Ethnobotanical Leaflets 13: 234-48. 2009.

 

 

Study on the Distribution of Flora and Fauna in the SIPCOT Industrial Park of Gangaikondan, Tirunelvelli District, Tamil Nadu, India

 

Jegan G and Muthuchelian K*

 

Centre for Biodiversity and Forest studies, Department of Bioenergy

School of Energy, Environmental and Natural Resources, Madurai Kamaraj University

Madurai � 625 021, Tamil Nadu, India

*Corresponding Author: drchelian1960@yahoo.co.in

 

Issued 30 January 2009

 

Abstract

����������� The phytosociological study on flora and fauna diversity in Gangaikondan revealed that the diversity of the flora was more than the faunal diversity. Totally 59 floral species and 35 faunal species were listed out in the study site. For plants the species- area curves attained the stable position in 2nd and 3rd quadrats where for fauna it reached the observed species richness in 4th and 5th quadrats.

Keywords: Gangaikondan, fauna, flora, SIPCOT.

Introduction

Biological surveys, focusing on species diversity, are necessary on both national and global scales. National biological inventories provide a finer-grained view of biological diversity and can be used to establish national conservation programs and policies, whereas a global survey will provide much needed information on the extent, distribution, status, and fate of biodiversity worldwide. These efforts can serve not only to tell us the status of biodiversity, but to identify valuable biological resources, some of which are unknown, while others are locally known but have potential for much wider use. Many plants of current or potential commercial value were discovered in the course of routine plant surveys. Inventories and surveys also provide baseline data against which to monitor changes in biological diversity and to trace the environmental impacts of development projects.

In recent years a great deal of interest has surfaced in the quantification and valuation of biological diversity. The interest is largely motivated by findings from natural scientists that biodiversity is imperiled by human activities (Wilson 1992), especially the destruction of natural habitats (Primack 2000). Biodiversity has, however, proved both difficult to define in practice and difficult to relate to human welfare. Definition and valuation are closely related, of course. We cannot speak meaningfully of valuation without having some notion of what it is that is being valued. On the other hand, a definition that cannot be related to human values may propose �distinctions without differences.���

����������� Objective of our study was to screen the list of flora and fauna of the SIPCOT Industrial Park.

 

Materials and Methods

Study Site

����������� The study site was SIPCOT industrial park of Gangaikondan, Tirunelvelli District, Tamil Nadu, India.

 


Map 1: Map showing the study site.

Sampling

In the SIPCOT Industrial Park the phytosociological study was carried out using 12 randomly placed quadrats�� (10m10m) for trees (individual with DBH more than 30 cm)within them 5m5m for shrubs and climbers and 1m1m for herbaceous community.

Analysis

The diversity indices were analyzed using PAST and Biodiversity Pro beta Version 2. The species- area were raised with the help of EstimateS.

Chao 1: An abundance-based estimator of species richness

Jackknife 1: First-order jackknife estimator of species richness (incidence-based)

ACE: Abundance-based Coverage Estimator of species richness

Bootstrap: Bootstrap estimator of species richness (incidence-based)

ICE: Incidence-based Coverage Estimator of species richness

Results and Discussion

Floral Diversity �������

In the SIPCOT Industrial Park�� totally 59 plant species were found. Totally 972 individuals were representing 59 species. Borassus flabellifer L. was the dominant species among 59 species. Cyperus rotundus L. was having lower number of individuals (4). Cuscuta sp. a parasitic species was occurred in the proposed site which was a nuisance one to the common species like Azadiracta indica.

Diversity Indices

����������� The diversity indices calculated for the SIPCOT Industrial Park�� showed the higher diversity of plant species. The dominance index of the proposed study site was 0.04. The Menhinick diversity index was also go hand with the Shannon index (Table 2).

Species � area curve

����������� The assumption is that the species-area curves should reach the classic asymptotic form at assumption is that the species-area curves should reach the classic asymptotic form at a very early stage and forms a plateau (Chazdon et al., 1999).

����������� In the SIPCOT Industrial Park, the species � area curves got stabled within 2nd and 3rd quadrats (Fig 1).

 

Principal Component Analysis

����������� Principal component analysis was carried out by considering the distribution of species in the samples. Most of the species of the project site were following the similar pattern of distribution (Fig 2).

Correlations

����������� Kulczynski Comparison was used for assessing species turnover between samples. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used to test for relationship between samples. The Mann-Whitney U test was a non-parametric ranking test for whether two independent random samples are drawn from populations having the same distributions. The variance-covariance matrix showed the variance of each sample in the leading (main) diagonal of the matrix and the sample by sample covariance in the other cells.

