Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 213 (2018) 81–91

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecss

Spatial and temporal changes in mangrove cover across the protected and T
unprotected forests of India
M. Jayanthia,∗, S. Thirumurthya, G. Nagarajb, M. Muralidhara, P. Ravichandrana
a
ICAR-Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer's Welfare, India
b
Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, India

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Mangroves are vulnerable to natural environmental changes and anthropogenic disturbances; but, the status and
Mangrove change dynamics at a national level are poorly understood. Consequently, this research is aimed to assess the
Change dynamics changes in major mangrove forests of India between the period of 1989 and 2013, covering an area of 62678 km2
Natural and anthropogenic factors from five coastal states. Landsat satellite data, post-classification approach, and ground truth verification were
Protected and unprotected forest
used for the mapping of the mangroves and assessing the changes in protected and unprotected forest regions.
Remote sensing and GIS
India
Our findings revealed that mangrove extent has increased from 3006 km2 to 3406 km2 within the period of
study. Of the mangrove extent, 91% in 1989 and 80% in 2013 were located in the protected forest regions. The
annual average rate of increase in mangrove area was 0.55%/yr. The mangroves gained and lost were 918 km2
and 517 km2 respectively, of which 53% of the growth and 81% of the loss occurred in protected regions. Natural
factors were responsible for 97% of gain and 92% of the loss of mangrove area. The anthropogenic drivers were
responsible for the 8% of mangrove conversion. The extent of mangroves grown was greater than that of de-
forestation in India, unlike many other shrimp growing countries. The results of the present study indicate the
areas of intense change in mangrove forests and also provide important insight into the supportive efforts of
mangrove conservation.

1. Introduction (RS) techniques and the supporting capability of geographical in-

Mangrove forests, one of the most important and threatened eco-
systems with a rich diversity of flora and fauna occupying a global
extent of 83495 km2, continue to reduce at a rate of 0.16–0.39% per
year between 2000 and 2012 (Hamilton and Casey, 2016). They are the
most carbon-rich forests in the tropics (Donato et al., 2011; Bhomia
et al., 2016) and possess a commercial value to the order of 200,000 to
900,000 USD/ha. (Gilman et al., 2006). Mangroves offer ecological
services and economic benefits to the local biota and coastal commu-
nities, including shoreline stabilization, habitat and biodiversity pro-
tection, fisheries and forestry products and coastal protection against
natural calamities (Alongi, 2009; Sandilyan and Kathiresan, 2015). The
world's mangrove area decreased by 20%, roughly between 1980 and
2005 (FAO, 2007) due to anthropogenic activities and unfavorable
climatic and environmental conditions (Duke et al., 2007). Mangrove
deforestation will result in disastrous negative consequences to coastal
ecosystems and increase the carbon emission if unattended.
Studies on the mangrove forest extent and species diversity have
increased over the past decades due to advancement in remote sensing
formation system (GIS). RS techniques provide a systematic approach
for mangrove assessment studies because of synoptic viewing capacity,
easy affordability, high level of precision and possibility of time series
data for large and remote areas (Jayanthi et al., 2007; Kuenzer et al.,
2011). RS captures raster data in different bands and offers a varied
range of data products from aerial photographs to high-resolution
images. Satellite data from Landsat series, SPOT, Indian Remote Sen-
sing satellite series, IKCONOS, Quickbird are suitable remotely sensed
data sources for mangrove mapping (Nayak and Bahuguna, 2001; Van
et al., 2015). The choice of satellite images differs based on the re-
quirement of the user, extent of study, data availability, and afford-
ability.
Researchers have used low to high-resolution satellite data for
mapping the mangroves (Seto and Fragkias, 2007; Thu and Populus,
2007; Paling et al., 2008; Rahman et al., 2013; Khairuddin et al., 2016).
Though high-resolution images can give better accuracy, the high cost
and stringent procedures existing to acquire the imagery restrict its
routine use in many developing nations. Also, non-availability of high-
resolution data for the earlier periods (the 1980s) makes us rely on

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jayanthiciba@gmail.com, jayanthivenkat@ciba.res.in (M. Jayanthi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2018.08.016
Received 7 April 2018; Received in revised form 24 July 2018; Accepted 15 August 2018
Available online 17 August 2018
0272-7714/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Jayanthi et al.
Fig. 1. Location map of ten major mangrove forests of India.
Landsat data available freely from 1988 to till date for the mapping of
mangroves (Zhu and Woodcock, 2014).
Change detection methods include, multi-date data classification
that combines dataset of two or more dates in a single analysis, and
post-classification approach that combines two images from different
dates after classified independently (Singh, 1989). The post classified
comparison is considered as the preferred method for land use change
analysis (Tewkesbury et al., 2015). Changes in mangrove forest extent
assessed for the first time at a global scale (Hamilton and Casey, 2016)
using the combination of existing products (Olson et al., 2001; Giri
et al., 2011; Hansen et al., 2013), did not provide the drivers of change.
Mangrove change dynamics was evaluated at a global scale (Thomas
et al., 2017) for five segments such as North America, South America,
the Middle East and India, Southeast Asia in the period of 1996–2010
and indicated that 12% of the radar mosaic tiles examined had evidence
82
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 213 (2018) 81–91
of loss. However, the study did not deliver the extent of change at a
national level, which is needed for planning and execution of the con-
servation. Rates and drivers of mangrove deforestation in Southeast
Asia indicated a loss of 0.18% per year, primarily to aquaculture and
agriculture (Richards and Friess, 2016). Assessment of the distribution
and dynamics of the mangrove forests of South Asia indicated a net loss
of 117 km2 between 2000 and 2012, but the detailed change dynamics
were conducted only for three sites, namely the Indus Delta, Goa and
the Sundarbans (Giri et al., 2014). Researchers have used RS and GIS to
assess the changes in Indian mangrove wetlands as case studies, viz.
The Godavari delta of Andhra Pradesh, Pichavaram of Tamil Nadu, the
Sundarbans of India and Bangladesh and the Mahanadi delta of Odisha
(Satapathy et al., 2007; Giri et al., 2007; Rajitha et al., 2010; Jayanthi,
2011; Pattanaik and Prasad, 2011; Quader et al., 2017; Jayanthi et al.,
2018). A close perusal of literature revealed that the studies carried out
M. Jayanthi et al. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 213 (2018) 81–91

were in bits and pieces, represented a few wetlands of India at different

41E/12,16,41F/1,3–16, 41G/1,5, 41I/3, 4, 7,

46B/3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16; 46C/1–16;
time periods, and offer no sight into obvious changes at a particular
period. Though remote sensing data is extensively used for mapping the

