Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org
| 26 March 2018 | 10(3): 11423–11431
Fish diversity and the conservation status
of a wetland of Cooch Behar District, West Bengal, India
Ram
Krishna Das
Department of
Industrial Fish and Fisheries, Asutosh College, 92, Shyamaprasad Mukherjee Road, Kolkata,
West Bengal
700 026, India
ramkrishnazoology@gmail.com
Abstract:
A study was carried out from March 2016 to February 2017 to investigate
the diversity of fishes and the conservation status of Bochamari
Beel, a natural wetland of Cooch Behar District, West
Bengal, India. The study revealed
the occurrence of 40 species of fishes belonging to 31 genera under six orders
and 15 families. Cyprinidae was the dominant family with 14 species followed
by Channidae with four species, Ambassidae
and Bagridae with three species each, Nandidae, Mastacembelidae, Belontiidae, Siluridae and Clariidae with two species each whereas Cobitidae,
Belonidae, Gobiidae, Anabantidae, Tetraodontidae and Notopteridae were represented by a single species
each. The status of species of this
beel included one Endangered species, one Vulnerable species and four Near Threatened species. The maximum fish diversity was recorded
in the monsoon season (HÕ=2.876) as compared with pre monsoon (HÕ=2.124) and
post monsoon (HÕ =1.735). The
evenness index varied from 0.640 (post monsoon) to 0.822 (monsoon), which
indicates uneven distribution of fishes in this beel. Indiscriminate fishing throughout the
year, along with extensive weed infestation could be responsible for depletion
of fish diversity in this beel.
Keywords:
Bochamari Beel,
fish diversity, threatened fish, wetland.
doi: http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3404.10.3.11423-11431 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:07D56A96-8DC1-4476-813D-FFB8ED2C7D22
Editor: Neelesh Dahanukar, IISER, Pune, India. Date of publication: 26 March 2018 (online & print)
Manuscript details: Ms # 3404 | Received 09 March 2017 | Final received 31 January 2018 |
Finally accepted 25 March 2018
Citation: Das, R.K. (2018). Fish diversity and the conservation status of a
wetland of Cooch Behar District, West Bengal, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 10(3): 11423–11431; http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3404.10.3.11423-11431
Copyright: © Das 2018. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
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: None.
Competing interests: The author declares no competing interests.
Author Details: Shri Ram Krishna Das is an Assistant
Professor in Industrial Fish and Fisheries, Asutosh
College. He obtained his master degree in Zoology (Specialization- Fish
Biology) in 2005 from Visva-Bharati and qualified NET
(CSIR) in Life Sciences in 2010. His interested field of
research are fish diversity, taxonomy and fish toxicology.
Acknowledgements: The author wish to express deep gratitude to Dr. Dipak
Kumar Kar, Principal, Asutosh
College for permission and facilities. Author is grateful to Shri Tanmoy Sarkar
(Assistant teacher, Putimari High School, Cooch
Behar) for assisting during the sampling of fishes and to all fishermen of Bochamari Beel for giving the
opportunity for data collection. The author is also grateful to Shri Rahul Mondal (Assistant
Professor, Dept. of Industrial Fish and Fisheries, Asutosh
College) and Dr. Satyam Kumar Kundu (Faculty member,
Dept. of Industrial Fish and Fisheries, Asutosh
College) for giving valuable suggestions during the manuscript writing.
INTRODUCTION
According to the Ramsar Convention, wetlands
are areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether
natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or
flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water, the depth of
which at low tide does not exceed six meters (Ramsar
Convention Secretariat 2013).
Wetlands are classified into five categories such as (a) oxbow lake, (b)
fresh water lakes, (c) fresh water ponds, (d) marshes, swamps and bogs, and (e)
reservoirs (Kar et al. 2007). India has extensive flood plains in the
form of oxbow lakes such as beels, jheels, mauns, and chaurs especially in the states of West Bengal and
adjoining places, like Assam and Bihar.
