Chandigarh’s 2026 Wildlife Survey presents the city’s natural areas not as passive green backdrops, but as managed urban infrastructure requiring restoration, monitoring and tighter regulation. Conducted by the UT Department of Forest and Wildlife with the Wildlife Institute of India (WII), Dehradun, the assessment found weak regeneration of several native tree species, widespread invasive vegetation, pressure on wetlands and a need to regulate tourism and human activity in sensitive areas.
The survey was conducted from November 20 to 27, 2025, across Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary and forest patches outside the sanctuary. It recorded 43 tree species, 14 shrub species and 22 herb species, along with 16 mammal species, 132 bird species, 73 butterfly species and 13 species of herpetofauna. A leopard was detected, the sambar was the dominant ungulate, and about 603 sambar were estimated or recorded during the assessment.
Those numbers offer an important snapshot of Chandigarh’s biodiversity. But the report’s more consequential message is that the snapshot is incomplete. A short-duration survey cannot adequately capture the full diversity of nocturnal birds, moths, small mammals, bats and herpetofauna. The report therefore recommends long-term, multi-season and multi-taxa monitoring to establish reliable biodiversity trends and track ecological and climatic changes.
That recommendation changes the way the survey should be read. The exercise is not simply a count of animals and plants. It is also an assessment of whether the city has the institutional capacity to understand changes in its ecological systems over time. Without repeated observations across seasons, a rise or fall in sightings cannot easily be separated from temporary weather conditions, seasonal movement, habitat disturbance or changes in detection.
## Native regeneration is the central warning
The most important finding concerns the condition of native forests. The survey flagged poor regeneration of Terminalia anogeissiana, Lannea coromandelica, Albizia lebbeck and Senegalia catechu. These species were recorded, but the report found that their continuation within the forest cannot be assumed when natural regeneration is weak.
This distinction matters for urban habitat management. A forest may appear green while its ecological composition is changing. Mature trees can remain standing even as younger native plants fail to replace them. Over time, this can reduce habitat diversity and alter the availability of food and shelter for wildlife. The report does not present a forecast of collapse, but its concern about regeneration shows that canopy cover alone is not an adequate measure of ecological health.
The recommended response is not a blanket expansion of plantation activity. The survey cautions against monoculture plantations and the introduction of non-native species. Instead, it calls for the replacement of invasive vegetation with native species and the planting of palatable grasses, including Eulaliopsis binata, Arundinella nepalensis, Heteropogon contortus and Tripidium bengalense.
This is a significant management principle for a city where plantations and landscaped spaces can be mistaken for habitat restoration. Planting more vegetation does not automatically recreate the ecological relationships found in a functioning forest or grassland. The survey’s emphasis is on species suitability, habitat quality and the needs of the wildlife already present.
## Invasive species turn maintenance into a long-term task
The report identifies Lantana camara, Leucaena leucocephala, Neltuma juliflora, Eucalyptus and Arundo donax among the invasive or problematic vegetation requiring attention. It also records the red-eared slider turtle and recommends its removal and ex-situ management.
Invasive species control is rarely a one-time clearance exercise. The survey calls for a sustained, mission-mode campaign, indicating that removal must be linked to restoration and follow-up monitoring. If cleared areas are not replanted or allowed to recover with suitable native species, invasive vegetation can return or another non-native species can occupy the same space.
The red-eared slider presents a different kind of management challenge because it is an exotic aquatic turtle. Its presence connects biodiversity protection to the condition of water bodies, public awareness and the regulation of animal releases. The report’s recommendation for removal and ex-situ management places the issue within an organised conservation framework rather than treating individual sightings as isolated incidents.
The wider lesson is that Chandigarh’s ecological administration has to manage both what is planted and what enters its wetlands and forests. Native habitat protection cannot be separated from nursery choices, landscaping practices, pet ownership, rescue operations and public behaviour.
## Wetlands are part of the city’s ecological infrastructure
The survey recommends regular desiltation and restoration of wetlands and riparian habitats, along with the protection of grasslands. These recommendations broaden the conservation question beyond the sanctuary’s forest cover. Water bodies, stream edges and open grasslands perform different ecological functions and support different groups of species.
