Journal of Threatened
Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 November 2025 | 17(11): 27960–27969
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.9814.17.11.27960-27969
#9814 | Received 03 April 2025 | Final received 03 October 2025 | Finally
accepted 19 October 2025
A preliminary study of fish
diversity in Sirum River of East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh, India
Obinam Tayeng 1 , Leki Wangchu 2 & Debangshu Narayan Das 3
1,2 Department of Zoology, Jawaharlal
Nehru College, Pasighat, Arunachal Pradesh 791102, India.
3 Fisheries and Aquatic Ecology
Laboratory, Department of Zoology, Rajiv Gandhi University, Rono Hills,
Doimukh, Arunachal Pradesh 791112, India.
1 obinamtayeng48@gmail.com
(corresponding author), 2 lekiwangchuk7@gmail.com, 3 dndas2011@gmail.com
Editor: Shibhananda Rath,
Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, India. Date of publication: 26 November 2025 (online & print)
Citation: Tayeng,
O., L.
Wangchu & D.N.
Das (2025). A preliminary study of fish diversity in Sirum
River of East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 17(11): 27960–27969. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.9814.17.11.27960-27969
Copyright: © Tayeng 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:
Authors did not receive any funding for this study.
Competing interests:
The authors declare no competing interests.
Author
details: Ms. Obinam Tayeng is working as an assistant professor
of Zoology, Jawaharlal Nehru College, Pasighat, Arunachal Pradesh, and her
research interests are fish diversity, conservation of threatened fish species,
aquarium & ornamental fish, and monogenean parasite of fish fauna of the
region. Dr. Leki Wangchu,
assistant professor in the Department of Zoology, Jawaharlal Nehru
College, Pasighat, Arunachal Pradesh, works on monogenean parasites of
freshwater fish and the conservation of threatened fish species. Prof. Debangshu Narayan Das is currently professor of Zoology
in Rajiv Gandhi University, Doimukh, Arunachal Pradesh, and his research covers
conservation of threatened fish species, fish and fisheries, aquaculture,
aquarium & fish breeding culture, paddy cum fish culture, etc. He authored
many books and published many research articles. He has supervised more than 40
PhD students.
Author
contributions:
OT—conceptualization, data collection, analysis of data set and
preparation of the initial draft of the manuscript, images; LW—editing, data
validation; DND—species identification, and editing of the final version of the
manuscript.
Acknowledgements: The authors express sincere
gratitude to the Department of Zoology, Jawaharlal Nehru College, Pasighat, and
the Department of Zoology, Rajiv Gandhi University (RGU), Doimukh, for
providing the necessary laboratory facilities. The authors also extend
heartfelt thanks to Lakpa Tamang, Dr. Kento Kadu, and Dr. K.K. Jha for their
valuable guidance and support throughout the course of this work.
Abstract: A preliminary study was conducted
in the Sirum River, a tributary of the Siang River, located in the easternmost
part of Arunachal Pradesh. A review of existing literature indicated a lack of
systematic fish assessment in this river, which this study aimed to address.
Fish sampling was carried out twice a month from October 2023 to September 2024
at three sites. Fifty four species belonging to four
orders, 15 families, and 38 genera were recorded. Cypriniformes comprised 35
species, Siluriformes 14, Anabantiformes seven, and Synbranchiformes one
species. Three species were classified as Endangered, two as Near Threatened,
four as Vulnerable, 31 as Least Concern, four as Data Deficient, and 10 as Not
Evaluated. Representative images of threatened and economically important fish
species are included to aid in visual identification and documentation.
Keywords: Aquatic ecosystem, biodiversity,
conservation, ecotourism, economic, Endangered, fish sampling, threatened,
Vulnerable, species.
INTRODUCTION
Fish biodiversity is crucial for
maintaining healthy aquatic ecosystems and supporting human well-being. Fish
play an integral role as a source of food, recreation, and livelihood for
millions of people globally. Safeguarding and conserving fish biodiversity
ensures that future generations continue to benefit from the numerous
ecological, nutritional, and economic advantages provided by fish (Lisbeth
2023). Furthermore, the abundance and diversity of species within an ecosystem
act as key indicators of its ecological health. The population size and
condition of fish are directly correlated to the overall health of water
bodies, with changes in fish communities often reflecting shifts in
environmental quality (Hamzah 2007). Fish biodiversity is increasingly
threatened by various human activities, including overfishing, habitat
destruction, and pollution (Lisbeth 2023). Ecotourism represents a promising
sector for biodiversity conservation, offering potential to reverse
biodiversity loss and assist in enhancing the economy (Buckley 2009).