Faunal Diversity

 

In the SIPCOT Industrial Park�� totally 35 faunal species were found. Totally 504 individuals were representing 35 species. Bufo melanostictus was the dominant species among 35 species. Danaus chrysippus and Acantholepis were having lower number of individuals (7).

Diversity Indices

����������� The diversity indices calculated for the SIPCOT Industrial Park showed the higher diversity of animal species. The dominance index of the proposed study site was 0.07. The Menhinick diversity index was also go hand with the Shannon index (Table 7).

Species � area curve

����������� The assumption is that the species-area curves should reach the classic asymptotic form at assumption is that the species-area curves should reach the classic asymptotic form at a very early stage and forms a plateau (Chazdon et al., 1999).

����������� In the SIPCOT Industrial Park, the species � area curves got stabled within 4th and 5th quadrats (Fig 3).

Principal Component Analysis and Cluster Analysis

����������� Principal component analysis was carried out by considering the distribution of species in the samples. Most of the species of the project site were differed in their pattern of distribution (Fig 4). Most of the species showed above 50% of similarity in their distribution (Fig 5).

 

Table 1: List of flora in the in the SIPCOT Industrial Park and its surroundings.

 

S.No.

Botanical Name

Common Name

  1.  

Azadiracta indica A. Juss.

Vembu

  1.  

Boerhhavia diffusa L.

 

  1.  

Calotropis gigantea (L.) R.Br.

Eruku

  1.  

Borassus flabellifer L.

Panai

  1.  

Cassia siamea Lam.

 

  1.  

Cissus quadrangularis L.

Nanmuga pirandai

  1.  

Clerodendrum inerme (L.) Gaertn

 

  1.  

Cleome gynandra L.

 

  1.  

Cleome viscosa L.

Naikaduku

  1.  

Cocos nucifera L.

Thenai

  1.  

Commelina benghalensis L.

Thankaipoo

  1.  

Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.

Arukanpull

  1.  

Cyperus rotundus L.

 

  1.  

Cassia fistula L.

Sarakonai

  1.  

Ficus benghalensis L.

Alamaram

  1.  

Ficus religiosa L.

Arasamaram

  1.  

Indigofera uniflora Buch.

 

  1.  

Moringa pterygosperma Goertn.

Murungai

  1.  

Jasminum angustifolium (L.) Willd.

Malligai

  1.  

Mangifera indica L.

Mango

  1.  

Ficus racemosa

 

  1.  

Delonix regia (Boj. ex Hook.) Raf.

Myilkonrai

  1.  

Carica papaya L.

Pappali

  1.  

Ocimum sanctum

Tulsi

  1.  

Pergularia daemia L

Veliparuthi

  1.  

Parthenium hysterophorus L.

Parthenium

  1.  

Abutilon indicum (Linn.) Sweet.

Thuthi

  1.  

Tribulus terrestris Linn

Nerunji

  1.  

Prosopis julifera

Karuvelam

 

S.No.

Botanical Name

Common Name

  1.  

Polyalthia longifolia (Sonner) Thw.

Nedulingam

  1.  

Tamarindus indica L.

Puli

  1.  

Thespesia populanea (L.) Soland.

Poovarasu

  1.  

Aloe vera(L.) Burm.f.

Sodrukathalai

  1.  

Ricinus communis L.

Athalai

  1.  

Croton sparsiflorus Morong

 

  1.  

Opuntia

Kalli

  1.  

Ziziphus

 

  1.  

Aerva lanata (L.) Juss. ex. Sch.

Kanupula sedi

  1.  

Cassia auriculata L.

Avarai

  1.  

Morinda tinctoria Roxb

Manchanathi

  1.  

Cuscuta L.

 

  1.  

Tectona grandis L. f.

Thekku

  1.  

Hibiscus rosa-sinensis L.

Chembaruthi

  1.  

Acacia planiformis Wight & Arn

Odaimaram

  1.  

Samanea samen (Jacq.) Marrill.

Thungumungi maram

  1.  

Millingtonia hortensis L.

Pannerpoomaram

  1.  

Tridax procumbens L

 

  1.  

Leucaena leucocephala (Lamk)Wit.

Subapull

  1.  

Agave americana L.

 

  1.  

Albizzia lebbeck Benth.

Vagai

  1.  

Terminalia catappa L.

Vatham

  1.  

