Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing Potential Conservation and Restoration Areas of Freshwater Fish Fauna in the Indian River Basins

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Conservation efforts globally are skewed toward terrestrial ecosystems. To date, conservation of aquatic ecosystems, in particular fish fauna, is largely neglected. We provide a country-wide assessment of Indian river ecosystems in order to identify and prioritize areas for protection and restoration of freshwater fish fauna. Using various biodiversity and anthropogenic attributes, coupled with tools of ecological modeling, we delineated areas for fish fauna conservation and restoration in the 20 major river basins of India. To do this, we used prioritization analyses and reserve selection algorithms to derive conservation value index (CVI) and vulnerability index (VI) of the river basins. CVI was estimated using endemicity, rarity, conservation value, and taxonomic singularity, while VI was estimated using a disturbance index derived from percent geographic area of the basin under human settlements, human population density, predominant land use, and total number of exotic fish species in each basin. The two indices, CVI and VI, were converted into geo-referenced maps, and each map was super-imposed onto species richness and forest cover maps, respectively. After superimposition, areas with high CVI and low VI shade intensities were delineated for conservation, while areas with high CVI and high VI shade intensities were demarcated for restoration. In view of the importance of freshwater fish for human livelihoods and consumption, and ecosystems of India’s rivers, we call for urgent attention to the conservation of their fish fauna along with restoration of their degraded habitats.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albertson LK, Koenig LE, Lewis BL, Zeug SC, Harrison LR, Cardinale BJ (2013) How does restored habitat for Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the merced river in California compare with other Chinook streams? River Res Appl 29:469–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck MW, Heck KL, Able KW, Childers DL, Eggleston DB, Gillanders BM, Halpern B, Hays CG, Hoshino K, Minello TJ, Orth RJ, Sheridan PF, Weinstein MP (2001) The identification, conservation, and management of estuarine and marine nurseries for fish and invertebrates. Bioscience 51:633–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergerot B, Lasne E, Vigneron T, Laffaille P (2008) Prioritization of fish assemblages with a view to conservation and restoration on a large scale European basin, the Loire (France). Biodivers Conserv 17:2247–2262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatt JP, Manish K, Pandit MK (2012) Elevational gradients in fish diversity in the Himalaya: water discharge is the key driver of distribution patterns. PLoS ONE 7:e46237. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0046237

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bond NR, Lake PS (2003) Local habitat restoration in streams: constraints on the effectiveness of restoration for stream biota. Ecol Manag Restor 4:193–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buisson L, Blanc L, Grenouillet G (2008) Modelling stream fish species distribution in a river network: the relative effects of temperature versus physical factors. Ecol Freshw Fish 17:244–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassola F, Pearson DL (2000) Global patterns of tiger beetle species richness (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae): their use in conservation planning. Biol Conserv 95:197–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clavero M, Blanco-Garrido F, Prenda J (2004) Fish fauna in Iberian Mediterranean river basins: biodiversity, introduced species and damming impacts. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 14:575–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cucherousset J, Olden JD (2011) Ecological impacts of nonnative freshwater fishes. Fisheries 36:215–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahanukar N, Raut R, Bhat A (2004) Distribution, endemism and threat status of freshwater fishes in the Western Ghats of India. J Biogeogr 31:123–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dias MS, Cornu J-F, Oberdorff T, Lasso CA, Tedesco PA (2013) Natural fragmentation in river networks as a driver of speciation for freshwater fishes. Ecography 36:683–689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du Toit JT (2010) Considerations of scale in biodiversity conservation. Anim Conserv 13:229–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan JR, Lockwood JL (2001) Extinction in a field of bullets: a search for causes in the decline of the world’s freshwater fishes. Biol Conserv 102:97–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2014) National aquaculture sector overview: India. http://www.faoorg/fishery/countrysector/naso_india/en

  • Fattorini S (2006) A new method to identify important conservation areas applied to the butterflies of the Aegean Islands (Greece). Anim Conserv 9:75–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filipe A, Marques T, Tiago P, Ribeiro F, Da Costa LM, Cowx I, Collares-Pereira M (2004) Selection of priority areas for fish conservation in Guadiana River Basin, Iberian Peninsula. Conserv Biol 18:189–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Froese R, Pauly D (2014) FishBase. World wide web electronic publication. http://www.fishbase.org. Accessed 1 Oct 2014

  • Gaur A, Amerasinghe P (2011) A river basin perspective of water resources and challenges. India Infrastructrure Report, pp 3–17

  • Ghosh SK, Ponniah AG (2008) Freshwater fish habitat science and management in India. Aquat Ecosyst Health Manag 11:272–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goswami UC, Basistha SK, Bora D, Shyamkumar K, Saikia B, Changsan K (2012) Fish diversity of north east India, inclusive of the Himalayan and Indo Burma biodiversity hotspots zones: a checklist on their taxonomic status, economic importance, geographical distribution, present status and prevailing threats. Int J Biodivers Conserv 4:592–613

