Journal of Threatened
Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2024 | 16(1): 24535–24549
ISSN 0974-7907
(Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8084.16.1.24535-24549
#8084 | Received 01 July 2023 | Final received 01 December 2023 | Finally
accepted 22 December 2023
Freshwater fish diversity and
IUCN Red List status of glacial-fed (Bheri) and spring-fed (Babai) rivers in
the wake of inter-basin water transfer
Kumar Khatri 1,
Bibhuti Ranjan Jha 2, Smriti Gurung 3 &
Udhab Raj Khadka 4
¹,2,3 Department of
Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Kathmandu University, Dhulikhel, GPO
Box 6250, Kathmandu, Nepal.
1,4 Central Department of
Environmental Science, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Kathmandu 46000, Nepal.
1 kkhatri@cdes.edu.np, 2 bibhuti@ku.edu.np
(corresponding author), 3 smriti@ku.edu.np, 4 ukhadka@cdes.edu.np
Editor: J.A. Johnson, Wildlife Institute of India,
Dehradun, India. Date of publication: 26 January
2024 (online & print)
Citation:
Khatri, K., B.R. Jha, S. Gurung & U.R. Khadka (2024). Freshwater
fish diversity and IUCN Red List status of glacial-fed (Bheri) and spring-fed
(Babai) rivers in the wake of inter-basin water transfer. Journal of Threatened Taxa 16(1): 24535–24549. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8084.16.1.24535–24549
Copyright: © Khatri et al. 2024. 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: This study was supported by the University Grants Commission of Nepal
under Faculty Collaborative Research Grant for F.Y. 2072/73 to Bibhuti Ranjan
Jha.
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Author details: Kumar Khatri is an assistant professor at the Central Department of Environmental
Science, Institute of Science and Technology, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur,
Kathmandu 46000, Nepal. Khatri has 17 years of teaching and research experience
on the aquatic diversity and freshwater ecology. Bibhuti Ranjan Jha is a professor of environmental science and at present working as a
Director of Research, Development and Innovation at Kathmandu University. Jha
has more than 30 years of experience of teaching and research in the university in the field of fish/ river ecology, biodiversity,
conservation and human dimension of environment. Smriti Gurung is an associate professor currently working in the Department of
Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Kathmandu University, Dhulikhel, Nepal. Gurung has been working for about 18 years and engaged in
teaching and research related to aquatic biodiversity. Udhab Raj Khadka is a professor currently working in the Central Department of
Environmental Science, Institute of Science and Technology,
Tribhuvan University, Nepal. Professor Khadka has been working for about 27
years and engaged in teaching and research related to plant and environmental
science.
Author contributions: All authors contributed to the study, conception, and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by
BRJ, SG, URK, and KK. The first draft of the manuscript was written by KK and
all authors rigorously worked and revised the manuscript. All authors have read
and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgements: We thank the University Grants Commission (UGC)
Nepal for funding this research. We also acknowledge the Department of National
Park and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC), Nepal for giving us the permission to
sample at Mulghat, Bardiya National Park, staff from Bheri-Babai Diversion
Multipurpose Project for their cooperation during the field visits. Finally, we
thank the students and technicians for helping this work in field and in labs.
Abstract: Freshwater fish are crucial
components of aquatic ecosystems that are affected by a range of anthropogenic
activities. Freshwater bodies in Nepal are under different threats affecting
biodiversity. Inter-basin water transfer (IBWT) involving damming and diversion
of water from one river basin to another is considered a major threat to
aquatic biodiversity. Impact assessment of such projects include generation of
baseline information on different biotic and abiotic variables. The aim of this
study was to generate baseline information on fish diversity from the
glacial-fed (Bheri) and the spring-fed (Babai) rivers and their selected
tributaries from western Nepal in the wake of the first proposed inter-basin
water transfer from the former to the latter. A total of 10 sampling sites,
five each from Bheri and Babai River systems, were chosen strategically.
Electrofishing was conducted encompassing different seasons in 2018 following
the standard method. A total of 32 species with catch per unit effort (CPUE) of
47±24 from Bheri and 42 species with CPUE of 63±52 from Babai River were
recorded. Cyprinidae, followed by Nemacheilidae, were the most dominant
families in both river systems, and Barilius vagra and Schistura
beavani were the most dominant species in both. Species richness and
abundance showed a significant difference between rivers, and differences in
fish assemblages reflects differences in ecological regimes. Failure to observe
migratory species such as Anguilla bengalensis suggests that migratory
routes may already have been affected.
Of the total 52 species recorded, eight are in the threatened categories
of the IUCN Red List and need active conservation measures. The findings
provide a reference to assess the impacts of water transfers on fish
assemblages in these river systems.
Keywords: Abundance, aquatic ecosystems,
Babai River, Bheri River, damming, electrofishing, fish assemblages, threats.
Introduction
Fish are one of the diverse
groups of vertebrates, with an estimated 36,484 species globally including
18,495 freshwater fish (Fricke et al. 2023) and also one of the most frequently
investigated aquatic organisms (Tornwall et al. 2015), directly related to
human well-being (Öztürk et al. 2021) because of their nutritional,
socio-economic, and cultural values (Lynch et al. 2016). An estimated 13,000
(belonging to 2,513 genera) freshwater fish species live in lakes and rivers
that cover only around 1% of the earth’s surface (Levêque et al. 2007) and are
thus one of the major components of global biodiversity (Dudgeon et al. 2006;
Sedeño-Díaz & López-López 2013).
Freshwater fisheries provide the
main source of protein for 200 million people across Asia, Africa, and South
America, as well as jobs and livelihoods for 60 million people (WWF 2021).
However, over the past few years, decrease in freshwater fish diversity and
their population have been reported from their natural habitats, with one in three
species being threatened with extinction (WWF 2021) mainly attributed to a
range of anthropogenic activities such as overfishing, pollution, use of
destructive fishing methods, climate change, and developmental activities
(Saund & Shrestha 2007; ADB 2018; Su et al. 2021).
Asia is the home to about 3,553
freshwater fish species with Cypriniformes and Siluriformes as the most
dominant orders (Berra 2007; Levêque et al. 2007; Nelson et al. 2016) with high
endemicity (De Silva et al. 2007). The exceptional diversity of fish in this
region also supports high diversity of fishes in inland waters, which forms the
basis of the livelihood; and extremely important for food security particularly
for the rural poor people (Thilsted & Wahab 2014; Gurung 2016). However,
the knowledge of fish faunal diversity in many parts of Asia, including Nepal,
is still in its progressive phase, where survey works are fragmentary and
sporadic, with many species yet to be discovered or to be described (Levêque et
al. 2007; Eldho & Sajeevan 2022).
Nepal represents both
Indo-Malayan and Palearctic realms (Chaturvedi 2012) and coupled with its rich
network of rivers and streams (WECS 2011), the country harbours a rich
terrestrial as well aquatic biodiversity (GoN 2014). A recent review reported
more than 220 freshwater species in the country (Khatri et al. 2020). However,
because of its rich network of rivers and streams, the growing demand for
electricity, drinking, and irrigation for increasing population, the damming
and diversion of these ecosystems have become common (ADB 2018; WWAP 2009).
Recently, Nepal was involved in the implementation of inter basin water
transfer (IBWT) schemes (GoN 2019) which involve water transfer from donor
basins to receiving basins which provide year-round irrigation, generating
reliable electricity and also for other multipurpose benefits (Zhu et al.
2018). Such transfers have also been known to cause a range of
upstream-downstream ecological, hydrological, and geomorphological changes
(Quan et al. 2016; Zhuang 2016). Therefore, such infrastructural developments
and their subsequent environmental consequences are often subject to criticism
and discussions (Pittock et al. 2009). However, with a growing population and
the country’s increasing requirement to produce more food and electricity,
damming, and diversion of river waters are on the rise, with many more in the
pipeline (Khadka & Khanal 2008; WECS 2011; Gurung & Bharati 2012; Suwal
et al. 2020).
Damming, diversion, and
inter-basin water transfer affect fish fauna in several ways, including loss of
species, decreased abundance, and change in behavior; blockade of migratory
routes, and interruption in life cycles (Daga et al. 2020; Tien Bui et al.
2020; Bohada-Murillo et al. 2021). These impacts are attributed to changes in
migratory fish habitats, discharge regimes, water temperature and water
quality, increased exposure to predation, and loss of riverbank forests (Davies
et al. 1992; McAllister et al. 2001). In Nepal, migratory species such as Tor
putitora, T. tor, Bagarius bagarius, Clupisoma
gaura, and Anguilla bengalensis have already been reported to be
affected through the construction of dams in the country (ADB 2018).
