CHAPTER VI

FISH FAUNA

6.1 Introduction

Fish constitute a major comp3nent of the wetland ecosystem of Salim Ali Bird

Sanctuary. It is an important factor that attracts a large number of piscivorous birds to

the sanctuary area. Fish forms food for a variety of animals and occupy an important

trophic level in aquatic ecosystems and helps to maintain the food web. Eriksson

(1985) indicated that the presena: of fishes supports many piscivorous birds in

wetland. The number of fish eating birds that breed and the rate of success depend

upon the availability of fish (Vijayarr, 1991).

Fishes are represented by approximately 25,000 living species, of which 10,000

are found in fresh water (Nelson, 1994). According to Jayaram (1999), Indian region

alone harbours 2500 species of' which 930 are fieshwater inhabitants and the rest are

marine.

Kerala is a land blessed with 44 rivers which cut across the state with their

innumerable tributaries and branches. These water resources support a rich fish fauna.

A large number of dams have been constructed across many rivers in Kerala in order

to use the water for irrigation and generation of hydro-power. As many of these dams

were in forested areas, their catchments had to be protected. Hence the forests around

the reservoirs of such dams were declared as protected areas, that is, Sanctuaries or

National Parks (Biju ei ul., 2000). -'he dams radically alter river hydrology creating a

new artificial aquatic environment and consequently changing the fish species

spectrum. So emphasis must be given for the protection of fish fauna also.

Protected areas like sanctuaries play an important role in preserving many of the

flora and fauna. Protected areas with a reservoir inside or near the core area was found

to have more number of species and were represented by niore number of tish families

(Biju er al., 2000).

An effort is made here:

1. To study the fish fauna and their population fluctuations

6.2 Methodology

In otder to identify the fish species in the study area, seasonal samplings were

done from various study plots. Various salnpling methods or fishing gears such as cast

net, scoop net, gill net and a circular net (with very small mesh size and sinkers around

the edge) were used. The specimens were collected and preserved in 10% formalin

and identified. Classification of fishes is based on Talwar and Jinghran (1991) with

some modifications as followed by Menon (1999).

Visual count (bank side count) was the regular method adopted for monitoring

the population fluctuations in the study area. Counts were made fortnightly from 24

different fixed stations covering an area of lm2 in the study plots and the fish

population was estimated separately for both fragile ecosystem habitat (F) and natural

habitats (NH) and expressed in average.

6.2.1 Methods employed in the study

Visual counts ( Bank side counts)

A very appropriate method for shallow water bodies (even for counting frys).

Once in position, the investigaior waits motionless for atleast five minutes before

counting, so as to minimize the effects of disturbances. Counts are best made on sunny

days. The densities of different tish species can be derived by dividing the total

number of individuals of each species by the area sampled

Advantages: Cheap, fast and easy; allows checking parameters such as fish size, water

depth, vegetation etc; allows detailed behavioral observations to be made; stress to fish

is minimal.

Disadvantages: The arrival and presence of the observer will disturb the fishes and

they may take a long time to leave cover and resume their activities following

disturbances.

Cast netting

Fishes in shallow water or on the surface, in still or slow flowing water can be

sampled by this method. Cast net:; are circularly shaped with weights around the

perimeter. They have a central line to be retained in hand for hauling the net after it

has been cast.

Advantages: Simple to use and easily repeatable

Disadvantages: Little 1s known of their efficiency and selectivity; in deep water bodies

it cannot be operated due to the xesence of woody debris and dense vegetation,

moreover the fishes will escape before the net reaches the bottom of deep water

bodies.

Gill netting

Used for sampling mobile fish species under fairly calm conditions. The

meshes are large enough to allow the head of fish to pass through, but not the rest of

the body. Gill nets have a lead line and can he made to sink to [he bottorrl or to stay f i r

the surface of water, allowing the capture of species at various depths.

Advantages: A low cost method; eff~ctive in lakes and rivers with little water current.

Disadvantages: Very selective; fish caught ill gill nets olien die

Hand held scoop nets

The other methods used for fish collections were: Hand held scoop nets

(which are inserted below the water surface and brought up sharply) and sieving by

cloth or mosquito nets in suitable pl:~ces.

Among the above mentioned methods employed, visual count was the usual

method adopted i n the present study,

6.3 Results

A total o f 27 species o f fis.ies belonging to 5 orders and 15 families were

obtained from the study area during the period July 2000 and June 2002. The most

dominant family recorded was Cqprinidae. Out o f the 27 species recorded, 23

species were common and 4 were rare. The rare ones include Ompok bimaculatus

Prisfolepis marginata, Mastacembc!lus armatus and Tefraodon travancoricus and

were seen only once or twice. Even though their population i s good in the reservoir,

they occur rarely in the study area due to lack o f habitat.

