Journal of Threatened
Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 April 2025 | 17(4): 26814–26823
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.9137.17.4.26814-26823
#9137 | Received 09 May 2024 | Final received 27 March 2025 | Finally
accepted 03 April 2025
Diversity and distribution of
fish in rivers Chinnar and Thenar and their tributary, southern Western Ghats,
Tamil Nadu, India
K. Mahesh Kumar 1 , T.
Ajayla Karthika 2 & K.
Anvar 3
1Tiruppur Forest Division, Anamalai
Tiger Reserve, Udumalpet, Tamil Nadu 642126, India.
2Department
of Environmental Science, Bishop Heber College, Affiliated to Bharathidasan
University, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu 620017, India.
3Pollachi Forest Division,
Anamalai Tiger Reserve, Pollachi, Tamil Nadu 642001, India.
1 mahimallik86@gmail.com
(corresponding author), 2 ajaylastanite@gmail.com, 3 anvaratrbio@gmail.com
Editor: Hitesh Kardani, Kamdhenu University,
Gandhinagar, India. Date of publication: 26 April 2025
(online & print)
Citation: Kumar K.M., T.A. Karthika &
K. Anvar (2025). Diversity and
distribution of fish in rivers Chinnar and Thenar and their tributary, southern
Western Ghats, Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 17(4):
26814–26823. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.9137.17.4.26814-26823
Copyright: © Kumar et al. 2025. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and distribution of this article in
any medium by providing adequate credit to the author(s) and the source of
publication.
Funding:
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the
public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests:
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethical approval:
The handling and testing of individual animals were carried out as per the
guidelines of the Committee for Control and Supervision of Experiments on
Animals (CPCSEA) and the Tamil Nadu Forest Department. No additional ethical
approval was necessary because no invasive technique was used.
Author details: Dr. K. Mahesh Kumar is a biologist with
the Tiruppur Division of Anamalai Tiger Reserve. He holds a Ph.D. in
Environmental Sciences, specializing in freshwater fish diversity and habitat
ecology of hill stream ecosystems. His current work includes tiger monitoring,
biodiversity censuses, camera trapping, data analysis, and a range of
conservation initiatives. Ajayla Karthika
T. is a research scholar pursuing her Ph.D. in Environmental Sciences.
Her research focuses on the distribution and ecological significance of Ficus
species in the Anamalai Tiger Reserve, located in the southern Western Ghats.
Her interests include tropical forest ecology, species interactions, and
biodiversity conservation. Anvar K. is a biologist with the
Pollachi Division of Anamalai Tiger Reserve. He holds a master’s degree in
Botany, specializing in the mosquito repellent properties of Curcuma
aromatica and Terminalia chebula. His current responsibilities
include tiger monitoring, biodiversity censuses, camera trapping,
human-wildlife conflict mitigation, and various conservation efforts.
Author contributions:
KMK—conceptualization, methodology, data curation, writing – original draft,
validation, supervision, review & editing. TAK—methodology, sample
collection, validation, review & editing. KA—methodology, sample
collection, validation, review & editing.
Acknowledgements: The authors sincerely thank the
Tamil Nadu Forest Department for granting permission and providing necessary
support to carry out this study in the Anamalai Tiger Reserve. We express our
gratitude to the field staff and forest guards for their assistance during
fieldwork.
Abstract: The diversity and distribution of
fishes were studied in the Chinnar and Thenar rivers of the Cauvery River basin
of Anamalai Hills. A total of 14 sampling sites were randomly selected in this
region, and fish sampling was carried out from April 2017 to May 2018. The high
species diversity was recorded in downstream site 11, Thenar River (H’ = 3.14),
and low diversity was observed in upstream site 3, Chinnar River (H’ = 1.64).
Thirty-seven species of primary freshwater fishes belonging to four orders, 11
families, and 21 genera were recorded. The order Cypriniformes, with 26
species, dominate the fish assemblages (70.27%), followed by Perciformes with
six species (16.21%), Siluriformes with four species (10.81%), and
Synbranchiformes with one species (2.70%), respectively. Among the Cyprinids, Devario
aequipinnatus, Barilius getensis, and Garra mullya had the highest
local dominance (32% each) in this river’s cape. The only one exotic species, Oreochromis
mossambicus, was recorded at downstream sites of Amaravathi River. Among
the recorded species, about 43% of fish species are endemic to the Western
Ghats, seven species are listed as threatened, five as endangered, and two are
vulnerable, according to the IUCN Red List.
Keywords: Anamalai Hills, Cypriniformes,
conservation, freshwater fish diversity, habitat diversity, hill stream fishes,
riverine ecosystem, River Amaravathi.
