Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page


Table 3: Annual catch (tonnes) records from Padma River (Lower Ganges) upper and lower combined. From Department of Fisheries Annual Reports, Bangladesh. For explanation of categories, see text.


species

1983-84

1984-85

1985-86

1986-87

1987-88

1988-89

1989-90

1990-91

1991-92

1992-93

1993-94

1994-95

1995-96

1996-97

Total Major Carp

171

181

92

75

20

6

75

77

63

26

79

183

735

365

Total Hilsha

4 193

5 253

1 815

2 643

2 207

968

566

565

730

812

1 401

3 314

3 380

2 278

Total Big Shrimp

213

214

10

67

173

20

2

8

7

43

29

17

84

51

Total Other Carp

3

3

45

31

15

2

23

24

5

3

10

31

108

0

Total Cat Fish

869

1 041

268

413

122

82

51

126

58

108

308

733

3 033

1 240

Total Small Shrimp

135

144

63

171

203

180

27

138

57

85

254

676

451

376

Total Various

4 875

5 259

1 600

1 897

464

1 149

1 291

925

721

1152

2 152

2 356

3 436

2 177

Total Live Fish

29

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total Snake Head

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

0

0

9

0

24

2

Total Annual
Catch (tonnes)

10 488

12 095

3 893

5 297

3 204

2 407

2 035

1 867

1641

2 229

4 242

7 310

11 251

6 489

In the Padma itself, major carp catches have reached very low levels (Table 3) but it is notable that from 1994-97 up to 10 times more were caught. This coincides with stock enhancement programmes in the floodplain (Payne and Cowan 1995) with ‘escapes’ likely to have augmented the natural recruitment.

Overall catch per fishers is declining due partly to the growth in the population of fishers. As more people become landless, fishing becomes increasingly the only option. However, most people of the 80 million or so living on the floodplain fish at some time and at least 13 million people are part-time fishers.

The pattern of fishing along much of the Ganges is similar in that there is a major peak in the pre-monsoon season (May-July) and a second peak in the post-monsoon season (October-December). This largely coincides with the migratory movements of many fish species, particularly amongst the catfishes and cyprinids. Within these periods, peaks can be a little later at downstream sites. In fact, on the Yamuna the pre-monsoon peak can be as early as April (Payne and Temple 1996). The earlier upstream trigger for the pre-monsoon peak could be the first impact of snowmelt water from the mountains.

The largest single component of catches in the middle Ganges is the catfishes, which are mainly migratory. At the confluence of the Ganges with its major tributary, the Yamuna near Allahabad, a combination of catfishes and major carps (Cirrhrus mrigala, Labeo rohita, Catla catla, Labeo calbasu) accounts for over 30 percent of the catches throughout the year. The same is also mainly true for the main stem of the Ganges at Allahabad except the contribution of major carps is less and other types predominate on occasion. This pattern is true of the high water season in the vicinity of Patna and other types become more prominent in the low water season. In the Ganges (Padma) section of the delta in Bangladesh by far the most dominant species of the catch is hilsa (FAP17 1995), which can be 45-47 percent of the catch although this shows considerable annual variation (Table 3). Catfishes and major carps are much less prominent here.

In many ways, the major carps are key indicators of the Ganges system. They were originally a dominant group in the river and floodplain eco-system. They are amongst the most highly regarded of the fish species with respect to commercial value and also for aquaculture. In the first recorded survey of Gangetic fishes (Hamilton 1822), they are reported as “abounding” and “very common” in the rivers and tanks of the system. Even at this time, L. rohita was reputed to be cultured. Historical data (Table 2) indicate that since the early sixties the proportion of major carps in the catches around Allahabad (Jhingran 1991) was some 43.5 percent. It fell through the seventies and eighties until most recently it reached only 20.5 percent (Table 2). Similarly, around Patna the decline has been from around 27 percent to 4 percent of the catch (Table 2). Traditionally the major carps were plentiful in Bangladesh but the proportion currently recorded is only around 6 percent. Unfortunately, there is no good historical data for comparison but they have been just a few percent of the catch since 1982.

The most plentiful location for major carps is around the Yamuna/Ganges confluence, where size-able individuals of 7-8 kg are not unusual. Fishing down of an ecological community tends to lead to the elimination of the larger species first (de Graaf et al. 2001) and the selective market demand from Bengal and Calcutta must have enhanced this process. In addition, there is a considerable small-scale industry in trapping major carp larvae, which drift down the river after spawning to supply the large aquaculture industries of India and Bangladesh. There are a large number of fry catching stations along the Ganges either side of the border and in India alone, in order to stock 1.6 million ha of ponds and tanks approximately 32 billion major carp seed can be required. A decade or so ago only 10 percent of this was available from hatcheries and whilst this has increased over time, the catching of wild fry still continues. The natural mortality rate of fry is, of course, very high but it has to be considered that entrapment on this scale may contribute to the decline of the species and, most importantly, the spawning stock. The major carps are given some protection, for example, the Fish Act of Bangladesh specifies a minimum size for capture but it is difficult to enforce over the delta.

Another fish that has declined markedly in some areas is hilsa, particularly above the Farakka Barrage in the Indian sector. At Allahabad, which is around the highest point this anadramous species reaches in its migration, the proportion in the catch has declined from around 10 percent in 1956-66 to 5 percent by 72-76 to less than 1 percent by 93-95 (Table 2). At Patna, hilsa has declined even more dramatically (Kumar et al. 1987) and most recently has fallen from 12 percent in 1952-66 to around 1 percent by 1993-95 (Table 2). Just above Farakka, the total annual catch fell from 19 tonnes before the Barrage was finished in 1972, to 1 tonne (Chandra 1994). The fish are most plentiful from December to April at this point.

In Bangladesh, the total catch of hilsa has oscillated between 97 000 tonnes (1993) and 71 370 tonnes (1994) over the period 1984-1997, with an average of 85 700 tonnes (Rahman 2001). This is the product of three major rivers and their combined estuary and its contribution to overall catch is around 13 percent. The Ganges alone showed a reduction in the Bangladesh fishery, from 4 193 tonnes in 1983-84, to 968 tonnes in 1988-89 and generally constituted around 40-50 percent of the catch (Table 2). Whilst fish are present throughout the year, the peak in the Ganges (Padma) itself from July to November with a peak of mature fish in September (Payne and Temple 1996). The consenus in Bangladesh is that the hilsa stocks or fishery has shifted from inland to esturarine/coastal regions and that the catches are declining. However, like most of the riverine fisheries, they are diffuse and show considerable fluctuations so that keeping representative statistics is always a difficult task.

There has been much conjecture whether the populations of hilsa that are found in Bangladesh and India are homogenous (Rahman 2001) since this in an important point for their management. A recent genetic analysis of hilsa populations in Bangladesh has indicated that they belong to more than one gene pool (Rahman and Naerdal 2001).

Those species contributing most to the catch in lowland reaches are: the Schilbeids, Ailia coila (Hamilton), Clupisoma garua (Hamilton), the cyprinid Oxygaster spp; the catfishes, Rita rita (Hamilton), Mystus spp and Aorichthys aor (Hamilton); Setipinna phasa (Hamilton) and Aspidoparia morar (Hamilton). Despite the attention given to the major carps and hilsa, these species are now important components of catches in many areas and require more attention (Payne and Temple 1996).

Prawns can also be a major element of the catch and, at Patna, for example, can amount to 25 percent the weight of the total catch. This is of a similar order to that which can be found downstream in the Ganges in Bangladesh (FAP 17 1994). In addition, valuable Macrobrachium spp., the migrating freshwater prawn, can also be found throughout the delta and upstream as far as Patna. Prawns, however, are not taken in any numbers at Allahabad and it appears that the limit of these prawns lies between Varanassi and Allahabad. Where floodplains have been empoldered in Bangladesh it has been suggested that the relative increase of prawns in catches is an indicator of loss of biodiversity (de Graaf et al. 2001).

In the middle reaches of the Ganges between Allahabad and Patna, with its marked marginal floodplain, the floodplain resident species amount to between 1 and 5 percent by weight. On the floodplains of Bangladesh they constitute around 65 percent (FAP 17 1994). These “black fishes” (Welcomme 1985) such as Anabas spp, Mastacemblus spp and Channa spp have a remarkably resilient life cycle. Each year, the floodplains drain down and most dry season refuges are drained or fished intensively yet each following year their numbers bounce back. They probably have extreme r-selected population characteristics. As the fishing pressure builds up and more and more poor people enter the fishery, it is the remarkable characteristics of these small fishes that sustains the production and helps to keep poverty and malnutrition at bay.

There are linkages between the warm water lowland river and the cold upland communities. Low numbers of the mountain migratory mahseer, Tor tor, appear in lowland catches at Allahabad almost exclusively during the winter period of January to March when water temperatures are between 17 and 22 °C. They are also recorded at Patna. These individuals probably represent the extremity of the downstream migration of mahseer from the northern tributaries of the Gogra, Gandaki and Kosi (Figure 1) from the Himalayas. The disappearance of the fish in March will mark the start of their upstream migration to spawn in the streams and tributaries of the mountains. The situation is probably complicated, however, by the existence of barrages across all three northern tributaries at the Indo-Nepal border. The opening of the gates causes fish to be swept downstream (Sinha pers. comm.). There is also the possibility of these and other barrages causing isolated populations as they have with the Gangetic dolphin, Platanista gangetica (Smith 1991). Tor tor does also occur in some of the southern tributaries, including the Tons, the Ven and the Paisuni, as they descend from the central shield.

There are also linkages of the middle reaches of the Ganges with the estuary in addition to that for hilsa. The giant river catfish, Pangasius pangasius is known to make long distance movements upstream from estuaries where the non-breeding adults tend to reside and feed. This has been recorded at sites on the Yamuna at Allahabad largely between December and March although not yet at Patna, en route for the estuary. It is quite plentiful in catches from the Ganges in Bangladesh where, in fact, it amounts to 8 percent of the annual catch (FAP 17 1994). The species may be less prominent than in earlier times when a significant fishery for it occurred in the Gangetic estuarine areas during July and August (Talwar and Jhingran. 1991). In the Mekong P. pangasius is recorded as migrating up to 1 000 km upstream from the estuary (Lowe-McConnell 1975). Allahabad is some 1 200 km from the estuary.

DISCUSSION

The aquatic systems of the Basin are diverse and productive. Already the resources are under pressure from human intervention and this is likely to increase in future. The current population of the Basin is around 500 million, which by 2031 could increase to over a billion, almost half of which could be below the poverty line (Chapman 1995). Perhaps the greatest single impact at present is for the diversion and storage of water from the river for irrigation. The annual run-off into the Ganges Basin is approximately 469 billion m3. Of this, an estimated 85 billion m3 is diverted by barrages, either into canal systems for irrigation and storage or for hydroelectric schemes. Of this diverted water, 60 percent is accounted for by canal projects (Natarajan 1989). Every major tributary has at least one barrage across it. On each northern tributary from Nepal there are barrages at the border region with India. Near Hardwar, the water of the main stem of the Ganges is diverted by a major barrage into the Upper Ganga Canal that was built in 1854 and is largely used to irrigate 3.7 million ha of land with some electricity is also being generated. The main stem, below the barrage is reduced to a very low flow through much of the year.

This system of barrages greatly compartmentalises the ecosystem and certainly presents major barriers to migrations of fish, which may have a general effect on fish distribution as described elsewhere (Linfield 1985). They represent an artificial demarcation between the upland and lowland systems of the Ganges and, to some extent; they must act as sediment traps. In other cases, the presence of barrages can accentuate problems of pollution by reducing downstream flows for effluent disposal, particularly in the dry season, which can produce chemical barriers to fish distribution (Natarajan 1989; Temple and Payne 1995). There will be continued pressure to increase the area of croplands under irrigation within the lowland areas, as it is a principal means whereby crop production can keep up with population increases in future. A significant proportion of water diverted for irrigation is returned to the river although at a lower quality. The influence of micro-pollutants, which are related to the extent of the use of agro-chemicals, is uncertain but is likely to increase as the pressure to intensify agricultural production proceeds.

In the Indian sector alone, more than 150 000 km2 of the Ganges Basin is irrigated using some 85 000 m3 of river water and 49 500 m3 of groundwater but this, as in most irrigation systems, has led to extensive problems of soil salinisation. As a result the salt load of the returning irrigation water over 6.3 million tonnes of salt are estimated to be added to the water annually (CPCB 1984). However, observations on conductivity levels in the main river suggest this has yet to have major effects on the salt concentration of the river as a whole (Table 1).

The largest barrage of all is Farakka. This was completed in 1975 and was built without consultation with the downstream user state, Bangladesh (or East Pakistan as it was until 1972), the border of which is 17 km downstream. The barrage is designed to regulate river water discharge and to divert a major part of the dry season flow along the Hooghly Canal towards the Bhagirathi - Hooghly and Calcutta rivers. There are also other barriers beyond the canal on the Baghirati itself. In 1995 a formal water sharing agreement was made between India and Bangladesh that agreed to minimum downstream flows and ensures annual meetings to discuss issues between the states.

The impact of the Farakka Barrage complex upon the system would seem to include a progressive reduction in the significance of the hilsa fishery upstream of the Barrage (Table 2) as the route from the estuary via the Bhagirathi arm has been impeded. A further possible effect is that the reduction in flow down the Ganges (Padma) below Farakka allows greater incursions of tidal saline water into the southwestern region of Bangladesh, thereby reducing suitable land and water for agriculture (Islam 1992). It is, however, difficult to substantiate in this dynamic fluctuating tidal environment with great annual variations, mainly because of a lack of historical, baseline data. This indicates the importance of good pre and post implementation studies around such structures. As it is, the estuarine hilsa fishery of the Bangladesh delta seems to be maintained.

Within the delta of Bangladesh the principal process of compartmentalisation is not of the river itself but of the floodplains to facilitate the cultivation of rice. Some 40 percent of the floodplain has been modified by empolderment for flood control and irrigation. This has led to a compartmentalisation of distribution of fish particularly the migratory “white fishes” which includes all the major carps. As elsewhere in the Ganges Basin (Tables 2 and 3) the catches of major carp have declined markedly in Bangladesh, for example, the major carp portion of the catch on Seimanganj floodplain declined from 66.4 percent in 1967 to 13 percent by 1984 (Tsai and Ali 1985).

The compartmentalisation of the floodplains may well have contributed to this. A systematic investigation of the impacts of flood control and irrigation schemes on fisheries showed that under conditions of complete flood control reductions could be 81 percent. Under controlled flooding or partial empolderment there is no significant difference in catch with averages of 100-110 kg ha -1 inside and out (FAP 17 1994; de Graaf et al. 2001). What does happen, however, is that there is a reduction in bio-diversity within polders of 19-25 percent but, most significantly, a reduction in migratory species up to 95 percent with the main emphasis being on the small floodplain resident species or black fishes. Given the fishing effort that can be deployed on these species in compartments during the dry season, their regular resurgence indicates very resilient life cycle strategies. Up to 59 percent of annual variance in catches can be due to effort under these circumstances (de Graaf et al. 2001).

To contrast this loss of species and valuable elements of the catch as well as to boost recruitment into local populations, major interventions are being undertaken on the floodplains of Bangladesh to redress the situation, either by direct stock enhancement with fry or juveniles (Jhingran 1997; Payne and Cowan 1998) or through habitat improvement and restoration (Payne and Cowan 1998). In the largest scale intervention, 60 000 ha were stocked with 50 million carp fingerlings, a mixture of indigenous major carps, Chinese and common carps, over five years which resulted in an incremental fish production of 20 811 tonnes (Payne and Cowan 1998). There is also evidence that recruitment has been augmented in the wider river populations (Table 3). Stocking interventions, however, may be accompanied by undesirable social consequences including the further exclusion of poor and vulnerable groups from participation in a fishery that has increased in value.

As well as enhancement, recruitment may be increased by such processes as habitat restoration. An exercise in habitat restoration which focussed on the clearing of silted channels connecting floodplains to the main river channel increased the proportion of migratory species caught subsequently, including major carp from 2 percent of the catch to 24 percent, and increased the yield 6-fold, from 1860 kg to 11 384 kg per year throughout the study area (CNRS 1995). In these ways, some of the impacts of compartmentalisation of the floodplains are being addressed in the delta in a continuing fashion but many problems remain, particularly regarding management and governance issues.

In the upland areas of the basin in Nepal, the greatest impacts are said to be due to erosion and increased sediment load from deforestation and from the need to impound water for hydropower generation. The extent of forest removal and increased erosion, however, is difficult to assess. There is evidence that deforestation is a long-term, historical process that may not have accelerated greatly in recent times (Messerli and Hofer 1995). It has also been shown that for a basin the size of the Ganges, the sediment delivery ratio is less than 10 percent and that consequently the main channel carries only a modest amount of sediment from the mountains and that, consequently, anthropogenic influences in the mountains have only a limited impact on the plains (Hamilton 1987). It is possible that most of the sediment in the main river comes from storage places and channel erosion (Messerli and Hofer 1995).

The other feature of upper basin use is the harnessing of the rivers for hydropower. Nepal has a great potential for hydropower but as yet only 0.27 percent of its assessed potential is being employed. The rather scattered nature of its own population renders micro projects and run-of-the river schemes good options for domestic generation but the export potential of electricity to northern India and beyond is a commercial imperative. Generating electricity on this scale seems to involve large storage dams which have a number of negative impacts including, as a barrier to fish distribution, possible resettlement of displaced people, disturbance of fragile environments both at the site and downstream and the need to provide roads and services. The upland rivers certainly have a significance in the rural economies, which has been under-estimated, and it is, therefore, essential that proper evaluations be carried out on the advantages and disadvantages. Under ideal circumstances run-of-the-river projects can avoid many of the environmental disadvantages of storage dams but cases can be seen in Nepal where all the water of the river passes down the adduction tunnel with negligible flow remaining between inlet and outlet. This can provide as much a barrier to fish and navigation as a dam wall. Proper planning and management is required.

Other anthropogenic effects in the basin include pollution. At present, it is of local significance and largely a feature of the Lower Basin where urbanisation and industrialisation are proceeding. The Ganges Basin is reported to carry some 200 tonnes of biological oxygen demand (BOD) per day gross pollution. However, it is still relatively localised and focussed on urban centres including Hardwar, Kanpur, Varanasi and Diamond Harbour near Calcutta (Kumra 1995). In addition, the national capitals of New Dehli and Dhaka both have significant impacts. The dry, low water season poses the greatest problems of dilution and dispersal of pollutants. Probably the worst section is between Kanpur and Allahabad largely due to discharges from the industries of Kanpur, which include tanneries, metalworking and dairies. This appears to be related to the decline in catch of fisherfolk from 30-40 kg to 15 kg per day downstream of the town (Kumra 1995). Elsewhere, although loads can be quite high, the river disperses them quite rapidly. Even at Varanassi, the main effluent plume is confined to near the city and the river recovers some 20 km downstream. Nevertheless, national governments are concerned and the government of India has been implementing the Ganga Action Plan to start cleaning up the river and preventing it from becoming worse whilst in Bangladesh, the Global Environment Fund is promoting pollution protection. At least at Patna, general water quality has recently improved with, for example, BOD being cut by 75 percent over a decade (Payne and Temple 1996).

In general, the status of the Ganges Basin reflects the transitional nature of the economies of the constituent states. In developed countries, the greatest problems are commonly gross domestic and industrial pollution and abstraction whilst in developing countries it is frequently degradation of the basin through inappropriate land use, erosion and habitat loss. All of these processes are occurring in the Ganges and probably provides a number of case studies and lessons to learn for basins currently occupied by poorer states as their economic condition improves with development. There is, however, no overall management concept for the international basin as a whole. There is no international basin management authority such as exists on the Mekong with the Mekong River Commission and no regular fora for making basin-wide management decisions or for regularly sharing information. Critical information on hydrology and satellite imagery can often be classified for security reasons. Using basin-wide data can add dimensions to predictability and management options. For example, using upstream Indian rainfall data in relation to time series of Bangladesh catch data can help predict the likely impact on fish yields three years later (Payne and Temple 1996). Taking into account all data on the fishes, the fishing communities and development needs it is possible to plan for fisheries management across Asian river basins including the Ganges (Hoggarth et al. 1999). A basin-wide approach to management is essential for the economic and environmental sustainability of such large river systems.

REFERENCES

Ahmed S.H., & Singh A.K. 1990. Scope, prospects, problem and development of floodplains Chauro of Bihar for fish production. Fishing Chimes Patna, November 1990.

Ahmed S.H., & Singh A.K. 1991. River systems of Bihar: Scope prospects, potentialities and conservation of capture fisheries. Fishing Chimes Patna, November 1991: 51-56.

Bhatt S.D. & Pathak J.K. 1992. Himalayan environment: Water quality of the drainage basins. Almora, India, Shree Almora Book Depot. 318 pp.

Bilgrami K.S. & Dalta Munshi J.S. 1985. Ecology of the River Ganges: Impact of human activities and conservation of aquatic biota Patna to Farukka. Final Technical Report. Bhagalpur, India, Bhagalpur University. 104 pp.

BWDB 1986. Bangladesh water resources and demands for the year 2025. C.F. Tsai M. Youssouf Ali, eds. Dhaka, Government of Bangladesh Water Development Board, The University Press Ltd. pp. 199-212

Chandra R. 1994. Some endangered, vulnerable and rare miscellaneous fishes of the Ganga River System: Hilsa ilisha and Setipinua phasa. Barrackpore, India, Central Inland Capture Fisheries Resource Institute. pp. 7-11.

Chapman G.P. 1995. The Ganges plains. In G.P. Chapman & M. Thompson, eds. Water and the quest for sustainable development in the Ganges Valley. London, Mansfield Publishing. pp. 113-129.

Chapman G.P. 1995. The Ganges and Brahmaputra Basins. In G.P. Chapman & M. Thompson, eds. Water and the quest for sustainable development in the Ganges Valley. London, Mansfield Publishing. pp. 3-24.

CNRS. 1995. Community-based fishing management and habitat restoration project, Annual Report. July 1994-June 1995.

CPCB. 1984. Basin sub-basin inventory of water pollution. The Ganga Basin Part I. New Dehli, Central Board for the Prevention of and Control of Water Pollution CPCB, Department of Environment. 204 pp.

Cumming D. 1993. World river series: Ganges. London, Wayland Publishers Ltd.

DOF. 1991. 1998 Fish catch statistics of Bangladesh 1990-91. Dhaka, Department of Fisheries, Government of Bangladesh.

FAP 17. 1994. Flood control action plan, study 17. Dhaka, Fisheries Studies and Pilot Project. Final Report. Government of Bangladesh/ODA. 197 pp.

De Graaf G., Born B., Kemal Uddin A.M. & Martin F. 2001. Floods, fish and fishermen. Dhaka, The University Press Ltd. 110 pp.

Hamilton F. 1822. An account of the fishes found in the River Ganges and its branches. Edinburgh, UK, Constable and Co. 405 pp.

Hamilton L.S. 1987. What are the impacts of Himalayan deforestation on the Ganges - Brahmaputra Lowlands and Delta? Assumptions and facts. Mountain Research and Development, 1: 256-263.

Hoggarth D.D., Cowan V.J., Halls A.S., Aeron-Thomas M., McGregor J.A., Garaway C. A., Payne A.I. & Welcomme R.L. 1999. Management guidelines for Asian floodplain river fisheries. Rome, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 384. Part 1, 63 pp., Part 2, 117 pp.

Islam N. 1992. Indo-Bangladesh common rivers: The impact on Bangladesh. Contemporary South Asia, 1: 203-225.

Jha P.K. 1992. Environment and man in Nepal. Know Nepal Series No. 5. Bangkok, Craftsman Press, 110 pp.

Jhingram A.G. 1997. Stock enhancement in the floodplain fisheries of northeastern Bangladesh. In C. Tsai & M.Y. Ali, eds. Openwater fisheries of Bangladesh. Dhaka, The University Press Ltd. pp. 183-198.

Jhingram V.G. 1991. Fish and fisheries of India, revised and enlarged third edition. New Dehli, Hindustan Publishing Corp. 727 pp.

Khan H.A. & Kamal, M.Y. 1980. On a collection of fish from the Kosi Bihar. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 76: 530-534.

Kumar D., Chitranshi V.R. & Singh M.P. 1987. Fishery of the River Ganga around Patna and its conservation. Symposium on the impact of current land use pattern and water resources development. Barrackpore, India, Central Inland Capture Fish. Resource Institute. 77 pp.

Kumra V.K. 1995. Water quality in the River Ganges. In G.P. Chapman & M. Thompson, eds. Water and the quest for sustainable development in the Ganges Valley. London, Mansell Publishing Ltd. pp. 130-140.

Linfield R.J. 1985. An alternative concept to home range theory with respect to populations of appinids in major river systems. J. Fish Biol., 27: Suppl. A187-196.

Lowe-McConnell R.H. 1975. Fish Communities in tropical freshwaters. London, Longmans Ltd. 337 pp.

Messerli B. & Hofer T. 1995. Assessing the impact of anthropogenic land use change in the Himalayas. In G.P. Chapman & M. Thompson, eds. Water and the quest for sustainable development in the Ganges Valley. London, Mansell Publishing Ltd.

Natarajan A.V. 1989. Environmental impact of Ganga Basin development on the gene pool and fisheries of the Ganga River system. In D.P. Dodge ed. Proceedings of the international large rivers symposium. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 106: 545-560.

Negi S.S. 1994. Himalaya fishes and fisheries. New Dehli, Ashish Publishing. 291 pp.

ODA. 1997. Impacts of flood control and drainage with or without irrigation FCD/I projects on fish resources of fishing communities in Bangladesh. Executive Summary of Final Report, FAP17.

Payne A.I. & Cowan V.J. 1998. Review of stock enhancement in the floodplains of Bangladesh. In J. Petr ed. FAO/DFID Expert Consultation on Inland Fisheries Enhancements. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 374. Rome, FAO. pp. 153-158.

Payne A.I. & Temple S.A. 1996. River and floodplain fisheries in the Ganges Basin. Final Report. DFID Fisheries Management Science Programme R 5485, London, MRAG Ltd. 177 pp.

Rahman M.J. 2001. Population biology and management of Hilsa strand, Tenualosa ilisha. Bangladesh. University of Hull, UK. 252 pp. (Doctoral dissertation)

Rahman M.A. & Naerdal G. 2000. Population Genetic Studies of Hilsa strand, Tenualosa ilisha Hamilton in Bangladesh waters: Evidence of the existence of separate gene pools. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 7: 401-411.

Rahwan A.K.A. 1989. Freshwater fishes of Bangladesh. Dhaka, Zoological Society of Bangladesh. 364 pp.

Sharma R.C. 1984. Ichltyofauna of the snow fed River Bhagirathi of Garhwal Himalayas. Uttar Pradesh J. Zool., 4: 208-212.

Sharma R.C. 1988. Fish and fisheries of the snow fed River Bhagirathi of Garhwal Himalayas. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. India, 58 B 4: 181-192.

Shrestha T.K. 1990. Rare fishes of the Himalayan waters of Nepal. J. Fish Biol., 37: Suppl. A213-216.

Shrestha T.K. 1979. Techniques of fishing in Nepal: Innovation and development of loop line sharing. J. Museum of Natural History, Tribuvan University, Kathmandu, 3: 121-138.

Shrestha J. 1978. Fish Fauna of Nepal. J. Museum of Natural History, Tribuvan University, Kathmandu, 2: 33-43.

Shrestha J. 1994. Fishes, fishing implements and methods of Nepal. Gwalior, India, Gupta Publishing. 150 pp.

Singh H.R., Badala, S.P. & Dobriyal A.K. 1987. Geographical distribution list of ichthyofauna of the Garhwal Himalaya with some new records. J. Bombay, Nat. Hist. Soc., 84: 126-132.

Sioli H. 1964. General Features of the Limnology of Amazonia. Int. Ver. Theor. Agnew. Limnol., 15: 1053-8.

Smith B.D. 1991. Status and conservation of the Ganges River dolphin, Platanista gangetica in the Karnali River, Nepal. Biological Conservation, 66: 159-169.

Talwar P.K. 1991. Pisces. In Fluvial Resources of the Ganga, Part I. New Dehli, Government of India. pp. 59-145.

Temple S.A. & Payne A.I. 1995. The Ganges Basin: An overview for fisheries. London, DFID Fisheries Management Science Programme, MRAG Ltd. 362 pp.

Tsai C. & Ali L. 1985. Open water fisheries carp management programme in Bangladesh. Fisheries Information Bulletin, 24: 51 pp.

Welcomme R.L. 1974. Some general and theoretical considerations of the fish production of African rivers. CIFAOccasional Paper 3. Rome, FAO, 26 pp.

Welcomme R.L. 1985. River fisheries. Fish Technical Paper 202. Rome, FAO, 330 pp.

APPENDIX 1. COMPONENT FISH SPECIES AT VARIOUS SITES DOWN THE GANGES BASIN

Key:



1. Alaknanda River

altitude 460-1500 m

(Singh et al. 1987)

2. Upper Ganga River, Garhwal

altitude 70-600 m

(Singh et al. 1987)

3. Kosi River

altitude 70-600 m

(Khan and Kamal 1980)

4. Allahabad fishery

altitude 82 m


5. Patna fishery

altitude 37 m


6. Padma River Bangladesh (Ganges)

altitude 30 m

(FAP 17 1994)


FAMILY NAME

SCIENTIFIC NAME

River Sectors (see Key)

1

2

3

4

5

6

CYPRINIDS








CYPRIDIDAE

Schizothorax richardsonii

v

v

v




Schizothorax sinuatus

v

v





Schizothorax plagiostomus

v

v





Schizothorax curvifrons

v

v





Schizothorax niger

v

v





Schizothorax intermedius

v

v





Schizothorax micropogon

v

v





Schizothoraichthys esocinus

v

v





Schizothorax annandalei



v




Tor tor

v

v


v



Tor pititora

v

v

v




Tor chilinoides

v

v





Crossocheilus latius

v

v

v


v

v

Lissocheilus hexagonalepis



v




Raiamas (Barilius) bola

v

v




v

Barilius everzardi






v

Barilius bendelisis

v

v





Barilius barna

v

v

v




Barilius barila

v

v

v




Barilius vagra

v

v

v




Barilius shacra


v

v




Garra prashadi

v

v





Garra lamta

v

v

v




Garra annandalei



v




Chagunius chagunio

v

v

v


v


Danio aequipinnatus


v

v




Danio dengila



v




Danio devario

v

v

v



v

Brachydanio rerio


v




v

Rasbora daniconius


v

v




Labeo dero

v

v

v




Labeo dyocheilus

v

v





Labeo boga


v

v



v

Labeo bata



v

v

v

v

Labeo calbasu



v

v

v

v

Labeo angra



v




Labeo pangusia



v




Labeo gonius



v

v

v

v

Labeo sindensis



v




Labeo rohita



v


v

v

Catla catla



v


v

v

Cirrhinus mrigala



v


v

v

Cirrhinus reba



v


v

v

Aspidoparia jaya



v


v


Aspidoparia morar



v

v

v

v

Puntius chilinoides



v




Puntius chola


v

v



v

Puntius clavatus



v




Puntius conchonius


v

v



v

Puntius guganio






v

Puntius gelius



v



v

Puntius sarana


v

v


v

v

Puntius sophore


v

v


v

v

Puntius ticto


v

v


v

v

Puntius phuntunio


v




v

Puntius terio






v

Puntius spp




v



Ablypharygodon mola



v


v

v

Chela laubuca



v


v

v

Chela cochius






v

Oxygaster argentea



v




Oxygaster bacaila



v

v

v

v

Oxygaster gora



v




Oxygaster phulo



v



v

Esomus danricus


v




v

Osteobrama cotio



v

v

v

v

PSILORHYNCHIDAE

Psilorhynchus pseudechensis



v




Psilorhynchus balitora






v

HOMALOPTERIDAE

Balitora brucei



v




COBITIDAE

Botia dayi



v




Botia dario







Botia historionica

v

v



v

v

Botia lohachata



v




Botia geto

v






Noemacheilus botia


v

v



v

Noemacheilus montanus

v

v





Noemacheilus rupicola

v

v

v




Noemacheilus bevani

v

v





Noemacheilus savona

v

v

v




Noemacheilus multifasciatus

v

v





Noemacheilus scaturigina


v

v




Noemacheilus zonatus

v






Noemacheilus corica







Lepidocephalus guntea

v

v

v


v

v

Acanthophthalmus pangia



v




Lepidocephalus annandalei



v




AMPHIPUOIDAE

Amphipnous cuchia



v



v

CATFISHES








AMBLYCEPTIDAE

Amblyceps mangois

v

v

v




SISORIDAE

Glyptothorax cavia

v

v

v




Glyptothorax pectinopterus

v

v





Glyptothorax madraspatanum

v






Glyptothorax annandalei



v




Glyptothorax horai



v




Glyptothorax telchitta



v


v

v

Glyptothorax trilineatus

v






Glyptothorax brevipinnis

v

v





Glyptothorax conirostris

v

v





Pseudecheneis sulcatus

v

v

v




Hara jerdoni







Hara hara







Bagarius bagarius



v

v

v

v

Gagata cenia



v

v

v

v

Gagata nangra



v



v

Gagata viridescens



v



v

Gagata youssouli






v

SCHILBEIDAE

Clupisoma montana



v




Clupisoma garua

v

v

v

v

v

v

Clupisoma naziri






v

Eutropichthys vacha



v

v

v

v

Ailia coila



v

v

v

v

Pseudeutropius atherinoides



v


v

v

PANGASHDAE

Silonia silondia



v

v

v

v

Pangasius pangasius




v


v

BAGRIDAE

Aorichthys aor



v

v

v

v

Aorichthys seenghala



v


v

v

Mystus bleekeri



v



v

Mystus cavasius





v

v

Mystus vittatus


v

v


v

v

Mystus tengra




v

v

v

Rita rita



v


v

v

Leiocassis rama



v

v



SILURIDAE

Wallago attu



v

v

v

v

Ompok bimaculatus






v

Ompok pabda





v

v

HETEROPNEUSTIDAE

Heteropneustes fossilis



v


v

v

CLARIIDAE

Clarias batrachus



v


v

v

CLUPEIFORMES








(Herrings)








NOTOPTERIDAE

Notopterus notopterus



v

v

v


Notopterus chitala




v

v

v

ENGRAULIDAE

Setipinnia phasa



v

v

v

v

CLUPEIDAE

Gudusia chapra



v

v

v

v

Hilsa ilisha




v

v

v

Corica soborna






v

MASTACEMBELIDAE

Mastacembelus armatus


v

v

v

v

v

Macrognathus aculeatus



v


v

v

CHANNIDAE

Channa punctatus



v

v

v

v

Channa striatus



v


v

v

Channa marulius



v


v

v

Channa orientalis



v



v

Channa gachua


v





MUGILIDAE

Rhinomugil corsula



v

v

v

v

Sicamugil cascasia





v

v

Liza parsia






v

BELONIDAE

Xenentodon cancila



v

v

v

v

CYPRINODONTIDAE

Aplocheilus panchax



v



v

GOBIIDAE

Glossogobius giuris



v


v

v

Brachygobius nununs






v

Awaous stamineus






v

Apocryptes bato







ANABANTIDAE

Colisa fasciatus



v

v


v

Colisa lalia



v



v

Colisa sota






v

Colisa labiosus






v

Anabas testudineus





v

v

CENTROPOMIDAE

Chanda nama



v


v

v

Chanda ranga



v



v

Chanda baculis






v

NANDIDAE

Nandus nandus



v




PRISTOLEPIDAE

Badis badis






v

SCIAENIDAE

Sciaena coitor



v

v

v

v

Pama pama






v

CYNOGLOSSIDAE

Cynoglossus






v

Euryglossapan






v

TETRAODONTIODAE

Tetraodon cutcutia



v


v

v

TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES

161

41

54

103

30

56

93


Previous Page Top of Page Next Page