6.3.1 Natural habitat

The natural habitat recorded 18 species o f fishes belonging to 8 families

during 2000-2002 (July- .lune) stud:+. Monthly tluctuations in the population were

also estimated.

During the first year o f study (July 2000-June 2001), the natural habitat was

completely dry in July. The dam reservoir retained water by August and the fish

population started establishing in NH. A peak in the population o f fishes was noticed

during June, 2001 (32/m2). However maximum number o f species (1 I) was noticed

during September, December and June respectively (Fig. 23). A minimum population

was observed during August 2000 (4.8/m2). Minimu~n number o f species (8) were

noticed during ALI~LIS~, .January. February and March respectively (Fig. 23).

Fig. 23

Monthly Fluctuations in the population and number of Fish species in Natural Habitat

(2000-2001)

35, I

J A S O N D J F M A M J

Minimum indicates dry spell

/ A v e r a g e fish population - t T o l a l No: of species ( 1

During 2000-2001, the n~aximum represented family was Cyprinidae and

Cichlidae family was the least represented one.

Fry of the following 5 species were noticed in the natural habitat during

2000-2001 viz. Puntius vittatu~, P. fuscialus, Amblypharyngodon meleltinus,

Xenentodon cancila and Aplocheiltrs linealus.

During 2001 to 2002 (July-June), the natural habitat remained dry for 4

months, from July to October. From November onwards a gradual increase in fish

population was observed with a maximum during January (3661m2) (Fig. 24). A

sudden increase was noticed dur ng this period. Farnily Cyprinidae was dominant

during this month followed by families Cichlidae. Uelonidae and Aplocheilidae.

Channidae was the least representsd hmily. Minirnt~m fish population !bras observed

during November (2 llmL) just a l i a t l ~ c llushing it1 ol' water into the natural habitats

(Fig. 24).

Fig. 24

Monthly fluctuations in population and number of fish species in Natural Habitat (2001.2002) 1

400 , .. - ..... -, 1 ' 4 i

During 2001-2002 (Jul3-June), maximum number of species was recorded

in December and April (12) and minimum in November (7) (Fig.24).

350

n E 300 - C 0 s 250 a - > g 200 P

$ 150 e $' roo 4

50

Tetraodon travancoriclrs was observed once during the study.

Hyporhamphus limbatus (a secor~dary fresh water fish) was observed during 2002

February to April in the natural ha i t a t .

~~

-~

--

- 0

-.

--

-

: : ;

J A S O N D J F M A M J

Minimum indicates dry spell i i

I - - - _1

Fig,. 25

Fam iiy

L M: of species 1

Family-wise distribution of species recorded from the sampling sites in Natural Habitat

Fish fauna of the natural habitat belonged to 8 families of which

Cyprinidae was the dominant family with 10 species. Family Cichlidae was

represented with 2 species while the others with one each (Fig. 25).

12

10 -

I 8 - .- !i n 6 - + 0

0 4~ z

2 -

0 7

6.3.2 Fragile ecosystem habitat

-

I m , m , m , = , m

Fish fauna was represented through out the year in fragile ecosystem

habitat during both the years. 20 species of fishes belonging to 11 families were

recorded from the study area. Slight fluctuations in the abundance of fishes were

observed throughout the year

Fig. 26

~

- ~~ ~~~

Monthly fluctuations in population and number of fish species in ~~ I

Fra~ile Ecosystem Habitat (2000-2001) I

J A S O N D J F M A M J I ~

r ~ v e r a ~ e fish population -Total N ~ T F J ~ ~ -- -~ ~- -~ -~ ~~ . -. ~- -

1 !

.~ ~ ~~. ~- ~~~ ~~~ . ~ ~ ~- . ~~ ~ ~ ~~. ~ -~ ~

A peak in the population was noticed in May (1061mz) and maximum

number of species were observed in June (12) during 2000-2001 (Juty-June) (Fig.

26). The maximum represented family was Cyprinidae followed by Aplocheilidae

and Belonidae. A minimum population was observed in August (12/m2). Minimum

number of species (8) was noticed in August, January, and February (Fig. 26).

