Research Journal of Animal, Veterinary and Fishery Sciences ___________________________ ISSN 2320 – 6535 Vol. 2(2), 1-8, February (2014) Res. J. Animal, Veterinary and Fishery Sci. International Science Congress Association 1 Biodiversity and Conservation Status of Fishes of River Sarada, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh, IndiaJ. Chandra Sekhara Rao*, Ch. Sebastian Raju and G. Simhachalam Department of Zoology & Aquaculture, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjuna Nagar, Guntur (AP), INDIAAvailable online at: www.isca.in, www.isca.me Received 22nd October 2013, revised 19th January 2014, accepted 18th February 2014 AbstractA survey was conducted on biodiversity of fish fauna and their conservation status of a freshwater river, Sarada in Visakhapatnam District of Andhra Pradesh, India with an objective to make a complete inventory of freshwater fishes and assess their conservation status. Regular bi-monthly sampling was conducted from January, 2011 to December, 2012 by using different nets with the help of artisanal fishermen. Fishes were also collected from local fish markets. We have collected 66 fish species belonging to 9 orders, 22 families and 38 genera. Order Cypriniformes was the dominant group with 26 species followed by Siluriformes and Mugiliformes each with 11 species, Perciformes with 7 species, Anguilliformes, Cyprinodontiformes and Mastacembeliformes each with 3 species and Osteoglossiformes and Elopiformes each with 1 species. Out of 66 species, 3 species are near threatened, 3 vulnerable, 4 at lower risk near threatened, 1 at lower risk least concern, 37 least concern, 15 not evaluated and for 3 species data is deficient as per IUCN (2013) Red List category. According to CAMP (1998) conservation status, 4 species are endangered, 13 vulnerable, 24 at lower risk near threatened, 2 at lower risk least concern, 22 not evaluated and for 1 species data is deficient. Keywords: Biodiversity, CAMP, conservation, IUCN, Sarada River. IntroductionFish are an integral component of aquatic ecosystems. In addition to being adesired resource for users of the aquatic habitat, they play important role in energy flow, cycling of nutrients and maintaining community balance in the ecosystem. They form an important element in the economy of many nations as they have long been a stable item in the diet of many people. They constitute slightly more than one-half of total number approximately 54, 711 recognized living vertebrate species; there are descriptions of an estimated 27, 977 valid species of fishes. Our country is endowed with vast and varied resources possessing river ecological heritage and rich biodiversity. India is one of the mega biodiversity countries in the world and occupies the ninth position in terms of freshwater mega biodiversity. Biodiversity is essential for stabilization of ecosystem, protection of overall environmental quality for understanding intrinsic worth of all species on the earth. Fish biodiversity of river essentially represents the fish faunal diversity and their abundance. Rivers conserve a rich variety of fish species which support to the commercial fisheries. There is an increasing concern worldwide for the loss of aquatic ecosystems and associated biodiversity, particularly for riverine landscapes. Over the last century, riverine ecosystems have suffered from intense human intervention resulting in habitat loss and degradation and as a consequence, many fish species have become highly endangered, particular in rivers where heavy demand is placed on freshwaters. The main causes behind the loss of biodiversity in freshwater are degradation and defragmentation of habitats, water abstraction, industries and private use, introduction of exotic species, pollution and global climate change impacts10, 11. Freshwater fish are one of the most