The Bheri Babai Diversion
Multipurpose Project (BBDMP) is the first inter-basin water transfer designed
to transfer 40 m³/s water from the glacial-fed Bheri to the spring and rain-fed
Babai through a 12-km tunnel for hydropower generation and irrigation. The
proposed water transfer aims to generate 46 megawatts (MW) of hydroelectricity
and irrigate around 51,000 ha of agricultural land in the southwest districts
of Banke and Bardiya (GoN/BBDMP 2018). The mandatory environmental impact
assessment (EIA) on BBDMP conducted in 2011 has reported only an inventory on
fish fauna from the two rivers with 23 and 20 species from the Bheri and the
Babai Rivers respectively (EIA 2011). Moreover, the EIA finding is based on
only one time sampling. However, a detailed baseline
data on fish diversity, including the seasonal variation in fish assemblages
and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) categorization of
fish species are still lacking which is crucial for developing effective
conservation measures. Therefore, the main objective of this study was to
prepare baseline data on fish diversity and to identify IUCN category from the
selected stretches of the Bheri and the Babai River in the wake of proposed
first inter-basin water transfer in western Nepal. Such baseline information
are essential components of impact monitoring and thus forms the basis for
development of future management strategies. Furthermore, it could also
contribute to update the current IUCN Red List on fishes on local scale.
Materials
and Methods
Study Area
The study was conducted in the
selected stretches of the Bheri and the Babai Rivers and their tributaries in
western Nepal. Bheri is a glacial-fed perennial river originating from the
Mount Dhaulagiri range (Mishra et al. 2018), whereas the Babai River is a
perennial spring as well as rain-fed river with a low flow during dry seasons
originating from the Siwalik hills (Sharma 1977). The Bheri River is about 264
km long covering a drainage area of about 13,900 km2 with an
elevational range of 200 to 7,746 m. Based on data from 1975 to 2005 observed
from seven climatological stations across the drainage, the average annual
precipitation in the drainage was 1,202 mm (Mishra et al. 2018). The average
annual discharge of the Bheri River at Samaijighat Hydrological station
(Station No. 269.5 located at 500 m), upstream of the proposed water diversion
is 331.6 m3/s with minimum and maximum discharge of 74.5 m3/s
and 2150 m3/s, respectively (GoN/DoHD 2019). The Babai River is
about 400 km long and lies in a subtropical region. It has a drainage area of
about 3,250 km2 with an elevational range of 147 to 2,880 m. The
average annual rainfall in the basin is reported to be 1,468 mm, based on data
from 1975 to 2005 observed at seven climatological stations (Mishra et al.
2021). The average discharge of the Babai River at Chepang Hydrological station
(Station No. 289.95 located at 325 m), near the proposed water release is 34.67
m3/s with minimum and maximum discharge of 5.1 m3/s and
477 m3/s, respectively (GoN/DoHD 2019). Upstream, downstream and
three tributaries of both the rivers were strategically chosen for sampling.
Thus, 10 sites (five each in the Bheri and Babai River systems; Table 1) were
sampled based on strategic occurrence and accessibility (Figure 1). The
downstream of water release at Babai River was located at Mulghat at Bardiya
National Park- a protected area and the mandatory permit for sampling was
procured from the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation,
Nepal.
Field Methods
Fish sampling
The sampling was conducted in all
major seasons in January (winter), April (spring), June (summer), and November
(autumn) in 2018. For fish sampling, electrofishing (Model Honda GXV50) by the
wading method was adopted following Jha (2006). Electrofishing is considered a
scientific standard method that involves generating an electric field, and the
fishes within the field are stunned temporarily. Electrofishing was conducted
in two runs of approximately 20 minutes (1200 seconds) each, encompassing
approximately 100–500 m (0.1–0.5 km) stretch on each site. The captured fishes
were identified up to species level in the field itself following taxonomic
literature (Shrestha 1981, 2008), and fishes were photographed. The identified
fishes were released back to their natural habitat once the necessary
information such as length and weight was collected. Unidentified fish
specimens were preserved in 70% ethanol and brought to the Department of
Environmental Science and Engineering (DESE), Kathmandu University, for identification
following other standard literature (Shrestha 1981; Talwar & Jhingran 1991;
Jayaram 2010; Rajbanshi 2012; Fricke et al. 2023) and was further confirmed by
fish taxonomists at the Research Laboratory of Fish and Fisheries, Central
Department of Zoology, Tribhuvan University. These specimens have been kept for
records as voucher specimens at the Central Department of Zoology, Tribhuvan
University. Along with fish sampling, selected physico-chemical parameters,
viz., temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), and
conductivity were also estimated using portable probes (LUTRON WA-2015). All
the samplings were conducted in the morning (0800–1100 h) and afternoon
(1300–1600 h).
Data analysis
For fish abundance estimation, the
sampled fish species were expressed in catch per unit effort (CPUE) as the
number of fishes collected per 10 minutes of electrofishing (Jha 2006). Various
species diversity indices such as Shannon index (Hˈ) (Spellerberg & Fedor
2003), Simpson’s index of diversity (1-D) (Caso & Gil 1988) and Pielou’s Evenness (J)
(Pielou 1966) were calculated using Past 4 software. Dendrograms were
constructed to understand the similarity of fish assemblage structure between
the sampling sites. This was done by Hierarchical clustering using group
average method with correlation coefficient distance (Jain et al. 1999) using
Originpro 2023. Log transformation was
done prior to hierarchical clustering to minimize errors. Mann Whitney test was
conducted to assess significant variation between the two river systems in
species abundance, whereas Kruskall-Wallis test was performed to assess
significant variations in species abundance in different seasons. The threat
status categorization of the fish species was conducted following IUCN Red List
(2023). Moreover, information from a number of members from fish specialist
group working closely with the Department of National Parks and Wildlife
Conservation, Nepal and IUCN from the region was also taken in preparing the
current IUCN Red List threat status (Shrestha 1995; Jha 2006; Allen et al.
2010).
Results
Fish community structure
A total of 8,735 individuals
representing 52 fish species belonging to five orders, 12 families, and 35
genera were recorded from Bheri and Babai River systems. Mann-Whitney test
revealed significant variation (p <0.05) in the fish assemblages between the
two river systems. A total of 32 species belonging to four orders, eight
families, and 20 genera were observed in the Bheri river system, whereas 42 fish
species belonging to five orders, 12 families, and 31 genera were observed in
the Babai River system. In both the river systems, Cypriniformes and Cyprinidae
were the dominant order and family, respectively (Table 2; Figure 2). Order
Beloniformes with four families, namely Psilorhynchidae, Cobitidae, Bagridae,
and Belonidae, were recorded only in the Babai River system.
In the Bheri river system, order
Cypriniformes was represented by four families and 25 species followed by
Siluriformes (two families with five species); Perciformes and Synbranchiformes
(only one family with one species each). The dominant family, Cyprinidae,
contributed 37.5% of the total catch and was represented by 12 species followed
by Danionidae and Nemacheilidae (18.8% with six species each), Sisoridae (12.5
% with four species), Amblycipitidae, Botiidae, Channidae, and Mastacembelidae
(3.1% with only one species each).
In Babai River system,
Cypriniformes was represented by six families and 31 species, followed by,
Siluriformes (three families with six species); Synbranchiformes and
Perciformes (one family with two species each); and Beloniformes was
represented by only one family with one species. The dominant family Cyprinidae
contributed 31.0 % of the total catch with 13 species followed by Danionidae
(26.2% with 11 species); Nemacheilidae and Sisoridae (7.1% with three species
each); Botiidae, Channidae, Mastacembelidae, Sisoridae, and Bagridae (4.8% with
two species each); Amblycipitidae, Belonidae, Cobitidae, Erethistidae, and
Psilorhynchidae were represented by only one species each (2.4%).
Fish richness, abundance, and
diversity
Of the 52 species recorded, 10
species were recorded only from the Bheri system and 20 species were recorded
only from the Babai River system; while 22 species were common to both the
river systems. Eight species—Barilius barila, Barilius vagra, Garra
gotyla, Puntius sophore, Tor putitora, Paracanthocobitis
botia, Schistura beavani, and Mastacembelus armatus—were
recorded in all seasons in both river systems. Cabdio morar, in the
Bheri River and Systomus sarana, Rasbora daniconius, Tor tor,
and Xenentodon cancila in the Babai River were occasional in occurrence
with only a single individual being captured during the present study. The
highest number of species was recorded from site BB3 (19 species during autumn)
and the lowest number (six species) was recorded from sites BH2 and BBT2 during
winter and summer (Figure 4b,d). Ornamental fish
species such as Danio rerio, Lepidocephalichthys guntea, and Macrognathus
pancalus were observed only from the Babai River system.
In Bheri river system, the fish
abundance expressed as CPUE ranged from 7.6 to 96.2 with the average value 46.9
whereas, in the Babai River system it ranged from 11.0 to 242.0 with the average
value 63.0 (Table 3) indicating moderate average haul. The most abundant fish
species was Barilius vagra, followed by Schistura beavani in both
river systems. The least abundant fish species was Cabido morar in Bheri
River system (with CPUE of 0.01) whereas, fish species as Opsarius
bendelisis, Rasbora daniconius, Systomus sarana, Tor tor,
and Xenentodon cancila (with CPUE of 0.01) were the least abundant in
Babai River system.
