Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 August 2022 | 14(8): 21588–21604
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893
(Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7842.14.8.21588-21604
#7842 | Received 24 January 2022 | Final
received 26 April 2022 | Finally accepted 31 July 2022
An overview of the
fish diversity and their threats in the Gowthami-Godavari Estuary in Andhra
Pradesh, India
Paromita Ray 1,
Giridhar Malla 2, J.A. Johnson 3 & K. Sivakumar 4
1–3 Wildlife Institute of
India, Chandrabani, Dehradun, Uttarakhand 248001, India.
4 Present address:
Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Pondicherry University,
Pondicherry 605014, India.
1 paromitaray20@gmail.com,
2 mallagiridhar@gmail.com, 3 jaj@wii.gov.in, 4 ksivakumarwii@gmail.com
(corresponding author)
Editor: Rajeev Raghavan,
Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies, Kochi, India. Date of publication: 26 August
2022 (online & print)
Citation: Ray, P., G. Malla,
J.A. Johnson & K. Sivakumar (2022). An overview of the
fish diversity and their threats in the Gowthami-Godavari Estuary in Andhra
Pradesh, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 14(8): 21588–21604. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7842.14.8.21588-21604
Copyright: © Ray et al. 2022. Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License.
JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and distribution of this
article in any medium by providing adequate credit to the author(s) and the
source of publication.
Funding: United Nations
Development Fund (UNDP), Global Environment Facility (GEF), Ministry of
Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Andhra Pradesh Forest
Department (APFD). This study was part
of a UNDP-GEF-MoEF&CC-APFD project, ‘Establishment of Knowledge-based
Management System in the East Godavari River Estuarine Ecosystem (EGREE
Project)’ of the Wildlife Institute of India. The authors would also like to
acknowledge the support of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Department, who provided
us with the necessary permissions (Rc. No. 23833/2012/WL-S dated 29/11/2013)
Competing interests: The authors declare no
competing interests.
Author details: Paromita Ray is an independent
researcher, working on freshwater fish ecology and conservation in Andhra
Pradesh. Giridhar
Malla is an independent researcher, working on small cat conservation in
India. He also works towards the conservation of freshwater and coastal
habitats in Andhra Pradesh.
Dr. J.A. Johnson is a Scientist at the Wildlife Institute of
India, with an expertise in freshwater fish ecology and taxonomy. Dr. K.
Sivakumar is a former Scientist at the Wildlife Institute of India
and presently working as Professor at Pondicherry University, with an
expertise in conservation of freshwater and marine ecosystems.
Author contributions:
PR—collection of field data, analysis, preparation of
manuscript. GM—collection of field data and preparation of
manuscript. JAJ—guidance on the study, manuscript reviewing and
editing. KS—guidance on the study, manuscript editing and reviewing,
Acknowledgements: This study was part
of a UNDP-GEF-MoEF&CC-APFD project, ‘Establishment of Knowledge-based
Management System in the East Godavari River Estuarine Ecosystem (EGREE
Project)’ of the Wildlife Institute of India. The authors would like to thank
the director, and dean of the Wildlife Institute of India for providing their
support in terms of infrastructure and guidance. The authors would also like to
acknowledge the support of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Department, who provided
us with the necessary permissions (Rc. No. 23833/2012/WL-S dated 29/11/2013)
and support to carry out the study between 2013 and 2017. We are very grateful to
Prasad Anna, Raju, and other local fishers of the East Godavari district,
without whom this project would not have been possible. We thank Leela Prasad
for helping us during some of the field surveys and Steve Lockett for his
assistance in editing this manuscript.
Abstract: The fish diversity of
different estuarine habitats of the Gowthami-Godavari River was studied from
2014 to 2017. We recorded 231 species of finfishes belonging to 27 orders, 81
families, and 167 genera. Perciformes was the most speciose order, followed by
Carangiformes and Clupeiformes. Of the 231 species, one is an Endangered
species (Silonia childreni), three are Vulnerable (Tenualosa toli,
Cirrhinus cirrhosis, and Wallago attu), three are Near
Threatened, and 11 are Data Deficient species. We also recorded five exotic
species from the study area, of which Oreochromis mossambicus was the
most dominant. The major threats, including potential impacts of river
regulation and climate change on the estuarine habitats of Gowthami-Godavari,
are also discussed.
Keywords: Coringa, dam,
eastern coast, ichthyofauna, mangroves.
INTRODUCTION
Among the large
monsoonal rivers of the Indian peninsula, the Godavari River is the largest,
with a drainage basin of 312,812 km2 (Rao et al. 2015). The river
originates at Triambakeshwar in the Western Ghats and travels eastward for
~1,460 km flowing through eight states and various landscapes such as the
Western Ghats, Deccan traps of central India, and the Eastern Ghats along the
eastern coast. It finally drains into the Bay of Bengal through a number of
distributaries before creating a large, fertile delta in Andhra Pradesh. The
Godavari river basin accounts for nearly 10% of India’s geographical area,
thereby playing a major role in accruing socio-ecological, economic, and
cultural benefits to the country.
At its confluence
with Bay of Bengal, numerous distributaries of the Godavari River form an
estuarine complex constituting a diverse array of coastal habitats that include
the estuaries formed at the river mouths, mangrove forests, and a large bay
partially enclosed by a natural sand spit known as Hope Island. The mangroves
created at the confluence of Gowthami River, a major distributary of the
Godavari River, are among the largest mangrove forests in India. These habitats
support rich and unique biodiversity, including rare mangrove species such as Ceriops
decandra and Xylocarpus granatum, and threatened mammals such as the
Fishing Cat Prionailurus viverrinus and Smooth-coated Otter Lutrogale
perspicillata (Malla 2014; Malla et al. 2019). The estuarine complex and
the mangrove-lined creeks of the estuary located at the interface of freshwater
and salt water also contributes immensely to the region’s fisheries particularly
supporting the sustenance of the local small-scale fisheries.
Many studies,
including those by Krishnamurthy & Jeyaseelan (1981), Mukherjee et al.
(2013), Ramachandra et al. (2013), and Ramanujam et al. (2014),
have documented the diversity of fish fauna present in Indian estuaries. In
the case of the lower basin of the Godavari River, earlier ichthyological
studies provide substantial information on the distribution and taxonomy of
fish species (Day 1888; Chacko & Ganapati 1949; Rao 1965, 1976;
Rajyalakshmi 1973; Rao 1976; Talwar & Jhingran 1991). Species including Awaous
fluviatilis Rao, 1971 and Incara multisquamatus Rao, 1961 were first
described from the Godavari delta. Nearly two decades ago, Krishnan &
Mishra (2001) provided a comprehensive summary of the fish diversity of the
Godavari River estuary, accounting for 312 species belonging to 189 genera and
88 families.
In this paper, we
provide an overview of the fish diversity and distribution in different
habitats of the Godavari River estuarine complex, and specifically focusing on
the fish diversity in the mangrove-lined creeks. We also discuss various
threats to these mangrove forests, and their fish communities. This study is
important in the context of the vulnerability of this estuary, and its
biological communities to potential large-scale changes triggered by rising sea
levels and freshwater regulation by an under-construction large dam.
