Download - foreverindus.org - WWF - Pakistan

Indus For All Programme 

Table of Contents 

Acknowledgement-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------xii 

Executive Summary --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------xiii 

Assessment of Natural Vegetation of Indus for All Project Sites 

1. Introduction------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 

1.2 Objectives--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 

1.3 Literature Review---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 

1.3.1 Indus Delta ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3 

1.3.2 Wetlands -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 

1.3.3 Riverine Forests --------------------------------------------------------------- 8 

1.4 Materials & Methods ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10 

1.4.1 Floristic Survey ------------------------------------------------------------------ 10 

1.4.2 Phytosociological Surveys---------------------------------------------------- 10 

1.4.3 Measurement of Carrying Capacity----------------------------------------- 11 

1.4.4 Multivariate Analysis ----------------------------------------------------------- 12 

1.4.5 α, β and γ-Diversity------------------------------------------------------------- 12 

1.4.6 Soil Analysis---------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 

1.4.7 Satellite Remote Sesing Based Forest Change Mapping ------------ 12 

1.4.8 Problems and Threats --------------------------------------------------------- 12 

2. Keti Bundar – Coastal / Deltaic Ecosystem--------------------------------------------------- 13 

2.1 Brief History of Keti Bundar--------------------------------------------------------------- 14 

2.2 State of Biodiversity ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 15 

2.2.1 Natural Vegetation-------------------------------------------------------------- 15 

2.2.2 Agriculture------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 

2.3 Livelihood / Social Aspects---------------------------------------------------------------- 16 

2.4 Results----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17 

2.4.1 Flora of Keti Bundar------------------------------------------------------------ 17 

2.4.1.1 Creek flora---------------------------------------------------------- 17 

2.4.1.2 Mainland flora------------------------------------------------------ 19 

2.4.1.3 Overall Scenario of the Flora----------------------------------- 19 

2.4.2 Two Ways Indicator Species Analysis (TWINSPAN) ----------------- 24 

2.4.3 Carrying Capacity -------------------------------------------------------------- 26 

2.4.4 Biodiversity Index & species Richness------------------------------------ 26 

2.4.5 Significant findings ------------------------------------------------------------- 27 

2.5 Discussion ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27 

2.5.1 Problems & Threats----------------------------------------------------------- 28 

2.6 Constraints for Agriculture development in Keti Bundar------------------------- 30 

2.7 Suggestions for Improvement----------------------------------------------------------- 31 

i

2.8 Conclusions----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31 

2.9 Satellite Remote Sensing Based Forest Change Mapping ---------------------- 33 

2.9.1 Introduction ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 34 

2.9.2 Study Area------------------------------------------------------------------------ 35 

2.9.3 Purpose of the study----------------------------------------------------------- 35 

2.9.4 Materials and Methods-------------------------------------------------------- 36 

2.9.5 Ground Truthing ---------------------------------------------------------------- 37 

2.9.6 Field Observation Points ----------------------------------------------------- 39 

2.9.7 Development of Forest Cover Maps--------------------------------------- 40 

2.10 Results and Discussion------------------------------------------------------------------ 42 

2.10.1 Forest cover derived from 1992 satellite data-------------------------- 42 

2.10.2 Forest cover derived from 2001 satellite data-------------------------- 42 

2.6.3 Forest cover derived from 2007 satellite data---------------------------- 42 

2.11 Change Analysis---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44 

2.11.1 Change in Mangrove Density Levels-------------------------------------- 44 

2.11.2 Change in Mangrove Extent------------------------------------------------- 44 

2.11.3 Description of Mangroves Change Status------------------------------- 46 

2.12 Conclusions and Recommendations---------------------------------------------------- 49 

3. Keenjhar Lake – A Fresh Water Body Ecosystem----------------------------------------- 50 

3.1 Brief History of Keenjhar Lake----------------------------------------------------------- 51 

3.2 State of Biodiversity ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 53 

3.2.1 Flora----------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- 53 

3.2.2 Fauna------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 53 

3,2,3 Agriculture------------------------------------------------------------------------ 53 

3.3 Socio-economic Status of Communities---------------------------------------------- 54 

3.3.1 Infrastructure and social services------------------------------------------- 54 

3.4 Results----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 55 

3.4.1 Flora of Keenjhar--------------------------------------------------------------- 55 

3.4.2 Two Ways Indicator Species Analysis (TWINSPAN) ----------------- 64 


3.4.4 Biodiversity Index & species Richness------------------------------------ 68 

3.4.5 Significant findings ------------------------------------------------------------- 68 

3.5 Discussion ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 69 

3.5.1 Problems & Threats------------------------------------------------------------ 70 

3.5.2 Improvement Required-------------------------------------------------------- 71 

3.6 Conclusions----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 73 

4. Chotiari Wetland Complex – A Blend of Desert and Wetland Ecosystems-------- 75 

4.1 Brief History of Chotiari Wetland Complex-------------------------------------------- 76 


ii

4.2 State of Biodiversity ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 77 

4.2.1 Flora----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- 77 

4.2.2 Fauna------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 77 

4.3 Results----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 79 

4.3.1 Floristic Analysis---------------------------------------------------------------- 79 

4.3.2 Phytosociological Aspects--------------------------------------------------- 86 


4.3.4 Biodiversity Index & species Richness----------------------------------- 89 

4.3.5 Significant findings ------------------------------------------------------------ 90 

4.4 Discussion ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 90 

4.4.1 Problems & Threats----------------------------------------------------------- 91 

4.4.2 Improvement Required------------------------------------------------------- 93 

4.5 Conclusions---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 95 

5. Pai Forest – A Forest Ecosystem--------------------------------------------------------------- 96 

5.1 Brief History of Pai Forest---------------------------------------------------------------- 97 

5.2 State of Biodiversity ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 98 

5.3 Livelihood and Social Aspects----------------------------------------------------------- 99 

5.4 Results----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 101 

5.4.1 Flora of Pai Forest--- --------------------------------------------------------- 101 

5.4.2 Two Ways Indicator Species Analysis----------------------------------- 105 

5.4.3 Carrying Capacity ------------------------------------------------------------ 107 

5.5 Discussion ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 107 

5.5.1 Problems & Threats---------------------------------------------------------- 108 

5.5.2 Suggestions for Improvement --------------------------------------------- 110 

5.6 Conclusions--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 111 

6. General Results and Discussion--------------------------------------------------------------- 112 

6.1 Floristic Analysis -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 113 

6.1.1 α, ß-Diversity (BD) and Similarity Index --------------------------------- 115 

6.2 Primary Productivity (Dry Matter Kg/Ha) and Carrying Capacity-------------- 116 

6.3 Alien Invasive Species------------------------------------------------------------------- 117 

6.4 Significant Findings----------------------------------------------------------------------- 117 

6.4.1 New Records-------------------------------------------------------------------- 117 

6.4.2 Endemic Species-------------------------------------------------------------- 119 

6.5 Soil Analysis-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 121 

Bibliography---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 122 


iii


Acronyms 

AKPBS Aga Khan Planning & Building Services 

AOI Area of Interest 

ASTER Advance Space-borne Thermal Emission Reflection Radiometer 

AU Animal Unit 

BD Beta Diversity 

CC Similarity Index 

CCB Citizen Community Board 

cft Cubic feet 

DMY Dry Matter Yield 

EC Electrical Conductivity 

ERDAS Earth Resources Data Analysis System 

FCC False Color Composites 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GPS Global Positioning System 

Ha/Au/Yr Hectares/Animal unit/Year 

HANDS Health and Nutritional Development Society 

HDF Hierarchal Data Format 

HH House Hold 

I.V. Importance Value 

IFAP Indus for All Programme 

K Potassium 

KB feeder Kalri-Baghar Feeder 

Kg/ha Kilograms per Hectare 

KUH Karachi University Herbarium 

LBOD Left Bank Outfall Drain 

MAF Million Acre Feet 

P Phosphorus 

PUF Proper Use Factor 

R.C. Relative Cover 

R.D. Relative Density 

R.F. Relative Frequency 

RBOD Right Bank Outfall Drain 

RGB Red Green Blue 

SDR Summed Dominant Ratio 

SE South East 

SIDA Sindh Irrigation and Drainage Authority 

SPOT Satellite Pour I’Oservation de la Terre 

STDC Sindh Tourism Development Corporation 

TWINSPAN Two Way Indicator Species Analysis 

UTM Universal Transverse Mercator 

WAPDA Water and Power Development Authority 

WGS World Geographic Survey 

WWF World Wide Fund for Nature 

iv

List of Tables 

Table NO. PAGE NO. 

1 State of terrestrial vegetation in Indus Delta…………………………………………………...... 4 

2 Floral Composition of Indus Delta in 1929 (Blatter et al. 1929)……………………................ 5 

3 Mangroves: Age- wise Cover Percentage………………………………………………………. 18 

4 Cultivated plant species recorded at Keti Bundar……………………………………………….. 19 

5 Cumulative plant species list recorded at Keti Bundar (Inland and creeks)………………….. 20 

6 Similarity Index and β -Diversity of Keti Bundar…………………………………………………. 27 

7 Uses of wood by fishermen communities in Indus Delta……………………………………….. 30 

8 Characteristic of Satellite Data……………………………………………………………………. 36 

9 Mangroves density classes with percentage tree cover………………………………………… 38 

10 Coding used to populate grid-based polygons………………………………………………….. 41 

11 Tabular representation of biomass change analysis (1992, 2001 & 2007)…………………. 42 

12 Comparison of Fishermen Population and Fish Production………………………………….. 51 

13 Population of migratory birds over different years ……………………………………………… 53 

14 Cultivated plant species recorded at Keenjhar Lake ……………………………………………. 54 

15 Flora of Keenjhar Lake …………………………………………………………………………….. 56 

16 Similarity Index and β -Diversity of study sites………………………………………………….. 68 

17 Cultivated plant species recorded at Choir……………………………………………………. 77 

18 List of plant species along with their families and life form of Chotiari Wetland Complex….. 79 

19 Similarity Index and β -Diversity of study sites…………………………………………………. 90 

20 Cultivated plant species recorded at Pai Forest ……………………………………………….. 98 

21 List of plant species along with their families, life form and habit of Pai Forest…………….. 101 

22 Similarity Index (CC) and β-diversity (BD) Three years comparison………………………… 116 

23 Endemic species found in the province of Sindh……………………………………………… 121 


v


List of Figures 

Figure No. Title Page No. 

1 Map of the Indus Delta as given by Balatter et al. 1929……………………………………….. …… 6 

2 Satellite image of Keti Bundar Programme site showing major creeks………………………. …… 13 

3 Camels inside sea water in Keti Bundar ………………………………………………………………. 14 

4 Map showing location of 10 x 10 m Quadrates and transects in Keti Bundar area…….. 17 

5 Comparison of Aegiceras and Avicennia in Different Age Classes................................................ 18 

6 Types of Plant Families in Keti Bundar (Class Categories of Flora)………………………………… 20 

7 Contribution of plant families to Flora of Keti Bundar…………………………………………………. 23 

8 Sites representing Aeluropus – Arthrocnemum Plant Community (Year 2006)…………………….. 24 

9 Sites represented by Aeluropus – Halostachys Plant Community (Year 2007)……………………… 24 

10 Sites represented by Aeluropus lagopoides – 

Sporopolus virginicus– Arthrocnemum indicum (2008)………………………………………………. 25 

11 Sites represented by Arthrocnemum indicum – 

Halostachys belangerana - Tamarix indica (2008)……………………………………………………. 25 

12 Carrying Capacity in Keti Bundar Area over Different Seasons and Years………………………… 26 

13 A considerable area of dense and mature forest in Chann Creek 

is being uprooted by strong waves and this process is continuous………………………………….. 29 

14 Location map of the study area…………………………………………………………………………... 35 

15 Truncation of the study area……………………………………………………………………………… 36 

16 Level of resolution (A) multispectral, 10m (B) panchromatic, 2.5m 

(C) high resolution merged imagery……………………………………………………………………… 37 

17 Field observation points in Keti Bundar…………………………………………………………………. 38 

18 (a) Digital photograph of camel grazing (b) Halophytic area on satellite image 

and (c) digital photograph of the same area………………………………………………… 39 

19 (a) Digital photograph of mangrove forest in pole stage (b) GPS coordinates 

overlaid on satellite image and (c) Mature mangroves forest in Chann creek area……………… 39 

20 Digital photo-mosaic of high erosion rate area of Chann creek, 

inset picture shows the tree marked for future monitoring…………………………………………… 40 

21 Algae (a) digital photograph, (b) satellite image and (c) close view of algae……………………… 40 

22 Forest cover maps derived from 1992, 2001 and 2007 satellite data……………………………... 43 

23 Graphical representation of change in mangroves 

density levels from 1992, 2001 and 2007……………………………………………………………… 44 

24 Temporal (1992-2007) change of mangrove forest in Keti Bundar…………………………………. 44 

vi



Figure No. Title Page No. 

25 Change status of mangroves extent from 1992-2007………………………………………………. 45 

26 An example of forest degradation due to erosion ………………………………………………. …. 47 

27 Mangroves in Chann…………………………………………………………………………………… 47 

28 Temporal change in algal extent, algae are displayed in orange colour…………………………. 48 

29 Satellite Image of Keenjhar Lake……………………………………………………………………… 50 

30 Contribution of plant families to Flora of Keenjhar Lake……………………………………………. 62 

31 Image showing location of sampling points in study area………………………………………….. 63 

32 Sites occupied by Cyperus – Cynodon – Phyllanthus Plant Community …………………………. 64 

33 Sites dominated by Zygophyllum – Grewia Plant Community………………………………………. 65 

34 Sites represented by Cynodon – Launaea Plant Community………………………………………. 65 

35 Sites occupied by Oxystelma – Fagonia Plant Community…………………………………………. 66 

36 Sites dominated by Prosopis juliflora – Fagonia indica – 

Aristida adscensionis Plant Community…………………………………………………………….. 66 

37 Sites represented by Cynodon dactylon – Phyla nodiflora Plant Community…………………….. 67 

38 Carrying Capacity of Pastures of Keenjhar Lake over three Different Years…………………….. 67 

39 Satellite Image of Chotiari Wetland Complex …………………………………………………………. 75 

40 Image showing location of transects in Chotiari Wetland Complex………………………………… 78 

41 Contribution of plant families to Flora of Chotiari Wetland Complex………………………………. 85 

42 Sites possessed by Indigofera argentea – Indigofera linifolia – 

Gynandropsis Plant Community (2006)………………………………………………………………. 86 

43 Sites represented by Ochthochloa – Pluchea – Salvadora Plant Community (2006)……………… 86 

44 Sites represented by Calligonum - Indigofera – Ochthochloa Plant Community (2007)…………. 87 

45 Sites represented by Indigofera – Dactyloctenium – Salvadora Plant Community (2007)……….. 87 

46 Sites represented by Calligonum polygonoides – Panicum turgidum – 

Crotolaria burhia Plant Community (2008)……………………………………………………………. 88 

47 Sites represented by Calotropis procera – Acacia nilotica – 

Suaeda fruticosa – Desmostachya bipinnata Plant Community (2008)…………………………… 88 

48 Forage Production and Carrying Capacity of Pastures of 

Chotiari Wetland Complex Over Three Different Years…………………………………………….. 89 

49 A lot of tree growth under went reservoir with increasing level of water in the reservoir ………. 92 

50 Image of Chotiari Wetland Complex Location of transects and quadrates in Pai Forest………… 96 

51 Location of transects and quadrats in Pai Forest…………………………………………………….. 100 

52 Contribution of plant families to flora of pai Forest…………………………………………………… 104 

vii



Figure No. Title Page No 

53 Sites Represented By Prosopis – Salvadora Plant Community (2007)…………………………… 105 

54 Sites Represented By Suaeda – Tamarix Plant Community (2007)………………………………. 106 

55 Sites Represented by Prosopis juliflora – Prosopis cineraria – 

Salvadora oleoides Plant Community (2008)……………………………………………………….. 106 

56 Prosopis juliflora – Suaeda fruticosa – Eucalyptus sp Plant Community (2008)……………….. 106 

57 Carrying Capacity of Grazing Areas in and Around Pai Forest……………………………………. 107 

58 Overall Profile of Flora over Programme Sites……………………………………………………… 113 

59 Types of Plant Families in Programme Sites………………………………………………………. 113 

60 Largest plant families of Indus for All Programme sites…………………………………………… 114 

61 Larger Genera in different study sites having five or more species……………………………… 114 

62 Year wise Comparison of α -diversity in Programme sites………………………………………… 115 

63 Number of Total, Shared and Site-Specific Families……………………………………………… 115 

64 Carrying Capacity of Programme Sites in Two Different Seasons……………………………….. 116 

65 New Findings and Discoveries in Vegetation Assessment Programme .................................... 117 

66 Endemic Plants of Sindh………………………………………………………………………………. 120 

viii


Annexure 

Annex A – I Comparison of Phytosociological Aspects of Keti Bundar ………….................................... 2 

Annex A – II Comparison of Contribution of Families to the Flora of Keti Bundar …………………......... 21 

Annex A - III Comparison of Twinspan Analysis for the vegetation of Keti Bundar…................................. 22 

Annex A – IV (a) Mangroves Cover Based upon 10 x 10 Quadrates (2008)…………………………………….24 

Annex A – IV (b) Mangroves age wise cover percentage…………………………………………………......... 25 

Annex A – V Comparison of Carrying Capacity for the vegetation of Keti Bundar ……………………...... 25 

Annex A – VI Comparison of Summary of Plant Communities, Associated species and forage 

production in Keti Bundar………………………………………………………………………… 27 

Annex A – VII Village Profile of Keti Bundar, Thatta………………………………………………………………33 

Annex A – VIII Average household size at the Keti Bundar………………………………………………… 34 

Annex A - IX House Condition of the Peoples of Keti Bundar………………………………………………… 34 

Annex A – X Information on respondent occupation/ professions……………………………………………. 35 

Annex A – XI Household Income of the residents of Keti Bundar…………………………………………… 35 

Annex A – XII Households Possessing Goat, Sheep, Camel, Horse, Donkey and Poultry at Keti Bundar 35 

Annex A – XIII Milk Production, Consumption and Sale at Keti Bundar……………………………………… 36 

Annex A – XIV(a) Access to Natural Resources……………………………………………………………………… 36 

Annex A – XIV(b)Access to Natural Resources……………………………………………………………………… 36 

Annex A - XV Perceptions about Degradation of Natural Resources During the Last 5 Years…………… 36 

Annex B – I Comparison of Phytosociological Aspects of Keenjhar Lake …………………. …………… 38 

Annex B – II Comparison of Contribution of families to the flora of Keenjhar Lake ……………………..… 73 

Annex B – III Comparison of Twinspan Analysis for the vegetation of Keenjhar Lake ………………… 75 

Annex B – IV Comparison of Carrying Capacity for the Vegetation of Keenjhar Lake………………… 80 

Annex B – V Comparison of Summary of Plant Communities, Associated species and forage production 

in Keenjhar Lake recorded……………………………………………………………… 82 

Annex B – VI Village Profile of Keenjhar, Thatta………………………………………………………………… 95 

Annex B – VII Average household size at the Keenjhar Lake………………………………………………… 98 

Annex B – VIII Housing Condition of the People of Keenjhar Lake…………………………………………… 98 

Annex B – IX Information on respondent occupation/ professions………………………………………….. 98 

Annex B – X Household Income of the Residents of Keenjhar Lake……………………………………….. 99 

Annex B – XI Households Possessing Goat, Sheep, Camel, Horse, Donkey 

and Poultry at Keenjhar Lake................................................................................................. 99 

ix

Annex B – XII Milk Production, Consumption and Sale at Keenjhar Lake……………………………………. 99 

Annex B – XIII Access to Natural Resource………………………………………………………………………. 100 

Annex B – XIV Perceptions about Degradation of Natural Resources During the Last 5 Years…………….. 100 

Annex C – I Comparison of Phytosociological Aspects of Chotiari Wetland Complex……………………. 102 

Annex C – II Comparison of contribution of families to the flora of Chotiari Wetland Complex…………… 134 

Annex C – III Comparison of Twinspan Analysis for the Vegetation of Chotiari Wetland Complex……… 135 

Annex C – IV Comparison of Carrying Capacity for the Vegetation of Chotiari Wetland Complex……… 141 

Annex C – V Comparison of Summary of Plant Communities, Associated species and forage 

production in Chotiari Wetland Complex ………………………………………………………..143 

Annex C – VI Village Profile of Chotiari Wetland Complex…………………………………………………… 159 

Annex C – VII Average household size at the Chotiari Wetland Complex…………………………………… 161 

Annex C – VIII Housing Condition of the People of Chotiari Wetland Complex……………………………… 161 

Annex C – IX Information on respondent occupation/ professions…………………………………………... 161 

Annex C – X Household Income of the Residents of Chotiari Wetland Complex…………………………. 162 

Annex C – XI Households Possessing Goat, Sheep, Camel, Horse, Donkey and Poultry at 

Chotiari Wetland Complex………………………………………………………………………… 162 

Annex C – XII Milk Production, Consumption and Sale at Chotiari Wetland Complex……………….......... 162 

Annex C – XIII Access to Natural Resources ………………………………………………………………....... 163 

Annex C – XIV Perceptions about Degradation of Natural Resources During the Last 5 Years………….... 163 

Annex D – I Comparison of Phytosociological Aspects of Pai Forest ……………………………….......... 165 

Annex D – II Comparison of Contribution of families to the flora of Pai Forest ………………………........ 190 

Annex D – III Comparison of Twinspan Analysis for the Vegetation of Pai Forest ………………………… 191 

Annex D – IV Comparison of Carrying Capacity for the Vegetation of Pai Forest…………………………… 193 

Annex D – V Comparison of Summary of Plant Communities, Associated species and forage 

production in Pai Forest recorded during ……………………………………………………….. 195 

Annex D – VI Village Profiles of Pai Forest, Nawabshah……………………………………………………….. 203 

Annex D – VII Average household size at the Pai Forest……………………………………………………….. 205 

Annex D – VIII Housing Condition of the People of Pai Forest………………………………………………….. 205 


x

Annex D – IX Information on respondent occupation/ professions……………………………………………….. 205 

Annex D – X Household Income of the residents of Pai Forest………………………………………………….. 206 

Annex D – XI Households Possessing Goat, Sheep, Camel, Horse, Donkey and Poultry at Pai Forest…….. 206 

Annex D – XII Milk Production, Consumption and Sale at Pai Forest…………………………………………….. 206 

Annex D – XIII Access to Natural Resources…………………………………………………………………………..207 

Annex D – XIV Perceptions about Degradation of Natural Resources during the Last 5 Years………………… 207 

Annex E – I Similarity Index Similar species of Keti Bundar & Keenjhar……………………………….………..208 

Annex E – II Similar species of Keti Bundar & Chotiari…………………………………………………………… 211 

Annex E – III Similar species of Keti Bundar & Pai Forest…………………………………………………. …….213 

Annex E – IV Similar species of Chotiari & Pai Forest……………………………………………………………...214 

Annex E – V Similar species of Chotiari & Keenjhar………………………………………………………… …....216 

Annex E – VI Similar species of Keenjhar & Pai Forest……………………………………………………………220 

Annex E – VII Table of Similarity Index for All Programme Sites…………………………………………………..222 

Annex F – I Comparison of Composition of overall flora recorded within All Programme Sites…...…………223 

Annex F – II Distribution of major plant groups in different study sites……………………………..……………223 

Annex F – III Comparison of Number of families, Genera and Species 

recorded form All Programme Sites………………………………………………………...……...…224 

Annex G – I Cumulative Picture of Flora of Indus for All Programme Sites………………………….…………225 

Annex G – II Largest Genera of Indus For All Programme Sites…………………………………………….. ….235 

Annex G – III Largest Plant Families of Indus For All Programme Sites……………………………………........235 

Annex G – IV Site Specific Species of Indus For All Programme Sites…………………………………………..236 

Annex G – V Site Specific Plant Families of Indus For All Programme Sites……………………………...........238 

Annex H – I Soil Analysis of the Selected Samples of the Four programme Sites……………………………239 

Annex H – II Soil Analysis of the Selected Samples of the Four programme Sites ……………………..…….240 

Annex I – I Criteria were used for the classification of soils…………………………………………..………...241 

Annex J Satellite Data Characteristics………………………………………………………..242 

Annex J – I Spot 5 Data Specification………………………………………………………….….242 

Annex J – II ASTER data specifications………………………………………………………………………..…..243 

Annex J – III Spectral Bands…………………………………………………………………………………….…...243 

Annex J – IV Landsat TM data specifications………………………………………………………………….…...244 

Annex J– V Field Observation Points………………………………………………………….….244 


xi


Acknowledgement 

Natural vegetation assessment over three years (2006 – 2008) and in three different seasons 

across four distinct ecosystems of the Indus Ecoregion was part of the overall ecological 

assessments under Indus For All Programme. The exercise could not be accomplished without 

untiring help of committed professionals who spent days and nights in the field during scorching 

summer and cold winters. This study also provided a chance of various universities from across 

the nation to work under one team for this noble cause. The galaxy of these young 

professionals under the able leadership and guidance of Professor Dr. Surayya Khatoon came 

up with outstanding findings and contributed substantially to the understandings of these 

ecosystems. The team was comprised of; 

1. Professor Dr. Surayya Khatoon, Karachi University 

2. Dr. Ghulam Akbar, Plant Ecologist, Team Leader, Indus For All Programme 

3. Mr. Babar Khan, Coordinator, WWF-P, Islamabad 

4. Dr. Rehmatullah Qureshi, Asstt. Professor, Arid Agriculture Univ., Rawalpindi 

5. Dr. Abdul Khaliq, Asstt. Professor, Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi 

6. Mr. Shakil Khaskheli, Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur 

7. Mr. Muhammad Imran, Ph.D student, Karachi University 

8. Mr. Muhammad Mumtaz Mangi, NRM Officer, Pai Forest 

9. Mr. Saaud-ul-Islam, NRM Officer, Chotiari Wetland Complex 

10. Mr. Nadeem Mir Bahar, Ex - NRM Officer Keti Bundar 

11. Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Jamali, M.Phil student of Quiaid-e-Azam University 

12. Mr. Amanullah, NRM Officer Keti Bundar 

Indus For All Programme greatly appreciates the efforts, commitments and passion of these 

professionals for their contribution to establishing the baseline information about natural 

vegetation in four major ecosystems of Indus Ecoregion. Special thanks are offered to Mr. 

Muhammad Zafeer, Lecturer Islamic International University for statistical analysis of the data 

using TWINSPAN software. 

The Programme is also especially indebted to Prof. Dr. Surayya Khatoon for her efforts not only 

in taxonomic evaluation of the plant specimens in the herbarium that yielded outstanding 

records and discoveries but also compiling the information presented in this report. Special 

thanks are extended to Sindh Forest Department for extending every possible help during the 

course of this study. 

xii


Executive Summary 

Under Indus For All Programme, four sites of Indus Ecoregion, viz, Keti Bundar, Keenjhar Lake, 

Chotiari Reservoir and Pai Forest have been surveyed for floristic and vegetational analysis, in 

2006 (fall season), 2007 (monsoon) and 2008 (late winter/ early spring). In addition to these 

localities, a fifth locality Shah Belo at Keti Shah (Sukkur District) was also surveyed in March 

2008, which is a riverine forest. However, for now it has not been discussed in this report. 

The study included inventorying of natural flora species through detailed survey of each site with 

specimen collection, phytosociological analysis using line transect method, calculation of 

carrying capacity by estimation of biomass production (weighing the palatable vegetation falling 

in the quadrats), and observations on problems/threats to biodiversity and ecosystem in each 

site. The collected specimens were identified and deposited in the Karachi University Herbarium 

(KUH). The phytosociological data were analysed by TWINSPAN software. The coordinates of 

exact sampling sites (transects) were marked with the help of GPS for future reference and for 

mapping of site based plant communities. 

Keti Bundar was found to be floristically the poorest in all localities with a total of 117 species (α- 

diversity) in 83 genera and 36 families including 2 species of Pteridophytes in 2 genera and 2 

families, 79 species of dicotyledonous angiosperms in 56 genera and 29 families, and 36 

monocotyledonous angiosperms in 25 genera and 5 families. Poaceae with 28 species was the 

largest family, followed by Chenopodiaceae (9 species), Tamaricaceae (8 species) and 

Asteraceae (6 species). Tamarix was the largest genus with 8 species; all other genera were 

represented by less than 4 species. The dominant species of the inland vegetation were 

Aeluropus lagopoides, Halostachys belangerana, Arthrocnemum macrostachyum, Tamarix 

indica, Salvadora persica etc. which are all halophytes, indicating the hypersaline conditions 

even in the inland habitat. In mangrove ecosystem in the creeks, Avicennia marina was found to 

be the dominant species with small stands of Aegiceras corniculata at few places, particularly 

those which receive some freshwater from River Indus. In addition to these two species 

Rhizophora mucronata was found planted at some places. The mangrove forests were found to 

be on decline with stunted growth of Avicennia marina trees. At many places immature and 

stunted trees were found without any full grown mature tree. It is obvious that the propagules 

establish and germinate, but fail to reach maturity due to nutrient deficiency and hyper salinity, 

both in turn due to extremely reduced flow of Indus water thus reduced amount of silt reaching 

the delta. The degradation of mangrove ecosystem was noticed not only due to the local 

pressures of grazing and wood harvesting, but also due to erosion by sea. Full grown trees of 

Avicennia were found uprooted at many places due to wave action. This phenomenon may be 

attributed to the combined effect of lack of fresh sediment deposition, natural subsidence of land 

and general sea level rise due to climate change. It is obvious that without ensuring certain 

amount of Indus River freshwater going into the delta, the mangrove ecosystem of the Indus 

Delta would be destroyed in near future, depriving the country of all its fishery resources and 

livelihood and houses of local people forcing them to migrate to other areas. The carrying 

capacity of Keti Bundar was found to be quite poor with an average of 21.8 Ha/Au/Yr. 

Keenjhar Lake was found to be the richest site floristically, with an α- diversity of 263 plant 

species in 55 families. Of these, one was Pteridophyte, 185 dicotyledonous angiosperms in 120 

genera and 44 families, 77 monocotyledonous angiosperms in 44 genera and 10 families. 

Poaceae was the largest family with 51 species, followed by Fabaceae (20 species), 

Cyperaceae and Asteraceae (15 species each) and Convolvulaceae (12 species). Cyperus was 

found to be the largest genus with 9 species, followed by Eragrostis, Heliotropium, Tamarix, (6 

species each), Convolvulus, Euphorbia and Indigofera (5 species each). Beside high diversity, 

another uniqueness of this site is a high number (70) of such species which are not found in any 

xiii

other Indus For All Programme current sites. The dominant species of this site included 

Prosopis juliflora, Blepharis sindica, Fagonia indica, Aristida adscensionis, Cynodon dactylon, 

Phyla nodiflora etc. Fifty six species were recognized as wetland species and hydrophytes. The 

carrying capacity in 2008 survey was found to be extremely low with 57/Ha/Au/Yr. The major 

threats to the ecosystem were recognized as pollution (from upstream industries, agricultural 

fields, livestock farms and poultry farms in close vicinity of lake); will planned tourism, aquatic 

and terrestrial alien invasive species and overgrazing by livestock. 

The Chotiari reservoir was the second richest site with an α - diversity of 211 species in 123 

genera and 49 families. Out of these 3 were Pteridophytes in 3 genera and 3 families, one 

Gymnosperm, 144 dicotyledonous angiosperms in 86 genera and 39 families, and 63 

monocotyledonous in 33 genera and 6 families. The number of species exclusively found in this 

site was 40, second after Keenjhar. The dominant species of this site were Calligonum 

polygonoides, Crotalaria burhia, Calotropis procera etc. which are all tough xerophytes. Along 

water reservoir, 41 wetland species were recognized, but true hydrophytes were exceptionally 

few in number. The carrying capacity of this site was found to be extremely low in 2008 with an 

average value of 55 Ha/AuYr. It was recognized that the construction of Chotiari reservoir has 

badly affected the ecosystem by water logging and salinity due to water seepage from reservoir, 

destruction of thick forest by submersion, and loss of aquatic plants diversity due to changes in 

water level, dissolved oxygen, pH and methane emission form decaying vegetation. The major 

threats to this site were recognized as water logging and salinity, over grazing, and terrestrial 

and aquatic alien invasive species. 

The α - diversity of Pai forest i.e. the total number of species was 122 in 87 genera and 34 

families. Out of these, one was Pteridophyte, 94 dicotyledonous angiosperms in 66 genera and 

31 families, and 27 monocotyledonous angiosperms in 21 genera and 3 families. The largest 

family was Poaceae with 21 species. However, this is the lowest number of grass species 

among all sites. Other larger families were Fabaceae (8 species), Amaranthaceae (7 species) 

and Euphorbiaceae (6 species). The dominant species of this site were found to be Prosopis 

juliflora, Prosopis cineraria, Salvadora oleoides, Capparis decidua, Desmostachya bipinnata, 

Acacia nilotica, Suaeda fruticosa etc. This indicates the extent of encroachment by the invasive 

species Prosopis juliflora. The carrying capacity of the ecosystem was quite low with an average 

value of 12 Ha/Au/Yr. The major threats to this ecosystem were recognized as deficiency of 

irrigation water, grazing pressure by livestock, illegal cutting of trees and the alien invasive 

species Prosopis juliflora which is replacing the native species. 

Cumulatively in all sites, Poaceae was found to be the largest family with 36 genera and 68 

species followed by Fabaceae with 13 genera and 27 species, Cyperaceae with 6 genera and 

22 species and Asteraceae with 12 genera and 17 species. Other families were represented by 

less than 15 species per family. Among woody genera Tamarix was found to be the largest 

genus with 11 species, with its highest diversity in Keti Bundar (8 species). The total number of 

species in all sites (γ- diversity) comes to be 348 in 197 genera and 68 families. 

Among locality pairs, Keenjhar and Chotiari have shown the highest value of Similarity Index 

thus the lowest β- diversity, and less similarity thus highest β- diversity was found between Keti 

Bundar and Chotiari. However, the value of similarity index have shown increasing trend with 

decreasing values of β- diversity over the survey years with more adequate sampling. The 

overall β- diversity of all sites comes to be 1.95 after 2008 survey. 

The primary productivity of all sites was quite low, being particularly low in the winter season. It 

was, however in conformity with the usual average of arid lands, liable to vary drastically year to 

year according to rainfall. The carrying capacity was accordingly low, therefore, exposing the 


xiv

ecosystems to the threat of desertification due to overgrazing. The large number of livestock 

poses tough competition to wild herbivores. 

The significant findings of vegetation assessment over three years included three new species 

the floral world (Tamarix, sporobolus Fimbristylis) and a new species of Tamarix, new records 

including Chenopodium opulifolium, Euphorbia helioscopia, Lotus krylovii and Tamarix 

szovitsiana. Besides this, Ranunculus scleratus, Potentilla henyii and Tamarix sarenensis have 

been collected after a gap of 35-50 years. 

Twenty endemic species were recognized from the province of Sindh, of which 10 are restricted 

to Sindh only and 10 occur in some nearby parts of other provinces, as well. Except 3 species 

all endemic species fall in the categories of rare to endangered, with 2 species of Asparagus 

already extinct. Three species of Abutilon and one sub-species of Acacia nilotica are 

endangered due to persecution and habitat destruction. 


xv

Final Report of Vegetation Assessment 

1. Introduction 

The province of Sindh falls in the category of arid lands with scanty and unpredictable rainfall. 

The importance of the biodiversity of arid and semiarid lands is recently being increasingly 

recognized as these dry lands occupy more than 40 percent of Earth’s land surface have to 

support more than one billion people (Hassan 2003, Donaldson et al. 2003). The natural flora 

and vegetation being the primary producers play the most pivotal role in every ecosystem by 

providing food and shelter to the natural fauna and livestock. In arid ecosystems, one of the 

most important ecological services of natural vegetation is the control or erosion. The process 

of desertification is known to be associated with decreasing species diversity and habitat 

degradation (Xueli and Halin 2003). 

Sindh while situated in arid zone largely depends on the River Indus for its economic, 

ecological and social well being. Presence of mighty Indus in Sindh also somewhat 

ameliorates the otherwise hostile climate of the area in which biodiversity persists in healthier 

way. The Indus River traverses the entire length of Sindh, meandering and giving-off many 

natural and semi-natural lakes and water reservoirs thus giving rise to a mosaic of habitats 

such as aquatic, coastal, and riparian habitats. Riparian habitats are often notably species rich 

places, with a variety of microhabitats within which numerous plants species coexist 

(Swanson et al. 1988, Gregory et al. 1991; Urban et al. 2006). 

Both the terrestrial vegetation along the banks and macrophytes greatly influence the aquatic 

ecosystems, as the detritus from the former contributes more than 90% of organic matter 

input, while the composition of the aquatic flora influences littoral phytoplankton, zooplankton, 

invertebrates communities and fish communities (Smith & Smith 1998; Nurminen 2003). 

Indus River is one of the large rivers of the world and the largest river of Pakistan with a basin 

area of 963480 Km 2 , a length of 2898 Km and a discharge of 269.1 Km 3 per year, it ranks 19 th 

in the world by basin area and length, and 17 th by volume (Archibold 1996). This river is 

crucially important for sustaining the people and economy of Pakistan. For this reason, the 

ecosystem of river, its associated lakes, and delta face tremendous anthropogenic pressure. 

The anthropogenic pressure is complex of factors, with the form of land-use having a great 

impact on species diversity of a given area (Sundik-Wojcikowska and Galeria 2005). This is 

why the need for vegetation surveys and cataloguing has become increasingly important in 

recent years (Ninot et al. 2000). Up-to-date information on biodiversity is critical for the proper 

management and conservation of any area, thus the first step towards conservation should be 

to compile a species inventory or check-list (Klopper et al. 2007). Inventorying is considered 

as fundamental starting point in the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity while 

monitoring guides us how biodiversity changes with the passage of time due to natural and 

anthropogenic causes (Stork et al., 1995). Generally, monitoring of biodiversity is almost nonexistent 

in Pakistan (Khatoon & Ali, 2003, 2004). However, monitoring cannot be done without 

prior inventorying. Local inventories (α – diversity) ultimately help in understating and 

analyzing diversity at landscape (ß – diversity) and regional (γ – diversity) scales (Khatoon et 

al., 2005). 

The inventorying of plant biodiversity and vegetation studies has been conducted in four 

selected localities of Indus Ecoregion (Keti Bundar, Keenjhar, Chotiari and, Pai). The Indus 

Ecoregion lies almost entirely in the province of Sindh from its border with Punjab to the coast 

of Arabian Sea and is one of the 40 th most significant ecoregions on regional level for its 

ecological significance and representation of earth’s biodiversity richness. The Indus 

Ecoregion partially or fully covers 18 districts of Sindh including Thatta, Badin, Hyderabad, 

Dadu, Nawabshah, Sanghar, Khairpur and Umer Kot. It includes the lower reaches of River 

Indus For All Programme Page 1 of 131


Indus, the riverine forests, freshwater lakes, brackish water, salt lakes and the Indus delta 

along with mangrove forests. The present studies have been conducted to provide a baseline 

for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and for monitoring any change in the 

future due to natural and anthropogenic factors. 

1.2 Objectives: 

I. Inventorying of the species of natural flora in the selected habitats within each 

of the four Indus for All Programme sites to serve as baseline for monitoring 

any changes in environment and biodiversity in the future. 

II. Conduct phytosociological studies for delineation of plant communities. 

III. Assess the carrying capacity of representative programme sites. 

IV. Analyze threats to natural vegetation and present recommendations for 

vegetation management and habitat recovery for long term biodiversity 

conservation of each site. 

1.3 Literature Review: 

Eco-region is defined as a “region which is relatively large unit of land or water that contains a 

distinct assemblage of natural communities, sharing a large majority of their species and 

ecologically in ways that are critical for their long term persistence” (Ahmed 2004). The 

concept of “Eco-region” stemmed from the WWF’s Global 200 Eco-regions developed on 

science-based ranking of the earth’s most outstanding terrestrial, fresh water and marine 

habitats to serve as a blue print. Indus Ecoregion has been identified as one of such sites in 

G200 based on its diverse spectrum of coastal, lowland and mountain vegetation and 

habitats. According to Archibald (1996), the Sahara Desert occupying 9 million km² in N. 

Africa extends through Egypt to the deserts of Arabian Peninsula which continues eastwards 

into Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and finally terminates in Thar Desert in Pakistan and NW 

India. This is why the vegetation of Indus Eco-region is of Saharo-Sindian type (Stewart 1982, 

Ali & Qaiser 1986). While mentioning the Sindh flora, Stewart (1982) mentioned that “Sindh is 

a continuation of the great desert belt, south of the Mediterranean, stretches clearly across 

North Africa, Arabia and southern Iran to the foot of Himalayas along the Indus and its great 

tributaries. Some of these Saharo-Sindian plants are found in the Kashmir valley at 1600 m. 

This North African desert flora is also dominant in the Great Indian Desert to the south of 

Sindh and Punjab desert. In Balochistan it is found in the coastal plain and up to c. 1400 m”. 