Arunachal Pradesh, located at
coordinates 27.975° N and 94.455° E, occupies a large portion (61%) of the
eastern Himalayan region, covering an area of 83,743 km² within the Indo-Burma
biodiversity hotspot (Myers et al. 2000). The region is characterized by
mountainous terrain, hilly regions, lowland areas, and diverse drainage
systems. An extensive network of river systems provides rich habitats for a
wide range of fish and other aquatic organisms. The tribal communities in
Arunachal Pradesh have a close connection to nature and its resources, and for
generations they have practiced community-based fishing. Wild fish from these
water bodies are a vital natural resource, providing an essential protein
source for rural populations, particularly for growing children and lactating
mothers. Consequently, the conservation of fish populations, along with water
resources, plays a vital role for present and future generations, especially in
light of increasing environmental challenges.
As far as the ichthyofauna of the
state is concerned, McClelland (1839) was considered the earliest pioneering
worker, who reported four species. This was followed by subsequent
contributions from Chaudhuri (1913), Hora (1921), Jayaram (1963), Jayaram &
Mazumdar (1964), Srivastava (1966), Dutta & Sen (1977), and Dutta &
Barman (1984, 1985). Ghosh (1979) was the first to report on the fish fauna
diversity of the East Siang District, documenting 16 species, followed by Sen
(1999), who reported 32 species, and Sen (2006) reported 21 species from the
same district. Sinha & Tamang (2015) extended the documentation by
reporting 121 fish species from the natural water bodies of both lotic and
lentic environments in eastern Siang, and Das et al. (2017) listed 82 species
from the Siang River. Over the past two decades, several authors have shown
significant interest in documenting the fish fauna of the state. Nath & Dey
(2000) first compiled the fish fauna of the state in the form of a book, which
reported 131 species. Thereafter, Bagra et al. (2009) reported 213 species, and
then Darshan et al. (2019) further updated to 218 species. Recently, Tamang
& Das (2024) listed an additional 25 species, bringing the total to 233
species. In recent years, Gurumayum & Nath (2022) listed 30 threatened
species in Arunachal Pradesh based on museum collections and published
literature and suggested a dedicated and intense effort for conservation as
well as exploration and documentation. Several studies have also documented the
practice of non-conventional fishing methods, habitat degradation, and
disturbances to riparian vegetation within the Itanagar Wildlife Sanctuary in
Papum Pare District and along the Sille river in East Siang District (Chaudhry
& Tamang 2007; Tamang & Chaudhry 2012; Taro et al. 2022). These
activities are gradually exerting detrimental effects on the local fish fauna,
leading to significant ecological concerns. The gradual decline in fish
populations, attributed to these anthropogenic pressures, emphasizes the urgent
need for a more comprehensive understanding and management of the aquatic
ecosystems. Review of literature revealed no systematic documentation of the ichthyofaunal
diversity of the Sirum River. The Sirum River is a socio-culturally integral part
of the Adi tribe (Vishwanath 2002) and fishing is a popular recreational
activity, with many people enjoying fishing as a way to relax and connect with
nature. Documentation of the fish fauna of Sirum River forms the basis of this
study, aiming to create a comprehensive database that serves as valuable
information for future conservation efforts and management strategies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study area
The Sirum River originates from
the hilly terrain known as ‘Rumdong Kosing’ at coordinates approximately
28.544° N and 95.628° E near Adi Pasi Sibuk Village in the Upper Siang District
of Arunachal Pradesh. It is an important tributary of the Siang River, that
follows a roughly 33 km zigzag course through dense mountain forests, flowing
over sedimentary rocks and eventually converging with the Siku River near Mebo
Village in the East Siang District, where it is locally known as the
‘Sikusirum’ River, which finally forms the headwaters of the Brahmaputra River
in the south (Image 1). The recorded temperature in this region ranges from 4–8
°C, with altitudes varying 180–2,400 m near Adi Pasi Sibuk Village. The Sirum River is characterized by a
prevalence of medium to large boulders, cobbles, and pebbles, particularly in
its upper reaches. These conditions, combined with its clear freshwater, create
an ideal habitat for true hill stream fish species.