Seasonal and site-wise
ichthyofaunal diversity indices such as Shannon index (Hˈ), Simpson’s index of
diversity (1-D) and Pielou’s Evenness (J) are shown in Figure 3. In Bheri River
system, Shannon index (Hˈ) ranged from 1.3 to 2.2 with the mean value 1.7± 0.2
while, Simpson’s index of diversity (1-D) ranges from 0.6 to 0.8 with mean
value 0.7 ±0.1 and Pielou’s evenness (J) ranges from 0.5 to 0.9 with mean value
0.7±0.1. Kruskall Wallis test showed significant variation (H = 7.9, P = 0.04)
in Pielou’s evenness between seasons in the Bheri system. In the Babai River
system, Shannon index (Hˈ) ranged from 0.9 to 2.0 with the mean value 1.7± 0.3
while, Simpson’s index of diversity (1-D) ranged from 0.4 to 0.8 with mean
value 0.7±0.1 and Pielou’s evenness (J) ranged from 0.4 to 0.8 with mean value
0.7±0.1.
Cluster analysis of species
composition revealed that fish assemblages of Bheri and Babai River systems had
two distinct clusters based on group average method with correlation
coefficient distance (Figure 4). The sites BBT1 and BBT2 had more similar
faunal assemblages whereas site BH1 does not show any significant similarity
with any other site (Figure 4).
IUCN Red List threat status
The threat status category of the
observed fish species based on IUCN Red List have been presented in Table 2. Of
the 52 species recorded from this study, 43 fish species has
been categorized as ‘Least Concerned’ and one fish species as ‘Data
Deficient’. However, two species (Schismatorhynchos nukta
and Tor putitora) have been assigned as ‘Endangered’, one species (Neolissochilus hexagonolepis)
as ‘Near Threatened’, four species (Tarigilabeo macmahoni, Schizothorax richardsonii,
Physoschistura elongata, and Schistura prashadi) as
‘Vulnerable’ and one species (Glyptothorax kashmirensis) as
‘Critically Endangered’.
Physico-chemical parameters
The mean pH, DO, TDS, temperature
and conductivity values in the Bheri River system were 8.2 ± 0.5, 9.6 ± 0.9 mgL-1,
159.1 ± 37.0 mgL-1, 21.1 ± 5.2°C, and 295.0 ± 59.7 µScm-1,
respectively. In the Babai River system, the mean values of pH, DO, TDS,
temperature and conductivity were 8.1 ± 0.4, 8.9 ± 1.6 mgL-1, 198.5
± 55.3 mgL-1,24.5 ± 5.9°C, and 360.7 ± 71.3 µScm-1, respectively.
Kruskall Wallis test showed seasonal significant variation in pH, DO and
temperature in the Bheri River system (p <0.05); whereas in the Babai River
system, significant variation (p <0.05) between seasons was observed only in
pH and temperature.
Discussion
Considering more than 220 species
reported from Nepalese freshwater ecosystems (Khatri et al. 2020) and presence
of 52 (about 23.6%) species in only ten sites indicate a rich fish faunal
diversity from the Babai and the Bheri River systems. This is also evident from
Pielou’s evenness (Figure 3) which ranged from 0.3 (at site BBT1 during winter)
to 0.9 (at site BH2 during winter) indicating rich diversity. A previous study
by Pandey (2002) reported only 19 species from the Bheri River, whereas the EIA
study before the commencement of the dam construction reported 23 species (EIA
2011). Species like Anguilla bengalensis, Labeo angra, Bangana
dero, Psilorhynchus pseudecheneis, Bagarius bagairus,
Clupisoma garua, Heteropneustes fossilis, and Myersglanis
blythii, reported from Bheri River during EIA (2011) were not observed
during our study in Bheri River system. Singh (2002) and G.C & Limbu (2019) reported
39 species and 29 species from the Babai River, respectively, whereas the EIA
study conducted in 2011 had reported only 20 fish species from Babai River.
Fish species such as Anguilla bengalensis, Amblypharyngodon mola,
Garra annandalei, Bangana dero, Labeo dyocheilus, Channa
striatus, Ailia colia, Bagarius bagairus, Chaca chaca,
and Wallago attu reported from Babai River during EIA (2011) were not
observed during our study. This difference in the enumeration of the fish
species richness could be probably attributed to a range of factors including
differences in sampling frequencies, the sampling gears used during surveys.
Most fish diversity assessments in Nepal are one-time studies and often rely on
locals’ knowledge and anecdotes (Khatri et al. 2020). Fish assemblages show
seasonal variations too, and thus one-time studies often fail to capture the
overall assemblages (Jha et al. 2018; Prasad et al. 2020). Moreover, fish
species such as Anguilla bengalensis, Clupisoma garua, Bagarius
yarrelli, Labeo pangusia, Wallago attu, and Ailia colia which
are listed in the IUCN Red List and reported from both river systems (ADB
2018), were not observed in this study. However, these species in Babai River
were reported earlier by Shrestha (1999) and EIA (2011) in Bheri River. Species
like Anguilla bengalensis is a noted catadromous fish (Arai & Chino
2012; Baumgartner & Wibowo 2018) requiring movements from freshwater
regimes to oceanic waters for spawning. Tor putitora is another
migratory species (Pinder et al. 2019) that often takes refuge in upstream
river reaches and tributaries. In contrast, species like Bangana dero, Barilius
vagra, Neolissochilus hexagonolepis, Schizothorax progastus, S.
richardsonii, Labeo fimbriatus, and Tariqilabeo
macmahoni observed in the Bheri River system are short migratory fishes.
Many studies in Nepal and elsewhere have revealed that migratory fish are
especially affected when longitudinal connections in rivers are disrupted due
to dam construction (Bhatt et al. 2017; ADB 2018; Reid et al. 2019; Barbarossa
et al. 2020; Yadav et al. 2020). The Babai Dam Weir cum Bridge at Parewa Odar -
located about 40 km downstream of the proposed water release Bardiya National
Park, was constructed in 1993 (ADB 2018; GoN/BIP 2001) to supply water for
irrigation. The construction and operation of this dam may have disrupted the
subsequent migration of these species in upstream reaches of the river.
Our finding regarding Cyprinidae
being the most dominant fish family is in accordance with many previous studies
from a large number of freshwaters from Nepal (Sharma 2008; Shrestha 2008;
Rajbanshi 2012; Khatri et al. 2020). Cyprinidae is considered a rich taxon and
is known to contain as many as 1,270 species; and it is one of the most
abundant freshwater fish taxa in Asia (Berra 2007; Levêque et al. 2007).
Although several fish species
were common to both the river systems, some taxa were exclusively found either
in the glacial-fed Bheri River or the rain-fed Babai River system. Taxa like Schizothorax
progastus and S. richardsonii were observed only in Bheri
River, whereas taxa like Xenentodon cancila, Danio rerio, and Lepidocephalichthys
guntea were observed only in Babai River system. Pathak et al. (2014)
and Rajbanshi (2002) have also reported these taxa in glacial-fed and rain-fed
rivers of Nepal. Schizothorax spp. live typically in cold and fast
flowing waters in the Himalayan and sub-Himalayan regions of the Indian
subcontinent and are distributed from Afghanistan to Myanmar, including Nepal;
central Asia, Kazakhstan and China (Petr & Swar 2002; Sarkar et al. 2012;
Khan et al. 2020). In contrast, species like Barilius spp., Puntius spp.,
Tor spp., Labeo spp., Neolissochilus hexagonolepis, and
Clarias spp. are common in cool to warm water regimes (Bhagat 2002; Sharma
2008; Gurung et al. 2016). Garra gotyla - a common cyprinid fish has
been frequently reported in the lower basin of South Asian rivers (Rayamajhi
& Jha 2010), was also observed in both the river systems. Barilius vagra
is also a common species, particularly in the pools (Singh & Agarwal 2013),
and it showed higher abundance in the Babai River.
Ornamental fish species such as Danio
rerio, Lepidocephalichthys guntea, and Macrognathus pancalus
were observed only in sites BB3, BBT1 and BBT2 characterized by slow and
shallow water of the Babai River system. These species are known to be found in
a range of habitats such as slow and shallow water of rivers, floodplains,
ponds, swamps, ditches, typically in open locations with relatively clear water
and abundant vegetation at the margins as well as estuaries (Spence et al.
2006; Suresh et al. 2006; Havird & Page 2010; Gupta 2016). Interestingly,
cluster analysis of present study indicated presence of similar fish
assemblages in sites BBT1 and BBT2. However, this was expected because these sites
were located in the Dang Valley with similar ecological regimes. Similar
ecological regimes have been known to support similar biological assemblages
too (Granados-Dieseldorff et al. 2012). In contrast, sites BB1 and BB2 from the
main Babai River were located in Surkhet Valley and these sites were
characterized by higher discharge and rocky substrates. In contrast, sites BH1, BH2, and BHT2 from
Bheri River system were characterized by higher discharge, higher depth with a
cooler temperature and the dominant substrates in these sites were rock and
boulder. These sites form a separate cluster from BBT2 and BBT2.
