Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2021 | 13(1): 17470–17476
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893
(Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.6778.13.1.17470-17476
#6778 | Received 05 October 2020 | Final
received 28 December 2020 | Finally accepted 03 January 2021
Freshwater fishes of Cauvery
Wildlife Sanctuary, Western Ghats of Karnataka, India
Naren Sreenivasan
1 , Neethi Mahesh 2. & Rajeev
Raghavan 3
1 Wildlife Association of South
India (WASI), #19 Victoria road, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560047, India.
2 4th block, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru, Karnataka 560011, India.
3 Department of Fisheries Resource
Management, Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies (KUFOS), Kochi,
Kerala 682506, India.
1 naren.sreen002@gmail.com
(corresponding author), 2 neeti.mahesh@gmail.com, 3 rajeevraq@hotmail.com
Abstract: The ichthyofauna of Cauvery
Wildlife Sanctuary is comprised of 58 species belonging to 18 families and 44
genera of which close to 25% are endemic to the Western Ghats region, and eight
are endemic to the Cauvery River system namely, Dawkinsia
arulius, Dawkinsia
rubrotinctus, Hypselobarbus
dubius, H. micropogon,
Kantaka brevidorsalis,
Labeo kontius,
Tor remadevii and Hemibagrus
punctatus. Eight species found in
Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary are threatened, including two (Tor remadevii and Hemibagrus
punctatus) listed as ‘Critically Endangered’, four species (Dawkinsia arulius, Hypselobarbus dubius,
H. micropogon, and Silonia
childreni) as ‘Endangered’ and two (Hyporhamphus xanthopterus
and Wallago attu) as ‘Vulnerable’ on the IUCN
Red List.
Keywords: Diversity, freshwater fish,
mahseer, Western Ghats.
Editor: Mandar Paingankar,
Government Science College Gadchiroli, Gadchiroli, India. Date of
publication: 26 January 2021 (online & print)
Citation: Sreenivasan,
N., N. Mahesh & R. Raghavan (2021). Freshwater
fishes of Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary, Western Ghats of Karnataka, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 13(1): 17470–17476. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.6778.13.1.17470-17476
Copyright: © Sreenivasan
et al. 2021. Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and
distribution of this article in any medium by providing adequate credit to the
author(s) and the source of publication.
Funding: All work was funded by volunteer
members of the Wildlife Association of South India and the organisation
itself.
Competing interests: The authors
declare no competing interests.
Author details: Naren Sreenivasan is a conservation biologist
working with the Wildlife Association of South India. His interest lie in working with communities to generate
ecological data to inform management of freshwater ecosystems, especially in
the Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary. Neethi Mahesh
is currently consulting with the Wildlife Conservation Society to help develop
a conservation model for rivers. Rajeev
Raghavan is interested in generating information and developing methods
to inform conservation-decision making in tropical freshwater ecosystems. He is
currently the South Asia Co-Chair of the IUCN SSC Freshwater Fish Specialist
Group.
Author contribution: NS—field work, fish
identification, manuscript writing, proof reading, NM—field work, proof
reading, images, RR—fish identification, literature review, manuscript writing,
proof reading.
Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank
the past and present PCCF (WL & HoFF) of
Karnataka Forest Department, especially Mr. Sanjai
Mohan (IFS) for permitting this research; Mr. Manoj Kumar (IFS), CCF
Chamarajanagar; Dr. S. Ramesh, DCF Cauvery Wildlife
Division; Mr. Ankraj, ACF Hannur
and all the field staff of the Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary for their support;
Rahul Kumar for his invaluable assistance in identifying many of the specimens
in the field; A.J.T. Johningh who has guided us in
conserving river systems; the Governing council of the Wildlife Association of
South India (2015–2019) for their support.
WASI volunteers who have spent much of their resources on fish conservation
are a huge support to building awareness for riverine conservation. We look forward to their continued
participation in the future. Last but
not the least we thank Suresh, Das, Joseph, and Rudra, without their knowledge
and expertise in catching fish, this report would not have materialised.