Fish sampling
Fish sampling was conducted from
October 2023–September 2024 over the period of one year, with samples collected
from three study sites (I, II, and III) along the river, each approximately 1
km in length, with a 1 km gap between each site for comparative analysis.
Traditional and sustainable fishing methods were employed consistently across
all three selected sites—Porang, Edil, and Kotong. These methods included
conical-shaped basket traps, which allow fish to enter but prevent their
escape, as well as other techniques such as Lipum, Hibok, and cast nets. Lipum,
in particular, is a fishing technique commonly used during the winter season.
Medium-sized boulders are arranged in a cylindrical pattern with gaps between
them, and the spot is left undisturbed for about one month. This setup provides
shelter for bottom-feeding fishes. After one month, a large cylindrical bamboo
trap, known as ‘Edil’ (open at both the top and bottom), is used to
cover the boulders. The bottom edges are sealed with sand and gravel to prevent
the fish from escaping. The boulders are then manually removed, allowing the
fish to move into the trap, which is connected to a smaller collection conical
trap attached just above the bottom of Edil.
Hibok is another traditional fishing
method, typically employed in a diverted river course. One side of the
watercourse is blocked using various materials such as boulders, banana leaves,
ferns, plastic, soil, and sand. As the water level decreases, fish emerge from
the gaps between the boulders and are subsequently captured by hand or with a
scoop net.
The frequent use of
non-conventional methods and indiscriminate fishing practices in various water
bodies throughout the state has led to restrictions on fishing activities in
many villages, with penalties imposed by village authorities. As a result, fish
sampling in the present study was conducted only after obtaining prior
authorization from the village head, the Gaon Burah. Additionally, a local
guide and several village fishing experts were engaged to ensure the proper
investigation and documentation of fish diversity. The collected fish specimens
were photographed in the field using a Nikon D850 DSLR camera with a 24–120 mm
lens. Initially, the specimens were preserved in 5% formalin on site and then
transported to the laboratory at the Department of Zoology, Jawaharlal Nehru
College, Pasighat. In the laboratory, the specimens were sorted and identified
using standard literature (Talwar & Jhingran 1991; Nath & Dey 2000;
Darshan et al. 2019). The conservation status of the identified species was
confirmed from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Version 2024-2
(https://www.iucnredlist.org). The scientific names, families, and orders of
the identified fish species were confirmed following Eschmeyer’s Catalogue of
Fishes (Fricke et al. 2025). The identified fish specimens were stored in 10%
formalin, labelled, registered, and deposited in the Fish Museum of the
Department of Zoology, Jawaharlal Nehru College, Pasighat, for future
reference.
Data analysis
Diversity indices were calculated
as per the standard method (Shannon & Wiener 1963) by the formula: H = -Σ
(ni/N) log2 (ni/N), where H = Shannon-Wiener index of diversity, ni = total
number of individuals of a species and N = total number of individuals of all
the species. Evenness of the species was calculated following Pielou’s evenness
index (Pielou 1966), i.e., J = Hʹmax/logS, where Hʹmax = the maximum value of
Shannon-Wiener’s index, and S = the total number of species. The value of J
falls between 0 and 1. The less variation in the species composition between
the communities, the higher the E value. Simpson’s diversity index was
calculated by the formula: D = 1-(Ʃn(n-1)/N(N-1)), where D = diversity, n =
number of individuals of a single species, N = total number of all species. The
relative abundance (RA%) of each study site was calculated by dividing the
number of species by the total number of individuals of all the species,
multiplying by 100. All the diversity indices were performed using PAST
software version 4.02.
RESULTS
A systematic list of fish species
collected from three contiguous lotic water bodies (sites I, II, & III) of
the Sirum River, along with their local names, abundances, types, and IUCN
conservation status, is provided in Table 1. The total ichthyofaunal diversity
revealed 54 fish species distributed over four orders, 15 families, and 38
genera, with a total of 1909 individuals captured (Table 1).
The catch composition revealed
that Cyprinidae was the dominant family, contributing 35.2% (19 species),
followed by Nemacheilidae with 11.1% (6 species), and both Danionidae and
Bagridae accounted for 9.3% (5 species) each. Sisoridae represented 5.6% (3
species), while Schilbeidae, Psilorhynchidae, Cobitidae, Channidae, Badidae,
and Amblycipitidae each contributed 3.7% (2 species). The families Siluridae,
Mastacembelidae, Heteropneustidae, and Botiidae were the least represented,
each contributing 1.9% (1 species) (Table 1 & Figure 1).