METHODS
Study area
This study was
conducted in the Godavari River Estuary located in the southeastern state of
Andhra Pradesh in peninsular India. Before its confluence with the sea, the
river branches out into two major distributaries, namely the Gowthami-Godavari
and Vasistha-Godavari. The present study focuses on the Gowthami distributary of
the river (16.98 °N, 82.30 °E and 16.58 °N, 82.31 °E).
With an area of 316
km2, a substantial part of the mangroves formed at the northern
confluence of Gowthami-Godavari with the sea are protected inside the Coringa
Wildlife Sanctuary (CWS) (Bagaria et al. 2021). Here, the mangroves are drained
by three major sub-tidal creeks, namely Thulyabhaga, Coringa, and Gaderu; these
creeks flow south to north, dividing the sanctuary into different zones.
Another smaller sub-tidal creek, namely Giriyampeta is located outside the
southern border of the sanctuary. In addition to these major creeks, the
sanctuary is drained by several smaller sub-tidal and intertidal creeks.
The subtidal creeks
drain into the Kakinada Bay, a naturally formed semi-enclosed bay formed at the
northern edge of the sanctuary. The main branch of the Gowthami-Godavari
creates a riverine estuary at the southern edge of the sanctuary, where the
tidal influence can extend up to 50 km upstream.
Sampling sites
Fish sampling was
carried out across 52 sites between 2014 and 2017 (Figure 1). Of these, 28
sites were located within mangrove creeks of the CWS (Image 1), 16 sites were
in the riverine part of the estuary, and eight sites were located in the
Kakinada Bay. Additional surveys were carried out in the local fish markets and
landing centers located adjacent to the mangroves, and the river mouth.
In the main river
within the sanctuary, fishes were collected using locally available trammel
nets and gill nets, which were set perpendicular to the water flow for a period
of one hour during low tides. In the case of intertidal creeks, block nets were
placed at the creek entrance at the beginning of low tide. The fishes that
remained within the blocked creek were collected before the onset of the next
high tide. Since sampling was conducted inside a protected area, only
unidentified specimens were collected for further identification in the
laboratory. On a few occasions, specimens were collected opportunistically from
fishers’ catches from the subtidal creeks, bay, or the river mouth.
Identifications were
made using the FAO Fish Catalogue (Fischer & Whitehead 1974; Fischer &
Bianchi 1984) and other taxonomic keys available for the region (Day 1888;
Jayaram 2010). The correct taxonomy of the species was updated in accordance
with the California Academy of Sciences’ online repository, the Catalog of
Fishes (Fricke et al. 2021). The functional guilds and migratory behavior of
the species were confirmed following FishBase (Froese & Pauly 2021) while
the threatened status of each of the species followed the latest IUCN Red List
of Threatened Species (IUCN 2021).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Diversity and
distribution of fishes in the estuary
In the present study,
total of 231 species of finfish belonging to 27 orders, 81 families, and 167
genera were recorded (Table 1; Images 4–7). Order Perciformes was the most
speciose with 41 species, 22 genera, and 10 families. It was followed by
Carangiformes (30 species, 29 genera, and 12 families), and Clupeiformes (25
species, 16 genera, and five families). Among the families (Figure 2),
Carangidae was represented by the highest number of species (16 species),
followed by Gobiidae and Sciaenidae (both represented by 12 species each). Of
all the recorded species, 179 were carnivorous, 45 were omnivorous and two were
herbivorous.
In comparison to the
earlier study carried out by Krishnan & Mishra (2001), fewer finfish
species were recorded during this study. This difference may not necessarily
suggest a decline in the overall number of species in the estuary, but is more
reflective of the taxonomic and nomenclatural changes. As an example, Krishnan
& Mishra (2001) reported seven species of Stolephorus from this
estuary: S. andhraensis, S. baganensis, S. commersonii, S. dubiosus, S.
indicus, S. insularis, and S. waitei. However, Hata et al. (2020,
2021) made several revisions to the genus Stolephorus including updating
the species’ distribution records. The authors suggested the non-occurrence of S.
baganensis, S. commersonii and S. waitei in India, thus
making the records of these three species in the Godavari estuary questionable.
On the other hand,
species including Plectorhinchus gibbosus, Diagramma pictum, and
non-native species such as Oreochromis mossambicus and Piaractus
brachypomus were recorded for the first time from this estuary. Moreover,
the study by Krishnan & Mishra (2001) had a broader scope, having included
other distributaries of Godavari River, in comparison to the current study
whose focus was the Gowthami-Godavari system. Likewise, the number of species
recorded in this study is relatively lower than other large estuaries or
mangrove forests located on the east coast of India, including the Sundarbans
mangroves (Bhattacharya et al. 2018) and Chilika Lake (Mohanty et al. 2015),
from where 312 and 299 species have been recorded, respectively.
Many of the species
recorded during this study have also been recorded from other Indian estuaries
(Bijukumar & Sushama 2000; Ghosh et al. 2011; Mohanty et al. 2015;
Bhattacharya et al. 2018; Sreekanth et al. 2020; Roshni et al. 2021). A number
of freshwater species belonging to orders Cypriniformes and Siluriformes were
recorded from the mangrove creeks. While a few of them, such as Mystus gulio
and Etroplus suratensis (Image 7a) are known to occur in brackish
water habitats (Bijukumar & Sushama 2000), the occurrence of carp species
including Labeo rohita, L. calbasu, and L. fimbriatus were
recorded in a few creeks during the post-monsoon season. This is the time when
the mangrove forest gets flushed annually with sediment-laden fresh water from
the river. The occurrence of these freshwater fishes in the mangrove creeks,
however, may also be explained by the stocking of these species in aquaculture
ponds abutting the mangroves, creeks, and canals across the East Godavari
district. The number of species recorded from the mangrove-lined creeks (150
species), river mouth (151 species), and the Kakinada Bay (149 species) was
similar. Nearly 67% of the total species occurred in at least two habitat types
showing a high degree of overlap between the estuarine habitats of the delta.
Of these, 64 species were found in all three habitat types. The high degree of
overlap in species between the habitats indicates the importance of
connectivity within this estuarine complex. Fishes recorded exclusively from
the bay and the river mouth respectively, constituted nearly 16% and 11% of the
total number of species recorded during this study.
Connectivity between
the three estuarine habitats and the seascape of East Godavari district is
crucial for migratory species occurring in the estuary. The flagship migratory
species is Tenualosa ilisha, which undertakes large-scale migration from
the sea into the Godavari River during the monsoon, when they contribute to
important fisheries. It is popularly known as ‘Pulasa’ in Andhra Pradesh (or
‘Hilsa’ throughout the Indian sub-continent) and has high commercial value.
Other important migratory species occurring in the estuary include Tenualosa
toli, Anodontostoma chacunda, Lates calcarifer (Image 4a),
and many eel species. Other species, such as mullets (Mugilidae), undertake
migrations in the creeks on shorter temporal scales, mainly driven by the tidal
regimes and food availability.
Threatened and exotic
species
Four species recorded
from this estuarine complex are assessed as threatened on the IUCN Red List.
These include the Endangered Silonia childreni, and the Vulnerable Tenualosa
toli, Cirrhinus cirrhosus and Wallago attu. The Godavari River is an
important habitat for Silonia childreni, a highly threatened catfish
species occurring in the large river systems of peninsular India. On multiple
occasions, the authors recorded its distribution from various parts of the
river stretch in Andhra Pradesh, including the estuarine part of the river.