threatened taxonomic groups12 because of their high sensitivity to the quantitative and qualitative alteration of aquatic habits13, 14, 15. For harnessing the aquatic resources, a scientific understanding of the fish species with respect to their morphological, biological and adaptive characters along with their natural distribution is imperative to back up their optimum exploitation. In this context it is aimed at assessment and documentation of the biodiversity of fish fauna of River Sarada, a freshwater river located in Visakhapatnam District (AP), India and thereby evaluating the conservation status of fish species, taking into consideration riverine health and makes the people more aware about their local environment and its conservation for their existence. Material and Methods Study area: River Sarada (17° 25' to 18° 17' N and 82° 32' to 83° 06' E) is located in Visakhapatnam District of Andhra Pradesh. It is a medium-sized river and has a catchment area of about 2,665 km. It rises at an elevation of 1,000 meters in the Eastern Ghats. It runs eastwards for a distance 122 km and joins the Bay of Bengal. The basin is surrounded by River Nagavali in the north, River Gosthani, Gambiramgedda, Megadrigedda in the east Bay of Bengal in the South and Machhkund sub-basin of the River Godavari in the west. Research Journal of Animal, Veterinary and Fishery Sciences ________________________________________ ISSN 2320 – 6535 Vol. 2(2), 1-8, February (2014) Res. J. Animal, Veterinary and Fishery Sci. International Science Congress Association 2 Sampling: Sampling involved collection fromvarious stations with the help of fishermen usingindigenous fishing methods and by using different types of nets namely gill nets, cast nets and dragnets. Fishes were also purchased from thefishermen on the spot. We also visited local fish markets located on the banks of the river to monitor and look for the presence of any species which were not available during our experimental fishing. Immediately photographs were taken prior to preservation since formalin decolorizesthe fish colour on long preservation. The specimens were preserved in 10% formalin and brought tothe laboratory. They were fixed in formalin solution based on their size in separate jars. Smaller ones are placed directly while the larger ones were preserved after giving an incision on the abdomen before they were fixed in the formalin solution. Fishes were identified byusing standard taxonomic keys for fishes of the Indian subcontinent16, 17, 18, 19. Classification was done on lines of Day20, Jayaram21, Nelson22 and Jayaram17. The fishes were labeled giving serial number, date of collection, place of collection, systematic position and common name on each jar. Conservation status of each fish was given based on the report on Conservation Assessment and Management Plan (CAMP) for freshwater fishes of India by Molur and Walker23and IUCN24 Red List of Threatened Species. Results and DiscussionBiodiversity reflects the number, variety and variability of living organisms as well as how these change from onehabitat to another and over time. In view of global deterioration of environment, documentation of fish fauna from all theecosystems has become important to know their present biodiversity status.During the two year study period we have recorded 66 species from 9 orders, 22 families and 38 genera. List of fish including common names and their conservational status were given in table 1. Cypriniformes with 26 (39.39%) species followed by siluriformes and mugiliformes each with 11 (16.66%), perciformes with 7 (10.60%), anguilliformes, cyprinodontiformes and mastacembeliformes each with 3 (4.54%) and osteoglossiformes and elopiformes each with 1 (1.51%) species were recorded. Among the families, cyprinidae with 26 (39.39%) species, bagridae with 4 (6.06%), siluridae, cichilidae, belontiidae, channidae and mastecembelidae each with 3 (4.54%), anguillidae, clariidae, ambassidae, nandidae, gobiidae and anabantidae each with 2 (3.03%) and notopteridae, megalopidae, moringuidae, schilbeidae, heteropneustidae, belonidae, oryziidae, aplocheilidae and mugilidae each with 1 (1.51%) species were recorded. Number and per cent contribution of different families, genera and species under various orders were shown in table 2 and figures 1 and 2. Order siluriformes and elopiformes each contributed 5 families followed by cyprinodontiformes and perciformes each 3, Anguilliformes 2 and osteoglossiformes, elopiformes, cypriniformes and mastacembeliformes each 1 family. Among the genera, Puntius with 8 species, followed by Labeo with 5, Mystus with 4, Ompok, Colisa and Channa each with 3, Anguilla, Cirrhinus, Chela, Esomus, Clarias, Etroplus, Anabasand Mastacembelus each with 2 and remaining all genera each with 1 species were recorded. In our present investigation, cypriniformes was the most dominat group with 26 species. Dominance of cypriniformes was also reported by several workers25, 26, 27, 28, 29. Among the families, dominance of cyprinidae as seen during the present study is in accordance with the observations of Das and Sharma30, Senthil Murugan and Prabaharan31, Das and Sabitry32, Choubey and Qureshi33 and Acharjee and Barat34. Introduced or exotic species recorded from our study are Oreochromis mossambicus, Osphronemus goramy, Cyprinus carpio, Clarias gariepinus, Ctenopharyngodon idella. Among the exotic species, we found Oreochromis mossambica to be quite frequent. Invasiveness of Cyprinus carpio and Oreochromis mossambica in lotic systems seem to be a serious threat to other native fishes35 Clarias gariepinus which is a carnivore and voracious feeder established itself in this river and become very serious threat to the smaller indigenous fish species. Studies suggest that native fish fauna is severely threatened by the introduction of alien species with regard to predation, competition for food and other resources, and also with the introduction of new pathogens36-39. Mystus armatus, Puntius conchonius, P. gelius, P. ticto, Labeo boga, Chanda nama, Cyprinus carpio, Oreochromis mossambica, Channa punctatus, Channa gachua, Heteropneustes fossilis, Catla catla, Cirrhinus mrigala, Labeo rohita and Labeo calbasu are some of the important food fishes. Predatory fish recorded in our study are Heteropneustes fossilis, Wallago attu, Mystus cavasius, Channa punctatus, Channa gachua, and Glossogobius giuris etc. Present study revealed the occurrence of 53 species of ornamental fish. Some of the commercially important species are Notopterus notopterus, Chela laubuca, Danio devario, Esomus danricus, Amblypharyngodon mola, Puntius chola, P. conchonius, P. gelius, P. sophore, P. terio, P. ticto, Osteobrama cotio, Mystus vittatus, Mystus cavasius, Pseudotropius atherinoides, Clarias batrachus, Heteropneustes fossilis, Xenontodon cancila, Aplocheilus panchax, Chanda nama, Badis badis, Nandus nandus, Glossogobius giuris, Anabas testudineus, Colisa fasciatus, Colisa lalia, C. punctatus, Macrognathus aral, M. pancalus, Mastacembelus armatus etc. Out of sixty six species, species having high economic value are Labeo rohita, Catla catla, Cirrhinus mrigala, Walago attu, Ompok bimaculatus and Channa marulius, and others have moderate economic value. The air breathing fishes such as Clarias, Channa, Mastecembelus and Heteropneustes fetch good market value as live fish. Labeo calbasu found to be rare species in our study. According to the IUCN red list of threatened species, 4.54% (3) species are near threatened, 4.54% (3) vulnerable, 6.08% (4) at Research Journal of Animal, Veterinary and Fishery Sciences ________________________________________ ISSN 2320 – 6535 Vol. 2(2), 1-8, February (2014) Res. J. Animal, Veterinary and Fishery Sci. International Science Congress Association 3 lower risk near threatened, 1.51% (1) at lower risk least concern, 56.06% (37) least concern, 22.72% (15) are not evaluated and for 4.54% (3) species data is deficient. Out of 66 species recorded from the river, 6.06% (4) species are endangered, 19.69% (13) vulnerable, 36.36% (24) at lower risk near threatened, 3.03% (2) at lower risk least concern, 33.33% (22) are not evaluated and for 1 species data is deficient (Figure 3). Anguilla bengalensis, Ompok bimaculatus, O. pabda and Pseudotropius atherinoides are the endangered species according to CAMP report whereas Ompok bimaculatus, O. pabda and O. pabo are near threatened species. Catla catla, Cirrhinus reba, Puntius chola, P. sarana, P. vittatus, Mystus bleekeri, M. vittatus, Clarias batrachus, Heteropneustes fossilis, Anabas cobojius, A. testudineus, Channa gachua and Mastecembelus armatus are vulnerable. Table-1 Diversity and Conservation status of fish fauna recorded from Sarada River S.No Order Family Species Common Name IUCN Status CAMP Status 1 Osteoglossiformes Notopteridae Notopterus notopterus Grey feather back LC LRnt 2 Elopiformes Megalopidae Megalops cyprinoides Indo-Pacific Tarpon DD NE 3 Anguilliformes Anguillidae Anguilla bengalensis Indian Long fin eel LC EN 4 Anguilla bicolor Short fin eel LC NE 5 Moringuidae Moringua raitaborua Purple spaghetti eel NE NE 6 Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Catla catla Common carp NE VU 7 Cirrhinus mrigala Mrigal LC LRnt 8 Cirrhinus reba Reba carp VU VU 9 Ctenopharyngodon idella Grass carp NE NE 10 Cyprinus carpio Common carp NE NE 11 Labeo bata Minor carp LC LRnt 12 Labeo boga Boga labeo LC LRnt 13 Labeo calbasu Black rohu LRnt LRnt 14 Labeo fimbriatus Fringed-lipped peninsular carp LC LRnt 15 Labeo rohita Rohu LC LRnt 16 Osteobrama cotio Cotio NE LRnt 17 Puntius chola Swamp barb LC VU 18 Puntius conchonius Rosy barb LC LRnt 19 Puntius gelius Golden dwarf barb LC NE 20 Puntius sarana Olive barb LC VU 21 Puntius sophore Spot fin swamp barb LC LRnt 22 Puntius terio One spot barb LC LRnt 23 Puntius ticto Two spot / Fire fin barb LC LRnt 24 Puntius vittatus Green Stripe Barb LC VU 25 Chela cachius Silver hatchet chela LC NE 26 Chela laubuca Indian glass barb LC LRlc 27 Amblypharyngodon mola Pale/Mola carplet LC LRlc 28 Danio devario Bengal Danio LC LRnt 29 Esomus barbatus South Indian Flying barb LC NE 30 Esomus danricus Flying barb LC LRnt 31 Rasbora daniconius Black line rasbora NE LRnt 32 Siluriformes Bagridae Mystus bleekeri Day’s mystus LC VU 33 Mystus cavasius Gangetic mystus LC LRnt 34 Mystus gulio Long whiskered catfish NE NE 35 Mystus vittatus Striped dwarf catfish LC VU 36 Siluridae Ompok bimaculatus Indian butter fish NT EN Research Journal of Animal, Veterinary and Fishery Sciences ________________________________________ ISSN 2320 – 6535 Vol. 2(2), 1-8, February (2014) Res. J. Animal, Veterinary and Fishery Sci. International Science Congress Association 4 37 Ompok pabda Butter catfish NT EN 38 Ompok pabo Pabdah fish NT NE 39 Schilbeidae Pseudeutropius atherinoides Indian potasi NE EN 40 Clariidae Clarias batrachus Walking catfish/Magur VU VU 41 Clarias gariepinus NE NE 42 Heteropneustidae Heteropneustes fossilis Stinging catfish VU VU 43 Cyprinodontiformes Belonidae Xenentodon cancila Freshwater garfish LC LRnt 44 Oryziidae Oryzias dancena Indian rice fish LC NE 45 Aplocheilidae Aplocheilus panchax Panchax minnow LC DD 46 Perciformes Ambassidae Chanda nama Elongate glass perchlet LC NE 47 Parambassis ranga Indian glassy fish LC NE 48 Nandidae Nandus nandus Mottled nandus LRnt LRnt 49 Badis badis Dwarf chameleon fish LC NE 50 Cichlidae Etroplus maculates Ornage chromid LC NE 51 Etroplus suratensis Green chromid LC NE 52 Oreochromis mossambica Mozambique tilapia NE NE 53 Mugilifornes