Quantitative analysis of the
three study sites revealed that, among the 54 species, Hill Trout Opsarius
bendelisis was the most abundant species, with 104 individuals, followed by
Aborichthys kempi (81), Garra annandalei (74), and both Garra
arupi and Mustura daral (65 each) in comparison to others (Table 1
& Figure 2). The majority of species were found in all three sites, except
six species: Schistura scaturigina and Psilorhynchus arunachalensis,
Clupisoma gorua, Eutropiichthys vacha, Pterocryptis indica,
and Macrognathus pancalus, which were absent in Site III (upstream).
Fish abundance showed that site I (downstream) has the highest number of
individuals (1,088), followed by site II (midstream) (573 individuals), while
site III (upstream) has the lowest number of captures (246 individuals). This
pattern suggests that fish diversity and abundance are inversely correlated
from downstream to upstream.
DISCUSSION
The IUCN conservation status
shows that out of 54 species, majority, i.e., 57% (31 species), belong to the
Least Concern category, followed by 19% (10) as Not Evaluated, 7% (4) as Data
Deficient, 7% (4) as Vulnerable, 6% (3) as Endangered, and 4% (2) as Near
Threatened (Table 1 & Figure 3). The threatened species recorded in the
study included three species as Endangered: Tor putitora, Neolissochilus
hexagonolepis, and Amblyceps arunachalensis, and four species as
Vulnerable: Schizothorax richardsonii, Semiplotus semiplotus, Botia
rostrata, and Pseudecheneis sirenica (Table 1).
Regarding the biodiversity
indices, the Shannon-Weiner index (H) values were found to be quite similar
across three sites: site I (3.831), site II (3.812), and site III (3.678). The
values in sites I and II were almost identical, whereas site III exhibited a
slightly lower value. This suggests that, despite minor differences in these
values, the overall diversity of species throughout the three sites is
relatively comparable. Similarly, the Simpson diversity index showed that the
values for all three sites were very similar: site I (0.9753), site II
(0.9749), and site III (0.9703). This indicates that, despite slight variations
in the specific biodiversity measures at each site, the overall community
diversity is nearly identical over the three locations. Pielou’s evenness
indices (J) showed that the values for the three sites were similar: site-I
(0.8541), site-II (0.838), and site-III (0.8246), showing only minor
variations. These relatively high values suggest that species at all three
sites are fairly evenly distributed. The relative abundance (RA%) is inversely
correlated, depicting the highest in site-III, i.e., 19.3, whereas lower in
site-II, 9.4, and lowest in site-I, 4.9 (Table 2). The taxonomic enumeration of
54 species, with the majority falling under the Least Concern category,
indicates a healthy level of species diversity and stability.
Aquatic environments worldwide
are facing serious threats to both their biodiversity and ecosystem stability,
suggesting ongoing research aimed at developing systematic conservation
planning to protect freshwater biodiversity (Margules & Pressey 2000;
Saunders et al. 2002). The frequent degradation of stream and riverine
ecosystems ultimately leads to the destruction of the structure and function of
stream biota, which is a critical concern for the health of these ecosystems
(Stoddard et al. 2006). On the other hand, faunal documentation from various
regions has become an important aspect of understanding the current status of
biodiversity, especially in light of the rapidly declining global environmental
conditions.
During the study period, it was
observed that the rural populations of the adjacent villages depend on the fish
fauna of the Sirum River for their subsistence needs. Besides serving as a
critical dietary component, fish also becomes a primary source of income for
local households. They engage in the sale of fish in various forms, like fresh,
dried, smoked, and processed varieties, all of which are sold in local markets.
Some fish species observed in the market were Garra annandalei, Garra
arunachalensis, Tor putitora, Neolissochilus hexagonolepis,
Schizothorax sikusirumensis, Semiplotus semiplotus, and Bangana
dero. These fish are not only ecologically significant but also
commercially valuable. The market price of fish ranges Rs. 500–1000/- per kg in
Pasighat Town.
While conducting interviews with
nearby villagers and the head Goan Burah, it was revealed that, over the past
two decades, anthropogenic pressures such as illegal fishing practices have
gradually led to a decline in the fish fauna of the Sirum River. In response to
these ongoing threats, the local governing authority of Sibuk Village in Upper
Siang District, in the upstream and Mebo block, along with Mebo and Ayeng
villages in East Siang District, in the downstream, respectively, has taken
proactive measures by imposing a ban on unauthorized fishing in the Sirum
River. The village community has imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 for illegal
fishing. However, the community allows for sustainable community fishing
occasionally, but only with prior permission from the village head. If the fish
fauna of the Sirum River is well managed and sustainably used, the region could
attract both national and international tourists for angling, which provides a
significant source of income for both the state, and the local communities.
