An inventory of mammals, birds and reptiles along a section of the river and banks of upper Ganges, India

Tawqir Bashir ¹, SandeepKumar Behera ², AfifullahKhan ³ & Parikshit Gautam⁴

¹ Senior Research Fellow, Wildlife Institute of India, Chandrabani, Dehradun, Uttarakhand 248001, India

² Associate Director, River Basins and Biodiversity, ⁴ Director, Freshwater and Wetland Division, WWF-India, 172 Lodhi Estate, New Delhi, India

³ Professor, Department of Wildlife Sciences, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh 202002, India

Email: ¹ tbashir@wii.gov.in (corresponding author), ² sbehera@wwfindia.net,³ afifkhan@rediffmail.com, ⁴ pgautam@wwfindia.net

Date of publication (online): 26 August 2012

Date of publication (print): 26 August 2012

ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)

Editor: Rahul Kaul

Manuscript details:

Ms # o2692

Received 02 February 2011

Final received 08 July 2012

Finally accepted 30 July 2012

Citation: Bashir, T., S.K. Behera, A. Khan & P. Gautam (2012). An inventory of mammals, birds and reptiles along a section of the river and banks of upper Ganges, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa4(9): 2900–2910.

Copyright: © TawqirBashir, Sandeep Kumar Behera,Afifullah Khan & Parikshit Gautam 2012. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 UnportedLicense. 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.

Acknowledgements: We thank the Department of Wildlife Sciences, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, for providing the logistic sup-port and facilities necessary for conducting the recent surveys. We are grateful to WWF-India for providing the financial support and their information gathered through previous surveys. We express our gratitude to the Department of Environment and Forests (Narora, Brijghat & Bijnor) for their official help and support. Last but not the least, we thank our field assistants for their help.

Abstract:A study was conducted to assess faunal diversity along a 165-km stretch of the upper Ganges River between Bijnor and Narora cities, Uttar Pradesh, from January to June 2007. Both river and bank species diversity of reptiles, birds and mammals using a combination of boat surveys, linear walks and random searches were inventoried. Presence of 18 species of mammals, 55 species of birds and 13 species of reptiles were recorded from the river stretch including 16 species of global conservation significance. Maximum encounter rate was observed for little cormorant (3.160±0.290), macaque (2.385±0.442) and brown roofed turtle (1.009±0.107). Our study is an attempt towards generating baseline information on the faunal diversity of the upper Ganges and we recommend exhaustive surveys and regular monitoring of this river stretch through indicator species approach.

Keywords:Conservation, encounter rate, faunal diversity, Ganges, monitoring.

For figures, images, tables -- click here

Aquatic ecosystems are critical components of our environment. In addition to being essential contributors to biodiversity and ecological productivity, they also provide a variety of services to human populations (Poff et al. 2002). Rivers, lakes, wetlands and estuaries constituting the freshwater ecosystem alone support about 6% of the described world species (Hawksworth& Kalin-Arroyo 1995) and provide habitats consisting of benthic, aquatic, and terrestrial components (FISRWG 2001). Freshwater biodiversity constitutes a valuable natural resource, in economic, cultural, aesthetic, scientific and educational terms (Dudgeon et al. 2006). However, there is an increasing concern worldwide on the loss of aquatic ecosystems and their associated biodiversity (Georges & Cottingham2002; Saunders et al. 2002; Cullen 2003), particularly for riverine landscapes (Dunn 2004). Rivers and associated freshwater habitats are among the most threatened ecosystems of the world (Revenga et al. 2005; WWF 2006) due to a wide range of intensive human use and developmental activities. In addition, declines in biodiversity are far greater in fresh waters than in the most affected terrestrial ecosystems (Sala et al. 2000), because inspiteof facing varied threats and large scaleexploitations, the freshwater hotspots generally receive less management attention than their terrestrial counterparts (Myers et al. 2000). Moreover, knowledge of the diversity of fresh waters is woefully incomplete and the data are insufficient to accurately estimate rates of freshwater biodiversity loss in many regions (Dudgeon et al. 2006).