INTRODUCTION
Freshwater
habitats and species are one of the most endangered ecosystems in the world due
to the growing demand for freshwater supply (Vörösmarty et al. 2010; Shukla
& Bhat 2017; Tickner et al. 2020). Freshwater species are declining at a
faster rate than terrestrial or marine counterparts, and native fishes are the
worst affected among the aquatic organisms (Miqueleiz et al. 2022). Fish diversity
is important to any aquatic environment as they deliver essential fish
resources for human survival and long-term development (Gordon et al. 2018;
Cheng et al. 2019). More than 1,000 species of fish are reported from the
inland water bodies (Chandran et al. 2019), and 340 freshwater fish species
have been reported from the Western Ghats (Thampy et al. 2021). Many freshwater
habitats are under extensive human disturbance, leading to habitat loss and
degraded aquatic habitats. Several freshwater fish species are now critically
endangered in India (Kunda et al. 2022). Thus, understanding the
fish diversity, distribution and ecological significance of the species of a
particular area is essential for its conservation. The present study aims to
document fish diversity in the Chinnar and Thenar rivers in the Anamalai Tiger
Reserve. Historical documentation of fish species from this region is available
from the 1950’s. Silas (1951) recorded fish species from Anamalai and
Nelliyampathy Hills. Later, Thomas et al. (1999) reported Chinnar and Pambar
River fishes, followed by Rema Devi et al. (2005) with fishes of Anamalai Hill.
The river habitats of Chinnar and Thenar have been highly modified since then
due to activities of residing local communities. As a result, the status of
many species residing in the rivers Chinnar and Thenar is not known.
MATERIALS
AND METHODS
Study Area
The study
area is located between 10.333–10.142 0N and 77.058–77.256 0E
in the perennial rivers, Chinar, Thenar and their tributaries, in Anamalai
Hills of southern Western Ghats. A good riparian vegetation cover, including
herbs, shrubs, and trees, is usually found along the study streams. There are
seven tribal settlements located along the Chinnar and Thenar rivers, which
directly and indirectly depend on these rivers. The rivers, Chinnar and Thenar,
flow eastwardly and form the Amaravathi River of the Cauvery River basin.
Sample
Collection
Fish
samples were collected from 14 sites using a cast net, gill net, and dragnet
depending on the habitat from the Chinnar, Thenar, and Amaravathi rivers
(Figure 1, Table 1). The samples were collected in both the pre- and post-rainy
seasons at daytime (0700–1700) seasonally from April 2017 to May 2018. Each
fish specimen was collected and preserved in 10% formalin to identify the
species. Before preservation, each species was photographed with its original
colour. The species were appropriately identified based on the keys provided in
various taxonomic literature (Talwar & Jhingran 1991; Jayaram 2010). Most
of the fish were measured in the field, individuals were counted and released
back to the river. They were measured to the nearest millimetre to identify and
study the taxonomical characters correctly.
Statistical
Analysis
Fish
species recorded from each site were subjected to different diversity analyses
(Shannon index, Simpson’s evenness index, Margalef species richness index,
Berger Parker dominance index, and equitability index) (Chandran et al. 2019).
Further, the fish abundance data were used to create a dendrogram based on the
Bray-Curtis similarity index. All statistical analyses were performed using
PAST (PAleontological Statistics) software, version 4.13 (Hammer et al. 2001;
Chandran et al. 2019).
RESULTS
The Thenar
and Chinnar rivers are perennial and converge to form the Amaravathi river,
enabling fish to migrate through both rivers. Consequently, 14 sites were
randomly selected across these rivers for the study. Thirty-seven species of
freshwater fishes belonging to four orders, 11 families, and 21 genera were
recorded from the 14 sampling locations in Chinnar and Thenar rivers. The fish
species recorded from the study area are presented in Table 2. Image 1 shows
the photographs of the fish species recorded at the study sites. Among the
recorded fish species of Cypriniformes, 26 species have demonstrated the
highest dominance among the order (70.27%), followed by Perciformes with six
species (16.21%) and the catfish order Siluriformes accounting for four species
(10.81%) (Figure 2). The Cyprinidae family of fish species has 12 species that
have shown the most dominance, followed by the Danionidae eight species,
Nemacheilidae with four species and the Bagridae with three species. Among the
families, Cyprinidae (32.43%), Danionidae (21.62%), Nemacheilidae (10.81%),
Bagridae (8.11%), Ambassidae (5.41%), Channidae (5.41%), and Balitoridae
(2.70%) were the most species-rich (Figure 2). Furthermore, among the 14
study sites of the Chinnar and Thenar river systems, the maximum Shannon-Wiener
index, and Margalef index of species diversity and richness was recorded in
site 11 (H’ = 3.139; S = 32), and low diversity and richness was recorded in
site 3 (H’ = 1.639; S = 6). The maximum species abundance of 820 was recorded
at site 5, and minimum abundance of 106 was recorded at site 13. The maximum
dominance (D = 0.262) was recorded at site 4, while the dominance was low in
site 11 (D = 0.053). The maximum evenness (E = 0.937) was recorded at site 7,
and the minimum evenness (E = 0.528) at site 4 (Table 3). A summary of fish
assemblage structure in the Chinnar and Thenar Rivers is presented in Table 4.
