Advertisement

Physical Habitat Assessment of the Ganjal and Morand River Using GIS Techniques

  • Reetu Sharma
  • Ankit Kumar
  • Vipin Vyas
Research Article
  • 112 Downloads

Abstract

Physical habitat is the living space of in-stream biota which is an important factor that can affect both the quality and quantity of available habitat and the structure and composition of resident biological communities. It is a spatially and temporally dynamic entity determined by the interaction of the structural features of the channel and hydrological regime. Ganjal River is a left bank tributary of River Narmada and Morand river is the major tributary of it. At these rivers Physical Habitat Assessment was carried out using USEPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocols to know habitat suitability conditions in rivers for aquatic life thrive in. In the study habitat assessment parameters were scored according to the existing conditions for each section of the rivers and were categorised under four conditions i.e. optimal, suboptimal, marginal and poor. On the basis of result obtained from the study Habitat Suitability Map (HSM) was generated using GIS as an interface and it suggests that the habitat quality of both rivers is suitable for aquatic life.

Keywords

Physical habitat assessment (PHA) Ganjal river Morand river Rapid bioassessment protocol Habitat suitability map (HSM) GIS 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to Prof. Pradeep Shrivastawa, Head of the Department of Zoology and Applied Aquaculture, Barkatullah University, Bhopal, India for permission to use Remote Sensing and GIS software. Thanks are due to Dr. Dinesh Damde and Kripal Singh Vishwakarma who helped us in field visits during the study period.

References

  1. Adeyemo, O. K. (2008). Habitat assessment for seasonal variation of river pollution in Ibadan, Nigeria, in a geographic information system interface. Vertinaria Italiana, 44(2), 361–371.Google Scholar
  2. Bain, M. B., & Boltz, J. M. (1989). Regulated stream flow and warm water stream fish: A general hypothesis and research agenda. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, 89(18), 1–28.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, J. (1982). Stream classification guidelines for Wisconsin. Madison, Wisconsin: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Technical Bulletin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.Google Scholar
  4. Barbour, M. T., & Stribling, J. B. (1991). Use of habitat assessment in evaluating the biological integrity of stream communities. In G. Gibson (Ed.), Biological criteria: Research and regulation, proceedings of a symposium, 1213 December 1990, Arlington, Virginia. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA-440-5-91-005.Google Scholar
  5. Barbour, M. T., Gerritsen, J., Griffith, G. E., Frydenborg, R., McCarron, E., White, J. S., & Bastian, M. L. (1996). A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using benthic macro invertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 15(2), 185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barbour, M. T., Gerritsen, J., Synder, B. D., & Stribling, J. B. (1999). Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable river: Periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish (2nd ed., pp. 1–339). (EPA 841-B-99-002). United States Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  7. Beechie, T. J., & Sibley, T. H. (1997). Relationships between channel characteristics, woody debris, and fish habitat in northwest Washington streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 126, 217–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beschta, R. L., & Platts, W. S. (1986). Morphological features of small streams: Significance and function. Water Resource Bulletin, 22(3), 369–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, A. V., & Brussock, P. P. (1991). Comparisons of benthic invertebrates between riffles and pools. Hydrobiologia, 220, 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cushman, R. M. (1985). Review of ecological effects of rapidly varying flows downstream from hydroelectric facilities. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 5, 330–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dutta, R., & Baruah, D. (2013). Physical habitat quality assessment of three ephemeral streams of Lakhimpur, North-Eastern India. Advances in Applied Science Research 4(4), 405–408. ISSN: 0976-8610. CODEN (USA): AASRFC.Google Scholar
  12. Gislason, J. C. (1985). Aquatic insect abundance in a regulated stream under fluctuating and stable diel flow patterns. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 5, 39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gordon, N. D., McMahon, T. A., & Finlayson, B. L. (1992). Stream hydrology: An introduction for ecologists. West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons. Inc.Google Scholar
  14. Hicks, B. J., Beschta, R. L., & Harr, R. D. (1991). Long-term changes in streamflow following logging in western Oregon and associated fisheries implications. Water Resources Bulletin, 27(2), 217–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hup, C. R., & Simon, A. (1991). Bank accretion and the development of vegetated depositional surfaces along modified alluvial channels. Geomorphology, 4, 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hupp, C. R. (1992). Riparian vegetation recovery patterns following stream channelization: A geomorphic perspective. Ecology, 73(4), 1209–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hupp, C. R., & Simon, A. (1986). Vegetation and Bank-slope development. In Proceedings of the fourth federal interagency sedimentation conference 4 (pp. 83–92).Google Scholar
  18. MacDonald, L. H., Smart, A. W., & Wissmar, R. C. (1991). Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. Prepared for Region 10, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, Washington. EPA 910/9-91-001.Google Scholar
  19. Maddock, I. (1999). The importance of physical habitat assessment for evaluating river health. Freshwater Biology, 41, 373–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Plafkin, J. L., Barbour, M. T., Porter, K. D., Gross S. K., & Huges, R. M. (1989). Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: Benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C. EPA 440-4-89-001.Google Scholar
  21. Platts, W. S., Megahan, W. F. & Minshall, G. W. (1983). Methods for evaluating streams, riparian, and biotic conditions. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Ogden, Utah. General Technical Report INT-138.Google Scholar
  22. Rankin, E. T. (1991). The use of qualitative habitat evaluation index for use attainability studies in streams and Rivers in Ohio. In George (ed.), Biological criteria: Research and regulation, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA 440/5-91-005.Google Scholar
  23. Rosgen, D. L. (1985). A stream classification system. In Proceedings of the first North American riparian conference riparian ecosystem and their management: Reconciling conflicting uses. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Tucson, Arizona. General Technical Report RM-120.Google Scholar
  24. Southwood, T. R. E. (1977). Habitat, the templet for ecological strategies? Journal of Animal Ecology, 46, 337–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA). (1983). Technical support manual: Water body surveys and assessments for conducting use attainability analyses Volumes 13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  26. Vyas, V., Kumar, A., Parashar, V., & Tomar, S. (2013). Physical habitat assessment of river Denwa using GIS techniques. Journal of Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 41(1), 127–139. doi: 10.1007/s12524-011-0191-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wentz, N. J., Henderson, N. D., & Christian, A. D. (2011). Assessment and characterisation of physical habitat, water quality and biotic assemblages of the Tyronza River, Arkansas. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, 65, 143–150.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Society of Remote Sensing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Sciences and LimnologyBarkatullah UniversityBhopalIndia
  2. 2.Department of BioscienceBarkatullah UniversityBhopalIndia

Personalised recommendations