Fish Biodiversity in the Water Bodies of Samaspur Bird Sanctuary, Uttar Pradesh: Towards Developing a Freshwater Aquatic Sanctuary

2007·2.1 MB·

by  U K Sarkar

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 104 (1), Jan-Apr 2007 51-54
FISH BIODIVERSITY IN THE WATER BODIES OF SAMASPUR BIRD SANCTUARY,
UTTAR PRADESH: TOWARDS DEVELOPING A FRESHWATER AQUATIC SANCTUARY
1
U.K. Sarkar2-3 D. Kapoor2 S.K.Paul2 A.K. Pathak2 V.S. Basheer2 PK. Deepak2 S.M. Srivastava2and
, , , , , ,
L.K.Tyagi2
'Accepted November 2005
’Endangered Fish Biology and Systematics Lab, National Bureau ofFish Genetic Resources, Canal Ring Road, Dilkusha,
Lucknow 226 002, Uttar Pradesh, India.
3Email: [email protected], uksarkar@[email protected], [email protected]
ExtensivesurveyswereconductedinSamaspurBirdSanctuary(799.37ha).UttarPradeshduringJune2000toDecember
2004, to explore the status of fish germplasm resources in the waterbodies. Atotal of3,444 fish were collected and
classifiedinto7orders, 19families,33generaand46species.Oneexoticspecies(n=2)Aristichthysnobiliswascollected.
ThisisthefirstichthyofaunalreportofthisSanctuary.ThedominantspecieswasGudusiachapra(relativeabundance,
7.25%)andthesubdominantspecieswereLabeobata(RA,6.67%),Salmostomcibacaila(RA,5.51%),Amblypharyngodon
mola (RA, 5.08%),Notopterusnotopterus(RA,4.50%)andEutropiichthysvacha (RA, 3.91%).
The analysis showed that 28.26% of fish species, which are reported to be threatened as per IUCN. had a stable
populationintheSanctuary.ApartfromthemajorIndiancatpsandtheabove-mentionedspecies,theimportantspecies
recorded were Chitala chitala, Clupisoma garua, Ailia coda, Aorichthys aor, Wallago attu, Labeo gonitis, Labeo
pangusia,Puntius sarana Rhinomugil corsnla Channa marulius, Channa striatus Ompokpabda and Ontbokpabo.
, , ,
Thestudyconfirmsthatprotectedfreshwaterareasareimportantforconservationofregionalfishbiodiversity,especially
forlocalandendangeredfishspecies.
Keywords: SamaspurBirdSanctuary,fishbiodiversity,threatenedfish,aquaticSanctuary
INTRODUCTION In the present study, a detailed survey was conducted
inthewaterbodiesofSamaspurBirdSanctuary,Rae Bareilly
Protected areas could play an important role in the to ascertain the present scenario offish biodiversity within
conservation offresh waterfishesin India, butfirstthereisa protected areas. This study is the first attempt toexplore the
need to identify the conservation value of these areas in fishdiversity potentialwithinSamaspurBirdSanctuary.
relation to the biogeographical diversity of fishes, and the
factors that have an impact on fish communities. The fish STUDYAREA
diversity of India is declining rapidly, due to urbanization,
pollution,damminganddiversionofwatersforirrigationand SamaspurBirdSanctuaryissituatedinSalon,RaeBareilly
power generation, which have, in the last few decades, districtofUttarPradesh(Fig.l). Itisspreadover799.37haand
subjected our natural water bodies in general, and rivers in haslenticwaterbodiescomprisingofsixsmallinter-connected
particular, to severe stress. Provision of a secure habitat is lakes,withawaterareaof305.46ha.The lakesareperennial
importanttoprotectthegeneticresourcesoffreshwaterfish. andthemainwatersourcesarethevarioustailendsofcanals,
In India, rivers, streams, wetlands and beels of existing which are connected to these lakes. During flooding these
protected areas offer good opportunities for creating fresh lakes drain into villages adjacent tothese lakes.