Fish abundance varied between
different seasons in the Bheri and the Babai River systems. The highest fish
abundance in the Bheri River system was observed during summer, whereas in the
Babai River system, the highest abundance was observed during autumn. Many
studies in Nepal (Jha et al. 2007, 2018) and elsewhere (Galib et al. 2016; Park
et al. 2020) have reported seasonal variation in fish assemblages in different
rivers. Seasons induce change in different environmental regimes of the lotic
systems such as discharge, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and availability of
food (Dowling & Wiley 1986; Winemiller & Jepsen 1998). The Babai River and
its tributaries being rain-fed are characterized by relatively higher
temperature (24.5±5.9°C) low flow particularly during winter and spring,
whereas during the autumn, the flow and discharge are increased. In contrast,
Bheri River being a glacial-fed river is characterized by a low temperature
(21.1±5.2°C). Differences in temperature regimes along with differences in flow
and food availability during different seasons probably explain the differences
in fish abundance in different seasons in the Bheri and the Babai River
systems.
Presence of single occurrence of
some species like Cabdio morar, Systomus sarana, Tor tor,
and Xenentodon cancila but their abundant occurrence in earlier
studies (Shrestha 1999) suggest that their natural populations are declining
mainly attributed to anthropogenically induced stressors (Hossain et al. 2009;
Islam & Dutta 2018; Pinder et al. 2019; Barman et al. 2021). Relatively
lower CPUE values of 46.9 ± 24.1 and 63.0 ± 51.8 in the Bheri and the Babai
River systems respectively also suggests moderate average haul indicating
decline in natural fish populations compared to higher CPUE values reported by
Jha et al. (2006) in several rivers in Nepal. For instance, CPUE values 71.9,
96.1 and 110.2 were observed in Aandhikhola, Arungkhola, and Karrakhola (Jha et
al. 2006).
Tor tor though considered to have a wide
distribution (Lal et al. 2013) is being reported to be affected by dams (Sharma
2003). In central India, the species is now restricted in certain pockets of
protected areas in Narmada, Tapti, Betwa, and Chambal rivers (Johnson et al.
2012). In this study also, this species was observed only from BB2 which is located
inside a protected area—Bardiya National Park.
Although majority of the fish
species (43 species out of 52) observed in the study belong to Least Concern
category of IUCN Red List, some species belong to Vulnerable and Endangered
categories (Table 2) which need active conservation measures. Tor putitora
(Golden Mahseer) listed as an Endangered species is a large sized migratory
fish is an inexpensive but high-quality protein source (WHO 2003; Tacon &
Metian 2013; Johnson et al. 2021). This species is also a popular game fish for
anglers across India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal. Tor tor (Tor
mahseer) which was categorized as Data Deficient also needs some attention
because studies have showed their decline over the years (Sharma 2003). Schizothorax
richardsonii Snow Trout categorized as Vulnerable is also one of the highly
valued freshwater fish from the Himalayan and trans-Himalayan rivers of India,
Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan, and Afghanistan and constitutes as a principal
subsistence food fishery in the different parts of Nepal particularly in the
mountainous regions (Peter & Swar 2002). This study has highlighted the
population decline of many species due to various forms of human impacts such
as high fishing pressure, loss of habitats resulting from river damming which
affect breeding cycle, migration of fish species; natural disasters,
pollutions, which requires the need of monitoring and conservation.
Conclusion
This study assessed the fish
diversity, distribution and selected physico-chemical parameters of Bheri and
Babai River systems and in different seasons. A total of 52 species were
recorded from the two river systems indicating a rich fish diversity. Moreover,
the glacial-fed Bheri River system was found to harbor cold-water taxa, whereas
the rain-fed warmer Babai River had warm water taxa only. The difference in the
fish community structure and abundance between the two river systems reflects
differences in different ecological regimes associated with environmental
variables. The average CPUE values in both the river systems reflects a
moderate average haul and is indicative of some disturbances in these rivers
and their tributaries. Some widely distributed species such as Barilius
vagra, Schistura beavani, Garra gotyla, Puntius sophore, Barilius barila, and
Paracanthocobitis botia are abundant corresponding to the previous studies.
Observation of some species such as Opsarius barna, Tor spp,
Schistura prashadi, Hara jerdoni, and Glyptothorax kashmirensis in
small numbers and the fact that out of 52 species observed, eight species
belong to IUCN Near Threatened, Vulnerable and Endangered categories indicate
the need of an active measure of conservation. Failure to capture long
migratory species like Anguilla bengalensis, reported in earlier studies,
suggest that the migratory route of such species may already have been
affected. There is an urgent need for robust surveys on the abundance,
distribution and ecological requirements over the natural range of this
species. The findings of this research provide baseline information on the fish
diversity of the Bheri and Babai River systems. The data obtained could
contribute to Fish Specialist Groups to evaluate IUCN Red List, as well as
could help in assessing the overall impacts of water transfer in the Bheri and
Babai Rivers.
Table 1. Details of
sampling sites with geographical coordinates and elevation.
|
Site codes |
Rivers |
Places |
Elevation (in m) |
Latitude |
Longitude |
Remarks |
|
BH1 |
Bheri |
Cheepla, Surkhet |
436 |
28.45742°N |
081.78235°E |
Upstream of water diversion at
Bheri |
|
BH2 |
Bheri |
Bhanghari, Surkhet |
403 |
28.51468°N |
081.67520°E |
Downstream of water diversion
at Bheri |
|
BHT1 |
Goche |
Mehelkuna, Surkhet |
475 |
28.43677°N |
081.83489°'E |
Tributary of Bheri |
|
BHT2 |
Chingad |
Gangate, Surkhet |
466 |
28.55361°N |
081.70715°E |
Tributary of Bheri |
|
BHT3 |
Jhupra |
Surkhet |
497 |
28.57791°N |
081.67207°E |
Tributary of Bheri |
|
BB1 |
Babai |
Chepangghat, Surkhet |
293 |
28.35160°N |
081.72109°E |
Upstream of water release at
Babai |
|
B2 |
Babai |
Mulghat, Bardiya |
287 |
28.36127°N |
081.68044°E |
Downstream of water release at
Babai |
|
BB3 |
Babai |
Bel Takura, Dang |
561 |
28.03095°N |
082.26972°E |
Upstream of Babai |
|
BBT1 |
Patre |
Majhgaun, Dang |
594 |
28.07607°N |
082.37733°E |
Tributary of Babai |
|
BBT2 |
Katuwa |
Ghorahi, Dang |
625 |
28.01966°N |
082.48380°E |
Tributary of Babai |
Table 2. Fish taxa
recorded from the Bheri and Babai River systems with threat status.