Introduction
The Cauvery River basin (81,155km2)
is India’s fourth largest, and also the largest river system draining the
southern part of peninsular India. The
Cauvery River originates from the Brahmagiri Hills of
the Western Ghats mountain ranges, and flows for a distance of 770km through
the states of Karnataka (41%), Tamil Nadu (56%), and Kerala (3%) (Chidambaram
et al. 2018), finally draining into the Bay of Bengal. Physiographically,
the river is surrounded by the Western Ghats (in the west) and Eastern Ghats
mountain ranges (in the east and south) and the Tungabhadra and Pennar River systems in the north (Chidambaram et al.
2018). Cauvery is one of the few rivers
in the peninsular Indian region known to receive rain from both the north-east
and south-west monsoons (Raj 1941), and also the most exploited river in the
country in terms of water abstraction (95%) (Chidambaram et al. 2018).
Ichthyological studies in the
Cauvery dates back to Jerdon (1849) who described
several species from the main course of Cauvery River as well as various
tributaries including Bhavani and Kabini. Subsequently, major exploratory studies (and
subsequent compilations) on either the main river, or its tributaries were
undertaken by Day (1867a,b), Hora (1942), Chacko et al. (1954), Rajan (1955), Jayaram (1981), Jayaram et al. (1982), and
Raghunathan (1989). Though no recent
studies have been carried out to understand the fish diversity of the entire
river system, available estimates suggest that anywhere between 95 (Froese
& Pauly 2019) and 142 species inhabit the Cauvery
River basin (Jayaram 1981; Jayaram et al. 1982). This number could even be greater given the
recent taxonomic and nomenclatural changes, as well as new species descriptions
from the river system during the last 10 years.
The Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary
(1027.51km2) (henceforth Cauvery WS) is an IUCN category IV
protected area situated in the Chamarajanagara, Mandya, and Ramnagara districts
of Karnataka State. River Cauvery, on
which the sanctuary is named drains the protected area, and forms the
interstate boundary between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka states. Two major tributaries, Arkavathi
and Shimsha also join Cauvery inside the limits of
the sanctuary. Apart from its mammal and
bird diversity, Cauvery WS is also known to support diverse aquatic fauna
including crocodiles, otters and freshwater fish as documented by the
“Management of Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary”.
Of particular importance is the Mahseer (Tor spp.), a group of
large-bodied cyprinid fishes endemic to tropical Asia, that once attracted
anglers from around the world to the famous Cauvery fishing camps, managed by
the Wildlife Association of South India, and Jungle Lodges and Resorts (see Pinder & Raghavan 2013; Pinder
et al. 2015).
Except for information on 22
species of large mammals, 10 species of reptiles, and 41 species of birds
provided in official government documents (Management of Cauvery Wildlife
Sanctuary), there are no organized checklists of the biodiversity of Cauvery
WS. Recently, the Indian Grey Wolf (Kaggere 2020), and the Ratel/honey badger (Gubbi et al.
2014) were also recorded from the sanctuary. Recent interest in underwater
photography led to the first report of the freshwater Jellyfish Limnocnida indica
from the Cauvery WS (N. Sreenivasan, pers. comm. 5
August 2020), extending its known range within the river system, from previous
records in Coorg and the Hemavathi reservoir (Manna
et al. 2005). The biodiversity status of
the Cauvery WS documented in government records is however considered an
underestimate as anecdotal reports document the presence of 280 species of
birds inside the sanctuary (Chandra 2014).
Although Cauvery WS is mentioned in a number of papers relating to
freshwater fish conservation (for e.g., Pinder &
Raghavan 2013, Pinder et al. 2015, 2020), there is
very little information available on the diversity of freshwater fish species
inhabiting this protected area. Except
for a study by Shenoy et al. (2003) who observed the occurrence of 18 species
of fishes within a 5km stretch of the river Cauvery inside the sanctuary
between Bheemeshwari (12.305°N & 77.285°E) and Muttatthi (12.306°N & 77.311°E), there have been no
attempts to understand the fish fauna of this protected area.