wateraquaticsanctuaries.Thecurrentprotectedareanetwork
encompasses almost 4.66% (c. 153,000 sq. km) of India’s MATERIALANDMETHODS
geographical area in over 480 sanctuaries and 86 national
parks(Rodgersetcil. 2000).Therearereportsofillegalfishing Monthly sampling was carried out using stratified
within protected areas (Wakid and Biswas 2003). India is random methods.Thetotal waterbodywasdividedintothree
endowed with about 2,163 fish species, so far, as has been samplingzones.Positionalcoordinatesofthesamplingpoints
documentedbytheNationalBureauofFishGeneticResources of the water bodies were, 25° 59.55' N, 81° 23.32' E and
(Anon2004),ofwhichabout700speciesinhabitfresh water. 25°59.92'N,81°23.5PE,meanaltitude98.37mabovemsl.The
Jayaranr 1999)has,however,reported2,500specieswith930 fish sampling was done in many points covering all
(
freshwaterinhabitants.Adetailedinventoryoffishandhabitat representativehabitatoftheSanctuary. Variousmesh sizeof
parameters in the protected areas will indicate the present gillnets,castnetsanddragnetswereusedforsampling.Colour
status ofthreatened freshwater fishes in these water bodies. spots,ifany,maximum sizeandothercharactersofthefishes
FISH BIODIVERSITY IN THE WATER BODIES OF SAMASPUR BIRD SANCTUARY
N In India, efforts have been made recently in bringing
together the studies of fish diversity in various rivers with
regardtofreshwaterhabitat. However,fishdiversityofmany
water bodies within protected area network is not yet
investigatedand theinformationrelatedto species diversity,
conservation status ofmany species is unknown. Review of
literature indicates that few reports on fish diversity within
protected water bodies are available. Arunachalam and
Sankaranarayanan (1999) published a list of 31 species of
fishesfromstreamsinGadanariverbasinlocatedinthebuffer
zone of Kalakkad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve of Western
Ghats,ofwhich4specieswerereportedtobefirstrecordsby
the authors from Gadana river. Biju et al. (1999) described
40 freshwater fish species from Prambikulam Wildlife
SanctuaryPalakkaddistrict, Kerala. Labeocalbasu Puntius
,
sarana Puntius ticto Chanda ranga and Mastacembelus
, ,
armatus were reported by Arunachalam and
Sankaranarayanan (1999) from Gadana river in Kalakkad
MundanthuraiTigerReserve.Sarkaretal.(2002)describeda
record size (22.5 cm TL) of Gudusia chapra from the
waterbodies of Samaspur Bird Sanctuary. Interestingly, the
D iW.B 7W i;i2S tjSBto
averagetotal lengthofmanyofthefishessampledwaslarger
Fig. 1: MapofIndiashowingthelocationoftheSanctuary thanfishesavailableoutsidetheSanctuaryandnaturalwaters.
caughtwererecordedandthesampleswerepreservedin 0%
1
formalinsolution.TalwarandJhingran 1991 andSrivastava MajorThreatsandRecommendationsforConservation
( )
( 1988) were followed for fish identification. References to Presently, the flora and fauna ofIndian national parks
conservation status categories within this paper are based andsanctuariesarelegallyprotectedfromhumanintervention.
onIUCNclassificationasperCAMP-NBFGR 998). However, theboundariesofthese areas are not largeenough
(1
to encompass the entire ecosystem, and many stresses that
RESULTSANDDISCUSSIONS affect the aquatic habitat originate beyond sanctuary
boundaries. Until now, most water bodies within protected
The present study indicates that water bodies within areashavebeeninsufficientlyrecognizedinIndia.Theprimary
SamaspurBirdSanctuaryhavearichbiodiversityoffreshwater objectiveforsuccessfulconservationofthehighfishdiversity
fish.Atotal numberof46speciesfrom7 orders, 9families, withintheprotectedareanetworkmustbetodevelopeffective
1
and 33 genera were documented during the study period. controls and management practices that enable life cycle
Cyprinids were the dominant group (38.4%), followed by completion, dispersal and population maintenance within
Perciformes(23.07%)andSiluroids(15.38%).Chinesebighead stream systems. Drastic ecological and anthropogenic
carpAristichthysnobilis(n=2)wasrecordedononeoccasion, changesofforestandaquatichabitatoutsideprotectedwater
probably an escapee from culture system to natural waters. bodiesaregreatthreatsforfishbiodiversity,aswellasaquatic
Theforty-six speciesdocumentedare listed inTable 1 along habitat. Spreading of fish diseases due to water pollution,
withtheirconservationstatus,localnameandsizedistribution. overexploitationoffishfauna,useofpoison,riveralterations
ThedominantspecieswasGudusiachapra(RA,7.25%),and etc. are the main threatstofishfauna. Unless we taketimely
the subdominant species were Labeo bata (RA, 6.67%), measures, these valuable resources will become endangered
Salmostomabacaila(RA, 5.51%),Amblypharyngodonmola or extinct. Based on our observations, we recommend the
(RA, 5.08%), Notopterus notopterus (RA, 4.50%) and followingformanagementoffish biodiversity in ascientific
Eutropiichthysvacha(3.91%).Animportantobservationwas manner.
that28.26%offishesthatcomeunderthethreatenedcategory 1. The aquatic bodies within the Sanctuary should be
in other areas were stable in the Sanctuary waters. This was declared as an aquatic sanctuary.
recorded during experimental sampling of the waterbodies 2. Afforestation programme should be intensifiedon the
throughoutthestudyperiod(2000-2004). banks ofwater bodies.
