184
Bioscience Discovery, 8(2):184-191, April - 2017
© RUT Printer and Publisher
Print & Online, Open Access, Research Journal Available on http://jbsd.in ISSN: 2229-3469 (Print); ISSN: 2231-024X (Online)
Research Article
Larvivorous fish diversity in Krishna River at Prakasam barrage, Vijayawada (Krishna district), Andhra Pradesh, India
Govinda Rao, K., Chandra Sekhara Rao, J. and G. Simhachalam*
Department of Zoology & Aquaculture,
Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjuna Nagar - 522 510, A.P., India.
*chalamgp@yahoo.co.in
Article Info Abstract
Received: 02-03-2017, Revised: 29-03-2017, Accepted: 30-03-2017
A study was conducted in River Krishna at Prakasam Barrage, Vijayawada with an objective to document the larvivorous fish fauna. Study revealed the occurrence of 19 species of larvivorous fish from 5 orders, 10 families and 13 genera. Order cypriniformes was the most dominant group among the orders followed by bagridae and channidae. Family cyprinidae belongs to the order cypriniformes was the most dominant group with 7 species among the other families. According to the IUCN (2016) red list of threatened species, 78.94 % of species are at least concern, 10.52% are at not assessed, 5.26% are near threatened and for 5.26 % of species data is deficient. As per the CAMP report (1998), 17 species are at least concern, 1 species is at near threatened and for 1 species data is deficient. Out of 19 larvivorous fish, 9 species are commonly available in the River, 9 are abundant and 1 species is rarely available. 16 varieties of fishes are food fishes of which 10 species are cultivable augmenting multiple benefits for the stake holders. Several anthropogenic activities including pollution, habitat loss, human interference and over exploitation are seriously affecting these fish fauna. Proper conservation measures should be adopted to mitigate the loss of these valuable fish species as these fish can be widely used component in integrated vector control management program.
Keywords:
Biological control, Conservation. Integrated vector control management program, Larvivorous fish.
INTRODUCTION Mosquito borne diseases such as encephalitis,
equine infectious malaria, yellow fever, dengue and filariasis are continue to be major problems in almost all tropical and subtropical countries (Chandra et al., 2008). In India, chemical, physical and biological control measures have been in practice to reduce the incidence of mosquito borne diseases (Ghosh and Dash, 2007). However, chemical control measures pollute nearby aquatic ecosystems, expensive and require much skilled manpower for constant surveillance of mosquito breeding habitats (Martínez-Ibarra et al., 2002).
Sometimes these chemicals have adverse environmental consequences to various non-target species (Gupta and Banerjee, 2013). Physical control measures are also expensive and time consuming. Biological control which includes manipulation of animals suppresses the mosquito larval population naturally through predation, parasitism and competition (Chandra et al., 2008).
Fish that are predators of various stages of mosquito larvae referred to as larvivorous fish have been the most successful intervention amongst various biological control agents utilized against mosquito borne diseases. Use of the larvivorous fish in
malaria control in India is not new but a half- forgotten strategy (Ghosh and Dash, 2007). Many types of larvivorous fish have been used in biological control programs across the world (Walton, 2007). According to Sharma (1984), who provided a detailed list of 315 native larvivorous fish species of 32 genera under 6 families from different continents, larvivorous fish are used as a major component of the integrated malaria control programme in India. Gambusia affinis and Poecilia reticulata are the two introduced, live-bearing poecilid species which are most successful and effective for vector control but, due to their negative impact on the aquatic environment and indigenous aquatic fauna, several indigenous fish species have been evaluated to assess their larval predation efficiency and various native larvivorous fish species are gaining much attention as biological control agents in vector control management.
Krishna et al. (2016) reported 29 species of larvivorous fish from 6 orders, 14 families and 20 genera from Lake Kolleru. Rao et al. (2015) reported 22 larvivorous fish from 8 orders from Lake Kolleru and assessed the mosquito larval preference of Amblypharyngodon mola, Colisa lalia, Mystus bleekeri and Rasbora daniconius.
Rama Rao (2014) reported 58 larvivorous fish species from lower Manair dam at Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh. Three indigenous larvivorous fish viz. Channa gachua, Puntius sophore and Trichogaster fasciata were documented from Assam by Phukon and Biswas (2013) of which Channa gachua (179 ± 21.21/h) as found to consume maximum number of mosquito larvae followed by Puntius sophore (66.33 ± 1.52/h) and Trichogaster fasciata (45.67 ± 0.58/h). Das (2012) assessed the predation potentiality of five indigenous larvivorous fish species viz. Mystus bleekeri, Channa stewartii, Rasbora daniconius, Colisa fasciatus and Danio aequipinnatus from north east India. The ability of Aplochelius panchax, a native larvivorous fish as predator of mosquito larvae was assessed Manna et al. (2011).