During 2001-2002 (July-June), about 19 species of fishes were recorded from

the fragile ecosystem habitat. Cyprinidae was the most abundant family throughout the

year. Highest population during 2001-2002 was recorded in March (81/m2). Lowest

population was observed in October (81171'). Maximum number of species were

noticed in July (13) and their minimum number (3) was noticed in October (Fig. 27).

Fig. 27 --___-.-_----

MonUIly nuctuations in population and number of fish speciesin ~ ~ ~ ~ i l ~ Ecosystem Habitat (2001-2002) I

I

J A S O

- A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fish popuiatton +Total No: of species r ___---- -J ~~- - -~ -

.tiu and Anabas tesiudineus were also recorded from this habitat.

Fig. 28

The fragile ecosystem habitat supported I I families of fishes. Cyprinidae was

the dominant family with 9 species followed by Cichlidae with 2 species. Rest of the

families were represented with only one species each (Fig. 28).

6.33 Population of fish young ones

The fragile ecosystem habitat (F) supported a good percentage of fish fry

population indicating that the area IS a suitable breeding ground. The fry of following

I I species were collected from this habitat viz. Pun/itr.s vitlatu.~. P . filamen~osus. P.

Efroplus maculates, Efroplus surutensis, Amblypharyngodon meleffinus, Sulmosfomo

boopis and Mystus ocularus

Fig. 29

1 Average population of fish young ones 1 I

I. :: I : , . I

I .

, I . I . . . n . ,

A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N O J F M A M J

2000-2001 2001-2002 Minimum indicates dry spell

NH =] - - ~- ~- .- . -- - - -

Fry of following 8 species were noticed in the natural habitat viz Puntius

vittatus, P. jlamentosus, P. fusciatrcs, Parluciosoma daniconius, Amblypharyngodon

melettinus, Xenentodon cuncilu, Aplc~cheilus llneuizts and Hyporhumj?hus limhurus.

Figure 29 clearly indicates that the fragile ecosystem habitat (F) is a suitable

and better breeding ground for the fish and that all the conditions for breeding is

satisfied in this habitat.

6.4 Discussion

India is rich in fish fauna, representing 11.72% of species, 23.96% of

genera, 57% of families and 80% of orders of the world (Barman, 1998). Among the

Indian families of freshwater fishes, the family Cyprinidae is the largest and most

dominant and of immense econon~ic value with the maximum number of endemic

species (97 species), followed by the family Balitoridae (46 species) and Sisoridae

(2 1 species). Biju et al. (2000) reported a total of 1 15 species of fishes, belonging to

58 genera, 27 families and 10 orders from Kerala. They also recorded twenty species

from the lowland areas of various rivers, and considered them as secondary

freshwater fishes or migratory fishes from estuaries and sea.

A number of studies were carried out on the fish fauna of various protected

areas in Kerala. Biju rr a/. (in press) studied the species wise distribution of fishes in

the Sanctuaries and National Parks in Kerala. They reported 41 species from

Parambikulam Wildlife Sanctuary, 33 species from Peechi-Vazhani Wildlife

Sanctuary, 34 species from Chimmony Wildlife Sanctuary, 22 species from Chinnar

Wildlife Sanctuary, 36 species from Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary, 31 species f?om

Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary, 37 species from ldukki Wildlife Sanctuary, 35 species

from Neyyar Wildlife Sanctuary, 4 species from Eravikulam National Park and 58

species from Salim Ali Bird Zianctuary. Among these protected areas maxinlum

number of species were recorded from Salim Ali Bird Sanctuary. They recorded five

exotic species from this area. The most dominant family was Cyprinidae with 26

species. Among the 58 species recorded, five were very rare, I I rare, 23 common and

13 species very common.

During this study a total of 27 species of fishes belonging to 5 orders and 15

families were obtained from the study area. Out of this 27 species, 23 species were

recorded from the regular sampling sites and were represented by 19 genera and 13

families. Out of the 23 species, 18 species were recorded from the natural habitat

while 20 species from the fragile ecosystem habitat. Cyprinidae was the dominant

family noticed in both the habitals. According to Biju et ul. (in press) the most

abundant fish family recorded from Salim Ali Bird Sanctuary was Cyprinidae which

formed 47% of the total fishes recorded. Garra surendranuthanii, Mystus montantrs,

Pseudorropius mitchelli, and Glyptothorax mudraspatanurn were the very rare species

recorded from the area. Hypselobarbus thomassi was a critically endangered species

recorded from Kerala and is known only from Periyar river. Later Sugathan and

Seema (in press) recorded 69 species of fishes belonging to 25 families from Salim

Ali Bird Sanctuary and its adjace i t submerged and marshy areas. They recorded I I

additional species which were no. recorded by earlier workers. This include species

like Macropodzrs cu,r>anus, ilnuhu.~ ~r.s/~~rlinc,ri.s, Chunnu .slrI'uI~i.s, i,71eno~~htlty?fgo(jOn

idellus, Puntius denisonii, P. dorsalis etc.