The survey found that riparian zones had the highest butterfly richness, with 49 species recorded. Woodland habitats had the highest bird diversity. These findings show why habitat variety matters. A conservation strategy focused only on tree cover could overlook the areas that support particularly high species richness.
Regular desiltation is proposed alongside restoration, not as a substitute for it. Removing accumulated sediment may be necessary for water-body management, but the report also calls for the restoration of riparian habitats and regulated management interventions to maintain wildlife habitat. The combined recommendation suggests that wetlands need continuing ecological management rather than occasional engineering work.
The need to protect these spaces also creates a governance question. The report calls for tighter regulation of tourism and human activity in sensitive and core areas. That implies that access, recreation and conservation must be managed together. The supplied survey does not prescribe specific visitor limits or enforcement mechanisms, but it clearly identifies human activity as a management concern.
## The survey’s biodiversity record is both rich and incomplete
The recorded biodiversity is substantial. The assessment identified 132 bird species from 53 families, 73 butterfly species from five families and 71 herpetofauna individuals belonging to 13 species. It also recorded the vulnerable Common Pochard, the Indian Roofed Turtle, the Bengal Monitor Lizard and a new record of Sitana species, or fan-throated lizard.
At the same time, the report notes that only one scavenger species, the Griffon Vulture, was detected. The survey also recorded a leopard and found that the Golden Jackal had the highest carnivore encounter rate, at 12. These observations help establish the range of species using the landscape, but they do not by themselves establish long-term population trends.
The sambar estimate of about 603 animals and the encounter rate of 58 provide a useful baseline for future monitoring. Baselines become valuable when they are repeated using comparable methods. The assessment used vegetation plots, line transects, camera traps, bird point counts, visual surveys, acoustic monitoring and indirect signs such as pugmarks, scat and tracks. Maintaining methodological consistency would allow later surveys to identify whether changes reflect genuine ecological shifts.
That is why the report’s call for long-term monitoring is as important as its species list. Biodiversity data becomes more useful for administration when it can show direction: whether native regeneration is improving, whether invasive species are retreating, whether wetland habitats are recovering and whether sensitive species continue to use the landscape.
## Rescue, relocation and tourism require scientific protocols
The survey recommends scientific protocols for wildlife rescue and relocation, with particular concern about unnecessary snake relocation. This is an area where public response and conservation practice can easily diverge. A sighting may trigger an immediate demand for removal, while moving an animal may not always be the most appropriate ecological response.
The recommendation indicates the need for standard procedures based on species, location, risk and habitat conditions. The source material does not specify the proposed protocols, but it establishes the administrative problem: rescue and relocation should be guided by science rather than handled inconsistently.
Community engagement and awareness are listed among the key recommendations. This connects conservation outcomes to the behaviour of residents, visitors and institutions around Chandigarh’s natural areas. Awareness campaigns alone cannot replace habitat management, but they can support rules on animal release, visitor conduct and reporting of wildlife sightings.
The report’s approach therefore combines ecological restoration with administrative discipline. Native planting, invasive control, wetland work, visitor regulation, rescue protocols and community participation are not separate projects. They are linked parts of the same conservation system.
## What Chandigarh must monitor next
The 2026 Wildlife Survey confirms that Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary and surrounding forest patches retain significant biodiversity, but it also identifies structural weaknesses in the habitat system. Native tree regeneration is poor in several recorded species, invasive plants and an exotic turtle require sustained control, wetlands and riparian zones need restoration, and short-duration monitoring cannot provide a complete picture.
The next stage will depend on whether these recommendations become a continuing programme rather than a one-time response to a survey. The key indicators are already visible in the report: repeated multi-season surveys, improved native regeneration, restored wetlands, protection of grasslands, regulated activity in sensitive areas and scientifically managed wildlife rescue. These measures will determine whether Chandigarh’s natural spaces remain merely green areas within the city or function as resilient, monitored and ecologically diverse urban habitats.