The suitability of the indigenous air breathing fishes Anabas testudineus, Clarias batrachus and Heteropneustes fossilis as predators of mosquito larvae was also assessed under laboratory and filed conditions (Bhattacharjee et al., 2009). Devi and Jauhari (2009) reported 8 indigenous fish (Aplochelius panchax, Polycanthus faciatus, Polycanthus sota, Puntius ticto, Puntius manipuriensis, Amblypharyngodon mola, Esomus danricus and Rasbora daniconius as potential
mosquito larval control agents. Considering the growing importance of native fish fauna as mosquito larval control agents, the present study was conducted to document native larvivorous fish fauna of River Krishna (Figure 1) at Prakasam barrage (16º 30’ 22’’ N and 80º 36’ 18’’ E) in Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, India.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The present study was conducted for a period of one year from March, 2016 to February, 2017. Monthly sampling by covering all seasons was carried out in the River. Experimental fishing was carried out with the help of artisanal fishermen using different types of craft and gear. Nets namely cast nets, gill nets, drag nets and scoop nets were used. Fishes were also collected from catches of local fisher folk at the same sampling sites. Local fish markets and landing centers located near the river were also visited to collect the fish. Normally 2 – 4 specimens for each species were collected for morphometric and meristic studies. Photographs were taken immediately by Nikon camera (Model D90) in the field itself prior to preservation. Representative specimens of all fish species brought to the laboratory were preserved in 10% formalin solution according to their size. Small specimens were directly placed in the formalin solution while the larger ones were given an incision on the abdomen before preservation. Preserved fish were labeled giving serial numbers, date and time of collection, locality from where collected, common name etc.
All the fishes were preserved in the Museum, Department of Zoology and Aquaculture, Acharaya Nagarjuna University, Guntur. Fishes were identified up to the species level using keys developed by Jayaram (1981); Talwar and Jhingran (1991); Jayaram (1999) and Jayaram (2010).
Identified fishes were confirmed by the experts in the field of fish taxonomy. Classification was carried out on lines of Day (1889), Jayaram (1961), Nelson (1976) and Jayaram (1981).
Data on current conservation status of fish was obtained from the reports of the Conservation, Assessment and Management Plan (CAMP) workshop (Molur and Walker, 1998) on freshwater fishes of India and IUCN Red List Category of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2016). Data regarding abundance of different fish species, threats faced by the fish fauna and economic importance was obtained from both primary sources (direct observations and interactions with the local stakeholders) and secondary (literature and reports)
186
Bioscience Discovery, 8(2):184-191, April - 2017 sources. Larvivorous nature of fish was tested
depending on the consumption of mosquito larvae in their natural habitats.Gastrointestinal content of the selected species was analyzed. For this, fishes were transferred to the laboratory and store in plastic tubs. Active fishes were transferred to glass
aquaria for analyzing their fecal matter. Fecal matter was collected and placed on a watch glass.
Excess water was removed with filter paper.
Glycerine was added to this material and observed under a stereo zoom trinocular microscope for analysis.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
188
Bioscience Discovery, 8(2):184-191, April - 2017 In the present study we have recorded 19
larvivorous fish species belong to 5 orders, 10 families and 13 genera. List of larvivorous fish recorded from the river, along with their
conservation status, abundance, commercial importance and ecological importance was given table 1 and figure 2.
Order cypriniformes was the most dominant group contributing 36.84% of the total species followed by mugiliformes with 26.31%, siluriformes with 21.05%, perciformes with 10.52% and osteoglossiformes with 5.26%. Among the genera, 30.76% species each from cypriniformes and mugiliformes, 15.38% each from siluriformes and perciformes, and 7.69% from osteoglossiformes.
Order mugiliformes contributed 4 families to the
total fish species, followed by siluriformes and perciformes each with two, cypriniformes and osteoglossiformes each with 1 family. Out of 10 families recorded, cyprinidae with 7 species contributing about 36.84% of the total species followed by bagridae with 3 (15.78%), channidae with 2 (10.52%), and notopteridae, clariidae, ambassidae, cichlidae, mugilidae, anabantidae and belontiidae each with 1 (5.26%) (Figure 3).