Beels are shallow, nutrient rich water bodies
formed due to a change in course of a river. Some of these retain connection with the
main river, at least during monsoons, while others have lost it
permanently. These are perennial
wetlands that contain water throughout the year (Kar
et al. 2007). Beels
of Assam generally possess high potential for in situ fish production. A number of them also provide a
collection sink for fish produced in the surrounding flooded catchments. The average yield of Assam on the basis
of enquiries made in 23 beels in the state was
173kg/ha (Bhattacharjya & Sugunan
2000).
Northern Bengal comprises those districts of West Bengal that lie north
of the river Ganga. The term does
not denote any natural division and is purely an administrative connotation. Seven districts constitute northern
Bengal. These are: Malda, South Dinajpur, North Dinajpur, Darjeeling, Jalpaiguri,
Alipurduar and Cooch Behar. Faunistically,
however, these areas are numerous in variety and taxonomically
interesting. This may be because of
the rich Himalayan foothills with the numerous streams and major rivers rushing
to the plains through these districts (Jayaram &
Singh 1977). A large number of
wetlands in the form of beels are found in northern
Bengal, especially in the district of Cooch Behar. Bochamari Beel is one of the very important natural wetlands located
in the subdivision Tufanganj of the district of Cooch
Behar. It is a part of Rasik Beel wetland complex (Das
et al. 2013). The Rasik Beel wetland complex (RBWC)
is the largest wetland complex in Cooch Behar District of West Bengal covering
around 18.40km2 of area of which the wetland occupies almost 1.78km2
area. The Ministry of Environment,
Forest & Climate Change (MoEFCC), Government of
India, has identified 94 wetlands of national importance, many of which are
protected areas including Rasik Beel
(NWCP 2009). The vast wetland
complex constitutes water bodies of varying sizes, namely, Rasik
Beel, Raichangmari Beel, Bochamari Beel, Sakobhanga Beel and Noldoba Beel. The nature of the beels is
of the ox-bow lake and formed by the meandering of the Raidak,
Sakobhanga and Ghoramara
rivers (Roy et al. 2012). Most of
the beels of the RBWC become well connected only
during the monsoon months of a year.
Bochamari Beel is a
perennial beel which retains water throughout the year. On the basis of riverine connection, the
Bochamari Beel may be
termed as a closed beel as it is completely cut-off
from the nearest rivers and receives water mostly from their catchment areas
following the monsoon rains. Bochamari Beel has remained as a major resource for capture fisheries and serves as a means
of livelihood for about five hundred fishermen families. The fishing activities are totally
prohibited in the remaining beels of the Rasik Beel wetland complex.
Fish constitutes almost half of the total number of vertebrates in the
world. Indian freshwater fish
diversity is very rich with as many as 1,027 species, comprising primary,
secondary and alien freshwater fishes.
Among them primary freshwater fishes include 858 species belonging to
167 genera under 40 families and 12 orders. Further, 137 species of secondary
freshwater fishes that frequently enter and thrive in freshwater reaches of
rivers are also known from India.
Thirty-two species of alien fishes belonging to 21 genera of nine families
and seven orders are found in the fresh water systems of India. Out of this, 16
species are well known, potential invasive alien
fishes in India (Gopi et al. 2017). On the other hand West Bengal contains
about 207 freshwater fishes (Sanyal et al. 2012). The most comprehensive
account of the fish fauna of northern Bengal was published by Shaw & Shebbeare (1938). They listed about 131 species in their treatise whereas,
Jayaram & Singh (1977) recorded about 96 species
of fishes in northern Bengal. Due
to the presence of a number of threatened, endemic and unique/interesting
species in northern Bengal, this region might be considered as a ÒHot SpotÓ of
fish resources of West Bengal (Barman 2007).