8,10–16, 41J/1–3, 5,6,9,10,13, 1M/4

mangroves, studies assessing detailed mangrove change dynamics to

79C/1,2,5,6,9,10, 13, 14; 79F/3,4

define the scale of impacts are still scarce in the Indian context. General

73K/16; 3L/13,14; 73P/1,2

perception is that mangroves in protected zones are safe than un-
protected zones. Moreover, no study has been carried out till date to
assess the changes in the unprotected forest region when compared to
Topographic maps

73L/4,8; 74I/1,5
73L/11,12,14,15
the protected regions. Spatially explicit, detailed information about the
79B/8,12,15,16

46D/9,11–16;

41B/13,15,16
58N/7,11,15
mangrove change dynamics in protected and unprotected forest regions

65L/1,2,5,6

66A/13,14

47A/9.13
and their surroundings consistently in a uniform period is vital to advise
79G/1,2

58M/15
65E/1,2
the local management reliably and for conservation. Hence the present
study was aimed to assess the dynamic changes in the major mangrove
forests in protected and unprotected regions of India due to anthro-

p148/r45 & 46;

p141/r48& 49

p150 & 151/

pogenic and natural stressors.
p138/r45

p139/r46

p139/r46
p139/r46

p142/r49

p142/r53

p142/r52

p149/r45
Path/row

r44 & 45
2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study area description

16/03/1989 11/04/2013

06/04/1989 16/04/2013

31/05/1989 22/03/2013
15/05/198920/05/2013
15/05/198920/05/2013

31/05/198923/04/2013

198917/05/201308/05/
16/05/1989 03/05/

23/05/198930/05/
The study area (Fig. 1) covered the Sundarbans of West Bengal,
201310/05/2013

Pichavaram and Muthupet mangrove forests of Tamil Nadu, the Krishna

Data sources

15/05/1989
20/05/2013

09/05/1989
Date of pass

and Godavari delta of Andhra Pradesh, the Gulf of Kutch and Gulf of
28/5/1989
25/5/2013

Khambhat mangrove forests of Gujarat, and the Mahanadi delta, Devi

2013

mouth, Bhitarkanika mangrove forests of Odisha. The protected area

boundary of mangrove forests was obtained from Forest Survey of India
(FSI) and Survey of India (SOI) topographical maps. The details of the
2,10,30,976
232,67,617
Population

29,46,698

28,35,701
25,77,332

51,54,296
94,05,211

12,64,277

26,05,914

48,37,939

Landsat data used, extent of the study area, major mangrove species
present (Selvam, 2003), local population depends on the ecosystem and
SOI topographic maps used to delineate the protected forest regions are
given in Table 1. The total extent of the study area was 62678 km2, of
8/A. marina, A. alba, Rhizophora, C. decandra, A. corniculatum
6 – A. marina, Aegiceras corniculatum, E. agallocha, Lumnitzera
Rhizophora mucronata, Ceriops decandra, Sonneratia apetala,

8/.A. marina, S. apetala, Bruguiera gymnorrhiza A. ilicifolius

which 9981 belongs to a protected forest category and maintained by

12/A. marina, E. agallocha, Bruguiera cylindrica, Suaeda

the forest department of the respective state governments, as per the

26/Heritiera minor syn, H. fomes, Excoecaria agallocha,

26/A.officinalis, A. marina, S. apetala, E. agallocha, R.

82/H. fomes, E.agallocha, Avicennia alba, S. apetala,

Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate change (MoEF and CC),

17/A. officinalis, A. marina, E. agallocha, S. apetala
15/A. officinalis, A. marina, A. alba, P. paludosa

Government of India (Sivakumar, 2013).

13/A. marina, S. maritima, Rhizophora spp.

2.2. Data sources

Data used in the study consisted of two-period satellite data, i.e.

No of species/dominant ones

Landsat 7 Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+) of the year 2013

racemosa, Acanthus ilicifolius
maritima, Rhizophora spp.

and Landsat 4 Thematic Mapper (TM) of 1989 with 30 m resolution.

The cloud-free image pairs pertsining to same month or nearby period
were selected to reduce the impacts of seasonal variation. Previously
Phoenix paludosa

orthorectified level one terrain corrected product (L1T) satellite images,

Details of the study area with mangrove species present and data used.

mucronata.

available freely on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Center for Earth
Resources Observation and Science website (http://earthexplorer.usgs.
gov) were used in the study. For Gulf of Kutch and Gulf of Khambhat
mangrove forests, multiple scenes were not available for the same date
and the closest available date scenes in the same month were used.
Protected region

2.3. Satellite image processing

(km2)
Details of study area

4069

3979
170

322
263

140

933
83

22

Multi-temporal image registration, radiometric corrections such as

3

noise reduction, histogram equalization, and atmospheric corrections

Study area

were carried out using Earth Resource Data Analysis System (ERDAS)
26361

23731

Imagine 2014 as a preprocessing requirement to reduce noise arising

(km2)

6334

1814

1214

1131
510
606

773

205

from atmospheric effect and also to enhance the image quality. Multiple
satellite images were joined using Mosaic tools, and a subset of the
Godavari - Andhra Pradesh

Gulf of Khambhat-Gujarat

study area was done. The second order polynomial transformation was
Name of Mangrove forest

Krishna- Andhra Pradesh

Sundarbans-West Bengal

Pichavaram-Tamil Nadu
Muthupet- Tamil Nadu

Gulf of Kutch- Gujarat

used to transform the coordinates. For all the images, the Root Mean
Bhitarkanika- Odisha

Devimouth -Odisha

Square Error (RMSE) of geometric correction was less than 0.5 pixels,
Mahanadi -Odisha

indicating the accurate land use detection (Tucker et al., 2004). The
images were projected to respective Universal Transverse Mercator
and State

(UTM) zone (43 and 44N). The false color composite (FCC) image
Table 1

generated by the combinations of near-infrared band 4, red band 3 and

green band 2 as RGB (Red, green, blue) for TM and ETM+ data deemed

83
M. Jayanthi et al. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 213 (2018) 81–91

Table 2
Land use dynamics and its rate in and around the mangrove forests.
Name of Year MAN PC (%) AGR (km2) PC (%) AQU PC (%) STP (km2) PC (%) BUT PC (%) FTP (km2) PC (%) UUL PC (%) WAT PC (%)
forest (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2)