As part of a larger project aimed
at conservation and management of freshwater fishes of Cauvery WS, especially
the Hump-backed Mahseer, we carried out a rapid survey of the ichthyofauna in
February 2015, followed up by opportunistic visits until the end of 2019. This contribution provides the results of
these surveys in the form of a preliminary checklist of the freshwater fish
fauna of Cauvery WS with notes on their threats and conservation needs.
Methods
Initial part of the surveys were
conducted from 3–14 February 2015.
Follow-up visits were undertaken during different seasons as recently as
December 2019 in the stretch of the Cauvery River between Shivanasamudram
falls (11.294°N & 77.169°E) and Mekedattu
(12.261°N & 77.448°E) within Cauvery WS.
A rapid assessment approach (Abd et al. 2009) with minor modifications
as was carried out for other sites in the Western Ghats (see Baby et al. 2010)
was used to maximize efforts and minimize costs. Three types of fishing gears were used. A bottom-weighted gill net (15m X 1.7m,
1-inch mesh size) was used to capture small fish, cast nets (3m diameter,
3-inch mesh size), and rod and line (plant-based bait and lures) were used to
target fish larger than 30cm SL. All
sampling was conducted between 06.00hr & 18.00hr. In the post-monsoon months, fish were caught
opportunistically in river-side pools, formed as the water level receded. All fish caught were photographed live and
released within the shortest possible time after their capture, adhering to the
permissions provided by the Karnataka State Forest Department. Family level taxonomy primarily follow Nelson
et al. (2016), while species level identification was carried out following
Jayaram (1999) supported by relevant updated taxonomic papers on specific
genera. Species that could not be
identified accurately were mentioned as ‘cf.’ or ‘sp.’. All species names adhere to the Catalog of Fishes (Fricke et al. 2020) unless otherwise
mentioned. Personal interviews and focus group discussions were carried out
with staff of the Karnataka Forest Department (KFD), Jungle Lodges and Resorts
Private Limited (JLR), and members of the Wildlife Association of South India
(WASI) to understand threats to freshwater fishes, and related conservation issues
in the study area.
Results
and Discussion
Fifty-eight species of freshwater
fish belonging to 18 families and 44 genera were recorded from the 37km stretch
between Shivanasamudram falls and Mekedattu
inside Cauvery WS (Table 1). Order Cypriniformes dominated with 30 species (51.7%) under two
families (Cyprinidae and Danionidae),
followed by Siluriformes with 10 species (17.2%)
under six families (Table 1). Close to
25% (15 species) of the fish species that occur within the study area are
endemic to the Western Ghats region, of which eight are endemic to the Cauvery
River system (including Bhavani, Moyar, and Kabini tributaries).
Nine species of non-native fish including those that are exotic and
introduced from other biogeographic regions of the country were also recorded
(Table 1). Some of the species were
found only in specific areas in the Cauvery WS, Silonia
childreni was once reported from throughout the
study area but is now only restricted to the Mekedattu
gorge. Tor spp. are found in deep
pools and rapids across the study area but were observed to migrate between
pools and rapids in large schools either in response to time of day
(09.00–10.00 hr and 17.00–18.00 hr), or change in water level (moving to deeper
pools as water recedes). Pterygoplichthys sp. and Clarias
gariepinus was only noticed close to the
confluence of the Arkavathi River and the Shimsha River.