River Ganges regarded as one of the largest rivers coursing through 2,510km from northern to eastern India and acting as a lifeline to the vast Indian plains is well recognised for its enormous cultural and economic significance (Adel 2001). It supports about 8% of the world’s population living in its catchments (Newby 1998) and is also a centre of social and religious tradition. Above all, the river is home to a wide variety of life forms ranging from primitive phytoplanktons to highly evolved species such as dolphins, thus signifying its biological and ecological importance. Information on species diversity, abund-ance and habitat characteristics arekey baseline parameters for conservation planning; unfortunately such information is lacking for many river segments of the Ganges.

A stretch of upper Ganges between Rishikesh and Kanpur functions as an ecologically important section because of its hydrological characteristics (Behera 1995). But, due to high regulation of dams, barrages and associated irrigation canals, infrastructure development, water abstraction and pollution, present-day flow of the upper Ganga Basin has decreased by about 2–8 % and such a reduced flow regime also impacts downstream water availability, water quality and riverine ecosystems (Salemme 2007; Behera et al. 2008;Bharati et al. 2011). Within this, a stretch of 165km from Bijnor to Narora has been reported to be rich in biodiversity and the only promising habitat for the elusive species such as, Ganges River Dolphin Platanista gangetica gangetica, Smooth-coated Otter Lutrogale perspicillataand Mugger Crocodile Crocodylus palustris in the upper Ganges (Behera1995; Behera & Rao1999; Behera 2002; Bashir et al. 2010a). There is a knowledge gap regarding the faunal assemblage of this stretch and whatever information is available, is in the form of casual records and sightings reported in least accessible formats. With this background, we conducted brief surveys in the stretch in an attempt towards assessing relative abundance and habitat occurrence of species (mammals, birds and reptiles) in the study stretch and along its banks.

Material and Methods

The study was conducted in a 165-km stretch of upper Ganges, between Bijnor (29⁰22’12.6”N & 78⁰02’ 07.8”E) and Narora (28⁰11’28.4”N & 78⁰23’48.1”E) barrages in western Uttar Pradesh, India (Fig. 1), between January and June, 2007. The entire study area had an average width of 200m and was generally shallow with only intermittent small stretches of deep waterpools. The banks are either sandy or muddy characterized by forest, shrub and grasses.

Surveys were conducted on a motor boat powered by a 15-hp engine at a constant speed of 6km/h. Surveys were done between 0600 to 1800 h whichalso included frequent halts at the banks generally after every 5km on both sides of the river depending on their accessibility. Banks were surveyed up to 1km away from the river course through linear walks (1 to 1.5 km) along the river, and random searches for wildlife sightings, signs and evidences by a team of five observers (one researcher and four trained field assistants). Further information regarding the presence of various mammal and reptile species was gathered through informal conversations with farmers, fishermen and other people living along the banks. In addition, during boat surveys opportunistic animal sightings on adjacent banks were also recorded. Field recordings were done with naked eye and using 50×10 binoculars (generally for birds) followed by comparison with field guides (Prater 1971; Ali & Ripley 1987; Grimmett et al. 2001; Das 2002; Menon2003; Whitaker & Captain 2004). Photographs were also taken wherever possible as supporting evidence and later compared with field guides and discussed with species experts for proper identification. We separately calculated encounter rates (number/km) of species recorded during boat surveys and during bank searches and also generated information on their habitat occurrence (river course, islands [small temporary landmasses created in the stretch due to variation in water flow speeds along the banks], riverbeds, bank cliffs, marshlands, agricultural fields and dense forests along banks) based on records and local information. Each survey of the entire stretch along with the bank surveys took about 12–15 days. A total of four boat surveys (two upstream & two downstream) with an effort of 660 and 116 km of bank searches were done.

Methodological considerations

Biodiversity surveys in general are limited by a number of factors. Wetlands being dynamic systems species occurrence and detection are constrained by season and time of the day due to variation in activity levels and behaviouramong species (Shields 1977; Rollfinke & Yahner 1990). Consequently, a combination of boat surveys and ground based bank searches were conducted for estimating relative abundances in terms of encounter rates (separate for each method) as these could act as a useful monitoring tool for rapid assessment for a range of species (Anonymous 1998; Kiszka et al. 2004).