Sundarbans 1989 2157 −7 1500 −3 12 341 0 0 23 79 0 0 250 −37 2393 9

2013 2015 1457 52 0 41 0 158 2611
Bhitarkanika 1989 188 −6 570 −5 18 174 0 0 36 9 0 0 77 −3 925 1
2013 177 542 49 0 39 0 75 932
Devimouth 1989 8 21 232 −6 1 783 0 0 11 32 0 0 56 −3 203 1
2013 9 218 9 0 14 0 53 205
Mahanadi 1989 56 3 203 −1 5 356 0 0 40 2 4 −7 56 −38 242 1
2013 58 202 24 41 3 35 244
Godavari 1989 189 7 280 −19 2 3448 8 −15 29 118 8 50 123 −47 574 −1
2013 201 227 70 7 64 12 66 566
Krishna 1989 88 56 120 −10 0.06 108367 0 0 2 47 1 0 261 −43 301 3
2013 137 109 65 0 3 1 150 308
Muthupet 1989 18 97 295 −4 0.01 2300 35 54 10 57 10 18 321 −19 443 2
2013 35 283 23 54 15 12 259 451
Pichavaram 1989 7 85 74 −13 0.2 2274 0 0 3 67 0 0 39 −11 82 1
2013 12 65 6 0 6 0 35 83
Gulf of 1989 28 382 8272 −5 0.01 7800 69 369 161 340 162 0 3432 −4 14237 −3
Khambh- 2013 134 7882 78 323 708 162 3289 13784
at
Gulf of Kutch 1989 269 134 8013 0 0 0 248 160 143 182 0 0 5308 −20 9750 1
2013 628 7983 0 645 404 0 4238 9832
Total 1989 3008 13 19559 −3 38 887 360 186 458 191 185 3 9921 −16 29150 −0
2013 3406 18968 375 1029 1336 191 8356 29017

to be the most useful in identifying mangroves (Jansson and Glasser,
2005). Satellite images and topographic maps were geometrically re-
gistered with each other through georectification using 20 ground
control points to delineate the protected area boundaries. The FSI data
(MoEF and CC) was used for updating the protected boundary.
2.4. Land cover and land use classification
Mangrove, agriculture, aquaculture, forest plantation, built up,
unused land, salt pan and water bodies were identified using inter-
pretation keys such as color, tone, texture, pattern, size, shape and its
associated features (NRSA, 1995). As the land use consisted shallow
water bodies, aquaculture ponds and salt pans, we preferred to do
editing through digitization for these classes using ARC GIS. In addition
to the visual inspection and correction, the google earth application was
used to check the aquaculture farms, salt pans, and waterbodies. As
shrimp aquaculture in India is being carried out under controlled en-
vironmental conditions with aerators, the inspection of google images
differentiated the existence of salt pan and aquaculture farms based on
verified through 25 checkpoints for each class. Agriculture, built up and
unused lands verified with 20 checkpoints each. The number of
checkpoints for each land class varied from 20 to 25 at each site. Since
the collected information is valid for 2014 and the Landsat images of
1989 and 2013 were used in the study, the collected GCPs were verified
with Google earth historical images of 31.12.1989 and 31.12.2013
available online.
The district forest officers in all study areas were consulted to know
about the mangrove reforestation activities and the intense changes if
any. The field verification was conducted for approximately total 55
days by 3 teams, covered 15455 km. User's accuracy to indicate how
well an area was classified, producer's accuracy to denote the reliability
of a pixel class on the map represents the category on the ground was
evaluated. The accuracy of the classification was calculated by error
matrices and Khat (K) coefficient (Campbell and Wynne, 2011), as
given below.
r r
N ∑ Xii − ∑ Xi + × Xi +
i i=1

the size of the pond, color and also the presence of aerators. The false-
color combination of satellite data displays mangroves as dark red KHAT = → it is divided symbol between the row above and the row below.
compared to other vegetation. Aquaculture farms had a rectangular hence straight line symbol can be used to denote the division
shape in blue color, agriculture fields had a light-medium red tone with not arrow mark .
a rectangular shape, and forest had light reddish to dark tone with an
r
irregular shape. Salts pans varied from dark blue to white with con-
tinuous rectangular shape, smaller in size compared to aquaculture,
N2 − ∑ Xi + × X+i
i=1
sand had white to light yellow, settlement and industry, mudflat had
light to dark bluish or greyish, scrubland had light red irregular shape, where r is the number of rows in the matrix, xii is the number of ob-
and bluish smooth pattern indicate the water bodies. servations in row i and column i (the ith diagonal elements), Xi+ and X
+i are the marginal totals of row r and column i respectively and N is
2.5. Ground data collection for accuracy assessment - post classification the number of observations.

Ground truth information for the ten mangrove forest regions was
collected in 2014 with handheld Global Navigation Satellite System
(GNSS). In total, 1685 ground control points were collected randomly
from accessible parts. We have used 2 Juno Global Navigation Satellite
System (GNSS) units to record the observed points. The number of
points for ground-truth verification was decided based on the visual
separability between classes based on stratified random sampling.
Mangroves, water bodies, forest plantation, aquaculture and salt pan
2.6. Spatial overlay analysis for temporal change detection
The land use land cover (LULC) changes occurred between two
periods in mangrove areas were assessed by spatial union overlay
analysis in ArcGIS. Post classified output of two different dates was
overlaid to produce the map layer representing the changes in land
cover occurred between the two periods (Jayanthi et al., 2006; Giri
et al., 2007). In the attributes of the union layer, fields to represent the