52 J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 104 (1), Jan-Apr 2007
FISH BIODIVERSITY IN THE WATER BODIES OF SAMASPUR BIRD SANCTUARY
Table1: FishdiversityofSamaspurBirdSanctuary, RaeBareilly,UttarPradesh
SI.No. Scientificname Family Commonname IUCNstatus Maximumtotallength(cm)
1. Chitalachitala(Flamilton) Notopteridae Moye EN 85.3
2. Notopterusnotopterus(Pallas) Notopteridae Patra LRnt. 27.1
3. Gudusiachapra(Flamilton-Buchanan) Clupeidae Suhia LRIc. 22.5
4. Amblypharyngodonmola(Flamilton-Buchanan) Cyprinidae Dhawai LRIc. 18.2
5. AristichthysnobilisRichardson Cyprinidae Big-head NE 45
6. Catlacatla(Flamilton-Buchanan) Cyprinidae Bhakur,Katla VU 71
7. Cirrhinusmrigala(Flamilton-Buchanan) Cyprinidae Nainee LRnt. 66.5
8. Daniodevario(Flamilton-Buchanan) Cyprinidae Patukari LRnt. 8.9
9. Labeobata(Flamilton-Buchanan) Cyprinidae Bata LRnt. 38
10 Labeocalbasu(Flamilton-Buchanan) Cyprinidae Kauranchi LRnt. 57.3
.
11. Labeogonius(Flamilton-Buchanan) Cyprinidae Kursha LRnt. 56
12. Labeopangusia(Flamilton-Buchanan) Cyprinidae Rewa LRnt. 29.8
13. Labeorohita(Flamilton-Buchanan) Cyprinidae Rohu LRnt. 75
14. Puntiuschola(Flamilton-Buchanan) Cyprinidae Puthi,Siddhari NE 11.5
15. Puntiussarana(Flamilton-Buchanan) Cyprinidae Puthi VU 22.5
16. Puntiussophore(Flamilton-Buchanan) Cyprinidae Pothi LRnt. 12.5
17. Puntiusticto(Flamilton-Buchanan) Cyprinidae Pothia LRnt. 8.5
18. Salmostomabacaila(Flamilton-Buchanan) Cyprinidae Chelwa LRIc. 10
19. Nemacheilusbotia(Flamilton-Buchanan) Cyprinidae Natwa LRnt. 6.0
20. Aorichthysaor(Flamilton-Buchanan) Bagridae Tengra LRIc. 76
21. Mystusvittatus(Bloch) Bagridae Tengra VU 14.1
22. Ritarita(Flamilton-Buchanan) Bagridae Hunna LRnt. 40.7
23. Ompokpabda(Flamilton-Buchanan) Siluridae Pabda EN 15.5
24. Ompokpabo(Flamilton-Buchanan) Siluridae Pabda VU 14.4
25. Wallagoattu(Schneider) Siluridae Parhen,Barari LRnt. 81.0
26. Ailiacoila(Flamilton-Buchanan) Schilbeidae Banspatti,Patasi VU 13.2
27. Eutropiichthysvacha(Flamilton-Buchanan) Schilbeidae Bachwa EN 27.5
28. Clupisomagarua(Flamilton-Buchanan) Schilbeidae Baikeri VU 18.9
29. Ciariasbatrachus(Linnaeus) Clariidae Magur VU 29.7
30. Heteropneustesfossilis(Bloch) Heteropneustidae Singee VU 26.8
31. Xenentodoncancila(Flamilton-Buchanan) Belonidae Kakhya,Thona LRnt. 23.0
32. Monopterus Amphipnous cuchia Synbranchidae Cuchia NE 45.6
( )
(Flamilton-Buchanan)
33. ChandanamaFlamilton-Buchanan Ambassidae Chanari LRIc. 4.2
34. Parambassisranga(Flamilton-Buchanan) Ambassidae Chanari LRIc. 5.3
35. Glossogobiusguiris(Hamilton-Buchanan) Gobiidae Bulla LRnt. 6.3
36. Channamarulius(Flamilton-Buchanan) Channidae Sauri LRnt. 39
37. ChannaorientalisBloch&Schneider Channidae Girohi VU 12.2
38. Channapunctatus(Bloch) Channidae Girohi LRnt. 14.5
39. Channastriatus(Bloch) Channidae Sauri LRIc. 14.2
40. MacrognathuspancalusFlamilton-Buchanan Mastacembelidae Basmi,Pataya LRnt. 16.2
41. Mastacembelusarmatus(Lacepede) Mastecembelidae Baam. LRIc. 56
42. Rhinomugilcorsula(Flamilton-Buchanan) Mugilidae Korsul,Answari LRnt. 11.5
43. Nandusnandus(Flamilton-Buchanan) Nandidae Vaadhul LRnt. 14.8
44. Anabastestudineus(Schneider) Anabantidae Kobai, VU 15.1
45. Colisafasciatus(Schneider) Belontiidae Khosti LRnt. 10.0
