrata Lour. Least Concern Karisilanganni Asterales 28 Tridax procumbens L. Not yet been assessed Vettukkaaya-thalai Asterales 29 Cyanthillium albicans (DC.) H.Rob. Not yet been assessed Puvamkuruntal Asterales Mukuthipundu

30 Pentanema indicum (L.) Not yet been assessed Asterales

31 Calophyllum inophyllum L. Least Concern Punnai Calophyllaceae Malpighiales

465 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]

ISSN: 2249-2496 Impact Factor: 7.081

32 Cleome viscosa L. Not evaluated Naikkaduku Cleomaceae Brassicales 33 Commelina benghalensis L. Not evaluated Kanangkozai Commelinaceae Commelinales

34 cristata (L.) D.Don Least Concern Kuthirai kulambadi Commelinales 35 Impomea dissecta Not evaluated Mani-c-cikai Convolvulaceae Solanales 36 Ipomoea dissecta Willd. Not evaluated Attukkal / atappankoti Solanales

37 Citrullus colocynthis (L.) Schrader Not evaluated pey-komatti Cucurbitaceae Cucurbitales 38 Coccinia grandis (L.) Voigt Not evaluated Kovai Cucurbitales

39 Momordica dioica Wall. Not yet been assessed Pagarkodi Cucurbitales 40 Bulbostylis barbata (Rottb.) C.B.Clarke Not evaluated Pul Cyperaceae Poales

41 Cyperus arenarius Hance Least Concern Pul Poales 42 Cyperus compressus L. Least Concern Kunna gorai Poales

43 Cyperus rotundus L. Least Concern Korai Poales

44 Cyperus stoloniferus Retz. Least Concern Korai pul Poales 45 Least Concern Poales

Fimbristylis cymosa R.Br. Pul

46 Cyperus bulbosus Boeckeler ex C.B.Clarke Not evaluated Pul Poales

47 Acalypha indica L Not evaluated Kuppaimeni Euphorbiaceae Malpighiales

48 Croton bonplandianus Baill. Not evaluated Reilpoondu Malpighiales

49 Jatropha glandulifera Roxb. Not evaluated Vellaikattukottai Malpighiales

50 Micrococca (L.) Benth. Not yet been assessed Malpighiales Kunukkuth thukki 51 Abrus precatorius L Not evaluated kundu mani Fabaceae Fabales 52 Acacia horrida (L.) Not evaluated Robber-thorn tree Fabales 53 rugosus (Willd.)DC Not evaluated __ Fabales

54 rosea (Sw.) DC. Not evaluated Koliyavarai Fabales

55 Clitoria ternatea L. Not evaluated Kannikkodi / Sangupoo Fabales

466 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]

ISSN: 2249-2496 Impact Factor: 7.081

56 Delonix regia (Bojer) Raf. Least Concern Cemmayir-konrai/ mayil Fabales konrai

57 Indigofera colutea (Burm.f.)Merr. Not evaluated Sheppunerunji Fabales 58 Pongamia pinnata (L.) Pierre Least Concern Pungai Fabales

59 Prosopis juliflora (Sw.)DC. Not Yet been assessed Seemai karuvel Fabales

60 Tamarindus indica L. Least Concern Puli Fabales

61 Tephrosia maxima (L.)Pers. Not yet been assessed Kavali Fabales 62 Not Yet been assessed Fabales

Cassia italica (Mill.) F.W.Andrews

63 Cassia forsan Harms Not in IUCN catalogue Senavu Fabales 64 Cassia fistula L. Not Yet been assessed Sarakonrai Fabales 65 Cassia alata L. Not Yet been assessed Vantu-kolli Fabales

66 Enicostema axillare (Lam.) A. Raynal Not evaluated Vallarugu Gentianaceae Gentianales

67 Gisekia pharnaceoides L. Not evaluated Manal Keerai Giseklaceae Caryophyllales

68 Anisomeles malabarica (L.) R.Br. ex Sims Not evaluated Peyimarutti Lamiaceae Lamiales

69 Leucas diffusa Benth. Not evaluated Thumbai Lamiales

70 Leucas aspera (Willd.) Link Not yet been assessed Thumbai Lamiales

71 Lindernia parviflora (Roxb.) Haines Least Concern Kozhai pul Linderniaceae Lamiales 72 Ammannia baccifera L Least Concern Kalluruvipoondu Lythraceae Myrtales