Mugilidae Mugil cephalus Grey / Flat head mullet LC NE 54 Gobiidae Glossogobius guiris Tank/Bar-eyed goby LC LRnt 55 Gobiopsis macrostoma NE NE 56 Anabantidae Anabas cobojius DD VU 57 Anabas testudineus Climbing perch DD VU 58 Belontiidae Colisa fasciatus Banded gaurami LRnt LRnt 59 Colisa labiosus Thick lip gaurami NE NE 60 Colisa lalia Dwarf gaurami NE NE 61 Channidae Channa gachua Dwarf snakehead LC VU 62 Channa punctatus Spotted snakehead LRnt LRnt 63 Channa striatus Banded snakehead LRlc LRnt 64 Mastacembeliformes Mastacembelidae Macrognathus aral One striped spiny eel LC LRnt 65 Macrognathus pancalus Barred spiny eel NE LRnt 66 Mastacembelus armatus Zig zag spiny eel NE VU * EN – Endangered; NT – Near Threatened; VU – Vulnerable; LRnt – Lower Risk near threatened; LRlc – Lower Risk least concern, LC – Least Concern, DD – Data Deficient; NE – Not Evaluated Table-2 Number and percent composition of families, genera and species under various orders S.No Order Families Genera Species % of families in an order % of genera in an order % of species in an order 1 Osteoglossiformes 1 1 1 4.54 2.63 1.51 2 Elopiformes 1 1 1 4.54 2.63 1.51 3 Anguilliformes 2 2 3 9.09 5.26 4.54 4 Cypriniformes 1 12 26 4.54 31.57 39.39 5 Siluriformes 5 5 11 22.72 13.15 16.66 6 Cyprinodontiformes 3 3 3 13.63 7.89 4.54 7 Perciformes 3 6 7 13.63 15.78 10.60 8 Mugiliformes 5 6 11 22.72 15.78 16.66 9 Mastacembeliformes 1 2 3 4.54 5.26 4.54 Research Journal of Animal, Veterinary and Fishery Sciences ________________________________________ ISSN 2320 – 6535 Vol. 2(2), 1-8, February (2014) Res. J. Animal, Veterinary and Fishery Sci. International Science Congress Association 5 Figure-1 Number of families, genera and species under various orders Figure-2 Percent contribution of families, genera and species under various orders Research Journal of Animal, Veterinary and Fishery Sciences ________________________________________ ISSN 2320 – 6535 Vol. 2(2), 1-8, February (2014) Res. J. Animal, Veterinary and Fishery Sci. International Science Congress Association 6 Figure-3 Number of species under different categories of threat as per CAMP and IUCN ConclusionRiver Sarada hosts a number of freshwater fish species including globally threatened species. The fish fauna of the river is under threat due to several anthropogenic factors. Introduced species present in the river have been suggested as possible threats to the indigenous fish fauna. Other anthropogenic factors such as siltation, recreational activities are common in most of the stretches of the river. We have identified sand mining to be the most destructive threat to freshwater fishes of this river. These practices seem to have caused severe habitat destruction and decline of many important native food fishes. The fish fauna of this river is also subjected to over fishing. The large scale industrialization and the consequent effluent discharge are making the river almost lifeless or dead. Inorganic pollution of the river due to industrial activities is another important threat to the fish fauna. Since the fish fauna in this region also supports the livelihood of several economic classes there is an urgent need to understand the conservation priorities and to design and implement conservation action plans. The conservation measures suggested in this river area include strict regulation and control over sand mining, controlling pollution and minimizing the threats caused by the increasing number of exotic species. Declaration of some portion of the river area as “fish sanctuary” could be the welcome step for conservation of threatened species. The most important conservational aspect of biodiversity conservation of this river is to be building up to create awareness in stake holders through communication, cooperation and education. The present study is the first ever documentation of