Sindh has four distinct vegetation zones viz., (i) Tropical Thorn Forest with small and sparsely 

scattered trees with little ground cover. The main plant species are Khabbar (Salvadora 

persica), Salvadora oleoides, Babool (Acacia nilotica), Ber (Ziziphus mauritiana), Ziziphus 

nummularia, Kandi (Prosopis cineraria) and Lai (Tamarix spp.). The original tropical thorn 

forest is, however, mostly replaced by the agricultural lands, diminishing many useful species 

of the forest like Salvadora oleoides. Therefore, the Tropical Thorn Forest in the subcontinent 

(Khan 1994), with its remaining parts is continuously falling prey to extending agriculture, 

forestry, human settlement etc. (ii) Reverine forests comprising Acacia nilotica, Populus 

euphratica, Prosopis cineraria and Tamarix spp. (iii) Wetland vegetation dominated by 

Phragmites, Typha, Nelumbo, Nymphaea, and other aquatic flora and (iv) Coastal vegetation 

comprised mainly by mangroves such as Avicennia marina, Aegiceras corniculata, Ceriops 

tagal and, Rhizophora sp. Stewart (1982) mentioned that Sindh is much like Egypt. It is a 

desert through which a great river flows and life of the region is dependent on the water of the 

Indus River as Egypt is on that of the Nile. Most of the area around Indus in Sindh roughly 70 

– 80 miles on each side of the river is great alluvium plain. Most of the entire region in Sindh 

does not rise 200 m in elevation. There are areas of desert scrub which cannot be irrigated 

from the Indus due to higher levels and there are about 1200 square miles of riverine forests. 



Stewart (1982) further mentioned that flora of Sindh is poor compared with that of rest of the 

areas of Pakistan because of fewer habitats and less climatic and altitudinal variations. In 

spite of this limitation, flora of Sindh is of great interest and there are many different habitats 

with rich plant biodiversity. 

The history of plant collection goes back to 1838 in the British era with Major Nathaniel Vicary 

being the first plant collector. He was followed by Griffth (Sup’t of Calcutta Botanic Garden Dr. 

David Ritchie), who collected during 1839-40 and J.E. Stocks (1848). The latter collected 

most extensively in Sindh and also in Balochistan (Stewart 1982). There is no checklist or 

flora exclusively for Sindh. From the older times Floras for various parts of Sindh are available 

such as “Flora of Indus Delta” (Blatter et al. 1929), “Plants of Karachi and Sindh” (Hasnain 

and Rahman 1957), “The Vegetation and Range Flora of Thar Desert” (Chaudhri and Chuttar 

1966), “The Flora of Karachi” (Jafri 1966). Recently the “Flora of Pakistan” (Nasir & Ali 1969- 

1989, Ali & Nasir 1989-1991, Ali & Qaiser 1992-1998, 2000-2007) has covered Sindh along 

with other parts of Pakistan. However, the plants of Sindh are scattered in the 215 fascicles of 

Flora of Pakistan and it is not an easy task to get the whole picture of Sindh’s flora from these 

fascicles. Besides this, some families are yet to be published while the earlier published 

families are in fact in need of revision. Even those published recently are based upon the 

collections done mainly in 1970s and 1980s; therefore do not represent the present ground 

realities in face of rapidly changing environmental conditions due to natural and 

anthropogenic factors. As a matter of fact, Floras can never be definitive as new facts, 

information, and new records are always coming to light (Hedge 1991). 

1.3.1 Indus Delta 

The Indus delta occupies a total area of 600,000 hectares, of which 160,000 hectares are 

occupied by water channels and creeks (Meynell and Qureshi 1995, Kella 1999, Keerio 2004, 

Mirza et al., 1983). The Indus delta, ranked seventh largest in the world, is unique by the fact 

that it experiences the highest wave energy among all river deltas in the world. During 

monsoon season (May-September), the delta front receives more wave energy in a single day 

than the Mississippi delta receives in the entire year (Wells and Coleman 1984). 

The delta bears seventeen major and numerous minor creeks (Hoekstra et al. 1997, Anwar 

2004). According to Blatter et al. (1929) every creek had been an outlet of Indus River at one 

or the other time in history. The most characteristic feature of Indus delta are the mangrove 

swamps on vast mud flats formed by sediment deposited by River Indus. Mangroves, 

variously described as “Coastal woodlands”, “mangals”, “tidal forests” and “mangrove forests”, 

are the characteristic intertidal plant formations of sheltered tropical and subtropical coastlines 

(Duke 1992, Saenger 2002, Irfan and Khan 2001). Mangroves belong to different families of 

vascular plants. In fact there is no very hard and fast definition of mangroves, but usually 

woody intertidal species are regarded as mangroves. World over approximately 84 species in 

39 genera and 26 families are recognized as mangroves, of which 63 exclusively occur in 

intertidal zone while 21 may extend beyond the upper tide levels therefore, variously termed 

as “non-exclusive”, “back” or “associate” mangroves (Saenger 2002). Historical records tell 

that eight mangrove species were present in the Indus delta (Blatter et al. 1929), but at 

present time only three species (Avicennia marina, Rhizophora mucronata, Aegiceras 

corniculata) are found, of which Avicennia marina makes up to 95-98% of the mangrove forest 

(Meynell and Qureshi 1995, Hoekstra 1997, Anwar 2004, Ismail et al. 2006). On the entire 

coast of Pakistan, Indus delta bears the largest mangrove area with only small pockets on 

Makran coast. Till 1980s the mangroves were present on about 260,000 hectares of the Indus 

delta thus considered as the largest arid zone mangrove forests in the world, but in 1990s 

they dwindled to 160,000 hectares or even less (Meynell and Qureshi 1995, Anwar 2004). 



Anwar (2004) mentioned that historically, mangroves in the Indus Delta were never managed 

scientifically rather used as hunting grounds by Talpur rulers and after creation of Pakistan 

they came under the control of the Board of Revenue which further distributed some land to 

Sindh Forest Department and the Port Qasim Authority. Hoekstra et al. (1997) stated that the 

people living in Indus Delta mangrove ecosystem are by birth Sindhi and belong to two main 

tribes; Mirbahar and Jats. Jats are further sub-divided into Dabbay and Faqirani. In Keti 

Bundar area people mainly belong to Baloch, Jat, Memon, Shaikh, Ganbeer, Badala, Dabla, 

Solangi, Sayed and Gugaand tribes. Most of the permanent settlements in Indus Delta are 

situated where drinking water is available. Some of the fishermen from such settlements 

reside temporarily in mangrove area either on their boats or in temporary structures. In Keti 

Bundar area settlements are situated either within mangroves or near inland. 

Hoekstra et al. (1997) reported that climatically Indus Delta can be designated as subtropical 

maritime desert. There are two distinct seasons; summer (March – June) and winter 

(November to February). Average annual rainfall is about 221 mm and in some years virtually 

there is no rainfall during the monsoon season. Winds blow from the west from March to 

October and from north-east from November to January. During peak monsoon season, wind 

speed rises to an average of 8 knots. Avicennia marina attains about 10 m height in the 

regulalrly inundated areas. They further mentioned that mangrove vegetation is characterised 

by a woody plant formation consisting of Avicennia marina, Ceriops tagal and Aegiceras 

corniculata. However, density varies between places. Avicennia marina is the dominant 

composition and occurs as almost monotypic stand throughout the area. This species attains 

about 10 m height in the regularly inundated areas. With the increase in elevation and 

decrease in flooding frequency by the tides, the tree height reduces greatly and takes a bushy 

appearance. Ceriops tagal and Aegiceras corniculata are found on relatively high ground 

particularly along the raised levees. In the soft substratum flooded regularly by the tides, 

Porterasia coarctata (Oryza coarctata), locally known as Son grass, forms a grass vegetation 

type. This grass community is considered as a pioneer stage in mangrove succession. 

Aeluropus insignis (locally called Lunando grass); a halophytic grass also forms distinct 

vegetation type in the raised land. Hoekstra et al. (1997) and Suarez et al (1998) mentioned 

that salt marshes vegetation is characterised by halophytic vegetation consisting mostly of 

Arthrocnemum indicum, Suaeda fruticosa and Tamarix dioica. Their findings about the land 

vegetation types are given in table 1. 

Land Vegetation 

Type 

Table 1: State of terrestrial vegetation in Indus Delta 

East 

Shah 

Bundar 

Central 

Shah 

Bundar 

West Shah 

Bundar 

Kharochan 

Keti 

Bundar 

East 

Karachi 

Port 

Qasim 

Mangroves Dense sparse Sparse Sparse Medium Dense 

Mud flanks / 

Blanks 

Large Large Large Large Medium Small 

Salt Marshes Large Large Large Large Large Small 

Sand dunes 

strand 

Small small Medium medium Small Large 

Haq (2006) reported that salinity causes unfavourable environment and hydrological situation 

that restricts the normal production in coastal areas in Bangladesh throughout the year. The 

factors responsible for the development of saline soil are tidal flooding, inundation of seawater 

and upward or lateral movement of saline ground water during dry season. To explore the 

possibilities of increasing potential of these saline lands for increased production of crops the 

appraisal of present status of land areas affected by salinity is pre-requisite. 



Saifullah (1997) while discussing management of Indus delta mangroves mentioned that in 

fact management of coastal zone of Indus delta is the management of mangroves. As late as 

1980s mangroves grew all along 240 km long coastline and occupied approximately an area 

of 600,000 hactares (40% of the entire tidal belt and 10% of the Indus delta fan) and they 

were rated as the 5 th or 6 th largest mangrove forests of the world and certainly the largest in 

the arid climate. However, due to extreme tampering in the environment both in the upstream 

area and the Indus delta itself, these mangroves are disappearing at a faster rate. He gave a 

detailed account of the economic, social and environmental benefits of mangroves and 

discussed various causes that have lead to the deterioration of this important ecosystem. 

Ismail et al. (2006) mentioned that heavy metals pollution is also among various threats that 

Indus delta mangroves are facing. This threat has emerged in the last two decades in areas 

situated in vicinity of industrial and agricultural activities. Ismail et al. (2006) further mentioned 

that sediments of Mangroves are the biogeochemical sink for heavy metals accumulation due 

to various factors such as presence of high concentration of organic matter and sulphides. 

According to (Singh et al. 2002, Aziz and Khan 2000, Hegemeyer, 1997, Popp, 1994, Roth, 

1992, Tomlinson 1986) the sustained and ample supply of river freshwater along the deltaic 

coast and its mixing with the seawater through tides is a source of species richness. The 

diversity of species composition evolves as a result of varying degree of adaptations to 

saltwater/brackish water. 

Estuaries present a unique coastal ecosystem with typical environment and biodiversity which 

is different from general coast. Estuaries represent regions where fresh water of river mixes 

with the sea water (Khatoon et al. 2005). River estuaries are regarded as the areas where 

juvenile fish abode due to rich food and absence of predators. Both the terrestrial vegetation 

along the banks and the macrophytes greatly influence the riverine and estuarine ecosystems 

as the detritus from the former contributes more than 90% of organic matter input while the 

aquatic flora influences littoral phytoplankton, zooplankton, invertebrate communities, and fish 

communities (Smith and Smith 1998, Nurminen 2003). Sohag (2001) defined estuary as the 

area where river water mixes and dilutes the sea water. He pointed out that it is difficult to 

precisely locate the merging point of river and sea water due to varying river discharges, tidal 

actions and wind forces. However, in case of Indus, the upper limit of estuarine area starts at 

certain distance downstream of Kotri Barrage. 

Blatter et al. (1929) compiled “The Flora of Indus Delta” which not only provides a historical 

overview of the vegetation in deltaic region but also enables plant scientists to compare recent 

floristic composition with that of 1929 and examine vegetation changes, if any, with respect to 

human and natural causes. They documented an overall 332 plant species in the Indus delta 

(279 indigenous and 53 introduced) belonging to 220 genera and 61 families. Out of these, 

211 and 67 species belonged to dicotyledons and monocotyledons, respectively. Authors 

summarized dominant plant families in the Indus Delta in the following table. The data reveal 

that Gramineae and Leguminosae were the largest families representing 14.3 % and 8.2 % 

plant species, respectively and Cucurbitaceae and Solanaceae being the smallest, each 

representing only 2.5% of the plant species of the Indus Delta (Table 2). 

Table 2: Floral Composition of Indus Delta in 1929 (Blatter et al. 1929) 

Families Species Percentage Families Species Percentage 

of the total 

of the total 

Gramineae 40 14.3 Malvaceae 10 3.5 

Leguminosae 23 8.2 Boraginaceae 9 3.2 

Compositae 18 6.4 Tiliaceae 8 2.8 

Convolvulaceae 16 4.6 Asclepiadaceae 8 2.8 

Euphorbiaceae 11 3.9 Chenopodaceae 8 2.8 

Amaranthaceae 11 3.9 Cucurbitaceae 7 2.5 

Cyperaceae 11 3.9 Solanaceae 7 2.5 



Blatter et al. (1929) further mentioned that out of 279 species that made up the flora of the 

Indus Delta, 226 species were found in other parts of Sindh, as well. There were only 54 

species which are not found in extra-deltaic Sindh. They added further that there were 6 

endemic species that included Gossypium bakeri, Asparagus deltae, A. gharoensis, Periploca 

sp., Convolvulus sp. and Andrachne sp. The latter three were believed to be new species 

which they planned to describe later. 

Fig: 1 

Prominent genera in Indus delta included Euphorbia, Heliotropium, Cyperus, Abutilon, 

Indigofera, Tamarix, Grewia, Corchorus, Crotalaria, Acacia, Ipomea, Solanum, Barleria, 

Suaeda, Asparagus, Saccharum, Echinochloa, Eragrostis and Eleusine. They treated 

Mangroves of Indus Delta separately and mentioned presence of eight species that included 

Rhizophora mucronata, Rhizophora conjugata Ceriops candolleana, Ceriops roxburghiana, 

Bruguiera gymnorhiza, Sonneratia acida, Aegiceras majus and Avicennia officinalis. They 

provided a detailed account of species with respect to different physiographic units and 

covered vast area now comprising Thatta district (including current Badin district) and up to 

the boundaries of Karachi and Hyderabad districts. They mentioned that in Keti Bundar 

species like Tamarix troupii, Thespesia populnea, Ipomoea aquatica, Peplidium humifusum, 

Tecomella undulata, Phyllanthus distichus, Cocos nucifera, Phoenix dactylifera, Pandanus 

tectorus, Cyperus tegetum, Echinochloa crus-galli, Phragmites Karka and, Oryza coarctata 

were widely present. They mentioned that in Hajamro River (now creek) they found Aeluropis 

villosus grass and eight species of mangroves namely Rhizophora mucronata, Rhizophora 

conjugata Ceriops candolleana, Ceriops roxburghiana, Bruguiera gymnorhiza, Sonneralia 

acida, Aegiceras majus and Avicennia officinalis. They also reported dense forests of Populus 

euphratica and Acacia farnesiana in Hajamro creek which are absolutely absent now. 



1.3.2 Wetlands: 

The International Convention on Wetlands defined the wetlands as, “Area of marshes, fens, 

peat lands or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary with water, that is 

static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt including areas of marine water, the depth of which at 

low tide does not exceed 6 meter” (Simon 1993, Singh et al., 2002). The definition given by 

IUCN (1991) reads as “submerged or water saturated land, both natural and man made, 

permanent or temporary with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including 

areas of marine water, the depth of which at low tides does not exceed 6 meter”. Imran & 

Khatoon (2005) mentioned that wetlands are those areas where inundation must take place at 

least for 14 days and saturation for 60 consecutive days. They further mentioned that there 

are various types of wetlands such as wooded land, peat land, flood plains and mangrove 

swamps, etc. Each wetland is rich in floral diversity; however, it is hard to define any wetland 

plant. According to a broader definition, all those plants that at least spend part of their life 

cycle in partially submerged conditions are regarded as aquatic or wetland species. They 

further discussed that in older times wetlands were considered as places where mosquitoes 

and other harmful insects reside but now with the growing understanding, these areas have 

been recognised due to their diverse ecological services and useful living resources such as 

reducing silt load from incoming waters, reducing erosion by buffering wave action and 

harbouring fish, medicinal and edible plants and maintaining healthy web of life. Mitsch et al. 

(1993) described the scientific understanding about the wetland has increased and so have 

their function. Authors mentioned that wetlands are amongst the most productive ecosystems 

often referred to as “biological supermarkets” because of the rich bio-diversity they harbour. 

A number of scientists have highlighted the importance of wetlands as being valuable 

educational tools and enclosed experimental areas. They mentioned that these important 

water bodies act as a valuable wildlife refuges providing over-wintering facilities for migratory 

and resident birds and provide them feeding, nesting and resting grounds. They also support 

local economy and cottage industries, sustain agriculture, industry, tourism and commerce, 

and provide outstanding opportunities of recreation for both local communities visitors (Barbier 

1989, Barbier et al. 1996, Scodari 1990). 

Amjad and Kidwai (2002) mentioned that coastal and estuarine wetlands are of high value to 

mankind and environment where socio-economic activities are highly concentrated. These 

wetlands serve as habitats for spawning, rearing and nursery grounds for production of 

shrimps, lobsters and fish and also provide breeding, rearing, staging and wintering grounds 

for a number of globally important fish, shellfish species and millions of waterfowl. Bush 

(1997) stated that wetlands clean impurities from the system and can be regarded as the 

kidneys of the landscape. Sindh province has many wetlands, which are either connected with 

River Indus or too many other seasonal rivers and streams. Some of these wetlands are of 

international importance such as Ramsar Sites like Haleji and Keenjhar Lakes. A large 

number of migratory birds visit these water bodies for wintering. Although fish and other 

aquatic fauna and the water birds of these wetlands have been documented but inventory of 

the plant species, which are primary producers, is lacking. Wetlands in general are more 

diverse and more productive than other terrestrial ecosystems. The greater diversity is due to 

greater number of ecological niches because of water depth and nutrient levels that give rise 

to various vegetation zones such as free-floating hydrophytes in the deeper water, emergent 

aquatics rooted in mud towards the margins of wetlands, and semi-aquatic plants at the 

margins of the wetlands (Bush 1997, Khatoon & Ali 1999). The floral diversity supports myriad 

other life forms, ranging from zooplankton to insects and other invertebrates, fish, birds and 

mammals. Apart from housing unique wildlife, wetlands also provide a number of other 

benefits such as reducing floods, erosion control and storing carbon and nutrients in the forms 

of biomass and serving as biological filter to remove the pollutants from the system thus 



purifying the water of Lakes and rivers (Khatoon & Ali 1999). Kazmi et al. (2006) described 

that wetlands are the most productive environments and cradle of biodiversity. Wetlands 

provide countless benefits ranging from rich biological diversity to improved water quality, 

water storage and ground water recharge. Authors mentioned that wetlands in Pakistan cover 

9.7% (78,000 km 2 ) of the total area; however, this important resource is under tremendous 

pressure of degradation. Kazmi et al. (2006) carried out a GIS-based wetlands inventory of 

the lower Indus for monitoring the spatial and temporal changes in the wetlands over the last 

ten years. Amjad & Qidwai (2002) regarded wetlands as “supermarkets” based on their rich 

biodiversity, extensive and rich food webs and high productivity. Authors mentioned that it was 

1967 when the importance of wetlands in Pakistan was first brought to the international 

community and in 1976 Pakistan became signatory to the Ramsar Convention. Authors in 

their study presented detailed account of the fresh water, brackish water and coastal wetlands 

of Sindh highlighting not only biodiversity profile of selected wetlands of the area but also the 

issues that are confronting these important ecosystems in terms of their sustainability and 

environmental quality. 

Leghari et al. (1999) conducted a study on biodiversity of Chotiari reservoir and mentioned 

that Chotiari reservoir is formed of a group of sub-tropical lakes and is located about 30 – 35 

km on the eastern side from Sanghar town. The reservoir covers an area of about 37 km 2 and 

after completion of the entire work it will cover about 86 km 2 areas. The reservoir is 

interconnected between several lakes namely Bakar, Gun Wari, Tajar, Phuleli, Seri and Sao 

Naro. These lakes are surrounded by Nara canal, which is a major source of water to these 

lakes. On the eastern side, the reservoir extends into the Thar Desert. The reservoir has a 

depth from 3 to 26’ with sandy, silty and muddy bottom, which provides a suitable surface for 

the growth of algal and aquatic plant species. 

Leghari et al. (1999) further reported that very little work is reported on the Chotiari reservoir. 

They mentioned that on the moist, water logged and swampy soil as well as in shallow water 

area species like Typha elephantiana, Typha dominghensis, Phragmites vallotoria, Cyperus 

spp., Polygonum barbatum, Fimbristylis spp., Scripus spp., Ipomoea aquatica, Marsilea 

minuta, Equisetum debile and Riccia spp. are found. Some of these species are used in 

packing and cottage industry for making mats. In the lakes there is a thick growth of 

submerged vegetation with floating leaves and are important in the nutrient cycling and 

respiratory gases. They often provide very dense habitats, which supply food and shelter to 

small organisms such as fingerlings and zooplankton. These plants also serve as a food 

source of migratory waterfowl and fishes. The major submerged plants are Ceratophyllum 

demersum, Najas sp., Utricularia auro, Potamogeton spp., Hydrilla verticillata, Myriophyllum 

tuberculatum and Vallisneria spiralis. 

In the shallow and deep water there is growth of plant Nelumbo nucifera and Nymphaea lotus. 

The parts of these plants are used as human food. The plants floating on the water surface 

include species like Riccia carporus, Potamogeton natans, Azolla pinnata, Salvinia molesta, 

Spirodella polyrhiza and Lemna sp. 

1.3.3 Riverine Forests 

According to Wani et al. (2004) riverine forests occupy 0.332 million hectares area (m ha) in 

Pakistan that is about 7% of total forest in forestland. The Sindh province owns 0.272 m ha 

Riverine forests, which is about 82% of total riverine forest area in the country. These figures 

depict that the Sindh province is rich in riverine forests. Riverine forests are one of the 

important ecosystems of Sindh. All these forests along River Indus used to get annual 

inundation during monsoon before the construction of dykes along Indus. Khan & Repp 

(1961) mentioned that ecological conditions in these forests are very favourable in the sense 

that annual flooding leave the soils in these forests saturated for rest of the year for luxuriant 

plant growth. They further stated that by March, seven months after flooding, soil still have 



18% moisture content by fresh weight. The vegetation in riverine forests is much influenced by 

the frequent change in erosion and deposition due to changing course of the River Indus. The 

pioneer vegetation on newly deposited soils consists of species like Saccharum bengalense, 

Saccharum spontaneum, Tamarix dioica, Tamarix indica and Populus euphratica. Climax 

vegetation, however, is comprised of Acacia nilotica, Prosopis cineraria and Cynodon 

dactylon. Under arid conditions vegetation is comprised of species like Prosopis cineraria, 

Salvadora persica, S. oleoides, Capparis decidua, Acacia senegal, A. jacquemontii, 

Cymbopogon jawarancusa, Aristida spp. and Ziziphus nummularia etc. Champion et al. 

(1965) described the similar trees and shrubs of southern Sindh. During their visit to riverine 

forest of Rajri situated at 20 miles north of Hyderabad, they found 20 – 25 years old graceful 

trees of Populus euphratica of 5 – 6 feet girth. Unfortunately, today we do not have even such 

stretch of vegetation in the entire lower Indus region that can be regarded as ‘forest’. Ahmad 

(1953) described that forests in Sindh are two types; one that are situated inside flood 

embankment along River Indus are called ‘Riverine Forests’ and those which are situated 

outside embankment are called ‘Inland Forests’. Riverine forests are further sub-divided into 

one called Pakko situated away from riverbank and other, which are situated near to the 

riverbank on sand and silt deposits and called Kacho forests. Kacho area is flooded even with 

little rise in the river. Author mentioned Babul (Acacia nilotica), Kandi (Prosopis cineraria), 

Bhan (Populus euphratica) and Lye (Tamarix aphylla) as the major tree species of riverine 

forests. While discussing the historical background of riverine forests of Sindh, Ahmad (1953) 

mentioned that before construction of Lloyd Barrage (Sukkur Barrage) during 1932-33, all the 

forests were open to inundation and there was plenty of water for forest growth. Forestry was 

considered as easy task just broadcasting the seeds of Acacia nilotica before Aabkalani 

(flood) season and clear felling the crop after completion of crop rotation. After construction of 

Sukkur Barrage a protective bund along River Indus was constructed to safeguard the 

irrigation network, communication network and agricultural fields. By doing so some of the 

riverine forests falling outside the bund were deprived of floodwater from the River Indus. 

Such forests are termed as the Inland Forests (Ahmad 1953, Khattak 1976). Qadri (1955) 

mentioned that one of the geographical features of Sindh is the River Indus that flows on a 

ridge almost through the axis of this region, with the country sloping away from this on both 

sides. On account of this unique feature, the countryside is always flooded when the water 

level in the river attains dangerous heights. To protect the countryside from floods, earthen 

banks were constructed at about 12 to 25 miles apart and generally the activities of river are 

contained within these bunds. The land in between such embankments are regarded as 

riverine forests and stretch over about half a million acres and are under the control of Forest 

Department. Qadri (1955) further mentioned that on an average 18000 acres of riverine 

forests are eroded every year by River Indus. However, the river forms almost equal amount 

of area every year, as well. Thus such erosions and accretions continue every year. Khattak 

(1976) while describing the history of riverine forests in Pakistan mentioned that major tree 

species in the northern zone in riverine forests is Kandi (Prosopis cineraria) while in southern 

zone, Babul (Acacia nilotica). Bahan (Populus euphratica) and Lai (Tamarix spp.) occur in 

zones, former on fresh alluvium and the latter in low lying areas. Babul requires inundation of 

about 2 – 4 feet annually for adequate growth and is replaced by Kandi in high lying areas, 

which do not get inundation to this depth. Kandi predominates in the northern zone due to 

incidence of frost and low inundation as compared to the southern zone. Khattak (1976) 

further mentioned that edaphic factors in riverine forests generally determine the productivity 

of the forests and the species composition. Since edaphic factors keep on changing, 

therefore, it becomes difficult for long term planning of these forests. 

Sohag (2001) described that riverine forests are an important land use closely associated with 

soil resources, water management, wildlife conservation and fisheries in addition to being an 

important sources of food and fodder. The trees lying on the flood plain frequently require 

floodwater for their growth. However, frequency of such discharges of the river has 

considerably reduced after the construction of upstream hydraulic structures. Due to gradual 



decrease of inundation, riverine forest area is shrinking alarmingly while less salt tolerant 

species have almost disappeared. 

1.4 Materials and Methods: 

The methodology of this study is comprised of the following steps; 

I. Comprehensive review of literature of vegetation, ecology, socio-economic conditions 

and past management approaches of each site. 

II. Detailed vegetation survey of the study sites for taxonomic and phytosociological 

analysis. 

III. Brief socio-economic overview to determine the impact of anthropogenic activities on the 

natural vegetation. 

IV. Working out the forage production, carrying capacity / grazing capacity in different parts 

of the study sites. 

1.4.1 Floristic Survey 

Extensive vegetation surveys were carried out during fall season of 2006 (September 16 – 

22), summer season of 2007 (July 23 to August 09) and spring season of 2008 (February 01 – 

14) of the four programme sites. GPS (Global positioning System) was used in determining 

exact location of the sampling points. The species were identified with the help of various 

Floras (Jafri, 1966; Ali & Nasir 1989-1991; Ali & Qaiser, 1992-1998, 2000-2007; Nasir & Ali 

1970-1989; Matthew, 1981-83; Batanouny, 1981; Boulos, 1991; Shetty & Singh, 1987 & 1991; 

Bhandari, 1978; Qureshi, 2004; Stewart 1972). The voucher specimens are deposited in the 

Karachi University Herbarium (KUH). 

1.4.2 Phytosociological Survey 

Field vegetation parameters like plant composition, cover, frequency and density were 

recorded along each transect line of 50 m using the line intercept method (Canfield 1940, 

Mueller-Dumbois & Ellenburg, 1974; Kent & Coker, 1992) and placing 1 m 2 quadrat at every 

10 m interval on the same transect. Plant biomass was assessed by clipping the palatable 

vegetation falling in each quadrat and then taking mean biomass of 5 quadrats of each 

transect (Anon 1962, Anon 1968, Thalen and Junk 1979, Cook & Stubbendieck 1986, Saeed 

et al. 1987, Rashid et al., 1988, Bonham 1989, Khan et al. 1989, Marwat et al. 1990, Wahid 

1990; Dasti & Agnew 1994). In case of grasses, clipping was carried out leaving 30 cm 

stubble height while in case of palatable shrubs and trees only fresh growth of current year 

was removed (Holechek and Briske 1989; ESCAP 1994). The fresh samples of clipped 

vegetation were oven dried at 60 o C for 48 hours to ascertain the dry matter yield (DMY) for 

each sample. The DMY was then calculated on hectare basis. 

Cover, composition, frequency, relative cover, relative frequency, and relative density were 

determined using following equation (Smith, 1974; Shaukat et al. 1976; Chul & Moody 1983; 

Shukla & Srivastava 1992, Smith & Smith 1998). 

Total intercept length of species x 100 

Cover (%) = Total transect length 

Species Composition (%) = 

No of individuals of a species x 100 

Total no. of individuals of all spp. 



Frequency (%) = 

Species Relative Cover (RC) = 

Relative Freq. (RF) = 

Rel. Density (RD) = 

No. of qdts in which a species occurred x 100 

Total no. of quadrats sampled 

Total intercept length of a sp. x 100 

Total Intercept length of all spp. 

Frequency of a sp. x 100 

Total frequency of all spp. 

Total individuals of a spp. x 100 

Total no. of plants of all spp. 

After assessing the above-mentioned parameters, importance value (I.V.) for each species in 

each sample was calculated as under: 

I.V. = Rel Cover + Rel. Freq. + Rel. Density 

Summed Dominance Ration (SDR) for each species was calculated using following formula. 

SDR = I.V. 

3 

On the basis of Importance Value or SDR, sampled vegetation was delineated into different 

plant communities. The community within each stand was named after the species having 

highest Importance Value irrespective of its habit. When two or more species closely 

approached each other in order of Importance Value, the community shared the names of 

these dominants. The name of the species with highest I.V appears first followed by other 

dominant species. The generic names of the dominants are used for naming the community 

provided they do not overlap. Species other than the dominants were classified into codominants, 

associates and rare. During the vegetation sampling, phenology of the plant 

species was noted and photographs taken. Soil samples at 30 cm depth were also taken for 

subsequent analysis of macronutrients and soil texture. 

1.4.3 Measurement of Carrying Capacity: 

Carrying capacity refers to the maximum number of individuals of a species that can be 

sustainably supported by the resources of an ecosystem for an indefinite period (Bush 1997). 

For livestock, it may be defined as the maximum stocking rate possible without inducing 

damage to vegetation or related resources such as soil, water and wildlife (Huss., 1979). 

For calculating “Carrying Capacity” following steps have been taken into account (ESCAP 

1994). 

Determined available dry matter forage (kg/ha) for each plant community. 

Worked out animal intake considering one cow weighing 350 kg as one animal 

unit (AU) that requires 7 kg dry matter forage / day or 210 kg dry matter forage per 

month or 2520 kg dry matter forage/year. 

As a general rule, 60% of the available forage was considered as “Proper Use Factor (PUF)” 

considering “take half and leave half” 

Carrying capacity was calculated in terms of number of hectares required for sustainably 

supporting one animal unit per year. 

Following formula was used to calculate carrying capacity 

Carrying Capacity = 

(Hectare/AU/Year) 

Animal Unit forage requirement kg/year 

Available forage kg/ha 



1.4.4 Multivariate Analysis: 

The cover estimates of all the species recorded from the programme sites were examined 

using Two Ways Indicator Species Analysis (TWINSPAN), as a classified technique following 

the procedures of Hill and Similauer (2005). 

1.4.5 α, β and γ-Diversity: 

The division of diversity into alpha (α), beta (β) and gamma (γ) components, to characterize 

diversity on different scales was first proposed by Whittaker (1972). Alpha diversity is withinarea 

diversity, measured as the number of species occurring within an area of a given size. 

Gamma diversity is also a measure of within-area diversity but it refers to overall diversity 

within a large region or biodiversity at the landscape level. Beta diversity is the degree of 

species change along a given habitat or physiographic gradient, as such it is a measure of 

between-area diversity. It is normally represented in terms of the similarity index or of species 

turn-over rate (Kalin-Arroyo et al. 1995, Smith and Smith 1998, Al-Sheikh and Ghnaim 

2004, Jafari et al. 2004). 

α, β and γ-diversity were measured in terms of species richness, i.e., the number of species 

irrespective of the relative abundance of individual species. Therefore α – diversity is simply 

the number of species in one locality, the γ-diversity was calculated by adding the four α – 

diversities (i.e., number of species in each locality or study site) but avoiding duplicate 

counting of species common to two or more localities. 

The similarity index (CC) between locality pairs was calculated by the formula: 

CC = 2Ss / / Sj+Sk (SØrensen 1948) 

Where Ss is the number of species common to both the localities, while Sj and Sk are the 

number of species in locality 1 and locality 2, respectively. 

The β – diversity was calculated as β = γ/αֿ or BD = Sc / S, in which Sc is the number of 

species in a composite sample (combining α samples) and S is the mean number of species 

in α-samples (Whittaker 1972). For comparing locality pairs, Sc was taken as the total number 

of species in the two localities excluding duplicate counting of shared or common species, 

while S was calculated irrespective of duplication. 

1.4.6 Soil Analysis 

Composite soil samples were taken at 15 to 30 cm depth from at least five selected transects 

from each of the four sites during vegetation surveys of 2007 and 2008. These samples were 

analyzed to determine physical (soil texture) and chemical parameters like EC, pH, Organic 

matter, P and K. 

1.4.7 Satellite Remote Sensing Based Forest Change Mapping and Monitoring 

of Mangrove Forests of Keti Bundar. 

GIS team of WWF – Pakistan was facilitated by the Indus For All Programme to undertake 

Satellite Remote Sensing Based Forest Change Mapping and Monitoring of Mangrove 

Forests of Keti Bundar during February 2008. Material and Methods and the findings of this 

study are included in this report separately at pages 33 – 49. 

1.4.8 Problems and threats: 

Problems and threats to each site were also recognized based on discussions with local 

people, concerned government officials, personal observations and literature survey; and 

suggestion/recommendations were made for their mitigation. 



2 - Keti Bundar 

Coastal / Deltaic Ecosystem 

Figure 2. Satellite image of Keti Bundar Programme site showing major creeks 



2.1 Brief History of Keti Bundar 

Keti Bundar is located at a distance of about 200 km SE of Karachi in Thatta district of Sindh 

province. It is a Taluka (Tehsil) of Thatta district and consists of a total of 42 dehs (cluster of 

villages) that spread over a total area of 60,969 hectare. It is believed that the sea has 

engulfed 28 dehs and the total affected area in Keti Bundar is around 46,137 hectare (WWF 

2004). Hoekstra et al. (1997) mentioned that Keti Bundar Tehsil includes a total of 19 Dehs 

and 29 villages while total human population is around 12000. 

Historically Keti Bundar was a port city before the construction of any dams and barrages on 

Indus river. At that time river was navigable up to Thatta and even upwards. 

At present, it is one of the major towns along the Pakistan coastline that is facing 

environmental degradation and loss of livelihood opportunities for the locals. Local elders 

mention that the location of Keti Bundar town has changed thrice during the past 70 years due 

to progressive intrusion of the seawater. There are four major creeks in the area viz. Chann, 

Hajamro, Khobar and Kangri with innumerable small creeks. For sweet water (drinking and 

farming), Keti Bundar and other coastal region depend entirely on Indus River and its 

distributaries. 

Keti Bundar is located in Indus Delta experiencing warm monsoon climatic regime. Mild 

winters extend from November to February while summer season extends from March to 

October. Most of the annual precipitation falls during monsoon, which is erratic in distribution. 

Mean annual rainfall is 220 mm. January is the coolest month with minimum temperature of 

9.5 o C while in June – July minimum and maximum temperatures range from 23 o C – 26 o C 

and from 30 o C - 36 o C, respectively. Humidity is generally higher in the morning than in the 

afternoon. It also varies from place to place depending upon the proximity to the sea. Wind is 

another important feature of coastal zone. It is variable and is faster during summer (7.4 to 

20.5 km/h) than winter (Qureshi 1985). 

Before construction of upstream barrages, river water used to reach the tail end during low 

tides round the year. However, upstream dams and barrages have considerably reduced the 

river flow to the extent that Kharo Chan and Shah Bundar area that had good agrarian 

economy in the past and produced plenty of high quality red rice, are now facing acute water 

shortage. During aabkalani (flood season), water is stored in ponds for subsequent human 

and livestock use. The agriculture has now deteriorated due to water logging and salinity of 

lands. During off season (May to 

August), local people were dependent 

on agriculture practices in the past 

and fish during other months of the 

year (Qureshi 1985). Scarcity of fresh 

water in the area from the Indus and 

seawater intrusion into the land has 

been degrading the area. 

Communities in and around main 

creeks in Keti Bundar area have 

cattle, buffaloes and camels. Camels 

have popularly supposed to have 

aversion to water and not to thrive in 

damp areas but in Delta region, 

camels feed on mangrove foliage, 

wading in the mud and swim in the 

creeks (Hoekstra et al. 1997). Faqirani Jat community in Keti Bundar kept majority of the 

camels. During monsoon season, camels of inland communities are also grazed in creeks 



area. According to one estimate there are about 5000 camels in mangrove areas (Hoekstra et 

al. (1997), however, Qureshi (1985) reported a total of 16,000 in the entire Delta region. 

Correct estimates are still required particularly in creeks adjacent to Keti Bundar where lot of 

camel grazing is obvious. Camels are generally kept to raise cash income through sale of one 

year old males. These animals are also kept for sacrifices on Eid festival. Milking of camels is 

generally for family consumption. Camels generally browse Avicennia marina foliage, 

however, in Kharochan area they also graze on grasses growing on mud flats. In mangrove 

area, camels are not herded and they keep on grazing free. Drinking water to camels is 

provided through boats. Camels stay permanently in mangroves year-round except for two 

months (June – July) when they are moved to some high lying areas near the sea for mating. 

Some of the herders reported to move camels to an open area during June/July due to 

presence of biting flies in mangroves (Hoekstra et al.1997) 

The earlier authors have described two systems of mangrove management; formal and nonformal. 

In the formal system, Forest Department issues permits to local communities in 

‘Protected Forests’ in exercise of their customary rights for collection of wood and livestock 

grazing against a nominal fee. However, neither such fee has been collected for the last 15 

years nor access been denied to any body except replanted areas (Hoekstra et al.1997). In 

non-formal system of management, Jat community being more influential in exploitation of 

vegetation and fish resources of mangrove ecosystem have sub divided the mangrove areas 

of Keti Bundar among villagers. An island allocated to a particular village is permanently 

utilised by that village for grazing camels. When such islands become devoid of vegetation 

due to continuous grazing, they are allocated another island. 

2.2 State of Biodiversity 

2.2.1 Natural Vegetation: Keti Bundar being a deltaic region mainly consists of Mangrove 

forests. These forests are managed by Sindh Forest Department. They fall under the category 

of “Protected Forests” vide West Pakistan Government Notification No. S.O.A. (X) F&A/581X- 

(32) dated August 29, 1958 and the land, water Lakes and dhoras in Keti Bundar falling under 

the jurisdiction of this notification are regarded as Wildlife Sanctuary vide Government of 

Sindh Wildlife & Forest Department Notification No. WL&FT (DCF-GEN-269).77 dated 

September 25, 1977. 

In Keti Bundar, mangroves cover an area of 40874 ha out of which 14733 ha area falls under 

dense mangroves while remaining area constitutes normal and sparse vegetation (Qureshi 

1985). Dense forests are found in narrow stretches or in blocks along creeks with profuse 

growth of Avicennia marina locally known as Timer. Qureshi (1985) mentioned that eight 

species of mangroves have been reported to occur in the area but four species have been 

lost from Indus Delta including Keti Bundar during the past 70 years. Of the remaining 

species, only Avicennia marina constitutes major mangrove spp proportion i.e., 95% on the 

islands of the creeks while others such as Rhizophora mucronata, Ceriops tagal and 

Aegiceras corniculata have only 5% spread on the islands of the creeks. The locals use 

mangrove trees for fodder and fuel wood, camel browsing and hut making. Mangroves are the 

breeding ground for variety of fish shrimps, crabs and other invertebrates. They are also of 

great significance as a source of nutrients for fisheries. Hence, the livelihood of the community 

is correlated with the health of mangrove and is important to the local and national economy. 

The inland areas also mostly have halophytic vegetation consisting of Chenopods, Tamarix 

species and Salvadora persica. 

2.2.2 Agriculture: Although agricultural practices are not very common, yet vegetable, betel 

leaf, sugarcane, wheat, fruits (chiku, banana, mango, water melon) are grown in the inland 

area of Keti Bundar taulka. 



2.3 Livelihood/ Social aspects 

Majority of population are fishermen and belong to Baloch, Jat, Memon, Shiekh, Dabla, 

Solangi, Syed and Gug tribes. Traditionally agriculture, livestock and fishing were three major 

sources of livelihood of the community of this area. Due to reduction in freshwater supplies 

and seawater intrusion into the land, the agriculture of inland areas is on decline causing high 

pressure on fishing, grazing and exploitation of mangroves for fuel and timber. Presently 

there are three dominant sources of livelihood which include fishing about 90%, agriculture 

and livestock rearing about 8% and services in various sectors about 2%. The women of the 

area have more freedom as compared to other agricultural and pastoral communities; 

however, they are not involved in livelihood activities and are responsible mainly for 

household chores and the livestock. People are mostly illiterate and their economic conditions 

look poor. Mostly the population resides on the creek banks or near mainland. The education 

level of people is very low and their hygienic conditions are not satisfactory. 

Indus for All Programme carried out socio-economic assessment in 34 villages of Keti Bundar 

situated inside creeks as well over inland area (Annexures A - VII to A - XV). A quick view of 

the village profiles indicates that predominance of fishing and net making occupations are 

most obvious of these villages. Village Faqiriani Jat is famous for camel rearing and also has 

well known for artisans who undertake boat painting and engine repairing work. Due to outmigration 

of households from Hajamro and Chann creeks to mainland areas, a new village 

Meero Dablo (36 HH) has come into existence just outside the Keti Bunder protective bund 

and in front of the Forest Department’s jetty. Bhoori village is famous for the buffaloes due to 

prevalence of pastures occupied by palatable grass species. Dablo is the major caste group, 

especially in creek villages followed by Jat; a camel herder tribe and Sholani Baloch; a 

farming tribe. Trading community is represented mainly by the Memons of Keti Bunder. 