Despite this, catches of this large catfish species has been declining, as
observed by the local fishers. Additionally, three Near Threatened species: Ompok
bimaculatus, Harpadon nehereus, & Protonibea diacanthus and 10
Data Deficient species: Platycephalus indicus, Epinephelus tauvina,
Acanthopagrus datnia, Rastrelliger kanagurta, Scomberomorus
guttatus, Parapocryptes rictuosus, Taenioides cirratus, Psettodes
erumei, Cynoglossus arel, & Megalops cyprinoides
were recorded during this study (Table 2). Of the 10 Data Deficient species, P.
indicus was among the more commonly occurring species in the estuary, which
was recorded from all the three habitat types during this study. The two eel
species, Parapocryptes rictuosus and Taenioides cirratus, were
recorded only on one occasion in a fisher’s catch from the mangrove creek of
Tulyabagha inside the CWS.
Five exotic species
were also recorded during this study. These include Oreochromis mossambicus,
O. niloticus, Ctenopharyngodon idella, Cyprinus carpio, and
Piaractus brachypomus. The first four species are recognized as worst
invasive species’ of the world by the IUCN Global Invasive Species Database
(2021) due to their negative impacts on native fauna. Alarmingly, O.
mossambicus was found to be among the most dominant species in the CWS.
This species appeared to have established a self-sustaining wild population
within the Thulyabagha and Coringa creeks of the sanctuary, where the
salinities annually ranged from 2 ppt to 20 ppt. The remaining exotic species
were recorded only from the riverine zone of the estuary complex.
The main pathway of
exotic fish introduction is likely to be through the aquaculture ponds that
stock these exotic species. Piaractus brachypomus (Pirapitinga), a
native of South America, was first recorded from the fish landing centre by the
authors in 2013. Since then, this species has become a popular fish in the region
(and across the country) and is being extensively stocked in aquaculture ponds
along the river, mangrove creeks and canals. It is commonly sold in the local
fish markets under the guise of ‘white pomfret’ or ‘freshwater pomfret’ and is
even being recorded in the catches made by the local fishers in the river
(Paromita Ray and Giridhar Malla pers. obs.). This could indicate its possible
escape from the aquaculture farms into, and possible establishment within, the
river. The authors also noted two occurrence records of Pterygoplichthys
sp. (family Loricariidae) from the freshwater upstream zone of the river in the
East Godavari district. Local fishers recorded this species during the flood
season.
Major threats
The Godavari River
delta and the estuarine complex have been greatly altered by human activities.
The Godavari River delta, along with the Krishna River delta to its south,
constitutes one of the largest offshore natural gas reserves in India. The
Kakinada Bay also acts as a natural harbour as well as an important port for
the state. Additionally, the industrial city of Kakinada (also the headquarters
of the East Godavari district) is located adjacent to the mangroves and the
estuary. Some of the main causes for degradation of the estuarine ecosystems
and the mangrove forests include: diversion for aquaculture, agriculture, salt
pans and industries; and rapid and unplanned urbanization (Jayanthi et al.
2018; Bagaria et al. 2021). Other threats include discharge of untreated
effluents from anthropogenic sources such as aquaculture farms and industries
into the river, canals and the mangrove creeks (Rao et al. 2018); sand mining
at the river bed, dredging of the creeks and river mouth (Malini & Rao
2004) alteration of the natural flow of Godavari River and obstructing
freshwater discharge and sediment load into the estuary and mangroves (Malini
& Rao 2004). Large-scale deforestation and loss of aquatic habitats in the
upper catchments of Godavari River, such as that found in and around the Papikonda
National Park (Aditya & Ganesh 2019) which is ~80 km upstream of the
estuary, also exacerbates the negative impacts on the estuarine biodiversity.
During the present
study, we noticed a number of aquaculture ponds located very close to the
mangrove forests, and adjoining the feeder creeks and canals (Image 2). This
not only increases the risk of release of exotic fishes and causes degradation
of the fringe mangroves, but also increases the risk of introduction of disease
in the wild fish community. During the study period, two instances of fish
kills were also observed in the Coringa creek draining into the CWS. On further
enquiry by the authors, the local fishers informed us that fish kills have
become a regular occurrence in the creeks due to the release of untreated
effluents by the aquaculture ponds and the industries located upstream. The
coastal zones of the East Godavari district are considered among the most
polluted in the state (Muktha et al. 2018).
The mangroves of CWS
are well-protected and support a diverse aquatic community. However, the
mangrove patches at the edge of the sanctuary or the unprotected patches in the
district are highly vulnerable to loss and conversion to other land uses,
including aquaculture and industries. Bagaria et al. (2021) estimated a loss of
5.81 sq. km of unprotected mangroves in the delta between 1977 and 2015,
complemented with a simultaneous rise of 177 km2 in the area under
aquaculture. The study has also highlighted the rapid increase in human
settlements and industries and a loss of other natural coastal features,
including coastal scrub, mudflats, and riverine vegetation. A recent report by
Rao (2021) inferred that an unprotected patch of mangrove drained by a creek
near Kakinada harbour had been reported to be reclaimed for city development.
As the unprotected
mangroves on the landward side are being lost to land-use changes, climate
change is driving mangrove loss on the seaward side of the delta. An estimated
15 km2 of mangroves in the East Godavari district have been lost due
to sea-level rise between 1977 and 2015 (Bagaria et al. 2021). Visible signs of
seaward changes, including degradation and intrusion of sand into the mangrove
forests, were also observed by the authors during the present study (Image 3). This
region is also among the coastal stretches of India that are most vulnerable to
natural disasters including cyclones and storm surges (Mohapatra et al. 2012).
The effects of sea-level rise compounded with the increasing degradation and
conversion of the mangroves on the landward side is possibly driving them
towards a situation of ‘mangrove squeeze’.
In addition to the
above threats, regulation of the Godavari River driven by the Polavaram Dam, a
large dam being constructed nearly 100 km upstream of the river mouth, will
potentially lead to drastic reductions in freshwater and sediment flow into the
mangroves and the estuary. Studies from Portugal (Chicharo et al. 2006), China
(Jiao et al. 2007) and other parts of the world have shown the negative impacts
of damming on estuaries and marine habitats, including changes in salinity
regime, nutrient flow, primary productivity and the fish community. Ezcurra et
al. (2019) found a rapid coastal recession in otherwise accreting tropical
river basins after they were dammed, coupled with losses in fisheries and other
ecosystem services. With the presence of nine large dams and a number of
smaller dams and irrigation projects, the Godavari River is a highly regulated
river system of India. The annual sediment flux in the river basin has already
decreased by an estimated 74% (Gupta et al. 2012). The Polavaram Dam has a high
likelihood of exacerbating the downstream impacts by restricting the sediment
discharge and further altering the freshwater flow regime, both of which play
important roles in the sustenance of the mangroves as well as in structuring
the estuarine fish assemblages. It will, therefore, be crucial to regularly
monitor the estuary and its fish community once the dam becomes functional in
the near future.
Conclusion and Recommendations
This study documented
the rich finfish diversity of the dynamic Godavari River estuarine complex.