Although the waters of Cauvery WS
(including the stretch of the river that was the focus of the present study) is
world renowned for its mahseer populations (see Pinder
& Raghavan 2013; Pinder et al. 2015), there
remains several knowledge gaps. The
mahseer population of this river is comprised of several distinct ‘morphotypes’
of which, the ‘blue-fin’, ‘orange-fin’ or the ‘hump-backed’ (see also Pinder et al. 2015) and a ‘black-fin’ are the most
frequently encountered. While the humbacked mahseer is now known as Tor remadevii (see Pinder et al.
2018), there still remains ambiguities and confusions on the identity of the
various morphotypes of mahseer present in the Cauvery, including the fact
whether they constitute one, or more distinct species. Studies in this
direction are ongoing.
Majority of the fish species that
occur in the study area are assessed as ‘Least Concern’ on the IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species (IUCN 2020), however, eight species found in the study area
are threatened including two that has been assessed as ‘Critically Endangered’,
four as ‘Endangered’ and two as ‘Vulnerable’.
Fifteen of these species are endemic to the Western Ghats region, of
these 15 species, eight have a restricted range, and occur only in the Cauvery
River system.
The actual fish diversity of the
Cauvery WS is no doubt higher than what has been recorded in the present study,
as there are additional species mentioned in Shenoy et al. (2003) as well as
those recorded by recreational anglers (identified through social media and
personal photographs). Over the last 10
years, several new species have been described from the tributaries of Cauvery
(Dario neela, Laubuka
latens, L. trevori,
Ompok karunkodu,
Pethia nigripinna)
and so there are also possibilities of several undescribed species occurring in
the waters of the Cauvery WS. Only a
comprehensive exploratory survey of the freshwater habitats inside the
protected area in various seasons could unravel the true diversity of fishes of
this protected area.
The study area has been the site
of a 40-year-old fishery initiated by WASI, and later carried forward by
collaboration between KFD, JLR, and WASI.
Consequently, the area was awarded forest department protection under
the umbrella of the Cauvery WS. As a
result, many direct threats to fishes such as indiscriminate and often
destructive fishing practices (using dynamites) and sand mining have
effectively been kept under control along most river stretches in the study
site. The possible presence of a large
number of African Catfish (as indicated in the focus group discussions with
anglers) in the Shimsha tributary, however, is a
cause for concern. It is currently not
known how and when this predatory fish entered the waters of the protected
area. Life history traits including an opportunistic feeding strategy and
ability to establish large and persistent populations (Roshni et al. 2020) make
the African Catfish an imminent threat to the native fishes of the Cauvery WS
especially native catfishes with which they directly compete. The Silund Silonia childreni a
threatened species of peninsular Indian catfish that was reported from within
the study site during the 1970–80s (also see Shenoy et al. 2003) is now known
to occur only in a limited stretch of the river in the Mekedattu
Gorge, and close to the Karnataka-Tamil Nadu border (WASI Anglers pers.
comm.). Whether the three large-bodied
catfish species, viz, Wallago attu, Pangassius sp. and S. childreni
which were known to occur in the study area until two decades ago has been
potentially extirpated requires focused investigation. During the course of this study, only one
specimen each of these three species was recorded, although local fishers
report isolated populations in deep gorges in south-east of the Sanctuary.
The biggest threat to freshwater
fishes in the area is the anthropogenic impacts to the riparian habitat that
supports this large aquatic diversity.
Development projects proposed in and around the study site threaten to
change the dynamics of the river and its riparian vegetation, not only
affecting breeding and feeding habits of many fish species, but also force key
species in the sanctuary such as the Grizzled Giant Squirrel Ratufa macroura, Indian Marsh Crocodile Crocodylus palustris,
and the Smooth-coated Otter Lutrogale perspicillata to drastically change their habitat use
patterns. A comprehensive multi-year
study on the diversity, distribution and threats to fishes and other aquatic
wildlife in the Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary is urgently required to strengthen
future conservation action. Such an
effort is currently being developed by WASI in collaboration with the State
Forest Department and other relevant stakeholders.