During this study, the following endemic and threatened fish species were
recorded from the study area: Haludaria fasciata, Haludaria
melanampyx, Hypselobarbus dubius, Tor khudree, Tor remadevii, Barilius
gatensis, Devario aequipinnatus, Garra mullya, Bhavania australis,
and Nemacheilus rueppelli. In addition, Oreochromis mossambicus,
an exotic species, was also recorded. Almost 43% of fish species recorded
within the research area are endemic to the Western Ghats, and only one
introduced species was recorded during the period Table 4.
DISCUSSION
Fish are
crucial to the continued life of aquatic habitats. They serve as a reliable
gauge of ecological health. Additionally, they act like keystone species that
significantly influence both their environment and other species (Whitfield
& Elliott 2022). The Amaravathi river basin (river Chinnar and Thenar and
their tributaries), being a perennial water source, supports a high diversity
of fish species, but, in some parts of the sampled area, the diversity is very
low because the area is prone to disturbance and contamination by the local
people and introduced exotic fish species (Gibson et al. 1996; Sarkar et al. 2010; Joshi et al.
2021). Maximum species richness was recorded at site 11, followed by site 6 of
midstream and downstream habitat. Haludaria fasciata, Haludaria melanampyx,
Barilius gatensis, Devario aequipinnatus, Garra mullya, and Nemacheilus
rueppelli were recorded in all study locations. Earlier work on the river
Pambar of Chinnar Wildlife Sanctuary recorded 15 species in and around
protected areas; among the species, eight are endemic to the Western Ghats
(Thomas et al. 1999).
Along with
the global problem of climatic changes, many species, especially endemic
species, are also currently threatened by a number of human activities
(Giannetto & Innal 2021). Sixteen species, such as Haludaria fasciata,
Haludaria melanampyx, Barbodes carnaticus, Salmostoma boopis, Tor malabaricus,
Hypselobarbus mussullah, Hypselobarbus dubius, Barilius gatensis, Garra
mcclellandi, Garra hughi, Garra stenorhynchus, Bhavania australis, Nemacheilus
monilus, Nemacheilus rueppelli, Nemacheilus semiarmatus, and Nemacheilus
guentheri are endemic out of 37 species recorded in the survey (Dayal et
al. 2014; https://www.iucnredlist.org 2024). It was reported that 59 species
belong to Anamalai Hills region (Rema Devi et al. 2005), of which 30 are new
additions to the Indira Gandhi Wildlife Sanctuary and 20 to the Nelliampathi
Hill, including one new species. Fish diversity was recorded at around 69
species compared to the previous study. Biju et al. (1999) recorded 41 species
in Kerala’s Palakkad District, in a valley between the Anamalai and
Nelliampathi Hill ranges of the Parambikulam Wildlife Sanctuary and the
Chalakudy River system. Silas (1951) listed 10 species of fish from Neliampathi
Hills and 25 species of fish from Anamalai Hills and their research expanded
the range of several species that were previously restricted to the southern
Western Ghats beyond the Palghat Gap.
Big barbs
and mahseers, such as Labeo calbasu, Puntius sarana, Hypselobarbus
dobsoni, H. curmuca, H. dubius, H. dobsoni, Tor
khudree, and Tor malabaricus, were only permitted in large,
deep pools (Arunachalam 2000). Furthermore, threatened and endemic species
viz., Barbodes carnaticus, Hypselobarbus mussullah, Hypselobarbus dubius,
Tor khudree, and Tor malabaricus were reported in the deep pools in
the study area at sites 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, respectively. The
richness of fish species in hill streams at higher elevations varies with
altitude. As a result, species diversity decreases with increasing altitude,
due to the fact that altitude has a considerable impact on species diversity
(Johnson & Arunachalam 2009; Zhang et al. 2016). According to the
Bary-Curtis similarity cluster analysis, there were two distinct clusters in
the species composition of the research site basin. Whereas the remaining sites
made up a different cluster, sites 12, and 13 downstream areas were divided
into one cluster. Based on the cluster analysis sites 6 and 11, which were
found to be the most species-rich sites. These sites 6 and 11, with richness 26
and 32, respectively, are located downstream, which is the main reason for
their species richness. The frequently recorded species at these sites were Devario
aequipinnatus, Garra mullya, Barilius gatensis, Haludaria
fasciata, Nemacheilus rueppelli, Nemacheilus semiarmatus, Haludaria
fasciata, Haludaria melanampyx, and Lepidocephalichthys thermalis
(Table 3, Figure 3).