This estuary complex, formed by India’s largest peninsular river, is undergoing
rapid changes driven by number of anthropogenic factors coupled with sea-level
rise, coastal erosion and natural disasters including cyclones. While the
protected mangroves of the CWS do provide a crucial refuge for estuarine and
juvenile marine fishes, it is important to adopt a holistic and prescient
approach to protect the unprotected coastal habitats of the region. As this
study suggests, various fish species are utilizing the different estuarine
habitats of the Godavari delta. Few migratory and conservation-concern species
such as the ‘Hilsa’ or ‘Pulasa’ have also been recorded in this estuary.
Therefore, to better manage the threats, and to protect the aquatic ecosystems
of the East Godavari district, it is crucial to understand and acknowledge the
importance of maintaining the ecological connectivity, both between and within
the riverscape and the various estuarine habitats, including the river mouth,
the mangrove-lined creeks and the bay. The information collected in this study
will serve as a baseline to monitor future changes in the fish community of
this region, driven by various anthropogenic and natural stressors.
The Polavaram Dam is
already under construction, but it is still important to focus on mitigating
the negative impacts on the riverine habitats, both upstream and downstream.
The minimum freshwater flows to the downstream habitats must be ensured by the
dam authorities, taking in consideration the river’s natural pattern of
seasonal variation in freshwater discharge. Alongside this, it is also
important to recognize the negative impacts of stocking and introduction of
non-native fish species as a mitigation measure. Several non-native species
have been recorded in this study that were introduced either through fisheries
or accidentally through aquaculture and the aquarium industry. The district
authorities and the fisheries department need to take immediate steps to
address this issue, while strictly prohibiting the stocking of non-native
fishes in the reservoir, canals or aquaculture ponds in the district. The
fisheries department can encourage protection of the carp and catfish species
that are native to the Godavari River basin such as the threatened Silonia
childreni.
We recommend mapping
of the unprotected and degraded patches of mangroves in the delta region of the
district that serve as important nursery habitats for the fish species. This
would help in identifying and prioritizing the most vulnerable stretches for focused
conservation efforts. Declaring the most degraded and vulnerable mangroves as
‘eco-sensitive zones’ or ‘community reserves’ would provide them with basic
protection from future conversions and losses. The authorities may follow this
with restoration of the degraded mangrove patches. A similar prioritization
exercise should also be carried out for other coastal habitats of the estuary,
including the unprotected creeks, intertidal zones, mudflats, river banks and
the river mouth.
Additionally, a minimum
buffer should be allowed around the mangrove forests and the creeks on the
landward side to allow them to maintain their structural integrity and landward
shift driven by sea-level rise. The aquaculture ponds should particularly be
located at a minimum distance away from the mangrove forests and the creeks.
Strict monitoring of the ponds, as per the guidelines prescribed by the Coastal
Aquaculture Authority of India, should be carried out to prevent untreated
effluent discharge and release of non-native species into the natural habitats.
Since the area under aquaculture in the district continues to grow each year, a
scientific study is recommended that would assess the ecological capacity of
this estuarine region to support this industry along with assessing the extant
negative ecological and socio-economic impacts of the same. The policies
pertaining to captive fisheries should actively encourage sustainable
aquaculture practices rather than focusing on maximization of short-term
economic gains.
The district
authorities should also enhance monitoring of destructive activities in the
river basin such as sand-mining, deforestation of the riparian zones, and
conversion of river banks to other land-uses. In addition, the government
should especially take actions to stop illegal mining of the river bed in the
district, proactively monitor the pollution levels in the river, mangroves, and
the associated creeks and canals and initiate action against the industries and
aquaculture ponds found releasing untreated effluents into the estuary, as
prescribed by law.
Garnering the support
of local communities and other stakeholders is crucial for the long-term
conservation and management of the Godavari estuarine complex and its
associated biodiversity. For generating local support, district and
village-level organizations such as the panchayat, self-help groups, fishers’
collectives, and aquaculture collectives can be leveraged. Regular and focused
campaigns would be helpful to improve awareness as well as generating local
stewardship for sustainable fisheries and biodiversity conservation. Such
awareness programs should also be developed for policy makers, planners, and
stakeholders from the agricultural and industrial sectors since their actions
may also have serious impacts on the aquatic ecosystems of the district. Along
with this, further inter-disciplinary studies are important to understand the
different features of this estuarine complex including biological, ecological,
social, cultural, and economic complexities.
Table 1. Habitat-wise
list of finfish species recorded during this study from the Godavari River
estuary complex.
|
|
Order |
Family |
Species |
Main River |
Mangroves |
Kakinada Bay |
|
1 |
Elopiformes |
Elopidae |
Elops machnata (Fabricius, 1775)
(Image 5e) |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
2 |
|
Megalopidae |
Megalops cyprinoides (Broussonet, 1782) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
3 |
Anguilliformes |
Muraenidae |
Strophidon sathete (Hamilton, 1822) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
4 |
|
Ophichthidae |
Bascanichthys deraniyagalai Menon, 1961 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
5 |
|
|
Cirrhimuraena playfairii (Günther, 1870) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
6 |
|
|
Pisodonophis boro (Hamilton, 1822) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
7 |
|
|
Pisodonophis cancrivorus (Richardson, 1848) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
8 |
|
Muraenescocidae |
Congresox talabonoides (Bleeker, 1852) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
9 |
|
|
Congresox talabon (Cuvier, 1829) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
10 |
|
|
Muraenesox cinereus (Forsskål, 1775) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
11 |
|
|
Muraenesox bagio (Hamilton, 1822) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
12 |
|
Congridae |
Uroconger lepturus (Richardson, 1845) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
13 |
|
Moringuidae |
Moringua raitaborua (Hamilton, 1822) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
14 |
Osteoglossiformes |
Notopteridae |
Notopterus notopterus (Pallas, 1769) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
15 |
Clupeiformes |
Clupeidae |
Anodontostoma chacunda (Hamilton, 1822) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
16 |
|
|
Escualosa thoracata (Valenciennes,
1847) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
17 |
|
|
Hilsa kelee (Cuvier, 1829) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
18 |
|
|
Nematalosa nasus (Bloch, 1795) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
19 |
|
|
Sardinella longiceps Valenciennes, 1847 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
20 |
|
|
Sardinella fimbriata (Valenciennes,
1847) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
21 |
|
|
Tenualosa ilisha (Hamilton, 1822) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
22 |
|
|
Tenualosa toli (Valenciennes,
1847) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
23 |
|
Dussumieriidae |
Dussumieria acuta Valenciennes, 1847 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
24 |
|
|
Dussumieria elopsoides Bleeker, 1849 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
25 |
|
Engraulidae |
Coilia dussumieri Valenciennes, 1848 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
26 |
|
|
Coilia reynaldi Valenciennes, 1848 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
27 |
|