Cleaning drives were organized by
the local community along the banks of the Sirum River, particularly women’s
groups, students, and youth organizations as, part of the Swachh Bharat
Abhiyan. The Sirum River is not only a vital natural resource but also fulfills
the cultural and spiritual significance of the tribal community. Moreover, the
river also possesses the majority of fish that belong to the Least Concern
category and some threatened species. Therefore, this study allows
consideration of a long-term conservation strategy for ichthyofauna in the
Sirum River.
CONCLUSION
This study represents the first
comprehensive documentation of the ichthyofauna of the Sirum River, comprising
54 fish species belonging to four orders, 15 families, and 38 genera, which is
valuable data for government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs),
ichthyologists, and research scholars in relation to future conservation
efforts and sustainable utilization of aquatic resources.
Table 1. List of fish species,
local name, abundance, types, IUCN conservation status collected from the Sirum
River, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh.
|
Species |
Local name |
Study sites |
No. of specimens |
Type of fish |
Conservation status |
||
|
I |
II |
II |
|||||
|
I. Order:
Cypriniformes i. Family:
Cyprinidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bangana dero (Hamilton, 1822) |
Ngopy |
15 |
8 |
6 |
29 |
Carp |
LC |
|
Barilius vagra (Hamilton, 1822) |
Sepung |
19 |
13 |
5 |
37 |
Carp |
LC |
|
Chagunius chagunio (Hamilton, 1822) |
Lingkar/Hara peking |
9 |
5 |
2 |
16 |
Carp |
LC |
|
Garra annandalei (Hora, 1921) |
Ngopih |
45 |
20 |
9 |
74 |
Carp |
LC |
|
Garra
arunachalensis (Nebeshwar & Vishwanath, 2013) |
Ngopih |
25 |
15 |
8 |
48 |
Carp |
NE |
|
Garra arupi (Nebeshwar et al.,
2009) |
Ngopih |
36 |
20 |
9 |
65 |
Carp |
NE |
|
Garra birostris Nebeshwar &
(Vishwanath, 2013) |
Ngopih |
18 |
12 |
6 |
36 |
Carp |
NE |
|
Garra kempi (Hora, 1921) |
Ngopih |
15 |
3 |
1 |
19 |
Carp |
LC |
|
Labeo pangusia (Hamilton, 1822) |
Tengir |
15 |
8 |
4 |
27 |
Carp |
NT |
|
Neolissochilus
hexagonolepis
(McClelland, 1839) |
Taga |
16 |
8 |
6 |
30 |
Carp |
EN |
|
Puntius chola (Hamilton, 1822) |
Ngrtak/Metak |
9 |
4 |
1 |
14 |
Barb |
LC |
|
Puntius sophore (Hamilton, 1822) |
Ngrtak/Metak |
15 |
7 |
3 |
25 |
Barb |
LC |
|
Raiamas bola (Hamilton, 1822) |
Osonggombey |
9 |
5 |
3 |
17 |
Trout |
LC |
|
Rasbora daniconius (Hamilton, 1822) |
Jommeng |
16 |
5 |
3 |
24 |
Minnows |
LC |
|
Schizothorax
richardsonii (Gray,
1832) |
Ngoying |
20 |
14 |
3 |
37 |
Common snowtrout |
VU |
|
Schizothorax
sikusirumensis (Jha, 2020) |
Ngoying |
18 |
12 |
6 |
36 |
Common snowtrout |
NE |
|
Semiplotus
semiplotus
(McClelland, 1839) |
Orpey |
25 |
15 |
6 |
46 |
Carp |
VU |
|
Tariqilabeo latius (Hamilton, 1822) |
Piiyong |
25 |
12 |
4 |
41 |
Carp |
LC |
|
Tor putitora (Hamilton, 1822) |
Rulbung |
26 |
12 |
4 |
42 |
Carp |
EN |
|
ii. Family:
Danionidae Danio dangila (Hamilton, 1822) |
Tapong |
24 |
13 |
5 |
42 |
Minnows |