Midstream
and downstream areas contained records of Chanda nama, Parambassis
ranga, and Glossogobius giuris. Only in the middle of the Thenar
River basin species like Channa orientalis and Channa punctatus, Ompok
bimaculatus found frequently close to dam sites of downstream. Mastacembelus
armatus was sampled near the middle and downstream of rocky habitats
(Sokheng et al. 1999), while Mystus sp. was only discovered in a few
locations of the hill stream (Rahman 1989). The three species Pethia
conchonius, Salmostoma boopis, and Salmostoma acinaces are
most prevalent at site 6, where the rivers Pambar and Chinnar join. In
slow-moving sand and gravel habitats like mid and downstream areas, loaches
such as Nemacheilus sp., Bhavania australis, and Lepidocephalichthys
thermalis (Pethiyagoda 1991) were observed during the study. Around the
world, exotic fish have been purposefully introduced for biological control,
ornamental uses, and competitive fishing (Valero 2010). Introduced species such
as Cyprinus carpio communis were reported in the previous study (Thomas
et al. 1999) but not recorded during the survey, and Oreochromis mossambicus
has been sighted in the downstream lowland areas in the present study. Oreochromis
mossambicus was first introduced as an aquaculture object at the same time
as commercial consumption. The extraordinary extinction of native species
suggests that these invasive fish now make up the majority of the fish
population (Xie et al. 2005).
Overfishing
is increasingly believed to be the cause of the decline in freshwater
biodiversity (Raghavan et al. 2011). Many such issues affecting the riparian
forest, which directly influence the fish population are also a concern and
threat in the region under study. In the Western Ghats, it was found that fish
was the primary and most convenient source of animal food for indigenous people
(Prajith et al. 2016). Fishing is usually a part-time activity for tribal
women. Most people depend on fishing for their livelihood throughout the year.
Fishing by poisoning the water with vegetable matter (Curcuma augustifolia)
is being practised regularly and must be restricted (Kamalkishor & Kulkarni
2006). If indigenous species are not given considerable attention, they are
more susceptible to environmental change, and threats to their habitat can
result in their extinction (Giannetto & Innal 2021). In the very near
future, indiscriminate fishing may result in the complete extinction of some
freshwater fish species, particularly endangered species like Tor khudree and
Hypselobarbus dubius (Radhakrishnan & Roshni 2024). A quantitative
sustainable management and development programme should be carried out to
ensure the availability of species, which are essential and on which the entire
local communities depend socially and economically.
Conclusion
Protecting
and maintaining the riparian habitats in these regions, especially by
preventing forest fires, is essential. Raising awareness among forest-dwelling
communities about the ecological significance of these valuable species is
crucial, with a focus on discouraging harmful practices such as poisoning.
Additionally, creating educational freshwater fish aquariums can foster greater
awareness among schools and the public. The study identified 37 fish species in
the Chinnar and Thenar rivers and their tributaries, with 43% being endemic to
the Western Ghats. These ecologically and economically valuable species
underscore the importance of continued conservation efforts in the region.
Table 1. Stream type and altitude of the different sampling sites in the
study area.
|
Location |
Rivers |
Stream type |
Altitude (m) |
|
Site 1 |
Chinnar |
Upstream |
644.95 |
|
Site 2 |
Chinnar |
Upstream |
623.92 |
|
Site 3 |
Chinnar |
Upstream |
549.85 |
|
Site 4 |
Chinnar |
Upstream |
488.89 |
|
Site 5 |
Chinnar |
Upstream |
474.87 |
|
Site 6 |
Chinnar |
Downstream |
455.98 |
|
Site 7 |
Thenar |
Upstream |
799.79 |
|
Site 8 |
Thenar |
Upstream |
723.90 |
|
Site 9 |
Thenar |
Upstream |
669.95 |
|
Site 10 |
Thenar |
Midstream |
583.99 |
|
Site 11 |
Thenar |
Downstream |
574.85 |
|
Site 12 |
Thenar |
Downstream |
449.88 |
|
Site 13 |
Amaravathi |
Downstream |
430.98 |
|
Site 14 |
Amaravathi |
Downstream |
381.00 |
Table 2. Status of the fish species recorded from river Chinnar, Thenar,
and Amaravathi.