Table 1. Freshwater fishes
recorded from the Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary, Karnataka.
|
Order/Family |
Species |
IUCN status |
|
|
|
|
|
Beloniformes |
|
|
|
Adrianichthyidae |
Oryzias carnaticus (Jerdon, 1849) |
Least Concern |
|
Belonidae |
Hyporhamphus xanthopterus (Valenciennes, 1847) |
Vulnerable |
|
|
Xenentodon cancila (Hamilton, 1822) |
Least Concern |
|
Cypriniformes |
|
|
|
Cyprinidae |
Barbodes carnaticus (Jerdon, 1849) |
Least Concern |
|
|
Gibelion catla (Hamilton, 1822) † |
|
|
|
Cirrhinus mrigala (Hamilton, 1822) † |
|
|
|
Ctenopharyngodon idella (Valenciennes, 1844) † |
|
|
|
Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus, 1758 † |
|
|
|
Dawkinsia arulius (Jerdon, 1849) CWE |
Endangered |
|
|
Dawkinsia rubrotinctus (Jerdon,
1849) CWE |
Status not assessed |
|
|
Garra mullya (Sykes, 1839) |
Least Concern |
|
|
Garra stenorhynchus (Jerdon,
1849) WGE |
Least Concern |
|
|
Hypselobarbus dubius (Day, 1867) CWE |
Endangered |
|
|
Hypselobarbus micropogon (Valenciennes, 1842) CWE |
Endangered |
|
|
Kantaka brevidorsalis (Day, 1873) CWE |
Least Concern |
|
|
Labeo dyocheilus (McClelland, 1839) |
Least Concern |
|
|
Labeo kontius (Jerdon, 1849) CWE |
Least Concern |
|
|
Labeo nigriscens (Day, 1870) WGE |
Least Concern |
|
|
Labeo rohita (Hamilton, 1822) † |
|
|
|
Osteochilichthys nashii (Day, 1869) |
Least Concern |
|
|
Pethia conchonius (Hamilton, 1822) |
Least Concern |
|
|
Puntius sophore
(Hamilton,
1822) |
Least Concern |
|
|
Systomus sarana (Hamilton, 1822) |
Least Concern |
|
|
Tor remadevii Kurup &
Radhakrishnan, 2011 CWE |
Critically Endangered |
|
|
Tor sp. |
--- |
|
Danionidae |
Amblypharyngodon microlepis (Bleeker, 1853) |
Least Concern |
|
|
Devario malabaricus (Jerdon, 1849) |
Least Concern |
|
|
Esomus thermoicos (Valenciennes, 1842) |
Least Concern |
|
|
Opsarius bendelisis (Hamiilton, 1807) |
Least Concern |
|
|
Opsarius gatensis (Valenciennes, 1844) WGE |
Least Concern |
|
|
Rasbora caverii (Jerdon, 1849) WGE |
Least Concern |
|
|
Rasbora dandia (Valenciennes, 1844) |
Status not assessed |
|
|
Salmostoma boopis (Day, 1874) |
Least Concern |
|
Mugiliformes |
|
|
|
Mugilidae |
Rhinomugil corsula (Hamilton, 1822) |
Least Concern |
|
Osteoglossiformes |
|
|
|
Notopteridae |
Notopterus synura (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) |
Status not assessed |
|
Incertae sedis under Ovalenteria |
|
|
|
Ambassidae |
Chanda nama
Hamilton,
1822 |
Least Concern |
|
|
Parambassis ranga (Hamilton, 1822) |
Least Concern |
|
Anabantiformes |
|
|
|
Badidae |
Badis badis (Hamilton, 1822) |
Least Concern |
|
Channidae |
Channa gachua (Hamilton, 1822) |
Least Concern |
|
|
Channa marulius (Hamilton, 1822) |
Least Concern |
|
|
Channa pseudomarulius (Günther, 1861) WGE |
Status not assessed |
|
|
Channa striata (Bloch, 1793) |
Least Concern |
|
Cichliformes |
|
|
|
Cichlidae |
Etroplus suratensis (Bloch, 1790) |
Least Concern |
|
|
Oreochromis mossambicus (Peters, 1852) † |
|
|
|
Oreochromis niloticus
(Linnaeus,