Das et al. (2013) studied the faunal diversity of RBWC, Cooch
Behar. They reported the occurrence
of 53 species of fishes belonging to nine orders, 22 families and 11 sub
families in different beels of Rasik
Beel wetland complex. They also reported the occurrence of 173
species of birds, four annelids, 49 arthropods, six molluscans,
five amphibians, six reptillian and nine mammalian
species. A detailed study of fish
diversity and the conservation status in Bochamari Beel, however, is lacking. Therefore, the present investigation was
carried out to document the fish diversity and conservation status of Bochamari Beel of Cooch Behar
District.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study was carried out in Bochamari Beel (26.250N & 89.440E, 38m
elevation), a natural wetland of Cooch Behar District, West Bengal, India from
March 2016 to February 2017 (Fig. 1).
The shortest distance from Cooch Behar Town to the Bochamari
Beel is about 55–58 km whereas it is about
25–30 km from Alipurduar Town. Fish were harvested every fortnight from
the beel using gill nets (mesh size 0.6–7.0
cm), cast nets (mesh size 0.6–6.0 cm), drag nets (mesh size
0.10–0.15 cm), push nets (mesh size 0.10–0.15 cm), box traps, ÔKonchaÕ (spear
fishing) or ÔTetaÕ , ÔBarshaÕ (hook and
line), and hook and line (Images
1 & 2). To investigate the
seasonal variation of fish communities, this study period was categorized into
three phases, viz., pre-monsoon (Feb-May) with little or no rainfall but with
very high temperature, the monsoon (June–September) with heavy rainfall
and relatively lower temperature, and post-monsoon (October–January)
season with a drastic reduction of temperature and occasional rainfall. To find out the seasonal diversity index
and evenness index, pooled data of these months together were taken. Colour, colour patterns, spots/blotches,
stripes and other characters of the fishes were noted immediately after
harvesting and photographs were taken by a digital camera
(Images 3–37). Harvested
fishes were then killed and preserved in 10% formalin solution for further
study. All the specimens are
deposited in the aquatic animal biodiversity museum of the department of
Industrial Fish and Fisheries, Asutosh College,
Kolkata, West Bengal, India (Registration number: AC-IFF/AABM/Pisces/ specimen
no. B/1–40). The fishes were identified in the
laboratory using the taxonomic keys of Jayaram (2009,
2010) and Shaw & Shebbeare (1938). The diversity and evenness indices were
calculated according to Shannon (1948) and Pielou
(1966).
Shannon index of general diversity (Shannon 1948):
HÕ=-·Pi ln Pi where, Pi is
the importance probability for each species= ni/N, ni is the importance value for
each species (number of individual, biomass, production and so forth), N is the
total of importance values. In this
study, ni is the total
number of individuals of each species and the N is the total number of
individuals. This
number of individuals from total catch using all the catching methods
for a given sampling event.
Evenness index (Pielou
1966): e =HÕ/lnS where, HÕ is the Shannon index of
general diversity and S is the number of species.
The threat status of fishes were determined by
following IUCN Red List of Threatened Species categories and criteria
(2017). The frequency of
occurrence of each species was calculated based on the number of occasions the
species was collected during the samplings. The status was determined with the help
of a standard catch frequency chart presented by Tamang
et al. (2007; Catch frequency: 91–100 % = Common, 81–90 % =
Abundant, 61–80 % = Frequent, 31–59 % = Occasional, 15–30 % =
Sporadic, 05–14 % = Rare, Less than 5% = extremely rare).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Details of fishes of Bochamari Beel are presented in Table 1 and in Images
3–37. A total of 40 species of
fishes belonging to 31 genera under six orders and 15
families were identified from Bochamari Beel. Cyprinidae was the dominant family with 14 species followed
by Channidae with four species, Ambassidae
and Bagridae with three species each, Nandidae, Mastacembelidae, Belontiidae, Siluridae and Clariidae with two species each whereas Cobitidae,
Belonidae, Gobiidae, Anabantidae, Tetraodontidae and Notopteridae were each represented by a single
species. Previous study of this beel reported the occurrence of 44 species of fish (Das et
al. 2013). Fifteen species of
fishes were documented for the first time from this beel
in comparison with the previous work.