84
M. Jayanthi et al.
Fig. 2. Classified land use land cover map of 1989 of mangrove forest and surroundings - (A1) Sundarbans, (B1) Bhitarkanika, (B2) Mahanadi, (B3) Devimouth, (C1)
Godavari, (C2) Krishna, (D1) Muthupet, (D2) Pichavaram, (E1) Gulf of Khambhat and (E2).Gulf of Kutch.
changes in land cover and their respective area were added, and the
area of changes was calculated. Percentage of change was calculated to
assess the extent of different land use change.
3. Results
The overall accuracy of the land use classification of 1989 and 2013
images ranges from 92% to 96%. The overall Khat coefficient of those
images ranges from 0.90 to 0.96, which is considered as an excellent
level of agreement with the validation data. Overall accuracy values
over 80% represent a strong agreement between the classification data
and reference data (Congalton, 1991). The Khat coefficient provides a
level of grouping of pixels based on image classification and field ver-
ification, after accounting the chance of random agreement (Lillesand
et al., 2015). The overall accuracy of the land use classes are given in
Table S1. The accuracy level of classification is considered sufficient to
map the spatial pattern of land use changes as the overall accuracy of
the classified images are well within the acceptable range.
85
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 213 (2018) 81–91
3.1. Changes in land cover over time
Different land use categories, namely mangroves (MAN), forest
plantation (FTP), agriculture (AGR), aquaculture (AQU), salt pan (STP),
built-up (BUT), unutilized land (UUL) and water bodies (WAT) were
present in the study area. The land use of the ten mangrove forest re-
gions in 1989 and 2013 (Table 2), indicated the mangrove extent in-
creased from 3008 km2 to 3406. The Classified land use maps of the
study area for 1989 and 2013 are given in Figs. 2 and 3. As the study
area extent of ten mangrove forests was different from each other, the
percentage of change was taken as an indicator of change. Sundarbans
mangroves account for 72% of the total mangrove area in 1989. Though
the overall mangrove extent has increased by 13%, the Sundarbans and
Bhitarkanika mangrove forests have lost their extent by 7 and 6% re-
spectively. The largest increase in mangrove extent by 382% and 134%
was noticed in the Gulf of Khambhat and Gulf of Kutch respectively.
The total agriculture area has reduced by 3%, in all places and the
maximum reduction was observed up to 19% in the Godavari region.
The overall aquaculture area has grown by 889%. The Mahanadi delta
M. Jayanthi et al.
Fig. 3. Classified land use land cover map of 2013 of mangrove forest and surroundings of (A1) Sundarbans, (B1) Bhitarkanika, (B2) Mahanadi, (B3) Devimouth, (C1)
Godavari, (C2) Krishna, (D1) Muthupet, (D2) Pichavaram, (E1) Gulf of Khambhat and (E2).Gulf of Kutch.
lost 7% of the forest plantation whereas Godavari and Muthupet regions
have gained an area by 50% and 18% respectively. The unutilized land
has reduced (16%) in all forest regions as a mark of development. The
area occupied by water bodies has changed in all the places of study,
and the largest increase (9%) was observed in the Sundarbans region,
linked to loss of mangroves. After considering the loss and gain
(Table 3), the mangrove area in the unprotected region has grown from
280 km2 to 672 km2 compared to that of that in the protected region
from 2726 km2 to 2734 km2.
3.2. Mangroves gain in protected and unprotected forest regions
Agriculture, aquaculture and salt pan were considered as human
used land classes whereas unused lands and water bodies were taken as
natural classes. Land use change dynamics of mangrove forest regions
between 1989 and 2013 is given in Fig. 4. The mangrove area gain and
loss due to the influences of natural and human factors in protected and
unprotected regions (Fig. 5) indicated that an area of 2489 km2 of
mangroves remained undisturbed between 1989 and 2013. The total
86
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 213 (2018) 81–91
area of mangrove gain was 918 km2, of which 53% was present in the
unprotected region, and 47% was located in the protected regions.
Natural classes such as unused lands and water bodies contributed to
81% and 16% of mangrove growth respectively. There is a substantial
spatial difference in the degree of reforestation. Among all the wetlands
studied, the Gulf of Kutch has registered the major mangrove refor-
estation by 478.1 km2 located mainly (98%) in the unused lands of
unprotected (59%) as well as protected (41%) regions. The increase in
mangrove cover of Gulf of Kutch was mainly due to the large scale
plantation efforts by Gujarat Ecological Commission, Forest and en-
vironmental department, Gujarat involving local communities
(Upadhyay et al., 2015). The second largest mangrove gain by
169.9 km2 occurred in the Sundarbans region's natural land classes
(89%), in the protected (64%) as well as unprotected (36%) forest re-
gions. It is important to note that 17.4 km2 of agricultural land in the
Sundarbans forest region was changed to mangroves.
The third largest mangrove gain (126.3 km2), was observed in the
Gulf of Khambhat region, mainly from the natural classes in the un-
protected region. These three forest regions namely Gulf of Kutch,
M. Jayanthi et al. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 213 (2018) 81–91

Table 3
Gain and loss of mangroves in protected (P) and unprotected (UP) regions due to natural and anthropogenic stressors.
Name of the forest Mangroves remained as such (km2) Anthropogenic stressors (km2) Natural classes (km2)

AGR AQU STP BUT UUL WAT Total

UP P UP P UP P UP P UP P UP P UP P UP P

Gain due to reforestation and regeneration (km2)

Sundarbans 40.1 1805.3 15.1 2.3 0.8 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 16.6 59.2 28.3 47.7 60.7 109.3
Bhitarkanika 43.3 127.3 1.1 0.8 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 1.3 1.7 1.5 0.3 3.9 2.7
Mahanadi 17.5 33.1 0.8 0.4 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 2.5 1.8 0.8 0.8 4.1 2.9
Devimouth 5.1 1.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 1.5 0.3 0.4 0.0 2.2 0.3
Godavari 22.0 141.7 0.3 0.0 0.3 0 0.7 0.0 0 0 9.7 13.8 5.8 7.4 16.8 21.2
Krishna 2.7 70.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 4.8 51.5 5.8 1.0 10.7 52.5
Muthupet 1.0 13.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 2.3 14.2 0.7 2.9 3.0 17.0
Pichavaram 0.5 5.4 0.2 0.0 0.1 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.8 4.9 0.1 0.1 1.1 5.1
Gulf of Khambhat 7.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 79.0 12.3 24.8 10.2 103.8 22.5
Gulf of Kutch 44.1 105.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.2 0 0 280.4 188.3 2.3 7.1 282.7 195.5
Total gain 183.5 2305.4 17.8 3.4 1.1 0.0 0.7 0.2 0 0 398.7 347.8 70.5 77.5 488.9 428.9
Loss due to natural and anthropogenic factors (km2)
Sundarbans – – 2.8 9.4 5.9 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 88.2 5.4 196.6 15.6 296.1
Bhitarkanika – – 1.5 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 10.6 2.0 0.4 6.0 11.1
Mahanadi – – 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.0 1.4 0.6 2.9 2.6
Devimouth – – 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.7 0.1
Godavari – – 0.1 0.0 6.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 3.2 4.1 2.4 8.0 12.4 12.6
Krishna – – 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 7.2 0.7 4.0 2.2 11.9
Muthupet – – 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.1 0.1 1.3 0.5 2.4
Pichavaram – – 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.2
Gulf of Khambhat – – 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 11.3 2.3 2.9 0.3 17.5 2.6
Gulf of Kutch – – 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.3 1.1 0.0 25.6 39.4 9.3 41.5 37.9 81.1
Total loss 4.7 9.7 14.9 4.0 3.7 0.4 1.9 0.0 46.5 153.9 24.5 252.6 96.2 420.6