|
Setipinna taty (Valenciennes,
1848) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
28 |
|
|
Setipinna tenuifilis (Valenciennes, 1848) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
29 |
|
|
Stolephorus commersonnii Lacepède, 1803 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
30 |
|
|
Stolephorus indicus (van Hasselt,
1823) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
31 |
|
|
Thryssa mystax (Bloch &
Schneider, 1801) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
32 |
|
|
Thryssa malabarica (Bloch, 1795) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
33 |
|
|
Thryssa baelama (Fabricius, 1775) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
34 |
|
Chirocentridae |
Chirocentrus dorab (Fabricius, 1775) |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
35 |
|
Pristigasteridae |
Ilisha melastoma (Bloch &
Schneider, 1801) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
36 |
|
|
Ilisha megaloptera (Swainson, 1838) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
37 |
|
|
Opisthopterus tardoore (Cuvier, 1829) (Image 4c) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
38 |
|
|
Pellona ditchela Valenciennes,
1847 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
39 |
|
|
Raconda russeliana Gray, 1831 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
40 |
Gonorynchiformes |
Chanidae |
Chanos chanos (Fabricius, 1775) |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
41 |
Cypriniformes |
Cyprinidae |
Cirrhinus cirrhosus (Bloch, 1795) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
42 |
|
|
Cirrhinus mrigala (Hamilton, 1822) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
43 |
|
|
Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus, 1758 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
44 |
|
|
Labeo catla (Hamilton, 1822) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
45 |
|
|
Labeo calbasu (Hamilton, 1822) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
46 |
|
|
Labeo fimbriatus (Bloch, 1795) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
47 |
|
|
Labeo rohita (Hamilton, 1822) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
48 |
|
|
Puntius sophore (Hamilton,
1822) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
49 |
|
|
Pethia ticto (Hamilton,
1822) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
50 |
|
Xenocyprididae |
Ctenopharyngodon idella (Valenciennes,
1844) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
51 |
Characiformes |
Serrasalmidae |
Piaractus brachypomus (Cuvier, 1818) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
52 |
Siluriformes |
Plotosidae |
Plotosus canius Hamilton, 1822 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
53 |
|
|
Plotosus lineatus (Thunberg, 1787) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
54 |
|
Ailiidae |
Silonia childreni (Sykes, 1839) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
55 |
|
Bagridae |
Mystus gulio (Hamilton, 1822) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
56 |
|
|
Mystus vittatus (Bloch, 1794) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
57 |
|
Pangasiidae |
Pangasius pangasius (Hamilton, 1822) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
58 |
|
Siluridae |
Wallago attu (Bloch &
Schneider, 1801) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
59 |
|
|
Ompok bimaculatus (Bloch, 1794) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
60 |
|
Heteropneustidae |
Heteropneustes fossilis (Bloch, 1794) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
61 |
|
Ariidae |
Arius arius (Hamilton, 1822) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
62 |
|
|
Arius gagora (Hamilton 1822) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
63 |
|
|
Arius maculatus (Thunberg, 1792) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
64 |
|
|
Plicofollis dussumieri (Valenciennes,
1840) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
65 |
Aulopiformes |
Synodontidae |
Saurida tumbil (Bloch, 1795) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
66 |
|
|
Synodus indicus (Day, 1873) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
67 |
|
|
Harpadon nehereus (Hamilton, 1822) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
68 |
Batrachoidiformes |
Batrachoididae |
Allenbatrachus grunniens (Linnaeus, 1758)
(Image 7c) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
69 |
Scombriformes |
Scombridae |
Katsuwonus pelamis (Linnaeus, 1758) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
70 |
|
|
Rastrelliger kanagurta (Cuvier,
1816) |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
71 |
|
|
Scomberomorus guttatus (Bloch &
Schneider, 1801) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
72 |
|
Trichiuridae |
Eupleurogrammus muticus (Gray, 1831) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
73 |
|
|
Lepturacanthus savala (Cuvier, 1829) |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
74 |
|
|
Trichiurus lepturus Linnaeus, 1758 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
75 |
Syngnathiformes |
Mullidae |
Upeneus sulphureus Cuvier, 1829 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
76 |
|
|
Upeneus vittatus (Forsskål, 1775) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
77 |
|
|
Upeneus moluccensis (Bleeker, 1855) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
78 |
|
|
Upeneus taeniopterus Cuvier, 1829 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
79 |
|
Callionymidae |
Callionymus carebares Alcock, 1890 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
80 |
Kurtiformes |
Kurtidae |
Kurtus indicus Bloch, 1786 (Image
7d) |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
81 |
|
Apogonidae |
Jaydia queketti (Gilchrist 1903)
(Image 6d) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
82 |
Gobiiformes |
Eleotridae |
Eleotris fusca (Bloch &
Schneider, 1801) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
83 |
|
|
Butis butis (Hamilton, 1822)
(Image 5d) |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
84 |
|
|
Butis humeralis (Valenciennes,
1837) |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
85 |
|
Gobiidae |
Aulopareia cyanomos (Bleeker, 1849)
(Image 5b) |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
86 |
|
|
Apocryptes bato (Hamilton, 1822) |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
87 |
|
|
Boleophthalmus boddarti (Pallas, 1770) |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
88 |
|
|
Glossogobius giuris (Hamilton, 1822) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
89 |
|
|
Oxyurichthys microlepis (Bleeker, 1849)
(Image 7b) |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
90 |
|
|
Parapocryptes rictuosus (Valenciennes,
1837) |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
91 |
|
|
Periophthalmus chrysospilos Bleeker, 1853 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
92 |
|
|
Taenioides anguillaris (Linnaeus, 1758) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
93 |
|
|
Taenioides cirratus (Blyth, 1860) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
94 |
|
|
Trypauchen vagina (Bloch &
Schneider, 1801) (Image 6e) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
95 |
|
|
Yongeichthys nebulosus (Forsskål, 1775) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
96 |
|
|
Stigmatogobius sadanundio (Hamilton, 1822) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
97 |
Synbranchiformes |
Mastacembelidae |
Macrognathus pancalus Hamilton 1822 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
98 |
|
Synbranchidae |
Ophisternon bengalense McClelland, 1844 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
99 |
Anabantiformes |
Anabantidae |
Anabas testudineus (Bloch, 1792) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
100 |
|
Osphronemidae |
Trichogaster fasciata Bloch &
Schneider, 1801 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
101 |
|
Channidae |
Channa punctata (Bloch, 1793) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
102 |
|
|
Channa striata (Bloch, 1793) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
103 |
|
Nandidae |
Nandus nandus (Hamilton, 1822) |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
104 |
Carangiformes |
Latidae |
Lates calcarifer (Bloch, 1790)
(Image 4a) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
105 |
|
Lactariidae |
Lactarius lactarius (Bloch &
Schneider, 1801) |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
106 |
|
Sphyraenidae |
Sphyraena obtusata Cuvier, 1829 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
107 |
|
|
Sphyraena jello Cuvier, 1829 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