We conducted linear surveys along a river stretch, covering 15–20 km and sampling 3–4 segments on each day. Two upstream and two downstream surveys (each survey 165km) were done in this way. Consequently, segments were exposed to sampling over a mixture of daily time periods. Thereafter, we pooled sightings and signs during each complete survey and reported encounter rates of species for the entire river stretch. Similar, technique was used to calculate encounter rates of species recorded during bank searches for a total search/walking effort of 116km. Our survey method is the most feasible monitoring technique used for wildlife inventories along river stretches and wetlands (Anonymous 1998; Carletti et al. 2004). We invoke that care should be administered in comparing these results with future studies and comparisons should be made only with studies involving similar survey protocols.

Results

Faunal diversity

We recorded the presence of 18 species of mammals (Table 1), 55 species of birds (Table 2) and 13 species of reptiles (Table 3) from the study stretch (aquatic & terrestrial) including one Critically Endangered, four Endangered, six Vulnerable and five Near Threatened species (IUCN 2010) (Images 1–3). While surveying the banks we also encountered antlers of Swamp Deer Rucervus duvaucelii (Image 1b) and scats of a wild felid species probably that of Fishing Cat Prionailurus viverrinus (Image 1e). Among mammals the maximum encounter rate (individuals/km ± Standard Error) was observed for macaque (2.385±0.442) followed by Jackal (0.478±0.153) and Ganges River Dolphin (0.24±0.061), while minimum was for the Fishing Cat (0.025±0.012 [signs/km]). In case of birds maximum encounter rate was for Little Cormorant (3.160±0.290) and minimum for Indian White-rumped Vulture Gyps bengalensis(0.005±0.003). While among reptiles maximum encounter rate was observed for Brown Roofed Turtle (1.009±0.107) and minimum for Indian Cobra (0.011±0.011), respectively. The information on the habitat occurrence of mammal species depicted that more than 50% of species occurred in agricultural fields, dense forests along banks as well as in marshlands while just 12% occurred in river course, islands and river beds. In case of birds more than 60% species were encountered in marshlands and islands, and more than 30% in agricultural fields, river beds, in dense forests along banks as well as in river courses, while only 14% were encountered in bank cliffs. In addition, more that 50% of the reptile species were encountered in river beds, agricultural fields, marshlands and dense forests along banks, while more than 30% in islands and river courses and only 15% in bank cliffs. Interestingly, more than 80% of the snake species were encountered in agricultural fields.

Besides this, we encountered carcasses of Indian Monitor Lizard Varanus benghalensis with fatal wounds (Image 1a) and Swamp Deer with cut antlers (Image 1c). We also found entangled Peacock Soft Shell Turtle Nilssonia hurum (Image 3b) in one of the permanently laid fishing nets, recovered antlers of Swamp Deer and Hog Deer Heylaphus porcinus (Image 1d) and rescued a live specimen of Indian Roofed Turtle from local farmers, who superstitiously believed the turtle carapace as a sign of protection to their cattle. During our visits to the local fish market (mandi) we also got evidences of illegal fishing (catches <250g).

Discussion

The high species richness of the river stretch including species of global significance validates the ecological importance of the area and also merits a need for its conservation and management. Comparisons with earlier reports indicate that our surveys yielded fewer species of birds in contrast to 86 species (Table 2) reported by Behera (1995), but more mammals compared to Behera (1995, 2002) including Hog Deer, Swamp Deer, Fishing Cat and Small Indian Civet as new additions (Table 1). We recorded similar number of reptile species in our surveys in comparison with earlier reports of 14 species (12 turtles and two crocodiles) by Behera (2002), but with nine species as new additions (Table 3). The probable reasons for fewer bird species encountered may be attributed to seasonal migration in some species which requires a year round sampling effort or cryptic nature of certain species which needs intensive and repetitive surveys for detection, which could not be addressed in this study. The encounter rate for Ganges River Dolphin in the entire stretch was similar to the estimate (0.23) in the Lohit River, eastern Assam (Wakid 2005) but lower than our estimate (0.52±0.068) for a small stretch of 28km between Narora and Anupshahar (Bashir et al. 2010b), 0.44 in the Brahmaputra River, Assam (Mohan et al. 1997) and 1.8 in Vikramshila Gangetic Dolphin Sanctuary (Choudharyet al. 2006). Our results also confirm Brown Roofed Turtle as most abundant turtle species in the stretch as reported earlier (Behera 1995; 2002), signifying it as a potential habitat in the upper Ganges for dolphin and turtle conservation (Behera 1995; Behera & Rao 1999; Behera 2002). Occurrence of a major proportion of water birds is also an indicator of good habitat quality. Majority of mammal, bird and reptile species occurrences in agricultural fields, forest patches along banks and in marshlands symbolises that not only the river stretch but its banks are equally rich in biodiversity representing a rich riverine ecosystem, but with few concerns; since agricultural activities are continuing to increase along the banks (Bashir et al. 2010a) and additionally some threats to riverine biodiversity were identified at local level in this study. Increasing agricultural activities and percentage of cultivated land of riparian wetlands have been suggested to affect bird communities by decreasing species diversity (Mensinget al. 1998). Despite survey constraints, there is a regular need to assess the level of biodiversity and health of this river stretch. An indicator species approach can be a useful assessment tool in this regard (Anonymous 2008). In a multi-organisimal study of a dynamic ecosystem (wetlands), water birds have been suggested as excellent environmental indicators as their populations arenot only extremely dynamic and sensitive to change but more often reflect land use conditions than other groups (Galatowitsch et al. 1999; Anonymous 2008). Hence, future studies should be conducted with this approach along with awareness programs at local levels.