There is only one high school located in Keti Bundar. Electricity is available at Keti Bunder 

and two inland villages. It is also available at Tippun (a village in Hajamro creek) mainly 

through a wind turbine erected by WWF - Pakistan. The area is totally deprived of any water 

supply system, except for Bhoori village which has 10 hand pumps providing sweet water 

because the village is located in Khobar creek; which is currently the main course of Indus 

River falling in the Arabian Sea. Communities purchase drinking water on comparatively high 

prices thus facing an added stress on their subsistent livings. 

A recent socio-economic study undertaken by Indus for All Programme revealed that the 

average household size of Keti Bundar area has 6.6 members. About one-fifth of households 

have only 3 members and such households were predominant at Keti Bundar. The study also 

revealed that about 78.4% households are engaged in fishing followed by daily labour, 

business and other miscellaneous occupations. In creek areas a fraction of the households (1 

– 2%) possess small and large ruminants. 

Proportion of family members engaged in different occupations depicts that 3% households 

possess poultry birds. The study examined that local population heavily rely on natural 

resources such as drinking water (94%), fish (88%), fuel wood (75%), and pastures (37%), a 

majority of the households in creeks and inland areas believe that natural resources such as 

drinking water, fish and forests have declined over the past five years. About 48% of 

respondents agreed that irrigation water resources have depleted during the last five years. 

Over 70% of respondents agreed that the fisheries have declined, while 64% agreed that 

forest resources have sharply depleted during the last 5 years. Depletion of fisheries, being 

the primary source of livelihood, was perceived to be highest at Keti Bundar (87% of 

respondents). 



2.4 Results 

2.4.1. Flora of Keti Bundar 

2.4.1.1 Creek Flora: Creek flora included the dominant species Avicennia marina along with 

Arthrocnemum macrostachyum, Aeluropus lagopoides, Sporobolus virginicus, occasional 

Salvadora persica, Aegiceras corniculata, and Oryza coarctata. The later three species were 

Figure 4. Map showing location of 10 x 10 m Quadrats 

and transects in Keti Bundar area 

recorded mostly from those creeks where river water flows during flood season. Other creeks 

with hyper saline conditions generally had only Avicennia, Arthrocnemum. Aeluropus and 

Sporobolus. While Avicennia marina, Aegiceras corniculata, oryza coactata and Sporobolus 

virginicus were exclusively present on intertidal mudflats, Arthrocnemum and Aeluropus 



occurred inland as well. Aegiceras corniculata was also observed in Chann creek forests 

which are managed by the Sindh Forest Department. A transect-wise details of the flora of 

Keti Bundar over three years is given in Annexure A – I. 

To assess the cover of Avicennia marina, fifteen 10 x10 m quadrats were taken in various 

creeks (Annexure A – IV (a) to A – IV (b). A summary of the results of these quadrats is 

provided below in Table 3. 

Table 3. Mangroves: Age- wise Cover Percentage 

S.# Age Class Total Quadrats Age class 

occurrence 

Percentage 

01 New germination 15 4 26.7 

02 Pole 15 2 13.3 

03 Juvenile 15 5 33.3 

04 Mature 15 6 40.0 

The newly germinated seedlings represent almost 27% of the entire age classes found in 

creek areas of Keti Bundar, however, not all the seedlings attain maturity mainly because of 

increased salinity, low silt and grazing by livestock. The mature and juvenile age classes are 

the dominant (40 and 33%, respectively) among all the four classes and these mainly reflect 

trees found in Chann and its associated creeks. These forests are although in stable form, 

however, increasing soil erosion by the advancing sea and wood cutting pose continuous 

threats to their existence. 

While comparing two mangrove species; Aegiceras corniculata and Avicennia marina, it is 

interesting to note that the former species is still found in Chann and Hajamro creeks, 

however, new germination of Aegiceras is absent. This should be a matter of concern for the 

management to investigate the reasons of the absence of new recruitment (Figure 5). Per 

hectare numbers of plants of Avicennia marina are in fairly good numbers across all the age 

classes. A further detail of these samplings could be found in Annex A-IV (b). 

Figure 5 - Comparison of Aegiceras and Avicennia in Different Age Classes 

(Numbers /Ha) 

30000 

25000 

20000 

15000 

10000 

5000 

0 

0 

24660 

3300 

12600 

Seedling Juvenile Pole Mature 

Indus For All Programme Page 18 of 131 

0 

6800 

Aegiceras Avicennia 

It was observed that most of the relatively dense and mature forests of mangroves are 

situated in Chann and its associated sub-creeks. The density of these mangrove forests 

5700 

2530


varies from one place to another mainly because of over-cutting by local communities and 

grazing by camels. Moreover, a recent phenomenon of deforestation by sea waves is most 

obvious and dramatic. A quick study conducted by Indus for All Team revealed that such bank 

erosion is happening at 14 m per month. The rate of this erosion may accelerate during 

summer months when the sea is rougher and waves are stronger. 

Hajamro, another large creek of Keti Bundar is mostly devoid of mature mangrove forests and 

it occupies mostly seedlings and juvenile plants. This is probably due to over exploitation by 

the local communities over the past decades. However, some patches of good mangroves 

were observed near Khobar creek where River Indus joins the Arabian seas. Over here the 

mud flats were dominated by a palatable Son grass (Oryza coarctata). Another rhizomatous 

halophytic grass Aeluropus lagopoides is widely found on mud flats all over the creeks of Keti 

Bundar and appeared as distinct plant community on some places. 

2.4.1.2. Mainland flora 

After the 2008 survey, the total number of inland natural plant species comes to be 113. By 

adding four intertidal species the total number of species from Keti Bundar is now 117, in 83 

genera and 36 families (Table 5). In this, Pteridophytes are represented by 2 families, 2 

genera and 2 species, Angiosperms-Dicots by 29 families, 56 genera and 79 species, 

Angiosperms-Monocots by 5 families, 25 genera and 36 species. Poaceae comes to be the 

largest family with 28 species, followed by Chenopodiaceae (9 species), Tamaricaceae (8 

species) and Asteraceae (6 species). Tamarix with 8 species was the largest genus. Any 

other genus was not represented by more than three species. Besides the natural flora, 

twelve cultivated species were also recorded (Table 4). The detail of the contribution of 

individual families to the natural flora of Keti Bundar is shown in Figure 6. 

Table 4 - Cultivated plant species recorded at Keti Bundar 

Sr : Family Plant species Life form Habit 

1 Arecaceae Cocos nucifera L. Phanerophyte Tree 

2 Caricaceae Carica papaya L. Phanerophyte Tree 

3 Cucurbitaceae Luffa cylindrica (L.) Roem. Phanerophyte Climber 

4 Fabaceae Sesbania bispinosa (Jacq.) W.F. Wight Phanerophyte Subshrub 

5 Malvaceae Thespesia populnea (L.) Sol. ex Corr. Phanerophyte Tree 

6 Musaceae Musa paradisiaca Linn. Cryptophyte Tree – like herb 

7 Myrtaceae Conocarpus erectus Phanerophyte Tree 

8 Myrtaceae Eucalyptus camaldulensis Phanerophyte Tree 

9 Palmae Phoenix dactylifera L. Phanerophyte Tree 

10 Poaceae Oryza sativa L. Therophyte Herb 

11 Rhamnaceae Ziziphus jujuba Mill. Phanerophyte Tree 

12 Solanaceae Capsicum annuum L. Therophyte Herb 

2.4.1.3 Overall Scenario of the Flora: 

In Keti Bundar, 117 species were recorded in 36 families. The largest genus was Tamarix with 

8 species. The largest family was Poaceae with 28 species followed by Chenopodiaceae (9 

species) and Tamaricaceae (8 species). Two mangrove species (Avicennia marina and 

Aegiceras corniculata) were recorded from inter-tidal zone in creeks. There were 79 and 36 

dicot and monocot species, respectively while only three species of pteridophytes were 

observed (Figure 6) and Aegiceras was recorded both from Chann and Hajamro creeks. 

Other creeks had only Avicennia while plants of Rhizophora mucronata were also seen which 



were raised by Sindh Forest Department. A picture of the contribution of different plant 

families to the over all flora of Keti Bundar is provided in Annexure A – II. 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Figure 6 - Types of Plant Families in Keti Bundar 

(Class Categories of Flora) 

79 

36 

Dicotyledonous Monocotyledonous Gymnosperms Pteridophytes 

Table 5 - Cumulative plant species list recorded at Keti Bundar (Inland and creeks) 

Sr# Family Plant species Life form Habit 

1. Acanthaceae Blepharis sindica Stocks ex T. And. Therophyte Herb 

2. Aizoaceae Trianthema portulacastrum L. Therophyte Herb 

3. Aizoaceae Trianthema triquetra Rottl. and Willd. Therophyte Herb 

4. Aizoaceae Zaleya pentandra (L.) Jeffery Chamaephyte Herb 

5. Amaranthaceae Achyranthes aspera L. Chamaephyte Shrub 

6. Amaranthaceae Alternanthera sessilis (L.) DC. Chamaephyte Herb 

7. Amaranthaceae Amaranthus viridis L. Therophyte Herb 

8. Amaranthaceae Digera muricata (L.) Mart. Therophyte Herb 

9. Araceae Pistia stratioites L. Hydrophyte Herb 

10. Asclepiadaceae Oxystelma esculentum (L.f.) R.Br. Cryptophyte Climber 

11. Asclepiadaceae Pentatropis nivalis (J.F.Gmel.) Field & 

J.R.I.Wood 

Chamaephyte Climber 

12. Asteraceae Conyza aegyptiaca Ait. Chamaephyte Herb 

13. Asteraceae Eclipta prostrata (L.) L. Chamaephyte Herb 

14. Asteraceae Iphiona grantioides Boiss. Chamaephyte Herb 

15. Asteraceae Launaea procumbens (Roxb.) Amin Chamaephyte Herb 

16. Asteraceae Sonchus asper Fig. Chamaephyte Herb 

17. Asteraceae Sonchus oleraceus L. Hill Chamaephyte Herb 

18. Avicenniaceae Avicennia marina (Forssk.) Vierh. Phanerophyte Tree 

19. Azollaceae Azolla pinnata R.Br. Hydrophyte Herb 

20. Boraginaceae Heliotopium ophioglossum Boiss Chamaephyte Herb 

21. Boraginaceae Heliotropium crispum Desf. Camaephyte Shrub 

22. Boraginaceae Heliotropium curassavicum L. Chamaephyte Herb 

23. Capparidaceae Capparis decidua (Forsk.) Edgew. Phanerophyte Shrub 

24. Capparidaceae Cleome brachycarpa Vahl ex. DC. Chamaephyte Shrub 

25. Capparidaceae Cleome scaposa DC Chamaephyte Herb 


0 

2



26. Caryophyllaceae Spergularia marina (L.) Griseb. Therophyte Herb 

27. Chenopodiaceae Arthrocnemum macrostachyum 

(Moric.)C.Koch 

Chamaephyte Herb 

28. Chenopodiaceae Arthrocnemum indicum (Willd.) Moq. Chamaephyte Shrub 

29. Chenopodiaceae Atriplex stocksii Boiss. Chamaephyte Sub shrub 

30. Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium album L. Therophyte Herb 

31. Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium murale L. Therophyte Herb 

32. Chenopodiaceae Halostachys belangerana (Moq.)Botsch. Chamaephyte Shrub 

33. Chenopodiaceae Salsola imbricata Forsk. Phanerophyte Shrub 

34. Chenopodiaceae Suaeda fruticosa Forsk. ex J.F.Gmelin Phanerophyte Shrub 

35. Chenopodiaceae Suaeda monoica Forsk. ex J.F.Gmelin Phanerophyte Shrub 

36. Convolvulaceae Convolvulus arvensis L. Therophyte Climber 

37. Convolvulaceae Cressa cretica L. Chaemophyte Herb 

38. Convolvulaceae Ipomoea aquatica Forsk. Hydrophyte Herb 

39. Convolvulaceae Ipomoea carnea Jacq. Phanerophyte Shrub 

40. Convolvulaceae Merremia aegyptia (L.) Urban Therophyte Climber 

41. Cucubitaceae Coccinia grandis (Linn.) Voigt Chamaephyte Climber 

42. Cucurbitaceae Cucumis melo var. agrestis Naud. Chamaephyte Climber 

43. Cucurbitaceae Mukia maderaspatana (L.) M.J.Roem. Chamaephyte Climber 

44. Cyperaceae Bolboschoenus glaucus (L.) S.G.Smith Hemicryptophyte Sedge 

45. Cyperaceae Cyperus bulbosus Vahl. Cryptophyte Sedge 

46. Cyperaceae Cyperus difformis L. Hemi cryptophyte Sedge 

47. Cyperaceae Cyperus rotundus L. Cryptophyte Sedge 

48. Cyperaceae Eleocharis geniculata (L.) R.& S. Hemi cryptophyte Sedge 

49. Elatinaceae Bergia aestivosa Wight & Arn. Therophyte Herb 

50. Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia granulata Forsk. Therophyte Herb 

51. Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia serpens Kunth Therophyte Herb 

52. Euphorbiaceae Phyllanthus maderaspatensis L. Therophyte Herb 

53. Fabaceae Alhagi maurorum Medic. Phanerophyte Subshrub 

54. Fabaceae Argyrolobium roseum (Camb.) J. & S. Therophyte Herb 

55. Fabaceae Melilotus alba Desr. Therophyte Herb 

56. Fabaceae Melilotus indica (L.) All. Therophyte Herb 

57. Fabaceae Vigna trilobata (L.) Verdc. Therophyte Herb 

58. Menyanthaceae Nymphoides cristata (Roxb.) O.Ktze Hydrophyte Herb 

59. Mimosaceae Acacia nilotica Delile Phanerophyte Tree 

60. Mimosaceae Prosopis cineraria (Linn.) Druce. Phanerophyte Tree 

61. Mimosaceae Prosopis glandulosa Torr Phanerophyte Shrub 

62. Mimosaceae Prosopis juliflora Swartz Phanerophyte Shrub – Tree 

63. Myrsinaceae Aegiceras corniculata (L.) Blanco Phanerophyte Shrub 

64. Nyctaginaceae Commicarpus boissieri (Heimerl) Cufod. Phanerophyte Herb/subshrub 

65. Poaceae Aeluropus lagopoides (L.) Trin. ex Thw. Cryptophyte Herbaceous 

Grass 

66. Poaceae Brachiaria 

Griseb. 

eruciformis (J.E.Smith) Haemicryptophyte Grass 

67. Poaceae Brachiaria ramosa (L.) Stapf Haemicryptophyte Grass 

68. Poaceae Chloris barbata Sw. Haemicryptophyte Grass 

69. Poaceae Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. Cryptophyte Grass 

70. Poaceae Dactyloctenium aegyptium (L.) Willd. Therophyte Grass 




71. Poaceae Dactyloctenium scindicum Boiss. Hemi cryptophyte Grass 

72. Poaceae Desmostachya bipinnata (L.) Stapf Cryptophyte Grass 

73. Poaceae Dichanthium annulatum (Forssk.) Stapf Hemi cryptophyte Grass 

74. Poaceae Dichanthium foveolatum (Del.) Roberty Hemi cryptophyte Grass 

75. Poaceae Diplachne fusca (L.) P.Beauv. ex Roem 

& Schult. 

Therophyte Grass 

76. Poaceae Echinochloa frumentacea Link Therophyte Grass 

77. Poaceae Echinochloa colonum (L.) Link Therophyte Grass 

78. Poaceae Eragrostis cilianensis (All.) Lut. ex 

F.T.Hubbard 


79. Poaceae Eragrostis ciliaris (Linn.) R.Br. Therophyte Grass 

80. Poaceae Eragrostis pilosa (Linn.) Beauv. Therophyte Grass 

81. Poaceae Eriochloa procera (Retz) C.E. Hubbard. Therophyte Grass 

82. Poaceae Oryza coarctata Roxb. Cryptophyte Grass 

83. Poaceae Paspalidium geminatum (Forsk.) Stapf. Hemi cryptophyte Grass 

84. Poaceae Paspalum vaginatum Swartz. Hemi cryptophyte Grass 

85. Poaceae Pennisetum purpureum Schum. Hemicryptopyte Grass 

86. Poaceae Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. Cryptophyte Tall grass 

87. Poaceae Phragmites karka (Retz.) Trin. ex 

Steud. Cryptophyte Tall grass 

88. Poaceae Saccharum benghalense Retz. Hemicryptophyte Tall grass 

89. Poaceae Saccharum griffithii Munro ex Boiss. Therophyte Tall grass 

90. Poaceae Setaria verticillata (L.) Beauv. Therophyte Grass 

91. Poaceae Sporobolus kentrophyllus (K. Schum.) 

W.D. Clayton Hemi cryptophyte Grass 

92. Poaceae Sporobolus virginicus (L.) Kunth Cryptophyte Grass 

93. Polygonaceae Persicaria glabra (Willd.) Gomes de la 

Maza 

Phanerophyte Herb 

94. Polygonaceae Rumex dentatus L. Therophyte Herb 

95. Pontederiaceae Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solma Hydrophyte Herb 

96. Portulacaceae Portulaca oleracea L. Therophyte Herb 

97. Primulaceae Anagalis arvensis L. Therophyte Herb 

98. Salvadoraceae Salvadora persica L. Phanerophyte Tree 

99. Salviniaceae Salvinia molesta Mitchelle Hydrophyte Herb 

100. Scrophulariaceae Bacopa monnieri (L.) Wettstein Chamaephyte Herb 

101. Solanaceae Solanum nigrum L. Therophyte Herb 

102. Tamaricaceae Tamarix alii Qaiser Phanerophyte Tree 

103. Tamaricaceae Tamarix indica Willd. Phanerophyte Shrub 

104. Tamaricaceae Tamarix kermanensis Baum Phanerophyte Tree 

105. Tamaricaceae Tamarix pakistanica Qaiser Phanerophyte Tree 

106. Tamaricaceae Tamarix passernioides Del. ex Desv. Phanerophyte Tree 

107. Tamaricaceae Tamarix sarenensis Qaiser Phanerophyte Tree 

108. Tamaricaceae Tamarix sultanii Qaiser Phanerophyte Tree 

109. Tamaricaceae Tamarix sp. nov. 

110. Tiliaceae Corchorus depressus (L.) Stocks Chamaephyte Subshrub 

111. Tiliaceae Corchorus tridens L. Therophyte Herb 

112. Tiliaceae Corchorus trilocularis L. Therophyte Herb 

113. Typhaceae Typha angustata Bory & Chaub. Cryptophyte Reed 

114. Verbenaceae Phyla nodiflora (L.) Greene Chamaephyte Herb 


P lant Fam ilies 


Zygophyllaceae 

Verbenaceae 

Typhaceae 

Tiliaceae 

Tamaricaceae 

Solanaceae 

Scrophulariaceae 

Salviniaceae 

Salvadoraceae 

Primulaceae 

Portulacaceae 

Pont ederiaceae 

Polygonaceae 

Poaceae 

Nyctaginaceae 

M yrsinaceae 

M imosaceae 

M enyant haceae 

Fabaceae 

Euphorbiaceae 

Elatinaceae 

Cyperaceae 

Cucurbit aceae 

Convolvulaceae 

Chenopodiaceae 

Caryophyllaceae 

Capparidaceae 

Boraginaceae 

Azollaceae 

Avicenniaceae 

Asteraceae 

Asclepiadaceae 

Araceae 

Amarant haceae 

Aizoaceae 

Acant haceae 


115. Zygophyllaceae Fagonia indica Burm.f. Chamaephyte Herb 

116. Zygophyllaceae Zygophyllum propinquum Decne. Chamaephyte Herb 

117. Zygophyllaceae Zygophyllum simplex L. Therophyte Herb 

Figure 7 - Contribution of Plant Families to Flora of Keti-Bundar 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 

Number of species 



2.4.2 Two Ways Indicator Species Analysis (TWINSPAN) 

Vegetation assessment was carried out in 2006, 2007 and 2008 in different seasons. The 

year-wise cover data were compiled using spreadsheet in Microsoft® Excel® programme. 

These values ware then analyzed using software “Two Ways Indicator Species Analysis 

(TWINSPAN)” as mentioned earlier in Materials & Methods section. A detail of the analysis is 

provided in Annexure A – III. The results of the analysis are discussed as under: 

2.4.2.1 Aeluropus – Arthrocnemum Plant Community (Year 2006) 

This plant community was observed in 11 out of a total 13 transects. This community was 

found established on mud flats throughout all creeks. The dominant species of this community 

were Aeluropus lagopoides followed by Halostachys belangerana. Though there were a total 

of 67 plant species recorded from this area, yet community was formed by the two species. 

This community is of halophytic in nature belonging to families Poaceae and Chenopodiaceae 

and having life forms of Haemicryptophyte and Chamaephyte, respectively. Forage production 

at the sites represented by this community varied from 24.3 to 219.4 Kg/Ha. 

Figure 8 – Sites representing Aeluropus – Arthrocnemum Plant Community (Year 2006) 

2.4.2.2 Aeluropus – Halostachys Plant Community (Year 2007) 

This plant community was found during summer 2007. The dominant plant species of this 

community Aeluropus lagopoides remained the same in spite of the increased number of 

sampling (13 transects), however, the associated plant species was found Halostachys 

belangerana which is again a halophytic shrub. This plant community once again represents 

inter-tidal zone. Replacement of Arthrocnemum indicum with that of Halostachys belangerana 

is probably result of increased number of transects which covered wider areas and hence 

based on overall cover the associated species of Halostachys belangerana was found 

prominent than Arthrocnemum indicum. Forage production at the sites represented by this 

community varied from 28.8 to 669.2 Kg/Ha. 

Figure 9 – Sites represented by Aeluropus – Halostachys Plant Community (Year 2007) 



2.4.2.3 Aeluropus lagopoides – Sporopolus virginicus– Arthrocnemum indicum (2008) 

During Spring 2008, a total of 15 transects were taken to assess the natural vegetation in Keti 

Bundar area. Two plant communities emerged from the analysis by TWINSPAN. The 

community Aeluropus lagopoides – Sporopolus virginicus– Arthrocnemum indicum was 

almost same as that in the year 2006 except addition of another salt tolerant grass 

Sporopolus virginicus as co-dominant while Arthrocnemum indicum came up as associate. 

Normally grass species particularly Aeluropus lagopoides is regarded as a pioneer plant in 

the succession of mangrove forests. Although Sporopolus virginicus is a salt tolerant grass 

but it is not that hardy as that of Aeluropus lagopoides which occupies the landscape where 

areas frequently get inundated during high tides. In contrast Sporopolus virginicus is found in 

areas which have moderate saline water due to mixing of river water into sea water. Forage 

production at the sites represented by this community varied from 52 to 350 Kg/Ha. 

Figure 10 – Sites represented by Aeluropus lagopoides – Sporopolus virginicus– 

Arthrocnemum indicum (2008) 

2.4.2.4 Arthrocnemum indicum - Halostachys belangerana - Tamarix indica (2008) 

This was a second plant community that emerged in Spring 2008 and mostly represents salt 

pans of inland areas in vicinity to Keti Bundar. Tamarix indica is mostly found along roadside 

near Keti Bundar town. Over here other halophytic shrubs like Halostachys belangerana are 

common. This plant community is representative of partially sub-merged area. Forage 

production at the sites represented by this community varied from 58 to 350 Kg/Ha. 

Figure 11 – Sites represented by Arthrocnemum indicum - Halostachys belangerana - 

Tamarix indica (2008) 



2.4.3 Carrying Capacity: 

Carrying Capacity of Keti Bundar was determined in terms of hectares per animal unit per 

year for three years (Figure 12). Maximum forage production and the carrying capacity was 

determined in year 2007 compared with rest of the two study years, however, the difference 

was minimum. Most of the mud flat pastures are grazed by buffaloes particularly those which 

are dominated by Son grass (Oryza coarctata) and other grasses like Aeluropus lagopoides 

and Sporobolus virgincus. While calculating carrying capacity and forage production in Keti 

Bundar creeks, Mangrove species were not taken into account primarily due to the fact that 

most of the dense mangroves are present in Chann creek which is not included in programme 

sites and secondly these are used mostly for camels. Chann Creek mangroves being situated 

in Wildlife Sanctuary are illegal to be used as fodder for any type of livestock. Three years 

comparative study reveals that forage production in creeks areas is almost persistent under 

present land use mainly due to (i) a year long growing season and (ii) a steady number of 

cattle inside the creeks. The transect-wise details of forage production and the carrying 

capacity is provided in Annexure A – V. A summary showing comparison of plant families, 

associated species and forage production is provided in Annexure A – VI. 

Figure 12 – Carrying Capacity in Keti Bundar Area over Different Seasons and Years 

Available Forage (Kg/Ha) 

200 

180 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

15.31 

107 


178 

14.15 

2006 2007 2008 

21.8 

117 

Av ailable Forage (Kg/Ha) Carring Capacity (Ha/AU/Yr) 

2.4.4 Biodiversity Index & species Richness: 

2.4.4.1 α- Diversity (i.e.,, the species richness and species diversity within each locality). 

With reference to species richness, α – diversity of Keti Bundar came up with 36 families, 83 

genera and 117 species. 

Among various families, Poaceae exhibited the highest species richness followed by 

Chenopodiaceae, Tamaricaceae and Asteraceae. 

2.4.4.2 β -Diversity (i.e.,, the species turnover from one locality to other locality or diversity 

between localities) 

Localities were compared in pairs with every possible combination. Keti Bundar and Keenjhar 

showed 2 nd highest β -Diversity among all sites with 96 species in common. The localities 

pairs are shown in Table 6. 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Carrying Capacity (Ha/AU/Yr)


S. 

No Locality pairs 

1 

2 

3 

2.4.5 Significant findings 

Table 6 - Similarity Index and β -Diversity of Keti Bundar 

Azolla pinnata: This pteridophytic species was collected first time form the inland area of Keti 

Bundar. 

Sporobolus virginicus: This species was previously recorded form inland localities in the 

Flora of Pakistan. In the present survey, it was recorded for the fist time from inter-tidal 

mudflats in Hajamro creek, Khobar creek and Kharo chhan. 

Tamarix sarenensis & Tamarix sultanii: These species were recorded form Keti Bundar, 

these species are endemic to Sindh. 

2.5 Discussion 

2006 

Shared 

species CC BD 

Being a deltaic locality, the most prominent vegetation type of Keti Bundar are mangrove 

forests. As mentioned earlier, eight species of mangroves were present in the past but now 

only three are reported to occur in the Indus delta and in the present study only two mangrove 

species (Avicennia marina and Aegiceras corniculata) were observed growing naturally while 

third (Rhizophora mucronata) was re-introduced by Forest Department in north of Keti 

Bundar. The decline in the number of species itself indicates the gradual deterioration of Indus 

delta mangrove ecosystem. In the present study, Aegiceras corniculata and grass species 

Oryza coarctata were mostly found in those localities where there is some supply of 

freshwater. In other creeks only Avicennia marina was the mangrove species which is more 

salt-tolerant and rather aggressive species; but even Avicennia stands are gradually 

deteriorating as indicated by the 10 x 10 m quadrats data. Only few quadrats showed the 

mature Avicennia marina trees while others had only seedlings, juveniles and immature trees, 

indicating that although the propagules germinate and establish but fail to reach maturity. 

While mortality of seedlings may be due to exposed nature of habitat, hyper salinity, grazing 

by herbivores, etc. (Saifullah et al. 1994, 2007), the failure of juveniles to reach maturity is 

most probably due to nutrients deficiency as the fresh sediment is not coming in enough 

amount due to highly curtailed flow of River Indus into the delta. Historical records show that 

the original natural silt load carried by Indus into the delta was 300-400 million tons per year 

that contributed to seawards growth of land area at the rate of 3 square miles per year as 

measured between 1873 and 1904 (Blatter et al. 1929). The silt load or sediment forms mud 

flats in front of river mouth which are stabilized by the growth of grasses and mangroves 

contributing to increase in mainland area of delta. The mud flats provide not only support to 

2007 

Shared 

species CC BD 

2008 

Shared 

species CC BD 

Keti – 

Keenjhar 27 0.30 1.691 82 0.46 1.54 96 0.51 1.49 

Keti – Chotiari 13 0.16 1.832 68 0.45 1.55 78 0.48 1.52 

Keti – Pai 12 0.23 1.767 48 0.45 1.55 60 0.51 1.49 



the mangroves but they are also nutrient-rich. The most extensive and luxurious mangroves 

are invariably associated with mud and muddy soil found along deltaic coasts, in lagoons and 

along estuarine shorelines (Saenger 2002). Both freshwater flow and silt load of Indus river 

continued to decrease with the construction of dams and barrages upstream. According to 

Saifullah (1997), the annual silt load at Kotri barrage has decreased from 200 million tons to 

50 million tons during 1955 to 1984. The sediment reaching the delta has been as low as 10 

million tons/year (Meadow and Meadow 1999). The uprooting of mature Avicennia trees due 

to erosion observed during present study appears to be due to the lack of deposition of fresh 

sediment, further aggravated by the sea level rise due to global warming resulting in the 

receding coast-line and sea intrusion. The lack of sediment deposition has far reaching 

effects. The natural land subsidence rates in river deltas are higher than other parts of the 

coast, which are normally compensated by the new sediment deposition, but the lack of 

sediment may result in local relative sea level rise and intrusion of salt water in the inland 

aquifers leading to biodiversity loss in coastal ecosystems (Haq 1999). It means that in case 

of general rise in sea level, the actual sea level rise would be greater for the deltas resulting in 

a greater inundation than other parts of coast, thus greater destruction and dislocation of 

people. These effects would be even more severe in the absence of mangroves. 

The increase in salinity of the area is also indicated by the inland vegetation. Aeluropus 

lagopoides, Arthrocnemun macrostachyum, Halostachys belangerana and Tamarix indica are 

recognized as dominant species in Two Way Indicator Species Analysis (TWINSPN), which 

are all halophytic species. Besides these Salvadora persica, another halophytic species is 

also fairly common. Floristically as well, Chenopodiaceae and Tamaricaceae (all halophytes) 

are among the larger families, and among grasses about ten species are halophytes. It is 

interesting that Hoekstra et al. (1997) reported Tamarix dioica from the salt marshes of Indus 

delta but we did not find this species in delta area, neither any of its specimen is recorded 

from this area in the Flora of Pakistan. It therefore appears to be a case of misidentification. 

Similarly, the Arthrocnemum indicum mentioned by Hoekstra et al. (1997) must be actually 

Arthrocnemum macrostachyum, as the former is a rare species on Pakistan coast (Flora of 

Pakistan No. 204). The primary productivity in terms of DMY and carrying capacity were found 

to be quite low indicating that the ecosystem cannot sustainably support any large number of 

livestock. 

2.5.1 Problems & Threats: 

Keti Bundar is of great ecological and economic significance because of the mangrove 

ecosystems. These ecosystems almost entirely support shrimp and fishery production that 

earn 100 million US $ annually (Saifullah 1997). Normally mangrove ecosystems are pristine 

and do not require much management unless ecological processes are disrupted. In spite of 

overwhelming importance of mangroves in Pakistan, little attention has been paid to their 

management. Mangroves are disappearing at an alarming rate and main causes of such rapid 

decline are rooted among unawareness among policy makers, authorities and public at large 

(Saifullah 1997). Keti Bundar is one of the major towns in Indus delta that is facing a multitude 

of environmental degradation and loss of livelihood opportunities for the locals. Some of the 

serious problems leading to ecological degradation in this area are briefly described below. 

2.5.1.1 Deficiency of Fresh Water Flow form Indus River: This is probably the most serious 

problem of Indus delta as a whole. Mangroves occur preferably in deltaic regions of the world 

because they grow better in low saline water and soft alluvial substrate. Their productivity 

increases proportionately with the increase of fresh water (Saifullah 1997). There has been a 

continuous decrease in Indus River discharge ever since the creation of Pakistan mainly 

because of extension in irrigated agriculture that forced to construct more upstream dams and 

barrages. Flow of River Indus has decreased from 150 MAF (before construction of dams and 

barrages) to a meager amount of 10 MAF. Gradual decrease in fresh water has triggered the 



salinity, which is about 40 ppm at many places in the delta region. Such hyper salinity 

conditions also seriously decline mangroves growth. Moreover, the mangroves are threatened 

because of overexploitation, pollution, and a decline in fluvial discharge into the Indus delta 

(Downton 1982, Clough 1984, Ansari 1987, Naidoo 1987, IUCN 1988, Burchett et al., 1989, 

Qureshi 1993, Khan 1993, Gordon 1993, Karim and Karim 1993, Aziz and Khan 2001). 

2.5.1.2 Reduced Siltation: Due to decrease in river flow there is less deposition of nutrientrich 

silt. According to Saifullah (1997), the annual alluvial flow has decreased from 200 million 

tons in 1955 to 50 million tons at Kotri during 1984. Such decline in sediment is also 

hampering the mangroves growth. 

2.5.1.3 Seawater Intrusion: The reduction in river flows into the sea has led to sea intrusion. 

This is the main problem that has degraded both underground and surface freshwater 

resources. Seawater has encroached into the creeks, delta, and channels causing the soil 

salinity of adjacent lands to exceed cultivable limits. Potable water has become scarce and 

wells that yielded freshwater a few years ago have turned brackish. The natural vegetation is 

also under stress due to hyper salinity and change of habitat. The fresh water and brackish 

water ecosystems have changed to marine ecosystem. In areas that do not have saline 

ground water, hand pumps constitute another source of fresh water. Unfortunately, Keti 

Bundar has no fresh water sources and people face serious problems for their day to day 

requirements. This seawater intrusion is deteriorating the floral diversity of mudflats. 

Figure 13 - A considerable area of dense and mature forest in Chann Creek is being uprooted 

by strong waves and this process is continuous. 

2.5.1.4 Overgrazing/Lopping and Browsing: There is a tremendous pressure of grazing by 

nomads and locals mainly by camels on mangroves in Keti Bundar. Camel grazing is widely 

prevalent in Chann creek and parts of Hajamro creek. The tribes in the area rear camels for 

income generation in addition to fishing. According to estimates, there are about 16000 

camels and 11000 cattle, which survive on mangroves in Indus Delta (Qureshi 1993, Saifullah 

1997). In creeks of Keti Bundar 6000 camels entirely depend on mangrove fodder. Other kind 

of livestock such as buffaloes and cows are also present. A lot of buffaloes were seen grazing 

openly in Khobar. 

2.5.1.5 Deforestation of Mangroves: Local communities cut mangroves for fodder and fuel. 

According to an estimate 173 kg of wood is used per month per household (Saifullah 1997). 

Scenes of severe deforestation are common everywhere as one approaches in Chann creek. 

As told by the local people, mangrove wood is also exported to Karachi for fuel wood. Local 

fishermen and surrounding communities in major creeks use mangrove wood for fuel. 



According to Hoekstra et al. (1997), the boat-based fishermen use about 53 to 120 kg wood 

for each fishing trip that lasts for 1 to five days. Wood collection for domestic use for 

permanent settlements depends very much on the proximity of the settlement to the 

mangrove vegetation and the availability of alternate sources of wood fuel or energy. Hoekstra 

et al. (1997) provided following details for multiple uses of mangrove wood in Indus Delta 

region. 

Table 7 - Uses of wood by fishermen communities in Indus Delta 

Harvest Purpose Shah Kharochan Keti East Port 

Bundar 

Bundar Karachi Qasim 

For sale - - Xxx Xxx Xx 

During fishing X X X X X 

For domestic use X Xxx X X Xxx 

Xxx = significant quantity xx = medium quantity x = small quantity 

2.5.1.6 Over Fishing: The inhabitants in Keti Bundar depend mainly on fishing for their 

livelihood. They are overexploiting the fish resource and using unsustainable methods of 

fishing. Reduced river flow is also responsible for decrease in fishery resource. This shortage 

of fishery resource is diverting the people dependence more on mangroves for their livelihood. 

2.6 Constraints for Agriculture development in Keti Bundar. 

Agriculture development in the coastal belt is constrained by different physical, chemical and 

social factors. 

• Constraints increase with increasing intensity of salinity. Soil salinity is the most 

dominant limiting factor in the region, especially during the dry season. It affects 

certain crops at different levels/ stages of growth, which reduces yield. A substantial 

area of land is tidally affected by saline water. Appropriate management practices for 

crop production in this area are not available. 

• Scarcity of quality irrigation water during dry season limits cultivation of crops. 

• Variability of rainfall, uncertainty also affects crop production. Drought also restricts 

cultivation. 

• Crop choices are limited by salt tolerating ability of crops, narrow technological and 

Germplasm bases. 

• Disease and pests. Extensive cultivation of a particular crop year after year makes the 

crop susceptible to pests and diseases attack. 

• Soil texture of most of the saline soils varies from silt clay to clay. Land preparation is 

difficult when soil dries out. Deep and wide cracks develop and surface soil becomes 

very hard. This necessitates deep and rapid tillage operations. 

• Water logging in low lands restricts potential land use. 

• Lack of appropriate extension programmes for diffusion of modern technologies is also 

a big constraint in development. 



• Big land ownership and unfavourable land tenure system and dominance of absentee 

farmers discourage adoption of modern technologies. 

• Difficult communication and remote marketing facilities also retard Agriculture 

development of the area. 

2.7 Suggestions for Improvement: 

• Coordinated Resource Management Approach: For the management of mangroves 

coordinated resource management approach should be adopted as it is a cooperative 

method to resolve renewable resource management problems. It is a tool for coordinating 

planning, management and educational activities with the concerned government 

agencies like Sindh Forest Department, Coastal Development Authority and District 

Governments, civil society organisations and local farming and fishermen communities. 

• Rehabilitation of Mangrove Vegetation: Afforestation should be carried out on blank 

areas through adopting proper silvicultural practices. This activity may be assigned to 

Sindh Forest department by providing adequate manpower having expertise in mangroves 

management. In addition to Avicennia marina other species like Rhizophora mucronata, 

Ceriops tagal and Aegiceras corniculata should be reintroduced to the area. 

• Political Will: Awareness regarding importance of mangrove ecosystems towards their 

role in sheltering the coastline areas, economic development and environmental 

protection of the country should be created amongst the leadership at various levels. This 

will help in policy formulation and implementation of improvement works. Another 

important step is to organise communities through rigorous social organisation. The focus 

groups should be the people living inside creeks where most of the mangrove forests exist 

and fishing is practiced. 

• Alternate Sources of Energy: To reduce the pressure on mangrove forests alternate 

sources of energy such as electricity, solar energy, wind energy and natural gas may be 

explored and provided. 

• Research: Scientific studies on fresh water requirements of mangroves, choice of 

species, salt tolerance of various plants, etc may be carried out. 

• Environmental Flows: There is a serious need that concerned federal and provincial 

government departments, academic institutions and the civil society organisations and 

those who control water flow in river such as WAPDA, Irrigation Departments along with 

representatives from the target communities should discuss and agree on a minimum 

quantity of water to make available to deltaic region year round for sustaining the 

ecological health. A number of studies have so far been conducted in the past to assess 

the optimum amount of environmental flows but there seems a serious lack of will to 

implement such decisions or accords. A further delay to decide and implement the desired 

amount of water will result in irreversible damage to the ecosystems in the deltaic region. 

2.8 Conclusions 

Keti Bundar ecosystem is in the process of deterioration at a very fast pace. The floral 

diversity is very low with respect to palatable grasses, trees and shrubs because of reduced 

supply of fresh water in the River Indus, seawater intrusion, overgrazing and, overexploitation 

etc. Salinity level in soil is on the increase, indicated by the dominance of halophytic species 

even in the mainland flora. The degradation of mangrove ecosystem and shrinkage in 



forested area is occurring not only due to hypersalinity and local pressure of wood and fodder 

harvest, but also due to erosion by sea uprooting the full grown Avicennia trees. The 

increasing intensity of erosion is may be due to a combination factors such as lack of silt 

deposition due to meagre flow of river water into delta and the overall sea level rise due to 

climate change. Immediate rehabilitation measures through ensuring certain amount of Indus 

River freshwater flow into the delta, coordinated resource management approach; alternate 

sources of energy and creation of awareness amongst the leadership are required to restore 

the healthy ecosystem in the area. 



2.9 Satellite Remote Sensing Based Forest Change Mapping and 

Monitoring of Mangrove Forests of Keti Bundar 

GIS Team, WWF - Pakistan 



2.9.1 Introduction 

WWF has ranked the terrestrial Global 200 Ecoregions by their conservation status. Indus 

Ecoregion is one of the Global 200 Ecoregions. This ecoregion inhabits one of the only four 

obligate freshwater dolphin species, the Indus River Dolphin, more than 320 species of birds, 

38 endemic fish species and marine turtles. Eight Ramsar sites are included in the Indus 

Delta ecoregion; Haleji Lake, Jubho lagoon, Keenjhar Lake, Nurri Lagoon, Deh Akro 11 

Wetlands Complex, Drigh Lake, Indus Dolphin Reserve and Indus Delta. 

Indus Delta occupies an approximate area of 600,000 hectares. Seventeen major creeks and 

innumerable minor creeks and extensive mud flats characterize it. It is classified as the fifth 

largest delta in the world. 

The creeks of Indus Delta Ramsar Site provide support to marine cetaceans in the creeks, 

Smooth coated otter, Marsh crocodile and eight freshwater Turtle species. Recent surveys 

2005 - 2006 indicated a variety of small marine cetaceans in the creeks such as Indo Pacific 

Humpback Dolphin (59), Bottle-nosed Dolphins (18) and Finless Porpoise (52) and these 

numbers increased to 976, 68 and 241, respectively in the beach surveys. Indus Delta also 

supports other marine life including economically important marine and freshwater fish 

resources. Due to unsustainable fishing practices and reduced water flows, fish catch has 

declined. Palla (Tenulosa ilisha) locally swims up from the Arabian Sea to spawn in 

freshwater. Many species have become extinct or are endangered, such as freshwater 

Gharial (extinct in the wild), Olive Ridley and Green Turtles. Hog deer that was common in the 

riverine forests area has become endangered. 