108 |
|
Polynemidae |
Eleutheronema tetradactylum (Shaw, 1804) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
109 |
|
|
Polydactylus sextarius (Bloch &
Schneider, 1801) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
110 |
|
|
Leptomelanosoma indicum (Shaw, 1804) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
111 |
|
Psettodidae |
Psettodes erumei (Bloch &
Schneider, 1801) |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
112 |
|
Bothidae |
Bothus myriaster (Temminck &
Schlegel, 1846) |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
113 |
|
Paralichthyidae |
Pseudorhombus arsius (Hamilton, 1822) |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
114 |
|
|
Pseudorhombus triocellatus (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
115 |
|
|
Pseudorhombus elevatus Ogilby, 1912 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
116 |
|
Soleidae |
Aesopia cornuta Kaup, 1858 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
117 |
|
|
Solea ovata Richardson, 1846 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
118 |
|
|
Dagetichthys albomaculatus (Kaup, 1858) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
119 |
|
|
Zebrias synapturoides (Jenkins, 1910) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
120 |
|
Cynoglossidae |
Cynoglossus arel (Bloch &
Schneider, 1801) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
121 |
|
|
Cynoglossus bilineatus (Lacepède, 1802) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
122 |
|
|
Cynoglossus puncticeps (Richardson, 1846) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
123 |
|
|
Cynoglossus lingua Hamilton,
1822 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
124 |
|
|
Cynoglossus cynoglossus (Hamilton, 1822) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
125 |
|
|
Paraplagusia bilineata (Bloch, 1787) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
126 |
|
Menidae |
Mene maculata (Bloch &
Schneider, 1801) |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
127 |
|
Carangidae |
Megalaspis cordyla (Linnaeus,
1758) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
128 |
|
|
Scyris indica (Rüppell, 1830) |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
129 |
|
|
Alepes djedaba (Fabricius, 1775) |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
130 |
|
|
Alepes kleinii (Bloch, 1793) |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
131 |
|
|
Atropus atropos (Bloch &
Schneider, 1801) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
132 |
|
|
Atule mate (Cuvier, 1833) |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
133 |
|
|
Platycaranx malabaricus (Bloch &
Schneider, 1801) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
134 |
|
|
Caranx ignobilis (Forsskål,
1775) |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
135 |
|
|
Caranx sexfasciatus Quoy &
Gaimard, 1825 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
136 |
|
|
Caranx heberi (Bennett,
1830) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
137 |
|
|
Decapterus russelli (Rüppell,
1830) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
138 |
|
|
Parastromateus niger (Bloch, 1795) |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
139 |
|
|
Scomberoides commersonnianus Lacepède, 1801 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
140 |
|
|
Scomberoides tol (Cuvier,
1832) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
141 |
|
|
Selar crumenophthalmus (Bloch, 1793) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
142 |
|
|
Trachinotus mookalee Cuvier, 1832. (Image 6a) |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
143 |
|
Rachycentridae |
Rachycentron canadum (Linnaeus, 1766) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
144 |
Cichliformes |
Ambassidae |
Ambassis gymnocephalus (Lacepède, 1802) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
145 |
|
|
Chanda nama Hamilton, 1822 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
146 |
|
Cichlidae |
Etroplus suratensis (Bloch, 1790) (Image 7a) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
147 |
|
|
Pseudetroplus maculatus (Bloch, 1795) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
148 |
|
|
Oreochromis mossambicus (Peters, 1852) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
149 |
|
|
Oreochromis niloticus (Linnaeus, 1758) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
150 |
Cyprinodontiformes |
Aplocheilidae |
Aplocheilus blockii Arnold, 1911 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
151 |
Beloniformes |
Belonidae |
Strongylura strongylura (van Hasselt,
1823) |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
152 |
|
|
Xenentodon cancila (Hamilton, 1822) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
153 |
|
Hemiramphidae |
Hyporhamphus limbatus (Valenciennes,
1847) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
154 |
|
Adrianichthyidae |
Oryzias dancena (Hamilton 1822) |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
155 |
Mugiliformes |
Mugilidae |
Mugil cephalus Linnaeus, 1758 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
156 |
|
|
Chelon parsia (Hamilton, 1822) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
157 |
|
|
Planiliza subviridis (Valenciennes,
1836) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
158 |
|
|
Planiliza planiceps (Valenciennes,
1836) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
159 |
|
|
Planiliza tade (Fabricius,
1775) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
160 |
|
|
Rhinomugil corsula (Hamilton, 1822) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
161 |
|
|
Crenimugil seheli (Fabricius, 1775) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
162 |
Blenniiformes |
Blenniidae |
Omobranchus ferox (Herre, 1927) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
163 |
Perciformes *sedis mutabilis* |
Sillaginidae |
Sillaginopsis domina (Cuvier, 1816) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
164 |
|
|
Sillago sihama (Fabricius, 1775) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
165 |
|
Lutjanidae |
Lutjanus johnii (Bloch, 1792)
(Image 4b) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
166 |
|
|
Lutjanus russellii (Bleeker, 1849) |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
167 |
|
|
Lutjanus argentimaculatus (Forsskål, 1775)
(Image 5c) |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
168 |
|
|
Lutjanus fulviflamma (Forsskål, 1775) |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
169 |
|
Gerreidae |
Gerres filamentosus Cuvier, 1829 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
170 |
|
|
Gerres limbatus Cuvier, 1830 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
171 |
|
|
Gerres setifer (Hamilton, 1822) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
172 |
|
|
Gerres oyena (Fabricius, 1775) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
173 |
|
|
Gerres longirostris (Lacepède,
1801) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
174 |
|
Haemulidae |
Pomadasys kaakan (Cuvier, 1830) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
175 |
|
|
Pomadasys argenteus (Forsskål, 1775) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
176 |
|
|
Pomadasys maculatus (Bloch, 1793) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
177 |
|
|
Plectorhinchus gibbosus (Lacepède,
1802) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
178 |
|
|
Diagramma pictum (Thunberg,
1792) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
179 |
|
Sparidae |
Acanthopagrus berda (Fabricius, 1775) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
180 |
|
|
Acanthopagrus datnia (Hamilton, 1822) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
181 |
|
|
Rhabdosargus sarba (Gmelin,
1789) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
182 |
|
Sciaenidae |
Chrysochir aurea (Richardson, 1846) |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
183 |
|
|
Daysciaena albida (Cuvier, 1830) |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
184 |
|
|
Dendrophysa russelii (Cuvier, 1829) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
185 |
|
|
Johnius belangerii (Cuvier, 1830) |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
186 |
|
|
Johnius coitor (Hamilton, 1822) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
187 |
|
|
Johnius dussumieri (Cuvier, 1830) |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
188 |
|
|
Kathala axillaris (Cuvier, 1830) |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
189 |
|
|
Nibea maculata (Bloch &
Schneider, 1801) |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