73 Sida cordifolia L. Not yet been assessed Kurunthotti Malvaceae Malvales

74 Abutilon indicum (L.) Sweet Not in IUCN catalogue Paniyaratutti Malvales 75 Hibiscus tiliaceus L. Not Yet been assessed Nir paratthi Malvales

76 Thespesia populnea (L.) Soland. ex Correa Not yet been assessed Puvarasu Malvales

77 Waltheria indica L. Not yet been assessed Malvales

78 Azadirachta indica A. Juss. Not evaluated Veppam Meliaceae Sapindales

79 Cissampelos pareira L. Not evaluated Ponmusutai Menispermaceae Ranunculales

80 Cocculus hirsutus (L.) Diels Not evaluated Siriya kattukoti Ranunculales

467 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]

ISSN: 2249-2496 Impact Factor: 7.081

81 Ficus benghalensis L. Not evaluated Aalam Moraceae Rosales 82 Moringa pterygosperma Gaertn. Not evaluated Murungai Morningaceae Brassicales

83 Boerhavia diffusa L. Not evaluated Mukuratai Nyctaginaceae Caryophyllales 84 Ludwigia perennis L. Least Concern musalkathilai Onagraceae Myrtales 85 Cyperus squarrosus L. Least Concern Poales

86 Sopubia delphinifolia (L.) G.Don Not yet been assessed Unknown Orobanchaceae Lamiales

87 Striga asiatica (L.) Kuntze Not yet been assessed Pallipoondu Lamiales

88 Pandanus fascicularis Lam. Not yet been assessed Thaazhai Pandanaceae Pandanales

89 Passiflora foetida L. Not Yet been assessed Siruppunaikkali Passifloraraceae Malpighiales 90 Pedalium murex L. Not yet been assessed Yanai nerunjil Pedaliaceae Lamiales

91 Phyllanthus amarus Schumach. & Thonn Not yet been assessed Keezhanelli Phyllanthaceae Malpighiales

92 Phyllanthus maderaspatensis L. Not evaluated Nila-nelli Malpighiales

93 Stemodia viscosa Roxb. Not yet been assessed Plantaginaceae Lamiales 94 Aeluropus lagopoides (L.) Thwaites Not evaluated katal arukampul Poaceae Poales

95 Apluda mutica L. Not evaluated buffalo grass Poales

96 Acrachne henrardiana (Bor.) S.M. Phillips Not evaluated __ Poales 97 Brachiaria ramosa (L.) Stapf Least Concern Pala pul Poales

98 ciliaris L. Not evaluated Kollukatai Poales

99 Chloris barbata Sw. Not evaluated Chevvarakupul Poales

100 amabilis (L.) Wight & Arn. Not evaluated Pul Poales 101 Halopyrum mucronatum (L.) Stapf Not evaluated Pul Poales

102 Setaria verticillata (L.) P.Beauv. Not yet been assessed Ottoppul/ Amarippul Poales

103 littoreus (Burm.f.) Merr. Not yet been assessed Koorpullu/ Ravana meesai Poales 104 tremulus (Trin.) Kunth Not yet been assessed Abutilon indicum Poales

105 Sporobolus virginicus (L.) Kunth Not yet been assessed Kadal Pullu Poales

106 Trachys muricata (L.) Pers. ex Trin. Not in IUCN catalogue Poales

468 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]

ISSN: 2249-2496 Impact Factor: 7.081

107 Aristida setacea Retz. Not Yet been assessed Poales 108 Panicum repens L. Least Concern Pul Poales

109 Dactyloctenium aegyptium (L.) Willd. Not evaluated Pul Poales

110 Polygala erioptera DC. Not evaluated Milakunankai Polygalaceae Fabales

111 Colubrina asiatica (L.) Brongn. Not evaluated _ Rhamnaceae Rosales

112 Ziziphus xylopyrus glaberrima Sedgwick Not yet been assessed Kottai Elandai Rosales 113 Hedyotis corymbosa(L.) lam Not evaluated Parppatakam Rubiaceae Gentianales 114 Hedyotis graminifolia L.f. var. graminifolia Not evaluated _ Gentianales