It is estimated that about 160,000 hectares of Indus Delta is occupied by mangrove 

vegetation. Mangrove ecosystems are considered to be highly productive and support local 

fisheries resources. Mangrove forest is an integral part of inter-tidal zone of the coastal 

environment extending throughout the tropics and subtropics of the world (Giri and Delsol, 

1993). The term mangrove forest does not imply woody plants alone but includes other flora 

and fauna which utilize a coastal, saline, depositional environment, involving a variety of 

coastal landforms, with typically anaerobic soil (Ashraf et al. 2004). 

In the recorded history, first commercial use of mangroves is reported in 1842 immediately 

after the British occupation of lower Sindh, where river communication was established and 

firewood from these mangroves was used for the steamers and flotillas. This was abandoned 

after the development of railways in the region. Thereafter, local people for grazing and 

browsing of livestock, predominantly camels, used the coastal forest as a resource (Ahmad, 

1983). 

The construction of dams and six barrages and extreme irrigation has affected the flow of 

freshwater in the Indus estuary. The past several years have seen significant reductions in the 

flow of the river and consequent decline in sediment discharge which has severely impacted 

the mangroves. Several key species that once inhabited this region are no longer supported 

by the declining ecological conditions. Indus Delta mangroves are facing with several serious 

anthropogenic and natural threats and pressures, which have reduced their productivity and 

growth drastically. Major reported threats and stresses are listed as; 

• Reduction in annual flow of freshwater; 

• Reduction in silt and nutrients; 

• Over cutting for fuel and fodder 

• Over browsing by camels; 

• Pollution from expanding domestic and industrial areas of Karachi and 

navigational activities 

• Sea water intrusion 

• Urbanization and industrialization (Keerio, 2004). 



2.9.2 Study Area 

The study area lies in Indus Delta and covers 14% of the deltaic area. It extends from 67º 32’ 

to 67º 20’ longitude and from 24º 46’ to 24º 3’ parallels and comprises over an area of 81,801 

ha (818 Km 2) . Area comprises of four major creeks i.e., Chann, Hajamro, Turshan and Kharo 

Chann (Figure 14). 

Main vegetation types of the area are mangroves, mixed terrestrial vegetation (mainly 

Prosopis juliflora and halophtytic spp.) and marine algae. 

Figure 14. Location map of the study area 

2.9.3 Purpose of the study 

The report aims to map the current extent of mangrove forests and to do 

quantitative comparison of mangroves status over the fifteen year period by 

using recent and historic satellite images. 



2.9.4 Materials and Methods 

2.9.4.1 Data Used: Georeferenced satellite images of Landsat, ASTER and SPOT were 

procured from the data vendors. The images were converted into metric coordinate system 

(i.e., Universal Transverse Mercator – UTM, Zone 42) with Spheroid and Datum as WGS 84. 

For this purpose 2 nd order polynomial was used so as to incorporate the planimetric details in 

the image. The criteria used for Satellite data characteristics are provided in Annex IJ. 

Due to the unavailability of temporal satellite data of same resolution, images of 

varied spatial resolution were used. The satellite image characteristics are shown in 

Table 8 below. 

Table 8 -. Characteristic of Satellite Data 

Satellite Sensor Spatial Resolution Acquisition date Tide Height 

(m) 

(m) 

Landsat TM 30 27-04-1992 Not available 

TERRA ASTER 15 24-12-2001 1.3 

SPOT SPOT-5 2.5 and 10 30-04-2007 3.2 

2.9.4.2 Software Used: Image pre-processing and high resolution merge was performed by 

using ERDAS Imagine 8.7®. Onscreen digitization was done by using ArcView 3.1. All the 

maps were prepared in Arc GIS 9.0®. For documentation and analysis Microsoft Word and 

Excel were used. 

2.9.4.3 Data Preparation 

• Image import : Procured satellite images were in Tiff (SPOT and Landsat) and HDF 

(ASTER) image formats. Images were imported into .img format to make it compatible 

with the image processing software i.e., ERDAS IMAGINE 8.7 

• Truncation of Study Area: The study area was truncated on the Area of Interest (AOI) 

i.e., Chann, Hajamro, Turshan and Kharo Chann creeks. This process is shown in Figure 

15. 

Figure 15 - Truncation of the study area 

2.9.4.4 Satellite Image Enhancement: The process of enhancing a low contrast satellite 

image to high contrast by the application of various algorithms is known as contrast 

enhancement. After import, satellite image exhibits inherent low contrast making the image 

darker with darker tones. In order to convert this low contrast image to a high contrast image 



Standard Deviation Stretch and Brightness Contrast Control were used for image 

enhancement. These algorithms enhanced the low contrast of satellite images and made 

them more interpretable for further processing. Annexure J – III describes the spectral bands. 

• High Resolution Merge: SPOT multispectral imagery has lower spatial resolution (10m) 

and four spectral bands as compared to its panchromatic layer that characterizes higher 

spatial resolution (2.5m) and a single spectral band. High-resolution merge with 

multiplicative and bilinear interpolation were used to improve the visual interpretability of 

the images. Output image (Figure 16) is a high-resolution (2.5m) multispectral image with 

improved / greater level of details which was integrated with GIS layers. The high 

resolution image significantly helped for the assignment of vegetation classes. Annexures 

J – I, J – II and J - IV show data specifications of the Spot 5, Aster and Landsat, 

respectively. 

Figure 16 . Arrow define increasing level of resolution (A) multispectral, 10m 

(B) panchromatic, 2.5m (C) high resolution merged imagery 

2.9.5 Ground Truthing 

Ground truthing refers to the acquisition of knowledge about the study area from fieldwork, 

analysis of aerial photography, personal experience etc (Schradar and Pouncy, 1997). Main 

objective of the ground truthing was to correlate the reflectance values of the satellite image 

with the ground reality. 



For ground truthing a field visit was arranged from 1 st to 4 th February 2008. Field visit was 

arranged with the co-operation Keti Bundar Site Office of Indus For All Programme. Land 

vehicle and boat were used to navigate in the field. Land vehicles were used to take 

observations of the easily accessible area by road. Whereas, the observations of mangroves 

along narrow creeks and around the peripheries of mud flats were made possible by boat. 

Sampling points were collected in five major creeks i.e., Chann, Kaangri, Hajamro, Khobar 

and Turshan. 

SPOT – 5 image with False Colour Composites (FCC) was used to develop field maps. A2 

size maps were printed at a scale of 1:25,000 with geographic grid interval of 30 seconds. GIS 

layers of settlements and creeks were also overlaid on the maps. 

Gamin 76CSX Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver and digital camera were used during 

the field visit. 57 waypoints were collected by using the GPS receiver at different spots of Keti 

Bundar area. Figure 17 shows collected GPS coordinates on map. Field observation forms 

were used for the mangrove data collection. Field observation form for the data recording of 

mangrove forest contained columns of latitude, longitude, cover, age class and description. 

Four categories of age class were defined on the basis of maturity i.e., new germination, 

juvenile, pole and mature. To record mangroves density four forest density classes were 

defined which are shown in Table 8. 

Table 9 - Mangroves density classes with percentage tree cover 

Mangrove Density Classes % Tree Cover 

Dense 80 – 100 

Medium 60 – 70 

Sparse 40 – 50 

Very Sparse 10 30 

Figure 17 - Field observation points in Keti Bundar 



2.9.6 Field Observation Points 

Avicennia marina was observed as a dominating species of mangroves in the area. Some 

large patches of Aegiceras corniculata and Rhizophora mucronata were also observed on the 

Northern side of the AOI. 

Oryza (son grass) and Halophytic shrubs were the other main vegetation types mostly present 

in the southern side of the area. Most of the coastal vegetation mapping studies contains 

discrepancies in mangroves area estimation due to the mixing of the grasses/bushes. Ground 

control points for this class were collected so that this class could be efficiently mapped and 

segregated in the satellite image. 

One of the major threats observed during field visit was the indiscriminate camel grazing 

and mangroves harvesting all over the area. This is mainly done by locals settled in 

Turshan, Hajamro and Khober creeks. This could be one of the reasons for the sparseness 

in the canopies and low occurrence of mangroves in the southern side of the project area. 

Annexure J – V describes the field observation points. 

Figure 18 -- (a) Digital photograph of camel grazing (b) Halophytic area on satellite image 

and (c) digital photograph of the same area 

Large patches of pole and mature mangroves were observed in Chann Creek area (Figure 

19). The area is hard to access but the forest has been significantly managed by the Forest 

Department. At this site mangroves were dense and tree height varies from 1.5 - 4 meter 

approx. 

Figure 19 - (a) Digital photograph of mangrove forest in pole stage (b) GPS coordinates 

overlaid on satellite image and (c) Mature mangroves forest in Chann creek area 



In Chann creek, area facing Arabian Sea has high rate of soil erosion (Figure 20). 

According to the local people, there was a large dense patch of mangrove forest 20-30 

years back which is totally diminished in the sea water. For future monitoring, two 

mangrove trees were selected i.e., one stable tree at the edge of mudflat while other 15.2 

meter away. Future monitoring will lead to calculate per year erosion rate. 

Figure 20 - Digital photo-mosaic of high erosion rate area of Chann creek, inset picture 

shows the tree marked for future monitoring 

It was observed during the field survey that no algae was present on the mudflats when the 

atmospheric temperature was high whereas on the fourth day temperature was 

comparatively low (due to rainfall and cool sea breeze on 3rd and 4th day) and a thin layer 

of algae on large mudflats near Keti Bundar village was observed (Figure 21). According to 

the scientific research and discussion with the locals, algal phenology is season dependent 

i.e., lower the temperature, higher is the algal bloom. Algae due to the reflection of infrared 

radiation of electromagnetic spectrum appear in pinkish tone when seen in satellite image 

of SPOT with FCC 1, 2, 3. 

Figure 21 - Algae (a) digital photograph, (b) satellite image and (c) close view of algae 

2.9.7 Development of Forest Cover Maps 

Satellite sensor record electromagnetic radiation response by the earth features in digital 

format. The response of spectrum values of different features depends on internal 

characteristics of particular features. On the basis of pixels spectral values, thematic layer 

is generated which is called as classification or landcover/landuse mapping. For the forest 

cover estimation from the images captured in 1992, 2001 and 2007, onscreen digitization 

methodology was adopted. 

For better interpretation of satellite images different band combinations were used. Band 

combinations for SPOT, ASTER and Landsat varied depending upon the spectral 

resolution and availability of suitable bands for the vegetation mapping. For the mapping 



and analysis of various vegetation types in ASTER satellite image, the band combination of 

3n, 2, 1, as seen in Red, Green, Blue (RGB) was preferred to achieve maximum 

information of vegetative classes in band 3n of Near Infrared, band 2 and 1 in visible part 

of electromagnetic spectrum. FCC 4, 3, 2 for Landsat and 1, 2, 3 for SPOT were used for 

better visual interpretation. 

On the basis of image interpretation keys i.e., tone, texture, colour, shadow, association 

etc., different mangrove density classes were defined. Mangroves density layers were 

developed on the basis of sparseness and closeness of the canopies. Field data, 

spectral verification techniques and local area information were quite useful to account 

for the subtle variations in the forest cover map. 

• Dense mangroves were in bright red tone with coarser texture. Coarser texture was 

due to the shadowing effect. Association with tidal creeks and the outer peripheries 

were also helpful in identification of this landcover feature. 

• On the other hand medium and sparse mangroves were in a bit lighter tone and had 

smoother texture. 

• Pink patches were early stages showing regeneration and new recruitment or 

sparseness of mangroves 

• Halophytic shrubs due to low chlorophyll vigour and high spatial frequency appeared in 

maroonish grey colour. 

• Pinkish to violet tinge was a sign of the presence of algae on mud. These areas were 

mostly on the inland side and were also closer to shallow/stagnant water. This 

association and field data significantly helped to segregate algal patches from 

mangroves. 

For uniformity in visual interpretation, satellite images were interpreted and analyzed at 

a scale of 1:20,000 for Terra and SPOT satellite data, while for the LANDSAT data to 

accommodate the lower spatial resolution this delineation was made at a scale of 1: 

25,000. SPOT 10m was used to delineate the forest classes whereas 2.5m high 

resolution merged image was used as an ancillary data in addition to ground truth data. 

Polygon based coding mechanism was adopted according to which each of the 

polygons was assigned with the appropriate ID of the representative class or species. 

IDs used for the representative land cover classes are shown in the Table 3. 

Table 10 - Coding used to populate grid-based polygons 

ID 

Representative Land Cover 

Class 

1 Dense Mangroves 

2 Medium Mangroves 

3 Sparse Mangroves 

4 Very Sparse Mangroves 

5 Saltbush/Grasses 

6 Algae 



2.10 Results and Discussion 

2.10.1 Forest cover derived from 1992 satellite data 

From the analysis of Landsat image of 1992, it was noted that the total mangrove cover of the 

area was 9,497 ha, out of which dense mangrove cover was about 1,966 ha (20%), medium 

mangrove cover was about 1,431 ha (15%), sparse mangrove cover was about 3,494 ha 

(37%) and very sparse mangrove cover was about 2,606 ha (28%). In addition thin algal mats 

have also been noted in the Landsat image of 1992, covering an area of about 200 ha (Figure 

22). Halophytic shrubs and grasses cover an area of about 832 ha. 


Based on Aster image of 2001, the mangrove canopy cover analysis shows that the total 

mangrove cover in the area was about 7,559 ha. Dense mangrove cover was about 1,532 ha 

(20%), medium mangrove cover was about 1,265 ha (17%), sparse mangrove cover was 

about 2,880 ha (38%) and very sparse mangrove cover was about 1,882 ha (25%). Mix class 

of Halophytic shrubs / grass class covers an area about 508 ha. 

In addition, some of the pure patches of algae were identified and delineated along the inland 

side which cover an area of 836 ha approx. 


From the analysis of SPOT image of 2007, it was noted that the total mangrove cover in study 

area is 7,241 ha, out of which dense mangrove cover is about 1,578 ha (22%), medium 

mangrove cover is about 1,338 ha (18%), sparse mangrove cover is about 2,886 ha (40%) 

and very sparse mangrove cover is about 1,439 ha (20%). In addition thin/sparse algal mats 

spread over 889 ha of land were delineated from 2007s dataset. 

Table11 - Tabular representation of biomass change analysis (1992, 2001 & 2007) 

Mangrove 

Cover 

Dense 

1992 

1,966 

2001 

1,352 

2007 

(1 

1,578 

Change 

992-2001) 

ha 

-343 

Change 

(2001 -2007) 

ha 

-46 

Medium 1,431 1,265 1,338 -166 -73 

Sparse 3,494 2,880 2,886 -614 -6 

Very Sparse 2,606 1,882 1,439 -725 +443 

Total 9,497 7,559 7,241 -1938 -318 

Saltbush/grasses 8,32 424 508 +402 +106 

Algae 200 825 889 -635 -54 



Figure 22. Forest cover maps derived from 1992, 2001 and 2007 satellite data 



2.11 Change Analysis 

2.11.1 Change in Mangrove Density Levels 

Statistical values have been used to represent the change in mangroves density classes for 

three different dates. Graphical representation shows that there was decrease in different 

density levels of mangrove from 1992 to 2001. On the other hand a positive trend for dense, 

medium and sparse mangroves is analyzed in 2007. Very sparse mangroves show a negative 

trend which might be due to the high tide value at the time of acquisition of images. 

Figure 23 - Graphical representation of change in 

4,000 

3,500 

3,000 

2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

1992 2001 Years 2007 

Dense 

Mangroves 

Medium 

Mangroves 

Sparse 

Mangroves 

Very Sparse 

Mangroves 

mangroves density levels from 1992, 2001 and 2007 

2.11.2 Change in Mangrove Extent 

Forest mapping is done by considering four density levels on the basis of percentage cover of 

the area. These four density levels i.e., dense, medium, sparse and very sparse mangroves 

were merged into a single broad mangrove category for change analysis in terms of extent. 

Bar graph representing change status in mangroves extent at three different years i.e., 1992, 

2001 and 2007 is shown in Figure 24. 

10000 

9000 

8000 

7000 

6000 

5000 

4000 

3000 

2000 

1000 

0 

Figure 24 - Temporal (1992-2007) change of mangrove forest 

in Keti Bundar 



For change trend analysis, four mangrove density levels were merged into a single mangrove 

class and different possible levels of change in mangrove status were mapped. Magnitude of 

change is shown in terms of intensity of the colours as shown in Figure 25. 

Figure 25 - Change status of mangroves extent from 1992-2007 



2.11.3 Description of Mangroves Change Status (1992, 2001 & 2007) 

“No change since 1992” class covers an area of 5336 ha. This class comprises of 

the mangroves extent that has not been changed from 1992 to date. 

“Only in 1992’ class represent mangrove that are present in 1992 and no more 

exists in 2001 and 2007 that might be due to deforestation, soil and wind erosion and less 

freshwater availability. This class covers a large extent of 3218 ha and is spread along the 

channels as well as on the mudflats. 

“Only in 2001” class represent mangrove that are present in 2001 and not 

classified/identified in 1992 and 2007 imageries. This class defines mangroves that were 

regenerated within 1992-2001 but couldn’t reach to maturity. 

“Only in 2007” class represent mangrove that are present in 2007 data only and 

covers an area of 517 ha approx. This class mainly consists of mangroves that are regenerated 

in the area after year 2001. 

“Exist in 1992 and 2007” This class covers an area of approx 282 ha and 

comprises of mangroves that exists both in 1992 and 2007 but were not present in 2001 data. 

The results show that there was decrease in its extent in 2001 but mangroves regroomed 

during 2001-2007. 

“Exist in 2001 and 2007” class consists of mangroves that were not present in 

1992 but exists in 2001 and 2007 data. This class covers an area of approx 1407 ha and 

highlights satisfactory increasing trend in mangroves extent. 

“Exist in 1992 and 2001” class consists of mangroves that do not survive in 2007 

but present in 1992 and 2001 imageries. This category highlights an alarming trend of 

mangroves decrease at specific areas and covers an area of approx 688 ha. 

It is evident from the temporal satellite images that some areas are facing acute soil erosion by 

the Sea. Figure 26 highlights one example of such area in which dense mangrove patch 

(highlighted in yellow polygon) of 50 ha remained stable from 1975 to 1992, but totally vanished 

in 2007. This high erosion rate would result in the formation of new creek in future. 



Figure 26 - An example of forest degradation due to erosion 

In contrast to the above mentioned statements, mangroves in 

Chann creek area are comparatively in stable condition. Change 

analysis highlights that the mangroves in this area are mostly 

defined with “No Change class: or increased density classes”. 

Only in 2007 class covers an area of about 517 ha which is 

satisfactory and defines the reforestation and afforestation in the 

area. (Figure 27 – Mangroves in Chann) 

The extent of algal bloom is not constant from 1992 to 2007. As discussed previously 

that algae remain present in the marine ecosystems but during low temperatures it 

proliferates. Another possible hypothesis for algal bloom in low temperatures could be 



the increased concentration of pollutants. This could be attributed to the fact that the low 

temperature season is also the dry season with less water reaching the delta. This can 

cause concentration of organic pollutants which provide nutrients to algae to thrive. 

Furthermore, industrial pollutants from upstream also reach this area with add on effect 

to algal growth. As the water level increases upstream it dilutes both organic and 

inorganic pollutants, algae begin to shrink but at the same time temperature is also 

increasing. It seems possible that both temperature and water availability are important 

factors controlling algal growth. Analysis reveal an interesting result i.e., extent of algae 

was 200 ha in April 1992 whereas 889 ha in April 2007 (Figure 28). The months of 

satellite image acquisition are same but there is huge difference in the algal extent. The 

difference appears to be the result of less freshwater availability and relatively more 

pollution due to the formation of new industries which enhance the eutrophication 

phenomenon. 

Figure 28 - Temporal change in algal extent, algae are displayed in orange colour 

SPOT 2.5m high resolution merged image provided the opportunity to define vegetation 

classes with greater level of confidence. Pure and large dense patches of halophytic 

shrurbs were identified in the satellite images whereas sparse halophytic shrub patches 

on small area remained undefined due to the spectral and spatial limitations of satellite 

images. 

One of the limitations of the study was the high tide value at the time of acquisition of 

SPOT image. Although best available recent SPOT image was acquired but the tide 

height was 3.6m at the time of acquisition of the image. In 2007’s thematic layer, high 

tide value hampered the ability to identify very sparse mangroves class along the creeks 

and comparatively low elevation areas. That is why “Very Sparse Mangrove” class has 

less coverage area when compared with 2001 data. 



2.12 Conclusions and Recommendations 

The results of this study reveal that there has been a decrease of 1,938 ha of mangroves 

extent from 1992 to 2001. The mangrove forest degradation rate shows that 20% of 

mangroves present in 1992 vanished completely by 2001. A relatively positive trend of 

mangroves has been analyzed between 2001 and 2007 among three classes of 

mangrove; dense, medium and sparse. However, a decrease in ‘very sparse mangroves’ 

class was observed, which could be attributed to the fact that the 2007 satellite image, 

although the best available image, was captured during the high tide. A high tide image 

minimizes the reflectance of very sparse mangroves and result in less extent of this 

class. 

Large mangrove forest clusters towards open sea are relatively intact with no variation in 

their middle regions. However, their peripheries are subject to the negative change due 

to the dynamic geomorphology of the area. The Mangrove forest towards the northern 

part of the Keti Bundar area (Chann creek area closer to the inland) is comparatively 

stable in condition. This can be because of the protection offered by the Sindh Forest 

Department. 

Detailed field survey and SPOT 2.5m high resolution merged image significantly helped 

in segregating halophytic shrubs and grasses from mangroves. Field data collection form 

to record density classes helped in developing forest cover map more accurately. 

Most of the coastal mapping studies contain discrepancies due to misclassification of 

algae as mangroves. In this study, algae were identified as a separate class that 

improved the accuracy and produced reliable data. It has been observed that algal belt 

increased from 200 ha to 889 ha in the fifteen year period. It is recommended to conduct 

further investigation to evaluate the occurrence and distribution of algae on large mud 

areas. Study of soil chemistry, pollution sources and seasonal variation in the algal 

extent would further benefit the programme in evaluating its impact on mangroves forest. 

The study recommends developing a predictive model by using current and historic (if 

available) data with different temporal ranges from 1950 - 2007. The developed model 

could be used in defining change trend patterns more precisely. This will help in 

management and conservation. 

It is also suggested to use remotely sensed data (landcover and soil classification maps) 

for the definition of suitable mangroves plantation sites. Temporal high resolution images 

can also be used to monitor the success of afforestation of mangroves. 



3 - Keenjhar Lake 

A Fresh Water body Ecosystem 

Figure 29. SatelliteImage of Keenjhar Lake 



3.1 Brief History of Keenjhar Lake 

Keenjhar Lake is situated at a distance of 113 km from Karachi and about 20 km North 

and North – East of Thatta town between the longitude of 68 and 69 o NE and latitude 24 

and 25 o N. It is a freshwater Lake having an area of about 145 km 2 (Anon 1999). The 

maximum depth of the Lake is 8m. Keenjhar Lake is located in stony desert, composed 

of alternating layers of limestone and sandstone. Historically it is formed by the union of 

two Lakes, Sonehri and Keenjhar through the construction of an embankment on their 

eastern side in 1950s. Originally these Lakes came into being when River Indus 

changed its course, cutting-off these Lakes. Before the construction of embankment, the 

Lakes were fed by a dozen hill torrents on the western side. Now it gets most of its water 

from Indus River through canal. With this background, Keenjhar may be regarded as 

semi natural Lake. The Lake is fed by the Kalri Baghar canal originating from Kotri 

Barrage that enters at the northwest corners, and by many small seasonal streams 

entering on the western and northern shores. The only outlet is through the Jam branch 

canal at the southeast corner of the Lake (Anon, 2006). The Lake is known as the 

largest freshwater Lake of the country and its main source is from Indus River, however, 

some proportion of water is contributed from the run off from the adjacent hills and 

torrents. The local villagers residing around the Lake are using water for their daily 

consumption (Anon, 2006). Keenjhar Lake is the main source of water supply to Karachi 

and parts of Thatta district. 

. 

Anon (1999) described that at its initial stage the Lake was around 18.5 meters deep, 

however, due to subsequent siltation from River Indus the depth has reduced to 5-6.5 

meters. There are about 62 small and large villages around the Lake which fall in four 

Union Councils viz: Sonda, Oongar, Jhimpir and Chatto Chan of Tehsil and District 

Thatta. 

Sonahri, Chill, Ghandri, Chakro, Moldi, Dolatpur, Chilliya, Khambo, and Hilllaya are the 

major villages. Jhimpir town is also situated on the north western bank of the Lake. 

Before partition, it was surrounded by a population of about 40, 000 fishermen living in 

the villages mentioned above. However, with the construction of link canal and gradual 

shortage of water the population of fishermen communities started declining as evident 

from the table 12 (Anon 2006). 

Table 12 - Comparison of Fishermen Population and Fish Production 

Year Population 

Fish Production 

(Metric Tons) 

No. of Boats 

1988-89 24355 58000 2200 

1998-99 11900 27000 1710 

2005-06 10320 15650 820 

Source: Anon (2006). 

About 50,000 people are dependent on the Lake. There are four fish-landing centres at 

the Lake Viz., Khumbo, Chilya, Sonheri and Jhimpir. Total 800 fishing crafts are 

operating in the area. The fishers have their own fishing territories and the local 

community defined them properly (Anon, 2006). For example, the people from the 



Sonheri village have their own fishing grounds and they never fished in the territories of 

the Jhimpir areas (Anon 2006). 

The main casts/ tribes present are Palari, Shora, Kapai, Gandara, Hilaya, Turk, Katiyar, 

Khaskheli and Sarki etc. The major occupation of the community is fishing and 

agriculture. People belonging to Palari, Shora, Hilaya and Turk tribes are involved in 

agriculture around the Lake. Pesticides are widely used in the cultivated area. People 

have livestock especially buffaloes, goats and cows etc. and they graze them in the 

buffer zone and around the Lake. Other casts are involved in fishing and commonly 

known as Mirbahar. The fishing practices of the local communities are generally 

sustainable. The locals hardly use small mesh size nets to catch the fish. The permanent 

circular nets placed in the Lake locally known, as “Gol Jaar” is also sustainable way of 

fishing. 

The level of education is low. Twelve primary schools for boys and one high school for 

boys are present in the area. Health and Nutrition Development Society (HANDS), has 

also established a community school in one of the villages in collaboration with 

Gandhara Welfare Association. However, for girl’s education the priority has not been 

given, therefore, the illiteracy rate among the women is near to 99%. 

The civil dispensaries are present in the four union councils of the area but due to weak 

monitoring by the health department they are not working properly. Generally people are 

suffering from malaria and gastrointestinal diseases. 

Due to decline in fisheries some people are also involved in the mining of stones from 

the nearby stony hills. Some communities are also earning income from the local tourists 

coming from Karachi, Hyderabad and Thatta for recreational purpose. They have the 

speedboats and they usually charge Rs. 1000 to Rs. 1500 per day based on the time 

and trip. These boats do not have any safety gears on them, therefore lots of accidents 

have been occurring in the past and many people lost their lives. 

Sindh Tourism Development Corporation has developed a Tourist Center there with Airconditioned 

Lodges and visitor’s facility. The facility has been developed in a stretch of 

about 2 km towards eastern side of the Lake and they charge an entrance fee from 

vehicles and/or visitors into this area. 

Irrigation department has a small set up and have a rest house. Towards south-western 

side of the Lake the Karachi Water Sewerage Board has its own set up to regulate the 

outlet of the Lake. Pakistan Army has also established a rest house on the eastern side 

of the Lake. 

Fisheries Department is also active in the area. It has established a modest facility over 

Keenjhar Lake and owns a large set up in Chillya, which is about 10 km away from here. 

In Chillya, Fisheries Department has training centre and a hostel along with fish 

hatchery. 



3. 2. State of Biodiversity: 

Keenjhar Lake was declared Wildlife Sanctuary in 1977 under Sindh Wildlife Protection 

Ordinance, 1972. The sanctuary has a buffer zone of 5 km. It has also been designated 

as Ramsar site during 1976 (Anon 1999). 

3.2.1 Flora: The Lake has a rich flora of submerged, floating and emergent aquatic 

plants such as Potamogeton spp., Najas minor, Nelumbo nucifera, Nymphaea spp., 

Cyperus spp., Phragmites spp., Typha spp., etc. These provide both food and shelter to 

fauna species. Many birds reside in the thick growth of Typha and Phragmites. The land 

around the Lake has a rich diversity of semiaquatic to dry land plant species. 

3.2.2 Fauna: Keenjhar Lake is rich in fish fauna. It includes Ambassis nana, Badis spp. 

Puntius sarana, Puntius ticto, Catla catla, Channa spp. Cirrhinus mrigala, 

Ctenopharyngodon idellus, Gadusia chapra, Glossogobius spp. Labeo rohita, Labeo 

gonius, Notopterus notopterus and, Rasbora rasbora, etc. The livelihood of the local 

communities mainly depends on these resources. Anon (1999) mentioned an annual 

production of about 700 metric tonnes of fish but there is a potential of producing around 

10, 000 metric tonnes. There has been reduction in the fish stock due to 

overexploitation. 

Keenjhar Lake is an important breeding and wintering and staging area for a wide variety 

of terrestrial and migratory birds. About 65 species of waterfowl have been recorded. 

Amjad and Kidwai (2002) (gave following account of annual waterfowl census at 

Keenjhar Lake. 

Table 13. Population of migratory birds over different years 

Year Total Number of Birds Recorded 

1970s 50,000 – 150,000 

1987 135,000 

1988 205,000 

1990 89,784 

2000 30,220 

2001 38,958 

2002 30,610 

Source: Amjad & Kidwai (2002) 

Breeding birds include Night heron, Cotton teal, Pheasant tailed jacana, Purple Moore 

hen, besides some passerines. The Cotton teal has disappeared in the recent years and 

have not been seen on the Lake for few years. Mammals include Jackals, Fox, 

Porcupine, Mongoose and Rodents. Pangolin is also recorded. Among reptiles snakes 

like cobra and Saw scaled viper is common. Monitor lizards, Spiny tailed lizard are also 

distributed here. 

3.2.3 Agriculture: Rice, sugarcane, maize and vegetables are grown in buffer and 

adjacent areas of the Lake. An account of cultivated plants (woody perennial and 

herbaceous) is provided in Table 14 below. 



Table 14: Cultivated plant species recorded at Keenjhar Lake 


1 

Boraginaceae Cordia myxa L. Phanerophyte 

Small 

tree 

2 

Caesalpiniaceae Cassia alata Linn. Phanerophyte Shrub 

3 Caesalpiniaceae Parkinsonia aculeata L. Phanerophyte Tree 

4 Fabaceae Sesbania bispinosa (Jacq.) W.F. Wight Phanerophyte Subshrub 

5 

Mimosaceae Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) ed Wit. Phanerophyte Tree 

6 Moraceae Ficus benghalensis Phanerophyte Tree 

7 Moraceae Ficus religiosa Phanerophyte Tree 

8 Pedaliaceae Sesamum indicum L. Phanerophyte Shrub 

9 Verbenaceae Clerodendrum inerme Gaertn Phanerophyte Shrub 

3.3 Socio-economic status of communities around Keenjhar Lake 

Keenjhar Lake is one of the major fresh water reservoirs located at Thatta district of 

Sindh province, covering an area of about 14,000 ha. The Lake is rich in fish fauna and 

support the livelihood of about 50000 people. It is important breeding and wintering area 

for a wide variety of birds. 

This artificial reservoir has been formed out of natural depressions called Sonehri and 

Keenjhar Dhandh (depression). The Lake is a vital wetland area of great ecological, 

biological and economic significance. Keenjhar is the major source to provide domestic 

and industrial water supplies to cosmopolitan city of Karachi. 

The communities are living in the settlements of the different sizes of villages and 

hamlets in the programme area. Thirty eight villages are located with two Kms radius 

having population of 18792 members with 2610 households and average household size 

is 7.2. Housing infrastructure around the Lake is very poor, 73.3% of the houses are 

Kacha houses made up with thatch material and consisting of one to two rooms. 

The communities at Keenjhar Lake, in general, are practicing the same cultural norms 

and Sindhi is the predominate language of the area. Gandhra, Mirbahar, Manchri and 

Machhi casts are fishermen, Hillaya, Dars, Autha and Katiar are farmers, while Palari 

Jakhra are the herders. Tables showing different parameters of the socio-economic 

profile of the communities of Keenjhar Lake are provided in Annexures B – VI to B – 

XIV. 

3.3.1 Infrastructure and social services: 

Lake is the main source of drinking water for the communities; about 78% people are 

getting their drinking water from the Lake; whereas 14% people are getting water from 

nearby canal. Area is deprived of sewerage facility, whereas only 27 houses have toilet 

facilities in their houses. About 44% villages have access to the electricity; no gas 

facility is available in the entire Lake area. 

3.3.1.1 Education: About 60% population around the Lake is illiterate; however the ratio 

of primary education is reported as 30%, which is indicating that primary schooling has 

been available there in recent years. Only 5% people are educated up to middle and 3% 



up to matric and graduation level, whereas female illiteracy is 88%. 63% villages have 

primary boy’s schools with average 2 rooms building and two teachers for 83 students. 

About 2.6 % villages have middle school facilities with 6 rooms building and 4 teachers 

for average 50 students, there is no high school for boys and girls in Lake area. Thirty 

six percent villages have primary girl’s schools with 2 rooms and 2 teachers, where as 

2.6% villages have facility for the girls middle school with 6 room building, but no female 

staff is appointed yet for these girls’ middle schools. 

3.3.1.2 Health: Health and hygiene condition of the area is very pathetic. Incidence of 

Malaria, Diarrhoea, skin disease, typhoid and Jaundice were reported in all programme 

villages, but the incidence of the skin disease and malaria was found at alarming level. 

There is dearth of health infrastructure, only 3% villages have dispensaries and one 

village has Basic Health Unit, no Rural Health Centre or hospital is available in the 

program site, 60 % people are visiting private clinics. On an average the private clinics 

and other health facilities are available at a distance of 10 km from their villages. 

Professional maternity services are also missing in the area and 87% births are being 

attended by local birth attendants. Only 1% cases are being handled by the trained Lady 

Health Visitors (LHVs) and about 12% cases are being handled at hospitals and private 

clinics due to some complexities. Child and mother mortality rate is reported 7 % and 

1%, respectively 

3.3.1.3 Livelihood sources and poverty level: There is mix of four major occupations 

around the Lake, Fishing, Agriculture, stone mining and mate making. However, fishing 

is continued to be dominant occupation of the programme area. About 44% community 

members are engaged with fishing, followed by 22% as agriculture labourers and 8% 

engaged in stone mining. Poverty has remained one of the most serious problems of 

the area. Decline in fish catch, poor infrastructure, lack of employment opportunities, 

lack of productive assets, inadequate technical capability and use of inappropriate 

technology is the main factors responsible for their poverty level. Using the poverty line 

of Rs. 1000 per capita income (2004-5 national poverty line of Rs.878 and adding 

inflation rate of 7.5 per year) about 62 % people around Lake are living below poverty 

line with average per capita income of Rs. 971. 

3.4 Results 

3.4.1 Flora of Keenjhar 

Likewise other sites, vegetation assessment of Keenjhar Lake were carried out over 

three years (2006, 2007 and 2008). The cumulative number of species after these 

assessments comes to be 263 in 165 genera and 55 families. Among these, 

Pteridophytes are represented by one species in one genus and one family, Dicot 

Angiosperms by 185 species in 120 genera and 44 families and Monocot Angiosperms 

by 77 species in 44 genera and 10 families. The complete list of species is given in 

Table: 12. Poaceae with 51 species comes to be the largest family followed by 

Fabaceae with 20 species, Asteraceae and Cyperaceae with 15 species each, and 

Convolvulaceae with 12 species. The details of contribution of all recorded families in the 

flora of this site are given in the Table: 30. Among genera, Cyperus with 9 species is the 

largest followed by Tamarix, Heliotropium and Eragrostis with 6 species each, 

Euphorbia, Indigofera and Convolvulus with 5 species each. In addition to natural flora, 



nine species of cultivated plants were also recorded (Table 13). Transect-wise details of 

the Phytosociological aspects of the Keenjhar Lake over three study years is provided in 

Annexure B – I. 

Table 15 - Flora of Keenjhar Lake. 

S.# Family Plant species Life form Habit 

1. Acanthaceae Barleria acanthoides Vahl Phanerophyte Shrub 

2. Acanthaceae Barleria hochstettri Nees Chamaephyte Shrub 

3. Acanthaceae Barleria prionitis L. Phanerophyte Shrub 

4. Acanthaceae Blepharis sindica Stocks ex. T. Anders. Therophyte Herb 

5. Acanthaceae Ruellia patula var. alba Saxton Chamaephyte Shrub 



8. Aizoaceae Zaleya pentandra (L.) Jeffery. Chamaephyte Herb 

9. Amaranthaceae Achyranthes aspera L. Chamaephyte Subshrub 

10. Amaranthaceae 

Aerva javanica (Burm.f.)Juss ex J.A. 

Schultes 

Phanerophyte Shrub 


12. Amaranthaceae Amaranthus graecizans L. Therophyte Herb 



15. Apocynaceae Rhazya stricta Decne Phanerophyte Shrub 

16. Araceae Pistia stratioites L. Hydrophyte Herb 

17. Arecaceae Nanorrhops ritcheana (Griff.) Aitch. Phanerophyte Shrub 

18. Arecaceae Phoenix sylvestris L. Phanerophyte Tree 

19. Aristolochiaceae Aristolochia bracteolata Lamk. Cryptphyte Herb 

20. Asclepiadaceae Calotropis procera (Ait.) Ait.f. Phanerophyte Shrub 

21. Asclepiadaceae Caralluma edulis (Edgew.) Benth. & Hook. Cryptophyte Herb 

22. Asclepiadaceae Glossonema varians (Stocks) Hook.f. Chamaephyte Herb 

23. Asclepiadaceae Leptadenia pyrotechnica (Forsk.) Dcne. Phanerophyte Shrub 

24. Asclepiadaceae Oxystelma esculentum (L.f) R.Br. Cryptophyte Subshrub 

25. Asclepiadaceae 

Pentatropis nivalis (J.F.Gmel.) Field & 

J.R.I.Wood 

Chamaephyte Climber 

26. Asparagaceae Asparagus dumosus Baker Cryptophyte Shrub 

27. Asteraceae Blumea obliqua (L.) Druce Chamaephyte Herb 

28. Asteraceae Conyza aegyptiaca Ait. Camaephyte Herb 

29. Asteraceae Echinops echinatus Roxb. Therophyte Tall herb 


31. Asteraceae Grangea maderaspatana (L.) Poir. Therophyte Herb 

32. Asteraceae Iphiona grantioides Boiss Chamaephyte Subshrub 

33. Asteraceae Launaea procumbens (Roxb.) Amin. Chamaephyte Herb 

34. Asteraceae Launaea remotiflora (DC.) Stebbins Therophyte Herb 

35. Asteraceae Pluchea arguta Boiss. Chamaephyte Subshrub 

36. Asteraceae Pluchea wallichiana DC Phanerophyte Shrub 

37. Asteraceae Pulicaria boissieri Hook.f. Chamaephyte Herb 

38. Asteraceae Sonchus asper L. Hill. Therophyte Herb 

39. Asteraceae Sonchus oleraceus L. Therophyte Herb 

40. Asteraceae Vernonia cinerascens Schultz. Bip. Phanerophyte Shrub 

41. Asteraceae Xanthium strumarium L. Phanerophyte Shrub 




42. Avicenniaceae Avicennia marina L. Phanerophyte Tree 

43. Boraginaceae Coldenia procumbens L. Chamaephyte Herb 

44. Boraginaceae Cordia gharaf (Forsk.) Ehren. ex Asch. Phanerophyte Tree 

45. Boraginaceae Heliotropium calcareum Stocks Chamaephyte Subshrub 

46. Boraginaceae Heliotropium crispum Desf. Chamaephyte Subshrub 

47. Boraginaceae Heliotropium curassavicum L. Chamaephyte Subshrub 

48. Boraginaceae Heliotropium ophioglossum Stocks ex Boiss. Chamaephyte Subshrub 

49. Boraginaceae Heliotropium ovalifolium Forsk. Chamaephyte Herb 

50. Boraginaceae Heliotropium strigosum Willd. Chamaephyte Herb 

51. Boraginaceae Sericostoma pauciflorum Stocks ex Wight Chamaephyte Subshrub 

52. Boraginaceae Trichodesma indicum (L.) R. Br. Chamaephyte Subshrub 

53. Brassicaceae Farsetia hamiltonii Royle Therophyte Herb 

54. Burseraceae Commiphora stocksiana (Engler) Engler Phanerophyte 

Large shrub 

– tree 

55. Burseraceae Commiphora wightii (Arn.) Bhandari Phanerophyte 

Shrub – 

tree 

56. Caesalpiniaceae Senna holosericea (Fresen.) Greuter Chamaephyte Subshrub 

57. Caesalpiniaceae Senna italica Mill. Chamaephyte Subshrub 

58. Capparidaceae Cadaba fruticosa (L.) Druce Phanerophyte Shrub 

59. Capparidaceae Capparis decidua (Forsk.) Edgew. Phanerophyte 

Large 

Shrub 

60. Capparidaceae Capparis spinosa L. Phanerophyte Subshrub 

61. Capparidaceae Cleome brachycarpa Vahl ex DC. Chamaephyte Herb 

62. Capparidaceae Cleome scaposa DC. Therophyte Herb 

63. Capparidaceae Cleome viscosa L. Therophyte Herb 

64. Capparidaceae Gynandropsis gynandra (L.) Briq. Therophyte Herb 

65. Capparidaceae Maerua arenaria (DC) Hook.f. & Thoms Phanerophyte Shrub 

66. Caryophyllaceae Polycarpaea spicata Wight & Arn. Therophyte Herb 


68. Chenopodiaceae Atriplex stocksii Boiss. Chamaephyte Subshrub 



71. Chenopodiaceae Haloxylon stocksii (Boiss.) Benth. & Hooker Phanerophyte Shrub 


73. Chenopodiaceae Suaeda fruticosa Forsk. Ex J.F. Gmelin Phanerophyte Shrub 

74. Convolvulaceae Convolvulus arvensis L. Chamaephyte Climber 

75. Convolvulaceae Convolvulus glomeratus Choisy. Chamaephyte Runner 

76. Convolvulaceae Convolvulus prostratus Forssk. Chamaephyte Herb 

77. Convolvulaceae 

Convolvulus rhyniospermus Hochst. ex 

Choisy 

Chamaephyte 

Herb 

78. Convolvulaceae Convolvulus scindicus Boiss. Chamaephyte Subshrub 

79. Convolvulaceae Cressa cretica L. Therophyte Herb 


81. Convolvulaceae Ipomoea carnea Jacq. Phanerophyte 

Large 

Shrub 

82. Convolvulaceae Ipomoea sindica Stapf Therophyte Climber 


84. Convolvulaceae Merremia hederacea (Burm.f.) Hall.f. Chamaephyte Climber 

85. Convolvulaceae Seddera latifolia Hochst. & Steud. Chamaephyte Subshrub 

86. Cucurbitaceae Citrullus colocynthis (L.) Schrad. Therophyte Herb 




87. Cucurbitaceae Coccinia grandis (L.) Voigt Phanerophyte Climber 

88. Cucurbitaceae Cucumis melo var. agrestis Naud. Therophyte Climber 

89. Cucurbitaceae Cucumis prophetarum L. Chamaephyte Climber 

90. Cucurbitaceae Luffa echinata Roxb. Chamaephyte Climber 

91. Cucurbitaceae Mukia maderaspatana (L.) M.J.Roem. Chamaephyte Climber 

92. Cyperaceae Bolboschoenus affinis (Roth.) Drobov Cryptophyte Sedge 

93. Cyperaceae Bolboschoenus glaucus (L.) S.G. Smith Cryptophyte Sedge 

94. Cyperaceae Cyperus alopecuroides Rottb. Cryphotphyte Sedge 

95. Cyperaceae Cyperus articulatus L. Cryptophyte Sedge 

96. Cyperaceae Cyperus exaltatus L. Cryptophyte Sedge 


98. Cyperaceae Cyperus laevigatus L. Cryptophyte Sedge 

99. Cyperaceae Cyperus longus L. Cryptophyte Sedge 

100. Cyperaceae Cyperus pygmaeus Rottb. Hemicryptophyte Sedge 

101. Cyperaceae Cyperus rotundus L. Cryptophyte Sedge 

102. Cyperaceae Cyperus stoloniferus Retz. Cryptophyte Sedge 

103. Cyperaceae Eleocharis geniculata (L.) Roem. & Schult. Hemicryptophyte Sedge 

104. Cyperaceae Fimbristylis bisumbellata (Forssk.) Bubani Hemicryptophyte Sedge 

105. Cyperaceae 

Pycreus dwarkensis (Sahni & Naithani) 

Hooper 

Hemicryptophyte Sedge 


Schoenoplectus litoralis subsp thermalis 

(Trabut) S.Hooper 

Crytophyte Sedge 

107. Elatinaceae Bergia suffruticosa (Delile) Fenzl. Chaemaephyte Subshrub 

108. Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia caducifolia Haines Phanerophyte 

Large 

Shrub 

109. Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia clarkeana Hk.f. Therophyte Herb 

110. Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia granulata Forsk. Therophyte Herb 

111. Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia hirta L. Therophyte Herb 



114. Euphorbiaceae Phyllanthus reticulatus Poir. Chamaephyte Shrub 


116. Fabaceae 

Alysicarpus ovalifolius (Schumach.) J. 