Out of the 23 species recorded from the regular sampling sites, 15 species

were common to both natural habitat and fragile ecosystem habitat. Four species

namely Macropodus cupanus, Hcteropneustesfossili.~, Parambassis day; and Anubus

testudineus were recorded only from F while three species namely Hypselobarbus

kurali, Macrognuthtrs gumtheri and ~/y~/yl,o,.humphzc.s lirnhtrtz~.~ were restricted to the

natural habitat. Air-breathers were nrosllj confined to the I : sincc lhcy PI-rfer

vegetated areas which provide them !suitable hiding places. Similarly, Ajithkumar and

Mittal (1993) reported that the air breathing fishes in Keoladeo National Park,

Bharatpur were recorded from different types o f habitats while the non- air breathers

frequented open water or sparsely vegetated habitats.

Eleven species were noticed breeding in fiagile ecosystenl and 8 species were

recorded breeding in the natural habitat. This reveals that the habitat in these areas

provide suitable environment for ).he breeding o f these species. Frys o f Punri~~.s

wiltatus, P. filamentosus, P. furciar~ts, P~r1~1cio.somu daniconius, Xenentodun ccmcilu

and Aplocheilus lineurus were recorded from both the natural habitat and fragile

ecosystem habitat. A peak was noted i n the population o f fish young ones during

January 2002 in NH which indicates that the frys hatched out in F are released in the

natural habitat during this period when water conditions became suitable for them.

This is a clear indication that the fragile habitats are the main breeding and stocking

areas for fish during the advers: conditions in the sanctuary. When favourable

conditions arrive, this population get released in the NH and hence the species are

protected and a viable population exists all over. A study on the fish fauna o f the

wetland ecosystem o f Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, has been reported by

Ajithkumar and Vijayan (1988) ;md Vijayan (1991). They reported 43 species o f

fishes belonging to 8 orders, 16 iamilies and 31 genera. O f these only six species

namely Channa punctatus, C. striatus, C. marulius, Hereropneustes fossilis, Clarias

batrachus and Colisa fasciatu were local and breed inside the park. Rest o f the

species enter the park as fry along with the water from outside the sanctuary.

The freshwater puffer fish, 7i,lr~1orlon r~~rii~rr~ico~~ic~ls was recorded only once

liom the natural lhabita~. f l ~ i s puffer fish was i)ri~in:rll> dcscrihed fiom l'alnha river

o f Kerala (Hora and Nair, 1941). Subsequently i t was recorded from brickyar-ds at

Pudukad o f Thrissur district by lnasu (1993) and l iom Chaliyar river by Easa and

Basha (1995). Hyporhampus limbatlrs (secondary freshwater fish) was also noticed in

the natural habitat during February 2002 to April 2002.

Periyar Tiger Reserve, ldukki Wildlife Sanctuary, Salim Ali Bird Sanctuary

and portion of Eravikulam National Park are drained by the streams of Periyar river.

The status and distribution of fishes in the rivers of Periyar Tiger Reserve, Kerala

were studied by Zacharias et al. (1996). They reported 35 species belonging to 7

orders and 11 families. Cyprinidae was the maximum represented family. 13 species

of fishes collected during the study were endemic to Southern Western Ghats. Two

new species namely Lepidopygopsfs typhus and Crossocheilus periyarensis were

recorded from Periyar. Fishes like Heteropneustes fossilis, Ompok bimaculatus,

Channa striatus, C . orientalis, (,'. marulius, Cyprinus carpio communis and

Oreochromis mossambica were restricted to lentic waters of the reservoir.

Nemacheilus menoni was a new species reported from Periyar Tiger Reserve by

Zacharias and Minimol (1999). Ajithkumar et al. (2001) studied the fish fauna of

Pooyamkutty river, a tributary of Periyar river and reported 34 species belonging to

I I families. This Pooyamkutty river runs down as Kuttampuzha river which borders

one side of the Salim Ali Bird Sanct~ary.

Fish fauna and its abundar~ce and distribution in Chalakudy river system,

Kerala was studied by Ajithkumar el 01. (1999). They recorded 83 fish species

belonging to 34 families and I0 orders from Chalakudy river. C'/yprol /~or~ix lonuii

collected from this river was conside~ed as a new record from Kerala.