    Google Scholar 

  • Grumbine RE, Pandit MK (2013) Threats from India’s Himalaya dams. Science 339:36–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta N, Raghavan R, Sivakumar K, Mathur VB (2014) Freshwater fish safe zones: a prospective conservation strategy for river ecosystems in India. Curr Sci 107:949

    Google Scholar 

  • Illoldi-Rangel P, Ciarleglio M, Sheinvar L, Linaje M, Sánchez-Cordero V, Sarkar S (2012) Opuntia in México: identifying priority areas for conserving biodiversity in a multi-use landscape. PLoS ONE 7:e36650. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036650

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • India-WRIS (2012) River Basin Atlas of India. Atlas prepared by Central Water Commission (CWC) and Regional Remote Sensing Centre – West. Ministry of Water Resources, Govt of India

  • India-WRIS (2014) Basins. http://india-wris.nrsc.gov.in/wrpinfo/index.php?title=Basins

  • IUCN (2014) Conservation Groups Launch “Global Freshwater Fish BioBlitz”, Inviting ‘Citizen Scientists’ to help monitor fish species. http://www.iucn.org/news_homepage/news_by_date/?14368/Conservation-Groups-Launch-Global-Freshwater-Fish-BioBlitz-Inviting-Citizen-Scientists-to-Help-Monitor-Fish-Species

  • IUCN (2015) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015-3. http://www.iucnredlist.org

  • Jenkins M (2003) Prospects for biodiversity. Science 302:1175–1177

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kareksela S, Moilanen A, Tuominen S, Kotiaho JS (2013) Use of inverse spatial conservation prioritization to avoid biological diversity loss outside protected areas. Conserv Biol 27:1294–1303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar ST, Charan GB, Kumar SS (2013) Review of the research on the fish diversity in the river Mahanadi and identifying the probable potential ornamental fishes among them with reference to threats and conservation measures. Res J Anim Vet Fish Sci 1:16–24

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen F, Rahbek C (2003) Influence of scale on conservation priority setting—a test on African mammals. Biodivers Conserv 12:599–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawler JJ, White D, Master LL (2003) Integrating representation and vulnerability: two approaches for prioritizing areas for conservation. Ecol Appl 13:1762–1772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leathwick J, West D, Moilanen A, Chadderton L (2012) Development of a systematic, information-based approach to the identification of high value sites for river conservation in New Zealand. In: Boon PJ, Raven PJ (eds) River Conservation and Management. Wiley. doi: 10.1002/9781119961819.ch15

  • Li Y, Nigh T (2011) GIS-based prioritization of private land parcels for biodiversity conservation: a case study from the current and eleven point conservation opportunity areas, Missouri. Appl Geogr 31:98–107

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mendoza A, Arita H (2014) Priority setting by sites and by species using rarity, richness and phylogenetic diversity: the case of neotropical glassfrogs (Anura: Centrolenidae). Biodivers Conserv 23:909–926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mittermeier RA, Gil P, Mittermeier CG (1997) Megadiversity: Earth’s biologically wealthiest nations. CEMEX, Hidalgo

    Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A, Leathwick J, Elith J (2008) A method for spatial freshwater conservation prioritization. Freshw Biol 53:577–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A, Kujala H, Leathwick JR (2009) The zonation framework and software for conservation prioritization. In: Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Possingham HP (eds) Spatial conservation prioritization—quantitative methods & computational tools. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 196–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Moyle PB, Kiernan JD, Crain PK, Quiñones RM (2013) Climate change vulnerability of native and alien freshwater fishes of California: a systematic assessment approach. PLoS ONE 8:e63883. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0063883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nel JL, Roux DJ, Abell R, Ashton PJ, Cowling RM, Higgins JV, Thieme M, Viers JH (2009) Progress and challenges in freshwater conservation planning. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 19:474–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberdorff T, Tedesco PA, Hugueny B, Leprieur F, Beauchard O, Brosse S, Dürr HH (2011) Global and regional patterns in riverine fish species richness: a review. Int J Ecol 2011:1–12. doi:10.1155/2011/967631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ocampo-Peñuela N, Pimm SL (2014) Setting practical conservation priorities for birds in the western Andes of Colombia. Conserv Biol 28:1260–1270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pandit MK, Grumbine RE (2012) Potential effects of ongoing and proposed hydropower development on terrestrial biological diversity in the Indian Himalaya. Conserv Biol 26:1061–1071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pandit MK, Sodhi NS, Koh L, Bhaskar A, Brook B (2007) Unreported yet massive deforestation driving loss of endemic biodiversity in Indian Himalaya. Biodivers Conserv 16:153–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pandit MK, Manish K, Koh LP (2014) Dancing on the roof of the world: ecological transformation of the Himalayan landscape. Bioscience 64:980–992