|
|
Species |
Site 1 |
Site 2 |
Site 3 |
Site 4 |
Site 5 |
Site 6 |
Site 7 |
Site 8 |
Site 9 |
Site 10 |
Site 11 |
Site 12 |
Site 13 |
Site 14 |
|
1 |
Haludaria fasciata |
15 |
22 |
9 |
18 |
58 |
2 |
7 |
19 |
27 |
49 |
8 |
13 |
5 |
27 |
|
2 |
Haludaria melanampyx |
7 |
27 |
15 |
5 |
8 |
4 |
12 |
48 |
18 |
58 |
3 |
2 |
6 |
47 |
|
3 |
Pethia conchonius |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
19 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
23 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
4 |
Barbodes carnaticus |
0 |
0 |
5 |
8 |
4 |
19 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
3 |
17 |
14 |
9 |
8 |
|
5 |
Salmostoma boopis |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
47 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
13 |
|
6 |
Salmostoma acinaces |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
|
7 |
Tor malabaricus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
14 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
22 |
9 |
2 |
8 |
|
8 |
Tor khudree |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
25 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
11 |
1 |
3 |
19 |
|
9 |
Hypselobarbus mussullah |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
10 |
Hypselobarbus dubius |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
8 |
6 |
10 |
|
11 |
Barilius bendelisis |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
14 |
|
12 |
Barilius gatensis |
29 |
52 |
28 |
18 |
29 |
33 |
5 |
49 |
67 |
10 |
35 |
0 |
0 |
45 |
|
13 |
Barilius barna |
21 |
14 |
0 |
0 |
41 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
22 |
0 |
14 |
8 |
11 |
0 |
|
14 |
Devario malabaricus |
41 |
18 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
16 |
0 |
29 |
0 |
32 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
15 |
Devario aequipinnatus |
89 |
72 |
15 |
25 |
109 |
53 |
9 |
15 |
56 |
4 |
79 |
8 |
3 |
58 |
|
16 |
Rasbora daniconius |
18 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
27 |
0 |
31 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
|
17 |
Garra mullya |
48 |
55 |
36 |
98 |
159 |
28 |
3 |
21 |
29 |
14 |
57 |
4 |
8 |
21 |
|
18 |
Garra mcclellandi |
8 |
12 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
19 |
Garra hughi |
15 |
24 |
0 |
0 |
15 |
41 |
8 |
0 |
36 |
0 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
20 |
Garra gotyola stenorhynchus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
24 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
35 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
21 |
Bhavania australis |
7 |
13 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
14 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
22 |
Nemacheilus monilis |
5 |
3 |
0 |
8 |
23 |
0 |
9 |
0 |
56 |
0 |
46 |
6 |
8 |
2 |
|
23 |
Nemacheilus rueppelli |
22 |
29 |
0 |
5 |
14 |
0 |
14 |
28 |
43 |
19 |
63 |
7 |
3 |
18 |
|
24 |
Nemacheilus semiarmatus |
14 |
12 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
19 |
8 |
15 |
78 |
23 |
57 |
0 |
0 |
41 |
|
25 |
Nemacheilus guentheri |
3 |
18 |
0 |
9 |
0 |
22 |
11 |
0 |
20 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
26 |
Lepidocephalichthys thermalis |
47 |
38 |
0 |
0 |
59 |
8 |
23 |
0 |
60 |
24 |
80 |
14 |
12 |
0 |
|
27 |
Mystus armatus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
102 |
17 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
25 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
28 |
Mystus cavasius |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
88 |
15 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
32 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
29 |
Mystus montanus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
47 |
22 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
11 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
30 |
Chanda nama |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
14 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
18 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
|
31 |
Parambassis ranga |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
14 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
21 |
8 |
5 |
12 |
|
32 |
Oreochromis mossambicus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
11 |
15 |
28 |
|
33 |
Glossogobius giuris |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
24 |
0 |
0 |
33 |
|
34 |
Channa orientalis |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
17 |
0 |
19 |
0 |
8 |
7 |
|
35 |
Channa punctatus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
5 |
4 |
0 |
3 |
|
36 |
Ompok bimaculatus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
|
37 |
Mastacembelus armatus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Table 3. Variation in diversity factors along the different sites of
rivers Chinnar and Thenar.
|
Site |
Site 1 |
Site 2 |
Site 3 |
Site 4 |
Site 5 |
Site 6 |
Site 7 |
Site 8 |
Site 9 |
Site 10 |
Site 11 |
Site 12 |
Site 13 |
Site 14 |
|
Richness |
16 |
17 |
6 |
12 |
21 |
26 |
13 |
7 |
21 |
10 |
32 |
17 |
17 |
23 |
|
Abundance |
389 |
423 |
108 |
205 |
820 |
458 |
139 |
195 |
618 |
205 |
803 |
123 |
106 |
452 |
|
Dominance index |
0.1104 |
0.08952 |
0.2188 |
0.2626 |
0.1014 |
0.05838 |
0.08737 |
0.173 |
0.07297 |
0.1757 |
0.0532 |
0.06917 |
0.07296 |
0.06732 |
|
Shannon-Weiner diversity index |
2.452 |
2.596 |
1.637 |
1.845 |
2.547 |
3.016 |
2.5 |
1.848 |
2.77 |
1.933 |
3.139 |
2.733 |
2.707 |
2.885 |
|
Simpson Evenness index |
0.7256 |
0.7886 |
0.8566 |
0.5275 |
0.608 |
0.7851 |
0.9374 |
0.9064 |
0.7601 |
0.6914 |
0.721 |
0.9048 |
0.8816 |
0.7785 |
|
Margalef richness index |
2.515 |
2.646 |
1.068 |
2.066 |
2.981 |
4.08 |
2.432 |
1.138 |
3.112 |
1.691 |
4.635 |
3.325 |
3.431 |
3.598 |
|
Equitability index |
0.8843 |
0.9162 |
0.9136 |
0.7426 |
0.8366 |
0.9258 |
0.9748 |
0.9495 |
0.9099 |
0.8397 |
0.9056 |
0.9647 |
0.9555 |
0.9201 |
Table 4. Fish species recorded from river Chinnar, Thenar, and
Amaravathi indicating the status.