They are Cirrhinus mrigala, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix, Ctenopharyngodon idella, Cyprinus carpio, Puntius sophore, Barbonymus gonionotus, Badis badis, Parambassis lala, Trichogaster lalius, Mystus bleekeri, Mystus tengara, Wallago attu, Macrognathus aral, Xenentodon cancila and Notopterus notopterus. Some of the species like Cirrhinus cirrhosus, Rama chandramara, Labeo calbasu, Osteobrama cotio cotio, Laubuca laubuca, Pethia gelius, Puntius terio, Ompok pabo, Paracanthocobitis botia, Botia dario, Aplocheilus panchax, Monopterus cuchia, Macrognathus aculeatus, Macrognathus puncalus, Colisa labiosus, Colisa sota, Ctenopts nobilis, Rasbora rasboa and Rasbora daniconius were not
documented in the present study, although they were recorded by Das et al.
(2013).
In the present study about six threatened species including one
Endangered, one Vulnerable and four Near Threatened
were found. Clarias magur of the family
Clariidae was identified as the endangered
species. The vulnerable species of
the beel was Cyprinus carpio of the family Cyprinidae. The Near Threatened species of the beel were Hypopophthalmichthys molitrix, Ompok pabda, Wallago attu and Parambassis
lala.
On the basis of catch frequency, 16 species (39.02%) were found to be
rare/extremely rare. The abundant
species of fishes in the beel were Puntius sophore and Esomus danrica of the family
Cyprinidae and Mystus vittatus and Mystus tengara of the family of Bagridae.
The species diversity index of different seasons ranged from 1.735 to
2.876. In this study a maximum fish
diversity was recorded during the monsoon season (HÕ=2.876) as compared to the
pre monsoon (HÕ=2.124) and post monsoon (HÕ=1.735) as this beel
remained well connected to the other beels of the
wetland complex during the monsoon months but well separated from each other
during the rest of the season.
Variety of different fishes enters into the Bochamari
Beel from other beels
during monsoon, which has resulted in a higher value of fish diversity
index. The same
result was also reported by Kar et al. (2006)
in Sone beel of Assam,
India. The evenness index at three
seasons (monsoon = 0.822, post monsoon = 0.640, pre monsoon = 0.668) indicates
uneven abundances of different fishes in this beel. The details about the number of species,
number of individuals, Shannon index and Evenness index are presented in Table
2.
The fishing gears used in this beel were
fishing net (gill net, drag net, push net, cast net), tackle (hook and line, ÔBarshaÕ) and miscellaneous gears (ÔKonchaÕ
or ÔTetaÕ, box trap) as also reported in the lentic
and lotic water bodies of Cooch Behar District (Das & Barat 2014). The details about the fishing gears
operated in this beel are presented in Table 3. Most of the fishing nets have a very
small mesh size (1cm and below), as a result a large
number of juvenile fishes are being captured. It was also observed that a significant
number of brood fishes were invariably killed in this beel
during the monsoon month. Moreover,
indiscriminate fishing throughout the year is likely to result in the depletion
of fish diversity.
The Bochamari Beel
is extensively infested by a number of aquatic weeds such as Eichornia sp., Eutricularis sp., Trapa sp., Erienthus sp. and Phragmites sp. (Das et al. 2013). These species have high growth rate and
clog waterways, making fishing, boating, and almost all other water related
activities impossible. The mats of
these plants block the penetration of sunlight. It was also revealed that the beel has been affected by the siltation, water pollution
due to leakage of pesticide used in nearby agricultural lands and over flooding
during heavy rainfall in monsoon months.
