Fish diversity
studies of two rivers of the northeastern Godavari basin, India
NileshK. Heda
SAMVARDHAN (Society for the Conservation of Wetland Resources), Karanja (Lad), Washim,
Maharashtra 444105, India
Email:nilheda@gmail.com
Date of publication
(online): 26 October 2009
Date of publication (print): 26
October 2009
ISSN 0974-7907 (online) |
0974-7893 (print)
Editor: W. Vishwanath
Manuscript details:
Ms # o1764
Received 23 April 2007
Final received 15 October 2009
Finally accepted 15 October 2009
Citation: Heda, N.K. (2009). Fish diversity studies of two rivers of
the northeastern Godavari basin, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 1(10): 514-518.
Copyright: © Nilesh K. Heda 2009. Creative
Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium
for non-profit purposes, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate
credit to the authors and the source of publication.
Author Details: Previously
working in CES, IISc on People’s Biodiversity
Register project. PhD in fish ecology presently working as
project leader on project grant provided by Ruffordsmall grant foundation, UK. Closely working with
fishermen and labours for the conservation of the riverine resources and livelihood issues through a non
profit SAMVARDHAN.
Acknowledgments:Author is very much thankful to Prof. Madhav Gadgil and Dr. K.M. Kulkarni for
necessary freedom and guidance. Discussion with Dr. Subramanian K.A. and Dr. Anuradha Bhat improved this work.
Dr. Sanjay Kharat, Nilesh Dahanukar and Mukul Mahabaleshwarkar helped in the identification of the
fishes. Thanks are also due to Mr. Tulsiram Dane and
Mr. Subhash Bavane who
helped me in the sampling of the fishes. Author is very much thankful to people
of Mendha (Lekha) and Khursa villages of the Gadchirolidistrict for help during field survey. Author is thankful to Rufford Small Grant
Foundation, UK and Sir Dorabaji Tata Trust, Mumbai
for financial support.
Keywords: Adan River, diversity indices, fish diversity, Godavari
basin, Kathani River, species richness.
For Figures & Tables –
click here
Several
ways of measuring the species diversity of biological communities have been
described (MacArthur 1965; Whittaker 1970; Pielou1975; Chao 1984; Magurran 1988, 2004, 2005; Krebs
1989; Chao & Shen 2003), and this diversity is
considered by ecologists to be an indicator of community well-being (Magurran 1988). India has considerable ichthyofaunaldiversity. Day (1875) described 1,418
species of fish under 342 genera, and a century later Jayaram(1981) listed 742 freshwater species under 233 genera, 64 families and 16
orders from the Indian region. Talwar & Jhingran (1991)
estimated 930 species of fresh water fish belonging to 326 genera and 99
families. On a global scale, Indian fish
populations represent 11% of species, 24% of genera and 57% of families (NBSAP
India 2005). In the central Indian River
systems (viz. Narmada, Godavari, Tapti and Krishna) Heda(2009) described 150 species belonging to 26 families. In spite of this rich diversity, literature
concerning numerical studies of fish diversity is scarce. Bhat (2003) studied
the diversity and ecology of four rivers in the UttaraKannada District of Karnataka. Kar et al. (2006) studied diversity and the effect of
environmental variables on fish of Sone Lake in
Assam. The Godavari River, especially
its northeastern part, is largely unexplored with regards to species
inventory. In this study, an attempt was
made to assess and compare the fish diversity of two rivers of the northeastern
Godavari basin.
Study area: (Fig. 1)
The
Godavari is the second largest river in India after the Ganga,
and is often referred as the Vriddh (Old) Ganga or the Dakshin(South) Ganga. It rises near Nasik (Trunbakeshwar) in
Maharashtra at an elevation of 1,067m and flows for 1,465km before emptying
into the Bay of Bengal.
The
first study river, the Kathani, is a tributary of theWainganga and lies at 20015’.531”N & 80031’.196”E
- 20012’.658”N & 79059’.620”E. It is
an annual river originating in the Dhanora– Murumgaon hills at an altitude of 426.72m, and
it flows west for 70km before emptying into the Wainganganorth of Gadchiroli (20010’21”N & 79057’49”E’). It is a mountain torrent river flowing
through dry deciduous forest and runs dry in the summer, although water remains
in some pools. The overall substratum
type of the river is sandy with occasional rocks. The canopy is rich, with the dominant
vegetation being bamboo (Dendrocalamus strictus), Ajan (Terminalia sp.) etc. The river flows through a sparsely inhabited area and no dams or significant
industrial pollution were noted.