115 Hedyotis puberula (G.Don) R.Br. ex Arn Not evaluated Imbooral Gentianales

116 Hedyotis pumila L.f. Not evaluated Gentianales

117 Spermacoce hispida L. Not yet been assessed Chirakkuli/ Naththaisuuri Gentianales

118 Spermacoce ocymoides Burm.f. Not yet been assessed Gentianales

119 Cardiospermum canescens Wall. Not evaluated Mudakuaruthan sapindacease Sapindales

120 Datura metel L. Not evaluated Ummathai Solanaceae Solanales

121 Solanum pubescens Willd. Not yet been assessed Sundaikkai Solanales

122 Solanum trilobatum L. Not yet been assessed Thoodhuvalai Solanales

123 Solanum virginianum L Not yet been assessed Kantankattiri Solanales 124 Physalis minima L. Least Concern Sodakku thakkaali Solanales 125 Phyla nodiflora (L.) Greene Least Concern Podutalei Verbenaceae Lamiales

126 Cayratia trifolia (L.) Domin Not evaluated Kattuppirantai Vitaceae Vitales

127 Tribulus lanuginosus L. Not yet been assessed palleru-mullu Zygophyllaceae Zygophyllales 128 Tribulus terrestris L. Not in IUCN catalogue Nerunji Mull Zygophyllales

469 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]

ISSN: 2249-2496 Impact Factor: 7.081

PLATE 1

Avicennia officinalis L. Avicennia marina (Forsk.) Vierh.

Rhizophora apiculata Blume Rhizophora mucronata Lam.

470 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]

ISSN: 2249-2496 Impact Factor: 7.081

Excoecaria agallocha L. Bruguiera cylindrica (L.) Blume PLATE :2

Acanthus ilicifolius Salicornia sp.

471 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]

ISSN: 2249-2496 Impact Factor: 7.081

Prosopis juliflora (Sw.)DC. Suaeda maritima (L.) Dumort.

Derris trifoliata Azadirachta indica a. juss &Delonix regia

472 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]

ISSN: 2249-2496 Impact Factor: 7.081

Reference: 1. Ansari, A.A. Crotalaria L. in India. Dehra Dun: Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh. 378 p. 2008.

2. APG III. An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group Classification for the Orders and Families of Flowering Plants. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 16: 105-121. 2009.

3. Brummitt, R.K. and C.E. Powell. 1992. Authors of Plant Names. Kew: Royal Botanic Gardens. 732 p. 1992.

4. Champion, H.G. and S.K. Seth. . A Revised Survey of Forest Types of India. : Manager of Publications. 404 p. 1968.

5. Duraimurugan, V, Paul Jeevanandham, Paramanandham, J and Jayakumar .S. : Assessment of Anthropogenic Pressures in Man-made Mangroves of , Puducherry, India. International Journal of Research in Fisheries and Aquaculture, Universal Research Publications; 7(1) PP No. : 51-54 ISSN 2277-7229. 2017.

6. Dutta, R. and D.B. Deb. Taxonomic revision of Hedyotis L. (Rubiaceae) in Indian subcontinent. Kolkata: Botanical Survey of India. 211 p. 2004.

7. Fosberg, F.R. and H. Sachet. Manual of Tropical Herbaria. Regnum Vegetabile. Volume 39. The Netherlands: International Bureau for Plant and Nomenclature. 132 p. 1965.

8. Gamble, J.S. Flora of the Presidency of Madras. 11 Parts. (Parts 1-7 by Gamble and 8-11 by C.E.C. Fischer). London: Adlard and Son Co. Repr. ed. 1957. Calcutta: Botanical Survey of India. 2017 p. 1915-1936.

9. Karthigeyan Kaliyamurthy , Ilangovan Kumaraswamy and Wilson Arisdason: An Assessment of Angiosperm Diversity of Adyar Estuary, Chennai – A Highly Degraded Estuarian Ecosystem, Tamil Nadu, India. Check List 9(5): 920–940, 2013.

10. Kennish, M.J. 2001. State of the Estuary and Watershed: An Overview. Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue No. 32: 243-273. 2001.

11. Khedr, A.A. Vegetation zonation and management in the Damietta estuary of the River Nile. Journal of Coastal Conservation 4(1): 79- 86. 1998.

473 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]

ISSN: 2249-2496 Impact Factor: 7.081

12. Krishnamurthy K, Jeyaseelan MJP (1983). The Pitchavaram (India) mangrove ecosystem. Int. J. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 9: 79-85..