1758) † |
|
|
Gobiiformes |
|
|
|
Gobiidae |
Awaous sp. |
|
|
|
Glossogobius giuris (Hamilton, 1822) |
Least Concern |
|
Siluriformes |
|
|
|
Bagridae |
Hemibagrus punctatus (Jerdon, 1849) CWE |
Critically Endangered |
|
|
Mystus seengtee (Sykes, 1839) |
Least Concern |
|
|
Mystus vittatus (Bloch, 1794) |
Least Concern |
|
|
Sperata seenghala (Sykes, 1839) WGE |
Least Concern |
|
Clariidae |
Clarias gariepinus (Burchell, 1822) † |
|
|
Loricariidae |
Pterygoplichthys sp. † |
|
|
Pangasiidae |
Pangasius sp. |
|
|
Siluridae |
Ompok bimaculatus (Bloch, 1794) |
Least Concern |
|
|
Wallago attu
(Bloch
& Schneider, 1801) |
Vulnerable |
|
Schilbeidae |
Silonia childreni (Sykes, 1839) |
Endangered |
|
Synbranchiformes |
|
|
|
Mastacembelidae |
Mastacembelus malabaricus Jerdon, 1849 WGE |
Status not assessed |
???Non-native (transplanted or
introduced) | WGE?endemic to Western Ghats | CWE?endemic to Cauvery River.
References
Abd, I.M., C.
Rubec & B.W. Coad (2009). Key Biodiversity Areas: rapid
assessment of fish fauna in southern Iraq. BioRisk
3: 161–171. https://doi.org/10.3897/biorisk.3.15
Baby, F., J. Tharian, A. Ali & R. Raghavan (2010).
A checklist of freshwater fishes of the New Amarambalam
Reserve Forest (NARF), Kerala, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 2(12):
1330–1333. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2497.1330-3
Chacko, P.I.,
G.K. Kuriyan & S. Thyagarajan
(1954). A survey of
the fisheries the Cauvery river. Contributions of the Freshwater Fisheries
Biological Station, Madras, 12: 1–19.
Chandra,
N.S.S. (2014). 19 new bird
species found in Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary. Deccan Herald. Retrieved from
Electronic version accessed June 24, 2015 http://www.deccanherald.com/content/380577/03919-bird-species-found-cauvery.html
Chidambaram,
S., A.L. Ramanathan, R. Thilagavathi & N. Ganesh
(2018). Cauvery
River, pp. 353–366. In: Singh, D.S. (eds). The
Indian Rivers. Springer Hydrogeology, Singapore, xxi+551pp.
Day, F. (1867a). On the fishes of the Neilgherry Hills and rivers around their bases. Proceedings
of the Zoological Society of London 1867 (part 2): 281–302.
Day, F. (1867b) On some fishes from the Wynaad. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1867
(part 2): 347–350.
Fricke, R., W.N. Eschmeyer
& R. van der Laan (eds.) (2020). Catalog of Fishes: Genera, Species,
References. Retrieved
from Electronic Version Accessed 24 June 2020 http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp
Froese, R.
& D. Pauly (eds)
(2019). FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication.
www.fishbase.org, version (12/2019).
Gubbi, S., V. Reddy, H. Nagashettihalli, R. Bhat & M.D. Madhusudan (2014).
Photographic records of the Ratel Mellivora capensis from the southern Indian state of Karnataka. Small
Carnivore Conservation 50: 42–44.
Hora, S.L. (1942) A list of fishes of the Mysore
state and of the neighbouring hill ranges of the Nilgiris,
Wynaad and Coorg. Records of the Indian Museum
44: 193–200.