LC |
|
Devario
aequipinnatus
(McClelland, 1839) |
Tapong |
36 |
12 |
5 |
53 |
Minnows |
LC |
|
Devario devario (Hamilton, 1822) |
Tapong |
20 |
12 |
6 |
38 |
Minnows |
LC |
|
Opsarius bendelisis (Hamilton, 1807) |
Taseng |
56 |
30 |
18 |
104 |
Hill trout |
LC |
|
Opsarius barna (Hamilto, 1822) |
Seypar |
32 |
16 |
5 |
53 |
Barred hill trout |
LC |
|
iii. Family:
Nemacheilidae Aborichthys kempi (Chaudhuri, 1913) |
Riibi |
40 |
26 |
15 |
81 |
Loach |
NT |
|
Mustura daral (Rameshori et al.,
2022) |
DiiteRiibi |
36 |
24 |
5 |
65 |
Loach |
NE |
|
Paracanthocobitis
mackenziei
(Chaudhuri, 1910) |
Riibi |
23 |
12 |
5 |
40 |
Loach |
LC |
|
Paraconthocobitis botia (Hamilton, 1822) |
Riibi |
36 |
13 |
6 |
55 |
Loach |
LC |
|
Paraconthocobitis
hijumensis Rime et
al., 2022 |
Riibi |
12 |
5 |
2 |
19 |
Loach |
NE |
|
Schistura
scaturigina
(McClelland, 1839) |
Riibi |
12 |
8 |
0 |
20 |
Loach |
LC |
|
iv. Family:
Psilorhynchidae Psilorhynchus
arunachalensis (Nebeshwar et al., 2007) |
Riipi piijep |
9 |
4 |
0 |
13 |
Minnow |
DD |
|
Psilorhynchus
balitora (Hamilton,
1822) |
Riipi piijep |
16 |
10 |
6 |
32 |
Minnow |
LC |
|
v. Family: Botiidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Botia rostrata (Gunther, 1868) |
Riiibi |
40 |
14 |
6 |
60 |
Loach |
VU |
|
vi. Family:
Cobitidae Canthoprys gongota (Hamilton, 1822) |
Riibi |
6 |
3 |
1 |
10 |
Loach |
LC |
|
Lepidocephalichthys
guntea (Hamilton,
1822) |
Riibi |
8 |
4 |
1 |
13 |
Loach |
LC |
|
II. Order:
Siluriformes vii. Family:
Amblycipitidae Amblyceps apangi (Nath & Dey,
1989) |
Beyek |
40 |
18 |
12 |
70 |
Catfish |
LC |
|
Amblyceps arunachalensis (Nath & Dey,
1989) |
Beyek |
36 |
20 |
7 |
63 |
Catfish |
EN |
|
viii. Family:
Bagridae Batasio fasciolatus (Ng, 2006) |
Nareng |
14 |
8 |
6 |
28 |
Catfish |
LC |
|
Batasiomerianiensis (Chaudhuri, 1913) |
Nareng |
16 |
8 |
4 |
28 |
Catfish |
DD |
|
Mystus
dibrugarensis
(Chaudhuri, 1913) |
Nareng |
18 |
13 |
4 |
35 |
Catfish |
LC |
|
Mystus pulcher (Chaudhuri, 1911) |
Nareng |
10 |
5 |
2 |
17 |
Catfish |
LC |
|
Olyra longicaudata (McClelland, 1842) |
Beyek |
30 |
16 |
8 |
54 |
Catfish |
LC |
|
ix. Family:
Heteropneustidae Heteropneustes
fossilis (Bloch,
1794) |
Beyek |
4 |
2 |
1 |
7 |
Catfish |
LC |
|
x. Family:
Schilbeidae Clupisoma gorua (Hamilton, 1822) |
Gerek |
6 |
2 |
0 |
8 |
Catfish |
LC |
|
Eutropiichthys
vacha (Hamilton,
1822) |
Gerek |
7 |
3 |
0 |
10 |
Catfish |
LC |
|
xi. Family:
Siluridae Pterocryptis indica (Datta et al.,
1987) |
Beyek |
10 |
3 |
0 |
13 |
Catfish |
DD |
|
xii. Family: Sisoridae Exostoma dhritae (Pratima et al.,
2022) |
Ngorey-rejep |
16 |
13 |
5 |
34 |
Catfish |
NE |
|
Glyptothorax
pasighatensis
(Arunkumar, 2016) |
Ngokey |
12 |
8 |
3 |
23 |
Catfish |
NE |
|
Pseudecheneis
sirenica
(Vishwanath & Darshan, 2007) |
Ngorey |
17 |
12 |
3 |
32 |
Catfish |
VU |
|
III. Order: Anabantiformes xiii. Family:
Badidae Badis assamensis (Ahl, 1937) |
Ngotupatang |
20 |
12 |
6 |
38 |
Chameleon fish |
DD |
|
Badis singenensis (Geetakumari &
Kadu, 2011) |
Ngotupatang |
25 |
15 |
8 |
48 |
Chameleon fish |