|
|
Order |
Family |
Fish species |
Bheri River |
Babai River |
IUCN Red List status |
|
1 |
Beloniformes |
Belonidae |
Xenentodon cancila (Hamilton, 1822) |
× |
√ |
LC |
|
2 |
Cypriniformes |
Botiidae |
Botia almorhae (Gray, 1831) |
√ |
√ |
LC |
|
3 |
Cypriniformes |
Botiidae |
Botia dario (Hamilton, 1822) |
× |
√ |
LC |
|
4 |
Cypriniformes |
Cobitidae |
Lepidocephalichthys guntea (Hamilton,
1822) |
× |
√ |
LC |
|
5 |
Cypriniformes |
Cyprinidae |
Bangana dero (Hamilton,
1822) |
√ |
√ |
LC |
|
6 |
Cypriniformes |
Cyprinidae |
Chagunius chaunio (Hamilton, 1822) |
× |
√ |
LC |
|
7 |
Cypriniformes |
Cyprinidae |
Tariqilabeo latius (Hamilton,
1822) |
√ |
√ |
LC |
|
8 |
Cypriniformes |
Cyprinidae |
Garra annandalei (Hora, 1921) |
√ |
× |
LC |
|
9 |
Cypriniformes |
Cyprinidae |
Garra gotyla (Gray, 1830) |
√ |
√ |
LC |
|
10 |
Cypriniformes |
Cyprinidae |
Labeo fimbriatus (Bloch, 1795) |
√ |
× |
LC |
|
11 |
Cypriniformes |
Cyprinidae |
Tariqilabeo macmahoni (Zugmayer, 1912) |
√ |
× |
VU |
|
12 |
Cypriniformes |
Cyprinidae |
Neolissochilus hexagonolepis (McClelland, 1839) |
√ |
√ |
NT |
|
13 |
Cypriniformes |
Cyprinidae |
Pethia conchonius (Hamilton,
1822) |
× |
√ |
LC |
|
14 |
Cypriniformes |
Cyprinidae |
Pethia ticto (Hamilton, 1822) |
× |
√ |
LC |
|
15 |
Cypriniformes |
Cyprinidae |
Puntius sophore (Hamilton,
1822) |
√ |
√ |
LC |
|
16 |
Cypriniformes |
Cyprinidae |
Puntius terio (Hamilton, 1822) |
√ |
√ |
LC |
|
17 |
Cypriniformes |
Cyprinidae |
Schismatorhynchos nukta (Sykes, 1839) |
× |
√ |
EN |
|
18 |
Cypriniformes |
Cyprinidae |
Schizothorax progastus (McClelland,
1839) |
√ |
× |
LC |
|
19 |
Cypriniformes |
Cyprinidae |
Schizothorax richardsonii (Gray, 1832) |
√ |
× |
VU |
|
20 |
Cypriniformes |
Cyprinidae |
Systomus sarana (Hamilton, 1822) |
× |
√ |
LC |
|
21 |
Cypriniformes |
Cyprinidae |
Tor putitora (Hamilton,
1822) |
√ |
√ |
EN |
|
22 |
Cypriniformes |
Cyprinidae |
Tor tor (Hamilton,
1822) |
× |
√ |
DD |
|
23 |
Cypriniformes |
Danionidae |
Barilius barila (Hamilton,
1822) |
√ |
√ |
LC |
|
24 |
Cypriniformes |
Danionidae |
Opsarius bendelisis (Hamilton,
1807) |
√ |
√ |
LC |
|
25 |
Cypriniformes |
Danionidae |
Barilius vagra (Hamilton,
1822) |
√ |
√ |
LC |
|
26 |
Cypriniformes |
Danionidae |
Cabdio jaya (Hamilton, 1822) |
√ |
√ |
LC |
|
27 |
Cypriniformes |
Danionidae |
Cabdio morar (Hamilton,
1822) |
√ |
√ |
LC |
|
28 |
Cypriniformes |
Danionidae |
Danio rerio (Hamilton,
1822) |
× |
√ |
LC |
|
29 |
Cypriniformes |
Danionidae |
Devario devario (Hamilton,
1822) |
× |
√ |
LC |
|
30 |
Cypriniformes |
Danionidae |
Esomus danrica (Hamilton,
1822) |
× |
√ |
LC |
|
31 |
Cypriniformes |
Danionidae |
Laubuka laubuca (Hamilton,
1822) |
× |
√ |
LC |
|
32 |
Cypriniformes |
Danionidae |
Opsarius barna (Hamilton,
1822) |
√ |
√ |
LC |
|
33 |
Cypriniformes |
Danionidae |
Rasbora daniconius (Hamilton, 1822) |
× |
√ |
LC |
|
34 |
Cypriniformes |
Nemacheilidae |
Paracanthocobitis botia (Hamilton, 1822) |
√ |
√ |
LC |
|
35 |
Cypriniformes |
Nemacheilidae |
Physoschistura elongata (Sen &
Nalbant, 1982) |
√ |
× |
VU |
|
36 |
Cypriniformes |
Nemacheilidae |
Schistura beavani (Günther,
1868) |
√ |
√ |
LC |
|
37 |
Cypriniformes |
Nemacheilidae |
Schistura prashadi (Hora, 1921) |
√ |
× |
VU |
|
38 |
Cypriniformes |
Nemacheilidae |
Schistura rupecula (McClelland,
1838) |
√ |
√ |
LC |
|
39 |
Cypriniformes |
Nemacheilidae |
Schistura savona (Hamilton,
1822) |
√ |
× |
LC |
|
40 |
Cypriniformes |
Psilorhynchidae |
Psilorhynchus pseudecheneis (Menon & Datta,
1964) |
× |
√ |
LC |
|
41 |
Perciformes |
Channidae |
Channa gachua (Hamilton, 1822) |
× |
√ |
LC |
|
42 |
Perciformes |
Channidae |
Channa punctata (Bloch, 1793) |
√ |
√ |
LC |
|
43 |
Siluriformes |
Amblycipitidae |
Amblyceps mangois (Hamilton,
1822) |
√ |
√ |
LC |
|
44 |
Siluriformes |
Bagridae |
Mystus tengara (Hamilton,
1822) |
× |
√ |
LC |
|
45 |
Siluriformes |
Bagridae |
Mystus vittatus (Bloch, 1794) |
× |
√ |
LC |
|
46 |
Siluriformes |
Sisoridae |
Erethistes jerdoni (Day, 1870) |
× |
√ |
LC |
|
47 |
Siluriformes |
Sisoridae |
Glyptothorax kashmirensis (Hora, 1923) |
√ |
× |
CR |
|
48 |
Siluriformes |
Sisoridae |
Glyptothorax telchitta (Hamilton,
1822) |
√ |
√ |
LC |
|
49 |
Siluriformes |
Sisoridae |
Glyptothorax trilineatus (Blyth, 1860) |
√ |
√ |
LC |
|
50 |
Siluriformes |
Sisoridae |
Pseudecheneis sulcata (McClelland,
1842) |
√ |
× |
LC |
|
51 |
Synbranchiformes |
Mastacembelidae |
Macrognathus pancalus (Hamilton,
1822) |
× |
√ |
LC |
|
52 |
Synbranchiformes |
Mastacembelidae |
Mastacembelus armatus (Lacepède,
1800) |
√ |
√ |
LC |
Note: IUCN Red list categories of fish taxa
observed from the Bheri and Babai River systems following (https://www.iucnredlist.org/).
Table 3. Catch per unit
effort values at the Bheri and Babai rivers and their tributaries.
|
Species |
BH1 |
BH2 |
BHT1 |
BHT2 |
BHT3 |
Average |
BB1 |
BB2 |
BB3 |
BBT1 |
BBT2 |
Average |
Average total |
|
Xenontodon cancila |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.06 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
|
Botia almorhae |
0.46 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.09 |
0.19 |
0.19 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.08 |
0.08 |
|
Botia dario |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.13 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.03 |
0.01 |
|
Lepidocephalichthys guntea |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
2.16 |
25.63 |
15.88 |
8.73 |
4.37 |
|
Cobdio jaya |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
1.25 |
0.25 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.69 |
0.14 |
0.19 |
|
Bangana dero |
0.44 |
0.56 |
0.57 |
0.31 |
0.00 |
0.38 |
0.13 |
1.56 |
0.13 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.36 |
0.37 |
|
Barilius barila |
1.71 |
0.38 |
10.82 |
1.38 |
5.75 |
4.01 |
5.03 |
8.44 |
0.19 |
0.00 |
0.63 |
2.86 |
3.43 |
|
Opsarius bendelisis |
0.00 |
0.06 |
0.06 |
0.00 |
1.19 |
0.26 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.06 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.01 |
0.14 |
|
Barilius vagra |
2.01 |
1.31 |
12.09 |
12.19 |
16.50 |
8.82 |
0.69 |
1.56 |
4.65 |
44.13 |
15.44 |
13.29 |
11.06 |
|
Cabdio morar |
0.00 |
0.06 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.01 |
0.25 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.05 |
0.03 |
|
Chagunius chaunio |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.92 |
0.88 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.36 |
0.18 |
|
Tariqilabeo latius |
5.29 |
4.81 |
0.13 |
2.25 |
1.31 |
2.76 |
0.00 |
0.19 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.04 |
1.40 |
|
Danio rerio |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
1.06 |
8.00 |
1.81 |
0.91 |
|
Devario devario |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.13 |
0.25 |
0.00 |
0.63 |
0.00 |
0.20 |
0.10 |
|
Esomus danrica |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
1.06 |
0.00 |
0.21 |
0.11 |
|
Garra annandalei |
0.00 |
0.25 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.05 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.03 |
|
Garra gotyla |
1.49 |
0.56 |
14.84 |
3.19 |
13.50 |
6.72 |
2.87 |
11.56 |
1.49 |
0.00 |
0.06 |
3.20 |
4.96 |
|
Labeo fimbriatus |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
1.56 |
0.31 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.16 |
|
Tariqilabeo macmahoni |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.19 |
0.04 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.02 |
|
Laubuka laubuca |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.19 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.04 |
0.02 |
|
Neolissochilus hexagonolepis |
0.00 |
0.19 |
0.06 |
0.13 |
2.63 |
0.60 |
0.56 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.11 |
0.36 |
|
Opsarius barna |
0.00 |
0.25 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.05 |
0.06 |
0.06 |
0.25 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.08 |
0.06 |
|
Pethia conchonius |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
1.69 |
4.69 |
3.94 |
2.06 |
1.03 |
|
Pethia ticto |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.38 |
0.08 |
0.04 |
|
Puntius sophore |
0.19 |
0.06 |
3.66 |
2.13 |
0.69 |
1.34 |
1.25 |
0.75 |
1.25 |
30.00 |
5.38 |
7.73 |
4.53 |
|
Puntius terio |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.41 |
0.00 |
0.08 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.56 |
2.50 |
0.61 |
0.35 |
|
Rasbora daniconius |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.06 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
|
Schismatorhynchos nukta |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.13 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.03 |
0.01 |
|
Schizothorax progastus |
0.69 |
0.19 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.18 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.09 |