According to the IUCN (2016) red list of threatened species 15 species were at least concern, 1 species at near threatened, for 1 species data is deficient and 2 species were not assessed. As per the CAMP report (1998), 36.84% (7) of species were at lower risk near threatened, 21.05% (4) species were vulnerable, 5.26% (1) was lower risk least concern
and 36.84% (7) species were not evaluated (Figure 4). Our results revealed that, out of 19 larvivorous fish, 9 species are found abundant, 9 are common in their availability throughout all the seasons and 1 species is rarely found in the river. Among the fish recorded, 17 species are food fish of which 10 are cultivable.
190
Bioscience Discovery, 8(2):184-191, April - 2017 DISCUSSION
Less attention has been paid to the diversity of larvivorous fish in Andhra Pradesh and potentiality of these larvivorous fish as mosquito larval biocontrol agents. Our study is the first ever documentation of larvivorous fish from the present study area. In our present study order cypriniformes was found to be the most dominant group among all other orders and out of 10 families, cyprinidae was the most dominant group. Dominance of cypriniformes and cyprinidae was previously reported by several authors in their investigations (Krishna et al., 2016; Raju et al., 2014; Rao et al., 2013). Vulnerability of certain fish (olive barb, striped dwarf catfish and magur) according to CAMP (1998) is due to over exploitation. Fishes such as Notopterus notopterus, Puntius sophore, Puntius ticto, Esomus danricus, Colisa fasciata, Channa punctata and Channa striatus are at lower risk near threatened which may be the indication of negative effects of pollution, over exploitation and habitat loss. All the recorded larvivorous fish species have food value except Esomus barbatus and Esomus danricus considered as weed fish.
Since their ornamental value some of these larvivorous fish such as Colisa lalia, Chanda nama, Amblypharyngodon mola, Salmostoma phulo have also been exploited from the river and sold to nearest aquarium shops. Thus fish resources from this study area are augmenting multiple benefits to the stake holders. Out of 19 fish, 16 species have widespread distribution and abundantly available in the river due to their capability of tolerance to a wide range of environmental conditions.
Salmostoma phulo is rarely found in the river during sampling which may be due to their specific requirements of the habitat as suggested by Keith (2003). Fish fauna of this river is facing a severe threat due to several anthropogenic activities. Of the threats identified, over fishing/exploitation is the major cause of concern. Nearly half of the varieties of fish species reported from the study area are extensively exploited and are transported to the markets for trade which indirectly causing biodiversity loss and seriously affecting the riverine faunal status, as fish is the key stone species for many of the aquatic ecosystems (Reynolds, 2011).
It is concluded that, these native larvivorous fish can be employed in integrated mosquito control programmes in place of non-native species.
However, there is an increasing pressure on fish fauna of this River. Conservation measures on wide variety of factors should be designed to develop a
comprehensive action plan. A holistic approach, integrating the concept of sustainable development and conservation measures could be the fruitful step for the conservation of the riverine fish fauna. In order to conserve the valuable biodiversity of fish fauna of this river, periodic survey and monitoring, demarcation of breeding sites, creating public awareness strategies should be adopted. Research efforts should be continued on the biodiversity, conservation biology, captive breeding and stock identification. Identification and listing of threatened and endangered fish species, determination of population size and distribution, find out the breeding/larval feeding behavior of threatened fish species in the river should be identified for conservation strategies of the fishes in the river and management of mosquito borne diseases.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We are thankful to University Grants Commission (UGC) for providing funding support under BSR- RFSMS & SAP. We are thankful to the Head, Department of Zoology & Aquaculture and the authorities of Acharya Nagarjuna University for the encouragement and support by providing the necessary facilities.
REFERENCES
Bhattacharjee I, Gautam A and Goutam C, 2009.
Laboratory and field assessment of the potential of larvivorous, air breathing fishes as predators of culicine mosquitoes. Bio. Cont., 49(2):126-133.
Chandra G, Bhattacharjee I, Chatterjee SN and Ghosh A, 2008. Mosquito control by larvivorous fish.
Ind. J. Med. Res., 127:13-27.
Das SK, 2012. A preliminary assessment of a few indigenous ornamental fishes of northeast India as potential predators of mosquito larvae. Ind. J. Hill Farm., 25(1):63-65.
Day F, 1889. The Fauna of British India: including Ceylon and Burma. Fishes, Vol.1: 548; Vol. 2: 509pp.
London: Taylor and Francis.