The
second study river, the Adan, is a principal
tributary of the Painganga and lies at 20012’19.00”N-77010’01”E
& 19054’87.6”N-78012’61.4”E. The
length of this river is 209.21km. It
rises in the Washim District of Maharashtra and
meanders north, east and south and meets the PaingangaRiver. The river Arunavatiunites with the Adan 13km before it joins the Painganga. The
valley of Adan is 10km to 22km wide. The river ceases to flow in summer, though
some pools remain in the latter part of its course.
Two
dams have been built on the Adan; one at the origin
near Sonala village and the other near Karanja (Lad) city. The river flows through scrubland,
degraded dry deciduous forest and areas with extensive agriculture (Table 1).
Species
richness of both rivers combined: Jackknife 1 measure of species richness
showed 56 species, which can be considered an upper bound for the species
richness of both rivers combined. Species richness calculated by rarefaction
gives 47 species, which is considered the lower bound. Thus I conclude that
combining both rivers, number of species ranges from 47 to 56.
Species
richness measures calculated for 1508 individuals for river Kathaniand 2,386 individuals for Adan. Kathanishows 38 species (Jackknife 1 with SD 2.19) while Adanshow 40 (Jackknife 1 with SD 3.32) species. The rarefaction
of the two rivers show Adan 34 species and Kathani 32 species at 1501 individuals.
Mann-Whitney
U test (Brower et al. 1990) was performed to find out differences in the
species richness values. The null hypothesis (H0) put was ‘there is no
significant difference between the species richness values of both rivers’.
Null hypothesis was rejected as significant difference was detected in both
rivers species richness for Jackknife 1 (U = 3413.5, P < 0.0001, CI = 6.77-9.38). However, the rarefied species richness shows
no significant difference between the values at similar number of individuals
(U = 12685, P = 0.0905, CI = -1.56-0.12). That means at similar number of the individuals both rivers do not show
significant differences in the species richness values.
The
Shannon index for the Kathani was 2.58, and for the Adan 2.1 (calculated using natural log). The Mann-Whitney U
test showed a highly significant difference between rivers (U = 111, P <
0.0001), with the Kathani being more diverse than theAdan. The mean
value of the Simpson diversity index for the Adan is
4.8, for the Kathani 8.34 (U = 24, P < 0.0001 with
CI = 2.98-3.23) which again confirms that both rivers are differs in their diversity
values (Table 3).
Although
both rivers are the part of same larger basin, significant differences in
diversity values were observed. The Kathani is a small river in comparison to the Adan but shows higher diversity. The difference in the value of the diversity
indices and species richness values can be explained by considering
anthropogenic factors that include pollution (much less in the Kathani) and damming (the Adanhas 2 dams). This study supports earlier
studies performed by Dean et al. (1998) on the effect of human induced
influences on the diversity of the fish in three small streams in southern
Ontario and studies by Habit et al. (2006). Dale et al. (1999) found that an overall decrease in fish abundance
occurs with increase in the length of non-forested riparian zones (a situation
that can be observed in the Adan) while several
studies have demonstrated that dams lower fish species diversity (Michio et al. 2007; Morita & Yamamoto 2002) (Table 4).
Bhat, A. (2002). A study of the
diversity and ecology of the fresh water fishes of four river systems of Uttar
Kannada District, Karnataka, India. PhD. Thesis. Center for ecological sciences, Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore.
Bhat, A. (2003). Diversity and composition of freshwater fishes in river systems of
Central Western Ghats, India. Environmental Biology of Fishes68(1): 25–38.
Bhat, A. (2004). Patterns in the distribution of freshwater fishes in rivers of
Central Western Ghats, India and their associations with environmental
gradients. Hydrobiologia 529: 83-97.
Brower,
J., J. Zar & C.V. Ende(1990). Field and Laboratory Methods for General Ecology (3rd
Edition). Wm.C. Brown Publishers, 237pp.
Bruce, E.Y., D. Tmderbra & V.N. George (1998). Diversity and conservation of understory birds in the Tiler in mountains, Costarica. The Auk 115(4):998-1016.
Butler, J.B.
& R.L. Chazdon (1998). Species
richness, spatial variation and abundance of the soil seed bank of a secondary
tropical rain forest. Biotropica 30(2):
214-222.
Chao, A. (1984). Non-parametric estimation of the number of classes in a population.Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 11: 265-270.