Typha latifolia

 

  1.  

Achyranthes aspera

Nayuruvi

  1.  

Jatropha gossifolia

 

  1.  

Musa paradisiaca L.

Vallai

  1.  

Bougainvillea spectabilis

Kakithapoo

  1.  

Eucalyptus

 

  1.  

 Marsilea

 

  1.  

Arundina

 



Fig 1: Observed and Estimated area � curves of the SIPCOT Industrial Park.

 

 

 

Table 2: Consolidated details on the floral diversity of the SIPCOT Industrial Park.

 

 

Number of Species

59

Number of Individuals

972

Dominance

0.041

Shannon Diversity

3.33

Simpson

0.95

Evenness

0.86

Menhinick

3.64

Margalef

7.23

Equitability index

0.95

Fisher alpha diversity

20.77

Berger-Parker

0.08

 

 

 

 


 

Fig 2: Principal Component Analysis of floral species distribution in the SIPCOT Industrial Park. Refer table 1 for the species list.

 

 

Table 3:Kulczynski Comparison


 

Sample 1

Sample 2

Sample 3

Sample 4

Sample 5

Sample 6

Sample 7

Sample 8

Sample 9

Sample 10

Sample 11

Sample 12

Sample 1

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 2

35

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 3

64.17

40.66

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 4

56.47

59.71

48.61

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 5

60

50.91

61.11

43.92

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 6

58.13

49.24

64.93

66.73

38.75

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 7

63.38

57.33

71.25

53.62

66.4

46.62

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 8

63.33

54.09

61.11

53.33

60

51.67

57.34

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 9

65.61

59.45

64.91

52.94

65.61

54.69

64.01

53.68

*

*

*

*

Sample 10

67.81

58.48

61.98

63.69

64.58

53.13

67.02

54.9

63.32

*

*

*

Sample 11

65.59

56.3

51.03

55.5

45.91

60.33

59.29

62.31

61.5

44.46

*

*

Sample 12

46.67

57.27

61.11

40.78

63.33

54.9

69.41

53.33

59.65

58.13

42.63

*

 

Table 4: Rank Correlation

 

Sample 1

Sample 2

Sample 3

Sample 4

Sample 5

Sample 6

Sample 7

Sample 8

Sample 9

Sample 10

Sample 11

Sample 12

Sample 1

1

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 2

-0.1408

1

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 3

0.3381

-0.2732

1

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 4

0.2249

0.1709

0.0907

1

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 5

0.2907

0.1201

0.2398

-0.0546

1

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 6

0.2179

0.1652

0.3137

0.3891

-0.0705

1

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 7

0.3009

-0.0091

0.2353

0.0591

0.2849

-0.1951

1

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 8

0.4626

0.1044

0.2376

0.1292

0.328

0.1809

0.1102

1

*

*

*

*

Sample 9

0.2162

0.1196

0.2846

-0.0256

0.2999

0.0856

0.1271

0.1475

1

*

*

*

Sample 10

0.5101

0.0689

0.3127

0.2721

0.2896

0.1298

0.3712

0.2214

0.1771

1

*

*

Sample 11

0.323

0.1352

0.1026

0.2227

0.0639

0.2384

0.1558

0.2088

0.2485

0.127

1

*

Sample 12

-0.0108

0.2924

0.1059

-0.1334

0.4251

0.133

0.3012

0.2416

0.2356

0.2023

0.0156

1


Table 5: Mann- Whitney

 

 

Sample 1

Sample 2

Sample 3

Sample 4

Sample 5

Sample 6

Sample 7

Sample 8

Sample 9

Sample 10

Sample 11

Sample 12

Sample 1

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 2

422

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 3

534

502

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 4

488

494

598

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 5

367

310

410

384

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 6

442

398

510

474

429

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 7

516

464

592

550

490

590

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 8

412

366

468

438

408

474

547

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 9

518

461

599

558

511

608

697

561

*

*

*

*

Sample 10

428

380

496

458

438

502

574

476

600

*

*

*

Sample 11

452

403

535

498

368

450

526

410

531

446

*

*

Sample 12

348

284

376

356

420

401

457

380

476

410

333

*

 

Table 6: Variance � Covariance

 

 