Sundarbans, Gulf of Khambhat have contributed to 83% of total man- 4. Discussion

grove gain. Also, mangrove growth in Godavari delta (38 km2),
Mahanadi delta (7 km2) and Bhitarkanika forest (6.6 km2) occurred in
the natural classes from the protected (41%–56%) aswellas unprotected
(44–59%) forest regions. The mangrove gain in the Krishna delta
(63.2 km2), Devi mouth (2.5 km2), Muthupet (20 km2) and Pichavaram
(6.2 km2) happened primarily within the protected regions (82–85%).
Overall, mangrove regeneration in the unprotected region was higher
than that of the protected region in the natural classes.
3.3. Conversion of mangroves in protected and unprotected forest regions
The total extent of mangrove loss was 516.8 km2, of which 82%
occurred from protected regions. The Sundarbans has lost 311.7 km2 of
the original mangrove area, that represented 61% of the total loss due
to natural changes (94%) primarily within the protected forest regions
(95%). At the Sundarbans, it is important to note that agriculture had
converted 2.8 km2 of unprotected and 9.4 km2 of protected mangroves
whereas aquaculture has removed 6 km2 of unprotected and 2 km2 of
protected mangroves. The second largest loss (119 km2) has occurred in
the Gulf of Kutch primarily in the protected forest regions (68%), due to
natural changes (89%). The third largest loss (25 km2) in the Godavari
delta too occurred due to natural changes (71%) in protected (50%) and
unprotected (50%) forest regions. The Gulf of Khambhat region has lost
20.1 km2, primarily in the unprotected (87%) region, due to natural
factors. Among the other regions, the Bhitarkanika and the Krishna
deltas have lost 17.1 km2 and 14.1 km2 respectively, of which 64% and
84% belongs to protected forest region. The other regions, namely,
Mahanadi, Muthupet, Devimouth and Pichavaram forests have also lost
5.5 km2, 2.9 km2, 0.8 km2, and 0.6 km2 respectively. The impact of
human-influenced changes was more in the Mahanadi (28%) and the
Godavari (29%) deltas compared to other areas. Anthropogenic factors
were responsible for 8% of overall mangrove loss, of which aquaculture
converted 3.7% of total mangroves followed by agriculture (2.8%). Salt
pans and built-up activities were responsible for less than 1% of the
total mangrove losses. Overall, 92% of the mangrove lost was due to
natural changes, primarily from the protected mangrove forest regions.
The study presents the changes in the mangrove extent due to
natural processes and human-induced anthropogenic activities in the
protected and unprotected regions of ten major mangrove forests of
India. Evaluation of the spatial and temporal changes in the mangrove
forests covering five coastal states of India using Landsat images shows
that the mangrove extent has changed over the past 25 years, due to the
increase in some places aswellas decrease in some different places. The
study quantified the mangroves gain and loss, the dynamic trends and
drivers of change in protected and unprotected mangrove forest regions
of India.
Overall, 13.3% of the mangrove area increased in the last 25 years.
Our study indicated that 90.7% of mangroves in 1989 was located in
the protected region. The loss of 15.4% of area was counterbalanced by
15.7% gain in the protected regions. The unprotected region had lost
9.3% of mangrove area, but the reforestation has increased the man-
grove area by 19.8%. The changes occurred in the unprotected forest
region have played a dominant role in increasing the net mangrove
area, contrary to the expectation. To our knowledge, there was no study
to date compared the change dynamics in mangrove forests between
protected and unprotected forest regions. An another study by Giri et al.
(2014) indicated that, from 2000 to 2012, 921 km2 of mangroves was
lost and 805 km2 were reforested in South Asia. The mangrove area of
India was 4740 km2 (including Andaman and Nicobar Islands) as per
forest survey of India (FSI, 2015), which was 27% higher than the as-
sessment by Giri et al. (2014). The findings of this study of increasing
mangrove extent in the last 25 years corroborated with the FSI annual
report on the mangrove cover of India. Reforestation of mangroves by
918 km2 was due to the national action plan for mangrove protection
and development, afforestation efforts of the State Forest Department
and Non-Governmental Organizations.
Fresh lands were made due to deposition of sediment, colonized by
a sequence of plant communities, culminating in the establishment of
mangrove forests. Naturally regenerating mangroves tend to be more
similar to the original mangrove vegetation (Field, 1998). Avicennia
marina benefits more than other species when the freshwater supply is