|
|
Taxon |
Name of the species |
Western Ghats endemic status |
IUCN status |
|
1 |
Order: Cypriniformes |
Haludaria fasciata |
Endemic |
LC |
|
2 |
Family: Cyprinidae |
Haludaria melanampyx |
Endemic |
DD |
|
3 |
Pethia conchonius |
Non-endemic |
LC |
|
|
4 |
Barbodes carnaticus |
Endemic |
LC |
|
|
5 |
Salmostoma boopis |
Endemic |
LC |
|
|
6 |
Salmostoma acinaces |
Non-endemic |
LC |
|
|
7 |
Tor khudree |
Non-endemic |
EN |
|
|
8 |
Tor remadevii |
Endemic |
EN |
|
|
9 |
Hypselobarbus mussullah |
Endemic |
EN |
|
|
10 |
Hypselobarbus dubius |
Endemic |
EN |
|
|
11 |
Barilius bendelisis |
Non-endemic |
LC |
|
|
12 |
Barilius gatensis |
Endemic |
LC |
|
|
13 |
Barilius barna |
Non-endemic |
LC |
|
|
14 |
Devario malabaricus |
Non-endemic |
LC |
|
|
15 |
Devario aequipinnatus |
Non-endemic |
LC |
|
|
16 |
Rasbora dandia |
Non-endemic |
LC |
|
|
17 |
Garra mullya |
Non-endemic |
LC |
|
|
18 |
Garra mcclellandi |
Endemic |
LC |
|
|
19 |
Garra hughi |
Endemic |
EN |
|
|
20 |
Garra stenorhynchus |
Endemic |
LC |
|
|
21 |
Family: Balitoridae |
Bhavania australis |
Endemic |
LC |
|
22 |
Family: Nemacheilidae |
Nemacheilus monilis |
Endemic |
LC |
|
23 |
Nemacheilus rueppelli |
Endemic |
LC |
|
|
24 |
Nemacheilus semiarmatus |
Endemic |
LC |
|
|
25 |
Nemacheilus guentheri |
Endemic |
LC |
|
|
26 |
Family: Cobitidae |
Lepidocephalichthys thermalis |
Non-endemic |
LC |
|
27 |
Order: Siluriformes |
Mystus armatus |
Non-endemic |
LC |
|
28 |
Family: Bagridae |
Mystus cavasius |
Non-endemic |
LC |
|
29 |
Mystus montanus |
Non-endemic |
LC |
|
|
30 |
Family: Siluridae |
Ompok bimaculatus |
Non-endemic |
NT |
|
31 |
Order: Perciformes |
Chanda nama |
Non-endemic |
LC |
|
32 |
Family: Ambassidae |
Parambassis ranga |
Non-endemic |
LC |
|
33 |
Family: Cichlidae |
Oreochromis mossambicus |
Introduced |
VU |
|
34 |
Family: Gobiidae |
Glossogobius giuris |
Non-endemic |
LC |
|
35 |
Family: Channidae |
Channa orientalis |
Non-endemic |
VU |
|
36 |
Channa punctatus |
Non-endemic |
LC |
|
|
37 |
Order: Synbranchiformes |
Mastacembelus armatus |
Non-endemic |
LC |
|
|
Family: Mastacembelidae |
|
|
|
Based on Dayal et al. (2014) |
https://www.iucnredlist.org:
CR—Critically Endangered | EN—Endangered | VU—Vulnerable | NT—Near
Threatened | LC—Least
Concern | DD—Data Deficient and endemic status level.
For
figures - - click here for full PDF
References
Arunachalam, M. (2000). Assemblage structure of stream
fishes in the Western Ghats (India). Hydrobiologia 430: 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004080829388
Biju, C.R., K.R. Thomas & C.R. Ajithkumar (1999). Ecology of
hill streams of Western Ghats with special reference to fish communities. Final
Report. Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai, India, 203 pp.
Chandran, R., L.K. Tyagi, A.K. Jaiswar, S. Raizada, S. Mandal, T.S.