Devi NP and Jauhari RK, 2009. Study on digestive tract contents of fish: Preliminary step for identification of indigenous species in mosquito larval control. J. App. Nat. Sci., 1(1):18-23.
Ghosh SK and Dash AP, 2007. Larvivorous fish in malaria control: a new outlook. Trans. Royal Soc.
Trop. Med. Hyg., 101:1063-1064.
Gupta S and Banerjee S, 2013. Comparative assessment of mosquito biocontrol efficiency between Guppy (Poecilia reticulata) and panchax minnow (Aplocheilus panchax). Biosci. Disc., 4(1): 89-95.
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, 2016.
Version 2016.3., <www.iucnredlist.org>, Downloaded on 10th Feb, 2017.
Jayaram KC, 1961. The proper generic names for some common Indian fishes of commercial importance. J. Zoo. Soc. Ind., 12 (2): 239-242.
Jayaram KC, 1981. The freshwater fishes of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma and Sri Lanka, Zoological Survey of India, Culcutta XXII + 475 pp.
XIII pls.
Jayaram KC, 1991. The freshwater fishes of the Indian Region. Narendra Publishing House; 551.
Jayaram KC, 2010. The Freshwater Fishes of the Indian Region. 2nd Edn. Narendra Pulishing House, Delhi, pp. 625.
Keith P, 2003. Biology and Ecology of amphidromous gobiidae of the Indo-Pacific and the Caribbean regions. J. Fish Biol., 63 (4):831-847.
Krishna CH, Rao JCS and Veeraiah K, 2016.
Diversity of larvivorous fish fauna in Lake Kolleru (AP), India. Int. J. fauna Bio. Stud., 3(3): 24-28.
Manna B, Aditya G and Banerjee S, 2011. Habitat heterogeneity and prey selection of Aplocheilus panchax: an indigenous fish. J. Vector Born Dis., 48:144-149.
Martínez-Ibarra JA, Grant Guillén Y, Arredondo- Jiménez JI and Rodríguez-López MH, 2002.
Indigenous fish species for the control of Aedes aegypti in water storage tanks in southern méxico.
Biocontrol, 47: 481-486.
Molur S and Walker S, 1998. Report of the Conservation Assessment and Management Plan.
Workshop on freshwater fishes of India, Zoo outreach Organization/CBSG, Coimbatore, India; 156.
Nelson, 1976. Fishes of the World. 3rd Edn. John Wiley and Sons, New York, p. 416.
Phukon H and Biswas SP, 2013. Investigation on Channa gachua as a potential biological control agent of mosquitoes under laboratory conditions. Asian J.
Exp. Bio. Sci., 2(4):606-611.
Raju CHS, Rao JCS and Chalam GS, 2014.
Biodiversity and Conservation status of Ichthyofauna of Lake Kolleru, Andhra Pradesh, India. Int. J. Sci.
Res., 3(5): 555-563.
Rama Rao K, 2014. A study on larvivorous fish species efficacy of lower Manair dam at Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh, India. Pelag. Res. Lib., 5(2):133-143.
Rao JCS, Rao KG, Raju CHS and Chalam GS, 2015. Larvicidal efficacy of four indigenous ornamental fish species of Lake Kolleru, India. J. Bio.
Env. Sci., 7(1):164-172.
Rao JCS, Chalam GS and Raju CHS, 2013.
Ornamental Fish Diversity of Lake Kolleru, the only Ramsar site in Andhra Pradesh, India. Bull. Env.
Pharmacol. Life Sci., 2(7): 48-55.
Reynolds JD, 2011. A review of ecological interactions between crayfish and fish, indigenous and introduced. Knowl. Manage. Aqua. Ecosys., 40 (10):
1-10.
Sharma VP, 1984. Role of fishes in Vector Control in Inida, in: Sharma, V.P., Ghosh, A. (Eds), Larvivorous fishes of Inland Ecosystems. Malaria Research Centre (ICMR), Delhi, pp. 1-19.
Talwar PK and Jhingran A, 1991. Inland fishes of India and adjacent countries. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. New Delhi, 1(2):1158.
Walton WE, 2007. Larvivorous fish including Gambusia. in Biorational Control of Mosquitoes.
Amer. Mosq. Cont. Asso., 23(2):184-220.
How to Cite this Article:
Govinda Rao, K., Chandra Sekhara Rao, J. and G. Simhachalam, 2017. Larvivorous fish diversity in Krishna River at Prakasam barrage, Vijayawada (Krishna district), Andhra Pradesh, India. Bioscience Discovery, 8(2):184-191.