|
Schizothorax richardsonii |
2.96 |
0.33 |
0.00 |
1.75 |
0.25 |
1.06 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.53 |
|
Systomus sarana |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.06 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
|
Tor putitora |
0.06 |
0.00 |
3.37 |
1.00 |
0.50 |
0.99 |
1.03 |
0.81 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.37 |
0.68 |
|
Tor tor |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.06 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
|
Paracanthocobitis botia |
0.00 |
1.81 |
4.99 |
8.94 |
3.25 |
3.80 |
0.06 |
0.19 |
11.27 |
1.94 |
1.13 |
2.92 |
3.36 |
|
Physoschistura elongata |
0.00 |
1.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.69 |
0.34 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.17 |
|
Schistura beavani |
2.95 |
5.00 |
2.65 |
6.75 |
16.94 |
6.86 |
2.34 |
8.50 |
25.38 |
15.75 |
0.19 |
10.43 |
8.64 |
|
Schistura prashadi |
0.88 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.18 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.09 |
|
Schistura rupecula |
2.65 |
3.38 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
1.13 |
1.43 |
0.13 |
2.63 |
1.38 |
0.00 |
0.25 |
0.88 |
1.15 |
|
Schistura savona |
6.74 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
1.35 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.67 |
|
Psilorhynchus pseudecheneis |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.19 |
0.75 |
0.19 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.23 |
0.11 |
|
Channa gachua |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.69 |
4.00 |
3.63 |
1.66 |
0.83 |
|
Channa punctata |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.44 |
0.00 |
0.06 |
0.10 |
0.25 |
0.00 |
0.56 |
1.56 |
1.38 |
0.75 |
0.43 |
|
Amblyceps mangois |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.93 |
0.00 |
0.19 |
0.22 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
6.06 |
0.38 |
0.38 |
1.36 |
0.79 |
|
Mystus tengara |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.13 |
0.00 |
0.06 |
0.25 |
0.00 |
0.09 |
0.04 |
|
Mystus vittatus |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
1.19 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.24 |
0.12 |
|
Erethistes jerdoni |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.06 |
0.13 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.04 |
0.02 |
|
Glyptothorax kashmirensis |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.81 |
0.16 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.08 |
|
Glyptothorax telchitta |
0.69 |
0.88 |
0.47 |
6.00 |
3.31 |
2.27 |
0.25 |
0.44 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.14 |
1.20 |
|
Glyptothorax trilineatus |
0.65 |
0.50 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.23 |
0.56 |
0.94 |
0.00 |
0.06 |
0.00 |
0.31 |
0.27 |
|
Pseudecheneis sulcata |
0.95 |
0.56 |
0.00 |
0.69 |
1.00 |
0.64 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.32 |
|
Marcognathus pancalus |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
1.06 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.21 |
0.11 |
|
Mastacembelus armatus |
0.00 |
0.58 |
3.56 |
1.00 |
1.75 |
1.38 |
0.80 |
1.69 |
3.19 |
0.25 |
0.44 |
1.27 |
1.33 |
|
Total |
30.81 |
22.72 |
58.62 |
48.09 |
74.44 |
46.94 |
17.97 |
41.69 |
63.27 |
131.94 |
60.25 |
63.02 |
54.98 |
For
figures - - click here for full PDF
References
ADB (2018). Impact of Dams on Fish in the
Rivers of Nepal. 6 ADB
Avenue, Mandaluyong City, 1550 Metro Manila, Philippines, x+94pp. https://doi.org/10.22617/TCS189802
Allen, D.J.,
S. Molur & B.A. Daniel (2010). The Status and Distribution of
Freshwater Biodiversity in the Eastern Himalaya. IUCN, Cambridge, UK and Zoo
Outreach Organization, Coimbatore, India, vii+88 pp.
Arai, T.
& N. Chino (2012). Diverse migration strategy between freshwater and seawater habitats in
the freshwater eel genus Anguilla. Journal of Fish Biology 81(2):
442–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2012.03353.x
Barbarossa,
V., R.J. Schmitt, M.A.J. Huijbregts, C.
Zarfl, H. King & A.M. Schipper (2020). Impacts of current and future
large dams on the geographic range connectivity of freshwater fish worldwide. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences USA 117(7): 3648–3655. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1912776117
Barman, S.K.,
M. Kunda, S.K. Mazumder, M. Nahiduzzaman, P.P. Barman & S.K. Das (2021). Fish-diversity in the Kura River
of Bangladesh: Patterns and threats. Malaysian Applied Biology 50(3):
1–14. https://doi.org/10.55230/mabjournal.v50i3.2208
Baumgartner,
L.J. & A. Wibowo (2018). Addressing fish-passage issues at hydropower and irrigation
infrastructure projects in Indonesia. Marine and Freshwater Research
69(12): 1805–1813. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF18088
Berra, T.M.
(2007). Freshwater
Fish Distribution. The University of Chicago Press, USA, 606 pp.
Bhagat, R.P.
(2002). A check-list
of Fishes of Nepal. Medha 2(102–113): 102.
Bhatt, J.P.,
S. Tiwari & M.K. Pandit (2017). Environmental impact assessment of
river valley projects in upper Teesta basin of Eastern Himalaya with special
reference to fish conservation: a review. Impact Assessment and Project
Appraisal 35(4): 340–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2017.1354642
Bohada-Murillo,
M., G.J. Castaño-Villa & F.E. Fontúrbel (2021). Effects of dams on vertebrate
diversity: a global analysis. Diversity 13(11): 528. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110528
Caso, C.
& M.A. Gil (1988). The Gini-Simpson index of diversity: estimation in the stratified
sampling. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods 17(9):
2981–2995. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610928808829784
Chaturvedi,
M.C. (2012). Ganga-Brahmaputra-Meghna
waters: advances in development and management. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
London, New York, 407 pp.
Daga, V.S.,
V.M. Azevedo-Santos, F.M. Pelicice, P.M. Fearnside, G. Perbiche-Neves,L.R. Paschoal, D.C. Cavallari, J. Erickson, A. Ruocco
& I. Oliveira (2020). Water diversion in Brazil threatens biodiversity. Ambio 49(1):
165–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610928808829784
Davies, B.R.,
M. Thoms & M. Meador (1992). An assessment of the ecological impacts of
inter-basin water transfers, and their threats to river basin integrity and
conservation. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 2(4):
325–349. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3270020404
De Silva,
S.S., N.W. Abery & T.T. Nguyen (2007). Endemic freshwater finfish of
Asia: distribution and conservation status. Diversity and Distributions 13(2):
172–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2006.00311.x
Dowling, D.C.
& M.J. Wiley (1986). The effects of dissolved oxygen, temperature, and low stream flow on
fishes: a literature review. llinois Natural History Survey Technical Reports.
Aquatic Biology Section, 66 pp.
Dudgeon, D.,
A.H. Arthington, M.O. Gessner, Z.I. Kawabata, D.J. Knowler, C. Lévêque,R.J. Naiman, A.H. Prieur-Richard, D. Soto & M.L.
Stiassny (2006). Freshwater
biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological
reviews 81(2): 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793105006950
EIA (2011). Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) study of Bheri Babai Diversion Multipurpose Project Component ‘B’
Hydropower, 361 pp.
Eldho, P.S.
& M.K. Sajeevan (2022). Freshwater fishes of the Chimmony Wildlife Sanctuary, Western Ghats,
India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 14(6): 21190–21198. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7687.14.6.21190-21198
Fricke, R.,
W.N. Eschmeyer & R. Van der Laan (eds)(2023). Catalog of fishes: Genera,
Species, References. California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA,
USA. Available online at http://researcharchive.
calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp. Accessed on
4 May 2023.
Galib, S.M.,
M.A. Rashid, N. Chaki, A. Mohsin & M.A.R Joadder (2016). Seasonal variation and community
structure of fishes in the Mahananda River with special reference to
conservation issues. Journal of Fisheries 4(1): 325–334. https://doi.org/10.17017/jfish.v4i1.2016.139
G.C, P. &
J.H. Limbu (2019). Spatio-temporal variation of fish assemblages in Babai River of Dang
district, Province No. 5, Nepal. Our Nature 17(1): 19–30. https://doi.org/10.3126/on.v17i1.33988
GoN (2014). Nepal fifth national report
to Convention on Biological Diversity. Government of Nepal Ministry of
Forests and Soil Conservation Singha Durbar, Kathmandu, Nepal, 66 pp.
GoN (2019). Irrigation Master Plan 2019.
Government of Nepal, Department of Water Resources and Irrigation Ministry of
Energy, Water Resources, and Irrigation Singha Durbar, Kathmandu, Nepal, 106 pp.