87
M. Jayanthi et al.
Fig. 4. Changes in land use land cover in relation to mangrove between 1989 and 2013 – (A1) Sundarbans, (B1) Bhitarkanika, (B2) Mahanadi, (B3) Devimouth, (C1)
Godavari, (C2) Krishna, (D1) Muthupet, (D2) Pichavaram, (E1) Gulf of Khambhat and (E2) Gulf of Kutch.
less or growth in mudflats, is considered as a pioneer species in these
environments (Rakotomavo and Fromard, 2010; Gnanappazham and
Selvam, 2014). Mangroves serve as the breeding ground for shellfishes
and finfishes and the marginal effect of mangroves on total marine fish
output is 1.86 tonnes per hectare per year in 2011 (Anneboina and Kavi
kumar, 2017).
Among the mangrove forest studied, the extent of mangroves has
reduced by 7% in Sundarbans and 6% in Bhitarkanika forests. The other
regions have reported the mangrove area gain between 3 and 382%. In
this study, we found that natural factors played a major role in the
mangrove change dynamics. Out of the total mangrove loss, about 60%
was lost to flood waterbodies and 28.7% was changed to barren lands
within the protected region of Sundarbans mangrove regions, supports
the observations of Giri et al. (2007). Environmental factors such as
high sedimentation and erosion rates prevent the survival of mangrove
species (Sakho et al., 2011). Reduction in tidal water flow due to se-
diment deposition in adjacent elevated areas can cause the death of
mangroves, therefore increased inundation by making canals in hy-
persaline areas can make these lands suitable for mangrove
88
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 213 (2018) 81–91
reforestation (Selvam et al., 2005). Hydrodynamic models based on
topography, bathymetry, tidal and current data can help in identifying
the areas. Anthropogenic activities such as aquaculture, agriculture and
salt pan contributed to 8% of mangrove loss. Globally, agriculture and
aquaculture were considered as the greatest driver of mangrove change
(Thomas et al., 2017). Changes on Mahanadi (1990–2005), Godavari
(1990–2006) and Sundarbans (the 1970s–2000s) mangroves due to
aquaculture, indicated the loss of mangroves by 8.8%, 18%, and 1%,
respectively (Giri et al., 2007; Satapathy et al., 2007; Rajitha et al.,
2010; Pattanaik and Prasad, 2011). The conversion of mangroves to
aquaculture is an environmental degradation. The government of India
regulated the shrimp farm development with licensing guidelines
through the enactment of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority (CAA) Act
in 2005, which does not permit the use of the mangrove forest area for
aquaculture development and makes a minimum of 100 m mandatory
buffer zone from mangrove area (CAA, 2014). But, the benefits of the
aquaculture sector may be less than perceived as a result of environ-
mental and social impacts of mangrove degradation (Nitto et al., 2013;
Duncan et al., 2016). Though the loss of mangroves in many shrimps
M. Jayanthi et al.
Fig. 5. Changes in mangrove forest regions between 1989 and 2013 - Gain and loss (a) due to the influences of natural and human factors, (b) in protected and
unprotected regions.
growing countries links to aquaculture, the drivers of the mangrove
changes vary from country to country globally and also include sub-
sistence harvest firewood, urbanization, aquaculture, agriculture and
population pressure (Nguyen et al., 2013).
Mangrove deforestation up to 35% occurs globally as a consequence
to anthropogenic activities between 1996 and 2010 (Thomas et al.,
2017). Assessment of drivers of changes in the mangroves of Southeast
Asian countries indicated the largest loss, ranged from 0.19 to 5.52%
between 2000 and 2012 (Richards and Friess, 2016), but failed to ac-
count the new mangroves originated after 2000. Valiela et al. (2001)
estimated that the annual rates of mangrove deforestation ranged from
1.25%/yr to 3.62%/year. Accretion and erosion are the two natural
changes caused the turnover between mangrove forests and environ-
ment. Environmental factors potentially governing distribution and
growth of mangroves are tidal inundation, hyper salinization, soil pore
water salinity, sediment stability, changes in rainfall and freshwater
89
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 213 (2018) 81–91
availability (Rakotomavo and Fromard, 2010; Wang et al., 2018). As
hydrological and sedimentological phenomena contributed to man-
grove dynamics, natural influences were the main drivers of change in
the present study. Climate change impacts in the future, in particular,
sea level rise (SLR) will play a key role in decreasing the mangrove area
(Ward et al., 2016). The response of mangrove to coast line will also
depends on the shoreline topography, SLR, sources and rate of sediment
supply (Woodroffe, 2018; Mckee and Vervaeke, 2018). Future studies
that focus on the impact of SLR assessment on the mangrove cover will
indicate the potential threat faced by mangrove due to impacts of cli-
mate change. Mangrove forests along arid coasts, in subsiding river
deltas, and on many islands are expected to decline in the area, struc-
tural complexity, but mangroves will continue to expand poleward
(Alongi, 2015). Site-specific restoration and monitoring techniques
have to be adapted depending on the topography, tidal water flow, the
amount of rainfall and the impacts of climate change to protect the
M. Jayanthi et al.
mangrove forests from natural factors. Strict adherence by government
agencies to the provisions made in the mangrove protection laws and
regular monitoring will protect this important ecosystem from anthro-
pogenic changes.
5. Conclusion
This study provides the first comprehensive detailed assessment of
the changes and their drivers in the protected and unprotected major
mangrove forests of India using remote sensing satellite data, GIS
techniques and ground truth verification. Overall increase in mangrove
area was due to the new growth established in the unprotected forest
regions, particularly in the Gulf of Kutch. Major mangrove loss occurred
in the Sundarbans region, mainly due to inundation of seawater and
shoreline changes. Natural factors such as hyper saline condition, lack
of fresh water supply, changes in rainfall, sediment supply, topography,
and sea level rise played major role than anthropogenic activities such
as aquaculture, agriculture and salt pan for the overall mangrove
change. As sea-level rise could be the largest factor affecting the man-
grove ecosystems in future, further studies are suggested to assess the
impact of changing shorelines and sea level rise on mangroves. There is
a great scope for restoration activities in the identified barren lands
which were earlier mangrove regions, by providing conducive en-
vironmental conditions particularly freshwater supply and tidal in-
undation. The findings of this study will provide the baseline in-
formation for environmentalists and policymakers to assist in
restoration initiatives where larger areas of loss have occurred, and also
to plan adaptive management strategies to protect the mangrove eco-
systems.
Acknowledgments
The first author is thankful to Dr.A.G.Ponniah, Former Director,
CIBA, Chennai for valuable suggestions, providing facilities and en-
couragement to carry out this work. The authors thank ten mangrove
forest department officials for the help during field verification. Finally,
we thank the unknown referees for their constructive, valuable inputs
and suggestions.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2018.08.016.
References
Alongi, D.M., 2009. Paradigm shifts in mangrove biology. In: Perillo, G.M.E., Wolanski,