Chao, A. &
T.J. Shen (2003). Non-parametric estimation of Shannon’s index of diversity when
there are unseen species in sample. Journal of
Environmental and Ecological Statistics 10: 429 – 443.
Christen, J.A.
& M. Nakamura (2000). On the analysis of accumulation
curves. Biometrics 56(3): 754.
Colwell, R.K.
(1997). EstimateS: Statistical estimation of species richness
and shared species from samples. Version 7.5. User’s
Guide and application published at http://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/estimates.
Dahanukar,
N., R. Raut & A. Bhat(2004). Distribution, endemism and threat status of freshwater fishes
in the Western Ghats of India. Journal of Biogeography 31:123-136.
Dale, J.E.B., G.Helfman, J.O. Harper & P.V. Bolstad(1999). Effects of Riparian Forest Removal on Fish Assemblages in
Southern Appalachian Streams. Conservation Biology 13(6):
1454-1465.
Daniels, R.
(2001). Fresh Water Fishes of Peninsular India. University press, 282pp.
Day, F. (1875). The Fishes
of India: Being A Natural History of the Fishes Known
to Inhabit The Seas and Fresh Waters of India, Burma and Ceylon. Text and Atlas in 4 Parts. London, xx + 778:195pp.
Dean, G.F., E.D.Kott, P.L. Roman & D. George (1998). A quarter
century of change in the fish communities of three small streams modified by
anthropogenic activities. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress and Recovery6(2): 111-127.
Habit, E., M.C.
Belk, R.C. Tuckfield & P. Oscar (2006). Response of the fish community to human-induced changes in the Biobý´o River in Chile. Freshwater Biology51: 1–11.
Heda, N.K. (2009). Freshwater
Fishes of Central India: A Field Guide. (2009). Vigyan Prasar, Department of
Science and Technology, Government of India, Noida,
169pp.
Jayaram, K.C. (1981). The Freshwater Fishes of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma and
Sri Lanka - A Handbook. Zoological Survey of
India, Calcutta, xxii+475pp.
Jayaram, K.C. (1999). The Fresh
Water Fishes of The Indian Region. Narendra Publishing House, New Delhi, 551pp.
John,
S.G., I.U. Karl & L. John (2004). On
species accumulation and species area curves. Global Ecology
& Biogeography13(6): 567.
Kar,
D., A.V. Nagarathna & T.V. Ramachandra(2006).Fish Diversity and Conservation aspect in an aquatic ecosystem in India. Paper
published at http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/energy/water/paper/fishdiversity/fishdiversity.html.
Krebs, C.J.
(1989).Ecological Methodology. Harper
and Row publisher, New York, 645pp.
MacArthur, R.H.
(1965). Patterns of Species Diversity. In: Patric,
R (ed.). Benchmark Papers in
Ecology 13. Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company, Pennsylvania, 14pp.
Magurran, A.E. (1988). Ecological Diversity and its Measurement. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 179pp.
Magurran, A.E. (2004). Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell
Publishing, 248pp.
Magurran, A.E. (2005). Species
abundance distributions: pattern or process? Functional
Ecology 19: 177-181.
Mao, C.X., R.K.
Colwell & J. Chang (2005). Estimating the
Species Accumulation Curve Using Mixtures. Biometrics 61(2):
433-441.
McAleece,
N., P.J.D. Lambshead & G.L.J. Paterson (2006). Biodiversity
Pro. Software, which calculate wide array of species
richness, diversity and similarity indices. Downloaded from
http://www.sams.ac.uk/activities/downloads/html
Michio,
F., S. Kameyama, M. Kaneko, K. Nakao& F.S. Ashley (2007). Modelling the effects of dams on freshwater fish distributions in Hokkaido,
Japan. Freshwater Biology 52(8): 1511–1524
Morita, K. &
S. Yamamoto (2002). Effects of Habitat Fragmentation by Damming on the
Persistence of Stream-Dwelling Charr Populations. Conservation Biology 16(5): 1318–1323
NBSAP India
(2005). Third National Report. Available at:
http://www.biodiv.org/doc/world/in/in-nr-03-en.pdf)
Pielou, E.C. (1975). Ecological Diversity. Wiley interscience publication, New York,
163pp.
Talwar,
P.K. & A.G. Jhingran (1991). Inland Fishes of India and Adjacent Countries (Vol. I & II). Oxford & IBH Pub. New Delhi, 1097pp.
Whittaker, R.H.
(1970). Communities and Ecosystems. The
Macmillan Company, USA, 157pp.