Sample 1

Sample 2

Sample 3

Sample 4

Sample 5

Sample 6

Sample 7

Sample 8

Sample 9

Sample 10

Sample 11

Sample 12

Sample 1

3.6014

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 2

-0.3141

2.4535

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 3

0.9696

-0.5269

2.1297

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 4

0.3939

0.3326

0.2122

2.1321

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 5

0.6715

0.72

0.3983

-0.2721

3.1794

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 6

0.4191

1.6108

0.9205

0.7358

0.8545

4.1835

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 7

1.0009

-0.358

0.3603

0.1514

0.6826

-0.8717

2.7656

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 8

1.2271

0.4906

0.4424

-0.0357

0.9077

0.8816

0.3165

2.3308

*

*

*

*

Sample 9

0.1739

0.8746

0.5488

-0.3109

1.0918

1.0529

0.322

0.5792

2.893

*

*

*

Sample 10

1.5798

-0.2484

1.0473

0.6888

0.2756

0.1397

0.7934

0.3515

0.2706

3.1473

*

*

Sample 11

0.3349

-0.1613

0.0544

0.3936

-0.0929

0.0921

0.2826

0.0856

0.3273

0.353

1.5675

*

Sample 12

-0.6099

0.7688

-0.0561

-0.5181

1.1376

0.5362

0.6037

0.4205

1.0465

0.13

-0.1125

2.8369


List of Fauna in the in the SIPCOT Industrial Park and its surroundings

 

  1. Ovis aries-��� Sheep
  2. Capra aegagrus hircus - Goat
  3. Canis lupus familiaris - Dog
  4. Gecko- Lizard
  5. Felis catus-Cat
  6. Bos taurus -Cow
  7. Macaca radiate - Monkey
  8. Corvus splendens - Crow
  9. Acridotheres tristis- Common Myna
  10. Loriculus vernalis - Parrot
  11. Collocalia esculenta- Glossy Swiftlet
  12. Tyto alba- Owl
  13. Columba rupestris - Pigeon
  14. Dicrurus macrocercus- Black Drongo
  15. Naja naja oxiana - Central Asian Cobra
  16. Varanus sp.-Monitor Lizard
  17. Chamaeleo gracilis - Graceful Chameleon
  18. Bufo melanostictusIndian Toad
  19. Duttaphrynus melanostictusToad
  20. Anopheles rufipes-Mosquito
  21. Anopheles coustani - Mosquito
  22. Culex annulioris  - Mosquito
  23. Ficalbia splendens Mosquito
  24. Musca domestica � House fly
  25. Anochetus - Ant
  26. Technomyrmex � Ant
  27. Acantholepis � Ant
  28. Ardea purpurea - Peria vellai kokku
  29. Ardea cinerea - Sambal narai 
  30. Anaphaeis aurota - The Pioneer butterfly
  31. Papilio demoleusThe Lime Butterfly
  32. Pachliopta aristolochiae � The common Rose Butterfly
  33. Troides Minos - The Southern Birdwing
  34. Danaus chrysippus � Plain tiger butterfly
  35. Mycalesis anaxias � Indian common butterfly

 

 

Table 7: Consolidated details on the faunal diversity in the SIPCOT Industrial Park

 

Number of species

35

Number of Individuals

504

Dominance

0.07

Shannon index

2.70

Simpson index

0.92

Evenness

0.86

Menhinick

2.73

Margalef

4.46

Equitability index

0.94

Fisher alpha diversity

11.74

Berger-Parker

0.131251


 

Fig 3: Observed and estimated species � area curves of fauna in the SIPCOT Industrial Park

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Fig 4: Principal Component Analysis of faunal species distribution in the SIPCOT

Industrial Park.

 


Fig 4:������������������������� Fig 5: Cluster diagram produced by the distribution of faunal species in the SIPCOT Industrial Park. n the SIPCOT Industrial Park.



Table 8: Kulczynski Comparison

 

 

Sample 1

Sample 2

Sample 3

Sample 4

Sample 5

Sample 6

Sample 7

Sample 8

Sample 9

Sample 10

Sample 11

Sample 12

Sample 1

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 2

26.39

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 3

61.58

32.46

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 4

50

52.78

46.18

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 5

43.53

62.91

44.58

54.41

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 6

65.43

59.42

76.89

56.09

46.04

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 7

42.5

44.44

55.83

42.5

39.08

40.22

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 8

54.41

51.47

55.73

43.53

64.71

51.15

52.1

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 9

55

63.33

46.18

55

65.29

46.74

42.5

54.41

*

*

*

*

Sample 10

65.29

45.75

61.3

48.97

52.94

61.38

39.08

52.94

54.41

*

*

*

Sample 11

54.64

38.1

37.22

54.64

52.1

45.96

57.14

58.61

36.43

26.05

*

*

Sample 12

44.42

52.99

45.34

31.73

47.51

60.2

59.34

54.3

44.42

33.94

37.09

*

 