Table
1. Checklist of fishes of Bochamari Beel, Cooch Behar, West Bengal, India
Order |
Family |
Scientific name |
Common
/ local name |
Status
(as per catch frequency) |
Threat
status (as per IUCN 2017) |
Cyrininiformes |
Cyprinidae |
Amblypharyngodon mola (Hamilton, 1822) |
Mola |
Frequent |
LC |
|
|
Gibelion catla (Hamilton, 1822) |
Catla |
Rare |
LC |
|
|
Cirrhinus mrigala (Hamilton, 1822) |
Mrigal |
Rare |
LC |
|
|
Esomus danrica (Hamilton, 1822) |
Darikina |
Abundant |
LC |
|
|
Ctenopharyngodon idella (Valenciennes, 1844) |
Grass carp |
Rare |
NE |
|
|
Hypophthalmichthys molitrix (Valenciennes,
1844) |
Silver carp |
Rare |
NT |
|
|
Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus, 1758 |
Common carp |
Rare |
VU |
|
|
Labeo rohita (Hamilton, 1822) |
Rohu/rui |
Sporadic |
LC |
|
|
Labeo bata (Hamilton, 1822) |
Bata |
Sporadic |
LC |
|
|
Puntius sophore (Hamilton, 1822) |
Desi Punti |
Abundant |
LC |
|
|
Pethia ticto (Hamilton, 1822) |
Titla Punti |
Frequent |
LC |
|
|
Pethia conchonius (Hamilton, 1822) |
Lal Punti |
Frequent |
LC |
|
|
Barbonymus gonionotus (Bleeker,
1849) |
Java punti |
Occasional |
LC |
|
|
Systomus sarana (Hamilton, 1822) |
Sar Punti |
Sporadic |
LC |
|
Cobitidae |
Lepidocephalichthys guntea (Hamilton, 1822) |
Gutum |
Frequent |
LC |
Perciformes |
Channidae |
Channa gachua (Hamilton, 1822) |
Cheng |
Occasional |
LC |
|
|
Channa punctata (Bloch, 1793) |
Sati |
Abundant |
LC |
|
|
Channa striata (Bloch, 1793) |
Shol |
Occasional |
LC |
|
|
Channa marulius (Hamilton, 1822) |
Shal |
Extremely
Rare |
LC |
|
Nandidae |
Badis badis (Hamilton, 1822) |
Khorikata |
Extremely
Rare |
LC |
|
|
Nandus nandus (Hamilton, 1822) |
Veda |
Occasional |
LC |
|
Gobiidae |
Glossogobius giuris (Hamilton, 1822) |
Bele |
Sporadic |
LC |
|
Ambassidae |
Parambassis lala (Hamilton, 1822) |
Lal Chanda |
Rare |
NT |
|
|
Parambassis ranga (Hamilton, 1822) |
Chanda |
Rare |
LC |
|
|
Chanda nama Hamilton, 1822 |
Chanda |
Sporadic |
LC |
|
Belontiidae |
Trichogaster fasciata Bloch & Schneider, 1801 |
Kholisa |
Rare |
LC |
|
|
Trichogaster lalius (Hamilton, 1822) |
Kholisa |
Rare |
LC |
|
Mastacembelidae |
Mastacembelus armatus (Lacepede,
1800) |
Bam |
Sporadic |
LC |
|
|
Macrognathus aral (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) |
Gochi |
Sporadic |
LC |
|
Anabantidae |
Anabas testudineus (Bloch, 1792) |
Koi |
Sporadic |
DD |
Beloniformes |
Belonidae |
Xenentodon cancila (Hamilton, 1822) |
Bok machh |
Sporadic |
LC |
Siluriformes |
Siluridae |
Wallago attu (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) |
Boyal |
Rare |
NT |
|
|
Ompok pabda (Hamilton, 1822) |
Pabda |
Rare |
NT |
|
Clariidae |
Clarias magur (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Magur |
Sporadic |
EN |
|
|
Heteropneustes fossilis (Bloch 1794) |
Singi |
Frequent |
LC |
|
Bagridae |
Mystus vittatus (Bloch, 1794) |
Tengra |
Abundant |
LC |
|
|
Mystus bleekeri (Day, 1877) |
Tengra |
Rare |
LC |
|
|
Mystus tengara (Hamilton, 1822) |
Tengra |
Abundant |
LC |
Osteoglossiformes |
Notopteridae |
Notopterus notopterus (Pallas, 1769) |
Pholui |
Sporadic |
LC |
Tetraodontiformes |
Tetraodontidae |
Leiodon cutcutia (Hamilton, 1822) |
Tapa |
Rare |
NE |
Table
2. Details of fish diversity index and evenness index in
three seasons.