Leonard 

Therophyte Herb 

117. Fabaceae 

Argyrolobium roseum (Camb.) Jaub. & 

Spach. 


118. Fabaceae Crotalaria burhia Ham. Ex Bth. Phanerophyte Subshrub 

119. Fabaceae Crotalaria medicaginea Lam. Therophyte Herb 

120. Fabaceae Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) Taub. Therophyte Shrub 

121. Fabaceae Indigofera argentea Burm.f. Chamaephyte Herb 

122. Fabaceae Indigofera cordifolia Heyne ex Roth Therophyte Herb 

123. Fabaceae Indigofera hochstetteri Baker Therophyte Herb 

124. Fabaceae Indigofera linifolia (L.f.) Retz. Therophyte Herb 

125. Fabaceae Indigofera oblongifolia Forsk. Phanerophyte Shrub 

126. Fabaceae Rhynchosia minima (L.) DC. Chamaephyte Climber 

127. Fabaceae Melilotus alba Desr. Chamaephyte Herb 

128. Fabaceae Melilotus indica (L.) All. Chamaephyte Herb 

129. Fabaceae Taverniera cuneifolia (Roth.) Arnott Phanerophyte Subshrub 

130. Fabaceae Tephrosia purpurea (L.) Pers. Chamaephyte Subshrub 

131. Fabaceae Tephrosia strigosa (Dalz.) Sant. & Mahcshw. Therophyte Herb 




132. Fabaceae Trifolium alexandrianum L. Therophyte Herb 

133. Fabaceae Trifolium fragiferum Linn Therophyte Herb 

134. Fabaceae Vigna trilobata (L.) Verdc. Therophyte Herb 

135. Gentianaeae Enicostemma hyssopifolium (Willd.) Verdoon Hemicryptophyte Herb 

136. Hydrocharitaceae Hydrilla verticillata (L.f.) Royle Hydrophyte Herb 

137. Illecebraceae Cometes surattensis L. Therophyte Herb 

138. Lamiaceae Salvia santolinifolia Boiss. Chamaephyte Subshrub 

139. Malvaceae Abutilon bidentatum A. Rich. Phanerophyte Subshrub 

140. Malvaceae Abutilon fruticosum Guill.& Perr Phanerophyte Subshrub 

141. Malvaceae Abutilon indicum (Linn.) Sweet Phanerophyte Subshrub 

142. Malvaceae Abutilon muticum (Del.ex DC.) Sweet Phanerophyte Subshrub 

143. Malvaceae Hibiscus micranthus L.f. Chamaephyte Subshrub 

144. Malvaceae Hibiscus scindicus Stocks Chaemaephyte Subshrub 

145. Malvaceae Pavonia Arabica Hochst. & Steud. Chamaephyte Subshrub 

146. Malvaceae Senra incana Cav. Phanerophyte Subshrub 

147. Malvaceae Sida ovata Forssk. Phanerophyte 

Subshrub 

148. Mimosaceae 

Acacia nilotica (L.) Del. subsp. Indica 

(Benth.) Branan 

Phanerophyte Tree 

149. Mimosaceae Acacia senegal (L.)Willd. Phanerophyte Tree 


151. Mimosaceae Prosopis glandulosa Torr. Phanerophyte 

Large 

Shrub 

152. Mimosaceae Prosopis juliflora Swartz Phanerophyte 

Large 

Shrub 

153. Molluginaceae Corbichonia decumbens (Forsk.) Exell Therophyte Herb 

154. Molluginaceae Gisekia Pharnaceodies L. Therophyte Herb 

155. Molluginaceae Glinus lotoides (L.) O.Kuntze. Chamaephyte Herb 

156. Molluginaceae Limeum indicum Stocks ex. T. And. Chamaephyte Herb 

157. Najadaceae Najas minor All. Hydrophyte Herb 

158. Nelumbonaceae Nelumbo nucifera Gaertn. Hydorphyte Herb 

159. Nyctaginaceae Boerhavia procumbens Banks ex Roxb. Cryptophyte Herb 

160. Nyctaginaceae Commicarpus boissieri (Heimerl) Cufod. Phanerophyte Herb 

161. Nymphaeaceae Nymphaea lotus Hook. f. & Thoms. Hydrophyte Herb 

162. Plumbaginaceae Limonium stocksii (Boiss.) O.Kuntze Chamaephyte Subshrub 

163. Poaceae Aeluropus lagopoides (L.) Trin. Ex Thw. Cryptophyte Grass 

164. Poaceae Aristida adscensionis L. Therophyte Grass 

165. Poaceae Aristida funiculate Trin. & Rupr. Therophyte Grass 

166. Poaceae Aristida mutabilis Trin. & Rupr. Therophyte Grass 

167. Poaceae Brachiaria ovalis (R. Br.) Stapf Therophyte Grass 

168. Poaceae Brachiaria ramose (L.) Stapf Therophyte Grass 

169. Poaceae Brachiaria reptans (L.) Gardner & Hubbard Therophyte Grass 

170. Poaceae Cenchrus ciliaris L. Hemicryptophyte Grass 

171. Poaceae 

Cenchrus pennisetiformis Hochst. & Steud. 

ex Steud 

Hemicryptophyte Grass 

172. Poaceae Cenchrus setigerus Vahl. Hemicryptophyte Grass 

173. Poaceae Chloris barbata Sw. Haemicryptophyte Grass 

174. Poaceae Chrysopogon aucheri (Boiss.) Stapf. Hemicryptophyte Grass 

175. Poaceae Cymbopogon jwarancusa (Jones) Schult. Hemicryptophyte Grass 

176. Poaceae Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. Hemicryptophyte Grass 




177. Poaceae Dactyloctenium aegyptium (L.) Willd Therophyte Grass 

178. Poaceae Dactyloctenium aristatum Link Therophyte Grass 

179. Poaceae Dactyloctenium scindicum Boiss. Hemi cryptophyte Grass 


181. Poaceae Dichanthium annulatum (Forsk.) Stapf Hemicryptophyte Grass 

182. Poaceae Dichanthium foveolatum (Del.) Roberty Hemicryptophyte Grass 

183. Poaceae 

Diplachne fusca (L.) P.Beauv. ex Roem & 

Schult. 

Cryptophyte Grass 


185. Poaceae Eleusine indica (Linn.) Gaertn. Therophyte Grass 

186. Poaceae Elionurus royleanus Nees ex A.Rich. Therophyte Grass 

187. Poaceae 

Eragrostis cilianensis (All.) Lut. ex F.T. 

Hubbard 


188. Poaceae Eragrostis ciliaris (L.) R. Br. Therophyte Grass 

189. Poaceae Eragrostis japonica (Thunb.) Trin. Therophyte Grass 

190. Poaceae Eragrostis minor Host Therophyte Grass 

191. Poaceae Eragrostis pilosa (L.) Beauv. Therophyte Grass 

192. Poaceae Eragrostis tenella (L.) P. Beauv. ex Roem. Therophyte Grass 

193. Poaceae Eriochloa procera (Retz.) C. E. Hubbard Hemicryptophyte Grass 

194. Poaceae Lasiurus scindicus Henr. Hemicryptophte 

195. Poaceae 

Leptothrium senegalensis (Kunth) W.D. 

Clayton 


Large 

Grass 


196. Poaceae Ochthochloa compressa (Forsk.) Hilu Therophyte Grass 

197. Poaceae Panicum antidotale Retz. Hemicryptophyte Grass 

198. Poaceae Panicum turgidum Forsk. Hemicryptophyte Grass 

199. Poaceae Paspalidium flavidum (Retz.) A. Camus Hemicryphophyte Grass 

200. Poaceae Paspalidium geminatum (Forsk.) Stapf. Hemicryptophyte Grass 

201. Poaceae Paspalum vaginatum Swartz. Hemicryptophyte Grass 

202. Poaceae Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. Cryptophyte 

Large 

Grass 

203. Poaceae Phragmites karka (Retz.) Trin. ex Steud. Cryptophyte 

Large 

Grass 

204. Poaceae Saccharum benghalense Retz. Hemicryptophyte 

Large 

Grass 

205. Poaceae Saccharum griffithii Munro ex Boiss. Hemicryptophyte 

Large 

Grass 

206. Poaceae Saccharum spontaneum L. Hemicryptophyte 

Large 

Grass 

207. Poaceae Sporobolus helvolus (Trin.) Dur. & Schinz Hemicryptophyte Grass 

208. Poaceae 

Sporobolus kentrophyllus (K. Schum.) W.D. 

Clayton 


209. Poaceae Sporobolus nervosus Hochst. Hemicryptophyte Grass 

210. Poaceae Sporobolus sp. nov. Hemicryptophyte Grass 

211. Poaceae Tetrapogon tenellus (Koen. Ex Roxb.) Chiov. Therophyte Grass 

212. Poaceae Tragus roxburgii Panigrahi Therophyte Grass 

213. Poaceae Urochondra setulosa (Trin.) C.E. Hubb. Hemicryptophte Grass 

214. Polygalaceae Polygala erioptera DC. Therophyte Herb 

215. Polygalaceae Polygala irregularis Boiss Chamaephyte Herb 

216. Polygonaceae Persicaria glabra (Willd.) Gomes de la Maza Phanerophyte Herb 

217. Polygonaceae Polygonum effusum Meisn Chamaephyte Herb 

218. Polygonaceae Polygonum plebejum R. Br. Chamaephyte Herb 

219. Polygonaceae Rumex dentatus L. Thrrophyte Herb





222. Potamogetonaceae Potamogeton lucens L. Hydrophyte Herb 

223. Potamogetonaceae Potamogeton natans L. Hydrophyte Herb 

224. Potamogetonaceae Potamogeton perfoliatus L. Hydrophyte Herb 

225. Rhamnaceae Ziziphus nummularia (Burm.f.) Wight & Arn. Phanerophyte Shrub 

226. Rubiaceae Kohautia retrorsa (Boiss.) Bremek. Phanerophyte Subshrub 

227. Salicaceae Populus euphratica Olivier Phanerophyte Tree 

228. Salvadoraceae Salvadora oleoides Decne. Phanerophyte Tree 


230. Salviniaceae Salvinia molesta Mitchelle Hydrophyte Fern Herb 

231. Scrophulariaceae 

Anticharis linearis (Benth.) Hochst. ex 

Aschers. 



233. Scrophulariaceae Schweinfurthia papilionacea (L.) Merrill Chamaephyte Herb 

234. Solanaceae Datura fastuosa L. Phanerophyte Shrub 

235. Solanaceae Lycium edgeworthii Dunal Phanerophyte Shrub 

236. Solanaceae Physalis divaricata D. Don Therophyte Herb 

237. Solanaceae Physalis peruviana L. Therophyte Herb 

238. Solanaceae Solanum cordatum Forssk. Phanerophyte 

Straggling 

Shrub 


240. Solanaceae Solanum surattense Burm.f. Chamaephyte Herb 

241. Solanaceae Withania somnifera (L.) Dunal Phanerophyte Subshrub 

242. Tamaricaceae Tamarix alii Qaiser Phanerophyte Shrub 

243. Tamaricaceae Tamarix indica L. Phanerophyte Shrub 

244. Tamaricaceae Tamarix pakistanica Qaiser Phanerophyte Shrub 

245. Tamaricaceae Tamarix passernioides Del. ex Desv. Phanerophyte Shrub 

246. Tamaricaceae Tamarix sarenensis Qaiser Phanerophyte Shrub 

247. Tamaricaceae Tamarix sp. Nov. Phanerophyte Shrub 

248. Tiliaceae Corchorus aestuans L. Chamaephyte Subshrub 

249. Tiliaceae Corchorus depressus (L.) Stocks Therophyte Herb 



252. Tiliaceae Grewia erythraea Schweinf Phanerophyte Shrub 

253. Tiliaceae Grewia tenax (Forssk.) A. & S. Phanerophyte Shrub 

254. Tiliaceae Grewia villosa Willd. Phanerophyte Shrub 

255. Typhaceae Typha dominghensis Pers. Cryptophyte Reed 


257. Violaceae Viola stocksii Boiss. Therophyte Herb 

258. Zygophyllaceae Fagonia indica Burm.f. Chamaephyte Herb 

259. Zygophyllaceae Tribulus longipetalus Viv. Therophyte Herb 

260. Zygophyllaceae 

Tribulus ochroleucus (Maire) Ozenda & 

Quezel 


261. Zygophyllaceae Tribulus terrestris L. Therophyte Herb 

262. Zygophyllaceae Zygophyllum propinquum Decne. Chamaephyte Subshrub 


Comparison of plant families to overall flora of Keenjhar Lake is given in Annexure B – II. 


Pla n t F a m ilies 



Violaceae 

Verbenaceae 

Typhaceae 

Tiliaceae 

Tamaricaceae 

Solanaceae 

Scrophulariacea 

Salviniaceae 

Salvadoraceae 

Salicaceae 

Rubiaceae 

Rhamnaceae 

Potamogetonac 

Portulacaceae 

Pontederiaceae 

Polygonaceae 

Polygalaceae 

Poaceae 

Plumbaginaceae 

Nymphaeaceae 

Nyctaginaceae 

Nelumbonaceae 

Najadaceae 

M olluginaceae 

M imosaceae 

M alvaceae 

Lamiaceae 

Illecebraceae 

Hydrocharitacea 

Gentianaeae 

Fabaceae 

Euphorbiaceae 

Elatinaceae 

Cyperaceae 

Cucurbitaceae 




Capparidaceae 

Caesalpiniaceae 

Burseraceae 

Brassicaceae 

Boraginaceae 

Avicenniaceae 

Ast eraceae 

Asparagaceae 


Aristolochiaceae 

Arecaceae 

Araceae 

Apocynaceae 

Amarant haceae 

Aizoaceae 

Acanthaceae 

Fig 30 - Contribution of Plant Families to the Flora of Keenjhar Lake 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 

Number of Species 



Figure - 31 Image showing location of sampling points in study area 




TWINSPAN analysis was used to delineate plant communities for each of the three 

years. A detailed account of this analysis is provided in Annexure B – III. The results are 

discussed in the following text. 

3.4.2.1 Cyperus – Cynodon – Phyllanthus Plant Community (Fall 2006) 

This plant community is representative of transects Nos. 3, 4 and 7. These sites were 

situated on relatively gravely grounds with lot of grasses and annuals. This plant 

community is highly relished by livestock; therefore, overgrazing was very common in 

places where this community was found. Associated flora over these sites included 

species like Ipomoea (shrubs), P. juliflora, Cleome viscosa, Amaranthus sp., Corchorus 

trilocularis, Corchorus depressus, Indigofera hochstettri, Blepharis, Atriplex sp., 

Euphorbia granulata, Euphorbia caducifolia, Cynodon dactylon, Salvinia, Typha sp., and 

Phragmites, Acacia nilotica, Salvadora persica, Phyllanthus, Rhynchosia minima, 

Heliotropium sp., Oxystelma, Pentatropis spiralis, Achyranthis sp., Senra incana, 

Phragmites karka, Ipomoea carnea, Corchorus trilocularis, Potamogeton, Salvinia sp., 

Persicaria glabra, Coccinia, and Launaea sp. Forage production of this plant community 

varied from 51 Kg/ha to 203 Kg/Ha. 

Figure 32 – Sites occupied by Cyperus – Cynodon – Phyllanthus Plant Community 

3.4.2.2 Zygophyllum – Grewia Plant Community (Fall 2006) 

This plant community was represented by Transect Nos. 2, 5, 6 and 9. which were 

situated either on raised grounds or on embankments and occupied by plant species like 

Euphorbia caducifolia, Prosopis Juliflora, Launaea procumbens, Pentatropis spiralis, 

Polygala erioptera, Polycarpaea spicata, Hibiscus scindicus, Convolvulus glomeratus, 

Aristida sp., Eragrostis, Tetrapogon tenellus, Corchorus sp., Lycium sp. Solanum 

cordatum, Solanum suratense, Oxystelma, Asparagus, Launaea cordifolia, Phragmites 

karka, Saccharum munja, Heliotropium sp., Digera muricata, Senra incana, Grewia 

tenax, Heliotropium ophioglossum, Iphiona granitoides, Blepharis sindica, Maerua 

arenaria, Zygophyllum propinquum, Argyrolobium roseum, Tavernaria cuneifolia, Aerva 

javanica and, Commicarpus boissieri. Forage production of the sites represented by this 

plant community varied from 93 Kg/Ha to 194 Kg/Ha. 



Figure 33. Sites dominated by Zygophyllum – Grewia Plant Community 

3.4.2.3 Eragrostis – Cyperus – Zygophyllum Plant Community (Fall 2006) 

This plant community also represented the same sites as those in the Zygophyllum – 

Grewia plant community. The sites were dominated with annuals, grasses and shrubs 

and comprised of gravely well-drained soils. Mostly these sites were overgrazed. Forage 

production of this plant community varied from 51 to 195 Kg/Ha. 

3.4.2.4 Cynodon – Launaea Plant Community (Summer 2007) 

This community represented transects 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. The associated plant species 

of this community included Prosopis glandulosa, P. juliflora, Indigofera cordifolia, I. 

hochstetteri, I. oblongifolia, Coldenia procumbens, Pentatropis nivalis, Senra incana, 

Euphorbia caducifolia, Digera muricata, Corchorus depressus, C. tridens, Heliotropium 

ovalifolium, Commicarpus boissieri, Zygophyllum propinquum, Z. simplex, Commicarpus 

boissieri, Senna holosericea, Tribulus terrestris, Phyla nodiflora, Bacopa monnieri, 

Taverniera cuneifolia, Suaeda fruticosa, Amaranthus graecizans, Ipomoea aquatica, 

Fagonia indica, Cleome scaposa, C. viscosa, Eclipta prostrata, Alternanthera sessilis, 

Eichhornia crassipes, Salvinia molesta, Parkinsonia aculeata, Cressa cretica and 

Salvadora persica. In addition, the common grasses, reeds and sedges were consisted 

of species like Aeluropus lagopoides, Aristida adscensionis, Brachiaria eruciformis, 

Cenchrus ciliaris, Cynodon dactylon, Dactyloctenium aegyptium, D. scindicum, 

Echinochloa colonna, Paspalum virginatum, Paspalidium germinatum, Eragrostis 

japonica, Phragmites karka, Typha spp., Cyperus laevigatus, C. longus and C. rotundus. 

Forage production of these sites varied from 73 Kg/ha to 248 Kg/Ha showing 

overgrazing by livestock. 

Figure 34 – Sites represented by Cynodon – Launaea Plant Community 



3.4.2.5 Oxystelma – Fagonia Plant Community (Summer 2007) 

Transects 2, 3, 4, 9, 11 and 12 represented this plant community. The 

associated plant species of these sites were represented by plants like Prosopis 

juliflora, Euphrobia caducifolia, Acacia senegal, Lycium edgeworthii, Commiphora 

stocksiana, Grewia tenax and Iphiona grantioides. The herbaceous cover was 

comprised of Rhynchosia minima, Heliotropium ophioglossum, Euphorbia granulata, E. 

clarkeana, Blepharis sindica, Indigofera hochstetteri, Corchorus depressus, C. tridens, 

Seddera latifolia, Boerhavia procumbens, Polygala erioptera, P. irregularis, Senna 

holosericea, Pentatropis spiralis, Cleome scaposa, Corbichonia decumbens, Indigofera 

oblongifolia, Convolvulus glomeratus, Cucumis prophetarum, Zygophyllum propinquum 

and Z. simplex. The sedges and grass group was comprised of Cyperus bulbosus, C. 

rotundus, Aristida adscensionis, Eragrostis ciliaris, Ochthochloa compressa Tragus 

roxburghii, Dichanthium annulatum, D. foveolatum and Cenchrus ciliaris. Forage 

production varied from 73 to 522 Kg/Ha. 

Figure 35 – Sites occupied by Oxystelma – Fagonia Plant Community 

3.4.2.6 Prosopis juliflora – Fagonia indica - Aristida adscensionis Plant 

Community (Spring 2008) 

This plant community was represented by transects 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 14. 

Mostly hard ground dominated by gravels occupied these sites Cyperus alopecuroides, 

Polygonum effusum, Alhagi maurorum, Cressa cretica, Zygophyllum simplex, 

Heliotropium curassavicum, Prosopis glandulosa and Tamarix alii. The forage production 

of this plant community ranged from 216 to 612 Kg/Ha. 

Figure 36 – Sites dominated by Prosopis juliflora – Fagonia indica – Aristida 

adscensionis Plant Community 



3.4.2.7 Cynodon dactylon – Phyla nodiflora Plant Community (Spring 2008) 

This community represented sites which were occupied mainly grasses and annuals. 

Although shrubs also dominated the sites yet dominant flora was comprised of species 

like Phyllanthus maderaspatensis, Prosopis cineraria, Salvadora persica, Persicaria 

glabra, Launaea procumbens, Sida ovata, Indigofera cordifolia, and Prosopis juliflora, 

Tamarix sp, Bulboschoenus affinis, Schoenoplectus litoralis, Heliotropium ovalifoilum, 

Rhynchosia minima, Cynodon dactylon, associated species are Cyperus articulatus, 

Paspalidium gemimatum, Persicaria glabra, Cyperus alopecuroides, Bacopa monnieri, 

Cyperus exaltatus, Alternenthera sessilis, Alhagi maurorum and Panicum turgidum. 

Forage production varied from 420 to 612 Kg/Ha. 

Figure 37 – Sites represented by Cynodon dactylon – Phyla nodiflora Plant Community 

3.4.3 Carrying Capacity 

Carrying Capacity (CC) of Keenjhar Lake was determined in terms of hectares per 

animal unit per year. This important factor was determined for each of the study years 

i.e., 2006, 2007 and 2008. The overall CC of this site has dropped from 2006 to 2008 

and same is the case with carrying capacity (Figure 38) The drop in forage production 

and associated carrying capacity depicts two major reasons (i) there is high grazing 

pressure including stone mining contributing in the deterioration of natural vegetation of 

the Keenjhar Lake area. It has been observed that due to reduced fish catches the 

inhabitants of the area are shifting their livelihood towards livestock rearing, stone mining 

and mat making (through Typha species). The stone mining in the area is severely 

damaging flora and fauna of Keenjhar Lake. (ii) There is no monitoring of these pastures 

and so is the case with absence of range management. Sindh Forest Department has no 

stake in the pastures around this water body. Yearwise comparison of the forage 

production and the carrying capacity is given in Annexure B – IV. 

Figure 38 – Carrying Capacity of Pastures of Keenjhar Lake over three Different Years 

Available Forage (Kg/Ha) 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

16.67 

117 

16.57 


152 

2006 2007 2008 

56.8 

45 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

Av ailable Forage (Kg/Ha) Carring Capacity (Ha/AU/Yr) 

0 




3.4.4.1 α- Diversity (i.e., the species richness and species diversity within each locality). 

With reference to species richness, Keenjhar Lake surroundings have shown the highest 

α – diversity with a total of 55 plant families, 165 genera and 263 species. 

The largest genera was Cyperus with 12 species, followed by Tamarix (10 species), 

Euphorbia and Heliotropium, (7 species each) and, Eragrostis and Indigofera (6 species 

each). Gramineae (Poaceae) was the largest family with 67 species, followed by 

Fabaceae (27 species), and Cyperaceae (22 species) and Asteraceae (17 species). A 

summary showing comparison of plant communities, associated species and the forage 

production is give in Annexure B – V. 

3.4.4.2 β -Diversity (i.e., the species turnover from one locality to other locality or 

diversity between localities). Localities were compared in pairs with every possible 

combination. The highest number of species was shared by Keenjhar and Chotiari, i.e., 

these two localities had 162 species in common, followed by Keti & Keenjhar with 96 

species, Keenjhar & Pai with 94 species. 

These localities pairs showed are given in Table 16 below. 


Table 16 - Similarity Index and β -Diversity of study sites 

2006 

S. No Locality pairs 

Shared 

Shared 

Shared 

species CC BD species CC BD species CC BD 

1 

Keti - Keenjhar 27 0.30 1.691 82 0.46 1.54 96 0.51 1.49 

4 

Keenjhar - Chotiari 57 0.45 1.548 145 0.65 1.35 162 0.68 1.32 

5 

Keenjhar - Pai 30 0.3 1.7 80 0.44 1.56 94 0.5 1.5 

2007 

Luffa echinata: According to Flora of Pakistan records, it was considered a rare species 

recorded only form Chitral, Swat and Tharparkar. However, this study revealed it to be 

abundantly present in Keenjhar (particularly in the part of Lake towards Chilliya bund) 

and Chotiari reservoir where this species is very commonly found. 

Populus euphratica: This species is also recorded for the fist time form Keenjhar Lake 

where it was found to be abundantly present on small islands towards Chilliya bund, 

Soneri and Amir Pir areas. 

Avicennia marina: Also recorded from the vicinity of Keenjhar Lake 

Sporobolus sp: This will be a new species for the plant world. 

Tamarix sarenensis: It is an endemic species for Sindh recorded form Keenjhar Lake. 


2008



This site presents a rich diversity of habitats due to the presence of a large freshwater 

Lake and its surrounding sandy, rocky and hilly areas. The small hills in the vicinity of 

Lake present an entirely different flora compared to that found in the low lying areas near 

water margins. In spite of being a freshwater Lake, patches of saline land are present at 

various points of its periphery that add to habitat diversity. This is why a rich floristic 

diversity is recorded from this site totalling 263 species from 2006 to 2008. This number 

may increase after regular monitoring over next few years in different seasons. Out of 

263 species, 56 can be recognized as aquatic and wetland species collected from water 

and surrounding moist soils. Rest of the species are dry land species collected from dry 

areas away from water margins. About 14 species are rare species which may become 

locally endangered in near future, particularly Barleria hochstetteri, Barleria prionitis, 

Farsetia hamiltonii, Pycreus dwarkensis, Elionurus royleanus, Leptothrium senegalensis, 

and Anticharis linearis. Among various families, Poaceae have shown the highest 

diversity which is in conformity with the typical pattern of arid lands. One of the very 

distinctive features of this site is the presence of an Avicennia marina stand on its 

eastern margin just near the entrance to the picnic point. The inland occurrence of this 

mangrove species is a rare and unique phenomenon. The islands in the Lake have their 

own floristic diversity. One comparatively large island near to the picnic point is 

somewhat rocky with calcareous hillocks bear dry land species like Salvadore oleoides, 

Euphorbia caducifolia, Cadaba fruticosa, Hibiscus micranthus, Abutilon fruticosum, 

Barleria prionitis, Chrysopogon aucheri, etc. In addition to these a number of annual 

species appear after summer rains. On periphery of the island, however, wetland 

species like Oxystelma esculentum, Phragmites karka, Ipomoea carnea, Merremia 

hederacea, Phyllanthus maderaspatensis etc. are present. Other islands, particularly 

those towards Chillia are occupied mostly by wetland species like Typha dominghensis, 

Phragmites karka, Phyllanthus reticulatus, Cyperus articulatus, Merremia hederacea, 

Populus euphratica, Tamarix spp. along with Acacia nilotica. Typha and Phragmites 

frequently form dense thickets which provide sheltered nesting place for a number of 

birds species. 

Annual species Luffa echinata is particularly prominent in the post-monsoon season. It is 

an extensive climber which spreads upon other larger plants. Among plants with floating 

leaves Nelumbo nucifera is the most prominent; its seeds and rhizomes are edible, the 

latter used as vegetable. Among submerged plants Potamogeton pectinatus is the most 

abundant. The alien invasive species Salvinia molesta and Eichhornia crassipes are 

quite frequent, particularly the former. 

In the phytosociological analysis, Prosopis juliflora and Aristida adscensionis were found 

to be dominant or co dominant in five transects out of a total of 14 transects according to 

their IVI value, followed by Cynodon (3 transects), Phyla nodiflora, Ochthochloa 

compressa, and Aeluropus lagopoides (2 transects each). The TWINSPAN recognized 

two communities, one Prosopis juliflora-Fagonia indica-Aristida adscensionis, and the 

other Cynodon dactylon-Phyla nodiflora. This indicates that the alien invasive species 

Prosopis juliflora is badly affecting this ecosystem and it has already replaced much of 

the native flora. 

The primary productivity (DMY) varied from 21.6 Kg/Ha/Yr to 61.2 Kg/Ha/Yr between 

different transects (Table 16) with a mean of 45.0 Kg/Ha/Yr in 2008. The mean carrying 

capacity was found to be 16.67 Ha/AU/Yr in 2006, 16.57 Ha/AU/Yr in 2007 and 56.8 



H/AU/Yr in 2008. It means that the carrying capacity is particularly low in winter, and it is 

not high in summer either. Thus the ecosystem can not support any large number of 

livestock. Any increase in the livestock population would lead to unsustainable grazing 

and ultimately desertification. 

The local people depend upon the natural vegetation in various ways besides livestock 

grazing. Typha and Phragmites is used for making mats and rugs; and these along with 

Saccharum and Tamarix spp. are extensively used for thatching and hut-making. 

Tamarix spp. is also used as fuel. Acacia nilotica and Populus euphratica are valuable 

timber species. Rhizomes and petioles of Nelumbo nucifera are used as vegetable. 

3.5.1 Problems and Threats: 

The Lake, although managed by the Sindh Irrigation department and to some extent by 

local fisherman, still has the following threats: 

3.5.1.1 Deforestation: Heavy woodcutting and deforestation was found on the eastern 

bank of the lake mainly by the local people for fuel and fodder. The whole ecosystem of 

the area is disturbed by these activities. The presence of vegetation is important as it 

checks siltation; provides food, shelter and breeding place to fauna. Now there is very 

sparse vegetation in the vicinity of Keenjhar Lake. The contributing factors are illegal 

wood cutting, stone mining, clearing of land for agriculture, poultry farming and 

overgrazing. 

3.5.1.2 Illegal hunting & shooting: Illegal hunting and shooting of the resident and 

migratory birds by locals as well as visitors mostly for meat, feathers and fun in the Lake 

is a continuous practice, disturbing the web of life and destroying the prevailing 

ecosystem. 

3.5.1.3 Excessive Grazing: The catchments area of Lake was already under grazing 

pressure and this pressure is increasing day by day due to shift in source of livelihood 

other than the fishing from Lake. Local communities are adopting livestock rearing 

activity as an alternate source of income. 

3.5.1.4 Stone Mining: The fishermen community is adopting stone mining activity at 

high rate as an alternate source of household earning in the Lake area. This activity is 

leading to increased soil erosion, siltation, destruction of natural flora and damage to 

habitat of local as well as migratory fauna. In fact it is deteriorating environment of the 

Lake ecosystem. The stone mining is not under legal coverage. The buyers pay very 

nominal amount per truck (Rs. 600/ truck of 450 cft) including loading. While one 

individual/family mine one truck load stone within 4-5 days. 

3.5.1.5 Introduction of Exotic Species: There is hardly any possibility of fish seed for 

the Keenjhar Lake from the River Indus because of water pollution in upland areas and 

check on fish seed at the KB feeder canal head to replenish the fingerlings. Moreover, 

introduction of exotic fish species Tilapia spp (locally called as Daiyo) which is smaller in 

size but highly vegetarian has posed a severe problem to local species. Due to 

introduction of this exotic species native bed reeds vegetation in the shallow western 

and northern waters of the Lake has been disappearing gradually, which may affect the 

originality of the prevailing ecosystem in the long run. Likewise, Salvinia molesta and 

Eichhornia crassipis are floating plants that damage the hydrophytic monocotyledonous 



species. It might be due to allelopathic effects on submerged plants by these two 

species. The species like Hydrilla verticillata and Potamogeton spp. are favourite feed of 

fishes. The decreasing population of aforesaid species is one of the causes for declining 

fish population. 

3.5.1.6 Mismanagement: Not much attention has so far been paid by the concerned 

government agencies for the conservation and management of fish resources of the 

Lake. Due to this negligence and inadequate care of the Lake, fish stock is depleting 

gradually. On the other hand, the fishermen community are not having appropriate 

market for selling the catch on daily basis. The fishermen are forced to sell their catches 

to the local middle men at very low rates because there exists no other options of sale at 

an appropriate market. This way of marketing to get more money compels the fishermen 

to catch as many as they can. This unsustainable practice of fishing is deteriorating the 

fish population at very high pace which is clear from the fact that fishermen community is 

diverting their livelihood earning towards livestock rearing and stone mining. 

3.5.1.7 Fresh Water Scarcity & Contamination: Both quality and quantity of freshwater 

in the Lake is decreasing slowly, might be due to construction of the link canal at eastern 

side, diverting water away from the Lake during normal season and to the Lake during 

monsoon only. Such a shortage of freshwater in the Lake will obviously affect the 

ecology of the Lake. Moreover, the ever increasing soil erosion in catchments, resulting 

in excessive deposition of silt into the Lake is another cause of water scarcity. Water 

carrying effluents from the tanneries at Hyderabad is continuously being drained into the 

Lake for the last ten years is not only deteriorating the quality of water, but also posing 

serious threats to the precious biota of the freshwater Lake. A lot of poultry farms and 

livestock farms also exist on eastern side of the Lake that are also a major source of 

pollution. The picnickers also frequently wash their vehicles in the Lake and deposit 

garbage at the edge on southern side that ultimately goes into the Lake. Due to 

continuous use of boats for picnic and fish catching is also adding to pollution of Lake 

water. An other important factor of pollution is agrochemicals used to protect arable 

crops in the vicinity of this water body. 

3.5.2 Improvements Required: 

Although problems are numerous and require holistic approach for their remedial 

measures, yet these require prioritization for setting the direction to overcome within 

limited time frame. One should realize that there are three main areas for which 

Keenjhar Lake is potentially utilized; Fisheries, water and tourism. Apart from these uses 

surrounding communities also earn their livelihood through livestock rearing in the buffer 

zone of the Lake. 

3.5.2.1 Management Plan: There is a dire need that a Management Plan of this 

important water body is developed considering its economic, ecological and social 

significance. This plan should be developed in consultation with all concerned 

stakeholders including representatives from local communities. An action plan then 

should emerge from the Management Plan clearly identifying roles and responsibilities of 

each of the stakeholder. Before this lake turns to an irreversible state, such plan is 

needed to maintain this Lake in healthy and productive state. 

3.5.2.2 Fisheries Resource: Involvement of Provincial Fisheries Department and the 

local fishermen communities to manage and release of fish seed of native species is 



urgently required. This practice will not only improve the fish resource of the Lake but 

also the livelihood conditions of the fishermen communities. Moreover, introduction of 

exotic fish species like Tilapia sp. should be banned in future. 

Women technical skills should be enhanced through training for the development of 

cottage industry. 

Stone mining should be regulated through Mining Department to eliminate the middle 

man’s role. This will not only help improve the economic conditions of the local poor 

but also result in restoration of degrading ecosystem. 

Awareness campaign should be launched within the community regarding the 

conservation of natural resources. 

There is an immediate need to put nets in and outside to prevent the escape of fish 

seeds and juveniles fish into the canal. 

3.5.2.3 Tourism: This Lake being in the vicinity to Thatta and Karachi is frequently 

visited by large number of tourists year-round. There are no facilities available for the 

tourists regarding know-how about the Lake. There is serious need to provide quality 

facilities for the incoming tourists according to their age profile. This requires setting up a 

Visitors Centre containing good quality souvenirs and brochures. Visitor’s Centre should 

also get the feedback from the tourists about facilities they require for enhancing the 

quality of the tourist facilities. 

In the past some fatal accidents have occurred in the Lake due to poor quality boats 

and increased load on such boats. Sindh Tourism Development Corporation (STDC) 

should take a lead to ensure the safety of tourists by strict law and order 

enforcement. Boatmen should not allow visitors on their boats beyond permissible 

limit. Moreover, STDC should also arrange small credit facilities for purchase of 

speed boats, life jackets and other paraphernalia. All the boats used for tourists 

should be properly registered and regularly visited by STDC to ensure safety 

measures. 

The STDC collects fee from the tourists but does not recycle it for maintenance of 

the picnic spot. This is causing unhygienic conditions at picnic spot which is 

ultimately deteriorating the environment of the Lake. The STDC should make 

arrangement for recycling of the Lake’s income for improvements and maintenance 

of the picnic spot. 

Currently, the Lake water is used for washing commercial and domestic vehicles 

which not only add contamination to the water but also invite different hazards. 

Keenjhar Lake is used for providing drinking water to Karachi city and the 

surrounding communities and houses rich aquatic life. Oil coming out of vehicles and 

boats can severely damage both human as well as other aquatic life. It is 

recommended that vehicles parking should be at a distance from the picnic spot. 

Presently, STDC has a nice facility of boarding and lodging for tourists at the Lake. 

However, this facility is deteriorating due to negligence on the part of senior officials. 

The quality of beds, wash rooms and furniture is absolutely unbearable. Probably, 



senior officials either do not visit these cottages or they are well taken care off by the 

keepers and hence do not bother about the tourists. 

3.5.2.4 Water: As mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, Keenjhar is an important 

source of drinking water for the people of Karachi and neighbouring villages. Moreover, it 

is also important abode for a variety of fishes on which livelihood of a large population of 

fishermen communities and migratory birds is dependent. Being Ramsar site and a 

Wildlife Sanctuary, the waters of this Lake are important for harbouring thousands of 

migratory waterfowls during winter. For the care of such important aspects, it becomes 

increasingly important that both quality and quantity of water should regularly be 

monitored. To ensure that such monitoring is in place, now and in future, an Executive 

Body comprising senior members from all concerned government departments, nongovernment 

agencies, local body institutions and the local communities should be 

notified by the provincial government. This body should be vested with certain legal and 

regulatory powers for taking corrective measure without seeking permission from 

elsewhere. 

Effluents from the agricultural fields and tanneries should be controlled and stopped 

immediately. Ban on washing vehicles in Lake water and other sources of 

contaminants should be imposed immediately. 

There are a number of poultry farms and livestock farms on the bank of Keenjhar 

Lake on eastern side. These farms are not only a regular source of contamination of 

Lake water but also increasing eutrophication in the water body which is severely 

hampering the aquatic life. 