NE |
|
xiv. Family:
Channidae Channa punctata (Bloch,1793) |
Talum |
10 |
3 |
1 |
14 |
Snakehead |
LC |
|
Channa pomanensis (Gurumayum &
Tamang, 2016) |
Talum |
9 |
4 |
3 |
16 |
Snakehead |
NE |
|
IV. Order:
Synbranchiformes xv. Family:
Mastacembelidae Macrognathus
pancalus (Hamilton,
1822) |
Germey |
6 |
4 |
0 |
10 |
Spiny eel |
LC |
|
|
Total |
1088 |
573 |
248 |
1909 |
|
|
DD—Data Deficient | EN—Endangered
| LC—Least Concerned | NE—Not Evaluated | NT—Near Threatened | VU—Vulnerable.
Table 2. Diversity indices of
three study sites of Sirum River.
|
|
Study Sites |
||
|
I |
II |
III |
|
|
Species richness |
54 |
54 |
48 |
|
Species abundance |
1088 |
573 |
248 |
|
Simpson_1-D |
0.9753 |
0.9749 |
0.9703 |
|
Shannon_H |
3.83 |
3.81 |
3.68 |
|
Evenness_e^H/S |
0.85 |
0.84 |
0.82 |
|
Relative abundance (%) |
4.9 |
9.4 |
19.3 |
For
figures & images - - click here for full PDF
REFERENCES
Bagra, K., K.
Kadu, K.N. Sharma, B.A. Laskar, U.K. Sarkar & D.N. Das (2009). Ichthyological survey and review
of the checklist of fish fauna of Arunachal Pradesh, India. Check List
5(2): 330–350. https://doi.org/10.15560/5.2.330
Buckley, R.
(2009). Ecotourism:
Principles and Practices. Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience
International, Cambridge, MA, 368 pp.
Chaudhry, S.
& L. Tamang (2007). Need to adopt traditional fishing gears in Senkhi. Current Science
93(12): 1647.
Chaudhuri,
B.L. (1913). Zoological
results of the Abor Expedition. 1911–1912 XVIII. Fish. Records of the Indian
Museum 8: 243–258. https://doi.org/10.26515/rzsi/v8/i3/1913/163153
Darshan, A.,
S.K. Abujam & D.N. Das (2019). Biodiversity Of Fishes In
Arunachal Himalaya-Systematics, Classification, And Taxonomic Identification.
Academic Press, 270
pp.
Das, B.K., P.
Boruah & D. Kar (2017). Ichthyofaunal diversity of Siang River in Arunachal Pradesh, India. Proceeding
of the Zoological Society 70(1): 52–60.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-015-0155-6
Dutta, A.K.
& R.P. Barman (1984). On a new species of the genus Garra Hamilton (Pisces: Cyprindae)
from Namdapha wildlife sanctuary, Arunachal Pradesh, India. Bulletin of Zoological Survey of
India 6(1–3): 283–287.
Dutta, A.K.
& R.P. Barman (1985). Fauna of Namdapha, Arunachal Pradesh (Pisces). Records of the Indian
Museum 6(1–3): 275–277.
Dutta, A.K.
& T.K. Sen (1977). Schizopygopsis stoliczkae Steindachner—first record from Arunachal Pradesh,
India, with observation on the extension on the geographical range. Newsletter
Zoological Survey of
India 3(4): 143–144.
Fricke, R.,
W.N. Eschmeyer & R. van der Laan (eds.) (2025). Eschmeyer’s Catalog of Fishes:
genera, species, references.
http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fshcatmain.asp.
Accessed on 05.vii.2025.
Ghosh, S.K.
(1979). Fish fauna of
the states of Meghalaya, Tripura and U.T. of Arunachal Pradesh. Annual Report.
ICAR, Shillong.
Gurumayum,
S.D & K.P. Nath (2022). A checklist of threatened fishes found in Arunachal Pradesh. Bulletin
of Arunachal Pradesh Forest Research 36(1–2): 31–39.