Mayekar, A.S. Bisht, S.K. Singh & W.S. Lakra (2019). Diversity
and distribution of fish fauna in the Ib River, a tributary of Mahanadi, India.
Indian Journal of Fisheries 66(1): 92–98. https://doi.org/10.21077/ijf.2019.66.1.70958-12
Cheng D., X. Zhao, J. Song, H. Sun, S. Wang, H. Bai & Q. Li (2019). Quantifying
the distribution and diversity of fish species along elevational gradients in
the Weihe River basin, northwest China. Sustainability 11(21): 6177. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216177
Dayal, R., S.P. Singh, U.K. Sarkar, A.K. Pandey, A.K. Pathak & R.
Chaturvedi (2014). Fish biodiversity of Western Ghats region of
India: a review. Journal of Experimental Zoology 17(2): 377–399.
Giannetto, D. & D. Innal (2021). Status of
endemic freshwater fish fauna inhabiting major lakes of Turkey under the
threats of climate change and anthropogenic disturbances: a review. Water
13(11): 1534. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13111534
Gibson, G.R., M.T. Barbour, M. Stribling, J. Gerritsen & J.R. Karr
(1996). Biological Criteria: Technical Guidance for Streams and Small
Rivers. Revised edition. University of Washington, WA, 162 pp.
Gordon, T.A.C., H.R. Harding, F.K. Clever, I.K. Davidson, W. Davison,
D.W. Montgomery, R.C. Weatherhead, F.M. Windsor, J.D. Armstrong, A. Bardonnet,
E. Bergman, J.R. Britton, I.M. Côté, D. D’agostino, L.A. Greenberg, A.R.
Harborne, K.K. Kahilainen, N.B. Metcalfe, S.C. Mills, N.J. Milner, F.H.
Mittermayer, L. Montorio, S.L. Nedelec, J.M. Prokkola, L.A. Rutterford, A.G.V.
Salvanes, S.D. Simpson, A. Vainikka, J.K. Pinnegar & E.M. Santos (2018). Fishes in a
changing world: learning from the past to promote sustainability of fish
populations. Journal of Fish Biology 92: 804–827. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.13546
Hammer, O., D.A.T. Harper & P.D. Ryan (2001). PAST:
Paleontological Statistic software package for education and data analysis. Paleontol
Eletron 4(1): 1–9. http://palaeoelectronica.org/2001_1/past/issue1_01.htm
Jayaram, K.C. (1999). The Freshwater Fishes of the Indian Region.
Narendra Publishing House, New Delhi, xxvii + 551 pp.
Jayaram, K.C. (2010). The Freshwater Fishes of Indian Region, 2nd
Edition. Narendra Publications, New Delhi.
119 pp.
Johnson, J.A. & M. Arunachalam (2009). Diversity,
distribution and assemblage structure of fishes in streams of Southern Western
Ghats, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 1(10): 507–513. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2146.507-13
Joshi, K.D., V.S. Basheer, A. Kumar, S.M. Srivastava, V. Sahu & K.K.
Lal (2021). Alien fish species in open waters of India: appearance, establishment
and impacts. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 91(3): 167–173. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v91i3.114139
Kamalkishor, H.N. & K.M. Kulkarni (2009). Fish
stupefying plants used by the Gond tribal of Mendha Village of central India.
Kunda, M., D. Ray, D. Pandit & A. Harun-Al-Rashid (2022). Establishment
of a fish sanctuary for conserving indigenous fishes in the largest freshwater
swamp forest of Bangladesh: A community-based management approach. Heliyon
8(e09498): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09498
Margalef, R. (1958). Temporal succession and spatial heterogeneity
in phytoplankton, pp. 323–347. In: Buzzati-Traverso (Ed.), Perspectives in
Marine Biology. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Menon, A.G.K. (1992). The fauna of the adjacent countries. Pisces.
Vol. IV. Teleodtei-Cobitoidae. Part 2 Cobitatidae. ZSI, Madras, 600 pp.
Miqueleiz, I., R. Miranda, A.H. Ariño & T. Cancellario (2022). Effective
reassessments of freshwater fish species: a case study in a Mediterranean
peninsula. Hydrobiologia 849: 1339–1349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-021-04644-4.
Pethiyagoda, R. (1991). Freshwater Fishes of Sri
Lanka. The Wildlife Heritage Trust of Sri Lanka, Colombo, 362 pp.
Prajith, K.K., M.P. Remesan & L. Edwin (2016). Traditional
wisdom of fishing techniques and rituals of Kuruman Tribe of Wayanad, Western
Ghats. Asian Agri-History 20(2): 119–126.