3.5.2.5 Pastures & Livestock: Peripheral areas of Keenjhar Lake are used as grazing 

grounds for the livestock of neighbouring villages. The livestock includes small and large 

ruminants. Overgrazing of surrounding pastures trigger soil erosion thus silting of water 

body. Animal dung is also a source of contamination. To regulate such grazing, there is 

a need that local population is provided inputs for raising improved fodder crops on 

agricultural fields. 

Neighbouring grounds are also infested with Mesquite (Prosopis juliflora) and other 

exotic plants such as Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Mesquite itself is a big threat to the 

local ecosystem as it is out competing the local flora and bringing disruption in the 

local ecosystem. There is a serious need to check such alien species on regular 

grounds. 

Islands inside Lake possess pristine flora that provides unique opportunity to the 

researchers and students for studying plant wealth of this region. These islands 

should immediately be protected from wood cutting and other interventions that may 

alter the plant composition. 

There is a unique inland stand of Avicennia marina present in close vicinity of 

Keenjhar Lake that needs protection through fencing. 


This Lake is in the process of deterioration at very fast pace. Although this ecosystem is 

rich in floral diversity with respect to number of species recorded (263 species) yet out of 



87 species recorded in transects, there were 34 species in the category of rare and 35 

species rated as vulnerable. Similarly, carrying capacity is also very poor and 

deteriorating gradually. This is indicative of the fact that this fresh water wetland 

ecosystem is loosing its productive potential. Immediate rehabilitation measures like 

restoration of local fish species control on overgrazing, over fishing, replacement of 

exotic species of fish with local ones and discouragement of alien plant species like 

Eucalyptus and mesquite etc. The planting of fodder tree species and reseeding of 

palatable grasses be promoted through community participation in the area to overcome 

the grazing pressure. 



4 - Chotiari Wetland Complex 

(A Blend of Wetland & Desert Ecosystems) 

Figure 39 – Satellite Image of Chotiari Wetland Complex 



4.1 Brief History of Chotiari Wetland Complex 

Chotiari reservoir lies in the province of Sindh, on western flanks of Achro Thar desert 

(white sandy desert) at about 30 - 35 km northeast of Sanghar City. The Reservoir 

occupies an area of about 18,000 hectares and has water storage capacity of 0.75 

Million Acre Feet (MAF) flooding an area of approximately 160 km 2 . 

Chotiari reservoir is created in a natural depression that exists along the left bank of the 

Nara canal. The depression area is bounded by sand hills towards north, east and 

south-east, while towards the west and south lies the Nara canal. 

This reservoir is established to improve the irrigation supplies during lean months when 

Indus flows are at minimum. It is an off canal storage reservoir retaining Indus flood 

water collected during the peak flow period (June to September) and releasing it for use 

during the dry season (mid October to mid April). This reservoir will be filled from the 

Nara canal through a 6,500-cusec capacity channel, the Ranto Canal, off-taking from the 

Nara Canal at Jamrao Head. 

The reservoir land area lies within seven dehs (cluster of villages) viz. Makhi, Haranthari, 

Bakar, Akanvari, Khadvari and Phuleli. The aquatic features of the reservoir area 

comprise diversity of small and large size freshwater and brackish Lakes, smallest being 

of 1 Hectare area and largest of about 200 Hectares which occupy about 30% of the 

total reservoir area. These Lakes are a source of subsistence and commercial fisheries 

for the local people. 

The area has a hot arid climate. The hottest months are May and June when average 

maximum daily temperature exceeds 40°C. The coolest months are December to 

February, when the maximum daily temperatures range from 25 to 30°C. Rainfall is 

sparse and erratic and is most frequent between July and August when it averages 40 

mm monthly. Annual average rainfall is about 125 mm. Floods are common in monsoon 

season. Evaporation averages 11 mm per day in summer, falling to 2.5 mm per day in 

winter. Annual average evaporation is about 2250 mm. The local population is engaged 

in fishing, agriculture, jobs in different sectors and livestock rearing. A large area is being 

used for livestock grazing, which is a major occupation for the local communities. 

According to one estimate, nearly 400 families are associated with livestock rearing in 

the reservoir area. The majority of livestock includes, buffalo, cattle, goat, sheep and 

camel. A variety of non-timber forest produce that grow naturally in the reservoir area 

are used by local people for hut making, mat making, sweep sticks, roof thatching, 

medicinal and food purposes. Women living in those areas where reeds are abundant 

are associated with mat making as a source of their livelihood. 

Socio-economic assessment study conducted by Indus for All programme revealed that 

varying proportions of households of Chotiari Wetland Complex have access to different 

natural resources such as irrigation water (35%), drinking water (66%), fish (56%), fuel 

wood (70%) and grazing of livestock (36%). It was also found that on an overall basis, 

48% of respondents agreed that irrigation water resources have depleted during the last 

five years. Over 70% of respondents agreed that the fisheries have declined, while 64% 

agreed that forest resources have sharply depleted during the last 5 years. A summary 

of the socio-economic profile of the communities of Chotirai Wetland Complex are 

provided in Annexures C – VI to C - XIV. 



4.2 State of Biodiversity: 

Chotiari is a rich ecological site and a unique habitat consisting of wetland, riverine 

forest, desert scrub and sand dunes. This area is formed from several small natural 

Lakes (dhands) and inter-dunal depressions that protrude finger-like into the western 

margins of the Thar Desert. Depth of water in the Lakes ranges from shallow (less than 

6 feet) to deep (30 to 45 feet). The edges of the Lakes present a mosaic of reed beds, 

which lie alongside alluvial fans, irrigation channels, riverine forests, desert dunes, 

swamps and agricultural land. Historically, the Chotiari Wetland Complex was flanked by 

“Makhi forest” famous for rich reserves of quality honey. Most of this forest was cleared 

and converted into agriculture fields in the British era in the backdrop of “Hur Revolt”. 

4.2.1 FLORA: Aquatic vegetation includes Typha latifolia, Typha dominghensis, 

Phragmites karka, Ipomoea aquatica, Nymphaea lotus, Nelumbo nucifera, Polygonum 

spp. The Riverine Forest has canopy of Populus euphratica, Dalbergia sissoo, Prosopis 

cineraria, Acacia nilotica and Ziziphus mauritiana etc. Leghari et al. (1999) reported 41 

aquatic plants including two bryophytes (Riccia spp.), Four Pteridophytes and 35 

Angiosperms. They also reported 157 species of algae. 

Cultivated crops are generally cotton (Kharif season) and wheat (Rabi season), 

augmented with rice, sugar cane, animal fodder and vegetables. A further detail of 

cultivated herbs and shrubs on agricultural lands and in habitations could be seen from 

Table 16 below. 

Table 17 - Cultivated plant species recorded at Chotiari 


1 Anacardiaceae Mangifera indica L. Phanerophyte Tree 

2 Boraginaceae Cordia myxa L. Phanerophyte Tree 

3 Caesalpinaceae Parkinsonia aculeata L. Phanerophyte Tree 

4 Caesalpiniaceae Tamarindus indica L. Phanerophyte Tree 

5 Euphorbiaceae Ricinus communis L. Phanerophyte Small tree 

6 Fabaceae Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) Taub. Therophyte Herb 

7 Fabaceae Sesbania bispinosa (Jacq.) W.F. Wight Chamaephyte Subshrub 

8 Lythraceae Lawsonia inermis L. Phanerophyte Shrub 

9 Meliaceae Azadirachta indica A.Juss. Phanerophyte Tree 

10 Mimosaceae Albizzia lebbeck (L.) Benth. Phnerophyte Tree 

11 Mimosaceae Pithecellobium dulce (Willd.)Benth. Phanerophyte Tree 

12 Moraceae Ficus religiosa L. Phanerophyte Tree 

13 Myrtaceae Conocarpus erectus Phanerophyte Tree 

14 Myrtaceae Eucalyptus camaldulensis Phanerophyte Tree 

15 Papilionaceae Dalbergia sissoo Roxb. Phanerophyte Tree 

16 Pedaliaceae Sesamum indicum L. Therophyte Herb 

4.2.2 FAUNA: The open wetlands and terrestrial areas are habitats for variety of fish, 

mammals, birds and reptiles. 

Fish: Chotiari is now producing fish weighing about 525 tonnes per year. In 1997 

Sindh University conducted a study of fish fauna and recorded 31 fresh water 

species. 



Mammals: Hog Deer, Chinkara, Jungle Cat, Fishing Cat, Caracal, Smooth coated 

Otter, Wild boar, Mongoose, Desert hare and Squirrels are reported in the area. A 

survey of Hog deer during the period May – October 1997 estimated that about 90 

animals live along the western side of reservoir from Makhi Weir to Akanwari Deh. 

The gradual decline in vegetative cover has resulted in degradation of natural 

habitat of the Hog Deer whose wild population has declined severely. 

Birds: Chotiari Lakes are important habitat for a variety of bird species. As many 

as 107 species of birds have been recorded from the area. Two species of birds 

found in the area are worth mentioning. The Marbled Teal is globally threatened 

but significant population has been reported to winter and breed here. Sindh 

Warbler is a rare species that have been reported from this area. The area was 

significant for migratory water birds. In a survey in 1993, 40,000 birds were 

observed in this area. 

Reptiles: About 50 marsh crocodiles were recorded in Makhi area in 1997. Python, 

a vulnerable species is also known to occur in the area but its present status is 

unknown. Varieties of snakes and lizards are found here. 

Figure 40 – Image showing location of transects in Chotiari Wetland Complex 



4.3 Results 

4.3.1 Floristic analysis: 

Vegetation assessment of Chotiari Reservoir was carried out over three years and three 

different seasons (Fall 2006, Summer 2007 and Spring 2008). Transect-wise 

phytosociological account of the flora of Chotiari Wetland Complex is provided in 

Annexure C – I. These assessments revealed a total number of 211 species in 123 

genera and 49 families. Of these, Pteridophytes are represented by 3 species in 3 

genera and 3 families, Gymnosperms by one species in one genus and one family, 

Dicotyledonous Angiosperms by 144 species in 86 genera and 39 families and 

mocotyledenous Angiosperms by 63 species in 33 genera and 6 families. Over all 41 

species are recognized as aquatic and wetland species occurring in and around water of 

the main reservoir or various channels/canals in the area, while 170 are dry land species 

occurring in the surroundings of reservoir away from water margins. Poaceae comes out 

as the largest family with 41 species, followed by Cyperaceae and Fabaceae with 18 

species each and Solanaceae with 10 species. Cyperus with 9 species is the largest 

genus followed by Tamarix 6 species and Eragrostis with 5 species (Annexure C - II). 

The alphabetical checklist of species along their family and life form/habit is provided in 

Table 18. In addition to the natural flora, 16 cultivated species were also recorded from 

the area given in Table 17. The year-wise comparison of the families is given in 

Annexure F - I. The contributions of plant families in the vegetation of programme area 

are also summarized in Figure 41. 

Table 18: List of plant species along with their families and life form of Chotiari Wetland 

Complex. 

Sr # 

Family Plant species Life form Habit 

1. Acanthaceae 

Blepharis sindica Stocks ex. T. 

Anders. 

Therophyte Shrub 

2. Aizoaceae Sesuvium sesuvioides (Fens) Verdi. Therophyte Herb 



5. Aizoaceae Zaleya pentandra (L.) Jeffrey. Chamaephyte Herb 

6. Amaranthaceae Achyranthus aspera L. Phanerophyte Robust herb 

7. Amaranthaceae Aerva javanica (Burm.f.)Juss. Phanerophyte Robust herb 





12. Arecaceae Phoenix sylvestris Roxb. Phanerophyte Tree 

13. Asclepiadaceae Calotropis procera (Ait.) Ait.f. Phanerophyte Shrub 


Leptadenia pyrotechnica (Forsk.) 

Dcne. 


15. Asclepiadaceae Oxystelma esculentum (L.f) R.Br. Cryptophyte Climber 


Pentatropis nivalis (J.F.Gmel.) Field & 

J.R.I.Wood 

Phanerophyte Climber 

17. Asphodelaceae Asphodelus tenuifolius Cav. Therophyte Herb 

18. Asteraceae Conyza aegyptiaca Ait. Chamaephyte Herb 


20. Asteraceae Launaea procumbens (Roxb.) Amin. Chamaephyte Herb 

21. Asteraceae Pluchea arguta Boiss. Chamaephyte Shrub 



Sr # 


22. Asteraceae Pluchea lanceolata (DC.) C.B. Clarke Phanerophyte Shrub 

23. Asteraceae Pluchea wallichiana DC Phanerophyte Shrub 

24. Asteraceae Sonchus oleraceus L. Therophyte Herb 


26. Boraginaceae Cordia dichotoma Forster Phanerophyte Tree 

27. Boraginaceae 

Cordia gharaf (Forsk.) Ehren. ex 

Asch. 

phanerophyte Tree 

28. Boraginaceae Heliotropium crispum Desf. Chamaephyte Shrub 

29. Brassicaceae Farsetia hamiltonii Royle Therophyte Herb 

30. Burseraceae Commiphora stocksiana (Engl.)Engl. Phanerophyte Shrub 

31. Burseraceae Commiphora wightii (Arn.) Bhandari Phanerophyte Shrub 

32. Caesalpiniaceae Senna holosericea (Fresen) Greuter Chamaephyte Shrub 

33. Caesalpiniaceae Senna italica Mill. Chamaephyte Shrub 


35. Capparidaceae Capparis spinosa L. Phanerophyte Sub-shrub 


37. Capparidaceae Cleome scaposa DC. Therophyte Herb 

38. Capparidaceae Cleome viscosa L. Therophyte Herb 

39. Capparidaceae Dipterygium glaucum Decne. Phanerophyte Sub-shrub 

40. Capparidaceae Gynandropsis gynandra (L.) Briq. Therophyte Herb 


42. Chenopodiaceae 

Haloxylon salicornicum (Moq.) Bunge 

ex Boiss. 



44. Chenopodiaceae 

Suaeda fruticosa Forsk. ex 

J.F.Gmelin 



46. Convolvulaceae Convolvulus glomeratus Choisy. Chamaephyte Climber 

47. Convolvulaceae Convolvulus prostratus Forssk. Therophyte Herb 

48. Convolvulaceae Cressa cretica L. Therophyte Herb 


50. Convolvulaceae Ipomoea carnea Jacq. Phanerophyte Shrub 


52. Cucurbitaceae Citrullus colocynthis (L.) Schrad. Chamaephyte Climber 

53. Cucurbitaceae Cucumis melo var. agrestis Naud. Chamaephyte Climber 

54. Cucurbitaceae Luffa echinata Roxb. Chamaephyte Climber 

55. Cucurbitaceae 

Mukia maderaspatana (L.) M.J. 

Roem. 

Chamaephyte 

Climber 

56. Cuscutaceae Cuscuta hyaline Roth Chamaephyte Parasite 

57. Cyperaceae Bolboschoenus affinis (Roth) Drobov Cryptophyte Sedge 


Bolboschoenus glaucus (L.) S.G. 

Smith 

Cryptophyte Sedge 

59. Cyperaceae Cyperus articulatus L. Cryptophyte Sedge 

60. Cyperaceae Cyperus aucheri Jaub. & Spach Cryptophyte Sedge 


62. Cyperaceae Cyperus difformis L. Hemiryptophyte Sedge 

63. Cyperaceae Cyperus laevigatus L. Cryptophyte Sedge 

64. Cyperaceae Cyperus longus L. Hemicryptophyte Sedge 

65. Cyperaceae Cyperus pangorei Rottb. Hemicryptophyte Sedge 



Sr # 


66. Cyperaceae Cyperus pygmaeus Rottb. Hemicryptophyte Sedge 

67. Cyperaceae Cyperus rotundus L. Hemicryptophyte Sedge 

68. Cyperaceae Eleocahris atropurpurea (Retz.) Prest. Hemicryptophyte Sedge 

69. Cyperuaceae 

Eleocharis geniculata (L.) Roem. et 

Schultz. 



Fimbristylis bisumbellata (Forssk.) 

Bubani 


71. Cyperaceae Fimbristylis cymosa (L.) Vahl. Hemicryptophyte Sedge 


Fimbristylis turkestanica (Regel) B. 

Fedsch. 


73. Cyperaceae Fimbristylis sp. nov. Hemicryptophyte Sedge 


Schoenoplectus litoralis subsp 

thermalis (Trabut) S.Hooper 

Crytophyte Sedge 

75. Ephedraceae 

Ephedra ciliata Fisch. & Mey. Ex 

C.A.Meyer. 

Gymnosperm Shrub 

76. Equisetaceae Equisetum debile Roxb ex Vaucher Pteridophyte Herb 

77. Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia caducifolia Haines Phanerophyte Shrub 

78. Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia clarkeana Hk.f. Therophyte Herb 

79. Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia hirta L. Hemicryptophyte Herb 



82. Euphorbiaceae Phyllanthus reticulatus Poir. Phanerophyte Shrub 


84. Fabaceae 

Alysicarpus ovalifolius (Schumach.) J. 

Leonard 


85. Fabaceae Crotalaria burhia Ham. Ex Bth. Phanerophyte Shrub 

86. Fabaceae Crotalaria medicaginea Lamk. Therophyte Herb 

87. Fabaceae Indigofera argentea Burm.f. Chamaephyte Herb 

88. Fabaceae Indigofera cordifolia Heyne ex Roth Therophyte Herb 

89. Fabaceae Indigofera hochstetteri Baker Therophyte Herb 

90. Fabaceae Indigofera linifolia (L.f.) Retz. Therophyte Herb 

91. Fabaceae Indigofera sessiliflora DC. Therophyte Herb 



94. Fabaceae 

Rhynchosia capitata (Heyne ex Roth) 

DC. 

Therophyte Climber 


96. Fabaceae 

Rhynchosia schimperi Hochst. ex 

Boiss. 

Chamaephyte 

Subshrub 

97. Fabaceae Tephrosia purpurea (L.) Pers. Chamaephyte Subshrub 

98. Fabaceae 

Tephrosia strigosa (Dalz.) Sant. & 

Mahcshw. 


99. Fabaceae Tephrosia uniflora Pers. Chamaephyte Subshrub 

100. Fabaceae Tephrosia villosa (L.) Pers. Chamaephyte Subshrub 

101. Malvaceae Abutilon bidentatum A. Rich. Phanerophyte Subshrub 

102. Malvaceae Abutilon fruticosum Guill.& Perr Phanerophyte Subshrub 


104. Malvaceae Abutilon muticum (Del.ex DC.) Sweet Phanerophyte Subshrub 

105. Malvaceae Sida ovata Forssk Phanerophyte Subshrub 

106. Marsiliaceae Marsilia minuta L. Pteridophyte Herb 

107. Menispermaceae Cocculus hirsutus (L.) Diels Phanerophyte Vine 



Sr # 


108. Menyanthaceae Nymphoides cirstata (Roxb.) O.Ktze Hydrophyte Herb 

109. Mimosaceae Acacia jacquemontii Benth. Phanerophyte Shrub 


Acacia nilotica (L.) Del. subsp indica 

(Benth.) Brenan 



Acacia nilotica subsp cupressiformis 

(T.L. Stewart) Ali 


112. Mimosaceae Acacia senegal (L.)Willd. Phanerophyte Tree 


114. Mimosaceae Prosopis glandulosa Torr. Phanerophyte Shrub 

115. Mimosaceae Prosopis juliflora Swartz Phanerophyte Shrub 

116. Molluginaceae Gisekia pharnaceoides L. Therophyte Herb 

117. Molluginaceae Glinus lotoides L. Therophyte Herb 

118. Molluginaceae Limeum indicum Stocks ex. T. And. Therophyte Herb 

119. Molluginaceae Mollugo cerviana (Linn.) Ser. Therophyte Herb 

120. Nelumbonaceae Nelumbo nucifera Gaertn. Hydrophyte Herb 

121. Neuradaceae Neurada procumbens L. Therophyte Herb 

122. Nyctaginaceae Boerhavia diandra L. Therophyte Herb 

123. Nyctaginaceae Boerhavia diffusa L. Chamaephyte Herb 

124. Nyctaginaceae 

Boerhavia procumbens Banks ex 

Roxb. 

Cryptophyte Herb 

125. Nyctaginaceae 

Commicarpus boissieri (Heimerl) 

Cufod. 

Phanerophyte Herb 

126. Poaceae 

Aeluropus lagopoides (L.) Trin. ex 

Thw. 

Cryptophyte Grass 

127. Poaceae Aristida adscensionis L. Therophyte Grass 

128. Poaceae Aristida funiculata Trin. & Rupr. Therophyte Grass 

129. Poaceae Aristida mutabilis Trin. & Rupr. Therophyte Grass 

130. Poaceae Brachiaria ovalis (R. Br.) Stapf Therophyte Grass 

131. Poaceae Brachiaria ramosa (L.) Stapf Therophyte Grass 

132. Poaceae Cenchrus biflorus Roxb. Therophyte Grass 

133. Poaceae 

Cenchrus pennisetiformis Hochst. & 

Steud. ex Steud. 


134. Poaceae Cenchrus prieurii (Kunth) AMaire Hemicryptophyte Grass 

135. Poaceae Cenchrus setigerus Vahl. Hemicryptophyte Grass 



138. Poaceae Dactyloctenium aristatum Link Therophyte Grass 

139. Poaceae Dactyloctenium scindicum Boiss. Hemicryptophyte Grass 


141. Poaceae Dichanthium annulatum (Forsk.) Stapf Hemicryptophyte Grass 

142. Poaceae Digitaria bicornis (Lam.) Loud. Therophyte Grass 

143. Poaceae 

Diplachne fusca (L.) P.Beauv. ex 

Roem. & Shult. 



145. Poaceae Eleusine indica (Linn.) Gaertn. Therophyte Grass 

146. Poaceae 

Eragrostis cilianensis (All.) Lut. ex 

F.T. Hubbard 


147. Poaceae Eragrostis ciliaris (L.) R. Br. Therophyte Grass 

148. Poaceae Eragrostis minor Host. Therophyte Grass 

149. Poaceae 

Eragrostis tenella (L.) P. Beauv. ex 

Roem. 




Sr # 


150. Poaceae Eragrostis viscose (Retz.) Trin. Therophyte Grass 

151. Poaceae 

Eriochloa procera (Retz.) C. E. 

Hubbard 


152. Poaceae Imperata cylindrical (L.) P.Beauv. Therophyte Grass 

153. Poaceae 

Leptothrium senegalensis (Kunth) 

W.D. Clayton 


154. Poaceae Ochthochloa compressa (Forsk.) Hilu Therophyte Grass 

155. Poaceae Panicum antidotale Retz. Hemicryptophyte Grass 

156. Poaceae Panicum turgidum Forsk. Hemicryptophyte Grass 

157. Poaceae 

Paspalidium geminatum (Forsk.) 

Stapf. 


158. Poaceae Paspalum scrobiculatum L. Therophyte Grass 

159. Poaceae Paspalum vaginatum Swartz. Hemicryptophyte Grass 

160. Poaceae Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. Cryptophyte Large Grass 

161. Poaceae Phragmites karka (Retz.) Trin. Cryptophyte Tall grass 


163. Poaceae Saccharum griffithii Munro ex Boiss. Hemicryptophyte Tall grass 

164. Poaceae Saccharum ravennae (Linn.) Murr., Hemicryptophyte Tall grass 

165. Poaceae Saccharum spontaneum Linn. Hemicryptophyte Tall grass 

166. Poaceae Sporobolus nervosus Hochst. Hemicryptophte Grass 

167. Polygalaceae Polygala erioptera DC. Chamaephyte Herb 

168. Polygalaceae Polygala irregularis Boiss Chamaephyte Herb 

169. Polygonaceae Calligonum polygonoides L. Phanerophyte Shrub 

170. Polygonaceae Persicaria barbata (L.) Hara Chamaephyte Herb 

171. Polygonaceae Persicaria glabra (Willd.) Gomes Chamaephyte Herb 



174. Primulaceae 

Anagallis arvensis var coerulea (L.) 

Gonan. 


175. Rhamnaceae 

Ziziphus nummularia (Burm.f.) Wight 

& Arn. 

Phanerophytes Shrub 

176. Salicaceae Populus euphratica Olivier Phanerophyte Tree 

177. Salvadoraceae Salvadora oleoides Decne. Phanerophyte Tree 


179. Salviniaceae Salvinia molesta Mitchelle Hydrophyte Fern Herb 


181. Solanaceae Datura fastuosa L. Phanerophyte Shrub 

182. Solanaceae 

Datura suaveolens Humb. & 

Bonpland ex Willd. 

Phanerophyte Large shrub 

183. Solanaceae Lycium edgeworthii Dunal Phanerophyte Shrub 

184. Solanaceae Lycium ruthenicum Murray Phanerophyte Shrub 

185. Solanaceae Physalis divaricata D. Don Therophyte Herb 



188. Solanaceae Solanum surattense Burm.f. Therophyte Herb 

189. Solanaceae Withania coagulans (Stocks) Dunal Phanerophyte Shrub 

190. Solanaceae Withania somnifera (L.) Dunal Phanerophyte Shrub 

191. Sterculiaceae Melhania denhamii R. Br. Chamaephyte Under shrub 

192. Tamaricaceae Tamarix aphylla (L.) H. Karst. Phanerophyte Tree 

193. Tamaricaceae Tamarix dioica Roxb. Phanerophyte Tree 



Sr # 


194. Tamaricaceae Tamarix indica Willd. Phanerophyte Shrub 


196. Tamaricaceae Tamarix szovitsina Bunge Phanerophyte Shrub 

197. Tamaricaceae Tamarix sp. Nov. Phanerophyte Shrub 

198. Tiliaceae Corchorus aestuans L. Therophyte Herb 

199. Tiliaceae Corchorus depressus (L.) Stocks Therophyte Herb 



202. Tiliaceae Grewia tenax (Forssk.) A. & S. Phanerophyte Shrub 

203. Typhaceae Typha dominghensis Pers. Hemicryptophyte Tall reed 

204. Verbenaceae Clerodendrum phlomidis L. Phanerophyte Shrub 


206. Zygophyllaceae Fagonia indica Burm.f. Chamaephyte 

Herb/subshr 

ub 


Fagonia indica var. schweinfurthii 

Hadidi 

Chamaephyte 

Herb/subshr 

ub 

208. Zygophyllaceae Tribulus longipetalus Viv. Therophyte Herb 


Tribulus ochroleucus (Maire) Ozenda 

& Quezel 






P l a n t F a m i l i e s 


Verbenaceae 

Typhaceae 

Tiliaceae 

Tamaricaceae 

Sterculiaceae 

Solanaceae 


Salviniaceae 

Salvadoraceae 

Salicaceae 

Rhamnaceae 

Primulaceae 

Port ulacaceae 

Pontederiaceae 

Polygonaceae 

Polygalaceae 

Poaceae 

Nyctaginaceae 

Neuradaceae 

Nelumbonaceae 


Mimosaceae 

M enyanthaceae 

M enispermaceae 

M arsiliaceae 

Malvaceae 

Fabaceae 

Euphorbiaceae 

Equisetaceae 

Ephedraceae 

Cyperaceae 

Cuscut aceae 

Cucurbitaceae 




Capparidaceae 


Burseraceae 

Brassicaceae 

Boraginaceae 

Asteraceae 

Asphodelaceae 


Arecaceae 

Amaranthaceae 

Aizoaceae 

Acanthaceae 

Fig 41 - Contribution of Plant Families to the Flora of Chotiari Wetland Complex 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 




Year-wise comparson of the plant families at Chotiari to overall flora is provided in 

Annexure C – II. 

4. 3.2 Phytosociological Aspects 

The flora of Chotiari was surveyed consectively over three years starting from 2006 to 

2008 over different seasons. TWINSPAN Analysis was used considering plant cover of 

each species and different plant communities were observed over different seasons in 

three years which are briefly described as under. A further detail of the analysis could be 

revealed from Annexure C – III. 

4.3.2.1 Indigofera argentea – Indigofera linifolia – Gynandropsis Plant Community 

(2006) 

This community was found on Transects 1, 6, 8, 9 and 10. Transect 1 was situated on 

the side of main embankment where there was a lot of grazing and soil was deep. The 

community is represented by families Fabaceae (Indigofera argentea - Indigofera 

linifolia) and Capparidaceae (Gynandropsis gynandra). Although there were a lot of 

other plant species present at these points, yet community was formed by these species. 

Dry Matter forage production of the sites represented by this plant community varied 

from 150 to 552 Kg/Ha. 

Figure 42 – Sites possessed by Indigofera argentea – Indigofera linifolia – Gynandropsis 

Plant Community (2006) 

4.3.2.2 Octhochloa – Pluchea – Salvadora Plant Community (2006) 

This plant community was represented by Transects 2, 3, 5, 7 and 4. All these points 

were on sand dunes situated in vicinity of wetlands. The plant species comprising this 

community included Ochthochloa compressa (family Poaceae) with a life form of 

Hemicryptophte, Pluchea lanceolata (family Asteraceae) and life form of Phanerophyte 

and Salvadora oleoides (family Salvadoraceae) and having life form of 

Phanerophyte.Dry matter forage yield fluctuated between 66 and 483 Kg/Ha. 

Figure 43 – Sites represented by Octhochloa – Pluchea – Salvadora Plant Community 

(2006) 



4.3.2.3 Calligonum - Indigofera – Ochthochloa Plant Community (2007) 

This community was found on Transects No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Families 

Polygonaceae, Fabaceae and Poaceae represented the community. Calligonum 

polygonoides and Indigofera argentea were found in 7 transects followed by 

Ochthochloa compressa in 4 transects. Dry matter forage production varied from 66 to 

553 Kg/Ha. 

Figure 44 – Sites represented by Calligonum - Indigofera – Ochthochloa Plant 

Community (2007) 

4.3.2.4 Indigofera – Dactyloctenium – Salvadora Plant Community (2007) 

This plant community was represented by Transects 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. All these points 

were on sand dunes situated in vicinity of wetlands. The community was comprised of 

species like Indigofera argentea (Fabaceae), Dactyloctenium scindicum ({Poaceae) and 

Salvadora oleoides (Salvadoraceae). Dry matter forage production of this community 

varied from 199 to 694 Kg/Ha thus exhibiting a potential rangeland in summer (postmonsoon) 

season 

Figure 45 – Sites represented by Indigofera – Dactyloctenium – Salvadora Plant 


4.3.2.5 Calligonum polygonoides – Panicum turgidum – Crotalaria burhia Plant 


This plant community was represented by transects 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13 and 14 where 

Calligonum polygonoides followed by co-dominant species of Panicum turgidum and 

associated species of Crotalaria burhia. It is a typical desert community represented by 

xerophytes that exist either on sand dunes or in sandy desert lands. Chotiari reservoir is 

occupied by a number of sand dunes which are used as grazing grounds for the 

livestock of local communities. Other plant species found in this community were Lycium 



edgeworthii, Calotropis procera, Phragmites karka, Salvadora oleoides, Prosopis 

cineraria, Luffa echinata, Indigofera argentea, Indigofera cordifolia, Phyla nodiflora, 

Panicum turgidum, Corchorus depressus, Cistanche tubulosa and Ephedra ciliata. 

Forage production of these sites varied from 54 to 102 Kg/Ha. These island communities 

occupying sand dunes are heavily grazed year-round. 

Figure 46 – Sites represented by Calligonum polygonoides – Panicum turgidum – 

Crotolaria burhia Plant Community (2008) 

4.3.2.6 Calotropis procera – Acacia nilotica - Suaeda fruticosa – Desmostachya 

bipinnata Plant Community (2008) 

This community was present in transects 2, 3, 4 and 11 showing relatively degraded and 

overgrazed sites. Other species of the area were Leptadenia pyrotechnica, Salsola 

imbricata, Gynandropsis gynandra, Phragmites karka, Typha elephantiana, Cyperus 

rotundus, Cyperus bulbosus, Phyla nodiflora, Bacopa monnieri, Ochthochloa compressa 

and Pluchea lanceolata. Forage production of these sites varied from 60 to 154 Kg/Ha 

showing intensive overgrazing. 

Figure 47 – Sites represented by Calotropis procera – Acacia nilotica - Suaeda fruticosa 

– Desmostachya bipinnata Plant Community (2008) 


Carrying Capacity of Chotiari Wetland Complex was determined in terms of hectares per 

animal unit per year over three consecutive years (Figure 48 and Annex C - IV). Both 

forage production and carrying capacity showed a downward trend from 2007 to 2008. 

Maximum values of these parameters were found in 2007. Such downward trend could 

be result of (i) the seasons as both in 2006 and 2008 surveys were conducted in fall and 

early spring seasons while in 2007 it was conducted right after monsoon rains in 

summer or (ii) with the increasing level of water in the reservoir many productive 



pastures have submerged. The study also revealed that there is grazing pressure, wood 

cutting and lopping which is contributing in the deterioration of natural vegetation of the 

study area. It has been observed that the inhabitants around the reservoir are mainly 

engaged in agriculture and livestock rearing and in the absence of any grazing system 

(either conventional one) rangelands get no relief and productivity is declining. 

Figure 48 – Forage Production and Carrying Capacity of Pastures of Chotiari Wetland 

Complex Over Three Different Years 

Available Forage (Kg/Ha 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

144 

17.7 


268 

10 

2006 2007 2008 

Available Forage (Kg/Ha) Carring Capacity (Ha/AU/Yr) 


4.3.4.1 α- Diversity (i.e., the species richness and species diversity within each locality). 

With reference to species richness Chotiari Wetland Complex showed second highest 

value of α- Diversity across all the sites except Keenjhar Lake with 49 families, 125 

genera and 213 species. A summary of the plant communities, associated species and 

the forage production is provided in Annexure C – V. 

Among various families, Poaceae exhibited the highest species richness in all sites. At 

Chotiari Wetland Complex the highest number of species recorded belonging to the 

family Poaceae (41 species) followed by Cyperaceae, Fabaceae (18 species, each), 

Solanaceae (10 species), Asteraceae, Malvaceae (8 species each), Capparidaceae, 

Convolvulaceae, Mimosaceae (7 species each) and other families having less then 

seven species. 

4.3.4.2 β -Diversity (i.e., the species turnover from one locality to other locality or 

diversity between localities) 

Localities were compared in pairs with every possible combination. The highest number 

of species was shared by Keenjhar and Chotiari, i.e., these two localities had 162 

species in common, Chotiari & Pai with 88 species and, Keti & Chotiari 78 species in 

common. 

These localities pairs are shown in Table 19 below. 

55 

47 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Caarying Capacity (Ha/AU/Yr)



Table - 19 Similarity Index and β -Diversity of study sites 

Luffa echinata: According to Flora of Pakistan records, it was considered a rare species 

earlier recorded only form Chitral, Swat and Tharparkar. However, this was found to be 

abundantly in Chotiari reservoir area. 

Fimbristylis sp & Tamarix sp: These are newly discovered species and would be 

described later. 

Tamarix szovitsiana: This species was first time recorded form Sindh province. 


2006 


Shared 

Shared 

Shared 


2 

Keti – Chotiari 13 0.16 1.832 68 0.45 1.55 78 0.48 1.52 

4 


6 

Chotiari – Pai 30 0.33 1.667 78 0.51 1.49 88 0.53 1.47 

2007 

Being an arid area with a landscape mainly consisting of undulating sand dunes, the 

vegetation of this site is xerophytic in general, dominated by tough xerophytes like 

Calligonum polygonoides, Panicum turgidum, Crotolaria burhia, Capparis decidua, etc. 

Floristically Poaceae is the largest family with 41 species. The high diversity of grasses 

is another characteristic feature of arid lands. However, the presence of various Lakes 

(which are bound to become one large Lake after the complete filling of reservoir) 

provides different kinds of microhabitat due to which the over all diversity of the site is 

fairly high with a total of 211 species. The water margins are inhabited by a number of 

wetland species like Phyla nodiflora, Bacopa monnieri, Oxystelma esculentum, Ipomoea 

carnea, Ipomoea aquatica, Persicaria glabra, Alternanthera sessilis and, Glinus lotoides, 

etc. However, the truly aquatic plants were much fewer as compared to those reported 

by Leghari et al. (1999). They reported a total of 41 aquatic species including floating, 

emergent and submerged plants, out of which this study revealed only 9 species such as 

Equisetum debile, Marsilia minuta, Salvinia molesta, Persicaria barbata, Typha 

dominghensis, Cyperus longus, Cyperus rotundus, Nelumbo nucifera and Ipomoea 

aquatica. The most probable reason for this difference is that Leghari et al. (1999) 

studied this wetland complex before filling of the reservoir was started. On the other 

hand, at the time of this study the reservoir had filled to a considerable extent, 

submerging a large amount of vegetation including trees and shrubs. As a result, most of 

the hydrophytes previously present in the smaller natural Lakes must have died for two 

reasons, firstly due to change in water level, and secondly the decomposition of 

submerged vegetation must have resulted in lowered level of dissolved oxygen and 


2008


change in pH. The submerged vegetation at deeper depths inside water decomposes 

anaerobically, releasing methane. All these factors seem to have negatively affected the 

diversity of aquatic plants. 

The islands in the reservoir present quite interesting vegetation. Many of them have 

considerably high land in their middle part, inhabited by xerophhytic species like 

Euphorbia caducifolia and Salvadora oleoides, but at their margins wetland species like 

Phyla nodiflora, Bacopa monnieri, Fimbristylis bisumbellata, Cyperus pygmaeus, Typha 

dominghensis, Phragmites karka, Oxystelma esculentum, Luffa echinata, etc. are 

present. The latter (Luffa echinata) is particularly common on the islands. It is an 

extensive annual climber growing after monsoon and it totally covers its surrounding 

shrubs and trees. After flowering in September – October and subsequently fruiting, it 

dries up in the winter. 

Among woody species Acacia nilotica, Prosopis cineraria, Acacia senegal, Salvadora 

oleoides are found in dry places and Populus euphratica and Tamarix spp. Are 

prominent in semi aquatic and wet habitats. Tamarix is in fact the largest woody genus 

with 6 species, mainly distributed along water margins, water logged lands and periphery 

of cultivated fields where soil is more or less saturated with water. The local people 

depend upon the natural vegetation in different ways besides livestock grazing. Typha, 

Saccharum, Phragmites, and fine twigs of Tamarix spp. are extensively used for 

thatching and for making mats. Thicker stems of Tamarix are used in making huts and 

also as fire wood. Petioles and rhizomes of Nelumbo nucifera and inflorescence of 

Calligonum are used as vegetable. 

Like other arid areas, the primary productivity (DMY) and carrying capacity in 2008 are 

low, the mean values being 267.7 and 54.9 Ha/AU/Yr, respectively, which are much 

lower than that found in survey of 2007 which was conducted during monsoon season. It 

is obvious that in winter the carrying capacity is particularly low. The main livelihood of 

local people is pastoralism; therefore, there is an immense pressure on the meagre 

resources of the ecosystem with signs of overgrazing and desertification. It is learnt that 

about 400 families around the reservoir are engaged in livestock rearing, who also 

depend upon ecosystem resources for firewood and hut making materials. This is why 

wood cutting and lopping activities are also rampant in the area. 


The main functions of Chotiari reservoir are sustained supply of water for agriculture, 

support fish population and provide healthy habitat to local as well as migratory bird 

fauna. It has lot of importance for people inhabiting in and around the reservoir. Local 

communities use Lake waters for human and livestock drinking and for irrigation. In spite 

of the cancellation of contractual arrangements for fish, the contractors are still present 

and forcing the local communities to sell their stock to them. The local economy of the 

area relies largely on agriculture, livestock and fishing. By virtue of being located at the 

edge of desert the poverty among the local communities is more common and the 

resource degradation is more rampant. Chotiari reservoir is facing a number of threats 

which are summarized below: 

4.4.1.1 Water logging and Salinity: The widening of the reservoir and consequently 

increase in the incoming water has adversely affected the agriculture and livestock 

practices of the surrounding areas, especially on western and southern sides of the 



reservoir. Vast chunks of agricultural lands are being water logged due to seepage from 

reservoir and Nara canal. Water table is at rise in adjoining areas which will subject more 

areas to this menace in addition to the gift of salinity. It is expected that water level of the 

reservoir will rise up to 7 feet so one can well imagine how much productive agricultural 

area in vicinity of Nara desert will be affected by water logging and salinity and 

resultantly how many agrarian families will suffer economic losses. According to one 

estimate, nearly 400 families are associated with livestock rearing in the reservoir area. 

Ultimately the shifting of both human and livestock populations to adjoining areas will 

pose serious environmental impacts both on flora and fauna of already degraded desert 

ecosystem. 

4.4.1.2 Loss of Trees Wealth in the Area: In the process of increasing water in the 

reservoir, Makki forest that was very famous for luxuriant natural vegetation has gone 

completely under water. Large trees of Prosopis cineraria and Acacia nilotica have 

completely drowned inside water. The submersion of forest has not only heavily altered 

the ecosystem but also posed new threats. 

The woody vegetation inside water will 

ultimately die and decompose and 

consequently giving rise to eutrophication. 

Moreover, because of conversion of existing 

mosaic of desert and wetland ecosystems 

into aquatic ecosystem, grasses, shrubs 

and trees which were being used as fodder 

for range and domestic livestock and 

medicinal flora will vanish and so will the 

habitats of associated fauna. Due to 

seepage from Nara canal, the highly fertile 

agricultural lands in the vicinity are being 

destroyed; farming families are forced to 

raise livestock to earn their livelihoods 

which will ultimately increase grazing 

pressure on already deteriorating rangelands of the area. Unfortunately, except Sindh 

Irrigation and Drainage Authority (SIDA), no other government department like Forests, 

Wildlife or Fisheries is present at Chotiari. Presently forests and rangelands in and 

around Chotiari do not carry any legal title. Consequently, people cut healthy trees 

without any check. Even people from Sanghar city take away wood for commercial 

purposes. Under such deforestation, there will be little refuge for the wild animals in the 

area. 