Seasons |
Total
number of species |
Total
number of individuals |
Shannon
index of general diversity |
Evenness
index |
Pre-Monsoon |
24 |
1045 |
2.124 |
0.668 |
Monsoon |
33 |
1700 |
2.876 |
0.822 |
Post-Monsoon |
15 |
518 |
1.735 |
0.640 |
Table
3. List of fishing gear operated in the beel
|
Name |
Local
name |
Shape |
Type |
Mesh
Size (cm) |
Length (M) |
Height (M) |
No. of Fishermen required |
Fishing
period |
1 |
Gill net |
Phansi jal |
Rectangular |
Net fishing
gear |
0.6–7.5 |
20–60 |
0.65–3.5 |
1–2 |
Throughout
the year |
2 |
Cast net |
Chhabi jal |
Bell shaped |
Net fishing
gear |
0.6–6 |
- |
4.30–5.20 |
1 |
Throughout
the year |
3 |
Drag net |
Masari jal |
Rectangular |
Net fishing
gear |
0.10–0.15 |
50 |
6 |
3–4 |
Throughout
the year except monsoon |
4 |
Push net |
Thela jal |
Triangular |
Net fishing
gear |
0.10–0.15 |
- |
- |
1 |
Throughout
the year |
5 |
Hook and
line |
Barshi |
Rod shaped |
Tackle |
- |
2-3 |
- |
1 |
Throughout
the year |
6 |
Barsha |
Barsha |
- |
Tackle |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
Monsoon |
7 |
Koncha/ Teta |
Koncha/Teta |
Rod shaped |
Miscellaneous |
- |
2-3 |
- |
1 |
Throughout
the year |
8 |
Box trap |
Tapai |
Rectangular |
Miscellaneous |
- |
0.5–1.5 |
0.1–0.2 |
1 |
Monsoon |
CONCLUSION
The present investigation reveals that the Bochamari
Beel exhibits a rich fish
diversity. To conserve the fish
diversity in Bochamari Beel
the following recommendations are suggested to be implemented
immediately.
Prevention of indiscriminate fishing: Overexploitation
is tremendously detrimental to the overall fish diversity of the Bochamari Beel. Indiscriminate fishing should be
prevented at any cost to save the fish diversity in the beel. Strict measures should be taken for
those who will catch juvenile fishes.
Mesh size restriction: To maintain a sustainable
stock, the fishing net with lower mesh size should be prevented. Fishing net with mesh size of more than
one centimeter may be used. Regular inspection by the authorities of
fisheries department should be undertaken to prevent such malpractices. In this respect, net makers should also
be given the proper instructions.
Declaration of closed season: To carryout undisturbed
spawning, closed season should be implemented during the monsoon months (June
to August) to maintain the optimum fish stock. All types of fishing activities should
strictly be prohibited at that time.
Control of aquatic weeds: As the beel
is thickly infested by a number of aquatic weeds, the eradication of these
aquatic weeds should be undertaken at regular intervals. To eradicate these aquatic weeds,
different weed eating fishes might be introduced in addition to mechanical
methods.
Culture and capture fisheries: Simultaneous operation
of both culture and capture fisheries are beneficial for common fishermen. In this regard some areas of the beel mostly on the periphery may be converted for culture
fisheries, for a period of five months from January to May of every year. The central part of the beel, which contains water throughout the year, may be
utilized for capture fisheries.
Development of existing Fishermen cooperative
societies: The development of infrastructure of existing fishermen co-operative
society is strongly felt for the betterment of the socio-economic status of
poor fishermen families.