References

Adel, M.M. (2001). Effect on water resources from Upstream Water Diversion in the Ganges Basin. Journal of Environmental Quality30: 356–368.

Ali, S & S.D. Ripley (1987). The Compact Handbook of the Birds of India and Pakistan. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 820pp.

Anonymous (1998). Inventory methods for colonial-nesting freshwater birds. Standards for Components of British Columbia’s Biodiversity No. 8. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks Resources Inventory Branch for the Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force Resources Inventory Committee, 38pp.

Anonymous (2008). Biodiversity Survey of the Integrated Constructed Wetland at Tolka Valley Park. Finglas, Co. Dublin. Dublin City Council. OpenfieldEcological Services, 20pp.

Bashir, T., A. Khan, S.K. Behera & P.Gautam (2010a). Socio-economic factors threatening the survival of Ganges River Dolphin Platanista gangetica gangetica in the upper Ganges River, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa2(8): 1087–1091.

Bashir, T., A. Khan, P. Gautam & S.K. Behera (2010b). Abundance and Prey Availability Assessment of Ganges River Dolphin (Platanista gangetica gangetica) in a stretch of Upper Ganges River, India. Aquatic Mammals 36(1): 19–26.

Behera, S.K. (1995). Studies on Population Dynamics, Habitat Utilization and Conservation Aspects of for Gangetic Dolphin (Platanista gangetica) in a stretch of Ganga River from Rishekesh to Kanpur. PhD Thesis, School of Studies in Zoology, Jiwaji University Gawalior, 198pp.

Behera, S.K. & R.J. Rao (1999). Observation on the behavior of Gangetic Dolphins in the upper Ganga River. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 96(1): 43–47.

Behera, S.K. (2002). Status Report of Upper Ganga River (Bijnor to Narora), Ganges River Dolphin Conservation Project, World Wide Fund for Nature- India, 31pp.

Behera, S.K., V. Sagar& A. Nawab (2008). Environmental flow requirements vis-à-vis habitat use pattern of freshwater dolphins. Proceedings of the 11th International River Symposium, Brisbane, Australia.

Bharati, L., G. Lacombe, P. Gurung, P. Jayakody, C.T. Hoanh& V. Smakhtin (2011). The impacts of water infrastructure and climate change on the hydrology of the Upper Ganges River Basin. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute, 36pp. (IWMI Research Report 142), [doi: 10.5337/2011.210].

Carletti, A., De Leo, G.A. & I. Ferrari (2004). A critical review of representative wetland rapid assessment methods in North America. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystem 14: 103–113.

Choudhary, S.K., B.D. Smith, S. Dey & S. Prakash (2006). Conservation and biomonitoring in the Vikramshila Gangetic Dolphin Sanctuary, Bihar, India. Oryx 40(2): 189–197.

Cullen, P. (2003).The Heritage River Proposal - Conserving Australia’s undamaged rivers, pp. 513–520. In: Beumer, J.P., A. Grant & D.C. Smith (eds.). Aquatic Protected Areas: What works best and how do we know? Proceedings of the World Congress on Aquatic Protected Areas, Cairns, Australia - August 2002, University of Queensland Printery, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.

Das, I. (2002). A Photographic Guide to Snakes and Other Reptiles of India. New Holland Publishers Ltd, London, UK, 144pp.