E.J., Cahoon, D.R., Brinson, M.M. (Eds.), Coastal Wetlands an Integrated Ecosystem
Approach. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 615–640.
Alongi, D.M., 2015. The impact of climate change on mangrove forests. Current Climate
Change Reports 1, 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-015-0002-x.
Anneboina, L.R., Kavi Kumar, K.S., 2017. Economic analysis of mangrove and marine
fishery linkages in India. Ecosystem Services 24, 114–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecoser.2017.02.004.
Bhomia, R.K., MacKenzie, R.A., Murdiyarso, D., Sasmito, S.D., Purbopuspito, J., 2016.
Impacts of land use on Indian mangrove forest carbon stocks: implications for con-
servation and management. Ecol. Appl. 26, 1396–1408. https://doi.org/10.1890/15-
2143.
CAA, 2014. Coastal Aquaculture Authority (CAA) Compendium of Acts, Rules,
Regulations and Other Notifications. CAA, India 236pp. ISBN: 81-901701-0-5, p.
Available from. http://caa.gov.in/uploaded/doc/COMPUPD2014.pdf, Accessed
date: 13 July 2018.
Campbell, J.B., Wynne, R.H., 2011. Introduction to Remote Sensing. Guilford Press, New
York, USA 670 pp. ISBN 978 160918 176 5.
Congalton, R.G., 1991. A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications of remotely
sensed data. Rem. Sens. Environ. 37 (1), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-
4257(91)90048-B.
Donato, D.C., Kauffman, J.B., Murdiyarso, D., Kurnianto, S., Melanie Stidham, M.,
Kanninen, M., 2011. Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics.
Nat. Geosci. 4, 293–297. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1123.
Duke, N.C., Meynecke, J.O., Dittmann, S., Ellison, A.M., Anger, K., Berger, U., Cannicci,
90
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 213 (2018) 81–91
S., Diele, K., Ewel, K.C., Field, C.D., Koedam, N., Lee, S.Y., Marchand, C., Nordhaus,
I., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., 2007. A world without mangroves? Science 317, 41–42.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.317.5834.41b.
Duncan, C., Primavera, J.H., Pettorelli, N., Thompson, J.R., Loma, R.J.A., Koldewey, H.J.,
2016. Rehabilitating mangrove ecosystem services: a case study on the relative
benefits of abandoned pond reversion from Panay Island, Philippines. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 109 (2), 772–782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.05.049.
FAO, 2007. The world's mangroves 1980-2005, Forestry Paper. Rome, Italy. http://www.
fao.org/3/a-a1427e.pdf, Accessed date: 13 March 2017.
Field, C.D., 1998. Rehabilitation of mangrove ecosystems: an overview. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
37 (8–12), 38–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(99)00106-X.
FSI, 2015. India state of forest Report. Forest Survey of India. http://fsi.nic.in/isfr-2015/
isfr-2015-mangrove-cover.pdf, Accessed date: 13 March 2017.
Gilman, E., Ellison, J.C., Jungblut, V., Van Lavieren, H., Wilson, L., Areki, F., Brighouse,
G., Bungitak, J., Dus, H., Kilman, M., 2006. Adapting to Pacific Island mangrove
responses to sea level rise and climate change. Clim. Res. 32 (3), 161–176. https://
doi.org/10.3354/cr032161.
Giri, C., Long, J., Abbas, S., Murali, R.M., Qamer, F.M., Pengra, B., Thau, D., 2014.
Distribution and dynamics of mangrove forests of South Asia. J. Environ. Manag. 148,
101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.01.020.
Giri, C., Ochieng, E., Tieszen, L.L., Zhu, Z., Singh, A., Loveland, T., Masek, J., Duke, N.,
2011. Status and distribution of mangrove forests of the world using earth observa-
tion satellite data. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 20, 154–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1466-8238.2010.00584.x.
Giri, C., Pengra, B., Zhu, Z., Singh, A., Tieszen, L.L., 2007. Monitoring mangrove forest
dynamics of the Sundarbans in Bangladesh and India using multi-temporal satellite
data from 1973 to 2000. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 73, 91–100. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecss.2006.12.019.
Gnanappazham, L., Selvam, V., 2014. Response of mangroves to the change in tidal and
fresh water flow – a case study in Pichavaram, South India. Ocean Coast Manag. 102,
131–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.09.004.
Hamilton, S.E., Casey, D., 2016. Creation of a high spatio-temporal resolution global
database of continuous mangrove forest cover for the 21st century (CGMFC-21).
Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 25 (6), 729–738. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12449.
Hansen, M.C., Potapov, P.V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S.A., Tyukavina, A.,
Thau, D., Stehman, S.V., Goetz, S.J., Loveland, T.R., Kommareddy, A., Egorov, A.,
Chini, L., Justice, C.O., Townshend, J.R.G., 2013. High-resolution global maps of
21st-century forest cover change. Science 342 (6160), 850–853. https://doi.org/10.
1126/science.1244693.
Jansson, K.N., Glasser, N.F., 2005. Using Landsat 7 ETM + imagery and Digital Terrain
Models for mapping glacial lineaments on former ice sheet beds. Int. J. Rem. Sens. 26
(18), 3931–3941. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160500106900.
Jayanthi, M., 2011. Monitoring brackishwater aquaculture development using multi-
spectral satellite data and GIS–a case study near Pichavaram mangroves South-East
coast of India. Indian J. Fish. 58, 85–90.
Jayanthi, M., Gnanapzhalam, L., Ramachandran, S., 2007. Assessment of impact of
aquaculture on mangrove environments in the South East Coast of India using remote
sensing and Geographical Information System (GIS). Asian Fish Sci. 20, 325–338.
Jayanthi, M., Thirumurthy, S., Muralidhar, M., Ravichandran, P., 2018. Impact of shrimp
aquaculture development on important ecosystems in India. Global Environ. Change
52, 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.05.005.
Jayanthi, M., Rekha, P.N., Kavitha, N., Ravichandran, P., 2006. Assessment of impact of
aquaculture on Kolleru Lake (India) using remote sensing and geographical in-
formation system. Aquacult. Res. 37 (16), 1617–1626. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1365-2109.2006.01602.x.
Khairuddin, B., Yulianda, F., Kusmana, C., Yonvitner, 2016. Degradation mangrove by
using Landsat 5 TM and Landsat 8 OLI image in Mempawah regency, west
Kalimantan province year 1989 – 2014. Procedia Environmental Sciences 33,
460–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.03.097.
Kuenzer, C., Bluemel, A., Gebhardt, S., Quoc, T.V., Dech, S., 2011. Remote sensing of
mangrove ecosystems: a review. Rem. Sens. 3 (5), 878–928. https://doi:10.3390/
rs3050878.
Lillesand, T.M., Keifer, R.W., Chipman, J.W., 2015. Remote Sensing and Image
Interpretation. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA 736pp. ISBN: 978-1-118-34328-9.
Mckee, K.L., Vervaeke, W.C., 2018. Will fluctuations in salt marsh–mangrove dominance
alter vulnerability of a subtropical wetland to sea level rise? Global Change Biol. 24,
1224–1238. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13945.
Nayak, S., Bahuguna, A., 2001. Application of remote sensing data to mangrove and other
coastal vegetation of India. Indian J. Mar. Sci. 30 (4), 195–213.
Nguyen, H., McAlpine, C., Pullar, D., Johansen, K., Duke, N.C., 2013. The relationship of
spatial – temporal changes in fringe mangrove extent and adjacent land-use: case
study of kien Giang coast, Vietnam. Ocean Coast Manag. 76, 12–22. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.01.003.
Nitto, D.D., Erftemeijer, P.L.A., van Beek, J.K.L., Guebas, F.D., Higazi, L., Quisthoudt, K.,