fish fauna of river Sarada in Visakhapatnam district, Andhra Pradesh. Our paper thus provides the basic step for detailed research on the freshwater fish fauna of riverine system mainly with regards to taxonomic, ecological and conservation studies. References1.Nelson J.S., Fishes of the world, 4th Edition, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 601 (2006) 2.Mittermeier R.A. and Mittermeier C.G., Megadiversity: Earth’s Biologically Wealthiest Nation. In: McAlister, D. E., Hamilton, A. L. and Harrery, B. (Ed). Global Freshwater biodiversity: Sea Wind, Lemex, Mexico City, 11, 1-140 (1997) 3.Ehrlich P.R. and Wilson E.O., Biodiversity studies: science and policy, Science, 253, 758-762 (1991) 4.Georges A. and Cottingham P., Biodiversity in inland waters: Priorities for its protection and management, Recommendations from the 2001 Fenner Conference on the Environment, CRC for Freshwater Ecology, Technical Report 1/2000, 1-37 (2002) 5.Dunn H., Can conservation assessment criteria developed for terrestrial systems be applied to river systems, Aquatic Ecosystem Health Management, 6, 81-95 (2004) Research Journal of Animal, Veterinary and Fishery Sciences ________________________________________ ISSN 2320 – 6535 Vol. 2(2), 1-8, February (2014) Res. J. Animal, Veterinary and Fishery Sci. International Science Congress Association 7 6.Gibbs J.P., Wetland loss and Biodiversity conservation, Conservation Biology, 14, 314-317 (2000) 7.Dawson T.P., Berry P.M. and Kampa E., Climate change impacts on freshwater wetland habitat, Journal of Nature Conservation, 11, 25-30 (2003) 8.Copp G.H., Bianci Bogutskaya N.G., Eros T., Falka I., Ferreira M.T., Fox M.G., Freyhof J., Gozlan R.E., Grabowska J., Kovac V., Moreno-Amich Naseka A.M. and Wiesner C., To be, or not to be, a non-native freshwater fish?, Applied Ichthyology, 21, 242-262 2005) 9.Lima-Junior S.E., Cardone I.B. and Goitein R., Fish assemblage structure and aquatic pollution in a Brazilian stream: some limitations of diversity indices and models for environmental impact studies, Ecology of Freshwater Fish, 15(3), 284-290 (2006) 10.Leveque C., Balian E.V. and Martens K., An assessment of animal species diversity in continental waters, Hydrobiologia, 542, 32-67 (2005) 11.Mas-Marti E., Garcia-Berthou E., Sabater S., Tomanova S. and Monoz I. Comparing fish assemblages and trophic ecology of permanent and intermittent researches in a Mediterranean stream, Hydrobiologia, doi:10.1007/s10750-010-0292-x (2010) 12.Darwall W.R.T. and Vie J.C., Identifying important sites for conservation of freshwater biodiversity: extending the species based approach, Fish Management and Ecology, 12, 287-293 (2005) 13.Laffaille P., Acou A., Guillouet J. and Legult A., Temporal change in European eel, Anguilla anguilla, stock in a small catchment after installation of fish passes, Fish Management and Ecology, 12, 123-129 (2005) 14.Kang B., He D., Perrett L., Wang H., Hu W., Deng W. and Wu Y., Fish and fisheries in the Upper Mekong: current assessment of the fish community, threats and conservation, Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries,19,465-480 (2009) 15.Sarkar U.K., Pathak A.K. and Lakra W.S., Conservation of freshwater fish resources of India: new approaches, assessment and challenges, Biodiversity Conservation,17,2495-2511 (2008) 16.Day F., The fishes of India, being a natural history of the fishes known to inhabit the seas and freshwater of India, Burma and Ceylon, text and atlas, London, William Dawson and Sons Ltd., 195-198 (1958) 17.Jayaram K.C., The freshwater fishes of India, ZSI, 1-438 1981) 18.Jayaram K.C., The freshwater fishes of the Indian Region. Narendra Publishing House, Delhi-6, 551 (1999) 19.Talwar P.K. and Jhingran A., Inland fishes of India and adjacent countries. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. New Delhi, & 2, 1158 (1991) 20.Day F., The Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Fishes, 1, 548, 2, 509, The London, Taylor and Francis (1889) 21.Jayaram K.C., The proper generic names for some common Indian fishes of commercial importance, Journal of the Zoological Society India, 12(2), 239-242 (1961) 22.Nelson J.S., Fishes of the world, 3rd Edition, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 416 (1976) 23.Molur S. and Walker, S., Report of the Conservation Assessment and Management Plan. Workshop on freshwater fishes of India, Zoo outreach Organization/CBSG, Coimbatore, India, 156 (1998) 24.IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. www.iucnredlist.org&#x-15.;䌒, Downloaded on 19 May 2013, (2013)25.Vijaylaxmi C., Vijaykumar K., Zeba Parveen and Anil Kumar Chavan, Fish fauna of Bheema river, Gulbarga District, Karnataka, Journal of Ecophysiology and Occupational Health, 8, 237-240 (2008) 26.Shinde S.E., Pathan T.S., Raut K.S., Bhandare R.Y. and Sonawane D.I., Fish Biodiversity of Pravara River at Pravara Sangam District Ahmednagar, (M.S.) India, World Journal of Zoology, 4(3), 176-179 (2009) 27.Sarwade J.P. and Khillare Y.K., Fish diversity of Ujani wetland, Maharashtra, India, The Bioscan, 1, 173-179 2010) 28.Pramod Kumar, Rajni W., Ashwani W. and Fozia S., Preliminary study on Ichthyofaunal diversity of Shershah Suri pond, Sasaram, Bihar, International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 3(2), 1582-1588 2011) 29.Chatoan Tesia and Sabitry Bordoloi, Ichthyofaunal Diversity of Charju River, Tirap District, Arunachal Pradesh, India, Asian Journal of Experimental Biological Sciences, 3(1), 82-86 (2012) 30.Das B. and Sharma S., A Comparison of Fish Diversity of Kopili and Jamuna Rivers of Karbi Anglong District, Assam, The Science Probe, 1(1): 21-29 (2012) 31.Senthil Murugan A. and Prabaharan C., Fish Diversity In Relation to Physico-Chemical Characteristics of Kamala Basin of Dharbanga District, Bihar, India, International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biological archives, 3(1): 211-217 (2012) 32.Das M.K. and Sabitry B., Ichthyofaunal Resources of Inland Water Bodies of the River Island Majuli, Assam, India, Asian Journal of Experimental Biological Sciences, 3(1), 51-58 (2012) Research Journal of Animal, Veterinary and Fishery Sciences ________________________________________ ISSN 2320 – 6535 Vol. 2(2), 1-8, February (2014) Res. J. Animal, Veterinary and Fishery Sci. International Science Congress Association 8 33.Choubey K. and Qureshi Y., Study of Ichthyofaunal Biodiversity of Rajnandgaon town, CG, India, International Research Journal of Biological Sciences, 2(2): 21-24 (2013) 34.Acharjee M.L. and Barat S., Ichthyofaunal diversity of Teesta River in Darjeeling Himalaya of west Bengal, India, Asian Journal of Experimental and Biological Sciences, 4(1): 112-122 (2013) 35.Bagra K., Kadu K., Nebeshwar-Sharma K., Laskar B.A., Sarkar U.K. and Das D.N., Ichthyological survey and review of the checklist of fish fauna of Arunachal Pradesh, India, Check List, 5(2): 330-350 (2009) 36.Daniels R.J.R., Introduced fishes: a potential threat to the native freshwater fishes of peninsular India, Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 103(2-3): 346-348 2006) 37.Raghavan R., Prasad G., Anvar-Ali P.H. and Pereira, B., Exotic fish species in a global biodiversity hotspot: observations from river Chalakudy, part of Western Ghats, Kerala, India, Biological Invasions, 10(1), 37-40 (2008) 38.Krishnakumar K., Raghavan R., Prasad G., Bijukumar A., Sekharan M., Pereira B. and Ali, A., When pets become pests - exotic aquarium fishes and biological invasions in Kerala, India, Current Science, 97(4), 474-476 (2009) 39.Knight J.D.M., Invasive ornamental fish: a potential threat to aquatic biodiversity in peninsular India, Journal of Threatened Taxa, 2(2), 700-704 (2010)