4.4.1.3 Shifting Populations: The large number of human and livestock populations is 

continuously shifting from seepage affected areas to adjoining areas. This is causing 

greater pressure on natural vegetation for timber, fuel wood, medicinal plants, 

rangelands, housing and agriculture. This is putting greater economic stress on already 

poor rural communities. 

4.4.1.4 Over Exploitation of Fishes: It has been learnt during vegetation surveys that 

fish yield has increased 2-3 times compared to the past. For example, if the Chotiari 

Lake first used to yield one truck load/day, now it is yielding 2-3 truck loads/day. In fact 

increased fish catches are not due to increase in fish population, rather it is due to 

entry of more people into the fishing business on account of unemployment of local 

people thus putting more economic stress on already poor livelihood conditions. Due 

to over fishing there will be drastic decline in fish population of Chotiari Lake. 

Furthermore, no efforts by the fisheries department are visible to improve the condition 



by adding fish seed or fingerlings into the Lake to replenish the decreasing fish stock. 

Another important contributing factor is the use of unsustainable fishing practices by 

the fishing contractors which is undermining long-term sustainability of fisheries in this 

complex. These include, use of small size fishing nets, use of poison and chemicals. 

Degradation of fisheries poses a potential threat to the livelihood of local fishing 

communities. 

4.4.1.5 Illegal Hunting & Shooting: Generally hunting and shooting is done by elites 

of the area. Due to unchecked hunting population of important large animals like Hog 

deer and Chinkara has drastically declined while bird population is also decreasing 

due to constant disturbance thus forcing these birds to migrate to undisturbed grounds 

elsewhere. 

4.4.1.6 Lack of social services: The social problems faced by the area include lack 

of safe drinking water, schools, health facilities, unemployment and dominance of 

influential local interest groups. 

4.4.2 Improvements Required: 

4.4.2.1 Conservation of Vegetation 

• Tree Plantation: Chotiari reservoir is a unique landscape that contains water bodies 

and the desert ecosystem simultaneously. Such merger of different ecosystems 

within the same area presents a wealth of flora and fauna. The flora of the reservoir 

has suffered badly due to increase in the water level. It is suggested that along the 

banks of the reservoir and along the Nara Canal extensive planting of water loving 

trees be done at least in one kilometre radius to control the spread of seepage, water 

logging and salinity. The plant species suggested are Eucalyptus camaldulensis, 

Syzygium cumini, Populus euphratica and Tamarix passernioides, etc. This will help 

improve not only the soil conditions for cultivation but also improve the economic 

conditions of the land owners. 

• Alternate Use of Submerged Agriculture Lands: The agriculture fields in the 

depressions should be used for aquaculture such as cultivation of Singhara (Trapa 

bispinosa (Family Onagraceae). The farmers should also be encouraged to use such 

type of lands for fish hatcheries. Cultivation of aquatic flora, like Nilofer (Nelumbo 

nucifera), Nymphaea lotus, etc. need to be encouraged to promote livelihood 

opportunities for the communities. This will help the communities to use their lands 

for productive purposes and they can get diversified income from their lands. To 

overcome the fodder shortage in the area and reduce grazing pressure on 

rangelands, it is suggested that Kallar grass (Diplachne fusca) may also be 

introduced on salt affected soils. 

• Livestock and Pasture: 

Germplasm Conservation: The study revealed that local communities depend 

heavily on livestock rearing for their sustenance. Livestock includes both small 

and large ruminants of varying numbers. Livestock such as cows and buffaloes 

were seen grazing even on distantly located islands where such animals can only 

approach through transportation by boats. There is a large variety of grasses, 

forbs and shrubs that provide nutrient rich forage for all kinds of livestock. 

Potential for carrying capacity of these grazing grounds is very high and it is 

suggested that these islands be protected from grazing as seed banks for the 



conservation of germplasm. Moreover, a few number of vegetation exclosures 

need to be established to demonstrate the effect of protection on the recovery 

and multiplication of natural vegetation. 

Livestock Management: Local communities in desert areas largely believe in 

having more numbers of domestic animals than considering their quality. The 

reason for such attitude is largely attributed to the low costs associated with 

grazing and also to economic instability. It requires continuous awareness raising 

among agro-pastoral families besides regular monitoring of carrying capacity of 

important pastures to suggest the proper kind and number of livestock in a 

manner where competition among wild herbivores and domestic livestock for 

food is minimised. There is a need that local communities should be trained on 

range-livestock interaction and the ways to improve the pastures through 

community actions. Moreover, regular trainings on livestock health care are also 

required. 

Pasture development through Latest Technologies: The pastures should be 

developed using sprinkler irrigation systems on modern lines using lift irrigation 

from the reservoir of desert side of the Lake to feed increasing population of 

livestock. This will help in reducing grazing pressure on dwindling vegetation 

depending on natural precipitation. In the waterlogged places, Diplachne fusca 

(Kallar grass) can be grown as fodder crop. 

• Encroachment by Mesquite: 

Likewise other areas of Sindh, Mesquite (Prosopis juliflora) is increasingly 

encroaching the landscape in Chotiari. If proper and timely measures are not taken, 

it will alter the ecosystem. Some areas at the water margins are even not possible to 

access due to profuse growth of mesquite. 

• Wildlife Conservation: Chotiari is famous for a variety of wild fauna that includes 

Hog deer, Crocodile, Otter and large number of migratory waterfowls. It is used to be 

an important breeding ground of Marbled Teal, which has been affected with the 

construction of reservoir and needs investigation about its present status. Although 

Pir Pagharo (a well-known spiritual and political figure of Sindh) has a traditional 

sanctuary for Hog deer and partridges, yet hunting of waterfowl is common. Sighting 

of Crocodile and Otter is also not frequent. To conserve such unique species, 

participatory conservation efforts are required immediately. 

• Improvement of Fish population: It has been suggested that local communities 

should be encouraged and trained for establishment of fish hatcheries on their water 

affected agricultural lands. The fingerlings or fish seed should be released into the 

reservoir through purchase by the fisheries department or through some NGO’s 

engaged in conservation activities. This will improve the fish population in the 

Reservoir and also serve as alternate source of income generation for the local poor 

communities. 

• Alternate Sources of Energy: To reduce the pressure on ecosystem resources 

alternate sources of energy such as electricity, solar, wind energy, natural gas and or 

biogas may be explored and provided. 



4.5 Conclusion 

The Chotiari Wetland complex is posing environmental threats to the surrounding 

agriculture and desert areas which is in turn exerting pressure on livestock, pastures, 

agricultural fields, forests and thus seriously affecting the overall habitat quality. The 

process of deterioration is gaining momentum with the increase in seepage of water 

from the Reservoir. Although this ecosystem is rich in floral diversity with respect to 

number of species recorded (213 species). However, out of 85 plant species recorded in 

transects, there were 52 species in the category of rare and 9 species rated as 

vulnerable, 12 species less common while 12 species are rated as common. The 

rangeland carrying capacity is declining. This is indication of the fact that this fresh water 

wetland ecosystem is loosing its productive potential. Immediate rehabilitation measures 

like fish improvement, control on excessive grazing and replacement of exotic species 

like mesquite are needed. Planting of fodder trees and palatable grasses should be 

promoted through community participation in the area to overcome the grazing pressure. 

To control seepage of water from embankments water-loving tree planting and 

aquaculture seem appropriate measures. 



5 - Pai Forest District Nawab Shah 

(A Forest Ecosystem) 

Figure 50 – Image of Chotiari Wetland Complex 



5.1 Brief History of the Pai Forest Ecosystem 

Prior to British era in 1943, the local rulers (Talpur/Mirs) in Sindh owned all the wellstocked 

forests in the province, who maintained them as hunting grounds. The cutting of 

trees in such forests was strictly prohibited. Creation and demarcation of state forests 

(as reserve and protected forests) was started in 1823 and continued till 1972. Pai 

Forest is situated on eastern side of the River Indus near Sakrand town of district 

Nawabshah in Sindh Province at about a distance of 5 km adjacent to National Highway. 

Pai forest has a total area of 1933 ha (4777 acres). Out of the total area only 1502 ha 

(78%) are under tree cover while remaining 319 and 112 ha are either blank or on high 

lying areas, respectively. Presently 338 ha (17 %) are under Babul (Acacia nilotica), 107 

ha (6 %) under Eucalyptus, 1045 ha (54%) under Kandi (Prosopis cineraria) and 12 ha 

(0.6%) under Shisham (Dalbergia sissoo) crop. Thus a total of 457 (24% of the total 

area) is irrigated and maintained as Irrigated plantation while remaining area (54 %) that 

is comprised of Kandi (Prosopis cineraria) trees does not receive irrigation water. 

Climate of this area is generally hot and arid. Rainfall is scanty, erratic and mostly occurs 

during monsoon season i.e., from June to September. The average annual rain fall is 

about 200 mm. Maximum temperatures in summer rises to 50 o C, and minimum 

temperature during winter is 8 o C. Hot summers usually extend from April to October. 

The Soil of this area is mostly loamy in nature with varying proportions of clay and sand. 

Most of the area has high salt concentrations due to hyper aridity and scarcity of 

irrigation water. 

Prior to the construction of Sukkur barrage on River Indus at Sukkur, Pai forest 

depended for its water supply on the scanty rainfall and the unregulated water supply 

from the river through inundation channels. As water supply was not assured, the 

growing stock was poor both in quality and quantity. The Barrage was constructed 

during 1931-35, but no provision was made initially for supply of water to the Pai Forest. 

Establishment of tree plantations under agro-forestry system was, however, started in 

1937-38 with the help of irrigation water. As water supply was small, only small areas of 

20 to 40 ha were taken up each year for raising tree crops. This arrangement continued 

till 1946 - 47. 

Due to construction of flood protection bund on the river, Pai forest has cut off from the 

riverine areas and became inland forest. Realising the gravity of the shortage of fuelwood 

and charcoal in the province in 1946-47, the Government of Sindh sanctioned 

irrigation water from Rohri canal for maintaining Pai forest. Later on, due to poor 

management of water course and forceful use of water by neighbouring farmers, Pai 

Forest is completely deprived of canal water and now relying purely on ground water 

obtained from tube-wells. 

Due to its ecological importance this plantation has been declared as a protected area 

(Game Reserve) by Sindh Wildlife department for conservation and sustainable 

management of wildlife and its habitat because it provides abode to different wildlife 

species. Important wildlife of the area includes Hog deer, Partridges, Asiatic jackals, 

Jungle cat, Porcupine, Wild boar, Snakes, etc. For this purpose Pai forest, was taken up 

for systematic conversion into irrigated plantation during 1960-61 under a development 

scheme titled "Industrial Wood Plantation Phase-I". An area of 506 ha was planted under 

this scheme. In addition, an area of 174 ha was planted under Industrial Wood 

Plantation Phase-II in 1988-91 and 455 ha planted under SFDP in 1996-97. Most of the 



areas planted with Shisham during 1960-61 to 1969-70 under first development scheme 

were invaded by Devi (Prosopis juliflora) due to fires and shortage of canal water. 

Therefore, 13 tube wells were installed in Pai plantation to irrigate during water shortage 

periods but they are inadequate to support the entire game reserve. 

5.2 State of Biodiversity 

This Forest is dominated by four major species like Kandi (Prosopis cineraria) (very 

common with pure stands), Babul (Acacia nilotica) (common), Eucalyptus camaldulensis 

(Common), and Tamarix spp. (Tamarix indica (Common) and Tamarix aphylla 

(occasional). Whereas other species in the area include Salvadora oleoides, Salvadora 

persica, Calotropis procera, Cadaba fruticosa, Ziziphus nummularia, Capparis decidua, 

Amaranthus graecizans, Cucumis melo var. agrestis, Zaleya pentandra, Solanum 

surattense, Corchorus tridens, Corchorus depressus, Abutilon indicum, Amaranthus 

viridis, Launaea procumbens, Brachiaria spp., Suaeda fruticosa, Rhynchosia minima, 

Mullugo pentaphylla, Salsola imbricata, Dactyloctenium aegyptium, Desmostachya 

bipinnata, Trianthema portulacastrum, Euphorbia prostrata, Eclipta alba, Eragrostis 

japonica, Eragrostis minor, Cleome brachycarpa, Aerva javanica and Cocculus hirsutus 

etc. 

Intensity of infestation of alien invasive species like Mesquite (Prosopis juliflora) could be 

visualised from the fact that in most of the sampling points it stood first and second to 

the main species forming community. In 12 out of 16 sampling transects, Mesquite was 

the most dominant species and hence plant communities are named after this species. 

The major wildlife species in this game reserve include Hog deer, Partridges, Asiatic 

jackals, Jungle cat, Porcupine, Wild boar, Snakes, Desert hare, Rodents, Bats, Indian 

grey mongoose, Pangolin, Indian Bengal fox, etc. Whereas common birds include Green 

finch, Red vented bulbul, White cheeked bulbul, Pied chat, Pheasant tail crow, Grass 

tailed prinia, Turtle dove, Jungle babbler, Jungle sparrow, Crested lark and, Finch lark. 

Agriculture is one of the major professions in the area. People grow wheat and fodder as 

winter season crops while cotton is the summer season crop. Cultivated woody 

perennials and herbs are given below in Table 20. 

Table - 20 Cultivated plant species recorded at Pai Forest 


1 

Acanthaceae Adhatoda vasica Nees Phanerophyte Shrub 

2 

Combretaceae Terminalia arjuna Wight & Arn. Phanerophyte Tree 

3 

Fabaceae 

Sesbania bispinosa (Jacq.) W.F. Wight 

Phanerophyte Subshrub 

4 

Labiatae Ocimum basilicum L. Chmaephyte Subshrub 

5 

Meliaceae Azadirachta indica A.Juss. Phanerophyte Tree 

6 

Myrtaceae Eucalyptus camaldulensis Phanerophyte Tree 

7 

Papilionaceae Dalbergia sissoo Roxb. Phanerophyte Tree 

8 

Papilionaceae Erythrina sp. Phanerophyte Tree 

9 Pedaliaceae Sesamum indicum L. Therophyte Herb 

10 

Sapindaceae Dodonaea viscosa (L.) Jacq. Phanerophyte Shrub 



5.3 Livelihood/ Social Aspects 

The local communities of the surrounding area belong to Chandio, Jamali, Keerio, 

Lakha, Bhumbro and Jalbani tribes. Their livelihood is agriculture and mainly depends 

on forest area for their wood requirements and livestock grazing. 

In the recent past, all of the riverine forests namely Mehrabpur, Maribelo, Moriolakho, 

Jaryoketi , which were about 20000-25000 acres, lying outside the protection bund have 

been totally encroached by local peoples. Now the pressure of surrounding villages (20- 

25 villages) is entirely on Pai forest for fuel, timber, hunting and grazing. This small 

chunk of land is the only refuge for dwindling population of Hog deer and other fauna of 

the area. On the other hand the same forest is also sole source of fire wood, timber and 

grazing land for surrounding communities. This situation has aggravated the pace of 

continuous degradation of forest and wildlife habitat. Keeping in view the ecological 

importance of this forest, WWF- Pakistan taken up this site for conservation and 

rehabilitation on sustainable basis through Indus for All Programme. 

Villages around Pai forest have a mix of ethnic groups including Sindhi Samat castes 

such as Channa, Keeria and Machhi; Baloch tribes such as Magsi, Leghari, Zardari, 

Jamali and Jalbani; and Punjabi / Seraiki casts such as Gudara, Sial, Bhutta, Arain and 

Gujjar. The main livelihood sources are agriculture, livestock, and government service. 

School education infrastructure is widespread but health facilities are sporadic. Water 

supply through hand pumps is available and so is electricity in most villages. The area 

also has local civil society organizations and advocacy groups, in addition to the CCBs. 

A recent socio-economic study undertaken by the Indus for All Programme revealed that 

Marri Jalbani is the largest village, the residents of which are reportedly involved in wood 

cutting and selling. Provision of gas to this village and other nearby communities is likely 

to reduce the wood cutting intensity to a considerable extent. Livestock ownership in 

most villages coupled by herds brought by tribesmen from Upper Sindh also threatens 

the irrigated plantation in Pai forest area. The average household size of the 

neighbouring rural population is 6.9 members. Large household sizes are of 14 to 18 or 

even of more members in the nearby villages. About half (49%) of houses are Katcha, 

while a significant proportion of houses (27% and 19%) respectively, are semi-Pacca 

(bricks and wood) and Pacca (bricks and iron or RCC structure. Agricultural, labor and 

services are prominent professions of the population of Pai forest site along with 

miscellaneous services and occupations. About one half of the family members of Pai 

households are engaged in service sector followed by 36% as agricultural labor. On an 

overall basis, the main occupations of family members other than the household head, 

were fishing (36.4%), agricultural and wage labor (32%) and miscellaneous labor 

oriented services (23%). It is clear from these indicators that the human capital is quite 

low over here. Most of the people are engaged in primary production sectors of 

agriculture and fishing and in labor oriented occupation. 

Average monthly income per household is estimated as Rs. 7,000 only. Almost 52% 

households own buffaloes for milk.The average number of milking cows are 1 per 

household. Goat, sheep, and camel ownership are found as 22%, 9% and 5% 

households, respectively. Poultry birds are maintained by 16% of the households. 

Donkeys and horses are reported by 1.5% and 0.5% households, respectively. 



Based on recent socio-economic assessment conducted by Indus for All Programme 

(Annexures D – VI to D – XIV), on an overall basis, 48% of respondents agreed that 

irrigation water resources have depleted during the last five years. Over 64% 

respondents agreed that forest resources have sharply depleted during the last 5 years. 

Figure 51 – Location of transects and quadrats in Pai Forest 



5.4 Results 

5.4.1 Flora of Pai Forest: Vegetation assessment of Pai Forest was carried out 

during 2006, 2007 and 2008 in different seasons. Floristic account of Pai forest is given 

in Table 21, while the comparison of family’s contribution recorded in three surveys is 

presented in Annexure D – II. A total number of 122 species in 88 genera and 35 

families were recorded in Pai forest. Out of these, one species in one genus and one 

family is Pteridophyte, while 94 species in 66 genera and 31 families are dicotyledonous 

angiosperms and 27 species in 21 genera and 3 families are monocotyledonous 

angiosperms. Poaceae comes out to be the largest family with 21 species, followed by 

Fabaceae with 8 species, Amaranthaceae with 7 species, and Euphorbiaceae with 6 

species. Corchorus was the largest genus with 5 species followed by Tamarix with 4 

species. Transect-wise account of the phytosociological parameters of the flora of Pai 

Forest is provided in Annexure D – I. Besides the natural flora 10 cultivated species 

were also recognized (Table 20). The alphabetical checklist of species along their family, 

life form and habit is provided (Table 21). 

Table 21: List of plant species along with their families, life form and habit of Pai Forest. 

Sr # Family Plant species Life form Habit 

Acanthaceae Peristrophe paniculata (Forssk) Therophyte Herb 

1. 

Brummit 



4. Aizoaceae Zaleya pentandra (L.) Jeffery. Chamaephyte Herb 

5. Amaranthaceae Achyranthes aspera L. Phanerophyte Subshrub 

6. Amaranthaceae Aerva javanica (Ait.) Ait.f. Phanerophyte Subshrub 

7. Amaranthaceae Alternanthera sessilis (L.) DC. Chamaephyte Shrub 




11. Amaranthaceae Nothosaerva brachiata (L.) Wight Therophyte Herb 

12. Asclepiadaceae Calotropis procera (Willd.) R. Br. Phanerophyte Shrub 

Asclepiadaceae Leptadenia pyrotechnica (Forsk.) 

13. 

Dcne. Phanerophyte Shrub 

14. Asclepiadaceae Oxystelma esculentum (L.f) R.Br. Cryptophyte Climber 

15. Asphodelaceae Asphodelus tenuifolius Cav. Therophyte Herb 


17. Asteraceae Launaea procumbens (Roxb.) Amin Chamaephyte Herb 

18. Asteraceae Pulicaria undulata (L.) C.A. Meyer Therophyte Herb 

19. Asteraceae Sonchus asper (L.) Hill Therophyte Herb 


21. Brassicaceae Raphanus sativus L. Therophyte Herb 

22. Boraginaceae Heliotropium crispum Desf. Phanerophyte Shrub 

23. Boraginaceae Heliotropium ovalifolium Forssk. Chamaephyte Herb 

24. Boraginaceae Heliotropium supinum L. Chamaephyte Herb 

25. Boraginaceae Trichodesma indicum (L.) R.Br. Camaephyte Shrub 

26. Caesalpiniaceae Senna holosericea (Fresen.) Greuter Chamaephyte Subshrub 

27. Caesalpiniaceae Senna italica Mill. Chamaephyte Subshrub 

28. Capparidaceae Cadaba fruticosa (L.) Druce Phanerophyte Shrub 





30. Capparidaceae Capparis spinosa L. Phanerophyte Sub-shrub 


32. Capparidaceae Dipterygium glaucum Dcne. Phanerophyte Subshrub 

33. Caryophyllaceae Spergularia marina (L.) Bessler Therophyte Herb 



Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium opulifolium Schrader Therophyte Herb 

36. 

ex Koch & Ziz. 


Chenopodiaceae Suaeda fruticosa Forsk. ex 


38. 

J.F.Gmelin 


40. Convolvulaceae Convolvulus prostratus Forssk. Chamaephyte Herb 


42. Cucurbitaceae Cucumis melo L. var agrestis Naud. Chamaephyte Climber 

Cucurbitaceae Mukia maderaspatana (L.) M.J. Chamaephyte Climber 

43. 

Roem. 

44. Cyperacea Bolboschoenus affinis (Roth) Drobov Cryptophyte Sedge 

Cyperaceae Bolboschoenus glaucus (L.) S.G. 

45. 

Smith Cryptophyte Sedge 

46. Cyperacea Cyperus longus L. Hemicryptophyte Sedge 

47. Cyperacea Cyperus rotundus L. Hemicryptophyte Sedge 


Schoenoplectus litoralis (Schrad.) 

Palla 

Cryptophyte Sedge 

49. Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia helioscopia L. Therophyte Herb 

50. Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia prostrata Ait. Therophyte Herb 


52. Euphorbiaceae Phyllanthus fraternus Webster Therophyte Herb 


54. Euphorbiaceae Phyllanthus reticulatus Poir. Phanerophyte Shrub 


Fabaceae 

56. 

Alysicarpus longifolius (Rottl. ex 

Spreng.) Wight & Arnott. 

Chaemophyte Shrub 

Fabaceae 

57. 

Alysicarpus ovalifolius (Schumach.) 

J.Leonard 


58. Fabaceae Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) Taub. Therophyte Herb 




62. Fabaceae Vicia sativa L. Therophyte Herb 

63. Malvaceae Abutilon bidentatum A. Rich Phanerophyte Subshrub 


65. Malvaceae Abutilon theophrastii Medic. Phanerophyte Subshrub 

66. Malvaceae Hibiscus lobatus (Murr.) O. Kuntze Chamaephyte Herb 

67. Malvaceae Pavonia arabica Hochst. ex Steud. Chamaephyte Herb 

68. Marsiliaceae Marsilia minuta L. Hydrophyte/Fern Herb 

69. Menispermaceae Cocculus hirsutus (L.) Diels Phanerophyte Vine 

70. Mimosaceae Acacia nilotica Delile Phanerophyte Tree 

71. Mimosaceae Prosopis cineraria(Linn.) Druce. Phanerophyte Tree 

72. Mimosaceae Prosopis glandulosa Torr. Phanerophyte Shrub 




73. Mimosaceae Prosopis juliflora Swartz Phanerophyte Shrub 

74. Molluginaceae Glinus lotoides L. Therophyte Herb 

Nyctaginaceae Boerhavia procumbens Banks & Cryptophyte Herb 

75. 

Roxb. 

Poaceae Aeluropus lagopoides (L.) Trin. ex Therophyte Grass 

76. 

Thw. 

77. Poaceae Brachiara ramosa (L.) Stapf Therophyte Herb 

78. Poaceae Brachiaria reptans (L.) Gard. Therophyte Grass 



81. Poaceae Desmostrachya bipinnata (L.) Stapf Cryptophyte Grass 

Poaceae Dichanthium annulatum (Forsk.) Hemicryptophyte Grass 

82. 

Stapf 

83. Poaceae Digitaria ciliaris (Retz.) Koeler. Therophyte Grass 

Poaceae Diplachne fusca (L.) P.Beauv. ex Cryptophyte Grass 

84. 

Roem & Schult. 


86. Poaceae Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P.Beauv. Hemicryptophyte Grass 

87. Poaceae Echinochloa frumentacea Link Therophyte Grass 

88. Poaceae Eleusine indica (L.)Gaertn. Therophyte Grass 

89. Poaceae Eragrostis japonica (Thunb.) Trin. Therophyte Grass 

90. Poaceae Eragrostis minor Host. Therophyte Grass 

Poaceae Eriochloa procera (Retz.) C. E. 

91. 

Hubbard Therophyte Grass 

92. Poaceae Hemarthria compressa (Linn.f.) R. Br. Hemicryptophyte Grass 

93. Poaceae Phragmites karka (Retz.) Trin. Hemicryptophyte Tall grass 

94. Poaceae Polypogon monspeliensis (L.) Desf. Therophyte Grass 


96. Poaceae Setaria verticillata (L.) Beauv. Therophyte Grass 

97. Polygonaceae Polygonum effusum Meisn Therophyte Herb 

98. Polygonaceae Polygonum plebejum R. Br. Therophyte Herb 

99. Polygonaceae Rumex dentatus L. Therophyte Herb 


101. Resedaceae Ochradenus baccatus Delile Therophyte Shrub 

102. Rhamnaceae Ziziphus nummularia (Burm.f.) Wt. Phanerophyte Shrub 

103. Salvadoraceae Salvadora oleoides Dcne. Phanerophyte Tree 


105. Scrophulariaceae Lindenbergia indica (L.) Vatke Therophyte Herb 

106. Scrophulariaceae Verbascum thapsus L. Therophyte Herb 

107. Solanaceae Nicotiana plumbaginifolia Viv. Therophyte Herb 



110. Solanaceae Solanum surattense Burm.f. Therophyte Herb 

111. Solanaceae Withania somnifera (L.) Dunal Phanerophyte Shrub 

112. Tamaricaceae Tamarix aphylla (L.) H. Karst. Phanerophyte Tree 

113. Tamaricaceae Tamarix indica L. Phanerophyte Tree 

114. Tamaricaceae Tamarix kermanensis Baum Phanerophyte Tree 


116. Tiliaceae Corchorus aestuans L. Therophyte Herb 

117. Tiliaceae Corchorus depressus (L.) Stocks Chamaephyte Herb 




118. Tiliaceae Corchorus olitorius L. Therophyte Herb 



P lan t F am ilies 




Tiliaceae 

Tamaricaceae 

Solanaceae 


Salvadoraceae 

Rhamnaceae 

Resedaceae 

Portulacaceae 

Polygonaceae 

Poaceae 

Nyctaginaceae 


M imosaceae 

M enispermacea 

M arsiliaceae 

Malvaceae 

Fabaceae 

Euphorbiaceae 

Cyperaceae 

Cucurbitaceae 


Chenopodiacea 


Capparidaceae 


Boraginaceae 

Brassicaceae 

Asteraceae 

Asphodelaceae 


Amaranthaceae 

Aizoaceae 

Acanthaceae 

Fig 52 - Contribution of Plant Families to the Flora of Pai Forest 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 





The cover data were compiled using spreadsheet in Microsoft® Excel® programme. 

These values were then analyzed using software “Two Ways Indicator Species Analysis 

(TWINSPAN)”. No phytosociolical data were recorded in 2006 to analyse through 

TWINSPAN. However, all these parameters were recorded in subsequent years of 2007 

and 2008. A detail of the yearwise analysis is given in Annexure D – III. The results of 

the analysis are discussed below. 

5.4.2.1 Prosopis – Salvadora Plant Community (2007) 

Transects 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 represented this plant community. All these 

transect were located within forest area. The community was comprised of species like 

Prosopis cineraria, P. juliflora (Mimosaceae) and Salvadora oleoides (Salvadoraceae). 

The dominance of these species indicates that the edaphic and climatic conditions 

favour salt and drought tolerant species. Pai forest is represented by a single landform. It 

is comprised of a tropical thorn forest type (Champion et al. 1968). Dry matter forage 

production of this community varied from as low as 7.8 Kg/Ha to as high as 1318 Kg/ha. 

This huge variation is the result of moisture due to irrigation water in some areas that 

promoted growth of herbaceous flora and protection from grazing of livestock which is 

otherwise very high in most parts of the forest. 

Figure 53 – Sites Represented By Prosopis – Salvadora Plant Community (2007) 

5.4.2.2 Suaeda – Tamarix Plant Community (2007) 

The aforementioned community was represented by transects 11, 12, 13 and 14. 

The species of this community were Saueda fruticosa (Family Chenopodiaceae) 

and Tamarix pakistanica (Family Tamaricaceae). These transects were located 

inland around the forest. Dominance of this community reveals that soil bears 

high salt contents which allow salt tolerant species only. Xerophytic and 

halophytic nature of species recorded shows the scarcity of soil moisture and 

high salt concentrations in the area. Dry Matter forage production of the sites 

represented by this plant community ranged from 0 to 1490 Kg/ Ha. 



Figure 54 - Sites Represented By Suaeda – Tamarix Plant Community (2007) 

5.4.2.3 Prosopis juliflora – Prosopis cineraria – Salvadora oleoides Plant 


This plant community was represented by transects 6, 8, 12, 13, 15 and 16. The 

community represented highly drought tolerant species. Other associated species found 

over here were Prosopis cineraria, Prosopis juliflora, Leptadenia pyrotechnica, Aerva 

javanica and Ochradenus baccatus. Capparis decidua, Desmostachya bipinnata, 

Prosopis cineraria, Salvadora oleoides,Tamarix indica, Ziziphus nummularia. Forage 

production of these sites ranged from 165 to 1490 Kg/Ha. 

Figure 55 – Sites Represented by Prosopis juliflora – Prosopis cineraria – Salvadora 

oleoides Plant Community (2008) 

5.4.2.4 Prosopis juliflora – Suaeda fruticosa – Eucalyptus Plant Community (2008) 

This plant community was represented by transects 3, 4, 5 and 17. Mostly salt tolerant 

plants represented this community. Other associated flora included Desmostachya, 

Salvadora sp., Cadaba fruticosa, Capparis decidua, Desmostachya bipinnata, Prosopis 

cineraria, Prosopis juliflora, Salvadora oleoides, Salsola imbricata, Suaeda fruticosa and 

Tamarix aphylla. Dry matter forage production varied from 175 to 250 Kg/Ha. 

Figure 56 - Prosopis juliflora – Suaeda fruticosa – Eucalyptus sp Plant Community 

(2008) 




Carrying Capacity of Pai Forest was determined in terms of hectares per animal unit per 

year continuously for three years. Likewise other sites, forage production during 2008 

was far less than the year 2007 (Annexure D – IV). The reason was early spring survey 

during 2008 when most of the herbaceous flora was absent (Figure 57). The study also 

revealed that the area is either over populated by wildlife or is over grazed by domestic 

livestock of surrounding areas. During the data collection process, it has been observed 

that there is limited number of wild animals whereas illegal grazing by surrounding 

communities is a common practice. 

Available Forage (Kg/Ha 

Figure 57 – Carrying Capacity of Grazing Areas in and Around Pai Forest 

240 

235 

230 

225 

220 

215 

210 

205 

200 


237 

11 

2007 2008 


12 

213 

Available Forage (Kg/Ha) Carring Capacity (Ha/AU/Yr) 

11.4 

11.2 

The Pai forest is found to be floristically not very rich, particularly the ground flora is poor 

and sparse. This is characteristic of planted forests as compared to natural forests, the 

latter being much richer in biodiversity. The main tree species of the forest are Prosopis 

cineraria, Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Acacia nilotica, Tamarix aphylla, Tamarix 

kermanensis, Tamarix indica, Salvadora oleoides, and Salvadora persica along with 

heavy infestation by invasive species Prosopis juliflora. Among shrubs, Capparis 

decidua, Cadaba fruticosa, Tamarix pakistanica, Salsola imbricata, etc. are common. On 

the forest floor, Suaeda fruticosa and Desmostachya bipinnata are the commonest 

species with sporadic Diplachne fusca, Cynodon dactylon, Bolboschoenus glaucus etc. 

with Cyperus longus, Cyperus rotundus, Schoenoplectus litoralis and Marsilia minuta 

along water channels. Majority of the forest floor species is halophytic, indicative of 

saline conditions of soil. Although floristically Poaceae is the largest family at this site as 

well, like other sites, but the number of grass species is the lowest here as compared to 

other sites. Besides this, most of the 21 grass species of this site were collected from the 

cultivated fields in and around forest, while Desmostachya bipinnata was the most 

abundant species in the wooded area. A summary of the Phytosociological details 

showing transect-wise plant communities, associated plant species and forage 

production is provided in Annexure D – V. 

12.2 

12 

11.8 

11.6 

11 

10.8 

10.6 

10.4 



The phytogeographical data show Prosopis juliflora to be overwhelmingly dominant 

species followed by Prosopis cineraria, Salvadora oleoides, Suaeda fruticosa and 

Euclyptus camaldulensis. 

The primary productivity in terms of DMY and carrying capacity in terms of Ha/Au/Yr are 

quite low. The average carrying capacity in the 2008 survey was found to be even 

poorer than that of 2007 survey, indicating that the carrying capacity is particularly low in 

winter season. The most common species of forest floor is Desmostachya bipinnata 

which was found heavily grazed. This indicates a severe competition between livestock 

and wild herbivores in obtaining their food. The intense grazing also poses the danger of 

desertification. 


Pai forest being the only irrigated plantation in the area and surrounded by almost more 

than 25 villages of varying sizes is faced with a number of problems and threats. Some 

of the principal threats and problems are summarised below. 

5.5.1.1 Scarcity of irrigation Water: Pai Forest has an allocation of sanctioned canal 

water of 30 cusecs which is sufficient for irrigating 1,212 ha of plantation. But out of 

sanctioned water, no irrigation water is generally received because the plantation is 

located at the tail end of the irrigation channel and the water channel has either been 

diverted by surrounding landlords or eroded away due to lack of proper maintenance. In 

order to overcome this problem, 13 tube wells have been installed inside the plantation 

at different times to irrigate the tree plantation. Presently, the plantation does not receive 

sanctioned water supplies and only regeneration areas and young crops are given water 

through tube wells. Due to scarcity of irrigation water, the plants are of low quality and 

give a dry look. Moreover, lack of canal water has put even the hardiest drought 

resistant tree species of Prosopis cineraria under severe stress. 

5.5.1.2 Deforestation: Currently, this plantation is in miserable condition mainly due to 

uncontrolled massive wood cutting. Most of Kandi (Prosopis cineraria), Lai (Tamarix 

spp.) and Khabbar (Salvadora oleoides) have been severally lopped and chopped. 

Wood cutting is observed throughout the plantation. This practice of illegal wood cutting 

is destroying soil cover and wildlife habitat. 

5.5.1.3 Exotics & Invasive Species: Pai forest has some area under Eucalyptus trees 

that is highly water demanding on one hand and transpires huge amount of water, on the 

other thus creating more stressful conditions for the growth and survival of other tree 

species. Moreover, Mesquite (Prosopis juliflora) is forming a major community within the 

plantation and some areas have been infested severely. This species is an aggressive 

competitor and is replacing important indigenous species of the plantation. 

5.5.1.4 Continuous Overgrazing: Due to heavy encroachments in riverine forests, the 

pressure of grazing has been shifted towards this plantation. Yearlong intensive grazing 

mostly by goats and large mammals is widely observed in the Pai forest. These animals 

harm the young seedlings while trampling the soil impedes further regeneration. 

Livestock also proved a direct competitor to Hog deer which is also facing feed shortage 

inside the forest and forced to go out in search of nutritious feed and thus commonly 

killed either by the dogs or by the traffic on national highway. 



5.5.1.5 Encroachments: Neighbouring rural communities have encroached the land of 

Pai forest and brought under agriculture. There are a number of court cases under trial. 

Due to political influence of these encroachers, Sindh Forest Department seems 

helpless in spite of its concerted efforts for recovery of its land. Such encroachments not 

only weaken the writ of Forest Department but also encourage others to adopt similar 

illegal approach. The extent of encroachment could be well-visualised by the nearby 

Mari Riverine, Mehrabpur, Mario Lakho Bela, Jaryo Keti forests where most of the stateowned 

area has been grabbed by the encroachers. These encroachments encompass 

more than 20 thousands acres of forestland (personal communication). 

5.5.1.6 Degraded Wildlife Habitat: Pai forest is a Game Reserve because of the good 

population of Grey partridges and Hog deer. By looking at the monoculture of core area, 

one wonders how it could be called a Hog deer habitat. This area not only lacks any 

natural herbaceous flora on which Hog deer can survive but also does not have irrigation 

water. Due to encroachments in the riverine forests the animals use this area for shelter 

and breeding purposes and go outside in private agricultural areas to meet their feed 

requirements. Frequent movement of Hog deer to outside area makes them more 

vulnerable to external threats. For example, last year death of one Hog deer has been 

reported due to capturing by the local farmers. In addition, it has also been reported that 

two Hog deer were found killed in road accident on National Highway. Under such 

stressful conditions survival and reproduction of Hog deer is affected severally. 

5.5.1.7 Dichotomy in Management: This plantation is being managed by Sindh Forest 

Department for the conservation and production of timber. On the contrary, this 

plantation has been declared a Game Reserve, therefore, the Sindh Wildlife Department 

is responsible for the protection and hunting of the game animals. It has been observed 

that the forest department has not succeeded in obtaining the sanctioned canal water 

supply for the plantation and recovery of land from encroachers. Being a core habitat of 

Hog deer, the Pai forest must have a variety of herbs, forbs and palatable grass species 

in addition to trees and shrubs within the area. Planting of Eucalyptus and Acacia 

nilotica at a spacing of 6 x 6 feet is not helpful for wildlife habitat. A dense canopy 

generally does not permit under storey of shrubs, herbs, forbs and grasses to persist 

thus putting the wild herbivores under severe stress of feed shortage. This situation is 

creating complexity in attaining the two contrasting objectives from the same forest 

ecosystem, i.e., a wildlife habitat for a Game Reserve and a commercial forest. 

5.5.1.8 Excessive Use of Chemicals on Agricultural Crops: The surrounding areas of 

Pai forest are mostly under agriculture. The main cash crop of the area is cotton. It 

requires heavy pesticide sprays during different stages of growth. Hog deer and bird 

fauna especially partridges visit surrounding agriculture fields for their food 

requirements. By consuming lethal pesticides sprayed on the cotton crop along with 

associated herbs, grasses and insects, the wildlife is under severe threat of mortality. 

Although the department has adopted a good practice of raising organic cotton and 

fodder crops within the plantation yet there is need that the adjacent farmers are 

motivated either not to spray hazardous chemicals on the crops or they should opt for 

biodegradable pesticides such as Neemokill which is less harmful as compared with 

inorganic pesticides. 



5.5.2 Suggestions for Improvement: 

Pai forest provides abode to the only remaining population of Hog deer in lower Indus 

and it is the only intact and healthy forest ecosystem left so far in lower Indus. It is 

heartening to note that many educated people in the neighbourhood also want that this 

ecosystem should stay healthy and maintained on scientific grounds. Based on the 

team’s feedback from concerned government officials, community members and other 

important stakeholders, following suggestions are put forth for the improvement of this 

important forest ecosystem. 

5.5.2.1 Participatory Management Approach: Since there is tremendous pressure of 

neighbouring communities on this forest for want of fuel wood and fodder, there is a 

need that both Forest and Wildlife Departments should involve these communities in a 

co-management regime where certain benefits should go to the communities in lieu of 

their assistance in conservation. These include the following. 

• Erection of Entry Gate and Collection of Entry Fee: Pai forest is situated right at 

the national highway and provides excellent opportunities not only to the population 

of neighbouring cities like Nawabshah and Sakrand but also others from various 

parts of the province and the country to visit this beautiful Protected Area. Due to 

absence of any proper promotional campaign very few people know about this forest. 

It is imperative that a properly designed entry gate should be erected and a certain 

amount should be decided as entry fee. Local Community-based Organisation 

should be made responsible to collect the entry fee of which 80% should be retained 

by the CBO while 20% should go to the Forest Department for administrative 

charges. This arrangement would also provide incentive to the communities to help 

the department for conserving this forest ecosystem. 

• Tourist Facilities Inside the Forest: To manage a forest in a way to share its 

benefits to the people at large and also to generate income sources for the 

department and the neighbouring communities, a well-thought-out management plan 

is pre-requisite. Such management plan must include inter alia a proper signage 

scheme, development of Information Centre (jointly managed and run by the 

concerned CBO), bird hides for bird watching, well-designed lecture places for the 

visitors, promotional material, camping sites, picnic spots, activity areas and a 

modest tuck shop etc. Such arrangements would not only generate income but will 

also attract large number of school children and tourists. These measures will 

certainly promote goodwill for the Forest and Wildlife departments, as well. Care is 

required that such recreational area should be confined to certain pre-allocated part 

of the forest so that other areas are not disturbed 

5.5.2.2 Alternate Energy Sources: To address the fuel wood requirements of 

neighbouring communities other avenues must be explored such as initiation of dialogue 

with Sui Southern Gas to provide natural gas connection to at least big villages. Another 

option could be to raise energy plantations at the riverside encroached Belas and Mari 

Riverine forest area which is totally devoid of trees and area has been leased out to 

farming community. Energy plantation on these areas would be successful if local 

communities are involved in watch and ward, planting and after-care operations under a 

scheme of wood sharing on 6-year rotation. This could be worked out involving Nazims 

of concerned Union Councils and Forest Department. 



5.5.2.3 Fencing of Game Reserve: As discussed earlier in the preceding text, Pai forest 

has enormous pressure of encroachments and illegal wood cutting and grazing. Hog 

deer also go outside the forest in search of food. To overcome these problems, the 

entire forest needs to be fenced all around. 