190 |
|
|
Nibea soldado (Lacepède, 1802) |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
191 |
|
|
Otolithes ruber (Bloch &
Schneider, 1801) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
192 |
|
|
Panna microdon (Bleeker, 1849) |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
193 |
|
|
Protonibea diacanthus (Lacepède, 1802) |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
194 |
Perciformes |
Epinephelidae |
Epinephelus coioides (Hamilton, 1822) |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
195 |
|
|
Epinephelus malabaricus (Bloch &
Schneider, 1801) |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
196 |
|
|
Epinephelus melanostigma Schultz, 1953 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
197 |
|
|
Epinephelus tauvina (Fabricius, 1775) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
198 |
|
Platycephalidae |
Grammoplites scaber (Linnaeus, 1758) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
199 |
|
|
Cociella crocodilus (Cuvier, 1829) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
200 |
|
|
Platycephalus indicus (Linnaeus, 1758) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
201 |
|
Triglidae |
Lepidotrigla sp. |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
202 |
|
Synanceiidae |
Minous monodactylus (Bloch &
Schneider, 1801) (Image 4f) |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
203 |
|
|
Minous inermis Alcock 1889 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
204 |
Centrarchiformes |
Terapontidae |
Terapon jarbua (Fabricius, 1775)
(Image 6c) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
205 |
|
|
Terapon puta Cuvier, 1829 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
206 |
|
|
Pelates quadrilineatus (Bloch, 1790) |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
207 |
Acanthuriformes |
Lobotidae |
Lobotes surinamensis (Bloch, 1790) |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
208 |
|
Drepaneidae |
Drepane longimana (Bloch &
Schneider, 1801) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
209 |
|
|
Drepane punctata (Linnaeus, 1758) |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
210 |
|
Ephippidae |
Ephippus orbis (Bloch, 1787) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
211 |
|
|
Platax sp. |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
212 |
|
Leiognathidae |
Leiognathus equula (Forsskål, 1775) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
213 |
|
|
Eubleekeria splendens (Cuvier, 1829) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
214 |
|
|
Leiognathus berbis (Valenciennes,
1835) |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
215 |
|
|
Photopectoralis bindus (Valenciennes,
1835) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
216 |
|
|
Gazza minuta (Bloch, 1795) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
217 |
|
|
Deveximentum insidiator (Bloch, 1787) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
218 |
|
|
Nuchequula blochii (Valenciennes,
1835) |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
219 |
|
|
Leiognathus ruconius (Hamilton, 1822)
(Image 4d) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
220 |
|
Scatophagidae |
Scatophagus argus (Linnaeus, 1766) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
221 |
|
Siganidae |
Siganus canaliculatus (Park, 1797) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
222 |
|
|
Siganus javus (Linnaeus, 1766)
(Image 4e) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
223 |
|
Acanthuridae |
Acanthurus mata (Cuvier, 1829)
(Image 5a) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
224 |
|
|
Acanthurus xanthopterus Valenciennes, 1835 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
225 |
Tetraodontiformes |
Triacanthidae |
Triacanthus biaculeatus (Bloch, 1786)
(Image 6b) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
226 |
|
Tetraodontidae |
Takifugu oblongus (Bloch, 1786) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
227 |
|
|
Chelonodontops patoca (Hamilton, 1822) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
228 |
|
|
Dichotomyctere fluviatilis (Hamilton, 1822) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
229 |
|
|
Lagocephalus lunaris (Bloch &
Schneider, 1801) |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
230 |
|
|
Lagocephalus inermis (Temminck &
Schlegel, 1850) |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
231 |
|
Monacanthidae |
Aluterus monoceros (Linnaeus, 1758) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
151 |
150 |
149 |
1—Presence recorded |
0—Presence not recorded.
Table 2. List of
threatened, Near Threatened, and Data Deficient species as per the IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species.
|
|
Species name |
Main river |
Mangroves |
Bay |
IUCN Red List status |
|
1 |
Silonia childreni (Sykes, 1839) |
+ |
- |
- |
EN |
|
2 |
Tenualosa toli (Valenciennes,
1847) |
+ |
+ |
- |
VU |
|
3 |
Cirrhinus cirrhosus (Bloch, 1795) |
+ |
+ |
- |
VU |
|
4 |
Wallago attu (Bloch &
Schneider, 1801) |
+ |
- |
- |
VU |
|
5 |
Ompok bimaculatus (Bloch, 1794) |
+ |
- |
- |
NT |
|
6 |
Harpadon nehereus (Hamilton, 1822) |
+ |
+ |
+ |
NT |
|
7 |
Protonibea diacanthus (Lacepède, 1802) |
- |
+ |
+ |
NT |
|
8 |
Platycephalus indicus (Linnaeus, 1758) |
+ |
+ |
+ |
DD |
|
9 |
Epinephelus tauvina (Fabricius, 1775) |
- |
- |
+ |
DD |
|
10 |
Acanthopagrus datnia (Hamilton,
1822) |
- |
- |
+ |
DD |
|
11 |
Rastrelliger kanagurta (Cuvier,
1816) |
+ |
- |
+ |
DD |
|
12 |
Scomberomorus guttatus (Bloch &
Schneider, 1801) |
- |
- |
+ |
DD |
|
13 |
Parapocryptes rictuosus (Valenciennes,
1837) |
- |
+ |
- |
DD |
|
14 |
Taenioides cirratus (Blyth, 1860) |
+ |
+ |
- |
DD |
|
15 |
Psettodes erumei (Bloch &
Schneider, 1801) |
+ |
- |
+ |
DD |
|
16 |
Cynoglossus arel (Bloch &
Schneider, 1801) |
+ |
+ |
+ |
DD |
|
17 |
Megalops cyprinoides (Broussonet, 1782) |
+ |
+ |
+ |
DD |
+—Presence recorded |
——Presence not recorded | EN—Endangered | VU—Vulnerable | NT—Near Threatened |
DD—Data Deficient.
For figures &
images - - click here for full PDF
References
Aditya,
V. & T. Ganesh (2019). Deciphering forest change: Linking satellite-based forest cover change
and community perceptions in a threatened landscape in India. Ambio 48(7):
790–800. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1108-x
Rao,
M. (1976).
Clupeoid fishes of Godavari estuary: a systematic account. Matsya 2:
32–37.
Rao,
M.B. (1965).
Biological studies on the gizzard shad Anodontostoma chacunda Hamilton
(Family: Clupeidae), Journal of the Marine Biological Association of India
7: 89–101.
Bagaria,
P., S. Nandy, D. Mitra & K. Sivakumar (2021). Monitoring and predicting regional land
use and land cover changes in an estuarine landscape of India. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 193: 124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-021-08915-4
Bhattacharya,
M., A. Kar, D.S. Chini, R.C. Malick, B.C. Patra & B.K. Das (2018). Multi-cluster analysis of Crabs and
Ichthyofaunal Diversity in relation to habitat distribution at Tropical
Mangrove ecosystem of the Indian Sundarbans. Regional Studies in Marine
Science. 24: 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2018.08.009
Bijukumar,
A. & S. Sushama (2000). Ichthyofauna of Ponnani Estuary, Kerala. Journal of the Marine
Biological Association of India 42(1–2): 182–189.
Chacko,
P.I. & S.V. Ganapati (1949). On the bionomics of Hilsa ilisha (Ham.) in the
Godavari River. Journal of Madras University 18: 16–22.
Chicharo,
M.A., L. Chicharo & P. Morais (2006). Inter-annual differences of ichthyofauna
structure of the Guadiana estuary and adjacent coastal area (SE Portugal/SW
Spain): Before and after Alqueva dam construction. Estuarine, Coastal and
Shelf Science 70: 39–51.
Day,
F. (1888). The
fishes of India, being a Natural History of the fishes known to inhabit the
seas and freshwater of India, Burma, and Ceylon. Wentworth Press, London,
838 pp.
Ezcurra,
E., E. Barrios, P. Ezcurra, A. Ezcurra., S. Vanderplank , O. Vidal, L.
Villanueva-Almanza & O. Aburto-Oropeza (2019). A natural experiment reveals the impact
of hydroelectric dams on the estuaries of tropical rivers. Science Advances
5(3): 9875–9888. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIADV.AAU9875
Fricke,
R., W.N. Eschmeyer & R. van der Laan (Eds) (2021). Eschmeyer’s Catalog of Fishes: Genera,
Species, References.
http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp.
Accessed 28 December 2021.
Froese,
R. & D. Pauly (eds.) (2021). FishBase. www.fishbase.org. Electronic version
accessed 01 October 2021.