Dudgeon, D., A.H. Arthington, M.O.Gessner, Zen-Ichiro, Kawabata, D.J. Knowler, C. Le´veˆque, R.J. Naiman, Anne-He´le`ne Prieur-Richard, D. Soto, M L.J. Stiassny& C.A. Sullivan (2006).Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Review 81: 163–182.

Dunn, H. (2004). Defining the ecological values of rivers: the views of Australian river scientists and managers. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 14: 413-433.

FISRWG (2001). Stream corridor restoration – principles, processes and practices, adopted as Part 653 of the National Engineering Handbook, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available from: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/stream_restoration/. Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group.

Galatowitsch, S.M., Whited, D.C. & J.R. Tester (1999). Development of community metrics to evaluate recovery of Minnesota wetlands. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress and Recovery 6: 217–234.

Georges, A. & P. Cottingham(eds.) (2002). Biodiversity in inland waters – priorities for its protection and management. Recommendations from the 2001 Fenner Conference on the Environment. Technical Report 1/2002. Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology, Canberra, 37pp.

Grimmett, R., C. Inskipp& T. Inskipp (2001). Pocket Guide to the Birds of the Indian Subcontinent. Oxford University Press, 384pp.

Hawksworth, D.J. & M.T. Kalin-Arroyo (1995). Magnitude and distribution of biodiversity, pp.107–191.In: V.H. Heywood (ed.). Global biodiversity Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

IUCN (2010). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.2. www.iucnredlist.org

Kiszka, J., S. Hassani & S. Pezeril (2004). Distribution and status of small cetaceans along the French Channel coasts: using opportunistic records for a preliminary assessment. Lutra 47: 33–45.

Menon, V. (2003). Field Guide to Indian Mammals. Dorling Kindersley (India), Penguin Books India, Delhi, 200pp.

Mensing, D.M., S.G. Galatowitsch& J.R. Tester (1998). Anthropogenic effects on the biodiversity of riparian wetlands of a northern temperate landscape. Journal of Environmental Management 53: 349–377.

Mohan, R.S.L., S.C. Dey, S.P. Bairagi & S. Roy (1997). On a survey of Ganges River dolphins Platanista gangeticaof Brahamputra River, Assam. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 94: 483–495.

Myers, N., R.A. Mittermier, C.G. Mittermier, G.A.B. da Fonseca & J. Kent (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 40: 853–858.

Newby, E. (1998). Slowly Down The Ganges. Lonely Planet Publications, 23–25pp.

Poff, N.L., M.M. Brinson & J.W. Day (Jr.) (2002). Aquatic ecosystems and global climate change. Technical Report, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, USA, 45pp.

Prater, S.H. (1971). The Book of Indian Animals. Bombay Natural History Society, Oxford University Press. Oxford, 324pp.

Revenga, C.I., R. Campbell, P. Abell de Villiers & M. Bryer(2005).Prospecting for monitoring freshwater ecosystems towards the 2010 targets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 360: 397–413.

Rollfinke, F.B. & R.H. Yahner (1990). Effects of time of day and season on winter bird counts. Condor 92: 215–219.

Sala, O.E., F.S. Chapin, J.J. Armesto, R. Berlow, J. Bloomfield, R. Dirzo, E. Huber-Sanwald, L.F. Huenneke, R.B. Jackson, A. Kinzig, R. Leemans, D. Lodge, H.A. Mooney, M. Oesterheld, N.L. Poff, M.T. Sykes, B.H. Walker, M. Walker & D.H. Wall (2000). Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287: 1770–1774.

Salemme, E. (2007). “The World’s Dirty Rivers”. Time. 22 January 2007.

Saunders, D.L., Meeuwig, J.J. & C.J. Vincent (2002).Freshwater protected areas: strategies for conservation. Conservation Biology 16: 30–41.

Shields, W.M. (1977). The effect of time of day on avian census results. Auk 94: 380–383.

Wakid, A. (2005). Status and distribution of a newly documented residential Gangetic dolphin population in Eastern Assam. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 102: 158–161.

Whitaker, R. & A. Captain (2004). Snakes of India - The Field Guide. Draco Books, Chennai, xiv+481pp.

WWF (2006). Conservation and Management of River Dolphins in Asia. World Wide Fund for Nature, Kathmandu, Nepal.