IUCN (2020). The IUCN Red List
of Threatened Species. Version 2015.1. <http://www.iucnredlist.org>.
Downloaded on 26.04.2020.
Jayaram, K.C.
(1981). Cauvery
river ecosystem and the patterns of its fish distribution. Bulletin of the
Zoological Survey of India 4(3): 289–294.
Jayaram, K.C. (1999). The
Freshwater Fishes of the Indian Region. Narendra Publishing House, New
Delhi, India. 551pp.
Jayaram,
K.C., T. Venkateshwarlu, M.B. Raghunathan (1982). A survey of the Cauvery River
system with a major account of its fish fauna. Occasional Papers of the
Zoological Survey of India 36, 115pp.
Jerdon, T.C. (1849). The fishes of
Southern India. Madras Journal of Literature and Science 15: 139–149,
302–346.
Kaggere, N. (2020). Indian Grey Wolf
documented for the first time in Karnataka’s Chamarajanagar. Deccan Herald
News Paper, online addition. May 09 2020, 14:09 IST.
Management of Cauvery Wildlife
Sanctuary (n.d.).
Retrieved from
<https://aranya.gov.in/aranyacms/downloads/MP/CauveryWS_MgmtPlan_05-07-2019_11.28.39.pdf> Accessed on 26 June 2020.
Manna, R.K.,
A.K. Das, D.N. Sigh & M.F. Khan (2005). Occurrence of fresh water
jellyfish, Limnocnida indica
(Annadale) in Hemavathi
reservoir and its limnological perspective. Indian Journal of Fisheries
52(4): 483–487.
Nelson, J.S.,
T.C. Grande & M.V.H. Wilson (2016). Fishes of the World. John
Wiley & Sons, xlii+707pp. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119174844
Pinder, A.C. & R. Raghavan (2013). Conserving the endangered
mahseers (Tor sp.) of India: the positive role of recreational
fisheries. Current Science 104(11): 1472–1475. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24092466
Pinder, A.C., R. Raghavan & R.J.
Britton (2015).
The legendary humpback mahseer (Tor sp.) of India’s River Cauvery: an
endemic fish swimming towards extinction. Endangered Species Research
28: 11–17. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00673
Pinder, A.C., A. Manimekalan,
J.D.M. Knight, P. Krishnankutty, R. J. Britton, S.
Philip, N. Dahanukar & R. Raghavan (2018). Resolving the taxonomic enigma of
the iconic game fish, the Hump-backed Mahseer from the Western Ghats
biodiversity hotspot, India. PLOS ONE 13(6): e0199328
Pinder, A.C., R. Raghavan & R.J.
Britton (2020). From
scientific obscurity to conservation priority: research on angler catch rates
is the catalyst for saving the hump-backed mahseer Tor remadevii
from extinction. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
30: 1809–1815. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3335
Raghunathan,
M.B. (1989). A study on
the fish fauna of Coorg District, Karnataka. Fishery Technology, 26: 19–21.
Raj, B.S.
(1941). Dams and
fisheries; mettur and its lessons for India. Proceedings
of the Indian Academy of Sciences - Section B 14: 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03051112
Rajan, S. (1955). Notes on a collection of fish
from the headwaters of the Bhavani River, south India. Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society 53: 44–48.
Roshni, K.,
C.R. Renjithkumar, R. Raghavan, N. Dahanukar & K. Ranjeet (2020). Population dynamics and
management strategies for invasive Clarias gariepinus in the Western Ghats Biodiversity Hotspot. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 12(10): 16380–16384. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.6222.12.10.16380-16384
Shenoy, K.,
S. Varma & K.V.D. Prasad (2003). Otters in Cauvery Wildlife
Sanctuary, southern India; a study on the habitat choice and diet composition
of the Smooth Coated Otter (Lutra perspicillata). Nityata
Foundation and Asian Elephant Research & Conservation Centre, Bangalore,
India, 51pp.