13. Kunte, K., A. Joglekar, G. Utkarsh and P. Padmanabhan. Patterns of Butterfly, bird and tree diversity in the Western Ghats. Current Science 77(4): 577-586. 1999

14. Livingstone, C. and A.N. Henry. The flowering plants of Madras City and its immediate neighbourhood. The Commisioner of Museums, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai. 1994.

15. Matthew, K.M. Illustrations on the Flora of the Tamilnadu Carnatic. Volume 2. Madras: The Diocesan Press. 1027 p. 1982.

16. Matthew, K.M. The Flora of the Tamilnadu Carnatic. Volume 3 (Parts 1 and 2). Madras: The Diocesan Press. 2154 p. 1983.

17. Matthew, K.M. Further Illustrations on the Flora of the Tamilnadu Carnatic. Volume 4. Madras: The Diocesan Press. 915 p. 1998.

18. Mayuranathan, P.V. The flowering plants of Madras city and its immediate neighbourhood. Bulletin of the Madras Government Museum. New Series. Natural History Section 2: 1-345. 1929

19. Nagelkerken I, van der Velde G, Gorissen MW, Meijer GJ, Van't Hof T, den Hartog C. : Importance of mangroves, seagrass beds and the shallow coral reef as a nursery for important coral reef fishes, using a Visual census technique. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 51(1): 31–44. 2000.

20. Nagarajan, R. and Thiyagesan, K. 1996. Waterbird population and substrate quality of Pichavaram , southern India. Ibis 138: 710-721.

21. Odum, W.E. Comparative ecology of tidal freshwater and salt marshes. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 19: 147-176. 1988

22. Partridge, T.R. and J.B. Wilson. Methods for investigating vegetation/ environment relations - A test using the salt marsh vegetation of Otago, . New Zealand Journal of Botany 27(1): 35-47. 1989

23. Pritchard, D.W. What is an estuary; physical viewpoint; p. 3-5 In G.H. Lauff (ed.). Estuaries. Publ. No. 83. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1967

474 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]

ISSN: 2249-2496 Impact Factor: 7.081

24. Rajendran, A. and P. Daniel. The Indian Verbenaceae (A Taxonomic Revision). Dehra Dun: Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh. 431 p. 2001.

25. Rao, S.J. Flora of Adyar. Madras Agricultural Journal 44: 468-475. 1957.

26. Rosa, S., J. M. Palmeirim and F. Moreira. 2003. Factors Affecting Waterbird Abundance and Species Richness in an Increasingly Urbanized Area of the Tagus Estuary in Portugal. The International Journal of Waterbird Biology 26(2): 226-232. 2003.

27. Roxburgh, W. Plants of the Coast of Coromandel. Volumes 1-3. London: W. Bulmer and Co. 98 p. 1795 – 1819.

28. Sandilyan, S., Kathiresan, K. : Decline of mangroves: a threat of heavy metal poisoning in Aisa. Ocean Coast. Manag. 102, 161e168. 2014.

29. Short, A. D. Coastal Processes and Beaches. Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):15. 2012.

30. Singh, V. Monograph on Indian Leucas (Lamiaceae). Jodhpur: Scientific Publishers. 208 p. 2000.

31. Singh, V. Monograph on Indian Subtribe Cassiinae (Caesalpiniaceae). Jodhpur: Scientific Publishers. 278 p. 2001.

32. Sivarajan, V.V. and A.K. Pradeep. Malvaceae of Southern Peninsular India: A Taxonomic Monograph. Delhi: Daya Publishing House. 312 p. 1996.

33. Spalding M, McIvor A, Tonneijck FH, Tol S and van Eijk P. Mangroves for coastal defence. Guidelines for coastal managers & policy makers. Published by Wetlands International and The Nature Conservancy. 42 p. 2014.

34. Vidyasagaran.K and Madhusoodanan V.K. Distribution and plant diversity of mangroves in the west coast of Kerala, India. Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences (JBES). Vol. 4 , No. 5, p. 38-45 , 2014

35. Walther, D., S. Prebha, P. Selvapathy and D. Beck. Heavy Metals from the River Adayar, India: Infiltration into the Adjacent Groundwater Aquifer. Ambio 32(2): 153-157. 2003.

36. WCMC (World Conservation Monitoring Centre). Global Biodiversity: Status of the Earth’s Living Resources. London: Chapman and Hall. 585 p. 1992.

475 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]