Fischer,
W & P.J.P. Whitehead (eds.) (1974). FAO species identification sheets for
fishery purposes. Eastern Indian Ocean (Fishing Area 57) and Western Central
Pacific (Fishing Area 71), Vols. 1-4, Rome.
Fischer,
W. & G. Bianchi (1984). FAO species identification sheets for fishery purposes. Western Indian
Ocean (Fishing Area 51), Vol 1–6, Rome.
Fischer,
W. & P.J.P. Whitehead (eds.) (1974). FAO species identification sheets for
fishery purposes. Eastern Indian Ocean (fishing area 57) and Western Central
Pacific (fishing area 71), Vols. 1–4, Rome.
Gupta,
H., S.J. Kao & M. Dai (2012). The role of mega dams in reducing sediment fluxes: a
case study of large Asian rivers. Journal of Hydrology (464–465):
447–458.
Ghosh,
A., U. Bhaumik & B.B. Satpathy (2011). Fish diversity of Subarnarekha Estuary in
relation to salinity. Journal of Inland Fisheries Society of India
43(1): 51–61.
Hata,
H., S. Lavoue & H. Motomura (2020). Taxonomic status of seven nominal
species of the anchovy genus Stolephorus described
by Delsman (1931), Hardenberg (1933), and Dutt and Babu Rao
(1959), with redescriptions of Stolephorus tri (Bleeker 1852)
and Stolephorus waitei Jordan and Seale 1926 (Clupeiformes:
Engraulidae). Ichthyological Research 67: 7–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10228-019-00697-7
Hata,
H., S. Lavoue & H. Motomura (2021). Taxonomic status of nominal species
of the anchovy genus Stolephorus previously regarded
as synonyms of Stolephorus commersonnii Lacepède 1803
and Stolephorus indicus (van Hasselt 1823), and descriptions
of three new species (Clupeiformes: Engraulidae). Ichthyological
Research 68: 327–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10228-020-00792-0
IUCN
(2021). The
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Version 2021-3.
https://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed on 01 October 2021.
Jayaram,
K.C. (2010). The
Freshwater Fishes of the Indian Regioan - 2nd Edition. Narendra Publishing
House, Delhi, 616 pp.
Jayanthi,
M., S. Thirumurthy, G. Nagaraj, M. Muralidhar & P. Ravichandran (2018). Spatial and temporal changes in mangrove
cover across the protected and unprotected forests of India. Estuarine,
Coastal and Shelf Science 213: 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2018.08.016
Jiao,
N., Y. Zhang, Y. Zeng, W.D. Gardner, A.V. Mishonov, M.J. Richardson, N. Hong,
D. Pan, X.H. Yan, Y.H. Jo, C.A. Chen, P. Wang, Y. Chen, H. Hong, Y. Bai, X.
Chen, B. Huang, H. Deng, Y. Shi & D. Yang (2007). Ecological anomalies in the East China
Sea: Impacts of the Three Gorges Dam? Water Research. 41: 1287–1293.
Krishnamurthy,
K. & M.J.P. Jeyaseelan (1981). The early life history of fishes from Pichavaran
mangrove ecosystem of India. Rapports et Proces-verbaux des Réunions.
Conseil International pour l’Éxploration de la Mer. 178: 416–423.
Krishnan,
S. & S.S. Mishra (2001). Fishes, pp. 85–166. In: Fauna of Godavari Estuary, Estuarine Ecosystem
Series 4. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, 166 pp.
Kottelat,
M. (2013). The
fishes of the inland waters of Southeast Asia: a catalogue and core
bibliography of the fishes known to occur in freshwaters, mangroves and
estuaries. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 27: 1–663.
Malini
K.H. & K.N. Rao (2004). Coastal erosion and habitat loss along the Godavari Delta front - a
fallout of dam construction (?). Current Science 87(9): 1232–1236.
Malla,
G. & K. Sivakumar (2014). The Coringa Mangroves – realm of the Fishing Cat. Sanctuary
Asia 34: 60–65.
Malla,
G., P. Ray, P.S. Rajasekar, & K. Sivakumar (2019). Notes on the fishing cats of the Godavari
delta, Andhra Pradesh, India. Cat News, 70: 18–20.
Mohapatra,
M., G.S. Mandal, B.K. Bandyopadhyay, A. Tyagi & U.C. Mohanty (2012). Classification of cyclone hazard prone
districts of India. Natural Hazards 63: 1601–1620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-9891-8
Mohanty,
S. K., S.S. Mishra, M. Khan, R.K. Mohanty, A. Mohapatra & K. Ajit (2015). Ichthyofaunal diversity of Chilika Lake,
Odisha, India: an inventory, assessment of biodiversity status and
comprehensive systematic checklist (1916–2014). Checklist 11 (6): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.15560/11.6.1817
Mukherjee,
S., A. Chaudhuri, N. Kundu, S. Mitra. & S. Homechaudhuri (2013). Comprehensive Analysis of Fish
Assemblages in Relation to Seasonal Environmental Variables in an Estuarine
River of Indian Sundarbans. Estuaries and Coasts 36: 192–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-012-9558-z
Ramachandra,
T.V., M.D.S. Chandran, N.V. Joshi, B. Mahima, N.M. Prakash & N. Sreekanth
(2013).
Estuarine Fish Diversity and Livelihoods in Uttara Kannada district, Karnataka
State, Sahyadri Conservation Series 34, ENVIS Technical Report 64, CES, Indian
Institute of Science, Bangalore, India, 100 pp.
Ramanujam,
M., K. Devi & T. Indra (2014). Ichthyofaunal diversity of the Adyar Wetland complex,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu, southern India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 6(4):
5613–5635. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2905.5613-35
Rao,
V.V. (1976).
The non-clupeoid fishes of Godavari estuary. Matsya 2: 54–62.
Rao
N.K., Y. Saito, K.C.V. Nagakumar, G. Demudu, A.S. Rajawat, S. Kubo & Z. Li.
(2015).
Palaeogeography and evolution of the Godavari delta, east coast of India during
the Holocene: An example of wave-dominated and fan-delta settings. Palaeogeography,
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 440: 213–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2015.09.006
Rao,
K., N. Priya & A.L. Ramanathan (2018). Impact of seasonality on the nutrient
concentrations in Gautami-Godavari Estuarine Mangrove Complex, Andhra Pradesh,
India. Marine Pollution Bulletin 129(1): 329–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.02.052
Rao,
G.J. (2021).
Thirty percent mangrove area destroyed: NGT Panel. The New Indian Express.
Retrieved from
https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/andhra-pradesh/2021/mar/19/30-mangrove-area-destroyed-panel-2278654.html
Rajyalakshmi,
T. (1973). The
population characteristics of Godavari hilsa over the years 1963–1967. Indian
Journal of Fisheries 20(1): 78–94.
Roshni,
K., C.R. Renjithkumar, R. Raghavan & K. Ranjeet (2021). Fish distribution and assemblage
structure in a hydrologically fragmented tropical estuary on the south-west
coast of India. Regional Studies in Marine Science 43: 101693. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSMA.2021.101693
Sreekanth, G.B., A. Jaiswar, S. Haragi, B.
Manikandan & E. Chakurkar (2020). Fish composition and assemblage structure
in tropical monsoonal estuaries: Estuarine use and feeding guild approach. Estuarine,
Coastal and Shelf Science. 244: 106911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2020.106911