 

 

Table 9: Rank Correlation

 

 

Sample 1

Sample 2

Sample 3

Sample 4

Sample 5

Sample 6

Sample 7

Sample 8

Sample 9

Sample 10

Sample 11

Sample 12

Sample 1

1

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 2

-0.2965

1

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 3

0.2432

-0.2781

1

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 4

-0.1931

0.0992

-0.1564

1

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 5

-0.1736

0.4461

-0.0585

0.1696

1

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 6

0.1095

0.2658

0.3797

0.119

0.1305

1

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 7

0.0626

0.1178

0.1882

0.1729

0.1499

-0.2383

1

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 8

0.1022

0.1034

0.2963

-0.0303

0.4698

0.0032

0.2838

1

*

*

*

*

Sample 9

-0.1734

0.3221

0.0091

-0.0851

0.4123

-0.0065

0.0632

0.1949

1

*

*

*

Sample 10

0.4336

-0.0174

0.3579

-0.0537

0.1733

0.2

0.0519

0.1997

0.0286

1

*

*

Sample 11

0.1177

0.1141

-0.0479

0.3098

0.3665

-0.0052

0.3706

0.3638

-0.0653

-0.0152

1

*

Sample 12

0.0685

0.3791

0.2636

-0.0141

0.3849

0.2704

0.5029

0.4091

0.2279

0.0721

0.182

1

 

 

Table 10: Mann- Whitney

 

 

Sample 1

Sample 2

Sample 3

Sample 4

Sample 5

Sample 6

Sample 7

Sample 8

Sample 9

Sample 10

Sample 11

Sample 12

Sample 1

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 2

179

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 3

169

152

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 4

196

176

164

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 5

166

150

140

170

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 6

179

162

141

182

153

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 7

129

118

107

135

112

131

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 8

134

122

102

136

113

192

94

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 9

166

152

134

175

143

208

125

148

*

*

*

*

Sample 10

166

151

140

166

144

146

110

102

138

*

*

*

Sample 11

128

118

104

135

110

130

94

90

132

103

*

*

Sample 12

90

84

66

96

76

145

65

110

106

68

67

*

 

 

 

Table 11: Variance � Covariance

 

 

Sample 1

Sample 2

Sample 3

Sample 4

Sample 5

Sample 6

Sample 7

Sample 8

Sample 9

Sample 10

Sample 11

Sample 12

Sample 1

3.0555

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 2

-0.7176

2.7529

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 3

0.3723

-0.8294

1.6168

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 4

-0.9933

0.4353

-0.5975

2.5748

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 5

-0.9521

0.8294

-0.1798

0.3748

2.4571

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 6

-0.195

1.1412

0.6504

0.6252

1.0429

3.7513

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 7

-0.058

0.0176

-0.2034

0.0571

-0.0193

-0.9807

1.963

*

*

*

*

*

Sample 8

-0.3361

-0.1176

0.521

-0.3866

1.0546

-0.084

0.4664

2.5042

*

*

*

*

Sample 9

-0.9748

0.7647

-0.0714

-0.7563

0.8319

0.3151

0.1555

0.4328

2.6639

*

*

*

Sample 10

0.637

-0.3882

0.7345

-0.5387

-0.2975

0.0622

-0.321

0.3445

-0.4832

1.8521

*

*

Sample 11

-0.3613

-0.0882

-0.4076

0.3697

0.3992

-0.2521

0.2521

0.3655

-0.5252

-0.3193

1.4202

*

Sample 12

-0.2353

0.6765

0.1471

-0.3824

0.8824

0.3529

0.8824

0.7647

0.6176

-0.2353

-0.1471

2.1176

 


 

Acknowledgements

We thank UGC for their financial support of this project. We also thank Mr. Nagaraj for his help during the field study. Our sincere thank to Tamil Nadu Forest Department for their permission.

 

References

Colwell, R. K. (1997). EstimateS: Statistical estimation of species richness andshared

species from samples. Version 5. User�s Guide and application published at: http://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/estimates

McAleece, N. (1997). BioDiversity Pro. Beta version 2. The Natural Museum of Natural

History and The Scottish Association for Marine Sciences, United Kingdom (http://biodiversity@nhm.ac.uk or http://www.nhm.ac.uk/zoology/bdpro).