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park Y-S, Chang J, Lek S, Cao W, Brosse S (2003) Conservation strategies for endemic fish species threatened by the Three Gorges Dam. Conserv Biol 17:1748–1758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parrish JD, Braun DP, Unnasch RS (2003) Are we conserving what we say we are? Measuring ecological integrity within protected areas. Bioscience 53:851–860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson AT, Egbert SL, Sánchez-Cordero V, Price KP (2000) Geographic analysis of conservation priority: endemic birds and mammals in Veracruz, Mexico. Biol Conserv 93:85–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poiani KA, Richter BD, Anderson MG, Richter HE (2000) Biodiversity conservation at multiple scales: functional sites, landscapes, and networks. Bioscience 50:133–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pouzols F, Moilanen A (2014) A method for building corridors in spatial conservation prioritization. Landsc Ecol 29:789–801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressey RL, Watts ME, Barrett TW, Ridges MJ (2009) The C-plan conservation planning system: origins, applications, and possible futures. In: Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Possingham HP (eds) Spatial conservation prioritization—quantitative methods & computational tools. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 211–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Raghavan R, Dahanukar N, Tlusty MF, Rhyne AL, Krishna Kumar K, Molur S, Rosser AM (2013) Uncovering an obscure trade: threatened freshwater fishes and the aquarium pet markets. Biol Conserv 164:158–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramachandra TV, Chandran MD, Joshi NV, Sreekantha, Kumar R, Rajinikanth R, Desai SR, Babu S (2012) Ecological Profile of Sharavathi river basin. Sahyadri Conservation Series 22, ENVIS Technical Report: 52, Energy & Wetlands Research Group, Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore

  • Ramanujam ME (2015) A preliminary checklist of the fishes of Yercaud, Shevroy Hills, Eastern Ghats, Tamil Nadu, southern India. J Threat Taxa 7:7595–7601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar UK, Pathak AK, Lakra WS (2008) Conservation of freshwater fish resources of India: new approaches, assessment and challenges. Biodivers Conserv 17:2495–2511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar S, Fuller T, Aggarwal A, Moffett A, Kelley CD (2009) The ConsNet software platform for systematic conservation planning. In: Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Possingham HP (eds) Spatial conservation prioritization—quantitative methods & computational tools. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 235–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer H, Kauffman MJ, Nielson RM, Horne JS (2009) Identifying and prioritizing ungulate migration routes for landscape-level conservation. Ecol Appl 19:2016–2025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz MW (1999) Choosing the appropriate scale of reserves for conservation. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 83:108

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh AK, Lakra WS (2011) Risk and benefit assessment of alien fish species of the aquaculture and aquarium trade into India. Rev Aquac 3:3–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh AK, Srivastava SC, Kumar D, Ansari A, Verma R, Verma P (2013) Exotic fish diversity, invasion and its impacts on aquatic biodiversity and ecosystems in Uttar Pradesh. In: Water and Biodiversity, Uttar Pradesh State Biodiversity Board, pp 129–139

  • Sodhi N, Posa M, Lee T, Bickford D, Koh L, Brook B (2010) The state and conservation of Southeast Asian biodiversity. Biodivers Conserv 19:317–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werner U, Buszko J (2005) Detecting biodiversity hotspots using species–area and endemics–area relationships: the case of butterflies. Biodivers Conserv 14:1977–1988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson KA, Cabeza M, Klein CJ (2009) Fundamental concepts of spatial conservation prioritization. In: Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Possingham HP (eds) Spatial conservation prioritization—quantitative methods & computational tools. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 16–27

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the editors and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. JPB acknowledges the financial support of CISMHE for this study. MKP acknowledges the financial support of DU-DST-Purse grant sanctioned to him as Professor in Department of Environmental Studies, University of Delhi and Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, Harvard University for providing necessary facilities, and KM acknowledges the support of Department of Science & Technology INSPIRE Research Fellowship, Government of India.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies of Mountain and Hill Environment, University of Delhi, Delhi, 110007, India

    Jay P. Bhatt, Kumar Manish, Rajender Mehta & Maharaj K. Pandit

  2. Department of Environmental Studies, University of Delhi, Delhi, 110007, India

    Kumar Manish & Maharaj K. Pandit

  3. Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA

    Maharaj K. Pandit

Authors
  1. Jay P. Bhatt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kumar Manish
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rajender Mehta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maharaj K. Pandit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maharaj K. Pandit.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

No formal approval is required for this study since this article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 191 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bhatt, J.P., Manish, K., Mehta, R. et al. Assessing Potential Conservation and Restoration Areas of Freshwater Fish Fauna in the Indian River Basins. Environmental Management 57, 1098–1111 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0670-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0670-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation