Fishes of River Bharathapuzha, Kerala, India: diversity, distribution,
threats and conservation
A. Bijukumar 1, Siby Philip 2, Anvar Ali 3,
S. Sushama 4 & Rajeev Raghavan5
1 Department of Aquatic Biology and Fisheries,
University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 695581, India
2 Department of Zoology, Nirmalagiri
College, Koothuparamba, Kerala 670701, India
2,3,5 Conservation Research Group (CRG), St.
Albert’s College, Kochi, Kerala 682018, India
4 Department of Zoology, N.S.S. College,
Ottapalam, Kerala 679103, India
5 Zoo Outreach Organization (ZOO), 96,
Kumudham Nagar, Vilankurichi Road, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641035, India
1 abiju@rediffmail.com, 2 siby@conservationresearchgroup.org, 3 anvaraliif@gmail.com, 4 sumakrishnan3@yahoo.com,5 rajeevraq@hotmail.com (corresponding author)
Abstract: We present here a comprehensive account
of the diversity, distribution, threats, and suggest conservation measures for
the fishes of Bharathapuzha, the largest west flowing river in the southern
Indian state of Kerala. A total of 117 species under 43 families and 81 genera
were recorded from the river, of which 98 were primary freshwater and 19 were
secondary freshwater and/or diadromous species. Six species of non-native fish
were also recorded, of which three were exotic to the country and three were
transplanted from the gangetic plains. Twenty-eight percent (S = 33) of species
that occur in the Bharathapuzha are endemic to the Western Ghats, while three
species (Balitora jalpalli, Mesonoemacheilus remadevii and Pseudolaguvia
austrina) are restricted in their distribution to the river system. A
little more than one-tenth (11%; S = 13) of species that occur in the river are
listed under various threatened categories on the IUCN Red List. As part of
this study, we also extend the distribution range of Osteochilichthys
longidorsalis to the Bharathapuzha River system, based on its collection
from the Thoothapuzha tributary. Several anthropogenic stressors including
deforestation and loss of riparian cover, dams and other impoundments,
pollution, sand mining, non-native species and destructive fishing practices
are threatening the rich ichthyofaunal diversity and endemism in the
Bharathapuzha. There is hence an urgent need to develop and implement
conservation plans, some of which are discussed.
Keywords: Osteochilichthys longidorsalis, Nila, river conservation, Silent
Valley National Park, Western Ghats.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3640.4979-93 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:724397D3-D300-46AF-9CC2-ABDF419384E2
Editor: Anonymity requested. Date of publication: 26
November 2013 (online & print)
Manuscript details: Ms # o3640 | Received 26 May
2013 | Final received 08 November 2013 | Finally accepted 10 November 2013
Citation: Bijukumar, A., S.
Philip, A. Ali, S. Sushama & R. Raghavan (2013). Fishes
of River Bharathapuzha, Kerala, India: diversity, distribution, threats and
conservation. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 5(15): 4979–4993; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3640.4979-93
Copyright: © Bijukumar et al. 2013. Creative Commons
Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article
in any medium, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to
the authors and the source of publication.
Funding: A. Bijukumar
thanks the Department of Science, Engineering and Research Council (SERC), Govt
of India (No. SR/FT/L-21/2003) and the University Grants Commission (UGC)
(No.F.1.15/97 (MINOR/SRO) for financial assistance. Rajeev Raghavan thanks the
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) - Western Ghats Program through the
Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and Environment (ATREE), Bangaluru, India
for funding.
Competing Interest: The authors declare no competing
interests. Funding sources had no role in study design, data collection,
results interpretation and manuscript writing.
Author contributions: AB, SP, AA, SS & RR carried out the field surveys; AB and RR
analyzed and interpreted the data; AB, SP & RR wrote the manuscript.
Author Details: A. Bijukumar is interested in biodiversity documentation and taxonomy, and involved
in biodiversity/environmental education activities to facilitate conservation. Siby Philip is interested in molecular
phylogenet-ics, evolution and biogeography of freshwater fishes of the South
Asia region. Anvar Ali interested
in taxonomy and systematics of freshwater fishes of the Western Ghats. S. Sushama is interested in ecology of
freshwater systems. Rajeev Raghavanis interested in interdisciplinary research focused on generating information
and developing methods to support conservation decision-making in freshwater
ecosystems.
Acknowledgements: Field work benefitted from the help and support of Josin Tharian,
Fibin Baby, Benno Pereira, K. Krishnakumar, M.R. Ramprasanth, Sanjay Molur and
Nibha Namboodiri. Field work in the
Silent Valley National Park was conducted with official permits from the Kerala
State Forest and Wildlife Department to A. Bijukumar (WL12-3423/2004) and
Rajeev Raghavan (WL12-8550/2009). The authors thank two anonymous reviewers and
the subject editor for their constructive comments and suggestions that greatly
improved the manuscript.
This article forms part of a special
series on the Western Ghats of India, disseminating the results of work supported
by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), a joint initiative of
l’Agence Française de Développement, Conservation International, the European
Commission, the Global Environment Facility, the Government of Japan, the
MacArthur Foundation and the World Bank. A fundamental goal of CEPF is to
ensure civil society is engaged in biodiversity conservation. Implementation of
the CEPF investment program in the Western Ghats is led and coordinated by the
Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE).
For
figures, images, tables -- click here
Introduction
Information on diversity and distribution
of species is crucial for appropriate and timely decision making in
biodiversity conservation. Collation and dissemination of such information is especially important
for poorly known yet threatened taxa such as freshwater fish, and for critical
biodiversity areas such as ‘Hotspots’. The Western Ghats part of the Western Ghats - Sri Lanka Biodiversity
Hotspot in peninsular India is an exceptional region of freshwater biodiversity
(Dahanukar et al. 2011), where in spite of more than 200 years of research the
ichthyofauna continues to be influenced by both the Linnaean and Wallacean
shortfall (Dahanukar et al. 2011; Raghavan 2011). Although there are hundreds of papers
including checklists on freshwater fishes of Kerala, in both peer-reviewed and
gray literature, few provide data that can be validated. Most checklists from this region are not
supported by voucher specimens, photographs and/or taxonomic notes and are mere
compilations of secondary information from some of the earlier ‘dated’
papers/checklists.
The Bharathapuzha River, also known as ‘Nila’
and ‘Perar’, originates from the northern and southern tips of the Palakkad gap
in the Western Ghats, as well as from the gap. The minor tributaries join together to
form four major tributaries: Gayathripuzha, Chitturpuzha, Kalpathipuzha, and
Thoothapuzha (Image 1). It is the
second longest (209km) and largest (annual discharge of 3.94km3)
among the west flowing perennial rivers in the state of Kerala (Raj & Azeez
2012), as well as the river with the most extensive basin area, second in length
and third in yield by thousand million cubic feet (TMCF; Anon 1998). The
Bharathapuzha watershed lies between 10025’–11015’N
and 75050’–76055’E, and is located in the Palakkad,
Thrissur and Malappuram districts of Kerala State. Bharathapuzha has a total basin area of
6,186km2, of which 4,400km2 is in Kerala and the
remaining in Tamil Nadu (Raj & Azeez 2012).
The earliest ichthyological investigations
in the Bharathapuzha drainage (then Ponnani drainage of erstwhile Malabar state
in India) were carried out by Jerdon (1849) and Day (1865). This was followed by the works of Herre
(1942, 1945), Silas (1951, 1958) and subsequently Indra & Devi (1981), Devi
& Indra (1984; 1986), Easa & Basha (1995), Easa & Shaji (1997),
Bijukumar & Sushama (2001), Shaji (2002), Kurup et al. (2004), Sushama et
al. (2004) and Devi et al. (2005). However, most of these studies were restricted to one or a few regions
and/or tributaries of the Bharathapuzha, and a comprehensive study has not yet
been realized.
Here, we provide a comprehensive and
consolidated checklist of fishes of the Bharathapuzha River system (backed by
voucher specimens) and discuss their distribution, threats and
conservation. We also report on the
extension of range of an endemic cyprinid, Osteochilichthys longidorsalis Pethiyagoda
& Kottelat 1994, and a new site record for Pseudolaguvia austrinaRadhakrishnan, Kumar & Ng 2010, in the Bharathapuzha River system.
Materials and Methods
Study area
Bharathapuzha has four major tributaries,
Gayathripuzha, Chitturpuzha (Kannadipuzha or Amaravathipuzha), Kalpathipuzha
and Thoothapuzha (Image 1). From
the confluence of Kalpathipuzha and Chitturpuzha at Parali, the river acquires
the name ‘Bharathapuzha’. The flow
regime of the river includes highlands (>76m), midlands (76–8 m) and
lowlands (<8m) (Raj & Azeez 2009). A series of large dams have been constructed across the Bharathapuzha
River and its tributaries; two dams are located in Tamil Nadu (Thirumoorthy and
Aliyar) and seven in Kerala (Kanjirapuzha, Malampuzha, Walayar, Meenkara,
Chulliar, Pothundy and Mangalam). Further, there are two major diversion schemes, Moolathara and
Cheerakkuzhy, in addition to a Thrithala-Velliyamkallu regulator-cum-bridge. A series of check dams are built across
the lower reaches of Bharathapuzha in order to retain water temporarily.
The Reserved Forest area in the
Bharathapuzha Basin in Kerala is around 625km2, while it is 800km2including forest vegetation in Tamil Nadu (Image 2). While Chitturpuzha watershed has forest cover
in the Anamalai hills of Tamil Nadu State (Aliyar tributary), the forest
patches in Kalpathipuzha, Gayathripuzha and Thoothapuzha are represented by
177km2, 196km2, and 252km2 of forest areas
respectively in the State of Kerala. The Bharathapuzha and its tributaries also drain three important
protected areas, the Indira Gandhi Tiger Reserve, the Parambikulam Tiger
Reserve, and the Silent Valley National Park, apart from many areas declared as
reserved forests.
Sampling sites and methods
As part of the present study, surveys were
carried out in all the four tributaries, viz., Gayathripuzha, Chitturpuzha,
Kalpathipuzha (Image 3) and Thoothapuzha (Image 4) of the Bharathapuzha River
and the Kunthipuzha stream (of Thoothapuzha tributary) flowing through the
Silent Valley National Park (Image 5) at multiple intervals from January 2004
to February 2013. Fishes were
collected using a variety of active and passive gears such as scoop nets, drag
nets, cast nets, gill nets and specially designed and fabricated net made of
mosquito nets. Random surveys were
also carried out in the major markets and landing centers along all the five
tributaries. Voucher specimens were preserved in 4% formaldehyde and whenever
possible tissue samples were preserved in 95% ethanol, and transferred to the
laboratory for further identification.
Species identification and morphometry
Fishes were identified by comparing
measurements and counts of the voucher specimens, with those of the type/type
series and/or as mentioned in the original description. All measurements were taken point to
point using dial calipers to the nearest 0.1mm. Voucher specimens of all species
recorded in this paper are deposited at the Museum of the Department of Aquatic
Biology and Fisheries, University of Kerala (DAB-UoK), Thiruvananthapuram,
Kerala, India and the Conservation Research Group, St. Albert’s College
(CRG-SAC), Kochi, India. All
species names except for the members of the super family Cobitoidea, adhere to
the Catalog of Fishes (Eschmeyer 2013) unless otherwise mentioned. For species
within the super family Cobitoidea, a recent checklist by Kottelat (2012) has
been followed.
Results and Discussion
Diversity and distribution
A total of 117 species under 42 families
and 81 genera were recorded from the Bharathapuzha River system (Table 1). Of these, 98 species were primary
freshwater, and 19 were secondary freshwater and/or diadromous species. Six species of non-native fish were also
recorded of which three (Cyprinus carpio, Oreochromis mossambicusand O. niloticus) are exotic to the country; while the rest were the
Indian major carps (Catla catla, Cirrhinus mrigala and Labeo
rohita) transplanted from the gangetic plains.
The main channel of the Bharathapuzha from
Parali to Purathoor estuary had the highest species richness (S=75) followed by
the Thoothapuzha (S=57) and Kalpathipuzha (S=40) (Fig. 1). Of the 75 species found in the main
channel, 19 were secondary freshwater species. Thoothapuzha tributary (excluding the
Kunthipuzha stream) has the highest species richness, when only primary
freshwater fish species are considered. Although Kunthipuzha stream of the Thoothapuzha tributary flowing
through the Silent Valley National Park had the lowest species richness (S=25),
it has very high conservation value, as two endemic species, Balitora
jalpalli and Mesonoemacheilus remadevii are restricted to this
stream.
Thirty-three species (28%) that occur in
the Bharathapuzha River are endemic to the Western Ghats, eight species are
endemic to the rivers of Kerala, and three species (Balitora jalpalli, Mesonoemacheilus
remadevii and Pseudolaguvia austrina) are endemic to the river
system. One more species (listed as Garra sp. in Table 1; see also
appendix 1) may be endemic to the Western Ghats, once its taxonomic identity is
cleared. All three species endemic to the Bharathapuzha River
have a restricted distribution in the Thoothapuzha tributary. While B. jalpalli and M.
remadevii are found in the Kunthipuzha stream, P. austrina occurs as
small fragmented populations in the Kanjirapuzha and Thoothapuzha streams.
A little more than one-tenth of species
(11%; S=13) that occur in the Bharathapuzha are listed as threatened in the
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Fig. 2). This includes one species listed as
‘Critically Endangered’ (CR) (Hemibagrus punctatus - however, see
discussion in Ali et al. 2013), six species listed as ‘Endangered’ (EN)
(however, see note on Garra joshuai) and six species listed as
‘Vulnerable’ (VU). Majority of
species (65%; S=77) are listed as ‘Least Concern’ (LC). Thoothapuzha tributary had the highest
number of threatened species (S=10) (Fig. 2).
Fishes of the Silent Valley National Park
The Silent Valley National Park (NP) (core
area of 89.52km2 and a buffer zone of 14.70km2), and an
altitude ranging from 200–2383 m) (Hosagoudar & Riju 2013) is one of
the most important conservation areas in the Western Ghats. Two streams, the west flowing
Kunthipuzha draining the core area and the east flowing Bhavani draining the
eastern segment of the buffer zone of the Silent Valley National Park (see Easa
& Basha 1995) comprise the type locality of four species, viz., Balitora
jalpalli (Image 6), Garra menoni (Image 14), Homaloptera pillaii(Image 16) and Mesonoemacheilus remadevii (Image 7).
The Kunthipuzha stream of the Silent
Valley National Park has been surveyed in the past by Devi & Indra (1986)
and Easa & Basha (1995) who both recorded 11 species. During our surveys carried out in 2010,
we recorded 25 species (Table 1), thereby increasing the number of freshwater
fishes known from the Silent Valley NP. However, this number cannot be considered as the actual diversity of the
National Park because several additional species are found in the east flowing Bhavani
River and the Kadalundi River (draining the western segment of the buffer
zone), which is not mentioned herein.
Range extension of Osteochilichthys longidorsalis Pethiyagoda
& Kottelat, 1994
Osteochilichthys longidorsalis was hitherto known to be endemic to the Chalakudy and Periyar river
systems where it had a very restricted distribution (see Raghavan & Ali
2011). During recent (February
2013) field work in the Thoothapuzha tributary, we collected a single specimen
(CRG-SAC.2013.01; 79.98mm SL) (Image 8) of a fish that resembled O.
longidorsalis. Detailed examination of the specimen indicated that the
measurements and counts (Table 2) were within the range of topotypic material
collected from Vettilapara, Chalakudy River, and those mentioned in the
original description of Pethiyagoda & Kottelat (1994). We therefore extend the range of O.
longidorsalis to the Bharathapuzha River system.
We believe that O. longidorsaliscould have had a much more extensive range of distribution north and south of the
Palakkad Gap in stream habitats providing a very specific niche. But over time, the continuity in the
range of distribution was broken and inadequacy of geographical coverage during
surveys left isolated populations unreported. Thus, there is also a possibility that
this species might occur in the upper reaches of the neighbouring Chaliyar
basin.
We prefer to retain the generic name Osteochilichthysinstead of Osteochilus as mentioned in the Catalog of Fishes
(Eschmeyer 2013). The reason being
that no taxonomic revision of this species has taken place and Eschmeyer (2013)
merely cites Thomas et al. (2002), who, without any justification and
discussion, chose to use the name Osteochilus over Osteochilichthysin their paper on the fishes of southern Kerala (see additional discussion in
Appendix 1).
New site record for Pseudolaguvia austrina Radhakrishnan, Suresh
Kumar & Ng, 2010
Pseudolaguvia austrina (Image 9) was the first member of this genus described from peninsular
India near the town of Mannarkad (Kunthipuzha stream) in the Bharathapuzha
River system (Radhakrishnan et al. 2010). During a recent survey (February 2013), one specimen of P. austrina(CRG-SAC-2013. 11.1 30.34mm SL) was collected from Thoothapuzha (~20km
downstream of the type locality). This forms a new site record.
Threats to the riverine ecosystem and biodiversity
Bharathapuzha comprise one of the 16
catchments in the southern Western Ghats that has the highest species richness
and endemism of freshwater taxa including fish, mollusc and odonates (Molur et
al. 2011). It is also one of the
five catchments along with Periyar, Pamba, Manimala and Chaliyar that qualify
as potential freshwater ‘Key Biodiversity Areas’ (KBAs) (Molur et al. 2011). In spite of this, Bharathapuzha is one of
the most degraded and threatened river systems in the region. Several anthropogenic stressors
including deforestation and loss of riparian cover, dams and other
impoundments, pollution, sand mining, non-native species, climate change and
destructive fishing practices are threatening the fish diversity of
Bharathapuzha River system.
Deforestation
and loss of riparian vegetation: The Bharathapuzha River basin has undergone large-scale deforestation
due to construction of several dams (Raj & Azeez 2011). Deforestation is prominent in several
catchment areas such as Mangalam, Nelliyampathy, Walayar, Malampuzha,
Nellipuzha, Dhoni and Kalladikode. Forest lands have been transformed into largely monoculture plantations
(Raj & Azeez 2010a). During the
period 1973–2005, the natural vegetation cover in the river basin
declined by 31%, as a result of the increase in area under plantations (Raj
& Azeez 2010b). The riparian
vegetation along the Bharathapuzha and its tributaries are severely disturbed
or in some cases totally destroyed. In addition, there is also a threat from
invasion by exotic plants all along the river basin. The loss of forest cover at such high
rates impact freshwater fishes since a significant proportion of the riverine
species in the Western Ghats region exploit allochthonous food resources
(Arunachalam 2000). Increased
sedimentation as a result of deforestation changes the river bed habitat and
thus degrades the breeding substrate of many fish species (Dahanukar et al.
2011). In this way, the
deforestation in the upstream catchments of the Bharathapuzha can impact
several hill stream loaches of the family Balitoridae, Cobitidae and
Nemacheilidae which require pebbles and gravel in their microhabitats for
breeding (Dahanukar et al. 2011). There
are at least 10 species of loaches inhibiting the various hill streams
tributaries of Bharathapuzha.
Dams
and other impoundments: Dams
are a major threat to freshwater biodiversity (Vorosmarty
et al. 2010). Dams remove turbulent
river sections and create tranquil water bodies, thereby affecting flow and
temperature regimes, sediment transport, and species communities (Liermann et
al. 2012). Several dams worldwide
now impair habitat and migration opportunities for many freshwater fish species
(Liermann et al. 2012) including those that are endemic and threatened (Xie et
al. 2007).
Bharathapuzha has been dammed extensively,
mainly for irrigation and water diversion purposes. Eleven irrigation projects
and several surface dams in the river basin cater to 493.06km2agriculture lands (Raj & Azeez 2010a). In addition, there are many check dams - temporary or permanent small
impoundments for regulating water flow, on the Bharathapuzha. These small dams retain excess water
flow during monsoon rains in a small catchment area behind the structure,
thereby replenishing nearby groundwater reserves and wells. The
dams and other impoundments along the Bharathapuzha River have impacted the
movements of diadromous and catadromous species such as eels as evident from
the lesser abundance of eels in the river in the recent past (A. Bijukumar
& R. Raghavan pers. obser. 2012). The check dams in the river are also reported to affect the water
quality in upstream and downstream areas (Bijukumar & Kurian 2008).
Pollution: Asian rivers are heavily polluted and degraded (Dudgeon 2000). Pollution has also been identified as
the important threat to the fish fauna of the Western Ghats (Dahanukar et al.
2011). Bharathapuzha River basin
supports extensive area under agriculture and plantations. Agro-based pollutants such as chemical
fertilizers, pesticides, weedicides and nutrients are frequently washed down
into the river, constituting a major ecological problem. Eutrophication has resulted in the
abundance of filamentous algae and weeds in the lower reaches of the river,
particularly from Chamravattom to Purakkad. In addition to agro-based pollutants,
Bharathapuzha and its tributaries also receive substantial amount of urban sewage. For example, the town of Pattambi is one
such polluted area along the river, where the urban sewage canals directly open
into the river, through which the municipal waste is dumped. Such large scale pollution not only
degrades the habitat but also causes endocrine disruptions and several other
physiological imbalances in fish including breeding failure which could
ultimately lead to their extirpation.
Limestone mining is being carried out in
the catchment areas of Malampuzha in the Kalpathipuzha tributary, leading to
siltation and pollution in the streams and the reservoir. Silicate content of water in this area
has been found to be very high (Sushama 2003). Massive dumping of mining debris and
wastes has also completely destroyed the Seemanthinipuzha, one of the streams
joining the Malampuzha.
Sand
mining: Over
the years, indiscriminate sand mining has caused irreparable damages to several
river systems on the southwestern coast of India (Sreebha & Padmalal 2011).
Indiscriminate sand mining from Bharathapuzha has contributed immensely to the
destruction of the river, and is now the dominant threat to the ecosystem and
biodiversity of the river basin. The entire river bed is dug up, and a large number of trucks ply through
the river bed daily to collect river sand. The situation is most alarming between Pattambi and Thirunavaya, where
both legal and illegal sand quarrying goes on unabatedly. We observed that in
the Ottapalam Revenue Division, in addition to the 18 stations (kadavus) fixed
by the Kerala Government for sand quarrying, there are several ‘private’
kadavus operating in parallel possibility with the connivance of
authorities. The quantity of sand
collected from these private kadavus exceeds those from legal ones. In addition, small-scale removal of sand
by local people is also damaging the river bed in many areas. In Navalin Kadavu near the village of
Peringottukurussi, sand is collected in large quantities from within the
check-dams using large rafts made of rubber tubes. The sand thus collected is then loaded
on to trucks and transported. In
many places small-scale removal of sand is not to cater for the local demands,
but for supplying the big contractors. Studies conducted by Centre for Earth
Science Studies (CESS), Thiruvananthapuram (CESS 1997) have shown that the rate
of sand removal from the Bharathapuzha is several times more than the natural
rate of replenishment. Such massive sand removal will have a highly detrimental
impact on ichthyofauna of the river as sand is the preferred breeding substrate
for many fish species. In addition,
sand mining alter aquatic food web as well as nutrient cycles, and is a direct
threat to the survival of several species such as Glossogobius giurisand Sicyopterus griseus that prefer sand substratum.
Non
native species: Six
species of non-native fish occur in the Bharathapuzha (Table 1) of which three
(Cyprinus carpio, Oreochromis mossambicus and O. niloticus)
are exotic to the country, while the remaining three are the Indian major carps
(Catla catla, Cirrhinus mrigala and Labeo rohita) which
were transplanted from the gangetic plains for stock enhancement and
aquaculture. Many reservoirs in the
Bharathapuzha basin have been stocked with the non-native carps as well as the
giant freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) during the last several
decades and have even been considered to be one of the success-stories of
capture based culture fisheries (Peters & Feustel 1998; Kutty et al. 2008).
Collections of these non-native carps from the lower reaches of the river
indicate their escape from the reservoirs.
The first record of the Nile Tilapia, O.
niloticus from the rivers of Kerala was made from Bharathapuzha (Bijukumar
2008). In addition, the Mozambique
Tilapia, O. mossambicus has established viable populations
throughout the river, including the estuarine areas. The African catfish, Clarias
gariepinus is being clandestinely cultured in many regions of the
Bharathapuzha basin and may have found its way into the river system. However,
we have not been able to record any specimens as yet from the wild.
Climate
change: Freshwater
fish are known to be at an increasing risk to climate change especially given
the inextricable link between fish physiology and temperature (see Ficke et al.
2007). The Bharathapuzha watershed
experiences an average annual rainfall of 2500mm, which is about 17% less than
the state average (Anon 1998). Recent studies have observed changes in both rainfall and temperature in
the river basin (Raj & Azeez 2010a, Raj & Azeez 2011). An overall upward trend in annual and
daily temperature was observed in the river basin during 1969 to 2005 (Raj
& Azeez 2011). The impacts of
climate change phenomena on the ichthyofauna of Bharathapuzha remains to be
investigated further.
Unregulated aquarium fish exports: Unmanaged aquarium fish
collection and exports is an emerging threat to the endemic fish diversity of
Western Ghats (Raghavan et al. 2013a). In Thoothapuzha tributary, the endangered Sahyadria denisonii is
being collected in massive quantities for the ornamental fish trade, even by
government supported agencies such as Kerala Aquatic Ventures Private Limited
(KAVIL). In addition, species such
as Mesonoemacheilus remadevii, restricted to the Silent Valley National
Park have been found to be occurring in the trade (Raghavan et al. 2013a). This shows a clear lack of co-ordination
between various government departments highlighting a serious lapse in policy
decisions.
Destructive fishing practices: The destructive fishing
methods recorded in the river basin include use of plant poisons, dynamiting
and the use of small mesh nets. Dynamiting is more prevalent in the tributaries where traditional
fishermen are less in number.
Conservation measures
Like
in other parts of the Western Ghats (see Dahanukar et al. 2011), the
multi-stakeholder issues related to the use of fresh water in the Bharathapuzha
basin has meant that indigenous fish species are least valued, and their
conservation has never been a priority. Dudgeon et al. (2006) considers the protection and management of
freshwater biodiversity as a conservation challenge and suggests that a
combination of strategies and action plans would be highly essential to
conserve freshwater ecosystems and their resources. Based on local conditions, we suggest a
set of strategies that will help protect the ecosystem and facilitate the
conservation and management of the native aquatic fauna of Bharathapuzha.
Integrated
watershed development programs should be given top priority. To stop further ecological degradation
of the river and to ensure sufficient water discharge downstream, any proposals
for new check dams should be treated with caution. Similarly, we suggest that clearance
should not be given to any new medium or large dam in the Bharathapuzha River
basin.
Ecorestoration
activities should be taken up in several stretches of the river using the River
Management Fund available with district authorities. The ecorestoration activities can also
be integrated into ongoing government assisted programmes such as Mahatma
Gandhi National Rural Employment Generation Programme (MGNREGP) and Western
Ghats Development Programme. We also suggest that all local self governments
within the river basin should include ecorestoration of river as an integral
component in their project planning and implementation.
As
sand mining is one of the most important threats to the ecological integrity of
the Bharathapuzha River system, effective enforcement mechanisms should be put
into place to curb this menace. Suitable eco-friendly alternatives to sand should also be popularised by
adopting awareness campaigns. Large
scale cultivation and farming activities should be prohibited within the river
basin, and mechanisms should be adopted to spread awareness to minimize the use
of pesticides and other agro-chemicals in the plantations located in the
upstream areas.
Spatial
conservation options such as ‘aquatic biodiversity management zones’ (ABMZ) and
‘fish refugias’ should be declared for conserving important areas rich in
endemic and threatened species. The
thootha tributary is a potential site for consideration as ABMZ as it harbours
several endemic and threatened species, and the habitat is subjected to
considerable illegal fishing including collection of endemic and threatened
fishes for the aquarium trade.
There
is also a need to revise the Red List status of several species of fishes
including those that are endemic to the Silent Valley National Park. Many endemic species of this protected
area were categorised as ‘Least Concern’ in view of the absence of any current
or plausible future threats. However, recent studies (for e.g., Raghavan et al. 2013a) have revealed
that endemic and restricted range species such as Mesonoemacheilus remadeviiare being collected and exported for the aquarium pet trade thereby raising
concerns on the wild populations of the other endemic balitorid and nemacheilid
loaches as well.
Regulations
should be brought into place to stop the unmanaged collection of endemic and
threatened aquarium fishes from many areas in the river basin. Stronger enforcement is also required to
prohibit the use of destructive fishing practices, especially dynamiting. Though the Ministry of Agriculture,
Government of India has issued “Guidelines for the Import of Ornamental Fishes
into India” based on the recommendations of the National Committee on
Introduction of Exotic Aquatic Species into India, it has failed to prevent the
entry of exotic fishes into the natural ecosystems of the country including the
Bharathapuzha. A legally binding
strategy is therefore required to regulate exotic fish into the country, and to
restore the ecosystems already debilitated by the invasion of alien species.
Finally,
there is a need for increased education and awareness programs to improve the
conservation needs and profile of the Bharathapuzha River system. Since information on the river and its
ecology is lacking, students and teachers from local schools and colleges
within the river basin can be employed for data collection, monitoring and
eco-restoration activities. The
Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) at the local Panchayaths formed as
per the Biological Diversity Act of India (2002), as well as the traditional
fishing communities, students involved in the National Green Corps (NGC) and
eco-club networks could be effectively used to monitor and conserve fish
habitats. in the Bharathapuzha River basin.
References
Ali,
A., N. Dahanukar, A. Kanagavel, S. Philip & R. Raghavan (2013). Records of the endemic and threatened catfish, Hemibagrus punctatus from
the southern Western Ghats with notes on its distribution, ecology and
conservation status. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(11): 4569–4578; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3427.4569-78
Anonymous (1998). Watershed Atlas of Kerala. Vol. I
and II. Kerala State Land Use Board, Kerala State Remote Sensing &
Environment Centre, Department of Space and Soil Conservation Wing.
Arunachalam,
M., M. Raja, M. Muralidharan & R.L. Mayden (2012).Phylogenetic relationships of species of Hypselobarbus (Cypriniformes:
Cyprinidae): an enigmatic clade endemic to aquatic systems of India. Zootaxa3499: 63–73.
Arunachalam,
M. (2000). Assemblage structure of stream fishes in
the Western Ghats. Hydrobiologia 430: 1–31; http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1004080829388
Bijukumar,
A. (2008). First record of Nile Tilapia, Oreochromis
niloticus L. (Pisces: Cichlidae) from Kerala. Journal of Inland
Fisheries Society of India 40(2): 68–69.
Bijukumar,
A. & K.A. Abraham (2008). Impact of check dams
on the hydrography of a tropical river, Bharathapuzha, Kerala, India. Екологія
та
ноосферологія19(1–2): 11–18.
Bijukumar,
A. & S. Sushama (2001). The fish fauna of Bharathapuzha river,
Kerala. Journal of the Bombay Natural History of India 98(3):
464–468.
Center for Earth Science Studies (CESS).
(1997). A report on Bharathapuzha River. Submitted to the Government of
Kerala by Centre for Earth Science Studies, Thiruvananthapuram, June, 1997.
Dahanukar, N., R. Raghavan, A. Ali, R. Abraham
& C.P. Shaji (2011). The status and distribution of freshwater
fishes of the Western Ghats, pp. 21–48. In: The Status and
Distribution of Freshwater Biodiversity in the Western Ghats, India. In:
Molur, S., K.G. Smith., B.A. Daniel. & W.R.T. Darwall (eds)., International
Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Gland, Switzerland and Zoo Outreach
Organization (ZOO) Coimbatore, India.
Day,
F. (1865). The
Fishes of Malabar. London. i-xxxii+293pp, 20pls.
Day,
F. (1878). The Fishes of India; Being a Natural
History of the Fishes Known to Inhabit the Seas and Fresh Waters of India,
Burma, and Ceylon Part 4. Quaritsch, London, i-xx+553–779,
pls. 139–195.
Devi,
K.R. (1993). Fishes of Kalakkad Wildlife Sanctuary,
Tirunelveli District, Tamil Nadu, India, with a redescription of Horalabiosa
joshuai Silas. Records of the Zoological Survey of India 92
(1–4): 193–209.
Devi, K.R. & T.J. Indra
(1984). Garra menoni a new Cyprinid fish from
Silent Valley, Kerala, South India. Bulletin of Zoological Survey of India5: 121–122.
Devi,
K.R. & T.J. Indra (1986). Fishes of Silent
Valley. Records of Zoological Survey of India 84(1–4): 243–257.
Devi,
K.R., T.J. Indra, M.B. Raghunathan & M.S. Ravichandran (2005). Fish fauna of the Anamalai hill ranges, Western Ghats, India. Zoos’
Print Journal 20(3): 1809–1811; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.ZPJ.1164a.1809-11
Dudgeon,
D., A.H. Arthington, M.O. Gessner, Z.I. Kawabata, D.J. Knowler, C. Leveque,
R.J. Naiman, A.H Prieur-Richard, D. Soto, M.L.J. Stiassny & C.A. Sullivan
(2006). Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats,
status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews 81:
163–182; http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1464793105006950
Dudgeon,
D. (2000). The ecology of tropical Asian rivers and
streams in relation to biodiversity conservation. Annual Reviews of
Ecology and Systematics 31: 239–263; http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.239
Easa,
P.S. & S.C. Basha (1995). A survey of the
habitat and distribution of stream fishes in the Kerala part of Nilgiri
Biosphere Reserve. Kerala Fisheries Research Institute No. 104.
Easa,
P.S. & C.P. Shaji (1997). Freshwater fish
diversity in Kerala part of the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve. Current Science73: 180–182.
Eschmeyer,
W.N. (Ed). Catalog of Fishes. California Academy of
Sciences (http://research.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp). Electronic
version accessed 21 May 2013.
Ficke,
A.D., C.A. Myrick. & L.J. Hansen (2007). Potential
impacts of global climate change on freshwater fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 17(4): 581–613; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11160-007-9059-5
Herre,
A.W.C.T. (1942). Glyptothorax housei, a new sisorid
catfish from south India. Stanford Ichthyological Bulletin 2 (4):
117–119.
Herre,
A.W.C.T. (1945). Notes on fishes in the zoological museum
of Stanford University XX. New fishes from china and india - A new genus and a
new Indian record. Journal of the Washington Academy of Science 35:
399–404.
Hosagoudar,
V.B. & M.C. Riju (2013). Foliicolous fungi of
Silent Valley National Park, Kerala, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa5(3): 3701–3788; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3302.01-88
Indra, T.J. & K.R. Devi
(1981). A new species of the genus Homalopterafrom Silent Valley, Kerala, South India. Journal of the Bombay Natural
History Society 84: 67–70.
Jayaram, K.C. (2010). The Freshwater Fishes of the Indian Region. Narendra Publishing
House, New Delhi, India, 616p+XXXIX plates.
Jerdon, T.C. (1849). On the fresh-water fishes of southern India. (continued from p.
149.) Madras Journal of Literature and Science 15(2):
302–346.
Karnasuta,
J. (1993). Systematic revision of southeastern
Asiatic cyprinid fish genus Osteochilus with description of
two new species and a new subspecies. Kasetsart University Fishery Research
Bulletin 19: 105.
Kottelat,
M. (2012). Conspectus cobitidium: an inventory of
the loaches of the world (Teleostei: Cypriniformes: Cobitoidea). The Raffles
Bulletin of Zoology Suppl 26: 1–199.
Kurup,
B.M., K.V. Radhakrishnan & T.G. Manojkumar (2004). Biodiversity status of fishes inhabiting rivers of Kerala (south India)
with special reference to endemism, threats and conservation measures. In:
Welcomme, R.L. & T. Petr. (eds). Proceedings of the Second International
Symposium on the Management of Large Rivers for Fisheries 2 (LARS2), Cambodia,
310pp.
Kutty,
M.N., C.M. Nair & K.R. Salin (2008).Reservoir fisheries of freshwater prawn - success story of an emerging
culture-based giant freshwater prawn fishery at Malampuzha Dam in Kerala,
India. Aquaculture Asia Magazine, April–June 2008: 40–41.
Liermann,
C.R., C. Nilsson, J. Robertson, R.Y. Ng (2012).Implications of Dam Obstruction for Global Freshwater Fish Diversity.Bioscience 62(6): 539–548; http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.6.5
Molur, S., K.G. Smith, B.A. Daniel & W.R.T.
Darwall (compilers) (2011). The Status and Distribution of Freshwater Biodiversity in the Western
Ghats. International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN), Gland, Switzerland and Zoo Outreach Organization (ZOO)
Coimbatore, India.
Peters,
D.M. & C. Feustel (1998). Social and economic
aspects of fisheries enhancements in Kerala reservoirs. In: Petr, T. (ed.).Inland Fishery Enhancements. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 374, 463p.
Pethiyagoda,
R., M. Meegaskumbura & K. Maduwage (2012). A
synopsis of the South Asian fishes referred to Puntius (Pisces:
Cyprinidae). Ichthyological Exploration of Freshwaters 23(1):
69–95.
Pethiyagoda,
R. & M. Kottelat (1994). New species of fishes
of the genera Osteochilichthys (Cyprinidae), Travancoria (Balitoridae)
and Horabagrus (Bagridae) from the Chalakudy River, Kerala, India. Journal
of South Asian Natural History 1: 97–116.
Pethiyagoda,
R. & M. Kottelat (2005).The identity of the south Indian barb Puntius
mahecola (Teleostei: Cyprinidae). Raffles Bulletin of Zoology,
Supplement, 12: 145–152
Radhakrishnan,
K.V., S. Sureshkumar & H.H. Ng (2010). Pseudolaguvia
austrina, a new species of sisorid catfish (Osteichthyes: Siluriformes)
from Peninsular India. Ichthyological Explorations of Freshwaters 21(4):
377–383.
Raghavan,
R. (2011). Need for further research on the
freshwater fish fauna of the Ashambu Hills landscape: a response to Abraham et
al. Journal of Threatened Taxa 3(5): 1788–1791; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2755.1788-91
Raghavan,
R., N. Dahanukar, M. Tlusty, A. Rhyne, K.K. Kumar, S. Molur & A. Rosser
(2013a). Uncovering an obscure trade: threatened
freshwater fishes and the aquarium markets. Biological Conservation 164:
158–169; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.04.019
Raghavan,
R., S. Philip, A. Ali & N. Dahanukar (2013). Sahyadria, a new genus of barbs (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) from Western Ghats of
India. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 5(15): 4932–4938; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3673.4932-8
Raghavan,
R., J. Tharian, A. Ali, S. Jadhav & N. Dahanukar (2013b). Balitora jalpalli, a new species of stone loach (Teleostei:
Cypriniformes: Balitoridae) from Silent Valley, southern Western Ghats, India. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 5(5): 3921–3934; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.o3277.3921-34
Raj,
P.P.N & P.A. Azeez (2009). Spatial and temporal
variation in surface water chemistry of a tropical river, the river
Bharathapuzha, India. Current Science 96(2): 245–251.
Raj,
P.P.N. & P.A. Azeez (2010a). Changing rainfall in
the Palakkad plains of South India. Atmosphera 23(1): 75–82.
Raj,
P.P.N. & P.A. Azeez (2010b). Land use and land
cover changes in a tropical river basin: a case from Bharathapuzha River basin,
southern India. Journal of Geographic Information System 2:
185–193; http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jgis.2010.24026
Raj,
P.P.N. & P.A. Azeez (2011). Temperature rise in the
Bharathapuzha river basin, southern India. Current Science 101(4): 492.
Raj,
P.P.N. & P.A. Azeez (2012). morphometric analysis
of a tropical medium river system: a case from Bharathapuzha River southern
India. Open Journal of Modern Hydrology 2: 91–98; http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojmh.2012.24011
Shaji,
C.P. (2002). Mesonoemacheilus remadevii (Pisces:
Balitoridae. Nemeacheilinae) from Silent Valley National Park, Kerala. Indian
Journal of Fisheries 49(2): 217–221.
Silas, E.G. (1958). Studies on cyprinid fishes of the oriental genus Chela Hamilton.Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 55(1): 54–99+2pls.
Silas, E.G. (1951). On a collection of fish form the Annamalai and Nelliampathi Hill ranges
(Western Ghats) with notes on its zoogeographical significances. Journal of
the Bombay Natural History Society 49: 670–681.
Sreebha S. & D.
Padmalal (2011). Environmental Impact
Assessment of sand mining from the small catchment river in the southwestern
coast of India. Environmental Management 47: 130–140; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9571-6
Sushama,
S. (2003). Ecology and Biodiversity of Nila
River. PhD Thesis, University of Kerala, India
Sushama
S., R. Tresa & A. Bijukumar (2004).Distribution of fishes in the Nila River. Indian Journal of Fisheries 51(3):
385–387.
Talwar, P. K. &
A. G. Jhingran. (1991). Inland Fishes of India and Adjacent
Countries (in two volumes). Oxford & IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi,
Bombay, Calcutta. v. 1-2: i-xvii+36 unnumbered+1-1158, 1pl, 1 map.
Thomas, K.R., M.J. George
& C.R. Biju (2002). Freshwater fishes of southern Kerala with
notes on the distribution of endemic and endangered species. Journal of the
Bombay Natural History Society 99 (1): 47–53.
Vorosmarty, C.J., P.B.
McIntyre, M.O. Gessner, D. Dudgeon, A. Prusevich, P. Green, S. Glidden, S.E.
Bunn, C.A. Sullivan, C.R. Liermann & P.M. Davies (2010). Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature467: 555–561; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09440
Xie, S., Z. Li, J. Liu,
S. Xie, H Wang & B.R. Murphy (2007). Fisheries
of the Yangtze River Show Immediate Impacts of the Three Gorges Dam.Fisheries 32(7): 343–344.
Yang, L., M. V. Hirt, T.
Sado, M. Arunachalam, R. Manickam, K.L. Tang, A.M. Simons, H.-H. Wu, R.L.
Mayden & M. Miya (2012). Phylogenetic placements of the barbin
genera Discherodontus, Chagunius, and Hypselobarbus in
the subfamily Cyprininae (Teleostei: Cypriniformes) and their relationships
with other barbins. Zootaxa 3586: 26–40.