GoN/BBDMP
(2018). Government
of Nepal. Babai Bheri Diversion Multipurpose Project. http://www.bbdmp.gov.np.
Accessed on 22 January 2018.
GoN/BIP
(2001). Government
of Nepal. Babai Irrigation Project. http://www.babaiip.gov.np. Accessed on 22
April 2021.
Granados-Dieseldorff,
P., M.F. Christensen & P.H. Kihn-Pineda (2012). Fishes from Lachuá lake, upper
Usumacinta basin, guatemala. Check List 8(1): 095–101. https://doi.org/10.15560/8.1.095
Gupta, S.
(2016). Feeding and
reproductive biology of Macrognathus pancalus (Hamilton, 1822), an
indigenous fish species of Indian subcontinent: A Review. International
Journal of Research in Fisheries and Aquaculture 6(1): 8–12.
Gurung, P.
& L. Bharati (2012). Downstream impacts of the Melamchi Inter-Basin Water Transfer Plan
(MIWTP) under current and future climate change projections. Hydro Nepal:
Journal of Water, Energy and Environment Special issue 23–29. https://doi.org/10.3126/hn.v11i1.7199
Gurung, T.B.
(2016). Role of
inland fishery and aquaculture for food and nutrition security in Nepal. Agriculture
& Food Security 5(1): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-016-0063-7
Gurung, T.B.,
A. Gurung & T.M. Doody (2016). Connecting flows, fish diversity and ecology in the
Koshi Basin. In T. Doody, S. Cuddy, & L. Bhatta (Eds.), Connecting flow
and ecology in Nepal: current state of knowledge for the Koshi Basin.
Sustainable Development Investment Portfolio (SDIP) project. CSIRO, Australia,
174 pp.
Havird, J.C.
& L.M. Page (2010). A revision of Lepidocephalichthys (Teleostei: Cobitidae) with
descriptions of two new species from Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, and Myanmar. Copeia
2010(1): 137–159. https://doi.org/10.1643/CI-08-240
Hossain,
M.Y., J. Ohtomi & Z.F. Ahmed (2009). Morphometric, meristic
characteristics and conservation of the threatened fish, Puntius sarana
(Hamilton, 1822)(Cyprinidae) in the Ganges River,
northwestern Bangladesh. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 9(2):
223–225. https://doi.org/10.4194/trjfas.2009.0215
WWF (2021). The World’s Forgotten Fishes.
WWF
International, Gland, Switzerland, 48 pp.
Islam, M.S.
& P. Dutta (2018). Food, feeding habit and reproductive biology of freshwater garfish (Xenentodon
cancila) from south-western Bangladesh: Implications to fishery management.
Journal of Fisheries and Life Sciences 3(2): 26–33.
Jain, A.K.,
M.N. Murty & P.J. Flynn (1999). Data clustering: a review. Association
for computing Machinery 31(3): 264–323. https://doi.org/10.1145/331499.331504
Jayaram, K.C.
(2010). The
Freshwater Fishes of the Indian Region. Second Edition.Narendra
Publishing House, Delhi, 616 pp.
Jha, B.R.
(2006). Fish
ecological studies and its application in assessing ecological integrity of
rivers in Nepal. PhD Thesis. Department of Biological Sciences and
Environmental Science
Kathmandu University Dhulikhel, Nepal, 301 pp.
Jha, B.R., H.
Waidbacher, S. Sharma & S. Michael (2006). Fish species composition, number
and abundance in different rivers and seasons in Nepal and the reevaluation of
their threat category for effective conservation and management. Ecology
Environment & Conservation 12(1): 25–36.
Jha, B.R., H.
Waidbacher, S. Sharma & M. Straif (2007). Fish base study of the impacts
of dams in different rivers of Nepal and its seasonal variations. Ultra
Science 18(1): 27–44.
Jha, B.R., S.
Gurung, K. Khatri, A. Gurung, A. Thapa, K. Mamta, B. Gurung & S. Acharya
(2018). Patterns of
diversity and conservation status of freshwater fishes in the glacial fed and
rain fed rivers of Eastern Nepal. Environmental Biology of Fishes 101(8):
1295–1305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-018-0776-5
Johnson, J.,
R. Parmar, K. Ramesh, S. Sen & R.S. Murthy (2012). Fish diversity and assemblage
structure in Ken River of Panna landscape, central India. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 3161–3172. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3024.3161-72
Johnson,
J.A., B. Dhawan & S. Kuppusamy (2021). Study on ecology and migratory
patterns of golden mahseer (Tor putitora) in river Ganga using Radio
telemetry techniques. Wildlife Institute of India, 47 pp.
Khadka, R.B.
& A.B. Khanal (2008). Environmental management plan (EMP) for Melamchi water supply project,
Nepal. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 146: 225–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-007-0074-8
Khan, M.R.,
B.A. Rakha & M.S. Ansari (2020). Diversity and Distribution of
Genera Schizothorax and Schizothorichthyes in River Swat, Pakistan. Pakistan
Journal of Zoology 52(6): 2419–2421. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjz/20180904060941
Khatri, K.,
B.R. Jha, S. Gurung & U.R. Khadka (2020). Freshwater fish diversity and
its conservation status in different water bodies of Nepal. Nepal Journal of
Environmental Science 8: 39–52. https://doi.org/10.3126/njes.v8i1.34442
Lal, K., R.
Singh, A. Pandey, B. Gupta, V. Mohindra, P. Punia, S. Dhawan, J. Verma, L.
Tyagi & P. Khare (2013). Distributional records of Tor mahseer, Tor tor (Hamilton,
1822) from Southern India. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 29(5):
1086–1090. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.12017
Levêque, C.,
T. Oberdorff, D. Paugy, M. Stiassny & P.A. Tedesco (2007). Global diversity of fish
(Pisces) in freshwater. In: Balian, E.V., C. Lévêque, H. Segers & K.
Martens (Eds.), Freshwater Animal Diversity Assessment. Developments in Hydrobiology 198:
545-567. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8259-7_53
Lynch, A.J.,
S.J. Cooke, A.M. Deines, S.D. Bower, D.B. Bunnell, I.G. Cowx, V.M. Nguyen,
J. Nohner, K. Phouthavong & B. Riley
(2016). The social,
economic, and environmental importance of inland fish and fisheries. Environmental
Reviews 24(2): 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2015-0064
McAllister,
D.E., J.F. Craig, N. Davidson, S. Delany & M. Seddon (2001). Biodiversity impacts of large
dams. IUCN / UNEP / WCD, 68 pp.
Mishra, Y.,
T. Nakamura, M.S. Babel, S. Ninsawat & S. Ochi (2018). Impact of Climate Change on
Water Resources of the Bheri River Basin, Nepal. Water 10(2): 220. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10020220
Mishra, Y.,
Babel, M. S., Nakamura, T., & Mishra, B. (2021). Impacts of Climate Change on
Irrigation Water Management in the Babai River Basin, Nepal. Hydrology
8(2): 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology8020085
Nelson, J.S.,
T.C. Grande & M.V. Wilson (2016). Fishes of the World. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, 707 pp.
Öztürk, M.,
V. Altay & R. Efe (2021). Biodiversity, conservation and sustainability in Asia: Prospects and
challenges in West Asia and Caucasu. Springer Cham, 655 pp.
Pandey, C.B.
(2002). A study on
the effect of Physico-chemical parameters on the Fish Fauna in the Bheri River.
MSc Thesis. Department of Zoology, Tribhuvan University, Nepal, viii+98 pp.
Park, J.M.,
R. Riedel, H.H. Ju & H.C. Choi (2020). Fish Assemblage Structure
Comparison between Freshwater and Estuarine Habitats in the Lower Nakdong
River, South Korea. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 8(7): 496.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8070496
Pathak, A.K.,
U.K. Sarkar & S.P. Singh (2014). Spatial gradients in freshwater
fish diversity, abundance and current pattern in the Himalayan region of Upper
Ganges Basin, India. Biodiversitas Journal of Biological Diversity 15(2):
186–194. https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d150210
Petr, T.
& D.B. Swar (2002). Cold Water Fisheries in the Trans-Himalayan Countries. Food
& Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations Rome, 352 pp.
Pielou, E.C.
(1966). The
measurement of diversity in different types of biological collections. Journal
of Theoretical Biology 13: 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(66)90013-0
Pinder, A.C.,
J.R. Britton, A.J. Harrison, P. Nautiyal, S.D. Bower, S.J. Cooke, S. Lockett,
M. Everard, U. Katwate & K. Ranjeet (2019). Mahseer (Tor spp.) fishes
of the world: status, challenges and opportunities for conservation. Reviews
in Fish Biology and Fisheries 29(2): 417–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-019-09566-y
Pittock, J.,
J.H. Meng & A.K. Chapagain (2009). Interbasin Water Transfers
and Water Scarcity in a Changing World: a solution or a pipedream? World
Wildlife Fund, Germany, 61 pp.