Jayatissa, L.P., Koedam, N., 2013. Modelling drivers of mangrove propagule dispersal
and restoration of abandoned shrimp farms. Biogeosciences 10, 5095–5113. 2013.
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-5095-2013.
NRSA, 1995. Integrated mission for Sustainable Development (IMSD) Technical
Guidelines. National Remote Sensing Agency, Hyderabad, India.
Olson, D.M., Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E.D., Burgess, N.D., Powell-George, V.N.,
Underwood, E.C., D'amico, J.A., Itoua, I., Strand, H.E., Loucks, J.C.M.C.J., Allnutt,
T.F., Ricketts, T.H., Kura, Y., Lamoreux, J.F., Wettengel, W.W., Hedao, P., Kassem,
K.R., 2001. Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: a New Map of Life on Earth A new
global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving bio-
diversity. Bioscience 51 (11), 933–938. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)
051[0933:TEOTWA]2.0.CO;2.
M. Jayanthi et al.
Paling, E.I., Kobryn, H.T., Humphreys, G., 2008. Assessing the extent of mangrove change
caused by Cyclone Vance in the eastern Exmouth Gulf, north western Australia.
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 77, 603–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.
2007.10.019.
Pattanaik, C., Prasad, S.N., 2011. Assessment of Aquaculture impact on mangroves of
Mahanadi delta (Orissa), East coast of India using remote sensing and GIS. Ocean
Coast Manag. 54, 789–795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2011.07.013.
Quader, M.A., Agrawal, S., Kervyn, M., 2017. Multi-decadal land cover evolution in the
Sundarban, the largest mangrove forest in the world. Ocean Coast Manag. 139,
113–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.02.008.
Rahman, A.F., Dragoni, D., Didan, K., Barreto-Munoz, A., Hutabarat, J.A., 2013. Detecting
large scale conversion of mangroves to aquaculture with change point and mixed-
pixel analyses of high-fidelity MODIS data. Rem. Sens. Environ. 130, 96–107. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2012.11.014.
Rajitha, K., Mukherjee, C.K., Chandran, V.R., Prakash Mohan, M.M., 2010. Land-cover
change dynamics and coastal aquaculture development: a case study in the East
Godavari delta, Andhra Pradesh, India using multi-temporal satellite data. Int. J.
Rem. Sens. 31 (16), 4423–4442. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160903277456.
Rakotomavo, A., Fromard, F., 2010. Dynamics of mangrove forests in the Mangoky river
delta, Madagaskar, under the influence of natural and human factors. For. Ecol.
Manag. 259, 1161–1169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.01.002.
Richards, D.R., Friess, D.A., 2016. Rates and drivers of mangrove deforestation in
Southeast Asia, 2000-2012. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113 (2), 344–349. https://
doi:10.1073/pnas.1510272113.
Sakho, I., Mesnage, V., Deloffre, J., Lafite, R., Niang, I., Faye, G., 2011. The influence of
natural and anthropogenic factors on mangrove dynamics over 60 years: the Somone
Estuary, Senegal. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 94 (1), 93–101. https://doi:10.
1016/j.ecss.2011.05.032.
Sandilyan, S., Kathiresan, K., 2015. Density of waterbirds in relation to habitats of
Pichavaram mangroves, Southern India. J. Coast Conserv. 19 (2), 131–139. https://
doi:10.1007/s11852-015-0376-x.
Satapathy, D.R., Krupadam, R.J., Kumar, L.P., Wate, S.R., 2007. The application of sa-
tellite data for the quantifica- tion of mangrove loss and coastal management in the
Godavari estuary, east coast of India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 134, 453–469. https://
doi:10.1007/s10661-007-9636-z.
Seto, K.C., Fragkias, M., 2007. Mangrove conversion and aquaculture development in
Vietnam: a remote sensing-based approach for evaluating the Ramsar convention on
wetlands. Global Environ. Change 17 (3–4), 486–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2007.03.001.
Selvam, V., 2003. Environmental classification of mangrove wetlands of India. Curr. Sci.
84 (6), 757–765.
Selvam, V., Gnanappazham, L., Navamuniyammal, L., Ravichandran, K.K., Karunagaran,
V.M., 2005. In Atlas of Mangrove Wetlands of India-Part 1 Tamil Nadu. M.S.
Swaminathan Research foundation, Chennai, India, pp. 99. https://www.forests.tn.
91
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 213 (2018) 81–91
gov.in/tnforest/app/webroot/img/document/Mssrf-Mangrove-Tn-Wetland-Atlas-
2002.pdf, Accessed date: 13 July 2018.
Singh, A., 1989. Digital change detection techniques using remotely-sensed data. Int. J.
Rem. Sens. 10 (6), 989–1003. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431168908903939.
Sivakumar, K., 2013. Coastal and marine biodiversity protected Areas in India. In:
Venkataraman, K., Sivaperuman, C., Raghunathan, C. (Eds.), Ecology and
Conservation of Tropical marine Faunal Communities. Springer Heidelberg, New
York, pp. 463–476 ISBN 978-3-642-38200-0.
Tewkesbury, A.P., Comber, A.J., Tate, N.J., Lamb, A., Fisher, P.F., 2015. A critical
synthesis of remotely sensed optical image change detection techniques. Rem. Sens.
Environ. 160, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2015.01.006.
Thomas, N., Lucas, R., Bunting, P., Hardy, A., Rosenqvist, A., Simard, M., 2017.
Distribution and drivers of global mangrove forest change, 1996–2010. PLoS One 12
(6), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179302.
Thu, P.M., Populus, J., 2007. Status and changes of mangrove forest in Mekong delta: case
study in Tra Vinh, Vietnam. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 71, 98–109. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2006.08.007.
Tucker, J., Grant, D.M., Dykstra, J.D., 2004. NASA's global ortho rectified Landsat data
set. Photogramm. Eng. Rem. Sens. 70 (3), 313–322. https://doi.org/10.14358/PERS.
70.3.313.
Upadhyay, R., Nischal, J., Sampat, A.C., Verma, A.K., Patel, A., Singh, V., Jaydipsinh, J.,
Kalubarme, M., 2015. Mangrove restoration and regeneration monitoring in Gulf of
Kachchh, Gujarat State, India, using remote sensing and geo-informatics. Int. J.
Geosci. 06, 299–310. https://doi.org/10.4236/ijg.2015.64023.
Valiela, I., Bowen, J.L., York, J.K., 2001. Mangrove forests: one of the world's threatened
major tropical environments. Bioscience 51, 807–815. https://doi.org/10.1641/
0006-3568(2001)051[0807:MFOOTW]2.0.CO;2.
Van, T.T., Wilson, N., Thanh-Tung, H., Quisthoudt, K., Quang-Minh, V., Xuan-Tuan, L.,
Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Koedama, N., 2015. Changes in mangrove vegetation area and
character in a war land use change affected in region of Vietnam (Mui ca mau) over
six decades. Acta Oecol. 63, 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2014.11.007.
Wang, M., Cao, W., Guan, Q., Wu, G., Wang, F., 2018. Assessing changes of mangrove
forest in a coastal region of southeast China using multi-temporal satellite images.
Estuar. Coast Shelf Sci. 207, 283–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2018.04.021.
Ward, R.D., Friess, D.A., Day, R.H., MacKenzie, R.A., 2016. Impacts of climate change on
mangrove ecosystems: a region by region overview. Ecosys. Health Sustain. 2 (4),
e01211. https://doi:10.1002/ehs2.1211.
Woodroffe, C.D., 2018. Mangrove response to sea level rise: palaeoecological insights
from macrotidal systems in northern Australia. Mar. Freshw. Res. 69, 917–932.
https://doi.org/10.1071/MF17252.
Zhu, Z., Woodcock, C.E., 2014. Continuous change detection and classification of land
cover using all available Landsat data. Rem. Sens. Environ. 144, 152–171. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.01.011.