46. Colisalalia(Flamilton-Buchanan) Belontidae Khosti LRnt. 4.7
*EN=Endangered; LRnt.=LowerRisknearthreatened; LRIc.=LowerRiskleastconcern;VU=Vulnerable; NE=Notevaluated
1 Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 104 (1), Jan-Apr 2007 53
FISH BIODIVERSITY IN THE WATER BODIES OF SAMASPUR BIRD SANCTUARY
3. Periodicmonitoringofwaterqualityparameters. Thereisneedformoresurveyssothatmorenewrecords
4. Existing suitable habitat should be protected from could be documented. The availability offish species larger
erosion and deterioration ofwaterquality. than that reported in literature, and occurrence of many
5. Maintain waterdepth; should not be less than I-2 m. threatenedspeciesintheseprotectedwaterbodies, indicates
6. Poisoningbyvillagersfromthenearbyvillagesshould the urgentneed fordevelopingafresh watersanctuary, with
be stopped by regularmonitoring. scientificmanagement.
7. Community awareness programme for increased
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
participation in conservation.
8. Legislation shouldbe implemented strictly forillegal
activities. WeacknowledgeDr. R.L.Singh,Ex-ChiefConservator
9. Strengtheningofmanpowerforscientific management ofForest, Department ofForests & Wildlife, Uttar Pradesh
ofwaterbodies andfisheries. forpermissiontocarry outsurvey withintheprotectedarea.
10. Ranching programme can be undertaken for selective We thank Range Officer, Samaspur Bird Sanctuary, for his
fishes, which are not abundant in the protected area. kind cooperation during the inventory.
Anon (2004): National Bureau ofFish Genetic Resources (NBFGR), Area Network in India: A review. Wildlife Institute of India,
Indian Council ofAgricultural Research (ICAR). Annual report, Dehradun. 44 pp.
2003-2004. 15 pp. Sarkar, U.K., R.S. Negi, A.K. Pathak, S.K. Paul, V.S. Basheer &
Arunachalam,M. &A. Sankaranarayanan(1999):FishesofGadana P.K. Deepak(2002): Gudusiachapraattainsrecordsizein water
river in Kalakkad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve. ./. BombayNat. bodiesofSamaspurBirdSanctuary.FishingChimes22(6):36-38.
Hist. Soc. 96(2): 232-238. Srivastava, G. (1988): Fishes of U.P. & Bihar. Vishwavidyalaya
Biju, C.R., K. Raju Thomas & C.R. Ajithkumar (1999): Fishes of Prakashan, Varanasi. 207 pp.
Parambikulam Wildlife Sanctuary, Palakkad district, Kerala. Talwar, P.K. & A.G. Jhingran (1991): Inland Fishes of India and
J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 96(1): 82-87. Adjacent Countries, Oxford & IBH, New Delhi. Vol. I & II.
CAMP-NBFGR (1998): Freshwater Fishes ofIndia. National Bureau 1158 pp.
FishGeneticResources,Lucknow,andZooOutreachOrganization, Wakid, A & S.P. Biwas (2003): Anthropogenic Pressure on the
Coimbatore. 327 pp. Aquatic Habitats: A case study in the Laika Forest Village of
Jayaram, K.C. (1999): The Freshwater Fishes of the Indian Region. Dibru-Saikhowa National Park. Pp. 148-149. In: Participatory
NarendraPublishingHouse. Delhi. 551 pp. ApproachforFish BiodiversityConservationinNorthEastIndia
Rodgers,W.A,H.S.Panwar&V.B.Mathur(2000):WildlifeProtected (Eds: MahantaPC. & L.K.Tyagi). NBFGR, Lucknow.
54 J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 104 (1), Jan-Apr 2007