Prasad, A.,
A. Shrestha, J.H. Limbu & D. Swar (2020). Spatial and temporal variation
of fish assemblages in Seti Gandaki River, Tanahu, Nepal. Borneo Journal of
Resource Science and Technology 10(2): 93–104. https://doi.org/10.33736/bjrst.2048.2020
Quan, Y., C.
Wang, Y. Yan, G. Wu & H. Zhang (2016). Impact of inter-basin water
transfer projects on regional ecological security from a telecoupling
perspective. Sustainability 8(2): 162. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8020162
Rajbanshi,
K.G. (2002).
Zoo-geographical distribution and the status of coldwater fish of Nepal. In
T.D. Peter & D.B. Swar (Eds.), Cold water fishes of Trans-Himalayan
countries. F.A.O. Fisheries Technical Paper. No.431 (pp. 221–246).
Rajbanshi,
K.G. (2012). Biodiversity
and distribution of freshwater fishes of Central/Nepal Himalayan Region.
Nepal Fisheries Society (NEFIS), Balaju, Machhapokhari, Kathmandu, Nepal, 136
pp.
Rayamajhi, A.
& B.R. Jha (2010). Garra gotyla (errata version
published in 2018). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, 2010, e.T166526A135871930. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2010-4.RLTS.T166526A6228736.en
Reid, A.J.,
A.K. Carlson, I.F. Creed, E.J. Eliason, P.A. Gell, P.T.J. Johnson, K.A. Kidd,
T.J. MacCormack, J.D. Olden, S.J. Ormerod, J.P. Smol, W.W. Taylor, K. Tockner,
J.C. Vermaire, D. Dudgeon & S.J. Cooke (2019). Emerging threats and persistent
conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity. Biological Reviews
Cambridge Philosophical Society 94(3): 849–873. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12480
Sarkar, U.K.,
A.K. Pathak, R.K. Sinha, K. Sivakumar, A.K. Pandian, A. Pandey, V.K. Dubey
& W.S. Lakra (2012). Freshwater fish biodiversity in the River Ganga (India): changing
pattern, threats and conservation perspectives. Reviews in Fish Biology and
Fisheries 22(1): 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-011-9218-6
Saund, T.B.
& J. Shrestha (2007). Fish and Benthic Fauna in Kulekhani Reservoir, Makwanpur. Nepal
Journal of Science and Technology 8: 63–68.
Sedeño-Díaz,
J.E. & E. López-López (2013). Fresh water fish as sentinel organism: from the
molecular to the population level, a Review, pp. 151–173. In: Türker, H. (ed.). New Advances and
Contributions to Fish Biology IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/54825
Sharma, C.K.
(1977). River
systems of Nepal. Sharma. S, 23/281 Bishalnagar, Kathmandu, Nepal, 211 pp.
Sharma, C.M.
(2008). Freshwater
fishes, fisheries, and habitat prospects of Nepal. Aquatic Ecosystem Health
& Management 11(3): 289–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/14634980802317329
Sharma, R.C.
(2003). Protection
of an endangered fish Tor tor and Tor putitora population impacted by
transportation network in the area of Tehri dam project, Garhwal Himalaya,
India pp. 83-90. 2003 International Conference on Ecology and
Transportation (ICOET 2003), Lake Placid New York, United States, 688 pp.
http://www.icoet.net/downloads/03FishPassage.pdf
Shrestha,
B.C. (1999). Baseline
Report of Bheri–Babai Hydroelectric Project. Environment Impact Assessment
Stage–I, New Era/Nippon Koei/JICA Kathmandu, Nepal, 51 pp.
Shrestha, J.
(1981). Fishes of
Nepal. Curriculum Development Centre, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu,
Nepal, 318 pp.
Shrestha, J.
(1995). Enumeration
of the Fishes of Nepal. Biodiversity Profiles Project Publication No. 10.
Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Ministry of Forests and
Soil Conservation, His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, 4 pp.
Shrestha, J.
(1999). Coldwater
fish and fisheries in Nepal, pp. 13–40. In: Petr, T. (ed.). Fish and
Fisheries at Higher Altitudes. Asia. Food and Agriculture Organization
Fisheries Technical Paper No. 385, Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations, Rome, 304 pp.
Shrestha,
T.K. (2008). Ichthyology
of Nepal: a study of fishes of the Himalayan waters. Himalayan Ecosphere,
Kathmandu, Nepal, 388 pp.
Singh, G.
& N. Agarwal (2013). Fish diversity of Laster stream, a major tributary of river Mandakini
in Central Himalaya (India) with regard to altitude and habitat specificity of
fishes. Journal of Applied and Natural Science 5(2): 369–374.
https://doi.org/10.31018/jans.v5i2.334
Singh, R.
(2002). Fish biodiversity and fishery
resources of Babai River, Nepal. MSc Thesis. Department of Zoology, Tribhuvan
University, Nepal, vii+78 pp.
Spellerberg,
I.F. & P.J. Fedor (2003). A tribute to Claude Shannon (1916–2001) and a plea for more rigorous
use of species richness, species diversity and the ‘Shannon–Wiener’ Index. Global
Ecology and Biogeography 12(3): 177–179. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1466-822X.2003.00015.x
Spence, R.,
M. Fatema, M. Reichard, K. Huq, M. Wahab, Z. Ahmed & C. Smith (2006). The distribution and habitat
preferences of the zebrafish in Bangladesh. Journal of Fish Biology 69(5):
1435–1448. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2006.01206.x
Su, G., M.
Logez, J. Xu, S. Tao, S. Villéger & S. Brosse (2021). Human impacts on global
freshwater fish biodiversity. Science 371(6531): 835–838.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd3369
Suresh, V.,
B. Biswas, G.
Vinci, K. Mitra & A. Mukherjee (2006). Biology and fishery of barred
spiny eel, Macrognathus pancalus Hamilton. Acta Ichthyologica et Piscatoria 36(1):
31–37. https://doi.org/10.3750/AIP2006.36.1.05
Suwal, N., A.
Kuriqi, X. Huang, J. Delgado, D. Młyński & A. Walega (2020). Environmental Flows Assessment
in Nepal: The Case of Kaligandaki River. Sustainability 12(21): 8766. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218766
Tacon, A.G.
& M. Metian (2013). Fish matters: importance of aquatic foods in human nutrition and global
food supply. Reviews in fisheries Science 21(1): 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641262.2012.753405
Talwar, P.
& G. Jhingran (1991). Inland fisheries of India and adjacent countries. (Vol. 2). Oxford and IBH Publishing Company Pvt.
Limited, New Delhi, 1158 pp.
Thilsted, S.
& M. Wahab (2014). Production and conservation of nutrient-rich small fish (SIS) in ponds
and wetlands for nutrition security and livelihoods in South Asia. Dhaka,
Bangladesh, 47 pp.
Tien Bui, D.,
D. Talebpour Asl, E. Ghanavati, N. Al-Ansari, S. Khezri, K.
Chapi, A. Amini & B. Thai Pham
(2020). Effects of
inter-basin water transfer on water flow condition of destination basin. Sustainability
12(1): 338. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010338
Tornwall, B., E. Sokol, J.
Skelton & B.L. Brown (2015). Trends in stream biodiversity research since the
river continuum concept. Diversity 7(1): 16–35. https://doi.org/10.3390/d7010016
WECS (2011). Water resources of Nepal in
the context of Climate Change. Water and Energy Commission Secretariat,
Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, 67 pp.
WHO (2003). Diet, nutrition, and the
prevention of chronic diseases: report of a joint WHO/FAO expert consultation
(Vol. 916). World Health Organization. Geneva, Switzerland, 149 pp.
Winemiller,
K.O. & D.B. Jepsen (1998). Effects of seasonality and fish movement on tropical
river food webs. Journal of Fish Biology 53: 267–296.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1998.tb01032.x
WWAP (2009). United Nations World Water
Development Report 3: Water in a changing World. Paris: UNESCO, and London:
Earthscan, 318 pp.
Yadav, P., A.
Kumar, S.A. Hussain & S.K. Gupta (2020). Evaluation of the effect of
longitudinal connectivity in population genetic structure of endangered golden
mahseer, Tor putitora (Cyprinidae), in Himalayan rivers: Implications
for its conservation. PLoS One 15(6): e0234377. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234377
Zhu, X., J.
Wu, H. Nie, F. Guo, J. Wu, K. Chen, P. Liao, H. Xu & X. Zeng (2018). Quantitative assessment of the
impact of an inter-basin surface-water transfer project on the groundwater flow
and groundwater-dependent eco-environment in an oasis in arid northwestern
China. Hydrogeology Journal 26(5): 1475–1485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-018-1804-4
Zhuang, W. (2016). Eco-environmental impact of
inter-basin water transfer projects: a review. Environmental Science and
Pollution Research 23(13): 12867–12879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-6854-3