Radhakrishnan, R.C. & K. Roshni (2024). Finfish
harvest trends in the Chalakudy River within the Western Ghats biodiversity
hotspot in the southwest of India: Finfish harvest trends in the Chalakudy
River. Sustainable Aquatic Research 3(2): 107–126. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13341671
Raghavan R., A. Ali, N. Dahanukard & A. Rossera (2011). Is the
Deccan Mahseer, Tor khudree (Sykes, 1839) (Pisces: Cyprinidae) fishery
in the Western Ghats Hotspot sustainable? A participatory approach to stock
assessment. Fisheries Research 110(1): 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2011.03.008
Rahman, A.K.A (1989). Freshwater Fishes of Bangladesh.
Zoological Society of Bangladesh. Department of Zoology, University of Dhaka,
364 pp.
Devi, K.D., T.J. Indra, M.B. Ragunathan & M.S. Ravichandran (2005). Fish fauna
of Anamalai Hill ranges, Western Ghats, India. Zoos’ Print Journal
20(3): 1809–1811. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.ZPJ.1164a.1809-11
Sarkar, U.K., B.K. Gupta & W.S. Lakra (2010).
Biodiversity, eco hydrology, threat status and conservation priority of
freshwater fishes of river Gomti, a tributary of river Ganga (India). Environmentalist
30: 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-009-9237-1
Shannon, C.E. & W. Wiener (1963). The Mathematical Theory of Communication.
Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 127 pp.
Shukla, R. & A. Bhat (2017).
Environmental drivers of α-diversity patterns in monsoonal tropical stream fish
assemblages: a case study from tributaries of Narmada Basin, India. Environmental
Biology Fish 100: 749–761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-017-0601-6
Silas, A.G. (1951). On a collection of fish from the Anamalai and
Nelliampathi Hill ranges (Western Ghats) with notes on its zoogeographical
significance. Journal of Bombay Natural History and Society 49(4):
670–681.
Simpson, G.G. (1949). Measurement of diversity. Nature 136:
688.
Sokheng, C., C.K. Chhea, S. Viravong, K. Bouakhamvongsa, U.
Suntornratana, N. Yoorong, N.T. Tung, T.Q. Bao, A.F. Poulsen & J.V.
Jørgensen (1999). Fish migrations and spawning habits in the
Mekong mainstream: a survey using local knowledge (basin-wide). Assessment of
Mekong fisheries: Fish Migrations and Spawning and the Impact of Water
Management Project (AMFC). AMFP Report 2/99. Vientiane, Lao, P.D.R.
Talwar, P.K. & A.G. Jhingran (1991). Inland
Fishes of India and Adjacent Countries, Vol. I & II. Oxford &
IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi, 507 pp.
Tickner, D., J.J. Opperman, R. Abell, M. Acreman, A.H. Arthington, S.E.
Bunn, S. J. Cooke, J. Dalton, W. Darwall, G. Edwards, I. Harrison, K. Hughes,
T. Jones, D. Leclère, A.J. Lynch, P. Leonard, M.E. Mcclain, D. Muruven, J.D.
Olden, S.J. Ormerod, J. Robinson, R.E. Tharme, M. Thieme, K. Tockner, M. Wright
& L. Young (2020). Bending the curve of global freshwater
biodiversity loss: an emergency recovery plan. BioScience 70(4):
330–342. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa002
Thampy, D.R., M.R. Sethu, M.B. Paul & C.P. Shaji (2021).
Ichthyofaunal diversity in the upper-catchment of Kabini River in Wayanad part
of Western Ghats, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 13(2): 17651–17669.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09498
Thomas, R.K., C.R. Biju & C.R. Ajithkumar (1999). Additions
to the fish fauna of Pambar River, Kerala. Journal of the Bombay Natural
History Society 96(2): 332–334.
Valero, A. (2010). Mating Interference Due to Introduction of
Exotic Species, pp. 412–415. In: Breed, M.D. & J. Moore (eds.). Encyclopedia
of Animal Behavior. Academic Press Inc.(London)
Ltd., 2672 pp.
Vörösmarty, C.J., P.B. McIntyre & M.O. Gessner (2010). Global
threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467:
555–561. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09549
Whitfield, A.K. & M. Elliott (2022). Fishes as
indicators of environmental and ecological changes within estuaries: a review
of progress and some suggestions for the future. Journal of Fish Biology
61 (Supplement A): 229–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2002.tb01773.x
Xie, L.Q., P. Xie, L.G. Guo, L. Li, Y. Miyabara & H.D. Park (2005). Organ
distribution and bioaccumulation of microcystins in freshwater fish at
different trophic levels from the eutrophic lake Chaohu, China. Environmental
Toxicology 20(3): 293–300. https://doi.org/10.1002/tox.20120
Zhang, W.,
D. Huang, R. Wang, J. Liu & N. Du (2016). Altitudinal
patterns of species diversity and phylogenetic diversity across temperate
mountain forests of northern China. PLOS ONE 11(7): e0159995. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159995