Awareness programme: Awareness programme regarding the
conservation of threatened and endemic fishes should be undertaken. In this aspect, the state and district
fisheries department, educational institutions, other government and non government organizations can play a vital role.
REFERENCES
Barman,
R.P. (2007). A review of the fresh water fish fauna of West
Bengal, India with suggestions for conservation of threatened and endemic
species. Records of the Zoological Survey of India,
Occasional Paper 263: 1–48.
Bhattacharjya, B.K.
& V.V. Sugunan (2000). Ecology and Fisheries of Beel in Assam.
Central
Inland Capture Fisheries Research Institute, Barrackpore, Bull
No: 104: 1–84.
Das, D., A. Sen & P. Mitra (2013). Major fauna of Rasik Beel
wetland complex (WB). Zoological Survey of India,
Occasional Paper 343: 1–76.
Das,
R.K. & S. Barat (2014). Fishing gears operated in lentic and
lotic water bodies of Cooch Behar District, West Bengal, India. Indian Journal of Traditional knowledge 13(3): 619–625.
Gopi K.C.,
S.S. Mishra & L. Kosygin (2017). Pisces. In: Chandra K., K.C. Gopi, D.V. Rao, K. Valarmathi & J.R.B. Alfred
(eds.). Current Status of Freshwater Faunal Diversity in
India. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, 624pp.
IUCN
(2017). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Version 2017-02 <http://www.iucnredlist.org/>.
Downloaded on 2 December 2017.
Jayaram, K.C.
(2009). Catfishes of India. Narendra Publishing House, New Delhi, xxii+383pp.
Jayaram, K.C.
(2010). The Fresh Water Fishes of the Indian
Region. Narendra Publishing House, New Delhi,
xxxii+616pp.
Jayaram, K.C. & K.P. Singh
(1977). On a collection of fish from Northern Bengal. Record of Zoological Survey of India, 72: 243–275.
Kar, D.,
A.V. Nagarathna, T.V. Ramachandra
& S.C. Dey (2006). Fish diversity
and conservation aspects of an aquatic ecosystem in northeastern
India. ZoosÕ Print Journal 21(7):
2308–2315; http://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.ZPJ.1437a.2308-15
Kar, D., H.
Barbhuiya & B. Saha
(2007). Wetland Diversity in Assam: Their present status. Proceeding of Taal: The 12th World Lake Conference,
1844–1857.
NWCP
(2009) (National Wetland Conservation Programme). Guidelines for conservation and management of wetlands in India. Conservation and survey division, Ministry of Environment and
Forests, Government of India, New Delhi, 45pp.
Pielou, E.C.
(1966). The measurement of diversity in different types of
biological collection. Journal of Theoretical
Biology 13: 131–144.
Ramsar Convention Secretariat
(2013). The Ramsar Conventioin
Manual, A Guide to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar,
Iran, 1971), 6th Edition. Ramsar Convention Secretariat,
Gland, Switzerland, 103pp.
Roy, U.S., P. Banerjee &
S.K. Mukhopadhyay (2012). Study on
avifaunal diversity from three different regions of northern Bengal, India. Asian Journal of Conservation Biology 1(2): 120–129.
Sanyal, A.K.,
J.R.B. Alfred, K. Venkataraman, S.K. Tiwari & S. Mitra (2012). Status of Biodiversity of West Bengal. Zoological
Survey of India, Kolkata, 969pp.
Shannon, C.E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The
Bell System Technical Journal 27: 379–427 and 623–656.
Shaw, G.E. & E.O. Shebbeare (1938). The fishes of
northern Bengal. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of
Bengal, Science Vol III: 137pp.
Tamang, L., S.
Chaudhury & D. Chaudhury
(2007). Ichthyofaunal contribution to the state and comparison of habitat contiguity on
taxonomic diversity in Senkhi stream, Arunachal
Pradesh, India. Journal of the Bombay Natural
History Society 104(2): 170–177.