5.5.2.4 Watering and Feed Resource Development: There should be watering points 

at suitable places for Hog deer along with forage and fodder reserves. The core habitat 

of the Hog deer should not have access to anybody except the concerned staff to ensure 

undisturbed breeding ground for these animals. 

5.5.2.5 Re-construction of Hog deer habitat: Hog deer require a specialised habitat to 

thrive. This includes marshy area, thickets of Tamarix and Saccharum species with 

openings. To ensure persistence of good population of this animal, such habitat should 

be re-constructed along with promotion of highly palatable grasses like Cynodon 

dactylon, Cenchrus ciliaris, Ochthochloa compressa, Aristida spp. Reseeding of such 

species should be part of the operational plan of the Game Reserve. 

5.5.2.6 Restoration of Sanctioned Irrigation Water Supply: In consultation with the 

irrigation department and the community activists, the sanctioned amount of water 

should be made available to the forest by renovating the damaged irrigation channel with 

a regular plan of its maintenance. 


Pai forest is the only large forest of its type in the area, however, it requires much 

concerted efforts for its management. The floral diversity is low with respect to palatable 

grasses, herbs and shrubs because of severe shortage of irrigation water. Salinity level 

in the soil is on the increase due to the shortage of irrigation water which will further 

decrease the floral diversity. Immediate rehabilitation measures like restoration of 

irrigation water, control over encroachments, overgrazing, replacement of exotic species 

(like Eucalyptus, mesquite etc.) by introducing local fodder species and reseeding of 

palatable grasses is needed. Moreover, a participatory management approach is 

required whereby local communities are involved in conservation efforts on one hand 

and to generate their livelihoods on the other. To ensure such approach, a well planned 

management plan is required in which interventions like eco-tourism, recovery of 

sanctioned water, re-construction of Hog deer habitat, fencing of Pai forest, raising of 

energy plantation and establishment of an Information Centre should be crucial 

interventions. 



6 - General Results and Discussion 



6.1 Floristic analysis: 

After three years survey, Keenjhar Lake comes out to be the richest site for plant 

biodiversity with a total of 263 species, followed by Chotiari Wetland Complex (211 

Spp.), Pai forest (122 Spp.) and lowest in Keti Bundar (117 Spp). In fact this pattern is 

persisting since the beginning of the study till now (Annexure F – III & G - I). Overall 

picture of the flora on each site is given below in Figure 58. 

Figure 58 – Overall Profile of Flora over Programme Sites 

Number 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

37 

83 

117 

55 


165 

263 

Keti Bundar Keenjhar Chotiari Pai 

49 

123 

211 

Family Genera Species 

The major components of the flora are Dicotyledonous Angiosperms followed by 

Monocotyledonous Angiosperms while Pteridophytes are represented by only three 

species and Gymnosperms by only one species. The extremely scanty representation of 

the later two groups is in conformity to the arid conditions of the region. The year-wise 

and site-wise comparison of the four groups is given in Figure 59 while the cumulative 

comparison of the number of their families, genera and species in different sites is given 

in Figures 60 & 61. 

Figure 59 – Types of Plant Families in Programme Sites 

No. of Plant Families 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Types of Plant Families in Flora of Programme Sites 

3 

1 

Pterodophytes Gymnosperms Monocot Dicot 

The cumulative list of all the species of all sites is given in Annexure G-I. Poaceae is 

found to be the largest family with 36 genera and 68 species, followed by Fabaceae with 

13 genera and 27 species, Cyperaceae with 6 genera and 22 species, Asteraceae with 

12 genera and 17 species, Chenopodiaceae with 7 genera and 12 species, 

Convolvulaceae and Boraginaceae with 5 genera and 12 species each, and Solanaceae 

with 6 genera and 11 species. Other families are represented by less than 10 species 

per family. The site wise comparison of larger families is shown in Figure 60 and 

10 

35 

51 

88 

122


Annexure G - II which reveal Poaceae being invariably the largest in all sites, followed by 

Fabaceae in three sites, but in Keti Bundar Chenopodiaceae was the second largest. 

Figure 60 


60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Largest Plant Families of Indus For All Programme Sites 

Number of Genera 

Poaceae 


Tamaricaceae 

Asteraceae 

Poaceae 

Fabaceae 

Asteraceae 

Cyperaceae 


Poaceae 

Fabaceae 

Cyperaceae 

Solanaceae 

Poaceae 

Fabaceae 

26 

10 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

9 8 

Larger Genera in different study sites having 5 or more 

species 

8 

Tamarix 

Keti 

Bundar 

9 

Cyperus 

6 

6 

Tamarix 

51 

6 

Eragrostis 

20 

5 

Euphorbia 

Heliotropium 

15 15 


6 

5 

Indigofera 

Convolvulus 

12 

5 

41 

9 

Cyperus 

6 

Tamarix 

5 

Eragrostis 

5 

Indigofera 

5 

Corchorus 

4 

Tamarix 

Keenjhar Lake Chotiari Wetland Complex Pai Forest 

Indus For All Programme Sites 

18 18 18 

Keti Bundar Keenjhar Lake Chotiari Wetland 

Complex 


21 

8 7 6 

Amaranthaceae 

Pai Forest 

Among genera, Cyperus is found to be the largest genus with 12 species, followed by 

Tamarix with 11 species, Eragrostis, Euphorbia and Heliotropium each with 7 species. 

The comparison of larger genera of different sites is shown in Figure 61. Among the 

woody genera, Tamarix is the largest, with its richest diversity recorded in Keti Bundar 

where it is represented by 8 species. 

Figure 61 

Euphorbiaceae


The Keenjhar Lake site is not only the floristically richest site but it is also unique by 

having the highest number of such families and species which are not represented 

elsewhere in programme sites (G – IV and G – V). Seven dicots and four monocot 

families and total 70 species are exclusively recorded only from this site, not shared by 

any other site. The site-wise comparison of such families and species is given in Figure 

62. 

Figure 62 - Year wise Comparison of α -diversity in Programme sites 

Numbers 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Year-wise comparision of number of families, genera and 

species recorded from study sites. 

Families 

Genera 

Species 

Families 

Genera 


Species 


Complex 

Pai Forest 

Preliminary, 2006 Summer 2007 Spring 2008 

6.1.1 α, ß and γ Diversity (BD) and Similarity Index (CC): 

As mentioned earlier, the highest value of α-diversity in terms of number of species is 

found in Keenjhar Lake with 263 species, followed by Chotiari wetland complex with 211 

species, Pai forest with 122 species and Keti Bundar with 117 species. The over all 

number of species of all the four sites (γ-diversity) comes out to be 348 in 197 genera 

and 68 families. Year-wise comparison of Similarity Index (CC) and Beta diversity (BD) 

is given in Figure 63. Among locality pairs, Keenjhar and Chotiari have consistently 

shown the highest value of Similarity Index thus the lowest Beta diversity followed by 

Chotiari and Pai, while Keti and Chotiari have shown the least value of Similarity Index 

thus the highest value of Beta diversity. However, with each survey there has been 

overall increase in CC values and decrease in BD values, as with more adequate 

sampling the number of shared species has increased. 

Figure 63 – Number of Total, Shared and Site-Specific Families 


300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Families 

Genera 

Number of Total, Shared and Site-Specific Species of 


117 

Total 

Species 

48 

Shared 

Species 

9 

Individual 

Species 

263 

Total 

Species 

48 

Shared 

Species 

70 

Individual 

Species 

211 

Total 

Species 

48 

Shared 

Species 

40 

Individual 

Species 


Complex 

122 

Total 

Species 

48 

Shared 

Species 

Species 

Pai Forest 

19 

Individual 

Species 

Families 

Genera 

Species


The overall ß - diversity of all the four sites was 2.715 in 2006 which came down to 1.95 

after the 2008 survey (Table 22 ) 

Table- 22: Similarity Index (CC) and β-diversity (BD) Three years comparison. 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

6.2 Primary Productivity (Dry Matter Kg/Ha) and Carrying Capacity 

(Ha/AU/Yr) 

Comparing Carrying capacity over the years of 2006, 2007 and 2008, Keenjhar Lake 

was outstanding among all the four sites followed by Chotiari and Keti Bundar. Pai 

Forest showed the lowest values mainly because of tree growth. Spring season 

markedly exhibited higher values mainly because of presence of annual flora which 

generally disappears during scorching heat of summer. It is evident from the Figure 64 

that these values have shown year-wise fluctuations which are the usual pattern of arid 

lands. Archibald (1995) mentions that primary productivity in dry lands can vary between 

0-1200 Kg/Ha/Yr depending upon the amount of rainfall received in a particular year. 

The average values are, however, in conformity with the usual average values of primary 

productivity in arid lands with less than 300mm annual rainfall (0-600 Kg/Ha/Yr) as given 

by Archibald (1995) for Sahara Desert. Due to low primary productivity, the carrying 

capacity of arid lands is also low, therefore increase in the number of livestock poses the 

risk of overgrazing and subsequent desertification. 

Figure 64 - Carrying Capacity of Programme Sites in Two Different Seasons 

Ha/AU/Yr 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

14 

22 

17 

2006 

Shared 

Shared 

Shared 


Keti - Keenjhar 27 0.30 1.691 82 0.46 1.54 96 0.51 1.49 

Keti - Chotiari 13 0.16 1.832 68 0.45 1.55 78 0.48 1.52 

Keti – Pai 12 0.23 1.767 48 0.45 1.55 60 0.51 1.49 


Keenjhar - Pai 30 0.3 1.7 80 0.44 1.56 94 0.5 1.5 

Chotiari – Pai 30 0.33 1.667 78 0.51 1.49 88 0.53 1.47 

All four localities 8 - 2.715 42 - 2.15 48 - 1.95 

57 

Keti Bundar Keenjhar Chotiari Pai Forest 


9.4 

55 

11 

12 

2007 

Summer 2007 

Spring 2008 

2008


6.3 Alien Invasive species: 

Prosopis juliflora and P. glandulosa (native of tropical America) have invaded all the 

sites, exerting negative impact on the natural flora by out-competing it. Prosopis juliflora 

is in general more aggressive, forming pure populations by replacing indigenous flora; 

but in Keti Bundar Prosopis glandulosa was comparatively more frequent. 

Among aquatic species serious threat is posed by notorious invasive species Salvinia 

molesta and Eichhornia crassipes in Keenjhar Lake and Chotiari water reservoir. Both 

these species are very aggressive, forming dense mats on water surface thus replacing 

indigenous floating plant species and cutting-off the light and oxygen supply for the 

submerged plant species, phytoplankton, and aquatic fauna. These mats may also pose 

problem in the movement of boats and also deprive the birds of their food by killing 

native plants, fish, and algae. 

6.4 Significant findings: 

Vegetation assessment carried out over three years and in three different seasons 

resulted in remarkable results by exploring and documenting three new species to the 

floral world (Tamarix, Sporobolus, Fimbristylis) and rediscovering a number of other 

species (Figure 65). 

6.4.1 New Records 

Figure 65. New Findings and Discoveries in Vegetation Assessment Programme 





6.4.2 Endemic species: 

The Saharo-Sindian region is not rich in endemism as a vast majority of endemic 

species is confined to the Irano-Turanin region in the mountainous areas in north and 

north-western parts of Pakistan (Ali and Qaiser 1986). Nevertheless, about twenty 

endemic species and intra specific taxa are recognized from the Sindh province (Table 

23 and Figure 66), of which 10 are confined to Sindh only while the other ten occur in 

some other parts of Pakistan, as well. Except for three species (Atriplex stoksii, Pulicaria 

boissieri, Tamarix alii), all others can be regarded as rare or vulnerable to even extinct. 

Three endemic species of Abutilon are outright endangered in the province of Sindh, 

Abutilon sepalum being at the brink of extinction. Most of the specimens of these 

species from Sindh had been collected from Karachi, and Karachi University Campus in 

particular. In case of Abutilon alii and Abutilon karachianum even the type specimens 

were from Karachi University Campus, while all specimens of Abutilon sepalum were 

from Karachi University Campus and nearby PCSIR, except for one specimen from 

Thatta district. About one and a half decade back, the administration of Karachi 

University took up the task of removing all wild plants from the University premises to 

“Clean” the campus. Since then all natural flora is routinely destroyed with tractor blade, 

hatchets, shovels and even fire. Any regeneration of natural vegetation after rains is 

promptly removed. In this scenario, the above mentioned species have not been 

witnessed for the past several years along with scores of others, except for Abutilon 

sepalum which is still sporadically found but continuously becoming rarer with the 

passage of time. Any better situation may not be expected for other parts of Karachi 

either in the face of rampant habitat destruction. Since Abutilon alii and Abutilon 

karachianum have a distribution up to Lasbela district in Balochistan, it may be hoped 

that they would be existing there, but the eradication of Abutilon sepalum from Karachi 

would mean its total extinction. Another threatened taxon is Acacia nilotica subsp. 

hemispherica. This subspecies is distributed on a few square kilometre area in the 

Paradise Point area of Karachi. This area is increasingly being disturbed by mining of 

stones, gravel and sand resulting in habitat destruction of this rare subspecies. 

Two species of Asparagus described by Blatter in Flora of Indus delta (Blatter et al. 

1929) have not been collected in past several decades, therefore, they may be 

considered as extinct. 



Figure 66. Endemic Plants of Sindh 



Table-23: Endemic species found in the province of Sindh. 

S.No Species with family Distribution Conservation status 

Dicots: 

1 

Burseraceae 

Commiphora stocksiana (Engl.) 

Engl. 


6.5 Soil Analysis: 

Lasbela District, Karachi 

Division, Thatta and Sangarh 

Districts. Rare 

Coastal areas of Sindh and 

Balochistan. Fairly common 

2 Atriplex stocksii Boiss. 

Compositae 

3 Pulicaria boisseri Hook.f. 


Sindh, southern Balochistan, 

Punjab 

Balochistan (Sibi) and Sindh 

Fairly common 

4 Convolvulus scindicus Stocks 

Malvaceae 

(Dadu and Thatta Districts) 

Karachi Division and Lasbela 

Rare 

5 Abutilon alii Abedin 

District Endangered 

Abutilon karachianum Husain & Karachi Division and Lasbela 

6 Baquar 

District Endangered 

7 Hibiscus scindicus Stocks Sindh and southern Balochistan Rare 

8 Sida spinosa var. kazmii Abedin 

Tamaricaceae 

Sindh and souterhn Punjab 

Southern Sindh (Karachi, Thatta 

Dist. Nagar Parker) Coastal parts 

Not known 

9 Tamarix alii Qaiser 

of Balochistan. Fairly common 

Monocots: 

Asparagaceae 

10 Asparagus dumosus Baker 

Coastal areas of Sindh and 

Balochistan. Vulnerable 

Almost five composite soil samples from each of the four programme sites were 

subjejected to analysis. The results (Annexure H -1 and H – 2) revealed that almost all 

the soils in study areas are either sandy loam or loamy in texture with pH ranging from 

7.4 to 7.8 for Keenjhar, 8 to 8.4 for Pai Forest, 7.8 to 8.5 for Chotiari and 7.9 to 8.2 for 

Keti Bundar exhibiting slightly alkaline to alkaline soils all over the Programme sites 

except Keenjhar where the soils fall in normal category (Annex I –I). All sites were found 

deficient in organic matter contents except that of Keenjhar lake where three out of five 

samples showed adequate organic matter. EC was found alarmingly high in Keti Bundar 

soils showing hyper saline conditions while rest of the sites exhibited almost normal 

conditions. Phosphorus was found mostly in satisfactory range all over the sites, 

however, Keti Bundar samples reflected adequate Phosphorus while almost similar 

patter was observed for Potassium. 




Bibliography 

Ahmad, A. 1953. Riverine forests of Sind. Pak Jour. Forestry 3(4):214-223. 

Ahmad, H. 1983. Management of coastal forests in Sindh in the Proceedings of 

national workshop on Mangroves held at Karachi, 8-10 August,1983 , Botany 

Department, University of Karachi. 

Ahmed, E. 2004. Indus delta Eco-region: An introduction. In: Proceeding of the 

Consultative Workshop on Indus Delta Eco-region (IDER).WWF-Pakistan, 

Karachi. Pp: 9-15. 

Ali, S. I. and M. Qaiser. 1986. A phytogeographical analysis of the phanerogams 

of Pakistan and Kashmir. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Pp: 

89-101. 

Ali, S.I. and Nasir, Y.J. 1989-1991. Flora of Pakistan, fascicle nos. 191-193. 

Department of Botany, University of Karachi, and PARC, Islamabad. 

Ali, S.I. and Qaiser, M. 1992-1998, Flora of Pakistan, fascicle nos. 194-201. 

Department of Botany, University of Karachi. 

Ali, S.I. and Qaiser, M. 2000-2007, Flora of Pakistan, fascicle nos. 202-210. 

Department of Botany, University of Karachi and Missouri Botanical Garden, 

St. Louis. 

Al-Sheikh, A. E. M. and Ghanim A. Abbadi. 2004. Biodiversity of plant 

communities in the Jal Az-Zor National Park, Kuwait. Kuwait J.Sci. 

Eng.31(1):77-105. 

Amjad, S and S. Qidwai. 2002. Freshwater, brackish water and coastal wetlands 

of Sindh. A Status Paper. National Institute of Oceanography, Karachi, 

Pakistan. 

Anon 1962. Range Research. Basic Problems and Techniques. National 

Academy of Sciences –National Research Council. Publication 890. 

Washington, D.C. USA. 

Anon 1968. Determination of Forage Production. Leaflet No. 1. Range 

Management Branch. Division of Forestry Research. Pakistan Forest 

Institute, Peshawar.pp:10. 

Anon. 1999. Report on study into causes and effects of eutrophication in major 

Lakes in Sindh. Environmental Protection Agency, Government of Sindh. 

Anon 2006. Brief description of various aspects of Kinjhar Lake and fishermen 

communities. Kinjhar Fishermen Welfare Society (KFWS), Thatta. Pp:9 

(unpublished)


Ansari, T.A. 1987. In: Mangroves of the Asia and the Pacific: Status and 

management. Technical Report UNDP/UNESCO Research and Training. 

Pilot Programme on Mangrove Ecosystem in Asia and Pacific (RAS/79/002), 

151-173. 

Anwar, F. 2004. Freshwater Resources of the Indus Delta Eco-region. In: 

Proceedings of the consultative workshop on Indus Delta Eco-region (IDER), 

WWF – Pakistan. Karachi. Pp. 17-37 

Archibald, O. W. 1996. Echology of World Vegetation. Chapman & Hall. 

Ashraf, Salman (2004). Mapping change in mangrove forest extent in a selected 

part of Indus delta; identifying management and protection gaps using 

Landsat data (pp: 59-65) in Forever Indus, Proceedings of Indus Delta 

Ecoregion Workshop by Ahmad, Ejaz et al (Eds.), WWF-Pakistan. 

Aziz, I. and A.A. Khan. 2001. Experimental assessment of salinity tolerance of 

Ceriops tagal seedlings and saplings from the Indus delta, Pakistan. Aquatic 

Botany 70: 259-268. 

Aziz, I. and M.A. Khan, 2000. Physiological adaptations to seawater 

concentration in Avicennia marina from Indus delta, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot. 32, 

171-189. 

Aziz, S. and M.A. Khan. 1996. Seed bank dynamics of a semi-arid coastal shrub 

community in Pakistan. Journal of Arid Environments. 34: 81-87. 

Barbier, E.B. (1989). The Economic Value of Ecosystem: I-Tropical Wetlands. 

LEEC Gatekeeper Series 89-02, London Environmental Economics Centre, 

London. 

Barbier, E.B. (1994). Valuing Environmental Functions: Tropical Wetlands. Land 

Economics. 70 (2): 155-73. 

Barbier, E.B. Acreman, M.C. and Knoler, D. (1996). Economic valuation of 

wetlands: a guide for policy makers and planners. Ramsar Convention 

Buraeu, Gland, Switzarland. 

Batanouny, K.H. 1981. Ecology and Flora of Qatar. Centre for scientific and 

applied Research, University of Qatar, P.O. Box 2713, Doha. 

Bhandhari, M.M. 1978. Flora of Indian Desert. Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur. 

Blatter, E., C. McCann, and T. S. Sabnis. 1929. The Flora of the Indus Delta. The 

Indian Botanical Society. The Methodist Publishing House, Madras, India. Pp. 

173. 

Bonham, C. D. 1989. Measurements of Terrestrial Vegetation. John Wiley& 

Sons. New York. 

Indus For All Programme


Boulos, L. 1991. Flora of Egypt. Al Hadara Publishing Cairo, Egypt, Vol. 1. 

Burchett, M.D., Clarke, C.J., Field, C.D., Pulkownik, A., 1989. Growth and 

respiration in tow mangrove species at a range of salinities. Physiol. Plant. 

75,299-303. 

Bush, M. B. 1997. Ecology of a Changing Planet. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. 

Canfield, R. H. 1940. Application of line interception method in sampling range 

vegetation. Jour. For. 23:388-394. 

Champion, H.G., S. K. Seth, and G. M. Khattak. 1965. Forest Types of Pakistan. 

Pakistan Forest Research Institute, Peshawar. 

Chul, K.S. and K. Moody. 1983. Comparison of some methodologies for 

vegetation analysis in transplanted rice. Korean J. Crop. Sci. 28(3):310-318 

Chaudhri and Chuttar, 1966. The vegetation and Range flora Thar Desert. W. 

Pakistan forest department, Hyderabad. 165 pp. 

Clough, B.F., 1984. Growth and salt balance of the mangroves Avicennia marira 

(Forssk.) Vierh. and Rhizophora stylosa Griff. in relation to salinity. J. Plant 

Physiol. 11, 419-430. 

Cook, C. W. and J. Stubbendieck (eds.). 1986. Range Research. Basic Problems 

and Techniques. Society for Range Management. Colorado, USA. 

Dasti, A. and A. D. Q. Agnew. 1994. The vegetation of Cholistan and Thal 

deserts, Pakistan. J. Arid. Env. 27: 193-208. 

Donaldson, J. S., Mills, a., O’farrell, P., todd, S., Skowno, A. and Nanni, I. 2003. 

Conservation Farming with biodiversity in South Africa; A preliminary 

evolution of ecosystem goods and services in the Bokkeveld Plateau. In: 

Lamons, J., Victor, R., and Schaffer, D. (eds.) Conserving Biodiversity in Arid 

regions. Kluwer academic Publishers. 

Downton, W.J.S., 1982. Growth and osmotic relations of the mangroves 

Avicennia marina, as influenced by salinity. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 9, 519-528. 

Duke, N.C., 1992. Mangrove floristics and biogeographys. In: Robertson, A.I., 

Alongi, B.M. (Eds.), Tropical Mangrove Ecosystem: Coastal and Estuarine 

Studies Series, Amarican geophysical union. Washington DC, pp. 63-100. 

ESCAP, 1994. Range Management Manual for Asia and Pacific. Economic and 

Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), United Nations, New 

York. 

Giri, C.P. and Delsol, J.P. (1993). Mangrove forest cover mapping in Phangnga 

Bay, Thailand; using SPOT HRV and JERS -1 Data in Conjunction with GIS. 

Presented at International Seminar for Remote Sensing on Coastal Zone and 



Coral Reef Applications at Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, 25 th 

October 1993 - 1st November 1993. 

Gordon, D. M., 1993. Diurnal water relations and salt contents of tow contrasting 

mangroves growing in hyper saline soil in tropical-arid Australia. In: Lieph, H., 

Al Masoom, A., (Eds.), Towards the Rational Use of High Salinity Tolerant 

Plants. Vol. 1. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp. 193-216. 

Gregory, S.V., Swanson, F.J., McKee, W.A., and Cummins, K.W. 1991. An 

ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. BioScience 41: 540-551. 

Gulzar, S. & Khan, M.A. (1994). Seed banks of coastal shrub communities. 

Ecoprint, 1: 1-6. 

Hasnain, S. Z. and Rahman, O. 1957. Plants of Karachi and Sind. Monograph 

No. 1. department of Botany, University of Karachi. 

Hassan, M. H. A. 2003. Preface In: Lamons, J., Victor, R., and Schaffer, D. (eds.) 

Conserving Biodiversity in Arid regions. Kluwer academic Publishers. 

Haq, S. A. 2006. Salinity Problem and Crop Production in Coastal Region of 

Bangladesh – Review article. Pak. J. Bot. 38 (5): 1359-1365 

Haq, B. U. 1999. Past, Present, and Future of the Indus Delta. In: Meadows, A. 

and Meadows, P. S. (eds.) the indus River; Biodiversity, resources, 

Humankind. Oxford university Press. Pp. 132-140. 

Hegde, I. C. 1991. Quovadimus: after the Floras what then ? Flora et Vegetatio 

Mundi 9: 311-318. 

Hegemeyer, J., 1997. Salt. In: Prasad, M. N.V.(Ed.), Plant Ecophysiology. Wiley, 

New York, pp. 173-206. 

Hill, M.O. & Šmilauer, P. 2005. TWINSPAN for Windows version 2.3. Centre for 

Ecology and Hydrology & University of South Bohemia, Huntingdon & České 

Budějovice. http://www.ceh.ac.uk/products/software/CEHSofware 

Hoekstra, D.A., N. Mahmood., G.R. Shah, W.A. Shah., M.A. Domki., and Q. M. 

Ali 1997. Diagnostic study – Indus Delta Mangrove ecosystem. Main subsystem 

characteristics, problems, potentials, proposed interventions and pilot 

sites. Sub-project. RRIDM (World Bank/GoS funds) 76 pp. 

Holechek, R. K. and D. D. Briske. 1991. An ecological perspective, p. 11-26. In: 

R. K. Heitschmidt and J.W. Stuth (eds.). Grazing Management. Principles & 

Practices. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA. 

Huss, D.L. 1979. Lecture Notes on Range Management, International Centre for 

Agricultural Research in Dry land Areas, Aleppo. Syria (Unpublished) 



Imran, M. & S. Khatoon. 2005. Floral biodiversity of the wetlands of Indus Delta 

area, Southern Sindh. Int. J. Biol. Biotech. 2(1):77-83. 

Irfan, A. and M.A. Khan, 2001. Experimental assessment of salinity tolerance of 

Ceriops tagal seedlings and saplings from the Indus delta, Pakistan. Aquatic 

botany 70: 259-268. 

Ismail, S., S.M. Saifullah and S.H. Khan. 2006. Assessment of Chromium in 

the water and Sediments of Indus Delta Mangroves. Jour. Chem. Soc. Pak. 

(28) 426 – 429. 

IUCN. 1988. Proposal on Management Plan for Korangi/Phitti Creek. Karachi, 


IUCN.1991. IUCN Directory of Protected Areas in Oceania. Prepared by the 

World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 

Jafari, M., M. A. Zare Chahouki, A. Tavili, H. Azarnivand and, Gh. Zahedi Amin. 

2004. Effective environmental factors in the distribution of vegetation types in 

Poshtkouh rangelands of Yazd Province (Iran). Jour. Arid Env. 56(4):627- 

641. 

Jafri, S.M.H. 1966. The Flora of Karachi, the Book Corporation, Karachi, 


Kalin-Arroyo et al. 1995, Biodiversity from an ecological perspective. In: 

Heywood, V. H. (ed.). Global Biodiversity A, Cambridge University Press. 

Khan, A. U. 1994. History of the decline and present status of natural tropical 

thorn forest in Punjab. Biological Conservation 67:201-210. 

Karim, J. and Karim, A., 1993. Effects of salinity on the growth of some 

mangrove plants in Bangladesh. In: Lieth, H., Al Masoom, A., (Eds.), Towards 

the Rational Use of High Salinity Tolerant Plants. Vol. 1. Kluwer Academic 

Publishers, The Netherlands, pp. 187-192. 

Kazmi, S.J.H., S. Qureshi, and M. U. Siddiqui. 2006. Depleting wetlands of lower 

Sindh, Pakistan: A spatio-temporal study through satellite remote sensing. In: 

International Conference on Advances in Space Technologies, Islamabad. 

Pp:1-5. 

Keerio, G.R. 2004. Riverine and coastal forests of Indus Delta-Eco-Region. 

(Eds.): J. Ahmed, S. Omar, F. Rasool. Proc. Consultative Workshop on Indus 

Delta Eco-region (IDER), pp. 47-58. 

Kella, L. 1999. Protective role of Indus Delta mangroves with particular reference 

to cyclone mitigation. Proc. Nat. Sem. Mangrove Ecosystem Dynamics of the 

Indus Delta, pp. 86-90. 

Kent, M. and P. Coker. 1992. Vegetation description and analysis: A Practical 

Approach, CRC Press Boca Ratan Ann Arber and Belhaven Press London. 



Khan, A. H. and G. I. Repp. 1961. Some ecological observations in irrigated 

plantations and riverine forests of West Pakistan. Pak. Jour. For. XI (4):340- 

342. 

Khan, M.A. (1991). The relationship of seed bank to vegetation in a saline desert 

community In: Sen, D.N. & Mohammad, S. (Ed.), Marvels of Seed – 

Proceeding of International Symposium on Environmental Influences on Seed 

Germination Mechanism – Recent Advances in Research and Technology, 

pp. 87-92. jodhpur: Department of Botany, University of Jodhpur. 391pp. 

Khan, M.A. (1993). Relationship of seed bank to plant distribution in saline arid 

communities. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 25: 73-82. 

Khan, A. U. 1994. History of the decline and present status of natural tropical 

thorn forest in Punjab. Biological Conservation 67:201-210. 

Khan, D., R. Ahmad and S. Ismail. 1989. Structure, composition, and 

aboveground standing phytomass of some grazable grass-dominated 

communities of Pakistan coast. Pak. J. Bot. 21(1):88-106. 

Khatoon, S. and Ali, Q.M. 2003. Pakistan: Biodiversity in arid and semiarid 

zones. In: Promoting Best Practices for Conservation and Sustainable use of 

Biodiversity of Global Significance in Arid and Semiarid Zones in the 

Developing World. TWNSO, UNEP, and GEF. (pp 51 - 54) 

Khatoon, S. and Ali, Q. M. 2004. Biodiversity of the arid and semiarid regions of 

Pakistan: Status, threats, and conservation measures. Annals of Arid Zone 

43:277 - 291. 

Khatoon, S. and Q. M. Ali. 1999. Diversity of aquatic plants in the province of 

Sindh. In: Proceeding of the seminar. Aquatic Biodiversity of Pakistan, 

1999.Eds. Q.B. Kazmi & M.A Kazmi. MRC. Zoology Department, University 

of Karachi. Pp:127-138. 

Khatoon, S., Q. M. Ali, and M. Imran. 2005. Studies on the plant biodiversity of 

Hub River estuary. Int. J. Biol. Biotech., 2(4):853-861. 

Khattak, G. M. 1976. History of forest management in Pakistan – Irrigated 

plantation and Riverine forests. Pak J. For. 26(4):231-241. 

Klopper, R. et al. 2007. Floristics of the angiosperm flora of Sub-Saharan Africa : 

an analysis of the African Plant Checklist and Database / – In: Taxon. – 

Wien. - 2007, vol. 56, p. 201-208. Jardin botanique - classif.: P(492)36 * cote: 

BOTP 173/56,1 

Leghari, S. M., et al. 1999. Limnological Studies of Chotiari Reservoir District 

Sanghar, Sindh, Pakistan. Proc. of Seminar on “Impact of Environmental 

Pollution on Lakes of Sindh”pp: 22-27 



Marwat, Q., F. Hussain and T. M. Khilji. 1990. Phyto-ecology of the vegetation of 

Zangilora area Quetta. Balochistan. Pak. J. Agric. Res. 11(4):275-283. 

Matthew, K.M. 1981-3. Flora of Tamilnadu Carnatic, The Rapinat Herbarium, St. 

Joseph’s College, Tiruchirapalli 620002, India, 1-3. 

Meadows, P. S. and Meadows, A. 1999. The environmental impact of the river 

Indus on the coastal and offshore zones of Arabian sea and the north west 

Indian Ocean. In: Meadows, A. and Meadows, P. S. (eds.) Indus River: 

Biodiversity, Resources, Humankind. Oxford University Press. Pp. 151-171, 

Meynell, Peter-Jhon and Qureshi, M. T. 1995. Water resources and management 

in the Indus river delta, Pakistan. Parks 5: 15-23. 

Mirza, M.I., M.Z. Hasan, S. Akhtar and J. Ali. 1983. Identification and area 

estimation of mangrove vegetation on the Indus Delta using Landsat data. 

ESCAP Regional Workshop on Remote Sensing applications for Vegetation 

Mapping. Colombo, Sri Lanka, pp. 19-21. 

Mitsch, W.J. and Gosselink, J.G. (1993). Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New 

York. 2 nd Edition. 

Mueller-Dombois, D. and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation 

ecology. Willey & Sons, New York, pp: 547. 

Naidoo, G., 1987. Effects of salinity and nitrogen on growth and plant water 

relations in the mangrove Avicennia marina (Forssk.) Vierh. New Phytol. 107, 

317-326. 

Nasir, E. and Ali, S.I. (Eds.), 1970-2003 Flora of Pakistan (fascicles series 1- 

209). 

Ninot, J. M., J. Carreras, E. Carrillo and J. Vigo. 2000. Syntaxonomic conspectus 

of the vegetation of Catalonia and Andorra. I: Hygrophilous herbaceous 

communities. Acta Botanica Barcinonensia, 46: 191-273. 

Nurminen, L. 2003. Macrophyte species compostion reflecting water quality 

changes in adjacent water bodies of Lake Hiidenvesi, SW Finland. Annals of 

Botanic Fenneci, 40: 199-208. 

Popp, M., 1994. Salt resistance in herbaceous halophytes and mangroves. In: 

Behnke, H. D., et al. (Eds.), Progress in Botany, Springer, Berlin, pp. 416- 

429. 

Qadri, S. M. A. 1955. Ecological study of riverine forest of Sind. Pak. J. For. 

V(4):199-249. 

Qureshi, M.T., 1993. Rehabilitation and management of mangrove forests of 

Pakistan. In: Lieth. H., Al Masoom. A. (Eds.). Towards the Rational Use of 

High Salinity Tolerant Plants. Vol. 1. Kluwer Academic Publishers. The 

Netherlands, pp. 89-95. 



Qureshi, M. Tahir. 1993. A paper on rehabilitation and management of mangrove 

forest of Pakistan. In: Towards the rational use of high salinity tolerant plants, 

Kluwere academic publishers, Netherlands. Vol. 1: 89-95. 

Qureshi, M.Tahir. 1985. Working Plan of Coastal forests (1985 86 to 2004 -05). 

Sindh Forest Department. 

Qureshi, R. 2004. Floristic and Ethno botanical Study of Desert Nara Region, 

Sindh. Department of Botany, Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur, Sindh, 

Pakistan. Ph.D. Thesis, Vol. I: 1-300. 

Rashid, W., M. Ahmad, G. Akbar., M. Khan., K. N. Babar., and A. Qayyum. 1988. 

A preliminary study of the vegetation of Rawal experimental sub-catchment 

area. Pak. J. Sci. Ind. Res. 31(12):848-851. 

Roth, L.C., 1992. Hurricane and mangrove regeneration: effects of HURRICANE 

Joan. October 1988, on the vegetation of Isla del Venado, Bluefields, 

Nicaragua. Biotropica 24, 375-384. 

Saeed Ahmad., M. H. Bokhari., A. A. Dasti and A. Hanan. 1987. Phyto-ecological 

studies of sand dunes vegetation near Muzaffargarh. In: Ihsan Ilahi and 

Farrukh Hussain eds. Modern Trends of Plant Science Research in Pakistan. 

Proceedings of 3 rd National Conference of Plant Scientists. November 7-11, 

1987. Department of Botany, University of Peshawar. Pp:29-34. 

Saenger, P. 2002. Mangrove Ecosystem, Silviculture and Conservation. Kluwer 

Academic Publishers. 

Saifullah, S.M., S.S Shaukat and S. Shams. 1994. Population structure and 

dispersion pattern in mangroves of Karachi, Pakistan. Aquat. Bot., 47: 329- 

340. 

Saifullah, S.M. 1997. Management of the Indus Delta Mangroves. In: B. U. Haq 

et al. (eds.) Coastal Zone Management Imperative for Maritime Developing 

Nations. Pp: 333-346. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Netherlands. 

Saifullah, S.M., F. Chughtai and S. Akhtar. 2007. dispersal and establishment of 

mangrove propagules in an exposed coastal habitat of Indus Delta. Pak. J. 

Bot., 39 (2): 277-582. 

Saifullah, S.M., S.S Shaukat and S. Shams. 1994. Population structure and 

dispersion pattern in mangroves of Karachi, Pakistan. Aquat. Bot., 47: 329- 

340. 

Saifullah, S.M. 2004. Exploitation of mangroves in Pakistan. ISME Newsletter, 

27: 2-4. 

Scodari, P.F. (1990). Wetlands Protection: the Role of Economics. Environmental 

Law Institute Monograph, Washington, D.C. 



Shaukat, S. S., A. Khairi and R. Ahmad. 1976. A Phytosociological study of 

Gadap area, southern Sind, Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot. 8(2): 133-149. 

Shetty, B.V. & Singh, V. 1987 & 1991. Flora of Rajasthan, Botanical Survey of 

India. Old Connaught Place Dehra Dun. Vol. I & II. 

Schradr and Pouncy, (1997), ERDAS Field Guide, ERDAS Imagine Inc., Atlanta, 

G A. 

Shukla, S.K. and P.K. Srivastava. 1992. Environmental Wildlife Impact Analysis. 

Common Wealth Publisher, New Delhi, India. 

Simon, N. 1993. The Guinness Guide to Nature in Danger. Guinness Publishing, 

Enfield, 240 pp. 

Singh, M.P., B. S. Singh and S. Dey. 2002. Plant Biodiversity & Taxonomy: 

Phytosociological Region of Gangetic plains, Daya publishing House, Delhi- 

110035, 105-107. 

Smith, R. L. 1974. Ecology and field biology. 2 nd Edition, Harper & Row 

Publishers, Inc., 10 East 53 rd Street, New York, N.Y. 10022, 692-703. 

Smith, R. L. and Smith, T. M. 1998.Elements of ecology. Addison Wesley 

Longman, Inc. Pp:269-278. 

Sohag. M Ahmed. 2001. The impact of low River Flows on Forestry at Lower 

Indus in: Proceeding of National Seminar on “Perspective of Forestry in New 

Millennium” April 17-19, 2001, Karachi Pakistan. 

Sǿrensen, T. A. 1948. A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in 

plant sociology based on similarity of species content, and its application to 

analyses of the vegetation on Danish commons. Biol. Skr., K. Danske 

Vidensk. Selsk. 5 (4): 1-34. 

Stewart, R.R., 1972. An annonated catalogue of the vascular plants of West 

Pakistan and Kashmir. In: Nasir, E., Ali, S.I. (Eds.) Flora of West Pakistan. 

Department of Botany, University of Karachi, pp. 1-1028. 

Stewart, R. R. 1982. Flora of Pakistan. History and exploration of flora in 

Pakistan and adjoining areas. E. Nasir and S. I. Ali (eds.) National Herbarium, 

PARC, Islamabad. Pp 8-14. 

Stork, N. E., M. J. Samways and D. A. Bryant. 1995. Why inventory and monitor 

biodiversity? In: Global Biodiversity Assessment (Heywood, V. H. ed.) UNEP 

and Cambridge University Press. 

Suarez, N., Sobrado, M.A., Medina, E., 1998. Salinity effects on the leaf water 

relations components and ion accumulation patterns in Avicennia germinans 

(L.) seedlings. Oecologia 114, 299-304. 



Sundik-Wojcikowska, B. and H. Galeria. 2005. Floristic differences in some 

anthropogenic habitats in Warsaw. Annals Botanici Fennici, 42: 185-193. 

Swanson, F. J. et al. 1988. Landform effects on ecosystem pattern and 

processes. _ BioScience 38: 92_98. 

Thalen, D. C. P. and W. Junk. 1979. Ecology and utilization of desert shrub 

rangelands in Iraq. BV Publ. The Hague. ISBN 90-6193-593-8.pp:44-241. 

Tomlinson, P.B., 1986. The Botany of Mangrove. Cambridge University Press, 

London. 

Urban, L., Bridgewater, S.G. M., and Harris, D.J. 2006. The Macal river: A 

floristic and phytosociological study of a threatened riverine vegetation 

community in Belize. Edinburgh Journal of Botany 63: 95 - 118. 

Wahid, A. 1990. Dietary composition and nutritional status of sheep and goats 

grazing two rangeland types in Balochistan. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department 

of Rangeland Resources, Oregon State USA. 

Wani, Bashir Ahmed, Hakim Shah and Saliheen Khan. 2004. Forestry statistics 

of Pakistan.Pakistan forest Institute, Peshawar. 

Wells, J. T. and Coleman, J. M. 1984. Deltaic morphology and sedimentology, 

with special refrence to the Indus River Delta. In: Haq, B. U. and Milliman, J. 

D. (eds.) Marine Geology and Oceonography of Arabian Sea and Coastal 

Pakistan. Van Nostrand reinhold Co., New York. Pp. 85-100. 

Whittaker, R. H. 1972. Evolution and Measurement of Species Diversity. TAXON. 

21 (2/3): 213-251. 

WWF, Pakistan. 2004. Proceedings of Consultative workshop on Indus Delta 

Eco-region (IDER). December 16 – 19, 2002. Karachi. Eds. Ejaz Ahmad, S. 

Omar and F. Rasool. Pp: 255. 

Xueli, C. and Halin, Z. 2003. Plant production and diversity at desertification 

stages in Horqin Sandy grassland region, China. In: Lamons, J., Victor, R., 

and Schaffer, D. (eds.) Conserving Biodiversity in Arid regions. Kluwer 

academic Publishers.

Download - foreverindus.org - WWF - Pakistan

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?