Hamzah, N.
(2007). Assessment
on water quality and biodiversity within Sungai Batu Pahat. Master of thesis.
Department of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 124 pp.
Hora, S.L.
(1921). On some new
record and rare species of fishes from eastern Himalayas. Records of the
Indian Museum 22(5): 731–744.
https://doi.org/10.26515/rzsi/v22/i5/1921/163480
IUCN (2025). The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Version 2024-2. https://www.iucnredlist.org>. Accessed on 13.iii.2025.
Jayaram, K.C.
& N. Mazumdar (1964). On a collection of fish from Kameng frontier division, NEFA. Journal
of the Bombay Natural History Society 6(2): 264–280.
Jayaram, K.C.
(1963). A new
species of sisorid from Kameng Frontier Division (NEFA). Journal of the
Zoological Society of India 15(1): 85–87.
Lisbeth, L.
(2023). Fish
Biodiversity and the Health of Aquatic Ecosystems. Poultry, Fisheries &
Wildlife Science 11: 234. https://doi.org/10.35248/2375-446X.23.11.234
McClelland,
J. (1839). Indian
Cyprinidae. Asiatic Researches 19(2): 217–471.
Margules,
C.R. & R.L. Pressey (2000). Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:
243–253.
Myers, N.,
R.A. Mittermier, C.G. Mittermier, G.A.B. da Fonseca & J. Kent (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for
conservation priorities. Nature 40: 853–858.
Nath, P.
& S.C. Dey (2000). Fish and Nisheries of Northeastern India. Vol. I: Arunachal Pradesh. Narendra Publishing House
Delhi, 217 pp.
Pielou, E.C.
(1966). Species
diversity and pattern diversity in the study of ecological succession. Journal
of Theoretical Biology 3:131–144.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(66)90133-0
Saunders,
D.A., R.J. Hobbs & C.R. Margules (1991). Biological consequences of
ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology 5: 18–32.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1991.tb00384.x
Sen, T.K.
(2006). Pisces. Fauna
of Arunachal Pradesh, State Fauna series 13 (Part-I): 317–396.
Sen, N.
(1999). On a
collection of fishes from Subansiri and Siang districts of Arunachal Pradesh. Records
of the Zoological Survey of India 97(1): 141–144.
https://doi.org/10.26515/rzsi/v97/i1/1999/160261.
Shannon, C.E.
& W. Wiener (1963). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University Illinois Press,
Urbana, 36 pp.
Sinha, B.
& L. Tamang (2015). Ichthyofauna of East Siang district, Arunachal Pradesh, India. Records
of the Zoological Survey of India 115(Part-3): 241–253.
https://doi.org/10.26515/rzsi/v115/i3/2015/120709.
Srivastava,
C.B. (1966). On a
collection of fishes from Tirap Frontier Division (NEFA), India. Journal of
Zoological Society of India 18:122–128.
Stoddard,
J.L., D.P. Larsen, C.P. Hakins, R.K. Johnson & R.H. Norris (2006). Setting expectations for the
ecological conditions of streams: the concept of reference condition. Reference
conditions—ecological applications.
http://watersheds.motana.edu). https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[1267:SEFTEC]2.0.CO;2. Accessed on 05.iv.2025.
Talwar, P.K.
& A.G. Jhingran (1991). Inland fishes of the India and adjacent countries. Oxford and IBH
Publishing Company, New Delhi, 541 pp.
Tamang, L.
& S. Chaudhry (2012). Range extension of Conta pectinata Ng, 2005 (Teleostei:
Sisoridae) in upper Brahmaputra River drainage in Arunachal Pradesh, India. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 4(2): 2402–2405. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2933.2402–5.
Tamang, L.
& D.N. Das (2024). New freshwater fishes discovered in Arunachal Pradesh, India: an updated
checklist and database in Rajiv Gandhi University Museum of Fishes. Journal
of Bioresources 11 (2): 72–80. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13284592
Taro, K., L.
Tamang & D.N. Das (2022). Ichthyofaunal diversity of Senkhi stream, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh:
a comparative status between 2004–05 and 2018–19. Journal of Threatened Taxa
14(7): 21356–21367. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.5738.14.7.21356-21367
Vishwanath,
W. (2002). Fishes of
North East India: A Field Guide to Species Identification. Manipur University, Imphal, 198
pp.