In the present study family Cyprinidae was represented with the maximum

number of species. Out of the 23 species recorded from the regular sampling sites, I0

species belonged to family Cyprinidae. Natural habitat supported all the ten species

belonging to family Cyprinidae whereas fragile ecosystem habitat supported nine

species of this family. Hypseloburbur kurali was not recorded from F habitat. Family

Cichlidae was represented by two sl~ecies namely Etrc~plus macularus and Etroplus

suratensis in both the study habitats during the study. Manimekalan (I 998) described

38 species of fishes belonging to 21 genera, 12 families and 8 orders from Mudumalai

Wildlife Sanctuary. Among these 27 species belonged to the family Cyprinidae.

Some of the important studies on the fish fauna of protected areas in Kerala

include the fish fauna study of Chimmony and Peechi-Vazhani wildlife sanctuaries

carried out by Raju et al. (2000). They reported 37 species belonging to 15 families

from this area. Of these Cyprinus carpio communis, Lubeo rohita, Puntius arulius

and Channa striatus were recorded only from Peechi-Vazhani sanctuary area, while

Channa orientalis and C. punctatw were restricted to Chimmony sanctuary. Raju et

al. (2000 a) studied on the fish fauna of ldukki and Neyyar wildlife sanctuaries in

Southern Kerala. A total of 40 species belonging to 16 families and 29 genera were

collected from the Idukki sanctuari and 38 species belonging to 13 families and 26

genera were recorded from the Neyyar sanctuary. Three culture fishes also were

collected from these sanctuaries. Hypselobarhris curmuca was the most abundant

species in Idukki wildlife sanctuar:y. 'I hey recorded six very rare species from ldukki

wildlife sanctuary and four species from Neyyar wildlife sanctuary. Sugathan and

Seema (in press) recorded five introduced species from Salim Ali Bird Sanctuary

namely Oreochromis mossambica, Cyprinus carpio communis, Labeo rohica, Carla

carla and Ctenopharyngodon idell?is.

The most dominant genus recorded during the present study was Pzintius.

Four I'untius species were record~:d from the sampling sites namely I'rintizc.~ 1~itt~ltu.s

J'. filrrmen/o.sus, P , flr.sciir~~rs and ,O. L/~I.sLI/;.Y. Accordi~ig to Juyirral~i ( 199'1). the genus

I'unlius are prolific and occupy all possible niches and exhibit a high degree of

variability and adaptability in their characters. This adaptation of genus Puntitis may

be the reason for its dominance ir the study area. Recently Raju rr (11. (2002)

recorded 117 species of fishes belonging to 58 genera, 27 families and 10 orders from

rivers flowing through Southern Kcrala. 'r'lie most abundant order recorded was

Cypriniformes followed by Perciformes and Silurifonnes. Puntius was the most

dominant genus. They also reported the distribution of 36 endangered and I I

endemic species in Southern Kerala.

Biju et al. (in press) made a review o f fresh water fishes from Kerala. A

total of 146 species belonging to 1Cl orders, 27 families and 61 genera were recorded

so far from Kerala. This include 24 new species of fishes of which 19 were reported

from Southern Kerala and 5 from Northern Kerala. They also noticed that species

richness was more in Southern Kerala than that of Northern Kerala.

The natural habitat supported fishes belonging to 8 families and the fragile

ecosystem habitat supported 1 1 families. Cyprinidae was the most dominant family

recorded in both the habitats followed by Cichlidae. Hyporhamphus limbatus (family

Hemirarnphidae) and Macrogna~hus guentheri (family Mastacembelidae) were

recorded from the natural habitat alone. Mysrus ocularus(family Bagridae),

Heteropneustes fossilis (family Heteropneustidae), pa rum bass;^ dayi (family

Ambassidae), Macropodus cupaptus (family Belontidae) and Anabus /estud;ninezcs

(family Anabantidae) were recorded only from the fragile ecosystem habitat

The past and present studies on fish fauna reveals that Salim Ali Bird

Sanctuary, Thattakad, supports maximum number o f fish species when compared to

other protected areas in Kerala. l'he present study shows that both the habitats have

fairly good number of fishes which inturn attracts many birds to the area. Fragile

ecosystem habitat supported more fishes since water was present throughou~ the year

with more aquatic macrophytcs.

Plate 9

Effect of drainage of water

Plate 10

Upstream migration of Parfuciosoma daniconius

during drainage of water